Tradition and the Cultivation of Critical Reason, Creative Essay Example
Words: 1654Creative Essay
Host: Good morning everyone! We gather again to discuss a particular social issue that faces our
community today. Perhaps you have already heard the news about the scientist who apparently discovered that there is no truth to the supposed existence of a God. She even mentioned during an interview that she had all the proofs needed to support her claims about the said matter.
In today’s program, we shall discuss with four particular individuals as to how they would react on whether or not it would be good for the scientist to share what she knows and increase doubt among religious individuals today or would it better to conceal the facts and preserve the faith of many.
Questioning the need to either cultivate tradition or critical reason is the primary focus of debate that shall be considered by our guests this evening. Please do welcome our guests Crito, Creon, Antigone and Euthyphro who are expected to give good source of understanding as to what should be done by the scientist who has found out about his incredible yet could be socially disturbing discovery about the existence of God.
Good morning to you Crito. Being the one known for your desire to remain loyal to what is safe and specifically dependent on what would be the best for all, what can you say about the need to remain in the ways of tradition against that of the choice to cultivate critical reason?
Crito: Good morning too…
First of all, I would like to say that there is nothing wrong with pursuing research to satisfy ones’ own desire for knowledge. However, when it comes to sharing what one has discovered, perhaps a researcher should first weigh the outcome of the possible release of the information that has been collected. Social norms were basically established in the past based on the culture that the human society has been accustomed to follow. Nevertheless, I do believe that situations change as well as does time. Hence, in accordance to this, there are instances when even beliefs also change. In this world of development, it could not be denied that matters such as new discoveries have become a regular thing. However, most often than not, these discoveries do not touch religious issues. With the onset of the scientist’s discovery on God’s inexistence, it could perhaps turn the world around away from actually believing in God or there are also chances that the scientist would be rebuked by religious groups and individuals. So for me, it could be more protective if the scientist chooses to manage the release of her discovery in a gradual manner that should be accompanied by the right timing. People would be able to accept truths through a gradual approach.
Host: Thank you so much for that enlightening comment. So, you are saying that even though change cannot be avoided, introducing it to the society needs to undergo a specific transition period for people to accept new ideas. However, with what you are suggesting, you are saying that the scientist who discovered the new understanding about God should introduce the newly found fact in a gradual manner thus would not be hurting the social norms in an immediate manner. Am I right Crito?
Crito: Certainly. Remaining in the safe side of matters even when presenting a new idea to the people should be considered as a definite course or path by specific individuals aiming to introduce new sets of understanding to the people hence allowing them to accept the changes they need to make.
Host: Thank you Crito. Do you think Crito’s understanding on how to safely impose new ideas into the social system would actually crate a more considerable effect on the lives of the people hence avoiding any necessary negative situations in an immediate approach? What do you think Creon?
Creon: As for me, God or at least the thought of having one, has kept the generations and civilizations of human individuals under the conceivable law of morality. Perhaps, it is the idea of having a more superior persona existing who has control over everything that makes God a powerful thought that could impose goodness on people. What makes God the central figure of morality is the fact that he is considered by many as all-powerful hence imposing a sense of fear against doing what is bad. For me, it does not matter whether he does exist or not, it is the idea of having a superior being that keeps the communities safer to live in and the people much easier to control. This is the reason why I think that it would be better for the scientist who apparently discovered this matter about God being non-existent to keep the release of the information contained. Surely, this discovery should still be confirmed before it becomes a known fact. Until then, I think it would be better to contain the situation in a manner that only research developers would know about the matter hence avoiding any particular social uprising when the information reaches the wrong crowd.
Host: Thank you for that informative presentation of your idea Creon. You seem to be quite uneasy Antigone. Is there anything you might want to say?
Antigone: Thanks… I do want to say something.
In consideration with Crtio’s position in remaining safe, sometimes changes only happen when people learn of something new. I do think that directly presenting the truth to the people would help them understand what it is that needs to be known. It should be realized that people have their own ways of understanding and they do have their own decisions to make especially when it comes to putting their faith into something.
Letting them know of what has been discovered as a whole would allow them to examine the evidences themselves. This then could help them decide on whether or not to believe on the scientist’s findings. Fearing on what the people might think about or how uncomfortable the changes would be would only make the possibilities of knowing the truth more elusive. I strongly believe that it is important to give the scientist a say and let the people react on the matter accordingly.
Euthypro: I do agree on Antigone’s suggestion. I do understand that Crito is concerned about making safe moves and Creon is concerned about losing control over the people through the imagery of God. However, such fear only imposes a weakness of belief. The inability of one to allow someone to challenge a particular idealism only proves the weakness of one’s faith upon the real existence of a God. It is as if pointing out that they cannot risk releasing new information for fear that the old thoughts might be flooded off due to the fact that they do not have that strong belief on what they primarily trust.
God’s existence being an actual persona or just an idea should be given proof. If incase the scientist does provide dependable evidences about her conclusions, then perhaps the issue on having a real God or not shall be solved once and for all. Nonetheless, if the scientist gives insufficient evidences, then she just proves that God’s existence is unquestionable; but then again, not allowing the scientist to show what she knew and what she discovered would even increase the doubtful ideas about God. The protection that believers like Criton and Creon place on the release of the information only imposes on their inability of give proof on the existence of God and that they do not trust their belief that much so they fear for the possible breakdown of an old-time belief.
Criton: Sorry, but I have to get into the discussion a bit.. I am not saying I do or do not believe in God. My argument was to specifically provide the society a chance to get into the transition period of accepting the changes that the new idealism about God offers. All I am saying is that the society would be able to change if they are ready to accept the new idealisms without immediate pressure.
Creon: In support to that comment, I do think that that lost of belief in God would make morality a boon in the society from this point on and even towards the future. It is the fear of not having a more organized society without the existence of someone who is superior.
Euthypro: There you are… even you yourself said that there would be instances when the “lost of belief of God” would result to serious social moral issues. Right there and then, you confirmed that even you have some issues in believing that a God does exist.
After all, I believe that morality is based on the conscience of one person. Knowing the truth would likely challenge the real essence of morality to humans or strengthen their trust in God in case the proofs of the scientist specifically fail to present the possibility of God’s inexistence.
Antigone: In addition to that, I do believe that it is through presenting the facts that the society would be able to confirm their beliefs. Tradition is good, however, when there is a reason to open up our minds to something new because of the existence of evidence and critical research, then perhaps we should given these aspects of social change a chance. True, it could either challenge or strengthen the faith of people about God. However, not until the discovery is revealed will these “ifs” be confirmed.
Host: Well, it is quite a heated conversation we have here.
And all I could say is that whether it is sticking to tradition or being cultivated by new options presented through critical reasoning, the end decision will always remain on the edge of the individuals to whom the details and proofs are presented to.
Thank you for joining us tonight for the first part of the discussion on how the new discovery about God’s existence should be handled. See you on the second part of the show. Have a great day everyone!
Time is precious
don’t waste it!