God - The Bear and Badger

JonB

Mod74 wrote:

You've added the upper echelons and official doctrine bit, I just said people in power. Who as individuals and small groups have advocated such actions and found followers. Obviously.

Ok, people in power (in fact you said 'those who head up a religion'). You had to mean all the people in power, though, otherwise your point doesn't stand up. If it was only some of the people in power in Islam who advocated suicide bombing then you wouldn't be able to say that the believers made a choice not to follow that part of it - perhaps they were just mindlessly following the ideas of other people in power. You have used the fact that not all followers of Islam are suicide bombers as evidence that not everyone listens to heads of religion - there is no other implication here than all Islamic heads of religion advocate suicide bombing, which is false.

JonB

Lord_Griff wrote:

Also Chimps do display altruism. Unrelated chimp gives nut cracking rock to female chimp with baby as hers doesn't work - there's a video somewhere.

That doesn't mean it's altruism.

Also, being born pre-programmed. Fairly sure that 1 hour old prairie dogs run away/are scared of the silhouette of a specific bird of prey, they react with no foreknowledge of what it is, just the shape (... other silhouettes do not elicit the same response).

We were talking about moral preprogramming. That's not a relevant example.

Facewon

revelthedog wrote:

Â So was that just blind luck?

yes.

I'm not claiming there involvement from a God - that would just be daft.

phew.

Things like this can really mess with your head. if you think about them too much. Â

Seems like it. I dunno, I completely understand wandering what it's all about and stuff, and I understand when things go particularly well, or parricularly badly, the idea that we look for agency out of our control to explain it. But I've found it better to understand that there are some questions that aren't actually real answerable questions. You have a lot of why questions there which I would say aren't even unanswerable, they're just non-sensical.Â

Why is it raining when I want to walk my dog? On days when the rain is sporadic, do I claim a mini miracle whn it stops and I happen to be able to walk him just at that moment? Is there only agency when things go my way? Do I blame jinn, or the devil, or dark matter when shit goes wrong?Â

I dunno, this is where even the most benign (unfounded) beliefsÂ can be harmful. It's all well and good thanking the stars, god, the universe when things go well, but when things go badly, and you start asking the why questions, it can really be bad news for your mental health (that's a general you, btw, revel, not you personally.)

I'll tell you what I do know, as I've been typing this, I've been listening to Cee-lo's last album and it is amaze.

Facewon

lols. chump beat me to it.

Mod74

JonB wrote:

Mod74 wrote:

You've added the upper echelons and official doctrine bit, I just said people in power. Who as individuals and small groups have advocated such actions and found followers. Obviously.

Ok, people in power (in fact you said 'those who head up a religion'). You had to mean all the people in power, though, otherwise your point doesn't stand up. If it was only some of the people in power in Islam who advocated suicide bombing then you wouldn't be able to say that the believers made a choice not to follow that part of it - perhaps they were just mindlessly following the ideas of other people in power. You have used the fact that not all followers of Islam are suicide bombers as evidence that not everyone listens to heads of religion - there is no other implication here than all Islamic heads of religion advocate suicide bombing, which is false.

I don't know what the fuck you're saying anymore but I think it was astoundingly obvious to everyone else the point I was making and reads very much like you're having a massive don't criticise Islam knee jerk spaz out.

Lord_Griff

JonB wrote:

Lord_Griff wrote:

Also Chimps do display altruism. Unrelated chimp gives nut cracking rock to female chimp with baby as hers doesn't work - there's a video somewhere.

That doesn't mean it's altruism.

Also, being born pre-programmed. Fairly sure that 1 hour old prairie dogs run away/are scared of the silhouette of a specific bird of prey, they react with no foreknowledge of what it is, just the shape (... other silhouettes do not elicit the same response).

We were talking about moral preprogramming. That's not a relevant example.

alÂ·truÂ·ismâ€‚ â€‚/ËˆÃ¦ltruËŒÉªzÉ™m/ Show Spelled[al-troo-iz-uhm] Show IPA
noun
1. the principle or practice of unselfish concern for or devotion to the welfare of others ( opposed to egoism).
2. Animal Behavior . behavior by an animal that may be to its disadvantage but that benefits others of its kind, as a warning cry that reveals the location of the caller to a predator.

The situation highlights a an example of one unrelated animal doing something for the benefit of another.

The prairie dog example was to show that some behaviours, and subsequent actions, are "preprogrammed" and that it doesn't preclude other behaviours from be pre-programmed.

Moral behaviour doesn't necessarily have to be conscious, the appreciation or understanding of morality requires conscious thought. Animals can display moral behaviour as in it benefits their group/society. Within the animal kingdom actions that lead to group success can be deemed to be moral actions. The human construct of morality is a higher level of understanding of the constantly shifting definition of what is helpful/beneficial to groups which an individual has aligned themselves with.

Facewon

Mod74 wrote:

Either all forms of organisation have their faults and share similar controlling characteristics but we accept them and get on or we do away with the whole lot and have anarchy. No political/economic/religious model has provided all the answers to please everyone.

To be brief, I find that it's illuminating that any defense of religion seems to follow the "they started it" or the "they're doing it too, so nerr" model.Â

And you're right no model has pleased everyone. But then again, that sounds dangerously like can't win, don't try. I don't ask for perfection, I just ask for better (as defined and muddled towards by us, hairless apes that we are).

djchump

JonB wrote:

Lord_Griff wrote:

Also Chimps do display altruism. Unrelated chimp gives nut cracking rock to female chimp with baby as hers doesn't work - there's a video somewhere.

That doesn't mean it's altruism.

Hmm... doesn't mean it definitely is, but you've been toeing what seems to be a rather strong "it definitely isn't" line, which borders on No True Scotsman gerrymandering.

Just saying, like, it's definitely not clear cut with an obvious "Is / Isn't" answer - but it's an area of active research so is worth looking into IMHO, not dismissing with a seeming "this is definitely not true altruism" reply (not that you are doing that TBH, you're treading the sceptical line which is fine, just maybe a little too dismissive of an interesting, developing subject IMHO - development of cognition in other animals and how that informs knowledge/ideas about our own cognition and evolution etc.).

Mod74

I'm not really defending religion any stronger than accepting that we need and use lots of different ways of organising things and people should be free to side with whatever party they please.

OK, I'm not keen on the indoctrinated from birth, you'll be this till you die approach. But again, it's not really any different from what happens elsewhere.

Why shouldn't a defence of religion include the "well they do it" element. Strikes me all these organisations coalesce out of something more deeply ingrained than a belief in your deity of choice.

Facewon

Mod74 wrote:

I'm not really defending religion any stronger than accepting that we need and use lots of different ways of organising things and people should be free to side with whatever party they please.

Sure. Would you agree that people should also be free to argue against said side if it causes tangible harm?

Why shouldn't a defence of religion include the "well they do it" element.

It's not particularly constructive, strikes me as very defeatist and leaves us with no improvement in our lot when it comes to religion or any other institution that you're using as the "they." Why wouldn't I stop automatically defending things that could do with improvement and/or dismantling? if someone genuinely sees a problem with religion or republicans, or politics in general, should we tell them to stop criticising because everything else is fucked too?

Mod74

Does religion cause you tangible harm?

Compared to say, politics, or corporate environmental/food production?

By all means rail against something that causes harm or oppresses some, but at the end of the day you're just arbitrarily picking one out of many. One which I suspect doesn't have a great deal of influence on your day to day life. Or if it does affect you is disproportionate compared to the rest of us.

I'm not saying rail against all or none, but there's a lot of stuff you have to accept or go mad getting angry at.

Facewon

I dunno, depends how you define harm, how self reflective I want to be about being brought up in a religious household, how much I want count the headfuck religion has definitely been to close friends (some of whom post in this thread), how much I want to count various friends who'd possibly want to get married some time this decade, and/or introduce their partners to their parents.

As for the other things youve listed, I'd suggest I put about as much effort into all of them (ie, some, but not enough) as religion. Well, not exactly, but it's not like I spend all my time plotting the downfall of religion.Â

Hell, the bluroom god thread died in the ass - and lets not forget that this is just chewing the fat on a forum, it's interesting and all, but I'm under no illusions as to it's importance to the wider world. This is a very small part of a wider conversation.

Rev

Facewon wrote:

revelthedog wrote:

Â So was that just blind luck?

yes.

I'm not claiming there involvement from a God - that would just be daft.

phew.

Things like this can really mess with your head. if you think about them too much. Â

Seems like it. I dunno, I completely understand wandering what it's all about and stuff, and I understand when things go particularly well, or parricularly badly, the idea that we look for agency out of our control to explain it. But I've found it better to understand that there are some questions that aren't actually real answerable questions. You have a lot of why questions there which I would say aren't even unanswerable, they're just non-sensical.Â Why is it raining when I want to walk my dog? On days when the rain is sporadic, do I claim a mini miracle whn it stops and I happen to be able to walk him just at that moment? Is there only agency when things go my way? Do I blame jinn, or the devil, or dark matter when shit goes wrong?Â I dunno, this is where even the most benign (unfounded) beliefsÂ can be harmful. It's all well and good thanking the stars, god, the universe when things go well, but when things go badly, and you start asking the why questions, it can really be bad news for your mental health (that's a general you, btw, revel, not you personally.) I'll tell you what I do know, as I've been typing this, I've been listening to Cee-lo's last album and it is amaze.

all about the lulz.
I generally don't go about considering I'm blessed when some things happen, or cursed when things don't go my way. But I'm continually amazed that in my life things seems to work out very well for me. I'm a very much a right place at the right time kind of person. It makes me wonder if there are people that are luckier than others, or those that attract the good things more than others. Or if its a general attitude or look on life that makes things happen a certain way. Am I a glass is half full type of person? Â Not really. I have a history in my Sales jobs of being very very lucky.

I've started to look at the bigger picture in a lot of ways, its made me less reactive emotionally. I find it easier to accept certain things as they happen, but know that I am still very much in control of who I am and where I am going. But this could just be done to age and experience.Â
I don't think that there is a God out there that has a plan for me a la Owen Meany.Â
Its difficult to explain.Â
Is there a logic ?
no not really. I accept the good and bad maybe because I've accepted its part of life?
I have a whole other hypothesis to share about how and why people get on. And explains the whole enlightenment in crowd factor. Even extends into why concerts can be the best thing ever.

rossi

In my opinion. Thats a good way to live your life Revel.

For me, in the abscence of any evidence, I prefer not to invest my emotions in something thats not tangible. It can only lead to confusion and more questions.

I don't tend to get involved in theological debates or science vs religion discussions because quite simply, they cannot be won. I try to live by the 'be cool to everyone' philosophy, and it seems to work.

JonB

Mod74 wrote:

I don't know what the fuck you're saying anymore but I think it was astoundingly obvious to everyone else the point I was making and reads very much like you're having a massive don't criticise Islam knee jerk spaz out.

I'm just reacting to what you said - whether you meant it or not you did say it. I don't think anyone else has mentioned whether they understood it or not, so that's a strange claim to make on their behalf.

@Griff - I think with what you say there the definition of things like 'altruism' and 'moral' is watered down too much. I'm not sure what the point of such terms is if they just mean the same as 'social'. Or, it seems that you're saying when we talk about animals being 'moral' we don't mean the same thing as when we talk about humans being 'moral' (i.e. consciously), so it doesn't really lead to any wider point about inate 'goodness' or 'badness'.

@djchump - Ok, I'm not going for the 'it definitely isn't' line. I'd put it this way - talking about moral consiousness in animals I would assume it doesn't exist until clearly shown otherwise. Without any real knowledge of the subject I would have thought that the primary motivating factor among animals would be the propagation of the species, and the sense of 'self' would be weak. It seems to be in line with such instincts that animals would protect the group and so on.

Mod74

I know Islam doesn't have an overarching power structure like Catholicism, I was talking about the local union reps.

JonB took what I said and assumed I meant the high council, which I didn't, because it doesn't exist.

Now I meant exactly what I said, so park the "whether you meant it or not" shite whilst you're at it.

Lord_Griff

JonB wrote:

@Griff - I think with what you say there the definition of things like 'altruism' and 'moral' is watered down too much. I'm not sure what the point of such terms is if they just mean the same as 'social'. Or, it seems that you're saying when we talk about animals being 'moral' we don't mean the same thing as when we talk about humans being 'moral' (i.e. consciously), so it doesn't really lead to any wider point about inate 'goodness' or 'badness'.

It is not watered down in the slightest. I fear it is a comprehension issue on your side.

alÂ·truÂ·ismâ€‚ â€‚/ËˆÃ¦ltruËŒÉªzÉ™m/ Show Spelled[al-troo-iz-uhm] Show IPA
noun

2. Animal Behavior . behavior by an animal that may be to its disadvantage but that benefits others of its kind, as a warning cry that reveals the location of the caller to a predator.

Quite simple.

Ali

Facewon wrote:

That's the fun part, it can be wahtever you want!

Yeah, they're just making this shit up anyway. The more imaginative the better. It's why Christianity is so dull. It's the EA of religions. Churning out the same boring stories year after year with no thought to being imaginative. Where are the 60 foot cannibal ducks or the cheese eating crab invasions in the Bible? Nowhere, that's where. No wonder the Romans decided to liven them up by feeding them to large carnivores. Probably the most exciting thing that ever happened to ancient Christians.

I pointed this lack of poetic license out to the born again husband of a friend recently. "Have you read the Bible, Ali?". Yup. "And what did you think". "Not enough ice giants". He hasn't spoken to me for 10 months and counting. Which is great, because he was a prick.

JonB

Lord_Griff wrote:

It is not watered down in the slightest. I fear it is a comprehension issue on your side. alÂ·truÂ·ism /ËˆÃ¦ltruËŒÉªzÉ™m/ Show Spelled[al-troo-iz-uhm] Show IPA noun 2. Animal Behavior . behavior by an animal that may be to its disadvantage but that benefits others of its kind, as a warning cry that reveals the location of the caller to a predator. Quite simple.

Fair enough, perhaps 'altruism' is applicable - if it really does just mean 'social behaviour' - as long as it's clear that that does not equate to morality or moral behaviour in animals.

djchump

Mod74

Would you like a list of what scientists thought was true before the 17th century?

Kow

Yes please!

Mod74

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_revolution#New_ideas

Kow

Cool. Was it actually science before the 17th century though, or just some kind of voodoo astrology combo?

Mod74

Well, it was still called science.

Ali

A question for the religious folk. Why is your religion correct and all the others wrong? Currently, there are 20 recognised world religions. There are probably tens, if not hundreds, of thousands of religions even in the last 10,000 years. Even taking the most popular, Christians, there are 34,000 recognised different denominations even within that one religion. So why is yours right, and all those others wrong?

Facewon

I think I mentioned in the book thread that I'm reading john shooks The God Debates. It's actually really quite excellent so far. I really wish I had a soft copy I could nab the intro from. The section discussing the range of stances from theism to atheism with all varieties in between and beyond is really nice.

Particularly nice as an impartial comment for the discussion that mod and sg had. The book may end up shitting me and turn into the wrong sort of neutral. All I'm moderate while these guys are extremes, but so far so good.

Djornson

Some_Guy wrote:

I am pointing out that faith requires people to believe things to be true without any evidence, and that this is delusional.

This sentence could be improved. A delusion is a belief held with strong conviction despite superior evidence to the contrary. If there was no evidence contrary to the statement that God created the Universe then believing God created the Universe would not be delusional. It would arguably be pointless, but not delusional.

The definition of Faith is a belief without proof. You said yourself proof is not the same as evidence. Faith can therefore be based on some evidence. Like: I have faith my friend he will not stab me while i sleep. I have no proof but i have evidence he is a good friend and has been good to me over the years which allows me to reasonable conclude he will not stab me. Therefore faith is not always delusional or wrong.

Another statement is: God has an affect on Earth and it's inhabitants now. Is that delusional? It's difficult. Evidence exists to the contrary such as "man prayed he would not die, he died." However, there are other examples where "man prayed he would not die, he did not die." Neither can be repeated and turned into proper scientific evidence.

It is in my opinion wrong to believe in anything without evidence, wrong but not delusional. Why is it wrong? Not sure i can answer that. It just seems to be sensible.

Anyway, back to delusional if I could actually agree we can prove something is delusional..Â

Mod's argument from a page or so back seems to be: If delusion results in good deeds is delusion bad?

My concern with that line of thinking is that if good deeds are not based on evidence they could turn into bad deeds for no reason.

For an extreme and overly simplistic example let us say a man claims he hears the voice of God in his head. There is evidence to suggest it's probably caused by malfunctioning electrical patterns in his frontal lobe. He continues to believe it is God anyway. Therefore by definition he is delusional.

We happen to meet and he opens the door for me because the voice in his head told him too. The voice is God therefore the voice is correct.

For no reason we can discern, the voice now tells him to stab me in the heart with the knife in his pocket. The voice is God therefore the voice is correct.Â

If the man had accepted his brain was malfunctioning he may have questioned the voice when it told him to stab me.

If larger more powerful entities base their decisions on slightly different delusions we could have much more damage done to much larger entities than just little old me.

Would you disagree Mod?

JonB

If I may, I'd say that your example of a man hearing voices is extreme - for most people the demands of religion meet various other social demands and there's a kind of (unconscious?) filtering process that takes place.

Also, what do you mean by 'larger more powerful entities'? If you mean larger than an individual, in what way are 'they' delusional?

Mod74

Well, it's difficult to answer this because the guy in your example is a mental patient. I'm not sure what your example has to do with faith, other than the fact he says he's hearing the voice of God, he could just as easily think it was aliens, the CIA or Jodi Foster.

Howdy, Stranger!

Categories