To this point in our course we have seen the pendulum of world view swing from a faith based religious / Puritan society to a reason based America breaking free from Britain. We will soon see society's pendulum swing back to a romantic view of the world and then forward to a logical realist view of the world. Where are we today and how do you know? Where are we headed?
Posts
90 comments:
mine are so much better.
so much better.
yes I repeated myself like when I said crazy twice.
Since I'm here I might as well add that I think that pendulum has swung us into a sort of holding zone. We are in a literary pause. There are lots and lots of works that tend to discuss futuristic topics, advances in science & technology...but a lot of works being published hold extremely romantic views of the past. We're in a very unoriginal state. There are books like "The Secret" that are semi-trancendentalist, but not quite. Its an abstract time for the literary culture. I can't really explain it and I'm not quite sure why I'm trying to, considering I'm not even in this class. Its like everyone wants to be LIKE some author. A lot of (I'll try not to generalize) the fantasy writers tend to fall along the lines of J.R.R. Tolkein and C.S. Lewis' writings. It feels like everyone is TRYING to be different and abstract...which just makes them seem like copy cats, because these ideas have already been consisdered and worked with. So yeah, the holding zone, the unoriginal state. We're stuck in this technological boom and the lack of interest in literature, and the lack of truly profound ideas or really creative concepts is evident. Sadly...I guess.
This is really just my opinion though...and I kind of am biased and dislike MOST technology( I wont say 'hate') so... yea.
I think we're starting to swing a little towards a humble, pastoral, romantic-eque time again though. Everyone's desire to be eco-friendly and green and resolve the world's issues is prompting authors to write about (whether fictional or realistic) times in which people were simple. Reading is a common way to alieviate stress, so it wouldn't be surprising if literature majorly shifted into a more surreal, idealistic style.
I probably answered this in the wrong manner. I'll delete it after you read it and make fun of me Mr. Alaimo.
Yay.
I think that we are in a world with a mix of both reason and faith. I think this because we have already gone through both, and now everyone has there different opinions on to what society should be like, therefore there is a mix in the world. For example, there are some deeply religious people who base their life on faith or romanticism. On the other hand, there are some people who strictly see the world in logical realist way. Also, there are some people who believe in both, like myself. I do believe in my religion, but I also believe in reason too.
Therefore, today, the world is a mix of ideas, and the pendulum is not always going in the same direction. I think we are headed in the same direction, because now that there has been a mix of ideas, it is almost impossible for society together to unite and swing back to one view. However, I do think that it is possible for different parts of society to believe in either reason or faith, but never as a whole, I think, will we together believe in one again. In addition, I think looking back at the flaws in both make it harder to go back to one. For example, looking at how flawed the Puritan society was and how judgmental is really was, will make people today not want to go back and be like that. Also, there probably were some flaws with purely being logical too. Therefore, I think from now on it will always be a mixture of reason and faith.
-Abby Whalen
I think I agree with what Abby says in the case of spirituality and religion. There is a lot more tolerance now a days then there before. I tend to be more for the logical side, while others might be more into the religious side. We all have our views and opinions.
On the case of where we are today, I think we're strong on the logical side. There have been many advances in the medical field, instead of praying that things get better. We work to get things done, not ask God to throw us a bone once in a while. There are times, though, where some people do hope or pray that things go right, but in the end it's really you who can make it or break it.
If we're going by a pendulum, then it would go back and forth between religion and logic. So it would go back to us being more spiritual. But then we see people who are atheist and decide what they want to do. I don't think that religion will be as big as it used to be for people, like the Puritans. For all we know, it can end up as mythology for our great, great, great, great grandchildren or something.
I guess it all depends on where you stand with this.
Wow! I finally remembered to post more than two days before it's due.
OK. I can definitely see where Mr. Alaimo is going with this whole "pendulum" thing, with ideas going back and forth between logical reasoning and faith. The logical conclusion to his question is, because we are currently in a more "logical" phase, towards faith. Unfortunately. (Not to get my personal feelings to mixed up in this).
Actually, I can see some evidence of this already. The 19th century was a period of rational thought, with thinkers like Darwin finding logical explanations for things in nature (such as evolution). Though ideas like these weren't always accepted in their times, they became more so in time. But more recent events show a bit of a swing towards faith, like the Scopes "Monkey" trial in 1925. This illustrates the example of evolution--it was challenged as something to be taught in schools, and some wanted creationism to be given equal time.
Although this wasn't really part of the question, I think it shows humanity's desire to change from the status quo, and what is accepted; this is why we see such pendulum action. But I hope that this current swing is not going to last long or go as far--as humans learn more about the world, I think the pendulum can only go farther toward the side of reason.
The use of a pendulum is a perfect fit to the way that religious views are throughout history. If we look back at history and see when religion was popular and when the world changed to looking at the scientific way of thinking, you will notice that after the scientific (logical) thinking, religion will go down hill from there.
Right now, I feel that we are at a point in history where we believe in more of a logistic way. Since we have all this technology advancement, people are interested in that and there is less involvement in the religion area. Although there are still many people who are very religion based, I think that there is a drop or a "swing" in how many people recognize their beliefs and go to church etc.
Hahaha that was very cute comment by Natalie. A bit too cynical and lacking in the real-life examples but overall. If you're searching for good ol' creativity, do not fret. Just look at something as simple as creating a post! You've got a keyboard full of textual entities ahead of you and that's about your only restriction! That and the English Grammar. Now you've got the opportunity to mess around with ways to express yourself, wordplay, sunny fpoonerisms (see Paul Tine's name) and numerous others. The list is endless. The classics are most certainly there.. the Beatles, Aristotle, Mozart, Gone With The Wind, Godfather, the original black and white television.. You've got to understand that history repeats itself. Distort it, augmentate, add, twist, cherish, think of something from scratch. Different for the sake of being different is not admirable and neither is a simple, obedient mind. Even though this book is sorely lacking in the entertainment department, I felt that. I switch back and forth between being a Catholic and an Atheist, but I can sincerely say I approve of religion. You can question, speculate, rip apart the Bible, and call it out for being illogical but in the end it's blind faith that will allow one to be salvaged into heaven (if there's a heaven.) A case of safe or sorry. And fortunately we're going through a stage of question everything, especially since Bush isn't the greatest man for presidency. Cynicism, philosophical depth, and a slight liberal bias incorporate our daily American beliefs. Not a bad thing, just a stage of life. I can sense that by 2050 the majority of the industrial world WILL BE ATHEIST. So yes we are going through a stage of reason. The pendulum is a nice example, but logic and religion are NOT clear-cut antonyms. They can and actually function together to try to paint the whole picture. Can you honestly say that everything that defines you has originated from a scientifical view. No, silly, you'd be a robot! Religious! Then a fool relinquishing to dieties. An eclectic combination.
I do not see this situation as a pendulum, I see progress and regression. We started out with little or no knowledge at all of how the world works, and some people tried to explain it with what they knew. They didn't know very much, but there must be some explanation, and there you have miracles and all-powerful deities who DO know everything. Occasionally an exceptionally strong believer (or fanatic) rises out of the woodwork and calls himself a prophet.
Then discoveries happen, and people understand more, and realize that some "miracles" are explainable, but only some. Whatever the reasoning is behind that, I can't even say. But people are stubborn, they like their religion, and the religions like the power, so they regress into unenlightened, blind faith. Things always get better though, and eventually enough people will move on that we no longer need to regress.
Today we are a mix, there are all kinds of religions (and obviously not ALL of them can be right, so SOME of them MUST be wrong) and agnostics, and atheists. We are heading forward, and more and more things will be explained, so that there will not be a need for religion anymore.
What Abby said about experiencing both definitely can explain why opinions are so varied. Maybe it won't be as fast as Souljaboy estimated, but I agree that we will move away from religion, just more slowly. I also agree with him that it is hard to decide whether you should be religious or not. I used to be Catholic too, and yes, I find the Bible completely illogical, but the challenge is to except it anyway. But if you can't, there are other religions to consider too, and now that you've rejected one, how can you say that another is better? Because some of them must be wrong and it's next to impossible to choose the right one. Okay I swear this is my last point, but even though I am an agnostic/atheist, I do approve of what religion does to some extent. I know, weird right? But most religions (major ones that is)teach people good values, and can unify people within that religion. Sorry that was so long, I’m just really opinionated on that subject.
Bingo! You hit the nail on the head Ally. As long as religion is practiced in moderation and stays true to its "grassroot ideals" such as believing in universal equality, surpressing human ego, discouraging of booze and premarital sex (lol), giving to charity, encouraging brotherhood/sisterhood, love and compassion then that's excellent. When egos and arrogance collide i Confession, baptism, Chanukkah, Ramadan, Reincarnation, Nirvana, are very easy to perceive as "illogical" persay but we haven't the faintest idea of how the world works, what our purposes in life are, and quite frankly religion/God are great for temporary explanations of the aforementioned. My only problem is when things go wayy overboard into war. The Crusades, Inquisition, current Islamic (i use the term islamic very loosely) "fundamentalists", are just two examples of corruption and distortion on behalf of the two most wide-spread monotheistic religions. Christ, Macabee, Buddha, and Muhammad were VERY honorable people, regardless of what you believe in and it may be speculation but I bet either one would be furious at our current state of debate. Asking which religion is better than which. That's why I believe theists should have an individual relationship with God, and loosely interpret their respective books, holy scriptures; instead of organizing in mass cult-like groups. I'm a fan of peace, serenity but I will fight when need be. (like my right to party) I'm sick of the needless violence, why can't we all just chill and listen to Soulja Boy?
Hester Prynne did an awesome job in tolerating her punishment and not b!tching about it, but rather working her way around for a future.
Heh, the pendulum was quite ingenious relating to this matter, how our society is able to swing back and forth and is able to simply change from idea to idea. As Mr. Alaimo had said before about Puritan society inherently based off religion, then later coming on, using actually reason in America to benefit ourselves.
Throughout the times, society has been able to grow and undergo exceptional amount of change compared to the past, obviously. It's what today is based off of, the intelligence we have gathered from the past and using it in order to make life more suitable for the current living beings. Today, we are headed to a completely logical lifestyle. We've come to a time where religion isn't enforced and where we're more accessible to technology that can benefit, yet also destroy us. Also, today, we're able to view everything in a realistic way, but things as such can also be explored the opposite way, more pertaining to religion and anything that sets guidelines on human life. In the beginning, with the Puritans, they were innocent, since they themselves were too afraid to question themselves. Even now today, people essentially just apologize to God for being HUMAN. Oh, how blind faith shows terrible complications... But today, and even more in the future, we are much more cynical with everything. We're always spending our time in attempts to make life easier and easier for ourselves, there's no limit a person could set since it's just going to keep on going. That's what is great about humans, we're able to continually and constantly build on to our thoughts but as time passes we're taking the actual living out of our life. Meaning, we're eventually going to make our lives so easy, that the simple everyday struggles that keep some people sane are taken out.
Moving on, religion is eventually going to blow away, or at least I presume so. Though there are many people out there who are hardcore about their own religious beliefs, their own thoughts are going to be carried with them to their grave. The new-age technology is too lustful compared to tedious tasks such as praying. Especially with children nowadays, more influenced by the media than their parents. More prone to the adolescent years, teenagers want to live a somewhat rebellious life exploring what they can do ignoring what their parents might say. But, there are many other ways to think of where we are headed as well. With our current lives, religion will not go away instantly, there might even be a chance of war, one side claiming their religion is divine truth when time comes to combine all humans as one, who knows? But, anyway, I believe technology will set the steps and lead us to where we are headed. It would probably lead to a much more cynical and simplistic way of life having only to do with self interest and defying the conventional ways we have today. Though, not being completely cynical, due to the fact that that life would be easier, but ran by materialized items thus having no need or desire to want material possessions. Where we're headed, we just wouldn't have the motivation to enjoy the things we enjoy today. We should cherish the time we live in, and be able to prosper from the things we're able to do today, even if it's a complete lack of what humans are able to accomplish 1000 years from now.
Like Hiten said, we are spending all our time trying to make life easier. With all the technology of today, we spend so much time do these things, that people have shut out religion. By personal experience, I am aware that some people don't even know what religion they are or what to do if they do go to church or whatever rituals you might follow. Society today is based on facts and having faith isn't a priority today like it was when my grandparents were growing up. So, when you ask where the society as a whole is headed, we are now in a time where isn't a necessity as it was before. Yet, I feel that maybe in the future, people will see they need religion in their life and start having stricter rules and such.
I also agree with what Hiten has said about technology. I can see my younger cousins, who are six and seven, already having ipods! Religion isn't as big a thing anymore, as making new inventions to make life be a whole lot easier. There are still those people who are still very religious. Like Ally said, grandparents still feel that it is very important, while most of our generation doesn't.
I think that right now, society's pendulum has swung to the logical realist view and is getting stuck there for a very long time. I agree with Hiten's prediction of a world getting so technologically advanced that we don't rememeber what it's like to live without that technology. I remember a time without hand-held video games; I don't think children born now will. Someday we'll be asking ourselves, what else can we make hand-held? And we'll eventually find out how to make this hand-held. My point is, we'll be looking to the future. We'll always be looking for ways to improve, for ways to change our lives. There will never be a time when this Earth is still supporting humans that we'll say, I'm done inventing, there's nothing else to invent. There are endless possibilities as to what we can create. We'll always point out something that could be better, and you know what, not all those things can be made better. If there are endless improvements to be made that we can't make and some we will never be able to made, who do you turn to? What reason can you support to explain why you can't find a way to improve your life in an area? It's God or whatever higher power someone might believe in. Some people will go on and chose to live without ever finding logical explainations for those things that happen. But those who need answers, will turn to religion. That's why I believe religion will always be around and not just burn out. I mean, places of worship might close down from lack of leadership, but that doesn't mean the world will lose all believers of relgion. So I think that the pendulum will keep swinging towards the logical side until it can't go anymore without losing all connections to religion. Then, at that point, it will be forever be frozen in time, a pendulum that will no longer swing until humans are not able to live.
Now, I realize this is a long stretch, but I think it's good to bring up something very imaginative like this. It allows for more topics to form to have opinions on so that everyone who does this blog 2 days before it's due won't just have to agree. There's always something to elaborate on.
Today I think that most of the people are in a romantic point of view in the world because they depend on themselves to get their work done. I mean the people can believe in God, but not really believe the fact that if you ask Him to do something for you He will, you have to work towards that goal yourself. I think that because in the world today people have been able to reach great lengths and come up with new inventions because they felt it was a time to advance, not because God told them that He had a vision that someday people would be able to watch their favorite shows on something called the television. Based on our progress I think that we are still headed in the same direction, but other religions might still see the world through the view that what we are today is because of what God wanted and created, which can make the pendulum swing back into the views of a Puritan society.
I agree with abby. Today the world seems to be a mix of faith and reason. Ideas are going between logical reasoning and faith. Religion isn’t as big as it used to be but it still is a big part of some people’s everyday lives. People will pray for something to happen but in the end its how they act that will decide what the outcome will be. Everyone has there different opinions on to what society should be like. Some people live their lives according to their religion while others only choose to look at things through logic. Then there are those who believe in both; they look at things with reason while still practicing their faith. I think that we are headed in the same direction. Now that logic and religion have been mixed, it would be impossible to decide on one or the other. If we take a look at the religion and logical aspects of history we will see that believing in just religion is flawed as well as just believing in logic.
I believe that today we have a more logical and realistic view of the world, but there certainly are many people who still view the world from a religious stance. Back in th past (around Puritan times) almost everyone in the world had a religious view of the world, mostly because there was no technology, as Ally said, and people were so mixed up with God and sins and being good all the time. Now, we are not so focused on religion, most likely becasue we have new technology that shows us why and how things work, instead of just believing that God put them there and created them. America, for the most part is not overly religious, but does have some religious people who will always believe that God has created everything. But there will always be people who believe in science and technology who believe that God could not have possibly made everything. In some other countries though, where new technology is lacking and religion is a huge part of life, their views of the world change, so the whole world will probably never be on the same level. I look at the world in both a logical and religious way. I am not overly religious, in fact, im barely religious, but I still grew up being taught that God created the world, so i continue to believe that. As for other things, as new research comes along and new discoveries are made, i base most of my views based on that.
-Nikki
I believe that the pendulum of people's method of thinking is currently very logical. I think this because now days, religion has pretty much lost it's value; if you look at statistics, and talk to various people, you'll come to the conclusion that religion is either no longer valued, or even actively believed in. Personally, I can guess that the reason for this is that most feel as if relgion does not apply anymore, due to how advanced and different our society today has become compared to the Bible and other Holy works. Nowdays, we rely on ourselves to fix things and to advance, because our generation has grown up with the thinking that through hard work, you can achieve what you want. Gone is the old thinking that we're at the mercy of a God, depending on Him to better our daily lives. Although we appear to be very set in this particular way of thinking, I think that it will eventually swing back into a slightly more relgiously influenced one. Today, people realize that working hard is not enough in these times; now we can see new graduates with 4.o gpas, with $90,000 of debt, and without a job. I think that in times when people feel helpess, they turn to religion, because they often feel as if there is nothing else they are capable of doing to help themselves. While we will still have our "logical" aspects of life, such as advanced medicine, things such as prayer will find its way back into people's lives, because when you lose your life's investments and can't keep up with your mortgage payments, that's sometimes the only thing you can do.
-Julie R
I think that we live in a world with a mixture of both religion and logic. Some people rely on reason to answer their questions on life, others deeply believe in religion. I think that we are headed in the same direction for the future. Now that both ideas have been meshed, it would be nearly impossible to go back to just one.
Although, I think that todays world is a mix of both logic and religion, I do agree with Ally when she said that it might be a little more to the loigcal side because of today's technology. Moreover, with new technology and other things, we tend to forget about relgion or God and think logically. In some cases it is kind of bad that we've forgotten our religious past and have moved on to different things, but also I think it is better in other cases. For example, it is good that we have gotten out of the strict Puritan times because those we horrible times when, like in the Scarlet Letter, people hated you for even committing sin out of love.
-Abby Whalen
I believe that people's views of the world are based on both reason and religion. However, just like other people said, some people may believe in religion more than reason or vice versa. It all just depends on what you believe in. I, personally, am not very religious and tend to always try to find an explanation, leaving me to question why certain things happen.
Also, I agree with what Hiten said about technology taking over. Even though, I think religion is part of our beliefs, I do agree that it will eventually fade. Less people are becoming non-religious so I think that there will eventually be no one to spread religion anymore. However, if this does happen, we can't say that religion won't come back way in the future. Everyone can have their own opinion of what is going to happen but no one can really know until that moment when it truly happens.
I disagree with Jonathan. While I share his opinion that we are currently in a logical state, I do not believe that a swing into a religious society is as counterproductive and horrible as he makes it out to be. Although I am and have always been an Atheist, I would not be particularly bothered by a "religious" type of view. As almost everyone above mentioned, we have accomplished a lot, both logically and technologically, but I don't think that a swing into a religious viewpoint would have us throwing that all out the window. I can understand why people would think this way after reading about the horrors of Puritan living, but being religious nowadays has a whole different connotation than it did before. Now, we can barely differentiate most religious people from the non religious - we may see women wearing hijabs, something that some would consider a strong expression of their faith, but they do not do things like walk around chanting "Praise Allah!" where ever they go. For example, a Muslim and a Catholic can be friends and talk about things like music and books without having religion coming between them if they don’t want it to. Religious citizens today are religious without flaunting it; people try to keep it as personal as possible. In addition, plenty of "religious" people still recognize and embrace both technology and science; just because someone prays every day doesn't mean that they refuse to see doctors and use electricity. In fact, I think that we can be a religious society without even realizing it; we can even consider ourselves to be one right now.
I agree a lot with Natalie but I don’t feel that we’re completely in a literary pause. Though I do agree that a lot of the well-known works of today are all attempting too hard to be original, I think we’re more in a vernacular and romantic period where most of the writing focuses on enjoying the ups and downs of life. You see this within many of today’s movies, modern short stories, and magazines. On the side, you’ll see propaganda and commercials which like to use extreme negativity, but in the end, most of us react by fighting reality with our will as we see people do on TV, stories and real life.
I think that the next phase in American literature will probably be much darker since a romantic period can’t last for eternity, as proved by history, itself. Since America is slowly stepping down from its former glory as “WORLD POWER” and the confirmation of our not-so-great future is already evident, the next great event of American history (which may be a from a year to a century away for all we know) will most likely have more depressed writing and authors.
-Natalia
After reading all of these posts, i am starting to agree with the thought that the world today is mostly logical. There are so many scientists and doctors out there that people do not really look to their religion for answers anymore. Ally is correct in saying that there are some people who dont even know what religion they are. However, there are still many who follow their faith.
Overall, i think that we are headed in the same direction. Discoveries are being made everyday, and they will continue to be explained by science and logic.
We are definitely in a world which is full of both faithful and reasoning types of people. I believe that in our world today we are near the middle of this “pendulum,” but leaning more towards the logical and realistic view of the world because in our society today we continue to make advancements and discoveries to explain what we turned to religion to explain for us (Of course this doesn’t mean that people still don’t look at these explanations and discoveries as miracles from God). But what happens if the discovering and advancing slowly stops? What if our need to move forward and make life easier for us, and to create more and more elaborate and destructive inventions to match the inventions of others (but I guess useful things) backfires? Where does this “pendulum” sway? These questions can be formed as we see our desire to build and do more and better increases throughout history. The nuclear arms race that occurred between the U.S. and the Soviet Union during the Cold War showed us an example of how dangerous our want to create more and better weapons would be able to affect the entire world.
I believe that this pendulum may never head back to a completely enlightenment period or a completely romantic period, since we have seen both sides. We also have to take into consideration that this pendulum depends on the current situations that people may be dealing with today. What mindset may a person have who grew up in a period of war and bloodshed lacking the necessities of life believe, compared to someone who lives in nice home that is a encouraging environment for learning and thought in a safe and prospering nation? Like all things everything depends on a person’s experiences and situation. This "pendulum" seems like it can’t represent the entire world’s view together because we aren’t all in the same place together in the world. There is still a large fraction of people in this world who still have a romantic and more religious based view, but not everyone in the world is experiencing the same type of technological and advancing changes as we are in our developed country, and not everyone chooses to think logically or in a more reasonable manner.
Judging by the reaction to the romantic era by the class, I can tell that we are in a logical realist view of the world. I personally found that lifestyle to be unproductive and pointless as it did not increase knowledge, only lived off imagination. How does that help the human race? How do we become more enlightened and satisfy our curiosity? It does neither, and because of the way society is set up today, we are trained to view that lifestyle as one that should be based on reason instead. The path we are on right now seems to be headed down an extreme logical/realist era that almost completely replaces religion. More and more scientific discoveries are being made that prove the Bible wrong and fewer and fewer people are choosing religion over science. However, if history has any role to play in our future, then it seems that we are headed to another romantic period. Just how much farther will we get into our logical era before we transition to faith? Who will be the main leader who convinces us that faith and imagination are better than logic and reason? These questions will only be answered by time, but they make you wonder whether a change in world view may be coming sooner than expected.
Athena brings up a good point:if history plays a major role in our future; then how much longer will it be until we transition back to viewing the world through faith, rather than reason? If we do see the transition of perspective of the world as a 'pendulum of world view' will we not just return back to a romantic state?
Although I do agree with most people above, that the world nowadays is based more upon reason and logic rather than faith, doesn't the pendulum indicate that we will return straight back to a romantic period after some time?
Yes, it is quite obvious that new discoveries are being made everyday, and advances in technology and medicine are easing the struggles throughout life, indicating a more scientific, logical time period. I also agree with Athena's point, where many scientists and discoverers? are pulling up evidence proving the Bible, and other holy books, which have been accepted for so long, false.
I'd just like to say I'm getting a bit confused about some of the things that are going up here.
First of all, I saw a comment about people arguing about "which religion is better than which." I didn't really see anyone arguing about this at all (actually, I've been surprised about the number of people who are calling themselves "agnostic" or "atheist," part-time, anyway). It's my belief that religion served an extremely important purpose in human society IN THE PAST, namely steering us in the right direction (from killing each other, doing other bad things, and even, like with the Kosher dietary laws, preventing us from getting sick from bad food). However, we know much more today than 2000 years ago and I don't think religion is still "great for temporary explanations" of phenomena in the world around us, as "Souljaboyrulez" said. Yes, he agreed that most religion is often "illogical" but just because we have a (relatively) limited understanding of the universe does not mean that we can rely on religion to explain the rest!
Sorry to get so worked up about that.
As for what Julie said in response to my earlier comment:
I think a good deal of the debate here is coming from the fact that the pendulum analogy, while a good explanation, is not perfect. While I did say that we are currently headed more or less toward a religious mindset, I picture the pendulum as making small back and forth movements but with an overall trend toward reason. The examples I cited are just one of these small movements toward religion, but overall we are obviously advancing scientifically. Also, the pendulum isn't just moving in two directions, especially because, as Souljaboy said, logic and religion aren't exact opposites. And I don't think that, like a pendulum, being in one state means that we must return to the previous state, to paraphrase what a few others have said.
To wrap that all up, I agree that religion has had its function in the past but that it is now unnecessary and almost detrimental in our society in a few ways.
As many people above said, I too think that we are in the logical "swing of the pendulum". Also, with the technology of today, I don't see how we could not be in a logical and more secular time. Like what was mentioned before, I would also have to agree that more and more people are becoming less religious. I think that I would have to "blame" that on the busy lives that we all lead. I know that personally, when I have free time, it is usually late and I really only want to sleep or hang out. My history teacher last year would always tell us, "Okay this is going into religion again, which we all know to be more myth than fiction..." and I think that when in a logical era, people certainly do think like this. I guess that I would have to agree with this...I mean, how do we know that it was God that created the Earth? No one that was present during these highy religious times is here today, so we have no real solid way to prove what occurred during these times.
I think that we are going to be in this logical way of thinking for quiet some time because like many others said, technology is ever advancing to better and simplify our lives.
I feel after really thinking about this that our views of the world differ amongst people. Not everyone has the same views on certian topics. The way you were raised, the interests that you have, are things that may have an impact on your view of the world. I agree with Abby when she said that we are a mix of both reason and faith because we have already experienced time periods of both. The choice is now up to the person. The views that you have on the world presently coincide with where you think the world is headed. Even in this case, your views can differ, which is why our world today is so diverse.
I agree with most of the previous posts that right now that our view of the world is based on logic. With technology and scientific discoveries on the rise, it's sometimes hard to stick to religious beliefs - we have to decide which is true: science or religion. As of now, I think that most people relate to a more logical way of thinking.
Describing this switch from religious to logical views as a pendulum, is hard for me to agree with. I can't imagine that enough people would turn back to religious thinking to cause another "swing".
I'm outraged. The majority of you have either a severely constricted comprehension of varying cultural values or just don't want to go against the grain on this blog. You seem to think that just because the majority of people you meet in our generation and in our region are not religious or faux religious, this must be the generally accepted opinion of the time. To the best of my knowledge, general tenets of society cannot be wholly accurate like in previous ages or contemporary groups. Unlike the Puritans, for example, one cannot argue that the vast, vast majority of individuals in one society hold a similar system of beliefs. I do agree with the ones who say the world is a mix. Certainly, plenty of the "logical" people exist, myself being one of them. However, the notion that technology (which I assume you intend to mean knowledge) must overpower faith is ignorant. It's ignorant of the people who are not from "other countries" but are fully capable of embracing all this technology and secularism yet choose not to. In other words, they reject idolatry, which is the proper term for it, not because they are ignorant to it but because they find fault in it. Just because you are biased to thinking that any belief other than your own is illogical, it does not mean the world thinks it's illogical. Just think about this statistic I just found. Just Christians, Muslims, and Hindus outnumber atheists/agnostics
four and a half to one. The popular argument would be that these people are disillusioned, or, that as Marx said, "religion is the opium of the people". I don't care who's right at the moment, and this is beside the point. The point is that you/we dissenters do not represent the masses. We live in a relatively liberal region and are not exposed to both sides of the issue. I have family members who could easily outwit your and my secular arguments with religious and historical ones. And again, I speak with no conflict of interest. I'm not an atheist as of now, but I have more trouble believing in religion than a higher power.
Ahhh much better.
Now to answer the question directly.
Since Mr. Alaimo presumably is referring to the western world, we are in a relative logical swing of the pendulum, and it has not peaked yet. Until the system collapses, until the truth about the lack of value in idolatry is revealed, until the church reclaims its presence, and/or until logic can be seamlessly meshed with religion, we will remain in what we call a realist view of the world (and relative to history, it is, though we may look back a number of years from now and call such things as the American dream, for example, as romantic, when perhaps the presently growing cynical view of life will be regarded as correct).
I believe that today we are at a realist view of the world. Technology is growing at a quick pace and we highly rely on science. The regular person is not likely to believe in something that hasn't been scientifically proved. For example, on the History Channel there is certain show, that I don't know the name of, that scientifically proves Jesus's miracles. It seems that if it isn't scientifically proved true then it didn't occur. As you can see, I have proof of this realist view that the world has. Nothing is excepted for what it is.
I think we are headed for another Romanticism era. The world is relying more and more on nature due to our extensive use of fossil fuels and other such energies. Nature is embedded in our future. We will be more green friendly and more people are most likely to enjoy nature. Religion will probably become a stronger part of the future to making the world a more peaceful place.
Wow, well I thought a lot more people might look at the question a little differently after I suggested that it was not a pendulum, but you all just said the same thing over and over, with a few exceptions. I’ll get to that in a minute. If you insist on seeing this as a pendulum then I have to say that we are on the way to the logical side, and not entirely there yet. There are of course billions of people who believe in the few major world religions, and not all of them live in developing countries or have no other choice. It is simply what they chose/were trained/grew up believing. Obviously there are/were benefits to having a religion-based society, as Jon Kane said, because of the values and benefits it imparted to society. Helping the poor, caring for the sick and values such as honesty and kindness are all noble causes. I have to say that I disagree with romanticism not “helping the human race”; imagination and creativity are clearly a part of even science. Ben Franklin was being creative when he explored his natural curiosity and discovered and created all sorts of things.
Now the exceptions, Julie said that a religious swing wouldn’t be a bad thing. I disagree but at least she brought up a different opinion. I think everyone must have been afraid to bring their true beliefs into this because I can’t imagine that all of both honors classes are entirely logical, and that next to nobody will stand up for a religious position. I think that just saying it’s a mix, and only that, is a way of hiding what your real opinion is behind the masses. Paul, I’m sure plenty of us, myself included, have much more of an understanding of a wide variety of cultures than you give us credit for. Also, your statistic hardly proves anything. If you lump three groups together and compare them to one, the three will usually be bigger. I have some of my own stats. In the world, 33% of people follow some form of Christianity, 21% are Islamic, 16% are non-religious, and 14% are Hindu. The label “non-religious” represents 1.1 billion people. That is a significant number of people. Living in America, we are all exposed to different beliefs every day, and claiming that we are not simply has no basis in fact.
Also, Ijhaddad2011, I like your point about the fossil fuels to support going back to Romanticism, but if this war on terror has as much to do with religion as the terrorists/extremists believe it does, or if the Crusades had as much to do with religion as they did, then I doubt an entirely religious world would be so peaceful.
I will have to agree with most of these posts about how we are on the logical side of things, and not the religious. I think this is so because just like everyone else said, we have the technology to "prove" things are true today. i also think that the technology supports the view of the many, while there are still people who are the minority and have a more faith-based way of thinking. I don't in this case think that the minority will become the majority because technology will keep evolving over time, and more and more people will join the age of technology as we progress. I do think that even though we are a mostly logical society, religion does still play a key role in people's lives. I once read that an early astronomer said that religion and science do not have to support each other it is possible to have them coexist within the same person. This in turn supports my claim on the fact that we will not head to a faith based society because the technology and reason will be further supported by discoveries, while the religion will exist in another aspect of the human mind.
I believe that our society has a reason based view of the world because people tend to believe more so in things to which they can prove logically and scientifically rather than religion. However, people still do often look to religion for answers. When things are unexplained in people's lives they tend to seek God for an answer. it's almost as that, if you can not prove it, then God must have done it because there is no other explanation for why this happens. At the same time, there are still things that people can not prove, but do not see God as the answer, but more that they just know which is more of an intuition based reasoning. So really i guess our world is really a mix of all these types of thought rather than being just one. What I'm saying is that our thinking in society today is not set in stone quite the way that the early American periods were. I guess i really sort of have some way agreed with just about everyone.
it's Taylor by the way
Wow... just after I left that comment about "it's not an argument" things started getting waaay more heated. I just wanted to say I agree completely with Gloria's latest comment (in response to Paul's). Of course those three groups are going to outnumber just one! And to add: having a religion does not equate to being religious. I for one am Jewish and continue to identify as such even though I do not believe in the vast majority of traditional Jewish beliefs. So I would fall into a 'religious' category in Paul's statistic, and this is misleading. Not only are these groups bunched together to make a larger majority, but they are inflated by this as well.
I'm really not sure why I chose to write more than I really had to, but I just needed to put that out there.
Paul and Gloria make excellent points. However, I think it's pretty clear, that any one of us feels that religion is not completely eliminated from society, simply that logic and reason are used more often. After reading your posts, yes, it has made me question, truly, if religion is as uncommon as we have made it out to be. It is such a major part of the world today; with so many different variations, beliefs, and cultures, I can hardly even speak for it, due to my ignorance of most. I think the reason most of us lean toward believing the world is based more on logic and reason, is because when we view religion incorporated throughout a society, we may refer back to the Puritan Era, where rules were strict, and religion was followed very closely. Obviously, times have changed, and perhaps that's why we shy away from speaking out for religion.
On a personal level, I do believe in religion and have a set of morals and a code of conduct, which I attempt to follow,
but I'm not very relgious.
In addition, how often is it that we accept new facts or information, without proven evidence or reason? If someone tells you the world is definitely going to end tomorrow, wouldn't your first reaction be to inquire, why?
Maybe I should just speak for myself, when I say it's very difficult for me to accept things without cold, hard evidence/facts; probably why I believe that the world is in more of a logical state. But yes, that is very selfish to consider the majority of the world, similar to myself.
Sorry for that :/
I disagree that society will swing back to a romantic view of the world and then forward to a logical realist view of the world because I think that we are in a world with both of those views. For example, I am a Catholic so I believe in those things that cannot be explained by science, yet I learn about the reasons why cells have membranes and organelles. I agree with Abby that our world is a mix of both. We have scientists and we also have monks and priests. I don't think the world now has a specific view like back then. During the Puritan Era, everything was explained through the Bible or from God. Now, we can explain things through reason, logic, and science. It's a complicated thought but we are at the age of reason and also in the romantics age.
It seems that there are many opinions as to whether we are in a romantic view of the world or a realist view of the world. I think that we are actually somewhere in between. There are many different thoughts and beliefs today, and I don't think that any two people's views of the world are exactly the same. There are many people who view the world with reason and want there to be a logical answer to every question and problem. On the other hand, there are people who like the romantics, believe in intuition as opposed to reason.
I think that today there is so much more diversity in the beliefs, and people base there ideas on things that have happened in the past. I don't think that we will end up going more towards either the realist of the romantic views, but rather continue to stay somewhere in between. If this does change, I am not sure that anyone can really predict where we are headed based on where we are now. I don't think that there is really any pattern to it.
Gloria, how dare you hypocritically acuse others of saying the same thing over and over again, when you then said "I think everyone must have been afraid to bring their true beliefs into this because I can’t imagine that all of both honors classes are entirely logical, and that next to nobody will stand up for a religious position." In my second sentence I said "The majority of you... or just don't want to go against the grain on this blog." That's practically an oxymoron to put them both in the same post. You then continued to ignore the fact that I was the one originally who was so upset people were hiding behind the masses, and indeed the one standing up for the religious aspect, and then distort or lie about what I said. In fact, we used the same statistic albeit yours used percentages except when a big number, 1.1 billion, was convenient. I "lopped together" only three of the major religions. For this blog, only two categories are important. I could have made a useful statement by simply saying only 1.1 billion are atheist/agnostic while the rest of the billions are affiliated with some religion. Therefore, your quip about 3 usually outnumbering one is moot because there are only two groups for our purposes. And if you took my quote about living in a liberal region to mean that I thought it was the reason people weren't aware of other culture, you missed the second sentence once again when I said, "The majority of you have either a severely constricted comprehension of varying cultural values OR just don't want to go against the grain on this blog." I said "or" because I wasn't sure why no one was defending religion, and logically assumed it must be one of the two. I'm no expert on political science or world religion or any of that, but I know enough to deem myself more competent to judge the situation than others. This is obviously biased, but I also noted that perhaps some just wanted to satisfy the requirements of the blog by agreeing to make it easier to do quickly-- to negate the bite it somewhat. Obviously I'm allowed my opinions anyway, so I won't apologize. That's enough rhetoric about that though. Point being, I did not state as fact that we are not exposed to different beliefs every day. Be careful if you have political aspirations. You will be torn apart if you attempt to win over the majority's view of whom the victor was in an argument with such unsound logic and sloppy syntax.
I did not see several of these latest posts because they went up while I was writing mine.
I assent that Jon's point about people being affiliated but not being religious and in doing so distorting the statistics. However, one problem with this is defining "religious." Although I see the point, I don't think, to stretch an example, that the Jihadists would very much appreciate our deeming them evildoers because their idea of religion differs from ours and they view martyrdom and murder as tickets to Paradise--that what we view as nonreligious action is the very opposite of the actual essence of it. And while those who are "nonreligious" but affiliated may skew data perhaps notiecably, it would never be enough to say that the world is more nonreligious/logical than religious/(hate to have to say it like this)"illogical," or romantic, or whatever. And while you could argue that many Muslims for instance live in underdeveloped countries where technology is lagging, and that the religious views may shift with added technology, I assert an earlier point that they may not.
whoaaaaaaa Paul....I didnt read Gloria's post so I'm not going to say one side is correct and the other is not, but I can say that this is blog is not meant to be used to argue with each other. Your response was a little too defensive and I think we should all try respecting the views of others a little bit more. It is inevitable that something like this has come up because religion is a touchy subject, especially in school, because we all have individual beliefs. We are a class of opinionated people but when things get out of hand we need to learn to lighten up a bit. I'm not trying to criticize Paul but I just want to end this before it gets worse.
To be honest, I think we're in a religious state. Just because we have a lot of technology doesn't mean that we are only thinking logically. There has always been technology - our is just more advanced and electronic now.
Think about how often religion is brought into politics in our country and around the world (even though it isn't supposed to be...but it is.)
and think about how many people go to church every Sunday, and how many people consider themselves some form of religion. Although many people now question the truth of religion with logic, they are still going to church and having faith in it.
There is a mix of both, but I think religion is still playing a big part in our society.
A good example would be Paul's statistic that shows how many people still affiliate themselves with a religion. and, Gloria, even though the statistic combines many religions, it's irrelevant in this discussion because we are talking about religion vs. logic, not Christians vs. Muslims.
-Molly
I have to add on to Paul's last statement about Muslims, not to further heat the arguement, just to have something to think about. There are many Muslims that live in the United States today that have the same amount of technology everyone else does, and yet they haven't strayed away from their religious beliefs. I watched a video last year in World Civilizations about participation in the Hajj(I might have spelled that wrong). They interviewed many American Muslims willing to participate in such an exhausting task, such as throwing seven rocks at a stone symbolizing the devil. The point is, you can be technologically advanced and still adhere to the most straining traditional aspects of your religion. I can't see technology even depriving the Hajj, but actually helping it. It's allowed them to keep food preserved and water plentiful for the masses. So how can we say that logic will take over some day? The pendulum will never completely reach the side of logic. As long as people have the ability to follow their beliefs, they won't just stop because of scientific revelations. What if someone doesn't want to believe in sciene? And what if someone doesn't want to belief in religion? We have a choice. Even without the freedom to believe in what you want, the world would still be split between relgion and logic. Just look at what happened to religion in Communist Russia under Stalin. Karl Marx had believed in atheism, so Stalin thought to enforce it. He could burn all the holy buildings and kill all the religious officials he wanted, and he couldn't stop religion from continuing to exist in Russia. People still believed it, and he couldn't take their thoughts away from them. How do you think religion in Russia began to thrive again after the atheism movement had stopped? People had to have still believed in religion while atheism had reigned to bring it back. So unless we are capable of brainwashing religious people with scientific reasoning or vice-versa, the pendulum will never swing too far to the religious side or to the logical side.
Alright, since I've basically been reading the same general consensus in the majority of the posts, I'll try to ascend this discussion.
Give me a quantitative percentage of how much logic should influence your day to decisions as oppose to religion. I'm going with a 75-25 for now. I'll elaborate later.
PS - What Paul did was gangsta and true, not mean or disrespectful. He sought to prove his point and he didn't call Gloria a "bitch" or a "tool" like some of the kids in our school would had they felt their argument was misunderstood. It was brutal honesty. Period.
Yes, he agreed that most religion is often "illogical" but just because we have a (relatively) limited understanding of the universe does not mean that we can rely on religion to explain the rest! - John
Why not?
It is not hypocritical to use the sentence that you quoted from me because your second sentence gives an entirely different reason than fear of bringing up you true beliefs. I clearly did not ignore the fact that you were arguing for religion because I was arguing against it. That I happened to agree that people are hiding behind the masses does not mean in any way that I forgot you said it first. I know that religion vs. logic is the main purpose of this essay, and I still don’t think that your statistic proves anything, and I will stand by my “quip”. My statistic may seem similar to yours to someone from your position, but I used it to prove something else entirely. By breaking it down into percentages of individual groups, I am showing that atheism is seriously competing with the other groups as far as world wide numbers go. YOU are the hypocrite for criticizing others for being biased when you clearly admit that you are! You DID clearly state that “We live in a relatively liberal region and are not exposed to both sides of the issue.” And I am totally justified in saying that we are. How can you possibly criticize my syntax when you can’t even spell accuse right? And if by your second to last statement you are criticizing my arguing/debating skills, be aware that you are the one in error, as you are clearly attacking the person (me, and that is called ad hominem) there and not the arguments I made.
Awww it's so adowable to see young Gloria throw a hissy fit. Brings out the best in people ;p PMS, baby!
First, you did not really bring up a new point. Althought using a bit of bias to enforce your argument, it is hardly differentiable from any of the above. That undeserved aura of arrogance you put upon everyone was unwarranted, plain and simple. You're clearly not anyone's intellectual superior, let alone the whole groups...
LMAO. I love how Uncle Paulie obviously made a typo and u hyperbolize a teeny weeny, unintentional spelling mistake to become a reason why he can't criticize your syntax. Let's not even forget the majority of the sophisticated vocab were written spot on, he sure has NO IDEA how to spell "akuze" Wow, talk about delusional clown.
Argumentum ad hominem, eh. Goes to show yet another reason why you couldn't tell content from substance. Might have been an assertive tone, but only an emotional, foolish wreck like yourself would have taken it as a pure, derogatory insult. He was attacking your SUBSTANCE, fool. The condescending manner in the way you stated "hiding behind the masses" like it was a fail on the test of courage or something. This topic is interesting but does it really captivate each and EVERY student on here to fully formulate an original diehard opinion. Nope, not quite. Only a substantial answer was requested, and most of the guys/gals provided them regardless of how indecisive they may have seen.
Thirdly, don't you get it!? You may call my original point out on this one, but Atheism should be regarded into a clump versus the other monotheistic because ONE DEPENDS ON NO GOD and THE OTHERS DEPEND ON SOME FORM OF A GOD. You can add the polytheistic and Pagan religions to the latter too. Different denominations and beliefs, but contextually-conceptually its a dual, not a battle of multiple opponents. You could've just stated it without any backup, and it would've sounded more convincing haha.
But I commend your effort. I love it when peep's blood be boilin'. It ups your curiosity and your passion, and puts you on a path of self-discovery/knowlege a la Max Texera in sports. Don't take any offense to that I just felt like roasting some weasel :)
Sorry, I had typos in my old post. I decided to fix it so your eyes won't bleed.
I don't understand why after I cite Muslims and Christians everyone starts to argue. I just said that people who are relgious are not necessairly idiots and can still be very modern and adapt to technology while still being faithful. They don't need religion to be stupid, most are pretty capable of that on their own.
And Gloria, don't tell Paul that we "have much more of an understanding of a wide variety of cultures than you give us credit for." In this case, I don't think it matters. I'm half Iranian and half Polish, almost as different as it gets, but that doesn't make me right or wrong. And to everyone else, why does the number of Christians and Atheists matter?
And I agree with souljaboy. You all need to relax and not take things so personally. You're missing the point to everything.
I have three things to say.
First, in response to Paul saying, " 'The majority of you have either a severely constricted comprehension of varying cultural values OR just don't want to go against the grain on this blog." I said "or" because I wasn't sure why no one was defending religion, and logically assumed it must be one of the two."
That was logic?!
Just because I am not "supporting" religion means either I am afraid to argue with others or know very little about the subject? If this makes more sense to anyone else than it does to me, please let me know.
In response to Souljaboy's question:
Ok, so we don't understand some things about the world. Would you agree that the creationist view of the world has more or less been proven wrong by science? That hundreds of impossible things are described in religious texts? Well, we've proved that those are wrong, and yet once we relied on them as truth (there were real witches to be killed in Salem!), so why do we rely on other things written in the same texts as truth now?
And last, but certainly not least, in response to Souljaboy's latest comment:
This has gotten WAY out of line! I'm assuming that you're not in either of Mr. Alaimo's classes (because none of us know who you are), but that gives you the right to insult Gloria like that? No, I would not agree that her jab at Paul's spelling was the right thing to do, but isn't the whole text of your last comment far worse? "Hissy fit," "aura of arrogance," and "you're not anyone's intellectual superior?" Those were all from the first two paragraphs (skipping quite a bit, too). If those aren't far more thinly disguised jabs at her than her own (single, less personal one) to Paul, then clearly you must be my intellectual superior (since you use Latin and all that stuff).
To everyone else: I know I've overshot my quota twice now and that didn't have much to do with the original comment, but that REALLY needed to be said.
I don't have much more to say about my own opinion relating on my own topic and reiterating everything I said before would be redundant and unneeded.
Mostly pertaining to the people who believe that religion has a chance of success in time, or that it's an essential mix of both reason and religion (of which we have today), but there's also another part to all this. Corruption in society also influences both sides of this. With religion, I'm sure there are many truthful, honest practitioners of their own religion, but opposed to that, there are people out there who use religion has a way to only benefit themselves, using religion as an excuse to get themselves money, sometimes in desperation. Today, our society is able to "toy" around with religion and different beliefs. I mean, look at Scientology... Overall, I don't find it particularly wrong to believe in religion, it's always good overall to keep yourself in check.
Logic also is able to infringe religious beliefs as it has before. In today's world a not as open issue is pre-birth sex change. There are religions out there that favor a certain sex. But, today, it's possible to actually try to force the gender of babies, which overall doesn't really follow naturally. This shows how much we're able to alter our lives up to today, it's rather interesting nevertheless.
In the end, most people aren't fond of accepting different thoughts and ideas without specific reasoning. It leaves people confused, but there's really nothing wrong with that and doesn't necessarily mean one with a sort of mind can't have any imagination or have fun thinking. I'm a really open-minded person yet my opinions on things rarely change. I question everything and my brother always tells me I over think everything he says to me, and most things in general. Yet, there are a few things that I naturally accept without nonexistent proof.
Well, most of that was probably completely unnecessary, oh well.
I have to agree with the point that our world is a mix of ideas. Back to Mica's point on how our world is a mix rather than a pendulum. She makes a valid point, I mean we have scientists and we have priests and monks too. in fact, in some periods of history monks themselves experimented upon different substances. I feel that this shows how as time progresses and people begin to get a better understanding of the world in which they live, they don't just focus on one type of thinking. That's what's great about our society, we are allowed to think freely and have independent thought where we aren't told to think a certain way, it shows how we evolve as people and as a society.
I would like someone to read the question I have purposed below. (I too agree with Jonathan K that this has gotten out of hand!)
Here is a question we should all ponder: what if religion was no longer a part of society? If you take a look at all religions, there are rules for each religion (I don't know about atheism). For example, the Catholics follow the ten commandments. We have to follow these rules, this is what defines us. If a catholic disobeys the rules then it is considered a sin. We wouldn't have a reason for following the laws if their wasn't any commandments(from a Catholic's point of view). It is similar in any other religion's point of view. We are nothing without religion.
This is why it is important that we must turn toward the Romanticism era in the future. It is vital that we turn to nature to aid us in our problems, personal or world. Nature's powers will help provide energy for people. Many people are overly stressed these days and it is said that too musch stress can make you sick or kill you. So for a person to step outside, is making us more healthy. This is why nature is important to our future. On the other hand, turning to religion will give us more peace in the world. An increased amount of people praying and participating in church will aid us in ending the War on Terror. God will help us if we only become closer to him. As Thoreau is said to beleive, "It is the individuals who must first reform themselves if society is to be reformed."
After reading all the arguments, i do agree that it has gotten out of hand. Many of us have agreed that we think that the mix is the world of both. So doesnt that mean that some people are going to believe the world's more religous and others are going to believe its logical, leading to a disagreement like the one that we have been having? Obviously everyone isn't going to agree, especially with the way the world is today. We aren't forced to believe in certain things and I think that everyone is entitled to their own opinion. I won't judge someone just because they didn't agree with my opinion.
I believe that we are more logical today but religion is still a part of our society. I agree that religion will never really fade and that we won't be on just one side of the pendulum. I think that no matter what, there will always be those people who believe in religion more than logic, no matter the amount of technology that we have. However, it makes me wonder if the world will ever be able to combine the two and no one will be arguing about what one has a bigger effect on society.
I think the world today has both romantic and a logical veiw of the world. The only thing making todays world more logical is because technology is advancing at a really fast pace. With that, many people involved in that rather than finding the true meaning of life. To sum that up, there are more logical thinkers than romantic thinkers causing the world to lean more on reason and science.
I think in the future, we are heading into another romanticism era. Some reasons to back that up is there are still some romantic thinks out there and those number of people are just going to keep increasing. Also, Like Liana said, our world is being affected by fossil fuels and in order for us to restore natural balance, we will have to get closer to nature than ever before.
Wow! I missed a lot in just a short amount of time! I agree with what Athena said about it being just a blog...
Anyways, I still think that we are in a logical era although I am thinking more about how religion plays a role in our lives. Like we discussed in contemp. world history today, like Lianna stated in her latest post, life without religion would be different.
After reading all of the posts, I still believe that our world today is a blend of logic and reason. I think that it is unfair for everyone to be stereotypical and catogorize this period as being logical or realistic. The way our world is today is causing me to believe that at no point in the future will we know for sure where we are. A whole group of people may feel that we view the world logically, but another group can say the opposite, putting us in an undecided position. Since freedom of speech is granted to us in the first amendment, people can say what they feel about this topic. One comment said by one person can change the ideas and beliefs of many. This also goes with the idea that the world will never be stable. It can change from realistic to logical very quickly. Nothing is defnite and I still believe that no matter where we are from here on out, our world can never be correctly classified as realisic or logical.
I think this blog is getting too personal this time. I do have to agree that some people are just going with what everyone else is saying, but you can't really decipher which ones do and don't.
Ok so back to the original question, after having read some of the posts, I do want to say that religion, as I said before is an important aspect in society, and no doubt will be. It doesn't have to replace logic or be replaced by logic though. Even though I think that the society today is more logical just because of its technological advantages, and based on what people learn more of, religion or logic, it can't ever be broken into just one category or the other. It may be that some people may agree more with or just study the logical side more, and others are more drawn towards the religious side, either way is acceptable, and neither is right or wrong. Like I said they can coexist. I don't think however, that the ideas from one can or should be mixed with the ideas of the other one. I don't think, as Jon said, that we should try to disprove the things in, say the Bible, by science, or that we should try to prove science by religion. I think this is because, besides that fact that they are two extremely different topics, religion, or at least most religion was established centuries ago, while science is always making constant progress and being "updated". I think it's simply that religion can't account for the new discoveries, in its own basis and recorded beliefs. Like I said though, neither side should be cast away as being inferior to the other because both are valuable to society.
I think that in time,although not anticipated by many, people will begin to believe less and less in religion. This will not necessarily take place because science will interfere, but just because of the changing times in society, and the way that people's consciences have changed. I believe that this will keep progressing until many of us won't think of things as being wrong that 25 years ago were considered very wrong. This does not have to do with science, and not always with religion. I think that people are influenced by others and take sides, but once again, science and religion on this topic to not intertwine.
After reading a lot of these posts, a lot of people seem to agree on the idea that contemporary literature or even future literature has or will have the theme of logic. I agree, but at the same time, disagree. I agree that our world does seem to flourish in technology at a fast rate, but I don’t see how this is affecting literature. If you read short stories, stories from other countries, and such, you see a pattern of morals and lessons of life being inscribed into the writing through the characters accepting hardships and learning how to deal with them, not stories describing the beauty of machines. I’m not sure where the logic theme for current literature came from and whether it is referring to the scientific articles out there and such. I think regular stories, novels and nonfiction books, which are not all religious or always logical, but do have a pattern, should be considered also.
-Natalia
Woah! This has gotten intense...
Like Sabah had said in her most recent post:
"Maybe I should just speak for myself, when I say it's very difficult for me to accept things without cold, hard evidence/facts; probably why I believe that the world is in more of a logical state. But yes, that is very selfish to consider the majority of the world, similar to myself."
In my post I had said that the world is logical, but like Sabah, I based my answer mostly on my own personal beliefs. My parents have raised me Catholic, but in the past few years I've been questioning a lot of the material I've been taught in ccd, mass, etc. For example, to me, evolution makes more sense than creationism; I don't understand what is so sinful about being homosexual; and why shouldn't a traumatized rape victim be an exception to the 'no abortions, ever' rule? I don't understand organized religion - I'm more of a spiritual person.
Anyways, I'd also like to 'eat my words', if you will, for my first post - obviously I didn't take everyone else into consideration.
I believe that right now the place we are in this pendulum romanticism and logic and reason will not be looked at this way forever. People who lived in the romantic and enlightenment period didn't decide one day, oh well, today's Tuesday, March 1688, from now on lets call our period " the Age of Enlightenment," it was mostly likely named by the generations following that period. After a while we will call this period of mixed romantic and logical views of another name, which will give our arguments a name. The way we head from here can only be determined as time unfolds.
I would definitely would have to agree with what Sabah said, "that any one of us feels that religion is not completely eliminated from society, simply that logic and reason are used more often." I also would like to agree with Guste's statement that religion can coexist, like the monks and scientists that mica mentioned.
Personally,I believe that the reason why we don't tend to bring up our own faith and religious standings so easily is because some of us have yet to discover where we really stand, or where want to stand in this situation, and it is very personal. I
can't use myself as an example for Muslims with good conscience because honestly, i don't find my self being close to an example of what a truly religious Muslim may be like. But i don't believe that being in a western country where logic and reason is used for explanations would change my religious view that much, i also would say that i have a "code of conducts" and a set of morals i believe and and follow. And i would only be able to speak for myself.
You really can't stamp a label describing the view people have of the world because it truly is a mix. It only works, for example, during the time of the Puritans because everyone in society was focused on religion. Nowadays, there are some who only view the world logically, and others who stick to the traditional views of their religion, and all the in betweens. I see that some believe religion still had a big influence in this society because most people identify themselves with a religion. But just because someone filled out a survey and checked yes next to Christian, how much does their religion really affect their life? I would say the influence on religion is fading because even those who identify with a religion don't always believe in all of it. I see Sabah's point when she says she sees things logically because I know a lot of people have a hard time accepting ideas without the facts.
Going back to Guste's post, I don't see why science and religion can't overlap. In fact, I've seen shows on the History Channel that used scientific investigation to give tangible evidence to Christianity's historical origins. This once again shows there is a mixture in today's society. Lastly, though this may be off topic, I wanted to go back to Jon's post when he asked someone if they agreed that the creationist view of the world has been disproved by science - I definitely don't agree. You can trace everything as far back as you want - to the Big Bang Theory, and that in the beginning there was no space and time, just matter and energy. Well, who put that matter there?
In my opinion on this question, I think today we have a logistic view on the world as technology has become a major priority in our lives. Especially, the fact that we use technology to make advances into important fields like medicine and research. With this in mind, it seems that we have not been as focused as much on religion. But who am i to say this especially i don't practice one, but it appears that way especially since now we are given the option to attend religious services rather than in the Puritan society, where you were forced to attend. Their life was based around religion. But now, life is revolving more around the logical instincts.
As a result, I think that we are headed to a society where technology will think for ourselves, not saying that it already hasn't, but overall will have become a lot more developed over time. Rather than using our own experiences to learn from, computers are becoming our "life" and replacing all the things we've used to learn from universally. Thus, religion will end up diminishing and be not as much in existence in the influence of our society, as we are more focused on producing a world of "easier", yet complex technology. Overall, society's view on world has progressed in its influences, but I think that it will swing depending on how we as the people see our society to be influenced by.
I agree with what Abby originally said about how the world is mixed with both reason and faith. I also agree with what Hiten said about our world becoming more dependent on technology, which means that the "pendulum is swinging" towards reason and logic. Like some people said, since everything is becoming more technological it seems as if people aren't as religious as they used to be, which i also definitely agree with. I don't completely agree that religion is starting to vanish because I do know a lot of religious people who believe very strongly in their faith. However I agree with Ally that religion doesn't seem to be as important as it used to be because like Ally said, there's some people that don't even know their religion.
I liked the point that Clarissa brought up that we're always looking for ways to improve technology and make things easier to live our lives and that once people aren't able to turn to logic and reason anymore, then maybe they'll turn towards religion.
I agree with other people that for now the pendulum is more towards reason and logic, but I don't believe that religion will compltely disappear.
its Sara S by the way, I had to change my thing because I forgot my password
THIS IS GETTING RIDICULOUS
just throwing that out there...its just a blog, people
and, just wondering, who is souljaboyrulez?
Anyway....back to the topic
The "pendulum" analogy has definitely held throughout history. Just look back at the Scientific Revolution and the different ages of Faith, alternating from one to another. However, the "pendulum" idea fails to recognize ages that could conceivably be considered logical and religious. For example, look at the ancient Egyptians. They built the magnificent pyramids using science and mathematics we never would have dreamed they were capable of, but they were built to honor the gods and divine pharaohs. The same type of storyline holds true for the ancient Greeks as well. They are primarily remembered as scientists and logical people, but much of ancient Greek life revolved around the gods and goddesses (...like Athena...). How should we distinguish which side of the "pendulum" these ancient societies fall under? If we decide they were more logical, is that simply because we are biased by our own logical time? If we lived during a more religious period, we might more strongly support the faith based side of things. Just something to think about.
We all gots to chill out and wave our cell phones in the air to that TI song "You can have whatever you like."
With that said, I feel all giddy and warm inside whenever a challenge occurs. This time Little Johnny Boy came strutting along, all confident and brave, all brave and confident.. Lol did you watch Full Court Miracle to get yourself hyped for this one? Haha. Don't mean to get too personal (oh wait I do) but why do you identify yourself as a member of Judaism when you don't follow it, brugh.
Alright my apologies, but let's dissect your argument.
"Ok, so we don't understand some things about the world. Would you agree that the creationist view of the world has more or less been proven wrong by science? That hundreds of impossible things are described in religious texts? Well, we've proved that those are wrong, and yet once we relied on them as truth (there were real witches to be killed in Salem!), so why do we rely on other things written in the same texts as truth now?"
- Get off those darn tidal waves and listen up, Johnny Tsunami. As great as science is it is an ongoing process of corrections chock full o' mistakes as well. I'll give you that an Evolution theorem sounds more plausible than an Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden, but like Gracious Banach said Mr. Darwin did not live to tell the whole story. We can examine vestigial features (wisdom teeth and spleen), and the concept of "survival of the fittest". What if a scientist comes along and disproves Darwinism, my good Johnny boy? Tell me, do you know the difference between a phenomenon, a theory, a theorem, and a law? The only thing all four share in common are that they are human-discovered. Read up on that and understand the meaning of all four. Gravity is a natural phenomenom, the Chaos theory is a theory (duh!), and there are various theorems out there. What's the catch? They are not completely proven but serve as temporary ways. Look, I respect religion because after reading the Torah and the Bible, I perceive the passages to be interpreted by the audience's means. Each story serves as an allegory.. teaching life-long lessons that literally take a long life to find out, haha. Your last sentence is trash like Conard's sportsteams. You are willing to COMPLETELY ABANDON AND NULLIFY a text because it possesses some errors (for which God knows could be intentional). Wawaweewa, you'll go nowhere with that attitude, sonny. By your logic, the Republican political party deserves to be eradicated for their mistakes from 2000-2008 (No Libi). Not the case.
And last, but certainly not least, in response to Souljaboy's latest comment:
This has gotten WAY out of line! I'm assuming that you're not in either of Mr. Alaimo's classes (because none of us know who you are), but that gives you the right to insult Gloria like that? No, I would not agree that her jab at Paul's spelling was the right thing to do, but isn't the whole text of your last comment far worse? "Hissy fit," "aura of arrogance," and "you're not anyone's intellectual superior?" Those were all from the first two paragraphs (skipping quite a bit, too). If those aren't far more thinly disguised jabs at her than her own (single, less personal one) to Paul, then clearly you must be my intellectual superior (since you use Latin and all that stuff).
- Aww, don't cry too fast Ms. Kane. This is a debate that touches subjects which we are sensitive to, and it's inevitable that feelings get hurt and that internet elbows are thrown. Gloria got what she ordered with that "holier than art thou" attitude. TallPine served the a la carte dish/diss, and I provided her leftovers. 'Tis all good! And I may or may not be your intellectual superior, but I assure you I'll give you the title of being "a nicer guy." than me. It's awfully cute how you say "DIS HAD TO BE DONE," like it took an ounce of courage to type something to a completely anonymous dude. It's just fun education, plain and asimple.
By the way, I go to NHS, and I'm a well-travelled guy, but I won't reveal my identity yet. I look forward to deep discussions with my fellow peers and peer-ettes :)
WOW!
I think eveyone needs to calm down.
There definetly needs to be some courtesy rules to this blog...
1)No blog wars
2)No criticizing spelling
3)No swearing
etc..?
Its just a blog, let's not create WW3.Also, whoever this souljaboy is, I think your mean commments to Gloria are a little far over the edge, so can we keep to strictly answering the blog question only?
-abby w.
First of all, I just want to say that I totally agree with Abby on this whole blog war situation.
Anyways, back to the question. I think that technology also plays a big part in all this just like what Megan Mapp said. Everyday, we discover something new and we learn more about our world. It also means that technology provides proof like in the Enlightenment period where everything needed a reason. Apart from this, I think the more we learn about our world, the more we tend to believe that there really is something higher and something more powerful. I always ask myself, "Why are we here? How did we even come to be?" To be honest, NO ONE can explain these through reasons and logic. That's why we have religion. Back to my previous point, the world today is a mix of both. We tend to think logically, yet we have a romantic view of the world.
I agree with what Athena said about people being biased about whether we are in a logical or romantic view of the world. I think that it does depend a lot about your own personal thoughts and beliefs. There are many different aspects of our lives that can be looked at in a logical way and other aspects that can be viewed in a more intuitive way.
Technology has made it so that people want an answer to everything. There has to be a logical solution to any problem, and this makes it seem as if we are in a view of the world that falls more on the side of realist.
On the other hand, people have such a wide variety of religious beliefs, and a lot of them are based on intuition, faith, and feeling. This would probably mean that we are somewhat in a romantic view of the world.
This all relates back to my original post, and my thought that at this point in time we are somewhere in between romantic and realist views. I am not sure I could say that we are definitely on one side or the other.
Ok, first off soulaboyrulez needs to chill. I basically agree with everyone, since I think everyone is basically leaning toward the fact that the world is more logical today than religious, for the most part because of our growing technology and our decline in faith. I think this is both good and bad. It is good because our society is growing more scientifically, which is incredible and we are finally making huge advances in the medical fields, etc, but I also think that it's kind of sad that our belief in religion is going downhill. For the past like, thousands of years, religion has been the basis of life. Even whwn we were younger we were taught that God created the world and man and everything we live with today. But now these days technology tells us that this is not true (although I'll stick to the idea that God created man and earth). All these logical ideas just seem to have made life more complicated. Everything used to be decided by God and God was the answer to everything. But now we can't just say God made something to an answer on a test. So even though this more logical time is probably far more better than the past, it still has its cons.
-Nikki
I agree with Crystal. The way you look at life, and different experiences all depends on what type of person you are. Some people look at the world in a logical way, and use science and technology to back up their arguments, while others look at it in a romantic way and base their arguments on their faith.
However, I also agree with Niki, today's society seems to focus a lot more on reason than on faith. We are finding more and more technology, and people get so wrapped up in this new technology that they start to forget their beliefs.
After reading a few more posts, I kind of agree with what Mica and Taylor said that the world is more of a mix of things, rather than it being described as a pendulum. I do agree that the pendulum swings back and forth from faith, logic and reason. I think the pendulum is a good way to describe the world being one or the other, but like I said before I think that the world has both logic and faith (even though some people think that religion isn't as relied on as much as it used to be, which I also agree with) so having the pendulum being what describes both of these things, I don't think is the best way to describe them.
I remembered my password for this username =)
A pendulum is a great way to describe how our views have changed and swung back and forth from time to time. But it doesn’t only swing back and forth between two views; the pendulum can swing back and forth between many different views which is why we have gained so many new insights and knowledge. It is interesting to see that the views change drastically and are usually total opposites. They don’t ease into each other. I think that today in this day and age we are living in a society that has a logical and realist view. In present time it is evident that we are based on the facts. People tend to go off reason and fact by scientists and such. To have a faith based society is growing more difficult because of the technology we have and the insight we have gained which can be proved where as faith cannot. We are humans- we like to know things and be able to believe in them because they can be proved or because there is evidence to back them up. We have gotten so used to being able to prove things that in some cases we may not want to rely on faith to explain things anymore which leads us away from our faith. We as human beings are very curious about things and want to be able to explain everything scientifically which has led to our advances in technology. But I’m not sure whether this view is the best view for us because some things don’t have a reason or aren’t meant to have a reason but we will want to explore it and make a scientifical statement about it.
The last few post I have read have been extreamly interseting.
I agree with Mica about how technology is a big part in our lifes today. What we do and how we solve things are all related to technology. Also, as technology advances even more, I think our view of the world will turn all the way to reason rather than faith.
I also agree with others who said how it all depends on how the person is. If you think technology is great and use it all the time, you probably will use reason rather than a romantic veiw. If you have been a person connected with nature, you will probably anwser situations using things other than your five sences.
I really don't feel as strongly about this topic as some are, but I'm just going to add a few things to my original post.
I don't think either logic or religion will ever be completely absent from society. When it comes down to it, it's impossible to be one-hundred percent positive about what happens after you die, and people will continue to be faithful in religion because of that.
I don't think the fact that our world is very technology-based today is a very strong argument for the logic-based side of things though, because like I said before, we've always had technology. What the technology was fifty, a hundred, or even five hundred years ago was advanced for that time period. Everything may be electronic now, but many years ago things were still advancing rapidly. It doesn't mean that the way we think doesn't still include faith.
I think people have a natural desire to advance on past accomplishments, but also want to believe in something in the places where things can't be proven.
-Molly (this isn't letting me log into my livejournal...?)
I really liked two different points made - Athena gave great examples of how a society, such as the Greeks, were influenced by both science and religion. Also, I like Bianka's observation that when the pendulum swings, the change in views are drastic. This got me thinking about the second part of the question (where are we headed). I really don't know where the world is headed. If I previously agreed that the world is as mix of views, then how will this change into something drastically different? I would like to think that the future will only bring more ideas and discoveries, but this doesn't necessarily mean a world based on science. I do agree with Nikki that the influence of religion is has declined and continues to. I think today there is a large number of people who do believe in the presence of God in some way, but less and less of those fully committed to a religion.
I certainly agree with Bianka. There is not just logic and faith, there are others in between. They are incredibly different and cannot at all ease into each other. We did not just turn from a faith-based Puritan society to the technology-driven society we live in today. Views had to change and opinions had to be formed little by little to get where we are today. That said, if the pendulum continues to swing, is it possible that we may be headed for a faith-based society yet again?
I really like the point that Bianka made about how the pendulum doesn't just swing back and forth between two views, but between many different views. I think this all relates back to what Crystal said, about different people having different thoughts and beliefs. Not everyone one has the same view point about life and the things we experience in it.
Like many have said, today's society is very logical, and it's mainly focused on technology. Although we are becoming more focused on this technology and a beginning to forget about our beliefs, that's not to say that we won't focus on them in the future. Yes, technology is increasing at a rapid pace, but we don't really know what's going to happen next.
After reading through few of the comments made, I have to agree with Bianka when she says how the ideas of society haven't sung back and forth between two points. n Our views of society have changed from the puritan religious-based society--to the age of reason and then to the society based on romanticism. But, i don't believe there is clearly a pendulum, but instead a pendulum of "progression". This kind of refers to Mica's comment on how society has mix of views. Furthermore, i also agree with mica on the point about how there really isn't a clear distinction to how we got here to this world. I too wonder about how the world all started and how it was created, but it basically all depends on how you see it and what you want to believe. For example, most people believe that God was the reason for the creation of our world.
Yee-haw! The lousy know-it-all pretenders (Gloria Cadder) and fake bitc..errr *female dog* (Jon) have left. It's time to engage in some real discussion. Sorry, but those guys tried and failed. It's just justice that I tell them off and rightfully so. Pure, cold justice.
Molly, molly, molly, molly let me see you write that post-y! You too, Athena, go girl! That was a really interesting point you brought up right there. Technology, modernism, and secularism aren't even synonyms of the progressoin of logic let alone the same exact thing! Egyptians and Greeks utilizing insane scientific development for the sake of pleasing the gods. Quite an ironic paradox right there relative to the majority of the previous, presented comments. I'm an American, and because I bleed red, white, and blue I'm just going to make one point which is more or less insignificant. With the tumultuous decline our economy has been facing (which will inevitable lead to reduced privileges on way or the other), do you think an era of faith will arise once again. The thing is, and I mean no offense, but a lot of people turn to spirituality and ethereal thoughts due to discontent in the practical sense. And you know what, they're right! Life's a rollercoaster of emotions and experiences, but the thing is we go to school so we can have a nice job to hate so that we buy shizz we don't even need! May be an overly cynical view but bear with me. Believing in God may provide the hope (it may be false hope, but hope nevertheless) to cope with life's daily, strenuous activities. I mean after a crappy day with 3.5 hours of sleep, don't you just feel like you don't give a damn whether or not you go to school, u just desire to listen to music and lay on your bed. perfectly natural! Romanticism is a sweet idea because it encourages one to be in tune with nature, and ascend ones soul. Look at the Native American tribes, and how free they were. Running with the buffalos, living in meager conditions, but they WERE HAVING FUN one way or the other. I mean, like, who doesn't want to go apesh!t and not dance in the rain! Enlightenment on the other hand is honorable in itself, but sometimes the quest for knowledge demands so much insane thought and devotion that eventually one tire's from it. So in essence everyone above me is correct in stating that a hybrid mix of the aboved abstract ideas will offer the MOST out of life ;) The question is HOW MUCH, WHEN, and WHERE do you intend to integrate those ideas. And remember there are other things out there like hedonism, masochism, sadism, an artistic view, stoicism. Basically, I'm just encouraging you fellas and chicas to expand your mind, your horizons, and live a complete life, and up your personality. Let the Catholics have fun, and let the Atheists preach what they desire. Cherish everything around you.. love winter, love summer, love bumper stickers, love partying love Lil Wayne, Eric Clapton, Cascada, the past, the present the future. Good luck :) And let's stay young, stay hungry, "live love life progress proceed" - Weezy
Souljaboy's firt two responses were spot on. I was tempted to do a follow up to Gloria's rebuttal but he voiced some key points I was going to make--of course in much rougher language than I'd use. I could elaborate on it all further, but I think that at this point it's not even worth it because I'm obviously not going to be able to do much more than I already did to prove (not argue) my point. Plus, I agree that it has gone a bit too far, but I don't regret reacting the way I did because it was warranted and somebody needed to make a stand. Anyway, I hope Souljaboy remains under his mystifying pen name for a while longer so that some one can continue to insert necessary ideas without worrying about repercussion, like a Supreme Court judge who cannot be punished for iffy votes. Well before I get too uppity again I'll go. Until the next relatively docile blog question that morphs into a firestorm, laddies.
After reading through the recent comments I like the point made by Megan when she said that the change in our views not only can be called a pendulum but a “pendulum of progress”. Usually when you think of a pendulum it is moving back and forth but with each change of our views in society I don’t think we move backward; we move forward with every period of our changing views. As to where we are headed? There’s no real way to really know because it can change to anything as we have seen in the past. I’m hoping that we can go through a time period where we encourage new thoughts and new ways of thinking and curiosity like how we were in the past. I would like to see a new excitement in literature and philosophy. I think we are going in a direction, though, with too much reliance on proof and technology. Hopefully the pendulum will swing again and bring forth a new period of views in society which will ultimately aid us in moving forward together as a human race.
Post a Comment