Paper Example on Atheism: Culture vs. Divine Morality in the 21st Century

As time changes, the degree of Western people fearing God lowers. In the 21st century, culture, technology, political practices, and other social norms are more feared than God. The aspect of good is perceived as natural or human-oriented, unlike in history, where God is the founder and sustainer of morality (Cherry, 2018, Pg. 615). Philosophers have, in time, argued the point of dilemma that exists between the relation of culture change and God. This is called Atheism, and it is the vise-versa of any religion that believes in the supremacy of beings- Atheist's arguments are catching. The majority of people in western life are turning it to culture. Philosophers like Kant, Aristotle, and Tristan all agree that there is a topic of controversy in the current world (Cherry, 2018, Pg. 615). 'Morality' and 'Good' are the norms of atheism concentration. This critique aims to evaluate the various points of the controversial state existing between atheists and Socrates in a philosophical dimension.

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

Save 25%

Various authors comment on the journal of 'After God' some extending the analysis while some are criticizing the text. All these converge to the point that God is eliminated slowly from the existing moral frameworks and social trends, reorganizing the ranging strengths in an atheism gain. God is related to morality, but Atheism relates morality as part of achievements by nature. For example, a philosopher named Maurizio in 'After God' article argues that there are challenging issues of Engelhardt's philosophical stand bearing that believes, and perception of God by a human is prone to political and healthcare policies, which are convective to human in practicality. Maurizio Mori is for the point that readers have to consider natural frameworks as this takes a good point of tradition and religious out view (Cherry, 2018, Pg. 616)

On the same point of evaluating Engelhardt's view, in their ethical texts, Fiala and Barbara philosophically argue that human minds are great to positive thinking and can transform weakness to the justification for personal gain. They say that the topic of religion and human dwelling cannot remain the same forever as minds develop the existing aspects, and these aspects are the pillars of Atheism. It is clear that these philosophers conclude that God is an aspect of morality, but time is the determinant of the extension or change to ethics through globalization (MacKinon & Fiala, 2020, Pg.19). Atheists support the functionality of human minds in doing innovative things that are not harmful to human life. For example, Fiala and Barbra portray the necessity of creative living in the illustration of atheist cartoonists who draws the Caliculture of prophets and saints in the way of entertainment. The case of cartoons of naked persons in the bible-to them bible is a reference book like others, and it is authored generated.

This is a point of controversy, as Socrates believes that human is disregarding God and his molarity (MacKinon & Fiala, 2020, Pg. 21). In the same text example, Pastor Terry argues that America is God founded. Therefore there should be respect to God, and this is a religious viewpoint that the Americans find it awkward for a historical precedent of culture and the changing world, to the Western domination free minds; this is not a point of freedom. Still, allegations are demanding followership and mind bounding (MacKinon & Fiala, 2020, Pg. 17). This is the controversial or dilemma point of God's morality and modern bioethics of change.

Although the context of after God acknowledges that the Western culture has never inducted the concept of God, Engelhardt recognizes that atheists have been there since the dawn of time, and freedom is diverse. Therefore, moral purism is not new, and a Socrates official approach of such is ultimately not significant (Cherry, 2018, Pg. 617). This point is crucial in explaining why religion and culture cannot converge to God's common perspective. To support this, the example of philosopher Thomas Nigel's argument is sufficient and matches with Engelhardt's philosophical point (Cherry, 2018, Pg. 626). Thomas argues that the epistemic state of God and Western culture are two correct points of freedom. He says that if there is anyone responsible for controlling the universe, then there will be no sense of independence that we have as humanity would be devoted and depending on such God. Thomas continues that there is no particular reference that the universe would lack anything like it does (Cherry, 2018, Pg. 618). American norms believe in hard work and positive attributes as the sources of morality and not God (Cherry, 2018, Pg. 626).

Fiala and Barbra discuss the point of the morality of purism as a philosophical context of freedom to beliefs and performance. The two philosophers argue based on other philosophical standings from Kant and a variety of other deep thinkers (MacKinon & Fiala, 2020, Pg.27). These activists analyze various cases, such as Henry David and Thoreau, to Mohmand Gandhi. These philosophers believe that this is a choice that exists between political and religious followership. Similarly, western culture is, but a decision like religion is equally a choice (MacKinon & Fiala, 2020, Pg.26). The point is further portrayed by Fiala and Barbra's open field to identify what we need and deserve. For example, According to Kanti and other thinkers, there should not be an allegation of God's disregard in a community that never believed in that God at first (MacKinon & Fiala, 2020, Pg.34).

Euthyphro's dilemma by Essien argues the points of the existence of God between atheists and Socrates. Yes, in western culture, human respect to fellow human life. In his writing, a philosopher named Essien argues that Socrates has it that God is good, but the same reference book, bible, states that good is God, and therefore, 'good' is 'good' even without God. Indeed there is a dilemma in this interpretation (Essien, 2018, Pg. 145). What Essien lays into accord is the essence of natural law against the divine power theory. In the same work authored by Essien, the contribution of Epthpral is of considerable significance; this philosopher lays arguments that there exists evil, which is the opposite of good, and as Socrates put it, evil is power opposing to God. The philosopher's point is that if the supreme Socrates God is the alpha of all, then that God is the alpha of evil as 'all' means everything that can be mentioned (Essien, 2018, Pg. 147). This confrontation seems to be on the atheist win as the Socrates cannot elaborate on these philosophical views.

The philosophical approach to the divine theory adds knowledge to the Euthyphro dilemma. The author, Tomasino, argues that God is a conception of morality as per the social rates. Still, there is no enough evidence to promote this to such a conclusion (Tomasino, 2008, Pg. 141). The biblical aspect of sin is not justifying why crime is related to God and on the same point why God cannot use the supremacy to diminish the evil. Therefore, Atheism points out that the approach to evil as a perpetual will of humanity is correct. Although there is a better explanation of why God is a creation of morality, Atheist and traditional Western culture are better interactive norms regarding the natural way humans live (Tomasino, 2008, Pg. 142). For example, in his philosophical analysis book, Tomasino argues that the religious belief is only a conception of what is essential and what is wrong in morality (Tomasino, 2008, Pg. 141). His arguments are, the divine theory is a postulate that is meant to lead humanity to a moral living way rather than what is understood by the Socrates.

Another good example is the explanation given by Martin Luther King Junior, who concluded that civil disobedience is on morality and not on God avocation. Luthur Junior develops his ideas that Indian independence is much relying on the violent Gnha and the nonviolent Ahimsa. Transferring this situation to the western culture, Atheism, and religion should not be on a fight to reach a universal morality goal (MacKinon & Fiala, 2020, Pg.29).

Engelhardt concludes that morality and humanitarian are two compatible practices that will ever remain whether on Western culture on the religious view. Philosophers Fiala and Barbra are in support of the work done by Engelhardt, evident in the conclusion example of moral pluralism described. In the case of Philosopher Ross, who argues that basic goodness is realized at any norm of life and duties meant for humanity will remain primary, human interaction is inevitable. Although western culture is fading the projection of God away, all beings will remain equally in the purity of morals and the implementation of duties (MacKinon & Fiala, 2020, Pg.39).

Work Cited

Cherry, M., 2018. Bioethics After the Death of God. The Journal of Medicine and Philosophy: A Forum for Bioethics and Philosophy of Medicine, 43(6), pp.615-630.

Essien, Essien, ed. Handbook of Research on the Impact of Culture in Conflict Prevention and Peacebuilding. IGI Global, 2020.

MacKinon, B. and Fiala, A., 2020. Ethics: Theory And Contemporary Issues. [online] Google Books. Available at: <https://books.google.co.ke/books?id=Us65DQAAQBAJ&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false> [Accessed 10 July 2020].

Tomasino, Anthony J. Written Upon the Heart: The Ten Commandments for Today's Christian. Wipf and Stock Publishers, 2008.