Middle Ground Must be Found

We cannot be certain if there is a definite supernatural world, but it is clear that naturalism and supernaturalism will never be able to coexist peacefully. Although we cannot be certain, it is evident that the idea of the supernatural world forces us to challenge ourselves and try to go beyond what we are capable. This incredible world helps people place faith in something important and encourages them in most cases to be a better person. So even though the natural and supernatural world will never be able to coexist peacefully, it is evident that both worlds are necessary and required by the human race in order to remain flourishing and successful.
Religion provides people with a stable philosophy, guidelines of how their lives should be lived, personal support, and happiness. Our governments also provide us with key qualities that influence and enhance our lives. It guides us to success by providing us with rules and laws, protects us from our enemies, and grants us with everything we need to enhance our lives. It is evident that both religion and government help shape our lives in unique ways and that we cannot live without one or the other.
So then the question arises: where does morality come from? Many argue that religion teaches us between right and wrong and demonstrates to us what makes a good person. Governments also provides us with laws that clearly display to us what is right and wrong, and punishes us for wrong behavior. So which one provides us with morality, supernaturalism or naturalism? It is clear that not all people are religious, and that they still have good morals and know the difference between right and wrong. Therefore, we cannot conclude which side provides us with more morality and guidance to be good and ethical people. It is also clear that all religions and governments do not provide their followers will the same “ethical” support.
So it is apparent that we can still have virtues and morality without religion, but it is evident that religion is demanded and needed by a vast amount of people. Although naturalism and supernaturalism cannot coexist peacefully, we should find a medium between the two extremes to help continue human flourishing. By finding a middle ground between religion and government we will be able to benefit from what both sides have to offer.

We are encouraged

I do not agree with Clark, naturalism and supernaturalism cannot coexist peacefully. In our world and society today, we are encouraged to voice our opinions and demonstrate our beliefs. It is evident that both supernaturalism and naturalism do not have any parallels and as a result conflict drastically. Science and faith do not have same common ground and thus their followers and advocators have conflicting beliefs and views. But because science is more hands on and the proof of science can be seen, more people are eager to trust and support naturalism. Clearly, there are too many differences between the natural and supernatural world for it to coexist peacefully. Nationally, we try to separate church and state, but we still struggle everyday with keeping religion out of our government. Even worldwide there are problems with religion and different governments. I don’t know how these two worlds can exist peaceful together when the religious world cannot come to terms. There has been and seems like there will always be continual religious wars. It is clear that if the supernatural world is at war, then it will not be able to make peace with another enemy. Moreover, how can we be certain that there is a supernatural world? There is no scientific or hard evidence that there is a supernatural world. Do some humans believe and wish for a supernatural world in hopes to find a happier life? Perhaps some people believe in the supernatural world because it gives them hope and security. Or was the supernatural world created for people to try to find happiness and create false-hopes? I guess we will never know if there is a definite supernatural world, but we know that naturalism and supernaturalism will never be able coexist peacefully.

Are we completely determined?

I have thoroughly enjoyed this week’s discussion on free will, as it has forced made me think about all that life has to offer. I have found myself questioning my existence here on earth, and what purpose I serve. After Wednesday’s class, I found myself believing that the world is completely determined. It is evident that all of our so called choices are somehow affected. Whether we are persuaded by rules and laws, human behavior, the weather, or even science, all of our decisions involve some amount of persuasion.
In class we came up with the conclusion that ethics is impossible because they must be freely chosen, and thus ethics and morals are only illusions. Though this conclusion is defined, I still struggle with putting my arms around the determinist theory. I feel as though we will never really know if we are choosing our decisions freely, or if our actions are determined. But either way, I have always thought that some of my actions are my own choice. I believe that we have some choices in our lives, but that most of our life has already been determined for us. It is evident that we will never be free of the causality in the world because are fully involved in it.

Recap/Expansion of Q&A 1

I would like to expand and recap my Q&A number one, as a slight, yet brief introduction to philosophy. It is evident that philosophy can be divided into many different sections. Traditionally, philosophers such as Aristotle and Plato divided philosophy into sub divisions such as ethics, physics, and logic. Philosophy is known as the love of wisdom, or the examination of our existence, knowledge, and ethics. I feel as though there are too many different layers and branches of philosophy to draw in a simple diagram. It is clear that everyone in class had their own views of how philosophy can be sub-divided. But it seemed as though we were able to somewhat agree upon a few different divisions. Ethics, logic, and meta-physics seemed to be most popular divisions.
Since the study of philosophy is never limited, I found it difficult to divide philosophy into distinct sections. I believe that all of our questions about our existence can be related back to the study of knowledge. Evidently, when I drew my philosophy diagram, I made logic the center of all the sections of philosophy. Ethics, politics, esthetics, free will, and all of the other aspects of philosophy could not exist without epistemology, or knowledge. So the question arises, is there definite lines of where philosophy ends and begins? Philosophy could be suggested as the study of everything that we have encountered in our lives as humans. It seems as though all of our different aspects in life and existence relate back to logic.