jtoro
New Member
Posts: 15
|
Hubris
Mar 15, 2005 14:20:11 GMT -5
Post by jtoro on Mar 15, 2005 14:20:11 GMT -5
How does Aquinas have an anthropocentric view? Aquinas, being a Christian theologian held an anthropocentric view like almost all Christians do. He conformed to the Christian notions of our place in the universe. Aquinas believed God created the universe for us; we are created in God's image; God has blessed us with reason among many other blessings such as the right to eat animals. After all, the Bible doesn't give animals the right to eat US. In simpler terms, he believed some version of the Book of Genesis; this book provides one of the most anthropocetnric views of creation that exists. This is how he thought we are the "center of the Universe".
|
|
jtoro
New Member
Posts: 15
|
Hubris
Mar 15, 2005 14:48:14 GMT -5
Post by jtoro on Mar 15, 2005 14:48:14 GMT -5
First of all, to clarify, I never said religion's being anthropocetnric is a bad thing. In fact, I agree to a certain extent with Satori who said it is almost necessary for religion to be anthropocentric. Perhaps religion would lose some of its fundamental meaning if it weren't anthropocentric, but I fail to concede that anthropocentricity is a necessary condition for a successful religion. By holding this claim, you deem most Native American religions futile because they are pantheistic. You might try to object by saying that the Native pantheists were anthropocentric. To this I would disagree; if the Supreme Being inhabits EVERYTHING, then how can we be that special as to be the center of the Universe(the definition of anthropocentricity)? Or you could argue that the Native American religions have no value; to this I would disagree too. The Natives felt they determined morality thru their religion and even had a unique view on the after life- you became part of the Supreme Being. In addition, I know you were probabaly joking when you said that religion needs to anthropocentric because: 'who would worship a God of trout.' That "joke" is logically flawed for 2 reasons. One, it draws a false dichotomy; who says a religion has to hold one certain species in focus?; you assume a religion has to be "____pocentric, when, in fact, it doesn't. Maybe, like the Natives, everything can be nearly on the same level. Also, this joke presupposes what it sets out to "prove". Who would worship a "God of Trouts"? Trouts would, and if it matters whether or not HUMANS liked that (like it does according to you) then you would be presupposing anthropocentricity to be requisite. We wouldn't worship a "God of Trouts" because in a truly non anthropocentric world, we would be unimportant. Bobarian, as Shiggy says, you presuppose that the only source of moral law is from God without backing up your claim. If you thought my argument implies that which you claim, read it again. I said that many feel that the source of morals is reason. NOT that the source of reason is morality ( and this you explicitly said). Now, isn't it quite possible that we are born with reason, and morality is formed post birth. Cultural Relativism and other subjective theories of morality say that reason shapes morality, but does so differently accross the globe or accross the street, respectively, and does so after a postori. Thgese theories have never been PROVED wrong, so you HAVE to conced that it is POSSIBLE. A better question, to me, to ask Atheists is 'where did our a priori reason come from?' However, I am afraid that it is possible that it could be sourced from evolution. Many arguments that hold a deity to be the source of something fall prey to the same sort of objection; this is why most religions require a LEAP of faith.
|
|
|
Hubris
Mar 15, 2005 16:38:15 GMT -5
Post by Areopagite on Mar 15, 2005 16:38:15 GMT -5
Aquinas, being a Christian theologian held an anthropocentric view like almost all Christians do. He conformed to the Christian notions of our place in the universe. Aquinas believed God created the universe for us; we are created in God's image; God has blessed us with reason among many other blessings such as the right to eat animals. After all, the Bible doesn't give animals the right to eat US. In simpler terms, he believed some version of the Book of Genesis; this book provides one of the most anthropocetnric views of creation that exists. This is how he thought we are the "center of the Universe". Incorrect, jtoro. Thomas Aquinas did not hold man to be the measure of all things which is what an anthropocentric view holds too. Aquinas belived that God was the center of everything, not man (hence, why he was a theologian, not an anthropologist). Naturally, though, since God did place man in a unique position over creation, the Bible discusses the relationship of God with man. The center of the Bible, though, is God (theocentric). If you still believe that Aquinas was anthropocentric, remember that the first part of his Summa Theologica didn't deal with man at all, it dealt with who God is. Aquinas believed that to be the foundation, the starting point to which everything else he wrote was based upon.
|
|
|
Hubris
Mar 15, 2005 16:49:03 GMT -5
Post by Shiggy on Mar 15, 2005 16:49:03 GMT -5
Yes, but there's no doubt that Christianity views wo/man as the centre and highest level of creation. Humans are the highest created beings; they alone were privileged, according to Genesis, with the "breath of God", aka reason/morality/sentience/a cerebral cortex, however you see it.
Thus, man has more rights than animals, and s/he alone is bestowed with moral personhood. It is anthropocentric as far as creation goes, which puts wo/man in power. This is what led to such things as the ignorance and power-hungry, abusive nature of the church in such matters as persecution of scientists for saying that the sun, and not the Earth, was the centre of the universe. It certainly produces a certain arrogance and person-centredness into the minds of its believers; if you will, a blindly anthropocentric view of the world.
|
|
|
Hubris
Mar 15, 2005 16:58:19 GMT -5
Post by Areopagite on Mar 15, 2005 16:58:19 GMT -5
Yes, but there's no doubt that Christianity views wo/man as the centre and highest level of creation. Humans are the highest created beings; they alone were privileged, according to Genesis, with the "breath of God", aka reason/morality/sentience/a cerebral cortex, however you see it. Thus, man has more rights than animals, and s/he alone is bestowed with moral personhood. It is anthropocentric as far as creation goes, which puts wo/man in power. This is what led to such things as the ignorance and power-hungry, abusive nature of the church in such matters as persecution of scientists for saying that the sun, and not the Earth, was the centre of the universe. It certainly produces a certain arrogance and person-centredness into the minds of its believers; if you will, a blindly anthropocentric view of the world. I can understand your view that as far as creation goes, Christianity is anthropocentric. I would still disagree in the sense that its still God-centered because God chose to make man and give him a unique place in creation. It's nothing that man did that brought him to that point. And again, that still doesn't prove how Aquinas was supposedly anthropocentric in general.
|
|
|
Hubris
Mar 15, 2005 17:15:54 GMT -5
Post by bobarian on Mar 15, 2005 17:15:54 GMT -5
Jtoro- Have you ever read Aquinas? Aquinas (citing Summa Contra Gentiles) believed that man's ultimate end is in God. He did believe that we were greater than the animals because we have in intelligence, but he said that as our intelligence can only come from God (the unmoved mover) the ultimate end of our intelligence is to know God. That is a theo-centric view of the universe, not an anthropocentric view. An anthropocentric view would be that God's end is in man, but Aquinas states (and I can quote him if you want me to) that God's end is only in God because for Him to have any other end would be a degrading of God (and thus He would cease to be God.) According to Aquinas, we are a part of God's vast design for the universe, and we are given the mission to know God rationally and through faith, but the design is God's and it is ultimately for God, not us. About morality- Having reason presupposes morality. Morality is simply a list of right and wrong. Imagine having an argument in which morality does not exist. How could someone ever be wrong then? Second, according to the Harvard political scientist Samuel P. Huntington sourcing his work The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of the World Order, there does exist a miminal morality between people of different cultures. Cultural relativism simply says that all cultures are equal, not that all morals are equal. Ask an anthropologist if he/she thinks racism or sexism is wrong (in any culture) - I'd bet that he/she would side against these two prejudices, regardless of where they are found. In fact, an empirical study leads to the opposite conclusion concerning morality. C.S. Lewis in the Appendix to The Abolition of Man records 8 laws that can be found in entirely unrelated religios systems ranging from ancient Egyptian and Babylonian religion to Norse mythology to Hindu scriptures. It is quite hard to conceive of a people who would not agree that it is right (or better) to love your parents, love your kids, be faithful to your spouse, help those who are hurting, punish the wicked, etc. (regardless of whether they actually practice these things.) Morality is not created a posteriori. It is the a priori that determines our thinking - we cannot point to other cultures to justify moral relativism - they are far more "moral" than we are in many instances (look at Islamic societies for instance, or Hindu societies.) The existence of a transcendent moral law that determines our actions even though there is no reason within these actions to suggest that conclusion points to a designer of this world and also a keeper of this law - an originator of the Good. Socrates postulated that the form of the Good would determine all moral ideas and thus all ideas and value judgments - and if a person were to connect with the form of the Good he/she would see clearly the other "forms" or values, such as justice, piety and righteousness. So even a pagan Greek philosopher writing without knowledge of any Bible concludes that there must be a source of our moral knowledge - and this outside of ourselves. There are more than enough reasons for God's existence - we can know God is real and through that find confidence to believe in the Bible itself, but first there must be an understanding of our own lostness and wickedness apart from the eternal God - the One who defines the good. And then there can only be restoration and transformation through Christ. I can testify to that Peace in Christ. -Bob
|
|
|
Hubris
Mar 15, 2005 19:04:14 GMT -5
Post by Satori on Mar 15, 2005 19:04:14 GMT -5
jtoroIn addition, I know you were probabaly joking when you said that religion needs to anthropocentric because: 'who would worship a God of trout.' That "joke" is logically flawed for 2 reasons. One, it draws a false dichotomy; who says a religion has to hold one certain species in focus?; you assume a religion has to be "____pocentric, when, in fact, it doesn't. Just for the record I quite agree. I certainly don't believe that humankind is in anyway 'special' as a species. Well that hits upon an important point. I think that Man creates religions and their gods, which is why I think they're so anthropocentric (related to affairs of Man rather than trout). If a trout were to create a religion I would similarly expect it to be salmocentric. AreopagiteHmm, well the Bible seems to relate entirely to the affairs of Man or the relationship between Man and God. It rarely describes anything that God does that's unconnected with Man (in His spare time or whatever). I'd say that's pretty anthropocentric. BobA very good point (but not, perhaps, the one you were making!). Would the anthopologist have said that these two prejudices were wrong 100 years ago though? Possibly, but the chances are that - when slavery was more commonplace - there'd be anthropologists who weren't against racism. That could be seen as evidence that morals are not some 'supreme' or 'divine' thing, but society-driven and survival-driven concepts that can change with time and culture. What we might call 'core' morals evolve out of a need to survive. If we go around killing our neighbours, they'll be unhappy, gang up on us and we'll get killed ourselves (or, at least, deprived of our freedom). But, even then, it's not that simple: many people justify killing when it comes to war, so even what is perhaps the most base of 'moral' laws is by no means absolute but relative. After that, we have society and culture-driven morals. These change with time, the racism aspect being just one example. Finally we have personal morals - usually small deviations from the norm where we might disagree with general consensus. There is no 'absolute', just a framework that works best for us at a given time and it's certainly a concept born of Man. IMHO anyway!
|
|
|
Hubris
Mar 16, 2005 15:26:13 GMT -5
Post by Electron on Mar 16, 2005 15:26:13 GMT -5
C.S. Lewis in the Appendix to The Abolition of Man records 8 laws that can be found in entirely unrelated religios systems ranging from ancient Egyptian and Babylonian religion to Norse mythology to Hindu scriptures. It is quite hard to conceive of a people who would not agree that it is right (or better) to love your parents, love your kids, be faithful to your spouse, help those who are hurting, punish the wicked, etc. (regardless of whether they actually practice these things.) Hard to conceive how they might agree? Not at all given that the issues faced by people living in societies will be more or less the same. The best 'moral policy' could be expected to evolve independantly - given the same criteria of building successful societies, with the odd exceptions here and there (like human sacrifice). But this has been debated at length elsewhere. The theorists say that it is only thru our ability to reason that we gain moral responsibility. After all, if we could not entertain rational thought, how could we be held culpable for seemingly iniquities? So, it follows that our dogs, cats, and hamsters don't have a moral responsibility. Neanderthal man has been shown to be a different species from humans ( that link is to a creationist website as it happens) yet is known to have performed burial rituals: www.saint-mike.org/Library/Evolution_Science/Catholic_Perspective.htmlIn other Neanderthal burials bodies have been laid to rest on evergreen boughs heaped with flowers of many different species - some identified as medicinal herbs. So here's an animal that seems to be entertaining rational thought. Come to think of it my pet cat knows when he's done wrong (by my standards at any rate) - he brings in two different 'kinds' of mice: One kind he sneaks in and quietly gets on with eating all to himself, any attempts at an interventionist rescue are fiercely rejected... then there's the other kind: This kind is presented within hours of committing another 'sin' (usually scratching the back of the sofa in order to gain attention) which often results in said pet being ejected without ceremony. Here the mouse is tentatively deposited at the feet of the 'Lord of the manor' while the guilty party passively waits for forgiveness. I don't read too much into this, but I have to say it does help me maintain an open mind about such matters.
|
|
|
Hubris
Mar 16, 2005 15:52:13 GMT -5
Post by Shiggy on Mar 16, 2005 15:52:13 GMT -5
Yep. Elephants do this, too. They often go to great pains to transport bodies of group members to elephant graveyards as well as covering the bodies with leaves, grass, etc. We are just like many other animals. I think it's arrogant, and has no logical basis, to attribute "morals" to only humans, whatever that word means.
|
|
|
Hubris
Mar 16, 2005 16:48:54 GMT -5
Post by Satori on Mar 16, 2005 16:48:54 GMT -5
Come to think of it my pet cat knows when he's done wrong (by my standards at any rate) - he brings in two different 'kinds' of mice: One kind he sneaks in and quietly gets on with eating all to himself, any attempts at an interventionist rescue are fiercely rejected... then there's the other kind: This kind is presented within hours of committing another 'sin' (usually scratching the back of the sofa in order to gain attention) which often results in said pet being ejected without ceremony. Here the mouse is tentatively deposited at the feet of the 'Lord of the manor' while the guilty party passively waits for forgiveness. I don't read too much into this, but I have to say it does help me maintain an open mind about such matters. It is a good point though. My Border Collie has 'moral' standards based upon what his society (being the rules of the house we live in) has conditioned in him. He certainly knows when he's done wrong, and not necessarily in response to any immediate reaction from me; if he chases one of the cats for example (which we try to discourage), he'll often stop mid-chase and come back with his ears down and adopt a submissive posture by way of apology. I could name many other examples too. Doubtless we'd have some that would say "yes, but that's just a dog responding to repeated training - it's not 'morals'", but what are morals if not a form of training that allows us to survive and participate successfully in society? Maybe some would like to dress it up as something beyond that when it relates to humans, but I think that's just an egotistical (in terms of the species) point of view.
|
|
jtoro
New Member
Posts: 15
|
Hubris
Mar 16, 2005 17:21:26 GMT -5
Post by jtoro on Mar 16, 2005 17:21:26 GMT -5
Christianity is anthropocentric in that God created the World for Man. Man was created as God's central element of the world. With this Aquinas would agree. God didn't create trout as the central element of creation but man. And YES, I have read Aquinas, and I still feel I can hold my view. Anthropocentricity doesn't necessarilly hold man to be the measure of all things, just that the Universe was made for us; we are the central element in the universe (the definition by the way). In this respect, Aquinas would agree with my claim without contradicting himself. Yes, God is the alpha and the omega, but He created the universe for US and not for us and aliens, or us and the animals as the animals are here to benefit us. Just because, "it's nothing man did to be brought to that point" doesn't mean Chrsitianity isn't anthropocentric. The sun didn't do anything to be the center of our galaxy, and, today, we still hold our galaxy to be heliocentric instead of geocentric. Also, what if God didn't exists, then Christianity would be very anthropocentric; we would have only synthetic rights that we alone created over the animals, etc. Did you ever even consider that? And if that were the case, any Chrstian practioner, including Aquinas, would be anthropocentric. In sum, I meant that Aquinas was anthropocentric in that he believed in Genesis, which says that God created the universe for man. How do we know that God exists; or if he does, how do we know that he created it for us? All in all, if God doesn't exists, which his ontological argument severly FAILED to prove, Aquinas is anthropocentric. This is how I can say this. -Bobarian, as for our morality discourse. You have yet to prove to me that subjective theories of morality are incorrect. You DID give me a bunch of findings of people you CONSIDER to be relevant authorities. I agree that Plato, Lewis, etc. had some interesting things to say, but unfortunately neither they nor you can PROVE that morality is not subjective but divinely-oradained. Also, if you could show me in the definition of anthropocentric where it says that if one holds God to exists, His end has to be in man, I'd appreciate it becasue all four of my dictionaries, including my Philosophical dictionary must be outdated if you're right. In addition, if God doesn't exists, Aquinas would hold MAN to be the measure of all things; he would just be doing so through a confabulated medium. Culutural relativism does actually hold that one culture's morals are just as acceptable as the next's. That is EXACTLY what it means. You seem to keep holding reason and morality to be identical. Reason deals with the laws of inference or logic, while morality deals with what is ethically right or wrong or just. While studying moral philosophy requires reason, studying reason doesn't deem morality obligatory. Come on, this is elementary. Back to the subjective moral theory, cultural relativism, it does in fact hold that morals are defined within each culture. If you asks someone in the Aztec society whether it was morally permissable to sacrifice a human, he would say yes. Today we would say no. Cultural relativism doesn't have a problem with that, period. And you can't prove that the Aztecs were wrong for doing so, even though it does seem like it according to OUR current society. But this claim would be based on our values. Relativism holds that you must judge acts to be moral or not within that culture's definition of morality. Until you can prove(and when you do, if you could call the Dean of Harvard Philosophy, I'm sure he would like to know) that morality is a priori, you'll have to go on deifying philosophers, political scientists, etc! Peace, Brethren
Post script: How can anyone say that Christianity isn't anthropocentric? What would Christianity be without humans? Yes, God is the Ultimate creator, etc, but he did so FOR US- anthropocentric written all over it. Any attempt to save any Christian from this claim goes too deep and beyond the scope of our argument.
|
|
jtoro
New Member
Posts: 15
|
Hubris
Mar 16, 2005 17:35:51 GMT -5
Post by jtoro on Mar 16, 2005 17:35:51 GMT -5
Bobarian, just wanted to point a few of your logical flaws. First, just because eight "laws" have been discovered to exists among all religions doesn't do much to prove that morality is a priori. Couldn't it be a coincidence? Yes, this is possible, and you, therefore, have not proved morality to be necessarilly universal. Secondly, when you use the word wicked or iniquity, you presuppose universal, a priori morality. If morality was truly subjective, then you could only judge me to be wicked according to my moral framework. Gotcha. Personally, if you'd like to know, I am not a cultural relativists, but I acknowledge that I only hold it to be false dogmatically.
|
|
|
Hubris
Mar 17, 2005 10:14:39 GMT -5
Post by Shiggy on Mar 17, 2005 10:14:39 GMT -5
Then how/why do you believe it?
Issues similar to this were part of my realisation that Christianity is false, and allowed me to achieve freedom from its dogmatism. I am now a logical and balanced thinker no longer troubled by the inner conflict of reason with Christianity's intellectual suffocation.
I soon realised that fear is the only thing that keeps you there.
|
|
jtoro
New Member
Posts: 15
|
Hubris
Mar 17, 2005 12:19:51 GMT -5
Post by jtoro on Mar 17, 2005 12:19:51 GMT -5
Shiggy, I am to answer your question as to how/why I hold cultural relativism (or any subjective theories or moral philosophy) to be false. You have chraged me with a most difficult task, but I will do my best. Well, my intuition tells me that certain acts have to be universally immoral, i.e., child rape, killing for fun, etc., but I cannot (and I don't think anyone can prove) that I am not just using my own culture's or subjective values to deem these wrong. Furthermore, I don't think anyone can PROVE that we are NOT a moral carte blanche upon birth morally and socialized post natally. But I still dogmatically hold these truths to be universal. There seems, to me, to be moral truths. I appreciate Bobarian's citations of great thinkers on the subject. They had some insightful things to say about universal morality. Though insightful and convincing, nevertheless, they can't prove that morality isn't socialized, and neither can I. I guess I just want to believe that subjective moral theories are wrong because it gives me a way to justify laws, mores, etc. I undertstand that this is fallacious reasoning, but my intuition tells me that subjective moral theories are just not right, and that God did grant us with moral universals; the only problem arises while trying to prove it- the task becomes quite perplexing. I leave you with a quote of whom I consider to be the greatest thinker in philosophy- Immanuel Kant. ""Two things fill my mind with ever-renewed wonder and awe the more often and deeper I dwell on them--the starry vault above me, and the moral law within me." That pretty much sums up my position, not to much of an answer, huh? Well, sometimes language and articulation can play an impeding role when trying to discuss metaphysics of morality, etc.; How can I convey them moral law that I feel hovers the earth in words. How can I prove to you that this shadow isn't merely a mirage- I can't, and thus I have taken no farther that Kant could conclude. Even he was admittedly dogmatic to a certain degree in disbelieving subjective moral theories. Let me chrage you with the same question. What is you moral theory, Shiggy, and how do you justify holding it?
|
|
|
Hubris
Mar 17, 2005 13:14:41 GMT -5
Post by Satori on Mar 17, 2005 13:14:41 GMT -5
Jtoro,
As a firm believer in subjective morals, I feel motivated to chip in here.
First off, what is a moral? Do you see it as more than just an opinion? If so, why is this one concept more and not, say, whether or not one likes the colour blue.
To me, the idea of absolute morals is the same as the idea of there being an absolute 'best' colour. Granted that's a simplification because people won't die if I think red is the best colour and they think blue is, so morals are certainly more important on a day-to-day basis, but absolute? - my instinct runs in opposition to yours here and tells me they aren't.
I feel that one reason why some might consider it to be more is because of their belief in a God that has a personal interest in human affairs. It gives them an 'absolute' source from which these 'absolute' morals can come.
So let's remove God. Would absolute morals exist then? If they wouldn't then our morals appear to be relative to God (okay, that's ignoring for one moment that God could be 'absolute').
Or, in fact, let's remove Man. Would absolute morals exist then? What would be the point? If they don't exist without Man then surely they are relative to Man.
What use has the universe got for morals?
This is a hard area of discussion because life revolves around God for so many religions that it's virtually impossible to discuss absolutes without discussing Him. Maybe it's because I don't believe in that sort of God that I don't hold to absolute morals.
I know that taking the side of 'subjective morals' is considered to be philosophically weak (or, at least, it used to be when I was at university), but try as I might I can't seem to align myself with the idea of absolute morals, which I think in some ways would be much 'tidier'.
|
|