My Doctrine Of Balance Essay, Research Paper
My Doctrine of Balance
Balance. Our universe depends upon it physically, psychologically, and spiritually. This rule, although easy to overlook, is the foundation of my personal doctrine. Without balance there is no harmoniousness, no struggle and no growing. Any productive consequence, any accomplishment, any strength is useless without it.
The balance in my universe is achieved by these cardinal beliefs: God exists, and yet evil exists ; all humanity does have free will and all these beliefs contribute to the development of a significance for life. All of these beliefs are constituents of each other, an interdependent relationship that creates my personal doctrine. Each value? s engagement in my concluding belief is measured and balanced to a precise sum, go forthing an terminal consequence of harmoniousness, certainty, belief and religion.
I. God exists
Of all the inquiries that face adult male, the inquiry of God? s being is the most of import. This is true non merely for a individual? s redemption, but because of the manner this will act upon all other beliefs. A belief in God will move like a polarising factor in person? s life, impacting the manner that they think and ground about about anything. If a individual does non believe in God, this excessively will do great alteration in the manner that life is perceived.
The alteration that this belief brings to a individual is best illustrated by Immanuel Kant? s proposition that certain conditions change our ability to perceive things. Kant? s predication is described by Jostein Gaarder, who writes, ? there are certain conditions regulating the head? s operation which influence the manner we experience the universe? ( p. 326 ) . Although this account of Kant was mentioning to how clip and infinite influence our ability to ground, this would besides widen to a belief in God. A belief in God influences all countries of a individual? s life, particularly the intent and purpose of what our lives mean, or should intend.
The inquiry of God? s being has been debated in doctrine to great lengths. E.K. Daniel has listed all common philosophical statements for the being of God in his essay? A Defense of Theism? , dwelling of The Ontological Argument, The First-Cause Argument, The Argument of Contingency, The Design Argument, The Moral Argument, The Argument from Religious Experience, and The Natural Law Argument ( p. 260 ) . These statements are familiar to any basic pupil of doctrine, along with the reviews that have been raised by philosophers such as Ernest Nagel in his essay? The Case for Atheism? ( p. 274-283 ) . These statements have about reached a practical deadlock, since at that place seems to be every bit much rational cogent evidence against the being of God as there is ardor to believe in God. K.D. Ellis states this by stating? They may offer some support for the plausibleness of the belief in a God, but they are non sufficiently strong plenty to oblige our acquiescence to the decision that a God exists? ( p. 297 ) . This difference of perspective consequences in theism, godlessness and agnosticism.
One of the rational grounds that I offer as cogent evidence of God? s being is precisely because of the deadlock of this argument. Given this, the deductive argument/thesis that I pose for the being of God is:
If God exists, he wants people to believe in Him through religion ( If A, so B ) .
For religion to be at that place must non be irrefutable cogent evidence of God? s being ( If B, so C ) .
Therefore, God exists because there is no irrefutable cogent evidence of God? s being ( If A, so C ) .
It is prudent to specify the footings of this statement. My definition of? God? is precisely as Ellis defined: ? a being who is ( deemed to be ) omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, perfect, space, ageless, supernatural, and therefore transcendent to the natural existence & # 8230 ; the God of traditional theism? ( p. 296 ) . My position of God is that he is a being with a echt personality, character traits and intelligence that exponentially surpass that of human existences. It is hard to accurately specify God, since the footings that we use to depict Him affect conceptualisation that is far beyond our ability to conceive of. This God would be the farthest realisation of any positive characteristic that we possess, including the facet of equity. This construct of equity, which we as worlds adore but rarely adhere to, would represent a God of balance, equality and benevolence.
By exists, I mean that God is alive, with full power and ability. I define faith as being? the assured outlook of things hoped for, ? similar to the definition that is found in scriptural text. Through reference of? irrefutable cogent evidence? I mean that a rational statement or physical manifestation that would or could happen that would turn out to all humanity, irrespective of their single degree of incredulity, that God does so be.
To analyse this thesis, allow us get down with the inquiry of the necessity of religion. Does God truly require religion in him for a individual to be considered a true retainer? The lone manner that this can be answered is through God? s written word, the Bible. In the Bible, it is written at John 3:16: ? For God loved the universe so much that he gave his only-begotten Son, in order that everyone exerting religions in him might non be destroyed but have everlasting life? ( p. 1330 ) . Jesus besides stated that it was faith that would find if a individual would portion in God? s wagess of the hereafter at John 11:25 by stating, ? I am the Resurrection and the life. He that exercises religion in me, even though he dies, will come to life ; and everyone that is populating and exercisings faith in me will ne’er decease at all? ( p. 1345 ) . Ephesians 4:5 speaks of? one Lord, one religion, one baptism, ? ( p. 1460 ) further demoing that religion is an indispensable portion of being a retainer of God. In Bible upon Bible, it is clear that religion is so an indispensable, if non one of the most of import factors in idolizing God.
The following measure is to analyse how cogent evidence would impact religion. If there were undeniable cogent evidence that God exists, would at that place be any that would non believe in him? I can non conceive of a individual rational head that would actively defy God ( although accounting for the diverseness of humanity, there might be a few ) , but no rational-thinking individual would hold any pick than to accept that God exists, and to give themselves to His worship. In fact, the full ground that there are divisions in philosophical circles between the theist, atheist and agnostic is because of the unproved nature of God? s being. Ellis bases his full determination to be an agnostic because? there is no good ground for anyone to believe the being of a God? ( p. 297 ) . Bertrand Russell describes the construct of God as? a construct derived from the ancient Oriental absolutism & # 8230 ; a construct rather unworthy of free work forces? ( p. 294 ) . Bing rational, believing work forces, would non their construct alteration if there were irrefutable cogent evidence? Of class, as all rational people are willing to accept new thoughts when proven to them.
What so, becomes of religion? Simply put, there would be no religion. There would be no challenge and no benefit from believing in God. Make the inquiry of God? s being into an reply, and the full nature of each individual? s relationship and belief regarding God would be changed. This would be unacceptable to God. The almighty, almighty God that I envision would non be satisfied with a relationship built upon blazing cogent evidence such as this. It is the seeking of God, the willingness to take a base to proclaim God? s belief, the love of God and the religion in God that creates the particular relationship of being in? God? s grace. ? Obviously, for this sort of particular relationship to happen, there must non be irrefutable rational cogent evidence of God? s being? the really act of oppugning, and replying this inquiry by each person is what creates the particular nature of a relationship with God.
I can visualise the critics? response to this statement. It might be said that this is a? round? signifier of logical thinking, since nearing this statement from another path would bespeak that if there were cogent evidence of God that He would non be. It may look irrational, but I would hold with this statement. If there were cogent evidence of God, the God that we believe in ( as defined above ) would non be. The God that manifests the qualities of this definition would non desire to hold zombis as topics. The God of our definition above would desire a particular relationship that was based on more than rational credence of his being. If there were so irrefutable truths of God? s being, so the God that did be would be non be the God that we have envisioned, worshipped, or even inadequately defined as now.
Therefore, I believe the thesis: God exists.
II. Evil exists
Remembering that the God we have defined is a animal dedicated to the highest criterions of balance, this would demand that we accept that if good exists, evil must be excessively. Whether speech production of moral or physical immorality, these must be for good to be every bit good. The thought of a? harmoniousness of antonyms? is non sole to the God of traditional theism. Native Americans have long believed that for good to be, that immorality must besides as presented by the Golden Mean issue ( Bruchac, p. 59 ) . The Oriental faith of Taoism speaks of the Chinese alchemical symbol of the yin and the yang, and how antonyms must be as an mutuality for either to be at all ( Eshleman, p. 276 ) .
Expression at the universe around us: for each property or quality, there is a clear antonym. Whether day/night, up/down, inside/outside or good/evil, there is ever a positive or negative opposite number. This is even true in the universe of natural philosophies, such as in the negative and positive charges of negatrons. There is a ground for Po
larity in our universe because much like the Taoist belief, this? harmoniousness of antonyms? must be in all state of affairss of our universe.
This stands true when sing how belief in God? s being affects our ability to accommodate our vision of Him as almighty when evil exists. Let us get down by looking at a simple illustration, how we function as parents. Surely, we have the ability to protect our kids from any injury at all, if we are willing to travel to great lengths to make so. This kid might really populate in protective? bubble? designed to forbid any source or infection from making the kid. We may enforce rigorous censoring on any reading or composing stuffs to do certain that the kid ne’er additions knowledge that evil exists. We might do certain that the kid has no equals, to forestall any acquisition of immorality or anything negative at all. This kid would populate in a controlled environment that would be safe from any catastrophe, any accident, and any possibility of hurt. Yes, we have the ability to hammer a? kid? that would ne’er hold any construct or experience of immorality, but would we make that? On the contrary, a individual that treated a kid like this would be looked upon as an maltreater instead than a loving parent.
A loving parent realizes that immorality is an contingency that all kids will finally see. Rather than seeking to modify the environment to take evil from their appreciation, we instill morality and character that will assist this developing individual to last, and in fact, victory over evil. Would non God, our male parent, act consequently but at even a superior degree? Yes, God could take all immorality from the universe. However, being the God of balance that he is, recognizing that a? harmoniousness of antonyms? is necessary to accomplish completion, and leting us to see these things are all an unconditioned portion of Him.
Critics of this place could mention many statements against this, but I would reply all their places with one statement: as outlined above, we could conceivably take ( virtually ) all evil from a kid? s life, but we would construe that as a terrible wrong-doing & # 8230 ; why would we anticipate this from God?
III. The Question of Free Will
The being of God has a immense determining influence upon the belief of humanity and the inquiry of free will. The ability to take, whether if the pick is right or incorrect is a glorious freedom that our God allows us, and stands as an index of what God? s character is genuinely similar.
Bing an omnipotent being, this would demand that whatever positive qualities we human existences possess would be exponentially realized in an almighty being. Even with our lessened qualities of credence, love for other existences and self-respect, we can larn from ourselves about the qualities of God. In human relationships, when one party is able to exercise full control over the state of affairs, to coerce the individual through either mental or physical methods to flex to the commanding party? s will, how do we specify that relationship? We determine that this is an? unhealthy? relationship. Any individual that desires a? healthy? relationship does non wish the company of a individual that will assent to anything that we want. Rather, the people that are controlled by such a relationship are looked upon as hapless.
David G. Myers writes about the key to a gratifying and digesting relationship: equity. ? When equity exists, when both spouses freely give and receive, when they portion decision-making & # 8230 ; this is at the nucleus of every type of loving, healthy relationship. It? s true for lovers, for parent and kid, and adumbrate friends? ( p. 585 ) . If this is the type of relationship that we try to accomplish with each other, would non our God, who excels in any intimation of positive quality that we possess, want the same?
Yes, being almighty, God would hold the ability to do all people choose from merely the right way. However, as discussed earlier, God is a animal of balance. It would be contrary to His nature to make merely one side of the equation. To truly experience free will humans must be able to take right every bit good as incorrect, for merely when the? harmoniousness of antonyms? occurs, can we near a relationship with God.
Critics such as Robert Blatchford would province that there is no such thing as free will. Blatchford contends that our will is anything but free, being ruled by our experiences and how we were raised ( p. 112 ) . I would reason that based upon an apprehension of God as a animal that embodies equity, that it would unfair to modulate a individual? s picks to be a consequence of their life experiences. Due to the being of both moral and physical immorality, our picks could be bound by the fortunes that could bechance us all. Without the ability to lift against our ain upbringing and experience, we would ne’er truly gustatory sensation? free will, ? but merely a apogee of our ain experience.
This would besides work against the possibility of a relationship with God in many instances. If free will did non be, person who was raised in an environment that was opposed to a relationship with God would at an unjust disadvantage. Merely by holding a sort of soft determinism, where our environment might act upon us, and yet we are able to take otherwise if desired, could such a individual be able to hold a relationship with God. So, belief in the being of God would hold a immense influence on our perceptual experience of free will. The balance that is integral throughout our being besides applies to our ability to move upon free will.
IV. The Meaning Of Life
The significance of life is a apogee of these things. With a belief in God? s being, this extends a duty to reflect His qualities, His nature, and His grasp for balance. Our belief in God will hold a immense impact on the significance of life. Tolstoy realized this when he wrote? I was necessarily led to acknowledge that all life humanity had a certain other irrational cognition, religion, which made it possible to populate? ( p. 396 ) . He concludes that it was this realisation? was life itself and that the significance given to this life was truth, and I accepted it. ?
This is genuinely the challenge. Bing the self-conscious species that we are, we must accept that a belief in God would supplant our ain selfish desires. Rather, we would model our ends to account for our belief in God, and let this combination of motivations to steer our consciousness and way throughout life.
Critics would bear down that this would amount to a mindless being, merely populating to delight God and nil more. Again, I would dispute critics, because they do non accept a balanced position of how a belief in God can positively profit life? s significance. Kurt Baier describes a theist? s significance of life as? to vacate oneself cheerfully to one? s batch ; to be filled with awe and fear in respect to anything and everything that happens ; to desire to fall on one? s articulatio genuss and worship and praise the Lord? ( p. 380 ) .
This does non show a balanced position of a life that is influenced by a belief in God. A God that we have described here, of balance and equity, would non give a individual life and so anticipate them to non populate, except by mindlessly carry throughing spiritual modus operandis. Our God of balance would desire us to appreciate Him and love Him, but to populate our lives within the outlooks of self-actualization that each scruples directs.
From the point of view of equity, how just would it be to give a human being aspiration, a dedication to excellence, gifts of endowment or intelligence, wonder and a desire to accomplish and so to depute outlooks that these properties were ne’er used? This besides, would non suit with the character of God that we have discussed.
V. In Conclusion
Life, in its entireness, is an exercising in balance. Our belief, our values, our really kernel depends upon the thriving and interplay of antonyms. We are created in the? image? of God. Our truest trial is to happen that balance, the? harmoniousness of antonyms? within each one of us. With God as our usher we will confront the challenges that we choose, seek to populate good lives and bask that most particular of relationships, with our Godhead.
Baier, K. ( 1957 ) The Meaning of Life. In E.D. Klemke, A. David Kline, and R. Hollinger? s ( Eds. ) Doctrine: Contemporary Positions on Perennial Issues. New York: St. Martin? s Press.
Blatchford, R. ( 1927 ) The Delusion of Free Will. In E.D. Klemke, A. David Kline, and R. Hollinger? s ( Eds. ) Doctrine: Contemporary Positions on Perennial Issues. New York: St. Martin? s Press.
Bruchac, J. ( 1991 ) Combing the Snakes From Atatarho? s Hair. Parabola, Winter 1991 v16 n4: p. 59.
Daniel, E.K. A Defense of Theism. In E.D. Klemke, A. David Kline, and R. Hollinger? s ( Eds. ) Doctrine: Contemporary Positions on Perennial Issues. New York: St. Martin? s Press.
Ellis, K.D. Why I Am an Agnostic. In E.D. Klemke, A. David Kline, and R. Hollinger? s ( Eds. ) Doctrine: Contemporary Positions on Perennial Issues. New York: St. Martin? s Press.
Eshleman, A. ( 1997 ) The Harmony Of Taoism. Religious Studies, Sep. 1997 v32 n3: p. 276.
Gaardner, J. ( 1996 ) . Sophie? s World. New York: Berkley Books.
Myers, D.G. ( 1998 ) . Psychology. New York: Deserving Publishers.
New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures ( 1984 ) New York: Watchtower Bible and Tract Society.
Russell, B. ( 1957 ) Why I Am Not a Christian. In E.D. Klemke, A. David Kline, and R. Hollinger? s ( Eds. ) Doctrine: Contemporary Positions on Perennial Issues. New York: St. Martin? s Press.
Tolstoy, L. ( 1905 ) My Confession. In E.D. Klemke, A. David Kline, and R. Hollinger? s ( Eds. ) Doctrine: Contemporary Positions on Perennial Issues. New York: St. Martin? s Press.