Don’t We Often See Ourselves In Our Children?
The most basic functions and drives of all living organisms, and their highest biological priorities, are related to a fundamental drive to be life-sustaining. The most obvious and of primary import are those that are self-sustaining. Immediately thereafter, on a hierarchy of functions, drives, and their related priorities, one finds those related to being self-perpetuating. The overall purpose of self-perpetuation is assumed by most scientists to be the drive inherent in all samples of individual species to be “species-sustaining.” Let us assume that this does indeed constitute a primary functional purpose of the drives and instincts related to procreation and the nurturing and protection of that/those procreated, as the former is found in almost all organisms and the latter is found in almost all animal-life and in the human species (at least).
Throughout recorded human history, our species has held and conveyed a conventional wisdom that what comes from any source tends more than not to reflect its source. This conventional observation explained as much as it reflected the reality that children often look like parents, that two cats will not reproduce a dog, or that certain talents and capacities may be more common to one family than another.
As human beings, we willfully choose whether to procreate or not. In most instances, it is a fundamental choice on our part, in this day and age, whether to allow our instinctual drives toward procreation to facilitate this specific end-result. Would it not stand to reason, therefore, that the Source of the Universe willed the Universe into being? Might we not most likely reflect that from which we derive as a species, and might the Universe not most likely reflect that from which it derives? The world seeks its sustenance and challenges its will to do so – both consciously, most likely, only in the human experience, and the latter, most likely, only a human phenomenon. Assuming that we are correct that we humans are the most complex life-forms created, it is reasonable to assume that the world’s Source is capable of at least as much complexity as we reflect.
Therefore, Argument 2, as it is proposed herein, suggests that it is not only most likely that we derive from a Source such as a God, but, also that we reflect certain urges, instincts, wills, and complexities of which God is, at the very least, capable.
Sign up for the OV Daily Newsletter
OV Social
Talk about begging the question!
I don't mean to be rude, but if this is the Rabbi's self-proclaimed 2nd best argument for the existence of a supernatural god then to be honest, if I were a believer, I would feel embarrassed. It's a failed attempt at semantic sleight-of-hand, and a pretty tranparent one at that.
If this is the quality of argument being advanced by advocates of religion then one cannot help but feel that atheism will continue to grow.
The key is surely to try to ensure that more children are taught to think critically. If we can, perhaps they will be able to see through these arguments and never get 'infected' with the religious 'bug' (so to speak) in the first place? Critical thinking encourages doubt and doubt is the enemy of fundamentalism. Less fundamentalism...well, surely that would make the world a better place, even (one might argue, especially) for religious moderates. What saddens me is that so many believers will not even acknowledge that atheisst even have some really very good questions...
The literal interpretation of the Bible & Torah as well as your own argument (apparently) suggest that a God exists with all of the physical features of a human man, though it's never been explained why exactly a god would require genitals, waste disposal, legs, or anything, really.
Children look like their parents not because their parents chose to make them that way but because they passed on a set of their own genes. Children sometimes act like their parents because they were exposed to a certain mindset, environment and ideology.
Why, then, would the God of the Bible choose to expose us and command of us violence, hate, racism , sexism, but not even bother to suggest compassion in, say, his Ten Commandments? Why would he share with us only a few attributes but not all, if we are truly made in his image?
It seems, as usual, the theist conclusion has come not from evidence and logical reasoning first, then conclusion, but conclusion first than a half-hearted attempt at evidence and logical reasoning to convince others of the conclusion.
I'm afraid "conventional wisdom" isn't a very firm basis on which to rest an argument. "Conventional wisdom" has held a lot of things which turned out to be wrong.
Moreover, it is not clear that the conventional wisdom cited here is in fact universal to the human species (and even if it were, so what? Humankind can't be wrong?). I would suspect that this is a cultural, not a species, assumption. An idea, for example, which had been dominant in the West was that of the great chain of being, where all things were connected in this chain, and related things looked like one another. Thus, in the Renaissance walnuts were thought to be good for treating problems with the brain because they resembled human brains.
An even bigger objection is that the claim that things tend to "reflect" their source seems to be inaccurate. It is also a vague phrase that can probably be shifted in ways that make it impossible to disprove, but let's leave that aside. The examples given here really stack the deck. For any one exmaple of how a thing looks like its source, I could likely give 10 examples of things that do not. Knowledge looks nothing like the books from which it was obtained; books look nothing like trees; trees look nothing like acorns; acorns, in turn, look nothing like trees, nor like sunlight, water, or nutrients. I shouldn't have to belabor the obvious here - claiming that things resemble their sources is such a vague claim that it is largely meaningless, and if the claim is made more specific, it becomes less apparent that this is something we should assume, "conventional wisdom" or not.
Without this very problematic assumption, there is no argument. The American atheists must really be slacking off if they haven't registered an objection to this "argument" yet.
Sorry, that was just a messy pile of words. I had to read each paragraph about four times just to grasp the meaning behind the twisted prose. As far as I can gather the argument was, I look like my mum and dad. God exists. Right then. Thanks.
As for the actual cited evidence, one thing stood out; "The overall purpose of self-perpetuation is assumed by most scientists to be the drive inherent in all samples of individual species to be “species-sustaining.” ". Translation, 'Scientists think things reproduce to continue their species.'
If by scientists you mean biologists, then no, they don't. Things reproduce to continue their genes, this is a complicated, sometimes counter-intuitive argument which takes much explaining but, once grasped makes a lot of sense and explains a whole mess of problems away. Try 'the selfish gene' for a good starting point.
All our children each have 50% of our genes (and that is not blue genes for you morons).
Add to that that they grow up initially in our environment.
And voila! We can see al lot of ourselves (and our spouses) in our children.
Stop wasting your time studying bibles and other "so called" holy books.
The truth is in biology, not religion.
" Assuming that we are correct that we humans are the most complex life-forms created, it is reasonable to assume that the world’s Source is capable of at least as much complexity as we reflect."
If you really believed in god that's the by far the most insulting thing ever said.
We're a tiny spec in our own galaxy and we're the most complex life-form?
We're formed on the ghost of Sagittarius, life probably started from the ashes of the previous galaxy. Where that came from I don't know. The only language that will be able to tell us this will math, of that much I'm entirely sure.
We have actual knowledge about how animals came to be and why they show the behaviors they do, especially in relation to reproduction. We also have apparently reliable knowledge of the mechanism of heredity. That contrasts strongly with theological arguments that depend for their rhetorical strength on appealing to the prejudices and ignorance of the Many. Indeed, the Rabbi doesn't suggest anything at all explanatory. In real explanations, one doesn't just say that something came to be with x attribute because it was produced by an agent with the same attribute. That's like arguing that green things are green because they are composed of little green things. Similarly, claiming that man is as he is because he was created by a man-like God doesn't really explain anything; and the Rabbi's reverse move of claiming that the behavior of men allows us to infer the characteristics of God is even more of a stretch.
Of course the scientific explanation for the evolution of parental behavior may be in error. On the other hand, there is at least real evidence for it; and, if it is true, it is an actual explanation instead of an exercise in question begging.
When we look in our children's eyes and see ourselves, our values, our family's best hope we KNOW that there is a God who put us here. Who gave us a reason for living. A reason for making a difference on this earth. Who can deny the existence of a higher order?
I'm sorry, but appealing to your intuitions and your personal experiences i simply not good enough. I give myself a reason for living an a reason to make a difference. I do that with or without the existence of any higher order. Keep on believing, but don't think your belief will convince anyone else just by virtue of your own certainty.