Anna Fink

Anna Fink

Honors

Dr. Schuler

November 21^st 2008

                Flipping a coin is a matter of chance. There is a fifty percent chance that the coin will land face up, and a fifty percent chance that it will land face down. So how does chance contribute to the world? Is chance influenced by God, or is it merely a matter of scientific probability?

                Dowe points out that scientific philosophers throughout history have tried to find the best explanations for the world around them. Finding this explanation is really the ultimate goal of each argument discussed in his book Galileo, Darwin, and Hawking. Science and religion can either be in conflict or in harmony with each other. Naturalism and religious science are the sub points of conflict. Naturalism leaves room for only science, and religious science leaves room only for God. Religion and science can be thought in harmony as either independence or interaction. Theistic evolution is a great example of interaction since it understands the world to have come from God using science. Independence just keeps the two subjects separate. If science and religion stay far enough apart then they cannot argue.

                So is chance a matter of science or religion? There are several different viewpoints on this issue. Determinism is the idea that everything that happens is determined already, by either some sort of fate or the stars or even a god. From a strictly scientific point of view, determinism is found in quantum mechanics. Quantum mechanics is the mystical part of physics. On an atomic level, there is an X - factor involved; something that happens that no one can really figure out. It's a matter of chance.  Contrary to chance, providence is a different analysis of determinism. Providence takes a religious science approach. This viewpoint says that God controls everything.

                Dowe is in favor of a harmonious interaction between science and religion. What if the X - factor in quantum mechanics was really God, not a matter of probability? This is actually a proposition that was made by Einstein. Einstein believed that there was a certain god factor in physics. The idea that God would work through physics and physical means, raises a lot of uncomfortable feelings for many people.

                A great strength in this argument lies in the locality loophole. The locality loophole comes out of Bell's theorem. Bell disbelieved that chance was involved with any of the factors of quantum mechanics. His experiments led him to believe that there was no need for an X - factor. Dowe clearly didn't agree with his point. In pages 179 to 181 through an off the wall analogy, he explains that one can never be guaranteed an outcome and therefore an unseen factor must be possible. To excuse this idea, Bell's Theorem assumes a principle called locality. Locality states that two objects cannot get a signal from one to another faster than the speed of light (Dowe 185).  This meant that if two objects of Bell's experiment should be expected to undergo the same reaction, and yet did not, distance may be blamed. Applying this locality factor to Bell's theorem gave it the title "The Locality Loophole." This may not seem like a strength, but it is.   If only local events can prove that there is no room for chance, that opens up the possibility for God. God is omnipresent and therefore can affect any of the objects of experimentation from a distance. "God deliberately brings about one event knowing instantaneously of the occurrence of another, distant to the first, without requiring a locality-violating physical signal" (186). God would therefore account for chance.

                The other strength of Dowe's harmonious interaction approach is that it gives reason to the random events of life. If the X - factor, is no more than chance, there is no reason behind the results that one receives. But, if the X - factor is, in fact, controlled by God, a purpose may be behind the result after all.

                God's reasoning opens up a place for some weaknesses of this argument. If God controls everything, what are people to think of the little insignificant details of life? These inconsequential events would almost be a waste of God's abilities. Dowe speaks of these events and gives the example that a leaf fell just as he wrote the word "baby" (188). Does God plan this? Does God care when a leaf falls? Dowe talks about inconsequential events before his readers would have the chance question him. Calvin and his followers believe in this absolute providence.  Dowe points out that even in Calvinist writings, scripture is not sighted for meaningless consequences. Dowe suggests that the doctrine of absolute providence could be relaxed. "God controls all things that are of importance, but may not control all things that are of no importance to anyone" (186).

                Dowe's point is hard to disagree with. He backs up his own points so well that it is very difficult to find weaknesses in his arguments. He also seems to leave his statements rather open ended. An example of this is on page 190 in his concluding paragraph. "If chance exists than then it is either cause by God and this is no problem for providence and there's no conflict with science; or chance is not caused by God, in which case it's compatible with strong Calvinist providence providing it doesn't lead to meaningful consequences." It is these types of statements that make Dowe's arguments feel week. He often starts statements with "If" and therefore lacks complete confidence.

                Dowe believed in harmonious interaction. Although his arguments share both strengths and weaknesses, his overall opinion is strong and valid. Dowe believes flipping a coin is a matter of chance, but knows that God holds the power and ability to choose what side lands face up, and the possibility to not intervene at all.

Anna Fink

Dr. Schuler

Honors

October 31^st 2008

                Philosophers have been around since before the birth of Christ. Aristotle, an influential philosopher, lived in the fourth century B.C., and the way of thinking that he advocated did not end with his death. There have been many great philosophers that have lived since the time of Aristotle including John Locke (1632 -1704) and Jean Jacques Rousseau (1712 - 1778). Philosophy encouraged individual thought. This idea took hold in the seventeenth century on a broader level. The use of individual thought earned this time in history the name of "The Age of Reason."

                A popular idea involved with the Age of Reason was that of Deism. A Deist believes that God revealed himself to the human race through nature and reasoning.  This belief means that God is bound by the laws of nature. If the God of the Universe was to be bound by the laws of the universe, than why should the government of the people, not be bound by the laws of the people? (Commager 2) This was the basic influence that philosophy had in shaping the way the Founding Fathers formed the government of the United States of America.

                The Founding Fathers could not start a revolution just because of their ideals. They first had to make the people in America believe that their ideas were true. A year prior to the Declaration of Independence, there were deliberate movements from the leaders to encourage enlightened thought. Thomas Paine wrote a series of booklets called, "Common Sense." The name alone implies that the pamphlets inspired the readers to think and to use common sense. This idea was accepted by the people. John Adams was quoted saying that Americans "realized the theories of the wisest writers" (Commager 2).

                In 1776 the stage was set. Richard Henry Lee of Virginia called together various actions to push for a revolution. One of these actions was a committee meant to draw up a declaration of independence addressed to Great Britain. The committee delegated this job to Thomas Jefferson. He was picked because he had a "reputation for literature, science and a happy talent of composition" (Commager 1). In four days, Jefferson had drawn up what he thought America's declaration should be. It was then debated for three days among Congress but was hardly altered (Commager 1).

                The talent of composition is shown in the Declaration, but so are Jefferson's Deist ideals. The Declaration opens with, "When in the course of human events" (Jefferson 1). Commager explained the significance of this sentence, "That [sentence] places the Declaration, and the Revolution, at once at the appropriate setting...of universal history" (2). Jefferson began writing the Declaration with humble beginnings, putting America at the same place in the world with every other nation. He goes on to say that American's are entitled to the laws of nature and nature's God. It is because of this that "they should declare the causes which impel them to the Separation" (Jefferson 1). In this way, Jefferson spoke clearly his views of Enlightenment thought and Deism. Enlightened thought believes strongly in the laws of nature. "Nature is good and beautiful in its simplicity" (Harrison 469). 

                "All Men are created equal" (Jefferson 1). In view of Jefferson's beliefs, it is safe to say that he meant this sentence quite literally. "Nature did not impose class distinctions, or political distinctions, or religious distinctions" (Commager 3). Jefferson believed that nature is unbiased and, therefore, it is only reasonable that people's natural rights be protected by their government, not taken away by their government.

                Enlightenment thought was in favor of change and progress. "Change, when dictated by reason and when in line with nature, liberates individuals and should be pursued" (Harrison 469). Jefferson reasoned that, "it is the Right of the People to alter or abolish [the destructive government], and to institute a new Government" (Jefferson 1) if their natural rights are denied by their government.

                "Prudence indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient Causes" (Jefferson 1). This means that regard for one's own interest would be the leading force behind their call to action. Reason would determine that only a truly corrupt government would need to be abolished. Jefferson goes on to list the reasons why the King has abused his power and why that gives America the right and reason to declare their independence from the Royal Nation.

                The Age of Reason aroused America to become a great nation. In this new age, tradition and orders from a king are replaced with enlightened thought, enabling change and progress to flourish. Jefferson said, "Happy for us that when we find our constitution defective and insufficient to secure the happiness of our people, we can assemble with all the coolness of philosophers and set it to rights, while every other nation on earth must have recourse to arms to amend or restore their constitution" (Commager 3). With the wisdom of philosophers, the Founding Fathers instituted a strong and reasonable nation.  

Work Cited

Commager, Henry S. "Introduction." Introduction. The Illuminated Declaration of Independence. New York, NY: Harmony Books, 1976. 1-3.

Harrison, J., R. Sullivan, and D. Sherman. A Short History of Western Civilization. 6th ed. New York, NY: Alfred A. Knopf, 1985. 469-70.

Jefferson, Thomas. "The Declaration of Independence." Thesis. Congress, 1776.

Johnson, Robert L. "The Deist Roots of America." World Union of Deists. 29 Oct. 2008 <http://www.deism.com>.

Anna Fink           

Dr. Schuler

Honors

3 October 2008 

                "... the truth of reason is not in opposition to the truth of the Christian faith." Thomas Aquinas started off chapter seven of Summa contra Gentiles with this sentence.  This is a basic one sentence summary of the whole chapter.  Thomas Aquinas tries to show how reason and faith live together, not in conflict, but in peace.

                Thomas Aquinas was a Dominican authority at the time in history when Aristotle's teachings were re-discovered.  Although his family was opposed to his involvement with the Dominican Order, he pursued his studies with the Order of Preachers. Knowing how closely Thomas studied Aristotle leaves no wonder as to why he would choose to investigate knowledge and reason like he did.

                In a post-modernistic world it continues to get increasingly difficult to define right and wrong. When Thomas was living rules of truth still applied.  There are three primary truths: the fact of people's existence, the principle of non-contradiction, and the ability of the mind to know truth. These truths are basic and must be agreed upon to have any organized discussion.  Thomas Aquinas does not focus on the first rule (the fact of people's existence) in this chapter, but instead shines light on the later two.

                Thomas writes at the end of the first paragraph, "It is impossible for the aforesaid truth of faith to be contrary to those principles which reason knows naturally." If this sentence refers to the principle on non-contradiction, what then is meant by it? Aristotle says, "For the same thing to hold and not to hold of the same thing at the same time and in the same respect is impossible" (qtd in Wedin 10). Michael V. Wedin explained, "It is a modal proposition, declaring that it is not possible for something to have a property and not to have it at the same time and in the same respect" (Wedin 10) Aristotle believed this to be the firmest primary truth. Aristotle was not a Christian man. He focused on ways of reason.  If Thomas represented his views, would he then not be representing pagan ideas? One can see how the seventh chapter of Thomas's book is trying to show the world that Aristotelian ideas are not separated from the church, but can be intergraded with the church. The "aforesaid truth" refers to the sentence that is quoted in the opening paragraph of this essay. Reason is not against faith; instead, faith and reason work together.

                Faith surpasses human knowledge.  "How great is God--beyond our understanding!" (Job 36:26) Yet everyone is created with a natural knowledge of God, just as everyone has reason instilled in themselves. This is seen in Romans 1:20 "For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature--have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse." Thomas Aquinas speaks of things that are ingrained in human minds by reason. Examples of this may be basic math skills that one can learn by observation, or the knowledge of the seasons. These things are so obvious to reason that it is near impossible to view them as false. In the same way, faith is made true by revelation. If God says something is true, and God made all things and knows all things, how can it be proved false?

                "Our intellect is stayed by contrary argument, so that it cannot advance to the knowledge of truth." Thomas Aquinas is saying here that human minds cannot reach truth if there are conflicting arguments for what truth is. According to the third primary truth, humans must possess the ability to find truth.  If God wants us to reach truth, how can he hinder us by putting conflicting arguments in our head? Therefore reason and faith must not conflict with each other but work together.

                Thomas Aquinas quotes Paul the Apostle, "The word is near you; it is in your mouth and in your heart," (Romans 10:8) He goes on to mention that even though reason and faith work together, faith can go beyond human understanding. One must not conclude from this that reason and faith are opposites, but instead, consider that reason is simply not enough to understand God alone.

Work Cited

Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Ed. Edward N. Zalta. Jan. 9 2005. Stanford University. Oct. 2^nd 2008. < http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/aquinas/#A1>

Wedin, Michael V. "Aristotle on the Firmness of the Principle of Non-Contradiction." Phronesis 49.3 (Aug. 2004): 225-265. Academic Search Premier. EBSCO. Concordia University Library, St. Paul, MN. 1 Oct. 2008 <http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=15226310&site=ehost-live>.

Anna Fink

Dr. Mark Schuler

Honors

29 September 2008

Coming to It

It is especially now, before the elections, that talk of the war seems everywhere. I was able to see some various opinions on the issue protesting each other. On Labor Day this fall hundreds of people gathered outside St. Paul's capital and protested the war. People held signs that shouted, "Make out, not war," and the like. Just down the street another group rallied; their signs read, "Let our troops win." These different opinions both revolved around the issue Maya Angelou brings light to in her poem, "A Brave and Startling Truth."

We have been told in our honors class this year that there are four different types of truths: subjective, relative, objective, and absolute. Subjective truths change for each individual person. They can be summed up in the phrase, "It's true for you," and have close ties to postmodernism. Relative truths only exist when there is another object to compare it to. Objective truths are testable. Absolute truths hold true no matter what the situation is. A list a basic truths has been made, evaluated, and mentioned over and over again in this class. These basic truths fit into the absolute truth. They are true universally.

While I was reading the poem, it became apparent that Maya Angelo wanted her startling truth to be listed as one that fits into the absolute category. I believe she was referring to the universal "love." Love for what? She urges love for others. She begs for peace. "When we let the rifles fall from our shoulders, and children dress their dolls in flags of truce," this is when we come to love. This is when love becomes apparent n the world.

I do not completely agree. To have a truth we learned it must correspond to reality, and just my eighteen years here have taught me that there will never be peace. Sin taints this world, but does that mean that there is no love? Her universal truth is correct. Love is a brave and startling truth, but she is trying to say that we can only come to love once the world is at peace. There will never be a global overtake of love where everyone puts others first, but love can happen to individuals. Maya Angelo's dream is wonderful, but not realistic.