So after last Monday when my logic instructor with much politeness and tact exemplified alethic relativism by asking me "If I believe you were Hitler's mistress in 1930 would that make it true?". To which I answered, YES. I'm being forced to read his collection of arguments for the existence of God.
This example came to be, after at least five heated minutes of God-talk that started when he refused to explain what the difference between Santa Claus and God was, and simply saying "there are logical ways to prove the existence of God." I among other students demanded an explanation and he either ignored or avoided us.
Most honestly and respectfully, I don't think a college Logic professor should be teaching use formulas for argument analysis, say things such as "the wage gap between men and women is a fallacy", and fail to add a logical explanation to a statement as big as "God's existence can be proven logically," and leave at that.
I asked one more time, and BOOM. He shot the Hitler's question at me.
And now after everyone, or almost everyone, forgot what was said that day, out of ego-pain he is forcing us to read this awfully biased compilation of arguments for the existence of God.
Oh my God!
After reading the argument of contingency, he adds one paragraph on a counter argument and then a couple of paragraphs to counter the later. As dry, repetitive and painful to read it is now our required reading for the final exam. His excuse: we are going to be able to put all of this logic formulas into action to have a philosophical debate.
This sounds wonderful, my only concern is when the only information most students are being provided with is his conservative-christian digested version of arguments and counter arguments. Not all students have the balls to look at a teacher and question him and his arguments, not all students think of the possibility of a teacher possibly being wrong, many of them memorize the textbook and completely ignore the interesting debates that arise in class.
So I can't help but fear this "required reading", and of course the test. Should I just desist and stop questioning?
So I guess no matter what happens God will be coming back, and not just any God, but the God this teacher can so tangibly explain, and logically present with God-like premises and conclusions.
sábado, 19 de febrero de 2011
lunes, 14 de febrero de 2011
Santa vs. God
So while teaching a lesson on definitions for a logic class my the teacher cited Santa's existence as an example of something that obviously doesn't exist, based on its extensional definition. Extensional definitions are definitions that formulate the meaning of something by specifying every object that falls into the same definition. He used the example of a rock band, which we would define using examples of rock bands like The Beatles, the Rolling Stones, etc…
A male student in the class asked whether we could conclude the same about God's existence, since there is no extensional definition for it. The teacher said it is not the same. I wondered, is there anything else that could be compared to the definition of God? Could there possibly be an extensional definition of God. Or is this just a step in logical analysis that we can jump when talking about deities, or more specifically the Judeo-Christian God?
I asked "why?". How is it different?
For many atheists, it is the same. The class started asking questions and debating wether Santa and God should be treated equally or not. The teacher who happens to have a PhD in Philosophy said he had written a 70 page essay on why and how the existence of God can be proved to be true, and offered to explain it in one minute. The class kept talking about God, and the original topic of definitions was a little far from being discussed. However what intrigued me was that a logic teacher would touch the subject of God and Santa being different without explaining his logical process to the students his trying to teach about logic. Not explaining how God could have an extensional definition, and just skipping that fact sounded a little illogical.
I genuinely asked him to explain what the differences were as it pertains to the study of logic. He said just because we imagine it is there it doesn't mean it exists. However there are proofs for God's existence, he said. He looked at me and asked me "If I believe you have a 250 year old brother would that make it true?"
Good point. I answered "yes, I have a 250 year old brother."
You can convince yourself that the tooth fairy will come and pick up your tooth and leave some candy in exchange, or whatever you want to believe. As long as you believe it it is real for you, wether you have analyzed the arguments and facts or you have made them up yourself. It is real in your head, and that's as real as things can get. I'm not saying that believing in intangible things makes your a schizophrenic, we all do that at some point in our lives.
Given what he had previously said I answered yes; I was proving my own logic that if you believe in something you can make it real. I still don't know the difference between his ways of proving one or the other true or imaginary. He then asked me: "If I believe you were in bed with Hitler in 1930 would that make it true?."
I did not understand the relevance of the example. I thought the 250 year old brother example had been clear enough. I don’t think it was necessary to use an example involving sex and Hitler to make a point, unless the point was to ridicule an atheist female student for wanting a logical explanation in a logic class.
Other students, who I can only assume, did not understand the importance of asking for clarification in a logic class or were certainly offended by any form of questioning of god's existence asked me to be quiet and not change subjects.
I was later approached by a couple of students who were offended by his example, so I think I might not have over-reacted when I thought this was a little out of line. I mean, he could have said anything else like: "If I believe you are a devoted Catholic would that make it real?"
I felt like these words were meant to distract the issue rather than to clarify the point. And I'm now just wondering if this was meant to be an insult for not agreeing or not believing blindly anything pertaining to God's existence and for applying concepts learned in class.
A male student in the class asked whether we could conclude the same about God's existence, since there is no extensional definition for it. The teacher said it is not the same. I wondered, is there anything else that could be compared to the definition of God? Could there possibly be an extensional definition of God. Or is this just a step in logical analysis that we can jump when talking about deities, or more specifically the Judeo-Christian God?
I asked "why?". How is it different?
For many atheists, it is the same. The class started asking questions and debating wether Santa and God should be treated equally or not. The teacher who happens to have a PhD in Philosophy said he had written a 70 page essay on why and how the existence of God can be proved to be true, and offered to explain it in one minute. The class kept talking about God, and the original topic of definitions was a little far from being discussed. However what intrigued me was that a logic teacher would touch the subject of God and Santa being different without explaining his logical process to the students his trying to teach about logic. Not explaining how God could have an extensional definition, and just skipping that fact sounded a little illogical.
I genuinely asked him to explain what the differences were as it pertains to the study of logic. He said just because we imagine it is there it doesn't mean it exists. However there are proofs for God's existence, he said. He looked at me and asked me "If I believe you have a 250 year old brother would that make it true?"
Good point. I answered "yes, I have a 250 year old brother."
You can convince yourself that the tooth fairy will come and pick up your tooth and leave some candy in exchange, or whatever you want to believe. As long as you believe it it is real for you, wether you have analyzed the arguments and facts or you have made them up yourself. It is real in your head, and that's as real as things can get. I'm not saying that believing in intangible things makes your a schizophrenic, we all do that at some point in our lives.
Given what he had previously said I answered yes; I was proving my own logic that if you believe in something you can make it real. I still don't know the difference between his ways of proving one or the other true or imaginary. He then asked me: "If I believe you were in bed with Hitler in 1930 would that make it true?."
I did not understand the relevance of the example. I thought the 250 year old brother example had been clear enough. I don’t think it was necessary to use an example involving sex and Hitler to make a point, unless the point was to ridicule an atheist female student for wanting a logical explanation in a logic class.
Other students, who I can only assume, did not understand the importance of asking for clarification in a logic class or were certainly offended by any form of questioning of god's existence asked me to be quiet and not change subjects.
I was later approached by a couple of students who were offended by his example, so I think I might not have over-reacted when I thought this was a little out of line. I mean, he could have said anything else like: "If I believe you are a devoted Catholic would that make it real?"
I felt like these words were meant to distract the issue rather than to clarify the point. And I'm now just wondering if this was meant to be an insult for not agreeing or not believing blindly anything pertaining to God's existence and for applying concepts learned in class.
Suscribirse a:
Entradas (Atom)