Announcement

Collapse

Comparative Religions 101 Guidelines

Welcome to Comp Religions, this is where the sights and sounds of the many world religions come together in a big World's Fair type atmosphere, without those delicious funnel cakes.

World Religions is a theist only type place, but that does not exclude certain religionists who practice non-theistic faiths ala Buddhism. If you are not sure, ask a moderator.

This is not a place where we argue the existence / non-existence of God.

And as usual, the forum rules apply.

Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

Baha'i faith, slavery and progressive revelation...

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #91
    Originally posted by seer View Post

    I'm not arguing that we don't see certain behaviors, I have read Frans de Waal's work on 'fairness' with monkeys for instance. What I'm saying is that you are reading our ideas of fairness back into an instinctive behavior.
    You're not responding to the references cited:

    Source: https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fsoc.2018.00017/full



    Evolutionary Origins of Morality: Insights From Non-human Primates

    Judith M. Burkart*, Rahel K. Brügger and Carel P. van Schaik

    • Department of Anthropology, University of Zürich, Zurich, Switzerland

    The aim of this contribution is to explore the origins of moral behavior and its underlying moral preferences and intuitions from an evolutionary perspective. Such a perspective encompasses both the ultimate, adaptive function of morality in our own species, as well as the phylogenetic distribution of morality and its key elements across primates. First, with regard to the ultimate function, we argue that human moral preferences are best construed as adaptations to the affordances of the fundamentally interdependent hunter-gatherer lifestyle of our hominin ancestors. Second, with regard to the phylogenetic origin, we show that even though full-blown human morality is unique to humans, several of its key elements are not. Furthermore, a review of evidence from non-human primates regarding prosocial concern, conformity, and the potential presence of universal, biologically anchored and arbitrary cultural norms shows that these elements of morality are not distributed evenly across primate species. This suggests that they have evolved along separate evolutionary trajectories. In particular, the element of prosocial concern most likely evolved in the context of shared infant care, which can be found in humans and some New World monkeys. Strikingly, many if not all of the elements of morality found in non-human primates are only evident in individualistic or dyadic contexts, but not as third-party reactions by truly uninvolved bystanders. We discuss several potential explanations for the unique presence of a systematic third-party perspective in humans, but focus particularly on mentalizing ability and language. Whereas both play an important role in present day, full-blown human morality, it appears unlikely that they played a causal role for the original emergence of morality. Rather, we suggest that the most plausible scenario to date is that human morality emerged because our hominin ancestors, equipped on the one hand with large and powerful brains inherited from their ape-like ancestor, and on the other hand with strong prosocial concern as a result of cooperative breeding, could evolve into an ever more interdependent social niche.

    Introduction


    Contemplation of law as a natural social phenomenon quickly reveals that it cannot be reduced to purely rational processes and explicit reasoning. It is fundamentally built on (albeit not identical with) our sense for morality, the propensity to differentiate actions, decisions, and intentions between those that are proper and right and those that are improper or wrong (Long and Sedley, 1987). This evaluation can be the result of deliberation, but also of automatic proximate mechanisms such as intuitions that are expressed by a variety of moral emotions, motivations, and preferences which often have a high-urgency feel (Weaver et al., 2014).

    Social scientists have traditionally considered morality as a recent, purely cultural innovation, seemingly necessary to keep our otherwise brutish nature under control (e.g., reviewed in Long and Sedley, 1987; de Waal, 2006; Haidt, 2013). In support of this conjecture, what is considered moral in a given culture or society, or what the corresponding systems of laws prescribe, can indeed be quite variable. However, despite this variability in the content of what counts as moral among cultures, there are also elements that seem universal, both with regard to the proximate mechanisms that regulate moral behavior and the content of moral norms. For instance, Barrett et al. (2016) found that across societies, including small-scale societies, humans take an agent's reason for action into account for moral judgments, but they also found independent variation when looking at specific contents, e.g., harm vs. theft, or in how the content influences the role of intentionality. Furthermore, even if conformist transmission could in principle stabilize a variety of behaviors and norms (Chudek and Henrich, 2011), there appears strong canalization in that some kinds of content (such as for instance not to harm others, or engage in parental investment) are more readily considered moral than others (van Schaik, 2016).

    Ubiquitous key elements of human morality discussed in this paper are prosocial concern and conformity, as well as the moral contents of doing good, not harming others, and avoiding inequity and incest (van Schaik, 2016). Importantly, these elements are not only expressed when the individual is personally involved, i.e., in individualistic or dyadic contexts, but also in the absence of personal involvement, i.e., in third-party contexts. For instance, moral behavior not only includes the urge to conform to the rules and norms of one's own community, but also evokes strong feelings that others ought to do so as well. The universal presence of these elements of morality across human societies suggests there is an evolved core to morality, which should therefore be amenable to a functional and comparative evolutionary analysis sensu Tinbergen (Tinbergen, 1963; Bateson and Laland, 2013).

    Such an evolutionary analysis claims that whenever universal, proximate mechanisms have evolved, they must have done so to fulfill a specific adaptive function. In the first section of this contribution we will argue that the adaptive function of our evolved morality was to enable the highly interdependent life-style of Pleistocene hunter-gathers.

    An evolutionary analysis of human morality also includes the examination of its phylogenetic origin, to which we will turn in the second section. Whereas full-blown human morality, which includes explicit moral reasoning and evaluation, may well be unique to humans, some of its elements or building blocks are not, and we can use data from non-human primates to trace the evolutionary history of each of them separately. An obvious first, and very popular, step is to look at the great apes, and in particular the chimpanzees and bonobos (e.g., de Waal, 2006), to investigate the possible presence of a specific building block in our closest relatives. However, a broader and more informative comparative approach consists in mapping the presence or absence of each of these building blocks or traits in a broader set of species, to then test which factor best predicts this pattern of distribution (MacLean, 2016). If the specific case of humans fits such an identified pattern, this allows us to identify the evolutionary context of the emergence of this trait. This approach thus ideally allows not only to identify that a trait is or is not unique to humans, but also why it is present in a given set of species, including humans.

    © Copyright Original Source





    I have no idea what you are talking about because you have no idea what you are talking about.
    Your self imposed ignorance would necessarily lead to not knowing what Kramer and others are describing. I have references which you do not respond, You resprt tp accersions based and opinion based on a religious agenda.



    Our laws are concepts, created by human minds. They don't exist in nature. Laws are not PHYSICAL.
    No reference provided to support this unfounded assertion based on your religious agenda..



    Again . . . you have failed to respond to my references and provide contrary references.
    Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
    Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
    But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

    go with the flow the river knows . . .

    Frank

    I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

    Comment


    • #92
      Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
      Again . . . you have failed to respond to my references and provide contrary references.
      From your quote:

      An evolutionary analysis of human morality also includes the examination of its phylogenetic origin, to which we will turn in the second section. Whereas full-blown human morality, which includes explicit moral reasoning and evaluation, may well be unique to humans, some of its elements or building blocks are not, and we can use data from non-human primates to trace the evolutionary history of each of them separately.

      So evolution does not fully explain human morality, that is why as you believe God sent moral teachers over the ages. And the fact that human morality is primarily based on our intellect and reason, which too is God given as your religion teachers.

      The animal creation is captive to matter, God has given freedom to man. The animal cannot escape the law of nature, whereas man may control it, for he, containing nature, can rise above it The power of the Holy Spirit, enlightening man’s intelligence, has enabled him to discover means of bending many natural laws to his will. He flies through the air, floats on the sea, and even moves under the waters. All this proves how man’s intelligence has been enabled to free him from the limitations of nature, and to solve many of her mysteries. Man, to a certain extent, has broken the chains of matter


      Likewise the Holy Spirit is the very cause of the life of man; without the Holy Spirit he would have no intellect, he would be unable to acquire his scientific knowledge by which his great influence over the rest of creation is gained. The illumination of the Holy Spirit gives to man the power of thought, and enables him to make discoveries by which he bends the laws of nature to his will.

      https://bahaiteachings.org/what-diff...human-animals/
      Without our intellect we could not develop ethics or laws, or escape mere instinct, and that intellect is God given as your religion teaches. So no Shuny, evolution alone can not explain our moral beliefs or laws.
      Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

      Comment


      • #93
        Originally posted by seer View Post

        From your quote:

        An evolutionary analysis of human morality also includes the examination of its phylogenetic origin, to which we will turn in the second section. Whereas full-blown human morality, which includes explicit moral reasoning and evaluation, may well be unique to humans, some of its elements or building blocks are not, and we can use data from non-human primates to trace the evolutionary history of each of them separately.

        So evolution does not fully explain human morality, that is why as you believe God sent moral teachers over the ages. And the fact that human morality is primarily based on our intellect and reason, which too is God given as your religion teachers.



        Without our intellect we could not develop ethics or laws, or escape mere instinct, and that intellect is God given as your religion teaches. So no Shuny, evolution alone can not explain our moral beliefs or laws.
        Fully explain?!?!?! Yes, primates do not have the fully developed explicit moral reasoning, but that does not negate the evolution of morals and ethics. The direct philogenetic origin of humans is separate from Chimps. We share common ancestors.

        I believe in God given intellect, but that cannot be concluded by the research.
        Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
        Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
        But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

        go with the flow the river knows . . .

        Frank

        I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

        Comment


        • #94
          Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post

          Fully explain?!?!?! Yes, primates do not have the fully developed explicit moral reasoning, but that does not negate the evolution of morals and ethics. The direct philogenetic origin of humans is separate from Chimps. We share common ancestors.

          I believe in God given intellect, but that cannot be concluded by the research.
          Good we both agree that evolution alone can not fully account for human morality. Whether 'research' can explain God's influence or not.
          Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

          Comment


          • #95
            Originally posted by seer View Post

            Good we both agree that evolution alone can not fully account for human morality. Whether 'research' can explain God's influence or not.
            No we do not agree. You have made many statements that are false concerning science and evolution such as, because morals and ethics, and behavior are not 'physical they do not evolve. Our brain evolves, therefor our behavior morals and ethics evolve.

            Some fundamentals of evolution are that even though chimps and bonobos are our closest living relatives, we are not evolved from chimps. Our last common ancestors of other primates was 7 to10 million years ago. The points of the articles cited is that yes behavior and morals and ethics evolve and other primates today have more primitive forms of morals and ethics. The paleontological evidence demonstrates that our ancestors over the last 7 million years reflect out evolved behavior and morals and ethics, such as the physical evidence that Neanderthals cared for their invalides and injured individuals.

            My view is the sciences of evolution are in harmony with God's Creation determined by God's Natural Laws and processes, and NOT that whether evolution can or cannot fully account for human morality;. Your view is crippled by an extreme religious bias and agenda reflected in a lack of knowledge of science, and a heavy dose of arguing from ignorance as to what the current knowledge cannot at present fully explain..

            My view remains that philosophies like Moral Realism, Moral Objectivism, and Moral Subjectivism lack explanatory power to explain the nature of human behavior and morals and ethics, because they lack the support of objective evidence, and often influence by a religious agenda.
            Last edited by shunyadragon; 03-26-2023, 08:02 AM.
            Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
            Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
            But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

            go with the flow the river knows . . .

            Frank

            I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

            Comment


            • #96
              Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post

              No we do not agree. You have made many statements that are false concerning science and evolution such as, because morals and ethics, and behavior are not 'physical they do not evolve. Our brain evolves, therefor our behavior morals and ethics evolve.

              Some fundamentals of evolution are that even though chimps and bonobos are our closest living relatives, we are not evolved from chimps. Our last common ancestors of other primates was 7 to10 million years ago. The points of the articles cited is that yes behavior and morals and ethics evolve and other primates today have more primitive forms of morals and ethics. The paleontological evidence demonstrates that our ancestors over the last 7 million years reflect out evolved behavior and morals and ethics, such as the physical evidence that Neanderthals cared for their invalides and injured individuals.

              My view is the sciences of evolution are in harmony with God's Creation determined by God's Natural Laws and processes, and NOT that whether evolution can or cannot fully account for human morality;. Your view is crippled by an extreme religious bias and agenda reflected in a lack of knowledge of science, and a heavy dose of arguing from ignorance as to what the current knowledge cannot at present fully explain..

              My view remains that philosophies like Moral Realism, Moral Objectivism, and Moral Subjectivism lack explanatory power to explain the nature of human behavior and morals and ethics, because they lack the support of objective evidence, and often influence by a religious agenda.
              So you deny your religion, that states that our human intellect (the same intellect that creates ethics) is God given, that animals remain 'captive to nature' where man is free. We say for instance that rape is wrong, that is both a moral and abstract claim. Neither nature nor the evolutionary process make such moral claims or judgement. Nor do animals. Only us, with our superior, God given, intellect do.
              Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

              https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

              Comment


              • #97
                Originally posted by seer View Post

                So you deny your religion, that states that our human intellect (the same intellect that creates ethics) is God given, that animals remain 'captive to nature' where man is free. We say for instance that rape is wrong, that is both a moral and abstract claim. Neither nature nor the evolutionary process make such moral claims or judgement. Nor do animals. Only us, with our superior, God given, intellect do.
                No,
                I believe that natural evolution was the way God achieved God's goal in the nature of humans today. You sure know how to twist and misrepresent other's posts to justify your agenda.
                Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
                Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
                But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

                go with the flow the river knows . . .

                Frank

                I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

                Comment


                • #98
                  Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post

                  No,
                  I believe that natural evolution was the way God achieved God's goal in the nature of humans today. You sure know how to twist and misrepresent other's posts to justify your agenda.
                  Nonsense Shuny, our intellect, or rationality (which are the basis for our moral judgements) did not come about by the evolutionary process. It was by the intervention of the Holy Spirit as your religion teaches:without the Holy Spirit he (man) would have no intellect.
                  Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

                  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

                  Comment


                  • #99
                    Originally posted by seer View Post

                    Nonsense Shuny, our intellect, or rationality (which are the basis for our moral judgements) did not come about by the evolutionary process. It was by the intervention of the Holy Spirit as your religion teaches:without the Holy Spirit he (man) would have no intellect.
                    Nonetheless the belief that God created Natural Laws and natural processes that achieved this outcome through natural evolution is in harmony with the teachings of the Baha'i Faith.
                    Last edited by shunyadragon; 03-27-2023, 08:04 AM.
                    Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
                    Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
                    But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

                    go with the flow the river knows . . .

                    Frank

                    I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post

                      Nonetheless the belief that God created Natural Laws and natural processes that achieved this outcome through natural evolution is in harmony with the teachings of the Baha'i Faith.
                      But your faith in not in keeping with the natural process, just the opposite when it comes to human reason and intellect. That was a supernatural intervention of the Holy Spirit. Nothing remotely natural about that.
                      Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

                      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by seer View Post

                        But your faith in not in keeping with the natural process, just the opposite when it comes to human reason and intellect. That was a supernatural intervention of the Holy Spirit. Nothing remotely natural about that.
                        You cannot objectively distinguish between the supernatural intervention and natural in human behavior, morals, ethics and the rule of law.

                        It remains the case that:
                        Nonetheless the belief that God created Natural Laws and natural processes that achieved this outcome through natural evolution is in harmony with the teachings of the Baha'i Faith.
                        Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
                        Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
                        But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

                        go with the flow the river knows . . .

                        Frank

                        I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post

                          You cannot objectively distinguish between the supernatural intervention and natural in human behavior, morals, ethics and the rule of law.
                          Not the point, according to your religion the human intellect and rational abilities are not the result of the evolutionary process.


                          Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

                          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by seer View Post

                            Not the point, according to your religion the human intellect and rational abilities are not the result of the evolutionary process.

                            Note true
                            Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
                            Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
                            But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

                            go with the flow the river knows . . .

                            Frank

                            I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

                            Comment


                            • Note edited version of previous post.

                              Originally posted by seer View Post

                              Not the point, according to your religion the human intellect and rational abilities are not the result of the evolutionary process.

                              Not true. Yes, the the human intellect and rational abilities are the result of God's Creation, Despite the forms of humanity through evolution the intent of evolution was always humanity. but the process of evolution God's process and intent was humanity the 'talisman of Creation. You are a believer on literal interpretations and selective interpretations that justify your agenda. Baha'is believe in harmony and unity and understand changes and differences between the spiritual language of scripture, and the evolving language of science. Baha'u'llah did not speak English and Abdu'l-Baha spoke only limited English. Abdi'l-Baha appealed to harmony to resolve the differences between the text and the language of science'

                              Source: https://www.bahaiblog.net/articles/bahai-life/perspectives-on-evolution/




                              God has endowed man with intelligence and reason whereby he is required to determine the verity of questions and propositions. If religious beliefs and opinions are found contrary to the standards of science they are mere superstitions and imaginations; for the antithesis of knowledge is ignorance, and the child of ignorance is superstition. Unquestionably there must be agreement between true religion and science. If a question be found contrary to reason, faith and belief in it are impossible… – Abdu’l-Baha, Baha’i World Faith, p. 239.

                              But at all times, even when the embryo resembled a worm, it was human in potentiality and character, not animal. The forms assumed by the human embryo in its successive changes do not prove that it is animal in its essential character. Throughout this progression there has been a transference of type, a conservation of species or kind. Realizing this we may acknowledge the fact that at one time man was an inmate of the sea, at another period an invertebrate, then a vertebrate and finally a human being standing erect. Though we admit these changes, we cannot say man is an animal. In each one of these stages are signs and evidences of his human existence and destination.




                              “The Baha’i view of evolution is more complex and nuanced than that put forward today by those who present evolution and creation in dichotomous terms. Evolution may be understood as the means set in motion by God through which life changes and unfolds. A Baha’i can strive to reconcile contemporary scientific views with the published statements of Abdu’l-Baha, which need not be understood to imply a kind of parallel evolution. Rather, Abdu’l-Baha has explained that human life came into existence when the appropriate conditions were established.” (5 July 2010)

                              © Copyright Original Source

                              Last edited by shunyadragon; 03-27-2023, 04:48 PM.
                              Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
                              Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
                              But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

                              go with the flow the river knows . . .

                              Frank

                              I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
                                Note edited version of previous post.

                                Not true. Yes, the the human intellect and rational abilities are the result of God's Creation, Despite the forms of humanity through evolution the intent of evolution was always humanity. but the process of evolution God's process and intent was humanity the 'talisman of Creation. You are a believer on literal interpretations and selective interpretations that justify your agenda. Baha'is believe in harmony and unity and understand changes and differences between the spiritual language of scripture, and the evolving language of science. Baha'u'llah did not speak English and Abdu'l-Baha spoke only limited English. Abdi'l-Baha appealed to harmony to resolve the differences between the text and the language of science'
                                You just proved my point, evolution is not 'natural' - Despite the forms of humanity through evolution the intent of evolution was always humanity.

                                The evolutionary process does not intend anything, but God does. And that is not SCIENCE.
                                Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

                                https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

                                Comment

                                widgetinstance 221 (Related Threads) skipped due to lack of content & hide_module_if_empty option.
                                Working...
                                X