In Core, the average of all your percentages is taken and divided into two classes equally. You will either get an AA, a BB, a CC, or a DD. Or perhaps a Fail/Fail. However, as this class counts for TWO grades, and not one, the grading needs to be done differently. Take these two case studies:
Student A gets: 92%, 92%, 90%, 88%, 85%, and 81%. This is an (A/A/A/B/B/B) and averages out to be a 88%, which in Core would become a BB.
Student B gets: 87%, 85%, 85%, 81%, 80%, and 74%. This is a (B/B/B/B/B/C), and averages out to be a 82%, which in Core would become a BB.
Although these two students are obviously different, Student A undeniably better than Student B, they get the same grade. In the new system, Student A should get an A/B, and Student B should get a B/B.
Because Core is two classes on the report card, and not one, the grading scale should thus be different. Obviously, colleges look at GPA when accepting students and the aforementioned current grading scale is not conducive to helping students aspire to college. The new proposed system is:
90% and above: A/A
85-89%: A/B
80-84%: B/B
75-79%: B/C
70-74%: C/C
65-69%: C/D
60-64%: D/D
Below 60%: Fail/Fail
The reason for this is because, presumably, students who get in the high 80s have achieved a few A's and a few B's, and the grade should reflect that. Rather than give the student both B's, which presumes that they only maintained B's in their Core classes, the student should get an A and a B, showing that the student performed well in a few classes. This grading scale makes more sense and will better reflect students grades to be what they actually did in their classes.
Thursday, May 14, 2009
Wednesday, April 1, 2009
Why the Tally System Doesn't Work
As we all know, it is required to get 25 tallies per five weeks to get our grade for participation. Each person does the tallies one day, so that the task is equally shared. In essence, yes, this is a good system. It promotes participation and it gives the naturally shy students a reason to talk so that they don't lose points. However, this system has a few major flaws. The size of the class itself, and the way the tallies are marked down are these major flaws.
In most classes, the size of Mr. DeMail's social institution's class ranges between 21 and 28. In his four SI-only classes, he has an average of 25 kids per class. Let's pretend that in an average period, there is a chance to answer a question once every two minutes. That is around 30 answers per period. In an SI-only period, that means that each student gets to participate 1.2 times per day, which equals out to an average of 30 tallies per 5 weeks (5 weeks x 5 days x 1.2 times per day = 30). However, in his 3rd period S.I.-Art History class, there are 39 students. If there are 30 answers per period, each student gets .77 times to participate during class. Multiply that out to a 5 week period, and you get 19 tallies. That means that if every student participated equally, which is the assumed purpose of the tally sheet, to get everyone to participate, NO ONE will reach the required amount. Take out a day for finals, and the average drops to 18.
If that wasn't problem enough, then we have the manner in which tallies are marked down. First of all, because of the size of the classroom, we cannot always tell who is talking. Desiree, for example, probably has a hard time seeing that Evan is talking, seeing that they are on opposite sides of the classroom entirely and Evan has a somewhat quiet disposition. I might take tallies one day and forget to mark someone down because I'm taking notes on what they said, and it slipped my mind that I had tallies. There are NUMEROUS reasons why someone might forget to mark down a tally. The job of the person speaking is to answer the question; the job of the tally-marker is to mark down tallies. If Evan answers and someone fails to mark it down, that IS NOT EVAN'S FAULT. Evan cannot possibly know that the person failed to give him a tally, unless the person happens to be sitting near him. Evan should not be marked down because he doesn't know that he didn't get his due tally, he did his part of the bargain. Seeing as tallies are hard enough to get (only an average of 18 per 5 weeks if everyone participates) the fact that some tallies are lost in the translation make it even harder to get these tallies. So unless Mr. DeMail wants us all to keep track of our own tallies so we can get an accurate total at the end of the five weeks, tallies will most likely never be accurate. Given the already mentioned fact that tallies are hard enough to get in the first place, this possibility is a death sentence to anyone that wants tallies.
I see two possible solutions for both Mr. DeMail's students and Mr. DeMail himself. Obviously, Mr. DeMail does not want his class to fail/do poorly. Participation is a grade in his class and the better we do in that aspect, the less chance we have of failing. Now it is already obvious that we are not given the same opportunities other classes are given (smaller class size means more chances to participate), so things should be equalized so percentages stop dropping 2-3% because of a failure to get tallies.
Either, A) extend the tally time to 10 weeks. Because we have a bigger class, we should have 10 weeks to obtain 25 tallies. That is fair because our class is 14 students larger than the average SI class size, which shows a 64% increase in class size. Or,
B) Lower the tally requirements to 20. This way, the average student gets close but doesn't necessarily get all the tallies required, and the big speakers are rewarded for their hard work. This is NOT a curve, this is an equalization between classes because one class (Period 3) is irregularly larger than the others. Technically, by NOT curving it, Mr. DeMail IS curving it towards his smaller classes, because they have a better chance at reaching the tallies and therefore get higher grades on participation because of it. He has to account for class size.
In most classes, the size of Mr. DeMail's social institution's class ranges between 21 and 28. In his four SI-only classes, he has an average of 25 kids per class. Let's pretend that in an average period, there is a chance to answer a question once every two minutes. That is around 30 answers per period. In an SI-only period, that means that each student gets to participate 1.2 times per day, which equals out to an average of 30 tallies per 5 weeks (5 weeks x 5 days x 1.2 times per day = 30). However, in his 3rd period S.I.-Art History class, there are 39 students. If there are 30 answers per period, each student gets .77 times to participate during class. Multiply that out to a 5 week period, and you get 19 tallies. That means that if every student participated equally, which is the assumed purpose of the tally sheet, to get everyone to participate, NO ONE will reach the required amount. Take out a day for finals, and the average drops to 18.
If that wasn't problem enough, then we have the manner in which tallies are marked down. First of all, because of the size of the classroom, we cannot always tell who is talking. Desiree, for example, probably has a hard time seeing that Evan is talking, seeing that they are on opposite sides of the classroom entirely and Evan has a somewhat quiet disposition. I might take tallies one day and forget to mark someone down because I'm taking notes on what they said, and it slipped my mind that I had tallies. There are NUMEROUS reasons why someone might forget to mark down a tally. The job of the person speaking is to answer the question; the job of the tally-marker is to mark down tallies. If Evan answers and someone fails to mark it down, that IS NOT EVAN'S FAULT. Evan cannot possibly know that the person failed to give him a tally, unless the person happens to be sitting near him. Evan should not be marked down because he doesn't know that he didn't get his due tally, he did his part of the bargain. Seeing as tallies are hard enough to get (only an average of 18 per 5 weeks if everyone participates) the fact that some tallies are lost in the translation make it even harder to get these tallies. So unless Mr. DeMail wants us all to keep track of our own tallies so we can get an accurate total at the end of the five weeks, tallies will most likely never be accurate. Given the already mentioned fact that tallies are hard enough to get in the first place, this possibility is a death sentence to anyone that wants tallies.
I see two possible solutions for both Mr. DeMail's students and Mr. DeMail himself. Obviously, Mr. DeMail does not want his class to fail/do poorly. Participation is a grade in his class and the better we do in that aspect, the less chance we have of failing. Now it is already obvious that we are not given the same opportunities other classes are given (smaller class size means more chances to participate), so things should be equalized so percentages stop dropping 2-3% because of a failure to get tallies.
Either, A) extend the tally time to 10 weeks. Because we have a bigger class, we should have 10 weeks to obtain 25 tallies. That is fair because our class is 14 students larger than the average SI class size, which shows a 64% increase in class size. Or,
B) Lower the tally requirements to 20. This way, the average student gets close but doesn't necessarily get all the tallies required, and the big speakers are rewarded for their hard work. This is NOT a curve, this is an equalization between classes because one class (Period 3) is irregularly larger than the others. Technically, by NOT curving it, Mr. DeMail IS curving it towards his smaller classes, because they have a better chance at reaching the tallies and therefore get higher grades on participation because of it. He has to account for class size.
Monday, March 2, 2009
Francis Bacon
At the conclusion of season 3 of the hit TV series Numb3rs, a cop show that also uses math to help catch criminals, spy Taylor Ashby stood on a bridge, looking at Professor Charlie Eppes through connected TV screens. They were in the middle of an intellectual duel, and each time Eppes got a question wrong, Ashby would detonate a bomb. Each time he got a question right, he'd throw away a phone (each phone was used as a detonator.)
Ashby: "Francis Bacon posited four obstructions to the scientific method-"
Eppes: "The idols of the mind." A phone is tossed. "The cave." Another phone. "The theatre." Another phone. "The tribe." Once more. "And..." Ashby dials. "Umm..."
Ashby detonates a bomb.
Eppes: "THE MARKETPLACE! Damn... Dammit! You didn't give me enough time!"
Ashby: "I'm not just testing your mind! I'm testing your heart."
That was the first time I'd ever heard of Francis Bacon or his idols of the mind (that's an awesome show by the way, you should check it out.)
In any case, we have four idols of the mind. The cave is where people get stuck in their own area, unable to reach out and look at other areas of learning. Historians stick to history, mathematicians to math, etc. They never look outside the box.
The theatre is where people look to fiction and use that as knowledge. By reading fiction novels, watching fiction movies or plays, they take it as real and use it as true knowledge when it obviously isn't.
The tribe is human errors. Things such as exaggeration, prejudices, and other common tendencies that hinder our learning. By exaggerating or prejudicing, or any other common mistake we confuse others and slow learning.
The marketplace is when words replace thoughts. People think they win an argument because their words sound better and the other person has nothing to come back with, but they have better thoughts. We use words to communicate our thoughts, and it's the thought that matters, according to Bacon.
Ashby: "Francis Bacon posited four obstructions to the scientific method-"
Eppes: "The idols of the mind." A phone is tossed. "The cave." Another phone. "The theatre." Another phone. "The tribe." Once more. "And..." Ashby dials. "Umm..."
Ashby detonates a bomb.
Eppes: "THE MARKETPLACE! Damn... Dammit! You didn't give me enough time!"
Ashby: "I'm not just testing your mind! I'm testing your heart."
That was the first time I'd ever heard of Francis Bacon or his idols of the mind (that's an awesome show by the way, you should check it out.)
In any case, we have four idols of the mind. The cave is where people get stuck in their own area, unable to reach out and look at other areas of learning. Historians stick to history, mathematicians to math, etc. They never look outside the box.
The theatre is where people look to fiction and use that as knowledge. By reading fiction novels, watching fiction movies or plays, they take it as real and use it as true knowledge when it obviously isn't.
The tribe is human errors. Things such as exaggeration, prejudices, and other common tendencies that hinder our learning. By exaggerating or prejudicing, or any other common mistake we confuse others and slow learning.
The marketplace is when words replace thoughts. People think they win an argument because their words sound better and the other person has nothing to come back with, but they have better thoughts. We use words to communicate our thoughts, and it's the thought that matters, according to Bacon.
Wednesday, February 25, 2009
Galileo Galilee
Galileo's daughter was essential to his research. She took care of him during his periods of illness and old age, helped him in his research and publishing, and kept him relaxed and ready when he was to go to the inquisition.
When Galileo first started living with his daughter in Florentine, he complained (a lot) of many ailments that he had. It was his daughter who went to the market to get his food, his medicines, and everything he'd need to live on a day-to-day basis. She kept him healthy for him to pursue his scholarly pursuits and do what he did best.
Then, while he was writing his book, she was his number one fan and editor. She read all of his manuscripts, and even though she received little formal education, she knew enough to help him edit things out, modify things, etc. She kept his manuscript tidy and helped make it great.
Finally, when Galileo was called to inquisition, Maria Celeste sent him letters telling him how to behave when it comes to the inquisition. Swallow your pride and do what they tell you do to do. She helped save his life and keep his teachings on track.
When Galileo first started living with his daughter in Florentine, he complained (a lot) of many ailments that he had. It was his daughter who went to the market to get his food, his medicines, and everything he'd need to live on a day-to-day basis. She kept him healthy for him to pursue his scholarly pursuits and do what he did best.
Then, while he was writing his book, she was his number one fan and editor. She read all of his manuscripts, and even though she received little formal education, she knew enough to help him edit things out, modify things, etc. She kept his manuscript tidy and helped make it great.
Finally, when Galileo was called to inquisition, Maria Celeste sent him letters telling him how to behave when it comes to the inquisition. Swallow your pride and do what they tell you do to do. She helped save his life and keep his teachings on track.
Monday, February 23, 2009
St. Thomas Aquinas
Let's imagine for a minute, shall we? Let's pretend that this is not merely a blog, but an argument. And let's say, shall we, that myself and Precious are the participants.
checkitmyles (8:25:04 PM): if we define "concept" as something that is intangible, then beauty, in essence, is a concept
checkitmyles (8:25:05 PM): correct?
"Precious" (8:27:14 PM): yeah
checkitmyles (8:27:36 PM): it also can be said that "numbers" are concepts, because you cannot "touch" a number
"Precious" (8:27:48 PM): true
checkitmyles (8:28:22 PM): so if we take what Thomas Aquinas said as true, then there is a perfect beauty because it is a concept. likewise, there must be a "perfect" number
"Precious" (8:32:52 PM): ok
checkitmyles (8:33:38 PM): however, everyone has different "perfect" numbers. my number of choice is either 3 or 15. my dad's is 22. would you agree that we each have different numbers of choice?
"Precious" (8:33:51 PM): yes
checkitmyles (8:34:26 PM): now would you also agree that people have different ideas as to what perfect beauty is?
checkitmyles (8:34:47 PM): our loved ones/spouses would be good examples, no?
"Precious" (8:34:58 PM): yeah
checkitmyles (8:35:50 PM): so it then follows that there is no one "perfect" beauty, that, as margaret wolfe hungerford so elegantly put it, beauty is in the eye of the beholder
"Precious" (8:36:07 PM): yep
checkitmyles (8:36:47 PM): which then disproves the idea of a "perfect" beauty, because each person has their own ideas as to what a "perfect" beauty looks like
"Precious" (8:37:13 PM): yeah
checkitmyles (8:38:03 PM): which would then lead us to believe that each "concept" has their own perfections. a perfect "goodness" a perfect "knowledge" etc
"Precious" (8:38:35 PM): yeah i see wut u mean
checkitmyles (8:39:15 PM): which, then follows, that no one being could attain all of these perfections (there are over 6 billion souls on earth alone, let alone those in the heavens), unless they look/act/think completely differently among the different individuals
"Precious" (8:43:24 PM): yeah
If you don't understand what just happened above, then here is a summary. Concepts like beauty, goodness, knowledge, they are intangible. You cannot measure them. You can try to, yes, but you cannot truly measure them. Because we cannot measure them and give a definite value of each person's/thing's beauty, goodness, knowledge, then these concepts are in the eye of the beholder. As Margaret Wolfe Hungerford said, beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Thus, there cannot be one, singular perfect. In my mind, Anne Hathaway is the prettiest actress alive (not sexiest, not hottest, but prettiest). I guarantee you, that in our core class alone, there will be, a minimum of 15 differing opinions. We all have a different idea as to what a perfect "beauty" is. Maybe I like smaller noses. Maybe someone else likes fuller lips (Angelina Jolie, anyone?). Maybe another person likes attached earlobes, and someone else likes detached earlobes. This is why everyone is unique, so that there is someone who is perfect for you. God cannot be the perfect beauty, goodness, knowledge, etc. The only way that is possible is if God looks/acts/thinks different when around different individuals to match their "perfection." Which then gets screwed up when God is around two totally different people. I could go on. I choose not to because I think you get the picture. Either God cannot attain ALL perfections (think about how many people in the last 100 years made it into Heaven alone, how is he going to be ALL of these perfections) or he is a two-faced God who acts differently around everyone.
If Bruce were to respond, he'd say "But God can do that Myles. Because he is God, he can be all those perfections, because God is the embodiment of perfection." Or something to that effect. To which I say, I don't buy that. I don't have an argument in return, exactly, but I don't believe that hardly-tested hypothesis.
checkitmyles (8:25:04 PM): if we define "concept" as something that is intangible, then beauty, in essence, is a concept
checkitmyles (8:25:05 PM): correct?
"Precious" (8:27:14 PM): yeah
checkitmyles (8:27:36 PM): it also can be said that "numbers" are concepts, because you cannot "touch" a number
"Precious" (8:27:48 PM): true
checkitmyles (8:28:22 PM): so if we take what Thomas Aquinas said as true, then there is a perfect beauty because it is a concept. likewise, there must be a "perfect" number
"Precious" (8:32:52 PM): ok
checkitmyles (8:33:38 PM): however, everyone has different "perfect" numbers. my number of choice is either 3 or 15. my dad's is 22. would you agree that we each have different numbers of choice?
"Precious" (8:33:51 PM): yes
checkitmyles (8:34:26 PM): now would you also agree that people have different ideas as to what perfect beauty is?
checkitmyles (8:34:47 PM): our loved ones/spouses would be good examples, no?
"Precious" (8:34:58 PM): yeah
checkitmyles (8:35:50 PM): so it then follows that there is no one "perfect" beauty, that, as margaret wolfe hungerford so elegantly put it, beauty is in the eye of the beholder
"Precious" (8:36:07 PM): yep
checkitmyles (8:36:47 PM): which then disproves the idea of a "perfect" beauty, because each person has their own ideas as to what a "perfect" beauty looks like
"Precious" (8:37:13 PM): yeah
checkitmyles (8:38:03 PM): which would then lead us to believe that each "concept" has their own perfections. a perfect "goodness" a perfect "knowledge" etc
"Precious" (8:38:35 PM): yeah i see wut u mean
checkitmyles (8:39:15 PM): which, then follows, that no one being could attain all of these perfections (there are over 6 billion souls on earth alone, let alone those in the heavens), unless they look/act/think completely differently among the different individuals
"Precious" (8:43:24 PM): yeah
If you don't understand what just happened above, then here is a summary. Concepts like beauty, goodness, knowledge, they are intangible. You cannot measure them. You can try to, yes, but you cannot truly measure them. Because we cannot measure them and give a definite value of each person's/thing's beauty, goodness, knowledge, then these concepts are in the eye of the beholder. As Margaret Wolfe Hungerford said, beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Thus, there cannot be one, singular perfect. In my mind, Anne Hathaway is the prettiest actress alive (not sexiest, not hottest, but prettiest). I guarantee you, that in our core class alone, there will be, a minimum of 15 differing opinions. We all have a different idea as to what a perfect "beauty" is. Maybe I like smaller noses. Maybe someone else likes fuller lips (Angelina Jolie, anyone?). Maybe another person likes attached earlobes, and someone else likes detached earlobes. This is why everyone is unique, so that there is someone who is perfect for you. God cannot be the perfect beauty, goodness, knowledge, etc. The only way that is possible is if God looks/acts/thinks different when around different individuals to match their "perfection." Which then gets screwed up when God is around two totally different people. I could go on. I choose not to because I think you get the picture. Either God cannot attain ALL perfections (think about how many people in the last 100 years made it into Heaven alone, how is he going to be ALL of these perfections) or he is a two-faced God who acts differently around everyone.
If Bruce were to respond, he'd say "But God can do that Myles. Because he is God, he can be all those perfections, because God is the embodiment of perfection." Or something to that effect. To which I say, I don't buy that. I don't have an argument in return, exactly, but I don't believe that hardly-tested hypothesis.
Sunday, February 22, 2009
A Tale of Two Brothers
John closes the door behind him, and makes the long walk towards the city. Living in a rural area has benefits, but a downside is the fact that getting to the city can take as much as an hour, and that's on good days. His brother Jeremy, who is a recent convert to Christianity, has been talking about this "Jesus" character, and all these great stories. Jeremy constantly reads to John, seeing as John is illiterate, and John has decided to go to church, just to see what the whole deal is. There is a newish Visigoth Church in the city, a few months old, and John feels like it's a good time to visit.
Jeremy sits inside, reading the Bible. As he reads and reads, he is engrossed in the stories in the text. He can see it happening before him; he always had a large imagination. He cannot put the book down.
John stands outside the church, pondering what Christianity could really be. Jeremy has told him so much about it, but John has no idea what is in store for him in the building. Sure, John knows a few of the stories, but it's not like he knows what happens at Church or even at is in a church.
Jeremy gets a crazy thought, and puts the Bible down and thinks about it. What if Jesus walks among us today? What if he really is alive still, just disguised as regular humans? What if Jesus resides in all of us? Jeremy turns and the sun hits his eyes through the window. Jeremy cannot see.
John steps inside the church, and the double doors are a few feet away. His hands start to shake as he grabs the door handle. He opens the door and steps inside. The sun hits the stained glass windows, which then hit John in the eye. He cannot see.
Jeremy is blinded by the light, but keeps on looking into it. He sees... Jesus? Is that really him?
John is blinded by the light, and turns to see the stained glass scene. He sees Jesus preaching. He is at ease. He understands.
Jeremy hears Jesus's voice. He is finally at ease. He understands.
The brothers are forever connected by beatific visions, different in the process, but the same outcome. They become devout Christians from that point forward.
Jeremy sits inside, reading the Bible. As he reads and reads, he is engrossed in the stories in the text. He can see it happening before him; he always had a large imagination. He cannot put the book down.
John stands outside the church, pondering what Christianity could really be. Jeremy has told him so much about it, but John has no idea what is in store for him in the building. Sure, John knows a few of the stories, but it's not like he knows what happens at Church or even at is in a church.
Jeremy gets a crazy thought, and puts the Bible down and thinks about it. What if Jesus walks among us today? What if he really is alive still, just disguised as regular humans? What if Jesus resides in all of us? Jeremy turns and the sun hits his eyes through the window. Jeremy cannot see.
John steps inside the church, and the double doors are a few feet away. His hands start to shake as he grabs the door handle. He opens the door and steps inside. The sun hits the stained glass windows, which then hit John in the eye. He cannot see.
Jeremy is blinded by the light, but keeps on looking into it. He sees... Jesus? Is that really him?
John is blinded by the light, and turns to see the stained glass scene. He sees Jesus preaching. He is at ease. He understands.
Jeremy hears Jesus's voice. He is finally at ease. He understands.
The brothers are forever connected by beatific visions, different in the process, but the same outcome. They become devout Christians from that point forward.
Thursday, February 19, 2009
Is Religion Necessary?
I was going back through our old forums on proboards, the Paradox of the Taco (Emily Yang), The Revolt on B2 and Birth of Corestianity (what a great story), and yes, even the infamous Prop 8 discussion, and something I read in one of the threads is that religion is necessary, without it, all humans would be living under a dictatorship and in a state of chaos.
You wanna run that by me again?
"we need religion
without it we'd be under dictatorship or chaos
and it gives us something to fear
fear keeps us in order
without us kept in fear we'd be flying around right now shooting each others heads off."
I'm still not sure how that makes sense. So let's take it piece-by-piece.
"Without [religion] we'd be under dictatorship." The only way I could possibly conceive this happening would be some atheist (obviously we'd all be atheists w/o religion) rising up and taking control and no one speaking up for ourselves. This would then require the police, the lawmakers, and the rest of the government to go corrupt and allow this to happen (not likely) as well as the common people allowing it to happen (looking back on history... not likely. How about those French revolutions?) In general, dictatorship would not work, or at least not work for long, as we would all revolt and establish democracy, assuming it hadn't been established long ago by the Greeks.
"Without [religion] we'd be under... chaos." Not sure how this one makes sense either, although I assume the reasoning for this is "it gives us something to fear... fear keeps us in order... without us kept in fear we'd be flying around right now shooting each others heads off." As an agnostic, I can honestly say that the reason I am not "shooting... others heads off" has nothing to do with God or a fear of hell. I'm afraid of the police, jail, etc. I could care less about eternal damnation. Religion has nothing to do with my life not being chaotic, it's more a fear of state and secular law that does that. Religion is absolutely not necessary to keep us away from chaos, and could be the cause of chaos in some ways (Crusades, etc.)
Now I know that a lot of people (Stella, Jooheon, and Solomon have already countered with this) will say that it wasn't REAL Christians that cause these wars and chaos, because REAL Christians would never do that. Regardless of whether or not the Christians that participated in the Crusades were "real" or not, they were still influenced by Christianity and the Bible. Part of their reasoning to go and take the Holy Land back was because it was the "Holy Land" and it belonged to the Christians. They fought and slaughtered Jews in their own empire simply because the Jews weren't Christians and helped contribute to the death of Jesus. Religion did play a part in the Crusades, whether it was REAL religion or not. Religion still is a cause of this war. As it is the cause of so many other wars. As Paul stated himself on proboards, "basically every political leader is leading cuz of religion and their beliefs, so religious wars is a given." Doesn't that leave the question, without religion, wouldn't there be far less wars? Without religion, and only atheism/agnosticism across the land, the following events would never have happened:
Crusades
Holocaust which then means no WWII
Iraq War
Palestine/Israeli War
Any war regarding "The Holy Land"
ALL of the horrifying events read today in class
Think about it. Does religion really help? Is it really a fear of hell that keeps us from killing, or a fear of jail, and what your family/friends will think? It's a tough question, and I think at some point we have to realize religion might not be as great as we think.
You wanna run that by me again?
"we need religion
without it we'd be under dictatorship or chaos
and it gives us something to fear
fear keeps us in order
without us kept in fear we'd be flying around right now shooting each others heads off."
I'm still not sure how that makes sense. So let's take it piece-by-piece.
"Without [religion] we'd be under dictatorship." The only way I could possibly conceive this happening would be some atheist (obviously we'd all be atheists w/o religion) rising up and taking control and no one speaking up for ourselves. This would then require the police, the lawmakers, and the rest of the government to go corrupt and allow this to happen (not likely) as well as the common people allowing it to happen (looking back on history... not likely. How about those French revolutions?) In general, dictatorship would not work, or at least not work for long, as we would all revolt and establish democracy, assuming it hadn't been established long ago by the Greeks.
"Without [religion] we'd be under... chaos." Not sure how this one makes sense either, although I assume the reasoning for this is "it gives us something to fear... fear keeps us in order... without us kept in fear we'd be flying around right now shooting each others heads off." As an agnostic, I can honestly say that the reason I am not "shooting... others heads off" has nothing to do with God or a fear of hell. I'm afraid of the police, jail, etc. I could care less about eternal damnation. Religion has nothing to do with my life not being chaotic, it's more a fear of state and secular law that does that. Religion is absolutely not necessary to keep us away from chaos, and could be the cause of chaos in some ways (Crusades, etc.)
Now I know that a lot of people (Stella, Jooheon, and Solomon have already countered with this) will say that it wasn't REAL Christians that cause these wars and chaos, because REAL Christians would never do that. Regardless of whether or not the Christians that participated in the Crusades were "real" or not, they were still influenced by Christianity and the Bible. Part of their reasoning to go and take the Holy Land back was because it was the "Holy Land" and it belonged to the Christians. They fought and slaughtered Jews in their own empire simply because the Jews weren't Christians and helped contribute to the death of Jesus. Religion did play a part in the Crusades, whether it was REAL religion or not. Religion still is a cause of this war. As it is the cause of so many other wars. As Paul stated himself on proboards, "basically every political leader is leading cuz of religion and their beliefs, so religious wars is a given." Doesn't that leave the question, without religion, wouldn't there be far less wars? Without religion, and only atheism/agnosticism across the land, the following events would never have happened:
Crusades
Holocaust which then means no WWII
Iraq War
Palestine/Israeli War
Any war regarding "The Holy Land"
ALL of the horrifying events read today in class
Think about it. Does religion really help? Is it really a fear of hell that keeps us from killing, or a fear of jail, and what your family/friends will think? It's a tough question, and I think at some point we have to realize religion might not be as great as we think.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
