Overall, I am leaving this class with more questions than I started with, but with several possible frameworks to work on them in. Taking the Philosophy of Science last semester, this class was an excellent complement, especially because some of the philosophers we studied overlapped and I was able to read them in different contexts. One concept that came up in this class that did not come up in Philosophy of science is the turning of tables, when Phillips began to ask what is philosophy, how is it different from a religious discussion, and what is its place. I thought this was incredibly interesting and helped me to gain a great deal of perspective.
Another ongoing theme of this class that I found interesting was the discussion of what makes a religious person different from a neurotic person. Reading Freud at the beginning of the semester was a great lead in to this and really made me think about what religion is.
Thinking back on each section of the class, I have so many unanswered questions.
Is religion something that you can see on the outside? Is it something that can be classified by a person’s actions?
What classifies a religious experience?
Are the only accurate accounts of religion given by believers?
Left alone on a desert island would an individual really form a system of religious belief?
What enables a society to believe in miracles?
Can a person be moral without being religious?
Is religion 100% social?
Can a nonbeliever understand a religion to the extent that a believer can?
Is a believer’s understanding of their religion tainted?
I feel like each section of this class gave us another piece of the puzzle, but with each piece that we gained we realized that maybe the puzzle doesn’t fit together at all, but that the pieces on their own are still very important.
Tuesday, December 16, 2008
Final
Phillips begins his conclusion by restating the complexity of the issue. He discusses the multitude of scenarios and meanings, suggesting that key words like resolution might mean different things to different individuals. “It should be evident by now that our response to these issues will not be a simple or seamless one. Seeing this, however, is the fruit of contemplating different contexts of human understanding.”
He then goes on to discuss the place of philosophy in this discussion, questioning the difference between philosophy and any other discussion. The problem is that we cannot explain the difference between moral and intellectual virtue. Like the example of the crying fountain, the best answer was the woman who didn’t enquire whether or not a miracle had occurred, but said that she wasn’t surprised, it doesn’t matter whether virtue is moral or intellectual.
Phillips begins to discuss honesty. Again, if everyone is as honest as possible, the reasons behind their honesty should not need to matter. “Different viewpoints are perspectives on the same reality”. He goes on to make the bold statement that not all viewpoints are equal. Taking many ethnic studies and anthropology classes at SFSU, I was very surprised to read this. He continues to say that these viewpoints do not all deserve to be tolerated (!!!) At first taken by this, eventually even the San Francisco State in me realized that Phillips is right. As open minded and diverse as we think that we are, there are points of view that even we as gators don’t agree with. These might include polygamy, murder, etc.
Phillips ends his conclusion by coming full circle, back to the problems of the hermeneutics of recollection, the hermeneutics of suspicion, and the hermeneutics of contemplation.
He then goes on to discuss the place of philosophy in this discussion, questioning the difference between philosophy and any other discussion. The problem is that we cannot explain the difference between moral and intellectual virtue. Like the example of the crying fountain, the best answer was the woman who didn’t enquire whether or not a miracle had occurred, but said that she wasn’t surprised, it doesn’t matter whether virtue is moral or intellectual.
Phillips begins to discuss honesty. Again, if everyone is as honest as possible, the reasons behind their honesty should not need to matter. “Different viewpoints are perspectives on the same reality”. He goes on to make the bold statement that not all viewpoints are equal. Taking many ethnic studies and anthropology classes at SFSU, I was very surprised to read this. He continues to say that these viewpoints do not all deserve to be tolerated (!!!) At first taken by this, eventually even the San Francisco State in me realized that Phillips is right. As open minded and diverse as we think that we are, there are points of view that even we as gators don’t agree with. These might include polygamy, murder, etc.
Phillips ends his conclusion by coming full circle, back to the problems of the hermeneutics of recollection, the hermeneutics of suspicion, and the hermeneutics of contemplation.
10/14 Page 1
James urges the reader to set aside systematic theology and focus only on personal religious beliefs and experiences. Religion is a man made entity, the more levels of structure that it passes though the more tainted it becomes. He believes that individual’s experiences, separate from religious hierarchy etc are the purest form. To understand this complicated idea, it is important that philosophers think about religion in its purest sense.
10/14 Page 2
Phillips describes the hermeneutics of recollection as the standpoint of studying religious belief while being sympathetic to religion. This is the strategy taken by many religious individuals and generally not by philosophers. The idea is that by recollecting religious ideas and stories, one can get to the bottom of religion. The hermeneutics of suspicion is a standpoint taken by many philosophers and religious skeptics. This strategy focuses on enlightenment through rescuing us from religious delusion. “It is not necessary to believe in order to understand”.
The hermeneutics of contemplation is a strategy that applies the contemplative character of philosophy to the problem of religion. Many people wrongly lump the hermeneutics of suspicion and the hermeneutics of contemplation together. The hermeneutics of contemplation actually disagrees with the hermeneutics of suspicion and takes the side of the hermeneutics of recollection in some cases. Hermeneutics of contemplation claims that the only correct descriptions of religion can be given by believers because religion lacks a tangible, metaphysical aspect.
10/16
I agree with James’ argument that there is nothing rational about religion. Phillips’ statement that the only accurate descriptions of religion come from believers fits with this belief as well. Religion cannot be explained using rational thought. Religious happenings cannot be predicted using rational thought. I do believe that religion exists within the deepest levels of a human being, deeper than the rationality; these beliefs are buried so deep that it can be very difficult for them to be questioned or changed.
10/21
Yes, I believe that there can be secular saintliness, separate from religious belief. Communities form expectations and labels that are sometimes not tied to religious belief. Morals for example can exist within a community of “unreligious” people. These morals act as standards within the community so that individuals can categorize good and evil. Categorization is an innate human trait, which develops with or without the presence of religion. In the same way saintliness can exist within a non-religious context. Saintliness is a label having to do with the possession of ‘good’. These labels exist outside of religious contexts as can saintliness.
William’s seventh assumption about the gods is that we have a readiness to ask questions when the Greeks would not. Williams argues that the belief in the supernatural necessity depends on believing that the world has a certain structure. Phillips believes that it is the other way around, that the belief in gods gives the world spiritual order. Williams argues that we have more choices than the Greeks, but Phillips believes that Williams confuses the meaning of necessity.
11/17
Hume on Miracles
In 2007 two-week-old Woody Lander suffered a heart attack and stopped breathing. For thirty minutes the doctors tried to revive him, but eventually gave up. As they pulled the plug, the baby coughed and resumed breathing. Doctors later found that despite his deprivation of oxygen for such an extended period he suffered no brain damage. Woody Lander came back from the dead; a miracle.
First we have to take into account the testimony. Both the doctors and the boy’s parents claim to have witnessed a miracle. Doctors, well educated individuals with knowledge of science and medicine, claim that they can find no scientific explanation for what has happened to Woody. “So the mere presence of that understanding clearly does not make it impossible to believe in miracles.”
The reactions caused by the classification of this case as a miracle are very different than they would have been if it had been describable by science. “The real anomaly is between what natural explanation asks of us and what is asked of us in the acknowledgement of a miracle.” The boy’s life would be quite different if there was a scientific explanation for his coming back to life. One comment left on the website with the news story said “God’s power is beautiful as Woody has a role in God’s plan and will produce good for us all,” while a second says “thanks technology”. These two reactions to Woody’s story represent the hermeneutics of recollection and the hermeneutics of suspicion in real life examples. The classification of his living as a miracle leads people to think that there is some sort of purpose in his existence, that he was chosen to live. This would not be the case if his survival could be explained by science.
Scientific explanations for Woody’s survival could include a mistake on the side of the doctors. Maybe he wasn’t actually deprived of oxygen for thirty minutes, or there was some sort of equipment malfunction that gave doctors the wrong information. This would create a hole in the doctors’ testimonies.
Beardmore brings up the interesting point that something believed to be supernatural is often automatically considered an act of god. He uses the Israelites’ questioning of miracles as good or evil as an example. In many cases a person coming back from the dead would be considered an act of evil. What is it that makes baby Woody’s case a miracle?
Whether what happened to Woody is actually a miracle or not does not matter. In either scenario he is alive today.
James urges the reader to set aside systematic theology and focus only on personal religious beliefs and experiences. Religion is a man made entity, the more levels of structure that it passes though the more tainted it becomes. He believes that individual’s experiences, separate from religious hierarchy etc are the purest form. To understand this complicated idea, it is important that philosophers think about religion in its purest sense.
10/14 Page 2
Phillips describes the hermeneutics of recollection as the standpoint of studying religious belief while being sympathetic to religion. This is the strategy taken by many religious individuals and generally not by philosophers. The idea is that by recollecting religious ideas and stories, one can get to the bottom of religion. The hermeneutics of suspicion is a standpoint taken by many philosophers and religious skeptics. This strategy focuses on enlightenment through rescuing us from religious delusion. “It is not necessary to believe in order to understand”.
The hermeneutics of contemplation is a strategy that applies the contemplative character of philosophy to the problem of religion. Many people wrongly lump the hermeneutics of suspicion and the hermeneutics of contemplation together. The hermeneutics of contemplation actually disagrees with the hermeneutics of suspicion and takes the side of the hermeneutics of recollection in some cases. Hermeneutics of contemplation claims that the only correct descriptions of religion can be given by believers because religion lacks a tangible, metaphysical aspect.
10/16
I agree with James’ argument that there is nothing rational about religion. Phillips’ statement that the only accurate descriptions of religion come from believers fits with this belief as well. Religion cannot be explained using rational thought. Religious happenings cannot be predicted using rational thought. I do believe that religion exists within the deepest levels of a human being, deeper than the rationality; these beliefs are buried so deep that it can be very difficult for them to be questioned or changed.
10/21
Yes, I believe that there can be secular saintliness, separate from religious belief. Communities form expectations and labels that are sometimes not tied to religious belief. Morals for example can exist within a community of “unreligious” people. These morals act as standards within the community so that individuals can categorize good and evil. Categorization is an innate human trait, which develops with or without the presence of religion. In the same way saintliness can exist within a non-religious context. Saintliness is a label having to do with the possession of ‘good’. These labels exist outside of religious contexts as can saintliness.
William’s seventh assumption about the gods is that we have a readiness to ask questions when the Greeks would not. Williams argues that the belief in the supernatural necessity depends on believing that the world has a certain structure. Phillips believes that it is the other way around, that the belief in gods gives the world spiritual order. Williams argues that we have more choices than the Greeks, but Phillips believes that Williams confuses the meaning of necessity.
11/17
Hume on Miracles
In 2007 two-week-old Woody Lander suffered a heart attack and stopped breathing. For thirty minutes the doctors tried to revive him, but eventually gave up. As they pulled the plug, the baby coughed and resumed breathing. Doctors later found that despite his deprivation of oxygen for such an extended period he suffered no brain damage. Woody Lander came back from the dead; a miracle.
First we have to take into account the testimony. Both the doctors and the boy’s parents claim to have witnessed a miracle. Doctors, well educated individuals with knowledge of science and medicine, claim that they can find no scientific explanation for what has happened to Woody. “So the mere presence of that understanding clearly does not make it impossible to believe in miracles.”
The reactions caused by the classification of this case as a miracle are very different than they would have been if it had been describable by science. “The real anomaly is between what natural explanation asks of us and what is asked of us in the acknowledgement of a miracle.” The boy’s life would be quite different if there was a scientific explanation for his coming back to life. One comment left on the website with the news story said “God’s power is beautiful as Woody has a role in God’s plan and will produce good for us all,” while a second says “thanks technology”. These two reactions to Woody’s story represent the hermeneutics of recollection and the hermeneutics of suspicion in real life examples. The classification of his living as a miracle leads people to think that there is some sort of purpose in his existence, that he was chosen to live. This would not be the case if his survival could be explained by science.
Scientific explanations for Woody’s survival could include a mistake on the side of the doctors. Maybe he wasn’t actually deprived of oxygen for thirty minutes, or there was some sort of equipment malfunction that gave doctors the wrong information. This would create a hole in the doctors’ testimonies.
Beardmore brings up the interesting point that something believed to be supernatural is often automatically considered an act of god. He uses the Israelites’ questioning of miracles as good or evil as an example. In many cases a person coming back from the dead would be considered an act of evil. What is it that makes baby Woody’s case a miracle?
Whether what happened to Woody is actually a miracle or not does not matter. In either scenario he is alive today.
Hermeneutics
Phillips does a great job explpaining the three main viewpoints individuals take to discuss the problem of religion. The hermeneutics of recolection, suspicion, and contemplation. Think that as the book goes on , I will find myself siding with the hermeneutics of suspicion, but that might change.
Wednesday, October 8, 2008
Wittgenstein
"When we are puzzled philosophically, Wittgenstein argued, what we stand in need of is not additional information, but a clearer view of what lies before us" (237). Wittgenstein has interesting ideas about society and structures within it such as language and religion. He believes that all words operate as names and refer to objects. This is problematic when we encounter words to which we cannot connect objects, such as god. I agree that this is a problem. The way that we think has a lot to do with language and the ways that we use words to describe and explain religion mirror the way that we comprehend it as a part of society. "If we say that religious belief is necessarily confused, we have failed, philosophical, to mirror its practices" (240).
Monday, September 29, 2008
Marx
I think Marx's parallel between religious and socioeconomic activity based on conciousness and alienation is incredibly interesting, but I feel like most things could fit into this rubric. Any sort of hierarchy; race, gender, etc, could be included in this discussion. I don't think that Marx would argue with this, but I now find myself wondering where lines can be drawn distinguishing religion from race, race from gender, etc. I wonder if Marx would say there is no distinction.
Tuesday, September 23, 2008
Durkheim
I think that Durkheim's connection between religion and society is incredibly accurate. Growing up in an incredibly religious area and being an atheist, a lot of times, I found myself excluded in social events. Even major school related events, at a public school, were religious. I am a little confused about the terms 'sacred' and 'profane'. Although, Pals explains that neither are necessarily good or evil, I have a hard time thinking of either term without connecting it to either good or evil. The distinction that sacred is related to outside, public activities and profane is personal is somewhat helpful.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)