Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
Mark Force
Trad climber
Ashland, Oregon
|
|
|
Jun 21, 2017 - 10:46pm PT
|
You are arguing that group represents what state of evolution? What particular state? Or is it the whole of the state? What is the distinction for what the cohort says about evolution, devolution, direction, future survivability/viability of our species? Will our species survive? Probably. Thrive into the future with the current trend line? Debatable.
Did you say that Trump represents the state of human evolution? Please clarify. Does that mean that our species is evolving toward muddled narcissism? Is that the highest level of adaptive evolution for our species? Or, does he represent an outlier cohort or historical artifact?
'Religious people' is a big swath - Thich Nhat Hahn to ISIS members that twitch with joy at the idea they might get to behead somebody today in the name of Allah.
|
|
healyje
Trad climber
Portland, Oregon
|
|
|
Jun 22, 2017 - 12:18am PT
|
Natural and artificially-driven sudden population collapses happen with some regularity.
The typical sudden population collapse graph looks like this:
Here's what our current human population graph looks like:
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
|
Jun 22, 2017 - 03:57am PT
|
"I’d like to share a revelation that I’ve had during my time here. It came to me when I tried to classify your species and I realized that you’re not actually mammals.... Human beings are a disease...." LOL
[Click to View YouTube Video]
|
|
paul roehl
Boulder climber
california
|
|
|
Jun 22, 2017 - 08:04am PT
|
Right, you said religion brings us closer to the understanding of your questions (about human preferences and desire) but science seems incapable of answering. That distinction is what I called mutually exclusive. It is such logic that I disagree with because science can and does address those questions and any explanation would be just as valid as religious explanation.
Science is incapable of the kind of reconciliation to the "tragic nature of life" that religion offers. Religion offers a kind of escape hatch from tragedy which is something, an idea, that seems to "escape" the learned folk on this thread.
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
|
Jun 22, 2017 - 08:21am PT
|
Science is incapable of the kind of reconciliation to the "tragic nature of life" that religion offers.
Not sure if this is at all true, impermanence is a primary characteristic of all life, "nothing lives forever," and while that may be an individual's "tragedy" it is possible to look back on the history of life on Earth and see how resilient it has been over roughly 4 billion years.
Science provides the opportunity to see the physical connections that all life on Earth share, on many different levels.
|
|
Bob D'A
Trad climber
Taos, NM
|
|
|
Jun 22, 2017 - 08:43am PT
|
"Science is incapable of the kind of reconciliation to the "tragic nature of life" that religion offers."
Another emotional, broad non-provable statement.
You are on a roll.
|
|
Bob D'A
Trad climber
Taos, NM
|
|
|
Jun 22, 2017 - 09:09am PT
|
""Science is incapable of the kind of reconciliation to the "tragic nature of life" that religion offers."
This is the kind of bullshit that did get Trump elected, total emotional talk to rally the followers.
Nothing based in truth. Just dribble.
|
|
rbord
Boulder climber
atlanta
|
|
|
Jun 22, 2017 - 09:22am PT
|
What I've noticed on this thread and others like it on ST is that science/tech people have a unique argument that goes something like this: "you're wrong." The notion of philosophy's importance as a predicate to science seems undeniable and "you're wrong and I know better and I have the education to prove it and you don't know anything," well, that's just not very convincing.
Fair enough. But then you went on to say:
My suggestion: an art appreciation class.
So your belief seems to be that education isn't the basis for informed and true belief creation processes, but when someone had a belief that you disagreed with, you suggested education as a fix. But citing education as a basis for correct belief formation is something that only the other side does.
And then when that education didn't produce the belief creation processes that you believed were right, you said:
Yeah, you might want to repeat that.
So education isn't a valid basis for correct belief creation processes, but your suggestion if I have different beliefs than you is that I become more educated, and if that doesn't change my beliefs to match yours, then try again.
Never took it myself.
So not that you ever did that.
It's kind of beautiful the way our brains have evolved to do this seemingly opaque convoluted process of dancing around all the inconsistencies in our beliefs to create an ecology of human belief processes that support our survival and thrival in our environment of incomplete information.
Oh the pain of cognitive dissonance is too much to bear! Let's go write a tragedy that the really exceptional humans like me will understand, and that you shallow and ill informed science types will not appreciate.
Me, pick me for survival! I deserve it! I'm more exceptional than these other rubes. Me, I just sort through all the bullshit and come up with the truth.
Human survival biased belief creation. What will god think of next?
So in the ecology of human belief creation processes, yea, I think religion is probably still a good thing for us. But to me, the beautiful thing is that maybe we can outgrow that. And for you shallow and ill informed types who can't appreciate that beauty, that's ok, you're just humans like me, doing your human thing.
|
|
Mark Force
Trad climber
Ashland, Oregon
|
|
|
Jun 22, 2017 - 09:50am PT
|
LG, I was twitching a bit trying to compute the correlation of evolution with the state of our US politic and culture.
The problem was that I was considering your use of the term evolution as the biological process rather than social/cultural process.
Yes, Trump and his ilk and the religious right in this country do represent much of the present state of our social/cultural evolution.
Though, the term evolution is correct, devolution is arguably more accurate.
These social/cultural/political trends are a betrayal of foundational American principles...
...in my humble opinion. ;-)
|
|
Bob D'A
Trad climber
Taos, NM
|
|
|
Jun 22, 2017 - 09:58am PT
|
^^^^^^^^^^ I agree with LG and you
The point of may last post, misinformation/lies and fakes promises won this last election. His right wing base lapped it up.
|
|
paul roehl
Boulder climber
california
|
|
|
Jun 22, 2017 - 10:17am PT
|
This is the kind of bullshit that did get Trump elected, total emotional talk to rally the followers.
Nothing based in truth. Just dribble.
Really?
The concern of religion is the psychological state of the individual and the individual's primary need/desire to be reconciled to those events in life that are inevitable. As well to find meaning and a sense in those events that might justify being itself.
What is the metaphorical meaning of the virgin birth or the birth out of the mind of god or the birth at the level of the heart? It is the birth of a spiritual life, or the birth of the intellectual life, or the birth of the compassionate life.
What is the earth touching posture of the Buddha but a symbol of the realization that enlightenment is beyond desire and loathing. How is such a symbol so much like the crucifixion? Because on the cross Christ ostentatiously displays the acceptance of a will/need greater than his own. The will/structure of life demands your death and I show you its acceptance.
When the Bible says In the beginning was the word/logos, properly translated logos means something more like order: an insight to be sure, an inviolate order applicable to all existence. Call it the laws of physics if you want.
In these metaphors and ideas humanity has found a way to mediate the "mysterium tremendum" allowing for a kind of anodyne, psychological acceptance.
The point is religion, all religion, offers a helpful understanding/insight of our plight as living beings of a remarkable nature that includes the gift of an epistemological function far beyond any other creature on this planet.
Reconciliation, redemption, a sense of acceptance in the face of the unacceptable, religion, myth offers these things.
The idea of taking that reconciliation away from someone who finds comfort in it because you want to read myth as scientific text instead of gracious metaphor strikes me as a bit unthoughtful maybe even a bit mean spirited.
That humanity will occasionally use religion for political justification of heinous acts is a human problem and not a religious one.
Overall religion, and remember the majority of humanity participates in some kind of religious practice, is helpful to the vast numbers of human beings as they move through the slings and arrows of being.
|
|
paul roehl
Boulder climber
california
|
|
|
Jun 22, 2017 - 10:34am PT
|
Sure, I find great insight in a variety of mythological and religious ideas and as I get older I find them increasingly helpful to me God or not. I think everyone searches for virtue in their lives and stories from the New Testament to the Upanishads have remarkable lessons and in those lessons there is a sense of peace.
|
|
c wilmot
climber
|
|
|
Jun 22, 2017 - 10:41am PT
|
Great posts Paul
Just remember:
The study of humanities is not for everyone
|
|
rbord
Boulder climber
atlanta
|
|
|
Jun 22, 2017 - 11:36am PT
|
.. science/tech people have a unique argument that goes something like this: "you're wrong".
K, maybe.
But then maybe non science/tech people have a unique argument that goes something like this: "you're stoopid", or "you're insane"?
Where the difference maybe is that "you're wrong" is a statement about the factual/objective truth value or your belief. You're belief is either wrong or not.
Whereas you're stoopid or you're insane is more a subjective/social/emotional statement about the person.
And sure, in arguments between persons, maybe science/tech people prefer statements about the truth value of a person's beliefs, rather than ad hominem statements about the person stating the belief.
And probably in arguments between persons, interpersonal/social/emotional statements often do have a bigger affect on our beliefs than statements of fact.
I think in general, human belief creation processes are often much more affected by social/emotional content than by factual content, despite how much we like to admire and approve of ourselves for our awesome rationality and objectivity. Might be best not to notice that.
Even in "arguments" with ourselves, beliefs like "I'm not the one who's shallow and ill informed!" seem to hold more sway than we might expect. But IMHO, those interpersonal/social/emotional beliefs have such an inordinately strong affect on our belief processes because they help us confirm ourselves and our beliefs and motivate us to act according to our beliefs. And sure, if we squint hard enough, we'll be able to believe that can't possibly have any evolutionary advantage.
But again, to me, the beautiful thing is that maybe we can overcome that, and learn to just believe truth.
|
|
rbord
Boulder climber
atlanta
|
|
|
Jun 22, 2017 - 12:37pm PT
|
Great art catalyses discussion.
Right? If not for that play, all those folks would have been home by themselves playing Nintendo.
We create whatever survivor-biased self-confirming belief suits us (and often we're the ones unconsciously screening out information and only allowing confirming information to survive into our belief processes). We're humans - we create beliefs - it's what we do, how we work.
If you were a bird, you would flap your wings and fly. If your were a human who wasn't at that play (but was the discussy type who might have chosen to go to that play) you might have had a discussion too. Maybe not at the 100% rate that it occurred in that one instance, but heck, hopefully our love of the law of small numbers won't get in the way of our beliefs. Good luck with that one :-)
But IMHO, as a belief, yours probably beats "you're wrong" or "I'm not the one who's shallow and ill informed - I'm the one who understands!" :-)
|
|
paul roehl
Boulder climber
california
|
|
|
Jun 22, 2017 - 01:00pm PT
|
The fairy tale lovers...
Yeah, I love fairy tales, especially the Brothers Grimm. In those tales are some marvelous truths communicated directly into the psyches of adults as well as children. Read from a psychological perspective they are marvelous introductions into the world of myth and its value. Give them a try you might be surprised at the insights revealed.
|
|
rbord
Boulder climber
atlanta
|
|
|
Jun 22, 2017 - 02:23pm PT
|
MikeL - thanks.
IMHO, when people see black skin, they react to it. Maybe not in the simple terms I describe, or the simple connection between wealth and race that I imply. But that skin color creation process - the color that your skin happens to create - affects what people believe about the person. And those beliefs have been perpetrated and reinforced and sublimated, to where, sure, hard to draw exact straight lines. Hasty? Maybe. Maybe lazy, the way we humans can be. Maybe parenting a black child affects my beliefs about it.
But the bigger point I was failing to make is that we use those same processes - the judgment and reaction to people's skin color creation processes - when we react to people's belief creation processes.
But they're both just human processes. For the one (skin), we've gotten to the point where at least consciously we're mostly willing to say no it's cool you're an ok human being regardless of what result your skin color creation process produces.
But for the other (beliefs), we're not quite there yet. Kind of seems like we're moving in the opposite direction. Maybe we're doing the same with our beliefs about skin color too.
And given that 150 years after slavery ended, white median wealth is still 13 times black median wealth (I guess maybe you could add the fact of Trump's election), we probably shouldn't hold our breaths waiting for people to stop congratulating themselves on how awesome the results of their belief creation processes are ("I'm not shallow and ill informed - I understand!" Yes, don't you have beautiful white beliefs ...). We really haven't even gotten there with respect to the (social) effect that the results of people's skin color creation processes has on our beliefs.
.. marvelous truths communicated directly into the psyche ..
That's cool, as long as the truths are, you know, true, and not just considered true in light of the incomplete information on which they were based (like maybe that people with black skin are lazier than people with white skin), and exempt from rational analysis because they're not supposed to be considered true in the first place. I think the problem is that much of the time the stuff that we shallow and ill informed humans take away from them, and the stuff that the exceptional humans who created them intended to communicate, are not true. 72 virgins is the kind of thing that sticks to a human's head.
Not that the truth value of a belief is really what matters to humans. We create and believe beliefs because doing so works to our advantage. And in the ecology of our beliefs, our beliefs can be advantageous regardless of whether they're true or not. Part of the problem, IMHO, is that we learn to conflate "truth" with "advantageousness." But that's maybe not such a disadvantageous thing for a human to have learned, depending on their informational environment.
The science/tech types just have an obsessive desire to believe truth :-( But in the end, that might not work out to be so disadvantageous for humans.
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!