Two Wolves

LightSeaker · Mar 9, 2009

Two Wolves

One evening an old Cherokee told his grandson about a battle that goes on inside people. He said, "My son, the battle is between two wolves" inside us all.

One is Evil. It is anger, envy, jealousy, sorrow, regret, greed, arrogance, self-pity, guilt, resentment, inferiority, lies, false pride, superiority, and ego.

The other is Good. It is joy, peace, love, hope, serenity, humility, kindness, benevolence, empathy, generosity, truth, compassion and faith."

The grandson thought about it for a minute and then asked his grandfather: "Which wolf wins?"

The old Cherokee simply replied, "The one you feed."

.

Chesterton · Mar 9, 2009

Professor Dawk-head responds:

My good man, let me assure you, that we scientific moderns, through autopsy, x-ray, MRI and CAT-scan, have irrefutably established that there are in fact not two wolves, nor any wolves, inside humans. As to the apparent truth emotionally implicit in this old savage's ideas, well, we're at a loss to explain that at the present time, but we're working on it.

b&wpac4 · Mar 9, 2009

So, the story is suggesting we have both the impulse to do good and to do bad. Whichever impulse we listen to the most helps us determine how we are. Seems logical enough to me.

lawtonfogle · Mar 9, 2009

Now, are how do these two wolves get their? Placed by genetics, society, something meta-metaphysical?

Psudopod · Mar 9, 2009

Professor Dawk-head responds:

“My good man, let me assure you, that we scientific moderns, through autopsy, x-ray, MRI and CAT-scan, have irrefutably established that there are in fact not two wolves, nor any wolves, inside humans. As to the apparent truth emotionally implicit in this old savage's ideas, well, we're at a loss to explain that at the present time, but we're working on it.”

There’s no need to be rude. You might agree with the man, but resorting to name calling, even if he is very unlikely to see it, is childish. Besides, I’m fairly sure Professor Dawkins is capable of recognising a metaphor.

Chesterton · Mar 9, 2009

Psudopod said:
Theres no need to be rude.

I'm not sure about that.

Besides, Im fairly sure Professor Dawkins is capable of recognising a metaphor.

One would think he would be, but he and Hitchens write books and give lectures based almost wholly on the idea that they're stupid when it comes to metaphors.

Robbie_James_Francis · Mar 9, 2009

As a self-described humanist I would certainly imagine Professor Dawkins can appreciate the significant metaphorical meaning behind this tale. Not to mention that it fits perfectly with everything I've ever read of his. If I may quote from the first chapter of The God Delusion, 'A Deeply Religious Non-Believer' (OK, I haven't got very far with my re-reading ):

As ever when we unweave a rainbow, it will not become less wonderful.

Besides, you seem to be following the common misconception that Dawkins is some sort of atheist Pope who can speak authoritatively on all matters. Setting up a strawman for yourself there I see. To those of us without a vendetta against him or non-believers in general, he's just an eminent evolutionary biologist with opinions on religion. Personally, one who says what I'm already thinking about religion, albeit without less derisory laughter and four letter words than are in my head.

Chesterton · Mar 9, 2009

Robbie_James_Francis said:
As a self-described humanist I would certainly imagine Professor Dawkins can appreciate the significant metaphorical meaning behind this tale. Not to mention that it fits perfectly with everything I've ever read of his. If I may quote from the first chapter of The God Delusion, 'A Deeply Religious Non-Believer' (OK, I haven't got very far with my re-reading ):

As ever when we unweave a rainbow, it will not become less wonderful.

One can only wonder at that which one does not understand. Once you understand something, you cease to wonder about it. (Analogy: the Basilisk).

This is a sense in which "science can take a hike"; in which science is not an enlightener, but a destroyer.

This is the sense in which science, the most obstensibly rational of human endeavors, is simultaneously the most idealistic and fantastic of human endeavors. If you're going to put your faith in science, you'd better bring a flexible faith, because it will certainly change tomorrow.

Besides, you seem to be following the common misconception that Dawkins is some sort of atheist Pope who can speak authoritatively on all matters. Setting up a strawman for yourself there I see.

Lacking an official magisterium, the de facto spokesman for a belief system is whoever's currently selling the most books at Barnes & Noble. That would be Dawkins. It has changed, and will change, just as Popes change. If he's a strawman, he certainly is a popular and well-paid one.

To those of us without a vendetta against him or non-believers in general, he's just an eminent evolutionary biologist with opinions on religion. Personally, one who says what I'm already thinking about religion, albeit without less derisory laughter and four letter words than are in my head.

I have no vendetta, although I suppose I do long for the days when biologists actually concerned themselves with practicing biology.

TeddyKGB · Mar 9, 2009

b&wpac4 said:
So, the story is suggesting we have both the impulse to do good and to do bad. Whichever impulse we listen to the most helps us determine how we are. Seems logical enough to me.

It makes no logical sense at all. What would motivate 'me' to follow one impulse or another?

b&wpac4 · Mar 9, 2009

TeddyKGB said:
It makes no logical sense at all. What would motivate 'me' to follow one impulse or another?

Nothing.

Skaloop · Mar 9, 2009

Chesterton said:
One can only wonder at that which one does not understand. Once you understand something, you cease to wonder about it. (Analogy: the Basilisk)

I must disagree. Generally, once we understand something, it opens up a variety of new things to wonder about. With the rainbow, once we understand that it is due to refraction, that brings about wonder of refraction and the nature of light. It's part of how we discovered that light has both particle and wave traits. So then there is wonder about the wave nature of particles in general.

The answer to the questions bring more questions; the wonder never ceases.

The Nihilist · Mar 9, 2009

Has anyone yet called false dichotomy? Because if not, I'm going to go ahead and do that.

Ryal Kane · Mar 9, 2009

Psudopod said:
[/i][/color]

Theres no need to be rude. You might agree with the man, but resorting to name calling, even if he is very unlikely to see it, is childish. Besides, Im fairly sure Professor Dawkins is capable of recognising a metaphor.

A double irony in that misinterpreting a metaphor as literal is the basis of creationism rather than any science.

Garyzenuf · Mar 9, 2009

Chesterton said:
This is a sense in which "science can take a hike"; in which science is not an enlightener, but a destroyer.

Only to those holding a mythical, ancient belief system. If it's a destroyer of anything, it's ignorance.

This is the sense in which science, the most obstensibly rational of human endeavors, is simultaneously the most idealistic and fantastic of human endeavors. If you're going to put your faith in science, you'd better bring a flexible faith, because it will certainly change tomorrow.

It adds to our knowledge base daily, whether you choose to believe it or not is up to you.

Lacking an official magisterium, the de facto spokesman for a belief system is whoever's currently selling the most books at Barnes & Noble. That would be Dawkins. It has changed, and will change, just as Popes change. If he's a strawman, he certainly is a popular and well-paid one.

Hmmmm...*starts to think of Rush and the GOP*....

I have no vendetta, although I suppose I do long for the days when biologists actually concerned themselves with practicing biology.

Actually, if you can get past his religious views, he does do an admiral job of explaining natural-selection.

*

Joachim · Mar 9, 2009

Garyzenuf said:
Only to those holding a mythical, ancient belief system. If it's a destroyer of anything, it's ignorance.

*

Science can only destroy your belief in God if your belief in God was of a pedestrian nature. I accept science and God as complimentary. I'm jumped on by both fundamentalist extremists and hard core atheists, but, as with everything else, I do feel that in the end that I will be vindicated that the moderate position is the correct position.

I take this position in politics. I'll probably be voting to elect a Democratic governor (I do have a preference) next year even as I vote to give Shelby yet another term in office. Amazing how life works when you take the moderate path and not in extremes.

Verv · Mar 9, 2009

That's a nice proverb.

I approve.

::: double thumbs up with a corny smile :::

Garyzenuf · Mar 10, 2009

Joachim said:
Science can only destroy your belief in God if your belief in God was of a pedestrian nature..

I'm sorry if I implied science could destroy G-d, I meant religion.

*

Robbie_James_Francis · Mar 10, 2009

Joachim said:
Science can only destroy your belief in God if your belief in God was of a pedestrian nature.

Interesting that what was said was that science can be a destroyer of ignorance, and you automatically equated that with belief in God.

You said it, not me.

Joachim · Mar 10, 2009

Robbie_James_Francis said:
Interesting that what was said was that science can be a destroyer of ignorance, and you automatically equated that with belief in God.

You said it, not me.

I assumed the person meant ignorance because they were coming from an atheist point of view and as such would likely view belief in a divinity as ignorance. Therefore, I was just replying to their assumption without feeling the need to step in and issue a refuation because it would just become another point of argument anyway where I'd probably get a Dawkins argument thrown at me. Incidentally, best comment on Richard Dawkins, came from Matt Stone and Trey Parker about two and a half years ago.

grapeape · Mar 10, 2009

good proverb.

We hope the site problems here are now solved, however, if you still have any issues, please start a ticket in Contact Us

Two Wolves

LightSeaker

Guest

Whats So Funny bout Peace Love and Understanding

Trying to stay away

My solace my terror, my terror my solace.

Godspeed, Spacebat

Whats So Funny bout Peace Love and Understanding

May all beings have happiness and its causes

Whats So Funny bout Peace Love and Understanding

A dude playin' a dude disgused as another dude

Trying to stay away

Agnostic atheist, pro-choice anti-abortion

Contributor

Senior Veteran

Socialism is lovely.

The flag is a protest for state flags

Senior Veteran

Socialism is lovely.

May all beings have happiness and its causes

The flag is a protest for state flags

gentle giant

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency