tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1506855282716397592.post8945510481044694387..comments2023-03-28T04:45:24.131-04:00Comments on Deus Decorus Est: A Letter About GodSpeaker for the Deadhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10032990561585099482noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1506855282716397592.post-5218446418295116702009-09-04T17:56:01.227-04:002009-09-04T17:56:01.227-04:00and so we come into a question as to where we get ...and so we come into a question as to where we get this sentiment: why should we be nice to other people? it is my conjecture that to find the origin of this sentiment we must work backwards from the end resultant into the ancestor of this ideal. why do we respect each? why do we have common values and goals? why do we have a community and why are we encouraged to participate and bolster our community? why do we have a community at all?<br /><br />one theory says that it all started with evolution: for man to survive he needed to be smarter, so the babies born with bigger skulls grew up smarter and survived better. the bigger their domes got, the harder it was for both mother and child to survive during childbirth. so the babies had to have softer bones in order to pass through the vaginal crevice. but the babies were more fragile, so for it to survive (and for the human race to survive), the babies needed to be cared for. thus is the origin of communities explained.<br /><br />but there is a certain specific linchpin that holds this theory of the origin of communities together: why do we desire to reproduce according to our kinds? i think the answer is relatively simple: if you do not compete then you are eliminated. only the victors and competitors survive because the species which did not have the ambition to grow, adapt, and change do not exist today, while to the victor goes the spoils (and the endless spiral of life, death, destruction and rebirth). the constant need to compete has eliminated the most obvious of options: peaceful co-existence no matter the faults or supra-ulterior significance.<br /><br />our conciousness being a collection of memories and musings coalescent with our desires to compete and survive has led to fairly broad ideal of what society should be: to survive as a species we must help one another.<br /><br />but the ideals of community values and working for the "greater good" is all frontal lobe thinking, what about the lizard brain? that part of the gourd on our necks that desires to be dominant or dominated, that which recognizes power and hierarchy? what does it have to say about survival? it is the part that desires to cull the weak and support the strong so that only the strong survive to pass on their strength to the future generations and to eliminate the weak.<br /><br />thus it could be said that the balance between the frontal lobe (survival as a community) and the lizard brain (survival as an individual) has led to the ultimate combination of superior dominance on the planet earth.<br /><br />oops ^_^;; sorry, got a little sidetracked *coughs*<br /><br />anywho the basis of my argument is that our concept of good is merely a label to the general feelings of affections and the succeeding acts that go along with love. so how would you react to someone who presents this argument? that in all reality "love" and "good" is just an illusion meant to logically explain our innate desires to support and nurture others which human cultures around the world teach to us and in all reality these values are merely intrinsic to society through evolution.<br /><br />i could go a step further and say that if someone has fully contemplated their existence to this point then they realize that without religion there is really no other meaning to life besides boundless hedonism and denial of the ingrained concepts of society (in a way it would be DE-volving because instead of using higher brain thinking the person would be going back to more basic and primal prusuits of sleep, eat, feed, mate, repeat) however my brain is starting to hurt from trying to wrap my mind around all these different ideals. >_<<br /><br />anywho... what are your thoughts? i would really enjoy seeing your rebuttal. ^_^<br /><br />~LEE!LEE!noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1506855282716397592.post-64134431046834713172009-09-04T17:55:11.963-04:002009-09-04T17:55:11.963-04:00hmmm... i don't know if you ever read your com...hmmm... i don't know if you ever read your comments but i must say that your arguments were pretty well-informed and thought-out (which is more than what some of both sides of the "Does God Exists" argument can say). i think it was a little long winded in some instances but i'm sure that that was the Harvard virus plaguing your writing. ^_~<br /><br />speaking of which would you excuse me of my ignorance on some matters and my inferior grammar/diction? you obviously are more well-versed on what the great scholars of all time have to say than i am, and i will try to keep up with the years of extra study and examination that you have over me.<br /><br />where was i? oh yeah, right, a little introduction about me, my name is Lee!, and i met Jordan Monge while she was down in Orange County for the summer. the tale of her conversion has become almost a legend and because of a recent encounter with a poly sci professor who has a few misinformed assumptions and a apologetics lesson i attended the previous night i was interested in trying to establish my arguments to an intelligent and cultured non-believer through discourse with someone who has experience in this matter.<br /><br />i think with Jordan's basis in the ideal of a "universal good" it is relatively simple to point out that human intellect cannot suffciently explain where we get these universal truths without some sort of super-being who sets down a certain standard of what is right and what is wrong.<br /><br />my hypothesis, however, says that it is somewhat plausible for having a set of moral codes and guidelines if you accept the idea that there is no such thing as "good".<br /><br />to do away with our definition of what is good and moral we must first establish a standard of what IS good and moral. because the origin of American morality comes from the Christian faith (and because i can't boast even a smallest understanding of other faiths) we'll use the Christian faith as a standard for what is good. so the next step in the definition of good is "what do Christians believe is good?" the most easiest (and most well-known) standard of good lies in the book of Exodus, chpt 20 verses 2-17, most commonly known as the Ten Commandments. i remember watching a movie one time where a character said that the Ten Commandments can be summed up in one word: don't. don't have other gods, don't disobey your parents, don't steal, don't envy, don't murder, and so on. if you reverse the term "don't" (or rather "do not") then you come up with the term "not doing". so in a way the Ten Commandments are not a list of things to not do, but merely a general call to self-control.<br /><br />as well-informed believers though, we know that while the Ten Commandments are important they, in themselves, are not cardinal to our belief. Deuteronomy 6 (one of my favorite chapters in the OT) verse 5 tells us what the greatest of all commandments is, which is later reaffirmed by the Messiah in Mark 12:30. "Love the Lord, your God, with all your heart, with all your soul, with all your might, and with all your understanding". while different translations use different terms the basis of the verse is the same: love God with everything you have and with nothing left behind for yourself. it is my personal belief that when you get this truth right, everything else will fall into place thusly making the Ten Commandments essential but not primary in our beliefs.<br /><br />but what of the non-believer? if they do not believe in The One Above then how are they to obey the most essential of commandments that is integral to the Christian (and Jewish) faith? we must then relegate ourselves to the second of the greatest of all commandments, Mark 12:31, to love others as we love ourselves. it is the golden rule that many who profess themselves to be "good" say: don't do anything to anyone that you wouldn't want done to you.LEE!http://www.facebook.com/home.php#/muffinprincess13?ref=profilenoreply@blogger.com