No Asberger's autism? No neurological defects or anomalies? No retardation? No learning disabilities?
And if we see this innate things, can we not imagine that for some the wiring is so messed up that the normal affect related to the "remorse' might be messed up?
A typical question in the psych work-up of a special needs infant or toddler is whether he responds to the approval or disapproval of his parents.
I recommend "The Man who Mistook his Wife for a Hat" as an provocative book on the exogenous and endogenous variations in human consciousness.
(I'm assuming your post is in response to what I wrote about psychopaths and conscience?)
So you deny synderesis and argue that our entire moral consciousness is conditioned?
Of course I disagree. I think that in a way similar to that in which Pythagoras, Euclid ... Lobachevsky make new mathematical discoveries by the application of innate abilities to perceptions, there is a sense among humans (generally, though not in every case) of justice and mercy and the rest and that ethical thought, though full of errors, is the application of innate capacities to experience and our reactions to them and assessments of them.
I don't know how to argue this, though. What's your take on the first arguments in Lewis's Mere Christianity
What do you think the imago dei includes?
You've rocked me back on my heels.
MadDawg, these are not "innate" characteristics that make us human. These are defects, or better yet abnormalities, exceptions. Something innate is something that is "known" (either expressly or potentially) by members of a given species as a matter of normal genetic constitution. As such innate characteristics are the rule rather than an exception.
Thus, we can say that a spider does not have to learn how to weave a web. It is "innate." There is no evidence of spiders teaching their young how to weave their web.
Human beings are born with a potential to speak, but they will not develop a language all by themselves, let alone a specific language. And without words there are no concepts. And without concepts, everything is here and now and it is a stimulus which evokes a reflex.
It is a curious thing that the Bible says nothing of God teaching Adam to speak. If anything, the Book of Genesis suggests that Adam was created with a functional speech and comprehension of whatever language God spoke to him. Moreover, Adam was created with pre-formed concepts, such as names. In Genesis, God allowed him to name all the animals (at least in one version of Genesis).
Adam's descendants are born without a functional speech or comprehension. Everything must be learned.
Yes.
I think that in a way similar to that in which Pythagoras, Euclid ... Lobachevsky make new mathematical discoveries by the application of innate abilities to perceptions, there is a sense among humans (generally, though not in every case) of justice and mercy and the rest and that ethical thought.
You would have to have a human lab specimen to show that this is so. Of course this is not possible, so we have to rely on few examples of children being raised in isolation from other humans. The few known children who were raised or survived in the wild had no speech and no concepts, no social graces, etc.
Everything from God onward had to be taught to them.
What's your take on the first arguments in Lewis's Mere Christianity?
I do realize that you are asking me for an opinion of what is considered a Christian giant of modern age. My reply to you is that I am not impressed with this work because it is lukewarm, it is pure speculation, and it is vague enough to satisfy all Christian denominations.
I am certainly deeply opposed to his concept of becoming "amalgamated" with God's nature. From an Orthodox point of view that is pure heresy. We are made god-like by grace and not by nature.
His work certainly rests on a priori assumptions stated as "facts." But this is no different than a primitive man concluding that inside a rumbling volcano there must be an angry "god."
What do you think the imago deiincludes?
Our sovereignty on earth. Who is higher than man on this planet? Humans are above all else by leaps and bounds. There is not even a chance of any competition from other species. Not even a semblance. The gap between humans and chimps (who share 99% of our genetic code) is not nearly as wide as it is abysmally deep. There is really nothing human about chimps. Nothing.
So, our thoughts are not their thoughts and our ways are not their ways. God gave us dominion on earth, in his image, as sovereigns. That's all.
But we also believe that God created us in his likeness, which we lost after the Fall. It is attaining the likeness of God, becoming Christ-like, that is true restoration of humanity to its original purpose. Two very different concepts: image and likeness of God.