Hey everybody!
Thursday in class, our group discussed Grayling and his views on Atheism. We discussed the roles of church and state, noticing that history is repeating itself, in that we may be seeing the next reformation. We are seeing many problems and corruption in churches of all religions. If we continue mixing church and state, even when we think we are not, we are headed straight towards another reformation. Our group maintained that politics and religion should NOT be mixed. You cannot legislate morality. People often times misjudge the nature of laws. Laws are not moral standards, simply public/societal safety measures. Law-makers do not care what is right and wrong, they care about what is safe and unsafe to the public. We raised questions such as, "Should world religions classes be taught in public schools?" We agreed that, yes, they should be taught as individual classes, but no, religion should not be taught in a science class setting. We asked, "Is religion necessary for morality?," in which we agreed that no, it is not. Christopher Hitchins was brought up. If I didn't believe in God would I kill people? No. Morals are constantly changing, so that means that "God" is too. Finally we asked, "Do you, like Grayling, believe that religion does more harm than good?"
I look forward to beginning our discussion on Lachs' "Stoic Pragmatism." When I first started reading the book, I was confused. By the end of the introduction, his points were quite clear. Philosophy is undermined, made to seem meaningless. Do you all think philosophy is meaningless? Is something that provides no truths, no new discoveries, and no methods useless? Absolutely not. Philosophy is not meant to be an individual department, expected to uncover new factual knowledge. If philosophy was more understood by the public, it would be more appreciated and could therefore carry out its true purpose (and become more publicly involved). It should be involved in all departments, and not confined to its own. Philosophy examines everything, so it should be recognized in everything. People have certain expectations of the field, that simply have nothing to do with its purpose. Do you think that philosophy is a dying field? If so, do you attribute its death to poor administration or lack of understanding, or both? Do we think the American Philosophical Association is a failure? What could be done to fix this?
I look forward to hearing what everyone has to say!
Arielle Roides (Section 13; Group 4)
Our discussion last week was very interesting, we had a lot of good topic questions as Arielle stated . I found that some of Grayings views were agreeable, although I do not think religion does more harm then good.
ReplyDeleteNext we will be discussing John Lachs book "Stoic Pragmatism".
One question I have is: do you(like John Lachs) believe philosophers should be more involved in political events?
I definitely agree that church and state should be separate. If they were not separate, it'd be a constant war of whose morals were the right ones to follow. Yes, there are some universal morals, but then again,there really aren't. For example, most people would agree that it's wrong to murder. Well, what about an eye for an eye? If laws were based on morality, every religion would have a different view of how things should be handled, and it'd be a constant battle of what type of religion laws should be based on. Instead, like Arielle said, laws should be based on the public good.
ReplyDeleteNow, I'm actually pretty intersted in Stoic Pragmatism. Here are a couple of questions:
Factual--What did Thales, the first philosopher of the West, think everything was made of?
Discussion-- What can philosophy contribute? (I know the book discusses this, but I want to know everyone else's answers).
I agree that church should indeed be separated from the state. Especially in countries as large as the United States where there are multiple ethnicities and religious groups. If religion were the base of any political system, it would make that system exclusive to a certain demographic, making it harder for that civilization to be diverse. I don't know if I would say that religion causes more harm than good, but sometimes it seems that way.
ReplyDeleteI also thought our discussion on atheism was interesting. The individuals in our group have many different thoughts/opinions/beliefs, but the awesome thing about our group is that we can openly talk about any topic, while being respectful and considerate of one another. Makes discussion that much more beneficial to everyone. I definitely agree that church and state should be kept separate. We talked about some people insisting that it’s their right to want their religion/views be taught to their children in schools but what about other parents of different religions with that same desire? They would have to teach all of the views, which people would not agree with. You can never please everyone.
ReplyDeleteIn our reading of Stoic Pragmatism, we focus mainly on the question ‘What can philosophy contribute?’ Lachs states in this that philosophy works better when analyzing other fields and ideas. Like Arielle said above, it’s not meant to be confined to it’s own department because it examines everything, not just what is thought of as ‘philosophical questions or thoughts’, because you can only go so far with that. Lachs states that philosophers can definitely have important contributing thoughts to moral and political problems facing our communities because they are so trained in critical thinking. I completely agree. We should involve philosophy in our everyday lives and thought processes.
--Why does Lachs think philosophers can contribute so much to communal issues? (their training in critical thinking)
--Do you think our world or country does a good job of integrating philosophical thinking into our daily lives? If not, how could we increase it?
--Natalie Ricketts
Questions on John Lachs Stoic Pragmatism:
ReplyDeleteFactual:What does Lach say would make the U.S a better nation?
Discussion: Do you think that Philosophy should intertwined with govermental decisions?