Now this is an issue to address.
There's two general ways to look at it.
If we were created, we should be significant. Otherwise, our lives would be meaningless and unimportant.
Or
If we are Godless, then we were NOT created, and therefore have no important role in the universe.
Perhaps, out of necessity, we invented, or searched for self importance by inventing Gods. Pardon the un-holiness in this question :
Did we create God, to make it seem like He created us?
We all think there should be a beginning of time, and an end of time.
But when I went about telling people the world is going to end in 2012 as part of my social experiment, everyone thought I was crazy. When I questioned further, most said there was DEFINITELY and an end to all things, but it just isn't gonna be anytime soon.
That's just natural. The ONE thing that all living things share is the need to survive. In nature, there are no martyrs. In movies, in stories, sometimes even from misplaced feelings of self righteousness, there are martyrs. But not in nature. If it wasn't for civilization, martyrs would be non existant.
Back to the main topic.
Humans need to feel significant. Our minds are too complex. We keep trying to understand, to complicate, to bring significance to everything. So when we asked ourselves who we were, we got scared. Which came first, the chicken or the egg? No one knows. I don't know. I wasn't there.
So we wrote books, made stories, dictated laws. Some called these 'holy scriptures' and made them above every other law.
The true essence of these are good. You see, people may or may not have souls. But we undeniably have conscientiousness. Whether the conscientiousness of man came from evolution of the mind, or from the soul is unclear. But, in any case, the conscience is like a canvas that cannot be tainted. No matter what the person encounters or does, the conscience will not be changed. It will always know what the right thing to do is. The pure thing to do.
So, these religious texts were written based on the pure conscience laws. To help people remember a good from a bad decision. I have no love for things like these. Because humans also misinterpret(like me) things. So I'll just sit back.
In any case, we also needed to know why, of all things in nature, WE were chosen to bear the gift(or curse) of knowledge. Why we were the only things that knew how to differentiate 'good' from 'bad'. And so, we just MAY have had invented God, to help ourselves feel important. Which I feel is very selfish. I'd rather be unimportant and honest than important and selfish.
Wednesday, September 24, 2008
Saturday, September 6, 2008
Justice, and the rest
"...then in what sort of partnership is the just man a better partner than the harp-player, as in playing the harp the harp-player is certainly a better partner than the just man?
In a money partnership
Yes, but surely not in the use of money; for you do not want a just man to be your counselor in the purchase or sale of a horse; a man who is knowing about horses would be better for that, would he not?
Certainly.
And when you want to buy a ship, the shipwright or the pilot would be better?
True
Then what is the joint use of silver or gold in which the just man is to be preferred?
When you want a deposit to be kept safely.
You mean when money is not wanted, but allowed to lie?
Precisely.
That is to say, justice is useful when money is useless.
That, is the inference."
That conversation was from The Republic I, between Socrates and his friends.
I guess it would have been cool to be Greek. They aren't distracted from trying to define things.
Except when it comes to their Gods and stuff.
Socrates was a genius. In every sense of the word. A lot of the Greeks were smart, but this guy was just, WOW.
Back to the topic of Justice.
From what I understand, justice can be said to be useful when money is useless.
But that's just one point of view.
Since nothing is true, and everything is permitted, I shall try to understand a few other definitions.
If you were told that life is fair, you would most definitely look to the law and justice.
Because, logically speaking, you break the rules, you pay the price.
Let's break down the logic, just as Socrates and his friends did.
Two people, in a setting
person A and person B
Person A is a man of peace. Living his life without harming others. Presumably, person A is pious, and fully believes that life is fair, as in, do good, and good will be done unto you. As they With What Measure Ye Mete, It Shall Be Measured To You.
One day, Person B kills Person A's loved one(presumably unintended murder, Person B just wanted the cash).
Person B needs to be punish on the basis that murder is both a sin, and more importantly, against the law?
True
Person A lost a loved one, even though it was not his fault.
Presumably true. (not considering the butterfly effect,karma relating to past life, etc)
Person A is left without a loved one, and without compensation.
True
Without compensation, especially true, if the law was non-existent.
Also true.
So, in a way, the law serves as a form of compensation to Person A. Because without the law, or JUSTICE, Person A would have no compensation, since it is presumed that Person A would not harm Person B.
True.
1st conclusion, justice is a form of compensation to the powerless law abiding citizens.
That is inferred.
*************************************************************
Previously, I stated that the law was not born of a greater knowledge of what's right and what's wrong, but out of necessity.
That necessity is what we call 'the system'.
Saying the system works, or doesn't work is way too much.
It works because I get to use the internet on a PC(which works in ways I cannot yet understand).
Yet, I can also claim the system doesn't work because parts of Africa can't get a stable government.
The system, in itself is completely necessary, or has made itself so, through the ages of man.
From what I can understand, the system is a complex organization of individuals, groups, and companies that are unaware of how what they do or say effect the nature of man.
In other words, because there are 6 billion humans on the planet, and we're all part of one big society(unlike animals,that are unaware of the presence of their own species on the other side of the earth.), we don't really understand the importance of understanding.
I'm sick of analogies and misinterpreted definitions.
This post was long, and I hope it'll be enough to last whoever reads this crap to last you till my next.
Good bye.
In a money partnership
Yes, but surely not in the use of money; for you do not want a just man to be your counselor in the purchase or sale of a horse; a man who is knowing about horses would be better for that, would he not?
Certainly.
And when you want to buy a ship, the shipwright or the pilot would be better?
True
Then what is the joint use of silver or gold in which the just man is to be preferred?
When you want a deposit to be kept safely.
You mean when money is not wanted, but allowed to lie?
Precisely.
That is to say, justice is useful when money is useless.
That, is the inference."
That conversation was from The Republic I, between Socrates and his friends.
I guess it would have been cool to be Greek. They aren't distracted from trying to define things.
Except when it comes to their Gods and stuff.
Socrates was a genius. In every sense of the word. A lot of the Greeks were smart, but this guy was just, WOW.
Back to the topic of Justice.
From what I understand, justice can be said to be useful when money is useless.
But that's just one point of view.
Since nothing is true, and everything is permitted, I shall try to understand a few other definitions.
If you were told that life is fair, you would most definitely look to the law and justice.
Because, logically speaking, you break the rules, you pay the price.
Let's break down the logic, just as Socrates and his friends did.
Two people, in a setting
person A and person B
Person A is a man of peace. Living his life without harming others. Presumably, person A is pious, and fully believes that life is fair, as in, do good, and good will be done unto you. As they With What Measure Ye Mete, It Shall Be Measured To You.
One day, Person B kills Person A's loved one(presumably unintended murder, Person B just wanted the cash).
Person B needs to be punish on the basis that murder is both a sin, and more importantly, against the law?
True
Person A lost a loved one, even though it was not his fault.
Presumably true. (not considering the butterfly effect,karma relating to past life, etc)
Person A is left without a loved one, and without compensation.
True
Without compensation, especially true, if the law was non-existent.
Also true.
So, in a way, the law serves as a form of compensation to Person A. Because without the law, or JUSTICE, Person A would have no compensation, since it is presumed that Person A would not harm Person B.
True.
1st conclusion, justice is a form of compensation to the powerless law abiding citizens.
That is inferred.
*************************************************************
Previously, I stated that the law was not born of a greater knowledge of what's right and what's wrong, but out of necessity.
That necessity is what we call 'the system'.
Saying the system works, or doesn't work is way too much.
It works because I get to use the internet on a PC(which works in ways I cannot yet understand).
Yet, I can also claim the system doesn't work because parts of Africa can't get a stable government.
The system, in itself is completely necessary, or has made itself so, through the ages of man.
From what I can understand, the system is a complex organization of individuals, groups, and companies that are unaware of how what they do or say effect the nature of man.
In other words, because there are 6 billion humans on the planet, and we're all part of one big society(unlike animals,that are unaware of the presence of their own species on the other side of the earth.), we don't really understand the importance of understanding.
I'm sick of analogies and misinterpreted definitions.
This post was long, and I hope it'll be enough to last whoever reads this crap to last you till my next.
Good bye.
Sunday, August 10, 2008
An open mind or a fixed one
"...a human being is most dangerous when he is certain what he knows is the truth"
I don't know if that was the exact words he used, and I don't know why I never thought of those words myself.
Look at it.
Don't we all get a bit hostile when someone questions our beliefs?
We become more...dangerous.
Because of how sure we are that WE are right, and everything else is bullshit.
Meaning, technically, that people fixed in they're beliefs are more hostile.
(I can already feel the hate and and hostility of some of the people reading this)
So, what now?
Have an open mind?
Be unadamant in what you believe in?
"an open mind is like a fortress, with its gates unbarred and unguarded"
It just makes you more corruptable.
And that is why I always say...
"nothing is true and everything is permitted"
Because instead of fixing yourself to an absolute truth or absorbing and accepting everything I read/experience/watch, I learn.
And I learn many takes on life.
I learn why the scientist says God is a myth.
And why the priest says evolution is a myth.
And why the spiritual leader says "peace in all things"
and everything in between yes and no.
I have no belief other than that saying.
But believing in that saying is self contradictory.
Like telling a genie that you wish he would not grant you this wish.
The genie must obey and grant you your wish, but that would mean not granting the wish.
Confusing, I know.
But I am willing to sacrifice any peace of mind.
Willing to believe in nothing.
As long as I keep learning.
None of my posts should influence anyone.
I wish for everyone to just remain fixed in their beliefs.
And they will be.
I am sure of it.
I don't know if that was the exact words he used, and I don't know why I never thought of those words myself.
Look at it.
Don't we all get a bit hostile when someone questions our beliefs?
We become more...dangerous.
Because of how sure we are that WE are right, and everything else is bullshit.
Meaning, technically, that people fixed in they're beliefs are more hostile.
(I can already feel the hate and and hostility of some of the people reading this)
So, what now?
Have an open mind?
Be unadamant in what you believe in?
"an open mind is like a fortress, with its gates unbarred and unguarded"
It just makes you more corruptable.
And that is why I always say...
"nothing is true and everything is permitted"
Because instead of fixing yourself to an absolute truth or absorbing and accepting everything I read/experience/watch, I learn.
And I learn many takes on life.
I learn why the scientist says God is a myth.
And why the priest says evolution is a myth.
And why the spiritual leader says "peace in all things"
and everything in between yes and no.
I have no belief other than that saying.
But believing in that saying is self contradictory.
Like telling a genie that you wish he would not grant you this wish.
The genie must obey and grant you your wish, but that would mean not granting the wish.
Confusing, I know.
But I am willing to sacrifice any peace of mind.
Willing to believe in nothing.
As long as I keep learning.
None of my posts should influence anyone.
I wish for everyone to just remain fixed in their beliefs.
And they will be.
I am sure of it.
Wednesday, August 6, 2008
Over-generalising people
We are aren't we?
It's not entirely our fault.
There are 6 billion different minds on this earth.
And because we CAN categorize, we DO categorize.
It's so much easier, isn't it.
To have yes-people and no-people.
Rather than reading through countless opinions,
Some similar to others, but never quite the same.
Stereotyping people is bad.
But necessary.
I mean, I wouldn't want to be in the same category as a grave robber.
But because we both don't believe in eternal damnation, I guess you bundle us up.
I've got to conclude this argument fast because I can't be seen on this PC in 5 minutes.
People shouldn't be over simplified.
Look at yourself, look at how complicated you are, now imagine 6 BILLION other people and their complicated selves, if that doesn't help, count 1 to 1 billion and times that by 6.
Remember, there is no absolute truth.
Not even the truth on this website.
The only truth to be had, is personal truth.
Which we can absorb from Holy scriptures, works of literature, scientific studies, etc.
But that doesn't make it true does it?
Just because evidence from one source can disprove evidence from another.
It's not entirely our fault.
There are 6 billion different minds on this earth.
And because we CAN categorize, we DO categorize.
It's so much easier, isn't it.
To have yes-people and no-people.
Rather than reading through countless opinions,
Some similar to others, but never quite the same.
Stereotyping people is bad.
But necessary.
I mean, I wouldn't want to be in the same category as a grave robber.
But because we both don't believe in eternal damnation, I guess you bundle us up.
I've got to conclude this argument fast because I can't be seen on this PC in 5 minutes.
People shouldn't be over simplified.
Look at yourself, look at how complicated you are, now imagine 6 BILLION other people and their complicated selves, if that doesn't help, count 1 to 1 billion and times that by 6.
Remember, there is no absolute truth.
Not even the truth on this website.
The only truth to be had, is personal truth.
Which we can absorb from Holy scriptures, works of literature, scientific studies, etc.
But that doesn't make it true does it?
Just because evidence from one source can disprove evidence from another.
Monday, July 28, 2008
Is ignorance bliss?
Let's set this scene up right and proper.
The incoming board of directors, another guy who just misplaced his dad's phone, and me are all in the men's dressing room. I just got in. I need to change because the event is half an hour away and I'm wearing street clothes.
Technically, I should have just yelled my head off and got everyone ready, because if people weren't doing their part, I'd be taking all the steam from the president, seniors and teacher advisers....
Let's assume the victim is essential to the event.
the crowd can be represented by one or a whole bunch of accused people.
I am half dressed, and have never made an effort to look decent. And I'm
the highest ranking board member in the room.
The victim : ....Please lah, whoever stole my phone, give it back. I'll give you my laptop, just give it back....my dad will kill me...
The crowd : ...we're you're friends, why are you accusing us? (all pissed off)
Me : guys..guys... stop a moment. I need one of you to explain something to me.....tie or no tie?
The crowd : tie la... borrow Marcus' one.
Me : Where is Marcus?
The crowd : He went home, he'll be back soon.
Me : Ok, but if his tie goes missing, I didn't steal it(wink at the victim)
The victim : I don't care la. I'm just gonna go home.... You guys not even helping me find my phone oso... Jeez... my dad's gonna kill me...
The crowd : Walao, you keep blaming us, how we gonna help (smashes something on the floor)
The victim : Ok, I'm going home already. I can't take you people....
The crowd : Fine la, go home... stupid fella, we're trying to help oso you wanna....
Me : Hey, hey, hey..... side parting, messed up, or.....
The crowd : nah, what you got looks ok..
Me : alright....lemme just touch up...
The crowd : OMG! the phone's in the toilet.. call the fella....(all cheering)
END OF SCENE
****************************************************************************
When you understand human nature, you also need to understand that people are adamant in what they believe.
Fortunately, I was the only one there who did understand human nature. But for all my "understanding", I have one stupid flaw.... which is supported by all my other flaws.
I love a good show..
I sometimes love seeing anarchy unfold before me.
Because I know compassion, just as well as hatred can be suppressed.
I could have resolved the whole thing, by giving a lecture about priority.
But I knew in my heart that in these sort of situations, men would rather die/kill for themselves then understand each other
****************************************************************************
Now let's just say what I just tried to explain is true,
we have on all sides of the spectrum ignorant people.
The victim, ignorant, quick to place blame, not caring of responsibility.
The crowd, ignorant, instead of understanding, chose to defend it's innocence.
And me, ignorant, not taking control of my boys, instead just sitting back and watching.
All ignorant.
Only one blissful.
So MAYBE that whole 'ignorance is bliss' proverb has to be rewrote.
"ignorance is bliss, only when you understand when and how to be ignorant"
But that's not as catchy.
Wait a minute...
Happiness itself has never really been defined right?
Buddhist monks give up all possessions and passions because they conclude that everything that brings happiness, will eventually lead to sorrow and pain.
A rich person would often cling to his possessions and passions because everything else brings sorrow and pain.
And then there's the 6 billion other definitions in between.
Nothing is true and everything is permitted.
Understand that statement, and you'll understand that none of definitions are absolute.
Not even mine.
Wow that's confusing...
Let's just leave it at this:
Everyone (all 6 billion of us) will find something to be happy/sad about.
Nobody will find something that all 6 billion of us will be 100% happy/sad about.
BECAUSE
nothing is True
Nothing is 100% absolute
and everything is permitted
Based on how each one of the 6 billion of us see something.
The incoming board of directors, another guy who just misplaced his dad's phone, and me are all in the men's dressing room. I just got in. I need to change because the event is half an hour away and I'm wearing street clothes.
Technically, I should have just yelled my head off and got everyone ready, because if people weren't doing their part, I'd be taking all the steam from the president, seniors and teacher advisers....
Let's assume the victim is essential to the event.
the crowd can be represented by one or a whole bunch of accused people.
I am half dressed, and have never made an effort to look decent. And I'm
the highest ranking board member in the room.
The victim : ....Please lah, whoever stole my phone, give it back. I'll give you my laptop, just give it back....my dad will kill me...
The crowd : ...we're you're friends, why are you accusing us? (all pissed off)
Me : guys..guys... stop a moment. I need one of you to explain something to me.....tie or no tie?
The crowd : tie la... borrow Marcus' one.
Me : Where is Marcus?
The crowd : He went home, he'll be back soon.
Me : Ok, but if his tie goes missing, I didn't steal it(wink at the victim)
The victim : I don't care la. I'm just gonna go home.... You guys not even helping me find my phone oso... Jeez... my dad's gonna kill me...
The crowd : Walao, you keep blaming us, how we gonna help (smashes something on the floor)
The victim : Ok, I'm going home already. I can't take you people....
The crowd : Fine la, go home... stupid fella, we're trying to help oso you wanna....
Me : Hey, hey, hey..... side parting, messed up, or.....
The crowd : nah, what you got looks ok..
Me : alright....lemme just touch up...
The crowd : OMG! the phone's in the toilet.. call the fella....(all cheering)
END OF SCENE
****************************************************************************
When you understand human nature, you also need to understand that people are adamant in what they believe.
Fortunately, I was the only one there who did understand human nature. But for all my "understanding", I have one stupid flaw.... which is supported by all my other flaws.
I love a good show..
I sometimes love seeing anarchy unfold before me.
Because I know compassion, just as well as hatred can be suppressed.
I could have resolved the whole thing, by giving a lecture about priority.
But I knew in my heart that in these sort of situations, men would rather die/kill for themselves then understand each other
****************************************************************************
Now let's just say what I just tried to explain is true,
we have on all sides of the spectrum ignorant people.
The victim, ignorant, quick to place blame, not caring of responsibility.
The crowd, ignorant, instead of understanding, chose to defend it's innocence.
And me, ignorant, not taking control of my boys, instead just sitting back and watching.
All ignorant.
Only one blissful.
So MAYBE that whole 'ignorance is bliss' proverb has to be rewrote.
"ignorance is bliss, only when you understand when and how to be ignorant"
But that's not as catchy.
Wait a minute...
Happiness itself has never really been defined right?
Buddhist monks give up all possessions and passions because they conclude that everything that brings happiness, will eventually lead to sorrow and pain.
A rich person would often cling to his possessions and passions because everything else brings sorrow and pain.
And then there's the 6 billion other definitions in between.
Nothing is true and everything is permitted.
Understand that statement, and you'll understand that none of definitions are absolute.
Not even mine.
Wow that's confusing...
Let's just leave it at this:
Everyone (all 6 billion of us) will find something to be happy/sad about.
Nobody will find something that all 6 billion of us will be 100% happy/sad about.
BECAUSE
nothing is True
Nothing is 100% absolute
and everything is permitted
Based on how each one of the 6 billion of us see something.
Thursday, July 24, 2008
Freedom's never Free
I heared and read much about freedom.
Assassin's Creed influenced how I thought free will worked.
A lot.
If I were to summarize it, this would be it:
A group of very influential people plot to unite the Crusading Christians and the Defendin Muslims of the world under one banner. Halting all the crusades and ending the hatred and war. Your task is to stop them, because even though they're quest is noble, the means in which they wish to achieve it is unfair. They would enslave a population under one banner and supress FREE WILL. In theory, when you supress free will, more people conform and will be at peace.
YOUR society doesn't believe in that. In his dying words , one of your targets explains to you why their cause is just.
"YOU : ... people must be free to choose what to believe in.
Target: Have they ever been free? Except for the occasional convert or heritic, no one chooses
what they believe in. They're all taughted what to believe...."
My whole life I stuck to the free will being the most important thing to have.
And in that moment, I had to restructure everything.
A Spartan would die defending his country in 300BC not because he was given a choice to believe in Sparta, but because his whole life was based in Sparta. He was taught the Spartan ways, the Spartan life and it's rituals and beliefs.
Same as an American soldier, born and bred to be given NO CHOICE but the one he has been taught to believe. There is NO CHOICE. Unless you yourself experience each belief/practice/creed, you have only the choice of sticking to what you've been taught. Unless of coarse your willing to open your mind a little and let everything pour in.
We, or at least I, never realized how un-free we really are. What we believe in isn't automatically justified to be the absolute truth. Otherwise everyone would believe in just one thing.
This really isn't making much sense right now. So I'll have to try again someday in a part 2
Assassin's Creed influenced how I thought free will worked.
A lot.
If I were to summarize it, this would be it:
A group of very influential people plot to unite the Crusading Christians and the Defendin Muslims of the world under one banner. Halting all the crusades and ending the hatred and war. Your task is to stop them, because even though they're quest is noble, the means in which they wish to achieve it is unfair. They would enslave a population under one banner and supress FREE WILL. In theory, when you supress free will, more people conform and will be at peace.
YOUR society doesn't believe in that. In his dying words , one of your targets explains to you why their cause is just.
"YOU : ... people must be free to choose what to believe in.
Target: Have they ever been free? Except for the occasional convert or heritic, no one chooses
what they believe in. They're all taughted what to believe...."
My whole life I stuck to the free will being the most important thing to have.
And in that moment, I had to restructure everything.
A Spartan would die defending his country in 300BC not because he was given a choice to believe in Sparta, but because his whole life was based in Sparta. He was taught the Spartan ways, the Spartan life and it's rituals and beliefs.
Same as an American soldier, born and bred to be given NO CHOICE but the one he has been taught to believe. There is NO CHOICE. Unless you yourself experience each belief/practice/creed, you have only the choice of sticking to what you've been taught. Unless of coarse your willing to open your mind a little and let everything pour in.
We, or at least I, never realized how un-free we really are. What we believe in isn't automatically justified to be the absolute truth. Otherwise everyone would believe in just one thing.
This really isn't making much sense right now. So I'll have to try again someday in a part 2
Saturday, July 19, 2008
Ethics & Morals
Who has the highest say when it comes to ethics and morals.
The law, most probably. But the law was not created based on an ancient wisdom, but out of necessity to control those who would rather not be controlled.
Religion? Probably. That's the main topic today.
In my opinion, a God would be something without life. Something without human thought, constrictions or form. It would be a force of intelligence. An all-knowing force the we could use to explain how the universe is so intelligent by design. How an atom of 'blah blah blah' knows when to combine with this other atom to form a protein. How does it know? Is it mere chance that it collided? Possible, but that would mean the universe is trillions of years old. Which is incomprehensible isn't it? Still, it's possible none the less.
But back to the topic of God. If this God thing is not a being, that would mean ethics and morals are purely human creation. Animals do not see ethics. Dogs are loyal only because they have a memory of a certain human treating them well. It is only human to be considerate and rational. No other being has that power. Apes and chimps are on the verge, but that just shows that we are related to them genetically.
Why should a creator that is NOT a being, have the power to decide what is right and what is wrong?
So, if ethics and morals were created by humans, where do we draw the line? Must one way of thinking constrain science from being more powerful from religion? Yes, and no. Opinions matter, but when you have got a whole bunch of people with a contradictory belief who will shun you and sanction you, you'd better play nice.
Trying to reach the point of being a physical embodiment of goodness is near impossible and downright odd(in my opinion). We were graced by evolution with the most powerful tool in the universe; the mind. Yet there are those who would rather refrain from reaching deep into the mind by holding religion as a shield. I do not blame them. I believe people should be free to choose, to learn and to live. But at the same time, education is important. The ethical dilemma is whether people should be thought the best way to live or be given free reign to live their lives. The best solution often doesn't yield the 'perfect society' as one would imagine. But balance is probably the most decent way to settle this. As has most problems been eventually resolved.
The law, most probably. But the law was not created based on an ancient wisdom, but out of necessity to control those who would rather not be controlled.
Religion? Probably. That's the main topic today.
In my opinion, a God would be something without life. Something without human thought, constrictions or form. It would be a force of intelligence. An all-knowing force the we could use to explain how the universe is so intelligent by design. How an atom of 'blah blah blah' knows when to combine with this other atom to form a protein. How does it know? Is it mere chance that it collided? Possible, but that would mean the universe is trillions of years old. Which is incomprehensible isn't it? Still, it's possible none the less.
But back to the topic of God. If this God thing is not a being, that would mean ethics and morals are purely human creation. Animals do not see ethics. Dogs are loyal only because they have a memory of a certain human treating them well. It is only human to be considerate and rational. No other being has that power. Apes and chimps are on the verge, but that just shows that we are related to them genetically.
Why should a creator that is NOT a being, have the power to decide what is right and what is wrong?
So, if ethics and morals were created by humans, where do we draw the line? Must one way of thinking constrain science from being more powerful from religion? Yes, and no. Opinions matter, but when you have got a whole bunch of people with a contradictory belief who will shun you and sanction you, you'd better play nice.
Trying to reach the point of being a physical embodiment of goodness is near impossible and downright odd(in my opinion). We were graced by evolution with the most powerful tool in the universe; the mind. Yet there are those who would rather refrain from reaching deep into the mind by holding religion as a shield. I do not blame them. I believe people should be free to choose, to learn and to live. But at the same time, education is important. The ethical dilemma is whether people should be thought the best way to live or be given free reign to live their lives. The best solution often doesn't yield the 'perfect society' as one would imagine. But balance is probably the most decent way to settle this. As has most problems been eventually resolved.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
