Jay on the human origin story 3: Denying ecology

Conversation
,
1

The last two posts in the topic “2: Denying Structure” show that by coming here I surely have stuck my head in a bees-nest, which I should have expected. Some people can put at least their hand into a bees-nest without getting stung, it’s evident that I don’t have the equivalent skill on this forum, I’m sorry for arousing this response amongst decent people and I’m sorry for failing to extract the honey.

I think the sequence of responses reveal something of the human origin story that I’m trying to expose or reveal. Here is my outline of how the topic 2 discussion went:

Jay: The standard human origin story denies a 2-step structure in human evolution shown in (a) that has become obvious from 21st century hominin discoveries. This denial is because structure implies a deterministic story and PS prefers an acausal origin story.

PS You don’t understand. Whereas previously we did see evolution in terms of simple trends (e.g. horse toes) nowadays we visualize human evolution as a bush (b)

image
image562×323 50.1 KB

Figure 9

Jay: That’s just a different way of using 2-D space on a graphic, in your case, to construct a genealogy. My graph is about the single feature of brain size vs time, which is related to the significant EQ. A valid counterexample would be an establishment-generated graph that does show the 2 step structure.

PS: Here you are then, (DeSilva’s article graph) (c)

Jay: Oops, yes, that is a valid counter-example. But I love it because they link encephalization with eusocial insect communication, although oddly, they don’t explicitly mention human language. Encephalization was all about the unique and prodigious ability of the human infant to pick up the language (grammar and vocab) it sees or hears, and the ability of even small human groups to generate languages.

PS: We aren’t even going to look at DeSilva and anyway all animals communicate.

Jay: You are blocking my argument because you are defending a group position linked to the rise of career paths in secular universities.(d)

PS: None of what you say makes any sense from the get-go. Look Jay, we are getting sick of your nonsense. Although we are a tolerant, peaceful bunch we have to close this pointless discussion. Any last words?

In the first place, why are you getting so upset if I am really talking nonsense? You tolerate YEC, although they unreasonably deny the geological time scale and associated fossil record. Can’t I even use the word “atheist” because that is too offensive? I considered offering to change that to “Western Enlightenment”. But on reflection, I can’t. I believe that shared belief systems go with justifying origin stories and the atheistic belief system, shared particularly in Western universities since Darwin’s time, has left marks in the human origin story told in terms of evolution. Something about the form of that belief system can be mapped by seeing where a story is plain wrong.

I’m also getting sick of this topic, it has now got unbearably toxic for me too. So, I want to do some more mapping by arguing in a new topic that in denying the 2-step structure of human evolution, PS have misunderstood what kind of animals Australopiths were, and therefore, misunderstood part of what it means to be human. Scientists got that somewhat right a century ago, but because they were theorizing in an ideological gale (or zephyr?} their story soon went towards the bad, till it’s now almost dead in the water, a bit like the current state of physics, although via a different route.

I’m asking for some space to put that new topic, I like this forum and I think that for all my deficiencies, I can contribute something positive to it, even with this necessarily provocative proposed title. Please give me couple of days to sketch out the idea.

2

May suggest you try focusing on your stated topic, starting by better defining what you mean. For instance:

  1. “the atheist mindset” isn’t really a thing. Atheists might have all manner of mindsets, except for one. What do you really mean?
  2. “messed up” implies there is some better state. What is that?
  3. “the human origin story” Which human origins story? Most cultures have this in one form or another.

You may use “atheist” all you want, but please be careful about how you characterize a group of people. ANY group of people.

Because there are worse things than nonsense.

I shut down your previous thread because it was going off the rails into free-form argument. That happens when you don’t carefully define what you mean.

Note that I haven’t prevented you from starting a new discussion. I am trying to set you off on a better start that might lead to more productive discussion.

2 Likes
3

You can use the word “atheist” as much as you like. But in this case, you don’t actually mean “atheist”. “Naturalist” is closer to the mark, since you appear to be describing methodological naturalism, not atheism.

Nor is there any such thing as an “the atheist belief system”. Again, you’re apparently referring to methodological naturalism.

The western university I went to didn’t ‘share an atheistic belief system’. Not even in the biological sciences. There was actually a thriving Christian Union on campus, as well as a Franciscan study centre which taught theology.[1]

I don’t know whether or not you went to a western university, but the impression you are giving is that you did not, are unfamiliar with what they are like, and are relaying propaganda.

  1. The Franciscan centre closed in 2018 due to a lack of students. However, there is now a mosque on campus. ↩︎

4 Likes
4

One? I really doubt that Jainists, Norse pagans and Islamic fundamentalists have the same mindset.

1 Like
5

I stand corrected! :slight_smile:
But really I was just trying to nudge the discussion towards better defined terms.

But if we are adding those others, we might as well throw Raliens onto the pile too. :laughing:

6

There’s nothing offensive about the word “athiest”. The problem is that you are misusing it.

I grew up as a Christian, but eventually left Christianity because of the hypocrisy. So now, “atheist” is a correct and honest term for me. But my mind-set is much the same as it was in my days as a Christian. There’s really no such thing as an atheist mind set.

There’s also no such thing as “the atheist belief system”. I no longer believe the resurrection story, nor do I believe in the divinity of Jesus. But, apart from that, I have no specifically atheist beliefs. Sure, my beliefs have changed over time as I have learned more. But this is not related to atheism.

As for origins, I just go with the evidence. No, I don’t believe the genesis origins account. But then I never believed that even when I was a Christian. The Adam & Eve story and the Noah story both seemed like obvious fables, so I never took those to be history.

I should perhaps add that I grew up in Australia. To most Aussies, the YEC view of history is untenable. It does not fit with the Aussie flora and fauna.

5 Likes
7

General appeal: Does anyone here have the slightest idea what @Jay is trying to say?

1 Like
8

No Jay. What is offensive is you blaming atheists without demonstrating either (i) that there is an actual problem, or (ii) that it has anything to do with atheism. Given this, I have taken the liberty of excising atheism from your mis-titled threads. @moderators, if you object, you are welcome to suggest more neutral titles.

9

Thanks for allowing this topic title. PS is clearly formed around a good motivation that needs to be fostered amongst posters, that is, open and friendly discussion. I evidently haven’t been much good at that so far, but I have to put a difficult argument that is bound to draw fire.

1. “the atheist mindset” isn’t really a thing. I admit having trouble with the meaning of “atheist mindset”, which is the least offensive term I have come up with far, others being “propaganda”, “ideology”. Can I start from the other end by suggesting that there is a “thing” which is difficult to usefully name. It can be recognized by its product.

This produced thing is a nascent cultural product. A meme. Sort of like a big animal.

Genesis is the same kind of thing. As I understand it, Genesis was organized as the first book in the Jewish and Christian Bibles because it tells what the human condition is, by telling where humans came from. It tells that God made the natural world in a sequence, declaring every stage good, with mankind last, made in Gods image, who placed them in a natural garden, with dominion over all living things, from which they were evicted for having chosen to eat from the tree of knowledge of good and evil, were forbidden to return to the garden and doomed to a struggle for existence. The story bubbled up from a deep place in humanity and can have great and terrifying provenance. It can knock me down to the floor.

I’m trying to argue that the human origin story told in terms of evolution is that kind of thing, but this time oppositional to Genesis, positioning mankind as a cognitive being creating himself as the only actor on a bare stage. That is, as a demigod in an otherwise godless world. It would be a big task to unpack the obviously controversial elements of that but that’s what I fumble towards.

2. “messed up” implies there is some better state. What is that? I think that a human origin story freed from this cross-talk from atheist self-discovery would put human cognition much lower in importance, and embed humanity much deeper into “Nature”.

3. “the human origin story” Which human origins story? Luckily, the one I’m talking about can be found in actual text, which i want to get onto.

10

I also flipped from Christianity to atheism but about 20 years ago I flipped back. I also grew up in Australia, partly, when I was about 8 and again about 16. I’m grateful to my Aussie school teachers for their professional, practical, caring approach, after ropier experiences from a Catholic nunnery school and rough politically fraught South African government schools. In junior school in the early ‘50s, the NSW Education Dept put out monthly or quarterly little graded booklets featuring aboriginal origin stories illustrated in a block-cut style reminiscent of aboriginal art. They made a big impact on me, picturing a garrulous world where people, animals and spirits were all mixed up. I don’t know whether my memories or the stories were accurate. The aboriginal vision might also have played into May Gibbs’ children’s book “SnugglePot and CuddlePie” illustrated I think by herself. Later I gobbled up Bruce Chatwin’s “The Songlines”. Put together, it seems to me that aboriginal tribal culture and stories are a great heritage.
(edited spelling)

11

So basically you are trying to construct a narrative where the People Who Disagree With You are Bad and Wrong.

You start off with vague accusations - which you seem reluctant to clarify- you haven’t said a word about ecology on this thread despite it supposedly being about “denying ecology”. Support for your accusations - especially when they get to the motivation - is also very thin on the ground.

And what are we to make of assertions like:

Really, that’s all about your narrative.

3 Likes
12

Apparently this story is meaningful to you. It may not be meaningful to others. And it may not contain much literal truth. Possible?

FIrst you would have to show that this is a story actually prevalent somewhere, and that its origins and supposed popularity result from atheism. I for one don’t recognize that story at all.

I’m pretty sure that nobody here has any idea of what you’re talking about. And that’s a result of your inability to say,

3 Likes
13

There really isn’t an atheist propaganda, nor an atheist ideology.

Yes, some atheists are anti-theist and might be said to have an anti-theist ideology. But most atheists are not anti-theist. They just want to live their own lives without theists interfering.

3 Likes
14

Many cultures have origin stories. And there may be some borrowing of such stories between cultures. But it is best to view them all as myths and cultural traditions, but not as history. Human are story tellers, and some stories are then adopted as traditions.

2 Likes
15

Apologies for chopping up the quote, but I didn’t think it was necessary to repeat all of it. MY TAKE on what you are saying here, is that you want to found your own religion (or maybe just a sect?).

And why is that better?

Yes, that much was in the title.

You still haven’t really answer any questions. It’s almost like you are using sort sort of purposely evasive AI to write this stuff.

1 Like
16

May I suggest that it isn’t really atheist either – or at least you’ve demonstrated no connection to atheism.

This is vague to the point of being vacuous.

You can try, but you don’t seem to have been particularly successful in your first attempt.

This is demonstrably false – as the evolution ‘story’ starts billions of years before the advent of humans. A far stronger argument could be made that the Genesis narrative, which has the creation of humans as the climax of ‘creation week’ is far more human-centric.

What “cross-talk from atheist self-discovery”?

Are you talking about the Theory of Evolution? If so, like all science, it is agnostic not atheistic – in that it neither admits nor denies the existence of God.

This is why there are a great many theistic evolutionists, including many scientists, many biologists, and even many evolutionary biologists.

It would help to clarify your position if you could provide examples (with citations to where these claims were originally made) of the “propaganda”, “ideology” and/or “atheist self-discovery” you are complaining about.

3 Likes
17

I doubt it. I certainly don’t. However, whatever he is trying to say is almost certainly not worth serious consideration. So not much is lost thru his inability to write coherently.

3 Likes
18

Jay will be unable to respond for a week. Please hold further replies.

2 Likes
19

Well stated. And, as a theist myself, this also conforms with my own experiences with atheists in both my university days and in my online experiences. I rarely encountered anti-theists. And the vast majority of atheists I knew would simply say things like, “I have not found the evidence for deities compelling.” I can certainly respect that—and I had no problems working or conversing with them.

Of course, for many people (in general and this is not necessarily aimed at anyone on PS) there is an automatic assumption that atheists are allegedly ideologically “opposed to all that is good” and covertly conspiring toward that end. I am so fed up with that mentality. (Yes, there are some atheists I know of who make me quite frustrated and irritable—just as there are some theists I know of who make equally so. Both types tend to be angry for unsound reasons. I don’t think their motivation is necessarily about theism/atheism. Some people are just unhappy and tend to lash out at others. Again, this is just a generalization based on personal observations. Nothing more than that.)

5 Likes
20

For everyone’s information, Mr. “Jay” has kept this 7500-post thread going on these same fatuous topics on rationalskepticism.org since 2015:

Stop wasting your time replying.

7 Likes