Cosmological and Design Argument

"This week, we are focusing on the Cosmological argument and the Design argument. These arguments represent how one can think about religion from a philosophical perspective.In your blog, I would like you to reflect more generally on what, if anything, you think philosophy might contribute to the understanding of religion. Think about i) whether you think these arguments might change someone's religious convictions, and ii) whether there is anything about religious experience that is left out of these arguments (for example, some people might say that faith is important for religious conviction, yet of course faith has no role in philosophical argument)."

I think that philosophy contributes a lot of new perspectives on how one would face and understand religion. Both the cosmological and design arguments have some very convincing arguments such as Aquinas' "First Cause Argument". His argument suggests that because the world is made up of causalities, everything that exists is either uncaused or caused by the existence of another. This means that God must exist as he would be the first cause. Aquinas also based his beliefs on the Bible rather than philosophical arguments which may have shown that his faith played a major role in his argument. Paley's design argument claims that the universe is like a watch and that they exhibit a certain design and connections of a complex nature that are meant to fulfill goals and purposes of intelligence. This would mean that intelligent will or a "creator" would be responsible for the design. People of religious faith may conclude that this creator would be God who is responsible for such complex existences of human beings and nature. I think that these arguments would probably reinforce a person's faith in their religion. I think for some people such as myself, would need objective evidence in order for my religious beliefs to sway to one side or another. 

Functionalism and Artificial Intelligence

Some philosophers, including John Searle, say that computers are not really intelligent. Rather, they just simulate intelligence. However, it could be argued that, just as computers are programmed to respond in different ways to different commands, so human beings are 'programmed' by society, and education, to perform certain tasks. For example, we are programmed to do complicated things like speak a language, as well as more simply things like brush our teeth.

What are your thoughts on this comparison? Is there any difference between the programming of computers, and the 'programming' of humans by society

I think that this is a pretty good comparison between human intelligence and artificial intelligence. Computers are programmed to respond a certain way and although I think that humans are conditioned to react and behave a specific way by society. The similarities between the programming of computers and the so called "programming" of humans by society are the people that might be programming the computers are programming them with the same commands that would be acceptable by society's standards. I agree that computers are not really intelligent, they just simulate intelligence. I don't believe that their intelligence is solely dependent on that alone. The difference between the programming of computers and the "programming" of humans by society are a person's emotions that play a distinct role in contributing to their intelligence. I think that emotions and ethical values also play a huge role in determining a persons intelligence while computers and artificial intelligence do not exhibit any emotions or values at all. I believe that the feelings, values, and our consciousness are what distinguishes human intelligence from artificial intelligence.

Dualism and Physicalism

Should we, as human beings, think of ourselves as made out of two different substances, like Descartes argued? Or are you persuaded by the arguments of physicalism that we are purely physical beings?

If you agree with Descartes, how would you explain the fact that our mental life seems to be very closely connected to a physical organ, namely the brain. If you agree with physicalism, how do you explain the fact that our mental life seems to be like nothing else in the physical world (think of how unique something like consciousness is, for example).

Write your thoughts on these issues.

On the one hand, I believe in Descartes' theory of human beings being made out of two substances, the mind and the body. I started leaning towards this theory when Descartes compared the human body to a machine and the mind is what we really are. He claimed that if we were to have a limb such as our arm or leg cut off, our minds would still function the same way as before. It would not make us incomplete as a person. 

On the other hand, I also agreed with the theory of physicalism. With the increased amount of information of how the brain and the human body works, I find it hard not to believe that our minds would not exist without our brains and our brains in turn, controls our senses and perceptions. The identity theory suggests that our mental events are physical events and have physical causes and consequences. The things that happen to us are really just decisions that our brain event makes which sets off other brain events causing a reaction. I believe that the brain is responsible for our every thought and move we make. The case of Phineas Gage is also a reason why I swayed from he theory of dualism. Gage had a long iron rode drive completely through his skull and left frontal lobe. Although he survived the injury, Gage's personality and behavior became totally different to how he was before his accident. This example suggests that the mind was a physical substance if it could be affected by a physical event.

Pragmatism and Feminist Epistemology

"Pragmatism and Feminist Epistemology both challenge the view of knowledge as a detached, intellectual activity. Do you think they are right? How do you think we should think about knowledge? Now that we have concluded the section on epistemology, write about what kind of thing you think knowledge is."

I honestly can't say whether or not I believe that their beliefs are right, however I can say that I agree with some of their points. I think that we should always search for something more within knowledge because I think that knowledge is never ending. Like Dewey, I believe that "warranted assertibility" reflects knowledge because the world changes everyday and the things that we experience will change along with the world. I also believe that experience plays a huge part in determining "truth". I think that as human beings, knowledge is what helps our minds expand intellectually and creatively.

Immanuel Kant

This weeks reading on Immanuel Kant's theories were very interesting. What I found most interesting about Kant's theory was that it was a mix of rationalism and empiricism. I found that I was able to understand his theory a bit better and even agree with knowledge being composed of reason as well as experience rather than each itself. I also enjoyed the bit about God. Kant said that although we can't have rational knowledge of God, he found a way to deny knowledge of him in order to make room for faith. I feel like this is something that many religious people seem to do for their faith in their God and religion.

One other bit of the reading that I really enjoyed was John Locke on the possibility of knowledge. The example that caught my attention most was when Lawhead explains how Locke believed that the mind could not create new simple ideas if the idea had not been experienced before. "A dictionary will define yellow as the color of a ripe lemon". This part intrigued me so much because I tried to think of a way to describe the color yellow without referring to any past elements or experiences and I could not think of anything!

Confused...

I found this week's topic on Skepticism and Rationalism a bit confusing and unclear. The parts with methodological skepticism was especially confusing for me. I did, however find rationalism very interesting because I feel like many people tend to use reason as a way to prove or disprove beliefs. I am definitely going to have to re-read the chapter as well as re-watch the lecture in order to get a better and clearer understanding of these concepts.

Philosophy should be liberating!

"In the Allegory of the Cave, Socrates suggests that, without philosophical education, we are all like the prisoners in the cave. What are your thoughts on this? How is philosophy supposed to be liberating? Do you think Socrates is right to be so pessimistic about life without philosophy?"

I am going to have to agree with Socrates that without philosophical education we are like the prisoners from the Allegory of the Cave. Philosophy is liberating because it challenges our minds to think outside of the norm. I believe that depending on the person, a mind can either build something brilliant or destroy it. Philosophy allows us to feel like we as human beings matter in this world. Ignorance of that would take away our opportunities to make something of ourselves. I believe that Socrates was right to be pessimistic about life without philosophy but he could have went about it in a different way. I do admire that he felt so strongly about his beliefs that he was willing to die rather than retract his beliefs and live.