comment to Lucy's

Well, I must admit that I love Edwards. And that I've agreed with only one point you've made, and disagree with the rest.

For your first point: I might remind you that Edwards is not directing any of his statements to believers, but to those who have rejected a relationship with Christ. All the scriptures you pointed out were for believers. However there are scriptures for un-believers that prove the wrath of God. And yes, there must be wrath for Him to be a just God, otherwise He would be a liar, and that is impossible.
"Look, the LORD will come with fire - His chariots are like the whirlwind - to execute His anger with fury, and His rebuke with flames of fire. For the LORD will execute judgement on all flesh with His fiery sword" Isaiah 66:15-16
"Thus He will repay according to their deeds: fury to His enemies retribution to His foes," Isaiah 59:18
"Anyone who believes in Him is not condemned, but anyone who does not believe is already condemned." John 3:18
Paul tells us in the New Testament that anyone who does not have a personal relationship with God is an enemy of God.

Yes, there is divine love of God for sinners. This is why Edwards goes on and on about God holding them from hell for his sovereign pleasure.
"This is good, and it pleases God our Savior, who wants everyone to be saved and to come to the knowledge of truth." 1 Timothy 2:3-4
"Therefore, house of Israel, I will judge each one of you according to his ways. This is the declaration of the LORD God. Repent and turn from all your transgressions, so they will not be a stumbling block that causes your punishment. Throw off all the transgressions you have committed, and make yourselves a new heart and a new spirit. Why should you die, house of Israel? For I take no pleasure in anyone's death." Ezekiel 18:30-32
This is what Edwards is talking about when he talks about God's pleasure. God is loving and wants everyone to come to Him, yet God is omniscient and knows that everyone will not come to Him, that is the purpose of hell.

Also, we are of course called to have a certain fear of the LORD.Edwards says, "What are we, that we should think to stand before Him, at whose rebuke the earth trembles, and before whom the rocks are thrown down?" This is the beautiful picture of grace. We don't deserve the love of our Savior, in no way. Yes, we should be confident in it, but it is good to be reminded of how more holy and powerful He is than we.
"Guard your step when you go to the house of God. Better to draw near in obedience than to offer sacrifices as fools do, for they are ignorant and do wrong. Do not be hasty to speak, and do not be impulsive to make a speech before God. God is in heaven and you are on earth, so let your words be few." Ecclesiastes 5:1-2
"The fear of the LORD is the beginning of knowledge" Proverbs 1:7

Edwards is often looked down upon because he used the scare tactic. I think most miss the motive behind his tactics though. He paints God as angry and condemning because Edwards has a sense of urgency about him. He understands that Jesus will come like a thief in the night and for many it will be the point of no return. They will not have the chance to repent, it will be too late. At that time, God will no longer be merciful towards them. He will punish them and pay them all that is due. I also think that Edwards had a bold hate for sin, as did Paul who said, "Stop sinning for some people are ignorant about God" 1 Corinthians 15:34
Lastly, Edwards has compassion, which most people never see. He says speaking of a non - believer in his congregation: "If we knew that there was one person, and but one, in the whole congregation what was to be the subject of this misery, what an awful thing would it be to think of! If we knew who it was, what an awful sight would it be to see such a person! How might all the rest of the congregation lift up a lamentable and bitter cry over him!"
Edwards prayer was that people would be saved from an eternity of misery.

One last thing, while God is our Husband and Friend, He is not just those two things alone. He is also our Master, our Judge, our Savior, our Rock, our Comforter, Love. He is all these things and many more. We can't just pick one that we like the most and ignore all the other things of God. He is reigning on the throne as our Judge and Master, and again, this is where a certain level of fear and respect must come into play in our relationship with Him.

I'm Doubting This Post!

I'm hoping that I do this correctly and that there is no problems. Let me know if I need to edit this!

To be honest, the reading was a bit long and really hard to get through. It wasn't because of the deep and intellectual sense of the reading, but the lack of practicality in his ideas and process. I personally thought "Why go through all this trouble only to doubt yourself." The fact that DesCarte was doing this because he had all the time he needed only emphasized my doubts that someone in "normal" circumstances could do the same in our modern day.

It was tedious, but the more I thought about what DesCarte was aiming to do, the more it made sense. Here I was personally doubting another man's way to become closer to God, which isn't my place, showing that doubt can lead to knowledge and understanding. Doubting everything you were told to be true, so you can get down to what you believe to be absolute is not only a great idea, but a rewarding process. Is it for for everyone to take part in? I'm not so sure. You would have to be very intelligent, certain of your faith, and have an attention span much bigger than mine.

P.S. I commented on Katina's post.

Late Night Thoughts...

Have you ever done as Descartes did and imagined, if just for a moment, that your hand was not yours? I tried it the other day in class and for a few seconds was able, I think, to capture that feeling he had. It’s rather weird to be honest. Think about it. What if you were simply a consciousness that either resided in the body you are currently in or had made it up completely, including everything around you. The brain is capable of having hallucinations, so why couldn’t everything around you be one. You start to feel that the conscious, thinking part of you is separate from the physical part of you. Anyways, I just thought that it was cool and really interesting if you can experience that feeling, even if only for a few seconds.

One thing I thought about during the reading is how like and yet unlike every human being Descartes is. He is just like the rest of us, I think, in that he too is searching for that one irrefutable truth that will become his springboard for life. It will be the truth upon which he builds his life, something that he can stand firm on when trouble comes. Everyone wants something that they can fall back on; something they can trust will never fail or be false. People are looking for it every day and some find it, some don’t. Not everyone knows what they are looking for, where to look for it, or even that they are looking for it. Descartes is unlike the rest of us in that he is willing to throw into doubt absolutely everything that he knows and thinks he knows. Not many could ever successfully do that, nor would many be willing to do so, I suspect, for fear that they would get lost in the doubt and never climb back out again. I wonder if he knew the answer all along…

-Anna

P.S. I commented on Susan Berner

Infidels don't have souls

After a semester of reading journals, I am more than excited to get back to my home turf: the blog. Although actually getting this post up was a strenuous process, it feels so good to be home. With all of that out of the way, let's jump into the text!

"for although to us, the faithful, it be sufficient to hold as maters of faith, that the human soul does not perish with the body, and that God exists, it yet assuredly seems impossible ever to persuade infidels of the reality of any religion, or almost even any moral virtue, unless, first of all, those two things be proved to them by natural reason."

This quote ranks up there with my all time favorite quotes from honors literature. Why? Because it's just as relevant now as it was when it was written. In this context, the word 'infidel' means someone without any religious beliefs, or with beliefs differing from one's own, as opposed to a terrorist with a gun and a turban. While the two are not mutually exclusive, I felt that clarification might have been necessary considering that I was picturing myself having a theological debate with a turban-wearing, gun-wielding, long-bearded "infidel" when I read it.

We can't hope to change the minds of others about moral issues if they don't believe in God, or even that the soul and body are separate. If you don't believe that the soul and body are separate, that means that you must believe that after death there is nothing. I.E. Earthly consequences for actions are all you will receive, and once you die , you won't be rewarded or punished, you will just cease to be. Without believing in God, there is no higher authority to answer to than humans, and therefore there is no fair way to decide what morals need to be upheld, as one human's opinion should not be valued greater than another. Because of these two things, convincing an 'infidel' of anything related to morality or spirituality is next to impossible.

In a country full of 'infidels', how can we hope to impress the correct morals and virtues into society? The first thing we have to do is go back to the basics, and address the issues of God and the soul. Only then can true progress be made.

So, what did we learn today? That infidel doesn't necessarily mean muslim terrorist? That blogspot hates me? That having four questions at the end looks a lot more aesthetically pleasing than just having three? All good answers.

Tune in next week for… whatever we're reading next week.

P.S. I commented on Danielle's

COMMENT

There have been some issues with commenting (i.e. it literally will not let your mouse even click the post button). Here is my comment to Danielle Standifer's blog:


Danielle, I am so glad I am not the only one in this strangely manufactured boat. I have had moments in my life, the occurance of which never attributed to a certain mood, circumstance or significant time, in which I have doubted everything. The flow of these moments are as such:

Doubt in God > doubt in self > doubt in existence and eternal outcome of self > doubt of sensory perception > need for absolute truth > truth found in God > assurance found in God > reestablishment and strengthening of faith in God

Like you said, this process never takes longer than several minutes and even though it sounds quite upsetting it does seem to present some hope, or shimmering light at the end of the darkness. It is the progression from insecurity to “but God”. It always seems to increase my faith in God, just as my mother’s words reminding me that she loves me when I thought otherwise bring me to a better understanding of her love for me.

it wont let me post my comment... so this is it.

I attempted to comment on Amy Smiths post:

I feel like it's so easy to doubt God because physically he's unseen, it's easy to doubt yourself because you know you have flaws, and it's easy to doubt other people because we have a harshly human nature. But Descartes went above normal doubt and doubted everything. He went as far to doubt reality itself. To an extent I respect that. He opened his mind and it led him to his truth. I love the idea of the existence of faith and God, how it's a gift. I believe that completely.

Sometimes, I think our professors are brainwashing us...

Ah, to hearken back to the days of yore...and by yore I mean my freshman year with Dr. Mashburn, and by Mashburn I am referring to my reading of Descartes' Meditations in his Philosophy 101 my first semester. Beyond that, I am referring to my reading of Edwards' Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God my tenth grade year in old Coach Tuggle's class. Good times. However, I much prefer the present as my understanding and desire to learn have both significantly increased since.

So, Descartes. What a loaded passage! I could have stayed in class for another three hours at least the other day just to pry through this. So many heavy words like "utility" and "accidents"--both of which I fear for multiple reasons:
"Now although the utility of a doubt so general may not be manifest at first sight, it is nevertheless of the greatest, since it delivers us from all prejudice, and affords the easiest pathway by which the mind may withdraw itself from the sense; and finally makes it impossible for us to doubt wherever we afterward discover truth."
"...the human mind is not made up of accidents, but is a pure substance."
Benthem and Aquinas meet Descartes...what a dinner party that would be. For the freshmen, Betham's concept of utility is actions based on consequences (pleasure vs. pain) while Aquinas' accidents are attributes which do not affect the essence of a being. Now with those being what we are merely picking at right now, I can only imagine what sort of brain fever (ahem, Dr. Mitchell) we will be getting into.

At the heart of it, what I have drawn from Descartes is more than likely incorrect, but I could not help but think that he has a point to prove by moving beyond having faith. It seems he is attempting to approach something more tangible that others who have never known faith of any sort may at least ATTEMPT to understand (atheists, agnostics, etc.). It appears to me, Descartes is almost enticing relativists and their uncertainty into his playground of the mind. Correct me, please?

One final thought, am I the only one who feels that George Orwell may have read a lot of Descartes?

Saving my thoughts on Edwards for class,
Sam.

COMMENTED ON WILL'S

Lucy Beth: 3 Edwards: 0

It is of my humble opinion that Descartes was quite full of pride. Although I must respect the fact that he had the willingness to reevaluate his entire set of previous beliefs and foundations assumptions, he was quite sure of himself once he had done so. His idea that the leaders of the theology of Paris should present his writings to the members of the congregation with their full endorsement, to the security of right beliefs in the minds of each member of the church, was quite presumptuous. (This can be found in the first section, point six) On the other hand I must credit to him that he did ask the aforementioned leaders to critique and correct his writings before the public distribution of the works. I would also venture to say, seeing as he did “apply [himself] earnestly and freely to the general overthrow of all [his] former opinions” (and I do believe him to have been, for the most part, successful in this), that he does have, as much as can be given from a young student, the right to speak with any amount of authority. Many of his statements did appear to be in line with what I consider to be realistic, logical and true. But see here! I have already taken enough time to speak on the text about which this post is not. Let us move on…

…to Edwards! Oh, loathsome Edwards. I apologize in advance for anyone who, like Malory Green, has fallen in love with him and his writings. I do not mean to discourage your enthusiasm for the man. I however, find him quite…obnoxious. My first point of contention is this: that he speak much too often of the wrath of God and hardly at all of His love and grace. Now I know what you might be thinking. “She’s gotta be a flower child. Peace, love, happiness and prosperity gospel.” Let me correct you in that. The wrath of God, sin, hell and the devil are VERY REAL THINGS. However, so are the grace, mercy and love of God. I do not have an official count but if I had to estimate the ratio of John Edwards’ mentions the first set of things to the latter set it would be about 100 to 1. While I do not condone preaching that assumes to expel the concepts of hell and wrath from its messages, I also cannot support preaching which focuses all its words on such truths. The wrath and love of God come together, in one God, in one moment. He has not His wrath without His love, nor His love without His wrath. 1 John 4:17-18 says, “By this is love perfected with us, so that we may have confidence for the day of judgment, because as he is so also are we in this world. There is no fear in love, but perfect love casts out fear”. In looking for the place where God’s just wrath and perfect love meet, look to the cross.

Ultimately my response to Edwards and “Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God” is best demonstrated by the words of Augustine: “God’s love is incomprehensible and unchangeable. For it was not after we were reconciled to him through the blood of his Son that he began to love us. Rather, he has loved us before the world was created, that we also might be his sons along with his only-begotten Son—before we became anything at all. The fact that we were reconciled through Christ’s death must not be understood as if his Son reconciled us to him that he might now begin to love those whom he had hated. Rather, we have already been reconciled to him who loves us, with whom we were enemies on account of sin. The apostle will testify whether I am speaking the truth: ‘God shows his love for us in that while we were yet sinners Christ died for us’ [Rom. 5:8]. Therefore, he loved us even when we practiced enmity toward him and committed wickedness. Thus in a marvelous and divine way he loved us even when he hated us. For he hated us for what we were that he had not made; yet because our wickedness had not entirely consumed his handiwork, he knew how, at the same time, to hate in each one of us what he had made, and to love what he had made.”

Lucy Beth: 1 Edwards: 0

Most of his doctrinal statements seemed correct to me, with the exception, as far as I can tell, of only one. Under DOCTRINE, point two he states, “The sword of divine justice is every moment brandished over their heads and ‘tis nothing but the hand of arbitrary mercy, and God’s mere will, that holds it back”. I bring to question this “arbitrary mercy”. First let us define the word arbitrary: based on random choice or personal whim, rather than any reason or system. I find every reason to contest this description of mercy. God does not act randomly or without reason. So either this mercy is not God’s, which makes the statement a heresy, or it is wrongly describe as “arbitrary”. Throughout the Old Testament it says that God was not quick to be angry with His people. One who is not quick to be angry also does not act outrageously upon a whim to punish. Psalm 51:1 describes not His random love, but His steadfast love. Isaiah 16:5 says that He “will rule with mercy and truth. He will always do what is just and be eager to do what is right” (NLT). This does not sound like arbitrary mercy to me.

Lucy Beth: 2 Edwards: 0

Furthermore, I did not like the emotions and ideas towards God that were stirred up inside of me upon the reading of “Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God”. At any given point during the reading I could find myself feeling fearful, disdainful, unappreciative, angry and defeated. It momentarily removed far from my mind the possibility of a loving, gracious God who wanted to have a personal relationship with me. I could not, within Edwards’ context, imagine a love so deep and so unfailing that it would send its one and only Son to die for me, a filthy sinner, that I would have eternal life in communion with my Creator. It caused me to want to hate God yet at the same time to fear Him, almost to an unhealthy extent. Although these teachings may have jumpstarted revival, I do not see how they could have taught Christians that a personal relationship with the Father was possible; that they shall no longer call Him “Master”, but “Husband” and “Friend” (Hosea 2:16, John 15:15).

Lucy Beth: 3 Edwards: 0

IT WONT LET ME COMMENT ON POSTS!!!!

So for some reason, maybe it's my own fault, but anyways, for some reason I am not able to comment on a post. So I figured since I only have seven minutes left this is what I am just going to have to do.

Here is my comment to Nick Hamptons post:

First off, AMEN to the first paragraph!I practically said the same thing, except maybe not as nicely or positively haha. I agree with what you are saying. While I too did not really understand most of his writing, what I did get from it was the understanding that it is ok to doubt. It does not mean you have to be skeptical about everything, but doubting knowledge, like you said could be very helpful. Although for me it would more so help me to understand better the workings and knowledge of my own mind and how it reacts to and retains information from the world, instead of enhancing my understanding of the world itself.

- Bethan:)

O.O

Descartes- If I’m going to be blatantly honest, and I try to be, I don't thing I have never heard that name before this class. I was initially, and maybe still am, overwhelmed by this class and this reading. But if I look past the mumbo jumbo I’m looking at one question: what is reality? My reality may be something completely different than someone else’s, but who’s to say it’s any less real? When I look at a color am I seeing the exact same thing as someone looking at the same color, and even if it’s different does that make it any less real? It's puzzling. The mind is a wonderful, and disturbing thing. And though I don’t buy that we can free our minds of all prejudice I do think that there’s value in what he tried to do. He tried to find his reality. He tried to find truth.

This is a post.

As strange as this may sound, I have doubted everything before in ways much similar to Descartes’ methods; though it was not necessarily as intentional and systematic as Descartes, it has transformed the way I’ve thought ever since.

Think about it: how much of your life do you really remember? What do you really know about your existence apart from what your parents, Sunday school teachers, and textbooks have told you?

Perhaps it was not my past that made me question everything as much as it was my life and struggles at the time. It was as if I did not recognize where I was or what I was doing, and for a moment even my name seemed the most absurd thought, and I recognized it even less than the world around me. It felt like a dream—like insignificance. How do I know that I even exist? Everything I ever knew was only based on my personal perception; this is when I began to wonder if it were ever possible to be completely certain of anything—if in fact there could ever be such a thing as absolute truth.

I could not think this way for long, though. Just as Descartes deduced, our very thinking is a certainty because we think it to be certain. It reaffirms itself. And truth is something that we long for, something that our soul needs, and to deny its absolute existence is not only foolish but also impossible.

Though it can leave us in a whirlwind of thought and confusion, it gives me a glimmer of hope: first of all, because I feel somewhat less crazy for having pondered these things, and secondly, because I find the answer to be so very beautiful. We exist, and that is certain; knowing that beyond a doubt leads us on to search for God, purpose, etc.

Going through the darkness allows us to appreciate the light so much more; we dare not forget the questions, lest we cease to appreciate the answer.

--Danielle

And I commented on Bethan's.

I am not a fan of the way Descartes thinks but that doesn't mean I can't agree with some of the things he says. In his own words, "I must nevertheless here consider that I am a man, and that, consequently,...representing to myself in dreams those same things,...,which the insane think are presented to them in their waking moments." I thought this was very enlightening to those of us who find ourselves occasionally questioning the reality of our waking moments, because often our dreams can seem more real to us than those experiences we have throughout the day. While I cannot wrap my mind around the concept of my hand extended in front of my face not being part of reality, I can see how our perception of something we know to be real can change over time because of our own doubting nature. I thank God that He gives me a peace to supercede these doubts.

P.S. commented on Katie Mclamma's post

I HATE BLOGGING

I think it would be fair to say that Descartes and I are not the greatest of friends. To be honest, reading his meditations gave me a headache to the point where I felt as if pieces of my brain were falling away like wet cake. However, I did find something interesting and powerful enough to numb the pain for a bit so I could get some thinking done. So here goes.

Finally, my struggle ended at part two, paragraph six. Here, Descarte doubts the existence of his own body, and therefore all the functions that go along with it. He claims that, " if it be true that I have no body, it is true likewise that I am capable neither of walking nor of being nourished." Preceeding this paragraph, all of the things in which Descarte has claimed are doubtable have seemed quite insane to me, and I had not been able to properly grasp what he was trying to say, including this. Then I got to really thinking, and I came up with this: Descarte claims that we may have no body because our mind perceives that our body is just there, like a trick of the eye; something that we build around what our mind thinks and perceives should be there. It all comes down to our mind, we are " thinking thing[s]". So If our body is not really there, and we just perceive that it is, can we doubt that perception, like he asks, at the same time we made it? Descarte answers: " Perception too is impossible without the body; besides, I have frequently, during sleep, perceived objects which I afterward observed I did not in reality perceive." This is like in dreams when you are surrounded by people and you have this strong sense of knowing who they are; you can talk to them by name and distinguish them by faces, but when you wake up and think back on it...these unknown blobs from your dreams dont have a face, let alone a name, that you can recall. I think that this is what doubt does to us. If you can doubt your own mind's perceptions, then why not, as Descarte suggests, doubt your own existence? For the mind is, as he claims, the strongest reality of our existence.

Hopefully that made some kind of sense and was not too convoluted. It was my first attempt at blogging and to be fair to myself I only had one coffee today and it tasted like soggy dirt, so please dont be too harsh!

Descartes' Doubt

If I were to say that I understood all that I read this week, You could call me a liar. With that being said, I am not exactly sure how I plan to do this, but it will be good.... Hopefully... :)

After reading Descartes’ Meditations, I realized that a lot of my knowledge is based on things that I heard second hand and didn’t learn through my own experience. Some of these things are probably not wrong, but how can I be sure? Unlike myself, a person who will probably not do a single thing about this question that I just asked, Descartes took upon himself the challenge of seeing what, if anything, in life could be proved. I liked how he took all his thoughts and ideas and began to look at every detail from them and doubt what he saw until he either, a) found something that he could not doubt, or b) discovered that there is nothing certain. Through this process, he made quite a few uncertain conclusions, from the idea that God was deceiving him to the thought that a demon was making him see the imaginary world that he thought was around him. I do think that the idea of doubting knowledge could be very helpful, but I don’t ever plan on taking that to Descartes’ extreme and doubt all that I know.

Descartes’ Meditations definitely helped me understand that doubt isn’t bad as long as you are truly looking to gain more understanding and knowledge of the world, God, or anything else. As long as my doubt isn’t based merely on just wanting to go against everyone else, it shouldn’t be an issue.

P.S. I commented on Amy Smith’s post.

My Doubts and Crazy Philosophers

Descartes seems to be taking me back to high school. In high school, when I learned about Descartes’, “I think therefore I am,” I thought he was kind of odd. “Of course you exist!” I thought. After digging deep into his philosophy in college I think I have changed my mind. You really have to try hard and follow his logic to really understand why his concept is important. In high school I brushed over him looking at face value, and moved on. He was just another “crazy philosopher” But truly, unknowingly, I had some very similar thoughts.

An example of similar thoughts was my singing voice. I have always loved singing, and I believe that I can sing. However, I cannot even count the times that I have doubted I can carry a tune at all. When people told me that I sing well, I would wonder if they were just saying that to be nice. I can hear myself. “My senses tell me I sound right, but what if I’m hearing wrong?” I thought. “What if my senses are fooling me?” “What if I’m really tune-deaf?”

A couple of years ago I had just learned about how the eye works. I walked through our back yard and looked up at a pine tree. It looked so beautiful, with its branches blowing in the wind. I thought, “Am I really seeing this?” Is the tree really green? If our eyes worked differently what color would it be? Does God see it the same way I do?

Further, I began to think. Am I really here? Where am I? Is this a dream? Now, at this point you are probably thinking, I am crazy,(I thought I was too) but just follow me. You see, Descartes questioned if he was what he thought, or if everything he perceived was really his imagination, “But how could I deny that I possess these hands and this body and withal escape being classed with persons in a state of insanity…. To cause them pertinaciously to assert that they are monarchs when they are in the greatest poverty; or clothed in gold and purple when destitute of covering” (Meditation I, paragraph four). “Am I just part of a made up world?”(Truman show) I thought. Why was I thinking these thoughts? I do not know. I thought it was bizarre.

You see, Descartes’ point was the fact that whatever is doubted, and tested becomes tried and true. Truly, Descartes’ concept was not totally new. Socrates, long before Descartes, urged the people of Greece to be critical of everything. If you’ve been in Mashburn’s philosophy class you will understand the phrase, “Don’t drink the cool aid!” You see, Descartes is trying to prevent you from drinking poisonous cool aid! No, I believe there is a limit to doubt, but doubt is not always harmful. I’m beginning to believe that doubt can be wholesome. Descartes said in meditation one, paragraph one, “…And from that time I was convinced if the necessity of undertaking once in my life to rid myself of all the opinions I had adopted, and of commencing anew the work of building from the foundation, if I desired to establish a firm and abiding superstructure…” If we are able to rebuild our foundations to be stronger, why wouldn’t we? Philosophy challenges us to be honest with our prejudice and doubt everything we’ve ever known in order to lay a better foundation for ourselves.

Oh dear, I think I’m becoming a “crazy philosopher”.

Anna Rhodes

P.S. I commented on Amy Smith's post.

This first blog brings back great memories

Sitting down to write this blog brings back some old memories from the days of honors past. This time I'm going to actually do the reading though.

First of all I want all of you to know that Descartes is one of my favorite philosophers. I fell in love with his work last year during PY 101. He made me rethink everything that I ever thought I knew about thinking. Rereading it this year brought back the memories of the completely forgetting everything I knew about thinking.

After I read this passage I set down in an attempt to remove all of my biases that I have developed over the span of my life. I found it impossible to remove all of them. Some of the things that I have been taught at a young age I found it impossible to look past now. I found it was easy to doubt some things through systematic logic. I could doubt that I was actually awake and that my body as a whole actually exists. I then tried to doubt my mind and that is impossible. I tried to and found that the only way to know that I exist is through the thought process. This lines up with the thinking of Descartes when he says, "cogito ergo sum." Which everyone knows but I'll translate anyways, "I think therefore I am." This is the opposite view of one of my professors at the school who says that, "He is therefore he thinks." I found it a fairly comical view especially since it's a pun on Descartes who we are reading at the same time as he told us this.

-Lane

P.S. I commented on Katelyn Osborne's blog

Well Here Goes Nothing...

I have never written a blog before so I’m really nervous. I’m also not very good at explaining things. It always appears to sound better in my mind and then it turns to crap when I actually write it out. Anyways, I’m going to give this a try so just bear with me.

I had a lot of trouble understanding some of Descartes’ writings so I broke down the parts that I did know and went from there. I thought that Descartes was stating that it’s harder for the people who have no faith or nothing to live for to find it harder to believe that the soul continues to go on long after the body has died in the part labeled number 2 of the first page starting with “for although to us the faithful…neither by the fear of God nor the expectation of another life.” But it seems that he second guesses himself further down in the paragraph when he states “we seem to be admonished that all which can be known of God may be made manifest by reasons obtained from no other source than the inspection of our own minds.” He brings up the idea that God and religion is just all in our minds. He also talks about how faithless people want physical proof of God and Heaven. I find that physical evidence is impossible to show because the only way for people to truly see God is when they pass away and travel to Heaven and meet him there. As far as we know, no one has ever returned from the dead to tell us that he’s real. I believe that physical proof can be found in us as well. Miracles happen every day. People walk away from terrible accidents that should have claimed their lives without a scratch. People that we thought had an incurable disease will just go to the doctor one day and find that the illness is completely gone and they are not sure how.

He wants people to forget everything that they know and drop all the knowledge that they learned through experience, school, and mentors. I don’t see how anyone could actually cut all the strings of their mind to start fresh on an issue. The First Meditation discusses how we can become alien with something over time. Even if it is something as familiar as our hands that we use to complete tasks every day. If we focus on the idea that the hand is alien then it will eventually look and feel completely alien to us. He also talks about how dreams can feel real as well. I agree with him on how he describes dreams as almost real yet they can become very unfamiliar. Dreams can be so familiar and people, places, and things that we see everyday usually appear in them. But dreams also can feature unfamiliar people and places and even events sometimes. I feel that we have yet to truly understand dreams and where they come from exactly.

Descartes seems to do a complete turnaround in the Second Meditation. He starts to experiences many doubts. The paragraph starts out with “The Meditation yesterday has filled my mind with so many doubts.” He compares his fall to being trapped in deep water and that he cannot touch the bottom or simply float on the water. His moment of doubt only seems to last for a few paragraphs. He seems to finally come to a conclusion in section 6 of the Second Meditation when he states that he is a “thinking thing.” He lists what a thinking thing does and states that we have thoughts and doubts and feelings and we can refuse and have denial and agree. He just lists all of these amazing things that we, as people and thinking things, can do and will do. He also says in the tenth section that our minds do wander and allow us to come up with many ideas, true or untrue. I like how he concludes that we should just leave our minds to wander.

I’m not sure if I have this right or not, but I would like to think that maybe I understood just a little bit of it. And I feel like I just wrote a novel so I guess I need to work on that. At least I know that I made it through my first blog! =)

P.S. I commented on Amy Smith’s post.

Edwards...

I had to reread Descartes but still did not comprehend much of what he was saying; so I chose to write about Edward's Sermons. The section in Edward's Sermon Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God really got to me. "God's creatures are good, and were made for men to serve God with, and don't willingly subserve to any other purposes so directly contrary to their nature and end." For some reason it never occurred to me that every little thing was made to serve God. But, we ultimately use things God created to sin against Him. However, we don't have to necessarily worry like Edward states, "...you are thus in the hands of an angry God; 'tis nothing but his mere pleasure that keeps you from being this moment swallowed up in everlasting destruction..." God's love for us saves us from our great sin on this earth.

Paradoxicalness

"Well it seems I've finally thought of everything.
I wanna love, I wanna feel, find peace, find the real."
-Find the Real, Alter Bridge

SO, at long last, I can blog on this site! YAY. Of course, what's the point? This blog isn't real, so why did I even care? I mean, the internet isn't even tangible save for the world of TRON, but we make the biggest deal about posting on this blog. You know what, everyone, forget about it, because this blog does not exist and is not trustworthy, we should not even think about it or make an attempt to be successful on it.

Seriously, though, as a councilman, you have to do it.

SERIOUSLY, trying to percieve everything as being capable of not even existing is not just daring, its dangerous. If you are really going to doubt everything as being untrustworthy and incapable of belief, you risk tearing away the fabric of everything you see around you. As far as I can tell, trying to find God in doubt like Descartes suggests we do would be maddening! Yes, God is trustworthy and the source of all trust, but can we not trust that the world around us is concrete? Yes, it is a broken and fallen world, full of deceptions and lies, but is not also possible that the world is not fooling us, but we are fooling ourselves? How many times do we let our own perceptions of what we want and need and what is good come in contrast with the actual state of the world, which, in turn, causes us to fall into despair and question our existence as meaningful?

Furthermore, for a man who claims to believe in God and seek His truth first, I find it quite arrogant to claim "I think, therefore I am" as the primary proof of existence and truth. Jesus preached quite often on the concept of faith and sought to remedy the problem of doubt that so often turns us away from belief in the divine. It almost seems heretical for Descartes to argue that doubt can actually lead us to faith instead of driving us all into nihilistic madness. Still, I guess that's the point of the rational age-throw away convential wisdom and drive ahead with new thoughts on how to be human (not necessarily including belief in God). Like the song above, I can see how Descartes' ideas on finding truth and rethinking existence are quite powerful and influential, but I must myself think just how deep one's mind can go into itself before realizing there is no longer any light in the cave.

Well, those are my own meditations, hope they're worth reading. Feel free to comment with praise, questions, or criticisms as you see fit. BTW, I posted on Kelsey Parrish's blog. However, Blogspot has decided not to let me comment on said blog, so here is my comment in full.

Good on you for being able to follow Descartes' train of though, it's not an easy thing to do. Theologians and thinkers have tried for centuries to be able to logically prove the existence of God through thought and reason, while the Bible states that the universe itself is evidence of God's truth and majesty. Still, such notions are irrelevant in the face of thinkers like Hawking and Dawkins, people whose mindset comes from this same era of thinking and have theories that claim just the opposite. So the question becomes "do I have faith or do I have doubt?" Descartes obviously responds "why not have both, you can't have one without the other!" Of course that's just another way that Descartes overthrows common thought patterns and perceptions-he's quite good at doing that. Good blog, Kelsey, look forward to reading from you again! 8)

Doubting. Doubting

First of all, I too, would like to say, I have missed these blogs! I love getting to write down the thoughts I have after reading through the pages of our honors experience and I love getting to interact and see the thoughts of my fellow honorees ( haha yes I know, honorees is not a word… or is it? ;p) but anyways, reading the first paragraph of Decartes got me excited!  I liked the following phrase I ran across when reading this: “For since faith is a Gift of God, the same being who bestows grace to enable us to believe other things, can likewise impart of it to enable us to believe his own existence.” I have actually been thinking a lot about faith and have recently learned what and where faith comes from. So, according to Decartes, faith is a gift from God and therefore by faith, we can believe in God’s existence.  Decarte, however, I find very interesting because of his system of thought process, his thinking, his doubt all to find truth. I find it very comforting to know that Decarte went through a process of doubt about everything he knew or thought he knew about Christ and the soul and body. I used to think doubt was a bad thing. Is it? I feel like being able to stop and rethink the things we already know is good for helping the individual grow in their beliefs or what they used to believe in.

                It makes me feel better that Decarte doubted things but went through a process like systematic doubting. From experience, I have sat and wondered whether certain things were truly real or is it just us being used to thinking they were or do we really even exit? Of course we do have this sense of a higher power, we believe we do exist obviously, and therefore through our faith believe God does exist. I have had doubts about God but I have always reached the conclusion that He does, how else could we explain everything?

~Amy Smith~ (My name on here says “His Beloved” im sorry!)

P.s I commented on Amanda’s post!

WOAH

I very much enjoyed and had a much easier time reading Sermons: Sinners in the Hands of Angry God than when I read Descartes’ Meditations. I found it much easier to understand and also much easier for me to agree with. I know that if I had this sermon preached to me I would probably pee my pants. The descriptions are so detailed and vivid. When I read the following it set me back a little.

“The bow of God's wrath is bent, and the arrow made ready on the string, and justice bends the arrow at your heart, and strains the bow, and it is nothing but the mere pleasure of God, and that of an angry God, without any promise or obligation at all, that keeps the arrow one moment from being made drunk with your blood.”

I had read it over and over. I was like ”WOAH…” I know that every time I sin it hurts god and that it separates me from him, but I had never had it put into words like that before. If I sin against him and it makes him that angry and furious, then how much greater his love for me must be for him to kill his son instead of me. This passage both lifts me up to know how loving my god is, but also reminds me how imperfect I am.

-Samuel A. Oliver

P.S. I commented on Susan Berner’s post.

So, what I think is that...

I really hate picking something close to the beginning of the paper, I feel like people will think I didn’t read it all and I’m just picking something out of a beginning paragraph. Well, anyway, me and Descartes officially do not get along. I read all of it, and had to read super slowly just so I could process everything he was saying. It could just be me, but his wording just completely threw me off at times. I would read a sentence, then have to kind of think it over in my own words to completely understand what he’s saying, but then I’m afraid I’m missing something. It’s all super frustrating, BUT Lucy Beth gave me a thumbs up / hug yesterday so I can do this. (: Hahaa.

After I finished reading this I went over the synopses again, and the first one (again, I promise, I read them all) got me thinking.

“1. IN THE First Meditation I present the grounds on which we may doubt in general of all things, and especially of material objects, so long at least, as we have no other foundations for the sciences than those we have until now possessed. Now, although the utility of a doubt so general may not be manifest at first sight, it is nevertheless of the greatest, since it delivers us from all prejudice, and affords the easiest pathway by which the mind may withdraw itself from the senses; and finally makes it impossible for us to doubt wherever we afterward discover truth.”

To start off with, I thought he sounded strange when he said we have “grounds on which we may doubt in general of all things, and especially of material objects.” Why would we doubt something that is an object that we can see and hold?

He’s saying that we should doubt reality, that what we are looking at, might not actually be there, personally, I disagree. If I’m holding something in my hand, for example, a pencil, then it’s there. I can feel the weight, and I can’t push my finger through it, I mean, reality is, I have a stinking pencil in my hand! I don’t doubt that I’m currently wrapped up in my plush blanket because my roommate is hot and I’m freezing to death. I believe God put us on this Earth, with material things so we could live and worship him. I, personally, think Descartes was wrong. I don’t have or need a reason to doubt that what’s real is real. Reality, to me, is logical. I'm just a logical person.

Also, being logical gives less headaches, unlike Descartes, who must have had a twenty four seven migraine.


- Katina

The DesCarte reading totally blew my mind! It reminded me of a question my theatre teacher once put before my class in high school. Playing the devil’s advocate, he asked us if it was possible that we were a part of the world, and everything physical we know is real, but the people we know, our family, friends, teachers, classmates, and even those we dislike were only actors in a reality TV show. All the relationships we thought we had were fake and every moment of our lives was actually just being recorded for the entertainment of the rest of the world.

Things like this or the notion that everything we think is real doesn’t exist is very difficult for me to except. For example, I know that my parents are my parents because I have pictures, videos, and documents to prove that they are my real parents. However, even more importantly I love my parents and trust them, so it is nearly impossible for me to believe for even a moment that I am not actually their child. Also, I cannot think that my hand is not my hand. When I look at my hand I don’t think that it is someone else’s hand or even some kind of robotic extension of my body. When I cut my hand it bleeds and I feel it. I’m a very trusting person, so I believe everything that is around me, and even if everything around me wasn’t what it appears, I would rather be ignorant to the truth, because I am happy the way things are now.

I definitely liked reading “Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God” much more. I can understand the reading much easier and I love the description in the text and how in your face it is. The sermon makes me want to go read my Bible and pray for hours in order to avoid the horrible eternal agony that awaits many in hell. The emotion and desperation on Edward’s wording makes that reading much more interesting to me. For example, the passage on page 96 where Edwards says “The wrath of God is like great waters that are dammed for the present; they increase more and more, and rise higher and higher, till an outlet is given, and the longer the stream is stopped, the more rapid and mighty is its course, when once it is let loose”. Or again on page 102 when he says “It would be dreadful to suffer this fierceness and wrath of almighty God one moment; but you must suffer it to all eternity: There will be no end to this exquisite horrible misery: when you look forward, you shall see a long forever, a boundless duration before you, which will swallow up your thoughts, and amaze your soul . . .” I think that those words speak volumes, and mean a lots to anyone who reads them, even if they are not religious.

-Susan

P.S. I commented on Meghan Johnston