Christianity

For all things philosophical.

Moderators: AMod, iMod

User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 22140
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: Christianity

Post by Immanuel Can »

Belinda wrote: Tue Sep 28, 2021 9:20 am
Immanuel Can wrote: Tue Sep 28, 2021 12:19 am
Belinda wrote: Mon Sep 27, 2021 7:06 pm By evolution I mean change, neutrally, without evaluation either way.
So...it could be good, it could be bad, it could be improvement, it could be decline, corruption and decay...but so long as it's "change," you're going to call it "evolution"? :shock:
Immanuel, it's a simple thing; gradual change is what 'evolution' means.
It's actually not. "Evolution" means, "develop gradually, especially from a simple to a more complex form." (Oxford) As such, it implies, "for the better" or "improving." It does not mean "declining," or "corrupting" or "degrading." It's a pretty one-sided word.

So if you want to be precise, as you claim, why would you ever include decline as a form of "evolution"? It's a "change," alright: but it's not a "developing," far less the sort of thing that takes something "from a simple to a complex form."
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 22140
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: Christianity

Post by Immanuel Can »

Sculptor wrote: Tue Sep 28, 2021 9:30 am
Immanuel Can wrote: Tue Sep 28, 2021 12:19 am
Belinda wrote: Mon Sep 27, 2021 7:06 pm By evolution I mean change, neutrally, without evaluation either way.
So...it could be good, it could be bad, it could be improvement, it could be decline, corruption and decay...but so long as it's "change," you're going to call it "evolution"? :shock:
:roll:
Evolution is the change resulting from fitness in some way. This is neither good nor bad.
Actually, see my message to Belinda, above. Sorry, but you're just wrong again.

To "evolve" means to "get more complex," and in the case of fitness, obviously, "to get more fit," not "less." To get less fit is to "devolve." Notice the prefix.
User avatar
RCSaunders
Posts: 4704
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2018 9:42 pm
Contact:

Re: Christianity

Post by RCSaunders »

Belinda wrote: Mon Sep 27, 2021 7:06 pm
RCSaunders wrote: Mon Sep 27, 2021 3:18 pm
Belinda wrote: Mon Sep 27, 2021 12:59 pm
My underline. I agree. Same here. Don't you then agree that humans evolve (and we do change)mainly along the cultural channel as opposed to the biological channel?
I do not know what, "humans evolve," actually means. Certainly their nature does not change. If you are only referring to the fact that cultural and social practices change, I don't know why that should be called, "evolution?" Do you think that killing masses of other human beings with planes, missiles, and bombs is some kind of advance over killing people with swords, spears, and bows and arrows? If anything, I'd say humans are devolving.
By evolution I mean change, neutrally, without evaluation either way.

Warfare has changed over time. Notice how recent wars have been fought using some other nation's territory for the killing and destruction to take place. Notice how WWII was a just war of defence against an aggressor.
Human nature is an unknown , there are few occasions when human instincts are allowed free play, and cultures are main players in the shaping of how people think and act.
Belinda, I do not see any evidence whatsoever that human nature has changed one iota in its entire history. There have been gains in knowledge, and social and cultural changes are ubiquitous, but human nature itself has not changed at all. All the actual changes are only how the same human nature operates over time.
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 22140
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: Christianity

Post by Immanuel Can »

RCSaunders wrote: Tue Sep 28, 2021 2:56 pm ...human nature itself has not changed at all. All the actual changes are only how the same human nature operates over time.
She's making a very common mistake. It's to conflate technological "progress" with moral improvement, as if the one automatically produces the other.

No history supports such a sanguine hope. But people feel they have to believe such things, because if they don't, then they would have to realize that technological sophistication is likely to result not in heaven-on-earth but far more likely, on greater magnitude and power for destruction. And that sort of inverse relationship can only go on so long, until technological sophistication produces enough power for a single bad choice to result in global tragedy...rather like, as the Wuhan virus has made apparent, is all too easy now.

I rarely make prophecies. But I'm not alone in this one: the Wuhan virus is not the last, nor the worst such disaster we will see. And global geopolitics global trade and global travel only make that easier. It's coming: the when, not the if, is the question.

The bigger and more powerful our technologies, the bigger and more powerful our disasters. When eventually, the Wuhan virus is conquered, the world will cheer -- forgetting entirely that the same technology that has rescued them made the virus in the first place, and next, will make a worse one.
User avatar
RCSaunders
Posts: 4704
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2018 9:42 pm
Contact:

Re: Christianity

Post by RCSaunders »

Immanuel Can wrote: Tue Sep 28, 2021 3:25 pm
RCSaunders wrote: Tue Sep 28, 2021 2:56 pm ...human nature itself has not changed at all. All the actual changes are only how the same human nature operates over time.
She's making a very common mistake. It's to conflate technological "progress" with moral improvement, as if the one automatically produces the other.
I think the mistake is more fundamental than that. Human nature does not pertain to some collective thing called, "mankind," or, "humanity," but to individual human beings.

As for so-called, "moral improvement," (assuming morality pertains to principles of right values), they only pertain to individual human beings, because values only have meaning where there is a possibility of choice in behavior, and that ability only exists in individuals, not cultures, societies, or, "mankind," as some collective. There can only be, "moral improvement," in individuals who choose to improve themselves. Collectively, they can only get worse.

By the way, if all the disasters you foresee occur, (and some, like war, are inevitable), they will not be moral consequences, just the consequence of the stupidity and ignorance if the vast majority of individual human beings.
User avatar
Sculptor
Posts: 8478
Joined: Wed Jun 26, 2019 11:32 pm

Re: Christianity

Post by Sculptor »

Belinda wrote: Tue Sep 28, 2021 11:35 am
Sculptor wrote: Tue Sep 28, 2021 9:30 am
Immanuel Can wrote: Tue Sep 28, 2021 12:19 am
So...it could be good, it could be bad, it could be improvement, it could be decline, corruption and decay...but so long as it's "change," you're going to call it "evolution"? :shock:
:roll:
Evolution is the change resulting from fitness in some way. This is neither good nor bad. Those things are just in your mind.

For you, evolution is the result of changes in Christianity that have meant that secular laws stop people like you burning witches, and hanging atheists. Christianity has had to evolve to believe in a different god that the ones that it previously believed in.
The once immutable god has had to change.
Evolution does not necessarily imply progress . Neither does evolution necessarily imply regress. If you mean evolution by natural selection you should say so.If by evolution you mean moral progress you should say so. NB by "you should" I mean everyone should.
Did you even bother to read what I said?
What do you think I meant by "Evolution is the change resulting from fitness in some way. This is neither good nor bad. Those things are just in your mind."?

I did not use, nor imply the word "progress".
User avatar
Sculptor
Posts: 8478
Joined: Wed Jun 26, 2019 11:32 pm

Re: Christianity

Post by Sculptor »

Immanuel Can wrote: Tue Sep 28, 2021 12:37 pm
Sculptor wrote: Tue Sep 28, 2021 9:30 am
Immanuel Can wrote: Tue Sep 28, 2021 12:19 am
So...it could be good, it could be bad, it could be improvement, it could be decline, corruption and decay...but so long as it's "change," you're going to call it "evolution"? :shock:
:roll:
Evolution is the change resulting from fitness in some way. This is neither good nor bad.
Actually, see my message to Belinda, above. Sorry, but you're just wrong again.

To "evolve" means to "get more complex," and in the case of fitness, obviously, "to get more fit," not "less." To get less fit is to "devolve." Notice the prefix.
Why don't you fuck off and look at definitions. Don't bother to come back with your tail up your arse.

Fitness is not necessarily progressive.
It can be currenltly advantageous in selective terms to have more children. Poor people have more children, smart people often choose not to.
Even a dickwad like you can find examples of fitness that promote simplicity.
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 22140
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: Christianity

Post by Immanuel Can »

Sculptor wrote: Tue Sep 28, 2021 5:25 pm Did you even bother to read what I said?
More and more, I find that's never worth doing.
User avatar
Sculptor
Posts: 8478
Joined: Wed Jun 26, 2019 11:32 pm

Re: Christianity

Post by Sculptor »

Immanuel Can wrote: Tue Sep 28, 2021 5:32 pm
Sculptor wrote: Tue Sep 28, 2021 5:25 pm Did you even bother to read what I said?
More and more, I find that's never worth doing.
I don't care if you read my stuff. In fact I would rather you did not.
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 22140
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: Christianity

Post by Immanuel Can »

RCSaunders wrote: Tue Sep 28, 2021 3:43 pm Human nature does not pertain to some collective thing called, "mankind," or, "humanity," but to individual human beings.
So you're suggesting that human beings don't have a common nature of any kind? Is that right?

But if so, what's the point of speaking of "human nature" at all. Why not just speak of "IC's nature," and "RC's nature." But of course, given that those are individual and unique to IC and RC, what's the point of calling either a "nature" at all? Rather, we should just speak of IC's and RC's differing inclinations or choices.
...if all the disasters you foresee occur, (and some, like war, are inevitable), they will not be moral consequences, just the consequence of the stupidity and ignorance if the vast majority of individual human beings.
We'll see.

If the only possible causes of evil are "stupidity and ignorance," and the only people who have a say are "the vast majority," you'll be right. But if it's not so much "majorities" that are making the decisions, and if individually, cruelty, malevolence, greed, power-hunger, hubris, and so on are also possible to human beings, then there can be many reasons why such things happen.

Wuhan didn't happen because the masses were ignorant. It happened because certain world leaders were malevolent and unscrupulous, and certain technologists were hubristic. The ignorance of the masses clearly only became relevant after the virus was already out, in terms, perhaps, of spreading it. But the decisions that produced it were not taken by the masses.
Belinda
Posts: 8030
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2016 10:13 am

Re: Christianity

Post by Belinda »

Immanuel Can wrote:
So you're suggesting that human beings don't have a common nature of any kind? Is that right?

But if so, what's the point of speaking of "human nature" at all. Why not just speak of "IC's nature," and "RC's nature." But of course, given that those are individual and unique to IC and RC, what's the point of calling either a "nature" at all? Rather, we should just speak of IC's and RC's differing inclinations or choices.
Objectively true, we are anatomically symmetrical by nature.( Poor forked creatures that we are). Our minds, ideas, and to a large extent our behaviours vary too much to be defined. Human nature is still undefined and possibly undefinable until judgement day.
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 22140
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: Christianity

Post by Immanuel Can »

Belinda wrote: Wed Sep 29, 2021 12:57 pm Human nature is still undefined and possibly undefinable until judgement day.
If that were completely true, B., there would be no generalizations about human beings possible. There would also be no regularities and patterns in history, since human inclinations would be random and would vary too widely to be recognizable.

Since there obviously are generalizations, and because it's not really very hard to find patterns in history, there must be some sort of "human nature," even if we debate its exact distribution of values.
User avatar
RCSaunders
Posts: 4704
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2018 9:42 pm
Contact:

Re: Christianity

Post by RCSaunders »

Immanuel Can wrote: Wed Sep 29, 2021 1:55 am
RCSaunders wrote: Tue Sep 28, 2021 3:43 pm Human nature does not pertain to some collective thing called, "mankind," or, "humanity," but to individual human beings.
So you're suggesting that human beings don't have a common nature of any kind? Is that right?
Nothing I said could possibly be construed to suggest such an absurd idea. There is human nature and every, "individual human being," has the same kind of nature. The point is that human nature is intrinsic to individual human beings, it is not something conferred on them or attributed to them because the are members of some collective called, "mankind," or, "humanity." One's nature is not determined by their associations. An individual does not have a Canadian nature because they are members of Canadian society. An individual does not have human nature because they are a member of, "humanity."
Immanuel Can wrote: Wed Sep 29, 2021 1:55 am But if so, what's the point of speaking of "human nature" at all. Why not just speak of "IC's nature," and "RC's nature." But of course, given that those are individual and unique to IC and RC, what's the point of calling either a "nature" at all? Rather, we should just speak of IC's and RC's differing inclinations or choices.
Every individual human being is unique. It is what is common to every human being that differentiates human beings from all other organisms that is called human nature, and the essential difference between human nature and the nature of all other organisms is human conscious nature, which is volitional, and requires knowledge (intellect) and the ability to think (rationality) in order to use knowledge to make choices. It is that aspect of human nature all human beings have. But nothing about that nature determines how any individual will use their ability to think and choose to live, especially not their being members of some collective.
...if all the disasters you foresee occur, (and some, like war, are inevitable), they will not be moral consequences, just the consequence of the stupidity and ignorance if the vast majority of individual human beings.
Immanuel Can wrote: Wed Sep 29, 2021 1:55 am If the only possible causes of evil are "stupidity and ignorance," and the only people who have a say are "the vast majority," you'll be right. But if it's not so much "majorities" that are making the decisions, and if individually, cruelty, malevolence, greed, power-hunger, hubris, and so on are also possible to human beings, then there can be many reasons why such things happen.
You do not think, "cruelty, malevolence, greed, power-hunger, and hubris," are stupid? You do not think that the vast majority of human beings who believe they have a right to things, like food, clothing, education, health care, safety, and a pleasant life, and will vote for and support those who promise those things to them are stupid?
Immanuel Can wrote: Wed Sep 29, 2021 1:55 am Wuhan didn't happen because the masses were ignorant. It happened because certain world leaders were malevolent and unscrupulous, and certain technologists were hubristic. The ignorance of the masses clearly only became relevant after the virus was already out, in terms, perhaps, of spreading it. But the decisions that produced it were not taken by the masses.
All the decisions were made by those the masses chose as their leaders and saviors. They deserve what they get. There are always social upheavals, wars, and atrocities, and no society in history has escaped them. You may not remember it, but after the First World War, there was a great scare that humanity was going be destroyed by poison gas. Then, after the Second World War, everyone was sure the world was going to be destroyed in a nuclear holocaust. Where are the ancient Greeks, the Romans, the Persians and Babylonians, the Egyptians, the Etruscans, the .... It's always the end of the world for some someplace, and those who suffer it are always complicit in producing the conditions that make it possible. But most of humanity is stupid and will forever repeat the same stupid mistake of believing, somehow, they can make the world into one they would like it to be, and will support any ideology or political policy that promises them their Utopia.
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 22140
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: Christianity

Post by Immanuel Can »

RCSaunders wrote: Wed Sep 29, 2021 2:32 pm
Immanuel Can wrote: Wed Sep 29, 2021 1:55 am
RCSaunders wrote: Tue Sep 28, 2021 3:43 pm Human nature does not pertain to some collective thing called, "mankind," or, "humanity," but to individual human beings.
So you're suggesting that human beings don't have a common nature of any kind? Is that right?
Nothing I said could possibly be construed to suggest such an absurd idea. There is human nature and every, "individual human being," has the same kind of nature.
Actually, what you said above seems to necessitate the question. But your answer seems to contradict your earlier statement. So now I'm at a bit of a loss to know what you actually want to say: is it that "human nature" pertains only to "individuals," or that "every human being has the same kind of nature"? :shock: You've said both, evidently.
An individual does not have human nature because they are a member of, "humanity."
I cannot imagine any other way they could have it. :shock:
...nothing about that nature determines how any individual will use their ability to think and choose to live, especially not their being members of some collective.
I wasn't suggesting it did. As you know, I'm no Determinist, nor am I any kind of Collectivist. "Human nature," I think, is a concept that applies to broad inclinations and instincts all humans have in common, not something determinative of specific choices of individuals.

Maybe that's the difference you're looking to point out...I'm not sure.
...if all the disasters you foresee occur, (and some, like war, are inevitable), they will not be moral consequences, just the consequence of the stupidity and ignorance if the vast majority of individual human beings.
Immanuel Can wrote: Wed Sep 29, 2021 1:55 am If the only possible causes of evil are "stupidity and ignorance," and the only people who have a say are "the vast majority," you'll be right. But if it's not so much "majorities" that are making the decisions, and if individually, cruelty, malevolence, greed, power-hunger, hubris, and so on are also possible to human beings, then there can be many reasons why such things happen.
You do not think, "cruelty, malevolence, greed, power-hunger, and hubris," are stupid?
No. I think they're often deliberate, calculated, strategized, intentional, and cunning. The word "stupid" would hardly apply to that, because the word implies "in a stupor," and hence, unconscious: and these people are obviously very conscious, very purposeful, very calculating. They are reasoning evilly, not acting in a "stupor."
Immanuel Can wrote: Wed Sep 29, 2021 1:55 am Wuhan didn't happen because the masses were ignorant. It happened because certain world leaders were malevolent and unscrupulous, and certain technologists were hubristic. The ignorance of the masses clearly only became relevant after the virus was already out, in terms, perhaps, of spreading it. But the decisions that produced it were not taken by the masses.
All the decisions were made by those the masses chose as their leaders and saviors.

No, that's not right.

Firstly, they didn't "choose" their leaders, in many cases. China did not "choose" the Communist Party. Russia never "chose" Stalin. And, in point of fact, the American public did not "choose" Biden, either -- unless you actually believe that statistically, Biden is the most popular president in history :shock: ...more popular than Clinton and Obama, more than Reagan and Bush, and more even than Lincoln or Washington. I don't think there's anybody who believes that...not even Biden, assuming he still knows what "believe" means.

What happens is rather different: sometimes the masses are stupid and cause their own misery, sure. But sometimes, unscrupulous individuals subvert the will of the people and force them into situations of misery and exploitation. And sometimes, as in Socialism, those things work together: the people perhaps selecting Socialism initially, and the unscrupulous leaders taking advantage of the stupidity of the masses in doing that, but creating far more misery, poverty and exploitation than the masses themselves would have imagined.
User avatar
RCSaunders
Posts: 4704
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2018 9:42 pm
Contact:

Re: Christianity

Post by RCSaunders »

Immanuel Can wrote: Wed Sep 29, 2021 3:11 pm I cannot imagine any other way they could have it. :shock:
There's not much I can do about your intellectual deficiencies. If you can't understand (or imagine?) it, then you can't.
Immanuel Can wrote: Wed Sep 29, 2021 3:11 pm ... As you know, I'm no Determinist, nor am I any kind of Collectivist. "Human nature," I think, is a concept that applies to broad inclinations and instincts all humans have in common, not something determinative of specific choices of individuals.
Human behavior is not determined, you say, but have, "broad inclinations and instincts," that, what?. Colors human behavior, inclines it, influences it? If it has no affect on human behavior, why even mention it. If it does affect human behavior, like it or not, that is determinism. Behavior that is in way affected by anything other than conscious choice (like the subconscious, genetics, chemicals in the brain, evolutionary traits, instinct, a sinful nature, or any other nonsense) is not volitional behavior, it is determined.
Immanuel Can wrote: Wed Sep 29, 2021 3:11 pm
RCSaunders wrote: Wed Sep 29, 2021 2:32 pm You do not think, "cruelty, malevolence, greed, power-hunger, and hubris," are stupid?
No. I think they're often deliberate, calculated, strategized, intentional, and cunning. The word "stupid" would hardly apply to that, because the word implies "in a stupor," and hence, unconscious: and these people are obviously very conscious, very purposeful, very calculating. They are reasoning evily, not acting in a "stupor."
I forgot. You think every kind of evil is also rational. There is no way one can reason with someone who regards reason itself as a potential evil. Maybe it is, for Christians.
Immanuel Can wrote: Wed Sep 29, 2021 1:55 am Wuhan didn't happen because the masses were ignorant. It happened because certain world leaders were malevolent and unscrupulous, and certain technologists were hubristic. The ignorance of the masses clearly only became relevant after the virus was already out, in terms, perhaps, of spreading it. But the decisions that produced it were not taken by the masses.
RCSaunders wrote: Wed Sep 29, 2021 2:32 pm All the decisions were made by those the masses chose as their leaders and saviors.

No, that's not right.

Firstly, they didn't "choose" their leaders, in many cases. China did not "choose" the Communist Party.
Who do you think the Chinese Communist Party is. They're not martians. How do you think they gained their power? You think a handful of individuals can simply force millions to obey them. Millions of Chinese were complicit, from soldiers to business men in the revolution, and all of them entertained superstitious and ignorant cultural beliefs and practices that made the revolution possible.
Immanuel Can wrote: Wed Sep 29, 2021 1:55 am Russia never "chose" Stalin. And, in point of fact, the American public did not "choose" Biden, either -- unless you actually believe that statistically, Biden is the most popular president in history :shock: ...more popular than Clinton and Obama, more than Reagan and Bush, and more even than Lincoln or Washington. I don't think there's anybody who believes that...not even Biden, assuming he still knows what "believe" means.
Well, not the Russians who still worshiped the Czar, of course. But just like the US, those who think they didn't choose Biden support the system that put him in power, and every voter is complicit in the entire mess.
Immanuel Can wrote: Wed Sep 29, 2021 1:55 am What happens is rather different: sometimes the masses are stupid and cause their own misery, sure. But sometimes, unscrupulous individuals subvert the will of the people and force them into situations of misery and exploitation. And sometimes, as in Socialism, those things work together: the people perhaps selecting Socialism initially, and the unscrupulous leaders taking advantage of the stupidity of the masses in doing that, but creating far more misery, poverty and exploitation than the masses themselves would have imagined.
If everyone just ignored the, "unscrupulous," and went about living their own lives, the unscrupulous would be able to do nothing. But no one will ever do that because they prefer their government jobs (all school teacher, bureaucrats, every business with government contracts, law enforcement, judges and court personnel, and everyone else whose income comes from government) and of course the vast majority of people who support the system, political parties, and everything else that makes government possible. They all deserve what they get.
Post Reply