Customer Discussions > Religion forum

Is it really possible for something like morality to be an evolved characteristic?


Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 1201-1225 of 1000 posts in this discussion
In reply to an earlier post on Jun 28, 2012 12:08:24 PM PDT
Ashwood says:
Irish Lace says: Here's another question... WHY is incest "immoral." I understand why it's dangerous, but why is it considered "immoral"?

*The Westermarck effect, or reverse sexual imprinting, is a hypothetical psychological effect through which people who live in close domestic proximity during the first few years of their lives become desensitized to later sexual attraction. This phenomenon, one explanation for the incest taboo, was first hypothesized by Finnish anthropologist Edvard Westermarck in his book The History of Human Marriage (1891). Observations interpreted as evidence for the Westermarck effect have since been made in many places and cultures, including in the Israeli kibbutz system, and the Chinese Shim-pua marriage customs, as well as in biological-related families.* -http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Westermarck_effect

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 28, 2012 12:12:32 PM PDT
Ms Reese,

Yours: "He was telling us that as we give up our worldly efforts, His Love, Mercy and Grace, releases the power to transform the believer/seeker into who we really are."

Mine: I have heard that there is an old Arabic saying: "the person who repeats an insult is the one who insults you." In parallel with that, the medium through whom one receives a message is, really, the source of the message. Therefore: Where did you get your interpretation of "Jesus's intent"? Asked a bit more directly, what is your religious background?

Posted on Jun 28, 2012 12:28:49 PM PDT
Check this series out, if you haven't already.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=po0ZMfkSNxc

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 28, 2012 1:02:22 PM PDT
Ashwood surely incest is immoral because someone decided it was. morality is an intellectual and social game, its culture, biology doesn't do moral it just does numbers and survivors. Inbreeding weakens the gene pool. But if there is population bottleneck incest might be the only option. Bacteria don't seem to care.

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 28, 2012 1:27:22 PM PDT
Carol J. Reese says:
"In a book, "The Language of DNA", by Dr. Francis Collins, - it explains that the
DNA we received at birth, changes according to our environment, and how we
respond to the experiences in our lives.

The DNA we receive at birth does not change, there is no change in the underlying DNA sequence in any organism instead, non-genetic (epigenetic) factors cause an organism's genes express themselves differently. The Language of DNA by Dr. Francis Collins - cognitive bias writ large.

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 28, 2012 2:06:54 PM PDT
Harry Marks says:
Danny -

No, I am strongly "free will". But you have to be careful what is meant by "we" (or "I") when you say we decide. There was quite an exchange recently, perhaps on this thread, about recent evidence that our decisions are made pre-consciously. We may rationalize them afterwards with reason, but generally our mind just "knows" what it chooses. A lot of that is due to processing at the level of the limbic system, where our "gut reaction" happens and we find ourselves in the middle of "gimme some a that" or "that's outrageous! who does he think he is!" or some other such reaction.

Exercising rational processes of choice tends to happen in the small minority of events in which we have questioned a previous decision, or "alarm bells ring," or we just can't make up our mind. Something has to cause the rational mind to intervene with Mr. Lizard.

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 28, 2012 2:11:49 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Jun 28, 2012 2:12:19 PM PDT
Wow! Thanks to you SD, for the information.

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 28, 2012 2:12:08 PM PDT
Harry Marks says:
Shakespeare's Dog -

If I remember right, some epigenetic factors are heritable. Are you sure that is different, in a practical sense, from the underlying DNA sequence having changed?

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 28, 2012 2:15:04 PM PDT
1Danny says:
I stated not free will but moral free choice.
Do you believe that we have moral free choice?

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 28, 2012 2:42:03 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Jun 28, 2012 2:47:12 PM PDT
Charles, On the subject of Christian perfection, it is a theme, rather than a quote/statement.
I try to not draw conclusions from isolated scriptures, but look for the Principal of
the passages, - the Content and the Intent.

I am a Methodist, I suppose, - and very much appreciate the people of the church,
(any ffellow seekers) but really never was that interested in doctrine, or tradition.
The church I grew up in spoke very little of a list of "do-not's"; but taught more about
the Grace of God and its effect on the inner man.
Christ is not interested in our "goodness", but in our attitude toward God and others.

At a young age, I spent a lot of time talking to God in the woods and while
looking out a huge upstairs window. I developed a hunger to find the answers to
our everyday lives in the Word.... one way or another.
......(it was sometime by trial and error)

It seemed that an important part of corporate worship is to love the music and the
scriptures, - but to also find the meaning of loving and acceptance of others...
... exactly as they are.

To me, the church is the body of believers; nothing less and nothing more.
Love is the engine that drives its purpose.
It is our unity and His Love, Mercy and Grace that perfects us.
It is the heart/the inner man that needs blessed, - then the outer man follows.

This is all my biased opinion. Not a suggestion for others.
My hope for all, is that seek their own unique, personal walk with Life Himself.
(opinion) Thanks for asking.......?

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 28, 2012 3:03:11 PM PDT
Irish Lace says:
"I typically ignore anything which shows me to have been wrong about something. "

Hmmmm....

"Don't know why it was frowned upon in the past, but currently it is thought that most forms of incest are taboo because they are intrinsically exploitative and nonconsensual, i.e., involve a relationship between someone powerful and someone powerless, with the powerful one initiating and perpetuating the relationship for their own selfish ends without the powerless one having the legal ability to consent, and being damaged as a result. "

Interesting idea. And I agree about exploitative relationships. But that is a VERY "new" taboo. In times past, pretty much all sexual relationships were exploitative as men were almost always more powerful than the relatively powerless women and that was not considered "sinful." It was actually often considered to have been "ordained by God" (the ultimate powerful guy.) Also, your theory assumes a parent/child incest. I wonder why sibling incest is considered "immoral"? I always just assumed it was because, on some "limbic level" it just seemed "icky." ("Icky" is a technical term somewhat synonymous with the layperson's term "yucky" but not quite as negative as "gross to the max.")

Have you read "Middlesex"? Makes you think about sibling incest without the knee-jerk reaction.

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 28, 2012 3:04:39 PM PDT
Irish Lace says:
Now THAT is really interesting. I must explore that further. Thanks, Ashwood!

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 28, 2012 3:05:22 PM PDT
Irish Lace says:
"Check this series out, if you haven't already. "

Why?

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 28, 2012 3:06:36 PM PDT
Irish Lace says:
"Ashwood surely incest is immoral because someone decided it was. morality is an intellectual and social game, its culture, biology doesn't do moral it just does numbers and survivors. Inbreeding weakens the gene pool. But if there is population bottleneck incest might be the only option. Bacteria don't seem to care. "

That's always been what I generally assumed.

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 28, 2012 3:10:06 PM PDT
Irish Lace says:
"Do you believe that we have moral free choice? "

I know this is probably pointless but... would you please explain what you mean by "moral free choice"?

I ask because, if I use what _I_ would mean by "moral free choice" then I would likely answer that with: "only sometimes."

If one lives in a tightly regulated community, one probably does NOT have it. If one has been raised in a homogenous community with little contact outside that community, one probably does not.

So, what say you Danny? A definition?

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 28, 2012 3:11:04 PM PDT
Irish Lace says:
"I try to not draw conclusions from isolated scriptures, but look for the Principal of
the passages, - the Content and the Intent. "

And how do you know "the Intent"?

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 28, 2012 3:43:47 PM PDT
S. Kessler says:
Could you please summarize what's in the video? I don't like to pursue links unless I have a good idea what's in them.

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 28, 2012 3:58:44 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Jun 28, 2012 4:44:58 PM PDT
1Danny says:
Granted one needs to know what is right and what is wrong. After that point, moral free choice
is just what it says. Choosing good or wrong like stealing, etc.
Got it? Good.

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 28, 2012 8:42:30 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Jun 28, 2012 8:42:48 PM PDT
Irish Lace says:
I see I was correct in predicting my request would be ignored. I apologize for wasting the time of the forum participants by asking.

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 28, 2012 10:04:49 PM PDT
Allan says:
StevePL says: But it makes sense that there really is a God. Otherwise we are just smart apes with no more purpose than any other animal.

Allan: And your problem with that is...?

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 28, 2012 10:06:19 PM PDT
Allan says:
StevePL says: How can you come up with such ridiculous opinions? It boggles the mind that smart people like you can be so stupid, and fall for such garbage.

Allan: A REALLY smart person, of course, would have been able to put up counter arguments, wouldn't they, Steve?

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 28, 2012 10:08:44 PM PDT
Allan says:
1Danny says: There is no way. Because in the animal world there is no fairness or cheating.

Allan: Haven't bothered to check out the evidence, I see.

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 29, 2012 3:53:32 AM PDT
Ms Reese,

Yours: "To me, the church is the body of believers; nothing less and nothing more.
Love is the engine that drives its purpose.
It is our unity and His Love, Mercy and Grace that perfects us.
It is the heart/the inner man that needs blessed, - then the outer man follows."

Mine: I, too, was with the United Methodist church when I began college as a ministerial student. That interest didn't survive my sophomore year. I was, therefore, taught the same distractions: "body of believers," "love is the engine," "perfecting love, mercy, and grace..." All pretty frosting on a cake of something else. Like every other religious institution, the United Methodists are as concerned with who _doesn't_ belong as with who does. God might love everyone; churches are more selective.

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 29, 2012 7:02:09 AM PDT
It is an interesting interview between Dawkins and George Coyne touching on a number of things being discussed on this forum.

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 29, 2012 7:04:18 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on Jun 29, 2012 8:37:41 AM PDT
Interesting interview between Dawkins and George Coyne on evolution, intelligent design, science, faith, reason, "God of the gaps," etc.

Feel free to pursue or not.
[Add comment]
Add your own message to the discussion
To insert a product link use the format: [[ASIN:ASIN product-title]] (What's this?)
Prompts for sign-in
 


 

This discussion

Discussion in:  Religion forum
Participants:  73
Total posts:  2115
Initial post:  May 25, 2012
Latest post:  Mar 28, 2013

New! Receive e-mail when new posts are made.
Tracked by 4 customers

Search Customer Discussions