The gathering place for Mental Health and
Applied Behavior Science Professionals. Become a charter member of Behavior OnLine. |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Red vs. blue explained by white birth rate & Darwinian rational
Regarding this "Amen, sister". It's interesting, I have a southern Ohio Christian fundamentalist cousin (she and her husband are leaders ofCampus Crusaders for Christ) , and I always want to talk to her about what we both care about. I think we have so many similarities, yet so many deep differences. I often think that the way "liberals" get vilified is so unfair, and that actually my values, morals etc., of love, unselfishness, really overlap hers so much. The thing is, I'm an athiest, (or a "bright", to try to sound a little more positive) and an accepter of the truth of evolution. (Whereas her husband spent the Thanksgiving blessing talking about how evolution "just doesn't make sense".) So I dont' know how she'd make sense of my sharing some of her values, without sharing her Lord. In fact, I think that a bedrock of her faith is that I can't. Which again just seems so unfair, and so untrue!
But, although she talks about her views all the time- in fact makes her career of it, I am still closeted in the family for being an atheist. Mainly, I don't want to make people feel bad, because I know there is a lot of emotional comfort in faith. But it's sad, because I think that comfort leads to lots of ultimate misery. You know, I wondered if you were going to put down the NY Times. It's just my local newspaper, you know. I actually also enjoy USA Today, but NY Times my city newspaper. It's far from perfect, but at least they have a Science section! That ain't nothing! I mean, the Macon Telegraph and News, the paper I grew up reading in Georgia, had nothing of the sort! Really, I think Science News is fascinating and entertaining, and... important! I think this is something to be applauded! I mean, do you think Saudi Arabia Times has a Science Section?! |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Red vs. blue explained by white birth rate & Darwinian rational
Lizzie:
Quote:
I find fundamentalists and atheists often to be equally artless—fundamentalists insist that they don’t believe in evolution, and atheists insist that a circular teleology—natural selection—confirms a directionless and ultimately purposeless evolution. But of course the fundamentalists will outbreed you atheists, so perhaps, Lizzie, you should reconsider your atheism . . . it’s been said that it’s better to be red than dead. |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
Reproduction For the Purposes of Besting Other People
I don't hear where I'm vilifying fundamentalists. I just disagree with them, and I fear their influence (as I'm sure they fear mine.)
I hear you doing something closer to "vilifying" both groups. I actually consider the suggestion that I should start reproducing for the purposes of competition to be rather "artless". So, do you participate in an evolution website yet not "believe" the essential mechanism of evolution- natural selection?? I don't follow.... |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Red vs. blue explained by white birth rate & Darwinian rational
Yeah, I tend to vilify both groups.
I think one could argue that creating children, albeit somewhat instinctive even for us humans, is our highest form of art. Saying that natural selection is an essential mechanism of evolution is about as helpful as saying that natural forces are the essential mechanisms in the evolution of our galaxy/solar system, without defining/quantifying the various natural forces. Unlike gravity, electromagnetism, etc., natural selection isn’t quantified nor clearly defined—best I can tell, it’s not much more than a circular teleology, a just so story. (Interestingly, all the natural forces that have been discovered/quantified so far are deterministic, the only exception being the apparent randomness at the quantum level when a measurement is made.) |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
Natural Selection
Perhaps loving children might be counted as a high art form, but merely creating them, as you suggested, certainly couldn't. Any old selfish, thoughtless jerk can and does do that, every day, every second. It's yet another tragedy of planet earth.
If you are relating natural selection to mere "natural forces" and claiming it is all a big "just so" story, then you're not much different from an "Intelligent Design" so-called "expert". Ie. you haven't educated yourself on that which you are discussing, and apparently you don't really have any interest in sincere debate. It seems as though you have bones to pick, ideologies to uphold,and arguments regarding how you and your kind are better than others, and you are misusing evolutionary psychology as a vehicle to do so. I had wanted to discuss science. P.S. Natural selection, which you claimed is "not clearly defined" is in fact quite clearly and specifically defined by biologists as: "differential reproductive success of genotypes" Here's more, from an excellent introduction to evolutionary biology: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-...o-biology.html Quote:
|
#16
|
|||
|
|||
Re: definition of the natural selection process
Lizzie:
Quote:
And that, my endangered blue state friend, is circular! Lizzsie, at the beginning of this thread you implored that “the system of evolution by natural selection is one to get away from as fast as we can.†Well sister Lizzie, brother Fred has shown you the way. It is finished. Go in peace, be kind, and spread the good news that science does not confirm that we are products of a meaningless, purposeless, and directionless process. |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
Cultivating the Seeds of Virtue
The repeatedly tested, universally agreed upon definition of natural selection and its effects are anything but circular. The way you presented it indeed was circular. I don't think that represents anything except your level of understanding about the concept.
I get the feeling that you are conflating "genetic success" with personal success. That's sort of like saying roaches are some of the most successful species. I suppose from a biological perspective they are. But I don't think from a reasonable, human moral perspective they would be. I personally am much more impressed by the success of someone, who, say, is honest, is kind, has a sense of humor, qualities I don't know have been observed in roaches... There is more to science (and to biology), than natural selection. It is the basic foundation of the field that should be well understood before discussing evolution,though. And, the essential processes of natural selection rely on mechanisms that, from a human moral perspective, should be condemned, rather than applauded. This is a major shift in how we usually think about things, a paradigm shift, but if one allows this to sink in, then everything else falls into place. Am I saying that any positive acts of kindness, cooperation, altruism just spring out of thin air? No, I'm not, though you might be (or you might say they come from supernatural origins, which is pretty much the same claim.) We can (and do!) study social systems of other primates to see where what (we humans consider to be) positive virtues originate. So, it's not that we as carriers of "selfish" genes are entirely selfish and awful in every way, because we see in the social systems of other animals that there are the seeds of virtue. In short, these seeds of virtue originate because it is to the genetic advantage of social groups to ultimately stay coherent and get along. It is these kernals of cooperation that we (if we care about doing what is good and right and smart) should focus on and cultivate, rather than on simply repeating crude versions of "genetic success", which, again even a roach can achieve. We can set the bar a little higher than what insects pull off. Just because we don't like the fact of natural selection doesn't mean that we should deny that its existence. Besides, the truth will win out, whether now or in 200 years. That's because the ways of natural selection are, in the worlds of distinguished 20th c. biologish George C. Williams, "abysymally stupid." We can be smarter than that. (Although we should have been smarter about all this already.) We obviously can harness the tools of love and education to get over our nasty, brutish heritage. So, even though natural selection certainly has no prior goals, purpose or direction, perhaps we could say that insights gleaned from biology can, after all, give us some goals! We can (and perhaps should be morally compelled) to recognize the inherent tragedy of the world, and address it by trying to improve on the awful suffering rampant in the world around us. That's what I for one would like to try to do. |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Red vs. blue explained by white birth rate & Darwinian rational
Lizzie:
Quote:
But then that renders your assertion—that “the essential processes of natural selection rely on mechanisms that, from a human moral perspective, should be condemned, rather than applaudedâ€â€”to be somewhat schizophrenic. I suggest you read the following, and follow the argument wherever it leads— Thinking Straighter, Why the world's most famous atheist now believes in God, by James A. Beverley | posted 04/08/2005 09:00 a.m. Last edited by Fred H.; April 30th, 2005 at 09:41 PM.. |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Red vs. blue explained by white birth rate & Darwinian rational
from Fred:
Quote:
Like a wild almond that is coated in cyanide in it's natural state, we can, through cultivation, concentrate our efforts to produce something good, like the artificially selected, domesticated, unpoisonous ones that we enjoy today. As for the article, I'm sorry, but it didn't convince me of anything at all. I never did see his "evidence" for God, I saw lots of credentials and talk around that so called "evidence". I do plan to read "Mere Christianity" by Lewis, maybe I'll be able to learn something from him- he's a former atheist turned actual Christian. I only read it quickly, but an article that starts off "agnostics were worried" was already a red flag for me that ineffective argument was about to be put forth. Because why would agnostics "worry" about a shift in someone else's beliefs? Since they themselves are not committed to any certain worldview, it seems like they actually might understand a shift in beliefs very easily! This guy claimed to be "impressed by Jesus" because Jesus was a "charismatic figure". (Like Mohammad of Islam wasn't "charismatic"!) To think that Jesus' charisma was more important than his message of love, grace, forgiveness, and humility, indicates that to me, this guy has his values mixed up and is not worth listening to. Personally, I would respect a person's belief in God much, much more if they had an advanced, fleshed out theology that goes with it, and helps them achieve a growth in their own morality, their own expectations of themself. Finally, this guy was "impressed" by Intelligent Design, which fortifies my feeling that, despite the creditials listed throughout, he's not much of a scholar/ thinker/ philosopher, after all. |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Red vs. blue explained by white birth rate & Darwinian rational
Lizzie:
Quote:
For decades, Antony Flew has been among the most influential of atheist thinkers, a powerful opponent of religious belief. He’s had teaching positions at Oxford and Aberdeen, and Professorships at Keele and Reading; and has argued that theological claims should not be taken seriously because they can’t be falsified; and that atheism ought to be the default position, that the burden of proof on the question of God’s existence lies with the theist, etc. In 2004, however, after decades of “following the argument,†Flew changed his mind, and is no longer an atheist. Aren’t you impressed that someone with all his credentials, at the age of 81 no less, is able to admit that he’s been so wrong for all those decades? What does all this mean? Obviously, atheism is dead (sounds somehow redundant, doesn’t it?), although many of y’all may never comprehend its obvious demise. |
|
|