Western science did exist historically yet now it's world science. Toynbee noted in his last book... "Mankind and Mother Earth", that Western civilization has morphed into world civilization...there is just one civilization and it has many streams flowing into it.
Energy is a description of relationships or events; yet what is it for-itself? Less than a string, more basic than a two dimensional point, is it comparable to quanta detached from a field or observed at a point of exchange? Does energy make up the stuff of all quanta including strings or quarks?
One may have an endless supply of definitions of energy that provide examples. It could be a characteristic of quanta. Even massless particles may have it. Yet it may all be borrowed from a field with a total quantity of potential energy? Perhaps some believe that field comprises the Universe and that it is eternal.
Time and configurations of space would be contingent and relative in each denouement of a Universe existing of course. The energy field should be bound in some way before a singularity. Yet what dynamic tension holds it together...gravity or simply the will of God.? Is the field unique or is there an infinite supply of fields that can be a Universe in mothballs as it were.
On Euthenasia
Euthanasia seems like a reference to state sanctioned murder popularly. It reminds me of the hit man smothering some old guy with a pillow.
Self-murder may be sought to relieve suffering of course. I think of the couple in The Alien that blew themselves up with a grenade instead of being captured.
Sartre invented a term; the coefficient of adversity, to describe the relationship of the individual to external challenges. When it becomes too much the thought of people can turn toward suicide. After all, few people kill themselves thinking that "I am too happy and life is too wonderful, therefore I must kill myself!".
I wonder if the oxy-fentanyl death epidemic is driven in part by those seeking an easy way to check out of reality. Assuredly good medical care and a righteous economic system would cut down the numbers of self-death makers.
On contemporary thought challenges/conflicts regarding abiogenesis and the Biblical story of Genesis
The truth can be difficult to know and people may rely on authorities rather than themselves for opinions. People don't spend their lives as philosophers generally. Some dabble with partial truths part-time and ossify and promote that insight.
Interpreting scripture can be philosophical challenging for-itself. Moderns can err on their assumptions. Specialists in science and Christianity may wear blinders though not necessarily. Here is a link to a free book I wrote on the matter...
Christianity, Evolution and Digital Universes
https://www.lulu.com/.../chr.../ebook/product-wnddgd.html...
On 'The Pragmatic Fallacy'
It derives from William James- the Harvard philosopher associated with the foundation of pragmatism (it actually was C.S. Pierce) who explained belief in Christ is comparable to a bet. If one has faith one is a winner, and if wrong loses nothing. Alternatively if one hasn't faith one is a guaranteed eternal loser if Christ is the true way, and would be no better off than the Christian if right.
Sorry...I provided an incorrect reference. James did apply a pragmatic argument to the question of faith yet the pragmatic fallacy is something else. https://www.jstor.org/stable/4320221....
A generative AI explained the pragmatic fallacy thusly; "someone assumes that something will help everyone because it helped someone else".
On the Question; Are People Part of Nature and the Natural World?
Yes; people are like giant thinking ants that affect nature in a world where they are the top dog, the biggest cheeses, the ultima ratio for good or bad under God they challenge the existence of.
Second growth of nature upon derelict ant colonies is nature too; as well as primary virgin land unworked by worker ants. The giant ants ignore their ant-thropocene caused changes to the natural world they live in sometimes, and consider themselves to be not part of nature while also sometimes believing they too are part of nature and so they cannot possibly harm it. That is something like saying they are criminals and everyone else is too so they cannot possibly commit crimes that could harm society. The problem with that way of thinking is that the natural criminals are petty criminals avoiding paying parking tickets etc while the Giant Ants are destroying the environmental viability of not only ants to live in, on every other criminal too as they blink and fade into extinction.
