Tebaldi (Part 2):

You then say, “Sex, to me, is a beautiful act that adds intimacy and sharing to a relationship.”

Even were I to agree with this, you almost prove my point by saying “adds intimacy.”  This presumes that a relationship already exists – something more than just having met someone at a party that evening, or even having dated them three or four times.  That is, it “adds intimacy” to something already formed.  And as I stated, in my opinion, that relationship should have quite a number of strong foundational features before sex enters the picture to “add intimacy” to it.

You say, “I don’t reject you or your opinion.  On the contrary, I value you’re ideas, no matter how insane they seem to me.  I’m all about live and let live.”

I sincerely appreciate that.  And although I may hold my position strongly, this does not mean that I do not value YOUR ideas as well (though I see them more as “misguided” than “insane”…LOL).

Re my comment about Christianity being the most “inclusive” exclusivist religion since the ONLY thing one MUST do is “profess Jesus with thy mouth, and believe in thine heart that God hath raised Him from the dead,” you say, “Most Taoists, Jews, and Islamic folk won’t even consider professing this.  You ask what could be more inclusive; I (still) ask what could be more exclusive?”

More exclusive?  I gave a few.  You have to wear certain clothes.  Or eschew certain foods.  Or eat certain foods on certain days.  Or pray a certain number of times per day.  Or face in a specific direction when you pray.  Or pray using specific words.  Or be in a specific building when you worship and/or pray.  Or shun certain people.  Or have two sets of cookware.  Or…

Get the picture?  Christianity is more inclusive because it requires NONE of these things (which Judaism and Islam do), but ONLY requires that you honor Jesus.

In response to Joan’s comment that “There are no species that seem to fill the gap between the species most close to us,” you say, “No mystery there, we killed them all.  Very rarely in nature will you find similar species living, in the same environment, vying for the same resources.  (The ooze argument would be a lot more challenging for me if there were another species between the great apes and humans.)

Actually, even if we had killed them, some record of their existence SHOULD show up in the fossil or other records.  Yet this is not the case.  As one evolutionary philosopher put it, “Darwin admitted that millions of ‘missing links’ - transitional life forms - would have to be discovered in the fossil record to prove the accuracy of his theory that all species had gradually evolved by chance mutation into new species.  Unfortunately for his theory, despite hundreds of millions spent on searching for fossils worldwide for more than a century, scientists have failed to locate a single missing link out of the millions that must exist if their theory of evolution is to be vindicated.”

[Final to come]

Tebaldi:

Thank you for your responses, and for your patience (LOL).

You say, “From a Darwinian perspective, species generally protect their own.  It can be inferred that at an instinctive or cognitive level, each species believes that they are worthy.  Why protect that which has no worth?  What use would it have for nature to select man who perceives other animals as their equal?”

Actually, while it may be true that “species protect their own,” we also know that in many (and arguably most) species, litter runts, the sick and the aged are either left behind or killed off because they are a detriment to the movement and/or feeding of the healthy, and thus the continued successful survival of the species.  And this “survival instinct” strongly trumps any concept of “worthiness.”  So, by Darwinian rules, it should be the same for humans.

Re my comment that, “I know many gay couples,” you say, “Interesting.  It just seems so duplicitous to me.  ‘I love you, but you don’t merit the same rights as heteros.’”

You misquote me.  Here is my comment from an earlier post: “This is why it is not a self-contradiction to believe that homosexuality is “wrong,” and yet to support civil unions for gay people…Because “justice” includes equality under the (temporal) law.  Thus, whether through civil unions or otherwise, within the context of temporal law (“rendering to Caesar”), gay people are entitled to the selfsame benefits as everyone else.”

Re my response to your comment that “homosexuality doesn’t hurt anyone” by bringing up AIDS, you say, “False logic.  This is incidental (albeit a horrific tragedy).  It’s like me blaming heterosexuals for the spread of tuberculosis.  I suggest that AIDS could have just as easily started in the hetero community had the circumstances been different.  Do you think heteros would have been any more responsible for their behaviors?”

Although it is to some degree a good point, the statistics don’t agree.  The reason AIDS spread as quickly as it did was the amount of unprotected sex that single gay men were having with each other – often with multiple partners in multiple locations.  And until it spread to the U.S. hetero community (and then globally), the number of those who became HIV positive and/or died from AIDS was almost 85% gay men.  If we hypothesize AIDS starting in the hereto community, it is still not going to spread as quickly, since straight single people have fewer partners (a proven statistic), and do not “move around” nearly as much (sadly, this is the result of the former “need” to have specific “gay communities” in various cities; you would never hear of a “hetero community”).  As well, the spread of AIDS from the hetero community to the gay community would have been slightly slower than the reverse.  Finally, eve assuming this path, once the virus spread to the gay community, it is statistically likely that it would have spread like wildfire (as it did) based on the sexual habits of single gay men at the time.  Thus, it might have STARTED just as easily in the hetero community, but the overall statistics re the incidence of HIV/AIDS would likely have been the same.

Re “Re:  Romans 1:26-27.  You make an awfully large assumption of what meant by “recompense”.  Recompense may have meant that they were stoned by their fellow villagers.”

No, you need to read the passage again.  The phrase is “receiving IN THEMSELVES that recompense of their error which was meet.”  “In themselves” – not recompense from “outside” (such as stoning), but something “internal” – such as a virus or disease.

[More to come]

Keith:

You say, “Whatever word you use, it is a fundamental observed property of evolutionary biology that without known exception EVERY characteristic feature of every species is the result of evolutionary selection, either direct or a side effect of some feature that was selected. The assumption is without known exceptions…[That all aspects of human nature are products of evolution through selection] is fundamental to evolutionary biology.  If you know of an exception, please speak up.”

And how can you be sure that “faith” is not that exception?  The answer is that you have set up (ironically enough) a self-fulfilling prophecy: “There are no exceptions, since no one has yet found an exception.  Thus, your alleged exception is not an exception.”  Don’t you see how hopeless and narrow this closed-loop logic is?

Similarly, to my comment that “In both of these cases, something Joan pointed out early in this discussion is operative: that science believes that, given enough time, it will find “empirical” evidence for everything in the universe.  And is this not as much “faith” as faith is?,” you respond, “That’s poorly worded, but so far there have been no exceptions I know about.”

“No exceptions?”  You mean like the thousands of things that science has NOT yet been able to explain?  This goes beyond self-fulfilling prophecy to…hopefully filled prophecy – to say nothing of poor logic, since your conclusion does not follow from your premise: “Premise: Science has thus far been able to explain many, perhaps even most, things.  Conclusion: Science can, and will, explain everything about the known universe, both macro and micro, given enough time.”

Sorry, Keith.  Even I can see the fallacy in this claim.

Peace.

Part 1

Maan wrote:

>[Keith] said, “Sure.  People with faith exist in the billions.  No question about it.  The problem is how to account for this psychological trait that (like other psychological traits) was shaped in the Stone Age.”

>It seems awfully presumptive to state unequivocally that faith is a “psychological” trait when the jury is still way, WAY out on this.  And you accuse the faith-based of trafficking in certainties without proof?

Would you prefer to call it a “mental” trait or a characteristic of the human species?  I am not picky about what it is called.  It is a property that chimps don’t seem to have (as far as I know) but you can demonstrate it exists in pigeons.  (Amazing experiment that was!)

Whatever word you use, it is a fundamental observed property of evolutionary biology that without known exception *every* characteristic feature of every species is the result of evolutionary selection, either direct or a side effect of some feature that *was* selected.  (To be complete, you can also get evolutionarily neutral drift.)

>You then bring up the issue of “morality,” and a scientific conclave in which its origins are discussed from two perspectives: neuroscience and evolutionary psychology.  But this also is presumptive (if not intellectually dishonest), since it only includes two possibilities for the origins of morality.  Indeed, even the language is vague:

>“Neuroscientists assume that morality is generated by specific neural mechanisms and structures, which they hope to find by way of sophisticated brain imaging techniques.” The word “assume” speaks volumes, as does the word “hope.”

There is already major and rapid progress identifying these structures.  See the Drew Westen paper I have mentioned here before.  There are hundreds if not thousands of papers on these topics by now.

>The language of the evolutionary psychologists is no better: “Evolutionary scientists, by contrast, want to figure out what the adaptive value of morality is for it to have evolved.  According to them, morality is - just as all aspects of our human nature - a product of evolution through selection.  Moral and social behavior must have had a selective advantage, from which the relevant cognitive and emotional functions developed.” Here, the operative words are “must have had” - a blatant, and completely insupportable, assumption.

The assumption is without known exceptions.  It is fundamental to evolutionary biology.  If you know of an exception, please speak up.

>In both of these cases, something Joan pointed out early in this discussion is operative: that science believes that, given enough time, it will find “empirical” evidence for everything in the universe.  And is this not as much “faith” as faith is?

That’s poorly worded, but so far there have been no exceptions I know about.

Part 2

>Finally, just so you don’t think I am do not appreciate at least SOME of what you say (LOL), I was pleasantly surprised to see the following statement re Dawkins et al: “In this regard, I think they are acting more like religions fanatics than scientists.  They feel they are acting correctly, just like every other kind of fanatic.  I make the case they are at best useless and at worse counterproductive, but perhaps they will inspire scientists to consider the problems more deeply that just railing against religions.”

>Bravo.  You could not have stated Joan’s and my position better!  LOL.

Glad you agree on this point.

If scientists are inspired to figure out why people act as religious (and even anti religious) fanatics and as fanatics for and against political candidates, and why people can become fanatics at all, then we will most likely understand the common evolved mental mechanisms behind them all.

Understanding does not necessarily mean we can solve the problems caused by these mental mechanisms.  Consider HIV.  But the historical record is that problems such as cholera epidemics were not solved before the mechanisms that caused the problems were understood.

I don’t know how often I can stop in to continue this debate.  Now that the police have exposed where I live, I have to cope with religious fanatics (scientologists) who have killed many people, a number of them by depraved indifference murder.  Kidnapping is not beyond them.  They have invaded my property and that of my consulting clients when I lived in other places. 

Their leader has been known for several years for his vicious behavior, beating up the people around him while his goons keep them from decking him (he is a little guy).  At least (thanks to Tom Cruise) scientology’s reputation is not nearly as good as that of Jim Jones before his goons executed Representative Leo Ryan.

If anyone wants to help, calls about this extradition (intended to be more like a CIA “rendition”) to the governors of Arizona and California might help a lot.

And then again they might not.

Keith Henson

(Part 2) Re:  Comment #51445 by Joan on 2/03 at 11:00 am

Re:  There are no species that seem to fill the gap between the species most close to us
No mystery there, we killed them all.  Very rarely in nature will you find similar species living, in the same environment, vying for the same resources.  Hell, we almost killed off the Native Americans because of our perception that they were not (as) human.  (The ooze argument would be a lot more challenging for me if there were another species between the great apes and humans).
 
Re:  Homosexuals
I’m sorry that you perceived that I am attacking you on this.  This is not my objective.
You wrote “We do not understand much about homosexuality, certainly not enough to be reconfiguring those elements of society that have been its main staples like heterosexual marriage”.  Good point.  I’m sure men had the similar reservations when they discussed the proposal for women to vote.  It bolsters my position, however, that homosexuals are a lot easier to figure out than women.  (Ha-ha)  Seriously though, you speak as though homosexual cohabitation is not occurring in the world.  The “social experiment” has existed for years; I simply want to afford them the same benefits as their hetero counterparts.  It’s a state-recognized certificate, and associated financial benefits.  What is really going to change except for the acceptance level? 
I asked my 15 year-old (boy), how he would feel about his friend having married, gay parents.  He said that nothing would change.  Although he did have the foresight to anticipate ridicule from some of the other kids. 

I agree what you said about Harris.  On the other hand we need the Harris’ in the world to offset the radically religious, just like we need Zinn to offset Limbaugh.  The radically left and right can battle it out, while the essence of America remains somewhere in the middle, on saner ground. 

Re:  The children.
Once again, I agree.  I too am an advocate for our children; they come first and foremost.  You can’t possibly predict the outcome of federal gay marriage legislation.  You fear that the children will suffer, yet point to no reason for your fear.  So I implore you to expound on your reasoning, lest I label your fear a phobia.

p.s. I’m glad that I touched you.  (Just don’t tell my fiancée)

Ciao!  -Tebaldi

Re:  Comment #51364 by Joan on 2/02 at 6:44 pm

Joan, your point is well taken.  I agree with the bulk of what you’re saying.  We still disagree on what is good for children and societal stability.  You say we have “A runaway sense of enlightenment and politic correctness.”  Implying that we are all just jumping on the “be nice to queers bandwagon”, chock full of self-righteousness.  I am well beyond my idealist, fight-the-power, college years and I think you know me better than that by now, Joan. 

In the interest of eschewing obfuscation, I propose that we look at this issue without bringing in all of the “other lovers”.  Let’s just focus on gay marriage and pretend that no other faction will seek marital status.  If you would like, we can discuss that later.  I’m actually a little confused here.  It almost seems that you would support gay marriage were it not for these complications.

Re:  Comment #51445 by Joan on 2/03 at 11:00 am
Re:  “Same ooze” does not equal “no intrinsic worth”
Round 12:  I really have to differ to my “Sistine Chapel v. YMCA mural” argument.  Where A and B are Primordial matter (quarks and gluons), You say if A+B (the primordial recipe for a slug) = a slug then A+B+A+A+A+A+A+B+A+A+A+A+B+A+A+A+A+A+A (the primordial recipe for a human) = a slug.  I don’t get it.  Look at all the extra “A”s humans have.  Look at the way that the 2nd “B” follows the 6th “A”.  What gives us a greater worth is HOW the ooze is arranged.  Beyond that, when there is an extra “A”, a slug ceases to be A+B.  It now becomes something entirely different i.e. “C” (which equals A+A+B).  It’s like taking one grain of sand, and comparing it to one of those impressive sand sculptures.  Incidentally, Intrinsic worth = A+A+B+B+A+A+A.  So there is no way in hell that slugs can have this.  While I appreciate the way that you can think around corners, I grow weary in my attempt to quantify a perception. 

Re:  Where is the science to support this?  -  I don’t know.  I’m not a scientist.

(continued)

(Part 2)  Re:  Comment #51375 by Maani on 2/02 at 7:47 pm

Re:  how do you know what level of “remorse” a gay person feels or does not feel?  but are you really that intimate with them
I am not extremely intimate with a gay couple.  I think that it is completely appropriate for me to broad brush here.  I speak, in this instance, in generalities.  I will add that the “many” gay people that are remorseful would be a lot better off were it not for the self-righteous folk, imposing their moralities on others. 
Re:  homosexuality doesn’t hurt anyone / AIDS? 
False logic.  This is incidental (albeit a horrific tragedy).  It’s like me blaming heterosexuals for the spread of tuberculosis.  I suggest that AIDS could have just as easily started in the hetero community had the circumstances been different.  Do you think heteros would have been any more responsible for their behaviors?  (Although AIDS probably would have been brought under control quicker because of the discrimination factor.)

Re:  Romans 1:26-27.
You make an awfully large assumption of what meant by “recompense”.  Recompense may have meant that they were stoned by their fellow villagers. 

Re: Paul and fornication. 
I respect Paul for having this impressive display of discipline and self control.  They should make him a Saint.  Seriously though, I think that this is exactly why Catholics are all screwed up.  (Just kidding).  Sex, to me, is a beautiful act that adds intimacy and sharing to a relationship.  I’m well aware that sex is like a gun, if used capriciously, it will often result in tragedy.  The reason Dr Ruth et al have been so popular is because people are finally given the opportunity to productively manage, rather than repress, their sexual desires. 
Although this is separate issue, I think that the priesthood/sexual misconduct issue is a result of suppressing this strong, innate instinct.

Re: you refuse to allow ANY place within “reason” for “unreason.”
Oddly enough, I accept the plausibility of God Based on reason, not faith (If there is no God, why is there stuff?). 
I completely accept you as my peer, my equal.  I will never condescend to you, nor consciously harm our relationship.  (Remember I’m a humanist).  I don’t see you as entrenched per se.  I see you as Maani, the fun loving, God-believing dude with whom I enjoy sparring.  You may have gotten the impression otherwise based on my reaction to the “Jews going to hell issue” (This is the most acrimonious, presumptuous and alienating thing I’ve ever heard.)  I haven’t read that far ahead, I assume you’ll address this issue.  Yes, I have entrenched views (as do you).  I won’t hide my emotion, or mince my words.  But like Joan says, nobody’s got it all licked.  This was said before; who’s truth is the true truth (say that 5 times fast).  I don’t reject you or your opinion.  On the contrary, I value you’re ideas, no matter how insane they seem to me.  I’m all about live and let live.

You wrote “You need only profess Jesus with thy mouth, and believe in thine heart that God hath raised Him from the dead.  Period.  The rest is details.  What could be more inclusive than that?” 
Most Taoists, Jews, and Islamic folk won’t even consider professing this.  You ask what could be more inclusive; I (still) ask what could be more exclusive?

Surprise!  You have shocked me with your next paragraph (I have A.D.D., so I read your responses one paragraph at a time).  So God can do what ever He wants.  Now that’s the God whom I envision.  Thank you for saving the worthy, Mr. Brown.  You’ve abated my uncertainties of some of the nonsensical guidance of the Bible.

Ciao!  -Tebaldi

Re:  Comment #51375 by Maani on 2/02 at 7:47 pm

Maani, .  I will attempt to avoid being infinitely regressive (that cut me deep, Maani).  I’m really taking a lashing as of late; you’ll note that Joan has hinted that my ideas are sophomoric.  Please keep in mind that your ideas on homosexuality would seem infinitely regressive in my hometown (Amherst, MA).  But I rarely discount a reasonable person’s opinions. 

Re:  Survival of the fittest v. concern for (much less active protection of) “the aged, the infirm.
I’ve explained this from a Darwinian point of view before, I don’t know that anyone has refuted it – Nature selected a human with cognitive thought, and the ability to effectively feel, and demonstrate emotion.  An unavoidable consequence of this selection is that we don’t discard our weak.  It’s the “good with the bad” if you want to look at it cynically. 
Re:  What kind of silliness is that?
I admit that it is silly.  It’s silly because, as I’ve stated before, I have no business assigning worth to Hitler, my dog, a slug etc.  You, however, force me to do this in an attempt to support my argument.  I know of no other way.  One can not quantify worth, yet you ask me to do it.  So pursuant to expounding my point, I come up with additional silliness such as that which follows:
You fail to see my point of the relative worth of things.  On a scale of 0-100 a slug gets a 7.  A dog gets a 58.  A chimpanzee gets a 72.  Prehistoric humans get a 99.8.  A present-day hominid gets a 99.9.  Finally, our successors will earn the perfect 100.  There.  How ultimately silly is that?  Incidentally, Donald Trump comes in at a 96.3 because he’s infinitely annoying.  (See my response to Joan for additional silliness)
From a Darwinian perspective, species generally protect their own.  It can be inferred that at an instinctive or cognitive level, each species believes that they are worthy.  Why protect that which has no worth?  What use would it have for nature to select man who perceives other animals as their equal? 

Re:  “homosexuality CANNOT - in any supportable, empirical, medico-scientific way - be a “natural inclination” (if by that you mean genetic, hereditary, innate)”
I don’t necessarily mean genetic or hereditary (although you can’t say otherwise).  I do claim that it may very well be innate.  I don’t think that they’ve pegged the gene responsible for an innate musical ability, but it is considered innate nonetheless.  Please reference my argument with Joan on this subject.

Re:  I know many gay couples.
Interesting.  It just seems so duplicitous to me.  “I love you, but you don’t merit the same rights as heteros.” 

(Continued)

Keith,

If you are responding to me, I feel that I have written a book since the fall of last year. But it has helped me understand what I think. I for one need to slow my pace.
So take your time. I have my posts on “Word” and can reference them if or when you and I continue.
To answer your query about people having religious behavior…maybe people have religious behavior because they experience God and as people are apt to do, they get things wrong about a lot of things…both about science and God but we keep working at both to get answers. We are a curious sort. Good luck with your endeavors and this dialogue has been good.

Keep us posted about what is happening with scientology…I just don’t get that particular …fan club.

Joan

Tebaldi,

I hope Maani and I have not buried you alive…please read my post to Keith and know I am in no rush but at least let me know if you survived this avalanche…. My thoughts kept coming and coming and I wanted to get them down for you…but no rush to respond or obligation here…and too our dialogue has been very interesting.

Joan

I will try to produce a response if I can, but the scientology “religion” is taking up an awful lot of my time lately.

Sheesh.  As many postings on slashdot on my situation in the last 3 days as the postings on this thread in a few months.

Bur rather than hate religions or the people they inspire to vicious behavior, I want to understand why people have a trait for religious behavior at all.

Keith Henson

Tebaldi,

What do you care what I think?  Your answer touched me. I am writing on a thread that by definition is hostile to faith based people. You have mentioned several times I am swimming with some sharks here and I know it. I do heavy- handed responses to rouse my other interlocutors from what I see as their dogmatic slumbers as they do likewise to me. All I can think of is that the conversations continue so those on the thread must like what’s going on or at least find it interesting.  And that is acceptance, I think. But I want you to know that these hard stances of mine are just that and are not the basis of my accepting a person or rejecting them, if someone disagrees with me. As I have said over and over, no one agrees with anyone in a philosophy department.  But in our own way it was certainly family, me and about 10 guys of all assorted ages, kind of every woman’s fantasy. It was our own peculiar way of accepting.  It was one day throwing chalk and erasers at each other in a heated disagreement and the next day eating Tex- Mex and downing beer together. It was not our viewpoints that caused us to overall like one another or not. In that sea of all that dissent there was the deep sense that we cared about each other personally, on a one to one basis. That is how we were. This was a little microcosm or crucible of the entire world, full of dissent but functioning by treating each other with care and dignity. I have the sense that those of us who hang tough here on “truthdig” will never convince each other too much of another’s viewpoint point but really do accept each other as very good conversationalists and really enjoy this endeavor. It works if we differ in the context of respect. And Harris needs to note this. Also, I certainly am softhearted than one would think from my posts. I hope so anyway.

On the gay issue I will give you a freebie…I can argue that nature doesn’t not see fit to promote this lifestyle because nature favors overwhelmingly the generation of life, ie virgin birth komodos. And you can counter argue, using my ideas that man seems to impose a morality on nature which is amoral and thereby man’s morality overrides nature on this issue and then you can need to pursue a morally based argument for gay marriage that is strong enough to override nature’s seminal interest of generation of life, defending this position in your own creative way.

I will still probably counter, and hit hard on the idea of ramifications for children.  This is one I will be hard pressed to sideline. I am incensed that we are taking so lightly the consequences of our behavior on our children. We don’t have to have children anymore. But if we do, we have to put aside our interests to the extent that children are helpless and are entitled to our full attention and resources and consideration. I believe this is what is necessary to prepare them for a very, very tough reality as adults. We, to me, are living too much in la - la land, piling more and more on them to cope with and they are showing signs of overload and neglect. We do not believe in self -sacrifice, putting another before our own desires. This makes us tough and masters of the universe. And of course we are masters of the universe.

The position of the APA doesn’t move me because I think it too is politically correct, instead of speaking out on the bad side effects of divorce, etc.. Years ago I gave some position papers at a few American Assoc. of Marriage and Family Therapists Conventions and one topic I addressed was the failure of therapists to inform their clients they were doing things that are obviously morally unacceptable or cruel because therapists will not use this language with their poor dears.  I am not moved by statistics but I am moved by children with names and stories.

Joan

Tebaldi,

On to a more delicate subject, gay marriage. I think perhaps you are projecting onto me some attitudes one may find in hardcore fundamentalist Christian thought.  You invited me to be candid but the when the answer violated PC, you did something I find difficult and unfair. Namely you hit me up with the accusation of just being anti gay and de facto this approach is intended to really squash any authentic debate about a serious issue. I take people as they come, and hopefully they take me that way.  I practice treating people the way I want to be treated, all things being equal. That’s it. But I don’t feel compelled to accept any behavior in the name of freedom or PC which it seems to me stymies legitimate debate and in some ways is just deception and absolutely humorless about man himself. Citizens have to be judicious. We do not understand much about homosexuality, certainly not enough to be reconfiguring those elements of society that have been its main staples like heterosexual marriage. These recent changes in our society, easy divorce, multiple partners in succession, parents who place their jobs over their children etc. need review because our children are paying a very serious price for this. In my daughter’s 4th grade class she has children with migraines or who pull their hair out, resulting in patchy baldness and almost all of them have some sort of learning/emotional disorder. It’s ridiculous and begs for investigation, not rushing into more more social revolutions. What‘s wrong with these children? No one dares looking at the reasons for this or if they are honest like scientists talking about male and female differences for instance, they are immediately shut down they same way you attempted with me…hence, we are anti gay or anti feminist or anti whatever. Think Larry Summers. I am not anti “this or that”...I do not think I am the center of the universe that should bow to my needs over the well being of the group automatically. We are a society of adults that wants what it wants and we forget our obligations to others when they get in our way. There must be balance, again that important word.  And there must be forthright discussion, without being accused of being prejudiced if one questions the wisdom of certain ideas or trends. I think you know that I am not just prejudiced.

Joan

Tebaldi

Re: #51325

The problem with accepting Plato as we did, we wound up doing a terrible injustice to sketching us as we are. For centuries we ran roughshod over the needed balance of the so called parts of our souls. We Westerners have a sad history of reason having been inappropriately tyrannical, mainly in our personal relationships, forcing reason to suppress emotion and leavign us very unskilled in how to handle emotional needs. But I guess we have drugs to manage our feelings now. Science is it enhancing or diminishing our humanity? 

You get it and then it slips away a bit …I am speaking here about Darwinism not Darwin himself but the idea endemic to evolutionary thought that we, all creatures great and small, evolved from the same primordial stuff, ooze and there was no special material that man was made from in this theory. So as I asked Keith if man gets killed in wars or hurricanes in order for nature to keep its balance, why is it more tragic than if ants fight over sustenance to stay alive? We are all the same stuff, right, creatures of nature evolved in the same way from the same ooze? But we in contradiction to this position hold that man has more worth so war is morally unacceptable because after all man obviously has greater intrinsic worth than those fighter ants. Secular humanists then want to base a morality on this. But what is the logical or scientific basis for this claim of our superior worth?  We just give it to ourselves, voile`? Where is the science to support this? I will certainly grant the obvious that there are likenesses between us and other species and we seem to trace development. Even God says at one point, according to the Bible, that man is dust. But then the quantum leap seems to occur when man does come on the scene. There are no species that seem to fill the gap between the species most close to us, the apes or chimps whatever, and man. Man is qualitatively different from apes/chimps so much so that it is murder to kill a man but to wantonly kill an ape is not considered murder, albeit a horrendous act…more so than killing an ant, I would suppose but still the same ooze.

“Same ooze” does not equal “no intrinsic worth”. Nice challenge, very, very nice “A” level challenge but … substantively going along with your challenge, we are saying this ooze has the potential to give us both ants and man, right? Because this same ooze includes those qualities that give man intrinsic worth. Same ooze now = intrinsic worth by your claim. My perplexity here then is how is it that ants do not have those intrinsic worth qualities that make a man if they are of the “same intrinsically worth ooze” as man? And then my next question is….If ants don’t have “man” qualities than are they indeed of the same substance or ooze as man? We are now doing some very clear and careful analysis. Very good, T!  Continued.

Joan

Tebaldi (cont’d 6):

Finally, I want to address your comments about the Bible.  First, “I think that your bible restricts you.  It’s an albatross around your neck.”

I realize there is nothing I could say to disabuse you of this notion.  However, it is simply not true.  It is BECAUSE I have “left room within my ‘reason’ for ‘unreason’” – and can thus appeal to both my rational and spiritual sides – that I can allow my “karma to run over my dogma.”  Yes, I can be dogmatic and doctrinaire at times.  But in most cases, reason and my dogma work together, and quite happily.

You then say, “Religion doesn’t own the copyright to morals/values.”

I fully agree, and have stated as such numerous times.

Finally, you say, “Too many people have used the Bible to allow inequitable conditions to endure.  You will search the Bible in vain for opposition to slavery or support for democracy and equality of the sexes.”

I agree with the first sentence; it is indisputable.  But it is also a result of misreading.  However, the second sentence is oft-made, but incorrect.

Re opposition to slavery, you might want to read Jeremiah 34:8-22 (esp. 17-20).  Admittedly, it is not a broad admonition against it, but it puts the lie to the claim that one will “search in vain” for “opposition to slavery.”

As for equality of the sexes, this one is even easier.  Try 1 Cor 7:3-4 and 14 (which gives them equality in the critical “spiritual” sense), and Eph 5:22-29 (most people do not read past 22).

Peace.

Tebaldi (cont’d 5):

The answer to this was a literal revelation that occurred during one of my many readings of the Bible.  And the passage I was led to admittedly leads to an enormously controversial, and almost certainly heretical, possibility. But given the context in which the passage appears, it made so much sense that I very nearly cried.  (I am not trying to be melodramatic or schmaltzy here…).

The passage occurs in the very context in which this question is asked (though it is asked in a slightly different way).  Jesus has just made his famous statement that “It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven.”  [N.B.  Many scholars believe that the word “camel” is a mis-translation; the word should be “rope.”  But it does not affect the present situation.]  Just as most people never go beyond “He who is without sin…” to “Go, and sin no more,” most people don’t read further than Jesus’ “camel” statement.

However, here is the remainder of the dialogue:

“When His disciples heard this, they were exceedingly amazed, saying, Who then can be saved?” [N.B.  The phrase “exceedingly amazed” is only used one other time in all of Scripture, and appears in a “miraculous” context.  Thus, one must ask: Why would the disciples be “exceedingly amazed” (and not just “surprised”) at what seems a fairly simple statement?  There are many possible answers, but it is enough to know that this simple statement absolutely bowled them over.]

The passage ends, “But Jesus beheld them [i.e., held their amazed, open-mouthed gazes] and said unto them, With men this is impossible; but with God all things are possible.”

Jesus did not just throw words around; He was VERY careful about what words He used.  So it is critical to parse what He just said.  “With men this is impossible.”  He is saying here that in the world we know (the world of humankind) -  the one we live in - we do not have the level of understanding necessary to fathom the mind (and decisions) of God.  But, He adds, “With God all things are possible.”  Here, the operative word is “all.”  This means exactly what it says: all.  Everything, anything, things that we will never be able to fathom or understand.  Jesus is basically saying that there is NOTHING that God CANNOT do.

Taken literally (which all Scripture should be unless the context suggests otherwise), if ALL things are possible “with God” (i.e., “to God” and “by God”), then the answer to your question – and my predicament re Mr. Smith and Mr. Brown – is answered: God CAN - if He so chooses – provide “salvation” to Mr. Brown DESPITE his non-belief.

As noted, this leads to a very controversial thought: if God can essentially “pick and choose” who goes to heaven and who does not, does this “negate” or “modify” the “salvation/eternal life” construct?  Does it mean that one does NOT need to believe in God, or “accept Christ,” in order to be “saved?”

I believe the answer to this is not as complicated as it sounds.  God knows our hearts.  So he knows if our faith, belief, motives, intentions, etc. are “pure.”  (N.B.  This is why Pascal’s Wager doesn’t work.)  Thus, He would know if our lack of belief was an “honest” one, or simply a “refusal.”  And that “refusal” need not be conscious.

If “ALL THINGS ARE POSSIBLE” to God, then NOTHING is IMPOSSIBLE.  Thus, simply because WE (i.e., humans, with our limited minds) cannot understand or comprehend how and why God might choose to “save” a non-believer (or even people of different faiths), this does not mean that this “contradicts” the “salvation/eternal life” construct of Christianity, as Jesus, Paul and others have laid it out.

Admittedly, it is an answer that raises many questions.  But I firmly believe that it answers the present question re Mr. Smith and Mr. Brown.

[One more coming]

Tebaldi (cont’d 4):

Now the two big ones.

You say, “Additionally, I refuse to believe that not one Jew, Muslim, or Taoist will make it through the pearly gates.  This is the most acrimonious, presumptuous and alienating thing I’ve ever heard.”

Every “dogmatic” religion is “exclusivist” to varying degrees.  And I do not deny that Christianity is exclusivist.  However, it is without question the most “inclusive” “exclusivist” religion out there.  To become a Christian, you don’t need to wear certain clothes, wear your hair a certain way, pray a certain number of times per day facing a certain direction, be in a particular building to worship or pray, hold to a particular diet, or even go to a worship service.  You need only “profess Jesus with thy mouth, and believe in thine heart that God hath raised Him from the dead.”  Period.  The rest is details.  What could be more inclusive than that?

As well, Jesus Himself sets out the “exclusive” nature of the faith in two critical passages.

First, “Thomas saith unto him, Lord, we know not whither thou goest; and how can we know the way?  Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.” (John 14: 5-6).

That’s about as specific as it can possible get.  But He adds to this by saying:

“Enter ye in at the straight gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction [i.e., not to God and eternal life], and many there be which go in thereat:  Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life [i.e., salvation and eternal life], and few there be that find it.”  (Matt 7: 13-14)

“Wide is the gate, and broad is the way”; i.e., many faiths moving along the same road, all believing that they are going to reach the kingdom of heaven.  But “strait (narrow) is the gate, and narrow is the way”; i.e., only those who follow this narrow (“exclusivist”) road will find the kingdom of heaven.

“Presumptuous and alienating?”  If looked at one way, perhaps.  But what is God asking in return?  A single request: honor my Son.

Finally, you say, “You claim that if one does not accept Jesus, we won’t go to heaven.  I’ve met quite a few folks who genuinely believe in Jesus.  I’ve also met quite a few that don’t.  The most upstanding nonbeliever wins in most every category over the most disagreeable believer.  Yet the believer goes and the nonbeliever does not.  Where is the justice?”

That is possibly the most difficult question to answer.  Indeed, I used to ask the same question in the following manner.  Mr. Smith is a believer, and accepts Christ.  But he is a curmudgeony, cantankerous, cynical, unfriendly old coot.  Mr. Brown is an atheist.  But he is a loving, compassionate, humble, selfless do-gooder.  How can one justify that Mr. Smith will go to heaven, while Mr. Brown will not?

[More coming]

Tebaldi (cont’d 3):

I have been abstinent for 20 years (since my divorce in 1987).  And I know many others who have been abstinent for periods of over five and ten years.  So we are NOT asking of others what we are not prepared to do (or doing) ourselves.  Do I believe sex is a sin?  Nope.  Do I like sex?  As much as the next guy.  Do I miss it?  Occasionally.  Would I like to have it again?  Yup.  But I do not believe in “sex for pleasure,” for both moral and health reasons.  As well, I believe that sex has been “cheapened” to an enormous degree by our socio-culture, the media and Madison Avenue.  Sex is supposed to be (or at least SHOULD be) the ultimate expression of LOVE (remember that?) – not just an “act” from which one derives a “physical” pleasure.  If that physical pleasure does not include an emotional connection – one that has been developed over a period of time – then I want no part of it, and believe it to be devalued.

Now to your final series of queries.

You say, “One of the things you said was “…we NEED atheists in order for the complete range of free will to be expressed.”…Am I assuming too much when I suggest that atheists are sacrificial lambs?  Am I doomed to eternal hell just so believers can bask in the glory of heaven?”

Re the first question, for what or whom would you be being “sacrificed?”  After all, even if there were no atheists, a believer would still “bask in the glory of heaven”; i.e., my “salvation” is not dependent on whether or not an atheist (or you specifically) believes, but on whether I believe.

You then say, “You have noticeably not addressed two of my important questions:  Are we bad?  Did we do something wrong?”

No, you are not “bad.”  Simply (from OUR point of view) somewhat misguided.

As for whether you did something wrong, the answer is a (qualified) “yes”: as stated before, you refuse to allow ANY place within “reason” for “unreason.”  Indeed, this (quite ironically) takes us back to the original raison d’etre of this thread: for many atheists (particularly the most “scientific/empirical-minded”), “reason” and “faith” are mutually exclusive.  It is this “black/white” delineation that is MOST “wrong” (if “wrong” there be).  Indeed, if Joan and I have not yet proved to ALL of you that “faith” and “reason” can co-exist side by side - that a person of faith can accept (in a fully scientific and empirical manner) a 13+ billion-year-old universe, geology, evolution, the bulk of Darwinian theory, etc.) - and you all still see us as entrenched (or, as Dave would have it, “brain-drenched”), dogmatic, unyielding, unreasonable - then we have truly made ZERO progress in this discussion/debate.

You then add, “Perhaps you are right.  Perhaps we non-believers lack the creativity to accept God.  Perhaps we have reasoned ourselves out of salvation.  But it still isn’t my fault.”

Whose fault is it?  The God you don’t believe in?  (That one should set your teeth on edge, and your mind reeling…)

You end, “Much like the scorpion, “it’s in my nature”.  This leaves me back at square one:  Damned from birth.  (No one taught or coerced me specifically to be agnostic).”

And no one taught or coerced me to be a believer.  Indeed, it goes against everything I was raised to believe during the first 15 years of my life.  Nor is anyone “damned” from birth; as noted, you might find yourself having a “moment of clarity” and becoming an unquestioning believer in your final few years - or even your final few hours.

[More coming]

Tebaldi (cont’d 2):

Third, they may “repeat this behavior for the same reasons that everybody else has sex,” but what if that reason is “questionable?”  I.e, if the “reason” you are talking about is strictly “pleasure” (as opposed to procreation of the species, or even a necessary release of sexual tension), then perhaps both gay AND straight people have reason to feel some level of “remorse” – especially if they are having sex with multiple partners.

You add, “I won’t argue what causes someone to be a homosexual…The important things to recognize are that they are who they are and that homosexuality doesn’t hurt anyone.  They can no more change their sexual orientation than you can. So now we must see how they fit in society.  You suggest that they repress their desires.  Why would we ask of them that which we would not ask of ourselves?  (Is that grammatically correct?) What happened to “do unto others?”

First, “homosexuality doesn’t hurt anyone?”  Really?  Are you aware of the history of AIDS?  “Victim Zero” (the original carrier of the current epidemic) was a gay Haitian man who gave it to a series of partners in Haiti, Miami and New York.  It spread like wildfire among the gay communities throughout the U.S. because many gays were having unprotected sex with multiple partners (often in multiple states).  It then spread to the heterosexual community via both bisexuals and heterosexual men who had an occasional gay affair.  This is how it spread to heterosexual women.  And it went worldwide because of the ease of international travel.  [N.B.  It is no coincidence that the only demographic with an almost zero incidence of AIDS is monogamous lesbians.]  So don’t tell me that homosexuality doesn’t hurt anyone.

Indeed, there must have been an AIDS-like STD in Paul’s day, because he talks about this very thing:

“…[F]or even their women did change the natural use [heterosexuality] into that which is against nature (homosexuality]: And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompense of their error which was meet.” (Romans 1:26-27).

Note that last line: “receiving in themselves that recompense of their error which was meet.”  Paul is saying that, in engaging in homosexual sex, they were getting some disease or other “recompense” as a form of “natural” punishment (as opposed to punishment meted out by God).

As for “You suggest that they repress their desires.  Why would we ask of them that which we would not ask of ourselves.”  Actually, Paul addresses this as well, quite directly:

“Now concerning the things whereof ye wrote unto me: It is good for a man not to touch a woman.  Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband…For I would that all men were even as I myself…I say therefore to the unmarried and widows, it is good for them if they abide even as I.  But if they cannot contain, let them marry: for it is better to marry than to burn.”  (1 Cor 7:1-9, abbr.)

Here, Paul is addressing both pre-marital sex and “sex for pleasure.”  And when he says, “even as I myself,” he means being celibate or abstinent.  Thus, he is NOT asking anything of others that he is not prepared to do (or, indeed, not already doing, himself).

And Peter has similar words: “Dearly beloved, I beseech you…abstain from fleshly lusts, which war against the soul.”  (1 Peter 2:11)

[More coming]

Tebaldi (cont’d):

As an aside, you add, “I’ve judged Hitler.  He had less worth than your dog.  If you are capable of rational thought, and you are given the opportunity to see the err of your ways, at some point you must take responsibility for your actions.  If you one is not capable of compassion and remorse, he is of less worth in my eyes.”  Richard: Would you agree with this?  If so, how do you square this statement with your contention that Hitler was “Christian?”

Re gay unions, you say, “Open your heart completely.  Get to know a gay couple…It’s all it will take.  When you see the same commitment, love, compassion, intimacy, and sharing that you too have experienced, it will be revealed to you…Sexual orientation is a NATURAL INCLINATION.”

Poppycock.  Firstly, as I noted, there is no “gay gene,” so homosexuality CANNOT - in any supportable, empirical, medico-scientific way - be a “natural inclination” (if by that you mean genetic, hereditary, innate).  It could very well be “learned” in the very earliest stages of infancy, in ways that we are as yet unaware of.  And I am NOT suggesting here that if it is “learned” it can (or should) be “unlearned.”  I am simply pointing out that it cannot, under any supportable guise, be called a “natural inclination.”

Secondly, I know many gay couples - some of whom have been together for over two decades - and have seen the “commitment, love, compassion, intimacy and sharing.”  This changes my position not one whit.  However, neither does it affect my ability to be a true, loving, compassionate friend to them.  And yes, all of them know that I am a Christian, and know my position on homosexuality,  But that does not change THEIR ability to be true, loving, compassionate friends toward ME either.  [As an aside, this is how “Christian” love vis-à-vis dogma is SUPPOSED to work: I state my position as a Christian (once – lovingly, humbly, patiently), and the other party (in this case gay couples, or gay individuals) has the choice of “rejecting” me as a friend, or accepting me as a friend DESPITE my belief.  Sometimes I have been rejected; more often accepted.]

Okay, now to the “religious” issues.  As is my wont, I will be referencing dogma extensively.  However, as with the “substitution of sinners” scenario in my last post, you may find my references different, interesting, even heretical.  (But keep in mind that Jesus was perhaps the most famous, radical heretic in history.)

First, the gay issue.  You say, “You seem to choose your words carefully on the Gay issue…I liked your substitution of sinners scenario.  The differences, however, between adulterers and Gays are vast.  There are a few folks who repeatedly commit adultery.  Most folks…regret the pain that adultery creates, and they don’t repeat that behavior.  When a gay person commits a gay act (nowadays) he/she doesn’t feel any remorse, and they most assuredly will repeat the behavior.  They repeat this behavior for the same reasons everybody else has sex.”

Three comments.  First, you’d be surprised at the number of recidivist adulterers, both male and female.  And while there is no question that it does not approach the number of active gay persons, it is enough to make the analogy questionable.  Second, how do you know what level of “remorse” a gay person feels or does not feel?  Don’t broad-brush.  As I noted, it is highly likely that different people become gay for different reasons – some of them accompanied by remorse. Yes, perhaps the majority of gay people are fully and completely “comfortable” being gay, and have not one whit of remorse.  But many do.  You may know a lot of gay couples, but are you really that intimate with them that you know (or they would tell you) if and what level of remorse they may feel, either for being gay or for engaging in gay sex?

[More coming]

Joan:

Re marriage, you said, “The state protects this natural occurrence by institutionalizing it as marriage to the state’s advantage, namely stability and human growth and development for overall sake of the community, which is needed for our very survival.”

You give “the state” FAR too much credit for social benevolence.  You are forgetting perhaps the most important advantage to the “state”: economic.  When two people marry, there are actually three parties to the marriage: the woman, the man, and the state.  Thus, there is also blatant dollars-and-cents at stake.  Just think of the hundreds of ways that the “state” (federal, state or municipal) benefits financially from that “marriage” during its life, especially in the form of taxes.

Tebaldi:

Hmmm…where to begin.  First, I appreciate your patience and tenacity.  And I hope you know that nothing I say is ever meant personally: that I simply speak honestly, hoping (though it is not always so) that my words do not cut.  Cyberspace is wonderful for its breadth and freedom, but, alas, the printed word can often “look” different than it is meant.  Forgive me if anything I have said thus far has “looked” hurtful.

You say, “You miss the big picture of humanism by this question.  We are concerned for the welfare of the aged, the infirm, the disadvantaged, and also for the outcasts—the mentally retarded, abandoned, or abused children, the handicapped, prisoners, and addicts—for all who are neglected or ignored by society.  We do so because we hold humans in the highest regard.”

Perhaps.  But “highest regard” is not Darwinian.  If “survival of the fittest” is the Darwinian rule, then concern for (much less active protection of) “the aged, the infirm…” is in fact antithetical to Darwinism.  Thus, when you say that you “agree with the concept and spirit of Darwinism and humanism,” you are being oxymoronic, since, despite your protestations to the contrary, Darwinism and humanism are (at least in this one – critical – respect) contradictory to each other.

You then add that “[W]e recognize self-worth is testimony to why we have worth; we are the only animal that can ponder this concept.”

This is hopelessly self-referential and infinitely regressive.  Just as Descartes’ self-referential and looping statement (“I think, therefore I am”) has been shown to be, if not in error, then at very least not fully supportable, your “chicken/egg” proposition is also weak vis-à-vis the Darwinian construct.

You add, “Along with a myriad of other capabilities, this sets us apart from our fellow beings.  Nature selected a high-functioning brain.  The beings that could make fire, the wheel, the lever, etc. increased their ability, to survive.  They did not have an extensive language, complicated tools, or (probably) the ability to feel compassion/love etc. to the extent that we do.  These beings had less worth than present day humans…If I were transported 1 million years from now, I would accept that I have less worth than my successors.  This, of course, is making several assumptions; nature reserves the right to select humans that are less advanced and/or immoral.”

I disagree – and the problem stems from the very word we are using: “worth.”  Why SHOULD your successors a million years from now have any more “worth” than you do?  How are you quantifying “worth?”  By sheer “evolution?”  Balderdash.  Setting aside the question of the comparative “worth” of all other life forms (from Joan’s slug to the lowland gorilla), the hominids who first displayed higher brain function were of no less “worth” than you are as a living, breathing, “thinking,” “feeling” creature – and the hominids who may “succeed” us a million years from now are of no more “worth” than you are now!  What kind of silliness is that?

[More coming]

All:

This is going to be something of an extravaganza, since I am so far behind!  So it will be in multiple parts, possibly interrupted by others’ posts.  I will be addressing comments by all: Rick, Keith, Tebaldi and Joan.  So watch for your turn!  LOL.

Rick:

You ask, “If intelligent life were found on another planet elsewhere in the Galaxy or universe - that is life able to communicate with us - how would that affect your views on God?”

I have actually addressed this from the dogmatic point of view, but I’ll do so again in brief.  I see two possibilities.  Because God and Jesus exist outside of time (except when Jesus appeared in our time-space continuum for a short spell), it is possible that the same construct that is playing out here (let’s call it the “salvation/eternal life” construct) is playing out (or has played out, or will play out) on other planets in other galaxies.  However, even if we assume completely different intelligent life forms from humans, this does not preclude the possibility (I would, of course, say probability, or even inevitability) of a similar construct playing out in a manner appropriate for that life form.  [This means that while we might not meet any Muslims, Buddhists or atheists in heaven, we might meet some very nice plasmoid aliens…LOL]  So I see no problem with God (and even Jesus, and the “salvation/eternal life” construct) vis-à-vis intelligent life on other planets.

Keith:

You said, “Sure.  People with faith exist in the billions.  No question about it.  The problem is how to account for this psychological trait that (like other psychological traits) was shaped in the Stone Age.”

It seems awfully presumptive to state unequivocally that faith is a “psychological” trait when the jury is still way, WAY out on this.  And you accuse the faith-based of trafficking in certainties without proof?

You then bring up the issue of “morality,” and a scientific conclave in which its origins are discussed from two perspectives: neuroscience and evolutionary psychology.  But this also is presumptive (if not intellectually dishonest), since it only includes two possibilities for the origins of morality.  Indeed, even the language is vague:

“Neuroscientists assume that morality is generated by specific neural mechanisms and structures, which they hope to find by way of sophisticated brain imaging techniques.”  The word “assume” speaks volumes, as does the word “hope.”

The language of the evolutionary psychologists is no better: “Evolutionary scientists, by contrast, want to figure out what the adaptive value of morality is for it to have evolved.  According to them, morality is - just as all aspects of our human nature - a product of evolution through selection.  Moral and social behavior must have had a selective advantage, from which the relevant cognitive and emotional functions developed.”  Here, the operative words are “”must have had” - a blatant, and completely insupportable, assumption.

In both of these cases, something Joan pointed out early in this discussion is operative: that science believes that, given enough time, it will find “empirical” evidence for everything in the universe.  And is this not as much “faith” as faith is?

Finally, just so you don’t think I am do not appreciate at least SOME of what you say (LOL), I was pleasantly surprised to see the following statement re Dawkins et al: “In this regard, I think they are acting more like religions fanatics than scientists.  They feel they are acting correctly, just like every other kind of fanatic.  I make the case they are at best useless and at worse counterproductive, but perhaps they will inspire scientists to consider the problems more deeply that just railing against religions.”

Bravo.  You could not have stated Joan’s and my position better!  LOL.

[More coming]

Tebaldi,

Re #50874

My response regarding gay persons is not directed at gay persons but Iam speaking from basically the view from political philosophy. …These folks are often preoccupied with what a society needs in order to remain viable for the sake of the common good. Now in MA their Supreme Court ruled to my recollection that people cannot be deprived of certain perks based on who they love or in other words the state should institutionalize unions for people because they love each other.  Well, now Suzie loves Jack and George and Samantha and Hercules and her dog Bowser and she loves the all of them at once and collectively they want all the perks that heterosexual married folks have, whether or not this form of marriage is good for children and societal stability. This is not an important issue here. Right? We are all supposed to get what we want, narcissism in my humble opinion and possibly the construction of a house of cards in the end. This is not about gays. It is about what the state recognizes as a basis for granting certain perks.  I do not want the state granting perks that result overall instability for the entire community just because different kinds of people love each other at any given point in time.

A case in point. It was once hard to get a divorce and now it is very, very easy. And our children have suffered tremendously from divorces and lack of home life stability and love. But who cares the adults are happy, right ? We as a society have paid a price for the easy divorce. But we don’t look back when we make these sweeping changes do we? We don’t examine the consequences of our new policies. Adults let themselves off the hook with a lot of ”me first” rhetoric and “feel good” stories about self- fulfillment and children being happier in divorced situations rather than being with two parents who fought. Turns out not to be true. I am morally incensed by this behavior on our part. So I am not a fan of courts saying let’s institutionalize any form of love between people. That’s all well and good only if it promotes societal stability. But if based on the idea that the state should institutionalize all matches because people love each other, not the nature calls idea of heterosexual marriage, than the state opens the door for all sorts marriage just because these people love each other, polygamy or group marriage, incestuous marriages because all that’s important is that each of us gets what want. I regret to tell you that I don’t see how this will bring forth a stable society and these people will most likely not honor these novel unions ‘til death and our children will slip into deeper and deeper cracks. But hey…we can keep on medicating them. My stance is not about gay marriage it is about the state promoting institutions that are in our best interests and not being swept up in trends about political correctness but taking responsibility for our future. These heterosexual marriage traditions we have had, have withstood the test of time and have shown themselves to be highly effective in keeping our society stable. I would be very careful about en masse social engineering with our runaway sense of enlightenment and politic correctness. We may not have any idea of danger behind the doors we are walking through if the state institutionalizes all forms of unions between people who claim to love each other ‘til death do them part. If you open this door with gay marriage, you must open the door to all unions because… hey…these peoples are all in love too.
When I got married, I gave up the right to love anyone I wanted. I had to stick to one man. Marrying several men at once would certainly be to my advantage.

Joan

Re: Comment #51159 by Joan on 2/01 at 4:55 pm
Interesting lesson on Plato.  I think we agree that emotions should not take the back seat in all situations.  By the same token, it’s important to realize that regrettable paths have been followed while relying on one’s emotional compass.

Eureka!  I’ve finally recognized the disconnect on the “ooze” issue.  The problem lies with your claim that Darwin declares we have no intrinsic worth.  I disagree with, and challenge you to prove, this part of the equation.  I’ve heard this inferred by anti-evolution folks, but I know of no empirical evidence.  “Same ooze” does not equal “no intrinsic worth.”

Re: dangerous waters.  Dangerous indeed.  I hear the rapids.  Toward the end of this discussion I’m grasping at straws here.  I was trying to point out how, through evolution, humans have developed into something complex and wondrous. Most can only fathom God to be responsible for such a ‘miracle’.  Natural selection, adaptation, and mutation (Darwinism) explains how this could have taken place without divine intervention.  Neither Darwin nor I are trying to disprove God here. Simply stated that man, in all his glory, is a not-so-distant cousin of the ape (a worthy fellow in his own right).

Tebaldi,

Just a few afterthoughts on my last post before I continue to address your other posts…

I am still trying to respond to your line of questioning about whether or not God loves atheists or are they doomed just because they don’t have faith etc. I believe that the entire universe and all of us are patched into the Divine Main Frame and He is always responding to us…. a very Big Main Frame! I think He is always courting all of us, holding out a lot of carrots to entice us to a relationship, as one priest I knew said. I see Christ as sort of an E-Z Pass way to go directly to God because Christ laid out a plan or roadmap. So we don’t have to fool around with a lot of other ideologies. I also think that those who live like Christians, as opposed to those who say they are Christians (as you correctly point out, what’s really in a name) but do not know the name “Jesus”, grow close to God, like the Dalai Lama… he seems like a practicing Christian to me but calls himself a Buddhist. So we can call ourselves what we want to but still be practicing Christians. This is my thought in my religion of one person, me.

Re: Secular humanism. This morality not only has logical problems for the Darwinist/atheist in particular, it also has problems with application. How does one solve an ethical conflict of interest between two persons, namely moral agents, using secular humanism as a moral guideline to behavior? Ethicists, roughly speaking, think a good ethical system should tell moral agents what to do in a given circumstance or with a certain moral problem. These moral conflicts of interest are the meat and potatoes of many ethics seminars. For example, say there is a MD and his/her pain patient who needs a lot of pain meds, opiates. The MD is very hesitant to prescribe the necessary amount and hence to follow the moral directive to relieve suffering because an overactive DEA might hassle him or threaten his practice. But the pain patient is entitled to have relief if it is available and opiates are cheap and very effective God- given analgesics and hence, very available. The MD and patient have equal intrinsic worth in virtue of being human, the very definition of secular humanism as a morality. Who wins ethically speaking? In reality sadly, often MDs win and the patient loses, so much for intrinsic worth. The morality of might makes right (?) wins, right? Ethics seminars are replete with these practical problems in applied ethics. So after its problem of logical contradiction for the atheist/Darwinist, the next question is how adequate is secular humanism in resolving ethical conflicts sans an appeal to another ethical system in addition to secular humanism? Does secular humanism serve us well or adequately as a moral compass beyond the basic of declaring that having intrinsic worth we are not supposed to just kill each other off? How does secular humanism resolve questions about the morality of war, if we all have intrinsic worth, we and our enemy…. and abortion, how is intrinsic worth established, just for beginners?

Practically speaking does secular humanism as a morality give adequate moral direction in the case of a given moral conflict so that the moral agent knows he is doing the morally correct thing? After all, this is what morality is all about, telling us are doing the morally correct thing in a given situation. We do want to sleep at night, don’t we?

Joan

Richard,

Again I cannot find that post on equality to respond to you but I will do another search. Sorry. I really hate to have someone take the time to address me and not get back to them. Do you have a date for that post?

Joan

Keith,

Re:  #50002

Found these more interesting…you find these themes like biology and morality actually on our crime shows, “Law and Order”  for instance. Is criminal behavior a function of a certain brain structure? An interesting question. Surely we know that external stimuli imprint on our biochemistry and cause change and our biochemistry fosters certain feeling responses. We have identified certain areas of the brain that are associated with empathy or chemical reactions that are associated with depression. Still the hardcore dilemma is—- given the neuroscience, do we conclude that biology automatically preempts choice and if so, what are the consequences for society if we say it does? Are we humans as subject to determinism as is water that always boils at 100 degrees C? We do not seem to be so for the most part. We seem to have choice. Given choice, our brain structures may prove interesting but not sufficient to explain all we are. We may transcend our biology. And I think we do. Racing for 13+ miles as I have done is as much a mental choice and mental exercise or more so than a physical workout. You have to override your biology to achieve this. 

Additionally, ethicists have long understood that ethical systems were adopted for our own self -interest. Why be moral? It is better than being dead. We knew that. even beiKeith,

Re:  #50002

Found these more interesting…you find these themes like biology and morality actually on our crime shows, “Law and Order”  for instance. Is criminal behavior a function of a certain brain structure? An interesting question. Surely we know that external stimuli imprint on our biochemistry and cause change and our biochemistry fosters certain feeling responses. We have identified certain areas of the brain that are associated with empathy or chemical reactions that are associated with depression. Still the hardcore dilemma is—- given the neuroscience, do we conclude that biology automatically preempts choice and if so, what are the consequences for society if we say it does? Are we humans as subject to determinism as is water that always boils at 100 degrees C? We do not seem to be so for the most part. We seem to have choice. Given choice, our brain structures may prove interesting but not sufficient to explain all we are. We may transcend our biology. And I think we do. Racing for 13+ miles as I have done is as much a mental choice and mental exercise or more so than a physical workout. You have to override your biology to achieve this. 

Additionally, ethicists have long understood that ethical systems were adopted for our own self -interest. Why be moral? It is better than being dead. We knew that. Even being mannerly is in our own self- interest as it quells potentially volatile situations.

Joan

Keith,

I briefly perused the recommended article and it has interesting ideas but not being a scientist it would not hold my attention too long. Science is good at understanding the material world and how things come to be. But perhaps not so good at governance or ethics.  To have it overtake us and override our instincts I think is very dubious. It will be sad day when a mother worries about her child’s developing neurons and appeals to a science book on evolutionary biology for insight instead of instinctively holding her crying child in her arms. The magic of God is that we do these things and have done them for centuries without needing to know all the biological interactions that are underlying a certain behavior. Yet He shares the knowledge with those who want it but who must too be cautioned that a little knowledge is a dangerous thing.

Joan

Keith,

You are so mysterious to me.

Well I do not think that holding that God brought forth the universe is tantamount to knowing everything, right? I am sure I know some things but do not know the things I do not know about. But I am sure I do not know everything.

I am sure we both agree about Dawkins and Harris.

I am sure there are certain points we come to when a war will in fact not be averted.

Doctors also infected many women during childbirth because they did not wash their hands after working with cadavers. Thousands of women died. This one reason why I do not hold science in the high esteem as others do at times, it is conducted within the scope of human limitation and that we do not know what we do not know in medical science at times is a matter of life and death. Scientists too make dangerous mistakes and in medicine women particularly have had some cruel treatment visited on them by doctors. But in the end I do not see how this juxtaposes with peacemakers. I feel that peacemakers are skilled persons, who can talk us out of warring scenarios …but who knows. My point is that the message Christ brought was the we are to practice a spirituality of peace and spare me the stories about Inquisitions and Crusades… His message was that we were to practice a spirituality of peace with peacemakers…No matter how the message was bastardized and it was. So shouldn’t there be some peaceful religious memes floating around there somewhere????

And I have to ask this …Given that globally we seem to have enough resources out there, how do you explain these current wars??? oil? In the end don’t the oil rich states know they are biting the hand that feeds it in the long run??? Look at how quiet Iran is these days as the money is drying up. I think in fact that outright tribalism and tribal pride is a serious factor in war, regardless of resources and sustenance issues.

Joan

Tebaldi,

Part 2

Now you are attempting to explain this logical contradiction by accepting Darwinism and predicating a person’s worth on his/her capabilities. I salute your continued attempts but I have to go with Keith on this as well as probably many ethicists. This is a very tricky think to do as we do not want to wind up saying such and such a person is worth more because they have such and such quality, do we? It could potentially lead to perhaps morally unacceptable consequences if applied. We seem to operate as if we have a base line for humanity that we all have intrinsic just in virtue of being human beings, avoiding judging which of us is worth more and we clearly are not equal in our gifts, our resources and health, etc.. Being human is the very quality that gives us more worth than the slug, not indexing our worth with varying degrees of a certain giftedness over slugs. I think you are in dangerous waters here. I have to stick with being human itself as that which gives us our intrinsic worth. We project intrinsic worth on every human being, the strong, the weak, the infirmed, the criminal etc. This is something Darwinism and nature would not think it had to tolerate. We impose a moral grid over the network of nature which is not moral at all and that makes us kindred to God Who has a moral code.  I for one accept evolution but think God wound up the clock (Hawking) that got things going. I think God blew the breath of Divinity through us, igniting a flame of Himself in each of us. That makes us sacred too.

Joan

Tebaldi,

Part 1

I like your response a lot but a little clarification here….

By “Western man” I mean something distinct.  We Westerners are descendants of Western thought specifically. We and much of Europe are directly a product of the Greco/Roman-Judeo/Christian culture/ thought processes.  And we have inherited the beliefs of these cultures in many areas. One is the dogmatic belief set out by Plato who claimed that the soul has 3 parts and the one that should dominate the other 2 is reason. Reason must override emotions and the other one that escapes me for the moment, probably an “id” sort of thing, but that is not important to our discussion. Westerners still to this day believe in and seldom question the primacy of reason that Plato asserted without too much justification to my recollection. This is one reason I think we are a ”prozac” nation. Clearly the emotions are stronger in force than reason and reason can seldom successfully conquer or quell the truth that our feelings scream out in vain.  I think Plato is not right here about reason having to repress feeling, not at all but we pretty much live that way in Western society. To be with God we have to suspend reason some and live with a trust in Someone with a different vision/ a wider spectra of the universe. If Western man has to suspend reason, he is acting contrary to everything he is taught to do. As Maani indicates though, one does not loose reason when he paradoxically sets it aside. Or as Christ said at one point, “Unless you become like children, you cannot enter the kingdom of heaven”. For me I just keep more of a balance, reason blended with other parts of my humanity, not giving reason the total kingship Plato gives it. Bruce Lee advises…be like water, flow. Don’t resist too much”…whatever… for spirituality, reason has to be tempered to blend in with other parts of our metaphysic…

Thank you for your compliments. I agree this is not the forum as I really want to protect myself too here…I have come out of the closet a bit with you and for you. But my intention is not to help you. I want to let you know I believe that He tracks us all, hearing our questions or our dilemmas as if we are patched into Him as though He were a giant mainframe and our discussions here are His signals that He hears. My belief. If you wish to pursue these questions about Him all you need is two, you and Him.

The great quote belongs to Maya Angelou, a famous woman black poet and I use it often. It is comforting to me so I do not beat myself up over what in retrospect were mistakes I feel I have made.

I think the argument of Darwinism/ secular humanism bears more explication. Let me be perfectly clear—-it is a given by mere observation that man has more intrinsic worth than a slug. For me, and the sake of philosophical discourse this is not the quandary.

Let’s say that “A” = man has intrinsic worth” and “-A” = man does not have intrinsic worth”. Now secular humanism claims the man has intrinsic worth or “A”. Darwinism says that we are all from the same ooze, so “–A”  follows from this position of Darwinism. Now from where I sit some people want to say A&-A are happening at the same time or that man does and does not have intrinsic worth, accepting both theories as true which is a straightforward logical contradiction. And furthermore we all agree that it is in fact true that MAN DOES HAVE INTRISIC WORTH or “A” is in fact true.  The argument is not that man does not have intrinsic worth, he certainly does but how is that possibly reconciled with Darwinism? This is just not logical, “A” and “-A” together. Just a fact, Sir.

Joan

(continued)  Re:  Comment #50874 by Joan on 1/31 at 4:10 pm

Anyone can point out anomalies.  It’s not a fair to say that if it happens in nature its natural.  So the argument turns to one of varying degrees.  Total gay population numbers are not conclusive.  In my short google search, they varied between 1% and 10%.  Let’s assume that it’s some where around 5%.  My first argument is that homosexuality has been around since the beginning of history, and is therefore most likely prehistoric.  To me, an anomaly would be something that doesn’t stand the test of time.  Secondly, homosexuality is not odd, peculiar, strange, incongruous (arguable I guess), or inconsistent.  Lastly, to put it in perspective, 5% is one out of twenty.  That’s 15 million people in America alone. 

You lost me on how our society is going to suffer by allowing gay unions.  Please provide and example.  Do you specifically disagree with what I said in an earlier post?  I wrote:  “Gay people can’t increase the labor force, but this is not the only area of economics that marriage stimulates.  Healthy families, regardless of their makeup, perpetuate societal values.  It is, most importantly, in the best interest of society to afford EVERYONE the same rights.” 

Who is entitled to the legal protections of civil unions?  Same rules apply to folks who get married.  The only difference is that it will be harder to find a forward-thinking, progressive church.  You can even call it marriage too.  I just thought it would be more respectful to those who disagree with naming it as such.

Disturbed children?  What are they disturbed about?  I propose (pardon the pun) gay marriage should be legalized, not the flagrant gay sex on the front lawn.

You wrote “what do you care about what I think about you?”  I’m sure you’ve had your share of psychology madam.  Why does anyone care what people others think of them?  (Although I’m not sure what context this is in)  I seek acceptance, understanding, respect, camaraderie, validation and I’m sure I’m missing a few more.

I leave you with the following excerpt:

.. there is no evidence to suggest that lesbian women or gay men are unfit to be parents or that psychosocial development among children of lesbian women or gay men is compromised relative to that among offspring of heterosexual parents. Not a single study has found children of lesbian or gay parents to be disadvantaged in any significant respect relative to children of heterosexual parents. Indeed, the evidence to date suggests that home environments provided by lesbian and gay parents are as likely as those provided by heterosexual parents to support and enable children’s psychosocial growth.  – American Psychological Association

Ciao!  - Tebaldi

Re:  Comment #50874 by Joan on 1/31 at 4:10 pm

>>> Re:  your dog.  The Bible has taught me to judge not.  Sound advice.  I would amend this by saying “be very, very mindful before you judge someone.”  I’ve judged Hitler.  He had less worth than your dog.  If you are capable of rational thought, and you are given the opportunity to see the err of your ways, at some point you must take responsibility for your actions.  If you one is not capable of compassion and remorse, he is of less worth in my eyes.  Is every remorseless person of less worth than your dog?  I don’t know there are no cookie cutter answers.  (Nor am I the guy with all the answers)

>>>Re: Gay rights.  You have a blessed capacity for love.  You use it freely.  Perhaps not quite freely enough.  Open your heart completely.  Get to know a gay couple (as I have).  It’s all it will take.  When you see the same commitment, love, compassion, intimacy, and sharing that you too have experienced, it will be revealed to you.

You speak of “obligations to others” in one breath and shun 5% of the population in another.

I respect your opinions on this matter, and the right for you to speak freely.  I won’t mince my words or hide my emotion, so don the thick skin…

The discrimination is glaring.  It sticks out like a turd in a bowl of rice.  As my initial post on this subject alludes, the similarities between the black/women/homosexual struggles in America are palpable.  Your stance is sadly not unusual; we are historically slow to adapt to these things.  It should, however, be different for enlightened folk such as you.  You say that homosexuality is not “natural”.  Just like women were not naturally breadwinners.  Just like Blacks were not naturally as intelligent as Caucasians.  Sexual orientation is a NATURAL INCLINATION.  Polygamy and incest are not (not sure on bestiality).  I can see this is going to turn into a “what is natural” argument, so I guess I’ll start.

Another one for Joan

Keith Henson

*******

http://ieet.org/index.php/IEET/more/ravelingien20070130/

A stethoscope of human morality?

An Ravelingien

2007-01-30

An Ravelingien reports on the conference ‘Double standards. Towards an integration of evolutionary and neurological perspectives on human morality.’ (Ghent University, 21-22 Oct. 2006)

Snip

“For most of us, I presume, nothing would appear to be more inextricably a part of our personal experience and merit than our moral competence. The conference ‘Double Standards’ questioned this intuition and demonstrated that the concept of ‘morality’ is becoming more and more tangible.

“Jan Verplaetse and Johan Braeckman, the organizers of the conference, gathered 13 reputable experts and more than 150 participants to ponder one of the oldest and most fundamental philosophical questions: how did morality come into existence? For this, they drew upon two different scientific approaches: evolutionary psychology and neuroscience. In theory, these disciplines are complementary.  Neuroscientists assume that morality is generated by specific neural mechanisms and structures, which they hope to find by way of sophisticated brain imaging techniques. Evolutionary scientists, by contrast, want to figure out what the adaptive value of morality is for it to have evolved. According to them, morality is - just as all aspects of our human nature - a product of evolution through selection. Moral and social behavior must have had a selective advantage, from which the relevant cognitive and emotional functions developed. Through an interdisciplinary approach, the alleged functions can direct the neuroscientist in searching for the neurological structures that underlie them. Or, the other way around, the imaging of certain neural circuits should help to discover whether and to what extent our moral intuitions are indeed embedded in our ‘nature.’ During the conference, this double perspective gave rise to several interesting hypotheses.

“It appears that neuroscientists have already achieved remarkably uniform results regarding the crucial brain areas that are involved in fulfilling moral tasks.

snip

“Will we one day be able to evaluate ‘how deep someone’s morality has fallen’? Will there be a ‘stethoscope of morality,’ that can measure the weaknesses of our moral judgments and behaviors?

Snip

“Although there is still a long way to go in understanding the neurobiology of human morality, this conference was an important step in introducing some moral dilemma’s that may confront us as the field of research progresses.”

More information on http://www.themoralbrain.be

This is for Joan.

http://www.accelerationwatch.com/biotech.html

I don’t necessarily agree with everything in the article, but it should give you a taste of bleeding edge thinking.

Memetics for example is just assumed.

Keith Henson

Joan wrote

>For the record, if I am giving the impression that I think I know everything; I am giving the wrong impression.

You “know” that God is required for the Universe, as we know it, to exist.  Correct me if that impression is incorrect.

Snip

>As for the epistemological humility purportedly inherent to scientists, it seems lacking in Harris and Dawkins

In this regard, I think they are acting more like religions fanatics than scientists.  They feel they are acting correctly, just like every other kind of fanatic.  I make the case they are at best useless and at worse counterproductive, but perhaps they will inspire scientists to consider the problems more deeply that just railing against religions.

Snip

>As for the link between religions and war, I certainly think religions have done their fair share of instigating war, as have other ideologies.

Religions and related ideologies that fit into the “religious meme receptor site” in human mental “space” are a critical step along the path to war.  But by the time xenophobic memes start circulating, it usually too late to do anything about it.

Snip

> I wish there were more of the peacemakers that Christ yearned for, atheists or faith- based. I am not picky. His idea was that if we had peacemakers, we would not have too much war.

There were lots of doctors prior to Pasteur and Koch.  They were useless or worst than useless in coping with infectious disease because they didn’t have the right model of what caused disease.  For a gruesome example, read up on the life of Semmelweis.  Medical doctors of has time infected untold number of women who then died. 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignaz_Semmelweis

“Peacemakers” who don’t understand the evolutionary reasons humans fight wars and what triggers wars are just as bad.  To the extent people pay attention to the Pope’s pronouncements on birth control, he is as bad as those doctors who were delivering babies after doing autopsies and not washing their hands.

Keith Henson

Re:  Comment #50720 by Joan on 1/31 at 8:57 am

Hi Joan. 

To satisfy your curiosity, I was stationed in Germany (twice) while serving in the army.  Sadly, I did not study the language in depth.  I know enough to get around, order food and get a great beer, but I can barely speak conversational German.  On this subject, you man a comment ‘…you Western man (sic)…’ Are you not Western also? 

Your examination of the inexplicable was both beautiful and eloquent.  While I understand that you see my inquiry as my personal quest for God, and I appreciate your attempt to liaise for Him, this is not the forum for such endeavors. 

“I did what I knew to do and when I knew better I did better.”  What a great line.

Don’t think that I missed another one of your slug comment either.

I continue to be sucked back into this argument.  A wise man once said “discussion is not about victory, it’s about progress.”  I think we’ve progressed as far as we can on this point.  Against my better judgment, however, I will give it another go. 

That we recognize self-worth is testimony to why we have worth; we are the only animal that can ponder this concept.  Along with a myriad of other capabilities, this sets us apart from our fellow beings.  Nature selected a high-functioning brain.  The beings that could make fire, the wheel, the lever, etc. increased their ability, to survive.  They did not have an extensive language, complicated tools, or (probably) the ability to feel compassion/love etc. to the extent that we do.  These beings had less worth than present day humans.  Biological and cultural factors brought us to this point – the pinnacle of mankind.  This pinnacle (historically) is shifting to the right.  If I were transported 1 million years from now, I would accept that I have less worth than my successors.  This, of course, is making several assumptions; nature reserves the right to select humans that are less advanced and/or immoral.  As suggested by many science-fiction stories, the most adapted creature may be an unfeeling, robot-like being. 

    We evolved from apes, and we claim a worth that exceeds other animals.  Darwinism and Humanism - Not just coexisting, but oddly married to one another.  (So quit trying to break them up!) 

This being said, I do not exclude the creationist theory.  Until evidence leads me to adopt this concept, I must go with what I know… Just the fact, Ma’am. 

Ciao!  -Tebaldi

Keith and Everyone,

For the record, if I am giving the impression that I think I know everything; I am giving the wrong impression. I am arguing my positions on subjects here from my own viewpoint, as are you. I am a little “Socratic” as I have learned that the more I learn, the less I seem to know. That’s OK by me.

As for the epistemological humility purportedly inherent to scientists, it seems lacking in Harris and Dawkins in the interview that Rick suggested we watch, although it was interesting to me. They speak with unshakeable conviction of their highly debatable positions. As for the link between religions and war, I certainly think religions have done their fair share of instigating war, as have other ideologies. But as a faith- based person I well tell you again for the record I am not above fear at all and I am terrified of war. Like all creatures I too am driven by the instinct to survive, without pain. I wish there were more of the peacemakers that Christ yearned for, atheists or faith- based. I am not picky. His idea was that if we had peacemakers, we would not have too much war.

Joan

Tebaldi,

Part 2
Civil unions… again we have the same slippery slope—who is entitled to the legal protections of civil unions? Just gays? How about Judy who lives with Jack one year and George for two years and then James for 7 years…She may now be a common law wife to James but if Jack dies can Judy assert her claims as legal guardian if Jack has no one else?  Where do we draw the line and is this the way to safeguard our society, now fraught with unstable, high turnover and exotic relationships? I am very skeptical this would work in our favor en masse. I think we would have a seriously disturbed group of children who as a result would not be able to take the reins.

Nature does not see fit for gay unions to generate themselves naturally. This should be considered. Why???

Gay love and God… I do not appeal to the Bible here for guidance as it may just reflect the prejudices of the day but too it should be remembered that Greek society in biblical times held homosexual love between males to be a higher form of love than heterosexual love. So what to think?

I believe God reveres and respects all love. I don’t mean the goofy, trendy, in your face we are free, and so hip and enlightened and above it all nonsense people try to pawn off as gay love. By love, I mean the deep partnerships gays have lived discreetly over the years, sitting at the bedside of their dying partners and seeing them through life, as any heterosexual couple would do, as God does for any of us. And I believe God understands us and our struggle and the unfairness we bear in this life. I believe He respects our honesty with Him about what we feel and think, no matter how it may differ from His ideas on sexuality or other subjects, if He in fact thinks gay love should not to be pursued. He does respect all bona fide love. IT is priceless and He knows it. He is a Lover more than anything else in my view. He looks for ways to be with us, not to be separate from us. If one believes he is doing wrong by expressing gay love physically I would counsel him to abstain. Period. If one does not, I think he needs to be Thoreau-like honest. We are truly judged on a case- by- case basis by a God who is helplessly in love with us and He loves us just as He made us with our limitation and struggles as well as our conquests and triumphs. He is understanding of us if we are doing what we think we need to do, gay or straight. He reveres all genuine love.

Re: Richard Feynman…he is a great character who marched to the beat of his own drum literally, Nobel prize winning physicist, worked on the Manhattan Project and dropped the o-ring into the glass of water to show it expanded while working on the Challenger inquiry. His second biographical book is ”What Do You Care What Other People Think? And I wondered, what do you care about what I think about you? It’s a wonderful, uplifting read as is his first one, ”Surely You’re Joking, Mr. Feynman?”.

Re: Bleeding…somewhere I thought you indicated that faith based people were above pain but now I cannot find the statement. Soooooo… I guess I am off base here…sorry.

TRUTH…well, thank you for clearing that up…we all accept your truth and here I thought we were all to accept mine…whod’ a thunk???….

Thoreau and honesty. He would be pleased with me here.

Joan

Tebaldi,

Part 1

Re: #50511

Uh, Oh…I have eaten slugs, snails… escargot, you know, rather like them…Mr. Ambassador. “Hi ho, hi ho. It’s off to slug jail I go”…Well, I defer to Maani’s response here. It is essentially the one given in ethics classes to your idea that man has greater value because he is compassionate, etc. There are people out there who are not compassionate and my mother in law at 100 years is not always on the same planet but we still intuitively think of such people has having intrinsic worth, more so than the slug, snail or escargot. Intrinsic worth of humanity is hence not a function of man’s qualities…my German shepherd, Zeus, was intelligent and very sensitive, more so than some people…

OK…the big toughie here…gay stuff….
The political philosopher in me says we can have rights to the extent that they do not begin to threaten our society. We cannot have religious beliefs that threaten the society and we cannot have love beliefs that threaten our society. Marriage- one man, one woman raising a family with little divorce is the known way to best promote a very stable community. The state institutionalizing any union between people who love each other is dubious. Our thoughtless narcissism just marches forward, never reflecting seriously on the consequences of our behavior or obligations to others, namely our children who are now subjected to our whim as far as adult relationships go. Just advance, advance, advance. Should all in the group have the same political rights? Yes. And gay persons have those same rights as heterosexual people. Morally, should gay persons be treated with dignity and not discriminated against for jobs ets.? Yes, of course.  But I do not see marriage as a political right, just nature’s call. The state protects this natural occurrence by institutionalizing it as marriage to the state’s advantage, namely stability and human growth and development for overall sake of the community, which is needed for our very survival. The state institutionalizing gay marriage insures neither and opens the door to less stability. If the state now institutionalizes marriage based on the idea that all people who love each other should have the same entitlements of the heterosexual couple, we must now grant marriage rights/legal contracts between any and all people who just happen to love each other at any given moment i.e., polygamists, group marriage maybe even incestuous relationships. Where do we draw the line without discrimination against someone? And how sturdy are these numerous, varied relationships and what about the care of our children of these relationships who require years of stable care and financial support? We are steering our ideas of personal freedom, interpreting them in ways that are leading us into a free for all. In the meantime ewe have been avoiding and dissolving our bona fide obligations to others. Freedom is only a positive thing if it leads to our secured well- being. If freedom is jeopardizing our well being…well we are free but in anarchy, which is a very dangerous state of affairs, more so now as our national security is threatened externally too. And for me the state recognizing all types relationships with no care to the consequences or the long-term impact this has on us is dangerous to our overall stability, against the state’s legitimate interest of securing our stability and safety.

Joan.

Tebaldi,

Part 1

Re: #50511

Uh, Oh…I have eaten slugs, snails… escargot, you know, rather like them…Mr. Ambassador. “Hi ho, hi ho. It’s off to slug jail I go”…Well, I defer to Maani’s response here. It is essentially the one given in ethics classes to your idea that man has greater value because he is compassionate, etc. There are people out there who are not compassionate and my mother in law at 100 years is not always on the same planet but we still intuitively think of such people has having intrinsic worth, more so than the slug, snail or escargot. Intrinsic worth of humanity is hence not a function of man’s qualities…my German shepherd, Zeus, was intelligent and very sensitive, more so than some people…

OK…the big toughie here…gay stuff….
The political philosopher in me says we can have rights to the extent that they do not begin to threaten our society. We cannot have religious beliefs that threaten the society and we cannot have love beliefs that threaten our society. Marriage- one man, one woman raising a family with little divorce is the known way to best promote a very stable community. The state institutionalizing any union between people who love each other is dubious. Our thoughtless narcissism just marches forward, never reflecting seriously on the consequences of our behavior or obligations to others, namely our children who are now subjected to our whim as far as adult relationships go. Just advance, advance, advance. Should all in the group have the same political rights? Yes. And gay persons have those same rights as heterosexual people. Morally, should gay persons be treated with dignity and not discriminated against for jobs ets.? Yes, of course.  But I do not see marriage as a political right, just nature’s call. The state protects this natural occurrence by institutionalizing it as marriage to the state’s advantage, namely stability and human growth and development for overall sake of the community, which is needed for our very survival. The state institutionalizing gay marriage insures neither and opens the door to less stability. If the state now institutionalizes marriage based on the idea that all people who love each other should have the same entitlements of the heterosexual couple, we must now grant marriage rights/legal contracts between any and all people who just happen to love each other at any given moment i.e., polygamists, group marriage maybe even incestuous relationships. Where do we draw the line without discrimination against someone? And how sturdy are these numerous, varied relationships and what about the care of our children of these relationships who require years of stable care and financial support? We are steering our ideas of personal freedom, interpreting them in ways that are leading us into a free for all. In the meantime ewe have been avoiding and dissolving our bona fide obligations to others. Freedom is only a positive thing if it leads to our secured well- being. If freedom is jeopardizing our well being…well we are free but in anarchy, which is a very dangerous state of affairs, more so now as our national security is threatened externally too. And for me the state recognizing all types relationships with no care to the consequences or the long-term impact this has on us is dangerous to our overall stability, against the state’s legitimate interest of securing our stability and safety.

Joan

Continued Re: Comment #50582 by Maani on 1/30 at 4:59 pm
Again, thanks for your views on God.  One of the things you said was “…we NEED atheists in order for the complete range of free will to be expressed.”  (You probably knew I was going to pick on you for this.)  Am I assuming too much when I suggest that atheists are sacrificial lambs?  Am I doomed to eternal hell just so believers can bask in the glory of heaven? 
You have noticeably not addressed two of my important questions:  Are we bad?  Did we do something wrong?
You claim that if one does not accept Jesus, we won’t go to heaven.  I’ve met quite a few folks who genuinely believe in Jesus.  I’ve also met quite a few that don’t.  The most upstanding nonbeliever wins in most every category over the most disagreeable believer.  Yet the believer goes and the nonbeliever does not.  Where is the justice?  Additionally, I refuse to believe that not one Jew, Muslim, or Taoist will make it through the pearly gates.  This is the most acrimonious, presumptuous and alienating thing I’ve ever heard. 
>>> Perhaps you are right.  Perhaps we non-believers lack the creativity to accept God.  Perhaps we have reasoned ourselves out of salvation.  But it still isn’t my fault.  Much like the scorpion, “it’s in my nature”.  This leaves me back at square one:  Damned from birth.  (No one taught or coerced me specifically to be agnostic)
You seem to choose your words carefully on the Gay issue.  You also seem to (unlike Joan) cling to your Bible (I’m not chastising you for this, it’s a good book).  I liked your substitution of sinners scenario.  The differences, however, between adulterers and Gays are vast.  There are a few folks who repeatedly commit adultery.  Most folks (especially those who get caught) regret the pain that adultery creates, and they don’t repeat that behavior.  When a gay person commits a gay act (nowadays) he/she doesn’t feel any remorse, and they most assuredly will repeat the behavior.  They repeat this behavior for the same reasons everybody else has sex.  (Except for the Catholics) 
I won’t argue what causes someone to be a homosexual.  “The current debate is whether or not homosexuality is a result of nature: a person’s environment and surroundings, or of his biology and genetics.  The debate endures because both sides have the ability to create a scientific environment to support their cause.”  The important things to recognize are that they are who they are and that homosexuality doesn’t hurt anyone.  They can no more change their sexual orientation than you can. So now we must see how they fit in society.  You suggest that they repress their desires.  Why would we ask of them that which we would not ask of ourselves?  (Is that grammatically correct?) What happened to “do unto others”?  I think that your bible restricts you.  It’s an albatross around your neck.  I suggest that you take Joan’s cue and use it for what it is, a great collection of stories that can guide you.  Too many people have used the Bible to allow inequitable conditions to endure.  Religion doesn’t own the copyright to morals/values.  “You will search the Bible in vain for opposition to slavery or support for democracy and equality of the sexes” 
On the other hand, I am profoundly pleased that you have accepted gay civil union.  Fight the power man!
Very Respectfully,  -Tebaldi

Hello Maani.  I guess The Matrix analogy is a bit confusing.  Perhaps Neo’s initial confusion and denial of the real world before he was shown evidence thereof is the effect I was looking for.  A world with a God is a hell of a lot more comfortable to live in than one with out.  I should have assumed that this analogy would not work because we each pin the false reality on each other’s belief.
>>> Although you posed your question rhetorically, I must speak on it.  I have an autistic child, and I cherish him as I do my other children.  You miss the big picture of humanism by this question.  We are concerned for the welfare of the aged, the infirm, the disadvantaged, and also for the outcasts—the mentally retarded, abandoned, or abused children, the handicapped, prisoners, and addicts—for all who are neglected or ignored by society.  We do so because we hold humans in the highest regard. 
>>> As for how I arrived at the characteristics that separate humans from other animals:  I pulled it off the top of my head; it is, by no means, a comprehensive list.
>>> Re God.    Slow down man…  Back away from the shotgun.  I was just sharing my personal reasons for believing/not believing in God.  Just threw it out there for you to comment at will (and I thank you for the feedback).  I am blessedly dogma-free.  As I told Joan, be careful of labels.  Darwinism, Humanism, and Atheism all have dogma associated with them (although humanism in its truest form does not).  I probably agree with a high percentage of all of their written doctrine.  I haven’t read all the doctrine (especially atheism).  I agree with the concept and spirit of Darwinism and humanism.  I am influenced by other peoples thinking, but I can come up with a thought or two on my own as well.  This is not a copout nor does it make me (overly) wishy-washy.  As you know, disassociation with dogma does not preclude me from having concrete views. 
(Continued)

Maani wrote:

(Quoting Richard)

>“It’s amazing that every living thing usually wants to stay alive.  You and Joan seem to think you have the answer to why.  I’m suspicious of people who claim to have all the answers.”

>When did I suggest either that I have the answer “why,”

Actually the reason is trivial evolutionary biology.  The living things that want to stay alive today had a zillion ancestors who wanted to stay alive.  Every one of them managed to stay alive at least till they reproduced.  Simple trait inheritance.

Snip

>And I, too, am suspicious of people who claim to have all the answers. 

You have every right to be suspicious of such people.  A fair number of them are cult members.  (Cults being early stage religions.)

>Except that those who do are “usually” called scientists…(LOL)

I know a least a few dozen scientists.  They are the least likely people to think they have all the answers.  They may have a very good grasp of their field, but being educated in science exposes you to the whole of scientific knowledge.  As a result virtually all of them know the limits on what area they know.  I am not a scientist, but I try to think like them and *I* am intensely aware of how little of the total I know.

Snip

>But are you willing to pursue the idea of faith as readily as you expect believers to pursue the ideas inherent in scientism/rationalism/reason?

Sure.  People with faith exist in the billions.  No question about it.  The problem is how to account for this psychological trait that (like other psychological traits) was shaped in the Stone Age.  I have been thinking about this for a *long* time.

In the Second Ed of Selfish Gene, Dawkin’s writes, “Keith Henson has coined the name ‘memoids’ for ‘victims that have been taken over by a meme to the extent that their own survival becomes inconsequential… You see lots of these people on the evening news from such places as Belfast or Beirut.’

“Faith is powerful enough to immunize people against all appeals to pity, to forgiveness, to decent human feelings. It even immunizes them against fear, if they honestly believe that a martyr’s death will send them straight to heaven. What a weapon! Religous faith deserves a chapter to itself in the annals of war technology, on an even footing with the longbow, the warhorse, the tank, and the hydrogen bomb.”

(Reading this made me realize I should have credited Dawkins in “Evolutionary Psychology, Memes and the Origin of War” paper.)

I claim that there is an evolutionary connection between faith and war, namely that the psychological traits that express as faith had their origin in the incessant warfare of hunter-gatherers.

And I would bet long odds you could see this connection when someone gets around to seeing what parts of the brain are activated by faith and war.

Keith Henson

Rick and Everyone,

Quick answer…intelligent life on another planet or universe, makes God more interesting to me. He seems to have to keep Himself busy, doesn’t He?

Joan

Tebaldi

Part 4

The church being holy…well some parts are holy and some, not so holy…Remember Christ had some problems with organized religion himself….funny you should talk about the pearly gates.. I never thought seriously about the after life…too busy making a go of it here…. I did my best. And that was my position before man and God. I did no seek return from Him for my actions on His behalf and I did offer Him my paltry services. He needs my help me like a mother needs a 3 year old’s help to bake a cake. But I offered anyway, free of charge. He seemed a little taken aback that I was not after Him or His powers. Really I do not get it either. But I am not afraid to die or be held accountable. I did what I knew to do and when I knew better I did better. Re: Maya Angelou. … He is not holy for me but He is sacred to me, very precious and very real, a regular “Joe” you might meet on the next barstool but well let’s say perfection-enhanced.

Don’t know about your push to elevate man through an atheist turnabout. But acting dignified is a beginning I would think for all Americans no matter their beliefs about Divinity …we have certainly lost our polish…I want to catch ‘House”, an all time favorite…uses cane, bad leg and says whet he thinks… no matter how outlandish.
MORE TO COME on your second post after I get a little down time…need to move around some….you are really turning over your thoughts to get some answers…I think it’s pretty nifty but it is also a life time process… so in the mean time be sure to enjoy snow or flowers and some good food, wine… Christ’s first miracle was water to wine just to make the wedding a blowout…a good way to think of God is that He is a Banquet…the ultimate Banquet rather than the stern moral dictator we conjure up…

Joan

Tebaldi,

Part 3

Why does God not save those in Darfur, etc? He does not generally save us from ourselves or from consequences of nature. He is there sadly to pick up the pieces. But who is responsible for Darfur and the rampant spread of AIDS? It confounds me that those who rely on nature often do not acknowledge that nature prescribes few sexual partners. Disease always accompanies multiple sexual partners. I take God as He is not as I think He should be.  He plays hardball and He is serious about us following certain standards of behavior. We need to or the innocent suffer. My sense is, however, that there is not a child of His that He would turn His Back on in order to help that child to get through whatever has happened to them. He takes a veil of tears and turns it into a trail of roses if you ask and then step back and give Him a free rein over the matter. But it’s a process you both go through not a wave of a magic wand. Over time He gives you new eyes and shows you just how strong He made you. Hence you sense of dignity. But He does not neutralize our humanness or our dominion over what He gave us, this universe. But He did set out the natural laws and the moral ones that govern humanity as well as the stars and told us within these parameters, to have at it.  I think we do not realize that He suffers from what we do that is so destructive. We see Him as omnipotent and He is, but He is a Lover and vulnerable to us. He stands by silently because He respects our shot at being “Gods” too, here in this Eden. It’s complex. But my sense is that He made us like Himself on a lesser grand scale and He gave us dominion and it is not truly ours if He keeps interfering and preempting our activities. AND then the vengeance is His in the end. Are you ready to live close to Someone Who will ultimately visit justice on the bin Ladens of the world?  He comes across as fierce as He is tender and joyful. He is the Yahweh of the Old Testament too.  He is justice. But He can quell any pain you have known. He can and I do not have words to describe this but He just can,just His being there with you is enough to silence you storms and make sense of them. No matter the holes in your heart and soul that have come from your journey in life, He quenches your thirst for satisfaction and you are peaceful with Him as if tranquilized. That is how, I daresay, He addresses the victims of AIDS and Darfur, one by one. This is a lot more work for Him then waving the magic wand to make it all go away. He yearns to be there for your personal story. But He will not upstage men here as a matter of course. I take this as a sign of His deep respect for His creation and for mankind personally. You just being on this thread with me indicates that He has heard your request to know more.

Joan

Tebaldi,

Part 2

There are techniques though I believe that get His attention and help cultivate a personal relationship with Him. They namely entail letting go and doing what He would like to do which is usually supporting what you want to do… but seeing a different picture than you do, He goes about it differently. So you need to cut Him some slack here. In other words He seems to be at your service as far as I can see. So after you read this just ask Him what you both should do now and see what happens. Then do it. You’ll feel it. This is a way that I think I engaged Him unwittingly. I was not thinking He would take me seriously but He did. Hold on to your hat though once you engage Him. He is a loose cannon, not like Christ.

It was a tough go dealing with the mysticism and I think that is why most people do not have such a graphic experience until after they die. It consumes your life and is a lot to do while you have so much else to do while alive. Once you taste Him you just now focus on Him pretty much. A practical problem for humans, not for Him. I think we see His Face all the time or hear his voice and do not recognize Him. He is the voice that tells you to make the call you did not make but realize later you should have, think Noah but Noah did what the Voice told him to do. He is what you feel standing in a field of wildflowers looking at the Rockies and feeling something so grand and you know it was God because after He leaves, you feel the void and deflation. These are some tips. Just be yourself and when you have a problem or want some input, ask for it and do whatever comes to you, forgetting how you as Western man always have your rational thought process control everything you do. When you wake up ask what He wants to do today and see where that takes you. Try this in small ways to build your confidence in the process. If you don’t step aside, He will not have the chance to show you what He can do. He thinks differently than you do so you have to cut Him a lot of slack. This is a beginning here, if you are interested.

Joan

Quick Question for Everyone Here:

If intelligent life were found on another planet elsewhere in the Galaxy or universe - that is life able to communicate with us - how would that affect your views on God?

Rick

Mein lieber Tebaldi,

Part 1

Auf Weidersehen?? Wo gehen Sie? I am taking time to write to you so I am hoping there is no Weidersehening???

Anyway you get better and better…I intend to answer as much as I can. Verstehan Sie das? Diese est alles fur diese Deutsch. I have no idea if I said what I thought I said. No more German language for me. You are German I take it?

No, you certainly did not accuse me of not being rational. But others read these posts so I was speaking to you and to others as well. I do certainly appreciate you kindness and your respect.  I never thought there was any difficulty with Christian living with atheist living with Jew or whatever until I read some of the posts on this thread and I was a little surprised at the outright animosity directed at faith based people. All of us should be able to live together as long as no one is harmed by people on either side of the God issue. Differing opinions or ways of raising our children do not count as harm.

Your next paragraph has a lot to it so bear with me. First the disclaimers. What I say now is just my very own experience. I am not trying to spin out new dogma or make revolutions about accepted ones. This is just what to my great surprise happened to me, one little peanut in the great plantation of life.

There is no God, so how is there stuff? This is a problem I too have with atheism, as is man’s dignity. We do by inspection have greater value than the slug so it comes from somewhere. God gives it. The stuff comes from something, doesn’t it? And these are some reasons I logically believe in a God.

Why do I feel God while others do not? There is too much for me to do justice to this answer here but let me try. The ultimate answer is I do not really know why He lets me interact with Him like little Cole in 6th Sense sees and interacts with ghosts.  He says it’s because of my intense love for Him…He loved me and I loved Him back despite Darfur, AIDS, warts and all, in spite of the human disapproval of how He set up the game board, I just loved Him and my love is too valuable for Him not to give it full life with Him. That’s His answer. I cannot quite swallow His answer being human and knowing more than He does and all. But it is His response… I just loved Him, His beautiful nature He lavishes on us, His willingness to share His power and dignity with us just because He wants to and I valued the no win situation Christ put himself into, putting himself on the line to give me the message every ethicist seeks, how to live a good life. I value this as if it were done for me personally.

Joan

Tebaldi (cont’d 3):

Finally, re your question about homosexuals and gay marriage, I have offered this before, but it bears repeating.

Although Jesus neither did nor said anything on the subject of homosexuality (and setting aside Paul’s exhortations for a moment), there is something He DID do from which we can reasonably infer what His position was.

We all know the story of the adulteress who was about to be stoned to death, and Jesus’ words, “Let he who is without sin cast the first stone.”  What we often forget is what follows.  After the crowd disperses, He asks her, “Who accuses you?”  She replies, “No one, master.”  Jesus then says, “Neither do I.  Go, and sin no more.”

Given that adultery and homosexuality were equal sins in the eyes of Jewish law (both punishable by stoning to death), we can reasonably infer that if we replace the adulteress with a gay person, the story would have unfolded in the exact same way.  So what does the story tell us?

Jesus refuses to judge or condemn the woman.  But He instructs – commands – her to “Go, and sin no more.”  Does He really expect her not to do so?  Probably not.  But what He is telling her is, “What you are doing is wrong.  And the next time you are caught and threatened, I may not be there to help you.”  Thus, He sets up a situation were she will be “self-convicted” if and when she engages in adultery again.  It is this “self-conviction” that may or may not prevent her from engaging in adultery in the future.

There is no “gay gene.”  And for each of the few studies that has even suggested it, there are hundreds that point the opposite way.  Thus, being “gay” is neither innate nor hereditary.  However, neither does this mean that it is a “disease,” or something that can (or should) be “cured.”  There are likely to be myriad factors involved, either individually or collectively, including psycho-emotional factors, bio-chemical factors, environmental factors (i.e., background, upbringing), etc.

In this regard, Jesus would expect us to show the same love, compassion, humility, forgiveness, justice, etc. to gay people as we do to anyone else.  But there is a difference between “accepting” a behavior and condoning it.  Jesus clearly did NOT condone the adulteresses behavior: “Go, and sin no more.”  Yet neither did He judge or condemn her, or even necessarily expect her to change.  She knew where He stood, she accepted it, and both of them moved on.  But He would continue to show her the same love, compassion, forgiveness, even respect (as two human beings) as He would any other person.

This is why it is not a self-contradiction to believe that homosexuality is “wrong,” and yet to support civil unions for gay people (if not “marriage” in the common sense).  Because “justice” includes equality under the (temporal) law.  Thus, whether through civil unions or otherwise, within the context of temporal law (“rendering to Caesar”), gay people are entitled to the selfsame benefits as everyone else.  (I have, of course, set aside the entire argument, well taken by Joan, that homosexuality is against the “natural order” of things from a Darwinian point of view (i.e., procreation of the species), since this is a separate discussion from the legal one.)

Peace.

Tebaldi (con’t 2):

-“Shall I go to hell for this?  Am I of lesser worth than my neighbor?  Why am I excluded from heavenly accept simply because I was born without faith?”

Let me get something out of the way.  “Hell” – the place of “fire and brimstone” – is reserved for some very particular (and particularly “nasty”) people.  Simply lacking faith is not enough to send you there.  Rather, a more proper translation of the Aramaic word for “hell” is “separation from God.”  Thus, “hell” in its most common usage means that when you die, your “soul” will not be permitted to live in the presence of God.  And why should it be?  If you rejected HIM in life, why should He accept YOU in death?

But let’s take it a step further.  You have also rejected His son.  Thus, dogmatically, if the ONLY thing He asks you to do is to accept His son (i.e., the ONLY thing one MUST do to earn salvation is “Profess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and believe in thine heart that God hath raised Him from the dead”), and you refuse – despite the fact that He gave you life, and all the blessings thereof – why SHOULDN’T you be “excluded from heavenly accent?”  This is why “being good” – and/or doing “good works” – is not enough.  FAITH must accompany it.

As an aside, one need never lose hope, since not everyone is “born with faith,” but many find it later in life – sometimes in the last few years, sometimes in the last few minutes.  (As an aside, many Christians are bothered by this notion: that a person who accepts Jesus in their last days, or even moments, is no less a “complete” Christian than those who have “walked the walk” their entire lives.  The “truth” (dogmatically) is that “heaven rejoices all the more” in these cases, since it means that the person has comes to faith despite the persistence of the forces (Satan, “the world,” etc.) that kept them from it during their entire life.)

[More to come]

Tebaldi (cont’d):

Re “He doesn’t seem to care about genocide in Darfur, and AIDS in Africa, or the fact that we are destroying the earth.”  Setting aside that this is the same as blaming Him for the fact that man A murders man B (which is simply the result of an individual person’s free will choice), your statement is inconsistent with another statement apparently supported by the atheists here.  Consider.

Let us assume that God created the universe and everything in it, including earth, and created life.  But let’s assume that is where the “truth” of the creation story ends: i.e., no “six-year” creation, no “hand-made” species, including man.  Rather, a 13-billion-year-old universe (since, if God is timeless, He certainly had no reason to hurry…LOL), and the processes of evolution.  Thus, let us assume (as Darwin did) that the “Creator” created life and then “set in motion” the “laws of the universe,” including evolution (random mutation, natural selection, survival of the fittest, etc.), but thereafter kept a “hands off” position, allowing the processes to lead from primordial soup to humankind.

The atheists among you have suggested that such a God (especially one outside of time) would be so “complex” that the idea that He/She/It would intervene in human affairs (much less answer the prayers of a single individual) is both illogical and hopelessly presumptuous.

You can’t have it both ways.  You cannot argue on one hand that it is illogical and presumptuous to suggest that God would intervene in human affairs, and then complain (and blame Him) because He does not do so.  Please pick one position and stick with it.

Re your series of questions, let me take them in order:

-“If there is a God, why are there atheists?  Are we bad?  Did we do something wrong?”

The ultimate expression of free will is the free will to reject the one who GAVE you free will: God.  God does not want automatons.  If He were to prove His existence to every living person beyond any doubt, not only would that be the end of “faith,” but it would rob you of your free will choice to accept or reject Him (i.e., believing in His existence).  Indeed, one could argue that we NEED atheists in order for the complete range of free will to be expressed.

-“I thought that God loves me.  Alas, I do not feel His ubiquitous love.”

Yes, He DOES love you, whether you feel it or not.  And He wants YOU to love HIM as well.  But as Joan so eloquently states, you will only feel His love when you are open to His “voice.”  And His voice will not come simply because you “want” it to.  Some would say that it is “reason” that blocks His voice.  But it is not reason per se; rather, it is the inability or unwillingness to provide within “reason” a place for something seemingly “unreasonable.”  And although it is likely that none of the atheists here will admit it, none of you are willing to allow ANY room within your “reason” for anything even REMOTELY “unreasonable.”

[More to come]

All:

Re the Dawkins video, I find it wanting in many respects, and will provide my parsing in a day or two.

Richard:

You say, “It’s amazing that every living thing usually wants to stay alive.  You and Joan seem to think you have the answer to why.  I’m suspicious of people who claim to have all the answers.”

When did I suggest either that I have the answer “why,” much less that I claim to have all the answers?  Neither is true.  I am not even certain what the original question was to which I am alleged to have had “the answer.”  And I, too, am suspicious of people who claim to have all the answers.  Except that those who do are “usually” called scientists…(LOL)

Re “You dodge the proposition that ideas should progress further,”  I have done no such thing, since I don’t remember being asked to respond to it.  In fact, I fully agree with this.  But are you willing to pursue the idea of faith as readily as you expect believers to pursue the ideas inherent in scientism/rationalism/reason?

Tebaldi:

You speak of the “difference between earth and the universe,” with the latter being “timeless” and the former with “days numbered.”  You then say, “Unless you open your mind and swallow that jagged pill, you will never see our point of view.  I really hate to use the ‘Matrix’ references, but it seems to fit here.  When one of the characters was offered a chance to forget everything he knows about reality and rejoin the bliss of a fantasy world, he jumped at the opportunity.  It is rather the reverse for those who believe and are introduced to a harsh reality.”

Unless I am missing something, The Matrix reference works FAR more logically in the other direction.  It is the ALLEGEDLY concrete world of “reality” and day-to-day living that is the FALSE reality in The Matrix; i.e., the “reality” that the scientists/atheists among you would call “real.”  It is the “alternative” reality that is the TRUE reality: the reality of Morpheus, Trinity and Neo as a “savior” in a “faith-based” world.  Thus, the character you reference does not want to remain in the TRUE (“faith-based”) reality, but wants to return to the FALSE (science-based”) reality.

Re “If a slug had the ability to reason, and demonstrate love/compassion/kindness/unselfishness, then they toow ould be as worthy as humans….Alas, they don’t have these capabilities, do they?

Neither do some humans, who are damaged bio-chemically and/or psycho-emotionally, etc. - the autistic, the mentally retarded, etc.  Are they therefore less deserving of “worthiness” than “whole” humans?  Do they hold the same position as slugs?  The questions are rhetorical.  The real question is: how did you arrive at those particular characteristics as the ones that separate humans from other species?

[Continued]

(Continued) Re:  Comment #50366 by Joan on 1/29 at 5:54 pm

Re: Darwinism/Humanism (I can’t believe I’m still trying to sell this) – You apparently didn’t find my statement as lucid and profound as I did.  (“Yes, we are made from the same ooze.  So are the Sistine Chapel and the mural on the local YMCA”).  To remove the possible hand of God perhaps I should have said …so are Woody Allen’s film, “Manhattan” (Woody is an atheist), and “Rambo”.  They are made from the same thing (film).  One is clearly more worthy than the other.  Again, (and I think this is crucial) I suggest that you’re idea of more worthy, greatly exceeds my idea of more worthy. 
If a slug had the ability to reason, and demonstrate love/compassion/kindness/unselfishness, then they too would be as worthy as humans.  I would personally volunteer to be the ambassador to the slugs, and demand equal standing in our society.  I would socialize with them and invite them to dinner on occasion (although cleaning after their slime trails might prove to be quite annoying).  Our children would play with theirs, and I would teach the world to accept them as our contemporaries.  Alas, they don’t have these capabilities, do they?  Sorry slugs- no steak for you.

Re: Gay marriage.  Two issues – the “rightness” of Gay love, and the institutionalization of Gay love.  On the former you (oddly enough) reference nature/procreation (Darwinism).  It shouldn’t be in the cards but God is good with it?  What side of the fence are you on?  On the later you indicate that it is not in the best interest of society to institutionalize Gay love.  I agree that promoting permanent families provides stability for the economy and the efficient perpetuation of societal values.  Gay people can’t increase the labor force, but this is not the only area of economics that marriage stimulates.  Healthy families, regardless of their makeup, perpetuate societal values.  It is, most importantly, in the best interest of society to afford EVERYONE the same rights.  If bob and sue have a right to be married and receive the benefits therein, than so should Bob and Larry.  It’s not an issue of matchmaking or romance; it’s an issue of equality.

>>> I haven’t read Feynman, but I get it.  I was simply saying that with out taking that leap of faith, as it were, you’ll not understand.  Just like I don’t understand, (and am sometimes jealous of) your relationship with God.  You came across defensive on this, Joan.  I, like you, agreed to remove our kid gloves (as evidenced by my earlier sarcasm), but not our respect for one another.  Besides, we share a kindred spirit:)

>>>”Do you think people with faith have no pain…do not bleed” No (or was this a rhetorical question), and I don’t know were you were going with this. 

>>> To answer your question posed to Rick, it is my truth you seek, and shall accept.

Auf wiedersehen,  - Tebaldi

Re:  Comment #50366 by Joan on 1/29 at 5:54 pm

My dear Joan, Interesting synopsis of your religious experience thus far; thanks for sharing. 
Twas not I who accused you of being “less rational/ logical than atheists”.  Nor would I ever “blow you off as if you were an idiot”.  I’m all about “polishing up ideas and rethinking my position”.  Since neither side can prove or disprove each other’s position, both are conceivable, and neither position harms anyone, then logically, they should peacefully share a place in this world.   

The fascination I have with this subject derives from the one sticking point I have that would prevents me from being an atheist.  If there is no God, how is there stuff?  Shouldn’t there be nothingness?  Yet, doesn’t it seem abjectly unfortunate that you (et al) would receive the glory and love of God, while I, a man of goodness, am not capable of feeling His touch?  Or even knowing His existence?  Don’t say that I am capable; I’ve invited his revelation.  I’ve felt nothing from Him.  The bulk of my reason, contradicts the existence of God.  What reason would your God have for not reaching out to all His children?  Unless He is a God that isn’t as benevolent as you would make Him out to be.  If you acquiesce to the failings of the church and reject the holiness of the Bible (and, as you pointed out, even the holiness of God himself – you’re going to have some explaining to do at the pearly gates), what is left to show us His benevolence? 

If I were to go out on a limb here, and hypothesize His existence, I would have to say that He doesn’t much care for everyone on earth.  He apparently only touches a certain percentage of people on earth.  What’s wrong with the rest of them?  He doesn’t seem to care about genocide in Darfur, and AIDS in Africa, or the fact that we are destroying the earth.  It’s a sophomoric, copout argument on my behalf, and most folks explain it through the Bible.  I still wonder how you address it? 

Okay, back to old business.  You wrote “If science diminishes humanness, maybe it is a great loss that should be seriously considered”.  Well.  I guess you’re right.  Science dictates that humans are ooze and religion dictates that humans are the exalted by an omniscient creator.  I, for one, would prefer the later.  I hereby call on my atheist brethren to improve their lives.  Let us now make the conscious decision to believe in God.  On the count of three.  Ready… Set… NOW! 

Continued

Tebaldi,

Did my devotion arise from a significant emotional event??? How to address this ??? No it did not. It was an evolution. Catholic training, departure from that training, finding my own ways. Then a turn of events. I began seeing God in certain beautiful things and the more I saw, the more I understood what I had been taught or read. I actually do not, nor never did read the Bible too much. AS this continued, I began to yield over to new ideas and THEN He took an interest in getting together with me, sort of made Himself known to me, and I knew I was interacting with something other than myself.  Things got very solid between us but I think it was a plan on His part. It was several years after He and I got solid with each other that I got into some serious health problems. In retrospect it was as if He was courting me because He could see the storm clouds gathering and knew I would need Him. Pretty slick, cool and totally unexpected. It really blows my mind the care He gives me now. Actually He is the one devoted to me far more than I am devoted to Him. But He would deny this. It is a running playful battle between us. And I think there is nothing unusual about me. This could happen to anyone as far as I can see. I did not go to church all that much as an adult but I kept Him my heart and just stayed open. And then the miracle occurred. He seemed to take interest in me as Christ describes, lily of the field and all that sort of thing. I really am not very devout, maybe I am as Maani says, polite. And I am not sure God is holy either, mainly awesome such that you want to revere Him.

No seeds of doubt for me. I just do this sparring for a living of or the fun of the workout, the mental workout…sort of kung fu of the mind but then kung fu, according to Bruce Lee et al is just mental. I am a professionally trained philosopher and “A good philosopher can make any position pliant” Gareth Evans, a contemporary British philosopher. We dispute like this all day long, no one agrees with anyone else. We don’t expect agreement. My challenges to you hopefully would shore up your ideas as you get clearer about them.

Does God love the atheist? I am sure He does, just treat Him the way you want to be treated by Him with courtesy. You cannot force yourself to believe what you do not believe. But you do not have to assault Him either. I do think however the more intimately you get to know Him, the closer He will be with you. I believe that He speaks anyone who will give Him the time of day.  The closer you get to Him the more you will literally feel Him. It is a sensual experience as well as a mindful one. Speak to Him and then do what comes to you and cultivate this and you will begin to recognize His unique “Voice”, so to speak and talk to Him all day long if you a mind to isolate Him from the rest of universe’s workings.

Gay marriage…probably should not be in the cards as nature itself does not see fit for procreation here…but real, bona fide gay love…it seems to me that all love is sacred for God and man and all should treat others as they want to be treated, but it does not mean society has to institutionalize every form of love. Society’s interest is not matchmaking or romance. It is stability and needed growth. These are my personal feelings here on the entire post. So there…

All right have it guys…

Joan.

Tebaldi,

I sort of suspected you were male…the name as well as some phrases. You are a writer with different tones or voices, if you will. Thanks for clearing up the mystery. A while ago we asked Maani the same question. He is male too. Richard thought he was female and I thought he was male. Fortunately, we got that all straightened out.  We were much relieved. Speaking of which, please don’t be hard too on Maani. He was just trying to help me.

What gives you the sense that I am devout? People have used certain words to describe me and that has clearly not been one of them. LOL. “Exasperating” is one that comes to mind readily. Think of Richard, here.

Darwinism and secular humanism are logically contradictory theories. Let’s not confuse ideas that logically follow from one another or that logically contradict each other with what you actually believe is true, two very different phenomena, probably. From the Darwinian perspective, man is the same primordial ooze as the slug and man hence has no greater worth and therefore secular humanism is not a logically justified morality for the Darwinian. Regardless of the logic here, I think that atheists like the rest of us pretty typically believe and act as if man does have much greater intrinsic worth than the slug. All of us seem to intuitively understand this to be so. Right? But atheists cannot rationally explain why they believe man has intrinsic worth while at the same time believing in Darwin sans God, believing x & -x. Hence, I do not see how atheists in general are more rational/ logical than faith- based persons, as is often claimed on this thread. This is my point. One reason I have been taking a very active interest here is not at all to convert anyone, but to demonstrate that faith- based people are as rational as anyone else and that atheists by definition are no more rational than anyone else. I was sick to death of hearing how atheists were just automatically superior thinkers/reasoners to those who have religious beliefs, blowing us off as if we were idiots. They are not by definition superior thinkers at all. No one has it all figured out. Another point I am making here is that despite the different world- views, faith- based people, agnostics and atheists, we should all of us respect each other. The atheist of today may be the faith- based person of tomorrow and vice versa. As far as converting anyone, I have a religion of one person, me. See my fall posts. And believe me I am not trying to start yet another religious movement! Another thing I do in general in any discussion is to get people on new wavelengths so they have to polish up their ideas or rethink their positions.  People are too trenched into their positions to expect them to switch views and I do not have any inclination to undertake such a task.

Just a few responses to your further thoughts…

I do not think we have clue as to the overall importance of mankind in the grand scheme of things from a godless viewpoint.

Seeing viewpoints does not mean we have to agree with them, does it? What do you care what I think or other people think? Have you read any of Richard Feynman’s books?

Do you think people with faith have no pain…do not bleed?

Despite that we here in America have lost our dignity in so many ways I do attach a God-like quality to man. Maybe our body reflects a lowly status for Darwin but in my opinion too our bodies are masterpieces, and our souls, whatever they may be, are the infinite from the seemingly finite in a way, inexplicable. If science diminishes humanness, maybe it is a great loss that should be seriously considered. More to come on your other post.

Joan

Richard,

I could not agree with you more about Kant…what a yawner, something good to pick up if you are an insomniac!  I always had interpreters to explicate him, professors or other grad students who specialized in him…and what audacity ”The Critique of Pure Reason” like Aquinas”, ”Summa Theologica” or the greatest theology… really get over yourself….

I do not equate the Creator with the Christian God. I do not understand why you keep saying this.  Jeff appealed to the Creator, knowing it was understood by the overwhelming majority of Christian citizens that they would accept Jeff’s somewhat outrageous ideas of equality vased on God because they already believed we were equal as children of God. We certainly are not equal except for that commonality. There is Einstein and Trump and then there is you or me. We are all human beings and should be equally treated with dignity but we all differ with resources or capabilities, etc. and are very unequal in these areas. That’s all I mean. 

As for your last paragraph, I do not understand. Giving people an equal shot is something that I agree with too but how is that idea derived from Darwinism?

I think I missed a recent post of yours to me about equality. I will try to get to it soon. So sorry.

Joan

Rick and Everyone,

Checked Dawkins’ video, interesting in that he rationally acknowledges that he cannot disprove the existence of God but many arguable ideas there nonetheless. He sounds so simply rational but if you break down his ideas a bit you are again wondering about some things he says … for instance what is an “alternative scientific” claim? an “alternative” claim to what science we have??? or, is a it a new “alternative science” that we have running concurrent to the science we have??? Whose truth do we accept Dawkins? Einstein’s?,  Rick’s?,  Maani’s, Joan’s, Seinfeld’s, Rumsfeld’s, Tebaldi’s, Richard’s? Who has this one and only absolute truth Dawkins refers to so casually or implies is out there for us to somehow discover. Just like the way our senses can conjure up God, as Dawkins alludes to, also our senses play a role in the way we interpret what we scientifically observe in any number of instances, especially in the not so theoretical sciences like biology and medicine. Yesterday’s science is today’s heresy? So who knows what you really know at any given point in time.
He’s seems a bit unjustified in disallowing the experience of God on a mountaintop as God, an image I conjured up on this thread in the fall. How can Dawkins assert that this is not God? It is just not the way he views God, which is very biblically, to the exclusion of differing ideas about God.  Of course, we all agree that it is dangerous to have a politician, enforcing so called Divine mandates governing anyone. It is equally dangerous to have scientists, truth tellers in Dawkins’ world, inventing things that could result in our mass destruction.  I daresay that Dawkins has NOT lived through the dark night of the soul if he thinks listening to Mozart or seeing Mona Lisa will give him strength to handle what is too big for him to handle. We are not here to be comfortable, he asserts knowingly, but that assertion suggests we are here to be something, what specifically???? is it what Dawkins says is the reason we are here? or what you or I say is the reason we are here? If I say we are here to be comfortable or happy, how would Dawkins refute me sans God who would assert our purpose?  Without God, anything goes. Doesn’t it?  Even Darwinism that claims, against every intuition we have about man’s worth, we are just ooze with no special intrinsic worth.

I generally have a healthy skepticism about so called science that is formulated as a result of warlike attacks as is both Dawkins’ and Harris’ work. Both admit they were prompted to their inquiries their inquiries as a result of the 9/11 attacks. 

Rick, I think it’s cool that you researched this interview. It is probably one of the better ones on this subject, I would surmise.

Joan

(Continued) Re :  Comment #49758 by Joan on 1/25 at 6:57 pm

Okay.  The church/humanism issue:  As I’ve said, this is only a comparison.  I clearly see the similarities.  I’ll break them down as far as possible: 

Pre-renaissance:  (Laymen after leaning from Italian secular humanist) - “Yes!  I have freewill and dignity!”

Pre-renaissance:  (St. Augustine) “How can you claim dignity based on your secular ideology”

Modern day:  (Atheist) “Yes! I have freewill and dignity!

Modern day:  (Joan)  “How can you claim dignity based on your secular ideology”

You are trying to take away that which is ours and find a place in your religion to store it. 

  This is the only reference I could find.  It’s a good read.

Herrick, James. The History and Theory of Rhetoric. 3rd ed. Boston: Pearson, 2005.

As for the undying slug v. man question, please reference my submission to Maani above.  I’ve dared you to upset my balance and you’ve made a noteworthy attempt.  Alas I still stand as you.  Unshaken, unmoved, and unchanged.  But we are better for the sweat, effort, openness, and sharing.  Understanding breeds tolerance.

We seem to be at an impasse.  The reason for this is simple.  It is completely obvious to believers that God exists.  It is equally obvious to atheists that he does not.  Richard is clearly impatient with our exchange because you are questioning what he knows to be true.  Maani is equally impatient because we are questioning what he knows to be true (although he may not admit it).  You try admirably to divorce your beliefs from the subject; I submit that is nearly impossible (and doing so makes for a boring conversation).

As an agnostic, I enjoy the fencing because I can’t definitively say one way or the other what the truth is (although it’s obvious which way I lean).   
Against my better judgment, and forgive me for this deduction (for I know not what I do), I will suggest that you also enjoy the fight because there is a seed of doubt in your mind as well. 

And so I suggest we turn the shotgun around and move on to the next subject area.  I suggest one of the following: 

If there is a God, why are there atheists?  Are we bad?  Did we do something wrong?  I thought that God loves me.  Alas, I feel not His ubiquitous love.  Shall I go to hell for this?  Am I of lesser worth than my neighbor?  Why am I excluded from heavenly accent simply because I was born without faith? 

Gay marriage.  Why do we fight the same battles over and over again in America?  Italians, Chinese, Blacks, women, Muslims, and now Homosexuals.  Before I get too deep please offer your position.  What do you say Maani/Joan?  For or against?

Sorry I can’t edit this, hope it makes sense!

-Say what you have to say, not what you ought. Any truth is better than make-believe.  - Henry David Thoreau

Re:  Comment #49749 by Maani on 1/25 at 6:29 pm

Re :  Comment #49758 by Joan on 1/25 at 6:57 pm

Maani, I get it brother.  I got the question.  I love you man, but if you restate the “ooze question” again, I can’t be held responsible for the sarcasm and crude vernacular that will flow from my pen.  (This would precipitate me taking Richard’s place on the whipping pole).  I simply don’t have the intellectual capacity (or desire) to pursue this question any more.  I gave you all I got.  I’m tapping out.  No mas.  I’m a lover, not a scientist.  That being said, I am still not admitting defeat.  If you don’t think that my previous ramblings and those from my fellow non-believers are sufficient, then I have failed as a philosopher, not as an atheist.  Please note further discussion material at the end of this submission.

The last thing I will say on this is that humans have the sole ownership of communication of complex ideas, open displays of love/compassion/kindness/unselfishness, and the ability to reason above the intelligence level of all known animals.  We have an almost limitless capacity of free will and demonstrate the ability to sustain huge societies.  These are things that make me proud to be human.  These are the things that makes me dignified and worthy of an elevated position among my fellow animals.  Evolution has hurled humans into the top of the food chain.  Yes, we are made from the same ooze.  So are the Sistine Chapel and the mural on the local YMCA. 

And you’re absolutely correct.  I didn’t mean to put words in Joan’s mouth.  This was a separate assumption and should have prefaced it with “I suggest”.

>>>  Hi Joan.  I will answer your personal question if you answer mine… First, I will pat myself on the back for not displaying gender bias in my writings (I’m male).  My turn – Were you always devout, or did your devotion arise from a significant emotional event?

You wrote – “From the Darwinian point of view, how can man really justify secular humanism?” 
You must know more about Darwin than I, because I believe in the principles of both ideologies, sans issue.  Point out a contradiction and I will point to the one that is wrong.  Don’t get stuck on the labeling though; I’ve never considered myself a Darwinist or a humanist.  I am a product of many teachings (and surely a master of none).  You scream that they are not compatible; I shrug and see no contradiction within my soul (as it were).

I’m sorry to give you false hope in my last statement of unworthiness in the universe.  There is a vast difference between earth and the universe.  Two different scales.  I perceive the universe as being timeless.  The earth’s days are numbered.  In the grand scheme of things, mankind (on earth) will only be a sentence in the voluminous annals of the universe.  Even if we manage to move to another sun when ours burns out, I can’t assume that we are the top of the food chain in the universe.  So yes we enjoy a primacy here on earth but earth is where it stops. 
    Unless you’re willing to open your mind, and swallow that jagged pill, you will never see our point of view.  I really hate to use “Matrix” references, but it seems to fit here.  When one of the characters was offered a chance to forget everything he knows about reality and rejoin the bliss of a fantasy world, he jumped at the opportunity.  It is rather the reverse for those who believe and are introduced to a harsh reality. 
  Our dignity and worth don’t go as far as we would like it to.  Perhaps that is the subtle difference between our points of view.  Maybe you attach an almost God-like dignity in mankind.  I don’t think we merit such a laudatory comment.  I believe that we are capable of great and wonderful things, but as Darwin says, “Man still bears in his bodily frame the indelible stamp of his lowly origin”.

Continued below (or above, or how ever you want to look at it)

Joan and Maani:

I was being presumptuous; sorry. That stuff about value being derived from the cross is just standard protestant Christian teaching. I once read a book based on the idea, called “Healing for Damaged Emotions.” The author based the whole idea of self-esteem on what I was saying.

I was wrong to attach those ideas to you.

I don’t really care what Kant says, Joan. Have you ever tried to read him? He is barely comprehensible, and I think his fancy vocabulary just obfuscates. I struggled through “The Critique of Pure Reason,” and then gave up on reading anything else by him. I decided that like the vast majority who reference him, I would do so without a really solid backing. If you want a good yawner, get yourself a copy. I know one thing from that reading. His most famous contribution to philosophy, the “categorical imperative,” is a supposedly innate thing. Locke has already disputed it, along with any other innate principle, early in his Essay Concerning Human Understanding. Locke uses plain English and sounds more convincing.

I don’t think I was entirely off topic and being one-sided. The discussion at the time was about how atheists can derive human value without God, assuming the Darwinian idea that life is just an imprint upon a collection of molecules. I answered by casting doubt upon how the cross provides a better basis.

My answer to the question stands as is. Value is only observed in relation to life. Without life there is nothingness. Even a live dog is worth more than a dead lion (Proverbs 9). Our valuation of our own lives, and our understanding that other people value their lives also, is no different from the struggle for survival and displays of the golden rule among other species.

That is a struggle your gods don’t seem to interfere with in any way. I can’t say they don’t care. Even if those gods exist, I wouldn’t be able to read their minds, and I have lost faith in the supposedly revealed word.

The question “why” is a mystery I don’t claim to have the answer to. It’s amazing that every living thing usually wants to stay alive. You and Joan seem to think you have the answer to why. I’m suspicious of people who claim to have all of the answers. You really just appeal to the way the doctrine has been interpreted historically. Saying I’m a child of god doesn’t change the equation, unless you go back to “in His image,” from Genesis, but you make the quantum leap from Creator to “Christian God.” I’ve pointed that out, and you can only appeal to historical interpretation, not basic reasoning.

In the traditional mode of thinking, how things appear is how they should be. This is where historical interpretation has brought us, so it’s where we should be. You dodge the proposition that ideas should progress further.

Humanism can be justified from the Darwinian point of view just by saying it makes sense to give everybody a fair chance. I’ve pointed out several times that you make a quantum leap there also, saying people don’t have “equal ability,” which is a red herring. You won’t answer.

Joan, Maani, and everyone else.

Given the character limit here and how effective video can be compared to reading, I have been on the prowl for a good third-party summary of what those who do not believe in a religion and/or god’s thought process may be.  Luckily I think I have found a video of this sort.  It may be biased, but I do believe in what the answerer claims in all his answers here.  this should shed some light in dark places… 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7xUk78ocGvs

I hope this helps explain how people who are unbelievers can keep an awe of this world without a deity being involved and some other common questions that come up.  I think the interviewer asks very good questions.  Enjoy!

Rick

Maani,

Re: #49749

Again thank you for you reiteration of my endeavor…what a struggle!!!!

And again I am arging your position, my atheist friends, and the logical consequences of your beliefs regarding Darwinism and secular humanism. They are diametrically opposed theories. You cannot be both Darmwinist and secular humanist because Darwinism holds that all species are the same promordial ooze. Therefore no one is special. No one has more intrinsic worth. From the Darwinian point of view there is no basis to claim man has it and to go off and build morality on that empty claim. A house of straw…. That’s one reason I have a God interjected into evolution. He provides a good safety net for man and what man needs to be safe.

Joan

Tebaldi,

I must really comment on your statement that sadly (as Darwinians) we have no special worth in the universe. This to me seems to be the logical consequence of Darwinian thought carried to its logical conclusion. This is a consequence I daresay he did not intend, as the aim of science at his time was not undertaken to disprove God. Yeah!!!!!!!!! for you, you understand my problem with Darwinian thought. It’s a problem from the political angle as well as the moral angle… where does man’s special dignity and privilege come from in the universe and Jefferson addressed that in the Declaration which was designed to give the common man privilege heretofore reserved only for the upper echelons of the social scale.  As a Darwinist, there is no basis for the purported morality of secular humanism claiming that man has intrinsic worth because if you are Darwinist you believe that man does not have intrinsic worth in the evolutionary/nature model. It’s a serious matter and speaks to my concern that atheists have not given serious thought to the logical implications of their viewpoint.  So then the next question is how can atheists support their morality and its basis?

We Know….

Nature is amoral and accords man no privileged place in the universe. In nature’s eyes man has no intrinsic worth over that of any other species.

Science reflects the workings of nature and has no moral authority or basis to dictate certain behaviors.

Man seems to need morality to enhance his ability to survive and morality opposes the agenda of nature that seeks to have the most strong survive. Morality protects the weak among other things.

Hence, on what does the atheist base his moral precepts, if neither nature nor science provide a basis for moral precepts that we are obligated to follow or support the claim that man has greater intrinsic worth than other species.

Preceding Darwin, Jefferson and Locke understood this dilemma when they appealed to the Creator to provide the dignity of the common man, as did Christ when he taught that the worth of the common man was a function of being the progeny of God. These people were very, very smart. There are some things that science just does not do. I cannot see from a scientific viewpoint, the messiah of some atheists, how you can get the special position of man in the universe without appealing to God. The appeal has been very effective politically in securing the dignity and human rights for the common man in very practical ways. People in certain countries that do not make that appeal are living in less than admirable conditions. So again I think respect and credit should be given where credit is due no matter a person’s beliefs about God or religion.

Joan

Tebaldi,

Re: #49649

Interesting name…the real question of interest here is are you male or female????

I am sorry but I do not follow this idea about the RC Church and humanism. It is a given that the Church wanted control its people by any number of means. But it is pretty inherent to Christ’s original teachings that he preached that we were the children of God identifying us, de facto as a high order creature in the creation, de facto humanism based on a Deity as opposed to secular humanism that is not based on a Deity. So if the Church resurrected this idea for some reason it was certainly not a new one. But if you have a reference here I will look into it to better understand where you are coming from.

I still do not hink you are getting the gist of my question. But you are really working your heart out here. If you have minute, please check my last post that starts with Rick and also includes Richard or check the post Maani put up few days ago that analyzes the question from a more scientific perspective. .

Of course I think atheists are moral and I think we need to have moral tenets.  And of course I think we are worth more than slugs. If not I am in serious trouble with the Slug Justice System …really, I am.

Again, my question is based on a certain position about Darwin and what logically follows from that position with respect to secular humanism and how justifiable it is as a particular morality, if we believe in Darwin’s ideas. I do not think they are logically compatible, Darwin and secular humanism. Darwinian theories hold we are all of the same ooze stuff, slugs and man. So given Darwin in particular, why does man have more intrinsic worth than the slug. Who said so? Where does the worth come from?  A certificate of worthiness? Who gave us the idea we had more worth than a slug, especially from nature’s viewpoint and not man’s, as we are so ego- centric. Nature makes no distinction between man and slug in a tsunami. It seeks to keep its own balance at the expense of man’s life, no problem. So if nature has no problem wiping man off the face of an island at will, is it wrong to control population with wars to keep it at level that nature can sustain that population?

Now you take some stabs in answering the questions …why should man be moral or is man worth than a slug ? And there are oodles of reasons to argue that man should be moral and that he probably is worth more than a slug…well, maybe???….. Not my questions. My question is where does this intrinsic worth derive itself from if a man and slug are the same substance or ooze “ala Darwin”  ???

No rush here. Take your time and be assured again that I do not think you are either amoral, not moral or insensitive. And I hope that this is fun and not making you stressed.

Joan

My dearest Tebaldi,

I see that you are little taken aback by my responses. Know that they are not you but more just an occupational hazard. They are a combination of a lot of language analysis and the propensity for trained philosophers to cover themselves, leaving open as little opportunity as possible to get challenged.

I think perhaps you think I have certain preconceived notions about atheists being insensitive or not moral. You all seem sensitive to me, no less so than the rest of us are excruciatingly sensitive.  I hope I am not giving the impression that I think less of someone who is an atheist because I do not. Truth be told, I don’t really think about people being atheists or not. Just treat me nicely. That’s all I ask. I am not here to be abused. No one should be mistreated. That’s the extent of my expectations of my fellow man, in general.

I believe that our spiritual journeys are our own very private adventures and they are not over ‘til they are over. So all we say now is just a part of the whole trip.
Talking about journey being over, I have never had to see a stage 4- cancer patient through to the end, blessedly. But I have gone through the death process with my dad. And some of what I described I imagine he felt as the macho oldest brother, head of the Slavic clan that he was. I saw him helpless and dependent, depleted and embarrassed about it, especially for his daughters to see him that way, as he was the protector and now we were the protectors. Old age and decline are not for the weak. I have a 100- year old mother- in- law. It’s rough for them to be that way, cogent but not enough to process their problems and handle them and then embarrassed by it or not willing to cooperate with you to do what they need done for them, whether they understand or not. They have their pride, naturally.  But you got my point. There are times and circumstances that just require a lot of emotional stamina and inspiration to deal with them. If you have followed my recent responses to Keith you have learned that I have some health issues and these were tough ones, permanently life altering and I will tell you straight away no one stood with me the way I needed them to but the Divinity I like to talk about. Bad people? No. Could have been more sensitive… but a major part of it is they don’t get it, what’s happening to you, they don’t get it.  But Divinity now seeing you as vulnerable like a sparrow with broken wings pulls you close and wraps His Robes over you to shield you from the storms of your life and carry you through what you need to be carried through, IF YOU LET HIM. You cannot learn this in book or in classroom. You learn this only when you give in and let Him rescue you.  As Hamlet says so aptly to his friend… “There are greater things in heaven and earth that are dreamt of in your philosophies.”  And I believe that atheists are missing this adventure that gives you a very different set of eyes to see life as I think it is meant to be seen, far more broad and spectacular. Science is grand in understanding the material world to the extent it may. But what of understanding the rest of the world and the spirituality that underpins the creation and us, and our very essence as people? Why limit yourself? The view is GRAND.

Joan

P.S. One thing God has taught me is to give myself credit where the credit is due. I was able to do a good job and left my Dad in peace even though we had not had the best of times together over the years. I have no regrets over how we parted. I got Divine input and advice but I had to do the actual tasks myself, so it is a partnership. We each, Yahweh and me, did our share of it. It is very satisfying. Yahweh led me to reconciliation and appreciation of a very good man without compromise to my own dignity.

Richard:

You said (and pardon me for quoting you at length): “You, I think, tie human value to the cross…Whether you realize it or not, you’re just referencing a different “observation,” except that you imagine it. Jesus died [for all of us, I imagine]. He valued each of us as much as himself, I imagine. He was God, I imagine. Therefore, God values each of us as much as God, I imagine. We should value ourselves and others equally, I imagine.  You can change any “I imagine” to “it was revealed (to Paul, for example), it was written down and miraculously preserved, and I believe it so much that I can feel it in my heart.” It makes no difference. It’s still your perception affecting your measure of human value. We cannot assign value as a group. Social scientists can only survey, quantify (how many people hold this truth) and then generalize [too bad that the United States takes its religion most seriously and also acts out a greater lack of regard for human life than any other country, on our streets and in the wars we wage]. The perceived difference between the first method of valuing and the second, is that the Christian method has the backing of presumed authority—a book we should never question. It takes the form of a fundamental, revealed principle. The principle of all principles is that principles should not be questioned, or so says Locke [thanks for the assigned reading, Joan]. Kneel down and pray. Stand up and salute. Stay in a nice, neat line. Onward Christian soldiers.”

With all due respect, if you are going to simply PRESUME what my thoughts, responses, feelings and beliefs might be, then what is the point of engaging with you?  The paragraph above is among the most presumptuous, arrogant paragraphs it has ever been my displeasure to read.  Unless and until you are willing to have a two-sided discussion, there seems little point in my responsing to you - since you seem to know exactly what I “would say” or “think” or “do.”

How I would LOVE to have that kind of certainty about other people!

Tebaldi:

You say, “We say that we have worth devoid of God.  You say that this is not possible.”

No, that is not what Joan said, or meant.  Although you go a long way toward a possible (and certainly interesting) explanation of “comparative worth” immediately after, Joan was (and has been continually trying to, with little success) making the fairly simple observation that Darwinian theory and secular humanism are, if not mutually exclusive, then certainly SERIOUSLY at odds with each other.

It is in the SCIENTIFIC sense that Joan (and I) have been discussing the “comparative value” of human life over any and all other life - NOT in the MORAL sense (though we have all touched on that as well).

Peace.

Joan wrote

>You are so often arguing from the netherworld, past or future, but not in the world of today, January 24, 2007.

You are correct that I am among the “chrono-dislocated.”  Like Moses, I have lived long enough to see the Promised Land.  Unlike Moses, with enough luck I might get there.

snip

>Understanding the ethical implications of Darwinism and, atheism together with secular humanism is valid ethical/philosophical inquiry. And I think it is very interesting to probe and that I am competent to follow the discussion.

To arrive at something subjective (value of human life to a particular person) from objective logic seems to me to be violating the rules.  As a matter of observable fact, values differ from person to person or trade would not exist.

>I have little sympathy for your ideas about sour grapes. I am just stating the state of affairs.

Jan. 21, your post:

” There is a life’ s cycle that nature WISELY limits. The earth only accommodates so many. Surely you agree with this. It is a main concern you have expressed, too many vying for a limited amount of resources. Live well. Accept death, make room for the young to have a fair shot at a good life at life, leaving them ample space and resources to meet their needs. And ending death seems preposterous.”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sour_grapes

“Sour grapes is the false denial of desire for something sought but not acquired; to denigrate and feign disdain for that which one could not attain. This metaphor originated from the fable The Fox and the Grapes by Aesop, where the protagonist fox fails to reach some grapes hanging high up on a vine, retreats, and says that the grapes are sour anyway. The phenomenon has been seen as a challenge to the rational-actor view within the social sciences, with its significance debated by scholars such as Jon Elster and Steven Lukes.”

Most people are dishonest with themselves, claiming not to want things they would take if they were offered them.  Be honest.  Would you turn down a cancer cure with the side effect of cranking your physical age back to 20?  Would you turn down a treatment that resolved all your old injuries if it had this side effect?

These things are not impossible.  I have been aware of how they could be done since the late 1970s.  The proof that they can be done is virtually everywhere you look (all living things are natural examples of nanotechnology).

>We are hit with things that science does not address, your difficulties with the scientologists and my injuries.

I can’t complain about how science, or rather information technology, i.e., the Internet is dealing with scientology.  In the print media age the cult could and did intimidate authors, editors and publishers.  This kept most people ignorant of the fraud and criminal acts they engaged in.  Now the Net shines a light on them and they can’t escape it.

The media still won’t cover some of their bizarre behavior http://www.xenu.net/archive/rtc/  (a page devoted to the erasure of Rathbun and McShane from the historical record) but the cult has lost at least half the numbers they had ten years ago and their reputation (thanks in large part to Tom Cruise) is about as low as it can get.  Even their front organizations (Narconon, Criminon, CCHR, etc.) get exposed on a regular basis.

>We still need to address our problems that science does/cannot handle.  In spite of my mishaps I ran half marathons until the injuries got the better of me. I think I have done pretty darn!!! good for myself. I am just sharing a life’s lesson.  Science is limited. That’s a pretty verifiable statement on January 24, 2007.

That’s certainly true.  Lots of work needed.

On the other hand, consider the amount of progress in the last 200 years in religion and science.  In another 100 or 200 years do you expect much progress in religion?  How much in science?

Keith

Rick,

Well, more equivocation…I did not follow your ideas about the Komodo dragon and Christ … my ideas - dragon does virgin birth and Christ had one, virgin birth has already been done. your idea - dragon impregnated by Christ, no longer virgin birth, I would think???

Lost about the women too…but, oh well…these things do happen…

Had no students named Rick Yel. Do I seem familiar?  We philosophy professors have an almost distinct talking style…many of them ramble and actually put you to sleep, I think, especially after lunch.  Having had philosophy and language and logic, help me out here, Rick, by explaining or exemplifying arguing from a point of view and not from personal beliefs. I am concerned that some of our fellow interlocutors here are having a hard time following this style of analysis, arguing a defined viewpoint and its implications. Once they catch on to it, they will really like it i predict. And once we all are doing it, there are some interesting things we can all explore, like…given that nature is basically not moral, amoral, or immoral, does man have to be moral????

Joan

Richard,

I think, also including me in your post, you are addressing with Maani a question I posed about man and his intrinsic worth, from the Darwinian perspective, i.e. man is from the same ooze as the slug, so why is he worth so much more and entitled do be treated morally, more so than we must treat the slug? It is the argument style of linguistic analysis, a school of thought in philosophy. So here Maani and I are arguing from a given point of view, the Darwinian point of view. Specifically, from the Darwinian point of view, how can man really justify secular humanism???  Humanism was introduced into modern thought by Immanuel Kant but expounded on by Christ who preached that we had intrinsic worth as children of God, the same worth in God’s Eyes, leper and king, and hence should be accorded dignified and just treatment. We are to be valued and are not readily disposable as if we were slugs. Kant, the next humanist of note to my recollection, claimed intrinsic worth for man but we cannot rule out the influence of his Christian background that may have tacitly justified his humanism, much as the Christian culture, tacitly presumed, influenced the position of Jefferson in the Declaration.  Darwin comes after Kant in the chain of thought here. Also Kant did not formulate his ideas about humanism privy to Darwinism and Darwinism may have influenced Kant’s ideas about our intrinsic worth. Kant would have had to consider the Darwin caveat, the idea that slug and man had any type of equality, ooze equality.

Thoughts…Thoughts…Thoughts….

Joan

Everyone,

I really would like some ideas here and this again is not about atheists not being moral.  That is the furthest thing from my mind. (But to be candid some here, as Tebaldi alludes, exhibit intolerance and could be more open-minded, less judgmental. No one has it all knocked.) Discussions of the sort I am trying to initiate here often open up unexpected new ideas that make debate so exciting for everyone no matter their positions. We are impressed with each other’s ingenuity and we learn.

Again, anyone, thoughts about man, slugs and intrinsic worth? My position, at this point in time, is that secular humanism, that mainstay morality of atheists, and Darwinism are not logically compatible ideologies. Convince me I am wrong.

Joan

Re Comment #49498 by Joan on 1/24 at 1:40 pm
Parts 2/3

Secular humanism was recorded as far back as the classical period.  I was actually referring to the rebirth of the study of ancient text which prompted the renaissance.  The point I was trying to make was to note the similarities between the Churches response to humanism and you’re current argument.  The Church (when there was only one church) picked up on secular humanism and said “say now.  That’s dangerous thinking folks.  You can’t go around saying that you have worth and dignity.  How can we control the masses if you’re going around with these individual ideas and free expression?”  This movement was so strong that it prompted the Church to assimilate humanism.  Doing so they recanted their early stance and then said, “Okay, you have dignity and self worth… and they are a gift from God.  We will tell you how to apply this in a righteous manner.”  It was rhetoric in its finest hour. 
    You are saying the same thing here (minus the attempt to control/convert your audience).  We say that we have worth devoid of God.  You say that this is not possible.
You ask that we prove it.  I say that this is difficult at best.  Besides, I don’t ask that you prove that there is a God; I know it can’t be done.  At any rate, I will attempt to shed some more light on our assertion in the following ramblings:
Darwin doesn’t directly answer this question.  But it lends to the argument:
http://www.web-books.com/Classics/Nonfiction/Science/Darwin_Man/Darwin_ManC6P1.htm
Using the Darwinian approach to scientifically support the man/animal value question, we can point to the tendency for all life forms to not destroy their own species.  I submit that all life forms ‘believe’ that they are supreme (at a cognitive or instinctive level) for reasons of species perpetuation. 
“De Waal’s assumption of the moral superiority of man fits the current ethologic frame of thinking. It justifies man bending nature to his will. But in the same book the attentive reader can also find a more humble explanation for this human behavior. Animals usually promote the wellbeing of members of their own social group, De Waal writes somewhere in the beginning. This principle, ‘your own people first’, is the deepest rooted moral conscience in all animal species, including humans.”  http://www.animalfreedom.org/english/column/ethology.html
Morals are displayed by other animals, but humans have the most highly developed capacity for moral conduct.  I don’t know why it is necessary to argue this.  I feel silly justifying my worth above a slug’s worth (wasn’t slug’sworth the name of Willy Wonka’s partner?).  As an animal’s emotions, morality, and intelligence increase, so does its worth.  That being said, slugs play an important role in the circle of life, and I love to have them in my world.  I don’t go out of my way to pour salt on them (any more) but by the same token, if the slug and my mother were both drowning…

As a final thought I will throw this out there.  If my dog and Hitler were drowning, I would pull out my dog, and let him pee on Hitler’s flailing body.  This proves that I don’t necessarily hold man’s worth above other animals. 

And sadly, yes, we have no special worth or place in the universe.  I have come to terms with this bleak outlook on humanity.  This doesn’t preclude us from expecting moral behavior from one another.  This behavior is in our nature.  Morality is the glue that holds our society together (thus the church – necessity breeds creation).

Very Respectfully,  - Tebaldi

Re: Comment #49496 by Joan on 1/24 at 1:28 pm

Joan, it seems that I have my work cut out for me.  You’re three part response has left me reeling.  Judging from you’re respons(es), it is clear that you have gone through at least one of these mettle-testing experiences.  I’m assured that you handled it with admirable courage and strength (you would, no doubt, redirect this compliment to God).  I, on the other hand am afraid that I can not speak authoritatively on the dying friend issue.  I’ve never experienced this.  I took a class on death and dying (Kubler-Ross) years ago, I don’t think that this makes me a subject matter expert.  This is not to say that I would not meet this gut-wrenching, emotionally draining experience with the vigor and tenacity of heroic proportions.  You never know what you’re made of until you go through such experiences. 

    I agree that “The heart and feelings are stronger than the intellect”.  I don’t know if you have the zany idea that a godless person would be somehow less emotionally apt in such a situation.  Do you expect our conversation to proceed as follows?

  “Death is inevitable dude.  Sometimes it is debilitating and painful and it really sucks to be you.  When you die, you will cease to exist on any plane and the worms will eat into your brain.  So, because I don’t believe in God, I have nothing meaningful to say to you.  Hell, I don’t even know why I’m here.  Why should I make a feeble attempt to comfort you when you’re going to die 3 months from now anyway?”

In short, if my dying friend was a man of God, I would ensure that he received the comfort and council of a clergyman.  If he was a pagan, I would ensure that he received comfort and council from friends and family.  Don’t ever assume that a man with out God is less loving.  My fiancé (who happens to be Christian) would tell you different.

Lastly, I understand that faith makes the dying process a hell of a lot easier.  If I could wave a wand, and make my pagan friend believe in God on his deathbed, I would.  False comfort is comfort nonetheless.  (I’m sure my fellow agnostics/atheists would disagree)

Incidentally, I liked your ‘retirement dinner’ jab.  Good one.

Joan!

I see there was very bad misunderstanding between what I meant and what you thought I meant.  This is my mistake it seems, so I want to clear it up.

I was poking fun at the Komodo Dragon being pregnated by Christ (re: you reference to him at the end).  It was a mere joke. 

I then went on to say that if all (human) women had this (non-artificial) asexual ability they could gain alimony from any man because we would never have a real father.  And for (very strict) feminists this would be a great thing - strip all men of money so as to rule!  I doubt you are one of these people very much, however, so I saw no harm in the joke.  I’ve always said any joke that needs explaining is no longer very funny.  Turns out that could be the case here.  No harm I hope!

And the reason I ask is that I once had an instructor with your first name at my university where I studied philosophy, so it was worth a shot.  I had no intentions of knocking your crudentials.  Believe me.  I guess I’ll never know now!  Be well.

Rick

Maani:

‘Why - i.e., SCIENTIFICALLY supportable - is man of any greater “value” (whether in nature or otherwise) than any other species?’

When speaking about an individual, you would have to answer, “of value to whom, and for what?” There is no mass human life. How much is my gardener worth to me? I’ll take away one hour of his life for $100.00.

When speaking about large numbers, the answer is that it is supportable because that is what we can observe and quantify—human beings, in general, valuing human life above all else. There’s your science.

You, I think, tie human value to the cross [Joan typically makes the quantum leap from “Creator” straight to “Christian God”. Whether you realize it or not, you’re just referencing a different “observation,” except that you imagine it. Jesus died [for all of us, I imagine]. He valued each of us as much as himself, I imagine. He was God, I imagine. Therefore, God values each of us as much as God, I imagine. We should value ourselves and others equally, I imagine.

You can change any “I imagine” to “it was revealed (to Paul, for example), it was written down and miraculously preserved, and I believe it so much that I can feel it in my heart.” It makes no difference. It’s still your perception affecting your measure of human value. We cannot assign value as a group. Social scientists can only survey, quantify (how many people hold this truth) and then generalize [too bad that the United States takes its religion most seriously and also acts out a greater lack of regard for human life than any other country, on our streets and in the wars we wage].

The perceived difference between the first method of valuing and the second, is that the Christian method has the backing of presumed authority—a book we should never question. It takes the form of a fundamental, revealed principle. The principle of all principles is that principles should not be questioned, or so says Locke [thanks for the assigned reading, Joan].

Kneel down and pray. Stand up and salute. Stay in a nice, neat line. Onward Christian soldiers.

Richard

Keith,

You are so often arguing from the netherworld, past or future, but not in the world of today, January 24, 2007. Yours so often is the universe of conjecture but not a concrete one you can get a grip on. Now I am, again all for conjecture, brainstorming and theorizing for the   future and making it good for man. But I must deal with the problems we have today with the options available in the here and now, not future world whose remedies are not there for us except in some school of thought, that we have no absolute idea as to how or if it will ultimately be realized, if ever realized at all. I think to deal with today we pretty much have to offer solutions that are available now. Additionally, that cancer patient may want to live her life in the era she knows and with the people she loves …as opposed to being a fish out of water, again conjecture….

Understanding the ethical implications of Darwinism and, atheism together with secular humanism is valid ethical/philosophical inquiry. And I think it is very interesting to probe and that I am competent to follow the discussion.

I have little sympathy for your ideas about sour grapes. I am just stating the state of affairs. We are hit with things that science does not address, your difficulties with the scientologists and my injuries. We still need to address our problems that science does/cannot handle.  In spite of my mishaps I ran half marathons until the injuries got the better of me. I think I have done pretty darn!!! good for myself. I am just sharing a life’s lesson.  Science is limited. That’s a pretty verifiable statement on January 24, 2007.

Joan

Tebaldi,

Re: #49184

Part 3

But I digress. Back to secular humanism it still seems to me that my question is not answered. As a humanist, Christ told us we had intrinsic worth as children of God. Secular humanists say we have intrinsic worth just by being human. OK…now Darwin and his proponents, the position eloquently explicated by Maani, say humans, roaches, slugs, all evolve from the same ooze and we are all derived thereof. So why does the human, once again, have more intrinsic worth than the slug? Where does this greater value come from, as we are ” same ooze sharing entities”, man and slug?  Alternatively, we do not hold that slugs are entitled to the same moral consideration that man is. That’s silly. One the one hand for Christ, man’s worth comes from being God’s progeny. For Darwinists, on the other hand where does that extra worth of man over slug come from? Let’s get the answer up online. Please note that Kant preceded Darwin and may have felt differently about his position on humanism had he had read Darwin. The idea of intrinsic worth Kant offered may have tacitly, without debate, presumed this Christian notion of children of God because Kant professed adherence to pietism, a sect of Christianity. Don’t know for sure, as the children of God idea may have been a non- issue in these pre-Darwin times, just an idea automatically accepted and unchallenged.

Christ in his genius, and seeing perhaps the slums of supposedly hardcore Nazareth, knew first hand of lepers and such, curing a few along the way. Therefore, he knew in his heart that the disenfranchised too needed dignity and worth. So he nipped the problem of superfluous people in the bud. He taught his constituents they were all of God and to call God ”Abba” or Father, the One who knew you so well He knew the very number of hairs on your head, a little tricky these days with Rogaine and all.

SO….IF WE ARE ALL DERIVED/EVOLVED FROM THE SAME OOZE, THE SAME SUBSTANCE/STUFF HOW IS THAT MAN HAS MORE INTRINSIC WORTH THAN THE SLUG IN THE UNIVERSE?

After we figure this out…maybe we can figure out if morality does serve mankind, an evolutionary survival tactic, as Tebaldi argues.  Off the top of my head from the survival of the fittest position that Nature propounds rather savagely for itself, maybe morality is just in man’s ego centric interest rather than Nature’s, could she verbalize for herself. And too…  “The road to hell is paved with good intentions.”

Joan

Tebaldi,

Part 2

Secular humanism claims that man has intrinsic worth without appeal to a Deity for that worth. Let me dust off my brain here…secular humanism I think grew out of Kant’s idea of humanism that claims that man in and of himself has intrinsic worth, again trying to separate science from the appropriate purview of the RC Church so Kant, the physicist could proceed with vigor to do, well, you know…physics… As I recall however Kant was not intending to himself to disavow God in this endeavor, just doing a little of the Cartesian thing of establishing appropriate domains for science and religion so the current of king of Prussia would not get mad at him and do mean things to him. Kant’s big claim to fame is dealing with synthetic a priori statements, whatever they may be.

But as a little aside here… isn’t it interesting how some of these movements take life, i.e. the mind/body duality and humanism caught fire while philosophers/scientists/politicians
/revolutionaries were attempting to get an unfettered grip on science, and inalienable rights take off to secure for common man those long thirsted for freedoms and dignity of which he has been deprived. But all of these ideas are essentially conjecture and not provable. I am sure we would not, scientist or no, want to have seen these ideological movements abandoned because there is no empirical evidence to uphold their particular truths, as questionable as they may be as actual empirical truths, not observable or demonstrate-able, as Harris demands.  The Golden Rule is more provable as a morally beneficial precept than secular humanism because at least theoretically we can understand what the Golden Rule would direct but man having intrinsic worth… how does that guide us as a moral command in a given moral dilemma?

Joan

Tebaldi,

Part 1

Re: #49184

Perhaps I was not clear enough with my inquiry on cancer patients. I am more interested as to how you will see your friend through rather than go into philosophy of life and death. My error. I am trying here to get to the bottom of some issues. These things do happen (Phantom of the Opera), premature death from illness and catastrophes that science, even if it could get a handle on aspects pertinent to its purview, doesn’t address, namely aspects of human loss and psychological pain. Science clearly has its limits and does not transcend all the wide spectra of our humanness because our humanness resists the determinism that science pegs itself on. The humanness that science cannot touch is my interest at this point in time. Telling your friend people die is something he knows. But now he is the one doing the dying. It’s different. Noting his achievements is fine but this so not a retirement dinner. It is the end of life. Perhaps, he will never get to walk his daughter down the aisle and see her as a radiant bride, looking more beautiful than he ever saw her look, joyful and wide with expectation that her dreams are being fulfilled. He will not see that son make the touchdown he needed to make to feel he was good enough to be on the team, reaffirming his perhaps bruised manliness, or get that promotion that seemed to be eluding him. He will no longer hold his wife, his grandchild. Those who love him will grieve for him and he will feel their hurt that he will be gone and they will have to know the pain of mourning and the fright of rebuilding. He feels that hurt of their loss. Knowing his achievements I dare say may be some comfort but not enough, not nearly enough to carry him through the unending flurry of heartache that may come. And when he breaks down over the losses or the pain, who will he hang onto for strength when he thinks he cannot bear another moment of it all but he just does not die. He is no longer strong or handsome. Who will love him looking like this? He exercised and had watched his cholesterol and this cancer is his fault, his failing. And personally I do not think the many intellectual constructs we Western peoples build to defend against these heartaches will successfully survive the tsunami of feeling that will engulf this bleeding, aching soul. They are not meant to. The heart and feelings are stronger than the intellect. Will you give him the fortitude that can ease these feelings and, who will minister to you after he drains you day after day and what will they say to keep you able to face your friend? Or will you helpless after informing him that we die and of his achievements, abandon him to go it pretty much alone, saying to yourself that I do not know what to say or do, as so many of us who abandon people who get sick, making only the token visits and phone calls that ease your conscience as you resume your life?

Joan

Rick,

Wow!!! And double Wow!!! How is you got to Christ playing with dragons from my post??? The rest of it quite frankly, I do not follow.

Women do in fact have children without fathers more and more, using sperm donors….and given our national propensity for approving gay marriages
(on which I take no position) pivoting on the ideas that we are entitled to love who we want without state interference,  polygamy being legal is just a stones’ throw away. So the answer to your heartfelt concern for women not having enough funding to birth a child without male support is almost a non- problem as a woman should take multiple husbands. Right? Isn’t legalizing polygamy just a logical implication to the argument that we should be able to love who we want without state interference, should that arguemnt carry the day for the gay community?

Too much personal information I am sorry is not for cyberspace for a variety of reasons. I take it you are challenging my credentials. What I say here is certainly easy to track for accuracy, and I am pretty open about what I recall and do not, as I have left the profession professionally for health reasons a while ago. To track down the philosophies I appeal to just check a dictionary or go online. What you do not find there is just my own 2 cents, like everybody else here. The Komodo thing was not found in a philosophy dept. It is posted today on the Internet. My post was intended for levity, a way friends relate to each other. So I thought. 

Joan

Joan wrote:

>In general I do not follow your comments as a response to the initial quote of mine you cited.

>I do not know where you got the idea that I think the Designer personally makes every bubble at the bottom of my boiling pot of string beans.

Sorry you missed the analogy.  Our entire 13.7 billion year old visible universe may be as common as bubbles in a pot of boiling water and for much the same reason.

Snip

>The God I relate to is not spooky but is playful and mischievous but not an evil genius as Descartes disproved.

Are you *sure* you’re a Christian?  “Playful and mischievous” is associated with Loki,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loki

not Jehovah who is usually characterized as “stern.”

>Re: # 49038

>Where is the logical consistency here?  You are very concerned about wars due to short supplies. Then you talk about how science has ended world hunger (only to be replaced by world obesity, ever read Michael Chricton’s works that deal with the catastrophes that result when believe we can control nature with science, “Jurassic Park”, “Westworld”, “The Andromeda Strain”, et al).

Michael Crichton’s books are fiction.  If you want to make a point, cite real catastrophes that resulted from “believe[ing] we can control nature with science.”

>Then despite you concerns about ending wars due to us vying for limited resources, you in earnest push for an idea of eternal life for everyone through freezing that once thawed the world would offer the “freezees” a very comfortable life.

Using numbers and reasonable (though advanced) engineering please show me where my assumptions are wrong.

>It sounds like you have had some rough experiences. I do not know how you got into such a bad situation and maybe we could compare war stories-

Mine are all over the net.  Try the Wikipedia for the short version.

snip

>You are angry at a purported religious cult and maybe rightly so.

No.

Anger is pointless against a parasitic meme or its victims.  You might as well be angry at smallpox.

>You may be mad at some Christian ministers

No. 

I am impressed by their lack of courage and hypocrisy but not mad at them. 

Long ago, having taken in a very sick couple I picked up beside the road and nursed them back to health, I gave a summer fill in sermon for a campus church about the practical aspects of being a Good Samaritan.

I heard from the couple several years later and it worked out really well in the long run.  You might also keep in mind Gatorade ice chips are an alternative to IV lines for rehydration.

Being condemned by Christians for following the teachings of Christ was an enlightening example of hypocrisy.  I should write up the story sometime.

Snip

>. . . America by a long shot because it is the greatest best of hope for mankind, not because of the people but because of the ideology America upholds and I hope elected officials uphold.

My experiences with elected and appointed officials have not been good.  The level of money the cult spends will corrupt virtually all of them.

http://www.operatingthetan.com/howelse.html

When you make out the check to pay your income taxes this year, consider that your taxes are partly due to the IRS caving in to blackmail and giving the scientology cult unique “chosen people” status.

http://www.sptimes.com/2004/03/25/Opinion/IRS___chosen_people_.shtml

“Judge Barry Silverman encouraged future litigation on the special tax status of Scientologists. “If the IRS does, in fact, give preferential treatment to members of the Church of Scientology - allowing them a special right to claim deductions that are contrary to law and rightly disallowed to everybody else - then the proper course of action is a lawsuit to stop that policy,” Silverman wrote.

It won’t happen simply because no lawyers are left who will file a suit against the cult and if they did, the cult would just corrupt the courts.

Keith

PS.  You are welcome to file the case and show I am wrong.

Rick:

Re Galileo, you are ignoring another, just as likely, possibility - one that is actually historical fact, at least as far as the two biographies I have read on Galileo are concerned.  That is that he saw the Church as “wrong” on the issue, but that this did not shake his FAITH.  Indeed, I (and many others) have VERY serious issues with mainstream, organized, heirarchical religion, both Catholic and Protestant.  Yet this does not mean that I do not remain fervently devout in my faith, or to much of the Judeo-Christian dogma.  In this regard, I do not - nor did Galileo - need the threat of torture to maintain my ardent faith.

And although Galileo could simply have maintained “faith” per se - i.e., without specific allegiance to the Catholic Church - the reason he maintained his allegiance is that he saw the Church’s position on his theory as an “aberration”; i.e., he still believed in the overwhelming majority of the Church’s dogma and structure, and thus had no reason to disclaim it.

Peace.

Joan wrote:

>My comments about war and primordial ooze are the logical implications of the atheistic position that everything including man is from this ooze. Given that viewpoint, why is man entitled to be protected from war by a morality? This is not primarily the way nature operates. Nature has no operant morality just its own self- interest. THESE ARE NOT MY VIEWS OF WAR but they are the logical consequences of such an atheistic position.

It is ridiculous for you to be setting up a straw man argument by claiming to understand the logic of atheism re wars.

How many atheists have marched off to war for “God and country”?

snip

>I am looking for something in these heartfelt areas with my questions, the areas science cannot boldly go to but are an integral part of daily life and are deeply reflective of our humanness.

I don’t think you have an appreciation of what “our humanness” was like in the pre civilization state.  Essentially every birth in excess of replacement resulted in a death from war violence.

>If science alters that domain, then we are no longer human and indeed what a loss for us. A real Crichton scenario.

Most of the things you listed are in the sour grapes category.  You don’t think we can do anything about them, so you convince yourself they are not good.

Take your cancer patient.  What should she say to a doctor who tells her (and it may come to this) that the only cure available has the side effect of permanently reverting her physical age to about 20 and will keep it there for hundreds if not thousands of years?

The technology to cure all cancers is a good way down this path.  Most of us in the high tech world expect it to be here in a generation.

Keith

Well I will guess we will have to wait and see if the Dragon can continue its asexual prowess!

  I’m not sure what to think of this whole scenario.  But one thing that I bring up is why would Christ play with Komodo Dragons all of the sudden?  As in, a practical answer, since he could have chosen a human.  And second, if Mary was a Virgin, thankfully for the legal system and men’s bank accounts women can’t just all the sudden have a child without a father anymore!  Feminists unite for your ultimate goal!

Joan,

If you don’t mind me asking, where did you do your instructing at the college level?  I like to put a name to a place.  Call it my own curiousity.  Thanks!

Everyone,

The virgin Komodo dragon I told you about at Christmas gave birth. Mother and baby komodos seem fine. Science hailed this as an evolutionary breakthrough. Christ says again…been there, done that .

Joan

Maani,

Thank you for you the alternative explication of my question…Thank you, thank you very much… again borrowing from the King, meaning Elvis …now wasn’t he a spectacular bit of ooze, at least for us ladies!!!
Citing Tebaldi’s ideas about personalites having greater primacy…Elvis was certainly the King but I do not think he has more intrinsic worth necessarily…my husband caring for his 100 year old mother trumps Elvis, I think…but then again Elvis surely took care of his mother too…

Joan

Maani,

Sorry about the wait, I just saw your response.
Re:  Galileo and some other tidying up…

If you are an English Major, should you not have thought my statement through - just a little harder - before replying with such an unnecasary long rebuttle?

In any case my statement remains gramatically, factually and logically true: 
“Those who study science are usually non-believers” —-  Paraphrased, these are the words I used and they have not changed.  Do you disagree with my statement and cannot accept this fact based upon the EVIDENCE PROVIDED?  Maybe that is where your need to defend your false portrayal of my original statement is rooted.

Well I guess I dont need to worry anymore about a response here since you are not the “average person” (as you say) in this field of English.

On to Galileo…

You say Galileo remained an “ardent catholic” despite being punished by the Church Authority.    I don’t think anymore history reading is necassary here.  I have done my fair share as I’m sure you have.  I ask you Maani, what would benefit Galileo more a) torture or b) a life of claiming and acting to be a religious man and denying the truth in what you have seen?  I will let Sam Harris chime in on this account in his recent debate with Andrew Sullivan:

>>>“The Catholic Church has been struggling to make the best of a bad situation ever since Galileo-who, as you know, was forced to his knees under threat of torture and obliged to recant his understanding of the earth’s motion and then placed under house arrest until the end of his life. He wasn’t absolved of heresy until 1992 (a few decades after Vatican II), at which point the Church ascribed his genius to God, “who, stirring in the depths of his spirit, stimulated him, anticipating and assisting his intuitions.” (This might be an appropriate place to vomit.)”

Looking back it is easy to see why he was so “ardent.” 

If someone (the Church) was watching my every move and just waiting for me to mess up by saying what is undeniably true (i.e. Earth may not be the center of the universe), then I might be inclined to withhold that truth for myself.  That is better than having my limbs stretched apart like a Starfish.

LOL?  Isn’t that how you say it?  Yea, you know you can be funny.

Rick

p.s. What are your thoughts on Descartes believing in an “Evil Genius”?  Assuming Descartes has anything relevent to say at all given his (early) Dualism belief.

Maani wrote:

>Back at home, I found the quote I wanted.  It was made by Hawking at the first scientific conclave on the anthropic principle, held in England a few years ago.  During his address, he stated that:

“It would be very difficult to explain why the universe should have begun in just this way, except as the act of a God who intended to create beings like us.”

>I fail to see how anyone could misinterpret this statement.

It’s also on page 127 of _A Brief History of Time_ and the quote is taken out of context.  You really should consider the whole of Chapter 8.  Much of it is quoted here:

http://www.holysmoke.org/cre014.htm

“It was at the conference in the Vatican mentioned earlier that I first put forward the suggestion that maybe time and space together formed a surface that was finite in size but did not have any boundary or edge. My paper was rather mathematical, however, so its implications for the role of God in the creation of the universe were not generally recognized at the time (just as well for me). At the time of the Vatican conference, I did not know how to use the “no boundary” idea to make predictions about the universe. [...]

[details the implications of his proposal]

“The idea that space and time may form a closed surface without boundary also has profound implications for the role of God in the affairs of the universe. With the success of scientific theories in describing events, most people have come to believe that God allows the universe to evolve according to a set of laws and does not intervene in the universe to break these laws. However, the laws do not tell us what the universe should have looked like when it started ? it would still be up to God to wind up the clockwork and choose how to start it off. So long as the universe had a beginning, we could suppose it had a creator. But if the universe is really completely self-contained, having no boundary or edge, it would have neither beginning nor end: it would simply be. What place, then, for a creator?”

(Don’t ask me to explain this or even understand it.)

>Re the anthropic principle, the following is from the very wikipedia link you provide:

“Attempts to invoke the “anthropic principle” to develop scientific explanations has led to more than a little confusion and controversy.  Much of the controversy arises from the perception that some versions of the Principle re-introduce the Argument from Design for the existence of God.”

Read the rest of article to get context.

None of this would make much difference except that if you don’t want wars, you really need to understand the evolutionary origin of why people *have* wars and the relation of religious/xenophobic memes in the march of a population to war.

Keith

Rick,

Ah!!! A kindred soul scouring the minutiae of language analysis…Two ships crossing in the verbose waves of cyberspace.

Well, as to “equally valid”, let me say this….I mean “equally valid” in the context of one who is not intending to take up the deeper issue of the NAS survey, just maybe the guy on the bus reading an article and saying—-now there are two ways to look at this—- without having a clue about the survey itself.  “Usually” has two equally valid interpretations in the given context on a cursory level that needs to be sorted out before the debate occurs. What does the author mean specifically here by “usually”?
Usually…. the author explains how he meant “usually” to be construed, acknowledging that it could be construed otherwise as well. Then the further debate usually begins utilizing the agreed upon interpretation of “usually”, thusly proceeding to the meatier issues like the usual way to interpret the NAS survey, on which I take no position.

Will there ever be full agreement?  Not likely. That is not the usual state of the philosophic enterprise, always more questions and interpretations than answers, a lot like science, usually….

Joan

Tebaldi,

Re: #40950

No. That’s not quite exactly what I am saying. I am arguing that without believing in a Divinity as a source of man’s worth, man has no special-ness as a human that allows man to impose a sort of grid -work of morality over the way nature operates. Without this spark of Divinity, man is no different than the slug or roach or ruthless lion and has no demand to be. Not one of these animals has the right to impose a morality on the human race. If we are just like them, same ooze, no Divinity, we have no right to demand moral behavior of one another, as there is no justification for it as we have no special worth or place in the universe. For me, man’s intrinsic worth comes from his sharing in Divinity.  So man is qualitatively different from the other creatures in nature and operates on a different plane. He is entitled to impose a moral grid over the workings of nature to secure respect or safety for and from each other due to the Divinity we, each of us, harbor. We are more precious than the other species and need to be treated as such as we are of Divinity in that we are reflective of the Divine nature. This is a very different way than nature generally operates, which is without morality but cruelly and savagely.

I know atheists have moral codes. But I do not see that atheists fully examine the logical consequences of the positions they espouse and that is what I am getting at here. What is the logical basis for an atheist claiming that man has intrinsic worth, given he is no different from any other ooze that does not have intrinsic worth? Why from a Darwinian viewpoint does man have any intrinsic worth that makes him special, distinct from other ooze products?

I actually never taught any religion in philosophy. I only taught about Christ as one of many ethicists. But I personally think he provided mankind a very compact but entirely inclusive ethic…the Golden Rule. I know of no other ethicist who achieved this.

If your worth as person is a function of those who love you and surely this is true for those who are fortunate enough to be loved what of the numerous who are not loved, the disenfranchised of love and are not loved in this lifetime here. Do they have no worth? Or perhaps it is only some of your worth as a person that is a function of those who love you. Christ informed that we had worth just in virtue of being a child of his Father. Hence we were entitled to respect whether anyone here loved us or not. Don’t those disenfranchised of love need to know they are worth decent treatment here and are lovable even if they are not lucky enough to taste love itself here? I have no doubt you feel they are so entitled but what is your basis for that position again given Darwinian view and the godless creation?

Joan

Keith,

Re: # 49044

My comments about war and primordial ooze are the logical implications of the atheistic position that everything including man is from this ooze. Given that viewpoint, why is man entitled to be protected from war by a morality? This is not primarily the way nature operates. Nature has no operant morality just its own self- interest. THESE ARE NOT MY VIEWS OF WAR but they are the logical consequences of such an atheistic position.

Now you offer a lot of futuristic conjectures when answering my queries and these scenarios may occur and maybe they will never come to pass. But for the sake of fruitful discussion how about we talk about what are the currently viable options for people in given circumstances… I am all for scientific brainstorming. There is no bigger fan of Star Trek, the original, and the impact it had on space exploration is awesome but cancer patients and their concrete options are a very different cup of tea. And I am looking for something in these heartfelt areas with my questions, the areas science cannot boldly go to but are an integral part of daily life and are deeply reflective of our humanness. If science alters that domain, then we are no longer human and indeed what a loss for us. A real Crichton scenario.

Joan

All:

I am beginning to think that the non-believers among us are “listening” but not HEARING.  Let me see if I can put Joan’s position into a very simple set of postulates:

The scientists and atheists among us believe that:

1.  There is no God
2.  The universe was created ex nihilo
3.  Life was created by the random coming together of certain factors, including atmospheric, chemical, etc.
4.  The life that was created pursuant to #3 above was then subjected to certain processes - primarily random mutation and natural selection - that brought about more complex life forms, up to and including humans.
5.  Pursuant to Darwinian theory, the processes of random mutation and natural selection are such that traits and characteristics “unhelpful” to the survival of a species are “selected out” in favor of traits that are helpful to the survival of that species.
6.  “Science” is based on theories that are supported by extensive evidence, which theories are “provable” (to the degree that something can be “proved”) through reproducibility, falsification, and other standardized measurements.

OK.  Given all of the above - and since “morality” is NOT scientifically quantifiable and, indeed (and no matter how much fudging some of you attempt), pursuant to Darwinian theory, “altruism” and “other-directed” morality would actually be “unhelpful” to the survival of a particular species - under what premise do the non-believers here ascribe a “higher” degree of WORTH to human life than to any other?

Or, as Joan has now asked half a dozen times as plainly as possible: if there is no God, and ALL life is traceable back to the “primordial ooze,” why - i.e., SCIENTIFICALLY supportable - is “man” of any greater “value” (whether in nature or otherwise) than any other species?

Peace.

Keith,

Re: #49033

In general I do not follow your comments as a response to the initial quote of mine you cited.

I do not know where you got the idea that I think the Designer personally makes every bubble at the bottom of my boiling pot of string beans. Maybe He does. I really do not think about these kinds of things.  I would guess He just set things into motion with some stuff and an operant set of laws of nature. Maybe for Him the fun of it is setting the stage of the universe and standing back as we enter that stage and assume the role of players with whom He will interact.

Ever considered the possibility of designed randomness as a deliberate component of the universe?

Don’t understand the physics of cosmology and maintain Maani’s position that perhaps only a handful of people in the world understand these ideas in physics.  But I have thought about some of the theological questions regarding the Creation. 

The God I relate to is not spooky but is playful and mischievous but not an evil genius as Descartes disproved.

Re: # 49038

Where is the logical consistency here?  You are very concerned about wars due to short supplies. Then you talk about how science has ended world hunger (only to be replaced by world obesity, ever read Michael Chricton’s works that deal with the catastrophes that result when believe we can control nature with science, “Jurassic Park”, “Westworld”, “The Andromeda Strain”, et al). Then despite you concerns about ending wars due to us vying for limited resources, you in earnest push for an idea of eternal life for everyone through freezing that once thawed the world would offer the “freezees” a very comfortable life.

It sounds like you have had some rough experiences. I do not know how you got into such a bad situation and maybe we could compare war stories—like a car stopped for a red light but having a momentary mental slip, going through the light and hitting you from behind in your back, flinging you in the air like James Bond and you landing on the ground, eyeballing a bumper overhead, rolling over again like Bond so it doesn’t crush you and then having a loose SI (sacroiliac0 joint that screws up your back and knees over the next several decades despite oodles of physical therapy, etc… oh well, this just one scenario, there is the motorcycle accident….science did not save me because there was little science there for me…and here is where you like to slip away, namely—- how do you handle the human situation in which there is no science there to help but the victim has to cope? Let’s stop the intellectualizing and futurism and look at that patient with untreatable cancer in the eye and deal with him as person who is going to die with no science to rescue him.

You are angry at a purported religious cult and maybe rightly so. You may be mad at come Christian ministers and maybe rightly so and I too am angry with some clergy, some politicians too but I am not about to renounce America by a long shot because it is the greatest best of hope for mankind, not because of the people but because of the ideology America upholds and I hope elected officials uphold. I said recently on a post to Tebaldi that the revolution of Christ was that he led us to understand that we can connect with God without the middleman, one on one. And youcan judge the religious ideology yourself. The clergy may not provide the measure of its beauty, although many of them may do so.  You are the only reason the Designer has interest here and He finds you and your adventures/ mishaps fascinating. Have you ever noticed that an empty stage is particularly lonely?

Joan

P.S.  In reference to Joan’s animal / human supremacy question, I defer to Jules Winnfield (pulp fiction) when he suggests that escalations in worth can be measured by the subject’s personality.  This is why the average person feels worse for running over a dog, as opposed to an opossum.  Because man is at the top of the personality chain, people actually stop the car, turn around, and make sure that the dude they just hit is okay.  Would I stop for a dog?  It would have to be one charming m#@#$$ng dog.  Way more charming than that Astro on ‘The Jetsons’.

Joan, my answer to your first query is none of the above.  I wouldn’t be compelled to explain my friend’s unfortunate fate.  It is the natural course of things; everyone dies.  Science has not failed, nor deserted him.  Science has simply not found a way to cure cancer yet.  I would comfort my friend by focusing on his achievements, and the indelible mark he has left on the hearts of his friends and family. 
    Secondly, I think that a look at the birth of humanism addresses your later discourse. when secular humanism was all the rage prior to the renaissance, The Church was threatened.  Rather than attempting to combat this movement The Church wisely chose to incorporate humanism in its doctrine, thus removing the secular out of secular humanism.
Surely you wouldn’t refute the monumental positive effect that humanism produced for mankind.  Not having read much on atheism, I can only assume that humanism is their fundamental principle.  The Church was threatened because it saw the concept of free will and individual dignity as an alternative to the comfort that religion provided.  I feel that you may be similarly menaced. 
    Who is imposing morality?  As I said in my previous post, morality is intrinsic.  You say it is God that has placed morality within us.  I suggest that it is evolution (both physiological and cultural).  It is in the best interest of our race that we treat each other with respect and dignity.  What happens when we don’t? - The annihilation of Jews and the subjugation of Africans.  Now, if you polled all present day Germans and Americans, and asked if their Nation was immoral, I offer that the vast majority would say yes.  Why?  Because we evolved culturally.  Why do I find murder abhorrent?  Because our species have evolved physiologically.  It’s a jagged pill to swallow.  I would like to say that I do unto others as I would have them do unto me because I’m a nice guy.  In a sense, I guess this is true, but I’m only a nice guy due to my having evolved.  Don’t confuse this with a contradiction to free will.  Despite how we are wired, some people are artists and some are predators. 

  > In short, I suggest that your question is not reasonable to me.  Why would I need/want to justify that which is? 

    You wrote “Moralities protect the weakest who likely will drain our resources”.  Excellent point.  I had to ponder this for a while.  My conclusion is that the moralities we evolved to perpetuate our race, also has a side-effect which causes us not to discard our weak.  Again, a tough pill to swallow. 

    Please continue to be tolerant of us Joan.  Thankfully, all quasi-enlightened folk have the ability to love each other despite vast differences in fundamental worldviews.

Love, Peace, and Hair grease.  -Tebaldi

Joan,

Thank you for pointing out the semantic issue with my use of the word “usually.”  You, more than most here, understand philosophy of language and logic and all that jazz I studied my third year as an undergrad.  It was with that background in mind I used the word “usually” so as not to include all scientists as non-believers. 

It seems my very long response to Maani didn’t make it up here when I sent it, so it is nice to know others pay close attention to what we are saying. 

I must say though that the statistics of the NAS survey showing 93 percent of those scientists surveyed to not be religious does indeed cohere with my term “usually” as in, “at least a majority.”  For this reason I cannot say that each interpretation (namely Maani’s) is valid.  And then everything following Maani’s argument - saying “all scientists = non-believers” - was indeed putting words in one’s mouth.  It gives me such a bad feeling inside when that happens.

In any case, you are a tedious student of this column - as I like to think I am - and I appreciate your opinion and knowledge.  I hope everything clears up in the leg(s) as much as possible. 

Best of Fortune,

Rick

Keith:

Back at home, I found the quote I wanted.  It was made by Hawking at the first scientific conclave on the anthropic principle, held in England a few years ago.  During his address, he stated that:

“It would be very difficult to explain why the universe should have begun in just this way, except as the act of a God who intended to create beings like us.”

I fail to see how anyone could misinterpret this statement.

Re the anthropic principle, the following is from the very wikipedia link you provide:

“Attempts to invoke the “anthropic principle” to develop scientific explanations has led to more than a little confusion and controversy.  Much of the controversy arises from the perception that some versions of the Principle re-introduce the Argument from Design for the existence of God.”

Peace.

My dear Atheists and Maani,

Lest we talk in circles I am offering my quandaries in general.

Atheists profess not to believe in God.  Many, including those on this thread, claim that science is the only acceptable source of knowledge and given enough time, all will be revealed by scientific discovery, handling all our problems. ( To me a real act of faith!) Atheists profess that Darwinism and evolution explain entirely creation and how man came to be roughly speaking as opposed to accepting God’s love as a means to addressing some of these issues, explaining this occurrence of creation and humanity. I choose my words carefully here as always and mean only what I say, nothing more.

So I have a few questions I want need answered to understand you better.

First, what do you say to your untreatable stage 4 cancer patient friend, given that science has failed him and he/ will die within the year.

1.In time science will prevail and there will be no death.
2. Isn’t it comforting that certain equations may provide the basis for the grand unifying theory to be identified and Einstein’s long sought for dream has been fulfilled?
3. Be glad that science prevailed and you did not die earlier of cholera.
4.Science will not answer the needs of your friend or yours at this time. You must appeal to your humanness and wisdom in addressing the human condition of illness, death, life’s meaning and one’s worth, stoicism, etc.
5.Other

Second, believing in evolution you hold that man was formed from the same primordial ooze as anything else here. From what do you derive the so-called “sanctity of human” life you all presume in various of your comments? For me and Maani, I would think also, the sanctity of life is based on the Divinity that He shared with His Creation including man who hence should be preferentially respected for literally reflecting the image of God in mankind’s own being, unlike the giraffe, gazelle or lioness hunting for prey. Atheists can cite all sorts of moralities that are not Divinity based and I pretty much have studied them all in Western thought. But my question goes to your justifying something prior to these moralities in the first place. What right do you have to impose any moralities on man any more than on a giraffe or gazelle, as you have no basis for claiming that man has a more preferred position in nature. After all, he is just the same ooze as anything else. Why should he be singled out for special protection that goes with moralities, which is basically what moralities are designed to do, protect us? If he dies in wars like the ants do, so what? Having no Divinity, as you claim, he is not more important to nature or any other consequences of the inexplicable explosion, the Big Bang, that set life into motion, et al.  Convince me, my atheist friends, that nature dictates man should get moral treatment in the first place, not because you want to save yourselves from anarchy but that it is in the interest of evolution and as science explains it and to which science you cite your full support as the sole source of understanding the universe entirely. We are individually nothing in the great Project Universe so our individual loss is nothing to the evolutionary process that absolutely observes no morality that I am aware of. It seems immediately obvious that morality works against the underlying currents flowing in nature and EVOLUTION, promoting the survival of the strongest. Moralities protect the weakest who likely will drain our resources. Explain to me man’s preferred status with respect to morality that you assume to be the case while at the same time you say scientifically that we are just from primordial ooze like the rest of creation, evolving the same way as anything else under the sun. I just do not see the logical consistency or cohesion in your worldviews and the reasoning you say is so obviously there. So show me otherwise.

Joan

Joan, you wrote,
“I believe though that our intrinsic worth is derived from sharing in Divinity without that sharing, I contend we are not justified to expect special moral consideration, if we are nothing more than a spoonful of primordial soup, no matter how much mankind has screwed up what Divinity may mean.”
I read this several times and what I believe you are saying is that if I don’t believe in God, I can’t be held to any moral tenet.  Do you truly believe this?  I, for one, expect and demand that my son and I adhere to a moral code.  I don’t expect that folks should practice hedonism just because they may not believe in God.  You seem to be confusing atheism with anarchism.  Atheists don’t capriciously meander through life.  They have purpose, direction, and meaningful relationships.  They neither seek nor deserve your pity.
    As a philosophy teacher, you have debated the age-old argument that religion was borne out of the necessity to explain the unexplainable and give a sense of eternalness.  Man (and his ego) must not die with the flesh.  Say that there is more to this life, and he will make a leap of faith to embrace it.  One the other hand, maybe there is a God.  Who the hell am I to say?  Shall I resign myself to a life of impropriety because I doubt His existence?  Am I worth less than you because I don’t share in Divinity?  You walk on a slippery slope when your words transcend opinion and fall into judgment.   
    I measure my worth by the people who love me, and I’m pretty valuable.  Perhaps I’m proud to be a spoonful of primordial soup… just make mine extra-chunky.
    Very Respectfully,  -Tebaldi

Part 1

Joan wrote:

Snip

>I do not feel that you are really answering my questions. This may be because we think on such different planes that they do not seem to make sense to you.

We certainly have different worldviews.

>Man and wars…. I see no reason for man to be preserved eternally. Why should mankind be frozen and take up our precious space and use any of our resources?

As you should know, freezing (more accurately vitrification) works even today on a wide variety of human cells, including 8 cell embryos.  It works for rabbit kidneys.  Eventually reversible cryonic suspension will be demonstrated for whole humans.

The time may come where a person with stage 4 cancer will be told, “We can’t do anything for you now, but we know there is a treatment awaiting FDA approval . . . in another 10 years we are sure we can cure you.  Do you want to make the time jump by being frozen and stored for ten years?” 

That’s really all cryonics is, a fairly low tech way to make the jump to high tech medicine.

>Why worry about Irish women or any women reducing the number of offspring? If man is just primordial ooze that formed happenstance after an inexplicable explosion, who cares if, like certain ant colonies needing sustenance, men attack each other and carry off what they need, the strongest prevailing and the weak eradicated or enslaved and utilized by the interests of the stronger. Worked out pretty well for Rome. Right? 

Snip (4k limit)

>If men, like ants, fight over resources when resources get lean, isn’t this nature’s way of decreasing the surplus population? What difference does it make morally if men die by other men’s hands as opposed to gazelles that are picked off by a pack of lionesses? To keep itself operating optimally, nature is doing what it does in the Darwinian context—-using whatever techniques necessary either promulgated by man, like wars or by nature, like typhoons. Based on what I have said… why, in your mind do we have a moral mandate to avoid war, Keith?

The above reads like you are advocating war. 

Almost nobody wants wars that kill their children and destroy their property.  We have mirror neurons that implement putting ourselves in another’s shoes.  (The hardware version of the Golden Rule.)  That’s enough moral mandate for me.

>Man is no different from anything else produced by the ooze, so why is war anything to be avoided if nature is just doing its thing here? You have given me the impression that you are very concerned that wars should be avoided. Why??? Why not just let nature take its course? By your theories, wars are fought primarily over sustenance depletion. So what? Why intervene and stop it? If there are too many people for nature to support, then nature through war does the right thing by letting wars occur.

If you are serious about this, and representative of religious people in general, I can see we who are trying to make the world a less violent place are not going to get help from that quarter.  Given one of the evolved function I propose for the psychological traits behind religions, I should not be surprised.

snip

>“Transhumanists deplore death…” Why do they deplore death?  Death is a natural occurrence to rid the earth of too many people

snip

>The earth only accommodates so many. Surely you agree with this.

No.

The number of people the earth can accommodate depends almost entirely on technology.  I don’t mean just genetic engineering, but technology back to farming, even further back to sharp rocks.  Farming increased the number of people who could be supported by a given area by about 250 times.

The number of people the solar system could support (in style) is at least thousands of times the current population of the earth.  It’s just a matter of engineering.  In any case, most of those who consider themselves transhumanists don’t intend to stay in the solar system at all.