|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Original Sin - Scripture and Reason | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jon Inactive Member |
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. If you can't or won't put the evidence on the table, then the discussion is already ended.Love your enemies!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jon Inactive Member |
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. And that's fine. You can conclude all the 'may well be's that you want. Just remember that 'may well be's have no bearing whatsoever on reality.Love your enemies!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Phat Member Posts: 18262 From: Denver,Colorado USA Joined: Member Rating: 1.1 |
jar writes: In telling us about all your boy scout good deeds, it appears that you think you have earned a "right thing to do" button. I doubt God would be impressed, though you can have a hidden pride in that you believe that you have transcended the basic animal nature of humans.
What is the selfish motive for my pushing grocery carts back into the store from the parking lot?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Phat Member Posts: 18262 From: Denver,Colorado USA Joined: Member Rating: 1.1 |
jar writes: yes, and you have no Holy Spirit either. God never indwells you, you rise to the standard demanded of you and try and do your very best. I have no "memes". No selfish motives there, right? And yet.....
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 395 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
I have no idea whether God would be impressed and that is totally irrelevant. In fact if I were doing it to curry favor with God then it would be a selfish act.
It's not a matter of pride to do what is right, it is a duty. There's no benefit earned, no one keeping score, and I did not trot out a laundry list of "boy scout good deeds" until people repeatedly asked for examples. Our duty, as a human, is to try to transcend the basic animal nature. Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 395 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined:
|
Evidence Phat?
Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
saab93f Member (Idle past 1395 days) Posts: 265 From: Finland Joined: |
quote: I agree wholehertedly with you. Even though there are very much that is vile and loathable in the Bible, the concept of OS takes the win. It is probably the most inherently idea in the worlt and the ultimate power-tool for the clergy and religiosos. Looking at a new-born and instead of marveling the fact that a new human being is at the beginning of his/her journey as one of us, the infant is seen evil and in need of magic is a very big reason why I am so much in disagreement with xianity.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
vimesey Member Posts: 1398 From: Birmingham, England Joined: |
Hi Modulous,
I had to get some sleep last night, and am coming back to your post a little late. I've been reading through your points, and this statement in particular interested me:
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 haven't read the source material I'm afraid (would that I had the time !), but can you give me a thumbnail sketch as to how, from a neurological perspective, our DNA influences our conscious thoughts (for example, our decision to do an apparently selfless act) ? If I can get a grasp of that, then I can come back more meaningfully on your other points.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
And that's fine. You can conclude all the 'may well be's that you want. Just remember that 'may well be's have no bearing whatsoever on reality. Since all I am saying is that jar has not eliminated all the maybes in his claim to knowledge, that is sufficient to make my point.
If you can't or won't put the evidence on the table, then the discussion is already ended. My point to jar exactly. He refuses to support his claim to knowledge, merely asserting the knowledge. He has not eliminated known unconscious drivers of behaviour. I am not making the claim that 'gene x' is impacting jar's behaviour - jar is making the claim that no genes whatsoever or anything else with 'selfish' motives are in play - and he uses his conscious awareness and recollection as his only support for this position. Which is inadequate when dealing with things we are almost always unconscious of. Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
I had to get some sleep last night You and me both
I haven't read the source material I'm afraid (would that I had the time !), but can you give me a thumbnail sketch as to how, from a neurological perspective, our DNA influences our conscious thoughts (for example, our decision to do an apparently selfless act) ? If I can get a grasp of that, then I can come back more meaningfully on your other points. DNA builds brainsBrains determine behaviour. That's as thumbnail as it gets. Take this paper as an example:
quote: There's a gene, one of its jobs seems to be related to the volume of the amygdala and ventral PFC. It notes there is a link between individuals with this reduction with anti-social behaviour. Clearly then - the volume of the amygdala etc may well influence our social behaviours. Does that clear anything up?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jon Inactive Member |
Since all I am saying is that jar has not eliminated all the maybes in his claim to knowledge, that is sufficient to make my point. Huh? What makes you think jar hasn't done this? He has repeatedly asserted that there were no selfish motives. What more do you need to assess jar's motives other than jar telling you what they were?
He has not eliminated known unconscious drivers of behaviour. And you have not presented any 'known unconscious drivers of behaviour' to even consider.
jar is making the claim that no genes whatsoever or anything else with 'selfish' motives are in play The notion that a gene can have 'selfish' motives is just ridiculous. Don't be surprised that folks don't think the idea worth consideration.
he uses his conscious awareness and recollection as his only support for this position. And until you show us the genes that you think are capable of bypassing jar's conscious recollection, he needs no other support than what he's given. Present your evidence.Love your enemies!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Panda Member (Idle past 3713 days) Posts: 2688 From: UK Joined:
|
Jon writes:
Yeah - Richard Dawkin's was laughed out of town when he proposed it. The notion that a gene can have 'selfish' motives is just ridiculous. Don't be surprised that folks don't think the idea worth consideration. Oh....wait...
Jon writes:
Most (all?) of our emotions are subconsciously controlled and these are guided by our genes. And until you show us the genes that you think are capable of bypassing jar's conscious recollection, he needs no other support than what he's given. Present your evidence.This is not a major revelation. So, should we think you stupid or disingenuous? Edited by Panda, : No reason given. Edited by Panda, : No reason given.CRYSTALS!!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
vimesey Member Posts: 1398 From: Birmingham, England Joined: |
Thanks - I'll try to find some time to look this over.
I think that where I would have difficulty is if the theory attributes all of conscious thought and/or motivation to our genetic make-up. I can accept that genetics may account for a general tendency, on average, amongst a group of people, to behave in a certain manner. I would find it harder to accept if the theory suggests that we are unable to make decisions which are anything other than a direct result of that genetic make-up. However, I haven't read the paper yet, so I will suspend any conclusions until I have.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
I think that where I would have difficulty is if the theory attributes all of conscious thought and/or motivation to our genetic make-up. Fortunately for you, it doesn't. The brain is also built by learning and experience. It is also built to absorb local culture and its norms. There are plenty of things that are happening when moral decisions are being made, not just the influence of the genes. The genes seem to give us only general instructions that don't take into account the local norms etc (look after family, help allies, assume the worst of non-allies etc etc). It requires a certain degree of learning to understand who family is, who our allies are and so on - as well as what it means to 'help' or what 'looking after' should be construed as.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined:
|
What makes you think jar hasn't done this? He has repeatedly asserted that there were no selfish motives. Yes he has, and that's exactly what I said jar had done. He has asserted it, not eliminated all the possibilities in his claim to knowledge.
What more do you need to assess jar's motives other than jar telling you what they were? Those are only jar's conscious motives. I happily accept them as he proposes them.
And you have not presented any 'known unconscious drivers of behaviour' to even consider. Genes are unconscious drivers of behaviour.
jar is making the claim that no genes whatsoever or anything else with 'selfish' motives are in play The notion that a gene can have 'selfish' motives is just ridiculous. I used scare quotes because I appreciate these aren't motives in a real sense. From the wikipedia article on selfish genes:
quote: And until you show us the genes that you think are capable of bypassing jar's conscious recollection, he needs no other support than what he's given. Do genes have an impact on human behaviour?Are genes conscious? Are you conscious of the influence your genes have on your behaviour? Do you think jar is?
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024