Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Any Philosophy majors?

page: 1
0

log in

join

posted on Oct, 15 2004 @ 07:38 AM
link   
I have a Philosophy 101 assingment due soon, and the question posed is "In light of the arguments, both pro and con, given by Clarke, Mackie, and Descartes, etc., is belief in God rational?
Note that I'm not asking you to tell me whether you believe in god; that is none of my business. Rather, I want to know whether you think that belief in God is the kind of thing that can be rationally supported.
Your response may be based on personal feelings, values, or sentiments, but you must provide good reasons for any claim that you make. In other words, I want you to address the issue by providing either a sound deductive argument or a cogent inductive argument for your view."

I'm having a bit of trouble getting started on this particular assignment. I have a pretty good idea of what I'm going to say about my argument. Since I'm undecided on this issue, so I'm going to propose both arguments, for and against such a question.What do you think, is this a rational question? What would some of your people's answers' be? Note: I'm not asking for the answer from anyone to copy, rather to get an idea of how I can get a decent grade on this assingment. Any help would be much appreciated.

[Edited on 15-10-2004 by Grommer]




posted on Oct, 15 2004 @ 10:22 AM
link   
Belief in God is rational if one believes in God.

A better question is is worshiping a god rational?

Worship of an object or place representing a deity is irrational and primitive.

Worship of an invisible deity (all deities are invisible) is irrational.

A true deity (what ever that might be) would not need to be worshiped.

Life never ends---it only changes like water into vapor, grapes into wine, caterpillar into a butterfly, etc.

Who is behind all this mystery?

The gods

The Democrats

The Republicans

A committee

The Three Stooges

Mother Teresa

None of the above

Does it matter?

Eventually we will know everything---but while on this planet being a know-it-all is not a good thing.



[Edited on 15-10-2004 by sleeper]



posted on Oct, 15 2004 @ 11:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by Grommer
Rather, I want to know whether you think that belief in God is the kind of thing that can be rationally supported.
Your response may be based on personal feelings, values, or sentiments, but you must provide good reasons for any claim that you make. In other words, I want you to address the issue by providing either a sound deductive argument or a cogent inductive argument for your view."


I believe being able to rationally understand is very important. I do not believe there is a rational arguement against the existance of God that cannot be countered by another rational arguement.

We live in a unique time when our understanding of science is very advanced, but yet there is so much that we do not understand. Several recent theories have added to our understanding of science and the existance of the universe. Those same theories can be applied to the logical discussion of the existance of God and our relationship to Him. Quantum Theory and Consciousness, Many Worlds Quantum Theory, and Chaos Theory all provide a level of understanding that can be applied to phylosophical discussions.

In the thread entitled Flaws in the Christian concept of God I provide logical arguements to counter many of the "established cons".

Now what I didn't answer was the question you have to answer. My answer would be "No." However, that is not to say that the existance of God is not rational.


[Edited on 15-10-2004 by Raphael_UO]

[Edited on 15-10-2004 by Raphael_UO]



posted on Oct, 15 2004 @ 11:39 AM
link   
thanks for the replies. well, I'm pretty sure my professor wants to know is the belief part is rational, not particularly that God exists. Rather, how is the belief rational? Analogy: I have faith that Aliens exist (faith as I define it is a form of hope), therefore, because I have faith, they must exist. Obviously there's plenty of evidence to the contrary. That was the main part of my paper, several analogies, and rhetorical questions. I got a 100% on my last assignment following the same guideline...we'll see what happens.

I'm finding this Philosophy class very interesting. Some of the reading is tough, but still enjoyable. I never realized how deep it can go....



posted on Oct, 15 2004 @ 11:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by Grommer
thanks for the replies. well, I'm pretty sure my professor wants to know is the belief part is rational, not particularly that God exists. Rather, how is the belief rational? Analogy: I have faith that Aliens exist (faith as I define it is a form of hope), therefore, because I have faith, they must exist. Obviously there's plenty of evidence to the contrary. That was the main part of my paper, several analogies, and rhetorical questions. I got a 100% on my last assignment following the same guideline...we'll see what happens.

I'm finding this Philosophy class very interesting. Some of the reading is tough, but still enjoyable. I never realized how deep it can go....


In order to believe something to be true, one must collect evidence. When the evidence meets or exceeds a "burden of proof" one believes something to be true. The burden of proof for the existance of God varies from person to person. Some require more evidence than others. This is the way we come to believe anything to be true.

This is perfectly logical. Thus, all beliefs are logical.

However, the arguments of philosophers are not arguements on whether the belief of God is rational, but rather that the evidence pointing to the existance of God which is used to satisfy that burden of proof is rational.

Thus, the question of whether belief in God is rational is "yes." It is a simple matter of collecting evidence and meeting a burden of proof.

Which philosophers do not talk about, thus the actual question is a fallacy.


Edit:

Let me give you an unrelated example.

Is the belief in the Easter Bunny rational?

A parent tells a child that there is an Easter Bunny. On Easter there is a basket full of goodies. This satisfies the child's burden of proof. Thus the child believes in the Easter Bunny.

The child's belief in the Easter Bunny is logical.

It is the evidence that satisfies the burden of proof that is subject to scrutiny.



[Edited on 15-10-2004 by Raphael_UO]



posted on Oct, 15 2004 @ 04:02 PM
link   


"In light of the arguments, both pro and con, given by Clarke, Mackie, and Descartes, etc., is belief in God rational?


My prior Philosophy 101 class did not engage in such questions, nor did we read the stated minds; Descartes does talk of God in Meditations, is this the material you are asked to object/subject to ?

Meditations 3. OF GOD: THAT HE EXISTS.

www.wright.edu...




1. I WILL now close my eyes, I will stop my ears, I will turn away my senses from their objects, I will even efface from my consciousness all the images of corporeal things; or at least, because this can hardly be accomplished, I will consider them as empty and false; and thus, holding converse only with myself, and closely examining my nature, I will endeavor to obtain by degrees a more intimate and familiar knowledge of myself. I am a thinking ( conscious ) thing, that is, a being who doubts, affirms, denies, knows a few objects, and is ignorant of many,-- [who loves, hates], wills, refuses, who imagines likewise, and perceives; for, as I before remarked, although the things which I perceive or imagine are perhaps nothing at all apart from me [and in themselves], I am nevertheless assured that those modes of consciousness which I call perceptions and imaginations, in as far only as they are modes of consciousness, exist in me. [ L] [ F]


Get back to me, and i'll see if i can help you out.

Deep

Ps. I've neve read the other 2, and only skimmed descartes. We have not covered these men so far, the material may be different University to University, and Country to Country.

Deep



posted on Oct, 16 2004 @ 01:30 AM
link   
thanks for the responses guys/gals.

sorry ZD: That's not any of the reading we've had, but interesting nonetheless.
About such questions in a 101 class, you're right, it could vary state to state. Several people have said this 101 class is much more difficult than most of their upper level classes. No one in class that I know of is getting an A. It's not that the professor is a Nazi or anything, the questions are extremely long and laid out, with several possible answers. Ohh well, I'll let you know how I did on the paper.





new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join