There are a few typos and the presentation could use some work, but the writing is paced well and the ending is excellent. I do like how you try to present both sides equally even though the writing does betray a bias against an atheistic meaning for life.
My first issue: You present it as a Christian view against an atheistic view, when really it is a theistic against atheistic case. Although this difference seems minor, it is an important distinction because not all theists are Christians and to say otherwise is a gross distortion of reality.
My second is that you present the atheistic view as bleak and hopeless, when in reality it is meant to make life all the more precious. The view that life didn't have to happen, that humans don't have to exist, and that any given person is the sum of billions of atoms all working together. To think that the existence of any one of us is so unlikely, and that we only have the one life, means that we must make the best of our transient existence and find meaning for ourselves and creating a legacy. That is a secular meaning for life.
Anyone who says that we are *nothing* more than an arrangement of cells, someone who does not discuss the capacity for emotion, for art, for legacy, fails to understand what it is to have a meaning for life.
I would agree that human beings have no *assigned* purpose and that Satre, another existentialist, was right when he said "existence precedes essence." We exist before we have a reason to. That is atheistic existentialism.
Your writing is clear and to the point, with a rather nicely managed introduction. Although I personally disagree with you on a few points, your logic is not flawed and your ideas are a natural progression from your basic definitions (such as what is wisdom and what wise science would not do).
I am of the opinion that wisdom is simply one's ability to learn from their mistakes and the mistakes of others. This involves anticipation of problems as well as the surmounting thereof. Science is an attempt to learn more about our world, experiments begin with this idea paired with the idea of making the world better. Scientists make mistakes, everyone does, what matters is that scientists try not to make the same mistake twice (for example, scientists will likely take extra precaution to not allow another genetically modified creature like the killer bees to escape in the future). If science does not attempt this due to moral issues, then by the time the discoveries that could have been made are useful, they might not exist. I am not saying science should be free to do whatever it wants, I am saying science should only be limited by the practicality of what it is attempting to do and the consideration of societal stability.
Fairly well written, but the key to this work's rating is rather the presentation and thought processes behind it. The secular discussion of moral reasoning is well paced and well thought out. That is the end of my review of the writing, now for the content:
The first point brought up, regarding how science should be tempered by moral reasoning, is spot on. Personal point of interest: the technology discussed should be moved forward because if science as a whole moves on with the technology, then those wishing to use it to malicious ends will be tempered by those using it for philanthropic deeds. In short, if science is held back then only criminals will have the most advanced and dangerous of technologies.
As for how to make moral reasoning popular, that is a matter of demonstrating that morality is not put down in stone, but the formations of it are. Rather, the foundations of morality are based in evolutionary stone, but the acts deemed moral are mutable and require constant examination.
All in all, very well written and thought out, I look forward to reading more.
Your essay is, although perhaps flawed in the argument, presented wonderfully. Your diction and syntax are of good quality and your ideas are presented very clearly, in such a way as to render any misinterpretation nigh impossible.
As for your arguments themselves, although your reasoning is sound your basic assumptions themselves are not. I will concede the idea of morals as commands for the sake of brevity, so here are my problems with your arguments that you may wish to consider addressing in order to strengthen your essay.
The primary assumption, the one upon which your point hinges, is that the God who commands morality is the same you are talking about. I can't help but wonder, why is it the deity who commands such morality has to be the God of which you speak. Humans have imagined more different deities than there are Christians in Texas.
You mention that without morality there would be no laws. The problem with this is that you assume laws are made to enforce morality, rather than order. The point of a government is to maintain order in populations larger than 150 people. According to Michael Shermer, the first governments were made because people had trouble maintaining basic morality in groups larger than 150 people. As such, the reciprocal altruism society depended upon for stability lost its hold and laws had to be introduce to fill that void. Thus laws of society would stay in place even if individual morality would crumble.
Another point where, although not a flawed assumption, is incorrect. Humanism is not about personal preference, but rather alleviating suffering. This is not from personal preference, but rather with the goal of creating a stable and pleasant society, thus a goal that can appeal to altruistic individuals who simply enjoy doing good deeds and misanthropic individuals who are motivated by self interest. Humanism is universal and does not fall to opinion to find its support.
My final problem (at least of those I will list) is that you say moral laws. I have a problem with this phrase simply due to the absolutist moral philosophy it stems from. For absolutist morality, which focuses upon actions as good or evil, an authority is required in order to say which actions are condemned. There is however an alternative to that, consequentialist morality, which depends on no authority and defines good as attempting to alleviate suffering.
Although I do have a few more problems, I think these will be sufficient for one review. I hope these points are ones you can bring up and perhaps demonstrate as fallacious in order to make your point stronger.
Excellently done here, I quite like your introduction: Do people meet by accident or they just meet to implement an already set scheme? A question to which some people might have a definite answer. Some others might start to think about it revising the different relationships they have with different people in their life, imagining what would or would not have happened, what would or would not have changed if they have not met them. Still I know the hearts of some others are tenderly touched by this simple, yet confusing question.
The story is intriguing so far, I especially like how easy it is to identify with the character's mood. I hope to read more.
This poem is interesting. This is the first time in a while I have seen the ABCB rhyme scheme used, nicely done on that. I also like the message of the poem, one of a friendship possibly becoming more but also possibly not. Very nice, I enjoyed reading it.
This poem flows well. The words blend together nicely and overall it just sounds good. I like the message of the poem as well. I like how you talk about how you aren't thinking about the person and give the excuses even though it is clear you are thinking about them. Nicely done.
An interesting plot. You start it off slow, with a very well detailed description of a Starbucks. You have it build pace slowly, the pace not increasing too quickly but still the increase is noticeable. You put in a nice reprieve from a serious plot while at the same time pushing it forward.
** Images For Use By Upgraded+ Only **
If you are stuck you may wish to contemplate what happens when Ray joins the site, as he probably would while fearing that he only has two days until the 'consequences' come into play.
This is a very good poem. I like the flow and the dramatic feel of it. The images are vivid and interesting. I also like how you left it open to interpretation. The division into stanzas is also good, it makes it easier to read.
I like how you talk about your happiness in the relationship compared to how you feel outside of it. I find it interesting that you touched upon the idea that if you give people what they want they will not be as happy as when they wanted it. Nicely done.
I am quite surprised. You started with a hakneyed topic, but then gave it an interesting twist. Instead of lamenting at length about your pain and how much you care for that person, you talk about how you will continue to care for them. You talk about being selfless and helping them despite everything.
Praise first. This is an interesting piece, although probably better suited as an essay or the like rather than a poem, you did well making it such. It seems like you put quite a bit of thought into this, I especially like how you used dollar signs instead of the letter s in the word excess.
Now for my problems. I honestly had no problems until you brought up impeachment. Even then, I didn't have too much of a problem. It is where you say Bush and Cheney are the "REAL Axis of Evil" where I become infuriated. I don't like Bush, I wouldn't have voted for him either time, but just because you don't like the way he does his job doesn't mean he is evil. I don't care if he lies, he is a politician, it comes with the position. He isn't evil. If you said he was a fool, yes. If you said he was decietful, yes. But saying he is evil is to say that his actions were out of a desire to hurt this country. I doubt Bush wanted to hurt America, he did what he thought was best and more importantly what the American people wanted. After September 11th, 2001 the American people were scared and angry, we wanted revenge and Bush decided to give us just what we wanted (instead of what we needed). Why else do you think Congress applauded Bush when he said "You are either with us, or with the terrorists". Why do you think the Patriot act stood a chance. My point is this: don't call Bush what he isn't. Petition for his impeachment if you wish, but don't do it based upon the idea of his malevolence.
Overall, nicely done. Though again, it would probably be better as an essay.
This is an interesting piece. I like how you had the ominous overtones without becoming oppressive with them. I also like how you built up to your point. What I don't like is how you are trying to scare people back into faith. Fear, though powerful, is a very bad way to convince people to do something. Yes it works, but it degrades the benevolent values of what you are trying to turn them towards. It is something that was quite common with the Puritans of early America and it was common practice in medieval Europe. Also, what do you say to the people who, like me, don't fear Hell and are not scared by the potential to go there? Anyway, this is pretty well written.
** Images For Use By Upgraded+ Only **
Printed from https://www.writing.com/main/profile/reviews/scriptorumbrae
All Writing.Com images are copyrighted and may not be copied / modified in any way. All other brand names & trademarks are owned by their respective companies.
Generated in 0.21 seconds at 1:59pm on May 05, 2024 via server web2.
View Portfolio
Visit Notebook
Send Gift Points
Awards
Badges
Send Email
Community Newsfeed
General Discussion
Sponsored Items
Book of Trinkets
Static Items
Books
Groups
Interactive Stories
Audio
Campfire Creatives
Community Notes
Crossword Puzzles
Documents
Folders
Images
In & Outs
Madlibs
Photo Albums
Polls
Product Reviews
Quizzes
Survey Forms
Web Pages
Word Searches
The primary assumption, the one upon which your point hinges, is that the God who commands morality is the same you are talking about. I can't help but wonder, why is it the deity who commands such morality has to be the God of which you speak. Humans have imagined more different deities than there are Christians in Texas.