• In total there are 25 users online :: 0 registered, 0 hidden and 25 guests (based on users active over the past 60 minutes)
    Most users ever online was 789 on Tue Mar 19, 2024 5:08 am

Evolution and baseball caps

Engage in discussions encompassing themes like cosmology, human evolution, genetic engineering, earth science, climate change, artificial intelligence, psychology, and beyond in this forum.
Forum rules
Do not promote books in this forum. Instead, promote your books in either Authors: Tell us about your FICTION book! or Authors: Tell us about your NON-FICTION book!.

All other Community Rules apply in this and all other forums.
User avatar
Flann 5
Nutty for Books
Posts: 1580
Joined: Tue Jul 16, 2013 8:53 pm
10
Location: Dublin
Has thanked: 831 times
Been thanked: 705 times

Re: Evolution and baseball caps

Unread post

Interbane wrote:It's sort of like thinking of a glass half full or empty. You're right on both accounts, of course, but the perspective is opposite. When you consider all the things you currently think of as flaws, perhaps you should instead consider them human characteristics, without judgement. To think of them as flaws is negative. It's almost manipulative, as if it's meant to induce shame or embarrassment on some obscure level. We are disgusting filthy flawed creatures.

We can have humility without such judgemental constructs.
Hi Interbane. I don't think it was a judgemental construct to say that we are flawed and do good and evil but simply a pretty obvious truth about reality and human history.
You can question the use of the word flawed but clearly we humans do acts of kindness and cruelty. We can see that one is good and the other is not. We can see on one level that which admirable and desirable for humanity and also that which is appalling and destructive.
So I suppose the question is what is normal?
User avatar
ant

1G - SILVER CONTRIBUTOR
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame
Posts: 5935
Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2011 12:04 pm
12
Has thanked: 1371 times
Been thanked: 969 times

Re: Evolution and baseball caps

Unread post

You can question the use of the word flawed but clearly we humans do acts of kindness and cruelty. We can see that one is good and the other is not. We can see on one level that which admirable and desirable for humanity and also that which is appalling and destructive.


EDITED:


So genocide is not evil behavior, rather, it's flawed behavior.

I'm not sure how to process that emotionally.
Last edited by ant on Fri May 29, 2015 10:55 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
geo

2C - MOD & GOLD
pets endangered by possible book avalanche
Posts: 4779
Joined: Sun Aug 03, 2008 4:24 am
15
Location: NC
Has thanked: 2198 times
Been thanked: 2200 times
United States of America

Re: Evolution and baseball caps

Unread post

Interbane wrote:. . . When you consider all the things you currently think of as flaws, perhaps you should instead consider them human characteristics, without judgement. To think of them as flaws is negative. It's almost manipulative, as if it's meant to induce shame or embarrassment on some obscure level. We are disgusting filthy flawed creatures.

We can have humility without such judgemental constructs.
I think this is a humble and noble sentiment. And well articulated.

From a materialist perspective, we acknowledge the fact that we are limited creatures with limited imaginations. And that we are easily led astray by our own biology and a brain that has evolved to be easily manipulated by biases and emotions. We are wired, so to speak, to come to beliefs too easily and take positions that are not necessarily based on facts.

My father, for example, is one of those FoxNews addicts and frequently spouts off various conservative platitudes. My younger brother gets all bent out of shape and judgmental about it. But maybe because I have learned that political orientation is largely based on emotion, it's easier for me to step back and try to understand why these conservative platitudes are so appealing to my father. People frequently misunderstand my neutrality in such matters as weakness as if, by not taking sides, I am part of the problem.

Thus, when a teenage girl has premarital sex and gets pregnant, we can accept that this was a mistake based on basic biological impulses. Why would we want to shame the girl and tell her she's worthless and immoral if we want the girl to make the best of a bad situation and from this point forward be the best person she can be (and be a good mother too)? Here, shame and moral outrage can do more harm than good.

Obviously, in the case of rape or murder, we must take unequivocably strong action to protect other members of society. This is a very different scenario where moral outrage and judgment are appropriate.

Edit:

And bringing this back to evolution, I think it's important for materialists to recognize that evolution is a strange and unintuitive concept for many people. It doesn't do much good to badger and berate those who resist the idea of evolution. William James, the American psychologist, recognized that the power of belief is itself a very positive psychological trait. Though he was a staunch pragmatist early in life, as he got older, he argued that religious faith can be seen as rational—even if that religious belief itself cannot be demonstrated to be true. As Interbane said, we are flawed. And the only way in which we wouldn't be flawed is if we were no longer human.
-Geo
Question everything
User avatar
Interbane

1G - SILVER CONTRIBUTOR
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame
Posts: 7203
Joined: Sat Oct 09, 2004 12:59 am
19
Location: Da U.P.
Has thanked: 1105 times
Been thanked: 2166 times
United States of America

Re: Evolution and baseball caps

Unread post

Flann wrote:I don't think it was a judgemental construct to say that we are flawed and do good and evil but simply a pretty obvious truth about reality and human history.
These things aren't mutually exclusive. It's an obvious truth that the glass is half empty when it is at the same time half full. You see the shift of perspective here? Inherent in the description is a judgement, based on what aspect you emphasize.
Flann wrote:You can question the use of the word flawed but clearly we humans do acts of kindness and cruelty.
But how does the word have any meaning if to be "unflawed" is to no longer be human?

Meaningless or not, the word is accurate. To be flawed is to be less than perfect. What I'm questioning is why we assume perfection to be a real thing. We measure ourselves against and impossible standard, and it only serves to induce negative emotions. In other words, it's manipulative.

Sorry for this tangent. I wanted to explore the idea. There is wisdom in striving for perfection in many areas of life, but to be a perfect human seems to be a goal that is doomed to harm us emotionally more than serve us.
In the beginning the Universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry and has been widely regarded as a bad move.” - Douglas Adams
User avatar
Interbane

1G - SILVER CONTRIBUTOR
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame
Posts: 7203
Joined: Sat Oct 09, 2004 12:59 am
19
Location: Da U.P.
Has thanked: 1105 times
Been thanked: 2166 times
United States of America

Re: Evolution and baseball caps

Unread post

Geo wrote:Thus, when a teenage girl has premarital sex and gets pregnant, we can accept that this was a mistake based on basic biological impulses.
These sorts of mistakes, as well as harmful acts, should be reacted to in a way that induces guilt or shame. It's necessary for proper learning, experience, behavioral correction.

But the focus should be on the wrongness of the act, rather than an intrinsic human quality. Recognize that her desires were human, normal, but she needs to correct her future behavior.

To fully understand this position, she would need to understand the mismatch between our evolutionary heritage and modern society. But I expect that to be beyond most people. It seems the patchwork solution up until we've gained better understanding has been an overall shaming of our nature, rather than embracing it. The deeds should be judged, not us. That is the healthier path I think.

I think this is all still somewhat related to the thread topic. Either way, it's interesting. I don't know if I'm right, so I'd like to hear more from Flann or ant.
In the beginning the Universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry and has been widely regarded as a bad move.” - Douglas Adams
User avatar
ant

1G - SILVER CONTRIBUTOR
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame
Posts: 5935
Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2011 12:04 pm
12
Has thanked: 1371 times
Been thanked: 969 times

Re: Evolution and baseball caps

Unread post

From a materialist perspective, we acknowledge the fact that we are limited creatures with limited imaginations. And that we are easily led astray by our own biology and a brain that has evolved to be easily manipulated by biases and emotions. We are wired, so to speak, to come to beliefs too easily and take positions that are not necessarily based on facts.

Who's "we"?
The very word is nuanced with bias.

What evidence do you have that proves you are not being lead astray with this specific analysis?

I don't think Materialists are more apt to be humble or rational because they subscribe to a materialistic philosophy.

The agents of materialist/secular States rejected words like "evil" and rationalized acts that many would define as being the epitome of evil.
Instead, they used neutral and bland words to justify atrocities (ie "rehabilitate") . There was still manipulation being committed.

That fact is that secular regimes and their people destroyed books (and people) that contained/uttered judgmental language (like good and evil) and still lacked "humility" or common decency is also evidence that a materialistic perspective does not in any way increase rationality, promote humility, etc etc.

Were they not "true" materialists?
Again, who's "we"??
User avatar
ant

1G - SILVER CONTRIBUTOR
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame
Posts: 5935
Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2011 12:04 pm
12
Has thanked: 1371 times
Been thanked: 969 times

Re: Evolution and baseball caps

Unread post

Flann wrote:
We can see that one is good and the other is not. We can see on one level that which admirable and desirable for humanity and also that which is appalling and destructive.
There is something going on here with the use of language.

If language and emotion work in conjunction to provoke action and reaction, then I'd think the changing of our language eventually has an impact on what we do and DONT DO.

The word "evil" throughout history has provoked millions to action.
The atrocities committed by the Nazi's were seen as the most heinous, evil behavior a human being could engage in.
The emotional provocation it roused led people to take action. It was a shame committed on all that is human and decent.
And that is the very language that was used in the context of the time to rally the Allies to put an end to it.

If no such words of shame and guilt were used to rally people to action then perhaps we would have had a totally different outcome.

I can't imagine words like "flawed" (if used enough) causing anything other than neutral emotions that eventually offset necessary action. If there is no such thing as shame then at some point our emotions become dull and arouse nothing but hyper analysis without action.
Last edited by ant on Fri May 29, 2015 12:24 pm, edited 2 times in total.
User avatar
geo

2C - MOD & GOLD
pets endangered by possible book avalanche
Posts: 4779
Joined: Sun Aug 03, 2008 4:24 am
15
Location: NC
Has thanked: 2198 times
Been thanked: 2200 times
United States of America

Re: Evolution and baseball caps

Unread post

Speaking in general terms, the 'we' in that sentence means those materialists like myself who seek naturalist explanations for our behavior (and who sometimes engage in debates about religion). I would never presume to say I am less prone to error, only that I'm aware of the potential for human error and that I strive to correct it in myself. I'm quite sure that others can see achieve the same objective using their own spiritual/subjective/metaphoric perspective. Although I think you can make the argument that the naturalist perspective more closely aligns with reality, that is not the point I was making in this post.

It's interesting how you so quickly twist my words into us vs. them.

Have not religious regimes also rationalized acts that many would consider evil? This is a strawman in the making.
-Geo
Question everything
User avatar
Interbane

1G - SILVER CONTRIBUTOR
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame
Posts: 7203
Joined: Sat Oct 09, 2004 12:59 am
19
Location: Da U.P.
Has thanked: 1105 times
Been thanked: 2166 times
United States of America

Re: Evolution and baseball caps

Unread post

ant wrote:If there is no such thing as shame then at some point our emotions become dull and arouse nothing but hyper analysis without action.
Shame will always exist as long as we are human. Should we elicit shame at merely being human? No, I don't think so. Yet there are family members and relatives who I know that expressed a sentiment close to what I'm getting at. They feel shame or guilt or whatever at humanity being "fallen". I don't remember what denomination they were. I don't know how widespread across Christianity this particular belief is.

I dont' think we should feel shame at being who we are. Instead, we should feel shame about harmful actions.
In the beginning the Universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry and has been widely regarded as a bad move.” - Douglas Adams
User avatar
ant

1G - SILVER CONTRIBUTOR
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame
Posts: 5935
Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2011 12:04 pm
12
Has thanked: 1371 times
Been thanked: 969 times

Re: Evolution and baseball caps

Unread post

It's interesting how you so quickly twist my words into us vs. them.
"We" is not a word that signifies a separate category?
Of course it is and you know it. If you don't it's a strong subconscious bias in play.
Have not religious regimes also rationalized acts that many would consider evil? This is a strawman in the making.
Of course. and no one here has denied that, have they?

Two things about that specific comment:

1) Despite the truth of your statement, it does not quite defeat my argument, does it?

2) It's actually a strawman of your creation if you dismiss what's been said in order to rail against evil acts committed because of religious motivations.
Post Reply

Return to “Science & Technology”