Cult Evolution

[superluminal]

I'm challenging the premise of your OP that evolution equals indoctrination.

How's that work?

 

[S.A.M.]

Ok. So..?

Umm do you think beak evolution is an apt analogy for cult evolution. :bugeye:

 

[S.A.M.]

How's that work?

Like this, apparently:

Hypothesis: changes in beak of finches depict evolution

Assumption: beak of finches = mind of man

Inference: development of beak of finches = development of religion

Conclusion: evolution = indoctrination

You may want to ask (Q) for clarification, its his hypothesis.

 

[superluminal]

Umm do you think beak evolution is an apt analogy for cult evolution. :bugeye:

I don't really need analogies in this case. I think that any gene complex that enhances an organisms differential ability to survive a given environment will increase in frequency in a population of those organisms. That's the fundamental premise of Evolution by Natural Selection.

If the hypothesis is that a propensity to accept religious-style dogma (cultism) has significantly enhanced the survival of humans in a given environment, and that such a propensity is contingent on a gene complex, then clearly, cult evolution can happen as easily as beak evolution.

:bravo:

 

[S.A.M.]

If the hypothesis is that a propensity to accept religious-style dogma (cultism) has significantly enhanced the survival of humans in a given environment, and that such a propensity is contingent on a gene complex, then clearly, cult evolution can happen as easily as beak evolution.

:bravo:

Ah, so you're saying that theism is a natural construct that does not require human intervention to be present or to persist? That its genetic and predefined? Selected for?

 

[greenberg]

I'm challenging the premise of your OP that evolution equals indoctrination.

In a way, indoctrination does lead to a particular evolution - of mind, society and the subsequent effects of human action based on that particular evolution.

Indoctrination makes people focus on some things and ignore others. So they act on some ideas and not on others. Selectivity has consequences.

I think this is fairly obvious.

Also, using the word "indoctrination" here might be misleading, suggesting that there could be social interaction that is not indoctrination - that there could be "neutral", non-indoctrinating social interaction.
But actually, the difference is merely in the degree and whether a group or person experiences a particular social interaction as beneficial or as threatening (and anything inbetween); if they experience it as beneficial, they'll call it "culture", if they experience it as "threatening", they'll call it "indoctrination".


The truly challenging notion when it comes to religion is that the way a person thinks indeed affects the way they will act, and then subsequently, the way the person themselves, society and environment will be shaped by this action.

I think particularly in the "West", we have grown up with two competing notions, and the problem is that often, people will focus just on one or the other:

On the one hand, there is the notion that the human mind/brain is relatively static and that the way we think about things does not really change anything - "It's just thoughts, it's all just in a person's head, it's not real".

On the other hand, there is the notion of how things change as a result of particular thinking patters - "He worried himself to death", "Her husband's mean remarks drove her into suicide", "Consumerism is ruining the planet".

- Sometimes we acknowledge the role of thinking, sometimes we don't.

 

[S.A.M.]

So you're saying thinking is genetic and affects how we act. Cool.

 

[(Q)]

I'm challenging the premise of your OP that evolution equals indoctrination.

Your synthesis has always lacked, but you outdo yourself with this one, sam. Clearly, you're only here to derail yet another thread.

 

[S.A.M.]

Your synthesis has always lacked, but you outdo yourself with this one, sam. Clearly, you're only here to derail yet another thread.

Please show me a peer reviewed paper that supports biological evolution parallels social evolution.

 

[(Q)]

Like this, apparently:

“Originally Posted by S.A.M.
Hypothesis: changes in beak of finches depict evolution

Assumption: beak of finches = mind of man

Inference: development of beak of finches = development of religion

Conclusion: evolution = indoctrination

You may want to ask (Q) for clarification, its his hypothesis.

That is NOT the hypothesis, that is nonsense made up by sam to derail the thread. Please ignore her tripe.

 

[(Q)]

Please show me a peer reviewed paper that supports biological evolution parallels social evolution.

Go away and stop derailing this thread.

 

[superluminal]

Ah, so you're saying...

ARRRRRHGGGHHHH!!!

*cuts strings attached to mouth that sam is yanking on*

...that theism is a natural construct that does not require human intervention to be present or to persist? That its genetic and predefined? Selected for?

I'm going to highlight some very important words for you in my post:

SL:

If the hypothesis is that a propensity to accept religious-style dogma (cultism) has significantly enhanced the survival of humans in a given environment, and that such a propensity is contingent on a gene complex, then clearly, cult evolution can happen as easily as beak evolution.

That's all I said. I said nothing about the particulars of theism in general, only that a propensity for it might, MIGHT, confer a survival advantage to certain groups.

*picking remnants of strings out of my mouth*

 

[superluminal]

That is NOT the hypothesis, that is nonsense made up by sam to derail the thread. Please ignore her tripe.

I know. But it's sooo hard to ignore her. She's sooo cute and cuddly...

uke:

 

[S.A.M.]

That is NOT the hypothesis, that is nonsense made up by sam to derail the thread. Please ignore her tripe.

Let me break it up for you

Hypothesis: changes in beak of finches depict evolution religion{sorry error there}

Peter and Rosemary Grant were able to observe evolutionary changes over a short period of time, some twenty years, only.

Assumption: beak of finches = mind of man

If rationale and reason are functions of the brain to conceptualize ideas that aide in the pursuit of guiding ones actions, can we assume an environmental effect might alter ones reasoning abilities over long or even short periods of time?

Inference: development of beak of finches = development of religion

The brain is no different from the beak of a finch in that it is biological, hence also impacted from environmental effects and governed by evolutionary change.

If our ability to reason were continuously forced to accept the improbable and the irrational as fact, could we classify this as an environmental effect that might alter the brains ability to reason?

Conclusion: evolution = indoctrination

If such changes were observed over a relatively short period of time from changes in the environment, for example; the levels of food availability - can we also assume other effects will also cause biological changes?

If generation after generation were forced to accept the improbable and irrational as fact, would we simply accept as fact the improbable and irrational in every aspect of our lives, guiding our rationale to accept anything the improbable and irrational might suggest?

 

[superluminal]

That is NOT the hypothesis, that is nonsense made up by sam to derail the thread. Please ignore her tripe.

Just out of curiosity, did my description here:

I don't really need analogies in this case. I think that any gene complex that enhances an organisms differential ability to survive a given environment will increase in frequency in a population of those organisms. That's the fundamental premise of Evolution by Natural Selection.

If the hypothesis is that a propensity to accept religious-style dogma (cultism) has significantly enhanced the survival of humans in a given environment, and that such a propensity is contingent on a gene complex, then clearly, cult evolution can happen as easily as beak evolution.

accurately reflect your hypothesis?

 

[(Q)]

Sam, if you continue to derail this thread, you'll leave me with no choice but to derail yours. If that's the kind of childish games your going to play, then let's play hardball, bitch.

 

[superluminal]

Let me break it up for you

Hypothesis: changes in beak of finches depict evolution

"depict"? No. Are a result of.

Assumption: beak of finches = mind of man

Horrible, vague, incorrect assumption.

Inference: development of beak of finches = development of religion

Completely useless inference given the equally useless assumption.

Conclusion: evolution = indoctrination

:wallbang:

 

[S.A.M.]

Sam, if you continue to derail this thread, you'll leave me with no choice but to derail yours. If that's the kind of childish games your going to play, then let's play hardball, bitch.

You're the one comparing a beak to a cult.

 

[greenberg]

Please show me a peer reviewed paper that supports biological evolution parallels social evolution.

I think this is rather taboo.

Last but not least because the correlations between changes of the body and changes of thinking are difficult to prove.

However, common sense tells us that biological evolution and social evolution are parallel.

 

[(Q)]

You're the one comparing a beak to a cult.

FU. Go away.