quote:

Being incapable of conceptualizing their own impending death, animals have no need of any such psychological consolation. Nature most definitely would require such a construct in a self aware being.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jhud

quote:

Being incapable of conceptualizing their own impending death, animals have no need of any such psychological consolation. Nature most definitely would require such a construct in a self aware being.

I think you asserted it, but didn't explain why. Nature only requires that we survive to pass on our genes (not die) - such a thing requires neither self-awareness nor conceptualizing one's death - or the afterlife.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jhud

quote:

Being incapable of conceptualizing their own impending death, animals have no need of any such psychological consolation. Nature most definitely would require such a construct in a self aware being.

I think you asserted it, but didn't explain why. Nature only requires that we survive to pass on our genes (not die) - such a thing requires neither self-awareness nor conceptualizing one's death - or the afterlife.

quote:

Religion is a form of tribalism... it's not hard to see why it could have benefited early man from an evolutionary perspective.

quote:

If it can be shown to be beneficial to survival then it can be shown to aid in the passing on of genes. I suppose there are few things more beneficial to the survival of a self aware being than a fully functioning brain. If, once self aware, a being were able to conceive of its own eventual death then that would pose a threat to that being's mental health, because what benefits the individual the most is valuing itself above all others, and accepting the eventuality of its death would force it to consider its own relative value somewhat reduced in the grand scheme of things. "I can't be that important, if I'm not going to be forever." A being would be most successful at passing on its genes if it put itself and its own wants and needs and beliefs before ALL other things. It benefits the individual to be ALIVE, so it would benefit the individual to invent a way to not have to believe in dieing

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jhud

quote:

Religion is a form of tribalism... it's not hard to see why it could have benefited early man from an evolutionary perspective.

Well again, animals form herds and packs without having to to resort to the extravagant development of universal sense of eternity and self awareness. This is no explanation.

quote:

Animals have some primitive intellect as well. The escalation of our intellectual capabilities lead to some great advantages. Perhaps it is the same with tribalistic/religious behavior as well. More sophistication led to greater advantage.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jhud

quote:

If it can be shown to be beneficial to survival then it can be shown to aid in the passing on of genes. I suppose there are few things more beneficial to the survival of a self aware being than a fully functioning brain. If, once self aware, a being were able to conceive of its own eventual death then that would pose a threat to that being's mental health, because what benefits the individual the most is valuing itself above all others, and accepting the eventuality of its death would force it to consider its own relative value somewhat reduced in the grand scheme of things. "I can't be that important, if I'm not going to be forever." A being would be most successful at passing on its genes if it put itself and its own wants and needs and beliefs before ALL other things. It benefits the individual to be ALIVE, so it would benefit the individual to invent a way to not have to believe in dieing

I appreciate the asertion, but may organisms survive quite ably (better than humans from a numbers perspective) with little to no brains at all.

quote:

And there is another irony in this argument.

quote:

If we are to believe that it is a genetic inclination which causes us to accept the existence of an afterlife, and no such thing exists, then we are essentially arguing that the human mind has developed in such a way so as to believe falsehoods for the sake of survival.

quote:

If we accept that, then it has the potential of calling all our beliefs into question, since the very mechanism by which we evaluate beliefs (our brain) is admitted to be intentionally faulty.

quote:

Also, one other fault to this argument - and interestingly it is one atheists make themselves. Religious belief in general is as likely to lead to conflict and division as it is to lead to cooperation and selflessness - that being true, it would seem on the whole it really provides no overall survival benefit, and again would have to be considered extravagant from a evoloutionary perspective.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jhud

quote:

I didn't say Iwas that responsible. In that respect, my faith is a bit on the weak side.

Ah, so you have simply developed the skill of identifying for others what responsible Christianity looks like.

Useful skill, that.

quote:

Not many, most, or nearly all. In fact the lower the brain power the more likely a being seems to be able to survive for a very long time. Reference beetles and bacteria. In fact among the traits evolutionary processes seem to converge on, intelligence is perhaps the absolute LEAST common trait of all. Evolution converged on ears and eyes and noses and such, but not self awareness. That much is for sure.

quote:

yep it is, and we'd do well to admit it up front and refer to disciplined practices to avoid the dangers associated with it.

quote:

It provides survival benefit to the tribe. Evolution leads to conflict. The idea that religion was constructed by man to combat the effects of conflict on the mind is one I'm exploring in a book of my own.

quote:

Actually, I think others have identified it for me. I'm just not quite ready to step into the shoes of Francis of Assisi, Dorothy Day, Mother Teresa and such other saints who exemplify genuine Christian responsibility. Are you?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Aristocrat

quote:

ORIGINAL: gluadys
I think you are conflating different groups here. 'Do murderers and rapists and bad parents necessarily live under bridges and on the streets? Does having to live under a bridge or on the street mean one is irresponsible or a bad parent, much less a murderer or rapist?

Does being a Christian believer necessarily mean one absolves oneself from earthly responsibilities? Can you speak to that comment first, as it was the one I was responding to?

quote:

What does avoiding responsibility as an adult mean to you?

quote:

Where would Christians live who "absolved themselves from all earthly responsibilities" as law-abiding citizens, caretakers, defenders of our Constution, wage earners and bill payers?

quote:

You are conflating different groups. I am enumerating the problems associated with those adults who absolve themselves of earthly responsibilities.

quote:

Are people with money bad people in your eyes? Is that why Christians who profess their faith should live like paupers? To show you they aren't bad?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jhud
SO perhaps the grounds for commonality you seek are that 'Science as a tool has many benefits, and has provided many good things for our society' with which I think most Christians would heartily agree. The caveat I would add is that while it has certainly done so, as a tool it can also be employed to do evil, and so while we can be thankful for its uses, we can never rely on it to ultimately guide us in doing good.

quote:

I will completely agree that science is ill equipped for instructing ethical choices. You would have better luck referring to your favorite aunt's cookie recipe for an answer to the immigration crisis as you would science. It is simply not meant for that application. Science tells us what we can do through technology. Our common morality tells us what we should do with that technology.

Do you also feel that in today's increasingly technological atmosphere that more time should be spent on science, forgetting for right now the Big Debate.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jhud
I think it would be good for there to be more solid science education - accompanied by a strong moral basis for utilizing that science.

quote:

Fully agree. I have been a part of research that involves human subjects so I was required to take human subjects traing, and I am still required to take an annual refresher course. I really wished that this type of topic was taught at the college level. Bioethics is a very important part of doing research as a morally responsible scientist.

One of the more interesting delimmas that were presented involved Jews who were subjected to atrocious experiments at the hands of the Nazis. The specific experiments we were told about dealt with hypothermia where Nazi scientists meticulously measured the body's ability to cope with cold. The ethical delimma is should we use this data as moral scientists? The answer, according to most bioethics experts, is yes. If this data can be used improve safety and perhaps save lives then something good can actually come of these atrocious crimes.

Students should understand how science should be used, and how research should done. Good point.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jhud


Exactly, which would seem to undermine the primary reason for evolving to begin with.

quote:


Well, therein lies the problem; presumed ‘disciplined practices’ are the product of the self-same mind that you are now agreeing is internally flawed. There is no reason to believe that one set of practices derived from an inherently flawed mind is superior to any other when it comes to evaluating reality. Thus the irony.

quote:


Then you would seem to need to resolve a number of self-defeating contradictions – one of them being how evolution would have selected a trait that simultaneously, unites, divides, and undermines reality can be explained through naturalism.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Method

Do you also feel that in today's increasingly technological atmosphere that more time should be spent on science, forgetting for right now the Big Debate.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jhud
Then that would seem to be common ground - mere empiricism isn't alone sufficient to guide human thinking.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jhud
I never claimed Christians should live beneath bridges.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Method

There are enough threads centering on "The Debate". What I am interested in is a thread where we can discuss our common concerns. I ask that we (including myself) stay away from arguments and instead focus on things we actually agree on where it concerns "Science & Origins" and this forum. I ask everyone to stay away from baiting, veiled insults, etc. You know what I mean. This is a thread to offer an olive branch to those who you normally disagree with.

Just one example to get us started:

1. Education. I, for one, think that the No Child Left Behind Act has really done an injustice to science education, not to mention education in the arts and humanities. When the future of a school is based on test results in reading, spelling, and math it is not the fault of the school that the focus on these subjects while letting other subjects suffer. Technology of all kinds are becoming a very, very important part of our everyday lives. We are expected to make better decisions about our health and health care, to name just one example. We are bombarded every day by ads selling such-and-such medicines, and we are advised by doctors who are wooed by the very companies that sell these drugs. It saddens me to say this as a scientist in the medical research field, but the line between company lackey and "objective" research scientist has become blurred to such an extent that it risks all of our health. The best medicine (pun intended) against such activity is a populace with a strong science education. It's hard to sell snake oil to a populace that understands medicine.

Anyone else?

quote:

ORIGINAL: gluadys

quote:

ORIGINAL: Aristocrat
You are conflating different groups. I am enumerating the problems associated with those adults who absolve themselves of earthly responsibilities.

In that case, I would not include people who live under bridges or on the street. There is no consistent relationship between being homeless and being irresponsible.

quote:

quote:

Are people with money bad people in your eyes? Is that why Christians who profess their faith should live like paupers? To show you they aren't bad?

Depends on how they earn it and how they spend it. Crime lords are often rich. Does their wealth make them good people?

quote:

How much material wealth one has is basically irrelevant. It is what you let it do to you that is more important. Living in voluntary poverty is one way of making sure you haven't allowed wealth to cut you off from human community.

quote:

ORIGINAL: drj11

Religion is a form of tribalism... it's not hard to see why it could have benefited early man from an evolutionary perspective.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Aristocrat
And where do you think adults who absolve themselves from thier earthly responsibilities end up? I would think they would end up destitute.

quote:

quote:

Depends on how they earn it and how they spend it. Crime lords are often rich. Does their wealth make them good people?

If they were poverty stricken, would they be good people then?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Aristocrat
However, assuming you mean 'organized' religion, religion is another form of politics. Man's propensity to be communal for survival might have meant a more sophisticated form of a pecking order which all mammals seem to exhibit and is political in nature. And by political I mean there is a heirarchy.