Response to Hallie Jackson: The Art of War

Hallie asked, Do you think there will ever be a world in which war does not exist?

I think a warless world is a fantasy. From the beginning of time, humans have fought with one another over food supply, land, power, etc. Considering this fighting has been going on for half a million years—and is still going on despite advances both in peace efforts and weapons—it is unlikely that we will ever learn to get along.

Humans are, by nature, selfish creatures. We want what we can’t have, and we often will go to war for it. The truth of the matter is we have more to fight over than ever. As the population continues to grow exponentially, resources and land are getting more and more scarce every day. This is the reason we’re in Iraq; we want their oil because we don’t have enough in the United States, so we go to war to get it. As times get worse, tensions run higher, thus creating a volatile environment.

I believe it is more likely that the world will soon collapse into a state of mayhem. Resources will be used up, and everybody will be fighting to stay alive in a place where they don’t have enough food and land. It is unlikely that the opposite will ever come about.

My question in response is, What would it take to make you go to war?

Population Control

It is my opinion that religion came about not only as a means of explaining life’s mysteries, but also as a form of population control. For years, the powerful members within a religion have ruled their followers. They dictate how the people think, behave, spend their time, and even eat. There was a time when religious officials were considered as powerful and important as kings.

As time goes on, religions are becoming less and less prominent in the majority of people’s lives. The population is not allowing their beliefs to dictate how they live their lives. There is more “immoral” behavior taking place than there was in times of religious prominence.

My question is, Now that religion is not determining how people act, what do you think has replaced it? What do people look to as a guide for how to live?

Response to Emily Follin: Rewrite the Ten Commandments

I’m responding to Emily’s question, Do you think that the appeal of religions that embrace the carnal aspect of human nature will bring about the complete fall of more restrictive religions?

I don’t think that’s going to happen, no. Religions have survived for thousands of years, and are still going strong today. However, it is true that the influences of the times are creating changes.

Religion is being affected by those carnal aspects that Emily referred to. The thing is, instead of religion completely falling because of it, religion is instead adapting. There are many churches popping up all over the country that practice less restrictive sects of Christianity, for instance.

Not only is religion changing, but so are the people who are practicing and preaching it. People are becoming more accepting of different beliefs and lifestyles. Of course, there are still many churches whose followers are very strict, but there are also many more who have congregations full of people who practice, but do not view those carnal things as sinful and partake in them. In my hometown, the Jewish church is being led by a gay rabbi for the first time ever.

The times are changing, but religions are, too. As people in the world become more and more open about certain ideas and lifestyles, religion is becoming more and more lenient. Human beings are known for their ability to adapt, so why shouldn’t religion do the same thing?

My question in response is, Do you think there will ever be a time when all religions can come together and merge and become one?

Darwinism: The Answer to the Population Problem?

According to Darwinism and natural selection, those who are strong will survive and those who are weak will perish. This rule was in play once upon a time, before the development of medicine and medical technology. The sick and dying were not healed or saved, and they died off. Only the healthy and strong were left.

In many places in the world today, there are population problems. The number of people is growing exponentially, but the amount of land is not. Therefore, we are running out of space for people to live. In some places, land is being created by piling dirt and rocks in the ocean.

Part of the problems surrounding population is that fewer people are dying than in the past. This is because of all the medical technology we now have. People who are sick get better—or at least live longer—and people are living significantly longer. Naturally, this is good news because we can keep our loved ones with us a little longer. However, it is bad news with regards to our population problems.

My question is, Do you think our population would be under control more if we put Darwinism into play?

Response to Emily Minns: Fate

Emily asked, Why is something as far-fetched as fate so commonly widespread and believed in and why is it an attractive belief?

I believe there are a couple reasons why people cling to faith. The first is, they want to be able to explain the unknown. The unknown is scary, and humans are naturally curious. They have to find a way to appease that curiosity, in this case with God.

Another reason people cling to religion is because it gives them a scapegoat. People don’t like accepting responsibility for things that go wrong, so they blame God. Furthermore, when things go wrong—like cancer or the death of a loved one—there is nobody to blame, so people conveniently blame God.

A last reason people cling to religion is because they rely on that promise of a better afterlife. Many people lead good religious lives so that they can get into Heaven. If religion didn’t exist, they would have no idea where they would go after death.

My question in response to this post is, Do you think people would be more likely to reject religion if some other explanation for the afterlife was proven?

Desperate Times, Desperate Measures...

We were taught in our philosophy class that above all else, humans value self-preservation. The majority of human actions stem from the need to protect and/or better oneself. Sometimes our bodies will even take such action without us making a conscious decision; the body will shut down (aka faint) if it is not getting enough oxygen, rest, or sustenance in an attempt to conserve and preserve life.

There are been some cases where people do things to stay alive that they would not normally do. There are true stories of people who have been stranded in groups and have resort to cannibalism to survive. Why not? If you are stuck in the frigid, icy mountains with no immediate way to safety and no food supply except your dead friend, human nature would dictate that you use your friend as a food supply. Food is the most basic human need, and in desperate times the body will settle for almost anything to fulfill that need as long as it preserves life.

Despite the fact that your brain and body demand that one eats his friend to survive, many people still will not resort to such a thing. No matter how desperate they are, they will not do something as repulsive and corrupt as consuming another human’s flesh. They would rather die than commit such an atrocity. Their moral belief that it is wrong is too overpowering

My question, therefore, is, Do you believe it is possible that too much emphasis is put on morality? Why or why not?

Response to Lisa Diamond: Altruism

Lisa asked, Do you think there is one model, one epitome, to look up to that is the definition of what 'good' should be?

My answer is decidedly no. Everybody has flaws, so there isn’t one perfect being that people can look up to. Furthermore, everybody’s definition of what consists of a “good” person is different.

To a religious Christian, a “good” person would be a morally perfect being that does not drink, do drugs, or have premarital sex. As I said before, there is no such thing as a perfect being, and I don’t think people who drink or do drugs or have premarital sex are “bad” just because of that. In the German culture, drinking is a popular pastime. The Native Americans believe in using hallucinogens to be closer to their gods. The hippies believed in free love.

In some places in the Middle East, it is considered “good” to throw acid on a woman’s face if she does not put on a veil. Men who do it are praised there, while people in America would never think that was an acceptable thing to do. This is just another example of how people can disagree on what makes up a “good” person.

My question in response is, Who do you consider a “good” person to look up to and why?