Views on eating meat, so far:

Since the beginning of human evolution two million years ago, humans have always been omnivorous hunters and gathers. Humans have just as much of a right to eat meat as other carnivores do. Some other meat eating animals eat their prey when it is still alive; at least humans have more decency. It is evident that traditions around the world, including some places in the United States, do not treat animals with respect. I believe to be a moral meat eater, one should be aware of where their meat is coming from. An average American would be able to afford meat and should choose organically or healthily raised animals, opposed to factory meat. Therefore, I believe that it is moral and ethical for an average American to eat meat, because it is natural to our human nature. It is important however, to be conscious of where the meat comes from to ensure that animals are treated in a humane manner.

I found the article, “Eating meat is natural” by Jim Powlesland, http://www.acs.ucalgary.ca/~powlesla/personal/hunting/rights/meat.txt. In this article, the author explains what the USDA Dietary Guidelines are for Americans. It is recommended that Americans should eat grain products, vegetables, fruits, low fat milk products, lean meats, fish, poultry, and dry beans to have a healthy diet. Animal meat is the only source of B12, so by cutting this out of your diet, you will be unnatural, according to Powlesland. It is also evident that children need a complete diet including meat to be healthy when developing. According to Powlesland, children that have been raised on a vegan diet have slowed growth and development.

Although this is not a complete defense for eating meat, as it does have flaws. I again suggest that we should be moral meat eaters, and know where our meat comes from.

Glass Walls

A quote was mentioned in class, “if slaughter houses had glass walls, everyone would be vegetarian” – Paul McCartney. I found this quote interesting because this could be true for many other ethical activities that go on that we do not see every day. If everyone could see war and see the pain and suffering that the soldiers go through, they would be against war. I believe it all comes back to choices, and that humans have many different choices, but sometimes our ignorance clouds our decisions.

This quote is important to us because we should watch what goes on in slaughter houses. If people had a better idea of what goes on in slaughter houses they would be more willing to help with animal rights. People will be more supportive of factory produced meat rather than the extreme slaughtering of animals. I do believe that eating meat is ethical, but that it is important to know where your meat is coming from. By informing and showing people where their meat comes from, more people will be supportive and interested in how animals are treated.

Lack of Pro Meat Eating Support!

I found that it was really hard to find web sites that supported eating meat. Most of the pages that I did find supported eating meat for nutritional reasons, and that it is natural for humans to eat meat. I found it interesting that there are not many web sites that are pro meat eating, since so many people that eat meat. Perhaps it is because meat eating is a part of everyday life so meat eaters do not feel the need to defend their habits. But because choosing to not eat meat is not the norm, people feel the need to inform others. I could be wrong, but this has just sparked my interest.

Itching to doubt

“There's something in every atheist, itching to believe, and something in every believer, itching to doubt.”-Mignon McLaughlin, The Second Neurotic's Notebook, 1966

I found this quote online, and thought it was relevant to our class discussion. It is clear that believers, whether they are agnostic or fully practicing religious people, will always have a doubt in the back of their mind about the existence of god. Was religion created to help stop human suffering in an attempt to make life more enjoyable? And if god is real, which religion is the right one? These are only a few questions that many religious people struggle with. It is clear that people have been struggling with questions about the existence of god since the beginning of history, and that we will probably continue to remain answerless. But as long as there are no answers, people will continue to have questions. Perhaps the moral of the story is to stop worrying about the afterlife and concentrate on living right now.

Agnostic, just in case.

Someone in class on Monday suggested that agnosticism is a temporary position and that many people move to different positions throughout their lives. I agree that as humans our ideologies continuously change throughout our lives when we learn new ideas and theories. When I think of someone who is agnostic, I think of someone who is unsure what to believe; if they should believe what they are told or what they think they know. Many children are brought up to believe in God and have faith in his existence, even though they do not understand. When children mature and learn more about science and the natural world, so to speak, they begin to question what they have been told. Many people start to question God’s existence because there is no proof that he does exist. It is difficult for people to have faith in a god that they cannot see or hear, while they can see and understand how science continuously works to disprove god’s existence.

While people go through different stages of their lives, it is evident that most people are agnostic during the middle of their lives. When people come to the end of their lives (70’s and 80’s, on average) they begin to think more of the afterlife, and this is when most people become reacquainted with their religion. On any given Sunday or other day of worship, if you were to walk into a temple, church, or any other place of worship, the majority are of an older generation and young children who are brought by their parents and grandparents.

Perhaps people that question god’s existence choose to be agnostic so that if they die, and god does exist, they can say that they have believed all along, and be saved. Because no one knows if there is an afterlife when we die, people continuously struggle to do the right things to help themselves. It appears as though some people find agnosticism as a way to play both worlds, just in case.

A Limited Middle Ground

I found Clark’s pragmatic empiricism interesting and a good middle ground between supernaturalism and naturalism. Pragmatic empiricism is the idea to use what is useful and what works. The idea is that naturalism and supernaturalism have too many unrealistic ideas, and that pragmatic empiricism is a medium ground between both worlds. This allows society and humans to agree on what they see and hear which is easier to believe and understand rather than unrealistic ideas. Pragmatic empiricism doesn’t get into explanations of unexplained events and ideas. This is a limited version of a naturalistic view, in comparison of the supernatural world views. Instead of trying to answer everything, pragmatic empiricism answers questions with sensibility.

Pragmatic empiricism is supposed to be a middle ground between naturalism and supernaturalism, but it seems as though this theory supports naturalism more than it does supernaturalism. Clark’s pragmatic empiricism does not give supernaturalism a fair share in his theory. All arguments must relate to this world, according to pragmatic empiricism, which immediately removes the supernatural argument. It is clear that this “middle ground” does not take a fair combination of both naturalism and supernaturalism.

I found it interesting how Clark removed supernaturalism from his pragmatic empiricism theory. I wonder if humans will still have the same morals and ethics as they do now, if supernaturalism was eliminated. It is clear that supernaturalism supplies our society with many morals that we have. Will our government alone be able to provide us with the same moral and ethics that we receive from the supernatural world? But, where do people that do not believe in the supernatural world learn about morals and ethics, from government alone? One could argue that supernaturalism is not the only way that someone can learn about morals because atheists and agnostic people have morals just like people who believe in a supernatural world. But religion has been around since the beginning of history and its fundamental ideas have seeped into governments all over the world. Our government is the perfect example, although some people deny that religion plays a role in our government, this could be where our government gets its foundations for morals and ethics. So because the supernatural world does provide our society with a positive influence, I believe that it should not be completely eliminated in the search for a common ground between supernaturalism and naturalism.

A common ground?

A common ground will never be found between supernaturalism and naturalism, at least not any time soon. It is evident that the science and religious worlds are completely different. Perhaps there can be a common ground drawn between the two opposites, to draw conclusions and answers about things that we do not understand. Both science and religions were created to help humans understand elements of the world that are difficult to explain.

But as I am explaining the differences between science and religions, there is one major thing that stands out. We do not refer to the science world as many different sciences, but rather one science and many different religions. It is clear that there all of the different religions claim to be the right one, and that all the others are wrong. All throughout history the religious world has always been at war. Perhaps not physical war the entire time, but they are always arguing about which religion is most accurate. Thus, it is evident that if the religious world is constantly at war, they will not find a middle ground amongst the religions. Therefore, the religious world is hindering its ability to find a middle ground with the natural world.

Faith in Divided Worlds

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 and the supernatural world provide people with a stable philosophy, guidelines of how their lives should be lived, personal support, and happiness. The natural world, such as our governments also provides 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.

Interestingly, in class we tried to decide if there are two distinct meanings in the word faith. I believe that faith related to religion or faith in your work, other beliefs, or other people is the same idea. Faith is believing in something that you cannot see or completely understand. For religious people, faith is having the courage to believe in something you cannot see or feel, such as a god. It is difficult to believe and defend something that is not tangible. Much like it is difficult for scientists to have faith in their experiments and science in general. They also have to trust and have faith in what they discover. Ironically, both scientists and religious people find separate faith and belief in their divided worlds.

Can two opposites coexist peacefully?

I do not believe that 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 direct parallels and thus as a result conflict drastically. Science and religion do not have the 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. Perhaps the supernatural world was created to give hope and security in many things that we do not completely understand, while the natural world continues to make sense of the unexplainable.