Is there a God?

Cosmological argument states that there exists a First Cause or an Uncaused Cause in the universe, and by extension is often used as an argument for the existence of an “unconditioned” or “supreme” being, usually identified as God. On the other hand, the Design Argument proves the existence of God by focusing on the universe as a whole and portraying it as a machine. Machines have intelligent designers and like effects have like causes; therefore, the universe as a whole has an intelligent designer, which is God. (Encyclopædia Britannica 2011)

Those theories are powerful and cause people to believe that perhaps there really is a God. People feel compelled to explain our existence, and therefore do so by believing God created us first. Mankind must have a creator itself, just like every human being must have a mother in order to exist. Thus, the theory makes a very good argument and compels people to be convinced in the existence of a God.

The arguments are very convincing on the surface; many people would not need stronger conviction to believe in God. However, if we break these arguments into pieces, we start to recognize small flaws. As an example, the cosmological argument states that the universe is created by a being outside of the universe, God. However, since all existence requires an explanation, God’s existence itself must first be explained by a third-party source. As another example, in the Design Argument, William Paley compared a watch and the universe: Like a watch, the universe exhibits such a complex design that it could only have been the creation of an intelligent will. In short, all things must have a creator, designer. It is true that for a watch to exist, there must first be a designer. However, this designer does not design time. Time is an existence that is neither created by a watch designer nor God. Time is a neutral stimulus; its existence cannot be explained by either argument.

I find neither argument is convincing in providing the existence of a God. However, I can understand why other people find it convincing enough to believe in the existence of God - because they only look at the argument on the surface and refuse to question the existence of a Supreme Being.

Are humans just like computers?

                Are computers intelligent? Is there any difference between computers and humans? These are the questions that people sometimes wonder about. Computers are only as intelligent as humans make them to be. Humans input knowledge and software into the computers; in a way, it is almost the same as our society inputs knowledge into our brains, trains us the humans to think and to perform in the way society wants us to.

                For instance, thousands of years ago religions had a very powerful influence on people and government; people were forced to learn and to accept that there is a god governing all of us and whom we must obey. In short, religion created society’s norm back then. And as people were growing up, they were conditioned to think that there could be a high and mighty god, which controls everyone’s life. Therefore, people would react by often praying/talking to air and think they are talking to god regarding all the good and bad that happened to them.  It is same as we humans program a computer. We condition the computer to perform and react to achieve a certain desired result.

                However, there is a difference between human and computer, which is emotion. Computers do not have emotion. They are dead-hearted machines which do only what human what it to do. On the other hand, with humans, our emotions help us as individuals decide whether the knowledge that was inputted by society is right or wrong. For example, years ago, homosexuality would be seen as a sin, because human were conditioned to think that way by society/religion. Society thought that if it forced that knowledge onto humans strongly enough, people would suppress all homosexual desires. But human emotions are strong. We might be able to suppress the emotions, but we could not take the emotions away. For a homosexual person, eventually his homosexual desires will surface into his mind and that particular person would start doubting the knowledge that society has been putting into him.

Mind and Brain

In philosophy, Descartes believed that the mind and body are two different substances; our mind is the one that provides us with feelings, wishes, desires, and individuality. In short term our mind is just a soul. The body that Descartes described is our brain; it gives awareness of our thoughts, actions, it is simply just an organ that helps us function on daily basis. As much as I find Descartes’ theories interesting and insightful, as a psychology student, I have to disagree with him on this topic. 

In psychology we have learned all different types of development of personality; it could be by genetic, environment, social circle, past experience…etc, our brain is like a computer, it stores the data and memory, processes it, and then configures all the information, and calculates it for a solution which in the physical world would be our action, emotion, and behavior. 

Our mentality is based on all that we have learned and experienced. What we feel in the present is based on the past; our past makes us who we are today, and who we are in the present shapes the future form of ourselves. Our brain figures all of these steps out, it controls our mental and physical state. People often do many things and feel various emotions without knowing why. This is not because we have an external soul from someone else that is trapped in our body, it is simply because as human beings we do not spend enough time on reviewing and understanding our past, environment, and social circles.

As humans, we are physical and emotional beings. Our mind is our brain, to know what we know, and to feel what we feel is understanding how our brain works.

True knowledge = Individual perspective

    Pragmatism and Feminist Epistemology both challenge our view of what we have learned about defining knowledge. Pragmatism means that the conceptions are to be sought in their practical bearings, that the function of thought is to guide action, and that truth is preeminently to be tested by the practical consequences of belief. Feminist Epistemology is concerned with the ways gender influences our concept of knowledge.
   
    Immanuel Kant believes that knowledge is limited within the bounds of possible experience and is not available to metaphysical. In short, knowledge equals experience. But each different experience leads to different knowledge, so is there an absolute general knowledge that everyone should know? I am not referring to simple mathematics such as 2+2=4 or dogs tend to have four legs. I am talking about more abstract concepts, such whether there really a God or whether homosexuality really is a sin. If we look at those questions from a pragmatist viewpoint, then perhaps we can understand why everyone has different opinions and possesses a different answer. For instance, hundreds of year ago, it would be consider a death worthy if anyone did not believe in god or follow orders from their religion. People had to believe in whichever religion had the most power back then. Or in Iran, homosexuality is viewed as a crime; homosexuals are killed or put into mental institutions. People were taught to think certain way, and their actions and beliefs were forcefully built inside them. The people know that there are consequences to what they choose to believe, and how they think and act.
   

    Feminist epistemology, on the other hand, would argue the issue from a gender perspective. For example, a few years ago, women were never really the bosses of anything; it was very rare to see a woman sit on a high position in any political, financial, or intellectual setting. But now women are empowered all over the globe.  In the United States, we had Hilary Clinton run for the presidency in the Democratic Party and Sarah Palin actually get the Republican nomination to run as Vice President. Many fathers now opt to be stay-home fathers, while their wives go out working in the world. Many women all over the world have become high executives and CEOs in many big corporations. All these changes are still new for us and may still seem as a shock for some people, but why? Why the shocking emotion, why are these changes just happening now? Feminist epistemology explains how our knowledge was influence by the concept of gender, which was passed-down from the elder generation with the traditional point of view on gender. Feminist epistemology believes that tradition belief has to change, men and women are different by gender, but both are equal.
   
    By understanding Kantian theory, pragmatism, and feminist epistemology, I have to come to the conclusion that knowledge is based on what we have experienced and what our surrounding environment has input to our brain. However, is our knowledge also equal to truth? Is there really a God? Is homosexual really a sin? The way I see it is that, our knowledge may begin from experience and input by others, but the knowledge we have is adjustable, changeable. Our knowledge should not be what others have informed us, or based on some past experience, because the truth to others may not be the truth to us, and the experience from the past may not be the same as the reality of the present. Therefore, our own individual knowledge should be what we feel the most comfortable and happy with. People who believe or do not believe in God, or homosexuals who choose to act on their desires, should make those decisions through free will and not be based on our surrounding environment or previous experience/influences.

Experience + surrounding influences = 1^st stage of knowledge. Self analyze + free will = true knowledge.