If God, then which faith (if any)?

[Guest Darth Kurgan]

Getting away from the God debate, I think it's pretty much clear that you can make a case for God's existence (some higher power that created the universe). The difficulty then comes on which religious tradition (if any) is the "right" one?

 

I personally think it's not really possible to know which is the right one, because just about any adherent will say they feel their's is right, and they have faith, miracles, etc. to support this belief.

 

I'd be interested in hearing anyone's thoughts. This is just coming from those who believe there is a God. If you don't then you might as well be talking in the other topic (no offense). ; )

 

I saw many folks in the other topic say Christianity was the right one. I myself feel this way. However, I feel it's mostly my personal "hunch" as I don't have any proof my beliefs are more valid than a Hindu's, a Jew's, or a Taoist's really, except based on gut feeling. Comments welcome.

 

Kurgan

[Zoom Rabbit]

I pretty much seem to agree with you, Kurgan. Take a look at all of humanity's belief systems and find the commonalities. The commonalities (which do exist, when you factor in the differences caused by language and culture, POV, etc.) could be reliably called truth. The rest of it (and there will always be some beyond our objective understanding, IMHO) should be left to the individual to decide for themselves, to factor in the probability that no one set of beliefs will encompass truth from the POV of each and every soul in existance.

 

In essence, we should all be Freemasons. Without the fancy handshakes.

 

I hereby summarily create the Chruch of Kurgan and Zoom Rabbit's Universal/Individual Truth. Donations will be taken in the lobby.

 

!

 

------------------

"The entire universe is simply the fractal chaos boundary between intersecting domains of high and low energy."

[Guest Conor]

Of course, Freemasons are dedicated to the destruction of christianity, and have been for hundreds of years. They even have a ceremony that involves dancing arounda papal tiara on a skull, as well as swearing that if they reveal the secrets of Freemasonry vultures will eat their living entrails. Ever read <u>Behind the Lodge Door</u>?

 

I don't think I can say I have absolute and definitive objective proof that my religion is correct, yet I think it is an absolute must that the full truth must be available on earth. If God is letting us run around without being able to ever get the full truth, my idea of a loving God will have to be discarded.

 

------------------

"God has mercifully made the fantasies - the pursuit of power, of sensual satisfaction, of money, of learning, of celebrity, of happiness - so preposterously unrewarding that we are forced to turn to Him for reality, for help and mercy."

- Malcolm Muggeridge

[Zoom Rabbit]

Hmmm. Fortunately, my dad was a Freemason, so I've had a little more factual exposure to the lodge...

 

Some of their symbolism and trappings do seem odd to those who don't know how to interpret them correctly. Such is the case with many oraganized mystical sects--and yes, the Freemasons do value mysticism as a guiding influence on human civilization.

 

I'm not a Freemason myself, though. They don't allow women to join as full and equal members--I'm male, but I still hold to the principles of sexual equality.

 

It's kind of sad to see the old nineteenth-century anti-masonic sentiments still running through our society. The uneducated fear of mysticism in general is, I'm afraid, responsible for this attitude continuing on into the present.

 

One reason why I try so hard to stand up and explain the mystic's approach to spirituality despite this religious prejudice is the very need to educate others that I see here. People like me have valuable spiritual insights, but those insights are useless if we are kept silent.

 

I guess I'm just saying that we need to have an organic religious belief system, one that continues to change and evolve as our species does. The cultural setting of the Bible seems remote and almost detatched to us in today's world. How relevant will those same ideas be to our descendants hundreds of years from now, when they're grappling with the moral implications of genetic body configuration and bioelectrical consciousness displacement? I'm not saying that the religions we have now won't have good moral instruction to pass on, just that additional philosophy will have to be done to accommodate changing social situations.

 

Also, there is simply the challenge of unifying the belief systems of all the world's peoples in today's setting. Suggest to the Buddhist monk that he abandon his beliefs for Christian doctrines, and he will likely be just as offended as his Christian counterpart is when the reverse is suggested. The only peaceful way (in fact, from my own little POV, the more realistic way) of combining them all into one worldview is to adopt individual choice of a number of differing belief systems.

 

Essentially: "History has found path A, B, C and D to be spiritually reliable. Which seems more to your liking?" The believer then chooses which path fits his views best. (The secret to this model working is that all paths converge on a tree in the center of the forest, which would be God.)

 

Whether Conor or anyone else disagrees that this would be the right approach, it must be admitted that this approach would accommodate the largest number of people. And such would be the objective goal of any belief system which seeks to attain universal truth.

 

!

 

------------------

"The entire universe is simply the fractal chaos boundary between intersecting domains of high and low energy."

[Guest Jat`Kidal]

i won't say which religion i belong to as most of you probably don`t know of it. and i don`t see the point in classing humans into these groups of religious fanatics, inside we`re all the same! i think?? but i will say this, which is what our religion teaches us:

 

theres no one path to God, there are many. Some take longer, other are short. in any case never try to tell others that your religion is the correct one or the best one. Never try to convert others. but instead of that look around and tell a hindu to be a true hindu, tell a muslim to be a true muslim. and of course be true your self.

 

this expands to all religions, that no matter what faith you belong to, if you want to reach heaven, attain mukthi, or whatever it is that your religion teaches you as your end goal, make sure that you are true to that religion. ie if your a christian make sure that your a true christian.

 

of course this dose not mean that if you are a member of some raciest sect (not a religion) which classes itself as a religion, you don`t go and be true to that. Your sense of right and wrong should guide you there. (but that depends on your sense of morals)

 

and speaking for 99.9 % of the world including myself, not many of us are true to our religion. we may be willing to die or kill for our own religion, but we are not willing to be true to it. so why fight for something we are not true to???

 

i will add that we are taught that god has sent religion down to earth 3 times. and many of the religions in existence today have branched from the first two. but i don`t want to go into that as it will spark off another long debate. i`ve just added it to give you people something to think about. an example is the christian and muslim faiths which have many similar beliefs yet they are so very different.

 

 

------------------

"May the force guide us"..if there is such a thing.

 

 

[Guest Darth Kurgan]

Interesting point about commonalities. Of course being a Freemason would assume certain things, like that there was one God, and that by following the principles of the Lodge, a man can get to know him (men only of course) better.

 

I would dispute this point though however, because so many of the worlds religions appear to embrace wholly incompatible beliefs. This goes beyond simply a matter of whether they celebrate on Sunday, or Friday evening at sundown, or whether or not they have a guy in Rome that's in charge, or whether their scriptures are written in arabic, hebrew, greek, or english.

 

The differences are as pronounced as day and night. For example, some religions say to reject and stay apart from the world, while others say to embrace it. Some say there is one God whom alone deserves our worship. Others say there are many gods, that we must worship (or many who do not care if we worship them or not), or no god, but in fact a world soul, or no gods of any kind. Some say there is a life after death, others say there is no life after death. Some say there is reincarnation, others say we have only one life. Some say we have souls, others not (and some say we have many souls, or multiple parts to our souls, others say only one unified soul). Some say that certain people are chosen as God's people, while others are not. Some believe in predestination, others not. Some apply only to a certain gender, or ethnic group, others to all groups. Some believe in worshipping nature, others believe the world is inherently evil. Some believe their faith is the ONLY true faith, and that others are wrong, even evil for their beliefs. Others believe that even those of different systems may be "saved." Some believe that you should eat certain foods, while others state that those foods are evil, and other foods are pure, while others make no distinction. Some say you should remove part of your anatomy, others say not to.

 

What to make of all these differences? I think it is highly naive to say "all religions are basically the same" unless you speak in the utmost of vague terms. For example saying "all political parties are the same because they all seek to establish their own vision of what power is."

 

Are we to assume that "all religions are correct" and then follow all of them in a shallow way (because following specific beliefs would contradict each other, thus leading to contradictory beliefs)?

 

How do we know which faiths are "right," if any, and which ones are "wrong"? Does everyone simply pick their favorite?

 

Kurgan

[Guest Jat`Kidal]

some very interesting points kurgan. you talk about all the differing points in many religions. and you are correct, these differences do exist.

 

to get my point across i`m using an extreme example:

 

say that the UN decides that only one religion will exist on earth and that all people will have to follow that religion!!!

 

then the question asked would be how do we choose the correct or best religion form all the religions of the world. ordo we choose the best points from many religions and form a new one

 

this new world religions laws would most certainly be defined by the moral values and right/wrong logic's of the people who would be making the new religion. So we can ask that of all the religions in existence today, how many were formed by individuals with funny morals.

 

But we can further argue, what are the correct moral values and right/wrong logic's. before we can even begin dissecting religions, we need to build a set of morals and right/wrong logic's that we as a race agree on. Then we can use these morals to look at religions.

 

But deciding on these morals is a nightmare in itself. For example, say 1/3 rd of the worlds religions do not agree with eating meat, while 2/3rds do agree. Then do we use democracy principles and say the 2/3rds have a majority and that eating meat is ok.

 

I saw POWDER yesterday, and if you haven't seen this film, see it. Theres a part in the film where some people are deer hunting and the shooter approaches the dying deer. Powder (main character) links the shooters mind to the dying deer. The shooter feels all that the deer goes through as it dies. So such films make you think about killing and eating meat. What should the universal moral be about eating meat. (don`t start on the meat topic, just used it to get my point across)

 

 

 

[This message has been edited by Jat`Kidal (edited January 14, 2000).]

[Guest Conor]

So I am supposed to be true to my religion hmm? What if my religion says your viewpoint is wrong, that it is the only religion with the complete truth and that I am supposed to be converting everyone.

 

If God has sanctioned one religion above all others (and I am sure He has), then I will follow God.

 

------------------

"God has mercifully made the fantasies - the pursuit of power, of sensual satisfaction, of money, of learning, of celebrity, of happiness - so preposterously unrewarding that we are forced to turn to Him for reality, for help and mercy."

- Malcolm Muggeridge

[Guest Conor]

The universal values we espouse should be what the universal values are. God wants things done a certain way and we are supposed to find that way.

 

As for eating meat, there is nothing wrong with it. Actually, there is no basis whatsoever for rejecting meat-eating, scientifically, rationally or ethically.

 

Another point. You say no one should convert anyone else, yet you gave an impassioned statement of your own views. The only reason for stating views is that you think other people should follow them, so you were trying to convert me to your way of thinking. You see? It is impossible to do away with conversions. If you see something as right you feel obligated to try to bring others out of an incorrect worldview.

 

------------------

"God has mercifully made the fantasies - the pursuit of power, of sensual satisfaction, of money, of learning, of celebrity, of happiness - so preposterously unrewarding that we are forced to turn to Him for reality, for help and mercy."

- Malcolm Muggeridge

[Guest Conor]

Oh, and Zoom, the book I mentioned details the Freemasons from the inside. It could be wrong, but I doubt it. It has been instant exocommunication for any catholic to join the Masons for hundreds of years, and church doesn't do that for no reason. I am also sure members don't really know what is really going on with the organization until they reach the higher degrees like the 33rd.

 

 

 

------------------

"God has mercifully made the fantasies - the pursuit of power, of sensual satisfaction, of money, of learning, of celebrity, of happiness - so preposterously unrewarding that we are forced to turn to Him for reality, for help and mercy."

- Malcolm Muggeridge

[Guest Darth Kurgan]

Well I won't get started on the meat topic except to say if you believe the Hebrew Bible, God gave all the plants and animals as "meat" for the human race. The New Testament states that it is not what one eats that is important, but one says and does.

 

Most religions do not say it is wrong to eat meat (the only one I can think of is Janism). A lot of faiths say certain KINDS of meat must not be eaten (ex: pork in Judaism and Islam, cattle in Hindu beliefs).

Janism teaches that all human and animal life is sacred, even insects, so no meat is allowed to be eaten or killed. I'm not sure if they make exceptions for if you are starving or being attacked, but that's their philosophy in a nutshell.

 

Other faiths say it is not necessarily what you eat so much as HOW it is killed, prepared, and eaten. Even if you eat the correct food, you still have to PREPARE and EAT it correctly (as in Jewish kosher).

 

If the UN stated that there could only be one religion, that would violate seperation of church and state, and I would probably consider this the coming of the AntiChrist. Why? Because the people of the world would NEVER agree to such a thing, and to enforce it would mean the largest religious persecution and suppression of free thought in history.

 

The other deal is that religion is not democratic. Ask anyone who belongs to a specific faith "If you believe something, does that make it true?" They will tell you that certain things are true, whether you believe them or not, and others are false, whether you believe them or not. As a Jew, if you believe in 16 gods, it won't change the fact that you are wrong, and there is only one God. It goes against the core of your faith.

 

It's just like if a majority of people believe the sun rotates around the earth, or that you can find water with a curved stick, or that the moon is made of green cheese, or some other absurd belief that COULD be believed by a large number of people, yet no amount of belief could make it true.

 

Morality again, is not universal to all religions. Some do not teach about morality, others hold the adherents to certain obligations that other religions do not have, or are the opposite of those followed by others. For example in some faiths it is required that a person marry and have children. In other religions, the single life is considered the only holy one, and thus those who engage in sexual activity or have families are considered sinful.

 

The number of people believing in a faith seems to have no bearing on its relative truth, nor does its age. All those who believe that numbers or age do matter should become Hindus right now! ; )

 

Religion is a matter of conscience, thus it cannot be forced onto anyone.

 

Yes, the Freemasons have been judged by the Catholic Church, to have rituals and beliefs that are incompatible with Christianity, and I have read books on the history of the movement relating these things (and no, I do not maintain they are Satanists as some are inclined to do). Freemasonry as I understand it, is a religion unto itself. Catholicism maintains that you cannot believe two conflicting religious traditions equally, and thus you must choose, which makes sense to me.

 

I believe the UN stated that to talk to someone about changing their religion was to be considered a "hate crime" documented supposedly in their proposal on genocide. This is ridiculous. As I stated above, religion is a matter of conscience and thus cannot be forced on anyone. If someone converts it is because they have a change of heart, and there is nothing wrong with making your own decisions, this is free thought and free will. There is nothing hateful or criminal in this.

 

Personally my feelings on the UN is that it is a sham. Despite all the hype about promoting peace, they have failed to prevent war. They command troops to "keep the peace." Now where is the faulty thinking in that? They also compromise national sovereinty (sp?) in their proposals. Many "global" organizations that work for them (although I aplaud the efforts of Amnesty International) such as the WTO are run by large corporations and rich tycoons from around the world. The result? The enact international laws (negating national laws) that "protect" them from environmental laws for example (so they can pollute without penalty). So much for Al Gore's environmentalism (he's a huge supporter of global organizations like the WTO).

 

I digress, but I hope you get my point.

 

Kurgan

[Guest Jat`Kidal]

Hi conor,

 

I think you've misunderstood me somewhat.

 

When I say be true to your religion, I mean follow its teachings which will allow you to lead a good and truthful life. If that includes trying to convert other, go ahead. But while you try to convert others make sure you are doing what you are asking other to do. As far as others go to converting to your religion, that would be up to them.

 

And think of this: say for example, I send a verbal message to you, which you pass on to others. Now its been 500 years since I gave you that verbal message. Today millions of people are passing that message around. But there are many different versions of it being passed around and everyone thinks theirs is the correct message. Over the years the message has incorporated the individual messengers own little additions and been changed. We have a tendency to change anything and everything to our own liking, which I don`t know, if it is a good thing or bad thing.

 

Please don`t go into the meat eating discussion, it will go on forever.

 

You also mention me contradicting myself and that I was stating my views to convert others to my way of thinking, I qoute;

The only reason for stating views is that you think other people should follow them…

 

I don`t believe in that. it depends on the person stating his/her view as to what their intentions are. Some people may put their views forward with the hope that other people will agree and accept them. In my case, I put my views on this forum, like I believe all others do, to exchange ideas, thoughts and pass time. By stating my views I see what other people have to say about them. it gives you a better insight into the topic. If I don`t state what I believe then I can`t see what other have to say.

 

All I can say is, trust me when I say that I am not stating my veiws to convert others to my way of thinking. but just to show others, as others have shown me, the many different ideas and thought out there in the world.

 

The reason I didn`t join the does god exist thread is because I can`t post regularly, and with such discussions, the thread can have upto 50 posts just over the weekend. So hopefully when I get back on Monday I will be able to catch up with this thread.

 

Kurgan:

 

the UN stuff and democracy stuff was an example to get my ideas across on how one could choose the right faith. that was the initial question in this thread.

 

The difficulty then comes on which religious tradition (if any) is the "right" one?

 

but i totally agree with you on the accomplishments of the UN, they do lack the initial promise.

 

My I also qoute you on:

 

Morality again, is not universal to all religions.

I agree with this. I have a suggestion. Why don`t you have a special thread where we can all place morals based on our own beliefs and see which ones are truly universal and which ones are not.

 

e.g. murder, definitely bad (I think)

sex ?????????????????????

 

 

-----------------

"May the force guide us"..if there is such a thing.

 

 

 

[This message has been edited by Jat`Kidal (edited January 14, 2000).]

[Guest Darth Kurgan]

Once and for all, the name is Kurgan, K-U-R-G-A-N. The Highlander character, nobody else. It's not "Krugon" or anything else. At least get that right! ; P

 

Jat`Kidal, if you didn't want anyone to talk about the "morality of meat" why did you bring it up? You can't expect to state your opinion on a topic (especially a controversial one) and then shut everyone else up about it. The least you could do was listen to the rest of our opinions (if we happen to have any) on it.

 

The Does God Exist topic has gone on "forever" (pretty much) and it has been one of the most interesting and fun topics ever posted on this board. So why not get into a big discussion here? Nothing stopping us except our willingness to discuss ideas. So why not? Maybe you don't want to talk about it, but maybe others do.

 

Posting on this message board your own personal values will not give us universal moral values, because this is only a tiny, tiny segment of the world's population. We can't effectively show a true sample of the values of the world.

 

Kurgan

 

[This message has been edited by Darth Kurgan (edited January 14, 2000).]

[Guest Conor]

I know you don't think you are saying your beliefs are preferable, but I think I can show that that is what is happening. \

 

If you believe something, you must think it is valid, otherwise why are you believing it? If you think something is valid, by logic you believe the opposite is invalid. Because you think your beliefs are valid you think they are better, as a truth is superior to a falsehood. Now you probably don't want people in falsehood when they could be in truth, so you post your beliefs to get your point across, that you believe your view is right. Because you probably care enough about people that you want them to believe the truth, you are hoping that people will come to your beliefs. That is trying to convert people. Conversion doesn't have to be threatening or forced. If someone reads your post and finds wisdom, they might come to believe it, and you have won a convert, whether you meant to or not.

 

Whether that made sense or not, I would accept that you are not meaning to try converting people, but stating your beliefs is, I think, a statement that you think people should heed. The first step in the conversion process.

 

I assume you are referring to holy writings of different religions in your preceeding post. I think that (in the Bible's case) if God did set out to set down His wishes for humans, and a loving God would, He would make sure His teachings didn't get lost. I say it is impossible for the truth to be unavailable. There must an uncorrupted version of God's Word to humanity. I believe the Catholic Church has it.

 

------------------

"God has mercifully made the fantasies - the pursuit of power, of sensual satisfaction, of money, of learning, of celebrity, of happiness - so preposterously unrewarding that we are forced to turn to Him for reality, for help and mercy."

- Malcolm Muggeridge

[Guest Jat`Kidal]

Kurgan,

 

don`t get me wrong, i used the meat thing as an example and thought that as you started the topic, you did not want us to lose sight of the main discussion. thats why i asked to leave the meat discussion out. but if you`re happy with it, then thats fine.

 

so,

 

humans are the only species on earth that have evolved to this level. we can experience emotions and pain. but what about other species. they might not be able to communicate with us and tell us if they feel pain, but does that mean they don`t. i`m not saying all this from what my religion teaches. but i feel killing other animals is wrong. i won`t say more, but please do continue this topic. i`d like to see what other have to say.

 

[Guest Conor]

Why is it wrong to kill animals? Because it hurts them? Are you sure it doesn't hurt plants when you kill them?

 

We have Canine teeth, which means shredding meat is a part of our being. The only real reason to believe eating meat is wrong is to believe that animals are as important in the scheme of things as we are. There is no basis for this. Animals kill other animals all the time. We are designed to eat meat. Individual animals can be important to us (pets), but why would individual animals be important in themselves?

 

Naturally, it is wrong to cause an animal excessive or undue pain. Doing so is wrong because it coarsens our nature, and has no basis except in sadistic pleasure. I don't believe in hunting animals for pure sport, as we are caretakers of the earth and killing animals for fun doesn't strike me as managerially correct. Killing for food and nourishment, however, I don't see how anyone on any rational basis could disagree with.

 

------------------

"God has mercifully made the fantasies - the pursuit of power, of sensual satisfaction, of money, of learning, of celebrity, of happiness - so preposterously unrewarding that we are forced to turn to Him for reality, for help and mercy."

- Malcolm Muggeridge

[Guest Jat`Kidal]

sorry for spelling your name incorrectly kurgan. i was so engulfed in the discussion i didn`t notice the repeated mistake.

 

i never mentioned the plants feeling anything, because of lack of scientific proof. we know plants are alive. but we have no proof of them being able to feel and have emotions.

 

so i ask you this. is it ok to feed on living matter that has no emotions? but not ok to feed on living matter that has evolved to the level that it can experience emotions?

 

Of course this question assumes that plants have no emotions which i believe is the case. but science could prove me wrong.

 

anyway lets really take off and assume that aliens are coming to earth. also assume they are looking to colonise the earth and we are the pests. so we'd need to be exterminated. i know this is abit heavy but stick with it.

 

so what do we say to the aliens which would let them see us as equals when they are way beyond us. such is the case with us and the animals of this planet.

 

this is my last post, i`ll get a parking ticket if i don`t make a move. see you after the weekend.

 

 

[This message has been edited by Jat`Kidal (edited January 14, 2000).]

[Guest Conor]

I don't think that hypothetical situation is really relevant, especially not to my beliefs. I believe God made us and put us here, and put animals on earth for our use.

 

Animals have no way to show they are equal to us because they aren't. They are not sentient or imaginative. They are not immortal beings made in God's image.

 

------------------

"God has mercifully made the fantasies - the pursuit of power, of sensual satisfaction, of money, of learning, of celebrity, of happiness - so preposterously unrewarding that we are forced to turn to Him for reality, for help and mercy."

- Malcolm Muggeridge

[Zoom Rabbit]

Yow!

 

This one's turning into a philosophical bloodbath. Friggin' Masons, Hindus, Catholics, mystics and martyrs...what chaos!

 

!

 

I'll check back into this thread when I get home from work. That should give everyone time to work out some commonalities.

 

(Or not )

 

------------------

"The entire universe is simply the fractal chaos boundary between intersecting domains of high and low energy."

[Zoom Rabbit]

This is you guys' idea of a joke, right? (Note time, compare with last post.)

[Guest Darth Kurgan]

I believe many animals DO have emotions (basic ones anyway) and feel pain. They may even have souls.

 

However I do believe it is okay to kill them for our food. Why? Because I believe that as a species we have to stick together. I don't believe that we have a right to kill each other (for food or otherwise). Obviously the exception would be to defend one's self.

 

Human beings are one species, and we have to look out for our own, or we dishonor our race and endanger our place on this earth.

 

If I belonged to a religion that commanded not to kill any animals, then I probably wouldn't think we should kill them, but I am a Christian, and I agree with the Christian belief that plants and animals were part of creation on the earth, given as a gift to us from God. Thus taking care of it is part of our duty as stewards of creation, however we are free to use it for our benefit. Torturing animals for fun wouldn't fit into the category of stewardship of course.

 

Janists and those who worship nature, would probably say that killing animals is wrong, but they have to allow for killing plants, or they would most likely starve (eating only milk products could lead to malnutrition if they went that route). Unless of course they say OTHER people can kill the animals and plants for them.

 

Even certain Native American people's who believed that animals had souls thought it was okay to kill them, they just had to make the proper prayers or ceremonies to go with it to make it proper.

 

I would ask what your basis for not eating meat is, and you state that you feel it is wrong to kill animals because they feel emotions. Fine, and now you've heard my opinion on it. If nobody else wants to share, we can move on.. or not, up to you guys! ; )

 

A hypothetical alien species would not necessarily be justifiable genocide either. If they had a morality, we would be obligated to follow it in our interactions with them, lest we become like Hitler or Cortes. The "golden rule" would apply to an intelligent group of moral agents, no matter how primitive they were, and even if they were not human. Thus we should treat them as we ourselves would want to be treated. Of course if they attacked us (just as anything threatening us) we have a right to try to defend ourselves.

 

As far as we know, that is what seperates us from other animals, that is a conscience, the quality we have as moral agents. Some would argue that a moral conscience eventually developes out of "imagination" so children who possess this quality are future moral agents, and worthy of respect just as adults. A moral agent, or potential moral agent would be a "person."

 

Does that mean we can kill people we think are "non-persons" (that is humans deemed by society to be inferior?)? No I think we cannot do this. Why? Because from one moment to another, the "personhood" of a human being fluctuates, and thus it would be not only moral from this standpoint to kill an unborn human, or an elderly human who was incapacitated, it would also be permissable to kill anyone who was unconcious, mentally retarded, chemically imbalanced, anyone who was in any state of being incapable of doing what others considered to be normal judgement (a drunk person).

 

Some might try to argue that a sleeping person or a drunk person would "recover" and BECOME a moral agent again (a person). But so will an unborn baby. An elderly person has been a person up to that point, so give 'em a break! I doesn't make much sense to me to kill an elderly person when the last 50 or so years of their life they were protected. Why in the last 20 years are justifiable homicide? If anything, as a human being, they deserve our respect. We may be old ourselves someday. I hope we don't end up like in "Logan's Run" where everyone is killed at age 30.

 

A human being is a human being.

 

I wouldn't want somebody to kill me just because I was at a "moment of weakness" and neither would I advocate doing that to anyone else.

 

If you could prove (beyond a reasonable doubt) that animals are moral agents, and are intelligent, then I think we would NOT be justified in killing them for any reason beyond self defense, just as the hypothetical alien race. The general rule is that if their species is capable of this, then the entire species should be considered intelligent.

 

The same would apply to AI. If we or an alien race created AI that was capable of being moral agents or had true imagination to become moral agents, then we would be obligated to treat them as we would other intelligent species.

 

Kurgan

 

[This message has been edited by Darth Kurgan (edited January 15, 2000).]

[Guest Conor]

I don't think it is a matter of belief that animals have emotions and feel pain. It is a matter of fact. Rudimentary emotions sure, and they probably aren't really aware of what the concept of pain is, but they are certainly capable of forming attachments.

 

What I am sure they aren't, is aware of their own existence. I don't think they really have any imagination either.

[Zoom Rabbit]

Oh, now really! How can you possibly tell me that an animal isn't self aware and expect it to fly?

 

*(Zoom Rabbit cracks his knuckles, sits down and prepares to sling philosophy...)*

 

Let's start at the very beginning? What do you mean by self aware? What precise criteria are you addressing with the notion of 'self aware?'

 

That's the core of the problem. Some would say that to be self-aware, one must possess a distinct point of view (I would be one), and that is all. Consciousness perceiving reality at it relates to it. No notions of intelligence read in (intelligence being far too tenuous a concept for rigid application), no questions of whether or not the perceiving consciousness has a moral center, just simple, dumb...being. By this criteria, any animal, even an amoeba, is self aware.

 

Unless there is some higher dividing line that divides the 'self aware' from the 'merely there.' I doubt we will be able to identify such a criteria and agree on it. The problem is that 'self aware' is simply too vague a concept. Often times, people use the term when they mean to say 'soul' in a secular conversation...which brings us to (I suspect) the Real Question.

 

Does an animal have a soul?

 

My answer: yes. I will listen to any arguments against with an open mind, but I would be very surprised if anyone came up with a convincing argument why an animal wouldn't have a soul. I think that people insist on believing that animals are soulless as a means of assuaging the guilt they would feel at killing them for food. Hey, if the animal is just a dumb machine, then there isn't any sin in killing them...convenient, huh?

 

Which still further brings us to my take on this whole business of killing animals as food. Surprisingly, I say it is okay...so long as the process is done with a minimum of cruelty to the animal. God put us on this Earth as an ominvorous species; we have canine teeth, hunting instincts, dietary protein requirements, all of it. While I recognize that we have the freedom of choice not to follow those instincts, they are still a part of us...and as such, constitute a part of God's handiwork within us. I, too, cite the example of the Native Americans; they hunted freely, believing themselves to be an indivisible part of the foodchain, and made their peace with the dead animal's soul. Wise people, I think...

 

!

 

------------------

"The entire universe is simply the fractal chaos boundary between intersecting domains of high and low energy."

[Guest Conor]

Zoom, when you say soul do you mean the same thing that humans have? I would concede in an instant that animals have a spirit, but I don't think they can have a soul as we do. If they had a soul they would be immortal and I don't think animals are eternal beings.

 

Do you think animals are even aware of the concept of existence? I don't think any animal has the imagination or brain-power to form a concrete idea of its own existence. I feel they cannot express the phrase 'I exist', to themselves or to us.

 

------------------

"Nothing in life is so exhilarating as to be shot at without result"

-Winston Churchill

 

 

[This message has been edited by Conor (edited January 16, 2000).]

[Zoom Rabbit]

Hmmm. That's because of liguistic differences between our species...

 

Next?