how v. why

Today in class we discussed the parallels of science and religion. The article we read by Paul Davies suggested that like religion, science is a faith-based belief. There is much evidence supporting the laws of physics, but no hints as to their origin or purpose. But most scientists still have faith in these laws as the definite “meaning” to how the world works.

Does having a faith in science preclude having faith in God? I don’t think it does. Science offers explanation as to how the universe works, but as Davies pointed out, it has very little to say about the origin of the universe. So science still leaves many people with the question why. And God can be that answer. Personally, I can’t just accept God as the answer to why the universe exists because I don’t believe that God just appeared, defying all the scientific laws He created.

Both God and science require faith, but the two concepts are not completely separate.

discipline

Present-day America is so concerned with the prevention of child abuse, that we have perhaps become overly conscious of our parents. The distinction has to be made between abuse and discipline. When does spanking stop being okay? What are the guidelines?

If a child misbehaves, and the parent smacks them, I find that completely justified. Even if it leaves a mark, as long as the child is not seriously hurt, I would categorize this scenario as discipline and not abuse. The difference lies in the reasoning behind the beating, and the extent of the beating.

The discipline a parent enforces on their child should be reasonable based on the action of the child. Let’s say a child was playing with a toy in a store, and left the store without thinking to put it back. They unintentionally stole. The child needs to be punished so they learn to be more conscious of themselves and they should probably be forced to apologize to the owner of the store. But if the parent yells obscenities and bruises the child as ‘discipline,’ the punishment has become abuse.

This subject is tricky because it deals with basically defenseless humans. But defenseless or not, children act out and need discipline in their lives.

Tolstoy

The other day in class we discussed Tolstoy’s breakdown when he came to the realization that his life’s work was meaningless. He could see no greater meaning to his life and therefore no meaning at all. This realization caused him to become extremely depressed until he turned to philosophy and Christianity to help him find purpose and meaning.

 Tolstoy lost all sense of meaning in his life because he could not distinguish between personal meaning in his life and a meaningful value to his life. He wanted to make a difference, or at least a lasting imprint on the world. Personally, I believe that these two different kinds of meaning can be separated. Lots of people lead meaningful lives without being remembered post-mortem. It is possible to believe that life is random and that in the grand scheme of the universe a single life is meaningless and simultaneously hold the view that the same life is meaningful to that person and that person’s closest loved ones.

Religion provides many people with the help they need in searching for life’s meaning and it makes many people feel comforted and happy. However, I don’t think it is mandatory in finding meaning to life.

A Fear of Nothing

In class we talked about how most people are afraid to do nothing. We always have to be doing something, even if it’s just watching tv. Someone suggested that the reason for this is because humans need constant distraction. If we were to literally sit down and do nothing, we would be forced to face our own thoughts. We might think about trivial things at first, such as what we ate that day or we might try to analyze a recent dream we had. But eventually we would have to think about difficult philosophical subjects. So the fear we experience is not actually of idleness; it is of our own thoughts.

Power Struggle

In class we brought up the question of whether or not the military is democratic. A democracy is rooted in the people of the democracy. Majority rules. The voice of the people is heard and considered by the supreme power. In the military, this is certainly not the case. Soldiers are taught blind discipline and obedience. If an order is given, it is to be completed promptly and without hesitation or question. In the military, the people are tools of the supreme power. Their voice is the echo of the supreme power.

So why is this system supported by democracy? Is there ever a cause or a reason that trumps our democratic values? Apparently so, since we as a country go to war all the time.  Maybe I could argue that the military is a separate entity from the government that can make its own rules. But the military represents and defends our country during a time of war. Why would the military defend a government that embodies all the equality and freedom that it rejects?

Influences on Morality

In class we discussed the impact of culture on morality. Obviously a person is influenced by their culture, and it is a strong basis for creating his or her set of morals. Growing up, we believe what our parents tell us and we live by whatever religion in which they raise us. But culture cannot be the only factor in determining morals. After we read the radio interview with C.P. Ellis, the former head of the KKK in his poor southern city, we talked about his amazing transformation from a stubborn racist to a logical thinker working with a his enemy, a black woman, in order to make a serious and positive change.

How did Ellis come to the realization that racism is wrong, and he was using black people as a scapegoat for his frustrations with powerful whites? Obviously his culture is not the answer, as his surroundings promoted racism. It is curious because it must mean that there is something profoundly natural in C.P. Ellis that told him what he was doing was morally wrong, it was just lost in all his anger. His sense of morality was dilluted and pushed back behind his desire to feel powerful and important, which he found in the KKK. It took a difficult realization that the KKK was a destructive power to trigger his morals to come forward, and change him forever.

Emotional

Emotions are what make us human, and disregarding our emotions when making a decision would be wrong. On the other hand, we cannot let our emotions take over and be the dominant factor in our decision-making. There needs to be a healthy balance of emotion, reason, and consideration of predicted outcomes.

 To rely soley on emotions would mean we always make rash decisions in the heat of the moment, based on how we feel. Our emotions change all the time and we can’t help that. It is important to take into consideration why we feel the way we do and whether or not our feelings are justified. That is where reason comes into play. Setting aside the excuse of “I did it because I wanted to,” we should be able to back up our decisions with well-thought out explanations and reasons as to why this was a good and beneficial choice to make.

And finally, think before you act. How will your actions affect the immediate and long-term future? How many people will benefit and by how much? Is the well-being of the many worth sacrificing the well-being of the few? We cannot always do what benefits the majority, however. For example, let’s say a population of 500 wants to enslave a population of 250. Obviously, more slave masters than slaves would mean the enslavement is good for the majority. But we all know that slavery is unethical and the wrong decision to make. And why do we know this? Because forcefully taking away rights from innocent human beings makes us feel bad.

A Father’s Rights

This morning on the radio, a man called in hoping to spark a debate about abortion. Not about whether abortion is right or not, but about whether or not the father has a say in the termination of his potential child. This man’s girlfriend broke up with him when she found out she was pregnant with his child, and despite his desire to keep the baby, she had it aborted. He was devasted and he felt wronged by the justice system because he was not able to fight for the life of his child.

If a law were made declaring that both parents had to be in agreement before an abortion took place, many problems occur. For example, what if the woman wants to keep the child but the man wants to abort? Even if the situation were vice versa, how would the court resolve it? Would disagreement automatically result in a ruling that the couple must keep the baby? In that case, one of the parents might very well resent the child and that is an unfortunate life for that child. And what if the woman were raped? Does he get a say? The court could say that such criminal activity removes any right to opinion in the matter, but rapists are not always convicted.

The woman is the one who has to endure nine months of pregnancy and the horrible pain of giving birth. It is her body, so I can understand why it should be her right to choose. But is it solely her right? The man has to pay child support if the couple is not together and both parents are equally responsible for the well-being of the child after it is born. I’m not sure how I feel about this issue, but I’d like to know the opinions of my classmates.

Medical Ethics

The termination of a life is a touchy subject. There is the obvious factor of religion, because many relgious people feel that God gave life and only God can take life. But where do we draw the line between taking life and allowing death? Without medical training and education, it is hard to know where to draw this line. Is a person dead when they are brain dead, even though doctors may be able to keep that person breathing on a machine? If a person has suffered severely from a disease or fatal accident, and is only being kept alive on machines, who gets to decide the fate of that human being? When a person cannot express their own wishes, does it go to their immediate family (i.e. their significant other) or should it go to their parents, assuming they are still alive themselves? Or should it be no one’s choice? If doctors refuse to pull the plug and let a person die, and wait until the person dies from natural causes, who pays for the medical bills? Is it fair to force that person to live the rest of their life on a machine in a hospital? And is that fair to the family members and friends who have to watch their loved one in such a condition, that is most likely irreversable?

These questions are difficult because there are no answers, only opinions. Whether your opinions are based in your religious faith, personal experience, or something else, the main concern should be the life of the patient. Whoever ultimately decides the fate of the patient needs to take into consideration the quality of life for the patient and their own willingness to care extensively for the patient, based on the quality of life.

Death Camp of Tolerance

Tolerance is not the same as approval or even acceptance. I can tolerate an annoyingly loud neighbor but still hate him. Tolerance means hidden or unspoken disapproval. As long as I acknowledge the right my neighbor has to be loud, and do not say aloud any of my offensive thoughts, then I am being tolerant. Is this a respectable virtue? Personally, I would rather be able to tell my neighbor how obnoxious he is. From the other perspective, I would also rather have my neighbor tell me that he finds me incredibly irritating than falsely believe otherwise.

 Of course, that is a small-scale example but I could easily apply it to more controversial topics like race or religion. As long as no one is caused physical harm, of course. I am not promoting hate crimes. I do, however, support the right to say your true feelings, intolerant or otherwise. This issue of tolerance seems to fall back into a discussion of free speech. What do you think?