Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
Answer: #1.

Intelligence.

I rest my case.

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dafyd:

quote:

---

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.

---

Firstly, why is the survival of the human species important?

---

quote:

---

The survival of individual human beings is important; and the survival of our culture or our memories, etc. ...

---

quote:

---

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:

---

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.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dafyd:

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

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

I know I AM, utterly, responsible. I know I can't help it.

---

quote:

---

What made it inevitable.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

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.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
Whence intelligence?

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

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 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:

---

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:

---

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:

---

...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.

---

That sounds as if it's fright (oh dear! ) , but I'm sure there must be an atheistic flaw there somewhere!

quote:

---

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:

---

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...

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

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:

---

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.

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Picking up on that, they had been told not to eat that fruit, and were aware there would be consequences if they did.

---

Yes, I think I have a very active conscience!
I'd also say that although you give credit to becoming a Christian for whatever you did, in fact you did it all yourself.

--------------------
I know that you believe that you understood what you think I said, but I am not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant.

Posted                       

quote:

---

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.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dafyd:

quote:

---

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.

---

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.)
(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.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

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:

---

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.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dafyd:

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

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Dafyd: Why should Frankenstein's monster give a stuff about Frankenstein?

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

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:

---

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:

---

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:

---

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.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

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.

---

Posted                   

quote:

---

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.

---

Posted                   

quote:

---

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.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

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.

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by Truman White:
The closest to perfect a human can get is dead.

---

Interesting thought; perfection ahead! 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!.

--------------------
I know that you believe that you understood what you think I said, but I am not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant.

Posted                       

quote:

---

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:

---

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:

---

Originally posted by Truman White:

quote:

---

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.

---

Another reason I'm not an atheist - take it to its logical conclusion and you start talking like a right miserable old sod.

---

quote:

---

Sure, there's a naturalistic dimension to this (no-one pollutes the planet like us humans)

---

quote:

---

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:

---

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:

---

Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
I think most of us agree that most people are compassionate and decent.

---

Posted                         

quote:

---

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!

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dafyd:

quote:

---

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.

---

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”

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?

---

Posted                         

quote:

---

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.

---

Posted                       

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:

---

given - we know that experience can sometimes over-ride inherited behaviour

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Justinian:

quote:

---

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.

---

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.

---

quote:

---

1: Philosophies that are intentionally pro-powerful. (Objectivism springs to mind).

---

quote:

---

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:

---

quote:

---

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.

---

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?

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

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'.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by HughWillRidmee:
Could you clarify please?

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

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:

---

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:

---

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:

---

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:

---

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:

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

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.

---

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?

---

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:

---

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.

---

Posted                         

quote:

---

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:

---

Goats eat the roots and shoots, thus destroying their own food supply

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Zach82:

quote:

---

I certainly do not think we all have a vicious streak or something; there isn't evidence for that is there.

---

I think there is quite abundant evidence that it is there.

---

I haven't been here for ages, but IMO this comment deserves the of the decade....