Guest
On Tuesday, 23 July 2019 03:28:42 UTC+1, George Herold wrote:
I'm pretty sure morality existed before religion
I'm pretty sure morality existed before religion
Navigation
Install the app
How to install the app on iOS
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
More options
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Guest
George Herold <gherold@teachspin.com> wrote in news:a1bef1fa-5560-4766-
a492-015084c5f940@googlegroups.com:
There is a movie about a prison made on an island and the prisoners
ran things... Not a good outcome.
a492-015084c5f940@googlegroups.com:
.. but just your own little tribe of hunter-gatherers.
There is a movie about a prison made on an island and the prisoners
ran things... Not a good outcome.
Guest
Lasse Langwadt Christensen <langwadt@fonz.dk> wrote in news:772223cf-
112c-4aee-b4bd-41ce148b7867@googlegroups.com:
Thjere is a video of an experiment behavioral scientists in
Australia did with children.
Two groups. The first group in the room with a nerf dart board and
a line on the floor were told to throw at the board and not to hand
place the darts.
After leaving the room, the adults observed the kids doing exactly
what they said they should not do. More than 90% in fact.
The second group had the same room and scenario except that an
empty chair was placed in the room over near the board, and they were
told that there was an invisible princess sitting in the chair
watching them, and that cheating would result in punishment.
Invert the number. Over 90% 'behaved'.
Left unchecked, humankind is not more than a noble experiment that
failed, and that is where we are right now.
I checked mode we had accomplishments like the Notre Dame cathedral
and Bach and Mozart and DaVinci, etc.
Currently, the world is operating in The Twilight Zone and the rich
fucks taking advantage of it should all roast, both here while they
live and in hell, where they are surely destined to spend their
eternity.
112c-4aee-b4bd-41ce148b7867@googlegroups.com:
And it is easier to get the unwashed masses to obey the rules of
you
convince them that God made the rules and God will see if they
break
them even if they think no one else does, rather than try to
explain
why and how sticking to the rules are best for everyone
Thjere is a video of an experiment behavioral scientists in
Australia did with children.
Two groups. The first group in the room with a nerf dart board and
a line on the floor were told to throw at the board and not to hand
place the darts.
After leaving the room, the adults observed the kids doing exactly
what they said they should not do. More than 90% in fact.
The second group had the same room and scenario except that an
empty chair was placed in the room over near the board, and they were
told that there was an invisible princess sitting in the chair
watching them, and that cheating would result in punishment.
Invert the number. Over 90% 'behaved'.
Left unchecked, humankind is not more than a noble experiment that
failed, and that is where we are right now.
I checked mode we had accomplishments like the Notre Dame cathedral
and Bach and Mozart and DaVinci, etc.
Currently, the world is operating in The Twilight Zone and the rich
fucks taking advantage of it should all roast, both here while they
live and in hell, where they are surely destined to spend their
eternity.
J
John Larkin
Guest
On Tue, 23 Jul 2019 01:00:19 -0400, bitrex <user@example.net> wrote:
There is a big range between abstinence and casual hooking up. The
more people you network with, the more pathogens you will be exposed
to.
Great but terrifying book, And The Band Played On. The first people
who came down with AIDS had had literally thousands of sexual
partners. Randy Shilts wrote the book as he was dying of AIDS.
I'd expect it to be much higher than the chance of road death. There
are dozens of STD viruses and a few cause cervical and prostate
cancer, and herpes isn't fun either. There are stealth STDs that are
not as obvious as syphilus and such.
We may have another global killer STD, probably a virus. Nasty viruses
keep popping up.
--
John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc
lunatic fringe electronics
Abstinence-only religiously-founded sex education for reasons of STD
prevention is about one of the silliest ideas there ever was. Most
Americans, even the say Catholic ones who violate their particular vows
from time to time, have an average of 7 sexual partners in a lifetime.
The natural state of probably 75% of American citizens is pretty
sporadic sexual activity. Most Americans don't drink more than a couple
drinks a month, either, which is a more sensible choice IMO.
There is a big range between abstinence and casual hooking up. The
more people you network with, the more pathogens you will be exposed
to.
Great but terrifying book, And The Band Played On. The first people
who came down with AIDS had had literally thousands of sexual
partners. Randy Shilts wrote the book as he was dying of AIDS.
Even if you had unprotected sex constantly with those few partners with
averages of like 7 partners in a lifetime the risk of serious illness or
death from an STD is extremely low compared to the lifetime risk from
many other more mundane, modern self-chosen habits like driving a car on
public roadways regularly.
I'd expect it to be much higher than the chance of road death. There
are dozens of STD viruses and a few cause cervical and prostate
cancer, and herpes isn't fun either. There are stealth STDs that are
not as obvious as syphilus and such.
We may have another global killer STD, probably a virus. Nasty viruses
keep popping up.
--
John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc
lunatic fringe electronics
R
Rick C
Guest
On Tuesday, July 23, 2019 at 1:02:38 AM UTC-4, bitrex wrote:
Only the ones who have met me.
The issue still remains that there is no earthly reason for a god to play games with us requiring us to have "blind" faith, etc. Or is that what is happening, a creator is "playing" with us, providing all manner of arcane rules which are left up to us to figure out? If so, I think we have done a horrible job of it. We attribute everything to God from the beauty of a sunset to plagues and disease that ravage our populations and kill innocents en masse. "The greater plan of God"
What sort of idiot would believe any of that?
Randy Newman - God's Song
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C0TvfqmWf4M
The existence of religion shows the stupidity of human existence. Or maybe it shows that we are not capable of existence without believing we are part of something important, regardless of the evidence.
"Lord, if you won't take care of us
Won't you please, please let us be?"
--
Rick C.
-+- Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
-+- Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209
On 7/23/19 12:53 AM, Rick C wrote:
On Tuesday, July 23, 2019 at 12:37:40 AM UTC-4, bitrex wrote:
I think there's a difference between a "personal God" and a personal God
who one believes talks to them regularly.
When some pastors claim God spoke to them the natural question is Oh
does God speak to you on the regular? I would've thought a God would
have better things to do with God's time.
Just the opposite. God is everywhere, everything and all powerful. Why can't she talk to everyone as she wishes?
I never said God _couldn't_ do it
If God is a woman, is she like *really* hot? I mean like Charisma Carpenter hot?
Do lots of *really* hot earthly women call you up to chat with you
regularly, too?
Only the ones who have met me.
The issue still remains that there is no earthly reason for a god to play games with us requiring us to have "blind" faith, etc. Or is that what is happening, a creator is "playing" with us, providing all manner of arcane rules which are left up to us to figure out? If so, I think we have done a horrible job of it. We attribute everything to God from the beauty of a sunset to plagues and disease that ravage our populations and kill innocents en masse. "The greater plan of God"
What sort of idiot would believe any of that?
Randy Newman - God's Song
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C0TvfqmWf4M
The existence of religion shows the stupidity of human existence. Or maybe it shows that we are not capable of existence without believing we are part of something important, regardless of the evidence.
"Lord, if you won't take care of us
Won't you please, please let us be?"
--
Rick C.
-+- Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
-+- Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209
B
bitrex
Guest
On 7/23/19 11:39 AM, Rick C wrote:
Sometimes men think women "play games" with them. my thought on this
idea is that it in rare cases it is true, and in most cases it's an
"interpretation"
On Tuesday, July 23, 2019 at 1:02:38 AM UTC-4, bitrex wrote:
On 7/23/19 12:53 AM, Rick C wrote:
On Tuesday, July 23, 2019 at 12:37:40 AM UTC-4, bitrex wrote:
I think there's a difference between a "personal God" and a personal God
who one believes talks to them regularly.
When some pastors claim God spoke to them the natural question is Oh
does God speak to you on the regular? I would've thought a God would
have better things to do with God's time.
Just the opposite. God is everywhere, everything and all powerful. Why can't she talk to everyone as she wishes?
I never said God _couldn't_ do it
If God is a woman, is she like *really* hot? I mean like Charisma Carpenter hot?
Do lots of *really* hot earthly women call you up to chat with you
regularly, too?
Only the ones who have met me.
The issue still remains that there is no earthly reason for a god to play games with us requiring us to have "blind" faith, etc. Or is that what is happening, a creator is "playing" with us, providing all manner of arcane rules which are left up to us to figure out? If so, I think we have done a horrible job of it. We attribute everything to God from the beauty of a sunset to plagues and disease that ravage our populations and kill innocents en masse. "The greater plan of God"
What sort of idiot would believe any of that?
Randy Newman - God's Song
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C0TvfqmWf4M
The existence of religion shows the stupidity of human existence. Or maybe it shows that we are not capable of existence without believing we are part of something important, regardless of the evidence.
"Lord, if you won't take care of us
Won't you please, please let us be?"
Sometimes men think women "play games" with them. my thought on this
idea is that it in rare cases it is true, and in most cases it's an
"interpretation"
B
bitrex
Guest
On 7/23/19 11:39 AM, Rick C wrote:
Christianity is not about struggling to follow all manner of arcane
rules to the letter in an attempt to score Jesus-points, Christ himself
said that if that's what you're doing, you're doing it wrong. More-or-less.
position to make demands like that. that is to say someone who is
religious who is religious because they think it makes them part of
"something important" has again probably got the wrong idea
On Tuesday, July 23, 2019 at 1:02:38 AM UTC-4, bitrex wrote:
On 7/23/19 12:53 AM, Rick C wrote:
On Tuesday, July 23, 2019 at 12:37:40 AM UTC-4, bitrex wrote:
I think there's a difference between a "personal God" and a personal God
who one believes talks to them regularly.
When some pastors claim God spoke to them the natural question is Oh
does God speak to you on the regular? I would've thought a God would
have better things to do with God's time.
Just the opposite. God is everywhere, everything and all powerful. Why can't she talk to everyone as she wishes?
I never said God _couldn't_ do it
If God is a woman, is she like *really* hot? I mean like Charisma Carpenter hot?
Do lots of *really* hot earthly women call you up to chat with you
regularly, too?
Only the ones who have met me.
The issue still remains that there is no earthly reason for a god to play games with us requiring us to have "blind" faith, etc. Or is that what is happening, a creator is "playing" with us, providing all manner of arcane rules which are left up to us to figure out? If so, I think we have done a horrible job of it. We attribute everything to God from the beauty of a sunset to plagues and disease that ravage our populations and kill innocents en masse. "The greater plan of God"
What sort of idiot would believe any of that?
Christianity is not about struggling to follow all manner of arcane
rules to the letter in an attempt to score Jesus-points, Christ himself
said that if that's what you're doing, you're doing it wrong. More-or-less.
It's also about accepting that as a human you're not always in aRandy Newman - God's Song
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C0TvfqmWf4M
The existence of religion shows the stupidity of human existence. Or maybe it shows that we are not capable of existence without believing we are part of something important, regardless of the evidence.
"Lord, if you won't take care of us
Won't you please, please let us be?"
position to make demands like that. that is to say someone who is
religious who is religious because they think it makes them part of
"something important" has again probably got the wrong idea
G
George Herold
Guest
On Tuesday, July 23, 2019 at 12:25:53 AM UTC-4, Clifford Heath wrote:
I meant that the various religions around the world have been
the tradition source of 'morals', (how to behave).
we have very different images. For me religion is the local church.
(My fav. church in the world will have to be the UU in Nashville Tn.)
Church/religion is about local community. (And not some
bureaucratic nightmare that any 'big thing' can become.)
Big religion is maybe the result of small religion... which maybe could
get into our genes?
Mostly I see religion as a good thing...
(in that it is local community.)
A good church is a good thing in your life.
You don't have to believe in Jesus, to go to church...
(UU churches welcome atheists, wiccans and pagans.. basically anyone.
there may even be a few republicans. :^)
(In the US it's a very left leaning church.)
George H.
George H.
Huh OK I agree with you. By morals coming from religion,On 23/7/19 12:28 pm, George Herold wrote:
On Monday, July 22, 2019 at 8:43:21 PM UTC-4, Clifford Heath wrote:
On 23/7/19 10:20 am, George Herold wrote:
On Monday, July 22, 2019 at 7:12:14 PM UTC-4, Clifford Heath wrote:
The evolution of gods is less to do with need (though we do need ethical
frameworks) but more to do with the external expression of abstract
thought, i.e. writing. Pre-literate societies tend to be animistic, but
as writing allows the development of abstract categories, we create
them. So for example we see horses, and we see animals with horns, and
we can cross over the two ideas to suppose the existence of unicorns.
In the exact same way we cross over ideas of creation, of person-hood,
of justice and mercy, and you come up with a supposition of the Alpha
and Omega. It's intrinsic in the increase of sentience, and would happen
in a similar way on any alien planetary species (I find this a bit
depressing!).
The existence of writing allows these suppositions to take on a life of
their own and to be promulgated beyond the individual. The absence of
any positive confirmation doesn't stop folk wishing for certainty from
wasting their lives believing such nonsense, and of course it creates a
culture that cushions them from the absence of evidence.
Clifford Heath.
OK, I guess this idea*.. is that God is more about just doing
good. On the individual level, if I first do good when I meet
you, (cooperate first in the simplistic tit for tat exchange.)
That's best... can you select for that?
We had no reason not to kill each other on first sight until we started
to benefit from the enlargement of our society beyond the family, tribe,
village, etc. Some people still subvert ethical norms, so we extended
the idea of just "doing good" to include omniscience and eternal
consequences. It's all pure invention and manipulative bullying.
... aren't we a people that help others first?
We've learned to do that, but it's not innate.
Hmm OK, nature and nurture, so some of both maybe.
Still our morals come from religion.
No, they don't. Each person benefits from other people doing well at
things they now don't need to do for themselves. I wish others well, I'm
willing to put myself out to help them, and I'm glad we have a system
that mostly prevents them from doing me harm. It's based on mutual benefit.
Where else? Nature is brutal!
Eat or be eaten.
Maybe God is so baked in now
that we take doing good for granted.
It's perhaps still baked-in where you live in the USA, but in more
intellectually advanced countries it's rapidly being baked out. Fewer
that 50% of the UK now professes any religion, for example, and the flow
in Australia is even more advanced than that, I believe. It works
because we now understand that social ethics does not require religion,
and in fact cannot continue to advance beyond a certain point in the
presence of religion, which creates too many opportunities for abuse (as
has been amply demonstrated!)
Huh, OK I'm saying the idea of 'doing good first' is baked in and not
the idea of God.
Even that is not baked in. The notion of 'receiving good first' is baked
in. The possibility of assisting in 'receiving good' by doing good comes
from the social contract.
Doesn't everyone want to 'do good'?
No. Everyone wants things to be good for them and the ones they care
about. Only the progressively enlightened realise that they receive net
benefits from helping (progressively further) distant folk to prosper.
I meant that the various religions around the world have been
the tradition source of 'morals', (how to behave).
Clifford, thanks for the nice discussion. I think when we say religion,Where does that idea of good come from?
As the opposite of personal harm, I suspect.
(the deep roots all look to be from some religion and/or another.)
No, religion is a rationalisation created with coercive intent, because
even in a functioning society, most people do all the evil they can
secretly get away with. So you have to scare them into believing that
all will be revealed and paid for eventually. The coercive institutions
thus created have been shown to act as cover for the leaders to get away
with quite a lot! Which shows that their 'morality' is intended for
other people to practise, not for themselves. It's coercive, not personal.
Clifford Heath.
we have very different images. For me religion is the local church.
(My fav. church in the world will have to be the UU in Nashville Tn.)
Church/religion is about local community. (And not some
bureaucratic nightmare that any 'big thing' can become.)
Big religion is maybe the result of small religion... which maybe could
get into our genes?
Mostly I see religion as a good thing...
(in that it is local community.)
A good church is a good thing in your life.
You don't have to believe in Jesus, to go to church...
(UU churches welcome atheists, wiccans and pagans.. basically anyone.
there may even be a few republicans. :^)
(In the US it's a very left leaning church.)
George H.
George H.
C
Clifford Heath
Guest
On 24/7/19 10:16 am, George Herold wrote:
Always happy to discuss the subject that diluted too much of my earlier
life. And thank you for the thoughtful stimuli.
I also have that image, but included alongside in the bigger picture.
Society (including local society) needs a means to promulgate the myths
that support its existence. So it's important to stifle awareness of the
mythic status. Many well-meaning church leaders honestly believe, and
fear the social breakdown that would arise from the absence of their
particular kind of belief... so they don't allow themselves to consider
that there might be a non-mythic (or even a rational evidence-based) set
of beliefs that could supplant that role.
I don't think these people are deliberately promoting a lie. They just
tell themselves that it's not possible yet to see it truly fulfilled, so
when the results are mixed, that's the reason. [I've seen good people
tear themselves apart trying to live up to the unnecessary and arbitrary
standards set for them.]
That doesn't mean that the whole thing is not pure fabrication. I wrote
earlier about how such fabrications develop, and here we see the
motivations of the individuals concerned. When a leader's position
becomes sufficiently unassailable, they are freed to admit the truth to
themselves, and tend to move into corruption from there.
So is a good sports club, or even a good pub. People benefit from any
good community, and it gives them a reason to act in the community's
interest. But the problem remains that this motivation is inherently
schismatic, leading to conflict *between* communities (e.g. religious wars).
Religion is in decline partly due to the rise of globalism, because the
benefits we receive are plainly not all of local origin - so it seems
irrational to join a club that deprecates others (and that's most
churches, though perhaps not UU).
Clifford Heath.
On Tuesday, July 23, 2019 at 12:25:53 AM UTC-4, Clifford Heath wrote:
No, religion is a rationalisation created with coercive intent, because
... It's coercive, not personal.
Clifford, thanks for the nice discussion.
Always happy to discuss the subject that diluted too much of my earlier
life. And thank you for the thoughtful stimuli.
I think when we say religion, we have very different images. For me religion is the local church.
I also have that image, but included alongside in the bigger picture.
Society (including local society) needs a means to promulgate the myths
that support its existence. So it's important to stifle awareness of the
mythic status. Many well-meaning church leaders honestly believe, and
fear the social breakdown that would arise from the absence of their
particular kind of belief... so they don't allow themselves to consider
that there might be a non-mythic (or even a rational evidence-based) set
of beliefs that could supplant that role.
I don't think these people are deliberately promoting a lie. They just
tell themselves that it's not possible yet to see it truly fulfilled, so
when the results are mixed, that's the reason. [I've seen good people
tear themselves apart trying to live up to the unnecessary and arbitrary
standards set for them.]
That doesn't mean that the whole thing is not pure fabrication. I wrote
earlier about how such fabrications develop, and here we see the
motivations of the individuals concerned. When a leader's position
becomes sufficiently unassailable, they are freed to admit the truth to
themselves, and tend to move into corruption from there.
(My fav. church in the world will have to be the UU in Nashville Tn.)
Church/religion is about local community.
A good church is a good thing in your life.
So is a good sports club, or even a good pub. People benefit from any
good community, and it gives them a reason to act in the community's
interest. But the problem remains that this motivation is inherently
schismatic, leading to conflict *between* communities (e.g. religious wars).
Religion is in decline partly due to the rise of globalism, because the
benefits we receive are plainly not all of local origin - so it seems
irrational to join a club that deprecates others (and that's most
churches, though perhaps not UU).
Clifford Heath.
B
Bill Sloman
Guest
On Wednesday, July 24, 2019 at 12:36:20 PM UTC+10, Clifford Heath wrote:
Even Spinoza was in favour of a set of irrational beliefs for the kind of people who can't do ethical calculus. I'm not sure that he was right if you allow one group to propagate beneficial irrational delusions you leave the door open to people who want to propagate less beneficial irrational delusions.
Richard Dawkins makes the point that a lot of the questions that religions made a point of answering are now answered rather more convincingly by rational calculation based on scientific knowledge.
Religion is in decline, but I don't think that the rise of globalism has much to do with it. Certain religions do make point of demonising, or at least trying to convert, people who aren't followers of their religion, and that doesn't always play well in a global environment, but the US is a whole lot more religious than the rest of the advanced industrial world while being active over most of it.
--
Bill Sloman, Sydney
On 24/7/19 10:16 am, George Herold wrote:
On Tuesday, July 23, 2019 at 12:25:53 AM UTC-4, Clifford Heath wrote:
No, religion is a rationalisation created with coercive intent, because
... It's coercive, not personal.
Clifford, thanks for the nice discussion.
Always happy to discuss the subject that diluted too much of my earlier
life. And thank you for the thoughtful stimuli.
I think when we say religion, we have very different images. For me religion is the local church.
I also have that image, but included alongside in the bigger picture.
Society (including local society) needs a means to promulgate the myths
that support its existence. So it's important to stifle awareness of the
mythic status. Many well-meaning church leaders honestly believe, and
fear the social breakdown that would arise from the absence of their
particular kind of belief... so they don't allow themselves to consider
that there might be a non-mythic (or even a rational evidence-based) set
of beliefs that could supplant that role.
Even Spinoza was in favour of a set of irrational beliefs for the kind of people who can't do ethical calculus. I'm not sure that he was right if you allow one group to propagate beneficial irrational delusions you leave the door open to people who want to propagate less beneficial irrational delusions.
I don't think these people are deliberately promoting a lie. They just
tell themselves that it's not possible yet to see it truly fulfilled, so
when the results are mixed, that's the reason. [I've seen good people
tear themselves apart trying to live up to the unnecessary and arbitrary
standards set for them.]
That doesn't mean that the whole thing is not pure fabrication. I wrote
earlier about how such fabrications develop, and here we see the
motivations of the individuals concerned. When a leader's position
becomes sufficiently unassailable, they are freed to admit the truth to
themselves, and tend to move into corruption from there.
(My fav. church in the world will have to be the UU in Nashville Tn.)
Church/religion is about local community.
A good church is a good thing in your life.
So is a good sports club, or even a good pub. People benefit from any
good community, and it gives them a reason to act in the community's
interest. But the problem remains that this motivation is inherently
schismatic, leading to conflict *between* communities (e.g. religious wars).
Religion is in decline partly due to the rise of globalism, because the
benefits we receive are plainly not all of local origin - so it seems
irrational to join a club that deprecates others (and that's most
churches, though perhaps not UU).
Richard Dawkins makes the point that a lot of the questions that religions made a point of answering are now answered rather more convincingly by rational calculation based on scientific knowledge.
Religion is in decline, but I don't think that the rise of globalism has much to do with it. Certain religions do make point of demonising, or at least trying to convert, people who aren't followers of their religion, and that doesn't always play well in a global environment, but the US is a whole lot more religious than the rest of the advanced industrial world while being active over most of it.
--
Bill Sloman, Sydney
R
Rick C
Guest
On Tuesday, July 23, 2019 at 8:16:11 PM UTC-4, George Herold wrote:
I find that to be an amazing statement. Perhaps you actually know nothing of religion in history? Religion has been one of the least moral forces in the world in many, many ways. Do I need to spell it out for you?
So you limit "religion" to some tiny aspect? That seems odd. Do you only look at the horse's eyes when evaluating if it will win the race?
There is no "small" religion separate from "big" religion. No point in trying to discuss it.
I would say you have some idealized image of what religion is. Idealized and very unrealistic.
--
Rick C.
-++ Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
-++ Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209
On Tuesday, July 23, 2019 at 12:25:53 AM UTC-4, Clifford Heath wrote:
No. Everyone wants things to be good for them and the ones they care
about. Only the progressively enlightened realise that they receive net
benefits from helping (progressively further) distant folk to prosper.
Huh OK I agree with you. By morals coming from religion,
I meant that the various religions around the world have been
the tradition source of 'morals', (how to behave).
I find that to be an amazing statement. Perhaps you actually know nothing of religion in history? Religion has been one of the least moral forces in the world in many, many ways. Do I need to spell it out for you?
No, religion is a rationalisation created with coercive intent, because
even in a functioning society, most people do all the evil they can
secretly get away with. So you have to scare them into believing that
all will be revealed and paid for eventually. The coercive institutions
thus created have been shown to act as cover for the leaders to get away
with quite a lot! Which shows that their 'morality' is intended for
other people to practise, not for themselves. It's coercive, not personal.
Clifford Heath.
Clifford, thanks for the nice discussion. I think when we say religion,
we have very different images. For me religion is the local church.
(My fav. church in the world will have to be the UU in Nashville Tn.)
Church/religion is about local community. (And not some
bureaucratic nightmare that any 'big thing' can become.)
So you limit "religion" to some tiny aspect? That seems odd. Do you only look at the horse's eyes when evaluating if it will win the race?
Big religion is maybe the result of small religion... which maybe could
get into our genes?
There is no "small" religion separate from "big" religion. No point in trying to discuss it.
Mostly I see religion as a good thing...
(in that it is local community.)
A good church is a good thing in your life.
You don't have to believe in Jesus, to go to church...
(UU churches welcome atheists, wiccans and pagans.. basically anyone.
there may even be a few republicans. :^)
(In the US it's a very left leaning church.)
I would say you have some idealized image of what religion is. Idealized and very unrealistic.
--
Rick C.
-++ Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
-++ Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209
Guest
On Wednesday, 24 July 2019 01:16:11 UTC+1, George Herold wrote:
They have only ever been one (or more than 1) of many sources of morals, or in some cases immorals.
On Tuesday, July 23, 2019 at 12:25:53 AM UTC-4, Clifford Heath wrote:
Doesn't everyone want to 'do good'?
No. Everyone wants things to be good for them and the ones they care
about. Only the progressively enlightened realise that they receive net
benefits from helping (progressively further) distant folk to prosper.
Huh OK I agree with you. By morals coming from religion,
I meant that the various religions around the world have been
the tradition source of 'morals', (how to behave).
They have only ever been one (or more than 1) of many sources of morals, or in some cases immorals.
G
George Herold
Guest
On Tuesday, July 23, 2019 at 10:36:20 PM UTC-4, Clifford Heath wrote:
Yeah... I really didn't want to talk about religion...
But the idea that whatever leads humans to have a
propensity for religion. (checks world... lots of religions)
Is something that has been selected for in our genes.
~level one game theory says selecting for cooperation...
(perhaps w/ potential sacrifice/loss) would be good for a group.
If there are a few genes for such a thing... how might they work?
It might be a 'wrong idea'.. maybe there are no such genes.
George H.
And I just observe, that even though I've run into some
lying assholes, (as vendors) I assume everyone is good, telling
me the truth, and that's worked great for me ~90% (?) of the time.
(?)
maybe more, you remember the a-h vendors more than the average ones.
On 24/7/19 10:16 am, George Herold wrote:
On Tuesday, July 23, 2019 at 12:25:53 AM UTC-4, Clifford Heath wrote:
No, religion is a rationalisation created with coercive intent, because
... It's coercive, not personal.
Clifford, thanks for the nice discussion.
Always happy to discuss the subject that diluted too much of my earlier
life. And thank you for the thoughtful stimuli.
I think when we say religion, we have very different images. For me religion is the local church.
I also have that image, but included alongside in the bigger picture.
Society (including local society) needs a means to promulgate the myths
that support its existence. So it's important to stifle awareness of the
mythic status. Many well-meaning church leaders honestly believe, and
fear the social breakdown that would arise from the absence of their
particular kind of belief... so they don't allow themselves to consider
that there might be a non-mythic (or even a rational evidence-based) set
of beliefs that could supplant that role.
I don't think these people are deliberately promoting a lie. They just
tell themselves that it's not possible yet to see it truly fulfilled, so
when the results are mixed, that's the reason. [I've seen good people
tear themselves apart trying to live up to the unnecessary and arbitrary
standards set for them.]
That doesn't mean that the whole thing is not pure fabrication. I wrote
earlier about how such fabrications develop, and here we see the
motivations of the individuals concerned. When a leader's position
becomes sufficiently unassailable, they are freed to admit the truth to
themselves, and tend to move into corruption from there.
(My fav. church in the world will have to be the UU in Nashville Tn.)
Church/religion is about local community.
A good church is a good thing in your life.
So is a good sports club, or even a good pub. People benefit from any
good community, and it gives them a reason to act in the community's
interest. But the problem remains that this motivation is inherently
schismatic, leading to conflict *between* communities (e.g. religious wars).
Religion is in decline partly due to the rise of globalism, because the
benefits we receive are plainly not all of local origin - so it seems
irrational to join a club that deprecates others (and that's most
churches, though perhaps not UU).
Clifford Heath.
Yeah... I really didn't want to talk about religion...
But the idea that whatever leads humans to have a
propensity for religion. (checks world... lots of religions)
Is something that has been selected for in our genes.
~level one game theory says selecting for cooperation...
(perhaps w/ potential sacrifice/loss) would be good for a group.
If there are a few genes for such a thing... how might they work?
It might be a 'wrong idea'.. maybe there are no such genes.
George H.
And I just observe, that even though I've run into some
lying assholes, (as vendors) I assume everyone is good, telling
me the truth, and that's worked great for me ~90% (?) of the time.
(?)
maybe more, you remember the a-h vendors more than the average ones.
C
Clifford Heath
Guest
On 25/7/19 9:44 am, George Herold wrote:
Possibly. I think it's likely that the propensity to invent religion
goes with sentience. There is definitely selection in favour of
societies that cooperate better, but it might not get selected in our
genes. Or at least, it's only had a few thousands years to do so (based
on written texts anyhow), 300 generations perhaps.
Depressing thought. I hope we have (or will) come up with better ways of
cooperating, or the problem of religion (building on unsubstantiated
mythologies) will only worsen with time. Maybe that explains Trump (/me
ducks).
Sadly you're probably right, but we haven't been round long enough to
refine them very far.
Most people want to be remembered well, so it's a good principle. It's
what they do in secret (or when they can get away with it) that makes
the difference.
Clifford Heath.
But the idea that whatever leads humans to have a
propensity for religion. (checks world... lots of religions)
Is something that has been selected for in our genes.
Possibly. I think it's likely that the propensity to invent religion
goes with sentience. There is definitely selection in favour of
societies that cooperate better, but it might not get selected in our
genes. Or at least, it's only had a few thousands years to do so (based
on written texts anyhow), 300 generations perhaps.
Depressing thought. I hope we have (or will) come up with better ways of
cooperating, or the problem of religion (building on unsubstantiated
mythologies) will only worsen with time. Maybe that explains Trump (/me
ducks).
~level one game theory says selecting for cooperation...
(perhaps w/ potential sacrifice/loss) would be good for a group.
If there are a few genes for such a thing... how might they work?
It might be a 'wrong idea'.. maybe there are no such genes.
Sadly you're probably right, but we haven't been round long enough to
refine them very far.
And I just observe, that even though I've run into some
lying assholes, (as vendors) I assume everyone is good, telling
me the truth, and that's worked great for me ~90% (?) of the time.
Most people want to be remembered well, so it's a good principle. It's
what they do in secret (or when they can get away with it) that makes
the difference.
Clifford Heath.
R
Rick C
Guest
On Wednesday, July 24, 2019 at 7:44:27 PM UTC-4, George Herold wrote:
That's an assumption. Religion has not been around long enough to have resulted in much effect from natural selection. Otherwise our propensity for religion can easily be a side effect of some other aspect of our makeup such as seeing faces in a dark woods which is the result of a facial recognition circuit in our brain that works imperfectly.
Unfortunately the optimum strategy for an individual is to cheat when they can get away with it. We are programmed for that as well as cooperation.
> It might be a 'wrong idea'.. maybe there are no such genes.
Not for religion as such. Cooperation very likely but I don't know for sure. I don't know for sure why we seem to want religions, but I expect it is a side effect of human nature which has a huge component the various impacts of childhood. Much of religion is about replacing our parents.
I don't start out assuming people are lying assholes, but I always leave that door open. Mostly I think people are unthinking and easily led. So religions are good at herding them not unlike politicians.
--
Rick C.
+-- Get a 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
+-- Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209
On Tuesday, July 23, 2019 at 10:36:20 PM UTC-4, Clifford Heath wrote:
On 24/7/19 10:16 am, George Herold wrote:
On Tuesday, July 23, 2019 at 12:25:53 AM UTC-4, Clifford Heath wrote:
No, religion is a rationalisation created with coercive intent, because
... It's coercive, not personal.
Clifford, thanks for the nice discussion.
Always happy to discuss the subject that diluted too much of my earlier
life. And thank you for the thoughtful stimuli.
I think when we say religion, we have very different images. For me religion is the local church.
I also have that image, but included alongside in the bigger picture.
Society (including local society) needs a means to promulgate the myths
that support its existence. So it's important to stifle awareness of the
mythic status. Many well-meaning church leaders honestly believe, and
fear the social breakdown that would arise from the absence of their
particular kind of belief... so they don't allow themselves to consider
that there might be a non-mythic (or even a rational evidence-based) set
of beliefs that could supplant that role.
I don't think these people are deliberately promoting a lie. They just
tell themselves that it's not possible yet to see it truly fulfilled, so
when the results are mixed, that's the reason. [I've seen good people
tear themselves apart trying to live up to the unnecessary and arbitrary
standards set for them.]
That doesn't mean that the whole thing is not pure fabrication. I wrote
earlier about how such fabrications develop, and here we see the
motivations of the individuals concerned. When a leader's position
becomes sufficiently unassailable, they are freed to admit the truth to
themselves, and tend to move into corruption from there.
(My fav. church in the world will have to be the UU in Nashville Tn.)
Church/religion is about local community.
A good church is a good thing in your life.
So is a good sports club, or even a good pub. People benefit from any
good community, and it gives them a reason to act in the community's
interest. But the problem remains that this motivation is inherently
schismatic, leading to conflict *between* communities (e.g. religious wars).
Religion is in decline partly due to the rise of globalism, because the
benefits we receive are plainly not all of local origin - so it seems
irrational to join a club that deprecates others (and that's most
churches, though perhaps not UU).
Clifford Heath.
Yeah... I really didn't want to talk about religion...
But the idea that whatever leads humans to have a
propensity for religion. (checks world... lots of religions)
Is something that has been selected for in our genes.
That's an assumption. Religion has not been around long enough to have resulted in much effect from natural selection. Otherwise our propensity for religion can easily be a side effect of some other aspect of our makeup such as seeing faces in a dark woods which is the result of a facial recognition circuit in our brain that works imperfectly.
~level one game theory says selecting for cooperation...
(perhaps w/ potential sacrifice/loss) would be good for a group.
If there are a few genes for such a thing... how might they work?
Unfortunately the optimum strategy for an individual is to cheat when they can get away with it. We are programmed for that as well as cooperation.
> It might be a 'wrong idea'.. maybe there are no such genes.
Not for religion as such. Cooperation very likely but I don't know for sure. I don't know for sure why we seem to want religions, but I expect it is a side effect of human nature which has a huge component the various impacts of childhood. Much of religion is about replacing our parents.
George H.
And I just observe, that even though I've run into some
lying assholes, (as vendors) I assume everyone is good, telling
me the truth, and that's worked great for me ~90% (?) of the time.
(?)
maybe more, you remember the a-h vendors more than the average ones.
I don't start out assuming people are lying assholes, but I always leave that door open. Mostly I think people are unthinking and easily led. So religions are good at herding them not unlike politicians.
--
Rick C.
+-- Get a 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
+-- Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209
T
Tom Gardner
Guest
On 25/07/19 17:09, George Herold wrote:
Six(!) generations, in one experiment on foxes.
"Starting from what amounted to a population of wild foxes,
within six generations (6 years in these foxes, as they
reproduce annually), selection for tameness, and tameness
alone, produced a subset of foxes that licked the hand of
experimenters, could be picked up and petted, whined when
humans departed, and wagged their tails when humans
approached. An astonishingly fast transformation. Early on,
the tamest of the foxes made up a small proportion of the
foxes in the experiment: today they make up the vast
majority."
FFI: https://evolution-outreach.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12052-018-0090-x
On Wednesday, July 24, 2019 at 8:08:11 PM UTC-4, Clifford Heath wrote:
On 25/7/19 9:44 am, George Herold wrote:
But the idea that whatever leads humans to have a
propensity for religion. (checks world... lots of religions)
Is something that has been selected for in our genes.
Possibly. I think it's likely that the propensity to invent religion
goes with sentience. There is definitely selection in favour of
societies that cooperate better, but it might not get selected in our
genes. Or at least, it's only had a few thousands years to do so (based
on written texts anyhow), 300 generations perhaps.
Hmm sentience goes back further than that. There are signs of religious
practices in the Neanderthals. But how many generations do you need
to show signs of selection... (I guess a lot depends on how strong the
selection pressure is...)
Six(!) generations, in one experiment on foxes.
"Starting from what amounted to a population of wild foxes,
within six generations (6 years in these foxes, as they
reproduce annually), selection for tameness, and tameness
alone, produced a subset of foxes that licked the hand of
experimenters, could be picked up and petted, whined when
humans departed, and wagged their tails when humans
approached. An astonishingly fast transformation. Early on,
the tamest of the foxes made up a small proportion of the
foxes in the experiment: today they make up the vast
majority."
FFI: https://evolution-outreach.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12052-018-0090-x
G
George Herold
Guest
On Wednesday, July 24, 2019 at 8:08:11 PM UTC-4, Clifford Heath wrote:
practices in the Neanderthals. But how many generations do you need
to show signs of selection... (I guess a lot depends on how strong the
selection pressure is...)
I haven't told you about my idea for the genetic selection of intelligence.
If you measure IQ, you find a small but statistical difference between the
various races. Chinese the highest, then Europeans and Africans.
So my idea is that civilization selects for intelligence.
Chinese are highest because their civilization has been around for the
longest, selecting for smarts.
(Some people are uncomfortable talking about such things...)
George H.
Hmm sentience goes back further than that. There are signs of religiousOn 25/7/19 9:44 am, George Herold wrote:
But the idea that whatever leads humans to have a
propensity for religion. (checks world... lots of religions)
Is something that has been selected for in our genes.
Possibly. I think it's likely that the propensity to invent religion
goes with sentience. There is definitely selection in favour of
societies that cooperate better, but it might not get selected in our
genes. Or at least, it's only had a few thousands years to do so (based
on written texts anyhow), 300 generations perhaps.
practices in the Neanderthals. But how many generations do you need
to show signs of selection... (I guess a lot depends on how strong the
selection pressure is...)
I haven't told you about my idea for the genetic selection of intelligence.
If you measure IQ, you find a small but statistical difference between the
various races. Chinese the highest, then Europeans and Africans.
So my idea is that civilization selects for intelligence.
Chinese are highest because their civilization has been around for the
longest, selecting for smarts.
(Some people are uncomfortable talking about such things...)
George H.
Depressing thought. I hope we have (or will) come up with better ways of
cooperating, or the problem of religion (building on unsubstantiated
mythologies) will only worsen with time. Maybe that explains Trump (/me
ducks).
~level one game theory says selecting for cooperation...
(perhaps w/ potential sacrifice/loss) would be good for a group.
If there are a few genes for such a thing... how might they work?
It might be a 'wrong idea'.. maybe there are no such genes.
Sadly you're probably right, but we haven't been round long enough to
refine them very far.
And I just observe, that even though I've run into some
lying assholes, (as vendors) I assume everyone is good, telling
me the truth, and that's worked great for me ~90% (?) of the time.
Most people want to be remembered well, so it's a good principle. It's
what they do in secret (or when they can get away with it) that makes
the difference.
Clifford Heath.
R
Rick C
Guest
On Thursday, July 25, 2019 at 12:38:24 PM UTC-4, Tom Gardner wrote:
Sounds like an experiment that can't be conducted without impacting the result by the measurement. Rather than selecting for tameness the experimenters could have been training the foxes. There are several problems with this work or at least the report of it which is a far cry from a research paper.
The first is I don't see a control group mentioned. They should have also randomly picked another group of foxes and perform everything the same, handling, testing, selecting, but randomly, not by the results of testing.
Not much to base your opinion on. No evidence this was genetic selection at all.
--
Rick C.
+-+ Get a 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
+-+ Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209
On 25/07/19 17:09, George Herold wrote:
On Wednesday, July 24, 2019 at 8:08:11 PM UTC-4, Clifford Heath wrote:
On 25/7/19 9:44 am, George Herold wrote:
But the idea that whatever leads humans to have a
propensity for religion. (checks world... lots of religions)
Is something that has been selected for in our genes.
Possibly. I think it's likely that the propensity to invent religion
goes with sentience. There is definitely selection in favour of
societies that cooperate better, but it might not get selected in our
genes. Or at least, it's only had a few thousands years to do so (based
on written texts anyhow), 300 generations perhaps.
Hmm sentience goes back further than that. There are signs of religious
practices in the Neanderthals. But how many generations do you need
to show signs of selection... (I guess a lot depends on how strong the
selection pressure is...)
Six(!) generations, in one experiment on foxes.
"Starting from what amounted to a population of wild foxes,
within six generations (6 years in these foxes, as they
reproduce annually), selection for tameness, and tameness
alone, produced a subset of foxes that licked the hand of
experimenters, could be picked up and petted, whined when
humans departed, and wagged their tails when humans
approached. An astonishingly fast transformation. Early on,
the tamest of the foxes made up a small proportion of the
foxes in the experiment: today they make up the vast
majority."
FFI: https://evolution-outreach.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12052-018-0090-x
Sounds like an experiment that can't be conducted without impacting the result by the measurement. Rather than selecting for tameness the experimenters could have been training the foxes. There are several problems with this work or at least the report of it which is a far cry from a research paper.
The first is I don't see a control group mentioned. They should have also randomly picked another group of foxes and perform everything the same, handling, testing, selecting, but randomly, not by the results of testing.
Not much to base your opinion on. No evidence this was genetic selection at all.
--
Rick C.
+-+ Get a 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
+-+ Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209
T
Tom Gardner
Guest
On 25/07/19 18:17, Rick C wrote:
From memory of watching a TV programme about it a few decades ago,
many of those points aren't the case.
However, that is to see the trees and miss the wood. The key point
is how fast the changes occurred - much *much* faster than anyone
guessed before they did the experiment. And much faster than people
guess or "want" to believe after hearing about it.
No doubt there is more solid information out there. I can't be
bothered to find it and it wouldn't convince those that don't
want (for whatever reason) to believe it.
On Thursday, July 25, 2019 at 12:38:24 PM UTC-4, Tom Gardner wrote:
On 25/07/19 17:09, George Herold wrote:
On Wednesday, July 24, 2019 at 8:08:11 PM UTC-4, Clifford Heath wrote:
On 25/7/19 9:44 am, George Herold wrote:
But the idea that whatever leads humans to have a propensity for
religion. (checks world... lots of religions) Is something that has
been selected for in our genes.
Possibly. I think it's likely that the propensity to invent religion
goes with sentience. There is definitely selection in favour of
societies that cooperate better, but it might not get selected in our
genes. Or at least, it's only had a few thousands years to do so
(based on written texts anyhow), 300 generations perhaps.
Hmm sentience goes back further than that. There are signs of religious
practices in the Neanderthals. But how many generations do you need to
show signs of selection... (I guess a lot depends on how strong the
selection pressure is...)
Six(!) generations, in one experiment on foxes.
"Starting from what amounted to a population of wild foxes, within six
generations (6 years in these foxes, as they reproduce annually), selection
for tameness, and tameness alone, produced a subset of foxes that licked
the hand of experimenters, could be picked up and petted, whined when
humans departed, and wagged their tails when humans approached. An
astonishingly fast transformation. Early on, the tamest of the foxes made
up a small proportion of the foxes in the experiment: today they make up
the vast majority."
FFI:
https://evolution-outreach.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12052-018-0090-x
Sounds like an experiment that can't be conducted without impacting the
result by the measurement. Rather than selecting for tameness the
experimenters could have been training the foxes. There are several problems
with this work or at least the report of it which is a far cry from a
research paper.
The first is I don't see a control group mentioned. They should have also
randomly picked another group of foxes and perform everything the same,
handling, testing, selecting, but randomly, not by the results of testing.
Not much to base your opinion on. No evidence this was genetic selection at
all.
From memory of watching a TV programme about it a few decades ago,
many of those points aren't the case.
However, that is to see the trees and miss the wood. The key point
is how fast the changes occurred - much *much* faster than anyone
guessed before they did the experiment. And much faster than people
guess or "want" to believe after hearing about it.
No doubt there is more solid information out there. I can't be
bothered to find it and it wouldn't convince those that don't
want (for whatever reason) to believe it.
R
Rick C
Guest
On Thursday, July 25, 2019 at 3:19:33 PM UTC-4, Tom Gardner wrote:
Sorry, science does not advance by "I can't be bothered to find it". How fast the changes occurred mean nothing if you don't have control groups and other measures to assure you are measuring what you think you are measuring.. The changes occurred faster than what exactly? What is your yardstick for "fast"? Why would you not expect a wild animal, closely related to the dog to be hard to domesticate?
I expect the TV shoe you saw to be much like the article you linked to. Nothing at all like a science report.
--
Rick C.
++- Get a 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
++- Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209
On 25/07/19 18:17, Rick C wrote:
On Thursday, July 25, 2019 at 12:38:24 PM UTC-4, Tom Gardner wrote:
Six(!) generations, in one experiment on foxes.
"Starting from what amounted to a population of wild foxes, within six
generations (6 years in these foxes, as they reproduce annually), selection
for tameness, and tameness alone, produced a subset of foxes that licked
the hand of experimenters, could be picked up and petted, whined when
humans departed, and wagged their tails when humans approached. An
astonishingly fast transformation. Early on, the tamest of the foxes made
up a small proportion of the foxes in the experiment: today they make up
the vast majority."
FFI:
https://evolution-outreach.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12052-018-0090-x
Sounds like an experiment that can't be conducted without impacting the
result by the measurement. Rather than selecting for tameness the
experimenters could have been training the foxes. There are several problems
with this work or at least the report of it which is a far cry from a
research paper.
The first is I don't see a control group mentioned. They should have also
randomly picked another group of foxes and perform everything the same,
handling, testing, selecting, but randomly, not by the results of testing.
Not much to base your opinion on. No evidence this was genetic selection at
all.
From memory of watching a TV programme about it a few decades ago,
many of those points aren't the case.
However, that is to see the trees and miss the wood. The key point
is how fast the changes occurred - much *much* faster than anyone
guessed before they did the experiment. And much faster than people
guess or "want" to believe after hearing about it.
No doubt there is more solid information out there. I can't be
bothered to find it and it wouldn't convince those that don't
want (for whatever reason) to believe it.
Sorry, science does not advance by "I can't be bothered to find it". How fast the changes occurred mean nothing if you don't have control groups and other measures to assure you are measuring what you think you are measuring.. The changes occurred faster than what exactly? What is your yardstick for "fast"? Why would you not expect a wild animal, closely related to the dog to be hard to domesticate?
I expect the TV shoe you saw to be much like the article you linked to. Nothing at all like a science report.
--
Rick C.
++- Get a 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
++- Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209