Smart Christianity / Dumb Christianity

[Belinda]

I believe in evolution by natural selection.I also believe in human evolution by cultural beliefs and practices.

The former is the basic natural process. The second is an imaginary process that human beings hope is happening, without sufficient reason to think it is. That's the difference: there's at least the pretext of "scientific relevance" for the first one, and nothing at all for the second.

I note you claim Darwin was a social Darwinist.

I do not. And no, you don't get to falsely attribute to me a historically anachronistic claim I never made, and then dismiss the whole issue. Sorry; that won't happen today.

However, I claim that anybody who takes Darwin seriously, and thus thinks that natural selection is how we got here, as you do, is rationally bound to Social Darwinism. If "survival of the fittest" made us who we are, then "survival of the fittest" is our mechanism going forward, and Social Darwinism becomes the obvious conclusion. Only by breaking faith with, and being irrational with relationship to Darwin can any person escape that conclusion.

I think I see where our disagreement is.
Firstly by 'culture' I refer to the belief, knowledge and skill set of a people. This set is passed through the generations of people. Some components such as the wheel and the printing press last a long time and make a big difference while others such as trends in clothing fashion are transitory. Change is either rapid by revolutions while other changes evolve more slowly. Please excuse me if I seem to lecture that's not my intention which is to explain which of the three main usages of 'culture' I refer to.

Secondly , the biological process of natural selection is how everything evolved. Many species are now tamed and artificially shaped by human culture. The beautiful thoroughbred horse did not entirely evolve by natural, but by artificial selection as one of many examples of artificial selection.

It is simply not true that

If "survival of the fittest" made us who we are, then "survival of the fittest" is our mechanism going forward, and Social Darwinism becomes the obvious conclusion.

Men evolved from some ancestor who was not sapiens, and nobody knows at what stage of evolution these early hominids invented technologies and beliefs that were passed through the generations by language and rituals. One important, approximately two thousand year old, set of beliefs places intentions towards others as a key to goodness and this has changed societies faster than slow biological evolution on a geological time scale. Likewise the invention of the wheel, and the invention of the printing press and the computer.

Sapiens intends: natural selection does not intend.

[Immanuel Can]

Sapiens intends: natural selection does not intend.

What you've done is to excuse (arbitrarily) technology and culture from being included in the natural world. The natural world, you say, runs on Darwinism and survival of the fittest. But technology and culture run on something not subject to the natural laws of the natural world, you are suggesting.

So what powers culture and technology? Humans, you say. But humans, you also say, are created by the natural world and the Darwinian process, and are subject to it.

On what basis, therefore, do you make technology and culture out to be NOT features of the natural world, and somehow magically above the natural laws that govern humanity? You're going to need to explain that, because on the face of it, it looks like a contradiction. How does something generated by the natural world (human beings, and presumably, all their activities too) turn into something supernatural or extra-natural (i.e. technology and culture, which you say are not subject to natural laws like "survival of the fittest")?

[Belinda]

Sapiens intends: natural selection does not intend.

What you've done is to excuse (arbitrarily) technology and culture from being included in the natural world. The natural world, you say, runs on Darwinism and survival of the fittest. But technology and culture run on something not subject to the natural laws of the natural world, you are suggesting.

So what powers culture and technology? Humans, you say. But humans, you also say, are created by the natural world and the Darwinian process, and are subject to it.

On what basis, therefore, do you make technology and culture out to be NOT features of the natural world, and somehow magically above the natural laws that govern humanity? You're going to need to explain that, because on the face of it, it looks like a contradiction. How does something generated by the natural world (human beings, and presumably, all their activities too) turn into something supernatural or extra-natural (i.e. technology and culture, which you say are not subject to natural laws like "survival of the fittest")?

I did not exclude cultural beliefs and practices from the natural world;I excluded them from natural selection . I would also exclude racing pigeons from natural selection as those are artificially bred by human intention, to get them to win races.

I said nothing about cultures' being supernatural. Nothing is supernatural .
Maybe you could reread what I did write and you might understand the difference between artificial breeding and the slow slow evolution of species by natural selection.

[Immanuel Can]

I did not exclude cultural beliefs and practices from the natural world;I excluded them from natural selection . I would also exclude racing pigeons from natural selection as those are artificially bred by human intention, to get them to win races.

But they are bred by humans, who, you say, are part of the natural world and are subject to its laws, including the law of survival of the fittest. But then they somehow gained a magical power to create things that are no longer subject to natural laws. But you haven't yet said how they managed to become above natural laws...including the law of survival of the fittest. So that's what I'm waiting to hear.

I said nothing about cultures' being supernatural. Nothing is supernatural .

Then, since culture and technology, including even animal husbandry, are definitely "things," and "nothing is supernatural" then they also are subject to the law of survival of the fittest...or so you are rationally obligated to conclude. EVERYTHING, you would have to say, is likewise subject to the law of survival of the fittest...and you're back to Social Darwinism.

[Belinda]

I did not exclude cultural beliefs and practices from the natural world;I excluded them from natural selection . I would also exclude racing pigeons from natural selection as those are artificially bred by human intention, to get them to win races.

But they are bred by humans, who, you say, are part of the natural world and are subject to its laws, including the law of survival of the fittest. But then they somehow gained a magical power to create things that are no longer subject to natural laws. But you haven't yet said how they managed to become above natural laws...including the law of survival of the fittest. So that's what I'm waiting to hear.

I said nothing about cultures' being supernatural. Nothing is supernatural .

Then, since culture and technology, including even animal husbandry, are definitely "things," and "nothing is supernatural" then they also are subject to the law of survival of the fittest...or so you are rationally obligated to conclude. EVERYTHING, you would have to say, is likewise subject to the law of survival of the fittest...and you're back to Social Darwinism.

But I certainly did say everything is natural and nothing is supernatural. Human beings' genes still produce random mutations, and humans still struggle for survival same as other tame or wild species, but cultural change affects us more than do random mutations as cultural change is so rapid compared with natural selection.

Survival of the fittest men to survive is now determined by cultural beliefs and practices not by natural selection. Social Darwinism fails because the 19th century people who espoused and their modern imitators it did not recognise the agency of culture for determining change.

[Lacewing]

If I could figure out how, I would be like Elon Musk or like Steve Jobs or like Leonardo DaVinci. The best I know about at the moment is epistemology, so I intend to push that further if I can.

Well, all of that could be fascinating. I think being a homeless wandering sage could be fascinating with the right attitude. (I was barefoot and homeless at the beach for a brief time when I was 19 -- and that produced some interesting insights and stories.) At the same time, every path has its own challenges, pressures, and torments. Personally, I like striving for a nice and fun peaceful life/experience (no matter what the circumstances are), which may become more challenging in our changing world, but that's just life. If I ever have to leave everything behind that I've created/built and hit the road... I could do that. Then that would become my adventure. Spirit is something that no one destroys.

OK, I think I may have hit on a win/win agreement (a win for you and a win for me). Instead of questioning your personal philosophy (e.g. telling you that you are wrong, and starting a long argument), like a staunch skeptic, let's just assume that you are correct. Striving for a nice and fun peaceful life/experience is what it's all about! And I would like you to continue to explain what that means without doubting it. Just assume that you are correct. It's a win for me, because I think that staunch skepticism is anathema to a rational discussion of what might be true. And I think it would be a win for you to have someone listen rather than denying. Would you like to continue describing? Or is that not what you want?

I've expressed what works well in my experience. I do this to demonstrate yet another view/path/choice, in contrast to people who claim that their path is the one, true, correct path for everyone. Such people apparently have no idea what ELSE there is, and appear to lack the awareness to fathom broader potential. There are a bazillion people making such claims going in a bazillion directions. That fact ALONE should bring a reality check to all of those who are open to it.

I'd like to point out, I did not say: "Striving for a nice and fun peaceful life/experience is what it's all about!" I said: Personally, I like striving for a nice and fun peaceful life/experience (no matter what the circumstances are). I'm speaking of my own methodology. I've found it to be a viable and obtainable path/choice despite adversity -- and it has shown far-reaching affects. Perhaps it is not obtainable for some people -- I do not know the reasons for anyone's trip. But I do know that we are not all limited to anyone's specific trip/delusions, even if they claim such to be directed by a god. We can explore for ourselves, and perhaps discover that what we feel -- the energy we vibrate with and create -- spreads. For better or worse! (The story/methodology is secondary. There are countless of them.)

[Immanuel Can]

...but cultural change affects us more than do random mutations as cultural change is so rapid compared with natural selection.

But this sort of claim is your problem, at the moment. You have arbitrarily exempted cultural change from the universal principle of "survival of the fittest."

On what basis do you do so? Do you think cultural-formation is not governed by natural law? Why do you think that?

Survival of the fittest men to survive is now determined by cultural beliefs and practices not by natural selection.

On what basis do you say this?

[Nick_A]

1 Corinthians 15

12 But if it is preached that Christ has been raised from the dead, how can some of you say that there is no resurrection of the dead? 13 If there is no resurrection of the dead, then not even Christ has been raised. 14 And if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith. 15 More than that, we are then found to be false witnesses about God, for we have testified about God that he raised Christ from the dead. But he did not raise him if in fact the dead are not raised. 16 For if the dead are not raised, then Christ has not been raised either. 17 And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins. 18 Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ are lost. 19 If only for this life we have hope in Christ, we are of all people most to be pitied.

Smart Christianity, meaningful Christianity, feels the reality of the resurrection while dumb Christianity rejects it in favor of worshiping the Great Beast or collective secularism

[Systematic]

I've expressed what works well in my experience. I do this to demonstrate yet another view/path/choice, in contrast to people who claim that their path is the one, true, correct path for everyone. Such people apparently have no idea what ELSE there is, and appear to lack the awareness to fathom broader potential. There are a bazillion people making such claims going in a bazillion directions. That fact ALONE should bring a reality check to all of those who are open to it.

I'd like to point out, I did not say: "Striving for a nice and fun peaceful life/experience is what it's all about!" I said: Personally, I like striving for a nice and fun peaceful life/experience (no matter what the circumstances are). I'm speaking of my own methodology. I've found it to be a viable and obtainable path/choice despite adversity -- and it has shown far-reaching affects. Perhaps it is not obtainable for some people -- I do not know the reasons for anyone's trip. But I do know that we are not all limited to anyone's specific trip/delusions, even if they claim such to be directed by a god. We can explore for ourselves, and perhaps discover that what we feel -- the energy we vibrate with and create -- spreads. For better or worse! (The story/methodology is secondary. There are countless of them.)

How do you keep other people's trip from becoming your trip? Or how do you keep your own vibration? I seem to have great difficulty with actually doing that. Do you just avoid narcissists? Do you seek out people with good vibrations?

[Belinda]

...but cultural change affects us more than do random mutations as cultural change is so rapid compared with natural selection.

But this sort of claim is your problem, at the moment. You have arbitrarily exempted cultural change from the universal principle of "survival of the fittest."

On what basis do you do so? Do you think cultural-formation is not governed by natural law? Why do you think that?

Survival of the fittest men to survive is now determined by cultural beliefs and practices not by natural selection.

On what basis do you say this?

Sapiens is a social species which is also intelligent enough to invent cultures. This is as much a "natural law" as is that earth worms pass soil through their bodies.

Natural selection causes evolution of species over geological time spans. Cultural practices such as a war of attrition , or such as the British National Health Service, or such as doing away with Obamacare, or such as poor people living in slums, change the species faster.

Our cultural practice of eating industrially farmed animals is going to either kill off sapiens or continue to change it.

[Belinda]

1 Corinthians 15

12 But if it is preached that Christ has been raised from the dead, how can some of you say that there is no resurrection of the dead? 13 If there is no resurrection of the dead, then not even Christ has been raised. 14 And if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith. 15 More than that, we are then found to be false witnesses about God, for we have testified about God that he raised Christ from the dead. But he did not raise him if in fact the dead are not raised. 16 For if the dead are not raised, then Christ has not been raised either. 17 And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins. 18 Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ are lost. 19 If only for this life we have hope in Christ, we are of all people most to be pitied.

Smart Christianity, meaningful Christianity, feels the reality of the resurrection while dumb Christianity rejects it in favor of worshiping the Great Beast or collective secularism

But sufficiently intelligent secularists well understand the symbolic significance of the Resurrection. Secularists can and do value the story of the Resurrection without the story's supernatural and superstitious interpretation. Saint Paul was concerned to amalgamate Jewish Christianity with the superstition and supernaturalism of the Roman beliefs.

[Immanuel Can]

Sapiens is a social species which is also intelligent enough to invent cultures. This is as much a "natural law" as is that earth worms pass soil through their bodies.

Then human culture is as much a product of survival of the fittest as the worms are. On what basis, then, do you now insist we abandon the mechanism that you allege brought us this far, in favour of some other principle?

[Immanuel Can]

...But sufficiently intelligent secularists well understand the symbolic significance of the Resurrection. Secularists can and do value the story of the Resurrection without the story's supernatural and superstitious interpretation.

Actually, Paul himself demonstrates that this is worthless. If you believe in the Resurrection, but only as a metaphor, myth or legend, then here's the conclusion:

"...if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is vain, your faith also is vain. Moreover we are even found to be false witnesses of God, because we testified against God that He raised Christ, whom He did not raise, if in fact the dead are not raised. For if the dead are not raised, not even Christ has been raised; and if Christ has not been raised, your faith is worthless; you are still in your sins. Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ have perished. If we have hoped in Christ in this life only, we are of all men most to be pitied." (1 Cor. 15: 14-19)

What, therefore, is the value of secularists believing in the Resurrection as merely symbolic?

Saint Paul was concerned to amalgamate Jewish Christianity with the superstition and supernaturalism of the Roman beliefs.

No, he wasn't. Such a thing did not happen until Constantine, and then only superficially, and then only to the Roman Catholic Church (see the name?). Paul wrote in Greek, but directly refuted the multiple Greek gods, and never campaigned for a single Roman one either. Syncretism really got going with Constantine.

[Sculptor]

...But sufficiently intelligent secularists well understand the symbolic significance of the Resurrection. Secularists can and do value the story of the Resurrection without the story's supernatural and superstitious interpretation.

Actually, Paul himself demonstrates that this is worthless. If you believe in the Resurrection, but only as a metaphor, myth or legend, then here's the conclusion:

"...if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is vain, your faith also is vain. Moreover we are even found to be false witnesses of God, because we testified against God that He raised Christ, whom He did not raise, if in fact the dead are not raised. For if the dead are not raised, not even Christ has been raised; and if Christ has not been raised, your faith is worthless; you are still in your sins. Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ have perished. If we have hoped in Christ in this life only, we are of all men most to be pitied." (1 Cor. 15: 14-19)

What a poor confused little soul was Paul.
Religion poisons every thing.

[Sculptor]

Be kind one to another. Forgiving one another.

Be kind to your neighbor as yourself.

What if you are feeling suicidal?

Don't sleep with your neighbor's wife while he is away.

Do it whilst he watches?

Give to him who asks of you. And let him borrow from you who would.

Neither a borrower nor a lender be.
And making a whip of cords, he drove them all out of the temple, with the sheep and oxen. And he poured out the coins of the money-changers and overturned their tables. And he told those who sold the pigeons, "Take these things away; do not make my Father's house a house of trade".

— John 2:13–16

Hopefully, I can get agreement that Christianity is kindness.

LOL.
2 John Will you be my neighbour?
9 Whosoever transgresseth, and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God. He that abideth in the doctrine of Christ, he hath both the Father and the Son.
10 If there come any unto you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into your house, neither bid him God speed:

1John.
Here's one for the environmentalists!!
2:15 Love not the world, neither the things that are in the world. If any man love the world, the love of the Father is not in him.

Titus (anti-semitism anyone?)
1:10 For there are many unruly and vain talkers and deceivers, specially they of the circumcision:

How about a bit of racism?
Matthew
10:5 These twelve Jesus sent forth, and commanded them, saying, Go not into the way of the Gentiles, and into any city of the Samaritans enter ye not:

10:6 But go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.

But kindness cannot be achieved by stupid people. Ergo I propose a new wine skin. Remain in intellectual kindness.

Thus God damns the morons, and favours those who are more intelligent, but no enough to the the contradiction!!