Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

To: Anamensis
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.

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?

45 posted on 07/06/2002 7:32:36 AM PDT by JMJ333
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies ]


To: JMJ333
Yes, we are helpless, but I cannot reconcile our helplessness with that of a reptile or animal because of our unique and intrinsic dignity.

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! (-:

47 posted on 07/06/2002 7:47:17 AM PDT by Anamensis
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson