Essay about A Philoshpical Approach to Proving the...

The question of God’s existence has been debated through the history of man, with every philosopher from Socrates to Immanuel Kant weighing in on the debate. So great has this topic become that numerous proofs have been invented and utilized to prove or disprove God’s existence. Yet no answer still has been reached, leaving me to wonder if any answer at all is possible. So I will try in this paper to see if it is possible to philosophically prove God’s existence. nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;Before I start the paper there are a few points that must be established. First is a clear definition of Philosophy of Religion, which is the area of philosophy that applies philosophical methods to study a wide variety of religious issues including†¦show more content†¦Since by definition God is all-perfect, and a being that does not exist is less perfect than one that did, it must be deemed that God exists. As one can see, Anslem explains God’s existence just by utilizing our concept of God as an all-perfect being. Simply put, the definition of God guarantees his existence just as the definition of a triangle guarantees that all triangles have three sides. This argument is a hard one to follow due to the fact that it utilizes Reductio Ad Abusdum form. This is when you support your conclusion by showing that the negation of the said conclusion will lead to a logical paradox. nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;nbsp;Numerous Philosophers, Immanuel Kant being one, have refuted Saint Anslems assertion. Kant’s main objection is that the argument rests on the idea that existence is a quality or property. He asserts that the word â€Å"exist† has a different meaning from property-words such as â€Å"green†, or â€Å"pleased†. He then goes on to state that only characteristics or qualities can clarify or describe a concept, and since existence is neither it cannot be utilized in the argument. Kant then points out that the concept of God existing cannot be derived from the definition of him being all perfect, just as the concept of a leprechaun or unicorn’s existence cannot be derived from it’s definition. Another problem with the Ontological Argument is the belief that existence is a real predicate. A predicate is something that adds some type of description to a

Standardization of Science The Benchmark of An Educated Society

Question: Describe the Strengths and weakness of the standardization and of all the premises andThen the analysis of language and rhetoric used shall be evaluated? Answer: Strengths Weakness Analysis Premise 1: The study of sciences needs to be considered as an intellectual as well as a social endeavor in which the human intelligence is applied to discovering how the world works. Therefore, the study of science should be given a significant place in all the curriculums where scientific literacy is one of the aims. It needs to be considered in this regard that when the people are aware of the fact how do scientists arrived scientific conclusions, and are also aware of the limitations related with such conclusions, the people are more likely to react thoughtfully to the claims made by signs and at the same time, less likely to reject these claims or to accept these claims uncritically. An understanding of the way science operates, along with the basic inventory of major scientific concepts can allow the acquisition of more learning on the subject later on. Generally the image of science is distorted in the minds of the people. There are several stereo types and myths related with s cience in the minds of the people. These cannot be dispelled if the study of signs only focuses on the theories and concepts of science alone. Therefore the study of science should be made explicit part of the curriculum although science is only a small part of intellectual human enterprise. Premise 2: Science has revealed to us a lot about the world. As a result of science, we are able to understand, more or less, what reality is and what the forces that have an impact on the stuff of existence are. At the same time, possible and empirically sound basis had also been provided by the scientists regarding the life on our planet and also the history of the cosmos. However it is still all told to believe the claim made by the scientist that they have solved all the mysteries or will solve all the mysteries very soon. This amounts to a disservice to science as by doing so, they become similar to the religious fundamentalists, who are despised by them. Due to the due to the impact of research and technology on the changes taking place in the society and also on the way we live, it cannot be claimed by the scientists anymore that science is neutral and as a result, they are required to consider the ethical as well as the social aspects of science. Science cannot give advice regarding the values and the meaning of life. Premise 3: Science is very powerful and it has created the knowledge due to which we are able to call a person halfway around the world or to create skyscrapers. But besides these, science has also helped us in answering very important questions like how the hole in the ozone layer has been created, how the crops can be protected from pests, who were the evolutionary ancestors of humans and the areas that might be hit by a tsunami after an earthquake. As a result of the wide range of questions with which science deals, it appears that the reach of size is endless. However there are certain definite limits of science and it cannot contribute in metaphysics. Premise 4: Although, science plays a limited role, still it has a vital role in shaping the moral values and also helping us in framing wiser judgments. Evidence and reason allow us to examine ethical values naturally and openly. It is believed in this regard that the secular societies have already developed the responsible ethical norms and therefore science can help us in dealing with moral dilemmas. Significant power has been provided to the humans when dramatic breakthroughs were received on scientific frontiers. However this has also resulted in complex model quandaries. It cannot be said that science cannot reveal an understanding of the way in which knowledge can be used. Analysis of the Language Rhetoric In the opening paragraph of the letter, an editorial published in Sydney Morning Herald has been cited in which the Prime Minister, Treasure and the business leaders of Australia have been condemned as being uneducated. It has been claimed in the letter that the meaning of this statement is that science is the only benchmark of educated society and at the same time, the leaders of the country are scientifically ignorant. The letter points out that it has also been claimed an editorial that in case science is not treated with dignity, it would also have an adverse impact on our well-being as well as on the democracy. In this way, the letter points out that this particular editorial wants to establish that science is being intentionally devalued by our leaders in order to create a situation where people cannot think for themselves. In this way, it has been pointed out that there is no basis for the assumption that science can be considered as a benchmark of educated society. On the other hand, science plays an important role in developing situations or some of the most significant challenges faced by the society like climate change, shortage of food and water etc.. In this regard it needs to be noted that science is not merely a body of facts or theories. In the same way it does not only related with elements and formulas on the periodic table. As against the popular perception, a particular way of thinking is provided by scientific knowledge. In the same way, science also encourages skepticism and at the same time, it provides a guide with the help of which, false claims that are made by advertisers, businesses and politicians can be evaluated. Indeed there are certain limitations of science. For example, moral judgments are not made by science. Therefore the question if euthanasia can be considered as the right thing does not fall under the album of science. In the same way, the universal rights of the human beings as well as the rights of animals are very significant questions but these questions cannot be answered with the help of scientific knowledge and research. Although size can play an important role in learning about terminal illnesses and at the same time, science can also help us in knowing the history of human rights. In the same way, science does not make aesthetic judgments. Similarly, although the scientists are concerned how the scientific discoveries are used by the people, it cannot be indicated by science how the scientific knowledge should be used. In this regard, it also needs to be noted that in case of every significant scientific development, there are both positive as well as negative uses in which such scientific knowledge can be used. Therefore, while science describes a lot of things about the world, it is for the people to decide how such knowledge should be used. Recommendations: As the scientific ignorance related with a large number of great big and events is disturbing, a trend can be seen among the powerful politicians and the business leaders according to which, the scientific evidence is denied or ridiculed by them. On the other hand, due to the significance of science and technology in understanding as well as developing the solutions for the most serious challenges faced by the society like climate change, food and water scarcity, it is important to see what kind of message is sent by the leaders to their people. It also needs to be seen what kind of message is sent by the leaders to the impressionable young Australians who are being introduced to scientific reasoning in their classrooms. Even if these students decide later on that they will not continue with the study of science at the University, it can still be hoped that the students will have at least a basic understanding of the scientific concepts due to which they will be able to make informed decisions regarding significant issues in their life like their health, environment and economics during their entire life. It cannot be denied that scientific thinking is required in case of everything done by us but still there are many people who believe it to be exotic. Therefore in the end it can be said that science cannot be considered as the benchmark of society but at the same time in case of the present that it can be said that the letter is biased towards the negativity of science.