What is a Real Christian?

[mtf]

That is some Ayn Rand bullshit right there. Just because it might be difficult to figure out the best way to help people doesn't mean that it is impossible or not worth doing.

That is some Ayn Rand bullshit right there. Just because it might be difficult to actually read what is on the page doesn't mean that it is impossible or not worth doing.

 

[mtf]

The fittest humans are the ones best at cooperating with each other. It's why we have the big brain. It's why the question of who's a real Christian even comes up.

And someone who is good at cooperation knows when not to cooperate.

Whoever is doing it, whether it's the fundamentalists of the religious-right or the fundamentalists of the loony-left, it's profoundly elitist and undemocratic.

Profound elitism and non-democracy are evolutionary advantages.

No matter how you look at it, humanism is an outlook that nobody can afford in the long run.

 

[mtf]

That simply assumes that those doing the manipulating are the superior ones, an elite whose views and attitudes should be normative for everyone else. It assumes that the changes that this self-appointed elite are trying to make are all good and desirable ones. It assumes that they already occupy enough centers of power in government, the media and academia, that they have the necessary control over how the language is used, and consequently how people think. And it assumes that the beliefs and desires of all of the people who are to be manipulated don't count, that these inferior people shouldn't be allowed to think freely for themselves and to conduct their own lives.

Thought control by manipulation of people's language is an utterly totalitarian idea reminiscent of '1984'-style 'Newspeak',

In European history, it was the aristocrats and clerics who considered themselves to be a better sort of person, whose assumed natural superiority supposedly justified their control over both the culture and the crude and child-like common-people. In communist Russia and today's China, it's the Party trying to enforce that kind of control.

Whoever is doing it, whether it's the fundamentalists of the religious-right or the fundamentalists of the loony-left, it's profoundly elitist and undemocratic.

If this life is all there is, if there is no God who would have humanist sensitivities, no karma, no rebirth, then all that matters is getting the upper hand.

And this isn't some "Ayn Rand bullshit", it's apparently how the world works, even though it's unpalatable to usual humanist sensitivities.
Take a simple example: Even though elements of aggressive driving are illegal (depending on the jurisdiction) and potentially fatal, many people nevertheless admire aggressive drivers and drive aggressively whenever they can.
Many people simply prefer a Trump over a Hillary.

I think part of what separates civilized man from wild animals is compassion. But then even wild animals will sometimes protect the injured and young. Are you saying we aren't even as good as wild animals? Where do you draw the line?

Leave the animals alone.

Even more to the point, given the context of the thread, are you suggesting that this view is Christian?

There's plenty of religious people who believe that by not killing you, they are showing you they love you, and that since they didn't kill you, you now owe them your life.

As for Christians: they strive for positions of social and economic power, they multiply in large numbers. What does that tell you about them in terms of evolutionary success and survival?

 

[PhysBang]

Profound elitism and non-democracy are evolutionary advantages.

No matter how you look at it, humanism is an outlook that nobody can afford in the long run.

Why would any rational being pursue "evolutionary advantages"? Evolution does not offer any advantages "in the long run"; it creates beings with certain properties only because of the specifics of the deaths of other beings.

 

[DaveC426913]

As for Christians: they strive for positions of social and economic power, they multiply in large numbers. What does that tell you about them in terms of evolutionary success and survival?

It tells me that they're human.

 

[Yazata]

Profound elitism and non-democracy are evolutionary advantages.

I prefer democracy to whatever it is that you're promoting. (It reminds me of an adolescent version of Nietzsche.)

You seem to be assuming that belonging to an elite corresponds to evolutionary fitness. That's not a given. If members of an elite have to struggle constantly in order to maintain their elite status, then elite status might be a handicap in evolutionary terms.

And elite status would presumably only be of benefit to members of the elite. It wouldn't be of any benefit to the majority of the population. So it would be in everyone else's interest to oppose those elites who presume to rule them. That general opposition would be another disadvantage of elite membership and the resulting resentments might undermine social stability.

No matter how you look at it, humanism is an outlook that nobody can afford in the long run.

If this life is all there is, if there is no God who would have humanist sensitivities, no karma, no rebirth, then all that matters is getting the upper hand.

You seem to be imagining that evolution operates on the level of individuals and favors individual predators with the largest possible teeth. But do human beings look like that? Humans seemingly acquired their current success as a species by their ability to adapt to new lifestyles and to cooperate together in groups. We see examples of group cooperation conferring evolutionary advantage throughout the living world, in all manner of animals, plants and bacteria.

Your vision of society ruled by Nietzschean 'Ubermenschen' doesn't sound like any kind of world that I would want to live in.

Historical note: The ideal of democracy arose in the ancient Greek city states, in Athens particularly, during a transition in battle tactics in warfare. The earlier Greek city states were aristocratic. The aristocrats were the warriors and cities would send out their strongest and best on chariots to battle the strongest and best of other cities. (Think of the legends of Hercules.) And inevitably, power resided with these aristocrats in peacetime.

But as time went on, the cities adopted new tactics, particularly the use of the massed phalanx. This was a formation of foot soldiers, shoulder to shoulder, marching and moving in unison. Armed with shields, swords and pikes, with reserves behind them ready to fill any gaps as men fell, it was almost invincible on the ancient battlefield. None of the old elite champions would stand a chance against them.

But as the general public, at least the able bodied male citizens among them, were conscripted into military service, they expected and demanded the rights and privileges enjoyed by the earlier military aristocrats in their shining armor on their chariots. So the ideal of popular rule emerged, where the people who were called upon to put their lives at risk for the city made decisions for the city en-masse in popular assemblies.

So democracy has been associated with what we might call evolutionary fitness since the very beginning. Democratic Athens rose to dominate all of Greece after the Persian wars because all of its citizens felt that they had a role and a stake in its success. They were citizens, not subjects. The life of the mind became established first and foremost in Athens because, at first, people sought instruction in rhetoric and in how best to sway their fellows in speeches. Then people like Socrates, Plato and Aristotle appeared, who questioned what the goals of all this 'sophistry' should be and inquired into what the long term goals of the city, civilization and human flourishing should be.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eudaimonia

 

[billvon]

Profound elitism and non-democracy are evolutionary advantages.

At least until the masses decide to remove you.

No matter how you look at it, humanism is an outlook that nobody can afford in the long run.

We've been humanists since the beginning of history. And when religion gets introduced, no matter how pure its intentions, it is eventually transformed to humanist goals and desires.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Leave the animals alone.

So you aren't capable of giving an intelligent response. Okay then.

 

[iceaura]

"The fittest humans are the ones best at cooperating with each other. It's why we have the big brain. It's why the question of who's a real Christian even comes up."
And someone who is good at cooperation knows when not to cooperate.

Cooperation remains a basic Darwinian selection mechanism and foundation of ecological structure in multicellular life generally, and especially in the higher mammals, and quintessentially in the genus Homo.

It's what the big brain is for.

And this isn't some "Ayn Rand bullshit", it's apparently how the world works, even though it's unpalatable to usual humanist sensitivities.

It's a crude error, stemming from almost complete ignorance of basic biological knowledge and ecological theory, as developed from Darwin until now.

Take a simple example: Even though elements of aggressive driving are illegal (depending on the jurisdiction) and potentially fatal, many people nevertheless admire aggressive drivers and drive aggressively whenever they can.
Many people simply prefer a Trump over a Hillary.

Some elephants are smaller than average, too. That doesn't mean size isn't an advantage to elephants. Remember the part about the big brain, what it's for?

 

[Ivan Seeking]

I have never seen such a ridiculous argument that favors Christians being assholes. It just proves what I said: Many people claiming to be Christians are just using that label to make themselves feel morally superior and to hide their dark hearts.

 

[spidergoat]

If this life is all there is, if there is no God who would have humanist sensitivities, no karma, no rebirth, then all that matters is getting the upper hand.

And this isn't some "Ayn Rand bullshit", it's apparently how the world works, even though it's unpalatable to usual humanist sensitivities.

Any superficial study of nature would show that cooperation is at least as important as competition. But that really doesn't matter to human society. Getting the upper hand is irrational if it is to the detriment of society as a whole. As a mammal able to make choices, I can adopt that idea as way of life. I can choose what matters, rather than leaving it up to a god.

 

[spidergoat]

That simply assumes that those doing the manipulating are the superior ones, an elite whose views and attitudes should be normative for everyone else. It assumes that the changes that this self-appointed elite are trying to make are all good and desirable ones. It assumes that they already occupy enough centers of power in government, the media and academia, that they have the necessary control over how the language is used, and consequently how people think. And it assumes that the beliefs and desires of all of the people who are to be manipulated don't count, that these inferior people shouldn't be allowed to think freely for themselves and to conduct their own lives.

Thought control by manipulation of people's language is an utterly totalitarian idea reminiscent of '1984'-style 'Newspeak',

In European history, it was the aristocrats and clerics who considered themselves to be a better sort of person, whose assumed natural superiority supposedly justified their control over both the culture and the crude and child-like common-people. In communist Russia and today's China, it's the Party trying to enforce that kind of control.

Whoever is doing it, whether it's the fundamentalists of the religious-right or the fundamentalists of the loony-left, it's profoundly elitist and undemocratic.

It's actually exactly democratic, since the most people that use this language determine who wins. And adopting the language is entirely voluntary. It's only 1984 if the ends are totalitarian control and burying the truth.

 

[mtf]

Why would any rational being pursue "evolutionary advantages"?

Don't you want to survive, and with as little strife and as little suffering as possible?

Evolution does not offer any advantages "in the long run"; it creates beings with certain properties only because of the specifics of the deaths of other beings.

Sure, and we're all merely evolutionary kanonenfutter.
Are _you_ happy with being merely evolutionary kanonenfutter?

It tells me that they're human.

They are successful humans.

At least until the masses decide to remove you.

That may take too long, several generations; besides, every new opposition, once it, through revolution, becomes the new position, is bascially the same as the previous one. The French Revolution is a good example: once it crushed the old regime, it soon became just like the old regime.

We've been humanists since the beginning of history. And when religion gets introduced, no matter how pure its intentions, it is eventually transformed to humanist goals and desires.

Aww, what an optimist you are!
You might even restore people's faith in humanity!

 

[mtf]

I prefer democracy to whatever it is that you're promoting. (It reminds me of an adolescent version of Nietzsche.)

Meh. I'm not promoting what you seem to think I'm promoting. Addressed below.

You seem to be assuming that belonging to an elite corresponds to evolutionary fitness. That's not a given. If members of an elite have to struggle constantly in order to maintain their elite status, then elite status might be a handicap in evolutionary terms.

There is always some struggle; the difference is only how much, and for what.

And elite status would presumably only be of benefit to members of the elite.

Which is why it pays off to be part of the elite.

It wouldn't be of any benefit to the majority of the population.

Spoken like someone with Kantian sensibilities who believes that a principle is moral only if all humans can act on it, regardless of their material circumstances.

So it would be in everyone else's interest to oppose those elites who presume to rule them. That general opposition would be another disadvantage of elite membership and the resulting resentments might undermine social stability.

As long as the non-elite still (at least implicitly) approves of the goals and values of the elite, any opposition of the non-elite to the elite is bound to be ineffective. Which is what has been happening in the world.

You seem to be imagining that evolution operates on the level of individuals and favors individual predators with the largest possible teeth. But do human beings look like that?

It's called sociopathocracy.
E.g. https://www.psychologytoday.com/blo...t-information-theory-teaches-us-about-tyrants

As an individual, it is in your interest to introduce into your life(style) as many advantages as possible; so yes, in this sense, evolution works on an individual level, if we start with the premise that humans are rational beings seeking their advantage, which includes learning useful lessons from whatever source (including science books).

Your vision of society ruled by Nietzschean 'Ubermenschen' doesn't sound like any kind of world that I would want to live in.

I don't want to live there either, but it's where society seems to be headed at. I just don't share your optimism.

So democracy has been associated with what we might call evolutionary fitness since the very beginning.

They still had slaves in Old Greece.

Democratic Athens rose to dominate all of Greece after the Persian wars because all of its citizens felt that they had a role and a stake in its success. They were citizens, not subjects. The life of the mind became established first and foremost in Athens because, at first, people sought instruction in rhetoric and in how best to sway their fellows in speeches. Then people like Socrates, Plato and Aristotle appeared, who questioned what the goals of all this 'sophistry' should be and inquired into what the long term goals of the city, civilization and human flourishing should be.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eudaimonia

And let's not forget how old Socrates came to his end.

 

[mtf]

Cooperation remains a basic Darwinian selection mechanism and foundation of ecological structure in multicellular life generally, and especially in the higher mammals, and quintessentially in the genus Homo.

It's what the big brain is for.
It's a crude error, stemming from almost complete ignorance of basic biological knowledge and ecological theory, as developed from Darwin until now.
Some elephants are smaller than average, too. That doesn't mean size isn't an advantage to elephants. Remember the part about the big brain, what it's for?

That big brain you aren't using, given how you read into my post a false dichotomy.

So you aren't capable of giving an intelligent response. Okay then.

See? Your reply is an example of favoring competition over cooperation.

I have never seen such a ridiculous argument that favors Christians being assholes. It just proves what I said: Many people claiming to be Christians are just using that label to make themselves feel morally superior and to hide their dark hearts.

Ah, spoken like a perfect little boy scout.

 

[mtf]

Getting the upper hand is irrational if it is to the detriment of society as a whole.

It's not clear how this is the case, given that normal, healthy people have ego defense mechanisms that always make the person feel good about themselves, no matter what happens to them, and especially no matter what they themselves do.

As a mammal able to make choices, I can adopt that idea as way of life. I can choose what matters, rather than leaving it up to a god.

It's not clear whether you'd ever really be leaving it up to a god or God; more likely, you'd be leaving it up to the person who claims to know this god/God.

It's also not possible to choose what matters, at least not as long as you aren't the one also creating the laws of Nature/Reality.

It's actually exactly democratic, since the most people that use this language determine who wins. And adopting the language is entirely voluntary. It's only 1984 if the ends are totalitarian control and burying the truth.

Even a 1984 scenario is still all about one group trying to survive; "totalitarian control and burying the truth" are simply means of survival for that group.

 

[mtf]

---

 

[mtf]

I have never seen such a ridiculous argument that favors Christians being assholes. It just proves what I said: Many people claiming to be Christians are just using that label to make themselves feel morally superior and to hide their dark hearts.

Don't ever forget that Jesus brought the sword, not peace.

"34“Do not think that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I have not come to bring peace, but a sword.35For I have come to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law.36And a person’s enemies will be those of his own household.37Whoever loves father or mother more than me is not worthy of me, and whoever loves son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me.38And whoever does not take his cross and follow me is not worthy of me.39Whoever finds his life will lose it, and whoever loses his life for my sake will find it."
Matt. 10 (ESV)

"51Do you think that I have come to give peace on earth? No, I tell you, but rather division.52For from now on in one house there will be five divided, three against two and two against three.53They will be divided, father against son and son against father, mother against daughter and daughter against mother, mother-in-law against her daughter-in-law and daughter-in-law against mother-in-law.”
Luke 12 (ESV)


If Christians are merely being true to their leader, Jesus, and not to some secular, popular, humanist idea of what a Christian is supposed to be like, then no fault can be found with the Christians.

 

[PhysBang]

Don't you want to survive, and with as little strife and as little suffering as possible?


Sure, and we're all merely evolutionary kanonenfutter.
Are _you_ happy with being merely evolutionary kanonenfutter?

No, which is why I reject the idea of living my life by trying to maximize some (probably mythical) evolutionary advantage.

 

[mtf]

No, which is why I reject the idea of living my life by trying to maximize some (probably mythical) evolutionary advantage.

No -- to which one of the questions?