Glacial striations in KCMO :

Following nature's trails: glacial striations from the last ice age (Pleistocene ) in Kansas City, Missouri

DOES RELIGIOUS BELIEF REQUIRE RATIONAL JUSTIFICATION?

DOES RELIGIOUS BELIEF REQUIRE RATIONAL JUSTIFICATION?

KayJATTA

INTRODUCTION:

Religious belief that lays claim to truth must require a rational argument for its justification. Rational arguments for justifying religious belief utilize objective scientific reasoning. In contrast, some religious beliefs or decisions may be dependent on personal nature and emotions rather than reasoning. In such cases, religious beliefs are not grounded in scientific objectivity or the intellect. Just like music, religious belief can be appreciated intellectually or emotional (personal nature).
This paper attempts to examine religious belief from a rational argumentative point of view. I will argue that one’s religious belief in God requires a rational argument for its
 justification. Lack of a rational prove of one’s religious belief defeats any purpose for such belief, in my view.

MAIN ARGUMENTS:

“It is wrong to belief in anything that is based on insufficient evidence”, said Alvin Plantinga. This argument appears inconsistent with revealed theology. Revealed theology as contained in the scriptures largely provides no rational justifications for what it claims. Since most religious beliefs are based on these scriptures, then religious belief invariably becomes a question of faith rather than rational proves.  Therefore, revealed theology about one’s belief that is not based on rational arguments is not justifiable.
 This position is also supported by classical foundationalism and evidentialism.  Classical foundationalism argues that a belief is justifiable if it is self evident, evident to the senses, and incorrigible. That is to say that a belief is justified if it is based on a basic belief.
Evidentialism on the other hand states that a belief is justified only if there is evidence to support it. Perhaps natural theology based on reasoning attempts to fill this evidential
 void in beliefs based on revealed theology. Therefore, St. Anselm's ontological argument and St. Aquina's teleological and cosmological arguments are not adequate
 justifications. David Hume, Liebniz, and John Leslie Mackie all dispute the compatibility of evil with the existence of an all-powerful and benevolent God. 
Therefore, St. Aquinas’ argument that the existence of God is self-evident because it exists naturally in us is not supported by evidentialism. Aquinas’ argument is a derivative of St. Anselm’s ontological argument which states that “something is self-evident if it is understood as soon as the terms are known”. It is important to note however that  Aquina's arguments are largely reactions to or re-positioning of an earlier Greek philosopher, Aristotle's postulations.
William James’ contention that “wherever there is willingness to
 act, there is some believing tendency” also touches on this ontological argument. James admits that “our passional and volitional nature (that is our nonintellectual nature) lay at the root of all our convictions and beliefs”. But Clifford perhaps countered that “belief is desecrated when given to unproved and unquestioned statements for the solace and private pleasure of the believer …”. Huxley may have said it more bluntly when he stood for “…not pretending to belief what one has no reason to belief”. Huxley's contention therefore refutes Alvin Plantinga's argument that "belief in God is a basic belief that requires no further justification".

Perhaps the greatest obstacle to justifying one’s religious belief is the “problems of evil and omnipotence”. The problem of God being all-knowing and all-merciful  and yet
 allowing so much evil in the world, presents a huge difficulty in rational justification of His existence. The presence of so much evil in the world appears to indicate a restriction on His powers. Is this the best He can do? Several scholars have approach this problem in different ways, however. There is a suggestion that "evil is a counterpart to good". That is to say that God could
 not have created good without creating evil alongside it. This argument itself limits Gods powers and undermines the attribute of omnipotence assigned to Him. Another
 argument to counter this contradiction in the existence and nature of God and once religious belief is that "evil is necessary as a means to good". This argument means that evil is not a counterpart of good, but rather a pathway to good. This idea  again conflicts with idea of an omnipotent God. It is also argued in Mackie (pg. 102) that the presence of evil is not about God at all, but rather human free will. Since God has enabled human beings with freewill, the presence of evil is a question of human choice between good and bad. Evil basically, according to this argument is a necessary consequence of freedom. These adequate and fallacious solutions to the problem of evil are far inadequate because they all place restrictions on God's omnipotence. We are still presented with the paradox of omnipotence. "Can an omnipotent God create things which he cannot subsequently control? Or Can an omnipotent God make rules which then bind him?", (Mackie, pg. 104). Therefore, according to John Leslie Mackie, unqualified omnipotence cannot be ascribed to anything that continues to exist through time and space. This appears to imply that the nature of existence itself contradicts the idea of omnipotence. 
 The question of the existence of an omnipotent God is very problematic, at least philosophically. And since one's religious belief invariably centers on this idea of omnipotent God, no one therefore can rationally justify his or her religious belief. Rational justification is however  necessary for any religious belief. Therefore Blaise Pascal's probabilistic argument in favor of the lack of rational prove for religious belief is both unethical and intellectually dishonest. This position is rejected by Clifford as already indicated above.
 
CONCLUSION:

In this paper, I have attempted to argue that one's religious belief  do require a rational arguments for its justification. I have presented a review of the literature concerning the
 philosophy of religion and developed my argument largely from there. I have examined the early theories about religious belief and its premises, particularly the
 existence of an all-powerful and all-knowing merciful God from St. Anselm, St. Aquinas ,and impliedly Descartes . I have also visited the British empiricist  David Hume; John Mackie; the rationalist philosopher, Liebniz; as well as Alvin Plantinga; and William James.
I have argued that the ontological, teleological, and cosmological arguments presented are far inadequate justifications for one's religious belief. I have also presented various
 argument for an against the" problem of evil" and the "problem  of omnipotence. I have disputed Pascal ,Plantinga ,and James's arguments for a rationally unjustified religious  belief. I have argued that rational argument for one's religious belief is absolutely necessary to justify such a belief to rational beings such as human beings. I have rejected Hume's Philo and instead somewhat embraced Cleanthes' humanistic view of the universe. I have largely agreed with Mackie's rejection of an unqualified omnipotent God.

KAYJATTA

PAGE ONE: THE DEMISE OF THE PRINT MEDIA

 

The print media has been in decline for the past several years, largely due to the emergence and growth of online (web) news. Major daily newspapers such as the Rocky Mountain News and the Philadelphia Daily have collapsed, some have filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection, and others such as the New York Times have resorted to mass layoffs to stay afloat.

 A combination of technological advancement in communication, aggregation, and declining advertisement revenue are responsible for speeding up the crisis in the newspaper industry. With the internet and the proliferation of mobile devices such as the I-Phone, I-Pad, Notebook and Net book computers as well as social media such as Twitter and face book; dissemination and consumption of news has become greatly decentralized and diversified. The example of Brian Stelter, the twenty one year old at the New York Times is an epitome of the new direction the media is taking. With an increasing number of people being tech savvy and well connected socially, news generation, dissemination and accessibility is incredibly high. Many of these consumers of news turn to the convenience of the web for news; and for no surprise at all, the advertising dollars follow them there. “Brian Stelter is a robot assembled in the basement of the New York Times to destroy me”, said David Carr. While this statement may sound like a joke, it is a stark illustration of the confrontation between the old and the new media represented by Stelter and Carr respectively.

As the media technology changes, along with consumer preference for news, we are forced to reconsider the meaning and ethics of journalism. The cases of New York Times’ Judith Miller misinformation scandal over Weapons of Mass destruction in the run-up to the Iraq war, the Jason Blair (of the New York Times) scandal over plagiarism and stealing content from other newspapers, and the Wiki Leak scandals over the diplomatic cables have raised serious ethical questions about reporting and the role and nature of reporters. Wiki Leaks founder, Julian Assange, in answering a question from the New York Times’ Brian Stelter defined journalism as “a tool to a goal and that goal is justice”. But Assange, despite his long history of trouble with the law, is also believed to have stolen sensitive content for publication in Wiki Leaks. The Wiki Leak publications were not made with journalistic objectivity and good faith, but they also shattered that age-old power imbalance in the print media. The so-called “New York Times Effect” is suddenly under severe strain as news generation, dissemination and accessibility decentralizes.

Mamadou Maiga - Reuw Reuss

KAYJATTA

Great song !!! I think it was the early 90s, and its was Maiga, Salam Jallow, Mbye Nderr, and Fallou. Yeah, they almost turned our world upside down...

Fallou Dieng - Weex Bet

KAYJATTA

THE BROCCOLI EFFECT:

About a couple of months ago during deliberations on the Obama healthcare plan; Justice Scalia, one of the most intellectual conservative judges of the Supreme Court espoused the "broccoli " analogy. Justice Scalia argued that if government can force people to buy health insurance, then there is nothing to stop the government later forcing people to buy broccoli because of its health benefit. This is called the slippery slope argument-once ca c ause cof action is taken, there is no turning back. At the time I disagreed with the logic of Scalia's argument, but the new law being proposed in New York to ban soda (food) because of its health risks makes me want to take a fresh look at Scalia's argument ....

BRENDA FASSIE singing for Nelson Mandela in South Africa (Vul'indlela / ...

KAYJATTA

fatou guewel sama naar bi

KAYJATTA

LATIN QUARTER performing 'RADIO AFRICA' on TOTP

KAYJATTA

ENVIRONMENT AND DEVELOPMENT:

                                                           Kayjatta

The environment and development are recurring issues of conflict among environmental scientists and economists. The goals of economic development/economic growth often conflict with the goals of environmental protection and sustainability. As a result, a large a body of literature has developed by academia over the years with regards to this discourse about the economic, social, political, philosophical, cultural and physical environmental implications of the impact of economic development/economic growth on the environment.

This paper discusses this topic from the perspectives of the following articles and scholars:

1.      ‘Uneven and Combined Development…’ by James O’Connor.

2.      ‘Third World Critique of Western Environmentalism, by Ramachandra Guha.

3.      ‘The Tragedy of Commons’ by Garret Hardin

4.      ‘Poverty Breeds Over-Population’ , by Barry Commoner

5.      GDP as a measure of economic development and societal well-being.

In ‘Uneven and Combined Development….’, O’Connor explores the impact of modern capitalism on the stability of the natural and social environment. He argues that economic development as a result of industrialization has been achieved at great costs to environmental and cultural stability. But economic development itself has been examined in two contrasting senses. Firstly, economic development is described as “uneven” in the sense that there is uneven spatial distribution of production, consumption, wealth, labor relations and political configurations (O’Connor, 1989). This uneven development has resulted in the dichotomy between country and town, developed and under-developed countries, and generally exacerbated global poverty and inequality. Secondly, economic development is described as “combined” in the sense that industrial capitalism, in its effort to maximize profits combines the most profitable features of development and underdevelopment.

O’Connor argues that the worst environmental disasters disproportionately affect the poor and the marginalized (1989). He cited examples of pesticide poisoning in India and Mexico both in 1984, the earth quake in Mexico City in 1985, the volcanic eruption in Colombia, and the flooding in Mississippi.

O’Connor also explores the spatial origin (source) of pollution and its impact as it relates to “uneven’ and “combined” development approaches.  He argues that because of “uneven development” where industry and population are concentrated in (pockets) of urban centers, the earth’s assimilative capacity is disturbed and pollution and resource depletion results. In a similar way, agriculture (monoculture) and resource extraction being concentrated in the rural (countryside) or underdeveloped areas, the assimilative capacity is disturbed in these areas and the soil resources are depleted as well. He cites examples from Brazil and the Sahel in Africa where monoculture and deforestation (introduced by colonialism) ruined the soil resources so much that recovery from the resulting poverty is still impossible. In “combined development’, O’Connor recognizes the social and economic forms that maximizes profits in a global economy. The movement of people from resource-deprived poor regions (countryside and underdeveloped nations) into industrial towns and developed nations; and outsourcing of capital and technology to less regulated poverty stricken regions are all features of “combined development”.  As a result, air pollution and resource depletion in these underdeveloped nations worsen. Air pollution in the cities of underdeveloped nations such as Ankara (Turkey), Bangkok  (Thailand), Bombay (India), Cairo (Egypt), Caracas (Venezuela), Mexico City (Mexico),  Seoul (South Korea) and Tehran (Iran) for example are much worse than many cities in developed countries; (O’Connor, 1989).

Partly as a result of these global and regional disparities brought about by the uneven and combined impact of industrial economic development, different philosophical, socio-political and academic movements have arose with regards to the relationship between humans (and human activity) and the physical environment. One such movement is called deep ecology. One of the critics of this movement is Ramachandra Guha. Guha welcomes the philosophy of deep ecology, but doubts it fits the underdeveloped nations; arguing that it uniquely fits the American culture. The sole focus on wilderness preservation can threaten economic survival in the underdeveloped nations, Van De Veer and Pierce, 2003). Guha identified four underlying aspects of deep ecology in relation to human/nature interactions, namely:

1.      Deep ecologists subscribe to the idea of a biocentric world as compared to an anthropocentric world where the earth’s welfare is supreme to the interests of mankind. Guha insists that this dichotomy is irrelevant to the real environmental problems of over-consumption and militarization.

2.      Deep ecologists also emphasize the preservation of wilderness and restoration of degraded areas. This, Guha argues ignores the real environmental and economic problems faced by poorer people in the underdeveloped world, and their livelihood is therefore threatened.

3.      Deep ecologists also relate their conceptual roots of biocentrism to Eastern religious philosophies and primal people in non-Western cultures. Guha objects to this claim and argues that Eastern religious sources are selectively cited and lacks the environmental awareness that deep ecologists claim it has.

4.      Deep ecologists consider themselves as the “leading edge” and custodians of global environmentalism.

In addition to these four tenets of deep ecology, Guha argues that there are two fundamental ecological challenges facing the world; over-consumption by the industrialized world and the urban elite in the underdeveloped nations, and militarization; and none of these has to do with the dichotomy between anthropocentric and biocentric world views that dominate the philosophical debates among environmental groups.

Lastly, Guha recommends equity as well as economic and political redistribution of production as an alternative to Western emphasis on wilderness preservation and restoration.

As indicated above, these issues of environment and development can be complex, controversial and in some cases very divisive. Another perspective that contributes to this ongoing discourse is that provided by Barry Commoner in his article “Poverty Breeds Over-Population”.  Commoner is perhaps a neo-Malthusian in that he largely concurs with the Malthusian premises of population growth, although he sees the solutions as more complex. Although technological advancement and its resultant increased food production has changed the Malthusian population equilibrium, Barry Commoner blames lack of economic growth for the population explosion particularly in the underdeveloped world.  Rather than viewing population control as a precursor of economic growth, Commoner views economic growth as the driver of declining birth rates; and he further argues that this has not happened in the underdeveloped world. Increased economic development results in increased higher education and opportunities especially for women, thus reducing birth rate since highly educated women tends to marry later and bear fewer children. Therefore Commoner argues that birth rate is not purely determined biologically, but also socially determined. Partly because of this, Commoner rejects the “Life-Boat Ethics” (earth as a spaceship) concept of Garrett Hardin. He (Commoner) recognizes what might be called demographic parasitism as colonialism and neo-colonialism where the Western world is able to sustain large populations at high standards of living largely be living off of the resources of the underdeveloped nations of Africa, Asia, and eastern Europe.

The connection between family size and infant mortality has been identified by Commoner. This observation is very relevant to the underdeveloped nations where infant mortality is still very high and consequently family sizes are large to ensure the survival of some of the off springs. Also in the underdeveloped world large family size ensures adequate availability of farm labor.

Garrett Hardin’s “Tragedy of the Commons” is an argument for privatization and individual personal responsibility. It could as well serve as a hand book for today’s conservative thinkers. Hardin argues that private property owners are better suited to care for the property, as compared to common (access) property where many become free riders by taking as much as they can while contributing as little as they can to the upkeep of the common property. He argues that the air and water resources are polluted today because they are treated as common property. Hardin’s argument is similar to Ronald Coase’s theorem, however critics of both pointed out that both confused common property rights to ‘open access’ and that in much of the underdeveloped the use of commonly shared property come with social responsibility where the right to use can be lost if the property is not taken care of. Private ownership of land for example as observed in East Africa (Kenya) but also true for much of Africa has resulted in commoditization of land and smaller and smaller subdivisions causing overgrazing, deforestation and depletion of soil nutrients. The resulting environmental destruction increases poverty and inequality.

This above discourse considers some of the leading authorities on the issue of economic development and the environment. The debate is far from settled but the concepts outlined here could help development experts chart a reasonable development strategy that balances the need for economic development and the environmental sustainability.

References:

6.      ‘Uneven and Combined Development…’ by James O’Connor.

7.      ‘Third World Critique of Western Environmentalism, by Ramachandra Guha.

8.      ‘The Tragedy of Commons’ by Garret Hardin

9.      ‘Poverty Breeds Over-Population’ , by Barry Commoner