Up@dawn 2.0

Thursday, October 3, 2019

Quiz Oct 8

Augustine, Boethius, Anselm, Aquinas LH 6-8; Morley, "Sauntering" (JW); FL 21. Midterm report presentations continue

LH
1. How did Augustine "solve" the problem of evil in his younger days, and then after his conversion to Christianity? Why wasn't it such a problem for him originally?

2. What does Boethius not mention about himself in The Consolation of Philosophy?

3. Boethius' "recollection of ideas" can be traced back to what philosopher?

4. What uniquely self-validating idea did Anselm say we have?

5. Gaunilo criticized Anselm's reasoning using what example?

6. What was Aquinas' 2nd Way?

JW
7. In light of his "city annotations," Morley compares himself to what famous author?

8. Morley's philosophy of people says that they are interesting mostly because of what? 

FL
9. By the end of the '50s how much TV did the average American watch?

10. Who was the Steve Jobs of his era?

11. Of what was Disneyland "more or less a replica"?

12. What fantasy did Hugh Hefner promote?

13. Who was our "ad hoc national Pastor-in-Chief"?

14. In the second year of Eisenhower's presidency (1954), what was inserted into the Pledge of Allegiance?


Discussion Questions

DQ

  • Add yours
  • Which is more plausible, that God exists but is not more powerful than Satan, or that neither God nor Satan exists? Why?
  • Are supernatural stories of faith, redemption, and salvation more comforting to you than the power of reason and evidence? 
  • What do you think of the Manichean idea that an "evil God created the earth and emtombed our souls in the prisons of our bodies"? 392 
  • Do you agree with Augustine about "the main message of Christianity"? 395 If not, what do you think the message is?
  • What do you think of Boethius' solution to the puzzle of free will? 402
  • Did Russell "demolish" Anselm's ontological argument? (See below)
  • COMMENT: “The world is so exquisite with so much love and moral depth, that there is no reason to deceive ourselves with pretty stories for which there's little good evidence. Far better it seems to me, in our vulnerability, is to look death in the eye and to be grateful every day for the brief but magnificent opportunity that life provides.”
  • COMMENT: “Science is not only compatible with spirituality; it is a profound source of spirituality. When we recognize our place in an immensity of light‐years and in the passage of ages, when we grasp the intricacy, beauty, and subtlety of life, then that soaring feeling, that sense of elation and humility combined, is surely spiritual. So are our emotions in the presence of great art or music or literature, or acts of exemplary selfless courage such as those of Mohandas Gandhi or Martin Luther King, Jr. The notion that science and spirituality are somehow mutually exclusive does a disservice to both.”  Carl Sagan
  • If you were falsely imprisoned, tortured, and scheduled for execution, would you be able to achieve "consolation"? How?
  • Can the definition of a word prove anything about the world?
  • Is theoretical simplicity always better, even if the universe is complex?
  • Does the possibility of other worlds somehow diminish humanity? 
  • How does the definition of God as omniscient, omnipotent, and perfectly good make it harder to account for evil and suffering in the world? Would it be better to believe in a lesser god, or no god at all?
  • Can you explain the concept of Original Sin? Do you think you understand it?
  • Is it better to embrace (or renounce) religious faith early in life, or to "sow your wild oats" and enjoy a wide experience of the world before committing to any particular tradition or belief? Were you encouraged by adults, in childhood, to make a public profession of faith? If so, did you understand what that meant or entailed?
  • Does the concept of a never-ending struggle between good and evil appeal to you? Does it make sense, in the light of whatever else you believe? Would there be anything "wrong" with a world in which good was already triumphant, happiness for all already secured, kindness and compassion unrivaled by hatred and cruelty?
  • Do you find the concept of Original Sin compelling, difficult, unfair, or dubious? In general, do we "inherit the sins of our fathers (and mothers)"? If yes, give examples and explain.
  • What kinds of present-day McCarthyism can you see? Is socialism the new communism? How are alternate political philosophies discouraged in America, and where would you place yourself on the spectrum?
  • Andersen notes that since WWII "mainline" Christian denominations were peaking (and, as evidence shows, are now declining). What do you think about this when you consider the visible political power of other evangelical denominations? Are you a part of a mainline traditon? If so, how would you explain this shift?

from Russell's History-

...Saint Augustine taught that Adam, before the Fall, had had free will, and could have abstained from sin. But as he and Eve ate the apple, corruption entered into them, and descended to all their posterity, none of whom can, of their own power, abstain from sin. Only God's grace enables men to be virtuous. Since we all inherit Adam's sin, we all deserve eternal damnation. All who die unbaptized, even infants, will go to hell and suffer unending torment. We have no reason to complain of this, since we are all wicked. (In the Confessions, the Saint enumerates the crimes of which he was guilty in the cradle.) But by God's free grace certain people, among those who have been baptized, are chosen to go to heaven; these are the elect. They do not go to heaven because they are good; we are all totally depraved, except in so far as God's grace, which is only bestowed on the elect, enables us to be otherwise. No reason can be given why some are saved and the rest damned; this is due to God's unmotived choice. Damnation proves God's justice; salvation His mercy. Both equally display His goodness. The arguments in favour of this ferocious doctrine--which was revived by Calvin, and has since then not been held by the Catholic Church--are to be found in the writings of Saint Paul, particularly the Epistle to the Romans. These are treated by Augustine as a lawyer treats the law: the interpretation is able, and the texts are made to yield their utmost meaning. One is persuaded, at the end, not that Saint Paul believed what Augustine deduces, but that, taking certain texts in isolation, they do imply just what he says they do. It may seem odd that the damnation of unbaptized infants should not have been thought shocking, but should have been attributed to a good God. The conviction of sin, however, so dominated him that he really believed new-born children to be limbs of Satan. A great deal of what is most ferocious in the medieval Church is traceable to his gloomy sense of universal guilt. There is only one intellectual difficulty that really troubles Saint Augustine. This is not that it seems a pity to have created Man, since the immense majority of the human race are predestined to eternal torment. What troubles him is that, if original sin is inherited from Adam, as Saint Paul teaches, the soul, as well as the body, must be -365- propagated by the parents, for sin is of the soul, not the body. He sees difficulties in this doctrine, but says that, since Scripture is silent, it cannot be necessary to salvation to arrive at a just view on the matter. He therefore leaves it undecided. It is strange that the last men of intellectual eminence before the dark ages were concerned, not with saving civilization or expelling the barbarians or reforming the abuses of the administration, but with preaching the merit of virginity and the damnation of unbaptized infants. Seeing that these were the preoccupations that the Church handed on to the converted barbarians, it is no wonder that the succeeding age surpassed almost all other fully historical periods in cruelty and superstition...
...Boethius is a singular figure. Throughout the Middle Ages he was read and admired, regarded always as a devout Christian, and treated almost as if he had been one of the Fathers. Yet his Consolations of Philosophy, written in 524 while he was awaiting execution, is purely Platonic; it does not prove that he was not a Christian, but it does show that pagan philosophy had a much stronger hold on him then Christian theology. Some theological works, especially one on the Trinity, which are attributed to him, are by many authorities considered to be spurious; but it was probably owing to them that the Middle Ages were able to regard him as orthodox, and to imbibe from him much Platonism which would otherwise have been viewed with suspicion. The work is an alternation of verse and prose: Boethius, in his own person, speaks in prose, while Philosophy answers in verse. There is at certain resemblance to Dante, who was no doubt influenced by him in the Vita Nuova. The Consolations, which Gibbon rightly calls a "golden volume," begins by the statement that Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle are the true philosophers; Stoics, Epicureans, and the rest are usurpers, whom the profane multitude mistook for the friends of philosophy. Boethius says he obeyed the Pythagorean command to "follow God" (not the Christian command). Happiness, which is the same thing as blessedness, is the good, not pleasure. Friendship is a "most sacred thing." There is much morality that agrees closely with Stoic doctrine, and is in fact largely taken from Seneca. There is a summary, in verse, of the beginning of the Timaeus. This is followed by a great deal of purely Platonic metaphysics. Imperfection, we are told, is a lack, implying the existence of a perfect pattern. He adopts the privative theory of evil. He then passes on to a pantheism which should have shocked Christians, but for some reason did not. Blessedness and God, he says, are both the chiefest good, and are therefore identical. "Men are made happy by the obtaining of divinity." "They who obtain divinity become gods. Wherefore every one that is happy -370- is a god, but by nature there is only one God, but there may be many by participation." "The sum, origin, and cause of all that is sought after is rightly thought to be goodness." "The substance of God consisteth in nothing else but in goodness." Can God do evil? No. Therefore evil is nothing, since God can do everything. Virtuous men are always powerful, and bad men always weak; for both desire the good, but only the virtuous get it. The wicked are more unfortunate if they escape punishment than if they suffer it. (Note that this could not be said of punishment in hell.) "In wise men there is no place for hatred." The tone of the book is more like that of Plato than that of Plotinus. There is no trace of the superstition or morbidness of the age, no obsession with sin, no excessive straining after the unattainable. There is perfect philosophic calm--so much that, if the book had been written in prosperity, it might almost have been called smug. Written when it was, in prison under sentence of death, it is as admirable as the last moments of the Platonic Socrates. One does not find a similar outlook until after Newton. I will quote in extenso one poem from the book, which, in its philosophy, is not unlike Pope Essay on Man. If Thou wouldst see God's laws with purest mind, Thy sight on heaven must fixed be, Whose settled course the stars in peace doth bind. The sun's bright fire Stops not his sister's team, Nor doth the northern bear desire Within the ocean's wave to hide her beam. Though she behold The other stars there couching, Yet she incessantly is rolled About high heaven, the ocean never touching. The evening light With certain course doth show The coming of the shady night, And Lucifer before the day doth go. This mutual love Courses eternal makes, -371- And from the starry spheres above All cause of war and dangerous discord takes. This sweet consent In equal bands doth tie The nature of each element So that the moist things yield unto the dry. The piercing cold With flames doth friendship heap The trembling fire the highest place doth hold, And the gross earth sinks down into the deep. The flowery year Breathes odours in the spring, The scorching summer corn doth bear The autumn fruit from laden trees doth bring. The falling rain Doth winter's moisture give. These rules thus nourish and maintain All creatures which we see on earth to live. And when they die, These bring them to their end, While their Creator sits on high, Whose hand the reins of the whole world doth bend. He as their king Rules them with lordly might. From Him they rise, flourish, and spring, He as their law and judge decides their right. Those things whose course Most swiftly glides away His might doth often backward force, And suddenly their wandering motion stay. Unless his strength Their violence should bound, And them which else would run at length, Should bring within the compass of a round, That firm decree Which now doth all adorn Would soon destroyed and broken be, Things being far from their beginning borne. This powerful love Is common unto all. -372- Which for desire of good do move Back to the springs from whence they first did fall. No worldly thing Can a continuance have Unless love back again it bring Unto the cause which first the essence gave. Boethius was, until the end, a friend of Theodoric. His father was consul, he was consul, and so were his two sons. His father-in-law Symmachus (probably grandson of the one who had a controversy with Ambrose about the statue of Victory) was an important man in the court of the Gothic king. Theodoric employed Boethius to reform the coinage, and to astonish less sophisticated barbarian kings with such devices as sun-dials and water-clocks. It may be that his freedom from superstition was not so exceptional in Roman aristocratic families as elsewhere; but its combination with great learning and zeal for the public good was unique in that age. During the two centuries before his time and the ten centuries after it, I cannot think of any European man of learning so free from superstition and fanaticism. Nor are his merits merely negative; his survey is lofty, disinterested, and sublime. He would have been remarkable in any age; in the age in which he lived, he is utterly amazing. The medieval reputation of Boethius was partly due to his being regarded as a martyr to Arian persecution--a view which began two or three hundred years after his death. In Pavia, he was regarded as a saint, but in fact he was not canonized. Though Cyril was a saint, Boethius was not. Two years after the execution of Boethius, Theodoric died. In the next year, Justinian became Emperor. He reigned until 565, and in this long time managed to do much harm and some good. He is of course chiefly famous for his Digest. But I shall not venture on this topic, which is one for the lawyers. He was a man of deep piety, which he signalized, two years after his accession, by closing the schools of philosophy in Athens, where paganism still reigned. The dispossessed philosophers betook themselves to Persia, where the king received them kindly. But they were shocked--more so, says Gibbon, than became philosophers--by the Persian practices of polygamy and incest, so they returned home again, and faded into obscurity...
...Saint Anselm was, like Lanfranc, an Italian, a monk at Bec, and archbishop of Canterbury ( 1093- 1109), in which capacity he followed the principles of Gregory VII and quarrelled with the king. He is chiefly known to fame as the inventor of the "ontological argument" for the existence of God. As he put it, the argument is as follows: We define "God" as the greatest possible object of thought. Now if an object of thought does not exist, another, exactly like it, which does exist, is greater. Therefore the greatest of all objects of thought must exist, since, otherwise, another, still greater, would be possible. Therefore God exists. This argument has never been accepted by theologians. It was adversely criticized at the time; then it was forgotten till the latter half of the thirteenth century. Thomas Aquinas rejected it, and among theologians his authority has prevailed ever since. But among philosophers it has had a better fate. Descartes revived it in a somewhat amended form; Leibniz thought that it could be made valid by the addition of a supplement to prove that God is possible. Kant considered that he had demolished it once for all. Nevertheless, in some sense, it underlies the system of Hegel and his followers, and reappears in Bradley's principle: "What may be and must be, is." Clearly an argument with such a distinguished history is to be treated with respect, whether valid or not. The real question is: Is there anything we can think of which, by the mere fact that we can think of it, is shown to exist outside our thought? Every philosopher would like to say yes, because a philosopher's job is to find out things about the world by thinking rather than observing. If yes is the right answer, there is a bridge from pure thought to things; if not, not. In this generalized form, Plato uses a kind of ontological argument to prove the objective reality of ideas. But no one before Anselm had -417- stated the argument in its naked logical purity. In gaining purity, it loses plausibility; but this also is to Anselm's credit. For the rest, Anselm's philosophy is mainly derived from Saint Augustine, from whom it acquires many Platonic elements. He believes in Platonic ideas, from which he derives another proof of the existence of God. By Neoplatonic arguments he professes to prove not only God, but the Trinity. (It will be remembered that Plotinus has a Trinity, though not one that a Christian can accept as orthodox.) Anselm considers reason subordinate to faith. "I believe in order to understand," he says; following Augustine, he holds that without belief it is impossible to understand. God, he says, is not just, but justice. It will be remembered that John the Scot says similar things. The common origin is in Plato. Saint Anselm, like his predecessors in Christian philosophy, is in the Platonic rather than the Aristotelian tradition. For this reason, he has not the distinctive characteristics of the philosophy which is called "scholastic," which culminated in Thomas Aquinas. This kind of philosophy may be reckoned as beginning with Roscelin, who was Anselm's contemporary, being seventeen years younger than Anselm. Roscelin marks a new beginning, and will be considered in the next chapter. When it is said that medieval philosophy, until the thirteenth century, was mainly Platonic, it must be remembered that Plato, except for a fragment of the Timaeus, was known only at second or third hand. John the Scot, for example, could not have held the views which he did hold but for Plato, but most of what is Platonic in him comes from the pseudo-Dionysius. The date of this author is uncertain, but it seems probable that he was a disciple of Proclus the Neoplatonist. It is probable, also, that John the Scot had never heard of Proclus or read a line of Plotinus. Apart from the pseudo-Dionysius, the other source of Platonism in the Middle Ages was Boethius. This Platonism was in many ways different from that which a modern student derives from Plato's own writings. It omitted almost everything that had no obvious bearing on religion, and in religious philosophy it enlarged and emphasized certain aspects at the expense of others. This change in the conception of Plato had already been effected by Plotinus. The knowledge of Aristotle was also fragmentary, but in an opposite direction: all that was known of him until the twelfth -418- century was Boethius translation of the Categories and De Emendatione. Thus Aristotle was conceived as a mere dialectician, and Plato as only a religious philosopher and the author of the theory of ideas. During the course of the later Middle Ages, both these partial conceptions were gradually emended, especially the conception of Aristotle. But the process, as regards Plato, was not completed until the Renaissance...








4. Should religious traditions attempt to combine with, or assimilate themselves to, philosophical traditions? What do religion and philosophy generally have in common, and in what ways are they different?

5. Does the free will defense work, even to the extent of explaining "moral" evil? Is there in fact a logical contradiction between the concept of free will and an omniscient deity? Why or why not?


6. Would we be better off without a belief in free will? 






Strange Gods

Excerpt:
1
AUGUSTINE OF HIPPO (354–430)

Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.
—Paul, Colossians 2:8

AUGUSTINE, a teenager studying in Carthage in the 370s, begins to ponder what he will one day consider the inevitable shortcomings of human philosophy ungrounded in the word of God. This process begins, as Augustine will later recount in his Confessions, when he reads Cicero’sHortensius, written around 45 b.c.e. The young scholar, unacquainted with either Jewish or Christian Scripture, takes away the (surely unintended) lesson from the pagan Cicero that only faith—a faith that places the supernatural above the natural—can satisfy the longing for wisdom.

“But, O Light of my heart,” Augustine wrote to his god in Confessions (c. 397), “you know that at that time, although Paul’s words were not known to me, the only thing that pleased me in Cicero’s book was his advice not simply to admire one or another of the schools of philosophy, but to love wisdom itself, whatever it might be. . . . These were the words which excited me and set me burning with fire, and the only check to this blaze of enthusiasm was that they made no mention of the name of Christ.”

The only check? To me, this passage from Confessions has always sounded like the many rewritings of personal history intended to conform the past to the author’s current beliefs and status in life—which in Augustine’s case meant being an influential bishop of an ascendant church that would tolerate no dissent grounded in other religious or secular philosophies. By the time he writes Confessions, Augustine seems a trifle embarrassed about having been so impressed, as a young man, by a pagan writer. So he finds a way to absolve himself of the sin of attraction to small-“c” catholic, often secular intellectual interests by limiting Cicero to his assigned role as one step in a fourth-century boy’s journey toward capital-“C” Catholicism. It is the adult Augustine who must reconcile his enthusiasm for Cicero with the absence of the name of Christ; there is no reason why this should have bothered the pagan adolescent Augustine at all. Nevertheless, no passage in the writings of the fathers of the church, or in any personal accounts of the intellectual and emotional process of conversion, explains more lucidly (albeit indirectly) why the triumph of Christianity inevitably begins with that other seeker on the road to Damascus. It is Paul, after all, not Jesus or the authors of the Gospels, who merits a mention in Augustine’s explanation of how his journey toward the one true faith was set in motion by a pagan.

It is impossible to consider Augustine, the second most important convert in the theological firmament of the early Christian era, without giving Paul his due. But let us leave Saul—he was still Saul then—as he awakes from a blow on his head to hear a voice from the heavens calling him to rebirth in Christ. Saul did not have any established new religion to convert to, but Augustine was converting to a faith with financial and political influence, as well as a spiritual message for the inhabitants of a decaying empire. Augustine’s journey from paganism to Christianity was a philosophical and spiritual struggle lasting many years, but it also exemplified the many worldly, secular influences on conversion in his and every subsequent era. These include mixed marriages; political instability that creates the perception and the reality of personal insecurity; and economic conditions that provide a space for new kinds of fortunes and the possibility of financial support for new religious institutions.

Augustine told us all about his struggle, within its social context, in Confessions—which turned out to be a best-seller for the ages. This was a new sort of book, even if it was a highly selective recounting of experience (like all memoirs) rather than a “tell-all” autobiography in the modern sense. Its enduring appeal, after a long break during the Middle Ages, lies not in its literary polish, intellectuality, or prayerfulness—though the memoir is infused with these qualities—but in its preoccupation with the individual’s relationship to and responsibility for sin and evil. As much as Augustine’s explorations constitute an individual journey—and have been received as such by generations of readers—the journey unfolds in an upwardly mobile, religiously divided family that was representative of many other people finding and shaping new ways to make a living; new forms of secular education; and new institutions of worship in a crumbling Roman civilization.

After a lengthy quest venturing into regions as wild as those of any modern religious cults, Augustine told the story of his spiritual odyssey when he was in his forties. His subsequent works, including The City of God, are among the theological pillars of Christianity, butConfes­sions is the only one of his books read widely by anyone but theologically minded intellectuals (or intellectual theologians). In the fourth and early fifth centuries, Christian intellectuals with both a pagan and a religious education, like the friends and mentors Augustine discusses in the book, provided the first audience for Confessions. That audience would probably not have existed a century earlier, because literacy—a secular prerequisite for a serious education in both paganism and Christianity—had expanded among members of the empire’s bourgeois class by the time Augustine was born. The Christian intellectuals who became Augustine’s first audience may have been more interested than modern readers in the theological framework of the autobiography (though they, too, must have been curious about the distinguished bishop’s sex life). ButConfessions has also been read avidly, since the Renaissance, by successive generations of humanist scholars (religious and secular); Enlightenment skeptics; nineteenth-century Romantics; psychotherapists; and legions of the prurient, whether religious believers or nonbelievers. Everyone, it seems, loves the tale of a great sinner turned into a great saint.

In my view, Augustine was neither a world-class sinner nor a saint, but his drama of sin and repentance remains a real page-turner. Here & Now
==

An old post-

Augustine & string theory

Is anyone, from God on down, “pulling our strings”? We’d not be free if they were, would we? If you say we would, what do you mean by “free”? Jesus and Mo have puzzled this one, behind the wheel with with Moses and with "Free Willy." But as usual, the Atheist Barmaid is unpersuaded.

(As I always must say, when referencing this strip: that’s not Jesus of Nazareth, nor is it the Prophet Mohammed, or the sea-parter Moses; and neither I nor Salman Rushdie, the Dutch cartoonists, the anonymous Author, or anyone else commenting on religion in fictional media are blasphemers. We're all just observers exercising our "god-given" right of free speech, which of course extends no further than the end of a fist and the tip of a nose. We'll be celebrating precisely that, and academic freedom, when we line up to take turns reading the Constitution this morning.

No, they’re just a trio of cartoonish guys who often engage in banter relevant to our purposes in CoPhi. It’s just harmless provocation, and fun. But if it makes us think, it’s useful.)

Augustine proposed a division between the “city of god” and the “earthly city” of humanity, thus excluding many of us from his version of the cosmos. “These two cities of the world, which are doomed to coexist intertwined until the Final Judgment, divide the world’s inhabitants.” SEP

And of course he believed in hell, raising the stakes for heaven and the judicious free will he thought necessary to get there even higher. If there's no such thing as free will, though, how can you do "whatever the hell you want"? But, imagine there's no heaven or hell. What then? Some of us think that's when free will becomes most useful to members of a growing, responsible species.

Someone posted the complaint on our class message board that it's not clear what "evil" means, in the context of our Little History discussion of Augustine. But I think this is clear enough: "there is a great deal of suffering in the world," some of it proximally caused by crazy, immoral/amoral, armed and dangerous humans behaving badly, much more of it caused by earthquakes, disease, and other "natural" causes. All of it, on the theistic hypothesis, is part and parcel of divinely-ordered nature.

Whether or not some suffering is ultimately beneficial, character-building, etc., and from whatever causes, "evil" means the suffering that seems gratuitously destructive of innocent lives. Some of us "can't blink the evil out of sight," in William James's words, and thus can't go in for theistic (or other) schemes of "vicarious salvation." We think it's the responsibility of humans to use their free will (or whatever you prefer to call ameliorative volitional action) to reduce the world's evil and suffering. Take a sad song and make it better.

Note the Manichaean strain in Augustine, and the idea that "evil comes from the body." That's straight out of Plato. The world of Form and the world of perfect heavenly salvation thus seem to converge. If you don't think "body" is inherently evil, if in fact you think material existence is pretty cool (especially considering the alternative), this view is probably not for you. Nor if you can't make sense of Original Sin, that most "difficult" contrivance of the theology shop.

"Augustine had felt the hidden corrosive effect of Adam's Fall, like the worm in the apple, firsthand," reminds Arthur Herman. His prayer for personal virtue "but not yet" sounds funny but was a cry of desperation and fear.
Like Aristotle, Augustine believed that the quality of life we lead depends on the choices we make. The tragedy is that left to our own devices - and contrary to Aristotle - most of those choices will be wrong. There can be no true morality without faith and no faith without the presence of God. The Cave and the Light

Bertrand Russell, we know, was not a Christian. But he was a bit of a fan of Augustine the philosopher (as distinct from the theologian), on problems like time.

As for Augustine the theologian and Saint-in-training, Russell's pen drips disdain.
It is strange that the last men of intellectual eminence before the dark ages were concerned, not with saving civilization or expelling the barbarians or reforming the abuses of the administration, but with preaching the merit of virginity and the damnation of unbaptized infants.
Funny, how the preachers of the merit of virginity so often come late - after exhausting their stores of wild oats - to their chaste piety. Not exactly paragons of virtue or character, these Johnnys Come Lately. On the other hand, it's possible to profess a faith you don't understand much too soon. My own early Sunday School advisers pressured and frightened me into "going forward" at age 6, lest I "die before I wake" one night and join the legions of the damned.

That's an allusive segue to today's additional discussion of Aristotelian virtue ethics, in its turn connected with the contradictions inherent in the quest to bend invariably towards Commandments. "Love your neighbor": must that mean, let your neighbor suffer a debilitating terminal illness you could pull the plug on? Or is the "Christian" course, sometimes, to put an end to it?

We also read today of Hume's Law, Moore's Naturalistic Fallacy, the old fact/value debate. Sam Harris is one of the most recent controversialists to weigh in on the issue, arguing that "good" means supportive of human well-being and flourishing, which are in turn based on solid facts. "The answer to the question, 'What should I believe, and why should I believe it?' is generally a scientific one..." Brain Science and Human Values

Also: ethical relativism, meta-ethics, and more. And maybe we'll have time to squeeze in consideration of the perennial good-versus-evil trope. Would there be anything "wrong" with a world in which good was already triumphant, happiness for all already secured, kindness and compassion unrivaled by hatred and cruelty? I think it might be just fine. Worth a try, anyway. Where can I vote for that?







"Boethius in his cell imagined his visitor: Philosophy personified as a tall woman wearing a dress with the letters Pi to Theta on it. She berates him for deserting her and the stoicism she preached. Boethius’s own book was a response to her challenge..." (from Nigel's essay "Philosophy Should Be Conversation")
==
COLLEGE students tell me they know how to look someone in the eye and type on their phones at the same time, their split attention undetected. They say it’s a skill they mastered in middle school when they wanted to text in class without getting caught. Now they use it when they want to be both with their friends and, as some put it, “elsewhere.” These days, we feel less of a need to hide the fact that we are dividing our attention. In a 2015 study by the Pew Research Center, 89 percent of cellphone owners said they had used their phones during the last social gathering they attended. But they weren’t happy about it; 82 percent of adults felt that the way they used their phones in social settings hurt the conversation.I’ve been studying the psychology of online connectivity for more than 30 years. For the past five, I’ve had a special focus: What has happened to face-to-face conversation in a world where so many people say they would rather text than talk? I’ve looked at families, friendships and romance. I’ve studied schools, universities and workplaces. When college students explain to me how dividing their attention plays out in the dining hall, some refer to a “rule of three.” In a conversation among five or six people at dinner, you have to check that three people are paying attention — heads up — before you give yourself permission to look down at your phone. So conversation proceeds, but with different people having their heads up at different times. The effect is what you would expect: Conversation is kept relatively light, on topics where people feel they can drop in and out... (from Sherry Terkle's "Stop Googling. Let's Talk")
==
Sherry Turkle is a singular voice in the discourse about technology. She’s a skeptic who was once a believer, a clinical psychologist among the industry shills and the literary hand-wringers, an empiricist among the cherry-picking anecdotalists, a moderate among the extremists, a realist among the fantasists, a humanist but not a Luddite: a grown-up. She holds an endowed chair at M.I.T. and is on close collegial terms with the roboticists and affective-computing engineers who work there. Unlike Jaron Lanier, who bears the stodgy weight of being a Microsoft guy, or Evgeny Morozov, whose perspective is Belarussian, Turkle is a trusted and respected insider. As such, she serves as a kind of conscience for the tech world.

Turkle’s previous book, “Alone ­Together,” was a damning report on human relationships in the digital age. By observing people’s interactions with robots, and by interviewing them about their computers and phones, she charted the ways in which new technologies render older values obsolete. When we replace human caregivers with robots, or talking with texting, we begin by arguing that the replacements are “better than nothing” but end up considering them “better than anything” — cleaner, less risky, less demanding. Paralleling this shift is a growing preference for the virtual over the real. Robots don’t care about people, but Turkle’s subjects were shockingly quick to settle for the feeling of being cared for and, similarly, to prefer the sense of community that social media deliver, because it comes without the hazards and commitments of a real-world community. In her interviews, again and again, Turkle observed a deep disappointment with human beings, who are flawed and forgetful, needy and unpredictable, in ways that machines are wired not to be. Her new book, “Reclaiming Conversation,” extends her critique, with less ­emphasis on robots and more on the dissatisfaction with technology reported by her recent interview subjects. She takes their dissatisfaction as a hopeful sign, and her book is straightforwardly a call to arms: Our rapturous submission to digital technology has led to an atrophying of human capacities like empathy and self-­reflection, and the time has come to reassert ourselves, behave like adults and put technology in its place... (Jonathan Franzen review of Reclaiming Conversation, continues)
==
A follow-up from Sherry Turkle on the lost art of conversation:
My recent Sunday Review essay, adapted from my book “Reclaiming Conversation,” made a case for face-to-face talk. The piece argued that direct engagement is crucial for the development of empathy, the ability to put ourselves in the place of others. The article went on to say that it is time to make room for this most basic interaction by first accepting our vulnerability to the constant hum of online connection and then designing our lives and our products to protect against it.

Some readers agreed with me. Others, even as they disagreed, captured the fragility of conversation today... (continues)

Though one goal of visiting a professor during office hours is certainly transactional — to increase your knowledge and improve your grade — the other is to visit someone who is making an effort to understand you and how you think. And a visit to a professor holds the possibility of giving a student the feeling of adult support and commitment.

But students say they don’t come to office hours because they are afraid of being too dull. They tell me they prefer to email professors because only with the time delay and the possibility of editing can they best explain their work. My students suggest that an email from them will put me in the best position to improve their ideas. They cast our meeting in purely transactional terms, judging that the online transaction will yield better results than a face-to-face meeting.

Zvi, a college junior who doesn’t like to see his professors in person but prefers to email, used transactional language to describe what he might get out of office hours: He has ideas; the professors have information that will improve them. In the end, Zvi walked back his position and admitted that he stays away from professors because he doesn’t feel grown-up enough to talk to them. His professors might be able to help him with this, but not because they’ll give him information.

Studies of mentoring show that what makes a difference, what can change the life of a student, is the presence of a strong figure who shows an interest, who, as a student might say, “gets me.”

You need face-to-face conversation for that. nyt 
==
*From Consolation of Philosophy, Book V-'Since, then, as we lately proved, everything that is known is cognized not in accordance with its own nature, but in accordance with the nature of the faculty that comprehends it, let us now contemplate, as far as lawful, the character of the Divine essence, that we may be able to understand also the nature of its knowledge...

92 comments:

  1. Amber Lanese Molder12:08 AM CDT

    Are supernatural stories of faith, redemption, and salvation more comforting to you than the power of reason and evidence?
    #H-03 // If I had to compare the two, for the sole purpose of comfort… then yes, I find stories of faith, redemption, and salvation to be more comforting. At the core, the story symbolizes believing in something, being forgiven, given a second chance, and being saved. Those kind of stories are meant to elicit feelings such as hope, peace, and comfort in people. People that don’t believe in those supernatural stories could see them as silly, but the people that do can be deeply affected and uplifted by them.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Marie Hussels H0111:17 AM CDT

    Weekly Essay 250+
    "Are supernatural stories of faith, redemption, and salvation more comforting to you than the power of reason and evidence?"

    To me the power of reasoning and evidence gives me more comfort than more supernatural stories. When it comes to the unknown I always like to have solid evidence to go off of. Supernatural stories just do not resonate with me. I don't really believe in anything supernatural because to me everything has a logical explanation. I wish the supernatural was more comforting to me because a lot of times you cannot explain the unknown because not enough evidence is known. If, however, the supernatural could be supported with scientific and rational evidence then of course I would believe it but just having faith in something doesn't make me feel better about the unknown.
    I like to investigate and ask questions and blind faith does not really allow for this. Of course, some things in life just require faith but if I can avoid it I definitely will. I believe that the world around us is so logic and reason based that the supernatural is just hard to believe in. When I was younger I used to believe in ghosts and other supernatural stories but as I got older and got more inquisitive I began to develop more questions than I could find answers to.
    Stories of faith, redemption, and salvation are nice to read but in the end they do not provide the same power of reasoning and logic. The supernatural just is not very real to me and thus not as comforting as my firm belief in logic and reason.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Marie Hussels H0111:21 AM CDT

    "Does the concept of a never-ending struggle between good and evil appeal to you?"
    It does in a way. I believe that life is always a bit of a struggle to do the right thing and the avoidance of doing the wrong thing. To me the struggle is more internal but it is one of the many things that makes us human.

    ReplyDelete
  4. H01
    Are supernatural stories of faith, redemption, and salvation more comforting to you than the power of reason and evidence?

    It's hard to answer this question. If I had to boil it down to the essence of my beliefs, then I follow a "see it to believe it" perspective. So one person might have experienced something extraordinary that couldn't be explained, but I think I find more comfort in seeing multiple people going through something and there being evidence that it was solved using a specific method. This question's a little difficult to morally answer because I have a foot in science but also in religion. Maybe it's just God solving things without telling us/giving us the answer yet, who knows?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Section 9

      I think some of the most comforting stories are true stories of human goodness. There are tons of horrible events that take place daily, but every once in a while, the goodness of humanity shines through.

      Delete
    2. Riley Fox1:55 PM CDT

      Section 12:

      I think there is something appealing about these "stories" for a majority of people. Apart from religious views, they provide good morals from these "stories". From a spiritual standpoint, I believe it is comforting for people to believe that they are part of something more and believe that their live has a higher meaning, overall.

      Delete
    3. Anonymous12:50 PM CDT

      Section 11 Micah Chapman
      I Think that the supernatural can be evidence and have reason making it not a one or the other type thing.

      Delete
  5. H01
    Can the definition of a word prove anything about the world?

    Well, definition's have been known to evolve and change over time, so I definitely think they can tell us something about the world. There are words that are used nowadays that are considered hurtful that at one point in time were harmless, so yeah... there's definitely something that definitions can tell us.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Definitions are helpful. At least, through definitions, we can know what someone is really talking about. Without them, we would literally be lost.

      Delete
    2. I believe that definitions can really help in terms of describing things to people, so that we can all understand each other.

      Delete
  6. H01
    Does the possibility of other worlds somehow diminish humanity?

    I don't think so. Your humanity is what makes you who you are, so just because there might be a possibility of another world doesn't change anything about yourself.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Section 9

      I think many people get wrapped up with us being the only grand intelligence. Maybe those people would take issue with someone or something smarter than us out there. For me, I don't think it diminishes how good humans can be.

      Delete
    2. I totally agree! Humanity is something different from the existence of another world. At the same time, not because another world exists, humanity should/would be valued less. I think it is still as equally as important.

      Delete
  7. H1

    Which is more plausible, that God exists but is not more powerful than Satan, or that neither God nor Satan exists? Why?

    I do not like the thought of either of these ideas, but if i had to say one is more plausible than the other, I would reluctantly say that God exists but is less powerful than Satan. I believe in my core that God exists, so there is no way for me to think about existence without God in the picture. I know that I hear the voice in my head, sometimes quite profoundly, that pulls me away from walking with God and growing in my faith. I believe that voice is satan, and my actions reflect that Satan's voice is stronger than God's.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Jesse Pohl
      1030-010
      I love this! Because it is more plausible to think that God would be less powerful than Satan because I know wholeheartedly that God exists. Sometimes Satan can be more powerful for an individual person if the individual picks bad over good. Satan is able to gain power over certain people but not the world in total.

      Delete
  8. H1

    Are supernatural stories of faith, redemption, and salvation more comforting to you than the power of reason and evidence?

    These supernatural stories seem to have quite the human twist to them. I believe that there is some placebo effect when, for example, people in a gospel church have their bodies invaded by the spirit. Human emotion and the inherent pleasure of receiving attention, especially attention for feeling the holy spirit, seems to drive people to over exaggerate these stories. I am a very analytical thinker who very much appreciates standing on a strong foundation of objective evidence. It is not until I read a book called Case for Christ which provided me with a wealth of objective evidence supporting the existence and miracles of Jesus that I began to seriously explore christianity.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I would say yes! I know that God is capable of doing anything, so even if I hear these supernatural stories, I still believe them. Furthermore, I feel comforted.

      Delete
  9. H1

    What do you think of the Manichean idea that an "evil God created the earth and emtombed our souls in the prisons of our bodies"? 392

    This sounds like someone who is not willing to put the effort forth to squash their lustful and immediate urges pleasure and try to live with virtue, specifically christian virtue. I see my body as a vehicle for my soul to experience the world and make it a better place. a paralysed person is in a bodily prison. Big difference.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Which is more plausible, that God exists but is not more powerful than Satan, or that neither God nor Satan exists? Why?
    - I believe they are both equally unknown and likely.

    Are supernatural stories of faith, redemption, and salvation more comforting to you than the power of reason and evidence?
    - NO. I very much believe in facts and find more comfort in them than hypotheticals.

    What do you think of the Manichean idea that an "evil God created the earth and emtombed our souls in the prisons of our bodies"?
    - It's a dark twist on creation and would depend on your view on the afterlife.

    Did Russell "demolish" Anselm's ontological argument?
    -He definitely makes everyone think. But some people are certainly unaffected by his words.
    COMMENT: “The world is so exquisite with so much love and moral depth, that there is no reason to deceive ourselves with pretty stories for which there's little good evidence. Far better it seems to me, in our vulnerability, is to look death in the eye and to be grateful every day for the brief but magnificent opportunity that life provides.”
    - I agree that we should live in the moment and not think to far beyond.

    COMMENT: “Science is not only compatible with spirituality; it is a profound source of spirituality. When we recognize our place in an immensity of light‐years and in the passage of ages, when we grasp the intricacy, beauty, and subtlety of life, then that soaring feeling, that sense of elation and humility combined, is surely spiritual. So are our emotions in the presence of great art or music or literature, or acts of exemplary selfless courage such as those of Mohandas Gandhi or Martin Luther King, Jr. The notion that science and spirituality are somehow mutually exclusive does a disservice to both.” Carl Sagan
    -I think to most people they are separate. Science and spirituality are hard to see together.

    If you were falsely imprisoned, tortured, and scheduled for execution, would you be able to achieve "consolation"? How?
    -That would depend on your beliefs. Some seek consolation through confession. If this is the case, then yes.

    Can the definition of a word prove anything about the world
    - Yes, however the connotation of it is often much more telling.

    Is theoretical simplicity always better, even if the universe is complex
    Simplicity as in looking to the present is highly beneficial. Not downgrading the universe.

    Does the possibility of other worlds somehow diminish humanity
    -Not until it is proven, this is all we know.

    How does the definition of God as omniscient, omnipotent, and perfectly good make it harder to account for evil and suffering in the world? Would it be better to believe in a lesser god, or no god at all?
    Because then why would that god let evil things happen?

    Can you explain the concept of Original Sin? Do you think you understand it?
    The original sin that doomed us all but I think it is hard to grasp.

    Is it better to embrace (or renounce) religious faith early in life, or to "sow your wild oats" and enjoy a wide experience of the world before committing to any particular tradition or belief? Were you encouraged by adults, in childhood, to make a public profession of faith? If so, did you understand what that meant or entailed?
    - You should have a chance to explore and see what you want spiritually.

    Does the concept of a never-ending struggle between good and evil appeal to you?
    - Maybe in ourselves, but not by some outside, unseen forces.




    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Section 9

      I definitely sowed some wild oats when I was younger. It was fun exploring new ways of thinking and viewing the world. It seems healthy to do as long as you can stay out of trouble

      Delete
  11. H1
    Do you agree with Augustine about "the main message of Christianity"? 395 If not, what do you think the message is?

    The main message of christianity is love. Put God at the center of life by mirroring the life of Jesus.

    ReplyDelete
  12. H1
    “The world is so exquisite with so much love and moral depth, that there is no reason to deceive ourselves with pretty stories for which there's little good evidence. Far better it seems to me, in our vulnerability, is to look death in the eye and to be grateful every day for the brief but magnificent opportunity that life provides.”

    I can empathize with this statement. It is only showing one side of the coin, but it is a wonderfully helpful way to view the world. It makes our supposed problems look small, it is brave, and it is the more important side of the coin.

    ReplyDelete
  13. H1

    “Science is not only compatible with spirituality; it is a profound source of spirituality. When we recognize our place in an immensity of light‐years and in the passage of ages, when we grasp the intricacy, beauty, and subtlety of life, then that soaring feeling, that sense of elation and humility combined, is surely spiritual. So are our emotions in the presence of great art or music or literature, or acts of exemplary selfless courage such as those of Mohandas Gandhi or Martin Luther King, Jr. The notion that science and spirituality are somehow mutually exclusive does a disservice to both.” Carl Sagan

    I understand this passage as saying that if we understand the delicate, immense, and balanced nature of the scientifically driven world we live in, we will gain a spiritual feeling of great elation and balance; a spiritual feeling. I love what Sagan says about emotion because they are the intersection of science and spirituality to me. They are caused by a chemical reaction (science), but they cause what we most desire: to feel (spiritual). Of course, there are negative emotion which I believe is caused by the imperfections of human nature. However, it is better to feel negative emotions than to feel nothing at all.

    ReplyDelete
  14. H1
    If you were falsely imprisoned, tortured, and scheduled for execution, would you be able to achieve "consolation"? How?

    No. The feeling of being unjustly treated is perhaps the most painful thing for a human to feel.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Section 9

      This is tough. I think I could console myself to a point, but it's difficult to shake the feeling of bitterness. I even feel bitter when someone else is falsely imprisoned, I can't imagine myself.

      Delete
  15. (H02) Discussion Questions:

    Is philosophy a type of middle ground between science and religion? In what ways does it help or hinder either one?

    Plato's works greatly impacted many philosophers after his death. Why do you think his philosophy is so popular among philosophers?

    ReplyDelete
  16. H2

    I think supernatural stories are more comforting at times because they allow us a moment in time to forget about the harsh realities and indulge in the possibility of fantasy being real.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Alternate DQ

    For believers of religion: if you ever found definitive proof that God didn't exist, would you renounce your religion? Why or why not?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Brian Perez12:52 PM CDT

      It would be really hard to convince those who are deeply religious. Any sort of information directly attacking the assertion that God exists would be considered blasphemous. I would still believe that God exists just cause there has yet to be evidence proving otherwise despite the belief being around for many generations.

      Delete
    2. Anonymous12:52 PM CDT

      Section 11 Micah Chapman
      I don't know if I would. I know with assurance that God does exist so it is hard for me to think that way.

      Delete
  18. Jesse Pohl
    1030-010

    1) Which is more plausible, that God exists but is not more powerful than Satan, or that neither God nor Satan exists? Why?

    Neither. God does exist and He is more powerful than Satan.

    2) Are supernatural stories of faith, redemption, and salvation more comforting to you than the power of reason and evidence?

    These are too intertwined. I choose the faith and redemption stories but don’t call those supernatural. I think if something happened with evidence- like science it’s because God allowed that to happen.

    3) If you were falsely imprisoned, tortured, and scheduled for execution, would you be able to achieve "consolation"? How?

    If by consoled, you mean know I will be going to Heaven with Jesus then possible yes. I would be petrified but at least id be going to Heaven and the pain would be over soon. What a morbid thing to ask….

    4) Can the definition of a word prove anything about the world?

    Depends on the word. There are many facets of the world so in some cases maybe.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Jesse Pohl
    1030-010

    5) Is theoretical simplicity always better, even if the universe is complex?

    Sometimes things are simple, and we make something complex out of it. So yes.

    6) Does the possibility of other worlds somehow diminish humanity?

    Worlds as in there are alternate universes? Because that is a little bit of a stretch even for this class. Or aliens? Even if other world exists it doesn’t change out jobs as humans, shouldn’t really impact us. Because God made us to extend the message of hope and be good people to all so no.

    7) How does the definition of God as omniscient, omnipotent, and perfectly good make it harder to account for evil and suffering in the world? Would it be better to believe in a lesser god, or no god at all?

    It would be easier to believe in a lesser God because I know God is powerful and I know He is here. His definition doesn’t make it harder to account for evil and suffering in the world. It isn’t His fault, *holding in my laughter at this question*, it’s our fault and the Bible tells us why. So no, it is not hard to account for all the bad stuff by knowing how awesome God is.

    8) Can you explain the concept of Original Sin? Do you think you understand it?

    This is where being a cradle Catholic, going to church classes, and going to Catholic school for four years helps out . Original Sin is the sin a person is born with that comes from when Adam and Eve sinned in the Garden of Eden by eating the forbidden fruit and because of that they brought sin into the world and because sin was brought in and we are all imperfect people we sin. So, when a person is born, they are born with original sin. Original sin is washed away (all sin is washed away) at baptism.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Jesse Pohl
    1030-10

    9) Is it better to embrace (or renounce) religious faith early in life, or to "sow your wild oats" and enjoy a wide experience of the world before committing to any particular tradition or belief? Were you encouraged by adults, in childhood, to make a public profession of faith? If so, did you understand what that meant or entailed?

    It is better to embrace your faith. I was encouraged by adults to make a profession of faith and I knew what it meant and understood and decided myself to do so. I believe without faith you cannot fully experience anything. With God by your side your eyes are open, you are shown a world you’ve never seen, and you experience things you never thought were possible.

    10) Does the concept of a never-ending struggle between good and evil appeal to you? Does it make sense, in the light of whatever else you believe? Would there be anything "wrong" with a world in which good was already triumphant, happiness for all already secured, kindness and compassion unrivaled by hatred and cruelty?

    When God made the world that good being triumphant concept already existed. Somehow, we jacked that up pretty fast. So, it had to be this way. The struggle between good and evil, yeah it appeals to me, it’s called free will. You want our free will to be taken away? The struggle of good and evil is within us and our free choices decide which sides wins that time. We are never going to have the world before Adam and Eve ate the forbidden fruit so for me it’s a concept in which I cannot fathom.

    11) Do you find the concept of Original Sin compelling, difficult, unfair, or dubious? In general, do we "inherit the sins of our fathers (and mothers)"? If yes, give examples and explain.
    No. We inherit original sin that’s it.

    12) What do you think of the Manichean idea that an "evil God created the earth and entombed our souls in the prisons of our bodies"?

    Google says if you think like Manichean you think black and white. Well, this a good example of when google is flat wrong. I am a pretty black and white thinker and when I saw this question, I laughed so hard and then said this was an awful thing to think and was weird.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Jesse Pohl
    1030-010

    Alt. Quiz Questions:

    a) What did Gibbon call the “golden volume” that begins with the statement about Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle being true philosophers and Stoics, Epicureans, and the rest are uppers?
    b) Who taught that Adam had free will before the fall and could’ve abstained from the sin- but once the fruit was eaten corruption entered Adam and Eve?
    c) Who is chiefly known to fame as the inventor of the "ontological argument" for the existence of God?
    d) How much of the world’s population do we (in the United States) make up? How much of the world’s population do we (in the United States) house and imprison?

    Alt. Discussion Questions:
    1) What is your definition of free will?
    2) Do you think that life would be better if no one knew that God existed? That religion didn’t even exist? If religion did not exist do you think we would researching and trying to find out something about the start of our world/more open and from the beginning have wanted to look for a creator in the way, we want to/with the passion we have as we are looking for aliens? (would the curiosity still be there?)
    3) Could philosophers be men/women of religion? If so, do you think (in your own opinion) that Aristotle, Plato, or any of the greats were religious and if so who?

    ReplyDelete
  22. Anonymous12:36 AM CST

    yes the possibility of other worlds DEFINITELY diminishes the value of humanity!

    ReplyDelete
  23. 006
    Which is more plausible, that God exists but is not more powerful than Satan, or that neither God nor Satan exists? Why?

    I would have to say that neither existing would be more plausible as opposed to one being more powerful that the other. In the sense of "good" and "evil," I believe that those forces are equally powerful and act together. You cannot have good without also having evil, and dividing their "powers" up isn't up to us to decide.
    If God exists, he would be no more powerful than any other spiritual entity, even if it was more evil in its nature. That would throw off the natural balance between the two.

    ReplyDelete
  24. Abby Pittman section 6
    article I found this morning: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/26/world/asia/trump-kim-vietnam-summit.html?action=click&module=Top%20Stories&pgtype=Homepage

    ReplyDelete
  25. Owen Martin10:59 AM CST

    DQ: Which is more plausible, that God exists but is not more powerful than Satan, or that neither God nor Satan exists? Why?
    Neither existing seems more plausible, as God should seemingly be able to overcome his creation and yet we still have evil.

    DQ: Are supernatural stories of faith, redemption, and salvation more comforting to you than the power of reason and evidence?
    Reason and evidence provide a better basis for safety while stories of faith and redemption provide a basis for hope. Both are comforting in separate ways, although safety is more comforting than hope to me.

    DQ: Is theoretical simplicity always better, even if the universe is complex?
    Theoretical simplicity is always the goal as it makes things easier to understand and understanding is the point of the theory. That said, accuracy is much more important and should be the main goal rather than simplicity.

    DQ: Does the possibility of other worlds somehow diminish humanity?
    Not in the slightest. The possibility of other worlds does not diminish the minute chance of existence, even if that has occurred more than once.

    DQ: How does the definition of God as omniscient, omnipotent, and perfectly good make it harder to account for evil and suffering in the world? Would it be better to believe in a lesser god, or no god at all?
    A perfectly good and perfectly in charge God would not allow pain or suffering without good reason. While there are a lot of arguments for free will and humanity causing its own suffering, a good God would not let us harm ourselves over and over again as happens in the world.

    ReplyDelete
  26. Owen Martin10:59 AM CST

    DQ: Can you explain the concept of Original Sin? Do you think you understand it?
    The concept of Original Sin is that humanity was perfect until someone sinned and brought down that perfection. Now we all sin and do evil. I understand how it works, but I do not believe it.

    DQ: Is it better to embrace (or renounce) religious faith early in life, or to "sow your wild oats" and enjoy a wide experience of the world before committing to any particular tradition or belief? Were you encouraged by adults, in childhood, to make a public profession of faith? If so, did you understand what that meant or entailed?
    I think that it is better to experience more of the world before deciding what you believe. I was definitely encouraged to believe one particular tradition and I did understand it well. After some time, the logic of it fell away for me, but I do not believe that I was forced into believing when I did, just that I was forced into acting like I believed after I stopped.

    DQ: Does the concept of a never-ending struggle between good and evil appeal to you? Does it make sense, in the light of whatever else you believe? Would there be anything "wrong" with a world in which good was already triumphant, happiness for all already secured, kindness and compassion unrivaled by hatred and cruelty?
    The concept makes sense if there was a less than all-powerful good deity and and an equally less than all-powerful bad being. That said, I'm still a bit iffy on the idea of beings outside of time and space, so I don't really buy in to it whether it makes sense or not.

    DQ: Do you find the concept of Original Sin compelling, difficult, unfair, or dubious? In general, do we "inherit the sins of our fathers (and mothers)"? If yes, give examples and explain.
    The concept of Original Sin is a strange one, although someone obviously did do the first evil deed in humanity at some point. I think we do often inherit the sins of our parents as they have worn off on us over the time we have spent with them.

    DQ: Andersen notes that since WWII "mainline" Christian denominations were peaking (and, as evidence shows, are now declining). What do you think about this when you consider the visible political power of other evangelical denominations? Are you a part of a mainline traditon? If so, how would you explain this shift?
    Mainline Protestants are still heavily influential in modern society. They decided elections and are marketed to by many companies. Mainline denominations are also shifting slightly to be slightly more progressive than in previous generations to become more in line with society (i.e. the United Methodist General Conference this weekend). As a whole, attendance at these churches and their popularity is down due to their lack of congruence with societal norms and their inability to be open to certain classes of people. This does slowly (very, very slowly) seem to be changing, but does not seem to be changing fast enough to reverse these effects.

    ReplyDelete
  27. Owen Martin11:05 AM CST

    Alternative quiz questions:
    1) What town in the Mojave Desert was "created by questionable characters to be honky-tonk?"
    A: Las Vegas
    2) To what group of people did writers Jack Kerouac, Alan Ginsberg, and William Burroughs belong?
    A: The Beats
    3) What is the book in which Jack Kerouac visits a fictionalized William Burroughs?
    A: "On The Road"

    ReplyDelete
  28. Which is more plausible, that God exists but is not more powerful than Satan, or that neither God nor Satan exists? Why?

    Neither exists because if god was truly omnipotent and virtuous would he really let evil exist? Therefore he can not exist, and if Satan allows good to exist, and he is truly omnipotent and evil. Then he doesn't exist. Or if they so by chance exist, then they are not omnipotent or we are just mislead.

    ReplyDelete
  29. What do you think of the Manichean idea that an "evil God created the earth and emtombed our souls in the prisons of our bodies"?

    I think it's definetly possible and it makes sense, because if a god is truly kind and omnipotent, yet there still lies evil in the soil, then maybe we are not on plane of neutrality, where evil and good fight, but instead on a land of partial evil, where happiness is possible, but suffering is certain and we are forever dormant here.

    ReplyDelete
  30. Can the definition of a word prove anything about the world?

    No I think it helps us understand the collective reality that we perceive as a species, however who is to say that we are all right, for all we truly know, what we know can all be a lie. Thus it can not truly explain our world, but it can explain what we perceive to others of our species.

    ReplyDelete
  31. “The world is so exquisite with so much love and moral depth, that there is no reason to deceive ourselves with pretty stories for which there's little good evidence. Far better it seems to me, in our vulnerability, is to look death in the eye and to be grateful every day for the brief but magnificent opportunity that life provides.”
    “Science is not only compatible with spirituality; it is a profound source of spirituality. When we recognize our place in an immensity of light‐years and in the passage of ages, when we grasp the intricacy, beauty, and subtlety of life, then that soaring feeling, that sense of elation and humility combined, is surely spiritual. So are our emotions in the presence of great art or music or literature, or acts of exemplary selfless courage such as those of Mohandas Gandhi or Martin Luther King, Jr. The notion that science and spirituality are somehow mutually exclusive does a disservice to both.”

    Discussion Questions:
    1. Which is more plausible, that God exists but is not more powerful than Satan, or that neither God nor Satan exists? Why?
    - It is more plausible that neither God or Satan exists. If they do both exist, then Satan would probably be less powerful than God, because the world exists. Even though there are bad things in the world, there is still love and happiness, which is not something Satan would promote.

    2. Are supernatural stories of faith, redemption, and salvation more comforting to you than the power of reason and evidence?
    - No, reason and evidence are more comforting to me. I do not like to rely on faith for comfort.

    Quiz Questions:
    1. Who said that we have free will?
    2. What is the conviction of sin?
    3. What proves God’s justice?
    4. What is said to be “a most sacred thing”?

    ReplyDelete
  32. Does the possibility of other worlds somehow diminish humanity?

    No, if anything that should make us strive towards better racial achievements. We are a exceedingly rare occurrence, yet because the universe is so big, more life is bound to happen. Therefore, because of that notion it should not diminish us, there is nothing we can do about it. But what we can do is prove ourselves as a worthy lifeforms to recieve the blessings of being a complex sentient lifeforms.

    ReplyDelete
  33. Phil 1030-009
    Does the possibility of other worlds somehow diminish humanity?

    No.

    ReplyDelete
  34. Phil 1030-009
    Question in class: Does free will matter? Does it matter to you if it exists or not?

    It doesn't matter to me. If we found out definitively that free will did exist, then great the world will go on. If we learned definitively that we did not have free will, the majority of humanity would get over it... I think most would not truly care. They will go on with their lives

    ReplyDelete
  35. Section 10
    Which is more plausible, that God exists but is not more powerful than Satan, or that neither God nor Satan exists? Why?

    I find the idea that both exists to be more plausible, I think God is more powerful, but Satan does have a strong influence on Humanity.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anonymous12:55 PM CDT

      Section 11 Micah Chapman
      I tend to agree Satan is in control of this imperfect work but God is the Ruler of life after death.

      Delete
  36. Sect. 10

    Are supernatural stories of faith, redemption, and salvation more comforting to you than the power of reason and evidence?

    Stories of reason and evidence are more comforting to me rather than unexplainable supernatural stories. Personally, evidence comforts me and convinces me more.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I agree that science and evidence are more convincing and therefore more comforting than supernatural stuff.
      11

      Delete
  37. Sect. 10
    Is theoretical simplicity always better, even if the universe is complex?

    I don’t think simplicity is always better. If the reality is complex, then so should the answer, if it wants to answer it completley.

    ReplyDelete
  38. Sect. 10
    Does the possibility of other worlds somehow diminish humanity?

    I don’t think so, I believe there could be many other worlds, and I think Humanity will still be significant.

    ReplyDelete
  39. Sect.10
    How does the definition of God as omniscient, omnipotent, and perfectly good make it harder to account for evil and suffering in the world? Would it be better to believe in a lesser god, or no god at all?

    It is harder to account for God, when there is much suffering in the World, because it makes one question the rational of God. I think it would be better to not believe in a God, but rather a Universal energy.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. thats a good idea. What do you mean by universal energy though?

      Delete
  40. Sect. 10
    Can you explain the concept of Original Sin? Do you think you understand it?

    Adam and Eve sinned so the rest of Humanity is sinners when born. I think that is all there to know.

    ReplyDelete
  41. Sect. 10
    Is it better to embrace (or renounce) religious faith early in life, or to "sow your wild oats" and enjoy a wide experience of the world before committing to any particular tradition or belief? Were you encouraged by adults, in childhood, to make a public profession of faith? If so, did you understand what that meant or entailed?

    I think its better to let someone experience the world first. I was gently brought into a faith, and then I was not commited to it. It allowed me understand the morals and ideas of it, but not be bound to an organization.

    ReplyDelete
  42. Sect. 10
    Does the concept of a never-ending struggle between good and evil appeal to you?

    It doesn’t appeal to me, but it is simply the way our World works.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I have to agree, that concept does not appeal to me because life is like that. The world is the way it is, and we are just living in it.

      Delete
  43. Sect. 10

    Do you find the concept of Original Sin compelling, difficult, unfair, or dubious? In general, do we "inherit the sins of our fathers (and mothers)"? If yes, give examples and explain.

    I find the concept to be dubious and hard to digest. I don’t believe we inherit the sins of our ancestors. Even if my Mother murdered someone, I am not guilty of it when I am born. I was not involved in it.

    ReplyDelete
  44. Sect. 10
    Andersen notes that since WWII "mainline" Christian denominations were peaking (and, as evidence shows, are now declining). What do you think about this when you consider the visible political power of other evangelical denominations? Are you a part of a mainline traditon? If so, how would you explain this shift?

    I think the decline is a shift in the thoughts of humanity. Science is more prevalent and Religion and Science don’t exactly coexist, especially in the Catholic Church.

    ReplyDelete
  45. Sect.. 10
    Can the definition of a word prove anything about the world?

    I think the definition of a word can prove something about the word, but it may not prove anything about the World.

    ReplyDelete
  46. 1030-10
    500 word blog post for being absent
    St. Augustine, also called Saint Augustine of Hippo, original Latin name Aurelius Augustinus, was a 4th century philosopher. His revolutionary philosophy combined Christian doctrine with Platonic philosophy, an idea founded by Plotinus, whose ideas were mainly influenced by the works of Plato. He was an unique Catholic theologizer and an agnostic contributor to the western philosophy. He was the first Western philosopher to argue against solipsism, a viewpoint that argues that “I am the only mind that exists.” He argued that, “there are bodies external to mine that behave as I behave and that appear to be nourished as mine is nourished; so, by analogy, I am justified in believing that these bodies have a similar mental life to mine.” Additionally, Augustine adopts a subjective view of time and says that time is nothing in reality but exists only in the human mind’s apprehension of reality. He believes that time is not infinite because God“created” it.
    Boethius was one of the most influential early medieval philosophers. His most famous work, The Consolation of Philosophy, was most widely translated and reproduced secular work from the 8th century until the end of the Middle Ages. In the 9th century, Boethius’s Consolation was also translated into Old English by King Alfred the Great as well as later English by Geoffrey Chaucer, the author of The Canterbury Tales. Boethius is also credited with the spread of encyclopedic learning and transferring classical Greek knowledge to medieval Europe despite the fact that he didn’t manage to translate all works by Aristotle and Plato as he intended due to his premature death.
    Saint Anselm was one of the most important Christian thinkers of the eleventh century. He is most famous in philosophy for having discovered and articulated the so-called “ontological argument;” and in theology for his doctrine of the atonement. However, his work extends to many other important philosophical and theological matters, among which are: understanding the aspects and the unity of the divine nature; the extent of our possible knowledge and understanding of the divine nature; the complex nature of the will and its involvement in free choice; the interworkings of human willing and action and divine grace; the natures of truth and justice; the natures and origins of virtues and vices; the nature of evil as negation or privation; and the condition and implications of original sin. In the course of his work and thought, unlike most of his contemporaries, Anselm deployed argumentation that was in most respects only indirectly dependent on Sacred Scripture, Christian doctrine, and tradition. Anselm also developed sophisticated analyses of the language used in discussion and investigation of philosophical and theological issues, highlighting the importance of focusing on the meaning of the terms used rather than allowing oneself to be misled by the verbal forms, and examining the adequacy of the language to the objects of investigation, particularly to the divine nature. In addition, in his work he both discussed and exemplified the resolution of apparent contradictions or paradoxes by making appropriate distinctions.

    ReplyDelete
  47. Phil-10
    Are supernatural stories of faith, redemption, and salvation more comforting to you than the power of reason and evidence?

    No, it makes me uncomfortable because the stories of faith, redemption, and salvation can't be clearly proven, hence stories but not history. I enjoy learning about more clear proven evidence about science, math,and physics, even though I am not great at understanding the subjects now.

    ReplyDelete
  48. Madona Kozman8:38 PM CDT

    Section 13
    Which is more plausible, that God exists but is not more powerful than Satan, or that neither God nor Satan exists? Why?
    I think that there is a third plausible statement that needs to be added to the question. This statement is that God exists and is definitely more powerful than Satan. simply because God is the one who created everything in this universe including Satan.

    ReplyDelete
  49. Madona Kozman8:43 PM CDT

    Section 13
    Are supernatural stories of faith, redemption, and salvation more comforting to you than the power of reason and evidence?
    They are both equally comforting to me. I believe in both types.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I also believe in both types. I think that both are also comforting and definitely helps me in the process of thinking.

      Delete
  50. Madona Kozman8:53 PM CDT

    Section 13
    Does the concept of a never-ending struggle between good and evil appeal to you?
    Yes, it seems like the continuous clash between evil and good would never end. And it is very hard to figure out which will win at the end of each story

    ReplyDelete
  51. Section 13

    DQ: Do you find the concept of Original Sin compelling, difficult, unfair, or dubious? In general, do we "inherit the sins of our fathers (and mothers)"? If yes, give examples and explain.

    Coming from a Catholic family, although not Catholic myself, I am very familiar with the concept of original sin and I think it’s dubious and manipulative. It instills the idea in a child that they are bad for even existing and must dedicate themselves to a particular religion in order to redeem oneself of sins you never committed or committed by simply existing. It seems more like a recruiting tool than anything else.

    ReplyDelete
  52. Section 13

    DQ: Can you explain the concept of Original Sin? Do you think you understand it?

    Yes. Essentially, it’s the belief that humans are naturally sinful creatures, born carrying the sins of mankind. In order to rid oneself of this sin you carry for simply existing as a human and be made “pure” so you can be accepted into heaven, you must be baptized in holy water by the church, which “washes” the original sin away. After that, it's up to you and your God-Parents to follow the rules of the religion to stay pure of sin and be accepted into Heaven upon death.

    ReplyDelete
  53. Section 12:

    DQ: Which is more plausible, that God exists but is not more powerful than Satan, or that neither God nor Satan exists? Why?

    I think it is more plausible that neither God nor Satan exists. The idea of God and Satan have no backing in scientific evidence when it comes to proving their existence. Because of this, I think it shouldn’t be a matter of discussing who has more power, but rather a question of whether they actually exist in the first place. I would say that it is more likely that they don’t, until the scientific field can definitively prove otherwise.


    DQ: Are supernatural stories of faith, redemption, and salvation more comforting to you than the power of reason and evidence? 

    I find more comfort in the power of reason and evidence because supernatural stories of faith, redemption, and salvation, throughout history tend to be very inconsistent and also tend to accompany more disturbing beliefs, such as hell. I find solace in ideas and principles that are able to be tested, predictable, and relatively consistent.

    DQ: How does the definition of God as omniscient, omnipotent, and perfectly good make it harder to account for evil and suffering in the world? Would it be better to believe in a lesser god, or no god at all?

    If there is a perfectly good, omnipotent God who created everything, why did he bother to create pain and suffering to begin with? Also, if he is omnipotent and has a plan for everyone, it isn’t possible for us to have free will. So in a way, our suffering would be predetermined and there wouldn’t be much we could do about it. I think it is better to believe in no God at all. If there must be a God, it’d be better that he is at least a lesser God who isn’t involved in our lives (maybe even amoral, rather than perfectly moral or immoral).

    ReplyDelete
  54. Ruj Haan9:34 AM CDT

    Section 13

    -Which is more plausible, that God exists but is not more powerful than Satan, or that neither God nor Satan exists? Why?

    I personally believe that both don't exist, both are some stories that have been told over and over to a point where many people believe the stories have happen in real life, however, there are no scientific evidence to prove any of that.

    -Are supernatural stories of faith, redemption, and salvation more comforting to you than the power of reason and evidence?

    No, the only way to convince me to believe in something is to show reason and evidence. Most of the supernatural stories don't show me enough evidence to believe them.

    -Is it better to embrace (or renounce) religious faith early in life, or to "sow your wild oats" and enjoy a wide experience of the world before committing to any particular tradition or belief? Were you encouraged by adults, in childhood, to make a public profession of faith? If so, did you understand what that meant or entailed?

    I believe it's better for a young adult to experience a wide range of traditions and beliefs before he or she commits to a specific tradition or belief. Growing up my family always gave me the opportunity to explore things and choose what I believed in. I never wanted to commit to one particular tradition or belief because to me they all have some positive and negative elements.

    -If you were falsely imprisoned, tortured, and scheduled for execution, would you be able to achieve "consolation"? How?

    No, knowing my life would end for a false reason will only give me more frustration. I don’t know what happens when we die, but I do know what might happen in my current life if I don't die.

    ReplyDelete
  55. Section 13

    Which is more plausible, that God exists but is not more powerful than Satan, or that neither God nor Satan exists?
    - To me, based on my beliefs, I think if it were only between those 2 options that it would be more plausible that neither God nor Satan exists. As a Christian, I say this because I do not think it would ever be plausible for there to be a time where Satan was more powerful than Satan.

    Are supernatural stories of faith, redemption, and salvation more comforting to you than the power of reason and evidence?
    - I think it depends on the situation, but naturally I would say stories of faith, redemption, and salvation are more comforting to me because I have experienced a story like that myself.

    How does the definition of God as omniscient, omnipotent, and perfectly good make it harder to account for evil and suffering in the world? Would it be better to believe in a lesser god, or no god at all?
    - I belief that God is all knowing and all powerful. But I do not believe that he controls us like puppets. When bad things happen to us, I believe God is there for us to look upon as comfort. To me, I know that no matter how hard whatever I go through might be, I know that God won't put me in a situation that I cannot get through.

    ReplyDelete
  56. McKennah Campbell10:25 AM CDT

    Section 12
    Does the possibility of other worlds somehow diminish humanity?

    I feel like that there is some sort of life form out there in other worlds, but it is just not possible explore and figure out due to the fact that the universe is so large and unknown. If it were to be proven that other worlds existed then I feel like it would change our perspectives of focusing just on ourselves, like after that discovery, our existence wouldn't seem as huge as we portray it to be.

    ReplyDelete
  57. Anonymous12:09 PM CDT

    Section 12
    Can the definition of a word prove anything about the world?
    - In a way it can depending on what the word is but not exactly. A word that is being used to describe an action in the world can be a way of proving something but at the same time it does not give a full explanation to why it proves anything, so it is debatable.

    If you were falsely imprisoned, tortured, and scheduled for execution, would you be able to achieve "consolation"? How?
    Yes and no, nobody can know how you really felt because they did not go through the same situation as you so they can't give comfort to much extent. If you did receive consolation then it might be by someone that has gone through a similar situation or by going to therapy.

    ReplyDelete
  58. Are supernatural stories of faith, redemption, and salvation more comforting to you than the power of reason and evidence?
    I would be more comforted by not believing in a higher power because then i wouldnt have to fear judgment and anxiety about what happens after death.

    How does the definition of God as omniscient, omnipotent, and perfectly good make it harder to account for evil and suffering in the world? Would it be better to believe in a lesser god, or no god at all?
    It makes it harder because if He is all powerful then he'd have the power to defeat satan and prevent suffering on the people He loves. Maybe it would be better to believe in no god at all.

    Section 13

    ReplyDelete
  59. Do you find the concept of Original Sin compelling, difficult, unfair, or dubious? In general, do we "inherit the sins of our fathers (and mothers)"? If yes, give examples and explain.

    I'm going to answer this in a psychological way, not a religious way; I think habits are inherited in a nativist way, therefore what the parent did and did not receive a negative consequence, or did receive a positive consequence, that trait is associated as a successful trait, and it will much-likely be passed on from generation to generation. Or I also think that people will do what others do, or what is common to do. However, any of these doings wouldn't exist if this "sin" would have never been done.

    Can you explain the concept of Original Sin? Do you think you understand it? Yes, this is a religious believe that claims that all humans are born sinful because Adam and Eve were sinners.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tMjF_100onI

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. OOOPS i forgot! Daniel Dupuy Section 12 !!!

      Delete
  60. Would we be better off without a belief in free will?
    - no. the idea of your life being predestined can lead to destructive behavior.
    Section 13

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Brian Perez1:07 PM CDT

      Section 12

      Agreed on the idea that determinism could lead to destructive behavior. However,there has never been proof that free will actually exists aside from the assertion that having choices makes us feel free; Just cause it feels free does not make it free necessarily.

      Delete
  61. Are supernatural stories of faith, redemption, and salvation more comforting to you than the power of reason and evidence?
    Personally, yes. I guess they are more comforting to me than cold hard evidence, because that can be scary.

    Which is more plausible, that God exists but is not more powerful than Satan, or that neither God nor Satan exists?
    Personally, I do not believe in God or Satan. I choose to not believe because I don't think there is enough cold hard evidence in my opinion. I guess I would make the argument that neither God nor Satan exists.

    If you were falsely imprisoned, tortured, and scheduled for execution, would you be able to achieve "consolation"? How?
    I don't even know how I would react to being falsely imprisoned, tortured, or scheduled for an execution. After awhile, I guess I would just try to accept it. I don't think anyone would want to give me consolation or I don't know if I would try to achieve it either. I would be scared to trust any outside comfort.


    ReplyDelete
  62. Which is more plausible, that God exists but is not more powerful than Satan, or that neither God nor Satan exists? Why?

    I find this to be a very interesting question. Luckily I am an atheist, which makes it very easy for me to say that I personally think it is more plausible for neither to exist. The thought that the world is just a wrestling match between an ultimate figure of good and evil seems laughable.
    13

    ReplyDelete
  63. If you were falsely imprisoned, tortured, and scheduled for execution, would you be able to achieve "consolation"? How?

    I do not think I could find consolation, I believe I would be very unhappy, and loud about my innocence until the very end.
    13

    ReplyDelete
  64. Logan Taylor1:22 PM CDT

    Section 11

    Discussion Question
    Can you explain the concept of Original Sin? Do you think you understand it?

    Original Sin was conceived to us by Adam and Eve when they ate the Forbidden Fruit. Because of this, we are born into Original Sin and the only way that we can save ourselves is through God. In terms of understanding, I think I get the concept of it.

    Alt Quiz Questions
    Who wrote the Consolations of Philosophy and when did he write it?

    Apart from the pseudo-Dionysius, who was the other source of Platonism in the Middle Ages?

    ReplyDelete
  65. Brandon Beech1:33 PM CDT

    DQ: Which is more plausible, that God exists but is not more powerful than Satan, or that neither God nor Satan exists? Why?

    It is more plausible that exists, but it not more powerful than satan. I contend this view because the types of occurrences and experiences we have on Earth would suggest that most of life is suffering and misery (evil). This would float the possibility that Satan is more powerful than God.

    ReplyDelete
  66. Brandon Beech1:37 PM CDT

    DQ: Does the concept of a never-ending struggle between good and evil appeal to you?

    I think this concept does appeal to me. Rather you take this thought process figuratively or literally makes no difference in my view. The struggle between "good" and "evil" in our world is undoubted in my opinion, but can be thought of as heaven vs. hell, or can even be thought of as the good and bad things morally we encounter each day.

    ReplyDelete
  67. Brandon Beech1:41 PM CDT

    DQ: If you were falsely imprisoned, tortured, and scheduled for execution, would you be able to achieve "consolation"? How?

    This is a tough question for anybody. For me, personally, I believe I would not be able to achieve "consolation" necessarily, but would be forced to accept the reality of the situation. If we look at these things from a religious perspective, I think it helps many people overcome just visible reality.

    ReplyDelete
  68. Riley Fox1:50 PM CDT

    Section 12

    "Original Sin" DQ:
    The term “original sin” deals with Adam’s sin of disobedience in eating from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil and its effects upon the rest of the human race. Original sin can be defined as “that sin and its guilt that we all possess in God’s eyes as a direct result of Adam’s sin in the Garden of Eden.” The doctrine of original sin focuses particularly on its effects on our nature and our standing before God, even before we are old enough to commit conscious sin.

    "Is it better to embrace (or renounce) religious faith early in life" DQ:

    In general, I would say it is important for anything to be imprinted upon a youth. I think, in my opinion, we should allow the youth to find their own path using their own wisdom/thoughts. In modern society, you see plenty of instances where people just follow due to the flow of society or follow the path of people's footsteps because they caused a significant "impact" on the individuals life. The individual will try to replicate the imprinter in many aspects. For example, you could look at the U.S populations voting stance. Previously, their was a survey passed along asking why people voted the way they did and the common response was " because my parents were blank". This in my mind means that the population needs to be able to discover important things such as religion,politics stances, etc by their own means/rational, but there is no fault for being able to provide resources to supplement their choice.

    "Boethius insight on the puzzle of free will" DQ:

    Boethius offers two main lines of reasoning by which he reconciles foreknowledge and free will. First, he explores some attributes of knowledge. Boethius points out that, “For signs only show what is, they do not cause the things they point to.”[4] We see in this metaphor a distinction being made between observation and causation. Boethius goes on to state, “For everyone, I think, would say that things which are now happening were going to happen before they actually came to pass. Thus, these things happen without necessity even though they were known in advance. For just as knowledge of things happening now does not imply necessity in their outcomes, so foreknowledge of future things imposes no necessity on their outcomes in the future.”[5] No doubt Pike and others would counter this metaphor, arguing that fallible human knowledge of present events can in no way be compared to infallible foreknowledge of future events. In any case, regardless of the strength or weakness of the metaphor, Boethius’ distinction between observation and causation is a strong argument against deterministic foreknowledge.

    Added DQ:

    "Do you think we should separate the ideas, spirituality and science? Why?"

    ReplyDelete
  69. Stephen Byers2:54 PM CDT

    Stephen Byers Section 13
    Which is more plausible, that God exists but is not more powerful than Satan, or that neither God nor Satan exists? Why?
    I believe that it should be more obvious to the general population that neither God nor Satan exists. The world cant fully be explained, but there is plenty of science about the history of Earth and the Solar system, and nothing but a built up religion over time relying on Faith and the words of people from long long ago.

    ReplyDelete
  70. Section 11
    Can the definition of a word prove anything about the world?
    Words are simply things that humans have come with to explain stuff. They have no inherent meaning and cannot really prove anything.

    Is theoretical simplicity always better, even if the universe is complex?
    I think it's better to accept the complexity, rather than creating the illusion of simplicity.

    ReplyDelete
  71. Cody Maness Section 1112:16 PM CDT

    Are supernatural stories of faith, redemption, and salvation more comforting to you than the power of reason and evidence?
    The supernatural is often more interesting and stimulating than the truth. Life is often boring and plain explaining the boring facts and evidence can be even more boring. Though, I personally prefer reason and evidence.
    - Cody Maness Section 11

    ReplyDelete

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.