This is in contrast to genes that are transferred on other chromosomes and mitochondrial genes. Hypothesis: Homo sapiens women aborted fetuses with Neanderthal characteristics. Perhaps it is related to the fact that these genes play a role in the immune system in the part responsible for rejecting or accepting transplanted organs
Although it has long been known that modern humans carry traces of Neanderthal DNA, a new international study led by researchers from the Stanford University School of Medicine has revealed that Neanderthal-specific genes found on the Y chromosome disappeared from the human genome long ago.
The study was published on April 7 in The American Journal of Human Genetics. The senior author is Carlos Bustamante, a professor of bioinformatics and genetics at the Stanford School of Medicine, and the lead author is Fernando Mendes, a Bustamante postdoctoral fellow.
The Y chromosome is one of the two sex chromosomes in humans. Unlike the X chromosome, the Y chromosome is passed down from the white father only. This is the first study to look at the Neanderthal Y chromosome, Mendez said. Previous studies have looked at DNA sequences from Neanderthal female fossils or from mitochondrial DNA, which is passed on to children from their mothers.
Other studies have shown that modern human DNA contains 2.5-4% Neanderthal DNA, the result of interbreeding between modern humans and Neanderthals 50 years ago. The team members were surprised to discover that, unlike other types of DNA, Y chromosomes appear to have not been transferred to modern humans at that time.
"Genes from the Neanderthal Y chromosome have never been observed in any human sample ever tested," Bustamante said. "This does not prove that these genes are completely extinct, but it is likely."
Why not Neanderthal DNA?
The reason for the disappearance of the genes is unknown. The Neanderthal Y-chromosome genes may have simply slowly disappeared from the human genome pool at random over thousands of years. Another possibility, Mendez says, is that the Neanderthal Y chromosomes contained genes that do not correspond to the rest of the human genes, and that he and his colleagues have discovered evidence that supports this hypothesis. Indeed, one of these Y-chromosome genes that differed in Neanderthals was found to have an effect on transplant rejection when men donate organs to women.
"The functional nature of the mutations we found," said Bustamante, "may suggest that Neanderthal Y chromosome sequences may have played a role in blocking gene transfer, but we need to conduct more experiments to prove this."
However, a number of genes were discovered on the Neanderthal Y chromosome that do not differ from those in modern humans - genes that function as part of the immune system. The three genes are HY antibodies similar to the HLA antibodies that surgeons test to ensure that the organ donor and transplant have similar immune profiles. Because these Neanderthal antigens are on the Y chromosome they are male specific.
Theoretically, Mendez says, a woman's immune system could attack a male fetus carrying Neanderthal HY genes. If the women consistently aborted male embryos carrying Neanderthal Y chromosomes, this could explain their absence in modern humans. So far this is only a hypothesis, but it is known that the immune system of modern women sometimes reacts to male fetuses in cases of genetic incompatibility.
when did we break up
Y chromosome data may shed new light on the timeline of when modern humans and Neanderthals split. The human lineage split from other apes over several million years, ending no later than about 4 million years ago. After the final split from other apes, the human lineage branched into a series of different types of humans, including separate lineages that led to Neanderthals on the one hand and modern humans on the other.
Previous estimates based on mitochondrial DNA placed the split point between 400 and 800 thousand years ago. The current study, based on the DNA of the Y chromosome, places the splitting point about 550 thousand years ago.
Analysis of the Neanderthal Y chromosome sequence may shed additional light on the relationship between humans and Neanderthals. Another challenge for the research team is to find out whether the human Y chromosome still has genes that survived from the Neanderthals.
The data for the study came from public garden databases.
404 תגובות
rival
A very controlled experiment - it is not done in nature, but in laboratory conditions. But yes, I agree with you
Miracles,
"Yariv, these are the animals that lead the pack. It exists in elephants, wolves, apes and so on. They usually live longer.'
Again... this is also not exactly a controlled experiment, for example the leader of the pack usually eats better than the other members of the pack (he eats more, and also the best parts of the prey), also if he became the leader of the pack then it is likely that he already had Better genes... which probably allow him to live longer.
In any case, you already agreed with me first that in a controlled experiment in a laboratory those whose lives are more tense will live less, meaning that psychology definitely does affect physiology at one level or another and that is how the discussion began... (placebo effect = psychological effect = effect on the body).
rival
These are the animals that lead the pack. It exists in elephants, wolves, apes and so on. They usually live longer.
Regarding life expectancy. It is true that the poor in America eat junk food, smoke, do not exercise and receive less good medical care - but the Australians are even fatter and unhealthy and I think the Canadians are too. But, you are right that nothing can be concluded from this.
"I know it's not a convincing argument…."
You're right, it's really not a strong argument. For example, the US population is considered very fat and eats a lot of fatty meat and junk food, so this comparison is not exactly a proper controlled experiment. If anything, compare the life expectancy of the rich and the poor only in the US.
Miracles,
"As for animals - the experiments have already been done. The lifespan of the "alpha" animals is significantly higher."
I didn't understand what exactly the experiment was? And what are alpha animals? What is the difference between them and the other animals?
rival
If it were like that - you would expect the life expectancy in the US to be higher than the life expectancy in Australia, Canada or Israel, because the poor have the same bad medicine, but the rich in the US have excellent care. But - actually the life expectancy in the USA is lower (I know this is not a convincing argument....).
Regarding managers - I think you are really wrong. Managers tend to commit suicide more, and each of their decisions is much more significant.
As for animals - the experiments have already been done. The life expectancy of the "alpha" animals is significantly higher. And they can't buy health with money... I agree with you that if you take two groups, and stress one group then their lifespan will decrease.
Miracles,
It's clear that you can find considerations here and there, and it's clear that managers also have concerns, but simple logic tells me that a middle-class worker who works hard and worries every day about making his bread and covering various debts surely has more worries and tensions than the manager... and don't forget the issue of medical treatments that I mentioned earlier, this is also a parameter very significant.
And in general, I am engaged in science, why do we need to guess at all? It is very easy to conduct a study that will test the stress levels among simple workers compared to the stress levels among managers, these are measurable things.
It is also possible to conduct experiments with mice for example, half of them to be allowed a calm life and the other half to be stressed by hitting the cage, loud noises, electric shocks... (not exaggerating, of course, this would not be abuse) and then see if there is a difference in their lifespan.
It's really easy to check, and maybe they've already checked and we don't know.
rival
I'm not saying there is no effect, I'm saying the effect is not great. No homeopathic ingredient cures a gastrointestinal infection, cancer or the flu.
As for the seniors... You probably don't know what it's like to manage a large company 🙂 The tension is huge and the worry is huge. You work crazy hours and can't always prevent failures, but you catch them when they happen. I'm glad you are so naive 🙂
Miracles,
1. "Where did I claim that thought does not affect physiology?"
I thought that's why you gave the article... to show that the placebo effect (psychology) doesn't really affect the body as you think, was I wrong?
2. "I wasn't accurate in what I wrote about the tension. There was a large study in England that found that people with more senior positions live longer.
It's really good that you corrected yourself... because it already paints a completely different situation than what you claimed before, and in my opinion even an opposite situation:
- It makes sense that a senior manager would be much calmer than a simple worker. He is the boss, no one tells him what to do, he is in control, he has money for trips abroad, trips, plays, he has money that allows him to enjoy life... It actually makes sense that he would be more relaxed and not in tension.
- An argument I read not long ago says that wealthy people (rich people, like managers for example) live longer for the simple reason that they have more money for medical treatments and expensive health products that a simple middle-class production worker cannot afford. This could certainly explain why they live longer.
Miracles,
1. "Where did I claim that thought does not affect physiology?"
I thought that's why you gave the article... to show that the placebo effect (psychology) doesn't really affect the body as you think, was I wrong?
2. "I wasn't accurate in what I wrote about the tension. There was a large study in England that found that people with more senior positions live longer.
It's really good that you corrected yourself... because it already paints a completely different situation than what you claimed before, and in my opinion even an opposite situation.
1. It makes sense that a senior manager would be much calmer than a simple worker. He is the boss, no one tells him what to do, he is in control, he has money for trips abroad, trips, plays, he has money that allows him to enjoy life... It actually makes sense that he would be more relaxed and not in tension.
2. A claim I read recently says that wealthy people (rich, like managers for example) live longer for the simple reason that they have more money for medical treatments and expensive health products that a simple middle-class production worker cannot afford. This could certainly explain why they live longer.
rival
Where did I claim that thought does not affect physiology? I claim that the article I linked to describes a slightly different picture of the placebo effect.
I wasn't accurate in what I wrote about the voltage. There was a large study in England (tens of thousands of people) that found that people in more senior positions in workplaces live longer than those in less senior positions. Extending life is a combination of the control you have over your situation and the meaning of work being influential, even though work is significantly more stressful. I mean - it's not true that the stress extended the lifespan, I should have said that control and meaning extend the lifespan, despite the extra stress.
Miracles,
"There are large studies that show that people under stress live longer and not the other way around"
First of all, it is really strange and contradicts everything we are constantly told, that a relaxed and stress-free lifestyle contributes to health and longevity. Secondly, this actually contradicts your claim a bit, doesn't it? If stress causes life extension (surely it can be easily tested on mice) then this actually proves that psychological effects do affect our physiology, doesn't it?
(When I have time I will read the article)
A',
You didn't tell me if you saw the video. I've had a few short dives in the past. It's an amazing thing, and so realistic.
I have already heard about a lucid dream not in the context of healing. It takes quite a lot of training and it takes time to get the hang of it.
rival
Read the link I gave. You want studies, so I gave you a study and you claim it is too long.
And just anecdotal information - there are large studies that show that people under stress live longer and not the other way around!
with one iodine.
The physiology
A',
First of all I hope you understood why I flooded here, I wanted to find out what word caused my messages to be blocked and after I found it I still don't know why it caused the block. Can you try to send it and see if it is blocked for you too?
I didn't talk about the mechanism (this is the second step) I want to see a study that shows that if you have two identical wounds on your right hand and on your left hand and you focus mental healing powers on one of them then it heals faster than the other wound.
I've heard a lot of good stories, but does it really work?
There are many studies that show this.
Or do you mean only when studies discover the mechanism?
If so, then you will know that many drugs treat them without knowing the mechanism behind them.
Sorry for the flooding, I was trying to figure out which word in the message caused the block, it was the word "physiology" when it is spelled correctly.
Here is the message, and the disclaimer that I tried to write here yesterday as well and failed:
In any case, although it seems logical to me that psychology also affects our physiology, and that a calm and happy person will heal faster than a tense and depressed person, only research will convince me on this issue.
In any case, although it seems logical to me that psychology also affects our physiology, and that a calm and happy person will heal faster than a tense and depressed person, only research will convince me on this issue.
A',
Did you check the link I gave you earlier? In my opinion, the effect in a lucid dream is much stronger than guided imagination because in a dream everything is tangible in front of the eyes, you don't have to try too hard and imagine things. Here is the link again:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OwZgPKtmtpA
I don't think that actual hypnosis is necessary to relieve disease symptoms (I'm not talking about surgeries or dental treatments).
A simpler technique of controlling the brain's healing power/pain reduction can be developed with the help of research (the placebo effect does not only reduce pain. Although I have not heard that the full working mechanism has been cracked, it is certainly known to have an effect on objective healing measures). In this way, it will not be a case of fraud as in giving a placebo that harms the patient's trust, which can lead to the opposite effect of reducing the healing capacity of real medicines as well. Or what is worse than placebo is giving unnecessary treatment (that the doctor himself does not think will have an effect) that doctors give because of pressure from the patients,
It sounds like a conspiracy but it is true and includes giving antibiotics for viral diseases and giving drugs for symptoms that will go away anyway. On the other hand, developing a medically accepted method can save a lot of drugs and chemical substances for the body. But not money. Because such treatment will require the dedication of a professional's time, although it is not necessary for it to be a doctor, it will be possible to train people to whom doctors refer patients, just as there is physical therapy.
I would start the search with guided imagery methods.
Miracles,
Placebo is a psychological effect, and I wanted to show you that the power of psychology is so strong that even the pain of dental treatment can be paralyzed with its help, hypnosis is based on psychology similar to the placebo effect.
That is, it actually makes sense that the placebo effect of a homeopathic medicine could reduce, for example, a stomach ache.
rival
What does hypnosis have to do with it?? We talked about placebo, didn't we?
Miracles,
The doctor doesn't inject you with water, the whole thing is that he saves you the injection... and from the link I gave earlier:
"Suggestion is also attributed to hypnotic processes through which people can be persuaded to change their attitudes, feelings, beliefs and even the sensations of the body and its activity."
rival
It's really a bit long, but it reinforces what I'm saying (that the placebo effect is nothing...).
And think about the dentist - were you ready for what I suggested (they'll inject you with water instead of Novocain)?
Miracles,
This is based on some kind of suggestion:
https://he.wikipedia.org/wiki/סוגסטיה
I already looked at your link before but it's long and I'm a bit busy...
rival
Please read the link, okay? And please give me a link to a dentist who prevents the pain of dental care with the help of a placebo. He injects water - and lets two thirds of the patients scream in pain? 🙂
Miracles,
"I think my explanation is correct... Everyone I know who took such a preparation got well because the illness just passed. A placebo does not cure the flu or a stomach ache due to an intestinal infection. I don't think that placebo is as effective as people believe.'
So what are you actually saying, that the "placebo effect" is a name given to a phenomenon that does not really exist? I remind you again that I was not talking about the ability to heal, but only about improving the subjective feeling of the patient, that is, how he feels following the treatment.
And if there really isn't such a placebo effect, then how do you explain the fact that there are dentists who perform treatments without anesthesia? After all, according to what you claim, the patients were supposed to feel pain..
rival
I think my explanation is correct... Everyone I know who took such a preparation got well because the illness just passed. A placebo does not cure the flu or a stomach ache due to an intestinal infection. I don't think placebo works as well as people believe.
I highly suggest you read here in depth - http://skepdic.com/placebo.html
Miracles,
"The explanation is simpler - a stomach ache goes away by itself after a week... Otherwise, you teach him that you should continue this nonsense.'
Not exactly... after all, that's exactly the thing with the placebo effect, one third of the people who received a homeopathic medicine will say that their stomach pain went away within 2-3 days, compared to all the rest whose pain went away only a week later.
Then again, we must give these people a scientific explanation for this (meaning that it is a psychological effect called the "placebo effect", like the dentists who perform treatment without anesthesia and the patient does not feel any pain).
rival
The explanation is simpler - a stomach ache goes away by itself after a week... Otherwise you teach him that it's worth continuing this nonsense.
I was once at a "skeptics in the pub" event. The lecturer said something about homeopathy, and a relatively large part of those present started shouting that it really works!!! I didn't expect that 🙂
"The way you present it, it seems like it's totally fine to sell these things as medicine."
Absolutely not, this is just an answer to those who ask "but how come my stomach hurt for a whole week and how did I get over it when I took a homeopathic medicine?"
We must give them an explanation.
Miracles,
I completely agree, and there is no doubt that this is an entire industry of charlatanism/lies/delusions being sold to people.
Just a small comment, the sentence you said earlier is a bit meaningless, you said: "half are given a homeopathic preparation and some a placebo", and according to the definition "placebo" (and I learned this from you 🙂 ) is a dummy drug that does not contain an active substance, which is exactly a homeopathic preparation.
I mean you actually said:
"Half are given a placebo and some are given a placebo" 🙂
rival
Yes, nice experiment. We both know that a homeopathic preparation is no better than a placebo and the trial can be spared. What I'm trying to say is - the way you present it, it seems like it's totally fine to sell these things as medicine. There is no shortage of drugs that help at least a third of the people. But the healing power of placebo is negligible, even though it makes some people feel better for a short time. Such preparations do not cure cancer or prevent polio, despite what the sellers say!
You say that the effect of a homeopathic preparation is a placebo effect, and of course you're right - that's not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about the fact that no one is marketing it as a placebo and this whole industry is false and dangerous.
It's just like (institutional) religion - it has a little placebo effect (maybe) but the marketing is false and dangerous.
Rival - don't forget that I am on the same side 🙂
Miracles,
There are many ways to organize such an experiment, it's just a matter of creativity, here's just something for quick reference:
Take a large group of patients and divide them into three equal groups:
1. One group is given nothing (for review).
2. The second group is given homeopathic pills and told that it is a dummy pill that has no effect.
3. The third group is given exactly the same homeopathic pills and told that this is a pill that they want to test its effect (it's not a lie!) or they are simply told the truth that it is a homeopathic pill.
If the study shows that approximately one third of the people in group 3 report a significant improvement in their feelings (with statistical significance) compared to groups 1 and 2 where there is no significant improvement, then it can be concluded that one third of the people in group 3 experienced the placebo effect.
I think it's a great experiment, what do you think?
A, what do you think?
rival
Yes, and how do you check it? Take a group of subjects, give half a homeopathic preparation and half a placebo. But what do they say? If you tell them that the preparation is homeopathic then a large part of the people will have no effect at all - because they know it doesn't work.
And I don't think it is permissible to lie in such an experiment.
Miracles,
And note that I said "influencing" I did not say healing 🙂
And I previously added a disclaimer to the answer I gave to A, but the message was blocked.
Miracles,
This is just my rough estimate in light of the answer I received from Google:
What is the placebo effect?
A placebo is any medical treatment that is inert (inactive), such as a sugar pill. Around one third of people who take placebos (believing them to be medication) will experience an end to their symptoms. This is called the placebo effect.
rival
Do homeopathic preparations affect a third to half of the people?
Strange it was supposed to block…
For example the sentence:
"There's a house under the tree"
Supposed to block, well did it work? 🙂
A',
Yes, I know, and I can also easily find out what the word is that causes the blocking (and I already checked it once) but I will simply cause a flood here 🙂 Send half a message, then half of the half that was blocked, and again half of the half... until you reach the offending word.
Because you set off the alarm if one of the words you wrote ?????
My father once told me that there is a warning about this word.
Maybe that's why the system suspects you.
I would tell you what the word is but I don't want to be suspicious either.
Avi Blizovsky The censorship policy here is really excessive, it doesn't make sense that every second message that barely includes two and a half sentences is blocked, it's really annoying and destroys the whole sequence of the conversation.
I will only qualify my words, regarding a physiological effect only studies will convince me. In the experiment with the pets with the lame leg no real physiological improvement was demonstrated.
examination…
A',
Allow me just to correct and qualify "I agree with you", regarding a physiological effect only research will convince me. For example, in the experiment with the dogs (which I previously linked to) no real effect was detected on the lameness of the dog with the injured leg.
Checking... what's going on here with message blocking?
A',
I agree with you, but the problem is that it affects only some patients (approximately between half and a third) and the strength of the effect is not as strong as a medicine with an active ingredient.
It turns out that the brain has a real effect on healing processes.
Improvement from placebo effect is not only subjective. Object metrics are also improving.
Miracles,
Placebo = a dummy drug that does not contain an active substance.
Placebo effect = the symptoms experienced by those who took such a dummy drug and believe that it is really a real drug that includes an active substance in it.
Still, a homeopathic medicine fits both definitions, it also does not contain an active substance, and it also causes symptoms of a placebo effect in the patient (the patient feels an improvement in his condition, a subjective feeling of course).
rival
1) You are wrong (look it up in the dictionary).
2) You are right.
Miracles,
1. "What a hard head you are…. Do you understand that there is a difference between a placebo effect and a placebo?'
Absolutely not, for me these are two synonymous words just like sun and heat. I already told you we are talking about the essence, this is not a language lesson.
2. "And again - according to what you say, how can homeopathy be disqualified???"
I've already told you, its effect is a psychological effect, you can't lie to your patients and tell them that this medicine has a healing substance, because that would be a lie and it's unethical.
rival
What a hard head you are…. Do you understand that there is a difference between a placebo effect and a placebo?
And again - according to what you say, how can homeopathy be rejected???
Miracles,
1. "Where did I claim that the effect of a homeopathic preparation is not the effect of a placebo?"
Where did you claim? For example here -
"A homeopathic medicine is based on the placebo effect - a serious mistake!"
And here -
"A homeopathic medicine is absolutely not a placebo!!"
Will we suddenly become senile?
2. "Now - please find me confirmation of your claim that there are those who recommend a homeopathic preparation and think that the effect is a placebo effect"
Miracles I can't get into their heads and know which of them is a charlatan lie and which of them really believes that it heals, but I already told you it doesn't matter at all, as long as ***the patient*** believes in the effectiveness of the medicine, the effect will work and his feeling will improve.
rival
Where did I claim that the effect of a homeopathic preparation is not a placebo effect? You make fun of me for trying to be logical, and immediately after that you argue about every word.
Now - please find me confirmation of your claim that there are those who recommend a homeopathic preparation and think that the effect is a placebo effect. If you find one - feel free to complain about it...
Miracles,
1. "The effect of homeopathic preparations, if and when it exists, is due to the placebo effect"
Wow! Could it be that a miracle happened here and Nissim finally admits that he was wrong?? Nissim, do you admit that, contrary to your strong claim before, the effect of a homeopathic medicine is indeed a placebo?? Admit or not admit that you were wrong? I want to hear it clearly.
2. I am not full of myself, the only one who is full of self-pride and is unable to admit a mistake even when it is proven to him (with the help of links that he himself gave!!!) that he was wrong, it is you.
To your question (which of course only aims to divert the conversation from the main topic) the answer is that some of those who give the prescription know that it is only a placebo effect and they are simply lying to the patients, and some of them really believe in the healing powers of this medicine.
But - it doesn't matter at all, because as long as the patient receiving the medicine *believes* that the medicine will really cure him, then the placebo effect will work and his feeling will improve.
rival
Homeopathy is based on cheating (the water memory and other nonsense.). The effect of homeopathic preparations, if and when it exists, is due to the placebo effect.
I asked you a question - if you will be less full of yourself, and try to answer it, you will understand what I am trying to say.
Miracles,
Is the title of the section you referred me to earlier:
"Cure with homeopathy is simply the Placebo Effect"
Doesn't that contradict your claim that homeopathy is not based on the placebo effect?
rival
I see it's hard for you. I will ask a question: Does the person who gives a homeopathic prescription think that the benefit (if any) is due to the placebo effect?
Miracles,
Feeling good is nice, but it doesn't heal like conventional medicines whose effectiveness has been proven in the laboratory in double/triple blind experiments, and the problem is also that relying on a homeopathic medicine often comes at the expense of receiving real and proven treatment, so I'm still against it and you won't convince me 🙂
But why are you even moving a topic?
You told me, and I quote: ""A homeopathic medicine is based on a placebo effect" - a serious mistake!"
And to prove to me how wrong I am, you referred me to section 7 entitled: "Cure with homeopathy is simply the Placebo Effect"
Which is exactly what I claimed!!!
So miracles seriously, which of us is not focused?
rival
Is it good for people? So why be against? If I thought like you, I would be an enthusiastic supporter of the issue. Of course, considering the rules of law and ethics.
Miracles,
For the umpteenth time, I'm against homeopathic medicines (you know it very well and you're just dumb!) and I didn't say that they work or cure, I just explained (and it's not my invention that's what studies show) why these sham/placebo medicines make the patient feel better.
Again - it's a psychological effect!
rival
Are you for or against the sale of homeopathic preparations? According to what you've written so far - you should be in favor, after all according to you it works (and it doesn't matter what the mechanism is, right?). How can you be against something that helps??
And if you're in favor - then obviously it's better to lie to people and not tell them it's just water, because otherwise it won't work anymore.
Say you're funny!!! Did you even read the title of the section you referred me to???
"Cure with homeopathy is simply the Placebo Effect"
Which is exactly what I claimed!!!
what is going on with you ???
Miracles,
The only mistake is your lack of understanding, just insisting like a mule without even understanding what you are talking about.
Here again are two sources that are considered by most people who support science to be sufficiently reliable on the matter:
A. From the blog Sharp Thinking: "Homeopathy = placebo treatment, it sounds like a placebo (water without any active substance in it), it works like a placebo (studies show this) => it's a placebo"
B. From Wikipedia: "The body of scientific and medical evidence supports the claim that the effectiveness of homeopathic treatment, if at all achieved, is due solely to the placebo effect"
Miracles, two different sources that both tell you that homeopathy is based on a placebo! And you continue to cover your ears and claim that it is not true? Tell me what happened to you? The opacity and stubbornness you show in this discussion really reminds of the opacity of their creation that no evidence will convince him that he is wrong.
I read section 7 on the website you referred to and it talks about the placebo effect in animals that results from a lack of adherence to double blinding (because the therapist knew it was a drug) how exactly does this contradict my claim?? The fact that in animals the placebo effect is created as a result of the interaction of the sick animal with the therapist, in no way contradicts the claim that in humans the placebo effect of a homeopathic medicine is created (among other things) because of the patient's belief that the medicine he received really has the ability to heal.
Your stubbornness is simply amazing, and what to do you're wrong, so it's a shame.
rival
You wrote "Homeopathic medicine is based on the placebo effect" - a serious mistake! Do yourself a favor and read the link I gave.
And if you don't just argue - read the http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Wiki4CAM:_Myths_about_homeopathy
especially section 7.
Miracles,
Maybe we'll focus on issues we both agree with and leave the nonsense already?
Avi Blizovsky there is no need to publish my comments that are pending, it's a shame that there will just be duplication.
Miracles,
1. "If the subjects know that they received a certain substance, then what did we test?"
You asked earlier how do you know if a certain preparation has a placebo effect, so I just gave you an example of such a test... and the truth is that it is better to also add a third control group that does not receive any treatment just in case and the water itself has some kind of positive effect (and believe me I know very well what a double blind test is And also what is a triple blind test, but that's not what I tried to explain here).
2. "So you're saying it's worth supporting this industry?" Are you listening to yourself?'
not really how did you come up with that? All in all, I explained to you why the patients buy these drugs and believe that they really help them... It's a psychological effect, of course, called the placebo effect.
3. "There is no such thing as a placebo drug." Why do you invent new concepts?
And here's more from Wikipedia: placebo effect = dummy drug. is it good for you
Tell me, what are you becoming, Avshalom Kor? What are we in the Hebrew grammar class? Come on, we're talking about the essence here! Leave you out of precise terminology, I'm not a language teacher.
Placebo effect, dummy drug, placebo drug... as far as I'm concerned, it's the same thing. I'm talking about a treatment that makes the patient feel better only because he believes that the treatment is really real and effective (or a real drug) if he receives the exact same drug but is told that it's just a pill that has no effect, then his feeling will also be accordingly and he will not report Improvement in his condition as before.
4. You claimed earlier that -
"A homeopathic medicine is not a placebo!!"
And that's what the whole debate revolves around (Shamulik is for your question...) I brought you 4 different sources that all say clearly (for example the quote from the "sharp thinking" blog) that a homeopathic medicine is based on a placebo effect, so why just be stubborn?
Test notice
Miracles,
1. "If the subjects know that they received a certain substance, then what did we test?"
You asked how do you know if a certain preparation has a placebo effect, so I just gave you an example of such a test... The truth is that it is better to add a third control group that does not receive any treatment in case the water itself has some kind of positive effect (and believe me I know very well what a double blind test is and also what It's a triple-blind test, but that's not what I tried to explain here.)
2. "So you're saying it's worth supporting this industry?" Are you listening to yourself?'
not really how did you come up with that? All in all, I explained to you why the patients buy these drugs and believe that they really help them... It's a psychological effect, of course, called the placebo effect.
3. "There is no such thing as a placebo drug." Why do you invent new concepts?
And here's more from Wikipedia: placebo effect = dummy drug. is it good for you
Tell me, what will you become Avshalom Kor? What are we in the Hebrew grammar class? Come on, we're talking about essence here, spare you precise terminology, I'm not a language teacher. Placebo effect, dummy drug, placebo drug... for me it's all the same. I am talking about a treatment that makes the patient feel better only because he believes that it is really a real and effective treatment (or a real drug) if he receives the exact same drug but is told that it is just a pill that has no effect then his feeling will be accordingly and he will not report an improvement in his condition
4. You claimed earlier that -
"A homeopathic medicine is not a placebo!!"
That's what the whole debate revolves around (Shamulik is for your question...) I brought you 4 different sources that all say clearly (for example the quote from the "sharp thinking" blog) that a homeopathic medicine is based on a placebo effect, why just be stubborn?
Shmulik,
1. "It's a bit unclear to me what you're still arguing about"
Shmulik
great minds think alike 🙂
rival
1. If the subjects know that they received a certain substance, then what did we test? The basic rule in such a test is that the subjects do not know what substance they have received. In tests that are even better - the testers don't know either. These tests are called double-blind tests.
2. So you say it is worth supporting this industry? are you listening to yourself
3. There is no such thing as a "placebo drug". Why do you invent new concepts? 🙂 From Wikipedia "a drug ... is a preparation containing an active chemical or biological substance that is used for treatment, healing, prevention, suppression".
A.
The first rule in medicine is primum non nocere, "first thing - do no harm". A doctor who prescribes a homeopathic substance breaks this rule. In my opinion - his license should be revoked. Of course, legally he is a doctor as long as his license was not revoked...
rival,
I'm not sure what you're arguing about. However, I would like to address your points
Regarding point 1, maybe but for now there isn't and why does it matter? This shit needs to be fought by preventing sales because people can die when they think they are receiving treatment and not give the subject a scientific basis.
Regarding point 2, it is true and no one denies that there is such an effect, but our delicate point is that there is impersonation here on the part of the known party and it is the one that does not allow us to flow with you in calling it a placebo drug (more on that later). The seller in the interpretation rides on the fact that the word sounds scientific...
3. Basically, there is no such thing as a placebo drug or at least I have not found such a phrase, not even in English. There is a placebo effect and if there is an effect for homeopathy, it is probably the effect (I am careful because there are other substances in the pill and I don't know what the supervision is there so maybe there is a substance that reacts, probably not). As I recall, you wrote that - "homeopathic medicine = placebo" and maybe you should have written homeopathic medicine => placebo
Miracles,
1. "A controlled experiment in which they compared a homeopathic preparation to a placebo, then how can you say that the preparation is a placebo? I have not yet heard that they compared placebos in an experiment..."
Many types of tests can be performed, here is just one example - half of the patients do not receive any treatment (or they are given water and are explicitly told that it is water) and the other half are given "homeopathic water" and told that it is a medicine (homeopathic for example) and those who received the "medicine" They report a clear improvement in their good feeling compared to the first group, so they know it's a placebo.
2. "No seller will claim that these products have a placebo effect, and they firmly claim that there is a fundamental difference between water and their products. Ditto for the sugar balls'
But that's exactly the point, the very fact that the patients believe it's a real drug is what activates the placebo effect and makes them feel better! This is exactly the definition of a placebo!
3. Again, as far as I know (and I have given you four different sources that support my words) a drug is considered a placebo drug if it meets the type of test I listed in section 1. If the patient feels relief in his condition as a result of taking this drug then it is considered a placebo drug.
Miracles
What is "including those who call themselves doctors"
Anyone with a doctor's license is a doctor. I don't know any other definition.
rival
How exactly did the patients report improvement? There are two ways. One is that this is anecdotal evidence, and in this situation it is impossible to know whether the patient recovered from the medicine, or simply the disease
passed by herself.
The second is a controlled experiment, in which they compared a homeopathic preparation to a placebo, so how can you say that the preparation is a placebo? I have not yet heard that they compared placebos in an experiment...
No seller will claim that these products have a placebo effect, and they firmly claim that there is a fundamental difference between water and their products. Same for the sugar balls.
I understand that you don't believe this nonsense, but calling a homeopathic preparation a placebo gives some kind of market justification to these fraudsters, including those who call themselves doctors.
Ariel
Thanks!
Shmulik
exactly. There is a difference between placebo and placebo effect. A homeopathic preparation is not a placebo. The reports of the patients are also doubtful.
Shmulik,
The personal definitions of miracles really do not change (no offense intended) as long as the patient thought he was receiving real treatment and this made him feel relieved in his situation, it is considered a placebo (and it does not matter at all if the therapist is a fraud or if he really believed that the drug has healing properties, and if it is part of an experiment or not).
Miracles, today doctors cannot dispense a placebo as part of treatment but only as part of an experiment. On the other hand, in the past the regulations were not strict and placebo treatments were given in cases where there was no specific Mipol drug in stock. At the end of the 19th century and the beginning of the 20th century, there was a famous case in the USA of a doctor who gave a patient salt water instead of morphine and the patient was anesthetized, but the hospital was sued because the hospital demanded payment for morphine. There are still a large number of cases where the patient received placebo treatment, but again today you will not find such cases outside of an experiment. Hope I made the point clear
rival,
In my opinion, the intention of Nissim is this: homeopathy is not a placebo treatment because the "therapists" think that their product has added value. That is, even if there is only a placebo effect here, the buyers think there is much more here and the sellers are often scammers, so it is not a placebo treatment. No one who sells homeopathy will tell the buyer that there is only a placebo effect here, not because it will ruin the treatment, but because he is a charlatan fraudster who earns money dishonestly or is negligent who in a delusional way sells a medicine (in his opinion) and did not bother to check its effectiveness with the Standards Institute/Ministry of Health. I don't understand why the regulators don't ban this thing. cheating for its own sake.
And just a point for thought, many patients report a great improvement in their condition after taking a homeopathic medicine, you claim that it is not a placebo, so what is the explanation for that?
Miracles,
Don't be funny, you have known me long enough to know that I am the last to justify this nonsense called homeopathy and yes I know that people/children have died because of it (and no, I have yet to check the link but this topic is familiar to me).
Regarding the translation, I actually understood correctly what is written, it is clear that the placebo effect is created by the deception of the patient, this is the whole point of the placebo, that is what the patient's good feeling is based on 🙂
Here is another quote from Wikipedia in English:
"The study concluded that its findings were: compatible with the notion that the clinical effects of homeopathy are placebo effects"
So tell me, if approximately (in Hebrew) Wikipedia states that homeopathy is a placebo, and approximately "placebo" states that it works even outside of clinical trials, and if it is explicitly stated on a sharp thinking blog that homeopathy is a placebo, then do you still insist that you are right?
I think Mitsino, whoever reads the thread will decide who is right, I suggest you also ask your colleagues at work about the issue.
rival
I understand that English is not the language for you. I will translate "... intended to mislead the patient".
Don't you understand that what you do justifies homeopathy?!?! Are you serious opponent? You say it is a placebo treatment - meaning that it is a legitimate treatment, and the therapist knows that it has no medical effect.
Instead of citing quotes you don't understand, maybe concentrate on what I'm saying? I'll say it again: homeopathic preparations are sold as substances that heal. I gave a link to someone who sells a preparation, which he claims is a polio vaccine. Are you seriously saying that the same "Dr" Rosenthal thinks that the vaccine works with the help of the placebo?
Rival, it is important that you understand what I am saying about homeopathy - because people have died from it. Did you bother to read the link I gave at all?
You think religion has a placebo effect - maybe that's true. At least in religion, I hope that the religious leaders in the world are not all charlatans (some of them certainly are, see our members of the Knesset....)
Maya
Why do you really think that Neanderthals were nicer?
From what I understood from another article on the site, they lived more on the meat of larger animals than modern man. In addition, they hunted with spears only (no bows).
They sound like very aggressive guys.
And where in the quote you brought is it written that placebo is only in experiments??!
Miracles,
From the blog Sharp Thinking: "Homeopathy = placebo treatment. It sounds like a placebo (water without any active substance in it), it works like a placebo (studies show this) => it's a placebo"
So he doesn't know what he's talking about, and even the Hebrew Wikipedia doesn't know what it's talking about, only Nissim the genius knows! Really, I don't have the energy for idle arguments with you, you're wrong, stop arguing.
rival
Whoever sells a substance and claims that it is a cure - he is responsible. Even a pharmacist at a pharmacy should know it's cheating.
Do experiments - ask someone who knows to check Wikipedia... and see his reaction.
rival
I don't care what the Hebrew Wikipedia says. Here is a quote from Wikipedia in English:
A placebo... is a simulated or otherwise medically ineffective treatment for a disease or other medical condition intended to deceive the recipient.
"Homeopathic medicine" is not a placebo!!! I'll say it for the third and last time: a placebo is something given by a doctor as part of a test to test the effectiveness of other drugs.
Is a homeopathic substance given as part of a test? No, therefore it is not a placebo.
I have already said that it is possible that once in a while a homeopathic substance accidentally helped someone for a certain time. And it's a placebo effect. But those who sell the substance claim that it is a real medicine that really helps. A doctor will not do such a thing!!!
Opponent - try to concentrate 🙂
rival,
I have no way to test your claim but you are probably right that there are those who have never heard the criticism on the subject and they really believe they are doing good. Many chose to ignore the accumulated knowledge. I would expect the authorities to simply ban the sale of this thing, but what are the chances of that happening?
Miracles,
Your claim was that a homeopathic medicine is not a placebo (and you added some exclamation marks) and this is of course complete nonsense because it is a placebo, you claimed that a placebo is only in clinical trials, and I proved to you with quotes from Wikipedia that you are wrong.
Miracles why is it so hard for you to admit a mistake, is it the ego?
Shmulik,
"Those who sell this crap as a medicine are criminal charlatans"
I'm not sure that this is true in a sweeping way, some of them surely really believe in the healing ability of this devil, just like many rabbis who sell people the stupid illusion of God really really believe that he exists, they are not necessarily bad people or crooks, they really believe in this nonsense.
rival
You always make me repeat myself.
1) A placebo is something that is used for clinical trials. A doctor cannot give a patient a placebo without his knowledge (at least in the US it's like that).
2) Homeopathy is fraudulent. To call something a "medicine" you must show that it is more effective than a placebo. Maybe homeopathy, in certain cases and completely by chance, has a placebo effect? I suggest you enter the following link to see the type of people who recommend this garbage:
http://www.medirose.co.il/pages/%D7%97%D7%99%D7%A1%D7%95%D7%9F_%D7%A4%D7%95%D7%9C%D7%99%D7%95.aspx
3) Whoever sells homeopathy is a charlatan. Whoever buys is a fool. I am of course not referring to anyone in the link I gave, so that he does not sue me…… 🙂
So:
If there is an effect, it is a placebo (and perhaps of the substances that produce the drug).
Those who sell this crap as a medicine are criminal charlatans, and what helps them is the very scientific-sounding word "homeopathy" and the industry created around this nonsense
It's like the belief in God, something false, which is not really true, makes people feel better (well not for everyone, not for those whose heads are beheaded in the name of this belief).
Shmulik,
Obviously, but the effect is a placebo effect.
You do understand that homeopathy is actually water, right?
Miracles,
You are really not inventing new definitions, please read the definition for placebo effect on Wikipedia, and please also read the entry homeopathy. The fact that it is used in experiments (and not only clinical, but also in animals) does not mean that it does not work outside of experiments as well.
A homeopathic medicine is the most classic example of a placebo medicine.
Placebo effect from Wikipedia: "The placebo effect occurs when a patient receives a sham treatment (which he thinks should help him), or a treatment that does not include the "active" ingredient in the medicine (for example: a sugar pill, a water injection), but his condition improves.
The phenomenon also occurs in real treatments - the patient's condition partially improves regardless of the medicine he received.
Homeopathy from Wikipedia: "The body of scientific and medical evidence supports the claim that the effectiveness of homeopathic treatment, if at all achieved, is due solely to the placebo effect."
rival
A placebo is something given in a clinical trial of a new drug. That is to say - some of the subjects receive the tested drug, and some receive an inert substance and the inert substance is included to have an effect as a result of the placebo effect.
No one gives a placebo for medical treatment.
Homeopathy is simply a method of stealing money, sometimes also with the support of the state. Homeopaths claim that water has a memory property and as you lower the concentration of the substance, the property gets stronger. The idea came from a doctor named Hanmann at the end of the 18th century.
To put it mildly - whoever sells it is a dangerous charlatan and whoever buys it is a risk-taking fool...
א
I agree that this is the most natural and immediate hypothesis. What's more, I don't know this study at all and I don't know why and if at all they rejected this hypothesis. From what I've read just here on the site, the hypothesis they did make seemed well-founded. Undoubtedly there is always a problem of the immune system during pregnancy. Ultimately our immune system is built to recognize anything that invades our body and is not self. This definition certainly fits the fetus, so the immune system has to undergo some kind of adaptation in order to succeed in not eliminating this fetus, so it is definitely possible for such a mismatch between the fetus and the mother.
From what I have read about Neanderthals (popular literature only) it does seem that they were much calmer than Sapiens and less prone to wars and violence. I don't know if this is really true or not and I don't know how much it affected what is described in the article. I would guess that there is a combination of the two effects - the Sapiens were more prone to violence and rape and the few cases that were in the opposite direction were eradicated by the immune system. But this is really a layman's hypothesis because I haven't read anything from the professional literature on the subject.
Maya
One of the surfers wrote
"The hypothesis that explains the absence of the Neanderthal Y chromosome in the human genome and which, because of its simplicity, is puzzling to me and was not raised in the article is: all matings between modern man and Neanderthal man were made between modern males and Neanderthal females.
This hypothesis is consistent with the fact that the Neanderthals became extinct in contact with modern man. It is possible that the sexual aggression we know in modern males was not the property of Neanderthals and that modern man kidnapped and raped Neanderthal women simply because he could, just as it was done in the 21st century, while the Neanderthal did not have such aggression."
At the very beginning of the discussion here there were others who wrote similar things.
What do you think? Is that reasonable at all? Isn't that a bit presuming that the Neadents were all Glatelmen?
"medicine" in quotation marks of course.
Miracles,
"A homeopathic medicine is absolutely not a placebo!!"
Are you serious, how did you get this?
Certainly a homeopathic medicine is a placebo, it is a medicine based on a psychological effect.
rival
A homeopathic medicine is absolutely not a placebo!!
rival
Right. Unfortunately, it is forbidden to shoot such pharmacists. In Australia, a couple of parents are in prison because they treated their daughter with a homeopathic medicine.
And there are also people in Israel who recommend homeopathy, some of them doctors. And they should have been in prison a long time ago. One of these dogs is against vaccines, and sells a homeopathic vaccine…
Nissim, you are probably right and I got confused with a pharmacist at a pharmacy.
rival
The doctor must not recommend a homeopathic medicine.
At least that's how I remember it, could I be wrong?
Placebo…
Homeopathic medicine = placebo.
Miracles,
It's strange what you say because doctors recommend homeopathic remedies to their patients all the time. Regarding placebo in dogs, this is exactly what the link I gave in the previous message talks about.
opponent
A doctor cannot legally give a placebo as treatment to a patient. And to top it off, from what I've read, the placebo effect is quite small, but on the other hand, it also works on dogs!
A',
I had an ingrown toenail a few times before, I just cut off the part that penetrated the flesh, put a plaster and after a few days it went away, I didn't go to the doctor.
Regarding placebo, many studies have actually been conducted on the subject, there are several fascinating articles on the subject on the Sharp Thinking blog, here is just one example:
https://sharp-thinking.com/category/נפלאות-המוח/פלצבו
rival
My belief in superhuman moral laws (a belief that you also share but deny it) prevents me from injuring others?
Regarding hypnosis, you will be surprised to hear that many dentists are trained and are able to perform treatment without anesthesia.
Only the mental fixation of both the patient and the doctors prevents the method from becoming widespread. And there is also the problem that it is much faster and easier to give a shot.
Regarding healing or speeding up healing, it sounds very logical to me that it is possible. It may be that even just reducing the pain causes a feeling of healing and then its acceleration from a placebo effect.
So if a study is conducted, it is worth adding another control group that will receive pain relievers and check the rate of healing for the nation of those who imagine light.
I just want to emphasize to anyone reading this. An ingrown toenail is a problem that requires medical treatment and any other method you want to try must be done at the same time. Neglecting a maid's nail can be dangerous!
A',
There was an article (I can find it for you if you want) about a surgeon who performs full surgeries on his patients without any anesthesia by making them feel no pain in some psychological way (a type of hypnosis), so it certainly makes sense to me.
The question is whether it is also a cure...
A',
"I know that many scientists have sacrificed themselves for science, but I still have no intention of injuring myself."
You don't have to hurt yourself, you can hurt someone else 😀
rival
I'm talking about immediate pain relief.
It's really not scientific enough and what I said is to do research on the subject. and try to develop a method in a scientific way.
I know many scientists have sacrificed themselves for science. But I still have no intention of hurting myself?
But if you want, feel free to do it yourself and tell me?
Pain may just stop suddenly. But it doesn't match my previous experiences.
Regarding healing, it is really impossible to conclude (even though it sounds very logical to me that there would be an improvement in healing. But a thorough examination would probably really require the experiment that I don't want to perform) but pain relief, I think it is possible to conclude at least about myself without injuring myself twice.
Miracles,
"Yes - that's what I wrote in my second paragraph..."
It wasn't that clear because earlier when I said that the pigeon experiment shows us how faith begins to develop it sounded like you disagreed with me. When you say "supernatural reason" it can also be interpreted as "magic", it does not necessarily require the intervention of gods.
A',
"I will content myself with my personal experience of being able to reduce pain. (proven experience with an ingrown toenail)"
If you don't have a control in the experiment (eg something you can compare it to like an ingrown toenail on the same toe on the other foot) then you can't draw any conclusions from it, maybe time just took its toll and the wound healed on its own regardless of your spells.
walking dead
There are ethical problems with giving a placebo. And I could not get a clear answer in the internet search if this is actually done today. Besides, a falsely given placebo may damage the trust between the patients and the doctor. And this can lead to the opposite effect. Research has shown that patients who felt mistrust in the doctor, the drugs acted on them in a weak way. Even placebos could cause an aggravation. What I suggest is without lying to patients to consciously try to activate the effect.
I will give up the offer to injure myself?
And I will content myself with my personal experience in being able to reduce pain. (Proven experience with an ingrown toenail) even if the research develops pain treatment only. It will be quite a bit. But there is no reason in my opinion for it to stop there.
Maya
On a slightly different topic.
What do you think about the theory "our ancestors are the rapists" that was brought up here several times by surfers. (Am I talking about the subject of the article we are commenting on?)
rival
Yes - that's what I wrote in my second paragraph...
Miracles,
"You can assume that the rain dance started like the pigeons, right? They did X, Y happened, so they concluded that X caused Y. This is probably the source of the superstition.
Among the pigeons it may still have been just a superstition, but among the humans it has already developed into a real belief. They no longer thought that dancing just makes it rain, but they "realized" that the gods in the sky (those who make the lightning and thunder) liked their dancing, so as a sign of gratitude they now make it rain.
rival
The rain dance actually strengthens what I claim. We can assume that the rain dance started like with the pigeons, right? They did X, Y happened, so they concluded that X-> Y. This is probably the source of the superstition.
But - man looked for a reason for this correlation, because it is a distinct survival mechanism in intelligent animals. Man could not find a natural cause, so he thought the cause was supernatural.
We laugh at the people who believe it works, but some of us still think that why there is no natural explanation today, there must be a supernatural explanation.
And this is all (my) Torah on one leg 🙂
A.
1)
"I don't think there was anything wrong with my statement. All I said was that it was innovative at the time."
So if I come today and teach people Newtonian physics, is that innovative at the time? (and this is a much smaller age difference)
"Religions have existed for hundreds of thousands of years. They probably played some role. It would be a bit naive to think that it was just a way to explain nature before science."
This is a straw man. No one thinks that, and they brought you several more explanations here for the roles that religion played and why it created advantages for societies that believed in some common religion.
2)
I'm not sure if you know this but one of the tools in a doctor's toolbox today is to prescribe a placebo.
By the way, if you want to do an experiment about the effectiveness of imagining light on a painful place, you can do it yourself. Take some tool (a pin for example) and injure yourself with identical wounds, in two similar places on the body and see how long they take and how they heal. Then do it again only this time imagine light on one and not on the other. Repeat this several times and you will have data to show if it is effective on any level. You are welcome to get back to us with the results.
3)
Let me present you with a different point of view. Neither you nor an opponent believes in an invisible dragon (and neither does anyone else). The only thing you believe in is that you believe in something. Actually the thing you believe in and call God is not something you really believe in. The reason you don't believe in him is not necessarily because you don't really believe in him (although this is true for many believers), but because this concept actually has no meaning. You don't know how to define it in a way that would have meaning. No one knows how to define it in a way that would have meaning.
There used to be gods that were well defined and had a clear meaning, but there was a tiny problem with them. They could be shown not to exist. To avoid this problem, today instead of facing the demand to produce a definition with meaning that can be tested, people abandon the task altogether and ignore the fact that they really don't have a definition of God that has any meaning.
A'
To be moral is to choose freely and out of free will to behave towards others as they would like you to behave towards them (the basic idea is Maya's) regardless of whether it pays for you or not. If you see the choice of a certain behavior as a "dragon" then good luck to you, but then you can also define a feeling of hunger as a dragon. Every once in a while you have a strong and uncontrollable urge to put something edible in your mouth so let's call it a "dragon".
Sorry but a "dragon" can only be something external (God, fairies, spirits...) you can't take an internal emotion (that makes you want to eat, or makes you treat other people nicely) and say it's a "dragon", I mean you can but it A bit ridiculous.
You know what, let's ask Nissim.
א
I can say what I think, but the truth is that my opinion is irrelevant. I think I'm a bit of a mutant. Just recently I had conversations with people about Judaism as a religion/Judaism as a nation and whether Judaism as a nation really exists (the answer, by the way, is no) but just me writing this will turn many people on and I don't want to enter into a discussion on this topic at all. What's more, I got to talk to people who are complete atheists and even really hate religion and yet, have been living in the USA for 10 years and are starting to search. So they can't go to an Orthodox synagogue because it's yuck and not to a Reform one and now they found something that is "Left Reform" and is actually called a synagogue without believers and they had a great time there. They talked to the children there about Passover in the form of, for example, let's talk about slavery nowadays and all the children who work for pennies in sweat shops (how do you say it in Hebrew?) In short, they liked it and they explained to me that they were looking for a sense of community.
The reason I'm not the person to say what I think is that I'm really not looking for it. I'm looking for friends and I'm a social person, but I really don't feel the need to associate myself with some abstract community. And I really think I'm a mutant because I see that a lot of people around me do have this need, so I guess it's something I'm missing out on. And since this is one of the most important things, to me religion is sufficient and I simply don't have that need, so I'm not looking for a substitute for it in a secular way either.
Regarding what you asked about close people dying, I can only say that I actually feel the opposite of you. You say that you don't understand how it is possible to find comfort without the belief that they continue with their "life". I just really don't understand how this belief provides comfort. The man is dead. It's a very, very bad thing. It saddens me and after a while it saddens me less because that's what time does. that's it. Every now and then I can remember it again and I get sad again. I embrace this sadness, remember what I want to remember and then this moment also passes, as moments do. that's it. I don't know how the experience of these moments would have changed with the addition of God. I just really don't find it relevant.
That's the best answer I can give you in my opinion, I think. Hope this gave you something.
Maya
There was really an interesting article about a legend for a secular Passover.
I personally think it is a blessing. I think that secular involvement in religion can over time even affect the side of the religious. and lead to a more tolerant and developed religion.
Maya
That sounds interesting. I will read more in depth tomorrow.
But I also wanted to hear what you think.
rival
Sorry, there's no easy way to say this, you believe in an invisible dragon. I understand it's hard. You can maybe explain why it's good for everyone to believe in your dragon. Can you explain what emotion led you to believe him. You can say it's because of your upbringing. But all this does not explain a single thing. Why do you continue to believe he exists? Emotion is not a reason to believe in something. Education is not a reason either. Utility is also not a reason because the whole idea of your dragon is to do something contrary to utility. Just as you say you don't believe in the dragon, you say your morals are better. Which is to say I don't have a dragon but my dragon is better. Now you call it a "worldview" beauty. But what is your worldview based on?? Sorry, about faith. No scientific fact can lead to the conclusion that something is immoral. It may or may not be worthwhile. But the whole idea of morality is to act in the wrong way. Otherwise it's not moral, it's just a utilitarian strategy. I am of course not saying that if you believe in a dragon that means you have to believe in every dragon. And it doesn't mean you have to believe in God. It's not even really the same thing. But it's still a bit similar.
א
There are actually articles from time to time even here on the website about what is called "secular spirituality". The articles here are written by Dr. Nir Lahav And an example of this (from another site) here:
http://www.hofesh.org.il/articles/jew/secular-kippur.html
You can search and find more information about it. By the way, I don't necessarily agree with all of his philosophy, but it definitely answers your question about how an atheist replaces the other needs that religion provides while examining what these needs are and how they can receive a gentle response even without religion (in its accepted definition)
Shmulik,
Thanks for the additions, which exact segment I watched two videos about on YouTube yesterday and even saved it in my favorites, I don't even remember how I got to it. Could it be that we talked about him here?
A',
I didn't say just because of that, but I showed you how inner emotion leads to moral behavior. When you hurt someone else it hurts you too, and in my eyes behavior that stems from such an emotion is much more moral than "moral" behavior that stems from fear of receiving punishment (prison or hell).
I think this is how we should behave (in a moral way) you want to call it "faith" (in my opinion it is not faith but a worldview) but such "faith" really does not resemble belief in the existence of "something" like a god or like an invisible dragon.
rival
So just because it's unpleasant you have to be moral?
So why sharpen this feeling?
You know it's very easy to neutralize the bad feeling (it's really sad how easy it is).
You are trying to mr. Should one be moral only if a bad feeling arises?
It really doesn't come close to being considered moral.
A',
I don't want to disappoint you, but how did you come from the things I wrote to the conclusion that I changed my mind? If you're talking about morality, then I gave an example here on the subject of empathy, which is an emotion just like pain, I don't like it when I'm hurt, and I don't like it when someone else is hurt. This has nothing to do with faith, it's just an unpleasant feeling that I don't want to experience.
It's nothing like blindly believing there's an invisible dragon in the room, and nothing will convince you otherwise.
Rival, Nissim, A.
You are talking about BP Skinner who published an article about superstitions among pigeons.
Some links:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B._F._Skinner#Superstition_in_the_pigeon
http://psychclassics.yorku.ca/Skinner/Pigeon/
Then look for the Skinner box
And if you have already touched on this point, read Feynman's instructive speech and understand to what level of superstitions we can reach. If this was an American series, I would say that my brain went "boom" when I read this speech (while imagining Feynman's voice...). I enjoyed the speech so much:
http://calteches.library.caltech.edu/51/2/CargoCult.htm
rival
The whole long and fascinating discussion here started with your wish to me. I think the question can be phrased like this.
How can I believe in something that cannot be scientifically proven? And is there anything that can change my mind from believing in something that seems so irrational to you.
To explain, I tried to show you that you also hold beliefs that are not based on a pure rational thing and that it is impossible to prove it scientifically, nor does it speak in scientific terms at all. That is, some things science can explain why you feel the need to believe them. And some you think ultimately lead to benefit yourself.
But neither the explanation nor the benefit is what convinces you to keep believing. Because there is no research that can convince you to think otherwise. Even if they find that there is no personal benefit and for example they will present research that immoral people earn more, live longer, and are happier.
Probably without Maya I would never have been able to explain. Lucky she joined. Among the concepts brought by "a system of superhuman laws". And regardless of whether to define any belief system as a religion, the concept is very good.
I'm sure I didn't make you believe in God. That was not the goal even for a moment. But I hope you understood me better. I don't see a great distance between superhuman laws and superhuman strength. But that's just my personal opinion.
The hypothesis that explains the absence of the Neanderthal Y chromosome in the human genome and which, due to its simplicity, is puzzling to me and was not brought up in the article is: all the matings between modern man and Neanderthal man were between modern males and Neanderthal females.
This hypothesis is consistent with the fact that the Neanderthals became extinct in contact with modern man. It is possible that the sexual aggression we know in modern males was not the property of Neanderthals and that modern man kidnapped and raped Neanderthal women simply because he could, just as it was done in the 21st century, while the Neanderthal did not have such aggression.
Did you like the video?
rival
It's a real shame that the medical establishment doesn't act in almost the same direction.
It's a shame that the phenomenon is seen only as a hindrance in research. It's a shame that many doctors are not sufficiently aware of the issue. And reject anything that smacks of mysticism.
A',
The topic of self-healing is very interesting in my opinion, and it is possible to enhance it during a lucid dream:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OwZgPKtmtpA
Miracles,
"The experiment Shiriv describes shows that animals also have superstitions. But to me, superstition is not a religion.'
I don't so much agree, think about the experiment with the pigeons, now think about how similar it is to the story of the rain dance of primitive tribes, and how it relates to religion and belief in gods.
I think the connection is quite clear.
Correction, empathy.
And of course this automatically leads to moral behavior (the desire that the other not be harmed).
Following Nissim's words,
Empathy is the ability to feel someone else's pain, and it makes you want to stop their pain.
Here is an interesting article on:
http://www.calcalist.co.il/local/articles/0,7340,L-3389841,00.html
Miracles
A particular version appears. What I said was innovative is placing the law at the top of the scale of religion's values.
Regarding what you said about religion and superstitions. It may be that really superstitions are also a human need and religions have also answered them over the years. But I really don't think that's the only thing.
—
Mention alternative medicine and placebo effect there. The placebo effect is actually a certain ability to heal with the help of faith (a very interesting and mysterious mechanism), this can be a certain advantage for religion. It. Can even lead to a somewhat higher lifespan. Regarding alternative medicine, I would suggest that doctors instruct their patients to perform the actions of the alternative healers themselves. Like imagining a light on the place of pain or imagining a few minutes a day the wound is closed. I'm sure research will show positive results. All this is not to prove these inefficiencies, on the contrary, a conscious use of the power of self-belief in healing or placebo in other words. I personally imagine light on a painful place no. Because I believe in my supernatural power, but because I know that my thought has healing power and this has been proven in many studies, they just called it a placebo and considered it only an interfering factor in the research.
—
rival
This is a link that tackles the question a bit more seriously. And still touches only a small part in my opinion of the phenomenon called religion and God. Of course I have some things I don't agree with. https://greengross.wordpress.com/2009/05/02/%D7%94%D7%90%D7%91%D7%95%D7%9C%D7%95%D7%A6%D7%99%D7%94-%D7%A9%D7%9C-%D7%94%D7%93%D7%AA/
A.
The experiment Shiriv describes shows that animals also have superstitions. But to me, superstition is not a religion. As I already wrote, I define religion as belief in the supernatural. Superstition is simply ignorance. Not that it is fundamental 🙂
What you said about the holidays - I meant something a little different, but I definitely agree with every word you say on the subject.
And about morality. The same Hofstadter of the prisoners' dilemma wrote about the size of the soul. It describes a ladder that starts with a stone and ends with Gandhi. Most people are less than Gandhi in a certain range. An opponent mentioned empathy, so a soul in a certain sense, is the amount of empathy you have. Physically, it depends on the processes in the brain, and therefore on the complexity of the brain. A monkey has a soul bigger than a cow, she has a soul bigger than a turtle. And now - you have a bigger soul than mine, because you have more empathy for living. It's not black and white of course, but each one "cuts" somewhere the sequence of the souls. The Hindus cut even closer to the rock….
And regarding Hillel - the sentence was already said in Leviticus, so you gained a few more years 🙂
A',
See if you can read here:
http://www.haaretz.co.il/magazine/the-edge/1.1474860
rival
Well, a book. It really sounds funny.???
I did not say that it is not perhaps one of the functions of religion. But if so it is one of the least significant.
Anyway now I'm curious to hear. ?
And there is a nice experiment with pigeons (which shows how faith begins to develop) Nissim must know this.
A',
This seems to me to be the most logical explanation, I don't understand why it doesn't seem to you.
not a rival This is the most non-inventive explanation I have heard about why there are religions.
rival
The response was about the response to hell.
rival
I do not believe???
Seriously, believe me I know?
A',
"It would be a bit naive to think that it was just a way to explain nature before science"
It would not be innocent at all, it is the most logical explanation for how religions began to develop. And ask Nissim about the experiment with the pigeons.
walking dead
I don't think there was anything wrong with my statement. All I said was that it was innovative at the time. I didn't even say that he was the first, only that the idea of putting it at the head of the religion was innovative. You are right that Buddhism was first. It's really my mistake.
But I would be more than happy to receive a response on the content of the things I wrote.
What do you say about the separation I said should be made between the concepts? What do you say about the question of whether atheism in itself can satisfy most people? I don't think you agree with me. But think about it. Religions have existed for hundreds of thousands of years. They probably played some role. It would be a bit naive to think that it was just a way to explain nature before science. And it would be naive to think that it can be made to disappear in an instant without thinking about the functions that religion fulfilled and how to complete them. A bit like becoming a vegan and thinking of not changing anything in the menu except removing animal food.
A',
'Speaking of effects. Heaven and hell in it from Greek abundance. And it wasn't necessarily bad. Perhaps even required for the development of morality. But today, in my opinion, at least this is a somewhat outdated idea.'
This idea lives and breathes even today, you will be surprised how many rabbis use it to convince people to repent, and how many people believe this nonsense.
There's something about you
Certainly there were influences. I can count at least 10 even in the middle of the night.
But for most of the readers here, it was important for me to tell about innovations that Judaism contributed, and there are many of them.
Speaking of effects. Heaven and hell in it from Greek abundance. And it wasn't necessarily bad. Perhaps even required for the development of morality. But today, in my opinion, at least this is a somewhat outdated idea.
A.
It's not really important to the discussion you're having, but these kinds of false claims bother me. The general disregard and lack of recognition by many Jews of external influences on Judaism is a common and ugly phenomenon in my opinion. A bit of studies on the Hellenistic culture (not from the point of view of absolute evil that came to destroy Judaism), and on the other cultures in the region in ancient times (not from the point of view of immoral barbarians) and the connections between them, will open up to every person a fascinating world of cultural influences and conceptual fertilization mutually.
Sent to me in the middle…
Nevertheless, I make a very big effort to prevent them.
The biggest problem is when there is also a mistake in meaning and then the software does not mark the word.
Life
You are of course right.?
But there's really no reason to get upset or say it's upsetting.
I even have diagnoses that allow me to write in error
The idea did not grow out of nowhere either.
It was preceded by sayings dating back to the time of the prophets that the treatment of others precedes worship.
And yet the reformulation plus the explicit placing of the rule at the head of all religion. It has innovation.
It seems to me an unnecessary debate whether it was a global regional innovation or just a local one.
In any case, I also said that I don't think this rule alone is enough today.
I also don't think in the attitude that if morality stands for faith. So you have to practice reducing the irrational belief to a minimum of rules or just to one rule from which we will explain everything. On the contrary, morality stands on beliefs, and the more it stands on more beliefs, the more developed it is. There is no need to think about how to unite, say, vegetarianism with socialism. You can hold several beliefs. Creating suffering for a living creature is a bad thing, mutual help is a good thing. Of course it is possible to find a connection, but will it contribute to anything? I don't see what.
A.
A moment of Hebrew. Her writing "from extension to him" should be "from appreciation to him". These are two completely different words. Such errors are annoying.
1) This perhaps makes it innovative in the specific culture in question. Not innovative in the sense of an innovation in the world of human culture as is depicted in your words.
2) We are talking about cultures that were in contact (even if this connection is built on connections between other cultures along the way).
3) This should not diminish, even adopting values that are worth adopting even if you did not invent them is something worthy of appreciation, but it is also not innovative in the global cultural sense.
4) Yes, I am sure, and you are wrong about the time of the appearance of Buddhism, and it is not just about Buddhism either.
So it makes it non-innovative if the rule appeared at the same time thousands of kilometers away?
So this should reduce the importance of Hillel or the extension to it?
Besides, are you 100% sure? Hillel Hai during the second temple is about more than 2000 years after Buddhism appeared. But in any case it's not important because I don't think there was a mutual influence at that time.
A.
"Old Hillel's rule I think is very important, and was very innovative at the time"
Oh, are you aware that there are some religions in the Indian region where this rule existed several hundred years earlier?
First of all, have a good week everyone.
Maya
Regarding the definition of Professor Harari of Religions.
At first I was enthusiastic about the new definition. It also fit exactly with the debate I was having here, where I tried to explain that everyone actually holds beliefs that are not based on science or pure rationality.
Therefore, after a little deliberation, I agreed with the definition. I also admit that she placed belief in God in the same line from a rational if ideological point of view.
But thinking back, I found problems with this Haggadah. Mainly problems it creates with additional settings. For example, I believe (from the ideological belief) in granting freedom of religion and freedom from religion. It is impossible to treat both types of religions in the same way. For example, I am in favor of giving full religious freedom to Muslims (even though I do not believe in their religion) but I am in favor of restricting the steps of any racist movement. I think, for example, that it is okay to think that your religion is better, but it is not okay to see it as superior. (This is even beyond political correctness) To verify this, a feminist would not be moral not to see it as superior. I also think that religious coercion is a bad thing even if the majority decided on it. But if there is a majority in the country I will not oppose the ban on raising animals for food. I hate religious missionaries (also atheist missionaries) but I am in favor of trying to educate feminists about vegetarianism and humanism. And there are countless more examples. So even though both types of religions are based on faith (without justification) it is impossible to treat two simply as religion, for better or for worse.
—
Miracles
The rule of old Hillel I think is very important, and was very innovative at the time (to place the invulnerability of the other at the head of religion.) But I don't think that today you can really base the whole of morality only on this rule. I really don't see how it is possible to include, for example, vegetarianism with a constant preference for human life over animals (if you include animals in your "friends" you will not be able to explain why you killed an animal in order to save a person) and this is just one example.
—
Regarding what you said about leaving religion. Do you mean, for example, marking religious holidays even without belief in the existence of God or the event on which they were determined? If so, I strongly support the idea. In my opinion, it would be wonderful if non-religious people would celebrate holidays and look for the values in the holiday that they want to preserve (instead of just being anti) for example Pesach-Harot (which by the way is the memory of the exodus from Egypt is a wonderful value in Judaism regardless of whether it will be observed or not. Because this memory is meant to preserve norms of morality. Always remember how you were treated in a foreign land. In the Torah this is called love of the sojourner and it refers to non-Jews and not to those who join Judaism - I know there are religious people who want to empty the concept from its content today -)
rival
Regarding the investment, you are of course right. We have a representative in Israel, who is now known in Europe and China...
"Maybe in Israel they will stop engaging in nonsense and invest in health?"
Not only in health, in general in education and science.
Miracles,
Yes I remember you talking about it before, it's really sad. But maybe instead of giving up and throwing up your hands you should try to fight for it and try to change things here for the better.
You said that you are still in the reserves, I imagine that the planes you served on are now only in museums, so you must have other jobs there, but it is very nice that you still continue to come here for the reserves. It's voluntary I imagine, so well done.
Miracles
Your story in relation to the systems you developed has the name Halam Industries Ltd. There was a case in the 70's of a rising doctor from Georgia who developed a treatment method for a certain type of skin cancer. This is an ointment he developed that you apply to the skin and it does the job. He moved from one hospital to another and begged her to be checked. There was a complete refusal. The argument that he is stupid in essence was how can a doctor be from Georgia. In the end he broke down and he moved to Switzerland where he established a factory for the production of the paste. The end was that the State of Israel paid him a lot of money to buy the medicine. Tell me, it's not stupid.?
Another story concerns the Israeli Space Agency. The entire space agency has 3.5 employees, they do indeed do beautiful things, but it is very minor. As part of the Apollo program to send a man to the moon, 3 million people worked and that is a lot. Why won't 40,000 - 50,000 workers in Israel work in space industries. And believe me, this can be a tremendous economic booster. In my opinion, the space industry is the future. I know this from my familiarity with the subject. Think how many Israeli minds that are in the US would return to Israel. You too would return to Israel.
In the 70s, one of Israel's greatest experts in political science was Professor Benjamin Akzin. He defined the State of Israel as a fiefdom, think about it.
rival
Click on my name. We are a small company that develops tools to support the decisions of brain surgeons in preparation for surgery and during the surgery itself. In the US we received funding that allows us to exist, and our systems are in hospitals such as Mount Sinai, Mayo Clinic and UCLA, where I am. In Israel we offered to put systems in hospitals for free - and they asked us for money!!! And it's a shame, because Israel has some of the world's leading brain surgeons.
In Israel I have a house, children and grandchildren, and I am still making reserves. The rest of my family is in Australia. So here it is 15 hours from everyone……but who knows where this company will lead? Maybe in Israel they will stop engaging in nonsense and invest in health?
Walla. And yes, I'm starting to remember I think I came across this message. Really small world.
rival
Really, the section for searching relatives will be here...
Yes, I don't remember why, but Nissim gave some kind of summary of his resume in response to someone, so from looking at it I saw that there was a possibility that my good friend would know him and as soon as I gave her the summary of the resume and told her Nissim, she immediately got excited and told me exactly who and where she knew him.
Maya,
"I even found out that mine and Nisim have a mutual friend 🙂 "
It's a small world as they say, but how did you actually discover it? It seems to me that you didn't talk about it here and you didn't exchange contact details here on the site, so how did you come to this anyway?
Miracles,
"And Maya and I are also neighbors today"
Yes I know, I saw that she suggested you join her and her family for a fun day at Disneyland.
Don't you intend to return to Israel someday? Don't you have a little patriotism left? It is true that the world is beautiful and big, but all in all, this is our country, and you can never know when anti-Semitism will reach the places that you are currently so comfortable with there.
Miracles
I have the impression that I am in the section for searching relatives. By the way, in the hollowdeck of the spaceship Enterprise in the Star Trek series, you can get anywhere in no time. Remember Scooty one to beam up?
It's not that far, a direct flight 🙂
Miracles
Well, you made me want to. As soon as I win the lottery I go (a bit of a problem because I never fill out a lottery...)
Maya
I don't think there is a better place... The well-being of Canada, the weather of L.A., the views of Rio + European cities, the food of the whole world, animals of Australia (there is nothing to compare...)....
Miracles
It really sucks... the truth is that I've never been to Sydney (Australia is far away...) so I don't really know, but from what I've heard from friends who have been, there are probably worse places to be.
Maya
I just renewed my visa for another two years. "Unfortunately" I renew the visa in Sydney. What a shame 🙂
Miracles
But not for long, because we are returning to Israel in 4 months.
And Maya and I are also neighbors today
Maya
True 🙂
rival
is funny. It seems to me that most of the commenters here don't really know each other, but you start to feel like you know the people after commenting and following the comments for a while. I even found out that mine and Nisim have a mutual friend 🙂
The truth is that I was actually thinking all the time about Camila (K.) and Albenzo that they might be a couple, they seem to me to be pretty much in the same head as they say.
Maya,
ok (although i imagine you know)
rival
You'll have to ask him that...
Oops, it was accidentally sent to me before the time... Is there any special reason for the nickname he chose for himself here?
Maya,
I understood, probably on several occasions that this matter came up I was not here (I'm sure I would have remembered such a thing) so thank you for explaining.
By the way, there is some fiber
rival
Indeed this is my partner (he is not ready to call himself my husband because he believes that words have meaning and he is not the owner of any person, so I, as a disciplined woman, do what I am told).
We did not hide our connection and it came up on several occasions. You probably weren't focused 😉
Maya,
It was quite surprising to see you suddenly writing with the username "walking death", is that your husband? I didn't think for a moment that there was a connection between you two.
Shmulik
I don't disagree with you (a double negative is one of my favorite forms of expression). I understand the problems with the definition and as I mentioned, what I like about it is that there really is a well-defined limit. Religious people keep coming up with this argument that non-religious ideologies such as Communism and Nazism caused the most problems in the 20th century and therefore all these atheists are talking nonsense because they have no morals. The atheists come and say that Communism and Nazism are basically like religion. So why is it like a religion? This definition gives a very precise cut that defines what is religion and what is not religion and then you don't have to get involved with God because he really doesn't belong.
Regarding what you wrote about Islam, I actually do not agree with you. Not that I have a great understanding of Islam, but yes, you have to eat to live, but that's not the main goal of Islam, it's just a byproduct that needs to be done (it was in my postdoc that I was exposed to a lot of Asian cultures, after all, I'm in Southern California, and I really see the difference between This and liberalism. Your happiness is really, really not important, not an argument and not relevant to anything, you have a list of things you need and are expected to do in your lifetime and that's what matters). So the fact that the West produces more food or maintains a higher life expectancy (which, by the way, is also debatable, kudos to the West for being able to keep Arik Sharon alive for a few years. What value did his life really have in his last years? But the age at which he dead is the age that is ultimately calculated when you look at the statistics of life expectancy in Israel) It's nice, but irrelevant. I guess that a very important value in Islam, more than your smile, for example is modesty. And liberalism really screwed up with that. What is? Does he let women dress as they please? And then they reveal what they want? You call it cruelty to women, Muslim people (including the women, by the way) think that this is the right way of life and that it is a very important value, sometimes more than your life (I believe you have heard of death for the sanctification of Hashem or murder for the honor of the family). So in the Islamic matrix, liberalism is really irrelevant and even a very bad method.
Yes, you definitely have to read to understand. The professor probably explains it better than me (however, these are his ideas...) By the way, I assume that the book you have at home is his first book (A Brief History of Humanity). Everything I talked about here is from the second book (The History of Tomorrow) although the first one is definitely worth reading and also changed a lot of things in my point of view. I will just point out that the two books, even though, as I said, I do not agree with everything written in them, are very, very disturbing. I haven't finished the second one yet but it is definitely extremely disturbing, so please go into it carefully.
rival
These are the things I meant - present in religions and missing in secular society. In my opinion at least.
Perhaps it is worth noting that these things come from the religious establishment, and not from what I call religion - belief in the supernatural.
Miracles,
I don't understand how sections 1 and 3 are related to religion, it is true that in religion there are rituals and memorization of things, but religious rituals and memorization of Torah words... To say that the things you mentioned are taken from religion is about the same as saying that conversation between people is taken from the Torah because it also tells about people who talked to each other.
That's a bit too general... I thought you were talking about specific things that can be taken from religion, without making changes to them.
rival
1) Repeat every year about important things. Rules of ethics for doctors and lawyers, emergency procedures for pilots, integrity for Knesset members...
2) Giving respect to those with experience. For example - you raised an annual salary as is customary in American companies.
3) Studying history (but real)
"Don't do to your friend what you hate"
As you said, the term "friend" has a broad interpretation, so it might be more correct to say "Do not do to another what you hate on him/her".
Maya,
I sort of understand the idea, hear his music but still, it seems to me that there is an overstating of the terms here and they have been forced to serve his argument. There is already a word and it is ideology. A superhuman truth that cannot be tested is an axiom.
If we take liberalism as an example, the idea that man is at the center (all men are born equal as evident from the American Declaration of Independence) is not some mystical (superhuman) claim that cannot be tested except under the paradigm of liberalism. It is possible to check all kinds of indicators and compare to the internal logic of the discussed method. If Islam is a form of anti-liberalism then we ask, are there fire brigades in Islam, meaning they also want to take care of their people? So liberal countries put out fires better. People need to be fed, well, Western countries do it better. Want to believe in God, fine. Do you have to live for it to happen? Well, the life expectancy of the West is higher than that of the rest of the world. What are the points that Islam wants to check? How are they better, under their moral system? Does cruelty to women count? So here too there is value in the Arab world. That is, even under the internal logic of their method, they reduce the distance to liberalism.
In short, I need to read to understand better
The problem with sayings like: "Love your neighbor as yourself" or "Do not do to your friend what is hateful to you" that the terms "bad" and "friend" are subject to a broad (or rather narrow) interpretation that produces very immoral behavior, at least in my opinion.
For me, what counts is what is done and not what is said.
In addition, the second rule is quite problematic, it presupposes an identity between you and the other person in front of you, an identity that rarely really exists. In my opinion, it is equally necessary to observe the moral rule: do not do to your friend what you hate.
Miracles,
I didn't fully understand your answer, what would you leave out of religion? If you give two or three specific examples it will be clearer.
A.
Yes, Hillel was a wise man!
a rival
Not really - these are laws in every country. "Thou shalt not murder" is problematic, because it is not a blanket rule. Even "don't steal" doesn't always include everything - isn't the TV fee theft?
I mean things like rituals, respect for someone with experience and memorization. For example: every year the legend of Passover is repeated, but when does anyone repeat basic knowledge? Pilots (BA) do this - every morning there is a small test, and every year there is a training series that includes "mandatory lessons".
A',
He meant that the positive laws such as: "Thou shalt not murder," "Thou shalt not steal," "Honor thy father and thy mother" and other things that make sense and are suitable for our time, can be left.
Miracles
You didn't write what you want to leave.
Miracles
By the way.
The idea is condensed and narrowed down, by Hillel the Elder (one of the most important conditions) he said
"What is hateful to you, do not do to your friend" he says that this is the whole Torah on one foot (hence the expression on one foot) and that everything else learning the Torah is an extension of this thing.
Shmulik
You already brought the link. And you even quoted from him in the response I wrote to Nisim.?
rival
Yes, it is a concept of a famous scientist named Douglas Hofstadter, and belongs to game theory. His use of the idea is to solve certain problems and not something sweeping that says everyone is the same.
I used it to explain what morality is to me. It's probably not that original either - Immanuel Kant uses a very similar idea in his book on the metaphysics of morals. And as I wrote - I think it is actually "love your neighbor as yourself".
A'
Did you read the following link?
http://sharp-thinking.com/2014/04/19/%D7%94%D7%90%D7%9E%D7%A0%D7%94-%D7%90%D7%9E%D7%95%D7%A0%D7%94-%D7%95%D7%90%D7%9E%D7%95%D7%9F/
He nicely blurs the difference between belief in God and "faith" which I am currently typing on my iPhone.
A',
Yes, I remember we talked about a time machine, but I don't remember exactly what everyone said, you wrote scrolls here.
In any case, the alternative in this case, as I already said, is to learn to deal with reality, and understand that this is what it is, whether we like it or not.
rival
I thought I made it clear what I think about Hell
Don't you remember the conversation we had about God in time travel??
But in any case, no one today seems to me to believe in the simplistic approach you present about hell.
A',
Yes, it works, and time also takes its toll. Learning to cope and overcome.
I really think that finding comfort in imaginary things like God and the afterlife is a bit childish, I'm sorry if that sounds aggressive to you.
The alternative is to learn to think maturely and understand that unfortunate things (even an expensive glass that fell on the floor and broke) are part of life and you just have to learn to deal with them.
And you didn't answer me, what comfort does the thought give you that maybe the person dear to you who passed away is now in hell? Isn't it a bit stressful? Is this really a comforting thought in your opinion?
rival
And it works?
It's a little sad that you have to answer me by attacking the religious approach, and presenting it in a ridiculous light. Because I'm really asking. You can probably agree with me that this is one of the things that religion gives to people (or are you still stuck on "religion is only bad and only to control") you are the one who first brought up the word replacements in the context of religion. So I'm really asking.
Obviously, if you just give an explanation of why religion is bad, it won't really answer the question.
Miracles,
I understand that the definition you gave to a "super rational" person is taken from game theory and that it is not your invention, but similar to A. I also do not understand the logic in this definition. According to this definition we are all identical robots that came off the same production line and if one chooses Bibi then all the others will also choose Bibi.
This definition basically eliminates the differences that exist between humans, it presents us as robots and assumes that we all make the exact same choices. I don't understand what is so "very rational" about it.
Besides, what comfort is it if a person you loved dies and you don't know if he will go to heaven or hell? Maybe he is now in hell and going through hellish torments there? What comfort does this thought give you? It's the complete opposite of comfort, it's stressful, it's depressing.
A',
"The question about consolation was completely serious. As atheists I would really like to ask you out of personal curiosity. What's the substitute for that?'
The answer is that you learn to think like adults and understand that this is reality and that sometimes unfortunate things happen in life that we have no control over. Finding comfort in imaginary things like God or the next world is a bad solution, it's an escape from reality, it's a child's solution.
A.
If I stand next to a ventilator I will be spiritual too.
I think not.
I define myself as spiritual which is the opposite of what you define yourself as?
A.
If you are flexible enough, you will start thinking like me….
Miracles
After downloading almost everything I'm curious to know what you want to keep?
I obviously disagree with most of the things you want to throw out.
But one of the most important things to keep is precisely what the religion never admitted it had (even though it had it all along) and that is flexibility and the ability to adapt itself to morality and the developing world. It is true that whenever religion adapted itself it was by looking for clues to similar values from the past. For me it doesn't matter.
A.
So let's take the good things from religion (and I think there are) and throw away all the nonsense: belief in a higher power, the idea that man is a chosen being, the afterlife, soul, kosher, keeping the Sabbath (as opposed to days of rest), marriage laws, xenophobia, discrimination against women, Avoiding military service (about morals……).
A few highlights.
A. The question about consolation was completely serious. As atheists I would really like to ask you out of personal curiosity. What is the substitute for that?
B. Miracles The belief in a higher power (or higher powers in the less developed form) is not new at all.
third. You can relax, I don't think the temple should be built. I do think that maybe one day (probably very far away) a religious center will be built there due to the importance of the place for the development of monotheists.
Miracles
I just think that religion fulfilled and fulfills other functions besides this.
It may be possible to replace anything with another substitute. Let's say forming a society to replace nationalism, and after that maybe succeed in replacing it with a general human view (hopefully it will be successful in the future.)
and morality in systems of beliefs (which Harari also calls religions, for the purpose of the discussion they can be called religions without a higher power)
to replace the mental functions with psychology. For example, the need for self-forgiveness. When the world was less morally developed, man could kill an animal for God's sake and feel forgiven for something he did, later - Judaism - he stopped believing that God eats the sacrifice or enjoys it in some way. But actually fulfilling God's will he could feel forgiveness in killing the animal. Thus it progressed to a mere request for forgiveness from God. (By the way, the Rambam said that in the future, even when a temple is rebuilt, animals will not be sacrificed in it - because he also says that animal sacrifice is intended for the soul of man - even if the Rambam had not said that, I would think so. But this is not wisdom, I am alive today, it is a thousand years ago sleep)
And there is the need for comfort. That is, dealing with a very large employee. Let's say a mother who enslaved all her children here can replace the religion with... I don't know (what do atheists really do or say in such a situation? But let's assume there is a replacement)
But even with the replacement of all the functions, I don't think that without God or a higher power there is something satisfying and sufficient in the end. Or at least not for long and not for all of humanity. And the most worrying thing in my opinion is that when the point comes that all the substitutes are not enough there is a return back, to the darkest forms of religion. Atheists were encouraged in the countries of the Soviet Union, when the Soviet Union disintegrated there was a record number of atheists. Also among the Jews who immigrated. Today in Russia there is a crazy strengthening of the church and if it produced some humanistic value I would not complain. But unlike the Vatican in the West where they only go to extremism. Even among the immigrants in Israel there is a great strengthening of religion (based on the Bureau of Statistics, not just personal knowledge). Even among the converts, as much as the person was more of an atheist before, he becomes an extremist after (I have no supporting research for this)
A.
Acceptable. Just for your information, belief in the supernatural is a very modern thing. In the past the gods were something completely natural, just like the sun and the wind. Even today there are tribes for whom the gods are something tangible and real.
And if we return to our issues - I agree with you that it can be said that morality is something that develops, that is, it has a direction. In my opinion, religion's contribution to morality is that it was a tool for leaders to change the poor morality that existed (depending on the period). It is quite similar to the way parents educate children 🙂
I don't think it will lead us to something more original concept. Even if you find an inscription in an offense from a period before the Jews that shows that this usage is earlier. What is really important is that we understand each other. I said what I mean and I make sure to use the concept only in this part of it. Forgive me for not writing the exact definition every time. The main thing is that you understand me.
A.
When do you think religion started and when did philosophy begin?
Faith I don't mean for example "I believe I'm sitting on a chair"
Even with that spread in philosophy. Because I can check this with my senses.
I mean the original interpretation of the word (I already wrote to you this is the original interpretation. There is nothing to be done about the religions were before philosophy) meaning belief in something that I cannot prove scientifically.
In the link that Mollik provided, it was called unwarranted or unwarranted belief. I don't know if this is the exact concept in philosophy. But the main thing is that we understand each other.
A.
The concepts come from game theory, which I believe you have not studied. I don't understand how you can even think that something is false here.
And again - don't play with the word "faith", without saying what you mean by the word. I gave you my definition, here is the definition from Wikipedia "In Israeli Hebrew, belief, in the broadest sense, is a name for a psychological state in which a person feels that some claim or assumption is true, or a description of a claim for which there is a feeling of correctness".
I really don't understand what you are arguing with me about.
I never said you were lying.
I said that the concept is false in fact only its name.
I'm also not saying that you shouldn't act that way. I also think that sometimes you have to act on faith. As for example when I will increase my personal risk (in a controlled manner) in order to maintain my values and reduce harm to the children of, say, the opponent. (This is not a political debate, everyone has a limit for both sides. Both how much they are willing to risk and how much they are willing to harm the enemy in order not to risk. The debate is only what are the limits) If I endanger myself then I can die but in my belief it is worth it .
But such a thing cannot be said to be rational, nor super-rational, nor hyper-rational.
It can only be called values. And values are not on a rational basis.
A.
What did you jump on the word "faith"? It has nothing to do with religion at all. To believe something is to think it is true. Maya believes that what she says is true, you, Yariv, Shmulik and me too. I think we agree that Bio and AP don't believe the nonsense they said….
A.
You started talking a little nonsense - what's wrong with you? I lied?!?
I defined what is super-rational (noting the source of the idea) and what I told fits this definition.
Hofstadter spoke about the Cold War - the USA and the USSR spent huge sums on nuclear weapons - the USA then spent 35 billion dollars a year!!! (Today she spends much more, but that is not the point). Any rational leader would do the same, because the cost of not being armed when I am armed is extremely severe. Hofstadter said, "If both sides thought super-rationally, all the money, and the terrible danger, would be saved.
Say - what did you think I was trying to say?
I can equally say: believing in God is irrational.
I believe you have to believe in God. So let's call it super rational!!!
Miracles
I don't understand why you call it super rational. After all, there is nothing rational in thinking that if I act like this the other person (with whom I have no way to exchange information) will act like me.
What is rational to think that whatever I decide, everyone will decide. Maybe it's a belief, maybe evolution has developed such a belief in us because it certainly has an advantage. The only rational thing is to decide the decision that will be better for you regardless of what the other person will do. which is to admit. That way, in any case, you'll be in a better situation (if he cheated on you, at least you're not completely screwed, and if he doesn't cheat, you'll come out in the best situation for you)
I'm not saying that's how it should be done. I also do not believe that one must necessarily act in the most rational way. But to call it super rational???
It's just a lie.
א
I was very pleased with your last response (this is Maya again). What's more, what you said about hell reminded me of the next comic I had to share
http://smbc-comics.com/index.php?id=4080
There is a story about a millionaire who found a woman to sleep with for a hundred thousand dollars. She agrees but then the millionaire wants to lower the price to one hundred dollars. Immediately she shouts "What do you think I am? whore?" Well, what have you already agreed? He answers, now we are just summing up the price.
So after we have concluded that you are all people of faith. It remains to talk about what to believe. And it's a shame to just insist that there is something other than belief in morality. Nissim says I am more moral than a religious person because he only acts morally just to avoid going to hell. died forever and without purpose) but actually when Nissim says such a thing he is saying I believe that there is moral behavior that should be followed regardless of benefit. I of course agree with him but it is impossible to say such a thing out of absolute rationality without faith. I don't remember who said (maybe it was miracles too) my morals are right because they lead to a happy life and to prove it people immigrate to the West. If this is the case, then morality comes from personal profit, so in addition to Maya's question, who said that personal profit is what one should strive for, it is also not moral, it is better to fully want to go to hell (today, by the way, most rabbis say more spiritual things that one should listen to God because he knows what is the absolute good and not Because of the fear of punishment. I have reservations about this too) There is another problem with this approach, if a study presented happier religious people it would not show you a reason to be religious. I think that precisely as morality is higher, it relies less on benefit and profit and more on belief that this is morality and this is how one should behave.
Maya
Hofstadter's idea is that a rational person would calculate the duration and choose not to confess. A super-rational person makes a simple calculation "whatever I decide, everyone will decide" and therefore the two prisoners will not confess - and this is a better result.
This is how I think morality should work. But, as a wise man once said - in any large enough group of people, the majority are loved...
Miracles
I can't open the computer. This is Maya. Oh, the prisoner's dilemma I know (however, I did a whole course in game theory...) I even know the best solution to the repeated prisoner's dilemma (in an algorithm competition that used to be, if you know), what I don't know is the difference between rational and super rational people . By the way, one of Yuval Harari's claims is that things like this dilemma do not hold in human society because what holds for small companies (for example, in this case, a couple of people) does not hold for large companies.
Maya
"Everyone should associate himself with humanity before he associates himself with his sub-group" - you phrased it so beautifully!!! Yes, to me it is the moral thing to do.
And regarding the prisoner's dilemma. We have two prisoners and each is offered the same deal, and each knows that the other was offered this deal:
1. If you confess and turn your friend in - you will go free and your friend will serve 3 years
2. If both of you do not confess - you will spend a year in prison.
3. If you both confess - you will serve two years.
What would you do in this situation? 🙂
Giant !!! You killed me 😀
God has a different moral system of his own by which he measures what is moral. It works great for him.
http://www.ho-lo.co.il/comics2/comic/devine-plan-version-B-resize.png
Maya
I'm really glad you were able to understand me.?
Do you understand why it is important for me to define morality as evolving and not as changing (obviously there is no scientific explanation for this, but that doesn't bother me. Well, I even believe in God? Let's decide that we don't need to repeat every time the emphasis that this is not a scientifically measurable thing. Even just to save time. )
If you define something as variable then it has no validity today because tomorrow it will change. This is one of the things anti-science religious claim. You don't need to refer to science because it is a word that changes all the time. But if science is developing and not just changing, then that's a different story.
About science. When we study nature we at least learn lessons as an axiom since we have the ability to formulate such a formula. Because otherwise why are we spending millions of dollars on particle accelerators. When you study the development of evolution, do you assume that there is an explanation for the phenomenon you are trying to explain? So I think that in terms of even just a benefit for us to believe that we have the ability as humans to achieve this. I think it's a kind of axiom in science. (Here you can accept an axiom and not necessarily believe it. But personally I do believe it. Although it is impossible to prove it.)
א
I dare say we seem to agree! Yes, in the sense of a liberal humanistic morality, there is definitely progress and development in the world and since this is the moral paradigm I support, I, of course, think it is positive. And yes, in this sense I also agree with you that we have definitely not reached the peak point. It is clear that there are other new ideas that we have not thought of that will emerge in the years to come and shape morality in a way that if we were living in those years we might have agreed with them (and I am adding the last section because we currently agree that morality is relative 🙂 )
Regarding the truth in science, it's a bit hard for me to describe in words (it's a shame the professor didn't write about it too...) For me, it's a bit more of a question of whether we can really ever write a unified theory that will well describe the whole world around us at every possible scale and time. And if we say that the answer to this question is no then is the answer no because we as humans are limited and will never be able to do this or because there simply is no such theory. And if there is no such theory what does it mean? These are somewhat loosely the things that go through my mind in this context.
A.
We look through the keyhole at the world. After the lock there are several layers of thick glass that color and distort what we see (the glass is also in motion...). We've only been watching for 300 years through the hole, so what do we know about what's really in the world?
Miracles
interesting. First of all, it's clear that most people are not rational and certainly not super rational (not that I'm sure what that means because I haven't read the things and yes, I'd appreciate it if you could elaborate). But this logic works on anything. Let's take Nazism for example. Let's say I'm a lion. If everyone decides that Armenians are the best and leave only the Armenians in the world, then of course that would be the best for me. Less people, more resources for me. What is wrong? And in this sense, all the institutionalized religions have hit a mark. You offer here a revolutionary proposal according to which everyone should associate himself with humanity before he associates himself with his sub-group (say Jews) and then love for your neighbor as yourself is really relevant. But this idea is not trivial at all and I would even dare to say that most people in the world would disagree with it. Is it not in the interest of the group to say: "Love your neighbor as yourself? Yes. But only your bad guys, who are only members of your group."
First of all, is someone willing to explain to me what is meant by absolute lack of truth in science? And I emphasize that the question is not whether we hold it today or whether we will ever hold it.
Because I'm starting to feel a kind of resistance from arguments. There is the stage where even if you say "it's a white" the other will say "I think it's a falcon" this is the most exhausting stage.
---
Maya
In any case, we are talking about unscientific faith. So yes, it seems unreasonable to me to say I don't believe my morals are better. You can say from a scientific point of view I cannot prove that my morals are better. (only more efficient maybe) I can accept that. Otherwise there really is a basic slap (in liberal morality there are, in my opinion, additional slaps in such a line of thinking)
If you accept this belief (in a faith way because of course it cannot be scientifically proven). So yes, this means that there are better and worse morals.
And only if you believe in liberal humanistic morality you come to the conclusion that morality in the world is developing. If you hold a different morality, for example Nazism, then the world does not progress because it becomes more compassionate and compassion is bad. If you think that the height of morality is to accept God's words as they are, then the world is not progressing, it is deteriorating because there are more secular or religious liberals. If you come to the conclusion that morality naturally develops from a liberal humanistic belief, that means you can see how, one after another, new ideas penetrated the world and spread so much in the world. Like feminism (which has penetrated so much that even if you ask the darkest ultra-Orthodox about the blessing "Shall not marry a woman" you will hear a far-reaching proselyte who will claim that it is in favor of women at all, and if you asked something from the time when the blessing was written he wouldn't even understand what the question was.) Only from a liberal humanistic belief Morality will appear progressive. When you see this progress in the way of thinking of the world, even if not always in actions, you understand that the progress must probably continue. And if yesterday they believed in something that was moral and today it seems immoral, it would be childish not to think that tomorrow some of the things I consider moral today will not be thought so. It would be childish to think that I now hold the perfect and absolute morality.
Maya
And the religious fail precisely in this sense - in their eyes, not everyone is equal. Certainly not in the eyes of Islam, Christianity or Judaism.
Maya
Douglas Hofstadter wrote at the time about rational and super-rational people, as part of the prisoners' dilemma problem. If it interests you I will expand, but the idea is that a super-rational person thinks that everyone is super-rational. In particular, if I decide something then everyone will decide the same. If I think it's okay to kill indiscriminately, then everyone will think so - and of course it's not good for me. Therefore, I think killing is a bad thing. If everyone trashes the environment, or wastes water, or makes noise...
So there you go - yes you can think of something that is general and comprehensive. And that's exactly "love your neighbor as yourself" 🙂
Miracles
At the risk of repeating myself: you think you are more moral because you think there is no absolute morality because you think there is no absolute morality. Sounds like a circular argument? Not by chance. You think you are more moral because you examine your morality in the metrics of your morality. And that's exactly why the professor calls it a "superhuman" law. You have no objective way to test it. A person with a different moral system than yours will test your morals by their criteria and then you will fail miserably.
Maya
The secular are more moral in that they think there is no absolute morality. I can't be a little head, like that stubborn man who kills people indiscriminately.
The one who determines, on a very important level, is the law of the country where you live. The law summarizes the opinion of the majority of people in the country, backed by the opinions of wise and learned people (republican rule, not democracy). The law pretty much covers what you can do to another's body and property.
What is left of morality is pretty much covered by "loving your neighbor as yourself". And yes, I know it is written in the Torah :).
But miracles, you cannot say that the secular are more moral than the religious if there is no such thing as absolute morality. More moral on what scale?
So, it is the believers who think that there is an absolute morality that is described in some ancient books. The secular think that morality is open to discussion.
I have long said that this is why the secular are more moral than the religious (in general of course!).
א
I didn't understand the self-contradiction thing. In fact, according to what you say, each moral system must think that it is more advanced and better than the other moral systems. And I agree. So I really think that my moral system is better and more advanced than other moral systems. People who do not share my moral system (and there are many such in the world) will disagree with me. All I'm saying is that there is no objective way to know who is right. I can shout until tomorrow that I'm obviously right and here, look, people are happier that way but that's only because my moral system in advance defines happiness as a central parameter. Other people will tell me that in their moral system people are more modest and that is what is important. So what is more important? Modesty or happiness?
You just get down to unimportant details for the discussion of dilemmas.
In my opinion, the humanist faith must believe that there is a morality that is good or more advanced than another morality. Otherwise it leads to self-slapping. Maybe any faith actually. It means I believe that something is true but believe that it is not true at all.
But maybe it's just your belief and you can't argue.
I'm just saying that I hate this attitude.
Regarding that, I said that you object because of the conclusion. I only meant the belief in the existence of absolute morality. I would not for a moment think of convincing or trying to convince you that there is a God.
Miracles
agree Let's change it to taking a human life.
Also agree that there are acts that modern humans would agree are wrong. But what are modern humans? It's hard for me to think of many points of departure between the things you think are wrong and the things a Daesh operative thinks are wrong. And if you want to go to the Western world, I'm sure there are several American senators who will have a hard time finding the starting point between your views. See this guy's entry:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hQObhb3veQA
And even if there is general agreement among modern humans. Does that mean she is right?
There is a semantic problem here. Murder is a legal concept. It has nothing to do with morality. Killing - we can talk about that.
Maybe Maya is right - there is no absolute morality. On the other hand, there are actions that modern humans would agree are wrong.
rival
You are missing the point. The question is not whether murder is immoral at all costs because it is clear that each culture in its definitions will define when it is okay to take the life of another person under all kinds of varying conditions. I don't ask about the conditions at all. I'm asking on a basic level, is taking a human life a bad thing? To say yes, it is a bad thing means that there is absolute evil in the world and there is also absolute good in the world. I don't think that's true. that's it.
Shmulik
I liked the story about the lecturer.
So, like I said, the definition is not mine and I will just point out that my dear partner, for example, claimed that he really does not accept this definition even though he agrees with me that it is a definition that is comfortable to work with. I think it is convenient because it makes an excellent separation between so-called science and so-called religion. Bill Maher's piece (the excellent one that I actually saw before but saw again now that you referred because I love Bill Maher) is true and I agree with him but he is talking about science. And science is indeed not a religion. He talks about the scientific part of atheism. There is such a part in every religion. This is the part where religion makes actual claims about the world, ones that can be tested. The usual institutionalized religions that we all know and agree are religions also have a tendency to make all kinds of claims about the world (for example, the world is 6000 years old, man was created by God and there was no evolution of species, etc.). We know that all these claims are not true and therefore we know that these religions are not true. It doesn't interest the believers, but it's really their problem, not mine. The finer point is really in the religions that Harari defines as religion and you do not such as liberalism. Liberalism also makes actual claims about the world that can be tested (for example, I don't know if it really makes this claim, but I can only assume that a claim that goes well with liberalism is that all people feel pain when you hurt them, and you can test the firing pattern of people's neurons when you hurt them and see that indeed Everyone has a firing pattern that means pain (I'm pretty sure there are exceptions to this rule and surely Nissim can say something about it, but that's not relevant to the point)). This statement is not religious. The saying that is religious is that the purpose of humans is to pursue their own happiness and that is what matters. This is an unscientific claim (which is why we called it superhuman) because there is no scientific experiment where you can check that this is really what matters. And it is this and similar claims that turn liberalism into a religion.
What you wrote about it being easy to check that liberalism is objectively good is true (I'm not XNUMX% sure about the facts, but we won't get into that right now) but it's not correct to call it objectively. It is true under the basic assumptions of liberalism - that the person is the most important and his happiness is the most important. So yes, people are more comfortable with liberalism and people are displaced to liberalism, so the system was successful, but that's only because you measured it in terms of the system itself. And that's really what the professor explains in an excellent way in his book and it's a shame that I spoil his explanation, so really put your tongue to capitalism for a day or two and close this corner.
And really, a very long time ago Albanzo told me that the time machine was on its way to me. I called the post office and they said the mistake was not theirs. I really don't understand what's going on.
"Why is it clear that murder is immoral?"
It all depends on the meaning given to the word "murder", is killing an enemy soldier on the battlefield murder? Is killing a terrorist who is already lying neutralized on the floor murder? Is executing a murderer murder? Is stoning to death a woman who has baked is murder? Is sending two bears to tear 42 children apart because they laughed at a prophet murder?
Every culture and its definitions.
Maya,
thank you for the answer. I like you too :)
In one of the lectures at the university, the lecturer talked about numbers that are divisible by, let's say two, and those that are not. I teased him and said that any number can be divided by two, but with a remainder. He answered me that then, I destroyed the definition of division. This seems to me to be what Harari is doing with religion, while I mention that he has thought about the subject much more than I have and I have not read the book.
I think what you describe falls under the general definition: ideology. Why do you need another definition? I don't think I understood why the law "all men are equal" is a superhuman law. People enacted it and that makes it a very humane law. This assertion is not some kind of belief but a claim that says that if we put this value at the base of our laws, good things will happen based on what was before that, was bad.
Religion goes much further than ideology because it says that the rules it formulated were set by God and then really the law is inhuman. In my opinion, this is a fundamental and essential difference. The blurring of the boundaries between ideology and religion leads to A. thinking that there is faith in absolute science. Why not? Every belief then everything is religion and religion sits next to science in honor. Disagree. I'm with Bill Maher here, if you saw the YouTube I brought up.
I also think that there are fairly objective tests for measuring the success of liberalism compared to other regimes: indicators of life expectancy, wealth, happiness, defection (most people defected to the West and not to the East). The West has reached the moon. The West wins most of the Nobel Prizes... If you listen to Noam Chomsky, you will discover how cruel the West was in producing this dominance, but still, those who live in the West, live better in almost every parameter than those who live in Arab countries, Africa, China, Russia.
Back to Harari, during the book week of a year or two ago I purchased Harari's book but I haven't had time to read it yet and I probably have to read it to better understand his argument. The way capitalism eats up my time is inhumane. Wasn't there talk of a time machine sometime?
א
There is no absolute good and bad, so there is nothing to strive for. That doesn't mean I don't have my own belief system, or if you will my moral system. According to my belief system, what the Nazis did was horrible and horrible and must not be done under any circumstances and is not accepted in a normal society and they should and should be judged and we should strive for a society where this will not happen again. All I'm saying is that by definition, my belief system and my morality is not "correct" because there is no such thing as correct morality. It does not change at all the fact that I still believe in my morals and truly and sincerely think that if more people believed in my morals the world would be a much more pleasant place for all people to live, but that really does not mean that my morals are "better". It just means I believe my morals are better. To say that morality develops is to say that there is some kind of good external to a person that morality should strive for (and really it has nothing to do with God and really that's not the reason I don't believe in it, because I'm afraid it will be implied that there is a God. I don't believe in God and absolute goodness for the same reason, but I'm not afraid To believe one of them just because it entails the other. Both just seem equally illogical and improbable to me). Morality throughout history has indeed developed in the direction of the morality that I believe is the correct morality. So is my belief the absolute truth? For me, yes. There are a lot of people in the world who would like to stone me or that I would go with a veil and for them no. So who is right?
Miracles
What I claim is beyond that. Why is it clear that murder is immoral? It is not clear to me at all. This is clear under the moral rules of the society I live in and even in it it is not clear (for example with the killing of animals there is almost no moral problem in today's society). I'm not talking about a difficult choice when there are two moral rules that contradict each other (murder is bad and I don't want to murder this person but this person is a murderer and if I don't kill him he will kill a lot of other people, so what am I supposed to do) because In this moral dilemma, which is definitely a dilemma and not absolute, there is one absolute statement: murder is bad. I claim that this statement is also not true because there is no absolute good and bad. Murder is bad in today's society that sanctifies man (and is still done for all kinds of other "noble goals" each according to his own moral rules). But murder is not absolutely bad because there is no absolute bad.
Maya
I meant that A.P. will oppose a scientific truth that can at least be aspired to. It is clear that moral truth he will support (he will say God and this is what is written in the Torah. I do not agree if it is because I think there is a developing morality, he only thinks there is an absolute and that he holds to it.)
Nor did I say that it is possible to reach the scientific truth or not. I don't know the answer either. But there is reality so there are laws of nature.
Regarding evolving morality, I understand that you objected to the idea because of what follows from it.
But I really cannot accept this attitude that there is no better and less good morality. I also don't think it reflects history. Throughout history, morality has evolved, I don't understand how it can be denied?
It is true that it means that you have to believe that there is good and evil, but that is the whole point of morality. To say there is no higher and lower morality. It is for me to say there is no morality. So judging the Nazis was just an exploitation of the victory? You could perhaps say that if you believed in the morality of the strong he deserves everything. but you don't So you end up slapping yourself because you say their morals are no less good than mine and they acted according to their morals. So you are not fair. It could be fine if your morals didn't say you should be fair. And not just use your power.
A.
You wrote "a religious person can explore the world assuming that there is a natural explanation for everything and at the same time believe in supernatural miracles". Are you saying you assume "X" and believe "not X"?
No - I don't believe there are absolute moral laws. Is it immoral to harm children? A rocket launcher at a school in Gaza launched a rocket that hit near my grandchildren's kindergarten. I'm a fighter pilot and the launcher is going to launch again. Is it ethical for me to press pickel on this launcher? I don't know the truth, but you know what I will choose to do.
That's what I mean... It is clear that murder is immoral, but there are cases where we will do it. The problem is to define what is "moral".
א
I understand, there are two matters:
1. In any case, the treatment of the Jewish people is different from the treatment of all other human beings (whether it is because the people are superior or because it should be a "light to the Gentiles") and this, as mentioned, is in contrast, for example, to the liberal religion that treats all people as equal.
2. The separation between the Jews and the other nations is just an example of one of the laws that come from the one truth (= God) which is, again in my understanding, the basis of the basis of Judaism and is the main one in my view when we start a discussion about morality. The specific laws are less relevant, what is relevant is that there is a superhuman law that cannot be checked - there is one God and he is the truth. As in all other religions.
Maya
There are really those who believe that Jews are superior. The truth is that you say that we are enough of a people of shit. The prophets even say it explicitly. There are even sayings that the nation is no more righteous, no more noble, and no stronger. The saying that does repeat itself in Judaism is that the people of Israel should be a light to the Gentiles. I agree with this statement. In other words, Judaism has something to bring to the world. But really that doesn't mean more shoes. But there is no doubt that throughout the generations there were opinions in Judaism that were contrary to mine, but there were also many opinions that were not. In my opinion, of course, my opinion is more correct and more appropriate to the original text.
Maya,
I completely agree with you, thanks for the detailed reference.
Miracles
Again, according to the professor, the belief in myths began back in the time when we were hunters and the groups gathered around this common myth. What's more, as long as writing was not invented, it was much more difficult to convey all the details of the myth (which is often long and difficult to remember everything, see the value of Judaism) to all individuals in the population. So I think that what is needed in order to create cooperation between really large groups is a common myth and also a script.
At least we all agree there is no God, that's already a good start.
א
I said that morality changes and does not develop precisely because in my opinion there is no single truth to strive for and the concept of development implies that there is. I have no indication that my morality is better or is a step forward from the morality according to which it is right to stone gays and Sabbath-breakers (and again, without going into the details of who was or was not stoned and why). I think it is a step forward because this is my set of beliefs, but I have no vision and no perception in reality that my set of beliefs is the "correct" one. It can be said that people are happier and more free under the liberal society than under the Jewish society. I don't know if this is true or not, but even if it is true, who said it's better? Therefore, in my opinion, there is no single truth to strive for and hence morality does not develop. Yes, in a different sense.
In terms of science, I don't know. I understand your question about whether there is one truth and I don't know how to answer it. I think it has to do with the fact that my understanding of basic physics (where it seems to me that so many counterintuitive things happen that it may also include the matter of one truth) is extremely limited. Assuming there is one truth, does a person have the ability to grasp it and contain it all in one theory? I sure don't know how to answer that. I want to believe that it is, but on the other hand, it seems very logical that it is not.
By the way, I would actually guess that AP would be the only one who would agree with you that morality develops because, again, in order to infer development, you have to think that there is one truth that should be strived for, which pretty much implies that there is one God who established this one truth, so it actually seems logical that The society here that does not believe in God will not agree with you and AP. will be your only supporter. On the other hand, I am really short of understanding what is going on in AP's mind.
rival
Yes, the people who thought gays should be stoned (and I'm currently ignoring all the discussion that followed about whether or not they were stoned because it's not relevant to the main idea) thought they were very moral. The morality in Judaism is built (again, in my limited understanding based on a real attempt to listen to the arguments of people of faith) on the fact that there is one truth and it is called God. We have no ability to understand this truth but it has given us a list of rules of how we should behave. Since that truth knows best we should act according to what it said. Why is it forbidden to eat pork? Because that's what God said. And that is the moral. And by the way, I don't belittle it at all. This is a very logical morality (under the problematic assumption that there is a God and that he is the definition of everything) but it, without a doubt, answers your question of whether the people of his time thought they were moral. Even the religious people who today force me, for example, not to travel by public transport in my country think they are very moral because they are actually saving my soul because there is nothing worse than desecrating the Sabbath. For them, they really only do good. And this is exactly the problem and that's why I'm already half desperate to fight it.
Good morning everyone!
I'm glad to see that I was part of the discussion even while I was sleeping 🙂
So this way: First of all, I really want to emphasize that the absolute majority of the things I say are not my ideas but the professor's (unfortunately) and again I strongly recommend his two books to everyone. Really, these are very refreshing must-have books, even though I admit that I don't agree with all of his words.
Shmulik
So yes, I have already written what the definition of religion is according to the professor, but because I like you very much, I am ready to repeat it again for you: "Religion is belief in the existence of superhuman laws from which human rules of conduct are derived." And that really means that everything is a religion, including liberalism because liberalism believes in the existence of the superhuman law according to which all human lives are equal. There are religions in which the superhuman law says other things. For example, in Judaism, the Jews are worth more than other human beings (Tapuy Goyim) and in Nazism the people with the strongest will (in this case, Armenians) are worth more than other people who are degrading the world. And no, I'm not comparing Judaism to Nazism, just giving both as an example. The point is that the superhuman law cannot be tested with scientific tools. What's more, sometimes (or rather, almost always) religion also says true things about the world that can be checked. For example Judaism says there is a soul. We know that there is no, so we, in fact, know that Judaism is wrong (no offense). In the example of capitalism that I gave, the capitalist economic doctrine must be separated. It is completely scientific and can be tested with scientific tools (that is, the claim that lowering taxes on capitalists will increase economic growth), it is not a religion. The religion of capitalism begins when we make the following superhuman claim: economic growth is the most important thing and to which we must strive. Indeed, in the religion of capitalism that dominates the world, we are often forced, for example, to make the choice between economic growth and preserving the environment. We all know what usually wins and that's because that's what religion says economic growth is most important. Again, this is different from the capitalist scientific theory which explains how economic growth can be achieved and which can be tested with scientific tools. Since I'm not an economist or even understand economics at any level, this is where my understanding of what capitalism means ends but I hope the idea is understood.
Responses to the rest, immediately.
Maya
Finally, I think I agree with Harari's definition.
A religion is a collection of beliefs. or "beliefs without justification".
And liberalism is also a religion.
Science for this nation should not necessarily be a religion. ?Because its pillars are axioms. not beliefs.
Recommended channel with science videos:
https://www.youtube.com/user/pennywiseakabobgray/videos
Gay marriage:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-nVySiCmQ4s
Miracles
My question is if you think such laws exist. Regardless if we have them.
I was sure that everyone would agree that there is.
That seems pretty reasonable to me, doesn't it? Except for A.P. I thought only he would disagree with me.
rival
Gays were once thought to be criminals. After that, they were thought to be sick. Once they were punished, and once they were forced to undergo treatment.
In the Torah slavery is considered legitimate.
What I am saying is that there is no absolute moral law - something that is true at any time and in any situation.
A.
What I mean is that I don't know of a law of nature that is something absolute and that we are sure is true.
Shmulik
Understanding seeps in slowly. Even too slowly. Of course it also depends on the religious current. There are currents where there is no displacement at all.
But I am optimistic because once such a process begins, it tends to accelerate.
You can read in the news that one of the first steps has already happened.
A'
I must have made a mistake and attributed to you something that someone else wrote. Forgiveness is with you.
I understand you are a religious person? So I would still appreciate an answer about the situation with gays today. According to what you know, do religious people understand that homosexuality is not a choice and is found in nature, in mammals, in the lesson I wrote?
Shmulik
It would be nice if you apologized for accusing me of saying that there was something wrong with gays or that I justified some vulnerability in them or some kind of homophobia.
ו
Shmulik
I really don't know who you are confusing me with. But sure you are confusing if someone else. I never said the things you attributed to me. I have written in the past very clearly my opinion. I also wrote that even if there was no threat of stoning, they lived in fear and terror. I can go on justifying myself and slapping everything you said on my behalf. But it will be a bit of a toss-up.
rival
You know that regarding historical events it is impossible to take the Gemara without an external source that supports it. Certainly not in a story about witches. I've said it before too. If you present me with reliable information that they continued to execute, I will change my mind according to everything I know also according to studies they stopped executing completely during that time.
Regarding the question of why not simply change the law instead of adding laws that make the law unusable. This is a complex answer that I may write later. But you have to understand that this is an answer that explains why religion works this way. This is not a statement that this is the right way to work, at least not today. In general, I am skeptical if I will be able to explain to you because you are stuck in proving that religion is bad. So you don't really want to even understand even if you don't agree (many of the things I understand in Judaism I don't agree with)
A'
I can understand that once upon a time, before they knew that same-sex people were born, what was decided about same-sex people was decided, but what is happening today? On the one hand, it is known that it is innate, and on the other hand, for believers, they are all creatures of God. If I refer to a specific case, then God created the great rabbi Moti Alon, as a homosexual who loves small things. So, according to you, he created Rabbi Moti Alon defective on purpose in order to abuse him? I really cannot understand how, in the age of scientific knowledge, homosexuality is compatible with religious laws. What do you tell yourself when someone tells you they are gay?
https://www.kamoha.org.il/?p=17844
A',
If this punishment is so impossible to carry out, why don't the rabbis declare publicly and clearly, including a halachic ruling, that this punishment is null and void and that it is forbidden under any conditions to carry it out or threaten anyone with it?? What are all the games and caveats for? Just cancel it and that's it, isn't it simpler?
A',
Low morals or sickening immorality, that's all, it's the same thing, and with all due respect to what you wrote about gays at the time of the Gemara, hmm, today gays live in terrible fear in religious society. Do you think otherwise? Do you think it used to be like that? What, just a scary death penalty? What about excommunication, removal of you and your family from the community and countless other punishments that can be imposed? Thank you for believing it. By the way, even you spoke as if being gay is something bad, if I'm not mistaken. Not sure if it was in this thread but in some thread you missed it. You also learned that being gay is bad. You got the message. You understand how to think. The mafia model
A'
Also the 80 witches that Shimon ben Tsetah hanged according to the Talmud is only theoretical? What about the description in the Talmud of the execution of his son according to the testimony of false witnesses as revenge?
rival
You are factually wrong. Islam has an active death penalty and has always been active continuously since the rise of Islam. In de facto Judaism the punishment was abolished. Even once in a century the conditions for execution cannot be met. Nor have they carried out an execution since the cancellation. It is not about conditions to reduce or to achieve certainty, it is about impossible conditions. There are additional conditions than what I listed. In addition to this, there is also the clear instruction not to perform it even more than once in 70 years. This is really not a threat like the death penalty for treason that exists in Israel.
A'
Some answers to the things I collected.
You wrote: "Also, absolute scientific truth is a type of faith from the very fact that we assume that something exists that we have not yet found." It makes me think you're assuming that any kind of unproven thought is a belief, and all beliefs are created equal.
I want to concentrate for a moment on the word *belief*. Please read the following link.
https://sharp-thinking.com/2014/04/19/האמנה-אמונה-ואמון/
As mentioned, regarding absolute scientific truth, I do not understand what you are talking about. I'm not sure that there is a claim that there is an absolute scientific truth, but what we do is to look for the minimum mathematical laws with which the universe can be modeled. No one promises us that we will be found. Because of quantum mechanics it is possible and impossible to talk about something absolute. If you read what Albantezo explained, a particle is not really a small ball but is a peak of a field, it has no place and a definite speed, etc.
A',
"There is a whole set of conditions that makes it impossible. Just for example, two witnesses are needed, it is necessary that they actually see the act (murder/shabbat desecration, etc.)
Forgive me, but this is nonsense, even in extreme Muslim countries that follow sharia law there are similar conditions before stoning and you will still see how many poor women and how many unfortunate men were stoned there for adultery and such.
Shmulik,
"Once and for all, one should be freed from the nonsense of (stoning) once in seventy years, etc. The very existence of the possibility is what scares. It's not what actually happened, it's the horror of knowing you could be executed by stoning if they found out you were gay. How is this not clear? That's what's so terrible, living in the shadow of terrorism."
You summed it up very nicely, I completely agree with you.
Shmulik
I did not say for a moment that their approach to gays was moral (to be precise, not "immoral" but low morals)
I was just stating a fact about opponent inaccuracy in general on executions. You don't really need an execution to terrorize. Execution regardless of homosexuality became theoretical at least a hundred years before the finalization. And this was not only expressed in the saying of the past in the seventies... and in a court of cruelty.
It also had clear rules of what it took to execute. There is a whole set of conditions that makes this impossible. Just for example two witnesses are needed, it is necessary that they actually see the act (murder/shabbat desecration, etc.) And it continues.
A gay man at the time of the Gemara (and a little before) did not lick honey but did not live in fear of stoning. At least not from the Jewish community. Maybe from the non-Jewish authorities.
rival
You make several assumptions in your question, some of which are obviously incorrect. Like they knew it wasn't by choice. To understand a different way of thinking you must open your mind more. And I don't think you do that. Even so, it will be difficult for me to explain an entire way of thinking in correspondence.
But it's really not just a matter of choice.
I am the one who does not understand what you mean when you say that there are no absolute laws in nature. When you say models then it should be a model for something that exists right? I'm not saying that we have the absolute rules but that should be in nature.
I also didn't understand exactly where you were taking my things. The whole example of the absolute laws in nature I brought as a parable for morality develops and morality and absolute and morality changes. I thought it was clear to everyone that developing science does not just change. And that he assumes that there is an absolute truth/reality/laws that he is trying to find and is constantly getting closer.
A'
Once and for all we need to be freed from the nonsense of a bad Knesset, for the seventieth year, etc. The very existence of the possibility is what scares. It's not what actually happened, it's the horror of knowing you could be executed by stoning if they found out you were gay. How is this not clear? That's what's terrible about it, living in the shadow of this terror.
Do you know the mafia model? The model says that if someone doesn't pay the don, the don sends his thugs to blow him up, not because he needs the money, he won't feel the lack. They are sent to signal to everyone what will happen if.
The seventy year time is the "if"
A'
Do you know that there is, for example, a quantum correction to Newton's equation of gravity? So when you say there are absolute rules I don't know what you are talking about. We continue to explore and discover things and we can say that what we have are better or less models to model nature, but from here claiming that there are absolute laws is a long way off. But you know what, suppose there is. What does this have to do with religion? If we discover the absolute truth it will be the exact opposite of religion. There will be no place for faith but only for knowledge.
I therefore really do not understand the meaning of believing in absolute laws. If they are laws, where is the faith?
A',
So in your opinion, the people who lived during this period really thought that stoning a person for being gay (something that is obviously not subject to his choice) is a moral thing?
rival
Overall yes.
(It's just that in the Gemara no one is stoned anymore. Because following a moral development - which was ahead of its time - they made execution an almost theoretically impossible thing only.)
The truth is the existence of absolute laws in nature does not have to be faith. Only in materialism it must be. Everyone else can accept it as an axiom. You can use an axiom even without believing in it. A religious person can explore the world assuming that there is a natural explanation for everything and at the same time believe in supernatural miracles. An axiom is not necessarily something that is believed. This is also what I suggest to crush into the box. to use the so-called materialistic scientific axioms. With the understanding that this way is useful in the study of nature and the creation of technology.
Maya, Nisim and everyone,
When you say that "morality is not an absolute thing and it changes over time" what exactly do you mean? Can you give a specific example?
For example, when it is written in the Torah (or in the Gemara?) that homosexuals should be stoned, do you think the people who lived during this period really thought that this was a moral thing? Or maybe they just thought that this is the way to behave, and that this is the punishment they deserve regardless of the issue of morality?
Newton's laws of relativity and quantum (I assume you meant quantum and not the "incompatibility between the theory of relativity and the theory of relativity") are not the laws of nature. These are theories that try to describe these laws (and unlike Newton's time, today we know that what we have is only a really good close)
If you don't believe "if there are any absolute laws in nature" I declare you a heretic even on a materialistic scale?
But what does that mean?
Are you agnostic?
You say that it is possible that after a certain limit (big or small) there can be no scientific explanation and only the supernatural can explain things??
A.
The laws of nature certainly change. Newton's laws have changed. There is a discrepancy between the theory of relativity and the theory of relativity, so obviously there will be changes there as well.
I don't know if there are any absolute laws in nature.
Lamaya and A.
Professor Harari probably thought about these things much more than I did, but the definition given here by his name smells bad to me. Religion doesn't just do what is stated. Religion presupposes a personal God (reduced for a moment to monotheistic religions) who rewards or punishes. The religious learn from a young age that if they respect their parents their lives will be prolonged and they will be stoned if they are gay. Capitalism doesn't do that. Nor does capitalism prevent a fundamental change of a large part of values. Does Harari describe any difference between true religion and capitalism? I'll probably have to read the book but for now I don't agree with this definition.
Shmulik
This is the definition that Maya presents.
Is this definition effective?
I'm still debating. First I defined all these things as "faith" in a religious sense. By and large, over time I am convinced that the definition that Maya presented is better. In any case, it remains only a definition.
What do you mean there is no absolute scientific truth? Of course there is. The laws of nature do not change as much as we study them. Even if the laws of science today are not the absolute truth, this does not mean that such a truth does not exist.
I don't understand what the discussion is about right now. We all agree that morality evolves and is not context free, right?
A.
You gave as an example the temples and churches as a waste of resources that should disappear.
What exactly resources does it waste? The resources do not belong to the clerics who run the establishment - on the contrary. When you manage the construction of an expensive church, not only does the money come from those you control, you also pocket some of the money...everyone cuts a coupon at the end.
And remember that the money certainly does not belong to the meme - the cultural idea. The money belongs to the host, the believers. The churches and temples reinforce the meme - there is no waste of resources here.
These are the two responses that pretty much sum it up
1. Friends
I am now reading Yuval Noah Harari's book "The History of Tomorrow" and he talks about exactly the things you are discussing here and offers, at least in my opinion, a refreshing point of view. Also on the subject of religion - he defines religion in a different way that has nothing to do with God and according to this definition both Nazism and Communism are really religions, and Yariv and Nissim are also religious people who believe in the religion of humanism, from what I have seen they write here on the website they probably belong to the liberal current of this religion . There is also a very interesting discussion about how man became the undisputed ruler of the world, which includes what separates us from the other animals (spoiler - almost nothing). In short, highly recommended. His first book "A Brief History of Humanity" is also highly recommended.
April 13th, 2016
2. Maya:
Miracles
Obviously, our views are similar, but I don't talk about it. I'm not talking about the difference between the natural and the supernatural, but about the discussion that a. Open here about morality. Can morality really come from science? I don't think so. Science is about facts, not beliefs. Religion, any religion, does two things: first, it assumes that there is a set of laws that is above man, and second, it assumes that you have to act according to this set of laws. The laws are divided into two things - factual claims (those that can be tested scientifically) and value claims. For example: the religion of capitalism will say that lowering the tax on the capitalists will increase economic consumption and therefore we should strive for that. The first claim can be checked (will lowering the tax on the capitalists really increase economic growth) but the second claim is a value claim - who decided that economic growth is a good thing? Everything I've written here is pretty much a quote from the book, so again I'd recommend reading the book. I'll just conclude by saying that you think everything can be tested scientifically - that's fine, it's not about religion, it's the facts. But yes you have a set of good and bad. where did he come from Who decided on him? It seems to me that a. a rower
April 13th, 2016
Maya
I really can't understand how it is possible not to see morality as an evolving thing. Don't you think that the belief or "religion" of liberalism that you associate yourself with was created in one day? Wasn't it composed of ideas developed over hundreds of years? If you believed in a classical religion, I could understand how you think that way (even though I would show you that it is not true. And religion always undergoes development)
—
I do not agree with the cynical attitude of most of you about the Pope's decision. In my opinion the Pope is also a human being and he is simply influenced by the progress of morality. And he also faces a conflict of values and tries to resolve it in his own way. I even somewhat applaud him that for the first time he chose not to solve the problem in an easy way and to deny the newer values.
-
(The fact that the call of the Pope and the Orthodox rabbis for a change of attitude. It came just a few days after I predicted a change in religion's attitude on the subject. Does this just show that there is a God?
???? )
A'
God forbid, I wasn't hurt. No way. If you know how to direct me to a response, I would appreciate it
A'
There is no such thing as absolute scientific truth. It's a concept you probably invented or saw somewhere but it's not something that really exists.
Say, is everything that people believe in, a religion?
I believe that democracy is better than dictatorship. Do I believe in the religion of democracy?
Shmulik
I didn't mean to hurt. just to help
A'
problem. She reserves the right not to answer and you have the right to ignore me or direct me to a specific response (search for a response that begins with the words...) but unfortunately I don't have time now to search for a response in the sea of comments you wrote
Miracles
I prefer the Haggadah materialism because it sounds bad in Hebrew "materialism" as opposed to spirituality?
Regarding goosebumps, this is clearly not a good example. Duckskin doesn't need astringents or needs a very negligible amount. If it were not so he would be extinct. What is clear is that it has been beneficial in the past. Religion, being a greater consumer of resources, is also committed to a greater benefit. On the other hand, this is of course not proof that even today religion is beneficial. I think so.
Shmulik
You can scroll back and read only Maya's comments. It didn't come out much and she explained the matter very clearly.
Maya
The existence of an absolute moral point. Can really be debated and depends on belief. Absolute scientific truth is also a type of faith from the very fact that we assume that something exists that we have not yet found. But not to see the development in world morality. I can't understand this. How can you dispute the fact that morality evolves. (By the way, opponents of science like to belittle him by claiming that he changes his mind all the time. But this is not change, it is development) Shmulik's argument is also very inaccurate. It is true that there is a correlation between abundance and morality, but there is no absolute connection. Most societies that were in a state of abundance in the past, their general level of morality was less developed. I'll just clarify a point, a level of morality is not necessarily what people actually do. Of course there is a strong correlation between the things because over time a person cannot act differently from what he believes, one of the two must change. But even in a society whose morals say abusing animals is bad. That doesn't mean it won't happen at all. It doesn't even necessarily mean that the person who did it has different morals, he may know that what he did. Immoral and that he did not create a justification for himself. So crime level is not necessarily a measure. It is necessary to examine how the perpetrators see the things they did.
Maya,
I didn't follow the entire discussion, so I apologize in advance if I make you repeat yourself, but according to what definition is liberalism a religion? What, every "ism" is a religion?
Do you know the wonderful part of Maher entertainment?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aQp6GMzGPpU
I, like you, believe that morality (which has a rather vague definition) is not absolute. Morality, in my opinion, is a set of behaviors, laws, methods of action that should result in maximum wealth and minimum harm to society while protecting the individual's own rights. They will answer our way to get along best together. It is clear to me that additional definitions will be given. In my opinion, morality depends on the scientific, technological and economic richness of the culture. When it is possible, when there is enough money, subjects that were once impossible are required. Vegetarianism as an example. Another example of a tremendous moral change that has recently taken place is homosexuality. In the past, in Western culture, homosexuality was seen as immoral, against nature, causing earthquakes and what not. The scientific method arrived and with its help they showed that homosexuality does not cause earthquakes, it is not a choice and nothing, ten percent of mammals are homosexual. That is, not only is it not a choice, but also natural. Variant of nature. Conversion treatments are prohibited in the Association of Psychiatrists and Psychologists. Since these findings are no longer under discussion, any religion that claims otherwise will be immoral because it will use a false argument. Homosexuality is indeed one of the biggest problems of the religious priests because on the one hand they have their horrifying commandment and on the other hand, the facts. It's a bit like receiving an order that rolling down a slope is forbidden because it's against nature, it's stupid and it makes them look bad. That is why the Pope and also rabbis here in Israel, from time to time, are required to address the issue, but they have no choice and it turns out that they are weakening the historical position of religion against homosexuality in order to reduce the distance from reality and stop stealing clients for themselves. Almost every young person knows a friend who has same-sex parents and is already lost. He will never understand what is wrong with homosexuality and when he hears a MK who claims that, he thinks that the MK is retarded and therefore the orthodox approach to religion must be refined.
That's it, that's my diagnosis about morality and I'd love to get an answer about liberalism.
Maya
I thought about what you said, about a common factor that unites groups. The aborigines in Australia live in small tribes. When the tribe grows, they divide the tribe into two, and thus over time many small tribes were formed. I assume that there is a similar phenomenon among the natives of South America, Africa and also the Bedouin and the Inuit. All these peoples are nomads, and I suppose that is because they are not farmers.
A.
I could not understand whether I am a materialist or a positivist.... When I know I'll tell 🙂 That's why I like the concept of natural, versus supernatural. Natural is what operates according to the laws of nature, that is, there is legality that can be investigated.
א
Yes, I was waiting for someone to say that I support the Nazis...
I did not compare the religion (specifically Judaism) to the Nazis. I mentioned that Nazism is a religion. Just like Judaism is a religion and like liberalism is a religion (specifically this is the religion I belong to). The privilege with which we judged the Nazi criminals is that we live in a certain society where the morality of the Nazis is not acceptable and what to do that after World War II our society ruled the world. If the Nazis had won, we would have been judged (and a large percentage of my family members were also judged) and this was the prevailing morality in the world and absolute good was an Aryan and absolute evil, for example, was a Jew.
I completely disagree with you on the matter of morality. I don't think there is one truth and I don't think it's right to say about morality that it develops. It is true to say that he is changing. Contrary to science, which is really looking for one truth for morality, there is, in my opinion, no one truth to look for.
Anyway, the whole discussion started when you said that there is no one in the world who lives without faith and I agree with you because deciding what is good and what is bad is already a matter of faith. There is no other way to do it. That's why I really liked the question you asked Yariv regarding whether harming an animal is bad. This, in my opinion, hit the mark. The point of disagreement between us, as I understand it, is that you think that these things that we believe in and make moral decisions based on, evolve over the generations in order to find some absolute truth while I hold that such truth does not exist. But it's okay, my religion allows these differences of opinion between us 🙂
A.
Not everything that takes resources goes away. We have goosebumps, a useless mechanism that takes resources.
I don't mean that one day we'll just peak and that's it.
As in science there will always be room to advance and explore.
Maya,
I agree with you, morality is definitely not an absolute thing.
Maya
I understand what you're saying - definitely interesting!
Maybe I'll be the grandkids' mom at Disney the week after next 🙂
Miracles
Religion takes resources (sacrificial temples, etc...) so if it stayed (not just in one place but everywhere) it probably was useful. And forming a company is probably one of the things, but I don't think that alone explains everything.
Maya
I must have misunderstood you. For a moment I even felt that you were comparing religion to Nazis
Regarding variable or incomplete morality.
According to what you say, then by what right did we judge the hawkish criminals?
In my opinion morality does not simply change. It develops even if not always in a straight line, meaning that sometimes an extreme idea then comes back to balance, so that at a certain point morality seems to decline.
But it is certainly possible to talk about more developed morality and less developed morality. And that morality develops means that there is also a more developed morality than ours that will be in the future. I liken it to science. Like an evolving science. He doesn't just change and move between false theories, he is constantly getting closer to a certain truth. World morality also strives to a certain point. There are immoral things in religion or at least undeveloped morality. On the other hand, Judaism many times presented a morality that was much more developed than the time and thus promoted the whole world. The Nazis acted according to the lowest possible morality. OK, you can define any set of rules of action as morality, but there is good and there is bad. As there is scientifically true and there is false. And the Nazis did not build their scale of values a thousand years ago. They acted after the world was already in a higher place. There are testimonies of German prisoners who were secretly recorded talking to each other about things they saw in the camps. The interesting thing is that almost everyone is aware of the seriousness of the crimes they committed.
post Scriptum. for miracles
The concept you are looking for is, in my opinion, materialism. In Hebrew, harshness. So that I am the opposite of you, I define myself as spiritual.
rival
Waiting (actually it was very short)
rival
The posts are not that long, you should read my blog...
Bottom line of what I said: all companies are moral because each one lives according to its own morals and there is no such thing as absolute morality (not sure if this is really the bottom line but that's what happens when you ask me to summarize)
It's a bit difficult to follow because you write very long messages, but to sum it up, a society can be very moral even without religion and without belief in God (and there are quite a few countries in the world that prove this, countries where the population is very atheist and on the other hand the level of crime in them is very low, for example Scandinavia if I remember correctly, and many other countries. The number of atheists in prisons also tends to zero, which means that atheists have a moral sense no less good than believers).
Miracles
Great, I'm taking the girls to Disneyland next week. want to join?
In any case, it is not that religion promoted culture. The ability to believe in something common that is above man, allowed Homo sapiens to cooperate and create things that cannot be produced in small numbers. Animal societies that are also able to cooperate never exceed a few dozen individuals and all the individuals know each other. Humans collaborate by the millions and all these people, of course, don't know each other. But they all have a common "goal" because they are all fighting for the same myth. And it is this belief in a shared myth (or religion, if you will) that has allowed mass cooperation and this not really unique ape's takeover of the world. At least this is Yuval Harari's theory. Maybe just read the book?
It's a bit difficult to follow because you write very long messages, but bottom line, a society can be very moral even without religion and without belief in God (and there are quite a few countries in the world that prove this, countries where the population is very atheistic and on the other hand the level of crime is very low, for example Scandinavia if I I remember correctly, and many other countries. The number of atheists in prisons also tends to zero, which means that atheists have a moral sense no less good than believers).
Maya
Yes, I think we agree. And yesterday I returned to Los Angeles. I went to Sydney to renew my visa.
What I'm trying to say, that morality comes from a higher power is an oxymoron. Morality definitely depends on the context and I don't know of any absolute moral rule. Even in Judaism murder (ie killing) is allowed under certain conditions.
The idea that religion promoted culture is interesting. It seems that the more the religion progresses, the more the culture progresses. But - maybe it's the other way around? that culture promoted religion, and is there another factor that caused the development of culture? For example - wealth, i.e. - leisure time?
א
I really don't see where I disparaged religion or where I said it was only harmful. I was also not talking about the Jewish religion at all, but about religions in general and I included all religions in the content. All I said was that every religion relies on a superhuman set of laws. Isn't this also specifically true of Judaism, whose basic premise is that there is one God and He is good, so you have to do what He said? Leave specific laws for the moment, it is written, it is not written, it can be interpreted this way and it can be interpreted differently. Isn't this the basic premise and it is an assumption that cannot be proven scientifically? I also have a basic premise: that all people are equal and that happiness is the most important thing in life. This premise cannot be proven, but my religion is founded on it and this is the superhuman rule in the case of my religion. That's all I said. I'm sorry if it came out that I underestimated religion or said it was only negative. That's not what I meant.
Maya
I am personally not religious. Not in the sense that I observe a mitzvah or not (some yes and some no. Mainly by ideological choice)
These are because I choose my own religious choices. Yes, sometimes I encounter in religion a moral law or an ideological idea that does not seem to me. First I try to see if it is possible to understand him differently but sometimes it is not possible and then I remove him from my faith. So I will be the first to agree that there are distorted ideas that have entered the religion.
But I never underestimate morality in religion. Because that would be like underestimating Galileo for his scientific mistakes. Morality is like science evolving. Things that were once considered moral are understood by almost everyone today as immoral. And probably also in the future morality will continue to develop. But it is impossible to talk about the development of morality without religions. They were long before philosophy and also after they took part in the development of morality. Talking about religion as if it is only related to humanity does not make sense. If she was really only harmful she would be extinct.
The fact that today some of the ideas are more developed does not mean to underestimate the ideas from which they grew.
I generally think that many things you think about religion stem from prejudices and even if some of them exist in religion, you have never checked if there are other opinions on the same matter.
Miracles
I think you don't understand me. It's a bit difficult to convey ideas in this format. Maybe meet for a cup of coffee when you get back to California 🙂
In any case, I completely agree with you in everything you wrote, it's just not really relevant to what I said. There is morality in religion (and I am currently talking about the institutionalized religions). It is a bad moral by the standards we perceive it today, we completely agree on that. But is there anything that is superhuman? That is, something that is true or false? Absolute good and evil? I believe that the answer to this is no and that all the things we consider "bad" and "good" depend on context and culture. The Nazis really really thought they were doing good for the world. For them, the Jews diluted and harmed humanity and humanity will perish in their presence. They saved humanity! So they definitely had morals. He was completely wrong about what you and I believe. But this is what we believe. We believe that we should not murder because all human lives are equal and "it is bad" to take someone else's life (correct me if this is not what you believe). But who said that all people's lives are equal? And even if they are, who said it's "bad" to take someone else's life?
The morality that comes from religion is that there is one good, they call him God, he gave a network of laws and you have to act according to them. The fact that I find this morality wrong does not mean that it is not a type of morality.
By the way, regarding the development of religion, Yuval Harari also talked about this in his book (I'm sorry for quoting him all the time, but it's just terribly relevant. Maybe just read the book. The first book is also available in English. I'm not sure if you've already translated the second) and religion, According to his claim, this is what made Homo sapiens the species that dominates the world because religion is what caused the ability to cooperate between many individuals (there was a relevant article on this here on the website not long ago). Of course it's a meme, and of course their strong name is the one that survives (by the way, destroying all the others is not always in the best interest of the meme) but that doesn't mean that what they convey is not moral. To say "we are better than everyone and therefore it is our duty to destroy everyone" is absolutely moral. Again, a wrong morality that doesn't fit today's world and most of today's Western societies, but morality. And whether he is really absolutely wrong or not depends on whether there is absolute good and evil or not. And there is certainly no scientific answer to that.
Maya
Many of the rules of religion have a simple evolutionary reason. We want to identify as part of a group, and stand out from other groups. Look at the clothing of the ultra-orthodox and you will see that there are also different groups within them. This is also true for the Amish in the USA. It is thought that the Hindus don't kill beef simply because in the past they wanted to keep the milk as a source of dairy products (steak is disposable...).
Religion is a meme, and a strong meme survives. A religion that supports killing those who are not of the same religion is stronger. Again, there is a scientific explanation for the phenomenon.
What morality comes exactly from religion? Can you think of an act that is moral for religious people, and immoral for non-religious people? How can something be moral if it is imperative? Yariv said correctly - morality is empathy.
Plato wrote about the debate "Is an action good because it is what the gods want, or do the gods want the action because it is good?". The first option makes morality redundant, and the second option makes religion redundant....
ארי
That's great, but what good is all the details? Yes, if there is economic growth for more details there will be house, food and smartphones. But is it good? Would, for example, most individuals be happier as a result? And is happiness even what we should strive for? Is happiness good? Again the basic question is what is good and what is bad and there is no scientific way to answer that.
Miracles
First, I agree with you that science and religion are not two opposites.
Second, I know that many people define religion as belief in the supernatural. All I mentioned is that Yuval Harari in his book defines religion in a different way and in my opinion this is a good definition that is interesting to work with. If I'm not mistaken, the exact definition he gave is: "Religion is belief in the existence of superhuman laws from which human rules of conduct are derived" and this includes why you must not eat pork (because God said so), why you have to kill Jews (because they are simply not good and corrupt the the human race) and why should equal human rights be given to all people (because all people are equal). All the comments in parentheses are the superhuman laws and these are the value propositions that science has no way of testing. When religion also states something factual about the world, science can test and disprove or confirm it. For example, if we say that all people are equal because they all have the same form of brain activity, that is something that science can determine. But is it "true" or "wrong" that all people are equal is another question.
I do not agree with you that morality does not come from religion. The morality that you agree with and think is right (as well as most people in today's world) does not come from religion, but religion certainly gives moral laws (which are horrible and terrible to me, but that is irrelevant) and these moral laws state that there is one God and he is the eternal good and you have to do the Everything he says. The fact that you do not agree with these moral laws (and with absolute right, in my opinion) does not mean that you can state that these moral laws do not exist. The Nazis also had moral laws. The fact that they were horrible and terrible does not contradict the fact that they existed. Hope I made myself clear.
A.
Philosophy is above science. Why do you think we trust science? how it started? What does it mean to know something? How do you draw conclusions? What is a logical fallacy? What is morality? All this comes from philosophy!
You are again mixing things up - religion, faith, science, philosophy, morality. I tried to separate them. I'll do it again:
A belief is something you think is true.
Religion, in my opinion, is belief in the supernatural. Institutional religion is something else, a way (unfair to me) to control other people.
Science is a method of studying the world.
Philosophy is the investigation of fundamental questions such as how we know, what exists, what is good and what is beautiful.
Morality is what we believe is good to do.
Now - I didn't say anything about the opinions of philosophers in general. There are religious philosophers, and there is also a philosophy of religion. In particular - you can look at the soul through the eyes of philosophy, or the freedom of choice or the existence of God. But - no philosopher can prove that any of these really exist.
In a scientific investigation on the other hand - the conclusions are clear. These things do not exist.
"Rival, not just an operating system - but good apps"
It seems to me that a good analogy would be to say that an efficient operating system (i.e. a rich language) which ran on a powerful computer (a developed brain) makes it possible to run a wide variety of applications in a much more efficient way (applications = all the abilities we have developed in the field of culture and science, abilities that are based on a developed brain, which does language use).
To be moral or not in the end is a person's choice. It doesn't matter if he is religious or in what religion or not religious at all. Religion offers a tool, whether a person chooses to use it or not is his choice. Even if he fulfills all the religious commandments, he will always face free choice in the end. It also doesn't matter if he studies philosophy for 50 years. When a person chooses not to act morally, he will twist anything to justify his actions. In psychology it is customary to say that a person cannot act for a long time contrary to his belief. So he has two options. or change his ways or his beliefs. Then also in science you can find justifications and certainly in religion. This does not mean that dealing with religion or morality in philosophy is completely ineffective. But the effect is dwarfed by the ability to choose that a person always has. It is true that the colonialism began before the publication of natural selection. But they looked for justification and jumped on the bargain just like they did for years with religion.
Maya
In terms of maximizing utility (measurement) for all individuals in a given economy, objectively, economic growth is a positive thing. This is a tautology
Miracles
The link I made was between faith and morality. Not between religion and morality, although they are not separate issues. It is impossible to talk about morality only from a scientific point of view. Philosophy will just say it in more words and perhaps more precisely and in more agreed concepts, that's all.
Philosophy in any case is no more a science than a religion.
I don't think philosophy can renew anything for a person. Just refine things for him and define them better.
Forgive me for disparaging philosophy but even though you tend to present it as if philosophy is like science and any philosopher who supported a god or a soul simply miscalculated. And as if there is some unanimity like in science. There are many esteemed philosophers with charges here and there.
You also just throw things about religion as if they work like you once said that man was created in Judaism to serve God just like in the myth who does not remember which one. Now you stated that morality comes from fear of punishment in religion. I'm not saying that you won't find simplistic or even primitive approaches in every religion. But the assertions you throw into the air are ridiculous.
post Scriptum.
Theology is also considered a branch of philosophy.
Maya
Science and religion are not two opposites. Science is a method of studying the world. Religion is belief in the supernatural. Values, on the other hand, are part of philosophy. This definition of religion is mine (I learned it from a philosopher named Dent) and it is very useful to me.
Western philosophy is made up of five parts: the theory of cognition (epistemology), the theory of existence (ontology), the theory of logic (logic), the theory of morality (ethics) and the theory of beauty (aesthetics).
Therefore, it's a bit strange to me when you associate religion with morality. Not only does morality not come from religion (here I mean an institutional religion like Christianity or Judaism), but there is a serious conflict of interests between them. If my behavior is as a result of fear of punishment then it does not come from moral reasons. Anyone who thinks that murder is bad because it is written in the Torah is far from being moral!
rival
Not just an operating system - but good apps.
A',
"I really don't fully understand how you can believe without believing in anything. That is, if man is completely a kind of software that "ran" on a kind of computer and no emotion is anything more than evolution's programming. including the will to live. Everything is an illusion created only because the creatures with this illusion survived.'
I believe in myself, isn't that good enough? All our feelings are completely real and created in the brain, it's not an illusion, really, really not an illusion.
But in order to ask "Who determined that it is good..." you have to assume that "good" exists
I really don't fully understand how you can believe without believing in anything. That is, if man is completely a kind of software that "ran" on a kind of computer and no emotion is anything more than evolution's programming. including the will to live. Everything is an illusion created only because the creatures with this illusion survived. The others just don't. You can't even conclude from this that surviving is "good", if everything is just matter and every emotion is just an illusion, it doesn't seem any different to me than believing that you live in the Matrix. I don't think you can really live like this. And no one lives like that (maybe some lived like that before they stopped living on their own initiative). For me, it seems that believing in God for me begins to believe in that "good". To believe that it exists even though it cannot be proven with the help of the senses or mathematical logic.
Miracles,
"When you realize that the advantage is in grammar, you can understand how we evolved. You can understand that without such an ability we cannot share information and ideas - neither with our friends nor with future generations."
In short, you say, a powerful computer is not enough, it must also have a good operating system. If that's what you meant then I agree with you.
Maya
He also says that all "religions" are not based on science?
Miracles
Obviously, our views are similar, but I don't talk about it. I'm not talking about the difference between the natural and the supernatural, but about the discussion that a. Open here about morality. Can morality really come from science? I don't think so. Science is about facts, not beliefs. Religion, any religion, does two things: first, it assumes that there is a set of laws that is above man, and second, it assumes that you have to act according to this set of laws. The laws are divided into two things - factual claims (those that can be tested scientifically) and value claims. For example: the religion of capitalism will say that lowering the tax on the capitalists will increase economic consumption and therefore we should strive for that. The first claim can be checked (will lowering the tax on the capitalists really increase economic growth) but the second claim is a value claim - who decided that economic growth is a good thing? Everything I've written here is pretty much a quote from the book, so again I'd recommend reading the book. I'll just conclude by saying that you think everything can be tested scientifically - that's fine, it's not about religion, it's the facts. But yes you have a set of good and bad. where did he come from Who decided on him? It seems to me that a. a rower
Maya
My definition, and that of many others, of religion is different. God is not bound by religion. I distinguish between the natural and the supernatural. It covers both homeopathy, ghosts, gods and telepathy.
I guess you believe like me, don't you?
Maybe I wouldn't think of it as a religion. But definitely faith. Of course in its full and original sense, meaning religious.
A.
There is no such thing as "really bad". There are only things that each of us thinks are really bad and really good.
Each of us thinks that being hurt together is bad. But, you can always find cases where this is what is done in certain cases.
Friends
I am now reading Yuval Noah Harari's book "The History of Tomorrow" and he talks about exactly the things you are discussing here and offers, at least in my opinion, a refreshing point of view. Also on the subject of religion - he defines religion in a different way that has nothing to do with God and according to this definition both Nazism and Communism are really religions, and Yariv and Nissim are also religious people who believe in the religion of humanism, from what I have seen they write here on the website they probably belong to the liberal current of this religion . There is also a very interesting discussion about how man became the undisputed ruler of the world, which includes what separates us from the other animals (spoiler - almost nothing). In short, highly recommended. His first book "A Brief History of Humanity" is also highly recommended.
Miracles
As far as I know a chimpanzee does not have fine motor skills approaching a human. The development of motor skills occurred at the same time as the person straightened up and freed the hands to perform delicate actions.
rival
Science can give you the explanation why it looks bad to you. That doesn't mean if it's really bad it's up to you to decide. Science only explains emotion and emotion is certainly not a scientific way of determining things. Science also explains why things that are considered bad can make some people feel good. So it means nothing. Nothing will help you, it is impossible to scientifically determine whether something is good or bad. We can only explain our feeling. Darwin actually said (not in those words). If we are pure science then compassion is just like lust for fat. Once it helped to survive today is no longer safe. Yes? Is this what you think about morality? I hope not. I hope you believe that there is a good thing and a bad thing regardless of what the person feels. Maybe it's a paradox but you have to live with it.
About your question
First the question is worded in a way that feels like you are still trying to convince. Not that it bothers me but like I said it makes my efforts unnecessary. Still, the answer is yes, but it is not a scientific procedure and not based on a scientific rationale. On the other hand, not every morning do I get up and ask myself "Is there a God?" It would be very stupid to live like that.
rival
I did not say that there is no connection between a developed mind and grammar. But, when you say our advantage is a developed mind, you learn nothing. When you realize that the advantage is in grammar, you can understand how we evolved. You can understand that without such an ability we cannot share information and ideas - neither with our friends nor with future generations.
Without punctuation - we are no different from a Cro-Magnon man who lived 50,000 years ago.
Miracles,
"There is a difference - the human brain has one fundamental advantage: grammar. Everything else is just a matter of measure.'
Sorry but I don't seem to agree with you, our rich grammatical ability wouldn't be possible without a developed brain, that's the basis, just like a heavy computer game can't run on too weak a computer.
Grammar requires a developed mind, therefore a rabbit is not able to learn grammar and we are.
rival
There is a difference - the human brain has one essential advantage: grammar. Everything else is just a matter of measure. We have better fine motor skills, and also better eyesight (than other mammals).
But what caused our cultural development is the language.
In any case - it doesn't change my claim, which is also yours...
And of course what you said to Empathy is true.
Miracles,
1. "Our great brain has no advantage in itself, but the ability it has given"
It's a bit of a strange sentence, it's like you would say: "This supercomputer has no advantage in itself, but only for the abilities it gives."
2. "There is a physiological reason why hurting an animal is bad. Pain causes suffering, and we feel suffering when we see others suffering."
You're absolutely right, it's called empathy and it's also science.
a./adversary
Our big brain has no advantage in itself, but the ability it has given.
I am not convinced transparently unable to thread a thread to a needle monkey.
And there is a physiological reason why hurting an animal is bad. Pain causes suffering, and we feel suffering when we see others suffering. This is not true of all humans, and this is what causes, at least in part, certain people to be evil.
And on the other hand - it also exists in certain animals such as great apes and dogs.
A',
"Rival, I hope you were able to understand me, even if you don't agree"
understand, I understand, I understand that you have an inner need (mine, for example, does not) to believe in God, and you have a strong "feeling" that he exists, the question is whether you can or are capable of examining this feeling also intellectually, objectively, asking yourself if it is based About a real thing, which is really true.
The "Washington Times": The spirituality of scientists is surprising [excerpt] by Jennifer Harper, August 15, 2005 American scientists are a surprisingly spiritual group, according to a survey in which 70% agreed that "there are basic truths" in religion, and 68% classified themselves as spiritual people. The survey included 1,646 scientists from 21 research universities across the US, and of all of them, only about a third said they did not believe in God. The results pretty much reflect a survey from 12-2011, in which 76% "out of 2000 physics doctors answered that they believe in God. The sociologist who conducted the survey said that science is often seen as incompatible with religion and spirituality, but the scientists themselves should be asked about this. The survey also included the attitude of scientists to religious writings. For the complete article, please refer to the source:http://www.washtimes.com"/national/20050814-115521-9143r.htm
rival
I hope you were able to understand me. Even if you don't agree.
rival
What you wrote in the last message can somewhat summarize what faith is, at least for me.
That's how I feel about God.
And I don't think it has anything to do with faith, I feel that harming an animal (or a person) is a bad thing, it's not faith, it's a feeling, it's an understanding.
A',
No, I haven't had time yet but I know it.
rival
Did you read the entry?
I didn't say it was the same.
The whole thing is in response to you saying that you are 100% rational and don't "believe" in anything.
I wanted to show you that there is no such thing. It's all.
A',
I don't understand why you think I'm being evasive. We both understand that we have morals, we both think that causing suffering to an animal for pleasure is a bad thing, all in all I explained to you where this feeling comes from, why do you see it as evasion?
In any case, the comparison between morality and belief in God is not a correct comparison in my opinion. Both regarding morality and belief in God, it is possible to debate whether it is useful or not, whether it developed during evolution yes or not, but regarding God there is another question, is what you believe in true? Does God really exist?
You probably know my answer to this question.
rival
One of the types of social Darwinism (there is evidence that Darwin himself supported this) is the claim that welfare policy, for example, was created because of compassion that in the past had a survival advantage. But today you "damaged" the natural barra and it must be stopped. It doesn't just sound Nazi it's really their inspiration. Now I'm not claiming that for morality you have to believe in God. But you have to believe in something. For example, there is good and bad beyond what helps to survive, what does not help to survive (it is true that many times there is a match between things. Much more than at first glance) and this is even though it is not scientific.
rival
you dodge
You can agree that morality doesn't matter if it evolved out of necessity or not. Causing suffering to an animal is bad. Even if compassion is just a failure of evolution, that is, even if it gave the advantage only once.
Although such thinking is not scientific. (to say something bad regardless of whether it contributes to survival at the moment)
last question. You have read the Wikipedia entry "Social Darwinism"
I just hope you don't adopt the attitude out of a desire to prove to yourself that you are 100% rational.
"Maybe religion is also a need that developed in evolution"
Of course, but I'm already at such a high developmental level that I no longer need it 😀
And if it's just a need. So it should be re-examined, right?
Perhaps religion is also a need that developed in evolution.
And if you fail to convince that it is still useful?
So it won't be a bad thing anymore?
A',
What is the connection to philosophical arguments? I'm talking to you about pure science, I told you that moral behavior is a survival necessity.
How did you get from that to philosophy?
You can bring charged philosophers. But this is not proof and you will also start to sound like AP.
A',
I don't believe it's bad, I understand it's bad, and I certainly think that moral behavior is a survival need that developed during evolution.
Think about it.
rival
Beauty. Why?
Because you believe there is such a thing as good and bad. which is very unscientific. In science there is no good and bad, there is good to survive and no good to survive. But you do think there is moral behavior. Maybe what you think of as basic morality is just something that evolution has programmed you into? Just because it was useful at some point? But I don't think it matters to you. You can maybe find why now there is some benefit, but it's a shame to be tight-lipped. And even if I disprove your argument I at least hope it won't change your mind. Because you believe it. Maybe it's just your upbringing? It doesn't matter, say, because I agree with this education. But maybe that's not true.
A',
Yes, of course it's a bad thing. And what a part I understand it myself without God telling me.
Please answer yes or no. Wait if the question is what is it about. All in all a pretty simple and clear question
rival
Do you think causing pain to an animal for pleasure is a bad thing?
A',
You will be surprised, but I have no such beliefs. I don't believe in God, fairies or invisible elves. I don't feel that I lack it in any way, and the truth is that I think that some people's need to believe these things (as opposed to any rational thinking) is a bit childish.
Miracles,
I don't think we could have developed the rich language we have with a monkey brain. It is our large and developed brain that allowed us to develop language, and invent imaginary inventions such as gods, God, souls and fairies.
The big brain we have is the basis of all these.
It means to be relative to the size doesn't it?
The network is much bigger than him. A bee cannot be an example either. We'll see if you can find something within plus or minus 2 orders of magnitude of a person who can put thread through the eye of a needle.
A.
Have you ever seen a spider spin a web? 🙂
Miracles
We also have excellent fine motor skills, maybe even the best.?
Miracles
The religion I know without God is Buddhism. And there is karma that pretty much plays the role of God.
rival
It's really hard for me to explain the matter in a short message. What's more, I know really hates missionaries. And every time I start to explain I get the feeling that I am a missionary. Maybe it will sound like a run to you. I can only say that every person has something that he believes in in the simple and original sense of the concept of faith. Something that is clear to him and that is beyond rationality. Even if he doesn't think of him as such. In any case, I might be able to at most explain to you, certainly not convince you, and even that only if you have a real desire to understand and not to convince. I'm not entirely sure you're asking out of curiosity rather than a desire to convince. Because you really can't understand someone and try to convince them at the same time. I also have things that I don't fully understand about atheists, especially how they live like that. And this is regardless of whether there is a God.
rival
A blue whale is the largest super-living creature, a sequoia is the tallest tree, a mallard is the smallest mammal, a duck is the only mammal that both lays eggs and knows how to swim... And we have the ability to destroy ourselves.
Think about that there must be an animal with the biggest brain….
What does distinguish the person is grammar. Many animals have a language made up of words, but only we know how to talk about the past to plan the future. Take away the man's grammar and see what happens….
Miracles,
Even according to science there is something that distinguishes man from all other living creatures. We have the most developed brain in the natural world, the largest (yes, also relative to the brain of an elephant and a leviathan in terms of the number of neurons and the connections between them) and this is what allowed us, among other things, to invent God, souls and all the other beliefs that have been rooted in us.
A',
I'm just curious, is there anything that will make you realize that God is a myth and that there are no souls? Or will you continue to blindly believe these things no matter what?
A.
Not every religion has God. But, to my understanding, every religion believes that there is something that distinguishes man from other living creatures.
Beyond that, when I ask, I am always told that God is "outside of science". So, that's nothing to talk about. According to the religious, it is impossible to do experiments to see if God exists, there are no observations that show his existence and so on.
But - why is it impossible to investigate if there is a soul?
Miracles
I didn't understand what you wanted to say.
God also does not exist in science and religion does. And many other things too.
A'
You wrote that there is no contradiction between faith and science. Without going into semantics - there is one very fundamental difference. In science - there is no soul. In religious belief - there is. One difference but very essential.
A',
The person who wrote this document is a believer (who of course accepts evolution, like any reasonable person exposed to all the evidence for it) but I don't think he is a rabbi.
A talks about this great document:
http://www.toraumada.org.il/toraumada1stEd.pdf
A concise compilation of most of the evidence for evolution, it is recommended to download the file to your computer and read at your leisure.
א
I did not read everything.
It is clear to me that there are opinions among rabbis here and there.
At this point I belong to the school of preparation for the holiday. As you know, it takes a lot of time and also a considerable financial investment..
Anyway, have a happy kosher holiday.
outside the box
I was waiting for you to respond.
Regarding your response. Yes, this is a really interesting question. It could be that the rejection is stronger because the difference to the Neanderthal man is greater. Or even if births were made of babies with a y chromosome, i.e. males, they were not able to have male offspring later. So the chromosome will eventually die out even if there are several births.
Now for the reason I'm really glad you responded.
Is there any change regarding evolution? Did you read in depth the link of a rival written by a rabbi? Did you check the sources properly? I also recommend that you read the Wikipedia entry "Judaism's relationship to evolution" you can find there additional explanations and quotes from other rabbis. And of course check their sources as well.
The question still remains
Because one of the assumptions in the article is that since some females reject genes when they are pregnant, as in this case, some of them still certainly did not reject .. what's more, at the same time each male probably had several females .. so the explanation that this gene became extinct loses its stability
Shmuel
Equally it is possible that the Neanderthals were simply not as successful as their cousins in raiding Homo sapiens tribes and abducting women.
very interesting,
"Other studies have shown that the DNA of modern humans contains 2.5-4% Neanderthal DNA"
Has anyone ever researched the relationship between Neanderthal DNA % and ethnicity/ancestry/race?
It can give a lot of interesting directions and research
Could another explanation for the phenomenon be that a bond between species was created mainly or only by sapiens males that mated with Neanderthal females? And not vice versa? Is it possible that this is a result of the known human tendency? Males kill the males and children in the conquered tribe and rape the women? Perhaps such a tendency did not exist in the Neanderthals and that is why we do not find remains of a male Y chromosome of Neanderthal origin in humanity today...
If only a Homo sapiens male and a Neanderthal female would produce fertile males - this could explain why there are no Neanderthal genes on the Y chromosome
So basically the reproductive barrier only worked when the embryo was male (unless there are other similar genes on other chromosomes).
I wonder what the effect is on the transfer of Neanderthal DNA to Homo sapiens when the only possible reproduction between the species is that of females.
Were the females born this way infertile?
(The very fact that there are traces of Neanderthal DNA in the human genome in certain European groups means no).
exciting
It looks like someone is reading the comments to the articles and bringing research to the topic of discussion. Or is it just a coincidence. Was there just a discussion about genetic barriers to reproduction in one of the discussions?