Insidious, Lief and RÃ*an debate all things great and small.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

It's a call the ignores justice, that ignores clear wrongdoing in an attempt to make the future a better place.

so if a common drug was found to have been developed via 'unethical' means, you would refuse to use it on moral grounds?

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

so if a common drug was found to have been developed via 'unethical' means, you would refuse to use it on moral grounds?

I don't think the drug should be used. I would not use it.

The thing is, if we accept this philosophy "ends justify means", we could fall into a deep hole. There no longer would be any restraint from keeping torture from being used by our government. Other scenarios would develop that would also be horrible. I don't buy the argument that we should look toward the future and ignore the justice or injustice of what happened in the past (or the present!).

The main difficulty in my mind with this stance I'm taking is really long term issues. For example, I live in America. But America was taken by force a long time ago from its native inhabitants in ways that were often brutal. I'm benefiting now from a wrongdoing done centuries ago. I don't know where exactly the line should be drawn between my living in America and insidiously constructed good drugs.

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

I don't think the drug should be used. I would not use it.

The thing is, if we accept this philosophy "ends justify means", we could fall into a deep hole. There no longer would be any restraint from keeping torture from being used by our government. Other scenarios would develop that would also be horrible. I don't buy the argument that we should look toward the future and ignore the justice or injustice of what happened in the past (or the present!).

The main difficulty in my mind with this stance I'm taking is really long term issues. For example, I live in America. But America was taken by force a long time ago from its native inhabitants in ways that were often brutal. I'm benefiting now from a wrongdoing done centuries ago. I don't know where exactly the line should be drawn between my living in America and insidiously constructed good drugs.

i had similar thoughts to your america example... for me, i can draw a distinction between something 'wrong' and the results that may come of it... the fact is, everything 'good' in this world can probably be traced back to 'evils' at many steps along the way... any nation, religion or corporation has various skeletons in their respective closets... is a enlightening sermon meaningless if you find out that the priest was a hypocrit? i'd like to think not

i think injustices can and should always be fought in the present... learning lessons from the past, but not carrying over blame... it adds little and tends to distract enormously

so for drugs... if i was against stem-cell research (which i'm not), i would fight the process yet have no problem using the results if need be... i trust in 'humanity' to eventually take the best course of action, and if enough people did not see things my way, i'd have to seriously reconsider my position

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

i think injustices can and should always be fought in the present... learning lessons from the past, but not carrying over blame... it adds little and tends to distract enormously

Yet if blame is not carried over, people will learn that they can get away with things. That's a major problem in my opinion with America's stance on various issues today. Not enough attention is paid to the history, because the focus is all on the present. Consequently, sometimes when a nation does something wicked they only receive verbal rebuke. What was done was in the past.

[Insidious Rex]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

What did you say? I was just beating a dead horse and couldn't hear you ...

Shall we just drop it and move on to other things?

probably a good idea.

[Insidious Rex]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

There are Christians in Muslim countries that turn away from their social surroundings as they learn of Christianity. Always they are ostracized in communities. Many Muslim states have laws that people cannot convert to Christianity. People do, and they are thrown in prison or executed for their beliefs. Their coming to Christ gave them no group link, no benefits whatsoever that you would agree with. They suffered and died without expecting or gaining any group protection, any bonding with more then the very few missionaries that they knew. They were punished severely by the community around them. No benefits whatever way you look at it for these people (at least that I can see now; doubtless you'll come up with some).

indeed. Going against popular opinion certainly doesn’t put a damper on the concept that genes write the rules. I think you need to get away from the concept that genetics requires a direct link between religion and genetics. Religion is such a high order end product of so many things coming together. But you can be certain of this: no one has ever become a devout Christian who wasn’t somehow exposed to Christianity in some way shape or form. If you could show otherwise then you would have something because how could it just come out of the clear blue unless there was some divine inspiration. But what you see in your examples above is Christians sticking together in the minority and perhaps being persecuted by the majority. But for EACH and EVERY one of those Christians they LEARNED Christianity by other humans either directly or indirectly. Learning is part of our programming. Imprinting through how we are raised and how we are taught is also very powerful and a key part of our genetic programming. There is no Christian gene if that’s what you are after. And you could come up with the same examples you showed above but substitute hundreds of different religions through out history. So it cant be something unique to the Christian god. That pattern alone should show us how the human MIND works and how human social interactions play a role on identity and just how rigid this identification can be. Genes don’t dictate religion. Making the argument well if the majority of people in your society are a different religion then you then genetically it makes no sense to be part of the minority religion is nonsensical. Theres a million other things going on there. And if you look at the big picture (which is what ive been urging you to do when dealing with genetics. You like cherry picking out the super rare instances) youll see that MOST people follow the religion of the environment they were brought up in. be it muslim or jewish or catholic or significantly secular. If it was simply about free will then youd have a random distribution of religions uniform and without consistency all over the world. What you see instead is pretty tight lines. Which means religion is a tribal association that follows the math and logic of any other tribal association in a human population.

That is an astounding and horrible figure. These figures seem to me to clearly indicate religion is not a social or tribal protection mechanism of genes, but rather is a choice made by individuals from their souls (or whatever other source of choice you believe in).

no religion ISNT a genetic protection mechanism. That’s what I was trying to say above. But it IS clearly tribal. Just look around the world and you can see that. Like I was saying above if it was simply a matter of choice then youd say uniform random distribution of religions. And you would see a billion different religions. But what you see is huge clumps of religion and you even see evolution of religion (probably a heretical choice of words there) depending on how old and wide spread the religion is. You can see Christianity itself do this with its ebbs and flows of variations from the original source. Natural patterns. not artificial overt purposeful selection patterns. natural ones as they change over the centuries. People study this stuff. Its really quite interesting in fact. You can make a religious tree just like you can make a family tree. Hmmm….

The examples here that differ from a "law of selfishness from genes" I think are far more numerous and powerful an evidence for the soul then the random stars were an evidence for a different model of the solar system.

I disagree. I think everything weve discussed so far (and of course so many things we haven’t discussed) support the selfish gene model just fine.

How frequent is this in animal communities?

how frequent are their harums in nature? Quite frequent. The main strategies in mating tend to be either the more or less one to one type of matches we see in coupling or the winner take all approach where one dominant fellow gets the whole collection of females in the tribe. And the other males must use other strategies to procure a mating opportunity which can be a dicey proposition. And the harum leader passes a bunch of his pro-harum genes on thus continuing the cycle.

Among human monks during the medieval ages we had huge numbers of people abstaining for religious reasons, not because their sexual instincts and desires were any less.

like I said before abstaining from mating is certainly built into our programming because in some cases its BETTER for the organism to perform other tasks then to attempt to breed. This is especially true in situations like those mentioned above where the chances of mating or lower or too dangerous (ever tried getting it on with one of the girlfriends of the dominant bull elephant?). So the fact that it can occur in human populations is by no means proof that the genetic model is flawed. It shows the range of what our genetics allow. AGAIN look at the big picture. See what the STANDARD is for us as a species. Do most of us become monks and refuse sex? Or do most of us naturally settle down and mate with one mate and raise offspring? Which one do YOU see Mr. Traditional nuclear family/gay marriage is wrong?

[Insidious Rex]

Indeed, I would ask you how much of what goes on in the mind, in your opinion, connects with the will of genes. Because often you say that genes in order to continue would want things in a certain way. But the reasoning you say the genes have has absolutely no bearing upon what the person's thinking at the time he does the action. For example, if he saves the life of a friend at risk of his own. You said in the other thread where we were discussing this that it would be partly because the friend's in his group and the group all has to protect itself even at the expense of one member. Also the friend might feel an obligation to him. Yet these self centered reasons have absolutely no connection to what's going on in the person's mind when he tries to save his friend's life.

Probably not. Youre right. Its not as if genetics is an OVERT CONCSIOUS thing necessarily. In fact if it was it wouldn’t work as well. On the contrary, its built seamlessly into the system. X happens. our response needs to be Y. and it needs to be Y FAST! Because if you lose a few split seconds figuring out the proper scenario to follow and all hope could be lost. But if its hard wired in you to jump after a drowning tribe member then youll be more successful doing it and still have the same benefit. And you know what, youll also feel better about yourself because you wont ever think well I just did that because it might benefit me later. Everything works out well that way.

I think this is the crux of the problem. We usually don’t see the cause and effect of genetics because its so well integrated into the machine. Just like we don’t see the pistons moving in the car engine but ultimately they cause the car to do certain things that we might otherwise attribute to some magical force if we didn’t take the time to study it a little more and investigate beyond the surface level. Always remember JUST because we have a consciousness and are aware of ourselves and can think doesn’t mean our actions aren’t influenced by deeper things. That’s always the simple way to view things. That we think therefore genetics don’t matter to us. But on the contrary. We think BECAUSE genetics allows it. Cerebral power is a great survival tool. Allows us to come up with all sorts of things to make the prospect of passing on our genes even better.

He is filled with fear because of his love for his friend.

which brings up an interesting tangient. What IS love. Why do we experience it? If we are creatures of pure free will whats the point of love? Why is it so powerful? Why do we fall into it when not meaning to and cant fight it off no matter what we do?

So how do the thoughts of the mind connect with the will of the genes (forgive me if I phrased that wrong)?

did I answer that well enough in what I said above or do I need to get into further detail at all?

One thing I would like to thank you for briefly, Insidious Rex, is how you make a point by far most of the time of answering every part of our posts. You don't skip issues at all, and the fact that you devote that kind of time to this is very pleasant.

well if you just selectively reply to posts the other person is always left wondering well is it that they couldn’t respond to that point or did they not think that point was worth responding to? And anyway I tend to read posts like a book and get ideas as I read which I will quickly forget if I don’t respond right away to them so the next thing you know you have gotten to the end.

Oh by the way speaking of repsonding to everything, might be a little slow this week with the monster replies. its gonna be a busy week for me. so if i get 7 or 8 posts behind bear with me. ill try not to get lost and lose track of what im replying to if i can help it.

[BeardofPants]

Y'know, I've tried to attempt to make sense of what this thread is about, but all I see is "blah blah blah".

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by BeardofPants

Y'know, I've tried to attempt to make sense of what this thread is about, but all I see is "blah blah blah".

very perceptive maybe lief should change the title

[Insidious Rex]

well its better then yada yada.

EDIT: Although I think the transfer of posts confused some people (people are easily confused here) and my argument with rian spooked others. But i think this is now about free will and genetics. so maybe that should be reflected in the title from here on out. moderator...

EDIT EDIT: emm... free will and genetics and ethics in science. sorry forgot about lief and bj's conversation.

[Fat middle]

I agree you (you three and all you ) should keep within a topic. So, please, Lief (thread creator) choose a topic and I'll edit the title.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

indeed. Going against popular opinion certainly doesn’t put a damper on the concept that genes write the rules. I think you need to get away from the concept that genetics requires a direct link between religion and genetics. Religion is such a high order end product of so many things coming together. But you can be certain of this: no one has ever become a devout Christian who wasn’t somehow exposed to Christianity in some way shape or form. If you could show otherwise then you would have something because how could it just come out of the clear blue unless there was some divine inspiration.

I don't expect you to believe anything I'm about to relate. However, I can provide you with several accounts that tell that story.


I heard of one tribe in the jungle of I believe Indonesia. They had a witchdoctor who was essentially leading the whole tribe. He had contact with demons. However, the Lord spoke to him in a voice that he could hear with his physical ears. The witchdoctor converted to Christianity, even though there were no missionaries whatsoever. He ordered the tribe to burn all their idols. Then he heard the Lord again, and he began to copy down what God told him. When Christians came to the village on their mission, they found that they already had copied down writings that were directly giving people, events and names from the New Testament, without ever having heard a sermon!

Then there was another woman in a Muslim community. She converted to Christianity after seeing Jesus in a dream. He continued revealing things about himself to her through various means. She saw in a dream a man named John the Baptist, and she asked the missionaries she knew about him. Was there even such a man? She heard things in her sleep that the missionaries were able to show came straight out of the Bible.

My own experience

I've had people speak words of knowledge over me. Those are pieces of information that they gain from the spiritual realm, intimate details about my life that they could not possibly have known without God telling them.

I am right now writing a book with God's help. In this book I didn't initially know that God was working through it as well. I only found out after I started reading the book of Revelation. I discovered massive numbers of parallels- too many to be possible without divine instigation, in my opinion. That discovery was one of the greatest spiritual experiences of my life. Right now I have a document about thirty pages long full of parallels between my book and the book of Revelation. Once I made a plot idea, but I was concerned because I knew it wasn't in Revelation. The Lord has told me very clearly that I'm not to worry about those parallels; those are his business- mine is just to write a good story. I was unsure of this plot idea, though it fitted magnificently with all my other plans. I was unsure because I did not want to mess up what the Lord was doing- in other words I was intruuding on his ground.

Then as I was reading the Book of Daniel one day, I suddenly encountered a prophesy that gave exactly what my plot intention was. A powerful moment .

Now I've cut myself off from reading the Old Testament prophecies, the book of Revelation and any other prophecies toward the End Times that exist in the Scriptures, except the ones I already know are fulfilled. I've even had other people pointing out to me parallels between things in my book and Revelation that I hadn't noticed before.

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

But what you see in your examples above is Christians sticking together in the minority and perhaps being persecuted by the majority.

If you can count about three individuals that only see each other once a week a tribe, I guess you're right . Except in saying perhaps being persecuted by the majority. They know beforehand that they're going to suffer. In many Muslim countries it's against the law to convert to Christianity. People suffer imprisonment and sometimes death. They always suffer ostracism from their family circle and the loss of nearly all friends.

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

But for EACH and EVERY one of those Christians they LEARNED Christianity by other humans either directly or indirectly.

Actually not. Sometimes they learn about it through Christians first, but very frequently they receive dreams or visions beforehand that prepare them for the missionary meeting they're about to have. One Christian who's studied the subject said that almost everyone from Muslim countries that converts does so because of having received a supernatural dream or vision.

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

Learning is part of our programming. Imprinting through how we are raised and how we are taught is also very powerful and a key part of our genetic programming. There is no Christian gene if that’s what you are after. And you could come up with the same examples you showed above but substitute hundreds of different religions through out history. So it cant be something unique to the Christian god.

I'm arguing for the existence of the soul at this point, not for the Christian god.

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

That pattern alone should show us how the human MIND works and how human social interactions play a role on identity and just how rigid this identification can be. Genes don’t dictate religion. Making the argument well if the majority of people in your society are a different religion then you then genetically it makes no sense to be part of the minority religion is nonsensical.

The situations which I brought up are always truly desperate. Anyhow, this point of yours I think I answered above.

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

Theres a million other things going on there. And if you look at the big picture (which is what ive been urging you to do when dealing with genetics. You like cherry picking out the super rare instances)

They're not rare- you hear about them all the time. Suicides are not super rare. Muslims converting in these countries is not super rare. Homicides I admit aren't all that common, but they still don't make any sense from the genetic point of view. In the Medieval Ages, people choosing to abstain from sexual relations by becoming a monk was not even slightly rare. Indeed, that was common. There were monasteries everywhere. The examples I've offered aren't all like the odd homicide. And taken collectively especially, they in my opinion are a very strong argument that genes don't control us. Rather, they influence us. Our souls make the decisions.

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

youll see that MOST people follow the religion of the environment they were brought up in. be it muslim or jewish or catholic or significantly secular. If it was simply about free will then youd have a random distribution of religions uniform and without consistency all over the world.

I think you make a bit of a mistake in what you say is my stance. I'm not saying it's all free will. I think free will is the deciding factor. People still are heavily influenced by their genes and by their environment. Therefore it makes sense that the majority will decide along those lines. However, because decision is up to the soul, you can expect some deviation from that. The deviation is most definitely there.

You said in the past thread where we discussed this that you thought you'd be forced to resort to cannibalism by your genes if the circumstances were potential starvation. I am certain that is not the case. Your genes and environment might strongly push you toward taking that course of action, but in the end you have the deciding power. People have purposely starved themselves to the point of death before. See Gandhi. They certainly didn't resort to cannibalism.

[Insidious Rex]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

That seems a bit of a stretch. None of the animal species have any visible belief in God, yet they are able to maintain their patriarchal figures. Sure we're more complex then animals, but I don't see that as necessitating a view of God. At least not from a biological gene oriented focus. Many people don't have the patriarchal belief in God, while they still respect their own fathers.

well all I was saying was that god could be a perfect extension of the patriarchal bonding figure. We don’t know that animals don’t have gods. But its kind of irrelevant. We DO know that many species bond closely to their fathers and their fathers protect and teach them survival skills. Same thing happens with humans. So basically my point was its not such a leap to assume that the closeness so many humans have with a god figure is an extension of this natural instinct to bond with a bigger more powerful parent (in this case father) figure.

(Frowns) Plenty of times the conditions are exactly right. The couple is alone in a place, one tries to seduce the other, but the other refuses. No one need ever have known. However, it does not happen.

are you talking about having a harum here or getting caught cheating? getting caught isn’t simply about the husband walking in and finding you. Getting caught can happen after the fact. Theres always a risk so the danger factor has been built into our genes. the person refusing the seduction most likely has a good reason not to engage in the affair. Perhaps they have been burned in the past and thus are more leery about cheating. That’s learned behavior. Perhaps they simply aren’t attracted or are bonded with their mate too closely so they have no desire. That’s part of genetics too. Being able to bond to a person so well that you don’t have the same level of temptation as you would if you were not so bonded. I would guess that those individuals who consider themselves happily married and madly in love with their mates cheat in much lower percentages then those who aren’t as close with their mates or who have been going through difficult times with them. Wouldn’t you? So if again it was simply free will that makes us cheat or not cheat then you wouldn’t expect to so this disparity. You would see the same level of cheat selection among all types of couples.

I know you are going to ask me for sources but I remember learning a quite alarming statistic when I was an undergrad taking psych courses. They once did a genetic study of infants born in a hospital in California I think in the 1970s and they discovered that some 30% of the babies born did NOT match the DNA of the man listed as “father� on their birth certificate. We can only assume then that the mother had been impregnated by another male despite having a boyfriend or husband or someone significant enough to actually put on the birth certificate other then “unknown�. This is quite a stat if you think about it. Almost a third of women cheat?! And these were only the ones that managed to get themselves pregnant while cheating! You’ve got to assume a larger number cheat and don’t get pregnant. So yes imperfect monogamy (if you will) seems to definitely be in our genes. it seems to be the ideal way to maximize the successful spreading of our genetic information. ill look through my old psych books to try to find more on this study if you like.

Even if the conditions are perfect from sex, the spreading of genes, the will of a person involved is against the action.

read what I said above about what is most likely necessary for cheating to take place. I think the “perfect situation� you speak of isn’t really. It doesn’t take into account many other factors that effect either party involved. Also if it IS just free will how do we explain the many couplings of two people who are otherwise good and honorable and “never did anything like this before� but something just came over them (lust) and it happened. And yes they regret it but it was so powerful at the time. Shouldn’t people who are otherwise good people and who make otherwise good choices in life but who STILL cheat not exist? Because their free will should allow them to make the right choice in congruence with their usual disposition. But yet the breeding instinct is mighty powerful. And they do it anyway.

My main question is about the intellectual reasoning though. Information seems to be a key in whether or not the person will have sex or not. If it's all biological and about the genes' will, the information shouldn't be important.

are we talking about learned behavior here? Like if we learn about killer diseases or we learn from our parents that sex out of wedlock is horribly immoral? Why wouldn’t this learned information not be important? I don’t understand. Like I said the brain is designed to retain information learned in its environment. Certainly sexual information is included in that. And it becomes a factor in the complicated juggling of the many factors that lead to our behavior. But be fully aware that the ability to learn is a product of our genetics. If you want to say that once a person LEARNS and retains a certain bit of knowledge about something that they then have the FREE WILL to behave with this factor as a component then go for it. Its just a matter of semantics then.

[Insidious Rex]

This seems a little unbelievable to me from a purely biological perspective. Families where polygamy is involved I think would have many more children then would other families. They also would have a good chance of survival, I think. It just doesn't make enough sense to me. Where do you get the statistics from?

Remember when I used the term “selectively and generally secretly polygamous� I was talking about cheating essentially. Not living with multiple partners. As for your assertion that a polygamous relationship would seem the ideal one to you as far as genetics well keep in mind theres a trade off involved here. You can have a few kids (2, 3, 4, 5, etc.) with one devoted spouse and you tend to be able to take pretty good care of those kids and raise them well and they eventually become very good candidates for gene passage (half your genes remember). Whereas if you are off breeding with random females here and there sure you may get some of them pregnant and you may produce 4 or 5 or even 10 times as many children over the course of a life time but the risk you take from not being able to protect them and raise them and maximize their potential in terms of passing on half of your genes is increased greatly.


So lets do a quick and dirty little numbers game. It’s the Paleolithic. Man has just evolved into his present form genetically. So lets say a person who lives a monogamous life raised 4 kids. Lets say theres a 50% chance that any one of those four kids will grow up to successfully pass on your half genes to a next generation. Now lets say you’re a Paleolithic play boy and you rove the land finding girls who are easy so you can have sex with them. Assuming for the purposes of this study that there is no birth control devices involved lets say your actions result in 25 children over the course of your mating life time. some would be likely to die pre-infancy because the mother is more likely to be less fit for motherhood or unready for motherhood then a more selective mother. Many more would die post birth but before maturity since life is generally harsh and without a guaranteed father figure the child as at a much bigger disadvantage then one with two parents to protect them and learn from. The fact that you are a whore makes it more likely that youll have some terrible sexual disease that could kill the female you mated with thus leading to no birth at all of course. And being an illegitimate offspring could lead to an ostricization of sorts that makes establishing yourself as a potential breeding adult later in life less likely (this is true in many animal species too actually. The curse of being the “bastard� is a real animal phenomenon for obvious genetic reasons). So what you end up with is maybe a 20% survival rate if you are lucky and then a much smaller successful breeding rate for the few surviving offspring perhaps bringing the viability down to single digits.

now SOMETIMES the numbers work out better in this case despite all the problems. And that’s why you DO see it in nature. But more often then not the numbers go against this (numbers being success rate of your genes being passed on successfully into a second generation who themselves are in a position to breed successfully). In the end, what you find is that those males that stick closely with one mate so as to maximize the genetic strength of their primary offspring AND who successfully seduce other females (but not too many) on the side thus giving them the possibility of “bonus� offspring are most successful genetically.

"but the ideal mating situation for humans SEEMS to be one primary mate and one or more secondary mates if the male can get away with it."

This depends massively upon the religious views and social interests of the male, as well.

If you are saying that you are sure that atheists cheat a lot more then Christians well id love to see that data. I think you would find this phenomenon consistently across the board myself. Its about the nature of humans. Sure if they are taught certain values then they are likely to exhibit the behaviors that those values reinforced. But you sure wont see the extinguishing of natural behaviors in full force just because of religion.

Scientific data yes. Doesn't mean there's no evidence for it though. Spiritual experience is a strong indicator. Out of body experiences are a strong indicator.

Ok but why cant those phenomenon BE quantified scientifically? It seems to me if they happen and they have some manifestation in the human that we should be able to at least take some rough measure of them. Wouldn’t you agree?

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

What you see instead is pretty tight lines. Which means religion is a tribal association that follows the math and logic of any other tribal association in a human population.

I disagree that the lines are very tight. I think that you've shown what often happens, but the number of cases against it and the type of cases against it seem strongly opposed to this point of view.

Also about the Medieval monasteries. You said that that would be caused by genes because it may be better for the organism. However, in the Medieval Ages it was a massive number of people that chose this course. Was it coincidence that it was better for all of them to become monks at the same basic point in history?

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

no religion ISNT a genetic protection mechanism.

Okay. Not surprising to me really that I got that wrong . I don't know nearly so much about genetics as you.

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

That’s what I was trying to say above. But it IS clearly tribal. Just look around the world and you can see that. Like I was saying above if it was simply a matter of choice then youd say uniform random distribution of religions. And you would see a billion different religions.

Answered this in the previous post.

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

But what you see is huge clumps of religion and you even see evolution of religion (probably a heretical choice of words there) depending on how old and wide spread the religion is. You can see Christianity itself do this with its ebbs and flows of variations from the original source. Natural patterns. not artificial overt purposeful selection patterns. natural ones as they change over the centuries. People study this stuff. Its really quite interesting in fact. You can make a religious tree just like you can make a family tree. Hmmm….

That seems more an argument against the Christian God then one in favor of genes ruling us.

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

I disagree. I think everything weve discussed so far (and of course so many things we haven’t discussed) support the selfish gene model just fine.

Okay. Like RÃ*an always says, you're entitled to your own opinion .

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

how frequent are their harums in nature? Quite frequent. The main strategies in mating tend to be either the more or less one to one type of matches we see in coupling or the winner take all approach where one dominant fellow gets the whole collection of females in the tribe. And the other males must use other strategies to procure a mating opportunity which can be a dicey proposition. And the harum leader passes a bunch of his pro-harum genes on thus continuing the cycle.

Thanks for this information .

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

like I said before abstaining from mating is certainly built into our programming because in some cases its BETTER for the organism to perform other tasks then to attempt to breed. This is especially true in situations like those mentioned above where the chances of mating or lower or too dangerous (ever tried getting it on with one of the girlfriends of the dominant bull elephant?). So the fact that it can occur in human populations is by no means proof that the genetic model is flawed. It shows the range of what our genetics allow. AGAIN look at the big picture. See what the STANDARD is for us as a species. Do most of us become monks and refuse sex?

A very large number did in the Medieval Ages. Population was way lower at that point also, so proportionally it would have been large.

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

Or do most of us naturally settle down and mate with one mate and raise offspring? Which one do YOU see Mr. Traditional nuclear family/gay marriage is wrong?

Thanks for calling me nuclear . (relishes it )

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

I think this is the crux of the problem. We usually don’t see the cause and effect of genetics because its so well integrated into the machine. Just like we don’t see the pistons moving in the car engine but ultimately they cause the car to do certain things that we might otherwise attribute to some magical force if we didn’t take the time to study it a little more and investigate beyond the surface level.

This I can accept. You're essentially taking what you don't understand on faith until you gain a better knowledge of how it works. You have seen evidence enough to convince you as far as most of genetics is concerned. It's very complex though, with many factors working at once. That means that some of it you by necessity cannot understand. Some of it doesn't seem to make sense, some of it may appear contradictory on the surface. But with further learning and greater understanding of the subject, those things also may be made clear. Until they do, the evidence supporting their being genetics seems overwhelming enough that you'll take those things on faith.

Is this correct, or wrong in several points ?

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

which brings up an interesting tangient. What IS love. Why do we experience it? If we are creatures of pure free will whats the point of love? Why is it so powerful? Why do we fall into it when not meaning to and cant fight it off no matter what we do?

Yes, that is an interesting tangent. I think it is so powerful within us because it mirrors God's nature. God is love. That he should make love the most powerful force in our lives, in the physical universe, make sense. Though of course you could debate this and say hate can be as strong as love. To an extent I can agree with that. But that is without the experience of the divine love. God's love, when exposed to people, has been known to melt hatred. I've heard of Holocaust victims that could not give up their hatred, their desire for revenge. It made them bitter and hard all their later lives. Then God exposed himself to them and supernaturally, that hate built up over so many years and so much hardship melted.

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

Quote:
So how do the thoughts of the mind connect with the will of the genes (forgive me if I phrased that wrong)?

did I answer that well enough in what I said above or do I need to get into further detail at all?

No, I think what you wrote was understandable enough.

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

Always remember JUST because we have a consciousness and are aware of ourselves and can think doesn’t mean our actions aren’t influenced by deeper things.

Oh yes, I agree. Your case is proven by our knowledge of the subconscious alone.

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

That’s always the simple way to view things. That we think therefore genetics don’t matter to us. But on the contrary. We think BECAUSE genetics allows it. Cerebral power is a great survival tool. Allows us to come up with all sorts of things to make the prospect of passing on our genes even better.

This makes a lot of sense.

[Insidious Rex]

I think you make a bit of a mistake in what you say is my stance. I'm not saying it's all free will. I think free will is the deciding factor. People still are heavily influenced by their genes and by their environment. Therefore it makes sense that the majority will decide along those lines. However, because decision is up to the soul, you can expect some deviation from that. The deviation is most definitely there.

I think this paragraph boils down the distinction between our two points of view. The rest may just be peripheral and we may want to laser in on this part in particular and jettison a lot of the extemporaneous stuff weve been talking about.

You concede the strong influences of genetics and environment. Im aware that we are NOT mindless robots and choice IS certainly a factor in life. The difference I think is where we see that choice coming from. You propose its source is something ethereal and immeasurable. A “soul�. I propose it’s the echo of our genetic pattern interacting with our environment. So in a way you have a third factor where I have two. Shall we proceed from this point so that the message board doesn’t tip over from the weight and frequency of our mega posts?

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

well all I was saying was that god could be a perfect extension of the patriarchal bonding figure. We don’t know that animals don’t have gods.

Studies on behavior of apes and other creatures of high intelligence have been taken, and I've never heard of a God-fearing ape. People learn a lot about their culture, behavior and ways of life.

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

But its kind of irrelevant.

Okay.

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

We DO know that many species bond closely to their fathers and their fathers protect and teach them survival skills. Same thing happens with humans. So basically my point was its not such a leap to assume that the closeness so many humans have with a god figure is an extension of this natural instinct to bond with a bigger more powerful parent (in this case father) figure.

In the case of Christianity it's a father figure. Most religions don't take that stance. Many polytheistic religions didn't at all say that we're God's children as Christianity does.

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

are you talking about having a harum here or getting caught cheating? getting caught isn’t simply about the husband walking in and finding you. Getting caught can happen after the fact. Theres always a risk so the danger factor has been built into our genes. the person refusing the seduction most likely has a good reason not to engage in the affair. Perhaps they have been burned in the past and thus are more leery about cheating. That’s learned behavior. Perhaps they simply aren’t attracted or are bonded with their mate too closely so they have no desire. That’s part of genetics too. Being able to bond to a person so well that you don’t have the same level of temptation as you would if you were not so bonded. I would guess that those individuals who consider themselves happily married and madly in love with their mates cheat in much lower percentages then those who aren’t as close with their mates or who have been going through difficult times with them. Wouldn’t you?

For the most part. Though your model doesn't really take into account religion, which is actually what I was thinking of when I offered the scenario I did. People sometimes resist temptation on religious grounds. If it weren't for the fact that they were Christian, they would have fallen to their lusts.

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

So if again it was simply free will that makes us cheat or not cheat then you wouldn’t expect to so this disparity. You would see the same level of cheat selection among all types of couples.

No, you wouldn't. Because I'm accepting that genetics and environment influence an individual. They influence the individual a good deal, and that accounts for many of the genetic truths that you see so clearly. But the person makes the decision from their soul in the final analysis.

It's like a monarchy. The monarch's decisions are influenced by economics, potential threats, many, many factors. However, in the final analysis it's up to him. Some monarchs make bad decisions and some make good ones. In the same way, we see genes and environment being strong powers influencing the soul (monarch). The soul makes the final decision.

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

I know you are going to ask me for sources

No, actually I pretty much agree with what you said there.

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

but I remember learning a quite alarming statistic when I was an undergrad taking psych courses. They once did a genetic study of infants born in a hospital in California I think in the 1970s and they discovered that some 30% of the babies born did NOT match the DNA of the man listed as “father� on their birth certificate. We can only assume then that the mother had been impregnated by another male despite having a boyfriend or husband or someone significant enough to actually put on the birth certificate other then “unknown�. This is quite a stat if you think about it. Almost a third of women cheat?! And these were only the ones that managed to get themselves pregnant while cheating! You’ve got to assume a larger number cheat and don’t get pregnant. So yes imperfect monogamy (if you will) seems to definitely be in our genes. it seems to be the ideal way to maximize the successful spreading of our genetic information. ill look through my old psych books to try to find more on this study if you like.

I would be interested in seeing where that statistic was gotten from, if it's not too much bother to find out. Statistics aren't always that trustworthy, and someone who has a certain belief may not offer the information that goes against that belief. However, you may be right on that statistic.

It's one of the frustrating things that still has me undecided on this abstinence-only vs. abstinence+ situation. I've researched it, and my sister immediately drew a conclusion based upon the evidence from the two or three articles that we read. I'm not satisfied, yet, and still need to hear more arguments before I make a belief on that. I have to be sure enough and knowledgable enough that I can actually argue a position before I can take the belief for myself.

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

read what I said above about what is most likely necessary for cheating to take place. I think the “perfect situation� you speak of isn’t really. It doesn’t take into account many other factors that effect either party involved. Also if it IS just free will how do we explain the many couplings of two people who are otherwise good and honorable and “never did anything like this before� but something just came over them (lust) and it happened. And yes they regret it but it was so powerful at the time. Shouldn’t people who are otherwise good people and who make otherwise good choices in life but who STILL cheat not exist?

Yes. If Adam and Eve hadn't eaten from the apple in the garden of Eden, that's exactly what you'd expect to see. Instead, everyone had sin become a part of their souls. Sin binds and enslaves us.

That's one of the really remarkable things that happens when people come to know Christ personally. When Christ comes into people's lives, he sets about undoing the harm that was done in Eden. People change enormously for the better. Sins are slowly but surely wiped out from their lives. Drug addicts, thugs, theives, and others that come to know Christ have massive character changes happen swiftly. Sometimes it's basically an overnight change. God also has been known to sovereignly wipe out people's drug addictions. But as my grandma tells me frequently, the greatest miracle (beyond waters opening and fire from heaven) is the changed life.

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

Because their free will should allow them to make the right choice in congruence with their usual disposition. But yet the breeding instinct is mighty powerful. And they do it anyway.

Sin binds even those who are the most righteous. It can be very tempting. Demons can increase the temptation for some as well. I've experienced that personally, having my mind filled with sexual thoughts that I cannot get rid of no matter what I do. After I pray against a demon though, instantly all the thoughts disappear. I've had some very powerful and horrible experiences with evil spirits.

Yet I won't blame demons for all these sins. The devil does work against us, but we also have sin within us. Free will is bound by sin. If we had complete freedom (a sort of cerebral detachment), I think we'd be able to avoid sinning all our lives. But we aren't free. It says in the scripture "everyone who sins is a slave to sin."

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

I think this paragraph boils down the distinction between our two points of view. The rest may just be peripheral and we may want to laser in on this part in particular and jettison a lot of the extemporaneous stuff weve been talking about.

All right. Though a lot of the rest seems to come from this.

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

You concede the strong influences of genetics and environment. Im aware that we are NOT mindless robots and choice IS certainly a factor in life. The difference I think is where we see that choice coming from. You propose its source is something ethereal and immeasurable. A “soul�. I propose it’s the echo of our genetic pattern interacting with our environment. So in a way you have a third factor where I have two. Shall we proceed from this point so that the message board doesn’t tip over from the weight and frequency of our mega posts?

All right.

[Lief Erikson]

Agh! I really want to respond to this post of yours. Really do. Even if it's not all about the arguments about the soul.

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

Remember when I used the term “selectively and generally secretly polygamous� I was talking about cheating essentially. Not living with multiple partners. As for your assertion that a polygamous relationship would seem the ideal one to you as far as genetics well keep in mind theres a trade off involved here. You can have a few kids (2, 3, 4, 5, etc.) with one devoted spouse and you tend to be able to take pretty good care of those kids and raise them well and they eventually become very good candidates for gene passage (half your genes remember). Whereas if you are off breeding with random females here and there sure you may get some of them pregnant and you may produce 4 or 5 or even 10 times as many children over the course of a life time but the risk you take from not being able to protect them and raise them and maximize their potential in terms of passing on half of your genes is increased greatly.

It seems then that the system would logically be, "as many as I am capable of taking care of, that's how many I'll take." The richer people are, the more wives they'd then have. Not that they'd spend all their resources on that, obviously. Probably roughly the same percentage as would the poor man with one wife. However, his income would be greater, therefore the percentage he can afford would be greater.

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

So lets do a quick and dirty little numbers game.

I think what I said above addresses the numbers game as well.

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

If you are saying that you are sure that atheists cheat a lot more then Christians well id love to see that data. I think you would find this phenomenon consistently across the board myself.

What's really humiliating is that the number of Christian divorces is actually higher in America then it is among nonbelievers. That's what the statistics say. One big reason for that, though, would be that a lot of nonbelievers don't even bother with getting married in the first place. Many more of them have sex without worrying about the marriage.

Anyway, our own poor example limits me severely in being able to argue your point. It's really very sad.

I do believe though that religious convictions are the reason why many people abstain from having sex others.

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

Its about the nature of humans. Sure if they are taught certain values then they are likely to exhibit the behaviors that those values reinforced. But you sure wont see the extinguishing of natural behaviors in full force just because of religion.

Monasteries . Sure, they didn't in full force extinguish the natural behaviors. There were plenty of non-monastic Christians. However, the sheer number of people who remained abstinent all their lives is a strong argument that we do have the power of choice from our souls.

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

Ok but why cant those phenomenon BE quantified scientifically? It seems to me if they happen and they have some manifestation in the human that we should be able to at least take some rough measure of them. Wouldn’t you agree?

Scientific experiments have been done on some non-Christian monks going into a meditation state. They found that a part of the brain that normally is highly active went completely motionless while the person was at the height of his spiritual experience. Whether this scientific phenomenon was caused by the monk himself or an exterior source is not known. Just as whether our emotions that we feel, chemical reactions that we have scientific evidence for, come from the soul or not is not possible for current science to discern.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by Fat middle

I agree you (you three and all you ) should keep within a topic. So, please, Lief (thread creator) choose a topic and I'll edit the title.

Fine, fine. Changing it . . .