"Original Sin"....Just Another term for our animal nature?

[The Pandector]

Whether we are animals or not depends entirely on your definition of animal. Mine is biological. Others' may be theological. Not being a religious sort, I approach humanity as a collection of Naked Apes with large brains. Paleolithic hunter-gatherers with enough excess cerebral cortex to build nuclear bombs but still enslaved enough to our instincts that we might use them.

Precisely, and well put. As the OP was worded, I might have expected the conversation to discuss possible distinctions between man and beast. You see man, if I may paraphrase, as a really smart ape, so the difference being the extent of intellect. I see the gap between man and ape as being qualitatively different as well as quantitatively.

 

[Hypnalis]

I see the gap between man and ape as being qualitatively different as well as quantitatively.

Thanks for this!

I like this formulation a lot. My (old) approach takes a lot more words, and doesn't lead to a better result.

 

[Au Naturel]

Precisely, and well put. As the OP was worded, I might have expected the conversation to discuss possible distinctions between man and beast. You see man, if I may paraphrase, as a really smart ape, so the difference being the extent of intellect. I see the gap between man and ape as being qualitatively different as well as quantitatively.

I don't see any qualities in man that don't exist in apes, just to a lesser or greater degree. A human can learn many things that an ape cannot, but what really drives us is not our prefrontal cortex. All that learning exists to support the needs, instincts, and emotions that bubble up from lower down.

Just like in the movie Forbidden Planet, if we are destroyed, it will be by monsters from our id. We may not have a planetary device that satisfies our every want just by imagining it. But we may be close enough.

 

[The Pandector]

I don't see any qualities in man that don't exist in apes, just to a lesser or greater degree. A human can learn many things that an ape cannot, but what really drives us is not our prefrontal cortex. All that learning exists to support the needs, instincts, and emotions that bubble up from lower down.

Just like in the movie Forbidden Planet, if we are destroyed, it will be by monsters from our id. We may not have a planetary device that satisfies our every want just by imagining it. But we may be close enough.

“I don’t see…” This may be the sticking point. Those drawn to religion accept that science has its limitations, while those adhering to their faith in science only accept as reality those things that can be verified through the physical sciences. Ergo, the religious among us can learn and benefit from both science and religion, whereas the scientists among us can only profit from science.

This thread is much about morality. Without a moral standard, there is no sin, no original sin. This is why, in my understanding, one cannot conflate man’s sin with animal behavior. Man is morally conscious; brute beasts are not. Apples and oranges.

However, one might argue that the gorilla really does experience moral compunction, but we just can’t see it. I would respond that man’s history is replete with evidence of human consciousness of guilt, while gorilla history is not. The argument that we can’t see it is inconsequential.

When your dog slinks about because it knows you’re going to find the broken vase, does it feel guilt or simply fear? Is a human any different?

 

[Au Naturel]

“I don’t see…” This may be the sticking point. Those drawn to religion accept that science has its limitations, while those adhering to their faith in science only accept as reality those things that can be verified through the physical sciences. Ergo, the religious among us can learn and benefit from both science and religion, whereas the scientists among us can only profit from science.

This thread is much about morality. Without a moral standard, there is no sin, no original sin. This is why, in my understanding, one cannot conflate man’s sin with animal behavior. Man is morally conscious; brute beasts are not. Apples and oranges.

However, one might argue that the gorilla really does experience moral compunction, but we just can’t see it. I would respond that man’s history is replete with evidence of human consciousness of guilt, while gorilla history is not. The argument that we can’t see it is inconsequential.

When your dog slinks about because it knows you’re going to find the broken vase, does it feel guilt or simply fear? Is a human any different?

When I say "I don't see," that's a figurative speech indicating a lack of contravening evidence. it isn't faith in any religious sense.

Of course gorillas feel moral compunction. If they didn't, gorilla troops would decohere. Or maybe never form. To the extent that mating took place, the offspring would die for lack of care. The species would go extinct.

I don't see humans being a whole lot different from dogs. It is why we get along so well. The rules of human conduct and the rules of the pack are not so different. However, humans are better learners. We supplement our instincts with learned behavior.

Many animals have a conditional "Thou shalt not murder" written into their DNA. Others, less so.

 

[The Pandector]

When I say "I don't see," that's a figurative speech indicating a lack of contravening evidence. it isn't faith in any religious sense.

Of course gorillas feel moral compunction. If they didn't, gorilla troops would decohere. Or maybe never form. To the extent that mating took place, the offspring would die for lack of care. The species would go extinct.

I don't see humans being a whole lot different from dogs. It is why we get along so well. The rules of human conduct and the rules of the pack are not so different. However, humans are better learners. We supplement our instincts with learned behavior.

Many animals have a conditional "Thou shalt not murder" written into their DNA. Others, less so.

When I said you ‘don’t see’, I was offering the possibility that said evidence is available, but you don’t see it.

I understand your position, but disagree. Anthropomorphism has a strong pull on human reasoning, but of course that’s no evidence one way or the other.

Would you agree with the statement that animals are being moral when they are obedient to their instincts?

 

[Au Naturel]

In general, yes. A wolf in a pack that defers to the established hierarchy is being moral. A mother nursing her pups is being moral. So are the pack members who bring back food for said mother and pups. They instinctively know what's "right." Pack members other than the alphas who refrain from reproducing are being moral. Wolves also experience something akin to moral indignation at broken rules. They may offer forgiveness if the rule breaker says they are sorry. They also appear to mourn their losses.

Humans take whatever instinctive morality developed over the last million years and supplement it with additional rules. Some of those rules were implemented because tribes that didn't have them were at a competitive disadvantage. And some were implemented because people in power like to stay in power.

If these implemented rules contravene an instinctive tendency, they tend to fail. Swimming against the tide wastes a lot of energy. Change happens.

Anthropomorphism can be a source of error. But deanthropomorphism is just as much a source of error. Similar brain structures and identical neurotransmitters and hormones often work to produce similar behavior. You can't create a barrier to assert that humans are wildly different. That is specieist narcissism.

 

[The Pandector]

You offer a cohesive narrative of how human morality evolved over the course of eons. Since no one can prove something never happened, I won’t try. In court, all you need do to establish reasonable doubt is to present a reasonable alternative.

In my view (and that of millions of other rational, intelligent and educated people) God created man as the pinnacle to a 6-day creation event; God found his creation ‘good’. However, the apex creature was different than all the others, in that it was capable of sin. Sin it did. That decision to sin caused a permanent change to mankind’s makeup and this broke relations with God. Man’s ‘natural’ state no longer includes a relationship with God. IOW, the creature is alienated from his creator.

In the Biblical telling, God removed many of the blessings of being a holy creature, but many blessings remain. For instance, even amongst the most unenlightened heathen, we may see the strong sacrifice themselves for the weak, definitely not pursuant to survival of the species. Whatever God’s intent, these left-intact traits retain for God’s faithful a world that’s livable despite its rejection of God.

Of course, I can’t scientifically prove that this was the actual chain of events, and no one else can disprove it. Nevertheless, it demonstrates that a narrative being cohesive doesn’t make it true.

Instinctive morality plus supplemental rules plus - the magic ingredient - millions of years… equals modern day morality. I’m just going to have to admit that this sounds like a pretty good background check on much of what passes today as morality.

However… apples and oranges. The sort of morality that my religion offers is not only far beyond but also of an entirely different nature than that practiced in the larger population.

The fact that this is so is attested to by the larger population’s often violent response to the telling of the Gospel. For many ‘natural’ people, the existence of God’s truth is an irritation, the recounting of its story and meaning often trigger clearly vitriolic reactions. This is caused largely by the vast difference between animal morality and godly morality. Apples and oranges.

 

[Hypnalis]

is attested to by the larger population’s often violent response to the telling of the Gospel.

Straw Man. Disagreement isn't violence.

And it's not a good tactic in a discussion about morality.

A rules/exceptions discussion is very difficult if anyone involved is being flexible with their logic.
And any discussion about morality requires the exceptions part. For example the world would be a better place if everyone strictly followed the 5th commandment. But ....

 

[The Pandector]

Straw Man. Disagreement isn't violence.

And it's not a good tactic in a discussion about morality.

A rules/exceptions discussion is very difficult if anyone involved is being flexible with their logic.
And any discussion about morality requires the exceptions part. For example the world would be a better place if everyone strictly followed the 5th commandment. But ....

Lotta talk, no money. Why don’t we stick with facts?

Anti-Christian violence is not a straw man, friend. Let’s also try to avoid the word-ownership speed trap, where one side tries to dictate to the other side which sense of a word may or may not be used. (Recently a Christian poster was treated to what I would call a ‘violent dislike’ for using the word ‘fact’: she was told she may not use that word because she was a Christian and all Christians have is faith. I myself recently chose a word in defense of my spiritual investigations, and was sternly admonished that Science Herself had already claimed that word and I therefore could not use that word in reference to myself.)

Now, my dictionary allows for the special usage of the word ‘violent’ as in ‘violent dislike’. If you reject this usage, then I will stand on my statement on the grounds it was intended: the world, at large, often has a violent reaction to the telling of the Gospel.

My point…
You dismissed a valid argument by calling it a straw man and objecting to my legitimate use of the word violent, plus some procedural objections of no consequence to the discussion. So, back to the point.

Are you saying that you are unaware of violent bias against Christianity in general, historically, or as a current in our conversations? Because I couldn’t really understand your response to that point, even though that is the point you attacked.

I’m old: humor me.
Would you agree that, as a distinct subgroup, Christians are afforded the same protections and respect afforded the many other subgroups? IF NOT, how do you account for the disparity?

 

[Magna]

One thing that's always confused me about what I've seen in the world versus what I was taught in the version of Christianity that I grew up with: Jesus said that his followers would be hated because of his name so any exercise to try to nullify that (a Christian Justice Warrior for Jesus kind of thing) is not only futile, it's contrary to the equally Biblical instruction to be gleeful about being persecuted for being a believer.

 

[The Pandector]

One thing that's always confused me about what I've seen in the world versus what I was taught in the version of Christianity that I grew up with: Jesus said that his followers would be hated because of his name so any exercise to try to nullify that (a Christian Justice Warrior for Jesus kind of thing) is not only futile, it's contrary to the equally Biblical instruction to be gleeful about being persecuted for being a believer.

I’m glad to respond to your very good point. But first, is this an acknowledgment that there is a clear anti-Christian bias in play? Also waiting for @Hypnalis on that point.

 

[Magna]

I’m glad to respond to your very good point. But first, is this an acknowledgment that there is a clear anti-Christian bias in play? Also waiting for @Hypnalis on that point.

Are you asking if I'm anti-Christian or if there's anti-Christian bias on this forum in general?

 

[Hypnalis]

where one side tries to dictate to the other side which sense of a word may or may not be used.

Just for the record, I literally learned to deal with equivocation talking (politely) to Christians. I mentioned it in this thread a couple of days ago. The technique has a name because it's common. I don't know how far back it goes, but certainly well over a century.

Bottom line: every side uses it. So no side can blame its use on the other.

"Violent dislike", even if it really was open, strong dislike, still isn't violence. and your raising the spectre of equivocation before using "violent dislike" in a sentence doesn't change that. As you say, lets go with facts.

Now, my dictionary allows for the special usage of the word ‘violent’ as in ‘violent dislike’

/lol.

bias against Christianity in general, historically

That depends on your definition of "historically". The reverse was true for over 1700 years.
You'd find it extremely hard to argue for it now.

as a distinct subgroup, Christians are afforded the same protections and respect afforded the many other subgroups?

You need to re-write that without the rather fuzzy "many".

What I think:
1. This is mostly true: "When you're accustomed to privilege, equality feels like oppression".
2. Some parts of Western civilization are currently over-correcting. I don't think it's a good thing, and I think society should work for actual equality. But in many cases, that's not the case. These days it's equity, which is stupid.

It wasn't my choice, it's not my problem. But I am definitely (peacefully) opposed to the "equity over equality " brigade.

 

[The Pandector]

Are you asking if I'm anti-Christian or if there's anti-Christian bias on this forum in general?

My wording was intentionally vague enough to be be applied at any level, worldwide on down.

 

[The Pandector]

Just for the record, I literally learned to deal with equivocation talking (politely) to Christians. I mentioned it in this thread a couple of days ago. The technique has a name because it's common. I don't know how far back it goes, but certainly well over a century.

Bottom line: every side uses it. So no side can blame its use on the other.

"Violent dislike", even if it really was open, strong dislike, still isn't violence. and your raising the spectre of equivocation before using "violent dislike" in a sentence doesn't change that. As you say, lets go with facts.


/lol.


That depends on your definition of "historically". The reverse was true for over 1700 years.
You'd find it extremely hard to argue for it now.


You need to re-write that without the rather fuzzy "many".

What I think:
1. This is mostly true: "When you're accustomed to privilege, equality feels like oppression".
2. Some parts of Western civilization are currently over-correcting. I don't think it's a good thing, and I think society should work for actual equality. But in many cases, that's not the case. These days it's equity, which is stupid.

It wasn't my choice, it's not my problem. But I am definitely (peacefully) opposed to the "equity over equality " brigade.

Wherever you learned your skill, you are subject to misidentification. I have not equivocated in the slightest. I chose the word violent because I would characterize many explosive emotional outbursts as ‘violent emotional outbursts’. That definition you snorted at is from the Oxford’s, so look it up instead of laughing it off; it happens to be how I speak.

This follows a pattern hard to miss. I make an argument. Then, rather than respond to the argument, you categorize and typify the sort of argument, commenting on that. What’s lacking is the direct answer. So… interesting that you should be using that ‘equivocating’ charge.

Case in point. Rather than respond to my postulation of a separate standard for a specific group, you again sidestep by saying my wording didn’t please you. ‘Many other groups’ wasn’t specific enough. That’s why you didn’t want to miss my use of the definite article. ‘The many other groups’ is not lacking specificity. But, then again, still no response to the point in question.

However, you have taken a stand on equity versus equality. I agree with your stated position there, but honestly don’t know why it’s part of this discussion. Not to discredit, especially since I agree, just don’t understand the connection.

 

[Hypnalis]

From wiktionary:

equivocation (countable and uncountable, plural equivocations)

1. (logic) A logical fallacy resulting from the use of multiple meanings of a single expression.
2. The use of expressions susceptible of a double signification, possibly intentionally and with the aim of misleading.

There's no rule against trying it. But I won't miss it, regardless of how it's packaged. If I don't react it's because it doesn't seem worth it.

In 2024, if you want to claim a bias against you compared to other groups, you need to specify who is applying the bias and how they're doing it. For example, disagreement is not bias, but that claim is often made.

Clearly, a bias against any group, including Christians, is not consistent with equality. For a general discussion it's more useful to discuss equality than an unspecified bias from an unverified source.

But the modern term equity, often incorrectly used as a synonym for equality, is something else. I was giving you a chance to identify your being on the receiving end of an "equity based claim". But I gather this hasn't happened.

an acknowledgment that there is a clear anti-Christian bias in play? Also waiting for @Hypnalis on that point.

By now you should know better than to try get me to disprove a random negative claim
Your claim, your responsibility to provide evidence. With no evidence, the claim is automatically rejected.

 

[The Pandector]

From wiktionary:

equivocation (countable and uncountable, plural equivocations)

1. (logic) A logical fallacy resulting from the use of multiple meanings of a single expression.
2. The use of expressions susceptible of a double signification, possibly intentionally and with the aim of misleading.

There's no rule against trying it. But I won't miss it, regardless of how it's packaged. If I don't react it's because it doesn't seem worth it.

In 2024, if you want to claim a bias against you compared to other groups, you need to specify who is applying the bias and how they're doing it. For example, disagreement is not bias, but that claim is often made.

Clearly, a bias against any group, including Christians, is not consistent with equality. For a general discussion it's more useful to discuss equality than an unspecified bias from an unverified source.

But the modern term equity, often incorrectly used as a synonym for equality, is something else. I was giving you a chance to identify your being on the receiving end of an "equity based claim". But I gather this hasn't happened.


By now you should know better than to try get me to disprove a random negative claim
Your claim, your responsibility to provide evidence. With no evidence, the claim is automatically rejected.

Though your definition is from the hyper-respectable Wikipedia, I will disagree with it. Usage 2 allows that equivocation may be either intentional or unintentional. Just because someone uses a term that you misunderstand doesn’t mean that person is equivocating; it may simply mean your own vocabulary is too restricted to appreciate the intended meaning. We may be looking at repeating examples of unintentional insistence on restrictive language usage. Sorry, I don’t participate.

You then proceed to rehearse the 2024 rules of engagement for accusing someone of bigotry. Seriously, man, you seem to me to be very big on dictating rules; not incidentally, the rules tend to disqualify your opponents.

I don’t like your rules. You see, if I choose to address a subject indirectly (in this case, to bring up a subject Without making accusations) then, that’s just what I will do. You see, I think it would be healthy to discuss any potential bias effecting our conversations. At the same time, it would almost certainly be counterproductive to assert a particular individual or individuals were involved. I suspect you have your rule book to mediate legal disputes involving redress; I’m not suing anybody, I am trying to have an honest and open discussion.

All the maneuvering to avoid direct answers doesn’t serve any good I can imagine. Either you perceive an anti-Christian bias or you do not. If so, I asked to what you attribute this. But, I don’t mean to dictate; if there’s a reason you don’t want to answer the question, you are free to explain your reluctance or to refuse to explain your reluctance to answer the question.

 

[jsilver256]

Whether we are animals or not depends entirely on your definition of animal. Mine is biological. Others' may be theological. Not being a religious sort, I approach humanity as a collection of Naked Apes with large brains. Paleolithic hunter-gatherers with enough excess cerebral cortex to build nuclear bombs but still enslaved enough to our instincts that we might use them.

There is a distinct and unique aspect to humanity, and that is the language center.

Animals do use basic symbols/encodings (like calls or gestures) to communicate, but there seems to be a tipping point where recursion occurs and there isn't much "in-between."

In short, a seemingly simple caveman speak like "Grog see tiger" can give arise to an infinite number of sentences - "Tiger see Grog" , "Grog see tiger see Grog" (as in Grog is seeing the tiger and the tiger is watching Grog back), ad infinitum.

It was at one point theorized that sign languages were an intermediate language family that had no recursion - out of ableism, presumably - but all sign languages have proven capable of recursion.

Chomsky posited the existence of an universal grammar that is biologically hardwired in humans. Of course, the idea that humans are "unique" are anathema to the mediocrity principle, so scientists have been trying to construct hypotheses for the seemingly large jump from symbolic communication to recursion. But so far it is elusive.

I think this is an interesting tie-back to John 1. The Greek word for "Word" in this context is logos. Logos is a complex word that encompasses spoken discourse, reason, logic. So, the Bible explicitly identifies Jesus Christ as the incarnate of reason and logic - properties which rely on linguistic recursion.

So that'd be my perspective on what makes humans, human. Both spiritually and biologically.

 

[Hypnalis]

Wikipedia doesn't know this use of "recursion", which is the key differentiator between Au Natural's position and yours. Can you provide a definition?

(BTW "recursion" is used a lot in computing. That definition isn't relevant to human language, but I can imagine it being used for a more complex idea in human language).

Also Chomsky's idea is interesting and relevant, but unproven. AFAIK the existence of human "language wetware" has been proven, so a "universal grammar" is a reasonable idea. But if there's little or no evidence it's still just a hypothesis.

FWIW my personal theory is that spirituality is a side-effect of human "cause and effect analysis" wetware. We have a lot more of that than animals, but like communication, it's not unique - just far more developed in humans than animals.

BTW: IMO the argument for "cause and effect analysis" being a (maybe "the") major contributor to selection towards humans is as good as the language-centric ones. Or there could be synergy between them.
But "language-only" seems unlikely to be the only factor.