Are we slaves to god?

[abaddon]

...

From this, I have come to believe that to have purpose is to be bound to someone else. That the word itself is closely related to bondage and enslavement.

So if you believe that god created you, and has a plan with you in mind. Are you then god's slave? He created you with a specific purpose in mind, right? If not then from where does the justification for your being come from? Does god create without intent? How can you claim god has a plan or purpose for you and then argue you are free from his plan?

For some the god or goddess is a beloved whom they invite into their lives for harmony between self and reality. It can be an adoring relationship or unity rather than abject subjection.

I’m not a theist and I don’t think there’s an intended purpose, still I recognize constraints by my “creator”, Nature. Having to obey them is not enslavement. Adjusting to the limits imposed is necessary to enjoyment. Anything else could only result in frustration and resentment.

God as "beloved" is a more mystical or contemplative sort of religious view. It's explorative. Whereas traditionalists idolize and are compliant to a tradition. They act compliantl like slaves for fear of the chaos* if someone wasn't giving the right beliefs and behaviors. They think the someone is king of the universe, when it's other people.

(*Notice, for some evidence, how they often use the word “random” when describing a meaningless world.)

 

[Bronzeage]

Humans are totally dependent upon one another for survival. You are welcome to test this assertion by taking off your clothes and walking into the wilderness. How exactly one could have offspring without reliance on another, is a rather vague premise.

Then let me clarify. Speaking very generally and broadly, Humans are no more strictly dependent on each other for survival than any other mammalian species. While I may not be the best example for bushcraft or wilderness survival, there are plenty of men and women capable of surviving in the wild indefinitely with or without survival equipment.

Another feature unique to humans (As far as I know) is the ability to willingly and consciously go against their own biological programming, which undermines the idea that biological instinct can serve as a basis for any kind of inherent obligation.

- - - Updated - - -

And how would one obtain that skillset without other people?

The same way Lion Cubs acquire theirs I should imagine. From their parent(s). This is mostly my fault for not being specific enough.

I know plenty of people who could survive in the wilderness, but only because they brought a lot of human technology with them. As I said, the requirement is naked. I would conjecture that the number of people who have died in the wilderness because they lacked support, far exceeds the number who survived without it.

 

[LordKiran]

Then let me clarify. Speaking very generally and broadly, Humans are no more strictly dependent on each other for survival than any other mammalian species. While I may not be the best example for bushcraft or wilderness survival, there are plenty of men and women capable of surviving in the wild indefinitely with or without survival equipment.

Another feature unique to humans (As far as I know) is the ability to willingly and consciously go against their own biological programming, which undermines the idea that biological instinct can serve as a basis for any kind of inherent obligation.

- - - Updated - - -

And how would one obtain that skillset without other people?

The same way Lion Cubs acquire theirs I should imagine. From their parent(s). This is mostly my fault for not being specific enough.

I know plenty of people who could survive in the wilderness, but only because they brought a lot of human technology with them. As I said, the requirement is naked. I would conjecture that the number of people who have died in the wilderness because they lacked support, far exceeds the number who survived without it.

Sure, but do the ones left make up a viable population that can sustain itself?

 

[LordKiran]

...

From this, I have come to believe that to have purpose is to be bound to someone else. That the word itself is closely related to bondage and enslavement.

So if you believe that god created you, and has a plan with you in mind. Are you then god's slave? He created you with a specific purpose in mind, right? If not then from where does the justification for your being come from? Does god create without intent? How can you claim god has a plan or purpose for you and then argue you are free from his plan?

For some the god or goddess is a beloved whom they invite into their lives for harmony between self and reality. It can be an adoring relationship or unity rather than abject subjection.

I’m not a theist and I don’t think there’s an intended purpose, still I recognize constraints by my “creator”, Nature. Having to obey them is not enslavement. Adjusting to the limits imposed is necessary to enjoyment. Anything else could only result in frustration and resentment.

God as "beloved" is a more mystical or contemplative sort of religious view. It's explorative. Whereas traditionalists idolize and are compliant to a tradition. They act compliantl like slaves for fear of the chaos* if someone wasn't giving the right beliefs and behaviors. They think the someone is king of the universe, when it's other people.

(*Notice, for some evidence, how they often use the word “random” when describing a meaningless world.)

I don't have a problem with my constraints as a soft pink sack of water and protein. The statement is more philosophical. If you were made with a purpose that implies an obligation to fulfill the mandate dispensed upon you via the higher power, no?

I suppose it's possible for people to be without purpose while still acknowledging the existence of a god or gods though.

 

[Bronzeage]

Then let me clarify. Speaking very generally and broadly, Humans are no more strictly dependent on each other for survival than any other mammalian species. While I may not be the best example for bushcraft or wilderness survival, there are plenty of men and women capable of surviving in the wild indefinitely with or without survival equipment.

Another feature unique to humans (As far as I know) is the ability to willingly and consciously go against their own biological programming, which undermines the idea that biological instinct can serve as a basis for any kind of inherent obligation.

- - - Updated - - -

And how would one obtain that skillset without other people?

The same way Lion Cubs acquire theirs I should imagine. From their parent(s). This is mostly my fault for not being specific enough.

I know plenty of people who could survive in the wilderness, but only because they brought a lot of human technology with them. As I said, the requirement is naked. I would conjecture that the number of people who have died in the wilderness because they lacked support, far exceeds the number who survived without it.

Sure, but do the ones left make up a viable population that can sustain itself?

Interesting question, but when a lone human dies, there's no one left. That's sort of the point.

 

[LordKiran]

Then let me clarify. Speaking very generally and broadly, Humans are no more strictly dependent on each other for survival than any other mammalian species. While I may not be the best example for bushcraft or wilderness survival, there are plenty of men and women capable of surviving in the wild indefinitely with or without survival equipment.

Another feature unique to humans (As far as I know) is the ability to willingly and consciously go against their own biological programming, which undermines the idea that biological instinct can serve as a basis for any kind of inherent obligation.

- - - Updated - - -

And how would one obtain that skillset without other people?

The same way Lion Cubs acquire theirs I should imagine. From their parent(s). This is mostly my fault for not being specific enough.

I know plenty of people who could survive in the wilderness, but only because they brought a lot of human technology with them. As I said, the requirement is naked. I would conjecture that the number of people who have died in the wilderness because they lacked support, far exceeds the number who survived without it.

Sure, but do the ones left make up a viable population that can sustain itself?

Interesting question, but when a lone human dies, there's no one left. That's sort of the point.

I mean conceivably you could have a situation where couples form to rear children on isolated homesteads with limited (if any) contact between them. That'd allow for the continuation of the species while keeping them non-communal.

It'd vaguely resemble the proposed societal structure of a certain post-revolutionary political thinker who's name currently escapes me. I want to say Jefferson?

 

[Bronzeage]

Then let me clarify. Speaking very generally and broadly, Humans are no more strictly dependent on each other for survival than any other mammalian species. While I may not be the best example for bushcraft or wilderness survival, there are plenty of men and women capable of surviving in the wild indefinitely with or without survival equipment.

Another feature unique to humans (As far as I know) is the ability to willingly and consciously go against their own biological programming, which undermines the idea that biological instinct can serve as a basis for any kind of inherent obligation.

- - - Updated - - -

And how would one obtain that skillset without other people?

The same way Lion Cubs acquire theirs I should imagine. From their parent(s). This is mostly my fault for not being specific enough.

I know plenty of people who could survive in the wilderness, but only because they brought a lot of human technology with them. As I said, the requirement is naked. I would conjecture that the number of people who have died in the wilderness because they lacked support, far exceeds the number who survived without it.

Sure, but do the ones left make up a viable population that can sustain itself?

Interesting question, but when a lone human dies, there's no one left. That's sort of the point.

I mean conceivably you could have a situation where couples form to rear children on isolated homesteads with limited (if any) contact between them. That'd allow for the continuation of the species while keeping them non-communal.

It'd vaguely resemble the proposed societal structure of a certain post-revolutionary political thinker who's name currently escapes me. I want to say Jefferson?

I'll use an example taken from an anthropologist who live among the Arctic peoples of Canada in the 1930's. This is the most extreme environment in the world, where it is below freezing more than half the year. According to his observations, it was not possible for such a person to live alone. Everyone depended upon a high fat diet and warm clothes. Without either, death was days or hours away. One person could hunt and provide food for several people. One person could prepare skins and make clothes for several people. No one could do both for themselves. Children required more working adults in the group. He believed that a couple could survive for short times, but the real minimum for survival over the winter was five.

In a less extreme climate, it would be easier for a couple with children, but we have to remember that humans are not the apex predator in a lot of places. The only defense humans have against large predators is being in a large group.

If not for our distinct talent for cooperation, humans would be just another species of primates.

 

[Sarpedon]

The idea of the man alone in nature is a fantasy from the enlightenment period. Human beings have always lived in groups, and our evolutionary predecessors also did. There was never any time when anything remotely human lived a solitary lifestyle. The closest relative we have that lives a mostly solitary lifestyle is the Orangutan. May I point out that Orangutans are much, much more physically formidable than human beings.

While individuals can survive in the wilderness, they generally only do so when they have access to advanced tools and education. The existence of well-publicized exceptions do not disprove the general rule.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Another feature unique to humans (As far as I know) is the ability to willingly and consciously go against their own biological programming, which undermines the idea that biological instinct can serve as a basis for any kind of inherent obligation.

That doesn't happen. But that you think so is acknowledged.

 

[Sarpedon]

Oh, and may I remind you that lions live in social groups, and learn from other lions besides their parents?

 

[LordKiran]

Oh, and may I remind you that lions live in social groups, and learn from other lions besides their parents?

So replace 'Lion' with any mammal of your choosing that is raised and learns from their parents before reaching maturity and striking off to repeat the process. The specific animal is entirely beside the point to be frank. if you want to dispute that children can be taught to survive in the wild by their parents then fine but actually do that.

- - - Updated - - -

Another feature unique to humans (As far as I know) is the ability to willingly and consciously go against their own biological programming, which undermines the idea that biological instinct can serve as a basis for any kind of inherent obligation.

That doesn't happen. But that you think so is acknowledged.

It absolutely does, if you believe that self-preservation and breeding are encoded into our biological programming.

- - - Updated - - -

Then let me clarify. Speaking very generally and broadly, Humans are no more strictly dependent on each other for survival than any other mammalian species. While I may not be the best example for bushcraft or wilderness survival, there are plenty of men and women capable of surviving in the wild indefinitely with or without survival equipment.

Another feature unique to humans (As far as I know) is the ability to willingly and consciously go against their own biological programming, which undermines the idea that biological instinct can serve as a basis for any kind of inherent obligation.

- - - Updated - - -

And how would one obtain that skillset without other people?

The same way Lion Cubs acquire theirs I should imagine. From their parent(s). This is mostly my fault for not being specific enough.

I know plenty of people who could survive in the wilderness, but only because they brought a lot of human technology with them. As I said, the requirement is naked. I would conjecture that the number of people who have died in the wilderness because they lacked support, far exceeds the number who survived without it.

Sure, but do the ones left make up a viable population that can sustain itself?

Interesting question, but when a lone human dies, there's no one left. That's sort of the point.

I mean conceivably you could have a situation where couples form to rear children on isolated homesteads with limited (if any) contact between them. That'd allow for the continuation of the species while keeping them non-communal.

It'd vaguely resemble the proposed societal structure of a certain post-revolutionary political thinker who's name currently escapes me. I want to say Jefferson?

I'll use an example taken from an anthropologist who live among the Arctic peoples of Canada in the 1930's. This is the most extreme environment in the world, where it is below freezing more than half the year. According to his observations, it was not possible for such a person to live alone. Everyone depended upon a high fat diet and warm clothes. Without either, death was days or hours away. One person could hunt and provide food for several people. One person could prepare skins and make clothes for several people. No one could do both for themselves. Children required more working adults in the group. He believed that a couple could survive for short times, but the real minimum for survival over the winter was five.

In a less extreme climate, it would be easier for a couple with children, but we have to remember that humans are not the apex predator in a lot of places. The only defense humans have against large predators is being in a large group.

If not for our distinct talent for cooperation, humans would be just another species of primates.

Point taken, though this is somewhat removed from the original topic at this point so I'll just concede and get back to square one, that we have no inherent obligations to one another.

 

[Bronzeage]

Point taken, though this is somewhat removed from the original topic at this point so I'll just concede and get back to square one, that we have no inherent obligations to one another.

You can rationalize misanthropy in any way which pleases you. In today's world, we receive most of our cooperation from people we will never see. In the end, without inherent obligations, there will be nothing to inherit and no one to inherit.

 

[LordKiran]

Point taken, though this is somewhat removed from the original topic at this point so I'll just concede and get back to square one, that we have no inherent obligations to one another.

You can rationalize misanthropy in any way which pleases you. In today's world, we receive most of our cooperation from people we will never see. In the end, without inherent obligations, there will be nothing to inherit and no one to inherit.

I wouldn't say I am rationalizing misanthropy. More just acknowledging that there is no immediate mechanism that makes people work to the benefit of others and that I do not have any explicit obligation to those around me, even if it is beneficial to myself and those around me in the abstract . I mean entire spans of human history consist chiefly of a privileged few dominating and exploiting the masses to their personal benefits.

 

[Bronzeage]

You can rationalize misanthropy in any way which pleases you. In today's world, we receive most of our cooperation from people we will never see. In the end, without inherent obligations, there will be nothing to inherit and no one to inherit.

I wouldn't say I am rationalizing misanthropy. More just acknowledging that there is no immediate mechanism that makes people work to the benefit of others and that I do not have any explicit obligation to those around me, even if it is beneficial to myself and those around me in the abstract . I mean entire spans of human history consist chiefly of a privileged few dominating and exploiting the masses to their personal benefits.

If threat of starvation or being eaten by a bear are not a sufficient mechanism to work for the benefit of others, let's hope never find we never find ourselves in wilderness country which happens to be bear habitat. I don't have to outrun a bear, if I can outrun you.

 

[LordKiran]

I wouldn't say I am rationalizing misanthropy. More just acknowledging that there is no immediate mechanism that makes people work to the benefit of others and that I do not have any explicit obligation to those around me, even if it is beneficial to myself and those around me in the abstract . I mean entire spans of human history consist chiefly of a privileged few dominating and exploiting the masses to their personal benefits.

If threat of starvation or being eaten by a bear are not a sufficient mechanism to work for the benefit of others, let's hope never find we never find ourselves in wilderness country which happens to be bear habitat. I don't have to outrun a bear, if I can outrun you.

You misjudge me sir. I may be an introverted recluse, but I am no misanthrope.

 

[Sarpedon]

My point is that your argument is so divorced from reality that it really isn't defensible. Like the enlightenment thinkers who came up with it, it is an entirely false narrative, meant to support a political idea.

It is absurd to compare an animal with superb physical attributes learning with that of humans. A lion's skills are creep, run, pounce, bite, climb tree and take a nap. A lion requires no shelter, no cooking of food, no tools to get its food, nothing really but the food itself. A human requires clothing, a variety cooked food, shelter, fire, and tools, tools for everything. It is utterly absurd that you think these could have been developed by humans without social groups. You say 'learn from their parents,' well, my obtuse friend, where would the parents have learned it? An individual, with the benefit of education, could learn all these things. However, how could one learn these things in the wild, while struggling to survive? Your answering 'learning from the parents', only pushes back the question one generation.

This is obviously not a serious point on your point. I have observed time, and time again that religious people start with a goal in mind, and make up whatever story they need to to arrive at the goal, not caring if the story makes sense, is consistent with either known facts or even other stories they made up in different circumstances. Even though you are not religious, you seem to retain this habit in your arguments.

Humans do, in fact have a number of inherent psychological tendencies that are adapted for life in social groups. Most humans have a reluctance to harm other humans. A tendency to go along with authority. A tendency to identify with other people based on their similarity to the self. I could go on and on. I'm not sure what you are trying to argue when you say 'we have no inherent obligation to one another,' but it is absolutely false from a biological point of view. Biologically, we are literally programmed to work together. We have a great big lump on our brain who's only purpose is communication. We have 'mirror neurons' that cause our emotions to be altered based on emotions other people display. Our emotions are virtually all centered on gaining the affection and approval of others. Perhaps, having failed to obtain that, you are trying to convince yourself that you have no need of it.

 

[Bronzeage]

If threat of starvation or being eaten by a bear are not a sufficient mechanism to work for the benefit of others, let's hope never find we never find ourselves in wilderness country which happens to be bear habitat. I don't have to outrun a bear, if I can outrun you.

You misjudge me sir. I may be an introverted recluse, but I am no misanthrope.

No man is an island, however introverted or reclusive. It's one of those, "If all people acted this way," things. There is enough elasticity in modern human society that you can withdraw from from the rest of us, and no one will suffer any great harm.

 

[LordKiran]

My point is that your argument is so divorced from reality that it really isn't defensible. Like the enlightenment thinkers who came up with it, it is an entirely false narrative, meant to support a political idea.

It is absurd to compare an animal with superb physical attributes learning with that of humans. A lion's skills are creep, run, pounce, bite, climb tree and take a nap. A lion requires no shelter, no cooking of food, no tools to get its food, nothing really but the food itself. A human requires clothing, a variety cooked food, shelter, fire, and tools, tools for everything. It is utterly absurd that you think these could have been developed by humans without social groups. You say 'learn from their parents,' well, my obtuse friend, where would the parents have learned it? An individual, with the benefit of education, could learn all these things. However, how could one learn these things in the wild, while struggling to survive? Your answering 'learning from the parents', only pushes back the question one generation. [1]

This is obviously not a serious point on your point. I have observed time, and time again that religious people start with a goal in mind, and make up whatever story they need to to arrive at the goal, not caring if the story makes sense, is consistent with either known facts or even other stories they made up in different circumstances. Even though you are not religious, you seem to retain this habit in your arguments. [2]

Humans do, in fact have a number of inherent psychological tendencies that are adapted for life in social groups. Most humans have a reluctance to harm other humans. A tendency to go along with authority. A tendency to identify with other people based on their similarity to the self. [3] I could go on and on. I'm not sure what you are trying to argue when you say 'we have no inherent obligation to one another,' but it is absolutely false from a biological point of view. Biologically, we are literally programmed to work together. [4] We have a great big lump on our brain who's only purpose is communication. We have 'mirror neurons' that cause our emotions to be altered based on emotions other people display. Our emotions are virtually all centered on gaining the affection and approval of others. Perhaps, having failed to obtain that, you are trying to convince yourself that you have no need of it. [5]

1. And again, point taken. I already more or less recanted on this position and can admit that it is more than a little silly to make such a comparison in retrospect.

2. Call me blind if you want but I don't see it. I can clearly admit when my ideas or supporting arguments are wrong. If I could do this conversation over I probably would have left out the naturalist angle entirely since it's not compelling and distracts from the core of the debate too much. So maybe sometimes I make mistakes, but it isn't as if my reasoning is like a house of cards, where just because one point falls, the whole thing collapses.

3. I note your use of the word tendency. As if to leave room for exceptions. The fact that there are exceptions at all tests the rule, no?

4. And there are Many instances of people consciously ignoring this programming, furthermore there is no reason to think that everyone else isn't also capable of doing the same.. So to me, the premise of obligation by instinct is flawed.

5. Interesting idea. Though once again I just don't see it. I may be a reclusive sort, but that doesn't mean there aren't people I am close to, and who are close to me. There are people I love and am loved by, but my survival is not dependent on such love.

 

[LordKiran]

You misjudge me sir. I may be an introverted recluse, but I am no misanthrope.

No man is an island, however introverted or reclusive. It's one of those, "If all people acted this way," things. There is enough elasticity in modern human society that you can withdraw from from the rest of us, and no one will suffer any great harm.

I was going to say that obviously there is a pragmatic imperative to continue the species. But upon further reflection I can't really say that.

Again, not a misanthrope, but if we all died tomorrow and there were no people left on the planet it's not as if there would be anyone left to mourn the loss of human civilization. The only real tragedy is the billions of lives that were abruptly cut short, which even then, is a matter of who you ask.

Back to the point at hand: People want to breed because if nobody did then that would be the end of humanity. That doesn't make you any less capable of celibacy however.

 

[Sarpedon]

3. I say 'tendency' because that is the proper term to use in psychology and sociology. People call these 'soft' sciences because there are few 'hard' facts in them. However, that sort of mentality breaks down when one looks at physics, supposedly the 'hardest' science, and realize that in quantum physics everything is statistical and there are all sorts of exceptions. You can't, for example, predict the motion of a single photon. All you can do is chart the course that the majority of them are most likely to take. All sciences are ultimately 'soft.' Likewise, in sociology we can only talk about general tendencies, and are not bothered by the existence of various exceptions. In a situation where individuals are produced by evolution, there will be a variety of traits, though the majority will tend towards the 'optimal' adaptation. There will be some that will differ from the optimal. This is not a bug, it is a feature. The existence of deviant specimens increases the population's ability to adapt to change. Your implied criticism of my position because it lacks 'hard' answers is completely invalid.

Furthermore, in a social group with the division of labor, different traits can translate to different roles in the group. As you alluded to, the person who does not have a strong aversion to hurting others will gravitate toward leadership positions. People who are easily distracted are efficient gatherers, while more compulsive people excel at crafts. Indeed, there's probably a role for people who don't do well in social groups at all, and live on the fringes. However, you shouldn't mistake their alienation from the group as independence from it. The hermit still obtains supplies from the community, whether by gifts or stealing, or even the living in proximity to them is safer than actually living alone in the wilderness.

4. Are you sure of that? How can you tell the difference between someone 'consciously ignoring their programming' and the activation of a subroutine in that program that detects and corrects maladaptive behavior? I'm reminded of an incident on the 'Big Bang Theory' show: Sheldon, the awkward physicist wants to make a new friend, and resolves to call him and propose they hang out. Because he's so bad at social interactions, he prepares a conversation flow chart to help him. However, he didn't anticipate that the other guy wouldn't answer the way he expected, and soon found himself in a loop, which, as a compulsive person, he couldn't escape. At this point, Howard the engineer steps in and adds a subroutine to Sheldon's flow chart that forces the conversation to continue to another step if a given step was repeated too many times, allowing Sheldon to escape the loop and conclude the conversation successfully. Why do I tell this story? Because it illustrates that a good program includes exceptions, and can detect and avoid destructive processes caused by unanticipated factors. Also, it shows that people on Sheldon's side of the conversation can see what's wrong and fix it, but the person on the other end wouldn't realize that Sheldon is going off of a program and might conclude that this awkward exchange is just Sheldon being Sheldon.