Kubra Wajid

1228- BH- PSY-20

Philosophy C2

Course: Introduction to Philosophy

Semester: 1st

Session: 2020-2024

Exam: End term

Marks: 60

Q. 1. All three famous logical arguments for the existence of God have been denied; now

what should be done: either new logical arguments should be sought out or opt for the

other sorts of arguments such as moral, spiritual, religious and personal? Take a side, and

support your stance. Answer comprehensively.

Answer:

As stated in the question that I have to use other logical argument then three famous arguments

like cosmological , ontological and teleological about existence of God. So, I have come up with

my four arguments in support of existence of God. First probability of existence of God, second

atheist morality third empiricism and Newton’s discovery of geometry of universe.

In the world it is generally seen that simple things are less probable and easily perish.

But complex things like atom, electron, proton and quarks are there permanent to stay. So it is

conclusion that complex things are durable. If we apply this concept on God, God is very
complex. So there is more probability that God is existing and must persist to exist. Many second

supporting point is that God is eternal and beyond time. So nobody can cause it because it is

timeless being. If it is not in time it cannot be seized to exist and it cannot be changed. So there

is every possibility that God exists .

Many second argument is based on morality. Some philosophers believe that morality is

independent from other beliefs of the world. But I don’t agree with them. I think there is basic

moral agreement between them. The morality based on belief in God is very different from the

morality which is not based on belief in God. And the root of that difference in that thing, belief

in whether there is any purpose, will go in the existence of the Universe, and particularly whether

there is any goal for human being. And I think the non theistic morality can’t say there is such a

goal. And this doesn’t make sense in this worldview. But on the other hand theistic which is base

on belief in God is very different like it is easier and harder in different ways. It is easier in the

way that I do think that it is comforting to think that there is a goal in human life which God

could help me achieve or at least gives me a Sense of optimistic purpose in the long run. But it is

harder on other side like in some situation you must be prepared to give your life to be a Martyr.

Like Jesus had a purpose of God but in the process he had to die. So theistic morality both in it’s

Sense of striving for a purpose even though I know it probably won’t succeeded in this life, not

giving up and in the sense of being prepared to die, for the sake of your moral belief. These are

things which non theistic would found very difficult to justify. In moral theistic philosophy there

are two parts. One is the sense of purpose that there is a goal to achieved and it will be the

fulfillment of human capacity and human life. Second is that there is an objective reality of

goodness that is that God is perfect good. So there is something to love. So I can love because
you love the person who tells you to do it. And this is completely different motivation for

morality. Non theistic could never have such feeling.

My third argument is about empiricism. Empiricism believe that everything begin with

perception, sights and sounds. And all our knowledge must build on it. It uses the world in terms

of having perception of sensory information and then it started its work. It is quite right that

empiricist must be a theist. But there are empiricist who believe that there are experiences with

no mind. So, now at this point an idealist will differ and would from empiricist and would say

mind exist and they have experience and God is the super mind and it experience everything. So,

empiricism is nearer to idealisms than it is to materialism. So, empiricism to God is a pretty

direct route.

My fourth argument is about Newton’s discovery of geometry of universe. Newton in

study of universe discovered that the shape, size, position and orientation of the planet is in such

a perfect way that if we disturb anyone of them the whole system would collapse. And this

system can’t be an accident. It must had been built by any super creature. Which we could be

God. So, Newton’s discovered God by observing the perfect geometry of our universe.

In conclusion I would say that I have presented my arguments in support of existence of

God without using famous arguments discussed in the book. My arguments were probability of

existence of God, theistic morality, empiricism and Newton’s theory on geometry of universe. I

think I have elaborated my point thoroughly and eventually proved the existence of God.
Q. 2. Sometimes, there is a clash between religion and science, can philosophy come into

play to reduce the distance between them? would it be a worthwhile activity or not?

Answer in detail.

Answer: Yes, there is often a clash between religious and scientific concept in this modern era.

And In my view philosopher has not reduced the gap between them in fact they widened it. And

my second opinion is that it is not worth it to bridge science and religion. These stances I will

explain below.

Our view of the nature of universe and the place of human within it has completed

changed within the last century. Like discoveries in cosmology and evolutionary biology and in

computer science has revolutionaries in fundamental ways. But all of the past science had to be

rethought in the 21th century because it carries important implications for philosophy, morality

and religion. And it must be addressed.

In the age of discovered European countries went out from their border to discover resources.

In the maintain type copier machine had been built in Germany. It helped to spread ideas fast and

accurate. This both development led to enlightenment and then scientific revolution. In that time

Francis bacon developed scientific method based on induction. The whole process was based on

senses and experimentation and verification . This method created an unprecedented affect on

scientific research . Another person named Darwin presented it’s work and said that human are

the product of evolution. And our present form is the result of thousands year of evolution. These

events created a gap between religion and science. Because religion is often a set of belief often

untestable and unchallengeable and there are religious dogmas which no body can change or

apply reason to it. And religion is often considered a person matter as well. So there is less

debate on it. And the gap God widened.

 Our modern philosopher like lock and Marx has significantly contributed to farther the

gap between religion and philosophy and science. John lock has presented its work based on

fundamental individuals rights. These right must be protected by State. So lock build a

relationship between citizen and state and excluded religion from it. Another prominent

philosopher Marx presented it’s work as dialectical materialism. Simply Marx has based whole

his theory on the physical factors mainly financial. And he even said that Religion is the poison

of Masses. So philosopher has just widened the gap between philosophy and science.

There is distinct trend in the Muslim world. In this trend Muslim had always worked to

reconcile religion and science from the start. Peak time was during Abbasid caliph in 9 th and 10th

century and there is a lot of work done in this respect in Muslim Spain as well. Muslim Spain

was very scientific society and had contributed a lot to the literature of Islam. And in recent

times Muhammad Iqbal has presented a great work in his book reconstruction of religious

thoughts. He reconciled Islam with science and modernity and this is the best efforts made by

any philosopher in recent times to reconcile both religion and modern science.

On the other part of the question I would say that it is not worth while to reconcile

between religion and science. Because first they are fundamentally different and hard to reach an

agreement and second that it is no use to reach an agreement because it would have no utility.

Because religion and believe are not according to science but due to value aided and purpose

oriented. Like falling of Apple has no purpose for human but in the world of science it is a

physical reality. This sums up the difference in my opinion.

There is another aspect to this debate, religion believe in good and bad but science has no

good and bad it had just facts and figures. And in modern science we are dealing with quarks,

which can never be separated from each other, and can’t be possibility individually observed.
But religion has perceptual knowledge. So there basic are quite far way and it is difficult to

bridge.

In conclusion I would say that the clash between the religion and science is very likely

because there fundamental bases are opposite and somehow or the other they will contradict each

other. And second philosopher has not done enough to bridge this gap between religion and

science but exaggerated it further. Most modern philosopher just excluded religion from the

practical life. But in the Muslim world there are major effort to reconcile religion with science.

But as the present reality is that Western model are dominant so as their scientific method.

Western philosopher has just excluded religion from the state affairs first and as the time is

passing Western citizen are also excluding religion from their practical lives. This was my view

point on the clash between religion and science and the role played by philosopher to reconcile it

and my view that it is not worth it to reconcile them .