I just want to start off by saying that I have had a long stressful day, so this post will be quite short! To start off, my group discussed the difference between Voltaire and Leibniz. The two philosophers did not have extremely different points of view. Let me further talk about this while summarizing our discussion.
Leibniz was a very extreme philosopher. He believed that God was involved with EVERYTHING. He didn't think that God is everything, just that he is involved with everything. we discussed his idea that God created the best possible world for us to live in, and that even though there are bad things that happen, it is still the best possible world for us. In contrast, Voltaire brought in the argument related to, "If God is so great, why does he allow bad things happen to good people?" While floating, Nate said something that really stuck with me. He said well, there are no good people. If you really think about it, he has a point. No one is perfect, and we all make mistakes, so why are some people considered "good" while others are considered "bad"? We also brought up the story of Adam and Eve. In the beginning, they were both perfect, and nothing bad happened in the world. When they sinned, the perfect beings were then flawed, and God told them that they would one day die because they betrayed him. Kailey found a great quotation online that added to the topic, "The good news is that although this is not the best possible world, it is the best way to the best possible world." This quote is referring to the Christian faith and Heaven. The passage Romans 8:20-21 also ties in. It states, "For the creation was subjected to frustration, not by its own chouce, but by the will of the one who subjected it, in hope that the creation itself will be liberated from its bondage to decay and brought into the glorious freedom of the children of God." These two verses discuss how bad things can happen in the world; simply because God gave us free will to live how we want. Humans create some corruption. I agree that natural disasters are terrible, but other corruption can be helped.
Although some people may not agree with some of the ways others describe things, I think this is just the way of Philosophy. Even though we don't all agree, it is fascinating to hear how others think. These two philosophers definitely had creative minds!
Fun saying: "Evil is the absence of goodness as darkness is the absence of light."
D.Q: Does free will cause suffering?
I also meant to add, Even though bad things happen to good people, there is always some happiness. Today I witnessed the funeral of a life long mentor, my "3rd" grandfather. He was a great, loving man. Even though the family was surrounded by sadness and dispair, they found the good in the situation. He isn't here with us any longer, but at least he is no longer suffering. It takes a lot to overcome sadness and anger, but there is always a light at the end of the tunnel.
ReplyDeleteGreat post, Emily. I'm glad you and your family are dealing well with your grandfather's death. I pray the Lord will continue to strengthen you in your faith and in your witness.
ReplyDeleteHere's my current understanding of what the Bible says concerning the best possible world: God created the best possible world when He first created the earth. It had no sin, no bad things (Genesis 1:31). However, it was tainted when Adam and Eve decided to believe the lie of the great deceiver instead of obeying God (Genesis 3:1-6). While I do not agree they were created perfect, which would make them God, it's implied that Adam and Eve were created naturally sinless, since the first time they sinned was when they ate the fruit.
God, who is Love and Justice, had given them one rule: do not eat from the tree of knowledge of good and evil (Genesis 2:17). They broke this one rule, so He punished them and their descendants (Romans 5:12); He even cursed the earth itself (Genesis 3:17). Instead of living forever with God on earth, they would die. As Mason pointed out, the reason there are diseases, natural disasters, etc. on earth is to end our lives, whether we are righteous or unrighteous (Matthew 5:45). These things were not necessary in the best possible world because no one was originally meant to die.
To answer your DQ, Emily, I believe that with free will comes suffering, but also joy, love, and all that is good when we choose to follow our Creator, who has provided us with everlasting life in Jesus Christ (John 3:16). We turned against God after He created the best possible world, so He punished us. But, in the most magnificent act of grace and mercy, He has provided us with the option of a personal relationship with Him so we can still live with Him for eternity in Heaven (1 John 4:9-10). We just have to decide whom we will follow.
Links to bible verses:
Genesis 1:31
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis%201:31a&version=NIV
Genesis 3:1-6
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis%203:1-6&version=NIV
Genesis 2:17
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis%202:17&version=NIV
Romans 5:12
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans%205:12&version=NIV
Genesis 3:17
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis%203:17&version=NIV
Matthew 5:45
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%205:45&version=NIV
John 3:16
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%203:16&version=NIV
1 John 4:9-10
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20John%204:9-10&version=NIV
Sounds like such a forgiving God likes to hold a grudge...
ReplyDelete----------------------
This goes for just about everyone on here, but while I am very impressed by the biblical knowledge that you guys have... it would be really wonderful if you (this is the plural you) could begin to shy away from the consistant use of bible verses when discussing philosophical ideas. Even when the ideas discussed are spiritual in nature, there are more ways to approach the discussion than just quoting/paraphrasing the Bible!
A really great quote that I think underscores this is: "You keep citing the Bible as evidence, but the Bible is the claim, not the evidence." -Gene Kopf.
Rather than rehashing what we, ourselves, believe, I think that we should all strive to consistently play devils advocate, and use synthesis to combine the philosophers' thoughts to other philosophers thoughts and real world application. To continually return to what the bible has to say on the topic is greatly limiting the potential for discussion.
It is also a great stopper in the discussion, because your interpretation of God's Word is something that other's cannot top, because you speak with a higher authority than anything I or anyone else could lay on the table. You know? The bible will win 10/10 times over the scientist when talking to a conservative Christian.
And, Keaton, this isn't solely directed towards you, but you provided me with an opportunity to say it.
Just my two cents!
I think that for the past three weeks we have been overloaded with religious topics. Especially for group 3, like the past three guys have been arguments for/against god existence. I think we have hit the topic, and now we are just running back and over it just to make sure its good and dead with nothing left. Its dead. Let's move on past it.
DeleteJust for support Matt, I completely get what you are saying and I agree with you on this one, that we need to move on.
And, I think that some of us tend to quote the bible in the same way a lawyer might quote a law ordinance. Yes, it is what we believe, but its not furthering the discussion, its putting up a brick wall. But if anyone is guilty of this, it is me as well.
And I will suggest again, let's switch up discussion numbers or even groups to get new discussions started, to make it fruitful again. Not so brick wallish... that is totally a word. So if anyone would like to officially switch up the numbers or people on the facebook page please do, then make sure to either post on here or let Yusra and Quinlan know. Fo sho.
"Rather than rehashing what we, ourselves, believe, I think that we should all strive to consistently play devils advocate, and use synthesis to combine the philosophers' thoughts to other philosophers thoughts and real world application." - Matthew Pyles
ReplyDeleteI agree with most of the above quote, and I believe we are all performing just like you say we ought to.
Among the many definitions of "philosophy" we have discussed, here is one that Merriam-Webster uses: "an analysis of the grounds of and concepts expressing fundamental beliefs." The main subjects of philosophy are the ideas, beliefs, and views concerning the world, our existence, and our origin. The only way we can analyze these beliefs is if people express them, which is what every one of us is supposed to do on this blog site. So, I think it is the very essence of philosophy that we say and develop what "we, ourselves, believe." This entails posting some of the many different aspects of our views on the blog for people to discuss.
We all "strive to consistently play devils advocate." You bring up beliefs that contradict ours to make us think. We bring up beliefs that contradict yours to make you think.
We also "use synthesis to combine the philosophers' thoughts to other philosophers thoughts." All of us quote different thinkers, some more famous than others. We as a class use the thoughts, theories, and beliefs of philosophers to get our points across, and also to provide some backing. We also use sources such as the dictionary, articles from reputable newspapers, texts of various sorts, and so on.
Many of us use the Bible, which Voddie Baucham, who is a preacher and speaker, says is "a reliable collection of historical documents written by eyewitnesses during the lifetime of other eyewitnesses. They report supernatural events that took place in fulfillment of specific prophecies and claimed that their writings are divine rather than human in origin." The Bible, which has about 40 different authors and was written over a period of over 1500 years, is just as reliable as a historical text, if not more so, than the writings of Plato and other thinkers of his age. Therefore, we who reference this collection of writings are no more in the wrong than you are by referencing Gene Kopf.
We as a class also implement "real world application" with our expression of beliefs. We tie our beliefs to everyday issues such a friendships, politics, and our experiences with each other.
I agree with you that we "speak with a higher authority than anything [you] or anyone else could lay on the table" when we reference the Bible. However, I do not think it limits "the potential for discussion." Like I said, we are referencing, for all intents and purposes, great leaders, thinkers, and philosophers just as much as the rest of the class is.
Voddie Baucham, the man I quoted, spoke on why he chooses to believe the Bible. He actually addresses Gene Kopf's idea of circular reasoning, and he also addresses a situation when the Bible is faced with science, among many other challenges I have seen on this blog. If you have time this weekend, I highly encourage you to watch the videos, whose links are below.
Thank you for bringing this up, Matthew. While I cannot confidently speak for everyone, I do think it is important to clear the air concerning this issue.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EPNraxxxRO8
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=endscreen&NR=1&v=DEtZnxqC_fM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rZyHBI8jwa8&feature=endscreen&NR=1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=endscreen&NR=1&v=uLeVSnpf314
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=endscreen&NR=1&v=J4U_gTjp5a0
I did not intend to quote the bible to upset anyone. But like Dr. Oliver said at the beginning of the semester, Jesus himself was a Philosopher. I do, however, feel like we need to change topics. I like discussing religious topics, but I am ready to move on to other things. I do not wish to upset anyone by quoting the bible. I just found the passage relatable to the subject. But I do agree with Matthew in the need for fresh topics. Something other than religion would be great to talk about.
ReplyDeleteIt seems like philosophy has a lot to do with the purpose of our existence. I guess the reason religion has popped up so much is because religions basically give ideas on our purpose, origin, and the like. I don't think religion is something we can "move on" from, because religions touch on almost all aspects of philosophy.
ReplyDeleteI have liked the recent Philosophy Bites topics for the most part. They deal with the more practical aspects of philosophy that aren't as overtly tied to religious thought.
I agree that it'd be nice to swap up the books/discussion topics, however, the next section in Philosophy Bites is Metaphysics and Mind, which, like any topic, can be linked to religion. It'd still be nice to switch, though!
Guys. I have absolutely no problem with the occasional reference to the bible or the personal beliefs therein. I'm hardly upset. Jesus was a philosopher.
ReplyDeleteBut it's hardly exploratory to ~only~ use the bible to support what your saying, you know? Spice it up a little. Play devils advocate*. Reference things in other religions. Compare the philosophers we're talking about. Relate the concepts to modern pop culture.
Just try and branch out. That's all I'm saying haha
*"You bring up beliefs that contradict ours to make us think. We bring up beliefs that contradict yours to make you think." That's not devil's advocate, Keaton. Devil's advocate is when you say things you don't personally agree with to further a discussion. That's all I was calling for in my comment; I think everyone (myself included) should redouble their efforts to put on other glasses and unapologetically argue things in ways that they don't personally agree with. It's intellectually challenging and stimulating, which is why I think we should hold ourselves to these standards.
"In common parlance, a devil's advocate is someone who, given a certain argument, takes a position he or she does not necessarily agree with, for the sake of debate. In taking this position, the individual taking on the devil's advocate role seeks to engage others in an argumentative discussion process. The purpose of such process is typically to test the quality of the original argument and identify weaknesses in its structure, and to use such information to either improve or abandon the original, opposing position. It can also refer to someone who takes a stance that is seen as unpopular or unconventional, but is actually another way of arguing a much more conventional stance."
qtd in wikipedia
DeleteMatthew, I think you are right in saying we should all try to do better at using the material we've been given. I have not done the best job at that. I will continue to reference the Bible, since it is a credible source of philosophical thought at the least. I will also strive to reference other thinkers, including the ones we've been studying. This is the point of the class, and I have not been fully focused on it in my comments.
ReplyDeleteRegarding playing devil's advocate, maybe we can occasionally implement what Michele and Jake have started to do: put what we think and also put up a counter-argument (pair of glasses). However, I also think a healthy discussion of differing views from other people is just as effective as playing devil's advocate. Maybe we can all balance them out?
I'm glad we are having this discussion. We all have things that we can work on. It is always good to keep each other on track. I pray that we will only show the utmost respect towards one another; and that we will make thoughtful, appropriate comments only after fully reading and understanding the meaning and purpose of what the other person has posted. I agree that things will go smoother once we all accept and respect others' thoughts and sources of information, but also not shy away from engaging in discussion when there are disagreements.
Great discussion in this group, and some great discussion provided by the floaters. I believe that God lets everything happen for a reason. We may not see something as "good," but God does everything for a purpose. Also, I agree with Nate that no one is perfect. We all have our faults, and we all make mistakes. That is a part of life. If everyone was perfect, I believe the world would not be as diverse and as interesting.
ReplyDeleteI also want to address some of these comments:
Matthew: In my understanding of philosophy, we are supposed to use what we believe in and our good moral judgment to make certain decisions with different topics. Also, we should look at other people's viewpoints as well, not just our own. Therefore, for the people as Christians, is it right to take away the Bible to discuss different topics in the class? That would be taking away our beliefs and what we base our morals on. Also, we should be open to other people's view as Dr. Oliver mentioned. We have to put on the different glasses in order to see someone else's viewpoint. We need to treat each viewpoint with respect. We may not certainly agree with it, but it adds to our knowledge about what other people think. Also, in order to talk about other religion's viewpoints, people need to have adequate information about that religion to discuss it. However, it may so happen that we do not.
Michelle: Yes, I do believe that the topics have been overloaded at this point. However, I do believe that group 4 should stay the same because our Philosophy Bites book is about to go into a different topic on Metaphysics and Mind.
Keaton: Yes, we all have things we need to work on. I continue to try to see how things are through other people's eyes, but this is something that I have not done on a daily basis. I am trying to do this though so I can understand where everyone is coming from.
In my personal opinion, I think we have to be respectful of what others are saying. We may not agree with the other person, but we should not be upset by this either. Having different ideas or interpretations of ideas is a part of life. However, we should always voice our opinion in the most respectful way possible. No one is ever going to agree with everyone on a single controversial statement. That is what makes us unique.
I'd like to give a big shout out to Linton. He's constantly playing devil's advocate in our group, which is made up of five believers. He argues the other side, and it makes for stimulating discussion. GO LINTON!
ReplyDeleteThe human potential for evil is what this argument hinges on. In a perfect world, there would be no evil, but inject humanity, the imperfect creation that we are, and suddenly our free will lands us in hot water. Thankfully, God loves us enough to give us a chance at redemption, but we still have to use that free will bestowed upon us to accept his gift. Events in our life may seem "evil" to us, but God stopping something bad from happening to you suspends your aggressors free will. Evil exists by comparison; without evil, how could good exist? We would merely exist, living out our days solely for ourselves.
ReplyDeleteC. S. Lewis writes:
My argument against God was that the universe seemed so cruel and unjust. But how had I got this idea of just and unjust? A man does not call a line crooked unless he has some idea of a straight line. What was I comparing this universe with when I called it unjust?... Of course I could have given up my idea of justice by saying it was nothing but a private idea of my own. But if I did that, then my argument against God collapsed too—for the argument depended on saying the world was really unjust, not simply that it did not happen to please my fancies.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Problem_of_evil
FQ: Who dreamed up the "best of all possible worlds" idea?
Leibniz
DQ: Where does the sense of fairness/justice arise from?
http://www.tnellen.com/cybereng/harrison.html
Mason
My take on the question “Is this the best possible world?":
ReplyDeleteThe quote that I found helped me understand better.. "The good news is that although this is not the best possible world, it is the best way to the best possible world." I believe that the best possible world is the world that is talked about in Revelation after the second coming of Christ. However, before this happens, the Earth goes through a lot of suffering..
I've struggled with the question of where God is in suffering.. especially after going to Haiti and seeing how the people there lived on a regular basis and the destruction they've been through with the Earthquake and everything. It's a hard question to ask, and no one will be able to give an answer that satisfies everyone. However this is the conclusion I've come to.... Who am I to demand that God be good to me? I am so undeserving of God's amazing grace and mercy as it is. Constant sin against the God of the universe does not deserve to be rewarded with a perfect world to live in, much less the opportunity to spend eternity at His right hand. Our present sufferings are not worth comparing to the glory that will be revealed in us. Instead of being mad at God because bad things happen, we should rejoice in our sufferings. Suffering produces perseverance. Perseverance produces character. And character produces hope. This hope will not put us to shame. God pours his love into our hearts through the gift of the spirit. Although I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I do not fear, for God is with me wherever I go. Without suffering, we would not have discovered our need for God.
In the Honors Lecture last week, Dr. Poe talked about how we would not know goodness if we did not know evil. We know evil by comparison. Without knowing suffering, how would we be able to experience happiness? Dr. Poe said that we only experience loss in death if we experience love in life. Is taking away the suffering that comes from a loved one dying worth not having experienced their love when they were alive? I would say no. With every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. With free will, we will experience both the good and the bad. Like Mason and others have previously mentioned, I don't think you can expect to have free will without suffering. You can't have your cake and eat it too.
Romans 8:18
Romans 5:3-5
Psalm 23:4
I think the best possible world can really never exist. We are given so much freedom, people will always be evil. Also, since it’s impossible for anyone to be “perfect” there will always be a chance for someone to “mess up.” I think we can strive to be the best that e can be. As far as the question about why God lets people suffer, I think it can be answered in a few different ways. My opinion, even though we’ve beaten this topic to death, free will. Any suffering in the world is the result of humans, not God. Can this world be improved? Well of course. Humans can continuing doing good works to make this world the best it can be.
ReplyDeleteDQ: Why does god let people suffer?
FQ: Who believed God is involved in everything?
From the great philosopher, Dr. Seuss, “In my world, everyone's a pony and they all eat rainbows and poop butterflies!”Now that's a perfect world if you ask me! Haha
ReplyDeleteFQ: who believed that emotions cloud morality? Kant
ReplyDeleteDQ: do you believe in absolute moralities? Are there exceptions when it is okay to lie?