Using Scientific Reason to Promote Religious Reasoning

Upon discussing the problem of evil in class, it occurred to me that I had also heard an attempt, transmitted through chain email message, to rationalize it away. Unlike the methods that we discussed in class, this method isn't employed in attempt to run away from the problem, it tries to use scientific reason to rationalize the problem of evil. In short, the conversation was supposedly had between Albert Einstein and an unknown college professor and went like so:

Al: Do 'darkness' and 'cold' exist?

Prof: Yes

Al: No, they do not. Dark is the absence of  light, and cold is the absence of heat. Now, does evil exist?

Prof: Aye, it does

Al: No, you are wrong. Evil is simply the absence of God.

This, notwithstanding the invocation of science to defend religion, does not actually answer the problem of evil, even if it appears to do so. Those who attempt to employ this argument to dismiss the problem of evil are convinced that simply invoking science will cause people to not question the problem any further. The question of the problem of evil is - if god is all powerful and all-good, why does he allow evil to exist? The question that this dialogue answered is - What is evil? In addition to all of this, I've also heard it said that God is Omni-present as well, so he doesn't really have an absence.

Morality and Animals

Confucius suggests that morality is a fabric of the universe, if so then do animals have morality?

I think that Confucius would probably say that the decree of heaven does only apply to humans, and not other non-human animals (I don't suppose he recognized humans a animals). I can imagine that he probably, if he gave it any good sum of thought would suggest that there exists a different 'morality' of sorts for many different. He could also say that morals are things that are fully conscious and only exist to those who can think about their actions. So maybe he thinks that animals don't necessarily have a set of 'morals' but instead act as in in their nature because they aren't malleable as humans are. 

True Benevolence and Selflessness

Once again, I find myself back in the realm of dealing with benevolence. It was suggested in my class today that wanting to become benevolent is selfish because of a supposed reward that was received at the end of this journey. I agree that wanting to become benevolent for a reward is selfish. I do, however, think that doing so would equate to not being benevolent and thereby not actually receiving the reward. A person would have to genuinely want to be benevolent for the sake of being benevolent. If a person wanted to be benevolent for a reward, the heavens would not reward them, until they decided that the reward wasn't important. It seemed to me, like the effort to be benevolent would have to be genuine, where the reward is simply an accident consequence. Perhaps more simply put - I do not think that a benevolent person would have any desire or need for a reward. Being benevolent and selfless is already the best reward.

*These may or may not be the views/thoughts of Confucius. I am offering my own modern interpretation of Confucianism which may or may not happen to coincide with Confucius' thoughts (I do not know).

Benevolence and Lifestyle

Today, in my Nature of Human Nature Class, it was said that because Confucius worked all of his life to reach benevolence, it was made easier for us to reach benevolence. In conjunction with this, perhaps defining what was meant by 'easier for us to reach,' the term 'goal' was used several times to refer to achieving the Decree of the Heavens and, thus, benevolence. Goal is defined, by Merriam-Webster, as 'the end toward which effort is directed.' This implies that nothing additional, no continued effort, is required after attaining this end.  After you achieve the 'goal' once, you don't need to persist.

Benevolence, I think, is a lifestyle choice. You cannot be benevolent once and then claim a metal for it. As with other aspects of personality and character trait, it can change. You cannot say that you were nice, because you once helped a woman across the street but from thereon pushed old ladies into the street. Similarly, you cannot be benevolent (selfless) once and then consider yourself benevolent forever. You need to be constantly working on it.

*These may or may not be the views/thoughts of Confucius. I am offering my own modern interpretation of Confucianism which may or may not happen to coincide with Confucius' thoughts (I do not know).

Heaven, Universe, and Psyche

Question: What is the relation between Heaven (as in the Decree of Heaven), the Fabric of the Universe, and the human psyche?

In my not-so-professional (in that I receive no payment for holding this) opinion, these concepts are of mechanical relation.

The Universe as Psyche - Everything that we 'know' about the universe, everything in the scope of human action and thought, all that we perceive and conceive, as far as we can know, exists only in our psyche. To restate this: We can only think and know about the universe in our psyche, Thus, the universe and our psyche are essentially, for our purposes, the same thing.

Morality is a part of that which makes up our psyche (a part of the fabric the universe). Heaven, which is the idea from which we draw correct set of morals, exists naturally our psyche (the universe). We always have access to our psyche, as it is inherent in us, and therefore always have access to the correct set of morals, and should therefore always act on those morals.

I feel that this connection is further evident in that Confucius suggested that the only thing that anyone has any power over is their actions/moral choices. He suggests that a person can have no effect on what is (another parts of the universe (what we perceive from our psyche) that is not morality). Another part of our psyche (the universe) is our recognition of what and how things are. We cannot change those things. No matter how I will away Murdock Hall, or President Obama, they will continue to be. If, however, I wish away a bad moral thought, I have the power to replacing it with a correct moral thought.

*These may or may not be the views/thoughts of Confucius. I am offering my own modern interpretation of Confucianism which may or may not happen to coincide with Confucius' thoughts (I do not know).