Is human nature inherently good or evil? (1 Viewer)

[Mark Schermerhorn]

I totally agree with Jared. There are plenty of spiritual arguments that can me made without being religious in nature. IMO anyway, some people see that differently. At a minimum you can eliminate religious dogma.
Andrew, I haven't the slightest idea how subtracting religion leaves you with materialism. To me that implies values can't exist without religion, which would offend the other half of this forum who don't agree with you.
Anyway to keep it a bit on topic...I think the more interesting question is not good vs. evil, but selfish vs. giving, although in some sense that could be viewed as a similar question. Personally I like to debate nature vs. nurture when talking about how people act selfish or giving, and how "giving" can often be a form of self preservation, and thus even be seen as selfish. But I'm at work so I don't have time to elaborate

 

[John Gates]

Hi everyone,

I apologize for the length of this post. I hope my observations are received as intended. I'm interested in promoting fairness and community in the forum.



Maybe you're right on this one. Good observation. I am just frustrated that some religious opinions are free while others are suppressed. I feel like the forum rules should be fairly and evenly applied. In this case, the thread remains open, some are allowed to express their religious beliefs on the forum, and others are not. It's frustrating. I don't mean to be a party pooper, but on a topic like this, I am compelled by my beliefs to respond, yet I can't for risk of suspension of my account. I value my membership on this forum, so I'm reduced to a frustrated heap. I'm not suggesting that the thread be closed because it's controversial (I like controversial threads because I learn a lot from them)... I'm suggesting it be closed because it violates forum rules (IMO), and it's the fair thing to do.

Regards,

John G

 

[Max Leung]

To many, evolutionism, science, and materialism IS a religion and provides a system of consistent belief about things like good and evil...

Hmmmm, not to me. Not by my definition of religion, at any rate. But that is open to interpretation. My beliefs are much more complex than you think, but I ain't gonna tell anyone (you never know when the revolution will come and I'll be the first up against the wall! :p)). But if you really want to know, send over a hot babe to me for a few days and I'll blabber endlessly to her about them.
If you see belief as a continuum, where on one end we have absolutely no belief, such as a person who can only see absolute facts and has a completely closed mind , and a person who has absolute faith on the other end (oh wait, that person could have a completely closed mind too...hmmm), then, yes, I could see that every discussion would fall under your criteria. But, that is not for us to decide at the HTF.
Remember, keep an open mind, but not so open your brain falls out! (pardon me for not getting the quote from Sagan right).
When I find the time (and hopefully the thread isn't closed by then!), I'll tell you the weaknesses of current scientific thinking on human nature, albeit from the perspective of other scientists who disagree with evolutionary psychology (one such notable scientist would be Stephen Jay Gould). Keep in mind that science is also about self-criticism. The ideal scientist accepts his fallibility, and understands that the purpose of publishing research is so that his work can fall under criticism. A scientist must be able to withstand criticism, and correct his research and his research methods accordingly. As a matter of course, his research must be reproducible.
Criticism is often very hard to take...dictatorships will kill and commit genocide to suppress it, others resort to media manipulation and libel suits, and others will make righteous appeals phrased in crowd-pleasing rhetoric. Yet the practice of science openly tolerates and encourages criticism.
But, since scientists are human (), science as practiced today is not perfect. Like any other endeavor, there is politics, and greed. Fortunately, the self-correcting nature of science still seems to persist, albeit possibly weakened as corporations flex their muscles...

 

[Andrew 'Ange Hamm' Hamm]

It's frustrating. I don't mean to be a party pooper, but on a topic like this, I am compelled by my beliefs to respond, yet I can't for risk of suspension of my account. I value my membership on this forum, so I'm reduced to a frustrated heap. I'm not suggesting that the thread be closed because it's controversial (I like controversial threads because I learn a lot from them)... I'm suggesting it be closed because it violates forum rules (IMO), and it's the fair thing to do.

Right on, John. Though, obviously, we are being ignored by the Forum's moderators. There's no escape; I can't ignore this thread because it touches on a subject that is possibly THE MOST IMPORTANT THING IN THE WORLD, and I can't give an honest response because I will have my post deleted (it has happened before--even when I tried like hell to make the subject philosophical and not explicitly religious).

Again I argue (completely in vain) that excluding non-materialist discussion is espousing the dogma of materialism. That's religion. Apparently, the HTF bans all religious discussion--except the religions of neo-Darwinist materialism, secular humanism, and atheism.

 

[Michael Reuben]

Though, obviously, we are being ignored by the Forum's moderators.

On the contrary. This thread is being watched rather closely.

M.