I just stumbled on This joke today.
8 monkeys are in a room. There is a ladder in the room, and at the top of the ladder is a bunch of bananas. The monkeys are fed adequate but unappetizing food.
For the first week, any time a monkey climbs the ladder, a nozzle drenches all the monkeys in icy cold water. Soon, any time a monkey starts to climb the ladder, all the other monkeys beat him senseless to avoid being punished.
One monkey is removed, and another takes his place. Not knowing about the ice water punishment, he approaches the ladder. All the other monkeys beat him senseless. Every time he gets near the ladder, they all gang up on him.
A second monkey is replaced. Same thing. The first replacement monkey joins in the beating.
A third is replaced. A fourth. Eventually all the original monkeys are replaced. The new 8 monkeys have never experienced the ice water punishment, yet any time any of them approaches the ladder, the rest of them gang up on him and beat him senseless.
I’m reminded of another story. A woman is teaching her daughter how to cook a roast. She cuts a small portion off each end of the roast, and the daughter asks her why. The woman replies “I don’t know, but my mother always cut the ends off her roast, so I do it. The daughter calls up her grandmother, and asks her why she always cut the ends off the roasts. Grandmother replies “I don’t know, my mother always did it”. The next time Daughter visits great-grandma in the nursing home, she asks why she cut the ends off the roasts. Great-Grandma replies “Because my pan wasn’t large enough to cook a whole one.”
These two concepts are dogma. They are memes. The behavior outlined in these tales poses a significant danger to an intellectual society.
Let’s add some ideas to the monkey problem. Now we have a ladder leading to one bunch, and a rope leading to another. One group of monkeys is punished any time they go up the ladder, the other is punished any time they go up the rope.
Take one monkey from the first group and put him in the second. Initially, he will try to fight any monkey going up the ladder, and the rest of the monkeys will punish him for going up the rope. For awhile, at least. Eventually, he’ll learn the new rules and conform to his new society.
What about when you put all 16 monkeys in a room with a rope and a ladder?
Chaos. An “Us vs Them” mentality develops. Each group continues to reinforce its own dogma. Peace only exists when no monkey tries to get a banana.
How many parallels to historic human behavior can you find?
Good post. I’ve always wanted a good example of dogma. Now I have two. Thanks!
Wow, that’s simply amazing.
I agree whole-heartedly that dogma is a terrible force in humanity. However, I also feel all too often tradition is thrown in with dogma, when they are of course very different beasts. Tradition, in its most basic and pure form, instills a common thread among many people, thus forming a coherent healthy community. Now, replace tradition with dogma, and that community, as you point out, becomes irrational and dangerous.
For many years the people threw away their garbage, and every week the garbage men collected it and took it to the city dump. One night there was a terrific storm and a massive bolt of lightning struck the very heart of the dump site, sending bits of metal, glass, rubber, plastic and a whole lot of other stuff flying. All this stuff collided in mid air with such force that it all fused together. In the morning, after the storm had passed, the garbage collectors were surprised to find that the result of this fusion was a brand new Rolls Royce.
If you liked this story, you’ll love this next one.
Once upon a time there was a whole lot of hydrogen floating around in space. I don’t know where it came from – it just happened to be there. Then one day there was a massive bolt of lightning, (bigger than the one in the first story). This made all this gas fuse together and form all the stars, the planets, all the animals on earth and all the different plants etc.
There is no God, so all this just happened by accident.
Which story sounds the more ridiculous?
Once there was nothing at all, anywhere, except a Supreme Being who was actually three guys in one. He created the Universe out of nothing. He always existed.
Now which is the strangest story?
John Vice, maybe you should go and join those monkeys – you have approximately the same mental capacity. Your ideas about the universe (and i;m assuming evolution also) are so basic, you could never hope to understand the true reality of the theories. People like you are the reason why dogma still exists today, give it a few more generations, and hopefully it will be overcome.
John,
A variation on the Watchmaker argument, and a strawman, your comment is logically fallacious.
A man knows how to build an airplane, so he must have been born with this knowledge, right?
Of course not. Yet this is the logic you would have us use.
If you’re going to ignore all of the processes that occurred in the past 4 billion years on the planet, then yeah, life might as well be a miracle. If you want to bury your head in the sand like that, feel free.
How can you assume there is a god and simultaneously ignore everything he allegedly did? How can you dismiss the entire process of “creationism” with “God did it” – Do you not have any sense of curiosity? Do you not care about the methods your Lord employed to bring you into existence?
Whatever means you want to look at the “Godidit, stop asking questions” methodology you are employing, it appears stupid. Purposefully remaining ignorant is stupidity. This purposeful ignorance is a trait of almost all religious philosophy – looking for knowledge outside of approved, dogmatic doctrine is often considered blasphemy or heresy, leaving stupidity as the only approved course of action. Dogmatic thinking is a bane on humanity, and it needs to be challenged. Question Everything, including the need to question everything.
Jesus died for my sins, not my mind. There is plenty of scientific evidence that proves the validity of the Bible and I would be happy to discuss it with anyone. Let’s start with the issue of the 4 billion year old Earth. This is perhaps one of the hardest things for people to grasp – especially since the Judeo-Christian faith proclaims the Earth is only roughly 5,000 years or so old. Science proclaims that carbon-dating, fossil records, etc prove the age of the Earth. Humor me on this one – how old was Adam allegedly according to the Bible? I know you’re a very educated audience so you know that Adam was “born” as a man. Likewise, going back to the whole “chicken vs. egg” debate, a wise man would argue that the chicken had to come first because there would be no plausible way for an egg to hatch without a mother hen to warm it nor would a chic survive if there was not a mother hen to feed it. Consequently, one has to surmise (and the Bible tells Christians) that the world was created with several things “advanced in years” (i.e. Adam born as a man, animals in adult stage not child, etc). Consequently, if I have faith to believe that Adam could be created as an adult male, wouldn’t it only be logical that I could believe that God could create the Earth as though it had been also “aged” and contain the same “carbon-date” as if the Earth had been 4 billion years old. It’s the exact same assumption I would have if we were able to exhum Adam’s body – he would “appear” to be a fully-aged adult.
Even if we don’t agree with our starting assumptions, at least you must admit that the Christian conclusions to the “date gap” are logically consistent with our starting premise, right?
Best evidence for humans insatiable inherent selfishness….i.e. original sin.
Every forum which starts with a comment, an idea, and ends in the berating of the previous comment. Each person trying to one up one another instead of kindly disagreeing and speaking their mind. Have any of us witnessed a forum that doesnt follow suit. Why do the overwhelming majority of them continue in this fashion? Im not offering that this is proof of anything.
It only suggests that our first tendency is to act on pride. To suggest that one knows more than the last. To better the self and not the other. I think you all have something of value to share, why not express the value, instead of devaluing the last……to the last.
Tim,
“Science proclaims that carbon-dating, fossil records, etc prove the age of the Earth”
Yes, although carbon dating is only used to determine relatively recent events – it is only effective when used on things that were alive within the past 5000 years or so.
Basically, it works like this: within the earths crust are various radioactive isotopes that break down into lighter and lighter elements. Carbon 14 is a slightly radioactive version of the carbon element. carbon 14 breaks down into carbon 12. The proportion of carbon 12 to carbon 14 in the environment is pretty stable because it carbon 14 is continuously replenished as a decay product of heavier radioactive elements. In a living organism, one expects the proportion of carbon 14 to carbon 12 to be equivalent to the environmental proportion. Organisms are continuously taking in and discarding both forms of carbon in respiration and/or digestion. But, when an organism dies, the carbon 14 that makes up its body begins to decay. By measuring the proportion of carbon 14 to carbon 12, and knowing the rate of radioactive decay, we can, with a fairly high level of accuracy, determine the age of the remains of a life form.
There are other, dating methods that utilize different radioactive isotopes, and I have not described all of the complications involved. Instead, I’ve tried to give you enough information that you could begin your own research into the methodology of dating the earth. Where you find problems with my answers, seek more detailed answers from more knowledgeable people.
“Humor me on this one – how old was Adam allegedly according to the Bible?” I do not know what the Bible says about Adam’s age, and this question cannot be answered by science without a LOT more data.
“Likewise, going back to the whole “chicken vs. egg” debate, a wise man would argue that the chicken had to come first because there would be no plausible way for an egg to hatch without a mother hen to warm it nor would a chic survive if there was not a mother hen to feed it.” Actually, this question is easily answered by the theory of evolution. When we understand that a single organism does not spontaneously mutate into another organism during its own lifetime, it becomes clear that the egg must have come first. The first chicken would have been born of something that wasn’t quite a chicken. Now, this is an EXTREME oversimplification of evolutionary theory, but it is valid. To make this argument, though, one would have to explicitly, and quite rigidly define “chicken” at the final, tiny mutation that differentiates between the Chicken and the Proto-Chicken. Not all of the offspring of this first chicken would be chickens – only those that carried the differentiating mutation could be classified as chickens. Eventually, though, that last mutation would propagate and the chicken line would originate.
I like to go back to dogs – yes there are many different varieties of dogs, but they are all dogs, right? Well, what about the Great Dane and the Chihuahua? Without human intervention, a Great Dane and a Chihuahua could not breed. Yet, the history of these two creatures finds common ancestors after the alleged time of Noah. They are both dogs, but they are incapable of breeding – they are, for all intents and purposes, different species. Oh yes, they are still the same “kind” of animal. Just as humans and chimps are the same kind of animal – hominids. Yet humans can’t breed with chimps any more than a chihuahua can breed with a great dane.
This also is an oversimplification intended to be illustrative. Again, my purpose is to open the door, not to take you on a complete tour of all of evolutionary theory. Your questions DO have answers, it’s just a matter of how persistent you are in asking them.
Great Danes and Chihuahuas are cousins separated by about 1000 years of evolutionary processes. These particular processes are known as selective breeding – people chose the mating pairs to enhance certain small mutations. The animals adapted to our desires because we only allowed desirable pups to subsequently breed. We applied evolutionary pressure – those pups that adapted were allowed to breed, those that didn’t were not.
Right now, a chihuahua MIGHT be able to breed with a great dane through artificial insemination, but it would be nearly impossible for them to mate naturally. Because of this, the chihuahua line has effectively separated from the Great Dane line. Chihuahuas and Great Danes no longer influence each other. Future Chihuahua mutations cannot affect the Great Dane line. If, for example, an extremely smart great dane was born, it is likely that its offspring will share that genetic code and be more likely to breed. thus the mutation passes into the gene pool of the great dane, BUT NOT THE CHIHUAHUA.
Humans and chimps are separated by hundreds of thousands of years of evolutionary processes. We DO share a common ancestor, just as the Chihuahua and the Great Dane do. After the proto-chimp and proto-human lines separated (probably a matter of geography) the proto-human line developed a mutation that increased intelligence. The proto-chimp line did not. Fast forward several thousand years, and the chimp line is still swinging on vines while early man is developing tools.
“Consequently, if I have faith to believe that Adam could be created as an adult male, wouldn’t it only be logical that I could believe that God could create the Earth as though it had been also “aged” and contain the same “carbon-date” as if the Earth had been 4 billion years old.” A reasonable conclusion to your original premise, however your original premise has been cast into doubt. Furthermore, if we were to assume that the earth is much younger than it appears, we have to ask ourselves why god would make it in this fashion. Why would he grant us the ability to reason, AND effectively lie to us about the actual age of the earth?
“Even if we don’t agree with our starting assumptions, at least you must admit that the Christian conclusions to the “date gap” are logically consistent with our starting premise, right?”
Yes, I can agree that your conclusions are consistent with the starting premise. That said, the starting premise itself has been called into question. A chain is only as strong as its weakest link, and in the case of this type of Young Earth Creationism, the weakest link is that initial premise.
I’ve been posting this challenge to theists: Ask HOW God did it. The Bible is quite vague on the issue – it talks about how man was made from dirt, but it never mentions deoxyribonucleic acid. We KNOW there is a correlation between DNA and physical traits. Why does that correlation exist?
I don’t care if you start from the premise “God did it” – I want to know in great detail how these things happened. Down to the molecule, if possible. I’m willing to entertain creation theories, but I need to reconcile the knowledge I have gleaned from this plane of existence into the method of how this world was created. I don’t want explanations, I want methods. I want to know HOW god did it, not why. If we start from the premise that God created all of mankind, I want an explanation that incorporates the features of his creation. We can clearly see massive numbers of “artifacts” in this world that are not explicitly detailed in the Bible. Is it sinful to try to discover the awesome complexity of creation?
Carbon Datedly,
Rival
To think in terms of ancient theology
is to think in terms of ancient science.
We can not and should not think in terms
of other than modern science.
This is true also of theology…
We are learning a lot of about both
And there’s quite a ways ahead…
e.g. the “age” of the universe is proving to be
a nonsensical question as time exists
in ways and as a dimension not countenanced
a mere decade ago. (we we, here, measure time
(I wish I had a website…I’d promote it here
Cheers!
“We can not and should not think in terms
of other than modern science.
This is true also of theology…”
- I disagree, unless I misunderstood what you said.
Science is all fine for explaining HOW, and religion tries to explain WHY. They cannot be exchanged for one another, nor should one be proven “false”.
Luna,
I think what John was trying to say is that we should not think of today’s world using yesterday’s scientific understanding.
I think one effect of what he was saying is that theology and science should not disagree, which is, in my opinion, a completely fair statement. Theological concepts should never run counter to valid knowledge. To do so casts theology in the realm of the absurd, and knowledge in the realm of heresy.
@ Tim on October 31st, 2007 9:53 pm
“Jesus died for my sins, not my mind.”
===================================================
Matthew 22:37-40 “Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.
This is the first and great commandment.
And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.
On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.”
science is a way of seeing the world, thinking about it.
religion is another.
if you mix the two, it results in confusion because religious beliefs are unique to the individual, while scienctific beliefs are attempt at universal communication.
so almost by defination, the two systems are oppossed.
Science is like a camera. It captures an image of the world, recording it exactly as it is. If you discover your image is distorted, you fix your camera – clean the lens, adjust the exposure, aperture, sensitivity, flash settings…
The constant is that the image was captured from the scene directly.
Religion, in and of itself, is a paintbrush and a canvas. The artist creates the image, he doesn’t capture it. He may be inspired, he may attempt to paint a model or scene. He might paint it from memory, or he might just wing it.
A photograph is a product of reality. A painting is a product of the artist’s imagination.
The problem with Religion is that it doesn’t consider itself art. It doesn’t understand that the more you photoshop a picture, the less it reflects reality, and no matter how much you airbrush a painting, it will never become a photograph.
i know monkeys and no monkey would climb a ladder for food.
Monkey,
We are all dumber having listened to you. I award you no points, and may Spahetti Monster have mercy on your soul.
Billy Madisonly,
Rival
I for one can and do find theology and science work together nicely.
Looking at, II Corinthians 3:6 you see even the Bible states the letters of the word will killeth, but the spirit of the word giveth life.
The spirit of the Bible is love and giving I do believe in this concept.
To take the word as infallible is a mistake and takes us down the road of Dogma. After all God could not have written the Bible because it is apparent the authors, of the Bible, didn’t know the earth was round, God does.
I look at the big bang as the moment God became aware of Gods existence and had to create.
A good example of Gods existence is the scientific example of non liner ???( I forgot the complete name of the experiment). Where a proton is split in half and one half (A) is sent down a fiber optic cable 4 kilometers, while the other half (B) is sent down a different fiber optic cable 10 kilometers in a different direction. The first one (A) is made to go through a gate system that is set up at the end of the cable. The (A) proton is manipulated to go through gate B. At the exact same time (A) goes through gate B, the other half (B) goes through gate B set up at the end of that cable and without any manipulation from the scientists running the experiment. This happens 100% of the time. This means that communication can be instantaneous from one side of the universe to the other just by manipulating proton half’s through binary gates.
My point is we don’t know why this happens yet so we can say this is the work of God. One day we will know how it works but those answers will lead to more questions.
God is infinitely bigger then the Bible allows for. I for 1 am in awe of the complexity of God and can not put God into a little book.
Neckisch,
In other words, God exists in our ignorance.
This philosophy describes a diminishing God, one who is most powerful when we are most ignorant. God’s actions would have to become more and more subtle as our own intelligence increased.
What’s more, God would be diminished according to the most intelligent people. Ascribing certain processes to God after they are well understood in science is simply stupidity.
The alternative, of course, is that we admit that we were simply ignorant of certain natural processes, we are still ignorant of other natural processes, and we should do our best to decrease our ignorance.
I don’t think it describes a diminishing God, only because the more we know brings more questions as those questions are answered more questions arise. There is no end. We will never know everything there is to know. All we can do is decrease our ignorance. Even our mathematics has trouble describing some aspects of the cosmos.
God doesn’t have to be a supreme being, the cosmos is big enough.
Like hell is not damnation in fire burning for eternity, where is this fire? Finding oneself without God for eternity would be a kind of hell. Heaven is not in the sky, it could be finding oneself to be with God for eternity.
Then why call him god?
There is no known mechanism for a consciousness to exist eternally. If there is no such mechanism (an afterlife or a spiritual realm of some sort) your argument is gibberish.
The concepts of spiritual realms and afterlives are non-falsifiable. Non-falsifiable concepts cannot be differentiated from false concepts like the Dragon in my Garage.
This being the case, your philosophy has no more merit than any other “religious” theory.
Then why call him God?
Lack of a better word, and why do you refer to God as male?
There is no known mechanism for a consciousness to exist eternally.
My point exactly . Its not known at this time. Nobody knows what the future holds or what humans will learn in years to come. Or how long our life span can be with gene manipulation.
Anybody with a college education in science who does not just parrot the garbage that the professors lie to us about can see the obvious falsity of evolutionary theory. The truth is there are plenty of scientists who come to the CONCLUSION that God must exist. They call it Intelligent Design. For example, although he is often quoted by people who use him to disprove God, Albert Einstein actually not only believed in God was is quoted as saying that when he viewed the universe, he couldn’t believe there isn’t one. And we are talking about one of the smartest men who ever lived! Maybe you should rethink calling people who believe in God stupid. Or perhaps pretending to worship a plate of spaghetti so you can smoke more pot is intelligent?
I suggest you look at a movie playing now by Ben Stein, one of the smartest men in America (He wrote speeches for Richard Nixon, for example, and starred on a game show called “Beat Ben Stein” where contestants had to outsmart him to win money). Its called “Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed” (www.expelledthemovie.com).
http://richarddawkins.net/article,2394,Lying-for-Jesus,Richard-Dawkins
Condor2200:
Yawn.
In other words, figure out your own damn minds, because you don’t know who’s lying to you. Excellent advice! This is usually referred to as the logical fallacy of Appeal to Authority.
But wait a minute!
“Ben stein won’t lie to you! Trust him! He knows the truth and he’s willing to share it with you!”
Oops. So much for discarding appeals to authority.
You have no ideas of your own, (or at least you’re not presenting them) and you’re telling us who thinks for you. This is meme-spam.
[...] Monkey See, Monkey Do. [...]
why everybody talks about this experiment but nobody gives the reference?