xenogere

7 Responses to “Random Thought: October 7, 2005”

1. 

   jason
   

   Oct 08, 2005

   Yes, it does follow the same line of reasoning. And, while the quote was a direct reference to Christianity, the scope of the problem now extends much further than that. But a significant amount of the blame for this falls squarely at the feet of Judeo-Christian beliefs.

   The premise that nature has no intrinsic value except to provide for man is heavily anthropocentric in disposition. This is a common problem with Judeo-Christian values as they teach followers to disparage all non-human aspects of nature as commodities available, by the grace of god, for the sole purpose of serving man.

   Their traditional view of creation is precisely that it was planned in every detail specifically for man’s use and edification and for no other purpose whatsoever. This is essentially a doctrine of anthropocentric dominion. This means the Judeo-Christian approach to nature is generally ecologically bankrupt. One could hope that through time this view might change. While it has to some degree, it is still one of the founding beliefs of both religions and heavily taught as part of the creation myth.

   That means impressionable people who are indoctrinated into these faiths (especially those at an early age) learn that you need not respect nature at all since it is nothing more than a gift to man to use in whatever way is desired.

   It is for this reason that I wonder how damaging it will be to both creeds when life is discovered elsewhere in the universe, whether that be on Mars, Europa, or altogether outside of our solar system. Since the bible makes no reference to such life (or, for that matter, to the existence of any “land” or “sea” or “sky” beyond our own planet; oops), these dogmas will be faced with a cataclysmic truth: the universe doesn’t center around humans at all.

   While that may help in the future, until then we have to suffer the continuing ecological destruction wrought by the blatant and consuming Judeo-Christian belief that humans are the crux of life and the natural order of the universe is that all things exist to serve us.

   Reply to this comment
2. 

   jenny
   

   Oct 08, 2005

   The line I was specifically trying to dig up from my feeble brain was something like thou shalt have dominion over all the earth and all the creatures in it. Or something like that. As far as life in other places, on other planets, I think that once life is found elsewhere in the universe, the christians will simply ‘determine’ that this was also put there for our use. They can go back and say that some Hebrew word actually means blah blah, they’re big on that. (In my experience). So they’ll just ‘re-interpret’ the word for earth to now mean world, all the known world, so it includes all those other planets. They have no understanding of science I’ve decided, and it’s easier to just believe it was all just made viola! overnight for us. Like these tours now in the Grand Canyon where some groups see that as Creationism at work. Unbelievable.

   Reply to this comment
3. 

   jason
   

   Oct 08, 2005

   You’re referring to Genesis 1:27-28:

   So God created man in his [own] image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

   And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.

   That’s what I was referring to when I said it was part of the creation myth, although I hadn’t thought to pull the actual verses to substantiate my assertion.

   Both Judaism and Christianity share the book of Genesis.

   You’re probably right about life on other planets so long as it’s not intelligent. I suppose my hope is on discovering intelligent life as that would incontrovertibly demonstrate that the bible cannot possibly represent the truth since, according to its own words, humans are the pinnacle of creation and the only creature made in god’s image. That, we assume, means intelligence and free will.

   While I subscribe to the premise that we’ve already discovered other intelligent life right here on our own planet (dolphins and whales, for instance), that won’t work for this exercise since they exist on our planet and, as we’ve said, anything here is secondary to man and serves no purpose save the folly of humans. Perhaps, should sentient life be found elsewhere, a reality check would be necessary for those who believe that the universe centers on us.

   Yes, the Grand Canyon thing (one of many examples) is disgusting. That anyone could deny the factual science we already know to be true (carbon dating, geology, etc.) and instead attempt to make excuses for any creation myth is undeniably absurd and laughable. The facts are clear: we can demonstrate through carbon dating that the Grand Canyon was not created a few thousand years ago; we can demonstrate through geology the process which is responsible for the rock formations; we have on video examples of the natural ongoing erosion that has cut the Grand Canyon into the face of the planet. To deny these things is to be dishonest (and I thought that was against religion…) and to inflict a great injustice on those being brainwashed by such nonsense.

   Reply to this comment
4. 

   jenny
   

   Oct 08, 2005

   I know, and what baffles me is that people believe that stuff, creationism. I am just dumb-founded. But reasonable seeming people (in my own family no less!) with college educations, with some traveling, with some exposure to other things (tho it’s limited) believe this. That is just beyond *my* comprehension =)

   Reply to this comment
5. 

   jason
   

   Oct 08, 2005

   Remember that creationism is part of a much larger system of beliefs. One doesn’t believe in it without having a more significant investment in religious faith as a whole. I won’t overanalyze that since I’m already working on a post about faith and religion. Still, let me share this quote from Desmond Morris (in Manwatching: A Field Guide to Human Behaviour) as one of the better explanations:

   Man can contemplate his own mortality and finds the thought intolerable. Any animal will struggle to protect itself from a threat of death. Faced with a predator, it flees, hides, fights or employs some other defensive mechanism, such as death-feigning or the emission of stinking fluids. There are many self-protection mechanisms, but they all occur as a response to an immediate danger. When man contemplates his future death, it is as if, by thinking of it, he renders it immediate. His defence is to deny it. He cannot deny that his body will die and rot — the evidence is too strong for that; so he solves the problem by the invention of an immortal soul — a soul which is more “him” than even his physical body is “him.” If this soul can survive in an afterlife, then he has successfully defended himself against the threatened attack on his life. This gives the agents of the gods a powerful area of support. All they need to do is to remind their followers constantly of their mortality and to convince them that the afterlife itself is under the personal management of the particular gods they are promoting. The self-protective urges of their worshippers will do the rest.

   Reply to this comment
6. 

   jenny
   

   Oct 08, 2005

   ah. That’s very interesting quote there. I’d been mulling over why man as a species seems to have to create ‘gods’ and ‘religions’ and his immortal soul. That’s a very interesting thought to mull over.
   Oh, since this started based on a Random Thought, I want you to know how much I liked the one about one less god —–
   “I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.”
   — Stephen F. Roberts

   Reply to this comment
7. 

   jason
   

   Oct 09, 2005

   It’s certainly one of the better explanations for religion as a concept (the Desmond Morris quote). That premise will play a roll in both my intelligent design series and a more general religious discussion.

   And the Stephen Roberts quote is also quite relevant. When you step back from it a bit, you can see a greater truth about hypocrisy and double standards that applies to all religions (excluding non-religious philosophies such as Buddhism, Confucianism and Taoism).

   Reply to this comment