Nicole Bornales

PHILO After I’ve been introduced to Philosophy of Religion, I learned that what is being offered by Religion are not often subject to the careful and thorough examination of reason and logic. And through that I was able to see that religion itself has its basis in belief. Wherein philosophy takes place on its role to critic the beliefs and beliefs systems. The combination of the two different field becomes the philosophical examination of themes and concepts involved in religious traditions as well as the deeper philosophical understanding and reflection on quality matters of religious significance including the nature of religion itself, alternative concepts of God or ultimate reality, and the religious significance of general features of the cosmos such as the laws of nature, the emergence of consciousness and of historical events. With the guidance of the reading materials and discussions, I got to create a broad perspective of what counts as religion and its relations to what we call philosophy of religion, which gave door to the earliest forms of philosophy to be well appreciated and known. Through the learnings I had, I can say that Philosophy of religion as a field is very broad and complex since there are so many interests that are present in both religious and philosophical traditions, wherein both religious and philosophical thinking raise many of the same, fascinating questions and possibilities about the nature of reality, the limits of reason, the meaning of life, and so on. The topics about Medieval Philosophy taught me so many things. First I got to learn that medieval philosophy is consists of thorough examination of different ancient philosophers such as Plato and Aristotle whom made lots and broad combinations of their own philosophical insights and realizations about existence of God and relating to man and cosmos. Second is that I was able to know that Christianity was supported and founded by this certain philosophy wherein many philosophers had scattered their unique views about it, while being in an era of both criticalism and rationalism – which I think challenged the best out of the philosophers that time, to defend and explain Christianity through reason or the known “Faith seeking understanding”. Through that I was able to see how reason would affect matters about faith. However, I believe that reasoning has its limitation, not everything in faith can be supported by reasons. The last thing I learned in this topic is the significance of the medieval philosophy in connection with the present times. I believe that the rise of medieval philosophy gave birth to harmony of reason and faith in terms of explaining the known Supreme Being. One of my reflections about St. Anselm’s ontological argument is that the argument itself is very captivating. Its argument mainly focuses on the existence of the known “all-perfect God” and its process of reasoning systematically in support of the idea utilized intuition and reason alone. What I understand about the readings and discussions is that in proving the argument, it used deductive method of reasoning in which the process of reasoning happens from general principles and or premises to derive particular information such as the examined concept of God and his existence. And lastly, the whole argument implies the actual existence of God wherein the idea is if we can conceive of God then God exists. The Cosmological argument of St. Thomas Aquinas gives explanation about the existence of God using five reasons or what is known as “the five ways”. It includes “the first mover”, “first efficient cause”, “the necessary being”, “the absolute being” and lastly “the grand designer”. Mainly the argument focused on the Following; First, the involvement of the evidence of motion that implies that every moving thing needs a mover which is called God, whom is known and labeled as the Unmoved Mover. Second thing is the notion of efficient cause which explained the causes and effects of things that we are seeing and experiencing in the world. Wherein it is emphasized that the first cause and the beginning of everything happening is God. The third idea that the argument implies is that the existence of all things does not owe its existence to itself. To account for all existence, there must be a Necessary Being, which is God. The fourth shows that there exist gradations in things wherein the existence of such gradations implies the existence of an Absolute Being as a fixed starting point. Lastly, the behavior of things in the world implies a Grand Designer or architect whom is called God. He is defined as the director of all actions and processes. From a metaphysical perspective, Aquinas stated and believed confidently and forcefully that the world is better for having the presence of evil within it. What I’ve learned from that is evil serves a greater good, while the natural evil was introduced as something that contributes to the quality of being morally good or virtuous of such creation. I believe that the known Supreme Being called God imposed evil as a punishment to maintain the balance of the universe or the just order of the universe. As for my understanding, evil becomes a basis of goodness, wherein simple terms, the existence of the good becomes much more desirable and people are guided to what is actually right and what is wrong. Because of the given understanding and definition of evil, people have the idea of what makes an action morally right and wrong. What I’ve learned from the topic of modernity and Modern philosophy is that it invites those who desire to live “the examined life”, wherein people are said to follow their own calling through living a life of adopting and examining evidences of what they believe was true instead of living to a fixed beliefs of some group and or tradition. Its significance takes place as it helps me to gain new perspectives regarding on living a new setting of life wherein I am able to create and reflect my own meaning of life, particularly not as something that will passed down to me by my older generations. I realized that these topics is an opportunity for me to create a deeper understanding regarding on traditional beliefs in a larger context while forming considerations of role of chances in my life such as forming a lifelong endeavor of self-overcoming and living a good life without God, – Through the help of that I am able to see the significance of God towards living a good life and creating a better world where natural reasons alone is enough and adequate. Rene Descartes’ version of the ontological argument is about the premise that God is a supremely perfect being and because existence is a perfection, God must exist. What I understand from this discussion is that existence is part of the definition of God. It taught me that the idea of existence cannot be separated from the idea of God and the connection between God and existence is not something we come up with, but rather something we discover. I learned that as finite beings, we cannot think of a necessary being such as God, on our own. It is the fact that God necessarily exists that makes us think that way. The conclusion of Descartes’ ontological argument is not that God exists, but that God exists necessarily. Here, we can see the similarity of Descartes’ ontological argument is to St Anselm’s wherein it is also argued that because God is a being ‘that than which no greater can be conceived’, God must exist by necessity because otherwise it would not be the greatest being. What I’ve learned from the readings and discussions on David Hume is that it is unreasonable to believe testimonies of alleged miraculous events and that we should reject religions that are founded on miracle testimonies. The larger aim of his critique was to separate philosophy from religion and allow philosophy to pursue its own ends without rational or psychological corruption. In moral theory, against the common view that God plays an important role in the creation and reinforcement of moral values, he offered one of the first purely secular moral theories, which grounded morality in the pleasing and useful consequences that result from our actions. Immanuel Kant’s moral argument taught me that human beings are called moral beings because of the reason that we have the ability of being rational –we are able to process, think, analyze and consider what we are doing and the reason behind it. Also, I learned that on the principle of morality, there are things we recognize as being required of us irrespective of what we really desires to do. Which explained that it is not the desires that move us to do what is right or wrong but rather our “Good will” which is also said that comes with moral worth, wherein any acts which are performed despite of conflicting desires are due to good will. This means that if one considers his\her actions, it means that there is a recognition of the existence of good. One of what I’ve learned on the discussion of the problem of unbelief is linked with faith and reason, wherein reason is understood as a principle for a methodological inquiry including intellectual, moral, or religious. While faith involves an act of will and commitment on the part of an individual who is a believer. I think the point of this discussion is to show that the basis of most religions are usually described, interpreted and revealed in sacred pronouncements such as by oral traditions or canonical writings, supported of divine authority and usually presented in the literary forms of narrative, parable, or discourse. Wherein it is believed that they are measure immune from critiques or examination, resulting to the verification of other religious beliefs to be viewed as a kind of category mistake. What I’ve learned from the discussions of Ludwig Feuerbach’s demystification of theology is about the notion of the ‘divine’ or ‘God’ which was actually only a human projection wherein it is said that the physical world can be hostile, leading us to seek shelter, the emotional life can be chaotic, so we tend to seek stability and fulfillment, also the search for meaning can become discouraging making us to seek hope – all of these, according to Feuerbach, are the reasons why we project the fulfillment of our desires, thus creating a God who answers them. My understandings on Karl Marx’s critique on religion is that he described religion as the same as any other social institutions. It is said to be independent and is the creature of productive forces, and is a form of illusion that provides reasons and excuses to keep society functioning as it takes our highest ideals and aspirations and alienates us from them and turning them onto a being called “god”. According to Marx, religion is irrational because it’s a delusion and worship of appearances that avoids recognizing underlying reality. He believed that gods brings fire to humanity in a way that they do not recognize man’s self-consciousness as the highest divinity. And lastly, it is hypocritical because of the reason that although it asserts valuable principles, it sided with the oppressors, which is seen in events wherein Jesus advocated helping the poor, but the Christian church merged with the oppressive Roman state, taking part in the enslavement of people for centuries and the Catholic Church preached about heaven but acquired as much property and power as possible during the middle Ages. Things I gained from Fried Nietzsche’s critique on ethics and Christianity; human beings build identities from own self-realizations without relying to such a God or soul. Also, I learned about the “will to power” wherein it is said to be the world’s process of organizing and reorganizing in an unending turns (no beginning and end), that which creates new relationships that drives the process of evolution. Also, about the known “higher men” whom are said to be responsible for the enrichment of humanity with cultural life from nihilism (a belief in nothing at all that would lead to chaos) to blend the human condition with the world, where the concepts of good and evil in religions like Christianity is emphasized as meekness, humility, love, equality and the "common good", which are also viewed as only acted/act to weaken a people's/culture's strongest members. Nietzsche’s critique taught me that all humans have a "will to power" however it is made limited by moral systems since it privileged a group rather than individuals. I believe that we owe it to the first strongest members of the societies like Plato, Alexander the Great and even Christ himself because I think it is their bravely acts of escaping from the traditional moral principles such as the concepts of "good and evil" of their own people that gave rise to the advancement and enlightenments of today’s World. Jean Paul Sartre’s abandonment and affirmation of freedom. His term of “abandonment” was used to describe humans as beings who are condemned to be free, wherein they would carries moral responsibility for all their choices including the choice to do nothing, even without objective moral laws from an authoritative source such as God –resulting to a claim that because humans are condemned to be free, they live in constant severe mental and physical pain or suffering, where humans define their very essence upon making choices. It is according to Sartre’s “existentialism” that it is the existence and choices that makes a life meaningful. There is no basis or standard for how must an individual should be and also no authoritative God who will provide such basis and standards, leaving people to become who they want to be and lead the life they want to live. Which can be also viewed as a chance of discovering their own will, establish orders and ethics out of it while evolving and adapting to the world they are shaping through their decisions –that explains the burden of responsibility that humans has to bear and what puts them to constant anguish. My insights on “I and Infinite, a phenomenological reflection” is that we cannot stand alone, People needs other people in order to achieve this thing called “Life”, wherein the individual’s nature is described as something that is infinite in terms of contentment, resulting them to asks and seek for more. And the reason behind the human constant seeking is that it’s because they are longing for a meaningful life/purpose. My understandings regarding Martin Buber’s study on religion and redemption; God can be known only in his relation to man, not apart from it. And it is in a form of a prayer in which Man and God unites, it is considered as an action of turning such self directly to God and asking for a manifestation of a divine presence. Also, the belief of redemption of evil is viewed as something that is not a security of salvation. And it is the trust in the ultimate oneness of God and faith in the power of the spirit to penetrate and transform all impulses and desires, to uplift and sanctify everything material. It is the faith ‘that there is really only One Power which, while at times it may permit the sham powers of the world to accomplish something in opposition to it. Wherein in between the selfrighteous avoidance of the evil of others and the acceptance and willing of evil lies the difficult path of taking evil upon oneself without being corrupted by it and transforming it into love.