The Cosmological & Design Arguments

I definitely think that both of these arguments can create a new feeling about religion for someone. To me they both simplified all of the complex ideas and thoughts about religion. I especially found interest in the cosmological argument. I have always considered myself to be agnostic, and reading this I found myself more interested then I usually am. I definitely do not want to believe that God does not exist, however I do not know if God does exist. It was odd how after reading the cosmological argument I wanted to believe that God existed because it was so simple. Stating that there must be an uncaused first cause I think could change someone's religious convictions. If you do not stop and think about any of the weaknesses of the cosmological theory it seems at first bullet proof. If there are things whose existence depends on a cause and everything is either uncaused or caused by something else then there has to be a God. He is the uncaused first cause. Of course when the weaknesses are brought in to play I automatically went back to my agnostic thinking. But for a moment I was becoming convinced by the supposed obviousness of the cosmological argument. I think philosophy greatly contributes to the understanding of religion because to me religion is all about thought and questioning and asking how and why and that is what a good philosopher does. They question and they seek knowledge. Reading the theories definitely gave me more understanding of how some people are a hundred percent certain their God is real.

Programming

I do not believe that programming a computer is the same as "programming" a human being. When you program a computer there is no thought, no "content" associated with it. Everything it is programmed to do, it will do. It will do the exact same repetition forever. A human learning something is not exactly as repetitive. The example of brushing ones teeth was used. If a robot was programmed to do this it would do it the exact same way every time. For me, as a human, yes I was taught as a child to brush my teeth every night before bed. And I do brush my teeth every night before bed, however because I am human I have content associated with this. I can decide I no longer like mint flavored toothpaste and switch to cinnamon flavored toothpaste. I can decide I need to use an electric toothbrush instead of a regular one, I can decide that Crest makes better floss that Colgate. I can switch my routine and change the program where as a computer does not have the capabilities to decide its likes and dislikes.

Physicalism

After doing the reading and listening to the lecture on both Descartes theory of dualism and the theory of physicalism, I side more with the belief of physicalism. It just makes the most sense that there is only one physical-material substance. I really truly believe this is the only thing we need to explain our own mental abilities. Simply based upon my small knowledge of how the human brain operates, physicalism seems the more rational theory. I also think dualism comes with too many problems. The problems with where and how the interactions occur and take place and the other dilemmas that come with dualism. The self has to be identical to the activities of the body or the brain. Mental states are identical to brain events. I really don't see how there can be disagreement with physicalism when dualism presents so many more obvious problems. I realize there are things in our mental life that are nothing like those of our physical life, and I guess I am not sure how exactly to explain that. I feel as if they are somehow tied in. I think that if we mentally feel guilty, maybe it is possible to physically feel guilty as well? Maybe all of the mental states are physical states too? I guess I'm still pondering this one...

Week 4 Thoughts

After concluding the chapters on epistemology, I think that I agree a little with each theory. I never outright disagreed with any of the theories on knowledge. I found them all interesting and to me truthful in some way or another.  Since Pragmatism is one of the most recent ones we read about it is the most fresh in my mind, and I have to say that I do think the Pragmatic view is right. I do believe that things must be understood in terms of the practical effects associated with them, and I also am beginning to agree that knowledge is not a detached attitude of contemplation. I think they are correct in saying that knowledge is our way of interacting with the world. I am not saying I one hundred percent am a pragmatist, because I know they lean a little on the side of skepticism. As far as being a skeptic or a rationalist I think I sided more on the rationalist side. I also think knowledge is based on our ability to reason. I think the two beliefs I found myself believing less of then the others were definitely empiricism and skepticism. Although last week we had to question Kant's theories. I actually found that a very difficult assignment because I wasn't sure which I actually genuinely wanted to question. Overall I have found all interesting, I just tend to side with certain ones over others.