Mantus

Strange Famous, please stop derailing this thread. I'm more than happy to discuss your view on science in the philosophy forum but we are dealing with a very real social and political issue here: knowledge being obfuscated by religious organizations; dogma being passed as science; and why our society is willing to allow such behavior.

This is equivalent to scientist walking into a religious gathering and claiming that evolution disproves the existence of God. We don't see biology teachers demanding that natural selection get equal time with Genesis at the pulpit.

In many way I view the Creationist movement behavior as people literally closing their eyes and rejecting knowledge and understanding of our world. I find this very disturbing.

Strange Famous

But evolution is not a fact, it is a theory.

The true arrogance being displayed is those who state - with straight faces even - that the theory they believe in should be taught and no other rival theory.

I repeat, there are very well thought out and argued theories suggesting that extra terrestial beings have assisted the process of human development. These stories are supported by folk history and mythology. They should be taught alongside the view of the a 6000 year earth, alongside the view that the earth is an accident of chaos.

You are so entrenched in your close minded view that you cannot even see what you propose for what it is. Evolution as an existing thing is generally agreed upon. Evolution as a theory of the development of plant and animal life on earth, unaided by anything else - is a very long way from being accepted.

Science itself is dogmatic, error strewn, pitiful... it is one lense through which the world can be viewed and explained, and it is a rather poor one. I have already clearly shown the failure of science to ever see beyond its own paradigm and the limitations of its own knowledge.

You can give a million examples - from ghost sightings, to the okapi (when African villagers reportered the animal, "science" declated it couldnt exist and must be a myth. What those people had clearly seen was discounted because "science" had not seen it - so by the rules of science the only possible answer is that most Africans are superstitious children who cannot tell the difference between an animal and a myth. The okapi only existed once it was discovered by the western scientists. I can give many examples of the blindness and arrogance of science... I hope that, while are children have an understanding of it, they also shall be taught of its immense weakness.

__________________
"Do not tell lies, and do not do what you hate,
for all things are plain in the sight of Heaven. For nothing
hidden will not become manifest, and nothing covered will remain
without being uncovered."

The Gospel of Thomas

Stare At The Sun

You can't get higher than a theory in science. "Laws" as such do not exist. Remember that whole "Theory of Gravity" thing? Based on evidence, just like evolution.

Teach religion in religion class, science in science class. It's just that simple. Creationism has no evidence, therefore, there is no reason to believe in it, much less teach it in a classroom.

No there are not. The fictional story of "Stargate", and the character Dr. Daniel Jackson are just that, fictional. Again, no evidence, no reason to believe.

Basically what you are saying is that "evolution occurs in small steps". As that is patently obvious. However, why do you not understand that all of those small steps over time add up to evolution on a large scale?

Maybe to religious persons, but highly educated persons, and countries have a very high acceptance of evolution. Oh, and 99% of the scientific community supports it. Not a very long way away.

Science is pitiful? You have clearly shown nothing. Science constantly overcomes its own limitations. Otherwise our technology would have never progressed. Just as a quick example, there is a 17 mile long atom smashing machine that is attempting to solve the origins of the universe. If that is not expanding our limitations of knowledge, I don't know what is.

When you provide evidence, science listens. When you provide research in peer reviewed journals, science listens.

You bash science, and attempt to undermine it. However, I'd love to see you go a day without it. Science has done more to improve the human condition in a single year then religion has ever done. Creationism and those who preach it give nothing to this world, they only hold science back.

You can keep your ghost-sighting, all knowing deity worshiping ideas to yourself. Me and most of the rest of the people on this forum will continue to be logical people that don't believe in a big magic man in the sky.

Charlatan

Nobody will dispute this. But a scientific theory is not just someone's whimsy. It does not exist in a vacuum. It has to be peer reviewed. Tested. Repeated.

We have still not full explained Gravity but there are number of Theories that explain how it works. Isaac Newton had one and it was improved upon by Einstein. Theories changes as more information is discovered through observation and experimentation. The key being that each new Theory brings us to a better understanding of the mechanics of our Universe.

Evolution too is a Theory like this. It has been postulated and tested and, in my opinion, is the best explanation we have.

I suppose one could postulate and support the Creationist point of view on things but when it comes down to it, it requires Faith. Not observation. Faith. It is a belief in an intangible. I am can imagine a scenario in which I would come to believe a Creationist vision of the world but it would involve something like a signature on the fijords of Norway (i.e. something tangible).

__________________
"My hands are on fire. Hands are on fire. Ain't got no more time for all you charlatans and liars."
- Old Man Luedecke

Raghnar -ITA-

Tell me Rival THEORY of evolution.
Not Beliefs, THEORY.

I dont' understand why, evenif you're saying that science is currupted pitiful and all sort of things, evenif you're saying that Creationism, extraterrestial...etc... are NOT science, you wanna teach alongside evolution in the Science class. Is an oximoron!!

Creationism is not a Theory, Aliens enslaving humans and so on are not scientifics Theories, they are only beliefs.
And so must teached in the class that teaches beliefs, not in the ones that teaches scientific theories. Creationism must be teached in the religion class, alongside Christ miracles and religious dogmas, things that surely can be accepted but absoluty NOT by the scientific point of view, not in the class where scientific point of view is teached.

Science SURELY is partial, It's born to be that way: considering one step per time little part of what we call reality (and what is the reality itself can be said a LOT of things). There are many things that for now, maybe forever, science cannot explain.
But Science is made for, step by step, fully understand and use and manipulate the things that it can explain, for the beautiful and the useful that can be made with scientific knowledge.

So is perfectly reasonable that someone beliefs in things that science is not yet understood, is not perfectly reasonable to pretend that this beliefs can be accepted as scientific theories and teached alongside them.

__________________
English N00b - Please help if you have time and correct my errors

Baraka_Guru

Just a clarification: a theory contains a number of facts and hypotheses.

Within the theory of evolution, there are a good number of facts that have been uncovered over the years, many of which haven't been disproven and likely never will, as they seem to be a part of the "universal unchanging truth" you seem to value.

In your language, the facts about evolution are bits of knowledge of "God's universe" both on the level of microcosm and in the wider scheme of things.

Do you know how relatively easy it is to study the evolutionary mechanisms of plants and insects?

__________________
Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing?
—Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön

Humankind cannot bear very much reality.
—From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot

Mantus

Strange Famous. I do appreciate providing us with an example of how people on the other side might view things. The viewpoint you present is very enlightening.

I encourage people in this thread to stand back and respond to SF's comment from a macro-cultural standpoint rather than trying to educate him personally on basic entry level science. Thank you!

roachboy

again, it's the case tht darwinian evolution is a theory, but it's a theory that functions as explanatory within certain rules---so within a social & cognitive environment defined by interaction with a genre of thinking. creationism simply does not function as a scientific explanation of fuck all. but it also doesn't and can't operate by the same rules concerning evidence, fit between explanation and evidence, etc. it just doesn't. intelligent design was an attempt to adapt creationism to a more scientific type of explanation & it's a pretty dismal failure.

that said, it is simply not the case that darwinian evolution is not without its problems. for example, the underlying problem that darwin confronted in assembling the narrative followed from the nature of classifications--genus species etc--which posited each bio-system as a discrete thing or object. the question was how to account for one type of object giving way to another in the context of a developmental history that was understood as single. that there'd be a single history is a residuum of christianity--why should that be the case? that biological systems are comprehensible as types of objects (so that the transformation of one type to another becomes a permuation question really, in the way that one could make a table into a hat by introducing elements of hat into a set of features table and eliminating features of table to accomodate them)...alot of recent work in dynamical systems theory has pushed thinking about biological systems pretty far away from the paradigm of objects and in doing that has opened up space for thinking biological evolution in quite different terms than did darwin. it enables an abandonment of the assumption that the history of biological evolution is single, and has undermined the sense of separateness system/environment and has made the timeline required to explain evolution into something quite different. but it also pushes the whole way of thinking of biological systems even further away from the residual christianity that informs what darwin was thinking in the middle of the 19th century--so it'd be even more unacceptable for creationists than the relatively positivist model of evolution that darwin outlined.

the point is that evolution as darwin outlined it is a theory, tied to particular philosophical assumptions and certain ambient socio-cultural factors which are written directly into the theory itself.
but the conclusion is not therefore science is bunk--the conclusion is that scientific theories are heuristics that guide particular types of investigation, that science is really a form of practical philosophy that requires critical engagement.

there's more, but i gotta go.

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

Baraka_Guru

roachboy's last couple of posts are well worth reading. They do well to summarize the inherent challenges with this issue. I don't think anybody said that the theory of evolution is a solution that's cut & dried and in the bag. They're still working on it, as they are working on other areas of scientific endeavour. Consider the work also being done on the atomic level and how they're still expanding and adding to the basis of Newtonian physics.

I think what is of most concern on a practical level is how we approach science on the level of basic education. A basic education should teach actual knowledge, even if it's incomplete and still being figured out. This essentially excludes Creationism from a scientific classroom, well, because there aren't any facts that support it, and then you have Creationists who don't engage in the scientific method and so don't jump through the same hoops the members of the scientific community do before their work is accepted as worthy of study and education.

I don't see how this is even an issue. In my mind it would be like introducing the practices of witchcraft as viable working alternatives to the theories we have in psychology, and then doing so also with alchemy in chemistry, astrology and the geocentric model of the universe in astronomy, preformationism in biology, flat- and hollow-earth theories in geography, humoralism in medicine, and numerology in mathematics.

Knowledge is knowledge. Faith is faith. Let's keep things straight.

__________________
Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing?
—Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön

Humankind cannot bear very much reality.
—From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot

Strange Famous

And yet the majority of people DO believe in God

__________________
"Do not tell lies, and do not do what you hate,
for all things are plain in the sight of Heaven. For nothing
hidden will not become manifest, and nothing covered will remain
without being uncovered."

The Gospel of Thomas

Willravel

Most people that don't support Creationsim being taught in schools or in museums believe in god. Most people that understand an know evolution to be real believe in god.

Strange Famous

I repeat - the THEORY of evolution - ie, the way species can change to adapt to their environment and pass these characteristics on by these adaptions making them more successful - is supported by some evidence and should be taught

The RELIGION of evolution - from men who believe God is a "magic man in the sky" and that all humanity can be linked to single cell pond slime by a series of millions of random chances and pure unthinking chaos... is one explanation of many as to what the world is about and who we are. It is one I dont dind convincing in the slightest

_

It is entirely appropriate to teach religious views in schools and museums - Christian, Muslim, Hindu, Sikh, and every other major religion. Each of these religions has a story about creation that is important for understanding human culture. These theories should not be taught as facts, but as idea's and beliefs - just as the accidental universe, or human development created by ET are beliefs can be taught as a belief. It is not appropriate to tell children we know what the soul is, what the origin of humanity is, the universe - these things cannot be taught as facts because they are not known as facts.

The theory of evolution as a science - as a little theory about how the rhino grew a horn or something - is rather a small thing compared to what we think about creation.

We see the true colours of the average atheist in threads like this - look how patronising Mantus is to me, look how anyone who believes in God is a moron, a simpleton, a superstitious idiot to these elitists.

They are out of touch with what the people believe, and they of course cannot see that their own blind faith in the sum of human knowlede is so misguided. How incredible to look at human history and yet decide that humanity today knows all the answers - and the things we cannot test with our science (ghosts, God, okapi's) are all just children's fairy tales.

And hark at this guy Mantus talking to me:

Patronising people like that might work in the coffee shop while you and your fellow "intellectuals" deride (behind their backs) anyone who owns a televiion or buys non fair trade chocolate bars - but I can go the distance with anyone on this board in an argument!

__________________
"Do not tell lies, and do not do what you hate,
for all things are plain in the sight of Heaven. For nothing
hidden will not become manifest, and nothing covered will remain
without being uncovered."

The Gospel of Thomas

The_Dunedan

Ummm....not when you have no clue what you're talking about, you can't. And, as usual, you don't. Just like in the "Guns for bears" thread, just like in the "Is MMA A Sport" thread, and just like in your "I'm not sexist, but that shit a'int fer wimmin!" thread. Your version of "going the distance" appears to consist of being whomped on, beaten to a pulp, carried out of the ring unconcsious, and then hauling yourself upright to declare victory long after the actual winner has departed.

Ballocks. I'm a theist (Christian, even!), and I haven't felt persecuted or patronised to, but I also know what I'm talking about when it comes to evolutionary theory and the scientific method. If you're beginning to sense a pattern, you might want to meditate upon it.

Two points:
1: You are creating a false dichotomy. There is no difference between the two scenarios you posit except time scale. The observable process of evolution, which you acknowledge in your first paragraph, -leads to- the longer-term processes and changes you describe in your second paragraph. They are the same process, indivisible, with the only difference between the two being that the second scenario typically takes place over much longer periods of time.

2: The theory of evolution is the only one, of all the various hyptheses you present, which is supported by observable evidence. These is no evidence, zero, nada, nothing...to support the idea that humans (or any other form of life with the possible exception of viruses; some interesting work being done here in re comet dust) have any extraterrestrial origin. Therefore, it is the only one which belongs in any type of science classroom.

MSD

You are committing the simple, tempting fallacy of equating the scientific definition of theory with the vernacular. The components of theory in science are laid out in prose, while a law is written as an equation or series or equations. You are using the layman's definition of "theory," which is the equivalent of a scientific hypothesis. This is one of the fundamental disconnects between general understanding of science and understanding by scientists.

Similarly, responsible scientists are loath to describe something as "impossible" because one thing that scientific inquiry has found over the years is that such a statement is arrogant due to the incompleteness of human knowledge and carries with it a possibility, no matter how slight, of losing the trust of those who hear such a statement and subsequently find it proven wrong.

Darwinian evolution is just a theory, but it is the only theory that is supported by all of the verified and peer-reviewed evidence. Gravitation is just a theory, and it needs some revision. On large scales, massive bodies appear to exert an attractive force on all other massive bodies proportional to their mass, and inversely proportional to the square of distance between the objects. Further study indicates that this force is not carried over distance in the same way that electromagnetic force is, but rather manifests as a distortion in spacetime.

This does not work on a quantum scale, therefore it needs refinement. Rather than stubbornly cling to an outdated theory or shrug their shoulders and give up, scientists from around the world have come together and built an unbelievably complex machine to help us get to the bottom of it.
It is not arrogant to assert that the most accurate theory is the one that should be taught as such. It is upsetting to the rational mind that a theory (and please remember that we're using the scientific definition of the word) with hundreds of years of research having gone into refining and developing it should be taught as equal to a theory that is nonfalsifiable simply because proponents of that rival theory shout louder and claim that their truth lies in a very popular old book.

Evolution as an existing thing and evolution as a mechanism through which chance brought about life of increasing complexity over a period of billions of years are one and the same. The fossil record will always be incomplete simply due to the relative rarity of living things having died in an environment conductive to fossil formation, but what we do have is enough that we can understand the evolution of organisms to a degree of accuracy sufficient that when fossils are found that fit into gaps, they are similar if not identical to what we have predicted.

Whether life or evolution were aided by an outside force is difficult to determine, and ultimately an unnecessary question. Evolution does not have gaping holes in the theory that require use to speculate on the interference of outside forces. If you wish to believe that the mutations that brought about new traits were divinely manufactured rather than the product of environmental factors or the normal mutation rate of genetic material is your prerogative. It does not change the fact that genetic drift causes variations in allele frequency and gene expression in ways that may be beneficial or detrimental to an organism's probability of producing viable offspring.
It saddens me to see science anthropomorphized and dragged through the mud. Science is a process, nothing more, nothing less. To say that it is dogmatic and pitiful is not more meaningful than to claim the same of baking, welding, or swimming. By its nature, it seeks empirically and evidentially verifiable truth. These aspects make it self-correcting. There are certainly errors in data and theories produced by science, as shown above in my bit on gravity, but it is driven by a desire to gain knowledge. Like any process, it is hindered by human imperfections from time to time, but these problems will be resolved as further evidence clarifies disputes and questions.

To put it simply, science is not a shadowy cabal of sinister men in white labcoats deciding the future of theory and research. At its core it is a loose network of educated individuals in a distributed but collective quest for knowledge. To gain approval for your work, you must present verifiable evidence to those specialized in critical thinking.
At what point, or during what era, do you feel that evolution's explanation of where we came from breaks down? Do you accept that we evolved from earlier primates? Where do you feel that current theory is unclear enough that it is inadequate to explain our origins?
I would go even farther than calling it appropriate and say that it's fundamental to human interaction and understanding to be taught in a factual, unbiased way about as many of the world's religions and cultures as is possible. In addition to my opinion that accumulation of knowledge for its own sake is a virtue, I sincerely believe that learning about other cultures and religions fosters tolerance and acceptance and will serve to reduce conflict. If we could invest the money spent on war into furthering human knowledge, we'd be a lot better off, and in the words of astronomer John Dobson, "War is a terrible waste of people."
Can you clarify this? I'm not quite sure what your point is.
I have gone to great lengths to ensure that I am not engaging in ad hominem or straw man arguments in this thread. I would hope that anyone who sincerely cares about the position they are arguing would think to do the same. I have done both in the past and they are entirely counterproductive. You are engaging in the same fallacies by calling it "the true colors of the average atheist," though.
If any scientist believed that we knew all the answers, he would cease to work toward the pursuit of knowledge. While it sometimes results in errantly discounting something like the okapi that does exist, there is nothing wrong with demanding evidence to support claims. Extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence, and it is fair to dismiss that argument which is made without evidence, without evidence. It would benefit everyone to acknowledge that certain issues are matters of faith and some are matters of science. The only rational place to put the dividing line is between which hypotheses can be falsified and which cannot.
Arguing and debating are great. Either you come out of it stronger or you learn something new.

Strange Famous

Evolution offers - for example - absolutely no explanation of the soul. It is not a complete theory of humankind at all.

__________________
"Do not tell lies, and do not do what you hate,
for all things are plain in the sight of Heaven. For nothing
hidden will not become manifest, and nothing covered will remain
without being uncovered."

The Gospel of Thomas

Willravel

Science doesn't cover things for which there are no evidence. There's no evidence for the existence of a soul, therefore science doesn't have anything to say on the matter.

Well, that's not true. Anthropology, sociology and psychology can all talk about the idea of the soul in great detail. The idea of the soul exists, just not the soul itself.

Baraka_Guru

Most science-related musing on the soul were/are the realm of philosophy—consider Descartes' mind/body problem.

__________________
Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing?
—Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön

Humankind cannot bear very much reality.
—From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot

roachboy

i'm not sure what you're on about regarding "the soul"---there's alot of work in cognitive science & cognitive linguistics (for example) on the biological bases of mind (the subject, questions of the nature of subjectivity, etc.)---psychology is kinda about this cluster of questions.
the discourse of the soul might not be used, but the same kind of areas are objects of investigation from all kinds of angles.

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

Baraka_Guru

Yeah, but then we get different levels of the sciences. When you consider the "hard sciences," you get the problem of not being able to locate the soul. I mean, where is it? Where do you keep yours, roachboy?

__________________
Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing?
—Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön

Humankind cannot bear very much reality.
—From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot

roachboy

in a box under my bed. every few days i feed it some kibbles.


anything that interrogates the nature of subjectivity is plumbing the space that the soul once occupied.

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

Strange Famous

I see evidence of the existence of the human soul every second I am awake. Again - you state your own view as if it is a fact. I wonder what gives you the authrity to make declarations such as:

"The idea of the soul exists, just not the soul itself."

To say "I dont believe in God" is fine, but you say "God factually does not exist" - how are you so sure?

__________________
"Do not tell lies, and do not do what you hate,
for all things are plain in the sight of Heaven. For nothing
hidden will not become manifest, and nothing covered will remain
without being uncovered."

The Gospel of Thomas

Stare At The Sun

There is no evidence of a soul. None. You need to understand what "evidence" means.

He would not say "god factually does not exist". Rather, he would say "There is no evidence for the existence of god, therefore, there is no reason to believe in the existence of god."

There is no evidence for "God", Zeus, or any other deity. There is just as much evidence for the flying spaghetti monster as there is for god.

Strange Famous

I think you must accept that words do not necessarily mean what you alone want them to mean - but have generally accepted meanings.

"Evidence" does not mean "something a guy who names himself stare at the sun believes is tested by the criteria he personally believes to be the only valid ones"

I feel emotions - which no animal does. By this I see evidence of the soul

I see works of art - which no animal can create. By this I see evidence of the soul

I see beauty - which no animal can comprehen. By ths I see evidence of the soul.

This could go on and on but I've made the point clearly enough.

__________________
"Do not tell lies, and do not do what you hate,
for all things are plain in the sight of Heaven. For nothing
hidden will not become manifest, and nothing covered will remain
without being uncovered."

The Gospel of Thomas

Baraka_Guru

You don't seem to understand animals. By the first half of your claim, this would mean that animals do indeed show evidence of having a soul. You merely need to observe canine behaviour enough to know that animals have emotions.

Again, you don't seem to understand animals. Do they have souls as well, then?

There's this:
Match the painting with the artist: gorilla, elephant, child, real artist

And this:

__________________
Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing?
—Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön

Humankind cannot bear very much reality.
—From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot

Strange Famous

human beings are not animals. Animals are incapable of feeing.

__________________
"Do not tell lies, and do not do what you hate,
for all things are plain in the sight of Heaven. For nothing
hidden will not become manifest, and nothing covered will remain
without being uncovered."

The Gospel of Thomas

Baraka_Guru

You know that humans are mammals, right? And that we share over 95% of the same DNA as chimpanzees? Are you going to say the 5% difference is "human stuff" that "puts us out of the animal kingdom completely"?

And if (non-human) animals are incapable of feeling, then why are there laws against animal cruelty? And why does my dog go absolutely berserk when my SO comes home from work? Why does she seem dejected when my SO is at work? And what of animal behaviorists? Do they not exist as well?

Oh, then there's this:

__________________
Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing?
—Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön

Humankind cannot bear very much reality.
—From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot

Strange Famous

No, I am not saying that "our DNA" is the essential difference between humans and monkeys

I am saying that our soul is the essential difference

Appying human characteristics to animals (like pet owners who think their pets love them as a child would, rather than simply identify with them as a part of a pack for example) is an understandable error, but an error none the less.]

That fact that some elephants investigate some bones they find does not mean that they are capable of feeling sorrow, or in fact capable of anything other than brute animal instincts of - eat, avoid danger, mate, defend territory...

__________________
"Do not tell lies, and do not do what you hate,
for all things are plain in the sight of Heaven. For nothing
hidden will not become manifest, and nothing covered will remain
without being uncovered."

The Gospel of Thomas

roachboy

well, strange, that's all lovely. i'm particularly interested in your 18th century theory of art as expressive of some Spirit. it seems a bit at cross purposes with a materialist viewpoint, but hey no matter (literally).

when you say that you feel emotions & animals dont...all you're saying is that you have a linguistic capability which is knit into your perceptual apparatus in a fundamental way that enables you to name certain affect clusters as emotions and which also gives you the possibility of making self-referential statements.
so because we operate in a linguistically-mediated fashion, you can name (and so have) emotions (say) and because you can make recursive statements can tell others you have x or y emotion and imagine that, in the doing, some sense of what you're talking about transmits (even though it probably doesn't except in the most general sense)

you also say that your viewpoint is limited by that capability to the extent that it recognizes no other systems of communication as communication at all. this is of a piece with another problem: for you your experience is an experience; in attempting to understand other types of animals, your experience is limited to observation and inferences. so from a viewpoint shaped and limited by a specifically human relation to language--which is perhaps the central defining characteristic of being-human, the routing of dynamical system performances through the medium of language--you conclude that only humans feel. but that's a circle. all it does in the last analysis (engels--gotta love him) is say that you are human and so is your viewpoint.

this is not to say that therefore every other type of biosystem feels in the way humans would understand it.
but there are obviously any number of scales and any number of modes of performing imbrication with environments.
fact is that neither you nor anyone else knows what if any gradation there is at the level of experience, and the contents of experience (which would obviously include affect or emotion) may or may not link us to other biological systems.
and your way of thinking couldn't get you further away from even starting to get there because it's predicated on some quaint notions of being-human which render it the center of all creation. so some god enters the picture to explain that specialness that you create by repeating limitations of viewpoint as if they were the opposite of limitations.

because we seem to like categories and because in english (in particular) nouns which name features in the world tend to classify by abstract criteria (a mountain is a mountain because of its general shape--there are other ways of thinking space--in terms of pathways, say---that would never get you to an abstract notion of mountainness. there's a huge historical linguistics area in this kind of divergence, which points to linkages between overall cultural rationalities and the characteristics of languages as they develop. a kinda dialectic i suppose) and because we like classification systems, we combine the two (or did across the 18th century in particular) into these neat little grids that talk about biological systems as if they were objects in the world and by talking about them as objects impute distinctions (between object and environment, say, or between objects) that are mostly functions of the nouns we use. it's functional to think and talk that way in certain contexts, including our own (the circle that links rationality to expression back to rationality) but that doesn't mean the classifications are accurate in the sense that they may not enable a coherent understanding of what is so classified (particularly once you try to move beyond instrumental relations---the ways a community uses a particular species, say...)

it all gets quite complicated, running down this pathway, because it gums up some very basic assumptions about being-in-the-world as you and i tend to think of it because of the fact that we're embedded in a particular linguistic community.

i suppose in the end one chooses the circular relation to being that is most aesthetically amusing.
so if its flattering to assume that the advantages and limitations (in equal measure seemingly) that follow from being-embedded in a linguistic community (which is a condensed expression of a social history of being-in-the-world) necessarily imply the existence of some god which explains its specialness (an idea that follows mostly from the fact that you occupy such a position, and so) then who am i get in the way of this happy-place?

it's not necessary to move from there to quibbles over whether the god character exists or not--in such a debate the question is not the logic that would get one person to that place and another to a different one---the debate is really (again) about the framework within which debate can then happen. which criteria count, which do not.
suffice it to say that for the most part i do not see the existence of some god as required to explain much of anything.
i don't exclude the possibility that there might be such a thing--but i do think that if there is such a thing, neither you nor i know anything about it. so "god" is just another name.
but have fun with it.
millions do.

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

Baraka_Guru

Strange, if you say we have souls, then why don't animals have them? Are they not living beings bound to this earth as well? What is a soul exactly?

And I'm not sure what human characteristics you speak of. All I know is that animals clearly demonstrate behavioural patterns and emotional qualities. They aren't on the same level or of the same patterns as humans, but they are there nonetheless. You continue to demonstrate how little you know about animals, both human and non-human. Maybe this has to do with what roachboy posted before me.

You don't seem to want to accept the fact that humans are a part of the animal kingdom. I'm not sure where we can go from here.

__________________
Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing?
—Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön

Humankind cannot bear very much reality.
—From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot

KellyC

I usually don't jump in debate threads that are way out of my league, but I'd like to hear from you about this, Strange: Do you think feral people have souls? Or how about 'dem cavemen hunter-gatherer folks....you know, just before civilization?

__________________
Him: Ok, I have to ask, what do you believe?
Me: Shit happens.

Raghnar -ITA-

Tha Strange Famous talking is the evidence that talking without considering any evidence, every opinion can be elevated to reasonable fact.
Nothing to blame: that was the error of many philosophers, but in the 21° century maybe you should consider to study a little more what is an evidence and what are the basis of the modern logic and dialectics.

In the 21° century you CAN'T TELL that there are Evidence of a Human (and only human) Soul. Because, whatever you define "Soul", there are Evidence of that presence also in Animals. That is the de Cartes argument, 500 years old and stinks like a rotting corps. I know that is very famous point of view, but is completly in conflict with what we know.

Science don't tell that "There isn't a Soul because there is no evidence" or "There is no evidence for the existence of god, therefore, there is no reason to believe in the existence of god.".
Science tell that "There is no evidence for the existence of god" so is out of my buisness. I cannot state anything about that and I don't really care.

You wanna belive in god and soul and other stuff? Science got nothing to do, not even in negating it! In fact Science start with the assumption "Etsi Deus non Daretur" (but is a more complicated matter), in little words it state only that God, Soul, Ghost and all META-Physical (in Greek means beyond-Physics! How can Physics tell stuff about things that are beyond it?!) stuff doesn't systematically interfere with experiments and natural measures.

You are fighting a your PERSONAL idea of science

In this I completly agree. You don't have religion classes where you live?


We know what is a certain definition of a Soul, and so we can scientifically talk about it in a phsicological or antropological point of view. Science cannot surely talk about Soul in a religion point of view as "the thing that remain when you die". He cannot even state it doesn't exist: is not a Science's buisness, is not what can be studied with the scientific method.
We know about the origin of humanity and the universe following a huge amounts of facts and tailoring theory upon them. The only way that humanity has been able to tailor a theory that fit all the facts collected in centuries about the origin of species is the theory of evolutions, the only way that humanity has been able to tailor a theory that fit all the facts collected about the origin of the universe is the Theory of the Big Bang.
These are the best explanation we can give at the present state-of-the-art Science, and sorry if it's a small thing...

__________________
English N00b - Please help if you have time and correct my errors

MSD

It is not claimed to be a philosophical or theological theory. It offers an explanation for the biological development of life, and at this point all verified evidence supports the theory. It is entirely open to revision in light of new evidence.
The most famous example would be Koko the gorilla, who has directly expressed emotion toward humans and others, and raised several pet cats, and mourned them when they died.

You are also at odds with primate experts, who have reached a consensus that nonhuman primates feel emotion and are capable of cognition to a much greater degree than had been assumed until recently.
Mama gorilla mourns her dead baby - Science- msnbc.com
"BERLIN - A gorilla at a zoo in the German city of Muenster is refusing to let go of her dead baby's body several days after it died of unknown causes.

Allwetter Zoo spokeswoman Ilona Zuehlke says the 3-month-old male baby died on Saturday but its 11-year-old mother continues to carry its body around. Zuehlke says such behavior is not uncommon to gorillas."

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/17/sc...gewanted=print
"“Fifty years ago, we knew next to nothing about chimpanzees,” said Andrew Whiten, an evolutionary psychologist at the University of St. Andrews in Scotland. “You could not have predicted the richness and complexity of chimp culture that we know now.”

Jane Goodall, a young English woman working in Africa in the 1960s, began changing perceptions. At first, experts disputed her reports of chimps’ using tools and social behavior. The experts especially objected to her references to chimp culture. Just humans, they insisted, had “culture.”

“Jane suffered early rejection by the establishment,” Richard Wrangham, a Harvard anthropologist, said. “Now, the people who say chimpanzees don’t have emotions and culture are the ones rejected.”

The new consensus framed discussions in March at a symposium, “The Mind of the Chimpanzee,” at the Lincoln Park Zoo here. More than 300 primatologists and other scientists reviewed accumulating knowledge of chimps’ cognitive abilities.

After one session, Frans de Waal of Emory University said that as recently as a decade ago there was still no firm consensus on many of the social relationships of chimps. “You don’t hear any debate now,” he said."


"The emotions of caring and mourning have been observed, as in the case of the chimp mother that carried on her back the corpse of her 2-year-old daughter for days after she had died. After fights between two chimps, scientists said, others in the group were seen consoling the loser and acting as mediators to restore peace.

Devyn Carter of Emory described the sympathetic response to a chimp named Knuckles, who was afflicted with cerebral palsy. No fellow chimp was seen to take advantage of his disability. Even the alpha male gently groomed Knuckles."

Willravel

I thought this could be fruitful but it's seeming more and more like going in circles. I think I was being naive.

Strange Famous

All this stuff about apes... it doesnt mean anything

The behaviour of a chimp or a gorilla is to human behaviour what the speech of the parrot is to human language.

They copy certain behaviour because they are rewarded with food or attention. It does not mean anything to them other than an action which is rewarded with food or some other thing from their human masters

__________________
"Do not tell lies, and do not do what you hate,
for all things are plain in the sight of Heaven. For nothing
hidden will not become manifest, and nothing covered will remain
without being uncovered."

The Gospel of Thomas

The_Dunedan

You, my friend, -really- need to read up on some of the research that's been done with Gorillas, Chimpanzees, and Bonobos in regards to sign language. The conclusion of the last 30-odd years of research in this field, with multiple representatives of all three of the above-mentioned species, is that the only reason such "Great Apes" cannot speak at least rudimentary English (hardest language in the world to learn, BTW, with a vocabulary 5x greater than Chinese) is that their vocal cords aren't built for it. Kanzi, one of the most eloquent of such research subjects, had a vocabulary of over 1,000 words last time I checked, and can both construct and deconstruct simple sentences, as well as define words off the cuff.

Do you come into -all- your debates with only your completely unsupported opinions to buttress your arguments, or is it only something you do on TFP?

ring

Strange Famous

There are parrots that can mimic up to 1000 words also, but they cannot "talk".

There is a difference between repitition and understanding.

__________________
"Do not tell lies, and do not do what you hate,
for all things are plain in the sight of Heaven. For nothing
hidden will not become manifest, and nothing covered will remain
without being uncovered."

The Gospel of Thomas

The_Dunedan

Nevermind. I retract my above advice, since you apparently lack either the patience or the necessary skills to read through a single paragraph, let alone those needed to digest even simple anthropological or primatological data and research methods. Please go back and, very slowly, re-read that part about construction and deconstruction of sentences, and providing impromptu definitions. This is not repetition, this is cogent language by any definition recognized in the linguistic or philological fields (ie by people who do this stuff for a living). Unlike parrots, these Great Apes are capable of asking for things, people, and pets by name, and will reject anything other than the person, item, or pet requested, repeating their initial request until the desired item/person/pet is brought to them. Likewise they have been observed asking questions and further probing the answers they are given. Kanzi has been known to carry on remarkably detailed conversations regarding his surroundings and favorite foods, conversations which -he- initiates with his handlers. Koko the Gorilla was known to do the same, and was able to clearly articulate concepts of death and mortality after the death of her first kitten, "All Ball," an event documented in print and on film by the National Geographic Society.

You are quite correct about the difference between repetition and understanding. It appears, however, that you haven't the faintest clue what that difference -is-. As usual, you are talking out of your arse.

MSD

Koko the gorilla has already been mentioned, and N'Kisi the parrot is able to understand sentence structure, syntax, and even abstract concepts like humor.
http://web.archive.org/web/200605190...re/3430481.stm

Here's another one on language in animals.
BBC NEWS | Science/Nature | Animal world's communication kings

Willravel

Strange, you've not read about half this thread. I can't speak for anyone else, but it's getting frustrating and it seems like you're trolling. Are you willing to actually listen to the other side?