Religious Typology Quiz

[Dutch Uncle]

Ants and bees are among nature's greatest engineers. Even a spider web is a type of intricate engineering.

Are they just born knowing how to do it? Or are they taught?

Yes to all. Now ask the bees to build a hut or a spider a fire.

Evolution. Genetics. Millions of years of trial and error. What works survives, what doesn't dies.

What makes mankind different than a termite mound? The genetics are similar.

Aren't human and chimp genetics very, very close? What's the difference?

 

[Cypress]

Yes to all. Now ask the bees to build a hut or a spider a fire.

Evolution. Genetics. Millions of years of trial and error. What works survives, what doesn't dies.

What makes mankind different than a termite mound? The genetics are similar.

Aren't human and chimp genetics very, very close? What's the difference?

FOXP2 gene mutations for one thing, but it's an open question why humans developed an advanced way of abstract thinking capable of transcending experience.


This is a quote I like from Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy:

"on the planet Earth, man had always assumed that he was more intelligent than dolphins because he had achieved so much—the wheel, New York, wars and so on—whilst all the dolphins had ever done was muck about in the water having a good time. But conversely, the dolphins had always believed that they were far more intelligent than man—for precisely the same reasons."

 

[Saint Guinefort]

As a career professional, Perry, what is your opinion of people who consistently answer questions with a question?

Not everyone gets off on diagnosing everyone around them, "Doc". LOL.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

FOXP2 gene mutations for one thing, but it's an open question why humans developed an advanced way of abstract thinking capable of transcending experience.


This is a quote I like from Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy:

"on the planet Earth, man had always assumed that he was more intelligent than dolphins because he had achieved so much—the wheel, New York, wars and so on—whilst all the dolphins had ever done was muck about in the water having a good time. But conversely, the dolphins had always believed that they were far more intelligent than man—for precisely the same reasons."

Pure chance over millions of years of evolutionary mutations? Prey gets smarter to avoid becoming prey and predators get smarter to eat.

Humans have only existed up to 2.5 million years but dinosaurs existed for about 150 million years. Whose to say some of those dinosaurs weren't like Douglas's dolphins? Intelligent but frivolous?

Since modern human brain are believed to have existed for at least 30,000 years, it appears that humans, too, spent about 20,000 to 25,000 mucking about having a good time before screwing everything up and inventing civilization.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

Not everyone gets off on diagnosing everyone around them, "Doc". LOL.

If not Door #3 then I'm thinking Door #1. Door #2 is the least likely scenario. LOL

^^^
more evidence of being a doctor than any other person on JPP.

 

[Cypress]

Pure chance over millions of years of evolutionary mutations? Prey gets smarter to avoid becoming prey and predators get smarter to eat.

Humans have only existed up to 2.5 million years but dinosaurs existed for about 150 million years. Whose to say some of those dinosaurs weren't like Douglas's dolphins? Intelligent but frivolous?

Since modern human brain are believed to have existed for at least 30,000 years, it appears that humans, too, spent about 20,000 to 25,000 mucking about having a good time before screwing everything up and inventing civilization.

Random genetic mutations combine with natural selection as evolutionary mechanisms. The most advantageous genetic mutations persist in the gene pool.

What we were taught in elementary school about dinosaurs being slow and dumb may have just been wrong! Some of them might have been reasonably intelligent!

 

[Saint Guinefort]

If not Door #3 then I'm thinking Door #1. Door #2 is the least likely scenario. LOL

^^^
more evidence of being a doctor than any other person on JPP.

Cool! So that's your diploma? Figures.

LOLOL.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

Cool! So that's your diploma? Figures.

LOLOL.

It's more than you have, Perry.

 

[Eagle_Eye]

The quiz said, my best fit was Solidly Secular, are the least religious among the seven groups along with 17% of the public?!!

Are you a Sunday Stalwart? Solidly Secular? Or somewhere in between? Take our quiz to find out which one of the religious typology groups is your best match and see how you compare with our nationally representative survey of more than 4,000 U.S. adults.

You may find some of these questions are difficult to answer. For example, you may see yourself in more than one category or feel that none quite describes you. That’s OK. In those cases, pick the answer that comes closest, even if it isn’t exactly right.

https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/quiz/religious-typology/

I got

Your best fit is...
Relaxed Religious
along with 17% of the public.

 

[Cancel 1 2023]

I don't have time to respond to everything but I didn't say freedom, equality, and justice are metaphysical.

Then what do you think they are if you feel they are insufficiently described by "mathematics" and/or physical aspects of the world? Why did you raise them as a counterpoint to my position?

I said there are plenty of things out there to believe in, suspect, or be agnostic about which transcend sense experience and are not resolvable by mathmatical equations and laboratory equipment.

So what is the nature of these things?

There is no known law of biology that drives us towards equality and justice.

It appears you simply ignored my description of a possible biological "imperative" for equality and justice. I actually expended some degree of effort to explain my position on this.

If you don't believe that, I can show you ten thousand years of pre-20th century recorded human history, or their heirarchy of lion prides, chimpanzee troops, baboon colonies, and animal ecosystems

And you think that heirarchies are incompatible with equality and justice? I don't think that necessarily follows. I can think of vanishingly few human societies that lacked any form of hierarchy and even fewer that had a hierarchy but still felt they lived by codes of equality and justice.

And, then, of course, all these high level concepts like "justice" and "equality" go out the window when talking about animals that are not social animals. It would seem that these "concepts" are little more than what arises in social animals and as such lack a certain degree of "universality". Universality would be a great indicator of something beyond the physical. But these things lack that. So I'm not certain there can be any argument made that they are somehow beyond our understanding from a purely physical reality standpoint.

 

[Cancel 1 2023]

FOXP2 gene mutations for one thing, but it's an open question why humans developed an advanced way of abstract thinking capable of transcending experience.

I assume that this "advanced way of abstract thinking" is more a spectrum across animals and not necessarily a "quantum jump" for humans. Clearly many primates like chimpanzees and bonobos and even likely marine mammals like dolphins or whales could easily have a significant "life of the mind" that we are simply unaware of. But we see plenty of evidence indicating it exists. Even my dog shows signs of emotional states linked with his perception of what is going on around him. He is self aware. Perhaps more in line with a human toddler, but it's again only a matter of degree.

And then there's corvids and octopuses which one would think would have nothing going on upstairs that show alarming levels of self-awareness and creativity.

For this reason I see nothing particularly "special" about our amazing intellect. It's our most powerful survival tool so we wound up with one of the more advanced versions of this "weapons system", but, again, why can't it all just be a property of a neuronal network?

 

[Cancel 1 2023]

Random genetic mutations combine with natural selection as evolutionary mechanisms. The most advantageous genetic mutations persist in the gene pool.

Which, when coupled with the "passive filter" process in which maladaptive features are weeded out you have a perfect mechanism to drive evolution. And the bonus is: there's no "direction" of evolution because of this. It is no more "directed" than a sieve is directed to allow smaller grains to pass. This is what I meant by nature not having a direction or purpose. It just is.

 

[Cypress]

Then what do you think they are if you feel they are insufficiently described by "mathematics" and/or physical aspects of the world? Why did you raise them as a counterpoint to my position?



So what is the nature of these things?



It appears you simply ignored my description of a possible biological "imperative" for equality and justice. I actually expended some degree of effort to explain my position on this.



And you think that heirarchies are incompatible with equality and justice? I don't think that necessarily follows. I can think of vanishingly few human societies that lacked any form of hierarchy and even fewer that had a hierarchy but still felt they lived by codes of equality and justice.

And, then, of course, all these high level concepts like "justice" and "equality" go out the window when talking about animals that are not social animals. It would seem that these "concepts" are little more than what arises in social animals and as such lack a certain degree of "universality". Universality would be a great indicator of something beyond the physical. But these things lack that. So I'm not certain there can be any argument made that they are somehow beyond our understanding from a purely physical reality standpoint.

Philosophers have been asking for three thousand years what the meaning of justice, knowledge, freedom, equality, and beauty are.

I don't think I have any answers that are universal, certain, and beyond any question or doubt.

I congratulate you for having true, certain, universal, unequivocal, and omniscient knowledge of these things.

I have never heard of any scientific consensus in the biological sciences that there is a law of biology which inevitably drives us towards freedom, justice, equality, fairness. In fact, to the extent those things ever existed in all of recorded human history, they had to be imposed and almost always at great cost

 

[NiftyNiblick]

As a former professional athlete, I always knew that pound for pound, I was a creampuff compared to a housecat.

Humans are not physically strong for their size because evolution concentrated on humanity's cerebrum-functioning instead.
Our skulls are shaped for a lot of room at the front.
Thinking power trumps physical strength, apparently, for planet dominance.

Now that we're devolving mentally as as evidenced by this forum, watch for housecats taking on a new role.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

Which, when coupled with the "passive filter" process in which maladaptive features are weeded out you have a perfect mechanism to drive evolution. And the bonus is: there's no "direction" of evolution because of this. It is no more "directed" than a sieve is directed to allow smaller grains to pass. This is what I meant by nature not having a direction or purpose. It just is.

Nonetheless, the historical result is increasingly sophisticated and more intelligent organisms.

 

[Cancel 1 2023]

Philosophers have been asking for three thousand years what the meaning of justice, knowledge, freedom, equality, and beauty are.

Maybe I don't necessarily know what that sentence means. They are easily definable so what is the "question" around them? (I'm genuinely asking so that I might address my points more accurately).

I congratulate you for having true, certain, universal, unequivocal, and omniscient knowledge of these things.

It feels to me that you are uncomfortable with anyone disagreeing with you. I don't mean to antagonize, but is it absolutely necessary to misrepresent my posts like this? I have NEVER claimed absolute certainty.

You seem to be 'mocking' my position as you feared I was doing with the "unicorn" example. I thought I had clarified that my example was in no way intended to mock.

My apologies if disagreements are difficult to deal with. I will attempt to moderate my posts so that they are not as antagonistic as you seem to feel they are. They are not intended to be so.

 

[Cancel 1 2023]

Nonetheless, the historical result is increasingly sophisticated and more intelligent organisms.

What counts as "advanced" or "sophisticated" in this discussion?

As noted earlier evolution doesn't care about "direction", evolution only "cares" about survival. The single celled gunk living in the trap of a kitchen sink is the pinnacle of evolution because it inhabits its niche and survives quite well. MUCH longer than we have as a species, even as an entire kingdom in the Biological classification sense.

As for "intelligence" it is impossible to say that it hasn't arisen multiple times independently. Look again at the octopus. Mollusks have been around FAR longer than humans and may have a very advanced "intelligence". One that is appropriate for its survival and setting.

I guess I don't see how we are "more sophisticated" somehow than an octopus. Arguably we may wind up being one of the shortest lived dominant species to ever inhabit the earth. Seems that "intelligence" has its limits when that "intelligence" winds up being used to destroy the animal's own ecosystem.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

What counts as "advanced" or "sophisticated" in this discussion?

As noted earlier evolution doesn't care about "direction", evolution only "cares" about survival. The single celled gunk living in the trap of a kitchen sink is the pinnacle of evolution because it inhabits its niche and survives quite well. MUCH longer than we have as a species, even as an entire kingdom in the Biological classification sense.

As for "intelligence" it is impossible to say that it hasn't arisen multiple times independently. Look again at the octopus. Mollusks have been around FAR longer than humans and may have a very advanced "intelligence". One that is appropriate for its survival and setting.

I guess I don't see how we are "more sophisticated" somehow than an octopus. Arguably we may wind up being one of the shortest lived dominant species to ever inhabit the earth. Seems that "intelligence" has its limits when that "intelligence" winds up being used to destroy the animal's own ecosystem.

More complex. Mammals are more complex than reptiles and reptiles are more complex than jellyfish, which are more complex than amoebas.

FWIW, female humans are more complex than males. A simple organism eats, shits and reproduces through the same hole. A more complex organism uses two holes. An even more complex organism uses three holes, such as males. Females have four holes.

 

[Cypress]

Maybe I don't necessarily know what that sentence means. They are easily definable so what is the "question" around them? (I'm genuinely asking so that I might address my points more accurately).



It feels to me that you are uncomfortable with anyone disagreeing with you. I don't mean to antagonize, but is it absolutely necessary to misrepresent my posts like this? I have NEVER claimed absolute certainty.

You seem to be 'mocking' my position as you feared I was doing with the "unicorn" example. I thought I had clarified that my example was in no way intended to mock.

My apologies if disagreements are difficult to deal with. I will attempt to moderate my posts so that they are not as antagonistic as you seem to feel they are. They are not intended to be so.

I just had three notifications of responses from you, and I can't keep up, I have other fish to fry.

If you don't believe there are any open questions about freedom, knowledge, equality, justice, beauty that's fine.

Your position just happens to run counter to thousands of years of human intellectual history.

What I am saying is that these are open questions which have been debated by the greatest minds of the western intellectual tradition, and these are the types of questions which aren't resolvable by test tubes and equations.

 

[Cancel 1 2023]

More complex. Mammels are more complex than reptiles and reptiles are more complex than jellyfish which are more complex than amoebas.

More complex? That's a tough one to claim. Our biology is clearly DIFFERENT from a reptiles and I will gladly agree that our brain is more complex in that it has more parts. I will also gladly agree that we are more complex than amoebas. But is "complexity" a measure of "sophistication" or even "advancement"? Amoebas have been here longer than we ever will and will probably outlast us. As such it doesn't feel like this "sophistication" we have attained will be a bellwether of "success" such as it is.

A simple organism eats, shits and reproduces through the same hole. A more complex organism uses two holes.

But I think we can both agree that neither is "better" in terms of survival which is the only metric evolution can be judged by. There are still monostomes and they've been around longer than we have and probably will outlast us as well.

Perhaps the discussion should be around "why do more complex creatures have more holes"