From: russ@wpg.com (Russell Lawrence)
Subject: Re: an observation
Organization: WP Group
Date: Sat, 10 Oct 1992 09:30:12 GMT


Dan Sorenson writes:
ds> Just a nit, Russ, but rights are a fairly new concept.  At
ds> the time the Bible was written, human rights were not known nor
ds> even contemplated in most areas.  What you had was privlidge, based
ds> almost solely on power...

Russell Lawrence writes:
rl> I agree that rights are a fairly new concept for us humans, but this
rl> limitation would hardly apply to Mike Linan's omniscient "god"...

Dan Sorenson replies
ds>  That God did not exist as a human concept until about 2000
ds> years ago, and you'll kindly note that power is what kept the other
ds> gods alive for several hundred years thereafter.

Russell Lawrence writes:
rl> You're contradicting Mr. Linan's claims.  He says that his "god" 
rl> is omniscient, created both non-human animals and mankind, 
rl> and is all-powerful.  If such a "god" truly exists, he would not 
rl> be limited by the restraints of human intellectual development.  
rl> On the other hand, if this "god" is the product of the human 
rl> imagination, then it's inappropriate to invoke his dictates as a 
rl> rationale for our abuse or misuse of other individuals.

From article <viking.718695604@vincent2.iastate.edu>, by viking@iastate.edu (Dan Sorenson):
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.

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".  

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.  

rl> It seems to me that a benevolent, omniscient "god" would have 
rl> taught his creatures to honor the thoughts and feelings of other 
rl> thinking/feeling individuals instead of giving them contrary 
rl> commandments to hamper their development.

ds> If you study the Bible and Koran, you'll find that the laws 
ds> therein differ significantly over time and region.  While you 
ds> might find it unnerving that there are variables in moral code, I 
ds> find it quite refreshing to see that morals have evolved just as 
ds> humans have.  

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.

rl> The notion of the "chain of being" lost much of its power 
rl> during the political turmoil of the 17th century and this set the 
rl> stage for the development of both scientific thinking as well as 
rl> the concept of rights.  

ds> I'd like to hear more of this "chain of being" you mention.
ds> I've never heard of it, and I've had more than a passing education
ds> in many Christian and most popular religions.

Read A.O. Lovejoy's book, _The Great Chain of Being_, for starters.

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?

ds> Really, though, this isn't relevant.

rl> Yes it is.  And Mike Linan's notions about the dictates of his 
rl> ...  And Mike Linan's notions about the dictates of his 
rl> "god" illustrate the relativity quite plainly.  If the bodies of 
rl> animals, both human and non-human are the rightful property of 
rl> "gods", rather than the minds contained within the bodies of 
rl> those animals, then the concept of "rights" loses its meaning.  

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.

ds>  No more a shame than, "Sodomy shall be a felony offense within
ds> the borders of the state of Mississippi."  This is not a quote,
ds> just a plausible example.

rl> I disagree.  It's one thing if Dan Sorenson says, "We ought to kill
rl> all the stupid republicans."  It's far less honest, and/or far
rl> more hypocritical, if Dan Sorenson says, "I was talking with God this
rl> morning and He says we must kill the republicans".  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.

-- 
Russell Lawrence, WP Group, New Orleans (504) 443-5000
russ@wpg.com   uunet!wpg!russ
Newsgroups: talk.politics.animals