Re: [Sadhu Sanga] Paper Refuting Darwinism Published in Journal 'Communicative & Integrative Biology'

Votes: 0
E-mail me when people leave their comments –

Comments

  • To
    • Online Sadhu Sanga

    Actually, according to Descartes, the dog cannot feel happiness because the dog has no consciousness. Unlike most others, who recognized that nonhumans were conscious but claimed they were not self-aware, and therefore, were cognitively inferior to humans, Descartes at least appears to have rejected nonhuman consciousness at all. He really did appear to believe (although this not entirely clear because he contradicts himself in certain passages) that animals were automatons or machines.

    Those of us who are not vegan embrace the idea that it is morally acceptable to consume or wear animals because, although sentient (and conscious), nonhumans are not self-conscious and, therefore, have no interest in continuing to live. They exist in an "eternal present" (to use Singer's expression) and killing them is not a problem per se; as long as we minimize suffering, and act "humanely," we are acting morally.

    Putting aside that we do not treat animals "humanely" (whatever that word means) that position, articulated by Bentham and others in the 19th century and continued today by Singer and others, begs the question about whether human self-awareness is the only sort of self-awareness that is relevant. In my work, I have argued that to be sentient is to be self-aware and that one can be self-aware even if one lives in an "eternal present."

     

    Gary L. Francione
    Board of Governors Distinguished Professor of Law
    & Nicholas deB. Katzenbach Scholar of Law and Philosophy
    Rutgers University School of Law
    123 Washington Street
    Newark, New Jersey  07102
    Phone: 973-353-5321
    Fax: 973-353-1445

    ----- Original Message -----
    From: ntiwari@iitk.ac.in
    To: "Online Sadhu Sanga" <Online_Sadhu_Sanga@googlegroups.com>
    Sent: Tuesday, October 27, 2015 2:55:58 AM
    Subject: Re: [Sadhu Sanga] "...abiogenesis is an insult to the life force."

    This is interesting discussion. Actually, the idea of "abiogenesis" is
    quite old. It was also, I think, proposed by Buddhists. On a superficial
    level, it indeed appears that in such a world, there is no reason to have
    "morality" and ideas like "compassion".

    But, such an argument does not hold water when we carefully think about
    it. It is so because regardless of the nature of our existence, we do feel
    pain. And so do animals. It is immaterial whether we feel
    sadness/pain/misery/.... as a consequence of some finely designed
    machines, or because we were crafted by some higher entity. And because
    all of us want to remain happy (inclduing the Cartesian dog), it is in
    enlightened self-interest of all of us that we be compassionate, nice,
    non-violent to the extent possible, and stay away from "evil".

    The abiogenesis concept however has one limitation - it does not appeal to
    our hearts. For it sends a message that we are all alone - left to fend
    for ourselves. It does not assure us that once we die, we shall continue.
    That death is the not the end-all. That there is a continuum. This is one
    central "limitation" of Buddhist world view as well - as it makes folks
    queasy. Whether such a world view is true or not can be discussed. But
    such a world view does indeed induce queasiness in psyches. From a
    scientific basis, however it does not matter. As science is blind to our
    feelings and fears.

    The other limitation of such a concept relates to plausability. I often
    wonder whether the tremendous complexity we have in living systems could
    indeed have been a pure outcome of chances.

    nachiketa


    > Dear Dr Helen Hansma
    >
    >
    >  
    > The paper ‘Life and consciousness – TheVedāntic view’ states:
    >
    > Inthe seventeenth century, the French philosopher René Descartes claimed
    > thatonly the human body has a soul, and all other organisms are mere
    > automatonsmade of meat and bones. In Descartes' words “Animals are like
    > robots: theycannot reason or feel pain.”11 In Introductionto Animal
    > Rights, Gary Francione describes the anticipated consequences ofthis
    > Cartesian view.
    >
    >
    > “Descartesand his followers performed experiments in which they nailed
    > animals by theirpaws onto boards and cut them open to reveal their beating
    > hearts. They burned,scalded, and mutilated animals in every conceivable
    > manner. When the animalsreacted as though they were suffering pain,
    > Descartes dismissed the reaction asno different from the sound of a
    > machine that was functioning improperly. A cryingdog, Descartes
    > maintained, is no different from a whining gear that needs oil.”12
    >
    >
    > Gary Francionealso wrotea message recently in this forum expressing his
    > sincere concern over animalright violation. The abiogenesis
    > concept even goes a step further and claims that Manis simply an
    > enclosed membrane of chemicals. But what is the actual evidence for
    > theseclaims? Following this view of life we cannot justify our respect to
    > ourparents, elders, teachers or any respectable individual, because
    > according tothis view life is nothing but a mere mechanical/chemical
    > additive sums of chemicals.If a Man is simply an enclosed membrane of
    > chemicals, then why should we punisha murderer? Following abiogenesis,
    > there is no difference between performing the chemical reactions in a
    > laboratory and brutal murder of a human being.
    > Genes cannot decide the makeup of anorganism by themselves. Two
    > monozygotic or identical twins will appear if asingle fertilized egg
    > divides and produces two complete babies. If those twins areallowed to
    > grow in two different environments, despite having identical genes,they
    > will exhibit completely different cultural values, customs and other
    > differences.Such cases clearly establish that environment plays a vital
    > role in determiningdifferences, and genetic effects are of no importance
    > whatsoever to explainthese differences. We also now know that living
    > organisms within a species exhibitdifferent behavior even in the absence
    > of differences in the environment, andhence, individual organisms execute
    > actual novel acts. Therefore, evidence justifies the conclusion that
    > living organisms possess “free will” {Brembs, B. (2010). Towards a
    > scientific concept of free willas a biological trait: spontaneous actions
    > and decision making ininvertebrates. Proceedings of the RoyalSociety B:
    > Biological Sciences, Vol. 278, pp. 930-939}. Unlike matter (the motion of
    > aninanimate object is determined by the laws of physics and chemistry),
    > the primesymptom of life is that it exhibits free will or self-determined
    > behavior,which is volitional and intentional, and which is self-caused or
    > self-initiatedaction. Hence, life is self-caused – “Life Comes from
    > Life”, and abiogenesis –“First life came from non-Life’”– is
    > only an illusion of determinism in abiology.
    >  
    > Determinism is founded on the beliefthat everything (including human
    > action) that happens can be explainedprecisely by certain prior causal
    > factors. According to this idea, every actionof an organism must have a
    > genetic basis and thus undercuts moral responsibility.By strictly
    > following determinism, one could argue that demons residing inpeople’s
    > genes are responsible for criminal behavior and hence, a person’s
    > DNAshould be convicted and not the person himself/herself. How can
    > someonejudiciously be held responsible for something whose causes he/she
    > couldn’tcontrol? Renowned American geneticist, Dr. T. Dobzhansky, stated
    > {Dobzhansky,T. (1956). The biological basis of humanfreedom. New York:
    > Columbia University Press, 1956. pp. 93-94, 132}:
    >
    >
    >  
    > “Moral rightness or wrongness hasmeaning only in connection with persons
    > who are free agents, and who areconsequently able to choose between
    > different ideas and between possiblecourses of action. Ethics presupposes
    > freedom... Ethics, as such, has nogenetic basis and are not the product of
    > biological evolution.”
    >
    >
    >  
    > Hence, without any actual scientificevidence to support abiogenesis, the
    > practice of mass spreading of materialism in the form of textbooks and
    > classroom teaching seems to be a brutal crime on humanity at large.
    >  
    > Sincerely,
    >
    > B.N. Shanta
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >      On Monday, 26 October 2015 1:33 AM, Helen Hansma
    > <helen.hansma@gmail.com> wrote:
    >
    >
    >  From the conclusions to Bhakti Niskama Shanta's article, Life and
    > Consciousness - the Vedantic View:"Hence, abiogenesis is aninsult to the
    > life force."
    >
    > How does one test this?--

This reply was deleted.

You need to be a member of puredevoteeseva to add comments!

Join puredevoteeseva