Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 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: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Original Sin - Scripture and Reason
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 76 of 203 (668557)
07-22-2012 6:32 PM
Reply to: Message 70 by GDR
07-22-2012 5:59 PM


Re: selfish replicators, altruistic individuals
In this it is strongly implicit that we are born as selfish creatures.
But we are not born to be selfish creatures. The selfishness at birth is a temporary thing. We are born to be (at times) cooperative adult creatures. And I think Dawkins would agree with that.
I understand that you believe that altruism, is never truly altruistic, and that selfish genes can account for all apparent selflessness.
Not really, no. I believe that altruistic acts are driven by things which are acting in their own self-interest. They can still be 'truly altruistic'. And its not all genes. Its just that selfish genes can be a cause of truly altruistic acts by an individual. Just because the genes are being selfish, it does not mean that the individual is being selfish in acting in accord with those genes.
I don’t see my view as being far from this view. Certainly there are other views, some of which I find reprehensible, but if you insist that only the reprehensible views are valid, then you are simply attacking the straw man which makes it pretty difficult to have a valid discussion.
I insist no such thing.
But we don't need the selfish gene thing to get us there. We could just observe human development: We start as selfish babies and are taught to play nice. There: that conforms with you view of original sin.
The fact that selfish genes can give rise to individuals that can be selfless (ie., the Selfish Gene theory) is an aside to all that. The accord between reason and your faith is simple observation, observation that almost certainly pre-dates the original sin doctrine. You don't need selfish genes to get you there at all.
quote:
We have the power to deny the selfish genes of our birth and, if necessary, the selfish memes of our indoctrination.
I don't believe we can 'deny the selfish genes' completely - but we can certainly act in ways which act against the interests of our genes (such as contraception for example). But I suggest this is only done by either other genes (maybe genes that regulate when the right time to reproduce is) or memes (such as 'one shouldn't have children until financially stable'). And while we can overcome some memes - it is usually (if not always) as a result of other memes.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 70 by GDR, posted 07-22-2012 5:59 PM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 87 by GDR, posted 07-22-2012 7:26 PM Modulous has replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 77 of 203 (668558)
07-22-2012 6:36 PM
Reply to: Message 75 by Jon
07-22-2012 6:14 PM


Re: pushing a shopping cart
How do you figure out what jar's unconscious motives are?
Humans have unconscious motivations behind their behaviour. This is an observed fact.
jar is a human. This is an inferred fact.
ergo, jar has unconscious motivations.
I obviously don't know all the motivations that are idiosyncratic to jar - but I can suggest the ones which are present in humans in general.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 75 by Jon, posted 07-22-2012 6:14 PM Jon has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 84 by Jon, posted 07-22-2012 7:10 PM Modulous has replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 78 of 203 (668559)
07-22-2012 6:37 PM
Reply to: Message 74 by jar
07-22-2012 6:10 PM


Re: pushing a shopping cart
Of course I am obligated to do my duty
OK then, so what obligates you?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 74 by jar, posted 07-22-2012 6:10 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 79 by jar, posted 07-22-2012 6:38 PM Modulous has replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 79 of 203 (668560)
07-22-2012 6:38 PM
Reply to: Message 78 by Modulous
07-22-2012 6:37 PM


Re: pushing a shopping cart
Being human.
AbE:
Let me expand on that.
Being a conscious human with a moral base.
Edited by jar, : see AbE:

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 78 by Modulous, posted 07-22-2012 6:37 PM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 82 by Modulous, posted 07-22-2012 6:59 PM jar has replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 80 of 203 (668561)
07-22-2012 6:44 PM
Reply to: Message 73 by Dr Adequate
07-22-2012 6:06 PM


Re: pushing a shopping cart
I'm not really sure what you're trying to get at in your posts. It seems to be your objective to be annoying without being specific. Could you state your own position clearly so that I know what it is?
Selfish entities can lead to selfless behaviour. That is, the Selfish Gene theory.
This does not have any direct relation to original sin. Simple observation gets us that far. The fact that we have selfish genes does not mean we are built to be selfish individuals. While memes can help us be more selfless than we would otherwise be, they aren't necessary for generating cooperative behaviour.
Also: just because you cannot discern a selfish entity acting in a selfish way in cases of an individual acting selflessly, that does not mean it's not there. And engaging in a process of recollection and self-inspection is not sufficient grounds upon which to assert that one knows that no selfish entities were acting selfishly; There are no grounds to suppose that the influence of selfish genes would be known consciously, for example.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 73 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-22-2012 6:06 PM Dr Adequate has not replied

  
vimesey
Member
Posts: 1398
From: Birmingham, England
Joined: 09-21-2011


(1)
Message 81 of 203 (668562)
07-22-2012 6:45 PM
Reply to: Message 69 by Modulous
07-22-2012 5:57 PM


Re: moist robots
Read Unweaving the Rainbow, which is more or less a whole book designed to refute this conclusion.
I haven't read the book, but the quotation you have given doesn't refute what I am trying to say. I am an enthusiastic participant in the enlightenment - I hope that every post I have made here shows that - and I am not arguing against opening our eyes to the way the world actually works. I am suggesting that in this particular circumstance, I find the analysis of human altruism as a simple function of selfishness an unimportant and potentially damaging one.
I could spend time studying why the frequency of sunlight reaching my eyes makes the sky appear blue to me, but whilst that is interesting, it isn't a study which takes things very far forward. In the same way, I can accept that it is perfectly valid to analyse human altruism as selfishly motivated. I find that analysis, however, dry and academic, and when it comes to my own morality, very empty. It encourages us to be static, accepting and non-aspirational.
If we're going to understand human behaviour, so that we can account for it in our social policies, we have to face the reality of the human creature and not hide behind comforting way in which we would like to be.
You seem to be suggesting that the human creature is simply a creature of pre-programmed responses - pre-programmed selfishly to promote its own survival and that of the species. We can't ever choose to act in a way which is contrary to that programming, because every single choice we could make can be analysed as a selfish choice, from a certain perspective, and in certain circumstances. We think we can choose to be truly altruistic, but we're fooling ourselves - our altruism is delusional - our desire to better ourselves is delusional. We're just robotic products of our genetic and sub-conscious selfish prgramming.
I find that analysis rather nihilistic. I believe that it is a thought process which demeans what we call altruism, and teaches that selfishness is inevitable and at the heart of the human condition.
I can understand the analysis - and I do not believe that I am hiding behind a comforting view of what I would like human behaviour to be. I do think that if people think of themselves as something more than moist robots - who out of a sense of rightness, religious duty, or humanism, can feel that there is some value to altruism outside of selfishness - then we are a better society for that.
But we might not in fact be behaving selfishly. We may actually be behaving selflessly. It's just that our genes are acting selfishly. Or our memes or whatever.
As I've mentioned above, I think that this is an academically interesting and coherent analysis - I just don't think it gets us anywhere (particulary when it comes to accounting for human behaviour in our social policies), to say that behaviour can result from our genes acting selfishly. We can account for behaviour in social policies by accounting for the behaviour - we do not need to work out whether that behaviour is due to selfish genes or memes or whatever.
You're free to try that, but a reasonable examination of the situation would reveal that it is in your self interest to not be (perceived as) a selfish asshole. So even if you are acting purely selfishly, you'll act selflessly.
I agree with that, but there is a repetitive, corrosive and pervasive danger in constantly analysing behaviour in terms of selfishness, and it is that which I was trying to capture with my sentence. If we continually tell people, in a rather detached and academic way, that their whole being, down to their very genes, is selfish, and continually point out to them that even their proudest, most altruistic moment can be explained in terms of selfishness, then we should not be surprised if society gradually becomes more truly selfish and less altruistic over time. Arguably, we are seeing that already. Perhaps merchant bankers might ultimately become our role models

This message is a reply to:
 Message 69 by Modulous, posted 07-22-2012 5:57 PM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 86 by Modulous, posted 07-22-2012 7:23 PM vimesey has replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 82 of 203 (668563)
07-22-2012 6:59 PM
Reply to: Message 79 by jar
07-22-2012 6:38 PM


Re: pushing a shopping cart
Being a conscious human with a moral base.
I see you have a meme regarding doing the right thing. This meme 'it is a duty to do the right thing' drives you to do the right thing. This acts in accord with genes which are motivating you to do the right thing in the society in which you belong. The meme is acting selfishly, it is manifesting itself in your actions so that other observers may copy it. You repeat the meme here, you repeat it with your actions.
So yeah - I'm happy to accept that your personal motivations are pure and true. That you have a duty-based ethic system that you believe you are obliged to follow. That no part of your social primate self is thinking in terms of reciprocations and mutualism. No problem. I don't believe it, as it is unusual, but I choose not to argue it.
But to deny that there are absolutely not any selfish entities operating here seems strange to me. The only system you have given me for determining this is by self-inspection, but how can you self-inspect the operations of your genes on your own behaviour?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 79 by jar, posted 07-22-2012 6:38 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 83 by jar, posted 07-22-2012 7:05 PM Modulous has seen this message but not replied
 Message 85 by Jon, posted 07-22-2012 7:17 PM Modulous has replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 83 of 203 (668564)
07-22-2012 7:05 PM
Reply to: Message 82 by Modulous
07-22-2012 6:59 PM


Re: pushing a shopping cart
Humans love to create labels, like "meme" when what it really is is just common sense.
My jeans have little to do with anything after my teenage years and the effect of genes is irrelevant.
I have no "memes".

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 82 by Modulous, posted 07-22-2012 6:59 PM Modulous has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 94 by Phat, posted 07-22-2012 10:07 PM jar has replied

  
Jon
Inactive Member


Message 84 of 203 (668565)
07-22-2012 7:10 PM
Reply to: Message 77 by Modulous
07-22-2012 6:36 PM


Re: pushing a shopping cart
I can suggest the ones which are present in humans in general.
Yes; and you've been doing a lot of suggesting this whole thread.
But what can you offer to back up your suggestions? Where are the tests you use to figure out jar's unconscious motives?
How can you tell when jar is pushing a cart back into the building solely to the benefit of others from when he is pushing it back for his own unconscious selfish motives?
What test do you use?

Love your enemies!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 77 by Modulous, posted 07-22-2012 6:36 PM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 89 by Modulous, posted 07-22-2012 7:36 PM Jon has replied
 Message 120 by Stile, posted 07-24-2012 3:44 PM Jon has not replied

  
Jon
Inactive Member


Message 85 of 203 (668566)
07-22-2012 7:17 PM
Reply to: Message 82 by Modulous
07-22-2012 6:59 PM


Re: pushing a shopping cart
The only system you have given me for determining this is by self-inspection, but how can you self-inspect the operations of your genes on your own behaviour?
Then toss the specific genes on the table so we can all get a good look at them.
But just randomly attributing various behaviors to 'genes' is like telling someone they have their mother's nose. It passes the time and fills the silence, but that's about it.
It also, coincidentally, tells us nothing about the person's nose.
Edited by Jon, : No reason given.

Love your enemies!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 82 by Modulous, posted 07-22-2012 6:59 PM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 88 by Modulous, posted 07-22-2012 7:29 PM Jon has replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 86 of 203 (668567)
07-22-2012 7:23 PM
Reply to: Message 81 by vimesey
07-22-2012 6:45 PM


Re: moist robots
I haven't read the book, but the quotation you have given doesn't refute what I am trying to say. I am an enthusiastic participant in the enlightenment - I hope that every post I have made here shows that - and I am not arguing against opening our eyes to the way the world actually works. I am suggesting that in this particular circumstance, I find the analysis of human altruism as a simple function of selfishness an unimportant and potentially damaging one
I wouldn't say it was a simple function of selfishness. It is a study of how a selfish gene can promote selfless behaviour. That's interesting, because we shouldn't expect selfless genes to be replicated often as per natural selection.
That enables us to understand the beginnings of how and why and when social primates will cooperate. A useful bit of knowledge.
But further study will reveal learning and culture as influences on decision making too. But knowing about how to raise a child to be a productive and cooperative member of society is useful knowledge too.
I find that analysis, however, dry and academic, and when it comes to my own morality, very empty. It encourages us to be static, accepting and non-aspirational.
I deny it does any such thing. It allows us to face the truth about human morality, how it works, how it can be promoted, how it can be exploited (and how any such exploitation can be rectified). IT encourages not to be static and accepting - but to ruthlessly enquire as to the truth about human behaviour, as free as possible from our preconceptions.
how is it non-aspirational? What is it about it that makes it more 'accepting' than any other view of morality?
You seem to be suggesting that the human creature is simply a creature of pre-programmed responses - pre-programmed selfishly to promote its own survival and that of the species.
No, not 'simply a creature of pre-programmed' responses at all. A complex creature indeed, one that makes decisions based on a number of factors. One that is given a brain shaped by both genes and memes.
And no, I am not suggesting they are programmed to promoted its own survival or that of the species (especially not that of the species!). I am suggested they have neural based biases towards acting in cooperative ways which can increase in the gene pool, the frequency of the genes that create those same neural biases,
Again, the individual may be acting selflessly. But that doesn't mean that selfish entities have not had their influence on that selfless behaviour at the individual level.
I find that analysis rather nihilistic. I believe that it is a thought process which demeans what we call altruism, and teaches that selfishness is inevitable and at the heart of the human condition.
Individual selfishness is not at the heart of the human condition, though it is a part of it. Individual selfishness is not necessarily what leads to altruism. Genetic selfishness can lead to completely altruistic acts (including dying for someone else).
As I've mentioned above, I think that this is an academically interesting and coherent analysis - I just don't think it gets us anywhere (particulary when it comes to accounting for human behaviour in our social policies), to say that behaviour can result from our genes acting selfishly.
It really depends on your view of animal behaviour and evolution. Some people find it useful and interesting to know how animal behaviour can evolve, especially the kinds of behaviour that appear to run against the grain of individual self-interest.
I agree with that, but there is a repetitive, corrosive and pervasive danger in constantly analysing behaviour in terms of selfishness, and it is that which I was trying to capture with my sentence.
I'm not suggesting we always analyse behaviour in terms of selfishness. But we should analyse behaviour, and see what is driving it, and if it is behaviour we don't like - we can see how we can foster change of behaviour.
This thread does not encompass my entire moral philosophy. The selfishness aspect is kind of integral to the thread's topic, hence its focus.
To say that morality can be derived from amoral entities may be unpleasant, but no more so than saying that the Lilly is designed by blind agents, or that consciousness emerges from unconscious entities.
We can still discuss the morality of euthanasia or blood donation without recourse to the evolutionary causes of our moral sense, we can tell it with all the poetic glory we like. We can dress it up in 'duties' or 'categorical imperatives' and all that wonderful stuff. We can even speculate on divine mandates and the beauty of justice and whatever else. That morality has a natural (and perhaps disturbingly mundane) explanation doesn't detract from any of that in my opinion.
If we continually tell people, in a rather detached and academic way, that their whole being, down to their very genes, is selfish, and continually point out to them that even their proudest, most altruistic moment can be explained in terms of selfishness, then we should not be surprised if society gradually becomes more truly selfish and less altruistic over time.
Why?
Why would explaining to people that they are driven by both their selfishness and their selflessness cause them to act more selfishly? Remember, I am talking about individual selflessness being perfectly possible.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 81 by vimesey, posted 07-22-2012 6:45 PM vimesey has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 98 by vimesey, posted 07-23-2012 8:06 AM Modulous has replied

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 87 of 203 (668568)
07-22-2012 7:26 PM
Reply to: Message 76 by Modulous
07-22-2012 6:32 PM


Re: selfish replicators, altruistic individuals
Modulous writes:
But we are not born to be selfish creatures. The selfishness at birth is a temporary thing. We are born to be (at times) cooperative adult creatures. And I think Dawkins would agree with that.
Absolutely, and I agree that is consistent with Christian doctrine. We are born with selfish genes but it is God’s desire that we, in Dawkinish, reject the selfish genes of our birth. Here is a quote from the OP I posted.
GDR writes:
Original sin has always been a difficult doctrine to understand. My contention is that if we combine scripture and reason it is no longer difficult. Dawkins came to his understanding of selfish genes that we are born with through reason, and if we overlay the Genesis story with his reasoning we gain, what is in my view, a clear concept of original sin, along with the realization that we should move beyond that in our lives.
The concept of original sin taken strictly from the Bible is ambiguous and as we can see from the wiki report has meant that we have several different understandings as to our nature at the time of our birth. However, if we take Dawkins reasoned approach and through that lens look at the scripture I contend that we can gain a much clearer understanding of the scriptures and apply that understanding to other Christian doctrines as well.
Modulous writes:
Not really, no. I believe that altruistic acts are driven by things which are acting in their own self-interest. They can still be 'truly altruistic'. And its not all genes. Its just that selfish genes can be a cause of truly altruistic acts by an individual. Just because the genes are being selfish, it does not mean that the individual is being selfish in acting in accord with those genes.
I have to say, that I find that statement contradictory. If things are acting in their own self interest then it isn’t altruistic. In the last part of this quote you claim that acting in accordance to my selfish genes doesn’t make me selfish. If I’m not my genes then who am I?
Modulous writes:
I insist no such thing.
I apologise. You didn’t suggest that. I was thinking of Granny’s post when I wrote that.
Modulous writes:
But we don't need the selfish gene thing to get us there. We could just observe human development: We start as selfish babies and are taught to play nice. There: that conforms with you view of original sin.
I think it is more profound than that, but essentially I agree.
Modulous writes:
The fact that selfish genes can give rise to individuals that can be selfless (ie., the Selfish Gene theory) is an aside to all that. The accord between reason and your faith is simple observat ion, observation that almost certainly pre-dates the original sin doctrine. You don't need selfish genes to get you there at all.
I agree, but on the other hand there is a great deal of biological knowledge that w e have now that supports the simple observation and the scripture. A lot of science that I’ve read shows that what we thought was simple observation was anything but.
Modulous writes:
I don't believe we can 'deny the selfish genes' completely - but we can certainly act in ways which act against the interests of our genes (such as contraception for example). But I suggest this is only done by either other genes (maybe genes that regulate when the right time to reproduce is) or memes (such as 'one shouldn't have children until financially stable'). And while we can overcome some memes - it is usually (if not always) as a result of other memes.
No problem there. I’d add though that we can overcome the selfish gene of wanting to have a nice dinner out by the meme that tells us to take the cost of that meal and give it to some impoverished person so that they can eat for several days.

He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God.
Micah 6:8

This message is a reply to:
 Message 76 by Modulous, posted 07-22-2012 6:32 PM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 90 by Modulous, posted 07-22-2012 7:40 PM GDR has not replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 88 of 203 (668569)
07-22-2012 7:29 PM
Reply to: Message 85 by Jon
07-22-2012 7:17 PM


Re: pushing a shopping cart
Then toss the specific genes on the table so we can all get a good look at them.
I see no need to do that. I think it's a fairly well established set of facts that
a) Brains cause behaviours
b) Genes are involved in building brains.
c) There are some behaviours/biases etc common to just about all human brains
There is no need to be able to identify which genes have which effect exactly.
I mean a quick scout around the internet will probably turn up specific candidates if you were interested, but it seems way beyond the scope of this thread.
From Genes to Brain to Antisocial Behavior proposes one such gene as possibly playing a role. I suppose more could be found.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 85 by Jon, posted 07-22-2012 7:17 PM Jon has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 91 by Jon, posted 07-22-2012 9:53 PM Modulous has seen this message but not replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 89 of 203 (668570)
07-22-2012 7:36 PM
Reply to: Message 84 by Jon
07-22-2012 7:10 PM


Re: pushing a shopping cart
But what can you offer to back up your suggestions?
What do you want here? Evidence that genes influence brains that influence behaviour? Evidence that we're not always conscious of this influence? Evidence that ideas can change behaviour? Evidence that things can influence behaviour without us being conscious of it (such as the presence of authority figures, or a crowd of people that disagree)?
What?
Where are the tests you use to figure out jar's unconscious motives?
I don't claim to have figured out jar's unconscious motives, I claim to have inferred what some of them might be based on what I know about humans.
How can you tell when jar is pushing a cart back into the building solely to the benefit of others from when he is pushing it back for his own unconscious selfish motives?
I'm not even proposing that the selfish motives are necessarily jar's. They might be, in some circumstances. But like I don't have to specifically refute David Appleby's religious experience, I just have to point to the known psychological effects that can produce those kinds of experiences - I don't have to provide a complete analysis of jar's idiosyncratic motivations in order to conclude that there may well be selfish influences in jar's decision making process that he's not aware of and has not ruled out before concluding that he knows they don't exist.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 84 by Jon, posted 07-22-2012 7:10 PM Jon has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 92 by Jon, posted 07-22-2012 9:56 PM Modulous has replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 90 of 203 (668571)
07-22-2012 7:40 PM
Reply to: Message 87 by GDR
07-22-2012 7:26 PM


Re: selfish replicators, altruistic individuals
I have to say, that I find that statement contradictory. If things are acting in their own self interest then it isn’t altruistic.
Well, the point I'm making here is that genes acting in their own self interest can promote individuals who act against their self interest (ie., altruistically). The individual is not acting in their own self-interest, they are acting selflessly. The gene, is acting selfishly in promoting that kind of behaviour

This message is a reply to:
 Message 87 by GDR, posted 07-22-2012 7:26 PM GDR 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