UTT - Blog Post 10

Explain 3 problems with a naturalistic explaination for life.  35 points, due Monday, 12th by midnight.

            Well, let’s take this one from three different angles: From the areas of logic, evidence, and history—since those are three huge problem areas for a naturalistic explanation for life. Let’s assume naturalism means the evolutionary standpoint that nature is all there is and the physical, natural universe evolved from natural causes (since there can’t be a supernatural source in naturalism).

        1. Logic: The first major problem area is in logic. We all know that spontaneous generation has been disproved through modern science, so it is generally understood that life cannot come from nonlife. So, therefore, the evolutionary theory of origin cannot stand because it states that amoebas and proteins formed from a random coalition of chance particles that were generated out of nothing. Logically, it doesn’t seem right. Adding the buzz phrase of “millions and billions of years” really doesn’t change anything—if it can’t happen today, it can’t happen then either. We have the same environment, far more technology and understanding of our biological planet, and so much more than was present back then, and we still cannot reproduce such a feat as naturalistic evolution claims created life as we know it.

        2. Evidence: Like any other scientific theory, evidence is necessary to proving it a fact, and naturalistic explanations lack a lot of what they claim. For example, there are few to no transitional forms to back up evolution as a claim of origins, and thus we have no evidence to support the theory. Despite claims to the contrary, the attempt of top evolutionary scientists to falsify these forms (such as Lucy, the Cro-Magnon Man, et. al.) and then creating such a big hullabaloo over their appearance definitely doesn’t inspire confidence in the truth of naturalistic evolution. Further, any attempts to recreate the scenarios of our claimed ‘origins of life’ have fallen apart because they cannot support life as claimed. So, in the area of evidence, evolution is left sorely lacking.

        3. History: Finally, the historical background for a naturalistic explanation for life has never been supported. All of our documented examples of “evolution” have been, in fact, demonstrations of micro-evolution, or small adaptations within a species. Never has there been the viable appearance of macro-evolutionary evidence because it has not appeared over the entire course of human history despite the necessity of its continued path to be a help for the evolutionary cause. Moreover, all the documented mutations that are claimed to be helpful have, in fact, caused death and have never survived in a species—the others isolate and destroy the “freak.” Thus history cannot prove naturalistic evolution.

        Overall, then, we must assume that, with those three problem areas for evolution, naturalistic explanations for life cannot in fact be true.

UTT - Blog Post 9

Due Monday, November 28th at midnight.  How would you respond to the suggestion that there are no absolute moral standards that apply to everyone?

        Aw, this is an easy one, but can really lead to a lot of arguments if you’re not careful. But really, let’s break it down: What does the statement, “There are no moral absolutes that apply to everyone,” have in common with the statement, “There are moral absolutes that apply to everyone?”  All that’s missing is a negative, but the statement remains the same—they’re both still moral absolute statements, declaring something to be true or untrue. So, really, saying that there are no moral standards that apply to everyone contradicts itself and a self-contradicting statement, by the rules of logic, can’t be treated as valid because there isn’t any truth in it.

        Then there’s the legal aspect of it: why do we have courts and laws and such if there weren’t moral rules that we need to keep them to? There are things every culture agrees is wrong, be it murder or child torture or any number of grotesque things. Ours is no different, and we enforce it with the legal system we have set in place, to make us a better society by following some absolute moral rules. The basic existence of the words “right” and “wrong” mean that there are rules—to do something “good” means there is a counter, or a “bad” that can be done by reversing the “good” option. So we have moral rules just in basic societal theory and in our vocabulary.

        But hey, if you have any other questions, feel free to hand me one of them. I like these kind. xD

UTT - Blog Post 8

What’s wrong with Karma?

        Well, that’s an interesting question, but let’s take it as the video presents it, since we need a working definition of Karma first. According to the Youtube clip, the word Karma means “Action,” and it says that “Every action generates a force of energy that returns to us in like kind.” So, basically, we reap what we sow. Action to reaction, that kind of thing.

        So, first of all, let’s look at logical problems with Karma. If every action has a consequence, like the video says, then why do we do bad things in the first place? Do we not learn over time that there is no point to doing “evil” things because it will hurt us down the road? I would think so. After all, we learn from history all the time. Of course, then there’s the logical conclusion of Karma—that if we do something bad, it leads to a bad thing happening to us. But, the video says that bad things happening to us will result in good karma down the road. So, logically, doing bad things would mean we would get good karma later on. A + B = C, right? I don’t think that’s a good idea to be showing around, and it kinda goes against the idea of karma in the first place.

        Then, there’s the future aspects of Karma—what we do about it and what we can expect from it. Really, we can’t expect anything. It leaves a ton to be desired in the “answers” department because we can’t actually know anything about Karma or its results in the first place. No idea how that goes, since we all really want answers about our pressing questions. Also, since we don’t’ know how Karma really works, then we won’t want to do anything about it because it would “Mess things up.” So, therefore, we wouldn’t be allowed to interfere and change a person’s Karma, so all charity, goodwill, and contributions to others, even while charitably kind on the surface, actually will hurt the recipient’s Karma down the road and thus be unwelcome. Ergo, no good deed would go unpunished, as the old saying goes.

        Really, I don’t want to go any farther than this—I don’t believe I need to. I mean, if Karma is already this socially destructive, what’s so good about it? I’m not really sure, honestly. Sorry Nate, but you better get a different view.

UTT - Blog Post 7

Does Non- Naturalism explain truth, reality and knowledge?

       Well, it’s best to start out with a little definition of non-naturalism that we can work with to reference here: In essence, it’s the heart of the new-age movement, or in scientific circles, cosmic humanism. The standing belief is that basically everything is spiritual and nonreal. All of reality is really spiritual and can be anything from divine to a piece of an overall God to anything else—nothing at all is simply physical. When you take this worldview and contrast it with the ideas of truth, reality, and knowledge, what you find leaves you wanting way more answers than they can provide.

       Let’s look at truth first, since that one relates to the others. If truth is spiritual, rather than physical, what can we really know is true? Not much, since we live in a world of physical issues. Also, that could really be a problem for the scientific community, because they focus their efforts on the physical, but non-naturalism negates all of that, so their scientific truth would be rendered useless. Honestly, they would treat truth like it’s all relative, since we really don’t understand the spiritual all that well anyways, so for them, they would explain truth like a postmodern would. It just seems too easy and boring, so I would say that no, the non-naturalism cannot explain the existence of truth because they wouldn’t acknowledge anything concrete anyways.

       To build on that, their idea of knowledge is relative and thus there really is no secure knowledge. The same way with truth, knowledge is relative since we don’t understand the spiritual, and thus unable to be seen or unexplained. So, non-naturalism doesn’t present any real explanation of knowledge, just like it doesn’t with truth. There’s nothing to discuss because they can refer to anything as spiritual, which we cannot understand.

       Even further, what about the non-naturalistic idea of reality as a whole? Again, nonexistent. To them, there is nothing that is physical or real, so therefore reality is just like a bad joke—something that will pass away because it doesn’t exist; it’s all just an illusion. So they don’t believe in reality at all.

       Overall, non-naturalism feels like a wishy-washy way to whitewash religion into any and everything. After all, they see it as an illusion that would just pass away and can’t even provide satisfactory explanations for truth, knowledge, or reality.

UTT - Blog Post 6

What is the difference between naturalism and dialectical materialism?  Be complete.

       Well, that’s a pretty large topic if I do say so myself, but let’s break it down a little, okay? While both are atheistic in nature, so they believe there is no God, they have different definitions. Naturalism is a bit of the more common philosophy, and it’s the idea that science rules all, there is only nature, and all of existence is in this one little physical box, and there is nothing outside the box. So, basically, there is only the physical reality because there is no supernatural. Dialectical materialism—I’m pretty sure it hasn’t caught on mainly because of the huge name and how complicated it sounds—is the idea that there is a constant evolution of sorts called the dialectic, or “conflict.” They claim there is a thesis, or big idea, that develops an antithesis, or opposite idea, and the two conflict until they merge to form a synthesis of the two. Then, as time goes on, they claim a new antithesis emerges to combat the synthesis, and it goes on from there in a constant state of conflict, which is seen as evolution by them. But, let’s look at the differences a bit more in-depth, shall we?

       The two ideas contrast pretty greatly on their views of science. For example, naturalism sees science as the be-all, end-all that should be applied to everything. Have an issue? Science can solve it. It all fits into the “box” that science makes. Of course, that can run into some real issues when you consider things that can’t be scientifically measured like logic, morals, and thought in general—then the box develops some holes and an outside source leaks in. Now, dialectical materialism—ugh, waaaaay too big a phrase, honestly—is a bit more lenient on that topic. They see the universe as interdependent and all things need each other to survive rather than science being everything. Their laws are more philosophical, based on the ideas of the dialectic, or conflict, to further society. So, to them, science still has a purpose, but they put far more into their view of philosophy, since that is what they govern their world with.

       As well, both hold differing views of the future, which is very significant for people who wish to ascribe to an atheistic viewpoint (citation for the idea goes to Victoria Sitterley). On one hand, naturalism is a very bleak outlook on the future and how life will progress: stuff happens, get used to it and get what you can before you’re gone for good. You get one shot, and if something happens to you, well, that’s too bad—you got shafted. At least it wasn’t me. I, personally, couldn’t stand that kind of viewpoint because it just feels so empty and useless that I would go insane (although I’m probably halfway there already, but you know what I mean). At least with dialectical materialism (I’m tempted to call it dm because it’s just too weird to type), they acknowledge conflict and that the best of both sides will come through and continue to be refined, even if it is with the process of evolution. You see, this way, at least the future looks brighter, and that offers some hope. Either way, though, you will die and get nothing in the end—one shot. Still depressing, but not as bad.

       So there you have it—some key differences between naturalism and dialectical materialism. While they may share some of the same viewpoints, they also split in a lot of important ways. And, honestly, neither sounds all that great because you still have no hope about life after death, just a quick and depressing end. How empty.

UTT - Blog Post 5

What are the philosophic problems that naturalism has when it tries to explain reality, truth and knowledge? 

        So, then, let’s talk about naturalism for a bit, shall we? After all, it is a rather prevalent view in today’s world, even though it has some pretty big theological holes. But, that’s why you gave me this question, right? To shine my little sardonic flashlight through those holes and explain why they’re there.

       Let’s start with a definition of naturalism, okay? Naturalism is like looking at nature as a box. You could go so far as to say that it, as a viewpoint, claims that the entire world and universe is one box of physical reality, and there is nothing outside of the box. Theologically, this denies any existence of miracles, God, or the existence of the supernatural, since it claims that the physical is all that there can be. So, with that in mind, how does naturalism respond to the origins of reality, truth, and knowledge? Believe me, not as well as you might expect.

       First of all let’s examine reality. The naturalist would claim that reality is just the physical and nothing else, right? But how does that explain the basic concepts that cannot be measured, such as our idea of the soul (does that mean all humans don’t have souls? Do we not have deeper feelings than just chemicals in the brain? Isn’t that a depressing thought?) or logic? They can’t be measured and they surely aren’t physical, so that would mean naturalistically they don’t exist. Yet, we acknowledge that these non-“real” concepts definitely do exist. So, reality itself can’t be seen from a naturalistic viewpoint because there is obviously more than simply the physical involved in everyday life. Strike one, as it were.

       For my next pitch, let me look at truth. According to the naturalist, truth would only result from physical actions, which we can definitely agree with—after all, actions speak louder than words, right? It’s pretty common knowledge. But, if that concept is extended to history, to our conversations, to daily interaction, how can we trust anything we read? That leads to extremist deconstruction and a breakdown of all truth and trust altogether, which would essentially dehinge our society. Not a good thing to try and start out with, especially since we have operated for so long under a concept of truth that hasn’t broken down yet. Aren’t there commonly-accepted truths that aren’t physically provable, like love, emotion in general, and thought? Those would become relative and unaccepted to a naturalistic world. How depressing, right? Strike two.

       And, for my last trick of the night, let’s take a look at knowledge from a naturalistic viewpoint. I know I touched on this earlier and this is probably dragging on for a bit since I know the reader here would much rather be out running up the Seahurst hill right now, so I’ll make this quick. Knowledge, as it is not physical is relative to a naturalist thinker. Therefore, we have no absolute truth, and once again we look at a destabilized society and social destruction. Really, not appealing from my point of view. Besides, there are areas of knowledge in science (which is odd since this is where most of the naturalistic thinkers reside), medicine, and philosophy that are all accepted as common and true, even if it isn’t physical. I mean, half of psychology is based on reactions, which can be physical but our inferences as to what is behind those reactions, which are accepted as scientifically accurate, are definitely not so concrete or physically provable. So, what gives? Are they right or not? I mean, isn’t even a naturalistic thinker basing his claim on some knowledge, which to him is relative and therefore incorrect? I smell an eternal loop here, so I’ll just leave it spinning. Strike three, and the visiting is taking a hike. =3

UTT - Blog Post 4

Sarah and Mark both believe that God is a human invention, with Mark adding that we should evolve past our "need" for God.  How would you answer that?

Well, that’s an interesting statement, and although I can’t really see what the reasoning behind this is, let me start by giving you a few questions to ask:

       First and foremost: 1. Why say this? What is so overwhelmingly offensive about the concept of God? That could lead to some interesting responses and open the door for you to discuss the ideas of morality (how we share a common Moral Law and how that is evidence for God, as argues a famous Christian author named C.S. Lewis—I’m sure you’ve heard of him), answering to a higher power than ourselves, and maybe a whole other host of issues with Christianity. Either way, it’d be a wonderful starting point to get further into what Sarah and Mark believe and how you would answer that.

       And, secondly, 2. How else do we explain the strangeness that surrounds us? I mean, honestly, there are some pretty crazy things out there around us that we really can’t explain. I mean, I remember hearing about there are better chances that a group of monkeys banging on typewriters would make a letter-perfect copy of Macbeth rather than this world evolve by chance—and that doesn’t even look at the complexity of the human body or our ecosystems. I mean, just look around on the Internet and you’ll see some good examples, although I can give you a few talking points off the top of my head: The woodpecker, with its insanely long tongue and skull formation and bone structure, all of which needed to appear at once for the bird to survive, or the human eye which we still don’t fully understand today, and which is more complex than our best silicon microchips. A really hard thing to evolve, right? I just can’t see that happening by chance. So, from that standpoint, God is our only real answer for the crazy stuff that we see in our world—and to “evolve” past that would leave humanity with a lot of unanswered questions that really need responses.

       Finally, 3. What would be left if we “evolved” past God? From their point of view, let’s give them something to think, about: We would have another kind of religion altogether—the religion of nothing. Think about how depressing that would be for society as a whole, to live for a bit and then you die and that’s all. There wouldn’t be anything to live for, so people would break out on their own and cause major social unrest. From a pragmatic view of society, that would be both dangerous and possibly fatal. But, honestly, this is a lesser point to the first two—try to focus on those if you can.

       Keep it coming, though. They ask good questions! =)