Hate to say it, Michael, but you HAVE gone out on a limb again, IMO. On several limbs. <g>
Now, where's my trusty old saw?
Ahem.
1) That matter/spirit or body/spirit dichotomy you endorse is not generally meant to apply to actions. Too much overlap, for one thing. Let us take Leonardo da Vinci, for example. The creation of the Last Supper was certainly a "physical" act, involving the use of the body. At the same time, it was a "spiritual" act, was it not? Is the "act of love" a purely "physical" act, or can it also be a "spiritual" act (as when it expresses genuine love)? And so forth.
2) Chimpanzees, I gather, can be taught to recognize substitutions, so presumably could be taught to recognize paper money and coin as banana substitutes (if you wanted to bother teaching them to do so). The same is true of dolphins and certain other animals of relatively high intelligence. What we are talking about here is intelligence, reasoning ability even if only on a rudimentary level. Since even the most vicious human being is capable of reasoning -- often of reasoning very well -- it cannot be equated with spirituality.
3) You did not define the word "spirituality," but you are clearly using it 1) to cover unrelated human faculties, such as intelligence and moral superiority, and 2) to cover distinctly different concepts that are often regarded as antithetical -- "faith" and "reason."
Are you arguing that since an "atheist" lacks "faith," even though he may have more than enough "reason," his over-all "spirituality" is too impaired for him to be a good businessman?
Or are you arguing that the "atheist" is ipso facto an impaired human being, someone lacking values, appreciation of the higher things of life, etc., and so will be a "bad" (i.e., dishonest) businessman?
Or do you mean the atheist is as stupid as a chimp? <g> (And in fairness to the chimp, let me say that he would think you pretty stupid too, if you tried to survive in his world.)
4) I don't think anyone maintains that "atheism and business are natural allies." Just that they are not "natural enemies."
Joan
|
