A civil conversation

[Dolores de Barriga]

Re: A civil conversation

is it a difference in degree or one of kind?

That is an excellent question, Sir, and the answer depends on the underlying paradigm of the person giving the answer. Within a scientific paradigm it is the former, within a religious paradigm it is the latter.

I accept and appreciate the anthropocentric worldview of this lovely community because it is a consistent, cohesive, and internally coherent view within the religious paradigm as dictated by the Holy Bible. Therefore, from a cultural relativist point of view, it is 100% correct.

I only question Mr. Stone's worldview because he seems to be adhering to an odd combination of scientific and religious paradigms, derived from lack of understanding of their characteristics and of their mutual incompatibility.

[WilliamJenningsBryan]

Re: A civil conversation

. . .

We used to draw the line at tool-making - the citations given in my previous post proved that wrong. I hope you will find some time to read them eventually. We used to draw the line at language - many other species use complex systems of vocalizations as well. One of the last lines in the sand was abstract thinking - and based on the sign language trained apes, that line has been crossed by our non-human cousins as well - and there's also some evidence of abstract thinking in animals living in the wild as well. Citation 1 Citation 2 Citation 3. The last one shows interesting differences and similarities in primates, including humans.

. . .

Bla - bla - bla - bla, is it a difference in degree or one of kind? This is the kind of stuff that has been going on ever since Pavlov started his bell ringing experiments and Darwin's theories were proposed. So some gorilla is endlessly coaxed by a human as if to pass some kind of Turing test and we are supposed to accept the results?

Much like a dog can be "taught" clever tricks, the tendency to anthropomorphise is strong in the social sciences that are given to flights of fancy and lack of rigorous thought. Can gorillas be taught to install gas tanks on an automobile assembly line - without becoming distracted by a female in heat, or without flinging his feces into the passenger compartments with no notice? Robots can do a better job, don't need to be fed bananas, and won't be demanding to join a union. Then where are the gorilla pyramids, the wheel, or gorilla gunpowder (not to be confused with Guerrilla gunpowder)?

[Dolores de Barriga]

Re: A civil conversation

All animals learn? But at what level? I would like to see you teach de Rham cohomology to an elephant or a cat or a pig or a dog and get him to explain how deRham cohomology relates to supersymmetry.

I had to google that and honestly, I could not explain that either. I'm not mathematically inclined - which is why I'm a social scientist, not a real scientist - so when I see things like this:



It scares the hell out of me. Just earlier today, I had a computer science guy talk to me about something, it was something about computers that work like neurons? He lost me very quickly and while he was talking my mind has drifted elsewhere. I felt bad because it seemed important, it was something about computers detecting cancer cells quicker and better than humans.

How about giving some tools and materials to a monkey, place him in a factory and then ask him to build a hybrid gas electric car ?

No, because their evolutionary path was different from ours. Looking at our own genealogical tree, do you think that an Upper Paleolithic fully modern Homo sapiens could do it? How about a Neanderthal? Homo habilis? Australopithecus afarensis? Sahelantropus tschadensis? Where and how do you draw the line between human and non-human?

We used to draw the line at tool-making - the citations given in my previous post proved that wrong. I hope you will find some time to read them eventually. We used to draw the line at language - many other species use complex systems of vocalizations as well. One of the last lines in the sand was abstract thinking - and based on the sign language trained apes, that line has been crossed by our non-human cousins as well - and there's also some evidence of abstract thinking in animals living in the wild as well. Citation 1 Citation 2 Citation 3. The last one shows interesting differences and similarities in primates, including humans.

And returning to the point made by Señor Gonzalez, most people today who were not exposed to technical skills/not trained properly would not know how to assemble a car either. Again, speaking for myself, sure, I could put some things together, maybe using a lot of gorilla glue, but I can guarantee you that it wouldn't function properly or even at all.

[Brother Gonzalez]

Re: A civil conversation

All animals learn? But at what level? I would like to see you teach de Rham cohomology to an elephant or a cat or a pig or a dog and get him to explain how deRham cohomology relates to supersymmetry. How about giving some tools and materials to a monkey, place him in a factory and then ask him to build a hybrid gas electric car ?

By those standards, 99,9% of the Mexicans I know are either chimps or elephants. Or cats, or pigs.

Don´t get me wrong: I believe in the superiority of the human being. But not because of some pseudo-scientific babble, but because God told me that in the Bible:

Genesis 1:26 “And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.”

See, applying Occam's razor, my explanation is simpler than yours.

[tomdstone]

Re: A civil conversation

The real question is, how far back into our animal ancestry are you willing to expand that ability? All animals learn - that's why dogs perform tricks. Macaques are known to create and transmit culture*. Chimpanzees make new artifacts, including stone tools**. Neanderthals made representative art***. Our early homo ancestors made abstract art as far back as 500,000 years ago****.

All animals learn? But at what level? I would like to see you teach de Rham cohomology to an elephant or a cat or a pig or a dog and get him to explain how deRham cohomology relates to supersymmetry. How about giving some tools and materials to a monkey, place him in a factory and then ask him to build a hybrid gas electric car ?

[Mary Etheldreda]

Re: A civil conversation

Thank you so much, Mary. That's exactly what I think, but it's so difficult to explain to the younger mothers here. Many of them can barely read the destination board on the front of a bus, let alone the KJV. I hope you don't mind if I quote you?

Lol, go ahead. It is through God that I gain all my mothering wisdom.


\0/

[Joanna Lytton-Vasey]

Re: A civil conversation

Yes, my dear Joanna, my parents are alive. And no, my children have no contact with them. I have been personally instructed by my Lord to wash the dust of them from my feet (Luke 14:26). They have long ago purchased tickets on the Hell Train and I believe they will go Straight to Hell, no foolish Purgatory for them, no second chances. They've made up their minds to forsake the LORD and I am unsympathetic to their plight. I'll see them from my privileged position in Heaven and join my Redeemer in laughing at their haughty attitudes turned to fear (Psalm 2:4). Let the dead bury the dead, Christ said (Luke 9:60), and so I shall not mourn when He snuffs out their lives and steals their last breaths. My children have no relationship with them, nor will they unless my parents repent.

Thank you so much, Mary. That's exactly what I think, but it's so difficult to explain to the younger mothers here. Many of them can barely read the destination board on the front of a bus, let alone the KJV. I hope you don't mind if I quote you?

[Mary Etheldreda]

Re: A civil conversation

Sister Mary, may I ask you a question - well, a series of questions, really? Are your parents still living and still members of the RC church? If so, does your husband allow his children to have contact with them?

This is not a problem in my own family, as both sides have been Baptists for generations. But I am often asked about it by other mothers at our local church's toddler bible class. In most cases it is the mother's family which is, say, Church of England or even openly agnostic, but sometimes it is the father's. I really don't know how to advise them on this and many of them are too shy to bother Pastor Steve with their domestic problems.

YiC
Joanna

Yes, my dear Joanna, my parents are alive. And no, my children have no contact with them. I have been personally instructed by my Lord to wash the dust of them from my feet (Luke 14:26). They have long ago purchased tickets on the Hell Train and I believe they will go Straight to Hell, no foolish Purgatory for them, no second chances. They've made up their minds to forsake the LORD and I am unsympathetic to their plight. I'll see them from my privileged position in Heaven and join my Redeemer in laughing at their haughty attitudes turned to fear (Psalm 2:4). Let the dead bury the dead, Christ said (Luke 9:60), and so I shall not mourn when He snuffs out their lives and steals their last breaths. My children have no relationship with them, nor will they unless my parents repent.

[Joanna Lytton-Vasey]

Re: A civil conversation

Sister Mary, may I ask you a question - well, a series of questions, really? Are your parents still living and still members of the RC church? If so, does your husband allow his children to have contact with them?

This is not a problem in my own family, as both sides have been Baptists for generations. But I am often asked about it by other mothers at our local church's toddler bible class. In most cases it is the mother's family which is, say, Church of England or even openly agnostic, but sometimes it is the father's. I really don't know how to advise them on this and many of them are too shy to bother Pastor Steve with their domestic problems.

YiC
Joanna

[Mary Etheldreda]

Re: A civil conversation

but I would like to know WHY people choose to believe.

Hello Joe and welcome back. I can tell you for me, I was raised to believe. I grew up with a mobile of Noah's Ark hanging over my crib (I use it for my babies!), saw my mother's religious necklace, and was familiar with Bible stories from infancy. Holidays revolve around the life of Christ, and every good thing is known to be a Blessing from Above. Some of my earliest habits were religiously inspired and guided by my parents long before I understood what I was doing, such as going to church on Sundays, and saying a prayer before meals. These habits were ingrained in my routine much like brushing my teeth were. Long before I knew *why* I knew it was *right.*


When I was older, I too critically analyzed the faith of my family (also Catholic), and like you, I found it wanting. There were gaps of reason and leaps of logic to be made. I had come to realize the mental gymnastics my parents delighted in did not appeal to me. They couldn't see the forest for the trees, but I could.


Unlike you, I sought Jesus out. I found Him in the Living Word and in the Body of Christ. I confessed my sins and was Born Again. I raise my children to know of God. From paintings in my home to daily Bible readings to our home education (all subjects taught from copying the Bible), Christ is integral in their lives. And so the cycle continues.

[Didymus Much]

Re: A civil conversation

...you are basically brainwashed to believe whatever crap your family believes. But I of course think that all religions are equally valid...

I don't see the dichotomy?

[Dolores de Barriga]

Re: A civil conversation

1. After at reading threads about "How do you know god is real", the most common answer is "Because the Bible said he is". Anyone who questions that is sentenced to damnation, but I would like to know WHY people choose to believe. Now I am not dismissing the idea that there is the Almighty, I am just asking why believing the Bible. Is becoming religious just believing in the words in the Bible? (Note: when I say "Believe, I mean that with the utmost respect, I am not trying to be condescending).

As a person who is personally undecided on the matter at this point, I see it as a question of different paradigms. A religious person lives within a paradigm in which the Holy Book of their tradition is the Absolute Truth. An atheist lives within the scientific paradigm within which evidence is indispensable to make assumptions.

2. Is there a compelling argument to choose one religion over the other,

It's usually based on the tradition you were born into. If I weren't a cultural relativist I would say that you are basically brainwashed to believe whatever crap your family believes. But I of course think that all religions are equally valid and therefore cannot say that.

or is it based on personal values? For example, if I were to reinstate my beliefs, why should I believe one religion over the other?

Why not start by reading their Holy Texts? Not just some nicely sounding selected verses, but the whole thing.

Also, reading about the histories of religions might help you make up your mind as well. This is a good start. As far as I know the only religion that has not committed a genocide yet nor oppressed people in any other way is the Baha'i faith, but I'd say they are such a young religion, give them some time, they'll catch up.

What makes Christianity more truthful over other religions?

Just like every other religion, Christianity says that it is the one true religion while all others aren't. Is one religion correct while all the others are lying? Or are all of them lying?

P.S Is there any way to be permitted to post in other sub-forums? I would like to have civil discussions with other people in this community.

You can post, you just cannot make new threads.

how would a materialist explain human consciousness and the ability to abstract knowledge from the real world and to use that knowledge to create new knowledge and new artifacts?

The real question is, how far back into our animal ancestry are you willing to expand that ability? All animals learn - that's why dogs perform tricks. Macaques are known to create and transmit culture*. Chimpanzees make new artifacts, including stone tools**. Neanderthals made representative art***. Our early homo ancestors made abstract art as far back as 500,000 years ago****.

It is difficult to see how consciousness and self reflection would arise from a purely materialistic theory involving a complex configuration of atomic particles. As far as Christianity is concerned, one of the most important teachings is the fact of the Resurrection of Jesus from the dead. The New Testament indicates that the apostles witnessed the resurrected Lord.

And how is that more plausible than consciousness and self reflection arising from a bunch of organic molecules through the well known and documented mechanisms of evolution?






___________
* unfortunately to a citation instead of a full text, but hopefully you can access it through a library.
** to a full text this time
*** A non-peer reviewed this time because it has the picture.
****

[Oliver Brendan Hayve]

Re: A civil conversation

I am interested in your conversation. As far as atheism is concerned, there are questions which I don't think atheism can answer. AFAIK, atheism is a materialistic philosophy which denies the existence of a non-material world. But how would a materialist explain human consciousness and the ability to abstract knowledge from the real world and to use that knowledge to create new knowledge and new artifacts? It is difficult to see how consciousness and self reflection would arise from a purely materialistic theory involving a complex configuration of atomic particles.

How much have you read about neurology and consciousness? All I see in your post is an argument from personal incredulity.

[tomdstone]

Re: A civil conversation

I am interested in your conversation. As far as atheism is concerned, there are questions which I don't think atheism can answer. AFAIK, atheism is a materialistic philosophy which denies the existence of a non-material world. But how would a materialist explain human consciousness and the ability to abstract knowledge from the real world and to use that knowledge to create new knowledge and new artifacts? It is difficult to see how consciousness and self reflection would arise from a purely materialistic theory involving a complex configuration of atomic particles. As far as Christianity is concerned, one of the most important teachings is the fact of the Resurrection of Jesus from the dead. The New Testament indicates that the apostles witnessed the resurrected Lord.

[Average Joe]

So I am a baptized Catholic, but I have strayed away since I was about 7. This is one of the only active forums I have seen, so I am willing to post here. I declare myself Atheist, but I am tolerant (and accepting) to all beliefs. Now I have posted in the past, and I would like to keep this civil.

1. After at reading threads about "How do you know god is real", the most common answer is "Because the Bible said he is". Anyone who questions that is sentenced to damnation, but I would like to know WHY people choose to believe. Now I am not dismissing the idea that there is the Almighty, I am just asking why believing the Bible. Is becoming religious just believing in the words in the Bible? (Note: when I say "Believe, I mean that with the utmost respect, I am not trying to be condescending).


2. Is there a compelling argument to choose one religion over the other, or is it based on personal values? For example, if I were to reinstate my beliefs, why should I believe one religion over the other? What makes Christianity more truthful over other religions?


I am not a troll, I am merely a person who would like to have a civil conversation with people of different views. I feel as if there is not enough of that in this beautiful country because people get so hotheaded and hostile. Because of this please keep this thread civil.


P.S Is there any way to be permitted to post in other sub-forums? I would like to have civil discussions with other people in this community.