Some thoughts I jotted down while waiting to clock out.
If one believes that thinking is what the brain does. One is wrong. Brains do not think. Brains process electrical signals and are the material medium most closely associated with the soul. It is correct to say the soul thinks. In college biology classes, one is taught according to Darwinism. According to Darwiniam, there is no such thing as a soul. . .so, thoughts must be the result of how the brain reacts to the environment. Or, perhaps thoughts are an emergent property of the brain-sort of like. . .what? This makes no sense to me. It's like saying that 'War and Peace' is an emergent property of the ink and paper its printed on. If matter, all that we can see, touch, and feel is all that there ever was and ever will be, as Carl Sagan said, then such abstract principles like bravery, paradigms, theorems, and numbers do not exist, nor could they exist in such a reality. Yet, it seems to me that there is good evidence that numbers, theories, and worldviews exist. Now, it also seems to me that if the worldview called Darwinism doesn't allow for the existence of worldviews, then Darwinism is not quite the best explanation for reality. Yes, there is evidence for Darwinism. There's also evidence for a flat earth. . .ever been to Kansas?
Every effect in the universe must have a cause. So, if one extrapolates to the first instant of the universe's beginning-what was the cause? More importantly, Who caused it? One may think that the universe is cyclical, that everything happens over and over again like a cosmic Groundhog Day. Yet, it must have had an initial starting point. Besides, this is really not answering the question-just putting off the initial Cause a few billion years.
If our laws are not based on a moral principle that remains unchanged throughout history. . .I'm thinking about the U.S. Constitution right now. . .and original intent. . .and is instead based on a subjective agreement derived from societal norms and customs as most colleges teach, and Slate magazine too, then if one follows the logical endpoint of this worldview, one cannot say that 911 was a bad event, terrorists cannot be evil, and what Hitler did was just his preference.
If these same people who don't believe in an objective right and wrong, just preferences, like a preference for an 'alternate lifestyle,' should they be running this country and put in positions of leadership? I think it would be better to have leaders with a better view of reality.
When most Americans define 'freedom,' they say it is the right to do what you want to do-even if it is wrong and doesn't hurt anybody else. This belief is a little ridiculous. If what you do is wrong, then it does hurt everybody else. . .quite literally. Society is just a tiny bit worse off due to your wrong-doing. Everything is not quite as good as it could be. 'Freedom' is the ability to do right without fear of punishment. It's one of the reasons why we came from England.