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 relgious 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).

 I believe that the cosmological and design argument might change someone’s religious convictions. Any type of argument with good evidence may influence change on the other party. I think that leaving the main reason for most religions out, like faith is unjust. Faith is something you believe. You might not be able to see, touch, feel, smell or taste it but most religious people have it and use it as a main explanation for their beliefs. I view this topic as I view the atom. The atom was considered something that did not exist. In fact when the scientists tried to explain its existence they were deemed crazy. The scientist knew atoms where real and out there, they just needed to prove it. Will we ever prove the existence of God? Probably not in our lifetime but I do believe in him. I try not to let my beliefs cloud my views on others beliefs.I am always up for a good debate about his existence.  So my question is, why wouldn't faith be a good enough argument to help understand religion? What if the scientist gave up on the atom, think about how our world would of changed. 

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?

I find this comparison interesting. We as humans can function like computers. Day in and day out we go about our day in a type of robotic way. Wake up, bathe, brush your teeth, eat breakfast, go to school or work, come home and tend to whatever it is you do, bathe brush your teeth sleep. Then we repeat the process the next day. I agree with John Searle though. The thing that makes us different from robots is that we can depict emotions. We can laugh, cry, feel, think, love, hate and all the beautiful things us humans are blessed doing. Yes we are programmed to do certain things but we are not committed to doing just that. Once you program a robot that is its task until programed to do otherwise. We as humans are unreliable, and I don’t mean that in a bad way. By unreliable I mean other things effect our decisions. For example, if someone in the army is programed to follow orders, he must do as his higher up commands. Let’s say his sergeant tells him to shoot a child. The solider may not do it. Why? Because he has emotions, he might feel guilt and sorrow in being asked to do this. Now if he was a robot, It would have been done right away. We may ACT like computers sometimes but we will always be humans.

Should we, as human beings, think of ourselves as made out of two different substances, like Decartes 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).

I agree with Descartes. I think of myself made of two different substances.  I believe we have a body and a mind.  I think they are two different things but they work together to function.  I think that our mental life is closely connected to our brain because our mind uses our brain to react with the physical world.  Like we think, and we act on it using our brain which then applies it to our body. For example, I think and wish about taking a trip. I use my brain to figure out how I can take this trip. Whether it be saving money up to take this trip or going to a travel agency. My mind takes action by using my brain as a tool to get what I want done. It signals the brain to let me walk to the travel agency and book the tickets.  Then the brain alerts my body to do the action. We think and it can become. It’s amazing! I mean if we were simply physical beings as physicalist suggest, wouldn’t we all go about things the same way? I feel like we would all function like robots.

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 like the idea that pragmatism and feminist epistemology brings. Knowledge should be seen as something that affects our choices in life. As far as the feminist view, I never really saw how much things are emasculated. Even when we refer to all people, its okay to say, “He should take off his hat when he enters the room”. That’s an acceptable form to refer to everyone. Why not say “One should take off their hat when they enter a room”. This is more gender neutral.  I think that knowledge should be viewed as something we have and use to make our lives better. In all reality isn't that what it is? We apply to our everyday lives in hopes that we become successful and prosper in whatever we chose to do. I really don’t think anyone wants to fail. But striving to fail is a goal in itself. After learning about epistemology, it really changed my views on how I will apply what I learned. What really stuck with me was John Dewey and his instrumentalism.  I agree that we use our beliefs as a tool when we have issues or problems in life. This view of thinking, I feel will help people work harder and really think before they do.