(September 15, 2012 at 11:19 pm)Polaris Wrote: Chimps and elephants mourn, but that is nothing similar to worshiping....animals have displayed similar behavioral characteristics for hundreds of millions of years as evidenced in the fossil record (yes, many specimen have been found in still-life conditions)....they were not worshiping,...

So, animals are smarter than most people. I get that.

(September 15, 2012 at 3:19 pm)apophenia Wrote:

Quote:In Romans 2:14, the Apostle Paul said that the Gentiles, who had not received the law [of Moses] or, in other words, a revelation from God, had nevertheless sometimes done "by nature the things of the law" and were therefore "a law unto themselves."

If this doesn't mean that Paul believed that the Gentiles who had no divine revelation had discovered morality on their own, then pray tell what does it mean?

—

Romans 2:14-15
Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law. They show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness.
Judging by the context, the Gentiles did stumble upon God's predetermined morality. When they were given the scriptures, they were pleasantly surprised to find that their consciences already agreed with its ethics.

(September 15, 2012 at 3:56 pm)Polaris Wrote: Morality is not something that is inherently innate as some would like to argue, but is in fact nurtured which is why you don't see the same type of morality preserved in every culture.

And from whence did the nurturers obtain their morality? There must be a reason for my ancestors to adopt an altruistic lifestyle before they can pass it to me. The same criteria apply. Either God gave selfless tendencies or evolution did... or some obscure alternative. Of course, this is assuming the Christian definition of morality--I'm still waiting for someone to argue how programmed responses and selfish motivations qualify as morals. Then again, if programming/selfishness and morals are one and the same, a moral action becomes identical to any other action. Thus, everything is moral (a tough sell for the dictionary) or morals do not exist in an evolved world. To rephrase, morality without altruism is nothing special... it's everyday life. So the word 'moral' becomes defunct. Can anyone see flaws in my reasoning?

(September 16, 2012 at 12:25 am)IATIA Wrote:

(September 15, 2012 at 11:19 pm)Polaris Wrote: Chimps and elephants mourn, but that is nothing similar to worshiping....animals have displayed similar behavioral characteristics for hundreds of millions of years as evidenced in the fossil record (yes, many specimen have been found in still-life conditions)....they were not worshiping,...

So, animals are smarter than most people. I get that.

An amusing little aside which I'm not sure if I've said before but I'll carry on regardless. Many years ago, my then-very-young nephew Chris had a pet hamster (one of several over the years, hamsters notoriously tending to wear out rather quickly). Obviously, since he was Chris' pet, it fell to me to look after him; cleaning him out, providing food/water and all the tasks that fall under the remit of rodent housekeeping.

He - the hamster, not the nephew - lived in quite a large modular housing complex interconnected by a network of tubing which served as tunnels. One of the longer of these sloped upwards at an easy angle between two modules and had a short T-junction about halfway, the protruding arm of the T terminating at a water bottle nozzle.

Anyway, I would frequently find dry food packed into this side tunnel and around the water nozzle. Doubtless this was one of his food caches that hamsters are wont to establish, presumably in this case in order to have a convenient one-stop-shop for food and drink. However, it did cross my mind that maybe, just maybe, he was making sacrificial offerings to the Water God (i.e. me) in exchange for fresh water, a prayer which was always answered. I might add that this was only one of two water bottles in the complex and I never saw a similar arrangement with the other one.

Quite what it says for his intelligence, I haven't the remotest idea.

(September 16, 2012 at 2:13 am)Undeceived Wrote:

(September 15, 2012 at 3:19 pm)apophenia Wrote:

Quote:In Romans 2:14, the Apostle Paul said that the Gentiles, who had not received the law [of Moses] or, in other words, a revelation from God, had nevertheless sometimes done "by nature the things of the law" and were therefore "a law unto themselves."

If this doesn't mean that Paul believed that the Gentiles who had no divine revelation had discovered morality on their own, then pray tell what does it mean?

—

Romans 2:14-15
Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law. They show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness.

Judging by the context, the Gentiles did stumble upon God's predetermined morality. When they were given the scriptures, they were pleasantly surprised to find that their consciences already agreed with its ethics.

So, it was in the nature of humans to be moral, regardless of the law. Was that nature a part of their material, corporeal existence, or was it rather a part of their incorporeal soul? (I don't recall, is the heart a part of the body, the soul, or something else?)

---

(September 15, 2012 at 11:19 pm)Polaris Wrote: Back then, there wasn't a concept as secular morality. The two were the same, religion was at the center of life because it provided a common link between members of tribes and tribes themselves. Secularism is a recent phenomena and using it to describe societies of the past will likely lead you to confusion because you notice evidence that does not point to secular societies but rather to societies centered upon primitive worship and laws derived to adapt to this worship.

Did you actually just claim to know what the social life of humans living 70,000 years ago was like? I believe that you did. Even your own source asserts that religious ritual is universally used to define the sacred and separate it from the profane, essentially meaning that wherever there is the religious, there is also the secular, by definition. So exactly how is it that you, 70,000 years later, know that there wasn't a secular concept of morality then? How do you know, 70,000 years later, that the religious concept of morality didn't come after the secular? How is it you know such specific details about the social life of humans 70,0000 years ago? Where exactly does this knowledge of yours come from?

The definition of secular.

of or pertaining to worldly things or to things that are not regarded as religious, spiritual, or sacred; temporal: secular interests.

not pertaining to or connected with religion ( opposed to sacred)

There was no secular because their world to them between what you label secular and religious was one and the same.

And we know this because religion was the beginning of their society and because like paleontologists, archeologists have ample evidence to back up their published findings....some could argue whether the agriculture revolution or the commonality of religion played a bigger role...I might say beer though.

(September 16, 2012 at 11:14 am)Polaris Wrote: The definition of secular.
:of or pertaining to worldly things or to things that are not regarded as religious, spiritual, or sacred; temporal: secular interests.
:not pertaining to or connected with religion ( opposed to sacred)

That's fascinating. It still doesn't explain how you know which came first 70,000 years ago, and as noted, your own source claims that you can't have one without the other. Maybe you should pick sources that don't undermine your main points.

(September 16, 2012 at 11:14 am)Polaris Wrote: There was no secular because their world to them between what you label secular and religious was one and the same.

And we know this because religion was the beginning of their society [bare assertion] and because like paleontologists, archeologists have ample evidence to back up their published findings...

Evidence such as what? The only actual evidence you've presented is a 70,000 year old carving of a snake, and unlike the serpent in the garden of Eden, it can't talk in order to tell us, "No, no, there was no separation between the religious and the secular when I was carved; trust me."

So I'll ask you again. How do you know this fact about the relationship between the sacred and the secular 70,000 years ago, because it isn't in either of your citations. Quote me one working archeologist or paleontologist who claims that there was no secular aspect to the social life of hominids 70,000 years ago, or that morality appeared in the religious life of hominids before there appeared secular morality. (And it just occurred to me that there were three separate hominid species between then and now, and a secular morality could have arisen first in any of the three and been spread to the others. That's going to be quite a challenge for you, er, I mean your archeologists, seeing as we only have a few bone fragments of Denisova. Yet we know these species intersected as the genome of homo sapiens sapiens includes Denisova and Neanderthal DNA, which indicates interbreeding. Good luck with that one.)




(And besides, who would trust a talking snake, anyway? I mean, sheesh!)

Did a Christian ask this? I couldn't be bothered reading the rest.
You grow up and get morals from your parents... and school... and the community and people around you. And you develop ideas of what's right and wrong. You speculate on other peoples religions and other countries. If you're an antagonist you'll enjoy causing strife between people, if you're a peaceful person you'll like to keep everything mellow, let everyone be happy. Depends on you a lot as a person.

---

Athiests can be just as bad as people with strong belief in religion.
Someone always has to be right haha....

(September 17, 2012 at 1:21 am)apophenia Wrote:

(September 16, 2012 at 11:14 am)Polaris Wrote: The definition of secular.
:of or pertaining to worldly things or to things that are not regarded as religious, spiritual, or sacred; temporal: secular interests.
:not pertaining to or connected with religion ( opposed to sacred)

That's fascinating. It still doesn't explain how you know which came first 70,000 years ago, and as noted, your own source claims that you can't have one without the other. Maybe you should pick sources that don't undermine your main points.

(September 16, 2012 at 11:14 am)Polaris Wrote: There was no secular because their world to them between what you label secular and religious was one and the same.

And we know this because religion was the beginning of their society [bare assertion] and because like paleontologists, archeologists have ample evidence to back up their published findings...

Evidence such as what? The only actual evidence you've presented is a 70,000 year old carving of a snake, and unlike the serpent in the garden of Eden, it can't talk in order to tell us, "No, no, there was no separation between the religious and the secular when I was carved; trust me."

So I'll ask you again. How do you know this fact about the relationship between the sacred and the secular 70,000 years ago, because it isn't in either of your citations. Quote me one working archeologist or paleontologist who claims that there was no secular aspect to the social life of hominids 70,000 years ago, or that morality appeared in the religious life of hominids before there appeared secular morality. (And it just occurred to me that there were three separate hominid species between then and now, and a secular morality could have arisen first in any of the three and been spread to the others. That's going to be quite a challenge for you, er, I mean your archeologists, seeing as we only have a few bone fragments of Denisova. Yet we know these species intersected as the genome of homo sapiens sapiens includes Denisova and Neanderthal DNA, which indicates interbreeding. Good luck with that one.)




(And besides, who would trust a talking snake, anyway? I mean, sheesh!)

That was evidence I just found by a five-minute search and was half the evidence I posted. You know that secular implies that there is a separation between itself and religion, right?

It started with the Neanderthals as I probably already stated especially since the other two were not around at the time the Neanderthals were developing their worship. The Denisova DNA strand is only expressed in a small number of people (ethnic Oceanians) and was a rather late addition, around the time of the Cro-Magnon.

(September 17, 2012 at 2:32 am)Polaris Wrote: That was evidence I just found by a five-minute search and was half the evidence I posted.

And now you have all the time you need. I'm patient. I'll wait.

(September 17, 2012 at 2:32 am)Polaris Wrote: You know that secular implies that there is a separation between itself and religion, right?

Define "separation" as you apply it here. According to both your source and the Oxford English Dictionary, the two are simply the absence of the other.

(September 17, 2012 at 2:32 am)Polaris Wrote: It started with the Neanderthals as I probably already stated especially since the other two were not around at the time the Neanderthals were developing their worship.

Evidence?

(While the Denisovan specimen found dated to 41 Kya, genomic sequencing dated the divergence of the Neanderthal and Denisovan lines at 600-650 Kya. Proto-Neanderthal arrived in Europe 350-600 Kya. And for those of you playing along at home, this means our lucky contestant now has to provide evidence for the social lives of, not one, but two species, from at least 600,000 years ago. Are you ready contestant?)

(September 17, 2012 at 2:32 am)Polaris Wrote: The Denisova DNA strand is only expressed in a small number of people (ethnic Oceanians) and was a rather late addition, around the time of the Cro-Magnon.

It's being expressed in a small number of people is irrelevant. And I won't pretend to be knowledgeable about the sequencing of the genomes and such, but it is not clear to me why the Denisovan DNA in the human genome couldn't have come by way of inter-breeding between Neanderthal and Denisovan at any time during the 600,000 year co-existence. But, as noted, I'm not an expert on that, so if you know different, please let me know. (With a citation from the scientific literature.)

However, do note, what is at issue here is not when Denisovan interbred with homo sapiens, but whether there was interbreeding — or even contact — between Neanderthal and Denisovan prior to the first evidence of religious or secular culture in either. Since Denisovan diverged from Neanderthal (which we know from genomic sequencing), the suggestion that they didn't have contact with each other between their divergence at ~640 Kya and the first cultural artifacts of either is gonna be rather difficult to prove. But I won't prejudge you; show me what you've got.



Breaking news... dit.. dit.. dit.. dit..

The earliest cultural assemblages for Neanderthal are the Mousterian cultural artifacts, dated at 300,000 years ago. Do you know what that means contestant? Yes, it means that Denisovan and Neanderthal may have co-existed for as long as 300,000 years prior to any cultural artifacts for either of them that we know of currently. "Ouch! That's gotta hurt!"

(September 17, 2012 at 2:32 am)Polaris Wrote: It started with the Neanderthals as I probably already stated especially since the other two were not around at the time the Neanderthals were developing their worship.

Worship? Are you being serious?

Decorating the burial-site of a loved one (probably with something that they liked when alive) is an understandable expression of grief... and of loss.

How you get from that to worship and the transmission of religious morality... is a pleading of the gaps that you can't possibly expect anyone to accept. I'm amazed that you've managed to convince yourself, let alone anyone else.

I'll repeat my earlier statement about Ancient Greece. They had their gods... a whole pantheon of them; and they certainly decorated the graves of their loved ones (and I'm understating the word "decorated" very much). But you know what they didn't do? They didn't have a religious law from their gods... no religious morality.

Their connection with their gods was... don't piss them off. They went to temples to ask for good things in their life, and made offerings (usually small carvings) that they thought that their gods would appreciate. Why? So that the blind-chances of happen-stance might turn out well for them.

How they treated their fellow humans was all about empathy and reciprocity... or how powerful they were, compared to those that they might consider mistreating. Basically a magnification of what you see when you observe chimpanzees: reciprocity and hierarchy.

And that was a little over 2000 years ago.

And you're trying to argue a case 70,000 years ago, based on the decoration of neanderthal graves?

Jesus wept.