NOTE: Free essay sample provided on this page should be used for references or sample purposes only. The sample essay is available to anyone, so any direct quoting without mentioning the source will be considered plagiarism by schools, colleges and universities that use plagiarism detection software. To get a completely brand-new, plagiarism-free essay, please use our essay writing service.
One click instant price quote
... intent argument, the other main form of the cosmological proof. It follows that all around us we perceive contingent beings, by contingent we mean beings that might not have existed. The universe could be conceived without these contingent objects.
We can properly explain contingent beings around us only by tracing them back to some necessary being. Therefore the existence of a contingent being implies the existence of a necessary cause. To Kant this form of the argument commits the same error as the Ontological, regarding existence as an attribute or characteristic. Yet philosophers like Farther Coplesten refute Kantian criticism and assert that existence is a characteristic.
Yet it is Bertrand Russell's critique of the argument that does it the most damage. He believes that the contingency argument rest on a misconception of what an explanation is and does, and what makes a phenomenon intelligible. If it is granted that in order to explain a phenomenon or to make it intelligible we need not bring in a necessary being, the contingency argument breaks down. Like the series, every contingent agent can be explained by reference to other contingent agents. Russell then attacks the premise that states there are explanations for phenomena. One must question not only can humans obtain this explanation, but if it even exists?
To use the word explanation lends the premise a plausibility that it does not really possess. Appeal to Biblical Faith Emil Fackenheim whose views are derived from certain ideas of the Jewish philosopher Martin Buber is the best-known advocate for this proof. Buber came up with the concept of eclipse of God in response to the suffering of the Jewish people during the Nazi regime. The concern of the time was that if there was an all-powerful God then he could of surely stopped the extermination at Auschwitz. The fact that these camps did exist, and six million Jews mostly women and children were murdered, causes one to question his existence. Buber goes on to say that the phenomena like Auschwitz do not show that God does not exist, but rather there are periods when God is in eclipse.
Buber is convinced the eclipse of God will not last forever, and if we endure the silence he will return to us shortly. Fackenheim first contention is that biblical faith differs from the attitude of science. The believers position is impregnable while the scientist is forever hypothetical. If a scientists hypothesis is dis confirmed then he will either modify it or abandon it. The biblical believer will do nothing of that sort, for once the nature of biblical faith is understood than it is easy to see why the evil that unquestionably exist in the world does not disprove it.
Tragedy does not destroy Biblical faith but merely tests it. In his mind biblical faith is irrefutable and scientific evidence cannot affect it. If the bible contains a statement that is proven false, well one must keep in mind that God can both reveal and conceal himself. Fackenheim's second contention concerns the place assigned to religious experiences by the biblical believer.
Basically human beings have meetings with God, and these meetings are what all religions are based upon. The problem with first contention, biblical faith is empirically verifiable and nothing can refute it, involves confusion between psychological considerations and the real logical issues at stake. The question at stake is whether, in light of the evil in the world, the claims of the believer can be shown as false, or highly improbable. Fackenheim is mislead by the ambiguity of certain statements that he uses, such as destroy and test.
The horrors of the world may not in fact destroy a given person religious faith in the sense it causes him to abandon it, but this in no way shows that they do not destroy it in the sense of disproving his faith. We know bigots are so attached to beliefs that they will not give them up regardless of the facts in front of them. What is remarkable is the fact that a philosopher advocates this type of reasoning as an intellectual policy of great virtue. On Bubars doctrine of the eclipse of God, one retorts that Gods self-concealing is inconsistent with his perfect goodness or indeed any kind of goodness. Imagine a child in trouble who calls out for his dad, this dad does not only know about it but can come to his aid.
Instead he decides to conceal himself, would we not consider this person a monster? It is difficult to see what other responses could be justified toward a deity behaving in this concealing fashion. This deity is not one who falls short of complete goodness but rather a monster, which as Russell puts it, makes Nero look like an angel. Both Buber and Fackenheim claim that there argument is not one that argues from a religious experience; hence they are immune to the fallacies of that argument. Yet critics counter that they are presenting an argument from a religious experience, one that is incompletely stated.
One might remark that many people, who claim to have had glimpses of God, as Fackenheim puts it, are in both of these philosophers mind delusional. Charles Guitar who assassinated President Garfield acted upon what he thought was instructions from God. As John Baillie puts it, there must be some criteria to distinguish fake encounters from real. We simply cannot take Bubars word that certain glances are illusionary while others are not. In conclusion I am left pretty much in the same place as I have started. It is impossible to prove or disprove the existence of God philosophically.
For every philosopher who publishes his or her opinions on the subject, three more are there to tear it down. In the end I think it is best that man does not figure out the answer to this lifelong question. Some things are better left unanswered.
Free research essays on topics related to: contingent beings, destroy, biblical, contingent, religious experience
Research essay sample on Contingent Beings Religious Experience
