Wednesday, August 29, 2007
Friday, August 24, 2007
Tuesday, August 21, 2007
What Atheists Can't Answer..by Michael Gerson
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/12/AR2007071201620.html
Gerson asks, how would atheists answer how we decide between good and evil instincts? He says that although people have a quality that makes them want to be good, separate from religion, they also have an instinct to be cruel, selfish, full of rage, etc. He says that atheists can't reply to the question of how we choose between good and bad by saying, "follow your mental wiring", or "respect your brain chemistry" because it would also be rational for us to reply with, "To hell with my wiring and your socialization, I'm going to do whatever I please." This is where I feel that his argument begins to fail and gets a little lazy. Isn't there a strong possibility that anyone--atheist or theist--could say to hell with it, I'll do as I please? Of course! Most of the "bad" people that I've met have been pious. He says, "Atheists can be good people; they just have no objective way to judge the conduct of those who are not." I don't believe that good and evil are that black and white; they are subjective...even for people who are religious, each religion has its own ideas about what's good and bad. So religious people also have no objective way to truly judge others' conduct. (as opposed to atheists, they just THINK they can) Gerson's last 2 paragraphs make absolutely no sense to me; he must have been on a tight deadline or something...he comments that for theists, a desire for love and purpose and morality and harmony and all that is perfectly understandable because that's what God wanted for us. He then states that for an atheist, this desire is a cruel joke because it's destined for disappointment. It's not just atheists that are going to be disappointed about the cruelty of life; the most religious of the religious will be disappointed too because shit happens...to everyone.
Gerson asks, how would atheists answer how we decide between good and evil instincts? He says that although people have a quality that makes them want to be good, separate from religion, they also have an instinct to be cruel, selfish, full of rage, etc. He says that atheists can't reply to the question of how we choose between good and bad by saying, "follow your mental wiring", or "respect your brain chemistry" because it would also be rational for us to reply with, "To hell with my wiring and your socialization, I'm going to do whatever I please." This is where I feel that his argument begins to fail and gets a little lazy. Isn't there a strong possibility that anyone--atheist or theist--could say to hell with it, I'll do as I please? Of course! Most of the "bad" people that I've met have been pious. He says, "Atheists can be good people; they just have no objective way to judge the conduct of those who are not." I don't believe that good and evil are that black and white; they are subjective...even for people who are religious, each religion has its own ideas about what's good and bad. So religious people also have no objective way to truly judge others' conduct. (as opposed to atheists, they just THINK they can) Gerson's last 2 paragraphs make absolutely no sense to me; he must have been on a tight deadline or something...he comments that for theists, a desire for love and purpose and morality and harmony and all that is perfectly understandable because that's what God wanted for us. He then states that for an atheist, this desire is a cruel joke because it's destined for disappointment. It's not just atheists that are going to be disappointed about the cruelty of life; the most religious of the religious will be disappointed too because shit happens...to everyone.
Friday, August 10, 2007
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/10/us/10stemcell.html?th&emc=th
When are people going to get off their self-righteous high horses and THINK? People are getting more and more infuriating with this conservative vs. liberal, pro-life vs. pro-choice, Bushie vs. unemployed, etc. etc...everything does not need a label; things are not that simple! Most issues have gray area, and I believe that if you had a one-on-one conversation with most people, they wouldn't be classifed in such a black-and-white manner as we hear day in and day out. I don't understand why anyone, no matter what your religious beliefs, or PERSONAL beliefs are about birth, abortion, pro-choice, etc (since when did this become so public?) would not be PRO-research to find cures for terrible diseases.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
