SPLIT TOPIC: Churches and Morality in Crown Heights

Well, here's the thing, whether God exists or not -- he's gonna get whacked.... Sorry, it's the nature of things....

Wow, didn't realize that a lack of belief in a God meant vampires were out of bounds as well. How can you not believe in the Count? :joker:

homeowner wrote: Wow, didn't realize that a lack of belief in a God meant vampires were out of bounds as well. How can you not believe in the Count?

When I last watched Sesame Street, the Count seemed to possess magic powers that caused thunder and lightning to happen. If you can convince me that these powers came from evolution or that he is an alien, I may be able to believe in him.

However, if he is merely a run-of- the-mill "undead" vampire, I am afraid that believing in him is inconsistent with my understanding of the basics tenets of my faith.

Attention aspiring atheists: While atheism might not require you to go to church, or read the bible, it does make huge demands that not everyone is cut out for.

MHA-

Got it. Yup, assuming we feel the need to keep putting in the effort, much of humanity is going to keep redefining who or what god is until the end of time.

So far, I haven't heard of a version that works for me.

...but I suppose if the skeptics let the believers completely flexible on the definition of what god is (i.e. "the unknown"), the believers will always be right.

I guess the real question is "Why do the atheists let the believers change both the questions and the answer whenever the prior question is answered?"

....if the believers stopped saying "we don't know what the answer to this yet", would the atheists stop advancing the knowledge base?

We seem to be continuing to advance the knowledge base despite a bunch of folks thinking evolution didn't happen.

Morality is evolutionary? Hmmm.

The evolutionary basis for morality might be completely disgusting

http://io9.com/5723024/the-evolutionary-basis-for-morality-might-be-completely-disgusting

Most humans are grossed out by things like oozing sores or rotten meat, and there might well be an evolutionary basis for staying away from these harmful things. But it might go deeper: that disgust might have created our morality.

Valerie Curtis, a researcher at the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, argues that disgust evolved for the much same reasons that fear did. While our fright will keep us away from huge, scary predators like lions and bears, disgust keeps us away from tinier threats like parasites and harmful bacteria. And disgust is found in all creatures, even the incredibly simple nematode worm, which can recognize and crawl away from potentially deadly bacteria.

Now, all of that seems fairly reasonable and straightforward, but there's a controversial extension to this line of thinking. Curtis explains the theory that the capacity for disgust was at the foundations of our modern conception of morality:

"If I go around leaving poo in your front lawn or spitting in your cups or making nasty smells in public transport or if I go to church in my pajamas, I'm threatening you with my bodily fluids. These are manners, but they're also the precursor of moral behavior. That's at least one of the ways that morality could have evolved in society: simple rules about not getting other people sick with your emanations. If you sit people in a room with bad smells, they punish more severely. Your sense of disgust for people's bad behavior is tied together with your organic system."

It's an interesting idea, although it should be stressed that this doesn't have to be the only source of morality. After all, a societal aversion to acts like murder or theft could develop quite apart from a sense of disgust. But this could be a part of the puzzle, and Curtis argues there's evidence for it in the way certain societies work today:

"Societies with high pathogen risk tend to be societies that have a greater number of religions, they're more close knit, have more socially conservative rules and are more xenophobic. It might be that if you live in a society where you hear a lot about disease, your disgust sensitivity is going to be tuned up higher and as a result, you find that effect across society. It could also be that there are some group selection effects. If one village was really beset by some serious disease problems, would they tend to evolve towards higher disgust settings?"

Of course, as with a lot of ideas in evolutionary psychology, there's a definite danger of taking it too far. Cornell researcher David Pizarro thinks this new research has merit, but is skeptical about some of its applications:

"Even though I do think that the evolutionary approach is the right one to explain the origins of disgust and how it works in life now, I wonder if it can be applied too broadly. It seems unclear to me that you need an evolutionary approach to explain some of the behaviors [discussed]. For instance, avoiding large groups when you know that there's an outbreak of influenza. It seems people would just sort of notice. I don't know that it has to recruit a special system. There are a lot of things like manners that may or may not have anything to do with the avoidance of disease and seem sort of arbitrary."

This stuff is mad interesting. Sort of reminds me of some stuff Nietzsche said in 'The Genealogy of Morals'.

God and Biology (cont'd)

It begs -- or at least requests -- the question, what is the biological basis (or need) for god concepts? And this is a question independent of whether God exists or not. God might come on the scene and announce him/her/it-self, but it is up to Man to decide whether or not this entity is really God, or just a really smart, powerful entity. It is Man who must 'worship' the creator; implicit in God's existence is 'his' expectation of obedience, gratitude, and worship.

Apathy,Chaos & Biological Precedents for Morality

Therefore does it follow that 'disgusting things' prevalent within a social group are signs of an imploding biology? For instance, if it becomes the norm that a 'disgust threshold' will be lower, and people get used to litter, garbage, the lack of hygiene generally, that this is a biological precursor for a society's devolving? Or, if there are high quotients of communicable diseases and death, that this is a signal of a living entity's demise -- and outwardly a sign of some greater environmental concerns? Take for instance algae blooming in our oceans, and widespread coral reef dying, or the mysterious conditions of whale pods washing to shore and refusing to make their way back into the very environment that keeps them alive?

... But we are talking about morality and churches (i.e., God). My last point above did bring it back to a query about the relationship between biology and social pathology -- and collaterally, churches.

Implicitly I was making the point that if there is a biological basis for god concepts, then churches (and other religious institutions) can therefore be deemed the social equivalent of white blood cells, and should serve the purpose of routing out pathos that manifests in our environment (neighborhoods). But, if they do not do that, then the 'immune system' is compromised. Essentially, churches are not doing their job of ensuring biological integrity.

Well, if such is the case, then I say you are wrong. I am the original poster, and if we are talking about morality, religion, and Crown heights, whatever collateral material that is introduced by anyone to make points underneath that theme are relevant.

To, in the stead of this, start maligning how someone makes their points is only relevant if those who moderate say that it is. And where they say, chill, you are disrespectful and flout the rules of civility, then we ought to pay heed to that. Additionally, where attacks against the man are made infinitely, that only further obfuscates the issues being discussed and reveals one's bias against the individual, and not the points they address.

reveals ones bias against the individual, and not the points they address.

i don't know anyone on this message board. i respond only to what they post, AKA "the points they address," and the methods they employ to address them.

Above Knee Amputation

This thread started with a point made that churches provide morality (in Crown Heights and otherwise), and that there was no adequate replacement for churches, and in effect religion in general, to provide an adequate source of the teachings and understandings of morality.

I don't necesarily feel that the conversation is currently "off-topic". After a few days of inactivity in this thread in general, I came across and posted here an essay which theorizes that morality originated as an instincual defense mechanism to protect the human body against disease, i.e., that morality is potentially not something that is taught (and that, consequently, organized religion cannot hold the monopoly on teaching morality).

A little esoteric, perhaps, but I don't see how any of this is off-topic.

I think I was afflicted with the same as MHA and xlizellx this week. (I've never known what it's like to not have my faculties together. Today marks the first day I can actually listen to music in ear. My head was spinning out of control and I think my walking relationship with turtles are over.) I haven't read all the statements from my last post till now - but did want to make apologize to MHA.

#EPICFAIL ... so off

That was short of me and you were addressing that. I didnt consider deeply what you were saying, although for me, that's a point I've researched. I still read my Bible with skeptical glasses as well as details surrounding its creation and completion. I try to make a habit of digging deep and studying, although Im not a "bible brainiac".

BTW, I saw the link yesterday about the guy from Bedstuy. I do pray he will get some quality time with his mother.

Unfortunately HCH,I am afflicted with a condition that makes talking in person not likely (Think Stephen Hawking meets Phantom of the Opera). Speaking through my AVATAR is probably best. It allows more honesty, and less distraction.

I am sorry that you were ill. If you were afflicted with anything similar to what Xlizellx and I had, then I know it was horrible. Do I take from your walking with turtles comment that you were touching a turtle, and fear you got salmonella? It is possible that's what I had. I can tell you, it was the worst bout of food poisoning I have ever had.

As far as the atheist's perspective, it is akin to the scientist's. I think that the issue is one of (to use a fancy word) epistemology, meaning, HOW one ascertains information. Faith as a means of interacting with the Divine is something that a clinical trial can't ascertain (yet. Faith is something else, and to be frank, I envy the faithful their faith.

Lastly, that link to that brother with the golden voice whose life is turning around -- I think both skeptic and believer should watch it. It is certainly moving. It's hard not to see how communing with the Universe in his way helped him. He made a comment about talking with God -- as he understands it -- everyday. It is moving. It is a beautiful moment. That brother has a beautiful spirit. far be it for me to reduce his world view to 1's and 0's and tell him that he's delusional.

Recall 'Crazy' Steve Maynard, the tree branch breaker? Well, I did early this morning watching an episode of Star Trek. Data is having crazy dreams of hungry mouths gnawing away at the members of the crew. He takes a knife and stabs one of them., ultimately injuring someone. As it turns out, he was seeing a creature from another dimension. My point is that maybe Steve's insanity was/is a perceptive state that WE can't see -- so of course he appears crazy. Steve obviously believes he sees something; I will assume such is the case. But where society took action was when his beliefs began to endanger the quality of life of others around him. If Steve saw angels and demons but did nothing about it, his visions would not be a problem. To the extent that they help or hinder his life -- that is the bounty or the burden he must live with. The faithful and their faith, the skeptic and their skepticism, the agnostic and their doubt -- and all of those in between, as long as we build a productive society, then what we believe is inconsequential.

Thanks! : )