God is not intelligent, or, why I am a pantheist

[Lao Tse]

What does that even mean? Give specifics.

I have been feeding birds and squirrels for years. The parents will bring food to the offspring. That is easily explained by evolutionary theory. I have never, ever seen birds bring food as a charitable donation to another species.

You can scour the internet for supposed exceptions and rare anomalies. But the fact is, some of the types of morality taught by human prophets have nothing to do with rationality in the context of the laws of nature and survival.

do you deny animals of different species have ever cooperated?

the golden rule is exactly the same as all ingroup morality throughout animal history.

humans, being rational, can apply this lesson to novel contexts.

you're just not rational and are a war machine mind-controlled abuse victim.

 

[Daylight63]

The biologists will say protecting your offspring and siblings ensures part of your genetic code survives, no matter what happens to you. Cooperating with peers in your pack for self-defense and hunting is an expectation of reciprocation, also easily explained by Evolutionary theory.

The teachings of Jesus say that you do not get any special credit for helping family members, friends, or people you expect reciprocation from. Even sinners will help their family, friends, and people who will reciprocate them. You don't get a pat on the back for that. You get credit for helping complete strangers, transients, rivals, enemies.

It seems to me that the first paragraph lays out why humans and some other animals would naturally protect others of their species (within limits) and the second paragraph is just a religious framing of it for humans who, unlike most animals, are going to be asking follow-on questions like "why?" and "what's in it for me?"

Even though they are naturally hardwired to do the thing.

That is not rational, according to the laws of nature and survival.

It would definitely not be rational for the person to do something if the ONLY motivation they had to do so was because of the words of a great moral teacher. But given that it is an instict in-built (obviously) at some level the moral teacher is there to frame it so that the human tendency to look for what's going on under the hood kind of shuts that down.

The claim that all of morality is completely rational just doesn't cut the mustard once you look past the level of slogans and platitudes.

But your first paragraph would seem to make most morality perfectly rational.

 

[Cypress]

do you deny animals of different species have ever cooperated?

the golden rule is exactly the same as all ingroup morality throughout animal history.

humans, being rational, can apply this lesson to novel contexts.

you're just not rational and are a war machine mind-controlled abuse victim.

^^^ Platitudes and slogans.
You have never seen a bird or a raccoon bring food as a charitable donation to another species.

Cooperation is not the issue. Cooperation exists throughout nature. Cooperation is based on the expectation of reciprocation. That is easily explained by evolutionary theory.

Jesus taught that you received no special credit for helping family member, friends, or people you expect to reciprocate. Even sinners help family, friends, and people they expect to repay them.

What you get credit for is going beyond the rational and the common sense - by helping complete strangers, transients, rivals.


The issue here is that you have been so thoroughly ingrained and infused with our culture's 2000 year immersion in a Judeo-Christian ethos, it all just seems like common sense to you. You cannot look at it with a detached perspective outside of culture and history. You are like a fish that breathes water without even realizing it is swimming in water.

 

[Lao Tse]

Cooperation exists throughout nature. Cooperation is based on the expectation of reciprocation. That is easily explained by evolutionary theory.

so what are fucking arguing about?

you;re the one saying Christians invented morality.

are you retarded?

though Jesus got morality right, he didn't invent it.

 

[Cypress]

so what are fucking arguing about?

you;re the one saying Christians invented morality.

are you retarded?

though Jesus got morality right, he didn't invent it.

I didn't say Jesus invented morality.

I am saying we are the legacy of a Judeo-Christian ethos, the same way India is the legacy of a Hindu ethos.

More importantly, I am saying that your slogan that morality is rational falls apart when you delve deeper than shallow platitudes. In some cases, the morality taught by the important Axial Age prophets defy rationality and common sense.

 

[Lao Tse]

I didn't say Jesus invented morality.

I am saying we are the legacy of a Judeo-Christian morality, the same way India is the legacy of a Hindu morality.

More importantly, I am saying that your slogan that morality is rational falls apart when you delve deeper than shallow platitudes.

it doesn't fall apart.

are you saying morality becomes less rational the more you delve into it?

that's clearly fucking stupid.

 

[Cypress]

it doesn't fall apart.

are you saying morality becomes less rational the more you delve into it?

that's clearly fucking stupid.

There is no way to understand the Buddhist concept of impermanence, or Jesus' teaching to love your enemies unless you open your mind to going beyond common sense and materialistic rationality.

Your claim that it is all just common-sense sounds like a good slogan, but it falls apart under the microscope of anybody who has a rudimentary knowledge of world religions.

 

[Lao Tse]

There is no way to understand the Buddhist concept of impermanence, or Jesus' teaching to love your enemies unless you open your mind to going beyond common sense and materialistic rationality.

Your claim that it is all just common-sense sounds like a good slogan, but it falls apart under the microscope of anybody who has a rudimentary knowledge of world religions.

of course there is.

worrying doesn't help.
maybe your expectations are fucked up?

treat people like you want to be treated.

these simple obvious truths must be obscured by a military regime bent on perpetual hate and murder.

you work for them and you therefore suck ass.

 

[Cypress]

of course there is.

worrying doesn't help.
maybe your expectations are fucked up?

treat people like you want to be treated.

these simple obvious truths must be obscured by a military regime bent on perpetual hate and murder.

you work for them and you therefore suck ass.

^^ lots of weird slogans and incoherent ramblings, but no cogent arguments presented.

 

[Daylight63]

There is no way to understand the Buddhist concept of impermanence, or Jesus' teaching to love your enemies

Don't know about impermanence, but you are 100% right about how crazy the command to love your enemies is. I'll gladly admit that that one is a moral command that is hard to get over the hump.

Which is probably why it is one of the teaches of Jesus that virtually no one on earth has ever been able to nail consistently or even close. It's a hard one. Probably the hardest one known to mankind.

Your claim that it is all just common-sense sounds like a good slogan, but it falls apart under the microscope of anybody who has a rudimentary knowledge of world religions.

I wonder which came first? A moral frame of behaviors or religious thought. Since your earlier posts established that care for our fellow species members has an evolutionary benefit for us and is seen in wild animals, I'm thinking that "modes of acceptable and unacceptable behavior" were established long before the first humans ever thought about gods or lawgivers.

Humans came out of the dark mist of just pure animal action and reaction and evolve into the creatures we are today. What we brought to the party is to look at our actions and frame it so that when we turned on our massive brains and that higher order of our thoughts started saying "Yeah, I could help my fellow which I'm naturally inclined to do OR I could do something else which might benefit me more!"

I see morality as inherently rational at all levels because it rises from an in-built system in our brains. But humans have EXPANDED it by opening the hood and trying to figure out WHY this or that set of actions would be beneficial.

Morality is kind of both inherent in us biologically AND a product of our analysis as a thinking species.

But if a moral command no longer makes any RATIONAL sense then I don't see what value it would have. Even loving your enemy is an advantageous behavior in society. We need the peacemakers and not just the warriors. We need the bonobos AND the chimps.

 

[Lao Tse]

^^ lots of weird slogans and incoherent ramblings, but no cogent arguments presented.

this is why you're losing.

your run from good points like a little bitch.

 

[Cypress]

It seems to me that the first paragraph lays out why humans and some other animals would naturally protect others of their species (within limits) and the second paragraph is just a religious framing of it for humans who, unlike most animals, are going to be asking follow-on questions like "why?" and "what's in it for me?"

Even though they are naturally hardwired to do the thing.



It would definitely not be rational for the person to do something if the ONLY motivation they had to do so was because of the words of a great moral teacher. But given that it is an instict in-built (obviously) at some level the moral teacher is there to frame it so that the human tendency to look for what's going on under the hood kind of shuts that down.



But your first paragraph would seem to make most morality perfectly rational.

I have never heard of a chimpanzee group providing protection and charitable assistance to a rival chimpanzee group.

I have never seen video of a lion pride bringing food as a charitable donation to a rival lion pride.

There is a widespread desire to claim animal morality is basically the same as Christian, Buddhist, or Confucian morality. I don't see it after half a century of observing wildlife.

Cooperation to the extent it exists in nature is fundamentally based on the concept of reciprocity. The remora fish and the shark have a mutually beneficial symbiotic relationship. Wolves and lionesses will cooperate in a hunt because there is mutually advantageous reciprocity.

The ethos taught by the Axial Age prophets were not based on reciprocity. Jesus did not say you should do good for somebody in the expectation they would reciprocate or that it would be mutually beneficial. That is what made the Parable of the good Samaritan and the rendering of aid to complete strangers with leprosy so shocking and radical.

 

[Daylight63]

I have never heard of a chimpanzee group providing protection and charitable assistance to a rival chimpanzee group.

Neither have I. That's why I mentioned the fact that humans, with their "expansion pack" bigger, better brain are capable of generalizing the concept to see other humans outside of our individual clans as other humans we can extend that benefit to.

There is a widespread desire to claim animal morality is basically the same as Christian, Buddhist, or Confucian morality. I don't see it after half a century of observing wildlife.

I agree sort of. The "love your enemies as yourselves" bit is a bit too far for just wild animals. It actually kind of requires the added intellect we bring the party to figure out how that is good.

But it's built off of the same tendency to seek what you talked about earlier: an evolution advantage.

Cooperation to the extent it exists in nature is fundamentally based on the concept of reciprocity.

Not sure if I agree with that. I'm kind of doubtful that the wolf helps its fellow injured wolf with any expectation that if they are ever injured someone will take care of them. I think it's way more instinctual and not even "thought about" at all.

Since I think humans are other animals I can see that we probably have the same in-built component. We just add extras onto it. We seek to figure out WHY we respond as we do. And that's when we codify our actions as moral rules.

The remora fish and the shark have a mutually beneficial symbiotic relationship. Wolves and lionesses will cooperate in a hunt because there is mutually advantageous reciprocity.

I see what you are saying and agree with it, but, again, I don't think that "reciprocity" is EVER thought of by the lioness or the wolf. They just do it.

The ethos taught by the Axial Age prophets were not based on reciprocity.

I think our disagreement may lie in which comes first: the concept of reciprocity or the instinct to take care of one's own? Obviously I think the latter came first and the former was put in place to explain why we do the latter.

It seems as if your theory is that people actively figured out how their actions would benefit them or harm them and then acted accordingly.

We're big brained creatures and we are kinda different from other animals in many ways mentally so perhaps your theory is correct. Perhaps we as a species are born bereft of any of the "moral instincts" that wild animals have and that we have to build ours so we need moral teachers to show us the way.

Jesus did not say you should do good for somebody in the expectation they would reciprocate or that it would be mutually beneficial.

Agree. Possible exception is Luke 6:31. In that case it's almost explicit. But as for many of the other teachings like "love your enemy" are counterintuitive and much hard to make sense of without thinking a bit more deeply than just instinct.

That is what made the Parable of the good Samaritan and the rendering of aid to complete strangers with leprosy so shocking and radical.

Well, the lepers in Jesus time were essentially beggars which means that there was a constant level of rendering aid to them long before Jesus came along. And I'm pretty sure the Jews of Palestine would have been very aware of the commands to care for the poor and the stranger that were already in the Pentateuch in Leviticus etc. So I am not entirely certain such a philosophy of Jesus would have been "shocking" or "radical" in any real sense to the Jews of the time and place. Perhaps the Romans and those who were not familiar with the traditions of the Jews would have been surprised.

I understand that Jesus WAS a radical in many ways. He seemed to be some inflection point in the understanding of the Laws of Judaism so there's a lot to be said for your theory. But I also think it is probably a bit less "direct".

 

[Lao Tse]

I have never heard of a chimpanzee group providing protection and charitable assistance to a rival chimpanzee group.

I have never seen video of a lion pride bringing food as a charitable donation to a rival lion pride.

There is a widespread desire to claim animal morality is basically the same as Christian, Buddhist, or Confucian morality. I don't see it after half a century of observing wildlife.

Cooperation to the extent it exists in nature is fundamentally based on the concept of reciprocity. The remora fish and the shark have a mutually beneficial symbiotic relationship. Wolves and lionesses will cooperate in a hunt because there is mutually advantageous reciprocity.

The ethos taught by the Axial Age prophets were not based on reciprocity. Jesus did not say you should do good for somebody in the expectation they would reciprocate or that it would be mutually beneficial. That is what made the Parable of the good Samaritan and the rendering of aid to complete strangers with leprosy so shocking and radical.

but humans, using logic and reason have been able to extend ingroup treatment to outgroups in the chance that the other group also understands trust and cooperation, thus avoiding conflicts and struggle and going directly to cooperation.

this is why you war hawk imbeciles hate actual morality.

you like hatred, death, and killing. it's your job. you need a new bag.

you're sick psychotics.

 

[Hume]

but rational does mean rational.

Finally we agree on something.

 

[Hume]

maybe you believe in the mass murder ideology of might makes right instead.

Like the US slaughtering 750,000 innocent Iraqis with Bush's invasion.

 

[Lao Tse]

Like the US slaughtering 750,000 innocent Iraqis with Bush's invasion.

yes.

 

[Cypress]

Neither have I. That's why I mentioned the fact that humans, with their "expansion pack" bigger, better brain are capable of generalizing the concept to see other humans outside of our individual clans as other humans we can extend that benefit to.



I agree sort of. The "love your enemies as yourselves" bit is a bit too far for just wild animals. It actually kind of requires the added intellect we bring the party to figure out how that is good.

But it's built off of the same tendency to seek what you talked about earlier: an evolution advantage.



Not sure if I agree with that. I'm kind of doubtful that the wolf helps its fellow injured wolf with any expectation that if they are ever injured someone will take care of them. I think it's way more instinctual and not even "thought about" at all.

Since I think humans are other animals I can see that we probably have the same in-built component. We just add extras onto it. We seek to figure out WHY we respond as we do. And that's when we codify our actions as moral rules.




I see what you are saying and agree with it, but, again, I don't think that "reciprocity" is EVER thought of by the lioness or the wolf. They just do it.



I think our disagreement may lie in which comes first: the concept of reciprocity or the instinct to take care of one's own? Obviously I think the latter came first and the former was put in place to explain why we do the latter.

It seems as if your theory is that people actively figured out how their actions would benefit them or harm them and then acted accordingly.

We're big brained creatures and we are kinda different from other animals in many ways mentally so perhaps your theory is correct. Perhaps we as a species are born bereft of any of the "moral instincts" that wild animals have and that we have to build ours so we need moral teachers to show us the way.



Agree. Possible exception is Luke 6:31. In that case it's almost explicit. But as for many of the other teachings like "love your enemy" are counterintuitive and much hard to make sense of without thinking a bit more deeply than just instinct.




Well, the lepers in Jesus time were essentially beggars which means that there was a constant level of rendering aid to them long before Jesus came along. And I'm pretty sure the Jews of Palestine would have been very aware of the commands to care for the poor and the stranger that were already in the Pentateuch in Leviticus etc. So I am not entirely certain such a philosophy of Jesus would have been "shocking" or "radical" in any real sense to the Jews of the time and place. Perhaps the Romans and those who were not familiar with the traditions of the Jews would have been surprised.

I understand that Jesus WAS a radical in many ways. He seemed to be some inflection point in the understanding of the Laws of Judaism so there's a lot to be said for your theory. But I also think it is probably a bit less "direct".

Unfortunately, that's way too long to read.

 

[Daylight63]

Unfortunately, that's way too long to read.

Apologies. Tried to be thorough in responding to your points. I'll try to keep it shorter for you in the future.

Highlights:
1. Lepers were cared for by the people of Judea (hence them being beggars). Also Jews would have been quite familiar with helping the stranger since that's in the Pentateuch in Leviticus meaning at least some of Jesus' ministry was not AS revolutionary certainly to the Jews.

2. Animals don't practice morality based on reciprocity. So reciprocity can't be the reason why a creature would act to help a fellow creature.

3. I think the instinct to act "morally" (ie helping one's fellow being etc.) arose FIRST in animals (of which humans are one) but then humans' larger brains decided to ask "why do we do that?" and so the moral teachers came along to frame what we already know to be closer to an instinct (which fits with your suggestion that this sort of cooperation is an evolutionary benefit)

 

[Cypress]

but humans, using logic and reason have been able to extend ingroup treatment to outgroups in the chance that the other group also understands trust and cooperation, thus avoiding conflicts and struggle and going directly to cooperation.

this is why you war hawk imbeciles hate actual morality.

you like hatred, death, and killing. it's your job. you need a new bag.

you're sick psychotics.

There's nothing logical about loving your enemy, or running towards diseased and infectious strangers rather than running away from them.

Now you are pivoting to saying what I said all along: humans have evolved an utterly unique moral conscience that does always follow rational materialism and the laws of survival and nature that other animals instinctively understand.