Intellectual discourse

One of my favorite quotes is when Richard Dawkins described how evolution made one "an intellectually fulfilled atheist". Here is the quote.
I can't help feeling that such a position, though logically sound, would have left one feeling pretty unsatisfied, and that although atheism might have been logically tenable before Darwin, Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist.

In fact, I believe that atheism is logically tenable, but it is impossible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist or theist. Why? Because however many people want to say we have the ultimate answer, we do not. Although you have probably been through this many times if you are familiar to the god debate, I feel a refresher would be nice.

How were we created? Evolution
How did the first life come to exist? Abiogenesis
how did the planet come to exist? Core accretion.
How did the universe come to exist? The big bang
What made the matter in the big bang? It existed eternally, or for infinite time. Sometimes quantum flunctuations are put into this explanation.

But we keep going back, if somebody invoked an idea like the multi-verse that existed eternally, then how could this have existed eternally? Why does it exist in the first place. Does it "just" exist. Furthermore, why are the laws of physics the way they are, why are they not crafted differently. Furthermore, why is their existence at all? If their is nothing, how is existence added, which is an attribute. Quantum Flunctuations is another law that "just exists". If you attempt to explain why Quantum Flunctuations exist in the first place, then you must exist why those laws exist which caused quantum flunctuations, and so on and so on. It may appear that I am making an argument for god, but how could even a god exist for eternity. God is supposedly inttelligent, how did he gain his intelligence? Did he just, have his intelligence which is also an attribute for no reason at all. How is god eternal yet still thinks which requires time? No, god is a fully human explanation that does nothing but add more complexity to these deep questions. Basically, infinite regress takes place in almost all laws of reality, causing reality to become ultimately illogical. In fact, it causes everything to become illogical. One cannot be an intelectually fulfilled atheist, although atheism is more logically tenable then religion. However, we must all take a break from the god debate and remember that neither religion nor science can explain the mystery of reality...yet.

Deontology, a moral philosophy which has emphasis on duties and rules, often is connected to religious beliefs. However, deontology is often practiced by more liberal religious people, and many non-philosophers practice deontology without knowing it. First of all, here is how you know if you have a deontological moral world-view.

When searching the web, I came across a thought-provoking image that interconnected spirituality, science, and philosophy. I could not help looking at the site below it, which offered a well-written out, well-reasoned article that discussed how religion, philosophy, and science all were trying to explain the same thing: the nature of consciousness. I agree with most of the points that the author made, but when he tried to explain how religion believed in the "oneness" of god I could see his logic is flawed. Quoted from the article
"It will come across as a shock to many people and also seem like an unbelievable idea but the truth that lies at the heart of all World religion is the notion that a person's real identity is ultimately God. God is given many different names. In Hinduism God is called Brahman, in Christianity God is the Logos or the Christ, in Judaism God is YHWH, in Islam God is Allah and in Buddhism the equivalent term is the Void. However in all these great World faiths, when we explore deeply into their history and esoteric traditions then we discover a recurring theme. And this is the idea that our real nature is really that which is called generically God."
Really? Although the author made good points about the relationship between science, philosophy, and possibly a new spirituality, he really did not seem to grasp religion. The three major monotheistic religions do not believe our personal identity is god, rather they believe in
"the lord", a creator of the universe. Sure god is supposed to be everywhere, but he is also supposed to have created the universe as a whole. The "oneness" that the author speaks about is much more relative to Buddhism then any theistic religion. The author precedes to connect the theistic religions supposed idea of a "oneness" of god into quantum mechanics, which he does well, yet religions do not believe in a oneness of god but rather a supernatural creator. Why are their superstitions and the believe in the supernatural as the supernatural will transcend the "oneness" of the universe. To me, this article has strong arguments for pantheism and a supposed universal oneness. But he never even speaks about the supernatural, which all of the major religions do extensively. At the end of the article, he shows an image connecting philosophy, religion and science. What does this mean? In my opinion, the best tools we have for analyzing the issue of consciousness and the mind are philosophy and science. Once science and philosophy discovers the answer to these questions, a new spirituality must inform the public upon their teachings instead of monotheistic religions who tend to separate themselves from science because of superstition. This is the link to the article, which i recommend you read, although the part about monotheistic religion integrating into science should be read with skepticism as it betrays the tenets of their faith that a supernatural being created the universe.

http://www.iawwai.com/UnificationOfRSP.htm

Yesterday, I was told that the word "zeitgeist" was "too old" to be used nowadays and was a "70s word". However, the word is extremely useful as it is the only word that fully expresses the evolution of morality. In the world today, morality is at a huge standstill mainly because of th right-wing religious right who would like to have 18th century morals in a 21fst century world. However, I predict that the zeitgeist will move on, however slowly and the world will become a better place. Lets look at some moral issues and predictions I have.

Gay marriage- Gay marriage in all 50 states is something that almost half of Americans oppose today! However, just like any of the other civil rights movements, like the women's suffrage movement, or the african-american rights movement, the gay marriage movement will eventually be successful. I predict gays will have marriage in a majority of the states by about 2025, and all of the states by 2030.

Abortion- Although women are legally allowed to have abortion, their is still a huge amount of opposition to abortion in general by the conservative society. I predict this opposition will dwindle by about 2018.

Stem- Cell Research- Although Barack Obama has passed a law legalizing government funding of stem-cell research, it is still very limited. However, Stem-cell research is another ethical abortion-like issue that is opposed vehemently by many conservatives so it is not likely it will be completely funded until 2035.

Although their are other issues like genetic engineering and waterboarding, I wish to predict further issues that we must be eqquiped to handle.

Cloning- I see this as the biggest issue coming up for humanity. If we overclone, clones could possibly take over the workforce and it will be quite easy for the Earth to become overpopulated. Clones could result in a loss of biodiversity and the "best" genes could always be picked for a certain job. A sense of individualism could possibly be lost and all positive qualities about a person could be "cloned" and made better. Cloning does have some benefits of course. We could emply brilliant clones to advance science, powerful clones to work labor, and other clones to do household jobs. However, these are all taking up jobs of actual humans, and like I said could result in the loss of biodiversity. I would much prefer to have artificial intelligence do jobs for us.

Artificial intelligence- Unlike clones, robots and computers would not result in a loss of biodiversity, although they could result in a loss of jobs. The computers could work hundreds of times more efficiently then humans, and eventually humans may be able to integrade some of the properties of artificial intelligence into themselves. This will probably be a huge ethical issue. Can we become robots ourselves, becoming smarter and healthier at the expense of losing some of the intangible qualities of a human?

Their are many more ethical issues probably that I have not foreseen , and i appreciate comments concerning my writing and other ethical issues that may rise up in future years and ways we could handle them.