Vanka,So I take it you don't believe in God. You belittle those who
do. You call them less intelligent and worthy of intellectualism than yourself.
You make my point exactly. Those who 'think' that they are wise (or who think
they are smarter because they don't believe in a God) often deceive themselves.
Pride cometh before the fall..."Fools mock, but they will
mourn" is directly from scripture and you fit this to a 't'. Laugh and
scoff all you want. I would call you ignorant and lazy for not even trying to
have some faith and believe. Most atheists are.It is so much easier
to conclude there is no God than to humble yourself, find a quiet secluded
place, kneel on your knees, show a particle of faith, and sincerely ask God if
He is real. Everyone who is human is capable of this. And it will be the most
important thing you will do in your lifetime.Or...you can continue
on your quest to show how ridiculous those who have labored to know there is a
God until you die. What lies beyond that is an accumulation of your choices.
jasonlivy,If that is all that needs to be said, then your tithing
money, and the sacred donations of the Wheatleys, are being wasted by a ton of
BYU professors, and they wasted a lot of money bringing in this Princeton lawyer
to talk a lot of nonsense about the supposed attributes of god (what? did
somebody give God a personality test? How do they know the attributes of
God?)It might have been just as enlightening to discuss how human's
share some of the attributes of Superman, Spiderman, and Santa, which proves we
humans (at least some of us) have Super capacities, and Spidey senses, and --
whatever superlative stuff Santa has (a jolly demeanor?), but it doesn't prove
any of them are real.Was this professor's lecture a good use of
tithing money? He told a bunch of people who are already full of their own
deific potential and ambition that they have attributes like God. Is that what
school is for? To tell you what you already know (or think you know)?
I think we 'think' too much. Although I enjoy taking quiet moments
and pondering how my life is going and if I'm making a difference in this world,
I also think that we trail off into areas of our intellect until we 'think we
are wise', but this reality exposes our prideful, or close heart/minded, side.
Many of us find ourselves at times (including myself) thinking beyond the
mark...into realms that simply don't matter.A great quote I heard
recently states, "Simplicity is the ultimate sophistication". Because
of this, I basically know who I am, where I'm going, and why I'm here. There is
a method of acquiring this knowledge that doesn't always jive with learned men.
In my opinion, being learned is good if we hearken unto the councils of God.
Having tested this numerous times in my life has resulted in keeping me from
much personal chaos. I also know, whether you're religious or not, simplicity
states, "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." What more needs to be said?
The professor has an interesting argument but I disagree with it. I was taught
in Sunday school that we are all created in God's image not created in It's
image to be like It. Just being able to want to do something does make me feel
"God-like"... I guess it can be argued that one can try to attain
perfection like God but how can you obtain God's perfection when you don't know
what it is?@esquire- How much wood could a woodchuck chuck, if a
woodchuck could chuck wood?@georgeman- There are other creatures
that create societies also...
"... protecting traditional marriage..."The very phrase is
a false assumption that same-gender marriage is an attack on traditional
marriage, such that traditional marriage needs protection. Traditional marriage
is not under attack. Those who use such language are just anti-homosexual
people making a false argument to circumvent an honest admission of their
TJ,Because, of course, God is a carnivore, and the carnivorous
nature of man is a god-like attribute!Bring on that prime rib!
@Middle of the Road: It kinds of depends on how you define "truth,"
doesn't it? Would that be your truth, or my truth? Who's truth is correct? I
can only assume that you use the word truth, just gleaning from your response,
as believing in God. And since God cannot be proven nor disproven, the question
remains: Who's truth is it of whom you speak?
Eric 13. I am eating the cows as fast as I can; but I'm only one man. Man was created in the image of God to be like him if he is willing and
I can envision a west desert that does not have cows and sheep contaminating the
water holes and streams.Take a look at a stream or water hole that has no
sheep or cows. I can not envision how to change this!The value
of this change is to slow down global warming, to help stop the spread of
disease,and To change our west desert into some place we all can in joy. It
could be beautiful. Like the places where there are no cows and sheep.
Would have been an interesting lecture to attend- but there was something else
more 'heavenly' taking place at the same time in the Mariott Center
Interesting that Prof. George's religious views cause him to take a position
that during the Renaissance and Enlightenment periods would have been considered
quite humanist, and therefore, in opposition to the prevailing religious
perspective. It'a also interesting that the mainstream religious thought during
those periods was dominated by the church to which Prof. George belongs, and
which would have argued that humanity was emotion or instinct-driven and prone
indulging in base desires (the contemporaries would probably have just said
"sinful"), much like Prof. George's opponents argue, according to the
article.I wouldn't call it "full-circle", exactly, but I
do find it interesting how the modern religious perspective actually owes much
to those wildly optimistic early humanists. Perhaps that has something to do
with push-back against the weird, amoral 20th century stuff like Levi Strauss
and Freddy Nietzsche? I'm not not smart enough to be a true philosopher, but I
think pondering the nature of the world and our role in it, and hearing the
thoughts of others on those subjects--even when we strongly disagree--is very
Re: Vanka & Esquire--Anyone searching for truth and who is NOT
afraid of finding it will know it, and find it. Professor George is one of
those few who have an open mind to discovery of the truth.On the
other hand, those who scoff at the truth and are critical of it are unsure and
doubters (themselves) in their own right. Food for thought. I
rather appreciated the insight of a good man, although educated he sounds very
teachable. His association with the Quorum of the Twelve, and BYU professors
says a lot about his character to seek out, to glean and embrace true doctrine.
After all, "Man is as God once was, and God is, as man may
become." Lorenzo Snow, I believe taught this truth a century ago, and a
revelation on the nature of man, and his relationship to God. 'The
study of true doctrine changes behavior more than the study of behavior,' a
paraphrase of Boyd K Packer.
A professor of jurisprudence making lame arguments as he pretends to be a
free-will philosopher and psychologist? HmmmmJust like people who
comment on such and pretent to be intelligent and free-willed but are just as
hackneyed as the rest of the religious detractors on the comment boards.But just so you have something else to think about... Our human behavior
of creating a functioning society also points to the "God Like"
attributes of man. If we didn't have these attributes, then there would be no
moral law. The fact that we have internal moral values and boundaries, truly
separates us from all other living creatures.
Like a lot of speakers who come in and say something that the Utah audience will
love, in reality, I doubt they see it like Mormons do. You have been wooed by a
few well chosen, but insincere, words.
It is true that this debate is old, but that does not make it less important or
less relevant. I think that it makes it more so. Either we always
act from causal forces uninfluenced by rational judgment, or it is possible --
at least sometimes -- for reason (our intelligent selves) to judge what to do
and for the causal forces to conform to that judgment. Those who think the
latter is impossible will only be able to offer causal explanations of behavior.
They will not be able to take seriously a person's ordinary thoughts about what
is worth going for, for these thoughts are reason's attempt to discern the value
of the objects to be pursued. They are attempts to justify behavior, not merely
to explain it. I welcome Professor George's interest in this issue
and DN's coverage of his remarks.
George's arguments are hackneyed, dusty old arguments that have been refuted
repeatedly for decades if not centuries.Funny, I would have expected
more from the Wheatley Institution organizers. A professor of jurisprudence
making lame arguments as he pretends to be a free-will philosopher and
DN "That a man can envision a situation that doesn't yet exist, understand
the value in bringing it into existence and then act, by choice, to make it
happen, reaffirms the value of human reason and intellectual freedom, George
said."This is inspiring! It gives me hope for the future; that
there is more that we can create and the world can be a better place through our
efforts.Thank you,Professor George!