Violating your conscience

Philosophers and rhetoricians, Welcome!
Post Reply
User avatar
mingshey
Textkit Zealot
Posts: 1338
Joined: Tue Aug 19, 2003 6:38 am
Location: Seoul
Contact:

Post by mingshey » Sat Apr 23, 2005 11:35 am

Bardo de Saldo wrote:How do Koreans translate 'sin'? Do you have an official list of sins like the 7 Capitals?
The traditional capital sin for Koreans was, under the strong influence of Confucianism, to fail to honour your parents, and the next was to be disloyal to your king.
In defense of the Bible as a valid argument in this debate, I'll say that it is a record of a code of ethics that deal with sin. It is a good reference. Whatever we call sin, the Christians didn't invent it, but turned it into an art. :wink:
I agree with this. There're a bunch of capitalist morals as well, fully useful for modern life. :)

copain
Textkit Neophyte
Posts: 48
Joined: Wed Jan 21, 2004 9:05 pm

Post by copain » Sat Apr 23, 2005 7:14 pm

  • Emma wrote:

    "But that does not mean the we are the 'perfection' of evolution. "

    I never intended to argue in this direction. I am sorry so you misunderstood me because of my bad english! With your comments about the principles of evolution I agree with you in most parts, and to the few ones I disagree here some "litte remarks". :wink:


    1."it (evolution) works on the sole principle that those who survive get to reproduce"
    So what about these litte story:
    A man is comming home telling his wife."Guess wife what happend this day to me ! I meet a really beautifull woman and she was willing to make new life with me!
    His wife then saying with a smile "Hey great, hope you had some fun!"

    So if we are in whole evoulution based would this not be quite normal ? :roll:
    But in fact, doing so the man is "violating his conscience" because something within him "told" him that he made wrong. And his wife - so she get known of that - would be everything but not happy !


    2."Why should evolution care about science and culture? It doesn't, it's just a principle."

    Yes, it´s a principle and such a principle does not include the creation of an ability to know about good and bad, because for what reason ?!
    So where does this human ability comes from, so evolution has no use for it ? That´s what I want to say, no other creature has it ! So this brings me to the next point.


    3. "Why did it take so long, millions apon millions of years for the feathered bird to come into existance, eventhough it is clear that you can only fly properly with feathers?"

    So please tell me Emma what bats or bees,butterfly´s and so many other insects then doing? Do they not fly very well and that without feathers. Try to catch a fly while she´s flying - difficult, eh? :) Things that proved useful where "invented" not only once in the flow of evolution!


    4. "And what do you make of the neanderthal?"

    They lost the game "survival of the fittest" !
    I do not believe God control the evolution, he only set it in motion, and - ok- only one time he intervene so that "a shaggy ape like little creature got the ability to become a human!" :)

User avatar
Emma_85
Global Moderator
Posts: 1564
Joined: Thu Jul 03, 2003 8:01 pm
Location: London

Post by Emma_85 » Sun Apr 24, 2005 9:52 am

copain wrote:
  • Emma wrote:

    "But that does not mean the we are the 'perfection' of evolution. "

    I never intended to argue in this direction. I am sorry so you misunderstood me because of my bad english! With your comments about the principles of evolution I agree with you in most parts, and to the few ones I disagree here some "litte remarks". :wink:


    1."it (evolution) works on the sole principle that those who survive get to reproduce"
    So what about these litte story:
    A man is comming home telling his wife."Guess wife what happend this day to me ! I meet a really beautifull woman and she was willing to make new life with me!
    His wife then saying with a smile "Hey great, hope you had some fun!"

    So if we are in whole evoulution based would this not be quite normal ? :roll:
    But in fact, doing so the man is "violating his conscience" because something within him "told" him that he made wrong. And his wife - so she get known of that - would be everything but not happy !


    2."Why should evolution care about science and culture? It doesn't, it's just a principle."

    Yes, it´s a principle and such a principle does not include the creation of an ability to know about good and bad, because for what reason ?!
    So where does this human ability comes from, so evolution has no use for it ? That´s what I want to say, no other creature has it ! So this brings me to the next point.


    3. "Why did it take so long, millions apon millions of years for the feathered bird to come into existance, eventhough it is clear that you can only fly properly with feathers?"

    So please tell me Emma what bats or bees,butterfly´s and so many other insects then doing? Do they not fly very well and that without feathers. Try to catch a fly while she´s flying - difficult, eh? :) Things that proved useful where "invented" not only once in the flow of evolution!


    4. "And what do you make of the neanderthal?"

    They lost the game "survival of the fittest" !
    I do not believe God control the evolution, he only set it in motion, and - ok- only one time he intervene so that "a shaggy ape like little creature got the ability to become a human!" :)
oh, and sorry for any spelling mistakes etc that I make, I don't have word to check my spelling for me :cry:

Ok, to your first point - there are many examples in nature of species in which the male and female from life-long bonds. A cockroach does not, but the again all cockroaches do is lay eggs, they don't have to go and spend years of their lives looking after the little buggers, they just leave the eggs somewhere and that's it. Humans however need a little more care. Or think of birds - they too often stick to just one partner, in some cases for life, in other's just for one season (similar to humans?). The reason is that they don't lay millions of eggs, they've got to make sure that the few they do lay survive - like with humans. To nurture these young takes time and engery, if human me were to go around creating offspring with different females, who would care for the offspring? You couldn't be sure who'd children were who's and so the men would not want to invest all that energy into their upbringing. Only if you invest a lot of energy though, does it work out. So they must be bound to those children in order to have the energy to provide for them in the first few years (until say four years old). Other species like lions instead allow just the dominant males to have children - the pack leaders know what they are 'fighting' for as it were.

2) Evolution does indeed not care about culture or such like in my opinion. Science and culture are not programmed into our genes, all that is is our ability to talk and communicate with each other. This ability to talk was probably very useful - think how much better you can survive if you can tell others exactly where to find the next spring, the next river, which berries are edible, which poisones, how to hunt down that cattle together etc.
Culture is a by-product. Being able to talk (and so also think complex thoughts, which is not possible without language) is what evolution came up with. It didn't think: if they can talk they can have culture - because it's just a principle - it didn't care. But - of course culture and science are beneficial to our survival, so I suppose you could say that the fact that we came up with them is because of evolution - I like to think of evolution as just the biological aspect though, would you agree? Because we do not have to follow our culture, we have a choice. We came up with culture because it was good for our society, but in some cases this backfired, there are many examples where our civilisation has lead to millions dying. We came up with our civilisation ourself, because we had developed language, but because we came up with it, means that culture does not have to follow the principles of evolution. Why for example build pyramids? What good does that do anyone? To answer such questions the theory of evolution cannot apply, because what we are talking about now is understanding this culture we developed. That our cultures are influenced by nature early on and less so the more we are apart from nature is also evident. Ok, enought of that (so far I feel that I'm winning :P )

next point:

3) Ok, let me reformulate that: the feather was only 'invented' once. We mamals could have done with them too. Wouldn't it be great it humans could fly too? Lol
I see your point - flying orrcurs more than once, it is a space that could be used and wasn't, so those who managed to 'get up there first' had it all to themselves and many advantages.
The 'realm' of thinking can only come about if you have language, I've already said that. The 'realm' of the sky requires wings. Let's take the bat, that is a very easy example for me to show you what I mean. The bat is a mouse sitting an tree that wishes to quickly get to another tree without having to climb down and crawl over the snake-infested wood floor (for example). Those mice who have a tiny bit of skin between their front paws can more easily keep their balance and get across. The more skin the better - but each bit of skin helps on the way, there is no stopping them. Each bit of evolution towards the wing means they can cross larger distances without getting eaten by a snake. Those with more skin survive to produce offspring with their genes, the others get eaten up by snakes. So the realm of the air was an advantage - straight away!
As I've said, first humans must have a means of communication. But the 'goal' of communication is not to reach the realm of philosophy, but the realm of 'how do we survive the coming storm?'
All steps on the way to language, brought us closer to complex thought. But philosophy would not have helped early man survive, what was more important was, as I said before, the ability to pass on critical information. Now take dolphins, apparently they are pretty intelligent and have a way which could/or already is being used to communicate. We have no idea what they are saying, maybe not much, but this 'system' they have, could be used as a language. Why is it not? How would it help dolphin to be able to talk? It doesn't have to tell it's young how to make this or that tool and seeing as it's already living in the ocean for a long time, the routes which it takes around the oceans are probably already ingrained like instinct into their brains. They most likely know automatically what to do when their are born. As soon as a human is born he needs protection and can't do anything - a dolphin is born in the sea, if it didn't know what to do, it might die pretty soon. Basically I don't know much about dolphins, but their environment doesn't seem to be like ours, one that really gives those who invent language such a huge advantage. So it never fully developed, maybe only enough to tell each other where the fish are. We however can tell each other how to make tools, how to build houses, how to look for water, how to cut wood etc... any human with the abiltiy to pass such information on clearly has a huge advantage.
So you need a species that can communicate- one that needs to communicate in order to survive - let's face it, our ape ancestors must have had a hard time coming out of that jungle. They were pretty useless on the flat plains to say the least. Just picture them in your mind - pathetic compared to a hoard of lions or elephants. You can't grow huge teeth, longer, more powerful legs etc, within such a short space of time. So they had to learn how to hide, make spears, find things to eat without getting eaten my lions. All of which requires not physical, but mental abilities. Our ape-ancestors luckily had developed good 'brains' and that little thing that could turn into a thumb, because they had to be able to judge distances when they jumped from tree to tree maybe and had to be able to hold on pretty well - to be good at these things was very important then.
In the world of dinosaurs there may have been an intelligent dinosaur, but as they were all pee-brained that's not that likely. Mamals though are more intelligent in general and we haven't been around that long. Insects are too small to be intelligent, you need neural pathways, dinos are very different from us, more like birds, there are probably many reasons why it was hard for any intelligence to emerge in them. You'd need something that was able to make tools and had a good brain. Dinosaurs in trees would devolope the thumb maybe, I can think of pretty few other environments in which the thumb would emerge. In a forest you have to be able to get a good grip on the branches of the trees you are jumping too, to get a hold on them and not fall off - each step on the way to having a thumb, is an improvement. But trees had not been invented then! -they had huge palm trees! So, first you need real trees. Millions of years until you get them.So then, when trees were around you needed these thumb-dinos to be forces out of the forest, otherwise why bother with new mental abilities? But then there was the big t-rex who just ate them up, as soon as the pathetic things emerged ;-)
Basically I'm saying that the realm of 'thought' is not as straigh-forward a concept as 'reaching the sky'. It's easy to see how each step of reaching the sky brings the species better chances of survival. But 'philosophy' - to reach that is not as straight-forward. You must go through many more difficulties before it is of any benefit for a species to have to develope sophisticated communication.

4) I don't buy that, hehehe. God made sure many human races would come into being and then just let them all die out to see which one would survive? Eh...
look, it surprises me no end anyway, how you can believe in evolution, life after death (if he care about us enough to give us a soul, something non-physical, when did he give it too us in our evoltion, if he doesn't care about us enough to just make one species to start with?) Know what i mean? If God really cares that much, he won't go about just only intervening in that one step to make sure that intelligence can surface on earth. It's just not plausible. But if you do believe in such devine intervention, in non-physical souls etc - if you admit that non-physical things and the supernatural exist - then why don't you believe in ghosts? I know you don't :-P or Reki? hehehe
If all God does is make sure there is some form of intelligence on the planet, you may as well believe that aliens came in a UFO and made sure that happened before getting back onto their spaceship and flying on.
phpbb

copain
Textkit Neophyte
Posts: 48
Joined: Wed Jan 21, 2004 9:05 pm

Post by copain » Sun May 01, 2005 7:38 pm

Emma_85 wrote: ..... (so far I feel that I'm winning :P )
  • Ok Emma, after thinking a bit over this matter and your comments, I have - at the moment :) - no strong evidences to proof my point of view in a scientific way. :(
    In the internet - I have had just a short glimse about this matter - may are some usefull information about this and when I have more time again I want to have a look for it.
    Because the matter we talked about is really interesting and I think there is enough to discover and maybe some unexpected finding lay still ahead!

    Hey, and why do you think should I care about such medieval stuff like ghosts or such unproven methods like Reki ?
    It´s just a feeling - a kind of seventh sense - which tells me that the belief in a God is a total different thing as in ghosts or such other "mythical creatures" of human imagination!

    And concerning the UFO´s should it be that you have read some books from "Erich von Däniken" ? :lol:
    He is the one who thinks that "ET" - at the start of human civilization - had
    a short visit here on earth! He is a really good storyteller but nothing more !

User avatar
Emma_85
Global Moderator
Posts: 1564
Joined: Thu Jul 03, 2003 8:01 pm
Location: London

Post by Emma_85 » Mon May 02, 2005 8:50 am

copain wrote:
Emma_85 wrote: ..... (so far I feel that I'm winning :P )
  • Ok Emma, after thinking a bit over this matter and your comments, I have - at the moment :) - no strong evidences to proof my point of view in a scientific way. :(
    In the internet - I have had just a short glimse about this matter - may are some usefull information about this and when I have more time again I want to have a look for it.
    Because the matter we talked about is really interesting and I think there is enough to discover and maybe some unexpected finding lay still ahead!

    Hey, and why do you think should I care about such medieval stuff like ghosts or such unproven methods like Reki ?
    It´s just a feeling - a kind of seventh sense - which tells me that the belief in a God is a total different thing as in ghosts or such other "mythical creatures" of human imagination!

    And concerning the UFO´s should it be that you have read some books from "Erich von Däniken" ? :lol:
    He is the one who thinks that "ET" - at the start of human civilization - had
    a short visit here on earth! He is a really good storyteller but nothing more !
if you had grown up like a reki master, surrowned by people who believed in that kind of thing as opposed to people who believe in the 'holy ghost' - then you 7th sense would be telling you to believe in Reki :roll: .

I'm afraid this is the first time I've heard of Erich von Däniken, but don't worry, I don't believe in the UFO thing at all... :wink:
phpbb

copain
Textkit Neophyte
Posts: 48
Joined: Wed Jan 21, 2004 9:05 pm

Post by copain » Tue May 03, 2005 8:31 pm

  • Though not having much time - I´m going home for the next few days - just one short comments :)
Emma_85 wrote: if you had grown up like a reki master, surrowned by people who believed in that kind of thing as opposed to people who believe in the 'holy ghost' - then you 7th sense would be telling you to believe in Reki.
  • And if you had grown up in a society which is endeavour to explain the whole world by scientific means you would not allow yourself to hear about your 7th sense because it´s only a sentimental feeling ! :roll:
Emma_85 wrote: I'm afraid this is the first time I've heard of Erich von Däniken, but don't worry, I don't believe in the UFO thing at all...
  • Hey fine Emma, so we had at least one thing in common ! :wink:

Post Reply