The Problem with Universalism
Note that when I discuss universalism, I refer to the belief that all religions are valid. I am going to present a very simple, logical argument against universalism. If anyone disagrees, please tell me your argument.
If everyone is right, then we have to take everything that every religion believes to be true. However, there is contradiction which I will illustrate.
If Judaism was entirely true, then Christianity would have to be false, because Judaism claims that the Messiah is yet to come. If Christianity is entirely true, then every other religion can not be true. This is because of a claim made by Jesus. Jesus claims that no one can come to the Father except through him. Thus, he is making the claim that Christianity is the only true religion. If Christianity is entirely true, then every other religion must be wrong. Thus, the idea that every religion is true presents a contradiction.
1) Christianity is true (it is a religion).
2) Christianity is an exclusive religion.
3) Thus, no other religion can be true,
4) but our original universalist assumption was that every religion is true.
We achieve contradiction and Universalism as previously stated cannot be true.
In Pursuit of Truth
The Art of Intelligent Conversation
Whenever you speak, have a reason. Have a thought that you need to express and express it cogently. Sometimes, the first step is the most difficult.
1) Have opinions. The trick to doing this successfully is reading, and then reading some more. Always be ready to respond whenever an issue comes up. Wikipedia is your friend. Read the articles of the day, but then write a few sentences describing your opinions on the subject. This will help get rid of small talk. Also, don't follow what everyone else thinks all the time. If everyone holds to an opinion, it is possibly simply because it is a popular idea that has attractive benefits for all. Think about what you believe. Truth is better than fashion.
2)Express them. You may be a veritable Plato but if you can't speak well, nobody wants to hear you. Eliminate the ums and the likes. Pause instead. Use silence as an effective means of communication. Clearly, logically present your ideas and express them in a way that will invite further discussion. Thus, you will be able to continue conversations and not begin awkward silences.
In Pursuit of Truth
The Moral Implications of the Many Worlds Hypothesis
Right now, I just created another universe; more precisely, I just created a near infinite amount, wherein each universe I choose do do something entirely different. This is the Many Worlds Hypothesis. Let's assume that this is scientifically valid (yes, I know it is a leap).
If every decision I make influences my Many-Worlds-Selves, then if I do good, do I then force them to do bad? Or, even more interestingly, am I simply a universal offspring of another person who made a good or bad decision? Obviously, this theory has many free will v. determinism concepts. While perhaps in the short term we would have, in some sense, libertarian free will, in the long term we would either be determining the fate of others, or in our genesis, we would be determined.
Thus, if the Many Worlds Hypothesis is true, is there anything moral that I can do, assuming that it is wrong to make another do wrong? Ultimately, no. What can I do that is moral that would not cause another to fall? Nothing. Ironically, the only way I could make another do good is to do bad, so another one of my Many-Worlds-Selves would be forced to do good. Yet, even this good is accomplished by force.
The only other possible way would be to accept some sort of compatibilism (an idea which essentially states that the will of God runs parallel to the will of man), except where we take the superior role. But compatibilism generally deals with God-human interactions; effectively, the Many Worlds Hypothesis in a sense would simply make us Gods.
However, I think that there is no experimental evidence to support this hypothesis. While interesting to ponder, I doubt this theory will gain any substantial momentum.
In Pursuit of Truth
Law and Order
It is tempting to define law as a set of rules. However, this raises too many questions, such as: what do the rules ensure? What are the consequences if these rules are broken? The next best definition would be that law is as set of actions and consequences that either positively or negatively reinforce certain, ideal actions. However, once again this raises questions; who determines what is ideal? What is the standard? Therefore, law is a set of actions and consequences that either positively or negatively reinforce said actions, so that a presupposed, ideal order may be created.
What is order? Order may be defined in two degrees. One degree is the ideal order. This order can be defined as the perfect state of putative reality. Thus, the set of all actions and states of being that preserve equilibrium, or this perfect state, are allowed by this ideal order. The second degree is that of affected order, or the state of reality after a legal system has been effected to preserve the ideal order. Thus, the stronger the legal system, the closer the affected order should hypothetically resemble the ideal order. Law thus acts as the mediator between these two orders.
I suggest that much controversy can be reduced to conflict between contrasting perceptions of ideal order, thus forcing an acquisition of a law which would ensure that certain actions would have a certain necessary response that would occur in the supposed ideal order. Thus conflicts between individual law and the average social law are the cause of social issue. Furthermore, this could be attributed to the various differences between interpretations of ideal order and perceived ideal order.
In Pursuit of Truth
Dependent Thought and the Enslaved Masses
The vast majority of people in this world do not think. They follow. They hear and do not respond.
People who are dependent thinkers who participate in religion often are said to have "blind faith." This is because they were raised in the religion and have no actual thought to back up their choices. Some churches try to remedy this by offering courses in apologetics. However, as said in the previous article, these courses typically only provide very basic, futile arguments; in reality, Christianity seeks to understand revealed truth, but some Christians don't understand that all of nature speaks to the glory of God. Some of these people get a false sense of confidence and then, when their faith is tested, they fall.
This is why some evolutionists believe in naturalistic determinism. Everyone is destined to do what they will do because of the environment in which they are put (the ultimate nature vs. nurture argument). If people do not think independently, then this is indubitably true. In this way, people who do not question themselves, do not question reality, are enslaved to the environment, to the changing will of others (others who very well might be thinking independently). This being said, how do we think independently?
1) Question Everything. Note that this is not a Cartesian cliche. I am not referring to a skeptical view of reality; instead, question why you believe everything. If you do not have good reasons to believe what you believe, than either research the opposite ends of the spectrum (read about those who believe what you believe and the opposite). If the evidence supports your belief, continuing believing from a more enlightened perspective. If not, reject the belief.
2) Be Creative. Originality comes from creativity. The most intelligent person in the world could also be the most dull. To truly be free from the natural path to which some would say your are destined, take the reigns on reality and think of other ways to do things that you have always done, or other things to do with things you already have. This creativity will promote out-of-the-box thinking which will simultaneously promote independent thinking and make the environment around you more productive.
3) Develop your own beliefs. Given the creativity in step two and the new enlightenment found in step one, you can develop your own, rational beliefs. If you have proved to yourself that what you believe is true, use your creativity to develop new beliefs that follow logically from said beliefs. Individual beliefs are often remnants of a greater philosophy. What other beliefs must exist if your beliefs are true? These beliefs must necessarily fit into your new belief system.
In Pursuit of Truth
A Moral Experiment
Readers, I need your comments here. Some say that there can exist morality without God. Let's test this. First, scientifically, we must assume the opposite. Thus, we act as if morality can only exist with God and see if there is sufficient evidence to reject that claim. I think this will be very interesting. The first question:
1) What is the general definition of morality or a moral system?
In Pursuit of Truth
Young Earth Creationism: An Astronomical Perspective
Sometimes, I believe that Young Earth Creationists get so involved in evolutionary debates that they forget the plethora of other arguments against a 6000 year old earth.
For instance, one of these arguments is an astronomical argument. Through our highly sophisticated telescopes, we have seen stars that are billions of light-years away (a light-year is the distance that light travels in a year). If we can see it, it must mean that their light has reached us. In other words, we are looking at that star as it was billions of years ago. For this star to have existed billions of years ago, the universe must be older than 6000 years.
However, some Young Earth Creationists may argue for the flawed methodology of the scientists, which, coincidentally, puts God in the box of the failures of scientists. See "The God of the Gaps." Furthermore, science is developed by assuming that scientists are wrong and thus, they try to prove themselves wrong. This argument is weak and actually hurts the Young Earth Creationist's argument.
So, to defend against this argument, the Young Earth Creationist must do one and/or two things:
1) Attack the fallibility of science (flawed for the above reasons).
2) Claim that God created the light of the stars precisely 6000 +/- 50 years away from us. Am I denying that God could have done this? No, of course not! Does it seem unreasonable that he did? Yes, absolutely.
Ultimately, to defend an Earth that is 6000 years old, the New Earth Creationist must make their God seem rather random (see #2) or force him into a box (see #1). Some even argue that God put such evidences in the universe to determine who the "true" believers are? Would such a trickster God be one that we would want to worship? I say not.
In Pursuit of Truth
Question for readers: What do you think of Young Earth Creationism? To what extent is it valid?
Feel free to follow me on twitter at Todaysration!
The Queen of the Sciences Part II
To what extent is mathematics fundamental? I believe that mathematics is fundamental to the universe in that there could not exist a more apt system which would describe reality.
An argument against this fundamental nature is based in the differences in our perceptions of reality. For instance, it is possible that there is an alien race which sees all mathematics as colors and shapes - to some extent synesthesia. This difference in perception hypothetically could lead to a different system, a different mathematics, which would describe their reality.
However, I argue that, assuming each alien race had a complete understanding of the universe, these varying mathematical systems would be mutually translatable. For instance, a mathematical statement in the alien's language could be translated into our mathematical system.
An example of this is language on Earth. For instance, even though English and Chinese are very different from one another, Anglophones can learn to speak Chinese and vice verse. One may argue that there is a loss in understanding by going from one language to another simply because of the cultural differences between the two language speaking groups. However, these cultural differences are not because the two cultures see different realities, but rather perceive different portions of reality.
For instance, the concept of snow does not exist in some tropical cultures, yet this is not because snow does not exist; they simply have not perceived snow. Thus, if every culture in the world had a complete understanding of reality, then their languages should be mutually translatable; this is evident even now as some polyglots can speak upwards of seventy languages.
However, is it possible to imagine an alien being so foreign and different that their language - their mathematical language - would be indecipherable? I say no. The only difference between the two is not the reality they perceive but rather their perceptions of reality. Thus given equality in comprehension of reality, they should be mutually translatable. Thus, mathematics is foundational in our understanding of the universe, if for no other reason than there could exist no other system that so well describes the universe.
In Pursuit of Truth
Readers: To what extent could science exist without mathematics?
The Philosophy of Insignificance
We are not the center of the universe. This has been known for a
while. Some of us, however, want to hold on to every last modicum of
egotism that we can find.
However, whether you are a creationist or evolutionist or even a
combination of the two, you have to accept the fact that we are
fundamentally insignificant.
Theists, you are insignificant. You are insignificant because of your
fall from grace. You are nothing compared to an infinite,
transcending God who could literally wipe your soul from the face of
the universe in seconds, or even 10 seconds ago. Don't act like your
more than a speck of dust in a universe which has billions of
galaxies, billions of stars per galaxy, and many more planets. While
yes, God loves you, and yes - if you are saved - you will have a
relationship with the Creator of the universe, most of your actions
have little to no impact on the rest of the continent, less in the
world, and zero in the rest of the universe.
Atheists, you are insignificant also. The only difference is that you
believe that there is no God.
How can we deal with this? Why should we care about anything if our
actions have extremely limited impact?
I argue that, on an egotistical level, our actions directly impact
that which we perceive and, ultimately, affect every aspect of reality
as we know it. On a slightly grander scheme, our decisions affect our
ability to make other ones. We cannot make impacting decisions (at
least positively) without first making relatively non-impacting
decisions.
So we do acknowledge that it is possible to make a difference in the
world. What difference does that make in the universe? Well, if we
are the only intelligent beings in the universe, then while our actions may
not and certainly will not affect, for instance, Alpha Centauri, they
will affect all of the life in the universe.
However, if there is other life, we have to grapple with the fact
that we are, once again, fundamentally insignificant in the universe.
How do we deal with this?
On a philosophical note, we are either significant players in the
universe (if we are the only life) or nothing (if there is life).
Even from the point of view of the ultimate egomaniac, the goal should
be some form of altruism, even if it has limited impact. Negative
actions toward this egomaniac's surroundings would only aggravate the
people near him, thus making his life more miserable.
From the point of view of a Christian, for instance, we have this awesome
relationship with the Creator of the universe. We are then
significant. Thus, servitude to this Creator is the only way to
significance.
Either way, it seems, altruism and servitude are two of the best ways
to deal with an insignificant existence. I look forward to pursuing
this topic more in following posts.
In Pursuit of Truth
Readers: What other ways are there to deal with insignificance? Are
we fundamentally insignificant?
The Queen of the Sciences
I have a brief question; my next post will be about this topic and I would first like your input so I can know what you think. Which is more foundational, science or mathematics, and why?
In Pursuit of Truth