Christianity

[Mr Pumblechook]

I think it does by definition.

It's no big deal really,it is still 'good' to give.Recognising that it is self interested doesn't necessarily degrade it.It is just something interesting to consider.
In Eastern enlightment some of the guys who are really successful at it get to a state where they are without self,and emotionless.They don't value one thing over another.So 'love' everything equally.

I suppose one could call that true altruism.It is very rare though.

Not necessarily. Altruism is defined as selflessness, not emotionlessness. If that act of altruism is accompanied by an emotion, it doesn't mean the emotional state is the goal, or the motivator of the altruistic behaviour, merely an accompanying (unavoidable) state. Wouldn't the behaviour need to be motivated my the end state to non-altruistic?

 

[sonofjacko]

Jacko, have you suffered loss in the fires?

No family but friends and work colleagues have lost loved ones.

The scope of this disaster is something that is only just starting to sink in.

In Vietnam we lost 500 good people but that was over an eleven year involvement.

To lose what could reach 300 in one day is beyond my comprehension.

I fear we will be changed for ever by this one black day.

 

[evo]

Not necessarily. Altruism is defined as selflessness, not emotionlessness.

They are inextricably linked.Emotions are "of the ego"

I'm suggesting the only people who could truly act selflesslessly are people who have anihilated their self(ego). It no longer exists so wouldn't be the cause of their actions.

Jesus may have been such a person.

If that act of altruism is accompanied by an emotion, it doesn't mean the emotional state is the goal, or the motivator of the altruistic behaviour, merely an accompanying (unavoidable) state.

Well then what would you say is the cause of an act of altruism(if such a thing exists) if not to satisfy a desire.

Wouldn't the behaviour need to be motivated my the end state to non-altruistic?

Not sure what you mean.

 

[Panthera tigris FC]

Yeah, yeah, but why are you bringing it to light? Seems to me like a little more cheap point scoring/Christian bashing going on (again). This bloke is obviously way out of line and I hope his leadership disciplines him. All anyone should be doing at this time is shutting up and mucking in!

I point out one of the more vile expressions of Christianity (it requires that belief to draw the conclusions) and you call it Christian bashing? No, I am pointing out that dogmatically following an interpretation of scripture (or any ideology) can have nasty repurcussions. Something that fits perfectly into the discussions on this thread.

Instead of pointing out why I'm wrong, or why the pastor is out of line according to Chrisitian doctrine, you call it cheap point scoring, use the No True Scotsman defence and claim that such a discussion shouldn't occur at the present.

I have been contributing to the relief effort for the victims of this tragedy, like many other people, Christian and non-Christian alike.

 

[Panthera tigris FC]

There are many scientists that believe the universe had a beginning. It's called the 'Big Bang'. I'm one of them. Presumably, according to determinism, everything we have now is a result of what was begun then. But I suppose you are correct that I don't know everything about this philosophy, and don't claim to, I just understood it sufficiently to engage in the discussion on the Woo thread.

At the end of the day I'm not up for tedious discussions on omnipotence that weve had before. I'm happy to simply disagree. Hope your'e OK with that.

Interesting sleight of hand there Djevv. Evo pointing out that your God is not omnipotent didn't have anything to do with the Big Bang, but with your claim that free agency exists and thus God is not responsible for the actions of 'his children'. Nothing really tedious there. It seems relatively straight forward to me.

 

[Panthera tigris FC]

Personally I find the idea that we all sprung from cosmic dust as implausible as the idea of a god

Have you studied the topic much? If you choose to ignore the evidence that is your choice, it doesn't change the plausibility of the 'idea'.

 

[Panthera tigris FC]

True, but why does it feel good? Why does anything feel good (or bad)? Evolutionary psychologists would say in order to motivate behaviours to promote survival (that nasty little selfish gene!) But does the fact that it 'feels good' invalidate it as truly altruistic? There isn't much (some would argue there is nothing) in life that we can separate from our emotional experiences.
True - or to satisfy some other internal need.

Please refrain from citing pop evolutionary psychology....it is a farce (scientifically), lacking any real evidence. Larry Moran summarises it well.

 

[sonofjacko]

Have you studied the topic much? If you choose to ignore the evidence that is your choice, it doesn't change the plausibility of the 'idea'.

There isn't and has never been a society where the idea of "God" has not existed.

None, nowhere, ever.

Surely that has to mean something.

 

[Disco08]

You didn't really answer the question.

As for the history of worship, do you think perhaps the sun has anything to do with it?

 

[Panthera tigris FC]

There isn't and has never been a society where the idea of "God" has not existed.

None, nowhere, ever.

Surely that has to mean something.

Sure. That humans have historically explained the world around them by conjuring supernatural explanations. The search for an ultimate 'cause' to explain their existence. As our knowledge has grown, we have found natural explanations for most of these phenomena. Pointing to the those areas where we are yet to gain a solid understanding will lead to the oft heard God of the Gaps response on this thread.

For instance, the fact that disease and/or mental illness were once considered supernatural origin in no way contradicts germ theory or our understanding of psychology.

 

[Mr Pumblechook]

They are inextricably linked.Emotions are "of the ego"

I'm suggesting the only people who could truly act selflesslessly are people who have anihilated their self(ego). It no longer exists so wouldn't be the cause of their actions.

Jesus may have been such a person.
Well then what would you say is the cause of an act of altruism(if such a thing exists) if not to satisfy a desire.
Not sure what you mean.

Just accidentally deleted lost my entire response! Bastard. A shame - it was gold ;D I'll give the short version.

I'm not a Freudian (neo or otherwise), and such terms have little explanatory value for me. However emotion and self are two constructs that are close to my (research) heart, and talk of emotion in terms of ego and 'annihilating' the self, really doesn't mean much to me. Most modern emotion theory, whilst paying due homage to Ziggy (for all his faults), takes a functionalist perspective, such that all emotions serve functions.

What is the cause of altruism? To take a stab, in cold terms, an appraisal of a situation (e.g., a person in need) which activates a response (e.g. giving) based on socially proscribed standards, acquired through socialisation, that we should help someone in need. Both stimulus and response are probably associated with emotions. Possibly the alleviation of a negative emotion associated with the stimulus is more likely to be a motivator of behaivour than the feeling good associated with response if we are looking for an the selfish act.

 

[Djevv]

Interesting sleight of hand there Djevv. Evo pointing out that your God is not omnipotent didn't have anything to do with the Big Bang, but with your claim that free agency exists and thus God is not responsible for the actions of 'his children'. Nothing really tedious there. It seems relatively straight forward to me.

OK so omnipotence = omnicontrol in your view? Why cant an omnipotent individual limit their power?

 

[Panthera tigris FC]

OK so omnipotence = omnicontrol in your view? Why cant an omnipotent individual limit their power?

Because then they can't be classed as omnipotent....by definition.

 

[Djevv]

Because then they can't be classed as omnipotent....by definition.

Who defines omnipotence?

 

[AngryAnt]

There isn't and has never been a society where the idea of "God" has not existed.

None, nowhere, ever.

Surely that has to mean something.

Surely? Sounds like an appeal to faith to me.

And hard to prove. But a typical blanket statement of the sort that I've come to expect from Christians. I could equally posit that every society in history has contained atheists (and most have). Surely that has to mean something? Surely?

Anyway, the idea of the existence of a "creator god" or otherwise would occur to any deep thinker in any society. The question of "where do we come from and why are we here" is a fundamental one - a creator god is an obvious possible answer - but this does not make it the right one.

The "spirit" (sorry) of your assertion is wrong anyway. Some schools of Buddhism and Hinduism also reject the idea of a creator god - others are neutral. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_atheism

 

[Panthera tigris FC]

Who defines omnipotence?

What? You are going to change the meaning of a word to suit your argument?

Omnipotence, from the Latin: Omni Potens: "all power".

Every definition I have ever seen defines it as having unlimited power.

Your definition?

If God can't control the actions of something he is, by definition, not omnipotent.

 

[Mr Pumblechook]

Please refrain from citing pop evolutionary psychology....it is a farce (scientifically), lacking any real evidence. Larry Moran summarises it well.

Easy Panthera tigris - More psychology bashing from other scientific disciplines ;D Most if it fair enough!

Pretty much agree with what Larry says, except I'm not sure if there is a difference between Pop EP and EP. EP is just theoretical - and I've long been intrigued by the biophilia hypothesis (E.O. Wilson).

EP also helps explain some interesting phenomena to do with fear and phobias, but the big weakness with EP is the lack of mechanism.

 

[Disco08]

It's God's omnipresence that presents the most pressing paradoxes IMO. The Bible clearly defines His omnipresence doesn't it?

 

[AngryAnt]

 

[Panthera tigris FC]

Easy Panthera tigris - More psychology bashing from other scientific disciplines ;D Most if it fair enough!

Pretty much agree with what Larry says, except I'm not sure if there is a difference between Pop EP and EP. EP is just theoretical - and I've long been intrigued by the biophilia hypothesis (E.O. Wilson).

EP also helps explain some interesting phenomena to do with fear and phobias, but the big weakness with EP is the lack of mechanism.

Not psychology in general. Just EP....the Just So stories used to explain the evolution of human psychology - no evidence to support them that I can see. Check out the link in Larry's blog to the original article in the Scientific American. I agree with much of what is written in that article.