PDA

View Full Version : How We Stay Good, the moral Ape


edge
29th January 2008, 12:37 PM
How We Stay Good
Merely being equipped with moral programming does not mean we practice moral behavior. Something still has to boot up that software and configure it properly, and that something is the community. Hauser believes that all of us carry what he calls a sense of moral grammar—the ethical equivalent of the basic grasp of speech that most linguists believe is with us from birth. But just as syntax is nothing until words are built upon it, so too is a sense of right and wrong useless until someone teaches you how to apply it.
It's the people around us who do that teaching—often quite well. Once again, however, humans aren't the ones who dreamed up such a mentoring system. At the Arnhem Zoo in the Netherlands, de Waal was struck by how vigorously apes enforced group norms one evening when the zookeepers were calling their chimpanzees in for dinner. The keepers' rule at Arnhem was that no chimps would eat until the entire community was present, but two adolescents grew willful, staying outside the building. The hours it took to coax them inside caused the mood in the hungry colony to turn surly. That night the keepers put the delinquents to bed in a separate area—a sort of protective custody to shield them from reprisals. But the next day the adolescents were on their own, and the troop made its feelings plain, administering a sound beating. The chastened chimps were the first to come in that evening. Animals have what de Waal calls "oughts"—rules that the group must follow—and the community enforces them.

The Moral Ape
The deepest foundation on which morality is built is the phenomenon of empathy, the understanding that what hurts me would feel the same way to you. And human ego notwithstanding, it's a quality other species share.
It's not surprising that animals far less complex than we are would display a trait that's as generous of spirit as empathy, particularly if you decide there's no spirit involved in it at all. Behaviorists often reduce what we call empathy to a mercantile business known as reciprocal altruism. A favor done today—food offered, shelter given—brings a return favor tomorrow. If a colony of animals practices that give-and-take well, the group thrives.
But even in animals, there's something richer going on. One of the first and most poignant observations of empathy in nonhumans was made by Russian primatologist Nadia Kohts, who studied nonhuman cognition in the first half of the 20th century and raised a young chimpanzee in her home. When the chimp would make his way to the roof of the house, ordinary strategies for bringing him down—calling, scolding, offers of food—would rarely work. But if Kohts sat down and pretended to cry, the chimp would go to her immediately. "He runs around me as if looking for the offender," she wrote. "He tenderly takes my chin in his palm ... as if trying to understand what is happening."
You hardly have to go back to the early part of the past century to find such accounts. Even cynics went soft at the story of Binta Jua, the gorilla who in 1996 rescued a 3-year-old boy who had tumbled into her zoo enclosure, rocking him gently in her arms and carrying him to a door where trainers could enter and collect him. "The capacity of empathy is multilayered," says primatologist Frans de Waal of Emory University, author of Our Inner Ape. "We share a core with lots of animals."
Taken from here. http://www.time.com/time/specials/2007/article/0,28804,1685055_1685076_1686619-2,00.html

I believe all living things share a core with god in other words have souls, to an extent.
In higher mammals it’s just more noticeable.
For instance, to check what’s written above with my pet dog.
Is he aware and does he understand what’s right and wrong.
For months now I have been telling him to go and get his food and water after I pour it.
He always hesitates and approaches it about a half a minute after I leave the vicinity of it, basically in his own time, so if I tell him go and get some food after it sits there a while he usually doesn’t, or once in a great while he does.

The other thing I do, and I have been doing this for a long while, is ask to smell his breath and I get up close and personal I sniff his breath as he bears his teeth inches from my face, I do it because it’s cute and a trust issue, he could bite my nose off.

I have always told him that it smell good ecept maybe once or twice I have said, it stinks and to get away with it, at which point he gets this sad look on his face, then I give in and say I was kidding it smells good and the whole expression changes to a more joyful look.

This morning I decided to before leaving on his walk to tell him that it stinks and he should drink some water to fix it and this is the first time he has gone over and immediately done something about it.
I'll have to repeat this to make sure and will keep you posted if you are interested.

What I said this morning for the first time ever is your breath stinks you need to drink water to fix it, before we go out.
I'll change the line each time with variables in the wording

My point is that all are the living creation and all are individuals with individual spirits we are all related and all past present living creatures have their own souls as individuals.
Just because Lucy isn’t around now and we where not around then doesn’t make them us what makes us individuals is spirit the last of Lucy’s kind may have been in as much contact with God as we are, whether or not our bodies are related, our souls are not.


He, “Odie” was tested in another way to see if he had empathy at the age of a year and a half or so Green Eyes decided to see how smart he was and pretended to drown to get him to come into the creek, Like the chimp no amount of coaxing would bring him in.
As soon as she did the, “help me I’m drowning thing with fake crying,” he promptly came in to save her by grabbing her by the back of the shirt and pulling her to shore.
We have also taught him to say, I love you, and he has more facial expressions than most humans, especially to get what he wants.

She is doing an experiment with a big gold fish at work, at the this very moment to see if a lesser creature is intelligent, has fear, can demonstrate courage, can respond to commands with out the prompting of a reward, can understand human voice, speech, and so far it seems so.

It’s been found that it doesn’t take much gray matter to be intelligent as with the French tax collector that has most of it missing from birth, it’s recently discovered that he only has a thin layer and most of his brain is vacant, he is no different than any one else and has no problem with math and his job, so size seems to be irrelevant.

It is very possible, very possible also, that we may have had to also experience every life form that ever was, to know God, past present and future.
We are at a pinnacle in life to acknowledge and to praise the creation by good morals, and belief.
Since we are the best creation and scripture can back all of this are we the final in a series. :)

tkingdoll
29th January 2008, 02:02 PM
You shot who in the whatnow?

edge
5th February 2008, 02:35 PM
Introduction Many present day philosophies and worldviews claim the people are basically good and that bad or immoral behavior is the exception. The Bible states quite the opposite - that people are selfish and sinful as soon as they are able to express that kind of behavior. Because of this fact, people need a Savior in order to be acceptable to God. In contrast, the implication of the "people are good" worldview is that good people don't need a Savior. This paper will show that the biblical worldview and not the "people are good" worldview matches reality.


http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/peoplegood.html

Comments?

rtalman
5th February 2008, 02:52 PM
Comments?
Maybe you should ask the mods to move this thread to Religion and Philosophy.

edge
5th February 2008, 03:48 PM
Or the nudee section?
Why?

rtalman
5th February 2008, 04:05 PM
Why?As I understand the structure of the forum, this section is intended to discuss Mr. Randi's SWIFT commentaries. I must have missed the connection between your post and one of Mr. Randi's commentaries, mea culpa.

Also, the folks that read the R&P section may have something more to say about your posts.

Just trying to help.:)

edge
6th February 2008, 10:53 AM
Experimental evidence of human depravity.


Stanley Morgan's electrocution study.

Twenty-six of the 40 subjects continued to shock the learner up to the maximum setting of 450 volts. Although Dr. Milgram's colleagues had predicted that only 3% of subjects would continue to the maximum voltage, 65% actually did so, even though they believed that the shocks they had given were extremely painful.

Philip Zimbardo's Stanford prison experiment.
The treatment by the "guards" continued to deteriorate to the point that the experiment had to be ended on the sixth day. None of the "guards" protested the evil actions of their "coworkers".


Solomon Asch's conformity experiments,
Read it as I only posted excerpts, if you want..

Conclusion The unending human propensity for hatred, violence, and evil will continue as we, the "righteous" haters will seek out and kill the "unrighteous" haters. An underlying spiritual cause of all this hatred is the only reasonable explanation of human depravity. Evolution does not account for the extremes of our violent behavior, but the Christian worldview fits the data exactly - humans are basically evil until transformed by the renewing power of Jesus Christ.6



http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/peoplegood.html

Apes do not seem to demonstrate this kind of behavior so what's so different if we are of the same linage?
What did we gain that they didn't or what they don't need to gain and we do?

edge
6th February 2008, 11:24 AM
Also, the folks that read the R&P section may have something more to say about your posts.

Just trying to help.
Thanks for your concern.
I decided to make a separate post from Humans descended from "apes" thread”, and if they want to they will move it.

Nogbad
7th February 2008, 07:48 AM
It was an interesting piece - no idea why you introduced the soul, scripture, creation bit as the article stands perfectly well by itself without the need for any embellishment.

edge
7th February 2008, 01:45 PM
It was an interesting piece - no idea why you introduced the soul, scripture, creation bit as the article stands perfectly well by itself without the need for any embellishment.

Well that site is building on a greater premise and their header banner indicates, keep reading I find the link interesting and with many pages.

Nogbad
8th February 2008, 11:53 AM
From that site

"What about when God ordered Joshua and his people to kill every man, woman and child in Canaan?13 What crime could be so great that entire populations of cities were designated for destruction? God told Moses that the nations that the Hebrew were replacing were wicked.14 How "wicked" were these people? The text tells us that they were burning their own sons and daughters in sacrifices to their gods.15 So we see that these people were not really innocent. For these reasons (and others16), God ordered the destruction of the peoples whom the Israelites dispossessed."

I am sorry but that is just appalling. It is justifying the unjustifiable. Kill the kids because their parents were killing them? That is an insane argument. The fact is that down through the ages it was common to kill all the inhabitants of a town (or kill most and enslave the rest) and take it for oneself. That the Israelites justified it through post hoc religious writings is interesting but in itself not entirely uncommon either.

No God told them to kill children (or anyone for that matter) but that it entered into their folklore is perhaps excusable. That people can write stuff like the above today to excuse it again is despicable (said that with my best Daffy Duck voice too).

edge
14th February 2008, 12:18 PM
How "wicked" were these people? The text tells us that they were burning their own sons and daughters in sacrifices to their gods.15 So we see that these people were not really innocent. For these reasons (and others16), God ordered the destruction of the peoples whom the Israelites dispossessed."


How wicked were the Germans during world war two?
How about the Aztecs, or the Russians under Stalin how about the rest of what's going on in the world?
Then multiply by 100.

Then go to this site and read Radrooks’ posts the rest are just skeptic that can’t believe.
Since you want an explanation Rad gives it from the bible and it is what we have, if you are looking for psychological explanations you won’t find one that agrees with what is written.
But I take it you want Gods explanation and there is one, weather you believe it or not, there is an explanation.
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=3379635#post3379635


No God told them to kill children (or anyone for that matter) but that it entered into their folklore is perhaps excusable. That people can write stuff like the above today to excuse it again is despicable (said that with my best Daffy Duck voice too).

Get over it who told us it was ok to bomb Berlin, how about those atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki?
Do you think there were children involved in any of those atrocities?
Do you not consider that they wrote this down because it was the most truthful answer, what if it’s not folklore and then that would mean the explanation in the bible stands as the reason and all this time you have not seen the truth?
That’s all folks, Bugs the great!
Don’t get me started on Micky!

Nogbad
15th February 2008, 02:54 PM
How wicked were the Germans during world war two?
How about the Aztecs, or the Russians under Stalin how about the rest of what's going on in the world?
Then multiply by 100.



Get over it who told us it was ok to bomb Berlin, how about those atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki?
Do you think there were children involved in any of those atrocities?
Do you not consider that they wrote this down because it was the most truthful answer, what if it’s not folklore and then that would mean the explanation in the bible stands as the reason and all this time you have not seen the truth?
That’s all folks, Bugs the great!
Don’t get me started on Micky!

Some Germans were wicked during WW2 but many were not. Although children died during the war no one is saying that they died because they were wicked - merely because they were in the wrong place at the wrong time. Our soldiers did not enter German cities with the express orders to slay children. We knew innocents would die when we bombed but we did not deny their innocence.

However, the argument seems to be that the Israeli soldiers were told by God to kill children. As I said, it was not uncommon right up into late medieval times for an entire city to be put to the sword. Yes, there is an explanation given in the Bible but it is not a convincing one. In that respect there is nothing to get over. Yes, I can believe it happened, it occurred many times in many countries afterwards too. People took each other's land and cities and killed the inhabitants so no one could could come to claim it back. It doesn't really need further explanation but no one likes to think of themselves as the bad guys so the others are demonised and cast as deserving of their fate. The Canaanites did not need to be any more wicked than anyone else of that era - they were simply in the wrong place at the wrong time.