If it is a commonplace belief that we should separate church and state, should we also separate science from state?
I think so, yes. In order to remain ideologically neutral it would be essential to separate science from state. By that I mean that science should not be quite as regulated by the state. Originally, the separation of church and state was intended to keep state out of church, not vice versa. Science should become more of an international endeavor rather than allowing it to be hindered by modern state. Of course, one of the problems that this brings up is the problem of education; what do you teach when there is a separation of church and science and state? How can you teach about biology with favoring science in the state?
02 March 2012
Citizens v. Denizens
When trying to promote a peaceful co-existence of different ideologies would it be more useful to draw similarities between the people holding those ideologies? Should we talk about denizens rather than citizens; should we strive for global goals, rather than national ones?
Clark speaks about citizens, first amendment, democracy, congress, and so on. He is sort of suggesting that this peaceful co-existence is likely to happen in America, or that it could only happen in America. I am of the opinion that if we truly desire to have a peaceful co-existence between naturalist and supernaturalists, we should probably also seek the peaceful co-existence between 'nations.' I personally think that this can be best achieved by getting rid of the concept of nation and recognizing our unity as denizens of the world. Recognizing that we are all on this lovely planet together will allow us to better decide upon decisions that would be best for all of us rather than best for a single or few nations.
Clark speaks about citizens, first amendment, democracy, congress, and so on. He is sort of suggesting that this peaceful co-existence is likely to happen in America, or that it could only happen in America. I am of the opinion that if we truly desire to have a peaceful co-existence between naturalist and supernaturalists, we should probably also seek the peaceful co-existence between 'nations.' I personally think that this can be best achieved by getting rid of the concept of nation and recognizing our unity as denizens of the world. Recognizing that we are all on this lovely planet together will allow us to better decide upon decisions that would be best for all of us rather than best for a single or few nations.
27 February 2012
Novelty in Heaven
We have mentioned a few times in class that once you have something that you want, you don't want it anymore. You can spend years waiting for a brand new cell phone, once you have that cell phone for a year you will no longer be as enthused about it. It occurred to me many years ago that this same principle (which Dave Kenneth Johnson mentioned in class, though I've forgotten the name) does very well apply to heaven.
Heaven, so I've been told, is a place where people who have spent their lives obeying the Christian god's will have the privilege of continuing to obey and praise god for all of eternity. In addition to that reward, you get to be eternally happy, having everything you could ever want (except for maybe the love of your friends whom did not obey god). It seems to me that two things could occur here. The first is that your mind will be altered to make you find this after-lifestyle more agreeable, that you will always be content; in which case, you are no longer yourself and therefore reap no reward. The second is that, after spending 3 billion years of your newly eternal life, you find yourself unable to be satisfied with heaven; you would be completely unhappy with that life because the novelty has worn off. Sadly, however, you could not end that life, because it is eternal and because in heaven, you can only do good wholesome things, like obey your god.. Thus, that which you previously identified as heaven becomes more like hell; which is not a reward.
Ethics In A Determined Universe
In response to Meghan and Stacy (click on the names for links)
We currently operate under the assumption that humans are the agents by which an action is made. Under this assumption, it seems right to hold people responsible for their actions, because they could have made a choice to not perform any given action. Given our current assumptions, it seems perfectly acceptable to treat people poorly after they have committed a crime; If person A kills person B, it seems right, to us, to deprive person A of comfort; thus we have punishment. Punishment, I think, is not the right approach.
Determinism has it that people cannot be held responsible for making a choice, because they are simply the agent through which, not by which, an action was made. To provide a good example of how a determinist could deal with crime, you have to invoke a lack of choice. Therefore, think of it this way:
A child is born with a severe, yet non-terminal communicable disease present from birth. Since the child had no control over this, the child cannot be held accountable for this circumstance. Most of can agree, then, that it would be wrong to lock this child in a cold, dark room which reeks of urine. Surely, however, the child must be quarantined from society. Given that the child cannot be held responsible for having a disease, we would likely treat the child as comfortably as could be allowed. Additionally, we would likely search for a cure to this disease.
This example shows that, in a deterministic universe, the punitive approach to dealing with crime would be far less fitting than a rehabilitative approach. Given that criminals are not responsible for their actions, it is wrong to punish them. It is not wrong, however, to supply them with as many comforts as can be allowed and help them to be rid of their criminal ways, that they do not act criminally again.
Similarly, since ethics still exists in a deterministic universe, it would be good to recognize, promote, and reward good actions. If a teacher dedicated years of his or her life to helping students become better people, it would be good to recognize that this is a good quality to have, and to promote the idea that people should aspire to be similarly good. Praising good qualities does not harm anybody, it only promotes it, which could one of the primary causes for someone else exhibiting similar qualities.
We currently operate under the assumption that humans are the agents by which an action is made. Under this assumption, it seems right to hold people responsible for their actions, because they could have made a choice to not perform any given action. Given our current assumptions, it seems perfectly acceptable to treat people poorly after they have committed a crime; If person A kills person B, it seems right, to us, to deprive person A of comfort; thus we have punishment. Punishment, I think, is not the right approach.
Determinism has it that people cannot be held responsible for making a choice, because they are simply the agent through which, not by which, an action was made. To provide a good example of how a determinist could deal with crime, you have to invoke a lack of choice. Therefore, think of it this way:
A child is born with a severe, yet non-terminal communicable disease present from birth. Since the child had no control over this, the child cannot be held accountable for this circumstance. Most of can agree, then, that it would be wrong to lock this child in a cold, dark room which reeks of urine. Surely, however, the child must be quarantined from society. Given that the child cannot be held responsible for having a disease, we would likely treat the child as comfortably as could be allowed. Additionally, we would likely search for a cure to this disease.
This example shows that, in a deterministic universe, the punitive approach to dealing with crime would be far less fitting than a rehabilitative approach. Given that criminals are not responsible for their actions, it is wrong to punish them. It is not wrong, however, to supply them with as many comforts as can be allowed and help them to be rid of their criminal ways, that they do not act criminally again.
Similarly, since ethics still exists in a deterministic universe, it would be good to recognize, promote, and reward good actions. If a teacher dedicated years of his or her life to helping students become better people, it would be good to recognize that this is a good quality to have, and to promote the idea that people should aspire to be similarly good. Praising good qualities does not harm anybody, it only promotes it, which could one of the primary causes for someone else exhibiting similar qualities.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)