I was cleaning up my computer when I came across an old comment from Dan and my reply. Instead of deleting them, I thought I would just post them late.
Dan said,
I do not purport to be an atheist (maybe an agnostic) but there are plenty of other examples of nurturing and love in the biological world. The elephant herd caring for their young as a group and even morning their dead. How about whole colonies of ants that work together for a common goal. The animal world does not often see a member of a species killing one of its own. But we, god-believing humans do it all the time? How does that fit in to your comments? I think the idea of God is independent from love. The intricacies and extent of love is what makes us human, not what makes us Christian, Jew, Muslim or Atheist. Being advanced enough to follow a self-regulated (or at least societal regulated) moral code.
Good points, but I question some of their logic. Do elephants really love their young? Do they really mourn their dead? Or is that simply an application of the “societal moral code” in which we are immersed? Its like when a person attributes the clicks and sounds of a dolphin into human language, “I am hungry”, I am excitied”. The wag of a dog’s tail meaning he is glad to see you. How can we attribute human feelings to an animal that we know nothing of its thought process? Ants working on a common goal is totally irelavant to the idea of love. It is simply an efficient method towards survival.
Animals not killing their own could as easily be related to the fact that they have no true emotions. I am assuming you are a believer in evolution. If this is so, than it should make sense that there is no advantage to killing another if it does not directly benefit your odds of moving your genes to the next generation, which is the backbone of evolution. This goes without mentioning bears who eat their young, spiders and insects who eat their mates, chimpanzees who eat whoever is in their way…
In your argument you also say that God is independent of love, if this is so, what is the idea of God? Simply an organizer? Just the force that got the ball rolling? Or is your argument saying that there is no God. That we, humans, are the ones must tie all of the intricate strings of this world together, making us all Gods onto ourselves? If this is true, there is no truly correct moral or societal code. Just a decision for each person. Love is only a choice of a particular human, making choice to love murder is no better than the love of kindness; since each person is to be advanced enough to decide the moral code for themselves.
I do not purport to be an atheist (maybe an agnostic) but there are plenty of other examples of nurturing and love in the biological world. The elephant herd caring for their young as a group and even morning their dead. How about whole colonies of ants that work together for a common goal. The animal world does not often see a member of a species killing one of its own. But we, god-believing humans do it all the time? How does that fit in to your comments? I think the idea of God is independent from love. The intricacies and extent of love is what makes us human, not what makes us Christian, Jew, Muslim or Atheist. Being advanced enough to follow a self-regulated (or at least societal regulated) moral code.
Good points, but I question some of their logic. Do elephants really love their young? Do they really mourn their dead? Or is that simply an application of the “societal moral code” in which we are immersed? Its like when a person attributes the clicks and sounds of a dolphin into human language, “I am hungry”, I am excitied”. The wag of a dog’s tail meaning he is glad to see you. How can we attribute human feelings to an animal that we know nothing of its thought process? Ants working on a common goal is totally irelavant to the idea of love. It is simply an efficient method towards survival.
Animals not killing their own could as easily be related to the fact that they have no true emotions. I am assuming you are a believer in evolution. If this is so, than it should make sense that there is no advantage to killing another if it does not directly benefit your odds of moving your genes to the next generation, which is the backbone of evolution. This goes without mentioning bears who eat their young, spiders and insects who eat their mates, chimpanzees who eat whoever is in their way…
In your argument you also say that God is independent of love, if this is so, what is the idea of God? Simply an organizer? Just the force that got the ball rolling? Or is your argument saying that there is no God. That we, humans, are the ones must tie all of the intricate strings of this world together, making us all Gods onto ourselves? If this is true, there is no truly correct moral or societal code. Just a decision for each person. Love is only a choice of a particular human, making choice to love murder is no better than the love of kindness; since each person is to be advanced enough to decide the moral code for themselves.
2 comments:
my, imagine trying to read that early on Monday
good luck settling it
when you are done, may we have a picture of a cornfield?
Geez, that was awhile ago. I think I was just trying to say that God and morals are not mutually exclusive. Meaning, you do not need to "have" one to "have' the other. This statement is in direct opposition to many Americans who misguidingly attribute atheism to lack of moral grounding.
Obviously there are religious zealots who do not show compassion towards their fellow man, and I guess what I was trying to say that love can exist without God, in humans certainly, but in the natural world as well. Maybe it is a stretch to say animals have morals... but "kind emotions" at least? (I'm scratching my head here, hoping I have not lost what the original topic was) (oh well) (getting a headache).
And I know you well enough to know that you are only playing devil's advocate with the whole "how do we know animals have emotions" thing. You're not getting me this time.
Post a Comment