Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Why It Is Right To Do Good To Others
GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 286 of 304 (848823)
02-15-2019 9:46 PM
Reply to: Message 285 by ringo
02-15-2019 9:33 PM


Re: Goodness
ringo writes:
You're treading on dangerous ground there, Mr. Grand Dragon. "Our species" includes all of us. Diversity is strength.
I agree. IMHO one way of boiling down the Christian message is that we are just one tribe. Walls and Brexit are steps backwards. However, from a mindless evolutionary POV I'm not so sure. From a mindless evolutionary POV, it seems to a non-expert like me that genocide in many cases would be the path that would be followed.

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 285 by ringo, posted 02-15-2019 9:33 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 288 by ringo, posted 02-16-2019 10:46 AM GDR has not replied

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 9489
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 4.9


Message 287 of 304 (848828)
02-16-2019 3:28 AM
Reply to: Message 280 by GDR
02-15-2019 7:19 PM


GDR writes:
I am simply saying that as there seems to be a fairly universal understanding of goodness, primarily as seen in the Golden Rule, which is indicative of the idea that there is something that exists outside of of human experience and understanding.
It's no such thing. You consistently randomly pluck goodness out of the pot of human emotions and label it supernatural.
Why is anger not something that 'exists outside of human experience'? Maybe jealousy or greed? How about evil? After all, god himself says he made it.
YOU may prefer to think that it's outside our understanding but that's because you put it there - outside The Barrier. We actually know quite a lot about it - it's a brain function. Just another part of us that makes us successful in our environment, able to live in groups and bring up dependant children.
As you well now there are many highly educated people who have accomplished great things in their respective fields that are Christian.
Uh? What's that got to do with anything?
We know that eh.
Yes we do. Why not read the science? Here's a taster.
quote:
Research in the neurobiolgy of empathy has changed the perception of empathy from a soft skill to a neurobiologically based competency (9). The theory of inner imitation of the actions of others in the observer has been supported by brain research. Functional magnetic resonance imaging now demonstrates the existence of a neural relay mechanism that allows empathic individuals to exhibit unconscious mimicry of the postures, mannerisms, and facial expressions of others to a greater degree than individuals who are unempathic (10).
Patients unconsciously mimic the actions and facial expressions of others through brain mechanisms that mirror the actions of others by stimulating the same motor and sensory areas in the observers’ brains as the person they are observing. This mirroring capacity has been demonstrated at the level of single muscle fibers. If a person’s hand muscle is pricked by a fine needle, for example, the same motor and sensory areas are activated in the brain of an observer (11).
Studies also demonstrate that while patients are either imitating or simply observing emotional facial expressions, activation of a similar network of brain areas occurs in the observer. Within this network, there is activity during simple observation of emotional faces, and greater activity during imitation of emotions (12). In addition to inner representations of others’ facial displays, shared neural circuits have also been demonstrated for tone of voice, touch, disgust, and pain. Researchers conclude from these studies that observers feel what others feel to an attenuated degree. This is achieved through a mechanism of neural action representation that often modulates observers’ own emotional different individual capacities for empathy (13).
A novel study showed that the expression, “I feel your pain,” is much more than just a figure of speech. Sixteen female volunteers had brain scans performed while they received painful electric shocks to their hands. While they received the shock, a well-defined “pain matrix” was activated in their brains. Afterward, they received a signal that their spouses were receiving similar shocks. This activated a similar (but not entire) pain matrix in the females’ brains.
This is the first neuroimaging study to demonstrate that we actually do feel the pain of others, but only in an attenuated form (10). Attenuation makes it possible to empathize but not become overwhelmed with another’s personal distress. Our own distress would likely render us less helpful. Indeed, there is a balance between empathy leading to helping or distancing behaviors due to personal distress. An important balance must be struck by ensuring that health-care providers receive enough care, support, and empathy from their institutions in order to provide high-quality empathic care and to benefit from the positive side effects of empathy.
Even if that is true, it can be either by chance or design.
It's an evolutionary evolved trait like all the others. Your attempt to make it magically different isn't working.
Edited by Tangle, : No reason given.

Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien. I am Mancunian. I am Brum. I am London.I am Finland. Soy Barcelona
"Life, don't talk to me about life" - Marvin the Paranoid Android
"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved."
- Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 280 by GDR, posted 02-15-2019 7:19 PM GDR has not replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 288 of 304 (848834)
02-16-2019 10:46 AM
Reply to: Message 286 by GDR
02-15-2019 9:46 PM


Re: Goodness
GDR writes:
However, from a mindless evolutionary POV I'm not so sure.
Somebody else mentioned serotonin, a mindless chemical that effects our feelings. If there was a Grand Intelligence somewhere in the universe, no doubt its mind would be the product of mindless chemicals too.

And our geese will blot out the sun.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 286 by GDR, posted 02-15-2019 9:46 PM GDR has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 290 by Phat, posted 02-16-2019 11:15 AM ringo has replied

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 9489
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 4.9


Message 289 of 304 (848837)
02-16-2019 11:04 AM
Reply to: Message 284 by GDR
02-15-2019 9:28 PM


Re: Goodness
GDR writes:
Certainly co-operation can be shown to help survival but then the question is survival of what or who. In an earlier thread someone suggested that it was about the survival of the gene pool.
For those of us in the west our gene pool is pretty diverse and frankly we would be a lot better if we could just get rid of all those Africans with their different gene pools and have those resources for ourselves. Instead, whe do what we should and try and help those in trouble over there.
And that's exactly what happens - we discriminate, we can't help it, it's designed into us. In order - family, friends, neighbours, tribe, race. It all derives from empathy and that's an evolved feature like everything else.
This is from a tutorial for doctors who have to learn to deal with their empathetic instincts just to survive, but also be aware or losing or dulling the reaction because they see so much suffering.
quote:
A cardinal feature of empathy is that it usually helps connect people to others. Because of the evolutionary development of this brain-based capacity, affective empathy, or emotional sharing, most easily occurs among members of the same “tribe”. Individuals tend to have the most empathy for others who look or act like them, for others who have suffered in a similar way, or for those who share a common goal.
We see these biases play out repeatedly in communities, schools, sports teams, and religious communities. The truth of the matter is that empathy is not always an equal opportunity benefactor (15). People are evolutionarily wired to recognize and respond to differences and socially or culturally based perceptions can trigger subconscious fears that threaten emotional homeostasis.
All perceptions in our environment are routed through the thalamus. From there, the amygdala, the threat sensor in the brain, reacts to threats, unfamiliar stimuli, conditioned fears, and perceived threats in as few as 50 milliseconds long before conscious thoughts come into play. When these threat signals reach the midbrain, (specifically in the area of the pons) automatic reactions such as the fight, flight or freeze response take place unless there is cognitive input from executive functions in the prefrontal cortex.
Because of this evolutionary bias, cognitive empathy must play a role when a lack of emotional empathy exists because of racial, ethnic, religious, or physical differences. Health-care settings are no exception to conscious and unconscious biases,

Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien. I am Mancunian. I am Brum. I am London.I am Finland. Soy Barcelona
"Life, don't talk to me about life" - Marvin the Paranoid Android
"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved."
- Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 284 by GDR, posted 02-15-2019 9:28 PM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 294 by GDR, posted 02-17-2019 7:42 PM Tangle has replied

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


Message 290 of 304 (848838)
02-16-2019 11:15 AM
Reply to: Message 288 by ringo
02-16-2019 10:46 AM


Re: Goodness
ringo writes:
If there was a Grand Intelligence somewhere in the universe, no doubt its mind would be the product of mindless chemicals too.
No doubt? Your lack of imagination is noted.

Chance as a real force is a myth. It has no basis in reality and no place in scientific inquiry. For science and philosophy to continue to advance in knowledge, chance must be demythologized once and for all. ~RC Sproul
"A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." ~Mark Twain "
~"If that's not sufficient for you go soak your head."~Faith
You can "get answers" by watching the ducks. That doesn't mean the answers are coming from them.~Ringo
Subjectivism may very well undermine Christianity.
In the same way that "allowing people to choose what they want to be when they grow up" undermines communism.
~Stile

This message is a reply to:
 Message 288 by ringo, posted 02-16-2019 10:46 AM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 291 by ringo, posted 02-16-2019 11:19 AM Phat has replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 291 of 304 (848839)
02-16-2019 11:19 AM
Reply to: Message 290 by Phat
02-16-2019 11:15 AM


Re: Goodness
Phat writes:
Your lack of imagination is noted.
Thanks for noticing. Imagination is fine when you're writing children's books. It has no place in a discussion of facts.

And our geese will blot out the sun.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 290 by Phat, posted 02-16-2019 11:15 AM Phat has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 292 by Phat, posted 02-16-2019 11:32 AM ringo has replied

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


Message 292 of 304 (848842)
02-16-2019 11:32 AM
Reply to: Message 291 by ringo
02-16-2019 11:19 AM


Re: Goodness
It can, however, be useful when discussing a Grand Intelligence...unless you mean simply an intelligence more evolved than other carbon-based life forms. If you mean an intelligence capable of creating all things seen and unseen, chemicals are hardly the default assumption. Oh yeah I forgot----you tend to imagine that In The Beginning was chemicals! No wonder you limit yourself. You Grovel at the Altar Of Evidence. And you seem to view Belief almost as the Anti-Evidence.
But maybe thats just my observation. I appreciate evidence, but it is hardly a prerequisite for my world view.
In fact, I myself summarized my belief system:
Normally, in every instance, reality does not equate or involve fantasy.
Gambling is a fantasy. BigFoot is a fantasy. (mythos)
Loch Ness. Elvis being alive.
Friendly or hostile Aliens is mid-level consideration, and may or may not be real.
God, Creator of all seen and unseen, the One whom I was introduced to through church, is the one exception. God can transcend both reality and fantasy.
Anything is possible with God. There are no limits.
Thus, as Grand Intelligence, God writes the very rules of physics. God defines words. God made the original chemicals and is not bound by a need to be composed of them. God is imagination writ large.

Chance as a real force is a myth. It has no basis in reality and no place in scientific inquiry. For science and philosophy to continue to advance in knowledge, chance must be demythologized once and for all. ~RC Sproul
"A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." ~Mark Twain "
~"If that's not sufficient for you go soak your head."~Faith
You can "get answers" by watching the ducks. That doesn't mean the answers are coming from them.~Ringo
Subjectivism may very well undermine Christianity.
In the same way that "allowing people to choose what they want to be when they grow up" undermines communism.
~Stile

This message is a reply to:
 Message 291 by ringo, posted 02-16-2019 11:19 AM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 293 by ringo, posted 02-16-2019 11:45 AM Phat has replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


(2)
Message 293 of 304 (848843)
02-16-2019 11:45 AM
Reply to: Message 292 by Phat
02-16-2019 11:32 AM


Re: Goodness
Phat writes:
...unless you mean simply an intelligence more evolved than other carbon-based life forms. If you mean an intelligence capable of creating all things seen and unseen...
A "more-evolved" intelligence is plausible. An intelligence capable of creating all things seen and unseen is pure imagination, the stuff of children's stories.
Phat writes:
... chemicals are hardly the default assumption.
Sure they are. The default would naturally be something that actually exists, like chemicals.
Phat writes:
No wonder you limit yourself.
I limit myself to facts, yes. Sue me.
Phat writes:
You Grovel at the Altar Of Evidence.
And you mock evidence. Why do you pretend to accept science at all?
Phat writes:
And you seem to view Belief almost as the Anti-Evidence.
It's worse than that.

And our geese will blot out the sun.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 292 by Phat, posted 02-16-2019 11:32 AM Phat has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 297 by Phat, posted 02-19-2019 2:51 PM ringo has replied

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


Message 294 of 304 (848885)
02-17-2019 7:42 PM
Reply to: Message 289 by Tangle
02-16-2019 11:04 AM


Re: Goodness
Tangle writes:
And that's exactly what happens - we discriminate, we can't help it, it's designed into us.
That's my point. It is designed into us. That also does not preclude the imagery of Dawkin's memes and there is no science that argues either for or against the idea that we might be influenced that way.
Tangle writes:
It all derives from empathy and that's an evolved feature like everything else.
Certainly it evolved but why? And again, that still does not either argue for or against the idea of the influence of God's still small voice nudging us through our conscience.
The following quote is from the tutorial for doctors that you quoted yourself.
quote:
A cardinal feature of empathy is that it usually helps connect people to others. Because of the evolutionary development of this brain-based capacity, affective empathy, or emotional sharing, most easily occurs among members of the same “tribe”. Individuals tend to have the most empathy for others who look or act like them, for others who have suffered in a similar way, or for those who share a common goal.
We see these biases play out repeatedly in communities, schools, sports teams, and religious communities. The truth of the matter is that empathy is not always an equal opportunity benefactor (15). People are evolutionarily wired to recognize and respond to differences and socially or culturally based perceptions can trigger subconscious fears that threaten emotional homeostasis.
That was the point I made earlier. Many people in our own culture with its Judeo Christian roots are more likely help those from "other" tribes rather than there own because it is felt the need is greater.

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 289 by Tangle, posted 02-16-2019 11:04 AM Tangle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 295 by Tangle, posted 02-18-2019 3:43 AM GDR has not replied

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 9489
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 4.9


Message 295 of 304 (848896)
02-18-2019 3:43 AM
Reply to: Message 294 by GDR
02-17-2019 7:42 PM


Re: Goodness
GDR writes:
That's my point. It is designed into us.
How and why evolution 'designed' us that way is easily explicable, but it seems that you believe your god designed us to discriminate against outsiders but wants us not too. That makes no sense to me.
That also does not preclude the imagery of Dawkin's memes and there is no science that argues either for or against the idea that we might be influenced that way
I don't understand what point you're making.
Certainly it evolved but why?
I've explained why. We're a social species - without empathy we could not have learned how to work together. That's the whole story.
And again, that still does not either argue for or against the idea of the influence of God's still small voice nudging us through our conscience.
I'm sorry but it does. It make that primitive superstitious idea redundant. We KNOW that empathy doesn't require a constant external influence; it's an inbuilt biological function - a brain function like all others. We know this because we know the parts of the brain involved and we can see what stimulates them. We also know that when the brain is damaged or lacking the function, people don't know how others feel and can't relate to them. In extreme examples we get psychopathy.
How come your 'still small voice' can't be heard by those people? Is it a total fluke that the brain function is missing in people that do what we think are bad, antisocial things?
The following quote is from the tutorial for doctors that you quoted yourself.
Yes, it describes how empathy works and why we need to modify it. I can't see why this helps you.
That was the point I made earlier. Many people in our own culture with its Judeo Christian roots are more likely help those from "other" tribes rather than there own because it is felt the need is greater.
Oh good grief!
There are two parts to this problem. The first is the primitively evolved reflex to mistrust strangers and see danger in outsiders. This is combined with the need to work in social groups - we trust our family, friends and tribe most. As we move away from that small centre we trust and care less.
I don't care what your religion, that's how we're built - it's a reflex.
The second part is our executive brain - the modern, conscious thinking part of our brain that is able to overcome - eventually - those reflexes. How we develop as a society influences how we treat others. Christians, like all other peoples, have been able to treat foreigners and outsiders either well or badly conditional only on their motivations. God loving Christians have murdered people of other religious beliefs without qualms of conscience and kept black slaves whilst attending church.
It's society, law and our secular systems that moderate our primitively evolved traits. Religions have had a big part in that role in the past and some of it's better ideas have become incorporated our secular systems but religions rely on a fictitious entity and a pile of superstitious ancilliary garbage to keep people in order. Religions bring with them their unreformed dogma that is actually a danger - fear of women, homosexuals, social progress, non-believers.
Religion is no longer necessary, it's holding us back and we do better without it. You're belifs are simply redundant.
You can throw the beliefs away and still be kind to strangers - it would give you more time and resource to do it.
Edited by Tangle, : No reason given.

Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien. I am Mancunian. I am Brum. I am London.I am Finland. Soy Barcelona
"Life, don't talk to me about life" - Marvin the Paranoid Android
"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved."
- Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 294 by GDR, posted 02-17-2019 7:42 PM GDR has not replied

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


(2)
Message 296 of 304 (848951)
02-19-2019 9:32 AM
Reply to: Message 279 by GDR
02-15-2019 7:05 PM


Re: Goodness
GDR writes:
Where we differ is in the question why is all of that true. Why do we not live by the the law of the survival of the fittest?
Who says we don't?
Remember, this thread is about Stile's reason for Why It Is Right To Do Good To Others - not the human population.
I speak merely for myself.
Perhaps some will agree - perhaps not.
The point is - I'm certainly not claiming that this reason is something everyone has.
In fact, I'd argue the complete opposite - most people don't take the time to consider such things in such detail. They have to worry about having enough money to feed/support their family.
In my view it isn't what we do that is the root of goodness. For me it is all a heart issue.
I agree the heart is part of it.
But all of it?
If someone never interacted with any other person - never hurt anyone (and never helped, either...)
I would be hard pressed to call them "good."
I would simply call them "a-moral."
If we have hearts that get those warm fuzzies when we are able to bring joy to others, and particularly when we do it at some cost to ourselves, that is fundamental goodness.
Absolutely.
Of course - this doesn't exist in reality.
"We" don't have such things.
Some people do. Possibly many. But certainly not all. There is a very, very large minority (more than can be ignored by saying "we" all have it) that do not have such fundamental goodness.
Real life story example:
In Canada we recently implemented an Amber Alert system into cell phones.
Amber Alert is the police band used to educate people that a child is missing (recently stolen/reported) in Canada.
It used to be something the radio used - or sort of like "weather watch" indications on TV.
Anyway, they recently put it on Canadian cell phones. That is - when such a situation arises - every cell phone in Canada (or most, anyway) will make a noise and display the Amber Alert message - like "kid missing - look for a grey vehicle in this area..." sort of message.
A few days ago, an Amber Alert went out for a kid that was taken (or maybe just not-returned to the mother as agreed?) by her father.
The Alert went off at 11:30pm.
The next day - the news was all a-buzz about "a huge increase" in 9-1-1 calls - people called in to 9-1-1 to complain about the Amber Alert going off so late and interrupting their sleep.
Oh - we also found out that the Alert worked. Someone heard the message, was able to identify the location of the vehicle they were looking for and police shortly apprehended the father. Unfortunately, he had already killed the little girl.
So - what "foundational goodness" is found in the man who killed his own daughter?
What about the "so many people" who called into 9-1-1 complaining their sleep was interrupted in order to attempt to save a little girl - by a method that works in finding missing children?
The actions that result from that are the symptoms or result of a good heart.
I agree.
I simply disagree that "we" all have it.
Clearly, we do not.
Did goodness evolve from mindless processes, chemical or otherwise, or did it evolve through processes and laws that are the result of an external intelligence? It appears we differ on the answer to that.
Absolutely.
Wanting to "be a good person" isn't some mystical strangeness found in all humans.
It's really nothing more than any other preference. Just one that's been selected for as we evolved.
If it wasn't selected for - we would have died out by killing ourselves (we still might, even...)
It's a preference.
It's equally as profound as "Stile likes the colour green."
You don't seem to be so flabbergasted that Stile's favourite colour is green.
Why is it so hard to understand that Stile's favourite moral position is "caring for others?"
It's obvious, and the facts support it, that many people don't hold green as their favourite colour - many don't care at all.
It's obvious, and the facts support it, that many people don't hold "caring for others" as their favourite moral position - many don't care at all.
It's the same with any preference.
Many will feel a certain way - many will agree with them.
Many will feel a variety of different ways - many will agree with each and every one of them.
Did goodness evolve from mindless processes, chemical or otherwise, or did it evolve through processes and laws that are the result of an external intelligence?
If it were, indeed, "the result of an external intelligence" that some of us hold "caring for others" as their favourite moral position - why do the vast majority not really care as much as you and I do? Why does a very large minority even reject this position all together to the point of taking actions that hurt others?
Did the external intelligence "miss" some people? Is the "intelligence" perhaps not all that bright? Maybe this was the best they were capable of (not all powerful?) or maybe they didn't care enough to make it fair across the board (not all benevolent?)
It just seems to me that it lines up more with evolving from mindless processes - chemical or otherwise.
There is no "goal" - only "what exists."
There is no "failsafe" or "quality control" - only "what survives."
That seems to perfectly explain exactly what we see.
For the purposes of Why It Is Right To Do Good To Others - I don't think "where it comes from" matters at all.
And, the way I've described this system - someone who was not lucky-enough to have "caring for others" as ingrained into them as you and I can follow my method by intelligent choice (if they so desire) and make progress by monitoring the results of their actions on others and adjusting accordingly.
Your question is interesting, though.
I just think it's fairly obvious by looking at reality that things are (at a minimum) "heavily leaning" in one direction - nothing is controlling or "intelligently designing" such abilities. If they were, well - "Lucy - you have some 'splainin to do!!"

This message is a reply to:
 Message 279 by GDR, posted 02-15-2019 7:05 PM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 300 by GDR, posted 02-19-2019 4:01 PM Stile has replied

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


Message 297 of 304 (848959)
02-19-2019 2:51 PM
Reply to: Message 293 by ringo
02-16-2019 11:45 AM


Re: Goodness
ringo writes:
A "more-evolved" intelligence is plausible. An intelligence capable of creating all things seen and unseen is pure imagination...
Anything claimed to be supernatural *must* be part of our imagination. I prefer to call it speculation. Adult "stories" (mythos) are more detail oriented than children's stories because we know more facts and ideas about the world. If society simply waits for *evidence* of God, we will likely stand at the altar forever.

Chance as a real force is a myth. It has no basis in reality and no place in scientific inquiry. For science and philosophy to continue to advance in knowledge, chance must be demythologized once and for all. ~RC Sproul
"A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." ~Mark Twain "
~"If that's not sufficient for you go soak your head."~Faith
You can "get answers" by watching the ducks. That doesn't mean the answers are coming from them.~Ringo
Subjectivism may very well undermine Christianity.
In the same way that "allowing people to choose what they want to be when they grow up" undermines communism.
~Stile

This message is a reply to:
 Message 293 by ringo, posted 02-16-2019 11:45 AM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 298 by Theodoric, posted 02-19-2019 2:54 PM Phat has not replied
 Message 302 by ringo, posted 02-20-2019 2:13 PM Phat has not replied

  
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 9076
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 298 of 304 (848960)
02-19-2019 2:54 PM
Reply to: Message 297 by Phat
02-19-2019 2:51 PM


Re: Goodness
If society simply waits for *evidence* of God, we will likely stand at the altar forever.
I have no idea what that even means. Do you think that statement actually means something?

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts
"God did it" is not an argument. It is an excuse for intellectual laziness.
If your viewpoint has merits and facts to back it up why would you have to lie?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 297 by Phat, posted 02-19-2019 2:51 PM Phat has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 299 by AZPaul3, posted 02-19-2019 3:07 PM Theodoric has not replied

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 8513
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 299 of 304 (848963)
02-19-2019 3:07 PM
Reply to: Message 298 by Theodoric
02-19-2019 2:54 PM


Re: Goodness
If society simply waits for *evidence* of God, we will likely stand at the altar forever.
I have no idea what that even means. Do you think that statement actually means something?
I guess it means that gay marriage is ok now.

Eschew obfuscation. Habituate elucidation.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 298 by Theodoric, posted 02-19-2019 2:54 PM Theodoric has not replied

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


Message 300 of 304 (848965)
02-19-2019 4:01 PM
Reply to: Message 296 by Stile
02-19-2019 9:32 AM


Re: Goodness
GDR writes:
Where we differ is in the question why is all of that true. Why do we not live by the the law of the survival of the fittest?
Stile writes:
Who says we don't?
Remember, this thread is about Stile's reason for Why It Is Right To Do Good To Others - not the human population.
I speak merely for myself.
Perhaps some will agree - perhaps not.
The point is - I'm certainly not claiming that this reason is something everyone has.
In fact, I'd argue the complete opposite - most people don't take the time to consider such things in such detail. They have to worry about having enough money to feed/support their family.
I think that you are look at it from too narrow a perspective. It doesn’t matter how poor one is or how much they have to struggle to feed/support their family. From a western perspective we can look at it from how we deal with others that we come in contact with. Do we look at every encounter that we have as an opportunity to bring a little joy into someone’s day by making a cheerful comment, or paying them a compliment. It is not all about money or even time for that matter.
GDR writes:
In my view it isn't what we do that is the root of goodness. For me it is all a heart issue.
Stile writes:
I agree the heart is part of it.
But all of it?
If someone never interacted with any other person - never hurt anyone (and never helped, either...)
I would be hard pressed to call them "good."
I would simply call them "a-moral.
I think we would agree that our heart is a metaphor for our mind and or conscious thought. Once again I don’t see it about never hurting or never helping anyone as being the issue and that they are merely symptoms of the issue. It is impossible to live a life where we neither hurt nor help anyone else. It simply boils down to whether or not we have a desire to help others or not or are we solely self serving regardless of its impact on others.
If we look at very young children we can see that they seem to instinctively have a knowledge or sense of fairness. If there are 2 children and 2 treats they know that each should get one of them. However there will still be the desire to have both of them. If there are two treats available and no one is supervising most will likely be content with each getting one, but some children will disregard that sense of fairness and try to get both of them. Hopefully over time the one who takes both of them will be influenced to moderate that selfish desire and seek fairness and some will even be prepared to give up their perceived right and sacrifice what is fairly theirs for the benefit of others.
GDR writes:
If we have hearts that get those warm fuzzies when we are able to bring joy to others, and particularly when we do it at some cost to ourselves, that is fundamental goodness.
Stile writes:
Absolutely.
Of course - this doesn't exist in reality.
"We" don't have such things.
Some people do. Possibly many. But certainly not all. There is a very, very large minority (more than can be ignored by saying "we" all have it) that do not have such fundamental goodness.
Sure. For many it is the lust for money, power, sex or any other self focused desire and they are prepared to satisfy those lusts regardless of how it impacts others. If you want to use local examples there is the relatively recent case in your neck of the woods with a guy who grew up in a wealthy family and killed his own father so that he could inherit the family business sooner rather than later. After that he killed to more people with one of them being done with no other reason that it gave him a thrill to take a life.
I have no doubt that he knew that what he was doing was wrong on both a gut level and a cultural level. He stuffed that down and just didn’t care. Sure, that’s an extreme example. Those that complained about the amber alert are those that just aren’t willing to sacrifice anything of themselves in order to help others. They are the ones who would essentially say that they are good people because they haven’t done things to hurt others.
Why have some chosen the selfish path in their lives and why have you chosen a path that wants to bring joy to other lives and to leave a legacy behind that sees the world a better place for having been born into it?
GDR writes:
Did goodness evolve from mindless processes, chemical or otherwise, or did it evolve through processes and laws that are the result of an external intelligence? It appears we differ on the answer to that.
Stile writes:
Absolutely.
Wanting to "be a good perso n" isn't some mystical strangeness found in all humans.
It's really nothing more than any other preference. Just one that's been selected for as we evolved.
If it wasn't selected for - we would have died out by killing ourselves (we still might, even...)
It's a preference.
It's equally as profound as "Stile likes the colour green."
I just don’t see altruism as being evolved in terms of what we think of when we talk about evolutionary theory. If I were to approach it from a non-theistic point of view a would argue that, (disregarding mental issues), is that it is a result of all the various influences in our lives with societal and parental influences being most prominent. I would even say that it is along the line of Dawkins’ memes. I would argue, as you do, that co-operation and empathy very often is helpful for me and the society around me. The weak point in that argument though is that does not explain why we in the west are prepared to sacrificially help those on the other side of the world who are not of our society or gene pool.
As a theist it would be ridiculous to suggest that society and parents don’t have a massive impact on whether our fundamental self is selfish or unselfish. Of course they do. Our familial or societal memes largely make us what we are. However, it is my belief that there is also that silent meme, that we can metaphorically call the “still small voice of God” that prompts us towards a love that transcends the self and is prepared to love one’s neighbours, (which of course ultimately extend to everyone), sacrificially, or to live a life in which our foundational belief is “The Golden Rule”.
I would also add that when we look at the evolutionary process we all evolved with 5 fingers, ten toes and so on. However, when it comes to our adherence to a moral code, such as in the Golden Rule, we are all over the map. It sure looks to me as if there is more involved than just evolutionary processes.
You ask why you have chosen the path that you have and it is my belief that you have chosen that path because you have responded to all of the above and have had your heart softened to the point that you have been able to set aside selfish desires in order to enhance the lives of others, even at your own expense.

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 296 by Stile, posted 02-19-2019 9:32 AM Stile has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 301 by Stile, posted 02-20-2019 9:19 AM 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