Francis Bacon was an English and Christian philosopher and essayist who used the language of the Church against the Church. He believed that if people wanted to do the work of God, they needed to get rid of the old Greek philosophies and start teaching science, influenced by the Islamic culture. He accused the Church for corruption and idolatry, and by doing that, took the last bit of the Church's power away.
Bacon established four "idols" or scenarios which describe how many people come to wrongly accept aberrations and false information of the world. In Christianity, idolatry is considered a grievious sin. Bacon uses the argument of the Church against it by claiming Christian philosophy had engaged in four forms of idolatry. For example, because people do not want to go through tedious observation and experimentation, they accept new and interesting things as the "truth". However, Bacon believed that you needed to study everything, not just the aberrations, in order to understand the world and the truth. The Four Idols are:
Idols of the Tribe: The bias of human beings to jump to conclusions based on w hat is new or strange rather than investing time to understand what is true. This basically means that humans tend to accept what they are fascinated in as the truth, instead of taking the time to experiment or study in order to find out what the real truth is. One's biases affect one's perceptions of the world, and if humans use that perception to see the world and try to understand things, their understanding will not be accurate, but simply, biased.
Idols of the Cave: Creating individual biases through the educational system. This form of idolatry focuses on the biases of the individual person rather than man kind as a whole. Every person leads a different life, grows up in a different environment, experiences different things, etc. Their opinions and perspectives of the world around them will differ from each other. Thus, when new information is absorbed by each person, that information means something different for each individual. Their biases will get in the way when they take in information, and that will alter one's understanding of the truth, since the truth will be obscured by bias.
Idols of the Market Place: The language created to share knowledge (e.g. philosophy is more concerned with winning arguments than revealing truth) locks us into specific ways of knowing. Communication between people changes the true meaning behind ideas. Words tend to obscure what the mind is truly trying to convey, and so the truth of ideas is slightly altered through communication/conversation.
Idols of the Theatre: The Christian West has given reverence to four of five Greek scholars and has ignored any other udnerstanding of the world. This is an example of how different organizations, associations, or institutions tweak the truth by promoting only ideas which will support them, or satisfy their standards, make them look good, justify them. The Church would only allow for certain Greek philosophers to continue to be acknowledged, while other philosophers and their teachings were ignored and prohibited.
Monday, March 2, 2009
Friday, February 27, 2009
The Impact of Maria Celeste
Maria Celeste was the daughter of Galileo Galilei, and part of the convent in Florence. Her presence in her father's life greatly impacted the writing of Galileo's book, The Dialogo.
Galileo often failed to take care of himself, for he was either busy working in his garden or occupied with his discoveries. It was because of Maria Celeste that Galileo's stayed in fairly good health. She took care of him by providing with food and shelter/a home. Maria made sure that her father didn't drink too much, among other things. While Galileo was writing his book, letters were being written back and forth between him and Maria. She was like the editor of The Dialogo, cutting and taking out pieces of information that was irrelevant and giving advice to her father. Any mistakes her father made were corrected by her and sent back to Galileo. During the time of the Bubonic plaague in 1630, Maria put together medicine for her father to help him defend himself against the disease. It was because of Maria's kind consideration that Galileo was able to live through this detrimental period of illness in Tuscany and continue the writing of his book.
After Galileo's book was published, Pope Urban VIII, who had allowed Galieleo to publish on the Copernican theory as long as he promoted it hypothetically, took a very angry view of the book and the two, formerly friends, never spoke again. Galileo had to appear in Rome for a trial by the Inquisition. Prior to appearing on trial, Maria Celeste heard of the news and wrote to her father, telling him to do what the Church told him to do, and say what the Church wanted to hear him say. She warned him not to say anything against the Church that would place him in an even more difficult position, or cause him to receive a harsher punishment. Because of Maria's intervention, Galileo was able to stay alive and continue his subsequent works on physics and mathematics of motion later on during his life under house arrest, rather than die as a heretic.
Despite the fact that Maria Celeste did not receive a formal education, she was a smart woman who used her intelligence in the scientific field to help her father (providing medicine). Although she was part of a poor convent, she never failed to give and be generous. She always saw the higher good, even when times were harsh. It was because of her contact with Galileo that he was able to deliver his message to the world in the best way possible.
Galileo often failed to take care of himself, for he was either busy working in his garden or occupied with his discoveries. It was because of Maria Celeste that Galileo's stayed in fairly good health. She took care of him by providing with food and shelter/a home. Maria made sure that her father didn't drink too much, among other things. While Galileo was writing his book, letters were being written back and forth between him and Maria. She was like the editor of The Dialogo, cutting and taking out pieces of information that was irrelevant and giving advice to her father. Any mistakes her father made were corrected by her and sent back to Galileo. During the time of the Bubonic plaague in 1630, Maria put together medicine for her father to help him defend himself against the disease. It was because of Maria's kind consideration that Galileo was able to live through this detrimental period of illness in Tuscany and continue the writing of his book.
After Galileo's book was published, Pope Urban VIII, who had allowed Galieleo to publish on the Copernican theory as long as he promoted it hypothetically, took a very angry view of the book and the two, formerly friends, never spoke again. Galileo had to appear in Rome for a trial by the Inquisition. Prior to appearing on trial, Maria Celeste heard of the news and wrote to her father, telling him to do what the Church told him to do, and say what the Church wanted to hear him say. She warned him not to say anything against the Church that would place him in an even more difficult position, or cause him to receive a harsher punishment. Because of Maria's intervention, Galileo was able to stay alive and continue his subsequent works on physics and mathematics of motion later on during his life under house arrest, rather than die as a heretic.
Despite the fact that Maria Celeste did not receive a formal education, she was a smart woman who used her intelligence in the scientific field to help her father (providing medicine). Although she was part of a poor convent, she never failed to give and be generous. She always saw the higher good, even when times were harsh. It was because of her contact with Galileo that he was able to deliver his message to the world in the best way possible.
Monday, February 23, 2009
St. Thomas Aquinas' Five Ways
St. Thomas Aquinas was a Dominican priest, theologian, and philosopher, and was considered one of the greatest Christian philosophers in history. He believed that reason should be embraced by Christianity. According to Aquinas, God had created us with this capacity and when used correctly, we can see the world more fully as an emanation of God. To prove that reason wasn't an enemy to faith, Aquinas developed rational arguments for the existence of God. Since God was such an abstract being to understand, it was necessary to use logic in order to understand Him and bring one close to Him. This grasp of reason was influenced by a very Muslim concept. Instead of seeing reason as an opposition to faith, as it was during the Middle Ages, Aquinas brings reason back into focus and teaches how to embrace it in order to prove Christian faith.
Out of Aquinas' Five Ways, the one I believe is most reasonable and makes the most sense is the Fourth Way: The Argument from Degrees and Perfection. Basically:
St. Thomas formulated this Way from a very interesting observation about the qualities of things. For example, one may say that of two marble sculptures one is more beautiful than the other. So for these two objects, on has a greater degree of beauty than the next. This is referred to as degrees or gradation of a quality. From this fact Aquinas concluded that for any given quality (e.g. goodness, beauty, knowledge) there must be a perfect standard by which all such qualities are measured. These perfections are contained in God.
Generally, I am not in favor of the fact that God is regarded as the necessary being that needs to exist in order for things to move or exist, etc. However, I agree with the fact that everything is generally compared to an ideal that we have in our minds. Of course, we cannot say what beauty exactly is, but there are standards that we have for what is considered "beautiful" in our minds. Thus, we tend to compare and contrast things according to those standards. From experience, we know what is more beautiful and what is less beautiful. This "perfect standard" is one we set ourselves, and we set standards such as these in areas other than just this one.
The Way I believe is most unreasonable would probably be the Second Way: Causation of Existence. Basically:
This Way deals with the issue of existence. Aquinas concluded that common sense observation ttells us that no object creates itself. In other words, some previous object had to create it. Aquinas believed that ultimately there must have been an uncaused first cause (God) who began the chain of existence for all things.
1) There exist things that are cause (created) by other things.
2) Nothing can be the cause of itself (nothing can create itself)
3) There can not be an endless string of objects causing other objects to exist.
4) Therefore, there must be an uncaused first cause called God.
All in all, I do not believe that we can conclude that God began the chain of existence for all things. We cannot necessarily say that God created the world and all things in it. There are still theories such as the Big Bang Theory and other scientific reasons which support a scientific development of the universe. It's almost impossible to say the world was created this one way. If nothing can be the cause of itself, then the question is, how did God even come to be? As mentioned in class, God is probably just a personification of this supernatural force that initiated what we have today. There might not even have been a force. The universe may have just come into existence in the blink of an eye. There are endless possibilities for creation, especially since it is such a mystery.
Out of Aquinas' Five Ways, the one I believe is most reasonable and makes the most sense is the Fourth Way: The Argument from Degrees and Perfection. Basically:
St. Thomas formulated this Way from a very interesting observation about the qualities of things. For example, one may say that of two marble sculptures one is more beautiful than the other. So for these two objects, on has a greater degree of beauty than the next. This is referred to as degrees or gradation of a quality. From this fact Aquinas concluded that for any given quality (e.g. goodness, beauty, knowledge) there must be a perfect standard by which all such qualities are measured. These perfections are contained in God.
Generally, I am not in favor of the fact that God is regarded as the necessary being that needs to exist in order for things to move or exist, etc. However, I agree with the fact that everything is generally compared to an ideal that we have in our minds. Of course, we cannot say what beauty exactly is, but there are standards that we have for what is considered "beautiful" in our minds. Thus, we tend to compare and contrast things according to those standards. From experience, we know what is more beautiful and what is less beautiful. This "perfect standard" is one we set ourselves, and we set standards such as these in areas other than just this one.
The Way I believe is most unreasonable would probably be the Second Way: Causation of Existence. Basically:
This Way deals with the issue of existence. Aquinas concluded that common sense observation ttells us that no object creates itself. In other words, some previous object had to create it. Aquinas believed that ultimately there must have been an uncaused first cause (God) who began the chain of existence for all things.
1) There exist things that are cause (created) by other things.
2) Nothing can be the cause of itself (nothing can create itself)
3) There can not be an endless string of objects causing other objects to exist.
4) Therefore, there must be an uncaused first cause called God.
All in all, I do not believe that we can conclude that God began the chain of existence for all things. We cannot necessarily say that God created the world and all things in it. There are still theories such as the Big Bang Theory and other scientific reasons which support a scientific development of the universe. It's almost impossible to say the world was created this one way. If nothing can be the cause of itself, then the question is, how did God even come to be? As mentioned in class, God is probably just a personification of this supernatural force that initiated what we have today. There might not even have been a force. The universe may have just come into existence in the blink of an eye. There are endless possibilities for creation, especially since it is such a mystery.
Sunday, February 22, 2009
Just War Theory and Neo-Platonism: Connections to the Crusades
On Friday, we learned about Neo-Platonism and St. Augustine's Just War Theory in philosophy class! Neo-Platonism advocates the idea that "the body is both the agent and prison of the soul". Plotinus was the last great pagan philosopher of the Greek civilization and a neoplatonist. His ideas were used in the Christian doctrine. The major idea was that within us lies a divine spark, a small piece of God's soul, and that there is this one universal good that allows happiness. Christians say that only through the grace of Jesus' sacrifice can people this be accessed. One must remove the faulty impressions of sensory knowledge to attain divine wisdom. God's grace allws one to access his good. By looking inward and then upward for grace, one can achieve salvation and happiness. Only "inner experience", studied through introspection, was valid. THis was later called the Beatific Vision.
This leaves room for a perfect connection to gothic cathedrals. Like Neo-Platonism suggests, there is a beauty within all of us, and by looking introspectively within ourselves, and by acknowledging this small piece of God's soul, we could achieve a greater happiness and access God's good. Just like humans, theoretically, gothic cathedrals are pretty ordinary on the outside. However, looking inside, they are illuminated by the light which passes through the bebautiful stained glass windows. According to Neo-Platonism, everyone has that small spark, that small piece of God's sould within them. The stained glass windows depicting sstories from the Bible reflect light within the cathedrals and create this magnificent atmosphere symbolic of the Beatific Vision (which is achieved through introspection and looking within one's self to search for good) This good resembles the interior of the gothic cathedrals. The interior is supposed to reveal to an individual the truth and these individuals are to learn from the stories depicted by the stained glass windows. These are basically forms of didactic art, since they helped teach the Christian religion to those who were illiterate at the time. These gothic cathedrals also resemble the idea that our bodies are sinful, but the soul and what's inside is what's pure and has thepotential to allow happinness and God's universal good. Outside= sinful, inside=purity and truth.
Now, let's discuss the Just War Theory. St. Augustine believed that war was a sin, but also knew that war was inevitable. He thought the only rationalization for war was to hope to achieve peace.
1. Last Resort
This leaves room for a perfect connection to gothic cathedrals. Like Neo-Platonism suggests, there is a beauty within all of us, and by looking introspectively within ourselves, and by acknowledging this small piece of God's soul, we could achieve a greater happiness and access God's good. Just like humans, theoretically, gothic cathedrals are pretty ordinary on the outside. However, looking inside, they are illuminated by the light which passes through the bebautiful stained glass windows. According to Neo-Platonism, everyone has that small spark, that small piece of God's sould within them. The stained glass windows depicting sstories from the Bible reflect light within the cathedrals and create this magnificent atmosphere symbolic of the Beatific Vision (which is achieved through introspection and looking within one's self to search for good) This good resembles the interior of the gothic cathedrals. The interior is supposed to reveal to an individual the truth and these individuals are to learn from the stories depicted by the stained glass windows. These are basically forms of didactic art, since they helped teach the Christian religion to those who were illiterate at the time. These gothic cathedrals also resemble the idea that our bodies are sinful, but the soul and what's inside is what's pure and has thepotential to allow happinness and God's universal good. Outside= sinful, inside=purity and truth.
Now, let's discuss the Just War Theory. St. Augustine believed that war was a sin, but also knew that war was inevitable. He thought the only rationalization for war was to hope to achieve peace.
1. Last Resort
- A just war can only be initiated if all other non-violence options have been used.
- A war is only just if an authoritative figure approves it is justified.
- A war can only be fought if there is a chance of success deaths and injuries that occur during a just war are morally justified. Therefore, you cannot kill out of your own enjoyment, but those deaths that are being caused must have a valid reason.
- A just war can only be fought in order to "redress" a wrong suffered.
- The only objective of war is to solve the problem
- Self-defense against an armed attack is always a just cause.
- The ultimate goal of a just war is to re-establish peace.
- War should improve peace that existed before the war or would exist if the war had never been fought.
- You must use minimum amount of force to obtain peace/your objective.
- Violence used in war must be proportional to injury suffered.
- Civilians never target war, and all measures to avoid killing them should be used.
- Civilians deaths are justified only if they're unavoidable victims of an attack or a military target.
Basically, we can start by connecting the second principle of this theory to that whole idea that it was Pope Urban II who initiated the Crusades. Pope Urban II qualifies as a higher power, and an authoritative figure, and therefore, the Crusades were justified. Basically, if a nation wanted to go to war with another nation, the Church's permission was needed. Principle number seven states that "civilians are never the target of war, and all measures to avoid killing htem should be used". However, we all know that the Crusaders killed countless civilians on their way to the Holy Land. Innocent people are not the same as "unavoidable victims". Therefore, the seventh principle was broken. These are the connections between the Just War Theory and the Crusades.
Tuesday, February 17, 2009
Adolf Hitler and His Fallacies
Today in class, we learned about fallacies, forms of bad argumentation or inductive reasoning, which lead to wrong conclusions. In "Nation and Race", Adolf Hitler carelessly included some fallacies which were noticeable and created loopholes in his argument.
"Thus men without exception wander about in the garden of Nature; they imagine that they know practically everything and yet with few exceptions pass blindly by one of the most patent principles of Nature's rule: the inner segregation of the species of all living beings on this earth.
Even the most superficial observation shows that Nature's restricted form of propagation and increase is an almost rigid basic law of all the innumerable forms of expression of her vital urge. Every animal mates only with a member of the same species. The titmouse seeks the titmouse, the finch the finch, the stork the stork, the field mouse the field mouse, the dormouse the dormouse, the wolf the she-wolf, etc.
Only unusual circumstances can change this, primarily the compulsion of captivity or any other cause that makes it impossible to mate within the same species. But then Nature begins to resist this with all possible means, and her most visible protest consists either in refusing further capacity for propagation to bastards or in limiting the fertility of later offspring; in most cases, however, she takes away the power of resistance to disease or hostile attacks.This is only too natural."
This is an example of a type of fallicy called the false analogy. A false analogy is when an analogy is descriptive, but does not offer proof of a connection between the two things being compared. Here, Hitler is trying to compare humans to animal species. He is basically trying to argue that because in Nature, species only mate with those of their own species, humans should only mate with those of their own race. However, the analogy made between humans and animals did not truly apply because unlike species, which have subspecies, there is no such thing as a subspecies of humans. As humans we do not have inferior or superior groups of "subspecies" which we place ourselves in. We are just human. However, with animal species, subspecies do exist. But, we cannot say that race or ethnicity serves as a "subspecies" for humans, because it does not; we're all the same if you take away things like ethnicity or gender. Therefore, Hitler cannot truly use the science of species-with-species breeding to support his argument that humans are to breed with only individuals of the same race as them, (since, unlike animal species, humans do not have subspecies which bring about diversity) .
"Thus men without exception wander about in the garden of Nature; they imagine that they know practically everything and yet with few exceptions pass blindly by one of the most patent principles of Nature's rule: the inner segregation of the species of all living beings on this earth.
Even the most superficial observation shows that Nature's restricted form of propagation and increase is an almost rigid basic law of all the innumerable forms of expression of her vital urge. Every animal mates only with a member of the same species. The titmouse seeks the titmouse, the finch the finch, the stork the stork, the field mouse the field mouse, the dormouse the dormouse, the wolf the she-wolf, etc.
Only unusual circumstances can change this, primarily the compulsion of captivity or any other cause that makes it impossible to mate within the same species. But then Nature begins to resist this with all possible means, and her most visible protest consists either in refusing further capacity for propagation to bastards or in limiting the fertility of later offspring; in most cases, however, she takes away the power of resistance to disease or hostile attacks.This is only too natural."
This is an example of a type of fallicy called the false analogy. A false analogy is when an analogy is descriptive, but does not offer proof of a connection between the two things being compared. Here, Hitler is trying to compare humans to animal species. He is basically trying to argue that because in Nature, species only mate with those of their own species, humans should only mate with those of their own race. However, the analogy made between humans and animals did not truly apply because unlike species, which have subspecies, there is no such thing as a subspecies of humans. As humans we do not have inferior or superior groups of "subspecies" which we place ourselves in. We are just human. However, with animal species, subspecies do exist. But, we cannot say that race or ethnicity serves as a "subspecies" for humans, because it does not; we're all the same if you take away things like ethnicity or gender. Therefore, Hitler cannot truly use the science of species-with-species breeding to support his argument that humans are to breed with only individuals of the same race as them, (since, unlike animal species, humans do not have subspecies which bring about diversity) .
Monday, February 16, 2009
Evolution versus Intelligent Design
We had a debate/discussion about evolution and intelligent design on Friday (13th), on which is the driving force behind our existence, behind the world it is today. This topic is probably one of the most debated topics of all time, and from experience, people can argue for extended periods of time about these controversies.
To start off, we all know that evolution describes changes in populations, species, or gruops of species, which then allows for observable changes in individual organisms over time. It is because of evolution that there is so much biodiversity. It is because of evolution that what began as a common ancestor to us all was able to sprout into all these varieties of life we see today. In short, evolution is the sequence of events involved in the development of a species or taxonomic group of organisms.
On the other hand, intelligent design is the assertion that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, and created by an unspecified intelligent agent, a.k.a God. This disregards all the science that comes along with evolution. It simply states that God created everything, and it is because of Him that everything on Earth exists, is, will be, has been, etc.
Personally, I believe in the theory of evolution above all. I am not one to have blind faith or place my trust in something unless there's factual and reasonable evidence to support it. With evolution, we have evidence proven by Darwin, and subsequent evolutionists or even scientists which show that evolution is the driving force behind the life we see today. With the Big Bang theory, as mentioned by some bloggers, the theory states that "our universe is thought to have begun as an infinitesimally small, infinitely hot, infinitely dense, something- a singularity". (thanks kristen; from http://www.big-bang-theory.com) Although arguers on the side supporting intelligent design may complain that this theory screams of nonsense and ridicule, If the Big Bang theory is something that nobody can truly understand or believe, then doesn't the same apply to God? With the information that science provides, regardless of the fact that we were not there to see the Big Bang, we have evidence, visual evidence of the scientific phenomena which supports our existence. We have evidence that organisms physically changed over time in order to make adaptations to suit the environment; you can't say that all livings things were made to perfectly fit their surroundings. We have evidence of the fossil record, for example, which provides us with tangible evidence that such and such organisms existed at such and such time, which later on became such and such organism. You can say that God created fossils and God created evertyhing, okay, "but since all its answers are usually "God", scientists have rejected it" (as the article from Friday states). I don't feel like it's enough to just say that God did this and God did that. I understand that to believers, that's just the way it is, however, it does not make sense to me that God, this intangible being, is believed by so many to be the reason behind our existence.
I don't believe that intelligent design should be taught in schools, and evolution replaced by it. Even more controversies would arise about this commonly debated topic, controversies that get us nowhere. I believe we should just accept what we has been taught in schools for a while now, science and evolution as the reason behind creation and existence, biodiversity and life. Facts, facts, facts. It's what we have and what we need in order to reach a rational conclusion about why we're here. "...most of us can agree on what we call a fact because we assume that it has been or can be verified by responsible observers." "We can agree on the reliability of such information because we trust the observers who report it." These are all quotes from the Claims of Fact packet, and they're discussing what facts are. Based on these quotes, we cannot say that the Bible is fact, because history proces that events int he Bible did not necessarily take place. Some religious texts were written years after supposed events occurred, and it's not like the life of Jesus was documented while he was living, meaning there would be room for mistake and inaccuracies. That being said, we then cannot say that, for example, the Book of Genesis containing God's creation on Day One and Two and so on, are fact!
SO then, how can we say that the world and everything in it, was created by God? How can you say that intelligent design is truly the reason for our existence? If something like this is so poorly backed with information and sound evidence, how can we possibley consider incorporating it into the curriculum of schools? It just doesn't seem like that would make society today any less chaotic, and there are still those who do not wish to be taught religion-based material. If intelligent design is taught in schools, then what's going to happen to the developed fields of science that the world has worked so many years in in order to find answers to our questions? Is it really worth it to discontinue and begin to place intelligent design on the same level as evolution, or possibly even take its place? Is it reasonable for us to deny all the discoveries and complex theories we have made thus far just so we could accept a simple theory as the basis of creation?
It's not.
I believe that science is the only way of proving our existence, and it should continue to be what is taught in schools.
To start off, we all know that evolution describes changes in populations, species, or gruops of species, which then allows for observable changes in individual organisms over time. It is because of evolution that there is so much biodiversity. It is because of evolution that what began as a common ancestor to us all was able to sprout into all these varieties of life we see today. In short, evolution is the sequence of events involved in the development of a species or taxonomic group of organisms.
On the other hand, intelligent design is the assertion that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, and created by an unspecified intelligent agent, a.k.a God. This disregards all the science that comes along with evolution. It simply states that God created everything, and it is because of Him that everything on Earth exists, is, will be, has been, etc.
Personally, I believe in the theory of evolution above all. I am not one to have blind faith or place my trust in something unless there's factual and reasonable evidence to support it. With evolution, we have evidence proven by Darwin, and subsequent evolutionists or even scientists which show that evolution is the driving force behind the life we see today. With the Big Bang theory, as mentioned by some bloggers, the theory states that "our universe is thought to have begun as an infinitesimally small, infinitely hot, infinitely dense, something- a singularity". (thanks kristen; from http://www.big-bang-theory.com) Although arguers on the side supporting intelligent design may complain that this theory screams of nonsense and ridicule, If the Big Bang theory is something that nobody can truly understand or believe, then doesn't the same apply to God? With the information that science provides, regardless of the fact that we were not there to see the Big Bang, we have evidence, visual evidence of the scientific phenomena which supports our existence. We have evidence that organisms physically changed over time in order to make adaptations to suit the environment; you can't say that all livings things were made to perfectly fit their surroundings. We have evidence of the fossil record, for example, which provides us with tangible evidence that such and such organisms existed at such and such time, which later on became such and such organism. You can say that God created fossils and God created evertyhing, okay, "but since all its answers are usually "God", scientists have rejected it" (as the article from Friday states). I don't feel like it's enough to just say that God did this and God did that. I understand that to believers, that's just the way it is, however, it does not make sense to me that God, this intangible being, is believed by so many to be the reason behind our existence.
I don't believe that intelligent design should be taught in schools, and evolution replaced by it. Even more controversies would arise about this commonly debated topic, controversies that get us nowhere. I believe we should just accept what we has been taught in schools for a while now, science and evolution as the reason behind creation and existence, biodiversity and life. Facts, facts, facts. It's what we have and what we need in order to reach a rational conclusion about why we're here. "...most of us can agree on what we call a fact because we assume that it has been or can be verified by responsible observers." "We can agree on the reliability of such information because we trust the observers who report it." These are all quotes from the Claims of Fact packet, and they're discussing what facts are. Based on these quotes, we cannot say that the Bible is fact, because history proces that events int he Bible did not necessarily take place. Some religious texts were written years after supposed events occurred, and it's not like the life of Jesus was documented while he was living, meaning there would be room for mistake and inaccuracies. That being said, we then cannot say that, for example, the Book of Genesis containing God's creation on Day One and Two and so on, are fact!
SO then, how can we say that the world and everything in it, was created by God? How can you say that intelligent design is truly the reason for our existence? If something like this is so poorly backed with information and sound evidence, how can we possibley consider incorporating it into the curriculum of schools? It just doesn't seem like that would make society today any less chaotic, and there are still those who do not wish to be taught religion-based material. If intelligent design is taught in schools, then what's going to happen to the developed fields of science that the world has worked so many years in in order to find answers to our questions? Is it really worth it to discontinue and begin to place intelligent design on the same level as evolution, or possibly even take its place? Is it reasonable for us to deny all the discoveries and complex theories we have made thus far just so we could accept a simple theory as the basis of creation?
It's not.
I believe that science is the only way of proving our existence, and it should continue to be what is taught in schools.
Friday, February 13, 2009
Affirmative Actions: Debate
In case there was a deadline or something that stated this blog had to be submitted by 11:59 PM on February 12, I'm sorry. :/ My computer wasn't working then, so I had to get this in in the morning.
Following today's debate in class, I believe that just because we have elected Barack Obama as our president, does not mean we should get rid of affirmative actions. I feel like colleges need to continue supporting minorities in terms of getting into college, because given that not everyone is given equal oppurtunity to thrive in the best conditions, we can say that minority tends to be left with the least money and the worse living conditions. Therefore, giving them a chance does not make them any more privileged than the rest of the the world, it does not make colleges 'racist'. Rather, it would be giving everyone an equal chance because there are, for example, the majority who are innately more advantangeous than others. Giving the minority more oppurtunities would simply be putting them on the same level and the majority.
Of course, the better way to judge whether or not a student should be accepted into college with affirmative actions would probably be to look at the level of their education, or the money which they have, and based upon that, decide whether or not helping them is truly necessary. However, if one grows up in a poor, lowly environment, that surely affects the choices they can make in their lives and the roads they can take whether it's in their education or something else. Some minorities just can't help it; they aren't given the chance. It's up to colleges to recognize those with disadvantages and bring them to the level of others in the big crowd, for if this were not done, then we would have an extremely unequal number of whites, let's say, in our top colleges today, for they would have been given the oppurunity to enhance their backgruond all their lives, while the minority are limited.
Some may argue that given the oppurtunity, the minority would not succeed, or would not put a college experience to good use. However, there are those who succeed. If those who have the potential to become successful in society are put down at such an early stage in their lives, you might as well continue letting the majority dominate. If minority aren't given the chance, they will be left behind. After being released into society after college life and grad school, etc., minority are bound to face the challenges of making it to the top in a world dominated by the majority. They will have to look for other oppurtunities and jobs which do accept them, at that point in their lives. I'm not denying the fact that minorities are naturally looked down on anyway. But it's unjust to restrict them from the greater oppurtunities in the world at such an early stage in life as college. The least the government can do is allow for the minorities to rise above others in this one area, for it is highly possible that it will be more difficult for oppurunities to rise in their later lives. Perhaps if they were given better environments to thrive in and better colleges to study in, then they could have greater possibilites of surviving and succeeding in life after college.
Although in the general the world is dominated by the white man, there are the few minority who have become successful role models, leaders, and politicians. THere have been several of those from the past, already. Perhaps we need more of those, and if affirmative actions are put on halt, there is no doubt that they will continue to be surpressed by the picky and selective hands of life which favor whites.
Barack Obama becoming president, thus, does not change anything, in this matter. SOme people believe that race is a weak factor to be judging upon for affirmative actions. However, we all know that racism plays a huge role in the oppurtunities people are provided with, and the advantages they can have.
Following today's debate in class, I believe that just because we have elected Barack Obama as our president, does not mean we should get rid of affirmative actions. I feel like colleges need to continue supporting minorities in terms of getting into college, because given that not everyone is given equal oppurtunity to thrive in the best conditions, we can say that minority tends to be left with the least money and the worse living conditions. Therefore, giving them a chance does not make them any more privileged than the rest of the the world, it does not make colleges 'racist'. Rather, it would be giving everyone an equal chance because there are, for example, the majority who are innately more advantangeous than others. Giving the minority more oppurtunities would simply be putting them on the same level and the majority.
Of course, the better way to judge whether or not a student should be accepted into college with affirmative actions would probably be to look at the level of their education, or the money which they have, and based upon that, decide whether or not helping them is truly necessary. However, if one grows up in a poor, lowly environment, that surely affects the choices they can make in their lives and the roads they can take whether it's in their education or something else. Some minorities just can't help it; they aren't given the chance. It's up to colleges to recognize those with disadvantages and bring them to the level of others in the big crowd, for if this were not done, then we would have an extremely unequal number of whites, let's say, in our top colleges today, for they would have been given the oppurunity to enhance their backgruond all their lives, while the minority are limited.
Some may argue that given the oppurtunity, the minority would not succeed, or would not put a college experience to good use. However, there are those who succeed. If those who have the potential to become successful in society are put down at such an early stage in their lives, you might as well continue letting the majority dominate. If minority aren't given the chance, they will be left behind. After being released into society after college life and grad school, etc., minority are bound to face the challenges of making it to the top in a world dominated by the majority. They will have to look for other oppurtunities and jobs which do accept them, at that point in their lives. I'm not denying the fact that minorities are naturally looked down on anyway. But it's unjust to restrict them from the greater oppurtunities in the world at such an early stage in life as college. The least the government can do is allow for the minorities to rise above others in this one area, for it is highly possible that it will be more difficult for oppurunities to rise in their later lives. Perhaps if they were given better environments to thrive in and better colleges to study in, then they could have greater possibilites of surviving and succeeding in life after college.
Although in the general the world is dominated by the white man, there are the few minority who have become successful role models, leaders, and politicians. THere have been several of those from the past, already. Perhaps we need more of those, and if affirmative actions are put on halt, there is no doubt that they will continue to be surpressed by the picky and selective hands of life which favor whites.
Barack Obama becoming president, thus, does not change anything, in this matter. SOme people believe that race is a weak factor to be judging upon for affirmative actions. However, we all know that racism plays a huge role in the oppurtunities people are provided with, and the advantages they can have.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
