The eternal debate: evolution vs. ...
-
Stan Shannon wrote: If there is no higher purpose, no grander perspective, how can I be obligated aside from force to be any more respective of your right to life than any ape or lion? Why do you need an (external) "higher purpose" to do what your intellect tells you is the right thing? Can't 'higher moral behavior' be justified by reason alone? Absolute faith corrupts as absolutely as absolute power Eric Hoffer The opposite of the religious fanatic is not the fanatical atheist but the gentle cynic who cares not whether there is a god or not. Eric Hoffer
Rob Graham wrote: Why do you need an (external) "higher purpose" to do what your intellect tells you is the right thing? Can't 'higher moral behavior' be justified by reason alone? Didn't Immannuel Kant go on about something like that? Objective moral obligations, or some such?
-
Stan Shannon wrote: If there is no higher purpose, no grander perspective, how can I be obligated aside from force to be any more respective of your right to life than any ape or lion? We are (on the whole) cooperative by nature - that is not as a result of religion. Many animals also cooperate with each other (apes and lions for instance) and I don't think that is because they have a higher purpose. It is because cooperation gives them a better chance of survival and reproduction. BTW: I mean apes cooperate with other apes, not apes cooperating with lions :) That I would like to see!
Dan Bennett wrote: BTW: I mean apes cooperate with other apes, not apes cooperating with lions That I would like to see! It depends on your definition of cooperation. The whole of the food chain from top to bottom is a form of cooperation. A scary one at times, but a lion does not hunt for pleasure, only for food. An ape evaluates through the lions behavior if she (remember, male lions are shade potatos) is looking for food and cooperates by giving her a wide berth, or throwing a few rocks at her to get her cooperation in leaving the ape alone. See... cooperation. Just like programmers and testers.... _________________________ Asu no koto o ieba, tenjo de nezumi ga warau. Talk about things of tomorrow and the mice in the ceiling laugh. (Japanese Proverb)
-
Dan Bennett wrote: BTW: I mean apes cooperate with other apes, not apes cooperating with lions That I would like to see! It depends on your definition of cooperation. The whole of the food chain from top to bottom is a form of cooperation. A scary one at times, but a lion does not hunt for pleasure, only for food. An ape evaluates through the lions behavior if she (remember, male lions are shade potatos) is looking for food and cooperates by giving her a wide berth, or throwing a few rocks at her to get her cooperation in leaving the ape alone. See... cooperation. Just like programmers and testers.... _________________________ Asu no koto o ieba, tenjo de nezumi ga warau. Talk about things of tomorrow and the mice in the ceiling laugh. (Japanese Proverb)
Jeffry J. Brickley wrote: See... cooperation. Just like programmers and testers.... Now you're just being silly :)
-
In most political questions, I am a liberal. Therefore it is uncommon for me to agree with this guy (George Will), a hardcore conservative columnist: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8358264/site/newsweek/[^] However, in this column he has, at least, 2 smart insights: 1.The problem with intelligent-design theory is not that it is false but that it is not falsifiable: Not being susceptible to contradicting evidence, it is not a testable hypothesis. Hence it is not a scientific but a creedal tenet—a matter of faith, unsuited to a public school's science curriculum. The most common critique to the scientific value of creationism is the Occam Razor. It is interesting to see Karl Popper's (another conservative) ideas to be used against it, too. 2.What most distressed some Christians was not the fact of evolution but the postulated mechanism—a nature-red-in-tooth-and-claw randomness that erased God's purposefulness and benevolence. Good point! It is not about contradicting a face-value reading of the Bible (other fields of science did it before); it is about the philosophical implications. The jewish-christian religious view was the first to establish a separation between mankind and nature ("God created man in his own image..."). The evolution seems to me to be a hard punch on this view. Comments? Anything different from doctrination is welcome (and I mean atheist doctrination, also). Rui A. Rebelo Caminante no hay camino. El camino se hace nel caminar.
Rui A. Rebelo wrote: The evolution seems to me to be a hard punch on this view. Evolution does not explain many things, like the chicken-or-egg mystery, the soul (inner-self if you are God less) or how nature, a non-person or entity, thoughht up great designs like the blood cirularory system. Religion demands absolute faith. Science considers humans as heards whereas religion focuses on the individual. But both science and religion leaves many questions unanswered outside their respective frameworks. Religion is more about personal experiences than about explanations. Rui A. Rebelo wrote: The jewish-christian religious view was the first to establish a separation between mankind and nature ("God created man in his own image..."). The evolution seems to me to be a hard punch on this view. Some of the events described in Genesis should not be taken literally. "God created man in his own image..." does not mean that God is an old man with a long white beard and some kind of urinal disorder. It reads as God is the supreme soul and God created man as soul and also created a shell called body for the soul to live in. Michaelangelo was dead wrong in his depiction of God in loin clothes. Rui A. Rebelo wrote: a nature-red-in-tooth-and-claw randomness that erased God's purposefulness and benevolence. If cause-and-effect rules the universe, there is no real conflict there. There is nothing random about the universe. Randomness of events depends on how large your view window is. A plane collision that was watched from an air trafic controllers window might seem like a random incident, but for a piolt who happened to be at a higher altitude, it was a sure thing that was going to happen.
-
Rob Graham wrote: Why do you need an (external) "higher purpose" to do what your intellect tells you is the right thing? Can't 'higher moral behavior' be justified by reason alone? Didn't Immannuel Kant go on about something like that? Objective moral obligations, or some such?
Ian Darling wrote: Didn't Immannuel Kant go on about something like that? I think you mean the Categorical imperative[^]... Absolute faith corrupts as absolutely as absolute power Eric Hoffer The opposite of the religious fanatic is not the fanatical atheist but the gentle cynic who cares not whether there is a god or not. Eric Hoffer
-
Ian Darling wrote: Didn't Immannuel Kant go on about something like that? I think you mean the Categorical imperative[^]... Absolute faith corrupts as absolutely as absolute power Eric Hoffer The opposite of the religious fanatic is not the fanatical atheist but the gentle cynic who cares not whether there is a god or not. Eric Hoffer
Rob Graham wrote: I think you mean the Categorical imperative[^]... Ta. I always found Kant a bit rough going, not being much of a philosophiser myself :-)
-
Stan Shannon wrote: If there is no higher purpose, no grander perspective, how can I be obligated aside from force to be any more respective of your right to life than any ape or lion? Why do you need an (external) "higher purpose" to do what your intellect tells you is the right thing? Can't 'higher moral behavior' be justified by reason alone? Absolute faith corrupts as absolutely as absolute power Eric Hoffer The opposite of the religious fanatic is not the fanatical atheist but the gentle cynic who cares not whether there is a god or not. Eric Hoffer
Rob Graham wrote: Why do you need an (external) "higher purpose" to do what your intellect tells you is the right thing? Can't 'higher moral behavior' be justified by reason alone? It isn't me that I'm worried about - its you, and all the others I share my culture with. How the hell do I know what you are basing your analysis of the 'right thing' on? Hitler was merely doing what he thought was the right thing. Do I judge him because he did not concur with your opinion of the right thing? No, we have a mutually agreed upon social contract that defines for all of us what the 'right thing' is. In its purest form, religion merely establishes a rationale upon which we build a definition of the right thing and a justification for why we can be held accountable for not doing the right thing. I'm not saying religion is the only way to achieve that, but it is a very time honered, and established means of doing so, which has served a vital role in the evolution of human societies - and probably should be cherised and protected. Without a firmly established rational for holding ourselves above the natural world, which religion provides, I'm pretty sure we will simply descend back into the natural world and lose all pretense of morality what so ever. "Capitalism is the source of all true freedom."
-
Rob Graham wrote: Why do you need an (external) "higher purpose" to do what your intellect tells you is the right thing? Can't 'higher moral behavior' be justified by reason alone? It isn't me that I'm worried about - its you, and all the others I share my culture with. How the hell do I know what you are basing your analysis of the 'right thing' on? Hitler was merely doing what he thought was the right thing. Do I judge him because he did not concur with your opinion of the right thing? No, we have a mutually agreed upon social contract that defines for all of us what the 'right thing' is. In its purest form, religion merely establishes a rationale upon which we build a definition of the right thing and a justification for why we can be held accountable for not doing the right thing. I'm not saying religion is the only way to achieve that, but it is a very time honered, and established means of doing so, which has served a vital role in the evolution of human societies - and probably should be cherised and protected. Without a firmly established rational for holding ourselves above the natural world, which religion provides, I'm pretty sure we will simply descend back into the natural world and lose all pretense of morality what so ever. "Capitalism is the source of all true freedom."
History is littered with death and destruction caused by religious people 'doing the right thing'. What has served humanity well is the realisation (by most people) that cooperation is better for your long term welfare than conflict.
-
Rui A. Rebelo wrote: The evolution seems to me to be a hard punch on this view. Evolution does not explain many things, like the chicken-or-egg mystery, the soul (inner-self if you are God less) or how nature, a non-person or entity, thoughht up great designs like the blood cirularory system. Religion demands absolute faith. Science considers humans as heards whereas religion focuses on the individual. But both science and religion leaves many questions unanswered outside their respective frameworks. Religion is more about personal experiences than about explanations. Rui A. Rebelo wrote: The jewish-christian religious view was the first to establish a separation between mankind and nature ("God created man in his own image..."). The evolution seems to me to be a hard punch on this view. Some of the events described in Genesis should not be taken literally. "God created man in his own image..." does not mean that God is an old man with a long white beard and some kind of urinal disorder. It reads as God is the supreme soul and God created man as soul and also created a shell called body for the soul to live in. Michaelangelo was dead wrong in his depiction of God in loin clothes. Rui A. Rebelo wrote: a nature-red-in-tooth-and-claw randomness that erased God's purposefulness and benevolence. If cause-and-effect rules the universe, there is no real conflict there. There is nothing random about the universe. Randomness of events depends on how large your view window is. A plane collision that was watched from an air trafic controllers window might seem like a random incident, but for a piolt who happened to be at a higher altitude, it was a sure thing that was going to happen.
Anonymous wrote: Some of the events described in Genesis should not be taken literally. How do you know that? Unless, of course, you are God, anonymously logged in to CP.
-
Dan Bennett wrote: BTW: I mean apes cooperate with other apes, not apes cooperating with lions That I would like to see! It depends on your definition of cooperation. The whole of the food chain from top to bottom is a form of cooperation. A scary one at times, but a lion does not hunt for pleasure, only for food. An ape evaluates through the lions behavior if she (remember, male lions are shade potatos) is looking for food and cooperates by giving her a wide berth, or throwing a few rocks at her to get her cooperation in leaving the ape alone. See... cooperation. Just like programmers and testers.... _________________________ Asu no koto o ieba, tenjo de nezumi ga warau. Talk about things of tomorrow and the mice in the ceiling laugh. (Japanese Proverb)
Jeffry J. Brickley wrote: but a lion does not hunt for pleasure, only for food. You haven't watched many predatory animals have you? If you put a predator in a pen with an ample supply of prey you will typically end up with a tired predator and way more dead animals then it could possibly eat. I don't think hunting just after eating is all that common, but going after an easy kill is different. It could be explained through selection favoring animals that practice killing being able to catch more prey when times are hard, but it sure looks like pleasure to me.
I can imagine the sinking feeling one would have after ordering my book, only to find a laughably ridiculous theory with demented logic once the book arrives - Mark McCutcheon
-
History is littered with death and destruction caused by religious people 'doing the right thing'. What has served humanity well is the realisation (by most people) that cooperation is better for your long term welfare than conflict.
Dan Bennett wrote: History is littered with death and destruction caused by religious people 'doing the right thing'. Actually, it isn't. There are very few instances of much death and destruction which can be attributed directly to any religion. Religion just gets a bad rap from Marxist revisionism trying to proove that we need the state to be the final source of all moral authority (which is ironic considering that historically most violence and destruction has been caused by states, not religions). History is littered with death and destruction caused by a general failure to cooperate based typically on a struggle for resources, when one side or the other determines that those resources would go a lot further if there were fewer people sharing them. "Capitalism is the source of all true freedom."
-
Rui A. Rebelo wrote: The evolution seems to me to be a hard punch on this view. Evolution does not explain many things, like the chicken-or-egg mystery, the soul (inner-self if you are God less) or how nature, a non-person or entity, thoughht up great designs like the blood cirularory system. Religion demands absolute faith. Science considers humans as heards whereas religion focuses on the individual. But both science and religion leaves many questions unanswered outside their respective frameworks. Religion is more about personal experiences than about explanations. Rui A. Rebelo wrote: The jewish-christian religious view was the first to establish a separation between mankind and nature ("God created man in his own image..."). The evolution seems to me to be a hard punch on this view. Some of the events described in Genesis should not be taken literally. "God created man in his own image..." does not mean that God is an old man with a long white beard and some kind of urinal disorder. It reads as God is the supreme soul and God created man as soul and also created a shell called body for the soul to live in. Michaelangelo was dead wrong in his depiction of God in loin clothes. Rui A. Rebelo wrote: a nature-red-in-tooth-and-claw randomness that erased God's purposefulness and benevolence. If cause-and-effect rules the universe, there is no real conflict there. There is nothing random about the universe. Randomness of events depends on how large your view window is. A plane collision that was watched from an air trafic controllers window might seem like a random incident, but for a piolt who happened to be at a higher altitude, it was a sure thing that was going to happen.
Anonymous wrote: Evolution does not explain many things, like the chicken-or-egg mystery, the soul (inner-self if you are God less) or how nature, a non-person or entity, thoughht up great designs like the blood cirularory system. no? you was sleeping in school, wasn't you? egg is (ok, should be according to evolution and I think it is quite logical) specialization of, well, fish egg (adaption to dry environment). soul? I don't understand your definition :) blood circulation? heh. You can't look at state-of-art solution :) Try something easier, eg. to understand our blood system, study reptiles*' blood system, to understand reptile blood system, study fish's blood system, to understand fish's blood system, study eh.. insect ... hey how's that called? IIRC it's not a blood. :~ You'll end up with much easier systems. Quite a wonder though. There is still question, who created this simplest known system?? ... ... ... Isn't it cool that there is still something to research! :-D * yeah I skipped some. I am no expert (obviously :)) David David's thoughts / dnhsoftware.org / MyHTMLTidy
-
Jeffry J. Brickley wrote: but a lion does not hunt for pleasure, only for food. You haven't watched many predatory animals have you? If you put a predator in a pen with an ample supply of prey you will typically end up with a tired predator and way more dead animals then it could possibly eat. I don't think hunting just after eating is all that common, but going after an easy kill is different. It could be explained through selection favoring animals that practice killing being able to catch more prey when times are hard, but it sure looks like pleasure to me.
I can imagine the sinking feeling one would have after ordering my book, only to find a laughably ridiculous theory with demented logic once the book arrives - Mark McCutcheon
More than pleasure, I think it's a natural reaction to getting the easy meal if you can, since there is no telling when the next one will come around. I don't think this instinct goes away quickly, though I'm no zooologist. BW
All the chickens get it.
And them singing canaries get it.
Even strawberries get it. -
More than pleasure, I think it's a natural reaction to getting the easy meal if you can, since there is no telling when the next one will come around. I don't think this instinct goes away quickly, though I'm no zooologist. BW
All the chickens get it.
And them singing canaries get it.
Even strawberries get it.I remember seeing something on sheep ranchers in Austrailia if a Dingo got in one of the pens, a single animal would kill something like 50 sheep in a night. Mind you, the large canine vs. sheep matchup is slightly one sided, but it illustrated how little the instinct to kill has to do with hunger for some animals.
I can imagine the sinking feeling one would have after ordering my book, only to find a laughably ridiculous theory with demented logic once the book arrives - Mark McCutcheon
-
Dan Bennett wrote: History is littered with death and destruction caused by religious people 'doing the right thing'. Actually, it isn't. There are very few instances of much death and destruction which can be attributed directly to any religion. Religion just gets a bad rap from Marxist revisionism trying to proove that we need the state to be the final source of all moral authority (which is ironic considering that historically most violence and destruction has been caused by states, not religions). History is littered with death and destruction caused by a general failure to cooperate based typically on a struggle for resources, when one side or the other determines that those resources would go a lot further if there were fewer people sharing them. "Capitalism is the source of all true freedom."
Stan Shannon wrote: Actually, it isn't. Actually it is. Were the crusades were nothing to do with religion? There are plenty of examples of religious persecution throughout history. I would agree that conflict is more often about resources but religion and extreme politics have certainly played their part. Stan Shannon wrote: Marxist revisionism Lol. Care to give some examples?
-
I remember seeing something on sheep ranchers in Austrailia if a Dingo got in one of the pens, a single animal would kill something like 50 sheep in a night. Mind you, the large canine vs. sheep matchup is slightly one sided, but it illustrated how little the instinct to kill has to do with hunger for some animals.
I can imagine the sinking feeling one would have after ordering my book, only to find a laughably ridiculous theory with demented logic once the book arrives - Mark McCutcheon
andy brummer wrote: but it illustrated how little the instinct to kill has to do with hunger for some animals. Another example is when one put rat in small cage together with young rats or mice. Result: masacre. Reason: instinct saying there isn't enough space for them all to live (I belive). David
-
Stan Shannon wrote: Actually, it isn't. Actually it is. Were the crusades were nothing to do with religion? There are plenty of examples of religious persecution throughout history. I would agree that conflict is more often about resources but religion and extreme politics have certainly played their part. Stan Shannon wrote: Marxist revisionism Lol. Care to give some examples?
Dan Bennett wrote: Were the crusades were nothing to do with religion? There are plenty of examples of religious persecution throughout history. I would agree that conflict is more often about resources but religion and extreme politics have certainly played their part. Well, consider the Crusades just as an example. Islamic forces were isolating Europe from the rest of the world, controlling trade routes, etc. Religion may have been a convenient motivation to inspire men to actually sacrifice their lives, but the conflict was about trade and control of commerce by the early nation states. The truth is probably that even had the middle east remained Christian, war on as grand a scale as the crusades would almost certainly have occured. Dan Bennett wrote: Lol. Care to give some examples? OK, most wars have been between states or peoples, not between religions. Yet religion alomst universally gets the blame as being the single greatest source of violence in the modern view of history, to the point that we rarely even analyze other potential causes of conflict. What one political group has the greatest vested interest in promoting such a view? Marxism. Which just happens to be the same one most closely affiliated with universities where history is taught. Don't tell me that is a coincidence. "Capitalism is the source of all true freedom."
-
Dan Bennett wrote: Were the crusades were nothing to do with religion? There are plenty of examples of religious persecution throughout history. I would agree that conflict is more often about resources but religion and extreme politics have certainly played their part. Well, consider the Crusades just as an example. Islamic forces were isolating Europe from the rest of the world, controlling trade routes, etc. Religion may have been a convenient motivation to inspire men to actually sacrifice their lives, but the conflict was about trade and control of commerce by the early nation states. The truth is probably that even had the middle east remained Christian, war on as grand a scale as the crusades would almost certainly have occured. Dan Bennett wrote: Lol. Care to give some examples? OK, most wars have been between states or peoples, not between religions. Yet religion alomst universally gets the blame as being the single greatest source of violence in the modern view of history, to the point that we rarely even analyze other potential causes of conflict. What one political group has the greatest vested interest in promoting such a view? Marxism. Which just happens to be the same one most closely affiliated with universities where history is taught. Don't tell me that is a coincidence. "Capitalism is the source of all true freedom."
Stan Shannon wrote: What one political group has the greatest vested interest in promoting such a view? Marxism. Which just happens to be the same one most closely affiliated with universities where history is taught. Don't tell me that is a coincidence It's a coincidence :) History was often reported in this way before Marxism existed. To a certain extent it goes back to your point about religion being used as an excuse. When you write up why your country went to war, it sounds better to say it was for high moral reasons (to bring religion to the savages/heretics) rather than because you fancied your neighbours resources. These days the reason is freedom, democracy and the war on terror. Of course Marxists will have their own idealogical variation on this.
-
I remember seeing something on sheep ranchers in Austrailia if a Dingo got in one of the pens, a single animal would kill something like 50 sheep in a night. Mind you, the large canine vs. sheep matchup is slightly one sided, but it illustrated how little the instinct to kill has to do with hunger for some animals.
I can imagine the sinking feeling one would have after ordering my book, only to find a laughably ridiculous theory with demented logic once the book arrives - Mark McCutcheon
Hmmm. that does put a different light on the "save it for a rainy day" notion. Maybe dingos are afraid of sheep. :rolleyes: BW
All the chickens get it.
And them singing canaries get it.
Even strawberries get it. -
Stan Shannon wrote: What one political group has the greatest vested interest in promoting such a view? Marxism. Which just happens to be the same one most closely affiliated with universities where history is taught. Don't tell me that is a coincidence It's a coincidence :) History was often reported in this way before Marxism existed. To a certain extent it goes back to your point about religion being used as an excuse. When you write up why your country went to war, it sounds better to say it was for high moral reasons (to bring religion to the savages/heretics) rather than because you fancied your neighbours resources. These days the reason is freedom, democracy and the war on terror. Of course Marxists will have their own idealogical variation on this.
I'm guessing what you're saying is that religious faith isn't the actual reason for conflict, it's the enabler and focal point. Sam Harris' book The End of Faith[1] discusses this - there's a bit on how one Christian group centuries ago waged war on another, justifying it from some of the stuff in Leviticus. Except they ignored the bit where you had to destroy all the loot :rolleyes: [1] A book which Stan would probably find quite interesting and benefit from reading; there's a whole chapter on the problem with Islam, and Chomsky/"liberalism" gets a right bashing (conservatives do too). I'm having to re-evaulate quite a lot of my opinions regarding faith, terrorism, and so forth as a result of reading it.