Quote of the Day

_{Barry Arrington
April 19, 2009

Intelligent Design

2}_{Categories
Intelligent Design}

Share: Facebook; Twitter/X; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

Some [men] kill because their faiths explicitly command them to do so, some kill though their faiths explicitly forbid them to do so, and some kill because they have no faith and hence believe all things are permitted to them. Polytheists, monotheists, and atheists kill – indeed, this last class is especially prolifically homicidal, if the evidence of the twentieth century is to be consulted. Men kill for their gods, or for their God, or because there is no God and the destiny of humanity must be shaped by gigantic exertions of human will . . .

Men will always seek gods in whose name they may perform great deeds or commit unspeakable atrocities . . . Then again, men also kill on account of money, land, love, pride, hatred, envy or ambition.

Does religious conviction provide a powerful reason for killing? Undeniably it often does. It also often provides the sole compelling reason for refusing to kill, or for being merciful, or for seeking peace; only the profoundest ignorance of history could prevent one from recognizing this. For the truth is that religion and irreligion are cultural variables, but killing is a human constant.

David Bentley Hart, Atheist Delusions, 12-13

Can anyone possibly doubt that these claims are true. They are practically self-evident. Thus, the currency of the “religion is the cause of all violence” dogma currently fashionable among the new atheists is all but inexplicable on rational grounds.

Comments

In #156 nullasalus wrote:
"...‘atheist non-materialists’ (especially atheist non-naturalists), in my anecdotal experience, usually end up embracing something that seems like the Godlike in everything but name."
Interesting; perhaps this is why some systems of non-naturalistic belief (e.g. Taoism) are very clear about the idea that the name doesn't matter. Indeed, limiting the concept by giving it a name (and, even worse, a humanoid personality) is a form of idolatry, and therefore destructive of That Which Is.Allen_MacNeill_{April 21, 2009
April
04
Apr
21
21
2009
05:43 AM
5
05
43
AM
PDT}

“At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilized races of man will almost certainly exterminate and replace throughout the world the savage races.” - Charles Darwin "No more than Nature desires the mating of weaker with stronger individuals, even less does she(nature) desire the blending of a higher with a lower race, since, if she did, her whole work of higher breeding, over perhaps hundreds of thousands of years, night be ruined with one blow. - Adolf Hitler “Darwin stood for me like a mightly doorkeeper at the entrance to the temple of the universe.” - Leon Trotsky, Communist, Soviet Union, starved peasants. "It would always be disagreeable for me to go down to posterity as a man who made concessions in this field. I realize that man, in his imperfection, can commit innumerable errors-- but to devote myself deliberately to errors, that is something I cannot do. I shall never come personally to terms with the Christian lie. Our epoch Uin the next 200 yearse will certainly see the end of the disease of Christianity.... My regret will have been that I couldn't... behold ." (p 278) - Adolf Hitler, Hitlers Secret Conversations, 1941-44. "Christianity is a rebellion against natural law, a protest against nature. Taken to its logical extreme, Christianity would mean the systematic cultivation of the human failure. (p 43)" - Adolf Hitler, 1941-44, Secret Conversations. "Sir Arthur Keith (1866-1955), who was knighted in 1921, came to Hitler's defense, "Hitler is an uncompromising evolutionist, and we must seek for an evolutionary explanation if we are to understand his actions" [4] Keith reassured us, "The German Führer, as I have consistently maintained, is an evolutionist; he has consciously sought to make the practice of Germany conform to the theory of evolution."" - Sir Arthur Keith, UK Evolutinary Anthropologist. ""We should hire three or four colored ministers, preferably with social-service backgrounds, and with engaging personalities. The most successful educational approach to the Negro is through a religious appeal. We don't want the word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population. and the minister is the man who can straighten out that idea if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members."" - Margaret Sanger's December 19, 1939 letter to Dr. Clarence Gamble, 255 Adams Street, Milton, Massachusetts. Original source: Sophia Smith Collection, Smith College, North Hampton, Massachusetts. Also described in Linda Gordon's Woman's Body, Woman's Right: A Social History of Birth Control in America. New York: Grossman Publishers, 1976. "The most merciful thing that a family does to one of its infant members is to kill it." - Margaret Sanger (editor). The Woman Rebel, Volume I, Number 1. Reprinted in Woman and the New Race. New York: Brentanos Publishers, 1922. "Eugenics is … the most adequate and thorough avenue to the solution of racial, political and social problems." - Margaret Sanger. "The Eugenic Value of Birth Control Propaganda." Birth Control Review, October 1921, page 5. What all of this points out is atheist, pagans can be and are racist bigots as well. Some of them will justify anything, anytime, anywhere for their beliefs. So please spare me the righteous indignation from atheist. Let me know the next time Discovery Channel bashes athiest beliefs and actions, or that comedians mock athiesm wildly on major TV outlets for vast murders and destruction, stupidity and ignorance. Let me know the day all the major media directly connects Stalin, Sanger, etc., to the death of 10s of millions due to their beliefs in Darwinism and Eugenics. The reason it is important to point out the truth, is the prevailing education, media, and societal information today is largely mute on the truth of past atheist beliefs and actions in Eugenics and Darwinism to justify their cause of ultimate races, etc., and mass murder. Atheist who believed in Darwinism and Eugenics by and large get a pass in major media outlets. Few people know that a racist hater of African Americans started Planned Parenthood to abort "unfit" races and blacks. People have a right to know the truth behind the murder of 45 million babies in America alone. The truth about the Founder who had the worst intentions against anyone who she did not deem "fit" or in agreement with her philosophy. It does not mean that all atheist are like this. That is not the point. But many ignorant people repeat untruths ad naseum against Judeo-Christian past history to the point that many people believe that it is the root and cause of all evil. I see it happen all the time. As Hitler proclaimed, "If you tell a big enough lie and tell it frequently enough, it will be believed." All of these people studied Darwinism and Eugenics, convinced of survial of the fittest. They looked to nature, rejected a Creator and favored state control over individual freedoms. Stalin after reading Darwin, rejected a Creator and Christianity. Words do have consequences, so do books and scientific fads. Just because atheist and theist in the civilized world today exercise restraint, does not mean the past did not occur for both sides. It would be good if there were equal criticism and open media coverage of how athist movements, eugenics and yes Darwinism rolled up crazed believers into madness of power. The masses bought into Hitlers master race. The masses also bought into Eugenics. Laws were made in America as well. Planned Parenthood was not started with good intentions. It was started at its very foundation as a racist hate-filled belief by its founder in Eugenics. The masses have bought into her agenda without even knowing it. The races she hated as "unfit?" They are largest population hit in percentages by her "plan."DATCG_{April 21, 2009
April
04
Apr
21
21
2009
05:42 AM
5
05
42
AM
PDT}

"I frankly wish atheists were more moral." And I frankly wish that Christians were, as well, along with all other people. The problem is not that theists or atheists lack morals. Rather, the problem is that we all so often fail to live up to them. As an evolutionary psychologist, I am curious as to why this is the case, and find the answer that "it's because of the Fall" singularly unenlightening.Allen_MacNeill_{April 21, 2009
April
04
Apr
21
21
2009
05:38 AM
5
05
38
AM
PDT}

vjtorley in #157: I sincerely appreciate the clarity and logic with which you craft your posts. It's a breath of fresh air here, and despite the fact that we sometimes disagree, I find reading your comments very rewarding, not least because you consistently avoid character assassination (something that I fight against in myself, sometimes unsuccessfully). Bravo!Allen_MacNeill_{April 21, 2009
April
04
Apr
21
21
2009
05:36 AM
5
05
36
AM
PDT}

Diffaxial says, "Clive, don’t look now, but on this topic YOU are the reductionist (Barry too)." This is an interesting point. Believing that a proper understanding of a system involves understanding it at different levels, from the properties of the constituent parts up through higher levels of organization, is not a materialist or atheist belief, nor a theistic one.hazel_{April 21, 2009
April
04
Apr
21
21
2009
05:35 AM
5
05
35
AM
PDT}

Barry Arrington says: I wish atheists today were more honest, that they would confront the inevitable consequences of their worldview forthrightly and with courage instead of being all mealy-mouthed and trying to have it both ways like Hazel who says that being an atheist does not mean she has to be a materialist. Give me a break. No, I frankly wish atheists were more moral. According to the definition of atheists, Hazel is, of course, entirely right. But what I was interested in here was the "inevitable consequences of their [the atheists'] worldview..." bit. I wonder how we could assess this. Perhaps a starting point would be looking at societies with the highest levels of disbelief in gods. Surveys on this are difficult, and depend on the questions asked, but we usually come up with places like Sweden and France. If we then look at the places where nearly all of the population are theists, we might be in Bangladesh, or various countries in Africa. So, should we encourage the former to become more like the latter, or the other way around? Then, if we look amongst the western countries, the United States has the highest level of theism. It also has the highest percentage of its population in prison, and the highest murder rate amongst those remaining outside. So, having visited Sweden and having lived for some years in France, I wonder how dire these inevitable consequences of the "atheist worldview" are? It's also worth noting that atheists are merely people who don't believe in any gods. Outside that, they can't be said to share a worldview any more than a group defined by their lack of belief in fairies. Babies are atheists, and remain so unless or until corrupted.iconofid_{April 21, 2009
April
04
Apr
21
21
2009
05:29 AM
5
05
29
AM
PDT}

Clive:
It’s a caricature, it confuses facts with meaning. It’s like saying that love is only lust, thoughts are only biochemistry, religion only superstition, etc. And your solace in finding culture as some real entity that is not just the collective of individuals isn’t getting this discussion anywhere.
There is considerable irony in this statement, as stating that "culture is just [can be reduced to] the collective of individuals" is reductionist in exactly the way that "love is only lust" and particularly "thoughts are only biochemistry" are reductionist. There is more to thought than biochemistry, and there is more to the phenomenon of human cultural innovation, transmission and expression than sum of the actions of individuals. Again, I don't see anything particularly "materialist" or "antimaterialist" about this assertion. Clive, don't look now, but on this topic YOU are the reductionist (Barry too). And that is why you are unable to grasp that considerable individual human behavior can be best understood in light of the history of the culture into which the one is born and in which one is immersed.Diffaxial_{April 21, 2009
April
04
Apr
21
21
2009
04:56 AM
4
04
56
AM
PDT}

to JohnADavison: I thought you were an atheist? I'm pretty sure that I saw a post where you said there was no monotheistic God.hazel_{April 21, 2009
April
04
Apr
21
21
2009
04:28 AM
4
04
28
AM
PDT}

On a more serious note, of course you can be an atheist and not a materialist: Buddhists, Taoist, various sorts of New Age spiritualists, etc, believe that there is some metaphysical/spiritual aspect to the world, but that it isn't consolidating into a divine willful entity. It is just a fact that such people and such belief systems exist. I don't see what is "mealy mouthed" about pointing this out.hazel_{April 21, 2009
April
04
Apr
21
21
2009
04:15 AM
4
04
15
AM
PDT}

"Mealy-mouthed"? Nothing I like better than a nice civil discussion. Piffle.hazel_{April 21, 2009
April
04
Apr
21
21
2009
04:10 AM
4
04
10
AM
PDT}

John, Most readers of this blog are not going to recognize a radio jingle from the 1930's. If you care.mauka_{April 21, 2009
April
04
Apr
21
21
2009
04:04 AM
4
04
04
AM
PDT}

"Atheism hits the spot. Three apostles, that's a lot, Dickie, Chris and Pee Zee too, Atheism is the one for you." To be sung to the tune of Pepsi Cola hits the spot. Dickie is Richard Dawkins, Chris, Christopher Hitchens and Pee Zee. Paul Zachary Myers. I love it so!JohnADavison_{April 21, 2009
April
04
Apr
21
21
2009
03:20 AM
3
03
20
AM
PDT}

There is another aspect to the subject of this thread. The late Percy Foreman, criminal defense lawyer, was once asked why can murderers sometimes get off scot free but cattle rustlers serve long prison terms. His reply went something like this - "Lots if people in Texas need killing, but no cattle need rustling." Just a thought.JohnADavison_{April 21, 2009
April
04
Apr
21
21
2009
02:52 AM
2
02
52
AM
PDT}

Some people are born haters, predestined to denigrate others and the institutions others revere. Paul Zachary Myers comes to mind. His vitriol knows no bounds. The President of the United States is "asshole in chief." The Holy Father is "what do we care what bennie thinks." As for those who have challenged Myers' congenital atheism, visit Myers' "Dungeon" where, among many others, you will find me proudly shackled, one of his first victims, a charter member of his "Kill File." Others, more civilized, like Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens, probably hate just as much, but express themselves in less personal terms, being content to present their congenital loathing on the sides of London buses or in scholarly articles in respected magazines and journals. It is hard to believe isn't it? Not at all. There it is for all to see! "EVERYTHING is determined... by forces over which we have no control." Albert Einstein, my emphasisJohnADavison_{April 21, 2009
April
04
Apr
21
21
2009
01:59 AM
1
01
59
AM
PDT}

Maybe this discussion could advance a little if both theists and atheists took a long hard look at their belief systems, and then asked themselves the following question: Are there any metaphysical beliefs on my side of the fence which, when combined with theism or atheism, would prove harmful to public morality? As a theist, I'd like to nominate the following beliefs on my side of the fence: (1) Belief in a capricious God who can define morality as He/She sees fit - e.g. a God who could just as easily have commanded "Thou shalt kill" as "Thou shalt not kill," or who could change the moral law on a whim ("Today's Tuesday; killing is allowed today.") (2) Belief in a God whose will is not subject to reason, and who commands expects unconditional obedience, even when His/Her commands appear to fly in the face of reason. (3) Belief in a militaristic God who approves the spread of religion by force. (4) Belief in a God who commands us to hate other people. (5) Belief in a God who claims to control our choices, for good or ill (absolute predestination of the virtuous and the wicked).vjtorley_{April 20, 2009
April
04
Apr
20
20
2009
11:06 PM
11
11
06
PM
PDT}

BarryA@155, The problem is that any true "Nietzche atheist" would obviously reject morality, any real value of courage, and so on. If you think about it, it would be hard to tell the difference between one who was internally consistent and internally inconsistent. What one would do out of inconsistency, the other could do because it was advantageous. Though I do think it's possible for an atheist to not be a materialist. At the same time, they're so outnumbered it's hard to pay attention to them nowadays - and 'atheist non-materialists' (especially atheist non-naturalists), in my anecdotal experience, usually end up embracing something that seems like the Godlike in everything but name. (Like, say, panpsychism, which is so close to panentheism I can practically smell the incense.)nullasalus_{April 20, 2009
April
04
Apr
20
20
2009
10:03 PM
10
10
03
PM
PDT}

David Kellogg takes my comment [115) about nostalgia for Nietzsche atheists and says: Translation: “I wish atheists were as immoral as my worldview says they should be.” Swing and a whiff Dave. Just exactly the opposite is true. I wish atheists today were more honest, that they would confront the inevitable consequences of their worldview forthrightly and with courage instead of being all mealy-mouthed and trying to have it both ways like Hazel who says that being an atheist does not mean she has to be a materialist. Give me a break. No, I frankly wish atheists were more moral.Barry Arrington_{April 20, 2009
April
04
Apr
20
20
2009
09:09 PM
9
09
09
PM
PDT}

Allen MacNeill, ““At the bottom of it all, every sensibility on your list is the outgrowth the product of physical chemistry, given that “culture” is just a collection of evolved beings who are composed of atoms whose behavior can be described by the laws of physical chemistry.” Is it clear now why statements about natural processes cannot have any bearing on non-naturalistic (i.e. cultural) processes? The “laws” of cultural evolution (which are, in turn, based upon the “laws” of learned behavior) are not reducible nor derivable from “natural laws” such as those found in chemistry and physics. Why do you continue to conflate the two?" That’s not what I said nor what I intended. I’ve noticed an argument technique from you that you believe that reducing the opponents argument down into reductionist terms, such as saying that I believe since we’re made of physical chemistry then all of the cultural phenomen must result from the laws of physics…..or The columbine killers also drank water that was liquid…….therefore it follows that all who are made up of atoms or who drink liquid do this………….I used to use this form of argument on my mom when I was little. It’s a caricature, it confuses facts with meaning. It’s like saying that love is only lust, thoughts are only biochemistry, religion only superstition, etc. And your solace in finding culture as some real entity that is not just the collective of individuals isn’t getting this discussion anywhere. We’re not advancing, if anything we’re retreating. The laws of cultural evolution are nothing more than the laws of individual discernment, which is only the outcome of evolutionary standards. So my statement that all things that are known are only known on an individual level is exactly correct and true. I’m not the one conflating laws of nature with behavior, but evolutionary psychology should tell you that our behavior is the product of evolution, and thus evolutionary standards.Clive Hayden_{April 20, 2009
April
04
Apr
20
20
2009
08:51 PM
8
08
51
PM
PDT}

Allen_MacNeill When I asked "So how does evolution help us to find “real” values, that we can reference objectively, and use as our standard when condemning other aspects of evolutionary behavior?" The answer, you correctly state, is that it doesn't. That's not a straw man, that's just a dead man. The question remains, how do we, as evolved creatures (which I don't believe for a second, mind you) get our sense of discernment, and act OPPOSITE of our evolutionary behaviors? Where does this come from? And cultural evolution won't help you, because it just pushes the question back. So?Clive Hayden_{April 20, 2009
April
04
Apr
20
20
2009
08:50 PM
8
08
50
PM
PDT}

Sorry, Clive, I misunderstood your point about a culture being a collection of individuals. The problem with the term "culture" is that it can be used to mean the people who have learned a particular set of ideas and skills, or it can be used to mean that particular set of ideas and skills. I think that our misunderstanding came from the two different meanings of this single word. In the future I will try to be clearer about which meaning of the term I am using, so as to avoid such misunderstandings.Allen_MacNeill_{April 20, 2009
April
04
Apr
20
20
2009
08:39 PM
8
08
39
PM
PDT}

----JTaylor: "Nat Hentoff - he is a journalist and atheist, and ardently opposes abortion (and euthanasia too I believe). He wrote very articulately on his views on abortion in a recent edition of Free Inquiry - he’s a frequent op-ed contributor. I wasn’t able to find it online, but there’s plenty of information about him on the web." I am aware of Nat Hentoff. Do you know of any others? We prove the rule by the exception.StephenB_{April 20, 2009
April
04
Apr
20
20
2009
08:38 PM
8
08
38
PM
PDT}

When I was in Business School we were tested according McClelland's theory of needs. It was a simple test, a series of pictures and everyone wrote a one page essay on what they thought was happening in the picture. Other students then graded the test based on criteria for McClelland's three needs of achievement, affiliation and power. The second part of the experiment/test was to put into a room six people who were given an assignment to organize something. I was put into a room with the other five people and we represented 1 power, 2 affiliation and 3 achievement people. In less than 10 minutes we were fighting with the 3 achievers at odds with the 1 power oriented person and the 2 affiliation people trying to act as mediators. None of us had any clue as to what was happening. I was taken aback by what the person who was the power oriented one was trying to do, essentially to take over and give orders. So my point is that the world has been run by power oriented people since day 1. And I guess that no one here or very few are power oriented nor do many power oriented people go into academia. So I would not try to judge what an atheist or a theist would do who are affiliated or achievement oriented. I would look to those who are power oriented. So have fun and say what a good guy I am and so are the people I know but more than likely none of you will be power oriented. In the end you will be just a follower to some power oriented person unless there is a system set up to control who gets the power and how they can use it. If the power oriented person has no compulsion not to kill, whether raised with moral values or not the result will not be pretty. Hitler, Stalin, Lennin and Mao are 20th century models but there were many before them driven by power and this is what kills big time. The four I mentioned had no moral compunction against killing even though at least two of them were initially Christians and knew the prescription "Thou shall not kill." If given opportunities they would have done a lot more. The number actually killed if one keeps score will be affected by the environment in which they operate. If there is no general world view not to kill then there will be no limit. They were pikers however compared to Timur whose statue stands in many places in Central Asia as an honor to this butcher. There are even restaurants in LA in honor of Mao and one of the more celebrated t shirts in the world is of Che Guevara, The Butcher of La Cabaña.jerry_{April 20, 2009
April
04
Apr
20
20
2009
08:30 PM
8
08
30
PM
PDT}

Allen MacNeill, Do I really need to quote someone else to say that a culture is a collection of individuals?Clive Hayden_{April 20, 2009
April
04
Apr
20
20
2009
08:25 PM
8
08
25
PM
PDT}

I like diffaxial's example of music, but perhaps another from mathematics would make the point as well. Is there anything "natural" about counting using a base 10 number system? If there is, I'd like to hear about it. Yes, we have ten fingers and ten toes, but that doesn't necessarily make a base 10 number system any more "natural" than, say, a base 12 number system (my personal favorite since I was about eight years old). And while I know quite a few coders who like to think that a binary number system is more "natural" than any other, I believe that it is clearly the case that there is nothing "natural" about any number system. They are all human cultural constructs, and as such cannot be derived, either directly or indirectly, from any component of evolutionary theory, or any of the natural sciences for that matter (pun intended, of course).Allen_MacNeill_{April 20, 2009
April
04
Apr
20
20
2009
08:20 PM
8
08
20
PM
PDT}

In #146 Clive Hayden wrote:
"If you and your colleagues don’t say that, I’m sorry, but I don’t have to quote anyone for anything this obvious."
My colleagues and I don't say that, but I'm not convinced you are sorry in any way, as you continue to make such assertions without providing even a shred of evidence to support them. In my experience, anyone who says that something is "obvious" and therefore needs no evidence to support it is making an argument by assertion, plain and simple. And, in case you really are as clueless as your comments seem to indicate, arguments by assertion are logically fallacious by definition.Allen_MacNeill_{April 20, 2009
April
04
Apr
20
20
2009
08:15 PM
8
08
15
PM
PDT}

To be more specific, I can rephrase Clive Hayden's baseless assertion: "At the bottom of it all, every sensibility on your list is the outgrowth the product of physical chemistry, given that “culture” is just a collection of evolved beings who are composed of atoms whose behavior can be described by the laws of physical chemistry." Is it clear now why statements about natural processes cannot have any bearing on non-naturalistic (i.e. cultural) processes? The "laws" of cultural evolution (which are, in turn, based upon the "laws" of learned behavior) are not reducible nor derivable from "natural laws" such as those found in chemistry and physics. Why do you continue to conflate the two?Allen_MacNeill_{April 20, 2009
April
04
Apr
20
20
2009
08:11 PM
8
08
11
PM
PDT}

Allen MacNeill, It seems rather obvious to say that the collection is just a lot of the individuals :) doesn't it? If you and your colleagues don't say that, I'm sorry, but I don't have to quote anyone for anything this obvious.Clive Hayden_{April 20, 2009
April
04
Apr
20
20
2009
08:10 PM
8
08
10
PM
PDT}

Clive Hayden:
"At the bottom of it all, every sensibility on your list is the outgrowth the product of evolution, given that “culture” is just a collection of evolved beings. And any standard used to determine the veracity of any event, even on a cultural level, is, in the end, discerned on an individual and personal level–a man has nothing except evolutionary psychologically given standards to credit with all of his discernment as to what the culture should or shouldn’t do–to even get started on anything “evolving culturally.” Taking the difficulty to the collective doesn’t solve the problem, and there is no such thing as a collective conscience."
Your caricature of evolutionary psychology is beyond absurd. I am an evolutionary psychologist by training and avocation, and this doesn't describe anything that I or any of the other practitioners of my discipline would say about our chosen field of study. Show me anywhere in the writings of any evolutionary biologist or human ethologist where any one of them makes a statement even remotely like this.Allen_MacNeill_{April 20, 2009
April
04
Apr
20
20
2009
08:06 PM
8
08
06
PM
PDT}

Clive:
I don’t see how, because in the end, at the point of anything being meaningfully understood as being right or wrong, happens on the individual level with each person, so you’ve still got the difficulty of explaining just how people come to any conclusion on anything other than whatever standards evolution has given them to work with.
Take this into a domain less fraught with controversy. Your immersion in the traditions of western musical harmony equips you to make basic aesthetic judgments, very quickly, regarding particular compositions, relative to those traditions. An ineptly composed cord progression will simply sound "wrong" (which is not to say that some composers may exploit those expectations, violating them in certain ways to produce a particular effect.) Further, those traditions emerged and culturally evolved over time, reaching an important culmination in Bach's Well Tempered Clavier. Your ability to make these judgements isn't grounded in human biological evolution - rather it results from your immersion in and internalization of western culture. And in a very real sense the judgments you make ("this sounds wrong") were already made long before you were born, at the time of the origination and consolidation of the system of western harmony. Meanwhile, you would be helpless to make similar judgments about, say, Japanese music. Surely you are not denying that we similarly internalize, and indeed are taught, the "values" of our enclosing cultures in a similar way, and that many of our individual judgments reflect our tutelage in those values, and in a sense are "pre-compiled" for us by our culture. (if you are denying it, what do you make of the movement to retain and teach our "traditional values," a movement that appears to be deeply suspicious of individuals making individual judgments about issues such as sexual conduct?Diffaxial_{April 20, 2009
April
04
Apr
20
20
2009
08:05 PM
8
08
05
PM
PDT}

Allen MacNeill, At the bottom of it all, every sensibility on your list is the outgrowth the product of evolution, given that "culture" is just a collection of evolved beings. And any standard used to determine the veracity of any event, even on a cultural level, is, in the end, discerned on an individual and personal level--a man has nothing except evolutionary psychologically given standards to credit with all of his discernment as to what the culture should or shouldn't do--to even get started on anything "evolving culturally." Taking the difficulty to the collective doesn't solve the problem, and there is no such thing as a collective conscience.Clive Hayden_{April 20, 2009
April
04
Apr
20
20
2009
08:02 PM
8
08
02
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 … 9 Next