|
|
|
Baza
New Member
United Kingdom
47 Posts |
 Posted - 08/27/2004 : 04:25:47
|
I've been reading an article in New Scientist here in the Uk by Kate Douglas looking at the work of Solomon, Pyszczynski and Greenburg contemplating Becker's "Denial of Death" (1974).
Their investigations looked at the connection between fear of death and self esteem. their conclusion was that our self estem convinces us that "we are significant beings and by being more than just animals we persuade ourselves that we are not subject to the natural laws of decay and death"
The three argue that recreating a universe as a place full of order and meaning helps us cope with the terror that knowledge of our own death would otherwise bring.
A world view that incorporates concepts such as the soul, reincarnation and an afterlife offers literal immortality.
Is this then the hub of creationist's hatred of evolutionary theory and the constant attacks on a theory that says nothing about creation nor religion. The refusal to believe that we are decended from apes is maintained because to believe otherwise would destroy the asertion that we are somehow special and above natural law because some deity will look after us?
Just wondered.....
edited for speeeling mistakes etc
|
Baza |
Edited by - Baza on 08/27/2004 04:27:13
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9688 Posts |
Posted - 08/27/2004 : 06:33:02 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Baza
Is this then the hub of creationist's hatred of evolutionary theory and the constant attacks on a theory that says nothing about creation nor religion. The refusal to believe that we are descended from apes is maintained because to believe otherwise would destroy the assertion that we are somehow special and above natural law because some deity will look after us?
Just wondered.....
I believe so. Their constant inability to accept the idea that life may have no inherent meaning supports my belief. |
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
 |
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 08/27/2004 : 07:39:44 [Permalink]
|
I have always held the opinion that we have a lot of difficulty imagining any existance that does not include the wonderful, unique and irreplacable, Me.
'Tis but one of the prices we pay for "intelligence."
 |
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist! 
|
|
|
|
satans_mom
Skeptic Friend
USA
148 Posts |
Posted - 08/27/2004 : 13:14:25 [Permalink]
|
| It was that realization that turned me against religion and a fantastical heaven after death in the first place. After hearing so much evidence AGAINST our fantasy dreams and whimsical delusions, I decided that human ancestors were apes, in fact, and that we are STILL animals like the rest. That being brought up, I believed that if there were a heaven, both humans and non-humans would go to it. Then I realized there most likely is not a heaven. But if there is, I'm sure as hell going. |
Yo mama's so fat, she's on both sides of the family.
|
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 08/27/2004 : 13:34:08 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by filthy
'Tis but one of the prices we pay for "intelligence."
Yeah. I think if it as "The Burden of Consciousness."
If the better part of consciousness entails self-awareness, "I am here. I exist." Then the almost immediate implications are that "One day I will not be here. One day I will not exist." It's certainly a Catch-22.
That is what I think the Garden of Eden story is trying to get at. Tree of "Knowledge" and all that. Mankind has been seeking to give back this burden for centuries, or at least trying to bargain for a better deal.
|
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
| Edited by - H. Humbert on 08/27/2004 13:35:28 |
|
|
|
beskeptigal
SFN Die Hard
USA
3834 Posts |
Posted - 08/28/2004 : 13:52:52 [Permalink]
|
| While I think there is some truth to your assumptions about the consequences of facing a new reality might be holding people back, I think the stronger force is human resistance to change. If you change, you have to accept you were wrong, (different from accepting no heaven or whatever), and I think we are programed to believe in our conclusions so changing them is hard. Also, people for whatever reason, resist change. |
| Edited by - beskeptigal on 08/28/2004 13:53:59 |
|
|
|
coffee_is_lord
New Member
New Zealand
2 Posts |
Posted - 08/31/2004 : 16:54:45 [Permalink]
|
"Their constant inability to accept the idea that life may have no inherent meaning supports my belief."
Don't even agnostics and skeptics have a need to believe that life has inherent meaning to underpin some system of ethical/moral behaviour? This is something that disquiets me a little - does not the notion that life has no inherent meaning cast us into an amoral abyss? Is there a place for compassion, love, the conviction that life (particularly human life) is somehow a precious thing?
What distinguishes the value of life of your child (assuming you have any) from that of a spider or a beetle or a fly larva, apart from the fact that you have a particular relationship to it?
Don't thoughts like these disturb anyone else? I'm not a religious person, but I can see that there's a need within pretty much everyone to believe that life has intrinsic value - if you say you don't believe it has then why do you act morally, compassionately etc? |
He who has imagination without learning
Has wings but no feet. |
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 08/31/2004 : 18:34:37 [Permalink]
|
From evolution's point of view, no. As individuals, our lives mean no more than what we have contributed to the gene pool; same as the spider, beetle or the fly larvae (this last adds nothing unless it's lucky enough to become a fly and breed).
We are social animals with our behavior imprinted on us by several million years of living in societies ranging from little more than what might be observed in a troop of baboons to what we are today. If we were no more sentient than, say, Australopithicus, our social behavior would probably be much the same as that ancient ancestor, or perhaps baboons.
But, with sapience, comes superstition. We inquire far beyond the location of food, mates, or shelter, and that which we don't understand, we might make something up about it. And some of us just ain't all that smart to start with, so.......
In short, 'morals' are imposed on us by the social climate we live in, not any belief in a deity -- who's 'laws', coincidently, always reflect those of the society that worships it.
|
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist!
|
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 08/31/2004 : 19:44:07 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Don't even agnostics and skeptics have a need to believe that life has inherent meaning to underpin some system of ethical/moral behaviour?
No.
As has been said, ethics and morals are social constructs. You might even be able to make a case for them being favored traits from a natural selection point of view(the more cooperation, the greater the chance of survival and reproduction).
Life does not require meaning, we only lend it some to satisfy ourselves.
How's the weather in New Zealand btw? Thinking that if G.W. Bush wins the election in November I might take a 4 year vacation down under. |
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
| Edited by - Dude on 08/31/2004 19:46:14 |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 08/31/2004 : 19:56:29 [Permalink]
|
coffee_is_lord wrote:quote:
What distinguishes the value of life of your child (assuming you have any) from that of a spider or a beetle or a fly larva, apart from the fact that you have a particular relationship to it?
Well, actually, nothing.
Ask yourself this: why is it that any group of animals tends to care for their young, all the while eating other species of animals and/or plants? To make the question more realistic, stick with our closest relatives - all mammals - as you try to come up with a single example of a species in which the young are almost always simply left to fend for themselves as soon as they are born. (Yeah, this happens with fish and insects all the time, but they're more-distantly related.)
One basal reason why I value the lives of my child, my family and my friends more than I value the lives of strangers is simply that I've put effort and resources into creating and raising my child, into building a family, and into cultivating lasting friendships. Heck, if I worked to create a fruitful garden, I'd probably value it more than the life of some gopher who decided to raid it.
Yeah, these are entirely selfish reasons. I said, "basal," and I meant it. Even given the choice between a randomly-picked dog and a randomly-picked human (neither of which I know), I'd probably decide to save the human's life, for two also-selfish reasons. One, he/she is more likely to show some sort of gratitude, and two, he/she is more likely than the dog to go on to do some sort of good for his/her fellow humans.
And it's important to note that I'm talking about the value that I place upon lives. Life has no "meaning" (as in "higher purpose"), other than what one gives to one's own life. Were I to die tomorrow, it would mean very little, in the grand scheme of things. But I believe that what's left of my life has a lot of potential value - "meaning" on a much smaller scale - that I would be greatly disappointed to see the end arrive so quickly.
I'll be the first to admit, too, that until about ten years ago, I mostly wasted whatever "meaning" (again, on a small scale) I could have given my life. I've been working pretty hard to rectify that oversight since.
As far as acting morally and compassionately, I believe it all comes down to empathy. We have the ability to imagine ourselves in the shoes of others. Sometimes those ideations suck, and we want to try to help, as "do unto others as you would have them do unto you" seems to me to be more than just a saying, but a part of the way our brains are wired. "Well," we say to ourselves, perhaps without thinking about it, "getting robbed really blows, so I'm going to avoid robbing other people. I know how it feels, and I don't wish that on them. Well, maybe on that one guy from work, who's a jerk, but other than him..."
Sociopaths lack empathy. They simply cannot imagine themselves in any other situation but the one they're in at the moment. Want to see people who lack a morality and compassion? Sociopaths are the examples to which to look. They do as they please, to get what they want, and if the result is other people in pain (either physical or emotional), they simply cannot see themselves from the angle of their victim(s). It doesn't register. It's not that they don't care, it's that they can't care.
But which actions can cause other people "pain" - in an emotional sense only, since we're talking about morality - is largely a societal construct, as filthy said above. Our taboos against certain acts, especially certain acts when done in public which might be fine if done in private, have been created by thousands of years of prior societies trying to figure out which acts do the most damage to society as a whole. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
satans_mom
Skeptic Friend
USA
148 Posts |
Posted - 08/31/2004 : 20:08:28 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by coffee_is_lord
"Their constant inability to accept the idea that life may have no inherent meaning supports my belief."
Don't even agnostics and skeptics have a need to believe that life has inherent meaning to underpin some system of ethical/moral behaviour? This is something that disquiets me a little - does not the notion that life has no inherent meaning cast us into an amoral abyss? Is there a place for compassion, love, the conviction that life (particularly human life) is somehow a precious thing?
What distinguishes the value of life of your child (assuming you have any) from that of a spider or a beetle or a fly larva, apart from the fact that you have a particular relationship to it?
Don't thoughts like these disturb anyone else? I'm not a religious person, but I can see that there's a need within pretty much everyone to believe that life has intrinsic value - if you say you don't believe it has then why do you act morally, compassionately etc?
I recently had a discussion with my "romantic partner" and he found it absurd that I had no system of determining right from wrong. He used, as example, that "You think child molestation isn't right nor wrong, but it's just not for you?" I said, "Precisely." I then told him, that despite how grotesque an act of a human or thought of an act may seem, it's necessary to determine what is pleasurable, and "good." For instance, without violence, humans would not understand what a state of peace is. We know "peace" because we know "violence." I don't like being violent, and I don't like when others are violent, but I know to fully understand peace, I'd have to get used to it. It's just the way things are.
This does not mean to say that I molest children. I've discovered, as we all have in our different ways, that questions like, "What is our purpose here?" "Does my life have any meaning?" do not have accurate, definitive answers. When I ask these questions, I go into a cycle, and being that I feel that these questions cannot be answered at this time, I wonder, "Does a question without an answer still consider itself to be a question?" I do not know the answer to this. So is that a question? It will continue forever, and knowing that while I am here, I'm doing things to take up the space between life and death, so I can focus on living, and someday, I just may know the answers to these questions. For now, however, I'm still going, so I'm going to continue going until I have found valid reason to stop. Being that I am human, I will do what is pleasurable for me, or what I must do in order to receive pleasure, or a comfort in a living routine. I don't like to work, but I like to make money, but I don't like my money to go to utility companies, but I like having water and gas, and heat, and air conditioning. I like to read, I like to draw, I like to do many things, and I try my best to avoid what it is I don't like doing. Like molesting children.
So I wouldn't say that, because I avoid molesting children, I have morals. It's just something I don't want to do, and it's at such an extreme end, that I'll do a lot to avoid it. You may say, "Well, you don't want to molest children, because it would go against your morals that you claim not to have!" Not so. There are many reasons I would not molest children. First, I have no sexual attraction to children. I love children because of their apparent innocence and awfully cute little faces. Second, I do not molest children, because I would go to prison. I think that people get confused with these things, "morals" are "morals" because society has defined certain acts as being so or not being so.
That being stated, no, I do not have morals, however, in other people's eyes, I am an incredibly "moral" person. I'll do nice things for people because of the nice consequences. I don't molest children, do drugs, rape women (or men) (as if I could do so anyway), I don't act out and defiantly. I'm rather passive. But that's just because it's how I like to be. It makes life easier. |
Yo mama's so fat, she's on both sides of the family.
|
|
|
|
Skyhawk
New Member
33 Posts |
Posted - 08/31/2004 : 23:22:11 [Permalink]
|
satans_mom: I'll do nice things for people because of the nice consequences.
Thats the idea behind chaos and order in society. That humans reason that if we have chaos we get whatever we want but compromise safety. Order allows us to have safety and the things we want in moderation in return for that safety. We can even have other rewards other than safety. Its a trade off.
But I have a question satans_mom. The thought that you do whatever is that you do in order to have that compromise sounds to me that you went to the inner most root of humanity. The idea of using reason to contribute to society in order for some sort of return to fill your social and survival needs. But, don't you think with the evolution of humanity where we've come from mere social hierarchy to government systems and the rule of law; that you would form a moral system? I mean humans have "conciousness," logic, and reason that gives us the advantage over OTHER animals(we are still animals ourselves). So why use such an instinctive way for survival in our society?
I don't know if that was clear for you or not. satans)mom, I'm not trying to say yours is any way worse than other people's methods of keeping in line. I'm just saying that if we have the ability to use morals, why not use it to its full advantage. |
| Edited by - Skyhawk on 08/31/2004 23:24:27 |
|
|
|
astropin
SFN Regular
USA
970 Posts |
Posted - 09/01/2004 : 10:10:37 [Permalink]
|
| Well Baza I think you hit it pretty close to the mark. But I've always wondered if the majority is wrong in more ways than one. After all, most of us here don't believe in any sort of afterlife, yet we do not appear to be unable to cope with the "terror" of that realization (he states...while that nasty facial tick rears its head once again). |
I would rather face a cold reality than delude myself with comforting fantasies.
You are free to believe what you want to believe and I am free to ridicule you for it.
Atheism:
The result of an unbiased and rational search for the truth.
Infinitus est numerus stultorum |
| Edited by - astropin on 09/01/2004 15:46:33 |
|
|
|
Baza
New Member
United Kingdom
47 Posts |
Posted - 09/01/2004 : 12:17:33 [Permalink]
|
| It seems now I've been able to get back to it that what we are looking for is predictability in our society. We know to a certain extent what the people around us (random events aside) are likely to do. This then has an evolutionary advantage in that our offspring are then left when we die in a stable predictable environment. So is it the fear of dying that molds our actions or the prospect of chaos for our children. I know what frightens me more, working as I do in Intensive Care over the years I've seen my share of death, some peaceful some violent and I have often been reminded of my own mortality. What concerns me though is that my son is able to enjoy the relative tranquility and predicability of society. This fits in I feel with the biological view of fitness whee it is not the ability to suvive of the parent but the ability of the offspring's offspring to survive. By maintained a controlled environment we make this more likely? |
Baza |
|
|
|
satans_mom
Skeptic Friend
USA
148 Posts |
Posted - 09/01/2004 : 12:39:19 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Skyhawk
Thats the idea behind chaos and order in society. That humans reason that if we have chaos we get whatever we want but compromise safety. Order allows us to have safety and the things we want in moderation in return for that safety. We can even have other rewards other than safety. Its a trade off.
I believe that when things are chaotic, most of us wish for safety. When my life gets chaotic, I wish for peace. And tell me when anything is in order. I don't feel that we have very much "order" in society right now that doesn't involve violence in some way.
quote:
...that you went to the inner most root of humanity.
All that we do is traced back to our primordial instincts, or as you put it, "inner most root of humanity." I lovingly refer to this part of us as our "inner monkeys."
quote:
...But, don't you think with the evolution of humanity where we've come from mere social hierarchy to government systems and the rule of law; that you would form a moral system? I mean humans have "conciousness," logic, and reason that gives us the advantage over OTHER animals(we are still animals ourselves). So why use such an instinctive way for survival in our society?
Our government IS a social hierarchy. We place hierarchies in most places that we can, from the most talented to the most rich. What places a person at the top of a hierarchy is power. Government is ordained with power. Our advantages over animals are that we ARE more "reasonable," in a sense, but with added reason comes added confusion. We as humans tend to define things, and attempt to define what it is that cannot be defined, so who's to say we are more advantaged? Animals have the advantage of not having to stress over their meanings in the universe. I use this "instinctive" method because EVERYTHING I DO is instinctive. Why be choosy? My method brings about the most desired results. It makes me more happy and not delusion with fancied ideas placed upon me by other people. These ideas are my own as much as they can be.
quote:
I don't know if that was clear for you or not. satans)mom, I'm not trying to say yours is any way worse than other people's methods of keeping in line. I'm just saying that if we have the ability to use morals, why not use it to its full advantage.
What line?
We do not have the ability to use morals. There are no real such things as "morals" in a spiritual or religious sense. The government, as it does with religion, places a behavioral code of conduct upon all members. If you do not follow through with this code, you go to jail, prison, or a mental institution. What they do is say, "This is how we want you to be, and if you're not like this, you're off and away. Out of society." It's a method of keeping the population "clean" in a sense, which is what humans have done since the beginning of humanity. "Only the strong survive," or in this case, "Only those that follow our guidelines and only our guidelines survive in this society." We as people have been exposed to these social constructs in some way or another, mostly through our public educations and televisions, and as soon as one is able to learn what brings about good consequences, such as smiling for mommy as an infant, to helping an old woman cross the street, one will begin to perform these actions. I'm not going to do certain things because I don't want to go to jail. I will do other things because it makes the loved ones or others around me happy. It's about consequences, not some deep understanding of right and wrong. Right and wrong are simply words. |
Yo mama's so fat, she's on both sides of the family.
|
|
|
|
Valiant Dancer
Forum Goalie
USA
4826 Posts |
Posted - 09/01/2004 : 12:55:10 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by satans_mom
quote:
Originally posted by coffee_is_lord
"Their constant inability to accept the idea that life may have no inherent meaning supports my belief."
Don't even agnostics and skeptics have a need to believe that life has inherent meaning to underpin some system of ethical/moral behaviour? This is something that disquiets me a little - does not the notion that life has no inherent meaning cast us into an amoral abyss? Is there a place for compassion, love, the conviction that life (particularly human life) is somehow a precious thing?
What distinguishes the value of life of your child (assuming you have any) from that of a spider or a beetle or a fly larva, apart from the fact that you have a particular relationship to it?
Don't thoughts like these disturb anyone else? I'm not a religious person, but I can see that there's a need within pretty much everyone to believe that life has intrinsic value - if you say you don't believe it has then why do you act morally, compassionately etc?
I recently had a discussion with my "romantic partner" and he found it absurd that I had no system of determining right from wrong. He used, as example, that "You think child molestation isn't right nor wrong, but it's just not for you?" I said, "Precisely." I then told him, that despite how grotesque an act of a human or thought of an act may seem, it's necessary to determine what is pleasurable, and "good." For instance, without violence, humans would not understand what a state of peace is. We know "peace" because we know "violence." I don't like being violent, and I don't like when others are violent, but I know to fully understand peace, I'd have to get used to it. It's just the way things are.
This does not mean to say that I molest children. I've discovered, as we all have in our different ways, that questions like, "What is our purpose here?" "Does my life have any meaning?" do not have accurate, definitive answers. When I ask these questions, I go into a cycle, and being that I feel that these questions cannot be answered at this time, I wonder, "Does a question without an answer still consider itself to be a question?" I do not know the answer to this. So is that a question? It will continue forever, and knowing that while I am here, I'm doing things to take up the space between life and death, so I can focus on living, and someday, I just may know the answers to these questions. For now, however, I'm still going, so I'm going to continue going until I have found valid reason to stop. Being that I am human, I will do what is pleasurable for me, or what I must do in order to receive pleasure, or a comfort in a living routine. I don't like to work, but I like to make money, but I don't like my money to go to utility companies, but I like having water and gas, and heat, and air conditioning. I like to read, I like to draw, I like to do many things, and I try my best to avoid what it is I don't like doing. Like molesting children.
So I wouldn't say that, because I avoid molesting children, I have morals. It's just something I don't want to do, and it's at such an extreme end, that I'll do a lot to avoid it. You may say, "Well, you don't want to molest children, because it would go against your morals that you claim not to have!" Not so. There are many reasons I would not molest children. First, I have no sexual attraction to children. I love children because of their apparent innocence and awfully cute little faces. Second, I do not molest children, because I would go to prison. I think that people get confused with these things, "morals" are "morals" because society has defined certain acts as being so or not being so.
That being stated, no, I do not have morals, however, in other people's eyes, I am an incredibly "moral" person. I'll do nice things for people because of the nice consequences. I don't molest children, do drugs, rape women (or men) (as if I could do so anyway), I don't act out and defiantly. I'm rather passive. But that's just because it's how I like to be. It makes life easier.
Morals are societal norms which have some aspects which are universal. These arose not only from religious sources, but by the operation of societies as a whole. Ethics are a set of behaviors that you expect yourself to adhere to and not necessarily others. The whole concept of good/bad is based on these moral values passed down from generation to generation and taught/reinforced by society. When a behavior no longer makes sense to a society, the society abandons it. (example: The Inuit people used to set their elderly adrift on ice flows when they were no longer able to care for themselves. Although percieved as cruel by outsiders, it made sense to a subsitence culture who did not have the resources to care for infirm elderly. This practice was abandoned as the Intuit were integrated into Western society and resources became available to infirm elderly.)
I think you have a system of determining right and wrong but do not wish to impose that system on society. The question I would have is if you knew that say child molestation was happening and you could contact a law enforcement officer and could prove such acts were happening, would you? It has been my experience that some people "don't want to get involved" or "It's not my place to stop this". Societally, this is unacceptable, but understandable when the individual is primarily motivated by a need for being non-confrontational. I am curious on the basis of finding out if there is another reason.
|
Cthulhu/Asmodeus when you're tired of voting for the lesser of two evils
Brother Cutlass of Reasoned Discussion |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
