Original Sin - Scripture and Reason

Explanations are only worthwhile if I was trying to convince anyone and I have no desire to convince anyone.

Keep in mind that this topic is in Faith&Belief. We can legitimately ask if humans have a basic propensity to be selfish, greedy, and think of themselves before they think of their neighbor. And yet, jar, think of our discussions concerning the American Indians and of how the US wont fully honor the old treaties. I am willing to bet that if everyone were asked to vote on it, we would still never give them what we allegedly owe them, even if we legally had to do so. My point is that people look out for their own interests over those of others, when it comes to the land beneath our feet or the house in which we own. We are naturally more selfish than we are selfless.

How about some examples?

Yes, may people might act as you assert, but not all.

I'm not sure examples are even relevant or important, but people have been known to place themselves in danger for the benefit of others, often for folk they do not even know.The basis of Christianity as I know it is a requirement to try to do what is right, to try to help others, to act as stewards. It's "do unto others as you wish they would do unto you" not "do unto others as they do unto you" or "do unto others as you think they will do unto you".It's not often making big sacrifices or doing big things but it is trying to do what is right within your power, your environment, your ethos. It's not for reward or compensation, but just because it needs doing.It's little things, running the World Community Grid on all my computers, taking in the neighbors trash can when I go get mine, putting the carts back in the proper place when folk have left them loose in the parking lot at the grocery store, giving a new mother a fountain pen, ink and journal so she can write notes to her new baby. But it can be bigger things, being a volunteer fireman, learning first aid, kneeling down when talking to kids so you are at their level...To try to tie this into the topic, even if there were some "original sin", it is our duty to try to do what is right even if it is at a major cost to ourselves, not because there is some reward or return, but simply because it is the right thing to do.

Yes, they do. But just because you cannot discern a selfish motive involved does not mean there is not one.Take kamikaze bees - who not only place themselves in danger for the benefit of others - but actually kill themselves for their benefit.The selfish behaviour being demonstrated in this kind of example may be the genes (mistakenly, perhaps) 'trying' to selfishly increase their frequency in the gene pool.Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

I'm not a kamikaze bee.

I didn't call you one - I was using it as an example of non-obvious selfish motives for behaviour that seems to only benefit others at a cost to the individual engaged in that behaviour.I was saying that just because you cannot discern it, does not mean it isn't there.

And I'm explaining to you that it just isn't there.Edited by jar, : fix sub-title

I guess I missed that explanation. All I see is you assert some unspoken knowledge (Message 25), an explicit refusal to explain yourself (Message 31) followed by an assertion that you discern no selfishness (Message 29 and Message 35), and that you believe you do things with no selfish motive, as if that meant something.Your conscious motivations are not in question - what's being discussed on the unconscious motivations of both yourself, your genes and your memes.I think that you've fallen for the classic delusion of thinking that the reason you believe you did something, is the reason why you did something. Sometimes you may be right, but it's difficult to impossible to determine that by mere self-inspection.Incidentally - this is what it looks like when someone is trying to discuss something with you. It's exactly the opposite of the impression you are giving in this discussion. If you don't want to debate this matter - stop posting in this thread!

I'm somewhat confused by your saying you missed that when you actually quote it.The assertion I made was that I am unable to discern any selfish motive whether intellectual, genetic or otherwise in those actions I take that are unselfish.That is not a claim that all actions are unselfish and there are certainly times that I do things that might meet your criteria, but the essence is that as a human I can behave beyond simply responding to any genetic or selfish causes.If you do not want to discuss this topic then stop posting in this thread.

Now I'm confused. I quoted you asserting that you had explained it/were explaining it. I did not quote you explaining it. I quoted the entirety of Message 39 so I'm pretty sure I didn't miss anything. And my counter was that just because something is not discerned by you, does not make it so. There is no reason to suppose that if there were a selfish force in play - you would necessarily discern it. I am not asserting that you claim all actions are unselfish. I'm just saying the ones that appear selfless might not be; The selfish influences may bea) genetic: by helping out your community you are making your community stronger, which helps the replication of the genes that influence helping the community.b) individual: by helping your community you hope to gain (consciously or otherwise) social benefits through reciprocity or the reinforcement of your belief that you are a good person or what have you.c) memetic: By bringing in your neighbours trashcan you are displaying a certain behaviour. This advertisement increases the chances of the 'bringing in other's trashcans' meme of being replicated.d) other: maybe there are other forces at play that I have not discerned.I can grant the notion that when we calculate things out, some actions may turn out to not benefit anyone sufficiently to justify the act - that is to say, mistakes may be made by the various entities in promoting certain behaviours. Some memes you may have adopted may be very poor replicators. Those that encourage secret acts of kindness for example. They can't easily replicate through mimicry, though they might replicate through other means.But those memes that you have that are successful replicators, are those that encourage behaviour that gets them replicated. The same goes for your genes. You may have some genes or memes that encourage behaviour that does not get them replicated, and that behaviour may even be selfless.But just because you cannot discern these selfish influences, it does not follow that they are not present. But I do! That's why I invited you to join the discussion in Message 28, but you were the one that demurred in Message 29 claiming that 'There's really not much to discuss'. I've tried numerous times to get you to subsequently join in and bring your position and your support for that position.My position is that selfish genes can build unselfish individuals. That selfish memes can encourage unselfish behaviours. That the only part of this that intersects with the original sin notion is the part that observes that individuals are often selfish and that it takes will to overcome our selfishness. GDR seems to think that some memes are God-given and these ones encourage selflessness - but my main counter is that our biological nature is to be social primates. That our selfish genes encourage behaviour that benefits our community even at a cost to ourselves.That genes can even create individuals that engage in suicidal behaviour, but that memes are even more powerful in this element. Fighting and dying for one's country might be explainable largely in terms of genetic influences (protect the community/family) - but we can't escape the power of memes such as ' Dulce et decorum est pro patria mori' and so on.

Lots of words but I see no content.Sorry but that is a fact.We are in "Faith and Belief".It is a fact that I and others do things that are not driven by selfish motives.AbE:It is our duty to escape the power of "memes" and other irrelevancies.Edited by jar, : see AbE:

I'm willing to bet that lots of words with no content trumps very few words with no content in terms of which of us is trying to have a discussion about the issues raised in this thread. Again - if you don't want to discuss the issues in the thread, and simply want to share your opinions, then now that you've done that - you can desist from posting.If you want more content, see my earlier posts in which I was discussing the position with someone who clearly wanted a discussion. And I'm asking you over and again to support this fact. All you've done so far is claim that your inability to discern selfish motives is somehow relevant. That does not mean that this is a forum where we simply declare our beliefs. We are still required to support our positions. It just doesn't have to be to a scientific standard. The rules still apply in this forum:

quote:

---

Points should be supported with evidence and reasoned argumentation. Address rebuttals through the introduction of additional evidence or by enlarging upon the argument. Do not repeat previous points without further elaboration. Avoid bare assertions.

---

Yawn.I have stated my position and even given examples. If you wish to refute that then you need to present evidence that a specific selfish motive drove those actions, not simply speculate about some imagined motives or causes.