Necessity of Religion Essay Example

Many scholars, philosophers and intellects have argued about the necessity of religion in the past. They have discussed the importance of faith to humanity. While the majority of the philosophers agree with the need to have a religion to guide the humankind in his daily activities, others have strived to explain the shortcomings of religion by faulting their beliefs and practices and rendering them faulty. As noted by Alfred Korzybski, every man must choose between two options when it comes to issues concerning religion, "To believe everything or to doubt everything. Both ways save us from thinking," (Moyers, no date). The argument on religion is based on the first cause argument as explained by Bertrand Russell in the famous speech titled, "Why I Am Not a Christian" and delivered at the Battersea Town Hall in 1927 (Russell, 1927). The philosophers, both pro and anti-religious, agree that if anyone rightfully explains the origin of religion, he would carry the day.

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

Save 25%

Russell begins his criticism of religion by defining Christianity. According to Russell, for one to be considered a Christian, he has to subscribe to two profound rules; first, one must believe in God and immortality and second, you must believe in Christ. He argues that if this were true, then all the people who believe in Mohammed and other religions would be wrong. He does not think that all the hundreds of Muslims, Buddhists and fetish worshippers got it wrong and that it is only the Christians who got it right. This, therefore, makes him doubt the Christian belief as well as all other religious beliefs.

Kant's discourses of possible reason are not associated with his record of down to earth reason. His recordings of truth, sound technique and the restricted experiences of possible reason are unpredictable, similar to his perspective of using logic and moral quality. Nobody questions that learning and rational inquiry, no not as much as the activity, are liable to requests of levelheadedness. Notwithstanding, if Kant's record of the reason is based as O'Neill most importantly has contended in maintaining a strategic distance from standards of inquiry and of activity that others can't likewise embrace, it is conceivable to see the hidden solidarity of these requests. We would comprehend, for instance, why Kant so strenuously opposes cases to otherworldly understanding. To offer specialist to such cases those of disclosure and religious expert, for example, would be nonsensical seeing that they lay on standards of conviction that can't be received by all.

Basic the trouble of blending and translating Kant's record of the reason is, apparently, the colossal inquiry of what logic is. Numerous rationalists both contemporary and recorded figures continue as though this were at that point clear. Be that as it may, when this inquiry is brought up the issue of reason's self-information, as Kant puts it is hard to see the justification for such certainty. While the auxiliary writing examining her proposition stays restricted, O'Neill's translation of Kant speaks to an enthusiastic and unmistakable response to this inquiry.

O'Neill (2000) arranges the Kantian record of reason against three options, which she names the instrumental, the communitarian, and the stickler. The primary stays exceptionally across the board: with Hume, it views helpful thinking as a major. The second considers motivation to be installed inside complex conventions: soundness is the thing that a given custom or network takes it to compose. A third alternative likened to the types of realism that Kant contradicted, is to consider motivation to be an individual ability to perceive or intuit regularising certainties. Every one of the three records flop in giving contemplated legitimisation to a few crowds. The instrumental reasoner is responsible to nobody truth be told, to nothing separated from whatever wants or finishes he happens to have. Somebody who takes her specific custom to characterise what convictions and practices consider sensible can have little to state to the individuals who remain outside it. Also, the individual who trusts he can intuit what is tremendous or genuine will be quiet or more regrettable even with those with different instincts.

On the translations progressed by Saner, O'Neill, Neiman, and others, Kant knew about every one of these alternatives and rejected each. We saw over that Kant describes reason as far as a self-reflexive system. The idea is self-sufficient and submits to no outside power; it picks up power from presenting itself to study, and investigate includes dismissing any method of reasoning or acting that can't be received by all. In less theoretical terms, the self-investigation of the reason is an examination by every one of the individuals who request support for a specific method of thought or activity. Such a view does not accept that we are intrinsically bound to our interests and tendencies (as the instrumental record does). It doesn't request that we depend on what others do acknowledge (as the communitarian account does). It doesn't include the dream that we know or intuit what everybody ought to admit (as the fussbudget account does). It proposes, instead, an idea of individuals who can venture over from their specific tendencies, propensities, and instincts, and who will utilise this capacity to look for terms that all can acknowledge building an intersubjective request of conjunction, correspondence, and participation on terms that all can accept.

Such a record relies upon a specific elucidation of Kant's writings and is both goal-oriented and very intricate in its repercussions. In any case, if fruitful, it catches two great attractions of Kant's philosophising: a universalism that rises above conceit and network limits, and unobtrusiveness that regards the points of confinement of human understanding. Russell goes ahead to talk about the existence of God. There is no provable explanation of the existence of God, a thing that worries Russell. He argues that realising the significant gap in information, and the Catholic Church developed a theory that states that God existed before time; that He was always in existence. This ought to silence critics and to satisfy Christians to believe in the deity who was there at the beginning of time. He disagrees with this theory terming it baseless and untruthful. He further explores the first cause argument to give weight to his assertion that religion is baseless. He explains that everything in this world has a cause. The primary cause argument entails about getting the root source of phenomena experienced in today's world. The philosopher digs back at the origin of the phenomena to find out what it is. For Christians, Russell explains that their first cause is God. However, there is no proof of this. He alludes to John Stuart's book, Autobiography, where John Stuart states that his father told him that the question "who made me" cannot be answered because it would elicit other questions like "who made God".

Russell explores the natural law argument which deals with the state of natural phenomena in the world. He explores the force of gravity which pulls all things to the centre of the earth as well as the solar system which revolves around the sun. He considers Einstein's discoveries about the earth and does not see any religion them. He questions why the Holy Book omits other planets when explaining the formation of the world. This supports his argument that religion, and more so, Christianity does not solve the origin of the earth, neither does it explain the origin of God, and is, therefore, not accurate.

Conclusion

Betrend Russell, Stephen Palmquist and Bill Moyers had unique views about religion, the necessity of faith or lack thereof. What is common among these philosophers is that they all have vital points to put across. They have done substantial research that gives their views and theories much weight, and therefore, has valid arguments. However, they all lack to give defined solutions to their questions. They do not provide guidance on what the readers should do, follow or believe in. They leave this to the readers to decide.

References

Moyers, B. (no date). Perspectives on Belief and Doubt. Retrieved from Public Broadcasting Service: http://www.pbs.org/moyers/faithandreason/perspectives4.html

Russell, B. (1927). Why I Am Not a Christian. Retrieved from The Bertrand Russell Society: https://users.drew.edu/~jlenz/whynot.html