The One True Reality

Image Credit: SJU.edu

This philosophical post was inspired by a debate I had last night with a friend.  Though we share many common interests, our outlooks on life are completely different, which leads to some very interesting discussion.  In this post, I’ll describe the arguments we were making against one another, and why mine is correct.

It started with me making the assertion that there is on true reality, and no other realities exist (quantum mechanics fans, parallel realities would be encompassed by the one true reality).  I then went a step further in saying that reason, rationality, logic, and scientific investigation were the methods that reveal this one true reality.

My friend’s assertion on the other hand was that each person has their own reality, in which every in it is real to them, and there is no one true reality, precisely because everyone has their own.  She went on to add that these realities were run and discovered by emotion and impulse.

The Philosophy of Rationalism

The purpose of this post is to summarize the basis of the philosophy of rationality–that is, our conception of knowledge and values which give birth to rationality–give two popular criticisms, and refute them.

Everyday life testifies to the fact that human activity is intentional or purposive.  We do x for the sake of y.  Life also shows us that we regard some intentions or purposes as better than others.  This is the basis of such distinctions as those between good and evil, noble and base, beautiful and ugly.  But the mere fact that I judge something to be good does not make it good.  Differently stated, if the goodness of a speech or deed depends upon my opinion of its merits, then I cannot appeal to the intrinsic goodness of the speech or deed in order to demonstrate that my assessment is correct, and thus better than the assessment of those who disagree with me.  Speaking very generally, we can verify whether a deed has occurred, just as we can understand the content of speeches if we know the language and are familiar with the topics discussed.  But there seems to be a discontinuity between our perception of the fact and our estimation of its goodness.  In contemporary language, there seems to be a disjunction of facts and values.

Philosophy is Overrated

Let me first start off by saying I certainly consider philosophy to be a vital field for understanding anything at all.  It is best used alongside science to verify scientific data through logic.  Granted, science does this naturally, but it is still worth mentioning.  However, upon coming across people who emerse themselves in philosophy as the only way of interpreting the world, explaining things, or justifying/refuting arguments about given subjects, I tend to come to the conclusion that philosophy is overrated.

This post will be remniscient of my previous post about science OR philosophy being a false dichotomy, but I feel this post will take this idea to the next level, as well as explain my personal views about philosophy.

The Tenant That Destroys Intelligent Design

I have tackled the issue of Intelligent Design in previous posts, making the claim that “ID is rendered invalid by its own merit,” but I have never taken the time to clarify how this is the case.  Thus, the subject of this post.

Intelligent Design is a wonderful idea at a glance, but as with many other things, once examined closely, it loses its flattery.  There are several problems with the idea of ID, but I will be examing the 2 most detrimental.  That is,

1)  Anything of such complexity (i.e. life, or the universe itself) could only have come into existence through a more intelligent being.

2)  The idea is completely un-scientific.

Philosophy and Science

It is not uncommon to hear theists, atheists, and agnostics debate the issue of Evolution.  We’ve all heard the common arguments from both sides, and most of us know that both sides are victims of the false dichotomy that if one believes in Evolution, one cannot believe in God, and vice versa.  With that said, atheists and theists alike tend to assume one can only choose one or the other.

I won’t delve into this issue with this post, but I do want to approach a very similar issue that I think needs attention.  That is, philosophy and science.

Anti Same-Sex Marriage Arguments Refuted

So being from an area smack dab in the middle of the Bible Belt, I’ve heard just about every argument against same-sex marriage you can think of.  But one in particular repeates itself in every debate, and arguably it is the fundamental aspect that all other anti same-sex marriage arguments are based upon.  This post will focus on the argument that homosexuality is not a choice and is against nature.

Probability and Design

This post is inspired by a comment my English 11 teacher made in class yesterday.  Before I say anything, I must clarify that I respect this guy; he’s a really smart teacher.  However, while reading a poem by Whalt Whitman, a line in the poem made reference to the transcendentalist belief of the life cycle (i.e. born from earth, live on earth, die on earth, become earth, bring forth more life).  This resulted in a class discussion about death, what lies thereafter, God, etc.  The discussion was very enlightening and healthy, especially considering we come from an area where born-again Christians dominate society (and that’s an understatement).  However, when my teacher made the following comment, I wanted to argue against it.

The Earth Will Not Be Destroyed by the LHC

Not today, not 5 weeks from now, not 4 years from now.  In fact, given no astronomical dangers occur, nuclear war, etc., the Earth should be around for another 5 billion years or so.  Yay!

All this nonsense about a black hole consuming earth is, for lack of a better word, bullshit.  For one, these particles they are accelarating, given the slim chance they even manage to create a black hole, it would be about the size of a mosquito.  Not to mention, the temperature at this point will cause the black hole to evaporate within seconds.

Considering this wonderful scientific machine is several hundred feet underground in a simulated vaccum, it would be impossible for a black hole of even moderate size to migrate towards the core.  According to Dr. Raman Makiokis, a head researcher on this project, the core of the earth is more likely to repel something that contorts spacetime than attract it anyway.

So if your still not convinced, be comforted in that you are believing something the size of a mosquito that is permanently bound to the spacetime within the closed system around it, will be migrating through a non vacuum (in some form that violates physics), and the destroy the earth.  Yay, logical!

Some of the concerns are legitimate in theory, but no further than that.  Probability is in our favor tenfold.

An Eye For An Eye – My Thoughts

I generally think a lot about things while mowing my yard.  At least until the exauhstion sets in.  Why?  I don’t know.  I guess due in part to the overwhelming boredom in the long process that is lawn care.  Anyway, as I was mowing, I started to think about the death penalty.  I am personally opposed to capital punishment, and if you aren’t, I respectfully disagree with you.

Generally those who support the death penalty use the “an eye for an eye” principle as justification for their opinion.  Most conservatives who are religious claim the Bible backs that claim up.  They aren’t wrong about that, but the philosophy itself is flawed.  How?  Here’s my take on it.

Two Ways of Looking at the World

Well, this is a filler post until I am finished working on a more interesting one about multiverses, which should come later today or sometime tomorrow.

I was sitting in my English 11 class analyzing a few stories we read on creation myths. Both were from ancient tribes and consisted of sky gods, magical trees, winds, and a muskrat that saved a sky goddess. I won’t go into details about the stories, but they were as you would expect-a bit ridiculous. My teacher, ever the enlightened one, asked, “By show of hands, how many of you think this is just ridiculous?” As expected, all of the class raised their hands.

He then said “Well what about this: In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth. And God said let there be light, and there was. God said let the earth bring forth yielding seed and it did. What’s the difference in the two stories. Who thinks this is equally as ridiculous?”