Realities of non-determinism. We are responsible as individuals, societies, and as a species.

One of the biggest problem that I have with religion is the ideas of determinism. Most religious people and followers of astrology believe in this “fate,” and it really doesn’t make sense to do so. Even though I cannot completely say there is no determinism, I will argue against its reality, then argue against having the mindset of determinism.

First, let’s address the logical fallacy in discussing determinism. If I continue this argument with the supposition that there is no determinism, it is easily stated that the argument itself is predetermined. Likewise, so too would all of the readers beliefs. I would be unable to persuade those already with the mindset of determinism, because they would likely believe their ideas are unchangeable. However, if I do manage to persuade some people that there is no determinism, it is easily said that same persuasion is predetermined.

Religious Discussion; Rationalization of Atheism

I had this very nice discussion with a friend of mine on the topic of religion/beliefs/thoughts. I myself am an atheist, while the person I was chatting with is a catholic, also with beliefs in astrology. This is the first time I’ve actually declared my religion on the blog.This discussion is a rationalization of my thoughts, at least in part. I intend to write a post finalizing and clarifying everything, and I will link to it when I’m finished thinking about and writing it. I intend for the following discussion not to be the full extent of my rationalization and thoughts, and I want this discussion to serve more of an introduction, as it started the idea to write a more extensive post. I figured it would be appropriate, as this is “New Discussions” after all… continue it in the comments if you’re interested, or would like to add something to the discussion.

Reflection of Personality through Objective Surroundings

I’m in the process of reading “Sophie’s World; A Novel About the History of Philosophy.” Sophie’s Philosophy teacher said in response to his apartment being filled with “junk”:

We do not live in our own time alone: we carry our history within us. Don’t forget that everything you see in this room was once brand new. That old sixteenth-century wooden doll might have been made for a five-year-old girl’s birthday. By her old grandfather, maybe… then she became a teenager, then an adult, and then she married. Maybe she had a daughter of her own and gave the doll to her. She grew old, and one day she died. Although she had lived for a very long time, one day she was dead and gone. And she will never return. Actually she was only here for a short visit. But her doll—well, there it is on the shelf.”

I wound up having a dream about the excerpt, in which I recited the story to someone degrading the value of historical objects. I explained to the man whom I cannot remember how each object—such as the doll—carries meaning,

If… If… If… Hypotheticals of the past.

People absolutely love to use hypothetical situations in order to contrast the possibilities of their life:

If I hadn’t done this…

If I were someone else…

If I hadn’t been born…

If I were in a car accident…

If you were in a car accident…

If I died…

If I live…

If… If… If…

In any hypothetical dealing with changes in the past, people presume they fully understand the situation they would have arrived at. People presume

Mourning death is ineffective and irrational: Cherish the life that one lived.

The beginning quote from Richard Dawkins in this video strike within me a moment of recollection:

Most people are never going to die because they’re never going to be born. The potential people who could’ve been here in my place but who will in fact never live to see the light of day outnumber the grains of the Sahara. … We know this because the set of possible people allowed by our DNA so massively outnumber the set of actual people. In the teeth of these stupefying odds it is you and I in our ordinariness who are here. 

I’ve always enjoyed the prospect of valuing life rather than mourning death after that final moment of an individual. Any deal of memorable life should be valued simply for having the opportunity to live. Regardless of its length, life is an opportunity that is so remarkably improbable, as the quote suggests.

Spinoza’s Conjecture

This is an excerpt from “The Believing Brain” by Michael Shermer on page 135:

This research supports what I call Spinoza’s conjecture: belief comes quickly and naturally, skepticism is slow and unnatural, and most people have a low tolerance for ambiguity. The scientific principle that a claim is true unless proven otherwise runs counter to our natural tendency to accept as true that which we can comprehend quickly. Thus it is that we should reward skepticism and disbelief, and champion those willing to change their mind in the teeth of new evidence. Instead, most social institutions—most notably those in religion, politics, and economics—reward belief in the doctrines of the faith or party ideology, punish those who challenge the authority of the leaders, and discourage uncertainty and especially skepticism.

How rational of a proposition.

The evolution of human morality.

This is a reply to a post (which is a reply to my comment) titled “Why morality stems from law, not the opposite; why the moral of different cultures are very similar and why there is not an ‘absolute’ moral” by Miguelinileugum You can read the original post that I commented on here.

Humans have a “morality” which seems to be inherent in humans, most likely the result of genetic traits and cultural adaptations. In the above post, Miguelinileugum makes the argument that morality stems from law, as the title would suggest. I’m assuming that by “law” she means the societal establishments which enforce practices and appropriate behaviors, as we are all familiar with the term to be.

This argument reasons it is as such because “society needed a common law, and the ones who complied with the law had less problems with society.” However, the argument does not take into account the existence of moral principles before the existence of common law, or how the formation of laws was established.

Parallels between the push for inter-racial marriage, and the push for same-sex marriage.

The unfolding of events because of recent media frenzy regarding same-sex marriages has been interesting. North Carolina recently added a state amendment classifying marriage as between a man and a woman, and declared out of state unions and marriages invalid in the state. As many are aware, President Barack Obama, following Vice President Joe Biden, made a statement supporting same-sex marriage. Following suit, many state governors have come out in support of the same issue, and have gone as far as to sign amendments in their states which aid the movement. Despite the issue of inter-racial marriage being such a recent controversy in American History, no one seems to be drawing parallels between the two, including the not so great state of North Carolina.

Medicinal Marijuana: Why it should be legalized.

Medicinal marijuana is more commonly being seen as an acceptable substance in society, and for good reason. We’re just now getting over our societal dislike of the substance, with an increasing majority of people supporting its legalization. Marijuana has long had medical purposes, its legalization would have benefits to state governments and economies, and the natural substance is very nominally destructive—if it is at all. 

The rationality and morality of suicide.

For an understandable reason, suicide is frowned upon in society. In most circumstances, it is understandable and agreeable to see suicide as a wrong option, but is suicide always wrong? Can it be rational and morally understandable? The short answer: yes, but only in specific circumstances.