Can a person without a right hand get a driver's license. Is it easy to be young

Can a person be good without God? At first glance, the answer seems so obvious that even the very posing of the question causes indignation. Those of us who profess Christian theism undoubtedly find in God a source of moral strength and steadfastness that gives us the ability to lead lives better than those we would lead without Him, but it seems prideful and ignorant to claim that people who do not share our faith in God, often do not lead a respectable and moral life, - moreover, to our shame, sometimes they do it better than we do.

But wait! To claim that people cannot be good without faith in God is indeed pride and ignorance. But the question was different. It sounded like this: can a person be good without God? By formulating the question in this way, we pose in a provocative form the meta-ethical problem of the objectivity of moral values. Is it possible that the values that are so dear to us, which guide us in life, are just social conventions, like left-handedness or right-hand traffic, or personal preferences, such as addiction to certain foods? Or do values have force regardless of our attitude towards them? And if so, what are they based on? Moreover, if morality is just a human convention, why should we be guided by moral standards, especially if they go against our own interests? Or will we have to somehow be responsible for our decisions and actions?

My thesis today is that if God exists, the objectivity of moral values, moral duties and moral responsibility is undoubted, but if God does not exist, then morality is just a human convention, it is completely subjective and optional. We can act exactly the same as we do now, but in the absence of God our actions will no longer be considered good (or bad), because if God does not exist, objective moral values. Therefore, we, in fact, cannot be good without God. On the contrary, if we believe in the objectivity of moral values and duties, this gives us moral reasons for believing in God.

Let's assume that God exists. First of all, if God exists, objective moral values also exist. To accept that there are objective moral values is to accept that actions and decisions can be good or bad, regardless of what a person thinks about them. In other words, Nazi anti-Semitism was morally evil, although the Nazis themselves, who carried out the extermination of Jews, believed that they were doing the right thing; and their actions would have been terrible even if the Nazis had won World War II and exterminated or enslaved everyone who disagreed with them.

From the theistic point of view, the source of objective moral values is God. The holy and completely good nature of God Himself is the absolute standard against which all actions and decisions are judged. The moral nature of God is what Plato called “good.” God is the focus and source of moral values. He is by nature loving, generous, just, faithful, kind, and so on.

Moreover, God's moral nature is expressed towards us in the form of divine commandments, which are the essence of our moral obligations. These commandments, in which there is nothing arbitrary, inevitably flow from His moral nature. In the Judeo-Christian tradition, all human moral obligations are summed up in the form of two greatest commandments: first, love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your strength, and with all your mind, and, second, love your neighbor yours as yourself. On this basis we can call love, generosity, self-sacrifice and equality objectively good and condemn the evils of selfishness, hatred, cruelty, discrimination and oppression.

Finally, from the point of view of the theistic hypothesis, God will hold all people accountable for the morality or immorality of their actions. Evil and vice will be punished; righteousness will prevail. Ultimately, good will prevail over evil, and we will finally be convinced that we still live in a moral world. Despite the injustices we face in mortal life, in the end the scales of God's justice will be balanced. Thus, the moral decisions we make in this life have eternal significance. We can again and again make moral decisions that go against our own interests, and even go to extreme levels of self-sacrifice, knowing that our actions are not empty and, by and large, meaningless gestures. In my view, it is clear that theism offers a solid foundation for morality.

Let's look at the atheistic hypothesis for comparison. First, if atheism is true, there are no objective moral values. If there is no God, what is the basis of moral values? More specifically, what is the value based on? human life? If there is no God, it is difficult to find a reason to consider human beings as special and their moral beliefs as objectively true. Moreover, is there any reason to think that we have a moral obligation to do anything? Who or what imposes moral obligations on us? Michael Ruse, a philosophy of science scholar, writes:

“The view of the modern evolutionist... is that human beings have a concept of morality... because that concept is biologically valuable. Morality is the same result of biological adaptation as arms, legs and teeth... If we understand it as a set of statements amenable to rational justification about something objective, ethics is illusory. As far as I understand, when someone says: “Love your neighbor as yourself,” it seems to him that he is referring to something higher and greater than himself... However... such references are truly unfounded. Morality is just a tool for survival and reproduction... and the fact that there is some more deep meaning, is an illusion.”

Under the pressure of socio-biological factors along with homo sapiens a kind of “herd morality” has developed, which completely ensures the survival of our species in the struggle for existence. However, in homo sapiens, apparently, there is nothing that would allow us to talk about the objective truth of this morality.
Moreover, from the point of view of atheists, there is no divine lawgiver. But where then do moral obligations come from? Prominent ethicist Richard Taylor writes:

“The present era, having to one degree or another abandoned the idea of a divine legislator, has nevertheless tried to preserve the idea of moral good and evil, not noticing that, having rejected God, people have thereby abandoned the condition under which moral concepts good and evil have meaning. And therefore, even educated people sometimes call such phenomena as war, abortion or the violation of certain human rights “vicious,” while imagining that they said something true and meaningful. However educated person There is no need to explain that answers to such questions have never existed outside of religion.”

He sums it up:

“Modern writers on ethics who blithely talk about moral good and evil and moral obligations, without any regard for religion, are in fact simply weaving intellectual webs out of the void - in other words, their discussions are meaningless.”

It is very important to clearly understand what issue we are considering. We are not talking about whether it is necessary to believe in God in order to lead a moral life. There is no reason to doubt that atheists and theists alike are capable of leading a life that we generally consider moral and good.

Likewise, we are not talking about whether it is possible to create an ethical system that does not take into account the existence of God. If a non-believer in God recognizes the objective value of human life, there is no reason to doubt that he can create a system of ethics with which the theist will largely agree. Again, we are not talking about whether one can accept the existence of objective moral ends without taking God into account. Typically, theists believe that it is not necessary to believe in God to understand, for example, that parents should love their children. Rather, as humanist philosopher Paul Kurtz puts it:

"The central question regarding moral and ethical principles associated with this ontological foundation. If principles are not established by God and are not based on some other transcendental foundation, are they not completely ephemeral?

If there is no God, there is no reason to consider the herd morality that homo sapiens have developed as objectively true. After all, what is so special about human beings? They're just random by-product nature, which relatively recently evolved on a tiny lump of dirt, lost in a hostile and soulless universe, and which is relatively soon destined to perish forever - both individually and collectively. Perhaps a certain act - say, incest - does not bring biological or social benefits, and therefore in the course of human evolution it became prohibited; however, from the perspective of an atheistic worldview, there is nothing truly vicious about incest. If, as Kurtz writes, “the origins of the moral principles that govern our behavior lie in habits and customs, feelings and fashion,” then the nonconformist who chooses to abandon herd morality is guilty only of going against fashion.

The objective lack of human beings of any value from the point of view of a naturalistic worldview is emphasized by two consequences arising from this worldview: materialism and determinism. As a rule, naturalists profess materialism or physicalism and consider man to be just an animal organism. But if a person’s nature lacks an immaterial component (be it soul, mind or something else), he is qualitatively no different from other species of animals. And to consider human morality objective would mean for him to fall into the trap of species discrimination. From the point of view of materialist anthropology, there is no reason to think that the lives of human beings are objectively more valuable than the lives of rats. Secondly, if the mind is completely identical to the activity of the brain, then everything we do and think is determined by the information received through the five senses and our genetics. There is no personal subject making free decisions. But if there is no freedom, then none of our decisions can be assessed morally. They are similar to the twitching of the arms and legs of a puppet suspended by strings of sensory information and physical constitution. Is it possible to give moral assessment the puppet and its movements?

Thus, if the naturalistic explanation is correct, it is impossible to condemn war, oppression, or crime as evil. It is equally impossible to speak well of brotherhood, equality or love. No matter what values you choose, there is still no right and wrong; there is no good and evil. This means that acts like the Holocaust are actually morally neutral. You may consider this an atrocity, but your opinion carries no more weight than that of a Nazi war criminal who believed what he did was right. In his book Morality after Auschwitz, Peter Haas asks how the whole country for more than ten years could voluntarily participate in state program mass torture and genocide, without offering any serious resistance. He believes that...

“...the villains did not at all despise ethical standards, but, on the contrary, followed an ethics according to which the mass extermination of Jews and Gypsies, no matter how difficult and unpleasant this task was, was completely justified... The Holocaust as a purposeful program was possible only because people adopted a new ethic according to which there was nothing wrong with arresting and deporting Jews, and, moreover, such actions were perceived as ethically permissible and even right.”

Moreover, Haas notes, Nazi ethics cannot be discredited from within due to its coherence and internal consistency. Its criticism is possible only from some transcendental position, superior to relativistic, sociocultural moral norms. But in the absence of God, we do not have precisely such a position. One rabbi, a prisoner of Auschwitz, said that being there was like the Ten Commandments turned inside out: kill, lie, steal. Never before has humanity seen such hell. But if naturalism is true, then our world is completely in a real sense represents Auschwitz. There is no good and evil, there is no right and wrong. There are no objective moral values.

Moreover, if atheism is true, a person is not morally responsible for his actions. Even if naturalism left room for objective moral values and duties, it would make no difference, because moral responsibility does not exist. If life ends in the grave, what difference does it make who we will be in this life - saints or fanatics? As the Russian writer Fyodor Dostoevsky rightly noted,

“destroy humanity’s faith in its immortality, not only love will immediately dry up in it, but also all living force to continue world life. Not only that: then nothing will be immoral, everything will be permitted, even anthropophagy.”

Investigators in Soviet prisons understood this perfectly. Richard Wurmbrand writes:

“It’s hard to believe how cruel atheism can be when a person does not believe in rewarding the good and punishing the evil. There's no reason to be human. Nothing prevents you from plunging into the abyss of evil that lives in every person. Communist executioners often said: “There is no God, there is no life after death, there is no retribution for evil. We can do whatever we want." I even heard this from one investigator: “I thank God, in whom I do not believe, that I have lived to see the time when I can pour out all the evil from my heart.” And he poured out this evil in the form of incredible cruelty and torture to which he subjected prisoners.”

If everything ends with death, then how you live really doesn't matter. And what should I say to a person who believes that he can live as he pleases, guided by pure egocentrism? For an atheist philosopher like Kai Nielsen of the University of Calgary, this presents a rather bleak picture. He's writing:

“We have not been able to demonstrate that reason necessarily generates a moral perspective, or that a truly rational person should not be an individualist, an egoist, or an ordinary immoralist. The mind doesn't play a role in this decisive role. The picture I have painted of you is not pleasant. Thinking about this depresses me... Pure practical reason, even armed good knowledge facts will not lead you to morality."

Some might argue that it is in our own best interest to lead a moral life. But it is obvious that this is not always the case: we are all familiar with situations where the requirements of morality are completely at odds with our own interests. Moreover, if a person is vested with sufficient power - like Ferdinand Marcos, “Papa Doc” Duvalier or even Donald Trump - he is quite capable of drowning out the voice of conscience and living for his own pleasure. Historian Stuart Easton summarizes this phenomenon well:

"There are no objective reasons to be moral person, unless morality “pays dividends” in social life or does not provide “pleasant” sensations. A person has no objective reasons to perform this or that act, except that it is pleasant to him.”

Self-sacrifice becomes especially inappropriate from the position of a naturalistic worldview. Why sacrifice your interests, much less your life, for the sake of someone else? From a naturalistic point of view, there is no good reason to choose such a selfless style of behavior. Based on socio-biological considerations, such altruistic acts are nothing more than manifestations of evolutionary mechanisms that contribute to the preservation of the species. The act of a mother throwing herself into a fire to save her child, or a soldier covering his body with a grenade to save his comrades, is no more significant or morally praiseworthy than the act of a soldier ant giving his life to save an anthill. Common sense dictates that, whenever possible, we should resist the social-biological factors that push us into such self-destructive behavior and give preference to actions dictated by our own interests. John Hick, a specialist in the philosophy of religion, invites us to imagine an ant who suddenly has an understanding of socio-biological mechanisms and the freedom to accept independent decisions. Hick writes:

“Imagine that he has to sacrifice himself for the sake of the anthill. He feels a strong instinct pushing him to this disastrous act. However, he asks himself why he should voluntarily... submit to this suicidal program, as instinct demands. Why should the future of a million million other ants be more important to him? own life? … Since all that he has or will ever have is his present existence, then, of course, freed from the yoke of blind instinct, he will choose life, his own life.”

Why on earth should we do otherwise? Life is too short to be wasted with any consideration other than our own best interests. Therefore, the absence of moral responsibility in naturalistic philosophy turns the ethics of compassion and self-sacrifice into an empty abstraction. Philosopher Ralph Zev Friedman of the University of Toronto sums it up:

“Without religion, it is impossible to substantiate the internal consistency of the ethics of compassion. The principle of respect for another person and the principle of survival of the fittest are mutually exclusive."

Thus, we should look at the question of the dependence of morality on the existence of God from a completely different angle. If God exists, morality has a solid foundation. If there is no God, then, as Nietzsche realized, we ultimately come to nihilism.

However, the choice between these two options does not have to be made at random. On the contrary, the very considerations we discussed above can be considered moral evidence in favor of the existence of God.

For example, if we assume that objective moral values exist, we logically come to the conclusion that God exists. Is there anything more obvious than the existence of objective moral values? Reasons to deny objective reality there are no more moral values than reasons to deny objective reality physical world. Ruz's reasoning worst case represent school example genetic error, but at best they only prove that our subjective understanding of objective moral values has changed over time. But if there is a gradual awareness, and not the invention of moral values, this gradual and difficult comprehension of the moral sphere refutes the objectivity of this sphere not in to a greater extent, than our gradual and difficult knowledge of the material world refutes its objectivity. In fact, we are aware of the existence of objective values, and we know everything about it. Behaviors such as rape, torture, child molestation and cruelty are not just socially unacceptable behavior, they are moral abominations. As Roose himself admits:

“A person who says that it is morally acceptable to rape young children is as mistaken as a person who says that two plus two equals five.”

Likewise, love, generosity, equality and self-sacrifice are genuine virtues. People who don't see this are simply morally crippled, and there is no reason to allow their blindness to cast doubt on what we clearly see. Thus, the existence of objective moral values indicates the existence of God.

Or think about the nature of moral duty. What makes certain actions right or wrong in our eyes? Why should we do one thing and not another? Where did this obligation come from? Traditionally, moral obligations were thought to be imposed on us by God's moral commands. If we deny the existence of God, it is difficult to understand where moral duty or the understanding of right and wrong. Richard Taylor explains:

“Debt is what you owe to another... But you can only be indebted to a person or people. Duty in isolation from others is impossible... The idea of political or legal duties is quite understandable... Likewise, the idea of higher duties, called moral, is quite understandable, if this means a certain legislator, higher... than the state. In other words, our moral duties can be...understood as duties imposed on us by God. This gives a clear meaning to the statement that moral duties have greater force for us than political ones... But what if this superhuman legislator is no longer taken into account? Does…the idea of moral duties still make sense? …the idea of moral duties cannot be understood apart from the idea of God. The word remains, but its meaning is lost.”

Thus, moral duties and good and evil inevitably point to the existence of God. And, of course, we have such responsibilities. While speaking at a Canadian university recently, I noticed a poster on the wall produced by the Sexual Violence Information Center. His text read: “Sexual violence: no one has the right to rape a child, woman or man.” Most of us will agree with the obvious truth of this statement. However, for an atheist, the human right not to be sexually humiliated by another person is meaningless. The most convincing answer to the question of where moral duties come from is that morality and immorality are, respectively, conformity or nonconformity to the will or commandments of a holy and loving God.

Finally, let us turn to the problem of moral responsibility. Here we find a powerful practical argument for belief in God. According to William James, one can resort to practical arguments only if theoretical arguments are not enough to solve a problem that is urgent and pragmatic meaning. But it seems clear to me that practical arguments can also be used to confirm the conclusions of sound theoretical reasoning or to induce people to accept them. Thus, believing that there is no God, and that therefore there is no moral responsibility, would have disastrous consequences for moral motivation, since it would force us to accept that the choices we make in morally significant situations by and large, it does not matter at all - after all, both our fate and the fate of the universe are predetermined, no matter what we do. It is difficult to do the right thing if it means sacrificing your own interests, and to fight the temptation to do wrong when the desire is strong, and the belief that nothing ultimately depends on your decisions and actions deprives you of moral strength and undermines your moral integrity. life. As Robert Adams notes:

“It seems that the forced conclusion that the history of the universe as a whole is very likely not to end well often gives rise to a cynical sense of the futility of moral life, undermines the steadfastness of a person’s moral aspirations and weakens his interest in moral considerations.”

On the contrary, nothing strengthens a moral life more than the belief that you will have to account for your actions and that your decisions matter because they produce good or bad consequences. Thus, theistic beliefs have an advantage in morally, and this, in the absence of any convincing theoretical arguments in favor of atheism, gives us a practical basis for believing in God and encourages us to agree with the conclusions of the two theoretical arguments given at the beginning of the article.

To summarize, the theological meta-ethical foundation appears to be a necessary condition morality. If there is no God, it is quite acceptable to think that there are no objective moral values, that we have no moral duties, and that we bear no responsibility for the morality of our lives and our actions. Obviously, such a morally neutral world would be terrible. If, on the other hand, we believe (and it seems reasonable to believe) that objective moral values and duties exist, we have good reason to believe in the existence of God. Moreover, we have strong practical reasons to accept the truth of theism, since belief in moral responsibility is a powerful constraint on moral matters. Thus, we cannot be truly good without God; if we can be good at least to some extent, this means that God exists.

Links and notes

1. Ruse, Michael. Evolutionary Theory and Christian Ethics // The Darwinian Paradigm (London: Routledge, 1989), pp. 262, 268-269.
2. Taylor, Richard. Ethics, Faith, and Reason (Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1985), pp. 2-3.
3. Ibid., p. 7.
4. Kurtz, Paul. Forbidden Fruit (Buffalo, N.Y.: Prometheus Books, 1988) p. 65.
5. Ibid., p. 73.
6. Quote. from Journal of the American Academy of Religion 60 (1992), p. 158.
7. Dostoevsky F. M. The Brothers Karamazov. Book II, ch. 6.
8. Wurmbrand, Richard. Tortured for Christ (London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1967), p. 34.
9. Nielsen, Kai. Why Should I Be Moral? // American Philosophical Quarterly 21 (1984), p. 90.
10. Easton, Stewart C. The Western Heritage, 2d ed. (New York: Holt, Rinehart, & Winston, 1966), p. 878.
11. Hick, John. Arguments for the Existence of God (New York: Herder & Herder, 1971), p. 63.
12. Friedman R. Z. Does the “Death of God” Really Matter? // International Philosophical Quarterly 23 (1983), p. 322.
13. Ruse, Michael. Darwinism Defended (London: Addison-Wesley, 1982), p. 275.
14. Taylor. Ethics, pp. 83-84.
15. Adams, Robert Merrihew. Moral Arguments for Theistic Belief // Rationality and Religious Belief, ed. C. F. Delaney (Notre Dame, Ind.: University of Notre Dame Press, 1979), p. 127.

Can a person live without God?

Despite the claims of atheists and agnostics over the centuries, man cannot live without God. Man can have a mortal existence without recognizing God, but not without the fact of God.

As the Creator, God gave rise to human life. To say that man can exist apart from God is to say that a watch can exist without a watchmaker, or that a story can exist without a narrator. We owe our existence to God, in whose image we were created (Genesis 1:27). Our existence depends on God, whether we acknowledge His existence or not.

God continually gives and sustains life (Psalm 104:10-32). He is life (John 14:6), and all creation lives only by the power of Christ (Colossians 1:17). Even those who reject God receive support from Him: “He makes His sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust” (Matthew 5:45). To think that a person can live without God is the same as thinking that a sunflower can live without light or a rose without water.

Like Savior, God Gives eternal life to those who believe. In Christ there is life, which is the light of men (John 1:4). Jesus came so that we might have life: “I came that they might have life, and have it more abundantly” (John 10:10). All who place their faith in Him are promised eternity with Him (John 3:15-16). For a person to live—really live—he must know Christ (John 17:3).

Without God, man has only physical existence. God warned Adam and Eve that the day they rejected Him they would die (Genesis 2:17). As we know, they disobeyed, but did not die physically that day; rather, they died spiritually. Something inside them died - the spiritual life they knew, the intimacy with God, the opportunity to enjoy Him, the innocence and purity of their souls - all of this was gone.

Adam, created for life and communication with God, was doomed to a completely carnal existence. What God intended would grow from dust to glory was now returning from dust to dust. Just like Adam, man without God today still functions in earthly existence. Such a person may seem happy - no matter what, in this life you can get pleasure and pleasure. But even those pleasures and pleasures cannot be fully obtained without a relationship with God.

Some people who reject God live a life of entertainment and fun. It seems that their pursuit of carnal things brings them a carefree and contented existence. The Bible says there is a certain amount of pleasure to be gained from sin (Hebrews 11:25). But the problem is that it is temporary; life in this world is short (Psalm 91:3-12). Sooner or later, the hedonist, like the prodigal son in the parable, realizes that worldly pleasures are disappearing (Luke 15:13-15).

However, not everyone who rejects God is an empty pleasure seeker. There are many unsaved people living disciplined, prudent lives—even happy, and life to the fullest. The Bible provides certain moral principles that will benefit everyone in this world - faithfulness, honesty, self-control, etc. But, again, without God, man has only this world. A decent earthly life does not guarantee that we are ready for the future life. Check out the parable of the rich farmer in Luke 12:16-21, as well as Jesus' exchange with the rich (but extremely moral) young man in Matthew 19:16-23.

Without God, a person does not realize himself, even in earthly life. A person cannot find peace with the people around him because he cannot achieve peace with himself. Man is troubled because he is not at peace with God. Chasing pleasure just for the sake of pleasure is evidence of inner disharmony. Pleasure seekers throughout history have discovered time and time again that life's momentary pleasures only lead to deeper despair. It is very difficult to get rid of the constant feeling that “something is wrong.” King Solomon gave himself up to the pursuit of all that this world had to offer, and he wrote down his thoughts on this matter in the book of Ecclesiastes.

Solomon discovered that knowledge in itself is useless (Ecclesiastes 1:12-18). He also learned that pleasure and wealth are futile (2:1-11), materialism is short-sighted (2:12-23), and wealth is fleeting (chapter 6). He summarizes that life is God's gift (3:12-13), and the only reasonable way to live is the fear of God: “Let us hear the essence of everything: fear God and keep His commandments, for this is all for man; For God will bring every work into judgment, even every hidden thing, whether it is good or evil” (12:13-14).

In other words, there is more to life than physical dimension. Jesus emphasized this point when he said, “Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God” (Matthew 4:4). Not bread ( physical aspect), but God's Word (spiritual) sustains our lives. It is useless to look within ourselves for the cure or the cause of all our misfortunes. Man can find life and fulfillment only when he acknowledges God.

Without God, man's destiny is hell. Man without God is spiritually dead; when does it end physical life, he experiences eternal separation from God. In Jesus' parable of the rich man and Lazarus (Luke 16:19-31), the rich man lives a life of pleasure without thinking about God, while Lazarus suffers all his life but knows God. It is only after their death that they both realize the consequences of the choices they made in life. The rich man realized too late that there is more to life than the pursuit of wealth. At that time, Lazarus found peace in paradise. For both husbands their short duration earthly existence faded in comparison with the eternal state of their souls.

Man is unique creation. God has placed a sense of eternity in our hearts (Ecclesiastes 3:11) and this feeling eternal fate can find its fulfillment only in God.

There are a lot of useful and necessary things from the ship. In addition, Robinson obtained food without much difficulty, since there were goats on the island and tropical fruits and grapes grew in abundance. So, compared to his drowned comrades, he could feel like the darling of fate. Nevertheless, Robinson experienced a burning, painful melancholy. After all, he was alone. All his thoughts, all his desires were directed towards one thing: to return to people. What was Robinson missing? No one “stands over your soul”, no one points out what or restricts your freedom. But he lacked the most important thing - communication. After all, the entire human civilization testifies that only together, helping each other, people achieved success and overcame difficulties. It is no coincidence that the most terrible punishment among Stone Age people was considered expulsion from the clan or tribe. Such a person was simply doomed. Division of responsibilities and mutual assistance are the two main foundations on which the well-being of any human being is based. society: starting from the family and ending with the state. Not a single person, even with colossal physical strength and the sharpest, deepest mind will not be able to do as much as a group of people. Simply because he has no one to rely on, no one to consult with, no one to outline a work plan, no one to ask for help. There is no one to give instructions and no one to control, finally, if he has a pronounced nature. The feeling of one’s own will sooner or later lead to depression, and it can take the most severe forms. The same Robinson, in order not to go crazy from despair and melancholy, was forced to take a number of measures: he regularly kept a diary, made notches on his primitive “ ” - a pillar dug into the ground, talked aloud with cats and a parrot. There are situations when even the most proud and independent person just need help. For example, in case of a serious illness. What if there is no one nearby, and no one to even turn to? This could end very sadly. Finally, no self-respecting person can live without purpose. He needs to set some goals for himself and achieve them. But - such is the peculiarity of the human psyche - what is the use of achieving a goal if no one sees or appreciates it? What will all the efforts be for? So it turns out that a person cannot do without society.

There are people who choose global goals; they change their lives and the world of those around them. But there are those who do not have a vision for their life even in a year, but their existence is also filled with goals, only their scale is not too large.

A goal is a specific result that needs to be achieved. It can be very different, to achieve some you will have to put complex tasks, look for ways to solve them, while others are very simple and understandable. A person’s life consists of millions of goals that are constantly being realized.

Dreams, plans and desires

There are people who draw a lot of beautiful images in their heads. In youth there are more desires, in maturity they are more balanced, but everyone has aspirations. A person simply decides on certain things; even in dreams, everyone allows himself to receive not everything, but something specific. Some people think about their business, about multimillion-dollar profits and conquering serious financial peaks. Others only allow themselves to think about a vacation at a cheap resort.

But dreams and goals are two different things. If a person begins to figure out how to make his dream come true, if he calculates the options and begins to fulfill them, this makes a simple desire an important goal. Not everyone is capable of this. Some people don’t know how to identify tasks, don’t understand the sequence of actions, and don’t see opportunities. Other people cannot consistently carry out their plan and give up everything before finishing it. And there are even those who are afraid to try, to start achieving. The desire for global achievements is simply not necessary for everyone, and although they make life more exciting and bring more meaning to existence, not everyone considers it necessary.

Daily Goals

But people have small goals, they often fit into short periods of time and do not need to make global plans. For example, cooking dinner is a specific result to which a man is walking. To implement it, you need to come up with a menu, buy products and fulfill all the conditions of the recipe. This is a small goal that is easily achieved. And there can be a lot of such things in life.

The most common goals: to go to work for a whole month according to a set schedule in order to receive a salary; fill the refrigerator so that there is something to eat; teach homework with your child to improve your child’s performance; visit the dentist, have healthy teeth, etc. Every day a person plans his small goals, he makes a list of necessary things that need to be done in his head or in his diary. Life without such tasks for oneself is very difficult for a person; without an accurate idea of one’s plans, it is difficult to achieve something and live harmoniously.

Setting goals is an important process in life, people learn to do it from birth. Not everyone can live without such plans. But it’s surprising that not everyone knows how to make long-term plans, and not everyone has the patience. But it is in such skills that the key to success and prosperity lies.

Youth is a time that no adult has passed through. Old age will come to everyone sooner or later, and with it wisdom and material wealth, and status. But young people have an advantage that the older generation will never have.

“If youth knew, if old age could” - classic formula relationships between generations. The situation of young people in any society is quite difficult for a number of reasons. On the one hand, the young man is in the evaluation system of the older generation, but youthful maximalism does not allow the young man to fit into the system of the adult world without some conflicts. On the other hand, the lack life experience, and often a lack of material resources, puts young people in an extremely delicate position in the social system.

Is it easy to be young

"Is it easy to be young" - documentary Soviet period by Latvian cinematographer Yuri Podnieks, in which the problem was first raised social status young man in society. The answer was unequivocal - very difficult. The main reason difficulties of that period is called the hypocrisy of society, the origins of which young people see in the older generation.

But the democratization of society smoothed out this problem. There are fewer lies in the world, fewer unfounded prohibitions, and as a result, fewer reasons for generational conflicts, at least at the societal level. That is, society has recognized the right of young people to maximalism and their own vision of the world.

From this position, being young today is easy and pleasant. The classic conflict between fathers and sons can be considered settled.

Financial problems of youth

Finishing educational institution, the young man in most cases is full of hopes for a “bright future.” But even after receiving professional education, he cannot be sure that he will get a good paid job in his specialty. Moreover, an employer more often needs a specialist with work experience that a university graduate cannot obtain - this creates a vicious circle that is almost impossible to break.

A young man has to choose between working outside his specialty and alternative ways of implementing the acquired knowledge. But unlike his parents, the young man is more mobile in his actions, which allows him to take a decisive, extraordinary step and, for example, open his own business.

Young people face another intractable issue – the issue of housing. A young man can get an apartment from the state in the very exceptional case, even a young specialist cannot count on. The choice remains between a mortgage, rented apartment and living with parents. The first two options “eat up” a decent part of the budget. The third option calls into question independence and psychological comfort, especially if a young family has already been formed.

Thus, it is not easy to be young in any society and in any era. But young people have one advantage - youth, which compensates for all problems and which is envied by the older generation, who have built their own life and found their place in society.

Video on the topic

The spleen acts as a filter when the body fights microorganisms and foreign particles that enter inside, and produces protective antibodies in the body. People who have had their spleen removed for one reason or another are susceptible to hypersensitivity to a variety of infections and bacteria.

The spleen takes part in the production of blood and contains red blood cells, which, if a crisis situation occurs in the body, can be included in the general flow of blood and maintain a normal state, if necessary. Like any human organ, with its possible diseases, it can cause very serious problems.

Why is the spleen removed?

This organ is located quite deep in the human body - in the abdominal cavity. The human body thus protects its surface, which is soft and delicate, very sensitive to physical damage. A variety of injuries resulting from car accidents, unexpected falls and blows, or in a fight, in literally words can tear the spleen into pieces, after which there is no way to restore or strengthen it, and one has to resort to its removal, which causes enormous harm to human health.

How long can you live without a spleen?

Of course, in the absence of the spleen, a person will be able to live somehow, thanks to the enormous compensation capabilities of our body, but still its loss, as an organ that provides infectious protection to the body, causes great harm. That is why, before the operation, the patient undergoes a vaccination procedure against the most dangerous viruses.

After the spleen is removed, its functions are taken over by the person's liver and bone marrow. But the blood is not cleansed of dead platelets, and they circulate in the human body, threatening the occurrence of thrombosis. For this reason, patients who have had their spleen removed are prescribed anticoagulants - special medications that thin the blood and prevent platelets from sticking together. People who have undergone surgery to remove the spleen must be constantly under the supervision of hematologists.

Why is the spleen enlarged?

The increase in the volume of the spleen occurs precisely because it performs its direct functions of protecting the body, because at the same time it produces a large number of leukocytes. It can increase in volume more than three times. And when the infection is defeated, he returns to normal and weighs about 150 grams.

Unexpected enlargement of the spleen (spleen pathology) sometimes occurs if there is a cyst on the spleen or with liver diseases such as cirrhosis or hepatitis. There are cases of its increase due to the occurrence of a blood clot in the splenic vein. As a result of such cases, there is a risk of direct organ damage.

A disease such as splenic infarction occurs due to necrosis of the tissues surrounding it, which abdomen a person reacts with pain.

Everyone knows that protein plays a very important role important role in the construction of new cells and normal functioning of the human body. I have talked about this more than once in my videos and written in articles. But when I started studying the topic of protein in more detail, I learned a lot of new and useful information, which I simply hadn’t noticed before. Today I want to talk about plant-based proteins and the diet of vegans, raw foodists and fruit eaters, who do not eat animal protein at all, but only vegetable protein, which is found in cereals, legumes, vegetables, nuts and fruits. To an ordinary person, their diet will seem very meager and incomplete, since it does not contain any products of animal origin, but if you study this issue in more detail (which I tried to do), it turns out that even with a vegan diet you can get all the necessary nutrients which our body requires.

So, what are they? plant proteins? Is it possible to completely base your diet solely on vegetable proteins? Is this replacement equivalent?

MEAT=PLANTS?

Let's figure it out together.

Inverted worldview

Veganism is a nutrition system that completely excludes the consumption of any products of animal origin: animal meat, fish, eggs, milk and any kind. I used to think that vegans don’t eat meat because they feel sorry for animals, but it turns out that this is far from the main reason. Vegans are strict vegetarians who, not only for ethical reasons, but also from a health perspective, completely abstain from animal proteins.

You're probably wondering why "from the point of view of maintaining health" They don’t eat the animal products we are used to? I was also very interested in finding out, and for this I had to read more than one book on veganism and raw food nutrition to find out. The first of these books was a book by Colin Campbell, professor of food biochemistry at Cornell University, entitled "China Study". In it, he described in great detail his scientific research in China, as well as the research of his other fellow professors who studied the issue of protein in human nutrition. In short, the main idea of this book is to convey to all people on Earth how animal protein has a detrimental effect on the human body. It is from human consumption of animal protein that such terrible diseases appear, such as cancer, diabetes, autoimmune diseases, cardiovascular diseases, gastrointestinal diseases, vision problems and many others (see graphs below).

(data taken from The China Study)

To be honest, after reading this book, I could not come to my senses for a long time, since everything described in it is supported by scientific research and experiments conducted on both rats and humans. That is why all my knowledge and ideas about the importance of animal protein have been greatly shaken, if not completely collapsed...

But I didn’t stop there in my attempts to get to the bottom of the truth, so then I read a couple more books by supporters of this theory (Paul Brag “The Miracle of Fasting”, Allen Carr “ The easy way lose weight”, Vadim Zeland “Apocryphal Transurfing”, etc.), and to my surprise, they all only confirmed the main idea of the “China Study” and argued that meat and dairy products - it is not a human species food, and precisely because the human body is not able to properly absorb protein from this food, modern society and has so many health problems. And the more I immersed myself in studying this issue, the more my attitude towards meat changed...

I won’t claim that I completely gave up animal proteins, that’s not true, but still this knowledge has greatly changed my diet. Now I eat much less meat (perhaps once a week, or even less often), and at the same time I have increased the percentage of grains and legumes, fresh fruits and vegetables in my daily menu. So far, everything suits me, and therefore I continue my experiment (those who read my blog know that I like to conduct various experiments on myself), and who knows: maybe in the very near future I will become a pure vegan?...=)))

I will not describe the negative consequences of consuming animal protein, this is not the topic of this article, but I just want to tell you from which products you can get protein on a vegan and raw food diet.

 Reference

Raw foodists are people who eat only raw, unprocessed foods: fruits, vegetables, sprouted grains (buckwheat, mung bean, lentils, wheat, etc.), nuts and seeds.

Proteins of plant origin. Are they complete or not??

Main sources of plant-based protein

Also among the record holders for protein content are:

Seitan (wheat meat) – 75 g
Quinoa (cereal) – 14 g
Amaranth (plant) – 23 g (the protein value of amaranth seeds is estimated at 97%)
Mung beans (Indian beans) – 24 g
Chickpeas (chickpeas) – 19 g

In terms of vegetable protein content, legumes and nuts take first place, followed by cereals, and vegetables, herbs and fruits contain the least amount of protein. But, despite the fact that plant foods contain less protein, they are simply a storehouse useful vitamins, minerals, fiber and antioxidants, so I still advise you to increase the percentage of “live” food in your diet.

So, we found out that sources of protein can be not only meat, eggs and dairy products, but also products of plant origin. Many will now object to me, saying that all these products contain INCOMPLETE protein, but in reality this is not entirely true.

First, let's remember what complete and incomplete proteins are.

Complete proteins– these are those proteins that contain all the necessary essential amino acids (arginine, valine, histidine, isoleucine, leucine, lysine, methionine, threonine, tryptophan and phenylalanine), and defective proteins- These are those proteins that lack at least one essential amino acid.

The difference between essential amino acids and non-essential ones is that the former are not synthesized by the human body (as we are told in biology lessons), but come to us only with food. So the most important argument that all meat-eaters cling to is that vegetable proteins(except for soy) are incomplete, which means they cannot cover the needs of the human body for all the necessary amino acids. It is, of course, difficult to argue against such an argument, but nevertheless adherents of a vegan diet do it.

Human Origins

If we consider a person, as all vegans and raw foodists do, it turns out that a person is a being frugivorous. This means that its specific food is fruits, berries, fruits, vegetables and other products of exclusively PLANT origin, i.e. there should be no meat, fish, eggs or dairy products in his diet at all.

Of course, the question immediately arises: “What are all these people guided by when they claim that man is a frugivore?” And this is normal, this question also worried me very much, since you can say anything you want, but I want some scientific basis and evidence of this theory. And they (the evidence) exist.

Signs of human frugivorous origin:

The length of the human intestine is more than 10 times the length of its body, the same ratio as all herbivores on the planet. The length of the intestines of true predators and omnivores is only 3-6 times longer than their body. Predators need this feature in order to quickly move rotting and decaying animal flesh through the intestines.
The concentration of gastric juices is several times higher in predators than in herbivores. This is again necessary in order to quickly digest rotting animal protein. Our concentration of gastric juices is the same as that of herbivores.
Our saliva contains special enzymes to digest carbohydrates. Only herbivores have this.
Human teeth are blunt, short and even, like all herbivores, but we do not have so-called “fangs”, like predators. Human incisors, which everyone is accustomed to calling fangs, are not like that at all. Ours are not as sharp as those of predators and omnivores, and are needed solely to bite through hard fruits and roots.
The jaws of all herbivores and frugivores, including humans, move from side to side when chewing food. The jaws of predators only move up and down (vertically).
Humans sweat through their pores, and predators perform thermoregulation by sticking out their tongues.
Humans do not have claws, unlike predators.

This is only basic evidence that man by nature and physiological characteristics is a frugivore and not an omnivore or carnivore.

But let's return to our essential amino acids and vegetable proteins, and for this we will draw a small parallel between the gorilla - the closest relative of man - and man himself.

So, we know that the gorilla eats mainly fruits, fruits and various vegetation, i.e. she is a frugivore. So why can a gorilla, eating exclusively plant foods, get all the essential amino acids it needs, but a human cannot??? Having studied quite a few scientific literature, I found out that the human body, like the gorilla’s body, can synthesize ANY amino acids from plant foods, including ESSENTIAL ones. That is, it turns out that the human body is a unique and smart mechanism that, when global changes in eating habits (and the transition to a completely plant-based diet is precisely such changes) can adapt to its owner and use its unlimited resources provided by nature itself.

There are studies conducted on vegan people, which find that their nitrogen balance (it shows whether a person has a deficiency, excess or normal amount of protein in the body) can be normal if they eat enough vegetable protein, containing such an essential amino acid as lysine. The most important thing when switching to a vegan diet is that the body receives enough lysine, since if there is a lack of it, food is simply not absorbed, and the protein “passes through” the body in transit; also, without lysine, iron is poorly absorbed.

 There is a lot of lysine in soybeans, pistachios and legumes, in particular in lentils, amaranth, quinoa and beans.

Below is a table that shows the content essential amino acids in animal and plant products (picture clickable):

It turns out that plant foods are not nearly as inferior as everyone ascribes to them. In terms of the content of essential amino acids, the first three places are occupied by products of plant origin: soybeans, lentils and mung beans (Indian beans). So the wolf is not as scary as they make him out to be! Don't underestimate vegetable protein, as most people do now, thinking that they are eating right, absorbing incredible amounts of animal protein, and only occasionally diluting their diet with plant foods.

Plant based proteins in terms of their nutritional value they are in no way inferior to animal protein, to which we are all so accustomed and without which we simply cannot imagine our lives. Therefore, if you have always instinctively liked plant foods, including vegetables and fruits, then your instincts are very well developed. I in no way encourage everyone to give up meat and dairy products and switch to a vegan diet, this is not my task, I just wanted to say that plant foods contain enough of all the essential amino acids that our body needs so much. Therefore, by reducing the percentage of animal protein and increasing the percentage vegetable protein in your diet, you will only become healthier, more energetic and more cheerful, and then the choice, of course, is yours.

Sincerely yours, Janelia Skripnik!

P.S. Live forever, learn forever! =)

In preparing this article, materials were used from the book “The China Study” by Colin Campbell.