5 online now:	AZPaul3, PaulK, Percy (Admin), Phat, Theodoric
Newest Member:	ChatGPT
Post Volume:	Total: 916,916 Year: 4,173/9,624 Month: 1,044/974 Week: 3/368 Day: 3/11 Hour: 0/0

EvC Forum ⇒ Social and Religious Issues ⇒ Social Issues and Creation/Evolution ⇒

The moral implications of evolution, and their discontents.

Thread ▼ Details

Email This Thread

Newer Topic | Older Topic

Author

Topic: The moral implications of evolution, and their discontents.

Fosdick

Suspended Member (Idle past 5530 days)

Posts: 1793

From: Upper Slobovia

Joined: 12-11-2006

Normal Thread Display

Message 9 of 124 (438578)
12-05-2007 11:20 AM

Reply to: Message 4 by bluescat48
12-04-2007 4:29 PM

Morality and bicamerality

bluescat48 writes:

I totally agree. I can't see where one would come up with such nonsense as moral, social or philosophica1 implications having any thing at all to do with evolution.

I also agree, so far as biological evolution goes. But if the evolution of human consciousness is at all biological we'd have to say that morality is an atavism of the primitive bicaremal state of mind (per Julian Jaynes). Simply put, science became the necessary tool for humans to evolve beyond bicamerality in order to gain our advanced form of consciousness.

”HM

This message is a reply to:
	Message 4 by bluescat48, posted 12-04-2007 4:29 PM		bluescat48 has not replied

Replies to this message:
	Message 10 by FliesOnly, posted 12-05-2007 11:41 AM	Fosdick has replied
	Message 26 by arachnophilia, posted 12-05-2007 5:14 PM	Fosdick has replied

Fosdick

Suspended Member (Idle past 5530 days)

Posts: 1793

From: Upper Slobovia

Joined: 12-11-2006

Normal Thread Display

Message 11 of 124 (438598)
12-05-2007 12:16 PM

Reply to: Message 10 by FliesOnly
12-05-2007 11:41 AM

Re: Morality and bicamerality

FO writes:

Uh? Morality is a throwback to believing in God...is that what you're trying to say?

Yes, I am saying exactly that. Morality is a very ambiguous and arbitrary concept. What is there about "morality" that applies to a fully consciousness person. Morality is an artifact of a belief system, not as fact of life or reality. That poor teacher in Sudan was almost executed for naming a stuffed animal "Mohammed." She was highly "immoral" in their eyes. Is that the kind of morality you respect?

If I regard myself as "amoral" would you then regard me as "immoral"?

We used science to eliminate our need for God?

Oh, yes, and it's such a painfil process!

”HM

This message is a reply to:
	Message 10 by FliesOnly, posted 12-05-2007 11:41 AM		FliesOnly has replied

Replies to this message:
	Message 12 by FliesOnly, posted 12-05-2007 1:24 PM		Fosdick has replied

Fosdick

Suspended Member (Idle past 5530 days)

Posts: 1793

From: Upper Slobovia

Joined: 12-11-2006

Normal Thread Display

Message 18 of 124 (438628)
12-05-2007 2:36 PM

Reply to: Message 12 by FliesOnly
12-05-2007 1:24 PM

Re: Morality and bicamerality

FO writes:

So evolutionary theory has no bearing on morality. On this we agree?

Yes.

I would regard you as amoral.

Thank you.

Well, actually science doesn't necessarily lead to the elimination God.

Probably not the total elimination, but close to it. Have you seen any surveys of scientists who claim to believe in God? One was published recently in America Scientist (I've have to go find it but I'm too lazy right now) showed that <5% of scientists surveyed claimed to believed in God.

”HM

This message is a reply to:
	Message 12 by FliesOnly, posted 12-05-2007 1:24 PM		FliesOnly has not replied

Replies to this message:
	Message 19 by JB1740, posted 12-05-2007 2:39 PM		Fosdick has replied

Fosdick

Suspended Member (Idle past 5530 days)

Posts: 1793

From: Upper Slobovia

Joined: 12-11-2006

Normal Thread Display

Message 21 of 124 (438635)
12-05-2007 3:30 PM

Reply to: Message 19 by JB1740
12-05-2007 2:39 PM

Re: Morality and bicamerality

JB writes:

I have a hard time believing those data are accurate. I have a lot of colleagues who claim a belief in God.

I couldn't find the article, so I'll back off on my statement. Googleing the topic will produce a variety of survey results. The atheists claim low believership among scientists and the faithful claim otherwise.

”HM

This message is a reply to:
	Message 19 by JB1740, posted 12-05-2007 2:39 PM		JB1740 has replied

Replies to this message:
	Message 22 by JB1740, posted 12-05-2007 3:34 PM		Fosdick has not replied

Fosdick

Suspended Member (Idle past 5530 days)

Posts: 1793

From: Upper Slobovia

Joined: 12-11-2006

Normal Thread Display

Message 34 of 124 (438692)
12-05-2007 7:12 PM

Reply to: Message 26 by arachnophilia
12-05-2007 5:14 PM

Re: bicamerality and bullshit

spider lover, have you actually read The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind? Or are you using other peoples' opinions of Jaynes? Sure, there are plenty of people who don't like his theory. They all have their own theories to peddle. Nobody really knows for sure what human consciousness really is. For me, Jaynes' model of human consciousness is the only one that actually works. That's because he uses metaphorical and analogical aspects of symbolic language to show how consciousness grew out of a bicameral state of mind”when hallucinations and hysteria gave way to self-referential decisionmaking. But I'm way OT. Bye.

”HM

This message is a reply to:
	Message 26 by arachnophilia, posted 12-05-2007 5:14 PM		arachnophilia has not replied

Replies to this message:
	Message 36 by anglagard, posted 12-05-2007 8:06 PM		Fosdick has replied

Fosdick

Suspended Member (Idle past 5530 days)

Posts: 1793

From: Upper Slobovia

Joined: 12-11-2006

Normal Thread Display

Message 37 of 124 (438705)
12-05-2007 8:33 PM

Reply to: Message 36 by anglagard
12-05-2007 8:06 PM

Re: bicamerality and bullshit

anglagard, maybe you're the one who can talk me out of Julian Jaynes. I've read his book three times and I can't find any good reason to dispute the whole of his theory, even though parts of it are weak. Should I make a proposal the admin gods?

”HM