aeq@ihlpf.UUCP (11/07/83)
#R:pucc-h:-35200:ihlpf:22600034: 0:2683
ihlpf!dap1 Nov 6 21: 1:00 1983
I think that your point about "Where does the notion of good and evil come
from?" is a little weak. Insects will defend their offspring to the death
(in some cases) but I don't think that most people would consider that the
result of their meditation on "good and evil". On the other hand, some
male spiders will be killed by their mate when they've finished with their
duty. Again, neither the action of the male nor the female is usually
ascribed to some deity, and in fact, if you claim that the mating habits of
a black widow spider directly implicate the existence of a God, well you
probably wouldn't be convinced with logic anyway.
In point of fact, this is much more easily and logically explained by the
assumption that temperaments are evolved just as other attributes are. This
is borne out by the inherent temperaments in some animals (cats are independent,
dogs are loyal, badgers are pugnacious, etc.). Those temperaments which allow
a species to flourish are encouraged by the evolutionary process, those which
don't are squelched out. I find this VASTLY more reasonable that deciding
that such actions immediately and irrevocably point to the existence of God.
Now you may say, "But this makes people look like robots! What an awful
thing to think!". Maybe it does have this effect if you take it that way but
I don't think this is at all germane to the subject. First, I DON'T take it
that way. I still think of people in the same way as I always have. I'm not
going to hurt or kill somebody in the belief that they are a robot. Secondly,
are we looking for the truth or just comforting thoughts? I have seen some
of this stuff in discussions of Christianity before - "I believe in God because
I see the happiness in the lives of myself and others who believe in him.".
Well, I suppose the citizenry might be happier if they didn't believe in atomic
bombs also, but that doesn't make the world a better place. Instead, it makes
for a group of misguided people who don't know enough to fight the idea of
nuclear war. This in turn fosters the conditions needed for just such a
conflagration.
I think that James Watt is a perfect case in point of what I'm talking about.
Since he doesn't think that the world is going to be around that much longer
he'll just use up all the resources while we can. Well, that might be a
comforting thought to some people, but it doesn't mean that it's either correct
or good policy. You can't afford to ignore reality just because there is a
more comfortable way to look at the world.
Darrell Plank
BTL-IH