Peterkin

Oh, you're still sore about my reluctance to 'throw away the key'. I confess to having political leanings toward the Green & Socialist end of the spectrum. The same convictions - formed over a lifetime of watching, reading and learning - that inform my political views also influence my opinions. Opinions are necessarily subjective. Statements of fact, on the other hand, are not. I back those up with citations, statistics, studies and reports from reputable and relevant sources. The emotions you attribute to me are not mine. The 'philosophy' to which you object in this thread is actually Anthropology, a science, though the aspect of it under consideration here was cultural anthropology, which is more akin to the humanities, as it overlaps the disciplines of archeology, history and linguistics. Again, I confess a long-time interest in this field of study, and claim a little bit of amateur knowledge. The origin and development of spiritual, magical and religious belief systems in the past is not even applicable to anything that societies, reasonable or unreasonable (and have quite a few of the latter right now) may implement in the future. The recent past has an immediate impact on present societies; ancient history has an influence on how they formed; prehistory has only the faintest traces in our lifestyles, political and religious organizations, morality and law-making. But it lives on in art, language and spirituality. I'm describing, not subscribing or prescribing.

I'm not labelling anyone. Most people believe in something supernatural; some people don't. The thread title mentioned atheists. Many religionists, past and present have other words for unbelievers. I didn't make any of them up. Nobody said we can, could or ever have. We - as a species - also can't seem to live without the supernatural. Some of us can and do; the majority don't. Science doesn't make the supernatural go away and superstition doesn't make science go away. They are always in operation at the same time. Not all myths are comforting - far from it! But yes, myth and reason live together in human cultures. Quite sophisticated, rational people will throw spilt salt over their shoulder, avoid stepping on the cracks in pavement, walk around ladder, make birthday-candle wishes, refrain from anticipation of a good outcome in case they jinx it, and cross their fingers when telling a lie. It does no harm. Lots of quite rational people talk to their dead and buried parents or spouses. It makes them feel better and does no harm. Ah! you're referring to medieval Christian Europe. (You might have been clearer, as we had previously been talking about ancient mythology, not modern.) Yes, they were benighted in many ways. Stone-age people are far less likely to have suffered epidemics, because their living conditions were less susceptible to mass contagion, so it's unlikely that a pandemic was the reason for making up stories about the Baxian or guie. Still, the existence of disease may well have played a part. Of course, if you have no way of detecting pathogens, you look for another cause. They had science, enough for celestial navigation, aqueducts and cannons, but not advanced enough to figure out what caused the plague. (We have science advanced enough to detect the cause, but not enough to prevent it.) And, of course, now the response to disease is entirely free of irrationality, right? It's not like anybody was refusing the vaccine, breaking quarantine, protesting against precautions or threatening doctors, right? Coz we have access to science now. What philosophy? It doesn't matter. Ideas* are not quantifiable. (Ghosts get measured and filmed and Geiger-counted all the time, but that's probably a fad.) Nobody who believes in gods wants to observe or measure them - that's not what gods are for. The only people who demand such a procedure are convinced that it's absurd and say it expressly for the absurdity. Which doesn't mean those very same people don't have some other superstition or irrational belief of their own. *they don't exist

I don't ignore it. Unscientific myths are part of every culture, past and present. Most people either believe or go along with the prevailing religious belief; a minority don't. That minority is called 'atheists' - if they're lucky enough to live in a society that doesn't call them 'apostate' or 'blasphemer' or 'heretic' and punish them more or less severely. Every society, every culture has elements of the rational and the irrational, just as every human being does. the proportions vary from time to time and place to place; the co-existence of spirituality and science is constant. You mentioned pandemics. What about them? How are they an example of what? Which silly superstitions? Who? When? In what context? What does it illustrate? What philosophy?

Because I didn't. So you keep telling me, without any particulars or proofs. What philosophy? Which questions have I failed to answer? Sounds like? You must have a different pitch from mine. I do recognize the part science has played in the destruction of the world. Why don't you? Do you really think chemical warfare is good? Do you really think climate change is good? Science is a methodology used by humans to achieve ends that humans desire. Good, bad and silly. I also recognize the part superstition, magical thinking, irrationality and organized religion (even such organized religions and irrational cults as make effective use of technology to further their ends) have played in the destruction of the world. That does not mean -- and does not say -- that either of those human capabilities has a moral value apart from the uses to which humans put them. Except that I've claimed no such thing. Yes. The two kinds of thinking continue on together, side by side, hand in hand. The Egyptians of Ra had a sophisticated, technologically advanced civilization; they had precision engineering, meteorology, agriculture and astronomy as well some quite progressive notions civil law and of governance generally. Their highly organized, ritualized religion was a whole separate realm from their practical application of knowledge. Do you really not see the difference in religious belief, practice and application in stone age, bronze age, classical and modern societies? No worries. You haven't presented any examples. You made some vague statement about pandemics - of which I see no relation to primitive or ancient cultures or religions. I can see that. What philosophy? Perhaps you'll forgive me for asking again. Only, it's disconcerting to be daily accused of 'pushing' an unspecified, unnamed, undescribed - yet somehow presumed wrong - 'philosophy'. If i knew what it is, I might be able to repudiate or defend it. I see you won't. That's all right.

Some good, some bad, some for health, some for wealth, some for food, some for power, some for convenience, some for efficiency, some for fun. Yes. And? None of that makes science anything other than a methodology used by humans to achieve things humans want, good, bad and silly. When humans are constructive, they use science. When humans are destructive, they use science. When humans are in a hurry, they use science. When humans just want to show off, they use science. It plays a part in everything humans do. A hammer is a good tool, until you bash somebody in the head with it. A bayonet is a bad tool, until you use it to dig sugar beet. What philosophy? And where did anyone say that science has a moral value - or, for that matter, a character of any kind? It's a methodology used by humans for human purposes - and nothing more. That may be true of some individuals in some situations; it is evidently not true of humankind. If it were true, there would be no change - political, philosophical, dietary or cultural. Yet change goes on all the time: people stop believing what they were taught, turn against their parents' ideals, overthrow entire systems of government and thought. Even in religion, there have been several major upsets and new innovations, as well as forcible imposition of one religious regime on people of a different faith. And old-time religion most certainly doesn't explain any of the modern ghost-lore, zombie fear and cockeyed unscientific theories. Some people still think so. Most used to think so. Most don't anymore. See - it;s just one of the conventions that don't hold ad infinitum. No, they didn't. You keep repeating that opinion, without a single source for it. I gave you a dozen sources for believing otherwise. People found picturesque ways to describe natural phenomena; they told stories anthropomorphizing natural phenomena; They speculated about the origin of their tribes; they revered their ancestors; they invented rituals around the fact of death; they elaborated world-views and set out standards of social behaviour. They still have: science didn't make superstition go away. Exactly. Explain it all you want; people will never like it. That's what religion is for: to mitigate the hard, cold facts of life on Earth.

Mass communication is not a rejection of science; it is an achievement of science. The internet is not a rejection of science. Killer drones are not a rejection of science. Deep ocean oil drilling, pesticides, terminator genes - these are not rejections of science. These are tools of destruction developed by science. This is science in the service of destruction. Of course the mistakes are made and the crimes are committed by humans: humans use science. I know that; have never said otherwise. I did say, however, that science does not replace or displace imagination and magical thinking. And that science and magical thinking, reason and emotion, have always existed side by side, serving different functions in the human psyche. Indeed. And it has not diminished his belief in gods, life after death and a lot of other fanciful notions. Tradition aside - and the tenacity of some traditions, like organized religion, in preference to other traditions, like beating children into obedience, suggests that people value some traditions more than others. The supernatural and its denizens have never explained the world. Now that science has explained the world, superstition is still going strong - not explaining, but serving other needs. Dogs bark. This orange is round. Both are facts, but they don't support each other.

No, you can't know [in the sense of fully experiencing and understanding] anybody - not even yourself. You can know a lot about others, as well as yourself. You can empathize, sympathize, observe, listen, conjecture, extrapolate, project and imagine. That is how all the stories of humanity come about. Also knowledge of science. Most living things are only happy for brief periods of time, in specific limited ways. A constant state of happiness is expensive to support and impossible to maintain. For some fortunate creatures, a sustained state of contentment is their normal; for must, it's a condition greatly to be desired, rarely attained.

No, we don't. All 'others' are already very much like us and we are very much like them, having all evolved together from the same protozoan beginnings.

I do recognize the part science plays in the destruction of the world. No, it's not what I'm saying. At all. He hasn't. Should be's are as wishful as ever after's.

It doesn't have to. I'm talking about all of mankind, ancient, medieval and modern. Having access to more information never diminished man's creative and emotional capacities. It's not scientific knowledge causing that phenomenon. It's the other part of the human psyche. And knowing lots of science has done nothing to mitigate that fact. It's never either science/or imagination; it's always both/and.

Wander, awe, existential dread and magical thinking are not limited to religions. They exist in every human mind: in dreams, in art, in love, in transactions of all kinds, in gambling and games, in play and make-believe. Emotion lives alongside reason, and if you suppress either one, you destroy the human personality: you end up with a robot or a brute. Emotional intelligence, aesthetic sensibility, imagination and wonder have nothing to do with the quantity of information available. One of the major factors making our current world so very sick is the compartmentalization and segregation of mental functions.

Konrad Lorenz tells the story of a wild goose he rescued and brought into his house. As the goose was going up the stairs for the first time, she was startled by the stained glass window on the landing, which made her jump back, flapping her wings for balance. That goose soon learned that that window posed no threat, yet every time she went up the same stairs, she always stopped at that same spot and flapped her wings a couple of times. That is a ritual. We all have personal rituals, whether from superstitious origins, designed for efficiency or habit we don't even notice. We also have communal rituals that a group of humans regularly performs together - and not just religious ones, either, but all sorts. So do flocks of geese and herds of bison and colonies of groundhogs.

Not necessarily. All sentient life forms have some degree of intelligence; you can draw arbitrary lines anywhere, and at as many points, as you like, to demarcate one level of intelligence from another. Near the the top, where the most convoluted frontal lobes are, you will invariably find practical [problem-solving, tool-making, scientific] intelligence alongside emotive [bond-forming, social, aesthetic] intelligence. About which 'that' ? Crows think about lots of things and make lots of emotional connections.

No, they don't. They may not identify and define it as a science, but the habit of observation, speculation and experimentation has been with humans from long before they could be called human. It is as much part of the nature of big-brained animals as emotional complexity is: they are both products of intelligence. No he hasn't. Wonder, awe, superstitious dread and magical thinking are also products of intelligence.

I think that at 5 years of age, the mechanics of reproduction is not a matter of urgency. By the time it is, he may be able to, he may not want to, he may be happier if somebody else carries the baby for him, or the world may have changed so much that nobody wants to bring kids into it. So, the correct answer (as it so often) is: "Maybe. I don't know."

Loretta.

Assuming there was a real person named Jesus (or something like) and he was (something like) the man those four books (plus several more apocryphal ones) were written about, why should he come back? The people he met on this planet were not so nice to him that he'd want to visit them again. It's a big universe - assuming the whole universe has just the one creator, rather than each galaxy having its own, each ruling a separate fiefdom.... * So, anyway, depending on whether his dad rules one galaxy of all of them, Jesus has a choice of a bazillion and a gazillion planets inhabited by intelligent life to choose from. Pretty good chance, if they're intelligent, they all need saving. He won't be coming around here again until we're long gone and forgotten and the earthworms have developed city-states, money and organized religion, with giant statues. *I like that idea, actually. They have conferences sometimes, like the G20 or the climate summits, where the gods get together an bullshit about their unkept promises over excellent victuals and potables. Every now and then, an alliance is formed or a war declared, and then galaxies clash. Spectacular from a distance of a few million years, but no fun be in.

Unequivocally three sexes there: hermaphrodite, male, female.

You explained what it means to be human? Where? But as it's already well established that I'm obtuse, could you summarize it for me in simple words?

Wanna share?

Do you? I see the phrase bandied about, but have yet to hear a succinct definition.

Do we even know what "sexes" are supposed to be, outside of our weird ideas about reproduction? Humans want things; humans formulate agendas to get those things; humans either successfully force everything else to fit that agenda, or ignore/deny inconvenient nonconformity on nature's part.

When there is a sudden influx of one nationality - e.g. Irish during the famine; Hungarians after the failed revolution - new immigrants tend to concentrate in one or two main urban locations. One reason for this is their lack of preparedness (having run away in the middle of the night) for a foreign culture: they need both the sponsorship and the guidance of compatriots who are already established. Most of these new immigrants disperse gradually, as they learn the rules, find employment and accommodation. The first generation of children disperses almost completely - except those those who join a family business in that neighbourhood. The parents usually work very hard to educate their children (You can tell when waves of immigrants arrived by reading the names and dates on high school honour rolls.) who then assimilate and only come back to visit the old folks. Because of these family businesses, the adult immigrants keep coming back to hear their own language, buy familiar food, etc. This neighbourhood, too, becomes the obvious destination for any fresh immigrants from the same place. They do take up streets and, if they're successful, develop a special ethnic flavour and attract custom by the majority and other populations. These "Little Italy"s and "Chinatown"s become a feature of cosmopolitan cities. Only if there is some other overt conflict. The ethnic neighbourhoods become targets for hostile factions in the mainstream when there is a pandemic, for example, that the president insists on calling by a nationality, or when some Hollywood mogul decides to make a few $billion on gangster movies featuring people from a particular island, or when Black children dare to attend a decent school previously reserved for white ones. These ethnic neighbourhoods are also the cultural centers for a group of people who share the same taste in music, theater and method of worship: it's where the churches are originally established. They are hubs of social life, teaching the young about their heritage, help centers for the needy. They also make both easy targets and recruitment venues for activists, terrorists, vigilantes, gangs, neighbourhood watch... It's not the number of one kind of people living near one another that determines social attitudes around them - it's world and national and economic events that pit one neighbourhood against another. (People fight over territory, resources and power.) Yes, but have they stopped the financial practices and changed the regulations to prevent the laundering and concealment of blood moneys? How many? More to the point, what income level? Would it be unfair to ask about migrant workers? How is that perceived differentness? Could you tell them apart if they're naked? In fact, could any individual Manchester fan be able to pick any individual Liverpool fan out of a police lineup? That's why gangs have tattoos and fans have scarves and jerseys in their colours - like carrying a flag. Of course they're fighting over territory, resources and power. Instincts are biological. Aggression is biologiocal. The choice of designated rivals, opponents, adversaties and enemies is three levels up from biology: it's a characteristic of complex social organization. And yes, that seems a bit ironic. The more complex, numerous and diverse our societies become, the more we revert to the formation of sub-cultures; a kind of throwback to tribal organization. Perhaps that's the level of complexity with which we are psychologically most comfortable. However, the average American city may have a dozen ethnic blocs and a hundred factions centered on occupation, income, religion, sports, music, political affiliation and various other interests or preoccupations, and most of them coexist peacefully most of the time. When conflicts arise between any two, look for an underlying motive in territory, resources and power distribution.

Yes. May we conclude that these attitudes are not genetically determined, biological, instinctive or "hard-wired"?

You know they were all the same race, right? What they fought over was resources and territory. That's what humans, and other animals fight over - not differences in skin colour. They do fight over religion, but that has only been going on since the advent of exclusive organized religions belonging to civilized nation-states. (The wars were still over resources and territory, just using different symbols to rally the troops.) It isn't. There is a natural, instinctive tendency to trust whom we know and be loyal to blood kin, but that erects no barriers to trade, treaties and and alliances; raises no barriers to someone of a different tribe marrying in (in fact, that custom is very deliberately encouraged, in order to improve the gene-pool, cement friendly relations with allies and consolidate land and water use agreements). That's an extra-long step from tribalism to hostility. Yes, if the number of incomers is low, they have both motivation and time to learn the language and culture and stand a good chance of assimilation. In small, monolithic societies, kinship and shared customs are of paramount importance. It the number of incomers is such that it forms a separate sub-society, that threatens the identity, integrity, and therefore the viability of the whole. Too fast an influx of population also strains the resources, territorial boundaries and status relationships of a small community. In large, heterogeneous modern societies, diversity is not an existential issue, but the social dynamics are far more faceted and complicated. It's never just a matter of "blaming a group for everything that goes wrong" - it's also a matter of history, agendas, lifestyles, personal conflicts, cultural antipathies, value systems - so many more possible things to go wrong, for which the community is unprepared. All of these are social issues - not biological or evolutionary ones. Where does History show anything about instinct, or indicate which ones are base and which noble? History seems to me a record of collective actions, based on political decisions. Where you have an antipathy between two strangers of different nationalities, look for its roots in the history of their nations, not their genotypes.