Thoughts

[asdr83]

So I kept meaning to write a post yesterday and didn't and now I don't know what I was going to talk about so instead I'm gonna rant a little about my philosophy class, please excuse me the venting space. So yesterday in my philosophy of mind class we had the really cool assignment to watch The Matrix, read a philosophical article about whether we could be living in a Matrix, by David Chalmers and then write a short paper about whether or not we believe that it is possible for us to be living in a matrix right now. It was a lot of fun. Class wasn't quite though. We started the discussion about whether or not it was possible that we lived in a matrix. I contended it was possible but probably not provable either way and that it didn't really matter because this is the reality that we're stuck with. Now I don't mind people disagreeing with me, it makes for a good debate but what I do mind (especially in a philosophy class) is a flat indefensible statement that I'm supposed to respect and not attack. Here I'm speaking of the girl in my class who asserted that there is no matrix and this she knows as an absolute fact because she believes in God and doesn't have to defend her ideas because she reads the bible. She came to her unshakable faith on her own, she says she was not indoctrinated by her church, and yet she has no defense of it, it's just something she knows. Firstly I'd like to say that unshakable blind faith is something magical and wonderful to me, I sometimes wish i had it (and something to believe in) because it would make my religious life easier, no more questing for truth and evidence for it, i'd just have faith. That being said I think if she couldn't come up with something to further the discussion she should have kept her mouth shut. It is extremely socially unacceptable to argue someone's faith in God, I've found that since I was a young child. I've also found that people feel it's perfectly ok to tear my agnosticism, religion and faith in science to shreds. Or to try anyway, with such arguments as "if you reread the Bible believing that it could be the word of God then you will see that it is". I decided that i really couldn't say much about her faith in God. After reading the bible myself I find that there are many descriptions of God in it and that they tend to be contradictory. I do not believe that any of the version could possibly exist and I certainly don't believe that all versions are able to exist in one being, however I also believe that the God of the girl in my class is absolutely real because her faith makes Him real, for her. I decided to try the tactic of maybe we're in a matrix that God designed and was told by another girl in my class that God doesn't write in computer code, cause He's a divine being and divine beings don't do that so we're not in a matrix. It is so frustrating to be in a philosophy class which is supposedly based on logical arguments and be running into the brick wall of faith. Grrrr. ok rant over.

Comments

Actually

[cristovau.livejournal.com]

I'm speaking of the girl in my class who asserted that there is no matrix and this she knows as an absolute fact because she believes in God and doesn't have to defend her ideas because she reads the bible.

For me the bible and her God are really good proof of the existence of the matrix. Shifty and manipulative tools like these are obvious signs that some nasty influence doesn't want us to get at the truth :^)

Seriously, the matrix is a good metaphore for the quest for questioning reality and given truths. It is highly ironic that someone would try to dismiss the discussion with a given truth.

Of course I call the flaws in the matrix "magic" and base my unshakable faith on it, so maybe you shouldn't trust me either.

Re: Actually

[learnedax.livejournal.com]

The strange thing, though, is that there is so poor a tradition of rational debate among christians these days. For hundreds of years the most vigorous philosophers in western culture were from the church, and now to be christian is seen by the majority as shunning argument. Where's Aquinas when we need him?

Re: Actually

[jducoeur]

Oh, I don't know. It's clear that there's a poor tradition of rationalism among fundamentalists. That isn't really surprising, when you think about it. The central tenet there is that faith matters more than anything rational, and since some of the usual articles of the faith are opposed to current scientific understandings, they wind up starting from a position that science (and by extension, philosophy) must be wrong.

OTOH, I don't know what proportion of the Christian population this actually represents. It's certainly the *noisiest* bunch, but I'm not sure that it's actually particularly representative, any more than the Taliban are representative of Islam. There are certainly plenty of self-described Christians who seek a middle ground, trying to rectify current knowledge with their faith. I suspect they're more numerous, although less assertive.

(Of course, you also have to toss in the number who are just plain ignorant. That's a pretty high proportion, but that's true of the population in general, and I doubt that's changed much...)

Re: Actually

[firewolfalpha.livejournal.com]

JDucouer said:

~OTOH, I don't know what proportion of the Christian population this actually represents. It's certainly the *noisiest* bunch, but I'm not sure that it's actually particularly representative, any more than the Taliban are representative of Islam. There are certainly plenty of self-described Christians who seek a middle ground, trying to rectify current knowledge with their faith. I suspect they're more numerous, although less assertive.~

Let me open by stating for a fact, yes; Those of us who ARE christian/catholic etc. we for the most part are quietly assertive of our religion and faith, Everyone should have Faith in something be it a god, person (themselves is usually the best), pet, favorite TV show etc. My religion has such things as the Spanish Inquisition, The Crusades, and many other Atrocities to it's name, the Muslims have terrorism in the present past and probably the future, But as you aid, it's not even close to being representive of our Religion.
So many people believe that if they think thier god is the ONE TRUE DIETY blah blah blah blah, they speak the ultimate undeniable TRUTH! WRONG!, we al ldeserve the right to speak out, so we can say i BELIEVE! or I DO NOT BELIEVE! or I MIGHT Believe! etc. ok short story here, I despise that fanatical mindless "I got faith, so i am the one who is always going to be right" kind of mindset, it makes me vomit. It's that sort of thinking wich creates Terriorist groups like al-Qaeda.
~jimmy

Re: Actually

[asdr83.livejournal.com]

I think the clergy are, for the most part, still pretty good at theological debate, but one also doesn't often find the same kind of "blind" faith with them. I have great respect for people who are willing to discuss their reasonings and argue their faith, heck that's half the fun of UU theological discussions.

[oakleaf-mirror.livejournal.com]

*offers hugs* As Cristovau said, the folks that are frustrating you clearly missed the point of The Matrix. Perhaps the professor will grade them accordingly?

As another agnostic UU, I share your frustration in such situations. I, too, wonder at the comfort of those with Faith, but my quest own quest for Truth won't let me settle there.

Steffan ap Kennydd use a line in his signature file that I find very apt: "Grant me the company of those who seek truth, and protect me from those who have found it."

Re:

[asdr83.livejournal.com]

I like that quote too. I also just bought a button for my mom that I thinks covers "devout" UUs well it reads "Extremist for Tolerance".

[siderea]

Mucho sympathy. Were I in that circumstance, I might spell out precisely what you say: "Well, I'm in a pickle. Apparently you think it's socially acceptable to assail my beliefs, but not socially acceptable for me to assail yours. I really don't care which set of rules we use, but they have to be fair to both of us. Either it's OK for me to attack your Christianity or it's not OK for you to attack my Agnosticism. Let's have the professor pick one, if that's OK for you."

BTW, your initial opponent's position is that of Descartes' Meditations on a First Philosophy (of "cogito ergo sum" fame). He puts forth that very argument: I can't possibly know whether or not we're in the Matrix, but I can know that a benevolent God exists (hand-wave, hand-wave) and a nice-guy God would never have made a Matrix nor tolerated a Matrix to be made to put me in; that's how I know I'm not in the Matrix.

For which reason, when I took Intro to Problems of Philosophy (MIT 24.00) we were told we weren't allowed to criticise Chapter 3 -- too much like shooting fish in a barrel.

Re:

[asdr83.livejournal.com]

We briefly went over Descartes' "proof" for God (well one of them anyway) the general opinion was "ow, my brain hurts now".

Re:

[learnedax.livejournal.com]

The term "begging the question" springs to mind... Descartes's argument is quite complicated (and, with a much broader definition of god than we typically use (almost a Force-like one, in fact), not nearly so easy to refute), but certainly this hyper-distilled version that you (and apparently philosophy students) cite is the classic question begging.