Evolution vs. Creation

Amra,

First let me say that I did not intend to say I am against the idea that my existence is synonymous with my being. What I meant was that I am against the idea that my existence is synonymous with my belief. Maybe that is all that needs to be said.

As far as I am concerned, the Universe arose from one substance. All that exists today is as a result of a singularity. Therefore, it appears to me, that mind and soul and spirit are all substance. When we have thought processes, we are experiencing physical processes. Experience is therefore no more than physical. The division between mind and body is only a matter of degrees of physicality.

Falling Moon said:

<sorry dear but when u said :'People and beliefs are separate'

you were totalllllly wrong..!

i'm what i believe....

you what u believe too.......like it or not..>

OK let's say someone believes they are a seagull. Can they now jump off a building and fly? Methinks not. I know plenty of people who believe they are experts on a variety of topics. I can assure you they are not.

It seems to me that when we analyse who we are, we have to refer to the limitations placed upon us by 1) the laws of nature 2) the picture of who we are that is created by other people's opinions of us and of the world; and 3) how we feel about ourselves. Maybe you could say that there are three types of environment: the universal; the local and the inner, and we are a combination of influences from all these environments. To assume that our existence depends solely on the status of our inner environment is to be at best an idealist, at worst a solipsist.

Quote:

---

First let me say that I did not intend to say I am against the idea that my existence is synonymous with my being.

---

Quote:

---

I am against the idea that my existence is synonymous with my being.

---

Quote:

---

What I meant was that I am against the idea that my existence is synonymous with my belief. Maybe that is all that needs to be said.

---

:goof: Would you agree that your being is synonymous with your beliefs?

Quote:

---

All that exists today is as a result of a singularity.

---

Quote:

---

Therefore, it appears to me, that mind and soul and spirit are all substance. When we have thought processes, we are experiencing physical processes. Experience is therefore no more than physical. The division between mind and body is only a matter of degrees of physicality.

---

Don't you think you contradict yourself with stating this and at the same time claiming that your existence is not synonymous with your beliefs. If it is all a a result of singularity, doesn't that entail, by default, that it is all one and the same..in other words, synonymous with one another?

<Don't you think you contradict yourself with stating this and at the same time claiming that your existence is not synonymous with your beliefs. If it is all a a result of singularity, doesn't that entail, by default, that it is all one and the same..in other words, synonymous with one another?>

That's a bit like saying the planet Pluto and myself are one and the same. And in a sense they are, because we are both made up of matter. But there is also difference. And it is in the difference, the way we are both differently assembled from the same type of components, that individuality and diversity occur. So I would say that in the most general sense both myself and Pluto are the same, but in a more accurate and detailed way we are vastly different. You can create a whole world out of lego, and everything in it will be lego, but that doesn't mean everything in this world is the same.

Quote:

---

OK let's say someone believes they are a seagull. Can they now jump off a building and fly? Methinks not. I know plenty of people who believe they are experts on a variety of topics. I can assure you they are not.

---

If you believed to be a seagull :D , you would be considered crazy based on the social norms we live by. If it wasn't like that, if people were not judged by what they believed in, if their beliefs were considered separate from them, then no one would have the right to deduct from the beliefs the state of mind/being of that person. Right? However, we certainly do that all the time. I agree with you that we are constrained by other factors in expressing our beliefs, but they still do express who we are, and are synonymous with your being. It is just a matter of social norms and time we live in that influences how these will be interpreted and judged by others.
However, you are confusing your being and your existence. In your initial statement you claimed that your being is not synonymous with you beliefs, and then you digressed from that. When falling moon answered, he was most likely referring to that statement, and commenting on it. In that context, his statement is correct, because our beliefs do tell who we are as human beings . However, no one claimed that your beliefs could change your physical existence. If your beliefs go beyond the social and natural norms, then you would be judged accordingly (in this case, you would be considered crazy). Also, what the society thinks of your beliefs is something to be considered separately. What you think of yourself is one thing, that what the society accepts or rejects and the criteria it uses to do so, is another.

Perhaps we should change the subject of this thread to Dualism vs. Monism.

This entire controversy began with this comment:

Quote:

---

So I would say categorically that I respect beliefs that are worth respecting, those that aren't I tend not to respect. Of course, as I have said elsewhere, that in no way changes my attitude towards respecting people.

---

Then the question arose: is a person separate from his or her belief? Or by not respecting a person's beliefs, is one not respecting the person? That spurred the question of physical boundaires between the mind (beliefs) and the body, which I find doesn't truly answer the initial question. Because, say we make a distiction between them, doesn't that then mean that when one is respecting the person, one is respecting merely their physical existence? So for me, though the subject of "singularity" is interesting, it isn't entirely subject to this question.

Rather than examining biological/physical factors, I think we need to examine the issue of one's sense of identity. If a person's belief is central to his or her sense of identity, then disrespecting that person's belief may in fact be disrespecting the person, despite more noble intentions.

I hope all that was clear. Cheers.

-Water lily

"If a person's belief is central to his or her sense of identity, then disrespecting that person's belief may in fact be disrespecting the person"

Not so, but the person may feel less respected, which is a different issue. Depending, of course on what is meant by "respect."

It seems to me that if we have to "respect" everyone, then that simply means acknowledging their human rights, including their right to hold and express a belief. It certainly does not mean that we have to agree with their beliefs, or refrain from criticising their belief.

If "respect" be used in the sense of "admire," then, of course one might have less respect for someone with absurd beliefs - but one would still accord the right to hold and express those beliefs.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Whifflingpin

If "respect" be used in the sense of "admire," then, of course one might have less respect for someone with absurd beliefs - but one would still accord the right to hold and express those beliefs.

---

And thank you, Whifflingpin, for that definition. That is exactly what I was trying to say. No one is saying you have to agree with the other person, or even think that they have a prayer of being anywhere close to right-- give them the same right to hold an opinion as yourself. Do you ever notice how the Science Fiction of yesterday becomes the science of today? Jules Verne wrote of men going to the moon-- complete nonsense in his day, a fact in ours. I don't think that my example was that far off-- Murry had been given several compromises, nothing was being "crammed down her or her son's throat"-- she wished to have Atheistism recognized as a legitimate way of belief. And, she won her case. I have talked to many atheists, and they all will respect my belief provided I respect them and don't try to force my ideas on them. So I refuse to do so. It's a big universe. You ask yourself the question: Do I truly believe that every thing is, at the least, possible? That kinda puts the brakes on a lot of arguments... ;)

My replies to Amra:

<If you believed to be a seagull :D , you would be considered crazy based on the social norms we live by>

I could believe myself to be a seagull and yet it might be the case that no-one would know of my belief. People in my immediate environment would know or at least have the potential to know of my being. But they may well not know of my belief. Belief is not synonymous with being. Being is the whole shebang, the physical and mental, the beliefs and the behaviours of the individual. How can belief be synonymous with being? Belief plays only a small part in being.

Furthermore, I would be considered crazy if I thought I was a seagull, not because of social norms, but because that belief conflicts with reality: I am not a seagull.

<If it wasn't like that, if people were not judged by what they believed in, if their beliefs were considered separate from them, then no one would have the right to deduct from the beliefs the state of mind/being of that person.>

You are more than your thoughts. You are greater than your beliefs. For any given thought or belief, you can, should you wish, take a third party observation of your thought or belief, and evaluate and criticise your belief or thought, you can nurture it, prune it or weed it out, and surely this is how we change what we think and what we believe. In doing so, you are not criticising, demeaning or showing any lack of respect to your self. Throughout the academic world this happens all the time.

If you believe that your beliefs are not separate from your being, then I presume you also believe that your beliefs are as determined as your genetic structure, for instance. If your being is synonymous with your beliefs, than you have no control over what you believe: as long as your state of being is xyz then your beliefs are xyz or vice versa. Yet have you never known a time when your belief changed and yet you were the same person you always were? For one moment I believe it will snow, the next I believe it won’t snow. Am I a different person in the space of two moments?

<because our beliefs do tell who we are as human beings>

I think our actions tell us far more about who we are than our beliefs do. How would you explain cognitive dissonance? When we act in a contrary way to our beliefs, are we acting according to our being or not? Are we acting in a way that tells us who we are, or is who we are unchanged despite the fact we are acting against our beliefs? Is it not the case that our beliefs have to be modified after cogntive dissonance because it becomes plain to us that what we are and what we believe often conflict, and that we therefore have to revise what we believe to maintain the integrity of our identity? Would it make sense to put this theother way round and say that we can revise our being to protect the integrity of our belief? I don't think it would. Belief is not synonymous with who we are.

Finally, if the world is to become a more peaceful place to live in, we will all need to approach our beliefs in a more dispassionate and objective way, objective in the sense that I think Thomas Nagel uses, an ideal that leads us towards objectivity, rather than something actually obtainable.

<Also, what the society thinks of your beliefs is something to be considered separately. What you think of yourself is one thing, that what the society accepts or rejects and the criteria it uses to do so, is another.>

How society views you and how you view yourself are closely connected. Your views and your attitudes and beliefs don't just arrive from nowhere in your brain.

If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear - George Orwell

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by atiguhya padma

If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear - George Orwell

---

"As long as people believe in absurdities, they will continue to commit atrocities."
Voltaire

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by atiguhya padma

<Did you read the last line? >

Yup. Your point is?

When Mark Chapman had a firm, unwavering belief that he was John Lennon, did that put him in a position to be highly respected do you think? Can't you see that firm belief and unwaveringness are not automatic passports to respect? Plenty of evil despots in world history have had firm and unwavering belief. Neither is the type of belief a cause for respect. I see no reason why a religious belief is somehow more due respect than a philosophical one or sociological or political. It is the content of belief that is surely important, and if your belief is illogical, unreasonable and just plain doesn't fit into what we know of the world, then it deserves to be treated in the same way we would or should treat other delusions.

---

What on earth are you trying to say?
Sounds like alot smoke and mirrors to me. You sound pretty mixed up. Also, it sounds like alot of BS. Fundamentalists like hiding thier true intentions under a veil of colourful words and petty phrases. It only serves a selfish aim to foreward thier own inititives at the expense of someones free right to share openly.
Listen. I like Zorro, the fictional character. But we are talking about whether it is responsible or not to allow science and its educattion to get broadsided by the archaic beliefs of unilateral thought. The deliberate elimination of languages and cultures practiced by aboriginal persons throughout the globe has fundamntalist missionaries to blame exclusively for this loss to our cultural fabric. This still goes on today.

Also, You use words, but you really dont Say anything, other than offer a generally unpalatable and rude statement to ineffectively counter my attempt to demonstrate that this debate is trivial, compared to other issues that demand the attention of foreward thinkers, unlike yourself.
Global warming, crimes against humanity, the gap between the rich and the poor. These issues deserve OUR attention.
Just a bit of construcive criticism for you there, Don padme.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jollyollie

What on earth are you trying to say?
Sounds like alot smoke and mirrors to me. You sound pretty mixed up. Also, it sounds like alot of BS. Fundamentalists like hiding thier true intentions under a veil of colourful words and petty phrases. It only serves a selfish aim to foreward thier own inititives at the expense of someones free right to share openly.
Listen. I like Zorro, the fictional character. But we are talking about whether it is responsible or not to allow science and its educattion to get broadsided by the archaic beliefs of unilateral thought. The deliberate elimination of languages and cultures practiced by aboriginal persons throughout the globe has fundamntalist missionaries to blame exclusively for this loss to our cultural fabric. This still goes on today.

Also, You use words, but you really dont Say anything, other than offer a generally unpalatable and rude statement to ineffectively counter my attempt to demonstrate that this debate is trivial, compared to other issues that demand the attention of foreward thinkers, unlike yourself.
Global warming, crimes against humanity, the gap between the rich and the poor. These issues deserve OUR attention.
Just a bit of construcive criticism for you there, Don padme.

---

I'll take this, atiguhya padma, don't worry about it. Jolly, this was addressed to me. atiguhya is an atheist, for your information. I had stated that everyone's belief should be respected even if it was totally absurb. I am the one who believes in a Creator to start things, then evolution from that point on. And I do not think that they need to be taught together in a school, but that churches need to do their job as they did when I was a boy and teach kids about the creation (which BTW, I am very uncertain of a timeline, as I do not see how you could put God into time). So if you must jump someone, leave MS padma out of it, as this was directed to me. I assure you that smoke and mirrors is not what I hide behind. Read my posts and see. Dragon out.

Please carry on your discussions within the rules of common courtesy, without resorting to personal attacks. If you feel unable to respect beliefs and opinions which are different from yours, you might like to consider staying out of this part of the Forum.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by atiguhya padma

<If you believe the Earth was made by Puff the Magic Dragon, and you'll stand on that unwavering, have respect for that.>

Why? Surely your respect for someone who believes the above is detrimental to that person. It also demeans the value of your respect.

I'd say that anyone who would <believe the Earth was made by Puff the Magic Dragon, and you'll stand on that unwavering>, needs to see a doctor, preferably a specialist in mental health problems.

The problem with believing nonsense, whether it be puff the magic dragon as creator, or vrigin births or assumption in to heaven or human-like lizards ruling the earth or anything that is irrational and non-sensible is that if you wish to appear reasonable and if you wish others to respect your nonsensical beliefs, you have to allow all nonsense equal respect.

---

On this we agree, and probably on much else.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jollyollie

...my attempt to demonstrate that this debate is trivial, compared to other issues that demand the attention of foreward thinkers, unlike yourself.

---

If you think this debate is trivial, why don't you just go away? Are you trying to gain recognition as someone who devotes their time and energy to the discussion of something totally meaningless?

Also, P.S., you admitted it is a debate. Ha. :p