Thread: What is humanity worth if not made in the image of God? Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.
To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=029612
Posted by Macrina (# 8807) on
:
"What is humanity worth if not made in the image of God?"
This question was posed to me when I called out a friend on an incidental meme posted on Facebook (passive homophobia not relevant to this discussion). As someone who has gradually lost my faith but retained a strong commitment to helping others (which was initially motivated by that faith) this question intrigued me.
I feel frustration that I cannot seem to come up with an answer that satisfies my own standards and so have said I have to go and get on with my day and get back to it.
My initial goer is that human worth is human worth because we have evolved to value the lives of others of our species. Over that we are naturally social animals and want to demonstrate love and care for others. This seems reductionist and over that I want to paint something else, this something else is usually religious but I've not got that any more. So what do we think shippies?
Posted by Raptor Eye (# 16649) on
:
Surely the value of a human being amounts to what other human beings give to us, and - if we believe in God - the value God gives to us. If we believe that we are loved by others, we feel as if we have value. If we believe that we contribute to the well-being of others, we feel as if we have value, but this relies on others requiring our contribution.
As for being made in the image of God, this takes us into the realm of consciousness of God and of good and evil, into the kind of spiritual awareness which allow us free will choices to act in ways which benefit people or harm them. How the latter ties in with the supposed evolutionary tendency to love others is perhaps a topic for another thread. For this one, I wonder whether our consciousness gives us greater value than other animals.
Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on
:
The OP question is precisely how religion/belief structure outside of the tangible always creeps in one way or another no matter how hard we try to throw it out, reject it, ignore it or suppress it completely.
Something that set our human ancestors aside from fellow creatures was an *awareness* of ourselves and our predicament. How this came to happen, or how quickly it happened isn't the important bit. What's crucial is what such an ever increasing awareness does, and will do with our minds. Because if the answer to the OP is Absolutely nothing then where does that leave us? You know really really leave us, given that we are beginning to realise our planet home is an isolated, minute pin-dot in a Cosmos too vast for us to ever fully comprehend.
Posted by que sais-je (# 17185) on
:
Mostly I agree with Raptor Eye, but rolyn's comment
quote:
Because if the answer to the OP is Absolutely nothing then where does that leave us? You know really really leave us, given that we are beginning to realise our planet home is an isolated, minute pin-dot in a Cosmos too vast for us to ever fully comprehend.
It leaves me pretty well where I always have been. I think it's amazing and - most of the time - wonderful. So I follow Macrina's suggestion: I go and get on with my day.
Posted by Eliab (# 9153) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Macrina:
"What is humanity worth if not made in the image of God?"
[...]
My initial goer is that human worth is human worth because we have evolved to value the lives of others of our species. Over that we are naturally social animals and want to demonstrate love and care for others. This seems reductionist and over that I want to paint something else, this something else is usually religious but I've not got that any more. So what do we think shippies?
I think that if you're trying to establish that humanity has the same cosmic/eternal significance on an atheistic world-view that they (might) do on (some) religious ones, you're doomed to failure. If there's no God, then we'll all die and be forgotten and nothing we ever did will matter any more.
But if I were an atheist, I think I'd reply that this makes next to no difference to how I ought to treat others. I can decide that other people matter to me whether or not there's a God to endorse my values. There'd be no God to contradict me, either. Something doesn't have to have eternal and cosmic significance for me to care about it, and it seems to me quite rational to conclude that consciousness is the only thing in the universe worth a damn, and to want the only things we know about with consciousness to to flourish, however fleeting their existence might ultimately be.
That's what I'd say as an atheist: as a Christian, I do think that the existence of God gives a motive and philosophical foundation for morality that atheism does not, but if an atheist were to claim that she does not need that - that she does as a matter of actual fact believe that people are worth valuing, and that she tries to act accordingly, I can't contradict her. She might not be able to appeal to God as a reason why she ought to value people - but so long as she actually values people, that's not a practical defect. And I think you are right that our instinct to value people is to a certain extent built-in*. We do not, as a rule, need to have an unassailable moral philosophy in order to feel the urge to act rightly.
It ought to be true that believers who fail to discern human worth can more easily be recalled to their duty because of their faith than can atheists, but I'm not sure that the history of my religion necessarily supports that.
(*we can probably agree that upbringing and evolution have contributed to that moral instinct - if there's a God, he probably had a hand in it too, but has not limited the gift of conscience to believers only).
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on
:
I remember A J Ayer observing that despite his disbelief in God he did have a strong sense that human beings should behave ethically. But he wasn't really sure why he should believe that.
Is there anything imperative about the categorical imperative unless you start with some kind of axiom of significance? Of course you can choose to act that way voluntarily because it seems good to you to do so. But I can't see any overriding argument in favour of that choice, rather than some utilitarian or self-interested alternative.
Of course Christian belief does imply a moral imperative for loving your neighbour as yourself and a reason why we aren't in practice very good at that.
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
As long as I can perceive others, they are worth at least as much as I. My worth is measured in how I measure theirs. Why bring God into it? Apart from the fact that I wouldn't regard them as worthy if it weren't for God.
As the trajectory of my God story brings me to the above AND His Absence, the question that vexes me in my helpless privilege, as it did the Greeks, is how then are we to live?
Macrina answers it.
Posted by que sais-je (# 17185) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
... the question that vexes ... is how then are we to live?
We are social animals, so are lots of other animals. It doesn't see so difficult for them - they just do it. It is what they are. We want to keep asking questions - maybe that's the problem!
Raptor Eye said, " I wonder whether our consciousness gives us greater value than other animals." It certainly gives us more problems.
Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on
:
I have a feeling that the question is badly posed. Nobody is thinking of buying humanity. Yes, that's being crashingly literal about the question, but I'm not sure what precisely the question is asking taken as a metaphor either.
I suppose one answer would be to think about alternative ways of making sense of what it is to be human. Utilitarianism thinks that what is worthwhile are instances of pleasure regardless of who is having them, or else, satisfied desires. That ties into a neoliberal capitalist mindset in which someone is worth what they can earn, where what they can earn is a straight ability to purchase what they desire. On that mindset, a human being is worth their ability to satisfy their desires. But they are of no intrinsic importance beyond that.
(Not that utilitarianism can't inspire philanthropy; quite the opposite. But it does tie in with neoliberalism.)
But that's not the only possible answer to the question. Not all atheists are neoliberals. However, it may be the only possible answer to the question that simultaneously satisfies the burden of rational constraint that atheists of Dawkins' ilk think should be placed upon appeals to religious values.
Posted by que sais-je (# 17185) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
Utilitarianism thinks that what is worthwhile are instances of pleasure regardless of who is having them, or else, satisfied desires. That ties into a neoliberal capitalist mindset in which someone is worth what they can earn, where what they can earn is a straight ability to purchase what they desire. On that mindset, a human being is worth their ability to satisfy their desires. But they are of no intrinsic importance beyond that.
Bentham certainly talks of 'happiness' as an aim, Mill says 'utility', i.e usefulness which for him seems to be what is most conducive to society's well being. I don't see neoliberalism as reducible to utilitarianism unless society = share holders. The tie in seems to me fairly slight.
As far as I'm aware neither sees it as a way of judging people, rather it is about the value placed on different courses of action. I don't think many utilitarians would agree that making the rich richer is 'better' than making the lives of the poor less miserable.
"Not all atheists are neoliberals" and some Christians are. Clearly many of us do value others for reasons which aren't reducible to their utility to us. But we do tend to value those closer to us most. The more remote people are from us the less they can be seen as individuals and the harder it is for us to really value them. As Jane Austen said about Waterloo: "How sad that so many people were killed, but how fortunate that we knew none of them" (a paraphrase, from one of her letters).
The current economic system exacerbates the situation enormously. Many large companies are run by people who don't own them with the aim of optimising the return to share holders who they don't know and who increasingly (with electronic share dealing) have no interest in the company or what it does beyond what it's worth in this instant. John Stuart Mill is probably spinning in his grave.
Posted by hatless (# 3365) on
:
Isn't 'In the image of God' an interesting phrase? It clearly doesn't mean what it says: we do not look, to the eye, like God. This is a metaphor, and by choosing such an absurd comparison it makes this obvious.
The concept says, though, that there is a resemblance or, more, a patterning of human beings after God. It has a lofty feel to it.
I think it works in two ways. It affirms the worth of humans as being tied to, or borrowing from, the worth of God. The poorest, the victims, those without any utility, it says, are still made in the image of God, and therefore deserve something of the honour and regard we give to God (or whatever we effectively treat as God).
Put negatively, it reminds us that if we treat others as worthless, then we cheapen whatever it is we might wish to hold dear.
But it also ties God in to humanity. It is saying that what we can see of God is to be seen in our fellow humans, or in our relationships with them. We don't and can't look like God, but being 'in the image of' describes a likeness as evident and unmistakable as looking like. And the solemn way Genesis tells us about this, the deliberate character of it, makes it clear, I think, that this resemblance is deep and reveals a connection or involvement. God is with us, has chosen this, and is not, now, to be known apart from us.
So the glory of God, the prestige and character of God, are involved with us, and cannot be disentangled from us.
In what way are we like God? It would be on today's money to say that it is our capacity for relationship that is like God, our maleness and femaleness, our finding of self in relatedness. It is not inside us, not in our inner being, but in our interactions, in our loving and doing justly, that we are like God.
Relatedness gets in the element of transcendence that is needed, too.
Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by que sais-je:
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
Utilitarianism thinks that what is worthwhile are instances of pleasure regardless of who is having them, or else, satisfied desires. That ties into a neoliberal capitalist mindset in which someone is worth what they can earn, where what they can earn is a straight ability to purchase what they desire. On that mindset, a human being is worth their ability to satisfy their desires. But they are of no intrinsic importance beyond that.
Bentham certainly talks of 'happiness' as an aim, Mill says 'utility', i.e usefulness which for him seems to be what is most conducive to society's well being. I don't see neoliberalism as reducible to utilitarianism unless society = share holders. The tie in seems to me fairly slight.
Utility is the sum of pleasure minus pain. Mill differs from Bentham in thinking that some pleasures are better than other pleasures regardless of intensity, but it's not clear he can do so consistently with utilitarian principles.
Bentham thinks that you should always choose the course of action that creates the greatest sum of utility, regardless of who that utility happens to. An increase of utility to one person is worth more than a slightly less increase to another regardless of how much they have already. That means that it's not the person who has the utility that is important, but the utility itself.
Utility is the reason for doing anything; no matter how different mountain climbing, foie gras, or reading a book look, the pleasure you take in each is convertible into utility. Money, in neoliberal economics, is the same: you can measure how much satisfaction someone gets out of anything by how much they're willing to pay for it. The two concepts function in pretty much the same way.
Bentham was an early economist; his colleague James Mill (J.S.'s father) wrote what was one of the standard expositions. Bentham believed that the market left to itself did settle on the optimum arrangement of wealth; the poverty of the industrial working classes was the result of free competition for wages, which pushed the cost of production of goods down and so enabled more wealth overall. He even thought that private charity was pointless, as it reduced the need to work, so raised the price of labour, and so reduced the overall wealth.
quote:
I don't think many utilitarians would agree that making the rich richer is 'better' than making the lives of the poor less miserable.
Most modern utilitarians, unlike Bentham and the Mills, are uninterested in economics or how the theory applies there. Philosophy and economics are different faculties in modern universities.
But the consequence is nevertheless there that increasing the utility of someone who already has a lot is just as good as increasing the utility of someone who has little.
quote:
John Stuart Mill is probably spinning in his grave.
John Stuart Mill ended up arguing that once wealth has been produced, society is able and entitled to distribute that wealth as it sees fit. Bentham would have been spinning in his grave.
Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on
:
If human life is not of intrinsic worth - then without asserting some other reason for the preservation of life it becomes very difficult to make a moral argument against eugenics or the genecide of small groups of people you'd never heard of until they hit the headlines.
If human life has no intrinsic worth, why would you care about the human rights record of any country you don't have enter ?
I have no objection to atheists asserting humanism and that human life matters - I do object when they do so whilst claiming to be the last true beacon of rationality and logic.
Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on
:
The being made in God's image bit does always tend to throw up more questions than answers. We are usually left to conclude it is impossible to fully understand God, so likewise it is impossible to fully understand ourselves .
I too just get on with my day, in the hope of being able to make some small contribution to the greater good. That is of course providing any can agree, or know what the concept of 'greater good' actually is ----again bringing us intriguingly back the OP question.
Posted by Kwesi (# 10274) on
:
How about the following quotations for the basis of a discussion?
Psalm 8
3. When I consider thy heavens, the work of thy fingers, the moon and the stars, which thou hast ordained;
4 What is man, that thou art mindful of him? and the son of man, that thou visitest him?
5 For thou hast made him a little lower than the angels, and hast crowned him with glory and honour.
6 Thou madest him to have dominion over the works of thy hands; thou hast put all things under his feet:
7 All sheep and oxen, yea, and the beasts of the field;
8 The fowl of the air, and the fish of the sea, and whatsoever passeth through the paths of the seas.
Hamlet:
What a piece of work is a man, how noble in reason, how
infinite in faculties, in form and moving how express and
admirable, in action how like an angel, in apprehension how like
a god! the beauty of the world, the paragon of animals—and yet,
to me, what is this quintessence of dust?
Posted by footwasher (# 15599) on
:
oF ALL LIVING THINGS, ONLY MAN WAS MADE IN THE IMAGE OF gOD.
Of all living things only man was made in the image of God.
What difference did it make?
When animals feed, they have a pecking order. The strongest eat first and eat well. The fact that the kill is made by aleopard does not stop a lion from taking possession of it.
Not so with men, When men eat they only eat what they themselves laboured for. Justice.
When a weaker member of the tribe begs for a share, he is given it. Mercy.
When a strong man gives his share sacrificially to a needy brother, THAT is Love.
Matthew 23:23"Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you tithe mint and dill and cummin, and have neglected the weightier provisions of the law: justice and mercy and faithfulness; but these are the things you should have done without neglecting the others.
Wright notes that the Genesis 1 account would be recognised by the denizens of the ANE as a description of the building of a temple. The last stage is when the image of the deity in whose honour the temple was built is installed, to inform who the deity is, to project that image into the world. God entering rest is a way of saying God took residence of the temple.
Posted by Tortuf (# 3784) on
:
I agree with Martin. Humanity is "worth" exactly as much as we value others.
I say that because my experience is that unless I value others it is hard to truly value myself. The other side of that is that unless I value myself - even with all of my human fallibility - it is hard to truly value anyone else.
I cannot truly experience a person (or any other bit of reality) if I am judging that person. My judgment gets in the way by telling me I should not pay attention to any aspect of that person - that reality - that does not meet my criteria for that person to be acceptable.
So, my experience tells me that if you do not value yourself or others unless they meet some set of criteria that you use to judge them/self, you may not think humanity is worth much.
Mind you, that kind of judgement robs the person making the judgment of much beauty and wonder that will never come as long as that person insists on making judgments.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
The idea of worth baffles me, in this context. In my life, I don't notice people estimating my worth really. Am I missing something?
Humans love each other, hate each other, are often indifferent to each other, and kill each other fairly regularly. On the plus side, we rarely eat each other.
There must be something here that I have missed out. Ah well.
In Zen meditation, we used to do a koan, 'what is the gift?', which is a very nice one, and also a ball-breaker.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
macrina wrote:
quote:
My initial goer is that human worth is human worth because we have evolved to value the lives of others of our species. Over that we are naturally social animals and want to demonstrate love and care for others. This seems reductionist and over that I want to paint something else, this something else is usually religious but I've not got that any more. So what do we think shippies?
I don't really get your 'something else', which you posit, on top of our cooperative behaviour. Yes, from a theistic point of view, there is something else.
I grew up in a family who were all atheists, and I never felt that they were deficient in the human ability to care and love. So again, I don't get what the problem is.
Well, the question 'what is humanity worth?' is the wrong one, I think, in fact, not even wrong.
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on
:
There is another side isn't there? Humans have perceived an angry and wrathful god as well as a loving and comforting one. Some portion of God's loving goodness and God's wrathful violence has to be humanity's projection of what we are onto what we think God. But how much?
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
There is another side isn't there? Humans have perceived an angry and wrathful god as well as a loving and comforting one. Some portion of God's loving goodness and God's wrathful violence has to be humanity's projection of what we are onto what we think God. But how much?
All of it?
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on
:
quez: Atheism or Epicurianism?
The latter is more tenable to my emotions and intellect, and in that order.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
There is another side isn't there? Humans have perceived an angry and wrathful god as well as a loving and comforting one. Some portion of God's loving goodness and God's wrathful violence has to be humanity's projection of what we are onto what we think God. But how much?
All of it?
Of course, from your POV. And mine. However, that is as unhelpful as them saying that we do good because God is inside us even though we fail to acknowledge it.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
There is another side isn't there? Humans have perceived an angry and wrathful god as well as a loving and comforting one. Some portion of God's loving goodness and God's wrathful violence has to be humanity's projection of what we are onto what we think God. But how much?
All of it?
Of course, from your POV. And mine. However, that is as unhelpful as them saying that we do good because God is inside us even though we fail to acknowledge it.
And the inside is the outside, and God and the worm are as one, and why has that first bottle of bubbly become empty? New Year greetings to all my lovers and ex-friends.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
quez: Atheism or Epicurianism?
The latter is more tenable to my emotions and intellect, and in that order.
Christianity or Epicurianism? The latter is more tenable to my emotions, and in that order.
quote:
Epicurus believed that what he called "pleasure" is the greatest good, but the way to attain such pleasure is to live modestly and to gain knowledge of the workings of the world and the limits of one's desires.
Simply add assisting others to do the same, and what else do you need?
BTW, atheism vs (belief system) is a bad comparison. Other than the lack of belief in a god, there is no direct moral philosophy. Actually, I rescind that. It is a direct comparison to religion. In that one can use anything to justify being shitty to one's fellow humans. and they all have been so used
Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
However, that is as unhelpful as them saying that we do good because God is inside us even though we fail to acknowledge it.
That analysis works for me, otherwise what point is there in any of it . Doing good, a God of goodness, the whole kit and caboodle ?
Or are we getting into God,s Elect, martyrdom and all that jazz? Anyone who doesn't get on their knees for Jesus being cast into outer darkness, regardless of whether they've done good works or not .
Posted by footwasher (# 15599) on
:
Some may say that there are examples of morality amongst animals, but it seems to be just a manifestation of utilitarian behaviour:
Vampire bats
Others say that even human morality is utilitarian, functional morality, good behavior for the sake of selfish motives, avoiding future problems.
Rapacious capitalism results in the rich getting richer and the poor poorer, leading to an untenable situation. I met a Brazilian on holiday who told me he'd moved to Portugal because it wasn't safe to stay in Brazil anymore. The rich live in gated communities for fear of being attacked and their children must visit town with bodyguards for fear of being kidnapped. Neglecting the poor leads to their bringing their problems over, as Trump noted, not that he wants to help, given his plan to build a wall.
A friend of mine remembers the time the government gave them no choice but to take in the refugees coming over from the east before the wall came up in Berlin. She was only two and remembers the inconvenience. Imagine her state when Merkel asked Germany to brace itself for a similar situation recently. Some of the people in her village have never seen an African in the flesh.
All the years of neglecting Africa is finally catching up.
[edited to remove huge quote]
[ 31. December 2015, 18:01: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
hosting/
Footwasher, please don't just post huge chunks of Wikipedia. A suitable link will suffice. Thank you for your cooperation.
/hosting
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
quez: Atheism or Epicurianism?
The latter is more tenable to my emotions and intellect, and in that order.
Christianity or Epicurianism? The latter is more tenable to my emotions, and in that order.
quote:
Epicurus believed that what he called "pleasure" is the greatest good, but the way to attain such pleasure is to live modestly and to gain knowledge of the workings of the world and the limits of one's desires.
Simply add assisting others to do the same, and what else do you need?
BTW, atheism vs (belief system) is a bad comparison. Other than the lack of belief in a god, there is no direct moral philosophy. Actually, I rescind that. It is a direct comparison to religion. In that one can use anything to justify being shitty to one's fellow humans. and they all have been so used
That last point is very interesting. It suggests that anything can be used to justify anything, hence, for example, Christianity could be used to justify genocide, and atheism could be used to justify boundless love. Of course, the No True Scotsman fallacy might be used as a counterweight, hence, no true Christian would practice genocide.
This is another reason why the question in the OP is barmy. The answer is reasons.
Posted by Organ Builder (# 12478) on
:
It does seem to me that the question reveals more about how the original interrogator gains his sense of worth than it reveals about anything else.
Putting “value” on something as large and varied as humanity seems an odd thing to consider, but I suppose if we have value at all, that value is the same regardless of what sense we may be in the image of God, if at all.
We are, if nothing else, wondrously complicated organisms and I have just enough appreciation of engineering to take delight in that. I enjoy good company and good red wine, and no longer feel the urgings to twist myself into the theological and philosophical knots that I found so appealing when I was younger. Perhaps the good red wine has killed off the requisite number of brain cells to turn me into a self-satisfied bourgeois prick by now, but the older I get, the more I can appreciate Candide’s final lesson--let us tend our gardens.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
Nice post, Organ Builder. Yes, old age and various amber fluids have probably taken away my quondam zeal for metaphysics. Tending a garden is good. Actually, going to Waitrose is good. There are fireworks out in the back for the New Year, which make me happy.
Posted by Macrina (# 8807) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by hatless:
Isn't 'In the image of God' an interesting phrase? It clearly doesn't mean what it says: we do not look, to the eye, like God. This is a metaphor, and by choosing such an absurd comparison it makes this obvious.
The concept says, though, that there is a resemblance or, more, a patterning of human beings after God. It has a lofty feel to it.
I think it works in two ways. It affirms the worth of humans as being tied to, or borrowing from, the worth of God. The poorest, the victims, those without any utility, it says, are still made in the image of God, and therefore deserve something of the honour and regard we give to God (or whatever we effectively treat as God).
Put negatively, it reminds us that if we treat others as worthless, then we cheapen whatever it is we might wish to hold dear.
But it also ties God in to humanity. It is saying that what we can see of God is to be seen in our fellow humans, or in our relationships with them. We don't and can't look like God, but being 'in the image of' describes a likeness as evident and unmistakable as looking like. And the solemn way Genesis tells us about this, the deliberate character of it, makes it clear, I think, that this resemblance is deep and reveals a connection or involvement. God is with us, has chosen this, and is not, now, to be known apart from us.
So the glory of God, the prestige and character of God, are involved with us, and cannot be disentangled from us.
In what way are we like God? It would be on today's money to say that it is our capacity for relationship that is like God, our maleness and femaleness, our finding of self in relatedness. It is not inside us, not in our inner being, but in our interactions, in our loving and doing justly, that we are like God.
Relatedness gets in the element of transcendence that is needed, too.
I really love the ideas you bring out here. It's given me a lot to chew on.
For those of you who are comparing atheism and theism what about a position in the middle? I am very slowly reading my way through Spinoza to get my head around what he says. The idea of the Nature and God being one and the same is probably what I am trying to tease out with my 'something else' which gives some sort of meaning to the Universe over and above just straight out materialism. However I am only in the early stages and don't have a firm enough handle on the ideas yet to fully evaluate or defend them.
I don't believe in theism in the classical sense anymore but neither do I think I am a complete materialist because quite simply Human Brains don't function very well as pure materialists.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
I don't think there are philosophical solutions to the problems of living. When I was young, I sincerely wished that there were, probably so that I could avoid them (the problems), and could escape into abstractions.
However, as the heart grows older, it comes to such sights colder ... I suppose one learns to live through life, rather than analyze it, or stand back from it, or theorize about it. But some people find that valuable.
This is why I think there is no solution to such a question as to what you are worth, or what I am worth. If I am with you, then we could relate to each other, or not, and we might find something there, or not. But 'worth' is a kind of 'infame', (an infamous thing). Hence, écrasez l'infâme - crush the infamous thing. We can't get to love through an evaluation.
Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on
:
Indeed, even I am reaching an age whereby I wonder if New year's Eve is best spent trying to answer questions that have no answers.
Particularly as we have the whole of 2016 to do that. God willing ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
Posted by SusanDoris (# 12618) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
There is another side isn't there? Humans have perceived an angry and wrathful god as well as a loving and comforting one. Some portion of God's loving goodness and God's wrathful violence has to be humanity's projection of what we are onto what we think God. But how much?
All of it?
Agreed.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
There is another side isn't there? Humans have perceived an angry and wrathful god as well as a loving and comforting one. Some portion of God's loving goodness and God's wrathful violence has to be humanity's projection of what we are onto what we think God. But how much?
All of it?
Agreed.
But so what?
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
There is another side isn't there? Humans have perceived an angry and wrathful god as well as a loving and comforting one. Some portion of God's loving goodness and God's wrathful violence has to be humanity's projection of what we are onto what we think God. But how much?
All of it?
Agreed.
But so what?
One consequence is some interesting psychological insights into the inner world of humans. For example, that this contains angels and devils, a higher power, the possibility of transformation, and so on.
I suppose this represents the secularization of religious ideas, and of course, cannot be empirically proved, but as a working hypothesis, I think it has been useful in psychological enquiry.
Posted by SusanDoris (# 12618) on
:
I wonder if anyone here has read, or intends to read, 'Human Universe' by Prof Brian Cox. He does not, of course, mention anything about being in the image of God, but goes into plenty of detail about who we are, and why we are here. It really is an excellent book. We* are only halfway through but it needs to be digested in small chunks.
*One of my sons is reading it to me in approx one-hour instalments over the phone.
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on
:
Thanks for that SusanDoris, I have bought it for my Kindle.
I like this is the blurb - "What is a human being? Objectively, nothing of consequence. Particles of dust in an infinite arena, present for an instant in eternity. Clumps of atoms in a universe with more galaxies than people. And yet a human being is necessary for the question itself to exist, and the presence of a question in the universe – any question – is the most wonderful thing."
Posted by Raptor Eye (# 16649) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
And yet a human being is necessary for the question itself to exist, and the presence of a question in the universe – any question – is the most wonderful thing."
Or - in the beginning was the word.....?
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Raptor Eye:
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
And yet a human being is necessary for the question itself to exist, and the presence of a question in the universe – any question – is the most wonderful thing."
Or - in the beginning was the word.....?
This reminds me of Bishop Berkeley and 'esse est percipi', or to be is to be perceived. Hence, philosophical idealism, and the idea that perception is the creative force in the universe.
There is also something similar in some Eastern religions, at any rate, the idea that I love everything because I create it. It's fascinating how such ideas from different parts of world connect, but then I suppose it's a primal kind of idea, that the thing is the thing observed, always.
Well, we could spend several years gnashing our teeth over this, but modesty and self-discipline should be the watchword.
Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
And yet a human being is necessary for the question itself to exist, and the presence of a question in the universe – any question – is the most wonderful thing."
The question being the same as it's always been from the day of awareness --- Why are we here?
Posted by Macrina (# 8807) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
I wonder if anyone here has read, or intends to read, 'Human Universe' by Prof Brian Cox. He does not, of course, mention anything about being in the image of God, but goes into plenty of detail about who we are, and why we are here. It really is an excellent book. We* are only halfway through but it needs to be digested in small chunks.
*One of my sons is reading it to me in approx one-hour instalments over the phone.
You are enabling my book addiction. ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Posted by hatless (# 3365) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
*One of my sons is reading it to me in approx one-hour instalments over the phone.
This is a seriously lovely thing. And speaks volumes about human worth and where it can come from.
Posted by Russ (# 120) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
I have a feeling that the question is badly posed. Nobody is thinking of buying humanity. Yes, that's being crashingly literal about the question, but I'm not sure what precisely the question is asking taken as a metaphor either.
Yes, I'm not sure either what it means to value humankind.
Does it mean that when we read in the newspaper that the population of some distant country has risen by another million, we think "Good, more humans" ? Or look at the wild places of the world and think they'd be better for having more humans in them ?
Or does it mean that we feel a strong need to preserve the humans we have ? Refusing to go to war for a just cause because it would mean a greater loss of life ? Giving all our spare money to charities which actually save lives rather than those that do other worthwhile things ? The health and safety agenda of seeking to eliminate risk ?
Or does it mean that the any slight benefit to humankind outweighs any amount of disbenefit to any other species ? Do we sign to the chimps that we'll do what we damn well please with their habitat to suit our own purposes because we're made in the image of God and that's what He does...
Or does it just mean valuing the good of other people ? The good as we see it or as they see it ?
Posted by Nicolemr (# 28) on
:
Surely we find worth in things other than our fellow humans, things that we do not believe were created in the image of God? If we find worth in these non-God shaped things, then what's the problem with finding worth in humans even if they are not made in the image of God?
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
All is God shaped. ALL.
Posted by itsarumdo (# 18174) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Macrina:
"What is humanity worth if not made in the image of God?"
...
My initial goer is that human worth is human worth because we have evolved to value the lives of others of our species. Over that we are naturally social animals and want to demonstrate love and care for others. This seems reductionist and over that I want to paint something else, this something else is usually religious but I've not got that any more. So what do we think shippies?
Plants (trees, grass, etc etc) also do this. If humankind is to think it is somehow special, something a bit more is required than the definition of human worth you have supplied :-)
Of course, if we deeply, wholeheartedly considered all life (including bacteria, plants, etc) to be of equal worth to human life, and acted accordingly, that might (paradoxically) qualify human life as being worthwhile.
And would not be contradictory to us being made in the image of God.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Macrina:
quote:
Originally posted by hatless:
Isn't 'In the image of God' an interesting phrase? It clearly doesn't mean what it says: we do not look, to the eye, like God. This is a metaphor, and by choosing such an absurd comparison it makes this obvious.
<SNIP A LOT -- scroll up if you need it>
I really love the ideas you bring out here. It's given me a lot to chew on.
Hear, hear. For me, as a Trinitarian, the relationship thing is intrinsic to God -- God is, and has always been, a relationship. I think it's interesting that hatless' description also works (on some level) for someone like Macrina who is not a traditional theist. Which I think shows it's a very powerful construction.
Posted by SusanDoris (# 12618) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
All is God shaped. ALL.
I'm with the Duke of Edinburgh who said, in an interview the other day, that all that is not natural has been invented by engineers.
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on
:
Engineers engineer. Interesting word, engineer. It includes the concepts and processes of design and building. The means by which things are brought into existence. Created.
SusanDoris, have you suddenly gone all theological on us?
Posted by itsarumdo (# 18174) on
:
The "Master Mechanic" - go back to 19th century USA and Freemasonry (along with New Thought) was virtually mainstream.
I find myself agreeing with Martin - any other measure is utterly arbitrary.
© Ship of Fools 2016
UBB.classicTM
6.5.0