Proof Seekers Need to Think Twice

[The idea]

Suppose you had proof of heaven or proof of hell and a detailed list of instructions, designed specifically for you, that told you how to get into heaven or at least how to avoid going to hell.

Note that we are talking about a detailed list of instructions designed for you in particular. We are not talking about a general set of principles that would apply to everyone. To apply general principles, some judgment is required.

Consider two investors:

The first investor
(a) makes an effort to evaluate the quality of an investment opportunity
(b) hears opinions against the opportunity, but looks for the basis of those opinions
(c) has the strength of character to make an independent judgment and to act on that judgment
(d) invests in plans that have merit, meaning that those businesspeople whose plans have merit succeed more quickly than they otherwise might
(e) earns profits and uses some of those profits to fight tyranny around the world and/or to support political reform at home
(f) earns profits and uses some of those profits for benevolent purposes: to help the honest poor and/or to help disaster victims

The second investor
(a) without any effort, acquires certain knowledge that the investment will pay off
(b) only invests when in possession of certain knowledge that the investment will pay off
(c) is only interested in personal reward

The second investor's act of investing is living proof of what qualities?

The second investor's knowledge is like instinct. The issue of good judgment doesn't even arise.

There is no strength of character there.

There is no desire to support plans that have merit.

There is no dedication to justice and no benevolence.

The second investor actually does play a useful role, but is that the best role that you can hope to play? Do you see yourself as destined to have none of the positive qualities of the first investor?

[Sindai]

Wow, that is one contorted analogy.

[neutrino_cannon]

What does it all mean mr. idea?

And what does all the investing stuff have to do with getting the room key to heavan?

Drunks r us.

I personally see the the second investor as a good basline for humanity, being one who takes care of themself and does not hurt others. It's lovely to help out others, but the need only arises when others cannot take care of them selves, or further parties create such a need by damaging their intrests.

[DangerousBeliefs]

But what if God came down and personally visited you? Would you believe then, you heathen Athiest?!?!

And then would he offer me his job in exchange for my defiance? Well, it all makes for good Hollywood.... but in the Real World™ I would have to ask which Heaven/Hell are you talking about?

Hell is mostly a Christian invention. Although I'm sure like everything else... they borrowed from somebody else... Who was it this time? The Babylonians?

[69dodge]

I seem to be missing something here . . .

Why does having certain knowledge that his investments will be profitable preclude the second investor from being charitable with the profits?

And what if the first investor's investments turn out not to be profitable? (This is possible, since he didn't have certain knowledge about them.) Then he can't donate any of his profits to charity as planned, because he has no profits.

I'm not sure what this analogy is supposed to be an analogy for. But it has some internal problems, in any case.

[Iconoclast]

Originally posted by The idea
Suppose you had proof of heaven or proof of hell and a detailed list of instructions, designed specifically for...Forget all that. All I want to know is if you're planning on going to heaven? If so, what can I do to make sure I don't? Take these two scenarios:

1) I get to heaven and have to listen to you for eternity. That would be sheer hell.

2) I get to hell. That would also be sheer hell, but I wouldn't have to put up with you.

From the above, it's obvious that going to hell is a more favourable outcome than going to heaven. The above is known as Iconoclast's wager.

[Peter Jenkins]

Originally posted by The idea
Suppose you had proof of heaven or proof of hell and a detailed list of instructions, designed specifically for you, that told you how to get into heaven or at least how to avoid going to hell.

Suppose there was a detailed set of instructions which contradicted itself in places.
Suppose that there were many detailed sets of instructions in which the details differed.
Suppose many people said they followed one set of instructions, but all interpreted them differently.
suppose that some people follwed a minimalised set of instructions and some people followed an expanded set of instructions, but each claimed that theirs was exactly what was needed for you.
suppose, suppose.
P

[The idea]

Originally posted by 69dodge
Why does having certain knowledge that his investments will be profitable preclude the second investor from being charitable with the profits?

It doesn't. The certainty doesn't prevent charity. The certainty and the narrow focus on personal reward were listed as separate assumptions.

Originally posted by 69dodge
And what if the first investor's investments turn out not to be profitable? (This is possible, since he didn't have certain knowledge about them.) Then he can't donate any of his profits to charity as planned, because he has no profits.

Yes, you are right about that. Even if there are profits, the profits might not continue. That suggests that the person who does make a profit and who makes a gift of some of the profits deserves more credit for benevolence than one might initially judge.

[The idea]

Originally posted by Iconoclast
1) I get to heaven and have to listen to you for eternity. That would be sheer hell.

Are you assuming that heaven is a single house with no sound-proofing between rooms?

[headscratcher4]

Suppose the allegedly "detailed" instructions were a lot like the ones you get with Ikea furniture ...either the picto-grams are unclear, pages missing, essential parts missing and all they give you to work with is that stupid little allen wrench (that, btw, is useless for all other projects save Ikea furniture...). And, even if you get the damn thing together, you find that you measured the space wrong and it doesn't really fit under the soffit like you thought it would....

[Phil]

Originally posted by Iconoclast
Forget all that. All I want to know is if you're planning on going to heaven? If so, what can I do to make sure I don't? Take these two scenarios:

1) I get to heaven and have to listen to you for eternity. That would be sheer hell.

2) I get to hell. That would also be sheer hell, but I wouldn't have to put up with you.

From the above, it's obvious that going to hell is a more favourable outcome than going to heaven. The above is known as Iconoclast's wager.
Ahh, the hours I've spent in the coffee house arguing Iconoclast's Wager. Reminds me of warm spring days on the quad and worn pair of Birkenstocks.

Seriously, The idea, like others, I'm having trouble connecting this portion of the OP:Suppose you had proof of heaven or proof of hell and a detailed list of instructions, designed specifically for you, that told you how to get into heaven or at least how to avoid going to hell.

Note that we are talking about a detailed list of instructions designed for you in particular. We are not talking about a general set of principles that would apply to everyone. To apply general principles, some judgment is required.

with all the business about the investors.

Are we supposed to figure out the exact individual roadmap to heaven for each investor, given his actions? Or are we to presume that one investor has ignored his roadmap in favor of personal gain?

Could you clarify a bit for me?

[The idea]

Originally posted by neutrino_cannon
[...]I personally see the the second investor as a good baseline for humanity, being one who takes care of themself and does not hurt others. [...]
I agree with you. As I wrote in the initial message of this thread,
The second investor actually does play a useful role [...]


If we agree that there are no accusations against the second investor and that the second investor does not need to be defended, then perhaps we can focus on these questions:

is that the best role that you can hope to play? Do you see yourself as destined to have none of the positive qualities of the first investor?

[The idea]

Originally posted by Phil
[...]I'm having trouble connecting this portion of the OP [...]
with all the business about the investors.
[...]
Could you clarify a bit for me?

Maybe Sindai can lend a hand.

Sindai wrote:
Wow, that is one contorted analogy.


Presumably, understanding an analogy comes before evaluation of the quality of the analogy.

[Phil]

Originally posted by The idea
. . . Presumably, understanding an analogy comes before evaluation of the quality of the analogy.
I agree. I don't understand it, and that's why I haven't evaluated it.

I guess I'm a little thick, and I'm sorry if it's obvious to everyone else, but can you clarify the analogy for me?

[Johnny Pneumatic]

Originally posted by The idea
[B]
It doesn't. The certainty doesn't prevent charity. The certainty and the narrow focus on personal reward were listed as separate assumptions.

There is no dedication to justice and no benevolence.-the idea

:confused:whats your point?

[The idea]

How about a very short story in the style of The Twilight Zone?

Over a period of a couple of months, you are guilty of two extremely small violations of traffic rules. Each time, your violation endangers no one and all the evidence suggests that there was no one who could have seen your violations. However, you receive official notice of the violations and official penalties are imposed on you. Then you begin to see a traffic safety inspector sitting beside you whenever you drive. You can lock the doors, but the inspector simply passes through them. It seems that you are the only one who can see the inspector, but you are convinced that the inspector is not a hallucination because, every time you do the slightest thing wrong, you receive official notice describing what you did and official penalties are imposed.

If you are only penalized for your actual violations of traffic rules, then the story is not really sinister, but doesn't it have a bit of a nightmarish quality to it? Wouldn't it be less stressful for you if you could see no traffic safety inspector always sitting beside you? Wouldn't it be better for you to simply follow the rules of the road because that is the responsible thing to do?

[ReasonableDoubt]

Originally posted by The idea
Suppose you had proof of heaven or proof of hell and a detailed list of instructions, ...
Suppose the admixture of Pixie dust and Unicorn poop is the perfect fertilizer for late blooming tulips ...

[stamenflicker]

Wow nice dodge people. The analogy appears to break down because it is in fact two seperate analogies. The first analogy is the method by which one arrives at the wealth, the second analogy is the use or functionality of that wealth.

Key to analogy one is the effort undertaken to evaluate the investment. This is the "means" which is taken to the two seperate "ends." Either means can take one to either ends, but perhaps there is more value to one means over the other. I like to see you each begin by stating philosophically and ethically the benefit here of these "means" to the end because there certainly is one.

Key to analogy two is the ethical value of two different ends that could have stemmed from either means. Anyone who promotes the idea that "end" 2 is superior is clearly obtuse and insecure of their own moral placement in a socially constructed world with nettles for such places. Again, rather than bashing the logic gap in the analogy, why not make a connection and give us something to talk about?

Peace,

Flick

[neutrino_cannon]

Originally posted by The idea
How about a very short story in the style of The Twilight Zone?

Over a period of a couple of months, you are guilty of two extremely small violations of traffic rules. Each time, your violation endangers no one and all the evidence suggests that there was no one who could have seen your violations. However, you receive official notice of the violations and official penalties are imposed on you. Then you begin to see a traffic safety inspector sitting beside you whenever you drive. You can lock the doors, but the inspector simply passes through them. It seems that you are the only one who can see the inspector, but you are convinced that the inspector is not a hallucination because, every time you do the slightest thing wrong, you receive official notice describing what you did and official penalties are imposed.

If you are only penalized for your actual violations of traffic rules, then the story is not really sinister, but doesn't it have a bit of a nightmarish quality to it? Wouldn't it be less stressful for you if you could see no traffic safety inspector always sitting beside you? Wouldn't it be better for you to simply follow the rules of the road because that is the responsible thing to do?

One would expect rule-violating behavior to drop markedly after the advent of such an inspector.

I'll have to remember that one for when I take over the world.

What does this all have to do with truth-seeking anyhow?

[Phil]

Originally posted by stamenflicker
Wow nice dodge people. The analogy appears to break down because it is in fact two seperate analogies. The first analogy is the method by which one arrives at the wealth, the second analogy is the use or functionality of that wealth.

Key to analogy one is the effort undertaken to evaluate the investment. This is the "means" which is taken to the two seperate "ends." Either means can take one to either ends, but perhaps there is more value to one means over the other. I like to see you each begin by stating philosophically and ethically the benefit here of these "means" to the end because there certainly is one.

Key to analogy two is the ethical value of two different ends that could have stemmed from either means. Anyone who promotes the idea that "end" 2 is superior is clearly obtuse and insecure of their own moral placement in a socially constructed world with nettles for such places. Again, rather than bashing the logic gap in the analogy, why not make a connection and give us something to talk about?

Peace,

Flick
I don't know about other posters in this thread, but I was not dodging anything. I simply made no connection like the one you mention above. But then I often miss things like that.

In any case, I think most of the people who participate in the thread, or at least those who will discuss the ideas like adults, like to know exactly what the discussion is about before diving in. I know I do.

So if you are correct in your assessment of the dual nature of The idea's analogy, I would simply ask what is the point of having the first part of the opening post for the discussion. Can we not hash through the ethical implications without the following?Suppose you had proof of heaven or proof of hell and a detailed list of instructions, designed specifically for you, that told you how to get into heaven or at least how to avoid going to hell.

Note that we are talking about a detailed list of instructions designed for you in particular. We are not talking about a general set of principles that would apply to everyone. To apply general principles, some judgment is required.

Or is this part meant only to establish varying applicable ethics per individual? If "Yes", then I would say the discussion is pointless, as the ethical roadmap for everyone would be different, and there is no way to determine if either scenario represents a more valid or attractive means to an end; that end being peace of mind, high moral standing, or even heaven, if you will.

If you take out the bits about varying ethical roadmaps per individual, and speak in more general terms, in my view, you have a better basis for a philosophical discussion. It makes things a little more tidy and manageable, and dare I say worthwhile.

Also, The idea said:How about a very short story in the style of The Twilight Zone?

Over a period of a couple of months, you are guilty of two extremely small violations of traffic rules. Each time, your violation endangers no one and all the evidence suggests that there was no one who could have seen your violations. However, you receive official notice of the violations and official penalties are imposed on you. Then you begin to see a traffic safety inspector sitting beside you whenever you drive. You can lock the doors, but the inspector simply passes through them. It seems that you are the only one who can see the inspector, but you are convinced that the inspector is not a hallucination because, every time you do the slightest thing wrong, you receive official notice describing what you did and official penalties are imposed.

If you are only penalized for your actual violations of traffic rules, then the story is not really sinister, but doesn't it have a bit of a nightmarish quality to it? Wouldn't it be less stressful for you if you could see no traffic safety inspector always sitting beside you? Wouldn't it be better for you to simply follow the rules of the road because that is the responsible thing to do?
Well in the scenario you provided, I would answer "Yes" to all your questions. But I'm not sure that gets us anywhere. You've simply presented a hypothetical for the seeming purpose of guiding us all to a certain, predetermined point of view. It's like saying, "I'm going to shoot you in the head unless you give me a sandwich. Now, are you going to give me a sandwich?"

It says nothing of the moral and ethical implications of wanting to give, or sacrifice, or about being a good caring person.

Do you wish to discuss ethical scenarios, or moral issues, or mystical places and phantom traffic inspectors? Or have I completely missed the point yet again. As I said before, it's not beyond, so I apologize if I have.

[Dorian Gray]

Let's say one guy is traveling to work in a shiny metal box, walking through a picket line to get in, and then is humiliated by his boss. Many miles away, something crawls to the surface of a dark Scottish loch.

What can we infer from this analogy? Does it relate to the P/E ratio of the company? Is the company polluting the lake even though it is a fair distance away?

Moral: avoid the analogies and just say what you want to say.

Bonus points if you 'see' something in my analogy. Hint: you make me feel so Jung.

[Dorian Gray]

By the way, wouldn't "Phantom Traffic Inspectors" make a great name for a band?

[dmarker]

Originally posted by The idea
Suppose you had proof of heaven or proof of hell and a detailed list of instructions, designed specifically for you, that told you how to get into heaven or at least how to avoid going to hell.

Note that we are talking about a detailed list of instructions designed for you in particular. We are not talking about a general set of principles that would apply to everyone. To apply general principles, some judgment is required.

Consider two investors:

The first investor
(a) makes an effort to evaluate the quality of an investment opportunity
(b) hears opinions against the opportunity, but looks for the basis of those opinions
(c) has the strength of character to make an independent judgment and to act on that judgment
(d) invests in plans that have merit, meaning that those businesspeople whose plans have merit succeed more quickly than they otherwise might
(e) earns profits and uses some of those profits to fight tyranny around the world and/or to support political reform at home
(f) earns profits and uses some of those profits for benevolent purposes: to help the honest poor and/or to help disaster victims

The second investor
(a) without any effort, acquires certain knowledge that the investment will pay off
(b) only invests when in possession of certain knowledge that the investment will pay off
(c) is only interested in personal reward

The second investor's act of investing is living proof of what qualities?

The second investor's knowledge is like instinct. The issue of good judgment doesn't even arise.

There is no strength of character there.

There is no desire to support plans that have merit.

There is no dedication to justice and no benevolence.

The second investor actually does play a useful role, but is that the best role that you can hope to play? Do you see yourself as destined to have none of the positive qualities of the first investor?

The first investor sounds like a scientist and the second like a religionist. But they aren't exact.

Sorry, but I calls 'em as I sees 'em.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by Iconoclast
Forget all that. All I want to know is if you're planning on going to heaven? If so, what can I do to make sure I don't? Take these two scenarios:

1) I get to heaven and have to listen to you for eternity. That would be sheer hell.

2) I get to hell. That would also be sheer hell, but I wouldn't have to put up with you.

From the above, it's obvious that going to hell is a more favourable outcome than going to heaven. The above is known as Iconoclast's wager. :dl:

[RandFan]

Originally posted by Dorian Gray
Let's say one guy is traveling to work in a shiny metal box, walking through a picket line to get in, and then is humiliated by his boss. Many miles away, something crawls to the surface of a dark Scottish loch.

What can we infer from this analogy? Does it relate to the P/E ratio of the company? Is the company polluting the lake even though it is a fair distance away?

Moral: avoid the analogies and just say what you want to say.

Bonus points if you 'see' something in my analogy. Hint: you make me feel so Jung. Effect without a cause
Sub-atomic laws, scientific pause
Synchronicity

Jung would have been proud.

[aerosolben]

Originally posted by stamenflicker
Peace,

Flick

Hey, it's stamenflicker! Where have you been?

[The idea]

If you are only penalized for your actual violations of traffic rules, then the story is not really sinister, but doesn't it have a bit of a nightmarish quality to it? Wouldn't it be less stressful for you if you could see no traffic safety inspector always sitting beside you? Wouldn't it be better for you to simply follow the rules of the road because that is the responsible thing to do?
Originally posted by Phil
Well in the scenario you provided, I would answer "Yes" to all your questions.

In particular, you agree that the story has a bit of a nightmarish quality to it, right?

Originally posted by Phil
You've simply presented a hypothetical for the seeming purpose of guiding us all to a certain, predetermined point of view. It's like saying, "I'm going to shoot you in the head unless you give me a sandwich. Now, are you going to give me a sandwich?"

Apparently, a woman named Doreen Lioy married the convicted serial killer Richard Ramirez. Maybe somebody wants to marry a phantom traffic inspector or have a phantom traffic inspector as a conjoined twin. For such a person, the story might be a pleasant dream rather than a nightmare.

[c4ts]

The example makes no sense on its own, and I have no idea what it's supposed to stand for.

[Phil]

Originally posted by The idea
If you are only penalized for your actual violations of traffic rules, then the story is not really sinister, but doesn't it have a bit of a nightmarish quality to it? Wouldn't it be less stressful for you if you could see no traffic safety inspector always sitting beside you? Wouldn't it be better for you to simply follow the rules of the road because that is the responsible thing to do?

In particular, you agree that the story has a bit of a nightmarish quality to it, right?


Apparently, a woman named Doreen Lioy married the convicted serial killer Richard Ramirez. Maybe somebody wants to marry a phantom traffic inspector or have a phantom traffic inspector as a conjoined twin. For such a person, the story might be a pleasant dream rather than a nightmare.
Okay . . .

[stamenflicker]

Suppose you had proof of heaven or proof of hell and a detailed list of instructions, designed specifically for you, that told you how to get into heaven or at least how to avoid going to hell.

Ok... I freely admit now I'm lost. I must have skimmed the beginning.

Hey, it's stamenflicker! Where have you been?

Seeking better company. Came up empty.

Flick

[The idea]

Originally posted by dmarker
The first investor sounds like a scientist and the second like a religionist. But they aren't exact.

Sorry, but I calls 'em as I sees 'em.
The religionists who are like the second investor are the ones who should be sorry.

[stamenflicker]

The religionists who are like the second investor are the ones who should be sorry.

Baaagggk. Thanks for playing, please try again.

Flick

[dmarker]

Originally posted by The idea

The religionists who are like the second investor are the ones who should be sorry.

Let's look at the second investor:


"The second investor
(a) without any effort, acquires certain knowledge that the investment will pay off."

Most religionists are certain that their investment will pay off. How do they acquire this knowledge? Most religionists do not research different religions and chose what seems best. Often religionists don't even research their own religion properly. Their knowledge of their religion is spoon fed to them through either their families or clergy, many times both.

Their certainity is not shored through study but through an effortless group think mentality.


"(b) only invests when in possession of certain knowledge that the investment will pay off"


This is true of many religionists as well. They cannot invest in more uncertain things like science because science cannot and should not give certain knowledge.

Religion is the sole possessor of certain knowledge.


"(c) is only interested in personal reward"

How many religionists have stated in various ways "if I didn't have Heaven to look forward to or the threat of Hell to hold me back then I would do some pretty awful things"?

How many religionists are interested in being a good person just to be a good person? Not to get into some mythical paradise or avoid a mythical torture, just being a good person because it is good seems to be an impossible task for religionists. Are religionists so degenerate that they need the carrot of Heaven and the goad of Hell as if they were donkeys?

[RandFan]

Originally posted by dmarker
Most religionists are certain that their investment will pay off. How do they acquire this knowledge? Most religionists do not research different religions and chose what seems best. Often religionists don't even research their own religion properly. Their knowledge of their religion is spoon fed to them through either their families or clergy, many times both.

Their certainity is not shored through study but through an effortless group think mentality. A huge part of my de-conversion. How does one know if one's belief is the correct one? As far as I could tell believers were uninterested in finding the truth since they already had it all of their lives.

Belief is not at all conducive to finding truth because belief is about having the truth.

[stamenflicker]

just being a good person because it is good seems to be an impossible task for religionists

I'm certainly not going to speak for most religious people because I don't represent them, but I ask that outside of religion what "moral base" can one possibly operate from? There is no basis for any morality outside of the unscientific, non-empirical definitions of reality provided us via moral systems.

Belief is not at all conducive to finding truth because belief is about having the truth.

Belief is a hope for truth, in my estimation. I can believe a chair is going to support my weight, but I'm not making any truth claims about the chair. I can reason and I can hope, but really until I sit in the chair that is all I have-- certainly not a claim to truth. My hope in structure of the chair might lead me to go ahead sit down; once sitting in the chair there is no need for a truth claim because the evidence of the chair's good design is an empirical reality. So reason and hope are two fundamental components of belief, both of which require effort-- the former effort of the mind, the latter, effort of the emotions. To finally sit in the chair is an effort of the will.

Flick

[dmarker]

Originally posted by stamenflicker


I'm certainly not going to speak for most religious people because I don't represent them, but I ask that outside of religion what "moral base" can one possibly operate from? There is no basis for any morality outside of the unscientific, non-empirical definitions of reality provided us via moral systems.



Belief is a hope for truth, in my estimation. I can believe a chair is going to support my weight, but I'm not making any truth claims about the chair. I can reason and I can hope, but really until I sit in the chair that is all I have-- certainly not a claim to truth. My hope in structure of the chair might lead me to go ahead sit down; once sitting in the chair there is no need for a truth claim because the evidence of the chair's good design is an empirical reality. So reason and hope are two fundamental components of belief, both of which require effort-- the former effort of the mind, the latter, effort of the emotions. To finally sit in the chair is an effort of the will.

Flick

The morality that kept our hominid ancestors in a cohesive group and prevented them from becoming cat food. Do unto others as they would do unto you is not a common theme in religion by chance. That is our natural morality that the false morality of religion has usurped.

Thinking on the chair analogy, what if you were invited to sit on an invisible chair? If you tried to verify that the chair was there by tossing something on it, you were told that you could not because the chair resisted being tested by letting objects through it. Would you sit?

[stamenflicker]

The morality that kept our hominid ancestors in a cohesive group and prevented them from becoming cat food. Do unto others as they would do unto you is not a common theme in religion by chance. That is our natural morality that the false morality of religion has usurped.

But then that wouldn't explain immorality would it? If morality were a mere socio-evolutionary trait then we'd need a better explanation as to why most of the planet never seemed to catch on. We'd also need a better explanation for moral shift, cultural mores, ad nausem. It's a wholly ineffective argument in my opinion due to its hit-and-miss empiricism. It fits basically in the small areas you want it to fit, such as murder etc. It's sort of logical backmasking I think.

Thinking on the chair analogy, what if you were invited to sit on an invisible chair? If you tried to verify that the chair was there by tossing something on it, you were told that you could not because the chair resisted being tested by letting objects through it. Would you sit?

But its not invisible-- at least no more invisible than say the "economy." The "economy" is some unseen entity that has no better empirical root than religion. You go to the store and spend $10 dollars because everyone says $10 gets you item X. Others follow suite, therefore you place your trust in the invisible chair of the econonmy every time you go shopping. The empirical foundation is found in the item's function, thereby validating it as a real "something."

Flick

[neutrino_cannon]

The morality that kept our hominid ancestors in a cohesive group and prevented them from becoming cat food. Do unto others as they would do unto you is not a common theme in religion by chance. That is our natural morality that the false morality of religion has usurped.


I always figured along simmilar lines, morality is to keep one cohesive with the group, and ready to exploit an adverse environment. When other people become the environment in our minds, that's when immorality kicks in.

Not sure if it's falsifyable or not, but it makes sense most of the time.

[Phil]

Originally posted by stamenflicker
But then that wouldn't explain immorality would it?
Yes, it would. In fact, the socio-evolutionary scenario explains precisely why immoral behavior is considered 'immoral', if you want to use that term.

stamenflicker, forgive me if I'm reading too much into your post, but you seem to be implying a necessary evil; or the idea that if there is a good element, there must automatically exist some antogonistic element (a bad); a nemesis that is out to undermine all that the good element does.

But in an evolutionary process, like the development of morals among humans, there are no opposing elements in the implied sense; only some that work and some that don't work, or some that don't work as well. The elements, in the socio-evolutionary sense, that don't work at all, or the elements that don't work as well, either change or simply disappear over time, while the ones that work are kept and refined as needed.

The "Golden Rule", as dmarker pointed out, served and still serves as a very good guage for morality. It's an element of the socio-evolutionary process that has helped us survive for a million plus years, and grow to 6.2 billion in number. Quite a successful element or trait, I would say.

Now, have there been people down through history who perverted or downright ignored the "do unto others" edict? Well, yes. Of course there have been. But the reason there are 6.2 billion of us now is because that type of behavior is obviously a detrimental mutation.

In other words, what you call 'immorality' is generally not conducive overall to the propagation of the species, and therefore not adopted as acceptable behavior. And over time, that particular immoral behavior goes away, or it changes into something else that may or may not be beneficial to our advancement. If it is beneficial, it is accepted. If it's not, it changes again, or disappears. And the process goes on and on.

Originally posted by stamenflicker
If morality were a mere socio-evolutionary trait then we'd need a better explanation as to why most of the planet never seemed to catch on.

I'm not sure which planet you're talking about here, but most of the people on Earth have caught on. Again, this is one reason we've survived so long and are now so prominent.

Originally posted by stamenflicker
We'd also need a better explanation for moral shift, cultural mores, ad nausem.

I disagree. I think this is a great explanation for moral shift, cultural mores, etc. We are well on our way, but globalization is a slow-moving paradigm, relatively speaking. So one would still have to expect moral mutation in the socio-evolutionary process to be specific at times to a particular culture. Behavior that is beneficial to survival in one country, state, village, or tribe, may not be beneficial in another.

Originally posted by stamenflicker
But its not invisible-- at least no more invisible than say the "economy." The "economy" is some unseen entity that has no better empirical root than religion. You go to the store and spend $10 dollars because everyone says $10 gets you item X. Others follow suite, therefore you place your trust in the invisible chair of the econonmy every time you go shopping. The empirical foundation is found in the item's function, thereby validating it as a real "something."

This part of the discussion seems a little silly to me. Perhaps we should dispense with the analogies and say what we want to say, as someone suggested earlier.

When it comes to sitting on chairs and paying 10 dollars for item X, I would make no 'truth claims' about the chair holding me, or whether I'd actually receive the item. And I don't think any true skeptic would. But it would not take much to establish an extremely high probability, that said chair would hold me if I sat on it, or that I would receive item X if I plunked down my ten spot.

[The idea]

Originally posted by Phil
It's an element of the socio-evolutionary process that has helped us survive for a million plus years, and grow to 6.2 billion in number. Quite a successful element or trait, I would say.
[...]
If numbers=success, do you consider Japan's loss in World War II unfortunate? With a high population density, if Japan had successfully colonized a large region, perhaps Japan could have contributed to a current world population of 7.2 billion.

Originally posted by Phil
Now, have there been people down through history who perverted or downright ignored the "do unto others" edict? Well, yes. Of course there have been. But the reason there are 6.2 billion of us now is because that type of behavior is obviously a detrimental mutation.
[...]
A type of behavior is a mutation? We don't even get a distinction between genotype and phenotype?

Bad behavior equals behavior that violates a slogan we have not yet analyzed. The obviousness of the badness of bad behavior has caused there to be a lot of people in the world. Therefore it is obvious that bad behavior is bad. Therefore bad behavior isn't any good. That there are many people in the world is really good. Therefore the large population number must be in spite of, rather than because of, the existence of bad behavior.

Okay, that doesn't sound right. Does it distort your message? Can you help out and explain your message step-by-step?

[69dodge]

Originally posted by The idea
Over a period of a couple of months, you are guilty of two extremely small violations of traffic rules. Each time, your violation endangers no one [ ... ] Wouldn't it be less stressful for you if you could see no traffic safety inspector always sitting beside you? Wouldn't it be better for you to simply follow the rules of the road because that is the responsible thing to do?If there are rules against doing stuff that endangers no one, breaking those rules isn't irresponsible.

If the safety inspector would warn me only about truly dangerous situations (in advance, so I could actually do something to avoid a crash, instead of him uselessly sending me official notices of violation after the fact), and especially if he had access to information I didn't---for example, if he could magically see around curves and tell me if anything was blocking the road ahead---well, I would love to have him along for the ride.

[Phil]

Originally posted by The idea
If numbers=success, do you consider Japan's loss in World War II unfortunate? With a high population density, if Japan had successfully colonized a large region, perhaps Japan could have contributed to a current world population of 7.2 billion.
Well, I would say that in terms of the socio-evolutionary discussion, numbers are not equal to success, but they are an indication of success.

And while that's putting it very mildly, I do consider Japan's loss unfortunate. Are you interjecting that the cause of that loss was an immoral act? Or that war is immoral? If so, those are certainly good subjects to discuss, but perhaps too specific for this thread. You might consider starting a new topic.

Originally posted by The idea
A type of behavior is a mutation?

In the sense of socio-evolution, yes it is.

Originally posted by The idea
Bad behavior equals behavior that violates a slogan we have not yet analyzed. The obviousness of the badness of bad behavior has caused there to be a lot of people in the world. Therefore it is obvious that bad behavior is bad. Therefore bad behavior isn't any good. That there are many people in the world is really good. Therefore the large population number must be in spite of, rather than because of, the existence of bad behavior.

Okay, that doesn't sound right. Does it distort your message? Can you help out and explain your message step-by-step?

I'm not sure which part of my post you're referring to here, but I'll try this simplistic hypothetical:

Group 1 is attempting to fulfill its natural instinct of survival.

In the process, Group 1 develops behaviors A, B, and C.

Behavior A allows for cooperation within the group, which in turn makes shelter and food easier to attain.

Behavior B allows for individuals to accumulate knowledge, which in conjunction with Behavior A allows Group 1 to have a better understanding of its food sources and the environment from which it needs shelter.

Behavior C fractures cohesiveness within Group 1, effectively destroying the benefits of Behaviors A and B.

Without Behaviors A and B, Group 1 will likely come close to dying out.

To avoid dying out, Group 1 exploits Behaviors A and B, but "outlaws" Behavior C.

But Behavior C may appear again within Group 1 as Behavior C(2). Or it may die out completely in favor of Behaviors D, E, F, etc. However, Behaviors D, E, F, etc. are subject to the same process.

[The idea]

Originally posted by 69dodge
If there are rules against doing stuff that endangers no one, breaking those rules isn't irresponsible.

Perhaps I should have been clearer. From your point of view, you are confident that the stuff you are doing endangers no one. Unfortunately, you are imperfect, no?

Maybe you have created a comprehensive philosophy of traffic safety along with a specific set of rules. Of course, your set of rules will also have to be completely compatible with the traffic rules on the roads that you drive on, right? After all, driving on the left side of the road is perfectly safe in London, but not in LA.

What about the issue of remote dangers? Can you foresee all possible consequences of your actions? What about the possibility of a collection of small actions, none of which individually endangers people, but that combine to create a serious hazard? How do industrial accidents occur? Does someone slip and fall against a big, red self-destruct button?

[dmarker]

Originally posted by stamenflicker


But then that wouldn't explain immorality would it? If morality were a mere socio-evolutionary trait then we'd need a better explanation as to why most of the planet never seemed to catch on. We'd also need a better explanation for moral shift, cultural mores, ad nausem. It's a wholly ineffective argument in my opinion due to its hit-and-miss empiricism. It fits basically in the small areas you want it to fit, such as murder etc. It's sort of logical backmasking I think.



But its not invisible-- at least no more invisible than say the "economy." The "economy" is some unseen entity that has no better empirical root than religion. You go to the store and spend $10 dollars because everyone says $10 gets you item X. Others follow suite, therefore you place your trust in the invisible chair of the econonmy every time you go shopping. The empirical foundation is found in the item's function, thereby validating it as a real "something."

Flick


Depends on how you define immorality. If we're going with the strict definition of causing harm to others, yes, there is an explanation for it. In every social animal group there are deviants that cannot conform their behavior to the rules, they are usually cast out of the group or slaughtered outright. Sometimes they manage to leave behind an offspring or two to carry on those genes. Every human society has either casting out or execution as punishment, many societies have both.

The problem with religion is that it gives a false morality such as gathering sticks on the sabbath day is punishable by death. Normally death would be the result of the outright murder of another member of the species, but under the false morality of religion, this innocuous act becomes a capital crime.

And the false morality of religion allows for some pretty immoral things. Jepititha's daughter comes to mind or Abraham sacrificing Isaac. Natural morality dictates that you do not kill your own offspring, but the false morality of religion overrides this.

Natural morality is not patchwork, this applies to every situation where you might harm another. For example, driving drunk is immoral because driving impaired has shown to increase accidents and harm to others.

As for the invisible economy, in the previous post I stated that we are not allowed to test the invisible chair by seeing if it can support another object. Since the invisible chair of economy can support the flow of goods and services, my faith in it is not unfounded.

[Kopji]

The problem I see in the example is that there is no real downside or sacrifice required by the first investor. There are always sacrifices, so there is a question about if the metaphor sufficiently addresses the actual complexity of existence.

What if the investor "A" instructions required a human sacrifice once a year? Would the return on investments be worth it?

[The idea]

Originally posted by Phil
I'm not sure which part of my post you're referring to here, but I'll try this simplistic hypothetical: [...]
Do you mind if I keep your "simplistic hypothetical" for future reference and continue to focus on the post for which it is true that you're not sure which part of the post I was referring to?

Maybe I can make my analysis more explicit.

[Phil]

Originally posted by The idea

Do you mind if I keep your "simplistic hypothetical" for future reference and continue to focus on the post for which it is true that you're not sure which part of the post I was referring to?

Maybe I can make my analysis more explicit.
No. I don't mind at all.

[stamenflicker]

Yes, it would. In fact, the socio-evolutionary scenario explains precisely why immoral behavior is considered 'immoral', if you want to use that term.

It makes an attempt at such. It certain situations, such as incest the relationship to your assertion is clear. Murder is not so clear, sacrifice is not so clear, nor is the concept of torture. Outside of a few obvious examples, the socio-evolutionary model is a construction of convience to provide a moral base to a world view that has none and cannot logically stand on its own: it appeals to nothing save some vague reference to group survival.

The elements, in the socio-evolutionary sense, that don't work at all, or the elements that don't work as well, either change or simply disappear over time, while the ones that work are kept and refined as needed.

I surprised that you can accept this as logical or scientific. In essense you are allowing the solution to define the question, even so much so that "over time" assumptions can be verified regardless of outcome. What you are doing here is taking the answer 4 and assuming the question must have been 2 + 2. Philosophically speaking, I can't see this as logical. It seems convienent, overly so, that regardless of the culture, activity, or moral leaning you point to a socio-evolutionary process that:

a) worked for some members of the group and not other(s)
b) worked for some groups entirely but not other groups
c) no matter what one considers "moral" or "immoral" you can assume both answers simultaneously

I'm not sure which planet you're talking about here, but most of the people on Earth have caught on. Again, this is one reason we've survived so long and are now so prominent.

Well we could discuss numerous topics here that probably deserve other threads. Greed would be a great place to start. Obviously we haven't caught on and I'd almost bet that regardless of who had the wealth, we'd see a similar pattern. Greed is counter-evolutionary for groups although beneficial to the individual.

So one would still have to expect moral mutation in the socio-evolutionary process to be specific at times to a particular culture. Behavior that is beneficial to survival in one country, state, village, or tribe, may not be beneficial in another.

Here again is the classic example of a theory looking into history to prove itself rather than history providing the theory.

And as to the economy analogy, I'm sorry you missed it.

dmarker,

The problem with religion is that it gives a false morality such as gathering sticks on the sabbath day is punishable by death.

Here's my big problem with the socio-evolutionary model... religious morality has to be included in that model because religious adherents comprise the social landscape. This moral judgment deserves the same scrutiny as incest if one wants a comprehensive picture of the human animal.

As for the invisible economy, in the previous post I stated that we are not allowed to test the invisible chair by seeing if it can support another object. Since the invisible chair of economy can support the flow of goods and services, my faith in it is not unfounded.

Illogical. How is your trip to the store for a tangible exchange any different than someone's trip to a church or temple? Obviously the religious structure supports the flow of goods and services as well. They just look different and you've made a choice to not participate, just like a commune in Timbuktu makes the choice to never buy or sell goods.

Flick

[dmarker]

Originally posted by stamenflicker


It makes an attempt at such. It certain situations, such as incest the relationship to your assertion is clear. Murder is not so clear, sacrifice is not so clear, nor is the concept of torture. Outside of a few obvious examples, the socio-evolutionary model is a construction of convience to provide a moral base to a world view that has none and cannot logically stand on its own: it appeals to nothing save some vague reference to group survival.


Nope, the model appeals to individual survival. A lone human is lion food, tiger food, or bear food. In order to survive and have offspring, a lone human must conform his actions to be acceptable to the group. Even if a lone human manages to survive predation, he would not be able to reproduce without another human. Individual survival is dependent on the suvival of the group.


Originally posted by stamenflicker


I surprised that you can accept this as logical or scientific. In essense you are allowing the solution to define the question, even so much so that "over time" assumptions can be verified regardless of outcome. What you are doing here is taking the answer 4 and assuming the question must have been 2 + 2. Philosophically speaking, I can't see this as logical. It seems convienent, overly so, that regardless of the culture, activity, or moral leaning you point to a socio-evolutionary process that:

a) worked for some members of the group and not other(s)
b) worked for some groups entirely but not other groups
c) no matter what one considers "moral" or "immoral" you can assume both answers simultaneously


This is plain evolutionary process. The golden rule is present even in rhesus monkeys. "Do unto others..." is the basic rule of human interaction. Unfortunately, religion has swamped man's evolved morality.



Originally posted by stamenflicker


Well we could discuss numerous topics here that probably deserve other threads. Greed would be a great place to start. Obviously we haven't caught on and I'd almost bet that regardless of who had the wealth, we'd see a similar pattern. Greed is counter-evolutionary for groups although beneficial to the individual.


Here again is the classic example of a theory looking into history to prove itself rather than history providing the theory.

And as to the economy analogy, I'm sorry you missed it.



But I'm not talking groups, I'm talking individuals. Greed is always has the short term advantage in a society, however, in the case of Enron et. society always punishes the individual who takes too much for himself.



Originally posted by stamenflicker



dmarker,



Here's my big problem with the socio-evolutionary model... religious morality has to be included in that model because religious adherents comprise the social landscape. This moral judgment deserves the same scrutiny as incest if one wants a comprehensive picture of the human animal.



I'm including religious morality, just not in the way that you like.

Religious morality supplants the natural morality that humans are heir to. Granted religious morality does have some aspects of natural morality integrated into itself. However, from what we've seen from religious wars, witch hunts, pedophile priest cover-ups, et depending on religion to guide morality is very dangerous. Once people start depending on a religion to decide what's moral, whoever is in charge of that religion finds twisting their adherants' morality pretty easy.

Originally posted by stamenflicker



Illogical. How is your trip to the store for a tangible exchange any different than someone's trip to a church or temple? Obviously the religious structure supports the flow of goods and services as well. They just look different and you've made a choice to not participate, just like a commune in Timbuktu makes the choice to never buy or sell goods.

Flick

Really what does religion have to offer? False morality? Pedophile priests? A feeling of superiority over heathens?

At least at the store I can get some milk.

[stamenflicker]

Really what does religion have to offer? False morality? Pedophile priests? A feeling of superiority over heathens?

Those are value judgments and are not condusive to the logic of the argument, but may or may not be condusive to the logic of another argument. At issue is the invisibility of object x and whether or not belief in the existence of the invisible object can be predicated via the observation its utility. Once again, "GOD" is a real something... what that "realness" may be like is up for discussion, but we'd need another thread.

This is plain evolutionary process. The golden rule is present even in rhesus monkeys. "Do unto others..." is the basic rule of human interaction. Unfortunately, religion has swamped man's evolved morality.

Cannibalism and other social oddities have also been witnessed in chimps, one interesting study showed their propensinity for war even when resources were not in direct conflict. These serve no known productive evolutionary end. It seems chimps actually enjoy the killing, and some studies have demonstrated that following a blood bath, chimps demonstrate regret.

There are numerous social and psychological factors at work in human morality, to reduce such as a product of evolutionary or biological preference ignores the arena of reason and volition.

Religious morality supplants the natural morality that humans are heir to. Granted religious morality does have some aspects of natural morality integrated into itself. However, from what we've seen from religious wars, witch hunts, pedophile priest cover-ups, et depending on religion to guide morality is very dangerous. Once people start depending on a religion to decide what's moral, whoever is in charge of that religion finds twisting their adherants' morality pretty easy

I guess I'm missing the logic here. It's like saying an Nike is not a tennis shoe. Religious morality is in fact part of the evolutionary process because it is it a) came from someplace (unless you think it came from outside the evolutionary process); b) its adherents are members of a biological type (unless you think they are luminous beings).

Basically I don't understand why the Nike isn't one revelation of the Tennis shoe, or why members of the scientific community want to make it into something else.

Flick

[Phil]

Originally posted by stamenflicker
It makes an attempt at such. It certain situations, such as incest the relationship to your assertion is clear. Murder is not so clear, sacrifice is not so clear, nor is the concept of torture. Outside of a few obvious examples, the socio-evolutionary model is a construction of convience to provide a moral base to a world view that has none and cannot logically stand on its own: it appeals to nothing save some vague reference to group survival.

Well, yes. Certainly we're painting with broad, general strokes in this thread, but I think your assessment is incorrect. You might consider boning up on just what evolution is and how it works. Or perhaps you have simply confused religion with science in this case.

The socio-evolutionary model, or any scientific evolutionary model for that matter, is no construction of convenience to provide any type of base for any worldview. It is not dogma.

The socio-evolutionary model, like most scientific precepts, is a probable conclusion drawn from the study of testable hypotheses and the collection and analysis of evidence. It doesn't have the same emotional attachment to the world that religion does, or that any dogmatic contrivance does. And it doesn't seek to provide anything other than an explanation for an observed phenomena; in this case, why humans behave the way they do.

I'm sure you've heard it said that religion is the opiate of the masses. Well, science is not. It does not seek to placate anyone adhering to any worldview. It says what it says. It shows what it shows.

Religion, on the other hand, is based on nothing tangible save the emotional attachment of its adherents. It is this emotional base that requires tidy little, convenient constructs.

I would say that it is in fact religion that is a construction of convenience to provide a moral base to a worldview that cannot logically stand on its own.

Originally posted by stamenflicker
I surprised that you can accept this as logical or scientific.

I'm just as surprised that you can't.

Originally posted by stamenflicker
In essense you are allowing the solution to define the question, even so much so that "over time" assumptions can be verified regardless of outcome. What you are doing here is taking the answer 4 and assuming the question must have been 2 + 2. Philosophically speaking, I can't see this as logical.
Neither can I. But then I can't understand where you're getting this idea. I don't think I was putting it forth, but if I did, I was wrong.

In my view, the scientific method is the best tool we have for discovering highly probable truths. And I think it applies to the evolution of morals. To start with a conclusion and work backward is contradictory to the scientific method.

Originally posted by stamenflicker
There are numerous social and psychological factors at work in human morality, to reduce such as a product of evolutionary or biological preference ignores the arena of reason and volition.

No. To reduce it to a divine gift ignores the arena of reason and volition. Please try to learn the difference between science and religion.

Originally posted by stamenflicker
I guess I'm missing the logic here. It's like saying an Nike is not a tennis shoe. Religious morality is in fact part of the evolutionary process because it is it a) came from someplace (unless you think it came from outside the evolutionary process); b) its adherents are members of a biological type (unless you think they are luminous beings).

A Nike is a tennis shoe, but just because it is a tennis shoe, doesn't make it the best or most durable tennis shoe. Maybe the Nike shoestrings aren't as strong as the Converse. Maybe the sole wears out quicker than that of the Adidas.

The socio-evolutionary model shows that even though the people at Nike think their shoes are divinely-inspired, in reality no single shoe is best for the player. Instead it says that it's beneficial for the player to keep the best parts of each type of shoe to best improve his game.

[The idea]

Originally posted by Phil
I'm sure you've heard it said that religion is the opiate of the masses. Well, science is not. It does not seek to placate anyone adhering to any worldview. It says what it says. It shows what it shows.

[Banter Comment] Some chemists are paid to use science to legally manufacture real opiates and some underground chemists use science to illegally manufacture real opiates. That's not poetry, but reality. [/Banter Comment]

What is science?

Is it
(1) just a method?
(2) a collection of specific theories?
(3) a collection of scientists and scientific journals and scientific measuring devices?
(4) something else?

When did people begin to study medical science?

When did people begin to study the science of astronomy?

What is included in the dominion of science?

Can science measure the justness of a court's decision or the justness of an amendment to a law?

Can science tell you the best occupation for you or who would be the best employer for you?

Can science tell you how much money you should donate to worthy causes and which causes you should donate to?

Can science measure the quality of a marriage or the beauty of a song?

Can science tell you whether to fight or run and which direction to run in?

[neutrino_cannon]

By most definitions today, science is a strictly amoral discipline. Others may disagree, I however am a die-hard non-overlapping magesteria-ist.

*points for inventing a new word*

If just-ness were measurable, then sure, you could measure ti with science. I doubt if we know if it is completly measurable or not though.

Same goes for all your other examples. If something we consider to be moral happens to be measurable, then yes, science is an asset in determining which way to go.

Of course, it really depends on what we decide is morally correct. Too frequently, moral judgement is based on something imeasurable. The only thing to do then is stick a bunch of idiots with guns and differing opinions in a pit to hash it out.

Sometimes the pit is Europe.

[The idea]

Originally posted by neutrino_cannon
Sometimes the pit is Europe.
Is there a fire in that pit? You're almost making me hungry for some French fries. The problem is that scientists warned about Acrylamide and McDonald's admitted that its "100% vegetable oil" contained beef fat.

A French fry by any other name would still be junk food. C'est la vérité?

[Silicon]

Originally posted by The idea




Can science measure the justness of a court's decision or the justness of an amendment to a law?

Can science tell you the best occupation for you or who would be the best employer for you?

Can science tell you how much money you should donate to worthy causes and which causes you should donate to?

Can science measure the quality of a marriage or the beauty of a song?

Can science tell you whether to fight or run and which direction to run in?

No.

Of course, religion promises to do all those things, and yet it can't do any of them either. Not in any way that 2 adherants to even the very same religion will agree on.


Once you thow even multiple flavors of christianity into it, all bets are off.

(That doesn't stop any of the prophets from declaring that they have ALL THE ANSWERStm)

Only human beings can make moral choices. Not bibles -- not beakers and flasks and sliderules.


The problem with religion is that it pretends it has the answers when it really hasn't looked into the questions.

Tell me, what's the religious answer to curing childhood leukemia? Especially since thousands of years of prayer did exactly squat for millions of these poor kids.

Luckily for them, the most common type of childhood leukemia today has a 90% remission rate. Thanks, science.

The blessing of science is that it actually goes back and re-checks its work to make sure that it only draws conclusions based on evidence.

[The idea]

Originally posted by Silicon
Tell me, what's the religious answer to curing childhood leukemia? Especially since thousands of years of prayer did exactly squat for millions of these poor kids.

Are you suggesting that prayer is the only "technology" that religion offers?

Why do you personally care about childhood leukemia? Do you find the abstract scientific theories of cancer more interesting than the abstract scientific theories of subatomic particles?

[Silicon]

So now religion's taking credit for everything science does too?

Just because religious people claim to have invented morality doesn't make it so.

If that were the case, tell me how two christians can disagree on whether dancing is immoral or moral.


Morality is a set of social rules. Every society has them, regardless of what their religion is, or even if their religion doesn't address morality.

Hell, social animals have morality, even though they've never read the bible. Do you think chimps had a savior come down from heaven and tell them the social rights from wrongs?


I care about childhood leukemia because I KNOW people who've suffered through it.

I care about total strangers who suffer through other diseases because I have empathy.

Humans can't be social creatures without empathy. People without empathy are driven away from society, and die, or at least don't reproduce. Not at the rate that people with empathy do.

God doesn't enter into the question of why people stick their neck out for others. If you think an atheist can't run into a burning building to save a child, you have a lot to learn about human nature.

[The idea]

Originally posted by Silicon
[...]two christians [...]
I'm not sure what you mean by the word "christians", but if you've met two of them then you might be a very lucky human being.

[Silicon]

Originally posted by The idea

I'm not sure what you mean by the word "christians", but if you've met two of them then you might be a very lucky human being.

Not sure what clever wordplay you're getting at.

Most of my family are christians. Can you explain yourself?

[The idea]

Originally posted by Silicon
Not sure what clever wordplay you're getting at.

Most of my family are christians. Can you explain yourself?
Where did they go to sign up and what do they have to do to remain members in good standing?

As I said, "you might be a very lucky human being." However, your self-chosen username is "Silicon" and I have been quite wrong many times in the past. Pray tell: which do you think is more caloric: one cup of olive oil or four cups of popped popcorn? (Just a little Turing test.)

[Silicon]

Originally posted by The idea

Where did they go to sign up and what do they have to do to remain members in good standing?


Nothing, so long as they can cast out demons, take poison with no ill effect and handle deadly serpents, they're Christian.


Duh.


Obviously, they've just accepted Jesus Christ as their personal savior (by filling out the form on the back of a Chick Tract.).


Oh seriously? They read the bible and attend church twice a week.

[The idea]

Originally posted by Silicon
They read the bible and attend church twice a week.
I'm thinking of writing a story about a nonviolent Bonny and Clyde type of couple. They read the Bible every day because Bonny's rich mother requires it if her unhealthy son-in-law is to continue to receive regular mother-in-law checks in the mail.

They attend church twice times a week on their own initiative. They use extremely subtle psychological warfare techniques to disrupt churches controlled by hypocrites. Typically, it takes them about three years to cause a church to close down in disarray.

[Silicon]

Sounds like a jesussed-up version of Harper Valley PTA.

[Phil]

Originally posted by Silicon
Sounds like a jesussed-up version of Harper Valley PTA. :D

[dmarker]

Originally posted by The idea

I'm not sure what you mean by the word "christians", but if you've met two of them then you might be a very lucky human being.

You're going into the "not a True Christian" area. Unless you have positive evidence that you are a True Christian, I recommend that you divert from this path.

[dmarker]

Originally posted by stamenflicker


Those are value judgments and are not condusive to the logic of the argument, but may or may not be condusive to the logic of another argument. At issue is the invisibility of object x and whether or not belief in the existence of the invisible object can be predicated via the observation its utility. Once again, "GOD" is a real something... what that "realness" may be like is up for discussion, but we'd need another thread.



Cannibalism and other social oddities have also been witnessed in chimps, one interesting study showed their propensinity for war even when resources were not in direct conflict. These serve no known productive evolutionary end. It seems chimps actually enjoy the killing, and some studies have demonstrated that following a blood bath, chimps demonstrate regret.

There are numerous social and psychological factors at work in human morality, to reduce such as a product of evolutionary or biological preference ignores the arena of reason and volition.



I guess I'm missing the logic here. It's like saying an Nike is not a tennis shoe. Religious morality is in fact part of the evolutionary process because it is it a) came from someplace (unless you think it came from outside the evolutionary process); b) its adherents are members of a biological type (unless you think they are luminous beings).

Basically I don't understand why the Nike isn't one revelation of the Tennis shoe, or why members of the scientific community want to make it into something else.

Flick

But is god a being outside of ourselves or the result of brain chemistry? Will an imaginary chair really hold me if I believe hard enough?

Ah, yes, but we are not chimps, are we? And chimps do feel regret et. despite their godlessness. They have no need for invisible chairs.

No, religious morality did not come from outside the evolutionary process, just that religious morality is not a natural morality. Religious morality springs from the militant, aggressive side of our natures. The part that divides "us" and "them". Once you've embraced a religion, you have separated yourself from much of the rest of humanity. This tendency towards aggressiveness is tempered by our natural morality, but once religion has a full grip, the victim cannot see anyone outside of his particular brand of religion as fully human and ergo his natural morality is suppressed by the false one of religion.

At this point, trouble begins because no religion stays coherent for long. The subjective nature of religion demands that schisms are inevitable. Which gives rise to some of the problems that we see in the world today. Nothern Ireland, Sunni and Shiites, the West Bank et. these spring up because the false morality of religion has obscured the basic human morality. If we could tear down this false morality, if the groups I mentioned would get religious amnesia, then they would wonder what all the fighting was about. They would recognize the common humanity of their fellows and would be loathe to kill them.

[The idea]

Originally posted by dmarker
You're going into the "not a True Christian" area. Unless you have positive evidence that you are a True Christian, I recommend that you divert from this path.
Recommendation noted, but judgment reserved until a future occasion.

Fallacy: messenger vs. message.

Example #1: "Some homeless guy said to watch out for that dog. I told him to kiss off. I'm going to have some fun with that dog. Pitt Bulls are friendly provided that you don't physically hurt them in some way."

Example #2: Who is this Keynes? I don't have time to read The Economic Consequences of the Peace. Why shouldn't the government of France impose collective punishment on the German nation?

Example #3: "I hear your question, but I'm going to ignore it because I happen to enjoy lobster and the cooks prepare lobster by boiling it alive in hot water and I'm not about to interfere in the kitchen. Plus, I've seen you eating free range chickenburgers."

[Silicon]

Is it me, or is The Idea slipping into some type of madness here?

[Phil]

Originally posted by Silicon
Is it me, or is The Idea slipping into some type of madness here?
I don't know about madness, but it seems some of The idea's posts certainly warrant a: :con2:

[dmarker]

Originally posted by The idea

Recommendation noted, but judgment reserved until a future occasion.

Fallacy: messenger vs. message.

Example #1: "Some homeless guy said to watch out for that dog. I told him to kiss off. I'm going to have some fun with that dog. Pitt Bulls are friendly provided that you don't physically hurt them in some way."

Example #2: Who is this Keynes? I don't have time to read The Economic Consequences of the Peace. Why shouldn't the government of France impose collective punishment on the German nation?

Example #3: "I hear your question, but I'm going to ignore it because I happen to enjoy lobster and the cooks prepare lobster by boiling it alive in hot water and I'm not about to interfere in the kitchen. Plus, I've seen you eating free range chickenburgers."

You mean ad hom arguements, don't you?

Frankly, I don't see what that has to do with determining who is or isn't a True Christian. Please provide positive evidence that you are a True Christian as opposed to every other christian sect out there.

[stamenflicker]

The socio-evolutionary model, or any scientific evolutionary model for that matter, is no construction of convenience to provide any type of base for any worldview. It is not dogma.

The socio-evolutionary model, like most scientific precepts, is a probable conclusion drawn from the study of testable hypotheses and the collection and analysis of evidence. It doesn't have the same emotional attachment to the world that religion does, or that any dogmatic contrivance does. And it doesn't seek to provide anything other than an explanation for an observed phenomena; in this case, why humans behave the way they do.

I wish it were that simple, I sincerely do. But you are making a value judgment here. You might attempt to argue that it’s not, science just merely offers an analysis of what “Is,” but the methods employed here are selective, and that selection is basically a filter of your own choosing. Pieces of the moral-evolutionary puzzle that fit are determined to serve as “evidence” while pieces that do not fit are excluded.

Scientific "theory" cannot explain infanticide in the chimpanzee population and subsequent cannibalism of chimpanzee infant brains often happening in the presence of abundant organic resources or little inter/intra species evolutionary competition. It does try, and its answers (plural) are for sure intriguing. But theories are all over the board in this arena and none too enlightening. In the sixties, during the population “overcrowding” hysteria touted by humans, chimpanzee infanticide was theorized to be the result of chimp overcrowding—so out went the data gathers and cited what they needed to prove their point. During the rise of feminist critiques of human society in the 1970’s, chimpanzee infanticide became the result of “alpha-male power” and “female subservience.” Again, out went the data collectors to gather and cite what is needed. There are now over 10 different theories about it, all of which have odd data exceptions. Even so, a selective choice of data supports about any one of them (provided you exclude someone else’s data). Is this science?????

Here is something to consider: all measurement depends on a category. While the raw empirical data is hardly open to a meaningful philosophical debate, the method employed and the objective of the study is wide open. Essential questions derive from one's one reason and worldview, often essential questions have economic or political motivators in the field of science. I don't really see how you alone can claim objectivity here. What would the data say if you asked different questions? What would it say if you asked no question at all? And in the end what does statistical data really tell us (we’d need another thread)?

The problem as I see in this whole argument is that it is still back-masking; it assumes that reason and volition in homo-sapiens is not the product of evolution; or at least it assumes that the development of these auspices in their current form is of lesser value than the pre-cognitive primordial soup. There are numerous other problems with this approach, not excluding the “stuck-ness” of cognizant and observable matter in a directional timeline. There are core assumptions being made here and it is those assumptions which I find intellectually displeasing. Furthermore, I find it frustrating that one could use such assumptions (and the results that stem from them) to make yet another socio-evolutionary value judgment (moral or amoral) about those who do not enthusiastically share the assumption with them. To quote Dana Carvey as the Church Lady, “It’s bad. Naughty, naughty, bad.”

:)

Flick

[stamenflicker]

No, religious morality did not come from outside the evolutionary process, just that religious morality is not a natural morality.

You can't have it both ways. You can't say religious morality is a product of evolution while at the same time claiming it is "not natural." I am trying to understand your position, but my first sentence sums it up. This position is illogical, but I'm open to rethink it if you can help me rephrase it logially.

Once you've embraced a religion, you have separated yourself from much of the rest of humanity. This tendency towards aggressiveness is tempered by our natural morality, but once religion has a full grip, the victim cannot see anyone outside of his particular brand of religion as fully human and ergo his natural morality is suppressed by the false one of religion.

This is insane.

If we could tear down this false morality, if the groups I mentioned would get religious amnesia, then they would wonder what all the fighting was about. They would recognize the common humanity of their fellows and would be loathe to kill them.

You mean like Stalin or Mao?

Flick

[dmarker]

Originally posted by stamenflicker


You can't have it both ways. You can't say religious morality is a product of evolution while at the same time claiming it is "not natural." I am trying to understand your position, but my first sentence sums it up. This position is illogical, but I'm open to rethink it if you can help me rephrase it logially.



This is insane.



You mean like Stalin or Mao?

Flick

"No, religious morality did not come from outside the evolutionary process, just that religious morality is not a natural morality."

Along with our natural morality, we have aggressive tendencies towards our own species. We defend our territories and our assets. What keeps most of us from attacking our neighbor and taking what is his is our natural morality (most of the time). But if he were to attack us, then we would rise against him because self-preservation trumphs morality. But we do not attack those outside of our "group" often because we do not want them to attack us and we recognize their basic humanity.

Religious morality tells you that you are permanantly at war, to save your own "soul" or survival after death. Since fighting for your own survival and the suvival of your kin overwelms your natural morality, fighting for your soul and the souls of your kin will overwelm your natural morality.

This is why religious people are very upset with non religious thought and other sects. Religious morality has taught them that their very survival depends on this brand of religion. If they give up religion, then they believe that they would die. This is why many religious people advocate violence against non-believers and believers of different sects.

This is why religious morality is not a natural morality, but it is natural.

"Once you've embraced a religion, you have separated yourself from much of the rest of humanity. This tendency towards aggressiveness is tempered by our natural morality, but once religion has a full grip, the victim cannot see anyone outside of his particular brand of religion as fully human and ergo his natural morality is suppressed by the false one of religion."

This is not insane, this is history. The Muslim vs Christian atrocities in Africa, The Holocaust, the destruction of native american populations, the Inquisition, wars between England and France over Catholicism and Prostantism. I could go on and on.

"If we could tear down this false morality, if the groups I mentioned would get religious amnesia, then they would wonder what all the fighting was about. They would recognize the common humanity of their fellows and would be loathe to kill them."

Stalin and Mao did not tear down religion's false morality, they replaced the worship of a deity with worship of the state.

[The idea]

Do you see yourself as destined to have the role of doing little to help your fellow human beings?

Do you see yourself as destined to have a role focused on giving yourself short-term pleasure to the exclusion of long-range goals such as the discovery of new scientific knowledge and the establishment and enforcement of just laws?