Originally posted by Evensong:
Which changes who we are.
![[Biased]](wink.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
quote:Fun to have an entire thread about a throwaway comment I've made. I'm quite surprised you found it controversial though, I would have thought this was a pretty standard phrase, but perhaps that's just me.
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
In the 'Sacred and sacriligeous' thread, Hawk has a quote: 'we are simple fallen humans'. Yes, I am a straightforward, simple person, but why should I consider myself 'fallen'? Does this apply only to Christians? If so, it seems to me that it is an extremely weak statement, and if it applies to all humans, and that must include all religions and atheists, then it loses all meaning anyway. I would be interested to hear opinions.
quote:Except that we can't change who we are, we can change what we do and how we respond.
Originally posted by Hawk:
In terms of Boogie's comment, I agree it is wrong to think we need to apologise for who we are. But it is important that we recognise it, and understand that we can, and should, be better.
quote:Indeed, it would have no meaning for you. Nor, perfectly, for me. It is a particularly odd notion, IMO. But, I suppose I am not one to judge, especially from your POV.
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
and if it applies to all humans, and that must include all religions and atheists, then it loses all meaning anyway.
quote:It should be noted that not just rationalists and atheists disagree that all humanity suffers a congenital curse due to the fruit-based transgressions of a distant ancestress, but all adherents of non-Abrahamic faiths as well.
Originally posted by Laurelin:
No, Christians don't just refer to themselves here. Christian doctrine says that all of humanity has 'fallen' as a result of, well, the 'Fall' ... the disobedience in Eden that led to disharmony between God and humankind, and each other, a rupture in the created world that Christians believe can only be healed through the sacrifice and reconciling work of Christ. Of course I don't expect rationalists and atheists to agree with this worldview.
quote:And quite a few Christians as well.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:It should be noted that not just rationalists and atheists disagree that all humanity suffers a congenital curse due to the fruit-based transgressions of a distant ancestress, but all adherents of non-Abrahamic faiths as well.
Originally posted by Laurelin:
No, Christians don't just refer to themselves here. Christian doctrine says that all of humanity has 'fallen' as a result of, well, the 'Fall' ... the disobedience in Eden that led to disharmony between God and humankind, and each other, a rupture in the created world that Christians believe can only be healed through the sacrifice and reconciling work of Christ. Of course I don't expect rationalists and atheists to agree with this worldview.
quote:But isn't that the basic premise of the Fall as metaphor? That the HPtFTU is due to some external factor and that it can, theoretically, be gotten rid of?
Originally posted by Dafyd:
Francis Spufford redescribes it as the Human Propensity to Fuck Things Up. If anyone says that they don't share in the HPtFTU, for reasons religious or secular, be very very wary. And don't let them have any position of power over or responsibility for other people.
The reason for using the metaphor of a fall is that it's something that applies to all people, but it's not supposed to be of the essence of humanity.
quote:It might do, it might not. There are aspects of brain chemistry which can't simply be changed by deciding to change them. Some things are who we are - permanently.
Originally posted by Evensong:
Which changes who we are.
quote:I don't agree - a baby is not a selfish, miserable sinner. It is selfish, very - but this is natural and necessary, not sinful. Of course we have to learn to be less and less selfish in order to live in society. But if we did not care for ourselves we'd have no chance of caring for other people.
Originally posted by Zach82:
I think we need to apologize for who we are, insofar as pretty much all of us are vicious, selfish, miserable sinners with no life in us- atheists and non-Abrahamic believers included.
quote:Yes, that sounds very sensible and could apply to all.
Originally posted by Boogie:
Agreed - I think our 'fall' is more a 'failure to become' the best we can be.
quote:Yes, agreed; but I would take that as forgiveness by the person one has wronged, also forgiveness of oneself if one knows one has done all that one could to right a wrong; not forgiveness by any god.
Any guilt/confession/forgiveness needs to be for things we do wrong, or things we fail to do - definitely not for who we are.
quote:That's something of a sweeping statement isn't it? I think there must be a rapidly diminishing number of people who, with the knowledge available now, could still believe in the factual truth of Adam and Eve?
Originally posted by Laurelin:
No, Christians don't just refer to themselves here. Christian doctrine says that all of humanity has 'fallen' as a result of, well, the 'Fall' ... the disobedience in Eden ...
quote:No problem if people know that it is a strong story, to teach altruistic behaviour of humans to each other.
...that led to disharmony between God and humankind, and each other, a rupture in the created world ...
quote:Well, no, I certainly cannot agree with this last part!
...that Christians believe can only be healed through the sacrifice and reconciling work of Christ. Of course I don't expect rationalists and atheists to agree with this worldview.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
quote:Agree completely. I was watching the Richard Feynmann programme yesterday in which he talks of why people with a thorough understanding of the structure and evolution of a certain type of beautiful flower finds that this knowledge adds to his appreciation of its beauty, not subtracts from it, and points out that believers do not have access to a special form of the appreciation of beauty.
I think humans are capable of great goodness and great beauty.
quote:Yes, I agree, but this must depend on our genetic make-up, and the training we had as children. I think I'd say that The tendency has not been selected out by natural selection because it has not threatened our species' survival.
But we have a very, very dark streak in us. Very dark. Much darker than anything in the animal world. Animals don't behave with the sophisticated cruelty and depravity that we are all too capable of.
quote:Yes, I can understand that. It would be a dream come true if those who perpetrate so much violence could accept, as good people do, the restraints necessary to live in harmony. I look at it from a humanist standpoint but the goal is the same.
It's not an easy doctrine, but I do accept it. I find it easy to believe when I consider the utter horrors we can perpetrate on each other and on this beautiful world.
quote:Yes, it is quite a nice feeling, isn't it?
Originally posted by Hawk:
Fun to have an entire thread about a throwaway comment I've made.
quote:I wouldn't say I found it controversial,
I'm quite surprised you found it controversial though, I would have thought this was a pretty standard phrase, but perhaps that's just me.
but thought it might make an interesting question.quote:Yes, I agree, until it comes to the God's intention part. If there was a God to intend something, how come he faild so spectacularly to impart the idea to all, I wonder?
It applies to all humans, certainly not just Christians (although perhaps Christians are those who recognise it more in themselves, and thus recognise their need for salvation). We are all fallen, as we are all not as good, as perfect as we are intended to be by our creator.
quote:You must hang out with the wrong people, Zach! Or only the wrong people. Most people I know don't fit this description. The 'no life in us' bit I recognize as the standard Biblical-based phrase, as in 'without God there is no live in us'. But there are different ways of applying that.
Originally posted by Zach82:
I think we need to apologize for who we are, insofar as pretty much all of us are vicious, selfish, miserable sinners with no life in us- atheists and non-Abrahamic believers included.
quote:I think there is quite abundant evidence that it is there.
I certainly do not think we all have a vicious streak or something; there isn't evidence for that is there.
quote:Not only too many- if the Milgram experiment is any indication, the vast majority of us would torture a man to death simply because a man in a white lab coat told us we wouldn't get in trouble.
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
Okay, there are too many who do have a vicious streak, and that is deeply saddening, but nowhere near enough (fortunately) to threaten the survival of the human species.
![[Ultra confused]](graemlins/confused2.gif)
quote:I'm a great deal more comfortable with those that say "all have sinned" than those who say 'only some have - those nasty people over there, the people who've done really bad things, but not me - I'm middle class and quite nice really'.
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
Okay, there are too many who do have a vicious streak, and that is deeply saddening, but nowhere near enough (fortunately) to threaten the survival of the human species.
quote:
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
That's something of a sweeping statement isn't it? I think there must be a rapidly diminishing number of people who, with the knowledge available now, could still believe in the factual truth of Adam and Eve?
quote:Yes, that was quite chilling. But wasn't the sample of people who took part quite small? I wonder whether, if they had used a very large sample, which of course it would have hbeen unethical to do, would the majority have been those who were not prepared to take wrong actions? I'd like to think so.
Originally posted by Zach82:
Not only too many- if the Milgram experiment is any indication, the vast majority of us would torture a man to death simply because a man in a white lab coat told us we wouldn't get in trouble.
quote:Okay, I think I'm with you on that thought! However, I don't think it's anywhere near as worrying as that, - because we have only to consider the number of humans around today and the rate of increase to realise that extinction is a long way off.
The fact that we can restrain our malice just enough to perpetuate our species is of little comfort to me.
quote:Ah, yes, I had forgotten that. I think there was a New Scientist article about it a while ago.
Originally posted by Jengie Jon:
Actually if you listen to some evolutionary psychologists they believe the vicious streak is there because it gave evolutionary advantage. In other words we survive because of it, not despite it.
quote:I agree that was a dangerous situation, but biologically, there would still have been many millions of humans in various parts of the world, even if the disaster had been a super volcano or something, to survive as a species.
Originally posted by Laurelin:
SusanDoris - not enough to threaten the species? We came near to nuclear annilhilation in 1962 and the situation was still perilous in the early 1980s.:
quote:Can't argue with any of that, but it is a rational description of humans, and does not need religious beliefs to make it so.
The doctrine that man fell doesn't mean that Christians believe that humanity is not capable of goodness or that we are irredeemable.
It does provide a framework for trying to understand the darkness within. Animals do not kill or torture for pleasure, as a rule. But we do. We are higher than them, yet our behaviour can be so much worse.
If we are not capable of actually being torturers, we are capable of turning a blind eye to others' cruelties.
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
Our deeds proceed from who we are. A person does selfish and hateful things because he is selfish and hateful. Not all of my misdeeds are beyond my control, so when I reflect on what I've done I find myself running out of excuses.
I am very bitter about myself- bitter that I hate people and gossip about them. I consider my apathy before the suffering of others not worthy of esteem. We don't strive to escape selfishness merely to participate in society- striving for charity is caring for ourselves.
![[Overused]](graemlins/notworthy.gif)
quote:That's a nice bit of wishful thinking combined with an unlikely assumption about his sample. There have been plenty of similar experiments (the Stanford Prison Experiment comes to mind), as well as the entire scope of human history. Were lynchings in the American South a large enough sample size? Was the Rwandan Genocide? The Holocaust? Or were these all just the result of bad eggs? Because the good eggs in the middle class were certainly going along with it.
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
quote:Yes, that was quite chilling. But wasn't the sample of people who took part quite small? I wonder whether, if they had used a very large sample, which of course it would have hbeen unethical to do, would the majority have been those who were not prepared to take wrong actions? I'd like to think so.
Originally posted by Zach82:
Not only too many- if the Milgram experiment is any indication, the vast majority of us would torture a man to death simply because a man in a white lab coat told us we wouldn't get in trouble.
quote:Nobody said it needs religious beliefs to make it so. You claimed in the original post that it is not true. Now you accept that it is true, whether we believe in the facticity of Adam and Eve or not. I'm not sure how this sentence isn't a 180-degree turn in your view.
Can't argue with any of that, but it is a rational description of humans, and does not need religious beliefs to make it so.
quote:I could speculate that one of the goals of religion is not so much to decry the behaviour of bad eggs, but somehow explain the ease with which good eggs permit themselves to go along with horrible things. Assholes acting assholishly is pretty self-explanatory, but how does someone get to the point (as in the Milgram experiments) where they are shouting "I'm killing him!" but are still pressing the damn button?
Originally posted by Bostonman:
That's a nice bit of wishful thinking combined with an unlikely assumption about his sample. There have been plenty of similar experiments (the Stanford Prison Experiment comes to mind), as well as the entire scope of human history. Were lynchings in the American South a large enough sample size? Was the Rwandan Genocide? The Holocaust? Or were these all just the result of bad eggs? Because the good eggs in the middle class were certainly going along with it.
quote:My understanding is that similar experiments have been carried out since, and there are always people prepared to do the torturing. More people will do it if the experimenter who tells them to appears to be a high-status person - a professor at a prestigious university rather than a graduate student in rented office space.
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
quote:Yes, that was quite chilling. But wasn't the sample of people who took part quite small?
Originally posted by Zach82:
Not only too many- if the Milgram experiment is any indication, the vast majority of us would torture a man to death simply because a man in a white lab coat told us we wouldn't get in trouble.
quote:If by external factor you mean not of the essence of humanity, yes. That it can theoretically be got rid of in the New Jerusalem, yes. That it can be got rid of entirely pre-mortem, most major Christian denominations have flatly denied.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:But isn't that the basic premise of the Fall as metaphor? That the HPtFTU is due to some external factor and that it can, theoretically, be gotten rid of?
Originally posted by Dafyd:
The reason for using the metaphor of a fall is that it's something that applies to all people, but it's not supposed to be of the essence of humanity.
quote:
Originally posted by Hawk:
We are all fallen, as we are all not as good, as perfect as we are intended to be by our creator. We have fallen from the ideal, and salvation is needed in order to raise us to the state God intends for us.
Actually your creator (in the sense of the creator of your personality) is a mixture of the genetic material you inherited from your parents and the experiences you have so far encountered. The experimental evidence suggests quite clearly that none of us have what we would like to call Free Will.
“ ideal” “perfect” What ideal is this? What perfect is this?
Do you mean your personally revealed versions, the version of ideal/perfect that your version of a version of religion tells you to mean, do mean an unknowable ideal which we’ll only understand once we’re dead or what? I assume you mean whatever your god thinks is ideal/perfect, but precisely what does he think – shall we start with which of the 630+ commandments count and which don’t? – and how do you justify your in/ex-clusions?
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
Except that we can't change who we are
I wish it weren’t so but the evidence (rather than wishful thinking) backs you up
quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:
I think we need to apologize for who we are, insofar as pretty much all of us are vicious, selfish, miserable sinners with no life in us- atheists and non-Abrahamic believers included.
No you shouldn’t apologise for what you are if that you is the inevitable result of events beyond your control - though your need to apologise is, it seems, also beyond your control. Atheists (this one at least) sometimes do/does things that are ethically wrong, we also know that it is extremely unlikely that anyone has ever “sinned”. Not sure about the “no-life-in-us”; presumably this is jargon which those in the know will understand – as with much jargon it’s just silly when taken at face value.
I consider my apathy before the suffering of others not worthy of esteem. A lack of self-esteem seems to be closely allied with addictive behaviour. Misuse of mind-altering techniques, including supernatural belief, seems to thrive in people who need relief from their disdain for themselves. There, but for the luck of the draw, go I.
Not only too many- if the Milgram experiment is any indication, the vast majority of us would torture a man to death simply because a man in a white lab coat told us we wouldn't get in trouble. I think you have misunderstood the point of Stanley Milgram’s work. This was experimental testing of people's obedience to authority figures, in other words it was about how far we would go, at the expense of a non-authority figure, to avoid the authority figure's displeasure.
Avoid getting involved with authority figures seems a rational conclusion – but then, for many, the ultimate authority figure is an invisible, inaudible, untouchable, etc. being that is intensely concerned about what we wear, what we eat, who we mix with, who we go to bed with, what we do when we’re in bed.... oh and, h/t to the late George Carlin, ...... he always wants money - lots and lots of money!
quote:
Originally posted by Laurelin:
It does provide a framework for trying to understand the darkness within. Animals do not kill or torture for pleasure, as a rule. But we do. We are higher than them, yet our behaviour can be so much worse.
Yes – we are higher in the sense that we have brains that have abilities that other animals’ brains don’t – though birds might pity us for being earthbound – fish for our restriction to inhabiting the smaller part of the planet – bats and bees for our dependence on such a limited visual spectrum, and snakes and spiders for our need to devote so much time to the pursuit and consumption of other forms of life.
Our evolutionary development meant we (of all hominids) survived this far – we have unique abilities, particularly in social structures, but we also have the downside that these abilities can work against us. We still crave fat and sugar because those who craved them (at a time when our ancestors were usually hungry) caught more food and could support bigger brains. Now food is, for most of us, abundant we still have the cravings – and I, for one, have the waistline to demonstrate it. Evolution doesn’t do good – it does successful.
quote:What a comfortable life you must have led. I am absolutely sure that the person that chopped off this girl's hands during the Sierra Leone civil war sinned.
No you shouldn’t apologise for what you are if that you is the inevitable result of events beyond your control - though your need to apologise is, it seems, also beyond your control. Atheists (this one at least) sometimes do/does things that are ethically wrong, we also know that it is extremely unlikely that anyone has ever “sinned”. Not sure about the “no-life-in-us”; presumably this is jargon which those in the know will understand – as with much jargon it’s just silly when taken at face value.
quote:If you are only capable of sin because of the "luck of the draw," then you are only capable of virtue for the luck of the draw. Which I find very sad.
A lack of self-esteem seems to be closely allied with addictive behaviour. Misuse of mind-altering techniques, including supernatural belief, seems to thrive in people who need relief from their disdain for themselves. There, but for the luck of the draw, go I.
quote:I do not think the Milgram experiments demonstrate a vicious streak. Nor does even the Rwandan genocide. What they demonstrate is how our gregarious nature helped us be a successful species. In animals which live in groups, there will be a leadership structure. There will be followers. Most will be followers to some degree. Milgram took advantage of this need to follow, to be part of the structure. Many of the participants were not vicious, indeed they suffered whilst complying. The need to be part of the group subsumed personal reservations. This is part of the why of Rwanda, the Holocaust.
Originally posted by Jengie Jon:
Actually if you listen to some evolutionary psychologists they believe the vicious streak is there because it gave evolutionary advantage. In other words we survive because of it, not despite it.
Jengie
quote:How does this redeem human nature one jot? We're all so weak willed that our viciousness can become a community activity with a little leadership?
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
I do not think the Milgram experiments demonstrate a vicious streak. Nor does even the Rwandan genocide. What they demonstrate is how our gregarious nature helped us be a successful species. In animals which live in groups, there will be a leadership structure. There will be followers. Most will be followers to some degree. Milgram took advantage of this need to follow, to be part of the structure. Many of the participants were not vicious, indeed they suffered whilst complying. The need to be part of the group subsumed personal reservations. This is part of the why of Rwanda, the Holocaust.
quote:Seems like quite an excellent get-out clause to me.
Originally posted by Zach82:
I don't give myself points just because I feel bad for doing what I know I shouldn't, or because I'm too weak willed to do what's right.
quote:Can I throw out a concrete historical example of the complexity of original sin?
Originally posted by Boogie:
quote:Seems like quite an excellent get-out clause to me.
Originally posted by Zach82:
I don't give myself points just because I feel bad for doing what I know I shouldn't, or because I'm too weak willed to do what's right.
"I can't do what's right, it's my fallen human nature you know"
quote:Certainly, anyone who deludes him/herself into thinking that they have not done wrong, is very much mistaken, but I would not use the word 'sin', unless it could be detached from its association with religious overtones. There is wrong-doing, ranging from a very minor scale to the horrific, totally unacceptable.
Originally posted by Enoch:
quote:I'm a great deal more comfortable with those that say "all have sinned" than those who say 'only some have - those nasty people over there, the people who've done really bad things, but not me - I'm middle class and quite nice really'.
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
Okay, there are too many who do have a vicious streak, and that is deeply saddening, but nowhere near enough (fortunately) to threaten the survival of the human species.
quote:I'm afraid I don't know what
Even without theology, empirically, HPtFTU seems to fit what one sees in oneself and around about much better than any other explanation.
quote:Yes, it was probably the best explanation they could come up with at the time, and most people nowadays are well aware of the far better scientific version I think.
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
quote:
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
That's something of a sweeping statement isn't it? I think there must be a rapidly diminishing number of people who, with the knowledge available now, could still believe in the factual truth of Adam and Eve?
"Factual" is an interesting word, isn't it. I don't believe the creation story in Genesis is the literal truth, and I don't think it was ever intended to be - it is metaphor. But that doesn't make it untrue.
quote:Yes, I can see they can be taken as archetypes, but not as anything other than mythical characters. I do not accept that man is anything other than an evolved species with various genetic combinations which have produced various personality types.
Adam and Eve are archetypes used to explain the fallen, sinful nature of mankind.
quote:I think I'd avoid the use of the word factual here although I can't think of a better one just at the moment! Yes, it tells us about the nature of Man, but such things as 'the nature of God' are human ideas.
I'd describe it as factual, but not literal.
"Factual" because it's telling us true things about the nature of man, the nature of God, and the relationship between man and God.
quote:That sounds very sensible. I'm afraid I never read Jung or Freud; I think it's too late to start now.
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
The interesting thing is how this idea has been secularized, for example in various psychological ideas. Jung has the idea of the shadow side, which is rather similar, although I suppose he would argue that it must be integrated into the whole person. So it can be seen as a sort of disowned side of oneself.
quote:Not meaningless, no. We all know we have a variety of aspects to our personalities and have to learn to deal with them all, and it would be a head-in-sand attitude to not consider a wide range of ideas which must include those we do not agree with.
I can see that it's meaningless for atheists, but then one still has to deal with one's own negative or dark side, doesn't one?
quote:Read Spufford's book, folks. It's f*cking good.
HPtFTU is an abbreviation of a phrase used upthread, Human Propensity to Fuck Things Up
quote:Yes
Originally posted by Raptor Eye:
I can understand why some would not like to think that they are fallen. It sounds as if they're on the slippery slope!
, and the thing is the word fallen definitely indicates a starting point in a higher, or somehow idyllic, more perfectplace;.]quote:This next paragraph of mine sounds a bit dismissive and not polite but please forgive my leaving it as it is; nor is it intended to indicate that you thought the opposite.
I wonder about the story of the fall. Did humankind start off as perfect, so that it must aim to regain what it lost when the first people were deceived into thinking that they knew better than God? There are some who still do think they know better than God, so how will it ever be achieved, unless God comes to sift those out and put everything right?
quote:It is clear that there have been many, many wise and forward-thinking people who have worked to improve the lot of their fellows and whose wisdom has been perpetuated..
It surely wouldn't be fair to do that unless someone was sent first to make the way clear to everybody, would it?
Hmmm.
quote:Yes, but, putting aside the wishful thinking bit, biologically speaking, the human species is increasing. The number of those who maim, torture and kil others is proportionatelly smaller I suppose so there will never be a time when the majority will not have to maintain all efforts to protect others.
Originally posted by Bostonman:
There have been plenty of similar experiments (the Stanford Prison Experiment comes to mind), as well as the entire scope of human history. Were lynchings in the American South a large enough sample size? Was the Rwandan Genocide? The Holocaust? Or were these all just the result of bad eggs? Because the good eggs in the middle class were certainly going along with it.
quote:Yes, I was somewhat inaccurate there, but the degree of horrific killing is not on an equal basis with the good and peaceful behaviours, is it?
Nobody said it needs religious beliefs to make it so. You claimed in the original post that it is not true. Now you accept that it is true, ...
quote:I'm afraid it could well be so! But I find it difficult to keep perusing the whole thread, and of course, being a frail - but not 'fallen' - human being, I'll be making mistakes like that until I die!
...whether we believe in the facticity of Adam and Eve or not. I'm not sure how this sentence isn't a 180-degree turn in your view.
quote:Personally I'd be a little cautious with that formula (fallen nature), because to me it sounds a bit dualistic. Dualism has unfortunate pedigree in the church, but is not generally considered orthodox.
I'm not fallen but I also get things wrong and make mistakes. Is it a common Christian view that when you do bad things you have failed to rise above your fallen nature?
quote:No not hating it at all just having a hard time understanding it.
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
mark
Nice point there about effort. Yes, the idea of 'rising above' seems odd to me, bootstraps and so on. I would have thought that Paul is saying that we cannot do this - or to use his image, the law may well inform me of my transgressions, but cannot lift me above them.
So fallen, I cannot rise. But perhaps there is One who is raising me?
I suspect atheists will hate this, as many of them seem fiercely devoted to self-help?
quote:]
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
...how does someone get to the point (as in the Milgram experiments) where they are shouting "I'm killing him!" but are still pressing the damn button?
quote:I don't think you can separate one reason from another. Co-operation aided survival, and as there will always have been people with stronger characters than others codes of behaviour suggested or ordered by them came to be followed and eventually given the word labels, such as morals, we know.
Originally posted by Laurelin:
If evolution does successful rather than good - which seems obvious - then where did the higher notions of morality and altruism originate from? I've seen it argued that altruism developed because it benefits us. Amd yet upthread it was said that we have thrived on the evolution scale because of our vicious streak, not despite it.
quote:Not 'have to be' but there are many who are naturally so. The combination of different types furthered our survival, obviously.
Where does morality come into this, then? If we have to be vicious in order to survive, ...
quote:Not 'justifiable' but, in terms of human development, unavoidable, as it has not been naturally selected out.
And yet we are appalled, and rightly so, at the scale of the viciousness we are capable of. The Holocaust. The Rwandan genocide. Syria. How the hell is any of THAT remotely justifiable from an evolutionary point of view? The very notion is deeply repugnant.
quote:Thank you! My genetic make-up has made an optimist of me!
SusanDoris ... your view of human nature is more rosy and benign than other atheists/rationalists I have talked to. I once knew an atheist who declared that they thought the human race was so malign they wouldn't care if we were wiped from the earth. I found that a very bleak worldview. Because I think we are worth saving. I think God thinks that too.
If I met such angry-sounding atheists you speak of, I'd definitely try to instil some more positive thinking in them.quote:I do not find your Christian beliefs ridiculous. I grew up with a CofE as part of my life with an unquestioned belief in God. However, the more I read and learnt, the more
However ridiculous you may find my Christian beliefs, mine is not a worldview devoid of hope or of redemption.
quote:I'd think so - except talking about signs implies to me that the sign is important because it points to the thing that it's a sign of. Whereas the HPtFTU is important because it causes failures in relationship.
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
'We remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams'
Could it be said that our 'proper state' is in relationship with each other and God, and that it's our lack of relationship (via death, selfishness etc) with each other and God that's a sign of being fallen/having the HPtFTU?
quote:Firstly, why is the survival of the human species important? The survival of individual human beings is important; and the survival of our culture or our memories, etc. But why should anyone care about the species beyond the survival of its members? This goes double if you accept the standard atheist arguments that the absence of an individual afterlife isn't an evil. If the absence of personal survival for the individual isn't an evil, then failure of the species to survive cannot be an evil either on the same grounds.
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
Okay, there are too many who do have a vicious streak, and that is deeply saddening, but nowhere near enough (fortunately) to threaten the survival of the human species.
quote:I must say, that I find it rather surprising that you have reached this conclusion, given your optimistic views about the moral condition of the human race. Why would such noble creatures as humans indulge in such mass self-deception, while at the same time living lives of compassion and altruism?
Originally posted by SusanDoris
However, the more I read and learnt, the more I could see that all religious beliefs, all gods and spirits, are humanly created/imagined ideas.
quote:Well, if one thinks it's wrong to blame oneself for past wrongs one wouldn't see any evidence for a vicious streak in oneself, would one? That said, 'vicious' is a strong word in ordinary English usage: I'd prefer 'selfish' or 'arrogant'. Most people are from time to time arrogant in a way that has a negative effect on other people. To say that we took the action that seemed appropriate at the time and therefore shouldn't blame ourself seems a fine way to keep on making the same short-sighted mistakes. It sounds like a politician giving a non-apology.
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
I certainly do not think we all have a vicious streak or something; there isn't evidence for that is there. To spend time blaming oneself for past wrongs does not help. For a start, such wrongs cannot be changed, and surely we have evolved to be aware of our responsibility for our actions and, for most of us, to take that responsibility.
At the time, we took the action that seemed appropriate and it is only with hindsight that we perceive the snags.
quote:We are threatening our own survival. The extinction of a species has no moral component, the cause of extinction can.
Originally posted by Dafyd:
quote:Firstly, why is the survival of the human species important? The survival of individual human beings is important; and the survival of our culture or our memories, etc. But why should anyone care about the species beyond the survival of its members? This goes double if you accept the standard atheist arguments that the absence of an individual afterlife isn't an evil. If the absence of personal survival for the individual isn't an evil, then failure of the species to survive cannot be an evil either on the same grounds.
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
Okay, there are too many who do have a vicious streak, and that is deeply saddening, but nowhere near enough (fortunately) to threaten the survival of the human species.
Secondly, considering anthropogenic climate change and other environmental degradation, I'm not convinced that human beings aren't threatening the survival of the human species.
quote:You have your contrast adjusted improperly, there are infinite shades of grey. OS works only within certain parameters, it does not make absolute sense.
Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
Original sin might be a tough pill to swallow for some, but sometimes it absolutely makes sense.
quote:This is rubbish. Traits survive if they are positive or effectively neutral.
From the point of view of natural selection, the "God is a human construct" theory makes no sense. According to this viewpoint, the only reason anyone has ever thought or believed anything is in order to enhance his own survival
quote:Oh, blimey. EE, please try to read the following two Wiki articles for comprehension:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
A far more coherent theory is one which accepts that human thought is a response to objective reality, and this reality has a rational component. To locate the source of reason outside the human mind obviously has profound implications...
quote:Yes and no. I'm pretty much opposed to neo-liberalism as a political and economic philosophy. I think it's incompatible with Christian doctrine on several grounds, including underestimating both the human capacity for goodness and human capacity to not even achieve enlightened self-interest.
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
But on Radio 4, they weren't discussing what a good thing neo-liberalism is, but why it has all gone so horribly wrong. So, in my mind, I reasoned that it must be because so long as any political ideology uses humanism for it's core values, it will always fail, simply because such a concept of "innate human goodness" is wrong, and people just won't live up to it.
quote:
Everything should be kept as simple as possible, but no simpler.
quote:Well, that's one way of looking at it.
Originally posted by Zach82
This immediately puts religion at a disadvantage, for science only posits "the world," while religion posits "the world and God."
quote:There's your problem; your arguments do not display any of this.
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
[QB]
Answer: #1.
Intelligence.
quote:Irrational is accepting science only to a point then saying, Voila,! Magic
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
It does seem rather farcical that those who most vociferously claim to champion intelligence also reject intelligence as an explanation.
Weird. Not to mention totally irrational.
quote:It appears you do not understand Occam's Razor. It is about simpler hypotheses, it is an approach not a test of information; not an explanatory method.
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
Well, I used this thought experiment to show that we can interpret parsimony in different ways.
And by the way, who said that Occam's Razor has authority anyway, as an explanatory method? Given the sheer complexity of the universe, I would have thought that many things must have complex and convoluted explanations.
quote:Yes, me too. I'm not at all into 'the Devil made me do it' stuff.
If I do something wrong then generally I feel I only have myself to blame. And I have to own my mistake.
quote:Nearly - I'd agree entirely, except 'carried above' suggests a transcendence which might be permanent. In me, from bitter experience, I know I'll fail again and again. I might do better, but somehow it's going to take a long time and a lot more failure. Meanwhile, my remorse somehow finds comfort, whereas its lack just leaves me in the dark.
What you posted above makes it sounds like failure was inevitable and that you can't do any better on your own but must be carried above your own weakness by an external force.
quote:That's not it. I know I AM, utterly, responsible. I know I can't help it. I am saved from the crushing combination of those two facts by something extremely wierd, external, unexpected, undeserved, inexplicable. It stops my spirit being so crushed by fear and guilt, that even MORE HPtFTU is guaranteed. I am just-about rescued enough to try again, and just-about functional enough to have a chance of learning from the experience, and perhaps doing better in the normal human way.
Otherwise what's to stop a Christian from doing anything they want because they can't help it/are not responsible.
quote:I'd insult atheists differently, by saying their evident and (I'm not taking the piss) genuine morality shows adherence to a set of moral impulses which ultimately are not defendable from purely materialistic presuppositions. But you and I have been here before
(Amusingly enough atheists also get asked this question in reference to not having a God given moral code).
quote:Consider a ballbearing and an electron. A ballbearing is made up of unimaginably large numbers of electrons plus even more other particles. It is therefore vastly more complicated than the electron. An electron is, as far as we know, as simple as things get.
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
How is Occam's razor subjective?
quote:Picking up on that, they had been told not to eat that fruit, and were aware there would be consequences if they did. I guess there had to be the possibility for rebellion/rejection represented by that tree, though – in any true relationship, there will always be the element of choice. For example, no real relationship exists between me and my goldfish – they have absolutely no choice.
Getting back to the OP, what was the sin? If Adam and Eve didn't initially have knowledge of good and evil why blame them for disobeying God and eating the fruit?
quote:In a sense the explanation is disturbingly good. Kin selection is a real thing. The problem is the explanation destroys what it's looking at.
Originally posted by The Rhythm Methodist:
Yet conscience is one of those things which are pretty-much inexplicable in strictly evolutionary terms. There have been some rather lame attempts to explain it away, usually along the lines of it is somehow good for the community. But the reality is, there can be few things more incompatible with the survival of the fittest. [/QB]
quote:There's a difference between forgiveness and mercy. For example, only the victim of a crime can forgive the offender, but the court may show mercy. Though in the context of the OP it's more complicated. If sin is an offence against God, the deity is both complainant and judge.
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
Many thanks for all the responses; much appreciated.
quote:Yes, agreed; but I would take that as forgiveness by the person one has wronged, also forgiveness of oneself if one knows one has done all that one could to right a wrong; not forgiveness by any god.
Any guilt/confession/forgiveness needs to be for things we do wrong, or things we fail to do - definitely not for who we are.
quote:Originally posted by Zach82:
If evolution does successful rather than good - which seems obvious - then where did the higher notions of morality and altruism originate from? I've seen it argued that altruism developed because it benefits us. Amd yet upthread it was said that we have thrived on the evolution scale because of our vicious streak, not despite it. Where does morality come into this, then? If we have to be vicious in order to survive, to have come as far as we have, why then put a moral angle on the viciousness?
I suspect that your error is in supposing that morality and a vicious streak are mutually incompatible. Homo sapiens did not develop within an either/or environment – most of our history has been that of small groups (recently estimated at splitting when the group reached c. 150 members as still occurs in some societies). Within the group morality could have clear survival benefits whilst being nice to another tribe could mean rapid death. (Simplistic but valid)
quote:
What a comfortable life you must have led. I am absolutely sure that the person that chopped off this girl's hands during the Sierra Leone civil war sinned. A sin is an act which you believe contrary to the wishes of your version of a (presumably) omnipotent, omnipresent being who is impervious to human aggression, well able to look after itself and having a track record of vicious, vindictive, vengeful violence.
Definition of sin
noun
• an immoral act considered to be a transgression against divine law
Atheists don’t believe in a god or gods – it follows that they don’t accept the concept of “transgression against divine law”
All such acts of abominable wickedness, particularly against the weak and defenceless, deserve total condemnation – they don’t need trivialising by invoking unnecessary hypotheses.
“The doctrine of original sin is the only empirically verifiable doctrine of the Christian faith," as Reinhold Niebuhr claims.
Definition of empirical
adjective
• based on, concerned with, or verifiable by observation or experience rather than theory or pure logic
If that’s what he said I’d like to know what observation or experience led him to make such a daft statement.
quote:If you are only capable of sin because of the "luck of the draw," then you are only capable of virtue for the luck of the draw. Which I find very sad.
A lack of self-esteem seems to be closely allied with addictive behaviour. Misuse of mind-altering techniques, including supernatural belief, seems to thrive in people who need relief from their disdain for themselves. There, but for the luck of the draw, go I.
1 – i’m only capable of sin if there’s a divinity to be sinned against – and I can’t find any good reason to think that there is.
2 - I am fortunate that my genetic inheritance and my experiences meant that my addictive personality never got past cigarettes and matured into a character that was able to reject 40-a-day. Others have personalities that are more intransigent to modification. Neither they nor I chose our parentage, nor the early experiences which build upon that inheritance (the luck of the draw).
“ only capable of virtue for the luck of the draw. Which I find very sad”. My immediate reaction was to reject the idea – I want to think that I can control my own life – unfortunately the experimental evidence is pretty solid. Free will is a story we tell ourselves – the treat which sweetens the bitter pill that we do what our unconscious dictates
quote:Originally posted by Dafyd:
How does this redeem human nature one jot?
Human nature is not a book of Green Shield stamps – it does not need redemption. People’s attitudes to others will only improve if they perceive that it will benefit them to do so. Sorry but that’s how it works – you’re a christian because, on balance, you think it benefits you to be one whilst I’m an atheist because I think that, on balance, being an atheist benefits me. In both cases the decision is made in our unconscious – the reasons we think apply are the pill sweeteners. Scaring people with stories of eternal damnation may have been effective to some degree in the past – to many it just seems ridiculous now; we need to move on from the imaginary “big stick” and develop a testable “carrot”.
quote:
Firstly, why is the survival of the human species important? Just as a hen is just the egg’s way of making more eggs so we are just our genetic material’s way of making more genetic material. Some people find that demeaning - tough
quote:This is a wrong way of looking at it. Your being cognizant is irrelevant. Animals which did not priorities kin section did not spread their genes.
Originally posted by Jay-Emm:
Kin selection is a real thing. The problem is the explanation destroys what it's looking at.
You've got no reason to follow it. Why should I care if my genes get passed down if I get the hormonal high of [].
quote:I think it was Origen that suggested that the reason for the Fall was that Adam and Eve allowed themselves to be dissatisfied. Their love "waxed cool" thus, opening themselves to easy prey by the deceiver.
Originally posted by Gramps49:
"Fallen" as if we had a little slip and have never been able to get up.
No what actually happened was an outright rebellion, a rebellion that continues every day in everyone, one way or other. Paul speaks of this rebellion in4 Romans 7
I especially like his conclusion: who can save me from this rebellion? Thanks be to God through Jesus Christ.
quote:Every time this subject comes up, there's some shipmate who implies that, were it not for the fear of Hellfire instilled by regular church attendance, he (it always seems to be "he") would make Caligula look like Mother Teresa. Then he, most likely, gets up and goes to feed the cat, ask his wife how her day was, kiss the children goodnight, and otherwise behave like a perfectly decent human being.
Originally posted by Zach82:
I think we need to apologize for who we are, insofar as pretty much all of us are vicious, selfish, miserable sinners with no life in us- atheists and non-Abrahamic believers included.
quote:That's the point, it's a good explanation of why I might have some nerve twitchings I call guilt or justice.
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:This is a wrong way of looking at it. Your being cognizant is irrelevant. Animals which did not priorities kin section did not spread their genes.
Originally posted by Jay-Emm:
[In a sense it's a distirbingly good explaination]
Kin selection is a real thing. The problem is the explanation destroys what it's looking at.
You've got no reason to follow it. Why should I care if my genes get passed down if I get the hormonal high of [].
quote:Yes and yes.
Originally posted by Timothy the Obscure:
Most people, most of the time, try to do the right thing, try to be honest and kind. Most failures in this regard are due to laziness and cowardice, not visciousness. I'm not naive about the possibilities--I talk to murderers five days a week, and I could tell you stories of abuse that would curl your hair--but the idea that humans (even a lot of murderers) are basically monsters is a perverse fantasy.
If you take the fall as myth ("what always happens") you realize that we are always falling, always being redeemed--like the world. It's not an event, it's a process, with no fixed beginning (except maybe the point at which our ancestors evolved the cognitive capacity for moral responsibility) and no end.
quote:You may well be right, but I must say I don't remember ever reading that in any Humanistinfo.
Originally posted by Mark Betts:
I thought to myself that deregularization must rely on the innate "goodness" of human nature, which is the heart and soul of humanism.
quote:Which political ideology are you thinking of?
....political ideology uses humanism for it's core values, it will always fail, simply because such a concept of "innate human goodness" is wrong, and people just won't live up to it. Why? Because we ARE fallen.
quote:This is probably the single most accessible post of yours I've ever read. Thank you for putting it so well.
Originally posted by Dafyd:
quote:Consider a ballbearing and an electron. A ballbearing is made up of unimaginably large numbers of electrons plus even more other particles. It is therefore vastly more complicated than the electron. An electron is, as far as we know, as simple as things get.
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
How is Occam's razor subjective?
The motion of a ballbearing in a field of force is much easier to describe than the motion of an electron. As indeed is most of the ballbearing's behaviour.
Basically, whether something appears simple to us is a function of our cognitive equipment as much as its intrinsic nature. (The meaning of the word 'simple' is not simple: it exists in the space between several definite meanings but does not quite ever mean any of them.)
quote:I’m afraid your case is not the least bit rested- it’s been up all night tossing and turning on a mattress full of rocks and rusty nails after an enormous curry supper.
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
Answer: #1.
Intelligence.
I rest my case.
quote:I do not think there is an objective reason; it has happened because our evolution has enabled us to do so. Any importance attached to it is entirely a human idea.
Originally posted by Dafyd:
quote:Firstly, why is the survival of the human species important?
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
Okay, there are too many who do have a vicious streak, and that is deeply saddening, but nowhere near enough (fortunately) to threaten the survival of the human species.
quote:Yes, but that is true only for humans; there isn't another species which can pose the question, or consider its own importance, is there
The survival of individual human beings is important; and the survival of our culture or our memories, etc. ...
quote:Agree - it's neither an evil nor a good. The absence of me after I die is of no importance; I will just have been one member of a species hugely lucky enough to have lived, and, I hope, made the most of my time here. Having an optimistic set of genes, I think I am very lucky that I do not find the idea of the failure of the species depressing. And I've read that over several times and it doesn't sound quite right, I'm afraid but will leave it if you don't mind.
But why should anyone care about the species beyond the survival of its members? This goes double if you accept the standard atheist arguments that the absence of an individual afterlife isn't an evil. If the absence of personal survival for the individual isn't an evil, then failure of the species to survive cannot be an evil either on the same grounds.
quote:You're right, I'm sure, but at the same time the instinct for survival will work something out, especially if things became really dire.
Secondly, considering anthropogenic climate change and other environmental degradation, I'm not convinced that human beings aren't threatening the survival of the human species.
quote:So? Why should we give a stuff about our genetic material? Why should Frankenstein's monster give a stuff about Frankenstein? Even Richard Dawkins proclaims our ability to rise above the tyranny of our genes.
Originally posted by Dafyd:
quote:Just as a hen is just the egg’s way of making more eggs so we are just our genetic material’s way of making more genetic material. Some people find that demeaning - tough
Firstly, why is the survival of the human species important?
quote:and
I know I AM, utterly, responsible. I know I can't help it.
quote:Is sin unavoidable or isn't it?
What made it inevitable.
quote:Would you like to read the previous posts to find out what the conversation is about before you jump in next time please?
Originally posted by Yorick:
Oh, please, Dafyd. You're rubbish at disingenuousness. You know full well that it's nothing to do with people caring about their genes and everything to do with orgasming feeling nice.
quote:In traditional orthodox Christian theology the answer by the way is not 'intelligence'. At least, not in the sense we normally understand it. The argument from design is a deist argument.
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
Whence intelligence?
quote:I would defer here to an explanation by an Evolutionary Biologist I think. If the universe, or a species on another planet, were to consider the human and other species, the conclusion might be that it was a fortunate accident that humans were far better at adapting the environment to suit themselves than other species, but why would they consider us 'noble'?
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
Why would such noble creatures as humans indulge in such mass self-deception, while at the same time living lives of compassion and altruism?
quote:I don't know if the answer is ignorance, but I would certainly say that there never has been a god available to anyone ever..
I suppose the standard answer will be "because of ignorance". But that simply will not do, because if your empirically based methodology is correct, then God was no more available to the billions throughout history who have believed in Him, than to the most sceptical rationalist today.
quote:I don't think in terms of nobility, but would uphold the idea that humans have achieved, with their evolved skills, all that they have on their own. No god.
If you then argue: "human weakness and fear", then you call into question the very nobility of humans that you are trying to uphold.
quote:No there was never a decision to gain such and such a goal, since knowledge of any future state of our species' progress, or survival could not be known before it was reached. Species adapt to changing conditions, or become extinct.
From the point of view of natural selection, the "God is a human construct" theory makes no sense. According to this viewpoint, the only reason anyone has ever thought or believed anything is in order to enhance his own survival, ...
quote:That sounds as if it's fright (oh dear!
...because reason itself is merely another function of the human organism, which needs to be explained within the limits of the naturalistic theory of origins. Billions have believed in God, and thus this belief has utility in terms of natural selection.
) , but I'm sure there must be an atheistic flaw there somewhere! quote:I've listened to that several times and I think I agree.
If theism is merely a human construct, then so is atheism. In fact, within the philosophy of naturalism, all thoughts are merely human constructs, because the human brain is considered to be the source of reason itself. What we receive from outside the brain are merely sensations, which can only be ordered by means of an internal reason.
quote:But don't agree here, because there is no need for a rational, objective something.
A far more coherent theory is one which accepts that human thought is a response to objective reality, and this reality has a rational component. To locate the source of reason outside the human mind obviously has profound implications...
quote:I think it's more a case not so much of blaming oneself, but of not wasting time on regrets for something that cannot be changed rather than taking action to try to correct the wrong that was done.
Originally posted by Dafyd:
Well, if one thinks it's wrong to blame oneself for past wrongs one wouldn't see any evidence for a vicious streak in oneself, would one?
quote:Yes, I'm afraid so.
Now either all of that is down to a small minority who are completely unlike the rest of us; or else most human beings are able to be selfish and arrogant even beyond their best interests.
quote:Yes, I think I have a very active conscience!
Picking up on that, they had been told not to eat that fruit, and were aware there would be consequences if they did.
quote:The comparison, reason: animal nature :: rulers: ruled is very deeply embedded in Western culture at least since Plato. And so I am suspicious of this way of thinking. (See Dawkins' chronic elitism for an obvious modern symptom of the underlying syndrome.)
Originally posted by Justinian:
And it's not the Human Tendency To Fuck Things Up. It's the Animal Tendency To Fuck Things Up - despite it all we are still animals. Our only advantage this way is that we can sometimes predict the fuck-ups coming before they reach our senses.
quote:I'm also puzzled as to how animals fuck things up, since fucking things up is a human meaning, concerning humans, isn't it? I mean, it's not a description of things, but meanings or experiences, isn't it?
Originally posted by Dafyd:
quote:The comparison, reason: animal nature :: rulers: ruled is very deeply embedded in Western culture at least since Plato. And so I am suspicious of this way of thinking. (See Dawkins' chronic elitism for an obvious modern symptom of the underlying syndrome.)
Originally posted by Justinian:
And it's not the Human Tendency To Fuck Things Up. It's the Animal Tendency To Fuck Things Up - despite it all we are still animals. Our only advantage this way is that we can sometimes predict the fuck-ups coming before they reach our senses.
(It has been argued that all psychologies or anthropologies are fundamentally political allegories. I'm not sure I'd go that far, but it's a lot easier to have an anthropology and policy that symbolise each other than to have two that clash.)
The fundamental point of Augustinian versions of sinfulness is that they place the seat of moral wrongdoing in what is unique to humanity. It undermines that basic ideology of rulership. Calvinism, or hyper-Augustianism, has many problems, but of the available ideologies in Europe it's had the least cosy relationships with the various despotisms.
quote:Laurelin
Actually if you listen to some evolutionary psychologists they believe the vicious streak is there because it gave evolutionary advantage. In other words we survive because of it, not despite it.
quote:I agree with the evolutionary biologists that our selfish behaviour is rooted in the process of natural selection, but that is only part of the picture because consciousness has rendered our innate selfishness potentially destructive both of ourselves as individuals and the societies in which we live. The fallacies of Social Darwinism and their application illustrate the point. It could, therefore, be argued that the development of consciousness was associated with the development of a belief that many actions are not morally neutral, and that a desire to “be good”, however defined, is a necessity from the viewpoint of natural selection.
If evolution does successful rather than good - which seems obvious - then where did the higher notions of morality and altruism originate from? I've seen it argued that altruism developed because it benefits us. Amd yet upthread it was said that we have thrived on the evolution scale because of our vicious streak, not despite it. Where does morality come into this, then? If we have to be vicious in order to survive, to have come as far as we have, why then put a moral angle on the viciousness?
And yet we are appalled, and rightly so, at the scale of the viciousness we are capable of. The Holocaust. The Rwandan genocide. Syria. How the hell is any of THAT remotely justifiable from an evolutionary point of view? The very notion is deeply repugnant.
quote:So? Why should we give a stuff about our genetic material? Why should Frankenstein's monster give a stuff about Frankenstein? Even Richard Dawkins proclaims our ability to rise above the tyranny of our genes.
Originally posted by Dafyd:
quote:Just as a hen is just the egg’s way of making more eggs so we are just our genetic material’s way of making more genetic material. Some people find that demeaning - tough
Firstly, why is the survival of the human species important?
quote:Yet he did.
Dafyd: Why should Frankenstein's monster give a stuff about Frankenstein?
quote:You're confusing the question why do people care about the survival of the species with the question why should people care about the survival of the species.
Originally posted by HughWillRidmee:
[QUOTE] Originally posted by Dafyd:
So? Why should we give a stuff about our genetic material? Why should Frankenstein's monster give a stuff about Frankenstein? Even Richard Dawkins proclaims our ability to rise above the tyranny of our genes.
At another level (call it mental for simplicity) we have evolved a set of automatic reactions which lead to a desire to reproduce.
quote:No, I haven't ever heard an audience erupt because their attention is drawn to a woman with seventeen grandchildren. Happen a lot where you live?
We have an unconcious wish to beat death by passing our genes through future generations (ever heard an audience erupt because their attention is drawn to a woman with seventeen grandchildren)
quote:That's absurdly over-literal.
Frankenstein’s monster is a character in a book – surely you don’t expect a character in a book to have feelings; on the other hand – maybe you do.
quote:Yes, that's the quote.
Re Richard Dawkins - are you referring to “We, alone on earth, can rebel against the tyranny of the selfish replicators.”? It’s not the wording you use but it’s all I can find at a quick search. Without the context I’m unsure what he means but, in isolation, it suggests that no other animal is capable of recognising either the fact of genes or the roles they perform; which would be a different interpretation to your post.
quote:One modern view of original sin is that at some point along the evolutionary process, humans developed a conscience. You could say theologically, that that point is what God created a soul for the emerging human being. At that point, humans could rationally decide if something is good or bad. Once free will emerged, humans had responsibility.
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I think one of the problems with the fall is the temporal aspect. Once there was purity, then besmirched.
It's the sequence that's difficult, since many people have difficulty in imagining the first state, except of course, those Christians who accept a literal Adam and Eve. Or some people conceive of the innocence of a child, born into a naughty world.
But if you telescope it, then you have the human duality - or one of them - as Paul says, I do not do what I want, but what I hate (rough paraphrase).
This was secularized by Freud, amongst others, to say that it's the unconsciousness of my evil desires which lets me down - make them conscious, don't act them out.
I suppose the difference is that the religious argue that this can only be done with God's help, not via human effort; Freud disagrees.
quote:Yet oddly enough many , like myself, look back on our childhoods with a degree of regret as that was the time we either thought or did wickedness .
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Yes, I think that's interesting, as both children and animals are (relatively) unconscious, therefore, we tend not to accuse them of crimes and so on.
quote:Another reason I'm not an atheist - take it to its logical conclusion and you start talking like a right miserable old sod.
Originally posted by Justinian:
We are not fallen anything. What we are is animals with a chance.
Speak for yourself mate
The closest to perfect a human can get is dead. That's when we stop turning food into shit, when we stop breathing a highly reactive gas, and when we stop growing. Growth is very different from perfection.
quote:Because it is different. Small children are not merely un programmed adults. There is behaviour that is literally grown out of as well as taught/experienced out.
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Yes, there seems to be a paradox about childhood, since we are often nakedly cruel, envious, selfish, and so on, in infancy. I suppose all of this seems unconscious, so we set about educating them in how to treat others better. So when little Jimmy jams his elbow into his little sister's face, our response is quite complicated - we tell him not to, or express annoyance, yet we see it differently from a similar adult action.
quote:Interesting thought; perfection ahead!
Originally posted by Truman White:
The closest to perfect a human can get is dead.
However, I wonder how people would define perfection, or a perfect person. Anyone who never made a mistake would be so cloyingly good-goody that you'd want to spend only a very short time in his/her company! Perhaps this should be a new topic, but I think it would be such a short one that perhaps there is space for it here!.
quote:An argument from consequences? When it comes to philosophies being warped by the powerful to support themselves, in my experience there are precisely three camps.
Originally posted by Dafyd:
The comparison, reason: animal nature :: rulers: ruled is very deeply embedded in Western culture at least since Plato. And so I am suspicious of this way of thinking. (See Dawkins' chronic elitism for an obvious modern symptom of the underlying syndrome.)
quote:In short the fundamental point of Augustinian versions of sinfulness is directly and intentionally political? And they deliberately ignore the facts on the ground in favour of political ends? Is my summary there accurate?
The fundamental point of Augustinian versions of sinfulness is that they place the seat of moral wrongdoing in what is unique to humanity. It undermines that basic ideology of rulership. Calvinism, or hyper-Augustianism, has many problems, but of the available ideologies in Europe it's had the least cosy relationships with the various despotisms.
quote:Or we can look round at the beauty man has wrought. Pick an art gallery. Every single painting in it is imperfect. Even the beautiful ones. I'm preaching a doctrine that says we can grow and explore - and I'm called misreable for it? To me, gloomy is the notion that we will always be held to an impossible standard by the Great Architect of the Universe who managed to make a few mistakes when making this universe. Rather than the notion that we ourselves can improve things.
Originally posted by Truman White:
quote:Another reason I'm not an atheist - take it to its logical conclusion and you start talking like a right miserable old sod.
Originally posted by Justinian:
[qb] The closest to perfect a human can get is dead. That's when we stop turning food into shit, when we stop breathing a highly reactive gas, and when we stop growing. Growth is very different from perfection.
quote:Ah, the humanocentricism.
Sure, there's a naturalistic dimension to this (no-one pollutes the planet like us humans)
quote:Of course Paul had something else in mind. That's because he was explicitely an evangelist. And selling people that they are sick so they can sell them the cure is textbook.
but when Paul talked about the ' whole world groaning in the pains of childbirth waiting for sons of God to be revealed' I reckon he had something else in mind other than population explosions, pollution, over-fishing, urrbanisarion and a couple of global wars.
quote:So does what I stated. We think there's something wrong with the world because we evolved as hunter gatherers in small tribes.
Christianity gives us a good explanation, not only of why the world is why it is, but also why we think there's something wrong with it.
quote:I partially disagree. Most people are compassionate and decent to those of our own that appear within reach of our own senses. But we only have eyes and ears that reach so far. It's hard to know more than a hundred people - fifty million (or three hundred million) is just a statistic.
Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
I think most of us agree that most people are compassionate and decent.
quote:This sounds like the sort of Puritan thinking that makes hell sound a more attractive place than heaven, because everyone who knows how to have a good time will have been sent down...
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
I wonder how people would define perfection, or a perfect person. Anyone who never made a mistake would be so cloyingly good-goody that you'd want to spend only a very short time in his/her company!
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
quote:You're confusing the question why do people care about the survival of the species with the question why should people care about the survival of the species. In my experience the phrase “why should we” (give a stuff) can mean either “why do we” or "why ought we to” I mistakenly assumed you meant the former. I don’t think that people ought, in isolation, to care about the survival of the species – I think the fact they have no option but to do so – albeit sometimes that need is expressed in a narrow way and sometimes a wider one – removes the option of “ought to”
Originally posted by HughWillRidmee:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
So? Why should we give a stuff about our genetic material? Why should Frankenstein's monster give a stuff about Frankenstein? Even Richard Dawkins proclaims our ability to rise above the tyranny of our genes.
At another level (call it mental for simplicity) we have evolved a set of automatic reactions which lead to a desire to reproduce.
The desire to reproduce is logically distinct from the desire that the species survive. (A small group of animals washed ashore on an isolated island may have descendants that form a new species: in which case, they're reproduced without furthering survival of their own species. Iguanas don’t consider their species’ needs - but they are furthering the survival of their group by being part of its development to meet new challenges, which may eventually lead to a group which cannot successfully interbreed with those they evolved from. Contrariwise, the species can survive without any given member reproducing.) clearly - the massive amount of frog spawn in my pond may result in one survivor from that wriggling mass reproducing next spring: but were ten to survive they would all attempt to procreate.
You're talking as if everyone wants to reproduce. The evidence is that not everyone does so. given - we know that experience can sometimes over-ride inherited behaviour Or cares about other things more. Yes - people have different value systems There's nothing particularly just because we desire to reproduce doesn't mean that we don't desire other things more. ??? Consider a woman who would rather have a career than children. and consider the many more who try to combine both Or more importantly, consider an oil executive who wants to earn lots of money and doesn't care what happens to the world after his death. Some of those who appear not to care use christianity to justify their disdain You're not going to persuade him to change his ways by saying that he has an unconscious wish to perpetuate his genetic material; either he doesn't, or else in him the unconscious wish takes the form of earning money. I’m not trying to persuade him of anything. Why does he want to earn money? Is it because he perceives (unconsciously perhaps) that having money leads to more opportunities for sexual behaviour? Why do people buy status symbols? A Rolls Royce on Jersey is a ridiculous means of getting about – but there were quite a few around when I last visited.
Christianity seems to encourage certainty/those who crave certainty. Redemption or Damnation - Heaven or Hell - Saved or Unsaved. In real life there is shading.
quote:
We have an unconcious wish to beat death by passing our genes through future generations (ever heard an audience erupt because their attention is drawn to a woman with seventeen grandchildren)No, I haven't ever heard an audience erupt because their attention is drawn to a woman with seventeen grandchildren. Happen a lot where you live? I recall it several times when I had nothing better to do with my time than watch Michael Barrymore working an audience What did they erupt with? Envy? Resentment? Because if the eruption were a result of an unconscious wish to pass on genetic inheritance, a rival's success wouldn't provoke any positive feelings. Clapping, cheering and hollering as though the fact of being a serial grandmother was worthy of acclamation. Actually, some people would see that serial grandmother as a success, as a role model (she has probably secured a comparatively comfortable old-age has she not?) and therefore would have a positive reaction and want to associate with her success. Then there are people who are so competitive that they hate it every time their shadow beats them to the exit.
quote:
Frankenstein’s monster is a character in a book – surely you don’t expect a character in a book to have feelings; on the other hand – maybe you do.That's absurdly over-literal. I failed to understand why you thought the introduction of Frankenstein was relevant - I still do.
quote:
Re Richard Dawkins - are you referring to “We, alone on earth, can rebel against the tyranny of the selfish replicators.”? It’s not the wording you use but it’s all I can find at a quick search. Without the context I’m unsure what he means but, in isolation, it suggests that no other animal is capable of recognising either the fact of genes or the roles they perform; which would be a different interpretation to your post.Yes, that's the quote.
In what way can 'rebel against the tyranny of X' mean merely 'recognise that X exists'?
The Pope's private secretary recognises the fact of the Pope and the function he performs, but we'd hardly describe him on that ground as rebelling against the tyranny of the Pope. But if he recognises the Pope he has the possibility of choosing to rebel – if he doesn’t know that the Pope exists he doesn’t have that option does he? Do you think that any species other than homo sapiens has the knowledge of its genes' existence, let alone how they use us?
quote:The problem of binary logic in classical philosophy - either humankind is by nature good (in which case children must be born pure and perfect before being corrupted by experience) or by nature bad (in which case children are born criminal and have to be educated out of it). Neither of which remotely approaches an adequate description.
Originally posted by George Spigot:
There's something unwholesome and desperately sad about a viewpoint that says children are fallen, spoiled, have "sin" in their hearts and need to be redeemed from corruption.
quote:
Originally posted by HughWillRidmee:
I don’t think that people ought, in isolation, to care about the survival of the species – I think the fact they have no option but to do so – albeit sometimes that need is expressed in a narrow way and sometimes a wider one – removes the option of “ought to”
quote:Experience override any inherited behaviour that cares about the survival of the species, and therefore doesn't remove the option of 'ought to'.
given - we know that experience can sometimes over-ride inherited behaviour
quote:Precisely three? Not three and a fifth? Not 2.97? Precisely three?
Originally posted by Justinian:
quote:An argument from consequences? When it comes to philosophies being warped by the powerful to support themselves, in my experience there are precisely three camps.
Originally posted by Dafyd:
The comparison, reason: animal nature :: rulers: ruled is very deeply embedded in Western culture at least since Plato. And so I am suspicious of this way of thinking.
quote:The point of ideology is that it can be promulgated by people who aren't intentionally pro-ideology. Because they don't recognise that they're unconsciously supporting the dominant ideology even as they try to oppose it at a superficial level. So my contention is that equating the Human Tendency to Fuck up with the Animal Tendency to Fuck up was in its origins a pro-powerful ideology. And it hasn't cut off from its origins: it still supports a pro-powerful ideology regardless of the overt commitments of the people who express it.
1: Philosophies that are intentionally pro-powerful. (Objectivism springs to mind).
quote:I would contend that anything that isn't 3 automatically falls into 2. Because people will decide that armageddon is upon us as soon as it suits them.
2: Philosophies that can and will be warped however benign they were by intent. (and thereby allow the powerful and corrupt to go on longer).
3: Fanatical and inhuman philosophies that essentially preach "No compromise, even in the face of armageddon".
quote:What do you mean by intentionally here? Are you attributing full transparency of motives to everyone who expresses any kind of ideology? Surely not.
quote:In short the fundamental point of Augustinian versions of sinfulness is directly and intentionally political? And they deliberately ignore the facts on the ground in favour of political ends? Is my summary there accurate?
The fundamental point of Augustinian versions of sinfulness is that they place the seat of moral wrongdoing in what is unique to humanity. It undermines that basic ideology of rulership. Calvinism, or hyper-Augustianism, has many problems, but of the available ideologies in Europe it's had the least cosy relationships with the various despotisms.
quote:Could you clarify please?
Originally posted by Dafyd:
Experience override any inherited behaviour that cares about the survival of the species, and therefore doesn't remove the option of 'ought to'.
quote:The two passages that I quoted from your post contradict each other.
Originally posted by HughWillRidmee:
Could you clarify please?
quote:That's a category error. Whether a philosophy claims it can be warped doesn't say whether it can or not.
Originally posted by Dafyd:
In my experience human philosophies cannot be precisely categorised, and anyone who tries is selling themselves something.
Your camps are sufficiently vague that they could potentially cover any philosophy. Was that your intention? Because if not, you missed:
4: Philosophies that claim they cannot be warped by the powerful to support themselves.
quote:And I'm asking what your criticism here has to do with the price of tea in China. Or anything else. It's purely a consequence-based argument that doesn't take into account anything about the way things get fucked up or anything other than an indirect outcome of the philosophy.
The point of ideology is that it can be promulgated by people who aren't intentionally pro-ideology. Because they don't recognise that they're unconsciously supporting the dominant ideology even as they try to oppose it at a superficial level. So my contention is that equating the Human Tendency to Fuck up with the Animal Tendency to Fuck up was in its origins a pro-powerful ideology.
quote:I trust you reject monotheism on these grounds. And Christianity. After all, Christianity has demonstrably supported the powerful and still does. This is not a solid argument - it's simply a slippery slope argument. And one I'm pretty sure you only very selectively apply.
And it hasn't cut off from its origins: it still supports a pro-powerful ideology regardless of the overt commitments of the people who express it.
quote:Bollocks. Neo-liberalism is an economic system about the allocation of resources.
So not an argument from consequences, exactly. Anymore than arguing against neo-liberalism on the ground that it produces wide inequalities is an argument from consequences.
quote:Oh, indeed. And that is how my three categories work. And why your "precisely three" snarking cuts no ice.
I would contend that anything that isn't 3 automatically falls into 2. Because people will decide that armageddon is upon us as soon as it suits them.
quote:I mean that you literally are not engaging with the premise - that we are animals. Your only argument presented is "That might lead to bad conclusions." Which leads to the idea that truth is utterly irrelevant to your value scale - and you are starting with the outcome you desire and working backwards to the premise.
quote:What do you mean by intentionally here? Are you attributing full transparency of motives to everyone who expresses any kind of ideology? Surely not.
quote:In short the fundamental point of Augustinian versions of sinfulness is directly and intentionally political? And they deliberately ignore the facts on the ground in favour of political ends? Is my summary there accurate?
The fundamental point of Augustinian versions of sinfulness is that they place the seat of moral wrongdoing in what is unique to humanity. It undermines that basic ideology of rulership. Calvinism, or hyper-Augustianism, has many problems, but of the available ideologies in Europe it's had the least cosy relationships with the various despotisms.
quote:A cat gets stuck up a tree that's too far for it to jump down and it can't climb down because its claws curl the wrong way - and this isn't a fuck up. (Few cats know they can climb down backwards). Goats eat the roots and shoots, thus destroying their own food supply - and this isn'[t a fuck up. A mouse doesn't scurry down its hole fast enough and is caught by a cat to be played with mercilessly before being eaten - and this isn't a fuck up.
For example, as quetzalcoatl points out in his post, attributing fuck ups to animals is an attribution of a human meaning that does not directly arise out of the facts.
quote:Many animals don't have the intelligence. What makes human stupidity so frustrating, is that at some level we do know better, either individually (St Paul - the good that I wish to do I do not) or collectively.
Originally posted by Justinian:
Demonstrate how the human tendency to fuck up is in most cases actively different from the ways animals fuck up and you might have a point.
quote:And lemmings breed to numbers in excess of the food supply.
Goats eat the roots and shoots, thus destroying their own food supply
quote:I haven't been here for ages, but IMO this comment deserves the
Originally posted by Zach82:
quote:I think there is quite abundant evidence that it is there.
I certainly do not think we all have a vicious streak or something; there isn't evidence for that is there.
of the decade....
quote:Whether the Pope claims to be infallible doesn't say whether he is any more fallible than anyone else?
Originally posted by Justinian:
quote:That's a category error. Whether a philosophy claims it can be warped doesn't say whether it can or not.
Originally posted by Dafyd:
4: Philosophies that claim they cannot be warped by the powerful to support themselves.
quote:As judging a philosophy by its consequences is about the closest we come to an experimental method, I'm not inclined to concede more than half the point. Or that starting with the outcome one desires is more than half wrong.
And I'm asking what your criticism here has to do with the price of tea in China. Or anything else. It's purely a consequence-based argument that doesn't take into account anything about the way things get fucked up or anything other than an indirect outcome of the philosophy.
Demonstrate how the human tendency to fuck up is in most cases actively different from the ways animals fuck up and you might have a point.
quote:I do in fact think that being too useful to those in power is a reason for rejecting deism and other forms of simple monotheism.
quote:I trust you reject monotheism on these grounds. And Christianity. After all, Christianity has demonstrably supported the powerful and still does.
And it hasn't cut off from its origins: it still supports a pro-powerful ideology regardless of the overt commitments of the people who express it.
quote:Not according to either the OED or wikipedia. (Wikipedia: "Neo-liberalism is a political philosophy...")
quote:Bollocks. Neo-liberalism is an economic system about the allocation of resources.
So not an argument from consequences, exactly. Anymore than arguing against neo-liberalism on the ground that it produces wide inequalities is an argument from consequences.
quote:In other words, your second category was a catch-all category that really meant: any reason not covered in one or three. It was a weasel-hole: a get-out clause in an apparently definite contention that allows retreat to a vacuous because tautologous position if challenged. It deserved all the snark it got.
quote:Oh, indeed. And that is how my three categories work. And why your "precisely three" snarking cuts no ice.
I would contend that anything that isn't 3 automatically falls into 2. Because people will decide that armageddon is upon us as soon as it suits them.
quote:The premise was that we are animals with 'advantages over other animals' that give us a chance. I'm disputing the bit about attributing fuck-ups to the 'animals' rather than to the 'advantages'.
I mean that you literally are not engaging with the premise - that we are animals. Your only argument presented is "That might lead to bad conclusions." Which leads to the idea that truth is utterly irrelevant to your value scale - and you are starting with the outcome you desire and working backwards to the premise.
quote:Fuck-up was introduced in this thread as a redescription of 'sin'. None of the above could be described as even a moral error. (I'll leave to one side the question of whether 'sin' and 'moral error' have different denotations.) So I think it's fair to say that none of the above are fuck-ups in the sense intended.
quote:A cat gets stuck up a tree that's too far for it to jump down and it can't climb down because its claws curl the wrong way - and this isn't a fuck up. (Few cats know they can climb down backwards). Goats eat the roots and shoots, thus destroying their own food supply - and this isn'[t a fuck up. A mouse doesn't scurry down its hole fast enough and is caught by a cat to be played with mercilessly before being eaten - and this isn't a fuck up.
For example, as quetzalcoatl points out in his post, attributing fuck ups to animals is an attribution of a human meaning that does not directly arise out of the facts.
quote:You mean that your entire question boils down to "Why is human intelligence not 100% successful at eliminating fuck-ups?"
Originally posted by Russ:
If there's an easy explanation - they haven't the capability for abstract reasoning - why look further ?
But humans have the capability to reason. And still do stupidly wrong and wrongly stupid things. That's what seems to call out for explanation. Like the Easter Islanders who cut down all the trees on the island.
quote:It (if it were true) says that he's more arrogant than most. It says how seriously we are to take his pronouncements. But doens't conceptually put him in a different category to others unless we accept an outlandish claim.
Originally posted by Dafyd:
Whether the Pope claims to be infallible doesn't say whether he is any more fallible than anyone else?
quote:I believe that you are simplifying massively here. The place to start is checking that your premises match observed reality.
As judging a philosophy by its consequences is about the closest we come to an experimental method, I'm not inclined to concede more than half the point. Or that starting with the outcome one desires is more than half wrong.
quote:I believe that on two of these three points you are simply and demonstrably wrong. And I believe there is also evidence, although not as clear, to suggest you are wrong on the third point.
Ways in which humans fuck up that simply are not available to animals, off the top of my head:
quote:You've never heard that "An elephant never forgets"? Both hurts and help. Elephants are both tool users and seen to take revenge.
Revenge.
quote:Give one capuchin monkey cucumber and another one grapes for the same task and the one being given the lesser food protests. Fairness about physical possessions is close enough to me to being property that I believe you to be outright wrong.
Anything involving property. (I gather some right-wing ideologues try to ground property rights in animal territorial instincts. I think this is clearly wrong.)
quote:I have no idea how we would even tell. But we do have records of chimps using sign language to lie which, to me, indicates wishful thinking.
Convincing oneself that something is true because one wants it to be true.
quote:Indeed. It took until Constantine the Great for the Church to be thoroughly coopted.
I do in fact think that being too useful to those in power is a reason for rejecting deism and other forms of simple monotheism.
Christianity does not have its origins in a pro-powerful ideology. For that matter, most forms of monotheism (in the broad sense) are in their origins off-centre to imperial power.
quote:Indeed. You are doing so by stating that animals do not do things that they in fact do.
The premise was that we are animals with 'advantages over other animals' that give us a chance. I'm disputing the bit about attributing fuck-ups to the 'animals' rather than to the 'advantages'.
quote:Indeed. And axiomatic theories work well in the fields of mathematics and formal logic. They have very little to do with the real world unless you can verify that your axioms are correct. I believe that your understanding of animal psychology to conflict with experimental evidence making one of your axioms wrong. And an axiomatic system based on incorrect axioms is inherently flawed can be used to prove anything (such as the proof attributed to Bertrand Russell that if 1+1 = 1 then he was the Pope.)
In an axiomatic system there is no formal difference between a premise and anything that can be deduced from that premise and not without it.
quote:Really? A cat getting stuck up a tree was playing probabilities at which point? Especially as a cat can learn (and be taught by another cat) to climb backwards down a tree.
In the same way, the animals in your examples are behaving in a way that is consistent with just playing the probabilities, given the processing power their brains have available.
quote:Sorry for not replying earlier, George, have been away a lot, and just missed a lot of posts.
Originally posted by George Spigot:
quote:No not hating it at all just having a hard time understanding it.
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
mark
Nice point there about effort. Yes, the idea of 'rising above' seems odd to me, bootstraps and so on. I would have thought that Paul is saying that we cannot do this - or to use his image, the law may well inform me of my transgressions, but cannot lift me above them.
So fallen, I cannot rise. But perhaps there is One who is raising me?
I suspect atheists will hate this, as many of them seem fiercely devoted to self-help?
If I do something wrong then generally I feel I only have myself to blame. And I have to own my mistake. What you posted above makes it sounds like failure was inevitable and that you can't do any better on your own but must be carried above your own weakness by an external force.
Please note I'm not saying that's what you intend to communicate but that's my current interpretation and I'm just asking for clarification. Otherwise what's to stop a Christian from doing anything they want because they can't help it/are not responsible.
(Amusingly enough atheists also get asked this question in reference to not having a God given moral code).
quote:Can humans fuck things up on a much grander scale than animals? Powerful brains allow us to be much more spectacularly wrong than animals with weaker brains. But moral issues? You saw my link about the chimps and unequal rewards. Or you're aware of the way tribes of chimps work together? And then there's the behaviour of the fucking bonobos (pun intended). As for emotional tangles, I have no idea - never having spoken to an animal on that level personally. But fidelity of an animal even after death is known.
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
It just seems to represent a considerable equivocation on 'fuck-up', which was introduced in this thread, I think, by way of a citation from Spufford, who uses 'Human Propensity to Fuck Things Up' as a semi-humorous definition of sin, (in his book 'Unapologetic').
OK, if someone wants to compare that with cats getting stuck up trees, they can do, but there is surely a big difference between that, and a human moral or emotional mess?
In fact, with humans, we would surely make a distinction between, say, getting lost on a journey, and getting confused about one's moral compass? You might describe both as fuck-ups, certainly, but I suspect Spufford intended to describe the latter.
quote:I don't find that evidence convincing I'm afraid. The evidence for attributing revenge to elephants is the reported attribution of the motive by villagers in a newspaper article. The plural of anecdote is not data, as the saying goes. Especially given the final story where the villagers initially think the elephants are hostile and then judge that they're not.
Originally posted by Justinian:
quote:You've never heard that "An elephant never forgets"? Both hurts and help. Elephants are both tool users and seen to take revenge.
Revenge.
quote:A food reward is not a physical possession. How can the monkey be said to possess the food? Possession, as opposed to physical demarcation, requires language or some kind of symbolic apparatus. I cannot see how you can think it qualifies as property.
quote:Give one capuchin monkey cucumber and another one grapes for the same task and the one being given the lesser food protests. Fairness about physical possessions is close enough to me to being property that I believe you to be outright wrong.
Anything involving property.
quote:It's only evidence of that if the chimpanzee concerned has strong reason to believe that lying won't work. And 'he won't take my word for it because he can see for himself' would require the ability to handle at least second-order theory of mind. The chimp has got to attribute to the human handler not only the ability to see for himself but also the ability to judge that the chimp is in error.
quote:I have no idea how we would even tell. But we do have records of chimps using sign language to lie which, to me, indicates wishful thinking.
Convincing oneself that something is true because one wants it to be true.
Now whether the lying was something they picked up from humans is another question. But the idea lying will work is definite evidence that someone is convincing themself that the lie will work because they wish it.
quote:The cat's behaviour has evolved because the mean minus benefit of climbing a tree under those apparent circumstances is greater than not climbing the tree. Therefore, the cat's behaviour is consistent with playing the probabilities. (I didn't say the cat was actually playing the probabilities. Cats can't do that without language. Rather their behaviour has evolved to be consistent with the behaviour that would result from doing so. The robin and gull examples make that clearer.)
quote:Really? A cat getting stuck up a tree was playing probabilities at which point? Especially as a cat can learn (and be taught by another cat) to climb backwards down a tree.
In the same way, the animals in your examples are behaving in a way that is consistent with just playing the probabilities, given the processing power their brains have available.
quote:I was watching a nature documentary last night wherein a hummingbird was living in a tree and vigorously removing any other hummingbirds from it in order to keep the whole thing for himself, even though there was easily enough nectar to go around. If that's not essentially the same thing as humans keeping every single pound/dollar/yen/etc they can get their hands on for themselves even though there would be plenty to go round if they were willing to share I don't know what is. Regardless of the conceptual tools the bird may have been using to rationalise his actions, that tree was his property and he was buggered if he was letting anyone else have any of it!
Originally posted by Dafyd:
quote:A food reward is not a physical possession. How can the monkey be said to possess the food? Possession, as opposed to physical demarcation, requires language or some kind of symbolic apparatus. I cannot see how you can think it qualifies as property.
quote:Give one capuchin monkey cucumber and another one grapes for the same task and the one being given the lesser food protests. Fairness about physical possessions is close enough to me to being property that I believe you to be outright wrong.
Anything involving property.
quote:What reason is there to believe this is impossible? We know elephants have a very good memory and are smart enough to run away from Masai in general. That elephants remember people who have mistreated them is well known. We know that a recorded elephant has killed 17 people and eaten human flesh.
Originally posted by Dafyd:
Which there is reason to believe it is impossible to do without language.
quote:Because it's in the bowl right in front of it and not in front of the other chimp's cages. Demarcation satisfied.
A food reward is not a physical possession. How can the monkey be said to possess the food? Possession, as opposed to physical demarcation, requires language or some kind of symbolic apparatus. I cannot see how you can think it qualifies as property.
quote:I do beg the chimpanzee's pardon. It was koko the gorilla ripping a sink out of the wall then blaming it on a cat that I was thinking about.
It's only evidence of that if the chimpanzee concerned has strong reason to believe that lying won't work.
quote:And my counter-claim is that your claim does not match up to reality. You need fewer factors than your claim to have a concept of property, to have one of revenge, to have one of wishful thinking.
In any case:
my claim is that the features that enable moral error are those same features that you cite as human advantages over other animals.
quote:Indeed. We are animals with a few powerful tools we've developed and built on. This is 100% in line with my claim.
Therefore, to the extent that other animals have rudimentary forms of those advantages it's in priciple possible for those animals to have rudimentary forms of moral error.
quote:It's a claim that we are not that different from animals demonstrated. Which is where we disagree. So it is very much something that supports the position I hold - and debunks yours.
So citing animals as having that we have reason to believe are capable of rudimentary forms of language and high-reasoning power isn't a counterexample in any case.
quote:Whereas the actual mean minus benefit of climbing a tree you can't climb down is almost invariably negative. In short the cat fucked up.
The cat's behaviour has evolved because the mean minus benefit of climbing a tree under those apparent circumstances is greater than not climbing the tree.
quote:Complete and utter rubbish of the same type that says you need to perform complex calculus in order to catch a ball. An octopus is quite capable of using visual cues to solve a maze.
What a cat can't do is think, although it seems advantageous to climb the tree now will there be adverse consequences further down the line e.g. will I be unable to climb down? Because assessing one's reasons for action requires the ability to use symbols and also to mention them without using them.
quote:How do you know that it's not? And if not, what is it?
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
That's an awful lot of anthropomorphic projection going on! How do you know that it's essentially the same?
quote:I don't know a lot about hummingbirds, but what you describe sounds like simple territoriality.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
I was watching a nature documentary last night wherein a hummingbird was living in a tree and vigorously removing any other hummingbirds from it in order to keep the whole thing for himself, even though there was easily enough nectar to go around. If that's not essentially the same thing as humans keeping every single pound/dollar/yen/etc they can get their hands on for themselves even though there would be plenty to go round if they were willing to share I don't know what is.
quote:Are you replying to my reply to Marvin? OK, fair enough. I have no idea what it is. That's why I was surprised that Marvin said that it's essentially the same as human property.
Originally posted by Justinian:
quote:How do you know that it's not? And if not, what is it?
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
That's an awful lot of anthropomorphic projection going on! How do you know that it's essentially the same?
Dafyd has said that it can't be because theory says so. I've said that it can be because theory and observational evidence both say so. Short of telepathy I can not be 100% sure my reading is correct. However I am sure that it doesn't multiply entities beyond necessity and there is sufficient evidence to disprove Dafyd's ideas.
quote:Not just territoriality. There was also the issue that the tree was the best source of nectar in the area, meaning that the bird could not only have a guaranteed food supply but also had vastly improved access to all the females in the area.
Originally posted by Dafyd:
I don't know a lot about hummingbirds, but what you describe sounds like simple territoriality.
quote:Perhaps you could explain what you think the difference is? To me, "property" simply means "this is mine and you can't have any of it unless I say so". And it seems obvious to me that the same concept exists across a vast number of other species. The fact that we have the brainpower to conceptualise it in an abstract way doesn't change what it actually is.
And therefore it needs nothing like our concept of property.
quote:Quite the reverse. I'm not saying other animals are like us, I'm saying we are like them.
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
That's an awful lot of anthropomorphic projection going on!
quote:"To err is human. To really foul things up requires a computer." And your argument assumes that animals are utterly non-sentient and incapable of learning things about their environment. Which simply isn't true. Animals are sentient (if not terribly smart normally) or they couldn't learn things. Which means that any cat stuck up a tree for a second time (and it happens) should know better.
Originally posted by Russ:
And it seems that the source of all fuck ups is neither the animality nor the rationality but the imperfect integration between the two.
quote:I'm trying to see what the distinction you're drawing between territory and private property is other than that private property involves a threat display that isn't necessarily direct.
Originally posted by Dafyd:
So there's nothing going on that corresponds to private property.
quote:Yes, choice seems involved, but also the issues of separation and reconciliation. I think many religions contain this theme, and the related one of self-abandonment. Of course, some Eastern religions seem to take this to a more radical level than Christianity - see in Zen the idea that 'neither I nor the world exist'.
Originally posted by Boogie:
Yes - which is where choice lies. I don't think animals have realistic choices, but we do.
So if we chose to be cruel, unkind, unfair etc. We fail to be the best human we can be.
We are not born to be any of those things - but we are given choices, from a pretty young age.
I have dyslexia and was blamed for lack of effort for years. Of course, the reality was that I put in ten times the effort for the same results. I now work hard at not blaming myself - so the idea of being naturally 'fallen' goes against all that self esteem building I've been working on over the last few years.
I refuse to be shamed for the way I am. But have no problem about being blamed (by myself or others) for making the wrong choices. The problem comes when people assume that I'm choosing to be 'lazy' when in fact I'm putting in monumental effort.
quote:That's what territoriality is. The hummingbirds whose territory contains the best food supply become strongest and get the best mates.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:Not just territoriality. There was also the issue that the tree was the best source of nectar in the area, meaning that the bird could not only have a guaranteed food supply but also had vastly improved access to all the females in the area.
Originally posted by Dafyd:
I don't know a lot about hummingbirds, but what you describe sounds like simple territoriality.
quote:The hummingbird's thought processes don't need a 'This'. It doesn't need to identify any particular object (the tree) as belonging to it, or even any particular space as belonging to it. All it needs to do is proportion the effort it goes to in fighting off challengers to the distance to its nest.
quote:Perhaps you could explain what you think the difference is? To me, "property" simply means "this is mine and you can't have any of it unless I say so".
And therefore it needs nothing like our concept of property.
quote:I submit that none of what you've said there concerns different concepts, only different abilities to perceive and/or rationalise the concept.
Originally posted by Dafyd:
Possession, as distinct from territory, requires an ability to distinguish between objects that the animal owns, objects that other animals own, and objects that nobody owns and are therefore available to be owned; and the ability to keep track of these things when they're out of sight and out of mind. To be fully certain that there's such a concept around you'd need to have the animals lend and return without argument (i.e. the fact that I'm holding this object and nobody around is stronger than I am doesn't automatically make it mine). Property requires in addition the ability to transfer property - to give gifts and to buy and sell.
quote:And they not only still fight, many have threat displays and honourable forms of combat that are intended to make sure that except in very rare circumstances two animals within the same species won't injure each other that badly. Really, the only thing they are missing is writing down the rules of engagement with pen and paper.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Animals don't have formal written declarations of war or rules of engagement either, but they still fight.
quote:Does a concept exist if it isn't perceived or rationalised? How?
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:I submit that none of what you've said there concerns different concepts, only different abilities to perceive and/or rationalise the concept.
Originally posted by Dafyd:
Possession, as distinct from territory, requires an ability to distinguish between objects that the animal owns, objects that other animals own, and objects that nobody owns and are therefore available to be owned; and the ability to keep track of these things when they're out of sight and out of mind.
quote:I agree that two men going at it outside the pub after closing time are probably doing much the same thing physically as a pair of animals. But fighting is a physical event: it's possible to do it without assigning any meaning to it. (Can an animal think that even though it won it was beneath it to get into the fight in the first place?) But property isn't possible without assigning meanings.
Animals don't have formal written declarations of war or rules of engagement either, but they still fight. It's the same thing, we've just made it more complicated. So it is with concepts of territory/posession.
quote:The way I see it, the drive to claim something as one's own and prevent others from having it is exactly the same thing whether done by a hummingbird or a human. Humans have greater capacity to use their brains to rationalise it and to invent lots of lovely new ways of defining "mine", but at heart the basic drive - the basic instinct if you prefer - is the same.
Originally posted by Dafyd:
Does a concept exist if it isn't perceived or rationalised? How?
Could you explain a bit further why you think what I'm talking about isn't sufficient to make it a different concept?
