philosophy of religion

3/18/22, 11:50 PM Turnitin

https://api.turnitin.com/newreport_printview.asp?eq=0&eb=0&esm=0&oid=1776873673&sid=0&n=0&m=2&svr=34&r=12.034148081248164&lang=en_us 1/4

Turnitin Originality Report Processed on: 18-Mar-2022 11:49 PM MDT

ID: 1776873673

Word Count: 1851

Submitted: 1

Module 1 Essay.Ramic.docx By Fiki Ramic

74% match (student papers from 12-Mar-2018) Class: PHI214C40 Philosophy of Religion: AH3 (Erik Hanson) SP18 Assignment: Module 1 Essay Assignment Paper ID: 929359609

1% match (Submitted to Arizona State University) Submitted to Arizona State University

1% match (student papers from 07-Dec-2014) Submitted to Northeastern Illinois University on 2014-12-07

1% match (student papers from 23-May-2021) Submitted to Grace College on 2021-05-23

Fiki Ramic Professor Hanson PHI214 03/02/2022 Reflective and unreflective engagement Different people have had varied perspectives throughout history when it comes to religious concerns. Some of the beliefs are similar from one religion to another, but some are totally different. Most religions have been preoccupied with elevating their God above all others. They believe that their God is the most powerful in the universe in all perspectives. Religion has become the fuel for a fire of hatred in today's globe. Religion has become the most divisive topic of discussion in the world. As a result, this calls for an inclusive philosophical discussion that will accommodate beliefs, opinions, and perspectives that differ from our own. When the subject of God comes up, it's always tough to stay on track to the conclusion. It's because theists and atheists have become adamant in their beliefs and are unwilling to engage in a philosophical discussion. As a result, a differentiation between reflective and non-reflective involvement has become important. Reflective engagement is a commitment to engage in a philosophical study of one's standards and beliefs for critical scrutiny in the setting of religion. The significance of this contrast is that it brings together two parties with fundamentally contrary views on the presence of God. A true solution will be established in mutual respect and favor if these parties are prepared to engage in a reflective engagement employing a philosophical approach (Bender, Courtney, et al., pg. 72). When it comes to studying philosophy, reflective thinking is the essential aspect. As a result, if we want to engage in religious philosophy, we must use simple contemplative reason. Reflecting believers and reflective non-believers are separated by a thin line. Both types of believers are willing to question their own beliefs and stand them up to scrutiny by others. We should be able to properly evaluate our thoughts and come up with rational and sensible

Similarity Index

77% Internet Sources: 3% Publications: 1% Student Papers: 77%

Similarity by Source

3/18/22, 11:50 PM Turnitin

https://api.turnitin.com/newreport_printview.asp?eq=0&eb=0&esm=0&oid=1776873673&sid=0&n=0&m=2&svr=34&r=12.034148081248164&lang=en_us 2/4

accounts for our beliefs to develop a sound engagement. The concept of reflective reason is central to philosophy. When assessing crucial topics, the company strives to move beyond superficial techniques. It aspires to bring all relevant arguments on board, clarify key concepts, and carefully hint at the ramifications of various beliefs. As a result, we're fascinated by seeing how objects appear when viewed in reverse. This, however, does not imply that an agreement can be reached; rather, it implies that both parties, the reflective believer and the reflective non-believer, will engage in a debate in which they will attempt to align their beliefs. Reflective believers and non- believers can put their differences and biases aside and have a productive conversation. Non-reflective believers and non-reflective non-believers believe in their beliefs because of many reasons. They believe in what they already set past teachings and beliefs irrespective of whether they are happy with them or not. They, therefore, are not interested in establishing a rational thought process concerning their belief system. They do not employ any thoughtful method in their decisions, and what they believe in is final. To have a meaningful philosophical discussion, we need to break the element of certainty. Certainty is seductive and tends to block our ability to conduct constructive engagements with others. Thus, when believers talk about their God and faith, they need to give this conversation a humble approach and appreciate that we do not own a monopoly of the truth. It is essential to understand that the other party does not have to be wrong to prove right. It does not necessarily mean that both believers and non-believers will agree on the role of religion in a society or even the existence of a higher being, God. As a matter of fact, the two parties are more likely to disagree about this matter strongly. Reflective engagement now comes in to remind us that not all disagreements are as bad. A reflective commitment is quite beneficial because it gives us a deeper understanding of the truth and encourages critical thinking that will broaden our perspectives. Evidently, most people have not comprehensively thought about the objective truth behind theism, yet they have decided to accept or reject its position in society (Peterson et al., pg. 112). While some people claim to believe in an all-good and mighty God, others say that there is no God and go further to say that praying is pointless and silly, just as the notion of miracles. Both non-reflective believers and unreflective non-believers believe that any theory contrary to their beliefs, whether atheism or theism, is the end of the discussion. Non- reflective believers and non-believers are of little or no help to any form of debate or deliberation concerning belief and non-belief. At the beginning of this essay, we began by stating that we need to apply reflective reasoning to come up with a genuine philosophical debate. The Non- reflective believers and non-believers are of little use in this discussion because their opinions are non-reflective. Non-reflection suggests that a mind does not have any critical analysis or idea relating to their belief or non-belief. Therefore, this leaves little or no space for philosophical engagement. Many reflective believers support their belief in God with rational reasons. For example, many reflective believers understand and appreciate that proof of God's existence into a physical being is impossible. They know that they cannot point to anything tangible and confidently say that this is their God. Describing God using language becomes problematic. God is all-knowing, and hence we cannot comprehend His mysteriousness with our minds. God is unambiguously something that we cannot describe. Since language is not possible to define God, it becomes a hindrance to use it as proof of the existence of God or our belief. Reflective non-believers will, therefore, conclude that there is no God since there is no proof of the existence of God. Reflective non-believers will use the principle of Michael Martin, which he termed as the "Negative Principle of Credulity." The law states that if there is no proof of God, then it is correct to say that there is no God. It is always

3/18/22, 11:50 PM Turnitin

https://api.turnitin.com/newreport_printview.asp?eq=0&eb=0&esm=0&oid=1776873673&sid=0&n=0&m=2&svr=34&r=12.034148081248164&lang=en_us 3/4

advisable to know whether a person is a reflective believer or a non-reflective believer before engaging them in a religious argument. This can be achieved by asking several questions and seeing how the other party rigidly holds to their sentiments. You can accomplish this by checking if they welcome discussions about alternatives. After establishing this knowledge, we can tell if they are willing to have their beliefs examined irrespective of whether they believe in the existence or non-existence of a God subject to reflective reasoning. This will be accomplished by setting aside previously conceived notions about the living of a higher being. We also need to set aside the conceptions that we have already established for ourselves for us to have substantive communication. The moment a believer refers to a statement about their relationship with the God they worship, they have entered into a rational conversation. In the same way, whenever a person denies some specific religious aspects, they are welcome to an open, rational discussion. Reflective believers and non-reflective believers are the only ones who can come up with a meaningful conversation concerning their religious claims, whether they stand for the truth or not. Whenever both parties hold on to their preconceived beliefs, that is where the harm comes in, and it becomes difficult for them to maintain a meaningful discussion. When people develop a non-reflective mindset, they tend to demean the other parties' beliefs and think their thinking is superior. This, after that, creates a tendency whereby the non-reflective believers and non- reflective non-believers harden and are not willing to give room to a different belief or thinking. Another importance of setting a clear difference between reflective and non-reflective parties is that it provides a platform for thoughtful believers and reflective non- believers to appreciate the element of reflective engagement. We, therefore, need to be vigilant and stop non-reflective individuals from creating confusion in their reluctance to engage in a thoughtful discussion. Both non-reflective believers and non-reflective non-believers only give us examples of reasons why we should not engage in a philosophical discussion in matters relating to our religious beliefs. They also teach us why it is difficult to have a meaningful conversation between individuals who are not like-minded in the absence of reflectivity reasoning. Unreflective non-believers’ steadfast commitment to their beliefs blinds them to the importance of religious values, including respect for authority. Therefore, it makes atheists mistake authority for exploitation, and they undervalue the critical role the authority plays in maintaining a healthy society. A problem with non-reflective believers arises when they mix religion with other factors. It certainly brings up a toxic combination. It comes when the religious authorities think they are a hundred percent right and everyone else is wrong, thereby tending to impose power on individuals. It is what non-believers usually are against. Another importance of philosophical engagement between non-reflective believers and unreflective non-believers is that it helps appreciate atheists' skepticism. It is undeniably correct to state that while certainty hints at arrogance and overconfidence, uncertainty leads to humbleness. Looking into some of the world's greatest religions, you will realize that people justify their sense of grace by embracing uncertainty. Instead, they should bury those preconceived uncertain doctrines. For the more significant part of human history, the core goal of religion was to make people fit in a particular community by believing in certain ideologies. Religion was a value itself, but people choose what and who to believe in or worship in today's world. It is correct to say that the goal of religion today is to help people find inner fulfillment and impact positivity in other people's lives (Haidt pg. 233). The fact that religion is based on a human construct, with beliefs and norms, then it can be used both constructively and destructively. In the absence of reflective reasoning, it can be used to oppress others by shutting down critical thinking. As we mentioned, however, religion has positive impacts on

3/18/22, 11:50 PM Turnitin

https://api.turnitin.com/newreport_printview.asp?eq=0&eb=0&esm=0&oid=1776873673&sid=0&n=0&m=2&svr=34&r=12.034148081248164&lang=en_us 4/4

the well-being of an individual as it brings about fulfillment. In terms of a substantive philosophical discourse and debate, reflective believers and non- believers are of utmost importance. There is contradictory usefulness to non- reflective believers and non- reflective non-believers because they both are non-useful to us in a philosophical discussion. At the same time, they are helpful to us so that we can attempt to engage with the non-reflective among us. In fact, it is wise to keep in mind that we do not have to agree with the other person's ideologies to learn from them. The most informed person is the one who learns from everyone. It is always achievable when we open up to new and different ideas. Works cited Bender, Courtney, et al., eds. Religion on the Edge: De-centering and Re-centering the Sociology of Religion. Oxford University Press, 2013.pg 58-86 Early, Barbara. "The Righteous Mind: Why Good People Are Divided by Politics and Religion, by Jonathan Haidt: (2012). New York, NY: Pantheon Books, Illustrated, 419 pp., $28.95 (hardcover)." ( 2015): 231-233. Peterson, Michael, and Dennis Venema. Biology, Religion, and Philosophy. Cambridge University Press, 2021, pp. 109-116. Ramic 1 Ramic 2 Ramic 3 Ramic 4 Ramic 5 Ramic 6 Ramic 7