Evidence for God from Science

David Blacklock wrote:Hi Zoegirl - At least according to the author of "Germs, Guns, & Steel" percentagewise to the population, we have less genocide than ever in history...and each generation thinking the younger generation is worse than they were goes back at least to Aristotle.

DB

I read that book by Jared Diamond. His food production hypothesis is too narrow. There are many other factors that led to supremecy in Western Civilization. Furthermore, those factors influenced technological advances in food production in the West.

The truth is we had more genocide/democide than ever last century than the world has ever seen. Part of this came be attributed to a greatly increased population, part to state atheism coupled with technological advancements, and partly less influential factors.

Diamond's info came from "Third Chimpanzee," his previous book. He had a whole chapter about this very subject - an extremely fascinating chapter. Even including Hitler and WWII, more people live in peace this century than in any previous century. Of course, there continue to be genocides in isolated locations around the world - pretty disgusting.

Didn't know we were talking about food production.

DB

David Blacklock wrote:Diamond's info came from "Third Chimpanzee," his previous book. He had a whole chapter about this very subject - an extremely fascinating chapter. Even including Hitler and WWII, more people live in peace this century than in any previous century. Of course, there continue to be genocides in isolated locations around the world - pretty disgusting.

Didn't know we were talking about food production.

DB

This century is only nine years old and the last century was very bloody with two world wars. You keep asserting last century was not which is simply a false assertion.



262 million people died by democide, war, and genocide last century. Many more than 262 million suffered terrible loss of one sort or other. Yet you go on like it was Disneyland... the happiest place and time on earth.

You left out stats on other centuries. The 20th and 21st centuries, compared to their populations, was much less.

DB

David Blacklock wrote:You left out stats on other centuries. The 20th and 21st centuries, compared to their populations, was much less.

DB

Please provide that information. You are making the assertion so please provide the statistics and sources so we may qualify them. Thank you.

The information i'm relying on is in graph and chart form in Part IV of "Third Chimpanzee" by Diamond. There are four chapters in Part IV but I can't remember which chapter. What I've found on the internet so far isn't quite what I'm looking for, but I'm looking. This data, compiled by Diamond, covers several centuries. I'll find it.


DB

David Blacklock wrote:The information i'm relying on is in graph and chart form in Part IV of "Third Chimpanzee" by Diamond. There are four chapters in Part IV but I can't remember which chapter. What I've found on the internet so far isn't quite what I'm looking for, but I'm looking. This data, compiled by Diamond, covers several centuries. I'll find it.


DB

I look forward to qualifying it. I'll also see if I can find it in Jared's Third Chimpanzee book this week at a book store. We'll review it together. Peace.

Hi AOK,

In my search for those charts, I ran across this little summary - about that book and cogent to that chapter - by Amazon book reviewer, Dennis Littrell:


A recurring theme throughout the book is the human propensity to kill and our hypocrisy about that killing. From the mastodons to the children of the Middle East, humans have always killed while maintaining that killing is evil. Diamond does a nice job of explaining just how this Orwellian doublethink works. The main mental trick is to see those we want to kill as different and separate from ourselves. The taboo against killing humans, Diamond reveals, is really just a taboo against killing members of our own family and tribe. Once we are able to see others as outsiders, we can demonize them and trivialize them, turn them into subhuman objects and get on with the slaughter. Diamond considers how those of us on the sidelines, those of us who have not demonized the victims, can let this happen. His conclusion is that human nature can stand only so much blood-splattered horror before we become numb to the killing and turn away.

DB

David Blacklock wrote:Hi AOK,

In my search for those charts, I ran across this little summary - about that book and cogent to that chapter - by Amazon book reviewer, Dennis Littrell:


A recurring theme throughout the book is the human propensity to kill and our hypocrisy about that killing. From the mastodons to the children of the Middle East, humans have always killed while maintaining that killing is evil. Diamond does a nice job of explaining just how this Orwellian doublethink works. The main mental trick is to see those we want to kill as different and separate from ourselves. The taboo against killing humans, Diamond reveals, is really just a taboo against killing members of our own family and tribe. Once we are able to see others as outsiders, we can demonize them and trivialize them, turn them into subhuman objects and get on with the slaughter. Diamond considers how those of us on the sidelines, those of us who have not demonized the victims, can let this happen. His conclusion is that human nature can stand only so much blood-splattered horror before we become numb to the killing and turn away.

DB

I've heard this before.

A few notable things about your statement is that it generalizes killing in general as being considered universally "evil" rather than being dividable into "good" and "bad" cases. I'm not going to get into my guessing this is generalization, but the manner is far more complex than something relating to xenophobia and singularity/cohesiveness.

Let's say, for example, someone had to decide between having to kill someone(via scoped firearm) who is about to kill someone with a blade who, according to darwinian ideology, is far more fit to live due to clearly being able to survive more, and 'propagate more genes' to "help humanity survive", as these traits are apparently thought highly of by Darwin's theory. However, the person being held captive is not a strong person, is not a cunning person, nor someone who will kill unprovoked. I will state that the sniper has tried every safe alternative to not kill the criminal.

Now, I realize you may think that survival of interests, etc. is "the" motive for this, which it is in part, but it does not singularise the plot into a single purpose, which would be bad. At the time, there would also be other reasons for the person in question to kill the hostage taker. First are the reasons the criminal must be shot: not because of him, but rather, the individual being held hostage. If the criminal is killed, it's really not much good to remove him from society for "the good of the country" or "society", because that would be selfish, unless the sniper(vigilante, or government- can't decide), is either not a "part" of society, and is helping it selflessly, or is doing it for the good of the hostage. Selflessness does play a role, independently, but not without contributing to the causes.

Another reason is, odd as it sounds, and uncommon even for most people here to admit is division, or separation. Quite frankly the situation wouldn't be happening were the criminal to be kept separate- in fact, if he were magically teleported to a cell somewhere in a jail, then no-one would die, and the situation would be resolved until some "judge" decided to let him wreak havoc again. Apparently, that's not going to happen, and his life must be taken. But in order to stop whatever common interests the criminal and hostage share from getting the hostage killed, the criminal needs to be stopped, or else he's all that's left. Another account of survival, but not as generalized in your account. The hostage needs to be made separate from the criminal, as they'll both end up dead if they aren't- at least the hostage can be saved. And just the sniper coming to the scene is an act of selflessness in itself- at the least he cares about the hostage enough to be concerned.

Yet another reason is freedom. The hostage can't really make and choices of his/her/its own when being held hostage, but at the least, the hostage can think and reason from what has been learned with at least some degree of freedom. And when the criminal is shot, it will free the hostage from the criminal, and give him/her back a better freedom to move about and make decisions. In addition, the criminal's actions are largely due to relying on what is in his impulsive mind, and in short, he's really not making any decisions on his own, but rather relying much on instinctive animal-like behaviour that Darwin praised so much.

And another reason is what might be called "love", that outside the context of "lust", and rather that of what is among some and formerly most families. I mean selflessly caring about and about someone-in part. Generally, people aren't going to care for someone if they don't have any love to some degree for that person, regardless. And don't try to say "Isn't that hating enemies?", because if that person really didn't have any sort of care for the criminal, then he'd probably not care to look for alternatives to killing that wouldn't jeopardize the hostage's life.


Let me also say preemptively that there is a limit to how far you can logically ask the reasons for things without getting into a loop. Basically, if you ask anything too much, you'll get into a loop. There is an exception- possibly if you take the crazy idea that everything must be made singular(which I doubt you will.), because then it's saying there can only be one question, motive, or reason to everything, which is to make there be only one thing left. And if it's gotten to that, it really can't be reasoned any more. But in all honesty, I used to think the same thing: it's entirely self-contradicting and I snapped out of it due to the illogic. I'm not saying that's the goal of Darwinism either, but a lot of the people who believe it have that concept, somehow.

Now, I'm not saying darwinism was completely wrong: there are some true things about it, but I can't ignore all the times it falls short of- well, the times it seems to not be entirely... well, the things derived from it can often conflict themselves at times, let's say. I mean nothing personal by it.

Also, as a final note, as I'd like to say, a lot of things have appropriate places and times to happen- and a lot don't.

I'll leave it at that for now.

Hi AOK - The city library told me they had the book on order - interesting since the first edition was written over 10 years ago. Anyway, they'll email me when it arrives. I'll try to find a used book store tomorrow.

Hi NG - I can't argue with the validity of your scenarios.

DB

Hi AOK - Until I get that whole chapter (maybe tomorrow), I found a summary of it on the net:

Chapter 16, In Black and White Summary and Analysis

When European settlers first arrived in Tasmania, they found it inhabited by an estimated 5,000 black native inhabitants. Those inhabitants were entirely eliminated over several years by the process of genocide. Alarmingly, the Tasmanian genocide was looked upon as a successful process by many European inhabitants of Australia, some of whom argued that a similar genocide should be carried out upon the black native inhabitants of Australia.

Genocide is rather loosely defined as the mass killing of an identifiable demographic of people simply because of their demographic association. The text then provides three world maps that indicate the locations and times of various documented genocidal events occurring from 1492 through 1900, 1900 through 1950, and 1950 through 1990. Not all genocidal events are included in the maps and.....

DB

Hi Keith!

Scientists (and sceptics) are usualy unwilling to accept these strong personal conversion stories as proof of god because a) they are very subjective experiences b) all religions have followers who claim similar experiences & c) various psychology experiments over the years have shown that human perception is really very flimsy (there are all manner of ways in which people can be "hoodwinked" into thinking they have received certain stimuli.

It's important to note that this dismissal of personal experiences in no way rejects the possibility that any or all of them are caused by divine influences; it dimisses them as unreliable as hard scientific evidence for something.

Going on to your point about whether anyone has ever read evolutionary theory and had their moral senses heightened (you mention the 10 commandments, but they aren't the only moral codes in either biblical or secular terms). I would argue that this is absolutely the case; evolutionary theory in particular is a fantastic way to show racism and bigotry to be detestable and without base. You are related to (in the most literal sense) every other person (and monkey, and dog, and fig tree) on the planet. Evolutionary theory not only gives a good reason for why it makes no sense to be hostile towards your cousins, but provides a reason for why we display moral behaviour at all.
Darwin wrote beautifully in The Descent of Man about how our attitude to one another is, thankfully, not governed by a species-centric, "survival of the fittest" mentality, but by a personal and compassionate one

Charles Darwin wrote: We civilised men, on the other hand, do our utmost to check the process of elimination; we build asylums for the imbecile, the maimed, and the sick; we institute poor-laws; and our medical men exert their utmost skill to save the life of every one to the last moment. There is reason to believe that vaccination has preserved thousands, who from a weak constitution would formerly have succumbed to small-pox. Thus the weak members of civilised societies propagate their kind. No one who has attended to the breeding of domestic animals will doubt that this must be highly injurious to the race of man. It is surprising how soon a want of care, or care wrongly directed, leads to the degeneration of a domestic race; but excepting in the case of man itself, hardly any one is so ignorant as to allow his worst animals to breed.

The aid which we feel impelled to give to the helpless is mainly an incidental result of the instinct of sympathy, which was originally acquired as part of the social instincts, but subsequently rendered, in the manner previously indicated, more tender and more widely diffused. Nor could we check our sympathy, even at the urging of hard reason, without deterioration in the noblest part of our nature. The surgeon may harden himself whilst performing an operation, for he knows that he is acting for the good of his patient; but if we were intentionally to neglect the weak and helpless, it could only be for a contingent benefit, with an overwhelming present evil.

PS - I'm (understandably) very sceptical of your claim to have had rays of light protruding from your fingertips. I think if you could demonstrate that then you would silence a lot of sceptics.

Hi touchingcloth - That excerpt from Darwin reveals his thoughtful, gentile, and humane nature - not something generally talked about. He was a meticulous scientist who reported what he found, with a sort of unspoken truce with his wife not to discuss with her what he thought she thought might be unacceptable conclusions.

DB

Hi, Ageofknowledge,

Can I pick you up on the following point?

ageofknowledge wrote:True. The social mores we have "evolved to" don't look good. In the 20th century, many came together in atheistic secular humanism or pantheistic political constructs and it resulted in a couple hundred million perishing on top of the maimed, psychologically shattered, economically ruined, etc...

I don't disagree with your point about people becoming "secular humanists or pantheistic political constructs" nor "a couple hundred million perishing", but I don't follow how they are linked?

David Blacklock wrote:Hi touchingcloth - That excerpt from Darwin reveals his thoughtful, gentile, and humane nature - not something generally talked about. He was a meticulous scientist who reported what he found, with a sort of unspoken truce with his wife not to discuss with her what he thought she thought might be unacceptable conclusions.

DB

If only Richard Dawkins and his Christian mocking followers did likewise... lol. But seriously, you have to wonder about a man who was was trained as a clergyman actually asserting that all religions are equally valid. For that is an ignorant statement built on a dismissal of absolute truth.