Your search returned over 400 essays for "Religion"
I may be exceedingly late with this, but it seems that a lot of the problems from this essay stem from the fact that the author sees a problem that certain kinds of beliefs about the nature of the universe do not fit the definitions of "religion" he presents in the essay, though in his personal opinion they should. Specifically this is the case for atheism, pantheism, and deism. However, considering that at least to my knowledge all of these lack other aspects commonly shared by religions, such as organized worship or codified rules that must be adhered by observers of the religion, I would contend that it is actually very much correct that these are not actually religions.
ListX, I'm too lazy to read your essay (again?) to find out your definition of "religion", but it strikes me that it might be so broad as to be meaningless. 23:17, 12 April 2009 (EDT)
» » Religion We have 3781 essays on "Religion"
Any work (book, address, essay, etc.) presented or published in 2012 or subsequently will be eligible for consideration. Nominations are invited from religious organizations, appropriate academic associations, religious leaders and scholars, presidents of universities or schools of religion, publishers and editors of scholarly journals. Self-nominations will not be accepted. There will be no discrimination based on religious affiliation or belief or lack thereof. The Award Committee encourages submissions from a wide variety of intellectual and/or religious perspectives. Previous winners are not eligible for subsequent awards.
essay of religion essay for scholarship essay on the importance of religion in life in hindi language how to write a winning schIn different forms the argument may be given a rough edge (forexample, imagine that if you do not believe in God and there is a God,hell is waiting). It may be put as an appeal to individualself-interest (you will be better off) or more generally (believerswhose lives are bound together can realize some of the goodscomprising a mature religious life). Objectors worry about whether oneever is able to bring choices down to just such a narrowselection—for example, to choose either theism ornaturalism. Some think the argument is too thoroughly egotistic andthus offensive to religion. Many of these objections have generatedsome plausible replies (Rescher 1985). For a thoroughgoing explorationof the relevant arguments, see the collection of essays edited byJeffrey Jordan (1994).
Philosophy This Essay Religion VsIn most countries of the world, people are free to belong to whatever religion they choose. This is generally thought of as a basic . However, there are parts of the world where it is illegal (against the law) to witness to any religion except the one accepted by the government of the country. People who belong to other religions may be threatened, put in jail or murdered.
01.09.2017 · A world religion paper can seem intimidating at first. Simply break the religion down into smaller elements can help. One is an overview of the origins.Various replies to the freedom-foreknowledge debate have beengiven. Some adopt compatibilism, affirming the compatibility offree will and determinism, and conclude that foreknowledge is no morethreatening to freedom than determinism. While some prominentphilosophical theists in the past have taken this route (mostdramatically Jonathan Edwards in the eighteenth century), this seems tobe the minority position in philosophy of religion today (exceptionsinclude Paul Helm and Lynne Baker). A second positionadheres to the libertarian outlook, which insists that freedom involvesa radical, indeterminist exercise of power, and concludes that Godcannot know future free action. What prevents such philosophersfrom denying that God is omniscient is that they contend there are notruths about future free actions, or that while there aretruths about the future, God freely decides not to know them in order topreserve free choice. On the first view, prior to someone'sdoing a free action, there is no fact of the matter that he or she willdo a given act. This is in keeping with a traditional, butcontroversial, interpretation of Aristotle's philosophy of timeand truth. Aristotle may have thought it was neither true norfalse prior to a given sea battle whether a given side would winit. Some theists, such as Richard Swinburne, adopt this linetoday, holding that the future cannot be known. If it cannot beknown for metaphysical reasons, then omniscience can be analyzed asknowing all that it is possible to know. That God cannot knowfuture free action is no more of a mark against God's being omniscientthan God's inability to make square circles is a mark against God'sbeing omnipotent. Other philosophers deny the original paradox. Theyinsist that God's foreknowledge is compatible with libertarian freedomand seek to resolve the quandary by claiming that God is not bound intime (God does not so much foreknow the future as God knows what forus is the future from an eternal viewpoint) and by arguing that theunique vantage point of an omniscient God prevents any impingement onfreedom. God can simply know the future without this having to begrounded on an established, determinate future. But this only works ifthere is no necessity of eternity analogous to the necessity of thepast. Why think that we have any more control over God's timelessbelief than over God's past belief? If not, then there is an exactlyparallel dilemma of timeless knowledge. For outstanding currentanalysis of freedom and foreknowledge, see the work of LindaZagzebski.