A Response to A Conglomoration of Posts and General Concepts

After reading around some of the various posts from last week and this week, I wanted to just offer some thoughts I was having about a topic that is frequently discussed.  The tendency for philosophers to insert a "God" to fill gaps in arguments occurs quite often.  I wonder just how many philosophers insert a deity into their theories?  How does this affect the credence of the arguments, when from the perspective of an atheist or of another religious denomination? The theory of human nature I find most valid is Darwin's, due to foundations in science and fact.  I will (subconsciously) dismiss a theory because God is given credit. How can a theory be adhered to if components of the theory attribute great explanations to an idea that cannot be proven? For example, maybe a poor one, but if I was eating a salad and enjoying all the delicious components, really understanding why it was so appealing to me and then I notice throughout the salad little vile squiggly worms.  The addition of the off-putting ingredient would cause me to reject the salad as a whole entity.  I may still have sentiment for the lettuce and vegetables but my sentiment for eating the contents of the bowl are now gone.  This is the way I feel about theories that incorporate religious figures.  Like a delicious salad, appetizing and appealing until you notice the worms. 

Discussion-based Topic

Professor Johnson was discussing on Wednesday that systemic obstacles exist in how we think of education.  The common mistake (for lack of a better word) made by students is the goal to achieve success based on numerical grading as opposed to actual educational and intellectual gain. 

I inquire, how distracting is the narrow objective of obtaining scrupulous grades?  Does it completely hinder acquisition of true knowledge and obliterate critical thought?  Is life so consumed with the occupation that its creates a further barrier from not only academic alternatives but pervades to all facets of ones actions?   Myself, I strive for nothing less than academic excellence, however I do recognize I am making negative concessions in regards to the totality of educational possibilities.  How would you characterize yourself?

Kant's World

We discussed on Monday some of the views of Kant.  One of particular interest was his belief that the world has no character until we, as sentient beings, give it one.  I certainly can understand the origins of this statement; if I deduce all components of our lives (material, natural, geographical, etc.) I clearly understand that the very core structure of life is composed of many facets constructed by various organisms.  When standing alone in the wilderness we feel the wind, hear the wildlife, and smell nature.  These are perceived as evidence that the world is defined BEFORE us, however the inverse is true.  As humans we impose ourselves on the world; we organize the chain of cause in all realms of life.  Because my act of standing and observing and perceiving defines the natural world, I am, in essence, creating a subjective world that is dictated by my thoughts and actions.  Do you think this is a fair example, or am I completely mislead?