December 24, 2011

Christmas: The Beauty and Challenge of Forgiveness

Rembrandt - Adoration of the Magi
Forgiveness is an incredibly idiosyncratic phenomenon. It is called both a science and an art. It relates to psychology, philosophy and religion. It formed one of the central themes of one of the most famous artists, Rembrandt Harmenszoon van Rijn. And, as a key aspect of redemption, forgiveness is central to the Christmas celebration. For both Christians and atheists the subjects of Christmas redemption and forgiveness offer unique challenges and opportunities. As we peer into this subject we can ask, "What does the phenomenon of forgiveness tell us about the nature of the universe?"
At the beginning of the 21st Century, 'the new science of forgiveness' offered test results showing how the process of forgiveness leads to significant mental, physical and spiritual benefits to individuals, communities and nations. In the process of what is called forgiveness intervention, "Sincere apologies helped people forgive and calm down. Getting fair restitution on top of an apology magnified the effect. Insincere or incomplete apologies actually riled people up more."[1] Roy Lloyd, the president at International Forgiveness Institute, remarked that, "Forgiveness education as one path toward peace is catching on worldwide, as seen in the recent requests for our educational materials from educators and psychologists in such areas as Iran, Rwanda, Colombia, Nigeria, Korea, and others."[2]

Forgiveness is both a science and an art.

Many have outlined reasons why forgiveness may be considered both a science and an art. Though there is some overlap, the difference between science and art and is based on the emphasis on objective and subjective phenomena. Science places an emphasis on objectively explaining materialistic phenomena. Art places an emphasis on the significance of beauty, philosophical meaning and subjective impressions. What a person believes about forgiveness is based to a large degree on a person's philosophical beliefs. Traditionally, the subject of forgiveness has been associated strictly with religion. Psychologist Fred Luskin, director of Stanford University's Forgiveness Projects, echoes the dismay of many secular psychologists who increasingly recognize the scientific significance of forgiveness, "Who would have 'thunk' it - that something locked away in religious culture could be turned into a secular training program - It's a skill that can be taught."[3]


Forgiveness offers scientifically proven benefits.

Return of the Prodigal Son
Put bluntly, forgiveness works. Science shows we need to forgive in order to be healthy. This also implies the opposite: we need to be forgiven to be healthy. "While much of the field's early work has focused on forgiveness of others, academic psychologists and clinicians are turning up evidence that forgiving oneself might have a more powerful effect on overall health and well-being."[4]  In forgiving yourself you are also being forgiven. It seems it may have twice the impact because it addresses both sides of the issue; forgiving and being forgiven. In August 2011, researchers affirmed the serious negative health effects of bitterness calling for a new diagnosis named PTED, or post-traumatic embitterment disorder.[5] With regard to bitterness, Dr. Charles Raison of Emory University has stated, "The data that negative mental states cause heart problems is just stupendous. The data is just as established as smoking, and the size of the effect is the same."[6]

Unconditional forgiveness meshes well with the Christ-centered creation paradigm.

Now, getting back to the Christmas theme, consider some key aspects of forgiveness. Scientific studies have confirmed that "making a gesture of goodness" to a wrongdoer is one of the most important aspects in the process of forgiveness.[7] The giving of a proactive 'gesture of goodness' is one of the central themes of the Christmas message. A summary of the Christmas message, as offered in  Luke 2.14: "Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace, good will toward men." This gesture of "good will" that God has offered to mankind was essentially the spiritual redemption attained through Jesus Christ. This act was not a legal obligation but a living attribution of God's nature, for "God is love."[8] Spiritual redemption is the central theme of scripture, and forgiveness is the central theme of spiritual redemption. From a biblical perspective, grace and forgiveness have a spiritual source. The apostle Peter implied that the angels were filled with a sense of wonder at the beauty of God's grace given through Christ  Christmas morning. In 1 Peter 1.12, while referring to the gospel, Peter wrote, " Even angels long to look into these things." Throughout the New Testament accounts, there is an emphasis to forgive others unconditionally. Christ's examples were always pro-active, not passive, exemplifying God's superabundant grace. In Ephesians 4.26 we are advised to forgive immediately, "Don't let the sun go down on your anger." God's forgiveness is unconditional in that we don't work for it, but we do have to repent and confess our sins by faith in order to receive it.

Rembrandt as the prodigal
Rembrandt produced several works of art depicting the beauty of God's forgiveness. The Return of the Prodigal Son (from Luke 15:11-32) is Rembrandt's most famous version, and is located in the Hermitage Museum in Saint Petersburg Russia. In another version, The Prodigal Son in the Brothel, Rembrandt depicted himself as the prodigal and his wife as a bar maid. When taken together in the context of Rembrandt's work and writings, it seems that Rembrandt recognized he and his wife, and all people, are sinners in need of God's grace, as outlined by the late Arthur L. Farstad in his article, Grace in the Arts.[9]

The essence of salvation by faith and grace is the understanding that we receive a complete cleansing and moral restitution not because we deserve it, can earn it or can repay it, but simply by God's unmerited favor. According to the scientific studies, this compete moral forgiveness and restitution represents the best of all possible worlds.  In a very real and practical sense, the day that Christ was born on Earth was the beginning of The First Global Christmas Forgiveness Intervention Session.

Unconditional forgiveness does not mesh well with atheism and the evolutionary paradigm.

According to many naturalist theorists, vengeance and forgiveness are natural instincts that are both desirable and morally valid in everyday life today:

"Because we are cultural learners, we can learn valuable lessons about where and when to seek revenge, and about where and when to forgive, simply by observing our parents, siblings, friends, associates, teachers, and mentors."[10]

This view is not strange or a fringe view, but the 'eye for an eye' concept of justice has been shared by most cultures in history. No other teacher prior to Jesus of Nazareth taught unconditional forgiveness as a moral ideal. And science is confirming that his teaching is the healthiest and the most desirable. Buddhism teaches 'detachment' but not the proactive 'good will' act of 'loving your enemies' in the sense Jesus taught it. We as Christians are free to love unconditionally because we understand God will judge righteously in the final analysis and it is not up to us to make sure justice will be enforced on this Earth. For the Buddhist the concept of eternal justice is ultimately a non-issue. But we as humans do have a sense that the question of justice is important one and not a philosophical concept that deserves to be ignored.

If vengeance and forgiveness are both desirable and valid today, as theorists claim, then why do they offer opposing health effects? The forgiveness instinct supposedly developed due to "complex networks of cooperative relationships", but, according to a 10 year study in Uganda, primates generally only socialize with their own immediate families. And the typical relationship between two different chimp groups is called, "lethal inter-group aggression" - not exactly a community fostering goodwill and deep-rooted forgiveness instincts.[11] The same study concluded that the ability to cooperate with strangers is a defining human trait.

According the evolutionary paradigm, we should remember every wrong ever committed against us so that we can avoid the same circumstances again in the future. But this is not how we are wired. We are created so that the healthiest approach to life is to unconditionally forgive and forget when we are wronged. This does not mean a person should stay in a relationship that is continuously abusive physically. There is a difference between forgiveness and permissiveness. This simply implies it is healthiest not to hold grudges and retain bitterness.

This is a challenge I would like to respectfully ask any atheist to answer, "Why should non-forgiveness produce extremely negative patterns and unhealthy stress when simply 'keeping a record of wrongs' has, in keeping with evolutionary theory, a utilitarian function of avoiding future pain and harm?" I'll offer an illustration. If I knew someone who decided to become my enemy, for whatever reason, and harmed me intentionally and frequently, would it not be in my best interest, from a strictly Darwinian perspective, to 'keep accounts' and try to harm this person back? Darwinism seems to operate based on the logic of the old law, 'An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.' Jesus, however, reverses this old law and admonished us to forgive our enemies and actually to demonstrate good will towards them, exactly what psychologists say is the most healthy approach.

Personhood and God's nature

Philosophers who study ethics recognize that the subjects of ethics and personhood are interconnected. For example, atheists may treat an unborn child or an elderly person quite differently than a person who believes in the universal sanctity of human life. Though male-dominated research programs tend to deny that Post Abortion Stress Syndrome is real, women in politically neutral organizations tend to propose it is a very real condition.[12] One of the healthy choices of addressing post-abortion denial and depression is to take time to grieve the loss of the child in order to allow for psychological closure. Many women choose to name the aborted child in this process for a more tangible sense of closure.[13]

Rembrandt's eyes
The fact that forgiveness is such a powerful phenomenon  reveals an idiosyncrasy of our universe that did not have to exist in this way at all. The universe has distinct characteristics and an open-mined person can see that these characteristics are in keeping with the creation paradigm. An example would be the manner in which an artists personality is manifested in his or her artwork. Over the years researchers have come to be able to decide which paintings are official Rembrandt originals and which were painted by his students because of key techniques and details. Firstly, Rembrandt had mastered the use of light in creating a sense of space. In an authentic Rembrandt, "The light is typically Rembrandt in that it is so totally convincing: you perceive it as if you are looking at reality and not at a painting,"[14] Secondly, Rembrandt had developed a technique for highlighting the faces and eyes of his subjects in order to draw the attention of the viewer into the emotional states of his painted scenarios. Thus, the paintings of this Dutch master encourage a unique emotional connection. These are just two examples of how Rembrandt's own brush stroke can be detected in his created works.

As with Rembrandt's personal technique in his paintings, the Creator's signature of grace is embedded in the workings of human relationships. Unconditional forgiveness isn't true because it's healthy, it's healthy because it's true and meshes perfectly with God's nature and the redemption paradigm. God is the ultimate reference point of truth, and because "God is love," living in harmony with the principles of the universe entails living in harmony with God's nature and character. God's existence and His nature make up the central fact, not the attributes of forgiveness. Other studies have shown that giving thanks offers dramatic health benefits,[15] as does living a life of regular religious worship.[16] Like unconditional forgiveness, neither of these other two practices has any rational or objective basis in an evolutionary or atheistic paradigm. But they make complete sense in a God-centered, creation paradigm.

Basic outline: How the Science of Forgiveness Proves God's Existence

P1 - Practicing unconditional forgiveness offers notable health benefits according to empirical tests.
P2 - Practicing unconditional forgiveness meshes well with a Christ-centered paradigm.
P3 - Practicing unconditional forgiveness does not mesh well with atheism and the evolutionary paradigm.
C - Therefore, Theism offers a better explanation for the notable health benefits of practicing unconditional forgiveness.

P1. Evolutionists claim 'survival qualities' become developed in the 'healthier physiology' of animals that survive.
P2. 'Remembering wrongs' would be a 'survival quality' that offers a great advantage.
C. Therefore, 'remembering wrongs' should be directly associated with a 'healthy physiology.'

P1. According to evolution, 'remembering wrongs' should be directly associated with a 'healthy physiology.'
P2. 'Remembering wrongs' is associated with an unhealthy physiology.
C. Therefore, evolutionary theory is incorrect with regard to 'remembering wrongs.'

P1. Evolutionists claim that vengeance and forgiveness are both equally valid cultural traits.
P2. Vengeance and forgiveness produce opposite physiological health results.
C. Therefore, evolutionists are mistaken with regard to the validity of vengeance and forgiveness.

P1. Christ claimed that a lifestyle of unconditional forgiveness is a central moral ideal.
P2. A lifestyle of unconditional forgiveness produces the best noted health results.
C. Therefore, the Christian moral ideal and paradigm is in keeping with the best health results.

P1. A paradigm based on true premises produces healthier results than a  paradigm based on false ones.
P2. The Christian paradigm is in keeping with the best health results.
C. Therefore, the Christian paradigm is most likely based on truth. 

Clarifying evolutionary theory

According to the understanding of the 'survival of the fittest' theory,  certain creatures continue on to develop and improve while others do not.  Th 'reasons' for survival are generally attributed to  'genetic mutations' that have given some type of survival advantage to the survivors. Ironically, 'mutations' are seen as a 'healthy' development in evolution. And behavior changes and instincts are to provide such advantages as well. In considering evolution, one must draw a distinction between the development of 'healthy physiology' and brute survival. One must also acknowledge that evolutionary theory does not relate only to physical genes, but psychological functions of the mind: "Evolutionary psychologists argue that much of human behavior is the output of psychological adaptations that evolved to solve recurrent problems in human ancestral environments."[17]

Authenticity, harmony and beauty

When a logical proof has a valid form and true premises, we can assume that the conclusion is true. There is harmony between the premises, the form and the conclusion. There are many clues in creation to demonstrate the harmony between nature, the human condition and God's existence. Ecclesiastes 3.11 states, "He has made everything beautiful in its time. He has also set eternity in the hearts of men; yet they cannot fathom what God has done from beginning to end." (NIV)

Artists express the truth of human personhood through the 'pathos' of artistic expression. Rembrandt expressed the truth and beauty of forgiveness and his artwork is very encouraging for this reason. It is believed that Rembrandt was an authentic Christian believer for a number of reasons. Arthur L. Farstad has noted, "....Reformed churches did not give commissions. Hence, a Dutch artist who did religious paintings did so because he wanted to."[18] Secondly, Rembrandt displayed Christ as the humble servant described in Isaiah 53, a chapter that emphasizes God's grace. Thirdly, his portrayal of Mary was humble, not idolatrous, and so it was in keeping with the biblical description of Christ's mother. These points underscore that Rembrandt was a sincere believer in touch with the grace of God. Perhaps this is why his painting, The Adoration of the Magi, is considered perhaps the best rendition of Christ's birth and reception. Both scientists and artists alike have confirmed that the birth of Christ nearly 2000 years ago ushered in The First Global Christmas Forgiveness Intervention Session. For the Christian, the challenge is to forgive others immediately, before the sun goes down. And the challenge is also share the good news of the gospel as a central aspect of our lives, though this should be seen not merely as a challenge but as a great opportunity and privilege. For the atheist the challenge is to explain why the phenomenon of forgiveness operates the way in which it does, underscoring the reality of God's grace as a signature in the human condition.

In Simferopol, we had an enjoyable Christmas celebration and discussed this theme as well as others. The greatest gift of all is to experience the beauty of God's grace and presence together. In giving gifts we are reminded of Christ's act of good will in giving His life in atonement for our sins. When Christ is in the center and we are abiding in Christ's presence, there's a peace-centered life. Imagine leaders from Iran and Israel meeting not to exchange words of hatred and threats of nuclear war, but simply to share communion in an an atmosphere of peace and joy. The magi mentioned in Matthew 2.1 at the time of Christ's coming were wise men from "the East," referring most likely to Persia, or modern-day Iran.[19]

(article revised February 7, 2012) 

References

[1]  Greater Good, Berkeley, The New Science of Forgiveness,
http://greatergood.berkeley.edu/article/item/the_new_science_of_forgiveness/
[2]  Huffington Post, The Science of Forgiveness, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/roy-lloyd/the-science-of-forgivenes_b_613138.html
[3] LA Times, Forgive and be well? http://articles.latimes.com/2007/dec/31/health/he-forgiveness31
[4] LJ World, The science of forgiveness, http://www2.ljworld.com/news/2008/jan/06/science_forgiveness/
[5] CNN, Blaming others can ruin your health, http://edition.cnn.com/2011/HEALTH/08/17/bitter.resentful.ep/index.html?hpt=hp_c2
[6] Ibid.
[7] LJ World, The science of forgiveness, http://www2.ljworld.com/news/2008/jan/06/science_forgiveness/
[8] 1 John 4.6-17, God is love - love comes from God, http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20John%204&version=NIV

[9] Journal of the Grace Evangelical Society, Grace in the Arts: REMBRANDT VAN RYN:
A PROTESTANT ARTIST, http://www.faithalone.org/journal/1993i/Farstad.htm

[10] Greater Good, The Forgiveness Instinct, http://greatergood.berkeley.edu/article/item/forgiveness_instinct/
[11] Buffalo News, Ability to cooperate with strangers is defining human trait, http://www.buffalonews.com/editorial-page/viewpoints/article650199.ece
[12] After Abortion, Symptoms and Frequently Asked Questions About Post Abortion Stress Syndrome
http://www.afterabortion.com/faq.html

[13] Ibid, webpage - Recognizing the loss of your potential baby
[14] MSNBC, Experts reclassify painting as real Rembrandt, http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/45526070/ns/technology_and_science-science/t/experts-reclassify-painting-real-rembrandt/#.TvlRKoG2tA8
[15] Templestream, The Health and Logic of a Thankful Lifestyle, http://templestream.blogspot.com/2011/11/health-and-logic-of-being-thankful.html
[16] Templestream, Gallup Polls Highlight Happiness, Health and Logic in Spirituality , http://templestream.blogspot.com/2010/12/gallup-polls-highlight-happiness-health.html

[17] Psychologybd, EVOLUTIONARY PSYCHOLOGY, http://www.psychologybd.com/Evolutionary%20Psychology.html
[18] Journal of the Grace Evangelical Society, Grace in the Arts: REMBRANDT VAN RYN:
A PROTESTANT ARTIST, http://www.faithalone.org/journal/1993i/Farstad.htm
[19] Got Questions, What does the Bible say about the three wise men (Magi)?, http://www.gotquestions.org/three-wise-men.html


Images:

Rembrandt images are public domain.
Photo of Simferopol Christmas celebration - Victor Goldobin

Search Terms

The science and art of forgiveness
Forgiveness as proof of God's existence
Forgiveness intervention sessions
God's superabundant grace
God's grace and Rembrandt
Ethics and personhood
Rembrandt's religious paintings

Related

The Health and Logic of a Thankful Lifestyle
Gallup Polls Highlight Happiness, Health and Logic in Spirituality

How Identity, Logic and Physics Prove God's Existence

38 comments:

  1. Here's an excerpt from the article atheists can consider:

    "This is a challenge I would like to respectfully ask any atheist to answer, "Why should non-forgiveness produce extremely negative patterns and unhealthy results when simply 'keeping a record of wrongs' has, in keeping with evolutionary theory, a utilitarian function of avoiding future pain and harm?" I'll offer an illustration. If I knew someone who decided to become my enemy, for whatever reason, and harmed me intentionally and frequently, would it not be in my best interest, from a strictly Darwinian perspective, to 'keep accounts' and try to harm this person back? Darwinism seems to operate based on the logic of the old law, 'An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.' Jesus, however, reverses this old law and admonished us to forgive our enemies and actually to demonstrate good will towards them, exactly what psychologists say is the most healthy approach."

    ReplyDelete
  2. Are you implying that there is no "naturalistic" read: biological explanation for forgiveness? You might be wrong there.

    ReplyDelete
  3. About your question above: What you're describing sounds more like self defense then actual revenge if the person is still actively after you.

    As for the "forgiveness" just check out the links I gave.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Reynolds,

    Your first link summarizes a book, "Beyond Revenge" - Psychologist Michael McCullough argues that the key to a more forgiving, less vengeful world is to understand the evolutionary forces that gave rise to these intimately human instincts and the social forces that activate them in human minds today. Drawing on exciting breakthroughs from the social and biological sciences, McCullough dispenses surprising and practical advice for making the world a more forgiving place.

    - Reynolds. I'm not interested in ordering this book because at a foundational level I believe Darwinian forgiveness is illogical, as my article has outlined. If you have any specific points you'd like to present from this book in defense of your views, you are welcome to present them. Then we can discuss and debate.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Reynolds,

    your second link offers a fairly long article that does not seem to be very clear or scientific. It does not seem to clearly explain how data was gathered, what the actual statistics were, and specifically how the data applies to concretely support evolutionary theory. Can you please summarize specifically how that article undermines my points by citing specific quotes and references. Thanks.

    Rick

    ReplyDelete
  6. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Sorry, I mucked up my last post.

    That's entirely your opinion that "darwinian forgiveness" is illogical. For me, the talking animals in the bible is illogical.

    Well, if you're not interested in doing any reading on this, I can't do much more...Long story short, the actions of vengeance and forgiveness are survival strategies that both people and various social animals have developed. No religion is required, which was the point. Unless you can show that various higher primates are also religious like man is?

    I'll just point out that there has been a naturalistic explanation for forgiveness and it explains those healthy results just as much as the bible does. Healthy responses from forgiveness is not a sign that your god exists. It's just a sign that there is an emotional benefit to forgiveness. Provided it's justified and doesn't give the offender the opportunity to stab you in the back later!

    I'll just point out that there is very little forgiveness in the old testament of the bible itself. That's more in the new testament. Though it can be argued that forgiving a person "seventy times seven" as jesus recommended may be unwise and dangerous.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Rick Wardens:
    To your second reply to me....you ask for statistics, descriptions of how the data are gathered, etc. Are actual experiments not good enough? In the second link some are described.

    You seem to have a far higher standard of evidence for positions you don't advocate as compared with those you do.

    Ah well. Here's a link with some descriptions in it. Maybe that'll help.

    Anyway, you proposed as part of your god proof:
    P2 - Practicing unconditional forgiveness meshes well with a God-centered creation paradigm.

    Where are your statistics? Your experiments? How was the data for that premise (P2) drawn up? Where are you scientific quotes that show that forgiveness "meshes" with a belief system for your god? I see some references to yourself and some fellow religionists, plus some general articles that don't actually mention your god, but that's it.

    Well, that and an inappropriate analogy with Rembrandt. Paintings you see, can be physically tested and compared with others by the same artist. That's not something that one can do with an emotion like forgiveness.

    For one thing, his paintings are available to be tested and he was alive when people could first look at his paintings and see his technique. We could see it being done in other words, more or less.

    Not so with "creation" is it?

    You want me to provide a higher standard of evidence for my rebuttal than you gave for your proposition.

    You have really nothing but assumptions for that proposition. Forgiveness is a reflection of your god's nature? The same god who ordered genocide over and over again, even for the children of those who offended him? Killing reprobate adults is one thing, but come on.

    Even so, this "forgiveness" is not really "unconditional" is it? It's offered to anyone who wants it true, but there is a string attached. You have to have this "jesus" become "lord" of your life, do you not?

    You essentially have to become his servant, yes?

    That's not what anyone would call "unconditional". No one in those references you gave required that of those they forgave, did they?

    Also, why is it that other social animals seem to be capable of forgiveness?

    ReplyDelete
  9. Rey: vengeance and forgiveness are survival strategies that both people and various social animals have developed. No religion is required, which was the point.

    Rick: Your first point is agreed upon to some extent - vengeance is a phenomenon that exists and is completely explainable with respect to the theories mentioned - atheistic and theistic (as far as fallen man is concerned.).

    Unconditional forgiveness, however, as a consistent lifestyle, is supported by Christian precepts, but not evolution or atheism. It does not jibe with 'an eye for an eye’,'the law of the jungle', 'might makes right' - In what way? - I'll develop this thought later...

    Rey: I'll just point out that there has been a naturalistic explanation for forgiveness and it explains those healthy results just as much as the bible does.

    Your explanation, Rey, "…there is an emotional benefit to forgiveness" is not a foundational explanation. Everyone agrees with these proven emotional benefits. The question is "Why would evolution provide consistent emotional benefits for a forgiveness lifestyle that developed out of an uncivilized primitive condition wherein the 'survival of the fittest' and 'might makes right' are the modus operandi?" I'll give you an example of the problem. I just found an article in which the on 'forgiveness instinct' and the 'vengeance instinct' are considered equally valid:

    "When people live in places where crime and disorder are high...they will tend to use revenge as a problem-solving strategy. They’ll do so because revenge’s ability to punish aggressors, its ability to deter would-be aggressors, and its ability to discourage cheaters made it adaptive in our ancestral environment. - we’ll see higher rates of forgiveness under those conditions that made forgiving adaptive in our ancestral environments. This means we’ll see more forgiveness in places where people are highly dependent on complex networks of cooperative relationships.."

    http://greatergood.berkeley.edu/article/item/forgiveness_instinct/

    A problem with this theory is that primates do not form complex cooperative relationships with the clan. The only close relationships are between kin. The typical relationship between 2 different chimp groups is called, "lethal intergroup aggression" - not exactly a community that would develop forgiveness instincts.

    http://www.buffalonews.com/editorial-page/viewpoints/article650199.ece

    ReplyDelete
  10. Rey: I'll just point out that there is very little forgiveness in the old testament of the bible itself.

    Rick: That's why I focus on Christ as the ideal of ethics - who was the answer to many OT questions and issues and is central to God's plan of redemption.

    Rey: That's more in the new testament. Though it can be argued that forgiving a person "seventy times seven" as jesus recommended may be unwise and dangerous."

    Rick: That's touches on my main point. The healthiest behavior, a lifestyle of unconditional forgiveness, is not logical, desirable or explainable, according to naturalist theories. If macro Evolution is true and vengeance is equally as valid as forgiveness, as the theorists propose, then meditating on vengeance half the day should be quite healthy - because those old 'non-trusting memes' would have been passed down in the healthy survivors - thus reinforcing the non-trusting lineage. But that's not what we see. Thoughts of vengeance are never healthy for the mind and body to meditate upon - these meditations are always destructive and cause premature death. Meditations on forgiveness, however, and acts of forgiveness are always healthy to the mind and body. These two facts don’t logically mesh with the macro-Evolution paradigm - but are in complete harmony with God's nature and the Christian paradigm - as outlined by Christ's life and teachings. Hence, Christianity better explains the test results.

    Rey: Anyway, you proposed as part of your god proof: P2 - Practicing unconditional forgiveness meshes well with a God-centered creation paradigm. - Where are your statistics? Your experiments?

    Rick: I just outlined why Christianity offers a better theoretical answer for the pronounced health effects of forgiveness. My 'God proof' is based on logic, while the health benefits of forgiveness are based on concrete test studies. I can add some logical premises to help clarify my point:

    P1. Evolutionists claim 'survival qualities' become developed in the 'healthier physiology' of animals that survive.
    P2. 'Remembering wrongs' would be a 'survival quality' that offers a great advantage.
    C. Therefore, 'remembering wrongs' should be directly associated with a 'healthy physicioloy.'
    P1. According to evolution, 'remembering wrongs' should be directly associated with a 'healthy physiology.'
    P2. 'Remembering wrongs' is associated with an unhealthy physiology.
    C. Therefore, evolutionary theory is incorrect with regard to 'remembering wrongs.'

    P1. Evolutionists claim that vengeance and forgiveness are both equally valid cultural traits.
    P2. Vengeance and forgiveness produce opposite physiological health results.
    C. Therefore, evolutionists are mistaken with regard to the validity of vengeance and forgiveness.

    P1. Christians claim that a lifestyle of unconditional forgiveness is a moral ideal central to their paradigm.
    P2. A lifestyle of unconditional forgiveness produces the best noted health results.
    C. Therefore, the Christian moral ideal and paradigm is in keeping with the best health results.

    P1. A paradigm based on truth is healthier than a paradigm based on untruth.
    P2. The Christian paradigm is in keeping with the best health results.
    C. Therefore, the Christian paradigm is most likely based on truth.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Reynold, You asked for references for my points - Reference [1] in my article: "We measured levels of cortisol in the saliva of 39 people who rated their relationship as either terrific or terrible" Linked in Reference [6], Duke University tests showed specifically that C-Reactive Protein Levels are increased in bitter (vengeful) people, increasing the risk of heart attacks. -

    http://www.dukehealth.org/health_library/news/8164

    I could find some more - but these sum up some of the main points.

    Rey: Paintings you see, can be physically tested and compared with others by the same artist. That's not something that one can do with an emotion like forgiveness.

    Rick: Actually, we can test and compare the effects of human emotions - that's what basically all of the tests I referenced do - they compare the health of people who forgive with the health of people who do not. One of my main points in the article is that the phenomenon of forgiveness is incredibly idiosyncratic.

    As I've shown - there is no reason why, according to naturalism, living a lifestyle of unconditional forgiveness should be incredibly healthy. Living in a state of 50% distrust and vengeance should be the healthiest - but it isn't. This pronounced health of a forgiveness lifestyle is best explained as God's signature of grace in the human social condition.

    Rey: Forgiveness is a reflection of your god's nature? The same god who ordered genocide over and over again, even for the children of those who offended him? Killing reprobate adults is one thing, but come on.

    Rick: Now you are getting more into ethics than psychology. Are you a moral relativist? A moral relativist has no objective basis to make any moral judgments. I'd prefer to stay on one subject at a time, but my defense of your accusation that God is unethical is found in article, Dawkins-Craig Debate, Genocide, Israel's Occupation of Palestine.

    Rey: Even so, this "forgiveness" is not really "unconditional" is it? It's offered to anyone who wants it true, but there is a string attached. You have to have this "jesus" become "lord" of your life, do you not?

    Rick: You are correct in stating we do play a part in the process of salvation. There is an initial step of faith required in appropriating God's forgiveness. But the fact a gift is exchanged does not negate the fact the gift itself is free.

    If someone offered you a pretty gift box and handed it to you saying here, and your arms stayed down at your sides, the giver of the gift would probably be a bit dismayed. A gift needs to be received and opened, and sometimes even plugged in, before it has any useful value. In accepting Christ as Lord and Savior all three of these metaphors apply. We don't use the term ‘plugging into’ Christ, but, rather, abiding in Christ. Jesus told His disciples; the main ‘work’ was simply to believe. God's redemption is unconditional in that we can’t earn it, we can’t repay it and we don't deserve it. God's salvation is appropriated by faith and grace, not by our striving and sacrificial 'works' – that’s one example of why God’s love is considered unconditional.

    ReplyDelete
  12. I could find some more - but these sum up some of the main points.
    Which of those references show that biblegod was necessary, or even involved?

    Now, about the paintings, your analogy fails because for one thing: We have evidence, physical evidence that the painter existed. Not so for your god.

    As I've shown - there is no reason why, according to naturalism, living a lifestyle of unconditional forgiveness should be incredibly healthy. Living in a state of 50% distrust and vengeance should be the healthiest - but it isn't.
    Huh?? Where do you get that? I sense a strawman argument here. It's all conditional on the situations, isn't it? Even if you were right, how can you tell WHICH is the proper time for each?

    This pronounced health of a forgiveness lifestyle is best explained as God's signature of grace in the human social condition.
    Assertion without evidence. Just as easily explained by the articles I linked to. Thing is, a true xian-style complete "unconditional forgiveness" lifestyle could potentially open you up to attack or manipulation by unscrupulous people. Hence why humanity also evolves "vengeance".


    A gift needs to be received and opened, and sometimes even plugged in, before it has any useful value. In accepting Christ as Lord and Savior all three of these metaphors apply.
    Your analogy is off. This isn't about "opening and plugging" in the gift that was given, it's about becoming a permanent servant of the person who gave you this "gift"!

    ReplyDelete
  13. Rick Warden
    P1. Evolutionists claim that vengeance and forgiveness are both equally valid cultural traits.
    P2. Vengeance and forgiveness produce opposite physiological health results.

    But at least in the case of the abused wife, (see below) it'll end the cycle of abuse. There's more to health than psychology you know.

    There is also physical survival!
    C. Therefore, evolutionists are mistaken with regard to the validity of vengeance and forgiveness.

    P1. Christians claim that a lifestyle of unconditional forgiveness is a moral ideal central to their paradigm.
    Apparently not all do!

    And xians aren't the only ones who seem to do this. Buddhism

    P2. A lifestyle of unconditional forgiveness produces the best noted health results.
    Ah, no. As I said earlier, it can leave one open to attack or manipulation by others. That, and more importantly, there is a LOT more to the xian paradigm than just "unconditional forgiveness".

    Or that it's even truly biblical? As I just showed above, some xians would disagree with you.

    From that site:
    People often have the impression that the Bible requires forgiveness to be unconditional.1 But the Bible doesn’t say that. It tells us that we should “Forgive as the Lord forgave you” (Colossians 3:13). While God’s forgiveness is undeserved, it certainly isn’t unconditional. The Lord’s forgiveness is offered only to those who confess their sin and repent (2 Chronicles 7:14; Leviticus 26; Luke 13:3; 1 John 1:8-10).

    On the surface, it might seem noble to forgive unconditionally.
    But unconditional forgiveness is usually motivated more by fear than by love. And because of this it’s usually destructive. If a wife continues to forgive a habitually unfaithful and abusive husband unconditionally, her toleration of his behavior will probably result in even more abuse and disrespect.


    C. Therefore, the Christian moral ideal and paradigm is in keeping with the best health results.
    See above

    P1. A paradigm based on truth is healthier than a paradigm based on untruth.
    Problem is: The xian bible has examples of inaccuracies and falsehoods in it. Ex) remember when Samuel was told to go to anoint David as the next king of Isreal? He was worried that Saul would find out about it, so "god" told him to tell a lie basically to dodge him.

    P2. The Christian paradigm is in keeping with the best health results.
    Ignoring the fact that other religous rituals from other religions also experience these results.

    Also it ignores things like the disastrous results of so-called "faith healing" and con men like Peter Popoff and Benny Hinn who rely on people who think like you do.

    Then there are verses like the one in Mark which talk about handling snakes and drinking poison, etc.
    C. Therefore, the Christian paradigm is most likely based on truth.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Reynold, per your note, "If a wife continues to forgive a habitually unfaithful and abusive husband unconditionally, her toleration of his behavior will probably result in even more abuse and disrespect." - This comment does not clarify the difference between forgiveness and permissiveness. It is healthiest for an abused wife to completely forgive and also to leave the home if there is continued abuse.

    Repentance and confession of sin are required for salvation, true. But no striving or good works are required to earn (or deserve) forgiveness and salvation, as some Christians and atheists believe.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Reynold, You wrote, "Apparently not all do!" (Christians claim that a lifestyle of unconditional forgiveness is a moral ideal central to their paradigm.)

    - That's a good point. I should write that this is Christ's claim.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Well, you've not commented on most of the points I made so can I take that as a concession?

    As for "unconditional forgiveness"? Other beliefs like Buddhism as I have mentioned before have similar views. You can't claim that Christ is the originator of the concept.

    As for the situation with the beaten wife? Remember, according to the bible, the only reason for divorce is unfaithfulness, not beatings.

    True, he lists verses that say the husband should treat the wife well and he advocates that the wife call the cops if beatings happen, but nevertheless that's a secular, not an actual biblical response.

    It may be an assumption that the bible would permit the wife to leave, but biblically she is still stuck with that guy in marriage. Where does it say that she should leave?

    Good thing our secular laws don't work that way, as it would make it harder to stay away from him.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. >As for "unconditional forgiveness"? Other beliefs like Buddhism as I have mentioned before have similar views. You can't claim that Christ is the originator of the concept.

      - No other teacher prior to Jesus of Nazareth taught unconditional forgiveness as a moral ideal. And science is confirming that his teaching is the healthiest and the most desirable. Buddhism teaches 'detachment' but not the proactive 'good will' act of 'loving your enemies' in the sense Jesus taught it. We as Christians are free to love unconditionally because we understand God will judge righteously in the final analysis and it is not up to us to make sure justice will be enforced on this Earth. For the Buddhist the concept of eternal justice is ultimately a non-issue. But we as humans do have a sense that the question of justice is important one and not a philosophical concept that deserves to be ignored.

      >the only reason for divorce is unfaithfulness, not beatings.

      Reynold, we are advised to consider the whole context of scripture, not just one verse. (2 Tim. 3.16)

      "If abuse continues, the Word says the issue should be told to the church. This step is almost impossible to fulfill in the modern church. Pastors generally won’t allow it because they do not understand the Word on the subject. So, the abused spouse should attempt to press the pastor to allow this step, but if the pastor refuses, the abused spouse may need to move on to the final step.

      The final step is removal from the relationship. Matthew 18 says to separate from the unrepentant offender. I Tim. 5:8 says a man who does not provide for his family (provision = financial, spiritual, emotional protection and leadership) has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever. God calls an unrepentant abusive spouse an unbeliever. That is not my judgment; it is God’s. I Cor. 5:11 says believers are not to associate with, are not even to eat with, a person who is verbally abusive (“railer”). And I Cor. 7:13-15 says that if an unbelieving spouse removes (walks away from the marriage covenant – which can include staying in the house but leaving the relationship) himself from the marriage, the believing wife is to let him go. It may seem backwards for the believing wife to leave – but we have to remember that the “leaving” happens when a spouse does violence to his house (Mal. 2:13-16). The believing wife who removes to safety is not the one who abandoned the relationship."

      http://dannimoss.wordpress.com/articles/abuse-in-the-christian-home/does-god-want-me-to-stay-in-an-abusive-marriage/

      Delete
  17. No other teacher prior to Jesus of Nazareth taught unconditional forgiveness as a moral ideal. And science is confirming that his teaching is the healthiest and the most desirable.
    Again, read what I had linked to: Buddhism figured out the health benefits on it's own.

    In Buddhism, forgiveness is seen as a practice to prevent harmful thoughts from causing havoc on one’s mental well-being.[18] Buddhism recognizes that feelings of hatred and ill-will leave a lasting effect on our mind karma. Instead, Buddhism encourages the cultivation of thoughts that leave a wholesome effect.


    Buddhism teaches 'detachment' but not the proactive 'good will' act of 'loving your enemies' in the sense Jesus taught it.
    Uh, how can "loving one's enemies" be "proactive"? One has to have people who have done something to oneself somehow in order for them to qualify as enemies in the first place, don't they? If that's the case, then the "loving one's enemies" is more "reactive" than proactive.

    Besides, Buddhism from what I've read seems to teach the same thing.

    Buddhism places much emphasis on the concepts of Mettā (loving kindness), karuna (compassion), mudita (sympathetic joy), and upekkhā (equanimity), as a means to avoiding resentments in the first place.

    To avoid resentment in the first place sounds proactive to me.

    1 Corinthians 5 that verse in context isn't even talking about marriage.

    As for 1 Corinthians 7 verse 15 does indeed say that if one spouse who is an unbeliever leaves, then it's ok to not remain together. Thing is, I wasn't talking about an unbelieving abusive spouse in the first place.

    As an aside: that 1 Corinthians 7 chapter has some other problems: It implies that one just has to marry a believer to be saved ("sanctified" is the word they used)??

    That, and Paul implies that it'd be better for people to marry than to burn with lust?

    So does that mean that the bible is actually advocating that people are better off being single instead? What about producing the next generation of people? How's not reproducing conductive to health?

    Of course, one of the big strengths of the bible among other holy books is that it's easy to cherry-pick what one wants out of it. For instance: One can note the verse in genesis about "be fruitful and multiply" to "counter" what I just said above.


    Ok, last chapter here. Malachi 2 is addressing various priests and leaders of Judah about how the nation of Judah is being religiously unfaithful.

    Only through an analogy can one make a case here about how people should treat each other in marriage. Problem is: That chapter and verse in in the same Old Testament where a rapist was commanded to marry the woman he raped. (Deuteronomy 22)

    So, how would one go about proving "abuse" in a case like that? There is also the case that some xians don't even believe in marital rape!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Reynold,

      >Again, read what I had linked to: Buddhism figured out the health benefits on it's own.

      - Reynold, Buddhism may very well have some true 'points' and 'practices' in it, but like counterfeit money, when something is close to being true it is often more deceptive than when it is obviously false.

      You had mentioned "You can't claim that Christ is the originator of the concept (unconditional forgiveness)." Though Buddhism may teach a true act or true points I can show you why forgiveness is not central or integral to Buddhism and why Buddhism actually considers the concept of forgiveness as an illusory issue. And as a religion Buddhism can be shown to be illogical in many respects.

      In terms of forgiveness:

      1) Buddhism teaches the art of forgiveness essentially for practical selfish reasons: 'a practice to prevent harmful thoughts from causing havoc on one’s mental well-being' - But ultimately there IS NO self in Buddhism, self and individuation are illusions.

      2) Buddhism advocates 'doing good' to some extent: "The Buddha explained that we can use the Four Yardsticks to assess if we are practicing the correct way: one should feel happiness, compassion, love and joyous effort when practicing." http://viewonbuddhism.org/4_noble_truths.html

      - But good and evil are ultimately illusions in Buddhism because there is oneness. There is no 'goodness' just a feeling of goodness.

      3) The true concept of forgiveness is based upon acknowledging that a wrong has been done and letting go of it. But in Buddhism, as I've mentioned, the concept of 'wrong and right' actions is ultimately an illusion because there is ultimate unity.

      According to Christianity, true justice exists because a personal Creator exists who will judge the acts of men based on God's eternal perspective. In Christianity, right and wrong actions are not 'illusions' but are serious issues with serious consequences.

      As a religion Buddhism teaches reincarnation and rebirth but also teaches there is no spiritual soul or individuation. So this is quite illogical.

      Delete
    2. 1) Buddhism teaches the art of forgiveness essentially for practical selfish reasons: 'a practice to prevent harmful thoughts from causing havoc on one’s mental well-being' - But ultimately there IS NO self in Buddhism, self and individuation are illusions.
      "Pratical selfish reasons"?

      And christians do things with absolutely NO expectation of any reward in heaven?

      Only if that is the case then you are justified in calling the Buddhists' motives "selfish" as you would not then be a hypocrite.


      According to Christianity, true justice exists because a personal Creator exists who will judge the acts of men based on God's eternal perspective. In Christianity, right and wrong actions are not 'illusions' but are serious issues with serious consequences
      How about the doctor who performed an abortion to save a woman's life being sentenced to hell by the same being who repeatedly had pregnant women and children killed in the OT?

      So long as god commands it, or does it, it's ok. Under your worldview justice is arbitrary.

      In theory, under your version of "justice", the concentration camp guard who sincerely repents right before he dies would go to heaven, but the jewish person he helped gas who had cursed any god just before HE dies would go to hell. In your worldview, the mass-murderer goes to heaven, while one of his victims goes to hell.

      Is that "justice" in your view? Getting away from the consequences of one's crime like that?

      Or how about the fact that all "sinners" go the the same place. How can hell be worse for one than another? The penalty is the same for any sin, no matter what.


      The xian version of "justice" is not much better than an "illusionary" basis for morality.


      As a religion Buddhism teaches reincarnation and rebirth but also teaches there is no spiritual soul or individuation. So this is quite illogical.

      Pot. Kettle. Black.

      Your religion has invisible angels and demons, talking snakes, etc.

      And you say that a different silly set of supernaturalistic beliefs is "illogical"?

      Delete
  18. >As for 1 Corinthians 7 verse 15 does indeed say that if one spouse who is an unbeliever leaves, then it's ok to not remain together. Thing is, I wasn't talking about an unbelieving abusive spouse in the first place.

    - Reynold, the Biblical moral code for life and for marriage applies to believers and unbelievers will find it difficult to understand and follow without the Holy Spirit dwelling inside. However, according to Paul, The 10 Commandments today mainly have a purpose of showing non-believers that sin exists and they do sin and need a Redeemer. (Galatians 3.24) http://niv.scripturetext.com/galatians/3.htm

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. - Reynold, the Biblical moral code for life and for marriage applies to believers and unbelievers will find it difficult to understand and follow without the Holy Spirit dwelling inside
      Circular reasoning alert.

      Delete
    2. I believe, technically speaking, it's not circular reasoning; he's right. Unbelievers will find it difficult to understand. Now, in theory, a potentially non-existent entity might make it simpler for them, but saying that unbelievers won't get it isn't circular. ;)

      Delete
    3. It just sounds like to me that this is just another way of saying that the bible's rules won't make sense until you blindly accept that the bible is correct.

      It may not be circular reasoning, but it is nonsensical. This doesn't provide any evidence that his god is real in the first place.

      Delete
  19. I will have more to comment on later; I have not the time for a full engagement, but I see problems with premise 1 of proof 1:
    "P1 - Practicing unconditional forgiveness offers notable health benefits according to empirical tests."

    This statement, which you support in your opening, is true only within certain limited contexts.

    There are further issues along the way, which I shall return to address, but many of them fall in the same general orbit as this first problem: "Forgiveness" is taken as something that can be done in isolation from context.


    Unconditional forgiveness offers health benefits in comparison to its absence when no one is trying to kill you.

    By abstracting away all the reasons one might not wish to be unconditionally forgiving, (and therefore might not live to the age where heart problems become an issue, say), you are creating a false premise.

    ReplyDelete
  20. OK: To continue with this discussion:

    Proof 2:
    "P1. Evolutionists claim 'survival qualities' become developed in the 'healthier physiology' of animals that survive.
    P2. 'Remembering wrongs' would be a 'survival quality' that offers a great advantage.
    C. Therefore, 'remembering wrongs' should be directly associated with a 'healthy physiology.'


    P1: Evolution suggests that animals that survive long enough to reproduce have an advantage over those that do not. ;) "Health" in a evolutionary sense involves surviving to that reproductive point; consider, after all, the male praying mantis. Evolutionarily successful, rather rapidly unhealthy.

    P2: Indeed, it is; though as a subset of "remembering things that can harm you". Fire burns; that guy over there lied to me and I went hungry. These are both lessons worth learning.

    C: Since P1 is false, C is not logically derivable.

    Now, I see here several more underlying problems/issues with your understanding of evolution and your logic, which I'll address now so as to avoid being repetitive later.

    First: You seem intent on conflating "remembering wrongs" and "seeking vengeance". Forgiving is not forgetting.

    Second: Evolution is not aiming for, nor can it ever aim for, a single optimal solution. It doesn't aim. It gets better and better solutions to its given environment over time. (And, of course, if that environment changes, well...)

    People aren't optimized; anyone looking at the biophysics of the back and knee could tell you that. So how can we use the fact that some theoretical optimum is not where we are to argue for the existence of a perfect being?

    You can claim that an attitude of forgiveness is better than one of vengeance; fine. You can assert that we should practice non-attachment to the material. But how can you get from there to the existence of some theoretically perfect being?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Imnotandrei,

      As for your first comment, you stated,

      "This statement, which you support in your opening, is true only within certain limited contexts."

      "P1 - Practicing unconditional forgiveness offers notable health benefits according to empirical tests."

      Yes, I agree. Good point. I should clarify the difference between physiological health benefits and long-term survival.

      in your 2nd point you claim p1 is false (P1. Evolutionists claim 'survival qualities' become developed in the 'healthier physiology' of animals that survive.)... because..."Evolution suggests that animals that survive long enough to reproduce have an advantage over those that do not. ;) "Health" in a evolutionary sense involves surviving to that reproductive point; consider, after all, the male praying mantis. Evolutionarily successful, rather rapidly unhealthy."

      I believe you are oversimplifying your summary of natural selection: "animals that survive long enough to reproduce have an advantage..." According to basic logic, there would be 'reasons' why some would survive and others would not. These 'reasons' are generally defined as 'genetic mutations' that have given some type of survival advantage to the survivors. Ironically, "mutations" are seen as a "healthy" development in evolution. A mutation that begins the development of an "eyeball" will theoretically offer a survival advantage because it will allow the creature to see its predators. I don't believe in macro-evoltution, I'm simply explaining its basic logic in practical terms.

      Though it is difficult to ascertian, evolution is not only considered physical, in terms of physical genes, but it is also related to psychological advantages in a similar fashion: "Evolutionary psychologists argue that much of human behavior is the output of psychological adaptations that evolved to solve recurrent problems in human ancestral environments."

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_selection

      >C: Since P1 is false, C is not logically derivable.

      - Your critique of P1 is inadequate for reasons I pointed out.

      >Forgiving is not forgetting.

      - Yes, but bitterness is not the same as recollecting a wrong done.

      >Evolution is not aiming for, nor can it ever aim for, a single optimal solution.

      - Yes, I agree.

      >But how can you get from there to the existence of some theoretically perfect being?

      - According to formal logic, if the premises are true and the form is valid, the conclusion is logically accurate.

      Delete
    2. Thank you for your response -- I was beginning to wonder.

      I believe you are oversimplifying your summary of natural selection: "animals that survive long enough to reproduce have an advantage..." According to basic logic, there would be 'reasons' why some would survive and others would not.

      Indeed. But this does not address the fact that biological evolution does not select for the post-reproductive health of entities except as a side factor (if at all -- as my examples showed.)

      So, the sort of "health" you refer to (increased lifespans, etc.) does not have to be relevant to an evolutionary discussion.

      A praying mantis that dies immediately after mating has a "healthy physiology" by evolutionary standards; but not, I suspect, by any of the standards by which you'd use the term here.



      "Evolutionary psychologists argue that much of human behavior is the output of psychological adaptations that evolved to solve recurrent problems in human ancestral environments."

      Some evolutionary psychologists are misguided and overstep their logical boundaries. What else is new?

      However, even if I grant you P1, P2, and C of that particular syllogism, your argument continues to fail.

      Let's look at the next one.

      P1. According to evolution, 'remembering wrongs' should be directly associated with a 'healthy physiology.'
      P2. 'Remembering wrongs' is associated with an unhealthy physiology.
      C. Therefore, evolutionary theory is incorrect with regard to 'remembering wrongs.'


      P2 here is, from a biological survival perspective, utterly incorrect.

      First off -- "remembering wrongs" is, as you pointed out, not the same as "being bitter." Remembering wrongs is a key portion of *learning*, which is, I hope you'll agree, pro-survival.

      So let's recast your P2 in terms of what you're actually saying:

      P2: "Bitterness" is associated with an unhealthy physiology.

      Even this statement, from an evolutionary POV, is incorrect. How long you survive post-reproduction is, while not utterly irrelevant (since we are a live-birth species), something so minor in terms of evolutionary development that there is no reason for longevity in that regard to be selected for.

      You may be happier living longer, but you'd also be happier with knees that worked a lot better. The argument from "It would be nice if..." is not a logically persuasive one.

      So, again -- P2 is incorrect. Therefore, C cannot be drawn.

      Furthermore:

      - According to formal logic, if the premises are true and the form is valid, the conclusion is logically accurate.

      Your premises also have to be sufficiently precise as to be useful; this is another bar you fail to clear -- as witness your own confusion between "bitterness" and "remembering wrongs".

      Delete
  21. Thank you for your dialogue.

    >"biological evolution does not select for the post-reproductive health of entities..."

    - Biological evolution selects apparently for the success of continued reproduction. The specifics of how this plays out should have a logical explanation.

    1. Evolution proposes that incremental changes occur through natural selection.

    2. Natural selection offers that genetic mutations provide survival advantages that are passed down through reproductive transference.

    3. Therefore, evoution theory is based on reproductive transference.

    A Dawkins' quote seems to affirm this theory:

    "Genes are the fundamental unit of natural selection because they are the most potentially immortal of all of the other known biological self replicating units..."

    http://www.broderickboyd.com/2009/06/selfish-gene-by-richard-dawkins-summary.html

    As you've pointed out, the female praying mantis often eats the male in "post-sexual cannibalism"

    http://www.theprayingmantis.org/

    If biological evolution and traits are passed down through reproduction and incremental changes, how was the noted instinct of "post-sexual cannibalism" gradually implimented if the eggs had already been fertilized?

    It seems that if your example refutes my premise, then it also refutes the theory of evolution. How do you account for this?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Um. This is perilously close to Wolfgang Pauli's "It is not even wrong".

      OK: Let's try this on for size:
      There is no "instinct of post-sexual cannibalism".

      There is "The female praying mantis will eat what it can". There is "The male praying mantis has an instinct to fertilize the female, and no countervailing self-preservation instinct post-fertilization".

      The two often result in post-sexual cannibalism, but that's not the same as having an instinct for it. It's easy enough to see.

      My example refers to the fact that your attempted optimization for "good health" is not anywhere near the top of the list of things evolution would optimize for, as many of them only come into play later in life (or do not significantly impair reproductive functioning earlier in life) and therefore are outside the bounds of selection save as epiphenomena.

      Does that make things clearer for you?

      Oh, and to answer your other question:

      how was the noted instinct of "post-sexual cannibalism" gradually implimented if the eggs had already been fertilized?

      If the trait "doesn't move as fast after sex" (a gross exaggeration/simplification, but it will serve for the point) exists in the genes, then it gets passed on -- and if that trait aids in reproductive success (by, say, giving the female praying mantis a nice little protein snack, thus increasing her chances of survival until reproduction is complete), then it can be passed on, and gradually selected for. Clear?

      Delete
  22. >There is no "instinct of post-sexual cannibalism".

    Well, thanks for your note, but let's just review the actual definition of 'instinct'and then decide:

    1. An inborn pattern of behavior that is characteristic of a species and is often a response to specific environmental stimuli: the spawning instinct in salmon; altruistic instincts in social animals..."

    http://www.thefreedictionary.com/instinct

    The fact is, only certain species engage is sexual cannibalism and, in accordance with the defintion of 'instict', the strange behavior occurrs only under specific circumstances.

    Your offered explanation: "There is "The female praying mantis will eat what it can".

    - Most every other species has come to address this problem without cannibalism.

    Another tenable explanation is 'mistaken identity' however, the behavior of spiders who also practice sexual cannibalism tends to refute this theory:

    "Mistaken identity – The simplest explanation of sexual cannibalism is that it is a case of mistaken identity, in which a male is not acknowledged as a potential mate in time. However, in most spiders, elaborate courtship is thought to prevent this.[7]"

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_cannibalism

    >The two often result in post-sexual cannibalism, but that's not the same as having an instinct for it. It's easy enough to see.

    - It seems to me that you are letting your preconceived worldview dictate to you what an 'instict' actually is and can be, in contrast to the actual definition.

    >If the trait "doesn't move as fast after sex" ...then it gets passed on.

    - So, what you are implying is that the trait of sexual cannibalism is transferred in a "fast" manner to the fertilized eggs after they have been fertilized and before the offspring is born?

    Is that really what you are implying?

    ReplyDelete
  23. >There is no "instinct of post-sexual cannibalism".

    Well, thanks for your note, but let's just review the actual definition of 'instinct'and then decide:

    Oh, joy; a dictionary proof.



    The fact is, only certain species engage is sexual cannibalism and, in accordance with the defintion of 'instict', the strange behavior occurrs only under specific circumstances.

    Those two things do not qualify it as a heritable trait. The broad definition of "instinct" from a dictionary and the narrow and precise usage of heritable trait are two different things.

    Your offered explanation: "There is "The female praying mantis will eat what it can".

    - Most every other species has come to address this problem without cannibalism.


    And here we have, in fact, evidence for evolution -- the solution isn't optimal. But it's the solution that that set of genes has adopted, and now there is not enough slack for other options to take its place. I recommend to your attention "Climbing Mount Improbable", by Richard Dawkins, for an explanation of how that works in more detail.

    >The two often result in post-sexual cannibalism, but that's not the same as having an instinct for it. It's easy enough to see.

    - It seems to me that you are letting your preconceived worldview dictate to you what an 'instict' actually is and can be, in contrast to the actual definition.


    See above regarding dictionary attacks. I am referring to heritable traits -- which is what your question involved in the first place. It's not my problem if you use imprecise terminology in your claims.


    >If the trait "doesn't move as fast after sex" ...then it gets passed on.

    - So, what you are implying is that the trait of sexual cannibalism is transferred in a "fast" manner to the fertilized eggs after they have been fertilized and before the offspring is born?


    No, actually -- that was a typo. ;)

    If the trait is "doesn't move as fast after sex" -- meaning that the genes that code the patterns that result in that behavior (whatever they may be) will get passed on, because what happens after a successful fertilization doesn't matter here.

    Is that really what you are implying?

    As I said above, no.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. >Those two things do not qualify it as a heritable trait.

      I'm not sure where you get your research from. Courtship traits are considered heritable:

      1. Male courtship traits in web-building spiders are heritable from father to sons

      http://apscience.org.au/projects/APSF_11_5/apsf_11_5.html

      2. Research suggests unique mating behavior is heritable in spiders: "As a result, we predict that male courtship performance is under positive selection and heritable, passed from father to son."

      http://apscience.org.au/projects/APSF_11_5/apsf_11_5.html

      3. Certain spiders and praying mantes share the unique behavior of filial cannibalism.

      http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1439-0310.2010.01792.x/abstract


      4. This implies that the unique mating behavior os sexual cannibalism is heritable also for the praying mantis.

      >The solution isn't optimal. But it's the solution that that set of genes has adopted, and now there is not enough slack for other options to take its place.

      - Your comment could be paraphrased as,

      "Sexual cannibalism exists, and it's difficult to explain according to evolution theory. But that's what we are stuck with."

      >...what happens after a successful fertilization doesn't matter here.

      - DNA is formed upon conception. The female praying mantis eats the male usually upon copulation. Saying "it doesn't matter" what happens after fertilization does not seem to change the logical problem.

      Evolutionists seem to just assume that these traits must have been passed down soemhow, even though the behavior occurs after the female has copulated and the DNA has been formed.

      Delete
    2. (OK. This has managed to get eaten three times, so pardon my brevity.)

      Your reasoning is faulty here:

      1. Male courtship traits in web-building spiders are heritable from father to sons

      http://apscience.org.au/projects/APSF_11_5/apsf_11_5.html

      2. Research suggests unique mating behavior is heritable in spiders: "As a result, we predict that male courtship performance is under positive selection and heritable, passed from father to son."

      http://apscience.org.au/projects/APSF_11_5/apsf_11_5.html

      3. Certain spiders and praying mantes share the unique behavior of filial cannibalism.

      http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1439-0310.2010.01792.x/abstract


      4. This implies that the unique mating behavior os sexual cannibalism is heritable also for the praying mantis.


      If you look at the research you cite, it's courtship, not post-copulation behavior. In addition:

      1) Traits of type A are heritable in category X

      2) Traits of type B exist in category X and category Y.

      3) Therefore traits of type B is heritable for category Y.

      I trust you can see the flaws in your reasoning?

      "Sexual cannibalism exists, and it's difficult to explain according to evolution theory. But that's what we are stuck with."

      Absolutely wrong in your paraphrase. It's easy to explain in evolutionary theory; indeed, I did it once already before:

      " if that trait aids in reproductive success (by, say, giving the female praying mantis a nice little protein snack, thus increasing her chances of survival until reproduction is complete), then it can be passed on, and gradually selected for."

      So; it aids in reproductive success, can be selected for, and is therefore easy to explain evolutionarily. That's a large part of how evolution *works*.

      Now, the creatures who practice it are stuck with it, because of this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adaptive_landscape

      (Since you clearly didn't look at the Dawkins reference I cited earlier.)

      Clear?


      Evolutionists seem to just assume that these traits must have been passed down soemhow, even though the behavior occurs after the female has copulated and the DNA has been formed.


      I've already told you (twice now) how such a thing could be passed on.

      Here's the thing: DNA codes for proteins that have effects long after reproductive fitness has passed; but those are not selected for or against, because in that regard, they don't matter.

      This is where your argument falls down; you're complaining that evolution doesn't optimize for something you think should be optimal, therefore it doesn't exist. When, in fact, if it worked exactly as predicted, it would produce the results we see.

      Delete
  24. I was just reviewing some facts that show how evolution evangelists such as Richard Dawkins tell blatant untruths regarding the process of evolution in order to imply it is much simply than it actually is. In your opinion, do you believe Dawkins is telling a "whopper" of a fib here:

    For Darwin Day: False Facts & Dawkins' Whopper

    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2011/02/for_darwin_day_false_facts_and043691.html


    Dawkins Caught Lying for Darwin
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vnYik52Y5rI

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. So Dawkins tries to simplify a process for better understanding (at least from what I can tell, I'm no biologist): LIE LIE!


      God tells Samuel to give a false reason for his trip to David's fathers family...NOT A LIE!


      Nice to see how consistent you are about being honest.

      Delete
  25. I forgot to mention one thing about xianity and this idea that warden has that it's xianity that's to be credited for the concept of unconditional forgiveness. It apparently isn't really true:

    Mark 11:25 ulterior motive: to help get forgiveness from god

    Luke 6:27-37 ulterior motive: so that others will treat you well

    Romans 12:19-21 ulterior motive: to make our enemies feel bad

    If I'd remembered about those verses and others like those in the first place, I'd have saved a lot of time arguing since xianity doesn't really seem to have a concept of true "unconditional forgivenss" after all.

    ReplyDelete
  26. Appreciate it all of on your interesting plus useful
    responses up to now. Very much meals to get considered.
    Some sexy suggestions as well as points of views all about.
    I can not point out that Certainly with everything else
    that you say however if some know the actual legitamecy of
    your respective publish We would often be uninformed for your
    awareness.
    My blog :: Criminal Search

    ReplyDelete

You are welcome to post on-topic comments but, please, no uncivilized blog abuse or spamming. Thank you!