Download file to see previous pages...
Hume has presented three characters that he has given different positions to represent on the issue. The three characters are in a conversational dialogue. Demea is given the responsibility to argue for religious Orthodoxy. He reasons that there is no way an individual can come to understand God’s nature through reason. He vehemently believes that no one can ever know God’s nature at all cost since God’s nature is characteristically beyond the comprehension of human beings. Philo, a philosophical skeptic concurs with Demea in his reasoning that God cannot be comprehended by human beings. However, he goes ahead to give convincing opinions for his position. Cleanthes on the other hand argue according to empirical theism- the notion that individuals can understand about God through reasoning from all the evidence that has been presented by nature (Hume 80). He argues against Demea and Philo. His empirical theism belief is based on the design argument which states that the beauty and complexity of the universe can be explained only by speculating the existence of one intelligent designer, who in this case is God.
In part XII of the dialogues, Philo and Cleanthes are alone. Philo makes use of this opportunity to make a revelation of what he truly thinks, regarding the entire discussion. Surprisingly, he confesses that he believes in the existence of the design argument. He argues that it is not possible to disregard the fact that all creatures in nature have a purpose they are to serve, nothing was created in vain and that everything is being done in the best and comprehensible manner possible (Hume 82). He implies that all the above tenets guide everyone’s scientific reasoning, and they point out to the conclusion that an author of the order exists. He also argues that theists believe that both God and human beings both have brains; however, God’s mind
...Download file to see next pagesRead More
Truth behind religion is treated as universal and eternal, essentially a question of faith, and widely accepted and not challenged or questioned in general. In case of science, the authority is based on evidence and reasons.
After analyzing the SWOT and the financial position of Verizon, it can be affirmed that Verizon is quite able to develop its business as compared to others by delivering quality services to the customers. Although factors like increased level of business market competition and wider use of advanced technologies act as barriers for the company, it can address this critical situation through adopting along with executing certain effective strategies or plans.
The author states that Boyle’s message is simple: that any conflict arising between reason and religion is simply due to the misinterpretations of the latter, for we are but humans who normally make mistakes. To Boyle, religion is never adversarial to religion only if we consider the points he elaborately mentioned in his text.
Science relies on the analysis of facts and purports that natural causes dictates happening of events and processes as opposed to the divine intervention posited by religion. It is noted that science rarely infringes on
They found their own way of explaining- that some supernatural force is acting on them and they called it “God”. The belief was nothing but their fear of the unknown, the dark and uncertainty. This belief s continued till date. With gradual passage of time,
Some think that this relationship was more established in the past than in the present because rolling years have stretched distances between religion and science pushing them far away from each other. Many
5 Pages(1250 words)Essay
GOT A TRICKY QUESTION? RECEIVE AN ANSWER FROM STUDENTS LIKE YOU!
Let us find you another Essay on topic Philosophy of Science and Religion for FREE!