Irish Times Waffle Alert

Penn

I'm not talking about the amount we know, I mean that we as a people generally don't just take claims as being the truth. We think logically and analyse things. Cavemen generally did not do that.

Smart does not equal knowledgable. It's about how you think. How you analyse things. How you assess situations. And that has improved from the time of cavemen.

It's not about trying to feel superior to them. Hell, if cavemen we're just plain stupid, we may not have survived as a species this far. But tens of thousands of years ago, people lived on instinct rather than rationality.

speaking

MrPudding wrote: »

Yeah, I have to say, between this guy and kidchameleon the forum seem to be attracting a really sh1t standard of atheist recently.

MrP

Whats with the insults. I am trying to tease these out not insult. if I am wrong I am wrong.

speaking

Penn wrote: »

I'm not talking about the amount we know, I mean that we as a people generally don't just take claims as being the truth.

But we do all the time. We take claims from politicians as being the truth, we take claim from scientists

We think logically and analyise things. Cavemen generally did not do that.

The next time you are trying to stay alive in a forest full of wild animals and hostile other cave men tell me you did not think logically and analyse things.

Smart does not equal knowledgeable. It's about how you think. How you analysis things. How you assess situations. And that has improved from the time of cavemen.

It's not about trying to feel superior to them. Hell, if cavemen we're just plain stupid, we may not have survived as a species this far. But tens of thousands of years ago, people lived on instinct rather than rationality.

Again would have to fundamentally disagree with you. Cave men were must have lived with great rationality in order to survive.

Comparing the smartness of people today to cavemen of the past is like comparing apples and oranges I just dont see the point, other than to say that they were probably in their own way as smart then as we are now.

speaking

Nodin wrote: »

Being uneducated and somewhat slow, I'll have to ask for a definition of "caveman" and "smart" as I'm somewhat unfamiliar with these precise scientific terms.

For cave man read people from the Palaeolithic era.

Smart? You decide. I suppose i am talking about smart in terms of an existentialist understanding.

Not purely in a scientific way.

I take it you dont think your uneducated and somewhat slow do you? I bet you think your somewhat smart.

Sycopat

speaking wrote: »

I'm not a scientist and as an atheist I just don't understand why fellow atheists are so sure science has all the answers for us. Personally I know science has answers but there really not the kind of questions I give a **** about anyway.

What I am trying to say I suppose is that i care about people more.

By the reading of your posts the only questions you give a '****' about are ones with subjective answers.

As to 'You care about people more' that's a deeply weird statement to me. It seems incomplete. You care about people more than what?

speaking

Sycopat wrote: »

By the reading of your posts the only questions you give a '****' about are ones with subjective answers.

As to 'You care about people more' that's a deeply weird statement to me. It seems incomplete. You care about people more than what?

I care about people more than blindly following the assumption that scientific thinking will lead us to some utopia, while along the way we fail to properly address some of the ethical questions that science seems to bring about.

I am all for science don't get me wrong. I just cant believe it will free us to the extent that other atheists do.

I am willing to be wrong.

I dont understand what you mean by subjective answers?

Nodin

speaking wrote: »

For cave man read people from the Palaeolithic era.

A period covering about 2 billion years. If you're referring to modern humans, thats somewhere around the 200,000 year mark.

speaking wrote: »

Smart? You decide.

How can I decide what you mean? is this poetry comprehension?

speaking wrote: »

I suppose i am talking about smart in terms of an existentialist understanding.

...vague waffle. Be specific please.

speaking

Nodin wrote: »

A period covering about 2 billion years. If you're referring to modern humans, thats somewhere around the 200,000 year mark.

when I said cave men I was refering to stone age people lets say around 10000 years ago in ireland

...vague waffle. Be specific please.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Existentialism#Sartre.27s_philosophy

See Camus, Fredrick N for what I am trying to get at.

Quatermain

10,000 years ago, people were just arriving in Ireland, having migrated from Continental Europe. We know they had knowledge of navigation and boatmaking. They fished and preserved food for the voyage. Given that their descendants also built Newgrange, Knowth, and Dowth, they had knowledge of architecture and astronomy.

This speaks of a tremendous amount of intelligence for "cavemen", a term which is both nebulous and misleading.

equivariant

speaking wrote: »

Are you saying that if we stopped teaching religion people would understand the value of science and that science itself would help up become more ethical in the future?

I think that it is likely that people would be better able to reason if they were not taught superstitious nonsense about the nature of the universe. Christian mythology and morality (I am most familiar with that one) is so full of inconsistencies and nonsense that teaching it to children is bound to make them a bit more stupid than they would be without it (especially if you tell them that it is absolute truth about the universe and about human nature). So, in answer to your question, basically "yes".

What about Plato Socrates are you seriously suggesting that because they are from the Iron age we should ignore what they have to say about ethics etc?

Not what I said. I specifically said "iron age superstitions".

And although an atheist I still think the teachings of Jesus on treating your fellow person they way you want to be treated makes sense.

I don't need Jesus to tell me that - the key phrase here is "(it) makes sense". As long as you can reason, who need iron age mythology to come to a sensible conclusion. BTW, Jesus also supposedly tells us to put our trust in a non existent superbeing, which is a pretty dodgy thing to promote.

As an atheist I am perfectly happy to pick and choose in an a la carte way from history things that make sense to me and help me be a more moral person.

I am not just going to dismiss ancient teachings because they are old, where they are stupid and old i will dismiss them, but not just because they are old.

I never said that we should dismiss old teachings. Much ancient knowledge is still vital - Greek Geometry, Newtonian Physics for example. However, iron age superstitions about the orign of the universe are clearly rubbish.
Of course iron age people didn't have the evidence available to us to today, so they can be excused their superstitions. They were just trying to
make sense of the world as best they could. However modern day humans do not have that excuse. It requires wilful ignorance to ignore the mountains of scientifically based knowledge about the nature of the universe and instead choose to believe in a sky fairy.

Can you tell me some examples of how science solves ethical questions? Its not a trick question im just curious.

One simple example. How many terrible ethical dilemmas about choosing between the life of mother or life of baby due to complications during childbirth have been completely avoided due to modern medicine. Of course there are many more such examples.

Morgase

Quatermain wrote: »

10,000 years ago, people were just arriving in Ireland, having migrated from Continental Europe. We know they had knowledge of navigation and boatmaking. They fished and preserved food for the voyage. Given that their descendants also built Newgrange, Knowth, and Dowth, they had knowledge of architecture and astronomy.

This speaks of a tremendous amount of intelligence for "cavemen", a term which is both nebulous and misleading.

To be fair, the goalposts have just been moved. I'm sure most would agree that there is a massive difference between humans of only 10,000 years ago and cavemen.

Sulla Felix

From the writer of God's Enterpeneurs... Not too surprisiing.

Nodin

speaking wrote: »

when I said cave men I was refering to stone age people lets say around 10000 years ago in ireland .

Right then. Thats one thing cleared up. Humans, circa 10,000 years ago.

speaking wrote: »

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Existentialism#Sartre.27s_philosophy

See Camus, Fredrick N for what I am trying to get at.

As both are dead and are probably not your personal aquaintances, I doubt that would be helpful.

From your own link.

There has never been general agreement on the definition of the term. The first
prominent existentialist philosopher to adopt the term as a self-description was
Jean-Paul Sartre. Existentialism as a term,
therefore, has been applied to many philosophers in hindsight. According to
philosopher Steven Crowell, defining existentialism has therefore
been relatively difficult, and argues that it is better understood as a general
approach used to reject certain systematic philosophies rather than as a
systematic philosophy

Thus I'd rather you laid out what you were getting at, rather than have me play guessing games.

speaking

Quatermain wrote: »

10,000 years ago, people were just arriving in Ireland, having migrated from Continental Europe. We know they had knowledge of navigation and boatmaking. They fished and preserved food for the voyage. Given that their descendants also built Newgrange, Knowth, and Dowth, they had knowledge of architecture and astronomy.

This speaks of a tremendous amount of intelligence for "cavemen", a term which is both nebulous and misleading.

But did these men not also worshipped the Sun, engaged in ridiculas rituals around large stones believed in the cult of the dead. Now that's what I call stupid, or maybe.............................................................?

Sycopat

speaking wrote: »

I care about people more than blindly following the assumption that scientific thinking will lead us to some utopia, while along the way we fail to properly address some of the ethical questions that science seems to bring about.

I am all for science don't get me wrong. I just cant believe it will free us to the extent that other atheists do.

I am willing to be wrong.

I dont understand what you mean by subjective answers?

First up
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subjectivity

Questions with no single answer, but different answers for different people depending on how they approach the question, their personal philosophies, outlooks, modes of thinking, values. Subjective. The opposite of objective. "Which of the many available possible courses of action is most ethical?" for instance.

I feel I should point out here, existentialism is a heavily subjective philosophy.

Who is making this assumption that blindly following scientific thinking will lead to a utopia by the way? I think that's a bit of a straw man. Science is not a social guidebook, or political ideology, it is a method by which we attempt to observe and explain the world around us. Nothing more.

Science is wrong, regularly and openly. It is far from perfect, but it is the best we have. The point of science is to change the explanation to better fit the evidence. I think that is why it tends to appeal to atheists. Equally I think that as scientists are required by their profession to question everything and trust nothing except the observable, atheism/agnosticism appeals to them.

speaking

Nodin wrote: »

Right then. Thats one thing cleared up. Humans, circa 10,000 years ago.

When I said "Palaeolithic era" I was referring to the point that we are all cave men for another more advanced time. Its pointless and stupid in my opinion for one age to claim superiority over another (we are more clever, we have science they did not that makes them more ignorant to us etc.)

People just did nt pick up on the point I was trying to make so I said 10000 years ago hoping someone would mention the people in newgrange. Which allowed them to make my point for me, i.e that these people were actually advanced in their own way.

As both are dead and are probably not your personal aquaintances, I doubt that would be helpful.

Although I dont know them neither are strangers to me either, thus I cant say I have spoke to them either.

Quatermain

speaking wrote: »

But did these men not also worshipped the Sun, engaged in ridiculas rituals around large stones believed in the cult of the dead. Now that's what I call stupid, or maybe.............................................................?

And how is that any different from eating the body and blood of the son of a god?

It's not stupidity. It's simple ignorance. Were the Egyptians stupid despite the fact that they built the pyramids, a massive undertaking in terms of architecture and manpower? All in the name of burial rites.

speaking

Who is making this assumption that blindly following scientific thinking will lead to a utopia by the way?

From reading this thread it seems a lot of atheists do think that science has the power to lead to a utopia in the future that it can cure all ills so to speak.

Science is not a social guidebook, or political ideology, it is a method by which we attempt to observe and explain the world around us. Nothing more.

Science is wrong, regularly and openly. It is far from perfect, but it is the best we have. The point of science is to change the explanation to better fit the evidence. I think that is why it tends to appeal to atheists. Equally I think that as scientists are required by their profession to question everything and trust nothing except the observable, atheism/agnosticism appeals to them.

There is nothing I disagree about with this accept that in the hands of people science can be used to corrupt, so as ordinary people we should not just accept science without questioning the people who would use it to do bad in the world all in the name of good.

Kind of what the catholic church have been doing for a 1000 years.

speaking

Quatermain wrote: »

And how is that any different from eating the body and blood of the son of a god?

Its not.

It's not stupidity. It's simple ignorance. Were the Egyptians stupid despite the fact that they built the pyramids, a massive undertaking in terms of architecture and manpower? All in the name of burial rites.

No. Thats my point.

I know this whole "are the ancients/"cavemen" as smart as we are" debate is a little off topic, but it's interesting nonetheless.

The whole argument depends upon how "smart" is defined. Is it defined as the capacity for intelligence? Or is it defined in terms of the extent of the body of knowledge possessed by an individual? Or is it somewhere inbetween? I suspect using an individual's capacity for intelligence is a more accurate measurement, as the latter (how much knowledge a person possesses) is likely dependent on it.

What if an average newborn baby born in the Iron age (let's say about 1000 B.C.E.) was magically transported to our own time. Ignoring medical factors (such as the child's immune system not being suited to our own time), if that child were to be raised in a modern family, subjected to modern schooling and teaching, would it hold the capacity to be as intelligent as an average child born in our own time? Would that child be indistinguishable from other modern children (ignoring ethnicity; just in terms of intelligence and ability to absorb and use knowledge)? The human brain hasn't changed that significantly in the past few thousand years as far as I'm aware (I'm open to correction on this, though, of course), so I suspect that child would adapt perfectly well to our own times.

Does the same hold true for a child born 12,000 years ago? I've no idea. But I think this is the only interesting avenue of debate for the whole argument that "cavemen" are as "smart" as we are. I don't think they were as smart as we are now if you define smartness in terms of the body of knowledge they possess. This topic of discussion is probably more suited to the anthropology forum. (:D)

speaking

gvn wrote: »

I know this whole "are the ancients/"cavemen" as smart as we are" debate is a little off topic, but it's interesting nonetheless.

The whole argument depends upon how "smart" is defined. Is it defined as the capacity for intelligence? Or is it defined in terms of the extent of the body of knowledge possessed by an individual? Or is it somewhere inbetween? I suspect using an individual's capacity for intelligence is a more accurate measurement, as the latter (how much knowledge a person possesses) is likely dependent on it.

What if an average newborn baby born in the Iron age (let's say about 1000 B.C.E.) was magically transported to our own time. Ignoring medical factors (such as the child's immune system not being suited to our own time), if that child were to be raised in a modern family, subjected to modern schooling and teaching, would it hold the capacity to be as intelligent as an average child born in our own time? Would that child be indistinguishable from other modern children (ignoring ethnicity; just in terms of intelligence and ability to absorb and use knowledge)? The human brain hasn't changed that significantly in the past few thousand years as far as I'm aware (I'm open to correction on this, though, of course), so I suspect that child would adapt perfectly well to our own times.

Does the same hold true for a child born 12,000 years ago? I've no idea. But I think this is the only interesting avenue of debate for the whole argument that "cavemen" are as "smart" as we are. I don't think they were as smart as we are now if you define smartness in terms of the body of knowledge they possess. This topic of discussion is probably more suited to the anthropology forum. (:D)

I would define smart as something which each age defines for itself and comparisons between the ages are probably pointless.

Anyway I think i Might give this one a miss from now on. Obviously I am talking crap.

Fellow atheists. May the force be with you.

Anyway I think i Might give this one a miss from now on. Obviously I am talking crap.

You're not at all. Besides, this forum (and all forums) would be incredibly boring if we all agreed with each other.

Galvasean

I'd side with the "We aren't much smarter than cavemen" school of thought. Sure I can switch on a lightbulb, but I can't build one. As gvn said, give a modern person and a 'caveperson*' the exact same opportunities from birth and I would not imagine there would be much of an intellectual gulf, if any. There are some seriously dumb people out there in this day and age. Plus most of the really cool technological advances we have were the result of the efforts of a very small percentage of people. The vast majority of us do not produce anything of real intellectual contribution to our species in our lifetime.


*I'm talking about the first proper Homo sapiens for the sake of clarity.

Sycopat

speaking wrote: »

From reading this thread it seems a lot of atheists do think that science has the power to lead to a utopia in the future that it can cure all ills so to speak.

I have not noticed that in this thread. Most of the commentary I've read about science in this thread has been various people attempting to explain that science is simply a tool for gathering knowledge and understanding the world, not deciding social policy.

There is nothing I disagree about with this accept that in the hands of people science can be used to corrupt, so as ordinary people we should not just accept science without questioning the people who would use it to do bad in the world all in the name of good.

Kind of what the catholic church have been doing for a 1000 years.

In the hands of people a hammer can be used as a deadly weapon to kill and torture. That's not the hammers fault. It's just a tool. And the vast vast majority of people who work with them use them as intended.

Science also suffers from people misinterpreting it, willfully or not, in order to advance their own agenda's. The anti-vaccine lobby, quack cancer treatments, homeopathy etc. These are things which are not actually based on science but which are presented as being scientific in order to fool the gullible.

Sycopat

Galvasean wrote: »

I'd side with the "We aren't much smarter than cavemen" school of thought. Sure I can switch on a lightbulb, but I can't build one. As gvn said, give a modern person and a 'caveperson*' the exact same opportunities from birth and I would not imagine there would be much of an intellectual gulf, if any. There are some seriously dumb people out there in this day and age. Plus most of the really cool technological advances we have were the result of the efforts of a very small percentage of people. The vast majority of us do not produce anything of real intellectual contribution to our species in our lifetime.


*I'm talking about the first proper Homo sapiens for the sake of clarity.

I'd probably agree with you. I'd like to think we would skew slightly higher in general though, just because people do seem to select for intelligence. (No one I've known has ever really wanted a dumb mate. I realise it's anecdotal, and my peer group may not be average. But I think most people want to be able to respect their partners intellect.)

However intelligence is a range. It's quite likely our smartest people would be smarter than their smartest could be. (Although their smartest would still probably be well above what might be considered the modern average)

Dades

speaking wrote: »

As an atheist I am surprised you think people have inherent morality?

You think morality is something that is part of us. That we are inherently good?

I never said anything about being inherently good. Yes, I believe we each possess our own morality. Different moralities - not a universal morality. It's a product of our genes and our upbringing.

What we read or learn has not much effect on this - we just zone in on the ideologies that reflect what we actually believe. It's why so many Catholics are actually not. Culturally they are, but the reality is they follow their own morality and are Catholics in nothing more than name.

speaking wrote: »

From reading this thread it seems a lot of atheists do think that science has the power to lead to a utopia in the future that it can cure all ills so to speak.

That suggests to me you haven't being following what's being said about science. Utopia a al Star Trek won't be achieved until humans learn to behave better and then use science to create the tech needed to compliment it.

Nodin

speaking wrote: »

Although I dont know them neither are strangers to me either, thus I cant say I have spoke to them either.

...which still doesn't explain to me what you're referring to.

Mardy Bum

Article wrote:

I studied humanities and feel more at home in that camp and am therefore prone to downplaying the achievements of science.

A sentence like this makes it clear the man knows little about either discipline.

Galvasean

"Now, I don't know anything about science BUT... let me tell you something about science."

jank

Penn wrote: »

Many of the basics of "old" wisdom would still be relevant today, or been adapted with the times. But to suggest we're not smarter than cave men is pretty ridiculous. In the period between cave men and now, people have been able to rely less on basic instinct and been able to judge situations rationally and logically. As time has moved forward, we as a species have been able to think more about what we're doing and rely on more than just basic instinct, because instinct is not always correct.

That depends on what smart is. If smart is sending a rocket to the moon then yes, however if it means surviving by means of hunting and gathering then we as a population in general wouldn't last a week i.e we are dumber. Our smarts have evolved with the environment we occupy so to speak, doesn't mean we are smarter per say.