I’m not certain. In the traditional sense of the imago Dei as human specialness or separateness from the rest of the created order, it most certainly does. But there are other opinions on what the imago Dei is that it would not. So I don’t know.
Because the oath puts forth commands that are moral.
I can’t speak for all atheists, but most atheists I am familiar with tend to see human empathy and reason as the source of morality. We can sense pain or joy in others, and can figure out how our actions will affect others. Moral obligation comes from the knowledge of how you experience pain, joy, injustice, fairness and how you can produce those same feelings in others.
1 Like
Are you sure (“certain”) that the “traditional sense” precludes common ancestry with other animals? I worked as a Christian biologist and scholar for decades and the best argument I saw was that non-human animals didn’t get the “breath” of god. I always thought that this meant that there was something unique about humans re their relationship to the creator, but since the raw materials (dust) seemed the same (“let the land produce” in Genesis 1, “formed from the dust” in Genesis 2), I could see nothing in the creation accounts to inform or rule out common ancestry. Of course, those strange old stories are barely coherent if at all, and their composers couldn’t even have conceived of common ancestry. But only the “breath of God” could, it seems to me, support an assertion of strong biological discontinuity, and that seems a laughably tortured reading of the text to me. In short, I have never seen an argument that could support the claim that common ancestry “most certainly” undermines the imago dei.
I have often heard Christians claim that there is more than just the physical, that the soul is immaterial and separate from the body. Therefore, I don’t see how this would conflict with the idea that the human physical body is related to all other species.
On top of that, those who don’t accept common ancestry would probably not be convinced by a humanzee anyway. You can’t reason a person out of a position that they didn’t reason themselves into.
We are doomed to subjectivism, then.
Yep. In my experience, anyone claiming to have an objective moral code has just subjectively chosen which moral code they will follow. It may be subjective to believe that a sunset is more beautiful than a sewage treatment plant, but does that really matter?
Obligatory “how then can you fault Hitler for adhering to his own moral code” question.
How can you fault western countries from adhering to their own moral code and fighting injustice and tyranny where it threatens its people or peoples’ of other nations? Like I said, we subjectively believe that a sunset is more beautiful than a sewage treatment plant. We also subjectively believe that causing feelings of pain and injustice in others is wrong.
That didn’t exactly answer my question.
Hitler’s code wasn’t moral as judged by human society.
Which human society? The German society seemed okay with it. Anti-Semitism was at an all time high in the early 20th century.
Would that include German, Russian, and Polish jews? They were okay with Hitler’s moral code? What about the countries that Hitler invaded? Were they okay with his moral code?
Most of German society were really shocked to find out after the fact about the death camps. And modern-day Germans pretty thoroughly judge and repudiate him.
I’d suggest that there’s a difference between Anti-Semitism being high and Anti-Semitism being considered moral by society. Just like there’s a difference between eating a lot of candy and considering candy healthy.
1 Like
The German society lived in fear of Hitler and his officers. I don’t think they were “okay with it.” Individuals were focused on self-preservation, maybe, but that is not necessarily approval.
1 Like
We’ve strayed a bit from the topic, I think.
Godwin’s Law and all that…
2 Likes
The topic … whether there are universally accepted or agreed-upon rules of morality determined by society vs. independently, objectively true morality (ie, from God)?
I don’t think that’s the topic. But I created one here for those interested that topic to play in.
1 Like
Back to the topic…
It’s an ethically contentious opinion from one guy and explicitly meant to be provocative. I don’t consider him representative of many people or a sign of some deeper metaphysical malaise that’s about to dangerously engulf society as a whole. But peoples’ mileage my vary.
[Note added: The proposal wouldn’t pass any biomedical review board, secular or otherwise.]
2 Likes
This topic was automatically closed 6 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.