Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,807 Year: 3,064/9,624 Month: 909/1,588 Week: 92/223 Day: 3/17 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Original Sin - Scripture and Reason
GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 131 of 203 (668833)
07-24-2012 6:01 PM
Reply to: Message 130 by Modulous
07-24-2012 5:41 PM


Re: single sentence summary
Modulous writes:
I don't see what's circular there.
I agree that acting co-operatively can be the result of acting out of self interest. However, it is only your personal view, (as I understand you), that all co-operative, or apparently altruistic behaviour, is a result of our basic selfish nature. Your conclusion is based on your opinion.

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 130 by Modulous, posted 07-24-2012 5:41 PM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 133 by Modulous, posted 07-24-2012 7:01 PM GDR has replied

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


Message 135 of 203 (668844)
07-24-2012 8:28 PM
Reply to: Message 133 by Modulous
07-24-2012 7:01 PM


Re: we are in part, by nature, selfless beings.
OK I accept that. I would just query this statement.
Modulous writes:
What I'm saying is that selfish genes can create selfless beings.
Would you agree if it was phrased this way? Out of the selfish genes of our birth we can come become beings that have the potential to act selflessly or altruistically.
Edited by GDR, : typo

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 133 by Modulous, posted 07-24-2012 7:01 PM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 140 by Modulous, posted 07-25-2012 8:52 AM GDR has replied
 Message 147 by Stile, posted 07-25-2012 2:06 PM GDR has replied

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


Message 142 of 203 (668875)
07-25-2012 1:27 PM
Reply to: Message 140 by Modulous
07-25-2012 8:52 AM


Re: we are in part, by nature, selfless beings.
GDR writes:
Would you agree if it was phrased this way? Out of the selfish genes of our birth we can come become beings that have the potential to act selflessly or altruistically.
Modulous writes:
That seems agreeable, yes.
This is from the OP.
quote:
I’d like to suggest that we should look at original sin from the point of view of understanding the Biblical or scriptural view through human reasoning.
Now I completely acknowledge that you and Dawkins believe that altruistic acts are a result of naturally evolved memes. I agree that this is a reasoned conclusion derived from a scientific view point.
As a Christian I believe that I should use the three legs of the stool, (scripture, reason and tradition), to form my theistic beliefs. I will take tradition out of this as it is essentially accumulated reason, whether good or bad, over the generations.
Scripture when taken in the context of the entire meta-narrative gives us a picture of us as humans and that in some way we are beings created in the image of God, at least partly in that we have knowledge of good and evil and the ability to choose between them. In that we have to determine just what is good and what is evil. In the scriptures it is clear that God desires that we should reject evil and accept goodness and that this it is an ongoing process in our lives.
Somewhere along the line the term original sin arose. I think that it is an unfortunate term but it was an early attempt from someone, with no understanding of modern genetics to understand the human condition at birth.
The reasoning of Dawkins and others has IMHO, shed fresh light on the scriptures and the understanding of the unfortunate term original sin.
From a scriptural point of view we can see, as it says in my signature that what God wants from us is that we humbly love kindness and justice or, as Jesus tells us, we are to love our neighbour including our enemies and that we are to spread that message. We understand from scripture that this isn’t something that comes natural to us but is something that we hopefully develop over our lifetimes.
Now, through human reason we know a great deal about genealogy and its implications in our lives. Richard Dawkins has taken this knowledge and come up with the idea that essentially we come into this world as a collection of selfish genes and that over our lives we evolve culturally through what he calls memes or social replicators, both positive and negative. Certainly we are still, at our core, a collection of selfish genes which is necessary for our survival, but with the social replicators in our lives we have the ability to move beyond that.
Through scripture alone the state into which we are born is ambiguous. We can see this when we go to wiki and look up original sin and see all the various ways people understand it and explain it. Now by overlaying Dawkins reasoned understanding of genetics and understanding of the human condition we can get a much clearer position of what the Bible is talking about. Original sin then can be understood as being born as a blank slate but made up of our the selfish genes, which are necessary for our survival but that we are then influenced both positively and negatively for the rest of our lives, by all of the various social influences or memes in our lives. It is the Christian hope and indeed the hope of most people that mankind, individually and collectively, will take on board the positive influences and reject the negative.
The atheistic position of Dawkins of course believes that all of these influences have evolved from completely natural causes. As a Christian I believe that God is involved in human thought and imagination and in one sense acts as a positive meme. So certainly, it is a matter of faith but it is a faith that isn’t just scripturally based but one that also draws on reason that is not theistically dependent.

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 140 by Modulous, posted 07-25-2012 8:52 AM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 144 by Modulous, posted 07-25-2012 1:46 PM GDR has replied

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


Message 156 of 203 (668905)
07-25-2012 4:50 PM
Reply to: Message 144 by Modulous
07-25-2012 1:46 PM


Re: we are in part, by nature, selfless beings.
GDR writes:
Now I completely acknowledge that you and Dawkins believe that altruistic acts are a result of naturally evolved memes.
Modulous writes:
And, very importantly to the point I'm trying to make: GENES too.
Sure, I assumed that you would see memes evolving from genes.
Modulous writes:
The term 'original sin' was used as far as I know to describe Paul's understanding of the reason why Jesus came and died.
I don’t see it that way. I see it as an attempt to understand the human basic condition and I assume that Paul’s views would have been taken into account in that understanding. This is from wiki:
quote:
The doctrine is not found in Judaism[4] or in Islam.[5][6] Its scriptural foundation is in the New Testament teaching of Paul the Apostle (Romans 5:12-21 and 1 Corinthians 15:22).[2] It began to be developed by the 2nd-century Bishop of Lyon Irenaeus in his controversy with the dualist Gnostics.
In the theology of the Catholic Church, original sin is regarded as the general condition of sinfulness, that is (the absence of holiness and perfect charity) into which humans are born, distinct from the actual sins that a person commits. This teaching explicitly states that "original sin does not have the character of a personal fault in any of Adam's descendants".[7] In other words, human beings do not bear any "original guilt" from Adam's particular sin, which is his alone. The prevailing view, also held in Eastern Orthodoxy, is that human beings bear no guilt for the sin of Adam.
My understanding, although I’m not RC, is as near as I can tell consistent with the catholic view as it is expressed in that quote. Even if Paul is the scriptural foundation it would have been understood in the context of the entire canon, and who knows, possibly even through Dawkinian styled reasoning minus the biological knowledge.
Modulous writes:
I would argue that som ething that is part of human development does come natural to us. We are built to cooperate with our allies, a good deal of the Bible seems to be about defining who our allies are (fellow Israelites, 'neighbours' etc), but I think the drive to cooperate with allies pre-exists any commands to do so.
Ya, I would agree, but I would add that this is something that seems to be evolving over time which would be consistent with either an atheistic or theistic view of things. (At least theism as I believe it. ) I read a really good secular book on that called The Evolution of God by Robert Wright.
Modulous writes:
But it's not just that we evolve culturally through memes to be selfless, its that we are built by our selfish genes to be at times, selfless. Being selfless is completely natural.
I think that Dawkins view is that genes can behave unselfishly in terms of its own organism, but that the behaviour is actually selfish communally, so only appear to be unselfish. You and I will probably nuance this differently in light of our difference theistically.
Modulous writes:
As I said earlier, I'm happy to accept that there are 'divine memes' that are in some fashion important in moral decision making, my only point is that selfish genes can create selfless phenotypes. God might help, but it isn't necessary for cooperative behaviour.
I’m not so sure as I think Dawkins position is that our selfish genes can lead us to be co-operative as it may be in our best interests or, (I’m not sure that this is best way to express it), in the best interest of our gene pool. I don’t see working co-operatively as necessarily being selfless. I think that is Dawkins point. It again comes back to The Prisoner’s Dilemma. If we co-operate we both benefit.

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 144 by Modulous, posted 07-25-2012 1:46 PM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 158 by Modulous, posted 07-25-2012 5:15 PM GDR has replied

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


Message 157 of 203 (668909)
07-25-2012 5:01 PM
Reply to: Message 147 by Stile
07-25-2012 2:06 PM


Re: we are in part, by nature, selfless beings.
GDR writes:
Would you agree if it was phrased this way? Out of the selfish genes of our birth we can become beings that have the potential to act selflessly or altruistically.
Stile writes:
I would.
We need to remember the equivocation that is going on with Dawkins' use of the term "selfish genes." If we keep the general definition of the word "selfish" as we usually use it in every day life, it is absolutely impossible to have a "selfish gene." The term simply doesn't make sense (it's an oxymoron) since we are taking a word that implies conscious behaviour and applying it to something that has no consciousness.
When Dawkins says "selfish genes" he's talking about the processes and chemical reactions that occur within our bodies that are simply out of our control. A closer more general term would be "animal instincts." And, if we rephrase your statement with this in mind we get:
Out of the animal instincts of our birth we can become beings that have the potential to act selflessly or altruistically.
And, since we all know humans have intelligence which allows us to reflect upon and even sometimes override our animal instincts... this is obviously a simple and true statement.
I'm essentially in agreement with that but I also agree with Modulous' response. The only other thing I would add is that I'm not sure that to some degree, many animals aren't able to function above its animal or base instincts. (Actually, from an atheistic POV in particular that would make sense, although it wouldn't be in conflict with a Christian perspective either.)

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 147 by Stile, posted 07-25-2012 2:06 PM Stile has seen this message but not replied

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


Message 159 of 203 (668937)
07-25-2012 8:34 PM
Reply to: Message 158 by Modulous
07-25-2012 5:15 PM


Re: we are in part, by nature, selfless beings.
Modulous writes:
Well, it's being less than selfish in the direction of total selflessness. Total selflessness is very rare, but not impossible to understand in terms of selfish genes. When I say 'cooperative behaviour' I mean any behaviour that costs the individual and benefits someone other than the individual (though there may be benefits to the individual as well).
OK, but I would think that by definition co-operative behaviour is designed to benefit both parties or at least their genes.
Modulous writes:
That section of the book is building the argument that it can be in our self-interest to behave as doves rather than hawks. But in other sections he talks about actions that come at a cost to the individual, that might have no benefit to the individual at all - but which can still evolve because it isn't the individual's interests that are importance - it's the interests of the gene that's key. Oftentimes the interests coincide, but sometimes they do not.
Can you point me to that section of the book?
Modulous writes:
This means it is possible to have pure selfless behaviours - situations where only one party really benefits (such as dying to save someone else), coming out of self-interested genes.
I think that Dawkins is saying that may come about because our genes have a genetic, (metaphorical), interest beyond the individual. I think he always saying that our memes have evolved within humans from a base creature that was solely guided by its selfish genes.

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 158 by Modulous, posted 07-25-2012 5:15 PM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 160 by Modulous, posted 07-26-2012 8:51 AM GDR has replied

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


Message 161 of 203 (669201)
07-27-2012 11:01 PM
Reply to: Message 160 by Modulous
07-26-2012 8:51 AM


Re: we are in part, by nature, selfless beings.
Modulous writes:
I'm just saying that selfish genes are responsible for building the brains that find altruistic acts worthy of replication for them to become memes. That is - our selfish genes are responsible for a lot of our kindness, selflessness and so on. Culture has redefined the limits of our sphere of kindness, and has given us a more thorough understanding of what it means to be kind etc.
I went through chap 6 and couldn't really find an example that fit the discussion.
I agree that a good case can be made for kindness being the result of selfish genes if only for wanting to be treated kindly in return. I think that the case for selflessness is another matter.
For example. How would a selfish gene be the cause for someone in middle America giving a sizeable portion of his not overly large income to some mission in the Sudan to help people with no genetic or relational connection whatsoever? This individual is not only giving up his personal resources but is in fact making things more difficult for his gene pool. His gene pool is going to be better off in the long run if the Sudanese ceased to exist so that the resources might be available to the gene pool of the donor.
It definitely seems to me that there is something beyond our selfish genes that is having an impact. I suppose memes could be viewed as some kind of answer but these memes are somehow going to have to pick up an unselfish message that originated from selfish genes if the materialist's position is held. (Actually as a theist it is much easier to explain. )
Edited by GDR, : No reason given.

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 160 by Modulous, posted 07-26-2012 8:51 AM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 163 by Granny Magda, posted 07-28-2012 7:25 AM GDR has not replied
 Message 164 by Modulous, posted 07-28-2012 8:50 AM GDR has replied

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


Message 167 of 203 (669260)
07-28-2012 1:05 PM
Reply to: Message 162 by Granny Magda
07-28-2012 7:16 AM


Re: Selfish Genes and Original Sin
Granny Magda writes:
And neither of them say that we, as individual animals are selfish. They say that genes are selfish. But this is your problem; the selfishness of genes is only a metaphor, a way of helping us understand how genes operate. Genes are not and never will actually be selfish. They can't be, they're mindless. You have hooked onto a metaphor as if it were real.
I get that and frankly it is obvious. However, Dawkins extrapolates the idea of selfish genes into the field of human behaviour.
Granny Magda writes:
Note that neither of your quotes describe individuals as selfish. The theory is there to explain individual altruism, not individual selfishness - that already has an explanation in "survival of the fittest". You would be able to draw better comparison between original sin and survival of the fittest, at least that would make some sort of sense as it would actually be about the biological drive toward selfishness. Your version makes no sense in that you are trying to link sin to a theory that is intended to explain altruism.
I don’t have a problem using the concept of survival of the fittest but any time I’ve used that expression the materialists on the forum take exception to it so I find it easier to avoid the term. I don’t agree that Dawkins is trying to explain altruism. I believe he is trying to explain mutually co-operative behaviour and linking it to our genetics. I’d say that Dawkins, although he doesn’t phrase it that way, is making a link between our selfish genes and the whole idea of survival of the fittest.
If you don’t agree that it is our genetic that drive our behaviour then what do you say it is?
Granny Magda writes:
Except that, as PaulK notes, memes are selfish too. I know that you responded to that with a Wiki quote, but your quote does not say what you seem to think it does. Memes are selfish in exactly the same way that genes are selfish, i.e. they're not selfish at all, because they're not sentient. It's just a metaphor. Genes are no more selfish then an apple is being selfish when it falls to the ground in accordance with gravity. Genes are just objects, obeyin g the laws of chemistry. The selfishness is just an explanatory tool that Dawkins concocted to explain how survival of the fittest could co-exist with the evolution of apparent altruism and self-sacrifice.
A meme is simply an idea or thought that gets transmitted within a society and has the ability to transform the thinking of the society and the individual that are part of it. It may be selfish, unselfish or neutral.
GDR writes:
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:
And genes don't have minds.
Rabbits do though. I asked you this question for a reason and you have thus far ignored it; where in my example does the rabbit sin? When he risks his own life to save his fellow bunnies? that doesn't sound like sin to me. When his genes tell him to do this? That''s no sin either, since mere chemicals cannot sin when they obey the laws of chemistry. So where's the sin? I contend that there is no sin and that this is why the two ideas are such a poor fit.
Rabbits to the best of my knowledge have no sense of right and wrong. They jsut do what comes naturally which is a good example of what Dawkins writes about. They are a product of their selfish genes. They are primarily about self-preservation as well as about acting co-operatively for the good of not only themselves but for the good of the DNA of the organism.
Dawkins is saying that humans have the ability to rise above that, in that we have a sense of morality. Dawkins view is that this sense of morality has evolved from the base selfish nature of our genes through the naturalistic memes. I’m fine with that except I don’t accept that the fundamental basis for memes that guide us towards truly altruistic behaviour comes from a naturalistic source.
Granny Magda writes:
In my opinion, the false concept of "sin" is a barrier to a positive and effective moral framework. It should be abandoned.
Sin is just a word. What word would you like to apply to the holocaust? In my view it is simply a word to describe the actions of someone who behaves selfishly, in that they are looking to their own good at the expense of the good of someone else.
GDR writes:
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.
Granny Magda writes:
Well abandon it then. The term carries too much cultural baggage to be of use.
What term would you like me to use. Obviously it has negative connotations for you and to others even including myself, but as we saw in the quote earlier that isn’t necessarily true to all. I’ll re-quote a section from wiki with the Catholic definition.
quote:
In the theology of the Catholic Church, original sin is regarded as the general condition of sinfulness, that is (the absence of holiness and perfect charity) into which humans are born, distinct from the actual sins that a person commits. This teaching explicitly states that "original sin does not have the character of a personal fault in any of Adam's descendants".[7] In other words, human beings do not bear any "original guilt" from Adam's particular sin, which is his alone. The prevailing view, also held in Eastern Orthodoxy, is that human beings bear no guilt for the sin of Adam.
This is very close to what Dawkins is talking about when he says that we can reject the sinful genes of our birth.
I’m wondering what term it is that you would have preferred me to use.
GDR writes:
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.
Granny Magda writes:
Well then you're not sticking to the concept of original sin any more than you're sticking to the concept of the selfish gene. You are mangling both of them to fit them together and you are achieving nothing by doing so except bungling the science and making what looks like apologetics for one of the most evil ideas in the history of thought. Please drop this idea, it's just broken.
If we stick to your narrow understanding of the term original sin then I agree with that. I’ll repeat the quote from Dawkins in the OP.
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.
Just maybe it’s you that doesn’t understand the concept of the selfish gene. Dawkins is saying that we can deny our selfish genes and even the selfish memes that we may have been indoctrinated with ,and essentially rise above all of that through unselfish social 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 162 by Granny Magda, posted 07-28-2012 7:16 AM Granny Magda has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 168 by Granny Magda, posted 07-28-2012 3:12 PM GDR has replied

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


Message 169 of 203 (669278)
07-28-2012 5:20 PM
Reply to: Message 164 by Modulous
07-28-2012 8:50 AM


Re: we are in part, by nature, selfless beings.
Modulous writes:
So I'm baffled how you missed the parts of Chapter 6 that were or relevance to what I was saying.
To show me what I’d missed you used the following quote from Chap 6.
quote:
The key point of this chapter is that a gene might be able to assist replicas of itself that are sitting in other bodies. If so, this would appear as individual altruism but it would be brought about by gene selfishness.
That is my point. Dawkins says that it appears as individual altruism as opposed to true altruism. There are going to be some that will say that there is no such thing as true altruism and that we are only a product of our selfish genes. I disagree but I do believe that an argument can be made for that view. Unlike jar I don’t actually believe that I can truly know my own motivation for what I do. In many ways it is harder for me as a Christian to sort things out. If I send money to those I’ve never met, and never will meet in the third world, an argument could be made that I’m just trying to get in good with God. My own view is that one of my motivations is that it would be pleasing to God and is done out of gratitude, but deep down I know that I am essentially selfish and so I’m left wondering. I suggest that this is the basis for the understanding of grace in Christianity.
I do agree with Dawkins though that we can overcome our selfish replicators, but I have enough trouble trying to sort out my own heart or motivations, let alone the motivations of someone else.
Modulous writes:
But its more than that! It isn't just reciprocal altruism (doing good to others so as to expect others to do good to you)! Sometimes acts that have no benefit at all to the actor (such as a 'suicidal' act of heroism), might have a benefit to the genes' chances of replication. That's the point of Chapter 6! Now granted, the genes might make 'mistakes'. That is, they may cause behaviours that in certain specific cases don't benefit them at all, but it should be the case that on average those genes that cause that kind of behaviour to those that possess it should benefit the gene. We are living in an almost entirely different environment than the genes we possess prospered in - so we should expect lots of these kinds of 'mistakes'.
I have no problem with that except that I believe that there is something beyond that, and as humans we are capable of pure altruism. Dawkins I believe would say that the memes or social replicators that account for that have evolved naturally over time. I would agree with that except that I believe that the memes or social replicators that have brought this about, originated from heart and mind of God working in human hearts and minds.
Modulous writes:
I've already explained in previous posts, this very thing. In short: Your genes are influencing you to behave in certain ways. Be nice to family, family are those that are closest to you, who you live with. Help out other allie s. All that kind of stuff.
And then you have memes/learned behaviour. We have learned that all humans are part of one big family. We have learned that all humans are fundamentally are potential allies. We have believed this idea, we have spread this idea.
Therefore, since the genes are telling us to look after our own, and the hypothetical American considers the Sudanese one of their own, then they will take action to 'look out for them'. Donating money or food or whatever.
We should see that same American will probably reserve more money for his own family, and will probably be more inclined to help out friends who are difficulty too. If they spend all the money on the Sudanese and don't give any for their family to eat or clothe themselves, we'd probably say they were mentally ill.
That is a very good synopsis of the materialist position. I think you go a little further than Dawkins does in his book but I don’t think he would have any problem with your position.
I don’t think it explains everything however. You mention in the last paragraph that your hypothetical American might send money to the Sudanese but will save more for his family. Yes, that is no doubt true but at the same time the money that is being sent to Sudan is no longer available to his own family so in fact at the end of the day, he actually does have less for his own family. I still contend that there is such a thing us pure altruism where there is no benefit for the individual or his DNA. As Dawkins says, we have the ability to reject the selfish genes of our birth.
Modulous writes:
Indeed. It's in the gene's interests to invest some costs into other people. The closer the stronger the influence. They don't have to be relatives for the genes to 'treat ' them like relatives. If you learn that your brother of 25 years was adopted, you don't generally find yourself loving him any less. Likewise, if you consider your fellow churchgoers as 'brothers and sisters' you may find you treat them better than the genes would otherwise have caused.
So yes - whether it is selfish memes exploiting certain brain structures built by selfish genes or whatever - 'selfishness' will almost certainly be an important part of any description of selflessness that is prevalent.
I understand that it can play an important part but I don’t believe that it is the only part. I guess it really boils down to the idea that we view the world the same way but where I see an involved God you see natural forces. Really well written and thought out post by the way.

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 164 by Modulous, posted 07-28-2012 8:50 AM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 170 by Modulous, posted 07-28-2012 6:38 PM GDR has replied

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


Message 171 of 203 (669293)
07-28-2012 7:00 PM
Reply to: Message 168 by Granny Magda
07-28-2012 3:12 PM


Re: Selfish Genes and Original Sin
Granny Magda writes:
Personally, I would prefer that you used the term "survival of the fittest". It would still not be an especially meaningful comparison, but at least it would be a more valid one. Survival of the fittest is, after all, used to explain individual selfishness. The selfish gene isn't so much.
I agree.
Granny Magda writes:
I think that, more specifically, he is attempting to explain how evolution can lead to the emergence of mutually co-operative behaviours that appear to defy a naive view of survival of the fittest.
So, going back to the rabbit example, a straightforward view of survival of the fittest would lead us to expect that the rabbit would not pause when it sees danger. It would flee. It would benefit most from saying "Devil take the hindmost" and preserving its own genes. The selfish gene theory exists as an explanation for why this isn't the case.
I agree
Granny Magda writes:
This is why I think it's a bad fit. There is no need to resort to the selfish gene to explain the kind of individually selfish acts that might be described as sin; natural selection and survival of the fittest do that just fine. The selfish gene is there to explain other behaviours, not those we might call sin.
Here would be my definition for sin. Sin is an act or desire based on selfishness, where the act or desire would be detrimental in some way to another being. (The second part might be considered redundant but I think it helps to clarify my thinking.) With that definition in mind then you would be absolutely correct in saying that the term original sin is the wrong term to use. A better term might be the original state of selfishness that we all come into this world with.
Granny Magda writes:
Yes, exactly. He's trying to explain altruistic behaviours in the context of survival of the fittest. He's trying to explain how self-sacrifice can evolve. That has no connection with sin or immorality.
Maybe, but my reading is that he trying to explain behaviours that appear altruistic. He actually seems to me to be conflicted as to whether such a thing as truly altruistic behaviour really exists.
Granny Magda writes:
Not agreed. A meme can be nice, nasty or neutral, but in the sense that a selfish gene is selfish. A meme is alw ays selfish as well, even the nice ones that tell us to be kind to each other.
A meme seeks only to replicate itself. It does that whether it is a positive meme or a harmful one. In that sense, it is always selfish, just as a gene that creates an altruistic behaviour is as selfish as a gene that creates an individually selfish behaviour.
I agree that Dawkins is saying that we can rise above the harmful memes, by recognising them as what they are, but that doesn't mean that the memes ( even the good ones) aren't selfish in the biological sense.
Essentially a meme is a non-material idea. Memes are infectious in that they jump from mind to mind and they themselves are subject to being altered or infected by other memes. They can be picked up in conversation, on tv, from books, the internet or from EvC, and can then be spread to others. I agree that the meme itself can’t be evil or good but the idea that it carries can cause evil or good.
This is the point where my theistic beliefs and your non-theistic beliefs divide, as I think that up to this point we are essentially in agreement except for the odd nuance.
We would agree that memes flow from our consciousness and ultimately from our reasoning and imagination. You, (I’m assuming this is the case and correct me if I’m wrong), believe that all of our memes, positive or not, have evolved through completely natural foundations, whereas I believe that the we are the products of a moral intelligence and that that moral intelligence influences our memes. I contend that moral intelliegence is in fact the primary positive meme, that enables us to overcome the selfish genes of our birth, as well as the negative memes that we encounter.
This is from the OP:
quote:
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 point I’m making is that I can gain a better understanding of the scriptures by applying my own reasoning and the reasoning of others to that understanding.
The term original sin was an attempt by early Christians to explain the state of selfishness into which people are born, and is understood in several different ways. However, if we apply the reasoning of Dawkins to that, we can come to several conclusions of what the scriptures are actually trying to tell us.
Firstly, as you have pointed out, the term original sin doesn’t do justice to reason or, in my view, the scriptures. I have already said that I believe that the term, original state of selfishness is more apt. Secondly, with the same reasoning as employed by Dawkins’, and a simple understanding of scripture we can see that we are meant to reject the selfish genes of our birth. The vast majority of people regardless of belief see that the idea of caring for others and even for other species is a good thing. That is a meme. We will disagree about the first cause of that meme but we can, I think, agree that it is a meme and a positive one.
The point is, that I understand my Christian faith better as a result of getting my head around the reasoning of Dawkins and applying it to my understanding of the message in the scriptures.

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 168 by Granny Magda, posted 07-28-2012 3:12 PM Granny Magda has seen this message but not replied

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


Message 172 of 203 (669295)
07-28-2012 8:22 PM
Reply to: Message 170 by Modulous
07-28-2012 6:38 PM


Re: we are in part, by nature, selfless beings.
Modulous writes:
I'm not sure I'm spotting the difference.
I suppose it is simply the question of whether our actions are basically a result of our selfish genes or have we been able to reject their influence and act selflessly against the influence of the selfish genes of our birth.
Modulous writes:
But there is such a thing as true altruism, and we have our genes to thank for their vital role in it. Just because the altruism has a cause, does not make it not true altruism.
From a materialist point of view I would agree that our genes would have to be the first cause of the memes that affect us but in order for true altruism to come about we have had to be changed by our memes to the point that we are able to act against the input of, and against the interests of our genes.
Modulous writes:
It is an act that comes at a cost to the individual without necessarily expecting reciprocation. If you want to discount 'reciprocal altruism' from being 'true altruism' I still contend that true altruism is entirely possible in a purely naturalistic account.
Maybe, but we can only speculate. It all depends on our starting point when we consider it.
Modulous referring to quote from The God Delusion writes:
It seems pretty consistent with what I've been saying I think.
I agree that it is. Frankly though, when you read that it sure seems to me that he is grasping at straws. The reasoning to me is pretty thin when he says What natural selection favours is rules of thumb, which work in practice to promote the genes that built them. Rules of thumb, by their nature, sometimes misfire. He is essentially say that his theory doesn’t always hold and because it doesn’t it proves his point.
The Selfish Gene was written decades earlier and it seems he has revised some of his thinking.
GDR writes:
I still contend that there is such a thing us pure altruism where there is no benefit for the individual or his DNA. As Dawkins says, we have the ability to reject the selfish genes of our birth.
Modulous writes:
I agree - those would be the misfirings.
Does that really sound reasonable to you.? I think that from a materialist point of view the argument that all apparently altruistic acts can eventually be worked back to a selfish cause is much more reasonable. (Not that I agree with that position, it is just that I think that is more reasoned position than talking about genetic misfiring to explain altruism.)
Modulous writes:
Such rules of thumb influence us still, not in a Calvinisitically deterministic way but filtered through the civilizing influences of literature and custom, law and tradition - and, of course, religion.
Yes I can agree with that and I don’t believe in a deterministic world. However, as I believe that God works through human minds and heart I can’t divorce the influence of God from any of those civilizing influences. They just exist and we have no way of empirically knowing whether God is in those influences or not. We make choices as to what we believe.

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 170 by Modulous, posted 07-28-2012 6:38 PM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 173 by Modulous, posted 07-28-2012 9:02 PM GDR has replied

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


Message 174 of 203 (669377)
07-29-2012 3:33 PM
Reply to: Message 173 by Modulous
07-28-2012 9:02 PM


Re: we are in part, by nature, selfless beings.
Modulous writes:
But they can eventually be worked back to selfish causes. The genes that cause cooperative behaviour do so because ancestrally that has promoted their replication. That those genes may cause behaviour that isn't in the genes' self interest in novel environments sounds perfectly reasonable to me.
Meet the Dodo. It never learned to avoid large mammals. This behavioural trait of not running away from large mammals, or of being generally friendly/tame worked fine for its ancestral genes. But it worked against them when mankind discovered how tasty and easy to catch they were.
That makes my point. That argument is much more reasonable than trying to say that altruism is the result of the misfiring of genes. Obviously it isn’t a position that I agree with, but it is much more easily and reasonably made as you just did.

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 173 by Modulous, posted 07-28-2012 9:02 PM Modulous has seen this message but not replied

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


(2)
Message 199 of 203 (790655)
09-02-2016 2:27 PM
Reply to: Message 196 by ringo
09-02-2016 11:47 AM


Son of God
ringo writes:
But the Gospel of Matthew itself is a story of human derived legend. Sure, it's self-consistent but is it consistent with reality? What "value" does the story have unless it can be related to reality in some way? How does Jesus being the "Son of the living God" actually relate to reality?
Actually the term Son of God is interesting. It held different meanings. On the one hand it was a messianic term for the Jews but it was also a term for the divine ruler of Rome. Julius Caesar was known as divine so when Augustus came along he declared himself son of the divine Julius or son of god.
Here is a quote from Matthew 26:
quote:
63 But Jesus remained silent. The high priest said to him, I charge you under oath by the living God: Tell us if you are the Messiah, the Son of God.
When Jesus was referred to as Messiah it meant that He was the anointed one of God to lead the Jewish people. It does not have anything to do with Him being divine. There were certain expectations of what a Messiah would do which was primarily about leading the Jewish people against the enemy and rebuilding and re-establishing the Temple. (Jesus did these things but not in the way that was commonly expected.) The point is that when we see the pre-resurrection Jesus referred to as the Son of God it is simply a messianic term as we can see in the quote that I used from Matthew.
After the resurrection it was first off a political statement. The early Jesus followers were making the political statement that Jesus was King and that Caesar wasn’t. Also, though very early on it did take on a divine connotation from within a Jewish context. The Temple had always represented the place where one could go to meet Yahweh, make sacrifices, be forgiven sins and made right with God. The Temple was God’s dwelling place and the place where God’s heavenly dimension overlapped with our earthly dimension.
Jesus saw Himself and ultimately His followers as Temple replacements. He was going around forgiving sins and saying things like I desire mercy not sacrifice. He preached about rebelling against evil with love as opposed to the violent overthrow of Roman rule that so many hoped for. In addition the book of Daniel was closely followed at that time, and in Daniel 7 the Son of Man, as Jesus often referred to Himself, is presented to the ancient of Days’ , or Yahweh, and given dominion and power over the Earthly Kingdom. The early Jesus followers saw Jesus as embodying Yahweh’s return to His people and perfectly embodying the nature of God and God’s desire for His creation, and that then God had enthroned Him. It was through this that very early on the term Son of God’ did represent the divine aspect of the man Jesus the Messiah to His followers.
In terms of relating it to reality it all hangs on the resurrection. If there is no resurrection then Jesus is simply a delusional human who in spite of that still came up with a nice message of peace and love. However, the Christian faith is based on the belief that God did resurrect Jesus, thus vindicating and confirming the life and message of Jesus, or as the Gospel of John puts it, the Word or Wisdom of God became flesh. If this is the case, then the reality is that we do have a God and we are called to take His message as embodied by Jesus to heart, and base our lives on His message of love, peace, forgiveness, truth, kindness, charity etc, and to take that message to the world.
Edited by GDR, : not enough time to proof read it initially
Edited by GDR, : No reason given.

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 196 by ringo, posted 09-02-2016 11:47 AM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 200 by ringo, posted 09-03-2016 11:44 AM GDR has replied

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


(1)
Message 202 of 203 (790788)
09-05-2016 12:30 PM
Reply to: Message 200 by ringo
09-03-2016 11:44 AM


Re: Son of God
Ringo writes:
I don't even believe that Jesus existed but your attitude really grates on me. If He did exist, why couldn't He just be a wise man who was misunderstood and/or misrepresented? If somebody worships Tom Hanks as the saviour of mankind, does that make Tom Hanks delusional?
Tom Hanks isn’t going around making messianic claims or saying that he can forgive sin on God’s behalf. If Jesus was simply a good man it would make more sense to be followers of Gandhi who preached a similar message and it didn’t make all of those claims about himself.
Ringo writes:
But why do you need a god to give you that message when other people seem to get the same message without any resurrection, even without any god at all? How is the resurrection related to reality when others get the same reality without the resurrection? You're just adding an unnecessary subjective element to reality.
But that isn’t the whole point. Christianity has always had the two aspects to it. The first is what we have been talking about. Jesus modeled and taught how we are to live our lives, and that message is all about loving and caring for others and for that matter all of creation. Yes that message existed before the resurrection and without the resurrection. Paul says this in Romans 2:
quote:
13 For it is not those who hear the law who are righteous in God’s sight, but it is those who obey the law who will be declared righteous.
14 (Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law.
15 They show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts sometimes accusing them and at other times even defending them.)
16 This will take place on the day when God judges people’s secrets through Jesus Christ, as my gospel declares.
Jesus had said that all of the law is based on the law of love. Paul is saying in verse 14 that it is those who by their nature, (or heart) that obey the law of love that are
right with God. He doesn’t mention what doctrine we adhere to.
The other aspect of Christianity though is all about the resurrection and is what differentiates Christianity form all other faiths. Firstly, as I already mentioned it does confirm Jesus’ message of love, peace, forgiveness mercy etc as being of God and representing His true nature.
The resurrection also is a message that evil and death does not have the last word. Mankind can do its worst, as it did to Jesus, and then a new day dawned. The first disciples had gone into hiding not wanting to be associated with Jesus as they were afraid that they would suffer the same fate. After the resurrection they fearlessly took Christ’s message to the world. Interestingly enough was that some like Jesus’ brother James, and Paul for that matter, who had not been followers of Jesus prior to the resurrection, were leaders in the early church.
There is of course also the message that if we become followers of Jesus, (which means more than simply giving intellectual ascent to some doctrine), then He will change our hearts.
Paul also writes this in Ephesians 1:
quote:
9 he made known to us the mystery of his will according to his good pleasure, which he purposed in Christ,
10 to be put into effect when the times reach their fulfillmentto bring unity to all things in heaven and on earth under Christ.
Here is a quote from Matthew 19:
quote:
28 Jesus said to them, Truly I tell you, at the renewal of all things, when the Son of Man sits on his glorious throne, you who have followed me will also sit on twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel.
The resurrection of all things is God’s plan for the future. The resurrection shows us that our lives have ultimate meaning and an eternal purpose. If then earth is part of that renewal when our earthly dimension and God’s heavenly dimension come together to make up the whole of reality that we only perceive our part of now, then we can also know that the good that we do now does matter eternally. When we sacrificially love others it has eternal ramifications. It also shows that we are to care for other life and for the planet itself as it isn’t going to ultimately wind up a dead useless place.

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 200 by ringo, posted 09-03-2016 11:44 AM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 203 by ringo, posted 09-06-2016 12:07 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