Long Argumentuments: Shermer's Stand And The Long Argument

Throughout the history, humankind was consistently concerned with the basic nature of the human beings. Consequently, there has always been a debate on the attitudes of the philosophers and scientists towards competing ideas that whether humans are intrinsically good or evil, whether humans are natured or nurtured, whether humans are fundamentally selfish or altruistic, whether it is all about our inner states that make us to behave in a certain way or it is mostly associated with external factors such as our environment that shape our identity. In this paper, compelling arguments of the above-mentioned different schools will be analyzed, evaluated, discussed and concluded. The initial school of thought suggests that, humans are inherently bad, selfish and egoistic beings. Origin of this view roots back to ancient times.

Nowhere in The Natural History of Religion does Hume’s explicitly speak in favor of atheism (perhaps due to the fear of persecution at the time), and yet, I would categorize this work as atheist. Hume strategically places monotheism or “theism” in contention with polytheism, leading the reader to assume that one would eventually prevail, but instead, he picks apart at both until readers are left questioning their own faith and wondering what a more rational alternative might be. In sections 1-5, Hume discusses polytheism and its origin. In sections 6-8, Hume discusses how we transition from polytheism to monotheism, and finally, in sections 9-15, he compares and contrasts the two, pointing out weaknesses and flaws in both. Throughout the book,

How we came to be on earth has been one of the most debated topics of all. Many theories have been created to help show where we as humans have evolved from. Each of the theories that have been produced are very different and unique and explore a range of different aspects , that can suggest how we as humans came to be on this earth. Some theories are based on scientific discoveries whilst others are based on religious beliefs. Three of the most well known theories are: Darwinism, Lamarckism and Creationism.

It demonstrates though we are all human we have a different set of attitudes, values and beliefs. This is due to the ultimate questions that we choose to ask as it shapes our behaviour for better or for worst. A Star Trek: Voyager episode, Distant Origin explores this, two Voth called Forra Gegen and Tova Veer, are scientists and archaeologists trying to discover the truth about their origins. They make a discovery that is the evidence that proves they did not originate on their ‘home’ planet but elsewhere. To receive recognition of his theory Gegen must bring his evidence in front of the Ministry of Elders, who believe in doctrine, subsequently they are extremely religious and strict on their views.

The authors point out that “much of the criticism leveled against sociobiology appears to target a straw man (148).” What the authors mean by this is that many sociological critics of sociobiology, who are ill-informed about its fundamental principles, wage critiques against sociobiology that are unfair and misguided. They misunderstand—or ignoring—the research in support of sociobiology. And thus their warnings against its dangers are not grounded in reality, nor addressed to sociobiologists, themselves; but to their own false, or misguided understandings of what sociobiology actually is. -----------------

Introduction: Charles Darwin's revolutionary theory has changed the way we see society, ethics and religion. It has cause multiple problems within religion. What Darwin directly challenged was the view that God had originally created all species of plant and animal life, just as they exist today. The ongoing debate about the most valid perception of the world's origins has troubled both the scientific and religious communities, causing, in many cases, intense conflicts and misconceptions. The goal of the current academic essay is to investigate the compatibility between the scientific theory of evolution and the christian beliefs about the origin of human kind.

We beginning to cross the threshold of what it currently means to be human, if can define the term, by redesigning ourselves in our own image. Manipulating our genes and minds to give us favorable traits and remove the biological and physical limitations humans today posses. Transhumanism is a controversial issue in that there are those who are passionate and eager to move forward in the direction our

Since Edmund Gettier published his work on justified true belief as knowledge, there have been a plethora of philosophers poking holes in his theory while attempting to discover alternate solutions to his theory. Linda Zagzebski is one of the many philosophers who criticizes and attempts to resolve the Gettier problems in her article, “The Inescapability of the Gettier Problems,” providing concice reasoning as to why they are truly inescapable. According to Zagzebski, the contradictions between reaching the truth via the correct casual connection and the use of warrant, or justification, for obtaining truth are the root issues of the Gettier Problems, and knowledge can only be obtained by means of meeting certain conditions. One of the key

When looking at the debate between Naturalism versus Christian View, focus is on how did we get where we are today with complex thoughts and behaviors. Naturalists look at this question from the aspects of everything just coming into being through natural occurrences. For a Naturalist, they like to look for scientific evidence to back up their idea that the universe came together through evolutionary principles over time. One question that Naturalists have a difficult time answering deals with the conscious. What is a conscious and why do we have it?

Hence, my stance in this argument is clear-cut. From my observances and readings, I take a strong stance supporting the notion that racism is something that is socially learned and nothing more. In supporting this notion, I will first address the term “racism,”

For as far back as history can see scientists have been working to uncover and categorize different organisms as they relate to groups we are currently aware of. One of the many conflicts with naming newly discovered groups is that our system for classifying is still developing. There are blurred lines and special exceptions that make scientists question what really determines a group of organisms as it’s own species. When discussing distinct species what most commonly comes up is the factor of reproduction, more accurately reproductive isolation. They are able to interbreed with individuals in their species, but produced infertile offspring when mating with other closely related groups (Cawley, 1).

The evolution theory of Charles Darwin will continue being stronger compared to the traditional religious beliefs of creation. Among the many diverse issues in a society with intense controversy, the ongoing conflict between religious segments and the world of science is underscored. In this view, the following argumentative essay will scrutinize this debate between creationism and evolution to show how the later holds more weight and worth believing. The theory of evolution has proved that the creationist beliefs, as well as their denials, tend to defy logic, reality and science. Science can be considered as an intelligent understanding of phenomena while religion is more of a blind belief.

Discrimination is an unseen weapon used by today 's generation. America herself has become extremely prejudice without acknowledging the consequences of her actions. Although America is not deliberately following the ways of her past, her uncanny behavior is only worsening the discrimination she swears to rid have herself of. Consequently speaking America has attempted to rid herself of her past misconceptions, she has mistakenly given her past discriminated victims more rights than everyone else. Living in this beautiful country I have come to realize that our government feels as if they need to make up for our past political parties mistakes.

I agree with Snyder’s argument, a point that needs emphasizing since so many people believe that mascots were created to be offensive. In a different source, Broecker questions why Native Americans don’t look up to the names