-
They're Not
How exactly does this work? I'm atheist and not doubting the existence of evolution. But how do these statements fit together (1) all humans were created equally (2) no one was created by God OR God used natural design. My solution is that not everyone is equal, at least in evolutionary terms, which is why we find more intelligent, stronger, more beautiful etc people more attractive. But this is elitism and many liberals are against both the notion that God exists and created humans equally and that humans are not all equal. How do these two theories fit?
33%
Voted for by pozo, Jackymania.
-
Theoretically
You raise an interesting point, and there are philosophers (I can't recall who) who claim that without theism any talk of freedom and equality is meaningless.
I think the thing is that if you are an atheist (or a theist, for that matter) you can accept that humans are not equal - that is, the same - while still maintaining that we should, theoretically, be equal in politics and before the law, and in our basic life opporunities. Naturally, life will sift people out into different 'levels' based on their natural abilities (hence I am perfectly free to be the tallest man in the world - but at 5' 7", it just ain't happening. Likewise, contestants on any of the various 'Idol' programs, are free to consider themselves serious and disciplined musos...but, come on!) but we should not legislate people into different groups, as was done in India under the caste system.
So, theoretically, we should all be treated equally for the purposes of government and legislation but, in reality, we are not equal.
Oh, and treating people equally does not mean treating everyone the same, but giving all people equal recognition as human beings....at least in my ideal world run by the Principle of Humanity.
Hope that has cleared it up for you.
K. F.
Voted for by Alexander Hine.
-
Not equal in any way
Biologically we are not all equal. Talents, physical appearances, brains, etc. are not divided equally.
By law we do get one vote per person, but wealth and other tools of politcal influence (think George W. Bush)change how much your one voice can change the world.
Voted for by eighteight.
-
Another interesting point...
As for being equal with evolution: No one but the uneducated ever thought that. Adolf Hitler used evolution as an excuse for his plans for genecide, calling jews a species of ape. And then there is the Ota Bunga case from New York City, where an African pigmey was put on display at a zoo because no one considered him human.
And of course there is the faster, stronger, more intelligent factor in it all. If we were all equal, there would be no natural selection.
Voted for by Trinity Dragon.
-
food for thought...
For thousands and thousands of years of recorded human history, the idea that "races" were real and important things dominated, as well as the idea that women were inferior creatures mentally. Genocide, slavery, and subjugation were the accepted rules, not the condemned exceptions. Christianity hits the scene, and yet still nothing changes for thousands of years.
And yet, in just one brief century after Darwin discovers that humans are a species that all evolved, racialism and sexism are looked down upon. Why? Because the revolution Darwin started finally gave objective basis for the idea that racial differences are minor (and extremely recent developments to boot, biological speaking), and the differences between women and men genetically are biologically small and relatively insignificant when it comes to things like the capacity to appreciate rights and responsibilities.
Think about that. Thousands and thousands of years of cultural stasis on the question of race. And then, within a hundred years of someone looking into the fact of the matter, all of that is turned on its head: racism is looked down and ridiculed instead of treated as just a matter of fact. Outside of fundamentalist cultures, women are treated as equals in a way that they never ever had before.
Think about how amazing a change that is.
Voted for by plunge.
None of the choices fit your opinion? Add one →
|
|
Registration is required because of issues with spam. It is fast and free! This author would LOVE to get a comment from you, please join!
Jackymania
June 8, 2007
Edit | Reply
I think this dichotomy of perspective can be solved by studying natural history of man and the sociological history of mankind.
Evolution is based on survival and information gathering. variation is an inevitable fallout of such a principle. variation means inequality. The degree of variation found in any species (living beings including plants) is sought to be termed as unequal is a pure anthropocentric view.
In the human context, a birth and personality of that being is more or less dependent on parentage (genetics), social moorings, its culture and surrounding environment.
Politcally we are equal, but geographical and perhaps biologically we all are a little different by the most tiniest degrees in twins and by vast gaps in perceptions from the geographical point of view. This may include, economic disparity, physcial attributes, biological quality and intellectual differences, within intra an dinter group personalities or souls.
mudgod
June 25, 2007
Edit | Reply
July 1, 2007
TeChNoWC
July 5, 2007
Edit | Reply
Dwn
July 18, 2007
Edit | Reply
Please register or login to comment! It's totally free