Believing In God Essay

God is defined as the first, timeless, totally simple, and sovereign being, which describes God’s metaphysical nature. The presence of God is controversial in light of a vast range of arguments for and against God’s existence, which have been thoroughly addressed by the disciplines of epistemology, ontology, and value theory (Spitzer, 33). Epistemology is the study of knowledge and its justification, whereas ontology is the science of being, existence, and reality. The theory of value explains the concepts of perfectionism attributed to God. Other empirical, deductive, inductive and also subjective arguments to the nature and being of God exist. However, a complete definition of God would contradict his transcendent nature (Wright, 27).

Empirical arguments on existence of God has be greatly contributed by Thomas Aquinas in Aquinas’s Five Ways where he firstly refers to an initial mover of the universe as the unmoved mover (Sinnott-Armstrong, 84). Aquinas also add that there being a cause to every other cause, there cannot be infinite number of causes so definitely there stands a first cause which is itself uncaused. He also argues on the contingency of human beings that at some point in time there is a possibility that nothing existed making it sensible that there is something with necessary existence known as God. Aquinas also stresses on the degree of goodness to a certain maximum and a supreme intelligent being that control all other ends, whom he refers to God (Sinnott-Armstrong, 84).

Deductive arguments also explain the possible existence of God as self-evident. The logic explained that a clear and distinct idea of an absolutely perfect being contains the idea of actual coexistence. Inductive arguments asserts then existence of God as Highly probabilistic in nature and only reliance in the faith that dismisses those uncertainties (Sinnott-Armstrong, 86).

Knowledge on the existence of god has an effect on how people differ in terms of religion and the moral understanding across these religions. Many people regard religion as a basis or foundation for morality which seems to favor religious arguments for morality other than the moral arguments for the religious beliefs. This connection can be best explained by the existence of God or qualities that are attributed to God (Murphy, 13).

Morality may be based on a theoretical or practical nature where theoretical nature begins with the supposed moral facts that can only be explained on Gods existence and nature account. Practical bit of morality is based on the goodness of an action. Among beings who possess the qualities of being good, there are gradations so that the extents of these attributes is different from one being to another (Murphy, 31). This may mean that some good things are better than other good things. This gradation calls for a maximum scale or level so as there is a best in something or some deed. Existence of objective moral values asserts that God exists.

Murder is the unlawful ending of another human life without justification. Murder is condemned by most societies as perpetrators are seen to have engaged into an action contrary to Gods moral virtues. Human murderers are criminals of the worst kind. However, criminals are people with values too. Criminals share the idea that morality is a remarkable thing that every single person on the planet should possess for a peaceful coexistence (Spitzer, 37). By virtue of every human species, respect for human life guarantees the survival of humanity and any action that involves premeditated killing of a human, contracts the professed value of human life and weakens the energy for species survival.

Human beings are a reflection of God and the virtues expected from them should be nothing less (Wright, 29). God exhibits a nurturing virtue. He is referred to as the creator of life and as it is expected, a creator protects his creation and it’s in the creators mandate to destroy the creation. When a person ends another person’s life unlawfully, it’s a deviation from the objective moral values which ascertains the immorality of the action. Therefore, murder is immoral (Wright, 24).

Morality has a long association with religion. Conceptual understanding of God varies from the different epistemological explanations offered in different religions and also the role of these religions in supporting the knowledge of God. Disparities seen in the religions poses a question as to what might be moral or immoral. Exploration of the religion is more attributed to theism which explains the view of a bodiless, omnipotent, omniscient, eternal, perfectly good and free being who creates and sustains the universe. On the contrary, atheism depicts the absence of belief in the existence of deities.

Lack of belief in existence of deities deduces a lack of belief in existence of God and his attributes (Spitzer, 39). The role that religion plays to instilling Godly virtues to believers has a major impact to how these believers act. Having religion as an element to a morals, it is questionable how or to what level a non-believer will exhibit high morals. While it’s possible for a non-believer to possess high morals from a sensitivity to human basis, it is doubtful how obvious will these attributes transits from one non-believer to another.

Undoubtedly, theist find motivation from divinities to do good.in an attempt to appease their gods, they reflect on the possible consequences to their actions before even embarking on them (Wright, 24). The religious literatures dictates on what is considered good and bad. Extents of their morals is bound to what the deities ask of them. This kind of system upholds the morals because the people are afraid of the unknown that is deep rooted in their faiths. From such a perspective, the believers seem perched on the edges of their seats in anticipation of a catastrophic turn of events when the nonbelievers blowup into rebellion and chaos.

Even so, nonbelievers are capable of behaving morally. Meaningfulness of their moral conduct does not have to come from the belief that God exists, but from a need to peaceful coexistence. Nonbelievers argue that they deserve higher approval to doing the right thing even when the best result is not guaranteed in the end as compared to the believers who draw their motivation to doing right thing only because they anticipate a guaranteed best result in the end (Wright, 30). Nonbelievers advocate for morality to prevail by defending the human rights, promoting peace and even banishing the social injustices from a general human conscious regardless of their unknown tomorrow.it suffices to say that even the nonbelievers can be highly moral people.

Some of the religions in the world today are Buddhism, Christianity, Hinduism, Islam and Judaism, among others. Different religions have differences in the structures and systemic procedures as outlined in their doctrines causing moral disagreements among these religions (Bergmann, 58). Moral disagreements can be featured in instances where clear skills and virtues cannot be discerned when addressing a problem in question. Moral disagreement exists even where skills and virtues are outline clearly but they differ from one religion to other posing a contradicting view of the religious beliefs. Religious disparities of this kind are poisonous to the human kind and may present evidential challenge to given religious beliefs (Spitzer, 37).

Widespread interpersonal disagreement among intellectuals on moral and religious topics has also attributed to the reasons of doubt to these beliefs (Sinnott-Armstrong, 25). Moral issues also arise from the deviations in the common sense moral intuitions and religious belief sources which raises doubts on which of the sources can be relied to adequately. This indistinctness reduce our competence in relying on the evolutional theories that explain our moral and religious beliefs (Spitzer, 37).

An example of disagreement in the philosophy of religion is where theist describe a man’s highest good is to be in loving relationship with God. God’s love to man is expected to be reciprocated in the same way (Bergmann, 61). A challenge is seen in understanding the measure of God’s love to those who do not believe in his existence for the lack of belief is a barrier to the loving relationship between God and man. God’s existence in this case is not as evident as the theist would have made one expect, which suggests a disagreement to whether God really exists.

Moral beliefs have objective truth however, moral disagreement if often cited as a reason to deny this fact (Bergmann, 62). It should be noted that some moral disagreement are universally possible which raises a question of the moral epistemology and the loopholes that are evidently not catered for as far as different religions are concerned.

This situation can be rectified with these ambiguities being addressed to suit the moral nourishment of the human kind. Philosophers have engaged deeply on the matters that the human coexistence relies upon not leaving alone freedom established in the religious sector so each and every mind suits itself where it best fits.

Religious ministers have an equal task in executing their duties in a noble manner.by adopting mechanisms that advocate for religious soundness and integration amongst the people of different religions (Bergmann, 64). This ensures appreciation of every person’s religion, adoption of better morals universally and ultimately curbing of moral disagreement in an entirely major way.

Moral disagreements differs in the sense that firstly, moral claims are not in the business of reporting the facts on the ground but it’s a way in which people express their emotions, controlling others behavior or even taking a stand in support or against a certain thing (Sinnott-Armstrong, 25). Secondly, moral claims can also be in the business of reporting facts that are missed out in certain things. When people act in favor of their interests, attitude or emotions, they are more likely to leave out or act in contrary to the counterparts’ interest, attitude or emotions. This explains the infinite nature of dealing with moral disagreements in the religion today (Murphy, 23). On the other side, dealing with moral disagreements on the basis of adopting facts that are not known to the larger public would be a developmental process to making the world a better place. The infinite nature of solving the moral disagreements is now overrode by the developmental process in the religion dynamics.

Moral humanists are devoted to outlining how different moral claims might have different facts and extents of truth when properly understood. By showing that disagreements are actually compactible with their commitments, moral realist will be able to counter the arguments that come along with the moral disagreements in the religions we have today (Murphy, 13).

Appreciating the religious differences is a step to recognize that differences are not just mere differences but also some kind of disagreements. Understanding this make participants of each religion understand that holding contradictory moral claims is possible rather than the impression of each side justifying itself on expense of the other (Bergmann, 64).

References

Spitzer, Robert J. New Proofs for the Existence of God: Contributions of Contemporary Physics and Philosophy. Grand Rapids, Mich: William B. Eerdmans Pub, 2010. Print.

Sinnott-Armstrong, Walter. Morality Without God?Oxford: Oxford University Press, USA, 2009. Internet resource.

Murphy, Mark C. God and Moral Law: On the Theistic Explanation of Morality. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011. Print

Wright, Christopher J. H. Thinking Through Religion: Book 1. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003. Print.

Bergmann, Michael, and Patrick Kain. Challenges to Moral and Religious Belief: Disagreement and Evolution. , 2014. Print.