Question 2 (Aquinas vs Dawkins)

Dawkins claims suggest that evolution and a belief in God are incompatible. He also believes that Aquinas’ claims are little more than double talk that dances around the same point. Although I can respect the depth of Dawkins reasoning and the precision in which he tries to pick a part what Aquinas had said centuries before, I can’t agree with him saying that evolution and a belief in God are incompatible. I’ve never found it difficult to believe in both God and evolution. I see how some people feel the need to choose one or the other, but never quite understood why it wasn’t possible for both concepts to exist together. Why not believe in a God who works through evolution and science? If Aquinas had heard Dawkins argument, he would have likely quoted one of his proofs and tried to debunk Dawkins line of reasoning. Nevertheless, I do think that Aquinas and Dawkins both made the mistake of trying to use reason to explain the existence of God. God is a matter of faith and faith isn’t always rational.

Analogies

The concept that I want to go over this week is the proper use of an analogy. An analogy is based on a comparison between two or more things or events, and it often contain words or phrases such as like, as, similarly, or compared to. There are several ways in which analogies can be used. The can be used as a teaching mechanism by showing us how to do something better by comparing it to a similar experience. They can be used as descriptive devices in which you can help someone better understand something by comparing it to something they may be more familiar with. They are often used in literature in the form of metaphors. There are many different and practical uses for analogies in everyday life. I, personally, love to use analogies in a conversation if the opportunity presents itself. They make communicating easier and more colorful.

Question 2 (Antonia Novello)

Antonia Novello used cause-and-effect inductive reasoning when trying to devise a solution for the public health problems of AIDS, violence, alcohol and tobacco. She noted that, after the release of the Joe Camal ads of 1988, more teens and children began to smoke. She reasoned that the Joe Camal ads were the cause and a raised number of children and teens smoking was the effect. This is inductive because it deals in probability rather than necessity. It was not certain that the ads were the sole reason for children and teens deciding to smoke. However, in using cause-and-effect inductive reasoning, she was able to see that the Joe Camal ads were most likely at fault and therefore act accordingly. She worked to ban cigarette and alcohol ads that targeted youths as a result. I think this is another great example of how being able to create proper arguments, be they inductive or deductive, can be useful in life.

Inductive Argument (Question 1)

Unlike a deductive argument, which claims that its conclusion necessarily follows from the premises, an inductive argument claims that its conclusion probably follows from the premises. Inductive arguments are thus classified as stronger or weaker rather than true or false. I used an inductive argument just this morning when I was trying to decide when I should leave for school. I considered that, I take the highway every morning. Every morning I am stuck in traffic. Chances are I will be stuck in traffic this morning. With that in mind, I left my apartment twenty minutes earlier than usual and was not thrown off by the morning traffic. This is an inductive argument because it is based in probability, not necessity. There was still a chance that there would be no traffic at all and I would arrive much earlier rather than right on time. It also had key words such as chances are in its conclusion.

Syllogisms

What I thought was interesting in this chapter were all the different types of arguments and syllogisms that were mentioned. A syllogism is a form of deductive argument that presents two supporting premises which are followed by a conclusion. An example would be; all men are mortal, all fathers are men, therefore all fathers are mortal. I thought it was interesting how the book seemed to break down the deductions we make. I never really thought about how knowing one thing for certain can lead to us knowing several other things through association and reasoning. Of course, as the chapter went on to explain, not all premises are correct which makes their syllogisms invalid. The books give the example argument; all men are tall people, tom cruise is a man, therefore tom cruise is a tall person. This would be an example of how one false premise can make a syllogism invalid. The incorrect premise of all men are tall people is what ruined the argument.

Question 2 (Death Penalty)

Jesus taught us not to return hate for hate or evil for evil. With this in mind, one might be able to assert this syllogism. Jesus’ teachings are the base of Christianity. He taught that you should never take a life. Therefore, Christians are against the taking of a life. If you look at it this way, then it seems to be a very simple matter. Jesus Christ said that it is wrong to take a life, therefore all Christians should be against the death penalty as it is the taking of a life. However, I’ve found that, where people are involved, things are hardly ever so cut and dry. I think it is hard to find absolutes when it comes to what a group of people do or do not believe, mostly because everyone is different and we all see the world from our own point of view. Though the argument seems sound, I think there is still room for exception.  Not every Christian is going to believe that the death penalty is wrong and it likely has nothing to do with how strongly they believe in Jesus’ teachings but rather how they choose to interpret them. As a Christian, I have struggled with whether I’m for or against the death penalty and I can’t quite say I’ve decided one way or the other yet.

Question 1 (Reasoning)

Sherlock Holmes says, in regard to reasoning, that the difficulty comes in detaching the framework of undeniable fact from the embellishment of hearsay and reporters. I believe what Holmes was trying to explain is how hard it is to differentiate between what is the truth and what is merely believed to be the truth. A friend of mine spent the last eighteen years of his life thinking that the people who raised him were his biological parents, only finding out the truth recently. I had always noticed how he looked a little different from his parents. Their skin was fair while his was a little darker. They had dirty blonde hair while he had black. However, I never thought to question whether or not they were his biological parents. I had just accepted it as the truth, despite all of the clues. I think the same could be said about my friend. They were his parents. They had loved him, raised him, and helped him throughout his life. Why would he ever question what they said was true? Sherlock Holmes uses reason to tear away assumptions and opinions, leaving only the facts and the truth behind. I don’t think this is something that most people could do quite as easily as he does, but then again, that’s the beauty of Sherlock Holmes; he’s fiction.