Stranger in a Strange Land

While reading Robert Heinlein's Stranger in a Strange Land, I found one of the most important aspects of the book to be the many subtle conversations the author has with the reader. There are many points where Heinlein has two or more characters talk to each other for an extended period of time on a subtopic, such as art, history, literature, or economics, to name a few, and I believe there was more to this than a simple character conversation. Heinlein is attempting to engage the reader directly by finding something that they will likely be interested in and offering his views to them. When his characters Jubal Harshaw and Ben Caxton speak about art, for instance, it is a chance for Heinlein to offer up his views through Harshaw, while he uses Caxton to give the kind of general responses the reader might feel like giving. Stranger in a Strange Land is almost entirely a philosophical discourse between character to character on one level, and author to reader on another. This has the effect of pulling the reader in, as you start to feel less like you are reading and more like you are being spoken to. This is strongest with the main character, Valentine Michael Smith, who always speaks directly about humanity's flaws and ways to overcome them; Heinlein is using him to tell you what might be wrong with you, and to comfort you by offering you ways to change. This is a strange approach that I have never found in any other book that I have read, so I noted it as something that specifically interested me about Stranger in a Strange Land.

Does an author who attempts to change the opinions of his readers change the very nature of the story in his/her novel?

Defining Art

It is hard for one to define art, even though it is usually obvious to one what is art. I believe that art is that which we can label as having a greater significance after observation by aesthetic principles. There are certain qualities and criteria an art critic will look for; these can be culturally, personally, and socially biased. Not to say that art is subjective, only the person's perception of the art. A work can be considered art without necessarily appearing as such to each and every observer. If that were the case, than a vast majority of the younger population could declare Mozart no longer a valuable composer as all his symphonies are not art, and their four-chord-progression screaming would be the new high art. Thus, art cannot be subjective to either one person or a group of people. However, art is still observable by those who can find, aesthetically, a greater significance in the work. Once they find something pleasing that elevates the work higher than just the ordinary, it has the potential to be considered artwork. However, just because it is aesthetically pleasing does not make it art. Art also has to exist on some level of intellect; it has to provoke thought at some level. Without this, it stops being art, and simply becomes entertainment. So those are my criteria for art: it cannot be subjective, it has to have a greater significance than the ordinary, it has to be aesthetically pleasing or displeasing, and it must provoke some level of thought.

Why might be other definitions of art that contradict this definition?

Torture Part 4: Justification

The main question surrounding torture today is whether or not there is ever a case where it is justifiable. Would torturing someone to save the lives of thousands be considered right? Can you torture someone to save the life of just one other person? What if that one person is close to you, and your judgment clouded by your own distress? Can you ever really be certain that the person you are torturing is going to tell you what you want to know in time, or that they even know anything at all? It seems as though there is a never-ending stream of questions that jeopardize any attempt to legitimize an instance of torture. When, then, could we say it is acceptable, or is there ever even a case where it is? To save the life of one other person is to say that the attempted murder committed by the recipient is more heinous an act than the torture used against them to prevent that murder. To torture in order to save the lives of thousands is to say that, despite the probability of not getting the proper information in time or even having the right person to torture, it is acceptable to at least try because of what is at stake. Whether or not to torture becomes increasingly relative, almost to the point of there being no case in which every question is answered sufficiently and efficiently enough to justify the act before the torture even begins. So, is it then right to say that anyone who engages in an act of torture has ignored one of these questions, and is therefore acting immorally? I believe that it is. Without sufficient justification prior to torturing, the act then becomes questionable and, because of its incredibly violent nature, immoral.

In what hypothetical cases could torture be completely justified, if any?
Are any of these cases realistic or probable enough to reasonably institutionalize or excuse torture?

Torture Part 3: Mental

Defining extreme mental pain is significantly more difficult than defining physical pain simply because it is so much more subjective. Not everyone can be tortured mentally in the same ways. A sociopath would not give in so easily to seeing friends and family tortured as a mentally sound person, nor would the average person be distressed as easily by certain cases where any number of a group of animals such as rats, spiders or snakes were introduced as someone who had a phobia of these animals. A person's metal fortitude also becomes a factor, as many terrorists have likely undergone training to desensitize themselves, as well as having a goal in mind that is important enough to them to withstand the mental distress at any cost to themselves until their objective is complete. Extreme mental torture, then, is only truly discernible in the aftermath; does the recipient develop a phobia, or some kind of mental disorder, or do they suffer an extreme physical reaction as a result of their mental stimuli (e.g. a heart attack or going into shock)? Mental torture, unlike physical torture, is a true gamble; you can never be sure of exactly how much you are going to damage a person when distressing them psychologically, as every person is different.

Torture Part 2: Physical

To define physically hurting a person, one must be causing the recipient distress in a bodily manner. To define the extreme physical pain required for torture becomes a case by case scenario. If a person is restrained and the torturer has the objective of breaking their will for some purpose, then all that is left is to cause severe physical pain. If, for instance, the torturer decided to simply slap the recipient, then the pain is not necessarily extreme. It is highly unlikely that a terrorist in a ticking-bomb scenario would give in to his captors if they were causing him a physical distress that could be easily managed. Excessively harming the person, such as cutting them in multiple places, searing their skin with hot irons, drilling through their teeth or sticking needles underneath their fingernails is a case where the recipient may, eventually, reveal the information. However, since the method used to obtain this information has now reached a point of extreme physical violence, then the case has become one of torture. To define "extreme physical pain" in any case is subjective, although there the eventuality to which a majority would agree that there is, in fact, a discernible point of "extreme" on a case by case basis.

Torture Part 1: Definition

There is a reason why torture must include the following: 1. A restriction of autonomy, 2. The desire to break the recipient's will, and 3. the use of extreme physical or mental pain/anguish. To remove any or two of the three breaks the definition of torture, and the act simply becomes another instance entirely.
Cases involving only certain criteria:
#1: This is simply restricting a person's ability to do things on their own, such as a parent holding back their child from crossing the street when cars are coming, to putting a prisoner in jail or a rehabilitation center to, in the former, make society safer, and, in the latter, make the criminal a better person. This is not torture, it is simply confinement.
#2: A person's will can be broken through coercion, and torture is a form of extreme coercion. However, offering a person a large sum of money in return for information is not torture, though tempting their greed can be seen as a way of breaking their will. Whether or not what the person then reveals is true is not important; an attempt has been made to break their will, and it could work, given proper circumstances. This is simply coercion.
#3: Hurting a person without the intent to gain information from their or without restricting their autonomy is one of two cases: either it is malicious, and is just violence, or it is abuse, and abuse, by it's own definition, is a separate case from torture.
#1 and #2: A person who is restricted who's will is made to be broken results in a number of cases that are not actually torture. A prisoner wants to be free, but they are held in jail. They also may hold a desire to harm others, but, in the ideal prison scenario, then punishment they are undergoing is an attempt to deter them from doing such. However, a prisoner rarely undergoes mental or physical pain; in that case, it would be torture. A prisoner who is simply kept in his cell and prohibited from committing the violent or illegal acts that landed him/her there is not torture, then.
#1 and #3: A person who is restricted and is undergoing extreme physical or mental pain is not being tortured, they are being radically abused. If there is no desire to break their will, then the case becomes one of maliciousness on the part of the propagator; they are hurting another with no desired outcome, and it is not clear when they will stop, or if they will stop before the recipient has died due to their condition.
#2 and #3: Holding a gun to a person on the street is not a restriction of autonomy. It is, however, an attempt to break the person's will, whether they are being robbed or questioned for information, and it can become a case of extreme physical or mental pain, e.g., shooting the victim in non-vital places so as to break their will, or turning the gun on a family member or loved one so as to cause anguish on the part of the victim. It is possible to harm someone for a reason without breaking their autonomy, and as long as the person has a way to escape or fight back, and is aware that they have this choice, then it is not torture, it is simply violence.
It is the meshing of these three criteria, then, that defines torture. A person must be restrained, they must be undergoing extreme physical or mental distress, and the torturer must have some objective in mind that involves breaking the person's will.

A Tale of Three Blacksmiths

This is an explanation that shows what I believe to be the differences between benign and invidious envy, as well as fitting or unwarranted envy.
There are three blacksmiths in the same village. They all vary in skill level; one is fairly good with the basics, the second is becoming very good at specific kinds of tasks, specifically weapons and armor, and the third is a master of all trades. Their king comes to town, looking to promote one of them to head blacksmith back at the keep. He decides to promote the second one, the one who is good with weapons and armor. When the other two hear of this, they both becomes envious of the prestigious position, but for different reasons. The beginner blacksmith decides that, in order to impress other potential employers, he will continue to improve his trade and become the best in the land. This is benign envy. The master blacksmith, however, is angry, and thinks that he should have gotten the position. This is invidious envy. He goes on to become upset with his mediocre counterpart, thinking he should have gotten the position and that the man who did is unworthy. This is resentment. As well as these forms of envy, it could be said that the beginner blacksmith's envy was fitting, for he was upset but did not deserve the position, while the master's envy was warranted, as he was the most qualified candidate and therefore has justification for the way he feels.

Why might the assumptions I have made about what these characters feel and why they should feel what they do be wrong?

The Story of Capitalism

Humans work in groups to accomplish tasks that they would otherwise not be able to do. Whether or not they do it for their own gains or for the gains of the group is irrelevant, the fact is, they choose to do it. We have computers, cars, large buildings, electricity grids, running water, etc., not because humans chose to work alone and for their own gain, but because they chose to work together for the betterment of the group as a whole. However, America breeds the idea of the individual making their way to the top, and Capitalism breeds competition. Put these two together, and you have the perfect mixture for the ruthless and greedy among the group to take control away from the others. Who builds our computers, cars, buildings, puts up power lines and lays down pipe for running water? The people at the bottom, the ones left behind. They're the ones still doing the job we value, the ones still working towards the betterment of the group. Who rose to the top, and is making several hundred times more than any of them? The one who decided to be the "executive", the person so far removed from the actual task, they have little to nothing to do with actually providing the service. They are businessmen; they make all the profit by making the wages of the group (the ones who are actually providing you with the essential service of the company) close to nothing. So, they get to take home millions of dollars, the people who actually provide the service live on welfare or in the lower class, and the group as a whole continues to suffer. Why does it continue to suffer? It needs those resources! There's only so much money that a person will need to live well, only so many millions of dollars before it just becomes excess. Wouldn't it be nice if a CEO who earned $40 million running a company of 12,000 last year had decided to split his check with the rest of the company and give them all a $3,000 bonus? I don't know of many wire-splitters or pipe-layers that would say they wouldn't want that check at the end of the year. The math for this still comes out to be a $4 million pay for the CEO, which is reasonable enough, considering no human being nor family of human beings actually needs $4 million, proven by the fact that there are families of workers within that company who would value the extra $3000! Sure my company is hypothetical, but it wouldn't be hard to find examples like this all over the country. There are just a few people who have propelled themselves to the top, and they seem to think the drastically large amounts they earn are justified while they leave behind those who are fulfilling the very services those at the top are getting paid so much to manage.

Is it reasonable that so executives make so much?
It is reasonable that some employees makes so little?

Response: "Why do we incarcerate such a high number of people?" - Lauren

I agree with the main points of your post, that the situation in our prisons doesn't look good, and that it is hard to determine where a lot of our prisoners come from. Part of the problem, I believe, is how we deal with "criminals". Just what makes a person a criminal, and what kind of rationale is used to determine how long they are sentenced?
This is an interesting story I heard from a friend a while back. His cousin had been asked a favor by a friend; she was to give him a lift, just a short ride, only about a half hour. When they crossed state lines and entered the town the cousin's friend had been asked to go to, they were pulled over by the police. Both of them were arrested, and it turns out that a warrant had been put out for the friend, as it was revealed that he was a fairly "big-time" drug dealer. The two were charged, one with the possession and distribution of illicit substances, the other with the voluntary transport of a wanted man. The drug dealer got 3 years, the woman 9. Arbitrarily, she was given a sentence three times longer than the sentence of her friend, since the minimum requirements of the law said that she must get at least 9, whereas the drug dealer hired lawyers that got his sentence knocked down to 3. So, morally, what's the bigger crime, selling dangerous drugs to people of all ages, or transporting a drug dealer who is also a friend when you are unaware of why he is asking you for a ride? I find this to be a failure of our law system, that the minimum requirements imposed by precedents remove any opportunity to truly judge on a case by case basis. This woman clearly did not deserve nine years in jail, morally, but she was forced to serve them and is now considered a convict, legally.
It's cases like this that build up our prisons. Relatively innocent people locked away for an arbitrary number of years so the people on the outside can feel a sense of security coupled with vengeance. If only we could do away with such petty feelings towards those who wronged us, then maybe we'd realize that the cousin was innocent and the drug dealer needed a better education system so s to get a well-paying job.

Are there some criminals who are truly impossible to rehabilitate?

Flying your Opponent's Flag

As an analogy: Two armies with the same flag, same armor and same weapons approach each other in civil war. They both claim to be fighting for the same cause and they both approach the field with the same desire to see their side win. What separates these armies? They must have some disagreement, otherwise they wouldn't be fighting each other.
This is how I view the redefining of the word "patriot". If you say "I am working to make a new kind of patriotism," then you are bound to confuse your opponents. Your argument is different than theirs, and to make clear your differences you cannot simply repeat, "I am trying to be my version of a patriot." Instead, you would say something along the lines of, "You think a patriot is someone who supports their country no matter what, and I think a patriot is someone who plays a positive, active role in the development of their country while still admitting to its faults and mistakes." Why then does this sentence have to include "patriot"? It still makes just as much sense without the word, "I think one should support their country's good, justifiable actions and will protest when it does wrong, rather than support it no matter what." The word "patriot", then, has become an interesting mixture of redundancy and uselessness. Our arguments do not have to be summed up using the same vocabulary as our opponents; they can speak for themselves. I agree with Robert Jensen that we can indeed say "goodbye" to patriotism. We can fly a stronger and more straightforward flag than our opponents by emphasizing the differences in our ideals. By removing the word "patriot" from discussion, we get to the root of the actual issue at hand, rather than getting bogged down in different definitions and opposing views of a particular word. Those who believe in community and the core principles of democracy should therefore not feel a need to somehow be "patriotic"; we can easily let the word die along with it's negative connotations, and move forward with this new-found sense of working together for unity in good and dissent in evil.

What makes a "moderate American patriot", meaning someone who will applaud at their country's best and protest at it's worst, any different than a democratic citizen?
(enough so that continuing to use the word "patriot" would assist such a philosophy?)

How to Waste Money and Lives

The U.S. Prison system doesn't seem to function the way it should. Incarceration rates and amounts in the U.S. are higher than anywhere else in the world. We also have one of the highest rates of death by firearms, behind only South Africa, Colombia, Thailand and Guatemala. In 2004, 29,569 Americans were killed due to gunfire. 16,750 of them (56%) were suicides and 11,624 of them (40%) were homicides. Only 311 were due to "legal intervention", meaning police firings. statistically, 1 out of every 100 people you see are carrying a concealed weapon. So, my question is now, "Why is America such an apparently dangerous country?"
I would disagree with those that say it's our media, specifically violent video games, movies, television shows, music and other forms. It's true, in a way, that our media is constantly pushing violence to its highest extreme, but don't other countries watch and listen to the same things as us? Don't they also have violent histories, corrupt politicians, complex economies and repressed minorities just like us? Then why is it that these other countries have such smaller amounts of death by firearms, such as Japan with less than 60 a year, or Canada with less than 800 a year, or Great Britain with less than 50 a year? These numbers just don't add up, not when you consider their rate versus population: Japan - 0.07, Canada - 4.78, England - 0.38, United States - 15.22! Canada is the second most harmful country I've referenced, but you're still over three times more likely to get killed by firearms in the U.S.
My question remains the same. I don't see any distinguishing characteristic between the United States and the other countries I'm using here that would account for such a drastic difference. And if we really are the most violent, what does that say about our country? History doesn't seem to play any role at all, seeing as how Canada is generally the most peaceful nation in this comparison, but anyone who tries to argue that Japan or England have peaceful histories is bound to fail; just take a look at World War 2 for either or the occupation of India by the English and you'll see your mistake.
I'm trying to find answers to this question on my own, but I don't seem to be having any luck. I'm just running into more devastating statistics, so I'll end this on my main question:

What makes America such a dangerous country?

A Patriot vs. A Rational Lover of One's own Country

Patriotism entails that you hold your country more favorable than any other. This irrational favoritism can be labeled as immoral, illogical and unproductive. It is immoral because you hold the potential to ignore your country's wrongdoings as well as the needs of humans in other places simply because of their geographical setting. It is illogical because all arguments based on whether or not your home country is deserving of this favoritism leads to opinions or judgments that are convoluted and never-ending. It is unproductive because it can be used by either side; you can say that you are not a patriot because you don't support the troops when they are ordered to do wrong and you do support them when they are ordered to do right, which can also come down to a never-ending argument loaded with opinions and personal judgments. What is then left of patriotism which makes it positive? Supporting only your chosen politicians, or only the core principles of the country, or the prosperity of the economic system, all of these are not reason enough to be a patriot, they are simply pieces of your country as a whole that you find preferable.
It is perhaps time then that we abandon the label "patriot" as a whole, and rather, what is needed is to create a term that embodies both an appreciation for the right and a condemnation of the wrong in one's chosen land. Am I not a patriot if I support my country's acceptance of all races, religions and creeds? Am I not a patriot if I condemn my country's war crimes and it's unequal treatment of certain civil rights movements? "Patriot" is not the right word for this. The best definition I can think of for this new term is, "One who values the positive ethical progress of the location in which one resides". This term would allow for both appreciation and protest. It would not make a mockery of political parties that disagree, and instead would value their dissent as an opportunity for rational discussion and a second look at how our common community, America, acts as a whole.

Is there a way for patriotism to be considered logical and ethical without removing the need for a special term?
Is there a way to consider yourself an impartial citizen of the world (an internationalist, a cosmopolitan, and a golden rule universalist) and still hold a willingness to support one's own country without becoming a hypocrite?

Christian Theocracy (America)

The majority of Americans believe in the Christian God of the Bible, but how much of the Bible's teachings are actually becoming a part of our political policies? How is it that the United States Government has the ability to grant marriage licenses to heterosexual couples but not homosexual? Why is abortion a controversy and not a one-sided scientific fact? How is it that we, as a country, have become complacent yet aggressive, ignorant yet dangerous, and freedom-loving yet oppressive?
Every time I watch an American politician give a speech, it somehow invariably ends with, "God bless America", or something like that. But why? Why has it become easier to get elected if you admit to believing the word of God? I don't see many atheist politicians, or people of other religions. It seems to me that Christianity has the monopoly on American politics. We were given the freedom of religion to worship however we wished, and most of the founding fathers were either not very religious or hated Christianity. So how is it, despite what our well-meaning founders attempted to give us, we have become predominately Christian in policy? John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, Ben Franklin and others would all be appalled at the sight of the ten commandments in a courthouse or at the amount to which the Bible has leaked into our lawmaking. A separation of church and state means that no church should hold any sway in politics, yet we have failed miserably in this regard. The doctrine of Christianity is slowly becoming the absolute law of the land. There's a difference between taking your morals from a single source that you hold higher than all others and purposefully trying to impose those sets of morals into a governing body that is supposed to remain neutral. It doesn't take long before a religion that is becoming law becomes so intertwined with the workings of the system that it becomes nearly impossible to take it out. As these laws infect the system, politicians that favor keeping these laws become easier and easier to elect. If the majority of a generation is forced to agree with Christian values through law, the next generation will become more accepting of those values, and so on, until there is little left to distinguish country from church.
Now, I'm not saying that this is definitely what I believe is going to happen. I just find the idea of religiously inspired laws in a democracy that serves religions of all kinds appalling.

Does where a person draws their moral code from matter as long as you agree with it?
Is the separation of Church and State reasonable?

Patriotism as an Excuse

I find that it is easy, especially in present-day America, to misuse the word "patriot", or any of it's connotations. Our politicians and media today say things such as, "If you don't support the war, you're unpatriotic", "If you say that the German human rights policies are better, you're unpatriotic", "If you prefer Canada's health system, you're unpatriotic", "Socialists, communists, fascists and terrorists are all the same". There seems to be no way to be truly patriotic without also being blind. Our country bombs civilians, more often and in larger amounts than the terrorists. Our country still has homeless people, a laughable matter considering their are countries that have solved the homeless crisis, such as Germany. Our country has people sick and dying because they can't afford any kind of health care or insurance, when countries such as Canada, most European countries, and even Cuba have systems that treat their citizens more often, in higher numbers, and tend to have longer life spans in cases of "death by natural causes". To be a patriot, in the mindset of a Conservative, I must ignore all of this. I must agree with killing civilians. I must watch people live on the street, and ignore their cries for help. I must let my fellow Americans die because they couldn't afford medicine. I must support Capitalism, the reason for our overly obese, sugar-run based food system, the reason for our competitive market system where if you're not making a killing then you're the one getting killed, the reason for our total lack of regard for how our overly competitive, every-man-for-himself nature is bankrupting the world of natural resources and basic human compassion. I must disagree with socialism. I am wrong to think that sharing could help. I am wrong to think that total and absolute equality, laws based on rational ethics rather than fascist christian theocracy could better our living conditions. I am wrong to believe that there could be something better than what we already have, because we are America, the biggest, strongest, we-can-do-no-wrong-because-we-can-end-the-world-with-the-push-of-a-button country the world has today.
This is how I view the modern form of American patriotism.

Do you believe our use of the word "patriot" has been corrupted, or do you think that there is a way to say you are patriotic and still ignore the mass misrepresentation of the word? (or some other answer that disagrees with my stance as a whole?)

Atheism, Agnosticism, Theism

I often find myself torn on where I draw the lines between these groups. Each one of them carries a certain stereotype, and I have discovered that I don't really fit any of them. In doing so, I have come to the conclusion that I must be a hybrid of two, seeing as how Atheism and Theism are polar and Agnosticism an attempt to find a middle stance. Now, I easily don't fit in Theism, because I don't believe that any of the established religions on Earth are convincing enough to make me follow them; in fact, their very plurality and universality question their probability. For a long time, I believed that I fit in the category of Atheism, only because it was the other choice: the denial of all possibilities presented by Theism. To avoid a paradoxical argument, however, I now realize that I cannot say that I am a full Atheist. To deny the chance that a single religion could be right would be to ignore my core belief that the universe is infinite, and within infinity, anything can and will eventually happen. Therefore, a complete and outright denial of any particular religion is not genuine, rather, I have to phrase it to mean that I find it highly improbable that we have already conceived of the absolute divine truth. On the Richard Dawkins Scale, I would have to place myself as a 6, finding either 1 or 7 to be saying more than is provable and, honestly, outlandish and close-minded. So this middle ground, which Dawkins calls a "De-Facto Atheist", is where I fit; a slightly agnostic atheist. So I view the world as more of a naturalist and a scientist, finding psychological and emotional ways to feel spiritually individual, and believing that anyone who boasts to know the truth about God, whether that he definitely exists or definitely does not exist, isn't going to be showing conclusive, concrete, convincing evidence anytime soon.

Is it responsible to trust someone who claims that they know for sure something that is unprovable, or does a person's religious convictions vary enough from their day-to-day beliefs to make that a harsh judgment?

Response: "How can we know what freedom is and appreciate such state when we don't have people fighting for us?" - Mariah

I believe that the kind of viciousness directed at soldiers that you are talking about is a misplaced anger by the aggressors. It's easy to look at the news and see that our men accidentally killed the wrong people when we're at war, and it's easy to find reasons to hate what the military is doing when you disagree with the president. Condemning the actions of our fighting force is not something to be unexpected by a country so opposed to any proper form of direct confrontation. However, attacking or protesting at an individual soldier, or a unit, I can never agree with. Your everyday soldier is not pulling the strings or ordering the strikes. He signs up, knowing his life is in danger, and is placed wherever the higher-ups want him to be placed. It is a long nd unlikely time before he is actually put into any position of total command (which I would consider to be a position where your bosses are limited and your say is actually taken under full advisement). So to ever attack the large majority, I think, is completely unjustified. They were doing whatever they had to do in order to keep peace, and if they did it wrong, it is not because they made any decision to, it's because the people above them made a mistake. It's easy to follow to chain of command in the military, and it goes up quite a ways before even a single person has the ability to act with impunity. The more aggressive critics of the military need to remember that the average private joins for one of two reasons: 1. "I need to make money for my family", 2. "I want to serve and protect my country at any cost to myself." These are not the kinds of reasons that drive a person to purposely kill a civilian, and these are not the kinds of reasons that fuel an unjust war. They are simply the motivating factors for an average person to do what none of us back home did: say, "My country and my people are more important to me than my individual life, and I'm willing make a wager on that and go out there and prove it." I would much rather hold responsible the President, who has the power to start and stop wars, and Congress, which has the power to declare a war legal or stop the President if he is making a huge mistake. It seems to me that these people, which an actual ability to decide and hold final say, are much easier to place responsibility on than a soldier who is returning from the front-lines.

Is there any true way to criticize any section of our government for acts of war in a time of national crisis?

Theological Argument

This is an argument I posed for my friends back in November, which relates back to Naturalism / Supernaturalism as well as the upcoming Agnostic / Atheistic. I was hoping I could get feedback to either make the argument more sound or reasons why it does not conclude properly on one point or another.

"For something to exist at least one person has to believe in it, otherwise the idea of it does not exist, and without the idea, it has the same relevance to a person as having not happened; e.g., does a tree falling in the woods make a sound? Thus, we can conclude that, at the least, the idea of God exists because we know what this idea means.

Next, for something to be based in faith, there must be no evidence of it, because to have evidence of something and to have faith in it is simply called understanding. This is what separates the pondering of most likely unanswerable questions, philosophy, from faith in the possibility of an answer for an unanswerable question, religion. Religion is then equivalent to taking a philosophy of which there is no evidence and concluding that it is correct. This concludes that the idea of God exists, as well as the possibility for God’s existence being derived from those on Earth having faith in His existence rather than understanding of His existence.

Next, to remove the need of faith in a subject, one must gather evidence to support the claim. Once there is evidence, faith is no longer necessary. This concludes that the idea of God exists; that the idea that God exists persists due to faith, and that to prove God does exist would remove the necessity for faith in his existence and replace it with understanding.

Finally, by the fact that belief in God’s existence persists only because of faith, proving his existence would remove faith, and thus removing the only link to the possible existence of God. This concludes that proving God exists proves he does not exist. All that is necessary is to prove that an idea exists. Since we know the meaning of the idea of God, we know that the idea exists, and because we know that the idea exists, we remove the need for faith, and because we remove the need for faith, we subsequently remove the possibility for the existence of God, thereby concluding that either God does exist, and is not necessary, or God does not exist, and we think for ourselves. Any evidence of God interfering with our lives would prove his nonexistence, and full lack of evidence would prove his unimportance.

Final conclusion: God is not relevant to your life, whether or not he exists, via the combined paradoxes of putting faith in something that requires evidence to have justification for being believed in the first place, and not putting faith in something that, because of the latter conclusion, cannot possibly influence your life."

Response: "If one were to take a naturalistic view point on religion, how would religion originate?" - Kim

I think both of the ways you suggested could be possibilities if one were to take a naturalistic view. When you look at more ancient religions, you can see where influence has come into play. The Romans were are a great example of this. They took primarily the Hellenistic view that the Greeks had, and organized a central structure around that. However, they always maintained an open mind when finding a new religion, making the Gods of people that they conquered their Gods as well. This is summed up well in both how their influence can be seen in countries today that were once under Roman occupation, as well as how the Empire itself became Christian. The willingness of the population to convert must have been a tumultuous and controversial time, but it stuck, eventually developing the Roman Catholic Church, one of the strongest powers in Christian history. Delving even further into Christianity, we see how closely Jesus represents Horus: Virgin birth, son of God, mother (Isis-Meri vs. Mary/Miriam), father (Jo-Seph vs. Joseph), born of royal descent, both have their births announced by angels, both have assassination attempts (Herut vs. Herod), both are Shepards, both are 30 when they are baptized by a baptizer in a river just before the baptizer is beheaded. Now, with all these similarities in their stories (and more), it can be argued that the authors of the Bible, whether they knew Jesus as a person or as the actual son of God, attributed the mythologies associated with Horus, who was "the Jesus" of a powerful religion not far from their homeland, to Jesus himself. Whether or not any of this is true because of that is up for debate (or maybe mankind's saviors just happen to live similar lifestyles).
On the other side, we can also find examples of religions that seem to spring up over night from a single author. Scientology is a good recent case of this. The founder of Scientology, L. Ron Hubbard, wrote the works that detail the entirety of the religion in its original form. He also spent the majority of his life as a science fiction writer, but the common follower of Scientology will overlook this fact, chalking it up to him finding some kind of real truth and using his already established writing ability to communicate what he had learned about the universe. This is a religion originating from one man, over a brief period of time, whose followers take the whole matter very seriously and are elevated to the same legal status as any other religion. This pertains to your example of one person seeing benefits in drawing others to his cause and so making up the entirety of the religion himself.
So I would maintain, given a naturalistic standpoint (which I find myself to be in), both of your suggestions as to the origins of religions can be valid. I would go further to say that there are even more ways that a religion can be created, and if you find a religion that started in such a manner, you can find another that works along the same lines.

Should a religion created seemingly overnight by one man be accredited with the same status as a religion that has existed for hundreds or thousands of years and has millions of followers?
(ex.: Scientology vs. Christianity / Islam)

Altruism and Egoism

I feel that the discussion about whether or not a person can truly be altruistic has little or nothing to do with the implementations of altruism, at least not beyond the definition of the word. The real argument only comes about when the idea is proposed that a person cannot act in a way that does not benefit them or coincide with how they wish for events to play out. Egoism itself is the problem then, and not altruism. So, when I think of egoism, I think of a person who performs actions that benefit themselves. Now, I do not believe that this means we cannot act outside of this scope. To act in favor of another over oneself must be considered. If I am in a position where I must choose to sacrifice my own state of being for the well being of another, and I choose to help that other person, then I have gone against my chance to act egoistically. Had I dismissed the well being of the other person, I would be acting for myself, and therefore would have taken my chance to be egoistic. Now, it could be said that I wanted to help the other person more than I wanted to act for myself. This can still be true without ruling out the possibility of my act being altruistic. Although I do want to do what makes me happy, the fact that I sacrifice that chance to better another person makes my act altruistic. It is impossible for a person to perform an action that they do not want to do; if they do not at least send the signals from their brain to their muscles, then they are not themselves performing the action (just as I would not say I am in control of where I go in a car if someone else is driving me; I have to at least be directly involved in the action to do it myself, ex.: I am moving of my own will because I chose to be in the car). But wanting to do something is not the only factor in whether or not an action is performed. Weighing the the wants of the other person is equally as important, at least to those of us who are not egocentric.
My summary example for this: I am walking along the seaside, enjoying the water and sunset. There is a person in distress only a few yards out into the water (someone I could easily save). I want to keep walking down the beach (as it is my reason for being there, although I might not immediately be thinking about it), but my reaction towards seeing a person in need sets off a lighting-quick series of events in my head. The first is that I stop walking. The second is that I look around to get a grasp of what is happening. The third is that I proceed with helping the person. This example is isolated from wanting to help the person; whether or not I actually want to help them is not important. What is important is that I value the life of the other human being, I weigh my desires against theirs, find that I have no reason not to assist them, and then proceed to abandon my activity in favor of theirs. This case is a little extreme, but I feel my argument can carry into situations that are not so dire and immediate. It may not be a proper sentence structure, but this next bit will attempt to describe my thoughts on the situation without having to refer to myself: "This person needs help. There appears to be only one person here who can help. The desire of another person to live and survive is paramount. An attempt to save this person must be made." No reference is made to either "I" or "want", and I wish to express the difference between objectively referring to myself in the third person as well as the distinction between a person's desires (which I believe can be purely instinctual) and a person's wants (which I believe are more directly related to instances we are trained to hope for because the results are positive). [These two issues only arise because, even objectively, I must refer to myself ("only one person here") since I am the author, and because "desire" is often used interchangeably with "want", which is not the sense in which I am using it here.]

Is altruism an idea in and of itself, or it is merely a temporary absence of egoism?
(Are humans solitary with the ability to help or symbiotic with a sense of self?)

Response: "When did the idea of religion first begin?" - Julia

Religion must have been with humanity since they were able to ask, "Where did I come from?", and to think about it more than just being born from their mothers. I think they probably thought something along the lines of, "Where did we all come from?" Combine a seemingly unanswerable scientific and philosophic question like that with an entire race of creatures that know next to nothing of either science or philosophy, and you have the beginnings of religion. Someone is going to want to say, "Well, I know what happened...", which leads into making a really cool story that gets changed over time until it becomes a religious tradition to retell the myth. One caveman could communicate to the other, "I think the Earth was built." Then his children say, "I think the Earth was built by a person." His children say, "I think the Earth was built by a person for a reason", etc. This continues until you have the kinds of holy books we have today, where it's easy for a large group of people to find comfort, solace, or some kind of morality in a story that probably didn't happen. But it works, and it works well, especially since it seems to be human nature to invoke the magical and supernatural to explain that which cannot currently be explained. Combine that with the fact that, up until fairly recently in human history, we've been a pretty gullible lot, especially when it comes to believing our leaders and what they say is best for us, and it's not hard to make the connection between a story that is obviously fantasy, and a society that perpetuates that story for its own good (or just out of tradition).

What possible factors are there that have made the creation of religions such a universal phenomenon within humanity?