Religion Discussion Questions

Religion Discussion Questions

Discussion Questions

1. 1: It is irrational to believe in God, discuss

Believing in God is common in nearly every culture around the world throughout the history of humankind. The rationale belief in God typically arises from religious competitors or atheism or agnosticism. The evidentialists object that believing in God is not rational because or the absence of sufficient empirical evidence to prove God’s existence. However, their objection is not a disproof of God’s existence (Clark, 1990). However, the evidentialists do not conclude the inexistence of God, but instead argues that even if he exists, believing in him is not reasonable.

On the contrary, theists argue that belief in God is a rationale. The basis of their argument is two-fold: there are those claiming that sufficient evidence exists to support rational belief in God. Another group of theists, such as epistemologists that have reformed have argued that believing in God does not necessary require evidence. Instead, the various attributes of religious experiences such as despair, mysticism and forgiveness are critical grounds are essential aspects in believing in God. There equally other sorts of religious experiences such as guilt and forgiveness, inner testimony of the Holy Spirit, despair, and mysticism (Clark, 1990).  Some of the religious experiences are so vivid with some believers claiming to have heard, seen, and touched by God.

In conclusion, rational belief in God is still a topic of debate today among theists. However, the philosophical fideists contend against using the realm of rationality as a ground for determining belief in God. Moreover, the philosophical non-theists have enthusiastically and broadly disputed all the theistic claims on belief in God.

2. 2. Universe design arguments

            While some people argued that the universe was designed by an excellent, perfect, and benevolent being, such an argument ignores some reality. For instance, Hume argued that artifacts are created from collaboration and team. Based on the design artifact, the case of the universe design by a single benevolent being does not hold ground. Therefore, Hume argued that it would better to conclude that the universe could have been designed by a team of Gods working in collaboration rather than a single being. As an empiricist, Hume believes that knowledge comes from experience. He noted the lack of infinite evidence within our world; only the finite evidence is encountered in the world (Temple, 1992). Therefore, no evidence exists to prove that designer was an infinite being.

In the same manner, Hume further denied that evidence on the perfect and benevolent designer of the universe is also non-existing within the world. His argument is based on the fact that our world is less than ideal. Hume stated that existing evidence indicates that the designer is less than perfect rather than a perfect and benevolent. As depicted in a horrific event from Elspeth Huxley, the universe is imperfect and faulty if compared to the standards of superiority and perfectness. As seen in the description, a lot of pain and suffering is evident in our world. Therefore, if the designer of the world were benevolent beings, these dimensions would not be witnessed (Temple, 1992).  In conclusion, based on empirical evidence, the designer of the word was not perfect and benevolent, as claimed by some people.

References

Clark, K. J. (1990). Return to Reason: A Critique of Enlightenment Evidentialism and a Defense of Reason and Belief in God. Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing.

Temple, D. (1992). Hume’s Logical Objection to the Argument from Design Based on the Uniqueness of the Universe. Religious studies, 28(1), 19-30.