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

[Insidious Rex]

This thread is like a message board version of a pentathlon. *out of breath* You have to go from being an expert at genetics to monastic life in the middle ages to what is love. When is the discus??

Originally Posted by Mercutio

You should realize that the articles you quoted above are merely singular exceptions to general monastic life.

singular exceptions?? They mentioned whole regions in Britain where this was common place and various ages hundreds of years apart. I hardly would call that “singular exception�.

"Now I'm sure this was not true of EACH and EVERY monastery." Of course not! It is so easy to dig up examples of corruption in any institution on the internet.

yes but these were found by doing a search for “monastic life� or “monk medieval typical� or something like that NOT “monk corruption hedonist bad sinful abuse� if that’s what you are thinking. Try it yourself. See what you find. I think in very little time youll pull up a number of sources that talk in depth about the wide spread corruption in monasteries. Lief has already admitted this anyway. I was just fleshing it out a little more because it very much supported my point. At that time monks had plenty of good reasons to become monks. And many became corrupted to boot. Free will must not be as strong as some insist here if corruption is shown to be so consistent within the monastic order.

I also saw your third article (beginning "Perhaps the most interesting") is from a free essay website, so I'm a lot less inclined to believe it.

are you saying you think its outright lies? Didn’t you notice they referenced what they said? Rather dubious of you to refuse to recognize it outright simply based on the name of the web site I think.

It looked like they got on average 5 hours of sleep. Constant prayer times; manual labor; 1-2 meals a day; etc. Doesn't look quite so easy to me.

don’t forget a roof over their heads. An education during a time when education was rather rare. Access to libraries during a time when libraries were seen by a fraction of a percent of the population. Decent enough food. Companionship. Etc. etc. stuff ive said before that you ignored. And I really need to know the status of these people who became monks before they were monks. Lief has shown that later on the rich joined and it became less of a strict pure existence and more of a money making affair but before that we are lead to believe that these monks living in extreme Spartan conditions gave up breeding opportunities and families and great wealth and genetic power essentially and became monks. Can you show that that’s how it was? What if a large number of individuals who chose to become monks were NOT in such a great position relatively speaking. What if they were social outcasts or unpopular with the ladies or had disfigurations or neuroses that made the prospect of being highly successful gene bearers unlikely? What if they were impoverished or without land or title or lame or mute? In that case becoming a monk would actually be a step up for them. Not even counting those that went corrupt and knocked up the nuns.

[Insidious Rex]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

I would like to see what information you have that indicates a vast majority being influenced this way. I agree it was more than one or two. I have no problem believing it was a fair number (whatever that is). I'd need hard evidence before believing it was a vast majority though.

Well from that one article alone they showed that it was essentially the Norman monastic tradition to kind of have it both ways. I was surprised myself when I read that. My image of monks were old doughty men who didn’t really fit into society too well but who were gentle and kind although sometimes cantacurious. Either that or devout zealots who went through motions simply for the sake of going through motions. Ever read or see The Name Of The Rose?

The extent to which monasteries became money making institutions I think was quite large. That started around the 900s, as I said in my other post.

indeed. And amazingly successful they were. Quite a racket.

However, you want to know something I learned as I studied Economics? The economics instructor was talking about the examples that are given on the news of one person's story being shown by the media. The person (the economist called Joe) has undergone enormous economic hardship. He lost his retirement fund and isn't getting paid his benefits. The economist instructor responded this: "I don't believe in him." Why not? Because he's only one person that the media are using. The economist looks at the statistics and views what they say. Is this guy a majority or a minority? He learns that from them, and then he makes a judgment. Unlike most people that just have time to watch the news, and they make their judgments based upon that single account.

are you saying im like fox news? alright then take six months and do extensive research on monastic life and the history of monasteries and the psychology of monks and come back and tell us what you conclude. We’ll probably be done with talking about it by then though.

Even though we've got . . . let's see . . . three accounts here so far. Is that enough to judge the entire Benedictine Order? Is it enough to judge the centuries of the Medieval Ages, where thousands of abbeys filled Europe and vast numbers of monks dedicated themselves to following these vows?

I think its enough to put a human face on it. And what do you find but humans acting like humans even when they are in a situation where they are apparently CHOOSING to be above that. And no not just one or two or ten but probably thousands and thousands. Sure there were thousands and thousands more who didn’t get blatantly corrupt but the fact that there was this subset leads us to two conclusions depending on your point of view:

1. oh see this shows that free will WORKS and these poor sinners resorted to temptation.

2. oh this shows that humans are creatures of instinct and even at their most pious and devout and EVEN when their society and their environment has programmed their thinking brain to believe that restricting yourself from normal things is somehow the best thing you can do (for your soul… hm… almost reminds me of the genetic argument really, only that your body becomes a vessel for the soul instead of the genes )

so which one of these would be yours and which one mine?

Not surprising to me . That's an image in our current culture. I see it in "Where's Waldo?" and R.A. Salvatore's fantasy books. Wandering friars drinking mugs of ale . But it's just utterly different from the medieval reality.

well actually… the best beer brewed in the WORLD was brewed in monasteries YES in the middle ages. In fact going back as early as the 7th century. Im a little surprised you didn’t know that. That was common. The monk master brewers were considered the best in the world and ushered in an age of refinement of beer that still exists today. These monasteries are STILL there TODAY. The Cistercians. The Trappists. These were beer brewing abbies. Orval. Westmalle. Konigshoeven. Achel. Chimay. Many more. These are just ones that are at the top of my head. If theres one thing I DO know about monks it’s the beer they brew. so yea id say its pretty fair to say it’s a solid image and not simply a fanciful one. That being said at first the brew was NOT made for monks to get drunk. It was their sustenance. It had half the alcohol of regular beer. It was like liquid bread. Very useful during the Lenten fast. And beer, always unfiltered and unpasteurized, was filled with nutrients. So no Im not saying it was centuries of endless monk keg parties but brewing sure was a major part of monastic life for a large segment of monks in Europe. Ok lecture over…

It's tough to make a comparison between the life of a peasant in those days and the life of a monk without information. Neither you nor I have looked into that enough, I suppose. From the fact that Benedict actually ordered a one year admissions program to see if people could handle the rigors of monastic life though, I would guess it wasn't much of a boost in situation at all.

well life was pretty damn harsh for the poorest classes at this time. I cant imagine it would be worse. It makes sense to me that it would be a relief because its guaranteed shelter and guaranteed food (beer! ) even if it was rather Spartan and even if they worked during the day transcribing documents or building things it beats the heck out of the brutal dangerous back breaking labor that many serfs had to go through.

I just really don't think ability to marry was much of a factor in whether people joined monasteries or not. Sure, it might be for some. But I very highly doubt it was a very influential factor.

I don’t see why it wouldn’t. kind of the same theory of being dirt poor from some small town and with not very many options in life hey why not join the navy! Sure it’s a hard life but you learn things you wouldn’t otherwise, you get four squares and a bed to sleep in and companions who live with you at all times. Not that the monastic system is anything like the military but you get my analogy. Doesn’t seem too much of a stretch to me.

[Lizra]

Uh oh! IRex DOES know about beer! I'm am 100% certain, that when life was really rough and short, 100's of years ago,things like beer were VERY important. Wine, coffee, ale, uh...mushrooms anyway... the harder life is, the more important "the escapes" become. Especially after 10, 20, 30 years of bustin your balls just to keep your head above the water! Humans are so human! I love it!

[Lief Erikson]

Great post, Insidious . I was laughing quite a bit as I read the comments about beer. Anyhow, I guess I'll wait on responding for a bit longer to give you something of a chance to catch up.

[Insidious Rex]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

I really disagree here. The rich aren't more successful in breeding. They can choose a wealthier mate with greater ease, certainly. That doesn't ensure greater ease in passing on genes though

Wait you don’t think wealth and power and influence and good genes (meaning genes with a propensity toward more success in a given population) doesn’t increase the likelihood of passing on your genes? on what do you base that? You see the same thing among lower animals. The one with the most resources and most social dominance and the ones who are the strongest and the smartest and the “prettiest� (good genes) tend to be the ones that are most successful passing on their genes.

The poor are rarely bound by economic constraints from getting married- it happens whether they're poor or not. The rich are failing while the poor in my view are more successful, genetically speaking.

You don't see this in modern society. The poor are spreading genetically while the rich are not. I agree that the poor have more kids in general. That seems obvious. But those kids don't die off, and the poor have larger families and spread more rapidly. The rich die childless.

Childless?? What study is that from? Im aware that the birth rate in third world countries is greater then that in first world nations. And that generally the higher your income the less children you have but I don’t know anything about the rich all being childless. I would take issue with that quite frankly.

But you do raise a good point which is one I should have reinforced when I spoke about human breeding patterns. You mention “modern society�. And the fact of the matter is that we didn’t first appear as humans in modern society. Our development and programming if you will was based on a time when things were much different. When life was powers of ten tougher and you were lucky to live till you were 30. in that kind of a world what I said works just fine. remember I qualified my last example with “imagine it’s the Paleolithic� because that’s the era in which we first emerged as humans. We are no different from how we were then (at least in a large scale appreciable way) so we need to focus how we view human behavior through the lens of ancient history. Not through the era or computers and cars and air conditioning. Our bodies weren’t designed for these. These are new things that actually go counter to our proper evolution. And as an aside that’s why we are all so fat now. Cause we don’t need to walk much anymore. And live like we did 10,000 years ago.

So if we apply that caviot to this line of thinking we find it works well. Man breeds as he needs to breed. If your environment is super harsh and 80% of your offspring die before the age of 10 then yer gonna have tons of kids. If your environment is a bit more forgiving and 80% of your offspring live to be breeding age then you don’t need to have 25 kids to maximize your gene potential. And remember (because I know you are thinking well why not just have a bunch anyway because more is better) that TOO many and things go worse. You cant take care of all those kids. You have a limited supply of resources and energy so there needs to be a balance. And the whole mating thing is a big risk anyway! Diseases. Rivals. Wild animals that could sneak up on you in compromising positions… you name it. So its best if our genes are programmed to allow for a delicate balance in breeding patterns depending on environmental stimuli and these other factors we just mentioned. And that’s what we see. Even today. The rich kid is more likely to be successful then even ten of his dirt poor peers. So the rich don’t need to breed like crazy. That being said things like birth control and such are altering the way these ancient evolutionary standards effect us now. Just like cars effect us detrimentally in some ways.

Condoms, when used properly among teens, only work 50% of the time I've heard.

eh? Where did you get that stat from? I could do a little quick study myself (based on my experience) and come up with a much higher number.

Plus, it would make the marriage all the more special if you've reserved yourself for your mate for life.

and this my dear friend is completely a matter of opinion.

Like with love, we see the chemical reactions and don't know whether a spirit is causing them or it's all physical.

are you saying you think love is caused by a spiritual source and we have nothing to do with it at all? kind of a cupid factor?

[Insidious Rex]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

I thought you thought that "all that is really really important to your typical human" was to pass on their genes ...

all that is really important to their GENES. for the human, yeah, eating IS kinda important believe it or not. And shelter. And social structure. Because they help lead to the ultimate goal. Without em we are as good as dead.

One would think that in general, it would be easier to pass on your genes WITHOUT having to work around that vow of chastity

and one would be right since MOST humans don’t become monks. and even a lot of those that do apparently couldn’t resist their NATURAL instincts to breed.

But I'm also sure that many monks DID keep their vows and enter the monastaries sincerely. And I don't see how THAT would help them pass on their genes!

read my response to lief on that. Its all covered in that already.

[Rían]

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

all that is really important to their GENES.

Is this just basically a faith-based belief for you? Because I don't see how you could possibly claim this is scientific Are you making that claim?

for the human, yeah, eating IS kinda important believe it or not. And shelter. And social structure. Because they help lead to the ultimate goal. Without em we are as good as dead.

Could you please clarify something for me? I don't understand who the sentence on "ultimate goal" is referring to. From what I can tell, you're claiming that it's really important to genes to pass themselves on, which is a faith-based belief, as far as I can tell, which is fine. We all have to take things on faith in this life. Now you're also saying that eating, shelter and social structure are important to humans, which I can certainly agree with

Now here's where I'm confused - your next sentence says "Because they help lead to the ultimate goal." Are you saying that humans are AWARE of the goal of their genes to pass themselves on and are helping the genes out? Or that humans are driven to seek food, shelter and social structure by their genes but aren't aware that they're being driven to do this? Or none of the above? Could you please explain this a bit further for me?

(and if I don't show up for the next few days, it's because my in-laws are coming over to visit and I may not be able to Moot But I look forward to your explanations, because I want to understand what you believe)

[Hemel]

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

So if we apply that caviot to this line of thinking we find it works well. Man breeds as he needs to breed. If your environment is super harsh and 80% of your offspring die before the age of 10 then yer gonna have tons of kids. If your environment is a bit more forgiving and 80% of your offspring live to be breeding age then you don’t need to have 25 kids to maximize your gene potential.

Oopie, I still really don't see this. I thought it was the case that less successful creatures would breed less because in order to breed in the first place you need a certain level of physical condition (example - severely underweight human females whose periods stop).

[Rían]

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

read my response to lief on that. Its all covered in that already.

OK, thanks, I did. I don't agree with it all, but I think I'll let you two work on it - I'm more interested in other aspects.

(tiring being the minority-position poster in a thread, isn't it?!)

[Rían]

Originally Posted by Hemel

Oopie, I still really don't see this. I thought it was the case that less successful creatures would breed less because in order to breed in the first place you need a certain level of physical condition (example - severely underweight human females whose periods stop).

I agree with you, Hemel, and also point out that many females die during childbirth, and the more kids you have, the more likely you'll have a pregnancy that will make you die. Many of my friends belong to the "I would have died on the prarie" childbirth club with one of their kids!

Do you have data to back up those claims, IRex, or are these just surmises that you feel make sense?

[Lief Erikson]

I may not be keeping up quite so well anymore, on all of this. I'm mentally tired a bit more often of late, because I'm involved with another site that's extremely taxing.

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

Quote:
The poor are rarely bound by economic constraints from getting married- it happens whether they're poor or not. The rich are failing while the poor in my view are more successful, genetically speaking.

You don't see this in modern society. The poor are spreading genetically while the rich are not. I agree that the poor have more kids in general. That seems obvious. But those kids don't die off, and the poor have larger families and spread more rapidly. The rich die childless.



Childless?? What study is that from?

It's not a study. It's just what I've believed from what I observe of most of our movie stars.

I really think that poor families have many more children in modern society then most rich ones, and also the poor survive with a great deal of success.

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

Im aware that the birth rate in third world countries is greater then that in first world nations. And that generally the higher your income the less children you have but I don’t know anything about the rich all being childless. I would take issue with that quite frankly.

Logical, because it's not true. They aren't all childless. Many of the rich in America, because of their professions, choose not to bother with having children. That's just what I observe. It's not a study. You may find one that proves me wrong.

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

But you do raise a good point which is one I should have reinforced when I spoke about human breeding patterns. You mention “modern society�. And the fact of the matter is that we didn’t first appear as humans in modern society. Our development and programming if you will was based on a time when things were much different. When life was powers of ten tougher and you were lucky to live till you were 30. in that kind of a world what I said works just fine. remember I qualified my last example with “imagine it’s the Paleolithic� because that’s the era in which we first emerged as humans.

Don't people adjust over time? Wouldn't the genes deactivate if they aren't applicable anymore for the given situation, allow them to become dormant while more useful ones gain strength? Forgive the use of 'deactivate' . I'm really tired right now.

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

We are no different from how we were then (at least in a large scale appreciable way) so we need to focus how we view human behavior through the lens of ancient history. Not through the era or computers and cars and air conditioning. Our bodies weren’t designed for these. These are new things that actually go counter to our proper evolution. And as an aside that’s why we are all so fat now. Cause we don’t need to walk much anymore. And live like we did 10,000 years ago.

Large numbers of people are not fat. Do they not live as we did 10,000 years ago?

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

So if we apply that caviot to this line of thinking we find it works well. Man breeds as he needs to breed. If your environment is super harsh and 80% of your offspring die before the age of 10 then yer gonna have tons of kids. If your environment is a bit more forgiving and 80% of your offspring live to be breeding age then you don’t need to have 25 kids to maximize your gene potential. And remember (because I know you are thinking well why not just have a bunch anyway because more is better) that TOO many and things go worse. You cant take care of all those kids.

Why not just as many as you can take care of?

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

You have a limited supply of resources and energy so there needs to be a balance. And the whole mating thing is a big risk anyway! Diseases. Rivals. Wild animals that could sneak up on you in compromising positions… you name it. So its best if our genes are programmed to allow for a delicate balance in breeding patterns depending on environmental stimuli and these other factors we just mentioned. And that’s what we see. Even today. The rich kid is more likely to be successful then even ten of his dirt poor peers. So the rich don’t need to breed like crazy. That being said things like birth control and such are altering the way these ancient evolutionary standards effect us now. Just like cars effect us detrimentally in some ways.


Quote:
Condoms, when used properly among teens, only work 50% of the time I've heard.

eh? Where did you get that stat from? I could do a little quick study myself (based on my experience) and come up with a much higher number.

There's a 98% that's written on the package, I believe. They mention only in fine print that that's a laboratory result. Anyhow, the statistic was from the Alan Guttmacher Institute. Reported by Kim Painter in "Few Changes in Profile of Women Getting Abortions," USA Today, 8 August 1996.

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

Quote:
Plus, it would make the marriage all the more special if you've reserved yourself for your mate for life.

and this my dear friend is completely a matter of opinion.

Yes. From what I recall, a huge number of teens are in agreement with it. I just spent a little time looking for the statistic, but didn't succeed. Maybe later I'll try again . However, I guess it doesn't really matter. The number of teenagers that agree with me won't make you agree with me. It wouldn't convince me either, if I were you.

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

Quote:
Like with love, we see the chemical reactions and don't know whether a spirit is causing them or it's all physical.

are you saying you think love is caused by a spiritual source and we have nothing to do with it at all? kind of a cupid factor?

Cupid . That's funny. No, I was speaking of the soul again. We see the chemical reactions, but we don't know if the soul is causing them or not. I should have used the word soul instead of spirit. Sorry.

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lief Erikson
I would like to see what information you have that indicates a vast majority being influenced this way. I agree it was more than one or two. I have no problem believing it was a fair number (whatever that is). I'd need hard evidence before believing it was a vast majority though.


Well from that one article alone they showed that it was essentially the Norman monastic tradition to kind of have it both ways. I was surprised myself when I read that.

Yeah. I still think we have too little information to say. Not even the beginnings of a statistic.

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

My image of monks were old doughty men who didn’t really fit into society too well but who were gentle and kind although sometimes cantacurious.

I got that view from "Where's Waldo?". My parents corrected me when I was very young .

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

Either that or devout zealots who went through motions simply for the sake of going through motions. Ever read or see The Name Of The Rose?

No I haven't, but I've heard of it.

[Insidious Rex]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

Well, I must say - I read those last 2 sentences and I must point out again that if that's all IRex thinks of love, then his opinions about genes make a fair amount of sense for HIM to hold, altho I'm not aware of any scientific data that backs it up. .

nor would I expect you to be aware of any. Id be happy to recommend a few books that speak directly on the subject though if you want to educate yourself in that arena.

However, those opinions don't make any sense for ME to hold, because I see more than he sees, apparently.

no you believe more. And assume your beliefs must be backed up by data.

Perhaps IRex may say that we're not aware that the urge to pass on our genes is behind what we call love. If he says that, then I say why are we ignorant of that while he is somehow aware of it?

you are asking me why you are ignorant? that would be too easy rian. I wont even go there. That would be playing rough and I know you don’t like that anymore

Im aware of it because ive looked into it. You could be aware of it too if you study it some. But if you disagree outright because you hold belief systems that aren’t compatible then why bother asking this question? Its not as if its not in your power TO understand it. You just don’t agree. So your question is pointless.

And how do you know the genes need this? Is it just your guess, or do you have some proof?

is it your contention that organisms DON’T need some kind of motivation to mate? Why would they ever do it then? Why would they spend the bulk of their lives around winning a mate and ensuring their offspring are taken care of and do well in life after them? Why would they expend a ridiculous amount of resources and time and energy and massive risk just for the heck of it? And why would they do this by the MILLIONS and BILLIONS generation after generation after generation? You think that would EVER work in nature? There NEEDS to be an incentive. There needs to be a tug. A compulsion. Without love how could we ever operate as a species the way we do? We would… choose to?

Given this assumption, one would think that everyone would cheer on a man that dumps his wife if she is infertile. I think most people would, in fact, call him a cad. And rightly so, IMHO

in many cultures it would be ok for him to dump the woman and in fact SHE would be the one who would get the blame. To us this seems unconscionable. To those in other cultures its just the norm. even the women see it that way. and in fact it was fairly typical even in our culture up until the industrial revolution or so. As to why its different now? im going to hazard a guess that a guy who knew a girl was infertile BEFORE he fell in love with her would be less likely to marry that girl if he wanted to have kids. Make sense to you? But if hes madly in love with her and bonded with her before they find out shes infertile then theres a significant chance he will stay bonded to her because the INSTINCT is THAT strong. So in some situations instinct (bonding with a mate caused by love) overpowers the environment influence (cultural belief that its ok to throw aside a barren woman). Interesting that your point here essentially breaks down to the fact that love should always be stronger then environmental influence in this scenario even though you say love is just a choice.

Then why can we choose against our emotions?

choose what? Emotions influence. But theres a whole lot more factors being thrown in there as ive said before. its in no way simple black and white.

[Insidious Rex]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

Thanks, but my objection is a little different. My objection to what IRex is presenting is that he shouldn't be able to have it both ways. He says (quote forthcoming about genes wanting to survive and make babies), then when we provide evidence against this, he has the same answer - those genes want to survive and make babies!

would you care to point out an example of this since this kind of basic purposeful fuzzy generalization of anothers argument means pretty much nothing. Are you still talking about the monk thing? If so I can only guess that you don’t grasp that genes allow for a BALANCE and aren’t simply about absolutes.

It's pointed out that people have a self-preservation instinct and he says it's because of those pesky genes that want to reproduce, and then we point out that people are courageous and go AGAINST the self-preservation instinct, and by golly if it's not the fault of those VERY SAME genes! They make some people cowards and some couragous?

ah ok yes that’s exactly what I was talking about above. Your assumption about genes are that they just do X. what you don’t grasp is that genetics is about BALANCE. Self preservation is part of our programming. For quite obvious reasons I would hope. And taking RISKS is part of our programming too. For if we never took risks we would never make gains that make things better for us in the long run. This includes all types of risks. Just walking around a corner or looking under a log are risks. For your particular example the risk would be helping someone despite the danger involved and the risk that it could impact on you directly. Perhaps even fatally. If the prospect of NOT taking the risk (doing nothing) is bad for us in the long run (losing a child. Losing a tribe member) then there is a certain amount of justification in TAKING the risk mathematically. Yes theres that chance (a certain number) that you will end up hurt or dead but it could be better to take that risk (and all or nothing risk) then to risk doing nothing. Understand now?

And I'm still awaiting a reference for the article where the genes were interviewed and they said this! (I imagine it was probably on NPR )

Well if I did ever site NPR as a source I would still be light years ahead of just using creationist web sites as a source for all my “scientific� data on evolution. Now the fact that you wont accept any level of established genetic theory in regards to human beings says more about yourself then it does about the actual phenomenon. I explained it quite clearly above I thought. And the data is right there for us to see if we would just study it. Genes effect behavior. Environment effects behavior. The effects can be very complex. These are not revolutionary notions really.

[Insidious Rex]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

But you take things on faith all the time! Do you have friends? Do you think they like you? I imagine they do But do you deny that their friendship exists because you can't see it or measure it in a lab?

Last time I checked humans could SPEAK and TELL you hey im your friend. And when they do… ta da! Proof! All youd need is two ears and a clip board to measure that in a lab. And they can even do this in front of the whole world so anyone who would like to could verify it. Its not the case that only you can see and hear them and insist they ARE telling you that they are your friend. Everyone else can get the same information from the same source. Unlike your soul…

Furthermore, “friend� is a defined term. Like brick or buffalo or banana you will know it when one is there in front of you. a soul is an ethereal and esoteric concept. And not a material one. So it cant really be analogized in the way you tried to above.

Yes, you can break it down given the assumed fact that genes made you do it. I can make up things that would support any behavior, too.

ah so your ultimate defense against my case is simply to say I make everything up? I think liefs approach is much better. He doesn’t have a “sabotage this argument at ALL costs!� approach to debate. He disagrees but with the intent to understand. Which makes it a lot easier for me to attempt to understand his thinking on these subjects.

But why "admit" that we act like a machine?

should we simply deny it to ourselves?

I think out consciousness disproves that.

how does our consciousness disprove that we are like a machine exactly?

I would say that if it seems incongruous and backwards, then it's a hint that it probably IS incongruous and backwards

no it’s a hint that you wont or don’t look deeply enough at reality in order to determine what really makes things tick. How come you have no problem with the atomic theory of matter yet you refuse to even consider that genes play any sort of significant ultimate role in our behavior? Could you please show me an atom? Could you please point to one so I can know absolutely? I mean certainly these big objects we call bodies couldn’t possibly be made of such tiny little things. the whole concept is preposterous! Whats that you say? That we are mostly empty space and the solidness of our bodies is just an illusion because of the quantum nature of the atom? Absurd! Ridiculous! Nonsense! It cant be! It cant be because I can FEEL how solid I am I say! Its quite clear from the evidence that I have thoroughly examined that we are in fact completely solid and NOT composed of eansy weansy tiny unbelievably small particles that orbit around each other at enormous speeds. You are just making it up!

And all I've seen of the point-to-point explanation is your conjecture. I just don't see evidence for it.

ive laid out tons of evidence you just refuse to accept it. In fact the evidence for the genetic basis of our behavior is all over the place. You would really have to walk a tight rope pretty carefully through the scientific and academic worlds to avoid encountering ANY of it.

But we can't tell what animals think ... so how can we say it follows the very same models we see in nature?

from observation and recording of the data.

[Insidious Rex]

Originally Posted by Hemel

No. Because you're suggesting extent of breeding is based on whether you're rich or poor. But wealth is a social thing, and so your argument is based on social circumstances. (As might be, incidentally, poorer people having numerous children ... I understand some societies believe in this in order that the parents be guaranteed of support in their old age.) But I'd have thought that pure genetic drive would have been more inclined to get everyone breeding as much as possible.

your parents must be AWFUL rich if you think like this. Ill offer a quote I made earlier in response to your misconception about breeding concepts.

Man breeds as he needs to breed. If your environment is super harsh and 80% of your offspring die before the age of 10 then yer gonna have tons of kids. If your environment is a bit more forgiving and 80% of your offspring live to be breeding age then you don’t need to have 25 kids to maximize your gene potential. And remember (because I know you are thinking well why not just have a bunch anyway because more is better) that TOO many and things go worse. You cant take care of all those kids. You have a limited supply of resources and energy so there needs to be a balance. And the whole mating thing is a big risk anyway! Diseases. Rivals. Wild animals that could sneak up on you in compromising positions… you name it. So its best if our genes are programmed to allow for a delicate balance in breeding patterns depending on environmental stimuli and these other factors we just mentioned. And that’s what we see. Even today. The rich kid is more likely to be successful then even ten of his dirt poor peers. So the rich don’t need to breed like crazy. That being said things like birth control and such are altering the way these ancient evolutionary standards effect us now. Just like cars effect us detrimentally in some ways.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

Quote:
Originally Posted by RÃ*an
But you take things on faith all the time! Do you have friends? Do you think they like you? I imagine they do But do you deny that their friendship exists because you can't see it or measure it in a lab?


Last time I checked humans could SPEAK and TELL you hey im your friend. And when they do… ta da! Proof!

Wow. You'd take that as proof? That's neat; there's hope for you after all . Christ speaks to us as well. It's not normally with a human voice. As you I'll wager have never heard a spiritual voice, you wouldn't be able to tell how real they can be. They can be very real though. Just different. And you don't need to just take my word for it; it's possible for anyone to come to a personal relationship with Christ. He wants that relationship with everyone. Once you've heard him, taking my word for it will no longer be necessary. The way to come to hear him is to seek him, for it says in the Bible, "he who seeks finds, and to him who knocks, the door will be opened."

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

All youd need is two ears and a clip board to measure that in a lab.

Actually, that wouldn't measure it. You don't know if the friend is lying. You don't know whether or not he's betrayed you behind your back. You don't know if your own parent is doing that. You're taking it on faith. Faith backed by evidence .

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

And they can even do this in front of the whole world so anyone who would like to could verify it. Its not the case that only you can see and hear them

Lol! Can only RÃ*an do that ? Millions can.

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

and insist they ARE telling you that they are your friend. Everyone else can get the same information from the same source.

So can we. So can you. Everyone can find this relationship. Anyone can meet this person and can get the same information from the same source.

[Rían]

(I only have time for 3 quick responses - in-laws visiting)

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

nor would I expect you to be aware of any. Id be happy to recommend a few books that speak directly on the subject though if you want to educate yourself in that arena.

I'd love to read those books - would you please give me some titles? Thanks
(ps - books that YOU have read yourself, please, so we can discuss them and so I know what you're basing your beliefs on)

Last time I checked humans could SPEAK and TELL you hey im your friend. And when they do… ta da! Proof! All youd need is two ears and a clip board to measure that in a lab.

And if someone had a stack of money and told each person before they went into the lab, even those that don't know you or don't like you, "Hey, I"ll give you a million bucks if you say you're IRex's friend!" that would make large parts of your lab data false. Sure, you can write down the words, but you can't see into their heart. Lief pointed this out, too. Do you see what we mean? There are just some things that fall outside the category of "things that can be measured in labs".

Well if I did ever site NPR as a source I would still be light years ahead of just using creationist web sites as a source for all my “scientific� data on evolution.

I hope you aren't referring to me as fitting into this category (but somehow I imagine you are ) I'd like to remind you that I've had many, many years of education on evolution, both in high school and college. And frankly, reading books on creationism should be considered just checking out different opinions You should try it! It's fun to be openminded

[Rían]

(and am finally getting to this one ...)

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

RÃ*an would say that God allows these evil things, but doesn't cause them.

That's not ALL RÃ*an would say. That statement is not complete and is rather misleading as it stands.

Sadaam Hussein allowed many of this people to be subjected to having their hands cut off.

My husband and I allowed our son's feet to be cut off. (sorry if that's a little harsh-sounding, but it's true.)

Is there a difference between Sadaam's actions and the actions of my husband and me? (careful, IRex )

[Insidious Rex]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

What do you mean by 'usable data format'?

something recordable, repeatable and verifiable.

Also I tend to look at it from a Christian standpoint. If what I hear sounds convincing, I will look into whether it may have been a demon or whether it might have been God. In real life I sometimes ask God to tell me whether there's a demon behind a situation or not.

so you assume as a base that god or demons drive reality? And that everything else must correspond to this point of view?

So my normal system I'd say would be first: Hear the account. Second (if it sounds convincing): Ask God about it.

you realize of course that that would not be sufficient enough verification from a scientific point of view. Its instead a way of approaching reality simply based on your religion. You become your own self contained universe in that way. And when something happens it is explained only through the lens and limits of your universe.

I'm not either asking you just to trust my own experience. I'm asking you to take it into account and weigh it in your mind, along with other Christian experiences, as you decide your own stance on this matter.

well is this not the same as asking me to trust your (and others) experience since I have none of my own of that type and if I do I see them in a scientific light and not a religious light?

How about the microchips in the computer? Do you know a lot about each of them?

I know that they operate as tiny semiconductors which can fluctuate from a state of high voltage to low voltage (open or closed circuits) which corresponds directly to your binary digits (1 and 0). And this binary language is what the computer uses to build structures (programming) with that ultimately allow it to run in the way we understand it.

Really, the computer is amazingly complex. So is God. You gradually learn more about the computer. You gradually learn more about God. You don't know how all of the computer works before you use it. You utilize most of its services without understanding the programs those services come from. With God, you do the same. We gain things from God, learn about his nature, experience things of the spiritual realm without knowing the processes of how all of those things work. We come to understand a lot more about how they work though, then does the scientist who is determined to approach such things by purely scientific, physical matter reaching methods.

a computer sits right in front of you. you buy them at the store. They can be opened and taken apart and each part can be explained. There is no direct analogy to god in this way. Or the soul. The soul is an immaterial object it sounds like from the way you describe it. And therefore cannot be detected by “purely scientific, physical matter reaching methods�. But where you see a soul I see something else. And because we cant take APART a soul and study it then we cannot simply assume that it exists and we certainly cant simply assume that it apparently controls us more then our instincts and our brain. You can say theres a magic invisible sphere orbiting the earth that keeps everything on earth from floating away and that it cant be detected by any scientific means but that I need to believe you because its as plain as day to you. My response would be well let me know if you get any real data. But until that point im gonna stick with the whole gravity thing.

The complex intricacies of how a machine works are beyond most of us.

gotta disagree with that. Its just most of us never sit down and take the time to figure it out. I just learned the other month exactly how fiber optic cables work. Fascinating! And we use them every day to talk to each other and store information.

Look around you. Wherever you're sitting right now, I'm certain you're nearby many machines, from a lightbulb down to a wristwatch (if you're wearing one). We gain massive benefits from plumbing, from lighting, from cars, from computers, printers, clocks, phones . . . vast numbers of things to our every day lives when we have no idea how they work. Or if so, only the vaguest of ideas.

again I strongly disagree that this is a parallel to the soul or god. All those things you mentioned were INVENTED by man so therefore some people certainly know how they work. And you and I can learn how they work if we study them.

Prayer is a part of my everyday life. The microwave is a part of yours. Do you understand everything about the microwave? Definitely not. Do I understand everything about prayer? Definitely not.

yeah but we know how the microwave works. What if prayer is simply a psychological phenomenon. Would you stop using it?

Atoms were accepted as reality before they could be observed, because the evidence was strong enough to convince the scientists.

atoms still cant be “observed� by the way. And are you saying that we have as much evidence for the soul as we do for atoms?

[Insidious Rex]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

I think that "things that can be measured in labs" (sounds like a Jeopardy category! ) is only a small subset of "things that are in the universe".

if by that you mean that most things are unexplainable and never will be explainable id have to disagree. I think we can understand most things. There may be things beyond our capacity to understand (limitations of the human brain) but that certainly doesn’t mean these things are automatically spiritual or verification of a Christian god (or of a soul).

I think we'll be further ahead in our knowledge base in another 2000 years (if we make it that long without blowing up the planet ), because we'll have better instrumentation, but "things that exist but can't be measured in labs" will STILL be "things that exist but can't be measured in labs", even in 2000 years. Or 20,000. Or 200,000. etc. etc. etc. (in memory of the movie "Anna and the King of Siam")

is this your way of saying we will never have a rational physical explanation for something like the soul so don’t assume it doesn’t exist because of this complete lack of evidence?

What's 8 + 4 in hex? I imagine you know that It's fun to work in different number bases!

yer talking the hexadecimal machine language here Im assuming? I think that’s C in hex and 00001100 in binary. Do you know what A + E is?