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. I asked you to read Chapter 9 of
Reason and Religious Belief as background to our study of The Problem of Evil
against God's Existence. We went into
detail on many of the ideas in this chapter.
However, on page 187 there is reference made to the good parent analogy
that Rowe uses to argue against God's existence. Using our book, explain the good parent analogy
and how Rowe uses this to object to God's existence. Last, after explaining Rowe's position, state
whether you think that his argument is a good one. Be sure to make your reasons for agreeing or
disagreeing with him clear.
2. Start off by defining
materialism. One argument for
materialism we discussed in class is the argument from Artificial
Intelligence. State this argument we covered
in class. After stating this argument,
state whether you think it is a strong argument for materialism. Be sure to make your reasons for agreeing or
disagreeing with it clear.
3. One further argument for materialism
that we covered in class was called The Brain Chemistry Argument. State this argument we covered in class. Moreover, as background for the topic of Life
after Death, I asked you to read Chapter 11 of Reason and Religious
Belief. Pages 240-241 elaborate on the Brain
Chemistry Argument further by talking about lots of examples of the tight
connection between thinking, feeling, and desiring and what happens in the
brain. Using pages 240-241 of our text, discuss
three specific examples, which we didn't discuss in class, of the tight
connection between thinking, feeling, and desiring and what happens in the
brain. Last, offer up your assessment on
the Brain Chemistry Argument for Materialism.
Do you think it is a good argument?
Why or why not? Be sure to make
your reasons for agreeing or disagreeing with it clear.
4. Start off by defining dualism. Also, define the Identity of
Indiscernibles. One argument we studied
for dualism involves the Identity of Indiscernibles. Explain this argument. Last, do you think it is a good
argument? Why or why not? Be sure to make your reasons for agreeing or
disagreeing with it clear.
5. As background for the topic of Life after
Death, I asked you to read Chapter 11 of Reason and Religious Belief. Pages 252-253 of this chapter talk about how
some use near-death experiences to provide evidence for the possibility of life
after death. This is not a topic we will
discuss much in class, but lots of people raise it in the context of life after
death. As such, it's good to think about
at this point. Using our book, explain
how some use near-death experiences to argue for life after death. Be sure to explain at least one of the
"amazingly accurate" things people that have undergone near death
experiences have discovered. Last, offer
your thoughts on whether near-experiences provide evidence of life after death.
1. Josh Durall
ReplyDeleteIn an attempt to challenge the Skeptical Theist Defense, Rowe invokes “the good parent theodicy.” Whereas many theist argue that we as human-beings cannot possibly understand God or God’s reasons for allowing evil, Rowe surmises that much like a good parent, a good God would want to comfort and assure suffering children. Sure, God’s reasons for allowing evil- much like a good parent’s reasons for allowing a child to get a shot- may indeed be incomprehensible to creation, concedes Rowe, but the problem here is that God does not seem to comfort/ assure creation during times of immense suffering. For Rowe, this particular problem seems to point to atheism as the most plausible worldview. For instance: Where was God after the shooting at Sandy Hook elementary or even after the recent typhoon that struck the Philippines? I must acknowledge the possibility that an omnipotent God had a reason for allowing these evils to happen that we as creation just cannot understand. However, I do not personally believe this, and I wonder why an all good God doesn’t appear to be comforting the victims of these evils. Furthermore, it seems that if God did indeed have some purpose for allowing these evils, that said purpose would be so minuscule when compared to the level of pain and suffering that resulted from these evils. Though such a problem does not necessarily prove that God does not exist, surely it at least warrants a re-examination of the popular concept of God.
Hi Josh
DeleteReply to Question 1
Your posts provide deep thoughts from different perspectives. I enjoy looking at different sides of arguments, and reading your posts allows me to do so. Evils in the world such as the shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School and the typhoon in the Philippines create many different responses among citizens. Some evils such as these cause people to question their faith or even give up on their faith. However, for many people it causes them to strengthen their faith. While watching news reports on tragic evils such as these, I have seen many people testify that they will pray during these tragic times and they state that God is helping them through their struggles and helping them stay strong and have hope. They even go as far as to say God has been by their side the entire time and is comforting them and keeping them safe. Do you believe that these people are not actually being comforted by God? Do you believe that their thoughts and feelings regarding God are just chemical reactions occurring in their brain? What do you think would cause these thoughts and feelings to occur if there is no God? Also, at the end of your post you say we should reexamine the popular concept of God. How would you redefine the popular concept of God? Also, what is your personal concept of God?
Jonathan Brey
2. Josh Durall
ReplyDeleteAccording to the materialist school of thought, everything that exists- including human beings- is atoms and combinations of atoms. As such, the definition of materialism denies the possibility of a soul. One particular argument for materialism follows that because artificial intelligence technology can think- or nearly think; perhaps reason works better- such technology almost shares superior cognitive ability with human-beings. However, many theists reason that human-beings have souls; but, most theists would never reason that pieces of artificial intelligence technology have souls. Thus, advocates of materialism utilize this problem to deny the existence of a soul: because robots probably to not have souls but can reason on much the same level as human-beings, than human-beings do not have souls either. Similarly, theists recognize souls as the center of thinking, but robots think too- and surely they do not have souls. However, I do not personally feel that this is a strong argument for materialism. Rather, it seems that advocates for materialism compare apples to oranges when they compare robots to human-beings. I’ve never known pieces of technology to experience emotion on the same level as human-beings. (In fact, I can think of an episode of SpongeBob Square pants that illustrates this quite well. However, I will not use it.) Moreover, Robots and computers do not cry or laugh. They cannot even render opinions. Sure, they can reason due to series of mathematical calculations that I do not understand, surely they do not have free will to reason as they please.
3. Josh Durall
ReplyDeleteThe Brain Chemistry argument for materialism attempts to link the cognitive process to happening mostly within the brain and thereby refute the theist’s belief that one’s center for thinking, feeling, and desiring exist in a soul separate from the brain. Such an argument holds that one’s thinking process results from the processes that occur within the brain, rather than from one’s independent whims. Our text cites several examples of specific phenomena to support such a claim. For example, Alzheimer’s seems to occur when neurofibrillary tangles form, inhibiting the transport of substances necessary for a cell’s functioning. In other words, an Alzheimer’s patient’s dementia is linked directly to a problem within their brain. Another example cited involves a ‘split brain’ person. A person whose brain hemispheres have been severed may view an object on their left side, and with that object sensed only by their right brain they cannot tell what they see because the left brain (which houses the main areas for speech and communications) cannot communicate with the right. Of course, such a problem no doubt involves more than just the example stated above, but the point is that if thinking occurred with one’s soul, should not a person with a ‘split brain’ still be able to recognize objects in their left field of vision? Furthermore, it happens that when receptors located within the hippocampus are inhibited by certain drugs, stimulation of the synapses that made the hippocampus sensitive is inhibited. Such examples- at least in my opinion- offer the best possible explanation for why people may not have souls that make life after death possible. Clearly modern science proves that tight connections exist between the brain and feeling, thinking, and desiring. While I am not saying that such connections disprove the existence of a soul, I am saying that the Brain Chemistry Argument seems to offer a plausible explanation as to why souls do not exist.
4. Josh Durall
ReplyDeleteDualism may be defined as the belief that one has a soul in addition to a physical body. Thus, dualists hold a two part view of human-beings: soul and body together. As such, one of the main arguments for dualism involves the Identity of Indiscernibles. According to the Identity of Indiscernibles, if the real features of Thing A hold true to the real features of Thing B, then Thing A and Thing B are identical- if the real features of Thing A (even if only one) do not hold true to the real features of Thing B, or visa versa, then Thing A and Thing B are not identical. Consequently, reasons this argument, because the real features of thinking, feeling, and desiring do not hold true to the real features of brain chemicals- and visa versa- the two cannot be identical as materialism states. Accordingly, it is more probable that thinking occurs in a soul. Although I see that clearly the real features of brain chemicals do not hold true to the real features of thinking, I do not feel that this is a good argument to prove the existence of a soul. Perhaps I have missed the mark here, but I cannot help but wonder about causation. The fact that thinking and emotions are not identical to brain chemicals does not necessarily mean that brain chemicals do not cause thinking and emotions.
5. Josh Durall
Perhaps the best arguments for life after death are the stories told by individuals who nearly die but then come back and tell about glimpses of an afterlife or report information that they could not possibly have discerned while their body lay unconscious. Many report experiences affiliated with common religious perceptions about life after death: possession of a new spiritual body, encountering a being of light, evaluation of past, etc… Not surprisingly, many attempt to explain away such experiences by using science (i.e. hallucinations, psychological wish fulfillment, etc…) For example, the text mentions a case of a patient “accurately reporting two coins on top of a high cupboard in the room.” However, certainly not all near death experiences compare to religious expectations or are able to have ‘experiences’ verified. Personally, I believe that instances of ‘out of body’ experiences at times when patients by definition dead mean something. People established and attended religious institutions since the beginning of time in hopes of procuring a good afterlife- surely this means something. Obviously I have my problems with organized religion, but even I hope that there is a happy afterlife!
Josh,
DeleteI always really enjoying reading your posts because your opinions on many of the subjects we talk about in class is not necessarily common among most college students- meaning they usually contain much more deep thinking than my own. I know you may not be a sign of organized religion and such, but I wanted to ask you what do you expect the afterlife to be? Do you believe there is some type of heaven or paradise after this life that is waiting for us, or do you believe we will just body-less forms of ourselves wandering the earth until it ceases to exist? I am just wondering on your personal belief on what you believe the afterlife may contain since you do not appear to be part of any certain religion.
Jessica Burk
Shelby Nelson
ReplyDelete1. In chapter nine, Rowe argues against the skeptical theist defense by using the good parent analogy. The good parent analogy states that when children go through suffering, they typically have parents that will be there for them through the suffering. The parents will comfort them and assure them that it will be okay. Rowe argues that when people go through suffering, God often seems distant, silent, and absent. If there really was a loving God, He would be there for people as they go through suffering. I personally do agree with his argument. God is not a human being; so, he does not necessarily comfort people the same way as a parent comforts a child. God has reasons for the way he responds to people in suffering. Humans may not be able to understand God’s ways of comforting, but just because God seems distant in times of suffering does not mean it is God’s fault. It could be the fault of the person who is going through the suffering.
Hello Shelby Nelosn. I read your post for question number one, and I agree that we as human-beings seem to have a certian niche for creating our own hell. However, my question is this: Do you believe that everything that happens has a purpose and that purpose in some way serves God's 'ultimate plan?' Many people who argue that we as humans cannot possibly understand God (I do believe this) also argue that God is totally in control and uses our lives to work toward some divine ends. What interests me, though, has to do with the best possible world theodicy. Perhaps in creating the best possible world- one that contains free will- God also allowed for some 'random element' to work here on Earth. Personally I have a hard time believing that everything happens for a reason, but surely some things must happen for a reason.
DeleteI enjoyed reading your post,
Josh Durall
Shelby Nelson
ReplyDelete2. Materialism is the idea that everything that exists is just a bunch of atoms and nothing other than that. There are several arguments to support this. One is the Artificial Intelligence Argument. This argument states that there are really powerful computers that some believe have the power to think or are close to having the power to think. No one thinks that computers have a soul. So, if computers can have the ability to think without a soul, it supports the idea that maybe people are like computers and do not have to have a soul to think. I do not agree with this argument. Computers may have the ability to have knowledge similar to humans, but they do not have the ability to feel. Computers do not think about or feel love, compassion, anger, sadness, and pain. Humans have emotions that are linked to the soul that computers will never have.
Shelby Nelson
ReplyDelete3. Another argument for materialism is the Brain Chemistry Argument. This argument states the idea that there seems to be a really tight connection between what happens in the brain and people’s thinking feeling, and desiring. This idea suggests that thinking, feeling, and desiring are nothing more than chemicals and cells mixing in the brain rather than something happening in the spiritual soul. In our book, there are three examples that support this argument. One example is the fact that physical inheritance plays a significant role in certain mental abilities and the degree to which they function properly. Research shows that heredity plays a big part in determining mental ability and function. Another example is that diseases and disabilities that affect the mind are brain-based. Diseases like Alzheimer’s are damaging to the brain and cause problems with thinking and remembering. A third example is that direct damage to the brain affects awareness, consciousness, memory, and conceptual ability. Although this is a good argument, I do not agree with it. When the physical brain is damaged, it prevents the spiritual body from expressing itself through the physical body. Just because the soul is hindered from being shown through the physical body does not mean it does not exist. The soul is still there but cannot be expressed physically due to damage of the physical brain.
Shelby Nelson
ReplyDelete4. Dualism is the idea that people have a soul in addition to a body. Identity of Indiscernible is the idea when all the real features of one thing hold of another thing, those two things are identical, whereas if there is at least one real feature of one thing that does not hold of another thing, those things are not identical. The argument for dualism using the Identity of Indiscernible is that there are real features of thinking, feeling, and desiring that do not hold of chemicals and cells in the brain and vice versa. So, the brain and thinking, feeling, and desiring cannot be identical because they contain differences between each other. Four distinct differences are shape and length, intentionality, private, and truth. Cells have shape and length, but thoughts, feelings, and desires do not have them. Thoughts have intentionality, but cells do not. Thoughts, feelings, and desires can be private, but cells cannot. Thoughts can be known as true, but cells cannot. I agree with this argument. I believe it makes sense that cells cannot be the considered the same as thoughts, feelings, and desires because they contain differences.
Shelby Nelson
ReplyDelete5. In chapter eleven, the argument of life after death by near-death experiences is mentioned. People who have almost died or have died and been resuscitated have reported strange out-of-body experiences. They are able to explain accurate report s of what is going on around them and sometimes even in other rooms or places. They report being able to hear the people around their body announce their death. They have a feeling of leaving and rising above their physical bodies. They also commonly report being in a tunnel and encountering a being of light that helps them recall and evaluate their past. One specific and amazingly accurate experience mentioned in the book is an instance in which a patient reported there being two coins on top of a high cupboard in the room. His report was accurate. I believe that near death experiences do provide evidence of life after death. I do not believe that accurate reports like the one mentioned above just happen by coincidence. These mysterious experiences leave many doctors and people astonished, and the cause of them is yet to be determined as 100% accurate as far as science goes.
Hello Shelby.
DeleteRegarding your post to question 5, I agree with you on your views. I also like your last comment about how science has yet to come up with a reason as to why these mysterious experiences happen because they cannot be explained. I was wondering if maybe you could elaborate a little bit more how you think near-death experiences do provide evidence of life after death. I know you said you think they do provide evidence, but I was hoping you could elaborate a little bit more.
Thanks, Kenzie Hassfurther
Jessica Burk
ReplyDelete1. In attempt to argue against the existence of a God, Rowe created the "good parent analogy" in which he compares a good parent to a good God. Rowe states the a good parent and the God most people have in mind are very similiar in the fact that they should be loving, caring, and should both have a bigger and better reason for the suffering they may permit their child to go through. Whereas a good parent may put their child through the pain of getting their tooth pulled, it is for a bigger and better motive of their child having healthy teeth. Rowe argues that God is not like a good parent seeing as he does not appear to comfort people, or His "children", after suffering and it is not for a bigger and better motive. However, I do not agree with Rowe because I believe there is a reason for everything. Personally, I believe every thing that happens whether it is good or bad has a purpose for a bigger, ultimate plan. Though some situations appear completely horrible and evil on the outside, there is no way we can know the effect that it has on everyone's lives that it touched. I believe that Rowe is seeing bad situations only on the surface, and not fully investigating.
2. Materliaism is the belief that all that exists are atoms and combinations of atoms, no spiritual connection or anything of variety, just atoms. The Artifical Intelligence argument that we discussed is centered off the idea of computers that are so powerful that some humans may believe can think for themselves. However, computers do not have souls even though some are believed to understand thinking and this argument suggests the idea that humans are practically kin to smart computers. I do not believe this argument is strong at all. Though some computers are claimed to be close to thinking on their own, all computers are programmed a certain way by humans. Though Siri may seem to have its own thoughts and answers to questions, it is because a human programmed it or operate it to react how it does. I do not believe Siri has a soul, or any other computer for that matter because computers and machines do not feel or experience emotions of have goals in life. Therefore, this argument seems really weak because computers and humans are not the same regardless of some similiarities in the mental computation area.
Jessica,
DeleteIn response to question one, I just wonder if the ultimate plan that you're talking about is worth the pain that we endure to get to the end result. While everything may happen for a reason it doesn't mean that the reason it happens for is a good reason. Maybe the purpose for it was solely for us to suffer. Something good may not have ever been planned to come out of it. What are your thoughts on this?
Bethany Dutton
Kenzie Hassfurther
ReplyDelete1. On page 187 there is a reference made to the good parent analogy that Rowe uses to argue against God’s existence. The good parent analogy starts off by saying there is a wide gap between God’s infinite understanding and finite human understanding. God is supremely good, loving, and powerful. Similar to this, a good parent would understand more than their child about some suffering that the parent allows the child to undergo, but the good parent would find ways to comfort and assure the child of the parent’s presence throughout the suffering. Rowe then argues that God typically seems distant, silent, and even absent, unlike a good parent. For Rowe, evil with divine hiddenness favors toward atheism. I do not think Rowe’s argument is a good one. I think the good parent is an example along with a dependent being and it deals more with earthly matters. With God, He is a necessary being, and He deals with more spiritual matters that allow Him not to be present on Earth in physical body. Yes, it may seem that God the Father is not a loving parent at times. We cannot physically see Him taking care of us on Earth, but that does not seem reasonable to me as to why He does not exist. I think God is caring for us in a nonvisible way at times, but He cares for us as a loving parent would.
2. Materialism denies the idea of a soul. It says that we as humans are only made of atoms and configurations of atoms. The Argument for Artificial Intelligence relates to robotics and an interest in trying to build robots that can think. It also discussed the power of computers and the thinking capabilities or computers. The argument showed that we do not have to believe in souls to understand thinking. It raises the point that maybe humans are alike to complex computers. For the idea of materialism, yes, I do think the Argument for Artificial Intelligence proves some points about the topic. Both deal with the denial of a soul. However, with the part about atoms, yes, the materialist believes humans are only made of atoms, and with the argument dealing with computers and their complexity, this may have something to deal with atoms that make up computers and humans.
Kenzie,
DeleteIn number 2 your explanation of the argument for artificial intelligence really helped me understand what this argument was saying. Computers seem to me as the main topic of this argument but do you think there can be intelligence in some other places? I also agree with you that humans are like complex computers. The only question about that I have is how complex of computers because some computers that are complicated now in the future may not be complex at all. I also agree with you on the humans are just a pile of atoms. Do you think maybe that even though we are made of atoms that we have some other being or outside source that kind of tells us what to do and how to do it?
Thomas Scott
Jessica Burk
ReplyDelete3. The Brain Chemistry argument is the idea that since the connection between occurences in the brain and the process of thoughts/feelings/desires, it is reasonable to believe that thinking/feeling/desiring is not the result of a soul but due to chemicals and cells mixing within the brain. The first specific example I will discuss on this argument is Clive Wearing who was a distinguished pianist who suffered from viral encephalitis that destroyed the part of his brain that stores information in memory. Though he could still play piano great after this attack, he could not recall recent experiences as much as two minutes after they happened because of the way his brain had deteroriated: this shows large relation between thinking and what chemically occurs in the brain. The next example is the results that the epilepsy electrical simulation which was a process that was instructed within the brain that could cause people to experience certain situations that altered their feelings. The image their brain produced for the subjects caused them to feel a certain way which suggests a correlation between activity in the brain and feelings. The last example I will discuss is the statement that a patient who has Alzheimer's goes through many effected thoughts due to their disease and the disease of caused from a problem within their brain. The Brain Chemistry argument actually does give a plausible argument for souls not existing due to the examples showing how tight the connection between the brain and thinking, feeling, and desiring just is. However, there are many loose ends that the Brain Chemistry Argument does not completely tie up when discussing the characteristics of a soul and theists will more than likely find many responses to object this argument in a spiritual sense.
4. Dualism is a more theistic belief that states that people have a soul in addition to the body, it is a 2 part view of people: the soul and body go together to make a complete person. The Identity of Indiscernibles is an argument for dualism that states that when all real features of one thing holds of another thing then those 2 things are identical. However, if there is one real feature of one thing that does not hold of another then it is not identical. Though I personally believe that dualism is true, I do not believe that Identity of Indiscernibles is the best argument in favor of dualism. Though the real features of emotions do not hold true to all features of the way the brain produces hormones towards emotion, it is not reasonable to claim that the emotion producing hormones in the brain are completely seperate from feelings and emotions that humans may have. I feel like the Identity of Indiscernibles is a simple statement of saying that the same things are the same while different things are different and that does not make me favor the idea of humans having a soul or not, it just makes me feel indifferent towards the argument.
Jessica Burk
ReplyDelete5. A posteriori way of viewing things is base beliefs off of certain experiences, and that is where near death experiences come into play when dicussing life after death. People who have died or have been especially close to death often report seeing themselves escape their own body and hovering over their seemingly lifeless selves in a spiritual image of themselves. Most of these same people have often reported traveling through a dark tunnel with a light at the end as well as telepathically communicating with people that they sometimes and sometimes do not recognize. One example of the amazingly accurate things that a person who has undergone a near death experience was the patient being able to state that there were two coins on top of a high cupboard in the room where it would have been impossible for him to know from his placement in the room. I do believe near death experiences offer some hope into believing in a life after death, and these experiences are things that interest me the most in this topic of discussion. I have even read some books on near death experiences, one involving the story of a boy who was pronounced dead for seven minutes and was able to recite what his aunt had been saying on the phone outside of the entire hospital once he was resuscitated. Occurences like these have no earthly explanations as well as no chemical in the brain explanation, and make me believe that life after death is truly possible.
Kenzie Hassfurther
ReplyDelete3. The Brain Chemistry Argument says that there seems to be a really tight connection between what happens in the brain and people’s thinking, feeling, and desiring. This suggests thinking, feeling, and desiring do not happen in a spiritual soul, but rather is nothing more than chemicals and cells mixing in the brain. There are a variety of examples discussed among pages 240-241 of the tight connection between thinking, feeling, and desiring and what happens in the brain. One example of the tight connection is physical inheritance playing a significant role in certain mental abilities and the degree to which they function successfully. There are comparisons among the intelligence of members of natural families. IQ correlation was looked at between identical twins raised together, fraternal twins, siblings, and children biologically unrelated but living together. This comparison study indicates that heredity plays a major role in determining mental ability and function. Another example is diseases or disabilities affecting the mind that are brain-based, such as Down syndrome. There are mentions of dyslexia, Alzheimer’s, and schizophrenia. These are discussed by the different problems with brain function. Yet another example is brain damage affecting awareness, consciousness, memory, and conceptual ability. There are examples in the text of left and right brain controlling, and there is a case of Clive Wearing, who suffered an attack of viral encephalitis. I understand the Brain Chemistry Argument, but I do not agree with it. I think our desiring and feeling comes from a spiritual side, but only to a certain extent. I think some instances like jobs or picking out your clothes in the morning are not really spiritual related. I think tasks like that are sort of unrelated to a person’s spiritual side. To me, a person’s soul deals with their feelings, thoughts, and desires toward life and living for God in faith. I also think your soul reflects your life when you die. I do think sometimes there is a chemical imbalance in some people’s brains that causes them to suffer from depression, or like illnesses.
Kenzie, regarding question 3, I agree with you that thoughts about every day decisions are not always spiritual. I like your example of choosing a job or picking your clothes for the day. They are very good in discerning the difference between spiritual topics and not spiritual. Do you think that the imbalance in a person’s brain causes a change in the soul?
Delete-Savannah Stivers
Kenzie Hassfurther
ReplyDelete4. Dualism is the belief that people have a soul in addition to a body. There is a two part view of people. The soul and body go together to make a person. The Identity of Indiscernibles says that when all the real features of one thing hold true of another thing, then those two things are identical. If there is at least one real feature of one thing that does not hold true of another thing, those two things are not identical. Then this goes on to say there are real features of thinking, feeling, and desiring that do not hold true of chemicals and cells in the brain and in contrast these two cannot be identical as materialism says and so it is better to view thinking, feeling, and desiring as occurring in a soul. I do think this argument makes sense in a way. The argument made sense to me when comparing two things to see if they are identical. It also made sense to me that real features of thinking, feeling, and desiring do not hold true of chemicals and cells in the brain. Then it makes more sense to think that thinking, feeling, and desiring occur in a soul.
5. Some near-death experiences argue for life after death. Some examples discussed in the book are instances of people dying in hospitals and then having a feeling of leaving their own bodies and viewing from a different perspective. Then they have a feeling of passing through darkness to a tunnel and then encountering a being of light. Then this being of light helps them recall their past. However, despite their desire to stay and enjoy the peaceful, happy experience, they either want to or are told to return to their physical bodies. One “amazingly accurate” thing that people who have undergone near-death experiences have discovered would be people being able to describe what is going on in a room or in nearby rooms that they could not observe from their patient-bed. There are also claims about how the references to a heaven or hell are nothing like the views we have in society today. Many people stress how unlike their experiences were to what they were led to believe from religious teachings. I do think near-death experiences provide evidence of life after death. I have heard of people in my community who have had vivid near-death experiences before dying. Some have claimed that they have seen the Blessed Virgin Mary, and one, the devil. To me, with my religion and with my upbringing, these claims tell me that there are encounters with heaven or hell when we die. There has to be something more than just life on Earth. I believe there is some sort of life after we die. I also know of stories or patients who have undergone major heart surgeries who have died and come back to life. Some have encountered experiences of after life and have vivid recollections of their experiences. I think maybe God allows this to happen in order for us on Earth to strengthen our beliefs in an afterlife through these people.
Jonathan Brey
ReplyDelete1. Rowe states that there is a gap between God’s understanding and human understanding and that God is ultimately good, loving, and powerful. Likewise, a good parent understands more than their child does about some suffering that parents allow children to experience. Good parents discover techniques to comfort and assure their child that they will not leave them and that everything will be alright during the times they experience some suffering. Rowe argues that God should act in the same manner and resemble a good parent. However, Rowe believes that God does not display the qualities of a good parent and seems distant, silent, and absent. Therefore, Rowe objects that God exists. Although I do not agree with Rowe, I do think that Rowe’s argument is a good argument. God is seen as good and loving. God is supposed to be like a good parent and know what is best for us and take care of us. Due to divine hiddenness, it is difficult for people to see that God actually possesses these qualities. If God remains hidden, it makes it easier for people to believe that God is distant, silent, and absent. This can make them feel that God is not caring or comforting.
2. Materialism is the idea that all that exists are atoms and combinations of atoms. This means there is no spooky soul or spiritual stuff, just atoms and combinations of atoms. Therefore, people are just a big pile of atoms and that’s it. Artificial Intelligence deals with robotics and interest in trying to build robots that can think. There are some really powerful computers that people might think can think or are really close to thinking. An example of one of these computers is Deep Blue. Deep Blue is a computer that plays chess and can beat some of the best chess players in the world. Many people argue that Deep Blue can think or is really close to thinking. No one thinks that computers have a soul. This shows that we don’t have to believe in souls to fully understand thinking and that maybe people can be compared to complex computers. I do not think this argument is a strong argument for materialism because I do not believe that computers can think on their own. Computers are designed and programmed by people to do certain things. Since they are designed and programmed to do certain things, they are not thinking for themselves. They are simply just doing what they are designed and programmed to do. If a person had not of created them and programmed them to do certain things, they would not be doing anything at all. Computers must be told to complete certain task, which means that they cannot think and perform tasks by themselves. It may appear that computers can do some things on their own without being commanded to do so, however, they are programmed to do certain things in response to things. Therefore, computers are simply doing what they are designed and programmed to do, not thinking and performing tasks on their own.
Jonathan Brey
ReplyDelete3. The Brain Chemistry Argument begins by stating that there seems to be a really tight connection between what happens in the brain and people’s thinking, feeling, and desiring. This suggests that thinking, feeling, and desiring don’t happen in a spiritual soul, but rather is nothing more than chemicals and cells mixing in the brain. The first example of the tight connection between thinking, feeling, and desiring and what happens in the brain is diseases or disabilities that affect the mind are brain based. Alzheimer’s occurs when neurofibrillary tangles form. When globules of amyloidal protein build up, neurons die and holes in the brain tissue begin to form. Alzheimer’s-affected brains look much different than healthy brains. The effects of the brain change caused by Alzheimer’s include forgetfulness, depression, aphasia, and apraxia. The second example is damage to the brain directly effects awareness, consciousness, memory, and conceptual ability. Imagine a person whose brain hemispheres have been detached. When presented with an object on the left that is sensed by the right hemisphere, they can point to the object with there left hand, but cannot tell what it is. The right brain controls the left hand and knows the object. The left brain is the main area for speech and communication and does not know the object because no information passes through the detached corpus callosum. The third example is certain mental abilities are locatable in the brain. The operations of memory are executed in the prefrontal lobes of the cerebral cortex. The storage area of memories is found in the hippocampus. I do think this is a good argument. From these three examples, it can be concluded that alterations to the brain can affect thoughts, feelings, and desires. This suggests that thoughts, feelings, and desires are controlled by the brain. Also, mental abilities can be identified in the brain, which would suggest thoughts, feelings, and desires are generated in the brain. These three examples show that there is a tight connection between what happens in the brain and people’s thoughts, feelings, and desires. This would mean that all thoughts, feelings, and desires occur because of chemical reactions, and do not occur in a soul.
Jonathan Brey
ReplyDelete4. Dualism is the idea that people have a soul in addition to a body. Dualism is a two part view of people in which the soul and body go together to make a person. The Identity of Indiscernibles states that when all the real features of one thing hold of another thing, those two things are identical, whereas if there is at least one real feature of one thing that doesn’t hold of another thing, those things aren’t identical. One argument for dualism involves the Identity of Indiscernibles. This argument states that there are real features of thinking, feeling, and desiring that don’t hold of chemicals and cells in the brain, and vice versa, so these two can’t be identical as materialism says. Therefore, it is better to view thinking, feeling, and desiring as occurring in a soul. The four ways thinking, feeling, and desiring are different from chemicals and cells mixing in the brain are shape and length, intentionality, private, and truth. Cells have shape and length, but thoughts, feelings, and desires don’t. Thoughts have intentionality, but cells do not. Thoughts, feelings, and desires are private in the sense that only you know these things you have and no one else can unless you tell them. Cells and chemicals on the other hand are not private. Thoughts can be true or false and there is no way a cell or chemical can be true. I think this is a good argument. There are features of thinking, feeling, and desiring that chemicals and cells in the brain do not have, and there are features that chemicals and cells in the brain have that thinking, feeling, and desiring do not have, therefore, they are not identical. This would suggest that thinking, feeling, and desiring are much different than chemical and cells in the brain and that they are not created from chemicals mixing in the brain. All that is needed to prove they are not identical is one feature that one possesses that the other doesn’t. This argument provides four features that are not shared between the two. This strengthens the argument and the features that are used to argue they are not identical are very difficult to argue against.
Jonathan Brey
ReplyDelete5. Being near death in hospital rooms, many people have reported hearing caregivers proclaiming them either dying or dead. These same people have reported finding themselves leaving their body or out of their body, looking at the environment and caregivers attempting to resuscitate them from a different perspective. They possess a new spiritual body, in the same shape as their physical body, and cannot interact with the environment of their original body. They also experience traveling through a dark place until entering a different world. Once they reach this different world, they meet other people that are not physical, but recognizable. They can communicate with them in a telepathic way. These people also encounter light, which causes them to reflect on their past. Even though they strongly desire to stay and enjoy the peace and happiness, they either want to or are told to return to their physical bodies. People that have undergone near death experiences have been able to accurately describe what is going on in their room or in nearby rooms that they could not have seen from their bed. In one case, after a near death experience, a patient accurately reported two coins on the top of a high cupboard in the room. I believe near-death experiences do provide evidence for life after death. You must have a soul in order to experience life after death. These instances that people describe involve their soul leaving their body and entering the afterlife. This is how they are able to view themselves being resuscitated. They describe the different world that they enter as peaceful and happy. This resembles heaven, as heaven is often thought of as a place of peace and happiness people go once they die. When they are resuscitated, they come back to life and their soul returns to their body. While they were in the process of dying, their soul actually experienced life after death for a short period of time. If they were not resuscitated, their soul would have remained in the afterlife. Many people have described experiences like this, which increases the probability of them being true. These near-death experiences provide strong evidence for life after death.
Bethany Dutton
ReplyDelete1. Rowe begins by stating that God is ultimately good, loving, and powerful despite the gap between His infinite understanding and our finite understanding. Then he describes a good parent. A good parent is one who understands the suffering a child might go through more than the child will. Regardless of their knowledge of the pain, they still would try and comfort and protect their child as much as they could by being there for them through the pain. In contrast though, God seems ever distant and hidden from us while we are faced with evils in the world. Rowe believes that it isn’t favorable to have immense evil and divine hiddenness in the world at the same time. Rowe’s argument does make sense to me. A good parent wouldn’t let their child go through pain and suffering alone, and God doesn’t seem to do very much hand holding when evils are present in our lives.
2. Materialism is the idea that all that exists are atoms and combinations of atoms, and there are no souls or spiritual things. One argument for materialism is called the Artificial Intelligence argument. It involves robotics and an interest in trying to build robots that can think. No one really thinks that computers have a soul either, so people are ultimately trying to build thinking machines without souls. This shows that we don’t have to believe in souls to understand thinking and that people may be similar to complex computers. I think this is not a particularly strong argument for materialism. While it does show that we can have complex things that can think without souls, it doesn’t cover what they can think about. While the computers may be able to answer questions with right and wrong answers, it might not be able to answer a question centered on morals and ethics. The computer wouldn’t be able to distinguish right from wrong because what you think is right and wrong is dependent on your feelings, which the soul is the center of.
3. The Brain Chemistry argument is also an argument for materialism that we covered in class. The Brain Chemistry argument states that there seems to be a tight connection between what happens in the brain and people’s thinking/feelings/desires. This suggests that thinking/feeling/desiring don’t happen in a spiritual soul, but rather in chemicals and cells combining in our brains. Our book states some examples to support this argument. One of which is that certain diseases that affect the mind, like Down syndrome, are brain-based diseases. These diseases have displayed signs of being hereditary. Another is that mental processes are linked to areas of the brain. When fMRI tests were down, it was shown that when people looked at pictures or thought of something then diverse brain areas with varying oxygen utilization of arterial blood flows. Thirdly, direct damage to the brain affects awareness, memory, and consciousness. Scientifically it is a good argument, but I don’t agree that it is correct. Just because the physical body and the brain are damaged, doesn’t mean that we don’t feel. Our thinking may be impaired but we can still have feelings and emotions. Our soul can still develop and build upon our emotions and our feelings; we may just not be able to express them effectively.
Bethany Dutton
ReplyDelete4. Dualism is the idea that people have a soul in addition to a body. It’s a two-part view of people that the soul and body go together to make a person. The Identity of Indiscernibles is an argument that we studied over dualism. It states that when all the real features of one thing hold another thing, those two things are identical, whereas if one real feature of one thing doesn’t hold of another thing, those things aren’t identical. There are real features of thinking, feeling, and desiring that don’t hold of chemicals and cells in the brain and vice versa, so these two can’t be identical as materialism says and it’s better to view thinking, feeling, and desiring as occurring in a soul. I think it is a good argument. It wouldn’t be fair to say the two are the same thing just because there are certain parts that are the same, because the parts that are different are important. That argument works with everything else like people and objects, so it should be able to work for souls too.
5. People who have near death experiences are able to describe situations that they otherwise would not have known unless some spiritual phenomena had occurred. They most often describe themselves as having an out of body experience. They can hear the nurse pronounce them dead and sometimes say that they are in a body that looks like their own, it’s just transparent and they cannot interact with anything. They are taken to a place where a being of light and love helps them recall their past, but then they return to their body. One patient was even able to speak about the presence of two coins placed upon high cupboards in the room. That patient wouldn’t have otherwise known they were there unless he were able to see that high up. I don’t think things like that would be possible unless there were some form of life after death. Whether that be Heaven or our souls roaming the Earth I don’t know, but something happens after we die.
Savannah Stivers
ReplyDelete1. The good parent analogy Rowe uses states that a good parent lets their child endure pain so they learn a lesson, but the parent also consoles the child afterward and ensures they don’t undergo severe suffering. Rowe says that God is our parent but typically seems distant, silent, and absent rather than being with us and ensuring we don’t suffer. I think this argument is substantial because God is not our only parent. We were born into this world with parents who do the job Rowe stated. God doesn’t need to hover and do the parent’s jobs better. God provided us with parents so he could observe and watch over everyone without having to take care of millions at once. We don’t have God’s infinite understanding of things, but we do know that God wouldn’t give us more than He thought we could handle.
2. Materialism is the belief that all things that exist are atoms and combinations of atoms. Materialists don’t believe in souls or spiritual things and that therefore we are made of only atoms. The argument about Artificial Intelligence is basically saying that computers don’t need emotions to make decisions. Robots are being built to make decisions so people don’t have to. Technology is advancing, and if computers can make decisions without souls then people can too and therefore people don’t have souls. I disagree with this because technology and human emotions are different. I believe emotions are put into making soul-based decisions. Computers make decisions based on the path with the best outcome. Humans base decisions on emotions and therefore the two cannot be compared.
3. The Brain Chemistry Argument basically says that there is a tight connection between what happens in the brain and people’s thinking, feeling, and desiring. This suggests that thinking, feeling, and desiring don’t happen in a spiritual soul but rather is nothing more than chemicals and cells mixing in the brain. This argument gives examples of brain activity, stimulation, physical inheritance, diseases, and mental abilities. The book talks about how identical twins having the highest IQ correlation and the numbers diminishing as the genetic relation is farther apart. They discuss brain-based diseases and disabilities such as, Down syndrome, Alzheimer’s, and dyslexia. It states that when the globules and amyloidal protein accumulates, neurons die and create holes in the brain tissue which gives us diseases. This is a brain-based problem. Then it continues to talk about what can be found in the brain. It talks about how operations can be traced inside the brain. You can find “operations of the memory are carried out in the prefrontal lobes of the cerebral cortex.” Different parts of the brain specialize with different information. I think this argument is not good enough to stand with materialism yet. I think it is gaining headway with the course of science, but I don’t agree with it. It admits that individual ideas cannot be correlated with certain energy transfers in the brain. This is admittance that they don’t have a link between thoughts, feelings, and desires.
Savannah Stivers
ReplyDelete4. Dualism is the idea that people have a soul in addition to a body; soul and body go together to make a person. The Identity of Indiscernibles says that when all the real features of one thing are the same as another thing, those two things are identical and if there is at least one real feature that is different they aren’t identical. One argument we discussed for this was George Bush vs. Obama. The two have different real features and therefore are not identical. Bush is not African American, their noses aren’t the same, they aren’t the same height, etc… Clark Kent vs. Superman however is argued to be identical because they have the same real features. They have the same facial structure, height, hair color, etc… and therefore are identical. I don’t think this is a valid argument when regarding people. I agree that things or people with similar structure could be labeled identical but that doesn’t make them the same. Identical twins have the same structure, but they aren’t the same person. Each person has their own soul and therefore their own identity. When regarding cells and chemicals in the brain, I think it is a good argument. It proves that cells and thoughts, feelings, and desires are different. It distinguishes the differences between cells and thoughts, feelings, and desires by pointing out that cells can have a shape while thoughts, feelings, and desires can’t.
5. Near-death experiences argue for life after death by stating the spiritual aspects people encountered when they were near death. They discuss how they felt outside of their bodies and how they went through tunnels to the light. Christians believe the light is Jesus coming to greet them. Each person has a different story, but all of them are able to recount what happened with accurate details. “Sometimes the persons describe what is going on in the room or in nearby rooms that they could not observe from their patient-bed.” I think near death experiences provide enough evidence for life after death because they prove that you go somewhere when you die. You travel to a different location and therefore your life is going somewhere after you died or nearly died.
Thomas Scott
ReplyDelete1. Rowe says that the good parent analogy is a theory that uses parenting as the example. It says that a good parent would let their child go through some pain. That is how we learn but as the child goes through the pain the parents help them by soothing them and teaching them how to get through it. Well if God is the parent where is he helping us and showing us how to get through things. He says that he is distant maybe even absent. This argument seems to make more sense the more I think about it because it shows that if God is our parents where is he, why is he not showing himself more often.
2. Materialism is all that exists are atoms and combinations as atoms. There are no spooky souls or spiritual beings. The artificial intelligence argument are robotics and an interest in trying to build robots that can think. This shows that it doesn’t have to come from a soul. I think this is a very good argument because God is supposed to be the only being that can create life but yet if we create artificial intelligence then that disproves God’s existence. I do believe in this argument because I have seen too many intelligent computers and robots.
3. The brain chemistry argument is there seems to be a really tight connection between what happens in the brain and people’s thinking, feeling, and desiring, this suggests that these things don’t happen in a spiritual soul but rather is nothing more than chemicals and cells mixing in the brain. One example is disorders that effect the brain if there was a soul and the soul controlled all the thinking, feeling, and desiring then people would not be effected by brain disorders that prohibits them from thinking and functioning properly. Another example is damage to the brain directly affects awareness, consciousness, memory, and conceptual ability and if the soul was where the thinking was to come from then of course memory and awareness would never be a problem because souls do not age as brains do and they forget things. The last example is certain mental abilities are located in certain parts of the brain. This shows that when certain parts of the brain is stimulated certain feelings seem to come up and this shows that souls have nothing to do with feeling. I think this is a very complicated argument and it takes a little more thinking than others so I think this would be a better argument if it was easier to follow.
4. Dualism says that people have a soul and a body. The identity of indiscernibles is when all the real features of one thing holds of another thing these things are identical, whereas if there is one real feature of one thing that doesn’t hold of another thing, these things aren’t identical. This argument says that if one thing holds the same exact features then those things are the same while if one thing is different than these things are totally different. I think this is a legitimate argument because it shows that just because things seem to be similar doesn’t always mean that they are. This helps me understand why and how things are different. An example is Clark Kent and Superman is the same person, while George Bush and Barack Obama is not the same person just because they share one thing.
ReplyDelete5. Near death experiences gives some weight toward a life after death because many people say they see things that there is no way of explaining. The only way of explaining is by saying that their spirit was floating or whatever you want to believe. Near-death experiences are always much questioned and even kind of confusing in many ways and I think most of them are bogus and our own brains playing tricks on us. One of the amazing accurate things that people seem to guess right is one person said that there was two coins on a top of a cupboard in the room as they were brought back from the dead. Another one is that people have supposedly seen dead relatives and talk to them. I think the brain is very powerful and we as a species have not accessed all the powers that we can do with our brains therefore I say that these experiences have a lot to do with the
Thomas, I have a question for your answer to number 5. I see that you mentioned that you believe many of the supposed near-death experiences people have are just their brains playing tricks on them. I was wondering if you could elaborate more on this. What is an example of an experience in which you believe is just a trick of the mind? Also, how do you suppose that the man who reported seeing two coins on top of a high shelf was correct about his statement?
Delete-Shelby Nelson
Joseph Coyle
ReplyDelete1. Rowe argues that if God is supposed to be like a father, He should act more like a loving, caring father. He says that there are times when people need Him; He is not always there to comfort them and let them know everything will be alright. He says a good parent understands that pain is necessary even though the child does not, and they let the pain happen, but they at least are there to comfort them and let them know everything will be ok. He states that God does not do that. I do not agree with Rowe. Everything has a plan behind it, and even though it may not seem that God is comforting people, if you are truly one of His, you know the comfort He gives.
2. Materialism says that everything that exists is just atoms and combinations of atoms. This says that there are no souls, just atoms. Artificial Intelligence is robotics that is designed to act on its own. There are some powerful computers that make people believe that they are thinking, such as Deep Blue, a chess program. I do not agree with this at all. Computers are designed and programmed by humans to do as their design is. They are not literally thinking, just following their program.
3. The Brain Chemistry Argument states that there is a strong connection between the brain and people’s thoughts, feelings, and desires. It says that all of these things which people say are products of the soul are just different actions of the brain. One example is diseases which affect the brain, such as Alzheimer’s, schizophrenia, and dyslexia. Another is physical probing. Probing certain parts of the brain stimulate certain experiences. The last example I will mention is heredity. Studies supposedly show connections between families’ thinking and their feelings and desires.
4. Dualism is having not only a body but also a soul. They come together to form a person. The Identity of Indiscernibles is when real features hold together in two things, they are identical. If one thing varies, they are not. An example we used in class is Clark Kent and Superman compared to George Bush and Barrack Obama. I don’t agree with parts of this view. Obviously some things about people can be identical, like for twins. However, most identical twins still hold very different character traits. These characteristics are what make them unique.
5. People say that near-death experiences prove people have a soul. One example that stood out to me was the man who saw two coins on a high shelf you could not see from the ground. I believe these can prove the existence of a soul. How else could people see the things that they claim to have seen? If these stories are true, I would love for someone to try to explain how they knew some of the things that they knew.
Hi Joseph,
DeleteIn regards to #5, the question is asking whether it is evidence for life after death, not for is we have a soul or not. I do agree with you though, it is pretty substantial evidence for dualism. An explanation of why these events occurred is definitely something that interests me as well.
Kumari Logan
1. On page 187 of the Reason and Religious Belief textbook, it addresses Rowe’s “good parent analogy.” It says that, like a good parent knowing what is best for the child’s welfare, God knows what’s best for us as his children. Rowe uses the gratuitous evil and divine hiddenness to argue against god’s existence. I disagree with Rowe because even though we can’t see god it doesn’t mean that he is not there. We can’t see the air we breathe but we all still believe it’s there.
ReplyDelete2. Materialism is the belief that everything is just a pile of atoms and piles of atoms don’t have souls. The materialist uses the artificial intelligence argument to strengthen their claim. This is the thought that because things like robots can think for themselves and act accordingly, there is no such thing as a soul. This is actually a pretty strong argument against god’s existence but I have to disagree because robots do what they are programmed to do. You can put theory and strategy in a computer and have it play a game of chess but it isn’t actually thinking for itself.
3. The brain chemistry argument against materialism goes as follows: the brain has very strong connections with thinking, feeling, and desiring. Disease and disabilities that affect the mind go along with this because they prove that these things are directly linked to the brain. Memory is stored in the hippocampus and it shows this idea as well. Direct trauma to the brain causes adverse effects such as Alzheimer’s, further proving the brain chemistry argument to have ground. I think this is a pretty good argument because it uses science to prove a point and science can be proven with tests and has tangible results that are easy to understand.
4. Dualism is the title given to the common belief of a soul in addition to a body. The identity of indiscernible is an argument that if all of the real features of one thing hold for another thing, those two things are identical. It also says that is at least one of the real features aren’t the same, the two things are different. Personally, I think this is a solid argument because it is very logical. It basically says that if two things are the same, they are the same and if they are different, they are different. It gives plenty of examples to also prove this such as length and shape. It is illogical to say that a thought it three feet long. On the other hand, though, it is logical to say that cells have length.
5. Near-death experiences are used to argue for life after death because in some cases people can report seeing something specific on the roof of a building and, unexplainably, what they saw is there. Another man noted seeing two coins atop a high cupboard that were actually there. Near death experiences prove life after death because having an out-of-body experience where you are floating/hovering above your body can resemble the ascension to heaven.
Kumari Logan
Alexandria Watson
ReplyDelete1.Rowe first gives background to help you understand the good parent analogy by saying even though the gap between God’s infinite understanding and human finite understanding is like a parents to child. Whereas a parent will allow some suffering they are still there to comfort them through that trial. So Rowe after mentioning this says that God doesn’t seem to be around to offer assurance and comfort but is “distant, silent, even absent.”(187) He brings up a valid point that would seem troubling to Christians. But one of the basis of Christian religion is having faith and believing that he only allows things to happen to us that he knows we can handle and to lean on him for help and not do things on your own. But Jesus came to Earth to teach lessons and bring knowledge of a higher power that is watching over them. They wrote the Bible which is supposed to offer the encouraging word and peace that God wants for our lives.
2.Materialism states that all that exists are atoms and combinations of atoms; there are no spooky souls/ spiritual entities; so people are just a big pile of atoms and that’s it. This definition is just denying the possibility of there about any such thing as a soul. An argument brought up in class to support materialism was from Artificial Intelligence. AI brings up that we’ve been designing computer that are really powerful that one might think they can think on their own or come close to a simulated thinking. They say that it is a widely rational belief of everyone that computers don’t have souls yet this technology is close to thinking without human intervention. So if computers can kind of think and they’re nothing but a man-made product what would that make humans if materialism was true? This argument is pretty convincing for those who don’t believe in existing elsewhere after you die. If indeed we are just a pile of atoms it’s a logical thought to think that were just more highly advanced computers with simulated feeling, and thoughts.
3.Another Argument of materialism is the Brain Chemistry Argument. This argument says that there is a really close connection between what happens in the brain and people’s thinking, feeling and desiring, suggesting that these things don’t happen in the soul but rather is nothing more than chemicals and cells mixing in the brain to cause this. An example mentioned was about the affect diseases or disabilities have on the brain. Specifically the chapter talked about Alzheimer’s and how over time it causes holes in the brain that stopped certain functions of the body. The second example talks about IQ relationship between family members and that identical twin are more closely matched than say siblings of different ages.
4. Dualism states that people have a soul in addition to a body meaning that both these go together to make a person. Identity of Indiscernibles is when all the real feature of one thing hold true of another thing, those 2 things are identical and if one feature isn’t the same as the other they’re not identical. I’m not really understanding how to correlate Identity of Indiscernibles and Dualism. I can maybe she a vague connection that if all people have bodies and you believe in dualism then they must have souls as well making us all identical to each other.
Lauren Grant
ReplyDelete1.Rowe starts out by stating that God is all good, all knowing and all-powerful. However, there is a gap in our understanding compared to what God sees and understands. The good parent example talks about how a parents knows more than their child, that the parents will allow the child to go through some suffering and pain because a greater good will come from it. However, God is not present while we suffer, he remains unseen. Rowe thinks that it’s not possible to have evil and a hidden higher power in the world at the same time. Rowe’s argument does make sense. A good parent would never let their child go through suffering alone, but are we really alone? God may not be literally holding our hand in times of crisis and pain but there are people and things in our lives that help us get through all the bad times. God put them in the world; therefore we are not alone in our suffering. He is holding our hand through pain indirectly by giving us all the support we need through family and friends.
2.Materialism is the belief that all things that exist are atoms and combinations of atoms. Materialists don’t believe in souls or spiritual things, just that everything is a big pile of atoms. The argument about Artificial Intelligence has to do with robots/computers and how they can make decisions without any thoughts, feelings or desire. Technology is continuing to advance every day. If computers can make decisions without souls then why can’t people? I don’t agree with this argument because humans do have emotions, thoughts, feelings and desires. Our decisions are not always based on the absolute best path/answer. That is what separates human beings from computers.
3.The Brain Chemistry Argument begins states that there is an extremely tight connection between a person’s thoughts/feelings and what is going on in their brain. This suggests thoughts and feelings are a result of chemicals mixing in the brain. The first example is diseases or disabilities that affect the mind. The effects of the brain change caused by Alzheimer’s include forgetfulness and other psychological symptoms. The second example is damage to the brain directly effects awareness and consciousness For example, the right side of the brain controls the left side of the body and knows that there an object. The left side of the brain is the main area for speech and communication skills and does not know the object because no information passes through the detached corpus callosum. The third example is certain mental abilities found in the brain. Different parts of the brain deal with different parts of the body. I do think this is a good argument. I can understand the logic behind this argument and based on this information alone, I would have to agree with it. These three examples show that there is a tight connection between what happens in the brain and a persons thoughts and feelings.
Lauren Grant
ReplyDelete4.Dualism is the idea that people have both a soul and a body. Identity of Indiscernible is when all the real features of one thing hold of another thing, those two things are identical whereas if there is at least one real feature of one thing that doesn’t hold of another thing, those things are not identical. There are real features of thinking, feeling and desiring that don’t hold of chemicals and cells in the brain and vice versa, so these two can’t be identical as materialism says and so it’s better to view thinking, feeling and desiring as occurring in a soul. We talked about four examples that support Dualism. I think this argument is a good one. We obviously have a body but it also does a good job of explaining why a soul exists. In theory, a body can not be private, nor true unlike thoughts, feelings and desires.
5.Near-death experiences support the life after death argument. When people get extremely close to death, some say they are like spirits, hovering above their body. They describe it as an out of body experience. Each person has a different story, but all are able to tell what happened with great detail. Some can even talk about what other people are doing at the time they’re dying. I think near death experiences provide enough evidence for life after death because if there was not an after life, these experiences wouldn’t occur.
I agree with you about the life after death argument. There have actually been a few cases in my family that are similar to these claims. The one we like the most is that, the first time my grandmother had cancer, she was about to pass away. One night, after my grandfather bought her a statue of Mary for her room, Mary appeared to her in a dream with two golden figures telling her that it wasn't time for her to go yet. She proceeded to heal and lived for another three years with us before finally passing on. This is just one personal example in my family that has argued for the existence of God and an afterlife.
DeleteWill Johnson
1. Rowe challenged the Skeptical Theism Defense using the Good Parent Analogy. This analogy assumes that God is all loving, all knowing and all good. A God with these attributes would try to comfort His people in times of struggle and weakness, just like a parent would comfort their child after getting a shot or losing their favorite toy. Rowe concludes that since God does not make Himself and His love and goodness obvious during times of suffering, He does not exist. I can't say I agree with Rowe's conclusion to this analogy. I don't see how he can say there is no God just because He doesn't seem to comfort us in times of need. He does comfort those who truly believe in His goodness and love. It's not an obvious, tangible comfort, but a mental and emotional comfort. It never fails, after a natural disaster (or anything else evil) there are group prayers and churches come together to help the ones in need. Rowe never considered that God would send His people to comfort each other. We are an extension of Him, and we comfort each other, therefore God can be the reason we comfort.
ReplyDelete2. Materialism is the belief that atoms are the only thing that exists in this world. Every single thing is made of only atoms. There are no spooky things going bump in the night, it's just atoms. If it's not made of atoms, it doesn't exist. We discussed three arguments for materialism: evolution, artificial intelligence, and brain chemistry. The artificial intelligence argument focuses on robotics and an interest in building robots that can think. There seems to already be a few programs that simulate thinking, like Deep Blue, the chess playing robot. The robot seems to think. It has problem solving skills, obviously, because it can beat world champion chess players. Materialists believe that since a computer can “think” through a chess game like humans do, that automatically neither has a soul. It makes sense that a robot doesn't have a soul, but I believe it's not a plausible argument by analogy; the two things are far too different to be compared like that. Personally, a robot “thinking” just means it had an extremely intelligent programmer. Robots don't get moody, they don't have snide thoughts about their users, they don't have a soul. Artificial intelligence doesn't have anything to do with a soul and I don't think it even has relevance to the thought of a soul.
3. The Brain Chemistry Argument argues that there is a very tight connection between brain functions and thinking and feelings. There are certain brain-based defects, such as Alzheimer's, that affect moods, memory and speech. Brain damage, such as that occurring because of a car accident, affects awareness and memory. Memory is linked to certain parts of the brain, and if that part is damaged, memory ceases. Dyslexia affects thinking in a unique way. Most dyslexic people can read somewhat, they just can't write. All of their thoughts are either spoken, or strictly thought. It's more difficult for them to put complex thoughts together because they cannot visualize the words the way literate people can. My boyfriend is dyslexic and I know the troubles that come with it, including the frustration. They're very defensive about their inability to write, even though their grammar and speech are fine.
-Selina Priest
4. Dualism is the idea that people have two parts that make up who they are: their body and their soul. Without a body the soul cannot thrive, and without the soul a body cannot thrive. This idea brings up the argument of Identity of Indiscernible. The identity states that two things sharing all real features, like Clark Kent and superman, are identical. If even one real feature doesn't match the other, they're not identical. (I personally don't know why this is even stated, it seems pretty obvious.) It's used to separate feelings, desires and thoughts from brain cells and chemicals and such. Feelings and thoughts have intentionality (they're about something), but it wouldn't really make sense to say that a cell or chemical is about something. Cells have shape and size, but it wouldn't be sensible to say thoughts have a shape. “My thoughts on a monkey are large and oblong.” Since thoughts and cells have unmistakable differences in their real features, they cannot be identical. Therefore there is a difference between the brain and the soul. This seems like a pathetic attempt at defending the view of dualism, but logically it makes sense.
ReplyDelete5. Near-death experiences bring new evidence for a soul. A man saw two coins on a shelf you cannot see the top of from eye level. Accounts such as these strengthen the existence of a soul. The knowledge and things seen are unreal, and there would be no other way for them to know these things. Near-death experiences captivate my curiosity. I always imagine things like this like the drowning scene in the movie Constantine. (:
-Selina Priest
1. Rowe argues, as shown on page 187 of the book, that just as a loving parent knows what is best for a child and that they have to suffer to learn, God knows what is best for us in the same way. Rowe says, however, that a good parent would not let their child suffer alone. He uses this as an argument to disprove God’s existence. I disagree with Rowe because, if you never experience hardships on your own, you will not be able to grow and develop to help your own children when they need it.
ReplyDelete2. Some people, materialists, believe that we are nothing but a complex arrangement of molecules and atoms. Atoms, they argue, don’t have souls. One example of a theory they use to support this is that artificial intelligence can “think” on its own. However, these computers can not truly think, but can process information to determine the best possible answer mathematically. An example is the chess playing robot mentioned in class who is able to beat world chess masters. This robot does not “think”, so much as process mathematical equations.
3. One of the most compelling arguments against materialism is the brain chemistry argument. This argument states that the combinations of cells and chemicals in the brain do not produce thoughts, and are not true. You can develop a true thought, such as America declared independence on July 4th 1776, but a cell cannot be true, it just simply exists. This is a compelling argument, as it brings attention to the importance of human thought and feeling.
4. Somebody who believes that people are in possession of both a body and a soul are referred to as dualists. This ties in with the identity of indiscernible because is compares two things. If both things have all similar properties, they are the same thing. Some argue that because a dead body cannot think, feel, or desire like a living body can, they are not the same thing, and the difference between them is that the living body has a soul. Another way to argue is that you can not measure feelings and thoughts the same way you can chemicals and cells, therefore they are not the same.
5. A compelling argument for life after death involves near death experiences. There are stories of people who “pass away” briefly, and are able to describe the roof of the hospital, or tell the doctor what family members 10 miles away are discussing over lunch. Supporters of life after death point to these instances arguing that it would be impossible to know these things if they were not about to pass on to some sort of afterlife.
Will Johnson