Sunday Sermon: Where Does Morality Come From?

It is a common Christian argument that, if their deity does not exist, then there can be no morality. They argue that without an objective deity to give objective morality, then all of morality is just a collection of human opinions, and no one opinion is better than any other. I will go so far as to grant that this is a common argument for good reason, as it is a difficult argument to refute, as it is very difficult (if not impossible) to explain exactly when, where, and why a concept of morality and ethics first emerged. However, while we may not know the specifics of the origins of moral and ethical thinking, it can be proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that morality cannot be explained if Yhwh exists.

Sunday Sermon: An Atheist in the Courtroom

I've been encountering the same logically flawed objection to atheism a lot lately, and I feel the need to at least attempt to put this objection to bed. The objection usually runs as follows:

"How can you be sure that there is no god? Do you have any proof that there is no god?"

This is an attempt at reversing the long-time atheist argument that "claims require supporting evidence", by saying that an atheists denial of the existence of deities is a also claim that must be supported by evidence. While this may initially seem like a decent argument, it's logic is actually terribly flawed.

Schrödinger's Freedom of Speech

There is a fairly well-known thought experiment known as Schrödinger's Cat. The basic idea of the thought experiment is that, if one were to accept a certain interpretation of quantum mechanics, it would follow that a cat placed into a box, would at some point be simultaneously alive and dead. I'm not a physicist (although I try to stay somewhat informed as a layperson), so if you want to know more about Schrödinger's and his cat, pray to Google, for she is a wise and benevolent deity.

Anyways, I didn't start this post to talk about physicists and their hypothetical cats, but to talk about freedom of speech. It occurred to me last night during a conversation with a friend, that I simultaneously do, and do not, agree with the concept of free speech (hence the title of this post). Allow me to explain.

David Hume on "Intelligent Design"

I am currently reading David Hume's (1711-1776) book, "An Enquiry concerning Human Understanding. In Chapter 11 (pages 135-139) of his book, he makes an argument (put into the mouth of a friend of his) regarding just how much a rational argument could support, regarding the existence and character of a deity. Because the argument sounds very much like a counter to today's "Intelligent Design" crowd who want the creation of the universe by a deity to be taught as a valid scientific theory, I would like to relate the argument for you.

Christopher Hitchens on Miracles

Christopher Hitchens destroys the claims of biblical miracles in less than 3 1/2 minutes.

Musings on the Philosophy of Art

As I'm nearing the end of a semester of "Philosophy of Art", I can't help but wonder if the best way to define "art" is as "excess". By "excess" I just mean "something that doesn't serve a practical purpose".

For instance, a painting on a wall: It may be pretty, it may be thought provoking, but the wall wouldn't really be any worse off if the painting weren't there. Perhaps we would say that removing the painting takes away a certain feeling of "warmth" in the wall, but that doesn't give the painting a practical purpose, only a psychological purpose.

Similarly, the difference between a show car, and a '93 Ford Escort. It's quite likely that the Escort will be able to get you from point A to point B every bit as well as the show car (maybe even better depending upon what aspect of the car is being showcased), but what makes the show car so much more popular is all of the extra stuff that doesn't really have any bearing on how well the car runs, and perhaps sometimes even would make the car run worse.

The last point I want to make is that I don't think it's actually important that people actually like something in order for it to be art. It's possible that something... *cough* *Duchamp's "Fountain"* *cough* could just simply be "bad" art.

To sum up: I think maybe the best way to define "art" is: Something that a person puts conscious effort into creating, absent any practical reason to do so.