There was an article that I found really interesting on National Public Radio yesterday that opened a deep can of worms with a very dear friend of mine. The short of the piece was a discussion of the schism among old and new atheists. The old guard believes that atheism is one option for individuals, and religion is another, but both deserve respect. The new guard blatantly calls for the end of religion, and denigrates believers. Not just Christians, but all believers. If you've visited this blog before, you probably can bet where I stand on this issue. Got that right- I stand on the side of respect, thus the title. Respect on both sides, those of any faith and those of no faith.
Imagine my dear heart breaking when the discussion I was having with a loved one ended up being a litany of "I respect your view, but...", and "If you don't mind, I'd like to pray for you" and "Just give God a chance, and He will answer all your questions." I was torn. I know this sentiment comes from a place of love, but the utter disrespect and disregard for my opinion was shocking. This person finds solace and comfort in her faith, and that's good. I'm happy for her. I was raised fairly religiously, went through Confirmation, went to Bible school, even taught Sunday school for a while. I even read the Bible. (Gasp! Shock!) For me, there was no comfort there, only more questions and a deep pit of angst. I tried, I gave God chances aplenty. It wasn't for me.
Now, I'm not going to say that I'm definitely an atheist. I participate in the campus Jewish community. I have helped out at the local Universal Unitarian church. I celebrate the pagan holidays. Heck, I celebrate other religious holidays just so our family can be exposed to other cultures and traditions. I see some form of divinity in many places, not the least of which are my husband, son, family and friends. And of course my wetlands and amphibians. I still think religion has it's benefits. It has inspired great good. And great evil. The same as science and reason. Neither deserves to be mocked and made fun of. Both options work for people.
I think, for me, the worst were those interminable "I'll pray for you" comments. Once again, I understand that this is her way of showing she cares. Prayer is a big part of our society. Even non-religious people I know in times of need will ask for kind thoughts or say something along the lines of "you're in our prayers". Prayer, thoughts, sentiments, whatever you want to call them- are not inherently bad. They have meaning and show compassion. But to pray for someone to be other than who they are- that's hurtful. Respect, and love, don't have but's associated with them. It's not "I love you, but..." To tell a minority "I pray for you" when discussing their race is not acceptable. For my cat to tell the neighbor's dog "I pray for you" when discussing the catbox- well, that's just wrong on many levels. To tell a homosexual "I pray for you" when discussing their sexual orientation is not acceptable.
To tell a person of another faith, or no faith, "I pray for you" when discussing belief systems is not acceptable. I would never tell her "I wish you reason" or "I wish you logic". Her belief works for her, and mine works for me. And that's the important thing. We are both good people (for the most part- my pagan side does have its moments to shine). We both love each other. No buts. No prayers necessary. Only respect. I wish she could understand that, and respect my beliefs.
Is that asking too much? Have I gone too far? Any thoughts- from those of any faith or no faith- are greatly appreciated on this topic.
Showing posts with label Writing. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Writing. Show all posts
Tuesday, October 20, 2009
Wednesday, August 26, 2009
Ecological Philosophizing
Purpose - the reason for which something exists or is done, made, used, etc. or an intended or desired result;end;aim;goal
Role - proper or customary function: the teacher's role in society.
Worth - usefulness or importance, as to the world, to a person, or for a purpose: Your worth to the world is inestimable or value, as in money.
Humans have this need to assign these values to things, and we often do so unthinkingly. Far too often, these three words are used interchangeably, when in fact they all have subtly different meanings and implications. Whether we talk about an organism, another person, a job, or an item, we make decisions about them based on their purpose, role, and worth.
Take, for example, a person. In most cases, we allow a person's purpose to be self-ascribed because their purpose is their reason for existence. Only an individual knows or has a feeling about why they exist, although we may joke that a certain person's purpose is to annoy or something similar. There's a certain thought process and evaluation behind a purpose. A person's role (or roles) are defined by themselves and society. A person can be a parent, child, sibling, worker, boss, volunteer, whatever. It's what they *do* in their life, and sometimes gives insight to their purpose. A cleric has the purpose of living for their deity, and expresses that by joining the clergy. Another might have the purpose of helping others, and so becomes a doctor or social worker. A person's worth is a tricky matter, possibly the trickiest of all. There is their inherent worth as a human, for which many philosophers have tried to ascribe a dollar value, since (especially in the US) we measure worth with monetary units. There is the added value they bring to society, in the form of earnings, consumption, savings, and investment. All of those are pretty straight forward. And then there is one's worth in relationships- as a friend, mentor, parent, partner, etc. Again, difficult to quantify.
Inanimate objects are easy to evaluate using these criteria. We humans ascribe the purpose for which they were designed, the role they will play, and their worth. There is a creator, or re-creator in the case of re-purposed goods, that assigns the values of these various traits.
But what about ecosystems and non-human organisms? An ecosystem can't think as it's not a single organism, so it can't self-ascribe a purpose, leaving the other option to let a creator ascribe the ecosystem's purpose. But who or what is the creator of an ecosystem? Ecologically speaking, the "creator" of an ecosystem is a function of the environment and the communities within that ecosystem. Here I feel I should point out that I am speaking from a scientific-philosophical approach, not a theological-philosophical approach because proof of an ultimate Creator is scientifically impossible- there is no test to prove or disprove one's existence- and thus it's a matter of faith, which varies from person to person and is not objective. The role of an ecosystem can be ascribed be humans, as roles can be defined by not just the item to which the role refers, but others whom share a relationship with said thing, and humans most definitely share many deep relationships with ecosystems. Worth is still difficult to ascribe, as it is partly subjective, and difficult to quantify the many areas in which an ecosystem has worth (ecological services, recreation, aesthetics, etc.).
On to other non-human organisms. They are living, and may have the sentience to ascribe their own purpose, but would have no way with which to communicate said purpose to us. Not to mention the fact that we, as not-their-creators (except in the case of GMO's) and as not the organism, don't have the right to ascribe a purpose to another organism. The argument that an organism's "purpose" is their place in the food web is a fallacy of logic, as an organism evolves in the direction of maximum fitness. This means that organisms evolve away from predation in most cases, and would be evolving away from their "purpose" if food chain position were a true purpose. An organism's place in the food chain, can however be considered a role, as roles are not just self-ascribing but also circumscribed by others, and those roles may or may not be something that we desire (consider the worker in a fast food service trying to pay their way through college to become a nurse, e.g.). An organism's worth, as with all worth, is difficult to quantify and hard to assess.
Thus, when we consider endangered species protections, to which organisms are they granted, the protection of ecosystems and the environment, and other ecological quandaries, "purpose" should rarely, if ever, enter the equation, although role and worth are definitely things to consider.
So what's the purpose to this post? I, as the creator of said post, have ascribed it the purpose of "productive waste of time." Cheerio!
Role - proper or customary function: the teacher's role in society.
Worth - usefulness or importance, as to the world, to a person, or for a purpose: Your worth to the world is inestimable or value, as in money.
Humans have this need to assign these values to things, and we often do so unthinkingly. Far too often, these three words are used interchangeably, when in fact they all have subtly different meanings and implications. Whether we talk about an organism, another person, a job, or an item, we make decisions about them based on their purpose, role, and worth.
Take, for example, a person. In most cases, we allow a person's purpose to be self-ascribed because their purpose is their reason for existence. Only an individual knows or has a feeling about why they exist, although we may joke that a certain person's purpose is to annoy or something similar. There's a certain thought process and evaluation behind a purpose. A person's role (or roles) are defined by themselves and society. A person can be a parent, child, sibling, worker, boss, volunteer, whatever. It's what they *do* in their life, and sometimes gives insight to their purpose. A cleric has the purpose of living for their deity, and expresses that by joining the clergy. Another might have the purpose of helping others, and so becomes a doctor or social worker. A person's worth is a tricky matter, possibly the trickiest of all. There is their inherent worth as a human, for which many philosophers have tried to ascribe a dollar value, since (especially in the US) we measure worth with monetary units. There is the added value they bring to society, in the form of earnings, consumption, savings, and investment. All of those are pretty straight forward. And then there is one's worth in relationships- as a friend, mentor, parent, partner, etc. Again, difficult to quantify.
Inanimate objects are easy to evaluate using these criteria. We humans ascribe the purpose for which they were designed, the role they will play, and their worth. There is a creator, or re-creator in the case of re-purposed goods, that assigns the values of these various traits.
But what about ecosystems and non-human organisms? An ecosystem can't think as it's not a single organism, so it can't self-ascribe a purpose, leaving the other option to let a creator ascribe the ecosystem's purpose. But who or what is the creator of an ecosystem? Ecologically speaking, the "creator" of an ecosystem is a function of the environment and the communities within that ecosystem. Here I feel I should point out that I am speaking from a scientific-philosophical approach, not a theological-philosophical approach because proof of an ultimate Creator is scientifically impossible- there is no test to prove or disprove one's existence- and thus it's a matter of faith, which varies from person to person and is not objective. The role of an ecosystem can be ascribed be humans, as roles can be defined by not just the item to which the role refers, but others whom share a relationship with said thing, and humans most definitely share many deep relationships with ecosystems. Worth is still difficult to ascribe, as it is partly subjective, and difficult to quantify the many areas in which an ecosystem has worth (ecological services, recreation, aesthetics, etc.).
On to other non-human organisms. They are living, and may have the sentience to ascribe their own purpose, but would have no way with which to communicate said purpose to us. Not to mention the fact that we, as not-their-creators (except in the case of GMO's) and as not the organism, don't have the right to ascribe a purpose to another organism. The argument that an organism's "purpose" is their place in the food web is a fallacy of logic, as an organism evolves in the direction of maximum fitness. This means that organisms evolve away from predation in most cases, and would be evolving away from their "purpose" if food chain position were a true purpose. An organism's place in the food chain, can however be considered a role, as roles are not just self-ascribing but also circumscribed by others, and those roles may or may not be something that we desire (consider the worker in a fast food service trying to pay their way through college to become a nurse, e.g.). An organism's worth, as with all worth, is difficult to quantify and hard to assess.
Thus, when we consider endangered species protections, to which organisms are they granted, the protection of ecosystems and the environment, and other ecological quandaries, "purpose" should rarely, if ever, enter the equation, although role and worth are definitely things to consider.
So what's the purpose to this post? I, as the creator of said post, have ascribed it the purpose of "productive waste of time." Cheerio!
Monday, August 3, 2009
My first award!
So, I got my first blog award. Still sorting out my feelings on the matter. Honored, of course. But who to pick? To what blogs do I pass this distinction? Hmmm- newly discovered. How new is new?
Well, here goes! First, a big thanks to Kelli, this really made my day.
The rules of the "One Lovely Blog Award" are:
Accept the award, post it on your blog together with the name of the person who has granted the award, and his or her blog link.
Pass the award to 15 other blogs that you’ve newly discovered.
Remember to contact the bloggers to let them know they have been chosen for this award.
Here are a few new blogs I discovered. Check them out, they're lovely!
1. Garfman
2. Meg
3. Robyn
4. Emily
5. Dave
6. Rachel
7. Pamela Jeanne
8. Irish Girl
9. Old Mill (Just admire the pictures)
10. Sprout
11. Farmer Jake
12. Chadwick
13. Kelly
14. Epicurean Athlete
15. Judy
To the observant sleuth, there's an Easter egg in that bunch. Can you find it?
Well, here goes! First, a big thanks to Kelli, this really made my day.
The rules of the "One Lovely Blog Award" are:
Accept the award, post it on your blog together with the name of the person who has granted the award, and his or her blog link.
Pass the award to 15 other blogs that you’ve newly discovered.
Remember to contact the bloggers to let them know they have been chosen for this award.
Here are a few new blogs I discovered. Check them out, they're lovely!
1. Garfman
2. Meg
3. Robyn
4. Emily
5. Dave
6. Rachel
7. Pamela Jeanne
8. Irish Girl
9. Old Mill (Just admire the pictures)
10. Sprout
11. Farmer Jake
12. Chadwick
13. Kelly
14. Epicurean Athlete
15. Judy
To the observant sleuth, there's an Easter egg in that bunch. Can you find it?
Tuesday, June 30, 2009
Getting back to challenges
My May challenge went well enough, but then I fell behind in June. I had challenges enough without trying to force myself to artificial challenges like only patronizing local stores. Not that I don't like challenges; the only way to grow is to push yourself. And try not to break. Or to push back against the challenge. Human being are amazingly malleable creatures, but if we try to stretch ourselves too thin, or past our limits, we can loose all the momentum we had created and the shape for which we are trying is lost. We have to push slowly, consistently, making small but incremental progress. Granted there are times when a mold has to be broken in quick, forceful effort, but those are the exception not the rule.
Becoming a mama and entering grad school have both necessitated some strenuous pushing of limits. I don't think I've ever broken, but I'd be surprised if none of the elastin has not suffered permanent damage. I guess that's just a part of aging, isn't it?
Please don't get me wrong; I love the challenges I've faced. They've made me who I am. An intelligent, strong, persistent, compassionate and driven womyn, wife, mother, daughter, researcher, friend and teacher. I wear the marks and scars of those challenges with pride. And I have chosen to add some parts of my story myself, in the form of tattoos marking the big pieces of the puzzle that is me.
And without further ado, the challenge for July is to write- a minimum of an hour a day. Any topic, any form, any method- just write. Maybe this way I'll finish that dang manuscript I need to do.
Becoming a mama and entering grad school have both necessitated some strenuous pushing of limits. I don't think I've ever broken, but I'd be surprised if none of the elastin has not suffered permanent damage. I guess that's just a part of aging, isn't it?
Please don't get me wrong; I love the challenges I've faced. They've made me who I am. An intelligent, strong, persistent, compassionate and driven womyn, wife, mother, daughter, researcher, friend and teacher. I wear the marks and scars of those challenges with pride. And I have chosen to add some parts of my story myself, in the form of tattoos marking the big pieces of the puzzle that is me.
And without further ado, the challenge for July is to write- a minimum of an hour a day. Any topic, any form, any method- just write. Maybe this way I'll finish that dang manuscript I need to do.
Wednesday, June 3, 2009
May, Can, Should
This past Wednesday was the fourteenth anniversary of my dad's death, so I've been thinking about him quite a lot. The annual funk has mostly past, thanks to my sometimes awesome husband and kiddo, and some amazing music at the Kent Stage. One think that pops up about my dad at odd times is everything he taught me about the importance of semantics and words. They matter. In a world where new words are created frequently and by simple usage (think "incentivize"), and where grammar is falling by the wayside at an alarming rate, the words we use and their definitions continue to mean a great bit.
One of dad's sticking points was the use of may/can/should. If I were to ask "Can I go to Tiffany's?" I would undoubtedly get the answer "I don't know- can you?" Until I finally learned to ask "May I?" It was frustrating beyond belief to my child-like brain that thought the thirty second delay on my sleepover would mark the end of the world. I eventually learned, and I now find myself doing the same to my Ken, although he's less receptive to the nuances of language.
Of late, I've been wanting to lecture some of the adults in my life about may/can/should, although I typically let it go with just a glare and arms crossing. Let's review. "Can" implies the ability to do something. There is only physical/mental/social ability in this definition; it speaks nothing to legality or otherwise. I can hear, see, and speak because I have all of these abilities. Most of the population in the US can also do these things, excepting of course those who are deaf, blind, or mute, respectively. If I so choose, I can strangle the person next to me that won't get of his cell phone and insists on talking at approximately 90 db.
"May" is the permission or the allowance to do something. As a citizen of the US, I may speak, write, think, and gather as I choose because all of these things are protected rights. That same person whom I can strangle I refrain from doing so, because according to the law I may not kill another person. And I'm a just-cause pacifist- I swear- although his level of annoying may soon hit "justifiable" by some measures. By this same token, in places like China many people who can speak out against the government don't because they are not allowed. Regarding human and civil rights, what one person may do should in no way be different from what another person may do, and especially this difference should not be based on minority or majority status.
"Should" implies a moral obligation to do something. Exceptions can be made for "should" due to inability. Should also depends on priorities and necessity. Everyone should help to provide for those not able to provide for themselves, but sometimes people can't due to lack of funds, e.g.
Consider for a moment the environment. What can you do to help? What are you able to do? Can you recycle, pull invasive weeds, lower your resource usage, compost, grow some of your own food, buy organic/local/fair trade/natural, drive less or re-use more?
Of those things that you have thought, what may you do? Does your locality have any restrictions on compost bins, clotheslines, or solar panels? Do you have access to bike lanes, sidewalks, public transit, close shopping places, recycling, thrift stores and rental places (including libraries)?
Now, what should you do for the environment? This is the tricky one. Realistically speaking, our environment is such that you should do as much as you can and may. Our planet needs the help. It's failing. Some will tell that if we don't change our ways, there is an environmental crisis coming. I'm telling you- it's here. Just like those economists said a recession was coming when we were already seeing significant downturns, while others waited for "more proof." You might not notice the crisis- it's easy to ignore when it's not you that has to walk five miles for water, disregarding potability. In fact, if you happen to live in a locality with arcane laws- the first thing you should do is attempt to get laws/infrastructure changed to more environmentally friendly options.
One of dad's sticking points was the use of may/can/should. If I were to ask "Can I go to Tiffany's?" I would undoubtedly get the answer "I don't know- can you?" Until I finally learned to ask "May I?" It was frustrating beyond belief to my child-like brain that thought the thirty second delay on my sleepover would mark the end of the world. I eventually learned, and I now find myself doing the same to my Ken, although he's less receptive to the nuances of language.
Of late, I've been wanting to lecture some of the adults in my life about may/can/should, although I typically let it go with just a glare and arms crossing. Let's review. "Can" implies the ability to do something. There is only physical/mental/social ability in this definition; it speaks nothing to legality or otherwise. I can hear, see, and speak because I have all of these abilities. Most of the population in the US can also do these things, excepting of course those who are deaf, blind, or mute, respectively. If I so choose, I can strangle the person next to me that won't get of his cell phone and insists on talking at approximately 90 db.
"May" is the permission or the allowance to do something. As a citizen of the US, I may speak, write, think, and gather as I choose because all of these things are protected rights. That same person whom I can strangle I refrain from doing so, because according to the law I may not kill another person. And I'm a just-cause pacifist- I swear- although his level of annoying may soon hit "justifiable" by some measures. By this same token, in places like China many people who can speak out against the government don't because they are not allowed. Regarding human and civil rights, what one person may do should in no way be different from what another person may do, and especially this difference should not be based on minority or majority status.
"Should" implies a moral obligation to do something. Exceptions can be made for "should" due to inability. Should also depends on priorities and necessity. Everyone should help to provide for those not able to provide for themselves, but sometimes people can't due to lack of funds, e.g.
Consider for a moment the environment. What can you do to help? What are you able to do? Can you recycle, pull invasive weeds, lower your resource usage, compost, grow some of your own food, buy organic/local/fair trade/natural, drive less or re-use more?
Of those things that you have thought, what may you do? Does your locality have any restrictions on compost bins, clotheslines, or solar panels? Do you have access to bike lanes, sidewalks, public transit, close shopping places, recycling, thrift stores and rental places (including libraries)?
Now, what should you do for the environment? This is the tricky one. Realistically speaking, our environment is such that you should do as much as you can and may. Our planet needs the help. It's failing. Some will tell that if we don't change our ways, there is an environmental crisis coming. I'm telling you- it's here. Just like those economists said a recession was coming when we were already seeing significant downturns, while others waited for "more proof." You might not notice the crisis- it's easy to ignore when it's not you that has to walk five miles for water, disregarding potability. In fact, if you happen to live in a locality with arcane laws- the first thing you should do is attempt to get laws/infrastructure changed to more environmentally friendly options.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)