Should Humans Do What Comes Naturally? And What’s Natural for Humans?
Sound of Trumpet
What’s Natural for Humans?
12/01/2009
Dec 1, 2009 — Should humans do what comes naturally? What comes
naturally? And what do we mean by natural?
Nicholas Wade in the New York Times said, “We May Be Born With an
Urge to Help.” He began with the same question: “What is the essence
of human nature?” Then he discussed evidence that infants have an
inborn tendency to help. Who sees this? biologists. After
dismissing the views of theologians, Thomas Hobbes and parents, he
announced, “But biologists are beginning to form a generally sunnier
view of humankind. Their conclusions are derived in part from testing
very young children, and partly from comparing human children with
those of chimpanzees, hoping that the differences will point to what
is distinctively human.” We know he is talking ape ancestry because
the picture caption says, “The evolutionary roots of altruism are
complex,” and the experiments compared young children with
chimpanzees. He also quoted Hilard Kaplan (U of New Mexico) giving a
kin-selection opinion of evolution: “Modern humans have lived for most
of their existence as hunter gatherers, so much of human nature has
presumably been shaped for survival in such conditions.” A more
radical view expressed is the opinion of primatologist Frans de Waal.
He believes “it is in our biological nature, not our political
institutions, that we should put our trust.” Do what comes
naturally. Others quoted say, “Humans clearly evolved the ability to
detect inequities, control immediate desires, foresee the virtues of
norm following and gain the personal, emotional rewards that come from
seeing another punished.” But did they also evolve the ability to
weave stories about what we evolved to do? In the end, Wade decided
to tell us what he thinks we are by nature: “We are selfish by nature,
yet also follow rules requiring us to be nice to others.”
A similar subject was raised by PhysOrg: “Empathy distinguishes
modern humans from their primate ancestors.” This is the opinion of
Sarah Hrdy, a staunch evolutionist: “The line leading to the genus
Homo split maybe 7 million years ago from other apes, and this helps
explain why 99 percent of the DNA overlaps,” she said, repeating a
common misconception (see 06/29/2007). After this emphasis on our
similarity with apes, Hrdy pointed to the “deciding factor” that
describes human nature compared to chimpanzee nature: empathy.
“Understanding what someone else might be thinking or just being
interested in attributing a mental state to someone else is something
humans do naturally, right from an early age.” In other words, “our
aptitude for imagining the emotions of other individuals is a powerful
indicator of our humanity.” Where that came from, she speculated, was
in the shared care of infants. The article ended with a pun: “So the
nursery was the cradle of our humanity.” Hrdy did not explain why
this did not arise in all the other primate groups if it is such a
good thing – nor if it was caused by a genetic mutation and natural
selection.
We may be kind by nature, but self-control has to be forced upon
us. PhysOrg reported the views of psychologists at University of
Pennsylvania. “Psychologists suggest parents should wait to teach
toddlers self-control,” the article announced. They suggest it may be
harmful to the developing brain for an infant to hear too soon the
parental “No.” “Toddlers are mastering all sorts of social
conventions that simply must be learned. They’re the rules of the
world. In this sense, trying to hasten the brain’s development may be
not only difficult by [sic] unwise,” the article said. Questions
about preventing the hand from touching the hot stove or running out
into the street come to mind.
Painful memories may be evoked by the words to the junior-age
version of the birthday song, Happy Birthday to you; you live in a
zoo. You look like a monkey, and you smell like one, too. Now look
at this article in KOMO News. A zoo in Warsaw has put people on
display as cavemen in a cage previously used for monkeys. This may
not be as morally objectionable as the racist act of putting Ota Benga
in a zoo (see CMI), since these cavemen are volunteers, but it raises
questions about human nature. Presumably the zookeepers want to make
a statement about human kinship with other primates. If so, how far
should the display go to be realistic? Other primates don’t wear
clothes. They engage in sexual activity and elimination in the open.
Those are natural functions, aren’t they? The cavemen in the photo
look hostile. They seem unnaturally angry at being imprisoned behind
bars. Maybe it is natural for them to have liberty and justice for
all. Should they pray, play music, and talk to the visitors? Should
they engage in philosophy and science, or would that be unnatural –
maybe even “super”-natural? Which side of the cage is the natural
side?
Whenever a person has two natures, there are going to be
difficulties in philosophy, theology and science understanding how
they come together. Humans have an animal nature and a spiritual
nature. Theologians wrestle with how to integrate our understanding
of the divine and human natures in Jesus Christ.
Evolutionists think they can solve it by erasing the spiritual
nature and rendering humans as purely “natural.” That is no solution
at all. It creates more problems than it solves. For one thing,
“natural” is a very slippery word. It has multiple meanings depending
on the context. Usually, being materialists, they want to explain
everything within the domain of “natural law” (whatever that means;
it’s a trickier problem than you think), so as to give a “natural”
explanation instead of a supernatural explanation. So they wind up
trying to explain all our behaviors in terms of deterministic
influences and genetic predispositions from some mythical
“prehistory” (a one-word oxymoron).
The natural/supernatural distinction cannot be maintained
under scrutiny. Are they saying that scientific reasoning is within
the domain of natural law as well? Then on what basis should we trust
such reasoning? Usually, they commit the Yoda Fallacy of stepping
outside their skin and looking down on humans from some exalted plane
that has access to truth, justice and honesty. If those things were
emergent properties of molecules, there would be no way to
independently validate them.
In a debate Nov 30, skeptic Michael Shermer was asked about
that and shrugged it off. He appealed to pragmatism: we use reason
because it works. This is a prime example of begging the question.
How does he know it works? If all his metrics are emergent properties
of molecules, he is back to the same conundrum. His listeners
certainly have no basis to trust his appeals to reason. Within the
materialistic box, epistemology itself must emerge. To what
trustworthy, unchanging, reliable standard can his reasoning refer?
His answer merely states his faith in the validity of reason while
plagiarizing the presuppositions of Christianity.
The end result of evolutionary reasoning, inconsistent as it
is, is to put man in the zoo. It may be funny for awhile, but sooner
or later, if people act like animals, society will reduce to a
Hobbesian war of all against all, till someone cries out, “Thou shalt
not....!” Game over.
A personal, holy Creator is the only standard by which our
actions can be measured with coherence and consistency. We may not be
able to sort out all the conundrums, but we can have hope in the
existence of a resolution beyond our limited understanding of it that
does not short-circuit itself at the outset. Since God has a divine
nature by definition, it’s perfectly natural to start with Him.
Next headline on: Early Man • Human Body • Politics and Ethics
Erwin Moller
> http://creationsafaris.com/crev200912.htm
>
> What�s Natural for Humans?
>
> 12/01/2009
>
> Dec 1, 2009 � Should humans do what comes naturally? What comes
> naturally? And what do we mean by natural?
>
>
Who cares what a guy like you thinks about that?
A guy that openly admitted that he thinks apologizing for former
mistakes is wrong.
A guy that keeps speading hatred and false claims without the guts to
defend them in public?
Coward. Go spam elsewhere.
Erwin Moller
--
"There are two ways of constructing a software design: One way is to
make it so simple that there are obviously no deficiencies, and the
other way is to make it so complicated that there are no obvious
deficiencies. The first method is far more difficult."
-- C.A.R. Hoare
cryptoguy
<Since_humans_read_this_I_am_spammed_too_m...@spamyourself.com> wrote:
> Sound of Trumpet schreef:
>
> >http://creationsafaris.com/crev200912.htm
>
>
> > 12/01/2009
>
> > Dec 1, 2009 — Should humans do what comes naturally? What comes
> > naturally? And what do we mean by natural?
>
> Who cares what a guy like you thinks about that?
> A guy that openly admitted that he thinks apologizing for former
> mistakes is wrong.
> A guy that keeps speading hatred and false claims without the guts to
> defend them in public?
>
> Coward. Go spam elsewhere.
>
> Erwin Moller
Erwin:
Strumpet doesn't write this stuff itself; it has neither the
intelligence nor the education. All its 'articles' can be easily found
in their original context on the net.
Nor has it ever responded to criticism, or given any indication that
it reads the followups.
Responding to it is utterly pointless, as is reading its postings.
pt
Jon Schild
> http://[snipped]
>
> What�s Natural for Humans?
>
> 12/01/2009
>
> Dec 1, 2009 � Should humans do what comes naturally? What comes
> naturally? And what do we mean by natural?
It varies depening what rightwing crackpot fanatics are trying to
demonstrate.
For instance:
(crackpot) Homosexuality is not natural!!! It only occurs in sinful
human society!!
(biologists) No, there is homosexuality all over the animal kingdom. It
is completelly natural.
(crackpot) Well I am not an animal!! Humans should know better!!
Wearing clothes is not natural.
ilbe...@gmail.com
wrote:
What comes naturally to humans (due to pride , ego, and rebellion) ,
is to lavish ourselves with anything and any experience we deem
necessary . Apart from a real Born Again experience with the Creator,
we will naturally gravitiate to all the things that harm us and others
such as but not limited to : Sexual Hedonism, acquisition of
material goods and immoral pleasure seekings to make us feel good/
better about ourselves , chasing money to enhance our self esteem,
seeking prestige to comfort ourselves in knowing we are important
according to others evaluation and praise, and a plethera of other
superficial and short lasting venues. If you choose to pass by the
very Creator of the Universe in a personal relationship which
continues into eternity...then, all you have left are things which
are passing away by clutching at temporary alleged benefits of a self
induced feeding frenzy . NOT what is ones ultimate meaning or
purpose is to living this life ... not for me , not for you, and not
for anyone on Earth . Never was. WE alone have the chance to change
that, but alas, most dont desire that change.
Ken
However, THIS one is Creationists can certainly prove an intelligent
Designer/Creator for the Cosmos
Ok then "Put Up or Shut The Fuck Up"
And it better be real proof, not one of your usual "go google it" or
a link to fundy creationut crap
default
The "deadly sins?" or just good survival strategy?
"Greed" is a sin, but "ambition" is noble? Greed and ambition are the
same pernicious behavior - but in one instance it is condemned and
another it is lauded.
Rebellion? One would hope that trait is strong - because without it
we are subject to the whims of any warlord to come down the pike.
>is to lavish ourselves with anything and any experience we deem
>necessary . Apart from a real Born Again experience with the Creator,
>we will naturally gravitiate to all the things that harm us and others
>such as but not limited to : Sexual Hedonism, acquisition of
>material goods and immoral pleasure seekings to make us feel good/
>better about ourselves , chasing money to enhance our self esteem,
>seeking prestige to comfort ourselves in knowing we are important
>according to others evaluation and praise, and a plethera of other
>superficial and short lasting venues.
You are describing the so-called "Christian" to a "T!"
Sexual "Hedonism," acquisition of material goods, lazy behavior, etc.,
are all just good survival strategies - or to put it differently, if
man didn't exhibit these traits we wouldn't be around to be having
this discussion.
>If you choose to pass by the
>very Creator of the Universe in a personal relationship which
>continues into eternity...then, all you have left are things which
>are passing away by clutching at temporary alleged benefits of a self
>induced feeding frenzy . NOT what is ones ultimate meaning or
>purpose is to living this life ... not for me , not for you, and not
>for anyone on Earth . Never was. WE alone have the chance to change
>that, but alas, most dont desire that change.
Man has a long history of inventing gods to worship and to blame - and
it has worked well for him so religion might just be another good
survival strategy.
I can't imagine my own mortality, I can't imagine how insignificant I
really am (ego), I invent a god who cares about me and who gives me
immortality, and I can stop worrying about mortality and my purpose in
life.
--
Father Haskell
wrote:
> we will naturally gravitiate to all the things that harm us and others
> such as but not limited to : Sexual Hedonism, acquisition of
> material goods and immoral pleasure seekings to make us feel good/
> better about ourselves , chasing money to enhance our self esteem,
> seeking prestige to comfort ourselves in knowing we are important
> according to others evaluation and praise,
LaVey covered that one more eloquently than I ever could.
Jimbo
wrote:
> http://creationsafaris.com/crev200912.htm
> A personal, holy Creator is the only standard by which our
> actions can be measured with coherence and consistency.
I pity anyone that actually believes that.
William December Starr
Jimbo <ckdb...@gmail.com> said:
>> http://creationsafaris.com/crev200912.htm
>>
>> A personal, holy Creator is the only standard by which our
>> actions can be measured with coherence and consistency.
>
> I pity anyone that actually believes that.
Save the pity for anybody subject to the control of such a person.
-- wds
Jimbo
> In article <c13bfa2e-5357-4ef5-a527-b8a18706e...@m25g2000yqc.googlegroups.com>,
> Jimbo <ckdbig...@gmail.com> said:
>
> >>http://creationsafaris.com/crev200912.htm
>
> >> A personal, holy Creator is the only standard by which our
> >> actions can be measured with coherence and consistency.
>
> > I pity anyone that actually believes that.
>
> Save the pity for anybody subject to the control of such a person.
>
> -- wds
Agreed.
MarkA
> http://creationsafaris.com/crev200912.htm
>
> What’s Natural for Humans?
>
> 12/01/2009
>
> Dec 1, 2009 — Should humans do what comes naturally? What comes
> naturally? And what do we mean by natural?
>
>
Humans have billions of years of evolution providing us with all sorts of
instinctive behaviors. Within the past million years or so, our brains
got big enough that we could contemplate the results of our actions.
Clearly, this is a source of conflict. Hopefully, intellect will win out
eventually, but it's still too early to tell. Attributing our sense of
justice to an imaginary being is an exercise in stupidity, as the author
of this essay so ably demonstrates.
--
MarkA
Keeper of the Butter Dish of Balshazar
Howard Brazee
>Humans have billions of years of evolution providing us with all sorts of
>instinctive behaviors.
How many billions?
--
"In no part of the constitution is more wisdom to be found,
than in the clause which confides the question of war or peace
to the legislature, and not to the executive department."
- James Madison
Ralph
> On Dec 22, 2:43 am, Sound of Trumpet <soundoftrum...@dcemail.com>
> wrote:
>> http://creationsafaris.com/crev200912.htm
>>
>>
>> 12/01/2009
>>
>> Dec 1, 2009 � Should humans do what comes naturally? What comes
>> naturally? And what do we mean by natural?
>>
>> Urge to Help.� He began with the same question: �What is the essence
>> of human nature?� Then he discussed evidence that infants have an
>> inborn tendency to help. Who sees this? biologists. After
>> dismissing the views of theologians, Thomas Hobbes and parents, he
>> view of humankind. Their conclusions are derived in part from testing
>> very young children, and partly from comparing human children with
>> those of chimpanzees, hoping that the differences will point to what
>> the picture caption says, �The evolutionary roots of altruism are
>> complex,� and the experiments compared young children with
>> chimpanzees. He also quoted Hilard Kaplan (U of New Mexico) giving a
>> of their existence as hunter gatherers, so much of human nature has
>> radical view expressed is the opinion of primatologist Frans de Waal.
>> institutions, that we should put our trust.� Do what comes
>> naturally. Others quoted say, �Humans clearly evolved the ability to
>> detect inequities, control immediate desires, foresee the virtues of
>> norm following and gain the personal, emotional rewards that come from
>> weave stories about what we evolved to do? In the end, Wade decided
>> yet also follow rules requiring us to be nice to others.�
>> A similar subject was raised by PhysOrg: �Empathy distinguishes
>> modern humans from their primate ancestors.� This is the opinion of
>> Sarah Hrdy, a staunch evolutionist: �The line leading to the genus
>> Homo split maybe 7 million years ago from other apes, and this helps
>> common misconception (see 06/29/2007). After this emphasis on our
>> describes human nature compared to chimpanzee nature: empathy.
>> interested in attributing a mental state to someone else is something
>> aptitude for imagining the emotions of other individuals is a powerful
>> in the shared care of infants. The article ended with a pun: �So the
>> nursery was the cradle of our humanity.� Hrdy did not explain why
>> this did not arise in all the other primate groups if it is such a
>> selection.
>> We may be kind by nature, but self-control has to be forced upon
>> us. PhysOrg reported the views of psychologists at University of
>> toddlers self-control,� the article announced. They suggest it may be
>> harmful to the developing brain for an infant to hear too soon the
>> conventions that simply must be learned. They�re the rules of the
>> world. In this sense, trying to hasten the brain�s development may be
>> not only difficult by [sic] unwise,� the article said. Questions
>> about preventing the hand from touching the hot stove or running out
>> into the street come to mind.
>> Painful memories may be evoked by the words to the junior-age
>> version of the birthday song, Happy Birthday to you; you live in a
>> zoo. You look like a monkey, and you smell like one, too. Now look
>> at this article in KOMO News. A zoo in Warsaw has put people on
>> display as cavemen in a cage previously used for monkeys. This may
>> not be as morally objectionable as the racist act of putting Ota Benga
>> in a zoo (see CMI), since these cavemen are volunteers, but it raises
>> questions about human nature. Presumably the zookeepers want to make
>> a statement about human kinship with other primates. If so, how far
>> clothes. They engage in sexual activity and elimination in the open.
>> look hostile. They seem unnaturally angry at being imprisoned behind
>> bars. Maybe it is natural for them to have liberty and justice for
>> all. Should they pray, play music, and talk to the visitors? Should
>> maybe even �super�-natural? Which side of the cage is the natural
>> side?
>>
>> Whenever a person has two natures, there are going to be
>> difficulties in philosophy, theology and science understanding how
>> they come together. Humans have an animal nature and a spiritual
>> nature. Theologians wrestle with how to integrate our understanding
>> of the divine and human natures in Jesus Christ.
>> Evolutionists think they can solve it by erasing the spiritual
>> at all. It creates more problems than it solves. For one thing,
>> on the context. Usually, being materialists, they want to explain
>> it�s a trickier problem than you think), so as to give a �natural�
>> explanation instead of a supernatural explanation. So they wind up
>> trying to explain all our behaviors in terms of deterministic
>> influences and genetic predispositions from some mythical
>> The natural/supernatural distinction cannot be maintained
>> under scrutiny. Are they saying that scientific reasoning is within
>> the domain of natural law as well? Then on what basis should we trust
>> such reasoning? Usually, they commit the Yoda Fallacy of stepping
>> outside their skin and looking down on humans from some exalted plane
>> that has access to truth, justice and honesty. If those things were
>> emergent properties of molecules, there would be no way to
>> independently validate them.
>> In a debate Nov 30, skeptic Michael Shermer was asked about
>> that and shrugged it off. He appealed to pragmatism: we use reason
>> because it works. This is a prime example of begging the question.
>> How does he know it works? If all his metrics are emergent properties
>> of molecules, he is back to the same conundrum. His listeners
>> certainly have no basis to trust his appeals to reason. Within the
>> materialistic box, epistemology itself must emerge. To what
>> trustworthy, unchanging, reliable standard can his reasoning refer?
>> His answer merely states his faith in the validity of reason while
>> plagiarizing the presuppositions of Christianity.
>> The end result of evolutionary reasoning, inconsistent as it
>> is, is to put man in the zoo. It may be funny for awhile, but sooner
>> or later, if people act like animals, society will reduce to a
>> not....!� Game over.
>> A personal, holy Creator is the only standard by which our
>> actions can be measured with coherence and consistency. We may not be
>> able to sort out all the conundrums, but we can have hope in the
>> existence of a resolution beyond our limited understanding of it that
>> does not short-circuit itself at the outset. Since God has a divine
>> Next headline on: Early Man � Human Body � Politics and Ethics
>
> What comes naturally to humans (due to pride , ego, and rebellion) ,
> is to lavish ourselves with anything and any experience we deem
> necessary .
I have found that this is only true with fundamentalist Christians. Ever
wonder why, Dave?
> Apart from a real Born Again experience with the Creator,
> we will naturally gravitiate to all the things that harm us and others
> such as but not limited to : Sexual Hedonism, acquisition of
> material goods and immoral pleasure seekings to make us feel good/
> better about ourselves , chasing money to enhance our self esteem,
> seeking prestige to comfort ourselves in knowing we are important
> according to others evaluation and praise, and a plethera of other
> superficial and short lasting venues.
Whew! So many good people on earth who are not 'born again' Christians
and yet are living an exemplary life.
> If you choose to pass by the
> very Creator of the Universe in a personal relationship which
> continues into eternity...then, all you have left are things which
> are passing away by clutching at temporary alleged benefits of a self
> induced feeding frenzy .
Are you referring to Mother Nature?
> NOT what is ones ultimate meaning or
> purpose is to living this life ... not for me , not for you, and not
> for anyone on Earth . Never was. WE alone have the chance to change
> that, but alas, most dont desire that change.
Not the false change which you represent.
Howard Brazee
>> What comes naturally to humans (due to pride , ego, and rebellion) ,
>> is to lavish ourselves with anything and any experience we deem
>> necessary .
>
>
>I have found that this is only true with fundamentalist Christians. Ever
>wonder why, Dave?
I have found it to be more universal. But it helps to be Righteous
when we want to believe whatever we do is Right.
MarkA
> On Wed, 23 Dec 2009 09:38:30 -0500, MarkA <nob...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>
>>Humans have billions of years of evolution providing us with all sorts of
>>instinctive behaviors.
>
> How many billions?
Estimates are between 3 and 3.5 billion years since life originated on
Earth.
--
MarkA
Keeper of Things Put There Only Just The Night Before
About eight o'clock
Howard Brazee
>>>Humans have billions of years of evolution providing us with all sorts of
>>>instinctive behaviors.
>>
>> How many billions?
>
>Estimates are between 3 and 3.5 billion years since life originated on
>Earth.
But obviously those instinctive behaviors we're discussing haven't
evolved all that time.
John Stafford
their human nature. That's the way it is.
Monsieur Turtoni
physically detectable. Instead, they are a kind of convenient fiction,
like a center of gravity, which are convenient as a way of solving
physics problems, although they need not correspond to anything
tangible — the center of gravity of a hoop is a point in thin air.
People constantly tell themselves stories to make sense of their
world, and they feature in the stories as a character, and that
convenient but fictional character is the self."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self_(philosophy)
MarkA
> On Thu, 24 Dec 2009 08:07:43 -0500, MarkA <nob...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>
>>>>Humans have billions of years of evolution providing us with all sorts of
>>>>instinctive behaviors.
>>>
>>> How many billions?
>>
>>Estimates are between 3 and 3.5 billion years since life originated on
>>Earth.
>
> But obviously those instinctive behaviors we're discussing haven't
> evolved all that time.
It depends upon your definition of "instinctive behavior". Would you
consider a plant turning toward the light an "instinctive behavior"?
Howard Brazee
>> But obviously those instinctive behaviors we're discussing haven't
>> evolved all that time.
>
>It depends upon your definition of "instinctive behavior". Would you
>consider a plant turning toward the light an "instinctive behavior"?
Not one that's applicable to humans.