Dear Loudmouth,

I was a little rushed when I wrote the post and should have extended my points a little further. However my main question is what is the backdrop that allows us to deem ourselves 'very special'?

Perhaps we can look at it this way. Not to say there isn't but let's say there were species we are sharing the planet with who could look at the human species and pass judgement on our level of 'specialness' and decide if our achievement warranted the label of extraordinary, what do you think their judgement would be?

We kind of instinctively know the fallacy involved in judging ourselves, which is in part why we have put in a God to deliver that service for us. Unfortunately his/her judgement can be rather harsh.

Don seems to want the accolades for our species without clearly articulating if they are justified. Perhaps they might be in the sphere of human endevour but our stewardship responsibilities toward the planet we have been far from impressive.

eunuchs
Yuyutsu,
Now there's a great example of the supremo's love !

SR,

I don't think that humans are 'very special', but we may be the only species which has the ability, and the obligation to be 'relatively special', to contribute more than we take from the world.

Maybe that should be part of the terms of any hypothetical social contracts - that in return for support from our fellow humans and the freedoms and equality which we (should) enjoy, we owe back to humanity and to the non-human world at least as much.

I don't see any need for a god, or anything supernatural, in all that. The future of all of the world and its problems are very much up to us. Maybe that's what Don has been getting at ?

Cheers,

Joe

To Loudmouth.

Did you mean to address me about the forth option instead of SteeleRedux? If so I think I addressed that as part of my opinion for what really is the purpose of life is to look after those around us, and to find God. Looking after those around us seems to be what you are talking about for a forth option to try to add to the lives of others. That said, the three option I gave were more or less three ways of looking at the question of purpose for humanity. One being individual purposes for men and women. A second being more on global purposes for humanity. Kind of like asking what is mankind's place in the world. And the third option being a mixture of the other two options. Adding to the lives of others would fit in the category of individual purposes.

As for Marxist thought, I didn't mean it in that way. More or less as a brotherly love love sort of thing and good will to all men. Not about turning into a communist state where everything is shared and watching out for corruption and abuses by dictators or otherwise is the reality of history.

As for your and SteeleRedux's points on mankind being special or not, here's a thought to add to it.

If mankind is special among all the animal of the world, does that mean we get special privileges to not hold up the burden to care for it? If on the other hand, if mankind is not special and is equal to non-humans in the animal kingdom, does that negate our responsibility to take care of the world around us. My figuring is that regardless if we are special or not we have the ability and therefore the responsibility to take care of the world around us. A responsibility that we as a whole are neglecting.

To Yuyutsu.

Glad to hear that you agree with my thought that the purpose of life is to find God, and to care for one another. I think we've come to the same conclusion, even though it's stemmed from two different world views. At least that's how I interprets what you're saying.

Correct me if I'm wrong but based on what you've said, the four purposes in life all contribute to finding God. Is that right? These making the goal to find God the more important purpose of life, and to care for one another is part of that to reach that goal.

Though we a free on the conclusion for a purpose, I'm coming at it from a completely different view. Goes along the lines the whole law from God rests on two concepts. To love God with all your heart, mind, and strength; and to love your neighbor as you love yourself. The idea is that these two concepts are what everything else hinges on.

However, one other aspect is that these two concepts reinforce eachother. By knowing God, a person is better able to love their neighbor. By loving their neighbor, a person is taking care of most of the teachings from God that relate to how we are to treat others.

Though we agree with the two purposes of mankind, I think we would put a different order to them. You might say to care for each other as part of greater purpose of finding God. Whereas I would say that finding God is doable without having to be perfect ourselves, and in finding Him, it helps us to be better then we were before (it's a growing process) to care for one another.

Loudmouth,

<<I don't see any need for a god, or anything supernatural, in all that. The future of all of the world and its problems are very much up to us. Maybe that's what Don has been getting at?>>

So, are you capable of creating gravity for the whole world, keeping the universe travelling and the earth rotating around the sun? How about the nitrogen and oxygen you breathe every day to keep you alive? Are they up to you to create? Are you happy to conclude that these issues 'are very much up to us'.

Can you create tulip bulbs that, when planted, flower like these (all by your own creation): http://www.picfair.com/pics/08621838-tulips-floriade-canberra-act-australia. How do you plan to create an entire universe from nothing as your humanistic achievement?