Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
8 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 7/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Spiritual vs. physical
Quetzal
Member (Idle past 5872 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 46 of 51 (23071)
11-18-2002 5:11 AM
Reply to: Message 43 by RedVento
11-17-2002 12:56 PM


To possibly shortcut some of the semantic arguments here, I’d like to offer the definition provided by sociobiology for consideration:
Weak altruism: behavior that provides more benefit to another individual than it does to the individual performing the behavior
Strong altruism: behavior that provides benefit to another individual, but at a net cost to the individual performing the behavior
The distinction between strong and weak is an important one. Sharing of food, for example, although altruistic cannot be truly considered as a cost to the sharer if the individual otherwise has sufficient food (or has finished eating). On the other hand, jumping into a river to save a stranger or risking one’s life to save a little girl from a falling piano are assuredly examples of strong altruism.
The question then, for evolutionists, boils down to whether or not there can be a natural explanation for the existence and persistence of strong altruistic behavior among humans. I am purposely singling out evolutionists, because theists will simply use their catch-all non-explanation goddidit; strong altruism because weak altruism is both observable in non-human species and relatively easy to explain via kin selection, in-group cooperation, and reciprocal altruism theory; and humans because, afaik, they are the only species to exhibit strong altruistic behavior.
Anyone care to take a stab at it? (A hint: is there a difference between genetically-programmed altruism such as in kin selection and culturally-modified behaviors?)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by RedVento, posted 11-17-2002 12:56 PM RedVento has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 47 by forgiven, posted 11-22-2002 10:54 PM Quetzal has not replied

  
forgiven
Inactive Member


Message 47 of 51 (23839)
11-22-2002 10:54 PM
Reply to: Message 46 by Quetzal
11-18-2002 5:11 AM


quote:
Originally posted by Quetzal:
The question then, for evolutionists, boils down to whether or not there can be a natural explanation for the existence and persistence of strong altruistic behavior among humans. I am purposely singling out evolutionists, because theists will simply use their catch-all non-explanation goddidit; strong altruism because weak altruism is both observable in non-human species and relatively easy to explain via kin selection, in-group cooperation, and reciprocal altruism theory; and humans because, afaik, they are the only species to exhibit strong altruistic behavior.
Anyone care to take a stab at it? (A hint: is there a difference between genetically-programmed altruism such as in kin selection and culturally-modified behaviors?)
i'd be interested in others' take on that question too.. for the record, i can't see how the piano guy was acting thru either genetic programming or for cultural reasons...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by Quetzal, posted 11-18-2002 5:11 AM Quetzal has not replied

  
funkmasterfreaky
Inactive Member


Message 48 of 51 (23862)
11-23-2002 3:22 AM
Reply to: Message 6 by hiddenexit77
08-12-2002 9:28 PM


quote:
Originally posted by hiddenexit77:
And furthermore, what about art in all its forms? Poetry, visual art, music, all those indescribably wonderful things? How do they fit in? Is it materialistic to be an avid music listener, for instance?
Woah sorry i haven't read the hole thread yet but this statement as a musician didn't compute at all. Even when I didn't want to believe or even to much think about God, as a musician though I KNEW there was a spiritual side. I'm also married to a woman who is an exellent artist of all mediums who without any knowledge of God other than 2 or 3 scattered bible stories KNEW there was a spiritual. This is where i have a hard time with these logic debates. As a person who "creates" things i know that beauty does not create itself. Someone creates it. So to me logically there to music/art in itself or the love there of, is not materialistic, and would alone prove (to me) the existance of the spiritual. (imo)
------------------
saved by grace

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by hiddenexit77, posted 08-12-2002 9:28 PM hiddenexit77 has not replied

  
funkmasterfreaky
Inactive Member


Message 49 of 51 (23863)
11-23-2002 3:51 AM
Reply to: Message 40 by John
11-15-2002 8:50 AM


quote:
See.... easy when you define all the terms to suit your ends and gloss over the messy bits.
Back the truck up here. Beeping and all. beep beep beep. Definitions of words can never be perfect. This use of the part of the definition you recognize (suits a specific end)and glossing over the messy bits is a huge practice.
Language isn't perfect, it has flaws every language has vaugue words and times when the same word can be used to mean two drastically different things. Therefore our method of communication still leaves some guesswork!
There are a ton of words used around here that I'm starting to think we all have our own different definitions of. Most of those definitions to meet our own ends with a whole lot of gloss on the messy parts. So is it fair to single out one person for this?
------------------
saved by grace

This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by John, posted 11-15-2002 8:50 AM John has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 50 by John, posted 11-23-2002 10:58 AM funkmasterfreaky has replied

  
John
Inactive Member


Message 50 of 51 (23898)
11-23-2002 10:58 AM
Reply to: Message 49 by funkmasterfreaky
11-23-2002 3:51 AM


quote:
Originally posted by funkmasterfreaky:
This use of the part of the definition you recognize (suits a specific end)and glossing over the messy bits is a huge practice.
Yes, and a huge source of confusion as well. That is why I can be so irritatingly picky.
quote:
Language isn't perfect, it has flaws every language has vaugue words and times when the same word can be used to mean two drastically different things. Therefore our method of communication still leaves some guesswork!
Agreed. Again, this is precisely why I am so picky about it.
quote:
Most of those definitions to meet our own ends with a whole lot of gloss on the messy parts.
These words you speak are true, but does that justify the slop? I don't think so. Communication is more like poetry than anything else. Language isn't precise. There is a lot of metaphor, innuendo, analogy, whatever. I don't know of any way around this. Even mathematical logic, which eliminates the problem in the abstract, does not eliminate the problem-- need to define terms-- when making a practical argument. The trick is to not think in terms of the method of communication. In other words, the trick is to not confuse yourself with language. If you think about it, much of the field of informal logic is devoted to identifing when this is happening. Take the falacy of equivocation as an example. This, I think, is precisely what forgiven has been doing.
quote:
So is it fair to single out one person for this?
I don't. So watch it buck-o!
------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by funkmasterfreaky, posted 11-23-2002 3:51 AM funkmasterfreaky has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 51 by funkmasterfreaky, posted 11-23-2002 6:51 PM John has not replied

  
funkmasterfreaky
Inactive Member


Message 51 of 51 (23968)
11-23-2002 6:51 PM
Reply to: Message 50 by John
11-23-2002 10:58 AM


Point taken. I guess what i meant in a quick line is "definitions of words are continually changing and it would not seem towards making them clearer, but more vaugue and tolerant, and essentially less useful.
Which i think you agreed with me on. my last statement about singling anybody out was not necessary, I stand corrected.
------------------
saved by grace

This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by John, posted 11-23-2002 10:58 AM John has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024