Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Not a matter of opinion, but a matter of each individual culture deciding how they relate to each other and express their emotional and physical states.
The facts under anthropology is that such things vary from place to place, culture to culture, and even from one time period to another. For instance, love as it is known throughout the Western world is not a traditional view or a traditional practice of it. The idea of love only involving two people is not a universal among our species.
Actually there are many creationists who hold that god guided the coarse of evolution.
I do have an understanding of subjectivity. As for understanding it, having Asperger's has a much greater impediment on my understanding of subjective feelings and thinking than evolution does. I just happen to gravitate more towards objective facts because they are, for me, much easier to understand because of how my brain functions. This has nothing to do with acceptance of evolution.
How do you know it to be true? You haven't even shown a shred of evidence that evolution makes people depressed.
How? Even though subjective emotional reasoning and emotions in general I do not understand that well (by my very nature, not due to the acceptance of a theory), I still enjoy certain feelings, certain emotions, and as an artist I have a very healthy and active imagination, which requires an abundance of thinking subjectively.
This is what you said:
This is like saying that because I choose to drink water instead of Coke and puff off a vaporizer instead of smoke, that there was also some deliberate choice made and action carried out that caused the alligator to survive with little changes over millions of years, that the Earth was formed into a planet while Mars' other neighbor remains a failed planet, and that there was some deliberate decision and action that put us here, even though we don't even know where here is or even how big the universe is. But this is not so. A teacher may choose what books to have students read over the course of the semester (or they may not, depending on the school and teacher's position), but they do not choose for a tire to blow out on the way to school. It just happened.
The "root" of subjectivity is basing your decisions on things that are not logically, or objectively, based. And, yes, laws of nature, genes, do make us predisposed towards certain results. I will never be extroverted, there is nothing I can do about this, and it is a drain on me to be in large social situations (my definition of large is probably a lot smaller than yours). This natural part of me does have me biased towards smaller groups and situations that are usually more quiet and less chaotic. Even though I objectively enjoy the presence of a few friends far more than I will ever enjoy being in the presence of many strangers, I know it is my subjective opinion that there is a such thing as having to meet too many people all at once.
Facts are called facts because they are concrete. We know the Roman Coliseum's existence is a concrete fact because it is still around. But facts exist independently of of though, decision, cause, effect. I live near several flood zones. This is a fact because indeed there are many places that are highly prone to bad flooding during/after periods of heavy raining. A damn was even built many years ago because of the flooding in one city, and Indiana may loose it's entire FEMA funding because of a ballpark being built on a flood zone. This flooding is not the result of any conscious decision making and subsequent results of the actions of the decisions. Rather, I happen to live where terrain is not very flat, there are many hills, and some of the dips get really deep. The weather also gives us very heavy rainfall on occasion.
This you only gave very weak scant evidence, and from what I have seen you have not addressed the points that are contrary to your claim. There is a stronger correlation between being white and being depressed than there is between accepting evolution and being depressed. The correlation between the later is so pathetically weak that there is no reason to suspect it causes depression. It has nothing to do with objective or subjective thinking. If what you say is true, we would expect to take everyone who has clinical depression and we would find that most of them accept evolution. We would then take everyone who accepts evolution and we would expect most them to be depressed. But that is not what we see. With depression we see, what most often causes it, are things like a poor/unsafe/stressful environment, mental illness, social difficulties, and family history.
"Common sense" is a term for people who assume their ways are common. It is for those with a lesser world view, those who have not acknowledged their ways are not common, known by all, or widely practiced. At best, it is an ill-defined concept that allows people to feel better and superior to others. You have also not demonstrated how evolution forces one to forfeit subjective thinking.
A part of my academic studies includes common, everyday discourse, the way words are used, what they mean, and what lies beneath the surface of a word (or symbol). You claim I do not understand subjectivity, and while some parts of it are harder for me to understand (such as emotional reasoning, which is mostly lost on me), I have a firm grasp of what subjectivity is. I may not have much published as an author, but I would think I'd have nothing published if I was a creature of pure logic.
My decision to stop drinking Coke has nothing to do with subjectivity. This decision was based on objective facts that the high amounts of sugar are not healthy or good for the body. It is the subjective experience of a Coke tasting gross and disgusting after not having one for some time that keeps my objective decision on track.
You have not demonstrated that there are any choices going on.
The theory of evolution (I'll just put it out now, saying "evolutionist" really shows how biased your sources are, and it shows that you really don't know anything about evolution or have even that most basic grasp of its concepts: it also shows a lack of understanding in science, as there are no "gravitationist," "germist," "plate techtonicists," or "magneticist.") does not state anything about anything being chosen. There is chance survival. Though survival is very typically based on an individual member of a species to adapt to the local environment and survive long enough to reproduce, thus having a better chance at passing on the beneficial survival traits, there is nothing being chosen. It just happens.
Evolution states nothing about the debate of free will vs. determinism. Though modern understanding of genetics and psychology weaken the position of unrestrained free will, it does not render a total victory for determinism as it does not seem we live a world of fatalism either.
This "common sense" is so very often wrong. It's "common sense" that someone who looses a sense develops heightened senses in those that remain, but there is no actual evidence to back this claim up. "Common sense" frequently misuses the term 'reverse psychology.' This "common sense" you hold frequently fails to understand basic probability. "Common sense" does not exist, and when people use it, they are either a) promoting their own personal views or b) very, very wrong about things.
No, you haven't. You have managed to do nothing more than offer a claim. Thus far you have not offered any real evidence for your position, other than make appeals to this "commons sense" that would have us believing our gut feeling is a credible source, as this "common discourse" that frequently misuses many, many words, such as ultimate, than/then, peruse, there/their/they're, disinterested/uninterested, and so on.
Then by all means get to providing. You have done nothing but shown you have too much faith in these things that are supposed to be commonly known (and are often incorrect anyways), and the common ways people talk, which again is often wrong (lot's of people use double negatives, despite them being grammatically incorrect in nearly all situations).