In Our Mind's Eye

Here's an interesting approach to explaining the seeming complexity, order, and functionality of the universe: maybe it's all in our mind.

Psychologist Paul Bloom argues that we see intentional design and patterns too much... including in things that are actually random. So things that seem so fine-tuned and unlikely from our perspective might not actually be. Here's a video dialogue on this topic:


Bloom has two great books (Descartes' Baby and How Children Learn the Meaning of Words) on how our minds develop from early childhood on.

Blind Watchmaking

Here are some more critical links on the design argument for God's existence.

• Here is an audio interview on Hume's criticisms of the design arg.
• One philosophers' take on the debate between evolution and intelligent design.
• Is our universe fine-tuned for life? Maybe not.
• Wait, can science even judge religious claims, or are they talking about different things? Maybe an inference to the best explanation can help us...
• What about all the "design flaws" in nature? Are they evidence against a supreme designer?
• In the video below, astrophysicist Neil deGrasse Tyson points to all kinds of "stupid design" in the universe.

Reading Response #2

Reading Response #2 is due at the beginning of class on Wednesday, March 26th.  The assignment is to write an approximately 500-word essay on the following prompt:

What do you think best explains the seeming complexity, order, and functionality of natural objects and aspects of the universe? In other words, explain and evaluate the abductive version of the design argument for God's existence.

• First, briefly explain the abductive version of the design argument. Describe the relevant evidence that needs to be explained. List the possible hypotheses that attempt to explain that evidence. And explain why proponents of the design argument believe that the intelligent designer hypothesis is the most plausible one.
• Then, evaluate this argument. Is an intelligent designer the best explanation of this evidence? Or is another explanation better? Tell me your opinion. Do you think the abductive version of the design argument is a good argument or a bad argument? Why? Be sure to defend your opinion with reasons.

The response is based on the design argument section of the textbook (chapters 5, 6, and 7--especially the abduction section on pages 55-57 and chapter 6 on evolution and creationism) and on the discussions we have in class, particularly on October 16th.  Like the other reading responses, you won't be graded on your opinion. You'll be graded on how well you DEFEND your opinion.  Reading response #2 is word 50 points (5% of your overall grade).

Like a Watch, Or an iPhone

Here are some links on the design argument for God's existence.

• Here is a nice explanation of the design argument, along with an explanation of a wild arg for god's existence that we're not studying.
•  Here's an audio interview with Elliott Sober (the author of our textbook) on the design argument:
  
• Here's a long-ish video lecture on the notion of fine-tuning.

God Shtuff

If you've read a good article on god stuff, recommend it to us by emailing me or posting the link in the comments section of this post. In the meantime, I have some stuff for you.

The website Closer to Truth has a ton of short interviews with modern-day philosophers (and other smart people) on their thoughts about god.  Here are some recommended videos on the design argument:

• Philosopher Ernan McMullin likes the design argument.  
• Philosopher Bede Rundle is less convinced.

Hey, where's the interview with an agnostic? Oh, here it is!

• Nick Bostrom (the author of "Do We Live in a Computer Simulation?") argues for agnosticism

The McGurk Effect

Here's a neat video on an optical illusion called the McGurk effect:

My favorite illusions are the ones that still work even after you realize they're just illusions.

Philosocats!

Cute cats and philosophy captions? You know I can't resist:

Buddhism and Ecology Talk

There's a cool talk happening at Rowan on Wednesday morning:

Gereon Kopf from the Department of Religion at Luther College will be giving a talk entitled Meditation, Wisdom, and Compassion: A Zen Buddhist Vision of the Ecological Self for the theorizing at Rowan series on Wedenesday, February 26, at 10:50am in Westby Hall, Room 111.

I'm Certain I'm Doubting

Here are some links related to our discussion of knowledge and skepticism from class.

• What are the philosophical implications of the movie The Matrix?
• Here's a that cool article (pdf) on "live skepticism" we read for class.  There's also an entire book on it.
• A few years ago, I interviewed the author of that book for the Owning Our Ignorance club. Here's the audio interview.
  

Test #1

Test #1 will be held at the beginning of class on Wednesday, February 26th. You will have about 25 minutes to take it. There will be a section on evaluating deductive arguments, and a section of short answer questions on the topics we discussed in class so far:

• philosophy in general
• understanding and evaluating arguments
• types of arguments: deductive and abductive (inferences to the best explanation)
• what is knowledge?
• Plato's account of knowledge
• skepticism
• Descartes battling skepticism

The test is worth 150 points (15% of your overall grade).

And a reminder: the first reading response is due Monday, February 24th.