I think religion has no place in politics PERIOD...this would be especially helpful for the GOP who seem to think they represent all things moral.
yeah riiight lmfao.
I think religion has no place in politics PERIOD...this would be especially helpful for the GOP who seem to think they represent all things moral.
yeah riiight lmfao.
I think you are confusing the goals of humanity with the goals of evolution. There's absolutely nothing to suggest that the two are the same or that they should be the same. Evolution seeks for a species to reproduce and expand as much as possible, and there are tons of ways in which that clashes with the goal I envision for mankind of the greatest possible comfort and happiness for all people.
While you can make the argument that religion adds to the comfort and happiness of humanity (and a credible one at that), the fact that religion may have an evolutionary advantage doesn't really speak to that either way.
Atreus21
Lifer
- Aug 21, 2007
- 12,001
- 571
- 126
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Originally posted by: Atreus21
Then to me, that simply implies that there are no true atheists.
Or at least none still alive, or none who aren't on serious anti-depressants.
As I said, this was all hashed out recently in an other thread. Go wake it up if you want to argue that. Hehe, why do I think you won't.
I suppose that, since this would constitute a thread-jack, I will drop this line of conversation.
Which thread was it, incidentally?
TastesLikeChicken
Lifer
- Sep 12, 2004
- 16,852
- 59
- 86
It's not about the end though, it's about the means. It's about moving forward and wanting the best for your own progeny, which falls precisely in line with Darwinistic thinking. In fact, that's one reason I believe that Darwinism > Religion. Religion is inherently self-centered. It all boils down to saving your own personal soul and in order to enjoy an eternal afterlife. Darwinism is not about your own personal good, it's about the good of future generations.
I'm not so sure about the 'supernatural' aspect of it but I agree that a majority of organized/affiliated religious activities collectively foster more cooperation, and physical and spiritual improvement.
Whether it is through the church itself, the Red Cross, Habitat for Humanity (or whatever) --- it makes me a little uncomfortable when folks give 'glory to God'. It's their glory. Hats off to 'em for their effort in improving the lives of others. It is through their own unselfish efforts --- not a 'spirit' working through them.
God doesn't make you volunteer. You make you volunteer.
So get to it yah bunch of selfish Pinheads -
Actually, this is where I'm genuinely confused. I can see how a theist would believe that they are ultimately in charge of their own existence, but I cannot understand how an atheist would make this claim. If their is/are no god(s), and everything is created by natural processes, then everything a person does would be a result of nature, nurture, or some combination. To state it even more basically, everything any form of life does is dictated by thermodynamics, kinetics, and statistics. Which of these can you control? It would seem that the exact opposite would be concluded, that a person has no control over their existence. I have read papers that state that free will originates from evolution, but if you read what is really being said, it is not free will as most people perceive it, but rather that your choices are programmed into you based on evolution. Basically, the conclusion seems to be that the ability to independently direct your life is a myth. I don't mean this as an attack, I'm just trying to understand.
Well I've always thought of free will as an impossibility with an omnipotent/omnicient creator, so maybe we're just coming at this from two different fundamental viewpoints. After all, if god knows 100% of what you're going to do in your life, and god is 100% responsible for your and everything else's creation, he controls all the variables as well. Your free will in that case is every bit as much an illusion.
All actual free will takes place within constraints, and I think that any reasonable person knows this. To say that people have no control over their actions is at a minimum... quite a stretch. We already know that all of our choices are not preprogrammed through genetics and evolution by virtue of twin studies, so there's that. If you go reductionist enough you could probably argue that all life is dictated by quantum mechanics, but as they say, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
An interesting point, to be sure, however couldn't something else easily fill the role of religion? Something that offers a cohesive bond between people allowing them to accomplish things together that they couldn't do on their own?
Evolution often takes us down multiple pathways, and it's not usually clear which one is the strongest until after the fact.
beat me to the punch....I highly doubt that it is religion itself that is required for these things to happen. One could say that a cohesive set of ideals would be required, but it doesn't really require a religious justification for those ideals to be in place.
Your thread on Christianity and Ahteism after Skoorb said:
"For me this is the greatest problem, although I see it no more substantial than wondering why atheists don't all just shoot themselves in the head. If they truly believe what they say, nothing they do matters anyway so I see no reason why they bother. Their life is patently unreconcilable with their claimed beliefs."
Edit: By the way I should forget about any effort to keep my threads on topic as they never seem to. If you want to argue your point here that's fine with me.
Oh, I agree not through genetics, but the twin studies are inherently flawed because it would be unethical to do the study appropriately, ie conduct it in a completely controlled laboratory environment where stimuli were perfectly controlled (if we were even capable of controlling the environment to such an extent). Also, you don't really need to appeal to the theory of quantum mechanics, because whether or not one models for discrete energies isn't really relevent, as I'm talking on a much more qualitative level, what are the driving forces behind decisions. According to current scientific theory, all physical processes are basically broken down to thermodynamics, kinetics, and statistics (randomness), none of which you can control. So all the chemical and physical interactions that are going on inside your brain during decisions are basically beyond your control, because you can't control the fundamental physics. Similar to a computer program that runs, and makes decisions, but the decisions ultimately are based on two things (one simpler than in people, since my understanding is that computers still don't do truly random number generation well), the original program, and external input. Based purely on science, we are essentially very complex organic computers with an initial built in program (genetics) that is constantly being changed by external inputs (environment, senses, etc) as well as by randomness (statistics).
I agree, the traditional view of God doesn't really allow for free will, because if we are his creations, then what we do can essentially be blamed on him (God made me this way). There are two possibilities that have occurred to me that would allow for what most people consider "free will". One would be that there is a part of a person that was not created, but just "is". The other is that there is a phenomenon, be it scientific or mystical, that is not currently understood, or is even impossible to understand. I wonder, and it does seem likely, if there aren't scientific mysteries to the universe that are simply beyond the scope of the humans mind. Similar to there being no way to for a dog to learn algebra such that it would really understand it, what things will we never understand.
e: I think you are confusing the goals of humanity with the goals of evolution.
M: I know that when we try to communicate ideas we say things in gun shot ways that give the impression, sort of, as to that which we wish to say. I understand your point here, but I want to point out something you probably do know but weren't careful about. Evolution has no goal. It is not a person and has no conscious will. It is just a statement of how things work. It is simply a fact that evolution predicts that the more adapted an organism for it's environment the better it's chances of success at passing on its genes. Neither evolution nor the organism have any intention to take over the world.
e: There's absolutely nothing to suggest that the two are the same or that they should be the same.
M: Well actually we don't really have two things here regarding goals.
e: Evolution seeks for a species to reproduce and expand as much as possible, and there are tons of ways in which that clashes with the goal I envision for mankind of the greatest possible comfort and happiness for all people.
M: Evolution, again, seeks nothing. It is a descriptive theory. Nothing is seeking anything, it's just about what is happening.
e: While you can make the argument that religion adds to the comfort and happiness of humanity (and a credible one at that), the fact that religion may have an evolutionary advantage doesn't really speak to that either way.
M: I was not arguing that relation adds comfort and happiness. I said that religion promotes cooperation among people and that cooperation is adaptive.
M: I know that when we try to communicate ideas we say things in gun shot ways that give the impression, sort of, as to that which we wish to say. I understand your point here, but I want to point out something you probably do know but weren't careful about. Evolution has no goal. It is not a person and has no conscious will. It is just a statement of how things work. It is simply a fact that evolution predicts that the more adapted an organism for it's environment the better it's chances of success at passing on its genes. Neither evolution nor the organism have any intention to take over the world.
e: There's absolutely nothing to suggest that the two are the same or that they should be the same.
M: Well actually we don't really have two things here regarding goals.
e: Evolution seeks for a species to reproduce and expand as much as possible, and there are tons of ways in which that clashes with the goal I envision for mankind of the greatest possible comfort and happiness for all people.
M: Evolution, again, seeks nothing. It is a descriptive theory. Nothing is seeking anything, it's just about what is happening.
e: While you can make the argument that religion adds to the comfort and happiness of humanity (and a credible one at that), the fact that religion may have an evolutionary advantage doesn't really speak to that either way.
M: I was not arguing that relation adds comfort and happiness. I said that religion promotes cooperation among people and that cooperation is adaptive.
Frankly, the idea of freewill as most people think of it is impossible.
Mark Twain's "What is Man" has a section that does a good job at illustrating this IMO.
------------------------------
Y.M. Yes. "Everything has its limit--iron ore cannot be educated into gold."
O.M. There are gold men, and tin men, and copper men, and leaden mean, and steel men, and so on--and each has the limitations of his nature, his heredities, his training, and his environment. You can build engines out of each of these metals, and they will all perform, but you must not require the weak ones to do equal work with the strong ones. In each case, to get the best results, you must free the metal from its obstructing prejudicial ones by education--smelting, refining, and so forth.
Y.M. You have arrived at man, now?
O.M. Yes. Man the machine--man the impersonal engine. Whatsoever a man is, is due to his MAKE, and to the INFLUENCES brought to bear upon it by his heredities, his habitat, his associations. He is moved, directed, COMMANDED, by EXTERIOR influences--SOLELY. He ORIGINATES nothing, not even a thought.
Y.M. Oh, come! Where did I get my opinion that this which you are talking is all foolishness?
O.M. It is a quite natural opinion--indeed an inevitable opinion--but YOU did not create the materials out of which it is formed. They are odds and ends of thoughts, impressions, feelings, gathered unconsciously from a thousand books, a thousand conversations, and from streams of thought and feeling which have flowed down into your heart and brain out of the hearts and brains of centuries of ancestors. PERSONALLY you did not create even the smallest microscopic fragment of the materials out of which your opinion is made; and personally you cannot claim even the slender merit of PUTTING THE BORROWED MATERIALS TOGETHER. That was done AUTOMATICALLY--by your mental machinery, in strict accordance with the law of that machinery's construction. And you not only did not make that machinery yourself, but you have NOT EVEN ANY COMMAND OVER IT.
Y.M. This is too much. You think I could have formed no opinion but that one?
O.M. Spontaneously? No. And YOU DID NOT FORM THAT ONE; your machinery did it for you--automatically and instantly, without reflection or the need of it.
Y.M. Suppose I had reflected? How then?
O.M. Suppose you try?
Y.M. (AFTER A QUARTER OF AN HOUR.) I have reflected.
O.M. You mean you have tried to change your opinion--as an experiment?
Y.M. Yes.
O.M. With success?
Y.M. No. It remains the same; it is impossible to change it.
O.M. I am sorry, but you see, yourself, that your mind is merely a machine, nothing more. You have no command over it, it has no command over itself--it is worked SOLELY FROM THE OUTSIDE. That is the law of its make; it is the law of all machines.
Y.M. Can't I EVER change one of these automatic opinions?
O.M. No. You can't yourself, but EXTERIOR INFLUENCES can do it.
Y.M. And exterior ones ONLY?
O.M. Yes--exterior ones only.
Y.M. That position is untenable--I may say ludicrously untenable.
O.M. What makes you think so?
Y.M. I don't merely think it, I know it. Suppose I resolve to enter upon a course of thought, and study, and reading, with the deliberate purpose of changing that opinion; and suppose I succeed. THAT is not the work of an exterior impulse, the whole of it is mine and personal; for I originated the project.
-----------------------------------------
The conscious you as you think of yourself is just a mechanism of your brain. Your decisions and opinions are all dictated by your brain as well.
s: The fact that a trait provides a survival advantage in one context or during one time period doesn't mean that the trait will provide an advantage in all contexts or for all times.
M: Nothing is for all times and evolution is the result of adaption to change. I agree fully with what you say here.
s: Surely you don't believe human evolution has ceased.
M: I think it a widely held belief that human evolution is at an end because we can now direct our own destiny and adapt our environment to us, but I believe that evolution is still happening and recent scientific theories support this.
So I don't really know the level of sophistication of your question. You know, I assume, that evolution is presumed to work only on isolated pocket populations and not in large groups like humans now live in because all recessive changes to the gene pool will not find great difficulty of expression there. This is another reason to think that modern people are not undergoing evolution.
Additionally, if you are arguing that religion may once have had advantage and does not now, I really don't know. But it is not the religion that is important in my mind, it is the cooperative spirit it confers were I see the adaptive advantage.
M: Nothing is for all times and evolution is the result of adaption to change. I agree fully with what you say here.
s: Surely you don't believe human evolution has ceased.
M: I think it a widely held belief that human evolution is at an end because we can now direct our own destiny and adapt our environment to us, but I believe that evolution is still happening and recent scientific theories support this.
So I don't really know the level of sophistication of your question. You know, I assume, that evolution is presumed to work only on isolated pocket populations and not in large groups like humans now live in because all recessive changes to the gene pool will not find great difficulty of expression there. This is another reason to think that modern people are not undergoing evolution.
Additionally, if you are arguing that religion may once have had advantage and does not now, I really don't know. But it is not the religion that is important in my mind, it is the cooperative spirit it confers were I see the adaptive advantage.
Hayabusa Rider
Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
- Jan 26, 2000
- 50,879
- 4,268
- 126
Darwinism isn't about good or bad. To think otherwise is a gross misunderstanding of evolution. To speak of the good or ill of it is like debating if the number 5 is married. Evolution is merely an artifact of natural processes, like a rock rolling down a hill. Is a hill good?
Darn you Hay! I made that point to eskimo who is emotionally mature and won't run 20 pages in a battle to prove he was right and I let it go at that. But you just had to go stick Chicken in the ass. Now there's going to be chicken shit everywhere.
Hayabusa Rider
Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
- Jan 26, 2000
- 50,879
- 4,268
- 126
As is closing your eyes and talking to yourself and expecting it to change the outcome of your life.
TastesLikeChicken
Lifer
- Sep 12, 2004
- 16,852
- 59
- 86
Evolution is merely a subset of Darwinism. They are not interchangeable, equivalent terms. From the point of view of a sentient species that can think rationally, Darwinism is about the continual improvement of a species. The best in one generation of a species survive and their traits are passed on to the next generation, from which the best survive, and so on. This implies an incremental improvement of fitness of a species. That improvement is what I speak of when I say "good."
Of course, a lot of Darwinism no longer applies so much to the human species because we intervene in the natural process.
TastesLikeChicken
Lifer
- Sep 12, 2004
- 16,852
- 59
- 86
Coming from someone that will run 30 pages in a battle to insist he was right, all whilst belching moon dust to and fro, you have little room to talk, moonman.
Well you can say evolution doesn't have a goal, but the force that evolution describes most certainly does. It doesn't have to be a conscious goal, but it's one that all life moves towards regardless. A primary purpose of life almost by the mere fact of its existence must be to perpetuate itself (or else face extinction), and since all life is subject to evolutionary principles I am quite comfortable saying that evolution has a goal. Can you point me to a form of life on this planet that does not work to perpetuate itself?
Also, I didn't mean that you had stated religion exists to offer comfort and happiness, I was merely stating that you could make such an argument reasonably if you so desired. The purpose of this was to answer you when you asked why I would not join in something that served to 'protect the evolution of the species'. The continuing evolution of humanity is not a goal of mine, nor would it ever be, and that's where it comes back to my goals being different than evolution's goals. I'm concerned with the happiness and comfort of those living with me on this planet, not some nebulous goal in the future that exists long after I am dead.
Hayabusa Rider
Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
- Jan 26, 2000
- 50,879
- 4,268
- 126
When I was in school I this is pretty much how I was taught. Darwinism
"Good" in your context as I understand it is arbitrary. It's entirely possible that species which employ technology is a dead end. It would answer the Fermi Paradox. The reason that alien species aren't seen is because they wipe themselves out before they are able to embark on interstellar exploration. If we wanted to explore a vast area, the best way would be to assemble Von Neumann machines. The problem is that before we launch such machines someone might just drop one programmed to do nothing other than replicate.
That would be the end of the world.
So again, "good" is an arbitrary value or belief system you use to view evolution. It's natural enough, but the "good" which may be needed to save the future of the species is that we become unintelligent and unaware animals. I think I'd rather go extinct.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 24K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter