Memes or God - where do you get philosophy for living

CDfm

tech77 wrote: »

Yeah, of course empathy/co-operativity are evolutionarily fitting.
But (and i started a thread about this before) is run-of-the-mill empathy enough?
What are the limits to this evolutionary compassion.

Is it absolute, allowing for the survival of all forms of life in your society above.

But thats abstract -what about real situations - the romans killed handicapped babies and we dont? (Abortion isnt the topic)

What are these norms and origans -is it because we are altruistic or do we have more resourses.

Zillah

CDfm wrote: »

But thats abstract -what about real situations - the romans killed handicapped babies and we dont? (Abortion isnt the topic)

What or these norms and origans -is it because we are altruistic or do we have more resourses.

It's cute that you think we now have it right. Maybe the Romans would think you're being unforgiveably cruel allowing handicapped babies to struggle through long fruitless lives. Kind of selfish of you to allow your short sighted sympathies to condemn another sentience to decades of suffering.

So you have free will.

I have the appearance thereof. For all intents and purposes I may as well have, but I'll still contend that the very word "free will" is nonesense. We'd need a new thread for that though.

tech77 wrote: »

Yeah, of course empathy/co-operativity are evolutionarily fitting.
But (and i started a thread about this before) is run-of-the-mill empathy enough?
What are the limits to this evolutionary compassion.

Is it absolute, allowing for the survival of all forms of life in your society above.

Could you ask the question again, except much better this time? For example, what is run of the mill empathy and what alternatives are there to it? As for limits of compassion...er, look around you. We see them everyday. The very fact that you use the term "evolutionary compassion" as opposed to just the word 'compassion' sets off warning bells. Is there a variety of compassion that is not an evolutionary trait?

CDfm

Zillah wrote: »

It's cute that you think we now have it right. Maybe the Romans would think you're being unforgiveably cruel allowing handicapped babies to struggle through long fruitless lives. Kind of selfish of you to allow your short sighted sympathies to condemn another sentience to decades of suffering.

is this a christian influence or did other non christan societies practice it to.

Zillah

Er...no, I'm pretty sure Christendom was not the first culture to not kill defective children.

[Kind of off topic]

That's not to imply, of course, that Christendom didn't kill plenty of defective children, it's just that being Muslim*, Incan** or a witch is what they'd consider worthy of death.

*Sacking of Jerusalem
** Extermination of said culture, including dashing out baby brains on rocks.

[/OT]

bnt

I like the Confucian version of the Golden Rule, which is (paraphrased) "If you wouldn't like it done to you, don't do it to anyone else". This pre-dates the Christian version by about 500 years, and suits me better, since it implies "first do no harm".

Apart from that, much of my personal philosophy comes from watching other people screw up, and resolving not to screw up that way. This started at a very young age, with my incompetent parents, and continues to this day. Smoking, religion, excessive drinking, abusive relationships: all things I've seen and know not to do. It sounds like my life is defined by the things I don't do - which, now I think about it, is not a bad place to start from. :cool:

pH

CDfm wrote: »

is this a christian influence or did other non christan societies practice it to.

Hang on here, in Rwanda a country that is 95% Christian (55% Catholic), and therefore one of the most Christian societies on the planet, these morals that Christianity teaches, or this so called Christian influence seemed not to be present in 1994.

I'm not saying that there weren't a few priests and pastors who did try and save people (though on the other side of they coin there were others who actively participated in the genocide), what I'm looking at here is the behaviour of the general population, the vast majority of which were church going Christians, all of whom have been taught Christian morals all their lives.

We're not talking about minor moral failures here, impoliteness, not giving a few euro to charity or swearing, we're talking about participating in the mass murder of millions of men women and children, or at the very least standing aside and letting it happen.

I'm not sure how you or anyone can argue that Christian morals even exist, if you can be brought up a Christian and participate in the mass murder by machete of your neighbours, then as far as I'm concerned 'morals' is the wrong word to be using here.

CDfm

bnt wrote: »

I like the Confucian version of the Golden Rule, which is (paraphrased) "If you wouldn't like it done to you, don't do it to anyone else". This pre-dates the Christian version by about 500 years, and suits me better, since it implies "first do no harm".

It sounds like my life is defined by the things I don't do - which, now I think about it, is not a bad place to start from. :cool:

Quite a cool philosophy :cool:

So we have built it up over time.

CDfm

Zillah wrote: »

That's not to imply, of course, that Christendom didn't kill plenty of defective children, it's just that being Muslim*, Incan** or a witch is what they'd consider worthy of death.

[/OT]

A very valid point.It strikes me that religious morality is optional and obedience is now personal and not enforced thru a powerful structure.History does inform us.

pH wrote: »

Hang on here, in Rwanda a country that is 95% Christian (55% Catholic), and therefore one of the most Christian societies on the planet, these morals that Christianity teaches, or this so called Christian influence seemed not to be present in 1994.

I'm not saying that there weren't a few priests and pastors who did try and save people (though on the other side of they coin there were others who actively participated in the genocide), what I'm looking at here is the behaviour of the general population, the vast majority of which were church going Christians, all of whom have been taught Christian morals all their lives.

I'm not sure how you or anyone can argue that Christian morals even exist, if you can be brought up a Christian and participate in the mass murder by machete of your neighbours, then as far as I'm concerned 'morals' is the wrong word to be using here.

Christian morals have free will. Unlikely as it may seem your view is shared by many Catholics including Pope Ben who has postulated on occasions that the numbers of Catholics worldwide is inflated because the attraction is not based on faith but access to education,charity, medical care and housing programmes.

In Rwanda the issues were tribal and political and were no less disturbing because some church officials participated. So you have a moral Christian and philosophy that didnt take hold.

There is always debate on a commandment on whether its "thou shalt not kill or thou shalt not murder" . The Catholic Church has never been totally against executions when they are for the general good and there is no real alternative.

So how come we havent evolved from this tribal stuff?

JC 2K3

CDfm wrote: »

OK smartarse; monogamy :biological,adaptive behavior or a social construct?

Fundamentally, biology. What makes sense to me is that we would seem to have a genetic trait that makes us very susceptible to influence at an early age, and that those species which tended to practice monogamy were better equipped for survival than those who did not. So children growing up in households with monogamous parents would be more likely to practice monogamous behaviour as adults.

CDfm

JC 2K3 wrote: »

Fundamentally, biology. What makes sense to me is that we would seem to have a genetic trait that makes us very susceptible to influence at an early age, and that those species which tended to practice monogamy were better equipped for survival than those who did not. So children growing up in households with monogamous parents would be more likely to practice monogamous behaviour as adults.

It makes sence to me from a personal point of view.resourses and exclusivity. i dont want to be feeding a woman and buying her drink and someone else doing the business. That could cause trouble in the cave.

How can you know non monogamous species died out?

So why cant it be a religous/god moral?

pH

CDfm wrote: »

In Rwanda the issues were tribal and political and were no less disturbing because some church officials participated. So you have a moral Christian and philosophy that didnt take hold.

It's always fun to listen to Catholics talking about "Rwanda's tribal issues"

In the colonial era, under German and then Belgian rule, Roman Catholic missionaries, inspired by the overtly racist theories of 19th century Europe, concocted a destructive ideology of ethnic cleavage and racial ranking that attributed superior qualities to the country’s Tutsi minority. These 15 per cent were approaching, however gradually, the exalted level of white people, as contrasted with the declared brutishness and innate inferiority of the "Bantu" (Hutu) majority. Since the missionaries ran the colonial-era schools, these pernicious values were systematically transmitted to several generations of Rwandans, along with more conventional Catholic teachings.
http://www.reliefweb.int/rw/rwb.nsf/db900sid/OCHA-64DEEY?OpenDocument

There is always debate on a commandment on whether its "thou shalt not kill or thou shalt not murder" . The Catholic Church has never been totally against executions when they are for the general good and there is no real alternative.

You're very quick to attribute not killing small kids to "Christian morals" and yet not the Rwandan genocide, I wonder how can you tell which aspects of the behaviour of a society are attributed to Christian morals and which are not?

So how come we havent evolved from this tribal stuff?

Mainly because of religions pulling us back.

JC 2K3

CDfm wrote: »

So why cant it be a religous/god moral?

Some behaviours quite possibly arose via the path of religion. I'm not denying that, but it's got nothing to do with anything supernatural.

A biological tendency towards religious belief, monogamy/other values and susceptibility to influence could explain how such behaviours arose.

gramlab

CDfm wrote: »

So how come we havent evolved from this tribal stuff?

Because essentially we are still animals when it comes down to it. A lot of our behaviours are instinctive e.g. fear, anger etc. , so why not morals in some way.

Our parents, the society we are in, the amount of exposure to other cultures will to a large extent determine our moral outlook, but in the end its individualistic. We take it all in and adapt the "normal social morals" to suit our own outlook.

One way to judge would be to put two amnesiacs on separate islands, give one of them a bible/other religious text and come back in a few years and have a look. Would make a good reality show.

ChocolateSauce

CDfm wrote:

Inate sence of good or fear of getting caught.

Do you get guilt? Ever cheat on a girlfriend and what stops you doing it?

I would certainly say innate. Fear of getting caught is a sad reason to not do bad things. I often see opportunities where I could gain immorally without being caught, but I never take them. And yes, I did once cheat on a girlfriend (of course, back then kissing another girl seemed a lot worse than it really was). I felt bad about it and told her the next day, and we survived for a whole year after that. Now that I've made that mistake I'm in a good position not to make it again.

Goduznt Xzst

I'm curious CDfm, as a believer, where do you stand in regards to the Euthyphro dilemma concerning morality?

CDfm wrote: »

How can you know non monogamous species died out?

So why cant it be a religous/god moral?

I asked this question before in this thread.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055365207

From further reading on the subject I've reached a point where I've realized polygamy can't work with the current ratios of men to women. I don't believe this has anything to do with morals, but more to do with avoiding civil unrest. Where we to see a situation where some disease were to wipe out a very large percentage of the male or female population, I could see polygamy becoming an accepted norm as the ratios of men to women would be considerably disproportionate.

ChocolateSauce wrote: »

Fear of getting caught is a sad reason to not do bad things.

Aside from personal morals though, you do accept that this is one of the main reasons why a lot of humans in general do not do bad things? There have been numerous studies, and numerous real world examples, where when the consequences where lifted from individuals, they had no issue with doing immoral things to others. The Milgram Experiment comes to mind. There is also mob mentality during supposed moral panics which leads to the likes of pogroms/witch-hunts or rioting and looting during blackouts.

The measure of a man's character is what he would do if he knew he never would be found out. - Baron Thomas Babington Macauley

Zombrex

Goduznt Xzst wrote: »

The measure of a man's character is what he would do if he knew he never would be found out. - Baron Thomas Babington Macauley

Good quote

If you listen to most of the Christian arguments on Boards.ie of what they think atheist morality must be like, they would go on a raping murdering rampage if they didn't believe their god existed. Which is sort of scary.

CDfm

Goduznt Xzst wrote: »

I'm curious CDfm, as a believer, where do you stand in regards to the Euthyphro dilemma concerning morality?


Aside from personal morals though, you do accept that this is one of the main reasons why a lot of humans in general do not do bad things? There have been numerous studies, and numerous real world examples, where when the consequences where lifted from individuals, they had no issue with doing immoral things to others.

Euthyphro is very difficult and I have difficulty with it. Is what is moral commanded by God because it is moral, or is it moral because it is commanded by God? I am inclined towards the former probably because I think that God wouldn't want you to do something unethical and the rightness of the outcome is important.

Life isnt always black and white and an example of its application also comes up in legal cases in contitutional law as to the diference between the spirit of the law and letter of the law. Judges give weight to Dail Debates in the Supreme Court when arriving at their decisions.

In Dickens book "Hard Times" there is an exchange between a character Stephen Blackpool and his better Mr Bounderby. Stephens junkie wife turned up after years and his plans to marry the lovely and pious Rachel were twarted so they have the folowing exchange on his inability to get rid of
her

"If I do her any hurt, sir, there's a law to punish me"
"Of course there is."
"If I flee from her, there's a law to punish me?"
"Of course there is." "If I marry t'oother dear lass, there's a law to punish me?"
"Of course there is."
"If I was to live wi' her an not marry her? there?s a law to punish me, in every innocent child belonging to me?" "Of course there is."
"Now a' God's name show me the law to help me!"

That really nails it for me -as moral laws in themselves by being absolute can lead to an unjust outcome.

I totally agree with you that people behave differently when there are no percievable consequences to their actions. To be moral and ethical -you kinda have to either be coerced or willing to be.Nazi prison guards acted like they did as they believed there were no consequences and for huge numbers there werent.Rwanda was the same.

mickeydevine

Memes or God?

Neither, I get my philosophy for living from television.:pac:

CDfm

pH wrote: »

It's always fun to listen to Catholics talking about "Rwanda's tribal issues"

You're very quick to attribute not killing small kids to "Christian morals" and yet not the Rwandan genocide, I wonder how can you tell which aspects of the behaviour of a society are attributed to Christian morals and which are not?

PH - that was of its time and I could give you a sophist argument about "render unto Caesar that which Caesars etc".To me what happened was unbelieveable and reminded me of Nazi Germany and you might ask why the Germans could elect Hitler but they did. The Jews were scapegoats and their extermination was thus justified.

I think its a bit off topic but it does illustrate how man by himself has a really messed up values.

The colonial legacy was one factor which contributed to the genocide but not on its own. We in Ireland have our own colonial legacy which was bad enough.

The Genocide in Rwanda was truly evil. Would I hang those responsible -probably-if there were priests involved most definately.

On an aside, the first Nazi exterminations were of the mentally handicapped which had to be signed of by 3 doctors independently. So how could this be?

In Vichy France during World War II certain Bishops supported the regime while others didnt- one Bishop issued a letter to be read in Churches condemning the treatment of Jews and if I find a link I will post it.But essentially the treatment of Jews was a Vichy Nazi Gig and not a church sponsored one.

By definition- you dont mention the caste system in India.

Man left to his own devises is not very nice.

CDfm

Wicknight wrote: »

Good quote

If you listen to most of the Christian arguments on Boards.ie of what they think atheist morality must be like, they would go on a raping murdering rampage if they didn't believe their god existed. Which is sort of scary.

Here is a book review link on Vichy France and Christian Complicity but really while it is fashionable to blame church inaction - really -it is individuals who act and the treatment of Jews was a Nazi-Vichy Policy and not a church policy.

http://www.ess.uwe.ac.uk/GENOCIDE/reviewsh26.htm

Given that this is so - while Christian morality cant always swing populations -I cant see any arguments for morality from other sources working.

The very fact that religion is organised will mean a structure that can be politiced by the affiliations of its members.

Didnt the Dalai Llamas late brother also a Buddhist leader favour the use of physical force against the Chinese?

No atheist has come out yet and said humanity is nasty and blamed a faulty gene or meme yet?

pH

CDfm wrote: »

I think its a bit off topic but it does illustrate how man by himself has a really messed up values.

I'm sorry, but how does it do that? Rwanda was/is a predominantly Christian (Catholic) country, with a couple of hundred years of Christian tradition. The same with Nazi Germany (though tbh the whole Nazi thing is now so cliched I don't like bringing it up), church attendance was high in the 1930s and remained high for much of the Nazi period.

How you can claim that man by himself has messed up values based on this is quite beyond me.

Also, you still haven't answered my earlier question, how can you be confident enough to attribute "not killing babies" to "Christian Morals" in one Christian society and also confident enough to reject genocide in another? Are you just making this up, or have you some other rule like "good result = Christianity, bad result = they weren't listening!"?.

Zombrex

CDfm wrote: »

Given that this is so - while Christian morality cant always swing populations -I cant see any arguments for morality from other sources working.

Post-Enlightenment modern civilisation, most based on moral concepts that originated in Greece and Rome, is some what of a testament to morality from "other sources" working pretty well.

And not to single out the west, philosophies in Asia were also putting forward some high moral values. More often than not religion gets in the way of this.

CDfm wrote: »

The very fact that religion is organised will mean a structure that can be politiced by the affiliations of its members.

That is some what of a bad thing though

CDfm wrote: »

No atheist has come out yet and said humanity is nasty and blamed a faulty gene or meme yet?

I think you still don't understand what memes are. But no, humans being "nasty" hasn't been blamed on a faulty gene, what ever that would be.

Zombrex

CDfm wrote: »

Man left to his own devises is not very nice.

Man following the idea that he is working for the greater glory, be it God or Communism or Hitler, can often be very unnice

Look at the Old Testament. The genocide described in that book makes Rwanda look like a stroll in the park.

CerebralCortex

Wicknight wrote: »

Man following the idea that he is working for the greater glory, be it God or Communism or Hitler, can often be very unnice

Look at the Old Testament. The genocide described in that book makes Rwanda look like a stroll in the park.

"This sh!t makes Cambodia look like Kansas" - Blaine in Predator

Zillah

CDfm wrote: »

Euthyphro is very difficult and I have difficulty with it. Is what is moral commanded by God because it is moral, or is it moral because it is commanded by God? I am inclined towards the former probably because I think that God wouldn't want you to do something unethical and the rightness of the outcome is important.

Life isnt always black and white

You believe in God and God is perfect, right? The Euthyphro question is irrelevant, both answers are the same. If what is moral is moral simply because it is moral, it is moral because God made a universe in which it is moral. (Read that sentence slowly - Editor)

In which case the world has to be black and white. Some things are in accordance with Godly dictated morality, some are not, surely?

Now, my answer is that morality does not exist. What we describe as morality is actually a subtle blend of empathy, emotion and rationalisation, nothing more. There is by definition no right and wrong. Which really is a much more reasonable conclusion, no need to get tangled up in obtuse metaphysics here.

CDfm

Wicknight wrote: »

I think you still don't understand what memes are. But no, humans being "nasty" hasn't been blamed on a faulty gene, what ever that would be.

I havent claimed to be an expert on memes - and one of the reasons of starting the thread was to learn a bit. I have never seen a clear working model - but its theoretical.I am not at all averse to having it explained and seeing examples of how it works.

I said nasty gene - but you do get people putting forward the idea of a selfish gene - or people as individuals or as groups acting in their own self interest.

The transmission of ideals etc is a bit more antropolological IMHO.

So yes -I would like to see how it all fits and thats not to pick holes in any argument but to see if there is anything in it.Does that make sense.

CDfm

pH wrote: »

I'm sorry, but how does it do that? Rwanda was/is a predominantly Christian (Catholic) country, with a couple of hundred years of Christian tradition. The same with Nazi Germany (though tbh the whole Nazi thing is now so cliched I don't like bringing it up), church attendance was high in the 1930s and remained high for much of the Nazi period.

How you can claim that man by himself has messed up values based on this is quite beyond me.

Also, you still haven't answered my earlier question, how can you be confident enough to attribute "not killing babies" to "Christian Morals" in one Christian society and also confident enough to reject genocide in another? Are you just making this up, or have you some other rule like "good result = Christianity, bad result = they weren't listening!"?.

PH - i am not an expert so thats why i posted the link above. In France in the 30s while 90% of people were baptised only one in four were practicing catholics. So I think people really over estimate the power of the Church and its influence. Christians may not like to admit and come right out and say that Christian values are ineffectual by themselves in preventing such occurances.The babies thing was just a point saying that it was a Roman value that changed with its Christianification -nothing more.A change in a cultural value or values.

I am not naive -but attributing and describing Rwanda as a Christian society is as extreme as describing Pol Pots Cambodia as an atheist one. So Stalin was one of your boys -explain that then? - Mao?. Thats all fine and dandy if you want a stereotypical circular discussion.

ph can you really discuss this issue or do you just feel more comfortable hanging out with the Creationist debabing team.Surely there is more to Atheists explanitions then its all religions fault - what a cop out if thats the best you can do.

To understand how that might have happened and if the memes debate can give an insight to how society and man operates collectively and in groups is something else.The meme hypotheses - what is it and does it add to our understanding? My understanding is that a God belief is just part of this and that it explains issues using a different mechanism.

Zillah

I'd recommend reading a book on memes by a decent social theorist if you want to get a better understanding. It is a sociological theory and it is a relatively new theory, so it is of course going to be more wishy washy than harder sciences, but that doesn't mean that it's not a useful tool for explaining how ideas spread between people, be they religious thoughts on the divinity of Jesus or the trends that dictate America's Next Top Model.

CDfm

Zillah wrote: »

I'd recommend reading a book on memes by a decent social theorist if you want to get a better understanding. It is a sociological theory and it is a relatively new theory, so it is of course going to be more wishy washy than harder sciences, but that doesn't mean that it's not a useful tool for explaining how ideas spread between people, be they religious thoughts on the divinity of Jesus or the trends that dictate America's Next Top Model.

Zillah - I am very well read on sociology.antropology and philosophy etc. The memes idea has been kicking around since the 1920s. Why the fcuk would I want to read another sociology book and one that doesnt really tell me anything more.

I forget who coined the definition of antropology as the holistic study of man as a cultural animal. So what has memes got to tell me thats new in the study of man.http://vlib.anthrotech.com/guides/anthropology.shtml

Dont blame me if people get the idea that A+A doesnt do serious discussion beyond Christian = BAD Atheist =Good. That would be a self fulfilling prophesy alright.:rolleyes:

Zillah

Wait. Let me make sure I have this right.

You come here asking us to help you understand memes. I reccomend that you read a book about memes, and your response is that you've read so many sociology texts that reading about memes would be pointless. Then you imply that we are somehow at fault for not teaching you about memes.

Stop, just stop. Read this. We have no obligation to educate you.