The Inconstant Gardener

Originally posted by twhitehead
Is it? I don't see it.

[b]I'm sure you see that and how the change of analogy changes the discussion at hand.
No, I do not see it.

Would you for example say to a mole in the garden: "don't get upset if the gardener sets mole traps"? Is the difference one of sentience or is it about whether or not the farmer has a vested interest?

(For ex ...[text shortened]... own fault.
If the phrase means something else in other parts of the world, please enlighten me.

I suspect, on this issue, enlightenment with continue to evade you.

I can only repeat that the opening analogy works better with plants, where the chasm is at its greatest between creator and created. (Plants also tend to have a better chance of self sufficiency when compared to a domesticated cow). The gardener is more clinical than the farmer, more detached, more arbitrary by nature; which better suits the God representation I was putting forward, who merely created life and then let us get on with it. - It is in this framework when getting upset (standard meaning) is illogical as there is no basis on which to get upset, other than the reality of God not living up to our man made hypothesis of his relationship with us. It would be like getting upset with gravity or questioning its 'fairness.'. - In the relationship between gardener and plant there is no 'blame game.'

Originally posted by twhitehead
And I say that as a carrot, I would be upset with both the decision and the action.

Maybe Dive is not in the mood, so I will say it. Pure forum gold.

Seriously, though, you might want to go back and re-read the original comment not as a legal treatise outlining Dive's precise and exhaustive view on life, the universe and everything, but simply an offhand and amusing response to the OP.

Originally posted by Ghost of a Duke
I suspect, on this issue, enlightenment with continue to evade you.

It does appear so. The reason being that everyone seems to wish to evade actually explaining what they think the sentence in question actually means.

In the relationship between gardener and plant there is no 'blame game.'
I disagree. It appears that nobody other than me agrees, but what is more, nobody accepts my disagreement but will not explain why they do not accept it. I suspect that they do not have an actual logical argument to back it up.

Originally posted by Rank outsider
Maybe Dive is not in the mood, so I will say it. Pure forum gold.

Seriously, though, you might want to go back and re-read the original comment not as a legal treatise outlining Dive's precise and exhaustive view on life, the universe and everything, but simply an offhand and amusing response to the OP.

I am fine with it being offhand an and amusing response to the OP, as long as it is also recognized as an incorrect response ie there are valid reasons for the plants to be upset.

Originally posted by twhitehead
I am fine with it being offhand an and amusing response to the OP, as long as it is also recognized as an incorrect response ie there are valid reasons for the plants to be upset.

Imagine this scenario:

RO: I was in the pub and a man comes in.......(tells joke)

TW: But I was with you yesterday and you never went into a pub. You are lying.

RO: No, I am not lying.

TW: Did you go to a pub?

RO: No

TW: Did you know when you said that it was untrue.

RO: Yes

TW: (opening dictionary) There you go "an intentionally false statement." So you were lying.

RO: Seriously mate, I was just telling a joke.

TW: I am fine with you telling a joke, as long as it is recognised that you did not go into a pub yesterday and were lying about doing so.

Can you see how that might be construed as somewhat odd and provocative behaviour?

Originally posted by twhitehead
what is more, nobody accepts my disagreement but will not explain why they do not accept it. I suspect that they do not have an actual logical argument to back it up.

You want me to prove to you that carrots are not upset when they are dug up?

Originally posted by twhitehead
I am fine with it being offhand an and amusing response to the OP, as long as it is also recognized as an incorrect response ie there are valid reasons for the plants to be upset.

I think I am going to regret this but here is my take on the first response to the opening post, all the bits in brackets being unsaid:

[Dear Goad,

Being a Christian, I am afraid that I do not agree with your analogy at all. Humans beings are not like hydrangeas, we are living sentient beings. And God is not like a gardener who just turns up now and then. He is constantly with us and there for us at all times. He thinks each and every one of us is important and tends for our needs.

However, if (please note the "if" here, as I am setting up a hypothetical) you think that all we are is plants who (lest it should be forgot, are not sentient and have no thoughts or feelings) then I will take your flawed analogy and turn it back on you (in a light hearted fashion, as I recognise that that is how the OP was intended) and say that, if you are right about us just being like plants (NB: unsentient) then:]

we should not get upset when he digs over a flowerbed, re-turfs the lawn or completely landscapes the entire project.

Originally posted by Rank outsider
Imagine this scenario:

RO: I was in the pub and a man comes in.......(tells joke)

TW: But I was with you yesterday and you never went into a pub. You are lying.

RO: No, I am not lying.

TW: Did you go to a pub?

RO: No

TW: Did you know when you said that it was untrue.

RO: Yes

TW: (opening dictionary) There you go "an intention ...[text shortened]... doing so.

Can you see how that might be construed as somewhat odd and provocative behaviour?

And this is why we can't have nice things. 😕

Originally posted by twhitehead
It does appear so. The reason being that everyone seems to wish to evade actually explaining what they think the sentence in question actually means.

[b]In the relationship between gardener and plant there is no 'blame game.'
I disagree. It appears that nobody other than me agrees, but what is more, nobody accepts my disagreement but will not expl ...[text shortened]... they do not accept it. I suspect that they do not have an actual logical argument to back it up.[/b]

No, you're not the only one.

I read it as you did.

I think that in the analogy the plants would be perfectly justified in being upset.
The only way I can see arguing against that is by arguing that a creator of life,
including sentient life, is entitled to kill that life without moral consequence.

I don't think that creating a sentient being gives you the right to kill it, and neither
does the law. Try 'creating' a child and then killing that child and see how far you
get.

Because if we are viewing the situation as applied to our universe we are saying that
it would be perfectly ok for a god to come along and destroy and remake everything
killing us in the process and that we shouldn't be upset about that. And that god
wouldn't be morally culpable for mass genocide. Neither of which appear to be true to
me.

Originally posted by Suzianne
And this is why we can't have nice things. 😕

What nice things do you want?

Originally posted by Rank outsider
I think I am going to regret this but here is my take on the first response to the opening post, all the bits in brackets being unsaid:

[Dear Goad,

Being a Christian, I am afraid that I do not agree with your analogy at all. Humans beings are not like hydrangeas, we are living sentient beings. And God is not like a gardener who just turns up no ...[text shortened]... et when he digs over a flowerbed, re-turfs the lawn or completely landscapes the entire project.

I can understand that response.

But to me it misses the point of the analogy.

The analogy it seemed to me was not about the nature of the plants, but the nature of the gardener.

If we are applying this analogy to the behaviour of a god then we are talking about a god who created
the universe [and possibly seeded life in it] and then 'sat back and watched it grow'.
Whether by accident or design intelligent sentient life grew in this 'garden' and that sentient life is perfectly
entitled to get upset if the 'gardener/god' comes in and starts killing them and messing up their world/universe/flower bed.


Now I don't know if that's how the analogy was intended, but it seemed clear to me reading it that that is
what it meant.

From this perspective dive's perspective [as outlined by yourself] doesn't fly.

My point isn't so much that you/he is wrong. Just that yours is not the only valid perspective on this analogy.
Of course, what really needs to happen is that people agree the meaning before arguing about it, because
following this thread looks to me like a bunch of people arguing over totally different meanings of the OP.
And within the perspectives you first took to the OP you may well ALL be right.
Given that there is no objective right or wrong about precisely what the op means, the argument seems fairly
pointless.

Originally posted by Rank outsider
Can you see how that might be construed as somewhat odd and provocative behaviour?

Yes, I can. I cannot see it as a good analogy for this thread. Not even close.

Originally posted by Rank outsider
You want me to prove to you that carrots are not upset when they are dug up?

No. You have clearly missed the point. I would like you to prove that carrots have no valid reason for being upset. Should the carrots come alive in a Disney movie, I want to you explain why they would dance around singing 'eat me now'.

Here is a more realistic scenario:
YouTube

Originally posted by Rank outsider
and say that, if you are right about us just being like plants (NB: unsentient) then:]

we should not get upset when he digs over a flowerbed, re-turfs the lawn or completely landscapes the entire project.

And I say that we should get upset. The sentient bit only means we can't get upset. But clearly the OP and the response do not actually assume a lack of sentience.

Originally posted by googlefudge
Given that there is no objective right or wrong about precisely what the op means, the argument seems fairly pointless.

I disagree. Div and others have attempted to suggest that because plants are known not to be sentient the response was really saying 'plants cannot be upset because they are not sentient'. But that is clearly not a valid reading of divs response. His post clearly says the plants SHOULD NOT BE upset. He is saying that regardless of their sentience they have no valid reason to be upset.
I say the plants have valid reasons to be upset regardless of their lack of sentience and consequential lack of ability to be upset.

Div was clearly saying that if our relationship to God is analogous (not identical to) that of a gardener and his plants, then we (not plants) should have no valid reason to be upset. I am still not satisfied that anyone has given good justification for why we should not be upset.