|
TheLegendaryFrog
|
read my profile
sign my guestbook
Name: Brenden
Country: United States
State: Indiana
Metro: Bloomington
Birthday: 6/18/1988
Gender: Male
Interests: Philosophy, Psychology, Physics, Politics, Performing Arts (A lot of things that begin with P) Computers, Debate, ect...
Expertise: Having an idea and an opinion... about everything.
Occupation: Student
Industry: Research
Message: message meEmail: email me
AIM:  LegendaryFrogs
MSN: Uncle Jim
Member Since:
12/19/2003
|
|
| Socrates Cafe:
Are religion and science separate?
Can or should they be?
To begin by answering the original
question; yes, religion and science are separate. They occupy two distinct
domains of human thought. Religion is based on faith, the acceptance of ideas
and concepts based on personal preference and belief that can be derived from a
variety of influences and sources. Science is based on observation and repeatable
experimentation. Both religion and science begin with a question, but from that
point diverge on separate paths. Religion would begin an assumption, and base a
unique system of beliefs around that assumption, seeking peace of mind and a
greater sense of spiritual being. Science would take that question and begin to
probe and observe the universe in the search of a different sort of answer.
The goal of any religious question is to find the answer that "feels"
right and brings the most to our lives. The goal to any scientific question is
to connect our knowledge with reality. To find the answer we "know"
to be right without bias toward any personal comfort (or lack thereof) that is
might bring us. Religious belief backed by scientific evidence is never
intrinsically scientific because the observations were made by a set
assumption, which undermines the very idea of science and its requirement for
impartial observers. I feel that the only confusion that would even arise
between the connection of religion and science would be an aspect of accepted
religion that is not even religion at all. The dogma of the modern religions
unfortunately often overtakes the spiritual teachings. Religions supposed
offering of inward reflection and a journey of self discovery under the guide
of a spiritual teacher are corrupted by arguments over the factual nature of
questionable historical events that provide the setting for the spiritual teachings.
It is the dogma that most often comes into conflict and intrudes upon the
territory of science, not the religious ideas themselves.
I am going to make the assertion
that human beings are inherently scientific as opposed to inherently religious.
The progress of humanity to this point has been possible because of the
eventual development of the mind to seek out information and discover the world
around them. Our minds evolve the ability to reason and learn through
observation at a relatively young age. This ability is the very fundamental
nature of what it is to be human. Why then is religion so popular with the
masses, often at the sacrifice of this ability to seek out information that has
long since been filled with information passed down from spiritual leaders? At
a very young age (a stage that is generally accepted to last until the ages of
8 or 9), we are genetically programmed to accept unquestioningly the
instructions of our authorities. This is because there simply is no time for
young children to be able to make rational decisions on their own. Simple life
preserving skills and instructions such as “Don’t go near that cliff” or “Don’t
stick that in that metal socket” must be accepted blindly by children without
the need to question or experiment for very obvious reasons. This childish
state of an unquestioning mind is supposed to disengage once the child reaches
a proper state of independency. The things the child is taught within this
time, however, are often irreversible. Religious instruction is often
introduced into children during this time, and as such, they have no ability to
question it. This is why many adults will accept sometimes absurd notions of
religious nature that may even fly in the face of established reality because
it simply “feels” right. In this aspect of their knowledge, they are stuck
within that childish state of mind, unable to overcome the initial conditions
that were fed to them under the same pretense of importance as “Don’t play with
sharp things, you will cut yourself.” Some people do manage to overcome the
notions which are contrary to their own reason, but even these people are often
left permanent imprints of irrational feelings that are invoked when approached
by the subject.
As for the question of whether or
not they should be separated, I feel the answer is rooted in both of their
preservation. Not only should they be separated, but they have to be separated if
both religion and science are to continue existing in an undiluted state. To
combine the two would either put assumption into science, or take away faith
from religion, both options which would ultimately destroy the fundamental premise
of their respective field of study. To accept religious dogma as part of our
reality would undermine our search for truth in the very worst way possible.
There is this idea that science would eventually come to replace religion, and
thus religion needs to in a sense “fight back” in order to ensure its survival.
Science provides no threat to religion, only to the dogma that religion so
often provides. The spiritual and very personal ideas of religious belief can
be done to approach the philosophical questions that life offer without
conflict to science. It is the dogma of religion, the imagined “facts” around
which the beliefs are supposedly required to be founded, that science will
continually disprove, discredit, and eventually outdate. If science is
maintained, the first religion to survive the reasoning mind indefinitely will
be the first religion to free itself of dogma, and to present itself as spiritual
guidance without conditions. It will be the religion that states “You live in a
reality that is unfeeling an unchanging in response to our wishes. Together we
can discover for ourselves our purpose of being in the reality that we have realized.”
In other words it will not be a religion that attempts to present an alternate
reality to the one we discover to be true, but rather a religion that simply
provides guidance to self discovery that will manage to exist peacefully
alongside (but not as a part of) science.
| | |
| Summer Posting: Coming Soon | | |
| Socrates Cafe:
Topic #34: What is the rationale behind being spiritual?
Why are so many spiritual?
Is humanity a mistake of God's? Or god a mistake of humanity?
I have asserted previously that the three primary drives that
guide a person’s life are love, knowledge, and spirituality. Of these, love and
knowledge both appear to be easily observable ideas that we can experience on a
day to day basis. But what is spirituality? Obviously spirituality speaks of
the connection between a person and their sense of spirit and of matters pertaining
to the metaphysical. Often these manifest themselves into religion, but the
primary focus is on personal experience. There is substantial reasoning behind the
existence of all three drives. Love is a necessary factor for socially based
creatures such as ourselves. The human mind is designed in such a way to not
only encourage, but to demand the pursuit of knowledge as a means to ensure our
own survival and to prosper well beyond that. Spirituality comes from the need
of rational beings to be confident and have direction in their existence. Spirituality
is there to answer very important questions that we do not have the answers to
through actual knowledge. Far more so than with love; spirituality shares many parallels
with knowledge. Indeed, often one can be substituted for the other in order to
make our lives seem more coherent and rooted. The answers to the unknown are invented
by our own imaginations through spirituality. We use knowledge to enforce those beliefs, so
that we can feel an actual tie between reality and our spirituality. This
explains the unexplained and generally unquestioned relation that the founders
of spiritual beliefs make between most religions and physical events, miracles,
and people that existed in the world.
Is humanity a mistake of God's? Or god a
mistake of humanity?
This question relies heavily on whether or not God actually
exists. In order to best address this question then, I will cover both
possibilities. Presuming that God does in fact exist in a physical sense, then
obviously God would not be a mistake of humanity. The worship and appreciation
of the being that created humanity and serves as an absolute source of power and
judgment could hardly be considered a bad thing. Rather, it would seem to be a
very necessary thing. Even ignoring the possibility of punishment from a
judgmental God, the person who denies God would be also denying himself any
real chance at a true understanding of the universe. God would naturally be
tied into every aspect of the physical universe… everything from his hands.
Indeed, knowledge itself would only be granted by the grace of God.
Presuming that there is no physical God; the answers change dramatically.
Once again delving into the realm of the obvious, the nonexistence of God would
make the first portion of the question nonsensical. If God does not exist; does
that make the belief in him a mistake? In a formal, conclusive manner, it does.
Assuming the existence of something that does not exist within reality would be
a mistake in simple sense. However, the more interesting question is whether it
would have had an overall negative effect on humanity. Certainly, the amount of
bloodshed and hate that has occurred due to religion might lead a person to
almost immediately come to the conclusion that religion’s adverse affects far
outweigh in possible good that could come from a false belief. I would contend
though, that the safety of mind that comes with having an answer; even a wrong
one, to the important questions of life does a great deal of good to balance
out the negative. It takes a very controlled, delicately calibrated mind to be
able to accept a life without complete explanation. The prospect of a simple
non-existence after death alone is enough to shatter conceptions of hope and
direction in many peoples lives. I feel that spirituality is an unavoidable
factor of our existence. Without a viable scientific answer to explain not only
the how, but the why; there will always be a push for something to fill in the
gap. It is not a mistake of humanity; but if anything, it is a mistake of our
design. The “flaw” in our character does have us accepting things that defy
reality; which goes against not only my personal nature, but everyone else’s as
well. That is why the faithful accept their faith in the terms of a reality.
The alternative is all but impossible to reach.
This is normally the part where I would close with a quote by
Aristotle, Socrates, or a similar figurehead philosopher. As a tribute to the
universal nature of the subject; I will instead go with something a bit more
contemporary and within the public eye.
“It is the unknown we fear when we look upon
death and darkness, nothing more.”
J.
K. Rowling, Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince, 2005
| | |
| Socrates Cafe:
Topic #30: Is there sanity
in committing suicide?
One of my primary philosophies is the
idea of our own happiness being a measure of our success and the essential
"meaning" of life. Suicide is often regarded as a situational
response to an imbalance between the level of dissatisfaction in our life and
our personal ability to deal with that dissatisfaction. Keeping these two
points in mind, there are a couple of conclusions I could reach...
Position 1: Suicide is justifiable in the case of unattainable happiness. This
position proposes the idea that a person could reach a point in their life
where personal happiness would be denied to them and be made impossible to
achieve. In this situation, meaning in their life is stripped away from their existence.
Without this rooting, a person could let their own pain overtake them, and take
their own life. This would seem reasonable if their was no chance of them ever
recovering. It would be very difficult for a person to justify their own life
if it was doomed to be an exclusive home of unhappiness.
Position 2: Suicide is not able to be justified in any practical
circumstance. This position is presuming that the situation of unreachable
happiness does not actually occur in reality. Happiness is a product of
mental process, and as such, can not ever be completely out of reach. If we
accept that happiness gives meaning to life, and that the pursuit of it is
always possible, then suicide becomes impractical logically. Suicide does not
give a person relief from pain. You are not alive to feel the lifted burden.
Death results in a termination of all feeling. As long as happiness is a
possible goal, suicide is not a logical solution to any problem.
Conclusion: Throughout my life I have experienced first hand
the amount of control a person can have over their own mind. �Master your mind�
has become a sort of iconic catch phrase of my existence. I have yet to
encounter the situation of unreachable happiness described in position 1 in the
lives of any person I have known. Based on my observations I can conclude that
this situation is not a realistic exception, and therefore that there is no
sanity in committing suicide. If someone has seen a case in support of position
1, please leave a comment. I would love to discuss it. | | |
|
Every time I start the entry that is coming, I am presented
with something new and have to completely restart. I am under no time limit;
however I feel the pressure of my own expectation beginning to weigh in. I have
never accepted pressure from anywhere or anyone else. I am my own master.
| | |
|
