The Past is the Present

                When making decisions, one can only rely on what he or she has experienced (disregarding communication through society).  Mary cannot make a decision based on what Alice knows without Alice telling Mary what happened.  Based on this limitation, one can safely assume that any choice is based off of experiences in one’s past.  When one considers this, it brings a whole new light to the term “The past determines the future.”  As we live out our early lives, our young minds are conditioned by our experiences.  Some people are conditioned to like certain activities, and others are likewise conditioned to appreciate other activities.  In the same matter, our views on society are marginally influenced by our pasts.  Different factors, like parenting, hate crimes, and many other things can all have an effect on what we believe later on in life, and how we view the world around us.

                For example, take two intellectual twins.  If one grows up in the slums of one of the world’s biggest cities, he will be inclined to appreciate what he has, rather than wanting for more than he deserves.  However, if his intellectual twin were to have a life settled in the pleasant country, thriving on a millionaire’s budget, his views of materialism might be a little less stringent than his counter-part’s.  On the whole, we can apply this to nearly all facets of society and perspectives in general.  When a child grows up being the victim of hate crimes, he is being conditioned, one way or another, to believe one thing or another.  If a child grows up with Republican parents all his life, he is going to be inclined to view the Republican side of any argument to be the most logical, because they hearken back to the methodology of the problem that their parents instilled in them while they were young.

                Granted, if someone were to completely detach themselves from the problem and look at it objectively, meaning that all past experiences were rendered null in the deciding of the problem, then it is possible that the past of a person could not influence the decisions that are being made in the present.  After all, even though the past is a significant factor in our present decisions, it, by no means, sets our choices in stone.

Annotated Bibliography               

Jackson Stagg

Farrelly, Maura. "God is the Author of Both." American Society of Church History. 77.03 (2008): 659-87. Web. 13 Oct. 2011. <http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayFulltext?type=1&fid=2163752&jid=CHH&volumeId=77&issueId=03&aid=2163744&bodyId=&membershipNumber=&societyETOCSession=>.

In this excerpt, Maura Farrelly expertly explains how science does not necessarily disprove theism.   In fact, throughout her argument, and with many outside citations, she proves that there are many aspects of science that actually prove theism.

Savino, Damien. "Atheistic Science: The Only Option?" Logos: A Journal of Catholic Thought and Nature. 12.04 (2009): 56-71. Web. 13 Oct. 2011. <http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/logos/v012/12.4.savino.html>.

With his rational thinking and logical citations, Damien Savino provides intellectual dissertations on many atheistic and theistic aspects, providing wide-held views coupled with his own, as well as explaining many other views held on the topics at hand.

Markham, Ian. "Against Atheism: Why Dawkins, Hitchens, and Harris are Fundamentally Wrong." Ars Disputandi. 11. (2011): n. page. Web. 18 Oct. 2011. <http://www.arsdisputandi.org/publish/articles/000377/article.pdf>.

                Ian Markham discusses the New Atheist movement, especially 3 of the foremost atheists in the group.  Over the course of the article, he explains the viewpoints of these atheists, and counters them with others’ viewpoints or his own.

Goodrum, Matthew. "Atomism, Atheism, and the Spontaneous Generation of Human Beings: The Debate over a Natural Origin of the First Humans in Seventeenth-Century Britain." Ars Disputandi. 63.2 (2002): 207-224. Web. 18 Oct. 2011. <http://muse.jhu.edu/login?uri=/journals/journal_of_the_history_of_ideas/v063/63.2goodrum.html>.

                This article is a purely factual one.  It explains the beliefs held by Atheists and Atomists alike, and these facts will help me form my argument by concretely understanding the viewpoint of atheists.

"Atheism: Common Arguments." infidels.org. N.p., 1997. Web. 18 Oct 2011. <http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/mathew/arguments.html>.

                This source is an encyclopedia of sorts to understand common atheistic arguments.  With these, I will be able to formulate counter-points for many diverse atheistic arguments.

 "Arguments Against God: Atheological Arguments for Atheism and Against the Existence of God." About.com. N.p., n.d. Web. 18 Oct 2011. <http://atheism.about.com/od/argumentsagainstgod/Arguments_Against_God_Atheological_Arguments_for_Atheism.htm>.

               This article is also a faux encyclopedia of atheistic arguments with which to research and obtain counter-points for, thus strengthening my argument.

Craig, William, and Walter Sinnott-Armstrong. "God? A Debate Between a Christian and an Atheist." Ars Disputandi. 4. (2004): n. page. Web. 18 Oct. 2011. <http://www.arsdisputandi.org/publish/articles/000163/article.pdf>.

                A scholarly debate between a Christian and an Atheist will provide first-hand knowledge on viewpoints and counter-points alike for both Christian and Atheistic arguments.

Perkins, R. "An Atheistic Argument from the Improvability of the Universe." Nous. 17.2 (1983): 239-250. Web. 19 Oct. 2011. <http://www.jstor.org/stable/2215144>.

This article is a scientific view of the statistics that make up the universe, and how they support atheistic views.

Lorca, Daniel. "A Critique of Quentin Smith's Atheistic Argument from Big Bang Cosmology." Philosophy. 70.271 (1995): n. page. Web. 19 Oct. 2011. <http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract;jsessionid=3788BAEC358DF546FB5A64934AA337FA.journals?fromPage=online&aid=3497960>.

                Daniel Lorca uses prominent scientific atheist Quentin Smith’s argument from “Big Bang Cosmology” in order to point out critiques in the atheistic viewpoint.

Collins, Robin. Traditional Arguments for the Existence of God. Sixth. Wadsworth: Cengage Learning, 2003. 202-219. eBook. <http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=Lj1sucLzZmUC&oi=fnd&pg=PA202&dq=atheistic arguments&ots=lBAtsSD4sn&sig=C5GnYjf64hjVlDXP1gbbt3Rmkhs

                This source will be a faux encyclopedia for Arguments that support Theism, and will help strengthen my argument with appropriate citations.

Smith, Quentin. "Swinburne's explanation of the universe." Religious Studies. 91-102. Web. 19 Oct. 2011. <http://www.jstor.org/stable/20008142>.

                Quentin Smith, a foremost scientific atheist, takes a look at Swineburne’s explanation of the universe, and discusses the points behind it pertaining to the spiritual plane.

 

Clements, Tad. Science vs. Religion. 1st. New York: Prometheus Books, 1990. Print.

                Tad Clements, in his work “Science vs. Religion”, explains why science does not necessarily disprove a theistic viewpoint, and in some cases, discovers why scientific and empirical evidence supports the claims for theism.