Dear Mr. Degitis,
I read your responses to the questions and have some responses of my own. Enjoy.
1.
If you are going to argue that an animal such as a panda abandoning its young is excusable because of the lack of a soul, then how is the one child policy and the killing of female children in China in favor of male children in order to provide more opportunities for their children explainable? This would be an extremely wicked act and thus, based on the panda example, would mean that morality isn't innate or that humans don't have souls. Alternatively, this could mean that pandas have souls.
I think the ease people have in denouncing the possibility of animals having soul lies in the ignorance of human cruelty. Humans are the only creatures which would enslave an entire species (chickens) and force them to spend their lives immobile, crammed together, inside a building perpetually filled with around 3 feet of their own fecal matter, and then using them as nothing more than food. This really isn't any less cruel than what the wasp does. And yet this behavior feeds millions and greatly helps to sustain the species (similar to the wasp). Additionally, from an outsiders perspective the human race would be seen as mere beasts considering we are the only species which kills its own kind on such a grand scale (through war, terrorism, etc). These actions could all be seen as a means of survival of the race but not as moral actions.
2.
You stated that you believe evolution was not totally random, but this was already common knowledge because random evolution contradicts the very process of evolution through natural selection which is the most common type. Evolution is the gradual selection of beneficial traits to the continuation of a species. In some rare occasions evolution can be random when there is little to no competition whether it be from predators, resources, or other members of the species. Several sources tell us that this could not have been the case during the process of the evolution of the human race. With this knowledge, we can tell that evolution's lack of a random pattern is explainable by the natural course of evolution rather than a puppet master controlling it. Additionally, the genes in a single celled organism are not useless, they provide the information for the creation of the organelle within the cells and the ability of cellular reproduction. Genes also have a use in multicellular organisms, but aren't useless in single celled organisms. Finally, how did God not correct his plan if he created humans without souls initially and then gave them souls? Why not create them with souls initially if that was actually his plan?
You stated that God perfectly timed the creation of life, but life in the form of single celled organisms were around for millions (and possibly billions) of years before they began to evolve. This would suggest that God's timing was not so perfect after all, because life had to wait for quite some time before it could really start evolving. Additionally, if God didn't set things up from the get-go, why does the bible pretty plainly state that he did? If it is because the Genisis story is not to be taken literally but figuratively instead, why then should we take the gospels for their word directly?
The statistical probability of each person as an individual existing is very low even if we just look at the process of conception. However this low statistical probability is just the result of an evolutionary advantage. In terms of life existing as a whole, it is maybe not so unlikely as it may seem. With the vast amount of matter existing within the universe it is likely that there is life elsewhere in the universe, and with recent research showing the relative ease with which life can spontaneously be created, it is probable that life does exist elsewhere.
Thanks.
As I noted in class earlier: This is the critical thinking that I am looking for. Impressive. However, I think you have somewhat misunderstood my commentary on the amoral nature of... nature. I don't know that I am so much excusing the actions of the Giant Panda because that would require that the actions needed to be excused, but instead, I am noting that based on the fact that morality does not seep into nature, these action are neither moral or immoral, they are without morality in their totality. The panda, the wasp, the fungus, none of these things need be justified because they are not held to a moral standard. Their job is to survive, and they are doing simply that. And there in lies the difference. Humanity is held to a moral standard. For this reason, China's choice to implement a strict one child policy, and the wickedness that stemmed from that, is absolutely unacceptable. Yes, in some ways, the laws were put into place with survival and the preservation of resources in mind, but, as noted in an earlier response, we have evolved beyond that. We are no longer mere animals contending for survival, so actions that are entirely driven by that notion are not necessarily acceptable. Ultimately, the two events (pandas and people in china) are not analogous.Furthermore, just because humans do not behave morally, that does not mean that morality is not innate, nor does it indicate that humans do not have a soul. We commit horrible actions in spite of these things. There exists a deep seated knowledge of right and wrong; we just do not always succeed in choosing right. Animals outside of the human race do not operate along the same lines. Their limited free-will does not center around right and wrong but rather survival or the lack thereof.
Additionally, I couldn't agree more. If viewed from the outside, humanity's actions would be absolutely horrifying. Wars, terrorism, these are misguided actions that can not be justified. That is not to say there isn't reason for them, but the two notions are not one in the same.
Furthermore, in response to you last assertions, you are somewhat arguing semantics. Evolution as a whole may not be "random" in that it is based on mutations favored in a particular habitat, but even that notion requires a random mutating of genes, and not any genes, but genes that will help a species thrive in particular environments. If you look at the statistics required for that type of mutation and the fact that even the slightest variation of the mutation would instead result in the death of the animal, it becomes abundantly clear that these mutations occur by design, not simply random chance. The statistical evidence is staggering. You can contend that overall, evolution is not random, but if you remove the presence of design, then you are actually still relying quite heavily on random chance. Furthermore, I realize that genes in general are not useless in single celled organisms, but the theory of the latent library suggests that there are certain genes that are not used in any way whatsoever. The later realization (and consequent use) of these genes in multi celled organisms suggests that the genes were always there with evolution in mind.
Regarding God's timing, the fact that life had to "wait around" is not indicative of any fault in the timing of events. Who says that life had to start rapidly? What if earth was preparing during that time to sustain more complex life. The connections between the two concepts are not exclusive. Perfect timing can still take a long time. For example, if you were to meet the girl that you are supposed to marry when you are in middle school, you would have to fight through a lot to eventually tie the knot. However, if you met her when you were 25, you might be ready, and face far fewer obstacles in the process. In that respect, the amount of time it took to meet her (in the latter scenario) would have been longer, but perfectly longer and perfectly timed nonetheless.
Lastly, your suggestions regarding the statistical probability of life are interesting ones, especially in regard to the immense amount of matter. However, I feel the need to remind you that we are talking specifically about human life. And maybe they will find more of that somewhere in the universe, but from what we know now, the amount of factors that needed to come together in order to sustain human life leave us with a massive statistical improbability. Additionally, the research does not show us the relative ease with which life can be created. There are components that suggest that life could have spawned randomly, but even this research is incomplete. We have yet to prove anything of the sort. And we certainly have no way of showing how we have gotten to the point at which we've arrived. Again, random chance is not a good enough defense.
As always, your thoughts are so fascinating. Keep them coming.
No comments:
Post a Comment