More on "The Souls of Animals"

I'm going to write here what I didn't have room for in my review. In all honesty, I felt that this book was a bit ridiculous. I was hoping that there would be a few counterarguments or even some scientific backing, but all is contained was sentimental anecdotes and exaggerated religious undertones. I suppose I should have realized that this was going to be the case when I saw that it was written by a minister, but I wanted to give it a chance. I have to admit that the story of Koko and her kitten was heartbreaking, but seriously, people can twist things to mean what they want them to. Maybe Koko wasn't crying for her kitten; maybe she had an eye infection (just kidding...sort of). I guess being a cynical reader really didn't give this book a chance in my hands. Oh sure, I'd like to believe that my pets feel something akin to love for me, but what I consider to be love could just be my pet's knowledge that I am the almighty food-giver. Half of me would like to believe that animals have souls or something like that, but the other half of me needs more proof. The fact that this book was written by a religious man also sours it for me because of my experiences with religious men and women forcing their beliefs down my throat. But I digress.
I do consider myself an animal lover, don't get me wrong, it's just that I don't know if I can accept that animals have an "animal religion" as talked about in the book. Sure, I can believe that animal mothers feel an affection for their offspring, but creating a "barnyard nativity" with flowers? Come on, now that's just plain silly!

"The Souls of Animals"

The Souls of Animals by Reverend Gary Kowalski is an exploration into what Kowalski believes to be the spiritual side of animals. Originally published by Stillpoint Publishing in 1991, this testament to the intelligence and compassion of our animal brethren is very nicely written, but remains a bit simplistic and unbelievable at times. The author uses his experiences both as a Unitarian minister and animal lover to compile this book which argues the case that if there is such a thing as a soul, humans are not the only ones to have them. Kowalski uses examples such as a female gorilla named Koko who learns American Sign Language and a family of elephants who attempted to revive an injured family member to emphasize his point that animals have feelings, morals, personalities, and even “animal faith.”
Kowalski’s book begins with an exploration into what a “soul” actually is and how it affects both humans and animals alike. The book continues on with the story of Koko the gorilla who used ASL to ask for a kitten, which she loved and cared for until its death. According to Kowalski, Koko “cried” for a week after the kitten died, thus proving his point that animals are aware of and can even grieve death. Continuing on with death in mind, Kowalski brings up the possibility that animals feel the presence of supernatural beings and reveals a few anecdotes about a Border Collie who supposedly had several encounters with “ghosts.” Kowalski wraps up the book by exploring animal music and art, arguing that animals must have souls if they are capable of creating beauty for the sake of beauty.
While The Souls of Animals is very beautifully written and contains some heartwarming stories, it is hard to believe that a pig putting flowers around its litter is thoughtfully creating a “barnyard nativity.” Also, there are many counterarguments regarding the “miraculous” things that these animals do, and none of them are addressed. It appears that Kowalski takes many of his opinions from his religion and disregards the possibility of coincidence. Overall this book is a pleasant afternoon read, but nothing more. Sappy stories and obvious religious undertones cannot take the place of solid research and an open-mindedness to all possibilities.

Human Construction?

Group 1: Entirely Human Construction
1. God à There is no solid evidence to suggest that god is not a human construction.
2. War à War as we know it would be nonexistent without humans, therefore it is a human construction.
3. Science à Science is a form of study which humans created. As far as we know, animals do not employ science to study things.
4. Musicà I was on the fence about this one, but the music that we most often think of would not be possible if not for humans.
5. Morality à A concept that was created by man to keep order.
6. Market Capitalism àQuite obviously created by humans.
7. Patriotism à Again, obviously man-made.
Group 2: Partly Human Construction
1. The Color Red àThe title is manmade, but the actual color would exist with or without humans.
2. The Number 3 à Again, the title is man-made, but the actual number is not.
3. Timeà This one is debatable as well. The concept of keeping time is man-made, but the effects of the passage of time are not.
Group 3: Not Human Construction
1. Electronà Electrons would exist even if humans had not discovered their existence.
2. Appleà Grows in nature even without mankind’s help, therefore is not man-made.

Musical Taste and Lifestyle

According to Meriam-Webster, the definition of music is :
"1 a: the science or art of ordering tones or sounds in succession, in combination, and in temporal relationships to produce a composition having unity and continuity b: vocal, instrumental, or mechanical sounds having rhythm, melody, or harmony
2 a: an agreeable sound"
While I agree that music is all of this, I think that music is something else, too; music is something that speaks to people, that makes people feel something. Music is in the "ear" of the beholder-- a genre that is beautiful to one person might be torture to another. I personally know people who say that rap is not music because they do not like that particular genre, but doesn't rap fulfill M-W's requirements? Just because a person does not like a certain type of music does not mean that it is not music. Music is a collection of unified sounds that is either pleasing or displeasing to the ear depending on the person. I know that I am not a fan of country music in general, but I cannot condemn every country song because each song gives the listener a new experience; one country song might have a pleasing element that another one does not. I've always found it intriguing how one person might love a song that another person absolutely hates. What makes people love or hate certain types of music? Personality? Or does it depend on where the person was brought up? Perhaps it depends on the person's lifestyle, although (especially in younger people) the type of music you like determines who you are friends with, wht you wear, etc, so I suppose in a way, music helps to decide a person's lifestyle. Thinking back on middle and high school, music really did play a huge role in determining social status, wardrobe, etc. Those who wore mostly black and had "crazy" hair and makeup usually listened to heavy metal or punk, people who wore tie-dye, head bands and the like listened to "hippie music", kids who wore preppier clothes generally listened to pop or mild rap. Alot could be said about a person by their musical taste. Although the influence of musical taste on lifestyle tends to wane as people get older, it is still quite prevalent. It's really quite amazing how much music affects people and their lives, and the variety of music to choose from.

Music

I have yet to meet anybody who says they do not like music, and it is doubtful that I ever will. Music is something that speaks to everyone through different genres and sounds, and yet it is extremely difficult to define what music actually is. To me, music is something that is essential; I cannot picture a life without it. Music inspires, comforts, and excites, as well as creating a mood for all situations and allowing listeners to escape for a little while.
The Wikipedia article has a section describing the theory that music is a sort of language, and I agree with this wholeheartedly. Music not only speaks to people, but creates emotions such as sadness, joy, desire, anger, frustration, elation, etc. In my eyes, such a sound that evokes so much in the listeners can only be described as the language of the soul. Every culture across the world has some sort of music, thus why music is sometimes called the “universal language.” Music is constantly changing as cultures grow and change, just as language grows and changes. A hundred years ago people would have been shocked by the grinding guitars and growling vocals of some of the current rock bands, and yet today people (especially young people) all over appreciate this kind of music. Some music has passed the test of time, such as the works of Mozart or tribal music from all over the world.
Music is a powerful force that most people cannot live without. Music brings people together and can “soothe a savage beast.” Music affects people in so many different ways, and yet it is extremely difficult to pin down an exact definition of what music truly is.

Q&A# 8

There are several definitions of patriotism that must be considered before deciding whether or not to agree or disagree with Jensen’s position that American patriotism needs to die out. The first definition of patriotism that Jensen gives is that patriotism relies on loyalty to the war effort. If this is so, then American patriotism is long gone, as most Americans do not agree with the current war in Iraq and disagree with the government’s decisions, actions, and beliefs. The second definition given is that patriotism is a critique of the war effort as opposed to support of it. I believe that critique is closer to real patriotism than blind loyalty, as by critiquing the war people are using their right to express their opinions and safely disagree with government policies. Citizens of every country need to think about what is being decided for them and what their government is doing in the name of the people. Blind loyalty creates a country of sheep that do what they are told, when they are told to do it without thinking about why or what the consequences could be.
Jensen claims that people should concentrate on being globally patriotic as opposed to nationally patriotic, and I agree with this. As the world gets smaller and people can reach each other more easily, it becomes more and more important for people to feel pride in their planet and everything living on it. Pride in one’s country was a good thing, but it is better for people to concentrate on what can be done for the benefit of the entire world. This doesn’t mean sticking our noses in other country’s wars, but becoming more aware of what is happening outside of our borders and appreciating all cultures. As most people know, the environment is suffering due to human behavior. In order for this problem to be fixed, people need to become globally patriotic as Jensen suggested, and start becoming conscious of what is going on outside of our borders.

My own thoughts on patriotism.

The way I see it right now, patriotism is failing miserably in America because of the failure of the government to listen to the people. Before the Bush administration, I felt proud to live in America and to be considered American. Of course this could be attributed to the fact that I was much younger and more impressionable, but even now I see younger children who are being effected by the lack of patriotism. My own siblings are not proud to be in America, and they are both still under the age of 14, which is a very sad thing. When I was in elementary school I remember learning about what a great and free country America is. As I got older, I became more cynical about America and its policies. When I went to Europe two years ago I was told to tell anybody who asked where I was from that I was Canadian. It's a sad state of affairs when a person is afraid to be truthful about their own home.
I do not consider myself a patriotic person, but I can recognize that America has its good points. Yes, most of the world disagrees with our goverenment's actions, and even most of it's own citizens disagree with the war, but at the same time America is still fairly free. The freedoms are being taken away, mind you, but as of right now we still have it alright. Don't get me wrong, I am NOT in any way a supporter of the war, American government, or some of its policies, but it's good to think positively. But the fact that I feel that I have to explain that I am not patriotic means something, as well. I feel that if I were to admit to being patriotic or to having the smallest positive thought about American government, I would come under attack from those who disagree. This has happened in the past, before I decided that I completely disagreed with the war a few years ago. Friends got angry at me for expressing the tiniest bit of support for anything to do with America, and if I had any positive comments about Bush (which I have few) I came under even fiercer attack. A country whose own people come under attack for expressing patriotism is in a bad state indeed.
Then again, I do not believe that support of wars is the definition of patriotism. Patriotism is the love and pride of a country as a whole, not just how it handles its foreign affaris. A person may diagree with it's government's policies, but still be proud of the history and culture of their country. Although I don't find American history to be the most interesting, I can appreciate the struggle that early Americans went through to make this country. In that respect I suppose I am patriotic, as I believe that appreciation for a country's history and struggle is an important part of patriotism.
More on this later.

Meat-Eating

I do not believe that eating meat immoral, not do I believe that being a vegetarian is immoral. The immorality lies in how the animals are treated before they are eaten. Humans have been eating meat for thousands of years, but the difference is that primitive peoples generally used up all of the animal while today large meat companies waste what is left over from the animal. Also, keeping animals in small cages and atrophying their muscles for tenderness is not only wrong, but disgusting. Human beings are omnivores, therefore we need both meat and natural-grown foods to survive. Those who choose to not eat meat find other ways to get the protein that meat provides, but in the long run the benefits of some meats can not be reproduced.
It is wrong for people to assume that we own everything and therefore can do whatever we want with nature. Animals are not here solely for our use, but they provide us with the food that we need to survive. In the wild other animals eat each other, and most people see nothing wrong with that. Why should eating meat as a human be any different?

Defending Meat-Eaters

http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse.net/c.cgi?u=grill This webpage is not meant to be taken 100% seriously, but it does make a good argument if you read in between the cynical humor. It's also quite amusing if you like that kind of humor.

Responce to Q&A #5

Both from my own experience and reading the articles online, I have come to the conclusion that Agnosticism is the more rational belief. When I take into account the Agnostics that I know, they seem more open-minded about many topics and rarely rule anything out, as opposed to Atheists who seem a lot more close-minded about topics regarding religion especially. Atheists want the definite knowledge that they are correct in their assumption that there is no god, and while Agnostics many or may not believe in a god, they are open to the possibility. Although I doubt the existence of god, I like to keep my mind open enough not to reject the possibility. It is impossible for anyone to know for sure whether there is a god or not, as there is not enough proof on either side of the argument. Theists claim that miraculous events are the work of god, which is enough proof for many of them, while many Atheists use reason and logic to explain what others believe is the work of a god. Agnosticism seems to be the right balance between Atheism and Theism, as it is more a belief in possibilities rather than definites. I am sure that there are arguments claiming that Atheism is the more rational belief, because honestly it is rather unrealistic to believe in an all-powerful god that watches over all of us. Gods were invented by early peoples looking for explanations for things that could not be explained through their primitive methods. Nowadays it is a lot easier to determine cause and effect using science and logic, therefore some people believe that there is no longer a reason to have a god/gods. While this does make a lot of sense, I still believe that it is necessary to be open to any possibility, and therefore Agnosticism makes more sense than Atheism.

Agnosticism

Agnosticism applies to everything from religion to physics. To be Agnostic about something means that you believe in the possibility of its truth, not necessarily that you believe in it. If a person claims to be Agnostic, it is most commonly believed that that person believes in god, but does not have a particular religion. This is true in many cases, however it Agnosticism can also be described as skepticism, which can be applied to a variety of topics. However, it seems that saying you are skeptical about the creation theory differs from saying that you are skeptical about the existence of god, as being skeptical about god is more associated with being Atheist than the other. I honestly would have to say I that I believe being Agnostic s more practical and logical than being an Atheist. Even if you do not necessarily believe in god, it never hurts to be open to the possibility. Being open-minded is very important in the path to gaining knowledge

Atheism

Atheism is most commonly known as the belief that there is no god, nor the possibility of a god or gods. Most of the Atheists I know have told me that they know without a doubt that there is no god. Although I do not have a religion or a specific set of beliefs, I do not rule out the possibility of the existence of some sort of energy force or god. I believe that completely ruling something out is just foolish, as anything is possible, even if it cannot be proven through known methods. I also know people who are Christian and they too, know without a doubt that there is a god. Now this too is silly in my mind, as nobody can really prove the existence of god, even if they claim to just have "faith." Having complete faith that toys come alive when you leave the room does not make it true, no matter how much faith a person has.
Atheism and Christians have one thing in common, however, and that is logic. To an Atheist there is logically no god, but to a Christian it is logic that there a god. J.N. Findlay stated that "The heatheh may worship stocks and stones but does not see them as only stocks and stones." This statement accurately describes Christian beliefs as opposed to those of Atheists, as Christians do not see the concept of a god as just a concept, they see it as a logical truth. Atheists typically do not see something as greater than it is (according to the many Atheists I know; this could differ for others), therefore logic implies that there cannot be a god.

Philosophy According to Monty Python

Thanks to Amanda Roy for bringing this funny little song to my attention!


Bruces' Philosophers Song


Immanuel Kant was a real pissant
Who was very rarely stable.

Heidegger, Heidegger was a boozy beggar
Who could think you under the table.

David Hume could out-consume
Wilhelm Freidrich Hegel,

And Wittgenstein was a beery swine
Who was just as schloshed as Schlegel.

There's nothing Nietzche couldn't teach ya
'Bout the raising of the wrist.
Socrates, himself, was permanently pissed.

John Stuart Mill, of his own free will,
On half a pint of shandy was particularly ill.

Plato, they say, could stick it away--
Half a crate of whiskey every day.

Aristotle, Aristotle was a bugger for the bottle.
Hobbes was fond of his dram,
And René Descartes was a drunken fart.
'I drink, therefore I am.'

Yes, Socrates, himself, is particularly missed,
A lovely little thinker,But a bugger when he's pissed.

Religion vs. Science

Religion (in this blog I will be comparing Christianty's beliefs with scientific facts) and science have been at odds with each other for as long as the two have been around. Issues ranging from creationism vs. evolution to whether the Earth is round or flat have been debated for years without rest. The truth is, I doubt that the religion vs. science debate will ever end until one or the other is eradicated. The way things are going now, it seems that more and more people are letting go of religion, but this does not necessarily mean that religion will cease to be. Personally, I believe in science over religion; evolution makes more sense than creation, and I have no reason to believe that there is an all powerful god that is constantly watching over mankind. The fact is, there is just too much evidence that scientific research that proves religious beliefs wrong. I have no problem with Christianity's message that people should care for one another and that killing and stealing are wrong, but there are alot of things that I have issues with; for instance, the fundamental Christians who teach children about creation as opposed to evolution. I believe that it is wrong to teach a myth as truth to impressionable children. There is no proof of creationism, and there is an insane amount of evidence pointing to evolution. Christian stories are the same as ancient Greek stories about the gods; they are myths. One would not teach children that the gods on Mount Olympus are real, but they would teach that myths written in an ancient book (that was most likely changed to fit the whims of the vatican and kings) are true. In my mind, the mere thought of teaching such myths as truth is ridiculous. They make for interesting stories, but nothing more. Science proves things that religion cannot and provides physical evidence. It is impossible for a cynical person like me to believe in something that does not have physical evendence. In my last post I stated that I believe in ghosts, but that is only because I have physical proof of their existence. I do not expect others to believe in them, and indeed many do not, but since I have seen and heard what I believe to be a ghost (or absorbed energy) I believe in them. Science provides such physical evidence to provide proof of its many findings. There are fossils thats prove mankind evolved from apes, and Darwin's studies on the Galapagos Islands provided adaquate proof that evolution is real. There is no proof that the Adam and Eve story is true, and the same goes for the rest of the Christian myths. Who is to say that that so called "miracles" are the work of a god? Science almost always has an alternative explanation for what people believe to be miraculous events. People see what they want to believe; an example being those who claim to see the Loch Ness Monster. As much as I would like to believe that the monster exists, it is extremely improbable. To those who believe, anything from a log to a ripple on the water could be the elusive monster. The same goes for religious fanatics who believe that miricles happen. They see what they want, or even need to believe. Science and religion will most likely never see eye-to-eye on anything except the fact that they disagree.

God vs. Ghosts

Sometimes I find that my beliefs contradict themselves, because although I don't believe in god, I do believe in ghosts and spirits. Are gods and ghosts in the same category? Can one believe in one without the other? Both are in the supernatural category. Both are used to explain events that are otherwise uexplainable. Both are either strongly supported or not believed in at all. I have never had an exerience that proved to me the existence of an all-powerful god, nor do I choose to believe in "miracles". I do, however, believe in ghosts and spirits because I have had experiences with such beings. Yes, it could be possible that I am simply using the idea of ghosts to exlain things that I do not understand, but it is also possible that what I saw and heard was real. Without proof I am extremely cynical, and I have proof in my own mind that ghosts exist. God, on the other hand, has no bearing in my life and the very thought of an all-powerful being is laughable to me. That does not mean I do not respect the beliefs of others, it is simply my choice. I expect that others will laugh at my belief in ghosts and other phenomena, but I have accepted that. So the question remains: Are ghosts and god the same thing? If you really think about it, it seems silly to believe in one and not the other. Before I had several experiences with "ghosts", I did not believe in them. Physical proof is needed to get past my stubborn and cynical barrier, and I got the proof I needed. But I digress.
Ghosts and god are in the same category, but there are differences. There have been theories put forward that ghosts are simply imprints of energy from the past. God, however, is something that faith alone can prove. Yes, there are some so-called "miracles", but I am sure most of them could be explained by science, and in some cases even common sense. However, I will not rule out the possibility that a supernatural force may have something to do with it, although I do not believe that it is a god. The majority of the human brain is still a mystery to us, so maybe humans are the ones who are creating these "miracles". People have their own reasons for believing in things. Maybe I need to believe in ghosts for some reason, or maybe they are real. Maybe there is a god, even though I do not believe in it. Many people receive comfort from their own beliefs, so I suppose it does not matter whether ghosts and gods are real, as long as people are happy with their beliefs.

Time Flies

Time, in its essence, is something that cannot be seen, heard, or touched. It can, however, be seen and felt through the passing of years as both living beings and inanimate objects deteriorate. Take for example Stonehenge in the U.K. This mammoth ring of stones has seen the passage of thousands of years of history from about 3100 BC to the present day, and yet it still stands. Although Stonehenge is certainly not as glorious as it once was, this megalithic structure proves that at some point in history, before time was recorded in a way that we are all familiar with, human beings (or aliens, if you more inclined to that theroy...) existed and prospered. Anywhere you look there is evidence of the passing of time; towering trees, libraries filled with books, and even reruns on television. Just this morning I watched a rerun of Spongebob while getting ready for brunch, and even that shows how the passage of time changes things. When I was little and watched shows like Spongebob when they first aired, the animation was fuzzy and not as professional as it is now, which proves that time aids in progress. (And I am not ashamed to admit that I watch cartoons on occasion--sometimes a little mindless entertainment gives the brain a much needed rest).
With the passage of time comes the question of why time passes at different rates for different people. Will time pass more slowly for a person who is thinking about time than for a person who is out taking advantage of it? For example; two people have an hour to "spare", one decides to do homework, and the other decides to meet a friend for lunch. I am assuming that time will appear to pass more quickly for the person who is out with his or her friend, and time will drag for the person doing homework. I suppose the phrase "Time flies when you're having fun" is quite appropriate in almost any situation. I have always wondered why time appears to move faster while enjoying oneself and moves much more slowly when one is doing a mundane task such as homework or even just waiting for a certain hour to arrive. I suppose looking into the matter further might provide some sort of an answer, but at the moment I am running out of time for this blog entry.

Regarding Time

I thought that it would be interesting to express my views on "time" before reading the article that Professor Johnson gave us, and seeing if my perception differs after reading it.
I have thought on the subject of time before, but not extensively. Being a bit of a Sci-Fi nerd gives me that predisposition, I suppose...I know that the concept of time as a twenty-four hour day with sixty minute hours is man-made, and I also know that man has been keeping a sense of time for thousands of years. Something that I have always wondered is why we feel the need to keep time in the first place. Who came up with the idea of a set time? I am sure there is an answer to that somewhere, if I only had the patience to look. If man created time, then there couldn't be time without man...but what about before man? Did the dinosaurs have some concept of time, even if it was only what time to eat or sleep? Time should be a simple thing. Wake up at 10:00 a.m. Go to class at noon. Eat dinner at 5:30. Go to bed at 11:30. But thinking more deeply into the concept of time reveals a unanswerable amount of questions that will boggle the mind. Going back to the Sci-Fi geek in me, does time travel exist? Is there some way to stop or bend time? Can people from the future come visit us in the present...or does the future even exist? If a human knew nothing of time or the possibility of growing old, would they still age in the same manner? All of these questions are almost impossible to answer.
I suppose my final statement on time for the present is this: Time is a measuremet created by humans for the purpose of maintaining a semblance of order and schedule. I suppose that will have to do until I look into the matter further.

Regarding Existence and Humanity

A few classes ago there was a discussion about the possiblity that everything exists solely based on human perception. The example was given that if a tree falls in a forest with nobody around, will it make a sound? Another example was if you put a pair of shoes in the closet and close the doors, do they still exist? I have to admit that I am extremely skeptical of this line of thought. In fact, in my own opinion I find it downright ridiculous. To think that there is nothing in existence without the presence of the human mind is quite self-centered of the human race. Honestly, humans are so insignificant the the whole scheme of things that to even consider this possiblity is simply heinous. This may sound a bit harsh, but I believe that those who buy into this theory are so far removed from reality that this is all they have to believe in.
Speaking of skepticism, this line of thought really aligns with my own; although I might just be called a cynic. I do not believe that there are any real truths in philosophy, the sciences (although more and more is being discovered every day), politics, art, etc. The only thing that appears to be constant in the universe is mathematics. There can be no denying that 2+2+4, unless 2 is used as a symbol for another number. So I suppose I am skeptical of that as well. Whether or not my skepticism is logical is another matter entirely.
Skepticism leads into an even more intense philosophy called Nihilism. Nihilists believe that life holds no meaning, that there is no creator, and that a "true morality" does not exist. What a bleak outlook! Although I do not believe that there is a god, it is scary to believe that humans have no purpose on this planet; that myself and everbody I love has no purpose; that we're just a floating chunk of rock in an endless universe with no rhyme or reason. As I consider myself to have skeptical tendencies, truly thinking about Nihilistic concepts makes a morbid sense in my mind. What is really so special about human life? Now I sound simply depressing, but is there truly a reason for human life if there is not grand creator or plan? Sometimes I envy those who have faith in some sort of higher being; it's so much easier than being so cynical all of the time. I suppose that is the repurcussion for questioning everything. Maybe someday I'll find a religion to blindly follow and no longer be so skeptical. Probably not, though.