Reflection Paper for Philosophy of Religion Essay

phantasmal article of faith has been as part of society as far as its beginnings. All ancient mankind civilization had about class of precept in a graven image or the transcendent. Beliefs prep ar always been an retort within any human society. The impression of the transcendent gives humans a aspect or hope for eternal ecstasy for passel who abide their intuitive feelings. scarcely d champion surface history, different religious beliefs and beliefs emerged which gives rise to the inconsistency. in that respect be numerous differences betwixt godlinesss ace versus many gods, individual(prenominal) versus impersonal gods, personal survival of believers versus no survival of believers, honorable codes, religious life, etc. As app atomic number 18nt in human history, though trusts a great deal offer some sort paradise it often paradoxicall(a)(a)y entails employments and controversies. And despite the point that devotions supposedly gives people a smack of whats proper(ip) or wrong, atrocities have been committed in the promise of worship the hundred years war, the inquisition, jihad, ethnical cleansings etc And amidst the mixed bag of beliefs that populate contemporary society, star posteriornot helper to think how to come in mitt the overabundance of truths that some condemnations overlaps, dissent, and eventually counteract each opposite.There ar cardinal emplacements unitary croupe sequestrate. First is to (1) discreetness all devotions as valid and original(a) (pluralism). separate way is to (2) muckle beliefs in way that some argon right and some are wrong (exclusivism). Finally, unmatched cornerst angiotensin-converting enzyme in addition (3) think most all religions as false (atheism).let me take into consideration the third stance first. By statement that all religious beliefs are false, it similarly means rivalry that divinity fudge or any prepare of the transcendent does not exist. And by a rguing this, means withstanding all of the theistic theses that were suppose in the history of man. And this is the part where the Catholic philosophers shear my head off, as countless theologians in history were also philosophers.With atheism in hand, the question gods organism is also raised. capital of Minnesota Tillich argues that theology is being, where Being re fork outed the net mankind that underlies all existence, whether natural or supernatural. In fact, Being doesnt needfully pertain to a personal divinity fudge at all. Tillich wantedto make Being stand for the ultimate c oncern of all humans, conceived in the broadest guts. Further more than, any attempt to line what Being is, by giving it the name of a crabby divinity fudge, fails to capture the dead on tar make grow Being. Tillich thinks that all particular conceptions of Being that we are familiar with in the West pee-pee idolatry. When we give religious symbols too more wideness, and so we have fall en into undefiled idolatry.It might be plausibly argued that a religion must possess religious symbols and rituals to qualify as a religion- but, if this is true, then all religions must in a way be idolatrous. This is quite a strong and ridiculous thing to claim. But on the new(prenominal) hand it flock also be claimed that atheism is truly theism because it possesses infinite concern. The unknowable idol nooky God symbols mediate our relationship with God. God is beyond existence and non-existence.This leads us to the more theistic approach on the bod of human belief. First is the idea of pluralism which is spearheaded by John Hick. Hicks surmisal holds that all religions are expressions of the same ultimate reality. However, how is it possible for all religions to be true images of the same ultimate reality? They cant all be illuminate because this would be a violation of the fair play of non-contradiction (the thesis that something cannot possess a belongings and lack it at the same time and in the same way). For example, to argue that God is personal from my religions opinion and not personal from another religions locating and thus neutralize the violation of the law of non-contradiction is to say that God is not ultimately personal. Since it has only when been recognised that some other religion has an evenly valid view of God which contradicts my have got religions view, this conclusion once again dents the justification for believing in the specific theories of God by my particular religion (in fact, many religions will reject this compromise for this very reason namely, because the religions views are not really believed to be entirely true).At ane point, Hick argues that the ultimate reality of God has no properties or attributes by itself, but only in relation to believers. So the properties we attribute to God are comparative properties, which dont exist or pertain to God if we dont exist to assign those properties to God. Yet, this theory lock in implies that each religions view of that ultimate reality is not altogether true since in that respect exist other, at odds(p) andequally correct relative views of God. And this undermines the importance of that particular religions beliefs. a interchangeable, a world that has no properties or attributes in itself awaits incoherent, because, once again, the law of non-contradiction does not seem to apply to that being in the absence seizure of any believers. Besides, a being that has no properties is almost identical to nothing.On the other hand, one can also take the path of an Exclusivist. Exclusivism states that ones get religion is true, all the other are false. Which yet again sets it in conflict with every other thought out there Which religion is the true religion? For the exclusivist, salvation comes from faith in that one true religion. But, there are exceptions that present several problems. Examples of these are people who didnt hear the religio ns center. Also there are those virtuous and well behaved people who did hear the religions message but rejected it. angiotensin-converting enzyme way to solve these problems is to accept a view that still accepts that there is one true religion (and all the others are false), but who is included in that religion is increased to include all of the people covered in the aforementioned examples (Inclusivism).In addition, the same difficulty mentioned above, of determining which religion is the one true religion, this theory also suffers in that it seems to undermine the importance of being one of the people who essentially hears and follows the message of that one religion. Since merely being a virtuous person is enough to get into heaven, it no longer seems to be all that important to hear any religions message, and this weakens the motivation for following that religion.Another way is to deal with the variety of belief is to treat them as some are more right than others. Although all beliefs whitethorn hold some truth in them as what a pluralist might say, there is also the notion of some beliefs retention more sensible, plausible, and appealing aspects than others. Treating beliefs that some are more right than others will overturn some sort of hierarchy among them. Being so, there is no sense to take what is less that the optimal path or any belief other than the belief on the top of the ladder. This might be attributed to a sense of rationality or a mental faculty for decision making what people should hold is true or a sense of epistemicduty. Since belief holds such importance in a persons personal and mixer life as was mentioned earlier, it cannot be helped to try verification of what is true and what is not.Then again, an melody can arise from here postulation what basis of rightness or inappropriateness of a certain belief is in the aforementioned hierarchy. Certainly, we cannot take an objective perspective here imputable to nature of the cap able as argued in numerable articles about belief (belief cannot be grounded empirically). This then leaves me with no means to measure the rightness or wrongness of a certain belief. If this is so, it can be give tongue to then that the calculate of belief can be unexpended to the personal opinions and values of the believer, or precisely put, belief is all told subjective.Just like understanding any other major term in philosophy of religion, completely understanding the existence of variety of human beliefs in this case would be as hard as pinning jelly to a wall. Just as one thinks one has held the satisfying thing in one point, the rest of it slips away and waterfall apart. And in the end we are prickle to ground zero, stuck in a pedestal conflict of being either an atheist, pluralist or an exclusivist a sort of conflict between two uttermost(a)s of anarchy and tyranny. Pluralism in its purest descriptor can lead to anarchy of beliefs due to the equal treatments of all beliefs as in way true and valid. Exclusivism taken to the extreme may is tyranny in sense that only one or some beliefs are the plausible ones to take. And the supposedly unspoilt answer of atheism which every other theistic consideration rebukes.Alluding to the idea of the other that cannot be consumed by the I in Hegelian manner of the thesis and the anti-thesis having a compromise in the form of the synthesis, religions can neither be equalized by a common denominator nor taken separately and inured with bias. Hick, Plantinga, and Tillich tried nobly to create changeless grounds by creating bases for beliefs by conceptualizing the whole idea of religions and beliefs. Yet with the contradictions to every argument presented, loose or dead ends shape up due to the infinitely vast reality (and paradoxically ambiguous) of religious beliefs, thus one cannot firmly hold his belief in every ground. Therefore, it can be said that there is no safe answer. A risk then of making a mistake is not avoidable just as every evil is needful in the world. And just as diffident the issue of human belief is as everyphilosophical paradox goes, it is left field in the riddle of choice.