tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8387588.post116534133571402956..comments2023-10-18T03:53:59.377-04:00Comments on The Last Debate: Book Review: The Case for FaithAndyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13524483460829802534noreply@blogger.comBlogger45125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8387588.post-1165620689627440792006-12-08T18:31:00.000-05:002006-12-08T18:31:00.000-05:00Elizabeth--Nice! Yes, we had some equity at closi...Elizabeth--Nice! Yes, we had some equity at closing, too ... it's a beautiful thing.<BR/>Yes, #4 on the way.<BR/>Homeschooling: that's great! I considered it, but after having fifth and sixthtoughts decided I hadn't the energy ;).Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8387588.post-1165588652226545942006-12-08T09:37:00.000-05:002006-12-08T09:37:00.000-05:00Oh, Steve, never ever apologize for complexity. I...Oh, Steve, never <I>ever</I> apologize for complexity. If only more people had complex questions and were willing to hang around for complex answers.Andyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13524483460829802534noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8387588.post-1165552506506231032006-12-07T23:35:00.000-05:002006-12-07T23:35:00.000-05:00Hah, sorry for the complexity (again) Andy! It se...Hah, sorry for the complexity (again) Andy! It seems to be a bad habit of mine.<BR/><BR/>I look forward to future posts (and debates!)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8387588.post-1165523532710065012006-12-07T15:32:00.000-05:002006-12-07T15:32:00.000-05:00KR--it's the Interstate FM we'll be next to. And ...KR--it's the Interstate FM we'll be next to. And we've already, at closing, got about 25% equity--it appraised at 64k over what we're paying for it! We are jazzed. And we homeschool so we don't worry about schools. :-)<BR/><BR/>4th child? Expecting now? Congrats! (But I'm glad to be out of the small-child phase!)Elizabethhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14577327080587108034noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8387588.post-1165504772489088342006-12-07T10:19:00.000-05:002006-12-07T10:19:00.000-05:00FG: I never said it was, though there are some (CS...FG: I never said it was, though there are some (CS Lewis, for example) who make strong arguments.<BR/><BR/>Why are we still talking about proof or the lack thereof? The lack of proof one way or another means that God remains an objective possibility.<BR/><BR/>Steve: Well, again you raise incredibly complex issues that just can't be satisfactorily answered in a couple of short sentences. Suffice it to say, people of faith are not in universal agreement about stem cells, euthanasia, abortion, gay marriage, etc. Most of us are wrestling with it just like everyone else. Case in point: in today's NY Times, there's one story about Christian conservatives up in arms over Mary Cheney's baby and another about how Conservative Judaism will now approve gay rabbis and same-sex (but not interfaith) marriage.Andyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13524483460829802534noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8387588.post-1165465044199741312006-12-06T23:17:00.000-05:002006-12-06T23:17:00.000-05:00the possibility that morality is arose from and wa...the possibility that morality is arose from and was key to evolutionary development does not mean God was not involved somehow.<BR/><BR/>But it does mean that he might not have been, thus, human morality is not proof of god. It could easily have evolved as a survival mechanism, without any divine intervention.Willhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12562625602966956096noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8387588.post-1165464820199007122006-12-06T23:13:00.000-05:002006-12-06T23:13:00.000-05:00This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.Willhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12562625602966956096noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8387588.post-1165463321032747392006-12-06T22:48:00.000-05:002006-12-06T22:48:00.000-05:00Abortion is a tough one because there is no exact ...Abortion is a tough one because there is no exact distinction between "clump of cells" and "human being." Euthanasia, however, is a different story entirely. What could possibly be immoral about reduction of suffering, especially if the victim chose the service themselves? My aim in life is simple: reduce suffering. If this involves allowing a suffering person a merciful and painless way out, then so be it. Prolonging the inevitable is, in my opinion, simply torture.<BR/><BR/>This is what is mildly annoying to me about many religious viewpoints; they have a way of twisting seemingly rational things into immoral acts. Read: stem cell research, homosexual tolerance, euthanasia, etc. None of these instances involve any actual suffering; in every case, they involve the reduction of suffering. Whenever you convince a large amount of people of the facts that a) believing for the sake of believing with absolutely no evidence is a virtue and b) the word of God is final, you have just created an incredibly dangerous group of people. Read: extremist muslims, anti-gay marriage proponents, the bombing of abortion clinics, etc.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8387588.post-1165462902106648562006-12-06T22:41:00.000-05:002006-12-06T22:41:00.000-05:00Little Cicero, these social ills you point to are ...Little Cicero, these social ills you point to are universally at their highest rates in America in the Bible Belt red states.Andyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13524483460829802534noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8387588.post-1165461845359617732006-12-06T22:24:00.000-05:002006-12-06T22:24:00.000-05:00You do know that in these morally superior countri...You do know that in these morally superior countries they are carrying out "euthanasia" on the mentally deformed, in addition to horrendous abortion rates, promiscuity, prostitution and sexual sin. Looking at Great Britain, their violent crime rates in large cities areas bad as or worse than American cities.<BR/><BR/>All in all it is hard to calculate the condition of souls on a society-wide scale, but in my judgement that comment is completely out of sync with reality.tullyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01197709180292694356noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8387588.post-1165457244942267752006-12-06T21:07:00.000-05:002006-12-06T21:07:00.000-05:00OH! I remember the other thing I wanted to addres...OH! I remember the other thing I wanted to address.<BR/><BR/><I>Now consider the most secular societies (Denmark, Sweden, etc.); they generally tend to be significantly more moral.</I><BR/><BR/>1) secularism based on rationalism based on the assumption of a rational God (Denmark and Sweden being,you know, mythologically cultural hotbeds of rationality--not! ... some credit for the transition from Thor et al to secularism probably due here)<BR/><BR/>2) none of us will know for sure until (if there is a God+afterlife) after we die, but if abortion in fact is a moral evil (a killing of the most innocent and defenseless humans, rather than a convenient service for older humans), these societies? Not so high on the moral scale. Euthanasia, also becoming more accepted in Western cultures, also something to be considered ... we maybe just have much more subtle ways of being evil, cloaked in the excuses of secular scientism rather than in ugly religious justifications.<BR/><BR/>It's alll self-serving.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8387588.post-1165453821026117922006-12-06T20:10:00.000-05:002006-12-06T20:10:00.000-05:00Re: morality and cooperation, are you trying to ge...Re: morality and cooperation, are you trying to get me to insist that these things could only have arisen because of God? I wouldn't say that. This is not as strong an argument as you apparently think it is, because the possibility that morality is arose from and was key to evolutionary development does not mean God was not involved somehow.Andyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13524483460829802534noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8387588.post-1165453658608275162006-12-06T20:07:00.000-05:002006-12-06T20:07:00.000-05:00Dagon sweetie, God, being eternal, does not have a...Dagon sweetie, God, being eternal, does not have a "beginning" and therefore does not require a "cause."Andyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13524483460829802534noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8387588.post-1165449335176817542006-12-06T18:55:00.000-05:002006-12-06T18:55:00.000-05:00"Hey, what caused that God?""Nothing, He just happ..."Hey, what caused that God?"<BR/><BR/>"Nothing, He just happened."<BR/><BR/>"You're crazy."XXhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14208639257190934532noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8387588.post-1165448453262727732006-12-06T18:40:00.000-05:002006-12-06T18:40:00.000-05:00actually no, do unto others and other moral standa...<I>actually no, do unto others and other moral standards cannot be explained by evolution because they are absolutely 100% counter-Darwinian. Why, if our sole "purpose" is the propagation of our own genes, would we place so much cultural emphasis on defense of the weak, the oppressed, the marginalized?</I><BR/><BR/>The study of ecology suggests that community is a vital to the health of ecosystems. A forest ecosystem is one big cooperative community. Trees produce sugars through photosynthesis and take nutrients from the soil. Fungi take the sugars from the trees and produce the nutrients. Animals eat the fruit of the tree and spread the seeds. Insects and microbes aid in the process of decay, returning nutrients to the soil, etc. etc. <BR/><BR/>It is a fallacy to assume that evolution means some sort of endless struggle for domination. There are struggles, death, decay and destruction, but they generally fit into a much bigger picture of birth, death, and renewal.<BR/><BR/>As for human community, it makes a lot of sense from an evolutionary perspective to be cooperative. Our species would not survive if we did not take care of our most vulnerable: children. Our children are basically defenseless for years, longer than any other mammal, so it makes sense that we would evolve bigger brains and friendly communities to take care of them. With the bigger brains would come language, religion, and morality.Willhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12562625602966956096noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8387588.post-1165442814413366772006-12-06T17:06:00.000-05:002006-12-06T17:06:00.000-05:00Christian intellectual scrutiny of the types you m...<I>Christian intellectual scrutiny of the types you might respect tends to be long, technical, and terribly boring to anyone not interested in the point at hand. It makes horrible "news" and is practically unquotable.</I><BR/><BR/>I'm SO quoting that later. Well done.Andyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13524483460829802534noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8387588.post-1165441810396929412006-12-06T16:50:00.000-05:002006-12-06T16:50:00.000-05:00Spanish Inquisition: not generally supported by th...Spanish Inquisition: not generally supported by the rest of Christian Europe (in fact condemned by lots of folks, in and out of the heirarchy). People actually shared tricks for ending up in the church courts instead of the King's courts, because they were far more lenient (being inherently less interested in ethinic cleansing and power consolidation).<BR/><BR/>Andy answered the religious-badness vs. a-religious badness question. (20th c sucked.)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8387588.post-1165441139066006722006-12-06T16:38:00.000-05:002006-12-06T16:38:00.000-05:00Catholic dogma does not include six day creation, ...Catholic dogma does not include six day creation, as was clarified specifically by that well-known paragon of progressive teaching, John Paul II. (Actually, in many ways, he was a paragon of progressive teaching, but yes that was tongue-in-cheek ;). )<BR/><BR/>And Catholic dogma includes inerrancy but not literalism. Steve, I am SOOOOO not going to get into that, catholic.com probably has some shortish coherent articles available if you care, most people don't.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8387588.post-1165440658831136912006-12-06T16:30:00.001-05:002006-12-06T16:30:00.001-05:00So let me get this straight (and this is a paraphr...<I>So let me get this straight (and this is a paraphrase from Dawkins): God acted as the judge, jury, and execution victim in attonement for a sin committed by a metaphor. Try to intellectually scrutinize that!</I><BR/><BR/>Y'know, Steve, the thing of it is, we HAVE been trying to intellectually scrutinize that for as long as it has been part of our history. Doesn't make sense; lots of Christians have noted that; it's inscrutibility is the source of the troubling "just believe" thoughtset.<BR/><BR/>And yet, an awful lot of the witnesses to Jesus were willing to live inglorious lives of hardship and social revilement and die horrible deaths because something he said or did convinced them he was worth that, and they were so believable that literally thousands of others followed them, and thousands more followed them. Can't say humans are always rational, but that's a little over the top on the irrational-belief scale, don't you think? At least suicide bombers have the assumption that their society will laud them and that their suffering will be brief.<BR/><BR/>(Obviously after Christianity became Establishment the question gets less pertinent--but then, generally the believing got less adamant, too.)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8387588.post-1165440626068923142006-12-06T16:30:00.000-05:002006-12-06T16:30:00.000-05:00Steve: intellectual scrutinyIn Western culture, m...Steve: intellectual scrutiny<BR/><BR/>In Western culture, most universities and schools were founded by the Christians you accuse of not being comforatble with intellectual scrutiny. More to the point, they were founded and justified because of the firm Christian belief in a rational God, who created a rational world, which can be at least partly discovered with our rational minds.<BR/><BR/>This is a belief that I COMPLETELY admit lots of Christians (historically and currently) either never understood or prefer not to bother with--but it is implied in all of the internicene theological bickering that even the least scientifically rational Christians seem to love. There are sects of Christians for whom "belief" is "enough" ... until they discover that (of course) it ISN'T, and they have nothing to fall back on when challenged by an experience they (/their cult) cannot intellectually account for.<BR/><BR/>In any case, all that not-very-solid thinking <BR/>1) makes better "news"-fodder (riles up the masses on both sides, sells papers)<BR/>2) is generally based on emotional need-to-believe, and so yes, is often clearly anti-rational or at least less-rational<BR/>3) is often firmly supported by one's social group, making seeing the other side much harder<BR/><BR/>Andy and I both grew up in an intellectual environment not supportive of our (really quite separate, although the differences rarely emerge here) belief systems, and live in intellectual environments that are generally hostile towards our belief systems (he, Manhattan, I, urban Portland, Oregon).<BR/><BR/>Intellectual scrutiny, speaking for myself, is all I have ever lived with--imposed by situation, chosen when I chose my friends (and unthinking Catholics are NOT among the people I've ever preferred to hang out with), chosen when I run up against morally challenging situations, chosen when I see a new aspect of my life that is an assumption rather than a chosen belief. Chosen because my parents graduated from Caltech, and one is atheist and one is theist. Chosen because I, and many people (both theist and non-) that I know personally or know of, "see" a lot of stuff that "science" generally refuses to look at.<BR/><BR/>Intellectual scrutiny goes both ways. I have friends who have told me that they hold the possibility of spiritual reality open only because they were effectively challenged by me--and at risk of sounding stuck up (in fact this is only the truth, and one which I am even still uncomfortable with), these friends and I are the among the creamiest of the intellectual cream of the crop.<BR/><BR/>Christian intellectual scrutiny of the types you might respect tends to be long, technical, and terribly boring to anyone not interested in the point at hand. It makes horrible "news" and is practically unquotable. Like all solid academic intellectual scrutiny, actually, which rides with so many caveats and endnotes that any short blurb almost has to misrepresent the whole work. ('Love those articles where the "abstract" takes up most of a page : P. Be a lot easier if one could just say, "Proves 1 + 1 = 2," without having to mention what takes up the 568 pages or whatever it was when somebody finally did that in the 80s.)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8387588.post-1165439531507870852006-12-06T16:12:00.000-05:002006-12-06T16:12:00.000-05:00mxnbgiMy church does not teach "creation vs evolut...mxnbgi<I>My church does not teach "creation vs evolution." </I><BR/><BR/>I decided, even after this horrendously long post that no one except KR, *maybe* Raindog and hopefully Steve are still reading, that this needed further explanation in order for me to be clear what I meant.<BR/><BR/>In the Anglican Church, we are not really hung up on the literal infallibility of scripture. Episcopalians like myself believe the lessons we are to take from Genesis are not meant to be scientific.Andyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13524483460829802534noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8387588.post-1165437227296128552006-12-06T15:33:00.000-05:002006-12-06T15:33:00.000-05:00Oof. A big problem, of course, in defending faith...Oof. A big problem, of course, in defending faith from skeptics is that the nonbelievers have a large arsenal of significant arguments; the responses are necessarily complex to the extent that in order to full answer this barrage of concerns I would have to write something that, at a minimum, would span several pages in order to avoid oversimplification. Nonetheless, I will attempt, as before, to refute at least a couple of your points here. Most effectively, if you really want to have this conversation, then I hope you'll stick around and continue to read me and raise each point as they (will inevitably) apply to future posts, and focus on one issue at a time.<BR/><BR/>So, here we go:<BR/><BR/><I>It is our societaly-inflicted morals (brought about through group evolution) that encourage individuals to sacrifice and give without receiving.</I><BR/><BR/>Bizarre choice of words. You think that selflessness is something that has been <I>inflicted</I> upon the world by religion (as a social phenomenon related to evolution)? Well, then, that sounds to me like a good argument that even if there <I>isn't</I> a God, religion has brought important and beneficial values to our world.<BR/><BR/><I>recipricol altruism is slightly different than pure altruism in that it expects something in return down the line</I><BR/><BR/>Well, then it's not altruism. Period. Let's say I gave money and wrote letters to congress urging action on the situation in Darfur. What is it, exactly, that I could expect the Sudanese refugees to <I>ever</I> do for me in return? I'm not following you here. Furthermore, the Gospel condemns this reciprocity you're talking about: it is more blessed to give than to receive, among other tenets.<BR/><BR/>On the origins of the universe, you seem to be mistaking Christian fundamentalism for mainstream Christian theology, which is an enormous objective error. You seem to be under the impression that if the creation of the world as stated by Genesis is untrue (which it is, in a literal sense), then everything that follows is untrue, but this is specious reasoning, not least because -- as you later point out -- most Christians regard Genesis as metaphorical. (Even so, I might add three things: the ancient Hebrews of 3,000 years ago could not possibly have comprehended the origin of the universe as we understand it today; the Bible was not intended to be a biology textbook; of all the earth's creation myths, this one is actually closest to what really happened).<BR/><BR/>Likewise, this "God of the Gaps" idea is utilized only by Christians who fear critical thinking and the atheists who fear them. One of my favorite quotes that I use frequently on this blog is, "We get nowhere by labeling our ignorance God." My argument is not: you can't explain the origin of the Big Bang, therefore the cause <I>must</I> be God. My argument is simply, as I said before, since you cannot disprove the existence of God, you must objectively accept the possibility of God, and the probability of such existence is no less unlikely that the universe developed in any of the ways you suggest, especially since, as you admit, <I>our theories on the subject are not wholly provable at this point</I>. I am merely pointing out that you are holding people of faith to a higher standard of probability than you hold yourself.<BR/><BR/>The intellectual traditions of Christianity to which I refer tend to the philosophical, rather than laboratory science. Augustine, Aquinas, Bonhoeffer, CS Lewis, Da Vinci, Galileo...these are not mental lightweights. There is reality beyond the empirical.<BR/><BR/>Speaking of CS Lewis, in <I>Mere Christianity</I> I seem to recall he had a really good explanation for why the crucifixion was not as "easy" or pointless for God as you suggest. I'll have to brush up on that.<BR/><BR/>Why did he come down at all? Well, you may claim that morality is merely a product of evolution, and they may in fact be universally shared values, but as reader KR pointed out a few posts back, the teachings of Christ -- most especially "do unto others" -- sure don't seem very intuitive when you look around at the world in which we live. Frankly, I think the better argument to make is that the Darwinian survivalist instincts are what lead us to acts of depravity, and that religion counters those instincts by teaching respect for our fellow inhabitants of creation that otherwise would not exist. Do unto others may be a universal value or aspiration, but it's not even remotely a common practice.<BR/><BR/>You misunderstand original sin, which is not a surprise since most Christians do, too. Original sin is not sex or "mere existence," but this belief that we do not need a God, least of all in order to determine for ourselves what is right and what is wrong, that there is no objective morality. You say rape is wrong and point to heartless Darwinian arguments about the survival of a species; I say rape is wrong because I believe that each person is special and sacred, and that sexual intimacy is special and sacred, and to violate both individual and sexual sanctity with violence is an objective moral error, and not merely because there are practical arguments as to why that might be bad for the social group.<BR/><BR/><I>There are countless passages in the Bible condoning truely horrific deeds</I><BR/><BR/>Ehhh....yes and no. Christianity is based on the Gospel, which in no wise condones violence of any kind. Now, presumably you're referring to the Old Testament. History, as we know, is written by the victors. Much of the Old Testament is the "official" history of the rulers; I subscribe to the idea that kings like David had the histories written this way to justify their accession and their wars as "God's will." If you read the New Testament, you see why these acts could not possibly have been God's will. *That* largely answers your question about why Jesus even had to come at all: we were getting God SERIOUSLY wrong. (And we still are, but now we have less excuse in that the Gospel is there for all to read.)<BR/><BR/><I>we are attempting to refine our concept of morality through thought and contemplation. </I><BR/><BR/>Yup. Christians are still doing that. Contemplation is a synonym for prayer. To take one issue: homosexuality. Many Christians -- myself included -- are advancing scripturally based arguments in favor of the essential perfection of God's creation (including innate sexual orientation) and the sanctity and value of all humanity. Millions of Christians in a variety of denominations are now advocating a Biblical case for the equality of gay people and relationships; Conservative Judaism is doing the same, following in the footsteps of Reform Judaism, in which homosexuality is no longer much of an issue. Remember also that the greatest American civil rights hero of the 20th century was a minister who demanded Christians take a fresh look at Scripture with regard to racism and slavery.<BR/><BR/><I>it generally tends to be the most religious societies that commit the greatest atrocities</I><BR/><BR/>Objectively not so. The 20th century was the most violent of all; the greatest atrocities were committed by the USSR (enforced atheism) and Nazi Germany (which, contrary to popular rumor, did not exterminate Jews because of religious conviction but rather based on the advancement of "scientific" evidence of their racial inferiority; Hitler imprisoned and executed many Christians who stood against him).<BR/><BR/>That's not to deny the criminality and amorality of the crusades, the Inquisition, the Salem witch trials, etc. But to say Christianity is to blame is to not understand what the Gospel says. These acts were a perversion of Christ's teaching. They are not defensible. They were not Christian acts. Condemn the moral failures of Christians as individuals, but you can't condemn Christianity for condoning the behavior because, in fact, it does not.<BR/><BR/><I>there is evidence to disprove specific religious teachings (creation vs. evolution)</I> Now, as an Episcopalian, I belong to the second largest Christian denomination in the world, after Catholicism. My church does not teach "creation vs evolution."Andyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13524483460829802534noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8387588.post-1165437119457426582006-12-06T15:31:00.000-05:002006-12-06T15:31:00.000-05:00Elizabeth--Ah, well, can't win 'em all. Guess it'...Elizabeth--Ah, well, can't win 'em all. Guess it's a good thing you weren't here fifteen years ago ;)!<BR/><BR/>NoPo, no kidding? We've been here six years, probably moving this summer tho'. (Fourth kid = bigger house and better schools needed.) Interstate Freddies is WAY better than St Johns; not sure which you'll live next to. COngrats on your new house, may you see the 100% appreciation we have seen on ours, while enjoying living in it ;).Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8387588.post-1165436229824638522006-12-06T15:17:00.000-05:002006-12-06T15:17:00.000-05:00DJR: hey, loverboy, I've missed you too ;). I'm o...DJR: hey, loverboy, I've missed you too ;). I'm on an even keel this week, thought I'd participate before I veer off again.<BR/>d'ja read my random thoughts on that archived post? thought you might like them :).<BR/>I knew you weren't a Pascal-ite really. 's why I toned down my initial response when I typed that one ;).<BR/><BR/>Steve:<BR/>YAY! Another thinker! Love it.<BR/><BR/><I>group evolution</I><BR/>see, and you even note right there that it is hotly debated. That rocks. (My comments on assisted suicide, above, of course reflect my perception that group evolution makes reasonable sense to me.)<BR/><BR/><BR/>"Do unto": From your post on the archived blog: <I>It is an expression of an innate human condition of reciprical altruism, and not a "law" created by God.</I><BR/><BR/>I still stand by my assertion there, though, that "do unto others," while lots of more-enlightened folks might have constructed it in lots of different places (thank goodness--if you'll excuse the expression ;) ), is not observably a common human behavior in history or what little we can suss out of pre-history. <BR/><BR/>Essential to our survival as a species? Yep, it's looking like it. We haven't been terribly successful at inculcating this apparently necessary teaching, though, which suggests that even if it is a "natural" development of evolution (via social development and our powers of analysis), we are naturally rejecting it in favor of less-effective survival tactics. Sux to be us. (Laughably, perhaps there is here somewhere an argument for the usefulness of some religion, as religion seems to be the only vehicle via which people accept that teaching in any large numbers!)<BR/><BR/>Totally agree with it being somehow inherent ("innate") in being "human;" not so much seeing that we own it by physical-natural means. (Natural means other than physical, maybe ... but science is pointedly ignoring those this last couple of centuries, so we'll have to wait and see.) Observing and giving a fancy name to a (hopefully) universal pattern does not mean you (or Dawkins) understand it, any more than our calling it a gift from God means we understand it. (I'd be surprised if Andy would call it primarily a Law of God--I would only do so in the sense that I consider laws of physics to be laws of God.)<BR/><BR/>"Do unto" seems to have been applied fairly successfully within self-defined groups (tribe, family, nation, "race") but not generally--not naturally, not instinctively, not intuitively--to all of humanity. Hence Jesus' Good Samaritan parable, and I'm sure other similar teachings in other traditions (I make no argument that Christians have a monopoly on enlightenment, and in fact assume, with my church and the Pope, that we don't).<BR/><BR/>Within the Bible we can clearly trace some moral developments, and I don't remember reading about other cultures where "do unto" wasn't a _development_. (It's been awhile since I've had time, but I used to read a lot of archaeological stuff.) I suspect that's the very reason we find it recorded in so many places--it was worth recording, needed to be "taught."<BR/><BR/>You see the vehicle as some especially (naturally) analytical people seeing a necessary survival step and trying to teach/impose it. I see that a lot of smart well educated people here in this culture (where we theoretically need not fear death as much as all previous peoples everywhere ever), still don't think this is an important--nay, vital--tenet. (Say, all the Cheney-type Republicans, just for the most obvious group.)<BR/><BR/>If one believes in God (and I strenuously object to your assertion that one must deny empirical evidence to so believe--my empirical experince would suggest quite the opposite, but then not everyone has shared my experience*), it is not unreasonable that God helped things along a bit in the interest of mitigating the degree of destruction we would visit upon ourselves before the teaching became self-evident.<BR/><BR/>* Insanity is sometimes seeing things that are not there--and it's sometimes denying things that are. One of my favorite sayings: Reality is that which does not change, even if you want it to. ;).Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8387588.post-1165434724470828712006-12-06T14:52:00.000-05:002006-12-06T14:52:00.000-05:00Andy, I think you just need to move back to Portla...Andy, I think you just need to move back to Portland. There are much cooler stores than Fred Meyer, and much more fun to shop in! And KR--I've only lived here a year. The very first time I stepped into one was while we were here looking for a house to rent. I had heard such good things! And we were so disappointed! That said, we are moving on Monday to a house we've bought that's just, like, two blocks from the North Portland Fred Meyers. I can foresee sending my kids over there to get stuff I've forgotten, since they can walk there. And probably some late-night shopping there will also occur.Elizabethhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14577327080587108034noreply@blogger.com