Postmaster
Well-Known Member
- Messages
- 2,312
- Reaction score
- 3
- Points
- 0
Spot on Tao
Scientific fundamentalism
- Thread starter earl
- Start date
Shock, (and perhaps horror
), there is something I can agree with Tao about: ethics and morality are not necessarily best promoted by religion per se in that codes of ethical behavior are promulgated within and outside of reiligion. Religious adherence is certainly no guarantor of an individual acting ethically and morally. How many evangelical/fundamentalistic Christian leaders have badly stumbled in that regard? Of course, too, nearly every religious institution can lay claim to that. The connection, though, may lay in degree of selflessness in that I believe that the degree of ethical and moral behavior may relate to degree of selflessness and that, in turn, to the degree a religion fosters such may tie into relgious practice. Again, though, I'd add "practice" not just dogma. earl
), there is something I can agree with Tao about: ethics and morality are not necessarily best promoted by religion per se in that codes of ethical behavior are promulgated within and outside of reiligion. Religious adherence is certainly no guarantor of an individual acting ethically and morally. How many evangelical/fundamentalistic Christian leaders have badly stumbled in that regard? Of course, too, nearly every religious institution can lay claim to that. The connection, though, may lay in degree of selflessness in that I believe that the degree of ethical and moral behavior may relate to degree of selflessness and that, in turn, to the degree a religion fosters such may tie into relgious practice. Again, though, I'd add "practice" not just dogma. earlPostmaster
Well-Known Member
- Messages
- 2,312
- Reaction score
- 3
- Points
- 0
I think this thread has come to a good conclusion for a change.
Just waiting for that always any one person to disagree.
Just waiting for that always any one person to disagree.
"We tend to think of empathy as a uniquely human trait."
You speak for yourself Mr de Waal. A cursory glance at any "wildlife programme" or having a pet dog or cat would disavow (or should) anyone of the notion that non-human animals are nothing much more than eating and copulating machines.
Reminds me of one of the keepers at a local zoo who told me that they gave magazines to the orang-utans for stimulation. The head of the troupe kept the clothes catalogue and was always particularly interested in the lingerie section. Maybe I just undermined my own point there...
s.
juantoo3
....whys guy.... ʎʇıɹoɥʇnɐ uoıʇsǝnb
Just passin' through, I can't stay long.
Excellent reference, CZ!
Two points I think deserve highlight, both from the article CZ referenced:
My interpretation is that while empathy may exist, it is not automatic. It is beyond my level of understanding to say why.
-Frans B. M. de Waal, Ph.D.,
I think this makes a clear point. While empathy may be shown to exist prior to formal morality structures (which I can support with a reference following that I have used a number of times in the past), empathy and morality are two different things. Related? Most likely yes. But they are not the same thing.
Here is the conclusion of an essay by Glen Morton. Like myself he is a Christian, and he retains a neutrality about his research. And he *does* work in the field, and has closer ties to the trenches than any of us here. So I would ask to set aside any bias concerning his faith long enough to consider this essay, and I think you will find him in agreement with Mr. de Waal, not only concerning simians but also including Homo Erectus. (I do not reference him for his faith, I reference him for the research he conducts.)
Copyright 1996,1997 G.R.Morton.
Compassion in Homo erectus
Excellent reference, CZ!
Two points I think deserve highlight, both from the article CZ referenced:
My interpretation is that while empathy may exist, it is not automatic. It is beyond my level of understanding to say why.
-Frans B. M. de Waal, Ph.D.,
I think this makes a clear point. While empathy may be shown to exist prior to formal morality structures (which I can support with a reference following that I have used a number of times in the past), empathy and morality are two different things. Related? Most likely yes. But they are not the same thing.
Here is the conclusion of an essay by Glen Morton. Like myself he is a Christian, and he retains a neutrality about his research. And he *does* work in the field, and has closer ties to the trenches than any of us here. So I would ask to set aside any bias concerning his faith long enough to consider this essay, and I think you will find him in agreement with Mr. de Waal, not only concerning simians but also including Homo Erectus. (I do not reference him for his faith, I reference him for the research he conducts.)
Copyright 1996,1997 G.R.Morton.
Compassion in Homo erectus
juantoo3
....whys guy.... ʎʇıɹoɥʇnɐ uoıʇsǝnb
Hold on just a minute. You are the one who repeatedly makes the assertion that you are oh-so scientific and only deal with logic this and fact that. This isn't about me, I did not make the assertion that "morality and ethics exist independent from religion." Whether I agree or not is irrelevent. It is not at all incumbent upon me to prove or disprove your statement for you...you have to prove it to me and others. That's just the way this whole science thing *actually* works.
Otherwise, you are just another preacher standing on your soapbox expecting (demanding?) others agree with you...and all that entails.
I do believe this is the most lucid comment you have ever made to this subject. Bravo! Give the man a well deserved pat on the back and pass him a pint of his favorite brew!
Last edited:
juantoo3
....whys guy.... ʎʇıɹoɥʇnɐ uoıʇsǝnb
With due respect, Snoops, I do believe Mr. de Waal would agree with you. The balance of his article goes to lengths to demonstrate that, including reference to a study that inadvertantly ended up looking at the empathetic responses of pets to their owners' feigned distress.
But it is still a long long way from empathy to morality. We need to pace ourselves and not jump to conclusions.
Yes.
Yes.
Ok.
I think we would have been better off trying to build the time machine, that is the engineering approach
. It looks like you prefer the science approach (don't tell CZ, he will call me an engineering - fundamentalist !!).
T
Tao_Equus
Guest
Really? Well if I make the assertion that a ball is spherical you going to demand I prove that too? Why did you not ask Avi to back up his assertion? Why did you try to demand that I pander to your artificial limitations? If you actually agree with me why are you so determined to be obtuse and argumentative? My statement was simple and to the point and I would have thought that someone with your background reading on anthropology would have no trouble with it.
Perhaps you judge others through the filter of your own experience? I do not come here to demand anything, that is your take. Demanding that I explain myself without using what is pertinent!! I do not know what is griping you about me, and I do not care, but I do think you are making yourself look like you have nothing but a grudge to grind.
juantoo3
....whys guy.... ʎʇıɹoɥʇnɐ uoıʇsǝnb
Because unlike the spherical shape of a ball, your assertion is far from evident.
Because I have not said I agree with you either.
Especially with my background reading on anthropology I have trouble with your assertion.
And that experience includes broad overarching claims that are not fully supported by the actual evidences.
It wouldn't take a great deal to show where you have gotten rather fundamentally snippy when dealing with other people who you judge (often erroneously) to be of an inclination you detest. As if that were any actual indication of intelligence or logical validity, which it clearly is not. I could care less how this appears, it is an object lesson in what actually makes up a valid scientific argument.
If you haven't got a valid scientific argument, you have no valid claim to being genuinely scientific. Looking down one's nose doesn't make anyone the least bit scientific or logical. That is the grudge I hold and the fundamental behavior I wish to expose for what it is.
T
Tao_Equus
Guest
Wrong. It was Avi's assertion that was not evident but as it suits your cause to distract from its blatant innacuracy you try to pick on the critic. You do seem to have a liking for history, but it is high school level basic biology I cite, and if you are not educated to that level there is not much I can say. You have persistently demanded that I answer your questions whilst even more persistantly avoiding answering mine. So I can only conclude you have no interest in reaching any truths but are rather embarked on blowing some trumpet to stifle me. Very noble of you. It pisses me off as I felt I used to have pretty enjoyable debates with you but the past year or more its been like you only want to argue.
But they are. Look at the link CZ went to the trouble to find for you. It is independent of me. But I have been saying the same thing in thread after thread where the subject comes up. I have been entirely consistant. But the truth is that knowledge is obvious to anyone who cares to look at it unless they have a warped sense of overvalue of what the human species is. Of course Christianity, and the Abrahamics in general, have always given man dominion and a superirior place above the animals. But that is all we are so get used to it.
When you present a valid argument as to why my assertion is false I will be happy to pander to your whim. You criticise me for my dearth of pedantic references, yet glorify your own use of them, then have the nerve to call me the fundamentalist. Its a joke! I really begin to feel like you dont know your head from your tail. I am not a scientist. And that is at least the 50th time I have stated such. How many more times do you have to be told before you actually get it?
You want to expose fundamentalism go look in your mirror. For currently all you do is expose either ignorance or a grudge or both. If you are so unhappy with the way I dive into debates with all guns blazing then you have an ignore option. But dont expect you can demand of me what you refuse. I cannot be bothered with that kind of petulance.
Since you gentlemen are already bickering over some of my observations, I guess it is only suitable for me to throw a little more salt into the wound
.In addition to ethical and moral considerations, another important role which religion has played has been that of the "Covenental Community". This is what we call it in Judaism, I am not sure if another term is used for Christianity or Islam.
What this means is that folks have socialization needs which are met by this larger community. It provides a group of people to celebrate lifecycle events together, to educate their children together, and many other activites. Some people try to get this from their workplace, and in some cases it works. In some cases the work places are very competative environments, and people might seek an " extended family" through the convental community.
Buddhism has a great metaphor in describing the path to enlightenment: that wisdom and compassion are 2 wings of the same bird. We need both to be strongly developed to fly to enlightenment. In fact, one could rightfully say that if we're not experiencing compassion we are far from wise regardless of how smart we think we are. Intemperate words remind us as to whether the wing of compassion is strong or not. earl
earl
citizenzen
Custom User Title
- Messages
- 3,231
- Reaction score
- 3
- Points
- 0
Intemperate words remind us as to whether the wing of compassion is strong or not.
Just a nit-picky note from my small mind...
The wings of compassion and wisdom do not lose strength. That is the fault of our (small) mind.
Faithfulservant
Well-Known Member
Since you gentlemen are already bickering over some of my observations, I guess it is only suitable for me to throw a little more salt into the wound
In addition to ethical and moral considerations, another important role which religion has played has been that of the "Covenental Community". This is what we call it in Judaism, I am not sure if another term is used for Christianity or Islam.
What this means is that folks have socialization needs which are met by this larger community. It provides a group of people to celebrate lifecycle events together, to educate their children together, and many other activites. Some people try to get this from their workplace, and in some cases it works. In some cases the work places are very competative environments, and people might seek an " extended family" through the convental community.
if I understand it correctly.. we call it the "christian community" and a lot of the socialization is done through "Fellowship"
Fly high enough CZ and you won't notice any nits to pick.
earl
T
Tao_Equus
Guest
Buddhism has a great metaphor in describing the path to enlightenment: that wisdom and compassion are 2 wings of the same bird. We need both to be strongly developed to fly to enlightenment. In fact, one could rightfully say that if we're not experiencing compassion we are far from wise regardless of how smart we think we are. Intemperate words remind us as to whether the wing of compassion is strong or not.
...and in Buddhism the community is called the Sangha.
s.
Is called common humanity I think.
ah....I've never completed the metaphor....thanx!Fly high enough CZ and you won't notice any nits to pick.