Of the Beautiful and Sublime

Since the beginning of the semester, my views haven't so much changed as they have strengthened. Yet I have also learned to take into account views and beliefs that are in opposition to my own. The book I am nearing the end of is Kant's "Of the Beautiful and Sublime". This book outlines the distinct objective views of each along with the feelings that they evoke based upon the gender and culture of the observer. I still stand firm in believing in constructivism (although NOT radically, for I do acknowledge an objective world, however created, of which we have little or no control over) and my belief in perception has strengthened. Kant's book acknowledges the undeniable similarities in aesthetic objects while still justifying different perceptions. This ability is rare and classifies a good philosopher. Constructing reality, beliefs, knowledge, truth, education, and understanding is difficult and must be somewhat unbiased while still taking into account fact, cultural, gender-based, experience-based, and other influences.

Constructing constructions

The relative and construcitivist in me would be inclined to argue that absolutely everything is of human construct. However, I do not believe in superiority of the human race or that we possess the "power" and capabilities to produce such complex structures and concepts. Wouldn't we understand everything if we created it all? To address, the direct name and implications of the Constructing Reality course, I quote Philip K. Dick: "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." However, mankind as a whole has chosen to accept mind over matter and in that way, a distorted view has been created which can only be disentangled through accumulation of knowledge through observation, experience, and more questions.

Soul Food

If music be the food of love, play on.-William Shakespeare

Most of us acknowledge that music can express an emotion but it wasn’t until recently that it was scientifically proven that music can actually affect our brains. According to Chordpiano.com, “Quoted in a 2001 article in USA Today, Suzanne Hasner, chairwoman of the music therapy department at Berklee College of Music in Boston, says even those with dementia or head injuries retain musical ability.” How’s that for a universal language? Music is processed in the amygdala which is the part of the brain that controls emotions and memory. Suzanna Hanzer explains that this is why we connect certain songs to childhood (or any other past) experiences such as our first kiss, first slow dance, or summertime in Maine. The American Music Therapy Organization claims music therapy may allow for "emotional intimacy with families and caregivers, relaxation for the entire family, and meaningful time spent together in a positive, creative way" yet they cannot pinpoint why yet.

For centuries, music has played a significant role in cultures, individual lives and memories, and the universe as a whole. Even William Shakespeare acknowledged its importance and mystery in his play Twelfth Night. Aldous Huxley defined music as expressing the inexpressible after a silence. Louis Armstrong was quoted referring to jazz, “Man, if you gotta, ask, you’ll never know.” George Santayana declared that “Music is essentially useless, as life is.” Perhaps music is mystery. So far, no one has been able to explain why we connect so emotionally to it. Because of this inexplicable capability to trigger emotions, memories, feelings, and thoughts beyond our comprehension (most of which are peaceful), why music does what it does is one of the few philosophical questions whose answer can be accepted peacefully as “Just because.”

A variety of different definitions of music.

Musica Instrumentalis

"Music, often an art/entertainment, is a total social fact whose definitions vary according to era and culture," according to Jean Molino. It is often contrasted with noise. According to musicologist Jean-Jacques Nattiez:"The border between music and noise is always culturally defined—which implies that, even within a single society, this border does not always pass through the same place; in short, there is rarely a consensus.... By all accounts there is no single and intercultural universal concept defining what music might be."-Wikipedia

Perhaps the most common definition for music is that it is a subjective experience. This definition focuses not on the construction but on the experience of music. Rhythm, harmony, and melody are of little importance in this subjective experience. A sound or a sensory form of art that evokes any human emotion can be considered music. The common ground for provocation of such emotions is culture; exposure and teaching of pleasantries and values that varies with location and time.

The objective aspects of music-organization of rhythms, harmonies, melodies, silences, pitches, and so-on-is more clear cut but to universally define music, a universal culture and a universal perception of the objective would have to exist. Perhaps it's the constructivist in me, but if one man's trash is another man's treasure, can't the same be implied when referrin

Why are we fighting?

The first casualty, when war comes, is truth.-Hiram Johnson

We can support or oppose specific reasons for the U.S involvement in the war in Iraq despite validity or fallacies within these reasons but the fact is, we’re there NOW. Soldiers, civilians, innocents are dying NOW. Perhaps we entered on trivial or selfish reasons but we are there. And pulling out of what the current administration has made our responsibility would have devastating effects. Despite recent strides, Iraq is still to versatile and fragile and leaving would undoubtedly leave the Iraqi people in a worse state than when U.S soldiers arrived.

To quote Washington Post writer Joshua White, “Even if top commanders meet their goal of transferring authority to the Iraqi army within the next 18 months, a U.S. presence long after that is likely, several officers said. "This is a worthwhile endeavor," said Maj. Gen. Benjamin Mixon, commander of Multinational Division North and the 25th Infantry Division. "Nothing that is worthwhile is usually easy, and we need to give this more time for it to all come together. We all want to come home, but we have a significant investment here, and we need to give the Iraqi army and the Iraqi people a chance to succeed." (end quote)

As a young citizen, I cannot express a single reason for our fight. It is said that we are fighting a war on terror. The attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon were undoubtedly devastating and shocking. And I believe it to be fair for a country to defend and retaliate against the forces behind this tragedy. Yet since 2001, the vision of success has become so blurred that even some soldiers are ignorant (I do not use this word pejoratively). From personal experience, I know that some soldiers don’t know where they are going or why. They aren’t sure what supplies they’re bringing to a certain place or why it’s necessary to bomb a location. Some admit that they are fighting for America and to help those less fortunate, but the exact reason is still not able to be pinpointed. Are more deaths really necessary? The media sugarcoats the public mind with images of thankful Iraqis and soldiers that receive packages and videos from their families. Perhaps we have “learned” from the gruesome publicity of Vietnam and that is why we don’t know what’s going on. One cannot support or oppose such a cause until he or she witnesses the effects of the efforts. Not to say that fighting the battle on home soil would be “better”, but I do believe that as a whole America is still as blind to the real issues as it was before 9/11. Our government still refuses to take responsibility for sticking its nose where it didn’t belong. Our own soil has suffering that should be fixed before we can imagine a harmonic country, never mind planet. Nonetheless, we are now a part of this war and we are fighting for the interests of ourselves and the Iraqi people. We cannot pull out now and risk greater disaster.

The issue is not how we will achieve a democratic or free Iraq or a powerful and safe America. The issue is whether or not the United States as a whole will ever be able to accept that despite our initial mistakes in entering prematurely, making assumptions, and concealing parts of the truth and move on with the current situation in an honest, safe, and equally beneficial way. This may sound presumptuous, but words and knowledge could solve this problem better than bombs and media-based embellishment and secrecy ever could.

The Idea of Home

There’s no place like home.-Judy Garland in “The Wizard of Oz”
(referenced by Professor Johnson; triggered the erratic thoughts contained within this blog)

Adjacent towns, states, countries, and continents are easily distinguished through cultural practices, skin color, religious beliefs, and government (despite the prejudiced connotation to such terms). As long as man has an opponent, he will maintain a sense of patriotism towards his home. The definition of such a “home” is dependent upon external locations that one has little or no emotional connection to. I believe that as long as man has an opponent, he will maintain a sense of patriotism towards his home. If we were to discover life on another planet that was capable of interacting and comprehending human ways, even if they were similar to us, we would compete with them. Even if as a whole we were curious and apt to coexist with such beings, there would still be an internal sense of desire for superiority, pride, and patriotism within Earthlings

Should we unite and respect everyone just because we share a physical location? House, city, state, country, planet, galaxy, existence, conscience? Yes. Will we? Most likely not. Perfect peace is unattainable because of individual and cultural subjectivism. I’ve said this all before. Universal harmony is a great goal to strive for but we won’t ever fully succeed because people are selfish. We connect locations to who we are and therefore what we (hope) believe is better because it’s ours. There is a sense of security in believing that something else is a part of you. One can be at home in a house, state, another person, a religion, a sports team, an idea, a possibility, an emotion, etc. All of which, despite some control on our part, are as Professor Johnson pointed out, contingent; accidental; circumstantial. Man does not want to be insecure. Having a home, no matter how small or large, gives him something to defend, love, and strive to improve. This doesn’t necessarily have to mean that this home is superior (although it may come across this way); it simply gives man a purpose.

Patriotism-A single word with many implications

A man's country is not a certain area of land, of mountains, rivers, and woods, but it is a principle and patriotism is loyalty to that principle.-George William Curtis

The dictionary defines patriotism as "love and loyal or zealous support of one's own country." The problem with this simple definition, according to Robert Jenson is if we feel superior simply because of where we live, "Are we truly internationalist? Can we go beyond patriotism? Or, in the end, are we just Americans?" Are we truly for peace and justice? Or just our own interests? Consider the idea of political realism in which the interests of other nations are largely irrelevant, except instrumentally. I agree with Jenson that the term “patriotism” has become a word without much value in America today. However, to throw away concepts such as loyalty and pride which were initially entailed within the word ‘patriotism’, I believe is unrealistic. The problem is not patriotism in its prime, it is human tendency to confuse loyalty and pride with superiority and supposed obligation to a single region, culture, ideal, etc., rather than the ever-expanding circle of humanity.

But how can an individual, a patriot, fulfill his or her obligation to humanity without sectoring beliefs or acts based on culture or region and therefore resources, government, and opportunity which stem from natural societal differences? Location, location, location. Loyalty to a landmass is quite different than loyalty to that particular regions ideals and values which are rooted in a specific place coincidentally and therefore uncontrollably. We can only be loyal to ideas due to the uncertainty of the state of a nation at any given time. Pride in and loyalty to such ideas as democracy and freedom can be taken as respect for a particular region simply because this region is the only one of which a person knows and experiences that possess such qualities. However, there is no specific evidence that these ideals hold true to America and only America. As Jenson suggested, all human beings are capable of comprehending if not practicing such morals.

There is a fine line between selfishness and non-arrogant pride. (As long as pride for one’s country or any other form of matter or idea realizes that it is not superior, I believe it can be useful and justified.) When crossed, the chaos of war and ignorance emerges. People begin to place their reasoning for patriotism on George Bernard Shaw’s idea that “Patriotism is your conviction that this country is superior to all others because you were born in it.” This is simply ignorance. It is t he assumption of superiority because of location and therefore opportunity and (for the individual) luck. When this ignorance is applied internationally, a stubbornness forms and humanity as a whole may suffer in the end.

At the beginning of class, a question was posed about arguing with “is” claims. From the question, I have derived my own: Should our moral arguments be to persuade people or to find the truth? We have the right to believe what we want to believe (although we can’t always act upon these beliefs) but we don’t have the right to be correct. If everyone was correct, the world would be chaos. Every valid belief or worldview is supported by morals although not all of- actually, most of-these morals can be proven true. We must admit that our observations shape our “is” claims; our accepted knowledge; current scientific facts which are debatable when new evidence is acquired. Observation, research, and history are the most reliable sources to build facts, but is fact always morally right? No. There would not be an “ought” or “should” if what is was correct.

To encompass several of the topics we have considered throughout the semester, morality, although generally accepted based on culture, religion, and experience, is still consistently wavering in that the more answers we find, the more inquiries we find. If A is morally incorrect, contrary to what we believed in an earlier time, then is B, which is closely related to the previous state of A, now immoral as well? And furthermore, can we assume that C, a new proposition, must now be questioned?

For a tangible example, consider our current topic of meat-eating (one of which I am still researching and wavering in, unashamed). If man was to find, based on a series of convincing and true “is” claims, that meat-eating (A) is morally incorrect, then perhaps the question of other generally accepted customs would be questioned. Maybe…deforestation, no matter how minute. Taking this into consideration, several more moral questions would be posed and the search (as the search for any ultimate truth, whether it is for “is” or “ought) would continue and not end until the world did.

Hume's Take On Morals-The Is/Ought Gap and the Impossible Bridge

If they put in a bridge, it would save a of lot of driving miles, but they'll never put that in out here in the middle of nowhere.-Dale Jones

Given our knowledge of how the world is, how can we know how the world ought to be? Hume believed that knowledge is based on experience. The is-ought gap is completely valid and extremely difficult to bridge (although I will attempt and post any possible connection if I am able to create an argument that derives an ought from solely is claims). "Hume's is/ought gap by itself does not entail that subjectivism is true. It is just an observation about what valid arguments for ethical claims require" (wikipedia). He is suggesting that because our individual or cultural experiences, our sense of moral right and wrong are tainted. Empirically, it is therefore difficult for us to possess any idea of moral truths (if they even exist). There are definitely universally accepted moral boundaries but again, they are based on what has been and what is, according to our observations. Much like von Glasersfeld's theory of unconceptualized apples, it is virtually impossible to confidently and conceive a true and right moral act without first basing it upon another moral assumption or generally accepted pre-existing idea.

Indifference

Genetically modified food and animals are becoming more and more popular very rapidly in the United States specifically. Chemicals, preservatives, and growth hormones are being added to improve flavor, size, and look as well as to preserve foods (especially mass produced meat) for longer periods of time in larger amounts. Benefits include improved health of the organisms, resistance to allergies (on both the parts of the foods and consumers), more efficient processing, and increased food security for growing populations. GM foods are cost effective and, some argue, healthier.

Despite these advantages, as with almost every technological advance today, there is ethical opposition to GM foods. Unintended modification could take place and unknown effects could result on the animals and/or humans that consume them. The eco-balance will be disturbed as will natural genetic structure of the animals. In the U.S., the labeling of GM foods is not required so consumers are often ignorant when it comes to what they toss into their shopping carts.

Some believe that “ignorance is bliss”. Even if one chooses not to acknowledge the negatives in meat processing, the production of GM foods, and mass production of unhealthy and sometimes unknown foods, he should at least consider that his ignorance makes him a contributor to animal cruelty, withholding of information, and the “wrong” side of the ethical debate of meat-eating, whichever side that may be, simply because he is indifferent and therefore inactive.

Enjoy and give pleasure, without doing harm to yourself or to anyone else-that, I think, is the whole of morality. –Chamfort

It would be hypocritical for me to say that one shouldn’t eat meat. I’ve eaten it for eighteen years, acknowledging but brushing past the way it is obtained in the United States. I believe that individual ignorance, selfishness, laziness, and indifference are the moral problems rather than meat consumption or even the processes used to obtain such meat in the U.S. Until I was “forced” to deeply research the topic, I did not have a personal active opinion. And now after reading, considering my own habits and morals (which are in the process of being formed each time I learn something new), I have decided to stop eating meat. Why? Because I can.

Should one base his or her actions based solely upon ability? No. If the entire population of the United States stopped consuming meat from animals, there would of course be problems. The animals that were bread for the sole purpose of consumption would most likely not have the traits needed to survive in the wild. If they did, or if humans found a way to keep them alive, overpopulation could occur, although it is unlikely since forced breeding wouldn’t be taking place to produce meat products. According to Joy Williams, (“The Inhumanity of the Animal People,” Harper’s, August 1997P) “On an average day in America, 130000 cattle, 7000 calves, 360000 pigs, and 24 million chickens are killed” to feed Americans. The ways slaughter houses and other industries kill these animals are inhumane and should be looked upon as immoral in a country that frowns upon the killing of innocents. Although there are many people who can survive on a diet without meat, there are those who cannot. The scale upon which the meat industry influences the average citizen of the United States is too grand and too easily accessible. With convenient supply, many Americans don’t think twice about what has happened to the animals they turn into Christmas dinners, and if they do, the thought is fleeting. As an individual, I feel it is my moral responsibility to not support the meat industry and therefore cruelty to animals by not eating meat. If one chooses to consume it, I do not deny them that right if they are conscious about where it comes from and how it is obtained. It would be virtually impossible to turn an entire planet vegetarian, so as long as individuals are informed, I believe that the choice is theirs. Moral wrongness in meat consumption lies not in the consumption itself but rather in an individual’s choice to regard animals lives as equal to or subpar from human’s.

I understand if you believe that there is no ultimate purpose in life...

But how can you have a conversation and feel so connected to someone that it's as if they are your home, and not believe in some purpose for yourself? I still can't comprehend that. The moments that you give someone else a purpose should do the same for you. I'm lucky to have many of those moments on both ends...just thought I'd share.

Awareness and Self-Identity

http://www.loveoftruth.org/selfdiscovery.htm

Greater awareness does not come in a single blinding flash of enlightenment. It comes slowly, piece by piece, and each piece must be worked for by the patient effort of study and observation of everything, including ourselves.- M. Scott Peck

I found (as Professor DJ did) that many students (myself included) are having trouble supporting their beliefs with concrete evidence or labeling themselves as strictly theist, atheist, or even agnostic. I wonder, is this due to our young age? I think that is partially the case. One of my sociology professors once told us that when most of us our young we are “like big chalk boards and then, ’they’ write all over” us. As we grow older and the pressure to fit in or have an identity increases, “Your idea of who you are is your idea of what you think they think of you.” When do “they” stop influencing our beliefs? When we decide not to let them anymore.
Religion plays an astronomic part in the formation of one’s identity, character, beliefs, values, and morals. So what plays the biggest roles in the formation of religion, and therefore self-identity?

The above image is Ian Wholstenholme’s theory of how we form our identities. Quite often, we base our beliefs on what we experience through our bodies, thoughts, and emotions. When we enter into the spiritual realm, says Wholestenholme, we open ourselves up to an awareness beyond ourselves. We are aware of what we see and know. What we know affects how we think and feel. How we think and feel determine how we act. How we act portrays who we are. But do others always interpret who we are the way we do?

Wholstenholme believes that “at different times you are experiencing life through different domains” (the viewpoint of a “seer).This viewpoint offers one possible answer as to why we are having trouble fully expressing our religious beliefs. I think that once we as individuals are secure in our beliefs, whether they are theist, atheist, or agnostic, it will become easier for us to express and support them for others. But at such a young age, in the college stage which is about discovery and the building of ourselves through observation, experience, and the consideration of outside ideas, it is difficult (though not impossible) to express and justify our beliefs.

For those who are confident in their beliefs, good for you. That takes strength. For those that aren’t, however, keep searching. You are not hypocritical simply because you are changing.

Define Divine

If thought corrupts language, language can also corrupt thought. -George Orwell

What exactly are we analyzing? What are we defending and justifying? Or denying and trying to prove as “wrong”? Some say “God”. Some say “A Supreme “Being”, “Higher Power(s)”, a deity, a king, a lord, omnipresent, omnipotent, eternity… When we refer to God, we all mean something slightly different. Yes, there are guidelines: God is the beginning, all powerful, the law, redeeming, a truth we are struggling to find or deny. Pantheism states that God is everywhere and manifests in all things. The coining of the word “God” could be an attempt to explain something inexplicable. When we try to define and name such extreme thoughts and possibilities, ones which we cannot express thoroughly because they are beyond ourselves, we limit our own comprehension of such thoughts, ideas, and possibilities. Spoken and written language can hinder one’s understanding of things that can only be felt and thought. Some ideas are meant to be out of our complete grasp and expression. There are some things maybe we aren’t meant to be able to explain because they are so great. Why can’t humans accept that? If a person is secure in his or her beliefs, does it really matter whether or not they are “right” or “wrong”? Apply logic and evidence but faith will outweigh both whether that faith is in God, the universe, oneself or simply happiness. Call that stubborn or selfish if you wish. As an individual, our words can only take us and express our beliefs so far. Others may take what they wish from our words and justifications but in the end, whether our beliefs were expressed the right way will not matter; the fact that we felt them will. Whether or not our beliefs hold true “ultimately” will not matter; we are not ultimate. We are microscopic in the grand scheme of things and our limitations do not make us inferior; they make us unique.

As a Christian, I am not supposed to doubt or question. But I am not ashamed to say that I do. I doubt the validity in what I have been taught at times. I doubt that one word (God, even with all its components) can represent everything I feel I live my life for. I doubt that knowing the entire "ultimate truth" (if it exists, which I doubt) would bring us as much satisfaction as we think. Being as all knowing as God would defeat the purpose of our lives. And whether it is simply to comfort myself in believing that there's a purpose for our existence, or to attempt to explain and acquire knowledge about that which I did not create, I still believe in God in the sense of the word that is different to many. The pantheist in me believes that God is everywhere and his name is an attempt and solidifying something intangible despite evidence for or against. Until we can concretely define divine, I doubt anyone will ever agree completely on the concept never mind prove it...and I also that that's okay.

Knowledge vs. Belief

When you know a thing, to hold that you know it; and when you do not know a thing, to allow that you do not know it-this is knowledge. –Confucius

You do not believe; you only believe that you believe. –Samuel Taylor Coleridge

As suggested by Austin Cline, “agnosticism is not about belief in god but about knowledge.” In order to understand the difference between agnosticism and atheism, one must take into account the differences as well as similarities between belief and knowledge. It could be suggested that knowledge is a current belief or acceptance of truth that changes with time and new evidence and in that way, the two are related. Knowledge may also be seen as objective and limited to us because of our finite capabilities of comprehending such an objective truth.

A connotation often affiliated with atheists and theists alike is that they are close-minded and stubborn. Each group claims to know that God exists. Their evidence may vary from that based on reason to faith yet no matter how scientific or personal this evidence is, we have yet to prove or disprove the existence of God. A theist or atheist can strongly believe and even subjectively know that God exists or doesn’t exist, but he cannot know objectively either way.

Agnosticism can also be seen pejoratively. Many agnostics, although seen as open-minded, are afraid of commitment. They say they believe in God because it’s what they were taught as children when truly, they do not believe. Many of these people will claim to be agnostic so as to not offend their culture or family and to avoid standing behind and having to defend one belief. Others claim to believe in God because they fear the consequences (hell, judgement) or simply hold the hope that there has to be something more so close that it gives them a sense of worth and purpose rather than admitting what we see is all we have.

Ultimately, I believe that one’s beliefs should not be based on solely reason or evidence, and definitely not upon the influences of others. Fear shouldn’t play a part because claiming to believe would fool God and possibly be worse than not believing. Although our search for knowledge of any kind is inconclusive, religiously speaking the ultimate truth is even more unreachable. So when we ask what one believes, we must also ask what they know so that their beliefs may be justified by thing. Without knowledge, there can be no belief, and visa versa. Without belief, there would be no theists and perhaps the only search would be for what IS rather than what could be.

The moment a person forms a theory, his imagination sees in every object only the traits which favor that theory. Thomas Jefferson

Our capacity to know for certain is extremely limited, even scientists agree with this. We assume facts to be facts until we disprove them and since our time and space is inifinite (at least to our capabilities of determining), we may never be able to disprove a fact which is actually false. We may see something as true forever simply because we cannot see its falsehoods. According to Richard Carrier, we can only prove the limits of which we can see.

Theism strives to prove the existence of an intelligent and omnipotent creator. Believers of theism often look for evidence to prove the existence of such a creator which is difficult because the assumptions made about him are that he is so powerful that we can't comprehend of discover all of his ways. Unfortunately, many assume that since a God is not provable to our senses, he cannot exist.

On the contrary, atheism strives to prove the nonexistence of God or a creator. Assumptions are used yet again in determining whether or not God is real. It is assumed that if God existed,there wouldn't be suffering, he would reveal himself, or there would be evidence of such places like Heaven or Hell. In other words, the stories from the Bible or other religious books would be more literal and acceptable because we would be able to touch them. Since this is not so (at least not in a physical or natural sense), we cannot prove God's existence and he therefore, does not exist according to atheists.

Both views choose to base their beliefs on proof and whether or not evidence determines existence. Do we need to prove or disprove in order to believe? As Jefferson suggested in his quote at the beginning of this blog, these repelling views choose only to see evidence that coincides with their theory.

Therefore, is agnosticism the less stubborn view? Since our capabilities and capacity to know are so limite, perhaps agnostics are wise in choosing a view open to interpretation. This interpretation could be based upon scientific evidence of the existence or nonexistence of a God or experience. This evidence (or lack thereof) could sway an agnostic to believing in the POSSIBILITY of a God more or less but he will never confirm nor deny this existence. Believing that we cannot and will not ever know if God exists is a commendable thing to do in that it is admitting our limits as human beings, but is it also at the same time trying to find a way not to commit to or form opinions about an issue that shapes the lives of not only philosophers but families, cultures, and individuals alike? And if so, is this indifference a safer route to take?

Believing versus Seeing

I believe in God. I could attempt to prove and justify and convince you to believe the same, but it would be a wasted effort. My belief is subjective to my cognitive and emotional experiences. Call my faith blind if you please. I am not blind to what I feel. A major misconception of the Christian faith is that its goal is to unify the world’s beliefs with its own. In Christianity, there are many denominations, some more “strict” than others. There are Catholics, Baptists, Methodists, Assemblies, Protestants, Lutherans, Adventists and each group’s bible, beliefs, morals, values, and practices vary. But these are all just labels. I realize the problem concerning accepting supernaturalism in that there are infinite possibilities, and theories that we cannot understand fully or prove because they aren’t a part of the common physical and scientific world. I for some reason, however, cannot comprehend specifically why so many religious believers want to prove the validity of their beliefs.

One (especially a naturalist) may be surprised to learn that labeling myself as a Christian is not the core of my being or purpose or search. I wouldn’t call myself a Christian if there were a better word to describe my lifestyle. I believe in God, yes. I believe in creationism, yes. I believe that the Bible is a good guide to moral and ethic values, yes. Do I hold it to be concrete? No. Do I force my beliefs upon anyone? No. Some would call me a bad Christian because I am not spreading God’s word but I truly believe that spirituality of any sort should be personal. It should beyond subjective; it should be inexplicable. I mean this in the best sense, but I don’t care what you believe as long as you let me live according to my faith. As I said, I am a Christian. But I am a Christian who believes in karma like Buddha did. I am a believer in karma who holds science and tangible evidence close when considering the reality of now. I believe there are natural limits and some supernatural experiences are only subjective and impossible beyond our minds. I am a believer in science who meditates and prays. I believe, as Empedocles did, in the capability of such forces as Love and Strife to alter a person’s life without a person knowing. I believe, like the Native Americans that nature is sacred. I believe in basic human rights. I believe that culture greatly influences worldviews, as does childhood, status, time, and gender. My path is no path and I don’t know how to label it; I don’t think I should have to. I simply want to know ‘who’ and ‘why’ and ‘how’. My search is the same as everyone else’s. I believe, as a student pointed out in class today, that “the world as I experience it is as it is beyond my experience of it.” I believe that the only person I can trust is myself and the only experiences and evidence I can rely on is my own. I don’t want to justify my beliefs because I know I have reason to keep them. I don’t want unify naturalism and supernaturalism or any spiritual notion. My mind is a canvas and I’ll consider painting with your colors if you give me good enough reason. If some of my views aren’t normally associated others, so be it.

Perhaps, thinking as a radical constructivist, we create our own truths and instead of believing what we see, we instead see what we believe. I do not deny the existence of the common and roughly similar experience of the natural world that we all encounter. I am merely suggesting that epistemology and worldviews WITHOUT justification (while still maintaining an openness to change and variety) might very well be an effective way towards peaceful coexistence.

The epistemologies of science versus faith are indeed extremely controversial when pinned against one another. Science requires evidence. Faith requires solid belief. Science can be (physically) proven. Faith is basically just cognitive; it can defy logic, nature, and science. But is faith just what science can’t explain naturally (YET)? Perhaps the world as it truly is is actually very different than the world as we are capable of knowing it. Not to say that science is behind, but is it inconceivable that we just don’t have the technology to prove faith-based ideas of knowledge and reality. If evolution and natural processes have taken billions of years and comprehending these processes has taken even longer, perhaps the supernatural IS natural and possible. There’s always a loophole in science. There can be exceptions. Nothing is certain in either faith or science. The search is the same. The pathways are just different. And is there a destination; a final spot where we have acquired knowledge of all the possible, impossible, natural, supernatural, real, and "fake"? If so and we can take strides towards it, does it really matter how or what we call it?

In his article "Naturalism vs. Supernaturalism: How to Survive the Culture Wars" Thomas W. Clark suggested that the ultimate goal of many worldviews is "to establish the one true view of reality in the minds and hearts of all, and have it rule their lives." Why do humans want uniformity so badly? According to Clark, it’s because of our “innate predilections for cognitive security, tribalism, and egoism.” There are extremists (we know many of them as religious terrorists/martyrs) who believe that when it comes to worldviews, it’s their way or die. Plurality, a concept that is the easiest approach to cultural peace suggests that we agree to disagree. Empiricism, the idea that all knowledge stems from what we can physically experience and scientifically prove, is often mistaken for undermining religion and supernatural beliefs/worldviews. Naturalism, however, is the view that goes against such beliefs. Naturalism is not simply empiricism, “it requires the additional, philosophical assumption that we should place our cognitive bets with science in deciding what ultimately exists.” Naturalists will see empiricism as a means of explaining and understanding the cosmos but supernaturalists can still believe in higher powers while accepting then nature of the world (just not agreeing on what caused or created it).

One might assume that a supernaturalist or religious believer might reject the idea of empiricism because of the common misconception that it attempts to rule out a higher power, but it doesn’t. Unlike naturalism, empiricism does not suggest that science decides what ultimately exists, it only suggests that to fairly judge and address public policies (such as abortion, civil, rights, dignity, and dying), we must refer to only the tangible and factual evidence of this world. It does not out rule the possibility of supernatural worlds, entities, or concepts (we still have our right to free speech and belief); it does, however, express that the pragmatic world is the only thing we can be sure of and, therefore, arguments over ideas or beliefs that can’t be proven are a waste of time.

I can’t speak for all Christians, but as someone who might be assumed to reject empiricism and naturalism, I can say that this is not the case. I agree with Clarks views completely. Wouldn’t it be wonderful if we could all just agree to disagree on issues that can’t be proven? Such peaceful existence is ideal, yet inconceivable and almost impossible, and I find that somewhat disheartening.