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 class, we saw that Reformed
Epistemologists leveled three criticisms against Clifford's view that we need
hard evidence for all of our beliefs to be rational. Explain two of the criticisms that we covered
in class that Reformed Epistemologists leveled against Clifford (you can pick
the two you discuss). Also, look at page
62 of our book Reason and Religion Belief.
On page 62, there is a criticism against Clifford involving the
"lack of time" that many people have.
I didn't talk about this objection a lot in class, but this objection on
page 62 is another one that Reformed Epistemologists make of Clifford. Explain this objection that our book raises
on page 62. End by stating who you think
has presented the stronger case here. Do
you think that Clifford is right that we must have hard evidence for all of our
beliefs to be rational, or do you think the Reformed Epistemologist is right
that we do not need to have hard evidence for all of our beliefs to be
rational? Be sure to express clearly
your reasons for favoring one side of this debate over the other.
2. Start off by defining the sensus divinitatis. After defining the sensus divinitatis, explain why the Reformed Epistemologist thinks
that the sensus divinitatis can make
it rational for a person to believe in God even if that person has no hard
evidence for their belief. End by
stating whether you think that the Reformed Epistemologist's view is plausible. Do you think they are right that the sensus divinitatis can make it rational
for a person to believe in God even if that person has no hard evidence for
their belief, or do you think that this claim is implausible? Be sure to state clearly the reason for your
position.
3. Start off by defining a cosmological
argument. We looked at a number of
cosmological arguments for God's existence: Aquinas' Cosmological Argument,
Clarke's Cosmological Argument, and the Kalam Cosmological Argument. Do you find any of them plausible in terms of
showing it is plausible that God exists?
If so, state which one or more of these arguments you find
plausible. Moreover, if you find one or
more of them plausible, then pick one of the arguments you find plausible and
explain it in your own words and why you find that particular argument
plausible (Note: you don't have to explain all of the different versions of the
cosmological argument you may find plausible; instead, you just have to pick
one of them you may find plausible and explain that one and why you find it
plausible). If you don't find any of
these cosmological arguments plausible, then explain your objections to them.
4. After thinking about God's existence,
the next topic we are going to move into involves the implications that God's
existence and religion may have for how someone thinks about issues of ethics
and morality (i.e. issues of right and wrong).
Right now, what are your thoughts on this issue? Do you think that believing in God and a
particular religion like Christianity could influence a lot how someone thinks
about ethics and morality? If so,
explain how you think that believing in God and a particular religion like Christianity
could influence a lot how someone thinks about ethics and morality? If you do not think that believing in God or
a particular religion like Christianity has any implications for how someone
thinks about ethics and morality, then explain why you adopt that position.
Kenzie Hassfurther
ReplyDelete1. One criticism that Reformed Epistemologists leveled against Clifford is his view is self-refuting. This is basically saying his view is hypocritical because he has no hard evidence for his own theory. Another criticism against Clifford is counterexamples. A counterexample is a true exception to an all claim. The objection on page 62 involving a lack of time basically says there are people who do not have the time or ability to do the serious thinking required by Clifford in order to have faith. Clifford says if people do not have time to understand and study the questions and arguments then the person should have no time to believe. I think the Reformed Epistemologists presented a strong case. I think the Reformed Epistemologists are right because Clifford cannot even provide hard evidence for his objections and not all of his thinking is true for all cases. I think people do not always have reasoning for their beliefs, but there is not always hard evidence to back their beliefs up.
2. The sensus divinitatis is when people see beautiful sunsets, starry skies, or beautiful mountains and they have a feeling that God or a higher power exists. The Reformed Epistemologist says that if there is a God, it makes sense that he made us with a sensus divinitatis so we have a sense of his existence in everyday life when we experience his creation of the world such as starry skies and sunsets. If God designed us to believe in Him based on the sensus divinitatis and someone believes in Him based on this, they are functioning properly. Then this person is rational even though they have no hard evidence for God’s existence. I think the Reformed Epistemologist’s view is plausible. I think they are right in saying the sensus divinitatis can make it rational for a person to believe in God even if that person has no hard evidence. However, they cannot believe in God just based on seeing starry skies alone. I also think other factors can cause people to believe in God such as signs and miracles in everyday life. When bad things happen in life, good things tend to happen afterwards. It may not be right away, but things usually always get better. There always seems to be a feeling that things will be okay. I do think the Reformed Epistemologist makes a good point though, because when you see nature and the beauty and wonder of the world, you do feel a sense that someone or something had to create it. You just know there has to be something more to life.
Kenzie Hassfurther
ReplyDelete3. A cosmological argument says the cause of the universe is God, and everything has a cause. I sort of find Aquinas’ cosmological and Clarke’s cosmological arguments plausible. With Aquinas, I find the teleological component of his fifth way plausible. It makes sense that complicated things such as the heart, eye, or animals are so complex that there must be intelligence behind it. This makes sense that God is the intelligence behind everything so complex in the world.
4. I think there are a variety of factors that can influence someone’s beliefs in the issues of right and wrong. Some factors are personal experience, religious beliefs, and studying moral issues. I do think believing in God and a religion can greatly influence how someone thinks about ethics and morality. When people study their religion, they explore the foundation of what the religion is based on. They look at what the church believes in and can base their views off that. The Bible also teaches and shows how a model citizen or role model like Jesus acts and lives His life. People can then reflect on issues and think about how Jesus would handle it.
Kenzie,
DeleteIn regards to your question 4, I do agree with you that it has an influence. I do however question the validity of basing your life on the "what would Jesus do" philosophy. Many issues in today's society cannot be directly related based on what Jesus may or may not have done. I was just hoping you could explain a little further on that to clear up what you mean by living your life based on how Jesus lived his.
Bethany Dutton
Kenzie,
DeleteIn regards to your response for question 3; if you think that God is responsible for the complexities of things like the heart, eyes, and animals, do you also think he is responsible for disfunctional parts such as blindness or deafness? If so or if not could you explain why and who you think is responsible for those things. I completely agree with you that personal experiences are also factors that influence how people react with ethical and moral issues.
Savannah Stivers
Hi Kenzie,
ReplyDeleteI enjoyed reading your post, and I think it shows some great thinking and wrestling with the deep issues we are thinking about. I had 2 follow up questions to your post. In your answer to 1, you talked about the counterexamples that Reformed Epistemologists raise to Clifford. I was wondering if there was a particular example we discussed that really stood out to you? In your answer to 3, you said you "sort of" agree with Aquinas and Clarke. I was wondering if you could say a bit more on that point and what you thought made sense with Aquinas and Clarke?
Best,
Prof Gehring
Hi Professor Gehring,
ReplyDeleteSince a counterexample is a true exception to an all claim, it goes against Clifford's view that, "we must have hard evidence for all beliefs to be rational." One counterexample that we discussed that really stood out to me was if someone is diagnosed with cancer & they only have 3 weeks to live, the person believes they will live longer. This is something they believe in, but there is really no hard evidence to back up why they believe this. By saying I "sort of" agree with Aquinas and Clarke, I meant I agree with what each of them were saying, but you cannot base your belief in God based on theories alone. I agreed with Aquinas in the way that it makes sense that there was first mover to create the universe, and that mover was God. I also agree that there had to be some intelligence behind all of the creation in the world, and that had to be God. With Clarke, I agree that with dependent beings they didn't have to exist but they do exist because something else made them. I also agree that there has to be a necessary being that depends on nothing to exist because it existed forever, and this would be God. I agree that you have to believe a necessary being like God created all of the dependent beings in the world. I think it is important for people to bring that necessary being into their worldview. However, I think there is more to faith than just trying to prove it all the time with theories and objections. People need to make it personal through exploring their faith and learning how it relates to their daily lives. Little things happen in life that make you wonder. For instance, miracles and things that just couldn't happen any other way don't make sense unless God had to have something to do with them. Theories are good in a sense, but the personal level of faith, in my opinion, should be the strongest.
Kenzie Hassfurther
Hi Kenzie,
DeleteI think that your reply here is great, and I really appreciate you bringing the personal side of faith into the conversation here on arguments for God's existence. Actually, Aquinas would agree with you. A good way to think about Aquinas' views on faith is to think about being a healthy person. To be a healthy person, you have to do a few things: like exercise regularly and eat good food. Aquinas thinks that faith is like being a healthy person. There are a couple of "ingredients" that go into making it up. To start, he thinks there is an intellectual side to faith. For Aquinas, thinking about reasons for God's existence is something like "spiritual food" that can nourish and deepen one's faith by showing the reasonableness of it, and these reasons can strengthen the sense of God's existence that a person already has of God in their hearts. However, Aquinas thinks that we must also live out our faith and serve others too. Moreover, Aquinas sees these parts of faith as working together and building up each other. He thinks that thinking about reasons for one's faith can deepen that faith and strengthen it and in turn motivate people to want to go out into the world and serve others and explain their faith to others, and then, after going out into the world and serving others, a person will want to learn more about their faith and so continue to think about the reasons that undergird it. For Aquinas, just like being a healthy person means both exercising and eating well, so, too, he thinks having a healthy faith involves trying to find a balance between the intellectual side of faith and the practical side of serving others. He thinks it is important to do both and not neglect one side or the other. Good thoughts!
Best,
Prof Gehring
Hi Kensie,
DeleteYour first answer was pretty well rounded. On your first answer you said there were some counterexamples to Clifford's theory could you possibly tell me some of those examples. Your second answer was just as good as the first the only thing I have to ask is if people can't believe on stars alone then what else makes people believe? In your third answer why do you see Clark's argument plausible? Over all your answers were pretty good. These helped me with understanding the topics we are discussing in class.
Thomas Scott
Jessica Burk
ReplyDelete1. The criticisms that the Reformed Epistemologists raised against Clifford, or also known as the "attacks" raised against Clifford, involve focusing on the lack of examples he gave for his theory as well as his own theory being self-refuting. The Reformed Epistemologists believe that only having two examples for his point (the ship owner and the courtroom example) is not enough evidence for absolution of his idea. In other words, they believe that just because his theory works well and makes sense in those situations that it doesn't mean his theory is absolutely correct in every situation especially in something as major as the existence of God. The objection raised on page 62 states that someone who is busy does not have the proper time to fully study and research into the evidence or lack of evidence for God's existence, to which Clifford responds that if a man does not have the time to fully think about Clifford's theory then he does not have time to believe either. In my opinion, I believe that the Reformed Epistemologists raise the better case. If there was hard evidence for the existence of God, then there would be no need to believe, there would be no need to have "faith" which is a main point in believing in God at all. If there was hard evidence of God then there would be no struggle, and then we would not be able to fully appreciate the existence of God.
2. Sensus divinitatis, "sense of divinity", is whenever people experience beautiful things in nature such as sunsets or mountains and they have a feeling within their heart that God exists. The Reformed Epistemologists believe that sensus divinitatus can make it rational for people to believe in God because it is a feeling, a feeling that a lot of people have that can't be explained by science. They also believe that if we can have this feeling, then there is a God who created us where this feeling within can exist, because why else would we be able to experience the feeling of God's existence if there was no God to create us with the ability to feel that? I do believe that sensus divinitatis is a plausible reason to have belief in God because it would make no sense to have the ability to feel God's presence through a scene in nature unless there was a God to create the feeling and the nature that causes us to feel it.
Hi Jessica,
DeleteI enjoyed reading your post, and I think it shows some great thinking. I wanted to ask you a follow up question related to your answer to number two. On our last blog, you talked about how you enjoy reading stories of divine activity in the lives of people. I am wondering if you see any connections between these people you have read about and the sensus divinitatis that Reformed Epistemologists talk about. From your readings on this subject, I am wondering if you think that the people you have read about would agree with the Reformed Epistemologist on the sensus divinitatis and say that they have experienced the kinds of feelings the Reformed Epistemologist talks about in their lives?
Best,
Prof Gehring
Reply to Question 2: Josh Durall
DeleteHello Jesica. I enjoyed reading your answer to question number two, and I find myself feeling likewise sometimes. What I would like you to expand upon is this: What exactly is God to you. This is a question I often think about when I contemplate religion. Unfortunately, I feel as though many churches in our area view God as this omnipotent being who is all good, all-powerful, and has total control. When I was a child I imagined God as this bearded white male figure, and I feel as if similar views result from an attempt by organized religions to ill-define God. I know tend to view God as just sheer power. Perhaps God utilizes both good and evil forces. Perhaps he is like a master chess player and the board pieces are like us.
Jessica Burk continued
ReplyDelete3. A cosmological argument basically revolves around the idea that there needs to be a first cause of the universe and that cause is God. I believe that most of the cosmological arguments have plausible points but the one that I find the most plausible would be Clarke's Cosmological Argument. The concept of dependent beings and necessary beings makes a lot of sense and completely answers the never ending "why" question. There has to be a reason why all of the Earth was made the way it was, and why humans/animals/nature exists and the God being a necessary being that we all depend on for existence is a proper answer to that question. If you only believe in dependent beings then you can never answer why they have to exist and it leaves a big explanatory gap in your worldview.
4. I definitely believe that whether a certain person believes in God or not is a huge part of their morals and ethics. However, being a Christian and going to church are two completely different things in my books because just because you go to church every Sunday and sit in the front row does not necessarily make you the Christian that you could be "acting" like you are. If you truly believe in God and you believe in a Heaven that you want to make it to in the afterlife, then you are most likely going to be the best person that you can be. That does not mean that you won't make mistakes, it just means that after you make the mistake that you realize you are wrong for what you did and will be sincerely sorry for the things that you did. However, that does not mean that those who do not believe in God are automatically bad people. My dad is actually an atheist, but he is also one of the most caring, loving, and kindest people that I have ever known. His good heart and character did not stem from a belief in God but from the morals and values he believes are what from the experiences over his life. So whether morals and ethics having anything to do with a belief in God can go both ways.
Hey Jessica. I thought your reply to question 3 was very thought out. I agree with you that the concept of dependent and necessary beings does help with the never ending why question. I also think Clarke’s argument goes along with Aquinas’ view that the complexity of nature, animals, and people had to have intelligence behind them and this intelligence is God. I think a necessary being like God had to create them to all be dependent. I was wondering what your thoughts on this were. Thanks.
DeleteKenzie Hassfurther
Hey Jessica Burk,
DeleteReply to Question 4
You made some very strong points about Christianity, many of which I agree with. I also like how you used a personal example with your father about his morals and values being developed through experiences in his life rather than by religion or belief in God. My great-grandparents did not believe in God, however, they were two of the greatest people that I have ever known and they were always kind, caring and loving. Who do you think has stronger morals and values and can better live up to those morals and values? Someone that builds morals and values based on experiences, or someone that has based their morals and values on religion and their belief in God? I know that everyone makes mistakes and will fall short of their beliefs at points in their life, but who do you think has a greater chance of living up to their morals and ultimately being a better person? Also, why would they have an advantage or better chance than the other person?
Jonathan Brey
Hey Jessica,
DeleteIn regards to your fourth answer, I like how you answered this question. Do you think that all Christians live up to the morals and values they're taught to believe in? And do you think that non-Christians can turn out to be better people (in sense of morality and ethics)?
Tori King
Jonathan Brey
ReplyDelete1. Two of the criticisms that Reformed Epistemologists leveled against Clifford are that you can not go from two examples to an all claim and that there are counter examples to his all claim. Clifford gave two examples, the ship owner and the courtroom, and draws from them the conclusion that all beliefs need hard evidence in order for them to be rational. However, all these two examples show is that we need hard evidence for some beliefs in some circumstances. Therefore, you can not go from two examples to an all claim. Counter examples are true exceptions to an all claim. Reformed Epistemologists searched for a belief without hard evidence that we all agree is rational. Some of the counter examples included ethical issues, living in the Matrix, and the future. The objection the book raises against Clifford is that many people do not have the time or the capability to do the serious thinking that he requires before someone is permitted to have faith. Clifford rejects this objection by stating that if someone is too busy to study in order to be able to understand the arguments, then they have no time for faith. I think the Reformed Epistemologists are correct that we do not need hard evidence for all of our beliefs to be rational. The Reformed Epistemologists found faults in Clifford’s Theory. There is no hard evidence for his own theory. They were also able to find true exceptions to his all claim. The exception I find the strongest is there is no hard evidence that we are not in the Matrix, but we would all agree it is rational to believe that we are not.
2. Sensus divinitatis is the idea when people experience beautiful scenes in nature, God speaking to them in the Bible, or a terrible feeling when we have done something wrong that they have a feeling or instinct in their heart that God or a Higher Power exists. Sensus divinitatis means sense of divinity. Reformed Epistemologists say when the senus does its work and produces inside of us a belief in God, that it is performing the task it is designed to do. This means the sensus is reliable because the belief that it regularly produces, the belief that there is a God, is true. Looking from this perspective, the belief in God by the sensus divinitatis satisfies all the conditions for being warranted. This would make it rational for a person to believe in God even if they have no hard evidence for their belief. I believe the Reformed Epistemologist’s view is plausible and that the sensus divinitatis can make it rational for a person to believe in God even if that person has no hard evidence. Our bodies are designed to create the feeling that there is a God when experiencing things like nature, God speaking to us in the Bible, and a terrible feeling when we’ve done something wrong, so the feeling that there is a God that is created inside of us must be true. Therefore, the sensus divinitatis is rational, which would make it rational for a person to believe in God even if they have no hard evidence. I also find sensus divinitatis rational and plausible because I have personally experienced the feeling that there is a God after seeing beautiful scenes of nature on many different vacations and when I have done something terribly wrong and feel extremely guilty about it.
Jonathan Brey
ReplyDelete3. A cosmological argument is an argument for God’s existence that attempts to show that there needs to be an explanation and a first cause of the universe. I find Aquinas' Cosmological Argument, Clarke's Cosmological Argument, and the Kalam Cosmological Argument to all be plausible in showing that is it plausible that God exists. Clarke’s Cosmological Argument involves dependant and necessary beings. A dependent being is a being that did not have to exist but does exist, and exists because something made it. I am a dependent being. I did not have to exist, however, I do exist, and I exist because my parents created me. My parents are also dependent beings. They came from their parents, and their parents are also dependent beings. We can keep on tracing how people came into existence forever if we keep explaining the existence of a dependent being by another dependent being. In order to stop going on forever and trying to explain the existence of dependent beings by other dependent beings, Clarke argues that you must believe in a necessary being. A necessary being depends on nothing to exist and has existed forever. Clarke believes God is the necessary being that created the world and all dependent beings. This argument is plausible because if someone believes that there is no necessary being and that there are only dependent beings, they can not explain where the first dependent being came from. The very first dependent being could not have come from another dependent being; it would have had to come from a necessary being. This makes it plausible to believe that God is the necessary being that created the first dependent being.
4. God’s existence and religion do have implications for how someone thinks about issues of ethics and morality. I think that believing in God and a particular religion like Christianity can influence a tremendous amount how someone thinks about ethics and morality. Religion is a lifestyle and defines who a person is. Religion provides guidelines on how someone should live out their life. The Bible is like a manual that explains the best way to life out your life and what is right and what is wrong. The Bible also contains what God believes are important morals and values that people should posses. The Ten Commandments are a great example of this. The Ten Commandments are located in Exodus 20 and is a list of commands that Christians must follow. The list includes many ethical and moral issues such as murdering and stealing. If someone claims to be a Christian, they are implicated to accept these commandants and abide them. They can not claim to be a Christian and constantly murder and steal. This would be hypocritical. Also, if you feel in your heart that God exists, and you murder or steal, you will be filled with guilt because you know what you have done is both ethically and morally wrong. This illustrates that religion and God’s existence has implications and a huge impact on how someone thinks about ethics and morality.
Hi Jonathan,
DeleteI enjoyed reading your post and I think it shows some good thinking. I wanted to ask a follow up to your answer to 4. You talked about how you think that a religion such as Christianity does have implications for ethical issues and you cited the 10 commandments, which is a good example. I am wondering what you think about the topic of war. do you think that a religion such as Christianity has any ethical implications for moral guidelines to guide war? If so, what are they? We are eventually going to be looking at how Merton thought religious people should think about war, but I would be interested to hear your thoughts on this issue before we turn to Merton.
Best,
Prof G
Bethany Dutton
ReplyDeleteQuestion 1
One of the criticisms that were brought up against Clifford was that his theory was self-refuting. That stated that his claim was hypocritical because he himself didn’t have any hard evidence to support his theory. We also discussed the topic of counterexamples, which are true exceptions to any rule. So no matter how true a case or subject may be, there is always going to be an exception to the case. The time argument is basically saying that the type of deep critical thinking that is required of Clifford’s theory consumes too much time for people to be able to follow it. They are much too busy with their jobs and the other aspects of their life to commit to such involved thought processes. I believe that Clifford presents a stronger case when it comes to the rationality of our beliefs and why we believe in them. Rationality is based on reasoning and logic, and hard evidence points more in the direction of reason and logic than faith does. Not to say that there’s anything right or wrong about believing things based on faith alone, but it’s more rational to believe things based on logical evidence.
Question 2
Sensus divinitatis is the feeling of a higher power being present in our life when we witness something beautiful like sunsets or gorgeous mountain ranges. Reformed epistemologists say that it makes sense for this to make a case for its rationality. They believe that God would want everyone to be able to sense the being that created them, and that is why we have that feeling of God through sensus diviniatatis. I don’t necessarily think it makes it right or rational for a belief based on faith alone just because you feel something when you see something beautiful. Our feelings could be random happenstances that take place when we see any number of random things. So it doesn’t really make sense to connect those dots when it’s such a stretch. I mostly believe that it’s more of an implausible belief than a plausible one.
Question 3
A cosmological argument is an argument that tries to show that there needs to be one first cause of the universe and God is what caused it. The most plausible one to me is the Kalam Argument. I find the idea that whatever begins to exist having a cause to be very logical. I like a logical way of thinking and reasoning out things, so this argument makes more sense to me. Items and events just don’t happen for no reason. It doesn’t make sense to believe that things just pop into existence; there has to be a cause for the items in our world to exist. Now whether I believe that the universe began to exist as a result of a higher power or not is still yet to be determined, but I do believe that something caused the universe to exist. There had to be a reason.
Question 4
I do believe that the views someone has on ethics and morals are greatly affected by their stance on the existence of God and the religion they choose. Different religions have different views on important issues that are involved in morality. Issues like the rights and wrongs of abortion, gay marriage, and death penalty. Some religions may think one or more of these things are okay while other religions may believe that these are unethical. Depending on the religion you believe in, your decisions on how you perceive these issues could fluctuate.
Hello Bethany,
DeleteI think you did a good job answering all of the questions. I wanted to ask questions about your response to questions three. What brings you to believe that a higher power may or may not be the cause of the universe? I noticed that you believe there is a cause for the universe, but that you are not decided on whether it was created by a higher power or not. I also wanted to ask if you agree with Clark's cosmological argument?
Shelby Nelson
Bethany,
DeleteI agree with you that it does not make sense for things just popping into existence. But I am curious as to, if you are not sure that God was the cause, what else could have provided the spark the began the big bang? If the theory is correct, and there was nothing before the big bang, then nothing in the laws of nature that we could hope to understand could explain it. This leaves only the possibility of God being the cause of the universe. What other causes were you thinking could have explained why the big bang began the universe?
Will Johnson
Thomas Scott
ReplyDelete1. One criticism is that Clifford’s theory is self-refuting because even his examples he gives there is not any hard evidence for the things he believes has hard evidence. The second criticism that was presented in class was the counterexamples that shows that you don’t need hard evidence for all your beliefs for example, we all know that murdering is bad but there is no hard evidence that this action is bad for you. The criticism that is also brought up against Clifford is that people do not always have the time to stop and think about things deeply all the time. I believe that the strongest case here is Clifford’s because of his ability to present things so simple and easy to understand even for the people that do not have time. I believe that Clifford does make sense that our beliefs need to be backed up with evidence of some sort. Even though the arguments against Clifford kind of appeals more to many people I believe Clifford has a solid argument.
2. The sensus divinitatis is the deep instinct when looking at a sunset or something of that sort that there is a creator. I think they think others will believe this because everyone has looked at a sunset or even beautiful flowers and had that feeling of relaxation and that sometimes lead people to believe that there is a creator. This feeling of a creator has never really hit me. I have seen a sunset and I have not had this feeling that there is a creator but I do have the feeling that the world is small and that we do not see the big picture. This has always been a hard question to answer for me because it has always been such a loaded question and that makes it difficult to answer. I think if a person has this feeling that there is a creator good for them and I think if they do believe this then obviously it is plausible.
3. A cosmological argument is an argument that says there is a start of everything and that the creator of the start was God. God in this argument started everything and therefore everything has a cause because it was created. I think the only argument I found remotely plausible was the one that dealt with trying to explain God’s existence which is the Kalam Cosmological Argument. This argument was created by Islamic scholars. The Kalam Cosmological Argument states that whatever begins has a cause and since the universe began therefore it has a cause that we don’t know yet. The only problem I have with this argument is that it says the universe at one time did not exist and now it does I believe the universe has always existed and that the Big Bang was just the beginning of stars and planets forming together.
4. God has a huge impact on how people think about things and why they think this way. With some people it clouds their mind and they stop thinking for their selves and then they think that all they need to think about is how God thinks about them. Believing in God does not necessarily affect how you think about ethics and morality but it seems to always tie into each other. This is always one of the big problems people seem to have if they are not religious they seem to think that Christians do not think the same way they do. Then people really that are religious usually have the same problem that non-religious people. This problem seems to keep these two sides from trying to work things out.
1. The first criticism against Clifford’s argument is that he only provides two examples and draws a huge conclusion from them. The examples just show that we need hard evidence if we are a ship owner or in a court room. They are not enough to prove you need hard evidence from all situations. You cannot use two examples that need hard evidence and claim all situations need hard evidence. The second criticism against Clifford’s argument is that it is self-refuting. He has no hard evidence to prove his theory that you need hard evidence for something to be true. The argument raised on page 62 explains that not everyone as the time or ability to search and find the hard evidence that Clifford says they for their faith. Clifford argues back that if one does not have the time to find the hard evidence than he does not have time to believe. I agree with the reformed epistemologists. It is clear by the second argument against Clifford that he does not have hard evidence for his very own belief. If he cannot have hard evidence, then why would it be wrong for anyone else to not have hard evidence for their belief?
ReplyDelete2. Sensus Divinitatis is when people experience beautiful nature and have an instinct or feeling that a higher power exists. Reformed epistemologists argue that it makes sense for God to create us with a sensus divinitatis because he would want to make it easy for people to sense that he exists. If God designed us with the sensus divinitatis and a person believes in Him because of this special sense, then it would be rational for this person to do so because he is functioning the way he was created to function. I believe this view is plausible. I think it makes sense to look at a beautiful sunset or amazing mountains and believe that some higher power created them. I myself at times when looking at beautiful nature wonder how some people do not believe in a higher power.
3. A cosmological argument is an argument that tries to show that there is one cause of the universe and this is God. One cosmological argument is the argument by Saint Thomas Aquinas called The Second Way. This argument explains that things in the world cause other things to happen, so there has to be something that caused the first thing to happen. I believe this argument is plausible because there is always a cause for everything that happens. There has to be a starting point. Everything has a reason and there must have been a reason and cause for why the world began. Someone had to cause the world into being. That first cause was God. I also believe Clark’s cosmological argument is plausible.
4. I do believe that believing in God and a particular religion can influence how someone thinks about ethics and morality. People can have certain beliefs on ethics and morality without believing in a religion, but when they do believe in a religion, they may accept or reject beliefs because their religion does. When someone believes in a particular religion, they will follow what the religion’s teachings say is right and wrong. For example, if a Christian believes that the Bible is correct, he will probably agree with the Ten Commandments. Someone of a different religion may have similar beliefs to some of the Ten Commandments, but he could also have very different beliefs to some of the Ten Commandments at the same time.
Shelby Nelson
Will Johnson
ReplyDelete1. The reformed epistemologists begin by stating that Clifford draws a HUGE conclusion from only two small examples. They say that this, at best, shows that some beliefs need hard evidence. They then go on to say that Clifford’s view is self-refuting, because there is no hard evidence that his theory is right. On page 62, Clifford states that those whom do not have the time to think about these topics “should have no time to believe”. I tend to side with the reformed epistemologists, due to the fact that you could never possibly have all of the information that you need for every one of your beliefs. Some things you have to accept on faith alone without hard evidence.
2. The sensus divinitatis is the feeling of wonder and awe you experience when gazing upon beautiful mountains, the vastness of the sea, or a beautiful sunset. It is the feeling that there must be a higher being whom designed the world in all of its glory. Reformed epistemologists use the sensus divinitatis as the “proof” that Clifford says you need to believe in God. I agree, again, with the reformed epistemologists, that this can be used as evidence of God’s existence. People for thousands of years have believed in a higher being based off of this feeling. Besides, if God made us, wouldn’t he want us to appreciate the world he created for us?
3. St. Thomas Aquinas’ cosmological argument is of their having to be a “first cause” in the universe, and that this first cause is God. All of the cosmological arguments that we studied are plausible, especially the Kalam argument. The Kalam argument is backed up by science, using both the big bang theory and the second law of thermodynamics as evidence for its plausibility.
4. Believing in God, especially in Christianity, MUST influence your view on morals and ethics. If you believe in the Christian God, then you must also believe that abortion, among other topics, is morally wrong. These moral beliefs are something that must be accepted with a belief in God. I do not know enough about other religions to feel comfortable talking about their morals and ethics, but I am sure that other religions also come with “prerequisite” beliefs in morals to be a part of that religion.
Will,
DeletePersonally I believe that abortion is wrong and I do believe that stemmed from my religion. However, many people who are Christians also believe that people are allowed to be "pro-life". Do you believe they are true Christians if they are pro-life? Also, do you believe that modern people twist the words in the Bible to relate to new world topics such as abortion, gay marriage, etc.?
Jessica Burk
Joseph Coyle
ReplyDelete1. There are two criticisms that stand out to me against Clifford. One is the fact that Clifford’s argument is self-refuting. He says that it is not rational to believe in anything without hard evidence. He says this without presenting any hard evidence for his case. The second argument that stands out is counter examples, such as crimes. Whether murder, robbery, or any other crime you can think of, there is no hard evidence that it is wrong, but we all accept that it is bad. The argument about time is that nobody has time to critically think about Clifford’s time. They are too busy to think about things like this. I believe the theists have a better argument. There does not have to be hard evidence for everything to be true.
2. Sensus divinitatis is the “sense of the divine”. This is the feeling you have when you see mountains or stars or anything in nature and have a feeling that it was created by a divine being. They say this makes it rational to believe in God because it makes sense that God would want us to have a sense of him in your heart. I believe this is very rational because there has to be a creator so it would make sense to have a “sense of the divine.” What else would make sense than for there to be a creator? This entire world and the complexity of it could not have been made by an accident of some kind. It had to have a creator.
3. A cosmological argument is an argument that says everything has a cause. Eventually, going back on all of these causes, you end up at one beginning cause. That cause is God. I believe all of them are plausible. I will focus on Aquinas’ version though. Everybody would say it makes sense to see dominoes falling and believe there had to be a first cause. But they see everything in the world and do not believe it had a first cause.
4. I definitely believe a person’s religious views have an effect on someone’s moral values. Someone who believes the Bible would have some moral views that others might not. Even though Christians and non-Christians can have some same morals, a Christian should have those morals whereas a non-Christian chooses to have morals. Non-Christians have no biblical reasons for their beliefs. Morality should be the same way. This only goes for true-Christians, not people who call themselves Christians but do not act like Christians.
Have you taken into consideration the religious figures in today's society who are overflowing with evil? Child molesting, distributing drugs and taking money from their church.
DeleteJust something to think about.
Selina Priest
woops..
DeleteSorry, that was supposed to go to Will. Not you Joseph.
Tori King
ReplyDelete1. Two of the three criticisms against Clifford's view are the Kalam cosmological argument and Aquinas' First Cause. Aquinas' conception of First Cause was the idea that the Universe must have been caused by something that was itself uncaused. In the Kalam cosmological argument, which postulates that something caused the Universe to begin to exist, and that this first cause must be God. On page 62, I believe that the Reformed Epistemologists have a tsronger argument. Just because someone doesn't have the time to think critically about the nature of the arguments, doesn't mean that they shouldn't have time to believe. I don't think that Clifford is right at all. For some people, believing is all that they may have in the world to keep hope. They don't have reasoning or evidence, they just believe. Sometimes that's all someone really needs. They don't need to make other people believe that is rational.
2. Sensus divinitatus is Latin for "sense of divinity." Basically, whenever someone see a beautiful sunset, or great mountains they have this feeling- a sixth sense- that God is around them, and He was the one who created those beautiful scenes. The Reformed Epistemologist thinks that the sensus divinitatis can make it rational for a person to believe in God even without the existence of hard evidence because even though there is no evidence, when you look at those sunsets, or those mountains, you get this feeling that there is NOTHING human in this world that could create something so beautiful. That it had to be the work of some higher power that created those things. I actually have mixed feelings about whether or not the Reformed Epistemologists's view is plausible. I mean, sure, there are goig to be some moments in someone's life that they have to other way to explain something they saw, or how it was created, but if you want to go into technicalities, those "beautiful sunsets" were caused by polution. This claim can be correctly used for some arguments, while for other arguments it's implausible.
Tori King
ReplyDelete3. A cosmological argument is an argument for the existence of God that claims that all things in nature depend on something else for their existence, and that the whole cosmos must therefore itself depend on a being that exists independently. I found Aquinas' Cosmological Argument to be one of the most plausible. It's basically just saying that there was a first cause in the Universe that caused everything else to fall into place. I find this plausible because you can even argue for the big bang theory with this argument. Aquinas' argument is basically the foundation for the other two arguments as well, which, I find makes it even more plausible.
4. Right now, I don't believe that someone's thoughts about God and his existense and religion should have an effect ove rhow someone thinks about issues of ethics and morality. I think that people are influenced by their religion about ethics and morality, mainly because they're drilled to think certain ways. Catholics are taught that divorce is wrong. Christians are taught that being gay is wrong.
Tori,
DeleteIn response to number four, the question was do you think it does affect the way people think and act. It didn’t ask if it should. I understand what you were saying though and you did have some good points. People believe as they have been taught to believe. it's like when we were children; we had no knowledge of anything. The only thing we know is what has been taught to us.
Kumari Logan
Savannah Stivers
ReplyDeleteQuestion 1:Two criticisms that Reformed Epistemologists used against Clifford are self-refuting and counterexamples. They said that Clifford’s view was self-refuting (hypocritical) because he had no hard evidence for his own theory. Counterexamples against Clifford’s argument were true exceptions to “all” claims. Saying that if you can find something we all think is rational and then find one exception to it, it is no longer true even though it has hard evidence. The objection of page 62 basically says that if you don’t have time to look up why you believe something, you shouldn’t have time to believe in something. Meaning if you don’t know what it stands for and you don’t want to look it up, then you shouldn’t believe it. I think that the Reformed Epistemologists have a stronger case because they can disprove Clifford’s theory while Clifford can’t present any hard evidence for his own theory. He likes to try and disprove other theories to make his look like he has hard evidence but in all actuality he doesn’t have evidence for his claim.
Question 2:Sensus divinitatis is when people see something that looks too beautiful to be real and they have this feeling or instinct in their heart that God or a higher power exists. The Reformed Epistemologists think that God made us with a sensus divinitatis where we all have a sense of his existence when we experience His creation because he would want to make it easy for people to sense his existence. If the person believes in God based on a feeling, they said he is functioning properly and the way God made them and if they are functioning properly then they are rational even though they have no hard evidence for God’s existence. I think this claim is plausible because I have seen beautiful scenery and known that there was something more out there. I am biased because of this but I still think their view is plausible because people all over the world talk about how they have seen the most beautiful things and then they go and do good things for the world.
Question 3:A cosmological argument tries to show that there needs to be one, first cause of the universe and this is God. Basically saying that God started everything by creating the universe. I think that Aquinas’ argument that every effect has a cause and each cause has a starter. I immediately thought of cause and effect even though we didn’t officially put it in those terms. I wasn’t a huge fan of Clarke’s argument. I understand it but I don’t like the idea of being dependent my entire life. Kalam’s argument was interesting to me because I hate physics but he incorporated it into his theory. I like the idea that it all started with a big bang and that God caused the big bang. I think that many people will continue to argue with this idea but if they are scientific people who want evidence then this should work. They will still fight against it, though. I think Aquinas’ theory is the most plausible because I have always believed in cause and effect which makes me biased to it. I also think Kalam’s theory is plausible but I don’t like that one as much because I hate science.
Question 4:I think that religion does have an effect on ethics and morality, but I don’t think it controls everyone’s actions regarding ethics and morality. I think that people like to think their religion makes their actions more “okay” or not as bad as it truly is. Sometimes I think that people who murder others would try to fall back on religion like some fall on an insanity plea. I do think that religion has influence but I don’t think it controls our actions at all because we often don’t think about things before we do them. Our actions aren’t always thought through but are rather reactions to something and spontaneous. This leads me to believe that a lot of people don’t think about the ethics and morality of their decisions until after they make them.
1. One reason we discussed that opposes Clifford’s argument is that he uses a general fallacy to attempt to dispute god’s existence. He uses two examples that are circumstantial at best and draws a large conclusion from them. Another argument against Clifford is that his argument is hypocritical. He asserts that hard evidence is required for a belief to be rational and his own theory doesn’t have hard evidence to support it.in the Philosophy of religion book on page 62, it states that because people don’t have time to think critically about their beliefs doesn’t mean that they shouldn’t have time to believe in them. In this incident I would have to say that Clifford actually has the stringer argument. He makes sense in his argument but the “lack of time” argument is extreme. Just because we might not think about something doesn’t mean we shouldn’t do it.
ReplyDelete2. Sensus Divinitatis is the idea that we as humans see something beautiful like a sunset or the Swiss Alps and we have a sense of the divine – a sense that there is something greater than ourselves out there somewhere that has created everything. Reformed epistemologists may use this Sensus Divinitatis to prove that a belief in God without hard evidence is rational because everyone has this feeling and, though it may not be tangible evidence, we feel in our hearts that it is true. Sensus Divinitatis is plausible and rational because feelings like love aren’t scientific but people still believe it exists. There is no proof for people believing that they won’t die in their sleep but we still do. Evidence is not always necessary for beliefs to be rational because some beliefs are ideas and there is no way of proving an idea for it is just a thought in our consciousness.
3. A cosmological argument is an argument for religion based on causation –there is a cause for everything. It states that because everything has a cause it is a dependent variable. All dependent variables exist only because something caused them to come into existence. If everything in the known universe is a dependent variable it stands to reason that there had to be some independent or necessary being to create the first dependent begins. There are innumerable cosmological arguments for god’s existence such as Aquinas’, Clarke’s and the Kalam cosmological arguments. All of these are plausible and rational.
4. I believe religion plays a large role in the ethics and morality of society. Religion can definitely affect the way a person acts or thinks. In Christianity, god is the perfect example for how we should live our lives. He is omniscient, omnipotent, never lies, and is always helping others. Because god has all of these qualities and he is our role model, we strive to be like him. In this way, god and religion influence what we do because he is morally and ethically righteous and we desire and work to be like him.
Kumari Logan
I definitely understand where your coming from in your answer to number 4. But what if someone didn't have a personal relationship with God. Say they are new to America or come from a different religion and don't know that God could be the perfect model for their lives. I think that maybe because America has had such a strong background rooted in faith from our ancestors coming here that in some way it has traveled down the generations and became a common knowledge reasoning instead of the religious one it originally was.
DeleteAli 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
1 In class we talked about reformed epistemology that says, faith in God is rational without HARD evidence, which opposes Clifford’s theory. Two criticisms raised by Reformed Epistemologists are that Clifford’s view is self-refuting in itself and there are counterexamples that contradict his examples. Clifford says that you need hard evidence for all you beliefs to be rational but Clifford doesn’t give any hard evidence for his own theory. He is just throwing his view out there trying to make it stick. The other way it can be refuted is that we can come up with counterexamples that are rational without hard evidence like the world knows ethically that murder is wrong but there’s no hard evidence to say that is true. Clifford responds to the question that if we don’t have the time to study to develop their faith then you he says that they have no time to believe at all. I agree more with the reformed epistemologist view because I believe in some things that have no hard evidence and still think it is rational.
ReplyDelete2 Senus Divintatis can only be explained by peoples deep down gut feeling when they see a beautiful sunset or stary sky that there is a higher being that created it. I think the reformed epistemologist believe in senus divinitatis because it kind of goes along with their counterexample view against Clifford. They think there are exceptions to having rational explanations like Clifford and a gut feeling can be experienced by anyone in the world so it seems rational to the world. I know I’ve had gut feelings and they have turned out to be true the majority of the time so I would have to agree with the senus divinitatis belief and say it’s plausible.
3 Cosmological arguments try to show that there needs to be one, first cause of the universe and this is God. I think the one cosmological argument I agree with the most is the Kalam argument. The argument is straight forward, direct and simple complex. It says that whatever begins to exist has a cause, so the universe began to exist and thus must have had a cause. The Kalam argument states this cause is God. I like that it explains that the cause is out of space and time so it had to be personal and that you can’t rely on any scientific explanation because science didn’t exist until the world came into existence.
4 I think a lot of times people of this world get their worldview of ethical and moral values from some kind of religious influence. Our heritage in America was based on religion, that’s one of the reasons our ancestors came here. I think one ethical belief to raise in question, would be that murder is ethically wrong and that seems to be the widely accepted belief in the world. You ask the how religion like Christianity could influence what we think about ethics and morality. In the Bible one of the commandments tell you not to murder. I think that even if you claim to be an atheist that somewhere in your family tree you had an ancestor that believed and it has just been passed down the generations as a common knowledge instead of being of religious influence.
Ali Watson