|
Understanding through Discussion |
|
|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
| EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
|
| |
| ChatGPT | |
| Total: 916,824 Year: 4,081/9,624 Month: 952/974 Week: 279/286 Day: 0/40 Hour: 0/0 |
| Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
| Author | Topic: the psychological case for Evolution | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
Are children born good or evil? Yes, but they can be nutured either way.
Religious zealots on both sides of this question have wrought considerable damage. Caretakers believing that children are "created in God's image" have allowed children to misbehave for fear of suppressing their natural vivaciousness. Caretakers believing that children are "conceived in Original Sin" have assumed malevolent motives on their charges and thereby taken an unnecessarily offensive stance. Wierd. Why so compartmentalized and black and white? Isn't it more likely that things are a blend of both? And what about people who believe that children are created in God's image and are also conceived in original sin? I think you're being too generalizing.
Since both views have their drawbacks, perhaps evolutionary psychology holds the answer to this question. Before reading further, I would like for you to take a sheet of paper and answer these four questions: I'll just list the first thing that pops into my head.
1. What is good for children and attractive to children? exercise
2. What is good for children but unattractive to children? broccoli
3. What is harmful to children but attractive to children? fire
4. What is harmful to children and unattractive to children? spiders
Most likely, you were able to list items for all four questions. FWIW, #4 took the longest
The created-in-God's-image party cannot be right; otherwise, there would only be items in reply to questions 1 and 4. Not necessarily. Even though we were created in god's image, original sin has allowed for items in 2 and 3.
The conceived-in-Original-Sin party cannot be right; otherwise, there would only be items in reply to questions 2 and 3. Only if they believe that original sin is all encompasing and leaves no room for some good things.
John Locke, who held that a child was born as a blank slate, or tabula rasa, cannot be right; otherwise there would not be any items in reply to any of the questions. Unless a blank slate can have instincts... I don't find any of your above claims to be accurate. Can you support them further?
So let us look at the items which we came up with. For number 1, "What is good for children and attractive to children?" you probably listed friends and family, outdoor exercise, and the milk bottle. For number 2, "What is good for children but unattractive to children?" you probably listed school, sour medicine, and penicillin shots. For number 3, "What is harmful to children but attractive to children?" you probably listed excessive TV and video, junk food, and illegal drugs. For number 4, "What is harmful to children and unattractive to children?" you probably listed wild animals, sharp objects, and high places. Let us compare the items for questions 1 and 4, in which children are attracted in the right direction. You may find that most of those items are found in nature. I dunno about "exercise"... is that "found in nature"?
Now let's compare the items for questions 2 and 3, in which children are attracted in the wrong direction. You may find that most of the items are modern institutions or modern inventions. Hrm... broccoli and fire... nope.
What does this tell us, then? This tells us that children are born neither good nor evil, but are born for survival in our distant past. Non-sequitor. I agree that they are "born for survival" a little bit but I don't think that conclusion follows from your argument.
Numerous questions about human behavior can be reduced to evolutionary psychology. Why do we bang our fists on the table when we are angry? Likely because that is how we caught our prey during our early days as land animals. Why do we stamp our feet when we are angry? Likely for the same reason. Why do we grit our teeth when we are angry? Likely because that is how we caught our prey during our days in the sea. But it just sounds like you are making those up as ad hoc explanations. For example, gritting our teeth when we're angry is more likely us showing our teeth in anger like other animals do:
even dogs do it:
So... how do we prove who's guess is more accurate? Yours or mine? How can we test these hypotheses?
Evolutionary psychology can also explain gender differences. Why do men consider it disgraceful to ask for directions? Likely because they consider it an affront to their hunting skills. Seriously? No offense, but it sounds like your just making up reasons. Like apologetics.
Every once in a while, we hear a scientist say "All branches of science point to Evolution--geology, paleontology, chemistry, biology. . ." I realize psychology isn't an exact science, but I wish they would say "psychology," too. Meh, I'm not convinced. I don't see psychology, all on its own merits, pointing to evolution here. I see ad hoc explanations for psychology apologetics.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
Wow. Thanks Mod, that was a great explanation. Its a lot clearer not.
I think he is saying, then, that childhood behaviour may seem incongruous with modern life (and by modern I mean essentially post-agricultural) but this isn't because of sin (or an inherent disgustingness of greens or an inherent dangerous appearance to snakes), but because standards change quicker than our moral instincts. Not that I disagree with the conclusion, but do you think his argument is sound? I hope you don't mind me bitching about something...
A good example is the trolley cart thought experiment.
I REALLY hate the href code. Everytime I click on a link you provide, it goes directly to that page in this window. When people use the url code, it pops up in a new window, and then I can click back to what I was reading while the new page loads. For yours, I always have to go back to this page and then right-click and open in new window. I like to finish reading the post before I check out the link anyways. You're, like, the only one who uses the href. Stop it! Use url! 
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
Is that a Wayne's world moment, or a typo?  it was a typo. I meant now.
I think it's sound in spirit, but not necessarily in form. Alas, a natural explanation for a phenomenon doesn't necessarily preclude a supernatural one.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
But it's going to be difficult, because I gradually stopped using the words good and evil when I stopped thinking in theistic terms and started thinking in evolutionary terms. No biggie. I think we know well enough what "good" and "evil" mean.
I was taught to believe that the source of the former is a sky daddy with a long white beard. The source of the latter is a red man with horns. After giving the matter some thought, I concluded that the source of the former is instincts which were ingrained in us long before anyone ever built any churches and synagogues.
But they aren't necessarily mutually exclusive. It is possible that god ingrained goodness into us via the process of evolution.
I hope a couple of examples will help I'm not sure they're necessariy for my point.
we turned monogamous long before anyone wrote all that lofty rhetoric about "holy matrimony." That doesn't preclude god's hand in the matter.
Satan may be blamed for inventing interracial and international prejudice, but if he did, he would have had to invent it by creating a gap between evolution and civilization. I can think of other ways that don't require him inventing that gap.
Furthermore, even if you wanted to understand a different language or different culture, it would be impossible. There were no cassette tapes, no anthropology textbooks, no Berlitz Language Schools. If someone who looked and acted differently from you came up and said something nonsensical like, "Bonjour, monsieur," you wouldn't know WHAT that meant! The safest assumption is that it meant, "I'm going to beat you to a pulp." Nah... there's always non-verbal communication.
But we're getting off topic. The point is that all these natural explanations could be the way that god did it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
So yeah - you could invoke the god of 'chocolate sprinkles' as the ultimate mastermind behind it. Or you could invoke the unicorn of invisible sprinkles as being ultimately behind god being ultimately behind evolution being the cause of drives/desires which conflict with various era's religious or philosophical moral models...if that's what you want to do. I just don't see the merit of doing it in this thread. I read his argument to say that evolutionary psychology's explantions remove god from the equation. I don't think that they do.
In the end: tomato's argument seems to be that evolution of our psychology is at odds with the evolution of our ideas and that this is the cause of 'immorality' Better referred to as: "Mod's improvement upon tomato's argument" 
So when a young boy starts masturbating - the correct reason is probably something to do with an evolved sexual drive expressing itself under certain hormonal conditions. And if you want to say this process is god's will then I don't think tomato has a problem (other than possibly philosophical objections surrounding parsimony and or verification etc). It's really those that would say that the young boy is being immoral, disgusting, filthy and/or sinful and that the young boy isn't doing it because it is a natural thing for an adolescent human male to do but because they are inherently sinful/bound for hell and they need to be saved that tomato is highlighting in this thread. It seemed to me like he was saying that accounting for the behavior without the need for sinful stuffs means that the process is not god's will. That's what I was saying didn't necessarily follow.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024
