to kill a mockingbirdTo Kill A MockingbirdTo Kill A Mockingbird is a great book written by Harper Lee. This book is aboutTom Robinson trying to help a white girl named Mayella. All that Tom was tryingto do was help that little white girl out, but he was alone with her.
Bob EwellMayella’s father said that Tom raped his daughter Mayella. He was just walkingby and got asked to help a girl out so he did because he felt sorry for her. Those were three things leading to Tom Robinson’s conviction. The first cause was the prejudice ness of the south in the 1930’s.
One exampleof this is the churches were segregated. “Calpernia motioned Jem and ma to theend of the row and placed herself between us. “(120) Though the conjugation waskind to the children they were surprised of the children. Alexandria wantedAtticus to be fired for being Tom’s attorney since Tom is black. The town wasoutraged that Atticus would do suck a thing. Atticus was helping Tom Robinsonso now everyone is mad at Atticus.Order now
“Do you defend niggers Atticus?”(74)Everyone wants Atticus to be fired for helping Tom. Atticus is just trying tohelp Tom now everyone is against him. A group of town members formed a mob andwent to the jail to lynch Tom. The mob that the town formed went to the jailand started things. “The men jumped a little and scattered: because they werepeople everyday. .
. . “(146) The towns mob went to the jail for Tom because ofwhat has been going on. The towns mob was angry that they went to the jail. Bob Ewell and Mayella accused Tom of the crime. Bob was accountable for seeingTom raping Mayella.
Judge Taylor asked Bob. “Mr. Ewell did you see thedefendant having sexual intercourse with your daughter?”(174) Bob said that hesaw his daughter getting raped by Tom Robinson. His own daughter Mayella alsoaccused Bob of being a drunk. Mayella’s testimony says that Tom raped her alsogave the jury another white witness against Tom Robinson.
Mayella told thejudge that her father was a decent, “Except for when he was drunk. “(183)Mayella said that Tom raped her so they believed her because she was a whiteyoung girl testifying against a black man. Another reason that they believedher is because that it’s Mayella’s, and Bobs Ewell’s word that Tom raped her. No doctor had ever examined Mayella to see if she actually got raped at all. “Did you call a doctor sheriff!” “Did anyone call a doctor?” “No ser said Mr. Tait.
” No body called a doctor because it was a black mans word against twowhite peoples word. The reason that they didn’t call a doctor is that theydidn’t rally care if he raped her or not it’s just that they want to put onemore black person in jail because of the color of his skin. Finally Tom was allowing himself to be alone with a white young woman because hefelt sorry for her so he wasn’t thinking really. Tom had talked about stoppingand helping her. “Did you ever go on the place again?” “Yes Suh” “When?””Well I went lots of times. “(191) The reason that Tom went over there was tohelp Mayella so that he could be a good guy.
He was just trying to be a goodman all the work that Tom did he did it all for free out of the kindness of hisheart. Tom felt sorry for Mayella so he helped her every day after work. “Yessuh. ” “I felt sorry for her.
“(184) That’s why he went and helped her out inthe first place. So he felt good about it so he kept helping her for the hellof it. Tom helped Mayella break up big things that would be hard for her. “Shealways had a little something for me to do – chopping’ kindle’, totin’ water forher. ” Every time he walked is she would have a new job for him to do for her.
He always would always be pleased to help her. Tom Robinson had three main causes leading to the conviction. The towns’ peopleput a lynch mob together and were shocked of Atticus’s actions for helping ablack man. Bob said that he saw sexual intercourse between Tom and Mayella sothe judge believed him but they didn’t ever examine Mayella for rape. Thereasons that he stopped at all were that he felt sorry for her because Bob was adrunk. Mayella had told the judge that Bob was a drunk and he believed her.
Tom had gotten put in jail for raping Mayella. I think that Friar Laurence was to a large extent responsible for thedeaths of Romeo and Juliet. However, several other factors contributedand we can not solely blame one person. The circumstances, time periodand characters need to be taken into consideration. The Friar is introduced half way through the play, and his role is avital one.
In his first scene we see him with the poison, and thisscene links up with his last two scenes and the consequences of thatsame poison. His entrance breaks the pace of the previous balconyscene, and gives the audience time to absorb what has occurred betweenRomeo and Juliet. Juliet has an almost non-existent relationship with Capulet. FriarLaurence fills this void by portraying a ^father^ figure in Juliet^slife. She trusts him and confides in him regularly.
^Hold daughter. Ido spy a kind of hope^^ In addition the Friar is also Romeo^s confidentand tries to find solutions to their overwhelming problems. He also breaks the terrible news to Romeo about his banishment, and hetries to do so in a humane way. He comforts the distraught Romeo, andwhen potential danger lurks, offers him a shelter under the desk!Friar Laurence tries to dissuade Pairs from marrying Juliet. This couldbe selfish behavior on his part, as the Friar knows he would becommitting a sin if he married Juliet to Paris, when she was alreadymarried to Romeo. Another example of the Friar^s selfish intentions, is the tomb scene,whereupon finding Juliet in there, and two dead bodies lying on thefloor, he needs no persuasion to leave, which he does so in immensehaste!The following incident is an example of how the Friar contributed tothe deaths of the star-crossed lovers.
He marries Romeo and Juliet,fully aware that they do not have their parents consent. He should haverefused to marry them or sought the advice of an older and moreexperienced member of the church. It was the Friar^s idea that Juliet swallows the remedy. This was avery rash decision, and, if thought out properly, he would haverealised the dire consequences and complications that could occur. Friar Laurence largely contributed to the deaths of Romeo and Juliet bymarrying them despite their ages, giving Juliet the poison and by notthinking things through clearly.
Instead he always tried to find a^quick-fix^ solution. However, he has a kind disposition, and honestlytries to help Romeo and Juliet in whatever way he can. And, to give himhis due, he did confess his sins, and offer to sacrifice his life. Thisconfession, added to the tragic deaths of the young lovers, ceased theage-old fight between the Capulets and the Montagues.
Reason Not ReligionObservations and inferneces from real life perceptions: My entire lifeI have been a Catholic and have attended Church regularly with myfamily, always believing in God and the stories and tales of the Bibleas pure fact that happened long ago, and of Jesus being the savior,etc. Just this past month I attended a Presbyterian church service with myelderly grandmother in Johnstown, Pennsylvania. The church was small tobegin with, and only about one-third of the seats were filled. I wouldhave to say that at least 95% of the people were all over 65, with veryfew young couples at all. My grandma made a comment on the lack ofyoung people who attend the masses now, and she kept referring to thefact that recently less and less young couples and families everattended church.
At first I thought that this church would then seriously have to closeits doors when the current majority of the parishioners died, but thenI realized another aspect of human behavior and psychology. The characteristic that I see and hear so much about that many humanstend to possess and practice, is the fact that they become “closer to”god”” the older they get. Why is this? It is because of one of thesame big reasons that we even have to have religion in the first place:fear about death and what happens to us afterwards. These people seemto be turning to the kind of thinking that inspired the dichotic ideaof PASCAL^S WAGER.
Even if these people were not very religious duringtheir younger years, we can now see a trend of a large section of ourcountry^s population starting to attend church more and more and becomemore “religious” as they grow older. What inspires this shift?–plainand simple, the fear of uncertainty. “QUESTIONING” ONES BELIEFS MUST GO BEYOND JUST WONDERINGWhen I used to attend Church regularly their was a priest who was an extremely good speaker and extremelyintelligent. Even though he was a Catholic priest, serving as the pastor of an extremely large church, he had thecourage and brains to disagree with some of the rigid dogma setup and enforced by the Vatican. I remember onesermon he gave that has greatly influenced me since, and I am very happy I was fortunate enough to hear it. Inthis certain sermon he talked about his thoughts on it being good for teenagers and youth to question theexistence of a God in their world.
He talked at length about this questioning and finished up the speech with thesummation that even though we can question, it all comes back to God. I continued to believe in this way for a very long time. That there were many questions concerning the actual andtrue existence of God, however due to certain things like the design of the world, everything had to relate back toan almighty creator. Just recently I have started to realize the problem with my previous concept of “questioning”,as well as this particular priest’s. In the manner that he was referring to this concept, he was very right in the factthat “everything has to come back to God”.
The reason that this is true is due to the fact that just questioning isexactly that: if all we do is say to ourselves, is “Gee I wonder?”, then we of course will not be able to come up withany alternative except to continue believing in the existence of a “god”. Questioning one^s faith must not only encompass asking yourself epistemological and metaphysical questions,but we must explore, learn, and above all gain knowledge about the evidence and the arguments from both sidesof the debate. We must have dialogues with others who believe the same as us, as well as those who share acompletely different, even blatantly contrary view. Only by these means can we ever come out with a greaterunderstanding of the issues surrounding the questions about the existence of a supreme being. If this procedureis followed and we always continue to learn and accept new, valid information then we will eventually find ourown sense of the truth, and our own philosophy for our lives. MY JOURNEY TO FIND THE TRUTH, AND SUBSEQUENT “LEAP OF REASON”This past year I really started examining my own beliefs and faith in “God”.
As I read Homer^s Iliad, informationabout Mithra (Jesus^ immediate mythological predecessor), and many other sources that put questions in my mindabout the validity of my faith, I began to seriously doubt whether “God” was something just made up by humanssince the beginning of time to explain their world, or was really the truth. I am sure now in my mind that the images and symbols used to represent “God” and initially “gods”, werecontrived simply to explain phenomena of the planet, mysteries of life, and to satisfy that extremely strong need ofhuman beings to feel important. This past point I feel is the most pivotal in understanding the human race^smajority view of the existence of a supernatural power. There are so many people today that of course we can^t allhave jobs that most would consider “important” and help lead the holder of that job to”SELF-ACTUALIZATION”, so a “god” makes up for that. It is written and spoken by Christians and the Biblethat all human beings are equal and that they are all loved the same by “God”, therefore everyone is extremelyimportant because the “maker of us all” values them on par with everyone else. A respected businessman whohas worked for his fortune is the same as a neurotic drug addict begging for money; often times the former is seeneven as more evil.
THE FALLACIOUS ARGUMENTS FOR THE EXISTENCE OF A GOD In my quest to find the truth about the existence of a “God”, which will always be going on and never end, I havealso made it a point to study those arguments which are many philosophers^ and theists^ base for their belief in analmighty creator. I will begin by explaining the thought that goes into each argument, and how the people whomare proponents of these such arguments validate their claims. I will then therefore proceed to point out themistakes that I believe each of them makes, some more than others. These three main arguments are as follows:Teleological Argument for the Existence of GodThe teleological argument for the existence of God is one that uses the actual existents we know in reality, in thiscase the entire planet and universe, and uses these in a somewhat well developed theory for the existence of a”god”. The simplest way to define this argument is to use the simple analogy of a clock maker to a clock; or intelligentdesigner to an intelligent design. This is the conscious basis for a theory that states that due to the fact that welive and exist in a wholly technical and advanced-level world where things such as the existence of life andhumans are very “intelligent”, then there must be an intelligent creator that first shaped us all and everythingaround us.
This theory has been changed and developed even more over the years into modern versions. The main ideas that I find inherently wrong with this argument come from the fact that first: theists believe thatGod just exists and always has, however he too would be an intelligent being, and according to the teleologicalargument itself, would “He” then not necessitate an intelligent designer? And so on and so forth^ Thereforetheists who believe in the “existence exists” idea in terms of a “God”, and also tend to endorse the teleologicalargument, are contradicting themselves because of a conflict in which the premises of their two parallel beliefs areat odds. Those making this contradiction must check their premises. Another more abstract theory that can act to somewhat disprove the validity of this argument is that of the”OSCIALLATING UNIVERSE THEORY”. This theory in a nutshell states that the universe is constantly eitherexpanding or condensing, as long as matter is present in the universe.
A corollary of this theory also says thatthere is substantial evidence that the universe has expanded to its limit and then shrunken down again into onepoint of infinite density, temperature, and curvature, only to explode again (the big bang), a total of 100 times!With the potential of an entirely new universe being created each time this has happened, with the potential ofcompletely different laws of physics and the behavior of matter, then there is definitely the increased possibility ofour planet simply existing and being able to support life by a chance creation of the universe we live in, created bythe current expansion and creation that has been happening for an estimated 10 billion years. The fact is, with thatmany worlds being created over time, there is a sure chance that out of all those planets created, at least one, ours,could support life. The Ontological Argument for the Existence of God The Ontological argument for the existence of a “God” is more complex, and more utterly unfounded then the one,previous argument that we have examined. This argument basis its entire “proof” on floating abstractions madeabout the brain of man, his conscious, and the things it is unable to do.
This argument is commonly referred to St. Anselm, its primary creator. The argument goes like this: We all have somewhat of an image or idea of what “God”is in our minds, even atheists who don^t believe in any “god” still have somewhat of a conception of what a”god”, if one existed, would have to be like and capable of. Our conception of a “God” is fairly limited because toconceive of a being so great and powerful is hard for us to do in the first place.
Anselm holds that because we cantherefore conceive nothing greater than “God”, one must exist. Let^s look at that in simplistic form: due to the fact that I can neither think nor conceive of anything greater thanthis entity, the particular entity which I can not go beyond therefore must exist. How absurd of an argument isthis? Its only foundation lies on some unconnected idea of a philosopher, randomly applied to reality. The mainproblem that I have with this argument is that it takes a rule and law of reality and reason, and applies tosomething that we simply can have no conclusion ever made on while living on earth. If I say that there is nothingworse and more scary that I can conceive of beyond death, so therefore death must exist, I am right because deathdoes exist. In this case the ontological argument for the existence of death works.
How do I know itworks?–because I can see and perceive death in reality and I can know it beginning with my sense perceptions. The existence of, and my knowledge of death, is hierarchical. However the concept of “God” can^t not be tracedback to basic sense perceptions (where all concepts must be originally derived from), and is therefore unable to begrounded in reality and truth. In order to gain higher knowledge of something as complex as a “God”, we fist mustperceive basic facts of reality. There are no basic facts of reality to perceive when it comes to the concept of”God”.
Think of any concrete that almost all men believe in and their can be no real intellectual debate about without oneof the parties being totally irrational in even disputing the fact^that concrete concept can be traced back to thetraced down on through the line directly to man^s ability to perceive. “God”^this concept can not be brokendown into anything close to reality and perception. It is because of this fact that even if you do believe in “God”,in order to retain any sense of being able to think, you must remain agnostic. If we refuse to recognize the fact thatthe existence of “God” is impossible to perceive, then human knowledge will perish into an abyss of unconnectedand unsupported beliefs in irrational and ungrounded faiths, which we will fool ourselves into believing is reality.
The Cosmological Argument for the Existence of God The Cosmological argument hinges on a property which is a corollary of the axiom of existence. This law is the lawof causality^which states that all things that occur do so because they are caused. The proponents of thisargument then take this law, which we apply to every day reality on Earth, to the beginning of the universe. Theysay that the universe just couldn^t have existed for all time, but that it would have to had been created just likeeverything else.
They then take these beliefs even farther when they assert that the process of creation andexistence can not be infinite in either moving forward, or looking backward. For instance, these people believe that “God” created the universe^therefore the universe has a cause. Howeverthey do begin to get into contradictory waters as soon as they are confronted with the fact that they believe oftheir God^s existence^was God created too? No^they say that there has to be some beginning that just was andalways will be^there can be no infinity in either going forward, and no infinite progression backwards throughages of cause after cause. This first contradiction is plain and obvious to the educated interpreter of the argument,the others are more deeply involved with other problems. If these people believe in the phrase “existence exists” when it comes to their God, then why can^t this just beapplied to something such as the universe? Why do we need a fanciful “God” to explain the beginning of theuniverse when the cosmological argument already asserts that things can not simply progress or regressinfinitely? The reason is due to the concepts we discussed earlier of the need of human “self-actualization” andthe reassurance of an afterlife where we can finally fully enjoy our humanity and existence. This argument is right in one respect: the very entity that initially created the universe itself was not caused orcreated.
In this correctness however they fail by failing to correctly identify that thing which did create theuniverse^it was not “God”, but something which contained the entire universe and still is a part of that universe. (FOR A CLARIFICATION OF WHAT I AM REFERRING TO HERE, READ THIS. )FINAL CONCLUSIONSMy final conclusions so far in my quest to understand the basis for beliefs and proof for the existence andnon-existence of “God” are short, small, and completely unfinished. They are my final conclusions for this paper,at this point in my life. One^s true final conclusions on these matters will only be able to made some day if there issome place, perhaps not necessarily a heaven, where we will have time to think and reflect on what we havelearned during our lives, and perhaps even after them. For now I know that no matter what paths we follow as human beings on journey to cognitive understandingabout “God”, we must always remain agnostic for the complete duration of our mortal lives, primarily because ofthe lack of a hierarchy of knowledge which we can see and deduct for the concept of “God”.
Finally, we must alllearn as much as we possibly can and can volitionally motivate ourselves to in order to understand this debateand conflict in human belief.