Kate said- Higher intelligence can be a trait that is completely non-human IMO, it can be superhuman. A superhuman being can be indifferent to human suffering but have an IQ that surrmounts anything we have diacovered as humans.
And outside of comic books and fantasy films, how much interaction have you actually had with superhumans? Wouldn't that be zilch?
See, it becomes a real problem when people get so conditioned to saying things without questioning what they're saying, such that their words and concepts become meaningless, literally thoughtless (devoid of thought).... It's so easy to perpetuate random cliches that make us feel good to say (as if giving us the illusion of understanding), without giving them even a moment's thought; ultimately they get you nowhere, and their value is strictly placebo.
But my point is, how can humans think any other way BUT anthropocentrically (human-centered), since the bottom line is we ARE trapped into looking at things from our perspective as hominids; hence, EVERYTHING (including our thoughts on the traits of God, or the motives of animals) is going to be influenced by our filters, and the limits of OUR perspective, and we'll NEVER be able to experience, eg, canine logic, since we can only guess at what's going on inside their minds (although some clever people are doing MRI brain scans with canines to study how their brains work, and then we can compare that to ours; still, our explanation is locked and rooted based on OUR models of thinking of how things work, but it's gotten us THIS far so it can't be totally worthless).
Of course, some are wanting to go into hyper-drive by suggesting the existence of invisible beings that are said to be even more-powerful? And what's more, these types claim to KNOW what they think they want everyone else to do to make them happy? Sorry, but we've crossed over into the silly-string world of the Twilight Zone, and actual Divine inspiration becomes completely indiscernable from those who engage in fantasies running amok.
Granted, we may study the behavior of animals, and then use anthropocentric rationale to explain it to other humans (eg by calling their activities as based on 'instincts', whereas in humans we tend to call it 'habits'). But it seems impossible to do anything other than to explain motivations in OUR terms, using our logical processes, since it's the ONLY tools at our disposal.
A good example is the phrase "laws of nature": it's an anthropocentric concept of fairly recent origins, so it would be anachronistic to apply it to the Bible God, saying some Divine lawgiver passed these laws and set them into motion, since it's actually an analogy which wasn't even formulated in ancient times, but only within the last 400 years (and the Book of Job hints at the idea, likely serving as the inspiration for the fleshed out concept).
Humans know what laws are: stipulations of acceptable behavior that must be followed, and if not, the person potentially faces punishment. The problem with applying the analogy to nature is many-fold:
1) these "laws" and relationships are actually discovered and explained by humans, and NOT handed down from God as "laws" (eg Mosaic law).
Thus many of our "laws of nature" have had to be redefined AFTER more experimental evidence was obtained, and the "laws" needed to be modified (eg 'c', the speed of light in vacuum is considered a 'constant', but it's not so constant: it has undergone slight modification with more-careful measurement techniques, etc).
2) Nature doesn't VIOLATE these so-called laws, so they lack the property needed to be considered as 'laws': they MUST be violable (able to be broken). Of course, the "law of gravity" says that all bodies dropped in a free fall ALWAYS drop to the Earth (think Isaac Newton and the apple), and if objects that were dropped from your stationary hand flew UP into the sky, that would constitute a violation of the laws of physics (esp. gravity).
HOWEVER, in the Bible we see God time and time again engaging in such miracles (eg Jesus walking on water, God stopping the Earth's rotation, etc), and seemingly violating the very laws He gave to matter, and calling it "supernatural"!
But wait a minute: wouldn't that activity in fact constitute God violating His own Divine Will, when He passed those laws in the first place? Hence, wouldn't that interference and breaking of His OWN LAWS constitute God sinning (broadly defined as any action that violates God's expressed will)? Can God 'sin'?
Furthermore, per many passages in the Bible, God cannot change His mind (although he does so repeatedly). Again, you're left with the task of suppressing multiple contradictions (akin to stamping out little fires all around you), or just realizing that the Bible is a work of ancient men, written over a LONG period of time, and not some cosmic "love you!" Valentine's Day note sent from Jesus or God to lil' old you....
But back to the misnomer, "laws of nature": these are at the core of why some scientists are saying it's time to jettison the term "laws of nature", and instead refer to "patterns of nature" or "the regularities of nature", since the prior term is inaccurate and often gives lay-people a fundamental misunderstanding of the reality of the situation.
Kate said- Heck even many autistic humans can be like this too high IQ and no empathy. Adam to be honest I am making excuses why God remains silent in cases of suffering aren't I? Just excuses.
Don't feel so bad, as many theologians and ministers have struggled with the 'problem of evil' for hundreds of years, but of course many had a compelling and vested interest in keeping the game going, since they had so much invested in it. Despite the best-efforts of many bright minds, they've come up with goose eggs, and only have developed the art of rhetorical tricks, AKA sleight of tongue (eg William Lane Craig is a well-paid Xian apologetist who resorts to pseudo-intellectual meaningless gibberish which is simply multi-syllabic word play, AKA excusiology; it provides believers looking for smart-sounding arguments something to cling to, but only as long as they don't encounter anyone who has heard the argument before, and who has given it some thought).
BTW, you don't have to be honest with me or anyone else, since ultimately the one who pays the price for not thinking straight is ultimately the person themselves (that is, if the person lacks empathy and is unable to perceive the harm their beliefs inflict on others, including their own family).
Adam
