Religion in general, and Christianity in particular

1-The (radical) Enlightenment (Spinoza, Reimarus, Hume, and Kant) had a very negative view of revealed religion in general, and Christianity in particular. For example, Reimarus looked at Christianity as a fraud, a fabrication of the power-hungry early disciples of Jesus. Kant had a complete disregard for revealed religion (which he found full of superstitions and gross immoralities) and sought translate Christianity into a moral system, which we can get on our own through Reason (not revelation). Hume proposed a naturalistic explanation of religion and attacked all attempts to rationally prove the existence of God. Assess the critique of religion proffered by the Enlightenment. Is it persuasive? Is it fair to religion? 2-In Chapter 9 of Anatomy of the Sacred, different understandings of origins (cosmogony), across modem and ancient religions are discussed. Is there one conception that recommends itself to being more literally true than the others? In other words, can we say that one of the narratives is more literally true, more true to reality, and less "mythical" than the others? Make sure you define what you mean by "mythical." You may find Livingston's treatment of myth and symbol in Chapter 4 of Anatomy of the Sacred helpful. 3-Chapter 8 of Anatomy of the Sacred discusses different views of ultimate reality. Explain the difference between these views: polytheism, pantheism, dualism, monism, and monotheism. Do you find one of these views more "true" or more compelling than the others? Or are they equally defensible characterizations or approaches to ultimate reality?                                                                

Sample Solution