All about Religion. (Rights, wrongs, Theocracy, etc.)

[TheYak]

   Unless we adopt a very loose definition of Religion, I don't believe that a belief in the supernatural or in things spiritual is prerequisite to establish morality.  We have certain laws and social behaviors that keep some our baser instincts in check because society understands that these things are inherently wrong.  The likely basis for this realization is acknowledging that one person's rights are being violated by another - often to the extent that they may not fully recover. 

   That seems like a very logical process to me.  Science as an analytical and experimental medium shouldn't make moral determinations, true, but science as observation of human nature seems more appropriately used towards figuring out how we can all get along than arbitrary rules set by a dozen different mythologies. 

   If someone tells me not to do something because it'll piss off their tax-collecting boogie-man, I doubt I'll pay it much attention.  If they explain that what I'm doing is putting my wants above the rights or needs of another, I'm more likely to attempt correction.  People as a whole don't want to think, don't want to deliberate reasons for their actions finding a reflex more agreeable.  They want to be herded, but I don't agree that a vending machine that receives coinage in exchange for a moral of the day is necessary.  For certain people, maybe, but not for the whole of humanity.

[lo_res_man]

Yes but still the idea holds, people want morality to be from something bigger then themselves. And I don't think government is the best person to be handing out moral judgments. I think there is some paper about the different levels of moral reasoning, and how the second to top one was because in the end it hurts a lot of people and US. That seems to be were government ends. But the top one was, because it is WRONG. I think we need religion to provide that level of moral reasoning.   Some people may not, but it seems most do.

[The Inquisitive Stranger]

Some theoretical explanations for altruism taken straight out of an old psychology textbook:

Empathy-Altruism Hypothesis - people provide help simply because the victim needs help and because it feels good to provide help.

Negative-State Relief Model - people provide help in order to reduce the negative affect aroused by watching someone in distress.

Empathic Joy Hypothesis - people provide help in order to engage in an activity that has a successful outcome, making the helper feel good.

Genetic Determinism Model - people have an unconscious desire to help people genetically similar to themselves, and provide help in order to maximize the chances of the survival of said genes.

[Helm]

lo_res, here's something bigger than oneself: The public. That satisfy you? Humans are all we've got. So morality will have to be a useful mediation between the desires, longterm and shorterm, conflucting and parallel, of the individuals making up the whole.

Yak: excellent couple of last posts, I agree very much.

[TheYak]

  While I've long considered altruism to be a pleasant myth, I still have trouble admitting to myself that caring for others is anything but caring itself.  I can't, however, claim complete disinterest in what happens to my family, friends, and significant other.  The loss of these persons, or - to a lesser extent - reduction in their happiness does have a direct effect upon me. 

   To dismiss these labels as being feel-good packaging around selfish motiviations doesn't seem quite correct either.  There are times that people do things for others, when the result of that action will have a negative impact for the perpetrator, or at least be against what the initiator of that action actually desires.  If we dissect the motivations further, we could imagine that the person receives some emotional or morale benefit by either having their sacrifice acknowledged or by being a more meek sort of martyr.  Even proof of that catalyst, though, would lead me to the same question, "Isn't this still a desirable trait, at least in some quanity, to have?" 

   This line of thought seems to be a debate of semantics, for if the population were to be utterly convinced of the self-serving motivations to any caring action it seems certain that anything thought of as selfless or caring would soon be considered futile.  True or not, I think people need to believe in something resembling altruism, or -at least- that people can act out of "goodness". 

[Helm]

Yes as I said, it's more a matter of manners to underline the true subconscious intention of atruistic actions or not. I usually don't. I enjoy people doing nice things and do them myself and leave it at that. That aspect of human nature isn't one I care to bring to the forefront too much.

[lo_res_man]

Back on the evolution front, I have this to say. Yes an Ovum and sperm are made up of dead matter, in fact all life is made up of matter. And that is all life is. BUT life is a machine. A reproducing, self-repairing machine. It is nanotechnology of the type we read in sci-fi. Little atomic machines all scurrying round all with specialized tasks, all synchronized to and requiring mostother functions to work. And that is why I don't believe in the primordial soup theory of the origin of life. I do not say the laws of thermodynamics prohibit evolution (I have other objections to that) that is life EVOLVING to other life.what I do say is this intricately fashioned machine of such utter complexity can not come from simply a bunch of disorganized chemicals. Without life to arrange it into complexity. Maybe I should have said. Self replicating, self repairing complexity, both in form and interaction, does not appear spontaneously As someone said, it is like expecting a tornado to go through a junk yard, (even a airplane junk yard) and a 747 to be formed. Back on the issue at hand, Yes the question of life aren't important, t o the laymen, but the job of science is to tease apart the obvious, and look at the underlying princebels, Helm.

[CaptainBinky]

what I do say is this intricately fashioned machine of such utter complexity can not come from simply a bunch of disorganized chemicals. Without life to arrange it into complexity.

But during embyonic development, cells are dividing and arranging according to DNA, which in itself is a bunch of chemicals. Is it not possible to extrapolate from this, a much more simplified version where the ancestor of DNA was replicating itself outside of cells (which wouldn't exist yet)? It's like mitochondria. There's a line of thought which suggests that mitochondria were once cells in their own right, and somewhere along the way they became symbiotes of the much more complex cells which we are made from.

[Adamski]

Maybe I should have said. Self replicating, self repairing complexity, both in form and interaction, does not appear spontaneously As someone said, it is like expecting a tornado to go through a junk yard, (even a airplane junk yard) and a 747 to be formed.

Well no, it doesn't happen spontaneously but rather simple natural devices for converting the abundance of energy from the sun get chaotically more complex over 3,500,000,000 years. There's nothing spontaneous about that length of time.

Please stop trotting out these tired creationist arguments all the time because they're always riddled with logic holes. The 747/Tornado analogy is bad because it assumes an incorrect understanding of what is really happening with evolution. Life is not the wonderous and difficult thing that people assume it is - it's just a reaction to lots of energy being around and the right circumstances to keep increasing in complexity. Earth has the right circumstances (which is not to say the optimal circumstances, those pesky ice ages have a habit of wiping out life quite often), so what? The amount of other stars, planets and suns out in the universe is such a ridiculous number that it's impossible to comprehend, so it's not really a statistical wonder.

I'll start listening to 'intelligent design' people when they start addressing the follow up question 'So who is the intelligent designer?' without just saying "God!" and moving on, because that only turns whole movement into justifcation of Genesis. 'Who designed the designer' would be another good one.

I sure wish they'd hurry up and find life on Europa so all of this sillyness can end.

Edit followup:

what I do say is this intricately fashioned machine of such utter complexity can not come from simply a bunch of disorganized chemicals. Without life to arrange it into complexity.

You should really read up on chaos and how complex and unpredictable systems form from simple rules.

[Helm]

what I do say is this intricately fashioned machine of such utter complexity can not come from simply a bunch of disorganized chemicals.

This is what we call a demand. It may be an informed one or not, but it constitutes neither theory, nor proof. Demands are nice, because they're prepositions on which people do research and formulate theories, which may later be proven to be valid in cases, or valid generally. If your Demand is for an intelligent being to have created this extremely complicated machinery that is the whole of life, and I find this demand to be very reasonable, I urge you to present to us theories that explain your intelligent design deity.

As Yak said, at least the scientists are trying to understand the magician cutting the woman in two. If all you have to say is 'nuh uh, I don't get it. I DEMAND a different explanation' whereas I don't think you're out of line, you're certainly out of use.

[lo_res_man]

what I meant was BEFORE LIFE WAS LIFE, how could it evolve a way to reproduce? Ã, Evolution REQUIRES reproduction, the errors made by the process are its modus operandi. But non-life(things not molecular machines) do not reproduce. THAT is what separates life from non life. Even viruses, so simple" that they an be grown as crystals, reproduce.( with the aid of other life). But reproduction is so complex that the molecules can not gave just come together by pure heat energy chance. The molecules would be destroyed faster then they would be formed. That is what I mean.
{edit new posts} Yes, I agree complexity can come from "simple things" but clouds are not simple, yes they are "just" water vapor. but it is the INTERACTION that is complex, plus clouds, a good example of chaos theory, DO NOT REPRODUCE. And fractals yes they are beautiful intricate, but they are also quite similar. all they way down to infinite. Life is not a fractal or a cloud, it is a MACHINE. as I said before. Oh and if I don't understand what life is, then could you explain to this poor benighted creationist what life IS? I agree as well the question “who designed the designer?” question is a good one. even as a young lad when I heard of the “intelligent design theory” I immediately thought well then were did the aliens come from? And I lived in a house of ultra conservative evangelical Christian bible thumpers. That is why I hypothesize an extra-universal God.(or Gods) For all we know ( I admit it is rather illogical, but…prove me wrong) conditions might be more favorable for evolution “outside” have you ever looked up theories that the universe is a Ã, hologram? www.earthportals.com/hologram.html
[ to Helm]
and so am I, I also wish to know how the universe works I am not going to ever say "this far man shall go and no further" Rubbish, I want to know! If God (or Gods) created the universe, I want to know how, if none did, I still want to know how!

[Fuzzpilz]

lo_res_man: Now you're arguing abiogenesis, not evolution. And you should read this, for example. Especially this diagram:



The point of which is, life is pretty complex, but so are its origins. The first self-replicating molecules that would eventually lead to this discussion didn't have to be anywhere near as complicated as the structures we find in life today, and they had plenty of time to get there.

[lo_res_man]

But there is a  huge gap between a polymer and a self replicating polymer. yes the first life wouldn't be as complex as the simplest modern life, of course. AS i said for things to evolve they need to reproduce. How could the molecules "cooperate?" What I am saying is, lets say some molecules get together, forming these biomachines.  But since they don't reproduce yet, they are highly vulnerable. A single lighting  could destroy the whole thing. Unlikely you say? On the time scale you are talking of it accidents becomes increasingly likely.  most accidents are detrimental to a systems order, only a few ( very few) are helpful. it is like walking two steps forward one step back. And yes I did read the article, very fascinating.
It is still though conjecture

[Becky]

lo_res_man, you don't seem to grasp the fact that everything, "living" molecules or not, is simply made up of chemical reactions, nor do you seem to grasp the immense timescale that we are talking about.

[Fuzzpilz]

But there is a  huge gap between a polymer and a self replicating polymer.

Is there, though? What reason would you have to assume that the gap is so mind-bogglingly huge that it couldn't plausibly ever be bridged by oceans full of chemicals over tens of millions of years? In fact, the article I linked to uses a reasonably short self-replicating peptide as its example in the examination of the probability argument.

Indeed, there's no one theory of abiogenesis/biopoesis that's viewed as virtually certain yet. Science doesn't have all the answers of the universe. It does, however, have the means to ask the right questions, and so far we've seen enough answers to partial questions that abiogenesis looks extremely possible. There's no real reason to assume otherwise.

[The Inquisitive Stranger]

'So who is the intelligent designer?'

Hoborg!

[MrColossal]

'So who is the intelligent designer?'

Hoborg!

200 points to OSSquinky!

[lo_res_man]

I realize this thing we call life is just chemicals. like duh :. (Sarcasm) Wonderful stuff this argument. But I am still, from looking at the datum, mostly convinced otherwise. I have about reached the limit of my scientific understanding. Yes we are talking of mind boggling amounts of time but the world does not hold its breath a molecule upon molecule comes together BY CHANCE, to make this molecular machines. The same chances that bring it together will also tear it apart. Of course I don't think it would be from molecule to fully formed bacteria, it couldn't be like that. But while it is forming, and before it forms defensive measures, such as reproduction it would be broken apart by the same accidents. Maybe it did happen this way (but I have other problems with evolution as well) But I think that the laws of thermodynamics would prohibit, from forming up to the complexity required.

[MrColossal]

These are the same laws of thermodynamics that could be totally proved wrong one day, right?

[Fuzzpilz]

Maybe it did happen this way (but I have other problems with evolution as well)

You are not talking about evolution. As for your arguments, without e.g. clearly stating and evaluating the mechanisms by which things would be torn apart, they're worth nothing as scientific evidence for or against anything.

But I think that the laws of thermodynamics would prohibit, from forming up to the complexity required.

You don't understand thermodynamics.