Bacon's Four idols

Francis Bacon came up with the Four Idols, which he used to argue against the church. He uses the argument of the church against it by claiming that the Christian philosophy had engaged in four forms of idolatry. The Four Idols:

1. Idols of the Tribe- The bias of human beings is to jump to conclusions based on what is new or strange rather than investing time to understand what is true. 

This idol means that humans tend to assume things when they are introduced to something out of the ordinary, and they don't take the time to understand what it is actually about. For example, if we saw a spaceship, we'd think there are evil aliens on it. And we would kill them before we get to know them. They could be friendly, but since we don't know anything about it, we assume things.

2. Idols of the Cave- Creating individual biases through the educational system.

This idol means that through school or any type of educational system, we tend to make biases based on what we've been taught. For example, Core students have been taught to be open minded about things, and to look at different perspectives. However, us Core students have been seen as hypocritical because we believe that conservatives are bad and liberals are the way to go. In this people create biases that we are hypocritical when it's not our fault because it is what we were taught. 

3. Idols of the Marketplace-The language created to share knowledge (philosophy is more concerned with winning arguments than revealing truth) locks us into specific ways of knowing.

This idol means that the way that we say things may influence us or others to create biases on the topic we talk about. For example, sarcasm. When we are sarcastic about something it can sometimes imply that that something is bad, or not as we say it is. If I say, "oh yea that movie is REAL good...." and I'm sarcastic, it implies that the movie was actually bad! Not good!

4. Idols of the Theatre-The Christian West has given reference to four or five Greek scholars and has ignored any other understanding of the world. 

This idol means that the church has paid attention to a couple of Greek scholars to get a little bit of information about the world. But when new ideas are introduced, they ignore it because it contradicts with their beliefs.

How Galileo published his book with the help of his nun daughter

Galileo was this great astronomer and he found out that the sun had sun spots. From this he concluded that the sun rotates, and that the universe does not rotate around the Earth; instead the universe revolves around the sun. This theory went against the church because they thought that the earth was God's "chosen planet" and everything revolves around it. However if Galileo was right, that meant the church was wrong. And if they were wrong about something like that, then they could be wrong about everything else; and then people would start questioning the church and then they'd crash and burn.

Anyways, Galileo wrote a book about his theory, in which his daughter, Maria Celeste helped. As he wrote the book, he sent it to his daughter in the convent. In there she proofread his documents and worked as his editor. Without her, his book probably wouldn't make as much sense and would have more spelling errors. However, thanks to her it came out well, and looked like a legit book. Maria Celeste also helped her father in more ways, even though she was stuck with nuns and lived away from her father. She provided ailments for Galileo when he got sick and she took care of his health and well-fare. Also when Galileo got in trouble for his book by the church, she gave him advice not to say anything unless asked. As shown, she played a big part in his life and contributed to his document. 

St. Thomas Aquinas' Five Ways.....and THEIR LIES

Ok so here it goes...

Out of St. Thomas Aquinas' Five Ways, I'd say that the most ridiculous one is the fourth one: The Argument from Degrees and Perfection. Basically in this one he is saying that God determines what is beautiful, good, etc. He says that there is a perfect standard by which all things are measured and these perfections are "contained in God." I don't think that this is true because I think that beauty, good, etc. are opinions. We determine what is beautiful or good, and we are the ones that set the standard. Everyone has different opinions and one cannot say that one person is the most beautiful or that something is good. 

For example: I say that Angelina Jolie is one of the prettiest women I've ever seen, and no matter what age she is she's still hot. However, Myles for example, thinks that Jessica Alba is the hottest woman ever alive. See, it is purely opinion. God did not sway my, or Myles' opinion. Also, that is my standard of beauty, it's like Angie is a ten (so is my girlfriend) and lets say uhh Sarah Palin is a one. So by setting this standard I can now measure people and other perfections. 

Tada! God didn't help me! As far as I know, God could think Sarah Palin is a 10 and Angie is a 1 (which would be completely irrational)

Connections between St. Augustine and the Crusades

St. Augustine presented the Just War theory and believed that war was a sin but at the same time there was no way to avoid it completely. He believed that since war was inevitable, that they should make the best out of it when it happens, which is to achieve peace at the end. He has seven principles of his Just War theory: 

1. Last resort-war is initiated after all non-violence propositions have been used.

2. Initiated by the government or higher power-war is only just if an authoritative figure approves that it is justified 

3. Chance of success-war can only be fought if there is a chance at success 

4. Right intentions-the only objective of war is to solve a problem or for self defense

5. Re-establish peace-war should improve peace that existed before the war or would exist if the war hadn't occurred

6. Proportionality-during war one should use the minimum a mount of force to obtain the objective/violence used in war must be proportional to the injury suffered 

7. Don't attack civilians-civilians are never the target of war and all measures to avoid killing them should be used 

By following these theories he believed that war could bring peace while harming as little people as possible. However his theory was not always obeyed even though they made a lot of sense. The Crusades follow some of these laws and disregard some as well.

For example their justification of the war was to take the Holy Land from the Muslims because they believed that it did not rightfully belong to them. And the pope approved of this which meant it was 'initiated by the government of a higher power.' There was also a high chance of success for them because they believed that God was on their side and he would wipe out the non-believers. The Crusaders also argued that the Muslims attacked them first because they took away their Holy Land, so it was the right thing to do to take it back. So technically they were just defending themselves and their country. They also argue that they were trying to re-establish peace, however they do not say who they were re-establishing it for. In fact it seems that they caused thousands of deaths in their violent attempt for 'peace.' They also did not use proportionality, they killed everything in their sight and did not care for any civilians that were muslims. They were relentless in their 'attempt for peace'.

Hitler's Jail Book

In Hitler's Book he states "There are some truths, which are so obvious that for this very reason they are not seen or at least not recognized by ordinary people." This quote means that there are some truths that are so painfully obvious that everyday people do not recognize them or pay attention to them because they are so obvious. Hitler is saying that ordinary people are dumb and because they cannot see these truths, and that only he is smart enough to see them. So basically he is calling everyone else besides him stupid. This is an Ad Hominem because he is attacking everyone rather than arguing about the truths. He calls everyone stupid and completely distracts us from the real argument which is about the obvious truths 

Intelligent Design vs. Evolution

ok, so for quite some time the controversy between evolution and the church has been evident. And there some people are debating whether intelligent design should be taught in classrooms as an alternative to evolution. I myself think that it should be just to show kids that evolution is not necessarily true and that another theory is there too. I'm not sure whether I believe in intelligent design or evolution. Both arguments are convincing and have strong supports. So here is what I think of both:

Intelligent Design is basically the belief in Creationism, God made everything here on Earth exactly the way its suppose to be, and everything works perfectly together because of God. For example, when we breathe out it produces carbon dioxide which helps trees live; and trees turn that carbon dioxide into oxygen which helps people live. Evolution is a theory not a fact, and "the complexity of an organism is evidence for the existent of God." God created the complex systems so that they'd only work if all components work together at the same time. 

Evolution is technically states as change in the gene pool of a population from generation to generation by such processes as mutation, natural selection, and genetic drift. This  contradicts intelligent design, because that means that God didn't create Everything. It means that we learned to adapt to our surroundings and there are several alternatives such as natural selection and the big bang theory that provide answers to how the world came to be, rather than God created it. By saying God created it, means that we are having blind fate because we cannot prove that he did or did not, there is no record of it. Basically intelligent design cannot be proven by an experiment, therefore it is not legit. 

Does a New president mean that Affirmative Action will change for minorities?

So the debate today in class was about Barrack Obama's presidency, and considering that he is an African American, the topic of whether Minorities will still have the opportunity to go to college, as they do now. I think that minorities should still get the privileges that they do now for college. 

The reason I do believe that minorities should be able to get into colleges with the privileges of being a minority is because, most minorities come from a poor neighborhood. Students in high school might already be forced to have a job to help out in the family, and having a job doesn't leave much time to do homework or study for tests. This being the case, their GPA might not be as high as somebody who has the time to study and do homework. Therefore, this could limit their chances to go into college and try to earn a better living. Some minorities try very hard to get into college but sometimes it is not possible because of the conditions they live in or money might be tight. However, white people are usually the richer ones and the ones in charge and sort of see minorities as lower class. And when that happens, the minorities believe that they are lower class and act like it too, so they might believe that they are living the way they are suppose to be and things can't improve. Since most white people can afford a good education and the time to become educated it is easier for them. The only reason why they wouldn't be able to go to college is because they were lazy in high school. Also just because our President is African American doesn't mean that minorities aren't suffering anymore. It just means that he was well educated, possibly because of the Affirmative Action and he got the opportunity to get to the place that he is now. Therefore, we should continue this because it will create more educated people and enable minorities to live a better life and provide it for their children.