Emma Dahl

Direct Writing 6

            Can religion and science co-exist in an interactive harmony? Some may say no, but that is not the answer for Phil Dowe. Dowe, an author and philosopher, finds a harmony between the two which he illustrates in his book, Galileo, Darwin, and Hawking: The Interplay of Science, Reason and Religion. In this book Dowe sequentially addresses some approaches and topics which some say preclude a harmonious interaction between religion and science. For the purpose of this writing this author will focus on the topic of miracles and the laws of nature.      

            "Miracles, if they occur, challenge the naturalistic idea that the scientific domain of explanation is all-embracing. But even if we think of science and religion as separate domains, each legitimate, miracles seem to force a point of contract between the two" (82). The noun, miracle, raises many questions when dealing with whether or not they are about to provide a rational basis for the belief in God. Hume includes the thoughts and analysis' of several philosophers that have studied the relationship between religion and miracles, but the main focus is on the Scottish philosopher, David Hume.

            Hume has a theory of rational belief which states that beliefs are to come in degrees, and the degree to which one believes should correspond with the amount of evidence. Next, Hume discusses how the laws of nature tie into it all. If there is absolute agreement in the evidence it shall be called a 'proof.' This theory can be applied in nature, such as the evidence of when it shall rain, which in itself validates titling it a law of nature. Probability is different in that the occurrence does not happen all of the time, but only an explicit proportion of the time. Another factor is assessing the validity of a miracle is the testimony of the witness. "Testimonial evidence is evidence we learn about on the reports of other people" (86). When evaluating the testimonies it is vital to keep some questions in mind. How probable is it that this event actually happened, is it a compound testimony, how reliable is the witness, etc.

The other important thing to know is how a 'miracle' is defined. There are many definitions out there to what exactly a miracle is; when more closely examined, however, these miracles can be contradictory to the statements made by philosophers, such as Hume. Popular definitions usually consist of sayings such as a very unlikely event. Hume's personal definition of a miracle is "a violation of the laws of nature" (88). By laws of nature Hume is referring to uniform regularities.

In Dowe's argument he states that there two rules to understanding miracles. The first rule is that people can never rationally believe on the basis of a testimony that a miracle has occurred. The second rule is then to determine whether or not the miracle has occurred and then to see if it supports a religious claim which be to violate a uniform experience. These are two difficult rules to please simultaneously. From these rules Dowe states a more "correct" version of the definition of a miracle. A miracle is not only a violation of the laws of nature but more specifically a violation of the laws of nature brought about by God.

There are two different parts of the argument which Dowe states that have both strong and weak points, in the opinion of this author. The two parts to Dowe's argument are the probability of the occurrence of a miracle and whether the occurrence of a miracle, if it was able to be established, could be evidence of God. The first part of Dowe's argument bring people to the conclusion that under no circumstances it is never rational to believe, on the strength of a testimony, that a miracle has actually occurred. Based on the points which were made by Hume previously in this chapter this makes sense. It is simply not logical to believe that the testimony which if given by the witness is actually valid. The second part of the argument ties everything together. If a miracle is possible, that is simply not enough for Dowe. Not only does the miracle actually have to have occurred but it also must possess the possibility of being evidence of God.

            On the other hand those arguments can be taken a different way and thus could be a weakness in the opinion of this author. It seems as though the actual answer to the question is "danced around" throughout the whole chapter but never actually answered to in whole. It is the opinion of this author that while Dowe presents good thoughts and theories to the question of miracles, the reader is left right back where they started from.

Emma Dahl

Directed Writing 5

            On July 4, 1776 the United States Declaration of Independence was adopted by the Continental Congress. The primary writer of this document was Thomas Jefferson. The purpose of the Declaration of Independence was to formally announce that the thirteen colonies were now to be independent from Great Britain. This date is better known today as Independence Day, the birth of United States of America. The purpose of this writing is to take a deeper look into the document that gave the United States of America its freedom; the Declaration of Independence. This author will attempt to discuss how Thomas Jefferson uses Enlightenment thought as well as Deism in the Declaration of Independence.

            Before going any further this author will provide an overview of Enlightenment and Deism. The Enlightenment, sometimes referred to as the Age of Reason, was a period during the eighteenth century. During this period scholars attempted to take the ideas from the Scientific Revolution and use them in areas to look at the sciences in a more extensive manner. "Western thinkers were speculating on the broader meaning of science- its ethical, political, social, and economic implications." (Harrison 469) The philosophers of the Enlightenment felt a need for change, "people were ready to become enlightened." (Harrison 469) There are three core concepts that represent the philosophy of the Enlightenment; reason, nature, and change and progress.

            Reason states that, "All we know and all we ever know is what we perceive from our senses and interpret with our reason." (Harrison 469) People should not just accept things simply because they have existed for a lengthy period of time. They should be carefully critiqued both critically and empirically. Nature is summed as, "governed by a few simple and unchangeable laws. Those who think they can change one of these laws... are dupes of their own egotism...Nature is good and beautiful in its simplicity." (Harrison 469) The laws of nature are set in stone, absolutely not subject to change. When humans take away the complexities of life that are placed upon it, then it can properly work harmoniously with in line with the laws of reason. Change and progress says that, "Human beings are naturally rational and good, but the proponents of mystic religions have distorted human thinking...Rid people's minds of these religious hindrances and they will build for themselves a more perfect society." (Harrison 469)

            When deciphering the Thomas Jefferson's writing in Declaration of Independence one must be familiar with Deism as well as the concepts of the Enlightenment. Deism was an Enlightenment religion which was especially prominent during the eighteenth century. It was more of a realistic religion which "assumes a correspondence between the rational structure of the physical universe and the rational capacity of the human mind." (Reid) Reid also writes that, "As rational people come to know the physical universe, they also come to know its creator- the Deity. God revealed himself in nature and through reason." (Reid) Being a rationalistic religion, Deism, believes that all men have the natural ability to know the universe's deity through reason.

            Right from the start Thomas Jefferson displays an influence from the Enlightenment in his writing. Jefferson writes, "When in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another..." (Jefferson 1) In simpler terms it is necessary for change, it is no longer acceptable to keep things they way they are merely because that is they way have always been. This is similar to the statement made to describe the concept of reason. Jefferson makes his second connection in the famous preamble. "We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness." (Jefferson 1) In this statement Jefferson shows an influence from the concept of nature which is, "governed by a few simple and unchangeable laws." (Harrison 469) Humans are gifted with certain rights that cannot be changed, among which are those that Jefferson lists. There is a small influence of the concept of change and progress when Jefferson writes, "That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these Ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or abolish it, and to institute a new Government, laying its Foundation on such Principles, and organizing its Powers in such Form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness." (Jefferson 1) This connects into the concept of change and progress in the sense that Jefferson is stating that the Rights have been wronged and it is important to take them away and change them to create a better world for the people. In change and progress it talks about riding away the destructive thoughts and if that happens people will create for them a more perfect society. Jefferson wants to give the people the chance to create that society.

            The influence which is derived from the religion, Deism, is stated within the preamble. Jefferson writes, "... that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights..." (Jefferson 1) This relates to the Deism belief that, "assumes that all men naturally possess the ability to know the universe's deity through reason..." (Reid) In the preamble Jefferson makes a point that men were given certain "rights." Among the rights that Jefferson listed the assumption of men having a natural sense of reason would fit right in.

Directed Writing 4

            "You want the truth?"  "You can't handle the truth!"  This is a quote from the 1992 Oscar winning film, A Few Good Men.  Can people handle the truth?  It is the belief of this author that this quote from Jack Nicholson's character, Col. Nathan R. Jessep, makes a very true point.  While the original intent of this line was most likely not referring to the same type of truth being discussed in this writing; if one would take a step back and simply look at the words in a broad and general sense, it had a whole new meaning.  People cannot handle the whole truth, no matter how much one may want or try to find it.  "Now the aforesaid truth of the Christian faith surpasses the ability of human reason." This quote, taken from Chapter VII of Thomas Aquinas' Summa Contra Gentiles, confirms this author's belief.

            The truth that is being referred to in the previous paragraph is as follows, "That the truth of reason is not in opposition to the truth of Christian faith."  This is referring to the harmony between reason and faith.  Faith and reason have not always been seen as going together.  Now, however it is evident that the two work together.  This is a topic that 13^th century philosopher and theologian Thomas Aquinas was very interested in looking at.  The main focus of Chapter VII in Summa Contra Gentiles is about the relationship of reason and faith.

Before going any further it is imperative that the basics of "truth" are previously agreed upon to avoid further conflict or confusion. The agreement serves as a set of rules to keep humankind on the same page as well as to give some sort of basis to start from.  Just as there are set types of truths there are set primary truths.  Without these truths the concept seems so far out of reach and something that words could not even describe.  These truths are things that cannot be proven, yet they must be mutually agreed upon as true in order to have a success discussion about truth.  There are three primary truths.  The first of these is merely the fact that we exist. The second is the principle of non-contradiction which means that if there is any indication or data against a truth then it is not true at all.  The third is the condition of the ability of the mind to know truth.

            It is through the fact that we exist and the condition of the ability of the mind to know truth that Thomas Aquinas made his correlation between faith and reason.  Aquinas writes that humans are naturally instilled with human reason and that reason will not oppose the truth.  The ideas of God and revelation and topics of that nature are so far past the capacity of which the mind could possibly try to grasp.  Since these things surpass one's ability to reason yet one cannot contest such things because they are truths that are instilled from within.  God made it so that opinions that are divergent from one another will not be able to share the same subject; thus God did not instill into humankind any opinions or beliefs that would be opposing to natural knowledge.  Because both reason and faith were created by God they can consequently live together in harmony.

            It is the belief of Thomas Aquinas that if there are two things that are said to be true; they must not contradict one another.  However, if they are contradictory to one another then one of them must be false.  Aquinas also states that any such arguments made against the truths are without question unsound.  Countering a truth could mean undercut Christian faith and rejecting the primary truths; that makes the argument false. The primary truths hold true until the end of time with absolutely no arguments made to them.  They must be accepted as unable to prove but still true.  It is akin to the saying, "just because you cannot see it, you know it is there."  Just because some things cannot and never will be able to be proven does not weaken their validity.

            Aquinas concludes Chapter VII of Summa Contra Gentiles statement, "From this we may evidently conclude that whatever arguments are alleged against the teachings of faith, they do not rightly proceed from the self- evident principles instilled by nature. Wherefore they lack the force of demonstration, and are either probable or sophistical arguments, and consequently it is possible to solve them."  With these final sentences Thomas Aquinas gives his explanations of the principle of non contradiction as well as the condition of the ability of the mind to know truth which, in turn, say that there is a harmony between faith and reason.

Jimi Hendrix once said, "When the power of love overcomes the love of power, the world will know peace."  The Beatles sang, "All you need is love, love, love is all you need."  Is it really that simple?  Everywhere you look these days, love is all around you.  Love is more than just a word to express your affection. Love has a power that is often underestimated.  In A Brave and Startling Truth by Maya Angelou writes about a truth with enough power to give us the "power to fashion this earth... to live without crippling fear."

            When breaking down the meaning behind Angelou's poem I had to first identify what was meant by the word "truth." We have learned this year that there are more than one types of truth, four to be exact.  Subjective truth is "in the eye of the beholder."  It is true for the individual, based on their background, perception and personality.  Relative truth can only exist when there is another vision that it could be compared to. An objective truth is one that can be tested. The final type of truth we discussed is absolute truth. An absolute truth can also be called a universal truth. It is always true no matter what we humans say. It is the way it is and that is the way it will say no matter what we think. In class we compiled a list of universal, or basic, truths. Listed within is love. Love is undeniable and love is always there.

            In my interpretation of the poem, Maya Angelou feels that love is a brave and startling truth that has enough influence and power to bring us to peace. While I do agree with the basic premise, I do not wholly agree with everything she says. Love is powerful, but despite what the Beatles and Jimi Hendrix say, it is going to take more than love to get to peace. The saying, "make love, not war" has been around for awhile but things in general remain. The solution to our country's quest for peace may seem simple, but in reality it is so much more than that. Maya Angelou's poem is a great idea, but it is simply not pragmatic.

"This sentence serves no logical purpose." This sentence, though seemingly peculiar and incomplete, actually is a good illustration of what postmodernism is. Postmodernism may not always serve a logical purpose. This statement is not to be interpreted as insinuating that postmodernism serves no purpose at all; the point being made is that the purpose may not be apparently logical or in accordance with what is considered to be commonsense. Postmodernism tends to go against the grain and have something new to offer. It takes what has been and adds its own personal touch to make it unique. Something different and random may just be more logical than everything that is considered to be normal. It is too easy to think around four walls, all equal in length; all the same. People have tunnel vision to see only what is common and comfortable. Once one is taken away from their comfort zone there is a heightened awareness and a suspicion of something different. As young children the thought is imprinted that to break the rules or rebel in anyway only results in trouble and is extremely frowned upon. It is vital to break free and open up to new things. What is illogical could very well be logical.

            Postmodernism is defined as, "any number of trends or movements and the arts and literature developed in the 1970's in reaction to or rejection to the dogma, principles, or practices of established modernism"  (Dictionary.com). Society as a whole tends to react negatively and with caution when change occurs. Something new and something different seem to carry the meaning of something bad as well. Any rebellion to the way things are traditionally are done can be looked upon as illogical and wrong. People need to open up their views to new ideas and new thoughts. If everything was constantly logical, after awhile things would be the same and with no variety everything would be dull. Change is the spice of life and without people pushing the envelope things would stand still. Logical is not always the best answer, something illogical could open up one's mind to thoughts and ideas never thought before.

            While researching postmodernism this writer came upon a definition of postmodernism that seemed to be right on target; "postmodernism is difficult to define because to define it would violate the post modernists premise that no definite terms, boundaries or absolute truths exist" (allaboutphiliosphy.org). This writer feels that this definition, or rather description of a lack of definition, accurately sums up the essence of postmodernism. It is the belief of this writer that to set a concrete definition would be rather contradictory. Postmodernism should be indefinable in nature because, as stated previously, to define it would breach the principle that it is beyond definite terms and limitations.

            Seinfeld was a popular television sitcom that was on the air for nine years. It was unlike any other television show that was out there; they were all mostly family or coworker driven. Jerry Seinfeld and Larry David came up with a concept well fitting of a post modern time. Their concept was a "show about nothing." This idea went against the norm and pushed the boundaries, which are some of the characteristics of postmodernism. There were no definite terms, no limits, guidelines or specific plots to follow. Seinfeld followed a group of main characters going about the mundane activities of everyday life with no direct ties to one another. Another aspect of the show that went against the ordinary structure was that there was no moral lesson learned; the characters were malleable and groundless and went wherever their daily tasks took them. They were not there to leach a lesson or make a point; they were simply people going about their everyday business. The entire concept of Seinfeld fits in very well under postmodernism. In addition, the concept of Seinfeld, "show about nothing" and the idea of, "this sentence serves no logical purpose" have similar notions. It could be said that Seinfeld "serves no logical purpose" and that, "this sentence is about nothing."

            "This sentence serves no logical purpose." "Postmodernism may serve no logical purpose." What does serve a logical purpose? Who is to say that everything needs to serve a logical purpose; things that are outside of the box should be better embraced. Logical is not always necessary. Break the rules, push the envelope, step outside the box and push the limits; live by one's own rules and decide by one's own thoughts and beliefs what is and is not logical.

Emma Dahl

Directed Writing #1

 "The difficulty is that speaking of God in anything like the Christian sense is like staring into the sun." (56) The phrase, "staring at the sun," is used as a metaphor for doing theology in N.T. Wright's book, Simply Christian: Why Christianity Makes Sense. It is the understanding of this writer that the meaning behind this metaphor is that trying to make sense of theology is like staring at the sun; it is bright and blinding, hard to take in and the initial reaction is to look away. Wright states that, "It's easier actually to look away from the sun itself and enjoy the fact that once it's well and truly risen, you can see everything else clearly." (56) This could be said for trying to understand Christian theology because often after the first taste of it a person becomes instantly full and overwhelmed. It then becomes easier to give up and as Wright states, "look away," and give up.
                Wright writes "A great many arguments about God... being like pointing a flashlight toward the sky to see if the sun is shining." (56) This quote, which paves the way toward the metaphor, "staring into the sun," sheds some perspective on some discrepancies that have arisen about God. In today's society it has become increasingly common error to talk about God in the context of being something that a person could study in the same manner that subjects such as science or mathematics are studied; that God might be looked at using the same scheme as things within the world that we live in.

Another mistake that has been being made is how the word "God" is used as well as the initial image that has become associated with it. The word God has been degraded down to a regular noun so that the importance behind his name has been lost. This causes a person to overlook the divineness of God because it seems like just another word to be used in everyday language, usually in vain. The other problem is that when a person hears the word "God" there are two things that are, most commonly, the initial thoughts. The first is that it is assumed that it is referring to the Judeo- Christian God; completely disregarding the thought that it could be referring to any other God from another belief system. Wright points this out in the book recognizing the difference between the questions, "Do you believe in God," versus, "Do you believe in a god." (57) The addition of the word "a" seems to alter the question tremendously.

Along with this initial presumption of the Judeo- Christian God there is a widespread idea of what God looks like. The foremost thought when hearing God as an old man with a white beard up sitting on a cloud up in the sky looking down upon his creation. This stereotype is hard to breakthrough because a person cannot, "... get God in a corner, pin him down, and force him to human inspection." (57) There are such holes in the history that a person trying to write a biography can't get at. "Nobody tells us how he read scriptures or... how he prayed." (94) With such missing pieces of the puzzle arguments and questions remain unresolved leaving a person to believe as they wish and struggle to defend what they believe.

It is the belief of this writer that the metaphor, "staring into the sun," as referring to Christian theology is generally consistent. This writer does realize, however, that it could be problematic. As with all metaphors it is open to interpretation to the reader. The same phrase can mean vastly different things from one person to the next based on ones point of view. This can cause problems within discussion due to differing opinions of the readers. The main purpose of a metaphor is to help explain one thought through comparing it to something more relatable and this writer feels that Wright's metaphor is helpful in providing more of a visual aid when thinking of Christian theology.

This writer feels that N. T. Wright's work, Simply Christian, has sparked some curiosity about Christian theology. The topic of Christian theology has always been a rather intimidating one. The biblical language and all the history can be a lot to take in and understand. Past attempts in trying to get a better understanding of Christian theology, or any type of theology for that matter, have been difficult. The best words to describe the experience would be frustration and confusion. In the back of this writers mind, however, there was a candle of curiosity waiting for the right person to ignite the flame. Having been brought up in a Christian home this writer has at least a basic knowledge of Christian theology. After listening to sermons every Sunday it's hard not to walk away with some knowledge as well as a desire to learn more and understand better. After reading, Simply Christian, this writer is left with that desire to give theology another chance and explore Christian theology more in depth in hopes to be left with a better understanding. Within Wright's work there were things that this author didn't always like or agree with, but due to the way Wright presents his information it leaves this author wanting to know more.

I enjoyed listening to Dr. Wentzels lecture. I felt that he did a good job at speaking on faith and learning and makeing you really think about it and withing your own personal experiences, relate to it. He made his points clear and easy to understand and the examples and stories he shared really added to it.

The topic of faith and learning can sometimes be a tricky one. This has been the case, within my experience at least, with any topic pertaining to religion. I liked his statements about church workers not necessarily needing to work in the church. He made valid points also when speaking of commuting. I have heard from others about how out of touch you can feel when you are a commuter. Also, his point on technology related to what we have talked about in class. About how the advances in technology are "bringing us closer" and all connected with keeping us all apart and the same time. The face to face experience can be so essential and is so different that any conversation had via a text or instant message or e-mail.

The past few weeks in my project have been basically tying up the loose ends and getting everything done and in order. Gabby and I have been working on the brochure for our budgeting class and that has been really neat to learn more about. Other I have been getting last minute details worked on. We extended our deadline until the 21st so we still have a couple weeks left.
The past weeks in my project I learned some interesting facts about budgeting. I learned that more college students end up dropping out due to their financial trouble than due to academic trouble. I found this really interesting yet still very believable when you really think about it. I also learned that the stuff I put off is really easy so it would be so much simpler and less stressful if I just got everything done right away instead of being such a procrastinator.

This week in my project was a fairly uneventful week. I continued to do Chapter work by finishing up with Chapter 7. I also did some random work and research for other aspects of my project. We have been working on other various areas of our project but have been a bit stalled due to minor problems in communication.
This week in my project I learned that it is best to plan things far in advance and leave time for other people to respond. I learned that I just need to keep working hard and things will get done.
I would say my work on the project has been good. I feel that I am accomplishing both my goals as well as the goals of the project.

This week in my project was uneventful. I continued to work on the Chapters as well as some revisions. I also continued my research for my project and worked on setting up the outline.
This week I learned that I need to try to find a way to stay motivated and on task. I easily get distracted and I need to fix that in order to get more done efficiently.
My work on my project this past week was satisfactory. I feel that I am accomplishing the objectives of the projects and almost my personal objectives.