Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Original Sin - Scripture and Reason
Granny Magda
Member
Posts: 2462
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007
Member Rating: 4.0


Message 106 of 203 (668628)
07-23-2012 10:45 AM
Reply to: Message 72 by GDR
07-22-2012 6:04 PM


Re: Selfish Genes and Original Sin
I think I answered the first part of your post in my response to Modulous. Also I quoted part of the wiki page on original sin in my response to Mod as well which shows that my view isn't unique or new.
What is unique is your attempt to draw parallels with evolutionary theory.
I have to say though, you are not really making a parallel with the actual theory of the Selfish Gene; you are making a parallel with a single comment that Dawkins made as a side-comment on the theory, not the theory itself. As such, all you are doing is pointing out that more than one person over the course of history has noticed that all of us are born with the capacity to do bad things. The comparison you make between the selfish behaviours of biological replicators and sin is a loose one I think. Selfishness and sin are far from synonymous. As such, I think you are making a rather trivial point.
Frankly I don't know what you mean by "extras-Biblical". Can you explain that and then I'll try to answer your question.
Much of the modern concept(s) of original sin is not mentioned by Paul. He gives little detail on the concept and never uses the phrase "original sin". He talks instead of how Adam's sin brought us death. You could interpret his words as being about original sin if you liked, but that is not the only way to interpret them. I don't see how this particular belief is useful or necessary to modern Christians. The idea that a baby is born in sin is abhorrent and should be consigned to the dustbin of bad theology. But then the whole concept of sin is wrong-headed as far as I'm concerned. It's a poor way of framing any discussion of morality.
Mutate and Survive

This message is a reply to:
 Message 72 by GDR, posted 07-22-2012 6:04 PM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 107 by jar, posted 07-23-2012 11:20 AM Granny Magda has not replied
 Message 110 by GDR, posted 07-23-2012 12:11 PM Granny Magda has replied

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


(2)
Message 107 of 203 (668630)
07-23-2012 11:20 AM
Reply to: Message 106 by Granny Magda
07-23-2012 10:45 AM


Re: Selfish Genes and Original Sin
He talks instead of how Adam's sin brought us death.
Actually not even that, he doesn't mention Adam or what specific event is referenced and if the reference is to the story in Genesis 2&3 it does not support Paul's assertions.
But I believe there is a connection between the products "Original Sin" and "memes" and "selfish genes" and that is none of them are ever an excuse for not trying to do what is right. Whether the excuse is "my genes made me do it" or "I'm depraved on account of I'm deprived" or "The Fall did it", we are still charged and have a duty to try behave correctly, even if success is impossible.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 106 by Granny Magda, posted 07-23-2012 10:45 AM Granny Magda has not replied

  
Jon
Inactive Member


Message 108 of 203 (668633)
07-23-2012 11:41 AM
Reply to: Message 105 by Modulous
07-23-2012 8:54 AM


Re: pushing a shopping cart
Sorry, Mod, but until you show us the specific genes, there isn't much more we can do besides accept jar's motives as he's told them to us.

Love your enemies!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 105 by Modulous, posted 07-23-2012 8:54 AM Modulous has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 113 by Modulous, posted 07-23-2012 1:09 PM Jon has replied

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


Message 109 of 203 (668635)
07-23-2012 11:45 AM
Reply to: Message 96 by jar
07-22-2012 10:11 PM


Re: pushing a shopping cart
*sighs* no, no evidence possible, thus I respectfully withdraw the inference.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 96 by jar, posted 07-22-2012 10:11 PM jar has not replied

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


Message 110 of 203 (668643)
07-23-2012 12:11 PM
Reply to: Message 106 by Granny Magda
07-23-2012 10:45 AM


Re: Selfish Genes and Original Sin
Granny Magda writes:
I have to say though, you are not really making a parallel with the actual theory of the Selfish Gene; you are making a parallel with a single comment that Dawkins made as a side-comment on the theory, not the theory itself.
Here are a couple more quotes from The Selfish Gene
Dawkins from The Selfish Gene writes:
1/The argument of this book is that we, and all other animals, are machines created by our genes.
2/We are survival machines — robot vehicles blindly programmed to preserve the selfish molecules known as genes. This is a truth which still fills me with astonishment.
Then here is the quote that you referenced.
quote:
We have the power to deny the selfish genes of our birth and, if necessary, the selfish memes of our indoctrination. We can even discuss ways of deliberately cultivating and nurturing pure, disinterested altruism — something that has no place in nature, something that has never existed before in the whole history of the world. We are built as gene machines and cultured as meme machines, but we have the power to turn against our creators. We alone on earth, can rebel against the tyranny of the selfish replicators.
If we then take the first two quotes and then take them in the context of your referenced quote I think we get a picture of what Dawkins is getting at.
He is essentially saying we are our genes, our selfish genes, and it is into that state we are born. After that we have the ability to rise above that selfish state, because we become cultured by memes.
Granny Magda writes:
Selfishness and sin are far from synonymous. As such, I think you are making a rather trivial point.
I don’t think that they are synonymous. Selfishness is a state of mind and sin are the actions that flow from that state of mind.
Granny Magda writes:
Much of the modern concept(s) of original sin is not mentioned by Paul. He gives little detail on the concept and never uses the phrase "original sin". He talks instead of how Adam's sin brought us death. You could interpret his words as being about original sin if you liked, but that is not the only way to interpret them. I don't see how this particular belief is useful or necessary to modern Christians. The idea that a baby is born in sin is abhorrent and should be consigned to the dustbin of bad theology. But then the whole concept of sin is wrong-headed as far as I'm concerned. It's a poor way of framing any discussion of morality.
The Genesis story is a metaphor for the understanding of our base nature which is that we are selfish or self serving. Over the millennia since then men have worked at sorting out what it all means. One concept that was proposed, (after the time of Paul for that matter), was that of original sin. It is a term that stuck and so I decided to use it in the title of this thread as it gives us a term of reference to work with. I’m not at all keen on the term either.
It isn’t that a baby is born in sin but that he is born as a blank slate composed of his/her genes and that those genes are selfish replicators.

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 106 by Granny Magda, posted 07-23-2012 10:45 AM Granny Magda has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 111 by PaulK, posted 07-23-2012 12:38 PM GDR has replied
 Message 162 by Granny Magda, posted 07-28-2012 7:16 AM GDR has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 111 of 203 (668644)
07-23-2012 12:38 PM
Reply to: Message 110 by GDR
07-23-2012 12:11 PM


Re: Selfish Genes and Original Sin
quote:
If we then take the first two quotes and then take them in the context of your referenced quote I think we get a picture of what Dawkins is getting at.
He is essentially saying we are our genes, our selfish genes, and it is into that state we are born. After that we have the ability to rise above that selfish state, because we become cultured by memes.
No, he says that we are created by our genes for the purpose of propagating and protecting our genes.
In the second quote he does NOT say that memes let us "rise above" the programming of our genes - he indicates that he thinks of memes, too, as "selfish replicators" and that we can rise above their programming, too.
quote:
The Genesis story is a metaphor for the understanding of our base nature which is that we are selfish or self serving
No, Original Sin is NOT in the Genesis story. It is an elaboration of Pauline theology which takes a rather different view of the Fall from that in the original myth. In the original myth humans, built to be God's servants, rebel, stealing the "knowledge of good and evil" and are cast out and cursed for doing so.
So if we we were looking at a parallel between Genesis and Dawkins views, God would be the "selfish genes", who create humanity, and the "knowledge of good and evil" would be the understanding we have gained which allows us to defeat this unthinking "god" which seeks to use us for it's own end. Perhaps an interesting parallel (although it runs into trouble in the details) but hardly one that I think a Christian - even one so liberal as you - would like.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 110 by GDR, posted 07-23-2012 12:11 PM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 112 by Jon, posted 07-23-2012 1:01 PM PaulK has not replied
 Message 123 by GDR, posted 07-24-2012 4:06 PM PaulK has not replied

  
Jon
Inactive Member


Message 112 of 203 (668646)
07-23-2012 1:01 PM
Reply to: Message 111 by PaulK
07-23-2012 12:38 PM


Re: Selfish Genes and Original Sin
No, he says that we are created by our genes for the purpose of propagating and protecting our genes.
Genes were made for man, not man for genes; so man is lord even of genes.

Love your enemies!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 111 by PaulK, posted 07-23-2012 12:38 PM PaulK has not replied

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


Message 113 of 203 (668647)
07-23-2012 1:09 PM
Reply to: Message 108 by Jon
07-23-2012 11:41 AM


Re: pushing a shopping cart
Sorry, Mod, but until you show us the specific genes, there isn't much more we can do besides accept jar's motives as he's told them to us.
If you want to explain why my position requires 'showing' you the 'specific genes' I'll be standing by.
Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 108 by Jon, posted 07-23-2012 11:41 AM Jon has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 114 by Jon, posted 07-23-2012 1:56 PM Modulous has replied
 Message 115 by New Cat's Eye, posted 07-23-2012 2:19 PM Modulous has replied

  
Jon
Inactive Member


Message 114 of 203 (668650)
07-23-2012 1:56 PM
Reply to: Message 113 by Modulous
07-23-2012 1:09 PM


Re: pushing a shopping cart
If you want to explain why my position requires 'showing' you the 'specific genes' I'll be standing by.
You propose the possibility that genes are influencing jar's behavior.
I propose you show us the genes.
It's really quite simple.
Edited by Jon, : No reason given.
Edited by Jon, : No reason given.

Love your enemies!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 113 by Modulous, posted 07-23-2012 1:09 PM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 116 by Modulous, posted 07-23-2012 2:52 PM Jon has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 115 of 203 (668654)
07-23-2012 2:19 PM
Reply to: Message 113 by Modulous
07-23-2012 1:09 PM


Re: pushing a shopping cart
If you want to explain why my position requires 'showing' you the 'specific genes' I'll be standing by.
In Message 23, you wrote:
quote:
I don't think it's possible to rise above the selfishness that our genes have given us. I think at best, we can delude ourselves that we are overcoming our selfishness. In the end, when we ask ourselves, Cui bono?, we'll find that there is some selfish entity that is benefiting. Whether its a selfish individual, a selfish gene or a selfish meme.
jar said that wasn't true and neither of you are proving your case.
I think people are capable of doing things for totally irrational reasons that include not stemming from the selfishness of genes.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 113 by Modulous, posted 07-23-2012 1:09 PM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 117 by Modulous, posted 07-23-2012 2:54 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

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


Message 116 of 203 (668657)
07-23-2012 2:52 PM
Reply to: Message 114 by Jon
07-23-2012 1:56 PM


the genetic basis of behaviour
You propose the possibility that genes are influencing jar's behavior.
I propose you show us the genes.
Are you doubting that genes create brains that behave in certain ways?
Because I've already given you an example of one paper that discusses a gene that influences human behaviour.
Here's another one: Serotonin Transporter Genotype (5-HTTLPR) Predicts Utilitarian Moral Judgments.
quote:
These results may aid in understanding why people disagree about the acceptability of causing foreseen harm to meet utilitarian goals. The results of the present study suggest that judgments in response to this kind of moral dilemma may be influenced by inherited variants in a genetic polymorphism that influences serotonin neurotransmission and patterns of responding to socio-emotional stimuli. These findings thus extend previous research in two domains. First, they advance our understanding of how variations of the 5-HTTLPR influence social cognition. Second, they indicate that a genetic manipulation consistently associated with increased emotional responsiveness (the S allele) results in significantly greater reluctance to cause harm to another individual even though others will be helped, and even though harming the innocent is an unintentional aspect of helping. This helps to extend our understanding of the mechanisms underlying moral judgments.
(emphasis mine)
We don't presently know all the genes and all their effects in all situations. And I don't see why I would have to provide that in order to suggest that genes can be a cause of behavioural traits. After all, a detailed study of the genetic basis of human morality, would probably violate many ethics regulations (for what appears to be a thorough explanation of this and more, Genetics and human behaviour).
Then there is a different kind of study: one that suggests a genetic link to moral behaviour without it necessarily being understood which genes are involved. As an example of this kind of thing there is, Evidence for substantial genetic risk for
psychopathy in 7-year-olds
. And I think there is sufficient evidence to suppose that a multitude of mental health problems (which have an effect on behaviour) have a genetic component.
Are you really trying to suggest that it is your position that genes do not influence human behaviour? I'm not of the position that genetics and behaviour is as simple as 'Gene X causes people to push shopping carts back'. Or even that there is a gene for being nice. There are a multitude of genes at play, their effect not always obvious. Together they work to build a brain. And its the brain that makes the decisions about how to behave.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 114 by Jon, posted 07-23-2012 1:56 PM Jon has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 132 by Jon, posted 07-24-2012 6:38 PM Modulous has replied

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


Message 117 of 203 (668658)
07-23-2012 2:54 PM
Reply to: Message 115 by New Cat's Eye
07-23-2012 2:19 PM


Re: pushing a shopping cart
jar said that wasn't true and neither of you are proving your case.
He says he knows it is not true. I asked him to support his knowledge, and provided some reasons that his knowledge could be cast into doubt.
I think people are capable of doing things for totally irrational reasons that include not stemming from the selfishness of genes.
I agree.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 115 by New Cat's Eye, posted 07-23-2012 2:19 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 118 by New Cat's Eye, posted 07-23-2012 3:56 PM Modulous has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 118 of 203 (668663)
07-23-2012 3:56 PM
Reply to: Message 117 by Modulous
07-23-2012 2:54 PM


Re: pushing a shopping cart
I think people are capable of doing things for totally irrational reasons that include not stemming from the selfishness of genes.
I agree.
But your quote seems to say otherwise:
quote:
I don't think it's possible to rise above the selfishness that our genes have given us.
And: 'In the end we'll find that there is some selfish entity that is benefiting.'
I don't think either of those statements are true.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 117 by Modulous, posted 07-23-2012 2:54 PM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 119 by Modulous, posted 07-23-2012 4:39 PM New Cat's Eye has seen this message but not replied

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


Message 119 of 203 (668665)
07-23-2012 4:39 PM
Reply to: Message 118 by New Cat's Eye
07-23-2012 3:56 PM


overcoming the genes
But your quote seems to say otherwise:
I don't think it's possible to rise above the selfishness that our genes have given us.
I don't see the problem with both believing that people are capable of doing things for irrational reasons that do not necessarily stem from the selfishness of genes while also believing that we are constrained to operate within a certain level of selfishness (and I wasn't strictly talking only about individual selfishness (although that is included), as the last sentence in that paragraph notes).
For instance, one might fly a plane into a building. I would agree that the reasons for so doing are likely to be irrational, I would also agree that the reasons can be found in religion or honour or some idea other than genes. We might call them memes.
And we could, in principle, explain the genetic influences that caused that brain to think those irrational ideas were worthy, and which lead to the moral imperative to fly the plane into the building (right now we're only at the level of understanding some of the cognitive structures that go into this kind of behaviour - but we're pretty sure genes are involved in building them).
So, we can see selfish memes: advertising their existence in the hopes of mimicry (Die for Islam!/God is Great!)
And we can see selfish genes: Male coalitionary violence against 'others' is believed to be an trait we inherited from our ancestors. Those genes are operating under the idea that male coalitionary violence can increase reproductive success. Or perhaps some other genetic trait is 'trying' to increase its replication rate. Or likely, several operating at once.
We have a certain biological selfishness. We can not defeat that, we can only operate within it. We can have ideas that are irrational that do not stem necessarily or directly from genes. We might be able to be more selfless than biology would have us, but there are still biological constraints about how selfless we can be (not many would be so selfless as to work for 75 years with no pay, never have a sexual relationship, then shoot themselves in the foot just so that a little girl could have a balloon, for instance.)
And: 'In the end we'll find that there is some selfish entity that is benefiting.'
I don't think either of those statements are true.
Well I agree that we might find a case where there is no selfish entity that is benefiting - but I'm persuaded that we'll find a selfish entity that is trying to act in its own self interest. Obviously not all genes or memes foster their own self-interest, but these ones will tend to decrease in frequency.
And sure, maybe I'm completely wrong. I was, at least in one sense, disagreeing with an ethologist
I think Dawkins would agree that what he was saying was that we aren't pre-destined by our genes to act in certain ways. That we can learn behaviour, and modify our behaviour. Though I believe this can only be within the constraints that biology (and in part, the genes) permits. Nor are we forever stuck with the memes we picked up as children. We can in that sense 'overcome' our genes and our memes.
This was in response to GDRs general idea that Dawkins was saying that we are made selfish by our genes but that we can overcome (by will, by grace, by divine memes, whatever) this selfishness. But my view is that the process of 'overcoming' this selfishness is part of natural human development, regulated by the genes - so in one sense we're not overcoming the genes by becoming more selfless, we're doing pretty much what they 'intend'. I would also agree that we can (and have) become more selfless than the genes 'intend'. Whether this turns out to actually serve the interests of the genes in question, is a matter for time to tell.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 118 by New Cat's Eye, posted 07-23-2012 3:56 PM New Cat's Eye has seen this message but not replied

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 4295
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


(1)
Message 120 of 203 (668810)
07-24-2012 3:44 PM
Reply to: Message 84 by Jon
07-22-2012 7:10 PM


Trying to summarize
Jon writes:
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?
I believe that what you are asking of Modulous is exactly what Modulous is asking of jar.
Here's what I see (also using "noble" in place of "selfless" and "bad" in place of "selfish" for my own sanity in comprehension):
Fact 1 -> People have conscious motivations that they are aware of, or become of aware of through reflection.
Fact 2 -> People have unconscious motivations that they are unaware of and may not be able to become aware of.
Mod -> It is possible for someone to have a noble conscious motivation, while also having a bad unconscious motivation.
jar -> I only have noble motivations.
Mod -> How do you test for unconscious motivations? How do you know you never have a bad one, even if all your conscious motivations are noble? I mean.. it's unconscious...
Jon -> Hey Mod... how are you testing for unconscious motivations? How do know you know if they're good or bad?
Mod -> Um.... I don't know, I'm wondering how jar's claiming to know.
I don't really see how anyone can be arguing with what Modulous is saying here. He seems to just be stating that possibilities exist and we don't seem to know which are affecting us at any given time.
Am I missing something? Do people seem to think that "Fact 2" is not a fact?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 84 by Jon, posted 07-22-2012 7:10 PM Jon has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 121 by nwr, posted 07-24-2012 3:53 PM Stile has replied
 Message 122 by New Cat's Eye, posted 07-24-2012 3:56 PM Stile has replied
 Message 124 by jar, posted 07-24-2012 4:09 PM Stile has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024