Blog

I was recently amused to see that the same questions I was pondering earlier here hit the New York Times here

I believe I brought up the same issues, though they wrote better and had experts they could quote.

There was some interesting history. In 1950 Pope Pius XII said ““Catholic faith obliges us to hold that souls are immediately created by God.” Googling this phrase leads to a rats nest of philosophical contortion. None of which (well none of the 198,000 hits I actually looked at) considers the possibility that this soul thing is just a figment of hopeful imagination or even works through when twins get souls. Then I see that Pope John Paul said “considering the mind as emerging merely from physical phenomena” was “incompatible with the truth about man.”

Is not.

Is too.

Is not.

I’m infallible, so there.

And he was just warming up by laying out the truth about mind. Just wait for it on the soul thing.

Hmm. So if this soul thing is not based in physical phenomena then I guess imaginary people could be just as soulful as physical ones. I bet there’s a religious divide by zero trick in there somewhere. Good thing they got their “get out of paradox free” card.

According to the Times it was Descartes’, “I think, therefore I am,” that cast animals into the non-thinking and non-soulful abyss. And this is being undermined as biologists are showing more and more similarity between animal thought and human thought.

I was pleased to see that the “man has a soul, animals do not” thing has religious opponents, including apparently Thomas Aquinas. I’ll have to read more about this. I’d like to know how he justified the treatment of animals. Being a Saint and all.

If you’re looking into this New York Times article, I’d also search for other mentions of people quoted there; V. S. Ramachandran, Nancey Murphy (of the Fuller Theological Seminary), John F. Haught (Georgetown University) and Kenneth R. Miller who wrote “God After Darwin”.

And Dr. Haught was prepared to grant souls back way past Neanderthals, all the way to Australopithecus afarensis (though he quibbled about their souls “shape”). If that isn’t religious tolerance, I don’t know what could be.

I’ve struggled for a long time with the idea of good and evil. Clearly there are evil people. Just look at the news. And to me, clearly there’s more to deciding that something is evil than society’s opinion. But it’s just as clear to me is that the Bible (or any other religious tract) has no authority to define what’s good and what’s evil. That’s not to say that I believe religious people aren’t good, or there aren’t really good people described in the bible. When I read the words in the bible that are attributed to Jesus, I see someone who strikes me as a really good person. I’m not so sure about some of the other characters. Paul, for instance, seems pretty cranky and intolerant to me. And the old testament is just downright murderous and evil.

Still, what I think I’m doing is forming my own standard and then applying it. And if I don’t accept the bible, then what would I accept? I sure don’t trust people to vote on what’s evil or good. Just look at current events. Who would have thought this many American’s would support torture? No matter how conservative they are. And during the Cold War, there were many people (conservatives again. Is there a pattern? ) willing to burn millions of communists in a nuclear inferno. Nope. I reserve the right to trust my opinion and discount yours. So what do I base my opinion on?

I’m almost embarrased to say.

Way back in 1974 I read a science fiction novel that I now consider pretty awful. I was 15 and impressionable and had the same questions I now have. One of the characters had a collection of aphorisms and one was ‘Sin lies only in hurting others unnecessarily. All other “sins” are invented nonsense.‘ I think there was something else in there that hurting yourself couldn’t be a sin, it was just stupid. I latched onto the first part of that, and it’s carried me thirty three years with a couple changes. I believe that wrong for me is the intentional, negligent , or unnecessary harm of another “feeling” creature. Now all I have to do is define some of these words and I can quit worrying about this. Let’s see; “intentional” , “negligent” “unnecessary” and “harm”. And there’s the the rub. I still only trust me to decide if I’ve harmed someone, or if it was necessary. That’s can’t be right as a general rule. Or can it?

It seems pretty clear how this applies when it’s my individual actions and their physical consequences to another person. It seems absolutely unclear when I have to consider emotional consequences or diffuse responsibility. What if I hurt someone’s feelings? Sometimes that has more to do with who they are than what you did. Am I responsible for actions taken by society? When we execute an innocent? That’s a big hurt. How much of that am I responsible for? Am I off the hook if I don’t vote for Republicans? Killing kittens is clearly bad, what about eating hamburger? How much negligence makes me evil? Am I responsible for not directly opposing the KKK, the Taliban and over the top intolerant Christians?

I see the connection in all this muddled concern for “feeling creatures” to Buddhist thought, but I’m not willing to extend my concern to harm of mosquito’s and trees and probably not to shrimp. If I harm a forest, I’m worried about the people and animals that depend on it, not the trees.

So mostly I just try to not be a dick, to not vote for evil bastards, and to help the people I care about. I also believe I have a responsibility to be accepting and tolerant to avoid hurting people’s feeling unnecessarily. And to stay away from confusing moral choices and exuberant rationalization.