Existentialism does not play nice with others

Just a brief thought: if it's true that we define our own realities, then I think that conflict with others must be unavoidable. It's difficult to live harmoniously with others if everything that is true or good is merely relative. How can we learn to live in harmony with one another if my judgment of what is moral differs from my neighbors?

Debating consistency between rationality and God

On my drive home from Myrtle Beach last night I finally listened to the full debate "Does Science Refute God?" a debate that has been replayed on NPR multiple times in the last few months.

I think that the question in the debate can be better stated as "Is the idea of God incompatible with reason?" This is important, because it seems that most debates over God's existence usually entail making God work consistently with science, but I always get the impression that the word "science" is being misused. People arguing for the existence of God probably appeal to science because of a perception that science is more important and perhaps fundamental than reason.

However, science is based on a structured and rational background, so it seems to me that the two camps are fighting to either keep reason and God separate or to integrate God into the existing rational world-view. (Here, I by rationality I mean the exact same thing as reason.)

Kuhn on the cost of intellectual pursuits

"Anyone who has wrestled with a project like mine will recognize what it has occasionally cost them."
-Thomas S. Kuhn, "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions," p. xii.

Equality and ability

I've lately been coming to terms with the idea that not all people are created equal. By this I mean that some people have certain aptitudes that may make them "successful" by the measures of our society, while others may not possess these abilities.

This idea is certainly not in agreement with traditional American values. A common theme in our culture is that hard work will earn someone success. That is, everyone has the capability to be successful. Of course, I don't think that anyone would argue against the idea that success is most commonly achieved through hard work. So, the idea that every person is created equally would imply that those who are not successful did not work hard enough to achieve success.

I find it dubious to believe that the difference between a homeless person on the street and a successful corporate executive is simply their willingness to work hard. So many differences between the two people's pasts exist that their current plight can't be correlated entirely to work-ethic.

The reason this is important is because success is typically equated with money. Now, of course I understand that money can get us what we want, but beyond that, money is a means of security. In America, those with large sums of money can afford very good health care and need not worry about how to support themselves in retirement. In some sense, money frees one from the anxiety felt by a lot of people struggling to earn an income. This anxiety is towards an unknown future: poor health, a broken vehicle, fires and natural disasters, etc.

I did not make an attempt in this writing to be rigorous. Instead, I wanted to clarify some ideas that have remained muddled inside my head. I should make an effort in the future to expand upon what success means, and whether or not a division of people into rich and poor classifications is fair or useful. I should also attempt to address the maxim "money cannot buy happiness."