Exclusion and acceptance.

[Ryu]

So this weekend I was debating with this bitch irl, and - like many other wussy Christians - she brought up the fact that she hated how some religions (one in particular caught her eye, but I'll generalize for now) exclude former members or don't 'accept someone for who they are'. Whether it's the case of someone going to church in their jeans, or turning from an altar boy into a gay porn star. Some religions have official policies, for example excluding someone from their religion who doesn't try to maintain the basic set of beliefs that that religion stands for. And there are religions that have no official policies, but have people like the pastor tell an individual that something they're doing is wrong. If they refuse to change; things like gossip amongst its other members will finish the job.

My point being that nearly every community, whether from a religious point of view, political, social, or any other; has their way of maintaining the integrity of their community by excluding those who don't meet the requirements in one way or another. I think that even - or especially - the evolutionists among you would agree, since (correct me if I'm wrong) the only reason humans survived is because we worked best in numbers. Maintaining the integrity and coherency of a community would only be a natural thing to do. If someone fails to abide by that community's set of rules or habits, it is natural - and sometimes even beneficial - to treat that individual as an outcast of sorts. Of course the severeness of this behaviour differs greatly, but it's always inherent.

So, why do so many new-age hippies who believe that there is nothing more to a religion than accepting Jesus/Allah/whoever into your heart, frown upon any religion who tries to keep its values and morals intact? Actually nevermind that, I just answered my own question. We're evolving for the worst, and unless we do something soon, we'll all end up with homosexual black goth satanic disabled illegal immigrants in our church choirs. And if you can't detect the sarcasm in that, please stay out of this thread, I'm too tired to deal with your shit.

 

[Angel]

Well, you should tell her that Christianity does it's fair share of exclusion too.

Excommunicated is the term I believe.

 

[DuskTop]

Well, you should tell her that Christianity does it's fair share of exclusion too.

Excommunicated is the term I believe.

That's the Catholic church. Not all denominations of Christianity.

 

[Angel]

That's the Catholic church. Not all denominations of Christianity.

I thought it was all denominations, but ah well.

They all have their fancy words for showing someone the door.

 

[Ryu]

Well, you should tell her that Christianity does it's fair share of exclusion too.

Excommunicated is the term I believe.

I should tell you that with "new-age hippy" I also mean a christian who picks a church that gives him as much 'freedom' as possible, and then decides that other denominations suck.

Though the point of this thread was to explain why exclusion or 'excommunication' is perfectly normal considering the human psyche and what not.

 

[Phoenix]

So this weekend I was debating with this bitch irl, and - like many other wussy Christians - she brought up the fact that she hated how some religions (one in particular caught her eye, but I'll generalize for now) exclude former members or don't 'accept someone for who they are'. Whether it's the case of someone going to church in their jeans, or turning from an altar boy into a gay porn star. Some religions have official policies, for example excluding someone from their religion who doesn't try to maintain the basic set of beliefs that that religion stands for. And there are religions that have no official policies, but have people like the pastor tell an individual that something they're doing is wrong. If they refuse to change; things like gossip amongst its other members will finish the job.

My point being that nearly every community, whether from a religious point of view, political, social, or any other; has their way of maintaining the integrity of their community by excluding those who don't meet the requirements in one way or another. I think that even - or especially - the evolutionists among you would agree, since (correct me if I'm wrong) the only reason humans survived is because we worked best in numbers. Maintaining the integrity and coherency of a community would only be a natural thing to do. If someone fails to abide by that community's set of rules or habits, it is natural - and sometimes even beneficial - to treat that individual as an outcast of sorts. Of course the severeness of this behaviour differs greatly, but it's always inherent.

So, why do so many new-age hippies who believe that there is nothing more to a religion than accepting Jesus/Allah/whoever into your heart, frown upon any religion who tries to keep its values and morals intact? Actually nevermind that, I just answered my own question. We're evolving for the worst, and unless we do something soon, we'll all end up with homosexual black goth satanic disabled illegal immigrants in our church choirs. And if you can't detect the sarcasm in that, please stay out of this thread, I'm too tired to deal with your shit.

Well, it depends. When I saw this topic, the first thing that came to mind was disfellowshipping. Now I'm no shrink, but I'm fairly certain this practice takes a good chunk out of someone's mental health.

The community has every right to decide what rules do its members abide by (provided they're not sacrificing goats), just like the law has every right to punish a starving man for stealing food. The group over the individual.

I think that even - or especially - the evolutionists among you would agree, since (correct me if I'm wrong) the only reason humans survived is because we worked best in numbers.

It's important to keep in mind that the theory of evolution is descriptive; you can't derive morals from it. Survival of the species is clearly not a concern anymore.

So, why do so many new-age hippies who believe that there is nothing more to a religion than accepting Jesus/Allah/whoever into your heart, frown upon any religion who tries to keep its values and morals intact?

Because it's easy and it's comfortable.

 

[Ryu]

It's important to keep in mind that the theory of evolution is descriptive; you can't derive morals from it. Survival of the species is clearly not a concern anymore.

Well naturally, but that doesn't mean that this 'primal urge' couldn't manifest itself in other ways. And like you said, the group over the individual. This behaviour will of course feel harsh when you're on the receiving end of it, and while I agree that some communities push the envelope, to me it sounds perfectly natural and expectable.

 

[Phoenix]

Well, you realize the group over the individual is what justifies communism over capitalism, right? Personal liberties are sacrificed for the greater good.

The primal urge also manifests itself in rape, yet we've made that illegal. What I meant to say in my previous post is that just because something is doesn't mean it ought to be.

I'm not saying I disagree with you, I'm just saying you can't justify it with evolution. You can explain it with evolution, but not justify it.

 

[Ryu]

That is why in theory, communism should be superior to capitalism. But in reality it doesn't work, because people just don't want to be equal. People have no motivation to improve themselves or their skills if they'll end up being used for the good of the group, instead of using them to advance themselves above the rest of society.

Like you said, I'm not trying to justify it with evolution, just trying to explain that this is natural behaviour. And while evolution doesn't carry a moral code, I do think that (maybe because of our 'evolutionary pattern') many of us feel the need to be united, part of a community. And from that, I think it's only natural that such a community would want to maintain its integrity.

 

[Phoenix]

Well, if your argument only goes as far as only explaining it, then yes, I agree. But with that line of thought, that's also why we have racism, sexism and so on.

 

[Ryu]

Well, if your argument only goes as far as only explaining it, then yes, I agree. But with that line of thought, that's also why we have racism, sexism and so on.

To a certain extent, yes it is. That is why the debate should be to what extent we should apply this primal urge in our lives, to try and equally balance the rights of the individual to the safety and integrity of the group. This of course will always be an on-going debate, but the case I was making was that most people are either too conservative or too.. pussified, and don't bother with the details or don't even bother trying to see two sides of the story.

 

[Phoenix]

Then I agree. Regardless of how you were raised, if you're in a group, and you know the rules, you don't back out when the rules are too difficult for you.

 

[Hidden]

So, why do so many new-age hippies who believe that there is nothing more to a religion than accepting Jesus/Allah/whoever into your heart, frown upon any religion who tries to keep its values and morals intact?

While I think your secular interpretation of exclusion and group integrity is on the mark, the "new-age hippy" is much more likely to be working from a humanistic/spiritual perspective. In this, we come upon Phoenix's caution that evolution can only be descriptive; thus, the new-ager is free to take the moral perspective that religion's function should answer to the spiritual needs of humanity rather than the exclusive group-structure of a select few. It's a changing conception of what religion is for.

Then I agree. Regardless of how you were raised, if you're in a group, and you know the rules, you don't back out when the rules are too difficult for you.

Crito again.

 

[Phoenix]

See, I had to wiki that, Hidden.

Injustice may not be met with injustice?

 

[Hidden]

See, I had to wiki that, Hidden.

You should read the dialogue.

Injustice may not be met with injustice?

Actually, I was thinking of a more difficult proposition, but one that fits very well here.

*Soc: [...] and we might reply, "Yes; but the state has injured us and given an unjust sentence." Suppose I say that?

Cr: Very good, Socrates.

Soc: "And was that our agreement with you?" the law would say; "or were you to abide by the sentence of the state?"

Over the course of the dialogue, Socrates argues through the State that, having accepted and agreed to the reality of the state, with full knowledge of its laws and position, he cannot in good conscience break from it now even to save his life. As you say:

Regardless of how you were raised, if you're in a group, and you know the rules, you don't back out when the rules are too difficult for you.

*For those who have not wiki'd Crito, it is a Socratic dialogue wherein Crito, a friend of Socrates, attempts to convince Socrates to escape his prison and impending execution, sentenced by an Athenian court for corrupting the youth and disbelieving the old gods

 

[Alaude Drenxta]

So this weekend I was debating with this bitch irl, and - like many other wussy Christians - she brought up the fact that she hated how some religions (one in particular caught her eye, but I'll generalize for now) exclude former members or don't 'accept someone for who they are'. Whether it's the case of someone going to church in their jeans, or turning from an altar boy into a gay porn star. Some religions have official policies, for example excluding someone from their religion who doesn't try to maintain the basic set of beliefs that that religion stands for. And there are religions that have no official policies, but have people like the pastor tell an individual that something they're doing is wrong. If they refuse to change; things like gossip amongst its other members will finish the job.

My point being that nearly every community, whether from a religious point of view, political, social, or any other; has their way of maintaining the integrity of their community by excluding those who don't meet the requirements in one way or another. I think that even - or especially - the evolutionists among you would agree, since (correct me if I'm wrong) the only reason humans survived is because we worked best in numbers. Maintaining the integrity and coherency of a community would only be a natural thing to do. If someone fails to abide by that community's set of rules or habits, it is natural - and sometimes even beneficial - to treat that individual as an outcast of sorts. Of course the severeness of this behaviour differs greatly, but it's always inherent.

So, why do so many new-age hippies who believe that there is nothing more to a religion than accepting Jesus/Allah/whoever into your heart, frown upon any religion who tries to keep its values and morals intact? Actually nevermind that, I just answered my own question. We're evolving for the worst, and unless we do something soon, we'll all end up with homosexual black goth satanic disabled illegal immigrants in our church choirs. And if you can't detect the sarcasm in that, please stay out of this thread, I'm too tired to deal with your shit.

I sensed some slight Social Darwinism undertones in that sermon.


Also, from excerpts of Phoenix and Ryu's conversation, I've come up with another question.
Is it not necessary for people, still, to classify, group, and co-depend on others for the species survival?

If it was truly dog-eat-dog, would the entire human race not destroy one another?
Perhaps it's justified, not by the process and mandates of evolution, but by the inherent purpose of it.
To sustain the life of the species, to aid in their adaptation. Both our mental health and physical health rely on our capability to cooperate with others.
We need each other.

However, we do not need useless appendages that we do not view as being able to continue on the same path as the rest of the group.
They could be a threat to the stability of the entire species, granted the right circumstances or volume.

They reject amoral people because they believe that those people threaten society as they believe it should be.

It only serves to make me wonder if, having knowledge of these properties, and the possibility of evolution (to appease those who do not believe in it), could we not control and consciously dictate the process of evolution? The forces of nature aside, of course, I mean on a social/intellectual level.

 

[Phoenix]

If it was truly dog-eat-dog, would the entire human race not destroy one another?

Well, we need dog friends to eat the bigger dogs.

 

[Hidden]

I sensed some slight Social Darwinism undertones in that sermon.


Also, from excerpts of Phoenix and Ryu's conversation, I've come up with another question.
Is it not necessary for people, still, to classify, group, and co-depend on others for the species survival?

If it was truly dog-eat-dog, would the entire human race not destroy one another?

To the first question, people must still co-depend upon one another for survival, but the methods of co-dependence --how they classify and group-- is left open to question. How do we group and classify ourselves beneficially? Ethnic groups; religious identities; nations; which of these is necessary?

To the second, philosophers such as Socrates would agree with you--to act against the state is to seek the destruction of the state, and this must hold true for the race.
However, living in a world where horrible acts have been committed by the human race against the human race, I must ask what you mean by "truly dog-eat-dog." Is that to say that these actions against humans, from individual murder to genocide (to speak only in terms of physical death), are in fact anomalies of an inherent system that otherwise prevents self-violence within the race?

Perhaps it's justified, not by the process and mandates of evolution, but by the inherent purpose of it.

I must disagree with any such metaphorical justification--there is a product of evolution, no inherent purpose.

To sustain the life of the species, to aid in their adaptation. Both our mental health and physical health rely on our capability to cooperate with others.
We need each other.

However, we do not need useless appendages that we do not view as being able to continue on the same path as the rest of the group.
They could be a threat to the stability of the entire species, granted the right circumstances or volume.

We are never "granted the right circumstances;" this is another metaphorical justification that does not translate well into reality. It acknowledges a lack of control that would be necessary to make the moral decision it is proposing.

They reject amoral people because they believe that those people threaten society as they believe it should be.

So long as "society as it should be" should reject (kill?) certain types of people. If this is not the case, "rejection" is not a tenable solution for that society.

It only serves to make me wonder if, having knowledge of these properties, and the possibility of evolution (to appease those who do not believe in it), could we not control and consciously dictate the process of evolution? The forces of nature aside, of course, I mean on a social/intellectual level.

As I see it, no; we could hypothetically control our development, but that would be a process of conscious intent rather than evolution, rather than what you earlier termed 'the inherent purpose of evolution;' we can no more control evolution than we can control gravity.

Well, we need dog friends to eat the bigger dogs.

And to keep our dog friends from eating us?


This is a short piece from Thomas Merton's "The Way of Chuang Tzu." It is titled "The Useless Tree."

Hui Tzu said to Chuang:
I have a big tree,
The kind they call a "stinktree."
The trunk is so distorted,
So full of knots,
No one can get a straight plank
Out of it. The branches are so crooked
You cannot cut them up
In any way that makes sense.

There it stands beside the road.
No carpenter will even look at it.

Such is your teaching--
Big and useless.

Chuang Tzu replied:
Have you ever watched the wildcat
Crouching, watching his prey--
This way it leaps, and that way,
High and low, and at last
lands in the trap.

But have you seen the yak?
Great as a thundercloud
He stands in his might.

Big? Sure,
He can't catch mice!

So for your big tree. No use?
Then plant it in the wasteland
In emptiness.
Walk idly around,
Rest under its shadow;
No axe or bill prepares its end.
No one will ever cut it down.

Useless? You should worry!

 

[Alaude Drenxta]

I must disagree with any such metaphorical justification--there is a product of evolution, no inherent purpose.

Sorry for the metaphor, I think you knew what I meant. *cough*smartass*hick*
I meant the purpose of adaptation, your "product of evolution", creatures change and grow, that is the purpose of evolution, not as the term for the growth and adaptation of races, but the process.

We are never "granted the right circumstances;" this is another metaphorical justification that does not translate well into reality. It acknowledges a lack of control that would be necessary to make the moral decision it is proposing.

I was actually referring to dangerous, amoral human beings.
Hitler, for example. A danger to much of humanity, and a large threat, as a single person, to the "set" path that our leaders have devised for the world. We rid the world of him to re-align this path and eliminate the threat.

As I see it, no; we could hypothetically control our development, but that would be a process of conscious intent rather than evolution, rather than what you earlier termed 'the inherent purpose of evolution;' we can no more control evolution than we can control gravity.

So you wouldn't call the rise of technology a sort of human evolution? Our ability over many years to improve and expand our intellectual abilities by creating greater works and learning the workings of the world more intimately?

 

[Hidden]

Sorry for the metaphor, I think you knew what I meant.
I meant the purpose of adaptation, your "product of evolution", creatures change and grow, that is the purpose of evolution, not as the term for the growth and adaptation of races, but the process.

The terms "purpose" and "product" (as well as "purpose" and "process") are not interchangeable here, so my contention was earnest; the metaphorical application of a "purpose" to evolution creates false conceptions and false justifications. To use another case:

The large understanding of natural sciences today consists of the "laws" of nature and all things acting in "obedience" to them. This is (usually) a fine enough way to conceptualize observed natural phenomena, but it is obviously metaphorical--an apple does not fall to the Earth by a recognized obligation upon it to conform to some immutable command. But the result of this metaphor is an inversion in thought: we place the natural law before the natural occurrence, rather than the other way around. Thus, anytime we state a natural occurrence goes "against the laws of nature" (say: homosexuality), we are using a false conception that can be expanded into a false justification ("homosexuality is wrong"), particularly as we associate laws with morals.

To return then to the "purpose" of evolution. I admit I am confused at the point where you distinguish "not as the term for the growth and adaptation of races, but the process," so if I go wrong here, please correct me.

A species is affected by its environment, to the effect that some members die and others survive to reproduce, with the result being that a new generation is born that is different from the generation before. We have here the most basic process and the product of evolution (which themselves are closely intertwined); there is no apparent purpose however, neither "to sustain the life of the species" nor "to aid in their adaptation." These are likely by-products of evolution, and thus the metaphor of "purpose," which is nonetheless a false conception; and because purpose is also associated with morals, we can expand this into a false justification of moral issues, particularly such as Social Darwinism and exclusion.

*cough*smartass*hick*

Certainly not myself.

I was actually referring to dangerous, amoral human beings.
Hitler, for example. A danger to much of humanity, and a large threat, as a single person, to the "set" path that our leaders have devised for the world. We rid the world of him to re-align this path and eliminate the threat.

Problem being, no one in this world, including our "world leaders," has the power to determine a set path for the world and certainly not to align the world to it. It is a failed attempt to introduce such absolute power into the world, which we recognize and which is why we have taken to 'delegating' such power only to the divine that is beyond the world. To say we would be "granted" the "right" circumstances is both an acknowledgement of this and an attempt to push the justification through anyway.

So you wouldn't call the rise of technology a sort of human evolution? Our ability over many years to improve and expand our intellectual abilities by creating greater works and learning the workings of the world more intimately?

No, I think you are right in calling the rise of technology "a sort of human evolution," though I would specify it further as a part of our evolution. And I would acknowledge our expanded abilities to learn and work more effectively as a product of intentional development. My complaint against saying we can control evolution is this--we are still entirely within the process -and are the products of- evolution, whether we will it or no. The fact that human beings, as a whole, can inject their intent into the process of their evolution and affect the product is remarkable, a result of our intellectual development (an evolutionary trait), but that is not the same as to say that we control our evolution; we still cannot step out of it. It seems to me like claiming that we "control gravity" because we have developed technologies that employ systems of weights.