Iycee Charles de Gaulle Summary Reason Not Religion Essay Research Paper Observations

Reason Not Religion Essay Research Paper Observations

Reason Not Religion Essay, Research PaperObservations and inferneces from existent life perceptual experiences: My full lifeI have been a Catholic and have attended Church on a regular basis with myhousehold, ever believing in God and the narratives and narratives of the Bibleas pure fact that happened long ago, and of Jesus being the Jesus,etc.

Merely this past month I attended a Presbyterian church service with myelderly grandma in Johnstown, Pennsylvania. The church was little toBegin with, and merely about tierce of the seats were filled. I wouldhold to state that at least 95 % of the people were all over 65, with reallyfew immature twosomes at all. My grandmother made a remark on the deficiency ofimmature people who attend the multitudes now, and she kept mentioning to thefact that late less and less immature twosomes and households of all timeattended church.At first I thought that this church would so earnestly have to shutits doors when the current bulk of the parishioners died, but soI realized another facet of human behaviour and psychological science.The characteristic that I see and hear so much about that many worldstend to possess and pattern, is the fact that they become & # 8220 ; closer to& # 8220 ; god & # 8221 ; ” the older they get. Why is this? It is because of one of thesame large grounds that we even have to hold faith in the first topographic point:fright about decease and what happens to us afterwards. These people seemto be turning to the sort of thought that inspired the dichotic thoughtof PASCAL^S WAGER.

We Will Write a Custom Essay Specifically
For You For Only $13.90/page!


order now

Even if these people were non really spiritual duringtheir younger old ages, we can now see a tendency of a big subdivision of ourcountry^s population get downing to go to church more and more and gomore & # 8220 ; spiritual & # 8221 ; as they grow older. What inspires this displacement? & # 8211 ; fieldand simple, the fright of uncertainness.& # 8220 ; QUESTIONING & # 8221 ; ONES BELIEFS MUST GO BEYOND JUST WONDERINGWhen I used to go to Church on a regular basis their was a priest who was anhighly good talker and highlyintelligent. Even though he was a Catholic priest, functioning as the curateof an highly big church, he had thebravery and encephalons to differ with some of the stiff tenet apparatus andenforced by the Vatican. I remember onediscourse he gave that has greatly influenced me since, and I am really happyI was fortunate plenty to hear it.

Inthis certain discourse he talked about his ideas on it being good foradolescents and young person to oppugn thebeing of a God in their universe. He talked at length about thisoppugning and finished up the address with thesumming up that even though we can oppugn, it all comes back to God.I continued to believe in this manner for a really long clip. That there weremany inquiries refering the existent andtrue being of God, nevertheless due to certain things like the design ofthe universe, everything had to associate back toan all-powerful Godhead. Just late I have started to recognize the jobwith my old construct of & # 8220 ; oppugning & # 8221 ; ,every bit good as this peculiar priest & # 8217 ; s. In the mode that he was mentioningto this construct, he was really right in the factthat & # 8220 ; everything has to come back to God & # 8221 ; .

The ground that this is trueis due to the fact that merely inquiring isprecisely that: if all we do is state to ourselves, is & # 8220 ; Gee I wonder? & # 8221 ; , sowe of class will non be able to come up withany alternate except to go on believing in the being of a& # 8220 ; god & # 8221 ; .Questioning one^ ? s religion must non merely embrace inquiring yourselfepistemic and metaphysical inquiries,but we must research, larn, and above all addition cognition about thegrounds and the statements from both sidesof the argument. We must hold duologues with others who believe the sameas us, every bit good as those who portion awholly different, even blatantly contrary position. Merely by these agenciescan we of all time come out with a greaterapprehension of the issues environing the inquiries about thebeing of a supreme being. If this processis followed and we ever continue to larn and accept new, validinformation so we will finally happen ourain sense of the truth, and our ain doctrine for our lives.MY JOURNEY TO FIND THE TRUTH, AND SUBSEQUENT & # 8220 ; LEAP OF REASON & # 8221 ;This past twelvemonth I truly started analyzing my ain beliefs and religion in& # 8220 ; God & # 8221 ; . As I read Homer^ ? s Iliad, informationabout Mithra ( Jesus^ ? immediate fabulous predecessor ) , and many otherbeginnings that put inquiries in my headabout the cogency of my religion, I began to earnestly doubt whether & # 8220 ; God & # 8221 ;was something merely made up by worldssince the beginning of clip to explicate their universe, or was truly thetruth.I am certainly now in my head that the images and symbols used to stand for& # 8220 ; God & # 8221 ; and ab initio & # 8220 ; Gods & # 8221 ; , werecontrived merely to explicate phenomena of the planet, enigmas of life,and to fulfill that highly strong demand ofhuman existences to experience of import.

This past point I feel is the mostpivotal in understanding the human race^ ? sbulk position of the being of a supernatural power. There are somany people today that of class we can^ ? t allhold occupations that most would see & # 8220 ; of import & # 8221 ; and assist take the holderof that occupation to& # 8220 ; SELF-ACTUALIZATION & # 8221 ; , so a & # 8220 ; god & # 8221 ; makes up for that. It is written andspoken by Christians and the Biblethat all human existences are equal and that they are all loved the same by& # 8220 ; God & # 8221 ; , therefore everyone is highlyof import because the & # 8220 ; shaper of us all & # 8221 ; values them on par with everyoneelse. A well-thought-of man of affairs whohas worked for his luck is the same as a neurotic drug nut beggaryfor money ; frequently times the former is seeneven as more immorality.THE FALLACIOUS ARGUMENTS FOR THE EXISTENCE OF A GODIn my pursuit to happen the truth about the being of a & # 8220 ; God & # 8221 ; , which willever be traveling on and ne’er stop, I havebesides made it a point to analyze those statements which are manyphilosophers^ ? and theists^ ? base for their belief in anall-powerful Godhead.

I will get down by explicating the idea that goes intoeach statement, and how the people whomare advocates of these such statements validate their claims. I willso hence proceed to indicate out theerrors that I believe each of them makes, some more than others. Thesethree chief statements are as follows:Teleological Argument for the Existence of GodThe teleological statement for the being of God is one that uses theexistent existents we know in world, in thisinstance the full planet and existence, and uses these in a slightly gooddeveloped theory for the being of a& # 8220 ; god & # 8221 ; .The simplest manner to specify this statement is to utilize the simple analogy ofa clock shaper to a clock ; or intelligentinterior decorator to an intelligent design. This is the witting footing for atheory that states that due to the fact that weunrecorded and exist in a entirely proficient and advanced-level universe wherethings such as the being of life andworlds are really & # 8220 ; intelligent & # 8221 ; , so there must be an intelligent Godheadthat first shaped us all and everythingaround us. This theory has been changed and developed even more over theold ages into modern versions.The chief thoughts that I find inherently incorrect with this statement semen fromthe fact that first: theists believe thatGod merely exists and ever has, nevertheless he excessively would be an intelligentbeing, and harmonizing to the teleologicalstatement itself, would & # 8220 ; He & # 8221 ; so non ask an intelligentinterior decorator? And so on and so forth^ ? Thereforetheists who believe in the & # 8220 ; being exists & # 8221 ; thought in footings of a & # 8220 ; God & # 8221 ; ,and besides tend to back the teleologicalstatement, are beliing themselves because of a struggle in whichthe premises of their two analogues beliefs areat odds. Those doing this contradiction must look into their premises.

Another more abstract theory That can move to slightly confute thecogency of this statement is that of the& # 8220 ; OSCIALLATING UNIVERSE THEORY & # 8221 ; . This theory in a nutshell states thatthe existence is invariably eitherspread outing or distilling, every bit long as affair is present in the existence. Acorollary of this theory besides says thatthere is significant grounds that the existence has expanded to itsbound and so shrivel down once more into onepoint of infinite denseness, temperature, and curvature, merely to detonateonce more ( the large knock ) , a sum of 100 times!With the potency of an wholly new existence being created each clipthis has happened, with the potency ofwholly different Torahs of natural philosophies and the behaviour of affair, sothere is decidedly the increased possibility ofour planet merely bing and being able to back up life by a opportunitycreative activity of the existence we live in, created bythe current enlargement and creative activity that has been go oning for anestimated 10 billion old ages. The fact is, with thatmany universes being created over clip, there is a certain opportunity that out ofall those planets created, at least one, ours,could back up life.The Ontological Argument for the Existence of GodThe Ontological statement for the being of a & # 8220 ; God & # 8221 ; is more complex,and more absolutely baseless so the one,old statement that we have examined. This argument footing its full& # 8220 ; proof & # 8221 ; on drifting abstractions madeabout the encephalon of adult male, his witting, and the things it is unable tomake. This statement is normally referred to St.

Anselm, its primary Godhead. The statement goes like this: We all haveslightly of an image or thought of what & # 8220 ; God & # 8221 ;is in our heads, even atheists who don^ ? t believe in any & # 8220 ; god & # 8221 ; still haveslightly of a construct of what a& # 8220 ; god & # 8221 ; , if one existed, would hold to be like and capable of. Ourconstruct of a & # 8220 ; God & # 8221 ; is reasonably limited because toconceive of a being so great and powerful is difficult for us to make in theforemost topographic point. Anselm holds that because we canhence conceive nil greater than & # 8220 ; God & # 8221 ; , one must be.Let^ ? s expression at that in simplistic signifier: due to the fact that I canneither think nor conceive of anything greater thanthis entity, the peculiar entity which I can non travel beyond hencemust be. How absurd of an statement isthis? Its lone foundation lies on some unconnected thought of aphilosopher, indiscriminately applied to world. The chiefjob that I have with this statement is that it takes a regulation and jurisprudenceof world and ground, and applies tosomething that we merely can hold no decision of all time made on whilepopulating on Earth. If I say that there is nilworse and more chilling that I can gestate of beyond decease, so hencedecease must be, I am right because deceasedoes be.

In this instance the ontological statement for the being ofdecease plants. How do I cognize itplants? & # 8211 ; because I can see and comprehend decease in world and I can cognizeit get downing with my sense perceptual experiences.The being of, and my cognition of decease, is hierarchal. Howeverthe construct of & # 8220 ; God & # 8221 ; can^ ? T non be tracedback to basic sense perceptual experiences ( where all constructs must be originallyderived from ) , and is hence unable to begrounded in world and truth. In order to derive higher cognition ofsomething every bit complex as a & # 8220 ; God & # 8221 ; , we fist mustperceive basic facts of world.

There are no basic facts of world toperceive when it comes to the construct of& # 8220 ; God & # 8221 ; .Think of any concrete that about all work forces believe in and their can be noexistent rational argument about without oneof the parties being wholly irrational in even challenging the fact^ ? thatconcrete construct can be traced back to thetraced down on through the line straight to man^ ? s ability to comprehend.& # 8220 ; God & # 8221 ; ^ ? this construct can non be brokendown into anything close to world and perceptual experience. It is because ofthis fact that even if you do believe in & # 8220 ; God & # 8221 ; ,in order to retain any sense of being able to believe, you must stayagnostic. If we refuse to acknowledge the fact thatthe being of & # 8220 ; God & # 8221 ; is impossible to comprehend, so human cognitionwill die into an abysm of unconnectedand unsupported beliefs in irrational and ungrounded religions, which wewill gull ourselves into believing is world.The Cosmological Argument for the Existence of GodThe Cosmological statement flexible joints on a belongings which is a corollary ofthe maxim of being. This jurisprudence is the jurisprudenceof causality^ ? which states that all things that occur do so because theyare caused. The advocates of thisstatement so take this jurisprudence, which we apply to every twenty-four hours world onEarth, to the beginning of the existence.

Theystate that the existence merely couldn^ ? Ts have existed for all clip, but thatit would hold to hold been created merely likeeverything else. They so take these beliefs even farther when theyassert that the procedure of creative activity andbeing can non be infinite in either traveling frontward, or lookingbackward.For case, these people believe that & # 8220 ; God & # 8221 ; created theuniverse^ ? therefore the existence has a cause. Howeverthey do get down to acquire into contradictory Waterss every bit shortly as they areconfronted with the fact that they believe oftheir God^ ? s existence^ ? was God created excessively? No^ ? they say that at that place has tobe some beginning that merely was andever will be^ ? there can be no eternity in either traveling frontward, and noinfinite patterned advance backwards throughages of cause after cause. This first contradiction is apparent and obviousto the educated translator of the statement,the others are more profoundly involved with other jobs.If these people believe in the phrase & # 8220 ; being exists & # 8221 ; when it comesto their God, so why can^ ? t this merely beapplied to something such as the existence? Why do we necessitate a notional& # 8220 ; God & # 8221 ; to explicate the beginning of theexistence when the cosmogonic statement already asserts that things cannon merely come on or regressboundlessly? The ground is due to the constructs we discussed earlier ofthe demand of human & # 8220 ; self-actualization & # 8221 ; andthe reassurance of an hereafter where we can eventually to the full bask ourhumanity and being.

This statement is right in one regard: the really entity that ab initiocreated the universe itself was non caused orcreated. In this rightness nevertheless they fail by neglecting to correctlyplace that thing which did make theuniverse^ ? it was non & # 8220 ; God & # 8221 ; , but something which contained the fullexistence and still is a portion of that existence.( FOR A CLARIFICATION OF WHAT I AM Mentioning TO HERE, READ THIS. )FINAL CONCLUSIONSMy concluding decisions so far in my quest to understand the footing forbeliefs and cogent evidence for the being andnon-existence of & # 8220 ; God & # 8221 ; are short, little, and wholly unfinished. Theyare my concluding decisions for this paper,at this point in my life.

One^ ? s true concluding decisions on these affairswill merely be able to do some twenty-four hours if there issome topographic point, possibly non needfully a Eden, where we will hold clip tothink and reflect on what we havelearned during our lives, and possibly even after them.For now I know that no affair what paths we follow as human existences onjourney to cognitive apprehensionabout & # 8220 ; God & # 8221 ; , we must ever stay agnostic for the complete continuance ofour mortal lives, chiefly because ofthe deficiency of a hierarchy of cognition which we can see and subtract for theconstruct of & # 8220 ; God & # 8221 ; . Finally, we must alllearn every bit much as we possibly can and can willingly actuate ourselvesto in order to understand this argumentand struggle in human belief.Question everything^ ? learn from the replies.______________________________________________________Get Your Private, Free Email at hypertext transfer protocol: //www.hotmail.com