Why Should I Believe any of these authors?

Why should we believe any of these writers? hmmm...

I think that whether or not you believe in an authors ideas depends on multiple things like:

• The state of mind you are in while reading... do you have an open mind?
• The conditions under which you were raised
• The credibility of the author's argument
• Whether or not you agree with the authors, even if they are credible, depends on the first two

So, which authors do I believe? And why do I believe them

IPCC: It just sounds right. They have government backed authority... why would I not believe them!!

Primo Levi: He demands us not to judge people. Says there is a gray area in every area of life. I don't really like to think of it like this. But, who doesn't believe a man whose survived the Holocaust?

Charles Darwin: Sure, its another scientific writing. But as a biology major, how can I not believe him? It happens right in front of us every day!

Benazir Bhutto: Okay, just the fact that SHE is ruling a MUSLIM country should tell me something about Muslims, correct?

So why should I believe any of these writers? Because, some how, some way, they relate to ME, they make sense to ME, and, even if I don't agree, their stories are so convincing that I still trust them... (this is going to be one crazy paper)

Jahli

Read page 145 of the CIE Reader in Qubt's Chapter 7. It is RIDICULOUS!

Islam....

I really need a history lesson or something. The quiz that Nathan had us all take.... yea I got a 50% on that thing. Apparently, I know nothing about Islam. And just like with any thing that I think is graded I got nervous and didn't even know the answer to "What language is the Qua ran written in?" (The answer is Arabic in case you're stumped!)

Anyways, what is my perception of Islam? I feel like "Islamic fascism" is the communist party of the 1960's. Instead of McCarthyism and the Vietnam war, we have George Bushism and the Iraq war. But, back on topic, what does this have to do with Islam and the Western world?

I'm certain that the more each American knows about Islam, the more accepting they will be of the faith. Obviously if 20% of the world is Islamic, don't you think we should learn something about it? (Probably not in public schools any time soon!)

Before I go, I just want to comment of Ali Sharati's piece on America. Even though Islam isn't even mentioned, (probably by stereotyping), Sharati (the name) sounds Middle Eastern. His views on American, British, French, and overall European colonization is strange. (As in different from what I learned in high school) At any rate, he states that colonization is actually modernizing the rest of the world to want the goods of Europe and excess from all the manufacturers. Weird, but sounds strangely correct huh?

Levi and The Slum King

Today in class, Nathan said that when someone is being degraded, we want to hate that person or help them. Hitler knew how to use this human judgement. Obviously, he was a smart guy...but still, how do you"force" a bunch of people to slaughter and starve others for what? Personal gain? Maybe, but not at that exact moment. Moral obligation? To exterminate a bad race (maybe a radical few thought this) I guess I still do not know how to answer that. But Hitler and the SS sure knew how to use people.

Anyways... When can one person judge another person about the grayness of their moral decisions? Sure, everything in life isn't black and white. But that doesn't mean that most people still can't be placed into the category of black and white...unless you know all the circumstances surrounding their decision to do something. I still think that judgement should and can be placed on those grayer areas of moral decisions.

Social Darwinism

So I forgot to read the title of Karl Pearson's work and just dove right in...only to discover that the man is as crazy, if not crazier that Hitler himself. At least Hitler honestly thought he was bettering his nation....

Waiyaki, The Tribe, and the Missionaries

As we finish off our discussions on The River Between, many questions arise about the missions group... (also involving the essay)

• A culture cannot go unchanged completely when it experiences such a strong outside force like Reverend Livingston
• Livingston and these missionaries have the right idea: Convert one and many will follow
• Does Livingston mean to break up the tribe? No! This is better for his mission though. It's loads easier to convert more then they are all disunited (if that is word)....
• I think that Waiyaki uses education as a force to unite, whereas the Missionaries use their education as a force to separate. This separation results due, in part, to a generational breach.
• So does Waiyaki's unification mission, in fact, separate the tribe further by educating the young? Hmmm... Loads to think about, and even more to write an essay about

Ecce Homo

The priestly involvement in good and bad

• Being pure is not necessarily being good, but according to priests being impure is the same as being bad or evil
• But what is the difference evil and bad? And how would priests define these differences since impure means both?
• Nietzsche says that priests are the most evil enemies (Maybe as bad as the Jews???)
• Those who have power determine the values of the age
• This is why values continue to change all time
• Since Christians have the power today, they determine the values and priests decide what is right and wrong

The dialogue:

• Mr. Rash and Curious is really just the author's crazy side. He most definitely wrote this during one of his rages.
• OR...
• Maybe he just had some strange ideas about how to get his point across

So what is the point of Section 14?