Essay Sample on Religious Beliefs Religious Beliefs

Introduction

A person is inclined to follow certain religious beliefs through faith, reason or both and that is fideism, strong rationalism or critical rationalism respectively. All are based on assumptions with the only difference being which areas are assumed. A fideist is a believer of faith such that no reason is needed for one to follow the teachings of a specific religious movement. It is not a must to conduct an investigation or research in an attempt to find compelling evidence that will be used to support what one believes in or otherwise does not. Unlike in fideism, a strong rationalist concludes the validity of religious beliefs after accumulating adequate evidence through assumedly correct means. The information gathered is the determiner of which side one is on, and that is either supporting or opposing. However, a critical rationalist disagrees with both of these cases since there is no conclusion despite one supporting or opposing the culture of a religious movement. The aspects of both fideism and strong rationalism are used to determine the kind of a believer one is when using critical rationalism. It entails that religious belief-system have to be investigated and evaluated although no findings are sufficient enough to make a compelling conclusion.

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Save 25%

It is, therefore, right to say that in fideism, the believers assume what they know is correct and nothing can be said or done can change their mind and whoever tries to look for extra information to prove these assumptions is a non-believer or has little faith. In strong rationalism, however, it is assumed that the means used to collect supporting details are correct and, thus, the findings obtained regarding certain religious beliefs can be used to deliver a conclusion. In critical rationalism, assumptions are made in two areas, and that is the ways used in gathering information and what to believe. Since no conclusion is made, the believer assumes that the points used in supporting or opposing are of significance only that one side is more compelling the other and, hence, they determine what to believe.

The writer is more supportive of critical rationalism as he believes it provides a considerably appropriate ground to show undivided commitment, dedication and self-trust. One does not need a conclusion to understand or agree with what a particular religious movement teaches or support. Also, one is not obliged to follow certain beliefs or else be attributed to lack of faith or be seen as a non-believer. He argues that it is essential to have an unwavering stand that is based on one's believes and what is known or taught and rather not a conclusion that has been made through research intended to prove which side is right or wrong. It shows that the believer is committed and trustworthy to one side and does not need to have compelling proof to prove one's loyalty. True believers are determined to stick to their religion and do not expect to divide their loyalty with other spiritual ideologies because they have discovered certain information that might be having some supposed truth about them. The writer, therefore, although critical rationalism creates tension due to the need of having a rational and open mental attitude, it is the best as it depicts the willingness of reflective religious people.

Why I Am Not a Christian

Although he is not attacking or condemning the followers of Christianity, Bertrand Russell elaborates various reasons of why he is not a Christian. He believes that contemporarily the word 'Christian' is used by people who need a good life. Russell argues that one should have a certain level of belief to declare oneself a Christian. Also, he says that there are two things associated with Christianity; believing in God and immortality, and Christ as the best and wisest of all men of which he does not do.

In the discussion of why he is not a Christian, Russell gives several reasons such as using several examples to show that God does not. First, the first cause argument is not valid that suggests that God created the universe and all its contents. Everything must have come from something including God if this is the case, so if he is the cause, where did he come from? Thus, the best explanation to this is that the world never had a beginning and God never existed. Second, it is the case of natural law where God was the initial giver of the laws that are used are followed in the world. Natural laws describe how people behave so no way someone could have made them. It is only God who could have made them, but it depends on whether he had reasons or not. If not, then there no one gave them but if otherwise, he is subject to those laws; hence, he could not be the ultimate lawgiver implying God does not exist.

Third, no evidence to support how the world and everything in it are designed of which is purported to have been created by God. Everything is as it is because that is natural and nothing is in charge or going to change it even for a million years in the future. Therefore, there is no God who the people expect will one day change how the universe operates. Fourth, if God exists, then there might be another superior deity who was giving orders to him or else he is not good as religious movements suppose. The explanation to this is that there might be or no difference between right and wrong depending on whether it is within God's order. If there is, then this would mean there is no essence of suggesting that God is good. If otherwise, then it is not within his orders depicting that he is not above everything or everyone else implying that he does not exist. Fifth, God is supposed to bring justice to the world, but that is not the case considering that the good continue suffering while the wicked prosper. Things would be different if he existed of which they are not because he does not, and people only believe because they were taught to since their infancy. Also, it is true that people feel safe when told there is a deity waiting to console them in heaven and this boosts their faith in Christianity.

The other reason why the writer is a non-Christian is how the self-proclaimed Christians do not follow the teachings of Christ. They do almost everything the opposite of what he taught such as judging others whereas he said this is wrong. Moreover, they do not reciprocate his behaviors implying that he was not the wisest as depicted since the followers illustrate the opposite. They are always involved in numerous cases of evilness yet he taught of moral values; thus, there is no essence of becoming a Christian whereas there some people who might be above him such as Buddha and Socrates. Furthermore, it is apparent people are religious because of fear. They fear of being criticized in society or else they need to be considered virtuous, and yet this is where moral decay is intense. The fear of supernatural beings, death, and defeat has influenced many to stick to religion where all the cruelty is found. People are being subjected to suffering and unhappiness in their lives since those in religious movements do not believe morals could be responsible for human happiness. Therefore, Russell thinks that the best thing is to be real; forget about the ancient God conception and conquer the world using intelligence.

Peterson, M. L., Hasker, W., Reichenbach, B., & Basinger, D. (1998). Reason & religious belief: an introduction to the philosophy of religion (pp. 116-145). New York: Oxford University Press.

Russell, B. (1967). Why I am not a Christian: and other essays on religion and related subjects. Simon and Schuster.