Philosophy essay...

The one class that single-handedly (if classes do, in fact, have hands) boggled my mind the most in college was Introduction to Logic. This is an essay that I wrote for the philosophy course... and I'm still not sure what some of the concepts referenced are...


The existence of God; the existence of an almighty being that created the Earth and everything on it. While it is a commonly held belief for some, it can be a highly controversial topic to others. Having grown up in Christian home, there is not a shadow of a doubt in my mind that God does exist. I’ve been schooled in his teachings all my life and, on occasion, I’ve also been witness to some events that have strengthened my faith in this higher power. Throughout this paper I will discuss and defend this existence. I will begin by considering the argument from design. I will discuss the premise of this argument that seems to be the most disputable and will defend this premise with my own personal philosophies on the subject. Following discussion of this premise, I will restate my beliefs that I stated on our introductory exercise. I will then discuss whether or not I still agree with that statement and also the conception of theoretical rationality that it most closely relates to. Finally, I will put in my two cents concerning my own personal beliefs and will clearly state what I believe while disputing some points from the argument from evil.
To begin with, I will summarize the argument from design. Premise one basically states that (insert earthly element or idea here, for the purposes of this essay we’ll use a woodchuck) appears to have been designed. According to premise two, because this woodchuck appears to have been designed, it needs to be explained. Next, premise three says that the idea that this woodchuck was designed is the best (or only) explanation for this woodchuck being present and because it’s the best (or only) reason, it’s probably true. The argument concludes saying that this woodchuck was designed by someone or some group. Personally, I can’t say that I disagree with any premise of this argument.
While I don’t dispute any elements of the argument, it seems that the third premise would be the most controversial to those that disagree with me. An argument against this premise is whether intelligent design is the only reasonable explanation of apparent design. One could argue that Darwin’s theory of evolution by natural selection exhibits how a being that seems to be designed could actually be the result of the operation of blind natural processes. An example of this could be what is known as the panda’s thumb. In all actuality, this “thumb” is really not even a finger, just an extra digit. Basically the panda’s thumb is a bone that seems to have been adapted so that stripping bamboo stalks (the panda’s primary food source) can be done more easily. While it certainly doesn’t seem to have been designed, it has become a valuable tool in helping panda’s survive.
To combat this argument, I will point out two items. First, the fact remains that God could have created things to have the specific capability to evolve. Times change, and in order to survive, some things must change with time. Some people may ask, “Why didn’t this all-powerful being initially create the organism in question in its evolved form?” My response to this is that, at the time of creation, it may have been more beneficial for the previously mentioned organism to not yet have evolved to its current state. One example is the case of some butterflies that have adapted colors to help keep them hidden from predators in their current environments. Before their evolution to their current colors, a different environment could have meant a different color scheme to camouflage them. The second item I will point out in defense of the argument from design deals with emotions. I find it difficult to believe that the exuberant joy that we all may feel at certain times in our lives could have evolved from a single-celled blob. The range of human emotions and feelings is a seemingly endless spectrum, and I feel that a system such as this could only result from design. While it’s not exactly scientific evidence, it is what I would use to fight for my side of the argument.
Having completed my view of the argument of design, I will now revisit my response to a question on our introductory exercise which read, “Should you believe exactly (i.e., all and only) those claims for which you can provide good reasons/ compelling arguments?” To summarize my response, I said no and described the idea of having faith. I think that faith is willingly believing and supporting something even though it may not have full scientific or public backing. Of the four conceptions of reason/rationality that we formulated in class, I think my viewpoint is closest to the PG-Rated rationality. I believe in things that aren’t necessarily supported by compelling arguments, but overall my set of beliefs is consistent. After considering my chosen argument discussed above, I still agree with the claim I made on the introductory exercise. Frankly, I realize that there are people out there who may not believe in the existence of God that are as set in their beliefs as I am in mine. They may argue that, because they’ve never seen or heard God that he does not exist. That is where faith comes into play. Whatever they argue, I will always have my faith to guide my beliefs. When considering my chosen argument in respect to my latest thoughts on conceptions of reason/rationality, I think that they fit well with each other. Even if my points in defense of the third premise are disputable, the PG-Rated Conception of Rationality allows me to still hold strong in my beliefs.
One final item I will discuss supporting the rationality of the existence of God deals with the argument from evil. While I do support the theories of “show and tell” and “mysterious ways,” I also would like to add one issue that is not considered in the argument. I believe that, while God does love all humans, he also allows freewill in the lives of humans. Therefore, if a person chooses to lead their life down a path of crime and violence God will allow it, but it won’t go unaccounted for. If that soul has not accepted Christ at the end of their life, they will pay for their sins in the afterlife. While it may not make sense to some, it’s perfectly acceptable through my beliefs and according to the PG-Rated Conception of Rationality.
In conclusion, I think that through this paper I have firmly stated my stance on the argument over the existence of God. I also feel that through defending the third premise of the argument from design, I did an adequate job in justifying the argument and what it works to prove. Overall, I think that writing this paper has somewhat strengthened my beliefs and my firm stance with the PG-Rated Conception.