This is topic Wow. I never thought about it this way! in forum Books, Films, Food and Culture at Hatrack River Forum.


To visit this topic, use this URL:
http://www.hatrack.com/ubb/main/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=2;t=027274

---

Posted by Phanto (Member # 5897) on :
 
http://www.chick.com/catalog/comics/0106.asp

It all makes sense now; of course, evolution is a lie. Wow.

http://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/0042/0042_01.asp

And this too is remarkable; the truth must be known!

The only thing that moved me this much was good ol' Lambuel.
*blink blink blink*

[ September 09, 2004, 11:36 AM: Message edited by: Phanto ]
 

---

Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
The best line in both of those, IMO, is "(Gasp) It...it's...a young moon! I'm going to be sick." Of course, you really need the image -- which appears to be of a cellulite-laden humanoid potato wearing a suit with a white carnation on it -- to appreciate its elegance.
 

---

Posted by eslaine (Member # 5433) on :
 
That description reminds me of costumes used by The Residents.
 

---

Posted by Eduardo_Sauron (Member # 5827) on :
 


Chick is waaaay fun!
 

---

Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 
Anyone got a link to a good site with the refutation of the main points there? I haven't heard most of those and would like to have the facts at my fingertips.

Dagonee
 

---

Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
 
I just find his type of Christianity to be so repulsive that I do not find any fun in Chick at all.

His stupidity and grasping don't make me laugh at all. When I read Chick, I just feel. . . debased.
 

---

Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
 
I agree with Scott.
 

---

Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
 
That conversation with the Muslim, yeah, that's just how it would play out. NOT.
 

---

Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
 
Pretty simple. Applying dating techniques to areas they are known not to work results in (*gasp* ) erroneous results. Its like using a blood pressure gauge to test pressure in a water pipe, its completely silly.

Then there's the hilarious assumptions about sediment, first that the amount of sediment being washed away each year is constant (considering the amount of deforestation we've done in our short time on earth I'd rather suspect we've increased the rate, plus various natural occurences no doubt have large effects), and second that there is no replacement of sediment, which there is.

The young moon one is particularly amusing in the roundabout way it attacks evolution (or rather, the age of the moon, and assumedly they mean it to attack the age of the earth as well).

First, the surface area of the moon is very small compared to the surface area of the earth -- 13.5 times smaller, about. So it will receive a correspondingly smaller deposit of dust. Second, apparently dust does not have weight, because we all know if you put a lot of dust or whatnot in a bucket, it will settle and compact, meaning you couldn't just step all the way to the bottom. Not to mention that even if it didn't settle at all, the amount it would sink due to a step is only the amount it will compact, and has little to do with the actual depth of the dust. Another thing they miraculously neglected to take into account is the landing of the moon rover, which blew away many of the thicker deposits of dust in the area -- and thicker dust was found further away.

There are, of course, also similar assumptions about uniformity of dust deposit rate (as well as by location), lack of dust being removed (say, by meteorite impacts which might also compact some of the dust, ah, significantly), yadda yadda.

In short, the analytical ability of people who believe Chick's take on evolution is somewhere between nil and zip.
 

---

Posted by Eduardo_Sauron (Member # 5827) on :
 
fugu

 

---

Posted by jebus202 (Member # 2524) on :
 

quote:

---

That conversation with the Muslim, yeah, that's just how it would play out. NOT.

---

Yea it would totally be more like:

"Your god is really the MOON GOD!"

::bang bang bang bang bang bang bang bang bang bang bang bang:

"Praise Allah!"

[ September 09, 2004, 02:12 PM: Message edited by: jebus202 ]
 

---

Posted by Da_Goat (Member # 5529) on :
 
I agree with Scott, too.

And is that the first colored one Chick's done, or have there been more? I think that's the first one that I've seen.

[ September 09, 2004, 03:58 PM: Message edited by: Da_Goat ]
 

---

Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
 
fugu -- the size of the moon doesn't make a difference. While there's less surface area to catch dust, there's also less surface area to spread the dust around on. In equals out.

Your compaction point is spot on, though.

Another one is that the moon looses a lot of dust. We've found moon and mars rocks on earth that got ejected out when hit by a meteor. I would guess that if some rocks make it off, a lot more dust does.
 

---

Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
 
Actually, my SA point matters considerably. They didn't do the calculation from amount per area, they did the calculation from total amount hitting the earth (well, this is somewhat of an assumption as I haven't seen the calculation in question, but given how Chick phrased it (he just said how much hits the earth, and then said that the same dust falls on the moon) and the complete idiocy of someone who'd try to do such a calculation, its certainly a supported assumption).
 

---

Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 
Thanks, fugu.
 

---

Posted by WraithSword (Member # 6829) on :
 
I can't see the page, but there's an average of about 26 feet of space dust (which is special dust from space) on the surface of the moon.
 

---

Posted by romanylass (Member # 6306) on :
 
Unbeleivable.
 

---

Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
 
About the moon : Comrade Chick has also, apparently, forgotten that it has a considerably smaller gravity than the Earth. So it has a smaller collision cross-section.

It is also possible that atmosphere matters in this, since a particle going by at an angle, 100 km above the Earth's surface, would be braked and caught, which would not happen on the Moon. On the other hand, the atmosphere is rather thin compared to the radius of the Earth, so even the r-square dependence might not help much. You'd have to run the numbers.
 

---

Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
 
Not only is the second cartoon offensive to Muslims, it's offensive to Christians. Wow, I've never seen anything quite so removed from real life as that before.
 

---

Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 
There's one on the site about Catholics worshipping a sun god.
 

---

Posted by Lupus (Member # 6516) on :
 
nah, the best is the harry potter one
 

---

Posted by IvyGirl (Member # 6252) on :
 
Well, the very idea of evolution does not make sense. In fact, it makes less sense than Creation. So why people even try and explain something that is in fact nothing more than a lie I don't know. We had this very discussion in Biology last year, and many points were discussed. Such as, how do you explain how many mammals walk on land, but there are some, such as whales, that live in the water? What, they got out of the water and then decided they wanted to go back in? Not only is that not logical, it's not likely. And there are many more questions that simply cannot be answered. Yes, animals can ADAPT to a certain point, and evolve a little, but the idea that we came from primodial soup is very silly and illogical.

Ivygirl
 

---

Posted by Toretha (Member # 2233) on :
 
*laughs* wow.
 

---

Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
*sad sigh* Farmgirl, you may want to transfer your daughter to another school, one with a competent biology teacher.

[ September 09, 2004, 06:56 PM: Message edited by: TomDavidson ]
 

---

Posted by IvyGirl (Member # 6252) on :
 
My Biology teacher WAS competent, thank you. In fact, one of the few times I actually respected him was during our evolution discussion. So tais-toi!

Ivygirl

[ September 09, 2004, 09:42 PM: Message edited by: IvyGirl ]
 

---

Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
 
What school do you go to, IvyGirl?
 

---

Posted by Bob the Lawyer (Member # 3278) on :
 
You spelled "shut up" wrong, Ivy.
 

---

Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
IvyGirl, I'd submit two things:

1) If your biology teacher had been competent, you'd've respected him more often than that.

2) If he'd been competent, he'd've been able to answer your "why might a mammal used to living on land choose to go back to the water" question.
 

---

Posted by Bob the Lawyer (Member # 3278) on :
 
Other than brushing up your French (a sticky point for me because I'm so desperately upset with myself for losing mine) you might want to look up some of the similarities between hippos and whales and look at some of the fossil and genetic evidence that seem to link the two. It shouldn't be hard to find some stuff about it online.

I'm not suggesting it will convince you, or make you see the proverbial evolutionary light. But the best way to develop strength in your convictions is to understand and be able to intelligently refute the points of opposing (for want of a better word) views, right?
 

---

Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
 
I'm sorry, but I can't even stomach this.


 

---

Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
 
Why? What's wrong with it?
 

---

Posted by Eduardo_Sauron (Member # 5827) on :
 
Teshi...tsc...I followed the link, started to read and thought: "man, how can this be! Chick is really writing something worthwhile for a change!" Than came that @#$@% ending...tsc.
 

---

Posted by Eduardo_Sauron (Member # 5827) on :
 
But THIS is fun:

quote:

---

The move toward the global church is called the "ecumenical movement." Spearheaded by the Roman Catholic Church, it is designed to bring all churches under the influence of the pope. Since the idea of love and unity is very appealing, many Christians have welcomed the idea, without thinking it through. How can an evangelical Christian, saved by faith alone, be in unity with a Roman Catholic who believes in salvation by good works? The result is always a watering down of the simple, pure gospel.

---

quote:

---

Since the idea of love and unity is very appealing, many Christians have welcomed the idea, without thinking it through.

---

Yeah, Darn you christians with your crazy love and unity! Darn you!!!
 

---

Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
 
Yeah, love and unity are sneaky like that. Let your guard down, and the next thing you know....
 

---

Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
 
. . . we're all unitarians.


 

---

Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
 
First, evolution has nothing to do with want, it has to do with competitive advantage. Also, its not like this is random hypothesis, we have a solid fossil record for the transition between land mammals and whales:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/03/4/l_034_05.html

Also, you seem to be confusing evolution with abiogenesis (which a competent teacher would also have corrected). Abiogenesis theory talks about how life appears from non-life (though notably, its remarkably hard to pin down exactly what's alive and what's not), and evolutionary theory only talks about what happens to life when it already exists.
 

---

Posted by IdemosthenesI (Member # 862) on :
 
Wow. That was really cool. While we are answering questions about evolution, I've always wondered how the hive mind could have developed. The queen isn't my problem, the drones are. Since the biological imperative is to pass on one's genetic material, how could it ever be an adaptive trait to be completely sterile?

Incidentally, this is why I like evolution more than creation. Creation says, I don't understand this, there isn't enough evidence, it must not be true. Science says "I don't understand this. It looks like it's wrong. Let's find more evidence and figure it out."
 

---

Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 
Suppose Queen X produces all infertile females (drones actually aren't sterile) except for a few queens and fertile drones. This queen has less competition for mates, so it could be an advantage, even to the few queens.

Dagonee
 

---

Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
 
Maybe some animals evolve as a system of individuals, rather than a community of individuals.
 

---

Posted by IdemosthenesI (Member # 862) on :
 
Yes, but how did the infertil females ever come to associate with the queen? I guess my question is, I thought slavery was a uniquely human institution. Apparently, ants also have individuals who work entirely for the will of the hive, gaining no reproductive benefit.
 

---

Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 
A queen who produces offspring genetically encoded to serve her will have the resources to produce more fertile queens.
 

---

Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
 
That's an interesting idea, idemo.

When we introduce a new queen into a queenless hive, we keep her in a tiny box that is lowered into the hive. The box is plugged up with sugar, and by the time the other bees eat through the sugar-plug, the queen's phermones have co-opted the whole hive into obedience.
 

---

Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
 
Idemo,
Evolution doesn't really work on an individual scale. It's a statistical process. The drones behavior is a device which ensures the continuation of both their species and their version of their species. They don't have any desire to propogate their own genes. They don't, properly speaking, have desires at all, just a lot of programming.

The so-called biological imperative is a product of evolution (i.e. in certain cases, having this imperative meant that on average, more of your genes were out there as opposed to creatures who didn't have it and as your genes contained more of this imperative, there was going to be a proportional increase of the biological imperative behavior) rather than what fuels it. The biological imperative works in the individual case only when you're talking about species where the reproductive model is also individual.

As such, It doesn't attach to the way that individual insects work. In this model, only the queen reprodeuces, so evolution dictates that the drones who act in such a way that there will be proportionally more of their queen's offspring as opposed to the offspring of another drone's queen will show up more often over time.

One of the things that bothers me about the way that many people seeem to view evolutionary processes is that they think that it creates wholely selfish behavior. Even if we don't look at the evidence and only consider the thoeretical implications of this, that idea is untenable. A tendency towards cooperation is, in many cases, a very powerful force towards ensuring the survival of a group of animals. There are tremendous forces pushing humans and other social group animals towards cooperation. However, our culture has developed an ideological view that prizes selfishness highly, so it is easy for us to think that this largely unfettered selfishness is both natural and most beneficial.
 

---

Posted by IdemosthenesI (Member # 862) on :
 
Scott, thank you! You answered my question perfectly, and I honestly have been wondering for years but I've never wondered at the same time that I've been online. Pheremones!
 

---

Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
 
The problem that I think you may be having isn't that you're imputing consciousness to the drones. There is any reason to believe that either they or the queen have anything approaching consciousness. It might help if you view them as robots who, from time to time have random alterations made to their programming and who build the next generation of robots based off of their programming.

Evolutionary theory says that if Brand X robots operate in such a way that in each successive generatione the percentage of Brand X robots increases, then Brand X robots are going to come to dominate that environment. Evolution is completely indifferent as to how this comes about and what the role of any individual robot is. They could all be builders, there could be a speciialized builder class, only one could do all the building. It doesn't really matter. All that matters is that the traits that cause Brand X robots to increase their proportion are passed onto through the generations.

edit: Lousy leaving out a negative casuing me to say the opposite of what I meant.

[ September 10, 2004, 01:48 PM: Message edited by: MrSquicky ]
 

---

Posted by IdemosthenesI (Member # 862) on :
 
My problem is that I'm not thinking of ants as they are now. I'm wondering how they got that way. Queen ants didn't always make armies of drones, I'm sure. There must have been some point in their history when all ants could reproduce, right? Either that or all of whatever ants' ancestors are could reproduce. I'm wondering how the first ant hive got started. What trait could develop that would allow one ant to enslave its offspring and thus become dominant? Pheremones are a good answer to that. However, even then, the workers could still reproduce. Their sex organs gradually would become vestigial, right? Am I way off track here? This still leaves the question of queen insects being the only beings in the world that can basically give birth to either fertile or infertile offspring at will, right? Or are queen eggs identical to worker eggs and some other external process makes the difference?
 

---

Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
 
Mr. Squicky, where in the world are you getting your information from?

Any time someone uses a phrase like consciousness in a scientific discussion, I just want to roll my eyes and gag.

And just as an FYI-- drones are all male. Workers are female, or sexless, if you want to be technical. An interestng phenomenon has been (infrequently) observed though-- sometimes a worker in a queenless hive will develop and lay eggs, and they will develop into more workers. However, because workers have a much shorter lifespan than queens, hives of this sort do not usually last very long. And no queen can develop in such a hive, because the workers lack the capability to produce the royal jelly that changes bee larvae into queens.
 

---

Posted by IdemosthenesI (Member # 862) on :
 
So becoming a queen is something that happens at the larval stage then. Hmm. So Scott, you are a beekeeper? You been following www.ilovebees.com ? hehehe
 

---

Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 
I thought whether the offspring were reproducing (queens) or sterile (workers) depended on what they were fed.
 

---

Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
 
Idemo,
You're starting out assuming that all creatures reproduced sexually, which isn't accurate, and you're thinking that drone insects (or proto-drone ants) existed indepndently of queen insects, which is also innaccurate (well, ok, I really don't know the evolutionary history of insects, but I'm pretty sure that's true). At some point in history the ancestor of the queen insect created different types of things. Some of these things had the ability to create other things and some of them didn't. This arrangement worked, so now we have insects the way they are.

For an analogy, humans develop in such a way that they grow hands. These hands are unable to reproduce, but they make it much more likely that the humans with them will reproduce, so humans now all pretty much have hands. Just because the drone represents a closed system apart from the queen doesn't mean that the relationship there (in terms of individuality and reproduction) is really that different from that between you and your hand. If you could disconnect your hand from your body and still have it carry out instructions coded into, it would be even more similar.
 

---

Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 

quote:

---

Evolutionary theory says that if Brand X robots operate in such a way that in each successive generatione the percentage of Brand X robots increases, then Brand X robots are going to come to dominate that environment. Evolution is completely indifferent as to how this comes about and what the role of any individual robot is. They could all be builders, there could be a speciialized builder class, only one could do all the building. It doesn't really matter. All that matters is that the traits that cause Brand X robots to increase their proportion are passed onto through the generations.

---

quote:

---

At some point in history the ancestor of the queen insect created different types of things. Some of these things had the ability to create other things and some of them didn't. This arrangement worked, so now we have insects the way they are.

---

A hive-version of Eve.
 

---

Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
 
bev,
They've got computer simulations and games out there that let you do kind of sort of just that. Of course, they only work in the limited situations that are coded into the simulators, so they haven't come close to approaching the incredible complexities of the real world situation.
 

---

Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
 
No, I question your use of the terms consciousness and desire.

What evidence do you have that worker bees do not exhibit either?
 

---

Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 
Given time, I assume they would get closer and closer to "the real thing". I wonder if reality could ever truly be mimmicked one day in the virtual world? It would be like... the Matrix!
 

---

Posted by Eduardo_Sauron (Member # 5827) on :
 
Beverly, there is such game: it's called "Evolution, the game of life". It is an old game (Circa 1996, I guess). It has a "Discovery Channel" trademark. I have it.
 

---

Posted by IdemosthenesI (Member # 862) on :
 
Unless this hive Eve reproduced asexually, she had to be fertilized by something. I don't KNOW that she was sexual, but I'm fairly sure she wasn't asexual for some reason. I think we're getting into a chicken and egg thing here.

On a side note, I believe there has been a computer model of evolution done before. A guy made a program that could model self replicating patterns, only he told it to make random small changes. I don't remember how he represented natural selection, but he had a whole model of evolution including extinctions, dominant species, eras, the whole shebang. I saw it on a cheesy educational video in freshman biology.
 

---

Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 
Eduardo: Sounds cool. I guess I shouldn't be suprised that the game already exists. I expect there will be better and more improved versions yet to come.

I think it fascinating that in part of Porter's work in college, he used "sexual reproduction" and randomness to create new and wonderful things. It was all virtual on the computer--I don't remember how exactly it worked. I just remember thinking it was cool.
 

---

Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 
demosthenese, cool! If anyone has more info on that, I would be interested.
 

---

Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
 
Scott,
Are you serious? Your objection is that I said that insects don't exhibit consciousness or desire? I honestly not sure how to answer that. The opposite is not something I've ever come across before.

Hmmm...how about insects, and most other animals have never displayed the complexity of mental representation necessary to have anything sort of top-down model like a desire or self-referential consciousness. Animals without extremely high mental complexity have never demonstrated any conception of selfhood.

What possible reasons do you have for suggesting that bee have dsires and consciousness? Of are you not suggesting that?
 

---

Posted by Eduardo_Sauron (Member # 5827) on :
 
We just turned a discussion about awfull Chick tracts and turned it into a fruitful biology debate. Would Alvin Maker consider it a kind of "Making"? Would you?
 

---

Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
 

quote:

---

Animals without extremely high mental complexity have never demonstrated any conception of selfhood.

---

quote:

---

Well, the very idea of evolution does not make sense. In fact, it makes less sense than Creation. So why people even try and explain something that is in fact nothing more than a lie I don't know. We had this very discussion in Biology last year, and many points were discussed. Such as, how do you explain how many mammals walk on land, but there are some, such as whales, that live in the water? What, they got out of the water and then decided they wanted to go back in? Not only is that not logical, it's not likely. And there are many more questions that simply cannot be answered. Yes, animals can ADAPT to a certain point, and evolve a little, but the idea that we came from primodial soup is very silly and illogical.

---

1. Clearly, you do not understand how evolution works.

2. Further, you have absolutely no idea what logic is or how to apply it, you're just throwing the word around as the opposite of 'stupid'.

3. Calling evolutionary theory 'nothing more than a lie' is not going to convince anyone that you are right. What it might do is convince people that you are twelve or so, and immature for your age.

4. As a basis for your argument, you are going to take discussions in an American highschool?

OK, I'm done name-calling. I suggest you read Dawkins' "The Selfish Gene," an excellent book.
 

---

Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
 


be polite, KoM
 

---

Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
 
I was being polite. Expressing what I actually think about the way Americans educate their offspring would instantly get me banned.
 

---

Posted by Beren One Hand (Member # 3403) on :
 
"As a basis for your argument, you are going to take discussions in an American highschool?"

Um, she is a high school student. Why wouldn't she base her opinions on what she observed in school? There are lots of smart kids on this board, some of them are even Americans.

IvyGirl, I think it takes a lot of courage to post your Creationist views among us frothing liberals and godless science geeks.

Don't let some of the negative comments on this thread prevent you from posting your other questions about evolutionary theories. I like the fact that you are reaching out with your curiosity and I hope you continue to use Hatrack as a resource to refine your view of the world.
 

---

Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
 
King of Men, you were not being polite.

Perhaps you were not being as rude as possible, but you were not polite.
 

---

Posted by Shigosei (Member # 3831) on :
 
I don't agree that American high school education has gone completely down the tubes. I had a decent education, and I've met people here at college who did some pretty amazing things in high school. Oh, and I went to a public high school, which was probably better than the local private school.

By the way, there's nothing illogical with not believing in evolution (or, say, geocentrism) as long as one places more importance on a literal view of the Bible than on science. That person's first principles may be different from yours, but the beliefs do follow logically from that world view. I don't think geocentrism or a literal six-day creation with a young earth is supported by science, but if someone chooses to have faith in the Bible instead of science, then it is perfectly consistent.
 

---

Posted by Yozhik (Member # 89) on :
 
Actually, there IS a reproductive benefit involved for the worker bees/ants, though I don't quite remember what it is. When my AP-biology-teacher spouse gets home from work, I'll see if I can get him to explain how exactly this benefit works.

Also:

quote:

---

We had this very discussion in Biology last year, and many points were discussed. Such as, how do you explain how many mammals walk on land, but there are some, such as whales, that live in the water? What, they got out of the water and then decided they wanted to go back in? Not only is that not logical, it's not likely.

---

If your H.S. biology teacher couldn't explain these points to you, then he doesn't have an adequate grounding in his subject.

[ September 10, 2004, 06:27 PM: Message edited by: Yozhik ]
 

---

Posted by Eaquae Legit (Member # 3063) on :
 
catholic.com has some good refutations of the anti-Catholic Chick Tracts. Pretty thorough.
 

---

Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 
http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/2004/0403fea2.asp

"Chick has distributed over half a billion, making him the most published comic book author in the world."


 

---

Posted by Beren One Hand (Member # 3403) on :
 
What did Chick do, line the comic books with crack?
 

---

Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 
Catholic conspiracy sells!
 

---

Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
 
The reproductive advantage for the worker bees is that they are more closely related to their sisters than to their daughters. This is an interesting trick which they accomplish by shuffling their chromosomes in clever ways; if I remember correctly, the technical term is haplodiploidy. If a worker could reproduce, she would make bees which shared 50% of her genes. By tending her mother, the queen, and making her do the reproduction, the worker can produce bees which share 75% of her genes - clearly a much better bet.

You don't have to be haplodiploid to be a social insect, though : Termites aren't, and naked mole rats, which have many of the same adaptations, aren't either. There is still an advantage, namely that of specialisation. Consider two sets of one hundred bees, in which each set is fairly closely related. In the first set, each bee gathers food, fights, and reproduces all on its own. In the second set, there are, say, eighty workers, ten fighters, and ten reproducers. The second set is going to be a lot more efficient, much as a city will produce more per capita than a hunter-gatherer band, or even a village of farmers.

The intermediate step between each individual being sexual and total specialisation is just a colony of reasonably closely related individuals. Kin groups where some are workers, and do not reproduce, prosper better than those where everybody has children. Call that step one. Eventually all the groups have reached step one, since any reproductive advantage grows exponentially. Step two requires a small mutation : Some of the individuals are born sterile. Usually this is a terrible disadvantage which means the instant death of the gene line; in this case, though, the sterile individuals prosper by helping their kin groups. Since they don't waste a lot of energy building sexual organs, more is available for muscle, or whatever insects use. Hence kin groups of this type, having burlier workers, prosper still more. That's step two.

Step three is that the reproductive types become more efficient at pumping out children, while the worker types become more efficient at working. This is just standard adaptation. But the more efficient the reproducers are at reproduction, the fewer of them you need. In fact, if they are sufficiently effective, you only need one female and a couple of males, who can be discarded after use. Voila - social insects.

Incidentally, using a loaded word like 'slavery' is utterly misleading. You might as well consider the workers as having enslaved the queen. They are using her to produce sisters, with 75% of their genes. If the queen could, she'd "want" sisters too, but she's being forced to produce mere daughters, with only 50% of her genes. In reality, of course, workers and queen are cooperating to produce more of their kin.

quote:

---

Um, she is a high school student. Why wouldn't she base her opinions on what she observed in school? There are lots of smart kids on this board, some of them are even Americans.

---

quote:

---

I don't agree that American high school education has gone completely down the tubes. I had a decent education, and I've met people here at college who did some pretty amazing things in high school. Oh, and I went to a public high school, which was probably better than the local private school.

By the way, there's nothing illogical with not believing in evolution (or, say, geocentrism) as long as one places more importance on a literal view of the Bible than on science. That person's first principles may be different from yours, but the beliefs do follow logically from that world view. I don't think geocentrism or a literal six-day creation with a young earth is supported by science, but if someone chooses to have faith in the Bible instead of science, then it is perfectly consistent.

---

I submit for your consideration comrade Ivygirl. A perfect example of what is wrong with American high schools. I then generalise to all Americans.

Well, yes, if you insist on taking 'Everything in the Bible is true' as an axiom, then 'Evolution does not occur' and 'The Earth does not move around the Sun' both follow. But the Earth demonstrably does move! (And evolution does occur, though the demonstration is a bit less generally accepted.) We have, then,

(The Bible) implies X.
Not X.
Therefore, not (the Bible).

The first statement, as you point out, is perfectly valid. In the absence of any evidence, it is quite all right to believe 'X'. But we've got evidence! We know that 'not X' is true. You cannot just ignore this, if you want to retain a shred of intellectual honesty. Maybe your hypothetical person of faith feels that the literal truth of the Bible is more important than honesty. But I don't think he'd be willing to admit it.

You must abandon either logic, or the bible (parts of it, anyway), or a literal interpretation. Choose one.
 

---

Posted by skeptic (Member # 5273) on :
 
Shigosei wrote:

quote:

---

Oh, and I went to a public high school, which was probably better than the local private school.

---

quote:

---

if someone chooses to have faith in the Bible instead of science, then it is perfectly consistent.

---

quote:

---

Such as, how do you explain how many mammals walk on land, but there are some, such as whales, that live in the water? What, they got out of the water and then decided they wanted to go back in?

---

Organisms do not "decide" to do something in an evolutionary sense. Species are molded as a consequence of the environments they find themselves in. While natural selection is not conscious and does not truly "decide", it is one of the mechanisms by which species change. To address your question about whales, let's take, as a starting point, a mammal species similar to dogs. Now imagine that this species' main prey escapes predation by escaping into the water. Some dogs are better adapted to the water than others. Short, oily hair that repels water and decreases drag is better than long hair that absorbs water. Flat, webbed feet work better as paddles than rounded, non-webbed feet. These variations exist now. If such dogs were more successful at capturing their prey, they would contribute a greater amount of their genes to the next generation. As a result, the next generation would have more short-oily-haired dogs with flat webbed feet. As the population spent more and more time in the water, animals with better insulation against losing heat to the water would have an advantage over those with less insulation. As a result, a subcutaneous layer of fat would become thicker over the generations as those with thinner fat would be at a selective disadvantage. Another thing that would be advantageous would be for the animal not to have to raise its' head very far out of the water to breathe. It takes energy to raise the head, and it also makes it easier to be spotted. As a result, animals with nostrils higher on the head would have a selective advantage.

Is the scenario I presented above true? Dogs as we know them did not exist, but animals like them did. The fossil evidence supports the changes in the paw to flipper and the migration of nostrils from the front of the muzzle to the top of the head. There's a good, easily accessable segment in the PBS Evolution series on this. I'd suggest at least watching that before making up your mind. If you'd like other sources, I'd be happy to provide you with them.

I also want to thank King of Men for the excellent explanation of kin selection and worker bees.

[ September 11, 2004, 07:12 AM: Message edited by: skeptic ]
 

---

Posted by Megan (Member # 5290) on :
 
King of Men, no matter what your feelings on evolution, American public education, and Americans in general, the example of one high school student is certainly NOT representative of the entire country. Generalization like that helps no one, and makes you look as ignorant as you seem to believe everyone in America is.

[ September 11, 2004, 07:59 AM: Message edited by: Megan ]
 

---

Posted by punwit (Member # 6388) on :
 
IvyGirl, It's my belief that religion was the precusor to science. They are both an attempt by humanity to answer questions of existence. Your position that Creation is easier to believe than evolution isn't based on reason and logic, it's based on belief (faith). I'm not decrying your right to support creationism only your assertion that those who support evolution are gullible suckers that bought into a silly illogical lie.

Edit to add that I agree with another poster in this thread that appluaded your desire to explore your world and share with us as you shape your view of the world. I would only caution that topics that are as flammable as this one be treated with a fair amount of forethought as to wording and implications prior to posting. Your implication that evolution supporters were silly and illogical ruffled alot of feathers. If you wish to avoid lambasting I suggest a more considered approach.

[ September 11, 2004, 09:17 AM: Message edited by: punwit ]
 

---

Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
 
[science] is based on observable phenomena which are testable by experiment.

So is faith.
 

---

Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
 
he left out a bit: independently testable by experiment.

Furthermore, the definition of testable is a little more rigorous (also in the scientific sense) than what I think you're using, Scott. Testable means that the experiment may be recreated by others. Can another recreate your experience with God?
 

---

Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 
Here's the thing - if the Earth did stop rotating, and by some miracle there were no inertial effects, and then it did start rotating some time later, again with miraculoulsy no inertial effects, then a person observing that from earth would probably write it down as, "The sun stopped in the sky." So no real rejection of the Bible is needed to reconcile our current understanding of the solar system and a "literal" interpretation of the Joshua verse. We often describe events from our own perspective and don't stop people from saying "sunrise" and "sunset."

The Creation story is more difficult to handle. For it to be literally true, then God would essentially have to have planted evidence. This is certainly possible. I'm sure no can deny that a God who created the world in 7 days certainly could have created animals with genetic relationships that would suggest evolution. He could have planted fossils. He could have started the universe going at a point in time and in a certain condition such that it appears to be as old as it is.

If this happened, then we have no way of knowing it, and science can never disprove it.

But even if that is the case, then evolution theory still has predictive and explanatory power for what's happened since and what might happen in the future.

Dagonee
 

---

Posted by Yozhik (Member # 89) on :
 
Thank you, skeptic.
 

---

Posted by vwiggin (Member # 926) on :
 
"Catholic conspiracy sells!"

That would explain the Da Vinci Code.
 

---

Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 
Yep.
 

---

Posted by vwiggin (Member # 926) on :
 
KOM,

I guess we just have different perceptions of what discussion forums are all about. We can all pile on Ivygirl with our "Creationism is so stupid" comments and have a good laugh about the whole thing back at Atheist Headquarters (TM). We've had tons of threads like that before and I don't think they helped anyone.

Ivygirl's view on evolution are based on what she learned in school. And as some of you pointed out, her teacher was unable to explain basic evolutionary principles.* Should we make fun of her for her teacher's mistakes? Or should we present her all the information we know (as many of you did without the rudeness) and hopefully she can make a more informed decision regarding the subject.

*To be fair, her teacher might be restricted by district rules that require presenting evolution and creationism as equally viable theories.

-Beren
 

---

Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
 
I feel no particular obligation to help Americans overcome the consequences of their faith. Let 'em eat manna. All the more actual food for the rest of us.

Comrade Megan : You will note that I put a winking smilie after my "generalise to all Americans," indicating that I did not intend to be taken entirely seriously.

Comrade Scott, for a moment I am going to argue on your premises. I think you are saying that your faith is based on your personal experiences of being close to God, and that such experiences are repeatable? Now, quite apart from not being repeatable by someone else, I would have to ask whether you can be close to God any time you feel like it. Can you flick your experience on and off like a lightbulb? If not, then it isn't repeatable even for yourself. Or did I misunderstand your argument completely? The religious mindset is so alien to me that that could easily happen.

Comrade Dagonee, you are of course correct about geocentrism and the Bible. But I was arguing with comrade Shigosei about the meaning of logic, not about exactly what the Bible says. Even so, when I suggested "a literal interpretation" as one of the things to be abandoned, I meant going over to the sort of interpretation you are talking about. The Bible does say "The Sun stopped." Certainly, you could take that as shorthand for "It looked as though the Sun stopped." But literal it ain't.
 

---

Posted by Megan (Member # 5290) on :
 
KoM, I was referring not only to that particular sentence in that particular post, but also other comments of the same posts, as well as a generally condescending attitude that you seem to adopt whenever you mention anything American. If you truly do not mean to generalize Americans as ignorant/stupid, then why make comments that seem to indicate that is your belief?

If I've mistaken your true intent, then I apologize; however, from all that I've read of you, you seem to look down on America and its citizens quite a bit.
 

---

Posted by skeptic (Member # 5273) on :
 
Scott R asserts that faith [in the Bible? or in God?] is testable by experiment. I'd be curious to know how such an experiment is designed and carried out.
 

---

Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
 
I doubt many people would be willing to share, after having our experiments bashed repeatedly in the past with arguments that don't amount to much more than "you made that up in your head, you delusional twit."

edit: To move an e.

[ September 11, 2004, 02:16 PM: Message edited by: PSI Teleport ]
 

---

Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 
On the subject of evolutionism and creationism, I never had a problem with it. When I was a kid, my parents knew I was interested in science and animals. They subscribed to a publication called "Zoobooks". Each issue focused on a particular animal type, and evolution was openly discussed. There were really cool conceptual illustrations of evolving species of animals--I remember the horse, the elephant, the whale, and one of a dinosaur turning into a bird. They were so well done! The idea of evolution seemed as natural to me as anything.

But I was also raised in a religious family where the scriptures were studied on a regular basis. I just assumed that both science and scripture were true, so they must agree with each other. I had already seen specific examples of scripture being figurative, at least in part, so I knew that was a possibility. I knew that the God I believed in doesn't tell us "everything" but only what we are ready to know and what we need for eternal salvation. I knew that God I believed in loves wisdom, learning, and intelligence--that such things are His very glory. I knew the God I believed in used natural laws--because of their truth, because of their beauty, because of what they teach, because that is the way things are deep down. It didn't concern me all that much.

So I was reading the Bible's story of creation in the KJV:

quote:

---

And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.

21 And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good....

...24 ¶ And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.

25 And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

---

So, I thought, "Evolution is true, it says so right here." That was honestly my reaction! It says that the waters brought forth life. So does Evolutionism. The process of creation is described as happening in phases progressing from the simple to the complex. So says Evolutionism also. In my mind, the two were in harmony with each other.

Just throwing that out there as my own life experiences and how my knowledge of science and religion grew together side by side.

[ September 11, 2004, 04:08 PM: Message edited by: beverly ]
 

---

Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
 
Comrade Megan, every so often I remember that I'm an adult now, and really shouldn't be chucking around general statements about entire nations. I make strong resolutions to be more forgiving of other people's foibles, and less judgmental.

And then someone like comrade IvyGirl comes along and confirms my every prejudice.

Now, it's true that not all Americans are like that. But that's not the point. One is one too many. And you've got several million! It is unworthy of a great nation to let children grow up ignorant. Any children. The percentage does not matter.

Finally, I do consider the European way of life, culture, and educational systems superior, and I will make no bones about that. If that is condescension, then I'll have to live with the label.
 

---

Posted by punwit (Member # 6388) on :
 
KofM, Surely you aren't contending that every single one of your countrymen are devoid of any beliefs that the majority of us would find objectionable or ludicrous?

Edit poor wording

[ September 11, 2004, 04:45 PM: Message edited by: punwit ]
 

---

Posted by vwiggin (Member # 926) on :
 
"And then someone like comrade IvyGirl comes along and confirms my every prejudice."

If all your prejudices can be confirmed by a few postings by one teenage girl, that says more about your prejudices than the state of American culture.

-Beren
 

---

Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
 
You are asking whether there are any Creationists in Norway? Yes, there are. Do they have influence on education policy? Hell, no.
 

---

Posted by punwit (Member # 6388) on :
 
That wasn't the point I was trying to make. You've claimed superiority of your country's ideals and way of life. You claim that you are basing your view of us based on a high school student's post. My point is that the paragon of life that you are championing has it's share of folks with beliefs that chafe just as much.
 

---

Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
 
Can you give any examples?
 

---

Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 
KoM comes across to me as being *extremely* prejudiced and bigoted. His response here seems to fit in with that perfectly.
 

---

Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
 
Now, now. Prejudiced I'll admit to. But bigoted? Did I advocate re-education camps for Americans? The dissolution of the United States into protectorates, with European control of education, foreign policy, and police authority? Harsh penalties for professing Creationist beliefs? Indeed I did not.
 

---

Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 
You believe that the religious should not procreate. You believe that the religion should be legislated against. Sound bigoted?
 

---

Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
 
Well, perhaps you've got a point at that.
 

---

Posted by punwit (Member # 6388) on :
 
KofM, I haven't the desire to spend time looking for Norwegian extremists, goofballs or idiots. If you wish to contend that there are none, I will let that stand. We both know though that this isn't the case. If you were being honest you would admit that there are folks from your country that hold to beliefs that you disagree with vehemently.

In no way should Creationists take this post as a smear. While I don't ascribe to that philosophy I refuse to denigrate those that do.

[ September 11, 2004, 05:31 PM: Message edited by: punwit ]
 

---

Posted by vwiggin (Member # 926) on :
 
If you think Americans are a bunch of losers, why are you wasting your time on a forum called "Books, Films, Food and American Culture"?


 

---

Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
 

quote:

---

If you think Americans are a bunch of losers, why are you wasting your time on a forum called "Books, Films, Food and American Culture"?

---

Because of the books, films, and food. Three out of four ain't bad. Seriously, I don't think I've said that Amerika is teh sux0r. I've said that Europe is better, in my opinion; that doesn't mean I think the US is as bad as, say, Nigeria.

punwit, how about me for an example of a Norwegian extremist? But in any case, the point I'm trying to make is that Europe certainly has its share of idiots, but they aren't in positions of influence like the Creationists in some parts of the US.

It occurs to me that I may have been letting my sense of humour get the better of me, and lure me into behaviour bordering on trolling. Or even over the border. I apologise for that. But I stand by my belief that the American education system has done very badly by comrade IvyGirl; that on average, it is not as good as the various European ones; and that the separation of Church and State is weaker here than in Europe.
 

---

Posted by skeptic (Member # 5273) on :
 
Psi Teleport wrote:

quote:

---

I doubt many people would be willing to share, after having our experiments bashed repeatedly in the past with arguments that don't amount to much more than "you made that up in your head, you delusional twit."

---

quote:

---

Furthermore, I rather doubt you'd accept a study that showed people following those strictures, controlled for the common sense ones, were equally or slightly worse off than others as suggesting there wasn't a god, so there's no falsifiability.

---

These things are subjective in nature. Repeatable, work for everyone, but subjective. I don't know how you can do an objective study on something that is subjective.

But just because something is subjective does not make it false or irrelevant.

[ September 11, 2004, 07:48 PM: Message edited by: beverly ]
 

---

Posted by vwiggin (Member # 926) on :
 
Interesting. So what is your definition of blessed?
 

---

Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 
My definition of "blessed": possessing lasting joy
 

---

Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
 
Well then, that kind of makes it hard to duplicate this experiment in any impartial way, does it? Don't get me wrong--I'm not knocking your beliefs. I wouldn't have thought that it was necessary to submit faith to experimentation, or to claim that it could be submitted to experimentation, at all. I just look at it as a personal thing. But then again, like you, I don't view faith as needing to be at odds with rationality. I mean, when I still had faith I didn't turn off my rational mind at the time.

But to suggest that faith can be tested in the same way, and then when someone tries to take the claim seriously, challenge the interpretations of every term that makes such a test performable . . .

Why bother?
 

---

Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 
Why bother? I was answering a question. I wasn't expecting the answer to be satisfying. The fact remains, it *can* be tested, and there *is* evidence.

Is it empirical? No. But evidence it is. Repeatable it is. Measurable it is not. Dectectable it is.
 

---

Posted by vwiggin (Member # 926) on :
 
Thanks for humoring me Beverly.

Would someone who live according to the word of God without believing in Him experience:

1. The same type joy that you experience.

2. The same type joy, but to a lesser degree.

3. A different, less satisfying type of joy.

4. No joy, because joy comes from believing in God.
 

---

Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 
Good question! My understanding is that anyone who keeps a law receives the blessing. The scripture I use for reference on this:

Doctrine and Covenants Section 130

20 There is a law, irrevocably decreed in heaven before the foundations of this world, upon which all blessings are predicated—
21 And when we obtain any blessing from God, it is by obedience to that law upon which it is predicated.

But since part of the law is faith, and that is missing, the blessings associated with it would be lost.
 

---

Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
 
So only people with faith can perform this experiment?

Is there any way to control for the possibility that the people with faith are deluding themselves? Any way to counter the placebo effect?

I don't want PSI (or you) to take offense. But this seems like a less than satisfactory answer. Why attempt to defend faith in this way at all?

[ September 11, 2004, 08:21 PM: Message edited by: Icarus ]
 

---

Posted by vwiggin (Member # 926) on :
 
Thanks again Beverly. That was a very clear exposition.
 

---

Posted by vwiggin (Member # 926) on :
 
*pssst* because I asked her to.
 

---

Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 
np, vwiggin. And in case anyone hasn't noticed, I *love* good questions. Thank you for asking one!

Icarus, it works just fine without the faith aspect because the other parts still hold true. If someone were a complete skeptic and were doing it purely for science, they would enjoy the same blessings as one doing it out of faith for the blessings that do not pertain to faith. These are natural laws because all the laws of God are natural. They function as does any scientific principle.

An atheist can be every bit as blessed in this life as a believer except for the principles which require actual faith.

[ September 11, 2004, 08:25 PM: Message edited by: beverly ]
 

---

Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
 
Actually, I'm referring not to your follow up, vwiggin, but to skeptic's original question (or more appropriately, Scott R's original assertion). So maybe this is more a question for Scott R, but Beverly has chosen to take up the gauntlet. I'm wondering why even attempt to compete with science on science's own terms.

EDIT: but since the definition of blessed is open to interpretation, and you pretty much get to interpret it retroactively, how does such an "experiment" go about having a control?

[ September 11, 2004, 08:28 PM: Message edited by: Icarus ]
 

---

Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 
Yes, it would be cool to hear Scott's thoughts on it. But I am a sucker for good questions and thought I would take a gander at it.

I believe that faith is not irrational. I believe it obeys the same principles that science obeys. But because we cannot see everything in our mortal state, we cannot see all the consequences and therefore not fully understand the reasons behind all God's laws. But I firmly believe there *are* reasons and they make sense.
 

---

Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
 

quote:

---

I believe that faith is not irrational. I believe it obeys the same principles that science obeys. But because we cannot see everything in our mortal state, we cannot see all the consequences and therefore not fully understand the reasons behind all God's laws. But I firmly believe there *are* reasons and they make sense.

---

quote:

---

I feel no particular obligation to help Americans overcome the consequences of their faith. Let 'em eat manna. All the more actual food for the rest of us.

---

quote:

---

btw, people talk about whether or not God "must" obey rational principals. If there is a God, I would not see Him as bound. Rather, I would see the rational as an expression of His nature and His creation.

---

I don't really see these two ideas being at odds with each other. Rather I see it as two manifestations of the same reality.

[ September 11, 2004, 09:24 PM: Message edited by: beverly ]
 

---

Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
 
If its blessed spiritually, then its hardly testable .

Also, if faith doesn't let us see the consequences, it is not scientific, though it may be rational. Science only speaks to things which we can see the consequences for (at least in an immediate theoretical sense -- that is, theoretical at one remove "if we have enough energy, we can test theory x", as opposed to "if theory x is true, then we can test theory y" or even "if theory x is true, then we can test theory x", which is pretty much what you seem to be saying bev ).
 

---

Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
 

quote:

---

Perhaps old paradigms die hard.

---

Oh, absolutely. It still gets my dander up when people attack Catholicism, too. (Only I get to do that! )
 

---

Posted by Phanto (Member # 5897) on :
 
a) Evolution is a nice theory...
b) ...but it has huge holes in it that never have been answered to my knowledge
 

---

Posted by Beren One Hand (Member # 3403) on :
 
Please share your doubts with us Phanto.
 

---

Posted by Phanto (Member # 5897) on :
 
The basis for it is very weak.

Can you even explain it to me? As far as I see, the process is supposed to take the following path:

a) A cell is randomly formed
b) That cell somehow has the ability to recreate
c) Then, through, mutations, one of the cells gain the ability to have sex
d) And it all goes from there...

That is an insanely unlikely illogical sequence.

Furthermore, there are many adaptions that make no sense, such as butterflies. Yes, I'm sure you have an "explanation" -- but it just seems so absurd.
 

---

Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 
Fugu, an interesting point. I think what I am saying is whether or not theory x is true, it can be tested. According to the results of the test, a person can see for themselves the truth of theory x. It is a test that can be conducted on a personal level, but doesn't really work any other way. My faith in theory x is strenghtened on a regular basis by repeated tests of it.

Perhaps as you say this is not science but simply a form of rational thought.
 

---

Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 
Phanto, you have cried wolf enough times I don't know whether to believe that you are earnest in your "doubts".

But I'll bite anyway.

Let's assume these are your actual doubts. The way I see it, this is where an intelligent Creator comes in. Let's assume that life happening all by itself is so crazy-unlikely that it would never happen on it's own. As likely as, say, my dinner spontaneously making itself. But if there is a guiding hand throughout the entire process, this is no longer a problem.

I understand, though, that most atheists believe that not only is it more likely to happen than my dinner spontaneously making itself, but our existance proves that it did happen by itself. From that POV, who knows how many "failed universes" and "failed terrariums" happened before one actually produced sentient life that can ask, "What am I? Where did I come from?" and "Why am I here?"
 

---

Posted by Phanto (Member # 5897) on :
 

quote:

---

Let's assume these are your actual doubts. The way I see it, this is where an intelligent Creator comes in. Let's assume that life happening all by itself is so crazy-unlikely that it would never happen on it's own. As likely as, say, my dinner spontaneously making itself. But if there is a guiding hand throughout the entire process, this is no longer a problem.

I understand, though, that most atheists believe that not only is it more likely to happen than my dinner spontaneously making itself, but our existance proves that it did happen by itself. From that POV, who knows how many "failed universes" and "failed terrariums" happened before one actually produced sentient life that can ask, "What am I? Where did I come from?" and "Why am I here?"

---

So your belief in Evolution is an offshoot of your belief in God? As I do not have, however, a belief in God, that same process won't work for me.
 

---

Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 
Phanto, perhaps you can take it as evidence that there is indeed a God, or at least some intelligent force that guided evolution? Aliens maybe?
 

---

Posted by Phanto (Member # 5897) on :
 
Take what as evidence? That there isn't a good explanation for initial cell formation and the start of evolution?
 

---

Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 
Is there? I don't know. Alls I'm saying is if there isn't a good explaination, the other still works.
 

---

Posted by Beren One Hand (Member # 3403) on :
 
Which butterfly adaptation theories bother you. Is it because they have bright colors that are easily seen by the human eye?
 

---

Posted by Rappin' Ronnie Reagan (Member # 5626) on :
 
Phanto, how life originated has nothing to do with evolution. You're confusing evolution with other theories.
 

---

Posted by Phanto (Member # 5897) on :
 
From what I know, the evolution theory starts from the start...with life forming randomly then evolving from there...

Beren: While the bright colors may a confusing point for some people, I'm more concerned with the 2 stage lifestyle.
 

---

Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 
Don't most insects have a 2 stage lifestyle?
 

---

Posted by Rappin' Ronnie Reagan (Member # 5626) on :
 
Phanto, no, the theory of evolution says nothing about how life originated.
 

---

Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
 
There are lots of different theories for how life starts, and none of them start out with a cell. Even the most 'primitive' organisms around today are the end product of two billion years of evolution, and fine-tuned beyond belief compared to whatever the earlist life was.

One possibility is simple, common clay. Clay occasionally forms geometric patterns (on the microscopic level); when a new layer of silt is deposited on top of the pattern, it follows the form laid out for it. Sometimes the top layer breaks off, and the process can start anew in other places. You can easily imagine some patterns forming faster and breaking off more often - hey presto, a reproductive advantage. To get life as we know it, just note that the early Earth is full of organic gunk, and organic molecules are excellent at forming complex patterns. Complex patterns are the default state of carbon compounds. Just let them be deposited on top of, or together with, the clay, and you have the required organisation as well.

That's one possibility; there are many others. But what they have in common is that they do not start with a cell, which as you quite rightly point out is way too complex. "Omnia celluli e cellula," but you are allowed more primitive precursors.

Incidentally, you say "that cell somehow has the ability to procreate" as though it were an incredibly complex business. I'd like to point out that crystals can do that much. It doesn't have to procreate the way a modern cell does it - if nothing else, it's got the vastly organic-rich environment of the young Earth to draw on. A modern cell in that environment would go "Woo-hoo! Free food!" and explode into action; ten minutes later there'd be a sea of fat, happy-looking bacteria. Which would then turn on each other in an orgy of cannibalism. The point I'm making, however, is that it's not actually that difficult to make a copy of a sufficiently primitive organism. Especially when you consider that it doesn't have to be a good copy; as long as there are enough copies that at least one has preserves the ability to make further copies. The thing about life is that it only needs the most tenuous of footholds to take off.

Sex, I admit, is more complex. In fact, speaking now as a physicist, I'm not ashamed to admit that I haven't quite figured it out yet. I don't know what the current theory is here. Just off the top of my head, though, I wonder if we can appeal to primitiveness again? Early organisms didn't have the sharp distinction between 'inside' and 'outside' that modern ones do. So, whatever they used for genetic information, it would be easy for them to swap it. Hey presto - bacterial sex.

The final point I'd like to make is time. Humans have intuitions for what is likely on timescales of, at most, tens of years. So if you say 'it seems pretty unlikely that such-and-such will happen in my lifetime,' I might well agree with you - your intuition is probably good. But the Earth's lifespan is measured in the thousands of millions of years. Neither of us can really understand that number, nor is our intuition developed for it. So when you say, "it seems pretty unlikely to me," you are talking gobbledegook. Your sense of what is likely or not just doesn't apply on such a length of time. You would have to run the numbers to get some sense of what the probabilities are; an exercise for which neither of us is equipped.

By the way, and just out of curiosity : Suppose someone managed to produce life in the lab, from nothing but organic molecules. Suppose further, for the sake of argument, that it's repeatable, several different labs can also do it, and you've watched the process yourself to make sure they're not cheating. Would you accept that as proof of abiogenesis? Because if you would, you may have to get ready for a change in world-view in the next thirty years or so.
 

---

Posted by Phanto (Member # 5897) on :
 
You post a lot of interesting stuff. I don't have the time to post a reply that is worthwhile, so I'll defer replying for now.
 

---

Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 
KoM, cool post. Ambiogenesis is a cool subject and one I am interested in discussing. I have a question in my mind I am trying to think how to articulate this idea properly.

I guess I have always been fascinated with DNA. Not just with it's ability to replicate. If DNA all by itself were a form of life, that would not be so incredible. It is the way that DNA is able to encode the information for creating an organism in which it resides. Amazing! I really wonder how that system in particular could develop on their own.

Or like viruses. It is debatable whether they are a form of "life" or not. But how do you get a strand of DNA strapped inside of a casing that it has the information to recreate?

If a scientist could cause the above things in a lab I would be pretty amazed/blown away. If it were repeatable--not just a one-time fluke--that would be even more amazing.

But what I really would be fascinated by is not just a mapping of genes in the DNA of an organism, but the actual understanding of the mechanisms and processes going on. This is something I would soooo love to understand. It seems like such a mystery to me.
 

---

Posted by Ralphie (Member # 1565) on :
 
I know we're talkin' evolution, yo, can ya diggit... but I still think my MST3k Chick parodies were da bomb.

Yo.
 

---

Posted by Vera (Member # 2094) on :
 
As others have pointed out, it should be stressed that evolution and the origin of life are two seperate things. The evolution as a mechanism of change and speciation is very well documented and understood (though we are constantly finding out more and filling in the gaps of specific cases) and should be considered as "proven" as anything ever is in science.

The origin of life, however, is pretty much still up in the air. There are alot of theories, some of which have some decent evidence, but we are still a long way from being able to definitely say how it happened.

Anyone interested in the origin of life should check out the RNA World hypothesis which is really in vogue at the moment.

Beverly, most biologists do not consider viruses to be alive, but they are good examples of non-living things that can mimic most (but not all) of the properties of life. It may interest you that scientists have actually built a functioning poliovirus out of basic building blocks.

quote:

---

The team of three virologists at the State University of New York, Stony Brook, used genomic data available on the Internet and materials from a mail-order chemical supply company. "The reason we did it was to prove that it can be done and it is now a reality," said researcher Eckard Wimmer.

---

quote:

---

To create the virus, the researchers first assembled single nucleotide bases into DNA based on the virus' known genetic sequence. An enzyme then transcribed the DNA into the single-stranded RNA genome. The virus could then replicate itself naturally.

A variety of experiments on cell cultures and in mice confirmed that the artificial virus was almost identical to the natural one. It invaded cells and reproduced the same way, and it was inhibited by the same antibody. These results confirm that the data describing the chemical structure and genetic sequence of the natural virus, published more than two decades ago, were accurate.

---

quote:

---

I guess I have always been fascinated with DNA. Not just with it's ability to replicate. If DNA all by itself were a form of life, that would not be so incredible. It is the way that DNA is able to encode the information for creating an organism in which it resides. Amazing! I really wonder how that system in particular could develop on their own.

---

Ok, Bev, first of all let me say how perceptive you are! That is a problem that plagued molecular biologists for years. One of the reasons the RNA World hypothesis seems so convincing at the moment is that it actually deals with this problem.

Basicly the problem is this:
The central dogma* of molecular biology states that the information flow in living cells goes DNA->RNA->protein. DNA is the long term storage media that is passed down. DNA is transcribed into RNA, which can be regarded as the short term working memory of the cell. RNA is then translated into proteins, including enzymes, which actually do the work of the cell. There are certain enzymes that are responsible for replicating the DNA.
The problem for the origin of life is that for this to work you need all three. You can't replicate or transcribe DNA without enzymes (proteins) and you can't make the enzymes without the DNA that codes for them. It seems impossibly complicated that this system could have arisen in one step, and yet the parts can't function on their own.

This is where RNA World comes to the rescue. It has been known for years that RNA can act as a genetic material on it's own without the need for DNA ( as in RNA viruses). In 1986 it was discovered that RNA could also catalyze chemical reactions. The discovery that RNA could act as both an information AND a catalytic molecule, gave rise to the RNA world theory, which suggests that RNA filled both of these roles in early life.

*Yeah, I know, it's weird that biology actually has something called the "central dogma." It is NOT dogma in the religious sense of a postive statement of belief. The reason it has that freaky name is because Francis Crick was a brilliant scientist, but not much of a linguist. Crick didn't know what the word dogma actually meant and thought it meant "something that is not proven." When he intoduced the central dogma he was actually saying "I think that information flow in all cells works like this, but I can't prove it." Unfortunately, the name stuck. Biologists are well aware of the exceptions to the "dogma" and are not troubled by them.
The only time I, personally have ever been troubled by anything relating to the central dogma, is when playing the Molecular Biology Drinking Game, because the phrase gets used so damn much and every time someone says it you have to take a drink.

Edit: Ok, one more thing and then I'm going to bed.

quote:

---

I have a question in my mind I am trying to think how to articulate this idea properly...
It is the way that DNA is able to encode the information for creating an organism in which it resides. Amazing!
.............
Or like viruses. It is debatable whether they are a form of "life" or not. But how do you get a strand of DNA strapped inside of a casing that it has the information to recreate?
...................
But what I really would be fascinated by is not just a mapping of genes in the DNA of an organism, but the actual understanding of the mechanisms and processes going on. This is something I would soooo love to understand. It seems like such a mystery to me.

---

Actually, if I am interpreting your question correctly, this is something we know alot about! The chemical processes that go from DNA->RNA->protein are well characterized. And gene expression (how and when certain genes are turned on and off, and how you get from DNA->phenotype) has been studied quite a bit. If you want I could try to explain a bit of it, or try to lay out what we already know and what we don't, or if you have a specific question that that might help, I would be happy to answer.

I generally stay away from evolution arguments and I have no interest in trying to convince anyone of anything, but (in case you couldn't tell ) I LOVE talking about molecular biology to anyone who is genuinely interested.

[ September 12, 2004, 05:20 AM: Message edited by: Vera ]
 

---

Posted by punwit (Member # 6388) on :
 
KofM, I must admit that decisions like the one my home state (Kansas) made, leave me scratching my head over our vaunted separation of church and state.

I'm not sure one should blame the state for an individuals personal beliefs. Also, as Geoffrey pointed out in another thread, there is an incumbent responsability as a parent to monitor and refine (or refute if necessary) your child's schooling. My daughter didn't suffer from the silly (in my view) decision to remove evolution from the curriculum. We picked up the slack here at home.

In regards to your belief that you may have stepped over the line . I got the sense you were sorta debating just to debate when you asked me to find examples of Norwegian crackpots. That didn't really bother me I just declined to take the bait. I find myself agreeing with you on many points and fussing over the finer ones.

My major beef at this point is your blunt handling of IvyGirl. I realize you don't know her but I do and I like and respect her and her mother. As a friend I can disagree with her viewpoint but still wish to defend her from harsh vitriol, which your post was.

Mozoltov comrade KoM

[ September 12, 2004, 04:06 AM: Message edited by: punwit ]
 

---

Posted by skeptic (Member # 5273) on :
 
Beverly,
I did the assigned reading. The problem is that I have no faith. My ground is barren. What I need is evidence that requires no faith. I see now that we are using the word “experiment” differently. I want an experiment in the scientific sense. One with multiple samples, controls, and independently observable, measurable phenomena. Alma does not use the word in this sense.

You wrote:

quote:

---

Is it empirical? No. But evidence it is. Repeatable it is. Measurable it is not. Dectectable it is.

---

quote:

---

If someone were a complete skeptic and were doing it purely for science, they would enjoy the same blessings as one doing it out of faith for the blessings that do not pertain to faith.

---

quote:

---

I'm wondering why even attempt to compete with science on science's own terms.

---

quote:

---

I believe that faith is not irrational. I believe it obeys the same principles that science obeys.

---

quote:

---

For me, the problem is that I would like to believe. I want to have eternal life. I want to see my grandfather again. Knowing that I am extremely biased, I have to try to avoid my emotion-based bias. If I do not do this, I risk believing something that is not true. I can’t lie to myself.

---

*nod*
 

---

Posted by punwit (Member # 6388) on :
 
If you read my first post in response I'm sure you could see that I was less than supportive of her wording. I was hoping that you could see the brashness of youth as being to blame and perhaps remember what you were like at that age. Perhaps a dose of vitriol will help drive home the advantage of considering her wording more carefully.
 

---

Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
 
There's also the fact that in your perhaps appropriately indignant response to her words, you slandered the whole lot of us who are American, particularly those who, like me and Elizabeth, are American teachers.
 

---

Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
 
Hmm. I intended to slander the American school system. If you feel it slopped over onto American teachers, I'm sorry about that.
 

---

Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 
Oooo, fun! I come back to Hatrack and find fun and interesting posts to greet me.

Vera, I want to say how much I appreciate the information on microbiology. I strongly considered majoring in microbiology in college because I have always been so fascinated by it. But my problem is that a lot of things fascinate me, and I had to pick *something*. I also was seriously considering majoring in illustration, graphic design, or fine art. So I picked Speech Pathology because it happened to include so many of the things I loved at once: child development, psychology, anatomy, physiology, linguistics, humanitarian service, etc. Anyway, that's just a tangent.

I haven't taken the time to read the theory about RNA yet, but I plan to! From what you have explained about it, it does sound promising for explaining biogenesis.

Skeptic, I respect your skepticism. While I have faith, I am also somewhat a skeptic myself. It is one of the reasons I choose to approach faith from a rational angle (which bothers Icarus and many others, I am sure.) I figure things of a metaphysical nature are still part of the same universe as the things that we experience and therefore must agree with it, even if we can't see how they agree with our limited perspective. I assume that while there are some aspects of my faith that will remain mysterious to me at this time, much of it will actually make sense.

I am thinking of the theory of relativity and the theory of quantum mechanics. One works best on very large scales with large distances, the other on very small scales with small distances. Both work best in frames of reference outside our day to day experience. But we have developed the means to measure things much bigger than us as well as things much smaller than us, and our observations are usually consistent.

But as things stand now, quantum mechanics and relativity don't really jive. We have some "out there" theories that show promise of uniting the two, like String Theory and M-Theory, but they are as-of-now incomplete or without much supporting evidence. They also describe a reality far more complex than originally imagined. We are left with no choice but to look at the situation and say, "We don't fully understand the nature of the universe".

And then something totally whacked comes along like this mysterious "force" that seems to be causing all matter in the universe to fly away from each other at exponentially faster and faster speeds. If that isn't the darnest thing... but it is observed so it must reflect reality. Do we understand what is happening? No. It just serves to show us that there is still much to be understood.

So what the heck am I rambling about? I guess I am trying to create an analogy. I believe that metaphysical matters operate on the same principles as the physical ones we can observe--but as relativity and quantum mechanics are difficult to reconcile with our current understanding, so metaphysical and physical matters may be also.

This is why I believe some of God's laws appear to defy human reasoning while others are simple common sense. The common sense one's don't impress us much, because we say, "I could have come to that conclusion on my own". We can see the results and that they are good. For others, the results are less demonstratable and therefore require more faith to follow. It is my personal belief that what may be common sense to one human being seems like rubbish to another. So for me to divide which of God's laws fit into the common sense category and which fall into the requiring-faith category might apply well to me but not so well to another.

So what you have asked me to do is difficult--you have requested that I provide laws to test that are from God that do not require faith to follow. I can provide some examples, but they may not fit the bill. In fact, you may be able to come up with some better than I because you know yourself.

But I will suggest some, because you so graciously asked me to. First and foremost, I would like to mention the law of love. We are told in scripture that of all laws, this is the greatest. Well, techically, we are told that the greatest is love of God. But since you do not believe in God, let's modify that a bit. Let's call it a love of Truth. You have expressed your love of truth already. You do not desire to believe something that is false.

So the second law that is "like unto it" is loving your fellow man. Let's call this love "charity"--not as in the giving of alms, but as in unconditional love. This is a law that is difficult to live perfectly, but if one is striving to live it, they will still receive great blessings. What are the natural consequences of loving others? One thing is that we are not going to be selfish when we are feeling this love. We will not be focused on our needs--or what we *thought* were our needs. We will feel happier, more hopeful, and more optomistic. We will be more likely to create good things around us, and good will be more likely to return to us. Karma, if you will.

To illustrate an example of how small and simple things can make a big difference, let's use an example from my life as a mother. If I am stern with my child for my own selfish gratification, the effects will be different than if I am stern with my child out of love for my child, out of the pure desire to teach my child--knowing that at this moment, being stern will teach them wisdom. The differences are sublte, and probably not measurable scientifically, but they will make a difference in that child's life. If I am often possessed of the first motive, the child will learn that they can not trust me to act in their best interest. If I am often possessed of the second motivation, the child will learn that they can trust me. Discipline will not be so bitter because the child will know it is only given for just reasons. Because of my love, amongst discipline, mercy will shine through and the child will learn that mercy is a virtue.

But since love is a difficult one to tackle in a short period of time, let's focus on something more concrete. The "love" law still needs to be a part of this experiment since the scripture says in 1 Cor. 13: 2 "And though I have the gift of prophecy, and understand all mysteries, and all knowledge; and though I have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, and have not charity, I am nothing." So while you may not be able to live it perfectly, the effort still needs to be there.

So, let's look at the 10 commandments. One of them says "do not bear false witness". Based on other scripture and the words of modern-day prophets, I take this to mean basic honesty. In other words, when you speak, speak the truth. This matches well with the first great law, which for you right now is "love of Truth". What would some of the natural blessings be to following this rule? Trust from others, peace of heart, integrity, courage, self-esteem, among others.

Some details on how to live this law: don't just refrain from large falsehoods, avoid telling even white lies. Be honest in matters of money. Give that which is due. Do not rationalize. Remember, being honest does not necessarily mean walking up to someone and saying, "You are fat". It is possible to be honest *and* tactful (remembering the law of love). It is always valid to decline to answer a question or speak because you cannot answer it honestly and still be acting with love.

Let me know if you think this is an appropriate experiment. Feel free to suggest another in it's place.
 

---

Posted by IanO (Member # 186) on :
 
Paul Davies has a book out called "The 5th Miracle" about the very subject of biogenesis. Very interesting. It was all about the current theories for how "life" first developed- the whole process of reproduction- before any Darwinian natural selection could then proceed to develop that living cell into larger organisms.

His belief is that there are some inherent laws in the physical structure of universe that assist in this despite the problems that the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics would pose (and he goes over in detail that despite the fact the evolution would not contradict the 2nd law, there are specific information theory issues that make it a real issue- organization of contextual and specific (i.e.: pseudo-random enough to describe complex structures, yet still a miniscule subset of truly random) information. Just mentioned that to avoid the whole 'this doesn't violate 2nd law' debate.) His book really emphasized the problems with modern biogenesis theories, including the RNA world, and how they don't really account for the transition from "hardware" driven (proteins) to "software" (coded storage like DNA or RNA) when it comes to replication paradigms.

He was not advocating any kind of special creation, by any means. He believes it was a natural process, despite the immense odds. But that there must be many elements, and even nuances of physical laws, that favor such formations. He basically relates the beginning of the universe to the beginning of life.

Very very interesting. I encourage people to read it.

Ian

[ September 13, 2004, 03:04 PM: Message edited by: IanO ]
 

---

Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 

quote:

---

His belief is that there are some inherent laws in the physical structure of universe that assist in this despite the problems that the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics would pose.

---

This makes me think of science fiction. In some speculative fiction, the universe is full of worlds teeming with life. In others, the universe is relatively empty of life except for that originating on earth. (Dune comes to mind--at least as far as sentient life is concerned.)

Then you've got the Star Trek and other universes where the universe is not just set up to create life, but to create bipedal "humanoid" life.

Of course, part of that could just be to avoid big budget costs.
 

---

Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
 

quote:

---

It is one of the reasons I choose to approach faith from a rational angle (which bothers Icarus and many others, I am sure.)

---

quote:

---

Therefore, any benefits you see from following them can be attributed to the fact that they are inherently beneficial, and not to the actual existence of God.

---

quote:

---

You'd also have to get Christians to purposely violate those laws, which would be problematic in and of itself.

---

quote:

---

While there is an axiom that says "honesty is the best policy", most secularly minded people do not fully hold with it. Most secularly minded people say, well, be honest on the important matters, but sometimes it is in your best interest to not tell the truth.

---

quote:

---

Laws are not "black and white". That is where love comes in.

---

When the choice is between two evils, you choose the less evil. I would apply the same logic to killing or abortion. I see no inconsistency there.
 

---

Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 
Certainly my faith values honesty. But I'm assuming your faith would allow you to kill the invaders if they truly threatened you, right? If your choice were lying, killing, or dying, which would you pick and why?

Dagonee
Edit: I think we cross-posted.

[ September 13, 2004, 05:34 PM: Message edited by: Dagonee ]
 

---

Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 
Yeah. I think we agree, Dag. My scripture makes it clear that when we are defending our families and liberties, we are justified in war. I assume this applies to killing in certain circumstances.

Dude, if someone threatened my family that way, I wouldn't hesitate to kill them! Or, at least, I like to think I wouldn't.

[ September 13, 2004, 05:39 PM: Message edited by: beverly ]
 

---

Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
 
Bev, I think you are being extremely unfair to those agnostic/atheists on this board and elsewhere who have ethical systems absent a notion of deity. They exist, and KOM is not their representative.

edit: should have said “not necessarily their representative” or “not their sole representative.”

[ September 13, 2004, 05:57 PM: Message edited by: dkw ]
 

---

Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 
Bev, I'm assuming you would lie first if that could save your family without killing, wouldn't you?
 

---

Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 

quote:

---

They exist, and KOM is not their representative.

---

That is certainly true.

*sigh*

I must wait for skeptic to suggest a better experiment.
 

---

Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 
Dag, yeah.
 

---

Posted by punwit (Member # 6388) on :
 
I must chime in to say thank you dkw. While I realize that I am far from perfect I feel deeply that I follow the golden rule quite well. I resent the implication that religion gives anyone a caveat to say, "I am a better person than you are."
 

---

Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 
punwit: And I firmly believe that anyone who embraces and follows good principles (which I believe are from God, but I understand others don't) will be blessed by so doing. There is no caveat for a religious person to say "I am better than you are".

But how do you separate the laws of God from man's varied moral codes? Certainly people disagree on points of God's laws just as people disagree on personal moral codes. Perhaps you cannot separate the two.

[ September 13, 2004, 06:12 PM: Message edited by: beverly ]
 

---

Posted by punwit (Member # 6388) on :
 
beverly,

quote:

---

Here is my reasoning. Just as KoM believes that there is no higher authority and therefore it is up to the majority of mankind to decide what is moral and what isn't in regards to abortion, those who don't believe in a higher authority don't see a need to be honest in every detail--particularly in matters that are highly unlikely to be discovered. Innocent "white lies" fall into this category.

One who believes in a higher authority often believes that there will be a final judgement and that they are being watched. Even their secret acts are known. Again, I cannot speak for other religions, but the church to which I belong believes in being truly honest in all matters--secret or not. It is something we are encouraged to strive for and search our souls concerning. I expect there are other denominations that ask the same of their members.

---

quote:

---

As a non-religious person I uphold many of the tenements of varied religions and do so without the threat of being found out.

---

::calls the housing authority::


 

---

Posted by punwit (Member # 6388) on :
 
Icarus, Isn't there a definition that includes religious doctrine?

Edit: see earlier groveling.

[ September 13, 2004, 07:05 PM: Message edited by: punwit ]
 

---

Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 
Well, we're supposed to house the homeless.

Dagonee
 

---

Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 

quote:

---

As a non-religious person I uphold many of the tenements of varied religions and do so without the threat of being found out. Does this make me more moral or religious than someone that upholds those tenements because they feel they are constantly under scrutiny?

---

quote:

---

I have been taught that loving God and loving one's fellow man are intrinsically linked. You cannot do one without doing the other.

---

quote:

---

Just as KoM believes that there is no higher authority and therefore it is up to the majority of mankind to decide what is moral and what isn't in regards to abortion, those who don't believe in a higher authority don't see a need to be honest in every detail--particularly in matters that are highly unlikely to be discovered.

---

quote:

---

According to Kant’s system, there are certain ways of acting that are always wrong, categorically wrong for any person, at any time, in any society. For example, it is always wrong to make a false promise, a promise which you do not intend to keep. When you make a false promise, you are acting on a principle that could not be adopted by everyone. It is absolutely impossible for everyone to adopt and act on a principle of making false promises; if everyone did, no one would trust anyone else, or believe that they would honour their promises. False promising would be impossible, because no one would accept your promise. When you make a false promise, you are relying on other people honestly keeping their promises; you are treating yourself as an exception.

If you lie to someone, or make a promise that you do not intend to keep, you treat others as means, not as ends. You may be lying to that person to benefit yourself, in which case you are certainly using him as a means. But for Kant, lying is wrong whatever reason you have for the lie. Kant is deeply opposed to utilitarian theories, according to which lying to someone to make him happier is entirely justified. Even if you are trying to benefit the person to whom you are lying by shielding him from the harsh truth, you are treating that person in a way to which he could not give consent. Lying to someone is trying to deceive them, trying to give them false beliefs about what you are really doing. On Kant’s view, that cannot be right.[italics added]

---

quote:

---

Just as KoM believes that there is no higher authority and therefore it is up to the majority of mankind to decide what is moral and what isn't in regards to abortion, those who don't believe in a higher authority don't see a need to be honest in every detail--particularly in matters that are highly unlikely to be discovered.[italics added]

---

She references KoM, but the conclusion drawn is not based on those who believe as KoM does, but on "those who don't believe in a higher authority", namely that they therefore "don't see a need to be honest in every detail."

That isn't a criticism levelled against KoM. It's a criticism levelled against the possibility of integrity, forthrightness, and ethical behavior of all those who lack faith in a higher power.

It pretty directs translates as "If you don't believe in God, you are a person who will lie if you can get away with it."

I think I should take a break from Hatrack for a little while. Goodness knows, I would not want to insult anyone here, and I think the extent of my courtesy isn't quite broad enough for equanimity in this just right now.

[ September 14, 2004, 09:23 PM: Message edited by: Sara Sasse ]
 

---

Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 
Sara, I agree that that's what Bev said. My post was meant to say that the conclusion was edit: (one reasonable conclusion) based on what KoM posted. The expansion to others was not.

Dagonee

[ September 14, 2004, 09:28 PM: Message edited by: Dagonee ]
 

---

Posted by Sara Sasse (Member # 6804) on :
 
I'll leave y'all for the night after a recommendation for Sissela Bok's Lying: Moral Choice in Public and Private Life and an encouragement to take a glance at the wealth of research on lying behavior.

I'm assuming that this all is not based on the premise that if the word "God" isn't in a claim, someone cannot be really taking that claim seriously -- because that would be really quite unteneble.

G'night. I have a grindstone to put my shoulder back against, as deadlines for work always press. Sleep tight, all.
 

---

Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
 
I don't know how to say this, so I'm just going to say it: I think you are way over reacting to what she said, Sara. And this isn't the first time you've become really distressed by something someone wrote to the point that you had to leave for a while.

She didn't make a personal attack against you. For my money, Beverly is one of the nicest, politest people on this board. She just believes differently than you do. So what? If she's wrong, say why she's wrong and accept the fact that she hasn't had your experiences in life and doesn't see things as you do rather than flipping out. Jebus.

If all that graduate school has left you with the inability to talk to people who are edit: might be misinformed or wrong, I feel for you.

[ September 14, 2004, 09:44 PM: Message edited by: Storm Saxon ]
 

---

Posted by Sara Sasse (Member # 6804) on :
 
Thanks, Dagonee, again. Fervently -- it is a delight to know you.
 

---

Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
 
The Sissela Bok book is the one I was referring to earlier. I couldn't find my copy, though, and couldn't remember how to spell her name.
 

---

Posted by Sara Sasse (Member # 6804) on :
 
Sax, I don't insinuate that other people must be liars, unless I know they lie. I also don't assume that those who don't share my worldview must be tainted in the quality of the lives they are able to live. It isn't the way I was raised, it isn't the way I think, and it isn't the way I treat other people. Maybe you don't mind being called a liar of convenience by implication. That's cool. I do, though.

You know, I've blown up once on Hatrack. Just once since I began posting in 2000 -- and really, I'd defy anyone to recollect otherwise. One time when I was upset enough to specifically back away, not out of joking about becoming too risque, but only one other time for the reason that it became overwhelmingly negative experience. This isn't the first time, but it is certainly rare by anyone's standards.

I'm not surprised you point it out, though, as the other time was quite recent. Perhaps the proximity says something important about me and where I am in my life right now, and that might well be an important thing for me to consider for myself. I'm sure that had I slept on this before posting, I would have posted differently. Or maybe not. Who knows? It is something to think on, as is your comment. I will certainly do so.

Regardless, it is useful to take time away if one is becoming emotional. The other time I decided to do that, I did it quietly and without announcement. That backfired. So it seems appropriate to do this explicitly, rather.

To be clear: this thread became troubling. I'm not in the habit of encouraging negativity in my life, whether it were to come from within me (say, an overreaction), or without, or some mix. If it smells unhealthy, then it isn't good food, at least for now. So I'm fine, I will be fine, I'll come back whenever it is a good thing for me to do so, and there you have it. Who knows what a good night's sleep will do.

quote:

---

For my money, Beverly is one of the nicest, politest people on this board.

---

quote:

---

If all that graduate school has left you with the inability to talk to people who are edit: might be misinformed or wrong, I feel for you.

---

Grad school exposes someone to the study (techniques, history, and resources) of a particular area. It doesn't prepare one for everyday interpersonal interactions of the difficult sort, at least it is not designed to do so.

I'll take any faults of character straight onto my own back, thank you kindly. That's where they belong.

[ September 14, 2004, 10:32 PM: Message edited by: Sara Sasse ]
 

---

Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
 
If I could just interrupt for a moment : I really don't see a need to be absolutely honest in all possible matters. In my defence, neither does anyone else. Come on, Christians are going to give up white lies? To keep a promise, to not lie maliciously, to return wrong change : Yes, those I believe in, more or less for the reasons Kant does, plus a spot of game theory which he didn't have.
 

---

Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
 

quote:

---

In my defence, neither does anyone else.

---

quote:

---

She is, though, saying that those who don't carry her sort of faith can't really be good people.

---

quote:

---

quote: They exist, and KOM is not their representative.

That is certainly true.

*sigh*

---

quote:

---

unwit: And I firmly believe that anyone who embraces and follows good principles (which I believe are from God, but I understand others don't) will be blessed by so doing. There is no caveat for a religious person to say "I am better than you are".

---

quote:

---

If you do a better job of following your conscience than someone who is a religious individual, you will be better off.

---

Look, I respect you and generally like you, Sara. I probably overreacted myself in my last post, and I'm sorry. It's just that I like threads like this, and hurt feelings often lead to people not posting in stuff like this again. I can see both you and Beverly basically withdrawing from non 'fluff' threads, and I don't want that. Bad! We have at least three of four other members who used to be regular posters on threads like this who have stopped posting in threads like this completely because they get tired of getting their feelings hurt and hurting other people's feelings.

Written communication being what it is, feelings are going to get hurt, whether we will or no, but it seems to me that people do have some choice in whether they let their feelings get hurt. At least, fully. Speaking for myself, when I think someone on this board has angered or saddened me, I ask them for elaboration, or tell them. Normally, most people on this board will bend over backwards to rewrite what they said, or to meet someone half way, so that the need for hurt feelings is not there anymore. Beverly has done this, it seems to me, in the above quotes.

Rather than immediately get upset, or leave, why not wait to hear what she has to say to what you wrote? Isn't that the proper thing to do?

This all has been very difficult for me to write. I've tried to be as diplomatic as possible. I hope I have succeeded in not pissing you off any more. And I have, just let me know.

[ September 14, 2004, 10:42 PM: Message edited by: Storm Saxon ]
 

---

Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 
Wow, I am honestly surprised at the reactions I have received here. I think I must have not spoken very well when so many people take offense.

I did not mean to say that if someone doesn't believe in God they are automatically going to be dishonest. All I am saying is that if they don't believe in God, that is a reasonable code of morality for them to come to accept and act upon. They can also arrive upon a morality that includes perfect honesty. My point was, they *decide* for themselves what is moral and what isn't. King of Men has arrived at his own personal code, punwit has arrived at another, and Sara perhaps another.

If you are a person that believes in a Supreme Being, quite often you also believe in a specific moral law as described by scripture. So instead of searching out what your personal moral code is, you turn to scripture for that code. That is what I do. But, of course, I use my own inner "compass" to guide me also. Certainly I don't try to use the Bible to justify killing people who don't believe as I do as some in the past might have done. (I don't know if that is what they did or not, this is a hypothetical.)

Again, please accept my sincere apology for offense or sweeping judgements. I think I made a huge mistake in what I said. Please understand that I do not believe that atheists and agnostics are immoral people. My *only* point is that if they *are* moral they will be blessed for it just as a "believer" is blessed.
 

---

Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
 
KOM:

quote:

---

Right down to little white lies like "Of course your bum doesn't look big in that"?

---

quote:

---

I'm not sure I understand your position. Are you saying that I have no choice in the matter? That I just haven't been properly introduced to God? It sounds like you are saying that there is no way for me to love my fellow man without love of God. That I am either deluded about my appreciation of my fellow man or that I love God and am unaware that I do. I'm not ridiculing you I just find that viewpoint a bit presumptive.

---

Sorry, I didn't know it sounded presumptive. I honestly believe what I said, that the two are linked. I don't know what your beliefs about God are, but I believe that someday you (and everyone) will meet Him. That is my belief, I am not trying to pass it off as fact.

So, hypothetically, if you met this God I believe in, would you like Him or hate Him? I am saying that it is my belief that if you are a moral and loving person, you would love what God is when you come in contact with it.

It's like me saying, hey, you like chocolate? Oh man, you are going to *love* this one recipe I've got.... You may taste it and say, "gross, I don't like cake. Not only do I not like cake, I don't like warm, mushy cake." And I would say, "Oh, sorry, I guess I was wrong."

Does that still sound presumptuous?
 

---

Posted by Sara Sasse (Member # 6804) on :
 
[Storm Saxon:] Nah, I'm cool. And I like you too, still, just as I like beverly.

It's a topic I'm particularly sensitive to, and it happens to have come up during a time when I'm particularly sensitive. Although I grew up in a verrry religious family, I don't carry that sort of faith anymore, which has all sorts of personal family fallout, as you can imagine.

But, you know, there's a reason I don't live in Indiana anymore. I also send holiday cards instead of visiting. But Hatrack is sort of a home, and the mindset that one who is not of faith cannot be as good a person as those who are is unsettling among friends. [And expressing beliefs about the character of those whom you address is quite different from expressing beliefs about ideas, or actions, or things.] I think I expected it when I came to the board (knowing of the LDS affiliation of many), was -- over years -- delighted to find otherwise, and then, well ... I've tried as hard as I can to be a good person my whole life. I really have. And at some point, in some contexts, that doesn't really matter. Wouldn't be so painful if it weren't home, you know?

Even so, it wouldn't matter so acutely if it weren't in the context of a homeland which is visibly changing to be more religious and thus less likely to be supportive of those who don't carry the faith. That really unnerves me, and I follow current events with an eye cocked for the progression. It transfers. I wish I felt more settled about it, but I don't.

First Home, then Virtual Home, then Homeland. Not anyone here's concern, really, and certainly a lot more about what goes on within me than without -- but still, life is an individual experience, and incidents matter, and they affect our personal narratives. Apparently my personal narrative is getting all leaky onto other people.

quote:

---

We have at least three of four other members who used to be regular posters on threads like this who have stopped posting in threads like this completely because they get tired of getting their feelings hurt and hurting other people's feelings.

---

quote:

---

Rather than immediately get upset, or leave, why not wait to hear what she has to say to what you wrote? Isn't that the proper thing to do?

---

The proper thing to do is to do the best one can, given what one has, in a given situation. I'll leave it at the note that I'm happy beverly's daughter is okay, I think she draws a mean elf princess ( ), and I think she is a polite and nice person who I hope to chat with again sometime -- and an apology for being touchy, with a promise to address it as best I can so it doesn't happen again. And a reiteration that I like you too, Sax. No hard feelings.

No lie.

But the rest I'll do on my own, by myself, in my own time. That's the best I have to offer, so there it is.

[ September 15, 2004, 12:00 AM: Message edited by: Sara Sasse ]
 

---

Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
 
Regarding the shifting demographics of this country, I very much understand and empathize with how you feel, Sara. I've voiced the same concerns myself a time or two.
 

---

Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 

 

---

Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
 
Sigh.
 

---

Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
 
bev,
To me, you seem to have a pattern of equating secular with "bad as an axiomatic thing. Perhaps this is not true, but that's really how it comes across to me.

I also think that you are a nice person who tries to do her best, but this seems to me to be an obstacle that you have. Again, maybe I'm wrong.

You might benefit from deeply considering your attitude towards non-religious people. I'd suggest that you do a search for your username and the word secular here to review the attitudes that you've expressed about them. I think you'll see that it's very easy to get the idea that you take it as a given that non-religious people are obviously morally inferior and that secular things operate almost entirely on selfishness.

I'm not offended by this attitude (I don't really get offended). I do think that you'd be a better, fuller person if you understand why you come across this way and, most likely, gave up this attitude or at least the things that make it come across like you hold this attitude.

To love is to know and if you endevour not to know people, you are failing in your love for them.
 

---

Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
 
How are her attitudes towards non-religious people any different than my, Tom's, Sara's, or your feelings that religious fundamentalism is a danger to this country? Are we not saying that some religious people are, in a word, 'bad'?
 

---

Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 
I've already apologized, but I feel I need to defend myself now because I feel I have been unfairly misunderstood.

Some people seem to have gotten the impression that I think that believers are better than non-believers. Now, I can understand why someone might get this impression, especially if they are over-sensitive about the subject.

I am about to speak the truth, and you may believe me or not. Judge for yourselves if you feel I am an honest enough person to know my own heart on this matter.

I believe in a certain morality. I believe that it is a true morality. I believe that moralities that disagree with it are wrong. This is not an unusual or uncommon belief. We all believe certain things. If we did not think they were right, we would not believe them.

People seem to have gotten the impression that I am judging between believer and non-believer. They have misunderstood. I am in fact judging between a morality I believe is true and moralities that I believe are not.

It doesn't matter if a person is a believer or a non-believer. It matters what their morality is. If a non-believer shares that morality and a believer does not, I will judge the non-believer as more moral.

Is this clear?

I use secularism as an example of erroneous morality because most of the moralities that I see as "wrong" come from the secular mindset. I realize that is not a good line to draw because there are plenty of cases of secular morality being more similar to mine than religious morality. I have become more aware of this as I have been on Hatrack. It has been a learning experience for me. Being on Hatrack has opened my mind in a lot of ways--especially since I am such an introvert that I do not interact with a lot of people or discuss important issues when I do.

If I am self-righteous for believing "this morality" is the best morality, then so be it. The amusing fact is that I don't always do a very good job of following "this morality" and therefore I am not judging myself as better than anyone even as I judge "this morality" to be most correct. I try to hold myself to the same standards to which I hold everyone else--perhaps even a higher standard than that by which I judge others.

On the subject of honesty, if I encounter a non-believer who is more honest than I am, I judge them to be more moral than I in that aspect. If I meet a non-believer who loves when I do not, I judge them to be more moral than I in that aspect.

Assuming you believe I am telling the truth, does it sound like I believe that believers are better than non-believers?

Is this an offensive point of view for me to have? Please, I need to know. I am feeling very vulnerable right now, and I am needing honest feedback.
 

---

Posted by Sara Sasse (Member # 6804) on :
 
(Storm Saxon, I'm still here, writing in another window and tidying up things.)

[and beverly, I've just caught up with your last post above and responded below separately. To be clear, this post is definitely not directed at you. It's a response to SS's post, not yours (you posted as I was writing, and we crossed somewhere in between).]

quote:

---

How are her attitudes towards non-religious people any different than my, Tom's, Sara's, or your feelings that religious fundamentalism is a danger to this country? Are we not saying that some religious people are, in a word, 'bad'?

---

I'll petition to have my name removed from that list, if you please, sir. Seriously, I've never (that I recall) written that I believe the rise in religious fundamentalism is a danger to this country, or that it is "bad," much less implied that the any group of the religious in general are "bad."

I have, however, stated here that the increase in the US of religious fundamentalism makes for an environment in which I feel uncomfortable and feel increasingly unwelcome. That is a different kettle of fish than to say it is bad in an objective sense, or even that it is bad for others. Really, it is -- and it is not an insignificant difference. I'm generally very careful in the words I choose, especially in public, and especially in regards to judging the character of others.

[Kwea was the notable exception, and I'm lucky he's a tough soul and a charitable guy.]

I have many religious friends, and I love and trust and respect most of them. In some cases, they are some of the finest people I know, and they are some of the most important role models to me. But an increase in religious fundamentalism in general pretty much makes for an increase in the the numbers of those in the percentage who judge me as "the other" in some fundamental way, as lesser instead of just different. That's ... uncomfortable. Uncomfortable for me. Uncomfortable enough that I'm trying to figure out if this country [the US] is the best place for me, the place where I can be the most effective in what I think I have a duty to do with my life.

But that's my business, and I'd rather leave the US than try to prevent others from practicing their beliefs here. It's different, Storm Saxon. It's changing, and if it isn't a healthy place for me (regardless of whether it is good or bad for others), then I shouldn't be here.

[And this is not covertly directed at beverly or anyone else here, BTW. I would certainly hope that beverly and everyone here finds peace and happiness in their lives, and I wouldn't identify anyone in particular as a cause for me leaving, either the US or Hatrack, should I ever leave either. I just want off your list, so to speak. I want to find my own peace, as it is my own responsibility and privilege to do. Doesn't mean that anyone else has to change one whit for me to do that.

I'm aware, too, that much of discomfort comes from internal reactions, but it makes sense to me to find the external environment which is as conducive to internal peace and growth as possible. It seems like a good axiom to follow.]

[ September 15, 2004, 03:22 AM: Message edited by: Sara Sasse ]
 

---

Posted by Sara Sasse (Member # 6804) on :
 
beverly, I think you are doing the best you can, just like all of us here. I don't think it's my place -- especially now -- to be puzzling through whether anyone's perspective is good or bad, but I do think this will all look better in the morning.

If you are still up, try to get some sleep, okay? Sleep deprivation makes everything all wacky.

You are much admired and cherished here. I'm sure that isn't going to change, and the details can be discussed later, if they even need to be.

Take care.
 

---

Posted by punwit (Member # 6388) on :
 
beverly,

First off I would like to make it clear that I find you to be polite and honest in your attempts to convey your beliefs. While I may have expressed some reservations about some of that content I never felt that you were intentionaly disdainful.

Secondly,

quote:

---

So, hypothetically, if you met this God I believe in, would you like Him or hate Him? I am saying that it is my belief that if you are a moral and loving person, you would love what God is when you come in contact with it.

---

quote:

---

I use secularism as an example of erroneous morality because most of the moralities that I see as "wrong" come from the secular mindset. I realize that is not a good line to draw because there are plenty of cases of secular morality being more similar to mine than religious morality.

---

quote:

---

Right down to little white lies like "Of course your bum doesn't look big in that"?

---

I don't understand why people think the only two answers to questions like this are to be mean or dishonest. If I'm asking you if something looks bad, it's not because I want reassurance. It's because I have doubts, and don't want to look bad in public. I realize that not everyone is as rational about things like this, but still, what's so hard about:

"I don't think that's the most flattering thing you could wear. Why don't you try X instead, I think you look great in that."

"That's not a good cut for you. I wouldn't buy it."

or even

"You know, it looks a little tight."

While the middle one might be considered a prevarication, I think any of them are better than just saying "yes," and I would certainly rather hear them than go out in something someone I trust enough to ask thinks makes me look fat. It's the same for any other "little white lie" I can think of... while I'm generally a pretty blunt person, you can answer most questions honestly and with kindness if you want to.

Not saying I never lie. I generally prefer not to, but there are cases where it fits better into my particular morality not to be honest. And sometimes I slip up and lie where I shouldn't, no one's perfect. But this kind of lie...? I consider them stupid and pointless.

[ September 15, 2004, 09:31 AM: Message edited by: ElJay ]
 

---

Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 
I see the distinction being discussed as one between "absolute" or extrinsic (but possibly not fully knowable) morality and ... something else. Relative isn't quite the right term. Maybe "human-defined"?

Secular v. Theistic would be a different distinction, but one which can interact with it in unexpected ways. It's the conflating of the two distinctions that can cause problems.

Dagonee

[ September 15, 2004, 09:36 AM: Message edited by: Dagonee ]
 

---

Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
 
Why Presbyterian?
 

---

Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 
Does Genesis make it clear if it's referring to all death or only the death of humans?

I'm ashamed I don't know this.

Dagonee
 

---

Posted by Sara Sasse (Member # 6804) on :
 
beverly, your last post described a viewpoint I would certainly embrace and promote myself. That's neat!

ElJay is so eloquent in articulating the very thoughts about this in my head, I won't attempt to add to her post, except to say a thank you to her, and a "hail, well met."

------------------------------------------------------

quote:

---

I see the distinction being discussed as one between "absolute" or extrinsic (but possibly not fully knowable) morality and ... something else. Relative isn't quite the right term. Maybe "human-defined"?

---

Dagonee, I think I recall that you had noted that an absolute morality was important to you, that there are some things which just are wrong, regardless of circumstances. (I hope I'm not misrepresenting you -- correct me if I am wrong.) And I think, though I'm not quite sure, that you are now clarifying that by drawing the primary distinction as being between absoluteness and relativity for a system of morals, yes?

Must absolute=God-driven and relative=human-defined? (Is this where you are going? I can't tell.) Because of the importance of free will in most common theist religious systems, I still take all common systems of morality as things which humans choose to ascribe to, choose to embrace or not. That is, whether one follows a moral system or not, it is a matter of choice, of agency.

One can then discuss the moral systems one might embrace. One might find God (as described by a particular system) and strive to follow His precepts absolutely, one might find something else as an anchor and follow those precepts absolutely, one might follow God or other anchors non-absolutely, or one might follow a system with relative precepts (of which there are many sorts, e.g., casuistry). But in each of these cases, something is human-defined: that is, we are able to understand God in only human terms, just as we are able to understand all things which present to us in human terms. (It is the curse, I suppose, of being fallible creatures, and it is why the believer of one religious system might say that the believers of another moral system are incorrect in their understanding of God.)

But whether the prescripts of any given [ethical] system are themselves absolute or relative doesn't seem to me to be necessarily tied to God. Precepts (right or wrong ones) can be absolute and not be tied to God: e.g., "Never lie. Not ever."* So I think I can make sense of the absolute vs. relative distinction, but I can't quite make sense of the equation of that to matters of humanly-defined or no, as there seems to be an intrinsic element of human definition to all of this.

*[You could make claims about whether someone could take such a precept seriously if it weren't God-driven, I suppose, but it doesn't seem that that is a claim being made. That is, I don't think you or anyone else is saying that a non-believer couldn't be as committed to a precept such as "it's wrong to cheat on one's spouse" -- in absolute terms -- as someone who is a believer.

I also take it that whether one actually lives up to the commitment to absolute precepts is separate from whether the precepts themselves are absolute. (That is, one could imperfectly follow an absolute; one would just be obliged to consider oneself failing at those times -- but it wouldn't mean the precept wan't absolute, just that the person wasn't perfect.)

Or am I mistaken in these assumptions about the claims here? ]

------------------------------------------------

And just for clarity, I wouldn't have been startled to find that someone who is religious believed I wasn't saved, or that I could not be blessed in the afterlife because I did not believe in certain things, or that good works might even be irrelevant to salvation. The (perceived!) claim about the difference between the limitations of ethical action between those who believe in God and those who do not, though, was somewhat startling at Hatrack, though I'm not sure why. I'm glad of the clarification, but perhaps a personal evaluation of a certain level of naivete and assumption on my part is in order.

It's worth working through, both for the community and for myself. We can't have this much messiness and raw emotion spilling out all over the place all the time. It isn't helpful, or kind to others, or being adult. I will work on it diligently.

[ September 15, 2004, 12:07 PM: Message edited by: Sara Sasse ]
 

---

Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
 

quote:

---

You certainly cannot accept evolution if you are LDS, BECAUSE die hard creationists and Mormons believe in the literal Garden of Eden.

---

OSC is LDS, and accepts portions of evolution; so am I, and so do I.

I'm working on a resolution. I'll let you know when I come up with something.
 

---

Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
 
*agrees with Scott*

In both cases - the creation and evolution - we do not yet have all the information. There is still room for both.
 

---

Posted by Sara Sasse (Member # 6804) on :
 
(just a note that I've re-edited my last post all over the place in clarification, as the thread moves quickly)
 

---

Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 
Sara, I did not get to read your post last night. I unknowingly took your advice and got a good night's sleep. I knew I needed it badly, I was running on too few hours. I have been trying to wake up before everyone else lately to get certain things done early, but that doesn't work unless I also go to bed early. Burning the candle at both ends makes me crazy!

Thank you for responding. I was beginning to get a little paranoid, and that is not good.

Punwit, I have no problem with what you said. I am content to let things be as they are. I do not try to make reality according to my faith, but rather try to accept reality as I perceive it with the evidence I have and call it faith. If I turn out to be wrong, I hope to be gracious about it.

Alexa, I have thought about what you describe. Quite a bit actually. I agree, it doesn't completely jive. I assume that means there is something I don't understand. Whether it is a figurative matter or whether the Garden was a special circumstance, a bubble if you will, of Terrestrial life on an otherwise Telestial world, I do not know. But to say it is impossible to believe it doesn't account for additional information not currently understood.

Does it not also say that it never rained before the flood? That is difficult to believe also. I just chalk it up under "list of things I do not understand at this time".

Again, if the answer is "It's all a bunch of huey," I hope to be gracious about it.

ElJay, you are correct. I cannot continue using "secular" as I have been. I have no clue what word fits the idea I have been trying to express. All I can say is that, for me, I believe that morality comes from God. I believe we all have God-given consciences and therefore it is possible for us to draw near to that morality through our own soul-searching. But it is also possible to go far astray from it, even for the religious, because of rationalization. I believe at the last day we will stand accountable for what we did and how we heeded our God-given consciences. If we were abused, confused, or in some other way damaged, we will not be held to the same standard as those who had a clear understanding of right and wrong. I believe God is truly both merciful and just.

And I think I understand punwit's frustration with a God who accepts one person for accepting Christ and rejects another who has not but is a truly good person. I have seen *many* people feel this way, and I don't blame them one bit. I do, however, think that there is more to the situation that explains the apparent dichotomy. That doesn't need to be discussed here, though.
 

---

Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 

quote:

---

Help me out Mormons, do you know if WE have a position about whether all life was eternally alive until The Fall or was it just Adam and Eve who did not dies until they ate the fruit?

---

quote:

---

Dagonee, I think I recall that you had noted that an absolute morality was important to you, that there are some things which just are wrong, regardless of circumstances. (I hope I'm not misrepresenting you -- correct me if I am wrong.) And I think, though I'm not quite sure, that you are now clarifying that by drawing the primary distinction as being between absoluteness and relativity for a system of morals, yes?

---

quote:

---

I'm a bit offended by your suggestion that I have ever "bashed" anyone's arugments or called them "delusional twits".

---

quote:

---

Sara, I did not get to read your post last night. I unknowingly took your advice and got a good night's sleep. I knew I needed it badly, I was running on too few hours. I have been trying to wake up before everyone else lately to get certain things done early, but that doesn't work unless I also go to bed early. Burning the candle at both ends makes me crazy!

---

I can relate. It's frustrating when you spend yet more time at something but become increasingly less productive. Some kind of law of diminishing returns. Rats.

--------------------------------------------------------------

quote:

---

The distinction I was trying to make was one between a system where morality is what humanity defines it as and one where morality is defined by some set of principles not dependent on human definition.

... as long as the morality contained the idea that some specific instances of killing were wrong, and some were right, and based this distinction on some principles not dependent on human construction.

---

So, these principles would be ones directly intuited? Not constrained by the limits of human language or understanding, but an essence of truth directly (unfiltered through language) transmitted to the soul?

I'm trying! I'm not sure I understand you yet. I still think of the moral precepts we follow as guides which we can be fallible about, in large part because what we can understand is constrained by what we are able to understand and the limits of the language we use to frame it to ourselves.

This is why -- I think -- the precepts of a given church may change over time (e.g., whether persons of color will be granted certain blessings, or whether witches should be killed, etc.) without their necessarily having been a lie from that church's God. That is, I understand it that people may be mistaken about what God wants. I am not religious anymore, and so I may be quite awkward about phrasing it -- apologies!

quote:

---

As for the secular distinction, I'm having a hard time thinking of a non-secular moral theory that would fit into the human-defined category ...

---

How do we understand change in religious precepts over time if not by attributing it to errors in the human role of defining those precepts?

[I understand that the principles might be unchanging in some Platonic Form way, but it seems to me that our understanding of them would always be in the form of a construct that is humanly-defined.]

[ September 15, 2004, 01:18 PM: Message edited by: Sara Sasse ]
 

---

Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 
The moral principles are unchanging and well-defined. Our ability to discern them and apply them (especially the latter) is imperfect.

This imperfection certainly derives from the frailties of language. This weakness would probably apply to both secular and non-secular moral frameworks.

Many religious frameworks also carry with them some idea akin to the Fall that humanity lost a special grace or knowledge that also impedes its ability to discern and apply them.

Edit: And I'm definitely applying some Platonic reasoning to this. This is at the heart of the discussion about not knowing if very early abortions are the taking of human life. The idea that there is a right answer, but we don't know it.

I don't think the human imperfections in description or application reduce the validity or eternal nature of this type of moral framework.

Dagonee

[ September 15, 2004, 01:21 PM: Message edited by: Dagonee ]
 

---

Posted by Sara Sasse (Member # 6804) on :
 
So we can all be wrong, regardless of whether we follow a secular or non-secular moral framework. The important difference is that a non-secular moral theory assumes the existence of moral principles not defined by humans, even though we cannot really know exactly what they are. But the fact that they are there is what is important, even if we do not know them.

Yes?

(Not setting you up, just trying to understand. )
 

---

Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 
Yes. In other words, there is a higher authority than human opinion or belief as to whether or not a given act in specific circumstances is wrong.

But the only "copy" of that we have access to is, to some extent, filtered through human opinion and belief.

Dagonee
 

---

Posted by punwit (Member # 6388) on :
 
Dag, This poor painter is stuggling to understand some of the precepts being discussed in this thread. Correct me if I'm wrong but you are saying that every situation has a pre-defined (not by humans) right and wrong. If that is what you are indicating I'm not sure how I feel about that. I'll certainly give it some thought. Perhaps (if your theory is correct) grace is achieved when one grasps the moral framework completely?
 

---

Posted by Sara Sasse (Member # 6804) on :
 
(We are cross-posting, but we seem to be coming to an understanding. )

quote:

---

I don't think the human imperfections in description or application reduce the validity or eternal nature of this type of moral framework.

---

quote:

---

Dag, This poor painter is stuggling to understand some of the precepts being discussed in this thread. Correct me if I'm wrong but you are saying that every situation has a pre-defined (not by humans) right and wrong. If that is what you are indicating I'm not sure how I feel about that. I'll certainly give it some thought. Perhaps (if your theory is correct) grace is achieved when one grasps the moral framework completely?

---

quote:

---

I think I have trouble wrapping my head around the notion that non-secular precepts (the rules we convey to others and understand ourselves) are not human-defined. But this is not what you are saying, is it? You are saying that the rules we all guide our lives by, be they secular or non-secular in derivation, are by their nature rules that are human-defined.

It's just that in the non-secular case, the human-defined set of rules is an approximation of non-human-defined principles which we can never fully know or be sure of while we are still mortals.

Yes?

---

I would say that people really only attempt to follow human-defined rulesets, but that the “correctness” of such sets of rules could be measured by comparing them to the “absolute” Platonic moral ruleset, if we truly new it.

All such human rulesets will be both over- and under-inclusive. That is, they will prohibit conduct that is truly good, and allow conduct that is truly bad.

And law is even one more step removed, as most people agree not all immorality should be made criminal.

Dagonee
 

---

Posted by Sara Sasse (Member # 6804) on :
 
Ahhh. Okay. I think I almost get it, but there's still something gnawing at me. Let me think on it.

Thanks! Good, tight explanation.
 

---

Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 
Sounds right to me.
 

---

Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
 

quote:

---

As for the secular distinction, I'm having a hard time thinking of a non-secular moral theory that would fit into the human-defined category, but I'm not prepared to say such could not exist.

---

How about religious humanism?

[ September 15, 2004, 02:51 PM: Message edited by: Storm Saxon ]
 

---

Posted by Sara Sasse (Member # 6804) on :
 
Let me run something up the flagpole for review, Dagonee. What do you think of this, as far as whether it captures your propositions?

Moral systems, as we can see and experience them here on earth, are represented by precepts which are humanly defined, and thus imperfect. But "good" moral systems are the ones for which those precepts are understood to be an imperfect characterization of a set of perfect and eternal principles (although we cannot have direct and certain knowledge of those eternal principles while we are still mortal).

Thus, to be a "good" moral system, the humanly defined precepts must be based on eternal principles of which the comparison to, if we could know them directly, we would see to be unchanging. We can thus (awkwardly ) distinguish between two kinds of systems: those which are eternal-principle-based and those which are non-eternal-principle-based, although our understanding of either would necessarily involve human definitions.

Of note, most (if not all) non-secular moral systems are eternal-principle-based, as are some secular ones, although there are many examples of secular systems which are non-eternal-principle-based.

So, the most important fundamental distinction for you (I take it), when judging systems as they are presented to you in this world, is whether or not a moral system is based on eternal principles or not. And you wouldn't call the moral system (as it is see-able and judgable in this life, in the form of precepts) as eternal, but rather you characterize the imperfectly knowable basis of it as eternal.

Moreover, being eternal-rule-based is a necessary characteristic for a "good" moral system, but not a sufficient one. That is, in trying to approximate eternal principles which we cannot be sure of, we may (inadvertantly) choose the wrong principles. But the matter of how we know which (imperfectly known) principles are the correct ones is beyond the scope of this discussion.

[And law is even one more step removed, as most people agree not all immorality should be made criminal.]

Yes? Comments, corrections?

Go, Hoos.

[ September 15, 2004, 03:08 PM: Message edited by: Sara Sasse ]
 

---

Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 
To Storm:

I don't know - that article doesn't explain how the moral framework is developed, so I can't cateogrize it in my schema.

Dagonee

[ September 15, 2004, 02:56 PM: Message edited by: Dagonee ]
 

---

Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 
Sara, well thought out! I can't think of any way that I disagree with what you have explained.
 

---

Posted by Sara Sasse (Member # 6804) on :
 
I think it's the Hoos part, beverly, that really makes it fly.

I'm also thinking that (if this isn't too touchy a subject, let me know if it is) that you just were not aware of moral systems which intrinsically presume the existence of eternal principles but do not presume the existance of God (or a god, or gods, or Gods). Yes?

[ September 15, 2004, 03:05 PM: Message edited by: Sara Sasse ]
 

---

Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 
Sara, I do not think I was aware of that. But I am swiftly learning.

*imagines a Hoos flying*
 

---

Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 
Sara, before I go into this, I need to know what you mean by "good" moral systems.

Are you using them to represent the moray systems I placed in my "absolute" category (remembering the highly qualified use I made of the term absolute)?

In other words, are we now comparing the relative worth of moral frameworks or are we still trying to categorize them?

Thanks,

Dagonee
 

---

Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 
Dagonee, I especially like your point that morally identical situations may never, in fact, happen and that all pertinent aspects of each situation must be taken into account. Very wise.
 

---

Posted by Sara Sasse (Member # 6804) on :
 
I'm not sure. I'm taking "absolute" (in your tightly defined sense) systems to be what you would posit as "good" systems.

(Do you advocate that "absolute" (in the tightly defined sense) systems are better than non-absolute ones? Or are you just interested in making a distinction based on natural kinds? I'm trying to understand you, so I'll defer to your interpretation. We can just make the distinction, or we can give the distinction moral weight -- no matter to me. )
 

---

Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 
I (as you've probably guessed) think "absolute" systems are far superior. I just wanted to make sure you'd moved on to discussing their attributes specifically, and no longer to merely differentiate them from the other type.

Unfortunately, I have to go to an interview, so I'll type up something a little later.

Dagonee
P.S., I'm enjoying this immensely. I'm also moving into new territory for me as of the next post, so I reserve the right to be wrong the first time out.
 

---

Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
 
I think I misunderstood what you were saying, Dagonee.

I normally stay out of these discussions of absolute versus relative morality, since the debate seems to me to be less about morality than about finding proof for the existence of God, which is just not a productive discussion for me since, as someone in this thread already noted, it's impossible to divorce the observer from what he observes.
 

---

Posted by Sara Sasse (Member # 6804) on :
 


Threads morph into pleasant surprises all the time. Amazing.

And sure, throw whatever out as a proposition. No need to presume a vested interest in promoting it yet -- we can just see where it falls.
 

---

Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 
Storm - I'm definitely using a non-standard version of the word "absolute." I haven't been careful about qualifying it in every use of the term.

See my next post for more info.

Dagonee
 

---

Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
 
A Platonic-ideal set of moral rules does not strike me as a particularly useful concept. From a secular perspective, we are never going to learn what these rules are. Therefore, we cannot measure acts against them. We can only measure acts against our own real-world concepts of morality. Suppose the two sets disagree on the morality of some act; we will never know about it, and will therefore be unable to act on the difference. And a difference that makes no difference, is no difference.

It reminds me of that hypothetical elementary particle, the unicorn. Unicorns pervade every corner of the Universe, including the hypothesized extra dimensions, if any. However, they do not interact with our kind of matter, and are therefore totally undetectable.
 

---

Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 

quote:

---

Let me run something up the flagpole for review, Dagonee. What do you think of this, as far as whether it captures your propositions?

---

quote:

---

Moral systems, as we can see and experience them here on earth, are represented by precepts which are humanly defined, and thus imperfect. But "good" moral systems are the ones for which those precepts are understood to be an imperfect characterization of a set of perfect and eternal principles (although we cannot have direct and certain knowledge of those eternal principles while we are still mortal).

---

quote:

---

Thus, to be a "good" moral system, the humanly defined precepts must be based on eternal principles of which the comparison to, if we could know them directly, we would see to be unchanging. We can thus (awkwardly ) distinguish between two kinds of systems: those which are eternal-principle-based and those which are non-eternal-principle-based, although our understanding of either would necessarily involve human definitions.

---

quote:

---

Of note, most (if not all) non-secular moral systems are eternal-principle-based, as are some secular ones, although there are many examples of secular systems which are non-eternal-principle based.

---

quote:

---

So, the most important fundamental distinction for you (I take it), when judging systems as they are presented to you in this world, is whether or not a moral system is based on eternal principles or not. And you wouldn't call the moral system (as it is see-able and judgable in this life, in the form of precepts) as eternal, but rather you would call the imperfectly knowable basis as eternal.

---

quote:

---

Moreover, being eternal-rule-based is a necessary characteristic for a "good" moral system, but not a sufficient one. That is, in trying to approximate eternal principles which we cannot be sure of, we may (inadvertantly) choose the wrong principles.

---

quote:

---

But the matter of how we know which (imperfectly known) principles are the correct ones is beyond the scope of this discussion.

---

quote:

---

Yes? Comments, corrections?

---

quote:

---

Go, Hoos.

---

Wahoowa! (That’s another UVA cheer. )

Dagonee
 

---

Posted by Sara Sasse (Member # 6804) on :
 
Well, as long as we beat the Hokies, the season won't be a complete loss.

(You realize that, for me, this is like speaking Sumerian phonetically, right? )

As for the theory, I will sleep on it and invite inspiration for articulateness. I'm not sure the implications above are exactly the same ones I would draw (for reasons yet to be pieced through here -- foreshadowing, a sign of quality literature), although I think the distinctions made above can be useful in furthering the discussion.

But I'm also kind of groggy and everything looks a bit like something I don't quite understand right now. Even Spider Solitaire is proving elusive.

I'll write more tomorrow.
 

---

Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
 
edit: never mind. I'm not getting into this discussion.

[ September 15, 2004, 07:57 PM: Message edited by: Storm Saxon ]
 

---

Posted by Sara Sasse (Member # 6804) on :
 
well, Storm Saxon, you know that the Taters gonna get some hoo-ah come the rainy season.

*extemporaneous riffing
 

---

Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
 
Ah Stormy, I was just about to respond...
 

---

Posted by IvyGirl (Member # 6252) on :
 
Okay, I have one thing to say. And forgive me, I have been too busy with school and tennis to get on until now, so I had no idea what was going on.

I'm very sorry if I offended anyone with my earlier comment/s. I did not mean to insinuate that ANY of you are stupid, because you're not! I just wasn't having a good day and I sometimes get rather fired up. Sorry. (everyone)



Ivygirl
 

---

Posted by Sara Sasse (Member # 6804) on :
 
How nice to see you!
 

---

Posted by skeptic (Member # 5273) on :
 
First, I've been away from this thread for a couple of days, and it has gotten away from me a bit. I made the mistake of assigning an essay to my AP Bio students. Now I have to grade them. There is no time to respond to everyone I'd like. However, there is one question I simply can't resist.

Scott R wrote

quote:

---

How would a die-hard Creationist go about accepting evolutionary principles?

---

quote:

---

It just seems to be the natural outcome when religious people explain things that other people have never experienced.

---

quote:

---

I'm very sorry, skeptic. I didn't mean to write that in a way that seemed like a personal attack.

---

quote:

---

We are left with no choice but to look at the situation and say, "We don't fully understand the nature of the universe".

---

quote:

---

What I am objecting to is specifically trying to test the validity of faith using scientific (not merely rational) principals. If this can even be done, it seems to risk invalidating the very point of faith--believing even in the absence of proof.

---

quote:

---

I think it's fair to say that you do not approach life with much skepticism.

---

Well, that's not really true, actually. I'm generally very skeptical about everything. I'm even skeptical about what I wrote about tithing. I just don't usually mention my skepticism on every topic, because it's hard enough arguing with other people without having to argue with myself.

To be honest, I have always considered myself a person that approaches religious beliefs "rationally" in that I believe in God because I think it's logical, and not because of any particular child-like faith. I often *wish* I had that kind of faith. To me it just "makes sense" that there's a God and the Christian one appeals to me more than others. Also I have found that the promises made to believers in the Bible happen to me in my own life, so I see results from being a Christian.

Near the beginning of my Christianity I often struggled with my belief, in that I was extremely skeptical about everything that happened. The first couple of times that tithing deal that I mentioned happened I kept thinking to myself "It's just a coincidence. It doesn't mean anything." I would actually get mad at myself for being "too rational".

But as time goes on and the words prove themselves again and again, it gets harder to fight.

BTW: I think I assumed I was going to get backed into a corner because your name is skeptic. That's just asking for it.
 

---

Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
 
Sara, if you haven’t read it already, I think you might enjoy Paul Tillich’s Dynamics of Faith. It’s a short little book, and gives a slightly different twist to all this.

(And I have a soft spot in my heart for it, since the first grad-school lecture I gave was on Tillich, so I couldn't miss a chance to recommend him. )

[ September 16, 2004, 01:10 PM: Message edited by: dkw ]
 

---

Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
 

quote:

---

since the first grad-school lecture I gave was on Tillich

---

I read GRADE-SCHOOL, and was about to snark you for preaching in public schools.


 

---

Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
 
Skeptic: I hope you don't feel that I was making any sort of comment on whether I thought you were an honest person. I figure we all can find room for improvement on just about any part of our own moral codes. The test could apply to any person.

I was trying to restrict myself to the 10 commandments because they are pretty basic and most people can agree on them, and that one seemed like a relatively easy one to experiment on. It is more of an external act (as opposed to "Thou shalt not covet" which is more internal.) Most of us don't kill, steal, or commit adultery. The first 5 commandments are more faith-based and take longer to see results.

PSI: I really appreciated what you shared on tithing.

quote:

---

But as time goes on and the words prove themselves again and again, it gets harder to fight.

---

I also like this. It seems that like any other rational thought process, as the evidence continues to mount and is found to be repeatable and consistent, the conclusion seems more and more likely. We do this with many things in life, not just whether or not we think there is a God. We couldn't survive without it.

I also like what Dagonee said that the evidence is such that it only applies to your specific life and situation. It is too subjective to be useful for someone else. But so much of our paradigms are formed exactly this way.
 

---

Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
 
Scott, there is a major difference between giving an academic lecture and preaching (and I do both, so I should know).

My lecture on Tillich would have been perfectly appropriate for a public school. Well, not age-appropriate, but certainly no church-state problems.
 

---

Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
 

quote:

---

Scott, there is a major difference between giving an academic lecture and preaching (and I do both, so I should know).

---

quote:

---

I thought faith was not rational.

---

I disagree. I define faith as belief in the absence of proof. However, the absence of proof for a proposition is not proof against it. So we can prove neither the existence nor the nonexistence of God. Therefore, faith is no less rational than lack of faith. You may come to believe for rational reasons. They may not be conclusive for anybody else, and they may not sway anybody else, but that doesn't make them irrational. For instance, I do tend to believe in a creator of some sort. It's the entire Christian mythos (and by mythos, I do not mean "fiction" so please don't jump down my throat) that I cannot be comfortable with. However, the hhuge complexity of the universe makes me tend to believe that there was some sort of design behind it. This is hardly conclusive. In this thread, people have pointed out that this is not proof of the existence of God, and I agree. However, it is a perfectly rational reason for choosing to believe. That is as close as I can come to addressing your specific question, that of "validating" faith.

Now, regarding the larger question of whether faith is not rational (I sense you avoided "irrational" on purpose, and therefore so will I), go read some Aquinas. In other words, once you have decided to make the leap of faith, you don't turn your rational mind off. In deciding the specifics of your beliefs, [depending on your denomination ] you will still analyze things with a rational mind. Whether it's a matter of deciding how the words of scripture apply to stuff that didn't even exist back when it was written/collected, or whatever . . . if faith is not rational, then I wasted a whole lot of years in theology classes!)
 

---

Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
 
Scott, the last person to fall asleep during one of my sermons died 5 days later.

I'm just sayin'.
 

---

Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
 
She's a witch! Burn her!
 

---

Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
 
Since I'm never likely to hear your sermons, even awake, I'm not too worried, dkw. My sleep cycle and I are both quite safe.

Unless you convert . . .?


 

---

Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
 
You’d probably never hear one even if I did, seeing as you’re a non-meeting kind of Hatracker and all. Unless I converted and happened to move to your ward, which seems kind of unlikely. But thanks for asking.
 

---

Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
 
Alas, I live on!
 

---