[Buddha-l] Fighting creationism

[SJZiobro at cs.com]

Basically, Timothy, you expressed concern over what appeared on my part to be a dissociation of moral action from ideas.  I think this was fair enough.  My reply was to the point that thought and action, though they share a relation, are not only distinguishable, but they can be separable. The only instance among intelligent beings (hence the reference to humans and angels) where this isn't the case is when the thinker and the doer is God.  Does one necessarily have to refer to God explicitly when acting morally?  No.  So perhaps we agree here.

Regards,

Stan

Timothy Smith <smith at wheelwrightassoc.com> wrote:

>Now I'm even more confused.  What do angels and demons have to do  
>with any of this, Stan?
>My point was merely that the leap to God (as traditionally defined by  
>creationist thought)  is unnecessary.
>Timothy Smith
>Wheelwright Associates
>www.wheelwrightassoc.com
>
>On Apr 2, 2007, at 2:01 PM, SJZiobro at cs.com wrote:
>
>> Timothy,
>>
>> I figured that this observation could and would be made with regard  
>> to my note.  Just for clarification, but with regard to human  
>> beings, angels, and demons, I do not necessarily identify ideation  
>> with volition or intentionality.  Accordingly, I do not necessarily  
>> identify knowing something with willing that to which the knowing  
>> pertains.  One can know, for instance, that it is morally right in  
>> an emergency situation, when one can actually do so, to help a  
>> child in distress, yet one can refuse to help that child.  Knowing  
>> and willing and executing the action allied with that willing, are  
>> not only distinguishable, but seperable.  I hope this helps  
>> somewhat.  I look forward to reading more of this thread later  
>> tonight.  Presently, this is as far as I can get.
>>
>> Kind regards to you and all,
>>
>> Stan Ziobro
>>
>>
>> Timothy Smith <smith at wheelwrightassoc.com> wrote:
>>
>>> I'm more concerned about Stan's notion that the moral sphere is
>>> outside the sphere of ideas!?
>>> News to me.  "Being", said Parmenides, "Is".  The leap from Being to
>>> God, it seems to me,
>>> is less of a moral leap than an ideation.  Creationism is just
>>> downright unnecessary.
>>>
>>> Timothy Smith
>>> Wheelwright Associates
>>> www.wheelwrightassoc.com
>>>
>>> On Apr 1, 2007, at 5:51 PM, Richard Hayes wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Sunday 01 April 2007 17:32, SJZiobro at cs.com wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Sure, you can do whatever you want.  I don't agree that it is
>>>>> God's fault
>>>>> that a virus originating in non-human animals jumped over to our
>>>>> species.
>>>>> There is a reason for this, and it is this which you might
>>>>> consider as your
>>>>> culprit.
>>>>
>>>> I suspect that what you meant to say is that there is an
>>>> explanation for the
>>>> AIDS virus infecting human beings. Saying that there is a reason
>>>> implies that
>>>> some purpose was held in someone's mind and that the spreading of
>>>> the virus
>>>> is the deliberate fulfillment of that purpose. It is difficult to
>>>> imagine
>>>> anyone holding that view.
>>>>
>>>> -- 
>>>> Richard Hayes
>>>> Department of Philosophy
>>>> University of New Mexico
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> buddha-l mailing list
>>>> buddha-l at mailman.swcp.com
>>>> http://mailman.swcp.com/mailman/listinfo/buddha-l
>>>
>>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> buddha-l mailing list
>> buddha-l at mailman.swcp.com
>> http://mailman.swcp.com/mailman/listinfo/buddha-l
>
>