Branscombe Beach Scavengers
Simon Robinson
I found this story to be incredibly sad (about the people scavenging to
take stuff washed up from the wreckage of the MSC Napoli, apparently
including rifling through obvious family belongings and adding to the
environmental damage.
I know in absolute terms, it's not remotely as bad as, say, a famine or
a war, but the thing that gets me about it is I would have a strong
suspicion a lot of the people involved are people who would normally
consider themselves perfectly law-abiding citizens, yet apparently as
soon as they get a chance, they are rushing to take things that very
obviously don't belong to them, with no apparent consideration for the
effect of their actions on other people (like the people who do own the
stuff) or on the wider community/environment. What is it about people
that leads so many to such obvious greed and such apparent lack of
consideration for others?
Is this a sad reflection on aspects of human nature, or of the society
we live in, or what?
Gordon Hudson
news:51nql3F...@mid.individual.net...
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/6289371.stm
>
> I found this story to be incredibly sad (about the people scavenging to
> take stuff washed up from the wreckage of the MSC Napoli, apparently
> including rifling through obvious family belongings and adding to the
> environmental damage.
>
> I know in absolute terms, it's not remotely as bad as, say, a famine or a
> war, but the thing that gets me about it is I would have a strong
> suspicion a lot of the people involved are people who would normally
> consider themselves perfectly law-abiding citizens, yet apparently as soon
> as they get a chance, they are rushing to take things that very obviously
> don't belong to them,
I have always believed that most people will commit a crime if they believe
they can get away with it.
I just have to look at our own customers at work to see this.
The internet can be a good front for all sorts of criminal activity as it
gives you anonimity.
Tony Gillam
it may be partly due to confusion over the status of the ship. She may
be perceived as abandoned, in which case the cargo may be salvaged
subject to reporting it to the Receiver of Wrecks. The whole position
was clarified under the Merchant Shipping Act 1995, a comparatively
recent bit of legislation, that people may not be aware of. Maritime law
under which this falls can be complex as is is often dealing with a
fluid( pardon the pun) situation.
--
Tony Gillam
tony....@lineone.net
http://www.bookourvilla.co.uk/spain
Sun, sand and sangria
1st Century Apostolic Traditionalist UK.RC
> I have always believed that most people will commit a crime if they
> believe
> they can get away with it.
Good morning Gordon. {;o;}
Eccl.8:11 "Because sentence against an evil work is not executed speedily,
therefore the heart of the sons of men is fully set in them to do evil."
> I just have to look at our own customers at work to see this.
> The internet can be a good front for all sorts of criminal activity as it
> gives you anonimity.
Jeremiah 17:9 "The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately
wicked: who can know it?
10 I the LORD search the heart, I try the reins, even to give every man
according to his ways, and according to the fruit of his doings."
Jeff...
Richard Dudley
In the article I read about this, (I think it was in the Guardian) the
police were reported as saying that the law isn't entirely clear on
this matter - its certainly not simply a case of looting. There was a
picture of someone taking a BMW motorbike - all above board apparently
- they had to identify themselves to the police and be willing to give
the machine back if the original owner claimed it. Its dependent on a
1995 law of salvage, I believe.
So it looks as though, in some cases at least, your sadness about human
nature is rather unwarranted. Wait until the people who took the stuff
away are found out to have provided false ID, then resume your sadness
;-)
Richard
Frederick Williams
> consider themselves perfectly law-abiding citizens, yet apparently as
_Is_ someone breaking the law?
--
Remove "antispam" and ".invalid" for e-mail address.
We have lingered in the chambers of the sea
By sea-girls wreathed with seaweed red and brown
Till human voices wake us, and we drown.
Frederick Williams
>
> I have always believed that most people will commit a crime if they believe
_Is_ someone breaking the law?
Richard Corfield
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/6289371.stm
>
> I found this story to be incredibly sad (about the people scavenging to
> take stuff washed up from the wreckage of the MSC Napoli, apparently
> including rifling through obvious family belongings and adding to the
> environmental damage.
In some cases they could have acted to reduce damage. The law is shaped
to support people moving the goods to safety or trying to make safe,
but they have to report them. There are a lot of things there that would
be badly damaged by weather or rising tide if left unprotected.
I expect those that took the motorbike have had to hand it back.
They'd have had a hard time when it came to paperwork for things like
road tax anyway.
It is sad though that people would steal in this situation - where the
owner is identifiable so the goods can be returned. Hopefully, especially
in the case of those family belongings, people will be returning them
to the authorities as soon as is practical. I can imagine people not
owning up to finding all the small goods that they did though.
- Richard
--
_/_/_/ _/_/_/ _/_/_/ Richard Corfield <Richard....@gmail.com>
_/ _/ _/ _/
_/_/ _/ _/ Time is a one way street,
_/ _/ _/_/ _/_/_/ except in the Twilight Zone
Frederick Williams
>
> Is this a sad reflection on aspects of human nature, or of the society
> we live in, or what?
It would be jolly amusing if many thousands of people took one jar of
face cream or one packet of disposable nappies each and if they all
reported what they had done to the Receiver of Wreck as required by
law. Methinks the Receiver of Wreck would be overwhelmed by
paperasserie.
Gordon Hudson
wrote in message news:45B71905...@antispamhotmail.co.uk.invalid...
> Gordon Hudson wrote:
>>
>> I have always believed that most people will commit a crime if they
>> believe
>
> _Is_ someone breaking the law?
Taking someones goods without permission is theft.
The goods either belong to the people who shipped them or the receiver of
wrecks.
"finders keepers" is not recognised in law.
The reason for all this is so that the insurance company can recover the
goods and possibly some of their losses.
michaeld
>
> Simon Robinson wrote:
>
> > consider themselves perfectly law-abiding citizens, yet apparently as
>
> _Is_ someone breaking the law?
Unless they make every effort to return the property to its rightful
owners, hanging on to it is theft, no?
A few more details on the relevant laws can be found at:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/6287047.stm
Michael
--
----== posted via PHP Headliner ==----
Kendall K. Down
Simon Robinson <em...@via.my.web.site> wrote:
> Is this a sad reflection on aspects of human nature, or of the society
> we live in, or what?
I think it shows the truth of what Christians have been saying all along -
original sin.
Atheism is a very nice theory for when society is going well and there is
strong government and so on. When things begin to break down, however, true
human nature comes to the fore and all your nice, law-abiding neighbours
turn out to be something quite other. Man is not naturally good and events
like the looting we have just seen demonstrate that.
God bless,
Kendall K. Down
--
================ ARCHAEOLOGICAL DIGGINGS ===============
| Australia's premier archaeological magazine |
| http://www.diggingsonline.com |
========================================================
Gareth McCaughan
> In message <51nql3F...@mid.individual.net>
> Simon Robinson <em...@via.my.web.site> wrote:
>
>> Is this a sad reflection on aspects of human nature, or of the society
>> we live in, or what?
>
> I think it shows the truth of what Christians have been saying all along -
> original sin.
>
> Atheism is a very nice theory for when society is going well and there is
> strong government and so on. When things begin to break down, however, true
> human nature comes to the fore and all your nice, law-abiding neighbours
> turn out to be something quite other. Man is not naturally good and events
> like the looting we have just seen demonstrate that.
Since when did atheism say that man is naturally good?
--
Gareth McCaughan
.sig under construc
Richard Corfield
>
> I think it shows the truth of what Christians have been saying all along -
> original sin.
>
> Atheism is a very nice theory for when society is going well and there is
> strong government and so on. When things begin to break down, however, true
> human nature comes to the fore and all your nice, law-abiding neighbours
> turn out to be something quite other. Man is not naturally good and events
> like the looting we have just seen demonstrate that.
What proportion of the population that were readily able to do this
did so? Given a large population what is the chance that there will be
at least some who will loot? There are a lot of examples of nice law
abiding neighbours doing nice things for each other or for strangers.
Could the problem be that the world we currently live in promotes greed?
Man is effected by that around him through his life. Taking this idea, the
new born baby has no reason to be thought of as sinful. This is quite the
opposite of Original Sin. The baby has the potential to be good or bad.
Richard Dudley
> > Is this a sad reflection on aspects of human nature, or of the society
> > we live in, or what?
> I think it shows the truth of what Christians have been saying all along -
> original sin.
How does it show sin, let alone show that sin is 'original' ? If it did
turn out that the taking away of goods was dishonest (and so far
there's not evidence of that) then I'd accept your second premise. But
your first would still look more than decidedly shaky.
> Atheism is a very nice theory for when society is going well and there is
> strong government and so on.
Oh ? Based on what observations ?
> When things begin to break down, however, true
> human nature comes to the fore and all your nice, law-abiding neighbours
> turn out to be something quite other.
Evidence please that behaviour under extenuating circumstances shows
'true human nature' ?
> Man is not naturally good and events
> like the looting we have just seen demonstrate that.
Do you have any statements from biologists supporting 'man is not
naturally good' ? Incidentally I agree with you - 'good' is a quite
inappropriate word to use to describe people. The biologist that I've
read most recently, a Chilean named Maturana says, in a nutshell, that
man is naturally loving. Whilst I disagree with you that these events
demonstrate what you think they do, I do fully accept that events such
as Katrina in New Orleans do indeed demonstrate some elements of your
thesis.
Richard
pg
news:871wlkm...@g.mccaughan.org.uk...
We have evolved along with a basic 'morality', the cumulative effect of
a history of broadly-based survival-driven requirements over the eons,
constantly combining with more immediate expediency-driven imperatives
of the moment, giving a relatively stable if mutating moral 'structure',
ie a behavioural continuity that allows for necessary flexibility and
gradual change. What is 'right' is what helps the group to survive -
through a balance of cooperation and aggression - and thereby gain
precedence over competiting species and sub groups with our own species.
Selflessness is a useful tool to this end as well, even if it involves
individual sacrifices.
Take a step back and look at the history of humanity from this
perspective, and a lot of things make sense.
At any given time the underlying survival instinct retains the potential
to take precedence over a set of rules - otherwise we wouldn't have the
capacity to survive major crises. Example: Passengers (mainly
Christians) eating their fellow deceased passengers after a crash on top
of a remote Andes peak.
pga
Frederick Williams
>
> Frederick Williams wrote:
> >
> > Simon Robinson wrote:
> >
> > > consider themselves perfectly law-abiding citizens, yet apparently as
> >
> > _Is_ someone breaking the law?
>
> Unless they make every effort to return the property to its rightful
It's the Receiver of Wrecks who has to do the returning, not the
salvager.
> owners, hanging on to it is theft, no?
>
> A few more details on the relevant laws can be found at:
>
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/6287047.stm
>
> Michael
>
> --
> ----== posted via PHP Headliner ==----
Kendall K. Down
"Richard Dudley" <abrax...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > When things begin to break down, however, true
> > human nature comes to the fore and all your nice, law-abiding neighbours
> > turn out to be something quite other.
> Evidence please that behaviour under extenuating circumstances shows
> 'true human nature' ?
I was unaware that the wreck of a ship with which you were not involved is
"extenuating circumstances". However, that aside, the evidence is that the
majority behave in deplorable ways: those who show courage and compassion
tend to get called heroes or saints.
> Do you have any statements from biologists supporting 'man is not
> naturally good' ?
I am not aware that biologists make pronouncements about ethics.
> Incidentally I agree with you - 'good' is a quite
> inappropriate word to use to describe people. The biologist that I've
> read most recently, a Chilean named Maturana says, in a nutshell, that
> man is naturally loving. Whilst I disagree with you that these events
> demonstrate what you think they do, I do fully accept that events such
> as Katrina in New Orleans do indeed demonstrate some elements of your
> thesis.
Good - so why the argument?
Kendall K. Down
Richard Corfield <Richard....@gmail.com> wrote:
> What proportion of the population that were readily able to do this
> did so? Given a large population what is the chance that there will be
> at least some who will loot? There are a lot of examples of nice law
> abiding neighbours doing nice things for each other or for strangers.
Of course it does, but my point is that when society breaks down in some
way, the examples you mention tend to disappear. There was only one
Maximilian Kolbe in the concentration camp, not hundreds.
> Could the problem be that the world we currently live in promotes greed?
> Man is effected by that around him through his life.
No, not one single person is effected by the world we live in.
> Taking this idea, the
> new born baby has no reason to be thought of as sinful. This is quite the
> opposite of Original Sin. The baby has the potential to be good or bad.
Yep - and invariably turns out bad. (With degrees of badness, to be sure.)
Richard Dudley
> > > When things begin to break down, however, true
> > > human nature comes to the fore and all your nice, law-abiding neighbours
> > > turn out to be something quite other.
[me]
> > Evidence please that behaviour under extenuating circumstances shows
> > 'true human nature' ?
>I was unaware that the wreck of a ship with which you were not involved is
>"extenuating circumstances".
So was I. The reference to 'extenuating circumstances' was a paraphrase
of your 'when things begin to break down'.
> However, that aside, the evidence is that the
> majority behave in deplorable ways: those who show courage and compassion
> tend to get called heroes or saints.
The majority 'when things begin to break down' ? What evidence have you
for this ?
> > Do you have any statements from biologists supporting 'man is not
> > naturally good' ?
>I am not aware that biologists make pronouncements about ethics.
Your own lack of awareness is your responsibility. I've told you about
one (actually two, since the book I was basing my comments on was
written by two biologists, one who has since died) - if you choose to
ignore that, that's your look out :-)
> > Incidentally I agree with you - 'good' is a quite
> > inappropriate word to use to describe people. The biologist that I've
> > read most recently, a Chilean named Maturana says, in a nutshell, that
> > man is naturally loving. Whilst I disagree with you that these events
> > demonstrate what you think they do, I do fully accept that events such
> > as Katrina in New Orleans do indeed demonstrate some elements of your
> > thesis.
>Good - so why the argument?
Because I'm not taking issue with *some* elements of your statements,
just the remainder once the bits I agree with have been extracted.
Richard
Kendall K. Down
"Richard Dudley" <abrax...@gmail.com> wrote:
> The majority 'when things begin to break down' ? What evidence have you
> for this ?
Many accounts of disaster situations, from the wreck of the Medusa to the
siege of Leningrad. Some were actively villainous, most passively
acquiesced, only a very few stood up for civilised principles.
Richard Dudley
> > The majority 'when things begin to break down' ? What evidence have you
> > for this ?
> Many accounts of disaster situations, from the wreck of the Medusa to the
> siege of Leningrad. Some were actively villainous, most passively
> acquiesced, only a very few stood up for civilised principles.
OK, I don't dispute this. However your original assertion was that this
behaviour of the majority 'shows true human nature'. If that is so,
then being a hero or a saint can't be 'true human nature' according to
you. How then does it arise ?
Richard
Simon Robinson
> In the article I read about this, (I think it was in the Guardian) the
> police were reported as saying that the law isn't entirely clear on
> this matter - its certainly not simply a case of looting. There was a
> picture of someone taking a BMW motorbike - all above board apparently
> - they had to identify themselves to the police and be willing to give
> the machine back if the original owner claimed it. Its dependent on a
> 1995 law of salvage, I believe.
That may be true, but I'm mostly thinking about the morals rather than
the details of the law.
> So it looks as though, in some cases at least, your sadness about human
> nature is rather unwarranted. Wait until the people who took the stuff
> away are found out to have provided false ID, then resume your sadness
It seems remarkably implausible to me that the majority of the
scavengers there drove all the way to the beach, started breaking open
containers etc., with the intention of merely looking after the stuff
they found until they were able to return it to its rightful owners. Not
only that, but the reports and photos also seem to indicate that people
were breaking open containers, leaving lots of rubbish on the beach or
floating back out to sea in the process. I find it also remarkably
implausible that people could be doing that while remaining unaware that
they were likely contributing to making the environmental damage worse.
On that basis I think my sadness about the implication of those events
for human nature (or for whatever influenced those people, my strong
suspicion is it was primarily raw greed) is justified.
Richard Dudley
> > In the article I read about this, (I think it was in the Guardian) the
> > police were reported as saying that the law isn't entirely clear on
> > this matter - its certainly not simply a case of looting. There was a
> > picture of someone taking a BMW motorbike - all above board apparently
> > - they had to identify themselves to the police and be willing to give
> > the machine back if the original owner claimed it. Its dependent on a
> > 1995 law of salvage, I believe.
> That may be true, but I'm mostly thinking about the morals rather than
> the details of the law.
So was I. In as far as I go along with the idea of 'morals', what's
'moral' to me translates as what is open and honest. What's 'immoral'
is what's attempted to be hidden. I was pointing out that not all the
behaviour was underhand, not out in the open.
> > So it looks as though, in some cases at least, your sadness about human
> > nature is rather unwarranted. Wait until the people who took the stuff
> > away are found out to have provided false ID, then resume your sadness
> It seems remarkably implausible to me that the majority of the
> scavengers there drove all the way to the beach, started breaking open
> containers etc., with the intention of merely looking after the stuff
> they found until they were able to return it to its rightful owners.
I agree that it may indeed be a minority that were there without
dishonest motives. However its not necessary to postulate that they
were merely there to act as safekeepers for the merchandise. I would
bet they thought they'd get a cut out of it, even if they were asked to
return it. Since after all, in many (most) cases, they'd be doing the
original owner a service in preventing further damage or even the
ultimate loss of the artifacts.
> Not
> only that, but the reports and photos also seem to indicate that people
> were breaking open containers, leaving lots of rubbish on the beach or
> floating back out to sea in the process.
I wholeheartedly agree that's irresponsible behaviour.
> I find it also remarkably
> implausible that people could be doing that while remaining unaware that
> they were likely contributing to making the environmental damage worse.
I'd say that they were indeed unaware of the full consequences of their
behaviour. That's why they behaved irresponsibly from my (and your)
perspectives.
> On that basis I think my sadness about the implication of those events
> for human nature (or for whatever influenced those people, my strong
> suspicion is it was primarily raw greed) is justified.
Of course you *think* its justified, or you wouldn't have posted it.
But sadness at another person's lack of awareness is not a reasonable
response. The reasonable response is one of compassion for these people
mired in the clutches of maya. They're under the illusion that 'a man's
life consists in the abundance of his possessions' which Jesus clearly
taught us is not so. He demonstrated such compassion - the gospels tell
us that his heart went out to people 'as sheep without a shepherd'.
Sadness at their behaviour is a selfish response because it denies
one's own responsibility for their lack of awareness. Can you honestly
say, hand on heart, that you're doing all in your power to increase
everyone's awareness, including your own?
Richard
Kendall K. Down
"Richard Dudley" <abrax...@gmail.com> wrote:
> OK, I don't dispute this. However your original assertion was that this
> behaviour of the majority 'shows true human nature'. If that is so,
> then being a hero or a saint can't be 'true human nature' according to
> you. How then does it arise ?
God's grace.
Michael J Davis
<n...@alpesprovence.net> writes
>We have evolved along with a basic 'morality', the cumulative effect of
>a history of broadly-based survival-driven requirements over the eons,
>constantly combining with more immediate expediency-driven imperatives
>of the moment, giving a relatively stable if mutating moral 'structure',
>ie a behavioural continuity that allows for necessary flexibility and
>gradual change. What is 'right' is what helps the group to survive -
>through a balance of cooperation and aggression - and thereby gain
>precedence over competiting species and sub groups with our own species.
>Selflessness is a useful tool to this end as well, even if it involves
>individual sacrifices.
>
>Take a step back and look at the history of humanity from this
>perspective, and a lot of things make sense.
>
>At any given time the underlying survival instinct retains the potential
>to take precedence over a set of rules - otherwise we wouldn't have the
>capacity to survive major crises. Example: Passengers (mainly
>Christians) eating their fellow deceased passengers after a crash on top
>of a remote Andes peak.
Not a good example as those people were dead. It was the in built
natural revulsion that had to be overcome to eat human flesh - or is
that what you meant?
Mike
[The reply-to address is valid for 30 days from this posting]
--
Michael J Davis
http://www.trustsof.demon.co.uk
<><
For this is what the Lord has said to me,
"Go and post a Watchman and let
him report what he sees." Isa 21:6
<><
Michael J Davis
Williams <Frederick...@antispamhotmail.co.uk.invalid> writes
>Simon Robinson wrote:
>>
>> Is this a sad reflection on aspects of human nature, or of the society
>> we live in, or what?
>
>It would be jolly amusing if many thousands of people took one jar of
>face cream or one packet of disposable nappies each and if they all
>reported what they had done to the Receiver of Wreck as required by
>law. Methinks the Receiver of Wreck would be overwhelmed by
>paperasserie.
Amusing. Taunting bureaucracy, perhaps. Apparently some tried to return
the over indulged acquisitions to the beach, but were refused
permission, they took it - they've got to look after it for a year.
10,000 nappies? LOL!
1st Century Apostolic Traditionalist UK.RC
news:osZ3mDDO...@trustsof.demon.co.uk.invalid...
>>to take precedence over a set of rules - otherwise we wouldn't have the
>>capacity to survive major crises. Example: Passengers (mainly
>>Christians) eating their fellow deceased passengers after a crash on top
>>of a remote Andes peak.
>
> Not a good example as those people were dead. It was the in built natural
> revulsion that had to be overcome to eat human flesh -
Right Mike. {;o;}
<Pedant mode on>
1 Timothy 4:4 "For every creature of God is good, and nothing to be refused,
if it be received with thanksgiving:
5 For it is sanctified by the word of God and prayer."
Jeff...
Richard Dudley
> > OK, I don't dispute this. However your original assertion was that this
> > behaviour of the majority 'shows true human nature'. If that is so,
> > then being a hero or a saint can't be 'true human nature' according to
> > you. How then does it arise ?
>God's grace.
So then, in your view does God withhold his grace from the others,
those who don't display heroism or saintliness?
Richard
pg
news:osZ3mDDO...@trustsof.demon.co.uk.invalid...
Although once cannibalism may have been acceptable in circumstances such
as, say, to appease ancestral spirits, a universal taboo has developed,
as with incest, human sacrifice, rape, murder, theft, etc. Opponents of
moral relativism might suggest that the lack of a universal, absolutist
set of rules implies "anything goes". Yet even if there are no moral
judgments that are both wholly absolute and completely objective, this
doesn't imply that there are no rules, or that such as they are they may
be abandoned on a whim.
A set of tried and tested moral guidelines has evolved, that have proved
beneficial to our species over time. What may be less apparent is that
they continue to evolve, imperceptibly, with the boundary between what
is and what is not morally acceptable behaviour under constant pressure
to move in one direction or another.
Even where these fundamental moral constraints have been codified into
law, most people can easily think of 'extraordinary' circumstances where
we would be wholly justified in abandoning them; particularly with
respect to murder, theft, and yes, cannibalism. Of course
'extraordinary' circumstances have the potential to become considerably
more commonplace, and it is interesting to speculate on how quickly the
veneer of civilisation would crumble in such a situation, and to what
extent. Survival becomes the overriding imperative, and in the likes of
a major catastrophe - say a nuclear winter, or following an asteroid
strike on the earth - the cohesion of the larger group would rapidly
disintegrate, with at least some of its alleged moral imperatives set
aside, until a new cooperative balance is reestablished.
Peter Ashby
>
> Even where these fundamental moral constraints have been codified into
> law, most people can easily think of 'extraordinary' circumstances where
> we would be wholly justified in abandoning them; particularly with
> respect to murder, theft, and yes, cannibalism. Of course
> 'extraordinary' circumstances have the potential to become considerably
> more commonplace, and it is interesting to speculate on how quickly the
> veneer of civilisation would crumble in such a situation, and to what
> extent. Survival becomes the overriding imperative, and in the likes of
> a major catastrophe - say a nuclear winter, or following an asteroid
> strike on the earth - the cohesion of the larger group would rapidly
> disintegrate, with at least some of its alleged moral imperatives set
> aside, until a new cooperative balance is reestablished.
Agreed, reports of life in Leningrad during the siege by the Germans
bear this out. When food became really scarce, first the cats and dogs
disappeared (moral imperitive one gone). Then the rats were eaten (two).
It was only after that that corpses were found with pieces missing
(three). I suspect it was only the very strong central authority and the
fact that they were the only source of 'moral' rations that kept that
society from disintergrating. Also the external threat would have helped
social cohesion.
Peter
--
Add my middle initial to email me. It has become attached to a country
www.the-brights.net
Tony Gillam
> Even where these fundamental moral constraints have been codified into
> law, most people can easily think of 'extraordinary' circumstances
> where we would be wholly justified in abandoning them; particularly
> with respect to murder, theft, and yes, cannibalism. Of course
> 'extraordinary' circumstances have the potential to become
> considerably more commonplace, and it is interesting to speculate on
> how quickly the veneer of civilisation would crumble in such a
> situation, and to what extent.
Lod of the Flies, anyone?
> Survival becomes the overriding
> imperative, and in the likes of a major catastrophe - say a nuclear
> winter, or following an asteroid strike on the earth - the cohesion
> of the larger group would rapidly disintegrate, with at least some of
> its alleged moral imperatives set aside, until a new cooperative
> balance is reestablished.
The deterioration in morals in the aforementioned film weren't related
to survival.
( Yes, I know it was a film)
--
Tony Gillam
tony....@lineone.net
http://www.bookourvilla.co.uk/spain
Sun, sand and sangria
Kendall K. Down
"Richard Dudley" <abrax...@gmail.com> wrote:
> So then, in your view does God withhold his grace from the others,
> those who don't display heroism or saintliness?
No, they reject it.
pg
news:5235tiF...@mid.individual.net...
| pg wrote:
| > Even where these fundamental moral constraints have been codified
into
| > law, most people can easily think of 'extraordinary' circumstances
| > where we would be wholly justified in abandoning them; particularly
| > with respect to murder, theft, and yes, cannibalism. Of course
| > 'extraordinary' circumstances have the potential to become
| > considerably more commonplace, and it is interesting to speculate on
| > how quickly the veneer of civilisation would crumble in such a
| > situation, and to what extent.
|
| Lod of the Flies, anyone?
|
| > Survival becomes the overriding
| > imperative, and in the likes of a major catastrophe - say a nuclear
| > winter, or following an asteroid strike on the earth - the cohesion
| > of the larger group would rapidly disintegrate, with at least some
of
| > its alleged moral imperatives set aside, until a new cooperative
| > balance is reestablished.
|
| The deterioration in morals in the aforementioned film weren't related
| to survival.
Really?
| ( Yes, I know it was a film)
Based on a work by an author who may have certain preconceived ideas
about man's alleged inherent capacity for evil, that I would dispute on
the basis of reasons given in previous posts in this thread.
Ballard's Empire of the Sun (the book) portrays a similar decline in
morals in a survival situation, with no religious undertones. In this
case a work of fiction based on Ballard's own experiences.
Richard Dudley
> > So then, in your view does God withhold his grace from the others,
> > those who don't display heroism or saintliness?
> No, they reject it.
So let's see if I've got this right. The heroes are recipients of
God's grace whether they like it or not?
Richard
Tony Gillam
> "Tony Gillam" <tony....@NOSPAMlineone.net> wrote in message
> news:5235tiF...@mid.individual.net...
>>
>>> Survival becomes the overriding
>>> imperative, and in the likes of a major catastrophe - say a nuclear
>>> winter, or following an asteroid strike on the earth - the cohesion
>>> of the larger group would rapidly disintegrate, with at least some
>>> of its alleged moral imperatives set aside, until a new cooperative
>>> balance is reestablished.
>>
>> The deterioration in morals in the aforementioned film weren't
>> related to survival.
>
> Really?
How did the elitist "them" and "us" work in what was a comparatively
small group that logic suggests would survive better with co-operation?
>> ( Yes, I know it was a film)
>
> Based on a work by an author who may have certain preconceived ideas
> about man's alleged inherent capacity for evil, that I would dispute
> on the basis of reasons given in previous posts in this thread.
>
> Ballard's Empire of the Sun (the book) portrays a similar decline in
> morals in a survival situation, with no religious undertones. In this
> case a work of fiction based on Ballard's own experiences.
Haven't read it so can't comment.
Michael J Davis
<n...@alpesprovence.net> writes
I accept that.
>A set of tried and tested moral guidelines has evolved, that have proved
>beneficial to our species over time. What may be less apparent is that
>they continue to evolve, imperceptibly, with the boundary between what
>is and what is not morally acceptable behaviour under constant pressure
>to move in one direction or another.
Yes, among 'civilisations' as a whole that is true.
>Even where these fundamental moral constraints have been codified into
>law, most people can easily think of 'extraordinary' circumstances where
>we would be wholly justified in abandoning them; particularly with
>respect to murder, theft, and yes, cannibalism. Of course
>'extraordinary' circumstances have the potential to become considerably
>more commonplace, and it is interesting to speculate on how quickly the
>veneer of civilisation would crumble in such a situation, and to what
>extent. Survival becomes the overriding imperative, and in the likes of
>a major catastrophe - say a nuclear winter, or following an asteroid
>strike on the earth - the cohesion of the larger group would rapidly
>disintegrate, with at least some of its alleged moral imperatives set
>aside, until a new cooperative balance is reestablished.
That may be true (i.e. I agree that that is likely to happen) but the
issue is - because something is expedient (for the survival of an
individual or group) does that make it 'moral'? Because if you say
'yes', ISTM that you are partially contradicting your first paragraph.
There may not be no rules, but what rules we have may readily be
abandoned when conditions change.
Returning to the beginning, I regard 'cannibalism' as the killing and
eating of one human by another. I would regard the main wrong doing as
the killing. In the Peruvian case, the revulsion is related to the
connection between the killing AND the eating.
In my religion (or my type of Christianity) there is belief that there
are some absolutes - based on the nature of humanity and human society -
that obtain for all people. (eg not killing, etc.) But even then things
that are wrong may be done in certain circumstances (eg. self defence.)
The key criteria relate to avoidance of damage to individuals and to the
broader society. Eg adultery is 'wrong' because it damages the
relationship between husband and wife.
So I can see how broader changes in environment affect how people
behave. But I am speaking of how people 'should' behave. I think you are
being merely descriptive.
Alec Brady
<1169993156.1...@s48g2000cws.googlegroups.com>,
"Richard Dudley" <abrax...@gmail.com> wrote:
We're *all* recipients of God's grace whether we like it or not.
Peter Ashby
>
> The key criteria relate to avoidance of damage to individuals and to the
> broader society. Eg adultery is 'wrong' because it damages the
> relationship between husband and wife.
>
But that is a matter between them. it is not a matter for wider society
to attempt to impose or regulate that someone must not cheat on their
spouse. I do not, have not and do not intend to cheat on my wife because
I love her and do not wish to hurt her. it would also be a betrayal of
trust and promise. No higher power or moral guide is required for me to
know this or stick to it. If anyone tried to tell me I Must not commit
adultery or Else I would campaign for them to be removed.
> So I can see how broader changes in environment affect how people
> behave. But I am speaking of how people 'should' behave. I think you are
> being merely descriptive.
I disagree with you. I thought pg was making some good points. Anyway it
is much better when dealing with morality to be descriptive than
proscriptive. We have as a society struggled hard in recent centuries to
move away from moral proscription from nosy clerics.
We are seeing at the moment what happens when rump proscripters come up
against people who want EVERYONE to be treated fairly and not
discriminated against.
Richard Dudley
> >> > So then, in your view does God withhold his grace from the others,
> >> > those who don't display heroism or saintliness?
[Ken]
> >> No, they reject it.
>
>>So let's see if I've got this right. The heroes are recipients of
>>God's grace whether they like it or not?
>We're *all* recipients of God's grace whether we like it or not.
Yes, but clearly Ken doesn't think so, he's just said that the
majority reject it.
Richard
Kendall K. Down
"Richard Dudley" <abrax...@gmail.com> wrote:
You're not doing very well here, Richard. Heroes are recipients of God's
grace who have chosen to accept it. (Actually, I'm more sure talking about
saints, so shall we say "saintly heroes"?)
pg
| pg wrote:
| > "Tony Gillam" <tony....@NOSPAMlineone.net> wrote in message
| > news:5235tiF...@mid.individual.net...
| >> Lod of the Flies, anyone?
| >>
| >>> Survival becomes the overriding
| >>> imperative, and in the likes of a major catastrophe - say a
nuclear
| >>> winter, or following an asteroid strike on the earth - the
cohesion
| >>> of the larger group would rapidly disintegrate, with at least some
| >>> of its alleged moral imperatives set aside, until a new
cooperative
| >>> balance is reestablished.
| >>
| >> The deterioration in morals in the aforementioned film weren't
| >> related to survival.
| >
| > Really?
|
| How did the elitist "them" and "us" work in what was a comparatively
| small group that logic suggests would survive better with
co-operation?
If you look at a small group in isolation, you end up not being able to
see the wood for the trees. This was a particularly small unit. Attempts
were made at cooperation, the establishment of an efficient hierarchy
part of the process, but in this instance the system largely broke down.
If a ship hadn't happened by by chance, one could posit that this group
had a reduced chance of survival, long term.
But if we imagine a hundred similar neighbouring islands and groups, it
would be reasonable to assume that on some of these a cooperative,
self-sustaining system might arise. All things being equal in terms of
natural resources etc, the latter would have a much enhanced chance of
survival. They would be the most likely to look beyond immediate
survival concerns, and think longer term. They might develop the means
to travel to nearby islands. Where groups that had survived through
cooperation elsewhere come into contact, these groups would be more
inclined to cooperate, trade, share resources with each other. They
become correspondingly stronger. They will be the ones that survive, and
reproduce.
Yes there will also be groups that survive and prosper where cooperation
is achieved through more coercive rather than peaceful democratic means,
but that pretty much sums up the history of mankind; western-style
democracies have a way to go to establish themselves as the only
effective means of governance!
Golding's novel - if there's a theme that man has an underlying
propensity for selfish, 'evil' behaviour that is only overcome by
adherence to externally-imposed moral guidelines, ignores the fact that
we had discovered the advantages of cooperative 'moral' behaviour eons
before the Christian and other forms of god-given morality had come on
the scene.
| >> ( Yes, I know it was a film)
| >
| > Based on a work by an author who may have certain preconceived ideas
| > about man's alleged inherent capacity for evil, that I would dispute
| > on the basis of reasons given in previous posts in this thread.
| >
| > Ballard's Empire of the Sun (the book) portrays a similar decline in
| > morals in a survival situation, with no religious undertones. In
this
| > case a work of fiction based on Ballard's own experiences.
|
| Haven't read it so can't comment.
Ballard has a disturbingly dystopic take on things. His science fiction
is bleak, but frighteningly possible, and in the light of climate
change, somewhat prophetic.
Tony Gillam
> "Tony Gillam" <tony....@NOSPAMlineone.net> wrote in message
>> How did the elitist "them" and "us" work in what was a comparatively
>> small group that logic suggests would survive better with
>> co-operation?
>
> If you look at a small group in isolation, you end up not being able
> to see the wood for the trees. This was a particularly small unit.
> Attempts were made at cooperation, the establishment of an efficient
> hierarchy part of the process, but in this instance the system
> largely broke down. If a ship hadn't happened by by chance, one could
> posit that this group had a reduced chance of survival, long term.
>
> But if we imagine a hundred similar neighbouring islands and groups,
> it would be reasonable to assume that on some of these a cooperative,
Why is it reasonable to assume? That is just speculation.
> self-sustaining system might arise. All things being equal in terms of
> natural resources etc, the latter would have a much enhanced chance of
> survival. They would be the most likely to look beyond immediate
> survival concerns, and think longer term. They might develop the means
> to travel to nearby islands. Where groups that had survived through
> cooperation elsewhere come into contact, these groups would be more
> inclined to cooperate, trade, share resources with each other. They
> become correspondingly stronger. They will be the ones that survive,
> and reproduce.
>
> Yes there will also be groups that survive and prosper where
> cooperation is achieved through more coercive rather than peaceful
> democratic means, but that pretty much sums up the history of
> mankind; western-style democracies have a way to go to establish
> themselves as the only effective means of governance!
>
> Golding's novel - if there's a theme that man has an underlying
> propensity for selfish, 'evil' behaviour that is only overcome by
> adherence to externally-imposed moral guidelines, ignores the fact
> that we had discovered the advantages of cooperative 'moral'
> behaviour eons before the Christian and other forms of god-given
> morality had come on the scene.
>
Evidence please that God given morality wasn't there at the outset.
pg
I suppose that depends on your definition of 'moral'. Conduct best
suited to the 'greater good' would be one guiding principle. Though not
always easily identified, except with hindsight. I don't see an inherent
flexibility and propensity for change as undermining the degree of
'morality' involved. On the other hand, I could posit a situation where
absolute rules, even if formerly effective and useful, would if imposed
in new and different circumstances threaten the survival of our species.
How 'moral' would that be, according to my definition?
| Returning to the beginning, I regard 'cannibalism' as the killing and
| eating of one human by another. I would regard the main wrong doing as
| the killing. In the Peruvian case, the revulsion is related to the
| connection between the killing AND the eating.
|
| In my religion (or my type of Christianity) there is belief that there
| are some absolutes - based on the nature of humanity and human
society -
| that obtain for all people. (eg not killing, etc.) But even then
things
| that are wrong may be done in certain circumstances (eg. self
defence.)
Then not killing is not an absolute, if there can be mitigating
circumstances. And those mitigating circumstances would be under
constant review, as to what is and what is not deemed acceptable at any
given time.
| The key criteria relate to avoidance of damage to individuals and to
the
| broader society. Eg adultery is 'wrong' because it damages the
| relationship between husband and wife.
I can posit circumstances where adultery would very quickly be deemed
wholly acceptable and 'moral' behaviour by society at large.
| So I can see how broader changes in environment affect how people
| behave. But I am speaking of how people 'should' behave. I think you
are
| being merely descriptive.
I tried to suggest why people 'should' behave as they 'do' behave. Our
guiding behavioural principles merely echo what we have learned to be
broadly effective in group and thereby individual survival terms. There
is nothing that I can see in scripture that is not merely descriptive of
the processes that we discovered to be useful eons before organised
religions adopted them for their own.
Peter Ashby
> pg wrote:
> > "Tony Gillam" <tony....@NOSPAMlineone.net> wrote in message
> > news:523qbuF...@mid.individual.net...
> >> How did the elitist "them" and "us" work in what was a comparatively
> >> small group that logic suggests would survive better with
> >> co-operation?
> >
> > If you look at a small group in isolation, you end up not being able
> > to see the wood for the trees. This was a particularly small unit.
> > Attempts were made at cooperation, the establishment of an efficient
> > hierarchy part of the process, but in this instance the system
> > largely broke down. If a ship hadn't happened by by chance, one could
> > posit that this group had a reduced chance of survival, long term.
> >
> > But if we imagine a hundred similar neighbouring islands and groups,
> > it would be reasonable to assume that on some of these a cooperative,
>
> Why is it reasonable to assume? That is just speculation.
>
That is just nitpicking, how about dealing with the issue rather than
picking at incidental points?
FWIW I agree with pg's assumption. The various otherwise purile reailty
tv shows where disparate groups are deposited on desert island type
places show that some manage to find ways to cooperate effectively and
they tend to beat competing groups that do not or cannot find those
ways.
I don't know if you are familiar with the South Pacific, but the variety
of cultures and the differences between them can be striking. Some
islands were very warlike and when not actively engaging in expansionist
warfare were raiding their neighbours. Others, while keen to fight to
protect what was theirs were much more idyllic. Think for eg the
contrast between the Bounty Mutineer's and Tahiti and Cook's demise on
Hawai'i (ok Hawai'i isn't in the South Pacific, but it is culturally SP
and the people are polynesian). Or the self destructive behaviour of the
Rapanui natives (Easter Island).
Not many people know for eg that the King of Tonga forged his people
into a centralised state and made a maritime empire for himself. It was
probably his power which meant he retained his Kingship when the British
Empire came along while others were merely paramount chiefs. It is only
now with the opportunity of the death of the old king that Tongan
society is challenging the Royal right to rule.
> > self-sustaining system might arise. All things being equal in terms of
> > natural resources etc, the latter would have a much enhanced chance of
> > survival. They would be the most likely to look beyond immediate
> > survival concerns, and think longer term. They might develop the means
> > to travel to nearby islands. Where groups that had survived through
> > cooperation elsewhere come into contact, these groups would be more
> > inclined to cooperate, trade, share resources with each other. They
> > become correspondingly stronger. They will be the ones that survive,
> > and reproduce.
> >
> > Yes there will also be groups that survive and prosper where
> > cooperation is achieved through more coercive rather than peaceful
> > democratic means, but that pretty much sums up the history of
> > mankind; western-style democracies have a way to go to establish
> > themselves as the only effective means of governance!
> >
> > Golding's novel - if there's a theme that man has an underlying
> > propensity for selfish, 'evil' behaviour that is only overcome by
> > adherence to externally-imposed moral guidelines, ignores the fact
> > that we had discovered the advantages of cooperative 'moral'
> > behaviour eons before the Christian and other forms of god-given
> > morality had come on the scene.
> >
> Evidence please that God given morality wasn't there at the outset.
I would read what pg has written and consider that he obviously means
something slightly different from 'god-given morality' than you do.
pg
| pg wrote:
| > "Tony Gillam" <tony....@NOSPAMlineone.net> wrote in message
| > news:523qbuF...@mid.individual.net...
| >> How did the elitist "them" and "us" work in what was a
comparatively
| >> small group that logic suggests would survive better with
| >> co-operation?
| >
| > If you look at a small group in isolation, you end up not being able
| > to see the wood for the trees. This was a particularly small unit.
| > Attempts were made at cooperation, the establishment of an efficient
| > hierarchy part of the process, but in this instance the system
| > largely broke down. If a ship hadn't happened by by chance, one
could
| > posit that this group had a reduced chance of survival, long term.
| >
| > But if we imagine a hundred similar neighbouring islands and groups,
| > it would be reasonable to assume that on some of these a
cooperative,
|
| Why is it reasonable to assume? That is just speculation.
Not if you accept Darwinian theory, proposing altruistic behaviour as
improving reproductive potential in certain circumstances. We see
social, kinship behaviour in plenty of other species too.
Sure, short-term profiting from the generosity of others may give an
individual a temporary advantage, but cooperation has proved itself to
be a better survival strategy for our own and plenty of other species.
| > self-sustaining system might arise. All things being equal in terms
of
| > natural resources etc, the latter would have a much enhanced chance
of
| > survival. They would be the most likely to look beyond immediate
| > survival concerns, and think longer term. They might develop the
means
| > to travel to nearby islands. Where groups that had survived through
| > cooperation elsewhere come into contact, these groups would be more
| > inclined to cooperate, trade, share resources with each other. They
| > become correspondingly stronger. They will be the ones that survive,
| > and reproduce.
| >
| > Yes there will also be groups that survive and prosper where
| > cooperation is achieved through more coercive rather than peaceful
| > democratic means, but that pretty much sums up the history of
| > mankind; western-style democracies have a way to go to establish
| > themselves as the only effective means of governance!
| >
| > Golding's novel - if there's a theme that man has an underlying
| > propensity for selfish, 'evil' behaviour that is only overcome by
| > adherence to externally-imposed moral guidelines, ignores the fact
| > that we had discovered the advantages of cooperative 'moral'
| > behaviour eons before the Christian and other forms of god-given
| > morality had come on the scene.
| >
| Evidence please that God given morality wasn't there at the outset.
Evidence please that it was, and that cooperative behaviour didn't
simply evolve along Darwinian lines as proposed by evolutionary
biologists, animal behaviour scientists, neuroscientists who in recent
studies have proposed links between brain chemicals and social
strategies. Where species have the ability to remember, reciprocity is a
powerful and influential fitness tactic.
Michael J Davis
Ashby <pas...@blueyonder.co.ruk> writes
>Michael J Davis <?.?@trustsof.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> The key criteria relate to avoidance of damage to individuals and to the
>> broader society. Eg adultery is 'wrong' because it damages the
>> relationship between husband and wife.
>>
>But that is a matter between them. it is not a matter for wider society
>to attempt to impose or regulate that someone must not cheat on their
>spouse. I do not, have not and do not intend to cheat on my wife because
>I love her and do not wish to hurt her. it would also be a betrayal of
>trust and promise.
Hold on! (You introduced *your* motivations here, in continuing your
example, I am not being personal.)
But a breakdown in your marriage, may lead to less effective parenting
of your kids, additional load on the economy of your social circle and
so on. Many of these lead to a less coherent society, and such things
result in that society being less effective in survival among other
social groups. That's natural selection at work, isn't it? Your own
ideals of trust and promise are part of that whole gamut of survival.
Consequently, society as a whole develops laws to maintain stable family
units.
>No higher power or moral guide is required for me to
>know this or stick to it. If anyone tried to tell me I Must not commit
>adultery or Else I would campaign for them to be removed.
Interesting - so you accept natural selection but reject the
consequences as interfering with your 'free will'? Fascinating.
>> So I can see how broader changes in environment affect how people
>> behave. But I am speaking of how people 'should' behave. I think you are
>> being merely descriptive.
>
>I disagree with you. I thought pg was making some good points.
Indeed he was.
>Anyway it
>is much better when dealing with morality to be descriptive than
>proscriptive. We have as a society struggled hard in recent centuries to
>move away from moral proscription from nosy clerics.
But I would suggest that (at the very least) 'clerics' are in fact the
guardians of society's co-hesive values. The difference is that I think
that (some not all of) those values are defined by the Creator - and in
that respect the 'cleric' is performing an important role in serving
society in this way. In other aspects I see 'clerics' as control freaks
who love pulling strings.
>
>We are seeing at the moment what happens when rump proscripters come up
>against people who want EVERYONE to be treated fairly and not
>discriminated against.
I don't disagree, but you and I might identify different people in those
roles! ;-)
Alec Brady
<1170028737.0...@s48g2000cws.googlegroups.com>,
"Richard Dudley" <abrax...@gmail.com> wrote:
They can't reject what hasn't been offered; and (I think Ken and I
would agree here) the mode of 'offering' is 'giving'. He gives us his
grace, we then respond to that or resist it. If we respond, he moves
up to the next level; if we resist he doesn't. Mostly we partly resist
and partly respond - Augustine's "give me chastity, but not yet" is
the classic example of this.
Many accounts of the experience of the inrush of God's grace involve
the relinquishing of a prior resistance. Mine did.
Not being Pelagians we also need to say that responding is itself a
gift from God. The grace and the responding are tangled together in a
way that's difficult to unravel. The debate about this appears (among
Protestants) as Calvinism vs Arminianism or (among Catholics) as
Thomism vs Molinism.
Peter Ashby
> In message <1hsobr6.8xd3fs19mm584N%pas...@blueyonder.co.ruk>, Peter
> Ashby <pas...@blueyonder.co.ruk> writes
> >Michael J Davis <?.?@trustsof.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> >
> >> The key criteria relate to avoidance of damage to individuals and to the
> >> broader society. Eg adultery is 'wrong' because it damages the
> >> relationship between husband and wife.
> >>
> >But that is a matter between them. it is not a matter for wider society
> >to attempt to impose or regulate that someone must not cheat on their
> >spouse. I do not, have not and do not intend to cheat on my wife because
> >I love her and do not wish to hurt her. it would also be a betrayal of
> >trust and promise.
>
> Hold on! (You introduced *your* motivations here, in continuing your
> example, I am not being personal.)
>
> But a breakdown in your marriage, may lead to less effective parenting
> of your kids, additional load on the economy of your social circle and
> so on. Many of these lead to a less coherent society, and such things
> result in that society being less effective in survival among other
> social groups. That's natural selection at work, isn't it? Your own
> ideals of trust and promise are part of that whole gamut of survival.
> Consequently, society as a whole develops laws to maintain stable family
> units.
>
It should not use laws for the purpose as this is a form of *must* not
*should*. The whole liberalisation of law in this area has in recent
years been away from what you want. To the benefit of relations between
the sexes to my mind. If women are more independent and see no economic
imperitive to marriage that is fine and dandy, and not a problem for
society. It is up to men to therefore offer more than the old
certainties if they wish to marry and maintain those marriages.
The past included people turnng a blind eye to wife bashing and things
like incest. Saving the marriage can be used as an excuse to cover up a
myriad of wrongs. That is why the laws were changed, because the *musts*
might have had good intentions but in practice lead to invidiuous
consequences for many. The lack of the *musts* have not impacted on the
stability of my own marriage one jot. We both know that divorce lawyers
exist but that does not mean either are going to enrich them. Far from
staying together for the sake of the children we are chafing under
balked expectations. Our eldest has boomeranged back home just as we
were waving the youngest off to the other side of the planet for
university.
> >No higher power or moral guide is required for me to
> >know this or stick to it. If anyone tried to tell me I Must not commit
> >adultery or Else I would campaign for them to be removed.
>
> Interesting - so you accept natural selection but reject the
> consequences as interfering with your 'free will'? Fascinating.
>
> >> So I can see how broader changes in environment affect how people
> >> behave. But I am speaking of how people 'should' behave. I think you are
> >> being merely descriptive.
> >
> >I disagree with you. I thought pg was making some good points.
>
> Indeed he was.
Then why did you not acknowledge them?
> >Anyway it
> >is much better when dealing with morality to be descriptive than
> >proscriptive. We have as a society struggled hard in recent centuries to
> >move away from moral proscription from nosy clerics.
>
> But I would suggest that (at the very least) 'clerics' are in fact the
> guardians of society's co-hesive values. The difference is that I think
> that (some not all of) those values are defined by the Creator - and in
> that respect the 'cleric' is performing an important role in serving
> society in this way. In other aspects I see 'clerics' as control freaks
> who love pulling strings.
>
I would say that clerics are only one possible source of social
cohesion. I would also agree with your other view of them. It would be
heartily agreed with here in Scotland too by many.
>
> >We are seeing at the moment what happens when rump proscripters come up
> >against people who want EVERYONE to be treated fairly and not
> >discriminated against.
>
> I don't disagree, but you and I might identify different people in those
> roles! ;-)
>
>
I don't see how you might see it in that way at all.
Richard Dudley
[me]
> > > > So then, in your view does God withhold his grace from the others,
> > > > those who don't display heroism or saintliness?
[Ken]
> > > No, they reject it.
[me]
> > So let's see if I've got this right. The heroes are recipients of
> > God's grace whether they like it or not?
>You're not doing very well here, Richard.
Oh, well, I'm doing my best :-)
> Heroes are recipients of God's
> grace who have chosen to accept it. (Actually, I'm more sure talking about
> saints, so shall we say "saintly heroes"?)
So then, from what you say, saintly heroes are able to accept God's
grace,
but the majority ( let's call them non-heroes ) are able to reject
God's grace.
However, according to my understanding of your position, 'natural
human
nature' wouldn't allow any noble action - only by God's grace can
something
noble arise in an otherwise ignoble human.
The reason for my earlier question was because I've spotted what looks
to
be a glaring inconsistency in such a position. How can an ignoble
human
make a choice to become noble, since such a choice would be a noble
one, and thus contrary to his ignoble nature ?
Richard
Richard Dudley
[ me, to Ken ]
> >>>So let's see if I've got this right. The heroes are recipients of
> >>>God's grace whether they like it or not?
>
> >>We're *all* recipients of God's grace whether we like it or not.
>
> >Yes, but clearly Ken doesn't think so, he's just said that the
> >majority reject it.
> They can't reject what hasn't been offered; and (I think Ken and I
> would agree here) the mode of 'offering' is 'giving'. He gives us his
> grace, we then respond to that or resist it. If we respond, he moves
> up to the next level; if we resist he doesn't. Mostly we partly resist
> and partly respond - Augustine's "give me chastity, but not yet" is
> the classic example of this.
>
> Many accounts of the experience of the inrush of God's grace involve
> the relinquishing of a prior resistance. Mine did.
>
> Not being Pelagians we also need to say that responding is itself a
> gift from God. The grace and the responding are tangled together in a
> way that's difficult to unravel. The debate about this appears (among
> Protestants) as Calvinism vs Arminianism or (among Catholics) as
> Thomism vs Molinism.
You've given me the orthodox answer. However Ken's theology is
clearly divergent from the mainstream position in so many respects
I was curious to know the extent of his non-orthodoxy. For example,
he hasn't (yet) admitted there's any degree of 'levels' which you've
introduced - to him, people behaving in a depraved way are evidence
of 'true human nature'.
Richard
Alec Brady
<1170087618.4...@k78g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
"Richard Dudley" <abrax...@gmail.com> wrote:
>You've given me the orthodox answer. However Ken's theology is
>clearly divergent from the mainstream position in so many respects
>I was curious to know the extent of his non-orthodoxy. For example,
>he hasn't (yet) admitted there's any degree of 'levels' which you've
>introduced - to him, people behaving in a depraved way are evidence
>of 'true human nature'.
If by that he is implying that there are people who have plain
'ungraced' human nature, then I disagree with him; no such person has
ever existed on earth. If he is suggesting that the effect of a
relative lack of grace is a relative coarsening of morality with (as
the vanishing-point of this picture) a total lack of grace revealing
the true human nature underneath then, well, yeah, I can kinda see
that.
OTOH, I think that (as we were made for God) true human nature only
shows itself as grace increases in us. Compared to saints such as (eg)
John Wesley, someone like Idi Amin stands out as being inhuman, rather
than "truly human".
OTOOH, these are all fairly loose usages, and I wouldn't want to guess
what someone's theology is just from an off-the-cuff remark about
looters.
Tony Gillam
> Tony Gillam <tony....@NOSPAMlineone.net> wrote:
>
>> pg wrote:
>>> "Tony Gillam" <tony....@NOSPAMlineone.net> wrote in message
>>> news:523qbuF...@mid.individual.net...
>>>> How did the elitist "them" and "us" work in what was a
>>>> comparatively small group that logic suggests would survive better
>>>> with co-operation?
>>>
>>> If you look at a small group in isolation, you end up not being able
>>> to see the wood for the trees. This was a particularly small unit.
>>> Attempts were made at cooperation, the establishment of an efficient
>>> hierarchy part of the process, but in this instance the system
>>> largely broke down. If a ship hadn't happened by by chance, one
>>> could posit that this group had a reduced chance of survival, long
>>> term.
>>>
>>> But if we imagine a hundred similar neighbouring islands and groups,
>>> it would be reasonable to assume that on some of these a
>>> cooperative,
>>
>> Why is it reasonable to assume? That is just speculation.
>>
> That is just nitpicking, how about dealing with the issue rather than
> picking at incidental points?
>
here.
>
> I don't know if you are familiar with the South Pacific,
No. Haven't got out of the Solent in my boat yet. ;-)
Tony Gillam
> "Tony Gillam" <tony....@NOSPAMlineone.net> wrote in message
> news:525pq1F...@mid.individual.net...
>> pg wrote:
>>> "Tony Gillam" <tony....@NOSPAMlineone.net> wrote in message
>>> it would be reasonable to assume that on some of these a
>>> cooperative,
>>
>> Why is it reasonable to assume? That is just speculation.
>
> Not if you accept Darwinian theory, proposing altruistic behaviour as
> improving reproductive potential in certain circumstances. We see
> social, kinship behaviour in plenty of other species too.
>
>> Evidence please that God given morality wasn't there at the outset.
>
> Evidence please that it was, and that cooperative behaviour didn't
> simply evolve along Darwinian lines as proposed by evolutionary
> biologists, animal behaviour scientists, neuroscientists who in recent
> studies have proposed links between brain chemicals and social
> strategies. Where species have the ability to remember, reciprocity
> is a powerful and influential fitness tactic.
See above.
Peter Ashby
> Peter Ashby wrote:
> > Tony Gillam <tony....@NOSPAMlineone.net> wrote:
> >
> >> pg wrote:
> >>> "Tony Gillam" <tony....@NOSPAMlineone.net> wrote in message
> >>> news:523qbuF...@mid.individual.net...
> >>>> How did the elitist "them" and "us" work in what was a
> >>>> comparatively small group that logic suggests would survive better
> >>>> with co-operation?
> >>>
> >>> If you look at a small group in isolation, you end up not being able
> >>> to see the wood for the trees. This was a particularly small unit.
> >>> Attempts were made at cooperation, the establishment of an efficient
> >>> hierarchy part of the process, but in this instance the system
> >>> largely broke down. If a ship hadn't happened by by chance, one
> >>> could posit that this group had a reduced chance of survival, long
> >>> term.
> >>>
> >>> But if we imagine a hundred similar neighbouring islands and groups,
> >>> it would be reasonable to assume that on some of these a
> >>> cooperative,
> >>
> >> Why is it reasonable to assume? That is just speculation.
> >>
> > That is just nitpicking, how about dealing with the issue rather than
> > picking at incidental points?
> >
> Is it? IST detect the infinite number of chimps and typewriter argument
> here.
>
No you don't. Instead of engaging with the argument you nitpicked on
something unimportant.
>
> > I don't know if you are familiar with the South Pacific,
>
> No. Haven't got out of the Solent in my boat yet. ;-)
>
And there you go again, ignoring the substance of my argument and the
examples I gave you in order to try and dismiss it with an attempt at
humour. I see little point in attempting to engage you in argument since
you run away instead of engaging with them.
pg
| pg wrote:
| > "Tony Gillam" <tony....@NOSPAMlineone.net> wrote in message
| > news:525pq1F...@mid.individual.net...
| >> pg wrote:
| >>> "Tony Gillam" <tony....@NOSPAMlineone.net> wrote in message
| >>> But if we imagine a hundred similar neighbouring islands and
groups,
| >>> it would be reasonable to assume that on some of these a
| >>> cooperative,
| >>
| >> Why is it reasonable to assume? That is just speculation.
| >
| > Not if you accept Darwinian theory, proposing altruistic behaviour
as
| > improving reproductive potential in certain circumstances. We see
| > social, kinship behaviour in plenty of other species too.
| >
| I'm not convinced of Darwinian theory.
So would you like to propose an alternative then?
| >> Evidence please that God given morality wasn't there at the outset.
| >
| > Evidence please that it was, and that cooperative behaviour didn't
| > simply evolve along Darwinian lines as proposed by evolutionary
| > biologists, animal behaviour scientists, neuroscientists who in
recent
| > studies have proposed links between brain chemicals and social
| > strategies. Where species have the ability to remember, reciprocity
| > is a powerful and influential fitness tactic.
|
| See above.
So perhaps you can give us a viable alternative to consider, preferably
one than doesn't ignore all the evidence and research and doesn't
involve us being pulled ready-made out of the creationist magician's
hat... or on the other hand, you could for the sake of argument accept
that the overwhelming bulk of scientists may have embraced Darwinism for
good reason, and directly address the arguments in support of my points
with respect to the evolution of cooperative, social behaviour?
Tony Gillam
> Tony Gillam <tony....@NOSPAMlineone.net> wrote:
>>> That is just nitpicking, how about dealing with the issue rather
>>> than picking at incidental points?
>>>
>> Is it? IST detect the infinite number of chimps and typewriter
>> argument here.
>>
> No you don't. Instead of engaging with the argument you nitpicked on
> something unimportant.
>>
Seems to me that you're the one avoiding the issue. Lack of social
constraints lead to a breakdown of moral responsibility. e.g. Lord of
the Flies.
>>> I don't know if you are familiar with the South Pacific,
>>
>> No. Haven't got out of the Solent in my boat yet. ;-)
>>
> And there you go again, ignoring the substance of my argument and the
> examples I gave you in order to try and dismiss it with an attempt at
> humour. I see little point in attempting to engage you in argument
> since you run away instead of engaging with them.
>
No, you're the one introducing other structured societal examples rather
than addressing the premise above.
Tony Gillam
> "Tony Gillam" <tony....@NOSPAMlineone.net> wrote in message
>> I'm not convinced of Darwinian theory.
>
> So would you like to propose an alternative then?
>
> preferably one than doesn't ignore all the evidence and research and
> doesn't involve us being pulled ready-made out of the creationist
> magician's hat... or on the other hand, you could for the sake of
> argument accept that the overwhelming bulk of scientists may have
> embraced Darwinism for good reason, and directly address the
> arguments in support of my points with respect to the evolution of
> cooperative, social behaviour?
AFAICS, the jury is still out on Darwinism. The theory creates as many
problems as it solves. Whilst the early chapters of Genesis are not
intended as a scientific treatise, it does give us an understanding of
our place in the cosmos. Since we are so far apart, I suspect that
profitable communication is unlikely.
Kendall K. Down
"Richard Dudley" <abrax...@gmail.com> wrote:
> You've given me the orthodox answer. However Ken's theology is
> clearly divergent from the mainstream position in so many respects
> I was curious to know the extent of his non-orthodoxy. For example,
> he hasn't (yet) admitted there's any degree of 'levels' which you've
> introduced - to him, people behaving in a depraved way are evidence
> of 'true human nature'.
I suspect much of the conflict is an artefact of your imagination. Sorry.
Kendall K. Down
Alec Brady <alec....@virgin.net> wrote:
> They can't reject what hasn't been offered; and (I think Ken and I
> would agree here) the mode of 'offering' is 'giving'. He gives us his
> grace, we then respond to that or resist it. If we respond, he moves
> up to the next level; if we resist he doesn't. Mostly we partly resist
> and partly respond - Augustine's "give me chastity, but not yet" is
> the classic example of this.
Thanks, Alec. I do agree.
Kendall K. Down
"Richard Dudley" <abrax...@gmail.com> wrote:
> The reason for my earlier question was because I've spotted what looks
> to be a glaring inconsistency in such a position. How can an ignoble
> human make a choice to become noble, since such a choice would be a noble
> one, and thus contrary to his ignoble nature ?
I once watched a therapist working with a severely disabled young person.
The therapist was encouraging the disabled person to move his hand towards a
particular reward. Some of the time the person simply grunted and flailed
around, but every so often would appear to concentrate and look at the
sweet. At the start of the session the person simply had to look intently at
the sweet and the therapist would praise him and give him the reward. Then
the reward wasn't given until the person looked and made some sort of
movement towards it. By the time I left the person was definitely making
hand movements in the right direction and I subsequently heard that he ended
up able to feed himself - messily, it is true, but that was incredible
progress.
The experience illustrated for me the meaning of the text "*Look* unto Me
and be ye saved, all the ends of the earth."
Quasin
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/6289371.stm
>
> I found this story to be incredibly sad (about the people scavenging to
> take stuff washed up from the wreckage of the MSC Napoli, apparently
> including rifling through obvious family belongings and adding to the
> environmental damage.
>
I read (somewhere on the web) a detailed account of an
airplane crash in Peru in August 2005, that mentioned local
people running to the plane wreckage to grab anything (after
the fire stopped) - suitcases, metal airplane parts,
anything that could be used or sold. The article said this
kind of scavenging is common, and can make it hard for
investigators to figure out exactly what caused the wreck
when critical pieces of the aircraft itself are taken.
When the space shuttle fell in pieces landing an hour or so
from my house, the government quickly announced that
possession of even a tiny piece of the shuttle or any of its
contents was a serious crime. And kept on announcing it.
Which suggests they knew some (many?) would be running to
collect souvenirs (and sell them on ebay?) if not prevented.
Some people just want a souvenir, others see opportunity for
personal gain in disasters.
Peter Ashby
> pg wrote:
> > "Tony Gillam" <tony....@NOSPAMlineone.net> wrote in message
> > news:528cniF...@mid.individual.net...
> >> I'm not convinced of Darwinian theory.
> >
> > So would you like to propose an alternative then?
> >
> > So perhaps you can give us a viable alternative to consider,
> > preferably one than doesn't ignore all the evidence and research and
> > doesn't involve us being pulled ready-made out of the creationist
> > magician's hat... or on the other hand, you could for the sake of
> > argument accept that the overwhelming bulk of scientists may have
> > embraced Darwinism for good reason, and directly address the
> > arguments in support of my points with respect to the evolution of
> > cooperative, social behaviour?
>
> AFAICS, the jury is still out on Darwinism. The theory creates as many
> problems as it solves.
Such as? I suggest to you that the theory of evolution by natural
selection of variation has been proved right in some many ways as to
practically defy refutation. It has even become a technology in some
computer mechanisms and in designing things like electronic circuits. It
is as Dennett describes it, universal acid, able to cut through in more
systems than simply the one it was discovered in. I defy you to tell me
what problems it has that outweigh those it has already solved. I expect
you speak as one who is unaware of the magnitude and breadth of what has
been solved.
Whilst the early chapters of Genesis are not
> intended as a scientific treatise, it does give us an understanding of
> our place in the cosmos. Since we are so far apart, I suspect that
> profitable communication is unlikely.
Our understanding of our place in the cosmos has been moving away from
genesis for centuries. That was the whole thing about Gallieo and the
Church after all. Heliocentrism moved man away from his supposedly
divinely appointed place at the centre of 'creation'. With the discovery
of not only our galaxy but hundreds of millions of others our position
in the outer edge of the unfashionable western spiral arm of a bog
standard galaxy has move further and further from genesis as to be
unrecognisable.
Kendall K. Down
Quasin <qua...@nosuchisp.com> wrote:
> I read (somewhere on the web) a detailed account of an
> airplane crash in Peru in August 2005, that mentioned local
> people running to the plane wreckage to grab anything (after
> the fire stopped) - suitcases, metal airplane parts,
> anything that could be used or sold. The article said this
> kind of scavenging is common, and can make it hard for
> investigators to figure out exactly what caused the wreck
> when critical pieces of the aircraft itself are taken.
I would have more understanding and more sympathy for this sort of thing in
poverty-stricken Peru than in Britain.
Richard Dudley
> > You've given me the orthodox answer. However Ken's theology is
> > clearly divergent from the mainstream position in so many respects
> > I was curious to know the extent of his non-orthodoxy. For example,
> > he hasn't (yet) admitted there's any degree of 'levels' which you've
> > introduced - to him, people behaving in a depraved way are evidence
> > of 'true human nature'.
>
> I suspect much of the conflict is an artefact of your imagination. Sorry.
And your suspicion isn't an artifact of yours ?
(I'm not sorry, incidentally, about your imaginings :-))
Richard
Richard Dudley
> > The reason for my earlier question was because I've spotted what looks
> > to be a glaring inconsistency in such a position. How can an ignoble
> > human make a choice to become noble, since such a choice would be a noble
> > one, and thus contrary to his ignoble nature ?
>
> I once watched a therapist working with a severely disabled young person.
> The therapist was encouraging the disabled person to move his hand towards a
> particular reward. Some of the time the person simply grunted and flailed
> around, but every so often would appear to concentrate and look at the
> sweet. At the start of the session the person simply had to look intently at
> the sweet and the therapist would praise him and give him the reward. Then
> the reward wasn't given until the person looked and made some sort of
> movement towards it. By the time I left the person was definitely making
> hand movements in the right direction and I subsequently heard that he ended
> up able to feed himself - messily, it is true, but that was incredible
> progress.
>
> The experience illustrated for me the meaning of the text "*Look* unto Me
> and be ye saved, all the ends of the earth."
Illustrates nothing new to me, excepting the possibly that you
consider this severely disabled young person to have an ignoble
nature.
Richard
Richard Dudley
[ I'd said ]
> >You've given me the orthodox answer. However Ken's theology is
> >clearly divergent from the mainstream position in so many respects
> >I was curious to know the extent of his non-orthodoxy. For example,
> >he hasn't (yet) admitted there's any degree of 'levels' which you've
> >introduced - to him, people behaving in a depraved way are evidence
> >of 'true human nature'.
>
> If by that he is implying that there are people who have plain
> 'ungraced' human nature, then I disagree with him; no such person has
> ever existed on earth.
It looked rather like that from what he was saying, in the context of
all other things Ken has said on this group.
> If he is suggesting that the effect of a
> relative lack of grace is a relative coarsening of morality with (as
> the vanishing-point of this picture) a total lack of grace revealing
> the true human nature underneath then, well, yeah, I can kinda see
> that.
So could I see that, but along with the proviso about its not *true*
(I note you follow this line below).
> OTOH, I think that (as we were made for God) true human nature only
> shows itself as grace increases in us. Compared to saints such as (eg)
> John Wesley, someone like Idi Amin stands out as being inhuman, rather
> than "truly human".
Yep, that's my position too. So Idi Amin shows us extreme denial of
human nature, not true human nature. Its not Ken's position as he
definitely used the phrase 'true human nature' in regarding the
behaviour of people far less inhuman than Idi Amin.
> OTOOH, these are all fairly loose usages, and I wouldn't want to guess
> what someone's theology is just from an off-the-cuff remark about
> looters.
Yep, which is why I've interpreted Ken's words in a much broader
context than just this remark.
Richard
Tony Gillam
> Tony Gillam <tony....@NOSPAMlineone.net> wrote:
>> AFAICS, the jury is still out on Darwinism. The theory creates as
>> many problems as it solves.
>
> Such as?
> tell me what problems it has that outweigh those it has already
> solved. I expect you speak as one who is unaware of the magnitude and
> breadth of what has been solved.
>
the expertise to "have the drains up" but then I suspect you don't
either.
Frederick Williams
>
> When the space shuttle fell in pieces landing an hour or so
> from my house, the government quickly announced that
> possession of even a tiny piece of the shuttle or any of its
> contents was a serious crime.
Did they refer to an actual statute?
--
Remove "antispam" and ".invalid" for e-mail address.
We have lingered in the chambers of the sea
By sea-girls wreathed with seaweed red and brown
Till human voices wake us, and we drown.
Peter Ashby
> Peter Ashby wrote:
> > Tony Gillam <tony....@NOSPAMlineone.net> wrote:
> >> AFAICS, the jury is still out on Darwinism. The theory creates as
> >> many problems as it solves.
> >
> > Such as?
> > I defy you to
> > tell me what problems it has that outweigh those it has already
> > solved. I expect you speak as one who is unaware of the magnitude and
> > breadth of what has been solved.
> >
> Then you are unlikely to be disappointed. I have neither the time nor
> the expertise to "have the drains up" but then I suspect you don't
> either.
I have both time and expertise, so don't try and use me to excuse your
failure to stump up. If you do not of course then your assertion above
will be exposed for what it is, which is uninformed hot air.
pg
Profitable or not, I really would be interested in a little more
information ref: "The theory [Darwinism] creates as many problems as it
solves."
And as for Genesis giving us "an understanding of our place in the
cosmos", could you develop this a little?
pga
+++
"Some like to understand what they believe in. Others like to believe in
what they understand". -- Stanislaw J Lec,
"An error becomes an error when born as truth". -- Stanislaw J Lec
"All Gods were immortal". -- Stanislaw J Lec
"Every bush can burn if you fire it with your imagination". -- Stanislaw
J Lec
Tony Gillam
> Tony Gillam <tony....@NOSPAMlineone.net> wrote:
>> Then you are unlikely to be disappointed. I have neither the time nor
>> the expertise to "have the drains up" but then I suspect you don't
>> either.
>
> I have both time and expertise, so don't try and use me to excuse your
> failure to stump up. If you do not of course then your assertion above
> will be exposed for what it is, which is uninformed hot air.
>
Peter Ashby
> Peter Ashby wrote:
> > Tony Gillam <tony....@NOSPAMlineone.net> wrote:
> >> Then you are unlikely to be disappointed. I have neither the time nor
> >> the expertise to "have the drains up" but then I suspect you don't
> >> either.
> >
> > I have both time and expertise, so don't try and use me to excuse your
> > failure to stump up. If you do not of course then your assertion above
> > will be exposed for what it is, which is uninformed hot air.
> >
> As you wish.
Fine. Just once it would be nice if a xian inhabitant of this group who
does not accept evolution would actually have sufficient courage of
their convictions to discuss them with me. Does nobody have enough faith
any more?
Trevor Jenkins
> ... Just once it would be nice if a xian inhabitant of this group who
> does not accept evolution would actually have sufficient courage of
> their convictions to discuss them with me. Does nobody have enough faith
> any more?
I'd take you on. The question whether we'd ever agree on the terms of the
discussion. From what I've read in your postings to this newsgroup your
belief in evolution you see it as a scientific fact whereas I see it as
based purely on Greek philosophy.
God Bless You.
Regards, Trevor
<>< Re: deemed!
Simon Robinson
> [me]
>> That may be true, but I'm mostly thinking about the morals rather than
>> the details of the law.
[Richard:]
> So was I. In as far as I go along with the idea of 'morals', what's
> 'moral' to me translates as what is open and honest. What's 'immoral'
> is what's attempted to be hidden. I was pointing out that not all the
> behaviour was underhand, not out in the open.
In that case I think we disagree on the basis for morals. Open and
honest is not in my view sufficient to make something 'moral': To count
as 'moral' in my mind, you also need some consideration for the impact
of your actions on others.
>> It seems remarkably implausible to me that the majority of the
>> scavengers there drove all the way to the beach, started breaking open
>> containers etc., with the intention of merely looking after the stuff
>> they found until they were able to return it to its rightful owners.
>
> I agree that it may indeed be a minority that were there without
> dishonest motives. However its not necessary to postulate that they
> were merely there to act as safekeepers for the merchandise. I would
> bet they thought they'd get a cut out of it, even if they were asked to
> return it. Since after all, in many (most) cases, they'd be doing the
> original owner a service in preventing further damage or even the
> ultimate loss of the artifacts.
Uh? Preventing damage? By breaking open massive heavy sealed containers
that would, if left to their own devices, almost certainly be retrieved
by the authorities? That seems to be to be stretching credulity somewhat :-)
>> On that basis I think my sadness about the implication of those events
>> for human nature (or for whatever influenced those people, my strong
>> suspicion is it was primarily raw greed) is justified.
>
> Of course you *think* its justified, or you wouldn't have posted it.
> But sadness at another person's lack of awareness is not a reasonable
> response.
Perhaps I should clarify that by using the term 'sad' I am indicating
acceptance that things are not currently the way I'd prefer them to be.
In other words, 'sad' roughly = 'regrettable'. I do *not* mean that I'm
going into fits of anguished deep depression over the matter. Does that
make it more reasonable in your view? :-)
> The reasonable response is one of compassion for these people
> mired in the clutches of maya. They're under the illusion that 'a man's
> life consists in the abundance of his possessions' which Jesus clearly
> taught us is not so. He demonstrated such compassion - the gospels tell
> us that his heart went out to people 'as sheep without a shepherd'.
Agreed.
> Sadness at their behaviour is a selfish response because it denies
> one's own responsibility for their lack of awareness.
Sorry, I don't see the connection there at all. Surely it's possible (in
principle, not necessarily talking about this instance) to feel sad and
at the same time feel responsible (perhaps you feel sad *because* you
feel you haven't lived up to your responsibilities, eg. in educating the
relevent people)
> Can you honestly
> say, hand on heart, that you're doing all in your power to increase
> everyone's awareness, including your own?
No, I can't honestly say that. But ISTM I can honestly say that had I
been at Branscombe beach, I would not be attempting to steal the stuff
that had been washed ashore. I think that's relevent, no?
pg
news:slrnes4pqk.diq...@suneidesis.com...
| On Thu, 01 Feb 2007 21:45:30 GMT, Peter Ashby
<pas...@blueyonder.co.ruk> wrote:
|
| > ... Just once it would be nice if a xian inhabitant of this group
who
| > does not accept evolution would actually have sufficient courage of
| > their convictions to discuss them with me. Does nobody have enough
faith
| > any more?
|
| I'd take you on.
Oh... please do.... don't back down now!
| The question whether we'd ever agree on the terms of the
| discussion. From what I've read in your postings to this newsgroup
your
| belief in evolution you see it as a scientific fact whereas I see it
as
| based purely on Greek philosophy.
Yes - even over the period before science made a succession of huge
leaps forward, in the early days of the development of all-powerful,
organised religions with the increasingly pervasive influence of a
strong priesthood whose interests lay firmly in establishing traditional
religion as a source of moral guidance for society, a few dissenters -
those that managed not to be sent into exile or executed - spoke out.
Questioning the workings of nature however was tantamount to querying
the accuracy of religioius explanations for our existence and man's
central role, so such views were frequently suppressed.
That there are examples of insightful intellectuals and philosophers
such as Epicurus who - despite the fact that science was in its infancy,
were able to glimpse the larger picture - is hardly a criticism of the
scientific accuracy of modern day Darwinist theory.
"We shall not be considering them [the gods] any happier or less
destructible, if we think of them as neither speaking nor conversing
with one another, but resembling dumb men." (Epicurus)
Kendall K. Down
{R} <nos...@spam.nium.org> wrote:
> I find this sad - you will be happy - go try living a 14th century
> lifestyle that would suit your magic god.
You are sad that someone will be happy?
Peter Ashby
Sigh, I have no belief in evolution. The theory of evolution by natural
selection of variation is a scientific theory. As such whether to accept
that it most closely models reality vs rival explanations is a matter of
assessing the data and the theory's explanatory power. There is more
data supporting evolution than that supporting the heliocentric model of
the solar system and the explanatory power is such that we use it
successfully to generate novelty in other areas.
Do you accept the modern theory of how the solar system works is the
best description we have? (including things like relativity solving the
orbit of mercury).
Dianelos Georgoudis
> Tony Gillam <tony....@NOSPAMlineone.net> wrote:
>
>> Peter Ashby wrote:
>>> Tony Gillam <tony....@NOSPAMlineone.net> wrote:
>>>> AFAICS, the jury is still out on Darwinism. The theory creates as
>>>> many problems as it solves.
>>>
>>> Such as?
>>> I defy you to
>>> tell me what problems it has that outweigh those it has already
>>> solved. I expect you speak as one who is unaware of the magnitude and
>>> breadth of what has been solved.
>>>
>> Then you are unlikely to be disappointed. I have neither the time nor
>> the expertise to "have the drains up" but then I suspect you don't
>> either.
>
> I have both time and expertise, so don't try and use me to excuse your
> failure to stump up. If you do not of course then your assertion above
> will be exposed for what it is, which is uninformed hot air.
I must agree. Darwinism is clearly one of the greatest scientific
discoveries of all time, and the truth of Darwinism is as certain as
scientific knowledge can be as a practical matter. Moreover, Darwinism is
more than just a very powerful scientific explanation: it also describes a
powerful mechanism that might be useful in many other areas, such as for
understanding phenomena not related to the species, or for creating
powerful algorithms. And further Darwinism also has philosophical
implications. I personally find the adverse reaction from some religious
circles to be entirely misguided; religion need not fear neither truth nor
powerful ideas. As far as I am concerned Darwinism has raised my awareness
and admiration for God's intelligence.
On the other hand I do not find it unusual or unexpected that such a
powerful idea as Darwinism is should have provoked reaction. Wikipedia
carries a good article about objections to Darwinism here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objections_to_evolution
Trevor Jenkins
> Trevor Jenkins <Trevor....@suneidesis.com> wrote:
>
> > On Thu, 01 Feb 2007 21:45:30 GMT, Peter Ashby <pas...@blueyonder.co.ruk>
> wrote:
> >
> > > ... Just once it would be nice if a xian inhabitant of this group who
> > > does not accept evolution would actually have sufficient courage of
> > > their convictions to discuss them with me. Does nobody have enough faith
> > > any more?
> >
> > I'd take you on. The question whether we'd ever agree on the terms of the
> > discussion. From what I've read in your postings to this newsgroup your
> > belief in evolution you see it as a scientific fact whereas I see it as
> > based purely on Greek philosophy.
>
> Sigh, I have no belief in evolution.
We're already into the terms debate. For me it is a belief. As I've
mentioned in earlier postings I do not believe that evolution is a
provable theory. The base "data" is open to interpretation especially the
fossil record. Oxford professor Alastair MacGrath (PhD in molecular
biophysics) would also disagree with you. His book Dawkins' God shows that
for Dawkins (at least) Darwinianism is a belief.
> ... The theory of evolution by natural selection of variation is a
> scientific theory.
I can accept that micro-evolution takes place and have cited the example
of butterflies that altered their colour (white to black) because of
pollution. When the pollution stopped or was severely reduced they
reverted to their original colour. But beyond that I find the evolution is
as much a imaginative creation as you appear to say religion is.
> ... As such whether to accept that it most closely
> models reality vs rival explanations is a matter of assessing the
> data and the theory's explanatory power.
The assessment seems pretty arbitrary to me.
> ... There is more
> data supporting evolution than that supporting the heliocentric model of
> the solar system and the explanatory power is such that we use it
> successfully to generate novelty in other areas.
Rather like the analogous situation that there is more documentary
evidence for the birth, life, death and resurrection of Jesus than there
is for the Battle of Hastings.
> Do you accept the modern theory of how the solar system works is the
> best description we have? (including things like relativity solving the
> orbit of mercury).
As I don't know what that "modern" theory is. For therein lies another
major barrier to us discussing this topic. I am not a scientist; well okay
so I'm a retired computing scientist. I never had any real interest in
biology or physics or chemistry. Indeed I gave up on biology the first day
of grammar school when the master disected a chicked in front of the whole
class. Gross. I never acquired a desire to follow the suject. So I'd be
talking English you gobbledygook.
Peter Ashby
>
> On the other hand I do not find it unusual or unexpected that such a
> powerful idea as Darwinism is should have provoked reaction. Wikipedia
> carries a good article about objections to Darwinism here:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objections_to_evolution
Have you read that article? The sections I looked at the objections to
the science are comprehensively refuted. Try again.
Peter Ashby
> On Fri, 02 Feb 2007 08:24:56 GMT, Peter Ashby <pas...@blueyonder.co.ruk>
wrote:
> > Trevor Jenkins <Trevor....@suneidesis.com> wrote:
> >
> > > On Thu, 01 Feb 2007 21:45:30 GMT, Peter Ashby <pas...@blueyonder.co.ruk>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > > ... Just once it would be nice if a xian inhabitant of this group who
> > > > does not accept evolution would actually have sufficient courage of
> > > > their convictions to discuss them with me. Does nobody have enough faith
> > > > any more?
> > >
> > > I'd take you on. The question whether we'd ever agree on the terms of the
> > > discussion. From what I've read in your postings to this newsgroup your
> > > belief in evolution you see it as a scientific fact whereas I see it as
> > > based purely on Greek philosophy.
> >
> > Sigh, I have no belief in evolution.
>
> We're already into the terms debate. For me it is a belief.
Because you obviously have no understanding or knowledge of the vast
mountain of data you have no alternative. It does not follow that the
same holds for someone who has those things. I can cite more books by
scientists in favour than you can against.
Steven Jones: Almost Like a Whale
Ernst Mayr: What Evolution Is
Richard Dawkins: The Selfish Gene; Climbing Mount Improbable: The
Extended Phenotype.
I can give you others as well.
As I've
> mentioned in earlier postings I do not believe that evolution is a
> provable theory. The base "data" is open to interpretation especially the
> fossil record. Oxford professor Alastair MacGrath (PhD in molecular
> biophysics) would also disagree with you. His book Dawkins' God shows that
> for Dawkins (at least) Darwinianism is a belief.
>
A PhD in molecular biophysics, so not in evolutionary biology then. You
would not believe the number of molecular colleagues I have known and
worked with who have no concept of biology, let alone evolution. Sorry
not impressed with that qualification.
> > ... The theory of evolution by natural selection of variation is a
> > scientific theory.
>
> I can accept that micro-evolution takes place and have cited the example
> of butterflies that altered their colour (white to black) because of
> pollution. When the pollution stopped or was severely reduced they
> reverted to their original colour. But beyond that I find the evolution is
> as much a imaginative creation as you appear to say religion is.
>
I have my name on a publication as part of a team that took apart and
understood those regions around and within the Myf5 gene in the mouse
that control where and when (same thing really) in an embryo it is
turned on. Myf5 is the first of a cascade of genes that result in cells
that express them in those cells becoming skeletal muscle. The evolution
of vertebrates is written in the dna. I personally identified and showed
that a small region upstream of the gene is responsible for the first
expression of the gene. It turns it on in what will form the blocks of
muscle along the backbone, as is needed if you are a stem chordate in
order to swim. The next step is to get a muscular body wall and the
control sequences for that reside in the introns and 3-prime UTR.
Examples of such animals are the agnatha: lampreys etc. Next you need a
jaw and muscles to move it, the sequences for that close to the upstream
of the gene. Then you have a shark (the muscles to the fins in sharks
are simple extensions of the body wall and segmental. We didn't find the
next region because it is 20Mb or so upstream (appropriate for the most
recent acquisition) a group in Paris did that (we communicated as we
worked and divided it up). This region gives you limb muscles (my
personal specialisation) which migrate from the blocks either side of
the backbone. Such can be like the fins you find in the bony fish that
can be used for propulsion, rotated etc (fish can swim backwards with
them). They are also in the limbs of land vertebrates. No new muscular
domains are needed to go from bony fish to amphibia, reptiles, birds or
mammals. Thus the macroevolution of the vertebrates in written in the
genome of the mouse and you. Please by all means try an alternative
explanation.
> > ... As such whether to accept that it most closely
> > models reality vs rival explanations is a matter of assessing the
> > data and the theory's explanatory power.
>
> The assessment seems pretty arbitrary to me.
>
Which explains a lot. What about explanatory power seems arbitrary to
you?
> > ... There is more
> > data supporting evolution than that supporting the heliocentric model of
> > the solar system and the explanatory power is such that we use it
> > successfully to generate novelty in other areas.
>
> Rather like the analogous situation that there is more documentary
> evidence for the birth, life, death and resurrection of Jesus than there
> is for the Battle of Hastings.
>
rot, please cite the evidence.
> > Do you accept the modern theory of how the solar system works is the
> > best description we have? (including things like relativity solving the
> > orbit of mercury).
>
> As I don't know what that "modern" theory is. For therein lies another
> major barrier to us discussing this topic. I am not a scientist; well okay
> so I'm a retired computing scientist. I never had any real interest in
> biology or physics or chemistry. Indeed I gave up on biology the first day
> of grammar school when the master disected a chicked in front of the whole
> class. Gross. I never acquired a desire to follow the suject. So I'd be
> talking English you gobbledygook.
>
>
So you have no intention of even understanding it yet you somehow feel
qualified to pronounce on it. Such arrogance astounds me! Such hubris!
Richard Dudley
> >> That may be true, but I'm mostly thinking about the morals rather than
> >> the details of the law.
>
>
> > So was I. In as far as I go along with the idea of 'morals', what's
> > 'moral' to me translates as what is open and honest. What's 'immoral'
> > is what's attempted to be hidden. I was pointing out that not all the
> > behaviour was underhand, not out in the open.
>
> In that case I think we disagree on the basis for morals.
Depends what you mean by 'basis for morals'. To me, morality is an
opinion about what's right and what's wrong. Its quite possible to
have 'moral behaviour' though without having any morals. So are you
speaking about the former, or the latter?
> Open and
> honest is not in my view sufficient to make something 'moral':
In terms of my own behaviour though it is. I know that because I'm
completely open with people, and hide nothing, that my behaviour
therefore is 'moral'. My behaviour though may well offend somebody
else's idea of morality - so much the worse for their opinion though,
from my perspective.
> To count
> as 'moral' in my mind, you also need some consideration for the impact
> of your actions on others.
So if I act spontaneously, without thinking at all for the impact of
that act on other people, in your estimation there's a strong chance
that my behaviour is 'immoral'? If that really is your position, then
it would follow logically those those who haven't yet acquired
language and therefore the ability for conceptual thought are going to
be acting 'immorally'. In which case, welcome to Ken Down land ;-) Or
do you see 'consideration for the impact of actions on others' as
being able to take place *without* reflective thought ?
> >> It seems remarkably implausible to me that the majority of the
> >> scavengers there drove all the way to the beach, started breaking open
> >> containers etc., with the intention of merely looking after the stuff
> >> they found until they were able to return it to its rightful owners.
>
> > I agree that it may indeed be a minority that were there without
> > dishonest motives. However its not necessary to postulate that they
> > were merely there to act as safekeepers for the merchandise. I would
> > bet they thought they'd get a cut out of it, even if they were asked to
> > return it. Since after all, in many (most) cases, they'd be doing the
> > original owner a service in preventing further damage or even the
> > ultimate loss of the artifacts.
>
> Uh? Preventing damage? By breaking open massive heavy sealed containers
> that would, if left to their own devices, almost certainly be retrieved
> by the authorities? That seems to be to be stretching credulity somewhat :-)
I think maybe we've been reading different articles :-) You've assumed
they'd be retrieved by the authorities, I made no such assumption. But
yes, I agree with your point here.
> >> On that basis I think my sadness about the implication of those events
> >> for human nature (or for whatever influenced those people, my strong
> >> suspicion is it was primarily raw greed) is justified.
>
> > Of course you *think* its justified, or you wouldn't have posted it.
> > But sadness at another person's lack of awareness is not a reasonable
> > response.
>
> Perhaps I should clarify that by using the term 'sad' I am indicating
> acceptance that things are not currently the way I'd prefer them to be.
> In other words, 'sad' roughly = 'regrettable'. I do *not* mean that I'm
> going into fits of anguished deep depression over the matter. Does that
> make it more reasonable in your view? :-)
It moves it in that direction, sure. But it doesn't make it
reasonable :-) You say you have a preference for people to be more
aware than they currently are, then its reasonable to do all within
your power to increase your own awareness, thereby increasing that of
others. I didn't take your words as implying you'd need months of
Alec's therapy to recover :-)
> > Sadness at their behaviour is a selfish response because it denies
> > one's own responsibility for their lack of awareness.
>
> Sorry, I don't see the connection there at all. Surely it's possible (in
> principle, not necessarily talking about this instance) to feel sad and
> at the same time feel responsible (perhaps you feel sad *because* you
> feel you haven't lived up to your responsibilities, eg. in educating the
> relevent people)
If you feel sad, that's not a feeling of motivation, its a feeling
which is demotivating. So it isn't going to engender compassion. And
you agreed (I've just snipped it) that the reasonable response is
compassion. Compassion for people and sadness for them don't coexist
in the same person. If you feel sad because you haven't lived up to
your responsibilies then the reasonable way forward is repentance.
This repentance puts an end to sadness and remotivates you, then
you'll once again have compassion for them.
> > Can you honestly
> > say, hand on heart, that you're doing all in your power to increase
> > everyone's awareness, including your own?
>
> No, I can't honestly say that. But ISTM I can honestly say that had I
> been at Branscombe beach, I would not be attempting to steal the stuff
> that had been washed ashore. I think that's relevent, no?
Its only relevant if you're wanting to justify yourself :-) And Jesus
had things to say about people who wanted to justify themselves ;-)
Richard
Simon Robinson
[ Simon ]
>> In that case I think we disagree on the basis for morals.
[Richard:]
> Depends what you mean by 'basis for morals'. To me, morality is an
> opinion about what's right and what's wrong. Its quite possible to
> have 'moral behaviour' though without having any morals. So are you
> speaking about the former, or the latter?
By 'basis for morals' I meant the principles that determine whether
something is right or wrong. You cited 'openness and honesty' as (by
implication) necessary and sufficient principles. I disagreed.
>> Open and
>> honest is not in my view sufficient to make something 'moral':
>
> In terms of my own behaviour though it is. I know that because I'm
> completely open with people, and hide nothing, that my behaviour
> therefore is 'moral'. My behaviour though may well offend somebody
> else's idea of morality - so much the worse for their opinion though,
> from my perspective.
Do you think that it's morally right to commit genocide, as long as
you're open and honest about the fact that that's what you're doing?
(What you've said seems to imply 'yes')
>> To count
>> as 'moral' in my mind, you also need some consideration for the impact
>> of your actions on others.
>
> So if I act spontaneously, without thinking at all for the impact of
> that act on other people, in your estimation there's a strong chance
> that my behaviour is 'immoral'?
I think you're being excessively pedantic there. I also think it's clear
that saying 'some consideration for' leaves some scope for fuzziness,
and that even if you act spontaneously, most people would have a good
idea without having to consciously think whether an action is likely to
harm others.
>> Perhaps I should clarify that by using the term 'sad' I am indicating
>> acceptance that things are not currently the way I'd prefer them to be.
>> In other words, 'sad' roughly = 'regrettable'. I do *not* mean that I'm
>> going into fits of anguished deep depression over the matter. Does that
>> make it more reasonable in your view? :-)
>
> It moves it in that direction, sure. But it doesn't make it
> reasonable :-) You say you have a preference for people to be more
> aware than they currently are, then its reasonable to do all within
> your power to increase your own awareness, thereby increasing that of
> others.
No. It would be reasonable to do so if having other people more aware
than they currently are was the *only* think I wanted, but it isn't;
there are many other things I want [to do/for the world to be like/etc.]
and it seems more reasonable for me to split my activities between those
different desires.
> If you feel sad, that's not a feeling of motivation, its a feeling
> which is demotivating.
I think it's more accurate to say that it *can be* demotivating. I
certainly don't find it is necessarily so. Ultimately it's up to the
individual how s/he reacts to feelings of regret.
> So it isn't going to engender compassion.
I disagree. Perhaps your experience is that sadness/regret never
engenders compassion. My experience is that it can do.
> And
> you agreed (I've just snipped it) that the reasonable response is
> compassion. Compassion for people and sadness for them don't coexist
> in the same person.
From introspection, I don't seem to have any particular problems
feeling both things simultaneously.
>>> Can you honestly
>>> say, hand on heart, that you're doing all in your power to increase
>>> everyone's awareness, including your own?
>> No, I can't honestly say that. But ISTM I can honestly say that had I
>> been at Branscombe beach, I would not be attempting to steal the stuff
>> that had been washed ashore. I think that's relevent, no?
>
> Its only relevant if you're wanting to justify yourself :-) And Jesus
> had things to say about people who wanted to justify themselves ;-)
So why did you ask me whether I've done all in my power to increase
people's awareness? Do you think the 'only if you're wanting to justify
yourself' logic applies to one but not the other?
Richard Dudley
> >> In that case I think we disagree on the basis for morals.
[me]
> > Depends what you mean by 'basis for morals'. To me, morality is an
> > opinion about what's right and what's wrong. Its quite possible to
> > have 'moral behaviour' though without having any morals. So are you
> > speaking about the former, or the latter?
>
> By 'basis for morals' I meant the principles that determine whether
> something is right or wrong.
I disagree that there is any right or wrong, beyond a person's
opinion. When you speak of 'something' I guess you mean a person's
behaviour. To me, there's no such thing as 'right behaviour' or 'wrong
behaviour'. So there exists no principle that can determine, by
observation of a person's behaviour, whether what that person is doing
is 'right' since there's no universal 'right'.
> You cited 'openness and honesty' as (by
> implication) necessary and sufficient principles. I disagreed.
If you thought that I implied that openness and honesty implied that
something was 'right' then I can see why you disagreed. I don't
consider those, as principles, sufficient to determine 'moral
behaviour'. Since I have no concept of moral, the nearest concept
available for me is 'reasonable' and 'loving'. What I term reasonable
and loving behaviour you might decide constitutes 'right' behaviour,
but I don't think you'd agree in all cases. What's reasonable
behaviour takes account of a person's inner condition - their 'why'
of acting, it is not based on observation of their action.
> >> Open and
> >> honest is not in my view sufficient to make something 'moral':
>
> > In terms of my own behaviour though it is. I know that because I'm
> > completely open with people, and hide nothing, that my behaviour
> > therefore is 'moral'. My behaviour though may well offend somebody
> > else's idea of morality - so much the worse for their opinion though,
> > from my perspective.
>
> Do you think that it's morally right to commit genocide, as long as
> you're open and honest about the fact that that's what you're doing?
> (What you've said seems to imply 'yes')
Since I don't have 'morals' then clearly genocide isn't, to me.
immoral. So if you wanted to persuade me to commit genocide you'd have
to give me a reason to do so. At present it does look unreasonable,
but that doesn't mean that its completely impossible to come up with a
context whereby it could be reasonable. I'd say that such a context
has so far never existed on earth though. So I don't say genocide is
unreasonable in principle - if it were then I might was well adopt
morals.
So to answer your question directly, since I don't have the category
'right behaviour' then I'd never say that genocide was right
behaviour. In order to understand if it was reasonable behaviour, we'd
need to dig into the whys of the people who were proposing it, and I'd
be willing to bet that they'd be evasive and dishonest in framing
those whys, if they even bothered to answer my questions ;-) Notice
that ignoring a question directed at you (not you personally here),
isn't in my book, being open.
Going back then to the original context, of those beach scavengers. In
the hypothetical situation that I asked them what they were up to, if
they were evasive and/or ignored my questioning, then they were not
indulging in 'moral behaviour'. Any clearer now ?
> >> To count
> >> as 'moral' in my mind, you also need some consideration for the impact
> >> of your actions on others.
>
> > So if I act spontaneously, without thinking at all for the impact of
> > that act on other people, in your estimation there's a strong chance
> > that my behaviour is 'immoral'?
>
> I think you're being excessively pedantic there.
Do please set out your reasons why you think so. To me it looks like a
perfectly reasonable instantiation of your claim.
> I also think it's clear
> that saying 'some consideration for' leaves some scope for fuzziness,
> and that even if you act spontaneously, most people would have a good
> idea without having to consciously think whether an action is likely to
> harm others.
Including a child who hasn't acquired language? Or are they now
excluded as not being 'most people'? And then what do you mean by
'harm' others - for example does feeling offended count as being
harmed? If there is, as you contend, some degree of fuzziness, then
your 'some' in 'some consideration' might well indeed tend to zero
without being actually zero....
> >> Perhaps I should clarify that by using the term 'sad' I am indicating
> >> acceptance that things are not currently the way I'd prefer them to be.
> >> In other words, 'sad' roughly = 'regrettable'. I do *not* mean that I'm
> >> going into fits of anguished deep depression over the matter. Does that
> >> make it more reasonable in your view? :-)
>
> > It moves it in that direction, sure. But it doesn't make it
> > reasonable :-) You say you have a preference for people to be more
> > aware than they currently are, then its reasonable to do all within
> > your power to increase your own awareness, thereby increasing that of
> > others.
>
> No. It would be reasonable to do so if having other people more aware
> than they currently are was the *only* think I wanted, but it isn't;
> there are many other things I want [to do/for the world to be like/etc.]
> and it seems more reasonable for me to split my activities between those
> different desires.
Well I'd say that those wants (not desires in my estimation) are
equally unreasonable ones. If you want to discuss them, set them out
here.
> > If you feel sad, that's not a feeling of motivation, its a feeling
> > which is demotivating.
>
> I think it's more accurate to say that it *can be* demotivating. I
> certainly don't find it is necessarily so.
OK, I don't disagree with this statement. You're speaking of your own
experience.
> Ultimately it's up to the
> individual how s/he reacts to feelings of regret.
Indeed it is.
> > So it isn't going to engender compassion.
>
> I disagree. Perhaps your experience is that sadness/regret never
> engenders compassion. My experience is that it can do.
Fine.
> > And
> > you agreed (I've just snipped it) that the reasonable response is
> > compassion. Compassion for people and sadness for them don't coexist
> > in the same person.
>
> From introspection, I don't seem to have any particular problems
> feeling both things simultaneously.
I don't find introspection reliable myself.
> >>> Can you honestly
> >>> say, hand on heart, that you're doing all in your power to increase
> >>> everyone's awareness, including your own?
> >> No, I can't honestly say that. But ISTM I can honestly say that had I
> >> been at Branscombe beach, I would not be attempting to steal the stuff
> >> that had been washed ashore. I think that's relevent, no?
>
> > Its only relevant if you're wanting to justify yourself :-) And Jesus
> > had things to say about people who wanted to justify themselves ;-)
>
> So why did you ask me whether I've done all in my power to increase
> people's awareness?
To highlight an inconsistency.
> Do you think the 'only if you're wanting to justify
> yourself' logic applies to one but not the other?
I don't understand your question here.
Richard
Trevor Jenkins
All the guff you've written above means nothing to me. Myf5 could be your
speech inpedimental way of saying MI5 for all I can tell. Not everyone is
biologist. Launching into a tirade and citing sources doesn't enable
anyone to get to the nub of the issue, which is why no one here wants to
engage in discussion with you; you just come across as a smart alec.
Sometimes *you* have to use words of one syllable --- not because we're
thick but because we don't know what the fuck you are gibbering on about.
Peter Ashby
<http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?CMD=Display&DB=pubmed>
You can call it as many names as you like, the research exists and the
above is evidence of that, and my involvement in it. Now unless you wish
to engage with the science I suggest you stop the childish name calling.
You come across as someone who has his fingers stuck in his ears and is
chanting so you can't hear that which you do not wish to. If you cannot
understand my extremely dumbed down summary then I suppose it just goes
to show that intelligence is obviously not required for belief.
So sit in your smug place of denial all you want. Science will continue
to prove that evolution is real, was real and will continue to be real.
It will also continue to fail to find a trace of your much vaunted
creator. It will happily continue to do so without you and even in spite
of you.
BTW I also once cloned a chicken gene by a pseudo random process. When I
threw the sequence at the databases it came back with only two matches:
in humans and Anopheles gambiae (the malaria mosquito). Now humans
chooks and mosquitos have lived together and on each other for tens of
thousands of years (at least). Since it wasn't what I was looking for I
never found out who gave to whom. A nice example of lateral gene
transmission. Not as nice as sea squirts but.
Dianelos Georgoudis
> Dianelos Georgoudis <dian...@tecapro.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> On the other hand I do not find it unusual or unexpected that such a
>> powerful idea as Darwinism is should have provoked reaction. Wikipedia
>> carries a good article about objections to Darwinism here:
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objections_to_evolution
>
> Have you read that article? The sections I looked at the objections to
> the science are comprehensively refuted. Try again.
What do you mean "try again"? I did not say I agreed with the reaction, I
only said that I do not find it unusual or unexpected that such a powerful
idea as Darwinism is would have provoked reaction.
Many theists and many atheists have the tendency to try to put each other
in the boxes that fit their respective preconceptions. It's not true that
all theists have trouble accepting Darwinism, not by far. Personally I find
it kind of unreasonable when atheists insist that Darwinism proves that
theism is false - nothing could be further from the truth; this is just
fighting a strawman. Darwinism only proves that the literal understanding
of the Bible is false: big deal. The literal understanding of the Bible was
proven false by the application of plain logic as well as by common
decency, not to mention by the discovery of the heliocentric system, long
before Darwin's discovery of natural selection anyway.
I am as disgusted as the next educated person by the intent of some
Fundamentalists to have "creation science" taught at schools in the U.S.
but the reaction of some atheists to that, including Dawkins', is far too
paranoid in my judgment. I really don't think that civilization as we know
it is endangered by religious Fundamentalism.[1] I think that civilization
as we know it is endangered by abject poverty and injustice [2] which
foment general ignorance and passions and indeed religious Fundamentalism
it its more rabid forms. So I would rather have scientists think about the
causes of abject poverty and injustice and propose ways to correct them -
rather than have scientists like Dawkins grandstanding about the grave
dangers of religion, a stance I find misguided and even childish. Because
it is childish to ignore where the danger is and imagine danger where there
is none.
[1] Or even by terrorism inspired by Fundamentalism: the number of people
who have died because of terrorist acts in the last 100 years is most
probably less than the number of people who die because of smoking
cigarettes in one day. Or who die because of heart decease. Or who die
because of traffic accidents or because of hunger in a couple of days. I
mean, let's keep some sense of proportion here. Also let's keep an eye on
the solution. I believe that the best thing we could do against Islamic
terrorism is to impose a just solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict
and remove Western military bases from soil that Muslims consider holy. But
just the mention of such ideas is apt to provoke reactions such as that we
must not let the bad guys win - and other such nonsense. Why nonsense?
Because from their point of view it is us who are the bad guys, and by the
same logic it is we who must not be allowed to win. So who is objectively
the better guy? Well, frankly, who cares? The "I am holier than you" stance
is not very fruitful for solving conflicts. And having said that, when I
consider the West's policies in the Middle East for that last 100 years I
find it very hard to suggest that we have behaved like good guys anyway.
[2] Another huge problem is of course the degradation of the environment,
and again this problem is not caused by religion, nor can it be solved with
less religion. On the contrary I believe that religion might help people
rein in lifestyles of excessive consumption. In fact religion may be
necessary to affect the huge change in personal behavior towards the
lifestyle of more simplicity and deeper meaning that is required to protect
the environment.
pg
"No one here?" Please count me out of your little coterie of "fingers in
ears, la la la, I can’t hear you" brigade members.
Peter's rapid summary above is about as simple as it gets and was aimed
specifically at people with no scientific background.
Although after my degree I went on to take a number of post graduate
diplomas many years ago, none were in a related scientific field.
However, I have no difficulty with virtually everything Peter A comes
out with, because over a thirty year period since I have made it my
business to familiarise myself with subjects on which a profound
understanding of certain issues hinges. The truth is important to me,
and reading Penrose and Popper, Gould and Searle, Dennett and
Churchland, Steven PInker and Bohm, Axelrod, Dawkins... amongst dozens
of others... has been an immense pleasure - if a touch hard going in the
early days. How anyone can so much as express an inclination to
disbelieve or dismiss evolutionary theory without taking the trouble to
find out what has made us into what we are, speaks volumes about the
mindset of certain believers.
http://preview.tinyurl.com/2vc7l7 (a Sidney Harris cartoon)
pga
+++
Ernst Mayr: "Nothing in biology makes sense without Darwinian
evolution."
Peter Ashby
>
> Ernst Mayr: "Nothing in biology makes sense without Darwinian
> evolution."
Just a small correction. My understanding is that the first form of this
is credited to Theodosius Dobzansky (Sp?).
Otherwise thanks for understanding me ;-)
Peter Ashby
> Many theists and many atheists have the tendency to try to put each other
> in the boxes that fit their respective preconceptions. It's not true that
> all theists have trouble accepting Darwinism, not by far. Personally I find
> it kind of unreasonable when atheists insist that Darwinism proves that
> theism is false - nothing could be further from the truth; this is just
> fighting a strawman.
The creationists seem to disagree with you and I too have seen what they
have, although they and I have come to opposite conclusions about it. It
was exposure to biology in general and evolution in particular that
'cured' me of religion and that is exactly the process the creationists
fear will happen to their children and wider society.
The idea goes straight to the heart of the issue: if we are not created,
and created specially then what do we owe god, even if a god should
exist? You and others may be satisfied with vague, unspecified ideas
like god somehow steered evolution but that does not satisfy me. For one
thing it fails parsimony.
This cartoon that pg linked to says it all really:
<http://www.sciencecartoonsplus.com/images/miracle3.gif>
pg
news:1ht1xgx.1aqxrkf1tbqlbyN%pas...@blueyonder.co.ruk...
| pg <n...@alpesprovence.net> wrote:
|
| >
| > Ernst Mayr: "Nothing in biology makes sense without Darwinian
| > evolution."
|
| Just a small correction. My understanding is that the first form of
this
| is credited to Theodosius Dobzansky (Sp?).
|
| Otherwise thanks for understanding me ;-)
Ah yes thanks, and the quote is "Nothing in biology makes sense except
in the light of evolution"...
Peter Ashby
Which as a biologist I can certainly attest. Examples available on
request.
graham
> pg <n...@alpesprovence.net> wrote:
>
>> "Peter Ashby" <pas...@blueyonder.co.ruk> wrote in message
>> news:1ht1xgx.1aqxrkf1tbqlbyN%pas...@blueyonder.co.ruk...
>> | pg <n...@alpesprovence.net> wrote:
>> |
>> | >
>> | > Ernst Mayr: "Nothing in biology makes sense without Darwinian
>> | > evolution."
>> |
>> | Just a small correction. My understanding is that the first form of
>> this
>> | is credited to Theodosius Dobzansky (Sp?).
>> |
>> | Otherwise thanks for understanding me ;-)
>>
>> Ah yes thanks, and the quote is "Nothing in biology makes sense except
>> in the light of evolution"...
>
> Which as a biologist I can certainly attest. Examples available on
> request.
>
Graham
Trevor Jenkins
> So you have no intention of even understanding it yet you somehow feel
> qualified to pronounce on it. Such arrogance astounds me! Such hubris!
Of course you are right your qualifications are so much more advanced than
mine and also of the Oxford professor I cited who only holds a PhD in mere
molecular biophysics. Yes anyone who engages you in discussion on this
topic must hold at least a PhD in evolutionary biology; I will go buy one
right this instance. But there's always evolutionist and atheist Professor
Stephen Jay Gould who comments that Darwinism isn't sufficient to prove
anything about God. Or Steven Pinker who proposed during a lecture at MIT
that we had evolved to be <i>homo religiosus</i>. But then as Gould and
Pinker are both Americans you probably don't ever recognise their standing
as professors.
Peter Ashby
Gould was a most wonderful populariser of science and I cited his
original paper with Niles Eldridge on Punctuated Equilibria in my PhD
thesis (and I read it too!). The supposed spat between Dawkins and Gould
was never about Evolution yes or no but about evolutionary mechanisms.
Gould's evolution was unfortunately too coloured by his Marxism which
made him see a struggle towards a goal where none exists. Similarly the
supposed hard nosed fight between punctuated equilibria and steady state
evolution was never as polarised as the media beat up had it. Science
often appears to polarise thus when the answer is almost certainly
somewhere in the middle. You need models to test and when you have two
competing models it keeps everyone honest. So what seems to happen is
that when things like the climate are stable, so is the evolutionary
rate, but change things, especially radically (Yucatan meteor, Deccan
Traps) and all of a sudden there are both empty niches and absent niches
(not a good time to be a dinosaur specialist parasite after Yucatan), so
the rate of change speeds up. Things don't actually make instantaneous
jumps, it just looks that way when compressed into the fossil record.
So your attempt to portray Gould and Pinker as anti evolutionists simply
won't wash, especiall not to scientists. I have heard extremely eminent
people of all sorts stand up and propose radical things. It is one of
the privileges of being emminent. I saw Lewis Wolpert try to suggest
something I thought quite reasonable once only to be accused of being a
Lamarkian by those who did not want to understand him. Doesn't mean he
lost any of his emminence and I saw him deep in conversation with a
couple of his critics later in the same conference. He is also a very
nice guy, I have met him personally.
Trevor Jenkins
> Trevor Jenkins <Trevor....@suneidesis.com> wrote:
>
> > .... But there's always evolutionist and atheist Professor
> > Stephen Jay Gould who comments that Darwinism isn't sufficient to prove
> > anything about God. Or Steven Pinker who proposed during a lecture at MIT
> > that we had evolved to be <i>homo religiosus</i>. But then as Gould and
> > Pinker are both Americans you probably don't ever recognise their standing
> > as professors.
>
> won't wash, especiall not to scientists.
No wonder no one ever engages you in discussion you can't even read. Where
in the above did I say either Gould or Pinker were anti-evolutionists?
Dianelos Georgoudis
> Dianelos Georgoudis <dian...@tecapro.com> wrote:
>
>> Many theists and many atheists have the tendency to try to put each other
>> in the boxes that fit their respective preconceptions. It's not true that
>> all theists have trouble accepting Darwinism, not by far. Personally I find
>> it kind of unreasonable when atheists insist that Darwinism proves that
>> theism is false - nothing could be further from the truth; this is just
>> fighting a strawman.
>
> The creationists seem to disagree with you and I too have seen what they
> have, although they and I have come to opposite conclusions about it.
Sure, creationists believe that Darwinism contradicts the existence of a
creator God, but what Darwinism in fact contradicts is the literal
understanding of the Bible. Now I think it's probably true that the Bible
writers meant their creation story to be understood literally, but these
were people living some 2,500 years ago trying to explain things for which
they simply did not have enough information. Actually, the creation story
in the Old Testament is quite sophisticated considering the time in which
it was written.
> It
> was exposure to biology in general and evolution in particular that
> 'cured' me of religion and that is exactly the process the creationists
> fear will happen to their children and wider society.
If you thought that science contradicts religion in any way then you
certainly had a wrong notion of religion and it's just as well that you
were cured of it.
> The idea goes straight to the heart of the issue: if we are not created,
> and created specially then what do we owe god, even if a god should
> exist?
I think "we owe God" is a meaningless expression, akin to saying "tables
owe wood". On the other hand I think the expression "we are specially
created by God" is very true, but maybe you have a weak notion of what
"creation" means in this respect. It's not like God has created the
universe and has created us in it and then has more or less left. Rather
God sustains existence itself; God exhausts all reality. You don't see a
speck of dust dance in the sunlight without God's participation. And God's
participation is not so much in that speck's trajectory but in your
experiencing it.
> You and others may be satisfied with vague, unspecified ideas
> like god somehow steered evolution but that does not satisfy me. For one
> thing it fails parsimony.
Well, language is such that one can only speak somehow vaguely about really
deep patterns. If I were to ask you why there are physical laws in the
first place, or why mass curves spacetime around it, or why math is so
useful in physics, you'd probably give vague answers too. One can only give
tidy information about rather mundane things, such as "apples fall" or
"there are 34 matches in this matchbox" or "the mass of the electron is
approx. 10^-30 kg".
Again the expression "God somehow steered evolution" betrays a limited
concept of God. God created us having an experiential life in which the
idea of evolution has great explanatory power. It's not like "God created a
mechanical physical universe and then here and there interacts with it".
This view places the existence of God on par with the existence of the
universe - which is quite mistaken, in fact as mistaken as placing our
existence on par with the existence of the universe. God and we are
*persons*: conscious subjects, i.e. beings of an experiential life (what
theists call "spiritual life"). The physical universe is just something
which we humans experience in a particular way. And we are here
experiencing everything we experience sustained by God's creative will.
(Which does not imply that each bit we experience is willed by God as there
is plenty of random stuff in our experience.)
I think an error that atheists (and many theists) make is have a concept of
a limited God. Such a limited concept doesn't really make much sense. God
cannot be understood in half-measures. To understand God you have to
completely take it in. You have to start with omni-everything God and then,
lo and behold, everything else makes sense *through* God.[1] I like to
think of God as the "overarching explanatory principle", the very glue that
binds all things together in our understanding.
So it's true but irrelevant that "I can understand all physical phenomena
without recourse to God", similarly to "I can count the matches in this
matchbox without recourse to God". You can understand parts of our
experience without recourse to God, as God is too big to serve as an
explanation of bit and pieces. God is what explains the whole of it: the
order and meaning present in the whole of our experiential life.
> This cartoon that pg linked to says it all really:
> <http://www.sciencecartoonsplus.com/images/miracle3.gif>
Odd. I understand this cartoon as poking fun at materialists:
Materialistically minded people often create incoherent worldviews where
indeed "a miracle" is needed to connect areas of local coherency. So for
example a materialist coherently speaks of the material world, and also
coherently speaks of experiential life, and then pretty much assumes that
through some kind of miracle the two are connected. Of course they don't
really say that a miracle is needed; they say that future discoveries of
neuroscience are needed.
Anyway, this cartoon reminded me of another cartoon I once saw in a math
book and which looks like the opposite of this one: Two mathematicians had
straightened a piece of string between two knotty balls, and the one was
saying to the other: "We understand from here to there". - Which I think is
a good point: math, physics, science, all of objective thought, can only
explain some things in the middle leaving out the extremes. What can
explain all of it is religion. (How successful religion has been in that is
another matter.)
[1] It's not like our understanding is a neat structure with some
"God-shaped gaps" in it. Rather God in our understanding is like the very
scaffolding in which all other things and pieces of knowledge nicely find
their place and fit together: here you put scientific knowledge, there the
meaning of life, here ethics, there esthetics, here math, there
consciousness, here religions, there the existence of evil, here the
beginning, there the end, and so on.