Response to Jenna's post: "Naturalism vs. Supernaturalism"

Not having logical evidence isn't always important in terms of religion. I think that choosing to believe in something that, logically, may or may not exist has to do with the fact that humans are a social species. The idea of following a religion could be a social one. Religion is not a solo thing, there are always more people who have the same or similar beliefs, allowing two people to socially connect on another level. Another thought is when one finds themselves alone. No one likes to be alone and turning to religion could make one feel as though they are not actually alone, like they have someone to talk to without being judged. There is also the idea that no one particularly likes to take the blame for themselves, as well as, the idea that there must be blame; even in instances where there clearly cannot be blame (i.e. terminal illnesses). In these ideas, a higher being takes the brunt of the blame or maybe even all of it. Having something to blame, for some, helps in the process of dealing with the cards that they have been dealt in life. Is there logic in believing in religion? Probably not, but each individual makes the choice to believe for themselves and that is really all there is.





(Link to Jenna's Blog: http://jennaoconnorr.blogspot.com/)

Are the References to “God” in the "Pledge of Allegiance" Considered “Public Neutrality?”

I don't see how it could. I thought the church and state were supposed to be separate, isn't the statement "under God" in the "Pledge of Allegiance" doing the opposite? When it was originally written in 1892, by the socialist minister Francis Bellamy, there was no mention of "God," it simply read, "I pledge allegiance to my flag and the republic for which it stands, one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all." Later in 1923, the words "the flag of the United States of America" were added. The pledge still did not include "under God," that wasn't added in until 1954. Many would and do argue that the words have no religious connotation since federal law, state constitutions, and US currency already contain references to "God." What I don't understand is why the words "under God" were added; the minister who wrote the original pledge didn't even put it in, based on the fact that this was to be solely a patriotic pledge. I feel that with the addition of "under God" religion and patriotism were confused and therefore, took away--possibly still takes away--the "public neutrality" schools are supposed to have, since children are to say the pledge every morning before school begins. Does the addition of the phrase still affect the "public neutrality" of the school setting? I think it might, in saying the pledge the children seem to be pledging allegiance to not only their country, but also to "God." In Clark's Naturalism vs. Supernaturalism: How to Survive the Culture Wars, he states, "the liberal-democratic political solution to the problem of coexistence is to keep the state ideologically neutral, creating a public space of secular services and protections base in no particular cosmology or view of human nature." From this I gather that the words "under God" should not have been added to the "Pledge of Allegiance," for it takes away "public neutrality." However, this is still just a personal opinion.

(This site lists many pros and cons to the argument of "under God" and "public neutrality" in the "Pledge of Allegiance" http://undergod.procon.org/)

Response to Ama's Post: "Does determinism exist outside the realm of time?"

Time is a concept made up by humans, time did not exist in the way it does now before humans had a word and system for it. The idea that time runs in a straight line with there being the past at one end and the future at the other is the "western" notion of time. In the Indonesian culture time runs in a circle, there is no set beginning or end, instead there is the idea of "rebirth." That being said, I would have to agree that determinism does indeed exist outside the realm of time because, as they say, "time is relative."






(Link to Ama's Blog: http://the-writing-junkie-school.blogspot.com/)

Is Free Will an Illusion?

The idea of determinism, says that everything is predetermined. The idea of free will, which is self explanatory; says that the preceding events are caused by your chosen actions. In the eyes of the incompatibilist if determinism exists, free will cannot. But if free will does not exist, why does it feel as though it does? Is the idea of choice simply that; and idea? Then again there is compatibilism, which says that determinism and free will can coincide. Is that possible? Consider the door example, if you can choose between two doors, Door A and Door B, but unbeknownst to you, Door B is locked. If you choose Door A, is that free will or was it determined that you would go through Door A? In reality you had no other option, but the "illusion" of option was there, whether or not you chose it. So is free will an illusion? I'm really not sure how to answer this.

Response to Jenna's Post, "Pleasure Scale"

I agree with Jenna's notion that the "pleasure scale" ranges from person to person. The idea that seeking "happiness can become more important than obtaining actual happiness" that is commented on, I believe, holds some truth. People like to feel as though they have a mission. People find happiness in knowing they have a purpose to fulfill and once that is done, they do not know what to do, so they feel they must create a new mission. This idea is almost comparable to the idea of "the thrill of the hunt." Similar to when the hunt ends, once the mission to happiness has been completed the excitement dies down and the person is left looking for that feeling again; happy again only once they have found a new goal to reach for.





(Link to Jenna's blog: http://jennaoconnorr.blogspot.com/)

What is the "Golden Mean?"

The "Golden Mean" is the idea that there is a balance to everything, with that said, Aristotle believed that virtues are a mean between excess and deficiency. Without the "Golden Mean" it is impossible to attain happiness. Living in this way allows "us to live in accordance with our nature, to improve our character, to better deal with the inevitable hardships of life and to strive for the good of the whole, not just of the individual." Finding this mean is an act of discernment. In every situation there are numerous possible actions to take, but the wise, virtuous, person always discerns the single right one. It may be easier to take the other road, after all there are many more options, however, that person will not know the happiness or contentment of the "Golden Mean" given that they have chosen towards one extreme or the other.






More on the "Golden Mean" here: http://www.anus.com/zine/articles/draugdur/golden_mean/

Response to Dom's Post, "Q&A#2 Question 1"

Optimistically, having a person like the one you describe in the question at the end of your post, doesn't sound like too bad a situation. However, I don't know that even this person would be able to avoid the all to common temptation to abuse the power they would attain as a "ruler." I'm sure that at first the truths they wish to share with others would indeed enlighten the masses, but how long will the truth really be the truth? Anyone in a position of power, especially ruling power, has the opportunity to say what they want and have their followers believe it; especially if that person is telling the truth during the beginning of their rein. Often times, they will not even be questioned, how does one resist taking advantage of this? I do not believe that even the most moral of person could, without difficulty, stay away from abusing their power.


(Link to Dom's blog: http://dcoopermcla2555.blogspot.com)