Skip to comments.Richard Dawkins Writes About Human Responsibility In Light of Darwinian Evolution
Posted on 10/20/2006 8:52:20 PM PDT by SirLinksalot
click here to read article
Excellent yet again.
FWIW, I rather doubt it. What is meant by your term, "this side of eternity," cornelis?
It seems to me eternal life is "with God" (or not with God as the case may be). And God is not to be found as an existent bound by our spatiotemporal order.
Thank you also for the links to Dr. Craig! Will be visiting them soon.
Thanks so much for your kind words, Quix!
But the LORD has become my fortress, and my God the rock in whom I take refuge.
You defend the fortress well, Alamo-Girl.
The question makes sense if we know what the terms mean. If we reserve the concept of eternity belonging strictly to the divine and only divine--and there is some indication that A. Pole is going in that direction with the Greek--then the concept of eternal life as belonging to human beings suggests to us a possible secondary meaning of eternal. For the Platonist, a metaxy is necessary in a universe of plurality.
They just don't see it, do they?
re: "As scientists, we believe..."
Mr. Dawkins needs to go back to college and take a good course in philosophy. Saying "as scientists, we believe" has no logical or sensible meaning even according to his own reductionist scientific materialism.
And there rests the problem with secular humanist dorks like Dawkins: his scientific atheology is not grounded in sound logic and cogent reasoning.
Always amusing to read the latest about the evolving "beliefs" of secular humanists and scientific materialists.
When all you have is a hammer, everything is a nail.
But He did and He even told us about them and they would be unknowable except for divine revelation.
But calling them *heaven* and *hell* will only incur the mockery and disdain of the enlightened scientific elite. Better to call them *alternate universes* or *alternate dimensions* if you are going to believe in others than ours to at least give it the cloak of respectability.
Humans are, properly, a different and higher moral class than non-rational animals because we have the kind of consciousness that makes us morally responsible for our actions.
It is impossible for anyone to continuously exhibit the consciousness which makes us at once transcendent and rational and moral, and so we impute rights and responsibilities to others simply because they are like us (others of the same species, others with the same nature.)
If we brought into being quasi-human entitites which might or might not be truly persons, we would have to test each one to see if it (or he or she) were in the human community, or not. And this is impossible, because the required consciousness does not manifest itself unambiguously and continuously. It's not easily or perfectly testable.
The result would be, not to elevate new entitites to the human status, but to destroy the foundation for human identity and dignity, and thus degrade all.
I realize that every sentence I have written could be expanded into a paragraph or a chapter; and that each will be disputed by people who lack either the ability or the inclination to read paragraphs and chapters.
So, here's my shorthand argument: Aldous Huxley ("Brave New World") and C.S. Lewis ("The Abolition of Man") ought to be attended to carefully by anyone who want to think through the new humanism issues (post-, quasi-, and trans-humanism).
It encourages me that Huxley was an agnostic (though "mescaline mystic" or "humanist dystopian" comes closer to his belief); and Lewis a pagan-turned-orthodox-Christian; it makes me think that the pro-human-dignity argument really is universal, ultimately affirmed both by natural law and religious insight.
Excuse my rambling. Nuff said.
True.. The big bang however is a meme of Hinduism... not Judeo-Christian thought..
Thanks for elaborating, cornelis. It appears to me that the metaxy is some sort of juncture (if I might put it that way) between the human being as a work of becoming in time, and his true being in (timeless) Eternity -- an intersection between time and timelessness of which a human being can become aware. Still, this does not put God "in" the spatiotemporal order. Were this to happen, God would be reduced to a work of becoming. Moreover, if God were "in" time and space, then the metaxy would collapse.... (I think maybe Hegel was fiddling with this very idea.)
or so it seems to me. What do you think?
Interesting, metmom! I hadn't thought of heaven and hell as alternate universes. But it makes sense. And it seems they would be unknowable from our side of the spatiotemporal divide (if i might call it that) except for divine revelation....
Thanks so much for the fascinating suggestion!
Eternity makes time irrelevant but not timing..
Timing is composed of the moment and is creative..
I think that there are several related questions and that they should be kept distinct and treated in some kind of order:
(b) eternity in space and time (aeon is created)
(c) eternity as a strictly divine property (aeon as uncreated)
(d) eternity as a human property (created or uncreated?
(e) metaxy, or the human participation in divine properties
(f) metaxy, or the divine participation of human properties
I don't think the question for (e) and (f) will yield identical answers. But this is too quick a reply for a big topic. I just wanted to remark on the other meanings of aeon for A. Pole--I'm off now to bring my daughter to her violin lesson.
even elements of a Spiritual Dimension.. existing in tandem with this one(universe)..
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.