Chapter 8

     Chapter 8 talks about the formulation of arguments for presentation purposes.  The information in this chapter is pertinent to our multi-modal project in that it will help us make our arguments as well as form our rhetorical perspectives to help push our argument.  Different decorum work for different purposes, such as academic versus public presentations.  Academic works, such as the multi-modal assignment, should be presented in either a grandiose fashion or a formal fashion.  The grandiose style of argumentation is used seldomly, and only for highly academic papers, such as different term papers, research papers, and at the request of teachers or superiors.  The formal style of writing is used for most academic papers, as it is shows that you have a mastery of the topic at hand.  With the final style of writing, the plain style, is mostly for informative purposes, as it tailors to an audience that is not familiar with the subject at hand.  With all of these methods of writing, the multi-modal project can be tailored to whatever audience we are presenting to.  This chapter also talks about the use of rhetorical devices used in order to shape the argument throughout the course of the presentation.  Images and word choice are important parts of the rhetorical aspect of these writing styles.  By using these rhetorical devices, it is possible to shape the argument of the multi-modal project to suit the purpose claimed by the group as a whole.  In the use of these styles of writing and the rhetorical devices, even the most intricate nuances of the group's argument can be accurately explained.

The Past is the Present

                When making decisions, one can only rely on what he or she has experienced (disregarding communication through society).  Mary cannot make a decision based on what Alice knows without Alice telling Mary what happened.  Based on this limitation, one can safely assume that any choice is based off of experiences in one’s past.  When one considers this, it brings a whole new light to the term “The past determines the future.”  As we live out our early lives, our young minds are conditioned by our experiences.  Some people are conditioned to like certain activities, and others are likewise conditioned to appreciate other activities.  In the same matter, our views on society are marginally influenced by our pasts.  Different factors, like parenting, hate crimes, and many other things can all have an effect on what we believe later on in life, and how we view the world around us.

                For example, take two intellectual twins.  If one grows up in the slums of one of the world’s biggest cities, he will be inclined to appreciate what he has, rather than wanting for more than he deserves.  However, if his intellectual twin were to have a life settled in the pleasant country, thriving on a millionaire’s budget, his views of materialism might be a little less stringent than his counter-part’s.  On the whole, we can apply this to nearly all facets of society and perspectives in general.  When a child grows up being the victim of hate crimes, he is being conditioned, one way or another, to believe one thing or another.  If a child grows up with Republican parents all his life, he is going to be inclined to view the Republican side of any argument to be the most logical, because they hearken back to the methodology of the problem that their parents instilled in them while they were young.

                Granted, if someone were to completely detach themselves from the problem and look at it objectively, meaning that all past experiences were rendered null in the deciding of the problem, then it is possible that the past of a person could not influence the decisions that are being made in the present.  After all, even though the past is a significant factor in our present decisions, it, by no means, sets our choices in stone.

Annotated Bibliography               

Jackson Stagg

Farrelly, Maura. "God is the Author of Both." American Society of Church History. 77.03 (2008): 659-87. Web. 13 Oct. 2011. <http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayFulltext?type=1&fid=2163752&jid=CHH&volumeId=77&issueId=03&aid=2163744&bodyId=&membershipNumber=&societyETOCSession=>.

In this excerpt, Maura Farrelly expertly explains how science does not necessarily disprove theism.   In fact, throughout her argument, and with many outside citations, she proves that there are many aspects of science that actually prove theism.

Savino, Damien. "Atheistic Science: The Only Option?" Logos: A Journal of Catholic Thought and Nature. 12.04 (2009): 56-71. Web. 13 Oct. 2011. <http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/logos/v012/12.4.savino.html>.

With his rational thinking and logical citations, Damien Savino provides intellectual dissertations on many atheistic and theistic aspects, providing wide-held views coupled with his own, as well as explaining many other views held on the topics at hand.

Markham, Ian. "Against Atheism: Why Dawkins, Hitchens, and Harris are Fundamentally Wrong." Ars Disputandi. 11. (2011): n. page. Web. 18 Oct. 2011. <http://www.arsdisputandi.org/publish/articles/000377/article.pdf>.

                Ian Markham discusses the New Atheist movement, especially 3 of the foremost atheists in the group.  Over the course of the article, he explains the viewpoints of these atheists, and counters them with others’ viewpoints or his own.

Goodrum, Matthew. "Atomism, Atheism, and the Spontaneous Generation of Human Beings: The Debate over a Natural Origin of the First Humans in Seventeenth-Century Britain." Ars Disputandi. 63.2 (2002): 207-224. Web. 18 Oct. 2011. <http://muse.jhu.edu/login?uri=/journals/journal_of_the_history_of_ideas/v063/63.2goodrum.html>.

                This article is a purely factual one.  It explains the beliefs held by Atheists and Atomists alike, and these facts will help me form my argument by concretely understanding the viewpoint of atheists.

"Atheism: Common Arguments." infidels.org. N.p., 1997. Web. 18 Oct 2011. <http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/mathew/arguments.html>.

                This source is an encyclopedia of sorts to understand common atheistic arguments.  With these, I will be able to formulate counter-points for many diverse atheistic arguments.

 "Arguments Against God: Atheological Arguments for Atheism and Against the Existence of God." About.com. N.p., n.d. Web. 18 Oct 2011. <http://atheism.about.com/od/argumentsagainstgod/Arguments_Against_God_Atheological_Arguments_for_Atheism.htm>.

               This article is also a faux encyclopedia of atheistic arguments with which to research and obtain counter-points for, thus strengthening my argument.

Craig, William, and Walter Sinnott-Armstrong. "God? A Debate Between a Christian and an Atheist." Ars Disputandi. 4. (2004): n. page. Web. 18 Oct. 2011. <http://www.arsdisputandi.org/publish/articles/000163/article.pdf>.

                A scholarly debate between a Christian and an Atheist will provide first-hand knowledge on viewpoints and counter-points alike for both Christian and Atheistic arguments.

Perkins, R. "An Atheistic Argument from the Improvability of the Universe." Nous. 17.2 (1983): 239-250. Web. 19 Oct. 2011. <http://www.jstor.org/stable/2215144>.

This article is a scientific view of the statistics that make up the universe, and how they support atheistic views.

Lorca, Daniel. "A Critique of Quentin Smith's Atheistic Argument from Big Bang Cosmology." Philosophy. 70.271 (1995): n. page. Web. 19 Oct. 2011. <http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract;jsessionid=3788BAEC358DF546FB5A64934AA337FA.journals?fromPage=online&aid=3497960>.

                Daniel Lorca uses prominent scientific atheist Quentin Smith’s argument from “Big Bang Cosmology” in order to point out critiques in the atheistic viewpoint.

Collins, Robin. Traditional Arguments for the Existence of God. Sixth. Wadsworth: Cengage Learning, 2003. 202-219. eBook. <http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=Lj1sucLzZmUC&oi=fnd&pg=PA202&dq=atheistic arguments&ots=lBAtsSD4sn&sig=C5GnYjf64hjVlDXP1gbbt3Rmkhs

                This source will be a faux encyclopedia for Arguments that support Theism, and will help strengthen my argument with appropriate citations.

Smith, Quentin. "Swinburne's explanation of the universe." Religious Studies. 91-102. Web. 19 Oct. 2011. <http://www.jstor.org/stable/20008142>.

                Quentin Smith, a foremost scientific atheist, takes a look at Swineburne’s explanation of the universe, and discusses the points behind it pertaining to the spiritual plane.

 

Clements, Tad. Science vs. Religion. 1st. New York: Prometheus Books, 1990. Print.

                Tad Clements, in his work “Science vs. Religion”, explains why science does not necessarily disprove a theistic viewpoint, and in some cases, discovers why scientific and empirical evidence supports the claims for theism.

http://www.arsdisputandi.org/publish/articles/000163/article.pdf

The preceding is an argument between an atheist and a christian, and contains many Atheistic arguments, as well as their christian counter-points.

http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/journal_of_the_history_of_ideas/v063/63.2goodrum.html

This link contains a look at the atheistic and atomistic views on spontaneous generation of human beings.

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/mathew/arguments.html

This link is a library which documents quite a few well known atheist viewpoints, as well as counterpoints found by the theistic public in order to disprove them.

http://atheism.about.com/od/argumentsagainstgod/Arguments_Against_God_Atheological_Arguments_for_Atheism.htm

This link is another library for atheistic arguments that can easily be accessed.

http://www.arsdisputandi.org/publish/articles/000377/article.pdf

This link contains a PDF which looks at a few atheists who are part of the New Atheist Movement, their arguments, and theistic counterpoints.

2 Ideas for a Research Paper

1. The flaws in arguments for common scientific and natural atheism arguments.

2. The many changes in the feminist viewpoint since historic times.

Many forms of rhetoric appear in this image, and although not all of them appear right away, some of the rhetorical devices present in this image go very deep into the audiences’ perceptions of many different individual aspects of the image.