Hmmmm... tpaine, the idea of dysfunction implies some sort of original purpose, does it not? It's a notion for which evolution can give no adequate accounting.
Posted on 06/02/2003 1:46:54 PM PDT by Heartlander
It is much much more than that. People are the only creatures that consider their plight. They are also the creatures that have aesthetic feelings (explain that in light of natural selection!), and the only spiritual creatures (no animal has the capacity to worship). You also need to explain the conscious self in light of materialistic neodarwinism - provide scientific evidence that shows that morality, emotions, and even the self have material causes. I guarantee that you can't do it - therefore, you are making metaphysical faith statements not grounded in empirical science - that is called self-refutation.
Your bias is showing when you say "foolish religions" without any science to back that up. Besides, foolish is a value judgment - what part of the brain produces those?
Hmmmm... tpaine, the idea of dysfunction implies some sort of original purpose, does it not? It's a notion for which evolution can give no adequate accounting.
Which looks healthier, Roseanne Barr or Pamela Anderson?
Symmetry and elegance are indicators of health and fitness. You may note that humans are the only primate with exagerated mammary glands, and that the male of our species is heavily dependent on visual cues to judge reproductive fitness and readiness.
The "spiritual capacity" is principally an outgrowth of consciousness, not vice versa. Men have an ego that cannot comprehend it's own non-existence, and refuses to try. So it invents the concept of "life after death" for self-comfort and convinces the rational part of the mind to buy it.
Morality: that act of self-interest that recognizes the "Golden Rule" as the optimal means of maintaining existence in an organized society, the only sort of existence likely to enhance survival of a individual evolved to be in such societies.
Emotions: Fear, anger, - primordial responses to threats. Survival benefits obvious. Love - a bonding emotion tying parents to offspring and each other to ensure the survival of the offspring.
Self- a recognition mode of time, as stated. Useful to ensure the survival of the individual.
People defeding religion against the encroachments of science shouldn't object to metaphysical argument. Not unless they've earned a medal in Viet Nam for a wounded big toe.
I don't know - maybe Roseanne is healthier than Pamela - I'm not a doctor. Where does the feeling of beauty come from? Explain it in light of science, not value judgments.
Symmetry and elegance are indicators of health and fitness. You may note that humans are the only primate with exagerated mammary glands, and that the male of our species is heavily dependent on visual cues to judge reproductive fitness and readiness.
What is healthy and fit about a pretty sunset or a piece of artwork in a museum?
The "spiritual capacity" is principally an outgrowth of consciousness, not vice versa. Men have an ego that cannot comprehend it's own non-existence, and refuses to try. So it invents the concept of "life after death" for self-comfort and convinces the rational part of the mind to buy it.
Really - got some empirical scientific data to back up that statement? If you don't, then you are making a faith statement. You are making metaphysical assertions that have no basis in scientific observation. You really need to address this problem.
Morality: that act of self-interest that recognizes the "Golden Rule" as the optimal means of maintaining existence in an organized society, the only sort of existence likely to enhance survival of a individual evolved to be in such societies.
Too simplistic. Moral decisions begin with a "sense of ought". Again, you are making metaphysical statements that are far outside the realm of science. I'm not interested in your "opinion" - I want data.
Emotions: Fear, anger, - primordial responses to threats. Survival benefits obvious. Love - a bonding emotion tying parents to offspring and each other to ensure the survival of the offspring.
Are these chemical reactions in the brain?
People defeding religion against the encroachments of science shouldn't object to metaphysical argument. Not unless they've earned a medal in Viet Nam for a wounded big toe.
I object when a materialistic darwinist makes metaphysical statements since materialistic darwinists claim that all that exists is material and that even our thoughts, emotions, morals are just matter in motion in our brains. You are your brain, in effect. But it is self-refuting becuase they exempt their own ideas, thoughts, etc. from the rules of materialism, and if my ideas are matter in motion, then so are the materialist's. If you are dealing in metaphysics, then you can only state your opinions and you can't provide any scientific evidence. In the metaphysical arena, logical reasoning rules.
I'm always amused by the anti-evolutionists who ask for a "film" of early events on Earth before they'll believe anything science has to say on the matter (never mind all the *other* ways historical events can be reconstructed from the evidence), and yet who never seem to have a problem with the glaring lack of any home movies of God waving his hands for six days.
That looks like a pretty blatant double standard.
You clearly don't have a dog.
God said, "I am", meaning He always was and always will be. His purpose was to give the gift of Life. That's why He created, or caused the universe to exist. See.
" they have no ability to give the Putative Creator a reason for Her Urge."
The Creator came to teach. He gave the reason, to extend the gift of life.
"Men have an ego that cannot comprehend it's own non-existence, and refuses to try. "
I have an ego. I can and have also comprehended my own nonexistence. So this is false.
"So it invents the concept of "life after death" for self-comfort and convinces the rational part of the mind to buy it."
No, I am well aware of my limitations.
"Morality: that act of self-interest that recognizes the "Golden Rule" as the optimal means of maintaining existence in an organized society, the only sort of existence likely to enhance survival of a individual evolved to be in such societies.
Part of what God came to teach and what He was killed for.
"Love - a bonding emotion tying parents to offspring and each other to ensure the survival of the offspring."
The purpose of creation.
Rolls his eyes...
I disagree, I've seen plenty of animals "consider their plight" when they are in situations that they understand do not bode well for them.
They are also the creatures that have aesthetic feelings
Again, I disagree. I have seen many animals show that they have clear preferences for certain arrangements of their surroundings which have no functional purpose. For example, a friend's cat will purposely make anything vertical, horizontal -- if you stand something up, like a candlestick, the cat will demonstrate clear annoyance until it is allowed to come over and shove the candlestick until it falls flat, at which time it sits down and purrs. My parrots have very particular preferences about the arrangements of objects in their cages, and even which objects should be ejected entirely.
(explain that in light of natural selection!),
Preference/aversion for certain patterns/colors/sounds/sequences will arise due to evolution "recognizing" that some things signal safety and some signal danger (red=blood=danger is one of the more obvious), and thus over time creatures will develop elaborate "aesthetics" by which certain types of visual or audio cues will elicit pleasure, and some will elicit revulsion. A good example is the sound of fingernails on a blackboard, which some researchers showed is very similar to a danger cry in certain African primates.
Not all esthetics has to be tied so directly to a natural cue, however. Once creatures have developed an instinct to prefer some patterns over others, they have gained the ability to use this mechanism "recreationally" -- experimenting with the creation of different patterns just to see how they tickle the instinctual pleasure/aversion pattern recognition parts of their brains (which orginally arose for more practical purposes).
Note that I'm not claiming that I've proven that the esthetic sense *did* arise in exactly this way -- in order to do that a number of careful research studies would have to be performed. But my point is that you were expressing doubt that there would be *any* "reason" for evolution to select for an esthetic sense, and thus I've laid out one plausible survival-based reason that evolution *would* drive such preferences to arise.
and the only spiritual creatures (no animal has the capacity to worship).
I repeat my earlier comment about dogs. And no, I'm not kidding.
You also need to explain the conscious self in light of materialistic neodarwinism - provide scientific evidence that shows that morality, emotions, and even the self have material causes.
That's an easy one -- various drugs, targeted electrical stimulations, and many kinds of physical brain damage (e.g. tumor, chemical damage, gunshot or falling damage, etc.) can directly affect "morality, emotions, and even the self". In short, physical alterations of the brain produce changes in the very things which you consider to be "metaphysical", strongly indicating that they're rooted in the physical after all.
Similarly, PET scans and other types of activation scans of the brain show clearly physical activity occurring in different characteristic parts of the (physical) brain when subjects exercise "morality, emotions, even the self".
I guarantee that you can't do it
You guarantee wrongly.
- therefore, you are making metaphysical faith statements not grounded in empirical science - that is called self-refutation.
On the contrary, it appears your position is the one that's currently lacking in evidence from empirical science (although I've joined this thread late -- if you posted some earlier which I've missed, please let me know).
I'm not talking about "fight or flight" - I'm talking about "where do I come from?" "Where am I going?" "Why do I exist?" "Do I exist?" "What is real?" If you have any scientific evidence (other than your biased opinion) that animals ask themselves these questions, let's have it. Otherwise, you are outside of the realm of science.
Preference/aversion for certain patterns/colors/sounds/sequences will arise due to evolution "recognizing" that some things signal safety and some signal danger (red=blood=danger is one of the more obvious), and thus over time creatures will develop elaborate "aesthetics" by which certain types of visual or audio cues will elicit pleasure, and some will elicit revulsion. A good example is the sound of fingernails on a blackboard, which some researchers showed is very similar to a danger cry in certain African primates.
Haha. Give me the empirical evidence for this statement. You have none. Another assertion. Do you follow your own rules of science or not?
Not all esthetics has to be tied so directly to a natural cue, however. Once creatures have developed an instinct to prefer some patterns over others, they have gained the ability to use this mechanism "recreationally" -- experimenting with the creation of different patterns just to see how they tickle the instinctual pleasure/aversion pattern recognition parts of their brains (which orginally arose for more practical purposes).
EVIDENCE? Where is it? Either produce evidence for your assertions or admit that they are your opinion and are not grounded in scientific fact.
You guarantee wrongly.
Then let's have the evidence. I don't accept assertions from people who claim to have a monopoly on science. I want data. Give.
or
The universe came into existence through some as yet unidentified cataclysmic cosmic accident.
Those are the only available options for the beginning of our universe.
Haha. I'm not the one who uses "empirical science" as my basis in fact. Since neodarwinists do, therefore, when they go outside of empirical science, as you have done here, you are contradicting your own scientific epistemology. Can't you see that?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.