The questions that were discussed today seem to focus more on supernaturalism than naturalism. This made me realize that supernaturalism is the bigger "issue" of the two that prevents naturalism and supernaturalism to coexist peacefully today. Although we only discussed two questions, I felt that we discussed them thoroughly and came to understandable conclusions.
The question of whether naturalists and supernaturalists prevent these two sides from peacefully coexisting opened my eyes to how narrow minded radical supernaturalists are. To fight for their beliefs and believe that there way is the only way shows how narrow minded they can be. This shows me how more open minded naturalists are and how much they deal with through a government that is truly not religiously neutral. Should politicians only be atheists? Is that the only way government can truly be religiously neutral? Also, this makes me wonder if there should be laws that prevent supernaturalists from allowing their religious views to have full control of government issues.
Another question that was discussed is would there still be morals if supernaturalists did not exist anymore. First of all, supernaturalism has been around for so long that it will not fall off the face of the earth. Next, I do not believe morals are solely based on one's religious beliefs. I believe that morals are based on what believe is right and what they believe is wrong. Yes, religion does influence morals to an extent. Although, some religious people, like myself, do not allow their religious beliefs to influence their morals. Personally, I believe that saying morals are controlled by religious beliefs is just an excuse for people to have no morals whatsoever.
This was the most insightful discussion for me yet and came to the realization that sometimes you think you know everything about something but in reality you don't.
Friday, September 28, 2007
Thursday, September 27, 2007
Bernard Russell "What I Believe"
Bernard Russell's essay on tape, What I Believe, told us about what he believes. One thing that he said that really struc me was that no religion is more probable than the other. I thought that this was interesting because it made me question whether it is worth following a certain religion. Does religion truly matter as much as people say? Is religion just a waste of time or is should people still follow a certain religion? Russell makes people question their faith and made me wonder if believing in a God will get me anywhere in my life. Russell also discusses what the good life is.
According to Ruseell, the good life is inspired by love and guided by knowledge. He says that love is more fundamental than knowledge. This makes me realize how important love could potentially be in our lives. Russell goes further by discussing how love is both pure delight and pure benevolence. He says that all of us what to be loved which I believe is very true. The sense of being is a sense of comfort; it allows people to see that another human being truly cares about then and wants theh best for them. Also, Russell states that love between people either succeeds or fails together. This struck because it shows me how love is something that two people have to work towards and that two people work against. Love does not fail because of one person's mistakes. It fails because both parties did not work to make love succeed. I am looking forward to writing more about the rest of the first half of the essay.
According to Ruseell, the good life is inspired by love and guided by knowledge. He says that love is more fundamental than knowledge. This makes me realize how important love could potentially be in our lives. Russell goes further by discussing how love is both pure delight and pure benevolence. He says that all of us what to be loved which I believe is very true. The sense of being is a sense of comfort; it allows people to see that another human being truly cares about then and wants theh best for them. Also, Russell states that love between people either succeeds or fails together. This struck because it shows me how love is something that two people have to work towards and that two people work against. Love does not fail because of one person's mistakes. It fails because both parties did not work to make love succeed. I am looking forward to writing more about the rest of the first half of the essay.
Tuesday, September 25, 2007
Is Coexisting A Simple Matter?
Is coexisting a simple matter? No, I do not believe it is. In fact, I did not realize how complicated it is until the discussion on Monday. Having naturalism and supernaturalism coexist is possible; it has been for several years. Although, can naturalism and supertnaturalism coexist peacefully? Through the discussion on Monday, I began to realize how complicated it is and how many issues in today's society factor into it coexisting peacefully. These big issues mainly come from the government.
Can the government be religious neutral? As nice as that idea sounds, I do not believe it is possible anymore. If somene is passionate about their faith, it will affect their political views and decisions. Religion is not something that can be "thrown out of the picture" when discussing issues such as abortion, stem cell research, and mostly importantly to citizens of Massachusetts, gay marriage. People's religious beliefs usually drive them to agree or disagree with these issues.
Should abortion be illegal? My persnal opinion is that it should not. However, many religious people say it should be because they believe that the baby is human even before it is born. In some states abortion is illegal. Should it be illegal because of one of the Ten Commandments, Thou Shall Not Murder, or should it be legal to prevent pregnant women who need to have an abortion for their own safety? This is not a black and white issue and nor should it be. This is when women's rights and religious beliefs conflict. Which beliefs are more important to the government--women's or religious?
Personally, I do not know that much about stem cell research. The link below is a link to the wikipedia article on stem cell research.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stem_cell
Should stell cell research go on even though it destroys the human embryo? Who will ultimately prevail in this battle--science or religion? Right now, religion is winning. Although, is that truely fair. Isn't our government supposed to be politically neutral?
Lastly, gay marriage is a major issue. Currently, it is legal in Massachusetts, but should it become illegal? Should the defintion of marriage change to be two people that love each other instead of a man and a woman who love each other?
Many questions come up when discussing naturalism vs. supernaturalism that are hard to answer sometimes. This is making me wonder whether it is humanly possible for naturalism and supernaturalism to coexist peacefully in the near future.
Can the government be religious neutral? As nice as that idea sounds, I do not believe it is possible anymore. If somene is passionate about their faith, it will affect their political views and decisions. Religion is not something that can be "thrown out of the picture" when discussing issues such as abortion, stem cell research, and mostly importantly to citizens of Massachusetts, gay marriage. People's religious beliefs usually drive them to agree or disagree with these issues.
Should abortion be illegal? My persnal opinion is that it should not. However, many religious people say it should be because they believe that the baby is human even before it is born. In some states abortion is illegal. Should it be illegal because of one of the Ten Commandments, Thou Shall Not Murder, or should it be legal to prevent pregnant women who need to have an abortion for their own safety? This is not a black and white issue and nor should it be. This is when women's rights and religious beliefs conflict. Which beliefs are more important to the government--women's or religious?
Personally, I do not know that much about stem cell research. The link below is a link to the wikipedia article on stem cell research.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stem_cell
Should stell cell research go on even though it destroys the human embryo? Who will ultimately prevail in this battle--science or religion? Right now, religion is winning. Although, is that truely fair. Isn't our government supposed to be politically neutral?
Lastly, gay marriage is a major issue. Currently, it is legal in Massachusetts, but should it become illegal? Should the defintion of marriage change to be two people that love each other instead of a man and a woman who love each other?
Many questions come up when discussing naturalism vs. supernaturalism that are hard to answer sometimes. This is making me wonder whether it is humanly possible for naturalism and supernaturalism to coexist peacefully in the near future.
Sunday, September 23, 2007
Naturalism Vs. Supernaturalism--thoughts after the reading
Naturalism vs. supernaturalism--can the coexist or not? Today, society faces this question on a daily basis particularly through the government. Before I read this, I already had my own opinion; I believed and still do that naturalism and supernaturalism can coexist. Out of the three topics we have discussed so far, this one was the easiest for me to understand. Since I attended a Christian high school, this debate came up a lot during discussions--especially in science class.
Personally, I feel that when it comes to naturalism and supernaturalism, people need to take the right stance when discussing it. There is a right and a wrong way to discuss it. I believe the best way to discuss this topic is to come with an open mind and not be defensive. If this is how people discuss it then I believe naturalism and supernaturalism can coexist. If it becomes a "war", they cannot coexist. In fact, I have seen these discussions become a "war."
I feel that the supernaturalists are the ones that are more defensive; they are so stuck on their beliefs and believe it is their way or no way. I think I can make this claim because I went to school with people like that. Having an open mind is the key to having them coexist. It is okay that people won't change thier minds; however, it is a problem when they "attack" people who are not on their side.
I am looking forward to this discussion to see what people have to say.
Personally, I feel that when it comes to naturalism and supernaturalism, people need to take the right stance when discussing it. There is a right and a wrong way to discuss it. I believe the best way to discuss this topic is to come with an open mind and not be defensive. If this is how people discuss it then I believe naturalism and supernaturalism can coexist. If it becomes a "war", they cannot coexist. In fact, I have seen these discussions become a "war."
I feel that the supernaturalists are the ones that are more defensive; they are so stuck on their beliefs and believe it is their way or no way. I think I can make this claim because I went to school with people like that. Having an open mind is the key to having them coexist. It is okay that people won't change thier minds; however, it is a problem when they "attack" people who are not on their side.
I am looking forward to this discussion to see what people have to say.
Friday, September 21, 2007
Concluding Thoughts To Free Will and Determinism
Discussing our questions about free will and determinism was more intense than I thought it would be. One question that intrigued was whether we believe just believe in free will or determinism to make ourselves happy. This made me realize how conceited human beings are. Instead of blaming ourselves for mistakes we have made, we can point the finger and say that it was not our fault because everything is determined for us. Through realizing this, it makes me wonder if people believe in determinism for the right reason.
Through discussing this, I have come to realize that free will vs. determinism is not a black and white issue. Every time you think you know all the answers, you realize that there is so much more you do not know. I do admit, I tend to believe more in free will than determinism, but I am still not completely sure where I stand with this issue.
Through discussing this, I have come to realize that free will vs. determinism is not a black and white issue. Every time you think you know all the answers, you realize that there is so much more you do not know. I do admit, I tend to believe more in free will than determinism, but I am still not completely sure where I stand with this issue.
Wednesday, September 19, 2007
Causes and Evil
What is the ultimate cause of everything? Discussing this issue intrigued me. From an ethics class during high school, I was taught that the "big cause" of everything was God. Although during the discussion in class, I learned otherwise. It confused me and made me wonder if what I thought was wrong or not. By discussing this with my friends who are outside of MCLA, I realized that my opinion has not changed. Through discussing the main cause of everything, it helped me realize how important religion is to philosophy. Religion divides the road of philosophy. It either leads you to the more "Godly" side (ethic and moral standards, God being the main cause) or it leads you the "atheistic" side ( God is not the main cause). Similarly, God had a major factor in the discussion of evil.
Why does evil occur? When Professor Johnson mentioned this question, my mind went back to the beginning of my junior year in high school--when Hurricane Katrina occurred. I remember discussing this question and asking myself why an omniscient and omnipotent God would allow such a thing to occur. Hannah brought up a good point by saying that a "perfect" human being cannot create another "perfect" human being. This question still puzzles my mind. Does evil occur to teach us a lesson. Does it occur because there is no God? In my mind, this is a never ending question.
The discussion today opened my mind to views I hadn't thought of before. It shows me that there is always something new to learn from another point of view.
Why does evil occur? When Professor Johnson mentioned this question, my mind went back to the beginning of my junior year in high school--when Hurricane Katrina occurred. I remember discussing this question and asking myself why an omniscient and omnipotent God would allow such a thing to occur. Hannah brought up a good point by saying that a "perfect" human being cannot create another "perfect" human being. This question still puzzles my mind. Does evil occur to teach us a lesson. Does it occur because there is no God? In my mind, this is a never ending question.
The discussion today opened my mind to views I hadn't thought of before. It shows me that there is always something new to learn from another point of view.
Tuesday, September 18, 2007
Free Will vs. Determinism
Free Will vs. Determinism is more complicated that I thought it would be. Each time I read the article, I have a new thoughts about the debate and question the side I choose. During the class discussion on Monday, it really struck me how many people thought that we did not freely read the essay.
One topic that really struck my mind during the discussion was the idea of free will vs. choices. This struck me because I believe that free will deals with choices. Although during the discussion, I learned that people in the class disagree with this. It allowed me to open my eyes more and made me rethink whether my Q&A answer was accurate or not.
Another topic that struck me was the idea of social pressures hindering people from their free will. When Liz discussed that her friend was forced by her parents to be confirmed, I could understand why free will can be taken away. On the other hand, I believe that it was her friends choice to lose her free will. I think this because I know people who have not been confirmed and their other sibling has. They took the risk to stand up and use their free will to do what they believed was right. I believe that caving in to society/parents' wishes is what makes people not have "free will." It is up to the person whether they want to use their free will or not.
The discussion of determinism also intrigued me. It helped me see how some people's lives are "carved out" for them already and how the have no choice (i.e. Liz's friend being confirmed). Once again, I believe that it is a choice to live a deterministic live or not. I believe that people have the choice to use their free will or follow the path people want them to follow.
Overall, I believe this class discussion gave me a lot of insight. It helped me realize that free will vs. determinism is a lot more confusing than I originally thought. I am looking forward to the discussion tomorrow and wonder if my perspective might change to the oppoosition.
One topic that really struck my mind during the discussion was the idea of free will vs. choices. This struck me because I believe that free will deals with choices. Although during the discussion, I learned that people in the class disagree with this. It allowed me to open my eyes more and made me rethink whether my Q&A answer was accurate or not.
Another topic that struck me was the idea of social pressures hindering people from their free will. When Liz discussed that her friend was forced by her parents to be confirmed, I could understand why free will can be taken away. On the other hand, I believe that it was her friends choice to lose her free will. I think this because I know people who have not been confirmed and their other sibling has. They took the risk to stand up and use their free will to do what they believed was right. I believe that caving in to society/parents' wishes is what makes people not have "free will." It is up to the person whether they want to use their free will or not.
The discussion of determinism also intrigued me. It helped me see how some people's lives are "carved out" for them already and how the have no choice (i.e. Liz's friend being confirmed). Once again, I believe that it is a choice to live a deterministic live or not. I believe that people have the choice to use their free will or follow the path people want them to follow.
Overall, I believe this class discussion gave me a lot of insight. It helped me realize that free will vs. determinism is a lot more confusing than I originally thought. I am looking forward to the discussion tomorrow and wonder if my perspective might change to the oppoosition.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)