Posted on 07/03/2002 9:26:05 PM PDT by JMJ333
Like this: the first year of our lives we are helpless. The first experiences we have are of being hungry and crying out... and a large, seemingly omnipotent being (mommy) comes and feeds us. We are wet or dirty and we cry out... and a large, seemingly omnipotent being comes and changes our diapers. We are frightened or angry or upset and we cry out... and a large, seemingly omnipotent being comes and comforts us. In other words, mammals are imprinted early with a template for crying out for help and being helped. I've seen kittens do the same thing, do you think they believe in god? No. They just know that when they cry, someone comes. Things that are hatched from eggs and then slither away, like snakes, have no such early experiences. So when you talk about the "instinct" to look beyond ourselves for aid from an omnipotent force, all you are talking about is the residue left from our earliest experiences of dependency.
Again, there is another option. There is an atheist stance that is respectful of objective truth.
But concrete truths do exist! On this we will forever disagree!
We aren't disagreeing! Read what I said, please. You'll never understand who you are arguing with as long as you try to shoehorn me into the little category you have carved out for post-modernists and commies, which you have labeled "atheist".
You are looking at this 100% backwards, like the man who marvels that his mouth is just big enough to fit a spoon into, and how miraculous it is that our mouths are just the right size for spoons. Well of course they are, the spoon was built for the mouth, not the other way around.
Yes, we are helpless, but I cannot reconcile our helplessness with that of a reptile or animal because of our unique and intrinsic dignity. Further, once animals are weened of their mothers, they do not pine for the supernatural. The human soul [for many] yearns for the love of God.
We aren't disagreeing! Read what I said, please. You'll never understand who you are arguing with as long as you try to shoehorn me into the little category you have carved out for post-modernists and commies, which you have labeled "atheist".
I understand, but I am nit-picking because their is a strict definition on what concrete truth is. I am not trying to disrespectfully pigeonhole you into a corner--but I have to make the distinction between our belief systems on the subject of objective reality. I do not think you are a communist. A post-modernist? Yes, simply because of your stances on the value of human life and the lack of unimportance you place on "higher things." That isn't a slap at you--just an observation.
Modern because non-believer before Machiavalli still held a sense of piety, the natural religious instinct to respect something greater than yourself, the humility that instinctively realizes man's subordinate place in the great scheme of things. Moderation or temperance went along with this, especially in classical civilization. You would agree then that you philosophy is certainly more post modern?
I know some people with dignity, but I know plenty without a shred of it. "Unique and intrinsic human dignity" needs to be further defined and verified if I'm going to accept it as a given starting point for our purposes.
Further, once animals are weened of their mothers, they do not pine for the supernatural. The human soul [for many] yearns for the love of God.
They don't "pine for the supernatural" but if they are in trouble, they will cry out and I'm sure they don't know to whom or to what they are crying out. They just do it because they can't do anything else and it worked once before. As for the "human soul" that's another fiction to me so I don't think I can start with you there either. What you call a "human soul pining for the supernatural" I call a Emma Bovary like yearning for Romanticism to fill the void left when learning is abandoned as useless because our minds aren't capable. This is probably why women were traditionally considered more devout. Empty brains, full hearts, so to speak.
Modern because non-believer before Machiavalli still held a sense of piety, the natural religious instinct to respect something greater than yourself, the humility that instinctively realizes man's subordinate place in the great scheme of things. Moderation or temperance went along with this, especially in classical civilization. You would agree then that you philosophy is certainly more post modern?
Well, I certainly have enough respect for the laws of nature to be quite respectful of its force and I know that no matter how subjective a truth I think gravity to be, if I stepped off the top of a 40 story building I would go splat whether I believed in gravity or not. As for my assessment of the value of human life... its value to whom? Sheep? Do sheep value human life? Do sharks value human life? No, of course not, you mean "the value of human life to humans." That is why the value of human life is relative. It has exactly the value we place on it, no more, no less. I don't think this makes me post-modernist as that is a very recent phenomenon and you have indicated that the break happened just after Machiavelli. I'd rather think of myself as Machiavellian than post-modernist! (-:
I usually don't bite. ;-)
"As for the evil in the world, evil is a human construct."
Is each human entitled to his own construct?
sitetest
Entitled by whom?
I do not mean dignity defined by behavior. I mean life itself is indowed with intrinsic value define at conception--a topic you and I have hashed about repeatedly and have never come to an agreement on.
They don't "pine for the supernatural" but if they are in trouble, they will cry out and I'm sure they don't know to whom or to what they are crying out. They just do it because they can't do anything else and it worked once before. As for the "human soul" that's another fiction to me so I don't think I can start with you there either. What you call a "human soul pining for the supernatural" I call a Emma Bovary like yearning for Romanticism to fill the void left when learning is abandoned as useless because our minds aren't capable. This is probably why women were traditionally considered more devout. Empty brains, full hearts, so to speak.
LOL, I would feel insulted if I didn't know you better! I consider myself many things, but empty-brained isn't one of them! And I disagree with the assertion that men are less pious or devout, as the number male saints in the Catholic church is plentiful.
I have enjoyed the debate, as usual, and will see you again next round. Cheers. ;)
"Entitled by whom?"
By whatever it is that is objectively true.
sitetest
Let's back up. I said that Miss O'Connor's point of view is buttressed by the fact of human evil. You said that evil is a human construct. Okay, fine. I could just assume that you are a moral relativist. But I've glanced at posts where you seem to say something different. And I'm willing to listen.
But if evil is a human construct, at least in your view, then I want to know - is there one construct of evil to which all us humans must adhere, or may individuals have their own? I'm asking you what is your view. I'm not looking to find agreement with you. Just trying to see what you think.
sitetest
So MY view of good and evil aren't really relative, at least I don't think they are. I don't make allowances for other cultures: Arabs performing infibulations on 6 year old girls are doing wrong, IMNSHO, because they are doing something that is detrimental to human health. Any culture that forbids free inquiry into the nature of life is limiting the freedom to think, which is detrimental to human progress. We can see that simply by looking over at the Middle East and seeing how backward and sick they are. So there's nothing relativist in my views from what I can see. My main object is always human progress.
I simply don't tack on that final Official Seal of Approval that says "I want what God thinks is best for humans." No. I want what I think is best for humans. It may not jibe with what you think but it isn't relativist.
Moreoever, the God clause does not provide an objective starting point, otherwise there would be only one religion, not dozens of permutations all with differing emphases.
I still don't know if I'm answering your question or not. But do you see why I say evil is a human construct? We apply good and evil to things that are beneficial or harmful to us. Evil is that which is harmful to us. We don't judge non-humans in terms of good and evil, though. As I said in a previous post to JMJ, if a lion kills and eats a gazelle, is the lion "evil"? To us, generally speaking, he is not "evil" because animals aren't subject to these judgments. It's a little like that "if a tree falls in the forest" thing. Evil is the assessment of the action. If there is no one there who assesses things in that manner, there is no one there to say "that is evil." So there is no one on the savannah pointing at the lion and saying "evil." No one I know expects that lions will go to hell.
I guess the religious person's view is that there is a god somewhere doing this assessing. I don't think there is any such thing, therefore the direction the judgment is coming from is different. That doesn't make it "relative."
As for the special and intrinsic human dignity enshrined in the soul and endowed by The Creator, you're right, we aren't going to come to an agreement because I don't see any evidence of the dignity, the soul, or the creator. In fact, one of the reasons we never get anywhere is we can't even find a starting point to agree upon.
Then you consider yourself what? A mere animal? A complex machine?
It is true we find no starting point because I believe that sort of reductionism has led to the things I abhore; abortion/infanticide, euthanisia, cloning, ESCR, fertility clinics, etc.
I have no argument against the notion that women are more emotional, and viewed by men as having less intellect. You have a point in that I have heard that in Italy the majority of people left who go to church are women. I was only giving an example that there have been plenty of men that one can point to for piety.
Thanks for your reply. I'd like to roll it around in my head for a while before I get back to you on it.
sitetest
"Mere" animal? What do you have against animals? Anyway, animal is just a word meaning, essentially, "animated" as in "something alive, that moves." So yes, I think we are animals in that we are animate, mammals in that we are warm blooded, primates in that we have fingernails, fingerprints, dry noses, are bipedal, etc, and Homo sapiens. Definitely the smartest of the mammals, very clever, tricky little monkeys we are, in fact... but its only intellect that sets us apart.
I was only giving an example that there have been plenty of men that one can point to for piety.
Natually. And I am only making the point that to clear a path for faith, you must first degrade intellect and decree that there are some things it cannot do. I am also making a point that Western society has had its priorities straight for some time now if it was delegating faith to women and then telling them they can't vote.
Nothing! I have nothing against animals! However, I am not about to be reduced down to one. There is no comparison between me and rover in terms of my value! I can't imagine you think that your girlfriend and your cat are equal in value and only set apart by intelligence!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.