Skip to main content

The Experience of God: Introduction

 "Honestly, though, my chief purpose is not to advise atheists on what I think they should believe; I want merely to make sure that they have a clear concept of what it is they claim not to believe," (2). When first establishing the purpose of the book, I like how Hart does not plan to convince atheists to believe in God, but to explain why people do and let them understand who God is and the concept of him. He then goes on to say that if something is worth arguing about, then it is also worth understanding. I feel like a lot of people believe that Christians try to push their beliefs onto other people forcefully and that Christianity and God is just a group of people judging you for doing certain things. Though this is not what the religion is at all, a lot of people see it this way. People just feel like they are confined to follow a rule book and if it is not followed then they will be reprimanded, but this is not the case. This is just what people like to assume it to be and then reject it because they do not know what is really is, so I like how he starts right off saying that he is not trying to convince someone of converting to a Christian, but just have an explanation of why someone may be one or why someone believes in God. I feel like by him setting this purpose, more people will be open to learning and listening to what the concept is and having a more open mind to God rather than just shutting it out completely. 

Comments

  1. AnonymousOctober 5, 2017 at 3:52 PM

    I agree with your conclusion that Hart's explanation of his lack of desire to convert people helps him get his message across to a more open audience. His explanation of the concept of "God" is thorough and doesn't come across as a demand on how one should believe.

    ReplyDelete
  2. AnonymousOctober 5, 2017 at 4:02 PM

    If he did not include his purpose then do you think he would be trying to push Christianity on people or just make them believe in God? I do not think he is pushing Christianity, but like you said, just stating that there is a God. I do not think that an atheist would pick up this book at all anyhow, because they would think it is full of assumptions/ideas.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Leah L. MorrisOctober 5, 2017 at 6:01 PM

    I think that Hart's approach in not attempting to convert to but explain his beliefs is more inviting to an open discussion between atheists and believers. Perhaps one without hostility and anger. I agree with Hart that atheist and in my opinion believers should have a clear understanding of what they believe or don't believe in. The subject of "God" can be an emotional and serious one that needs a deeper and more critical investigation. Trying to understand faith and/or belief is something like Hart I feel is worth exploring.

    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