Is God a humanist?

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Is God a humanist in the sense that what he wants is human well-being?

Which God?

???
What warped interpretation of the texts gave you this idea?

IMO, the Tower of Babel story and the analogy of God as the "potter" and us as the "pots" that are his to do with as he pleases both have messages that are contrary to the humanist viewpoint.

I'd say that this is especially true of the potter/pot analogy. If humans have intrinsic worth (i.e. if the fundamental tenet of humanism is true), then God isn't really free to discard us or do with us as he pleases.

 

[Mr. Skittles]

Is God a humanist in the sense that what he wants is human well-being?

Good question.

From the Judeo-Christian and Islamic perspective that would be the case since God has "love" for humans. However God in these traditions is perceived as an impartial judge so when a person goes to hell that person was judged and their well being even they are suffering they are suffering based on their actions as opposed to God making them suffer--I hope this makes sense.

Natural disasters, famine, and other diseases that afflict humans I think religious folk would argue that nature acts freely and because of that its not God but religious people would argue that despite this, God still has concern for us.

 

[designedhumanist]

Beavers damn
bees nest
birds nest.
chimps tools
crows dialectetc

Do they imagine a different reality or follow their instinct that has developed through natural selection?

 

[designedhumanist]

Good question.
Natural disasters, famine, and other diseases that afflict humans I think religious folk would argue that nature acts freely and because of that its not God but religious people would argue that despite this, God still has concern for us.

I believe that God wants our well-being and has given us the tools with which to prevent most bad things from happening to us. We developed technology to warn us of tsunamis, we build earthquake resistant buildings, we have clothes and buildings to protect us from the elements,we have safety equipment to prevent accidents, we have medical developments that have stopped many diseases and with gene treatments and stem cells our future is looking ever brighter. We also are gaining a better understanding of criminal behavior that may help us stop it before it starts. If you look at the trend of humanity, we have used God's gifts to us to improve our condition and reduce bad things happening to good people.

To me, God is a humanist. He gave us what we needed to help ourselves.

 

[designedhumanist]

Which God?



IMO, the Tower of Babel story and the analogy of God as the "potter" and us as the "pots" that are his to do with as he pleases both have messages that are contrary to the humanist viewpoint.

I'd say that this is especially true of the potter/pot analogy. If humans have intrinsic worth (i.e. if the fundamental tenet of humanism is true), then God isn't really free to discard us or do with us as he pleases.

So a pot is the same as a sentient creature? I prefer to see it as a parent child relationship.

 

[waitasec]

I talk about this in my book specifically, that we need to be concerned with the well-being of all humanity because what happens to others affects us all, maybe indirectly, but it does have a very real effect. We cannot have a balanced existence with nature and each other without all of humanity having conditions and life quality to work for our mutual benefit.

I believe that we can, through technology and knowledge, achieve a balance with nature that will only be supportable through the constant maintenance by man with unnatural means.

what is not being considered is mans arrogance....coupled with lack of absolute knowledge...which is highly improbable, imo...in order to sustain life, the ability to improvise comes in really handy and there is the potential of facing a situation where our improvising ability will not suffice. and the cockroaches will rule the world

 

[waitasec]

So a pot is the same as a sentient creature? I prefer to see it as a parent child relationship.

if it were a parent child relationship god would allow for man to build a tower that would ultimately lead to altitude sickness.

 

[Sir Doom]

First of all, If you want to have a real debate, being rude is not the way to start. I hope the rest of your arguments are not as clearly fallacious and malicious as the one above.

First of all, if you continue to say, "first of all.." I'm going to continue to respond to your condescension with sarcasm. That's my way. If you don't like it, well I'm sorry for you. I have no intention of suspending my attitude towards condescension at your command. It is a designed and intentional response to implied superiority. If you'd like it to stop, you will have to stop being condescending. Your path is clear. Do what you will.

I disagree. We do not have a universal form. We are able to survive in the habitats we do only because we have the intelligence and imagination to manipulate them. Animals don't have imagination or they could envision a different reality and act upon it like we can. It is not only intelligence that is necessary. The natural world acts on instinct, we can override most of ours.

Surviving the environment is not what I meant by universal form. I meant all-terrain. We are not limited to moving through rivers or plains or forests or mountains or oceans or deserts as many other species are limited by the mobility of their form. Ever see a dolphin climb a mountain? No. They lack the form to climb anything. Further, opposable thumbs (though not unique) afford us a universal manipulation that is paramount in our ability to control our environment. Ask yourself why I throw the frisbee and my dog picks it up in her mouth.

Animals do in fact have imagination. I'm not sure if you've ever owned a pet at all, but I can tell you my dogs are both pretty inventive. You should see them play. This trait is not unique to humanity. Its not even close to unique. Consider the recent study of chimp warfare. No really, go look it up.

Your also disagree with your idea that we are evolving in the same way as nature. Using your example, if someone develops the ability to withstand higher UV levels, our population with adopt that trait. Or would we just develop technology to protect ourselves from it? Maybe in some doomsday scenario we might revert to true evolution, but in our modern societies we have made evolution almost irrelevant. Many millions of people who should have died under your theory are still alive and reproducing because of our ability to use cognitive ability to circumvent natural processes.

Perhaps you missed the 5 million year scope I placed. Also, you may have missed when I said the individual traits were unimportant and would have to be made up. Do you think we will remain the same animal we are today for the next 5 million years? What changes about us is pure speculation. The point is we WILL change. As will other species.

I seem to be, and am clearly, suggesting that God has a purpose for us.

Purpose does not demand that god picks us specifically and enhances us intentionally. Are you even reading what I've been saying?

I, as the author, suggest that there is an enormous gap between us and the natural world. While we share biological processes and participate in the ecosystem, we are the unique species on the planet that is outside of natural controls and can actually permanently destroy the environment, as such we are a risk to nature's self-correcting systems if we don't recognize this position.

Oh, you are the author! Now that is just priceless. I can see why you are both so condescending and so defensive at the same time. You fancy yourself an expert. Good luck with that assumption. Now to your point, you impart FAR too much power on the human race. We have no chance, I repeat NO CHANCE at all of ruining this planet beyond life's ability to continue. It was once a smoking ball of molten magma and life developed anyway. Can we turn it into that again? NO. And even if we could, life would STILL come back. We do NOT have that ability.

The chimp example is to highlight the difference in our ability, not just intelligence, but our imagination. If you put generally balanced men in a prison with good conditions(like a zoo) what happens? Did Nelson Mandela go crazy and attack his fellow prisoners? Under extreme conditions, behavior turns instinctual, yes I agree. That is not what I was discussing. Like your argument for human evolution, it only works under extreme conditions, not our normal reality.

Does every chimp go mad in a cage? NO. You should have left it out completely. Imagination is not unique as I said before. You know nothing about chimps, clearly. Have you ever watched a single documentary on these amazing creatures? It seems not. You don't have the knowledge to assert this. You are formulating your opinion based on pure desire and disguising it as scientific study. You have formed the conclusion and shaped a hypothesis to fit it. That's backwards.

 

[designedhumanist]

Implied superiority like the "cooler than you title?"

I make no claim to be an academic, scientist or other expert. I am a normal person with a particular philosophy that I defend. They are my beliefs. I do not speak for anyone else. I am here to debate, not have a ******* match.

Personally, I firmly believe that we are different than the rest of the natural world in our ability in a way that is often against the natural system. Uniquely, we can do unnatural things that do not exist in the natural world. Yes I agree that there will always be life on the planet, we are the only ones that can kill most of it.

I have had many pets and have seen documentaries too. I have not seen anything that is even remotely close to what we can do, as shown by the way we have modified our world through history. I refuse to accept we are under the same natural constraints as other species. We aren't. We can change genetics for example. How is this natural?

If I commit a crime, am I not a criminal?
If I commit an unnatural act, am I not unnatural?

These are my opinions and I do not claim to represent other people.

I neither said nor implied that chimps go mad in cages. You implied that humans do. Although, if apes are so imaginative and physically versatile, why is there such a huge gap between what we do and what they do?

 

[designedhumanist]

Purpose does not demand that god picks us specifically and enhances us intentionally. Are you even reading what I've been saying?

I believe that God has a purpose for us. It is my belief. What you have been saying doesn't change that. You can believe what you like.

 

[Sir Doom]

Implied superiority like the "cooler than you title?"

Haha, oh stop you're making me blush.

I make no claim to be an academic, scientist or other expert. I am a normal person with a particular philosophy that I defend. They are my beliefs. I do not speak for anyone else. I am here to debate, not have a ******* match.

Not claiming it doesn't make it disappear. Your OP asked a question which I answered. Your response to that answer included a quote from a book that YOU wrote. And you even presented it as though it was just a book you read to try and lend some illusory second opinion to your argument, when in fact it was just your own words. It wasn't until I suggested you contact the author to participate in the debate that you owned up to it as some sort of "Gotcha!" to prove me wrong on SOMETHING since the argument you make had fallen short.

Personally, I firmly believe that we are different than the rest of the natural world in our ability in a way that is often against the natural system. Uniquely, we can do unnatural things that do not exist in the natural world. Yes I agree that there will always be life on the planet, we are the only ones that can kill most of it.

Interesting. A moment ago we could:

permanently destroy the environment,

Now we can only:

kill most of it.

What an interesting turn of events.

I have had many pets and have seen documentaries too. I have not seen anything that is even remotely close to what we can do, as shown by the way we have modified our world through history.

Now that sounds hauntingly like:

Two, we have oral and written language capacity. That means that we are not limited by the physical memories of our lifetime. We learn from our dead ancestors. No other species has developed this capacity to my knowledge. This allows us to learn from memories we don't even have

Which is something I said. What another surprising turn of events.

I refuse to accept we are under the same natural constraints as other species. We aren't. We can change genetics for example. How is this natural?

Howdy, straw man! I never said we were identical to animals, did I? Did I say we are constrained by the same things? No, I didn't. In fact, I pointed out the key differences between us and other animals. I specifically outlined them. How would that in any way translate to us being under the same natural constraints as other species? The similarity is that we are bound by evolution just as other animals are. We don't get to choose out. We have only slowed it down and changed its direction by modifying our environment to suit us instead of the other way around. Hosts of other animals do this as well. It is a product of intelligence. Ours is just better, more evolved if you will.
As for genetic changes... what do you think natural selection is all about? Keeping things the same?

If I commit a crime, am I not a criminal?

If a lion kills a man, do we not punish it? If a dog steals food from my table, do I not punish it? Just because calling them a criminal means nothing to them, does not mean animals don't commit wrongs that would be criminal otherwise. Observe your pets objectively and you might find more humanity there than you expected.

If I commit an unnatural act, am I not unnatural?

There is no such thing as unnatural. We are not apart from nature we are a part of it. All the things we do are natural. This is the nature of humanity.

These are my opinions and I do not claim to represent other people.

Well, that's fine you are welcome to your opinion. But you asked for mine and attempted to discredit it. So far your opinion seems to be that I am wrong without ever having to qualify that position. That's fine, too. I will simply reiterate my original post which you have in no way, shape, or form been able to respond to beyond flights of fancy. I will continue to believe that god regards us very much in the same vein that he regards the slugs in my garden. They thrive. So do we. This pleases god in equal measure because we are all part of the same evolutionary chain.

I neither said nor implied that chimps go mad in cages. You implied that humans do. Although, if apes are so imaginative and physically versatile, why is there such a huge gap between what we do and what they do?

No, what you implied is that chimps are inferior because caged chimps scream at each other and throw feces. I offered prison populations as a parallel to this behavior, and you ASKED me if Mandella went crazy in prison. I responded with the fact that chimps don't go crazy either. Do you see how each response is tailored to discredit your response? This is the nature of debate. You make a point. I counter it. Then you try a different point. I counter that as well. Now you are attempting strawman arguments because you can't discredit my arguments, so you must discredit me instead. Sad, really. Its poor debating and really ineffective. Especially on a snarky little jerk like me.

 

[designedhumanist]

I didn't initially identify myself as the author because of the forum rules against promotion. I did right after that when it was in question.

Animals cannot commit crimes, they follow instinct.

You are defining nature as everything that exists. I am referring to the natural system of evolution, selection and self=regulation processes. Nanobots are not part of this system.

I may have misspoke if you understood what I said as total annihilation of the earth. It is not what I meant. I meant that we can severely damage the natural system to the point it would be considered catastrophic by our standards.

I need to run, but I'll come back to the other points

 

[Sir Doom]

I didn't initially identify myself as the author because of the forum rules against promotion. I did right after that when it was in question.

Sneaky. Sorry to dime you out then. I suppose I should have let you anonymously sidestep the rules. Oh well. Live and learn.

Animals cannot commit crimes, they follow instinct.

Not in my observations. My dogs know when they are doing something wrong. Perhaps you are a bad owner and don't teach your pets right from wrong. Shameful really.

You are defining nature as everything that exists. I am referring to the natural system of evolution, selection and self=regulation processes. Nanobots are not part of this system.

I disagree. They are a product of our highly evolved intelligence. They are simply our environment shaped as we wish to shape it. A tool and nothing more. Like the stick a chimpanzee uses to pull ants from a log.

I may have misspoke if you understood what I said as total annihilation of the earth. It is not what I meant. I meant that we can severely damage the natural system to the point it would be considered catastrophic by our standards.

It may be considered catastrophic to us. But I bet god won't care. He has lots of life to work with.

I need to run, but I'll come back to the other points

Take your time.

 

[waitasec]

I refuse to accept we are under the same natural constraints as other species.

can you clarify?
i cant fly does this mean that i am inferior to birds?
i can't hold my breath longer than a minute or so, does this mean i am inferior to penguins, whales, and dolphins...?
if you step back and see that the human species are at their best within their element just as the grasshoppers are or birds, or fish are in their respective elements. our elements do not compare...our elements combined make up a larger eco system each relying on one another...

We aren't. We can change genetics for example. How is this natural?

because of our natural ability to use our brain.
just because we can change genetics doesn't mean anything in the scheme of things...a comet could put our progress to bed once and for all...

If I commit a crime, am I not a criminal?

among other things.

If I commit an unnatural act, am I not unnatural?

there is no unnatural act...maybe you are confusing what is natural with what is acceptable in a particular society...for example, female circumcision is acceptable in certain societies...it is not acceptable in others

 

[Mr. Skittles]

I believe that God wants our well-being and has given us the tools with which to prevent most bad things from happening to us. We developed technology to warn us of tsunamis, we build earthquake resistant buildings, we have clothes and buildings to protect us from the elements,we have safety equipment to prevent accidents, we have medical developments that have stopped many diseases and with gene treatments and stem cells our future is looking ever brighter. We also are gaining a better understanding of criminal behavior that may help us stop it before it starts. If you look at the trend of humanity, we have used God's gifts to us to improve our condition and reduce bad things happening to good people.

To me, God is a humanist. He gave us what we needed to help ourselves.

Interesting point....I have to contemplate this as I am still struggling to find God

 

[9Westy9]

Is God a humanist in the sense that what he wants is human well-being?

Maybe

And how do you define human well-being?

The state where humans are able to live as they are meant to i.e. having enough food, water, shelter etc.

 

[designedhumanist]

I will try to clarify my position as it is outside of the box, I know.

I am not talking about violating the laws of physics. Nor am I suggesting that we are completely separate from nature. We are part of nature in that we originated from it, depend on it and are subject to it (most). We have developed another level of existence that is outside of the normal controls that regulate all other species.

We can create many things that cannot be and will never be created through a natural process. We can change nature on a fundamental level that cannot be controlled by its systems. Everything that other species do is within the natural system and is regulated by it. Even those intelligent chimps are following instinctive behavior. Just because we follow the laws of physics to create something, does not mean that it is compatible with the balance of nature.

To say that we cannot do permanent damage to nature is false. Nature is an amazingly resilient system, that would survive a human caused catastrophic event. I agree that some bacteria living at a volcanic vent on the sea floor could eventually evolve back into higher life forms over millions of years. The other life that existed would disappear permanently. This is permanent damage. To say that something would still be alive is not the same as the existing life continuing. Diveristy has value to the system of nature.

Over time humans are using knowledge and technology to move more and more outside of nature's regulatory mechanisms. We can cure diseases through unnatural modification of our bodies. We develop technology that circumvents geographic and environmental restrictions. We are tinkering with and will eventually master genetic modification that will put us in control of our own evolution. Think about what we have done in the last 50 years and imagine what we will do in the next thousand. If we want to be taller, thinner, stronger, green-eyed, UV resistant, live longer, these are things we will be able to choose. These are inherently unnatural activities that the nature system does not have control over like it does every other species.

You can say that all these things are just tools that we use because we are smart. Yes they are, but it doesn't change the fact that they are not part of the natural balance that has guided life on earth until now. We are unique in our ability in a way that is unlike the uniqueness of any other species. Chimps have much more in common with any other animal than they do with us, despite their genetic similarity. They follow instinct more than anything else. Do we have animals with ideological beliefs? Terrier terrorists? Dreams of greatness, complex abstract thought, philosophy? People like to anthropomorphize animals, but how similar are they to us really?

Humans have societies that accumulate and transfer knowledge. Combined with our imagination, intelligence and versatile bodies this gives us our unique position in close parallel to, or in a partially shared loop as nature. We can choose to whether or not to follow our instincts or be subject to some natural controls. This makes us a danger to the normal continuation of the natural world, like no other natural species is. We need to recognize our special position and act to minimize our damage to the planet, for our own sake as well as the rest of the natural world.

My personal belief is that this was the hand of God influencing our evolutionary development and giving us our unique ability to follow his purpose for us.

 

[designedhumanist]

Maybe

The state where humans are able to live as they are meant to i.e. having enough food, water, shelter etc.

As I said already, my belief is that God influenced our development. Because of this I don't think that merely existing and reproducing makes sense, or why would we have the abilities we do? We are overkill for just that. If we only need to live and multiply, it seems that we should have more features that would help that, like maybe stronger bodies, claws, big teeth, smaller brains(ours use a lot of calories). Things that most other species have.