OT: Frank and Dave's Philosophical Kebab Emporium

Who would that be, then?

 

frank, let's have a little sense here. There is no way the Dolphin woman could have an untainted conversation with a Doplhin even if she had all of the 'words'. To make sense of the 'words' she would have to use human understandings as she has no knowledge whatsoever of how Dolphin 'understanding' is founded. Communication is a far more complex affair than mere words.

The next part of your answer appears quite strange. You applaud the aboriginal way of life as being in balance with the planet and 'science models' (whatever that may be). However the very inquisitive nature of 'scientific' man (and hence your proposed imbalance) you attempt to blame upon some form of religious concept of superiority. That really is just wanting your cake and eating it! I could argue that it was far more to do with the pesky scientists who kept promising nirvana and failing to deliver who caused the imbalances. However, as you appear to want me to declare the superiority of human beings over other lifeforms then I will oblige you as a human.

If you wish to explore the direct relationship with God then I believe that it is limited to humans. I would also note that that whilst eternal life is available to all humans it is up to the human themselves to avail themselves of the opportunity. God has made clear that eternal life or a direct relationship with Him will never be imposed. I really don't understand your final paragraph. As far as I am concerned God never infused humans with any spirit. The Spirit is God's and is only imparted to those who ask for it. Therefore unless God goes back on what he has promised then He will not be seeking a personal relationship with Dolphins - even if they can learn to sing Ave Maria!

 

Dave I read the imparting of spirit as 'when does God give you your soul?' To me spirit isn't the same as soul but that's what I took it to mean.

 

I totally agree the Spirit and the Soul are two different things. However, I still haven't worked out exactly what the Soul is or where it resides.

 

Interesting so it's a combination of the possession of higher order thinking or "thought about thought", self awareness and posession of morals that are the difference?

There have been observations of chimps enforcing order differently to disabled members of the group than able bodied (positively rather than negatively)

Bats will choose to share food with others that have shared with them previously but not ones who haven't. That's what we'd call a conscious decision.

Dolphins and Elephants have displayed interspecies (not to each other lol)altruism and placed themselves in danger to protect others including humans from attack by shark or lions.

Experiments in rats showed they stopped taking food if it resulted in pain to a non related rat. Moral judgement?

Chimps and dolphins have displayed self awareness in mirror tests.

African hunting dogs create lines of communication when running for kilometres to insure the old, sick and injured know where the pack has gone. Why? This would go against the entire idea of keeping the pack healthy and strong and puts the group as a whole at risk of exposure to other predators. There's no "there and now" advantage for that behaviour.

Altruism, empathy, reciprocity and self awareness are all signs of higher order thinking.

But lets agree none of this amounts to definitive proof of HOT or morals. Lets look at it the other early around.

High order thinking doesn't develop in human children until the age of 2 to 4. Moral thinking will be stunted to the most basic level if not reinforced by adults.

Biologists suggest our conceptual thinking came from physically not being an apex predator but with binocular vision through eyes that received a huge volume of data. So our brain size increased to process that data. Our limited field of vision, coupled with the large brain evolved conceptual thinking to "imagine" what could be behind us rather than constantly looking around. This is a simplistic explanation because I'm no more a biologist than a physicist the theories are around but you get my drift.

But again let's accept your requirements on face value. What about Psychopaths/Sociopaths who have HOT but no empathy, no ability to process moral thinking.

I'm just wondering if you need all the rquiremebts as clearly very young children and psychopaths fail some of your tests just like animals yet I'm sure they would be considered to have a soul.

That was why I was asking about the reconciliation of evolution even if backed by ID when at some point along our development humans didn't have all these requirements that make us different to present day animals because if they are an evolutionary development then it's possible given time that another earth bound species could develop all of the requirements as well.

While none of the current animals have all the requirements they show a progression to us rather than a giant dividing line of them and us which doesn't sit well with the we are completely different argument. There's more evidence to suggest we are simply one step ahead.

 

1) now Dave, not a good idea to start a response with "let's have a little sense here" I criticized Liv for it so same to you. The Dolphin example was maybe a little too out there but I think I communicated my thoughts better in my next post.

Complexity of language?

I assume that's exactly part of the difficulty she's having if it's indeed possible at all. Obviously perception of ones reality steers greatly the formation of communication but that's true between human beings. I'd argue that you'd have difficulty having a conceptual conversation with someone from the stone age based solely on very differing perceptions of what your world is and how you know it. Have a look at some of the recent Autism studies for fine contemporary examples too.

2)
I'm using the term religion as you wanted it defined Dave, institutions not individual faith.

nope. I said a combination of some religious thought (to be specific largely Christian and to some extent Islamic over recent years) and scientific advancement caused these imbalances.

It's simply a fact that aboriginal groups (who have their own religions by the way) live more harmoniously with their environment. Their social, cultural and yes religious beliefs are usually nature centric. Their gods are in their food, water, Sun and earth and are treated as such.

Western imperialism used as its foundations the Christian belief (as in espoused by leaders of the then Christian churches) that man was put on earth with dominion over all other life. Once you have the notion that everything else is less important then it can't be treated and used as you see fit which is exactly what Christian institution dominated western powers did.

Dave while you still to some degree espouse that same belief right here. The importance is in how you apply that belief which from your reaction isn't to go out and pillage the land. Although I can't help but think it influences your views on how animals should be treated etc ...But that's a side point.

It's a simple enough psychological exercise This was used to justify obtaining and harvesting resources over 5 continents in a pattern of behaviour resulting in today. Science went hand in hand but religion was used as moral justification to take the new superior white man's way of life across the globe. You use the phrase you can't have your cake and eat it well that applies both ways. I can accept that the pure foundations of Christian faith are not the same as the man led institutions in their name. But then you can't then get defensive when I point out that those institutions commonly known as religions including and (recently) predominantly the main Christian institutions have been at the heart of every asset stripping exercise since records began. Science just made the application of this arrogance more efficient...and yes that includes the scientists who willingly built weapons: they can't wash their hands either. But it was missionaries who lead the way to south America, India and Africa quickly followed by the soldiers.

3) yes meant souls.

 

frank, if I believe that you are stretching things way beyond their logical value then I reserve the right to drag the discussion back to reality - even if that annoys you. To be compared with Livtor after my efforts to ensure that this thread remains lucid and polite is more than somewhat insulting. So to the matters in hand,

Language and Communication, You don't have to go to Autism studies to see the complexity of oral communication (given that visual stimulus is likely to be very limited in a communication with a dolphin). Just ask a group to draw a diagram based only on verbal instructions - you'll find it is nigh on impossible.

2)

I would maintain the argument that the imbalances that you talk of have more to do with the consequences of scientific effort than it ever has to do with any religion. I would go further and claim that those imbalances are/were exacerbated by the unwillingness of compartmentalised scientists to consider the wider ramifications of their efforts.

I really don't understand your argument as far as human dominion over the world is concerned. So what if Aboriginals live in harmony with the world as they see it. I don't see one aboriginal Nobel prizewinner in any of the sciences. I truly don't see them attempting to increase the sum of human knowledge. Now it appears that you want to lay all the blame for the whole of western imperialism at the feet of the Christian church. That's just silly. If you want to trace the basis of any imperialism(Western and Eastern) then you have to look towards economics - which I would remind you is a Social Science. Imperialism is a direct response to need for resources and resources are only required when technology (again science based) goes beyong subsistance levels. Sure, religion was both used to underpin and justify the action (just like Al Quida uses Islam). Your charge against the Christian churches is totally misdirected along with your "I was only obeying orders" defence of the scientists.

 

The Soul resides on the music thread.

 

Soul lives forever

 

One hell of a thread.

#ironic

 

So you believe in hell?

 

Dave, I didn't mean to compare you to another personality as a whole, just meant that your tone in that specific post was condescending just like his (and above confirmed it)

what in my first post was impolite other than criticising religion??.

Subsequently I accepted that that particular point (dolphins)was a bit too far out from the discussion. As I said my response to JB was a better effort.

But fine, I've maybe in my attempts to be sensitive muddied my other points too much.

You completely missed my point about aboriginal tribes (across the globe) not being damaging. I stated that since they DONT feel the need to develop(science) outside their existing enviroment and their own religions(religion) DONT place them above their environment but within it; they didn't exhaust their resources. The subsistence lifestyle you noted later. That is where our scientists should be aiming next, getting back to working within the cycle not destroying it. So I have no issue with your assertion that our discoveries were in many ways an ever expanding **** up at least in application. But science doesn't work in a sphere outside of society....

My argument in comparison to that point was that most of the destruction done to the planet was done using science as a tool and religion as the moral justification. Science is a word, how it's applied is human. Just like Religion. I find it interesting that you continue to use science as an all encompassing generalisation but insist on there being a distinct difference between Christianity and the institutions that claim to represent it. You can't judge one, one way and the other an other. Well you can but I think its a mistake.

So, while you are quite right to suggest that political and socio-economic factors played just as much a part in western imperialism I assumed correctly I was talking to someone who knew that anyway. The alternative would have been pages long posts(like this one). although i believe you're incorrect when you say it was a"need" for resources: more of an unsustainable want., subtle but important difference that again leads back to an underlying drive for dominance even within the dominant .

But lets be clear: from the 1500's to the 20th century, Christian institutions had more than a passing influence on European (&US) domestic government's policy making. they were, if not the ruling elite itself, always a central part of it (eastern too until early 20th century but then I class that type of fanatical ideology in with all the other religions anyway)

I'm not and did not lay all the blame at their door but I'm not going to shy away from blaming what I consider the deeply flawed idea of human beings (and in this time frame white human beings) being not only the dominant entity on the planet but claims that God himself had stated they had power over it all. While God probably didn't mean to give blanket permission to strip all resources off the face of the earth: That idea was used or misused to do so. Add to that the "spread the word instruction" and you had the perfect ready made justification for what then occurred.

Science didn't control governments for the last 2000 years. In fact for large parts of that time they were killed as heretics by yup, religions. So Religion had a fair head start in influencing culture and thinking. (It also combined with paganism removed scientific breakthroughs brought here by the Romans (yes more science used to kill) and kept us literally in the dark for an age.)

Even in our democracy today Christianity is still inextricably linked to the government. It's onlybeen a matter of 3 centuries since the state church was the only church you could belong to on pain of death and kings and queens stated they were placed in power by God himself, backed fully by the religious institutions of the day. To suggest that they were some kind of bystanders to separate socioeconomic currents is false.

Religion (institutions) were not just used to underpin or excuse expansionist policy they helped form the idea, they took part in the governance and were among the first on the ground.

As for science it was blamed by me in that post as part of a combination which again I clearly state. The fact that you only took issue with one part of my combination doesn't mean I didn't level blame at both. It's typed there and repeated here for all to see. You cherry picked my post somewhat, taking out only the parts critical to religion.




Then you just made a bit up:

I don't know where on earth you are getting that "obeying orders" defence stuff from. I in fact said the complete opposite. I said that scientists can't use the "I only invented it excuse" . Scientists in my view, like priests both as individuals and organizations can't wash their hands if they work for or with governments and the government then destroys, corrupts or steals in their name.

So, since in my view most of the damage done to the planet was done by western powers particularly during the 19th & 20th centuries who's governments at the time had centuries of integration and control by the various dominant religious sects (just happened to be Christian, I'm not picking on them) as well as societies with cultural and psychological foundations immersed in Christianity; be they distorted from the original message or not: I can say with confidence that Christianity in most of its forms, was integral in our culture believing it had the right as the superior species, to use any advancement and discovery to take over the world (pretty much) and use it how we saw fit. The fact that the scientists of that time were born, socialised and educated within that culture meant that they held the same arrogance as everyone else, more so since apart from the priests and other members of the ruling elites they were the only ones who were educated, only adding to their self views of superiority.

This is no different from any other empire building and the religions (non Christian) that were integrated in those powers and the destruction caused by them but the scale is minute compared to what we did both directly and what happened in those areas for years to come as a consequence during our empires.

its clear that society (politically, economically etc) would influence religious institutions and they too would influence everything right back. No, I'm not laying ALL the blame at Religions door just it's obvious share. What I find amazing is how defensive religious types get when their part is pointed out. Maybe you can point at scientist types that react the same way.

Hopefully other Christian morals such as responsibility and humility will influence us and our scientists today in our efforts to fix the mistakes of the past and in New advancements of the future but I doubt it, we are still an arrogant species

. If you truly believe that I'm totally wrong Dave and scientists as a group caused all this and not a mixture of both maybe the problem then is this: not enough religious people embracing and working in science and bringing those values into it?

Obviously I don't believe that because I believe the themes are already there they just don't connect it.

 

1,225 words...? Really...? #jebus

 

Quiet on here tonight.

 

Four words, better

 

I like a good philosophical debate, but I think I've got to the fluffy kittens stage now.

 

No chance I will join in with a debate when comments are that long. I have been known to be involved in some that have got to that stage before though.

 

frank, I will not apologise for the statement I made regarding your Livator reference. Your words are there to be seen and I do take offence at them. You have admitted that the dolphin thing was "a bit too far out" and hence I used a light touch rejoinder so to be chastised for that is also out of order.

Now, the basis of your argument this evening appears to be based upon the role of religion and in particular the Christian religion in what you allude to as the rape of the planet. In fact the emphasis of your posts appears to be religion was the driving force. However, when I refer to the political and economic drivers that swept away the concept of subsistence lifestyles you respond with "So, while you are quite right to suggest that political and socio-economic factors played just as much a part in western imperialism I assumed correctly I was talking to someone who knew that anyway." You then continue with your tirade against the mostly Christian religion. Frank, take the blinkers off. Mankind has been quite capable of setting aside or using religious structures and philosophies to suit it's own desires. You however appear to want to cleanse yourself of any of the actions of our forefathers based upon the philosophy that you have constructed for yourself today. You come to your own moral stances on your own grounds but somehow feel that your forebears were not able to do the same thing for themselves. Do you truly believe that you have a higher moral intellect than they did? Or is it possible that they used differing concepts (which you no longer value) to come to their conclusions? To condemn them using your standpoints is arrogant in the extreme.

Do I believe that all of the 'bad' things that have happened over the last 500 years is the fault of a cabal of scientists? Of course not. But then neither am I going to stand by whilst you lay the majority of the blame upon religious institutions. Neither do I believe that the tree huggers will inherit the Earth and that we should all work towards recovering an Aboriginal reality.

Interestingly for me I find my current position in this dialogue quite amusing as I disavow organisational churches in my pursuit of faith.

 

I over 80% of twins one of them is left-handed. No idea why.

 

Oh, and all polar bears are left-handed.