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.