Welcome!

I intend for this blog to help me on a personal search for truth. Hopefully, along the way, we can learn from each other. I do not intend for this site to be dedicated to any single denomination, belief system or creed. Atheist, Agnostic, Christian, Muslim, Buddhist, Jew or just confused are all welcome to express your opinion. All that’s required is that we keep the discourse civil. All comments that contain inappropriate or off-topic material will be removed. Also, generally posts that contain links/URLs will be removed. Personal attacks are not permitted! Express your opinion as strongly as you wish but do it with respect. Otherwise, all is fair game for discussion.

About myself. I am a reluctant agnostic, not a fence straddler but someone who is honestly looking for truth. I am more than willing to listen to any point of view. I’m also not one to argue but rather to ask questions.

“I attribute the little I know to my not having been ashamed to ask for information” (John Locke)

Religious Belief-Where Do You Stand?

Possibly one of the more dangerous things you can do is challenge someone’s religious beliefs. If you doubt this simply take a look at the more extreme branches of the world’s major religions. Of course the ones that come to mind most readily are the Muslim extremist who will tolerate no debate about the interpretations of the Koran, or a Christian fundamentalist who declares that the King James version is the only anointed Word of God.

The following quote from Muqtedar Khan, Ph.D., Director of International Studies, Adrian College, MI, might help to show the difference between the moderate and extreme Muslims. “For moderate Muslims Ijtihad (The intellectual effort of Muslim jurists to reach independent religio-legal decisions, a key feature of modern Islamic reform; one who exercises ijtihad is a mujtahid; from the Britannica Encyclopedia)  is the preferred method of choice for social and political change and military Jihad the last option. For militant Muslims, military Jihad is the first option and Ijtihad is not an option at all. I believe that moderate Muslims are different from militant Muslims even though both of them advocate the establishment of societies whose organizing principle is Islam. The difference between moderate and militant Muslims is in their methodological orientation and in the primordial normative preferences which shape their interpretation of Islam.” (Khan)

Jared (Jerry) Seay of Charleston College has this to say about the “KJV only” Christian fundamentalists, “Christian fundamentalists interpret the Bible as the inerrant, factual, and literal word of God.  Though each of these terms can be argued as to what exactly the terms mean, it is in any case clear that fundamentalism rejects any modernist critical interpretation of the Bible.  They reject most modern scientific findings in biology and geology, or at least greatly reinterpret them to “fit” their view of the Bible.  Most believe, for example, that the world was created in seven 24 hour days simply because that is what the Genesis account says. Most fundamentalist also believe that the earth (and the universe) is no more than a few (less than ten) thousand years old based on the genealogies in the Bible. Any findings by science that seem to refute this argument are simply discarded and seen to be ”obviously wrong” since it disagrees with the Bible. In other words, “if it disagrees with the Bible (the fundamentalist view of the Bible), then it is wrong and probably straight from Satan.”  It must be stated for the record that there are differing levels or versions of fundamentalist belief.  Some fundamentalists, for example, believe that the Genesis account allows for so the called”day – age” interpretation, in which the days of creation are actually unknown periods of time.  Even such “liberal” fundamentalists, however, believe that everything written about in the Bible is an accurate reporting of actual historical events. This “literal” interpretation of the Bible is very dear to fundamentalist to the extent that most believe that anyone who does not accept this “literal” interpretation are not true Christians.  Many “hard core” fundamentalist even believe that anyone who does not use the King James (1611) version of the Bible is destined for Hell. (Seay)

            On the other side there are those who deny validity to any claim of spiritual experience and look on sacred or religious writings with scorn, a hiding place for the ignorant who do not understand the “realities” of life. I found this article by Kenton Anderson to be enlightening; “I read a particularly intelligent response  to Richard Dawkins’ fundamentalist atheism in my morning newspaper. Margaret Somerville is becoming as a critic of Dawkins, partly because she doesn’t seem to be coming from a Christian perspective. As founding director of the Center for Medicine, Ethics and Law at McGill University (Montreal) she brings a credible academic pedigree and a reasoned voice to the debate. While I think that an avowed Christian voice could say a little more, I think that her approach is telling. Somerville makes a number of points, including the charge that Dawkins “confuses religion and the use of religion.” Just as science can be used for good or for evil, so can religion. “Dawkins,” she writes, “looks only at the evil uses of religion – never the good it affects – and only the good uses of science – never the harm it does.” “Dawkins basic presumption,” she says, “is that there is no God and, therefore, that those who believe there is must prove it. The equally valid basic presumption is that there is a God and those who don’t believe that must prove it. Because neither basic presumption can be proved or disproved, both are tenable and, therefore, both must be accommodated in a secular society.” “We should stop automatically associating having liberal secular values with being open minded and having conservative religious values with being closed minded – liberal people can be very closed minded and conservative people open minded.” (Anderson)

            The question of whether or scriptures such as the Old Testament are divinely inspired or simply literature can never be resolved except on a personal level. However, in either case, whether you believe that the Old Testament is the word of God or simply a collection of writings gathered over centuries, an understanding of how these works to were developed and compiled are a necessary part of intellectual honesty. No matter which side of the fence you are on there should be no fear in discovering the historicity of the Bible, or for that matter any other document. This chapter, the Process of Formation, gives a greater understanding of how the books of the Old Testament were developed and compiled. I do not find it odd that there are similarities between the books of the Old Testament and other ancient documents. If they are simply recounting of the history of a people, one that covers many years, and if their historical accounts are accurate then I would expect to find other writings from other people that bear similarities to the biblical accounts. Since these accounts refer to other peoples I would find it odd if there were not writings from other societies that recounted like events. If it were divinely inspired I would expect there to be correlations with other writings from other societies, since one would expect divinely inspired truths to be universal. Indeed, the scholar and author C. S. Lewis makes this point in an appendix to his book The Abolition of Man. This appendix, Illustrations of the Tao, lists several examples of the similarities between the moral frameworks of vastly different societies. For an example look at the similarities of the following statements: “Thou shalt not bear false witness against neighbor”, Ancient Jewish; “Utter not a word by which anyone could be wounded”, Hindu; “Speak kindness… Show goodwill”, Babylonian; “Man is man’s delight”, Old Norse. (Lewis)

            If you are a firm believer in the position you hold, either the Old Testament is divinely inspired or it is not, then knowledge of how it was formed will probably not change your views. But it should give you an understanding of how such a monumental work came into being. But, if you are like me, on the fence, then an understanding of the evolution of the Old Testament will perhaps give you an insight into the deeper meanings of the Scriptures.

References

Anderson, Kenton. Fundamentalist Atheists. Langley, Canada: Northwest Baptist Seminary, 2007. Dean and Professor of Homiletics, Northwest Baptist Seminary, Langley, BC Canada. Web. 9 Sept. 2010. .

Khan, Muqtedar. Who are the “moderate Muslims”? N.p.: n.p., n.d. Director of International Studies, Adrian College, MI. Web. 9 Sept. 2010. .

Lewis, Clive S. The Abolition of Man. New York: Macmillan, 1970. 97-98. Print.

Seay, Jared A. Christian Fundamentalism. N.p.: n.p., 1998. Librarian II / Assistant Professor, College of Charleston, Charleston, South Carolina. Web. 9 Sept. 2010. .

Utopia-The Unrealistic Ideal

An ideal society is at best a pipe dream. Utopian visions tend to neglect the realities of humanity. The world contains too many people with too many divergent ideas about what is good or moral or proper. What may appear to be ideal to a citizen of Bucyrus, Kansas would be foreign to a citizen of Agartala, India. The same ideal could be an anathema to a radical Islamic. Why this difficulty? C.S. Lewis (christian apologist, chair of Medieval and Renaissance Literature at Cambridge) shows in “Illustrations of the Tao” that there is a Natural Law that seems to be common to all civilizations. (Lewis, 1965)
To establish what I consider an ideal society I must first lay some ground rules, some axioms that pertain to any society. Firstly, the role of government. Let us turn to John Locke. “According to Lockeans, a political morality is rights-based and the proper role of the legitimate state is to protect rights and address rights violations.” (Hinman, 2006, p219) There is no distinction between races, ethnic groups, or religions. A society that bases its laws on the total or partial exclusion of any of these groups can in no way be considered ideal. What makes them correct? Secondly, the role of citizens. An ideal citizen must consider the rights of others. No crying movie in a crowded firehouse just to express your freedom of speech. (Do they show movies in crowded firehouses?) Can we do that? Of course the question arises, where do these ideals for our future society come from? It depends on whether there are any “universal” rules. To quote a famous Shakespeare line from Hamlet, “Aye, there’s the rub”. By adhering to these common laws, which basically fall back to the Golden Rule of Christianity, Buddhism, Jainism, and Confucianism among others, my ideal society would respect and appreciate the rights of others, would work together for the common good and actively seek justice. In seems as though all examples in the text deal almost exclusively with questions of race, reparations and reconciliation. Now these are important in themselves but are not an issue in my ideal society because the nature of its members renders the questions of race, gender, etc as non-existent. Can we achieve this goal? Now, there is one big problem, human nature. To achieve an ideal society one needs to change the human nature of all but saints. I am not holding my breath.

Resource List

Hinman, Lawrence M. Contemporary Moral Issues. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice- Hall, 2006. 219. Print.

Lewis, Clive S. The Abolition of Man. 7th ed. New York, NY: Macmillan, 1965. 95-121. Print.

Thoughts on Kant and Euthanesia

The question of the morality of Euthanasia plagues me. Any thoughts would be very welcome.

The fact of death itself is not a point of contention but the question of when we die is. War, disease, accidents, capital punishment or a myriad of other circumstances may end our life before its natural course has run. There are two issues that are more contentious than the others, Abortion and Euthanasia. I would like to look at the question of euthanasia from a Kantian viewpoint, as least as I understand it. 

In order to see the question from the view of Kant we need to have some understanding of the man himself. “Immanuel Kant (1724-1804) was the first of the major philosophers of modern times to spend his life as a professional teacher of the subject”. (Encyclopedia of Philosophy, p305) Kant formulated one of the great systems of ethics. “Kant’s moral philosophy is sometimes called formalism, because he was looking for moral principles that are inherently right or wrong apart from any particular circumstances” (Titus, H.H. p364). I believe that one cannot separate Kant’s views of morals from his religious beliefs. Indeed, faith is an integral part of Kant’s critical philosophy. His statement, “‘The things of the world must be viewed as if they received their existence from a highest intelligence.’ In Kant’s view such belief if indispensible to morality”. (Durant, p538-539) We must bear this in mind when we try to view the question of Euthanasia from a Kantian perspective.

First, let us define what euthanasia is and then determine where Kant’s views affect the morality of the action. Euthanasia is the practice of ending life painlessly and has different aspects. “ The three most important of these are the distinction between active and passive euthanasia, voluntary and involuntary euthanasia and assisted and unassisted euthanasia.” (Hinman, L.M. p102) However I will discount involuntary euthanasia as a legitimate form of euthanasia since I strongly feel that any involuntary taking of an innocent human life against their wishes or without their consent is tantamount to murder. Now, let us try to apply Kant’s sanctity of life position, that being defined as “A philosophical position holding that life is valuable in and of itself, and that circumstances have little to no effect upon one’s innate worth. From this it usually follows that it would be immoral to end one’s own life prematurely, and that life ought to be one of the highest values.” (I found this definition by accident on the web with no attribution. It does seem to conform to Kant’s thoughts but stated in modern language.) Kant’s own words dealing with suicide: ” ‘So act as to treat humanity, whether in thine own person or in that of any other, in every case as an end withal, never as a means only…..He who contemplates suicide should ask himself whether his action can be consistent with the idea of humanity as an end in itself. If he destroys himself in order to escape painful circumstances, he uses a person merely as a mean to maintain a tolerable condition up to the end of life. But man is not a thing, that is to say, something which can be used merely as a means, but must in all his actions be considered as an end to himself.” (Kant, p272)

C. Everett Koop, former Surgeon General, says “In regard to selective Euthanasia, we must be concerned with what the next step is likely to be. Societies always tend to expand the number of conditions and groups targeted for this ‘special treatment’ or ‘final solution’ and I agree with the concerns about the impact of medically sanction suicide on the poor and handicapped” (Bender & Leone, p23) Remember, the Nazi gas chambers were not first used on the Jews and other minorities but were used as part of the “medical treatment” for the mentally ill and disabled. The official position of the Catholic Church on euthanasia, the Declaration on Euthanasia, the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith, says in part “it is necessary to state firmly once more that nothing and no one can in any way permit the killing of an innocent human being, whether a fetus or an embryo, an infant or an adult, an old person or one suffering from an incurable disease, or a person who is dying. Furthermore, no one is permitted to ask for this act of killing, either for himself or herself or for another person entrusted to his or her care…” (McCuen & Boucher, p45) Remember, Kant had a religious view that was part of his ethics. Lastly let us consider this statement by Paul Jewell, presented in a paper to the Australian Association for Professional and Applied Ethics. Mr. Jewell states, regarding Kant, “[the] one argument [which] holds that the sanctity of life is an axiom, is self-evident, and hence needs no further justification. Kant declared suicide as ‘wholly opposed to the supreme principle of all duty’. It should be noted, though, that the sanctity of life in this context does not mean the sanctity of all life, but rather the sanctity of human life. The necessity of preserving the life of, say, all plants is not being asserted, nor would it be possible. It follows, then, that there must be a relevant difference between human life and plant life. The difference, clearly, is that humans are capable of making decisions, of being self-determining, of practicing autonomy. It is this difference that makes the debate about euthanasia possible, indeed makes possible all ethical considerations, as Kant readily admits. Autonomous decision making is the very stuff of ethics.” (Jewell)

Can we reconcile these modern statements with the 17th century views of Immanuel Kant? I believe we can by examining the common threads that run through all of them. The first and prime thread is the sanctity of life, the fact that life should not and indeed cannot be valued in relation to the requirements or desires of a society. Even ones own life, in some sense, is not their own but a part of the human Gestalt. We can infer from Kant’s definitions that society does not have the right to require or permit the taking of ones life for the convenience of that person or society. The idea which I’m sure will be the most likely to receive criticism, is that the belief, expressed by Kant and others, that human life is a gift and must be considered sacred.

The question of whether euthanasia is ethical or not will be debated for some time to come. However, I believe that if we take Kant’s point of view we must conclude that it is unethical and its use strikes a blow to human dignity.

Works Cited
Bender, David, and Bruno Leone. Euthanasia: Opposing Viewpoints. San Diego, CA: Greenhaven Press, 1995. 23. Print

Durant, W & A. Rousseau and Revolution. Vol. 10. New York, NY: Simon and Schuster,
1967. 538-39. 11 vols. Print

Edwards, Paul, ed. The Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Reprint ed. Vol. 4. New York:

Macmillan Publishing, 1967. 305. 8 vols. Print.Hinman, Lawrence M. Contemporary Moral Issues. 3rd ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ:
Prentice Hall, 2006. 102. Print.

Jewell, Paul. Rationality, euthanasia, and the sanctity of life. Adelaide, Australia: Australian Association for Professional and Applie, 2005. Australian Association for Professional and Applied Ethics 12th Annual Conference. Web. 17 Feb. 2010. .

Kant, Immanuel. Kant; Fundamental Principles of the Metaphysics of Morals. Chicago, IL: Great Books, Britannica, 1952. 572. Print.

McCuen, Gary E., and Therese Boucher. Terminating Life: Conflicting Values in Health Care. Hudson, WI: GEM Publications, 1985. 45. Print.

Titus, Harold H. Living Issues inPhilosophy. 5th ed. New York: D. Van Nostand, 1970.

The High Price of Vengeance

There are probably very few of us who have not longed for the sweet taste of vengeance for a real or perceived wrong. History is full of examples, from Elisha in 2 Kings to the executions of Mussolini and other Fascist leaders by Italian partisans to the acts of vengeance that we read about today. But, what is the real cost of vengeance?
Let’s look at two examples from World War II, Germany and Japan. When World War I ended, the Treaty of Versailles placed harsh demands on the loser. Germany “was stripped of 13 per cent of her territory and ten per cent of her population; the border territories of Alsace and Lorraine were returned to France. Germany lost all of her colonies, 75 per cent of her iron ore deposits and 26 per cent of her coal and potash. The size of the army and navy was drastically cut, and an air force and submarines were forbidden. The Germans also had to officially accept ‘war guilt’ and pay reparations to the tune of £6,000 million.” (
http://www.history.co.uk/explore-history/ww2/treaty-of-versailles.html
) These harsh conditions were pushed by France’s “Clemenceau [who] was the most ardent advocate of this view. Backed by the French public, he wanted to bring Germany to her knees. He called for Germany to pay huge sums of money, known as reparations. Lloyd George was aware of Britain’s appetite for vengeance, and publicly promised to ‘make Germany pay’.” (ibid) It’s interesting to note that the American President Woodrow Wilson disagreed with the harsh provisions of this treaty, instead advocating a more reasonable treaty to insure peace. Unfortunately his ideas did little to convince France and England. Germany was also forced to accept full blame for the war, even though nations on both sides had some responsibility.
While the Treaty of Versailles is not the only thing that led to World War Two, the thirst for vengeance shown in treaty was certainly one of the things that Hitler used to rally the German people. I question whether Hitler would have gained the power he did if France and England had acted in a more humane fashion and crafted a treaty that worked to create a prosperous German State.
On the other hand, look at Germany after World War Two. Germany was basically separated into two parts, Soviet and Western. I know that the Yalta and Potsdam conferences divided it into 4 parts but basically it was East and West. I was in intelligence in Germany and witnessed firsthand just how divided it was, so I am basically talking about West Germany. The Marshall plan in 1947 was greatly responsible for the restructuring and rebuilding of Germany, and indeed Western Europe. Unlike the aftermath of WWI where vengeance was the primary concern, the years after WWII saw the rebirth of the German nation. From the ashes of an evil empire rose a Democratic society.
Now, I am not saying that this is all black and white, of course there were a great many different forces at play in both instances but I do contend that forgoing vengeance leads to a much more desirable outcome.

PTSD and Faith

PTSD (Post Traumatic Stress Disorder) is a thief. It can steal your family, your health, your job and your ambition. It can also steal your beliefs. This is not a confession or a plea for sympathy. Rather it is a statement of what happens when an event is so powerful that it destroys your faith: faith in yourself, faith in your world and faith in your God. This is not my tale alone. Others who have served their country, men and women whom I have sat with during many, many group therapy sessions, have talked about their loss of faith due to PTSD. Of course not everyone has that loss but there are several of us out there.
The most common question that I hear, and the one that I ask, is “How can God let this happen?” You suffer from guilt and shame. You need someone to take these burdens away, to accept responsibility. Many times you place that burden on the shoulders of God and when the pain does not go away your faith does. The following quote is from Dr. John Zemler, PhD, a disabled US Army Veteran with PTSD. “PTSD wants you to give up on God. It tells you you will never have peace. That way you will also give up on yourself and others. Many succumb to the PTSD-Identity and may deny God or think that they are unworthy of God. What if I don’t want to be in relationship with God? Can I become so disappointed in God, in life, in others, and my own actions as to deny the possibility of ever being in God’s Presence again, ever being at Peace again?” When you reach that point, at least in my case, life has lost most of its meaning.
Whether I had heard this analogy before or came up with it on my own I honestly can’t remember. It does, however, illustrate the way I feel. “Imagine the whole universe consists of only a room with four walls, a ceiling, a floor, a table and a candle. Nothing else exists, just you and the room. First take away the ceiling. Then take away the walls. Remove the floor. Take away the table. Now blow out the candle. That, many times, is my mental universe.
The purpose of this post? Hopefully it will generate some discussion that will be of help or comfort to myself or others.