Natural law ethicists can argue against abstinence from premarital and extramarital sex on the basis of the male drive to propagate the species by having sex with as many females as possible. However, this argument has a major flaw, which lies in the question "is having sex with as many people as possible really the best way to continue the species?" I believe the answer is "no," based on the following points. (1) Sexually transmitted diseases. The Center for Disease Control and Prevention estimates that 19 million new cases of STDs occur each year in the US alone. These often cause sterilization of the infected person in addition to causing cancer, immune deficiencies, sores, and many other ill effects. Not good for the propagation of the species, if you ask me. (2) At least some of the extramarital sex that occurs, in the developed world anyway, is protected in some way against pregnancy. In this situation, people are having sex for physical pleasure alone, not to reproduce their genes. (3) When unmarried people do have children, they often live the rest of their lives in poverty. Although having children in this way does provide a continuation of the species and of an individual's genetic material, it certainly does not contribute to the well-being of the species. A society with more people but fewer resources is not better off than a society of fewer people and thus more resources to support them. Therefore, even within the realm of natural law ethics, reasons exist to practice abstinence and monogamy.

What, if anything, does science owe society? I think science should be used to improve the human condition. That may mean anything from adding to the general knowledge of mankind to inventing vaccines, drugs, and cures for disease. Often knowledge for its own sake is as important to a person as a cure for an illness that person might have. People seek knowledge almost from the moment they are born. When you place an object in an infant's hand, he grasps it by reflex, and if you put something in his mouth, his reflex is to suck on it. At that age, the child is a long way from being able to communicate effectively, but he explores his world instinctively. Of course, the many more practical applications of science are important, too. My first thought is the medical field, but other aspects of science can drastically improve the physical condition of people as well. Science, then, owes society continuous improvement of the human condition. Society, however, may not see improvement the same way science does.

How does science relate to the discussion of reality? Science is a way to search for reality. Almost everyone wants to know what is real. Some people take a theory about reality and rely on that without exploring it thoroughly. Others are more curious. These people want to find for themselves what is real, and science is one way of doing that. Science allows a person to observe what is going on in the world around him and then use his findings as a basis for beliefs about the world he observes. It's not so different from what the poet does, or the theologian. All are searching for what is true; they're just looking through different eyes.

Why is "why?" such an uncomfortable question? That depends one who's doing the asking. People often don't like being asked "why?" because they don't know the answer, and they don't like appearing ignorant or wrong. Often, however, asking someone else "why?" is equally uncomfortable. In this case, I think people sometimes aren't sure they really want the answer. Receiving and accepting the answer often means that the person who did the asking will have to change, and people don't like that either. For example, in science, if you ask why something happens a certain way, you may have to change your ideas about the entire subject. The same thing happens in everything from a child's nagging questions to a parent to a person's questions for God. In general, accepting new information means something we are used to must change, whether we want it to or not. Often we don't want it to, because change is uncomfortable. Asking "Why?" is just the beginning of it.

Mathematics

When Dr. Priest indicated that math is discovered rather than invented or created, he said something like "I give the credit to God." His statement implies that God created math as much as He created everything else. The purpose of man's work in mathematics is to discover the systems that God as already put in place. THese systems are evident not only in the study of pure mathematics, but also in the innumerable applications to the physical world. Math is the basis for almost everything that affects our lives as human beings, from the way our bodies work to the way the solar system keeps to its patterns. If God created everything that exists, and everything functions according to the principles of mathemetics, then did God not use these principles to create the universe? We can only search for the systems He put in place.

Thus is God a mathemetician. He knows mathematics and applied them to the physical world in a way we can never fully comprehend. We can work math problems and figure out how they apply to things we can observe; God did not observe, but created. Another way to see God as a mathemetician is to think of ourselves being made in His image. God is a creative, artistic Being. People, in God's image, begin trying to create often before they can even talk, as when children draw. In the same pattern, God created the world with the systematic organization of mathematics. Some people spend their lives searching out those systems, but even people who don't really care about math as such organize their environments.

Speaking of organization, one way people try to organize the world is through statistics. I don't know about other nations, but in the United States it seems that a poll has been done on every subject known to mankind, and the numbers resulting from those polls bombard us every day. We have information on every possible subject, and it seems to me that we may have too much of this information for it to be valuable. We place so much emphasis on the number of people who do this or that, and very little emphasis on individuals. Of course, majority rule is important in such a large democracy, but I think it's also important to realize that the poll that shows that however many percent of people like something one way isn't the final word on how things should be.

It seems that what makes people human revolves around first what is real, then what is good. However, to me the question of what is real is less interesting and, in a way, less essential than the question of what is good. As I said in class, my behavior is not affected by whether my percieved reality is true reality. I believe it is, but that is beside the point. Even if I'm "really" a butterfly dreaming I'm a person, I'm still going to carry out the human life I seem to have. Because I appear to have human form and human responsibilities, the more important question is not "what am I, really?" but "what must I do?" The answer is "good." Then what is good? Why should I do good? The questions keep coming. Is doing right the same as doing good? The questions are all tied up together, bound in knots by human emotions, characteristics, relationships, which are expressed in the the records of history, in poetry and novels, in visual art, in music, in science. People have been exploring these ideas as long as there have been people, and it is the record of this exploration that intrigues me more than finding the answers to the questions themselves. I love the stories that make up the search for answers, whether they're told in a lab or with a paintbrush or in a novel. In the end, we will be remembered less by the answers we've found and more by the stories we've made.

My Cup
Robert Friend

They tell me I am going to die.
Why don't I seem to care?
My cup is full. Let it spill.