The sermonizing at the end (that bit about how if these two can get along, why can’t we?) is really pretty silly, because the whole point is that this is so incredibly unusual. This is like showing your child a video about Mozart and then saying, “Well, if he could play the piano that well at your age, what’s your excuse?”
Well someone has to ask the question. How did the dog get the spinal cord injury? You know. Playing with elephants all day and all. Just asking.
So cute. Yeah, the commentary at the end is quite cringeworthy.
Beyond the notions of the unusual nature of the thing (as with Mozart), the possibility that (even accidentally?) the elephant hurt the dog in the first place, is the simple attempt to again reduce humans to the animal kingdom. It is a dangerous thing, and historically has allowed for genocide. That the attempt at correlating humans with animals is so prevalent is disturbing.
When an atheist suggests that animals really can do no wrong while humans should be ashamed to alive, I am quick to remind them that in their world view, humans ARE animals. And, given that, cannot be held accountable. Where to ever start or finish on these things? Here, now. *poof*
Thanks for this, Neo.
And kudos to Steven for the Mozart quip.
Personally, I am glad that I am an animal on planet earth. My body/mind/spirit is composed from elements that have been present on this planet for billions of years. These same elements were once elements that composed that comprised the structure of bacteria, dinosaurs, squid, bison, and so forth. I’m very ‘green’ because all that I am has been recycled. 😉 Additionally, 98% of my DNA is the same DNA found in chimpanzees.
This does not make me the equivalent of bacteria, dinosaurs, squid, bison, or chimpanzees. I am homo sapien sapien; a member of the most complex, intelligent, self-aware, marvelous, powerful, and potentially destructive/constructive animal to yet stride, fly, swim the planet. However, despite these attributes I am “but a moment’s sunlight upon the grass”. Beyond that I have no certainty, nor do I need certainty when it comes to my fleet existence. I recognize what I have not the intelligence to comprehend and pass no theological judgment.
“I am what I am and that’s all that I am,” so saith Popeye.
That was so sweet! Thans, Neo!
Toy
Parker,
So you equate yourself to a dolphin with hands. Fine, your choice. But if you are merely animal then you have no more real choice than your cousin, the chimp. You act on impulses, driven by hormones and electricity, training, and experience through a neuropath, one more complex than most other animals, but you have no more choice. Neither can you be better, nor worse, only more effective… potentially. Explain how there can even be evil, good, or such in a world of animal? Your evil is another’s good, which means might makes right.
Poetry will not win over logic, or truth. It won’t even paint it over. As for me, I try to be as “green” as Al Gore. Unfortunately, I can’t afford nearly a tenth of his footprint. hahahaha
Steve D Says:
Well someone has to ask the question. How did the dog get the spinal cord injury?
According to NatGeo, which is where I saw the clip (without the sermonizing at the end) on a show on strange animal pairings, the dog fell off a precipice while running around, and the elephant stood guard until people came to rescue the dog.
@RickZ
Cool. Thanks for that. That’s actually adds to the story. Glad it wasn’t an elephant attack coverup.
Doom,
You obviously believe in endless turtles, and that’s fine by me. I do not denigrate anyone’s religious beliefs. I accept whatever anyone finds comforting and/or meaningful, and as long as they are not harming others I defend their choice to believe.
Personally, I know that I have no way of knowing how it all (you, me, the universe) came to be, I’m just not that all knowing/intelligent. So I no longer speculate on an answer to that question. I gave up on defining ‘god’ many decades ago because I am rational. Faith is not rational, it is the antithesis of rationality. To imagine a god (or gods) created all that we can know and observe (IMO) begs this question: What came before god or the gods? Endless turtles? I don’t know the answer or if an answer even exists.
However, I’m not an atheist. I just don’t know what is holding up the last turtle. If there is a god or gods I’ll let he/she/it/them sort it all out. I do my best to live a good life. I help where I can and I oppose where I think necessary. From my POV, that is all that I can do.
As far as evil is concerned, there is evil. It lurks in the minds of men/women. We are capable of greatness and the most vile actions we can imagine.
Doom and Parker,
I have come to think of original sin as a metaphor for human self consciousness, the first instance of saying no to former biological constraints. The sin part relates to our losing our animal innocense and for ever after having to weigh the morality of our actions. It means that no of us will ever get it right all the time no matter how hard we try.
expat,
We are indeed self conscious and that does set us apart from other animals. Where does that spark of self awareness come from? I don’t know and that is, IMO, the question we can not rationally answer. There is no empirical evidence one way or the other.
Faith is faith and reason is reason. The twain can not meet unless one or the other is subverted by sophistry. We can debate how many angels dance on the head of a pin or what color the sky is on a planet in a galaxy far, far away until all the metaphorical cows come home, but we can not inconvertibly know the answers to questions of this nature.
“It means that no of us will ever get it right all the time no matter how hard we try.”
I would put it a bit differently: No one of us will ever comprehend what we can not comprehend. And try as we might (and we should) we can not, as you say, get it right all of the time.
Parker,
Yes. You aren’t alone. I actually am sorry if I was or sounded too snarky. Well, except about algore superfootprint and all. Find your way. If you find a need or calling, look for people who can help you. If you are fine where you are, well, there you are.
Have you ever seen a child being fed candy all day long, knowing that both bad parenting and poor diet are leading the kid into serious trouble? Well, that is how I see many in life, only spiritually. Snark isn’t the way, save with secular pseudo-science notions. And, even then maybe not. Be well.
Expat,
I used to be more… philosophical about it as well. Actually you could become Episcopalian with that sort of thinking, if you go all the way with secular humanism. (No snark, that really is what you are suggesting.) Actually, by becoming Episcopalian, I found out (for myself) why that fails. But, it is a start. Good hunting… :p
Doom,
You may enjoy reading the comments to this David Brooks piece.
They are mostly pathetic. It’s obvious that in much of the NYT world, humility is no longer a virtue.
Which turtle does the first turtle stand upon the back of? Which big bang was the first big bang?
Those are rational questions within a certain worldview (whether questing or defining). And entirely logical within their paradigm to ask …but they lead to, they can only lead to, the conundrum. Their paradigm is a logical inconsistency.
Which creator was the first creator …not so much. Like an axiom in geometry, a prime creator need not have been created by definition. Within the logic of the paradigm, the creator is axiomatic. By definition.
So you see, faith is …can be …entirely rational. In such a way that a more “naturalistic” philosophy negates by its very adherance to it’s internal logical rigour.
Moreso, faith can be[come] a consistently rational belief system (a gestalt if you will), whereas asking about turtle’s backs in even the most rigorous of methodologies, not quite so.
This so-called “scientific” approach can quite lead one astray, you know.
I like to think of it as the base irrationality of first causes in the latter, and the exquisite rationality of prime axioms in the former.
A bang pre-supposes the question, what was before it, or what caused it? You cannot have a first cause. It is an inherently unstable, irrational postulate.
Ah, but postulating a creator in existence always without beginning or without end axiomatically, is simply an elegant, rational solution to the former’s problem, don’t you think?
(Puns always intended, but of course.)
We all need an elephant to relate to.
Doom,
No need to be sorry. I did not take personal offense at your comment. I read & appreciate your comments on Neo’s stage where we all strut for a brief moment. You come across as an intelligent and sincere human being. That alone passes my mustard test of character. (In case you’re interested.)
Bob From Virginia says, “We all need an elephant to relate to.”
I’m a giraffe guy, elephants need not apply.
That news clip was nauseating. Such a hollow appeal for ‘harmony’. Boiling down serious conflicts between insane Muslims and the world to dogs and cats (er, elephants) isn’t for serious minded people. That’s why it’s on a Democrat channel.
Leave a Reply
HTML tags allowed in your
comment: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>
I saw that last week on TV.
Pretty neat.
The sermonizing at the end (that bit about how if these two can get along, why can’t we?) is really pretty silly, because the whole point is that this is so incredibly unusual. This is like showing your child a video about Mozart and then saying, “Well, if he could play the piano that well at your age, what’s your excuse?”
Well someone has to ask the question. How did the dog get the spinal cord injury? You know. Playing with elephants all day and all. Just asking.
So cute. Yeah, the commentary at the end is quite cringeworthy.
Beyond the notions of the unusual nature of the thing (as with Mozart), the possibility that (even accidentally?) the elephant hurt the dog in the first place, is the simple attempt to again reduce humans to the animal kingdom. It is a dangerous thing, and historically has allowed for genocide. That the attempt at correlating humans with animals is so prevalent is disturbing.
When an atheist suggests that animals really can do no wrong while humans should be ashamed to alive, I am quick to remind them that in their world view, humans ARE animals. And, given that, cannot be held accountable. Where to ever start or finish on these things? Here, now. *poof*
Thanks for this, Neo.
And kudos to Steven for the Mozart quip.
Personally, I am glad that I am an animal on planet earth. My body/mind/spirit is composed from elements that have been present on this planet for billions of years. These same elements were once elements that composed that comprised the structure of bacteria, dinosaurs, squid, bison, and so forth. I’m very ‘green’ because all that I am has been recycled. 😉 Additionally, 98% of my DNA is the same DNA found in chimpanzees.
This does not make me the equivalent of bacteria, dinosaurs, squid, bison, or chimpanzees. I am homo sapien sapien; a member of the most complex, intelligent, self-aware, marvelous, powerful, and potentially destructive/constructive animal to yet stride, fly, swim the planet. However, despite these attributes I am “but a moment’s sunlight upon the grass”. Beyond that I have no certainty, nor do I need certainty when it comes to my fleet existence. I recognize what I have not the intelligence to comprehend and pass no theological judgment.
“I am what I am and that’s all that I am,” so saith Popeye.
That was so sweet! Thans, Neo!
Toy
Parker,
So you equate yourself to a dolphin with hands. Fine, your choice. But if you are merely animal then you have no more real choice than your cousin, the chimp. You act on impulses, driven by hormones and electricity, training, and experience through a neuropath, one more complex than most other animals, but you have no more choice. Neither can you be better, nor worse, only more effective… potentially. Explain how there can even be evil, good, or such in a world of animal? Your evil is another’s good, which means might makes right.
Poetry will not win over logic, or truth. It won’t even paint it over. As for me, I try to be as “green” as Al Gore. Unfortunately, I can’t afford nearly a tenth of his footprint. hahahaha
According to NatGeo, which is where I saw the clip (without the sermonizing at the end) on a show on strange animal pairings, the dog fell off a precipice while running around, and the elephant stood guard until people came to rescue the dog.
@RickZ
Cool. Thanks for that. That’s actually adds to the story. Glad it wasn’t an elephant attack coverup.
Doom,
You obviously believe in endless turtles, and that’s fine by me. I do not denigrate anyone’s religious beliefs. I accept whatever anyone finds comforting and/or meaningful, and as long as they are not harming others I defend their choice to believe.
Personally, I know that I have no way of knowing how it all (you, me, the universe) came to be, I’m just not that all knowing/intelligent. So I no longer speculate on an answer to that question. I gave up on defining ‘god’ many decades ago because I am rational. Faith is not rational, it is the antithesis of rationality. To imagine a god (or gods) created all that we can know and observe (IMO) begs this question: What came before god or the gods? Endless turtles? I don’t know the answer or if an answer even exists.
However, I’m not an atheist. I just don’t know what is holding up the last turtle. If there is a god or gods I’ll let he/she/it/them sort it all out. I do my best to live a good life. I help where I can and I oppose where I think necessary. From my POV, that is all that I can do.
As far as evil is concerned, there is evil. It lurks in the minds of men/women. We are capable of greatness and the most vile actions we can imagine.
Doom and Parker,
I have come to think of original sin as a metaphor for human self consciousness, the first instance of saying no to former biological constraints. The sin part relates to our losing our animal innocense and for ever after having to weigh the morality of our actions. It means that no of us will ever get it right all the time no matter how hard we try.
expat,
We are indeed self conscious and that does set us apart from other animals. Where does that spark of self awareness come from? I don’t know and that is, IMO, the question we can not rationally answer. There is no empirical evidence one way or the other.
Faith is faith and reason is reason. The twain can not meet unless one or the other is subverted by sophistry. We can debate how many angels dance on the head of a pin or what color the sky is on a planet in a galaxy far, far away until all the metaphorical cows come home, but we can not inconvertibly know the answers to questions of this nature.
“It means that no of us will ever get it right all the time no matter how hard we try.”
I would put it a bit differently: No one of us will ever comprehend what we can not comprehend. And try as we might (and we should) we can not, as you say, get it right all of the time.
Parker,
Yes. You aren’t alone. I actually am sorry if I was or sounded too snarky. Well, except about algore superfootprint and all. Find your way. If you find a need or calling, look for people who can help you. If you are fine where you are, well, there you are.
Have you ever seen a child being fed candy all day long, knowing that both bad parenting and poor diet are leading the kid into serious trouble? Well, that is how I see many in life, only spiritually. Snark isn’t the way, save with secular pseudo-science notions. And, even then maybe not. Be well.
Expat,
I used to be more… philosophical about it as well. Actually you could become Episcopalian with that sort of thinking, if you go all the way with secular humanism. (No snark, that really is what you are suggesting.) Actually, by becoming Episcopalian, I found out (for myself) why that fails. But, it is a start. Good hunting… :p
Doom,
You may enjoy reading the comments to this David Brooks piece.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/22/opinion/22brooks.html?_r=1&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss#
They are mostly pathetic. It’s obvious that in much of the NYT world, humility is no longer a virtue.
Which turtle does the first turtle stand upon the back of? Which big bang was the first big bang?
Those are rational questions within a certain worldview (whether questing or defining). And entirely logical within their paradigm to ask …but they lead to, they can only lead to, the conundrum. Their paradigm is a logical inconsistency.
Which creator was the first creator …not so much. Like an axiom in geometry, a prime creator need not have been created by definition. Within the logic of the paradigm, the creator is axiomatic. By definition.
So you see, faith is …can be …entirely rational. In such a way that a more “naturalistic” philosophy negates by its very adherance to it’s internal logical rigour.
Moreso, faith can be[come] a consistently rational belief system (a gestalt if you will), whereas asking about turtle’s backs in even the most rigorous of methodologies, not quite so.
This so-called “scientific” approach can quite lead one astray, you know.
I like to think of it as the base irrationality of first causes in the latter, and the exquisite rationality of prime axioms in the former.
A bang pre-supposes the question, what was before it, or what caused it? You cannot have a first cause. It is an inherently unstable, irrational postulate.
Ah, but postulating a creator in existence always without beginning or without end axiomatically, is simply an elegant, rational solution to the former’s problem, don’t you think?
(Puns always intended, but of course.)
We all need an elephant to relate to.
Doom,
No need to be sorry. I did not take personal offense at your comment. I read & appreciate your comments on Neo’s stage where we all strut for a brief moment. You come across as an intelligent and sincere human being. That alone passes my mustard test of character. (In case you’re interested.)
Bob From Virginia says, “We all need an elephant to relate to.”
I’m a giraffe guy, elephants need not apply.
That news clip was nauseating. Such a hollow appeal for ‘harmony’. Boiling down serious conflicts between insane Muslims and the world to dogs and cats (er, elephants) isn’t for serious minded people. That’s why it’s on a Democrat channel.