Re: Why has man been described as the scum of the universe?
- Fairwinds
- Posts: 20
- Joined: September 18th, 2017, 3:33 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: Omar Khayyam
- Location: Falmouth
Re: Re: Why has man been described as the scum of the univer
My own amauturish thoughts on the black side of mankind run as follows: Man, as opposed to other animals, has the ability to think, to reason, to learn, to communicate, and more crucially to be able to pass on knowledge to succeeding generations. These advanced abilities also open the possibility of warped use. WARPED USE. The actions of sadism, wanton destruction, killing for killings sake, and a whole range of savage behaviour stem from imaginative powers denied to other animal forms. Some animals may kill for killings sake, and there are cases of homosexuality, I believe, but mankind takes the prize for bizarre behaviour.
Another conundrum is that given that mankind collectively is so brilliant, why can they not organise in such a way that promotes our beautiful and magical surroundings and not destroy it? This baffles me, and I admit this is not difficult!
- Sy Borg
- Site Admin
- Posts: 15155
- Joined: December 16th, 2013, 9:05 pm
Re: Re: Why has man been described as the scum of the univer
Yes. I was chatting with an old friend via fb and he provided a Robert R Turner quote:Fairwinds wrote:Civility is a fascinating subject. It can be argued that civility is a luxury in a ' comfortable' set of surroundings as in the western world. Under stress or in desperate circumstances, it disappears. Having said that, I agree with a previous comment that being found injured by a human and in a remote area, there is a good chance of being treated well. Not always though. History is littered with accounts of appalling treatment of shipwreck survivors.
To answer 'Speedy' - I don't know where civility comes from. Is it inherent in some individuals, whatever the circumstances? I believe this is so, but it is a strand in our make up which is not common.
My response is that the military is a society's immune system which does the unpleasant work so that most of us don't have to. Likewise, within every vegan or fruitarian lies an army of murderous macrophages, ruthlessly killing trespassing bacteria and fungi. Every colony has its soldiers. Every pack and pride has its protectors. What our somewhat muted but still-present violence shows us is just how much we still have in common with other species."Have you ever considered the idea that a regular combat soldier obeying orders is actually a murderer? He or she has abandoned their own sense of morality to inflict carnage on others. Isn't it incredible that almost all of society considers this normal? How much more disconnected can you be to kill other people and feel like you're doing the 'right thing'?"
from Into The Open Economy
Civility basically persists and (ultimately) prospers because a cooperative group will tend to beat a rabble of self-centred schmucks :)
Yes, the whole morality caper is a mess, with cultural, subcultural and individual differences, historical differences, dynamic circumstances, and humanity and the biosphere itself on an unknown and, for us, unprecedented trajectory.Steve3007 wrote:Greta:I think you're right and that it's probably quite easy to become conditioned as to what is right and wrong. An obvious example of this (which I think you've brought up before and we've discussed) is our general attitude towards other animals. The vast majority of us have absolutely no problem with the way livestock animals are treated but are shocked if we see a pet dog being mistreated. We're very, very good at compartmentalizing our morality, even if it leads to things that seem blatantly self-contradictory. I don't see that as a judgement on humanity. It's the way we are, and it's possible to see how it's an attitude which evolved for good reasons....You are conditioned to your eating being a reality rather than abstracted. What about after a year of digital dining? You'd think that conditioning would be pretty fast if it accords the morality of doing no harm. You would have a pang at first, a sense of "̶O̶h̶ ̶m̶y̶ ̶G̶o̶d̶,̶ ̶I̶'̶m̶ ̶a̶ ̶c̶a̶n̶n̶i̶b̶a̶l̶!̶"̶ conscience, but that would soon be replaced by the pleasure of knowing you are being highly ethical! (Then again, would that give you pleasure as a digital person, given that normally such a situation would trigger a dopamine response?).
Generally, as populations grow, utilitarianism increasingly becomes important, eg. health policies are often about dollars saved against numbers of lives lost. Lives have a value in politics. You are not Steve and I am not Greta to policy makers - we each just count as "one" in head counts.
-
- Posts: 30
- Joined: September 20th, 2017, 3:42 pm
Re: Re: Why has man been described as the scum of the univer
Greta, when you talk about group selection and the changing model of Darwinianism, I think that does help to strengthen your point, no doubt. But that comes from a fundamental point that man is his own highest standard, and that implies that, therefore, good practice in a moral society is about as a standard as we can get for "progress". I don't think that's bad, I just think that as technology and times change, we need a stronger moral code to stick to than just what makes sense based on what's happened in the evolution model, which in and of itself, as you pointed out, has changed. So we have the Bible with its moral code and an unchanging, infinitely holy God (I'll come back to this point shortly) to help us in this.
LuckyR I would like to know more about why you are as convinced as you are that the God of the Bible is a myth. Also, if you copy the text in the following parentheses (watch?v=jwoEqj2iv0M) after typing in youtube and then .com/ you will get to a Youtube video I just did on how evil can exist with an infinitely holy God in power. This may seem a tad out of left field, but so many people (myself included for awhile, actually) struggle with this that I'm willing to bet you have as well, and wanted to let you know there are answers (mine is not the only one, but I mention that in the video, too).
To answer fairwinds, I would say that civility comes from God writing His moral code on our hearts (that's in the Bible, a good New Testament reference being in Romans) as a means to bring us to Him, but many people don't choose that.
- Sy Borg
- Site Admin
- Posts: 15155
- Joined: December 16th, 2013, 9:05 pm
Re: Re: Why has man been described as the scum of the univer
Speedy, when you say "man is his own highest standard" you seem to imply that either "man" is a pretty homogeneous group or that the public face of societies reflects their detail. Not the case. Humans are hugely diverse and progress is often said to be a genius by genius process. Most of "man" just provides the structure within which geniuses can spark their progress.Speedyj1992 wrote:Greta, when you talk about group selection and the changing model of Darwinianism, I think that does help to strengthen your point, no doubt. But that comes from a fundamental point that man is his own highest standard, and that implies that, therefore, good practice in a moral society is about as a standard as we can get for "progress". I don't think that's bad, I just think that as technology and times change, we need a stronger moral code to stick to than just what makes sense based on what's happened in the evolution model, which in and of itself, as you pointed out, has changed. So we have the Bible with its moral code and an unchanging, infinitely holy God (I'll come back to this point shortly) to help us in this.
Ideally we would be lead by our exemplars - our best and brightest - but the Trump phenomenon (and many others) makes clear how distortions can occur. If Trump is an example of the US's finest minds I will eat my hat. Like most nations, the US has its geniuses but the cream isn't rising to the top. Rather, it's the well-resourced, well-connected and ruthless who are leading the world. Just as there are not always happy endings, the best and brightest don't always have due influence.
Also, note that religion has played a divisive role in what could more accurately be thought of as the Disunited States of America. This is just one more example of how religious texts, not just the Bible, are too ambiguous, too culturally biased, too open to wildly varying interpretations, to be of much moral value. Most of the values espoused in middle eastern religions were borrowed from myths, mystics and thinkers of earlier times anyway. These are generally pretty basic and obvious values - don't kill, steal, swindle or cuckold, be respectful, be grateful.
What we need in morality is not a sprawling mess of edicts and ideas, many contradictory, authored those who believed that germs were evil spirits, which can be interpreted in numerous ways.
What we need is moral clarity and priority. So, for instance, you might have some first order morals such as not killing, stealing or invading, and you might have some exceptions - war, destitution, etc. Then second level morals such as non wastefulness, respect and gratitude, and perhaps add some nuance to them.
If more people upheld such a simple morality as could fit in an executive summary the world would be a completely different place to that which it is today.
-
- Posts: 10339
- Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm
Re: Why has man been described as the scum of the universe?
This appears to me to be an example of a very common mistake - mixing up descriptive laws with prescriptive laws when they are two different things. It happens particularly often when talking about the Theory of Evolution. People often mistakenly think that the descriptions of the various physical and mental characteristics of living things like us that come out of that theory are actually a code of conduct - telling us how we should behave. They don't. If something happens that doesn't fit with a natural law, such as the T of E, then it's the law that's wrong, not the action....we need a stronger moral code to stick to than just what makes sense based on what's happened in the evolution model, which in and of itself, as you pointed out, has changed...
Of course, determining whether something really has violated a natural law, and that therefore the law needs to be changed, can be a challenge. And with all such laws (whether it's the theory of evolution or of gravity) the general principle is that the more verifying instances we've seen for the law, and the more confident we become of the laws descriptive accuracy, the more careful we have to be that we are right to change it. If I see an object floating in front of me I don't immediately abandon the law of gravity. I carefully check my observation first.
- Fairwinds
- Posts: 20
- Joined: September 18th, 2017, 3:33 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: Omar Khayyam
- Location: Falmouth
Re: Re: Why has man been described as the scum of the univer
-
- Posts: 30
- Joined: September 20th, 2017, 3:42 pm
Re: Re: Why has man been described as the scum of the univer
Steve3k7, I would like some clarity on your first paragraph before I respond, though I see what you're saying in the second paragraph. Though I will say that this is specifically the reason why I think some skeptics are really irrational when it comes to God, because it's so easy for skeptics (and as a former extreme skeptic) to see something they don't understand in the Bible and immediately label it as contradictory (re: what Greta was getting at earlier) instead of trying to figure out what's being said in a greater context (not always fun, but there are answers, which is a large part of why the Bible has been around as long as it has).
-
- Posts: 10339
- Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm
Re: Why has man been described as the scum of the universe?
My first paragraph wasn't about anything in the Bible or about God. It was simply a comment on what you said here:
Do correct me if I've misunderstood you, but what you seem to be saying here is that the "Evolution Model" is not a strong enough moral code and we need a stronger one. My simple point was that it is not any kind of moral code at all. It is a descriptive law and you appear to me to be confusing it with prescriptive laws....we need a stronger moral code to stick to than just what makes sense based on what's happened in the evolution model, which in and of itself, as you pointed out, has changed...
As I said, in my experience this is a very common mistake.
Example of a descriptive law: All objects are attracted towards each other.
Example of a prescriptive law: Don't kill people.
They are two completely different things, but we refer to both of them as "laws" or "rules". Calling the Theory of Evolution a moral code makes as much sense as calling the law of Universal Gravitation a moral code.
- LuckyR
- Moderator
- Posts: 7996
- Joined: January 18th, 2015, 1:16 am
Re: Re: Why has man been described as the scum of the univer
Well, because the definition of myth is: a traditional story, especially one concerning the early history of a people or explaining some natural or social phenomenon, and typically involving supernatural beings or event.Speedyj1992 wrote:Okay, I'ma go in order here:
LuckyR I would like to know more about why you are as convinced as you are that the God of the Bible is a myth. Also, if you copy the text in the following parentheses (watch?v=jwoEqj2iv0M) after typing in youtube and then .com/ you will get to a Youtube video I just did on how evil can exist with an infinitely holy God in power. This may seem a tad out of left field, but so many people (myself included for awhile, actually) struggle with this that I'm willing to bet you have as well, and wanted to let you know there are answers (mine is not the only one, but I mention that in the video, too).
I think we are in agreement that gods are supernatural and that origin stories are a large part of religious writings (such as the bible).
Let me put it to you a different way. If I am seeking guidance on how I should behave within my marriage, I could look to an Iron Age text, like the bible, or I could look to a modern book in the relationship section of the bookstore. Either is acceptable, though only one acknowledges a role for legal and justfiable divorce. Name another area of modern life where Iron Age beliefs are preferable to modern practices. How about medicine? Food storage? The penal system?
-
- Posts: 30
- Joined: September 20th, 2017, 3:42 pm
Re: Re: Why has man been described as the scum of the univer
LuckyR the connotation of the word "myth" is very much that of fiction or doubted reality - your definition is better than how most people would define it, but not how it's traditionally used in my experience. Regarding divorce and marriage, I will say also that this is a personal topic for me because my parents are divorced, and while I won't get into that too much, let's just say I think marriage is more complicated and powerful than many people make it out to be. Oh, and regarding an area of modern life where Iron Age beliefs are preferable to modern practices is a debate that is so big and controversial that it deserves its own thread. If you read the Bible front to back carefully and pay attention to how it's written particularly in the New Testament, it's clear that life believing in God means being good citizens who respect governmental authorities. I only bring that up because, though the Bible is an "Iron Age" text, it's meant to have timeless application, even if there's discernment that needs to be made regarding what someone's really saying in what context and to what audience.
- LuckyR
- Moderator
- Posts: 7996
- Joined: January 18th, 2015, 1:16 am
Re: Re: Why has man been described as the scum of the univer
Oh you flatter me, that wasn't MY definition of myth, that was the first thing that popped up when I Googled "myth definition". My point about divorce is that plenty of folks who follow the bible are divorced, which specifically forbids it except in the case of widowhood (which really isn't a divorce, obviously). So either bible followers aren't really following it, or they are cherrypicking which passages to follow or they feel that the bible is a source of inspiration and general guidance but not something to be taken literally in the Modern Age. Any or all of that is acceptable, just be honest about it and stop saying (and I am not speaking to you specifically here, rather garden variety Christians) that you follow the bible literally.Speedyj1992 wrote:LuckyR the connotation of the word "myth" is very much that of fiction or doubted reality - your definition is better than how most people would define it, but not how it's traditionally used in my experience. Regarding divorce and marriage, I will say also that this is a personal topic for me because my parents are divorced, and while I won't get into that too much, let's just say I think marriage is more complicated and powerful than many people make it out to be. Oh, and regarding an area of modern life where Iron Age beliefs are preferable to modern practices is a debate that is so big and controversial that it deserves its own thread. If you read the Bible front to back carefully and pay attention to how it's written particularly in the New Testament, it's clear that life believing in God means being good citizens who respect governmental authorities. I only bring that up because, though the Bible is an "Iron Age" text, it's meant to have timeless application, even if there's discernment that needs to be made regarding what someone's really saying in what context and to what audience.
And just as Homer's writings are read to this day as literature, most people prefer Modern literature. You are free to use Ancient writings to guide you in your life, though many would prefer more up to date opinions and advice.
-
- Posts: 30
- Joined: September 20th, 2017, 3:42 pm
Re: Re: Why has man been described as the scum of the univer
Also, I want to make it clear, I don't reject "more up to date opinions and advice", and neither do many Christians, so-called and actual. We just acknowledge that there are times when certain modern pieces of advice go against what we hold to be fundamentally true as set out by God, but that doesn't mean reject everything modern. This is a big point of debate, depending on exactly what you're referring to here, so let's try and focus on the first paragraph, unless you want to start another thread (which I'm all for, I'd just rather compartmentalize so we don't get off-track).
- LuckyR
- Moderator
- Posts: 7996
- Joined: January 18th, 2015, 1:16 am
Re: Re: Why has man been described as the scum of the univer
Yeah, no rational person expects anyone to follow any rules perfectly. What bothers me and a lot of others, is that religious folk are quick to point out that they themselves are imperfect and do many wrong things yet are the Chosen Few. Whereas they have no qualms about criticizing those who disagree with their dogma, as blasphemers and worse. So basically I can violate the tenets I have chosen to follow and still be a good guy but you're going straight to hell for violating other tenets of my dogma (that you don't even believe in). Huh?Speedyj1992 wrote:I did say it's how most people define it, and I'm not surprised that was the dictionary definition. Yes, there are plenty of people who follow the Bible (or at least claim to) who are divorced, but there are people who follow the Bible who commit other sins, and no sin is worse than any other. The whole point of the Bible is that we fall short and need God - just because we get saved doesn't mean that we stop sinning altogether while we live our lives. Yes, you are right that there are believers, some more genuine than others, who will ignore certain sins (divorce sadly included) listed in the Bible willingly, and who don't have a very healthy view of the Bible being inspired. I'm trying to do my part to reach people, but to a certain degree, and I think I said this in the other thread we're conversing on, just because you say you're a car and sit in the garage overnight doesn't make you a car. There needs to be something more fundamental there, and belief in Christ should really fundamentally affect how you live your life and approach literally everything, but we will always fall short and still do things that are considered sinful. We just need to understand that we have forgiveness, one that's NOT about complacency (i.e. continually doing what you know is right just because you know you'll be forgiven). I agree that these things are a huge plague, and it grieves me - divorce, people saying they follow the Bible but not actually doing so for whatever selfish reasons people have is just frustrating.
Also, I want to make it clear, I don't reject "more up to date opinions and advice", and neither do many Christians, so-called and actual. We just acknowledge that there are times when certain modern pieces of advice go against what we hold to be fundamentally true as set out by God, but that doesn't mean reject everything modern. This is a big point of debate, depending on exactly what you're referring to here, so let's try and focus on the first paragraph, unless you want to start another thread (which I'm all for, I'd just rather compartmentalize so we don't get off-track).
- Sy Borg
- Site Admin
- Posts: 15155
- Joined: December 16th, 2013, 9:05 pm
Re: Re: Why has man been described as the scum of the univer
Do you "acknowledge" or do you believe? Pretty well anything can be supported or condemned based of the Bible anyway; all one needs is to cherry pick the the parts that resonate with their pre-existing worldview and tendencies. Belief in religious texts is not miles unlike computer dating in that certain sentiments expressed in a Bible passage or dating profile will resonate with a reader in a receptive state - so then they may embrace that part, and often ignore the less favourable aspects (halo effect).Speedyj1992 wrote:We just acknowledge that there are times when certain modern pieces of advice go against what we hold to be fundamentally true as set out by God, but that doesn't mean reject everything modern. This is a big point of debate, depending on exactly what you're referring to here, so let's try and focus on the first paragraph, unless you want to start another thread (which I'm all for, I'd just rather compartmentalize so we don't get off-track).
Belief in myths is basically a form of self-hypnosis and self-programming used to access placebo effects, reduce fear of death, and in some cases promote mystical experiences. However, going into that process with one's eyes open need not preclude the positive placebo (and other) effects.
By the same token we can become fully involved with movies without "believing", rather we suspend belief like a meditator imagining they are made from light. Of course, they know they are made from goo, skin and bone but they can dive into the fantasy of being a "light being" for positive effects, sometimes even mystical experiences. Ditto, people believe whatever they want based on the morass of convoluted and contradictory ideas in Abrahamic texts if that's what works for them.
All sorts of remarkable things may be true in reality but we simply don't know , so different people have different ways of dealing with their existential uncertainty. None of this strikes me as "scumlike" IMO, just people trying to work through the riddles of life in their own ways.
-
- Posts: 10339
- Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm
Re: Why has man been described as the scum of the universe?
I suspect what you're driving at here is the old saying:I see what you're saying about descriptive vs. perscriptive law. My follow-up question, I suppose, is where do the prescriptive laws come from? Us? If your belief is that we are living out the DEM (a certain amount of descriptive laws, if you will), then it would follow that those give rise to the prescriptive law. All I'm doing is taking your point about morals back to the source, and we simply have different models for the source that gives way to our moral values.
You can't get an "ought" from an "is".
It's a classic discussion point. Another way of putting it would that you can't get a prescription from a description.
2024 Philosophy Books of the Month
2023 Philosophy Books of the Month
Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul
by Mitzi Perdue
February 2023
Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness
by Chet Shupe
March 2023