WHO IS IN CHARGE OF THIS THING WE CALL LIFE?
A question asked since the beginning of conscious thought or maybe even longer, a question that could only be answered by perhaps the dead, (with whom there is no scientific way of proving that they are even contactable yet). A question that it could also be argued is one that everybody at some stage has asked him or herself? This question however, is a question that many of us aren't even sure whether we actually want to know the answer to! But nevertheless, this is a question that is indeed important for many in deciding what kind of outlook towards life that they adopt. So, what is it that we all spend so much time thinking about................ IS THERE ANY EXISTENCE OF A SOUL WITHIN EACH OF US? The length of time, for which this question has been asked, is an indication that it is a question that will surely be debated for a great length of time to come. The beauty of it is in fact that although the answer is probably unattainable, humans shall never tire of talking about it and it is not a question that is solely limited to one single class, race or creed.
Although it is not the aim of this essay to answer the question, it is the intention to explore in depth the idea that humans may in fact not actually have a soul. By presenting the ideas that Richard Dawkins has illustrated in his book called 'The Selfish Gene';(1976), I shall attempt to do this. In so doing, this will hopefully not necessarily convince you that there is no such thing as a soul, but more so question your own existence as well as your own ideas revolving around life as you know it. You may in fact be thinking that you have your views and that is that. But to not be open to this paradigm shift is to limit oneself in such a way that the only conclusion to be reached is that one is simply not a freethinking individual but a product of society and its 'safe'; and conservative ideals.
Some of the points brought up by Dawkins in his writings are ideas that are explored by scientific means and it is in this way that he actually provides extremely valid points to support his argument. Therefore it will be illustrated through this essay that it is in fact possible that we are creatures who have been created through a long and complex evolutionary process and nothing more.
In Dawkins’ novel, he aims to prove how the explanation is not a religious answer but a biological and cumulative natural selection. According to Dawkins, the theory of Darwinism is what changed the mystery of our...
One day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich is not a book about a superhuman. It is not a story about someone who is weaker and more desperate than everyone else. It is not a tale of greatness, nor is it about extraordinary faults. Instead, Aleksander Solzhenitsyn chose to center his story around Ivan denisovich Shukhov, an average, unnoticeable Russian prisoner.
In conclusion, it is possible for science and religion to overlap. Although Gould’s non-overlapping magisterial claims that creationism doesn’t conflict with evolution, it doesn’t hold with a religion that takes the biblical stories literally. Moreover, I defended my thesis, there is some overlap between science and religion and these overlaps cause conflict that make it necessary to reject either science or religion, by using Dawkins’ and Plantinga’s arguments. I said earlier that I agree with Dawkins that both science and religion provide explanation, consolation, and uplift to society. However, there is only conflict when science and religion attempt to explain human existence. Lastly, I use Plantinga’s argument for exclusivists to show that such conflict means that science and religion are not compatible. It demands a rejection t either science or religion.
In chapter one of “The Selfish Gene,” Dawkins speaks about how Darwin was the first person to develop a good theory to answer the question of “why are people?” he goes on to explain how Darwin explained that evolution occurs when a person has the qualities that allow humans to survive at the expense of other individuals. In addition, he writes of how Darwin explains how to pass on genes, generation after generation, through offspring. Everyone knows of Darwin’s theory of evolution, but Dawkins tries to introduce a particular interpretation of the evolutionary process. He believes that evolution should not be studied at the level of singular individuals or groups, but instead at the level of genes. He also believed that there are two main characteristics of genes manifested during the struggle for survi...
Is there such a thing as a soul? And if so, how does it survive outside of a physical body?
With his provoking work entitled The Selfish Gene, Richard Dawkins attempts to answer such questions as he proposes a shift in the evolutionary paradigm. Working through the metaphor of a "selfish gene", Dawkins constructs an evolutionary model using a gene as the fundamental unit of selection, opposed to the more commonly accepted belief of the species as the unit of selection.
Previously, parents quickly taught their children the importance of sharing and considering others’ needs before their own. They expected their offspring to submissively sacrifice incongruent desires and wishes. Parents did not tolerate selfishness from anyone at anytime. Then came the millennials, also called the me generation. The typical millennial, concerned only with his or her own happiness, pursues self satisfaction relentlessly. They only reflect upon their fellow man’s needs when it benefits them. Millennials have been called lazy, selfish, and worthless by their peers. This leads one to ponder selfishness’ roots, how it became such an undesirable trait and whether or not it actually impairs society. Through Atlas Shrugged, Ayn Rand argues the sensibility and appropriateness of selfishness.
According to Michael Polanyi, our understanding of a concept depends in part on the language we use to describe it. Connie Barlow's book, From Gaia to Selfish Genes, looks at metaphors in science as integral parts of some new biological theories. One example is Richard Dawkins' theory about the selfish gene, where he claims that the most basic unit of humanity, the gene, is a selfish entity unto itself that exists outside the realm of our individual good and serves its own distinct purpose. Dawkins looks at the evolutionary process, how DNA replicates in forming human life, and the possibility that there is a social parallel to genetics, where human traits can be culturally transmitted. Dawkins, in the excerpts that Barlow has chosen, uses heavily metaphoric language to explain these scientific concepts to the general public. However, the language that Dawkins uses, while thought provoking, also carries some negative implications that extend beyond his theory. The selfish gene theory has many positive aspects, but its metaphors detract in certain ways from the scientific message of Richard Dawkins.
The information presented in evolution studies must be viewed with an open mind since there is no definite proof or law of evolution. The dilemma boils down to science vs. religion. God has been our creator since beginning of time, but the discoveries of recent science are sudde...
Anyone with even a moderate background in science has heard of Charles Darwin and his theory of evolution. Since the publishing of his book On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection in 1859, Darwin’s ideas have been debated by everyone from scientists to theologians to ordinary lay-people. Today, though there is still severe opposition, evolution is regarded as fact by most of the scientific community and Darwin’s book remains one of the most influential ever written.
In a time where science and materialism reign, the topic of the soul is rarely mentioned, ostensibly left in the past with the philosophers of old. Nichols, however, candidly broaches this difficult topic and gives new life to the argument that humans do indeed have an immaterial, immortal soul. Nichols summarizes several popular arguments for the existence of the soul as he builds his own argument, which discusses a soul as limited in relation to its environment as well as a soul that is one with the mind and a controller of the body. He discusses both the strengths and challenges to his argument, offering rebuttals to the challenges. Because this soul is the organizing principle of the body it is involved in the Resurrection as well, bridging the gap between the material and spiritual worlds. However, I disagree with Nichols’ assessment, instead choosing the side of materialism where an immaterial soul does not exist.
The Microsoft Encarta dictionary defines greed as "an overwhelming desire to have more of something such as money than is actually needed." This definition cannot be argued with for it is plain and simple, giving the essence of the word. But to millions, perhaps billions of people, greed is something else. Some people portray greed as being qualities of the evil, selfish, and corrupt. Although these viewpoints may be partially true, greed cannot be condemned as solely being an escapee of Pandora's Box. Let us agree that greed is pursuing actions guided by rational self-interest. This means that anything outside food and water acquired at the cost of anyone else, no matter little they are affected can be defined as greed. Greed is a driving force of the world's wellbeing; all attempts to eliminate greed from humanity have ended up as disasters. Nearly all inventions of today and days past are the offspring of greedy people. Most jobs and societies are created because of greed since it is a motivator and pushes people to try and do their best. It is greed that encourages the consumer to purchase the best product at the cheapest price, thus creating market forces that help in eliminating inefficiency and waste. Greed is an asset to humanity, a tool that some are able to embrace and prosper by better than others.
Dawkin proposed memes theory by looking at the genetic evolution process and question whether there is something that happens beside genetic evolution
The evolution theory, one of the most significant theories, laid groundwork for the study of modern biological science. This theory has lead scientists into unending debates due to lack of empirical supports. Until the mid-eighteenth century, when Charles Darwin came up with an explanation to evolution, scientists, then, began to endorse this hypothesis. In “Natural Selection,” Darwin explains the natural selection, a plausible mechanism that causes evolution, to gain approval of his cynical audience for his evolution theory. He supports his claim with numerous examples of animals and plants that have developed traits beneficial for survival. A century later, Stephen Jay Gould, influenced by Darwin’s work, supports the evolution theory with a different method. In “Evolution as Fact and Theory,” Gould, in contrast to Darwin, criticizes his detractors, the creationists who believe that every life form is the creation of a supernatural being, to reinforce the validity of the evolution theory. Gould undermines creationism by emphasizing its misused concepts of theory and popular philosophy, proving that it is not science. Besides denouncing creationism, Gould also provides theoretical examples as evidence to prove evolution is a theory. Despite their different approaches, both Darwin and Gould effectively prove the existence of evolution.
Greed Greed is a selfish desire for more than one needs or deserves. Greed can make honest men murderers. It has made countries with rich valuable resources into the poorest countries in the world. We are taught it is bad and not to practice it. But consider a world without greed, where everyone is as sharing as Mother Theresa was. The progress of humankind would be at a standstill. Greed has given our society faster travel, better service, more convenience, and most importantly, progress. Greed has created thousands of billionaires and millions of millionaires. But why is greed associated with evil? In their day, most capitalists like Cornelius Vanderbilt and John D. Rockefeller were depicted as pure evil. Vanderbilt stole from the poor. Rockefeller was a snake. But the name-calling did not come from the consumers; it was the competing businesses that complained. The newspapers expanded on these comments, calling them "robber barons." These are inaccurate terms for these businessmen. They were not barons because they all started penniless and they were not robbers because they did not take it from anyone else. Vanderbilt got rich by making travel and shipping faster, cheaper, and more luxurious. He built bigger, faster, and more efficient ships. He served food on his ships, which the customers liked and he lowered his costs. He lowered the New York to Hartford fare from $8 to $1. Rockefeller made his fortunes selling oil. He also lowered his costs, making fuel affordable for the working-class people. The working-class people, who use to go to bed after sunset, could now afford fuel for their lanterns. The people, who worked an average 10-12 hours a day, could now have a private and social life. The consumers were happy, the workers were happy, and they were happy. Bill Gates, CEO of Microsoft Corporation is another example of a greedy person. He is the richest man in the world with about $40 billion and he continues to pursue more wealth. Just because he has $40 billion does not mean the rest of the world lost $40 billion, he created more wealth for the rest of the world. His software created new ways of saving time and money and created thousands of new jobs. Bill Gates got rich by persuading people to buy his product. His motive may have been greed, but to achieve that, he had to give us what we wanted.