I've probably addressed this before in a roundabout way, but I thought I'd do a short post on my ideas about natural morality, and see where the conversation goes. Prompted by a question by commenter nedbrek on another blog of mine, here was my response:
You asked me on the other blog about 'natural morality'. I've always felt somewhat bemused by the seeming inability of many theists (not you, necessarily) to understand this concept. Leaving aside the possible inner, evolutionary driven impulses for the moment- the feelings and restraints fashioned by basic evolutionary principles which might, say, keep dogs from each others' throats in a pack situation- I see morality as nothing more than a necessary dynamic developing within groups of people living together. To avoid constant fragmentation, rules are implemented to curtail individual actions that might threaten the stability of the group. Authorities are put in place to uphold the rules. Gods are invented to reinforce the authorities. Children are indoctrinated from a very early age, both overtly and by osmosis, to psychologically reinforce the reinforcement. All this helps to insure the survival of the culture, while the culture serves as a conduit of vicarious immortality for the individual, which feeds back into his survival instinct.
Of course, this is all much more complicated when it comes to dealing with specifics. There's a lot of conflict between the individual and society, and each culture deals with it in different ways. That's why there is diversity amongst cultures. However, there's also a lot of universality, since all of us are similar biological organisms.
I just see nothing at all mysterious about this notion of natural morality, nedbrek. It seems to be an ongoing process emerging naturally from people living together, and NOT as some template informing people from the inside, except perhaps for the rudimentary impulses I alluded to earlier, which are supported and built upon to the extent that they serve whatever cultural balance is maintained between the individual and his society.
God morality, on the other hand, neither makes sense from a philosophical standpoint, nor lines up with how the world actually seems to work. But I'll leave that for another time.
Ok, that is the typical "evolution of morality" story. It is a pretty good story, with only a few oddities.
ReplyDeleteThe biggest being, why aren't there more sociopaths? From a game theory point of view, the optimal strategy would be to appear good, while maximizing badness when not observed.
Maybe that is the default strategy? Depends on one's outlook on humanity. :)
There are actually more sociopaths than what is recorded. Not all sociopaths are known to be one and it is nearly impossible to collect a representative statistic on that. (In fact, you hit upon the problem when saying, "maximizing badness when not observed").
ReplyDeleteCriminal psychologists have said that there are more sociopaths than we would like to believe.
shadb:
ReplyDeleteThat's interesting, shad, and I don't doubt it. I suppose there are varying degrees of sociopathy as well. Serial killers and the like are, I'd assume, at the high end of the scale. My Webster's defines a sociopath as someone whose behavior is 'aggressively antisocial'. I could see that playing out in a number of ways short of making the headlines. Especially since I'd assume not all sociopaths are stupid, or great risk takers, and recognize the probably outcome for themselves of blatantly anti-social behavior.
nedbrek:
"The biggest being, why aren't there more sociopaths? From a game theory point of view, the optimal strategy would be to appear good, while maximizing badness when not observed."
Having said the above, logic dictates that true sociopathy would remain a minority attribute among the populace of a relatively stable society, given the cultural indoctrination that starts at a young age, which by and large is specifically aimed at inculcating societal cohesion. The interesting question to me is, if religiously indoctrinated psychological strictures were suddenly lifted all at once, what would be the result? It's plain to me that religion didn't just drop out of the sky, but grew out of a need for a psychological and pedagogical support system to help uphold the cultural moral framework. It's a question atheists and theists bat back and forth quite a lot, actually.
It's even more interesting when you see the conditioning slip, as at times of war or other upheavals. Aggression is also channeled- through war, through sports...even through sex, sometimes. In good and bad ways, I might add :)
ReplyDeleteIt's plain to me that religion didn't just drop out of the sky, but grew out of a need for a psychological and pedagogical support system to help uphold the cultural moral framework. It's a question atheists and theists bat back and forth quite a lot, actually.
ReplyDeleteI did just that on my blog a little while ago. Of course, it was a response to cl which he'll argue with, but some things in life must remain constant. ;)
S.I.:
ReplyDeleteI noticed that. Maybe I'll dedicate my next series to the proposition that grapes have wings, and challenge everyone to prove they don't. That'll be a hoot!
What is immensely interesting in sociopaths is that, while they remain anti-social (generally meaning that they have no intimate relationships and they don't typically have "friends"), they are capable of being disarmingly charming. It's a trait among many serial killers, if you wish to think on it.
ReplyDeleteAnyway, yes, if society had a greater percentage of these types of personalities running amok, then our species would have never survived.
Jim: I want to give you a small thought, if you wouldn't mind playing. I've just connected this idea of sociopathy with what Thomas Ligotti (an author of horror literature) said in an interview or story (I can't recall which offhand).
What if there is an increasing number of sociopaths in our general populus? What if something in our DNA has mutated to produce such a great number of them that they become corrosive to our species' survival? Essentially, our own evolution would be our murderers. Call my pessimistic, but I seem to be noticing an ever inreasing amount of insanity (not just of the stupid sort either).
Sorry if that's just a bit off topic.
shadb:
ReplyDeleteFirst of all, and coincidentally, somebody posted one of my antinatalism videos on a T.Ligotti site last year.
I think the answer to your question is complex, and prompts more questions. I ask myself, is sociopathy a reversion back to a default position reflecting basic human drives sans societal conditioning, or is it a perversion of civilization? There are arguments for both, I think; not surprising, as complex human dynamics tend to feed off each other, as well as create feedback loops. Personally, I tend to see human beings without the conditioning much akin to other, lower animal forms. You might want to check out this piece I wrote awhile ago. To sum up my feelings on the matter, I see assimilated man (assimilated by culture) as a qualitatively different creature from biological man without the conditioning. In a sense, we're the cells in the body of Cultural Man(kind). So the question really is, has something gone wrong in the body of humankind? Something akin to cancer? And is it because there's something wrong with mankind itself? Contrariwise, could it be that sociopaths are becoming more prevalent due to lack of integration into the body of humankind, simply because of cultural fragmentation? Societal homogeneity most likely provides a cohesion that more modern, eclectic cultures are somewhat lacking in; prompting alienation, perhaps?
I don't want to get to New Agey with the Gaea stuff, but I've read some evolutionary scientists recently (forgive me, I don't recall where right now) who are now including environmental factors as part of the organism itself. And what of population density? You've probably read about the experiments with rats, and how they start going apeshit in overcrowded conditions.
This is a lot to chew on, shad, and I don't want to over-generalize in one direction or the other here. Like I said, the human dynamic is amazingly complex, plus I'm trying to play along with your premise. I just watched a great documentary called 'flight from death' (took forever to get my hands on a copy). Basically, it lays out the idea that culture is the way we feign our own vicarious immortality, and when the system gets a bug in it in such a way that our survival instinct feels threatened, we tend to act out in very toxic ways. In a sense, I sort of see the complex of cultural cues, both spoken and unspoken, as the DNA of humankind, and that's where I think we start looking for mutations. I could write SO much more of this, as this is, like, my ultimate mindfuck, but I've probably gone on too long already, and I'm probably not stating my case as clearly as I could...tired, sick, and pissed off that I missed my bowling league tonight :). Anyway, give that post a read, and let me know what you think, ok? Take good care.
shadb:
ReplyDeleteNow you've gone and done it! You've got me up late thinking about speculation. Personally, I love the stuff, but not so much when it doesn't proceed from observation and analysis. This is what bugs me about religion in general, as well as a lot of metaphysical philosophy. Take the bible, for example. Its premises are believed in and followed, but the cultural context in which the writings should be considered is almost completely ignored. We understand the human subtext from which this stuff emerges, the psychological and political motivations empowering what should be recognized immediately as cultural mythology (and is by serious historians). But for mostly emotional reasons (not to mention that most people simply don't like to think things through), we accept as fact what common sense tells us cannot be fact i.e. the Samson story. You read the bible, and the immediate sense is of an imaginary world floating, disembodied, above history, despite its historical trappings. In any other context, these would be seen as fairy tales told to children, much like Santa Claus.
I think some of this springs from a need for hope; especially the kind of hope that allows us to escape our own deaths. We find ourselves in an existential dilemma unlike what any other animal experiences. We know we're going to die, and our survival instinct kicks and screams against this knowledge. We seek an exit from this horrible realization; problem is, there isn't one. So we invent one instead, then enjoin others to 'see the light' in an effort to embolden ourselves, and somehow objectify our own desperate hopes.
Of course, the real world with its real observations gets in the way. I don't think any of us can shut it out completely. Reason butts heads with religion on so many fronts, and I find it amusing to witness the gymnastics apologists put themselves through to get around this simple fact. Even to the point of questioning the validity of reason...USING REASON, no less!
I guess what I'm trying to do with the Mr. G. series is walk people through the processes of 'little analysis' that we use in an almost unconscious way every day of our lives. Religion is like this big fat exception where we allow ourselves to not think things through to their logical conclusions. Maybe it shouldn't bother me so much. We all have our placebos, I suppose. Some people do it because they feel religion is threatening their freedoms. Certainly this is a valid reason, but it's not my reason in the main. I just truly enjoy thinking things through. Although I'll admit, many of the conclusions I've come to are pretty hard to bear sometimes.
If you go here you'll find the poetry of Ikkyu, 15th century zen master. One of the pieces that often fills my thoughts is this one...
nature's a killer I won't sing to it
I hold my breath and listen to the dead singing under the grass
and its counterpart...
I found my sparrow Sonrin dead one morning
and buried him just as gently as I would my own daughter
That's enough for tonight, I reckon. Sleep easy.
P.S...
ReplyDeleteThis is what comes of mixing up my blogs. And so, I end this broadcasting night with a poem...
Master Lost
In the silent rustling of the evergrass,
the faultless shadows of old dogs run
under the dirt, searching for the boy
who whistled once, then stopped to
leave them to devices imprinted in the
peak behind guileless, puzzled eyes.
For now, forever, history wakes afresh
in the flaring nostrils of each morn’s expectations,
though sleep has beckoned anciently, and hearts
have fallen silent in the snow, they wait.
My Webster's defines a sociopath as someone whose behavior is 'aggressively antisocial'.
ReplyDeleteNot to get into another definition war, but I would check out wikipedia's entry for 'psychopathy' - a personality disorder whose hallmark is a lack of empathy...[psychopaths are] intraspecies predators who use charisma, manipulation, intimidation, sexual intercourse and violence to control others and to satisfy their own needs. Lacking in conscience and empathy, they take what they want and do as they please, violating social norms and expectations without guilt or remorse....The consensus among researchers is that psychopathy stems from a specific neurological disorder which is biological in origin and present from birth. It is estimated that one percent of the general population are psychopaths.
As an aside, the American Psychiatric Association's Diagnostic and Statistical Manual subsumes pyshopathy/sociopathy under antisocal personality disorder: Researchers have heavily criticized the ASPD DSM-IV criteria because not enough emphasis was placed on traditional psychopathic traits such as a lack of empathy, superficial charm, and inflated self appraisal....Also, ASPD, unlike psychopathy, does not have biological markers confirmed to underpin the disorder.... [ASPD] is essentially synonymous with criminality. Nearly 80%–95% of felons will meet criteria for ASPD — thus ASPD predicts nothing in criminal justice populations. Whereas, psychopathy scores (using the Hare Psychopathy Checklist-Revised (PCL-R)) is found in only ~20% of inmates and PCL-R is considered one of the best predictors of violent recidivism.
Um, I had a point to make... oh, an interesting aspect of sociopaths/psychopaths is that not only do they not feel empathy, love, etc., but they think everybody else is also just pretending to feel these in order to get an advantage over other people.
"Even to the point of questioning the validity of reason...USING REASON"
ReplyDeleteI would turn this on its head. How can we justify the use of reason, only by using reason?
As a theist, I acknowledge we cannot know truth through our own means. Reason is given to us by God, so that we can know truth. Without God, we lose the notion of truth, and reason loses its foundation. That's postmodernism.
(Separate thread)
ReplyDelete"In any other context, these would be seen as fairy tales told to children, much like Santa Claus."
2 Peter 1:16 "For we have not followed cunningly devised fables, when we made known unto you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of his majesty."
1 Cor 15:19 (Paul) "If in this life only we have hope in Christ, we are of all men most miserable."
Peter and Paul believed that what they wrote was true.
Ildi:
ReplyDeleteThanks for the info. I wonder if this question doesn't fall under the nature/nurture debate, and whether or not the markers speak to predisposition. Also, as with all human personality traits, I would suspect there's at least somewhat of a spectrum of severity, or perhaps completeness in fulfilling a diagnosis.
"an interesting aspect of sociopaths/psychopaths is that not only do they not feel empathy, love, etc., but they think everybody else is also just pretending to feel these in order to get an advantage over other people."
This is interesting, and actually makes some sense. If you don't feel empathy, and live only for personal advantage, it seems natural to suspect others of the same thing.
nedbrek:
ReplyDelete"I would turn this on its head. How can we justify the use of reason, only by using reason?"
Besides experiential justification i.e. 'it works', any justification I offer would require reason, as does your ability to ask the question. In the matter of dialogue, the validity of reason must be assumed to proceed; not only can I not answer without using reason, neither can you ask the question. So unless you can figure out a way to ask me the question without using reason, I have to assume that the efficacy of reason has already been justified to you.
How do I justify the existence of the ground? I walk on it :)
"As a theist, I acknowledge we cannot know truth through our own means. Reason is given to us by God, so that we can know truth. Without God, we lose the notion of truth, and reason loses its foundation. That's postmodernism."
And how do you judge the 'truth' you've been given? Your argument reminds me of this-
I get home from work to discover someone in my house. He has a ski mask over his head, and carries a satchel crammed full of my stuff. "Help, help!" I cry. My neighbor, a theistic epistemologist, comes running over. "Hold him while I call the cops!" I say. When I return, the robber is gone. "Why did you let the robber go?" I ask. "He wasn't a robber" my neighbor replies. "But, the evidence was all there!" I insist. "Yeah," my neighbor answers "but a voice inside my head told me he wasn't a robber."
Seriously, all this epistemology apologists are so fond of spouting merely serves to avoid the obvious. We reason according to how we understand the world to work. It's the best thing we can do. But positing a magic voice inside our heads doesn't do away with the epistemic problems, or give us some higher vantage point. It's just a self-serving way to validate our own opinions.
If you're defining 'truth' as some kind of absolutely objective verificationism, then I'm afraid you're out of luck. No matter which angle you're coming at it from, you are the final arbiter. Your perceptions are still your perceptions, and that little voice in your head may just be your own.
""In any other context, these would be seen as fairy tales told to children, much like Santa Claus."
ReplyDelete2 Peter 1:16 "For we have not followed cunningly devised fables, when we made known unto you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of his majesty."
Regarding the II Peter quote, it's highly dubious that the supposed apostle Peter even wrote it. From Wiki:
Although 2 Peter internally purports to be a work of the apostle, most biblical scholars have concluded that Peter is not the author, and instead consider the epistle pseudepigraphical.[2] Reasons for this include its linguistic differences from 1 Peter, its apparent use of Jude, possible allusions to second-century gnosticism, encouragement in the wake of a delayed parousia, and weak external support.
So much for cunningly devised fables. Did the author believe in Jesus? So what if he did? You can acquire such testimonial 'validation' in any religious venue. Everybody thinks they've got the 'right' god, after all. And the fact that history is strewn with counterfeit 'gospels' and redactions galore shows just how far some people will go to support their own takes on the 'final truth' of revelation. Sorry, but I'm much less than impressed.
As for this:
"If in this life only we have hope in Christ, we are of all men most miserable."
This is simply a justification for believing in an afterlife. And what a poor justification it is, based upon absolutely NOTHING but hope that this 'miserable' existence isn't all there is.
"Peter and Paul believed that what they wrote was true."
Who doesn't?
Jim:
ReplyDeleteThe reason I seem to be linking DNA to a certain rise in a specific behavior (in this case, sociopathy) is that DNA may be influenced by culture (although, I do have to do more research into the matter, I've only read stories in certain journals about transplants). Basically, some people who've received transplants have a change of personality on some level. One man, who was in his middle-years, suddenly had the ability to play the piano after a transplant. It turns out that the donor of that organ was a mangificent musician who lived on music.
So, the theory is, which may have already been proven, is that somehow, our personality is affected by our environment and causes some type of carrier in the DNA. It combines your thoughts on environmental factors with the cultural. I never meant to imply the separation thereof.
In that case, I do agree with you that without the environmental factors, humans are actually little different than the animals we are assumedly more advanced than.
Let me know if there's anything I didn't address.
nedbreak:
Well, it would be considered terrible literature if they suddenly went out on a limb to notify the readers that this was merely a fable in the middle of a telling of a story. :p
Many fables throughout history were often told as truths. To children, these were truths. To adults, these may be fanciful stories that were meant to warn or to tell of a truth or a moral code. I can't recall one that was to be taken absolutely literally (except for by children, of course) but I may be mistaken on that.
shadb:
ReplyDeleteI've heard about that transplant stuff. Is there some evidence beyond the purely anecdotal you're aware of? Any studies yet? That would be really wild, lending credence to the idea of cellular memory, or some such weird shit. Absolutely fascinating if true!
Your thoughts on the nature of fables are well received. Fables are often used as pedagogical devices. Unfortunately, they often don't get discarded, and go on well after their shelf life has expired.
However, to be fair I'm not sure that humanity on the whole has outgrown the need for a big daddy in the sky. Threat is a powerful motivator, especially with some personality types. That's one reason gods were invented in the first place. "He knows what you're doing, so cut it out!" LOL!
Unfortunately, tribal gods bring at least as many problems to the table as they solve, I'm afraid. If we could, maybe, combine all of them into one big god that everybody believed in, maybe then the weaning process would be easier. Maybe not...*shrug*
I find Biblical scholars fall into two camps: those who believe the Bible is true, and those who believe it a lie.
ReplyDeleteThose who believe it is true, to a large degree, uphold Christianity as it has been passed down for two thousand years. These you dismiss as "apologists" who are fooling themselves to avoid hard truth.
The others are outright atheists, or false Christians. This is apparent from their testimony and theology (the drawn out conclusions from their positions). These you cite as credible sources as to the veracity of the Bible.
My point is not to prove the veracity of the Bible, or to convince you with elegant words (1 Cor 2:1).
I simply want you to consider that there are people whom you would consider "reasonable" in every way, but that we accept the existence of God. Not because we are afraid of a world without God, or need a crutch or anything like that.
Not that we have heard from God, but that we have tested God's promises and found them to be true.
nedbrek:
ReplyDelete'These you cite as credible sources as to the veracity of the Bible.'
Rather, I would question the credentials of ANY so-called historian who would consider the bible, or any historical document(s), without acknowledging the realities of how such 'histories' are almost universally distorted for dozens of reasons other than objectivity. To see the bible as inerrant, or even closely so, is to show a profound ignorance of how the process of writing this stuff down actually works.
"Not that we have heard from God, but that we have tested God's promises and found them to be true."
I believed myself to have done the same thing once upon a time. Upon reflection, I judge my beliefs to have been far less than reasonable, for reasons I've elucidated on in this blog, and elsewhere. I understand you have a personal testimony. We all do. But my reasoning has led me to conclusions far different from yours, or even from the ones I once had. I now see Christianity as a thoroughly unreasonable proposition. What more can I say?
"To see the bible as inerrant, or even closely so, is to show a profound ignorance of how the process of writing this stuff down actually works."
ReplyDeleteI would agree with you, ignoring the power of God. To assume that the Bible is just like any other book written by men when it specifically claims to be the word of God, is presuming atheism.
"reasons I've elucidated on in this blog, and elsewhere"
Do you have a link for your "conversion story"?
Thanks.
nedbreak:
ReplyDeleteIt is known, and widely accepted, that the Bible has been written by Man. Divine inspiration or not. Although, someone has to interpret the divine, do they not? And who is to say that these writers, in all their flaws, interpretted it correctly? Noting that some of the books from the Bible have proven to be forgeries, and this to is widely accepted in the scholarly world (religious or not), one must come to the conclusion that there are many distortions, if not outright lies.
Those who determine history or those who choose to write it.
In any regard, divine inspiration cannot be proven to have occurred.
That last one should state:
ReplyDeleteThose who determine history are those who choose to write it.
To assume that the Bible is just like any other book written by men when it specifically claims to be the word of God, is presuming atheism.
ReplyDeleteA Hindu would be surprised to hear you say that. The Bible is not unique; all sacred texts claim to be the word of their deity(ies).
I find Biblical scholars fall into two camps: those who believe the Bible is true, and those who believe it a lie.
ReplyDeleteThat's a fairly gross oversimplification of Biblical scholarship, and I'm talking in the context of Christian scholars, not atheists.
I don't think any scholar would pick one of those options as stated; even the scholars who believe in the inerrancy of the Bible discuss elements that are meant as parables rather than literal interpretations, and inconsistencies to be merely stories from different perspectives that don't affect the essential accuracy of the message. Then, on the other end of the continuum there are the Biblical scholars who don't consider a belief in the virgin birth and literal resurrection to be requirements for Christian faith (e.g. John Shelby Spong).
nedbrek:
ReplyDelete"I would agree with you, ignoring the power of God. To assume that the Bible is just like any other book written by men when it specifically claims to be the word of God, is presuming atheism."
I assume that the bible is just like any other book, because nothing I see in it sets it apart, in any qualitative fashion, from any other book. Claims mean absolutely nothing, as any writer can claim whatever she or he cares to, factual or not. To set itself apart from other similar literature (and by this I think we're both talking 'God inspired) the bible would have to demonstrate correspondence with observable reality regarding its spectacular claims. It does not. It would have to demonstrate remarkable, basically flawless historical accuracy. It does not. It would have to contain no internal contradictions. It does. It would have to be philosophically sound, and consistent throughout. It is not.
There are secondary issues. For one, it's obviously a synthesis of religious traditions that proceeded it. Secondly, its basic moral scheme varies as time proceeds, not so coincidentally reflecting parallel, contemporaneous moral philosophies.
Taken as a whole, the bible reflects the same sort of prejudices, superstitions, political propaganda and basic misapprehensions of reality as other, similar texts from that time. It makes perfect sense when seen in the context of ancient man's religious dreams and endeavors. It makes absolutely no sense when viewed as the Word of a Super-being possessing infinite knowledge.
Sorry, nedbrek, but the idea that the bible is anything other than the metaphysical and political ramblings of an ancient people just doesn't fly. It's part history, part propaganda, part fairy tale, and doesn't set itself apart in any substantial way from the rest. If the bible was written by God, then 'Harry Potter' was written by his Boss.
nedbrek:
ReplyDeleteI think I've mention my conversion and deconversion in snippets here or there, though I'm not sure if that was on my blog, or elsewhere.
Basically, some people who've received transplants have a change of personality on some level. One man, who was in his middle-years, suddenly had the ability to play the piano after a transplant. It turns out that the donor of that organ was a mangificent musician who lived on music.
ReplyDeleteI would definitely like to see a citation for this! I went through a couple of google pages (there's a band called Organ Transplants with-you guessed it-a piano player) with no luck.
I did find a general reference to cellular memory; wiki has a short entry on it. The sceptic's dictionary has a longer entry, with various advocates of the theory (skepdic.com/cellular.html) and a discussion of how their research fails scientific rigor (to put it nicely).
There was an article on bbc news from last June titled Donor organ 'personality' worry that said:
It follows on from research which found one in three organ transplant patients believe they have taken on some aspects of the donor's personality.
I think this article in hubpages (hubpages.com/hub/Cellular-Memories-in-Organ-Transplant-Recipients) highlights how anecdotes are uncritically reported as data:
One of the few cases we know the patient's name was a woman called Claire Sylvia who received a heart and lung transplant in the 1970's from an eighteen year old male donor who had been in a motorcycle accident. None of this information was known to Sylvia, who upon waking up claimed she had a new and intense craving for beer, chicken nuggets, and green peppers, all food she didn't enjoy prior to the surgery. A change in food preferences is probably the most noted in heart transplant patients. Sylvia wrote a book about her experiences after learning the identity of her donor called A Change of Heart.
Other documented cases have ben perplexing and sometimes extreme. A 47 year old man receiving a heart from a 17 year old black boy suddenly picked up an intense fondness for classical music. The boy whose heart had been donated was killed in a drive-by shooting, still clutching his violin case in his hands. A 47 year old transplant patient claimed that his new heart was responsible for a sudden onset of eating disorders, heralded from the heart's previous owner, a 14 year old girl. Once a change in sexual orientation was even documented in a twenty seven year old lesbian who soon after getting a new heart settled down and married a man.
The most stunning example of cellular memory was found in an eight year old girl who received the heart of a ten year old girl. The recipient was plagued after surgery with vivid nightmares about an attacker and a girl being murdered. After being brought to a psychiatrist her nightmares proved to be so vivid and real that the psychiatrist believed them to be genuine memories. As it turns out the ten year old whose heart she had just received was murdered and due to the recipients violent reoccurring dreams she was able to describe the events of that horrible encounter and the murderer so well that police soon apprehended, arrested, and convicted the killer.
If these are documented, where are the references? I don't think A Change of Heart counts. These are great stories for the camp fire, though (...it was a stormy night and some teenagers were out necking in their car in the woods when they heard on the radio about a killer on the loose...)
Sorry for the long post, but google is your friend...
shadb,ildi:
ReplyDeleteIf cellular memory turned out to be true to the point of retaining personality traits, wouldn't that be a breakthrough on so many levels? They'd have to rewrite the books.
ildi, I'm not aware of any large group of Hindus who treat the Vedas as word for word inspired works, useful for establishing doctrines to live by.
ReplyDeleteAlso, Spong is a perfect example of an atheist claiming to be a Christian. He denies every historical doctrine. That the Anglican church doesn't deal with him only shows how poorly discerning they are.
It's like claiming to be a member of PETA, then eating BBQ 24-7.
nedbrek:
ReplyDeleteOr like Ted Haggard pretending to like girls :)
Sorry, couldn't resist!
metamorphhh, obviously I disagree with you in just about every way :) I will wait for those issues to be on topic...
ReplyDeleteBack on topic, one of the most reassuring? (not sure what to call it) things I find is that the atheistic presupposition brings about the polar opposite view on most things.
For example, would you agree that your view of morality is basically one of oppression and manipulation? (majority over minority, adults over children, rich over poor)
I'm like a dog with a bone with this...
ReplyDeleteI made a little chart of the information in the anecdotes to see if seemed to be a pattern:
heart = past(other?) life regression/time travel veridical dream
heart = musical preference
heart = eating disorder
heart = sexual preference
heart/lungs = food preference
Two things jump out at me; first, it seems to actually be only heart transplants, not general organ transplants. No liver, kidney, intestine or stomach? You'd really expect to have changes in your food preferences with the last two, wouldn't you?
Second, some of these changes are what we would call related to the aesthetic sense? Music, food, even sexuality? The Greeks believed the heart was the seat of reason and emotion...
According to hubpages, A change in food preferences is probably the most noted in heart transplant patients.
It would be interesting to see if that is true for other types of organ transplant patients, also. Maybe this is a side effect of the drug regimen that you're on when you have a transplant.
My guess is that this is just animism wearing a New Age coat.
ildi, I'm not aware of any large group of Hindus who treat the Vedas as word for word inspired works, useful for establishing doctrines to live by.
ReplyDeleteAccording to religionfacts.com:
Hindu sacred texts fall into one of two categories: sruti ("heard") or smruti ("remembered"). Sruti scriptures are considered divinely inspired and fully authoritative for belief and practice, while smruti are recognized as the products of the minds of the great sages.
And my actual point was that Hindus don't think that the Bible is divinely-inspired and they're not atheists.
You also say: Also, Spong is a perfect example of an atheist claiming to be a Christian.
You have no justification for saying this, given that there are thousand of denominations of Christians who can't agree with each other on core points of doctrine. The arguments you make for why you're the "True Christian" are just as valid for Spong. In fact, more so for him, as this is what he studied for a living.
nedbrek:
ReplyDeleteThanks for bringing it back around. Just to let you know, I'm not averse to meandering from the O.P. from time to time, but it's nice to circle back once in a while. Sometimes the freeform develops too many tangents. You asked me:
"For example, would you agree that your view of morality is basically one of oppression and manipulation? (majority over minority, adults over children, rich over poor)"
To be honest, I'm not perfectly sure what you mean here....but I'll take a shot. In a nutshell, I believe morality emerges naturally from a society; side by side with the pre-existing evolutionary imperatives of course, which I mentioned before. I favor the kind based on the least 'oppression and manipulation' though of course all of those exist to some degree, and always will. We could go into what oppression and manipulation actually entail within the human condition at a later date (it would take some time). Unless, of course, you're using the terms strictly for their pejorative value, in which case I'm not interested in taking the bait.
I might point out that these 'qualities of my morality' you mention also exist in theistic morality, on top of the threat of eternal torture, but I'm certain you already recognize that. Like I said, I'm not so sure where you want to go with this. Could you expand a little? Also, you might cast some light on what you mean by 'polar opposites'. Do you mean between theism and atheism? If so, I think you're overgeneralizing a bit, but I'll hold off until I hear more from you.
ildi
ReplyDeleteI'm not sure if the organ transplant I speak of was a heart organ or not. I'll really have to spend some time digging and I don't exactly have immediate access to databases, but I'll get back to you on this when I receive responses from some other people I know.
Anyway, it's an interesting theory that I thought may contain some value. Not that they're right in their core premises, but I think there's always something to be gained even from a failed premise. In any case, I find myself hoping there's something to it (because, really, wouldn't it be really cool? And the vast research that it opens into. Like a toystore). ha.
I'll get back to you guys when I have more information.
ildi, it depends what you mean by "core doctrine".
ReplyDeleteThe core doctrine for being a Christian are set by Jesus. To whomever He will say "well done, good and faithful servant" is a Christian.
Those who call themselves Christians, even "performing miracles in His name" (Matthew 7:22) - to whom He will say "Depart from Me, lawbreakers, I never knew you". They are not Christians. Not if words have any meaning.
So how do we become a Christian? Repent from (turn our back on) sin, and trust that Jesus paid the price for sin. That's it.
Everything relating to baby baptism, or what day to meet on, or whether their is hierarchy in elders for the local churches, is secondary.
You must have the right Jesus, of course (1 John 2:23). Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses, and Muslims have a character called Jesus in their stories, but it is not Biblical. They are not Christians (not that Muslims want to be called Christians).
metamorphhh, sure.
ReplyDeleteBy polar opposite, I mean that Christians believe that morality is given by God. It is "the law written on our hearts" (Romans 2:15), an aspect of being in God's image. It is good.
You are saying morality is evil (albeit a necessary evil or even "fate"? - the result of natural processes). It is a restriction of our free will and enjoyment (which are your ultimate goods). Arbitrary rules created for the many, at the expense of the minority. A lever for the rich to exploit the poor. The politically powerful over the weak. Etc.
For the Christian, to submit to authority glorifies God (expresses His attributes). This is the ultimate good. Our own discomfort is negligible in this light (Romans 8:18). Similarly, eternal Hell. It reveals the infinite worth/value of God, that any infraction against Him results in infinite punishment.
nedbrek:
ReplyDeletePhew! There is so much wrong here, I hardly know where to begin. I'm afraid I'll have to save most of it for later, as I have to get ready for work. I'll zone in on one thing, just to give you a taste for what I have to say:
"Similarly, eternal Hell. It reveals the infinite worth/value of God, that any infraction against Him results in infinite punishment."
This is one of the most twisted, reprehensible justifications for doing evil that I have ever read. Not to mention, it's absolutely bizarre. I'm not saying this to pick at you personally, nedbrek; in fact, I'm very glad you wrote it, as it is a clear exposition of Christian belief. I ask any other Christians who might stop by to roll this one around in their mouths for awhile, and see how it tastes. This attitude is the gutter into which we kneel when we deign to blindly worship tyrants.
Again, no personal sleight intended here, nedbrek. I appreciate that you come into the lions den and bat it around with us. But the fact that you don't find this doctrine utterly reprehensible, as well as anathema to human worth and empathy, speaks volumes about how religion can desensitize us to horror. Believe me; I've been there, and have nothing but sympathy for you. I hope you grow out of this some day, if for nothing else but your own self-respect.
Talk later, gotta run. Take care, nedbrek. If I could pray for you, I would.
No worry, "Blessed are ye, when men shall hate you, and when they shall separate you [from their company], and shall reproach [you], and cast out your name as evil, for the Son of man's sake." :)
ReplyDeleteLet me take another tact, when you ask a criminal about the police, they'll say similar things (calling officers "pigs" and the like).
Now, the police make mistakes, and they don't have all the facts. They serve the laws of men, which are often oppressive and misguided.
God does not make mistakes, He gives only what is deserved. He knows everything leading up to every act we perform.
Let me take another tact, when you ask a criminal about the police, they'll say similar things (calling officers "pigs" and the like).
ReplyDeleteBad analogy. Your version of Christianity does not base punishment on breaking the law, or bad deeds (much less the severity of those deeds) but on whether you worship the correct deity or not. So, the punishment for not worshipping the 'perfect' deity is eternal torment? A deity which, btw, doesn't give any evidence of its existence but expects you to just 'have faith? This is your idea of morality?
This is more like the secret police taking you to the gulag under Stalin for 'thought crimes.'
Worshiping the correct deity is but one of many.
ReplyDeleteGod's standard is perfection. Anything less, and we deserve Hell.
Lying (anything but the whole truth), stealing (even desiring what doesn't belong to us, or not working hard for our pay), murderous thoughts or intentions (hatred), sexual misconduct.
We know instinctively these things are wrong, but we do them just the same. We even come up with elaborate excuses, and blame shifting.
Then, we blame God. Call Him terrible names, and accuse Him of being evil, when we are the evil ones.
God's standard is perfection. Anything less, and we deserve Hell.
ReplyDelete...
Then, we blame God. Call Him terrible names, and accuse Him of being evil, when we are the evil ones.
Wow! Talk about psychological abuse... (you're serious, right, this isn't a Poe?)
This is so similar to the types of rationalizations made by women in abusive relationships: "He really loves me, it's my fault that he gets mad at me because [x,y,z] wasn't done exactly how/when he likes it! I just need to work harder to please him!"
It's funny that you would call it psychological abuse.
ReplyDeleteWasn't the whole point of the antinatalism excursion about how messed up and painful the world is? How did it get that way (besides natural disasters), people being people.
God does love us. We cannot "work harder to please Him". That is works righteousness, the sort of thing seen in Mormonism, Islam, environmentalism, and a lot of other -isms.
God does all the work. Jesus (who is God) suffered and died to pay the penalty we deserve.
That's love. Giving everything someone needs, at any cost, even when they don't deserve it.
How did it get that way (besides natural disasters), people being people.
ReplyDeleteWhat do you mean besides natural disasters? Why does God (the angry boyfriend) get a pass on his shitty behavior?
The world is a hard place for survival, natural disasters notwithstanding. Finding shelter, food, protection from predators... it doesn't exactly bring out the best in people when they have to compete for scarce resources for survival. God did a pretty crappy job designing the basics, even before he takes a baseball bat to the place.
Oh, I forgot, we did have the perfect home, but we ate something we weren't supposed to (don't ever touch your boyfriend's beer), so all humanity is now cursed forever. Have you noticed that God has a really bad habit of totes overreacting?
God does all the work. ("I work hard all day to make money to pay the bills, the least I should be able to do is come home to some peace and quiet! After all, I gave my life for your sorry ass!)
...even when they don't deserve it.
Standard procedure in domestic abuse; make the victims believe they are worthless and don't deserve anything...
ildi:
ReplyDeleteI find your analogy quite apt.
nedbrek:
"We know instinctively these things are wrong, but we do them just the same. We even come up with elaborate excuses, and blame shifting.
Then, we blame God. Call Him terrible names, and accuse Him of being evil, when we are the evil ones."
This needs a bit of re-writing, I think:
We know instinctively these things are wrong, but God does them just the same. We even come up with elaborate excuses for God, and blame shifting.
Then, we blame ourselves. Call ourselves and others terrible names, and accuse ourselves of being evil, when God is the evil ones.
God's standard, and indeed, many of God's moral positions, are something we would never accept in a mortal being. No matter how you slice it, God gets off with crimes which, if committed by a human being, would earn that human the death penalty. And yet, Christians insist that God deserves praise above all others, even while that God has promised that he will deliver the lion's share of all humans who ever lived into the jaws of suffering so unimaginably severe that we have nothing to compare it with here on earth. And forever. No hope. No surcease. Unending torment. This is not justice on anyone's scale but that of a madman.
To think, a man or a woman would praise God's 'divine justice', while having a child who is a Buddhist, or an agnostic...or even an atheist. Knowing that the 'justice' they're praising includes eternal torment for their child. This is sick and twisted, nedbrek. It's also cowardly, since it's mostly about saving one's own ass from the flames, no matter the cost to others. If today I came to believe your God existed, and I died, and stood before his 'judgment throne', I'd spit in his face. I might piss my pants while doing so, knowing my fate at the hands of this awful monster. But in for a dime, in for a dollar, I suppose. At least I'd go out not being a groveling pussy.
Jim, I want to thank you for your patience in letting me say my piece.
ReplyDeleteI am glad you have understanding of how things are (of course, I am saddened with the side you have chosen).
Let me quickly say, there are things that are wrong for us - because they are "playing God". When God does these things, it is right...
nedbrek:
ReplyDeleteAgain, I have to cut this short because I'm on my way out the door...LOL! I guess the beginning of this problem is Euthyphro's dilemma, which in my view has never been addressed satisfactorily. I actually tried to get something written about that last night, but real life intervened.
But consider: Christians make a lot of hay about unbeliever's basis for morality being completely subjective. However, I would counter that the theist alternative comes down to simple, blind acceptance. Blind, because it overrides any subjective assessments, including empathy.
Furthermore, when we're asked to simply accept purely because 'God says it's right, therefore it's right no matter what I think about it', what logically follows in the real world is 'God's representative on earth says it's right, so it's right no matter how I feel about it'. Think about that in the context of history, nedbrek.
"there are things that are wrong for us - because they are "playing God". When God does these things, it is right..."
There is something profoundly wrong with this statement. Think about it.
I have a post on Euthyphro, it is at:
ReplyDeletehttp://nedsfaith.blogspot.com/2008/04/euthyphros-dilemma.html
The tl;dr summary is:
"God is good, not God is evil". (as opposed to moral/immoral, which are vague).
It's not so much a matter of what God's representative says, but rather, what the Bible says.
The Bible says many hard things. Some flat out reject what it says (like Spong). But, if we take the idea of absolute/revealed truth seriously, we must take it seriously.
nedbrek:
ReplyDeleteIsn't the bible supposedly written through God's representatives? How do you delineate from what they've written from something anyone else has written? What is your standard to divide truth from error?
nedbrek:
ReplyDelete"The tl;dr summary is:
"God is good, not God is evil". (as opposed to moral/immoral, which are vague).
I don't see where good/evil is any more vague than moral/immoral. And in God's case, they seem interchangeable to me. No?