The Harm To Others

[minsocal]

As stated here and elsewhere, the seperation of emotion from rationality is an old idea that never gained full acceptance. Cognitive science, with a large body of evidence, is slowly revealing the connection between the two. There is a serious flaw in some accounts of our so-called 'animal' nature that fails to recognize we have positive moral emotions and positive moral intuitions both of which emanate from the mid-level of the brain.

 

If childtren are given the opportunity and proper models during development, they learn how to properly use their emotions intelligently. Notice that I used the term "models". Children do not have to be "told" what the real rules are of a family and social units. I am referring here to Albert Bandura's extensive research into abstract modeling and observational learning. In fact, children are very adept at picking up differences between what they are taught verbally and the behavior of those instructing them. More often than not, they will follow what they observe over what they are taught.

 

One the main features of rationalty is the process of conation, which means the bringing together of knowledge and emotion into agreement so that both contribute not just to individual well being, but that of the society in which we live and the spiritual realm as well. Is rationalty an intrinsic human capacity? The evidence says "yes". The mistake is the assumption that this capacity somehow leads to a uniformity of "true" propositions. It does not. The reason for this is quite simple. Research is now demonstrating that we are born with a variety of innate moral emotions, moral intuitions and survival strategies. Interestingly, some of these researchers are supporting their theory with examples from the Bible! Thus the irony. The "rebellion" is between the different domains of emotion, intuition, and survival strategies.

 

This can be observed early in child development. Many consider empathy to be the innate precursor of compassion. For example, in a situation where 20 children have 17 toys to play with, the children without toys become distressed. Some children with toys will go off into a corner to play while others will offer their toy to the distressed children, knowing there are no more toys.

 

Now, let's take a look at in-group loyalty. This is a basic intuition with moral implications. It is easily demonstrated in the development of early Christian sects. In-group loyalty can be used two different ways. In one sense, this loyalty helps preserve ones' own community under adverse conditions. In the other sense, it often leads to the demonization of the "other" in order to justify the "propositional interpretations" that hold the group together. This is what Maslow meant when he said "to dichotomize is to pathologize". When we appropriated this country from it's natural inhabitants, we often did just that. Notice that in the history of all civiilzations the "other" is always the "barbarian".

 

Today, we see this same problem of in-group loyalty playing out over the issue of homosexualty. In some cases, the moral inuitions and emotions that inhibit doing harm to others is overridden by a sense of in-group loyalty. This is a question of priority and value. NOW THE TOUGH PART. The truly rational therorists point out that it is unethical to attempt the destruction of another person's belief system when the harmful consequences are known. The God that I know is consistent with this principle. The Jesus that I know is consistent with this principle. It was Jesus who spent so much time bringing the outcast back into society and NOT casting them out.

[minsocal]

 

minsocal,

 

Please, don't get the impression I'm a legalist, far from it. Obeying God's law (or man's warped interpretations of them and which ones are which we can certainly argue about), does not save us. Legalism demands compliance with the law to be worthy, but God doesn't command that.

 

God's laws are there (not for strict obedience- since we can't obey them anyway) merely to reveal to man his need for (dependancy on) God and His assistance in our even trying to live up to them. Despite that, some of us still kick and scream over God's assistance, by His providing the solution. Ignoring the path He has hewn out of the wilderness for us, man still is inclined to do it his way. That form of thinking (humanism), along with legalism, is what is called rebellion. That is what God takes issue with.

 

I love you and I have compassion for you. I can only do that if I believe God has revealed to me not only how, but why. That is what we all can and need to know.

 

I two people arrive at the same conclusion by different means, which is more important: the means or the ends?

[minsocal]

 

---

minsocal,

 

Please, don't get the impression I'm a legalist, far from it. Obeying God's law (or man's warped interpretations of them and which ones are which we can certainly argue about), does not save us. Legalism demands compliance with the law to be worthy, but God doesn't command that.

 

God's laws are there (not for strict obedience- since we can't obey them anyway) merely to reveal to man his need for (dependancy on) God and His assistance in our even trying to live up to them. Despite that, some of us still kick and scream over God's assistance, by His providing the solution. Ignoring the path He has hewn out of the wilderness for us, man still is inclined to do it his way. That form of thinking (humanism), along with legalism, is what is called rebellion. That is what God takes issue with.

 

I love you and I have compassion for you. I can only do that if I believe God has revealed to me not only how, but why. That is what we all can and need to know.

 

Kindly note that you switched from an "I" proposition to a "we" proposition" in your last two sentences. This is a rather worn out rhetorical device. If "I" and "we" refer to your own in-group, that's OK. Please clarify.

[davidk]

Joe,

 

Now, let me see. Man can know things but his knowledge is limited, not inexhaustable. Man is logical and reasonable but influenced by his experiences, therefore less than perfect.

 

It seems each of us may have placed the other into one of the two extreme positions on this debate. I may have been pigeon-holed by some that I believe all of man is inexhaustably rational, infinitely reasonable, and faultlessly understood.

 

While you may have been put into the catagory of believing that everything is so subjective that nothing can have any real meaning, and no real communication can take place.

 

Neither of these extreme views are adequate. Our thoughts are so marked by our experiences that they can't touch anyone elses, or else every thought and word automatically has total and complete meaning for everyone. Obviously, neither view is the adequate explanation. But in reality, how do we find this operates in the world? Though we bring our own "special cast of characters" out of our own background, there is also, with a little reasonable care, enough overlapping on the basis of the external world and human experience to ensure that we can rationally gather and exchange knowledge. Even while they do not fit completely together, falling short of exhaustive meaning, they overlap enough. Recognize there are overlaps in our external world and in our common, human experience. So we do not have to have exhaustive knowledge of a thing in order to know truly as long as it is there, I am there, and we have sufficient correlation together. We can communicate accurately if not exhaustively.

 

We must realize we do not have to choose between the two extremes in communication or epistemology. We can know truly without knowing exhaustively. As long as the thing is there and I am in correlation with it, I do not have to know it exhaustively to know it truly. Nobody knows anything exhaustively except God. We are all creatures of God and we live in His world (subject-object realtionship). If the same reasonable God made both subject and object, we should not be surprised that there is a correlation between them.

[JosephM]

Joe,

 

Now, let me see. Man can know things but his knowledge is limited, not inexhaustable. Man is logical and reasonable but influenced by his experiences, therefore less than perfect.

 

"not inexhaustible" ? ? ? Not cannot be consumed? Explain as I surely didn't use those words.... Man is logical and reasonable in his/her own eyes yet it seems to me, a deep understanding would show that man is perfect because he is as he is and was intended to be at this moment in time within creation.

 

 

It seems each of us may have placed the other into one of the two extreme positions on this debate. I may have been pigeon-holed by some that I believe all of man is inexhaustably rational, infinitely reasonable, and faultlessly understood.

Perhaps, yet I personally have not held that to be your belief.

 

While you may have been put into the catagory of believing that everything is so subjective that nothing can have any real meaning, and no real communication can take place.

 

Perhaps by some. Yet that would not be an accurate assessment by my mind.

 

Neither of these extreme views are adequate. Our thoughts are so marked by our experiences that they can't touch anyone elses, or else every thought and word automatically has total and complete meaning for everyone. Obviously, neither view is the adequate explanation. But in reality, how do we find this operates in the world? Though we bring our own "special cast of characters" out of our own background, there is also, with a little reasonable care, enough overlapping on the basis of the external world and human experience to ensure that we can rationally gather and exchange knowledge. Even while they do not fit completely together, falling short of exhaustive meaning, they overlap enough. Recognize there are overlaps in our external world and in our common, human experience. So we do not have to have exhaustive knowledge of a thing in order to know truly as long as it is there, I am there, and we have sufficient correlation together. We can communicate accurately if not exhaustively.

Perhaps, for the most part, (concerning the things of God or religion or philosophy) we rationally gather and exchange OPINIONS rather than knowledge. And if, while there is overlap as you say, I would personally not go so far as to say that we truly know but rather only that we agree in common that it is true knowledge when it actually may not be. I suggest that much of what we assume is true is merely a point of view. Accurate communication do exist yet my experience suggests that truly accurate communications is the exception rather than the rule because of linguistic interpretations and definitions which even when recognized from a common source (dictionary) have subjective validity that often lacks commonality in experience.

 

 

We must realize we do not have to choose between the two extremes in communication or epistemology. We can know truly without knowing exhaustively. As long as the thing is there and I am in correlation with it, I do not have to know it exhaustively to know it truly. Nobody knows anything exhaustively except God. We are all creatures of God and we live in His world (subject-object realtionship). If the same reasonable God made both subject and object, we should not be surprised that there is a correlation between them.

 

I would not share that view that we know truly (if you are speaking of the things of God) without knowing exhaustively. I would share the view that nobody knows exhaustively except God, yet at the same time, there is a part of us that is one in spirit/essence with God (without subject/object relationship) that exists in this moment as one and does know exhaustively. Perhaps this is the correlation you speak of?

 

Love Joseph

[davidk]

As stated here and elsewhere, the seperation of emotion from rationality is an old idea that never gained full acceptance. Cognitive science, with a large body of evidence, is slowly revealing the connection between the two. There is a serious flaw in some accounts of our so-called 'animal' nature that fails to recognize we have positive moral emotions and positive moral intuitions both of which emanate from the mid-level of the brain.

minsocal,

 

I agree that rationality and emotions co-exist in man. I would explain it this way; being rational is the objective attribute of man, while it is emotion that is man's subjective attribute. The particular uniqueness of man is that both of these attributes exist in man and can work together harmoniously. That which governs the harmony is man's will to enforce what he believes to be true (philosophy).

 

If childtren are given the opportunity and proper models during development, they learn how to properly use their emotions intelligently. Notice that I used the term "models". Children do not have to be "told" what the real rules are of a family and social units. I am referring here to Albert Bandura's extensive research into abstract modeling and observational learning. In fact, children are very adept at picking up differences between what they are taught verbally and the behavior of those instructing them. More often than not, they will follow what they observe over what they are taught.

This is where it could get a bit thorny. While I understand and agree in concept, who defines "proper"?

 

One the main features of rationalty is the process of conation, which means the bringing together of knowledge and emotion into agreement so that both contribute not just to individual well being, but that of the society in which we live and the spiritual realm as well. Is rationalty an intrinsic human capacity? The evidence says "yes". The mistake is the assumption that this capacity somehow leads to a uniformity of "true" propositions. It does not. The reason for this is quite simple. Research is now demonstrating that we are born with a variety of innate moral emotions, moral intuitions and survival strategies. Interestingly, some of these researchers are supporting their theory with examples from the Bible! Thus the irony. The "rebellion" is between the different domains of emotion, intuition, and survival strategies.

It's important that here you have acknowledged something which seems to have escaped Joeseph so far. That is stating simply that man is intrinsically rational (aka: a rational creature).

 

It is interesting that "research" shows man demonstrates a variety of intrinsic moral motions and rationality at birth. To define moral, it requires a knowledge of good and evil (right and wrong). Maybe the researchers used to Bible to define morality so they would know how to recognize it.

By defining rebellion in the manner you did, it appears to take man's free will out of the equation. Was that intentional or an oversight?

 

This can be observed early in child development. Many consider empathy to be the innate precursor of compassion. For example, in a situation where 20 children have 17 toys to play with, the children without toys become distressed. Some children with toys will go off into a corner to play while others will offer their toy to the distressed children, knowing there are no more toys.

Were these children ambulatory and did they have parents and siblings?

 

Now, let's take a look at in-group loyalty. This is a basic intuition with moral implications. It is easily demonstrated in the development of early Christian sects. In-group loyalty can be used two different ways. In one sense, this loyalty helps preserve ones' own community under adverse conditions. In the other sense, it often leads to the demonization of the "other" in order to justify the "propositional interpretations" that hold the group together. This is what Maslow meant when he said "to dichotomize is to pathologize". When we appropriated this country from it's natural inhabitants, we often did just that. Notice that in the history of all civiilzations the "other" is always the "barbarian".

This seems a bit prejudicial. Did you happen to consider other philosophies as well, such as those of liberal philosophers and fascist/communist/socialist/totalitarian regimes?

 

Today, we see this same problem of in-group loyalty playing out over the issue of homosexualty. In some cases, the moral inuitions and emotions that inhibit doing harm to others is overridden by a sense of in-group loyalty. This is a question of priority and value. NOW THE TOUGH PART. The truly rational therorists point out that it is unethical to attempt the destruction of another person's belief system when the harmful consequences are known. The God that I know is consistent with this principle. The Jesus that I know is consistent with this principle. It was Jesus who spent so much time bringing the outcast back into society and NOT casting them out.

Now would changing the belief system of someone you consider a racist have "harmful" consequences? Would it then be ethical to destroy their belief system? What about an aetheist?

 

Jesus did spend time inviting in the dregs of society as well as its leaders, He invited everyone in, and He taught them they should abandon wrong religious philosophies and choose the right one- His. I'm not sure I understand what society you meant Jesus brought (invited) them into if not exclusively His, when He said, "Follow Me", "I am the way...", "I am He", and so on.

[minsocal]

minsocal,

 

I agree that rationality and emotions co-exist in man. I would explain it this way; being rational is the objective attribute of man, while it is emotion that is man's subjective attribute. The particular uniqueness of man is that both of these attributes exist in man and can work together harmoniously. That which governs the harmony is man's will to enforce what he believes to be true (philosophy).

 

 

This is where it could get a bit thorny. While I understand and agree in concept, who defines "proper"?

It's important that here you have acknowledged something which seems to have escaped Joeseph so far. That is stating simply that man is intrinsically rational (aka: a rational creature).

 

It is interesting that "research" shows man demonstrates a variety of intrinsic moral motions and rationality at birth. To define moral, it requires a knowledge of good and evil (right and wrong). Maybe the researchers used to Bible to define morality so they would know how to recognize it.

By defining rebellion in the manner you did, it appears to take man's free will out of the equation. Was that intentional or an oversight?

Were these children ambulatory and did they have parents and siblings?

This seems a bit prejudicial. Did you happen to consider other philosophies as well, such as those of liberal philosophers and fascist/communist/socialist/totalitarian regimes?

Now would changing the belief system of someone you consider a racist have "harmful" consequences? Would it then be ethical to destroy their belief system? What about an aetheist?

 

Jesus did spend time inviting in the dregs of society as well as its leaders, He invited everyone in, and He taught them they should abandon wrong religious philosophies and choose the right one- His. I'm not sure I understand what society you meant Jesus brought (invited) them into if not exclusively His, when He said, "Follow Me", "I am the way...", "I am He", and so on.

 

Sorry davidk, we have no reason to continue this dialogue. Your credibility is neglible. Your "dregs of society" comment left you out of any further consideration as a Christian in any sense of the word. Done! My goal was to expose you (to have you expose yourself) for what you are. This you have done very well.

[JosephM]

One the main features of rationalty is the process of conation, which means the bringing together of knowledge and emotion into agreement so that both contribute not just to individual well being, but that of the society in which we live and the spiritual realm as well. Is rationalty an intrinsic human capacity? The evidence says "yes". The mistake is the assumption that this capacity somehow leads to a uniformity of "true" propositions. It does not. The reason for this is quite simple. Research is now demonstrating that we are born with a variety of innate moral emotions, moral intuitions and survival strategies. Interestingly, some of these researchers are supporting their theory with examples from the Bible! Thus the irony. The "rebellion" is between the different domains of emotion, intuition, and survival strategies.

 

Minosocal wrote the above ...... to which Davidk responded

 

It's important that here you have acknowledged something which seems to have escaped Joeseph so far. That is stating simply that man is intrinsically rational (aka: a rational creature).

 

Davidk,

 

It seems to me that you still do not read well with understanding. Though Minsocal has acknowledged rationality as an intrinsic human capacity you seem to have failed to understand the next sentence. "The mistake is the assumption that this capacity somehow leads to a uniformity of "true" propositions." I agree with Minsocal and have never denied that mankind had rationality as an intrinsic capacity. Yet your assumptions continue to lead you to incorrect conclusions. Perhaps this is because you do not agree with the sentence I have quoted of Minsocal and that is the very assumption and mistake you seem to continue to make concerning your understanding of rationality.

 

Love Joseph

[davidk]

Sorry davidk, we have no reason to continue this dialogue. Your credibility is neglible. Your "dregs of society" comment left you out of any further consideration as a Christian in any sense of the word. Done! My goal was to expose you (to have you expose yourself) for what you are. This you have done very well.

The comment was of Jesus attending to people regardless of their social status.

[davidk]

"not inexhaustible" ? ? ? Not cannot be consumed? Explain as I surely didn't use those words.... Man is logical and reasonable in his/her own eyes yet it seems to me, a deep understanding would show that man is perfect because he is as he is and was intended to be at this moment in time within creation.

Perhaps, yet I personally have not held that to be your belief.

Perhaps by some. Yet that would not be an accurate assessment by my mind.

The double negative is: not "incapable of being used up". Without the negatives the context reads ,"Man can know things but his knowledge is limited, capable of being used up."

Perhaps, for the most part, (concerning the things of God or religion or philosophy) we rationally gather and exchange OPINIONS rather than knowledge. And if, while there is overlap as you say, I would personally not go so far as to say that we truly know but rather only that we agree in common that it is true knowledge when it actually may not be. I suggest that much of what we assume is true is merely a point of view. Accurate communication do exist yet my experience suggests that truly accurate communications is the exception rather than the rule because of linguistic interpretations and definitions which even when recognized from a common source (dictionary) have subjective validity that often lacks commonality in experience.

I would not share that view that we know truly (if you are speaking of the things of God) without knowing exhaustively. I would share the view that nobody knows exhaustively except God, yet at the same time, there is a part of us that is one in spirit/essence with God (without subject/object relationship) that exists in this moment as one and does know exhaustively. Perhaps this is the correlation you speak of?

Let me put it this way: Man can know things truly with an exhaustable knowledge of those things. For example; I truly know that if I jump off a bridge I will fall because of gravity. Now, I do not need to have a total knowledge of gravity to truly know that.

Now you may also not have an inexhaustable knowledge of gravity either but you do truly understand my communication to you in regard to the bridge and jumping and gravity and the results.

 

About the things of God I would say similarly, that we can truly know who God is and His character without having to have an inexhaustible knowledge of Him. For example; man can truly know "God is infinite" without requiring man to have an inexhaustible knowledge of God or the infinite.

It seems to me that you still do not read well with understanding. Though Minsocal has acknowledged rationality as an intrinsic human capacity you seem to have failed to understand the next sentence. "The mistake is the assumption that this capacity somehow leads to a uniformity of "true" propositions." I agree with Minsocal and have never denied that mankind had rationality as an intrinsic capacity. Yet your assumptions continue to lead you to incorrect conclusions. Perhaps this is because you do not agree with the sentence I have quoted of Minsocal and that is the very assumption and mistake you seem to continue to make concerning your understanding of rationality.

Thanks for helping clear up the fact that we all agree man is a rational creature, with exhaustable knowledge.

 

The lack of comment on minsocals propositions has nothing to do with a disagreement, as you have so inelegantly accused, convicted, and sentenced me. I would love to comment on minsocals propositions but his data is too sketchy for me to make a determination. I mean, can we assume, first of all, what he has presented is verifiable; the demonstrations of research and, is he saying it is my 'assumption' that is the mistaken one?

[minsocal]

The comment was of Jesus attending to people regardless of their social status.

 

Why the pejoritive term "dregs"? Jesus was born into the lowest class of Jewish society.

[minsocal]

minsocal,

 

I agree that rationality and emotions co-exist in man. I would explain it this way; being rational is the objective attribute of man, while it is emotion that is man's subjective attribute. The particular uniqueness of man is that both of these attributes exist in man and can work together harmoniously. That which governs the harmony is man's will to enforce what he believes to be true (philosophy).

 

 

This is where it could get a bit thorny. While I understand and agree in concept, who defines "proper"?

It's important that here you have acknowledged something which seems to have escaped Joeseph so far. That is stating simply that man is intrinsically rational (aka: a rational creature).

 

It is interesting that "research" shows man demonstrates a variety of intrinsic moral motions and rationality at birth. To define moral, it requires a knowledge of good and evil (right and wrong). Maybe the researchers used to Bible to define morality so they would know how to recognize it.

By defining rebellion in the manner you did, it appears to take man's free will out of the equation. Was that intentional or an oversight?

Were these children ambulatory and did they have parents and siblings?

This seems a bit prejudicial. Did you happen to consider other philosophies as well, such as those of liberal philosophers and fascist/communist/socialist/totalitarian regimes?

Now would changing the belief system of someone you consider a racist have "harmful" consequences? Would it then be ethical to destroy their belief system? What about an aetheist?

 

Jesus did spend time inviting in the dregs of society as well as its leaders, He invited everyone in, and He taught them they should abandon wrong religious philosophies and choose the right one- His. I'm not sure I understand what society you meant Jesus brought (invited) them into if not exclusively His, when He said, "Follow Me", "I am the way...", "I am He", and so on.

 

"Were these children ambulatory and did they have parents and siblings?" I realize your capacity for ignorance. This comment is way out of line. Bandura does all of his research in natural settings which allow children to be themselves. The Bible tells us to watch what children are capable of ... what Bible do YOU read?

[JosephM]

The double negative is: not "incapable of being used up". Without the negatives the context reads ,"Man can know things but his knowledge is limited, capable of being used up."

 

OK

 

Let me put it this way: Man can know things truly with an exhaustable knowledge of those things. For example; I truly know that if I jump off a bridge I will fall because of gravity. Now, I do not need to have a total knowledge of gravity to truly know that.

Now you may also not have an inexhaustable knowledge of gravity either but you do truly understand my communication to you in regard to the bridge and jumping and gravity and the results.

 

About the things of God I would say similarly, that we can truly know who God is and His character without having to have an inexhaustible knowledge of Him. For example; man can truly know "God is infinite" without requiring man to have an inexhaustible knowledge of God or the infinite.

 

It seems to me this is where your error is. The things of the universe (Newtonian principles) may be truly known with your thinking mind yet the things of God cannot be known in the same way as you suppose. To say that God is infinite is not truly known by your mind. It is your belief based on subjective experience. To even say that God is... is not truly known by your mind. It is your opinion/belief. Otherwise you could offer unrefuted proof. "The things of God knoweth no man" KJV

 

Thanks for helping clear up the fact that we all agree man is a rational creature, with exhaustable knowledge.

 

If that statement is sincere, your welcome. If meant as sarcastic, It never was unclear except as an understanding in your mind.

 

The lack of comment on minsocals propositions has nothing to do with a disagreement, as you have so inelegantly accused, convicted, and sentenced me. I would love to comment on minsocals propositions but his data is too sketchy for me to make a determination. I mean, can we assume, first of all, what he has presented is verifiable; the demonstrations of research and, is he saying it is my 'assumption' that is the mistaken one?

 

If you will read more carefully you will see my comment had nothing to do with Minsocals various propositions or your agreement or disagreement with them or your lack of comments on them. Go back and re-read my quote and posts. It had to do with your incorrect conclusion of my view on rationality where you repeatedly insist I have denied man having a capacity for rationality. Minsocal stated very clearly, and as I would agree, accurately, that "Is rationalty an intrinsic human capacity? The evidence says "yes". The mistake is the assumption that this capacity somehow leads to a uniformity of "true" propositions. It does not."

My suggestion to you was that therein (that statement of Minsocal) lies the understanding of your incorrect assumptions/conclusions concerning what I have said concerning rationality and your comment of ...

 

Quote David to Minsocal "It's important that here you have acknowledged something which seems to have escaped Joeseph so far. That is stating simply that man is intrinsically rational (aka: a rational creature). "

 

Nothing had escaped me, it was your understanding that was in error. If you still do not understand the point of my original comment, I can offer no clearer explanation.

 

Love Joseph

My

[minsocal]

OK

It seems to me this is where your error is. The things of the universe (Newtonian principles) may be truly known with your thinking mind yet the things of God cannot be known in the same way as you suppose. To say that God is infinite is not truly known by your mind. It is your belief based on subjective experience. To even say that God is... is not truly known by your mind. It is your opinion/belief. Otherwise you could offer unrefuted proof. "The things of God knoweth no man" KJV

It never was unclear except as an understanding in your mind.

If you will read more carefully you will see my comment had nothing to do with Minsocals various propositions or your agreement or disagreement with them or your lack of comments on them. Go back and re-read my quote and posts. It had to do with your incorrect conclusion of my view on rationality where you repeatedly insist I have denied man having a capacity for rationality. Minsocal stated very clearly, and as I would agree, accurately that "Is rationalty an intrinsic human capacity? The evidence says "yes". The mistake is the assumption that this capacity somehow leads to a uniformity of "true" propositions. It does not."

My suggestion to you was that therein (that statement of Minsocal) lies the understanding of your incorrect assumptions/conclusions concerning what I have said. If you still do not understand the point of my original comment, I can offer no clearer explanation.

 

Love Joseph

My

 

Joseph,

 

Sometimes I have wondered whether my ideas have left me "crying in the wilderness". I intended some of my comments to support your viewpoint. You have been very gracious, thank you. Jesus met with a lot of opposition to his propositions. So did Ghandi, Martin Luther King and so on down a long line of prophets. By "prophet" I do not mean myself, but simply those who challenge the status quo. This is just another way of saying that assumptions/conclusions should not go unchallenged. Davidk seems to like philosophy, and he might pay attention to Edmund Husserl. It was Husserl who noted that "assumptions" become "sedimented" in our minds, and that we need to bring them back into consciousness from time to time to compare them to what we know now, versus ten or twenty years ago. Other words for this are progress, development, individuation, and growth.

 

Love Myron

[minsocal]

minsocal,

 

I agree that rationality and emotions co-exist in man. I would explain it this way; being rational is the objective attribute of man, while it is emotion that is man's subjective attribute. The particular uniqueness of man is that both of these attributes exist in man and can work together harmoniously. That which governs the harmony is man's will to enforce what he believes to be true (philosophy).

 

 

This is where it could get a bit thorny. While I understand and agree in concept, who defines "proper"?

It's important that here you have acknowledged something which seems to have escaped Joeseph so far. That is stating simply that man is intrinsically rational (aka: a rational creature).

 

It is interesting that "research" shows man demonstrates a variety of intrinsic moral motions and rationality at birth. To define moral, it requires a knowledge of good and evil (right and wrong). Maybe the researchers used to Bible to define morality so they would know how to recognize it.

By defining rebellion in the manner you did, it appears to take man's free will out of the equation. Was that intentional or an oversight?

Were these children ambulatory and did they have parents and siblings?

This seems a bit prejudicial. Did you happen to consider other philosophies as well, such as those of liberal philosophers and fascist/communist/socialist/totalitarian regimes?

Now would changing the belief system of someone you consider a racist have "harmful" consequences? Would it then be ethical to destroy their belief system? What about an aetheist?

 

Jesus did spend time inviting in the dregs of society as well as its leaders, He invited everyone in, and He taught them they should abandon wrong religious philosophies and choose the right one- His. I'm not sure I understand what society you meant Jesus brought (invited) them into if not exclusively His, when He said, "Follow Me", "I am the way...", "I am He", and so on.

 

davidk,

 

1. "I agree that rationality and emotions co-exist in man. I would explain it this way; being rational is the objective attribute of man, while it is emotion that is man's subjective attribute."

 

You have failed to understand anything I have previously said about emotions. I was not asking for your explanation. The claim (coming from both philosophy and psychology) is that emotions are the intrinsic precursor of rationality. The concept may be a bit hard for you to grasp even though Hume and Spinoza "got it" long ago. You seem to be missing a whole lot of philosophy and a whole lot of the Bible.

 

2. "Now would changing the belief system of someone you consider a racist have "harmful" consequences? Would it then be ethical to destroy their belief system? What about an aetheist?"

 

In the case of a racist (or any kind of bigot) the answer is this simply this ... if they pose no threat to themselves or to others, leave things as they are. If, however, it is the case that racist or religious bigots seek to impose their beliefs on others in a harmful manner, then a psychologist should speak out. A psychologist would not attempt to change the attitude of an atheist. Atheism is just another religion. Psychologists do not support any religion. Again, this distinction might be a bit too subtle for your cognitive capacities, but that is how it works.

 

3. "Were these children ambulatory and did they have parents and siblings?"

 

As stated previously, this has to be one of the most prejudicial statements you have made to date. It does NOT deserve much more comment than that.

 

4. "It is interesting that "research" shows man demonstrates a variety of intrinsic moral motions and rationality at birth. To define moral, it requires a knowledge of good and evil (right and wrong). Maybe the researchers used to Bible to define morality so they would know how to recognize it."

 

It is the other way around. We obtain our basic knowledge of good and evil from our moral emotions and our moral intuitions. Evolution makes little sense if it cannot sustain prosocial behavior. Without these, the species would have been dead before the Bible was written. Children understand this "logic" before they become adults. I know, my partner and I raised two children. A marvelous experience.

[davidk]

minsocal,

 

'Dregs' is just a colloquialism for the lowest class of society.

---

It's not that I had any substantive reason to doubt the "results" of any research which you posted; it was simply that nothing had been presented to demonstrate the veracity of the study. Asking about the conditions and the environment of the children as well as what did the researchers consider to be natural settings, should be our questions in qualifying any presuppositions or agendas of the research and the reporting of the research, rather than accepting it 'carte blanche'.

---

What may not be understood is that until one's philosophy can sufficiently answer the three basic philosophic questions, the humanists and determinists need to keep looking. Psychology has hardly been proven completely reliable either.

 

If you insist that rationality evolved from the precursor- emotions, then according to the theory one would necessarily to have to argue being rational is the dominant, superior attribute and the one to be relied upon in man.

 

My philosophy ignores that speculation entirely, by saying that man is defined as man because he was created a rational, verbalizing creature. And that things like love and charity are acts of the will that generate the proper emotions in man, because the infinite-personal God wants man to feel good about the things that are truly good, and vice-versa. For without first knowing why something is good or bad, emotions are meaningless, or worse- misleading.

---

Aside from the praise of the two children, the phrase, "Evolution makes little sense..." is the only sensible thing in your last paragraph.

 

Evolution philosophy (that everything came from nothing or somehow only from mass, energy, or motion) is unsustainable. Any philosophies based upon those premises are likewise, unsustainable.

[minsocal]

minsocal,

 

'Dregs' is just a colloquialism for the lowest class of society.

---

It's not that I had any substantive reason to doubt the "results" of any research which you posted; it was simply that nothing had been presented to demonstrate the veracity of the study. Asking about the conditions and the environment of the children as well as what did the researchers consider to be natural settings, should be our questions in qualifying any presuppositions or agendas of the research and the reporting of the research, rather than accepting it 'carte blanche'.

---

What may not be understood is that until one's philosophy can sufficiently answer the three basic philosophic questions, the humanists and determinists need to keep looking. Psychology has hardly been proven completely reliable either.

 

If you insist that rationality evolved from the precursor- emotions, then according to the theory one would necessarily to have to argue being rational is the dominant, superior attribute and the one to be relied upon in man.

 

My philosophy ignores that speculation entirely, by saying that man is defined as man because he was created a rational, verbalizing creature. And that things like love and charity are acts of the will that generate the proper emotions in man, because the infinite-personal God wants man to feel good about the things that are truly good, and vice-versa. For without first knowing why something is good or bad, emotions are meaningless, or worse- misleading.

---

Aside from the praise of the two children, the phrase, "Evolution makes little sense..." is the only sensible thing in your last paragraph.

 

Evolution philosophy (that everything came from nothing or somehow only from mass, energy, or motion) is unsustainable. Any philosophies based upon those premises are likewise, unsustainable.

 

1. " 'Dregs' is just a colloquialism for the lowest class of society."

 

Dregs is pejoritive, and you know that. Jesus was born into the "dregs" of society. "Class" is pejoritive, this is what Jesus taught. Perhaps you think you belong to a class above Jesus? What class do you belong to compared to Jesus?

 

2. "It's not that I had any substantive reason to doubt the "results" of any research which you posted; it was simply that nothing had been presented to demonstrate the veracity of the study. Asking about the conditions and the environment of the children as well as what did the researchers consider to be natural settings, should be our questions in qualifying any presuppositions or agendas of the research and the reporting of the research, rather than accepting it 'carte blanche'."

 

What is YOUR agenda? Many people on this website are better read than you are. You need to do a bit more reading before you shoot your mouth off.

 

3. "What may not be understood is that until one's philosophy can sufficiently answer the three basic philosophic questions, the humanists and determinists need to keep looking. Psychology has hardly been proven completely reliable either.What may not be understood is that until one's philosophy can sufficiently answer the three basic philosophic questions, the humanists and determinists need to keep looking. Psychology has hardly been proven completely reliable either."

 

We are talking about the teachings of Jesus, not philosophy. The teachings of Jesus conform to psychology better than philosophy. Plato held many ideas we now know to be "silly'. Descartes, the same. READ WHAT THEY SAID and you will find at deal that just cannot "cut it".

 

4. "If you insist that rationality evolved from the precursor- emotions, then according to the theory one would necessarily to have to argue being rational is the dominant, superior attribute and the one to be relied upon in man."

 

Horrible logic. Any student of philosophy woud know this makes no sense.

 

5. "My philosophy ignores that speculation entirely, by saying that man is defined as man because he was created a rational, verbalizing creature. And that things like love and charity are acts of the will that generate the proper emotions in man, because the infinite-personal God wants man to feel good about the things that are truly good, and vice-versa. For without first knowing why something is good or bad, emotions are meaningless, or worse- misleading."

 

Well, you just have it backwards. Any student of philosophy would know this is possible.

 

YOUR philosophy DENIES arguments generated from within philosophy. (HUH?) BUT, as Christians, we are not talking about philosophy, are we?

 

 

IF YOUR RELGION IS PHILOSOPHY, that's OK for you. But, I'm a Christian.

[minsocal]

 

Evolution philosophy (that everything came from nothing or somehow only from mass, energy, or motion) is unsustainable. Any philosophies based upon those premises are likewise, unsustainable.

 

Evolution is not philosophy. Evolution would have enlightened a Plato and confused a Newton. As Whitehead put it, "nothing enters the universe from nowhere". Your "philosophy" is selective, to say the least. Or, as Einstien put it, "there is no spooky action at a distance." Again, we are not talking philosophy here ... we're talking about religion and science. Enter the discussion with that in mind.

[davidk]

The definition of philosophy that is apropo to the discussion: philosophy; the sum of an individuals ideas and convictions; personal attitude.

The operating definition of philosophy by some on this website is far too narrow for a fruitful discussion. I would suggest a more thorough reading on the subject to broaden the knowledge base of those who may not understand the full context of the word- philosophy.

 

1- Jesus knows the purpose and worth of man.

You had said, "Jesus was born into the lowest class of Jewish society."; yet, I don't think you feel I should be upset with you for using the pejoritive- 'class'.

 

2- We all have an agenda. And many people not on this website are also better read than I.

 

3- That all men have a philosophy is a basic condition of man as a rational creature. (see above definition)

 

4- If Evolution claims a continuous improvement of life over time, you could help by explaining (to the poorly read) what is illogical about saying what attributes man has now are superior to his precursor attributes? Maybe Evolution does not claim the aforementioned premise.

 

5- So, are you saying that man feeling good about something means the something is good? Hannibal Lector would feel good about that.

---

If Evolution is the study of natural phenomena, or a search for the underlying causes and principles of reality; then it is a philosophy. One selects what one will for his philosophy, thereby everyone is being selective, to say the least. But we all still must face the questions that have always faced man in his selection process.

---

My philosophy is Christian.

 

[minsocal]

 

My philosophy is Christian.

 

 

So is mine.

[minsocal]

The definition of philosophy that is apropo to the discussion: philosophy; the sum of an individuals ideas and convictions; personal attitude.

The operating definition of philosophy by some on this website is far too narrow for a fruitful discussion. I would suggest a more thorough reading on the subject to broaden the knowledge base of those who may not understand the full context of the word- philosophy.

 

1- Jesus knows the purpose and worth of man.

You had said, "Jesus was born into the lowest class of Jewish society."; yet, I don't think you feel I should be upset with you for using the pejoritive- 'class'.

 

2- We all have an agenda. And many people not on this website are also better read than I.

 

3- That all men have a philosophy is a basic condition of man as a rational creature. (see above definition)

 

4- If Evolution claims a continuous improvement of life over time, you could help by explaining (to the poorly read) what is illogical about saying what attributes man has now are superior to his precursor attributes? Maybe Evolution does not claim the aforementioned premise.

 

5- So, are you saying that man feeling good about something means the something is good? Hannibal Lector would feel good about that.

---

If Evolution is the study of natural phenomena, or a search for the underlying causes and principles of reality; then it is a philosophy. One selects what one will for his philosophy, thereby everyone is being selective, to say the least. But we all still must face the questions that have always faced man in his selection process.

---

My philosophy is Christian.

 

 

Slowly, davidk, you are changing to Progressive values.

 

"If Evolution claims a continuous improvement of life over time, you could help by explaining (to the poorly read) what is illogical about saying what attributes man has now are superior to his precursor attributes? Maybe Evolution does not claim the aforementioned premise."

 

That was MY argument. YOU claimed elsewhere that humans were created "whole and complete" ... "in the beginning". If you have read or understood what I have posted in response to you over a long period of time you would see that I have said, repeatedly, that moral emotions and moral intuitions evolved over a vast period of time. That "period of time" was largely BEFORE THE BIBLE WAS WRITTEN. These are the "attributes" you requested.

[soma]

Philosophy requires critical thinking and using logic to come to conclusions. It can take on hypothetical and imaginary problems.

 

Science uses observation and experimentation and the Scientific Method to come to conclusions about the world. It talks about problems where observation is the key.

 

Science and philosophy are both objective and require that one follow strict guidelines.

 

Progress and evolution are different. Some primates progressed faster than others due to the powers of observation, examination and intelligence, but all primates are evolving. Some are extinct or going extinct. The progress of the future will be mental and spiritual. It seems the purpose of nature and evolution is to develop an awareness of the soul or spiritual side of nature. May we all cultivate this awareness. It is easier said than done so we all need to work together with all paths and religions so we can move on a higher plane and sit with with Father.

 

I see the glory and grace of Our Lord working his wonders in evolution. Science rocks

[minsocal]

Philosophy requires critical thinking and using logic to come to conclusions. It can take on hypothetical and imaginary problems.

 

Science uses observation and experimentation and the Scientific Method to come to conclusions about the world. It talks about problems where observation is the key.

 

Science and philosophy are both objective and require that one follow strict guidelines.

 

Progress and evolution are different. Some primates progressed faster than others due to the powers of observation, examination and intelligence, but all primates are evolving. Some are extinct or going extinct. The progress of the future will be mental and spiritual. It seems the purpose of nature and evolution is to develop an awareness of the soul or spiritual side of nature. May we all cultivate this awareness. It is easier said than done so we all need to work together with all paths and religions so we can move on a higher plane and sit with with Father.

 

I see the glory and grace of Our Lord working his wonders in evolution. Science rocks

 

I agree, but I have been posing a simple question. If my non-rational capacities bring me to God, will I be denied on a technicality? Can a child with Down's Syndrome know love? Yes. Know Jesus? Yes. Would a child with Down's Syndrome be rejected by God?

[soma]

Minsocal, You are right. There are many paths to Our Lord, thank God and thank you for pointing that out.

[minsocal]

Returning to Post #1 ...

 

"If you block the sharing of information and if you block the truth from being known, you enslave innocent people causing harm to the world of GOD."

 

Amen