Comments | abstract_words: (без темы)

kitt3h in abstract_words

(Untitled)

Oct 03, 2004 21:06

alrighty, the link below will lead you to a long conversation. if you have time, i think some of you might find it interesting and worthy of discussion. but yes, it is incredibly long, about 9 pages on word. the topic is religion, and it was started by an lj'er some of you may know, thegrimrper, who was considering christianity at the moment and asked ( Read more... )

Comments 3

tylerdurden029 October 4 2004, 21:51:26 UTC

ahhh... the ever-flawed religion debate. there was literally too much material in those two separate links for me to dissect at the moment, i just don't have the time. but specifics regarding creation, instinct, seperation of humans and animals - these kinds of things i would like to discuss... maybe i'll get back to it when i have more time this week.

tylerdurden029 October 5 2004, 11:05:33 UTC

i have a few minutes here to scribble something down - the first problem that i had with the discussion is the part where instinct (by definition - inborn pattern of behavior often responsive to specific stimuli) was brought up - by means of having a natural morality in humankind. this ideal is tested and illustrated to be untrue. if a human baby were to be raised in the absence of family - essentially growing up sans societal influence - no "natural" morality exists. in fact - no instincts exist if the child is separated at a young enough age (yes, it is true). this is the biggest problem - many people try so hard to separate us from the Kingdom Animalia, but so many forget that we are indeed still animals. The major difference is the idea that animals do have instincts from very early on in their developmental stages - but humans do not acquire these very basic instincts until much later on developmentally. why is this? probably evolution, considering that we have probably evolved from a neotonous shift from our most recent ( ... )

kitt3h October 5 2004, 19:15:06 UTC

yeah, that was pretty much my argument, but with more of a psychological concentration. the human brain essentially learns what parts of life are necessary for survival through conditioning; that's basically what i was touting.

for example, as was discussed, when someone saves a person's life while risking their own, it may not be because they were born with a sense of 'morality', but rather because they have become conditioned to believe that doing this 'good deed' is necessary to their survival on some level, and/or that the person they save is necessary to the same thing.

science is a good thing to back arguments up with, i think, because even though it doesn't provide all--if any--of the answers, it's something that people tend to believe in a lot more easily since it's quantifiable, and once it fails you it's usually a pretty simple task to put together some emotional reasoning. if you'd like to read more on my opinions on this particular subject, you may do so herei don't know how familiar you are with TOK, but if you do ( ... )