Some thoughts along the way

- I can think of only two absolutes.

1. There is more than one element making up the cosmos.

2. "What is" is the ground of "what will be" in the awareness of existence.

- Most of what we think we know should be examined with a great deal of skepticism.

- The problem with being too skeptical is not being willing to buy a ticket to Paris if we have never been there. Some faith in "hearsay" is necessary to live.

- How do we separate the wheat from the chaff, as it were? Too much uncertainty results in anxiety, even fear.

- We are taught a narrative of existence from childhood on. To what extent are we able to question it before anxiety or fear are felt?

For example, say that as young children we are taught by the adults in our lives that Disney World, heaven, and hell all exist. Before we go to Disney World it is just the adults telling us it exists. Then we start planning to go there, and because we really believe it exists (have no doubt whatsoever because mommy and daddy told us and others confirm it), we get excited. Then we get there and it is everything and more than what they said it would be like. On the way home from Disney World Mommy and Daddy reaffirm that we are going to heaven if we believe in Jesus and to hell if we don't. Once that emotional marker is set in childhood, it's there for life.

While skepticism will in time alter rational speculations, the emotional element will always be there to be triggered by the skepticism. Because one has to doubt to be skeptical, and doubt alters faith, and our Christian religion teaches that it is faith that saves us ... and in a sense it is right because we act on our beliefs as in whether or not we believe the plane will actually fly.

Think for a moment what it would be like to be taught that dying as a warrior for God results in being awarded direct transport to heaven with a personal cornucopia of goodies provided on arrival ... but I digress.

The rational issue is getting from the aboriginal's spear to the Apollo program ... of getting from planet earth to the outreaches of the universe. In this process skepticism regarding currently accepted speculations is necessary.

Skepticism isn't necessary in itself, but if we are to create what we choose ought to be out of what is, then it is necessary to be skeptical ... both about what is and about what we choose ought to be.

Simply put, it is possible to destroy the world. But because it is possible doesn't mean it should be done. It is possible to burn a person to death, and it has been done. We have decided that is something we should no longer do on purpose as a penalty for heresy or committing a crime.

We now have diseases we can treat with medicine and medical science. There was a time when we relied on our faith in God.

Why are some choices considered moral or ethical choices and others aren't? What is a moral or ethical choice has changed across both time and cultures.

Anyway, some thoughts along the way.