Good evil

@fmf said
@PettyTalk
An interesting slew of questions, and yet, when I look back over them, they seem a bit disconnected from what I actually proposed in my first post on this thread.

It's OK to riff on words you see me using, but if it's just riffing for riffing's sake, it can come across like you didn't quite get what you are ostensibly responding to.

pettytalk asked:
Has nature any compassion for the weak, the sick, the needy?

You:
Humans acting in a morally sound way do.
"Nature" is neither good nor evil. Nor does it have or lack compassion.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
If humans are a product of nature, you are contradicting yourself.

Again, if humans are not any different than the other animals nature "created", they (we) should all be motivated and moved by the precepts of the Evolution theory.

Does Nature play favorites? Favoring man with such distinctions as being able to free himself from the bonds of animal instincts, in mass?

Humans are unnatural to nature itself in other respects too. Such as, if nature wanted man to fly, through Evolution it would have given us wings.

I lean towards the idea that humans, being naturally different, are supernatural, since we defy and are disrespectful to the wishes of Mother Nature, as we disobey it, unnaturally.

The meaning and source for the original "sin"? Evil? No, inherent evolutionary disobedience.

@pettytalk said
If humans are a product of nature, you are contradicting yourself.

No. It's humans who have individual consciences, not "nature". There is no contradiction.

@pettytalk said
If humans are not any different than the other animals nature "created", they (we) should all be motivated and moved by the precepts of the Evolution theory.

Nobody has claimed that "humans are not any different from the other animals". Nobody has claimed that humans have the same motivations as "the other animals". It's becoming ever more clear that you don't really understand the posts you are replying to.

@pettytalk said
pettytalk asked:
Has nature any compassion for the weak, the sick, the needy?

You:
Humans acting in a morally sound way do.
"Nature" is neither good nor evil. Nor does it have or lack compassion.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
If humans are a product of nature, you are contradicting yourself.

Again, if humans are not any di ...[text shortened]... y.

The meaning and source for the original "sin"? Evil? No, inherent evolutionary disobedience.

There is nothing supernatural about humans. We are just more highly evolved than other species.

@pettytalk said
I lean towards the idea that humans, being naturally different, are supernatural, since we defy and are disrespectful to the wishes of Mother Nature, as we disobey it, unnaturally.

I don't see how our discussion benefits from you insisting on anthropomorphizing nature. Also, the fact that we find ways to cope with or manage nature does not make us "supernatural": our activities are all in accordance with the laws of physics and chemistry - it's not "disobedience". Futhermore, referring to dealing with the challenges posed by nature as "disrespectful" may be OK in a poem, but it's a red herring in a discussion like this.

@fmf said
Nobody has claimed that "humans are not any different from the other animals". Nobody has claimed that humans have the same motivations as "the other animals". It's becoming ever more clear that you don't really understand the posts you are replying to.

I think we have the same basic motivations (geared towards survival and procreation etc) but are elevated above these in part due to our current state. (Highly evolved and open to other motivations not available to other species. - For example, the motivation to explore or find answers).

@pettytalk said
Humans are unnatural to nature itself in other respects too. Such as, if nature wanted man to fly, through Evolution it would have given us wings.

if nature wanted man to fly...

Nature is not a being that's able to "want" things.

@ghost-of-a-duke said
I think we have the same basic motivations (geared towards survival and procreation etc) but are elevated above these in part due to our current state. (Highly evolved and open to other motivations not available to other species. - For example, the motivation to explore or find answers).

I think it's to PettyTalk that you should be addressing this.

@fmf said
Conscience and morality ~ and perception of good and bad and evil ~ evolved because [1] humans had the cognitive capacity to perceive these abstract things and act upon them; and [2] communal living turned the existence of moral codes and possession of moral compasses into attributes that enabled humans to survive and flourish.

By providing such explanations you are lecturing, as you assume that I'm not aware of such earthly matters. But tell me, are you actually lecturing, or just summarizing information you were spoon-fed?

The study of conscience, morality, and the perception of good and bad, as well as the concept of evil, is a complex field that intersects philosophy, psychology, and theology. We also need to involve anthropology, since this field also plays a significant role in studying the origins of moral concepts among homo sapiens, as these human moral concepts evolved through the evolution and formation, over time, of human societies and cultures. We must not forget politics either, all along the watchtower, as we look out into the distance, for understanding these concepts.

@fmf said
No. It's humans who have individual consciences, not "nature". There is no contradiction.

Is that your best refutation? Your are doubling down on your contradiction.

@pettytalk said
Does Nature play favorites? Favoring man with such distinctions as being able to free himself from the bonds of animal instincts, in mass?

"Play"? "Favour"? If you can't talk about nature, or get your head round it, without anthropomorphizing it ~ in order to conceptualize human efforts to cope with it ~ perhaps you can only discuss it with theists. Just a thought.

@pettytalk said
Is that your best refutation? Your are doubling down on your contradiction.

There is no contradiction. You haven't shown there to be one.

@fmf said
if nature wanted man to fly...

Nature is not a being that's able to "want" things.

You are naturally asking questions and mandating answers, are you not? Through you, nature is wanting!

@fmf said
There is no contradiction. You haven't shown there to be one.

Oh, you are one of those, I see!

@pettytalk said
The study of conscience, morality, and the perception of good and bad, as well as the concept of evil, is a complex field that intersects philosophy, psychology, and theology. We also need to involve anthropology, since this field also plays a significant role in studying the origins of moral concepts among homo sapiens, as these human moral concepts evolved through the evo ...[text shortened]... ither, all along the watchtower, as we look out into the distance, for understanding these concepts.

Then why are you apparently setting this aside and riffing, instead, on "Mother Nature" supposedly being some kind of sentient being.