The “feeling animal who thinks…...” line is not a bipolar dichotomy it is a continuum, with the feeling part usually dominate. Some people seem much more driven by the “feeling” influence, and others less so, but the argument is that we’re almost all influenced by emotions more than rationality. Sure, as the average person develops, rationality comes to play a larger role, but as biological creatures, that role usually remains subservient to biological drives. That is by no means a “bad” thing, it just recognizes biology.
Wouldn’t it be irrational to ignore biology!? It seems as if you’re presuming that taking biological needs into account is somehow an indication of an irrational approach. WTF? Frankly that seems highly irrational. It’s precisely this kind of denial that’s gotten so many televangelist types into sex-crime trouble. Don’t we have to take our biological tendencies and needs into account in order for our approach to improving ourselves to be rational, much less effective?
I think Dennis is saying the same thing you’re saying X. It’s not either/or. The biological factor doesn’t completely disappear, at least not in the short run. It’s akin to the solution of controlling lust that would drive an urge for self gratification even at the risk of harm to another. The Taliban would have a woman cover up completely with a burka instead of mastering reason and self control in himself. He then stones the woman to death if she gets raped. It’s a sense of responsibility that can be reasoned (one biological factor) over primal (another biological factor) motivators. That’s how I’m seeing it though, not speaking for Dennis, I don’t know.
I probably didn’t say that right cause I’m trying to get something else done in a hurry.
Also, other powerful emotional factors may trump reason: anger, grief, love, hate, pain, fear, etc, etc. But through reason, we learn how to express them appropriately.
OK, I’m as unqualified as anyone else to do so, so here’s a partial list of some major premises of a human teleology, at least in very rough form, with which I’m reasonably comfortable. These are in no particular order of priority, just what comes off of my fingers.
Due regrets for any grandiose or arrogant traits implied. Expect multiple modifications and expansions to result, but these are intended as only some poor attempt to articulate some few alternatives to just claiming that atheism has a fallacy in attacking theism, and to instead offer a few ideas as to what a “rational,” or “secular,” etc., teleology might begin to propose.
1. Humans are not held as occupying any central place in the universe, but are just a self-aware species who may someday found not be unique in that respect.
2. No sentient unseen entity is posited that somehow controls the universe, or that holds humans are a subject of any interest or attention.
3. Expressions of human biological functions including elimination, eating or sexual behavior are all held to be normal.
4. Rational, skeptical, questioning behavior is considered the preferable means of both comprehending and influencing the universe, but any other problem solving means not yet identified might come to be preferred if that results in reliable, predictable, observable and verifiable results.
5. Force may be employed in countering human conflict only when that force is clearly the only known alternative to counter life-threatening social conflict.
6. Guilt, shame and anger are natural human emotions that are valid and justified only when expressed as a result of deliberate actions that cause harm or injury to oneself or others for no sufficient reason(s) such as clear self-defense of one’s life.
7. Any consented adult competent human relationships with other competent adults are not proscribed nor subject to social sanctions as long as those relationships do not present an obvious danger to the physical well being of others.
8. Any suicidal or clearly self-injurious behavior by any means when expressed by competent adults is permitted provided no clear physical injury or harm is thereby caused non-consenting or incompetent others by the expression of that behavior, and no obligation is thereby visited on others to deal with the results of that behavior.
9. Any contractual relationship with any other competent adult is permitted provided that contract does not clearly result in physical injury or harm to others not in that relationship, nor any financial expense not otherwise freely agreed to by those on whom that expense is visited.
10. The voluntary termination of any pregnancy by a competent adult is permitted for any reason prior to the time a fetus can be judged to be viable and not knowingly impaired by an identified physical defect. Any and all birth control measures are permitted for anyone of sufficient age to become pregnant, without the explicit approval of any social or familial authority.
11. The worship or endorsement of any posited deity in any theology is permitted and accepted provided that endorsement is freely made by competent adults, and that there is no effort made to force, by physical, social or financial means, to secured agreement or compliance with that theology by others who do not chose to do so.
12. Clear purposeful violations of any of these premises by competent adults can be sanctioned or punished by the least-force alternatives available, including incarceration and the purposeful end of life if those are the only sanctions available.
13. Freedom of speech and dissent is assumed a basic human right, and even considered desirable, provided that expression does not cause or explicitly promote physical harm to others.
14. Discrimination or advantages based on just the biological characteristics of ethnicity, gender, or age are prohibited unless those biological characteristics are clearly and inexplicably associated with behavioral dispositions preclusive of or advantageous to the physical issues of concern. No advantage or disadvantages will be assumed without clear and compelling objective evidence free of cultural or social bias being available.
15. The following criteria of evidential validity are considered to be dominant and sufficient in any dispute: Replicability by neutral parties, objective results measurable by visual or auditory means; subject to being falsified by any alternative explanation that is also objective and measurable by neutral parties.
WHile I agree that many people choose to believe in a god because they have this need to substitute for their failing parents, need an authority figure or need to feel that the universe was not in vain, some people like me feel all right if there is no greater significance for this vast universe rather than mere casualty, because for me what counts is not what’s out there in the planets and solar systems (however fascinating that is) but what I have here on my day to day world to deal with, I find enough things that interest me right here, whether music, books, conversation with friends, travel, etc.
I don’t need to feel I am special, that there is a life after death..I am just happy to live the best I can right here and now.
Very nicely stated Ms. Farrell! We stop encouraging our children to believe in fantasies when they are mature enough to know the difference. We hope that they will ultimately learn to think and act as rationally as possible. We do not take their teddy bear away. We do reward them for relegating it to the status of fond memories. Theists do not NEED the crutch of superstition regardless of how warm and fuzzy it feels. We should not reward them or allow them to thrust their teddy bear in our faces and in our government.
As you do, I’m more interested in day to day living as best I can, and do not oddly enough spend a lot of time dwelling on more abstract issues. For a great many people, there does seem to be a need to somehow “establish their place in the world,” for lack of a better way to put it, without which they are more anxious. For most of us, our “place” is defined to a greater or lesser degree by our social relationships, and religion serves among other things to purport to offer that as well. People typically do not worship as individuals, but in groups.
I suspect that the relatively small percentage of people who’re quite at ease being alone much or all of the time, are less likely to be intensely involved with any religion. Conversely, people who are heavily socially dependent are more likely to be engaged in religious expressions. At least, those are hypothesis absent good data at the moment.
WHile I agree that many people choose to believe in a god because they have this need to substitute for their failing parents, need an authority figure or need to feel that the universe was not in vain, some people like me feel all right if there is no greater significance for this vast universe rather than mere casualty, because for me what counts is not what’s out there in the planets and solar systems (however fascinating that is) but what I have here on my day to day world to deal with, I find enough things that interest me right here, whether music, books, conversation with friends, travel, etc.
I don’t need to feel I am special, that there is a life after death..I am just happy to live the best I can right here and now.
The following from another thread seems appropriate here:
teuchter - 13 October 2008 11:58 PM
Oedipus Wrecks!
An article in the Washington Post today confirmed a suspicion I have been harboring for some time now.
To endure their long ordeal, John McCain and the other U.S. servicemen held as prisoners of war in North Vietnam in the 1960s developed a number of survival techniques. None was quite as effective as the one former Navy pilot Richard Stratton remembers: “If you kept your mind occupied, you were going to be okay.”
Stratton would imagine meticulously assembling a large glider and flying it over the Alps. Another prisoner imagined himself fishing. But McCain had the most audacious dream of all, and he shared his vision one day with a group of fellow POWs. “He was talking about his father to us and then he said: ‘I want to be president of the United States.Someday I’m going to be president,’ ” Stratton recalls. “If the cell wasn’t so small, we’d have been rolling around laughing.”
Sometimes fantasies are useful in dealing with tough situations. I recall a Gurdjieff statement, that if people prematurely knew the horror of their situation they would kill themselves.
My mom spent a number of years teaching EMR children, with great personal satisfaction. She told us (her children) that we had provided her with an exceptionally good background for this sort of work.
I’m not sure what an EMR child is (though I can guess), but your mother sounds like a wonderful humorist. I also appreciate your understanding my rant for what it was: lacking any refinement whatsoever, but attempting to convey a stance, if roughly.
Sometimes fantasies are useful in dealing with tough situations. I recall a Gurdjieff statement, that if people prematurely knew the horror of their situation they would kill themselves.
Not only fantasies, but also endorphins and probably dozens of other effective formulations.
My mom spent a number of years teaching EMR children, with great personal satisfaction. She told us (her children) that we had provided her with an exceptionally good background for this sort of work.
I’m not sure what an EMR child is (though I can guess), but your mother sounds like a wonderful humorist. I also appreciate your understanding my rant for what it was: lacking any refinement whatsoever, but attempting to convey a stance, if roughly.
Educable mentally retarded. And yes, she has a great, occasionally caustic sense of humor (once, at 84, sitting in a waiting room for radiation therapy she turned to an elderly gentleman who had been ranting about how lousy the modern world was, how disrespectful youth, and how things were much better in the good old days, and said “Yes, in the good old days we’d all be dead by now.”)
Sometimes fantasies are useful in dealing with tough situations. I recall a Gurdjieff statement, that if people prematurely knew the horror of their situation they would kill themselves.
Not only fantasies, but also endorphins and probably dozens of other effective formulations.
Ah, if only I could fantasize those endorphins into action.
I am the opposite to your theory. Being Brazilian, I like to be around people. I do not like being alone. I am now an empty nester and do not like it. For me there is no better way to have fun than to have a good conversation with some good friends, preferably around food and drinks. I am a city girl who likes the noise of human beings.
My favorite dinner dates? Dinner with Bill Maher and Joy Behar, both who think like me. I would laugh my head off
My theory, untested, is based on statistical findings if extant, that would report averages and standard deviations. Clearly there are group-dependent people with no particular theistic beliefs, perhaps some asocial or antisocial people with strong religious beliefs. I’m simply proposing a disproportionate percentage of group-dependent people will express more theistic beliefs than would a sample ofrelative “loners.”
Dennis, you may have a point there. My attraction to meet and talk to like minded individuals like Bill Maher and Joy Behar is a form of congregation just like formal religions have,right? Without the rituals and hymns. No wait, having a good glass of wine and eating some good food are also a kind of ritual…
People almost always, seems to me, express their religious beliefs in groups, much more than by themselves. One of the powerful forces of religion, as well as other human organizations from the bowling club to political parties, is the influence of the social grouping of that organization. No obvious reason why people could not worship their god by themselves, and sometimes they do so, but most of the time they do so in a group. People get much more emotional stimulation in a group than when alone.
