Lewis A Desire for God There seems to be no question that everyone wants to be happy; everyone desires happiness. Throughout time, people have experienced an unexplainable exigency from within themselves that initiates a persistent search through life.
Such a standard of achievement would clearly be setting the bar for success very high, and proponents of theistic arguments rightly note that philosophical arguments for interesting conclusions in any field outside of formal logic hardly ever reach such a standard.
More reasonable questions to ask about theistic arguments would seem to be the following: Are there valid arguments for the conclusion that God exists that have premises that are known or reasonably believed by some people?
Are the premises of such arguments more reasonable than their denials, at least for some reasonable people? A non-believer might even concede some version of a theistic argument has some evidential force, but claim that the overall balance of evidence does not support belief.
A major issue that cannot be settled here concerns the question of where the burden of proof lies with respect to theistic arguments. If such evidence is lacking, the proper stance is atheism rather than agnosticism.
A second way to challenge the presumption of atheism is to question an implicit assumption made by those who defend such a presumption, which is that belief in God is epistemologically more risky than unbelief. The assumption might be defended in the following way: One might think that theists and atheists share a belief in many entities: Someone, however, who believes in leprechauns or sea monsters in addition to these commonly accepted objects thereby incurs a burden of proof.
One might think that belief in God is relevantly like belief in a leprechaun or sea monster, and thus that the theist also bears an additional burden of proof. Without good evidence in favor of belief in God the safe option is to refrain from belief. However, the theist may hold that this account does not accurately represent the situation.
In fact, God is not to be understood as an entity in the world at all; any such entity would by definition not be God. The debate is rather a debate about the character of the universe.
The theist believes that every object in the natural world exists because God creates and conserves that object; every finite thing has the character of being dependent on God. The debate is not about the existence of one object, but the character of the universe as a whole.
Both parties are making claims about the character of everything in the natural world, and both claims seem risky.
This point is especially important in dealing with moral arguments for theism, since one of the questions raised by such arguments is the adequacy of a naturalistic worldview in explaining morality. Evidentialists may properly ask about the evidence for theism, but it also seems proper to ask about the evidence for atheism if the atheist is committed to a rival metaphysic such as naturalism.
Presumably he means that some things that are good are better than other good things; perhaps some noble people are nobler than others who are noble. Obviously, this argument draws deeply on Platonic and Aristotelian assumptions that are no longer widely held by philosophers.
For the argument to be plausible today, such assumptions would have to be defended, or else the argument reformulated in a way that frees it from its original metaphysical home.
The latter condition implies that this end must be sought solely by moral action. However, Kant held that a person cannot rationally will such an end without believing that moral actions can successfully achieve such an end, and this requires a belief that the causal structure of nature is conducive to the achievement of this end by moral means.
This is equivalent to belief in God, a moral being who is ultimately responsible for the character of the natural world. Kant-inspired arguments were prominent in the nineteenth century, and continued to be important right up to the middle of the twentieth century.
Such arguments can be found, for example, in W. SorleyHastings Rashdalland A.
In the nineteenth century John Henry Newman also made good use of a moral argument in his case for belief in God, developing what could be called an argument from conscience.
In recent philosophy there has been a revival of divine command metaethical theories, which has in turn led to new versions of the moral argument found in such thinkers as Robert AdamsJohn Hareand C. This book examines a comprehensive form of moral argument and extensively explores underlying issues."The pursuit of happiness is a most ridiculous phrase: if you pursue happiness you'll never find it." -Carrie Snow.
2. Often the fact that you are looking for happiness will prevent you from being truly happy. 3. 1, Likes, 15 Comments - Princeton University (@princeton_university) on Instagram: “#TellUsTigers: "I started writing songs for my daughter when I was pregnant, but I didn't know they ”.
Pursuit of Happiness (Siddhartha Essay) Throughout Herman Hesse’s novel, Siddhartha, Siddhartha defines his own happiness and Siddhartha does not let anything beside himself dictate his happiness.
Throughout his journeys, Siddhartha becomes enlightened because of the way he can so easily find happiness. Your assignment is to write a multi-paragraph reflective essay about a significant personal experience that involves the pursuit of happiness and/or transcendental ideals, being sure to describe the experience and your immediate response to it, as.
This essay, “The Poison of Subjectivism,” was published in a periodical called Religion in Life, in the summer of Earlier that year, Lewis was invited by the University of Durham to give the Riddell Memorial Lectures. While we have gotten quite a few submissions in the past about Tolkien and Lewis, I can honestly say I believe yours is one of my personal favorites in the essay category.
It had an excellent combination of substance and readability.