Pick a few to answer
* Can all animal behavior be explained in terms of instinct or simple learning? (As opposed to higher order, reflective thinking?
* Are humans naturally / innately aggressive like Konrad Lorenz claims? Bobbie asks you to consider The Lord of the Flies, The Road, Walking Dead, among other books and films as you answer.
* How do you think language works? Do you agree with Chomsky that there is an innate capacity to process language?
* Can the theory of evolution explain everything? Kindness, altruism, culture? What would E. O. Wilson say?
* Can belief in God/religion and evolution mutually exist?
* How does natural selection support (or not) the "gender division" and how does it compare to natural selection's contribution (or not) to racism?
* Can you think of an instance that supports Skinner's theory that behavior arises from natural selection? An example from history? From everyday life?
RE: Religion vs. Evolution
ReplyDeleteI do think that religion and evolution can mutually exist. For one, the church accepts evolution. My take on understanding how both can coexist with one another is that God had a hand in evolution/creation. Like Judy said, God is not on the same time scale we are on and the bible cannot be taken literally in the sense that God did not create the world in 7 days. To him 7 days may be billions of years to us. However, that is not the important part; the time scale is only present to help us understand. The message here is that God created everything, and as the bible states “and it was good.” Therefore, when it comes to the formation of diseases and other bad mutations, is God responsible for that too? That is a tricky question and I am not sure of that answer and will never know. But in the end, yes I do believe that both religion and the theory of evolution can mutually exist.
RE: Natural aggression
I do think that aggression is a natural instinct within everyone; some may just demonstrate the behavior more readily than others. Within the novel, The Road, an apocalypse occurs and everyone is on their own to fight for themselves to stay alive. People will do anything at this point to stay alive, even if that means stealing others food and the very clothes they are wearing. This demonstrates the natural instinct of aggression within human beings that comes out in times of distress. I agree with Lorenz in the claim that aggression is a natural instinct because it is natural to do everything in your power to preserve your own life. When people are put in situations that are very stressful they become more agitated and aggressive towards others in order to get what they need in order to survive and would even go as far as to steal food, supplies, or any other needed things from their own friends, if that means preserving their life.
Can all animal behavior be explained in terms of instinct or simple learning? (As opposed to higher order, reflective thinking?
ReplyDelete------I think almost of all animal behaviors can be explained by instinct. Dogs, for example, have the natural inclination to comfort and support people. I don’t know how to explain it but dogs just know when there is something wrong. I do not believe that they are learning because if dogs had higher abilities regarding thinking then they probably wouldn’t still eat poop and rocks. In a previously class I brought up that elephants have been seen to mourn the death of an elephant in their herd. I believe that animals have emotions and the elephants sense the loss and the missing piece of their herd. Some animals behaviors cannot be explained with instinct or training but for the most part I do not believe they have higher thinking abilities.
Can belief in God/religion and evolution mutually exist?
------When this question was first brought up I originally did not think that God and Evolution could mutually exist but when Judy brought up the point that God’s scale and time frame could be completely different than ours made me think that it could mutually exist. But thinking that God created things like genetic diseases, cancer, and other disease is difficult to accept
Are humans naturally / innately aggressive like Konrad Lorenz claims? Bobbie asks you to consider The Lord of the Flies, The Road, Walking Dead, among other books and films as you answer.
-----I think if it comes down to it all humans will revert back to our natural instincts in order to survive. Depending on the individual person’s will to survive is the amount of aggression that will come out. But I don’t think these qualities (I don’t even know if that’s the correct word) of our natural human instinctual behavior will come out unless it’s live or death circumstances.
RE: Innate aggressiveness:
ReplyDeleteI think humans and animals in nature have this instinct to protect themselves for survival in any circumstances. With that being said, aggression is a byproduct of this because we're trying to survive by all means possible. I do not think it is intrinsically woven in our minds but there is some sort of instinct to push for survival by all means necessary. I've only read/seen 1/3 books (The Lord of the Flies) and would argue that the leader of the group emerged because he had the "strongest" instinct to survive.
RE: God/religion and evolution:
Before this class I thought evolution and God could not exist because I thought they argued two opposing "beginnings" of the story of life. However, I like the fact that Judy pointed out we are not all on the same time scales; it makes me wonder what there is to be explored if God has already created it. But, I think evolution is a "comfortable answer" to where we all came from for those who do not believe in God/religion. Evolution is a "comfortable answer" in that it tries to explain all the mysteries of the past in terms of science.
Again, I am the one with the unique take, I guess, on religion and human nature (just see a few of my other posts like on dualistic beings, religion... etc). Since I think that all religions are a metaphor for human nature, allows me to be able to think that evolution and theism can mutually exist. The empirical evidence of evolution is astounding and I don't think you can mess with and its basis for modern science, like vaccinations and antibiotic resistance as mentioned in class. I feel like there is simply no arguing with it.
ReplyDeleteI thought it was interesting that Amber said that evolution is a "comfortable answer," I think others might say that God or religion is the easy answer because we lean on Him to answer our prayers and show us a sign and guide us... How can evolution guide us in our every day lives and not just explain how we got here.
My high school biology teacher always tried to get a rise out of her students when talking about evolution. She always supported evolution, but one time I heard her say that it doesn't mean that she doesn't believe in God and that maybe He was the one who caused the 'Big Bang' and the whole chain reaction to life on earth. I just remember that and it got me thinking that it really is possible for these to ideologies to be embraced together.
RE: Can all animal behavior be explained in terms of instinct or simple learning? (As opposed to higher order, reflective thinking?
ReplyDeleteI believe that all animal behavior can be explained in terms of instinct or simple learning. Although it would be nice if our pets really did the things that they do based on actual understanding, I don’t believe that this is the case. When we had this discussion in class earlier in the year, I had leaned more towards the side that said animals could have higher order, or reflective thinking. After hearing some of the arguments though, I began to lean towards the other side. Dr. Cate pointed out something that I hadn’t really considered, that our pets might do certain things based on picking up on certain cues that we knowingly or unknowingly give off. This does not mean that are processing these cues and understanding what they mean; it’s more like simple learning. A simple example being a dog learning tricks. Although they may not know what the word you are saying actually means, they may have picked up on the way that you say the word (such as tone) or you body language (suck as holding out your hand when you say “paw”) and they know that that means they are supposed to do “x” trick. I feel that many of their other behaviors are just instinct as well. It would be nice if animals did have higher order and reflective thinking, but sadly I don’t feel that that is the case.
RE: Are humans naturally / innately aggressive like Konrad Lorenz claims? Bobbie asks you to consider The Lord of the Flies, The Road, Walking Dead, among other books and films as you answer.
I believe that humans are naturally/innately aggressive like Konrad Lorenz claims. I agree with Kristen’s statement “all humans will revert back to our natural instincts in order to survive.” I don’t see humans being naturally aggressive all the time, just in life or death situations. Just as in Lord of the Flies, those boys were not normally aggressive. They became aggressive though when it came down to them trying to survive on an island with no adults to help them. Some of them began acting animalistic by not wearing clothing anymore and painting their bodies with mud and other things when they would hunt for the wild boar. At first they were all too afraid to actually kill one, but as time went on they began to enjoy it and this even lead to them hunting one of the boys on the island. Once rescue came tough, they went back to normal. I believe this was because they were no longer in a life or death situation. Although we may not think that we would ever act like that, even if our life depended on it, I feel that we would. Our perceptions change once we are actually in the situation rather than just thinking about it.
RE: Can belief in God/religion and evolution mutually exist?
ReplyDeleteI think that a theistic point-of-view is compatible with evolution, because evolution presents a material cause for humanity and cannot posit a final cause (see chapter five and Aristotle's fundamental questions). In THE205: Understanding the Old Testament, we spent a long time and even wrote a paper on discussing how and why the Roman Catholic Church is able to acknowledge evolution without compromising its fundamental beliefs about God or Scripture. Evolution explains HOW we came to exist. An overwhelming amount or scientific data shows that single-cell microbes slowly evolved through genetic mutation and selection pressures into the enormous biodiversity on the Earth today. Nevertheless, evolution and scientific theory cannot explain WHY we came to exist: This is the role of philosophy and theology and NOT science. Therefore, even if you reject my “God caused mutations” argument, it is really in my opinion irrelevant to question whether God or evolution are compatible because they are unrelated (the existence of God is a metaphysical question while the biological path by which new species emerged is scientific).
RE: How do you think language works? Do you agree with Chomsky that there is an innate capacity to process language?
Yes, I think that humans have an innate capacity to develop, process, and comprehend language. The evidence presented in the text about grammar to which children are never exposed (and yet they still utilize it) and the way that humans are able to synthesize sentences they have never heard before is persuasive enough that there is something innate about being able to use language. I would like to supplement this with additional evidence I learned in one of my biology classes. I do not remember the exact circumstances of the study, but I remember learning about how deaf children in a special needs school in Latin America were able to independently create a language they used to communicate with each other, since they had been before never taught anything analogous to sign language. This likewise evidences that communication is an innate human faculty.
Michael- in response to your answer about God and evolution mutually existing, I think it is very interesting how you related the HOW v. WHY we came to exist approach. However, as your argument continues to say that it is "irrelevant to question whether God or evolution are compatible" is where I hop off the bus; I think this is a very relevant question. Often times, areas of study overlap and its hard to keep any two apart (ie. physics and biology--> what force needs to be exerted on this tendon to make this happen...). Especially in this case, one could argue that God created the concept of science, or like you acknowledged that evolution presents the material cause for humanity and therefore the human ability to think metaphysically...
DeleteI agree and understand everything you said, even God causing mutations, but I think there is clear relevance in the question because each realm could theoretically facilitate the existence of the other. Maybe you can clarify what you meant by saying that the two are irrelevant?
Can belief in God/religion and evolution mutually exist?
ReplyDeleteI would like to believe that both could mutually exist because then a lot would make more sense to me if it could be proven. This debate will continue on until someone can find proof of either side being related. This relation could be possible because we talked about it a couple classes ago that time may have been much different for God which would help explain how evolution took place because the 7days of creation blow my mind every time.
**Are humans naturally / innately aggressive like Konrad Lorenz claims? Bobbie asks you to consider The Lord of the Flies, The Road, Walking Dead, among other books and films as you answer.
This is a really good question that I wonder all the time especially with the bad things going on in the world everyday. I honestly believe it is a biological occurrence that causes individuals to do bad things and be hostile. In the recent examples...you can tell that the shooters from the Sandy Hook school/Movie theater were mentally unstable and that is a biological problem that hopefully can be solved one day.
Evolution and religion can coexist. In high school, I had a religion teach who denied evolution, and thought us that the church does not condone the theory of evolution. According to him, there are two types of evolution. Microevolution, changes within a species over a certain time, and macroevolution, changes within a species over time which eventually results in the creation of new species. In other words, microevolution was changes occurring within a species over time, whereas macroevolution involves the evolution from one species from an earlier species. The truth of the matter is that evolution is not a belief. Evolution is a scientific theory based on factual evidence. Any intelligent, well-educated person would realize that evolution is real, it is not something that people can choose whether or not they want to believe in it; it is real. My personal comment on this is that there is more scientific evidence to support evolution than there is to support the existence of God... But I digress. Evolution and science can coexist, despite what some people may say. The key feature of this argument is the Bible, and in particular the story of Genesis. If you chose to interpret the bible literally (it is not meant to be translated literally), then evolution and science cannot coexist. If, however, you interpret it metaphorically, then evolution and science can coexist.
ReplyDeleteI do realize that many of my classmates have strong beliefs that would suggest otherwise, but I am of the opinion that animals are not capable of higher level thinking. Animal behavior can be explained primarily by instinct and previous experience. For example, today my dog had an upset stomach, so he went outside and ate quite a bit of grass to help calm his stomach. I do not believe that he thought to himself "Man my stomach hurts. Perhaps I have a nutritional deficiency which is causing it. Now that I think about it, I haven't been getting much fiber lately. Maybe I should go eat some grass to help replenish myself and help my upset stomach". No, I think that my dog has learned from previous experience that eating grass makes the pain go away. It is simple learning. He happened to stumble upon something once, perhaps based on an instinct, and now uses this past experience in future cases. Also, he has learned that if he goes to his dresser and barks he can get a bone, if he urinates or excretes waste on his pad (assuming it is too cold for him to go outside) he runs to the dresser in anticipation of a treat. When mother gets out dishes, he begins to sit by the table and whine for food, even though the food has not yet been served. He anticipates the arrival of the food. There was an interesting psychological study done with a dog, in which a bell was rung, the dog was presented with a treat, and the dog began to salivate. After a while, the treat was left out of the equation. When the dog heard the bell, he began to salivate even though no treat was present. All animal behavior can be explained in this way. It is simply the result of basic psychological principles and very simple learning. There is no evidence to suggest a higher cognitive ability within animals.
ReplyDelete