Week 8

Cosmological and Design Argument

This week, we are focusing on the Cosmological argument and the Design argument. These arguments represent how one can think about religion from a philosophical perspective.

In your blog, I would like you to reflect more generally on what, if anything, you think philosophy might contribute to the understanding of religion. Think about i) whether you think these arguments might change someone's religious convictions, and ii) whether there is anything about religious experience that is left out of these arguments (for example, some people might say that faith is important for religious conviction, yet of course faith has no role in philosophical argument).

Well, to someone like me, definitely it does. Since I’m not a religious person, I can think outside the box and think of other possibilities. Philosophy is the religion’s worst nightmare. The fact that philosophy questions the existence of just about everything and everything else, it freaks people out.  For those people these topics are not up for discussion, so therefore there’s no way that it would change their mind, even if you bring forward a good argument, they won’t want to hear it or have an open mind to it. To debate with Christianity is a lost fight right from the beginning. Faith is the same as Trust; it’s why I think it doesn’t belong on a philosophical argument. I believe that this is main reason why it’s a lost and predictable argument. Faith gets on the way of having a real discussion or to even have one.

Week 6

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

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

Yes, there is a difference, but there are also a lot of similarities. As a former computer programmer I know a thing or two about this. Programmers can make a computer performed just about anything to helps us alleviate our daily painful routines , but you cannot make a computer feel, love, make life decision or even to have will power. Yes, we can also be programmed to learn, follow rules, etc., but we have a choice not do it, and that to me is where the line gets drowned. A computer will not ever have a choice, because programmer will preload those in and randomly the computer chooses, just like Alice the artificial intelligence program. It is not that hard to quickly confuse those programs until it changes the topic randomly.

Week 5

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

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

Complicated topic, but must disagree with Descartes. I’m going with science on this. I believe that physicalism is a more plausible explanation because we usually go with what we know and what we can prove instead of making assumptions. I think that consciousness is a physical property. To me I think that dualism sounds better to most people due to their religious beliefs. Life after death, our spirits coming back, dreaming, induce comma while going under surgery, just to name a few. For me to think that consciousness leaves our body during these events it’s hard to believe.

Week 4

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

I agree with knowledge being a detached, intellectual activity. To me knowledge can be easily manipulated. The actual fact is that no knows what is it. I believe in science and that theories can be proved. I agree that some of us will approach these topics with or without emotions and to me that’s a big factor on why everyone has a different take on it. Thorough the course of the class I have been able to see why I believe this, especially on the discussion board. Many of the classmates in which I respect, approach this discussions about skepticism, beliefs, knowledge on a personal religious way in which it manipulates that directions of the conversation. I can understand that having these beliefs will prevent you from questioning things like god or life itself. To conclude, I like to say that these discussions have been interesting and most of all, very challenging.