In this post, I would like to discuss the concept of altruism. First, I admit that it may be difficult to acknowledge that some people in our world are truly selfless and willing to help others so that they (the “others”) benefit. However, a news article published just three days ago (September 22nd, 2014) claims not only that altruism exists, but also that there is biological evidence for it:

http://www.npr.org/blogs/health/2014/09/22/349639464/the-biology-of-altruism-good-deeds-may-be-rooted-in-the-brain

In this article, it is mentioned that an immensely kind-hearted and selfless lady, Angela Stimpson, donated a kidney to someone she did not even know. In my opinion, such an act is an example of true altruism because the motive is clearly for the benefit of the organ recipient. Abigail Marsh, mentioned in the article as one of the most famous researchers of altruism in the US, agrees with me. Fascinated by altruism, she decided to investigate whether any biological evidence exists for this phenomenon. In a research study, she imaged the brains of 19 altruists (those who had donated a kidney to a stranger, including Angela Stimpson) and 20 non-donors to compare brain size and also took MRI scans of her participants while they completed computerized tests. She found that the amygdala, a region of the brain heavily involved in emotional response, was noticeably larger in the altruists than the non-donors. Furthermore, she found that the amygdalae of the altruistic participants were more sensitive to images of “people displaying fear or distress” than those of the non-donors.

These findings are truly exceptional because they provide sound biological evidence that altruism is a legitimate phenomenon that exists in our world. Additionally, they undermine the cynical viewpoint we discussed in class that everyone in the world is an egoist and performs good deeds only for self-satisfaction. After all, only a true altruist would donate their organs for the good of others.

On Wednesday we discussed the article “Good Minus God: The Moral Atheist”. I can see why she thinks that morality is independent of the existence of God. If the meaning of “good” relies on whatever God commands, then “good” could mean anything. I do agree that moral value does exist in the natural world but I just don’t understand where that goodness would come from if God did not create it. Does it just automatically appear when someone is born? I agree more with the Divine Command Theory because God does have commandments that people are suppose to obey because He is the only one who has the power to always do good. I believe that the Divine Command Theory does require faith and trust in God and I can see why atheists are skeptical of this theory but I don’t see how people can just rely on what they think is morally right if they aren’t perfect.

In this post, I would like to compare arguments made by Louise M. Antony in her article “Good Minus God” and Paul Kurtz in his debate with William Craig on “Is Goodness without God Good Enough?”

In her article, Louise Antony argues that from an atheist perspective, morality is not imposed on the world by a divine entity. Instead, she believes that morality is present in the world and is a part of human nature, stemming from human experiences and our upbringings. In essence, her viewpoint is that morality is innate within humans and therefore what is morally good is discerned by humans themselves rather than decided by God. She goes on to distinguish between two types of theories concerned with this topic: Divine Command Theory (DCT) and Divine Independence Theory (DIT). Proponents of DCT believe that God decides what is morally good. On the other hand, proponents of DIT believe that moral goodness is independent of God. Antony, of course, is a Divine Independence Theorist and as mentioned previously, believes that morality is an innate human value that is independent of God.

In his debate with William Craig, Paul Kurtz argues that morality is independent of belief in God. His main argument is that “morality and moral behavior do not depend on divine commandments but on the development of an inner moral sense and, particularly in the young, the growth of moral character, and the capacity for moral reasoning” (Kurtz/Craig Debate Pg. 25). He believes that as evolutionarily advanced species, we humans are capable of sensing feelings among one another and are clearly able to discern morally good actions such as love and friendship towards one another. Lastly, he believes that in order to best resolve moral dilemmas, we must all find a common ground and learn to reason together based on common moral principles.

It is evident from both Antony’s and Kurtz’s arguments that they are share very similar if not identical viewpoints with respect to morality as it relates to religious beliefs. Hence, I believe it is fair to say that Kurtz himself is a proponent of DIT, just like Antony. Both philosophers believe that morality is independent of religious beliefs, that one does not have to believe in God to know what actions are morally good. To conclude, both Kurtz and Antony, as defenders of atheism, make the powerful claim that life is meaningful even if one is an atheist.

In this post, I compare religious disagreements vs. scientific disagreements and how I believe them to be different. In the case of religious disagreements, there truly is no “correct answer.” For instance, as Hick concludes in “The Problem of Evil,” one can neither prove nor disprove the existence of God (pg. 47). Therefore, I believe that one can be rationally justified in believing God exists but one can also be rationally justified in believing God doesn’t exist. How do we know who is correct? The simple answer is we don’t. In the contrary, I believe that in the case of scientific disagreements, there is a “correct answer.” For instance, let’s consider the issue of global warming. Assume we have one individual who believes global warming exists and another who does not believe so. It is easily provable that global warming does exist and is a growing problem by examining environmental patterns such as the melting of glaciers in the northern and southern poles of the Earth over time. In such an instance, we have physical proof of global warming and its effects on our planet, and thus we can conclude that there is a correct answer to this scientific disagreement. As Richard Feldman put it in his article, “if one side had it right, then the other had it wrong” (pg. 199).

To summarize, I believe that religious disagreements lead to two opposing viewpoints, each rationally justifiable in its own rights, with no one viewpoint being superior to the other. On the other hand, scientific disagreements have a clearly correct viewpoint, provable by physical evidence. This, I feel, is the difference between religious and scientific disagreements.

On Friday we discussed the idea of fearing God and not completely having free will because of that fear. The fear of possibly ending up in hell can push people to try to always do the right thing which means that we’re not really free to do whatever we want. I believe that there are different kinds of fear. There is fear that forces people to try to do the right things because they believe that it’s the only way to get to heaven and away from hell. They fear the uncertainty of the after life and rely on good works to get them to heaven. Based on Christian beliefs, there is a different kind of fear that comes with loving God and wanting to please Him. Since Christians are “children of God”, they have a fear of disappointing God but they also have peace because of their faith.

Welcome to u.osu.edu. This is your first post. Edit or delete it, then start blogging!