My final post "Gender differences"

In our final class we discussed the possibilities of born gender differences vs society causing these differences. We discussed the role testosterone plays in aggressive behavior. We also talked about how testosterone levels may be different in males and females due to gender differences caused by society over years. To me if testosterone causes aggression, and males are currently being born with more testosterone "and have been as far back as we know, although I am open to the possibility this could potentially change in the future, although I don't think it will" Then I don't understand how how one can deny that there are natural born personality differences, and that social situations only add on to these. I do believe that society causes these natural differences to grow, but I believe there are some differences before society plays its role.

Response to "Conception"

I agree with you in that it seems silly to believe nothing exists if we aren't observing it. From a philosophical standpoint it makes a lot more sense to say that we can't be 100% sure something exists if we are not currently perceiving it, rather than just assuming if we can't perceive it it must not exist. The assumption that something does not exist because it is not in our perception seems foolish.

Respnse to "excuses for God"

I completely agree with you in that philosophers basically contradict all of there views by inserting God. They come up with theories almost completely based on logic, and when they come to a question they can not answer they just insert God into the equation. It seems as though frustration for not being able to solve a problem is eased by just saying "God knows" or "It is the work of God" While I do not oppose those who believe in God, and I believe there are some good reasons to want to believe in God, I find it to  be an easy way out for a philosopher who can't find an answer.

Memes to Genes?

When examining the concept of memes proposed by Darwin I was wondering if these led to evolution. Do memes facilitate natural selection? Is this this one of the basis for choosing which physical traits will succeed. Are those who don't follow memes weeded out? I was just wondering if memes could be one of the first steps in natural selection and then evolution. Or do memes come and go to fast to have any effect.

Response to "The Importance of Science"

I strongly agree that science should be used when creating theories of human nature. We can use material evidence to try to explain why we do the things we do. My one warning in using science, is to be aware of the fact that there is a lot of things that we do not understand. We can be deceived in believing science has given us the answer, when in fact we are still missing information. At one point we "knew" the earth was flat, and i am 100% confident that there is something right now we think we "know" that will be proven false. Science definitely should be used in creating theories of human nature, however we should use it cautiously.

No Equal Worth?

Nietzsche believes that if we realize there is no rational basis for believing in God than the notion of equal worth would dissolve. My problem with this claim is that often times religion is the cause of people feeling superior to others. They will have the attitude that they are better than someone else because they are Catholic, Muslim, ext. it seems as though the notion of all humans being equal is rooted in the fact that nobody would want to be treated worse than someone else. This can seem like a selfish concept, but if everyone wants to be treated at least as well as others, they would rather settle for equality, rather than failing to reach superiority and being treated as an inferior being. To me removing religion might enhance the idea of equal worth by removing the one way thinking of what it means to be a good person.

Freud vs. Marx - Religion - Response to Dom Cooper's Response

I agree with you that it is problematic when people interpret the bible "literally." However I believe interpreting the bible is a little more complex than interpreting a Christmas story. While I believe the key points in both are the morals, the difference is there is some factual truth to the bible. Most scholars would agree that Jesus did exist, or that he was crucified. this is where I believe the difficulty comes in, which stories to take literally and which ones to just take the morals away. My rule of thumb would be always accept the most logical, and least miraculous explanation. The whole point of this post is that I believe interpreting the bible can be tricky because some of the writing have some "literal" truth to them, while others are just morals.