D.Z. Phillips argues that religious faith is merely a comforting projection of human ideals, which cannot be obtained. It seems reasonable that the notion of god could be just a dream that individuals hold on to in order to cope with the monotony and sometimes sorrowful nature of life. The stereotypical version of god is a perfect man, having everything that he wants at his finger tips- ultimate power, cities of gold, immortality, purity, goodness. Most of these things are not constantly obtainable to any human being. Few men might experience brief moments of power, wealth, and goodness, but these things cannot be sustained. There is no reason for god to have these qualities except for the fact that these qualities are human ideals. Why would god not possess other qualities, and why are other qualities not considered equally as great? Of all the creatures inhabiting earth, only man actively seeks supreme power, immortality, and wealth. Including animals, plants, insects and creatures of the sea, man is the great minority of earth's population, so why would a god that created all things be given human attributes? Some might argue that god is given human characteristics because man rules the world, but is this so? Man has learned over the centuries how to conquer some things, but he is still helpless at controlling nature. If nature decides that she wants to destroy a city, there is nothing that man can do about it. If nature decides that she wants to kill man with a rampant virus, man can attempt to fight it, but many will perish. Why is god not given the characteristics of nature? In some religions, he is. In the Christian bible, Jesus states, "consider the lillies of the field", as a comparison to god. How are lillies superior to human beings? They are at peace.
All evidence thus far points to the concept of god as being merely a psychological catharsis to human suffering. People need to be able to say to themselves, "there must be something greater than this...a point to all of this". People seem to think that the idea of life being pointless is depressing, but why? If in fact we die and disappear, and all the events of our lives culminated to a pile of bones, then every living moment would be MORE special, because it would be something we could never have again. We would be losing time and existence at every moment. In the movie Troy, Achilles tells his lover that the god's envy human beings because every moment could be their last, which makes every moment more special and celebrated. He says that, "you will never be more lovely than you are now". I have always loved that quote, because it gives reason to celebrate every stage of life, even the ugly. In our most painful moments we feel the most alive, because we are more aware of our mortality and the ephemeral nature of everything and everyone that we love. In these moments, we are the most thankful.
Aside from all of the arguments against the existence of God, it is peculiar to me that we all have an inner feeling of purpose, and a sense of an ultimate design. Every major religion is founded upon this intuition, and frankly people live their lives around it. Even atheists live their lives according to an ultimate and universal design- that there is no god. Why do we all have this inner sense of universal order, and seeming connectedness? Given this observation, it makes sense that perhaps there is a universal energy...not that this energy created us, or that we created it. It just is, and we are a part of it. This would explain why human beings feel a sense of connectedness and universal design. Maybe there is no word in our language for what "god" really is. Maybe god is just the all-encompassing substance of life. It does not make sense that reality is based upon a linear plan of man evolving and eventually reaching enlightenment with god, because apparently there is no such thing as time and space. Technically, everything that will happen has already happened. Time and space are just measurements of change. If enlightenment and unity with god is the ultimate goal, then technically we have already reached it. There cannot be a "plan" that we follow, or a spiritual progression of any type. There is only existence. Can existence be our purpose? Maybe our purpose is just to exist, like the lillies of the field.
20081116
20081107
on morality
In class this week, we have been discussing the nature and validity of morality. Some define morality as a set of regulations for humanity, given to us by god. Others define morality based upon the context of a culture, which makes morality more subjective. As there are many definitions of morality, we cannot concretely say that one is absolutely correct. We have no way of knowing which god or which culture has the correct definition of morality.
In order to define morality, we have to find a constant or a universal moral truth that applies to all possible circumstances. It seems that all of the interpretations of morality are entirely subjective, so truth cannot be found in the practice of morality. Rather, one must look at the motivation. Though, morals can vary from society to society, what is the motivating factor that causes all people to follow some code of morals? It seems that all moral guidelines are founded upon the intention to stop people from hurting themselves or others. This concept applies to any moral "law" that you can think of. Therefore, it is universal.
How is the perception of bad vs. good created, in regards to hurting oneself or others? Perhaps one cannot prove other people's hurt, but one can definitely prove one's own hurt. In contrast to Aristotle, I think that morals were founded upon man's desire to stop hurting rather than his desire to be happy. Man can feel his own pain and he has an idea as to what causes this pain. Since man assumes that most people will think and feel similarly to himself, he projects that the things that are painful for him will also be painful for others, as well. Man has the ability to reason, and to be able to look at a situation not involving himself and think to himself. "this situation would hurt me if i were in it. The people in this situation must be hurting. Therefore, what is going on is bad." The discrepancy is that people do not always react similarly to the same circumstances. What hurts one man may not hurt another. There is no universal rule claiming that a certain set of actions hurt all people. It seems that the only constant is that morality is based upon keeping individuals from hurting themselves or others. Since we can't possibly know how or what hurts other people, we should not impose our perceptions of morality onto other people. One has the right to live under whatever moral code he or she wishes, as long as he or she is not imposing these regulations onto other people or hurting other people. Despite the fact that one may validly view an action as correct, if it is hurtful to another person one should not act. Acting in a way that hurts other people is similar to imposing your morals onto them. In this situation, you are saying "I know you are hurt by what I am doing, but you shouldn't be".
Thus, it seems that there is a constant concept behind all moral guidelines and this seems to be the true moral guideline: do not hurt yourself or others.
In order to define morality, we have to find a constant or a universal moral truth that applies to all possible circumstances. It seems that all of the interpretations of morality are entirely subjective, so truth cannot be found in the practice of morality. Rather, one must look at the motivation. Though, morals can vary from society to society, what is the motivating factor that causes all people to follow some code of morals? It seems that all moral guidelines are founded upon the intention to stop people from hurting themselves or others. This concept applies to any moral "law" that you can think of. Therefore, it is universal.
How is the perception of bad vs. good created, in regards to hurting oneself or others? Perhaps one cannot prove other people's hurt, but one can definitely prove one's own hurt. In contrast to Aristotle, I think that morals were founded upon man's desire to stop hurting rather than his desire to be happy. Man can feel his own pain and he has an idea as to what causes this pain. Since man assumes that most people will think and feel similarly to himself, he projects that the things that are painful for him will also be painful for others, as well. Man has the ability to reason, and to be able to look at a situation not involving himself and think to himself. "this situation would hurt me if i were in it. The people in this situation must be hurting. Therefore, what is going on is bad." The discrepancy is that people do not always react similarly to the same circumstances. What hurts one man may not hurt another. There is no universal rule claiming that a certain set of actions hurt all people. It seems that the only constant is that morality is based upon keeping individuals from hurting themselves or others. Since we can't possibly know how or what hurts other people, we should not impose our perceptions of morality onto other people. One has the right to live under whatever moral code he or she wishes, as long as he or she is not imposing these regulations onto other people or hurting other people. Despite the fact that one may validly view an action as correct, if it is hurtful to another person one should not act. Acting in a way that hurts other people is similar to imposing your morals onto them. In this situation, you are saying "I know you are hurt by what I am doing, but you shouldn't be".
Thus, it seems that there is a constant concept behind all moral guidelines and this seems to be the true moral guideline: do not hurt yourself or others.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
