God, Public Morality and Evolution

[SillySapienne]

Oy, something tells me you are not a scientist, that you have not studied biology, and perhaps, most clearly, that you do not even vaguely understand the theory of evolution.

[SolitaryWalker]

Originally Posted by CaptainChick

Oy, something tells me you are not a scientist, that you have not studied biology, and perhaps, most clearly, that you do not even vaguely understand the theory of evolution.

Something tells me it all flew over your head. And you just do not have the analytical merits to understand the way the term evolution is used here and you're incapable of perceiving this idea outside of the context that has been inculcated upon you in your 8th grade biology class.

In any case, next time you come here, go straight for the argument or dont post at all.

[Randomnity]

Three of my favourite topics, and such a disappointment.

[SolitaryWalker]

Originally Posted by Randomnity

Three of my favourite topics, and such a disappointment.

I am not interested in your fancies, either provide ideas/critical feedback or nothing at all. If you want to discuss your likes and dislikes the fluff zone is the place to go.

[antireconciler]

Originally Posted by BlueWing

Something tells me it all flew over your head. And you just do not have the analytical merits to understand the way the term evolution is used here and you're incapable of perceiving this idea outside of the context that has been inculcated upon you in your 8th grade biology class.

Are you trying to provoke or discourage? Neither is very useful.

Originally Posted by BlueWing

As Carl Jung has pointed out, very often in our studies of philosophy, science and theology, we find more evidence for how our minds work rather than for how the world itself works. We project ourselves onto what we see and in effect anthropomorphize all things. To avoid this, we should strive to attain as objective of an understanding of our external environment as possible. An example of such a practice would be when we see rain, we should rely strictly on our objective observations of this phenomenon. We should merely attempt to describe what we see in as objective of terms as possible. We should not associate this with our emotions, or use our personal biases to describe this phenomenon. The Buddhists subscribe to a belief in an impersonal God.

I think at this point, you have some work to do in convincing us that anthropomorphization is undesirable wholesale. You have great examples to illustrate that it is very bad in some contexts, but inferring from them to the general case takes a step you might want to reinforce with careful arguing. Frankly, I don't think you can do it, but I still want to call attention to it. We may be able to distinguish between two kinds of anthropomorphization. One which is to the individual separate subject (which is surely flawed) and one which is to humans in the plural, that is, humans insofar as humans are bound to a common intersubjective reality. Your task would be to distinguish the intersubjective (and the anthropomorphization which may be entirely valid at this level) from the entirely objective, as the realist envisions it.

It's easy to take realism for granted, and if you want to skim the surface and write to those who are already persuaded by your realist assumptions, then that's fine. Greater philosophical power, however, cannot be achieved without delving deeper.

Another thing. Buddhists may believe in an impersonal God, insofar as "personal" is conceived of as relating to the error-prone finite self, but it's not clear that the personal God of the monotheistic faiths, conceives of a different God. Consider that "personal" may here be conceived of as relating to self insofar as the self is NOT error-prone or finite, that is, insofar as humans are capable of a certainty affordable exactly by the dependence of the self on shared human reality. Once again, the distinction is between the ego and ego transcendence. "Personal" need not invoke the ego! If you disagree, you have to make a good case for it! People will all the time attribute things to themselves (like good qualities or virtues) in full awareness that they are not the root of those attributes insofar as they are separate, but insofar as they share a bond to the rest of humanity!

[SolitaryWalker]

Originally Posted by antireconciler

Are you trying to provoke or discourage? Neither is very useful.



I think at this point, you have some work to do in convincing us that anthropomorphization is undesirable wholesale. You have great examples to illustrate that it is very bad in some contexts, but inferring from them to the general case takes a step you might want to reinforce with careful arguing. Frankly, I don't think you can do it, but I still want to call attention to it. We may be able to distinguish between two kinds of anthropomorphization. One which is to the individual separate subject (which is surely flawed) and one which is to humans in the plural, that is, humans insofar as humans are bound to a common intersubjective reality. Your task would be to distinguish the intersubjective (and the anthropomorphization which may be entirely valid at this level) from the entirely objective, as the realist envisions it.


Another thing. Buddhists may believe in an impersonal God, insofar as "personal" is conceived of as relating to the error-prone finite self, but it's not clear that the personal God of the monotheistic faiths, conceives of a different God. Consider that "personal" may here be conceived of as relating to self insofar as the self is NOT error-prone or finite, that is, insofar as humans are capable of a certainty affordable exactly by the dependence of the self on shared human reality. Once again, the distinction is between the ego and ego transcendence. "Personal" need not invoke the ego! If you disagree, you have to make a good case for it! People will all the time attribute things to themselves (like good qualities or virtues) in full awareness that they are not the root of those attributes insofar as they are separate, but insofar as they share a bond to the rest of humanity!

Anthropomorphism is undesirable because it make us project our own character qualities onto matters we observe. As a result we fall short of accurate information. Whether it is bad in the ethical sense of the word is not relevant enough.

Originally Posted by antireconciler

Are It's easy to take realism for granted, and if you want to skim the surface and write to those who are already persuaded by your realist assumptions, then that's fine. Greater philosophical power, however, cannot be achieved without delving deeper. !

It is possible to probe into those deeper issues without commiting error of anthropomorphism. When you see rain, dont associate it with any emotion, like anger or sadness. Just say that you see rain.

When you think of how God is infinite and all embracing, dont associate it with the human notion of an all embracing and powerful person. Just say infinite.

I do not see the factor of intersubjective reality which renders anthropomorphism inevitable. Anthropomorphization is a result of us attributing our personal, emotive qualites to objects we observe. We doubtlessly would be able to avoid much of this if we refrained from doing so.

Originally Posted by antireconciler

Are It's easy to take realism for granted, and if you want to skim the surface and write to those who are already persuaded by your realist assumptions, then that's fine. Greater philosophical power, however, cannot be achieved without delving deeper. !

No appeal to mysticism is necessary as we can understand all things within the finite world with our rational faculties. Granted that we have collected the sufficient information and reasoned properly.

[Nocap]

Originally Posted by antireconciler

Are you trying to provoke or discourage? Neither is very useful.

It's fun though.

Actually, it's not just fun. Every interchange is revealing on some level, even if only of personal information about one's quarry.

It is fun though. Well, provoking anyway.