Different psychological sciences

Different psychological science hypotheses explain God, His existence, and how individuals believe in Him in different ways. Some argue that believing in God is outmoded, while others defend it. According to Michael Lacewing, the various beliefs that God exists stem from deep psychological desires that humans have. The reason for this is that individuals are continually looking for consolation and reassurance in their life. To back this viewpoint, he illustrates how religion depicts the universe exactly as humans would like it to be. Religious experiences, he claims, are based on wishes or dreams that humans are oblivious of. Hence, they are believable because they make everything to seem okay which is comforting to individuals. Therefore, humans have faith in the existence of God merely because they desire to have a mightier power to that reassures them. That concept supports the phenomena of belief in God by human beings regardless of their reasons.

Contrary, traditionally the art of believing in God was a means of explaining the mysteries about the origin and other phenomena such as morals (Pinker 2008). However, scientific theories negate that fact hence, make the belief in God obsolete. For instance, it justified how the world came to be through the story of how God created the world and all that exists in it out of nothing. Further, it defines the basis of good or evil morals fundamentally derived from the Ten Commandments. Therefore, people classified what is good or bad based on the Commandments and consequently, the means to reward good deeds and how to punish wrongdoings. For that reason, it is justifiable to state that in the past people did not look for comfort in the existence of God. Instead, they believed and relied on Him to guide them on how to live their lives. They also looked for answers through the Godly ways of living life.

However, scientific philosophies explain the origin of the world from chemistry and physics point of view. Consequently, that negates the story how God created the world from nothing and in his image. There are examples of such scientific philosophies that make the belief of God obsolete (Harrison 2012). One of such examples is one by Nicholas Copernicus, a canon at the Frombork Cathedral, who presented ideas on the earth’s scientific revolution. Another scientist that supported that idea was the Astronomer Johannes Kepler. He described the planetary motion with the mathematical laws that he developed to explain the plan of the universe. Issac Newton is also famous for emphasizing the gravity of the earth scientifically. More so, there have been technical attempts to unveil the truth of Christianity using chemistry. Robert Boyle, believed that using scientific advances he would be able to explain that reality. These few case scenarios prove how psychological science models make the belief in God obsolete.

Nevertheless, the above scientific investigations took into consideration theistic belief. That is to mean that science does not entirely exist on its own but is supported by the faith in God. The scientists, Kepler and Newton, appreciated that science does not explain the mathematical intelligibility of nature, but it makes scientific explanation possible. Thus the existence of life is made possible by God and science explains the occurrences.

Regrettably, there are no psychological science-based arguments for God. The cases that exist are either experience based or philosophy based. They fail to give a scientific background and support to the existence and belief in God. One of them is the Ontological Argument. The name of the argument was derived from the word “ontos” which means ”being”. The argument was coined by the Archbishop of Canterbury, St. Anselm. He expressed that faith proceeds to understand. To expound deeper, he used the Latin phrase, ”Fides quaerens intellectum” which means to seek faith in understanding the existence of God. He demonstrated that God must exist necessarily and rationally (Karahalis, 2013). Subsequently, to explain the mysteries of the world, their presence has to be supported by the fact that God made them. Hence, it begins with us believing in God and that he made the world. His theory, however, is criticized for being a logical, rational syllogism because based on pure reason rather than an argument from experience and observation. Therefore, he should have done a scientific analysis to support his statement.

Another is the teleological argument. It is known to be among the strongest experience-based arguments that strive to accomplish the utter authenticity of God’s existence. The word ”teleology” is derived from the Greek word ”telos” which means ”purpose” or ”end.” It expounds that everything in nature has its essential inner purpose. That is to mean that, everything has an objective end in the earth. Further, he stressed that nature possesses an ingrained order and rationale. To prove that he gave the example of human reproduction and explained how each stage has a purpose to develop into something else to form a human. Irrefutably, the world has a logical order. And undeniably, that order can only be the product of a divine intelligent being who is the creator (Karahalis 2013). Conclusively, this theory proves there is a God.

References

Eric Anthony Karahalis (2013). Philosophy of Religion: Does God Exist? Sophia Project. Phylosophy Archives. Retrieved from http://www.sophiaproject.org/uploads/1/3/9/5/13955288/karahalis_phiofreligion.pdf

Peter Harrison. (2012). Does science make belief in God obsolete?ABC Religion and Ethics. Retrieved from http://www.abc.net.au/religion/articles/2012/04/11/3475004.html

Steven Pinker. (2008). Does science make belief in God obsolete?John Templeton Foundation. Supporting Science – Investing in the big questions.Retrieved from https://andrewjmonaco.files.wordpress.com/2012/10/templeton-science-religion.pdf