spendius wrote:Shirakawasuna wrote:but it does not elminate the competing, more basic hypothesis that morality flows from our biology as social animals.
I don't accept that. Biology is a science. All biological happenings are predictable.
OK. Let's go through this slowly. First, I said "our biology", which doesn't imply that I'm talking about the field of biology but about something from our actual physical selves (emergent property), our 'biology'. Second, not all biological happenings are predictable as in easily modeled, especially to the absolutist extent that you would surely want to take your rejection to. Many of the biochemical processes in our bodies are modeled stochastically. That doesn' t mean predictable parts can't be identified, of course...
spendius wrote:There would not be different moralities unless there were different biologies.
I didn't say everything was due to our consistent biology, innate, etc. I am speaking of the basics of morality and ethics that flow from our status as social animals. All across cultures there are violent acts considered outrageous, a tendency to avoid killing each other, empathy, and reason (some would say rationalization). There is nothing special about Christianity in terms of being kind to others - that's a particular arrogance inherent to almost every faith. Buddhists, who by the way were around far before Xian nonsense, have prided themselves on avoiding conflict, caring for others, etc, for centuries. Is that Christian as well?
The religions themselves aren't necessary for an ethics system, either, but in my opinion are an expression of our desire to ground our ideas of what 'should' be in something overarching. The sad truth (for them) of the matter is that those overarching things are pure inventions. However, there is nothing intrinsically invalidating about placing one's foundation for ethics on rational argument, utilitarianism, etc. Especially if we consider the pure nonsense of the competition!
sendius wrote:That is almost proved by my noticing when I had typed that that I had never seen the plural of biology before. It even looks odd. A caligraphic paradox. Maybe other have seen it before. I accept that different landscapes cause variations in the manner which the basic biology (which includes a self conscious mind as not separate) reacts to them. Which, I suppose you could say were distortions caused by socialization. But then we're on the Nature/Nurture roundabout which is playtime and a distraction.
I don't treat them as distortions unless I can identify some kind of harm or true nonsense. You seem to be alluding to an idea that I hold to the naturalistic fallacy, which is not true. Learning about what we tend to naturally do is a good guide for its own purpose, but not as an absolute guide for what we
should do. After all, if that were the case then we should go out and start living 25 years with brutish existences in tribal communities. After all, that's what was "natural" for us before civilization.
The thing I'm taking exception to is the unsupported assertion that Christianity or any other religion can claim ownership of morality. For a simplistic argument, look at all the other religions and their similar moralities from disparate origins - somehow most manage to have very similar qualities.
sendius wrote:But we are getting close to race issues there.
Not in any way, shape, or form, but what the heck you say what you want
.
sendius wrote:Marriage customs have been traced to landscapes but it's very complex and I know little about it. Do I need to know the technical details though?
By landscapes do you mean environments?
sendius wrote:And there's sibling rivalry. And sexual complexes which are beyond the scope of this thread.
I can't tell where this stuff is going. There is variation, sure, but there's also clear commonalities. The exceptions to these commonalities we all tend to recognize as "sociopaths", regardless of the society from which you originate. There is a bit of fluctuation there as well, but not as much in quality as in quantity (more social pressure to conform in some cultures, etc).
sendius wrote: It's not as bad as giving out orders. I'll make generalizations anytime I feel like it until some judge says I can't. This thread is riddled with those.
Language is riddled with them. Do you think any two protons are exactly the same.
What, do I need to spell it out? It's funny that you take offense to this :/. I'll rephrase and include what I had considered the fairly obvious implication: Then don't make generalizations, if you're not making a general statement. Apparently you weren't including all of those theist scientists when you were making your generalizations about scientists in general (which are still incorrect in their own right).
sendius wrote:
Very true. But some viewers on here might take an unsupported assertion to be true. We discussed assertions at great length a long while ago. I'm trying to cure serial unsupported assertionists. Often cures do consist of repetition. This is a stubborn case we have on our hands. You'll have to make allowances. One doesn't stop kicking one's opponents at football because you've kicked them a few times earlier.
I might suspect that Mr Miller is a good ol' boy who saw a chink of light and went for it.
I think you know very little about Ken Miller. I'd say a bit more but it's relevant to the next quote.
sendius wrote:
No. You have the wrong impression. I was examining fm modes of thinking. I don't think I cast any aspersions on his claim. Had he not used those inverted commas I might have taken another tack. I can duck and weave about a bit. How am I supposed to know about the religious beliefs of the world's scientists. Anyway--it's off the page now.
See, this is where I'm having trouble combining your two statements on the matter. First, you say there's an unsupported assertion, then you imply that you know it's easily supported, then you talk about how it isn't really supported in the sense you were thinking, then you say, "Very true. But some viewers on here might take an unsupported assertion to be true", then you say, "No. You have the wrong impression. I was examining fm modes of thinking. I don't think I cast any aspersions on his claim.". Get the idea? Do you agree with him or not and did you see my support for the claim?
About how you're supposed to know the beliefs of the world's scientists, I already provided the means. Google combined with some very simple search terms. Now, unless you've gotten lost, you seem to be saying that ID is indeed a religious thing, since that was the original context of the "minority" comment....
sendius wrote:Intelligent Design is donkey's years old. I was concerned with what he said not with what he might have implied.
The age of the point about ID is entirely relevant to your point. It appears I need to go over it again. I'll tell a little story!
1. fm says that ID is a religious idea (essentially) played with by a minority of scientists.
2. You claim this idea of it being a "minority" is an unsupported assertion, repeatedly waffle back and forth as to whether or not you actually think it's true. I'm going to stick with assuming you were trying to say it wasn't.
3. I point out that it's easily supported with rudimentary research.
4. You reply largely by saying that you were talking about scientists over all time.
5. I point out that scientists over all time wouldn't apply since the movement is only 15 years old.
6. Now you tell me you're only concerned about what he said and not what he implied... you know that these are the same thing, right?
I don't get it.
sendius wrote:Which reality? Your's?
Observational reality. The geographic distribution of species, the homologies in related forms, the plausibility of mechanisms, etc, all based on observational reality, led to the destruction (academically) of creationistic ideas which formerly were considered to have a real-world justification in reality, for example. These Christian claims are vacuous to begin with but that vacuity is highlighted when the alternatives actually start gaining support (in the form of evidence). The alternatives aren't even necessary.
sendius wrote: I did say "hello sailor--hail smiling morn" or something. When did I say my brief caricature was of a dystopia let alone a hellish one. Didn't my tail wag at the end suggest to you that I might quite fancy what I described. Improved upon of course but I hadn't time for the details?
Sure looks hellish to me. Lying to children, rampant ignorance, and clumsy developmental modification. I have nothing invested in this topic, though, so I'll gladly drop it if your intention really wasn't to act like embracing science leads to such conclusions.
