Comments due by 11:59pm this Sunday (9/1).
In class we have been considering both religious realism and nonrealism. We've looked at a nonrealist sociological analysis of religion that seemingly attempts to show that religion is essentially a social phenomenon.
Here I want you to consider an interview with prominent philosopher John Cottingham.The video can be found here.
Consider what Cottingham has to say about various evolutionary and/or psychoanalytical explanations for religious belief. Do you find his replies plausible? Do they succeed? If not, why not? Do they apply equally forcefully (or fare just as badly) to sociological analyses of the causes of religious belief? Why or why not? What questions occurred to you as you listened to Cottingham? How might he respond to those questions? Any objections?
Take advantage of this opportunity to engage in good critical conversation with others. Consider carefully what others are saying, and press and challenge each other. Demand arguments and reasons. Ask questions. But always do so with grace, charity, and humility.
I found this brief video to be insightful; I also found it interesting how Cottingham was trying to contrast mathematics and religion. That is the elements of mathematics and the elements of science are all relevant yet there was and has and always be some form of divine intervention for the existence of those element, and that knowledge / intellect which brings one to the understanding of them also comes from a divine intervention.
ReplyDeleteIt was also interesting that Cottingham was contrasting Freud and Augustine; while he pointed out that Freud would stand with the idea that one having an erotic desire for the need of some form of knowledge of divine security would be outgrown through time. While Augustine would tend to lean toward that this desire for divine security is more of an ongoing situation for the individual.
Personally I tend to find that my own thoughts are that no matter how one grapples with the concept of faith, religion, the supernatural whatever term one would choose to define it with. The element which tends to continue to surface for me is the sense wonder; no matter how hard one tries to prove or disprove this idea it still has an overarching sense of wonder for me. Though there are a vast verity of opinions on this topic both for and against I still seem to think that there is that element of wonder in us that makes us pause to ponder the “what if…” and thus there is some small spark of faith within each of us. Through that frame of mind we too must keep the words of John Wesley in mind when he stated- “we may not all agree the same, yet we can agree to love…”
Mark Kuhlman
This video was quite interesting just by the way Cottingham thinks about religion. How he compares mathematics and religion. Saying that mathematics was around before people saying that a triangle will always have three sides and 180 degrees. We can't change that from history and if we try to turn our back on it we can't because it is always going to be there. Now religion is not there physically like mathematics is and that shows that people can turn their back on it and wouldn't know the difference. The real believers of this say that a divine intervention is there but the non believers feel that, that what ever they can see or interact with is the only thing true or correct in society, and there is no such thing as a God or religion. These statements can be very plausible because religion has no real truth to it, it only is around if people believe in it enough to claim it as truth in what they believe to be moral, while others don't see it so they don't believe it. Overall the concept of religion is a very broad term because so many different words to explain it can be very different from the way we said the sacred could mean so many different things and people will interpret them any way they choose. So the concept of a true, pin point religion will never be seen unless something very special was to happen like Christ coming back to judge the living and the dead like what Christians believe. Religion will and never have a true definitive answer ever.
ReplyDeleteNathan Schutz
Aside form the audio being terribly quiet, I did enjoy listening to these two men bounce ideas off of each other. One argument that I have seen tossed into the theological/scientific scene time and again is the idea that there is a universal law of morality. Humans have obviously grown to create their own laws but some people believe that these laws are inherent in your universe whether humans exist or not. Similarly, as the video states, much like the idea of mathematics. A triangle is a 180 degrees no matter if a human is alive to confirm it or not. Likewise, Ultimate good and Ultimate evil might exist in our universe even if no creature of conscious is able to understand them. The argument suggest that if there is an ultimate law, then perhaps there is a creator of the law, or an enforcer.
ReplyDeleteWhen I think about this, I immediately look for an example. My first choice, if I am to play devil's advocate, is the question "Was what Hitler did inherently Evil, or simply a very effective way in which to get what he wanted." Few people might say that Hitler was not evil, simply a man who was good at his job. He did what he felt he had to do and what he did during the holocaust is only negative based on perspective. If you swing the other way and if you are to decided that Hitler at his core was evil. The things he accomplished where inherently evil. No amount of perspective changing would effect the outcome. At that point we have a universal law of good and evil. I believe this is the point that Cottingham was attempting to make.
I really like how you use the ideology of good and evil. Especially the question with Hitler. Many do often wonder where does it come from. It is extremely interesting and puzzling how people are when it comes to the idea of good and evil
DeleteThe common comment seems to be on the mathematical analogy Cottingham used, I as well am going to comment on that because I found it interesting. I would have to say that in a way I agree with the comment, because yes math is something that works and you have to believe in it or you would be lost. The reason math works though is because it is based on a bunch of rules and theories which make it true. It wasn't just "always around" as Kuhn said. It has been created by very wise people that have found the rules and theories that make math true.
ReplyDeleteThe thing I don't agree on is comparing math to religion, because you have free will to choose to follow God and abide to his rules, but in math you don't have a choice because of the years and years of rules and theories put together to make math equations work. So in a way I do like how Cottingham explained to Kuhn that religion is like math because he said that "you have to acquire the ability to use and believe that math works" which is the same for religion. You have to acquire the ability to believe in God and believe that his way works.
Elliott Westerbeck
my comment might not make complete sense, so if there are any questions as to what I said feel free to ask what I meant.
I think that Cottinham's attempt at explaining things was valid in the sense that it was understandable. I found it incredibly helpful to try to put the idea of religion into an equation the way he did. He said that math was on the same level as morality; morals can be true and valid just like a math equation. Cottingham described God as goodness which he said can be looked at as an objective reality. He says that by viewing objective reality as good by its nature, we are on our way to thinking of it as sacred or devine. From this God is suddenly turned into an object that is highly thought of. To me this is much easier to grasp than some entity or "something" that we are supposed to just believe is there. I really loved how right in the beginning Cottingham said that religion could also be compared to music. He said basically that the details of how or why our hearing has developed are available but not top priority when making or listening to music. For some reason this clicks in my brain because it is so true. Why shouldn't someone just believe and practice what is available without worrying about the little details? We do it with so many things around us without even realizing it, one would think it would be easy. Even though I can understand and grasp these ideas, I still feel like nothing is being answered. The main question I always ask myself is "Why?". Why should I believe in God? What happens if I don't? If religion is so important that there is now a class in college for it should I try to accept it or be a part of it? Nothing makes sense to me which is why I find it so hard to relate learning about religion to actually practicing religion. It seems that there are so many ways of doing things that I can never be sure what is actually right or wrong. Cottingham was helpful but it seems that religion is more personal than anything.
ReplyDeleteIt is in fact hard to give complete answers. I struggle with that even as a individual as Christian faith. I do agree with your comment that religion is personal. It is in fact very personal.
DeleteLike a few others, I found it interesting on how Cottingham said that common sense was a mathematics analogy and that mathematics is based on rules and laws. Like Cottingham said that mathematics was not always around and religion evolved like mathematics has but I do not agree that religion is like mathematics. You have free will with religion but not in mathematics. You must follow the laws to get to the solution in mathematics and in religion you can choose who you follow and who you believe in.
ReplyDeleteThe interview itself was extremely interesting. I personally liked the beginning how Cottingham related the beginning of religion and evolution with the beginning of the ideas of belief. Also along with my other classmates liked how he related the idea of mathematics with the belief or religion. He states that we in fact know that mathematics is true. That there is something in out reality of logical prof that makes mathematics true and in fact part of our reality. Then Cottingham states that it is the evolutionary of certain events that makes molarity relatable to the truth of God. Also I like how he defines how psychoanalytical idea of religion. That these ideas in fact add to the belief of religion but not the cause. Also that Freud in fact claims that we create religion out of our neurotic need for comfort or meaning. He claims that Freud's idea is partially true in the sense that our neurotic needs and ideas in fact add to our belief. However evolutionary events are the causes of religion and it is are nature as humans to have neurotic needs and wants. We in fact will place them along side our religion ( that comes from a different place or source) in order to maintain or strengthen our belief in our religion. I have herd many people have called religion a safety net for believers (security blanket). I fell like this is was Freud is trying to say about religion That we as humans psychologically create religion in order to feel safe, strong, empowered, and or meaningful. However even without religion it or any other moralistic beliefs by nature humans psychologically are made to be wanted or felt these types of certain ways. That is part of our survival instincts. For example look how easily impacted or changed a child can become when taken away from its mother or for that matter look at children who have been abused mentally. It destroys that natural need of all of those types of neurotic ideas that Freud states. Therefore we alone as individuals do not psychologically create religion it is our nature to feel that way. A religious belief may increase those feelings but it is derived or created from another evolutionary process. I did very much enjoy the video but it was indeed as one of my class mates stated very hard to hear. The only question I have is how can one believe in majority of science and mathematical ideas but not in religion? Is it wrong for an individual to believe in both? Is it possible that religion and science walk together more than we realize?
ReplyDeleteSorry for the few typos I corrected them but for what ever reason they did not change!!!
ReplyDeletetypos and spelling errors uggh!
ReplyDeleteHmmm...Well, I had some things to say but didn't get them down quickly enough, so I apologize in advance for the sporadic mind vomit that follows.
ReplyDeleteI liked the idea about mathematics and religion (as apparently everyone else did) and it made me think about something that they may have been hinting at but didn't pin down. Correct me if I'm wrong, but before we mathematicians decided that triangles had three sides, triangles had three sides. Perhaps this would be better put so that we don't get into the nature of mathematics; What was the tallest mountain in the world before Mount Everest was discovered? The answer is Mount Everest, we just didn't always know it. I think part of science that is often lost is the amount that we don't know. Quantum Physics tells us that there is much that we simply cannot observe. For instance we cannot physically see the fourth dimension (time) we merely see it pass. Perhaps religion is very like mathematics, we just haven't found the rules yet (I mean, we are pretty small human beings on a wet rock in space. If there is a God or even merely a higher morality to the Universe, I can't imagine it would be that easy to wrap our minds around).
-TT-
Fascinating video. like we have been discussing in class, Cottingham touched on the concept of religion being a social phenomenon, and the veracity of religious belief. I agree with Cottigham's comment that just because something is caused, doesn't mean its invalid.
ReplyDeleteI do feel Freud's theory make sense though, he concludes that humans have a propensity to seek comfort, are hungry for meaning and a powerful sense of dependency. perhaps it is one of the reasons why people turn to religious believes, i have encountered many who started believing after experiencing adversity of some sort.
Emi Y.