Socrates Project (Final Reflection)
Introduction
On November sixth, twenty twenty-five, I joined a group of students in downtown Athens to engage in Socratic dialogue with the university students. Socratic dialog requires not only the initial prompt question but following up with others in order to lead the conversation deeper and challenge one’s assumptions and beliefs. With the knowledge that this type of questioning has led to the asker being in trouble, I felt a bit wary to go into downtown Athens. Socrates himself, after all, was arrested and eventually died because of the questions he asked.
For the project, I was paired with two other students from my class and together we found people to ask the three philosophical questions we’d been given. As we conversed with the students downtown, there was one question that continually drew people into deeper discussion: “Why is there something instead of nothing?” One participant had a lot to say about why we were here and how life came to be, but if she was attempting to paint a picture with her words, it appeared to be an abstract. Later, we spoke with a pair of Jehovah’s Witnesses, who gave us the deepest insight on their perspective of life. Despite many of the answers we got being repetitive, there were a few that led to deeper discussion and required us to ask more questions to get a broader understanding as to what the person’s perspective was on existence and purpose.
The Dialogue Process
By far the most interesting conversation we had was with a science major who eagerly answered the question of why we exist. She stated that she believed we were here by happenstance but developed to be more efficient over time. After we asked what she meant by that, she gave an example of a zebra and its stripes; although the mutation probably began randomly, it stayed because it developed a purpose. She did not explain what the purpose the stripes of a zebra served. We asked if she thought we were here at random or on purpose, to which she answered, “Both. We’re here at random and find our purpose as we live.” In light of this sudden existentialism, we asked if she thought humans had some sort of higher purpose. Although she didn’t turn her nose up at the notion, she made it clear she doesn’t like religion. She stated that she doesn’t believe any religion to be false because religion acts as a comfort for people, something to hold onto so we feel more important. In her eyes, the way she sees the world is factual and logical. In mine, however, she seems pessimistic and by saying things like “no religion is false” she doesn’t seem to have strong, solid beliefs. Our conversation ended around here, leaving me and my partner feeling confused as to what exactly she believed. We were certain she thought life was random, but the way she went about explaining her views was all over the place.
Analysis
The conversations we initiated downtown were more difficult than I had previously predicted. Once we got past the difficulty of asking people if they had time to answer one of our three questions, the challenge became thinking of follow-up questions. Due to personal awkwardness and the general feeling of being annoying, I fear I didn’t pull my own weight well in creating a dialog. Replying to someone’s explanation of their belief with a countering, albeit non-confrontational, question was hard. The few questions I did come up with didn’t stimulate enough of an answer to lead me to another, deeper question. The two major exceptions to this were our conversation with the Jehovah’s Witnesses and the aforementioned science major. In the latter, our dialog partner seemed set in her ways, and we didn’t prod deep enough to find a flaw in her belief out of a fear of provocation. With the JW’s, however, there was a turning point within the conversation. One of them—referred to henceforth as “Abe”—answered the question “How do we know we exist?” by saying we can’t because there’s no proof. When his friend said we know we exist because of consciousness, Abe ceded, adding that reason is also a factor.
The best conversation tool we found was simply asking for clarification; The more we attempted to lead the conversation to a certain place, the less clear people’s answers were. A few people we spoke with, such as the science major, seemed hyper focused on one particular point they wanted to make. A local author we spoke with answered each question by talking about a person’s uniqueness. In his eyes, uniqueness is how we know we’re real and the reason we’re here. While beliefs like this are interesting to hear, it made it hard to get back to a comprehendible train of thought.
Personal Insight
This project reminded me of an experience I had doing a prayer walk in downtown Atlanta last year; It was interesting and a tad scary, but now that it’s been done, I recognize how the world needs more people doing things like this. From this experience, I recognize that I don’t have a strong grasp on philosophical viewpoints that aren’t my own. I may be able to recognize some opposing views, but I’m not yet equipped to rebuttal them from a place of understanding. Because I don’t fully comprehend how some people view the world, I’m left unaware how to lead that belief to the light of truth that is Christ. I also wish I had spoken up more to ask questions and gain a better understanding of each person’s worldview and philosophical beliefs. Listening to someone talk and attempting to think of questions to ask in order to get a broader understanding of the points they’re trying to make is hard and not something that comes naturally to me. That being said, I’m eager to have more of these philosophical conversations where I can ask deep, clarifying, and somewhat provoking questions in order to better grasp these alternative worldviews and beliefs.
This project gave me an assurance that I truly believe in what I know to be true. While listening to the beliefs of others, I was easily able to see how they didn’t light up with Scripture and what ways they were led astray by the voices of the world. My problem lies in the fact that as of now I’m not confident enough in leading the conversation towards Christ or willing to critique the beliefs of others. Despite this flaw, if asked, I’m fairly certain I could well-articulate what I believe and why from a philosophical view.
Philosophical Theory
The science major we spoke with has an existentialist mindset, viewing life as purposeless and humanity as a coincidental factor of the universe with religion, as Marx put it, being “the opiate of the people.”1 She held firm to the belief that we have no innate purpose, but we find or develop it as we live, stating that religion did this for some, acting as a comfort against the true purposelessness of life. In retrospect, I would have loved to have utilized the ontological argument used by Descartes2 to attempt a dialog about the validity of a one true God and if it was a possible, if not vital, part of existence. In Descartes’ argument for God, he states that since we can fathom such a thing as perfection, it must exist somewhere. He argues the same thing with the concept of infinity, that if we can fathom it, there must be something that exists eternally within it and, since we know of it, we must have at some point interacted with it. Lastly, Descartes states that if the greatest thing we can conceive of is a God who only exists in our minds, He’s not truly the greatest thing we can think of. This idea, the last point in particular, was developed by St. Anselm and Thomas Aquinas before Descartes.
Future Application
I anticipate having a lot of philosophical conversations in my ministry work. Deaf churches and ASL ministries are few in number and quite young. With the Deaf church in America being younger than 200 years old,3 there are a lot of theological and philosophical questions that have yet to be approached by the community. While some of these may be addressed by the denomination the Deaf church is under or through an interpreter, I hope to be more hands-on in my ministry (pun intended). I don’t want to just be an interpreter, I want to be in the community, guiding them deeper with Christ. A part of my job may include having these philosophical conversations with the Deaf, using the methods I’ve learned in this class from Aquinas, Descartes, and others. In my personal life, I desire to grow in my ability to articulate why I believe what I believe and how I know it’s true. There are plenty of people in my church who have questions concerning life and existence and I want to do my part in leading them to a theological and philosophical answer. Although many believers may depend on the argument that “it’s faith, there’s nothing else you need to do but believe,” I’ve had enough thoughtful friends to know that some people need harder proof than that. I want God to use my words and beliefs to shed light on the way He made the world and bring the lost into belief in Him.
Bibliography
Nolan, Lawrence. “Descartes’ Ontological Argument.” Standford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, (May 5, 2025). https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/descartes-ontological/
Papke, David R.. “Karl Marx on Religion.” Marquette University Law School, (Jan. 20th, 2025). https://law.marquette.edu/facultyblog/2015/01/karl-marx-on-religion/comment-page-1/
Sheridan, Sharon. “Episcopal deaf ministries continue long history of services in new ways.” Episcopal News Service. https://episcopalnewsservice.org/2013/07/11/episcopal-deaf-ministries-continue-long-history-of-service-in-new-ways/
