D: Pairing up is natural because that is the first step to having a sexual encounter. However, marriage entails far more than just pairing up. Guys and gals at clubs pair up all the time, but then the next week they pair up with someone else. Marriage is something more intricate that cannot be attributes to a natural human phenomenon.
A: Asserting that it isn't natural doesn't refute Wright's detailed arguments.
D: Well, this is just common sense to me. Do you really believe cavemen paired up and “made contracts” with their spouse? I mean let’s be real here.
A: Yes. If, say, penguins can pair up and make contracts, why can't cavemen? Do you think cavemen didn't love their kids? Do you think they wouldn't provide for them?
D: Then please enlighten us. The citation you provided doesn’t really indicate a testable theory at all. It seems to be one man’s opinion.
A: An example of how evolutionary theories are tested is the explanation for why females tend to be more selective regarding who they have sex with. It is observed that in the vast majority of species, the males will jump in the sack with anybody, while the females are coy and choosy. Somebody speculated that the evolutionary reason for this is because the females invest more in the resultant offspring; because having offspring will tax the energy and time of the female, she isn't going to want to spend her limited resources on the offspring of anybody but the best genes she can acquire.
So far, that makes sense, but it's just somebody's opinion on something that happens to make sense. To test it, they looked for species where the males invest more in the offspring then the females do. An example of this is with pipefish. With a pipefish, the male takes the females egg and nourishes it with his own blood. Thus, he invests much more into the new fish than the female--the female can be back at the bar looking for more sex while the male is playing nurse. So if choosiness is caused by having to invest in the offspring, one would expect that female pipefish are more promiscuous than male pipefish, and that male pipefish are more choosy than female pipefish. This is in fact observed, lending strong evidence to this theory.
The alternative is to say that God designed most males to be promiscuous because of his own reasons, but that again for his own unknown reasons, he designed female pipefish to be the promiscuous ones.
D: In any event, nobody has been able to reconcile the Ugaritic data for me. It is by far the most powerful evidence we have, and it isn’t left up to a journalist’s interpretation. If the most ancient human texts refer to marriages as “one on one” and the nucleus of families, in a religious context, who are we to psychoanalyze thousands of years of human existence and suppose it originated as something totally different?
A: I don't understand the Ugaritic data. It sounds like you claiming that since the Ugaritic texts talk about God being married, marriage must have originated from religion? That sounds like saying that since the Greeks believed that Apollo drove a chariot around the earth, that chariots must have originated from religion. Perhaps you could clarify?
D: Wright is an atheist whose interpretation of history is worn on his sleeve. He doesn’t believe in morality...
A: Stop right there! Claiming that the author of The Moral Animal doesn't believe in morality is as dumb as saying that members of the Church of Jesus Chirst of Latter-day Saints don't believe in Jesus Chirst.
D: He begins with the presupposition that no God exists...
A: That is false.
D: ...that morality is a figment of our imagination....
A: That is false.
D: When a woman cheats on her husband, for Wright, that reason must have something to do with how her ancient ancestors acted. Why?
A: Wright would attempt to explain her impulses to cheat, but not the ultimate reason of why a particular individual chose to cheat.
D: Because for Wright there is no such thing as right or wrong.
A: That is false.
D: We act the way we act because we have no choice in the matter.
A: False.
D: Women are considered shallow creatures who care nothing about love and fate, because none of that really exists.
A: False.
D: What really drives them is a desire to find a suitable male who can provide good genes. I read the book many years ago, but I recall some minor points. I didn’t recall any thorough “testable” methods as you seem to indicate. Much of it struck me as feeling-based psychohistory as only an atheist could interpret it.
A: It certainly isn't easy reading. And it isn't as easy to understand as the theory that everything is the way it is because that is precisly the way that God designed it.
Men and Sex According to the Old Testament
-
_Analytics
- _Emeritus
- Posts: 4231
- Joined: Thu Feb 15, 2007 9:24 pm
-
_dartagnan
- _Emeritus
- Posts: 2750
- Joined: Sun Dec 31, 2006 4:27 pm
A: Asserting that it isn't natural doesn't refute Wright's detailed arguments.
Asserting it is natural is not a “detailed argument.” Wright’s convoluted reasoning and reliance upon a plethora of parallels between various species, mixed with a dash of atheistic agenda, is hardly what one should consider a detailed argument. If you want to insist marriage is a natural tendency among humans then you should demonstrate it by example. If Wright truly presents thorough arguments, then you should be able to present them. I’m all ears.
I want to know why marriage is a sociological failure in practice, if it is such a natural tendency.
A: Yes. If, say, penguins can pair up and make contracts, why can't cavemen? Do you think cavemen didn't love their kids? Do you think they wouldn't provide for them?
A marriage contract is something two people make between themselves. I assumed we were discussing marriage as it is practiced today by both theists and atheists. It can be written or verbal contract I suppose, but the marriage dedicates one spouse to another in a formal, legally binding way. Cavemen had no means to make such a contract. Loving one’s kids and devoting oneself to a wife is not the same thing as making a contract with a spouse. Men today provide for their children out of wedlock, so I don’t see why this is supposed to be unexpected among cavemen. Men today also provide for women they are not married to, so what is the difference between a supposed married caveman and an unmarried man today who financially supports a woman and her children? Apparently there isn’t any difference at all, which makes me wonder why you would consider the caveman married at all. It would have to be a completely different concept of marriage, which means we’re talking past one another.
A: An example of how evolutionary theories are tested is the explanation for why females tend to be more selective regarding who they have sex with.
But numerous theories can be made that “explain” why some things happen. Just because certain sociological behaviors he chooses to use are consistent with his theory, doesn’t validate the theory as fact. Ultimately, it is still just a theory that is no closer to being proved than any other religion-based theory.
A: It is observed that in the vast majority of species, the males will jump in the sack with anybody, while the females are coy and choosy. Somebody speculated that the evolutionary reason for this is because the females invest more in the resultant offspring; because having offspring will tax the energy and time of the female, she isn't going to want to spend her limited resources on the offspring of anybody but the best genes she can acquire.
This is the problem. Everything is viewed through the lens of evolution. Therefore, all evidence is being perceived to fit that paradigm. Human behavior cannot be explained by evolution, and it is hardly something one can test and prove.
A: So far, that makes sense, but it's just somebody's opinion on something that happens to make sense. To test it, they looked for species where the males invest more in the offspring then the females do. An example of this is with pipefish. With a pipefish, the male takes the females egg and nourishes it with his own blood. Thus, he invests much more into the new fish than the female--the female can be back at the bar looking for more sex while the male is playing nurse. So if choosiness is caused by having to invest in the offspring, one would expect that female pipefish are more promiscuous than male pipefish, and that male pipefish are more choosy than female pipefish. This is in fact observed, lending strong evidence to this theory.
It isn’t strong evidence at all unless you’re already leaning that way. But the fact is there are numerous, perhaps endless parallels one can make between humans and various other species. This doesn’t point to an evolutionary explanation unless that is what one wants to get from it. Sure, it may be consistent with the theory, but it is also consistent with other alternatives. It certainly isn’t inconsistent with a religious explanation. Just because the religious alternative doesn’t “explain” why God chose to include similar traits in other species, doesn’t negate the theory, nor does it count as evidence against it.
What makes journalistic science like this so fun for people to write about is that it is 99% speculation and 1% substance. A smoke and mirror game is played to point out how the evidence isn’t inconsistent with theory X, so therefore this is interpreted to mean the theory is backed by “testable methods.” This is fallacious. Wright is no closer to proving men are evolved from fish than a theist is in proving God made men and women differently by design.
Well, if you believe in God then this makes far more sense than saying humans evolved from fish and just happened to retain some of the characteristics. This is like saying dogs evolved from Parrots since both species eat their own feces.
A: I don't understand the Ugaritic data. It sounds like you claiming that since the Ugaritic texts talk about God being married, marriage must have originated from religion? That sounds like saying that since the Greeks believed that Apollo drove a chariot around the earth, that chariots must have originated from religion. Perhaps you could clarify?
The Ugaritic data is immensely valuable in determining how one of the most ancient civilizations lived. The data shows that they had a concept of marriage similar to our own. Contrary to what TD has said, the idea of a man and woman forming the nucleus of a family is not new. It is as old as religion itself. These ancient myths were highly influential when the Old Testament was written. There are simply too many parallels to toss it all aside as coincidence. Thus, when Genesis refers to man being created in God’s image, it is simply reiterating common knowledge to those who were already familiar with the prehistory myths 4000 years ago. The Gods created humanity in their image and humans were supposed to act like the gods. It isn’t just a coincidence that Genesis speaks of man and woman becoming one flesh.
A: That is false.
Oh? So Wright is actually a theist?
Asserting it is natural is not a “detailed argument.” Wright’s convoluted reasoning and reliance upon a plethora of parallels between various species, mixed with a dash of atheistic agenda, is hardly what one should consider a detailed argument. If you want to insist marriage is a natural tendency among humans then you should demonstrate it by example. If Wright truly presents thorough arguments, then you should be able to present them. I’m all ears.
I want to know why marriage is a sociological failure in practice, if it is such a natural tendency.
A: Yes. If, say, penguins can pair up and make contracts, why can't cavemen? Do you think cavemen didn't love their kids? Do you think they wouldn't provide for them?
A marriage contract is something two people make between themselves. I assumed we were discussing marriage as it is practiced today by both theists and atheists. It can be written or verbal contract I suppose, but the marriage dedicates one spouse to another in a formal, legally binding way. Cavemen had no means to make such a contract. Loving one’s kids and devoting oneself to a wife is not the same thing as making a contract with a spouse. Men today provide for their children out of wedlock, so I don’t see why this is supposed to be unexpected among cavemen. Men today also provide for women they are not married to, so what is the difference between a supposed married caveman and an unmarried man today who financially supports a woman and her children? Apparently there isn’t any difference at all, which makes me wonder why you would consider the caveman married at all. It would have to be a completely different concept of marriage, which means we’re talking past one another.
A: An example of how evolutionary theories are tested is the explanation for why females tend to be more selective regarding who they have sex with.
But numerous theories can be made that “explain” why some things happen. Just because certain sociological behaviors he chooses to use are consistent with his theory, doesn’t validate the theory as fact. Ultimately, it is still just a theory that is no closer to being proved than any other religion-based theory.
A: It is observed that in the vast majority of species, the males will jump in the sack with anybody, while the females are coy and choosy. Somebody speculated that the evolutionary reason for this is because the females invest more in the resultant offspring; because having offspring will tax the energy and time of the female, she isn't going to want to spend her limited resources on the offspring of anybody but the best genes she can acquire.
This is the problem. Everything is viewed through the lens of evolution. Therefore, all evidence is being perceived to fit that paradigm. Human behavior cannot be explained by evolution, and it is hardly something one can test and prove.
A: So far, that makes sense, but it's just somebody's opinion on something that happens to make sense. To test it, they looked for species where the males invest more in the offspring then the females do. An example of this is with pipefish. With a pipefish, the male takes the females egg and nourishes it with his own blood. Thus, he invests much more into the new fish than the female--the female can be back at the bar looking for more sex while the male is playing nurse. So if choosiness is caused by having to invest in the offspring, one would expect that female pipefish are more promiscuous than male pipefish, and that male pipefish are more choosy than female pipefish. This is in fact observed, lending strong evidence to this theory.
It isn’t strong evidence at all unless you’re already leaning that way. But the fact is there are numerous, perhaps endless parallels one can make between humans and various other species. This doesn’t point to an evolutionary explanation unless that is what one wants to get from it. Sure, it may be consistent with the theory, but it is also consistent with other alternatives. It certainly isn’t inconsistent with a religious explanation. Just because the religious alternative doesn’t “explain” why God chose to include similar traits in other species, doesn’t negate the theory, nor does it count as evidence against it.
What makes journalistic science like this so fun for people to write about is that it is 99% speculation and 1% substance. A smoke and mirror game is played to point out how the evidence isn’t inconsistent with theory X, so therefore this is interpreted to mean the theory is backed by “testable methods.” This is fallacious. Wright is no closer to proving men are evolved from fish than a theist is in proving God made men and women differently by design.
The alternative is to say that God designed most males to be promiscuous because of his own reasons, but that again for his own unknown reasons, he designed female pipefish to be the promiscuous ones.
Well, if you believe in God then this makes far more sense than saying humans evolved from fish and just happened to retain some of the characteristics. This is like saying dogs evolved from Parrots since both species eat their own feces.
A: I don't understand the Ugaritic data. It sounds like you claiming that since the Ugaritic texts talk about God being married, marriage must have originated from religion? That sounds like saying that since the Greeks believed that Apollo drove a chariot around the earth, that chariots must have originated from religion. Perhaps you could clarify?
The Ugaritic data is immensely valuable in determining how one of the most ancient civilizations lived. The data shows that they had a concept of marriage similar to our own. Contrary to what TD has said, the idea of a man and woman forming the nucleus of a family is not new. It is as old as religion itself. These ancient myths were highly influential when the Old Testament was written. There are simply too many parallels to toss it all aside as coincidence. Thus, when Genesis refers to man being created in God’s image, it is simply reiterating common knowledge to those who were already familiar with the prehistory myths 4000 years ago. The Gods created humanity in their image and humans were supposed to act like the gods. It isn’t just a coincidence that Genesis speaks of man and woman becoming one flesh.
A: That is false.
Oh? So Wright is actually a theist?
“All knowledge of reality starts from experience and ends in it...Propositions arrived at by purely logical means are completely empty as regards reality." - Albert Einstein
-
_Analytics
- _Emeritus
- Posts: 4231
- Joined: Thu Feb 15, 2007 9:24 pm
I'm losing interest in this conversation, but I'll make a couple of brief comments defending Evolutionary Psychology.
The strength of Evolutionary Psychology is its predictive power. The theory about why males are generally more sexually aggresive than females not only explains why males are generally more sexually aggresive, it also successfully predicts the exceptions. Successfully predicting the exceptions to the rule is powerful evidence; not smoke and mirrors.
These theories are not based upon the presuppostion that no God exists. They are based upon the presupposition that there are certain psychological characteristics that are hard-coded into our genetic makeup, and that these characteristics are subject to Evolutionary forces (i.e. traits within a species that are more conductive to reproduction and survival will become more widespread within the population).
The strength of Evolutionary Psychology is its predictive power. The theory about why males are generally more sexually aggresive than females not only explains why males are generally more sexually aggresive, it also successfully predicts the exceptions. Successfully predicting the exceptions to the rule is powerful evidence; not smoke and mirrors.
These theories are not based upon the presuppostion that no God exists. They are based upon the presupposition that there are certain psychological characteristics that are hard-coded into our genetic makeup, and that these characteristics are subject to Evolutionary forces (i.e. traits within a species that are more conductive to reproduction and survival will become more widespread within the population).
It’s relatively easy to agree that only Homo sapiens can speak about things that don’t really exist, and believe six impossible things before breakfast. You could never convince a monkey to give you a banana by promising him limitless bananas after death in monkey heaven.
-Yuval Noah Harari
-Yuval Noah Harari