Rhetoric 3302 Questions

Would you look at a rock the same way you would look at a watch on the ground? Would you think how did that get there with a rock or would you think that for the watch? I was kind of confused with what Paley was talking about at first in the first chapter, but soon after I started to agree with what he was saying. I really don't get the second chapter in this about how Paley puts it maybe someone can explain it better for me. My one question for chapter 27 is does Paley believe in God or is disputing whether people who believe in God are right or not? This chapter confuses me just like chapter 2. In Genesis 1-4 would somebody really believe that God really did that? I believe in God, but I don't think that he could possibble do that there is no way a human being could do that. How can we say that there were dinasours and cavemen if God made all of these animals and made the earth? Dinasours came before people and caveman became before we were? I believe the second verse from this or second chapter could or might be true to a certain extent, but it's not how I remembered the Bible when I read Genensis before. The 3 and 4th verse or chapters sound believeable that God could maybe do that, but I really don't know. I love God and believe in him, but I don't know if he really did all of that. In chapters 13 and 14 of our book it talked about Darwin and his theory on natural theology. It talked about the order that nature came and how it was designed. It also talked about Boyles laws and rules about natural theology. Boyle feared that the Christian religion would destroy itself through natural theology. The reformation of the system did not needs God's help it did it all by itself. Some of the scientists believed that the Creator was God and others believed that the world was created by hot rock that cooled down in time and kept the middle hot which was the center of the Earth and Hell. The metaphors of clockwork expressed the analogy between human artifacts and the natural world. Some scientists also believed that the creator was here before God and that he made earth and God was there afterwards helping make the rest of the planet. Darwins theory of evolution challenged the natural theology outlook on life. Natural selection was the basis of life to Darwin not God. Darwin did not believe that God made life he believed life was made by natural selection. Soon after that came the geoogists and paleontologists that started digging up bones and artifacts from back in the day before we were on the Earth. Some of these scientists though took some of there insights out of Genesis from the Bible to make claims on life. Later in life they started finding out that there is death and sin and the extiction of life. They found out that there was death by the bones that they found through geology and paleontology. They found out that there is an extiction in life because of the bones they found too, but still a lot of people did not believe them and they believed that things live forever. Later they started believeing, but questioned whether God was doing it or if it was just happening on Earth without a creator or power. I really have no questions to ask, but I really don't get some of the scientists theorys in these chapters maybe you can explain them briefly.

While there was a good chunk of material to comment on this week, I’ll stick to one bit to keep myself roughly on topic.

I always find it fascinating how one minor difference can lead to an entirely diverse outlook on the world, for example literal versus figurative truth in the Bible. A similar idea was brought up in the “Natural Theology” chapter in regard to God’s relation to nature. If you hold the outlook that God has the freedom to do whatever he wants, and if God chose to make an “imperfect world” (one in which changes can or needed to be made, the book specifically listed the need to reform of the solar system periodically), then that’s just the way it should be. I mean, God sets the rules, you can’t argue with that.

But then you get some smart-ass that wonders if God is so perfect, why didn’t he have to foresight to make a world without the need for “corrections”? I think this is a valid point. If you think of God as a watch-maker, why would you make a watch that will break in a few thousand years? What’s the point in that? The way I see it, there is no point. And with this mindset you can come to a couple of conclusions, 1) God doesn’t know what He’s doing or 2) God has nothing to do with this. I highly doubt anyone, in the past or currently, is going to agree with conclusion number one. So with conclusion number two, Darwin’s ideas of natural selection fit quite nicely and natural theology is no longer useful.

So naturally, I was interested in the minor difference of freedom versus foresight and how that can drastically change the outlook on God and nature. However, I still have one question regarding the “foresight” issue. If you’re not like me and find a point in creating a world that needed corrections, is there any logical purpose in designing an “imperfect” world?

The metaphor of God acting as a divine watchmaker is something I've encountered quite frequently when reading about religion and science, but I never knew where it came from. Now I know it comes from the work of William Paley. My real problem with this view is not the common one, the, “life is not a mechanical watch and it didn't just pop out of nowhere,” argument, but rather this: Paley asserts that physical life is perfectly created, “The hinges in the wings of an earwig, and the joints of its antennæ, are as highly wrought, as if the Creator had nothing else to finish.” Now, if this is true then why does the body fail so easily? If the Creator is so skilled why are there birth defects, or genetic disorders, or spontaneous abortions? One stray bit of radiation and D.N.A. Can fall apart. If life was wrought with such care why is it so easy to destroy?

Since there was a lot of reading I'll skip the drier stuff from the textbook and go right to Genesis. Read literally the creation doesn't make much sense, God creates plants before the Sun, but then in the next chapter creates man before anything else and gives all creation to him to tend and rule over only to cast him and his helpmeet out when they eat from the wrong tree which God put in the garden in the first place so if he didn't want them to eat it why is it there? Confusing, isn't it? If someone was going to believe an ancient creation story as literal truth why this one? I like the Egyptian one about Atum myself, but thats just me. Or Genesis is a story from long long ago about how the Hebrews saw themselves and their place in the world. It isn't factual, it is not but metaphors told around campfires for a thousand years before it was ever written down. Heck, it's not even one story, but two or three, woven together to create a narrative for a specific people in a specific place at a specific time. To read Genesis, or any of the Tanakh (Old Testament), literally is to miss out on that rich cultural heritage.

Natural Theology (Chapter 13) and Geology and Paleontology

The natural progression of modern religion was confronted with a radically new idea of creation – Darwin’s theory of evolution.

It’s interesting how some derive literal meanings from religious text and attempt to prove religious assumptions through scientific theory or testing. It’s also exciting to view initial estimates about Earth’s age and how this number was refined through more advanced techniques.

Natural Theology

This reading was very dense and difficult to read quickly. The arguments exercised great prejudice suggesting a designer creates our reality. Several arguments used secondary evidence to prove examples – the clock and it’s motion in chapter one. The text doesn’t mention a human inventor who engineered each individual component of the clock.

Questions
With regard to Rupke’s chapter and before major geological study, why would someone automatically assume the earth is the same age of the human race?

I have never actually read Geneis before, and really enjoyed it. It sent my reeling back. I have mostly believed that if the Bible is taken as a spiritual and life guide, not fact, it can be quite profound. But while reaading Genesis I changed my mind. One would have to interpret Genesis pretty abstractly to have an appropriate set of values and morals. Genesis says that man should rule over women, because they are lesser both physically and morally. And that the pain from child rearing is a punishment. It hints that the search for knowlege is agaisnt God's will, this is illustrated by Eve's punishment for eating from the tree of knowlege just to get an idea of the true nature of life's good and evil. Even if one takes Genesis as only a life guide I can see problems arising in its difficult interpretation.
It also doesn't logically make sense. It is riddled with contradictions, such as the sequencing of events. Human kind comes last on the sixth day, then Adam preceds that. Plants came before sunlight. That there is only one God, but God uses language like us and our, refrencing possibly other Gods. All in all this reading stuned me because it has been used for so long as a spiritual text that has governed lives had so many holes in it that lead to a ton of interpretations that can lead someone to be immoral in my opinion. Biblical passages have been linked to the justification of horrendous things, such as slavery, the oppression of "infedels" and "savages." The bible has been used to justify wars, the ravaging of the earth, and persicution of all kinds of people. And I believe these horrendous externalities of human kind can be linked to the Bible, which is full of holes and can have countless interpretations.

Chapters 13: Within the reading, Darwin questioned, “If the human mind was itself the product of evolution……was it equipped to reason profitably about the existence and attributes of the deity.” I would have to say that religion did ‘evolve’ and grow as the human race continued to multiply. Though I do not believe we have the instinctive, innate comprehension of God within us - I do believe that we were told and shown in some way, shape, or form that we were created out of something. Or else, what would be the point? It would be like a company distributing a product with no logo or symbol showing who it belonged to. It is the same concept. Although we did not at first know who our creator was – I believe we were told or shown by some miracle after our creation, that allowed us to know how we existed. Whether we believe in those miraculous events (such as those told in the Bible), it is completely up to us.

Natural Theology – CH: 1, 2, 27: I have to say that this author makes some very interesting points – but if they would use proper sentence structure and PERIODS – things would be a lot easier to decipher!
On the other hand, I have to agree with his statement that : “the Deity, is, in every view, the most interesting of all human speculations.” It is amazing how we, as humans, can accept the fact that we may be ruled by a supreme force that controls us in merely every aspect of our lives. It sort of makes you feel like a string puppet – putting on a show. But in chapter one, he writes about how nothing is really perfect. Although he stresses the importance that we all make mistakes, he seems to include God within that same idea. It has never occurred to me that God could make a mistake. Throughout my entire life, I have only known as God as the “Almighty” who created everything perfect and for a reason. If even God has the potential to make a mistake – where does that leave us?

Genesis 1-4: It has been a long time since I’ve actually sat down and read part of Genesis. The more I read, the more it seemed like a fable. It may sound harsh to describe the Holy works of the Bible in that respect, but, it truth, the writings are merely a combination of STORIES. Whether there is complete and solid truth to them – I do not know. But it does make you wonder why and how they could condense everything into a Bible. Out of all the years these stories took place, there are only few hundred pages to read.

Grr! This just erased my whole post. Ahem. I can understand why Paley and others at the time before and after the publishing of the Origin of Species would be naturally distraught at the sudden idea that the universe did not in fact revolve around human beings, but was very very old and made up of species which were able to adapt to natural conditions based on selection. Freaky! The disconcerting thought is that this debate is still on-going. Despite mountains of overwhelming physical evidence, fossils, observation, etc, people still continue to believe the earth is only a few thousand years old and that God created all creatures as they are. It is simply irreconcilable. Just last year, my mother had a legal case where a jury had to be asked if they believed the earth was over 100,000 years old just to hear the case--and they actually dismissed some people. It is no longer simply a religious belief, but a handicap in our modern society. You cannot even function with anything relating to science (especially the life sciences) if you hold the unreasonable view of simple creation. To simply look away from such proof is of the same ilk as defying gravity (also a theory!), which is surprisingly accepted by the Christian community despite its omission from the bible.
I enjoyed the Hume perspective in the text. He did a wonderful job of making people think outside of the box. It is a brilliant statement to say: "the uniqueness of the universe does not mean it was uncaused." I think we can agree that most of us do not have much experience created worlds, and so it is not a bad idea to postulate that perhaps intelligence was an unnecessary factor in its creation--perhaps it was natural. That was certainly a brave position at the time! To close: maybe Douglas Adams had it right in the Hitchhiker's Guide: worlds are created by factories, commissioned by mice, and nice guys win awards for making the pretty fjords of Norway. *salute to D. Adams*

In Chapter 13 and 14, natural theology was characterized to see the "proofs" for God's existence and attributes to the world around us. We look many times to the Bible for evidence as how the world became to be. In Chapter 13, it is said that, "the appearance of living forms that had once not existed confirmed a Creator who, unlike the clockmaker God of the deists, had clearly been active in the world since creation." So this passage tells us that their was another Creator besides the "clockmaker of God of the deists", so who is this Creator? What about Darwinian theory of organic evolution, which denied the special creation of creatures and human beings? Can we not just say, God created everything? There are so many factors we consider of how the Earth became to be, along with everything in it. In the reading from William Paley, he talks about a stone and a watch that is seen on the ground. The question comes up to as how the first watch came into existence. This crossed my mind, and made me wonder. How was God created? Was he just made out of some substance, and poof he was there? As a whole, we are constantly looking for proof of how things exist. Currently, we use geology to study the fossils, rocks, and the Earth, to determine exactly when the Earth came to be. Since we have determined this, we can then compare it to the Bible as to when God created everything in the Earth, such as those rocks, the fossils of the dead, and etc. We even look to paleontology for when life came to be for the early beings in this world.
In the four chapters of Genesis, it was very interesting to me to read. I have never really read Genesis before, until now. Genesis claims and gives us proof that God created every living soul that crawled in the water and ground, and flew in the sky. God even made human beings, first by creating Adam and then Eve. According to my faith and the Bible, I believe that God created us,everything in this world living and nonliving. But the question still runs in my mind, who created God? And how did he get all this power to create everything in the world?

"Natural Theology"
however drawn out and supposedly thorough this reading may be, it's points seem to appeal to an overemployed argument which is "how can nature be as beautiful and perfect as it is just by chance?" the author continually points out how inconceivable it is to assume that the earth or existence in general, was created without contrivance. i think what isn't understood by the author is that the idea that our existence is contrived is an extremely debatable one to begin with. he uses the watch analogy, which also doesn't work for me. interestingly, he compares a rock with the watch. after reading these chapters, i sort of realized how this comparison faulted his argument. to dismiss the rock as being unimportant in making these decisions contradicts his overall message of natural theology. if nature was contrived by something else, wasn't that rock also contrived, just as much as anything else? or are things that one can only find a subjective view of beauty or complexity in contrived? i thought the entire argument began with a faulted assumption and was further faulted by a bad example.

genesis-
i had attempted once before to read the bible in it's entirety, solely based off of a general interest in the material. i didn't get too far back then. reading genesis now is interesting because i really realized how it is a collection of stories. not to offend anyone in any way, but to me taking these stories literally is a lost cause. you could spend a million life times trying to explain and comprehend these happenings on any level of reality as we know it. i do however see the good in interpreting these passages figuratively. i think that there are genuinely good societal morals, some maybe a bit outdated, in the bible, but to take any of it literally is a waste of time and effort.

Ch 13 and 14: I liked how in this time intelligent design was thought up. I really agreed with all that Boyle said, I thought that it was very informed that he said that people should have the freedom of divine and people should not restrict power. I thought that Newton’s view was one of the first scientists that really didn’t believe that what he was doing was not for God, or to understand God better. Newton is mostly considered a scientist that doesn’t believe in God because Newton said that God is like a human, which is considered blaspheme. Then the chapter talked of Darwin and evolution, in which Darwin said evolution was the cause of divine intervention. Another point made was that the creator was not God; it was something that created the universe and God. That is interesting because you could believe that something created God and the universe and then God created the earth and humans, which would mean that there are two creators.
Natural Theology: I thought that this article really made me think about things that I naturally wouldn’t have thought of. I really didn’t think of the fact that God can make mistakes ever. I think that is interesting that an almighty power that is in charge of everyone life can make mistakes. That is really scary. I would hate to be on the receiving end of one of those mistakes.
Genesis: I think that this was really interesting considering that I never really read the bible word for word. I have heard the story of how God created the earth and humans in days. I also thought that story of Adam and Eve was good, nothing new. At least it’s not new to anyone who ever went to Sunday school.
Question: “Do you believe Newton’s God, a God who rules with limiting mediation of Laws?” “Is it possible that the world was made by many hands not just one, like a point in the chapter13 suggests?”

First of all, I think many of the people in our class are missing some big points. Angela stated that she didn't think God could really have done the whole creation, because no human could do that. That is correct. No HUMAN could do that. But God is not human. He is God. Secondly, someone talked about God making an "imperfect world" that would "break in a few thousand years". But the thing is, God did not create an imperfect world. The world he made was 100% perfect, and when man fell into sin, it changed. Which brings me to another point. If the Creator created our bodies with such care, why do they fall apart so easily? Maybe he wasn't in control? No. Our bodies fail us because of sin. Adam and Eve had perfect bodies that would last forever, to begin with. But when they sinned, it all changed. "Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children...thorns also and thistles shall it bring forth to three. In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return" (ch 3 vs 16-19) God did not create man TO sin, but instead gave them free will, and only one rule, not to eat from the tree in the center of the garden. When that was broken, man began to suffer.

ch. 13 and 14-
these chapters continue the trend of new scientific discoveries challenging traditional religious beliefs. one of the main topics discussed here is the timeline of earth. Whiel science began developing proof that the world had existed for much longer than had previously been thought, religion attempts to explain this by way of scripture, such as the layers of the earth being created by the Deluge. to refer back to last class session, i have noticed more and more after reading these chapters that religion really has contradicted itself time and time again over the years. in my opinion, this is due to a much more complex version of a popularity contest. it seems to me that the churches reasons for reluctantly accepting science are only so the masses will continue to accept religion. because so many of these scientific discoveries were proven to be true, who in their right mind would stay devoted to a religion that refuted them? i think this definately undermines religion because they are constantly changing their beliefs to suit proven discoveries; discoveries based on ideas that they once refused with such certainty

The readings for today reveal a greater conflict between religion and science. When geology emerged in the late eighteenth, early nineteenth centuries, it took many years to be accepted by mainstream religion. As empirical answers become uncovered, the Church is exposed to more problems conflicting with scripture. Looking back to Copernicus, the heliocentric theory took over 400 years to reach its full acceptance. Charles Darwin proposed organic evolution in the early to mid-nineteenth century, demonstrating that it is still a young theory. Will it take over 400 years for society to accept the theory of evolution? Granted, Darwin’s biological theory differs significantly from Copernicus’s astronomical/cosmological theory, but they both present a great challenge to the written word. Today, many members of clergy widely accept evolutionary theory and even the Pope encourages research in the area. This ultimately means that organized religion is no longer relying on its only book of worship. The Bible fails to coincide with existing evidence and religious leaders are okay with it. If it is okay to dismiss inaccurate areas of the Bible, doesn’t that discredit the entire book?

There was quite a bit of information in the readings. The Natural Theology article was almost too much information, where I began getting lost in what the analogy was and understanding with the watch. However, chapter 13 in the book helped explain it well. It made a good point, “Even if the world resembled a human artifact, one could not conclude that it had a single maker. Many hands were routinely involved in the making of machines. Consequently, polytheism was as plausible an inference as monotheism”. Is there one higher power or multiple higher powers??
Genesis 1-4 also made me think a lot. I have read these chapters before, but never really read, or studied them well. They are extremely sexist passages. They definitely repeat quite a few times that men rule over women. I guess I may not have read it thoroughly before, because I found it shocking that giving birth was a punishment for women. This I do not understand. It has been preached that men and women are put on this earth to reproduce, and any uses of contraceptives are wrong. If our purpose is to reproduce, then why would giving birth be a punishment? And then I get confused with all of the names in Genesis 4. Where did Cane’s wife come from? Where did Lamech’s 2 wives come from!? Also, I grew up being taught that the serpent in Genesis 3 was the devil. Rereading it, I found that nowhere does it say the serpent was the devil. So is there a devil? Or isn’t there? If the world went by the laws of these passages, it would be a horrible world, with sexism and inequality.

The idea that natural theology can be used to construct proofs of God’s existence seems somewhat irrational to me. If I’m not mistaken, “faith without proof” is the preferred method of belief in God and Biblical truths... Trying to dissect the universe to prove God’s existence seems to take the faith out of faith. Anyways, natural theology seems mostly to work for those approaching natural reason from the perspective that God created the natural world. It involves taking claims made in scriptural writings thousands of years ago (that arguably were not backed up by satisfactory evidence) and constructing evidence around those claims long after the fact, using knowledge not available at the time of writing to support those claims.

It is an attractive idea to believe as Aquinas did, that “whatever lacks knowledge cannot move toward an end unless directed by some being endowed with knowledge and intelligence” (meaning the universe must have been directed by an intelligent force, or designer). I would argue that the universe may not be actually “moving toward an end”, but instead will twist eternally through different possibilities, evolving fitfully with no particular concern for the outcomes of its constant evolution. We, glorious humans, see ourselves as the ultimate goal or end-product of the universe only because we are current and aware of our place within it.

I am interested by the many different versions of God as a craftsman or watchmaker or designer or architect and on and on. There are so many different conclusions drawn by so many different people, all trying to define exactly how God could be visualized in his workshop crafting his suitable universe to populate with plants and animals. The arguments about whether God had limited power or simply set intentional limits in the universe were enjoyable.

Concerning the timeline of the Earth’s history, I find it interesting that a wealth of information concerning the age and nature of the earth was discovered after geology became an independent scientific discipline “wresting away from humanistic scholarship, including theology, the intellectual authority to establish historical facts about the earth”. It seems like everywhere people explore issues previously handled by religious leaders and conventional religious teachings, vastly different truths are discovered! This trend seems to me to discredit some of traditional religion’s authority on most matters concerning the universe. As science discovers more and more, will there be fewer and fewer viable arguments for viewing traditional religious writings as truth? Of the evidence pointing to earth’s history involving a series of prehistoric periods before modern man, my favorite was Buckland’s hyena-den theory of caves.

At the same time, I have to acknowledge that modern geological theories and knowledge don’t undermine the existence of a God, but only the description of God’s activities as outlined in the Bible. The seven-day creation timeline, Adam and Eve, the creation of plants and light and animals and oceans and heavens—they clearly couldn’t happen as described in Genesis, but that doesn’t necessarily mean that no creation activities occurred. (Speaking of Genesis, I am always amused by the description of Adam and Eve, as it seems like God realizes after creating Adam that he will be lonely… so he tests out different animals on him to see if they can offer companionship, before finally settling on ‘woman’ to be his match. It always feels to me as if God didn’t realize ‘woman’ would be inherently necessary to perpetuate humankind as a reproductive counterpart to ‘man’… why is Eve the afterthought rather than part of the original grand design of creation?)

I’ll stop talking here, before my post gets too long!

Natural Theology: I really did not like this series of articles. I thought it was hard to follow and understand what the author was trying to say. Paley believes it is "vain to allege that a series may be carried back to infinity." I do not necessarily agree with that. It is too hard to try and grasp infinity, but I do think everything comes from what preceeded it. Are we pre-wired to either believe in religion or not?

Genesis: Reading this made me think of the age old question, which came first the chicken or the egg. Did humans create religion to explain and describe their surroundings or did God create science for humans to use to collectively understand why and how things happen? I personally believe in the first theory, but at this point in time neither one can be conclusively prooved correct.

Science and Religion: I originally thought of natural philosophy as something different so I guess I understand what natural philosopy involves. This is a very elementary question...So if God created everything, where did he come from? I guess I have never been given an explanation that satisfies me.

I think Geology and Paleontology are huge tools on the scietific side that create doubts regarding religion. If God created science to satisfy people's needs to know how things work, then why did he contradict himself with regards to the whole time line of events and the amount of time needed to get where we are today?

Hello! Good Site! Thanks you! kmeaepemri