The problem with all or none
I would first like to say, this is simply my view.
I am seeing a growing trend in the way people are thinking. This trend is the concept of accepting all and everyones view. Whether that refers to religion, characteristics, philosophy, sexual behaviour,ect. The idea of accepting all views, in my opinion, is totally illogical. However, it seems to be spreading more rapidly in the past 10 years.
Let me provide some scenarios to explain my thoughts on this.
Religion is a sensitive subject irregardless of what view you share. However, when you have two opposing thoughts on it, IE evolution/creation, one has to be wrong. There cannot be two rights.
Sexual behaviour is another hot topic. Who is to say the love of a man to woman, man to man, woman to woman, man to boy (nambla), ect. is right or wrong? Can one person really dictate what another person should or should not have sex with? Realistically, no one person can say what the other person should love or not love. Personally, I do not go with the thought we are inherently born a certain way when it comes to our attraction to a certain sex. The reason I do goes two fold. On a evolution worldview level, this cannot be good for the species. The race would die out. So, if you take the evolution view, homosexuality would have already phased out. On a creation worldview, the bible makes it clear woman was made to be with a man. It still stems to two different worldviews. Back to the issue both cannot be right.
Irregardless of two opposing views, the idea to accept both views as equal halves or equally correct is simply wrong.
How can two opposing views be correct? In my opinion, you cannot. You can have two individual having different views, but that does not make those two individuals both correct. So the new culture idea is to give both views equal weight.
Anyway, what you have left is either to accept all views equally, or your labeled a narrow minded person. I am seeing more and more people willing to accept any and all views, as opposed to be looked at as a narrow minded person, irregardless if it's illogical.
This school of thought (accept all equally) is referred to as postmodernism.
*Truth does not exist in any objective sense.
*Truth whether in science, education, or religion-is created by a specific culture or community and is "true" only in and for that culture.
*All thinking is a "social construct". In other words, what you and I regard as "truths" are simply arbitrary "beliefs we have been conditioned to accept by our society, just as others have been conditioned to accept a completely different set of beliefs."
*Any system or statement that claims to be objectively true or unfavorably judges the values, beliefs, lifestyle, and truth claims of another culture is a power play, an effort by one culture to dominate other cultures.
9:03 PM
Easy on the evolution talk...
If all humans were homosexual, then we'd be in trouble as a species. But, only a certain percentage are, then we're alright. It's like suggesting that, because some men suffer from erectile dysfunction, that means ED should've been naturally-selected-out long ago... which obviously isn't the case.
...but you're missing a very, very important point: evolution and creation do not have to be mutually exclusive, if viewed in the right way.
Back in high school I did a Biology presentation on evolution. I kicked a lot of ass, and there was a Q&A afterward. A friend of mine, who incidentally is now a minister in the United Church of Canada, put it very aptly: "Evolution explains the 'how,' but for me, creation explains the 'why.'"
...which is a damn brilliant thing for a teenager to say; I know, I work with them every day, and they sure as hell don't make observations like that too often.
Her point is well-taken: there is no inherent dichotomy in accepting both theories as valid. One explains the mechanics of DNA mutations and such; the other is a story written in a book which tries to colour-in the greater meaning of it all. Just because I (or you) don't happen to believe both are valid doesn't mean it's not possible to hold such a viewpoint.
As you might imagine, I'm a big fan of "constructed truth." I don't sit back and take things for granted; I question why things are the way they are. These include, obviously, what type of behavour is, for me, "acceptable" and "unacceptable."
If you and I come to different conclusions about what falls in what category, that's fine, I accept your opinion. But if you merely take these stances as gospel (figuratively) and don't look into why things are the way they are, then I have a problem, because you haven't done your homework.
Reading this blog on and off, though, I get the impression you do do some research, and I applaud you for that. You put forth the effort to find facts, and that's a big shiny check-mark in my book. I suppose the problem I have is that you're not willing to consider all viewpoints as valid... but I doubt there's any chance of me persuading you that it's truly a more satisfying way to live one's life.
Assalam aleikum.
(I kinda like that as a sign-off, actually.)
10:03 PM
Your ED example is a good one. Another point is we are being degraded (physically) rather than enhanced, in my opinion.
"evolution and creation do not have to be mutually exclusive,"
Actually the definition of evolution I was referring to is the belief we only come from matter or big bang. This
a)puts humans and animals in the same stew and
b)sets a standard for us to choose our own morale compass.
"Evolution explains the 'how,' but for me, creation explains the 'why.'"
That is a interesting concept. However, you really still can't have both. For me, God explains the how and creation was His action.
Again, if you view evolution as your how, your making yourself to be your own god.
"Just because I (or you) don't happen to believe both are valid doesn't mean it's not possible to hold such a viewpoint."
I totally agree. No-one truly knows until your dead. But by then, it's too late to make an last minute decisions. This is why if you believe in evolution or creation, your basing it off findings, but mostly off faith. People have a tendency to have a precept (bias) view irregardless if they don't think they do.
"you're not willing to consider all viewpoints as valid."
Actually I am. However, I have learned over the years,that debate really doesn't accomplish much. If you have two opposing viewpoints within a debate, the debaters (plural) viewpoint doesn't really change. They just learn more ammo for the next round. However, those that are not educated listening to the debate are influenced more by the better debater. It's midnight, so I hope that came out right. : )
4:11 PM
This
a)puts humans and animals in the same stew and
b)sets a standard for us to choose our own morale [sic] compass.
(a.) Humans are a type of animal, though. We are, as Kurt Vonnegut occasionally comically refers to us, "bags of meat." We just happen to be self-sentient bags of meat, which I suppose sets us apart, as far as we can tell, from other animals. But recall that a couple hundred years ago we didn't think other animals were able to feel pain, although we clearly know now that they do.
(b.) If I couldn't point my "moral compass" in the direction in which I want it to go, I would feel mighty constricted. I want to make up my own mind; I'm not a sheep, and have no time for people who are.
7:11 AM
But again, that is the difference in worldviews.
Whereas you view humans as simply another species of animals, I view humans set apart from animals.
Yes, we have similiarities, but the human race have a soul, as opposed to the other animal species.
8:17 PM
Two things.
1. We never used to think animals felt pain, but now we know they do, just like us. Just sayin', is all.
2. Who says we have "souls?" That's pure conjecture on your part. You can't prove we do, and you can't prove a turnip doesn't, so your argument is baseless.
5:22 AM
2. Who says we have "souls?" That's pure conjecture on your part. You can't prove we do, and you can't prove a turnip doesn't, so your argument is baseless.
If I am unable to prove we do hava soul/spirit, then logically you cannot prove we do not. Since that is the case, it simply goes back to belief. Thus, it is dependant on our worldviews.
Irregardless, it cannot be both, either we do, or we simply do not.
Post a Comment