From: viking@iastate.edu (Dan Sorenson)
Subject: Re: an observation
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames IA
Date: Sun, 11 Oct 1992 02:23:05 GMT

In <BvwFqE.3KE@wpg.com> russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence) writes:

>viking@iastate.edu (Dan Sorenson) writes:
>ds> God is supposedly omnipotent.  So, he could have easily
>ds> forced our human intellectual development.  He is also supposedly
>ds> omniscient, which means that he doesn't have to force us to do
>ds> anything as he already knows what we'll do.  Tense, Russ, tense.
>ds> If you aren't omniscient, you can't possibly determine just what
>ds> we will think, or when.  I believe the concept of "free agency"
>ds> as taught in most churches shows that God is probably quite willing
>ds> to let us find our own way rather than forcibly make us follow his
>ds> directions.  The analogy of humans as sheep probably wasn't done
>ds> without good reason.  Sheep can be incredibly stupid, and so can
>ds> humans.  I don't see how I've contradicted Mr. Linan's claims.
>ds> An omniscient and omnipotent god can do whatever he feels like;
>ds> neither quality is an obligation to step in and correct something.

>I think you're missing the point.  You seem to be saying that 
>statements like, "Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live", were 
>excusable because the concept of rights was unknown to humans at 
>the time such statements were transcribed.  In doing so, however, 
>you're overlooking the fundamental claim that the statements 
>were allegedly made, not by humans with finite abilities, but 
>by an omniscient god.

	No, who makes the claim in no way diminishes the fact that
we, not being omniscient, have no way of determining if the claim
is truly good or bad in a religous sense, and furthermore cannot
know if that claim was the first in a long series of steps to
impart some morality into the human race.  We also don't know
for sure if it was even made by a diety, though many believe so.

>Let's suppose that I were to paint a portrait of my neighbor
>and sign it Rembrandt van Rijn, and then proceed to tell everyone
>I know that the painting was done by the Dutch master.  If you 
>were to examine my portrait and notice that the brushwork and the 
>subject matter and lots of other qualities were totally unlike 
>those of Rembrandt, surely you would point out that my claims of 
>authenticity appear to be bogus.  It wouldn't make much sense for 
>you to say, "Well, yes it's a Rembrandt, but it just doesn't look 
>like a Rembrandt because Russ isn't a very good painter yet".  

	I've got a Stradivarius violin I'll sell ya real cheap ;-)
Not being able to recognize a true Rembrandt, I'd probably take
your claims at face value.  Perhaps our distant ancestors were in
the same boat and a diety gave the witch order so that the masses
would be conditioned to follow divine orders?  Whoever truly
knows has been dead many years; we only believe one way or the
other, and can only speculate as to the reasoning behind the claim.

>Yes, I realize that the concept of "gods" as well as ethics has 
>been changing over the years, but what good is the "word of god" 
>if it echos...  not a divine point-of-view, but the views of 
>primitive humans?  In particular, it seems hypocritical to claim 
>that a particular "god" endorses hunting, without stopping to 
>consider that the same "god" also endorsed slavery, 
>witch-killing, and a host of other activities that don't exactly 
>meet the latest standards.  

	Then you must ask which is the wrong view, those of the
primitive humans or those of the latest standards?  In addition,
we must also ask what constitutes the divine point of view?  Some
rabbi in Israel just came out saying that God doesn't want us to
eat meat anymore because he wishes us to treat animals better, yet
this is the same God that asked for animal sacrifice 2000 years ago.
Could it be that the worth of the animal has been constant, but
that the people 2000 years ago would have had a harder time believing
and continuing to believe without a good sacrifice?  It's a sick
thought, but the age of miracles and prophets seems to have passed.
Perhaps we're outgrowing the need, whatever it may be, for some of
the commandments and allowances given previously.

>And they're still evolving, Dan.  If it's true that "god" changed
>his mind about killing witches, it's quite possible that he's also
>changed his mind about killing animals... assuming that this "god"
>really does exist and wasn't simply conjured up in the minds of men.

	Would it make any difference if He was actually conjured
up?  I'd think His influence would be just the same.

>Let me ask you a question:  When you contemplate the cosmos, do you
>envision a kind of heavenly hierarchy with a "god" at the top, and
>lesser beings at the bottom?

	No.  My view is much more a continuum, such as might be
envisaged best by thinking of a sphere with the elements in each of
their various configurations freely floating about in it.  The
sphere is the Diety, the elements inside the cosmos.  Any rankings
or hierarchy of the cosmos is purely my speculation, but I like to
think that green men from Planet X, the Pope, and myself all have
the same potential for religous understanding and interpretation,
and that none of us is intrinsicly more or less valuable than the
other.  Thus, it falls to my free agency to do what I believe.

>ds> Do they lose their meaning in a human-society context or
>ds> in the context of some religous or Diety-specific context?  You
>ds> might as well complain that an afterlife is promised by one god and
>ds> not your local City Council.

>Does your mind (ie Dan Sorenson) claim the right to control its own
>body?   Would your mind be willing to forfeit its claims to someone
>who represents the God of the Sea or the God of Thunder or some another
>divinity?   If not, then it should be apparent to you that divine claims
>on humanity are antagonistic to the concept of rights that you hold
>dear.

	An interesting thought, but you have described the process known
as "speaking in tongues" and sometimes as "posession," both of which
have been praised as glorious or else to be eradicated in the Bible
depending upon who has taken posession of the body.  In any event,
if some Diety wanted control of my body He'd have to fight me for it.
Against an omnipotent diety, I don't think I'd stand a chance, and I'd
probably find out whether I'd resist or not the next time.

>rl>  In the first
>rl> statement, the speaker would be presenting his own opinion, whereas
>rl> in the second statement the speaker would be casting his own voice
>rl> into the Mouth of God the way a ventriloquist uses a dummy.

>ds> And just what do you think everybody from Brother Jed to the Pope
>ds> does?  When dealing with two entirely different things like a mortal and
>ds> a diety, just how can you possibly think the Pope or Brother Jed has a
>ds> better grasp on the wishes of that diety than you do?  ...

>I don't.   That's the whole point.   Rather than speculate on the
>wants and needs of various gods and deities, it seems to me that we
>should base our ethical judgments on facts and reason.

	Insomuch as our religous views on the wants and needs of these
various gods and dieties influences and determines our moral and ethical
codes, fact and reason have suprisingly little to do with making an
ethical choice.  One example of this is the death penalty.  Statistically,
those who have a history of violence will continue to be violent.  Thus,
killing them after, say, three violent crimes is the logical thing to
do so as to best avoid their inflicting pain and hardship on others.  Just
incarcerating them inflicts hardship upon those who must pay for their
care and feeding.  Ethically, can we exact "an eye for an eye?"  It's
not the logical choice, but how this gets applied very rarely falls to
logic and facts as the emotional call is quite powerful.

	You'll be happy to note that the overwhelming urge was to use
the abortion debate as an example, but reason and logic prevailed. ;-)

<Dan Sorenson, DoD #1066 |"I see angels on Ariels in leather and>
<z1dan@exnet.iastate.edu | chrome, Swooping down from heaven to >
<viking@iastate.edu      | carry me home."   ---    R. Thompson >
<ISU thinks I need more education, which they provide for a fee.>
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals