which eggs? (and 'foodchain', 'superiority' and 'happiness')

About (not) consuming fresh raw fish and fresh raw egg yolks
nick
Moderator
Posts: 534
https://cutt.ly/meble-kuchenne-wroclaw
Joined: Tue 09 Aug 2005 00:01

Post by nick »

Much of our art is derived from the absolute beauty of nature. The food chain is a cycle of life, not something to promote superiority. It's the beauty and sadness of life, but you can admire how it works. It is a hierarchy in the sense that the sun feeds the plants which feeds rabbits which feed lions. It is also interconnected in the sense, that if one of those elements (no sun for example) decreased then it would screw up the whole system, not just the plants. Instead of lions or puma's being superior to the prey, perhaps it is the natural order of things, a homeostasis?

Humans are animals too! We straddle the line of using our intelligence with our natural instinct. College guys think sex is what its all about, and that it is a sign of masculinity if you always get it. They look at women and only see their body, its the first thing that comes to mind. Not that thats a bad thing, but it seems to me that 'too much' emphasis is focused on it. What about thinking about how they feel and making each other happy? Which is where human emotions (with such a wide range) can really make things complex. Intelligence has given us the power of choice in the way we live and directly/indirectly influence this world.
jjah
Posts: 37
Joined: Tue 23 Aug 2005 00:01
Location: Camp Pendelton, CA

Post by jjah »

Oscar wrote:This notion of superiority towards other species and others of the same species, is exactly one of the reasons why Man is still a primitive species. Yes primitive. For all our 'superiority' we cannot live together in peace and harmony, we cannot create a society in which there is no famine and where we all strive to make it better for all of us.

You speak of 'natural' level, but if you put us on a natural level with animals, i.e. naked in the wild, do you think you would survive longer than a week? Intelligence is far from absolute. Is a native hunter in Africa, who could survive perfectly in the environment, less intelligent than a 'civilized' person?

You speak of cathedrals, but have you ever seen structures animals build, with nothing more than for example a beak?
jjah wrote:GOD made man in the image and likeness of HIMSELF and granted him dominion over all other creatures on this earth. God enodwed man with reason, free will and an immortal soul destined for eternity.
How do you know this? Since God is supposed to be omnipresent, he/she/it is also present in animals, no?
jjah wrote:The evidence of man's dominance over nature is on every level. If man wished he could wipe out all other species with very little effort as he has shamefully done in the past; I am not saying that it would be a good thing but it is certainly an indication of natural superiority.
So being able to wipe out another species constitutes superiority? Then I guess virusses and bacteria are superior to us...
jjah wrote:It is by creative design that there is a distinct heirarchy of species.
I agree. OUR creative design. ;)


The notion of natural superiority is kind of like the notion of survival of the fittest. Amonst the brute animal species this seems to be the case as there are clearly animals that prey and those that are preyed upon. There is never a role revearsal between, say lions and zebras. The zebra never feeds on a lion. It seems to be self evident to me but I could be wrong. I don't see how anyone could argue (cogently) to the contrary. This is not to say that this heirarchy is not by design as I said before. Contrary to your statement; this is not a design that man came up with. This is part of the natural order of things; and I would contend that it is an order that could only be conceived of by God. How can you say that man designed this heirarchy; I never told a lion to eat a zebra or a bear to feed on salmon. They just do it. I did not put the sun in space nor the planets in orbit. And I certainly don't keep them doing what they are supposed to do. You are right that man can upset this order by choosing to be a bad steward of creation. And I would argue that in some way this is a testimony to his natural superiority; only man can do this. We can destroy entire species, civilizations. If we keep going we might even be able to destroy the planet. I am not arguing that we should do these things; quite the contrary. I believe that we are obliged to make good use of natural resources and respect all creatures and use them according to their intended purpose and for our needs not to excess but in accord with reason and within limits.

As far a placing man in the wild naked and alone with nothing but his physical and mental tools all I can say is I don't think that man was put here with houses and buildings and cars and planes and all the other things that he has invented to make his life better or easier; or just to make something beautiful to behold. Man can abuse the things he makes but that does not make the thing itself bad. For example you can use a computer to do this or you can go look at porn on the web. The lion has not figured a way to make his life any different than it was to begin with; he can't! Because he is not endowed with reason; instinct yes; reason on the level of humanity no. As far as virusses go and bacteria go; man is still here so we have not been destroyed by anything yet. A lot of illnesses have been eradicated from the earth as a result of man's intelligence; i.e. black plague, polio etc.

Have I seen structures that animals build? HMMM. Yea, and I would say that a beaver damn pales in comparison with a simple neighborhood home. Heck it pales in comparison with a lego castle built by my 10 year old nephew. And you want me to be impressed by it in comparison with St. Peter's in Rome. Really this is nonesense. I am impressed with order in creation, no doubt; but the most impressive creature is man. Is he flawed, oh yea; does he mess things up royally, oh yea. There is an old saying that goes, the corruption of the best is always the worst thus man is more capable of destruction and mayhem than a brute animal but at the same time he is capable of greatness and beauty and goodness. Don't remove free will from men and assume that we are doomed to destroy one another.

Civilized people are not more intelligent than tribesmen in Africa, just more civilized. Do African hunters really survive "perfectly" in their environment? What is the life expectancy of your average tribesman? Do they live longer and healthier lives than men in western and eastern civilization? I don't know but I don't think so.

God IS present in all things that exist, that is why they exist. But His presence is different in man. God loves all things in that He made them and holds them in existence but He made them all for a specific purpose. The brute animals are here at the service of man; that seems not to be a matter of revealed (i.e. biblical truth) but a matter of common sense and observation. When have you ever seen a man pulling a horse in carriage or an ox plowing a field with his man friend; or a dog throwing a bone for me to go get and bring back to him.

The mere fact that we are here in this forum discussing these things is a testement to man's greatness and the greatness of the One who created all things and whose image and likeness we are made in.
User avatar
Oscar
Administrator
Posts: 4350
Joined: Mon 15 Aug 2005 00:01

Post by Oscar »

I guess I could say you prove my point, but that would be too easy... :twisted:

You misunderstood me when I said it's OUR design. I didn't suggest we designed it (although in the end we did, because if God is present in everything then we are God, and so we created the universe...but this is another discussion), but I suggested that we designed the so-called hierarchy. Apparently we feel the need to have this notion of superiority for our self-esteem. We cannot just be different, no, we have to be superior. Not only towards other species, but also towards our fellow human.

You said this superiority was obvious, due to us being able to eat other species, us being able to destroy other species, and us being more intelligent than other species. I'm sure you're aware of the fact that a lion can easily eat us. I'm not sure why you even think that destroying other species constitutes superiority, to me that is just a sign of primitiveness. As for us being more intelligent, I think there are enough people on this earth who are less intelligent than a cow (no, I wasn't referring to president Bush). Not living in harmony with the balance of nature is being less intelligent than a cow, in my opinion.

Though I can see this superiority thing has its advantages. I for instance totally agree with the idea of some religions, that Man is totally superior to woman. I often try to convince my girlfriend of this, but due to her inferior intelligence, she doesn't get past the 'elbow me in the side' stage. I then impress my superiority even more by enforcing my strength and fighting prowess upon her. It always works! ;)

On a more serious note: I don't know much about hierarchy within religions, but isn't suggesting to know the intention and thoughts of God some sort of blasphemy?
CurlyGirl
Moderator
Posts: 341
Joined: Thu 29 Dec 2005 01:01
Location: South Africa (soon to be USA)
Contact:

Post by CurlyGirl »

jjah wrote:But at the end of the day to speak of man in a simply scientific manner is inane and contrary to reality; GOD made man in the image and likeness of HIMSELF and granted him dominion over all other creatures on this earth. God enodwed man with reason, free will and an immortal soul destined for eternity.

The mere fact that we are here in this forum discussing these things is a testement to man's greatness and the greatness of the One who created all things and whose image and likeness we are made in.
How is the belief that god made humans in ‘his’ own image any closer to reality than the scientific view? Of course, if we are going to conceive of a god at all, then it is difficult to the point of impossibility to avoid the conception of an anthropomorphic god; indeed, you claim, ‘God made man in the image and likeness of himself’ – well, mankind returned the compliment. However much you fight the temptation, such a god must inevitably have a full set of human characteristics, since, in what meaningful sense could a human say, ‘I love God’ if he/she did not think of her/himself as loving something human? The Christian God is both identified and described by means of the metaphor, ‘Father’. Christians are then obliged to refer to this God as ‘he’. And so, if God is a father, how else can he be imagined than as a human? But how odd to insist on an explanation for the mystery of human existence by promoting an entity that is no more than a ‘super’ version of ourselves – a superhuman! The mature mind must surely reject as infantile the notion of a God in the shape of a human being. You might disguise this infantile belief by claiming that God is a ‘force’, but if God is a ‘force’, why use the word God at all? Why not say what you mean, and base your belief system in the existence of a force? But the Christian is denied this option, because the Christian God is also the Judaic God of the Old Testament, and clearly this deity is a person, and above all else not just an abstract force.
nick wrote:It is a hierarchy in the sense that the sun feeds the plants which feeds rabbits which feed lions. It is also interconnected in the sense, that if one of those elements (no sun for example) decreased then it would screw up the whole system, not just the plants. Instead of lions or puma's being superior to the prey, perhaps it is the natural order of things, a homeostasis?
Yes, homeostasis is the natural order of things. It is a state of ‘dynamic equilibrium’ (not static but nonetheless stable) that governs all of life on this planet. See Fritjof Capra, The Web of Life, and James Lovelock, Gaia: A New Look at Life on Earth.
jjah wrote:The notion of natural superiority is kind of like the notion of survival of the fittest. Amonst the brute animal species this seems to be the case as there are clearly animals that prey and those that are preyed upon. There is never a role revearsal between, say lions and zebras. The zebra never feeds on a lion. It seems to be self evident to me but I could be wrong. I don't see how anyone could argue (cogently) to the contrary.
But people have argued cogently to the contrary, and yet you conveniently ignore those posts. The notion of natural superiority is NOT like the concept of ‘survival of the fittest’, by the way. The two are entirely distinct from each other.
jjah wrote:This is not to say that this heirarchy is not by design as I said before. Contrary to your statement; this is not a design that man came up with. This is part of the natural order of things; and I would contend that it is an order that could only be conceived of by God. How can you say that man designed this heirarchy; I never told a lion to eat a zebra or a bear to feed on salmon. They just do it. I did not put the sun in space nor the planets in orbit. And I certainly don't keep them doing what they are supposed to do.
Again, you insist on using the term ‘natural’ when describing your belief system, as though what you believe (in your Christian theology) is ipso facto the state of all things ‘natural’ on this planet. That is asinine. Of course you did not tell the lions to eat the zebras, nor put the sun in orbit. But likewise, we do not need the ‘design’ of a ‘Creator’ to explain those facts either. The complexity of the universe has been well enough explained by the fact of evolution and the theory of natural selection. Only by denying evidence and substituting it with faith can the discoveries of Darwin be denied, just as it was by the denial of evidence and the insistence on faith that the discoveries of Galileo were once denied – much to the eventual embarrassment of the Roman Catholic Church fathers. Of course, Darwin never claimed to have devised a theory to explain the origin of life, only the origin of the different species. We do not understand all there is to understand about the ‘first cause’ of the universe, and as a result, Christians are obliged to attribute that ‘first cause’ to the work of God and therefore to ‘prove’ the existence of God. But this substitutes a belief for a fact. Perhaps humanity may one day get to understand the first cause, but we might want to concede that such an understanding is by definition unlikely, because human beings are themselves part of the process they seek to understand, and the human mind cannot be both an instrument of thought and the object of thought simultaneously. That which we cannot understand is conveniently called a mystery, because it represents a realm utterly impervious to human apprehension. We can call this realm God if we wish, but this is by no means a logical step to take, for not only does this not expand the limits of our understanding in any meaningful way, but it also prevents us from that understanding by creating an anthropomorphic quality for the mystery and its maker. Such knowledge as we do have of our ignorance is neither reason nor excuse to embrace the childish myth of Christianity.
jjah wrote:And I would argue that in some way this is a testimony to his natural superiority; only man can do this. We can destroy entire species, civilizations. If we keep going we might even be able to destroy the planet.
No – you are wrong. We will not destroy the planet; the only thing at risk of total destruction at present is our industrial civilisation, as the oil reserves on which it is based quickly run dry. The fabric of life is far more flexible than you think – the bacteria, plants and insects that constitute the largest biomass on this planet will not be eliminated by us. They have survived 3,6 billion years of evolution and climatic changes, and one renegade species, which admittedly has tremendous destructive power, will not achieve the total elimination of these organisms. We, sadly, are taking other large mammals (like whales) and even entire ecosystems of tropical plants and amphibians down with us, but the basic constituents of life on this planet will not succumb so easily.

Also, you still seem to be arguing that the great destructive power of our species is evidence of our ‘natural superiority’, despite the lucid points that others, like Oscar, have made in light of your views.
jjah wrote:I am not arguing that we should do these things; quite the contrary. I believe that we are obliged to make good use of natural resources and respect all creatures and use them according to their intended purpose and for our needs not to excess but in accord with reason and within limits.
Lynn White, Jnr, in his classic article ‘The Historical Roots of our Ecologic Crisis’ (Science, March 1967), argued that the contemporary environmental crisis can be sourced directly to the Christian dogma of creation, particularly the view that ‘man is made in God’s image’ and the biblical mandate to ‘master’ the Earth and multiply. The beliefs implicit in Genesis underwrite the destructive marriage of science and technology that has ripped up our environment. But in fact, the harnessing of nature to human ends was already proceeding apace before the Scientific (17th century) or Industrial (18th century) Revolutions. The crisis dates from Christianity’s triumph over paganism (White calls this the greatest psychic revolution in the history of our culture), which caused the old pagan inhibitions to the exploitation of nature to crumble. Protestantism then made the masculinisation of God complete by dismissing the cult of Mary as pagan, too. Because Protestantism gave its blessing to orderly, individualistic, capitalistic activity (as seen in the Puritan work ethic that views poverty and laziness as a moral failing), Christianity could join hands with the burgeoning belief in science and reason, and thus help drive the motor of the dominant, nature-imperialising character of Western thought at the time. If you really questioned the ecological credentials of Christianity, you would see that these anthropocentric, hierarchical and patriarchal understandings of ‘creation’ lead to the alienation of human beings from each other and from nature (and even from God).

What exactly are the ‘reasonable limits’ to our use of natural resources, in your opinion?
jjah wrote:The brute animals are here at the service of man; that seems not to be a matter of revealed (i.e. biblical truth) but a matter of common sense and observation.
If you wished to refute my last argument by claiming instead that the Bible does set limits to human dealings with nature and does enjoin humankind to respect its more egalitarian place in God’s ‘scheme of things’, then you could not simultaneously claim, as you just have, that ‘the brute animals are here at the service of man.’ But perhaps that is not how you would have wished to defend yourself at all; since obviously you think that your common sense and powers of observation are able to interpret the world as it really is, why would you want to defend yourself at all?

And anyway, truth is achieved, not revealed. In open societies, truth is human truth, achieved by agreement, even when that agreement is provisional, and the truth is commonly owned, because it has been negotiated. But in closed societies, truth is the secret preserve of the few. You exemplify the Christian rejection of the role of human institutions in which learning and discussion are brought to bear on problems and the formulation of solutions to those problems. In an open society, what cannot be tolerated is the insistence on an outside source of authority, beyond the reach of the rational mind, and in violation of the democratic will, as the infallible guide to all behaviour. The Old Testament abounds with the testimony of men who claim privileged knowledge deemed to have resulted from their equally privileged relationship with the deity; open societies have no time for prophets. Achieving truth requires the means to investigate and verify it. This is the difference between rationality and mysticism.
jjah wrote:As far as virusses go and bacteria go; man is still here so we have not been destroyed by anything yet. A lot of illnesses have been eradicated from the earth as a result of man's intelligence; i.e. black plague, polio etc.
What about all the new illnesses that have sprung up as a result of our activities on this planet? Iatrogenic diseases like AIDS, diseases of globalisation like avian flu?? Do you not consider the fact that 20-40 million people were killed by the Influenza epidemic of 1918-9 as evidence for the ‘superiority’ of viruses over humans, in terms of your hierarchy of destructiveness?
jjah wrote:Don't remove free will from men and assume that we are doomed to destroy one another.
This is misinterpreting what was said. Anyway, you are the one who suggested that we will destroy one another – ‘if we keep going we might even be able to destroy the planet’ (presumably including all humans). On the subject of free will, your Christian God is believed to be omniscient, and therefore knows everything there is to know to the end of time. In no way can this knowledge be partial. This being the case, humanity is doomed to act out its life on Earth in fulfilment of the predetermined pattern. This in turn means that humanity has no free will. The argument that God’s foreknowledge is not a determinant of our actions (and therefore that we still have free will) is one of bedazzling complexity and may be left to fight for itself. Instead, I pose the question: If life is contingent, and if human beings have the genuine capacity to determine their own actions through autonomous acts of judgment and volition, is it either reasonable or meaningful under these circumstances to attribute the capacity for foreknowledge to God? Common sense tells us that it is not. What is clear is that divine foreknowledge (omniscience) and human free will cannot coexist in the same universe. If we have autonomy of judgment, and if contingency plays a part in the exercise of that judgment, there is no human faculty that can, under these circumstances, explain how God can know the outcome of future events. And if we grant or concede that he really does know the outcome of future events, then there can be no possibility of autonomous human judgment. The existence of God makes all things inevitable, but it is the very essence of freedom for events and actions to be evitable. To abandon ourselves to the forces of inevitability is to abrogate our responsibilities. The fact that it often suits us to do this very thing does not make it morally right.
jjah wrote:God IS present in all things that exist, that is why they exist. But His presence is different in man. God loves all things in that He made them and holds them in existence but He made them all for a specific purpose.


Presumably you are one of the millions of Christians who see God’s love as existing in a morally elevated dimension. But, by the same token, there are as many millions of open-minded people who find the proposition entirely obnoxious, if not repellent, in its moral dimension. It represents a patriarchal and instrumental view of ‘love’, for which humanity is under the burden of gratitude. ‘God loves all things’? Why is this so morally impressive? Should we be grateful for it, and the price it pays for us? We need to remind ourselves that love is a state freely entered into, is its own reward, and creates no obligations. The ‘love’ that is extended by a personage like God onto a choiceless and unwitting inferior recipient is no love at all, but an expression of power, creating obligation and guilt. To accept this ‘great love’ is to concede our unworthiness; this is its condition. Pity poor humanity struggling under the burden of this blackmail, masquerading as ‘God’s love’. Secular people would prefer to accept the biological reality of life and death, rather than the sinister and fraudulent promise of eternal life in the service of an unjust, manipulative God. Humankind did not ask to be ‘loved’ by God, and the notion of humanity as ‘children’ dependent on the unrequested favour of a patriarch is not only morally offensive but also simply does not accord with the experience of a lived human life that demands maturity, courage and responsibility.
Oscar wrote:Apparently we feel the need to have this notion of superiority for our self-esteem. We cannot just be different, no, we have to be superior. Not only towards other species, but also towards our fellow human.

This notion of superiority towards other species and others of the same species, is exactly one of the reasons why Man is still a primitive species. Yes primitive. For all our 'superiority' we cannot live together in peace and harmony
Yes, Oscar. I agree.

Christianity should be placed within the same totalitarian tradition that spawned the great collectivist aberrations of the twentieth century: fascism, National Socialism, communism and racism. It is the last of the appalling traditions of collectivism that blights the attempts of humanity to achieve prosperous, stable and free societies. The limits to human freedom can neither be explored nor extended as long as Christianity enslaves its adherents in superstition and insists on the superiority of belief over evidence, belief based in Iron Age myth. If humanity really engaged with Christianity in a critical manner, its totalitarian character would become visibly evident, and freedom-loving people would abandon it to the scrapheap of dangerous ideology.

“Those who give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.” Benjamin Franklin

“Don’t follow leaders.” Bob Dylan
rischott
Posts: 143
Joined: Thu 24 Nov 2005 01:01
Location: not the U.S.A.
Contact:

Post by rischott »

What about the cockroach??? Seriously, the Cockroach has been around for over 300 million years, and its evolutionary child, the termite, has been around about half that time. No matter how hard humans try and eliminate the cockroach, they CAN'T. So, it is superior to us. What does God have to say about that? Maybe God lives under the fridge and is mass producing itself millions of times over just to piss us, the inferior species, off.
CurlyGirl
Moderator
Posts: 341
Joined: Thu 29 Dec 2005 01:01
Location: South Africa (soon to be USA)
Contact:

Post by CurlyGirl »

jjah wrote:The notion of natural superiority is kind of like the notion of survival of the fittest. Amonst the brute animal species this seems to be the case as there are clearly animals that prey and those that are preyed upon. There is never a role revearsal between, say lions and zebras. The zebra never feeds on a lion. It seems to be self evident to me but I could be wrong. I don't see how anyone could argue (cogently) to the contrary.
CurlyGirl wrote:But people have argued cogently to the contrary, and yet you conveniently ignore those posts. The notion of natural superiority is NOT like the concept of ‘survival of the fittest’, by the way. The two are entirely distinct from each other.
What I meant was not that people on this board have argued that there is a role reversal between lions and zebras (of course not), but rather that it has been argued that this issue (of predator and prey) is NOT tantamount to evidence for a 'natural hierarchy' between animals and humans. Why can the fact that lions eat zebra not be interpreted as evidence for the balance of nature (the homeostasis that nick described) instead?
Corinne
Posts: 284
Joined: Mon 31 Oct 2005 01:01
Location: Boone, NC
Contact:

Post by Corinne »

What I meant was not that people on this board have argued that there is a role reversal between lions and zebras (of course not), but rather that it has been argued that this issue (of predator and prey) is NOT tantamount to evidence for a 'natural hierarchy' between animals and humans. Why can the fact that lions eat zebra not be interpreted as evidence for the balance of nature (the homeostasis that nick described) instead?
Yes well said CurlyGirl. Indeed there are two things which must not be confused in this discussion:
The ability to kill, survive or outlive another species only means they are different from each other, or "superior" in some ways and "inferior" in others. It's a relative thing. Adaptability to a changing environment, diet specifications, natural habitat are some examples. It's in the nature of Lion to eat zebras (carnivore), not in the nature of Zebra (herbivore) to eat lions. It's in our nature to eat fruit and a little bit of fish...we all know this! So yes I agree, there is a natural order but this in no way implies a hierarchy.
As Nick said if one thing were to disapear from this scheem the balance would be lost, and Man might be the first victim, because for all his "superiority" s/he is totally dependant on what Earth is offering! Now how can that be? How can we logically be superior to a thing we depend on?

As CurlyGirl explained the issue of superiority or equality is highly dependant on how one views God and her place amongst us. Is God an outside figure "above" us like the Judéo-Christian tradition has it (you gave such a nice explanation CG, do you study Religion or Antropology?)? Or are we co-creators with God, infused with Godliness as are all living things equally? The only huge problem being that very few of us are conscious of this! Oscar touched on this and I agree:
You misunderstood me when I said it's OUR design. I didn't suggest we designed it (although in the end we did, because if God is present in everything then we are God, and so we created the universe...but this is another discussion), but I suggested that we designed the so-called hierarchy.
However I have to post here that Oscar gets out of control when it comes down to teasing! I keep reminding him that if there could be/is/was a superior culture/civilization/species in history (or in the furture) it was/would be definitly the matriarchies. Now I'm only half joking! When woman were in key positions there was peace and harmony (woman don't go to war as readily as men). Also art threived: I'm thinking of (if my memory is correct!) the 3rd millenium B.C. Sumerian civilization.

Great discussion!
C.
jjah
Posts: 37
Joined: Tue 23 Aug 2005 00:01
Location: Camp Pendelton, CA

Post by jjah »

CurlyGirl wrote:
jjah wrote:The notion of natural superiority is kind of like the notion of survival of the fittest. Amonst the brute animal species this seems to be the case as there are clearly animals that prey and those that are preyed upon. There is never a role revearsal between, say lions and zebras. The zebra never feeds on a lion. It seems to be self evident to me but I could be wrong. I don't see how anyone could argue (cogently) to the contrary.
CurlyGirl wrote:But people have argued cogently to the contrary, and yet you conveniently ignore those posts. The notion of natural superiority is NOT like the concept of ‘survival of the fittest’, by the way. The two are entirely distinct from each other.
What I meant was not that people on this board have argued that there is a role reversal between lions and zebras (of course not), but rather that it has been argued that this issue (of predator and prey) is NOT tantamount to evidence for a 'natural hierarchy' between animals and humans. Why can the fact that lions eat zebra not be interpreted as evidence for the balance of nature (the homeostasis that nick described) instead?

As a follow on to this question that you pose I would ask why can't the heriarchy that I speak be an indication of this balance? Why is it that the notion of heirarchy in nature or anything for that matter is always interrpreted as some larger(usually evil force) that lords its position over others. Can there be a benevolent heirarchy where things do co-exist in an orderly and intelligently designed manner, where "gifts" are given that are used to maintain this balance? It seems as if the suggestion here is that this balance that is being lauded has just happened on its own and that there is nothing responsible for starting it or maintaining it. Of course as a "close-minded" Christian simpleton who is completely forbidden to study science or adhere to its findings this is something that I cannot subscribe to. :wink:
jjah
Posts: 37
Joined: Tue 23 Aug 2005 00:01
Location: Camp Pendelton, CA

Post by jjah »

CurlyGirl wrote:This is misinterpreting what was said. Anyway, you are the one who suggested that we will destroy one another – ‘if we keep going we might even be able to destroy the planet’ (presumably including all humans). On the subject of free will, your Christian God is believed to be omniscient, and therefore knows everything there is to know to the end of time. In no way can this knowledge be partial. This being the case, humanity is doomed to act out its life on Earth in fulfilment of the predetermined pattern. This in turn means that humanity has no free will. The argument that God’s foreknowledge is not a determinant of our actions (and therefore that we still have free will) is one of bedazzling complexity and may be left to fight for itself. Instead, I pose the question: If life is contingent, and if human beings have the genuine capacity to determine their own actions through autonomous acts of judgment and volition, is it either reasonable or meaningful under these circumstances to attribute the capacity for foreknowledge to God? Common sense tells us that it is not. What is clear is that divine foreknowledge (omniscience) and human free will cannot coexist in the same universe. If we have autonomy of judgment, and if contingency plays a part in the exercise of that judgment, there is no human faculty that can, under these circumstances, explain how God can know the outcome of future events. And if we grant or concede that he really does know the outcome of future events, then there can be no possibility of autonomous human judgment. The existence of God makes all things inevitable, but it is the very essence of freedom for events and actions to be evitable. To abandon ourselves to the forces of inevitability is to abrogate our responsibilities. The fact that it often suits us to do this very thing does not make it morally right.
I did not know how to quote just a portion of what was said so I just cut and pasted one paragraph. Sorry. My Christian God, as you have put it, is also BELIEVED to be ALL GOOD as well as omniscient so it seems obvious that He, as he has identified Himself (of course He can have neither male or female sex for He is not a body but a spirit) cannot be the formal cause of anything that is evil; very simple Christian theology. We see men every day do things that are univerally recognized as evil; murder, rape, theft etc. etc. etc. So it follows that God does not control the actions of every man individually but He does control the overall result of the combined total of human acts; simply put His Will will prevail at the end of time. He allows evil only that a greater good can prevail. So staying in my small-minded Christian universe a good example of this would be His allowing Adam and Eve to go against His will and command( eating the apple is probably not meant to be taken literally) so that He could show His great love for all of humanity by sending His Son into the world as one of us to suffer and die that His infinite mercy could be seen and His infinite justice could be satisfied. Really it seems quite simple and not so bedazzling and complex. Knowing the outcome of something does not mean that you control the actions leading up to it.
Corinne
Posts: 284
Joined: Mon 31 Oct 2005 01:01
Location: Boone, NC
Contact:

Post by Corinne »

Jjah wrote:
As a follow on to this question that you pose I would ask why can't the heriarchy that I speak be an indication of this balance? Why is it that the notion of heirarchy in nature or anything for that matter is always interrpreted as some larger(usually evil force) that lords its position over others. Can there be a benevolent heirarchy where things do co-exist in an orderly and intelligently designed manner, where "gifts" are given that are used to maintain this balance?
Granted this hierarchy as you called it could very well be an indication of this balance. And no, some larger more powerful force doesn't have to be an evil one. The only thing is that until now I don't see many examples of humans in high powerful positions being of the 'giving type'. We all are/have been just taking from this Earth or from others for selfprofit without much consideration of outcome. I hope for a world where such a balance is not evil and even brings peace and harmony. Mankind is capable of it but there need to be a big shift in consciousness for this to happen.
jjah
Posts: 37
Joined: Tue 23 Aug 2005 00:01
Location: Camp Pendelton, CA

Post by jjah »

CurlyGirl wrote:How is the belief that god made humans in ‘his’ own image any closer to reality than the scientific view? Of course, if we are going to conceive of a god at all, then it is difficult to the point of impossibility to avoid the conception of an anthropomorphic god; indeed, you claim, ‘God made man in the image and likeness of himself’ – well, mankind returned the compliment. However much you fight the temptation, such a god must inevitably have a full set of human characteristics, since, in what meaningful sense could a human say, ‘I love God’ if he/she did not think of her/himself as loving something human? The Christian God is both identified and described by means of the metaphor, ‘Father’. Christians are then obliged to refer to this God as ‘he’. And so, if God is a father, how else can he be imagined than as a human? But how odd to insist on an explanation for the mystery of human existence by promoting an entity that is no more than a ‘super’ version of ourselves – a superhuman! The mature mind must surely reject as infantile the notion of a God in the shape of a human being. You might disguise this infantile belief by claiming that God is a ‘force’, but if God is a ‘force’, why use the word God at all? Why not say what you mean, and base your belief system in the existence of a force? But the Christian is denied this option, because the Christian God is also the Judaic God of the Old Testament, and clearly this deity is a person, and above all else not just an abstract force.



My immature and infantile Christian mind has a hard time following your mature and vastly complex mind but I am trying. Man in no way "returned the favor" God remains who He is and who He has revealed Himself to be regardless of what I or any other person chooses to believe. We are creatures not creators( at least in the sense that we cannot make something out of nothing). As far as God being anthropomorphic; it is only by way of His identifying Himself with human traits that he becomes this. He does this because man has the inability to comprehend the infinite completely so God wished to give him an idea of what attributes he possessed. He also attributed to Himself femenine characteristics in the book of Wisdom when He called Wisdom(clearly synonomous with the Holy Spirit) She. This is so we could know God and could in turn freely love Him( the word Him is used for the sake of simplicity; I guess I could type He/She/It/We everytime but again; for simplicity). In addition we know that God did incarnate Himself in the Person of Jesus Christ so if it is absolutely necassary for Him to have human characteristics I would say that He does; but He did that not me. But I would ask, is it possible for a man to love something that is not human? Can't we love wisdom, knowledge, goodness, beauty? God is not a superhuman but man shared in the divine life that belongs entirely to God. As St. Augustine so aptly put it "God became man so that men might be like God." Notice I said like, meaning similar to, not identical. Our nature is elevated to a supernatural level by participating in the life of the Trinitarian God head. This happens through baptism whereby man's becomes what he could never become on his own; he becomes one with God and becomes God's adopted children whom He loves and who we narrow-minded Christians freely choose to love in return. We are not slaves but we are truly free and have life and it to the fullest both now and forever.
User avatar
Oscar
Administrator
Posts: 4350
Joined: Mon 15 Aug 2005 00:01

Post by Oscar »

If you want to quote someone specific, you can do that by using: [ quote="name"] text [ /quote] (without the spaces). :)

In my opinion hierarchy can never be benevolent, because it uses subjective values to create an artificial ranking, thereby judging subjects to be superior or inferior to eachother. The problem is, that since the criteria are subjective, there cannot be balance. In our human society we have (had) several examples of this, for instance the subjective discrimination on race, skin color, and possessions (land, money).

These subjective values also constitute the judging of what is 'good' and what is 'evil'. For example: killing a person for their money would be easily condemned as 'evil', whereas very few people would put that label on an american soldier killing a german soldier in WWII.

All these values are human values.

The christian God is believed to be omniscient, omnipresent, and omnipotent. Naturally, his (I agree, lets put aside the she/it for now) creation would be perfect. And since he's omnipresent, he is also part of the 'evil'. I say 'evil', but again, this is a human value. With omnipotent and omniscient in mind, it would be impossible to do something against his will, let alone without him knowing about it.

I do agree with you though, that we have free will, even though the outcome is already known. This dichotomy arises because in my opinion everything happens in one moment (for the outside observer), and all possible outcomes are already mapped out. The number of these possibilities is infinite. Thus we can have free will, with the outcome already known.

So everything that happens is known, created, part of, and assented by your christian God. Without any (humanlike) judgement, or positive or negative discrimination of people or species, because he is present in everything and so we are part of God.
Corinne
Posts: 284
Joined: Mon 31 Oct 2005 01:01
Location: Boone, NC
Contact:

different views of God

Post by Corinne »

Very well said Oscar. Concise and to the point.
I do agree with you though, that we have free will, even though the outcome is already known. This dichotomy arises because in my opinion everything happens in one moment (for the outside observer), and all possible outcomes are already mapped out. The number of these possibilities is infinite. Thus we can have free will, with the outcome already known.
I've read various books regarding this dichotomy:
by C.S.Lewis Mere Christianity and in a totally different style his Chronicles of Narnia (esp book 7). Both books deal with the idea of parallel worlds and different conceptions of TIME good/evil. I read Narnia when I was a kid and later Mere Christianity which brought it all together.
Also the Conversations with God by Neal Donald Walsh were extremely insightful for me on this topic.

Maybe some of you are interested in these!
CurlyGirl
Moderator
Posts: 341
Joined: Thu 29 Dec 2005 01:01
Location: South Africa (soon to be USA)
Contact:

Post by CurlyGirl »

Corrine wrote:Indeed there are two things which must not be confused in this discussion: The ability to kill, survive or outlive another species only means they are different from each other (…) So yes I agree, there is a natural order but this in no way implies a hierarchy.
As Nick said if one thing were to disapear from this scheem the balance would be lost, and Man might be the first victim, because for all his "superiority" s/he is totally dependant on what Earth is offering! Now how can that be? How can we logically be superior to a thing we depend on?


Yes, indeed, those things must not be confused. And no, we cannot logically be superior to that on which we depend; this is precisely what humans need to remember. (It is also why I referred everyone in an earlier post to James Lovelock’s book about Gaia theory.)
Corrine wrote:As CurlyGirl explained the issue of superiority or equality is highly dependant on how one views God and her place amongst us. Is God an outside figure "above" us like the Judéo-Christian tradition has it (you gave such a nice explanation CG, do you study Religion or Antropology?)? Or are we co-creators with God, infused with Godliness as are all living things equally?
Thanks for the compliment, Corrine, and no, I study neither religion nor anthropology, I’m an environmental historian. But I am interested in these issues, because of the huge implications that Christian theology has for our attitude to the environment.
Corrine wrote:However I have to post here that Oscar gets out of control when it comes down to teasing! I keep reminding him that if there could be/is/was a superior culture/civilization/species in history (or in the furture) it was/would be definitly the matriarchies. Now I'm only half joking! When woman were in key positions there was peace and harmony (woman don't go to war as readily as men). Also art threived: I'm thinking of (if my memory is correct!) the 3rd millenium B.C. Sumerian civilization.
Well, I’m not sure I entirely agree, since there have been some aggressive and war-mongering women in history too, and art did not thrive any more within matriarchies than it did within patriarchies; anyway, I think this issue of the matriarchies is a little beside the point (!) … But just for your interest, have a look at this fascinating article, called ‘Goddess of the Israelites’:
http://www.mg.co.za/articlePage.aspx?ar ... rnational/
Corrine wrote:Great discussion!
Indeed!

jjah wrote:Can there be a benevolent heirarchy where things do co-exist in an orderly and intelligently designed manner, where "gifts" are given that are used to maintain this balance?

Corrine wrote:Granted this hierarchy as you called it could very well be an indication of this balance. And no, some larger more powerful force doesn't have to be an evil one. The only thing is that until now I don't see many examples of humans in high powerful positions being of the 'giving type'. We all are/have been just taking from this Earth or from others for selfprofit without much consideration of outcome. I hope for a world where such a balance is not evil and even brings peace and harmony. Mankind is capable of it but there need to be a big shift in consciousness for this to happen.
Oscar wrote:In my opinion hierarchy can never be benevolent, because it uses subjective values to create an artificial ranking, thereby judging subjects to be superior or inferior to eachother. The problem is, that since the criteria are subjective, there cannot be balance. In our human society we have (had) several examples of this, for instance the subjective discrimination on race, skin color, and possessions (land, money).

These subjective values also constitute the judging of what is 'good' and what is 'evil'. For example: killing a person for their money would be easily condemned as 'evil', whereas very few people would put that label on an american soldier killing a german soldier in WWII.

All these values are human values.



Jjah, why call it a hierarchy then? A hierarchy where ‘things co-exist’ for the benefit of all, and for the sake of maintaining a balance, could just as easily be called a ‘natural balance’ or ‘homeostasis’. You are recommending that we keep twisting our semantics so that you can be satisfied that we’ve accepted the a priori existence of a hierarchy of lifeforms on this planet! Not everyone agrees, and it is not just a matter of semantics!

If you still insist on a hierarchy, then consider the fact that either way, humans are not at the top. The usual scientific hierarchy of nature is a compositional or constituency hierarchy (sometimes called a hierarchy of scale), in which the relation between one level and the next is not that of category inclusion (or property inheritance) but one of whole and the parts of which those wholes are said to be made. In science’s scale hierarchy of nature, the human scale is in the middle of the hierarchy. Below us are cells, molecules, atoms, electrons, etc. Above us are ecosystems, planets, star systems, galaxies, etc.

jjah wrote:It seems as if the suggestion here is that this balance that is being lauded has just happened on its own and that there is nothing responsible for starting it or maintaining it. Of course as a "close-minded" Christian simpleton who is completely forbidden to study science or adhere to its findings this is something that I cannot subscribe to.
No-one suggested that Christian ‘simpletons’ are forbidden to study science. Is this what your Church is telling you? I would not be surprised, given the rise of angry parents in the U.S., fighting their children’s teachers for ‘insisting’ on putting evolution on the school curriculum (as though it were some indefensible, crackpot theory). Your self-mockery is amusing, but also unsettling.

jjah wrote:My Christian God, as you have put it, is also BELIEVED to be ALL GOOD as well as omniscient so it seems obvious that He, as he has identified Himself (of course He can have neither male or female sex for He is not a body but a spirit) cannot be the formal cause of anything that is evil; very simple Christian theology. We see men every day do things that are univerally recognized as evil; murder, rape, theft etc. etc. etc. So it follows that God does not control the actions of every man individually but He does control the overall result of the combined total of human acts; simply put His Will will prevail at the end of time. He allows evil only that a greater good can prevail. So staying in my small-minded Christian universe a good example of this would be His allowing Adam and Eve to go against His will and command( eating the apple is probably not meant to be taken literally) so that He could show His great love for all of humanity by sending His Son into the world as one of us to suffer and die that His infinite mercy could be seen and His infinite justice could be satisfied. Really it seems quite simple and not so bedazzling and complex. Knowing the outcome of something does not mean that you control the actions leading up to it.
Oscar wrote:The christian God is believed to be omniscient, omnipresent, and omnipotent. Naturally, his (I agree, lets put aside the she/it for now) creation would be perfect. And since he's omnipresent, he is also part of the 'evil'. I say 'evil', but again, this is a human value. With omnipotent and omniscient in mind, it would be impossible to do something against his will, let alone without him knowing about it.

How can God logically control the ‘overall result of the combined total of human acts’ without controlling ‘the acts of every man individually’?

The notion of omniscience creates one set of problems; the notion of omnipotence creates another. God, being the creator of the universe and everything in it, must find himself to be then the creator also of the evil parts of his universe. This is a contradiction: how can a perfect God entertain an evil thought? If God has not created evil, nor could ever do so, then evil is the creation of another god, which means that God alone is not the creator of everything in the universe. It is this insight that lies at the heart of Gnosticism. The Christian explanation for the existence of evil is that one of God’s angels, originally created good, became jealous of God. This angel fell from heaven and became Satan, and introduced evil into the world. Angels presumably thus have moral potential independent of God, and so he cannot be the creator of the universe and all things in it – a situation that Christians must presumably find alarming (I certainly would, if I were Christian).

You also claim that he is all good (i.e. perfectly good). There are many problems associated with the notion of a perfect God. Is it possible for human intelligence to have any meaningful understanding of what perfection could be taken as being? Here is one example of the problem: A perfect God must be perfectly just. And perfect justice will surely incorporate the principle of mercy. But how does mercy function from within a system of perfect justice, for if perfect justice prevails, everyone gets – and should get – the perfect reward or punishment for their actions? In other words, they get their perfectly just desserts. But mercy is the specifid act of over-riding the concept of ‘just desserts’ by punishing a person less harshly than he or she deserves. The concept of perfection (and perfect goodness) raises many questions of this sort, and it seems the more we try to understand an omniscient, omnipotent and perfect God, the less we are able to. Finally, we may want to ask the question: Why does an omniscient, omnipotent God, the maker of the universe and all things in it, come to be so spitefully jealous and fearful of all the other so-called gods of the ancient world, if he knows that he alone is the one true God, the maker of the universe, and capable of destroying all of the other so-called gods with a click of his fingers? Since he is the creator of all things, he must also be the creator of the imposter gods.
Oscar wrote:I do agree with you though, that we have free will, even though the outcome is already known. This dichotomy arises because in my opinion everything happens in one moment (for the outside observer), and all possible outcomes are already mapped out. The number of these possibilities is infinite. Thus we can have free will, with the outcome already known.
If God is omniscient, then he must be capable of knowing AND controlling ALL of these ‘infinite possibilities’. That does not leave room for free will.




I will state this again: both intuitive wisdom and the work of great scientists (Lovelock, Capra, etc) teach us that we are all related, that all life on earth and in the universe is one in the great web of life, that we, effectively, are all brothers and bisters in one great cosmic family. What happens to one form of life on earth, one strand of the great web of life, will eventually befall all life. This is a message we need to heed in times of great social and ecological upheaval. The kind of thinking that got us into this ‘mess’ (i.e. Judaeo-Christian-influenced hierarchy of beings, with humans superior to all else except God) is not the kind of thinking that will get us out of our extractive, use-based value system that promotes plunder and rapaciousness.

Within our cellular and genetic structure is contained the entire story of creation. On one hand, we have reason to be proud, for every atom and molecule in our bodies was once part of a star. But, on the other hand, we have reason to be humble, because every atom and molecule in our bodies was also once part of a piece of dung. The dance of life and death and rebirth is a circle, not a chain or a pyramid in which every stone is fixed. Life begets life; it is self-replicating. Life also consumes other life in order to live. One day our bodies too will become food, so that another form of life may live.

Accepting and truly understanding the implications of such a pervasive egalitarian ethic of interconnectedness means reconsidering our role and purpose as human beings in relation to the other forms of life who exist within the greater community of life on earth. It means taking a very honest and humble look at ourselves and our ways, and re-evaluating who we consider ourselves to be in the context of the world and the greater natural structures and systems which exist. When we look at ourselves, it most of all means being honest with ourselves about what it is we see. Denial is the most dangerous adversary!

In his book, The Enemy of Nature, Joel Kovel clarifies that

'The environment is by definition a set of things outside us, with no essential structure, while an ecology is a whole defined by internal relations. Environments can be listed and numerically evaluated. Ecologies offer no such packaging and the boundaries between them are sites of active transformation, without a fixed line between inside and outside. In particular, the boundary between humanity and nature becomes highly dynamic.' (Kovel 17)

With this insight in mind, we come to understand, or at very least consider, the vast interconnectivity of the networks and systems that exist within our dynamic natural world. In collusion with the condition of anthropocentricity that pervades human consciousness today often comes the idea that the world is a composite of separate and isolated independently self-generating systems with no relation to one another whatsoever, that we as humans, and the systems we create, are somehow above and beyond the operational parameters of the natural systems of life and not subject to the same set of guidelines and limits.

This fundamentally flawed belief, that what occurs to one systemic component will have little to no effect on the over-all functioning of all other systemic components, has contributed to a global ecological crisis which 'is undoing the work of nature over some hundreds of millions, even billions of years' (Thomas Berry 74), a period of extreme changes of the earth with 'no historical parallel since the geobiological transition that took place 67 million years ago when the period of the dinosaurs was terminated and a new biological age begun' (Berry 3).

Kovel describes our current stage of history as one that can be characterised by

'structural forces that systemically degrade and finally exceed the buffering capacity of nature with respect to human production, thereby setting into motion an unpredictable yet interlacing and expanding set of ecosystemic breakdowns… the desynchronization of life cycles and the disjointing of species and individuals, resulting in the fragmentation of ecosystems human as well as non-human.' (21)

This ecosystemic fragmentation reverberates throughout the entire interconnected web of life, setting off chain reactions that alter the biochemical functions of entire environmental and ecological regions as well as the psychological behavioral functioning of both human and non-human beings. Thus 'human nature' suffers exigencies symptomatically similar and perhaps systemically interconnected with the current crisis the bio-ecological 'nature'. What happens to the natural environment / ecology also happens to the human environment / psychology.

Just as there is an external ecological environment, there is also an internal 'mental' or 'cognitive' environment, a two-fold interconnected environmental system of systems engaged in mutual co-genesis (creating one another). The destruction and devastation of the environment has correlatively occurred at both the bio-ecological and mental-psychological levels, naturally, as the two are really one and the same. Any conception of two different realities, inside and out, is by its very nature illusory. We are earth incarnate—thought in motion and energy in form. In this unified understanding of the complex emergent properties of life and reality, it can be reasoned that 'social reality evolved out of the biological world' (Capra 3).

If the human social construct is a natural system, and if complexity theory tells us that in such natural systems, 'points of instability may lead to breakdowns rather than breakthroughs' (Capra 267), we might begin to imagine, though the human condition has emerged into a non-viable and unsustainable terminal manifestation, that it is only that which is by its very nature flawed that is doomed to terminate. What will live and continue on through the generations of the future will be all those aspects of humanity which do not conflict with the natural world and the laws of the universe, those human traits and qualities which are by their very nature in harmony and balance with the natural world in all its mythic wonder.
User avatar
Oscar
Administrator
Posts: 4350
Joined: Mon 15 Aug 2005 00:01

Post by Oscar »

CurlyGirl wrote:How can God logically control the ‘overall result of the combined total of human acts’ without controlling ‘the acts of every man individually’?
CurlyGirl wrote:If God is omniscient, then he must be capable of knowing AND controlling ALL of these ‘infinite possibilities’. That does not leave room for free will.
Well, if you would imagine a rat in a cage, with food, drink and a treadmill, then I would control the rat, but it would still be free to eat, drink, or go on the treadmill. In that sense there could be free will and still the outcome can be known.

And what if we are part of "God"? Then we have control too. ;)
Post Reply