Biology 1

            Evolution is the basis for the naturalistic worldview. Clearly without this “big bang” principle, naturalism would have no explanation of human origins. Any system of belief involving non-creative existence would cite evolution as the origin of human existence. In evolution it is commonly accepted that life today has evolved over millions of years through adaption and development. To find problems with the naturalistic explanation of life, one must not look much further than evolution.

            All throughout this year, my UTT teacher has stressed that when there is a freak in nature, this specimen will generally become killed off. As this is true, it is incredibly hard to imagine newly transformed land-locked animals surviving and reproducing. In fact, I believe it is impossible. To successfully survive, the species must be able to acclimate to nature and reproduce with one of its kind, nearly impossible in Darwinian evolution.

            Clearly Micro-evolution exists. I have been seen the results of micro-evolution since I was five. Changes in gene pools involving hair color, beak size, and  others are ever-changing. However, I believe Macro-Evolution is impossible. Every Darwinian scientist must cite Micro-Evolution to try and prove Macro-Evolution. But they cannot do this! These changes may result in something changed or altered, but ultimately they are the same thing. Bacteria will remain bacteria. A dog might gain 20 pounds and look differently, but it is still a dog.

            In my opinion the greatest argument against evolution: Fossil records. One of the most beneficial reasons for living today, thousands of fossils have been uncovered all over the world.  According to evolution, mutations have been taking place over thousands of years. If this is so, there would be fossils that would reiterate mutations taking place. THERE IS NOT ONE FOSSIL that does so. All fossils specifically point to their own species, shutting down evolution.

            In conclusion, evolution defines naturalistic origins. Problems with evolution bring about problems in naturalism. These problems are very obvious, and need not be ignored.

morals

            With all the recent controversy surrounding the Penn State and Syracuse coaching scandals, I feel that this is a perfectly relevant topic. I will delve into my opinions on absolute morality accordingly.  

I believe that to a certain extent there is absolute moral truth.  Jerry Sandusky is one of the greatest college defensive coordinators ever. For over a decade, he recruited and developed Penn State’s program to be known as “linebacker U.” A seemingly stand-up sort of guy, he ran a nonprofit organization that focused on underprivileged youth. Recently it has been discovered that during and after his time at Penn State he sexually molested over twenty kids. I have always understood that some may be raised with a different set of morals than I. That my neighbor may not think abortion is wrong and that he may think corruption is fine. But when one gets down into the deep, deep core of morality, (as for the case with Jerry Sandusky) one must not deny that absolutes exist. If someone told me that what Jerry Sandusky did was okay, I’d probably beat the crap out of them. One would never, EVER consider his actions to be fair, or even bearable. This moral standard is universally accepted, and to think not would just be foolish. If one continues to deny such moral absolutes, I’m going to take their shoes. If they call me out on this action, I will ask if stealing is absolutely wrong. If it is not, what’s the problem with taking their possessions? Clearly there are some absolutes that one cannot deny.   

            I believe that the typical Christian moral standards stem from the morality of Christ, as well as what God calls for those in the bible. That being said, those that are not under this biblical influence (or misinterpret the bible) will clearly have different moral standards. This is where the debate begins. I’m not one of those “no grey areas” sort of kids. I would never condone lying when it involves something as simple as brushing teeth. In fact, I’m pretty sure everyone would agree that lying is bad. However, good luck convincing me lying to a girl is wrong when she asks me if she looks fat. Clearly that dress makes you look large, but I refuse to take the bait…… A lot of my own moral fibers are not the same as Mr. Dyck’s. In fact, I believe that most decisions are made based on what our consciences permit. SOME MORAL DECISIONS ARE SITUTATIONAL.     

Karma

First off, Karma is all too often misunderstood. Karma is a principle in which each individual is subject to reward or punishment for their life choices. It is NOT a set of laws to live by.  

            For Karma to not just exist, but actually be relevant, there must be a very, very clear understanding of what is “right,” and what is “wrong.” Otherwise, searching for advancement through this karmic system would be impossible. How could I go from a common man to a prince with no understanding of how to get there?  The video did a lackluster job of describing such. In fact, in this karmic system it is impossible to know what results in good karma or bad. In the video, the narrator declares that the feelings experienced when making decisions are the greatest indicator of what is “right,” and what is “wrong.” “If you get a message or a sensation of comfort, then the choice you are making is karmically appropriate.”  This may work sometimes, but how does it explain some situations? Psychopaths may not have any feelings whatsoever when killing, however, that makes it no less wrong. KARMA IS RELATIVE! It is absolutely determined by the individual, and the conscience that they have. I may feel worse stealing a pencil off of Brittany Hoff’s desk, than Hitler felt murdering millions of Jews. And if this system is determined by the individual’s conscience and their own moral fibers, he would be more karmically approved than me.

            Karma is all about following the rules. But yet, these rules are (again, relative) based solely on the individual. Jerry Sanduski could have very well been following his own set of rules when he molested over 20 kids. Am I supposed to applaud him for being a fiend? For sticking to his own code? Karma cannot attack these actions as wrong, when he was following his own rules.

            The karma principal has many logical holes. Can Karma explain why babies die every day from abortion? They are too young to even establish any Karma whatsoever. And if their death is a result of a previous life, how does their karma translate into their next life? The idea for Karma involves the ability to change. How can a baby change when it has never left his mother’s womb? Equally, how can someone mentally retarded “change” so they can better their karmic state? I have a tough time accepting the idea of “change,” when many can’t change who they are (autism) or the ailments they may have (cancer).

Philosophy 3

            Before I get going, I must say that this video has horrible background music. Not just bad, but ridiculously annoying.

Non-naturalism is a fairly tough concept to grasp. While naturalism would deny the existence of truth, reality and knowledge, non-naturalism is a form of moral realism where they accept these traits as a part of the human conscience. This human conscience is described in the video as “the only reality,” and the “physical universe is the virtual reality.” They attempt to explain that what exists is solely in the brain of an individual. This is basically going back to the idea of truth being held by the individual, and everything around that person being a result of a “virtual reality.” Very, very comic-humanist based.   

            I don’t believe that the human conscience can exist or be “truth” without the presence of a physical reality. The non-naturalist will believe that truth, reality, and knowledge are true, but yet don’t have viable reasoning behind why it is true. Just as our minds can use deductive reasoning to decide the best deal at wall mart, so is the case for another. This sale is not representative of a virtual reality, but a universal reality where another human could purchase the same item for that sale price. They are either together as both being real(physical and personal) or not in existence at all(married bachelor). The mind acts as a reaction to the physical world. One cannot deny completely deny naturalism or even non-naturalism, as they both contain aspects that are vital for existence. Together the mind and the physical world work to form reality.

            Truth, reality and knowledge are so closely related to one another. They believe that these aspects are inside of us due to a God-force. To state that the knowledge inside of us is simply a result of a God force would be extremely fallacious. How did I learn that George Washington was our first president? It is through study and experience one can learn and form thoughts. If world is based solely on my own perceptions, I would imagine myself being the first president. One would have to deny universally accepted ideas such as math and science to follow this system. Their ideas are too farfetched to even be considered.

            In conclusion, while they do make an attempt to explain truth, reality, and knowledge, it is inadequate and ultimately contradicts itself in the end. The physical world must coexist with the mental state. One does not control the other, and they certainly both exist, just as truth, reality and knowledge most definitely are vital aspects of life.

  

philosophy 2

Both of these belief systems contain many similarities; however their respective differences have shaped two distinct worldviews.

To correctly understand these beliefs, one must understand the similarities. Both of these beliefs are based on the same principles. They are both atheistic, centering on evolution. To those that believe in these, there is no supernatural.  To these faiths, reality is based solely off of the physical, nothing more. They also cannot describe some aspects of humanity, such as the soul and love.

            Now that the similarities have been established, the differences can be dissected. Naturalism is simply the “philosophical belief that reality is composed solely of matter and that all phenomena can be explained in terms of natural causes.” It is very basic, and open-ended. This idea had been very prevalent in the time of Karl Marx. Marx took these ideas and expanded on them. He and a few others proposed that in everything there is a thesis, and oppositely an anti-thesis. This interaction (struggle) between the 2 aspects of humanity will result in the synthesis(which is actually the new thesis.) An example of this dialectical materialism is a snow ball rolling down a hill. As the snow ball (thesis) comes into contact with other snow (antithesis) more snow is created (synthesis). This snow (synthesis) will continue as the new thesis and come into contact with another snow (antitheses).

            These two beliefs have provided for very distinct worldviews. The Marxist worldview includes dialectical materialism, while naturalism contains secular humanism. While naturalism focuses solely on the change in man through evolution, dialectical naturalism provides reasoning (class struggle) for the things that occur. While science remains the final answer in naturalism, dialectical materialism will ultimately look at the clash between the thesis and the antithesis.  

            In conclusion, these two beliefs have directly influenced Marxism and secular humanism. While they do appear to be somewhat similar, there are still key differences that cannot be ignored.

Naturalism

            Naturalism is one of the most fallacious, inconceivable beliefs I have ever heard. By definition, Naturalism is “the philosophical belief that the natural universe is a closed system and that only natural laws and forces operate in the universe, and that either nothing exists beyond the natural universe, or if it does, it does not affect the natural universe.” Naturalism places all belief in science, as they live and die by the test tube. In this system, reality, truth and knowledge either do not exist, or do not affect what does exist. I will respond according to my own beliefs on this subject.

            If reality, truth and knowledge do not exist, where do we even begin to function as human beings? Our entire sphere of life and death would be so skewed, it would be impossible to even differentiate between anything. If an individual’s mind can only perceive what is physical, then how might one ever love or hate? How would free thought be explained in naturalism? If we are but mere impersonal beings, how can I alter the thought that exists in my brain? Furthermore, whenever I lie I feel a measure of guilt. I also feel pride when I tell the truth despite the consequences. How are these emotions explained? Naturalists refute the complex, emotional state of man. How could anyone do such a thing?  These feelings may not be able to be seen or felt, but nonetheless exist and are very impactful.

            Where does logic or reason fit into this system? The Naturalist argument is self-defeating. If they believe there is no such thing as logic, how did they arrive at the conclusion that Naturalism is truth? They themselves used a form of logic in arriving at that conclusion. And there is the word “truth.” With existence in the universe being based on what is merely physical, there would be no truth to anything. If the only trustworthy aspect of life is science, what happens when new experiments discredit what was commonly accepted forty years ago?  Honestly, science is ever-changing. Looking to it as an answer would be a grave mistake. Just as God cannot fit into a test tube, neither can logic nor reason.

            The naturalist believes there are no absolute truths outside of the physical realm. As I stated earlier, I feel tremendous amounts of guilt when I do the wrong thing. This stems from my “knowledge” of what is right, and what is wrong. This is commonly referred to as the “moral law.” For naturalism to work, the naturalist must deny the existence of such a code. Throughout thousands of years of history, there have been general guidelines and acceptance for what is commonly accepted as right. This prior “knowledge” we have must be rejected by the naturalist. If what happens is merely a reaction to prior occurrences, the naturalist must deny any sort of morality. There would be no reason for a justice system if this were true.

Naturalism is a very limited, fallacious belief. Ultimately, it cannot explain many of the world’s occurrences. It Is a pointless, unsteady and contradictory belief system. Ultimately, science is not, nor will ever be the answer.

Theology 2

Dear Sally and Mark,

You both contain very interesting opinions. I will try to respond thoroughly and honestly as for why I disagree with you. Before I start my response, I would like to clarify that you could have a variety of beliefs.  

            First off, why would someone throughout the times of history need a God? Why would anyone voluntarily admit that they are fallacious, sinful, and a doomed human being. To believe or accept a God as what is truth, the individual must first realize they are lacking that VITAL aspect in their life. Without some prior knowledge at our disposal, how could beings resulting from Hydrogen have such incredibly powerful and complex thoughts?  We were all born with the moral law, which is evidence enough for being given prior knowledge to accept God.

I believe that if God were simply a “human invention,” millions of people would not be persecuted daily for their belief in him. If he were a mere figment of our imagination, hundreds of millions would not seek his support and judgment. Those that believe in him have genuinely seen his work in their lives. Through his work, they have seen the truth that he is ever-present and real. The passion and zeal they feel for God greatly outweighs the risk of believing in him. As these individuals find solace in God and take heart that he is there, they feel a much greater relationship than one would have with an imaginary friend (what you are basically saying God is).  

            Mark, please look outside! The world is caving in around us. There are wars raging as I write this. Disease, famine, and death are happening and will continue to happen. We will never evolve past our sin, and therefore never evolve past God! We do not use him as a “crutch,” but believe that he is truth, and without him we must be penalized for our sin! Without God, anything would go. Technology/ absolute truth will not save humanity, only God can.

I ask that you consider what I said.

Thanks amigo

theology 1

Theology 1

As I watched this video, I immediately questioned the sanity of the person that posted this. I completely understand the reality that I will encounter beliefs such as this, however, I wish this person could look from a logical standpoint at the message he is presenting in his video. I have a few blaring disagreements with this YouTube video, and will try to address them in a respectful manner.  

My first obligation with Nathan’s worldview is his timeline. It is logically impossible for humanity and the present to exist in a state of infinity. If there was no origin, and we are but mere parts of a never ending infinitive existence, then how is what we know to be present? How could this timeline ever catch up to the present?  Furthermore, we would be but mere victims of heat death at this point in time, as humanity would literally be alive for all of eternity and subject to its consequences. In an enlightening example I recently heard, a bible scholar presented this idea: If there were an infinite number of rows and one must count through these infinite rows to reach the front, how can he do so? By definition, infinite means never-ending. This idea is helpful when considering the impossibility of such a thing occurring.

                Secondly, this idea of each and every one of us making up the “all” is fallacious. If we were the “all” and the creators of such an existence, couldn’t I technically alter anything to my pleasing? If so, why am I not over 6 feet and the best looking man alive? And even if I could alter that, the man to my right could alter himself in the same way. It is logically impossible. A classmate of mine has been diagnosed with Leukemia recently, and if she is a part of this “all” and holds the power of such, why can’t she make herself healthy again? Why would there ever be a need for suffering or cancer? There is no such thing as what Nathan is referring to.  

                Thirdly, this video implies that we are all equal and contribute to the “all.” I find it slightly offensive that Nathan would consider my worth similar to that of an ant. Yes, we are all creatures and to be valued, but I have no interest in being compared to Hitler or Stalin. The truth is, we are all unique,  and how can we be such unique creatures, when we are supposedly all the same?

                Lastly, where is the moral law? If we are all God’s, what is defined as right and what is defined as wrong? If we have the ability to alter the world, every single person(God) would be creating his own moral law. There would be complete chaos. Everything would be a contradiction. Would there be an agreement on ultimate truth? How could there be so, when everyone is vying for their own personal agendas…

Nathan, I hope we can continue this convo some other time. Some sushi is calling my name.

Later,

Calvin