Comparing Stanley Hauerwas's On The Church And The Christian Story

In my first essay on Freud and Lewis, I say like Lewis, I have had my doubts, but have always taken a leap of faith. Through the course, my view has been affirmed to take that leap of faith. A text that has definitely affirmed and develop that same view is Stanley Hauerwas’s On the Church and the Christian Story. I have always been a believer in the Lord, and stuck to his belief. However, through my life I have always had my certain doubts and uncertainties about certain things. Things like, what happens after you die, and is going to church necessary to be a dedicated Catholic. Furthermore, I have questioned the stories of the bible and their truth to them. Hauerwas helps touch on these stories and how instead of deciding which was true and
For example, when Russel states, “Science can teach us, and I think our own hearts can teach us, no longer to look around for imaginary supports, no longer to invent allies in the sky" (576). When I read this it truly struck me. In a way it hurt my feelings and everything I believe in with the Lord. He is essentially calling my relationship with the Lord imaginary, and fictitious. Reading further into it he uses science to support his claim. Which in part, is a true atheist claim. They like to use science and the details of science to argue why the Lord is imaginary, and why religion is fictitious. While I wanted to brush off what he said and keep on with my faith, it inevitably made me question my faith slightly, and challenged me. When he said Christians essentially “invent allies in the sky” (576). It made me question my belief because I grew up with the belief in the Lord. How I am suppose to know whether it was just imaginary, since I just grew up believing in Christianity? Especially when science is around, I can look at clear facts about certain creations in the world, and why certain things happen as there are statistics for a lot of what the bible claims does. Just the fact that he brought in science something we can today and is up to date made me challenge my
Freud presents strong claims and evidence towards his atheism. His life as a child based on his evidence seems to have been one of the greatest impacts on his strong views towards atheism. His epistemological assumptions of his father appear to be a substantial reason for his atheism. I don’t like how Freud sticks to rationalizing religion through science. As a result, he is an atheist. There are so many different views in the world, and still you have to take a leap of faith one way or another. I strongly disagree with Freud because I believe his view doesn’t take into account the idea and philosophies behind the bible. Even if there wasn’t a Lord, doesn’t the morals and principles taught in the bible create good character? Furthermore, it is my personal choice to believe in the Lord. I have had my doubts in the past, but throughout my life, I have no doubt that the Lord is real. I believe in the bible, and prayers. Science can answer lots of things yes, but science cannot answer what happens to the spirit after one dies, or anything in regards to religion. They are two different realms. Science is fact based, religion is faith and opinionated based. Reading his argument seems a lot like Russel’s in a way It is hard to relate to the argument since it strictly uses science as the argument. Something I strongly disagree with Freud with is when Nicholi states, “Freud referred to the teachings of Jesus as