Life and Death - Two sides of the same coin?

Is death necessary for life? In class today someone said that death and life are part of the same thing; the only way you can have death is if you have life. But is it true that in order to have life, you must have death? Does the very nature of receiving life equate to receiving death? Many religions would have us think so; there is a common place belief that death must always accompany life. The Vatican, for instance, said that "disposing of death is, in reality, the most radical way of disposing of life" (Communion and Stewardship - Paragraph 93). In the same document they say that it would be radically immoral to extend human life through production or genetic engineering. Basically, they are saying that death is a part of life and that it would be wrong to change that. I disagree with that assertion and I do not think that death necessarily has to exist due to life. With transhumanism, it could be possible to extend human life to near immortality. Though presumably with this technology it would be possible to kill yourself if you were bored. Maybe everyone would get bored with that sort of life span, making death an inevitable part of life still.

Beliefs That Override Truth?

In response to Lauren - full post here

If there is lack of evidence in favour of something and lack of evidence against something, it is fair to believe one over the other. However, if there is conclusive or overwhelming evidence in favour of one of the option, it would be most inadvisable to accept the other option. So, if there is no evidence in favour of or against the hypothesis that Jesus had a relationship with Mary, you can choose to believe either way, just don't assert it as truth.

Beliefs, I'm afraid have little power over the truth. You cannot determine truth with beliefs. This is evidenced by the fact that beliefs can run completely contrary to truth. If, for instance, I chose to believe that I could draw a triangular square, I would be severely disappointed, for the truth is no such thing can exist. If I chose to believe that I could jump from a building and then rewind time before I hit the bottom, I would be disappointed to find out that my belief did not effect reality. At one point in time people thought the world was flat, they had no evidence either way, so they could have believed what they wanted, but their beliefs did not change the fact that the world is an oblate spheroid. Beliefs can ignore truth, but they can never 'override' the truth.

Evidence has to play a pivotal part in society's thought process because without it we would not have made here as a species. Without evidence we could not invent things; we cannot build wheels out of things that we believe exist though those things do not. Without evidence we could throw ourselves from bridge because we believed that a magical net would save us. Without evidence we could, during the Salem Witch Trials, hang 19 people for being witches, though no such things exist; they simply believed that witches existed thought they had no evidence to support their beliefs. Due to having believed that belief was better than truth, the people of Salem in 1692 decided to kill those innocent people anyway.

I hope you can see the negative consequences of thinking that belief can override truth; basing society on truth and evidence has gotten us much further than basing society on just beliefs. Beliefs are strengthened with truth; justified and true beliefs constitute knowledge.

Ex-Believer

What do you call someone who used to follow the ethics of vegetarianism but no longer does? You call them an ex-vegetarian or someone who eats (present tense) meat.

What do you call someone who used to believe that in compatibilism but longer does,? You call them an ex-compatibilist or an incompatibilist (what they currently are).

What do you call someone who used to believe in the existence of deities but no longer does? You can them an ex-theist or an atheist (what they currently are).

What do you call someone who used to practice dentistry but has since forgotten the procedures and hasn't been inside of a dentist office for years? You call them a ex-dentist saying that they used to be a dentist but no longer practice dentistry (what they currently are).

What do you call someone who used to follow and believe the Catholic catechism but no longer does? You call them (and they call themselves (sometimes)) a Catholic.

** I don't mean to imply that this only happens with Catholicism, simply I have seen this more frequently with the Catholics; I don't frequently hear those who no longer believe in the fundamentals Buddhism call themselves Buddhists**

It seems like something has gone wrong here. We are associating what someone used to be with something that they are now. If, in the past, someone followed the ethics of vegetarianism but no longer does, we do not call them a vegetarian. They could still believe in a part of the foundation of vegetarian ethics (that animals feel pain), but that doesn't mean that we call them vegetarians still, if they indeed eat meat.

The title of Catholic seems to be akin to the sort of tag of identification that we have with race/ethnicity. Once a Catholic, always a Catholic is the mentality here. This, I think, is largely on purpose. The Catholics baptize the new members at a very young age and raise them to believe that they are Catholics even if they are vehemently opposed to the Catechism. If someone does not believe in literal transubstantiation, they are told that they are still Catholics, when in reality, the Lutheran Church would be much more to their liking (given that the the lack of belief in the literal transubstantiation, is the significant distinguishing characteristic of the two). 

Even if someone begins to actively practice Islam, Zoroastrianism, Judaism, Paganism, or any other religion, the Catholic Leaders (and often the people themselves) still consider them Catholics; again, it's almost as though Catholicism is an ethnicity. In fact, you are not considered an ex-catholic until your formally defect from the church. So, my question is why is this so?

Coincidental Favourable Results

In response to Rachel - full post found here

I think it is important to remember that the mere result of an event that happened to be positive does not necessarily equate to a reason to believe that god exists. Similarly, bad results of an event is not necessarily a reason to believe that god does not exist. This is basically tautological but I'll say it anyway; things either will happen or they will not happen.

The universe is so largely complex that any event is far beyond the reach of a single cause. There is certainly no way of knowing that the event occurring in someone's favor or against their favor could have been caused by a single thing. Say I prayed to a transcendent milk that it rain on Tuesay. Whether it does, and I am made happy, or it doesn't, and I am made sad, has no clear correlation with an omnipotent and omnibenevolent god. If it does rain, there is no way of knowing if I could have received the same result had I prayed to a transcendent tea kettle. Similarly with negative results, had it not rained, there is no way of knowing that praying to something else could have made a difference. In these sort of situations, who you pray to seems almost coincidentally related to the result; though maybe there is an omnipotent and omnibenevolent being beyond our understanding. I do not know.

Creating Cults and Sects

In response to Ryan - full post here

I think that we can probably say that Jesus started a new religion. He didn't create it, per se, at least not intentionally, but he was the cause of this new religion. So, presumably, you could amass a large number of followers and create stories about your divinity; assuming people believe it, and they very well may, you could be the center of some religion. You could certainly start a cult of your own, like Marshall Applewhite, or not, he was a bit crazy. You could also do fairly well in creating a sect of a religion of your choice. Good luck to you, Dios.

Umbrellas and Sub-Groups

Christianity is like an umbrella, it covers many denominations. Christianity is to Catholicism as animal is to bird. Christianity is the larger group which contains the smaller group. Therefore we should not attribute any of the characteristics of the smaller group to all of the larger group; we would not, for instance, say that on the basis that birds fly, all other animals can; similarly, it is not appropriate to talk about birds as if they were the only animals, saying "animals like to fly." Additionally, it is inappropriate to assume that characteristics of one group cannot apply to another or all of the subgroups; this is akin to saying "because I am a human, I require oxygen." We should note that all living things need oxygen to survive.

As of recently, I have been encountering a large number of people who say things akin to "Christians listen to the Pope," or "as a Catholic, I believe in the Abrahamic god." I think that people should make an honest effort to clear this matter up for themselves, because otherwise they risk make sweeping generalizations or being too specific which leads to confusing and offending many other people.

I'll Pray For You Nanomites

Amongst some religious folk, there is an inclination to end a disagreement with a curt "I'll pray for you." This is not the proper way to argue. An argument should stand on its own merit; an argument can even be largely emotion, but it still stands on its own merit. When we break this ending statement down, we see a petition to a deity, hoping that the deity will proceed to intervene and make the opposition find the argument more agreeable. Most people, I think, can see that this is certainly a problem if we are attempting to argue rationally. I think that even those whom are initially convinced that this sort of argument holds would find themselves offended if it were used against them. Imagine discussing slavery with someone, where you are pro-abolition and they are pro-slavery. If the opposition throws, in your face, a mist of nanomites which rewire your brain to find their stance more agreeable, that does not actually lend merit to their argument. The point is that slavery is still wrong even if, by some miracle, you thought otherwise due to nanomites having had rewired your brain.