Skip to main content

A Fervent Hart : Chapter One ''God'' is not a Proper Name

 I couldn't resist laughing at what some atheist would grimace as a response to Hart's claims. Not asserting full agreement with his position on atheism, however ; his approach surprised me, but then again as we talked in class Wednesday, Hart believes that our society should want to engage in such a controversial, complex discussion. A compelling yet comical refutation to atheism, Hart has no hesitations with being candid in regards to his staunch position about the godless. One distinctive remark by Hart is his statement about the alternatives to rejecting God. He thinks that the alternative is precisely naturalism, or a variant relating to the ideology of Naturalism(17). To an extent I accept this claim, due to my respect for opposing atheist. I am fully aware that some digress with his claim, but his argument is truly compelling. According to Hart,'' The very notion of nature as a closed system entirely sufficient to itself is plainly one that cannot be verified, deductively, or empirically, from within the system of nature. It is a metaphysical conclusion regarding the whole of reality, which neither reason nor experience legitimately warrants (17).'' In addition to this assertion,he completely discredits the truth of naturalism by mentioning its inefficiency of explanation. Remarkable occurrences, or simply the existence of certain objects point to some answer to why they exist and it seems to me that Hart finds the belief in a God as a more sufficient one than Naturalism obviously. Hart's claims and my own thoughts about the philosophical precepts of Naturalism leave me in a medial stance towards the truth of both. I must be careful in making any assumptions about either concept to avoid fallacies. However, I believe that through more research and an accumulation of more evidence for both claim's will help me find at least a more definitive answer. Even so I still question whether or not which claim weighs more truth about the ultimate reality, or the cause for existence. We will soon see or at least come a bit closer as we continue to read Hart's book, in addition to studying the philosophical ideologies that prove otherwise.

Comments

  1. UnknownOctober 5, 2017 at 8:48 PM

    I wished that I was more thorough and that i exemplified an elaborate publication, but time was a limitation. Next time I'll contribute something worthy of a deeper discussion. I feel I barely touched the surface if at all.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

The Seven Ways

Udayana states that there are seven ways to prove that God is in existence; effects, atomic combination, suspension, human skills, authoritative knowledge, Revelation, and atoms. He also calls Him the "all-knowing, imperishable God." He is imperishable God because he is the only one who could create atoms because humans are not able to. Also, humans can not break atoms or destroy them and he is stating that the only person that can do that is God because he created atoms. He mentions the difference between the cause and effect to validate if there is a God. He brings up the argument that "Things like the earth must have a cause, because they are produced by a body (101)." Some deity had to have made the earth for their pleasure. He also relies on objections to prove that God is real. Udayana does bring up good ideas to prove that God is real. The best argument to me is that he created atoms. Humans are unable to destroy atoms or to create them; so they had to be...
1 comment
Read more

The Five Ways

How can we justify the existence of God? Aristotle proposed an argument of an eternal universe and a temporary universe. He questions if the universe is one that has always been or one that is temporarily here for a moment in time. Many ponder the question and often go back and forth between answers, but nevertheless, many can agree that either way, the universe must have a cause or an overall creator and this is what St. Thomas Aquinas argues in, "The Five Ways." The five reasons are as follows: “The first and more manifest way is the argument from motion. It is certain and evident to our senses that some things are in motion.” Motion is caused by a movement of an object or person, but who does the initial movement? This is the question that must be answered. If there is motion, who is the mover? Who has created this cause and effect relationship? This leads us to the second reason of evidence: “The second way is from the formality of efficient causation.” Who started th...
2 comments
Read more

Is the Concept of Ultimate Reality Coherent

     Ultimate reality is dependent on a human beings's perspective. Ultimate reality, or the concept of God are compiled of different beliefs  and conceptual models. Questions are raised with  transcendent reality in  nature and existence. Chad Meister, addresses some of these questions. Humans desire to escape the suffering of this world with the faith and belief that another more perfect existence is obtainable where the flaws of this world does not exist (89). Wainwright states that from human beings needs and experiences came the concept of ultimate reality. Advaita Vedanta takes the Hinduism traditions of Upanishadic to interptet the concept of ultimate reality. Upanishadic traditions, such as the teaching of Brahman, could be traslated as ultimate reality. The world is simutaniously external and unchanging whole, and a individuated plurality that is constantly morphing or changing. Vedanta had taken up this particular insight and gives empahasis on th...
1 comment
Read more