Tokyojim: Hopefully, no one's already covered this. Anyway:
quote:
Let me start by asking you what your worldview is? Yes, I do stand by a Biblical worldview because I think it makes the best sense and is the best explanation of the way things are.
I would say my worldview should be fairly obvious from my post. However, my particular philosophy has no bearing on the evidence or lack thereof for yours or dogmai’s claims (or those of anyone else, for that matter). I’ll be quite happy to evaluate whatever evidence you’d care to provide in support of whatever assertion you’d care to make.
quote:
In calling man supreme, it is true in the Christian worldview that the earth and the animal kingdom were created for God’s glory first of all, but God also created it for man. So in Christianity, man is supreme — fundamentally different and of more value than the animals. Only humans were created in God’s image and only humans have a spirit that lives on after death. This is what the Bible teaches. So yes, I do believe that we are special! Is. 45:18 says that God did not create the earth to be empty, but He formed it to be inhabited. He created it specifically for us humans to live on. It is interesting that of all the heavenly bodies we see, only the earth is so well prepared for support of life. Some believe that is just luck of course. Yes, we humans are special. No other creature that God created was created in God’s image. Man was the last thing God created — the climax of his creation. Jesus became man to pay for the sins of mankind. He did not become an angel or an animal(animals cannot sin anyway). So yes, we have different points of view on the identity of mankind. You state 'This is patently untrue.' I'm sorry but you are exercising faith when you make a dogmatic statement like that. That is your particular belief and you are entitled to hold that belief, but you have no proof for that outside of the fact that it fits your worldview.
I have several problems with this outlook.
In the first place, it is inconsistent with the basic fact that all life on earth is interrelated. For example, every living thing on this planet shares a specific biochemistry. If initial conditions had been different, life would either not exist or would be recognizably different. Along the same lines, all the processes that have shaped the various forms of life also apply to humans. We process energy in similar ways, we replicate, we are effected by the same abiotic environmental factors. Ultimately, at the macro level, anything that upsets the balance too far will also directly effect our existence. This mitigates against the idea that humans are separately created.
Secondly, you have embarked on the extreme logical fallacy of using your conclusion as your initial premise. To make any argument about God or the bible valid or compelling, you must:
- Start by showing that God does indeed exist. If you can provide evidence for the existence of a supernatural deity, I will be more willing to listen to various explanations about that deity and its interest in humans to the exclusion of all other organisms.
- Once you have established the existence of the said deity, you can then provide your reasons for thinking that this deity is the Christian god. After all, the existence of a supernatural deity does not imply that the said deity is the Judeo-Christian one. Some evidence supporting your deity over others, such as Allah, Vishnu, and Zeus, would be beneficial to your argument at this point.
- Once you do this, you can then show that God wrote the Bible. You should include information that will explain how logical impossibilities like the Noachian Flood, are possible. You should include the evidence needed to show that God intended the Bible to be taken literally, rather than a loose code of conduct. (With many thanks to my friend Nick/IAPW for the above).
If you can do this, then I would be willing to consider any evidence you can offer that, indeed, humans are somehow special by divine fiat.
If not, then you must proceed through a different epistemology. You must provide empirical evidence that man is somehow separate from animals. The use of abstractions such as mind, consciousness, or intelligence do not constitute evidence, nor does your say-so. On the contrary, the burden is on you to show with evidence that these vague, ill-defined concepts provide a quantifiable taxic barrier separating us directly from, say, the other primates. That intelligence DOES NOT exist in other animals, for example, as the default hypothesis is that animals — especially primates — DO share the same intrinsic biology/physiology, and differ only in degree. I look forward to hearing your argument.
quote:
This is one great thing about Christianity. We humans are special. God loves us and created us in His image. Therefore, we not only have value in His eyes, but we have intrinsic value as a person because we are His special creation. I believe this is an important truth that has been lost in today’s society with the acceptance of evolution.
See above.
quote:
Which has more value — a rock you pick up on the ground or one that has been carved into a useful tool? Usually it is the one that has been carved into a useful tool.
Value in the context in which you use it is an entirely subjective, human concept. You are also conflating utility and value. I certainly concur that, from a human perspective, a tool is substantially more useful — and hence has value for what I can accomplish with it — than an uncarved rock. However, a good case could be made that the value or usefulness of the rock, when considered for its utility
in sitio may in fact be higher than any use to which I could put it. Putting aside its secondary utility as shelter, etc, for myriads of arthropods and other organisms providing the lowest foundation of an ecosystem’s energy web, simply by it being a rock in a particular place gives the rock value for a longer-term natural purpose. Lichens, for example, thrive on bare rock. The lichen has a distinct value to an ecosystem, because it breaks down rock into soil, which can then be used by plants, which can in turn be used by herbivores, which in turn are used by secondary consumers — including humans — through the fundamental processes of biological succession. If I remove that rock for my own purposes, I have subtracted value from the rest of the ecosystem. There really isn’t any such thing as a free lunch — every action by every living thing on the planet, conscious as we define it or not, has consequences. Ignore this fact, and your value system can become a dangerous, destructive force, since humans ARE unique in one sense — we have the capability to make global, and possibly irreversible, changes in our environment. Anyway, your argument from value is baseless as it rests exclusively on a human perception of utility.
quote:
I’m sorry, but I beg to differ on that kind of thinking. I believe we all actually have value and deserve to be treated with respect.
No need for apology. You might be interested that I, too, believe humans (in general) have value and deserve to be treated with respect. After all, I am one (last time I checked). It is in my interest, based on the behavioral concept of reciprocal altruism, to treat others fairly, because the consequences are generally negative to do otherwise. In short, it is more beneficial to me individually to not be a cheater, or overwhelmingly selfish, etc. We’ve evolved to recognize this intrinsically — it’s a fundamental part of group behavior, and humans are gregarious animals.
quote:
The reason I believe this is true is that we are all special creations of God who created us in His own image and who loves us with an everlasting love. If my neighbor was created by God and is loved by God, if Jesus died for the sins of my neighbor as well as the sins of my enemy, I better also love, accept, and forgive them. I had better also respect them and treat them with dignity. When I don’t, I am sinning against their Creator. This is the only solid basis for human rights in my opinion and it is also why, in my opinion, that we find human rights being upheld best in countries that have a background in Christianity or others that have been influenced by those countries.
You have no historical leg to stand on here. I’m generally not one to belabor the oppression committed in the name of religion, but just a few examples that need your explanation in this context:
- Church domination of the West from the collapse of the Roman Empire to the resurgence of secular authority under the Carolignians. The era known, for good cause, as the Dark Ages. Human rights were where?
- The barbarities committed in the name of Christianity during the crusades; not just against the Moslem infidels in the Levant, but also against supposedly Christian nations in the region now known as Central Europe, as well as the Crusader perfidy in the sacking of Constantinople and the oppression of Byzantine (Eastern Orthodox) Christianity.
- The brutality and mass slaughter in the name of Christianity that took place between Christian nations during the 100 Years War and the 30 Years War (pick one).
- The complete extirpation of two highly advanced (albeit technologically backward) civilizations (the Inca and Aztec) in the name of Christian expansionism.
- The forced resettlement and, in some cases, virtual annihilation of numerous Native American tribes by a Christian nation (your term) between 1650 and 1890 or so.
- The murder/virtual enslavement/oppression (with the gun, where necessary) of millions of Africans and North Africans during the period ~1850-1914 (the Scramble) by a group of Christian West European nations (cf. the history of SW Africa, German and British East Africa, French West Africa, etc, not to mention Egypt). I won’t bother to bring up American actual slavery (which, of course, ended in 1865, although relegation of Black Americans to second class status hasn’t — even today — been completely eliminated).
- The on-going mutual murder between two Christian sects in Ireland — who self-identify by their religion, btw.
Anyway, your Christianity has an unenviable human rights record. The only reason Western societies — mostly containing Christians, but with sizeable majorities of other religions — have any freedom at all is because they are fundamentally, by law, SECULAR societies who’ve finally rejected religious control over their populations
quote:
Quetzal, why do YOU believe that we should treat others with love and respect? Why do YOU believe that we need to protect the rights of the oppressed and the weak? What is the basis for your opinion? Whatever it is, in the end, it is just your opinion I'm sure.
As I noted in my previous post, there are positive cultural, biological, and behavioral affects that make altruism a strong normative behavior. It makes sense for the wellbeing of the organism, and by extension the society, for people (and it’s seen in more primitive, less abstract, form in our close cousins) to behave themselves. It is in our selfish interest. For more information on the evolution of altruism and how evolution provided humans with morality (or at least the basis — it is, in essence, a cultural trait), see
The Evolution of Ethics from the National Academy Press OnLine.
quote:
Do you agree that if God doesn’t exist that there can be no ultimate right and wrong, just human opinion? And if you happen to live in a country where the power holding elite do not hold to your opinion about human rights, you’re in big trouble. That is why power becomes so important in the evolutionary view. It follows then that, who has the power is much more important than what is good and bad or right and wrong in people’s opinions, right?
Nope, I don’t agree. Or at least I don’t agree with the way you stated the question. I don’t think there exists anything like ultimate right and wrong. These are semantically loaded terms that are purely culturally dependent. Now, if you had asked do I believe there are normative behaviors shared among most human populations — well, the jury is still out, but my gut feeling is yes, there are. However, how these behaviors are expressed is culturally dependent to a large extent. Which, of course, is why it is so difficult to identify them in the first place. Worse yet, culture can quite easily warp or distort these normative behaviors.
quote:
You are fortunate to live in the US, but if you lived in Communist China, or behind the iron curtain a few years ago, you would have tasted firsthand the dangers of atheism. In their minds, since there is no god to whom they are accountable to, they are free to live however they want to. They believe are free to treat people however they want to if it will help them accomplish their goals. No one can stop them and when they die, there is no judgment to worry about. They are absolutely FREE! It is that kind of view that is scary to me.
I currently live and work in a former Soviet republic. I am also quite aware of the history of both the region and of communism itself. You are mostly correct — I’ve lived and worked all over the world, and have no desire to settle permanently in any country I’ve ever been in except the US — precisely because it is the one I’ve found most free — ‘till recently. However, you are incorrect that the oppression practiced by the communists in the past or currently had anything whatsoever to do with atheism as a philosophy. Stalin, especially, crushed the Church primarily because he saw it as a threat (rightly, IMO) to his secular power — not because he was an atheist - he wasn't, anymore than it's justified calling Hitler a Christian (both may have self-identified as such, but neither meet even the most liberal definitions of either term). The Church conflicted with the bizarre form of absolute dictatorship he wanted. Stalin eliminated ANY threat to his power, whether secular or religious. This is a strawman on your part. Atheism does not equate to communism. Any more than the fact Nazi Germany was a nation primarily of Christians means that Nazism = Christianity. ALL tyrants think they are free to live however they want. Only the long history of brutal central authority (from at least Peter the Great) allowed such tyranny to exist in Russia for as long as it did. By the time the West took notice around mid-century, a hundred generations of oppression in one form or another had pretty much weeded out ANYONE who could see that the whole system was rotten and unrepairable — and hence precluded any effective counter — or for that matter revolt.
quote:
MY REPLY TO YOUR REPLY:
Then why don’t we all follow those ingrained behaviors?! Perhaps it is because we have come to the point where we realize that it doesn’t matter if we follow them or not. We are not responsible to anyone after we die so if we can get away with it, we’re home free.
I already responded to this: the expression of normative behaviors is subject to cultural modification. Other than that, who do you mean, all? All Westerners (mostly they do — the one’s that don’t are considered criminal or insane)? All humans (again, cultural modification of behavior is probably paramount in humans)? All Christians (good question, if the bible etc is the infallible word of God)? Maybe you might explain all the rape, murder, and genocide in the Old Testament? You might also try reconciling the concept of a benevolent God and intrinsic human rights with the existence of hell and eternal suffering.
quote:
So at least you do see some value in religion, but I take issue with you here. If religion is not true, it is a cruel and repressive instrument made up by men and there is no reason whatsoever that anyone should believe in it or follow it.
Yep. That’s my take on it. I maintain, as above, that religion (or rather the capacity for belief) did have a survival benefit at one point in our evolutionary and cultural development. However, the
modern religious meme complex is something we can live without — it serves no useful adaptive purpose any longer.
quote:
I mean, why not go out and enjoy yourself and have free sex(as long as you take precautions?) I can give you a lot of reasons why not to, but that is beside the point. Why tell the truth when it hurts you? Why not cheat here and there on your income taxes? Why not spread lies and true dirt about your co-worker in order for you to get ahead and have others look down on them? If religion isn’t true, it is of no other value than to give ideas for morality. But even then, they are only man made ideas that have no real authority. No real reason to follow them — except the moral expedience idea.
A fair selection of people do just that. One of our VP’s, for instance (a devout, church-going Christian, btw) is trying mightily to stab me in the back because he perceives me as a threat to his job — which, oddly enough, I have absolutely no interest in. It is human nature to try and get ahead — sometimes even at the expense of others. However, in the main, most humans given the opportunity will be fairly decent to each other — at least to members of the same group. Group identification is one of the most fundamental mammalian abilities. It’s especially notable among primates or other social species. Unfortunately, there will always be folks who try and take advantage of the system (the cheaters). Sometimes they even get away with it, which allows them to pass on their successful cheater traits to the next generation (or laterally, by communication). Congratulations - it's human nature. Christianity, or any other religion except the really tightly controlled cults, doesn't seem to be able to do much about either.
quote:
I believe that the morality presented in the Bible is expedient to follow not because our ancestors over the years got together and came up with ideas that work, but rather because they are God-given rules of absolute morality. Because they are God-given, naturally they are also expedient. The expedience of following God’s laws lends further evidence to them being God-given.
See above — you’re using your conclusion as a starting premise again.
quote:
Plus, I have never seen a copy of these rules of social interaction that our ancestors decided on. Please show me where I can find a copy. If it is just some kind of vague obsure thing, how are we to know what it is? Perhaps you would be willing to research this and compile a list of all the moral laws that belong in this moral code our ancestors discovered. However, I bet if I asked someone else to do it, they would come up with a totally different list. So in the end there is no concrete list after all is there? So we're back where we started.
This is just silly. The earliest written morality plays IIRC are the Epic of Gilgamesh and the Vedas. I was talking about a cultural affect — a meme complex evolved to constrain social behavior in a social species — not specifically a written document. In fact, I’d go so far as to state that our ancestors didn’t decide anything — they evolved into them. You’re confusing modes of transmission/communication with cultural/behavioral evolution. Although linked, obviously, they are not anywhere near the same. Besides, isn’t that what the bible is supposed to be?
quote:
Quetzal, come on. Religion exists in this theoretical role only in the mind of scientists and sociologists who try explain how it came to be.
Of course, I never implied otherwise. The metaphor is one way of understanding how meme complexes — like religion — propagate and evolve. It’s just one way of looking at them and attempting to understand them. I also think the mind parasite thing is a bit extreme. Significant meme complexes don’t really act like parasites. More like diseases — and that goes for just about any successful meme.
quote:
But talk to Jesus or to Mohammed and you can bet that was not their intention.
I thought they were both dead. Might be a tad difficult carrying on that conversation.
quote:
That is a nice little idea that might fit your worldview, but it is not fair for you to make that kind of evaluation of Christianity at least when the Bible itself says something totally different. Jesus did intend for His teachings to be spread across the earth. In fact, He clearly commands His followers to go into all the world and preach the gospel — (What is the gospel? the teaching that all men are sinners and stand condemned before God. They need to repent and seek His forgiveness and trust in or believe in the Savior, Jesus, who died for them and was resurrected in victory over death.)
Once again, without the evidence I requested above, you’re back to arguing your conclusion as a premise.
quote:
I guess I would qualify as a fundamentalist Christian since I believe the Bible.
Actually, what do you mean by a 'fundamental Christian'? Is someone who takes the Bible seriously a fundamental Christian?
Yeah, basically. Biblical inerrancy would seem to be one criteria.
quote:
I certainly do not believe that Fundamental Christianity is a parasitic organism. I myself am a missionary in Japan and have seen many lives changed and people set free from their sin. I have seen people find a new joy and a new purpose for living. I have seen people find a new peace in the midst of their circumstances and a new attitude toward life that better enables them to live.
Good for you. I never said it wasn’t an incredibly successful meme — at least at replicating itself. Heck, it’s been around/evolving for 2500 years or more, and its roots go even further back. It has so far successfully fought off a whole slew of other religions and secular threats. Doesn’t mean that it is necessarily right any more than (biologically speaking) a parasite or disease organism is right.
quote:
Fundamentalist Christianity is only restrictive to those who are not willing to bow the knee to God because they feel like their freedoms are restricted. For the most part — of course there are exceptions - those who do bow their knee to God, find Him to be their joy and satisfaction, even if following Him does involve denying self at times. God is not some big meanie in the sky who tries to control our lives so that we can't have any fun. On the contrary, all His laws are given to protect us from harm and to provide good things for us. He gives us His laws simply because He loves us. Not to tellus what is right and wrong, not to tell us the best way to live and leave us to figure it out for ourselves would be unloving. In the end, it is quite simple. We can choose to obey or to disobey, but we must take responsibility for our choices.
And this is different from slavery how? I agree we have to take responsibility for our choices. However, I'd say that Christianity thrives on pushing responsibility - and ultimate punishment - off to a non-existent future.
quote:
Quetzal, you have made a lot of assumptions in the above paragraphs, all of which stem from your worldview. You stated them as if they were facts, when in reality they are just tenets of your faith. Research into the evolution of sociality and reciprocal altruism is all based on an atheistic worldview - religion evolving over time and the hows and the whys. There can be other reasons for people’s behavior besides expedient morality, but in an evolutionary world view, there is no room for the idea that perhaps God really did reveal His moral truth to mankind. You can just as easily interpret the same facts you research in socialty to harmonize with the Bible. The difference between you and I is simply that we have different starting positions. My bias is that I believe the Bible is true and look at the facts to see how they fit in with that worldview. Your bias is that you start with an evolutionary worldview and interpret all the facts within that framework. We’re both biased and now the trick is to see whether the facts fit better with the Biblical worldview or the evolutionary worldview. Of course you could add other worldviews into the equation as well.
Actually, the only assumption I’ve made is that human behavior — because we are a living organism — can be reduced to the same quantifiable, and replicatable analyses as any other organism. You, on the other hand, are arguing that I should accept the authority of a book whose validity cannot be questioned or revised. Hmm, I think I’ll stick with the methodological naturalism.
I'll be interested to see the "facts" you've got to support your worldview.
quote:
Let me tell you how I interpret the facts of human sociality. First of all, I believe that mankind is basically sinful - not origianlly created that way, but sinful since Adam & Eve's sin written about in Genesis 3. Why? The Bible teaches this and it fits the facts. You don’t need to teach a kid how to sin. Lying comes naturally. Hitting and fighting come naturally. Does a thankful heart come naturally? Not in my kids at least. Does an honest heart come naturally? Not in my kids at least. Does a polite attitude come naturally? Not in my kids at least — in spite of the fact that we try and provide a good example, albeit imperfect of course, to them. We humans have a natural inclination to be self-centered, to go our own way even if it is not right. Again, I’m not saying we always choose what is wrong. I agree that maany of us choose the moral thing because it is the expedient thing to do. That is very different than choosing it because it is right and therein lies the problem. When it is expedient to choose the wrong thing, we are then free to do it and we often do.
So humans have a natural inclination to sin and need to be trained how to live properly, how to do what is right. But education alone, although helpful, won’t do it. You can know what is right and still not want to do what is right. You might not even be able to do what is right. The Bible calls us slaves to sin. I’m not asking you to believe this, just explaining my worldview.
Actually, with the exception of the bible bits and the whole issue of sin, I don’t disagree with you. Children have to be taught social skills based on the cultural norms of the society in which they live. Otherwise, they CAN end up sociopaths or criminals as adults. Individuals are inherently selfish. It is only through learning (whether laterally or horizontally) that we are able to trump our basic biological natures and function as productive and reasonably well-adjusted members of our particular societies.
quote:
Well, I’ve written too much already and will stop here. Sorry, I only got through your first two paragraphs of your reply to me. I doubt neither you or I can keep this kind of posting every day. I'm sure you have a life too. So please be patient with me if I don't post every day.
Not at all. I would ask that you please respond to the remainder of my first post before tackling this one, however. Some of the things you posted here were addressed in that, or at least introduced.
[This message has been edited by Quetzal, 09-04-2002]
™ Version 4.2
