Subj : Knowledge of Good & Evil
To   : RICHARD M. MEIC
From : LEE LOFASO
Date : Tue Jul 24 2001 12:35 pm

Hello Richard,

>LL>Before I bring in Pavlov's dog, let me say that you have brought up
>  >an excellent point.  Can you extrapolate more on that thought?
>->
>RMM>Possibly.
>->
>LL>Please do.

RMM>Some believe that it is due to divine influence.

Such as Occam and Descartes.

RMM>However, I see no reason to attribute this phenomenon to the
   >works of a deity when simple hubris explains it all.

Others have an entirely different viewpoint.

RMM>I fail to see why we humans view ourselves as superior to any
   >of the other creatures on Earth.

Because we are.  It is man who is the dominant creature of the planet,
knowing no rival to his reign.

RMM>We share 98%(+/-) of our genetic code with all the other animals,
   >yet we feel we are somehow superior.

And for good reason.  No other creature is able to challenge us.

RMM>Is it because we use tools?  No, because apes, otters and other
   >animals use tools.

Man creates his own tools, and uses those tools in a variety of ways,
including using those tools to change the environment in which he lives.
No other animal does that, or is capable of doing that.

RMM>Ahhh, perhaps it is because we are able to form more complex
   >thoughts and _build_ our own tools!  Okay, but I don't feel that
   >this is good enough to justify our over elevated attitudes over
   >nature.

It's more than just an attitude.  It's reality.

RMM>I don't believe we can ever justify how we view other
   >creatures let alone ourselves as superior to them.

There can only be one dominant species on a planet.  We are that
species, as it pertains to Earth.  There can be no other.  Else
we die - or become subjugated as slaves - if any other life form
becomes the dominant force on this wonderful blue planet.

>LL>There is no 'heavy biblical influence' as you seem to imply.
>  >It's a biblical story used to demonstrate a philosophical point.

RMM>I will not get into this because it will distract from the intended
   >topic.  Please understand.

The viewpoint presented is based on natural law and human reason,
not a religious text.  Just because a religious text is cited does
not make it a religious viewpoint.

When speaking to Jews, must one use Torah?
When speaking to Christians, must one use the Gospel?
When speaking to Muslims, must one use the Qur'an?
When it comes to Pagans, what religious text must one use?

It appears what you wish to use is "philosophical" theology, rather
than making arguments based on natural law and human reason.  And that
would be a religion unto itself, would it not?

--Lee


 * SLMR 2.1a * How brave they'll all think me at home!
--- Platinum Xpress/Win/WINServer v3.0pr5
 * Origin: Try Our Web Based QWK: DOCSPLACE.ORG (1:18/140)

.