Heather Huckstadt

                In Galileo, Darwin, and Hawking: The Interplay of Science, Reason, and Religion, Phil Dowe attempts to answer many controversial questions about religion and how it relates to science and reasoning.  In the book, he shows how he believes that religion and science can co-exist in an interactive harmony.  One topic he covers is the idea of miracles versus the laws of nature. 

                First, Dowe approaches the ideas of Hume about miracles.  Hume tried to prove that miracles did not prove a rational basis for belief in God.  He believed that degree of belief should correspond to the evidence.  Due to the probability of a miracle occurring, there was very little evidence on which to base one's belief.  Another factor that contributed to the lack of evidence was the testimony.  When considering a miracle, according to Hume, one must not only consider how probable the event itself is, but also how reliable the testimony of the witnesses is.  Even if there is enough evidence, one must then be able to prove it is a miracle.  But what exactly is a miracle?  Is it just something that goes against nature?  That has happened before and not been considered a miracle.  Is it something happening with perfect timing?  That could be considered a coincidence.  Is a miracle very unlikely?  Is it impossible?  Is it logical?  Finally, Hume decided that the definition of a miracle was a transgression of a law of nature by a particular volition of a Deity.   Once one has defined what a miracle is and what evidence is logical, one must apply the rules that Hume had.  Rule one said that people can never rationally believe on the basis of testimony that a miracle has occurred.  This means that if there was full proof for the miracle and full proof for the law of nature, nothing was proven, and it does not require belief or faith of any kind.  In another case, there is less than full proof for the miracle and full proof for the law of nature, meaning there was no rational proof of the miracle.  This is a problem, but even if it was not, a miracle would not be able to pass rule two--proving that it supported a religious claim.  There is difficulty in proving both that the miracle occurred, and that it supported a religious claim. 

                Dowe's argument is quite solid.  He shows that with Hume's rules, it is impossible to prove a miracle.  Hume says that in order to be believable, something must be logical, but that miracles are not logical but believable.  Just by showing that sentence, Dowe disproved Hume's ideas.  He also shows that Hume could not prove religious claims.  Not only does he disprove that one cannot prove a miracle or a religious claim, he shows that the miracles are not the important part of Christianity.  Christians should not need miracles; they should be able to believe that Jesus Christ died on the cross and rose from the dead to save his children from eternal damnation,  solely based on the gospel.   Although the gospel is based on a miracle, modern-day Christians do not need to see for themselves proof that Jesus rose from the dead--the simple faith that he did is enough for God. 

                While Dowe's argument was quite solid, it was not without its weaknesses.  The argument was very complex, so complex that many college students had a hard time understanding it.  It was not very concise, so that the only readers who would read it would have had to be very serious and dedicated to reading it (or having to do it for a class).   The manner in which his argument and Hume's argument were demonstrated made very little sense to people without strengths in reasoning and math.   If there had been multiple ways of presenting the arguments, ones which appealed to those who learn better through examples and anecdotes, this writer would have gotten through the text a lot more easily.  The more people that can get through the text, the more people would believe his argument, and his argument would be supported by many, giving it more creditability. 

                Overall, the argument was won by Dowe, who pointed out that the argument was pointless.  Christianity does not revolve solely around miracles and proving them.  If there were no miracles, a person's faith would have to be that much stronger in the Lord because there would be no signs.  Many people concentrate too much on the miracles themselves, not on the God who performed such miracles. 

               There are many signs of how the Enlightenment affected not only the people of its era, but the people of today.  It and its concepts are present in many pieces of literature, philosophy, and other areas of study, but it is especially evident in history.  Proof of how the Enlightenment affected history is in the Declaration of Independence, which was written by Thomas Jefferson.

To understand this proof, one must understand the Enlightenment.  The Enlightenment, sometimes called the Age of Reason, was a period of history that started in the late 1600s.  It was started as an attempt to make the ideas of the Scientific Revolution popular in society.  Those who followed the Enlightenment were thinkers who wanted change from the old traditional civilization.  The thinkers of the Enlightenment followed three basic concepts: the concept of reason, the concept of nature, and the concept of change and progress.  The concept of reason stated that everything was subject to reasoning.  Through this concept, people believed that things should not be accepted because of a test of time, but that they should be looked at carefully using reason.  The second concept of Enlightenment was the concept of nature.  This concept said that nature generally has an order and keep that order, regardless of prayers or other phenomena.  It also says that humans have corrupted nature with all of their restrictions.  The last concept of the Enlightenment is that of Change and Progress.   This concept viewed change as a good thing, as opposed to the previous distrust of change and the idea that it was a step down from what had previously existed.  All three concepts form Enlightenment, whose concepts are evident in the Declaration of Independence.

Deism is evident in the Declaration of Independence as well.  It was a religious movement that occurred with the Enlightenment.  It says that all people have the ability to know God through reason, and that God was a rational architect.  Followers of Deism believed that knowledge from God didn't come from revelation or from Jesus, but from reasoning.

The effects of the Enlightenment are clearly evident in the Declaration of Independence, starting in the very first paragraph.  Jefferson writes that it is "necessary for one People to dissolve the Political Bands which have connected them with another," obviously calling for change and reform, which was one of the main concepts of enlightenment (Jefferson 1).   He extends this idea of change and reform throughout the entire piece, stating "it is the Right of the People to alter or abolish it [the form of government], and to institute a new Government" (1).   He clearly does not believe that the old form was beneficial because of the tradition, as the people opposed to the Enlightenment did, because he says, "it is their Duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future Security" (1).   He continues to comment on how oppressive the old form of government had been as he talks about the king.  He complains about how the king has "refused his Assent to Laws," "forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing Importance," "refused to pass other Laws for the Accommodation of large Districts of People," "called together Legislative Bodies at Places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the Depository of their public Records," "dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly," "refused...to cause others to be elected," and "endeavoured to prevent the Population of these States" (1-2).  Furthermore, he "obstructed the Administration of Justice," "made Judges dependent on his Will alone," "erected a Multitude of new Offices," "kept among us...without the consent of [the] Legislature," and other despicable acts (2).  This way of thinking is clearly influenced by the Enlightenment because the people involved in the Enlightenment believed that "change, when dictated by reason and when in line with nature, liberates individuals and should be pursued" (Harrison 469).  He clearly believes that the king's unreasonableness dictates through reason the necessity for change. 

Just as the Declaration of Independence was heavily influenced by the Age of Reason, it was also influenced by Deism.   According to an entry in the Dictionary of Christianity in America, Thomas Jefferson was "the most forceful deist of the period," so the ideas of Deism played a part in his writings, including the Declaration of Independence (470).   In the first paragraph, it speaks of "the Laws of Nature" and "Nature's God," which both show the belief in a rational creator of the universe (1).  In the same way, the document talks about the "Creator" who created people "with certain unalienable Rights," which also shows the idea of God as a rational architect (1).

                Clearly, Thomas Jefferson used ideas from the Enlightenment and Deism in the Declaration of Independence.  Although both movements were introduced many years ago, they are still alive in today's society because of documents like it.

 

Works cited:

Harrison, J., R Sullivan, and D. Sherman. A Short History of Western Civilization, 6^th ed. New York: Alfred

 Knopf, 1985.

Reid, Daniel G., ed. Dictionary of Christianity in America. Downer's Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1990.

 

 

Heather Huckstadt

Directed Writing 4

                Thomas Aquinas, a man from the 1200s, was, to many people, a genius in regards to theology.  He lived shortly after the reintroduction of Aristotle to Europe, so he used a mixture of Aristotelian philosophy and the Christian faith to form his ideas.  He recorded many of his ideas in books, such as Summa Contra Gentiles.  In this book, Aquinas uses the principle of non-contradiction and the ability of the human mind to know the truth and combines them with the idea that there is harmony between faith and reason.

                It is especially evident that Thomas Aquinas got some of his ideas from the philosopher Aristotle because of the use of the principle of non-contradiction in chapter seven of Summa Contra Gentiles.   The principle of non-contradiction, one of the three primary truths, states that opposite assertions cannot be true at the same time.  For example, the same thing cannot be present and not present at the same time.  It is impossible for something to be and to not be at the same time.   This is one of the concepts that people must accept without proof, and Thomas Aquinas shows that he accepts it and promotes it through his work.

                Also evident in Summa Contra Gentiles is the idea that the mind has the ability to know the truth.  He shows that he believes in this concept merely by the fact that he writes about the truth.  If human minds did not possess the ability to know the truth, most of his writings would be too hard to understand, and he himself, being human, would not have been able to have written them.  Thus, through his writings, Thomas Aquinas uses the first condition, the ability of the mind to know the truth, to explain what he believes.  

                The truth that Thomas Aquinas communicates in chapter seven is that the truth of science is not in opposition to the truth of Christianity.  He says that the truth of the Christian faith is much more complicated than what humans can understand, but those things that humans can understand are true since they are natural.  These things are so natural that it is impossible to think they are false, just as it is unlawful to think that God's truths are false.  Since the opposite of true is false, it is impossible for the truth of faith to be against the natural principles of reason. Thomas Aquinas says that since nature is from God, the principles that occur in nature are from God as well.  Because of this, truths gotten through revelation and natural knowledge cannot contradict one another because both kinds are from God.

                Thomas Aquinas demonstrates his truth, the harmony of reason and faith, with the principle of non-contradiction and the first condition, the ability of the mind to know the truth.  The principle of non-contradiction and the first condition are especially clear when he says, "Now contrary opinions cannot be together in the same subject.  Therefore God does not instill into man any opinion of belief contrary to natural knowledge" (334).   Different opinions in the same group would be contradictory, so in stating that the contrary opinions cannot be together in the same subject, Thomas Aquinas demonstrates the principle of non-contradiction.  By trusting the reader to read the truth and accept it, Thomas Aquinas is using the first condition, the ability of the mind to know the truth.  Together, these primary truths help Thomas Aquinas show his idea that faith and reason do not contradict one another.   Instead of contradicting one another, there is harmony between them.  Thomas Aquinas also uses the authority of Augustine, who says, "That which truth shall make known can nowise be in opposition to the holy books whether of the Old or of the New Testament" (334).  By adding an authority figure like Augustine, a church father, Thomas Aquinas strengthens his argument that was already very strong because of the primary truths that exist in and about it.  Because of his previous arguments and the support of the Bible and Augustine, "we may evidently conclude that whatever arguments are alleged against the teachings of faith, they do not rightly proceed from the first 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" (334).  The last phrases really sum up Thomas Aquinas' position.   

                As the heading of the chapter states, "the truth of reason is not in opposition to the truth of the Christian faith" (333).  Thomas Aquinas' proof is in the primary truths, the principle of non-contradiction and the condition of the ability of the mind to know the truth.

            Maya Angelou's "A Great and Startling Truth" seems a very appropriate choice for our class.  Since August, we have been studying ways of knowing, which can also be described as a quest for truth.  

            The "great and startling truth" as Angelou conveys it in her poem is that everything is up to us.  She notes that people are cruel, using vivid depictions of war and terror.  The section that affected me the most was the section, "And children dress their dolls in flags of truce/When land mines of death have been removed/...And childhood dreams are not kicked awake/By nightmares of abuse," (26-32) because it reminds me of so many of the stories I have heard and videos I have seen of children in Latin America and Africa who live in fear because of land mines and other dangers in their homelands.  I always have wanted to help these children, so this section of the poem was particularly meaningful to me. 

Angelou, after depicting humanity as cruel, suggests that although humans are acting cruel right now, when we realize the truth that it is up to us to change the world, we will do so.  "When we come to it," is a repeated throughout the poem until the end, where she says, "We must confess that we are the possible/We are the miraculous, the true wonder of this world/That is when, and only when/We come to it" (75-78).   When she speaks of "it," she speaks of the realization and responsibility to make the world better. 

This poem seems very inspirational and should not be ignored, but it is not exactly in agreement with what we learned in class.  We learned about truth--various types of truth, how to determine truth, and sources of knowing.  We learned how truth can be subjective, relative, objective, or absolute.  Although many people may agree with Angelou's truth, it is still very subjective because it is her opinion and her truth.  Others may disagree with her, but it does not matter to her because it is based on her individual self.  Her truth is not absolute.  The problem with Angelou's poem is that it talks a lot about what people can do, but it never mentions the absolute truth behind her subjective truth--God.  The absolute truth is that God created humanity, and God is in control of humanity.  Although he does give us the responsibility to live on earth, he also gives us the power to help others and the strength to fight the evil in our world through faith. 

The poem also hints at the idea of a heaven, but it does not go into great detail.  Angelou may have meant that the earth will be like heaven when it is peaceful.  This is somewhat similar, but extremely different to what we learned from Simply Christian.  In this book, N.T. Wright introduced the idea of heaven coming down upon the earth.  In his theory, earth and heaven become fused together to create a new kingdom.  Angelou calls earth a "small and drifting planet" numerous times, but as we learned that will certainly not be the case when heaven and earth combine to create the new kingdom of God.

                The sentence, "this sentence serves no logical purpose," is a wonderful illustration of postmodernism.  Not only does the sentence embody the postmodernist idea that everything is in the eye of the beholder, but it represents postmodernism further by contradicting itself.  

                Before addressing the sentence, it must be made known what postmodernism is.  As the class discussed, postmodernism is a movement in response to modernism which started in art and architecture but moved into other areas of study.  It is characterized by an attention to others, especially the marginalized, and has an emphasis on what is perceived by an individual rather than a group's perception.  Postmodernists are skeptic about what is considered the truth; they are suspicious of meta-narratives that groups may have.  They believe that the meta-narratives are bad because there is not one story that unites people, but each person has his or her own story.  Postmodernists are also very strong believers in consumer capitalism because they think that the power of choice makes everything fair. In the arts, there is a huge emphasis on subjectivity and impressionism, fragmented forms, discontinuous narratives, and random collages of different materials.  There is a tendency toward reflexivity toward the production of the work of art, and a rejection of formal aesthetics for minimalist designs.  There is also a rejection of the difference between high and low.

                Because of the skepticism that exists among postmodernists, they believe that everything can and should be interpreted by an individual in order to avoid oppressing meta-narratives.  In postmodernism, every person has his or her own truth. For the purpose of explanation and examples, two characters will have the opportunity to display the postmodernist ideals.  In example one, Ben and Jerry sit near a campfire.  Their conversation drifts from the day's events to their appreciation of the fire, and then they start to discuss the fire's purpose.  Ben says very matter-of-factly that fire is very useful because it can be used for heat.  Jerry, however, argues that the most important use for fire is for light.  Although the two men have differing ideas, in postmodernism they are both correct because they create their own truths.  The same can be said for other discussions these men may have.  For instance, the men start to talk about technology next, which starts another debate.  Jerry says that he believes that the best technological advancement in all of time was the invention of the Internet, because it made it easier for people to communicate with one another and also provided a network for research that previously had not be available.  Ben, however, thinks about a time period much earlier in history and says that the invention of the telephone was clearly the best technological advancement in all history because it provided people with the ability to communicate more quickly than they could previously, and that was the most important thing to think about.  One might wonder which of the men is correct in this situation.  Although through the modernist belief one of the men would be considered correct and one would be considered incorrect, the postmodernists would say that both men are correct because they are creating their own truths according to their own perceptions.

                Because of the idea that everyone has his or her own "truth" according to his or her perceptions, the real truth is lost.  Truth becomes meaningless because everyone has a different idea of what truth is. Ideas of what is moral can be very different, and even can become corrupted.  Actually, almost everything can lose meaning for this reason, and life can get quite confusing.  It would be almost impossible to completely think like a postmodernist, because humans get so many of their opinions and ideas from others. 

Postmodernism contradicts itself because of one of its most prevalent ideas.  Most postmodernists would say that there is no truth, but just saying that is a contradiction because stating that there is no truth is a statement of what is true.  Postmodernists also claim to be accepting of everyone's truths, but that is also contradictory because they do not accept the truths of those who practice modernism. 

The sentence, "this sentence serves no logical purpose," is like postmodernism because  it embodies the idea that "truth" is in the eye of the beholder; it is up to the reader to interpret the sentence and decide whether or not it is truth. Ultimately, it is like postmodernism because the sentence does contradict itself.  While it may not have been created with the intent of being purposeful, the class' analysis of how it is like postmodernism gives it purpose.  This makes the sentence extremely contradictory, just like postmodernism is extremely contradictory in its statement that there is no truth, which postmodernists accept as "true."

 

So this song was about loss of friends to AIDS, but for some reason in my head it was Western? I'm not really sure.

The time is sometime in the past in the western area.  After a long day of work in the fields, the workers are returning home.  A worker comes into his home, where he is greeted by his wife.  She asks about his day politely, and then asks serious questions about money that makes the man mad.  She apologizes.  The man and woman argue a bit about finances until they hear someone at the door.  It is a man from the bank telling them they owe money.  The wife reminds her husband to be nice, but it is pointless.  The man is furious that the bank sent a collector to his house, so he yells at the man from the bank as the clock strikes.  The argument between the husband and the man from the bank intensifies until the husband strikes the man.  They start to fight, continuing for a while.  The wife leaves the porch, afraid of what will happen.  They start a commotion, and many townspeople come to watch.  Some decide to join in, causing a gigantic riot.  All of the sudden, the rioters stop and realize what has happened because of their craziness--someone is dead.

    It's very easy to notice what the sun does for the earth.  It's very helpful.  It gives nutrients to plants and light to people.  It can be used as a source of fuel.  Most importantly, it is a source of warmth.  Not only is this beneficial to tourists on a tropical island who want to soak up some rays, the sun's heat is the reason life exists on the earth.  If it were not for the sun, the earth would be completely frozen.  This would make life impossible due not only to the lack of heat, but the lack of usable water that is necessary for human life.

            Even though the sun is so valuable to humanity, most people take it for granted.  They don't realize all that it does.  For most people, the sun is just there--a part of everyday life.   The power of the sun isn't too obvious unless one is to start directly into it, which can damage a person's eyes.  It's easier for people to just enjoy the effects of the sun without thinking about it.

            As it is easy to see the effects that the sun has on the earth, it's also very easy to see what theology does for the planet.  Just as the sun helps the earth, so does theology.  Theology can help explain life's unanswered questions, give hope, and serve as a moral guide for many people.

            However, talking about God can be very difficult.  God is so mysterious to people, so people have many questions that often go unanswered.  It is nearly impossible to understand God's greatness, so it often gets overlooked.   On an everyday basis, God's power isn't too obvious when people get caught up in less important things.  It's easier to enjoy what God gave the world without thinking about all He has done for humanity.

Wright made a lot of sense with his metaphor of staring into the sun. This is because the sun and God can be seen as similar.  In fact, some Native American tribes and even ancient people worshiped the sun because of its godlike qualities.  It is probable that the people who worshiped it experienced its goodness, but they probably never fully understood it.  In fact, they probably knew less about the sun than most people do with modern scientific studies.  These people had the same experiences with their god that modern day Christians have with theirs.  They understood that the sun was brilliant and powerful, but they never understood the extent of that power.  Likewise, humans cannot understand God by simply living in his kingdom.  In order for one to understand God, one has to be brave enough to probe deeper into theology and "stare into the sun."

            While Wright had his good points in creating this metaphor, it can also be a bit problematic.  Staring into the sun can harm a person's eyes, but exploring theology generally doesn't hurt people; it helps them.  Also, when a person stares into the sun, that person then understands the great power that the sun has, but this is not the case with God.  Even the most experienced theologians cannot truly understand God and how powerful he is, because they are humans who are incapable of comprehending God's magnitude.   

            Whether or not Wright's metaphor of staring into the sun is a useful metaphor of studying theology, it encourages readers to consider Christian theology on a deeper level.  Many of his concepts are very intriguing, especially the idea of "life after life after death."  At times, people just accept others' ideas about God's Word and don't think for themselves.  This is clearly not the case for Wright, and that is very admirable.  Most Christians believe in what Wright calls Option One, where God exists everywhere, or Option Two, where God lives in heaven, which is far away from earth (60-63).  This is clearly not the case for Wright, who influences readers to think for themselves.  His concept of heaven descending to become one with the earth create a new "life after life after death" shows that the Bible can be interpreted in different ways, and that it is up to an individual to decide what is the truth.  This writer was very intrigued at his concepts, although at first they seemed a little bit odd.  The idea that the Bible is not something that is supposed to necessarily be taken word for word is an idea that Wright impressed through his metaphor of staring into the sun.  If one just looks at the effects that theology has on humankind, much of the meaning is missing. 

Sorry for not writing sooner, but I joined the Honors Program late and didn't know how to get onto this site.