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.