The Nature of The Good

Asking why something is good once turns out to be different from asking it six times.

When students were asked why a particular action was good, and why they took that good to be good, and why that good they took to be good was good...(you get the idea) many began to either:

1) Repeat their definition of the good, saying things like "selflessness is just good",

2) Become confused or distracted writing things like "because Jesus is God".

3) Show significant disinterest and anger by voicing a "blah, blah"or just writing "NO".

Sometimes such responses occurred after just one "but why" question, but most made it to three requests, some four. Here's the tally:

There was a lot of variety over what students took to be the nature of the good:

I like the selflessness answer. For the Christian, I suppose there is no greater good. Might a group of non-Christian students have a different top answer?

The Rise of Science and its Effect on Christianity

The rise of scientific knowledge has significantly increased the overall welfare of humanity by bringing about physical restoration and healing.  However, it might be plausibly argued that the increased respect of scientific knowledge has also undercut theological and religious knowledge.

 

Is Christianity better or worse off with the rise of scientific knowledge?

Here's the answers of 56 students:

Better: 28

Christianity is strengthened by challenge--13

Science increases our knowledge of God--11

Science helps spread Christianity--2

Science proves God--2

Worse: 17

Science weakens Christian faith--6

Science destroys Christian doctrine--5

Science competes with Christianity--6

Neither: 7

Both: 6 

Electrons and God

In this survey I asked first what the basis of students' beliefs in the existence of electrons and quarks.  Second, I asked if this was the same basis for their belief in God's existence.  Here's the results:

What is your basis for your belief that electrons and quarks exist?

Authority: 43

Experience of their effects: 6

Reason: 5

Faith: 2

Is this the same basis of your belief in God?

Yes--authority: 6

Yes--reason: 5

Yes--faith: 2

Yes--experience of effects: 1

No--reason: 12

No--authority and experience: 8

No--experience of effects: 6

No--experience: 6

No--faith: 6

No--1

After Death....

Not surprisingly, our last survey on death provided a hodgepodge of answers.  Three questions were asked:

1) What am I after death?

2) What do I look like after death?

3) Where am I after death?

Here's the results:

1) After death I am a...

SOUL (17) 

SPIRIT (5) 

MYSELF (5) 

BODY & SOUL (3) 

SLEEPING, NON-BODY THING, NON-SOUL THING, THINKING THING, EXPERIENCING THING, GHOST, FORM OF MYSELF (Each got 1)

2) After death I look like:

SAME (12)

NEW BODY (7)

NON-PHYSICAL (6)

EXISTING, NOTHING, UNDEFINED SHAPE, ANYTHING, FLOATING THING (Each got 2)

UNKNOWABLE, DEAD BODY (Each got 1)

3) After death I am at:

A BODY (6)

EARTH (6)

HEAVEN (5)

AFTERLIFE (4)

LIMBO (3)

NOT DEFINABLE (3)

BETTER PLACE (2)

VOID (2)

BEFORE GOD, DREAM, DOESN'T MATTER, ETERNAL PLACE (Each got 1)

Each question provoked at least 12 distinct answers, though I was able to combine some to get the categories you see here.  This diversity might show several things, but I want to claim it shows a general ignorance about religious belief.  

First let me distinguish between "theology"--doctrinal knowledge, "religious conviction"--pulpit knowledge, and "religious views"--popularized views.  For instance, theologically Jesus is the "propitiation" for our sin whereas from the pulpit we hear that Jesus "forgives" our sin whereas in popular discussion Jesus "loves" us in spite of our sin.  Notice that the popular view says comparatively nothing compared to the theological view, where the pulpit view is egocentrically centered on personal problems.

Given that long-winded attempt to distinguish some levels of religious knowledge, I think that there are three explanations for the diversity of answers to a standard creedal question.

a) Students do not know what either the theology or religious convictions imply about the nature of the afterlife.

b) Students come from a diversity of religious backgrounds which have different views of the afterlife.

c) Students put aside their religious convictions when answering the survey and so without religion there are no unified views on the afterlife and they presented only the popular views.

Few (none?) of these answers show theological nor pulpit knowledge, so (b) has little footing.  And while many of these answers are consistent with popular views and thereby support (c), they were for the most part presented as if they were religious convictions, implying that students did not put aside their convictions but rather tried to present them.  This leaves (a)--theological ignorance--as the best explanation for the diversity and content of these answers.

DooMin On Fair Trade and Socialism

Fair Trade movement began to advocate developing country producers and to promote sustainability. This social movement helps protect not only the payment of a fair price but also social and environmental standards in areas.

   For our discussion, we need to understand the principle of capitalism. What is capitalism? Capitalism is an economic system which protects private rights and property. In this system, the intervention of government is minimized to allow capitalists to determine economic activities by private decision. As a result of this, the gap between the poor and the wealth occurs. Accordingly, the capitalist class conflicts with the labor class because each class wants to make more profit for themselves. Therefore, economy is controlled by those in power, the Capitalists. So, to protect the weak, Fair trade started.

   In fact, Fair Trade itself has an inconsistency. Here is an argument:

 

1.    Fair trade breaks the principle of capitalism.

2.    Unless Fair trade keeps this principle, this trade would be unfair.

3.    Therefore, there is no fair Fair Trade.

 

Concerning human welfare, socialists would insist that it is fair to secure the fair price for small producers. As this principle develops, we can reach communism. It can hinder the development of economy. Capitalists want free trade. So, there are some conflicts between two groups.

   In fact, Fair Trade is designed to complement the weakness of capitalism. Since human beings are not perfect, the systems we have made should be defective. That is why capitalism has to be combined with Democracy. As a matter of fact, when it comes to Democracy, we have a lot of arguments. For example, what does Democracy support: the equality of opportunity or capital?

   In conclusion, Fair Trade is not unfair because the definition of fair is relative to the economic system in place. Nonetheless, Fair Trade embodies the social "rules" for human beings just as Jesus healed the cripple on the Sabbath day.

The Chalkboard is not Green

Let me define green as that which is experience when seeing reflectance wave lengths of 510 nanometers.  What I need to convince you of is that what you experience when you look at the chalkboard might NOT be an experience of green reflectance, but of some other color.

Color constancy is the problem of how we see various shades of one color as really of one color.  For instance, we see a ping pong ball as white, when it is really a gradation of shades of gray--a painter would have to use dark pigments to paint a ping pong ball as a spherical object.

Here's another example, where the A square looks darker than the B square: 

The A square and B square look like they are different shades in the checkerboard above, but in the checkerboard below, they are shown to be the same shade.  

This suggests that the shade of the chalkboard that we see is in fact different from what we really see.  Of course, this does not amount to saying that the chalkboard is not green, but rather a different shade of green that what we seem to experience.

The Lilac Illusion however, produces an experience of green occurs from a gray experience, where there is no green to be experienced.  This, coupled with the shade illusion above, suggests that perhaps the color of the Chalkboard is other than what we experience.

1=2

There are several "proofs" that result in the absurd claim that 1=2.  Here's one from Bill:

      Step 1: Let a=b.

      Step 2: Then a² = ab,

      Step 3: a² + a² = a² + ab,

      Step 4: 2a² = a² + ab,

      Step 5: 2a² – 2ab = a² + ab – 2ab,

      Step 6: and 2a² – 2ab = a² - ab.

      Step 7: This can be written as, 2(a² – ab) = 1(a² – ab)

Step 8: and canceling the  (a² – ab) from both sides gives 1=2.

But to actually claim that you KNOW that 1 does NOT equal 2 you would need to have reasons.  So, what is the reason, i.e. what is the fallacious step in this proof?  Click on the step you take to be fallacious.  If you are incorrect, perhaps you don't have good grounds for thinking 1=1.