>Surely you don't think Glenn is saying these pre-modern-humans are humans
in
the Biblical sense simply or primarily for morphological reasons, do you?
That seems a rather blatant straw man.<
Where did I say that? I know that's not what Glenn is arguing, and I've
never disputed him on that basis alone. I clarify lest another straw man be
erected here.
Perhaps you see the Henry quote (provided by Steve) as arguing thus, but I
don't think it does. The key term is "ethico-religious," but I would couple
that with the Henry clip I posted earlier to give full context.
<<Rather, if I understand Glenn, he's talking about the things Henry talks
about elsewhere: the imago Dei having to do with rational understanding,
morality, and religious communion. >>
Yes, I agree, only I think Glenn substitutes subjective definitions for the
criteria, while Henry is clearly using an objective standard.
<<Henry's "definition" (if that's what he
meant it to be) is easily precise enough to point out that (at least some)
modern humans have the imago Dei (at least to a high degree), and all
insects, dogs, and chimps don't, but is fairly vague in this homo sapiens
v.
immediate predecessor context, when one is comparing apparently
commensurable degrees of rationality, religious interest, and (most
obscurely) morality (for which you demand the existence of explicitly coded
laws, apparently, but that seems neither necessary nor sufficient, unless
we
know those laws to be moral laws [in which case they'd be sufficient, but
still not necessary]).>>
You lost me in the labyrinth of "necessary/sufficient," here (I don't think
it's necessary nor sufficient to use such verbiage in this context. ;-)
Remember, we are talking about evidences and their relative strength. In
view of the Henry criteria, the pre-historical evidence is extremely weak.
This simply means, as I originally wrote, that we may be foreclosed from
speculations re:biblical humanity before the existence of written codes,
which are unambiguous in what they tell us about moral capacity (remember,
God created man with the capacity to understand REVEALED moral CODES)
<<An illustration to clarify what I've apparently had a very hard time
making
clear: suppose instead Henry said "Get the red book in the study" -- a
simple, easily understood phrase. If there's only one book near red in the
color spectrum, this is a very precise phrase. But in a context in which
there are several books with different shades of red, it's a very vague
phrase.>>
Hmm, I don't think this is it. Suppose Henry said, "Get the red book in the
study," and Glenn cames back with a blank piece of paper, arguing "Ah ha!
Evidence of capacity to write a book!" That seems to me more analagous.
<<(1) Sometimes you
seem to be setting up a bit of a straw man, caricaturing what Glenn is
saying (as here, since you're misdirecting Stephen's Henry quote toward
Glenn).>>
I hope that's clarified, above. I think Henry is right on point, and the
point is not a caricature but a precise refutation of Glenn's position.
<< (2) Other times you seem to understand Glenn's arguments, but don't
see Glenn's data offering any serious evidence at all to support his actual
claims.>>
Rather, I think the evidence is weak, and Glenn is straining to make it
seem stronger. Here I see a tremendous irony: using the evidence of secular
anthropologists, who see all this as indicative only of incipient humanity,
Glenn attempts to buttress a claim of full, biblical humanity. Since the
evidence has the appearance of a reverse funnel (i.e., the farther back you
go, the weaker and less pesuasive the evidence), Glenn has cut himself a
seemingly impossible task.
<<(3) at still other times (as when you demand an explicitly
written moral code before you'll accept his arguments wrt morality) you
seem
to be arguing that while there's -suggestive- evidence for Glenn's points,
it isn't nearly enough to give you the -proof- you demand (and presumably
even Glenn agrees with that).>>
I'm merely saying, in this instance, that Glenn's evidence is so weak one
cannot begin to make the case.
<<It may help to pretend you're talking not to a jury, but to a judge. ;^>
)>>
OK: Glenn's case should be thrown out on summary judgment, Your Honor. And
he should be responsible for all attorney's fees!
Best,
Jim