Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,821 Year: 3,078/9,624 Month: 923/1,588 Week: 106/223 Day: 4/13 Hour: 0/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Original Sin - Scripture and Reason
Jon
Inactive Member


Message 91 of 203 (668588)
07-22-2012 9:53 PM
Reply to: Message 88 by Modulous
07-22-2012 7:29 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.
If you can't or won't put the evidence on the table, then the discussion is already ended.

Love your enemies!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 88 by Modulous, posted 07-22-2012 7:29 PM Modulous has seen this message but not replied

  
Jon
Inactive Member


Message 92 of 203 (668589)
07-22-2012 9:56 PM
Reply to: Message 89 by Modulous
07-22-2012 7:36 PM


Re: pushing a shopping cart
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!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 89 by Modulous, posted 07-22-2012 7:36 PM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 99 by Modulous, posted 07-23-2012 8:12 AM Jon has replied

  
Phat
Member
Posts: 18262
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 93 of 203 (668590)
07-22-2012 10:03 PM
Reply to: Message 49 by jar
07-22-2012 2:04 PM


Re: Discussion and debate are not synonymous
jar writes:
What is the selfish motive for my pushing grocery carts back into the store from the parking lot?
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by jar, posted 07-22-2012 2:04 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 95 by jar, posted 07-22-2012 10:11 PM Phat has seen this message but not replied

  
Phat
Member
Posts: 18262
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 94 of 203 (668591)
07-22-2012 10:07 PM
Reply to: Message 83 by jar
07-22-2012 7:05 PM


Re: pushing a shopping cart
jar writes:
I have no "memes".
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.
No selfish motives there, right? And yet.....

This message is a reply to:
 Message 83 by jar, posted 07-22-2012 7:05 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 96 by jar, posted 07-22-2012 10:11 PM Phat has replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 395 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 95 of 203 (668592)
07-22-2012 10:11 PM
Reply to: Message 93 by Phat
07-22-2012 10:03 PM


Re: Discussion and debate are not synonymous
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!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 93 by Phat, posted 07-22-2012 10:03 PM Phat has seen this message but not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 395 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


(1)
Message 96 of 203 (668593)
07-22-2012 10:11 PM
Reply to: Message 94 by Phat
07-22-2012 10:07 PM


Re: pushing a shopping cart
Evidence Phat?

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 94 by Phat, posted 07-22-2012 10:07 PM Phat has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 109 by Phat, posted 07-23-2012 11:45 AM jar has not replied

  
saab93f
Member (Idle past 1395 days)
Posts: 265
From: Finland
Joined: 12-17-2009


Message 97 of 203 (668612)
07-23-2012 4:17 AM
Reply to: Message 8 by Coyote
07-19-2012 2:07 PM


Re: Coming from reason
quote:
I consider the concept of original sin to be one of the most loathsome and self-destructive ideas ever dreamed up by our shaman class. There is nothing in this evil idea to help humankind, only to denigrate.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by Coyote, posted 07-19-2012 2:07 PM Coyote has seen this message but not replied

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


Message 98 of 203 (668615)
07-23-2012 8:06 AM
Reply to: Message 86 by Modulous
07-22-2012 7:23 PM


Re: moist robots
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 86 by Modulous, posted 07-22-2012 7:23 PM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 100 by Modulous, posted 07-23-2012 8:25 AM vimesey has replied

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


Message 99 of 203 (668616)
07-23-2012 8:12 AM
Reply to: Message 92 by Jon
07-22-2012 9:56 PM


Re: pushing a shopping cart
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 92 by Jon, posted 07-22-2012 9:56 PM Jon has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 101 by Jon, posted 07-23-2012 8:33 AM Modulous has replied

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


Message 100 of 203 (668617)
07-23-2012 8:25 AM
Reply to: Message 98 by vimesey
07-23-2012 8:06 AM


how genes influence behaviour
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 brains
Brains determine behaviour.
That's as thumbnail as it gets. Take this paper as an example:
quote:
For instance, a common polymorphism in the monoamine oxidase A (MAOA) gene has been associated with both antisocial behavior and also reductions in the volume of the amygdala and orbitofrontal (ventral prefrontal) cortexbrain structures that are found to be compromised in antisocial individuals.
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?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 98 by vimesey, posted 07-23-2012 8:06 AM vimesey has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 103 by vimesey, posted 07-23-2012 8:40 AM Modulous has replied

  
Jon
Inactive Member


Message 101 of 203 (668618)
07-23-2012 8:33 AM
Reply to: Message 99 by Modulous
07-23-2012 8:12 AM


Re: pushing a shopping cart
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!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 99 by Modulous, posted 07-23-2012 8:12 AM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 102 by Panda, posted 07-23-2012 8:39 AM Jon has not replied
 Message 105 by Modulous, posted 07-23-2012 8:54 AM Jon has replied

  
Panda
Member (Idle past 3713 days)
Posts: 2688
From: UK
Joined: 10-04-2010


(1)
Message 102 of 203 (668619)
07-23-2012 8:39 AM
Reply to: Message 101 by Jon
07-23-2012 8:33 AM


Re: pushing a shopping cart
Jon writes:
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.
Yeah - Richard Dawkin's was laughed out of town when he proposed it.
Oh....wait...
Jon writes:
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.
Most (all?) of our emotions are subconsciously controlled and these are guided by our genes.
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!!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 101 by Jon, posted 07-23-2012 8:33 AM Jon has not replied

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


Message 103 of 203 (668620)
07-23-2012 8:40 AM
Reply to: Message 100 by Modulous
07-23-2012 8:25 AM


Re: how genes influence behaviour
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 100 by Modulous, posted 07-23-2012 8:25 AM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 104 by Modulous, posted 07-23-2012 8:46 AM vimesey has not replied

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


Message 104 of 203 (668621)
07-23-2012 8:46 AM
Reply to: Message 103 by vimesey
07-23-2012 8:40 AM


Re: how genes influence behaviour
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 103 by vimesey, posted 07-23-2012 8:40 AM vimesey has not replied

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


(1)
Message 105 of 203 (668623)
07-23-2012 8:54 AM
Reply to: Message 101 by Jon
07-23-2012 8:33 AM


Re: pushing a shopping cart
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:
In describing genes as being "selfish", the author does not intend (as he states unequivocally in the work) to imply that they are driven by any motives or willmerely that their effects can be accurately described as if they were. The contention is that the genes that get passed on are the ones whose consequences serve their own implicit interests (to continue being replicated), not necessarily those of the organism, much less any larger level.
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?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 101 by Jon, posted 07-23-2012 8:33 AM Jon has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 108 by Jon, posted 07-23-2012 11:41 AM Modulous has seen this message but 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