REAL debate thread for RELIGION

[Rían]

(test post for a very good purpose)

EDIT - rats, can't report my own post to a moderator!!

[Rían]

SO - you atheists out there - what evidence do you have to support YOUR position?

[Rían]

And I made that comment about atheism and agnosticism the way I did on purpose - I wanted to see the thoughts people came up with. And now that I've seen a couple of reactions, I'll explain a little more.

From my experience, people that call themselves "agnostic" have made a decision in exactly the same manner as those that call themselves atheists or Christian or some other brand of belief. There's NO "proof" for Christianity, or atheism, or agnosticism (in the sense of "we can't know about God"), or any other world view. There's only evidence, and we have to make the best decision we can, based on our evaluation of the available evidence, both subjective and objective .

From my experience, agnostics are of two basic types (agnostics, feel free to chime in here!) -
1. those who say we CANNOT know if God/god/gods exist or not, and
2. those who say we can't (or don't) know ENOUGH to make a good decision if God/god/gods exist or not.

So they basically say that they just are undecided on the issue, because they can't or don't know for sure.

And that is a decision - JUST like atheists and Christians and other belief-holders make.

And they base their morality on that decision - JUST like atheists and Christians and other belief-holders.

If someone asks me why I don't murder, one reason would be that I believe that the God as described in the Bible exists, and He made humans in His image, and they are incredibly precious and valuable to Him and to each other, and it is therefore WRONG to kill people.

If I were to ask an agnostic if they don't murder because of what the Bible says, I think they would say something along the lines of "no, I don't know if the Bible is true or not, so I don't go by what it says - I'll go by what I think is right or wrong." (is this right, agnostics? I've heard this before from agnostics, btw, but I'm not claiming that ALL agnostics think this way.)

See, the agnostic JUST MADE A MORAL DECISION based on their BELIEF SYSTEM.

IMO, agnosticism is NOT "neutral", any more than any other belief. It is a decision with very important ramifications, just like choosing Christianity or atheism or Buddhism or Christianity-plus-whatever-I-think-different or whatever other belief is out there.

[Last Child of Ungoliant]

can i just say that the death of a sentient beign provokes a disgust in my heart, and this has nothing to do with religion at all, just i feel ut is wrong to remove intelligence
(obviously most people choose to replace sentient being with person, their choice)

[Rían]

I'm not surprised to hear that, Chrys, because I think you are a very kind and moral person

[Insidious Rex]

It will never fail to amaze me that you are incapable or seperating religion from person. or maybe you just have a maddening need to equivocate christianity with everything you see. even if its nothing at all.

[Blackheart]

Originally Posted by inked

Prove that morality arises from survival needs, Blackheart.
Subject your rationale to the same test you propose for theistic morals and Christian morals.
Otherwise, that is as much a faith statement as the theistic origin or Christian origin of morals.

Err, tiny mistake there. I'm not saying that MY morals arise from survival needs. I'm saying that they all do. Even 'theistic' morals.

At some point things like not eating pork, or always eating with a particular hand, or not working on the Sabbath were survival needs. Of course once a behavior persists past it's usefulness, it's called maladaptive, but that's beside the point, and grist for a later post.

As for proving it, I suppose I should just ask you to prove that it doesn't. Since it's my hypothesis, (not to mention a lot of other peoples), I've shown that it is a plausible explination based on what we know about how human society and evolution works.

If you think you have evidence contradicting it, then lets hear it. I've already stated that other primates have similar concepts of "moral" codes such as fairness, and even punish other members of the troop when they "cheat".

It's also easy to point out how such behaviors are linked to individual, troop, and species survival.

And it's not a very long step from examining those kinds of behaviors, to comparing them to human social behaviors and mores.

Nor is it all that terribly difficult to point out how they are linked to the survival of the individual, group, or species.

Take incest taboos for example. Pretty easy to see how they are linked to species survival. They provoke a rather strong gut reaction. That gut reaction is your genetic heritage talking directly to you. And almost every culture has an incest taboo. It gets codified into the societies mores.

Other behaviors that have survival value also get codified into social mores, but what happens when the environment changes, and such behaviors are no longer succesful survival strategies?

They become maladaptive.

[Nurvingiel]

I don't get it IREX...

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

I'm not surprised to hear that, Chrys, because I think you are a very kind and moral person

This statement seems to be about Chrys the person, not Chrys the Buddhist.



(And... um... RÃ*an... if your own post had something that should be reported to a moderator, why wouldn't you just edit it out?)

EDIT:
*waves to Blackheart in cross-posting*

[Insidious Rex]

I wasnt talking about her comment to chris of course. i was referring to her big speach where she preached about how agnostics dont realize that they think just like christians only different. found it fairly insulting. and entirely missing the point of what agnosticism is.

[Blackheart]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

Or I'll just say I understand what a subjective conclusion is, and apparently you don't!

Really. Or did you miss this part :

"10. You can THEN make a subjective decision based on objective evidence "

10. Your conclusion is entirely without merit, IMO. You're apparently making two HUGE (and IMO, erroneous) assumptions -
1. ALL behavior is driven by genes.

Now where do you get this? Behavior is driven by interaction between genetic predisposition and the environment. Or did you miss that entire part about

"5. You can go and objectively verify that primates change their social behaviors in response to their environment."

or

"7. You can go and objectively verify that these changes in spirituality are in response to changes in the environment."

Reading comprehension!

2. Behavior of the parents can be passed on to the children, in addition to things like large ears. (this reminds me of pangenes! the long-disproven idea of changes thru use can be passed on to the offspring.) How can things like "backwardness" (or lack thereof), to use a word from your post, be passed on to kids? Really, I don't see how you can possibly claim this.

Good grief... In a discussion about social evolution and cultural mores and you can't possibly think of a way for behaviors to be passed on to children... Gee let's think here... how could parent behavior possibly be passed onto their children... OH I KNOW!

Imitation and impression. Perhaps you got confused by the idea that genetics interact with culture over long periods of time. But cultures have their own evolutionary contribution. It's one of the reasons humans are almost a resiliant as cockroaches when it comes to their ability to exploit environments. Cultures can evolve and adapt much more rapidly than the genotype.

If you have a stable enough type of culture, then eventually those behaviors that are imitated and passed on do become a genetic heritage, in that any aberant genes contributing to contrary behavior are selected against.

I happen to disagree with your assumptions. They are assumptions, nothing more, and I make different ones based on the objective evidence I see. And you can list all the objective evidence you want, but if your conclusion is subjective, that's the important thing. Your conclusion is definitely subjective and unfounded, IMHO, and I don't agree with it.

Rofl... sorry but this is a total waste of my time. These aren't MY conclusions. Go read some scientific literature on human behavior.

It may be a subjective conclusion, but it is definately NOT unfounded...

[Rían]

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

It will never fail to amaze me that you are incapable or seperating religion from person. or maybe you just have a maddening need to equivocate christianity with everything you see. even if its nothing at all.

Is this in response to my post to Chrys?

[Insidious Rex]

no...

[Rían]

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

I wasnt talking about her comment to chris of course. i was referring to her big speach where she preached about how agnostics dont realize that they think just like christians only different.

That's why I said things like "some", and kept to my own personal experience of what I've actually heard agnostics say instead of making generalizations, and asked agnostics for their opinions.

If you want to turn it around and say Christians don't realize that they think just like agnostics only different, that's fine with me.

found it fairly insulting...

I imagine you misunderstood me, then, because I don't see where it was insulting and I did NOT intend it to be insulting. Could you explain, please?

My point was simply that people have different beliefs, but their moral choices are based on their beliefs. Do you agree with this?

...and entirely missing the point of what agnosticism is.

Then please contribute your thoughts

[Rían]

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

(And... um... RÃ*an... if your own post had something that should be reported to a moderator, why wouldn't you just edit it out?)

(I wanted to send a note to all the mods and admins and I was going to use the "report this post" tool to do this.)

[Rían]

Originally Posted by Blackheart

Really. Or did you miss this part :

"10. You can THEN make a subjective decision based on objective evidence "

No, I didn't miss it. IMO, "decision" and "conclusion" are different things, especially in the kind of conversation we were having. But perhaps you don't make this distinction. I do.

Now where do you get this?

from this: "You can THEN make a subjective decision based on objective evidence that all the people who were too backwards, fearful, inflexible, irrational, or otherwise incapable of adjusting their spiritual outlook to suit changing environments and social conditions died off, leaving those with the ability to do so to pass this capability on to their offspring, thus writing it in their genes."

The environment is external, so what is left inside a person that drives their behavior, according to you, is their genes. This is a massive assumption, and one with which I heartily disagree.

Behavior is driven by interaction between genetic predisposition and the environment. Or did you miss that entire part about

"5. You can go and objectively verify that primates change their social behaviors in response to their environment."

or

"7. You can go and objectively verify that these changes in spirituality are in response to changes in the environment."

Reading comprehension!

My comprehension is excellent, thankee - see above response.

Good grief... In a discussion about social evolution and cultural mores and you can't possibly think of a way for behaviors to be passed on to children... Gee let's think here... how could parent behavior possibly be passed onto their children... OH I KNOW!

Imitation and impression. Perhaps you got confused by the idea that genetics interact with culture over long periods of time. But cultures have their own evolutionary contribution. It's one of the reasons humans are almost a resiliant as cockroaches when it comes to their ability to exploit environments. Cultures can evolve and adapt much more rapidly than the genotype.

If you have a stable enough type of culture, then eventually those behaviors that are imitated and passed on do become a genetic heritage, in that any aberant genes contributing to contrary behavior are selected against.

Perhaps you forgot what you had written. That's why I quoted it, but maybe you didn't read it. You were claiming that those flexible survival parents "pass this capability on to their offspring, thus writing it in their genes." Since you're talking about "imitation and impression", do you mean that as the parents are teaching their children, it gets written directly into their genes? Sounds like pangenes to me!

Rofl... sorry but this is a total waste of my time. These aren't MY conclusions.

I'm SO glad those aren't your conclusions, as frankly, they seem pretty unsubstantiated! (at least as far as genetically passing on some of those behaviors you described)

It may be a subjective conclusion, but it is definately NOT unfounded...

There's SOME evidence that could be interpreted in ways that might support those claims, but I agree that it's a subjective conclusion.

[Insidious Rex]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

I imagine you misunderstood me, then, because I don't see where it was insulting and I did NOT intend it to be insulting. Could you explain, please?

My point was simply that people have different beliefs, but their moral choices are based on their beliefs. Do you agree with this?

Agnosticism is neither a church or a formal philosphy. its simply a description and nothing more. i never once sat down with furrowed brow and said HM... I THINK I WILL BELIEVE THAT I CANT KNOW ALL THE ANSWERS! Nor was I ever indoctrinated by other agnostics as to the "truth" about the world. Nor did i pick up a book about agnosticsm by its founder and find it touched my soul with its words and meaning. No. Nothing even close to any of that. I follow no agnostic tenants or commandments. I do not have a lick of faith in any agnostic foundations of belief. Because here ARE no agnostic foundations of belief. Theres only lack of evidence. And morality is not at all related to agnosticism. Many agnostics have different points of view regarding morality. So how would you explain this if ALL agnostics get their ideas for morality from one single source of beliefs like Christians? Apples and Oranges. You are attempting to pull me down to the level of religion and slap me with a nice big label: CHURCH OF AGNOSTICISM. Well I reject the label. Thats the part I find insulting. Now if you want to say science has influenced the way I think then that could be better argued. Although I tend to think of science as reality which makes its comparison to religion a bit pointless.

[Rían]

Originally Posted by Blackheart

Err, tiny mistake there. I'm not saying that MY morals arise from survival needs. I'm saying that they all do. Even 'theistic' morals.

Mistake? He never said you said that

His point is an excellent one, IMO, and I await your proof along with inky. Here's his post again, for your convenience:

Originally Posted by inky

Prove that morality arises from survival needs, Blackheart.
Subject your rationale to the same test you propose for theistic morals and Christian morals.
Otherwise, that is as much a faith statement as the theistic origin or Christian origin of morals.

[Blackheart]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

The environment is external, so what is left inside a person that drives their behavior, according to you, is their genes. This is a massive assumption, and one with which I heartily disagree.

Genes are external also. They don't exist in the mind, they guide it's formation. Also you seem to be reading in the idea that I am talking about determinism dictated by genetic predisposition. Not true. If it were true, then human behavior would be hard coded, and happen a lot faster.

But since it is a mix, it takes a lot longer for behavior to become "predisposed", and it takes much longer.

You were claiming that those flexible survival parents "pass this capability on to their offspring, thus writing it in their genes." Since you're talking about "imitation and impression", do you mean that as the parents are teaching their children, it gets written directly into their genes? Sounds like pangenes to me!

No, it's not. If you notice I said that societies select against aberant genes. That means humans have a tendancy to kill the stupid ones, the ones who act too violently, or too unpredictably.

In order for these behaviors to persist long enough to have an impact on the genetic code, they must be culturally transmitted. If you want to be disingenious and over simplify the process into the disredited idea of pangenes, then go ahead, but you're completely missing the point.

I'm SO glad those aren't your conclusions, as frankly, they seem pretty unsubstantiated! (at least as far as genetically passing on some of those behaviors you described)

Sigh.

here's a little light reading for you.

Adler, L. & Gielen, U eds. 1994. Cross-cultural topics in psychology. Westport: Praeger.

Barkow, J., Cosmides, L. & Tooby, J. 1992. The adapted mind: Evolutionary psychology and the generation of culture. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Brislin, R. 1993. Understanding culture’s influence on behavior. New York: Harcourt Brace Publishers.

Brodie, R. 1996. Virus of the mind: The new science of memes. Seattle: Integral Press.

Brown, D. 1991, Human universals. New York: Mc Graw Hill.

Bruner, J. 1996. The culture of education. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

Buss, D. 1999. Evolutionary psychology: The new science of the mind. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

Buss, D. 1994. The evolution of desire: Strategies of human mating. New York: Basic Books.

Burke, J. & Ornstein, R. The axemaker’s gift: Technology’s capture and control of our minds and culture. New York: Putnam.

Boyer, P. 2001. Religion explained: The evolutionary origins of religious thought. New York: Basic Books.

Caine, G. & Caine, N. 1991. Making connections: Teaching and the human brain. Menlo Park: Addison Wesley.

Churney, R. 2001. “The biology of learning and implications for teaching.� http://www.comfsm.fm/socscie/biolearn.htm.

Damasio, A. 1999. The feeling of what happens: Body and emotion in the making of consciousness. New York: Harcourt Brace.

Dawkins, R. 1995. River out of eden: A darwinian view of life. New York: Basic Books.

Dawkins, R. 1982. The extended phenotype: The long reach of the gene. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Dawkins, R. 1998. “Postmodernism Disrobed,� Nature, vol. 394, pp. 141-143)

Degler, C. N. 1991. In search of human nature: The decline and revival of Darwinism in American social thought. New York: Oxford University Press.

Diamond, J. 1999. Guns, germs, and steel: The fates of human societies. New York: W.W. Norton & Company.

Diamond, M. & Hopson, J. 1999. Magic trees of the mind: How to nurture your child’s intelligence, creativity and healthy emotions from birth to adolescence. New York: Penguin Books.

Dennett, D. 1995. Darwin’s Dangerous Idea: Evolution and the meanings of life. New York: Simon and Schuster.

Donald, M. 1991. Origins of the modern mind: Three stages in the evolution of culture and cognition. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

Dugatkin, L. & Godin, J. 1998. “How females choose their mates,� Scientific American, April, 1998.

Dunbar, R., Knight, C. & Power, C. eds. 1999. The evolution of culture. New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press.

Evans, D. & Zarate, O. 1999. Introducing evolutionary psychology. Cambridge: Icon Books

Freeman, D. 1983. Margaret Mead and Samoa: The making and unmaking of an anthropological myth. Cambridge Mass: Harvard University Press.

Freeman, D. 1999. The fateful hoaxing of Margaret Mead: A historical analysis of her Samoan research. Boulder Colo: Westview Press.

Freeman, D. 2001. “Reflections of a heretic,� The Evolutionist, www.lse.ac.uk/Depts/cpnss/darwin/evo/freeman.htm

Gardner, H. 1999. Intelligence reframed: Multiple intelligences for the 21st century. New York: Basic Books.

Gazzaniga, M. 1998. The mind’s past. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Gazzaniga, M. 1997. Conversations in the cognitive neurosciences. Cambridge: MIT Press.

Geertz, C. 1973. The interpretation of cultures. New York: Basic Books.

Glover, J. 1999. Humanity: A moral history of the twentieth century. London: Jonathan Cape.

Greenspan, R. 1995. “Understanding the genetic construction of behavior,� Scientific American, April 1995.

Horvitz, J. 2003, Neurochemical basis of motivation and learning laboratory, www.columbia.edu/~jh299index.html

Humphrey, N. 1992, A history of the mind: Evolution and the birth of consciousness, New York: Simon and Schuster.

Jensen, E. 1998. Teaching with the brain in mind. Alexandria: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Kimura, D. 2002, “Sex differences in the brain,� Scientific American, June 2002. www.sciam.com/2002/0602mind/0602kimura.html

Kitayama, S. & Markus, H. 1994. Emotion and culture: Empirical studies of mutual influence. Washington D.C.: American Psychological Association.

Leach, E. 1982. Social anthropology. New York: Oxford University Press.

LeDoux, J. 1996. The emotional brain: The mysterious underpinnings of emotional life. New York: Simon & Schuster.

Lynch, A. 1996. Thought contagion: The new science of memes. New York: Basic Books.

M. Mead, 1928/2001. Coming of age in Samoa: A psychological study of primitive youth for Western Civilization. New York: Perennial Press.

Mead, M. 1935/1963. Sex and temperament in three primitive societies. New York: William Morrow.

Matsumoto, D. 1994. People: Psychology from a cultural perspective. Prospect Heights: Waveland Press.

Mayr, E. 1997. This is biology: The science of the living world. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

Moir, A. & Jessel, D. 1989. Brain sex: The real difference between men and women. New York: Dell Publishing.

Nesse, R. & Williams, G. 1994. Why we get sick: The new science of darwinian medicine. New York: Vintage Books.

New Scientist, 27 July 2002, “Paranormal beliefs linked to brain chemistry,� www.newscientist.com

Pierce, H. 2000. The owner’s manual for the brain: Everyday applications from mind-brain research. Atlanta: Bard Press.

Pinker, S. 2002. The blank slate: The modern denial of human nature. New York: Viking.

oh there's more!

[Janny]

Originally Posted by Blackheart

If it happened that way, human behavior would have probably settled into very predictable patterns a long time ago. Much like ants.

But aren't humans much more complex than ants? :P

Is there any reason why predetermined behaviour would all be the same? Why would predetermined behaviour be necessarily quick? Can't you be predetermined to 'ponder' to actions?

[Insidious Rex]

Goodness whats with you and lists today.

Originally Posted by Blackheart

I mean simply that if your behavior were directly dictated by your genetics, your behavior would be pre-determined. It would be "hard coded" as part of the "machinery" of your brain.

If it happened that way, human behavior would have probably settled into very predictable patterns a long time ago. Much like ants.

Isnt all behavior determined utimately by genetics? (Yes, I realize you said "directly" there). For if not genetics what else could it be? Careful. This is where the god people like to storm into the vacuum. HOW we are effected by environment is limited by our genetics anyway. Having genetic instructions of "Do whatever it is you think would best keep us alive" IS a genetic instruction after all.

EDIT: this thread has been splitt due to its size. Next post can be found in this other thread