agent00f: They work through differing mechanisms but the tautological relationship of designs fit for their environment surviving is identical. The horseshoe crab makes for a perfect example of human misconception about its simple yet effective design proven incorrect by the factual reality of it out-competing/surviving any alternative.
M: What is a tautological relationship of designs? What are the designs specifically and how are they related. Isn't a tautology a linguistic phenomenon where the same idea is repeated like calling something an empty void rather than describing two processes as having similar properties? Or were you striving to be tautological by saying the tautological relationship is identical. Furthermore, what does environment surviving mean. I would think you meant fit for surviving in their environment not that they are fit in a way that makes their environment survive which is what you seem to have actually said. I believe that you reach for a level of erudition beyond what your English abilities can support. I am not trying to belittle your abilities but to suggest that you are difficult enough to understand without sounding, what, professorial?.
Annotated:
"They work through
differing mechanisms, but the (tautological relationship) of ((designs fit for their environment) surviving) is
identical. " The two bold words reference the same two examples.
Tautology means correct by definition. "Fit" designs survive, and ones that die out aren't fit, through how
fit is define. That is the trivial logic structure of the argument. The only facts in contention are whether the designs in question survive or not, and you readily admit the crabs and reward-religion survived; ergo by the logic they are fit for their respective environments.
As for the horseshoe crab, the point I was making is that it hasn't changed because its simple and effective design hasn't faced selective pressure because the environment in which it successfully functions hasn't changed. And the grammar in your sentence is also messed up. When you place 'proven incorrect' behind 'effective design' it sounds like the effective design was proven incorrect rather than the human misconception. And we don't prove misconceptions to be incorrect since that is implied in the mis part of misconception.
The HC has certainly face selective pressure through all sorts of organisms & mutations over eons which compete for food/energy, and it kept winning because it's the best fit for that environment.
The "proven incorrect" refers to the underlying basis of the conception, thus the apt label of misconception. I pondered whether to reworded that sense when writing it, but figure you of all people wouldn't be pedantic about it.
a: And therefore tautologically unfit for mass appeal/direction, whereas the simple/direct methods continue to prove effective. In any case what religion should be is irrelevant to this conversation of what is (see: is-ought) in the real world of the religious right, who certainly do believe a very favorable transactional exchange of external salvation for doing what needs to be done in this life.
M: My brain just flat lined......
You make claims about what religion
should be or could be; this is different from what religion as seen IRL in the US
is. This is a basic argument fallacy called is-ought.
This is evident from your own claim of "It is a state of mechanical programming from which it is
profoundly difficult to awaken." So you don't dispute what *is*, namely religion offered self-interested sizable reward for services rendered, but argue it *should be* some other thing you admit isn't terribly feasible for the masses.
a: The categorical imperative (argument for the greater good) & such as key point of ethics in continental idealism was rather influential on western liberalism. You know, the kind of ideas & values that informed the french & american revolutions and founded the nation we speak of, which I hope you're not disputing as matter of opinion. I would also think using smaller words than most appropriate to be patronizing for people who have the capacity to understand.
Recall this came up as a contrast between a straight reward, ie self-interest, based system vs doing what is right in itself. If it makes you feel better it was never implied the latter is necessarily secular, and if anything much closer to what jesus was talking about than jerry falwell.
M: I am all for high ideals. The problem isn't the size of the words but that they are so abstractly applied I think only you know what was intended.[/QUOTE]
You questioned the applicability of a categorical imperative in this context. I'm arguing it very much applies as an underlying argument for western liberalism, which is in large part why the US was not an authoritarian nation with success of individuals based on quid-pro-quo of services rendered to its leadership. This is in contrast to fascist nations where success is predicated on serving the strongman, or theocratic society where salvation is predicated on service to the priesthood (eg falwell types). IIRC much of the message of the new testament was about being good to others as its own reward; and yet we see the religious right voting for falwell/trump.
I think that makes the argument clear enough. Some people just take to high minded liberalism, and others to self-interested authoritarianism.