Quote:
Originally Posted by Absolute  So someone can come out from under the supposed "control" of their "rational" mind? |
No. All behavior is rational. I think I was speaking more about an attitude. Submission (islam) versus self reliant and self awareness. Discarding this notion of soul/intrinsic identity so that you can see human beings in other people instead of caricatured infidels.
Quote:
|
This both defies the meaning of control and defines what is rational in the first place according to your materialistic philosephy (or religion, to be more accurate). If our mind evolved, then I would expect the "survival of the fittest" and reproduction cornerstones for the evolutionary theory to be the only applicable direction for the DNA to "direct" the mind to.
|
Heard of memes? That's what islam is. That's what free thinking is. As I was trying to say, both my drive towards spreading the notion of free thought/science and the OP's drive to spread islam are mental constructs that produce a behavior in a certain direction. They are products of our respective local environments (just as every component of our egos are).
I am not a materialist or an idealist (it's a null question .. i.e. unaddressable). Science is my religion/myth structure. I speak only in terms of influences, signals, communication, social structures, etc.
Quote:
|
Yet there are people who sacrifice themselves to save others, the "fitter" saving the less "fit." Also, giving up our belongings to feed the poor, again the "fitter" providing for the less "fit." And some people choose to not have any sexual intercourse with anyone at all, willingly, because they never had gotten married. And you would expect that those who do anyways to be directed by DNA to not use protection, as it isn't beneficial for producing more DNA. If we can deny DNA's supposed purpouse (to produce more DNA like itself), then our minds can't have an evolutionary origin.
|
Ahhh.. good old social darwinism. DNA does not have a will, friend. It has no purpose. The natural environment does not mold organisms. DNA Polymerase makes errors when copying DNA. DNA is damaged by carcinogens. Chromosomes are mixed to create different combinations of existing traits (sexual reproduction).
Creatures with a will to survive, survive. It's as simple as that.
Then comes the brain and a sense of self (see the garden of eden story). We become aware of our past and future and of others on a much different level. We also become aware of our inevitable death.
I wonder if you would consider a mother sacrificing her life for her child to be an act "against DNA?" She certainly is protecting her own propagation, but not her own individual survival. She has a sense of self that extends beyond her skin boundary. The same is said for people who sacrifice their lives in burning buildings or in war. Their sense of self extends to their community/cause/nation. They see their community/cause/nation continuing on and surviving due to their act and they're willing to sacrifice themselves for that survival. They, as well, have defined their sense of self beyond their skin. This is the power of the human brain.
This doesn't even begin to address the people who don't think that they are actually going to really die (i.e. goto heaven + get rewards). There's nothing in evolutionary theory that says that a creature can't be manipulated into ending its own existence (see lemmings). I wanted to say "tricked" or "confused" in place of "manipulated" in the last sentence but that would betray some prejudice towards the notion that survival is necessary.
Certainly an act like Jesus' was an act of survival. Jesus took on the role of the father of all mankind. His sacrifice could be seen as just as selfish as a mother giving her life to protect her child. It's just all about where your sense of self is defined.
What I was trying to say in my post in this thread (the secret i was speaking about) was that self really is all things (i.e. You & I, no distinction, thou art god). The simple fact that your skin doesn't enfold my neurons does not mean that we are some separate process (i.e. two independent souls).
But if you want to have a judgmental god who punishes the wicked, then independent/free souls are a NECESSITY. Without independence (intrinsic identity to individuals), good and evil are both sides of the same coin. They're both illusions.
Quote:
|
And if it doesn't have an evolutionary origin, then evolution can't be true, at least in the materialistic sense of the word, which says that the natural is all there is. But then that would circle right back around to materialism to define what is natural.
|
I hope I addressed how the mind steps in, expands the notion of the organism to a much larger group of material. Just as you throw your arm in front of your face to protect your head (willing to sacrifice your arm cells), people are willing to sacrifice themselves when they see their act protecting important parts of their community (which they define as part of their self). No one would say that protecting your head at the expense of the DNA in your arm cells is "against evolution." But it certainly isn't survival for the DNA in your arm. Your body has a larger sense of self and is willing to sacrifice components of itself to protect what it believes is its core (the mind) and rightfully so. The same is true for the firefighter and for the warrior and for the prophet on the cross. They are the arm, their community/nation/all life is what they consider to be their central essence. Sacrificing themselves for that allows their community/nation/all life to persist and survive. The environment they sacrifice themselves for created them and fosters people serving such purposes. And through their actions, the environment will persist (survive). The human brain that is aware of the inevitability of its own death will look for something grander than itself that it can help to survive. Simply living as long as possible is not a valued goal when you realize that you're really going to die, no matter what.
And again, materialism versus idealism is a useless dichotomy. There's no way to address which stance is true or not. All we have is our own experience that we can share with one another and the ability to communicate. When I say that we have no soul/intrinsic identity, I mean to say that we are all identical with the divine ground of being (nothing inherently materialistic about that). We are all as apples budding off of a tree. We are as flowers from a stem or waves from the ocean. Within each one of us the entirety of creation is expressed and we, in turn, express the entirety of creation.
This precludes the notion of a separate god. If there is something that someone would call a separate god, they are confused and simply don't realize their identity with it. Hence the "Thou art God."