Post using the Anonymous Profile and be sure to type your Full Name in all posts. You will not receive credit for any posts without your Full Name.
Also,
remember that if your posts are very long, you may need to break up your post
into two or most posts.
Last,
remember to type your work first in a Word document before posting it and then
copy and paste it to post it. If you have any trouble posting your answer to my
questions or replying to another student, then print off your work and bring it
as a hard copy to class the day it is due.
1. In our introduction to philosophy,
one concept we talked about is the idea of a worldview. Begin by defining
the concept of a worldview. After defining the concept of a worldview,
explain whether you think that most people examine their worldviews
today. Why or why not? End by addressing this point: if someone
spends his or her entire life without examining his or her worldview, why might
that be a bad thing?
2. After introducing you to the
discipline of philosophy, I introduced you to the discipline of philosophy of
religion – the subject of our class. We have talked about a number of
issues and questions asked in the philosophy of religion. Start off by
listing some of the issues and questions that you find interesting to think
more about. End by addressing this issue: from what you have learned thus
far, why is the philosophy of religion relevant and important for people in
today’s world?
3. In our discussion of Faith and
Reason, we talked about fideism. Start off by defining fideism. On
page 67 of our text Reason and Religious Belief, there is an objection raised
to fideism. This objection raised on page 67 involves a ‘person who is
searching for faith’ and sees several alternatives they might adopt. Explain
this objection that arises on page 67 in your own words. Do you think
that this objection that our book raises is good? Why or why not?
Next, think about this verse in the Bible: "Always be prepared to
give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reasons for the hope that
you have" (I Peter 3:15). What do you think that this verse is
saying, and is it consistent with fideism? End by addressing this point:
do you think that fideism is a plausible attitude for religious people to
adopt? Why or why not?
4. Start off by explaining Clifford’s
argument for the view that we need hard evidence from our senses or science for
all of our beliefs. After explaining Clifford’s argument, summarize the
conclusion he draws from his position for the rationality of religious beliefs
such as a belief in God’s existence. End by assessing Clifford’s
position. Do you think that he has argued persuasively for it? Why
or why not?
Thomas Scott
ReplyDelete1. A worldview is a set of beliefs a person makes of how me sees everyone else. People today do not seem to examine their worldviews and question them, they normally just make them and stick with them and they do not ask why. The reason is because some people are too busy to care and others just plain do not care and it affects how they see the world and others. One of the main things as humans we should do is think critically about things and form our own opinions. If people spend their whole life not examining their worldview that probably means that they are not really connected to the world and they are just set in their ways and do not care what others think. If this were to happen to someone they pretty much just lived for nothing because life is not always just about yourself.
2. Some of the topics we talked about in class was: the existence of God, the afterlife, and evil in the world. The questions I find interesting is “why is there evil in the world if God if all good?” This has always got me to thinking because if God is all good then why does he let evil happen. Normally the answer is that he let us have free will but yet if God is all knowing then he knows what we are going to do tomorrow and is that really free-will? Philosophy of Religion helps both sides the believers and non-believers because it shows them either why they believe or why they do not believe. Either way is good for the individual because then they both have arguments for the other and they are not just either believing or not believing just because of what everyone is doing.
3. Fideism says that you should not look at religion with rational evaluation. If a person cannot go into religion without thinking which one is the most realistic and most believable then what separates the different types of religion from each other and this dangerous because they will follow practically anything. Yes, I think it is good because for one it makes you think about did you go blind into your beliefs or did you examine which ones would be more believable. It says that be sure to have reasons for your beliefs and make sure that you can tell people why you believe the way you do. No this not consistent with fideism because with fideism you cannot think with your beliefs you just have to believe and therefore you won’t have reasons you believe. No it is not because the reason people believe the things they do is because it is plausible to them and you cannot have reasons to believe.
4. Clifford has some controversial point of view about religion and his argument is very much not for religion. Clifford was saying that it is wrong for someone to grow up and believing something and not asking questions about it because the answer cannot be found without disturbing his beliefs. This makes sense to me because if you do not ask questions you are believing blindly. He says that if it cannot be proven with either the five senses or science then it is not rational to believe in it without questioning it. Yes, his argument is very understandable and even rational in my eyes because he presents good evidence and examples of why he believes that way. His examples really make you think about what you believe and if it is rational to believe the things you do with or without evidence.
Hi Thomas,
DeleteI enjoyed reading your post, and I think it shows some good thought. I wanted to ask you a follow up question to your answer to 4. You said that you were really struck by some of the examples that Clifford uses in his argument. I am wondering if you could fill that in a bit more by talking precisely about which of the examples that we covered that you found the most persuasive as a part of his argument?
Best,
Prof Gehring
2. Hey Thomas, in your second answer you talked about evil in the world. You asked why He would let evil happen. Freewill is the answer. Could you imagine if you created someone to glorify you, but never gave them a chance to decide, you would not give them the chance to completely and truly love you. God gave everybody He created the ability to choose. Those who follow Him and worship Him do it because they truly love Him and not because they are forced to. You also asked if it was truly freewill since God knows the future. Just because He knows what you are going to choose does not mean that He forced you to make that decision. Murderers kill people because they choose to, thieves steal because they choose to. If God did not allow freewill, he would not let them commit such crimes because the Bible talks against such things. Everything revolves around a choice people make.
DeleteA good thought-provoking paragraph..
Joseph Coyle
Hey Thomas,
DeleteI think you made some good points in your post to question 4. However, one sentence caught my attention when you said if people do not ask questions, they are believing blindly. That makes sense to me to a certain extent. Possibly, if you could elaborate more on that to explain your thinking it would clarify better. I personally think some people choose not to ask questions because even though they are confused already, they do not want to add more confusion into the mix. Maybe this also goes along with why some people who say they have faith choose not to actively live their faith or go to church. But I also think some people truly believe what they want to believe and they choose not to explore their beliefs further or question it because that is how they were raised.
Thanks,
Kenzie Hassfurther
Professor Gehring,
DeleteThe example that I liked the most was the one about the court room and how that the jury saw that there was not enough evidence to convict the defendent but they pronounced him guilty anyway. This really made me think.
Thomas Scott
Kenzie Hassfurther
ReplyDelete1.The concept of a worldview is one’s personal beliefs and opinions on life’s big questions. These can be a person’s views on God, abortion, legal issues, and other questions. I think most people today have their views on these subjects, but many choose not to act on them or explore them further. I think many people are afraid others will judge them based on their beliefs. Other people choose not to examine their worldviews because they do not fully understand the subject. Still others, in my opinion, are scared to explore further for fear of what they may find out. If someone spends his or her entire life without examining his or her worldview, this may be a bad thing. If people do not have a view on these subjects and later on down the road become faced with a situation where a choice is needed in one of these areas, they will be unprepared. It is important to have a belief and to understand it. It is also important to believe what you believe, and not worry so much about what others think of your opinion.
2.Some of the issues and questions that interest me after talking in class are God’s existence, life after death, and ethical and moral issues in the world today. I have thoughts and beliefs on these subjects that are different and alike those of everyone else. I think philosophy of religion is important in today’s world because people are constantly raising issues about religion. With so much bad and evil in the world today, it is important to reflect on your personal views to give you the strength to carry on with your life. Studying the philosophy of religion can also help people develop their beliefs. If one is unfamiliar with a certain subject, studying it may strengthen their views. However, it may also change their views based on what they learn. People also need to be prepared because at the end of their life, some of their worldviews could come into play.
Kenzie Hassfurther
ReplyDelete3.Fideism is when a belief should be accepted despite it being rational or having evidence for it. The objection in the book raises the point that, “when someone is searching for a faith, which faith should they choose?” The logical way to go about this would be to explore them and see which is most reasonable. But the fideist says this is not what should be done. The book also discusses the fundamental part of the faith. One take on this is fundamental being the basic guidance for the way people live their lives The other take on fundamental is the belief being the more evident and more obviously true. However, comparing knowledge and reasoning to guidance for living is not the appropriate way. I do not think the objection was a good one. People do not always do the logical thing, and with faith I think they look for a sense of belonging and beliefs that relate with how they want to live their life. I think the Bible verse from I Peter 3:15 is saying people need to have reasons why they believe what they do despite if it seems logical or reasonable to someone else. It is consistent with fideism because there is not always evidence for our beliefs with faith, but we believe in it anyways. You cannot always prove something, but that’s why it is called faith. I think fideism is plausible in some ways, and in some ways not. If someone questions you, by telling them, “Oh, you just have to have faith,” sometimes seems like you are just avoiding the question. You need to have some basic reasons on how it relates in your life and why you think it is reasonable to believe in.
4.Clifford’s argument says people need to have evidence for their beliefs to be rational, and if they have no evidence, then it is not rational to believe in. He says that believing in God is not rational because we have no evidence. He made some good points, but overall, I do not think his view was too persuasive. There is not always an answer as to why everything is the way it is. Things happen in life that you cannot always explain. When people do wrong, for instance, something in them tells them it is not right. There has to be a greater good power making them want to do better. There may not be hard evidence for everything, but sometimes you have to let go and not have an answer for every little thing in life. It does make you question why you believe what you do, but that it part of growing in your faith.
Hi Kenzie,
DeleteI thought your post showed some good thinking! You ended your answer to 4 by talking about how thinking about questions related to one's faith can make them grow in that faith. I wanted to ask a follow up question on that point. Initially, it can be hard for a person of faith to sit down and listen to arguments against their views. However, do you think that, in the long run, if a person of faith listens to arguments against their views, then sits down and thinks about reasonable replies to those arguments, that this could actually help someone grow and deepen their faith and make it stronger?
Best,
Prof Gehring
Hi Professor Gehring,
DeleteI agree that it can be hard for a person of faith to sit down and listen to arguments against their views. I also agree that in the long run, when they think of responses to the arguments, it would help them grow in their faith. I think it shows that the person believes in their faith and wants to defend it. It is also good for the person to verify why exactly they believe what they do. This can lead to further exploration of their beliefs, and therefore, will strengthen the belief. This can also help the person live out their faith in their daily life.
Thanks for your feedback,
Kenzie Hassfurther
1. A worldview is a person’s answers to life’s big questions. Worldview questions are extremely important because they are inescapable and a person’s views on them determine how they live out their life. Every citizen has a worldview, but not every citizen chooses to reflect on their worldview. I believe that most people today do not examine their worldview. People choose not to examine their worldview because some of the topics can be intimidating. Some people do not want to think about difficult questions and how they actually feel about them because it may contradict their religious beliefs or the way they have been choosing to live their life. If someone spends their entire life without examining their worldview, they will never develop their own answers to some of life’s big questions. This can be detrimental because your worldview determines how you live your life. If you avoid your worldview, you may never determine your personal beliefs and will not be able to live your life according to those beliefs.
ReplyDelete2. Some of the issues and questions that I find interesting to think more about in the philosophy of religion are God’s existence, life after death, freewill, miracles, and abortion. The philosophy of religion is relevant and important for people in today’s society for many different reasons. One reason is philosophy of religion tries to assess the evidence for and against religious views by using the Socratic Method. This is beneficial because it allows you to hear different perspectives on topics and decide which view you support and believe. Another benefit of philosophy of religion is that it can be used to develop a deeper understanding of faith. This can be very helpful for religious people when they are attempting to communicate the truth of the gospel to people who are not religious. It can also help them in explaining themselves when discussing their beliefs with someone who is not religious and is having a difficult time seeing their point of view.
Jonathan Brey
3. Fideism is a view when a religious person tells someone they just have to accept their religion on faith alone because there is no hard evidence to support their beliefs. The objection raised to fideism is if someone is looking for a religion to start believing and practicing, and they are presented with multiple options that are all reasonable, how can they determine which religion to accept and begin practicing? The solution to this problem is to evaluate each of the options in order to discover which one has the highest probability of being true. However, according to fideism, this is impossible. This objection that the book raises is a good objection because people in society want to be able to validate their beliefs and provide evidence to support their belief. I Peter 3:15 is saying that there will be people that question your beliefs and want evidence as to why you believe what you do, and it is important that you are prepared to provide them with reasons for your faith. This verse is not consistent with fideism. The verse suggests that there is evidence one should have for their beliefs, but fideism states that there is no evidence to support a belief. I think that fideism is a plausible attitude for religious people to adopt, but only to an extent. I believe that there must be a reason that a person accepts a certain religion, but they can believe certain beliefs the religion accepts based only on faith. If there is evidence for all the beliefs in a religion, then people would not practice the religion because they have faith, but because there is evidence that it is true. This would completely defeat the purpose of religion.
ReplyDelete4. Clifford states that someone must have hard evidence for all of their beliefs to be rational, and if someone forms a belief without hard evidence, then that belief is irrational. He uses the example of a court room to get his point across. If there is no hard evidence that someone committed a murder, but the jury finds them guilty anyway, we would consider the jury’s decision to be irrational. The conclusion that Clifford draws about the rationality of religious beliefs such as God’s existence is that it is completely irrational because there is no hard evidence. Although I do not agree with Clifford’s position, I do believe that he has argued persuasively for it. His view fits well with our culture that always demands hard evidence for beliefs and also explains why we agree things like Santa Claus are irrational. I can see his point of view that believing in something without visual or concrete evidence can be considered irrational.
Jonathan Brey
Hi Jonathan,
DeleteI enjoyed reading your post, and I thought it was well thought out. I wanted to ask a follow up question to your answer to 3. You said that there were certain religious beliefs that may only be accepted on the basis of faith. I am wondering if you could elaborate on what beliefs you have in mind here? Precisely, what religious beliefs are there that you think a person must just have to accept on faith because there may be no evidence for them?
Best,
Prof Gehring
Philosophy Answers
ReplyDeleteQuestion 1: Bethany Dutton
A worldview is the answer someone has to some of life’s most important questions. It is how someone answers questions like “Is there a God?” or “What happens to us after we die?”
I don’t fully believe that people spend much time addressing their worldviews today. The percentage of people that are unsure of their beliefs in God or religion is higher than it used to be, which leads to believe that people just aren’t thinking very critically about these questions. It seems that they don’t care to think enough about the questions to form an absolute answer for themselves. No one is forced to think about their worldviews, but say God and life after death is real. If you hadn’t spent any time thinking about your beliefs on the subject, you might not end up where you want to be after you die. You’ve formed no opinions about the world around you, so it’s almost as if you didn’t really live. You were just occupying space.
Question 2: Bethany Dutton
There have been many thought provoking discussions in our class so far. The most interesting for me are the concepts of free will and the existence of God. I find myself thinking largely about the Cliff Theory as well. It seems logical to say that it’s irrational to believe something without hard evidence. Philosophy of religion helps us to think critically about topics like we have discussed thus far in class. Society as a whole benefits from philosophy of religion because it helps to strengthen arguments on both sides of the coin and gets people to think deeper into the subjects they are addressing. Thinking more critically about the topic helps to form a better understanding of the topic.
Question 3: Bethany Dutton
Fideism is defined as the concept of accepting beliefs based on faith alone because there is no factual evidence present to support such beliefs. The book says that when leaping into faiths, people are inclined to want to think about which faith suits them best. They want to think about which faith seems most true to them and which faiths are more reasonable to believe in. According to fideism, however, this is not allowed. This statement makes sense. How can you think and reason out which belief you want to follow, when you’re only supposed to act on faith and not reason?
I think the verse is saying that no matter the question asked, you need to be able to give the reasons behind your answer. This quote is not consistent with fideism, because believing by faith only means you don’t think about the reasons behind your belief. You just believe them. It is plausible for them to adopt it, but it’s not smart. It basically acts as a cop out for anyone to address why they believe in something. It’s easier to say I believe in this just because I believe in it than it is to give an actual reason or argument for the belief.
Question 4: Bethany Dutton
Clifford states that for a belief to be rational, there has to be some sort of hard evidence to back that belief up. Believing things on faith alone with no reasoning or evidence is irrational and almost trivial. From this view, it leads into the discussion that the possibility of God existing is irrational to believe in. According to his theory, it should not be rational for one to believe in God since there are no facts to prove it. His argument is very persuasive, and logically does make sense. We as a society find it silly for someone over a child’s age to believe in monsters under the bed since we cannot prove that they exist. So how is it different for society to find it normal to believe in an all-knowing deity with no evidence to support such deity exists?
Bethany,
DeleteReply to question 1
I totally agree with your answer. Worldviews are always strange to think about when you realize people don't have the same thoughts as you. The part when you said that if one doesn't examine their worldview then they are just wasting space that really struck me as true. It is also true that nubmer of people believing their religion blindly is dropping which in my opinion is a good thing. People are saying that since people are not believing anymore that the world is becoming worse but yet I think it is becuase people are starting to think more. This is always an interesting topic and gets people really thinking.
Thomas Scott
Hey Bethany,
DeleteI enjoyed reading your post this week, and I liked your metaphor of occupying space in your answer to 1. That was a good way of driving home your point. I wanted to ask you a follow up question to your answer to 1. You talked about how not examining your worldview is like a person is not really living. I am wondering if you would go even a step further. Here's the thought: do you think that if a person doesn't examine their worldview for him or herself then there is a sense in which she is letting someone else live his or her life? The idea is this: most people get their worldview on issues like God's existence, abortion, etc.. from how they are raised. In turn, the thought would be that if someone just lives their entire life without examining their worldview for themselves then it seems like they are just letting how they were raised dictate and control the course of their lives rather than taking control of their own life and their own views on life's big questions. What do you think of that?
Best,
Prof Gehring
Bethany,
DeleteI agree with your stance on the bible verse in question three. Sometimes in religion you will have to believe aspects of religion on faith alone (such as the holy trinity in the catholic church) you also need to be able to explain the basis of your faith and beliefs to whomever may ask. This forces you to decide what you believe and to understand your religion and beliefs better. What do you think about the "Leap of Faith" aspects of religion?
Will Johnson
Response to Bethany #1
DeleteI just have a question for you. If someone avoided thinking about life after death and gods existence then how could they hope to be in heaven or hell after death? Just food for thought. I do agree with your conclusion, if someone had no constructive input to give to society what real purpose did they serve. As the late Ebenezer Scrooge would say “they’d better [die] and decrease the surplus population.” I assume they would go nowhere considering they didn’t have an opinion on the afterlife…hm.
Kumari Logan
Bethany Dutton,
ReplyDeleteReply to Question 3
I see your point of view on fideism and believe you made some very strong arguments. However, I disagree that people use fideism as a “cop out” and that it is “not smart”. In order to explain myself, I would like to provide a different point of view on the subject. Many people often use God as a panic button or a last resort and turn to Him in a time of need. If something is going terribly wrong in their life, they may begin to pray to God and ask for help. This is not how religion is designed to work, however, this is often the case. They have no way of knowing what God will choose to do, but they put all their faith in Him, hoping he can comfort them throughout their hardships. If the Lord answers their prayers and helps them through their time of need, they will often begin to develop faith in the Lord and begin to worship him and practice the religion. There faith began because of a personal experience where they invested all of their faith in God only because they felt they had no other options and no where to turn. There was no physical proof that praying and having faith would solve their problems, they simply just believed. So, if someone was to ask this person why they believe what they believe in and to provide evidence for why they believe, they could not. Even if they tell the person their story, that person cannot experience what the other one has been through. Therefore, it is not that fideism is just an easier way to give reason for your beliefs, it is that providing a reason can sometimes be very difficult when someone has had personal experiences that someone else has not and cannot experience for them self. I like to think of the scenario our textbook illustrates about friendship. If someone has known a friend for years and throughout many experiences has developed a high amount of trust in them, and someone walks up to them and says that their friend cannot be trusted, that person is not going to believe them. They have personal experiences with that friend that ensures them that they can in fact be trusted. Well, if someone has personal experiences as to why they believe what they do and tries to use them to convince you to believe what they believe, you may not agree to believe what they do until you have experienced it for yourself.
Jonathan Brey
-Colton Horton
ReplyDelete1.) A very general definition of a worldview is that of an individual’s opinion of life’s “big questions.” Whether it be the existence of god(s), the rationality of having faith, life after death, and even our code of ethics, we all have our own opinions. Perhaps more importantly though, is why we have formed those opinions; many people today go through life having various beliefs about the world without even knowing where the beliefs originated. People nowadays are so caught up in the future and in such a rush to “make things happen” that they don’t stop to reflect on the way they have been living their life or which moments in their past have shaped their own worldviews. If you are on your death bed, and finally begin to think about your worldview, you may very well realize that you have been lying to yourself all this time and that you never really thought about your opinions enough to know if you ever truly believed in them in the first place. Then there you are, about to die, and just realizing that you have spent your entire life acting in a manner completely opposite of your true beliefs. Therefore, I believe it is imperative that we take the time to seriously understand not only our worldview, but the reasons behind our world view; only then can we truly know ourselves and live our life to the fullest.
2.) The issue that I find most interesting is that of free will v/s divine fate. People are always asking that if God really knows the future how can we truly be free? My response is that if we are made in god’s image then wouldn’t it also be plausible that we have in us some of that same power that makes him God? Perhaps that is the origin of our free will. Perhaps the divine future that god sees for us is not the cause of the choices we make, but rather their effect. Maybe the choices that we make are what shapes the future that god sees for us. And for those who say, “if god knows what we are going to do, do we really have free will?” think of it like this: have you ever had a friend or family member where, in a certain situation, you already knew what they would do or how they would react before they even figured out what was going on? If so it was because you knew them well enough to figure it out. And if god knows us better than we know ourselves, then why is it unreasonable to think that the future he has in store is created around our free will? This question, among others, is something I want to go into more detail on in the class. Asking questions such as these are important today because, in a world that is filled with opinions, people trying to get you to act and think as they do, it is imperative that you have your own set of beliefs that you can fall back on whenever there an issue that you are conflicted on. It helps you grow as a person and to better understand yourself as well as others.
I really enjoyed your prospective on the whole prospect of free will with the belief of the existence of God. I have never even stopped to think that perhaps we do have some of the divinity within us that God has Himself, but that would definitely make sense if we do contain even a hint of it because we are to believe that we were made in His image. Your example with the family member or friend and their decision already being known by someone close to them made a lot of sense in this situation and I believe that this is a proper belief when questioning the thought of free will. In my mind, I believe that God has planned out our destination in life but perhaps we get the chance to create out own journey to that destination and I feel like your statement of "the future he has in store is created around our free will" compliments my belief.
DeleteJessica Burk
Hey Colton,
DeleteI wanted to point out that your answer to 2 has some really good ideas in it that we will hopefully touch on in class. In the Christian tradition, the view of free you mention is very prevalent. The thought is that since we are made in God's imagine we have a will, emotions, and intellect just as God has these things. Also, there are a couple of different views of God's sovereignty and free will that are along the lines of what you are saying, so the view you are sketching out has some precedent. As a follow up to the idea of free will, here is a question: why do you think that a Christian might find it important to defend the idea that people do have free will? Why would the idea of free will be really important to a Christian worldview (you already talked about the issue of the image of God but I am wondering if you see any other reasons here a Christian might think free will is important).
Best,
Prof Gehring
2. Colton,
DeleteI agree with you that we have free will. I believe that we have free will because we are meant to choose our fates even if God can see what it might be. As I said in my response to the question, I think that there could be many scenarios of the future that God might be able to see and we are the ones who determine which future becomes ours. After we choose for ourselves I believe that God may guide us or help along the way depending on our beliefs. I thought it was really interesting how you said we might have some of God's free will in us. I had never thought of that and it was an interesting idea.
-Savannah Stivers
3.) Fideism or faith that isn’t subject to rational thought is a thought process that I can’t agree with at all. It is just as bad as a rationalistic view that all things must be proven to be considered true. What many people don’t consider is that they are both wrong. They are both absolutes. In religion and philosophy, there are no absolutes (such as black or white) only varying degrees of intensity (gray). You can’t be completely fideistic because there will always be a small part of you that thinks rationally, even if you don’t notice it. The same goes for the super-rationalist. The objection raised in the book is perfect because of you are searching for a religion to follow, you must take into account both your common sense and your own personal beliefs, to find something that truly fits you as a person. The bible verse as well: a rationalist would likely say that hope is unreasonable because they don’t have proof that it will be fulfilled yet the fideist would refuse to give any reasons for their hope/faith. Neither is a really good choice is it? It is that middle ground, that bit of rationality and faith, that “place between rage and serenity” that will really let you grow. That is what we should strive for.
ReplyDelete4.) Clifford states that “it is wrong always, everywhere, and for anyone, to believe anything upon insufficient evidence. He says that if you can’t prove something then it is irrational. But isn’t that how the world works? People as a rule are built to be irrational, we have irrational emotions, make irrational choices, and we are irrational just as often as we are rational. So if our world is not always rational, why should our concept of ultimate reality be any different? Even atheists who rely solely on science and statistics to make their choices may find it hard to argue with this, because there is a mathematic concept floating around out there called the uncertainty principle, which explains that there is no such thing as zero tolerance, that you can never be 100% sure of anything. And if you can’t be certain of anything the you can’t make a single decision without at least a little faith, even if that faith is in your rationality.to end with Clifford is still incorrect, because he is focusing on an absolute, instead of vying for a middle ground.
Jessica Burk
ReplyDelete1. A worldview is the collection of views or beliefs that a certain individual has which affects the way that a person views the world and the issues within their lifetime. I believe that most people do not take the time to fully develop their worldview for a multitude of reasons: they believe they are too busy to figure out their true opinions on issues, they may be scared to discover what they really believe in fear that it may be frowned upon by their peers, or they believe that it isn't a necessity to figure out their worldview. If one goes their whole life without figuring out their worldview, then they probably lived an unfulfilled life. Not knowing their own opinion on life's big question has probably left those big questions completely unanswered to them, and so they probably did not ever take the time to prepare for the afterlife they expect or perhaps the lack of. Also they probably don't have a connection to the world of their own selves, figuring out your worldview is a large part to discovering yourself and what makes you "you".
2. Some of the issues that we have already addressed in the class are things such as God's existence, afterlife, miracles, the subject of free will, and the ethical and moral issues concerning things such as abortion and euthanasia. I am definitely interested in the topic of miracles, I love reading people's personal testimonies and stories that they have concerning miracles because I believe it is the best "proof" we have of God. The whole discussion of whether we truly have free will or not is another topic that interests me and I would love to look into it more. I believe that philosophy of religion is important for people in today's world because it helps people understand more of their own worldview and what they really believe in concerning their ethics and values.
3. Fideism is the concept of of "blind faith" almost, or just accepting the faith you're told to because that is "what you're supposed to do". In the text, it states that most people will want to decide for themselves which faith makes the most sense to them but fideism does not allow this. The objection that the text raises to fideism does make a lot of sense, and I believe that one should be able to actually think their thoughts on faith and beliefs out for themselves. If you go into a religion and you follow the 'rules' of that religion without reason, just on faith, then you are obviously not ever going to feel the real struggle of faith. Thoughts and doubts are part of faith, without thinking about those doubts and overcoming them then you can never be truly strong in actual faith. The verse is definitely not consistent with fideism because with fideism you are not expect to give reasons for what you believe in other than just the statement of 'I believe this because I am supposed to.' Fideism is definitely not a plausible attitude for religious people to adopt because it doesn't make you truly committed to your religion. You can not go and evangelize what you believe without proper reasons to persuade people to believe, and if you don't know your own reasons that you believe what you believe then how truly committed to your faith are you?
4. Clifford believes that without good and hard evidence, then it doesn't exist. He does not believe in God because none of his five senses can pick up on a God and that makes enough sense for him to conclude that God does not exist. Believing in the existence of God is not a rational belief to him because there is no proof, that can be tested by the senses, that a higher power such as God exists and he believes those who believe this to probably be foolish. Clifford's argument is rational and does make sense to me even though I do not agree with him. A big part of religion and belief in God is to have faith in Him and if there was hard proof of existence of God then faith would not be necessary which would contradict the whole point of most religions.
Hi Jessica,
DeleteI enjoyed reading your post quite a bit, and it shows some good thinking. I wanted to ask a follow up to your question to 2. You talked about how you really enjoy reading personal accounts of people sensing divine activity in their lives. I am wondering if there is a particular story you have in mind that really stands out to you as very memorable?
Best,
Prof Gehring
Jessica,
DeleteI absolutely love hearing about spiritual awakenings and personal experiences with the Holy Ghost. It's good to know those tales give others cold chills also. In my opinion hearing stories strengthens a persons faith and their desire to be close to and love God. If you don't mind my asking, what made you interested in these personal accounts?
-Selina Priest
Professor Gehring,
DeleteI have many stories from people I personally know who have witnessed divine activity and stories from more known people throughout history who have sensed divine activity. However, one of my favorite stories about divine activity is Saint Padre Pio who lived with the stigmata markings from Christ for almost fifty years in the 20th century. There are even medical records showing the unexplained examinations of the non-stop bleeding from his palms and feet that occurred, and I believe there is no other explanation for this other than a true act from God.
Jessica Burk
Selina,
DeleteThe cause of interest in these personal accounts are because I believe that miracles and proof of divine activity in the world is best "evidence" that we have for a true God. The presence of Christ in the world gives me hope for an afterlife and the existence of God.
Jessica Burk
Will Johnson
ReplyDelete1. A world view is a person’s stance on an issue of philosophy. For example, someone’s stance on abortion, the death penalty, or the existence of God. I don’t believe that many people in today’s society examine their worldviews, because it forces them to make decisions they may not be comfortable with. If a person chooses to believe in God, and then proceeds to get pregnant, they can not (in good faith) have an abortion, because it goes against their belief in God. This is a bad thing because without developed stances on key issues, you can’t be an involved member of society or responsibly choose whom to vote for in elections.
2. Some of the issues that I have found interesting to reflect upon are: How can God allow there to be evil in the world, is the death penalty morally just, and what does it mean to be a good person? Philosophy of Religion is relevant today because it encompasses many social issues and theological issues that either are, or should be, important to people in today’s society.
3. Fideism is the view that religions and their beliefs are not subject to rational evaluations. The objection raised to fideism is that, if religion is a leap of faith, which leap of faith should you take? There are several major religions, so how do you decide which one is correct without some sort of rationalization. This is a good objection to fideism because you must have a balance between faith and rationalism in order to make a proper decision on faith. If you base your religion solely on fideism, then you will appear irrational and crazy to anyone whom you try and explain your religion to.
4. Clifford’s view is that we need hard evidence for our beliefs. One of the examples he uses is that of a ship owner who believes there may be something wrong with his ship, but convinces himself that it is fine. Based on this false belief, he sends the ship out to sea where it sinks and the sailors die. Clifford argues that the owner is responsible for the deaths because he held the false belief that the ship was fine. Clifford argues that this is the same as religious beliefs, because they have no hard evidence.
Hey Will,
DeleteI thought your post showed some good thinking. I wanted to ask a follow up to 4. You did a nice job sketching out Clifford's view. But I am wondering what you personally think of the argument? Is it a good one or not? What do you think?
Best,
Prof Gehring
I personally believe that, while in real world situations Clifford's view may be correct, in the areas of theology and religion he is incorrect because part of religion is having that so called "leap of faith".
DeleteWill Johnson
1 ) The concept of a worldview could be defined simply as answers to life’s big questions. I believe that people don’t examine their worldviews in today’s society. They have predetermined beliefs and they stick by those without researching why they believe these things. They have decided what they choose and choose not to believe in. For many people it is probably not common to question things like is there a God or life after death. They have been told since childhood that there is or isn’t and that is their predetermined belief. If someone doesn’t take some time to examine their worldview it could be bad for them in the sense that they don’t truly understand what they believe in. They could have ideas and beliefs that they stand for and then their worldviews are completely different from that but they still believe in both because they don’t question their worldviews. It would be beneficial for everyone to research and understand their worldview because it helps to define who they are as a person, but the truth is that most people are lazy, not confrontational, and don’t want to deal with the fact that maybe once they learn what they are believing it, their beliefs might change. Once you dig around and research things you find out information that hadn’t come to your attention and you may not like it. This is why people should understand their worldviews.
ReplyDelete2 ) Philosophy of religion tries to assess the evidence for and against religious views. Some of the issues that come up with this topic are God’s existence, miracles, life after death, good and evil (is there really evil), free will, why do we even have religion, and is believing in something without evidence rational. From this list the topics that I find most interesting are good and evil, free will, and rationality. Thus far we have learned to question things that have been taken at face value as being either true or not true. I’ve been taught that there is evil in the world, people do have free will, and rational thinking is always better than jumping into things head first. We have learned to think about whether God really exists because he could take away all of this evil if he truly wanted. I personally believe that there is evil in the world because God wants us to understand what sin is and why we shouldn’t do it. I think that when he puts things such as murderers and terrorists in the world it is because he wants us to see what it is like when we don’t trust in him. Yes it is harsh and cruel, but it is pretty effective if you think about how many people thank God after their family is spared. We have also questioned if we actually have free will when God supposedly knows the future and every decision before we make it. I also believe that we do have free will. God may be able to see the future but that doesn’t mean it is set in stone. There are always multiple possibilities and scenarios for every situation. God may know the scenarios and how each one will end but we can choose which path we are going to take. Then God will know the future from the way we have chosen ourselves. Rational thinking is something that I have always been told is good for you. I myself have not mastered this skill as of yet. I jump into things without thinking them through fairly often and then question myself later. This includes believing in things without hard evidence. Finding the hard evidence takes up way too much time and I am a lazy person. Philosophy of religion is relevant to all of this because it shows that many people are going to argue against your beliefs but you can either have the knowledge to explain your beliefs to them or be stumped. If you think about what you believe in you don’t have to research the facts and give up on faith. You can question why they believe what they do and eventually give them reasons as to why you believe in God without evidence or why you believe in miracles.
-Savannah Stivers
Savannah,
DeleteI really enjoyed your answer to question three. Something I found particularly interesting was when you said that they adopt religious views that they don’t truly believe in. I am in agreement with you there and I think that that is one of the most prevalent issues in the religious community today; people don’t “practice what they preach.” Wouldn’t you think that it would be more effective and satisfying to discover your own values and opinions outside of religion and choose a faith that is comparable to what you believe, than to attempt to change your own values and opinions based on the religion that you have already chosen without consideration? If you try to force yourself to believe something when your heart tells you something different, you are only going to make rise to increasing internal conflict within yourself, rather than finding an inner peace (which I myself consider one of the requirements in a religion).the bottom line is that before you can truly know and follow a religion, you must know and understand yourself.
-Colton Horton
3 ) Fideism is a views when a religious person says you just have to accept their religion on faith alone because there are no reasons for it. The objection raised in the book is stating that sometimes believing in things without evidence or on faith alone is very dangerous. I do believe that they objection raised is good because it shows that people are vulnerable when they don’t think things through. I believe that there should be at least some thought put into what you believe before you say that it is by your faith that you believe this. I think the verse is saying that people will question you on your beliefs and you should be ready to answer them. I don’t think that it is going against fideism because it is up to the person as to what kind of answer they give. They could do some research and give out facts or they could say that they have put their faith in this and that is the reason they believe in it. I think that fideism is something many religious people will adopt because it shows that they believe in their God and can go to heaven now. Just because they say things doesn’t mean it is true in their hearts though. I think many people believe that if they say they believe in God without evidence or hardcore reasoning that it means they are destined for heaven. I personally don’t believe that is true but I do think that religious people find fideism plausible.
ReplyDelete4 ) Clifford’s argument is that without hard evidence (proof from the five senses or proven by science) a belief is not real. If someone believes something without hard evidence it is irrational and so is the person. To summarize the conclusion he draws it basically states that he doesn’t believe in God because there is no hard evidence. He believes that it is irrational to believe in God. I believe that Clifford has argued very persuasively for his theory but that today’s society will not do the research it takes to determine if something is rational or irrational. People today are lazy (myself being one of those people). We don’t want to take the time that we could be doing nothing productive to go research why the sky is blue. That is just something that we are going to believe in without any real reason other than sight. I also think that in your childhood years you believe in many things that are mythical and that it adds fun into your life. This would have a large impact on children’s lives if someone ruined their dreams at a young age. Does his theory make sense? Yes I believe it does because the Easter Bunny is not real by rational standards. Will people actually pay attention to this? No I don’t believe they will because it would take too much effort.
I would like to respond to your answer to number 4. I agree that Clifford argued persuasively. Though, I have a question for you response to as why people would not want to pay attention to Clifford's view. Would it not be easier for people to say that since religions do not have hard evidence, they can not be true than having to come up with explanations as to why certain aspects of their belief do not have evidence and require pure faith? It seems like having faith in something that can not be explained through science would be more difficult than rejecting anything that can not be proven by science.
DeleteShelby Nelson
1. A worldview is an answer to the big questions in life. I think many people have world views but do not examine them and gain a full understanding of why they have those worldviews. They do not get involved because they do not want to spend the time or energy it takes to invest in their worldviews. They often accept a worldview based on what their families, friends, or society tells them is right instead of doing the work themselves. If someone decides to never invest in his worldview, he could end his life possibly having the wrong answers. When someone invests in his worldview, he believes it is correct, but when someone accepts a worldview without being dedicated to it, he could end up only hoping his worldview is correct.
ReplyDelete2. This semester, I am interested in learning and thinking about several issues and questions involved with philosophy of religion. I am interested in thinking about the question, “Is God all-knowing?” I am also interested in thinking about how much freedom humans are given from God, the different views on why there is evil in the world, and the different views on miracles. Philosophy of Religion is important because it helps people understand why people believe certain worldviews. It can also help strengthen the reason to why one believes a worldview. For Christians, it helps them understand their faith.
3. Fideism is a view when a religious person says you have to accept their religion on faith alone. The religion is not subject to rational evaluation. On page 67, the book gives an example of a problem fideism can run into. It is pointed out that a person who is searching for a faith would have trouble picking a faith if there a many that seem to be good choices. If she cannot look into the faiths and figure out which one has the most truth, which fideism is against, she could run the risk of picking a dangerous belief system. I believe this argument does have an important point to it. It is true that one can choose a belief system that can endanger their life if they are not careful to research it before joining. I do think it is important to have questions about what you believe in before accepting it. Though, this does not mean you have to have a definite answer for every question. There are parts of religions that will require faith alone. I believe 1 Peter 3:15 is saying that a Christian needs to be prepared to give an explanation to the reason they believe in what they believe. I do not think this means there has to be scientific facts or completely understandable answers for all the questions the world has for Christians. I think it means that Christians cannot be lazy and use the statement, “Because God said so,” as an excuse for not getting involved in their faith. It is not completely consistent with fideism. As I mentioned above, I think fideism can become a cop out for those who do not want to get deep into their faith and would rather stay in the safe zone.
4. Clifford believes in strong rationalism. He explains that nothing can be true unless it is completely rational. This is his belief on religions as well. It cannot have doubt; if it does, it cannot be true. If one does not have hard evidence for their religious belief, it is not true. He says believing in God is irrational because one is not able to prove God’s existence with senses or scientific evidence. If everyone in the world believed that the only way for something to be true was through scientific proof, then Clifford’s argument would be true. Our culture often wants hard evidence for everything, and Clifford’s view fits that desire. He does argue persuasively by providing examples and pulling lessons from them.
Shelby Nelson
Selina Priest
ReplyDelete1. A worldview would be best described as an answer to big life questions. They are inescapable and usually determine how we live our day-to-day lives. Worldviews are not thought about as much today as they have been in the past. People don't sit and think to themselves "Is there a God?". It's a scary question to ask yourself for the first time. If there is and you've been ignoring it for your whole life there have got to be some sort of repercussion. If there's not you're spending a whole lot of time thinking about something that doesn't amount to anything. A person puts a lot of pressure on themselves when they think about worldviews. This stresses some people out, but if you never think about it, never at all, frankly you're just not human. People have a natural knack for curiosity. Everyone at some point in time wonders how it all started: where did we come from?
2. Some worldview questions that I personally find intriguing are as follows:
Is there truth behind the miracle impregnation of Mary?
Is there a life after death? and if there is, do all people who go to Heaven go to the same Heaven? do all people going to the first circle of Hell experience the same first circle?
Asking new questions, or just wording a question differently open all sorts of possibilities. Two explanations will rarely ever be the same, yet they each have their own value and possible truths behind them. Every person who voices their opinion or argument for an issue opens up a new road for someone else to go down and make their own path. Thoughts lead to more thoughts, growth leads to more growth. And in the ever growing world we live in today, growth in thought and knowledge can never be a bad thing.
3. Fideism basically is the acceptance of a religion on faith alone with no proof and no reasoning. Believing blindly causes a problem though. When someone decides they're going to take on faith and religion, they first need to know about different religions. If they believe the first one they learn about on nothing but pure faith they haven't really decided anything. They've taken on a child's mentality, not truly thinking for themselves. A believer needs to be able to back up their belief to anyone at anytime, whether or not the other person makes sense of it or believes it. A blind believer isn't an honest believer therefore I do not believe fideism is a practical idea today. As I said earlier, people are going to ask questions. People are going to doubt and want proof.
4. Clifford said back in the day that in order for a persons beliefs to be rational they required some concrete evidence, such as sensory details or results from a scientific experiment. Since there is no real concrete evidence for the existence of God, Clifford believes there is not a God. It's completely opposite from fideism inthat it requires proof. He believes that it is irrational for a person to put faith into something/someone that she doesn't have indisputable proof of. His argument for his beliefs may have been good enough for him and whatever followers he gained in his time, but I do not agree. The examples (court room and sinking ship) were far too simplistic for me. I believe there is a grey area, where he only mentioned the black and white.
1. A worldview is an individual’s opinion on issues that affect all of us as a whole. I don’t think most people in this day and age realize it, but we all have worldviews. The majority of society probably doesn’t examine them in depth but do to some degree. If someone spends there entire life neglecting to examine their worldview they may be ignorant to controversial subjects such as abortion, the death penalty, and life after death. Unfamiliarity and indifference can be very bad when referring to a worldview because most of what is in the news has to do with an issue that hits home to someone.
ReplyDelete2. In dealing with the Philosophy of religion, some topics are more interesting to talk about than others. Included in these areas of discussion are the question of God’s existence, life after death, and God’s knowledge of the future as it relates to free will. Whether you are an atheist, Christian, agnostic, or indifferent to religion all together, the philosophy of religion is important. It’s relevant in today’s world because it can help give us an understanding of the religion (or lack thereof) of our peers. It can also give us arguments for or against religion.
3. Fideism is basically the belief that religion doesn’t have to be rational or even have evidence to support it because it is sustained by faith alone. On page 67 in our Reason and Religious Belief book, an objection is proposed. It states that if fideism is accepted, which religion should an individual decide on. This is a good question for fideism because there are so many so called “religions” (Flying Spaghetti Monster FSM for example) out there for someone to blindly accept. The bible verse I Peter 3:15 touches on be prepared with reasons for your religious belief. I believe it is saying that people are always going to argue with the opinions of another so you should always be ready to defend your beliefs. This verse is directly opposing fideism because it asserts that you should have reasons for believing the way you do.
4. Critical rationalism is the proclamation that if you don’t have substantial evidence for a belief then you should abandon it all together. Clifford takes a very strong opinion on the subject of religion; it is the exact contradiction to fideism. He argues adamantly for his position on this issue but I’m not sure if he really is persuasive. The example of the boat owner and the courtroom are very specific and a little circumstantial. I would have to say that he was persuasive in his argument.
Kumari Logan
Kumari,
ReplyDeleteOn your #4, while I agree with you about Clifford's opinion being the exact contradiction to fideism, you say he's only persuasive in his argument. Why exactly do you think this?
Tori King
1) A worldview is someone’s answers to life’s big questions. It determines how we live our lives and makes us face the inescapable questions everyone has to come to grips with. I think a lot of people think about the difficult questions that were faced with but not many act on trying to dig deeper to learn more. Its wouldn’t be a good thing if no one really studied up on their worldview because it would just leave more people confused and no one would be able to back up reasons why they believe what they do besides the fact that they probably got their worldviews from their parents.
ReplyDelete2) Is there evidence for God existence? Do miracles exist? How about evil in the world or is there life after death? These were some of the questions I was interested in. It’s hard to argue these points and say that you have rational reasons for believing in these topics. My personal worldview on these topics is based solely on faith and many think faith isn’t rational enough. Philosophy of religion in particular helps address these questions that I’m interested in. Philosophy allows you to gather a better understanding of your worldview and rational reasoning behind why you believe what you do.
3) Fideism is a view when say a religious person says, “you just have to believe me only on faith,” because they have no reasons why you should accept their religion. The problem raised in the book talks about if someone is a new believer, which religion should they practice and believe in. One would think that you should examine many different religions and choose the one that best fits in with your worldview. But the objection is brought up in the belief of fideism. Fideism doesn’t allow you to explore different views you just have to pick one and then have faith that you chose the right one because you can’t refute your belief. The Bible verse (I Peter 3:15) is a contradiction with fideism. But what if you believed in fideism before you chose Christianity as your religion, would you have to abandon the idea of fideism because you’re supposed to believe that that religion with faith that everything is right.
4) In Clifford’s theory you must have hard evidence for all of your beliefs to be rational. When he talks about hard evidence he means that you’re able to use your five senses and science to explain yourself. Clifford then goes on to talk about that God’s existence isn’t a rational belief to have because no one of the time period has evidence of his existence. In all reality wouldn’t it be hard to say anyone who lived a long time ago could have been made up by storytellers and later interrupted down the generations that that person could have been a real ancestor. I think its irrational for Clifford to say the only reason he doesn’t believe in a god is because there isn’t hard evidence. There could be evidence out there that was unknown to Clifford in another part of the world or maybe the god you believe doesn’t want to have to justify and reason with mankind why he exists and you should believe.
Alexandria(Ali) Watson
1. Reformed Epistemologists attacked Clifford's view much as I countered it when learning about it. Clifford only gives two examples of cases that proof is needed. Proof is needed in a courtroom, that's obvious. Safety checks should be done on a ship prior to it departing sheerly out of respect for the people on the ship. But two examples cannot disprove centuries of religious beliefs and miracles. Clifford's argument that every belief needs proof is redundant, or self-refuting, in the fact that he has no hard evidence that his belief is correct in the first place. Many people argued that they did not have time to go through all the studies and thinking behind coming up with hard evidence for their every belief. Clifford simply told them they didn’t have time to believe if they didn’t have time to think. Reformed Epistemologists make the point that some things need proof before a person believes in it, but not all beliefs require hard evidence to be rational. Clifford doesn’t even try to make a strong case, so I think the Epistemologists win this one.
ReplyDelete2. Sensus divinitatis, or sense of the divine, in that warm feeling people get when they look at beautiful things, like a star-lit sky, that gives them the feeling of a higher power. A higher power like God, in creating all people with a specific design, put inside of us this sensus divinitatis. If He designed us to feel this way, then it's rational to believe in God because we are just functioning the way He made us. Plus, what god would design a whole universe with all of its detail and complexity without somehow letting his children/creations know of his existence? I do believe that the sensus divinitatis can strengthen a person’s belief in God, but I do not agree with it being their only reason for believing. It would be a good starting point for someone’s religious life, but in my opinion there needs to be a personal connection with God. Belief isn't the same as looking at the sky and thinking there's a higher power. It's got to be deeper than that to truly be a believer.
3. Every action has an equal and opposite reaction. But what was the first action? A Cosmological Argument for Gods existence argues that there had to be an initial action to cause the universe to exist. Aquinas, Clarke and the Kalam arguments are all plausible. I feel like only the higher educated could understand the Kalam Argument though. I stick by Aquinas' and Clarke's Arguments. Clarke added two very important terms to the Cosmological Argument: a necessary being and dependent being. The dependent beings (us) depend on a higher power to create them. It's necessary for us to be created if we are going to exist. This is the simplest explanation for the reasoning behind a god’s existence.
4. Christians, by believing in the Bible, would ideally follow the Ten Commandments. They would be charitable, they wouldn't kill each other, they wouldn't steal, so on and so forth. Unfortunately this is not an ideal world. We see it all the time in the news, this church official is molesting kids, this one's stealing money from the church, this one is distributing drugs, this one thinks he's batman. Some of the people we think we should be able to trust with our money and with our youth, strictly because they are religious figures, are really monsters. Some of you may be thinking, "well they didn't believe in God” or "he's not really a Christian". A person’s sins, wrong doings or poor ethics (however you want to say it) have nothing to do with their belief in God. These actions show their ethics and morality, and none of us can say we have never done anything against our own moral views. I’ve always been told that someone who doesn't ever commit sin has no place in a church. All people, no matter what religion, have done things they're not proud of. Religion is a way for us to apologize to the world and to God for our mistakes.
Selina Priest