Whether one believes in God or not, a person must
have a reason for his or her belief. There must be a
rationale, in some form, that supports the belief or
thought process which the individual has. For example,
philosopher John Searle does not believe in God, arguing
there is not enough available evidence about how the
world works to justify such a belief. He does not believe
in the supernatural either, but holds that there is,
among intellectuals of the world today who have become so
secularized, a sense where the existence of God or the
supernatural would not matter as much as it would have a
century ago. He presents a logic as to why he does not
Plato, on the other hand, presents his reasoning for
believing in God and/or the supernatural through Socrates
discussion with a religious fanatic shortly before his
trial in the "Euthyphro." Euthyphro is a young,
zealously pious man determined to bring a lawsuit against
his own father over the death of one of their servants.
When Socrates questions the propriety of proceeding
against one's father, rebukes him, asserting that the
only relevant question is whether the killer has acted
justly. concedes that most people will regard prosecution
of one's father on behalf of a hired hand as the height
of impiety, but he insists that he understands the will
of the gods more plainly and precisely than most. This is
the presumption that Socrates questions in the dialogue,
and defeats. That same presumption that one person knows
more about the will of the gods is an issue that must be
examined in the larger question of whether faith in God
is a matter of faith based on reason or on reason alone.
One can only determine one's own level of faith
based on the reason that most coincides with his or her
own belief of what reason is and what reason is not.
Therefore, the acceptance or the adherence of a belief in
God is independ...