I agree with your statement, "I believe religious theories of human nature fail to take into consideration these crucial scientific factors and therefore are missing key points in their analyses."
Like i said in my previous post, when people are in need of something, they create it. The same thing goes for religion. When things got confusing, or too hard for people, they started making up stories (and yet still believed them.) The religion theories of human nature fail to take in crucial scientific factors because it contradicts everything they've been writing for thousands of years.
The article can be found here: http://siearrasviewsnhn.blogspot.com/2013/04/the-importance-of-science.html?showComment=1367172582403#c6308197678595682334
Sunday, April 28, 2013
Darwinian Evolution
Darwinian Evolution, as explained in the book, has four very important parts:
1. The Ancient Earth Thesis (stating that the universe is about 15 billion years old, and the earth is about 4.5 billion years old.)
2. The Common Ancestry Thesis (life originated from nonliving matter over 3 billion years ago in a single place.)
3. The Progression Thesis (life, once originated, has progressed from relatively simply to relatively complex forms, unicellular to multicellular.)
4. The Naturalistic Selection Thesis (natural selection took place by a chance progress of genetic replication of species striving to survive by adapting to their environment and in the process developing mutations which favored some members over others.)
It comes as a shock to people that because science has identified most of this, their religion is no longer a credible source. I think that's why people are so timid to talk about evolution. People have a tendency to create things that they need, and religion is no different. Religion was created as a source of hope for people when things started happening that they didn't understand, and more and more people jumped on the bandwagon. However, when Darwin came along proving that all wrong, it became extremely controversial, and basically a game of denial.
1. The Ancient Earth Thesis (stating that the universe is about 15 billion years old, and the earth is about 4.5 billion years old.)
2. The Common Ancestry Thesis (life originated from nonliving matter over 3 billion years ago in a single place.)
3. The Progression Thesis (life, once originated, has progressed from relatively simply to relatively complex forms, unicellular to multicellular.)
4. The Naturalistic Selection Thesis (natural selection took place by a chance progress of genetic replication of species striving to survive by adapting to their environment and in the process developing mutations which favored some members over others.)
It comes as a shock to people that because science has identified most of this, their religion is no longer a credible source. I think that's why people are so timid to talk about evolution. People have a tendency to create things that they need, and religion is no different. Religion was created as a source of hope for people when things started happening that they didn't understand, and more and more people jumped on the bandwagon. However, when Darwin came along proving that all wrong, it became extremely controversial, and basically a game of denial.
Response to Corbin's "No Equal Worth?"
I agree 100% with your post. I believe that people who believe in a religion can sometimes come off as if they are better than you, when in reality, we are all equal. I definitely think that if their beliefs were altered, or taken away they would start to think that they really are just like everyone else.
Article can be found here: http://corbinbrassard.blogspot.com/2013/04/no-equal-worth.html?showComment=1367171763677#c764268990327599247
Article can be found here: http://corbinbrassard.blogspot.com/2013/04/no-equal-worth.html?showComment=1367171763677#c764268990327599247
Existentialism
Sartre,
in his passion for freedom, goes so far as to reject the reality of the
unconscious. According to him, even our dreams are freely chosen, only
subconsciously. The emphasis on subjectivity and freedom easily slides into an
overemphasis on individualism, tending toward solipsism where the self becomes
a world entirely itself, cut off from other selves. Sartre’s theory of freedom
is at the heart of his ethics. One must choose what one will become, but the
ethical choice is one of universalization of one’s actions. Like the quote
Sartre quoted, if god doesn’t exist, everything is possible. Sartre also
connects the notion of freedom with the idea that existence precedes essence.
Response to Aly's Freud and Religion
I think this is a very interesting concept!
After reading the subsection about religion in the text, I feel as though Freud would stand by his statement that religion is an illusion, and that it is still a projection of the father image, just made to fit in the other religions.
Here's something to think about, though. Why is it that Freud thought that little children to grow up thinking that only the father is a god-like image? What if a child grows up without a father? What then? Surely, mothers are more admirable in some cases as well.
Article can be found here: http://aboughton.blogspot.com/2013/04/freud-and-religion.html?showComment=1367171241618#c4843918488929856233
After reading the subsection about religion in the text, I feel as though Freud would stand by his statement that religion is an illusion, and that it is still a projection of the father image, just made to fit in the other religions.
Here's something to think about, though. Why is it that Freud thought that little children to grow up thinking that only the father is a god-like image? What if a child grows up without a father? What then? Surely, mothers are more admirable in some cases as well.
Article can be found here: http://aboughton.blogspot.com/2013/04/freud-and-religion.html?showComment=1367171241618#c4843918488929856233
The Trinity of Personality, Sexuality, and Freud.
The Trinity of Personality is composed of three separate sections.
1. The Id- the function of this is to provide for the release of energy in the system.
2. The Ego- or the "executive" of the personality system, which aims at controlling and ruling the id and maintaining communication with the external world.
3. The Superego- or the "legislative- judicial" branch of the personality, which represents the ideal patterns and principles of behavior.
Freud believed that a human being was made up of these three components, which disagreed with traditional christianity that a person is made up of a "mind, body, and soul."
Other strong points in Freud’s view of human nature include his assertiveness in pansexuality, meaning that everything in life is caused by our sexual instincts, and that sexuality defines our being.
1. The Id- the function of this is to provide for the release of energy in the system.
2. The Ego- or the "executive" of the personality system, which aims at controlling and ruling the id and maintaining communication with the external world.
3. The Superego- or the "legislative- judicial" branch of the personality, which represents the ideal patterns and principles of behavior.
Freud believed that a human being was made up of these three components, which disagreed with traditional christianity that a person is made up of a "mind, body, and soul."
Other strong points in Freud’s view of human nature include his assertiveness in pansexuality, meaning that everything in life is caused by our sexual instincts, and that sexuality defines our being.
Karl Marx.
I believe that acting
a certain way has noticeable effects on the way you think and your thought
process. Marx ten theses (historical
materialist determinism, organicism, class struggle, the pivotal role of
capitalism, value theory, alienation, oppression, revolution, dictatorship, and
communism) are very important to his statement, "It
is not the consciousness of men that determines their being, but on the
contrary, their social being that determines their consciousness."
The way that a person thinks about themselves, their social standing, and how other people perceive them is more important than anyone thinks.
The way that a person thinks about themselves, their social standing, and how other people perceive them is more important than anyone thinks.
Hobbes & Rousseau
After reading Classical Conservative and Liberal Theories of Human Nature: Hobbes and Rousseau, I can come to the conclusion that I agree with Rousseau's optimism regarding his view of human nature.
I do things not because it is what society has taught me, or because I'm looking for something in return, but I enjoy the satisfaction I receive when I help someone in need. One could argue that because I enjoy this satisfaction, I'm getting something out of helping someone- this very well could be true, however, I don't think of it in this way.
Take an altruist for example, this person has self-interest and investments in becoming a self altruist, they feel good about helping others. However, the egoists only care about themselves. We as human beings, are pleasure seeking machines, but I believe that if you truly care about someone, you can do something for them without thinking of yourself first.
I do things not because it is what society has taught me, or because I'm looking for something in return, but I enjoy the satisfaction I receive when I help someone in need. One could argue that because I enjoy this satisfaction, I'm getting something out of helping someone- this very well could be true, however, I don't think of it in this way.
Take an altruist for example, this person has self-interest and investments in becoming a self altruist, they feel good about helping others. However, the egoists only care about themselves. We as human beings, are pleasure seeking machines, but I believe that if you truly care about someone, you can do something for them without thinking of yourself first.
Response to Aly's Post: Vegetarianism
After reading Aly's post, all I can do is agree with her.
People are going to do what they want to do, whether it's becoming a vegetarian or not. However, we do have to learn to talk morals without pulling the morally superior card or nothing will get accomplished on this topic.
Article can be found here: http://aboughton.blogspot.com/2013/03/vegetarianism.html?showComment=1367169012844#c5114937021935719252
People are going to do what they want to do, whether it's becoming a vegetarian or not. However, we do have to learn to talk morals without pulling the morally superior card or nothing will get accomplished on this topic.
Article can be found here: http://aboughton.blogspot.com/2013/03/vegetarianism.html?showComment=1367169012844#c5114937021935719252
Is Meat Eating Really Natural For Humans?
As stated in the article "Science, Ethics, and Moral Status," which you can find here: http://parismount.blogspot.com/2012/03/copyright-1988-harlan-b.html , If rational justification of ethical positions is taken to be impossible, one need not concern oneself with the justification of one's treatment of animals. Those who object to accepted, customary, uses of animals are just being "emotional." However, with this statement at hand, ought humans to assign significant moral status to nonhuman animals?
Personally, I believe that it should require a certain amount of empathy when consuming nonhuman animals simply because would you want someone to slaughter you for their own nutrition? The answer is no. Over time, however, the human race has accomplished great moral progress allowing us to be more accepting of the things that we choose to do in life. I believe that people do and do not assign significant moral status to nonhuman animals.
For example, lets say 50% of people assign moral status to nonhuman animals. This portion of the population think of the suffering going into the mutilation of animals, whereas the other 50% of the population do not think of this.
All in all, to answer the question, "Is meat eating really natural for humans?" It depends on what you perceive as right and wrong, good and bad, your upbringing, your moral and factual beliefs, your culture, and the views of your friends and family.
Personally, I believe that it should require a certain amount of empathy when consuming nonhuman animals simply because would you want someone to slaughter you for their own nutrition? The answer is no. Over time, however, the human race has accomplished great moral progress allowing us to be more accepting of the things that we choose to do in life. I believe that people do and do not assign significant moral status to nonhuman animals.
For example, lets say 50% of people assign moral status to nonhuman animals. This portion of the population think of the suffering going into the mutilation of animals, whereas the other 50% of the population do not think of this.
All in all, to answer the question, "Is meat eating really natural for humans?" It depends on what you perceive as right and wrong, good and bad, your upbringing, your moral and factual beliefs, your culture, and the views of your friends and family.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)