I’m saying, from a religious human point of view that we are more than “just meat”. It’s not a scientific statement at all. That science only recognizes “meat” is not surprising. It’s what it has to work with. Rationality should be able to do a step better, but almost certainly still won’t encompass the entirety of what it means to live a faithful life.
The same way that nearly every other organism we observe other than ourselves functions without any apparent “higher level morality” in place? Morality, such as we aspire to, isn’t some sort of widespread default among the animal kingdom as we should expect it to be if nature has just “baked it in” to all of us.
We also have discrete objective evidence that God personally intervenes providentially. It’s not a scientific statement at all, so of course it is deniable and there will be deniers.
Maybe I should have said “We also have discrete objective evidence that God personally intervenes providentially, negating the idea that ‘we’re just meat.’”
Klax
(The only thing that matters is faith expressed in love.)
44
Ah didnae say we’re just meat. Any more than we are just matter. Sausages and pigs don’t have intentionality. That we are matter organized as live meat organized as intentional, what’s unscientific about that? We have the morality that goes with that level of complexity. Fairness is primate. Elephants cheat. Rationality does just fine explaining that and our level of intentional morality from our baked in genes and wiring without magic. It needs do no better. Where does it lack? And what has morality got to do with faith? How does faith make morality better? What faith? Faith in what? We’re wired for faith too of course. Doesn’t make it true. Whereas morality can be perfectly philosophically explicated, extended without any faith at all, agreed on by people of goodwill, enlightened self interest everywhere.
Jesus’ confrontation with dead, legalistic, ritual, power based ‘morality’ came at the earliest possible opportunity. That was either natural or supernatural or both. But it’s not distinctive. Richard Dawkins endorses it. Why wouldn’t he?
Maybe I should have said “We also have discrete objective evidence that God personally intervenes providentially, negating the idea that we’re no more than just evolved meat with baked in genes and wiring for morality and faith."