More ramblings from me.

[antryg]

Maybe I can clarify things for you Timber Loftis. "Everyone knows that the earth is flat." In its time that is what everyone believed. Science of its time as well as logical discourse proved this as fact. Many times scientific fact is only what we believe to be true. There is more belief in science and our lives than we realize. In science fact replaces fact time after time. Einsteins theories revolutionized science, wiping out and replacing previous "facts". We don't give up or discredit science just because we learn more. Much of the theory of evolution is extrapolation even though there is no direct evidence connecting all the dots. People forget it is a theory and pronounce it as fact. The big bang theory is the same thing. Do you believe in evolution even though it is not a proven fact? Science itself is based on the belief that we can know. This belief has worked so far but there is no proof that we will know all or end up with all the facts. I would posit the argument that belief is more important than fact because without belief we could not strive for fact.

[Timber Loftis]

Okay, I see what you meant. Yeah, I generally buy the theory of evolution. With it's realistic limitations of course (e.g. no one has proven that man descended from apes). Given the nature of genetics and mutation, combined with probable early weather and biosphere patterns on earth, evolution seems to be a real occurence. There is enough discovered fact on the theory, in my mind, to justify the "belief" in the theory of evolution. Just so you know, on this topic my belief comes from a decent science background, with a lot of biology (but little molecular biology).

[Sazerac]

Originally posted by Yorick: Dispute can happen between mature people as well. The only people I saw having a heated exchange with Moni are two of the most polite, courteous and respect according people on the internet. Conflict is a part of life.

Yes, conflict *is* a part of life. The way we handle it also says much about our character.

Somewhat off-topic, but since it has come up *yet* again, I can assure you that there were NO innocents in that unpleasant issue. Suffice to say that certain people have a penchant for bringing out the worst in others that are not normally that way.

Anyway, not being a mod here, but I suggest we get back to the topic at hand, and not discuss prior issues, hm? [img]smile.gif[/img]

-Sazerac

[antryg]

Since my degrees are in biology and theology this kind of discussion can really dust off the cobwebs from them ol' school days. As regards evolution; physics would have us believe in entropy (systems moving from a complex to a more simple form). So evolution can't move from monkey to man. Biology can empirically show genetic change/drift resulting in evolution. It also shows us sago palms and ants haven't evolved over millions of years. Is evolution a theory that I am willing to work from? The answer is yes, but I remember that it is a theory. I look at creation stories as stories of faith that explain where we come from. They supply answers to questions that help us function as individuals as well as communities. If someone tells me that all things were created in 6-24 hour days and that humans were instantly created from the dust of the earth, I can respect that viewpoint. It is a view based on faith. Someday it is possible that it will be proved as fact. It is also possible that the big bang theory will be proved. There was absolutely nothing and then there was a big bang and there was matter/a cosmos/time. If I choose to accept this version of creation it is because I choose to accept this theory (on faith).
I would ask you another question Timber Loftis. I believe your statement that you try to do good and live a good life. How do you know what "good" is? If you do know, then why do/be good?

[Timber Loftis]

I constantly strive to know what the "good" is, and I believe that if we all strive to do this, we'll figure it out eventually. It's why the "species-being" is so important and social systems are so important: by discourse with one another we learn increasingly more about the "good" or the art and truth of "being." So, my long winded answer is that I only know the good as I see it in this moment, and I make it a point to always doubt that I know the "good," and to either prove or modify my understanding of the "good" through my constant reassessment of it. Dialectics, my friend.

Why do it? Because I have my infinitely small little piece to contribute to our teleological story as a species-being, and if I don't pull my weight, and infinitely other humans over time don't pull their weight, the good will never become. My insignificance humbles me, but the valour in the struggle itself requires we make the struggle to do/understand/be "good" paramount. To do otherwise is to ignore my nature as an animal that can "think through" the repurcussions of its actions. The ability to reason and understand is wasted on those who do not put it to use. Whether or not some benevolent being granted us as humans this congnitive power matters not when it comes to our finding importance in it.

Why do others do or try to be good? The notion that it requires a belief in God (or gods, or kharma, or whatever) to want to do good throws us back into my "carrot" and "stick" comments. Do Christians seek to do good only because they want the golden ticket to heaven? I choose to do good for the same reasons (ideally) that everyone of all religions chooses to do good - because it's the right thing to do.

Is there immortality? Very little of it, IMHO. Ben Franklin put it best: "If you want to be remembered after you are dead and in the grave, either write things worth reading or do things worth the writing." That, and the memory of you that others carry for their brief lives, are the only instances of immortality I'm convinced exist.

[antryg]

Timber Loftis- Do you mean that you do "good" as the result of intellectual reasoning? None of those things that are called good by you are a result of societal concerns or tradition but things which you have logically derived by your own efforts? I think you have underestimated the influences which shape our decisions. Too often logical conclusions are based or framed on the basis of emotions or tradition.
It would amaze me if you never respond to the "carrot or stick". Do you refuse to pay that portion of your income tax which you believe go to bad or evil programs? If you pay then the stick has an impact on your behavior. Even if you do good only because it is "right" you also benefit from your good behavior. At least indirectly you get your carrot.

Originally posted by antryg: Religion might well be the opiate of the masses but that does not necessarilly make a religious person weak minded. It takes at least a modicum of thought to write a 40 page typed paper in one week on the doctrine of justified warfare and have that paper average 78 words per sentence. (That children is why some sermons seem like they last forever. They actually do.)

You know, Karl Marx (the originator of the opiate phrase)
being the founder of one of the worst failures at social engineering and someone who it has been argued knew nothing of human nature (or at least didn't account for it at all in his plans) and whose philosophy has been used to account for the largest mass murders in the history of the world, (Stalin and Pol Pot) really has no business being quoted any where near as often as he has been. Just an opinion.

Can someone who is a true atheist explain to me in small words, why exactly any true atheist would ever be self sacrificing or compasionate, or in any way exhibit any behaviour which does not directly work toward your own benefit? Im not trying to bash anyone. Im just looking for a rationale.

[Timber Loftis]

Antryg:
Well, obviously nature and nurture have something to do with it. I try to step back from those things and reason my way through, though. Trying to sort out and expunge all such factors on my actions would be a Herculean task and dishonest (to myself) at base. I would have to say I'm pretty heavily influenced by philosophers I've read - whose very profession is to contemplate the "good" life. So, the line between my reasoning and the other influences I have encountered is certainly blurred.

But, the beliefs I have certainly have no diety as a linchpin, and in fact point to a denial that such a creature exists. I would argue, incidentally, that the very notion that I am happy to accept the Universe itself as the only immortal thing, and that I find no imperative to ask the rather useless question "what created the universe" nor answer with the rather useless answer "God did," both point to my willingness to shrug off most conventional notions of good/bad, etc.

If that's not enough to convince you of my willing to digress from traditional notions of the "good," I'll point out another of my beliefs:
(1) There is no justifiable reason to allow abortion as a right, as the rights of one individual cannot trump the rights of another. Furthermore, viewed from my "species-being" view, you may very well be killing someone who has great advances for mankind, also a bad thing.
(2) However, the threat of overpopulation on the planet (immediately) and on the species-being (in the long run) leads me to the inevitable conclusion that we'd all be better off if a whole bunch of us would just die. Note that given current population growth, a new New York City is added to the planet every year, including factoring in the death rate. Thus, for the species-being, considering this current population problem, abortion is not so bad.
(3) All of this philosophy goes out the window if it's ever *my* pregnant 15-year-old daughter. I am human after all.

Responding to the carrot/stick regarding taxes is different than regarding churches. Regarding taxes, if I lose my immediate freedom I can't very well continue the growth I seek, can I? Moreover, who wants the hassle of dealing with the government in an adverse fashion. I do that all day for other people.

It seems you may be asserting that, just because it is "right," I get a carrot for trying to do the "good." Careful, you sound like you're asserting we are all selfish. I assert that if it has no immediate or foreseeable benefit to me one way or the other, and I bother to do the "right" thing, I've gotten NO carrot - remember, getting into heaven isn't on my agenda.

Boy, this post has gotten long. So sorry we hijacked your thread, Iron Ranger.

[ 10-23-2002, 05:42 PM: Message edited by: Timber Loftis ]

[Aelia Jusa]

Originally posted by MagiK: Can someone who is a true atheist explain to me in small words, why exactly any true atheist would ever be self sacrificing or compasionate, or in any way exhibit any behaviour which does not directly work toward your own benefit? Im not trying to bash anyone. Im just looking for a rationale.

Is belief in God the only reason to be a good person and care about others? Do Christians think the only reason to do unto others and all that is that the ten commandments said so, not that there is some objective reason to be compassionate? "God said I must be kind and not be a selfish git, dunno why but I guess I will then." Atheism, as I understand it, isn't a belief in nothing, just a belief that there's no God. God doesn't have a monopoly on compassion.

Btw, does anyone ever do anything that doesn't have at least some component of self-interest, or will benefit them in some way? It's actually very hard (if not impossible) to find something that does. Certainly the primary motive can be not self-interested. But pretty much any good action has some element about it that benefits the person doing it, whether making them feel good or needed or get them respect or something. Just a point of interest [img]smile.gif[/img]