 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Chapter 4 Responses |
|
|
| 1. The Judeo-Christian view of God is one who is divine, immortal (in soul) and supernatural. They view this God as a model of humans, since humans were supposedly fashioned in his image. |
|
|
|
� I don't think this statement is true, though I have no valid way to prove it either way. Therefore, I am forced to take a pragmatic stand on the situation. It doesn't matter if people were fashioned in God's image or not. The important question is, does it work?
The reason I think that it doesn't work is because we (humans) have been living as if we were gods for the past 100,000 years in that, through farming and industry, we have taken control of nature. We've done this because we think that our actions are right and justified because we're just like God. We think we're supernatural (higher than nature), divine (all-powerful), and immortal (in soul, at least); just like God. This belief, however, hasn't been working. In the mere 100,000 years since the agricultural revolution (which I find to be the start of this belief) we have brought the earth to the brink of destruction. 100,000 years is merely a cosmic blink on the time scale. For us to cause this much damage in this short of a time would at least imply that we've been living the wrong way.
Therefore, living like humans are fashioned in the image of God doesn't work and humans should not believe that they are fashioned in God's image. Whether or not the statement is true is not relevant. If the statement is true, and we continue living like Gods, we will probably (I'd say almost definitely) destroy all life on the planet. Therefore, truth or not, people should not believe the statement.
The opinions stated here are my true beliefs, and they were helped to be shaped by the book "Ishmael" by Daniel Quinn. |
|
|
|
2. The belief of many philosophers is that God's existence is so obvious that no proof is needed at all. |
|
|
|
I don't agree at all. In order to show that something exists, one always needs proof. To say that God so obviously exists that there is no need for proof strikes me as totally ridiculous. God may exist, I'm not arguing that point (at least not yet) but I will not believe in his existence unless I have proof. The lack of proof does not make a statement false, but for a statement to be believable, proof is needed. |
|
|
|
It would be like me not turning in this paper and saying to you when you ask me about it, "I turned it in." |
|
|
|
Of course, you?d look at me sardonically and say, "Then, where is it?" |
|
|
|
My cheery reply would be, "Oh Dr. Daurio, you don't need any proof of it. It's so obvious that I turned it in to you that material proof is unneeded." |
|
|
|
Of course, I may very well have turned this in (which I plan on doing), but you probably wouldn?t believe me. Therefore, proof of something's existence is not needed for the object to exist, but is needed for someone to believe it exists. Under those pretenses the statement is false because everything needs proof in order to convince others of its existence |
|
|
|
3. The cosmological argument states that God must exist because there needs to be an explanation for the existence of the universe. |
|
|
|
���� I don't believe that this is a true statement because there doesn't need to be an explanation for the existence of the universe. The people who claim to need a reason are the people who are stretching for proof of the existence of a God. An item does not need a reason to exist in order for it to exist - it just needs proof. Therefore, saying that God exists because the universe needs some sort of reason for existing is not true. |
|
|
|
4. The design argument states that the existence of God is proven in the fact that everything in the universe is so well ordered and designed to serve a purpose. Since everything is so perfectly built, there has to be a higher power in control. |
|
|
|
� I can't say that I necessarily disagree with the statement; but I can't say that I completely agree with it either. I don't know whether or not God exists, so any statement attempting to prove the existence of God will be somewhat false to me because of my pragmatic views. I believe this statement, however, to be one of the best arguments for the possibility of God's existence. Things do seem too perfectly formed to have just risen out of the chaos. It's all a little too ordered for me to believe that it all just happened that way by chance. This argument is one of the arguments that keep my view pragmatic, rather than atheist. |
|
|
|
I should add here: I have come to the conclusion just now (As I was writing the above paragraph) that there is no possible way for me to ever be an atheist. I think that the only way to believe something is to have actual physical evidence of it. There can be no physical evidence of the nonexistence of God. It is impossible to even think of something that would prove this.� There is, however, the possibility of proof supporting the existence of God. If God himself (or herself, or itself) were to come down (or up, or in, or out) then that would be indubitable proof if his/her/its existence. Until this event, though, I am an agnostic. |
|
|
|
5.�� Pantheism is the belief that God is everything. God is not some supernatural being nestled in the sky somewhere, but God is a part of every single existing thing. God is reality. |
|
|
|
This is the theistic belief that I come closest to following. Since I am agnostic, it'd be a contradiction to say that I agree with the statement, but I will say that it is a highly convincing statement to me. If God exists, then he/she/it (From now on, to save ink, space and time, I will only refer to God as "he". Assume I mean he/she/it) is all-knowing and all-powerful. A single entity cannot possibly accomplish all this. The entity would also have to be all-enveloping. The concept of God being everything fits perfectly into these requirements. Perhaps polytheism (Ancient Greek and Roman religions come to mind) is a result of the thought that one single God cannot possibly be in control of everything at once. |
|
|
|
�6. Atheism is the belief that there is no God. |
|
|
|
� As I earlier stated, I don't agree with the atheist position on the grounds that no proof exists. True, proof (or the absence thereof) is not required in order for something to exist, but it is required (at least in my opinion) in order for me to believe it. I don't think there could ever be any possible proof to show the nonexistence of God. Such a thing isn't possible. |
|
|
|
It's possible for there to be proof of something's existence, but I don't think it's possible to prove the nonexistence of anything. |
|
|
|
�7. Agnosticism is the claim that the existence of God can neither be proved or disapproved. |
|
|
|
� Though I believe myself to be agnostic, I don't agree with the way it is defined in this book. I do claim ignorance as far as the existence of God is concerned. I don't know whether or not he exists; but I don't claim that there can be no proof to show otherwise. I think that there currently is no proof to show either perspective, but that doesn't mean that such a thing cannot exist. God's existence can be proven if, say, God were to appear to us. His existence could not be disproved though, because proof of God's nonexistence does not and never will exist |
|
|
|
8.�� Mysticism is the belief that reality can only be know when we surrender our individuality and join the divine. |
|
|
|
� I disagree with this statement because I don't believe that human beings have the capacity to know true reality. We know a world that is probably close to true reality (though in this point I may be very wrong) but can never know this true reality. Our perceptions will always differ a bit from one person to another, so there is no way to judge who's perception, if any, is right. Religion has nothing to do with the way a person views the real world. Giving oneself up to God or the divine will not open his/her eyes to the real world. The two are unrelated subjects that cannot be linked together in the way that mysticism is attempting to do. |
|
|
|
9. The belief in Karma is one that every person gets what he/she deserves. Good deeds will be repaid in time, as will bad deeds. |
|
|
|
Boy, would I like to believe this statement. Unfortunately, there is no way of knowing whether or not it is true. In a single lifetime, Karma seems nonexistent; with some of the richest people in the world also being some of the most morally bankrupt and some of the poorest people being the kindest. However, Karma does not last a single lifetime. It, supposedly, spans through many lifetimes through reincarnation. Since there is no way to tell what, if anything, happens after death, there is no way to tell whether or not Karma is a true belief or just an illusion. |
|
|
|
10.� Buddhism believes that everything alive flows through and endless cycle of loss and suffering through life, death and rebirth. |
|
|
|
Once again, there is no way to know whether or not the statement is true or not. It is true that most lives (at least to me) seem very painful, but there is no way of showing that this transcends into future lives though reincarnation, or whether reincarnation exists at all for that matter. |
|