Tres Juicy Posted January 23, 2012 Posted January 23, 2012 (edited) Seriously, learn to use quotes, it's so hard to reply to you Do you think that there would have been 6.5 million land animals back then over 100 thousand years ago.. more? less? And i would like to find this out myself. It might take me a couple of days to acquire. Though i firmly believe that this can be logically calculated. I do know however that animals do have a sense about weather .. it does say that God brought these animals to Noah. Anything is possible. 100 thousand years? That doesn't sound like the bible... And yes, I don't think there would be a huge difference in diversity even that far back ....Anything is possible. No. Anything is not possible - sprout wings and fly around your house if you don't believe me... This same ship that has been sighted by many.. (minus a few bumps and scratches) is near to the exact measurement the bible foretells. Check it out. That was not the question. Again I refer you to my post above: "Measure it and see if you could find a way to cram 13 million animals in there and bear in my that it had to float, so do it without stacking the animals 100 feet high" Breeding one specie with another would create a different specie.. breed that one with another.. 7 .. how many different combinations are possible. In such a short timescale it would not be possible for nature to do that on its own. Are you suggesting that humans selectively bred birds (in secret) back to the current genetic diversity we see today? I read your link .. These words are simple.. picked at random..sentences which hold a value of division, multiplication etc. Not divine authority. And as such fits perfectly with theomatics, a blend of numerology and wishful thinking So because science only goes so far.. does that mean you cannot extend your knowledge? Correct it has no predictive power.. but the chances of it being as prominent in the bible as it is with such clarification are a billion to 1. Just like existence, Infinity, Space, Time, The perfect balance of earth and nature etc.. HOW is a good question. Why, is also worthy of questioning. That could be the case if the numbers were not arbitrarily assigned by someone with an agenda... Edited January 23, 2012 by Tres Juicy
iNow Posted January 23, 2012 Posted January 23, 2012 The promise... A quick lesson. You surround the part the other person said in quote tags. you use the brackets [] and type the word "quote" inside. Then, when you want to end the quote and add your reply, you first put those brackets again [] and you put the word "quote" again, but this time with a slash before it, like this "/quote." So, when I type: Stuff the other person said goes here ... It will render like this: Stuff the other person said goes here ...And you can see how much easier that is to read than your posts above. I hope this helps enough to get you to start using it. I agree with the comments above that tell you it's terribly painful trying to figure out what you're saying and what others are saying given your current method. Also, FWIW... I agree with the comments above that you're here arguing something that you cannot support with anything more substantial than "It's just what you believe" and it's called faith. That's not good enough for most of us.
Moontanman Posted January 23, 2012 Posted January 23, 2012 (edited) [ Is this better? No, use the quote button.... Its a statement of fact. Derisive? You who mock the word of God? Word of god or the word of bronze age goat herders? God created the heavens and the earth though there was darkness and void and God according to the bible had not called the light Day and the darkness Night? AND THEN it says SO THE EVENING AND THE MORNING WERE THE FIRST DAY. In hebrew u·iei - and he is becoming. orb - evening. u·iei - and he is becoming. bqr - morning. ium achd - day one. Genesis 1 verse 5 " God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. So the evening and the morning were the first day. Read on! ".. and the evening and the morning were the second day" etc. Please explain your logic. Please explain your logic, are you saying that when the bible says days it means something else? BTW the genesis myth was borrowed from other cultures nearby, it is not unique to the bible and the other cultures predate the bible by quite a bit... It doesnt make sense? Alright so, would you like to tell me how big in diametre and in cubic feet Noahs ark was.. And could you be as kind as to tell me how long Noah had to get these animals together? These are all things you will find in the bible! First of all Noah's ark is impossible, it could have been as big as a nuclear powered aircraft super carrier and not been big enough. we can show that all animals on the earth did not go through a genetic bottle neck 6,000 years ago or 100,000 years ago. How did Noah get all the animals from say Australia? How did he get them back? where did all the water go? and finally really the death toll for that particular myth, echinoderms, cephalopods, and salamanders, along with thousands of other animals they completely falsify Noah's ark. If you can't explain how they and all the other plants and animals survived your Ark is simply not possible. Do you understand that most animals are unique to the continents they live on? Do you understand that South American animals are not the same as African animals? Or North American animals or Asian animals? The ark would not have been big enough to hold all the land animals much less their food supply for the time required for the water to.. well go where ever it went, it's a myth dude, a myth... nothing more [/size]d on theo-matics .. Could one explain to me the chances of resulting in victory after a 6 day period being out numbered 100 soldiers to your 1. What are the chances.. 100 to 1 .. spin the wheel. stranger things have happened, unlikely events do happen, it does not prove god is real.... Edited January 23, 2012 by Moontanman 1
jryan Posted January 23, 2012 Posted January 23, 2012 So murder, rape, genocide, slavery, death penalty for homosexuals and adulterers is ok with you then? Uh, no? Where did I say that? So you are saying that the same people argue both at the same time, can you confirm this is true? I call as my first witness.... MOONTANAMAN!! crowd: *murmur murmur murmur* Mister Moontanaman, do you believe that the growing secularization of western civilization is a good thing? Do you also believe that Western civilization is as dominant now as it has ever been? Do you believe this will remain so? Indeed, do you even believe it should? Crowd: *murmur murmur murmur*
Arete Posted January 23, 2012 Posted January 23, 2012 (edited) Correct, well lets just say around 6.5 million on land. Well who said he did this all by himself .. and more so, if Noah only took on board pairs of "kinds" as the word is used in Genesis 1. God created these "kinds" with potential for rich genetic diversity. For instance, at the time of Christ there existed only two types of dogs. All the diversity we see in the modern breeds of dogs came from these two. During my PhD studies (papers currently in review) we described four new species of geckos using a combination of multilocus genetic, multivariate morphometric and meristic and coalescent estimation of migration rates. We dated the divergence of these species between 3 and 10 million years ago using fossil calibrated phylogenetic methods. So either Noah knew more about Australian herpeteofauna and was a better taxonomist than us, all of our data is inexplicably wrong (despite multiple replicates, mulitfacted data types and highly significant P values) or the literal interpretation of the flood story doesn't gel with reality. Edited January 23, 2012 by Arete 2
Athena Posted January 24, 2012 Author Posted January 24, 2012 (edited) Yeah, new evidence means new theories for sure... Quote mining God, how refreshing... I agree, set them straight... I would love to hear your proof that god exists... I certainly cannot prove he does not... Oh shit! I hated putting this thread is religion, but knew because the word "God" is used, it would not stay in the Political forum for long. And I hate the religious argument that is ruining the thread. Can anyone get past the stupid argument about the existence of God which does not belong in this thread, and grasp the political argument? Thanks for confirming. I've long suspected as much. This won't be the first time someone has suggested that I must abandon my intelligence or critical thinking abilities in order to know god. I hate it when I forget the word "not". You can not know the higher power without using higher level thinking. Edited January 24, 2012 by Athena
iNow Posted January 24, 2012 Posted January 24, 2012 You can not know the higher power without using higher level thinking. It's called imagination, not "higher level thinking." Alternative terms are conjecture, fictional narrative, and mythology. Also, FWIW... If you're tired of the immense baggage that comes with use of the ill-defined three letter word that is "god," then perhaps you should use a more accurate term without said baggage. Given you system of understanding, I recommend the term "cosmos."
Athena Posted January 24, 2012 Author Posted January 24, 2012 (edited) No, you need to use [/quote*] at the end (without *) There are currently somewhere in the region of 5,000,000 species of animal alive today (conservative estimate), even if Noah had his entire life to collect them all he would fail. As for the size of the ark - even with modern ship building techniques we could not get near the size needed to fit all those animals on board - Noah would have needed a fleet of ships Not only that but whilst the animals were onboard, what would they eat? Alot of them would have had predator/prey relationships and Noah only has 2 of each. The herbivores are also screwed because god did not say "by the way Noah, better take 2 of each plant as well", as you know most plant species will not survive submerged in water for very long at all. Also the bible says that after the flood one of the first things Noah does is make a sacrifice to god. Since he only has 2 of each animal, which species did he wipe out here? To summerize, the bible says a lot of crazy stuff which is trivially falsified As for theomatics - again triviallly falsified http://www.apolloweb...theomatics.html This mythology seriously does not belong in this thread, because it doesn't have anything to do with liberty and the political point of this thread. I wish people who start threads had the ability to delete post that derail the thread. Then it might be possible to keep a thread on topic. I think people here have proven themselves to be more than capable of abstract though. I really don't think that's the issue Don't you think we need to define what it is we're talking about here? Again, you speak of "education for technology" - What is that?? Thank you for bring this closer to the topic, but I would not say anyone has proven the ability to think abstractly. To think abstractly is to think about what we think. Arguing if the bible is fact or fiction is an endless concrete argument, not abstract thinking. God is a concrete thing that can either exist or not exist to a concrete thinker. God that is like the X in algebra is abstract. See the difference? Can you imagine trying to teach algebra and having the class argue if X is real or not? A teacher might what to kill if this argument never stops, and the lesson can never begin. What this thread is suppose to be about is personal liberty and power. I have said we need a concept of "God" to trump human authority. There is much I would like to say about this, but arguing if there is a God or not, and if Noah could fit all the different species of plants and animals on the ark, is completely derailing the thread. Education for technology is what followed liberal education in 1958. It is specifically for military and industrial purpose and we adopted it from Germany for military reasons. This is a directly related subject, but it would easily derail this thread. It goes with the idea that all babies are born are born with blank brains, and and anything can be written on them if the right technique is used. This of course assumes the state has the right to write on those brains, as opposed to teaching individuals to think for themselves, which is training the brain to function quite differently. Memorizing facts is not exactly equal to thinking. There is so much information on this I will just link to the google page and people can pick their own explanation http://www.google.co...lient=firefox-a Whatever, this thread is not going well, because we no longer use the Conceptual Method for education, and therefore, people are not prepared to discuss complex concepts requiring a foundation of simple concepts, which they no longer learn. If anyone picked up on Cicero's explanation of God, I missed it, and if no understands Cicero's explanation of God, discussions such as this one will never get beyond the annoying arguments about religious mythology, and if God is real or not. Gee is X real? Can you prove it? I am really frustrated, because I have argued like this for years and always get the same futility arguments of it God is real or not. Finally this time I realized what is wrong, and I thank everyone for helping to realize the problem. Now let us argue if X is real or not, and see how much we can learn about algebra, if we never past arguing if X is real. It's called imagination, not "higher level thinking." Alternative terms are conjecture, fictional narrative, and mythology. Also, FWIW... If you're tired of the immense baggage that comes with use of the ill-defined three letter word that is "god," then perhaps you should use a more accurate term without said baggage. Given you system of understanding, I recommend the term "cosmos." I wish people had better educations. Edited January 24, 2012 by Athena -1
iNow Posted January 24, 2012 Posted January 24, 2012 I wish people who start threads had the ability to delete post that derail the thread. Then it might be possible to keep a thread on topic. So report it and ask for it to be split. Being able to delete posts you dislike is a very dangerous idea, indeed, and anathema to the free exchange of ideas. For someone who prizes higher thought, you sure do miss the obvious sometimes. What this thread is suppose to be about is personal liberty and power. I have said we need a concept of "God" to trump human authority. And others have disagreed. If you'd like to say more about this, then do so. Explain your position instead of whining about how your thread is going poorly. Nobody here is going to cut your meat for you or tie your shoes before you run off to school. Education for technology is what followed liberal education in 1958. It is specifically for military and industrial purpose and we adopted it from Germany for military reasons. This is a very biased view. You are speaking in absolutes, and your premises are questionable at best, ridiculous at worst. To what countries does your assertion apply? To what schools within that country? If we assume for a moment that the changes you suggest actually happened, how can you possibly know the motivation driving such a complex system of changes? The flaws in your approach here are almost too numerous to cite. It goes with the idea that all babies are born are born with blank brains, and and anything can be written on them if the right technique is used. And this idea of tabula rasa has been repeatedly demonstrated to be false for decades. We are not born with blank brains, not even close and there are reams of psychological and neuroscientific research in support of this. The idea went out of favor with John Locke and William Blake. Whatever, this thread is not going well, because we no longer use the Conceptual Method for education Who says we ever did? Some teachers like Socrates may have used this method, but that doesn't mean we only used that. Again, your premises are painfully lacking connection to reality. If anyone picked up on Cicero's explanation of God, I missed it, and if no understands Cicero's explanation of God, discussions such as this one will never get beyond the annoying arguments about religious mythology, and if God is real or not. Cicero equated god to natural law, and natural law to that which helps the survival of the state and enhances personal happiness. However, his view was still extremely limited and biased since he failed to account for the fact that everyone has their own version of ethics... For his approach to apply, you must assume that the approach is shared by all beings. For his ideas to apply, one must assume that all men shared a common conception of good... an assumption that is ridiculous on its face. He made the sophomoric mistake of trying to equate his personal subjective understandings, values, and ethics with some sort of objective universal truth. They were lofty ideals, and many incredibly well-thought proposals, but they are not in any way, shape, or form objective universal truths. You seem to be suffering from the same problem. If I may be so bold... There is no one right way or no one single truth, and likewise there is no one single ultimate authority. Try as you might, you will perpetually come up short if you continue to seek one. The power is within you... within all of us... and when that power is aggregated it becomes the basis of true democracy... Not some ethereal subjective set of natural laws or deistic god. 2
Moontanman Posted January 24, 2012 Posted January 24, 2012 (edited) While I hesitate to even post after iNows eloquent post, i am going to tell my somewhat simple idea of the concept of god and possibly have something to say why it seems to bring out both the best and worst of us. I really have to go back far before the ancient Greeks to really give the concept some frame of reference but the idea of god i think started out very simple, things like birth, death, weather, tectonic movements, predators, the simple vagrancies of life begged for explanations. Humans have been human a very long time, the stories that were told about how and why things worked were generally attributed to powers above humans because humans had no control over them. This is what the idea of gods come from. Religion on the other hand is something else and closest to what I think Athena is thinking about. Religion was the stories passed around the camp fire. The way children were taught to behave, how to obey the rules of the tribe and how to survive the life they would lead in the tribe. This inevitably came to be tied into the powers or gods and these were imaginary or really to these people as real as anything we know in their frame of reference. This was human culture, the behaviors, skills, and beliefs it took to live that life. Morals were also evolving at this time, right and wrong were slippery concepts compared to what we feel today. The "stories" were the human culture of that time, how we acted when we met strangers, how we conducted the hunt, how to kill and bleed animals, how the work was shared and who did what, this was for lack of a better word the human Zeitgeist... this school of thought or meme really evolved as human culture evolved. the humans with the most successful zeitgeist prospered, the ones who ignored the stories probably did not. This over all code of conduct was part of this and behavior that agreed with the general population was what people thought of as good. At this stage what Athena is proposing would have been realistic as long as your behavior was in line with the rest of the population. but then men learned to write, the stories were carved in stone if not literally then figuratively, there lies the disconnect with the morals of the time we now live in and the time the stores were written down. But now it's no longer something you know from having a common heritage with the people around you but an artificial construct, made by people who are thousands of years out of touch with the zeitgeist, as a culture it's a split personality, part of us knows what's right, and part of us is being bombarded with this frozen concept that no longer serves us as little more than a source of insane behavior. the fact that humans have managed to use it for anything good at all is not testament to god but testament to the inherent moral behavior of sane human beings... This is why there is such a disconnect between what Athena "feels" about god and what most people "think" about god... Best i can do... Edited January 24, 2012 by Moontanman
immortal Posted January 24, 2012 Posted January 24, 2012 The point of this thread is that evolutionary psychology describes moral values based only on our instincts and how our brains are hard-wired to make a selfish choice to propogate our genotypes even though the act performed was an altruistic one and these are the moral values that exist in a Godless technologically based educated society. The argument is that which is better for our society, a human conscience which is based on submission of your authority and power to a calculating and hard-wired brain? or a human conscience which is based on submission of your authority to a higher authority like God which evokes humane behaviours and gives the power to stand out and make a choice to do a daring act for the good of the whole and an act to please God and not perform a act only for personal gains? Once a King lost a battle to an another King and he was under his captivity. The victorius King gave him a favour saying that "If you surrender yourself to me and beg for your freedom I will give back your lost position and I will again make you as a King" and the captured King replied saying "I will not corrupt myself and God's work by accepting your favour just for those worldly pleasures which doesn't exist forever for a thing which is called as right conduct given to Kings by God which solely exist forever and therefore I will rather prefer to die here than to beg you on your feet for my liberty." - This is a translation The above story shows the nature of a King and how a King should behave in order not to lose that nature because if we loses it then it is the sign that he and his province are moving towards the path of destruction and therefore he will go against God's work whose main advice to the Kings is to protect and provide happiness by making righteous choices for the people coming under his province and this is what is morally good for him in the long run as he has to answer his acts to a higher authority at some point or the other and subject himself to the judgement of God. If we have such a conscience which is based on a higher authority like God it will preserve our nature and our God fearing attitude and will help us to do noble acts rather than falling to corruption and taking one's country to the path of destruction from with in. This is the kind of conscience which evolutionary psychology will never be able to provide or aid us, it can not guide us to do noble acts and it will lead to the destruction of humanity and human values if we provide education only to develop a technologically advanced state of the art society rather than to provide education to develop a society which gives importance and preference to humane values and its universal nature first and then to use and develop technologies in the name of progressing humanity later. The argument is that technology alone can not help us for our survival and our progress and that we also need to reasses our moral values and our way of conduct in order for us to thrive and co-exist in this cosmos because in order to thrive in this cosmos we need to understand the moral standards and the nature of this cosmos and this is what some of the few Greeks, the Romans and the eastern philosophers advice us. I hope this will help the thread to go in its intended direction rather than derailing it to off topics.
Arete Posted January 24, 2012 Posted January 24, 2012 The OP: so to boil it down - you acted in a way which you thought was morally correct, but in breach of your lease/ rental agreement... I'm not really seeing how this results in an appeal to a higher authority and it seems like an appeal to the "two wrongs make a right" logical fallacy http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/two-wrongs-make-a-right.html. If I knew a child was being abused by its carers, the morally correct thing to do would be to remove the child from that situation, however it would be logically fallacious to use that reason to justify kidnapping the child. Did you pre-emptively try to make arrangements with the landlord, or did you just go ahead without informing them? do a daring act for the good of the whole and an act to please God and not perform a act only for personal gains? Actually - this describes the opposite of biological altruism (i.e. evolutionary altruism) in which an organism performs an action which reduces its own fecundity to increase the fecundity of other individuals. Altruistic behavior as described above is common in animals - http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/altruism-biological/ ... vampire bats regularly regurgitate blood and donate it to other members of their group who have failed to feed that night, ensuring they do not starve. In numerous bird species, a breeding pair receives help in raising its young from other ‘helper’ birds, who protect the nest from predators and help to feed the fledglings. Vervet monkeys give alarm calls to warn fellow monkeys of the presence of predators, even though in doing so they attract attention to themselves, increasing their personal chance of being attacked. In social insect colonies (ants, wasps, bees and termites), sterile workers devote their whole lives to caring for the queen, constructing and protecting the nest, foraging for food, and tending the larvae. Such behaviour is maximally altruistic: sterile workers obviously do not leave any offspring of their own — so have personal fitness of zero — but their actions greatly assist the reproductive efforts of the queen. So if altruistic behavior is prevalent in animals and not solely a human endeavor doesn't it erode the appeal to a higher power/authority? Kin selection/ inclusive fitness models offer a naturalistic explanation for altruistic behavior supported by experimental and observational field data. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/altruism-biological/ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inclusive_fitness 2
Athena Posted January 24, 2012 Author Posted January 24, 2012 (edited) So report it and ask for it to be split. Being able to delete posts you dislike is a very dangerous idea, indeed, and anathema to the free exchange of ideas. For someone who prizes higher thought, you sure do miss the obvious sometimes. And others have disagreed. If you'd like to say more about this, then do so. Explain your position instead of whining about how your thread is going poorly. Nobody here is going to cut your meat for you or tie your shoes before you run off to school. This is a very biased view. You are speaking in absolutes, and your premises are questionable at best, ridiculous at worst. To what countries does your assertion apply? To what schools within that country? If we assume for a moment that the changes you suggest actually happened, how can you possibly know the motivation driving such a complex system of changes? The flaws in your approach here are almost too numerous to cite. And this idea of tabula rasa has been repeatedly demonstrated to be false for decades. We are not born with blank brains, not even close and there are reams of psychological and neuroscientific research in support of this. The idea went out of favor with John Locke and William Blake. Who says we ever did? Some teachers like Socrates may have used this method, but that doesn't mean we only used that. Again, your premises are painfully lacking connection to reality. Cicero equated god to natural law, and natural law to that which helps the survival of the state and enhances personal happiness. However, his view was still extremely limited and biased since he failed to account for the fact that everyone has their own version of ethics... For his approach to apply, you must assume that the approach is shared by all beings. For his ideas to apply, one must assume that all men shared a common conception of good... an assumption that is ridiculous on its face. He made the sophomoric mistake of trying to equate his personal subjective understandings, values, and ethics with some sort of objective universal truth. They were lofty ideals, and many incredibly well-thought proposals, but they are not in any way, shape, or form objective universal truths. You seem to be suffering from the same problem. If I may be so bold... There is no one right way or no one single truth, and likewise there is no one single ultimate authority. Try as you might, you will perpetually come up short if you continue to seek one. The power is within you... within all of us... and when that power is aggregated it becomes the basis of true democracy... Not some ethereal subjective set of natural laws or deistic god. You might have said something I would enjoy reading, but I quit reading before getting there. I have studied the history of education from earliest times, and collect education books, from books about the history of education, to text books. What are you using to support the idea you know enough about education to argue the subject? Start a thread for education if you want to discuss it further, and PM me. Edited January 24, 2012 by Athena
immortal Posted January 24, 2012 Posted January 24, 2012 Altruistic behavior as described above is common in animals - http://plato.stanfor...ism-biological/ So if altruistic behavior is prevalent in animals and not solely a human endeavor doesn't it erode the appeal to a higher power/authority? Kin selection/ inclusive fitness models offer a naturalistic explanation for altruistic behavior supported by experimental and observational field data. http://plato.stanfor...ism-biological/ http://en.wikipedia....clusive_fitness I read your links, it was quite informative. Thanks. However Kin selection and Inclusive fitness can only account for behaviours which are determined mainly by genetic components but it can not account for behaviours in humans due to other environmental influences. A Christian saves a Jew even though its a huge risk on his own life thinking that All humans are equals and everyone deserves such respect and care and he mainly performs such an act to please God and not because the Jews are his relatives having copies of his genes and nor because he expects anything back from the society to increase his Inclusive fitness and quite amazingly people appreciate such acts and they even try to learn those ideas and in this way such an idea will thrive in the meme pool. Most religious people perform fasting and prayers and spend most of their lives and their energy for the good of the whole and such acts in no way help to increase one's reproductive fitness nor it helps cultural evolution to resolve the selection pressures acting at various levels and prevents the need for Natural Selection to play its part. The problem with Cultural evolution is that bad ideas don't get lost and even though they are eliminated from cultures none the less they exist and its not like how natural selection ensures the wipe out of bad genes and once bad genes are lost they are lost forever. If religious ideas are bad ideas then why has cultural evolution not yet wiped out those religious practices, why they are being practiced and passed on for thousands of years in the history of mankind. More importantly if selfish genes acting through psychology of Humans were the cause of the origin of religion then why would we see such irrational acts being performed and passed on which neither give a reproductive fitness to individuals nor do they help cultural evolution to resolve the selection pressures acting at different levels. What kind of selfish genes would induce a psychological behaviour to go inside caves to gain knowledge as many of the Apostles did and come back with a scripture producing one of the major religions of the world which affect every aspect of our life and not even a single sentence from that scripture help those selfish genes to increase their chances of survival. Therefore evolutionary psychology can not account for the origin of religion. There has to be an another force which should be acting to develop moral standards which didn't came from the evolutionary tree of mankind but came directly from the God and it is this force which pushes humans to learn such moral standards given by God and it is what has helped such a moral standard to be in existent for thousands of years. The argument is that humans can overcome the moral standards set up by evolutionary animal instincts and can make a conscious choice to use a different set of moral standards set up by God or an higher authority which helps us to co-exist in the cosmos.
Athena Posted January 24, 2012 Author Posted January 24, 2012 While I hesitate to even post after iNows eloquent post, i am going to tell my somewhat simple idea of the concept of god and possibly have something to say why it seems to bring out both the best and worst of us. I really have to go back far before the ancient Greeks to really give the concept some frame of reference but the idea of god i think started out very simple, things like birth, death, weather, tectonic movements, predators, the simple vagrancies of life begged for explanations. Humans have been human a very long time, the stories that were told about how and why things worked were generally attributed to powers above humans because humans had no control over them. This is what the idea of gods come from. Religion on the other hand is something else and closest to what I think Athena is thinking about. Religion was the stories passed around the camp fire. The way children were taught to behave, how to obey the rules of the tribe and how to survive the life they would lead in the tribe. This inevitably came to be tied into the powers or gods and these were imaginary or really to these people as real as anything we know in their frame of reference. This was human culture, the behaviors, skills, and beliefs it took to live that life. Morals were also evolving at this time, right and wrong were slippery concepts compared to what we feel today. The "stories" were the human culture of that time, how we acted when we met strangers, how we conducted the hunt, how to kill and bleed animals, how the work was shared and who did what, this was for lack of a better word the human Zeitgeist... this school of thought or meme really evolved as human culture evolved. the humans with the most successful zeitgeist prospered, the ones who ignored the stories probably did not. This over all code of conduct was part of this and behavior that agreed with the general population was what people thought of as good. At this stage what Athena is proposing would have been realistic as long as your behavior was in line with the rest of the population. but then men learned to write, the stories were carved in stone if not literally then figuratively, there lies the disconnect with the morals of the time we now live in and the time the stores were written down. But now it's no longer something you know from having a common heritage with the people around you but an artificial construct, made by people who are thousands of years out of touch with the zeitgeist, as a culture it's a split personality, part of us knows what's right, and part of us is being bombarded with this frozen concept that no longer serves us as little more than a source of insane behavior. the fact that humans have managed to use it for anything good at all is not testament to god but testament to the inherent moral behavior of sane human beings... This is why there is such a disconnect between what Athena "feels" about god and what most people "think" about god... Best i can do... Moontanman, instead of defining God, maybe this thread would go better if we attempt to define liberty and justice, and hold in mind this is about our political organization, not our religious organization. Also the technological elements of this thread are becoming more and more obvious.
Arete Posted January 24, 2012 Posted January 24, 2012 (edited) However Kin selection and Inclusive fitness can only account for behaviours which are determined mainly by genetic components but it can not account for behaviours in humans due to other environmental influences... Kin selection and inclusive fitness invoke game theory and selfish gene theory in describing how an action detrimental to the individual but beneficial on the gene/population/species level can be heritable. To make the positive assertion that such behavior is solely as a result of enviromental factors and has no genetic basis, you'd need some sort of evidence supporting the non-inheritance of altruistic behavior to counter the evidence in the above links suggesting that it is. If religious ideas are bad ideas then why has cultural evolution not yet wiped out those religious practices, why they are being practiced and passed on for thousands of years in the history of mankind. Being a member of a powerful, influential and wealthy organization is selectively advantageous regardless of the beliefs of the group. Being a member of a religion is selectively advantageous for humans for a host of reasons (financial support, defensive allies, kin group associations, etc to name a few) regardless of whether or not the teachings of the religion are true/correct/moral/etc. More importantly if selfish genes acting through psychology of Humans were the cause of the origin of religion then why would we see such irrational acts being performed and passed on which neither give a reproductive fitness to individuals nor do they help cultural evolution to resolve the selection pressures acting at different levels. What kind of selfish genes would induce a psychological behaviour to go inside caves to gain knowledge as many of the Apostles did and come back with a scripture producing one of the major religions of the world which affect every aspect of our life and not even a single sentence from that scripture help those selfish genes to increase their chances of survival. Therefore evolutionary psychology can not account for the origin of religion. You're shifting the goalposts and strawmanning kin selection/inclusive fitness. It's not attempting to explain the advent of religion at all - it explains biologically altruistic behavior - a clearly defined, observed phenomenon. See previous post. There has to be an another force which should be acting to develop moral standards which didn't came from the evolutionary tree of mankind but came directly from the God and it is this force which pushes humans to learn such moral standards given by God and it is what has helped such a moral standard to be in existent for thousands of years. This seems to be simply an appeal to personal incredulity. You personally don't accept naturalistic explanations for altruistic behavior and invoke the Abrahamic version of God as the only plausible explanation - which is logically fallacious. The argument is that humans can overcome the moral standards set up by evolutionary animal instincts and can make a conscious choice to use a different set of moral standards set up by God or an higher authority which helps us to co-exist in the cosmos. Observation clearly supports an evolutionary basis for biologically altruistic behavior. The assertion that altrusim requires one to "overcome" evolution and thus the subsequent appeal to higher authority is erroneous. Edited January 24, 2012 by Arete
Athena Posted January 24, 2012 Author Posted January 24, 2012 (edited) I read your links, it was quite informative. Thanks. However Kin selection and Inclusive fitness can only account for behaviours which are determined mainly by genetic components but it can not account for behaviours in humans due to other environmental influences. A Christian saves a Jew even though its a huge risk on his own life thinking that All humans are equals and everyone deserves such respect and care and he mainly performs such an act to please God and not because the Jews are his relatives having copies of his genes and nor because he expects anything back from the society to increase his Inclusive fitness and quite amazingly people appreciate such acts and they even try to learn those ideas and in this way such an idea will thrive in the meme pool. Most religious people perform fasting and prayers and spend most of their lives and their energy for the good of the whole and such acts in no way help to increase one's reproductive fitness nor it helps cultural evolution to resolve the selection pressures acting at various levels and prevents the need for Natural Selection to play its part. The problem with Cultural evolution is that bad ideas don't get lost and even though they are eliminated from cultures none the less they exist and its not like how natural selection ensures the wipe out of bad genes and once bad genes are lost they are lost forever. If religious ideas are bad ideas then why has cultural evolution not yet wiped out those religious practices, why they are being practiced and passed on for thousands of years in the history of mankind. More importantly if selfish genes acting through psychology of Humans were the cause of the origin of religion then why would we see such irrational acts being performed and passed on which neither give a reproductive fitness to individuals nor do they help cultural evolution to resolve the selection pressures acting at different levels. What kind of selfish genes would induce a psychological behaviour to go inside caves to gain knowledge as many of the Apostles did and come back with a scripture producing one of the major religions of the world which affect every aspect of our life and not even a single sentence from that scripture help those selfish genes to increase their chances of survival. Therefore evolutionary psychology can not account for the origin of religion. There has to be an another force which should be acting to develop moral standards which didn't came from the evolutionary tree of mankind but came directly from the God and it is this force which pushes humans to learn such moral standards given by God and it is what has helped such a moral standard to be in existent for thousands of years. The argument is that humans can overcome the moral standards set up by evolutionary animal instincts and can make a conscious choice to use a different set of moral standards set up by God or an higher authority which helps us to co-exist in the cosmos. How would you say God gave man this force? This vital to this discussion of individual liberty and power. THANK YOU I believe it is more scientifically correct to call the programming of social animals pre-moral. It is something that is programmed into our genes, however, it does not become a moral, until we define it. It would be our ability to define a moral, that is also our ability to change the standard, no? Edited January 24, 2012 by Athena
Tres Juicy Posted January 24, 2012 Posted January 24, 2012 God gives you nothing, at best it is a placebo. You said it yourself in your opening post, you believe in a higher authority yet you are still bound by the same one as everyone else You have no more power or liberty as anyone else, if anything you have only imposed more restrictions upon yourself with your belief.
Athena Posted January 24, 2012 Author Posted January 24, 2012 The OP: so to boil it down - you acted in a way which you thought was morally correct, but in breach of your lease/ rental agreement... I'm not really seeing how this results in an appeal to a higher authority and it seems like an appeal to the "two wrongs make a right" logical fallacy http://www.nizkor.or...e-a-right.html. If I knew a child was being abused by its carers, the morally correct thing to do would be to remove the child from that situation, however it would be logically fallacious to use that reason to justify kidnapping the child. Did you pre-emptively try to make arrangements with the landlord, or did you just go ahead without informing them? Thank you Arete. Technology has changed the rules. When the Senior Companion program began in the 1960's, no one thought to control the conduct of a senior companion, beyond the laws that apply to everyone. The old training video has clients saying how having a senior companion is just like having family. In fact the program was developed not only for people who need assistance, but also older women who had no work experience, because they stayed home to care for family, and needed jobs, because a husband died or just walked out. These women had a domestic mentality, that is very different from our "professionalism" today. This old mentally was part of the organization I worked for, until the new hot shot came in. Special arrangements were made to keep senior companions and their clients together, and sincere friendships were encouraged. Our moral fiber was very different from what is today, and making it clear in the training that a senior companion is to be friendly but is not to become a friend. I wish I could show you the old training video, so you could compare the past taking advantage of domestic women and today's "professionalism". If you haven't lived in the past, you don't know how much liberty we have lost. This change began entering our society following WWII. This is really a different discussion, but directly related to this one. I could quote from my old books and make an argument that we have become what we defended our democracy against in two world wars. I have one book for teachers published in the 1960'tys, explaining why teachers must treat every student the same. It sounds really good, until one realizes how dehumanizing this is. Not only is this dehumanizing, but it also destroys our moral fabric, which has been based on human relationships since the beginning of human history. In fact, there was a time when jobs were not defined as we define them today. I am afraid no one has consciousness of this pre technological past, but seriously this defining of jobs and human conduct on the job, comes with adopting German bureaucracy and German education for technology and German philosophy. But if you can, imagine jobs not being defined, but everyone doing the things s/he can do the best, and people figuring out how to work together on their own. This is a completely different world than the one have today. There are good reasons for change, and also some very negative ramifications. About my housing and involvement with homeless people, I am becoming increasing aware of how dehumanizing our society has become, and how destructive this to our morality. Only a few people in this apartment building would leave a friend with cancer on the streets, as our society is doing today. The property manager believes I am doing the morally right, and many of my neighbors are supportive. Someone with authority has given me the paper work to add the woman with cancer to my contract. Where the problems come in is some people are anti social and fearful and complain to the manager that a homeless person entered the building. The young manager is afraid of loosing her job if she doesn't enforce the rules. Now the rules do not say a homeless person can not be our guest, but the way fear works, a complaint is made and the manager thinks she has to respond. I must not allow anyone in who might look homeless and scare someone. It is like not being allowed to left a black person in, when prejudice of blacks was okay. This is the mentality that resulted in good people doing nothing while Jews were removed from their homes and forced into the ghettos and then into concentration camps, with only a few non Jews being willing to risk their lives to protect Jews. This is why I argue the dangers of answering to man, instead of to God. See how it all goes together? Defining the jobs and increased efforts to control human conduct, in the work place and then our homes. People with good intentions are doing their best to take good care of us, and Tocqueville explained this evolution of our Christian democracy in his 1835 book, "Democracy in America". Laugh, and how many people are going to read this long post? But what the heck, I have been dying to explain all this since beginning the thread. If I am lucky, someone will actually read it and say something to advance the discussion, other than "God isn't real".
iNow Posted January 24, 2012 Posted January 24, 2012 (edited) deleted Edited January 25, 2012 by iNow
iNow Posted January 25, 2012 Posted January 25, 2012 (edited) You might have said something I would enjoy reading, but I quit reading before getting there. Okay then. Your loss, but given this response from you, perhaps you shouldn't be so disappointed or disheartened when people stop responding. What are you using to support the idea you know enough about education to argue the subject? My post speaks for itself, and I hardly need to appeal to authority to make my point. I'm not pulling rank (even though with this topic I easily could given my degree, previous research, and current work). I'm engaging your ideas, though... as that is what matters and seemed to be something you desired. Edited January 25, 2012 by iNow
immortal Posted January 25, 2012 Posted January 25, 2012 Kin selection and inclusive fitness invoke game theory and selfish gene theory in describing how an action detrimental to the individual but beneficial on the gene/population/species level can be heritable. To make the positive assertion that such behavior is solely as a result of enviromental factors and has no genetic basis, you'd need some sort of evidence supporting the non-inheritance of altruistic behavior to counter the evidence in the above links suggesting that it is. When I use the term Altruism, I am talking about Real Altruism, actions done with a conscious non-selfish intent to help others. I very much agree that Kin selection and Inclusive fitness account for behaviours which are heritable but it can not account for Real Altruism which is explained through selfish genes acting through the psychology of humans. I am making the assertion that Real Altruistic behaviours are solely due to environmental factors and has no genetic basis. Kin selection theory does not deny the truism that all traits are affected by both genes and environment. Nor does it deny that many interesting animal behaviours are transmitted through non-genetical means, such as imitation and social learning (Avital and Jablonka 2000). I have come to this conclusion from links provided by you. There are behaviours which are transmitted and passed on through learning and religious practices are one of them which are mainly induced by environmental and other nurture factors, you are not born religious. Being a member of a powerful, influential and wealthy organization is selectively advantageous regardless of the beliefs of the group. Being a member of a religion is selectively advantageous for humans for a host of reasons (financial support, defensive allies, kin group associations, etc to name a few) regardless of whether or not the teachings of the religion are true/correct/moral/etc. All teachings of religion teach humans to achieve salvation and deliverance and religious men and women spend most of their energies and time to achieve that and I don't see how the benefit of such behaviours can overcome the energy and time costs considering how difficult it is for couples to raise their children and achieve a high reproductive success. You're shifting the goalposts and strawmanning kin selection/inclusive fitness. It's not attempting to explain the advent of religion at all - it explains biologically altruistic behavior - a clearly defined, observed phenomenon. See previous post. Yes true kin selection and inclusive fitness was developed to explain behaviours which evolve through and has a genetic basis and which are heritable increasing the reproductive fitness of its own and of its kins since there is high probability that they carry copies of the donor's genes. It makes perfect sense. The problem is with Real altruism or Psychological Altruism, behaviours which doesn't in any way aid in the increase of the reproductive fitness of the individual or his kin. These are the behaviours which are invoked by religion and it doesn't make any sense to me why those selfish genes would evoke psychological behaviours which hinder their own fitness potential and therefore can not account for the origin of those behaviours. Where human behaviour is concerned, the distinction between biological altruism, defined in terms of fitness consequences, and ‘real’ altruism, defined in terms of the agent's conscious intentions to help others, does make sense. (Sometimes the label ‘psychological altruism’ is used instead of ‘real’ altruism.) What is the relationship between these two concepts? They appear to be independent in both directions, as Elliott Sober (1994) has argued. An action performed with the conscious intention of helping another human being may not affect their biological fitness at all, so would not count as altruistic in the biological sense. Conversely, an action undertaken for purely self-interested reasons, i.e., without the conscious intention of helping another, may boost their biological fitness tremendously. Sober argues that, even if we accept an evolutionary approach to human behaviour, there is no particular reason to think that evolution would have made humans into egoists rather than psychological altruists. On the contrary, it is quite possible that natural selection would have favoured humans who genuinely do care about helping others, i.e., who are capable of ‘real’ or psychological altruism. Suppose there is an evolutionary advantage associated with taking good care of one's children — a quite plausible idea. Then, parents who really do care about their childrens' welfare, i.e., who are ‘real’ altruists, will have a higher inclusive fitness, hence spread more of their genes, than parents who only pretend to care, or who do not care. Therefore, evolution may well lead ‘real’ or psychological altruism to evolve. Contrary to what is often thought, an evolutionary approach to human behaviour does not imply that humans are likely to be motivated by self-interest alone. One strategy by which ‘selfish genes’ may increase their future representation is by causing humans to be non-selfish, in the psychological sense. This seems to be simply an appeal to personal incredulity. You personally don't accept naturalistic explanations for altruistic behavior and invoke the Abrahamic version of God as the only plausible explanation - which is logically fallacious. No, I have accepted naturalistic explanations for behaviours which does make sense to me that they evolved for natural reasons but the Abrahamic version of God is necessary to account for Real altruistic behaviours Observation clearly supports an evolutionary basis for biologically altruistic behavior. The assertion that altrusim requires one to "overcome" evolution and thus the subsequent appeal to higher authority is erroneous. I have no problems with biologically altruistic behaviours, the problem is with Real Altruism and observation indicates that such behaviours could not have evolved through natural selection, either it is a psychological disorder which natural selection has to act on and eliminate it or those behaviours are influenced by a higher authority.
Moontanman Posted January 25, 2012 Posted January 25, 2012 When I use the term Altruism, I am talking about Real Altruism, actions done with a conscious non-selfish intent to help others. I very much agree that Kin selection and Inclusive fitness account for behaviours which are heritable but it can not account for Real Altruism which is explained through selfish genes acting through the psychology of humans. I am making the assertion that Real Altruistic behaviours are solely due to environmental factors and has no genetic basis. I have come to this conclusion from links provided by you. There are behaviours which are transmitted and passed on through learning and religious practices are one of them which are mainly induced by environmental and other nurture factors, you are not born religious. All teachings of religion teach humans to achieve salvation and deliverance and religious men and women spend most of their energies and time to achieve that and I don't see how the benefit of such behaviours can overcome the energy and time costs considering how difficult it is for couples to raise their children and achieve a high reproductive success. Yes true kin selection and inclusive fitness was developed to explain behaviours which evolve through and has a genetic basis and which are heritable increasing the reproductive fitness of its own and of its kins since there is high probability that they carry copies of the donor's genes. It makes perfect sense. The problem is with Real altruism or Psychological Altruism, behaviours which doesn't in any way aid in the increase of the reproductive fitness of the individual or his kin. These are the behaviours which are invoked by religion and it doesn't make any sense to me why those selfish genes would evoke psychological behaviours which hinder their own fitness potential and therefore can not account for the origin of those behaviours. No, I have accepted naturalistic explanations for behaviours which does make sense to me that they evolved for natural reasons but the Abrahamic version of God is necessary to account for Real altruistic behaviours I have no problems with biologically altruistic behaviours, the problem is with Real Altruism and observation indicates that such behaviours could not have evolved through natural selection, either it is a psychological disorder which natural selection has to act on and eliminate it or those behaviours are influenced by a higher authority. How do you explain altruistic behaviors in animals, a great many animals from elephants to gophers display very altruistic behaviors, some more pronounced than others but real none the less. Wolves are a good example, even better are the dogs that evolved due to the influences of living near and with humans. There are even examples of cross species altruism, the female gorilla that helped a child that fell into her enclosure, wild dolphins helping a human floundering in the water, or even more spectacular are dolphins that help humans fish and actually cooperate with and help humans of their own free will. Altruism is a part of mammalian behavior... it might be most highly developed in humans, although that is debatable, it certainly exists.
immortal Posted January 25, 2012 Posted January 25, 2012 How do you explain altruistic behaviors in animals, a great many animals from elephants to gophers display very altruistic behaviors, some more pronounced than others but real none the less. Wolves are a good example, even better are the dogs that evolved due to the influences of living near and with humans. There are even examples of cross species altruism, the female gorilla that helped a child that fell into her enclosure, wild dolphins helping a human floundering in the water, or even more spectacular are dolphins that help humans fish and actually cooperate with and help humans of their own free will. Altruism is a part of mammalian behavior... it might be most highly developed in humans, although that is debatable, it certainly exists. Your examples account for Reciprocal Altruism in which differnt species co-operate and helps the other which increases the bond between those different species and the donor altruist waits in the long run to recieve a reciprocal from the recepient species and this invloves a selfish component and it is very well documented in biological altruism but biological altruism types or theories can not account for Real psychological Altruism. How would you say God gave man this force? This vital to this discussion of individual liberty and power. THANK YOU I believe it is more scientifically correct to call the programming of social animals pre-moral. It is something that is programmed into our genes, however, it does not become a moral, until we define it. It would be our ability to define a moral, that is also our ability to change the standard, no? Its partly because we are highly conscious beings if we were not self aware then even we would also had to inevitably go by the decision taken by a hard-wired brain which is based on evolutionary moral standards like other animals. The reason is that we are conscious enough to choose a different moral standard and behave in a psychologically different way based on a moral standard given by a higher authority rather than blindly following a evolutionary moral standard. Being conscious means that your conscious thoughts have control over your sense organs and on your actions and Gods have complete control over your conscious thoughts and in this way God enforces his authority on man. Gods are not some super beings who exist above our sky with out interefering with human affairs, gods are beings which exist in our bodies(spiritual body) and guide our intellect and our conscious thoughts and it is through this insight we should understand the Greek plays on how Gods play with human beings.
Arete Posted January 25, 2012 Posted January 25, 2012 (edited) When I use the term Altruism, I am talking about Real Altruism, actions done with a conscious non-selfish intent to help others. I very much agree that Kin selection and Inclusive fitness account for behaviours which are heritable but it can not account for Real Altruism which is explained through selfish genes acting through the psychology of humans. I am making the assertion that Real Altruistic behaviours are solely due to environmental factors and has no genetic basis....I have come to this conclusion from links provided by you. There are behaviours which are transmitted and passed on through learning and religious practices are one of them which are mainly induced by environmental and other nurture factors, you are not born religious. So without positive evidence to support it - you've made the positive assertion that a portion of altruistic behavior is explained ONLY by environmental factors (as opposed to genetic or an interaction between genetic and environmental factors). You've then made the assertion that the ONLY explanation for such behavior is a benevolent God. The argument doesn't follow logically. All teachings of religion teach humans to achieve salvation and deliverance and religious men and women spend most of their energies and time to achieve that and I don't see how the benefit of such behaviours can overcome the energy and time costs considering how difficult it is for couples to raise their children and achieve a high reproductive success. The fact the Catholic Church controls its own autonomous nation state and is the richest organization in the world strongly evidences the political and material gains that can be made by such organizations. As does the advent of prosperity theology. http://en.wikipedia....perity_theology On a local scale; have you ever preferentially supported business due to the owner sharing your faith? Or cooked a meal for someone from your church? If you look at history the selective advantages of belonging to a religion are even more obvious - re crusades, summarial execution of nonbelievers, invasion of "heathen" territory etc. The problem is with Real altruism or Psychological Altruism, behaviours which doesn't in any wayaid in the increase of the reproductive fitness of the individual or his kin. These are the behaviours which are invoked by religion and it doesn't make any sense to me why those selfish genes would evoke psychological behaviours which hinder their own fitness potential and therefore can not account for the origin of those behaviours. Aside from the fact its very existence of "Real Altruism" is based on an unsupported positive assertion, species/population level inclusive fitness accounts for altrusistic behavior outside of ones immediate relations. No, I have accepted naturalistic explanations for behaviours which does make sense to me that they evolved for natural reasons but the Abrahamic version of God is necessary to account for Real altruistic behaviours Why must a benevolent God be the ONLY plausible explanation? Why can't there be one we both may not have thought of yet? This is where the fallacy lies. Edited January 25, 2012 by Arete
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now