Theological Opinions , PART II

[jerseydevil]

EDIT: this thread has been splitt from the original one Thread author is Ruinel.

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

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.

I completely agree with this statement and observation. My ideas are not beliefs - they are ideas. I am not getting my feelings from a book. I'm getting them from my observation and how I personally feel about things. There is a big difference between how Rian talks about her beliefs and how I talk about my ideas. My ideas can change very easily just from observation - I am 99.99999% sure that Rian will not have any ideas that contradict the bible though - even if they make more sense than the bible. This is the main problem I have when she tries to say that my ideas are no different than her beliefs.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

But there's another angle here, Lief. Yes, they can be "symbolic". But also, they can be actual hard fact, but the person seeing the vision is unaware of what some of the things are, because they hadn't been invented yet.

If we could zip into the future and take some video of everyday life, I'm sure we'd be talking just like John did in Revelation - "I saw this thing and it was like this". We wouldn't know the name of it, because it hadn't been invented yet. We could just look at it and say it was "like" something we already know.

I completely agree with you. I have been rather taken aback by how deadly accurate the Book of Revelation is to modern technology. It's amazing, really. There is symbolism in there too, but there is a huge amount that is very, very realistic. I think the same thing with the prophecy in Genesis. Indeed, the only aspect of the Genesis Chapter 1 account that I take as symbolic is the days. The rest I think was seen and described. Mertucio can view Adam as more people then one if she likes. I view him as one man, particularly because of the Epistles, which say, "just as sin entered the world through one man, Adam, it was abolished by one man, Christ." I really am quite sure it says that. I can look for the quote, if anyone doubts it.

The seven days seem likely to me to be symbolic, however. They are the number of perfection. The word seven is used countless times in the Book of Revelation, frequently symbolically. "Seven lampstands," etc. We also have a glimpse in one of the Epistles of how God defines days. "To the Lord, a thousand years is like a day, and a day is like a thousand years." The Lord also says that he will be returning soon. His soon is clearly very different from ours .

I'll respond to Eärniel's request for evidence on the age span soon.

[Lief Erikson]

I haven't done as much research on the long ages as I should, if I want to make a very convincing argument. I do believe there is significant evidence for a dramatic radiocarbon shift, however, and it seems reasonable to suppose that this would have a strong impact upon the life expectancy of living organisms from ancient times. Here is my post from before on the matter:


Biblical long ages 7/06/03

quote:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Cirdan
As to the extgrodinary ages described in the bible, you must remember that there is a limit to the number of times our DNA can replicate, without being part of a stem cell, gamete, etc. Even adding extrodinary living conditions and allowing say a 50% increase in age (very generous) 350 years is still well outside all modern limits of age. So, Sheeana is right, this requires a significant genetic variation.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Actually, though 350 years is well outside of the modern limit, I don't think its primary source is the one you've mentioned. Allow me to read some quotes from my Chemistry book:

quote:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally written in "Basics for Chemistry"
As ionizing radiation passes through matter, it interacts with molecules, creating ions and high-energy molecular fragments called free radicals. Free radicals are very reactive, and cause further chemical changes that are harmful to living cells.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

quote:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Large doses of radiation are fatal because they cause failure of the blood-forming system, the gastrointestinal system, and the central nervous system. Smaller doses have effects that may not be observed until years later, such as impaired fertility, shortened life span[italics added], or cancer.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

quote:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
It is impossible to avoid exposure to radiation, because small amounts of radiation, called background radiation, are constantly present around us. High energy radiation from outer space, called cosmic rays, contribute to the background radiation. Background radiation is also produced by the naturally occurring radioisotopes in minerals and in the construction materials that contain these minerals. As shown in Table 17-4, background radiation is the major source of radiation exposure for most people.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 17-4 proceeds to show us that the Average dose rate (mrem/year) is 182. Of that 182, 102 comes primarily from cosmic rays and radioisotopes. Most of the remainder comes from modern medical instruments.

Now, let's look again at the different symptoms of long term radiation contact. Cancer, impaired fertility, and shortened life span.


quote:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally written in the World Book
Cancer strikes people of all ages but especially middle-aged persons and the elderly.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
So cancer vulnerability plainly could increase over the long run because of radioactivity. As is logical- it has effect over the short term.

I don't need a World Book quote to demonstrate that it is middle aged persons and the elderly that are less likely to successfully bear children- we all know it.

And shortened life span also is a symptom.


Is it not conceivable then, that by a dramatic change in the radiocarbon levels on the planet, ages might be greatly reduced from what they once were?

Evidences for the Radiocarbon shift:

Unbalanced RC equation permits changes in RC levels.
Large deviations in radiocarbon dates in individual ancient sites:
Tarim mummies: 4000 yr mummy and neighbor 6000 yr mummy
Jericho: nomadic hunters remain in the same spot from 10,000 BC to 4,000 BC
European cave art: unchanged between 30,000 BC and 5,000 BC.

Gobi-Sahara desert formation
Sphinx water damage at base (unlike "contemporary 4th dynasty monuments")
Sphinx: 2076-2085 BC, so how did it get so wet?
Khufu pyramic RC samples: 3809BC+or- 160, 3101BC, 3090-2855BC+or- 104,
Khafre pyramid: 3196-2723BC; Menkaure pyramid: 3076-2067BC
All of the above pyramids are now known to date after 2300 BC.
Other pyramids (compare with Babel), some significant sumberged indicating significant water depth changed through water levels not significantly altered:
6 pyramids of Aspero, Peru (3500BC-2700BC), ziggurats of Sumer, stupas of India, Shang Dynasty pyramids (1300BC-1100BC), Aztec Teotihuacan: Pyramid of the Sun and Pyramid of the Moon, (around 250 AD), Mayan pyramids (550AD-950AD), Peru (1900BC-1400BC), Irish burial ground Newgrange, Silbury Hill in England (2660BC), Yonaguni Monument off Japan's Ryuku Island in East China Sea (under water), 2200 ft down in water off west coast of Cuba see pyramids, road, and buildings - but water levels not substantially changed over past 10,000 years. Pyramid at Mahabalipuram sea port, under 15-21 ft of water in India.
Core steppe pyramid at core of most great Egyptian pyramids. Sumer: corners face eastwest, Egypt: sides face east-west.
Babel (apocrypha - work of Nimrod)
Similar religious significance, and similar myths (Old and New Worlds)
Sumer text (2000 BC) and (and Bible) say mountain rose out of the sea to form land.

[Blackheart]

Pinker, S. 1998. How the mind works. New York: Norton.

Pinker, S. 1994. The language instinct. New York: Harper Collins.

Plomin, R. & DeFries, J. 1998. “The genetics of cognitive abilities and disabilities,� Scientific American. May 1998.

Post, F. 1994. Creativity and psychopathology: A study of 291 world-famous men. The British Journal of Psychiatry. 22-34.

Sapolsky, R. 1997. The trouble with testosterone and other essays on the biology of the human predicament. New York: Simon & Schuster.

Trivers, R. 1971. The evolution of reciprocal altruism. Quarterly Review of Biology, 46, 35-57.

Trivers, R. 1972. Parental investment and sexual selection. In B. Campbell (Ed.), Sexual selection and the descent of man. Chicago: Aldine.

Trivers, R. 1974. Parent-offspring conflict. American Zoologist., 14, 249-264.

Trivers, R. 1976. Foreword. In R. Dawkins, The selfish gene. New York: Oxford University Press.

Williams, G. 1996. Adaptation and natural selection. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Wilson, E.O. 1975/2000. Sociobiology: The new synthesis. (25th anniversary ed.) Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press.

Wilson, E.O. 1998. Concilience: The unity of knowledge. New York: Knopf

Wright, R. 1994. The moral animal: The new science of evolutionary psychology. New York: Vintage.

Zimmer, C. 2001. Evolution: The triumph of an idea. New York: Harper Collins.

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

Some eh? Well at least it's not an unsubstantiated conclusion.

[Last Child of Ungoliant]

Originally Posted by blackheart

Some eh? Well at least it's not an unsubstantiated conclusion

rofl

[Janny]

Hi. What do you mean when you say 'human behaviour would be hard coded and happen a lot faster'?

[Blackheart]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

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:

Hmm... Well not that it makes much difference. My morals and all morals arising from survival needs is pretty much a subset of a larger set.

Since it falls under the same umbrella, I will refer him to the above post.

[Blackheart]

Originally Posted by Janny

Hi. What do you mean when you say 'human behaviour would be hard coded and happen a lot faster'?

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.

[Blackheart]

Here is a list of univeral human cultural traits.
The upshot of a trait being universal, is that it is very likely influenced by genetic predispositions.

(Source: The Blank Slate by Steven Pinker)

Abstraction in speech and thought
Action under self-control distinguished from those not under control
Aesthetics
Affection expressed and felt
Age grades
Age statuses
Age terms
Ambivalence
Anthropomorphization
Anticipation
Antonyms
Baby talk
Belief in supernatural/religion
Beliefs, false
Beliefs about death
Beliefs about disease
Beliefs about fortune and misfortune
Binary cognitive distinctions
Biological mother and social mother normally the same person
Black (color term)
Body adornment
Childbirth customs
Childcare
Childhood fears
Childhood fear of loud noises
Childhood fear of strangers
Choice making (choosing alternative)
Classification
Classification of age
Classification of behavioral propensities
Classification of body parts
Classification of colors
Classification of fauna
Classification of flora
Classification of inner states
Classification of kin
Classification of sex
Classification of space
Classification of tools
Classification of weather conditions
Coalitions
Collective identities
Conflict
Conflict, consultation to deal with
Conflict, means of dealing with
Conflict, mediation of
Conjectural reasoning
Containers
Continua (ordering as cognitive pattern)
Contrasting marked and nonmarked sememes (meaningful elements of language)
Cooking
Cooperation
Cooperative labor
Copulation normally conducted in privacy
Corporate (perpetual) statuses
Coyness display
Critical learning periods
Crying
Cultural variability
Culture
Culture/nature distinction
Customary greetings
Daily routines
Dance
Death rituals
Decision making
Decision making, collective
Differential valuations
Directions, giving of
Discrepancies between speech, thought, and action
Dispersed groups
Distinguishing right and wrong
Diurnality
Divination
Division of labor
Division of labor by age
Division of labor by sex
Dreams
Dream interpretation
Dominance/submission
Economic inequalities, consciousness of
Emotions
Empathy
Entification (treating patterns and relations as things)
Environment, adjustments to
Envy
Envy, symbolic means of coping with
Ethnocentrism
Etiquette
Explanation
Face (word for)
Facial communication
Facial expression of anger
Facial expression of contempt
Facial expression of disgust
Facial expression of fear
Facial expression of happiness
Facial expression of sadness
Facial expression of surprise
Facial expressions, masking/modifying of
Fairness (equity) concept of
Family (or household)
Father and mother, separate kin terms for
Fears
Fears, ability to overcome
Fear of death
Feasting
Females do more direct childcare
Figurative speech
Fire
Folklore
Food preferences
Food sharing
Future, attempts to predict
Generosity admired
Gestures
Gift giving
Good and bad distinguished
Gossip
Government
Grammar
Group living
Groups that are not based on family
Habituation
Hairstyles
Hand (word for)
Healing the sick (or attempting to)
Hope
Hospitality
Husband older than wife on average
Hygienic care
Identity, collective
Imagery
Incest between mother and son unthinkable or tabooed
Incest, prevention or avoidance
In-group distinguished from out-group(s)
Inheritance rules
Institutions (organized co-activities)
Insulting
Intention
Interest in bioforms (living things or things that resemble them)
Interpolation
Interpreting behavior
Intertwining (e.g. weaving)
Jokes
Judging others
Kin, close distinguished from distant
Kin groups
Kin terms translatable by basic relations of procreation
Kinship statuses
Language
Language employed to manipulate others
Language employed to misinform or mislead
Language is translatable
Language not a simple reflection of reality
Language, prestige from proficient use of
Law (rights and obligations)
Law (rules of membership)
Leaders
Lever
Likes and dislikes
Linguistic redundancy
Logical notions
Logical notion of “and�
Logical notion of “opposite�
Logical notion of “part/whole�
Logical notion of “same�
Magic
Magic to increase life
Magic to sustain life
Magic to win love
Making comparisons
Male and female and adult and child seen as having different natures
Males dominate public/political realm
Males engage in more coalitional violence
Males more aggressive
Males more prone to lethal violence
Males more prone to theft
Males, on average, travel greater distances over lifetime
Manipulation of social relations
Marking at phonemic, syntactic, and lexical levels
Marriage
Materialism
Meal times
Meaning, most units of are not universal
Measuring
Medicine
Melody
Memory
Mental maps
Mentalese
Metaphor
Metonym
Mood or consciousness altering techniques and/or substances
Moral sentiments
Moral sentiments, limited effective range of
Morphemes
Mother normally has consort during child rearing years
Mourning
Murder proscribed
Music
Music, children’s
Music related in part to religious activity
Music seen as art
Normal distinguished from abnormal states
Nouns
Numerals (counting)
Music, vocal
Music, vocal , includes speech forms
Musical redundancy
Musical repetition
Musical variation
Myths
Narrative
Nomenclature, (perhaps the same as classification)
Nonbodily decorative art
Oligarchy, de facto
One (numeral)
Onomatopoeia
Overestimating objectivity of thought
Pain
Past/present/future
Person, concept of
Personal names
Phonemes
Phonemes defined by sets of minimally contrasting features
Phonemes, merging of
Phonemes range from 10 to 70 in number
Phonemic change, inevitability of
Phonemic change, rules of
Phonemic system
Planning
Planning for future
Play
Play to perfect skills
Poetry/rhetoric
Poetic line, uniform length of
Poetic lines characterized by repetition and variation
Poetic lines demarcated by pauses
Polysemy (one word has several related meanings)
Possessive, intimate
Possessive, loose
Practice to improve skills
Precedence, concept of
Preference for own children and close kin, nepotism
Prestige inequalities
Pretend play
Pride
Private inner life
Promise
Pronouns
Pronouns, minimum two numbers
Pronouns, minimum three persons
Proper names
Property
Proverbs, sayings
Proverbs, sayings in mutually contradictory forms
Psychological defense mechanisms
Rape
Rape proscribed
Reciprocal exchanges (of labor, goods, or services)
Reciprocity, negative (revenge, retaliation)
Reciprocity, positive
Recognition of individuals by face
Redress of wrongs
Resistance to abuse of power, to dominance
Rhythm
Right-handedness as population norm
Rites of passage
Rituals
Risk taking
Role and personality seen in dynamic interrelationship (i.e. departures from role can be explained in terms of individual personality.
Sanctions
Sanctions for crimes against the collectivity
Sanctions include removal from the social unit
Self-control
Self distinguished from other
Self as neither wholly passive or wholly authoritarian
Self as subject and object
Self-image, awareness of (concern for what others think)

con't

[Blackheart]

Self-image, manipulation of
Self-image, wanted to be positive
Self is responsible
Semantics
Semantic category of affecting things and people
Semantic category of dimension
Semantic category of giving
Semantic category of location
Semantic category of motion
Semantic category of speed
Semantic category of other physical properties
Semantic components
Semantic components, generation
Semantic components, sex
Sememes, commonly used ones are short, infrequently use ones are longer
Senses unified
Sex differences in spatial cognition and behavior
Sex (gender) terminology is fundamentally binary
Sex statuses
Sexual attraction
Sexual attractiveness
Sexual jealousy
Sexual modesty
Sexual regulation
Sexual regulation includes incest prevention
Sexuality as focus of interest
Shame
Shelter
Sickness and death seen as related
Snakes, wariness around
Social structure
Socialization
Socialization expected from senior kin
Socialization includes toilet training
Spear
Special speech for special occasions
Statuses and roles
Statuses, ascribed and achieved
Statuses distinguished from individual
Statuses on other than sex, age, or kinship bases
Stinginess, disapproval of
Stop/nonstop constraints (in speech sounds)
Succession
Sweets preferred
Symbolism
Symbolic speech
Synesthetic metaphors
Synonyms
Taboos
Tabooed food
Tabooed utterances
Taxonomy
Territoriality
Thumb sucking
Tickling
Time
Time, cyclicity of
Tools
Tool dependency
Tool making
Tools for cutting
Tools for making tools
Tools patterned culturally
Tools, permanent
Tools for pounding
Toys, playthings
Trade
Triangular awareness (assessing relationships among the self and two other people)
True and false distinguished
Turn-taking
Two (numeral)
Tying material (i.e. something like string)
Units of time
Verbs
Violence, some forms of proscribed
Visiting
Vocalic/nonvocalic contrasts in phonemes
Vowel contrasts
Weaning
Weapons
Weather control (attempts to)
White (color term)

If you will note many of these universal traits impinge on or are directly linked to, cultural mores and/or norms.

[Blackheart]

Originally Posted by Janny

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?

Hmm.. I shall I explain this...

The capability of humans to have advanced hueristic capacity depends on their ability to manipulate internal symbols, predict the results of internal symbol manipulaiton, and then, in order for it to become behavior, implement or translate the internal manipulation into external result.

If you were "hard coded" you wouldn't be able to deviate significantly from any other human's internal thought process.

Human thought moves more roughly in a general direction. So it might be more accurate to think of humans as being "soft coded"...

And when I say quick, I mean quick on a geologic time scale. Hundreds of thousands of years, as opposed to hundreds of millions of years.

[Blackheart]

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

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.

Unfortunately you're moving into the realm of philosophy at this point. Science doesn't have an answer. If you want to debate free will, we should probably start froma different viewpoint.

As I mentioned above, humans have advanced capabilities for heuristics. What you are saying is basically the same as complaining that we are limited in what we can percieve and react to by the limitations of the universe.

If you can respond to the environment (which consists of the entire universe) in multiple ways depending on your past experience, your genetic predispositions (based on solutions that worked for your ancestors) and how you feel at any given moment, as well as any other myriad number of factors, I say that it makes very little difference whether you actually have free will, or it's just an illusion.

If it's an illusion, it's a pretty damned good one...

[Fat middle]

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

Having genetic instructions of "Do whatever it is you think would best keep us alive" IS a genetic instruction after all.

I don't think that may be considered as an instruction. It's more like an open door.

After all, you can choose to do something that you think it's not the best to keep us alive

[Last Child of Ungoliant]

Originally Posted by Fat middle

I don't think that may be considered as an instruction. It's more like an open door.

After all, you can choose to do something that you think it's not the best to keep us alive

it is definitely an instruction, it is the most basic instinct that exists in the animal kingdom: Survival by whatever means possible.

[Insidious Rex]

Originally Posted by Fat middle

I don't think that may be considered as an instruction. It's more like an open door.

After all, you can choose to do something that you think it's not the best to keep us alive

like what? and dont forget that a wide (almost infinite) variety of actions may at any given time be beneficial to the survival and propagation of a set of genes. so you cant limit an action as a rule when it may be necessary under rare conditions.

[Blackheart]

Originally Posted by Last Child of Ungoliant

it is definitely an instruction, it is the most basic instinct that exists in the animal kingdom: Survival by whatever means possible.

It's an instruction, but not a mandate. Humans can indeed override their instincts.

In fact that's a lot of what's at the base of mores and norms, choosing between conflicting instincts...

There are a lot of times where group and species survival is more important that individual survival. So you find a significant occurence of taboos surrounding things like stealing, killing off competing offspring etc.

Those types of things might be just dandy for an individual's survival, or an individual's genetic survival, but they are not good for species or group survival...

[Earniel]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

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.

[...]

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.

I disagree. How can not knowing something be a belief? Imagine a mathematician that doesn't have enough data to solve a math-question. According to your theory that mathematician would have a belief system based on not knowing that bit of info and therefore on not being able to solve the question. It doesn't make sense to me. A decision that you don't have enough info to make a decent decision is not a belief.

Morals do not uniquely belong to religion. I think you can have morality and morals without accepting the presence of a devine being. Therefore I think agnostics can be,in regard to beliefs in devine beings, NEUTRAL. It's neither yes or no for them, I don't see how you can get anymore neutral than that.

[Earniel]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

I haven't done as much research on the long ages as I should, if I want to make a very convincing argument. I do believe there is significant evidence for a dramatic radiocarbon shift, however, and it seems reasonable to suppose that this would have a strong impact upon the life expectancy of living organisms from ancient times. Here is my post from before on the matter:[...]

Thanks for posting that, Lief. It's an interesting theory, although still lacking in sufficient supporting evidence. The radiation IMO cannot have had such an overwhelming influence on life spans. And the theory doesn't take into account the other factors such as state of the medicine arts which would no doubt have had a more significant impact on the lengths of life spans.

[inked]

Blackheart (of lists today's King),

"Here is a list of univeral human cultural traits.
The upshot of a trait being universal, is that it is very likely influenced by genetic predispositions."

I note marriage and morals under the rubric universal human traits - which point I have been making repetitiously for some time. Thank you for the augmentation!

But, I must warn you and myself (as much as I like the point I make from the data) that "very likely influenced by genetic predispositions" is a far cry from proof of the same. The furor over the "god gene" and the "gay gene" et alia come to mind.

I think that an equivalent claim can be made that the "upshot of a trait being universal" is that there is a common Creator works as well, and has the benefit added of noting the Source rather than merely seeing a potential source.

And I am glad to hear you aren't intentionally mechanistically deterministic.

So, your source for free will?

[jerseydevil]

I think what religion boils down to are several things...

1) As the Beatles said - "God is a concept by which we measure our pain"
2) Death is scary, by believing in an afterlife, it makes it easier to deal with someone dying, let alone oneself (if I believed in heaven - I would see my mother when I die).
3) Religion was a way to explain natural phenomenon that was not understood at the time, but today we have science to explain.
4) Religion was a way for governments to control people, by putting the fear of god into them.