What you could do better than god

[Roger Ramjets]

What about the 635,000 tons of 'compassionate' bombs? Weren't they just another small perfect part of this perfect universe?

And what does that have to do with the question of how to weigh the present near-perfection of a dictator's life against the present suffering of his millions of subjects?

Plenty of dictators had far less than 'perfect' lives that ended hyper-violently. Have you no compassion for them?

Imagine a 'perfect' universe that minimized the need for compassion. Subatomic particles don't feel pain, so the 'perfect' way to ensure that compassion won't fall short is to make sure they don't form anything that needs it. Therefore your god would create a Universe that didn't permit life to evolve. Looking at our current Universe and its general hostility to life, it seems that goal could easily be achieved. Perhaps it was even intended. For 13 billion years (before the evolution of animals that feel pain) it was looking good!

 

[Roger Ramjets]

For sure. I mean, in the US antebellum south there were Christians who had no problem owning slaves (supported by the Bible) and at times even being terribly cruel to them (not supported by the Bible,) and others who where strongly opposed to slavery, were working abolish it, and help escaped slaves make their way to freedom. Where was God to let them know where he stood on the issue?

What difference would it have made? Those Christians were well versed in what their God told them, and they ignored His stance. What was He supposed to do - light up the sky with a huge neon sign saying 'Love your neighbor as yourself'? They would have ignored that too.

 

[Myriad]

What difference would it have made? Those Christians were well versed in what their God told them, and they ignored His stance. What was He supposed to do - light up the sky with a huge neon sign saying 'Love your neighbor as yourself'? They would have ignored that too.

Ah, yes, the old "If you didn't pay attention to contradictory messages making impossible claims relayed ages ago by raving screwballs in archaic languages, you'd certainly ignore clear authoritative communication too."

No one actually thinks that makes any sense, of course.

 

[W.D.Clinger]

But if that is so then why is the Universe not perfect? I posit that it actually is perfect, and our perception of imperfection is simply due to our lack of understanding of what 'perfect' means.

So far as we know, this is the best of all possible universes.

The real mysteries concern what makes this universe possible, whether other universes are possible, and if other universes are possible then why in the ******* **** did we end up in the ***** perfection of this one.

To explain the ***** perfection of this universe, we can assume it was designed by its predecessor universe, which was a perfect designer of ***** universes. But how did that perfect designer of ***** universes come to be? It must have been designed by a predecessor universe, which was a perfect designer of perfect designer universes. And so on.

But you can't string that out infinitely, because that would make my head hurt. So there must have been a first universe. A First Cause, if you will.

(As an imperfect apologist for the ***** universe in which we live, I humbly confess my reasoning above might conceivably incorporate one or more possible imperfections.)

Ask any scientist and they will tell you the more we find out about how the Universe works, the more we can see the perfection in it.

 

[Blue Mountain]

What difference would it have made? Those Christians were well versed in what their God told them, and they ignored His stance. What was He supposed to do - light up the sky with a huge neon sign saying 'Love your neighbor as yourself'? They would have ignored that too.

True, since for Christians the Bible is considered authoritative but its author isn't around to interpret the difficult passages or reconcile contradictions. More effective communication would have God himself, or easily recognized agents such as 8 foot tall angels, making visits to various areas and making consistent clarifications.

And perhaps handing out some divine vengeance, too. "You beat that slave within an inch of his life! Well, you're just about to get the same."

 

[HansMustermann]

The funny thing about most apologetics is that they're centred on humans. Sin, free will, bla bla bla. (And even then let's ignore what sins can make a baby deserve brain cancer.)

But the thing is, those genetic problems apply to animals too. A cat or a dog can get cancer too, for example. The genetic repair code that has problems repairing palindrome genes didn't first appear in humans.

And that's in addition to problems of their own, that don't apply to those sinful humans anyway. E.g., humans CAN'T get infected by the Feline immunodeficiency virus.

I'm at a loss as to what sins those cats have to warrant that.

I suppose one can handwave it as the result of the whole apple incident in Genesis, but I'm at a loss as to what kind of justice that is. Some stray cat that doesn't have anything to do with humans, gets FIV... err... because two humans ate apples before cats were even domesticated

 

[Roger Ramjets]

I suppose one can handwave it as the result of the whole apple incident in Genesis, but I'm at a loss as to what kind of justice that is. Some stray cat that doesn't have anything to do with humans, gets FIV... err... because two humans ate apples before cats were even domesticated

Every serious Bible scholar agrees the 'apple incident' was not historical, and the story's intent was merely to highlight Man's mortality and propensity for deceit and violence. Christians believe these traits are inherited, and they are largely right. Once again the science of evolution aligns with religious thought.

 

[HansMustermann]

Maybe. But that doesn't preclude the question in the topic. If evolution is how some God did it, fine, but that's orthogonal to the question. Then which systems do you think evolution could have done better?

Bearing in mind that evolution doesn't do "perfect" and is an ongoing process. If there were no way to improve, it would stop. Given that we've seen fairly recent examples of rapid evolution, obviously there was room for improvement even in very recent times. What I'm saying is that there is no reason to believe that the status of everything in 2023 CE us perfect and beyond any improving, any more than was the case in the Cretaceous.

 

[Darat]

Every serious Bible scholar agrees the 'apple incident' was not historical, and the story's intent was merely to highlight Man's mortality and propensity for deceit and violence. Christians believe these traits are inherited, and they are largely right. Once again the science of evolution aligns with religious thought.

Sorry Roger Ramjets - but what you actually mean is "Every Bible scholar Roger Ramjets considers serious".

 

[Pixel42]

Every serious Bible scholar agrees the 'apple incident' was not historical, and the story's intent was merely to highlight Man's mortality and propensity for deceit and violence. Christians believe these traits are inherited, and they are largely right. Once again the science of evolution aligns with religious thought.

Except that if these propensities are inherited then people can't be held responsible for them, any more than they can be held responsible for the colour of their eyes. So the whole religious concept of judging people for their sins goes by the board.

 

[a_unique_person]

I would get my story straight through history and stick to it. I would also manage my mood swings better.

 

[jimbob]

Every serious Bible scholar agrees the 'apple incident' was not historical, and the story's intent was merely to highlight Man's mortality and propensity for deceit and violence. Christians believe these traits are inherited, and they are largely right. Once again the science of evolution aligns with religious thought.

Sorry Roger Ramjets - but what you actually mean is "Every Bible scholar Roger Ramjets considers serious".

Furthermore why should it have been considered so outlandish to those who originally put the story in the bible, especially as the motifs of the tree of life and the tree of death and an association with the snake stealing the secret of immortality (or at least eternal youth, via shedding its skin) are very old and widespread in Eurasia.

 

[GDon]

Sorry Roger Ramjets - but what you actually mean is "Every Bible scholar Roger Ramjets considers serious".

That's an interesting point. Is there any peer-reviewed publication or article in a peer-reviewed journal that proposes that the Garden of Eden story is literal? I'm not aware of any. Perhaps there might be something in a Theology College with their own set of peers, but nothing in the larger scholarly community as far as I know.

 

[Roger Ramjets]

Except that if these propensities are inherited then people can't be held responsible for them, any more than they can be held responsible for the colour of their eyes. So the whole religious concept of judging people for their sins goes by the board.

Human behavior is largely inherited.

Your idea is interesting though. I wonder how many criminals could have a valid defense along the lines of "I can't be held responsible for what I did. Rape and murder is in my genes!"

 

[HansMustermann]

There is literally no gene that will make you, say, rob a bank, because the brain is not hard coded that way. Plus, there were no banks back when those genes evolved.

There are alleles (gene variants) that may make you hornier or produce more adrenaline in a conflict or whatnot, but they don't hard-code what you actually do about it.

And here's the thing: what we do have hard-coded is stuff like defecation. But you don't see people just dropping their pants in the middle of the street because that's the reflex. And at that, even remembering to drop your pants before tanking a dump is something that is very new, and is very much not in any genes. So even that is something where you have to keep your instincts under control and do some extra steps that are learned.

Or even for getting food, back when we were evolving, it just meant going and finding some fruit to take off a tree. But in society we learned not to do that any more. You don't just go take a banana from the supermarket, eat it right there, throw the peeled skin on the ground, and leave without paying. You learned that you have to do a bunch of extra behaviours instead of just whatever was the case when those genes evolved.

The point is that virtually all human behaviour is LEARNED, not hard-coded in genes. Your genes, again, might make you hornier, or more irritable, or have more irritable bowels, but they don't code that you just take a dump on the spot.

And while in a sense learning from your mum and dad can be argued as a form of inheritance, it's a weak one even first generation, and pretty much nonexistent after something like two thousand years. Culture changed drastically in that time.

 

[William Parcher]

I would have animals be immediately adapted to their environment instead of waiting for evolution and natural selection.

 

[Roger Ramjets]

There is literally no gene that will make you, say, rob a bank, because the brain is not hard coded that way. Plus, there were no banks back when those genes evolved.

Keep knocking down those straw men...

There are alleles (gene variants) that may make you hornier or produce more adrenaline in a conflict or whatnot, but they don't hard-code what you actually do about it.

So you admit that that genes do play a role in the propensity for rape and murder.

And here's the thing: what we do have hard-coded is stuff like defecation. But you don't see people just dropping their pants in the middle of the street because that's the reflex. And at that, even remembering to drop your pants before tanking a dump is something that is very new, and is very much not in any genes.

Wearing clothes is also learned behavior. But running around naked taking dumps whenever you feel like it is innate behavior - and considered a criminal act in most places.

The point is that virtually all human behaviour is LEARNED, not hard-coded in genes.

Ah yes, I well remember the classes I took on how to rape and murder people.

 

[HansMustermann]

So you admit that that genes do play a role in the propensity for rape and murder.

1. Propensity to do X and doing criminal act Y to achieve X are completely different things. I just gave the example of defecating, which is an actual need, not just a propensity. Yet you don't hear of people who are genetically inclined to take a dump in the middle of the office. EVERYONE is able to keep it under control. Even those who may be genetically inclined to go to the toilet more often.

2. Rape is a bad example for your point, because almost invariably it's more about a social power play. It's invariably about power over the victim, revenge, including against women as a whole for some perceived slight, teaching them a lesson, etc. Sex is a tool, rather than the purpose. I.e., it's a complex social behaviour, about parameters that didn't exist when the species was evolving.

3. Murder as a subcategory of homicide, involves it being intentional and a malice aforethought, so, same deal. Without that malice aforethought, it becomes "just" manslaughter. Essentially we're back to it being a social behaviour. You had a problem with someone, and murder was the solution. It's not just a case of flying off the handle and punching someone, which may be something genes help with. So, again, bad example for blaming it on genes.

4. The only thing that may be confusing there is the legal aberration of "felony murder", where any death during a felony is automatically escalated to the status of murder, for all participants in the felony, even if they're not even there when that dude died. But as you may have guessed from the description, it too is a social and specifically legal construct, not something coded by any genes.

Wearing clothes is also learned behavior. But running around naked taking dumps whenever you feel like it is innate behavior - and considered a criminal act in most places.

Quite right, but that just makes my point. Everyone who isn't severely mentally incapable is able to keep it under control. The fact that our genes evolved when we were running around naked don't override applying the learned behaviour not to.

Ah yes, I well remember the classes I took on how to rape and murder people.

Weren't you the one complaining about strawmen?

Nobody said anyone took classes on how to rape, but as I was saying, invariably it involves some more complex reasoning, not the least the decision to break the law or at the very least which learned behaviours to NOT apply. And all within the given constraints of a society whose rules aren't even the same as a couple of hundreds of years ago, much less the same as back when the species evolved. Things like power plays, revenge, teaching someone or a whole category a lesson, etc, are in the context of a society much more complex than a tribe of monkeys has.

Plus, while there are no classes in how to rape per se, a lot of that is based on ideas that are very much learned from each other people. Things like what constitutes asking for it, how a Real Man(TM) should behave, what should the women's role be, etc. And in the meantime, hell, you can practically take online classes in THAT.

 

[Tassman]

There is literally no gene that will make you, say, rob a bank, because the brain is not hard coded that way. Plus, there were no banks back when those genes evolved.

There are alleles (gene variants) that may make you hornier or produce more adrenaline in a conflict or whatnot, but they don't hard-code what you actually do about it.

And here's the thing: what we do have hard-coded is stuff like defecation. But you don't see people just dropping their pants in the middle of the street because that's the reflex. And at that, even remembering to drop your pants before tanking a dump is something that is very new, and is very much not in any genes. So even that is something where you have to keep your instincts under control and do some extra steps that are learned.

Or even for getting food, back when we were evolving, it just meant going and finding some fruit to take off a tree. But in society we learned not to do that any more. You don't just go take a banana from the supermarket, eat it right there, throw the peeled skin on the ground, and leave without paying. You learned that you have to do a bunch of extra behaviours instead of just whatever was the case when those genes evolved.

The point is that virtually all human behaviour is LEARNED, not hard-coded in genes. Your genes, again, might make you hornier, or more irritable, or have more irritable bowels, but they don't code that you just take a dump on the spot.

And while in a sense learning from your mum and dad can be argued as a form of inheritance, it's a weak one even first generation, and pretty much nonexistent after something like two thousand years. Culture changed drastically in that time.

But what IS "hard-coded in genes" is our evolved pattern as a social species to conform to the values of the community to which we belong. Cooperation is an evolutionary trait which was naturally-selected as a survival mechanism otherwise our species would have perished long ago. Cooperation is an evolutionary trait among many social species.

 

[HansMustermann]

That it is, to some extent (again, we have some urges, but it's not hard-coded how you act to fit in), but I don't think many people (outside a few die-hard Ayn Rand fanatics) would consider it to be a "sin" that we're a social species. You know, since this side-track started from his justifying the idea of inherited original sin. (Presumably playing the devil's advocate or something.)