|
Understanding through Discussion |
|
|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
| Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
| Author | Topic: Good behaviour doesn't require superstition. | |||||||||||||||||||
|
dwise1 Member  Posts: 5952 Joined: Member Rating: 5.2 |
dwise1 writes:
I thought my sarcasm was obvious. You believe that we breed in a completely rational manner? Plotting out every consequence of all our actions and all the possible outcomes in our progeny? Do you actually believe that? Well you quite obviously did not make any sense. Is that supposed to be the only way that we are supposed to recognize sarcasm? Well, that will eliminate a lot.
dwise1 writes: Have you seen breeding in action? Believe me, there's nothing rational about it. If your experience is different, then please share. Well, I've bred on quite a few occasions in my lifetime. My actions were deliberate, and so were the females. I assume you are speaking about copulation and not merely breeding in the sense of children. Rational, not deliberate. The two are not equivalent. Deliberate action is frequently taken that is driven by irrational drives and impulses. Rational breeding would be as humans would assume Vulcans went about it, if it weren't for pon farr, the "burning of the blood". Rational breeding would be to predetermine what traits you wanted your kids to have, very likely part of a long-range plan, like generations of farmers breeding their dogs and livestock for particular traits. Then you select your mate based on how her genome will likely contribute to your breeding plan. Of course, what would you do about the children who don't turn out quite right? Is that how you went about it? of course not! Because that is not how we breed, now is it? You bred in accordance with the natural drives that we all possess. In accordance with human nature. To do it in a completely rational manner would be an aberration. Despite your now trying to blow it off as sarcasm, the idea you presented made no sense, that we would make gut decisions by stopping and rationally weighing all the consequences of all possible actions. What action we take will still have consequences.
dwise1 writes: Altruistic behavior within a tribe benefits one's own genes as the tribe takes care of the family of the one who had sacrificed himself for the benefit of his comrades. Did he do that consciously or almost instinctually? The obvious answer is: Almost instinctually. But your arrival at the conclusions is unfounded and completely speculatory. You have imagined this elaborate scenario for why Monsoor jumped on the grenade. Obviously he did it for his comrades. What we don't know is what would have compelled him to do such a thing, whereas, arguably, most people would have instinctually dove in the opposite direction of the grenade. According to his Medal of Honor citation, he was the only one by a doorway, with a clear escape. Instead of fleeing with his own life, he chose to smother the grenade with his body. In most such cases, a soldier or marine jumps onto a grenade to save his comrades. It's a part of human nature that shows up not only in all of military history, but also practically every day in the life-threatening emergency situations that arise. And in other species as well. It's a part of human nature (a term to describe how our minds work, including inclinations, drives, instincts, etc). Is that what you are objecting to? Now, if we accept that his actions were due to human nature, the next question would be where that human nature came from. One who accepts evolution would say that it obviously had evolved. A believer in a creator god would say that that god had created it, even though that "answer" completely begs the question of what mechanism would have been used to perform that act of creation; the list of such possible mechanisms includes evolution, BTW. Regardless of how it got here, human nature is still the same. So then the question moves to why a particular drive/instinct/inclination would be a part of human nature. A creationist approach that God just chose to make it that way ends up telling us nothing, telling us that it's completely arbitrary and can't be expected to make any sense. But in the case of an evolved human nature, we can examine it and see where it would make sense and even be able to work out how it could have evolved. We observe that ones kin is more likely to benefit from altruistic behavior than strangers. Well, that makes sense, since that behavior helps to ensure that ones genes propagate into further generations; being able to engage in altruistic acts to protect ones kin has far greater fitness than would saving ones own life at the expense of ones kin. Then we observe small hunter-gatherer tribes. Individuals are not well-adapted to surviving completely on their own in the environments those tribes live in. Members of the tribe depend on the tribe for the survival of themselves and their families and the tribe depends on its members for its own survival. Behavior that promotes the survival of the tribe also promotes the collective survival of its members and behavior that weakens the ability of the tribe to survive also lessens the collective survival of its members. Are you objecting to those observations and interpretations? If so, what alternatives do you offer? And we also note that most of those small tribes, most members are related to each other in one way or another; note also that a common tribal activity is to raid neighboring tribes for wives. Kin is more likely to be recipients of altruistic behavior, remember? So a hunter's act of self-sacrifice would benefit the survival of his kin who most likely also possessed the trait for altruism, thus propagating it into future generations. Tribes of non-altruistic members would be unlikely to survive, whereas tribes of altruistic members would be more likely to survive. Therefore, most people came from a long line of altruistic people. Of course, the environment has changed. The human nature that had evolved in small hunter-gatherer tribes now live in super-tribes in which most members are not kin. And yet human nature remains little changed and altruism continues to operate. Your objections don't make any sense and a non-evolutionary view of altruism doesn't make any sense. Wait a moment! OK, I get it now. You were just being sarcastic again. Just as any creationist claim (since they don't make any sense) is just sarcasm. OK, got'cha now.
dwise1 writes: Universalist influence has staunched traditional Christian bloodlust. Fundamentalists are striving to reverse the trend. Dwise, you are speaking about Universalists and Fundamentalists as if they battle these homicidal thoughts. Give me a break. Name me the last outbreak of Christians slaughtering people in the name of God, as opposed to recent slaughterings of Christians in the name of God. I guarantee more bloodshed has been inflicted upon Christians, than Christians have inflicted on others. Huh? Where do you get that from? Now, Christian thought has been changing over the past few centuries, mainly from the infusion of non-Christian ideas. The Enlightenment was a huge influence in which classical ideas and ideals (read pagan Greek and Roman) led to the introduction of ideas like human rights (something that the mentors of the Religious Right, the Christian Reconstructionist movement, had in the 1980's denounced as an invention of Satan). Now, despite the Enlightenment, the Spanish Inquisition still continued until the 1830's. Universalism is foreign to Christian theology because it teaches that there is no Hell; although mainstream churches haven't gotten rid of Hell, it doesn't seem to play such a huge role anymore -- that what I reported was what our minister had told us in a sermon, which I repeated as a new perspective to try to invoke thought. And according to a Barna Group poll (reprinted at No webpage found at provided URL: http://members.aol.com/dwise1/religion/survey.html), most people who identify themselves as Christian hold beliefs that are foreign to Christian doctrine. At the same time, fundamentalist churches are trying to enforce Christian doctrine and to get rid of those non-Christian ideas. I don't think they've been that successful in ridding their own theology of such ideas, for which we should all be thankful.
dwise1 writes: believers are only good because of the promise of reward (or, at least, the avoidance of eternal punishment), then how could they possibly ever behave altruistically? I can't think of a person who does nice things for some cosmic prize. In fact, the argument is that since God is love, according to the Bible, doing things of that sort is ingrained within the human conscience. Also in accordance with scripture, it wars with the other side of us. When was the last time you were proselytized at by a fundamentalist? Their primary and fall-back approach is to entice you with the reward of eternal life and to scare you with the threat of eternal punishment in Hell. And that keeps coming up whenever we try to discuss a creationist's claim with him and he resorts to proselytizing (which was his main goal all along anyway). I'm not making any of this up! And the scary part is to observe a creationist engaging in the worst acts of lying and hypocrisy and he feels fully justified to violate God's Laws at will because he "loves Jesus" (that was what a creationist actually told me; I'm not making any of this up!).
|
|||||||||||||||||||
|
Hyroglyphx Inactive Member |
Well you quite obviously did not make any sense. What didn't make sense about it? Bluegenes stated that Monsoor jumped on the grenade to preserve other people's genome. I jokingly agreed with him, because it's just about the silliest damn thing I've ever heard.
Is that how you went about it? of course not! Because that is not how we breed, now is it? You bred in accordance with the natural drives that we all possess. In accordance with human nature. To do it in a completely rational manner would be an aberration. Really? If that were so, we'd all act upon these sex drives with reckless abandonment, and jump on the first girl we thought was attractive and start raping her. Is that your Darwinian version of how sex is in human beings?
In most such cases, a soldier or marine jumps onto a grenade to save his comrades. It's a part of human nature Then why do some humans, few humans, possess it, and most don't?
in the case of an evolved human nature, we can examine it and see where it would make sense and even be able to work out how it could have evolved. We don't see anything like that, and it is rested upon pure conjecture to assert it. You don't know that people jump on grenades, against natural selection, in order to fulfill some evolutionary purpose. Rather, evolution is the only means that you are willing to accept, and so you have to think of reason why it must be that way. But you don't know that in any kind of empirical sense. You are just guessing. By all means, feel free at any point to substantiate the audacious claim. Now, could it be as you describe? Sure, anything is possible. But you will find it more and more ridiculous as time goes on. You will find that more and more hypotheses will have to be formed in order to make sense, in order to cover up the discrepancies as you go along. Altruism obviously presented a problem with natural selection which is why it was necessary for Dawkins to write a whole book on why it doesn't really present a problem, only that one appears that way superficially. The rest of your post does not apply to me because I'm not a creationist. I am perfectly content on accepting large portions of the theory of evolution to describe heredity and natural tendencies. This one does not make any sense. At the least, concede that it is the antithesis of Darwins own theories concerning natural selection. “I know where I am and who I am. I'm on the brink of disillusionment, on the eve of bitter sweet. I'm perpetually one step away from either collapse or rebirth. I am exactly where I need to be. Either way I go towards rebirth, for a total collapse often brings a rebirth." -Andrew Jaramillo
|
|||||||||||||||||||
|
dwise1 Member Posts: 5952 Joined: Member Rating: 5.2 |
dwise1 writes:
What didn't make sense about it? Bluegenes stated that Monsoor jumped on the grenade to preserve other people's genome. I jokingly agreed with him, because it's just about the silliest damn thing I've ever heard. Well you quite obviously did not make any sense. WTFO? Please observe the chain of posts:
NJ;Message 22 writes: The problem is that the atheist has no real answer other than the emotive argument, which is all fine and good to a point, if it weren't for the fact that he also claims to be a rationalist. And I really don't see too many ways to rationally explain things like philanthropy, especially when juxtaposed by the laws of natural selection. bluegenes;Message 26 writes: You find it difficult to explain philanthropy in relation to natural selection? Think of the "selfish" gene concept, then think of a philanthropical organism doing things which might aid the future survival of other organisms which have virtually the same genome (humans differ by a fraction of 1% of genes). It's a common mistake to think that evolutionary theory would mean that social animals like ourselves would be selfish as individuals. Rather, it's a balance, and "selfish" would be a bad word if and when "unselfish" would be advantageous to the perpetuation of the human genome, which it usually is. People who are seen as completely self-centred are frowned on in all cultures, and altruism is universally respected.
NJ;Message 31 writes: bluegenes writes:
Without going in to a huge discourse on it, as it would inevitably lead us off topic, yes I find it difficult to believe. Though I will say that one piece of anecdotal evidence in the favor of your proposition that I've noticed is that the greater the intelligence of a creature, the more they seem capable of mild forms of philanthropy, which is reciprocity. You find it difficult to explain philanthropy in relation to natural selection? For instance, there are stories of dolphins helping drowning victims. A fish would not even have the mental capacity to know you were drowning, let alone help. Altruism is not just doing nice things in the hopes that someone will do something nice for you in return. A truly selfless act goes against natural selection since the only premise of natural selection is survival! Does the selfish gene explain why MA2 (SEAL) Michael Monsoor jumped on a live handgrenade, knowing full well it would kill him? No, as it is the very antithesis of natural selection. When these actions come about there are few words to describe such nobility. And dry science terms have never sufficed to describe such ineffable actions. Coyote;Message 32 writes: I think your understanding of this is flawed.First, the "survival of the fittest" is a misnomer, and wasn't even a part of Darwin's theory. It was added a decade later by someone else. And second, much of evolution works at the populational, rather than the individual, level. Favorable mutations spread through populations, while unfavorable ones often are fatal to a single individual. Also, with many populations group cooperation is critical to survival, rather than individual strength. Look at baboon groups. This is why grandmothers, past childbearing age, can influence the spread of their genes--through child care, passing on accumulated knowledge, etc. By helping the population at large her own genes are passed on as well. So no, altruism is not the antithesis of natural selection; it is a survival mechanism. Fracking DUH!!!? How could you have been so self-blinded to have missed this one?
NJ;Message 33 writes: People that jump on grenades and people who opt not to have children pretty much dispel the notion that natural selection is all that drives the human condition. These stale, ad hoc explanations have never sufficed, and I doubt they ever will. We're not amorphous blobs or a random collocation of well-formed cells imprisoned by our DNA. Its in these actions that I've always seen a spark of the Divine, whether I fully comprehend it or not. dwise1;Message 34 writes: We lose our perspective in modern society. Think back to when these traits would have evolved. Small tribes in which not only were many members related, but also which directly provided the support for one's widow and orphans. You watch out for your other tribe members, even giving up your own life, in order to protect them and, indirectly, to perpetuate your own genes both through your kin and by ensuring that your own progeny and kin would be provided for to maturity.Coyote mentioned "survival of the fittest" (to be honest, I didn't follow who had brought it up; I only saw Coyote address it). OK, so what is fitness? Which is more fit? The meanest most arrogant SOB in the valley? Or the one who cooperates with others? The SOB would be more fit if we were not a social animal and if the case were that it was everybody for oneself. Is that the situation? Or rather was that the situation when these traits (could we call them "instincts"; perhaps better to call them "proclivities")? I would submit, "hell no!". Back in hominid tribal prehistory, no hominid was completely self-sufficient. OK, maybe some were, but the ones who could support and provide for themselves and a mate and be able to successfully raise a brood to mating maturity, a brood that itself could do the same as their Pa did, for generation after countless generation? I would think that the chances of that line surviving would have been vanishingly small. Now, a cooperative line would be more successful, more fit. A team player. One who would join with a tribe and cooperate with tribe members, even to the point of sacrificing himself for the tribe. Because the tribe sticks together and takes care of its members. Through cooperation, the group ensures the survival of all its members, even the weakest and most vulnerable. Spreading one's seed is the least significant act in ensuring the survival of one's genes; the significant act is ensuring the survival of one's progeny to reproductive maturity. And the key to that survival is the survival of the tribe. So the survival of the tribe can indeed trump one's own personal survival. OK, that was then. So this is now. There's no tribe anymore, it's a super-tribe. We're no longer related in some way with our fellow super-tribe members. We get assigned to a hunting party nowadays (AKA "co-workers", AKA "ship-mates", AKA "brothers in arms") and we can be nearly absolutely guaranteed not being related to anyone in our combat squad (most especially after the Sullivan brothers). So why would we act altruistically? Why would we not only be willing to lay down our lives for people not even remotely related to us, but would do it without a second thought? The reason is simply that that is the way that our brains are wired. Oh, to be sure, combat training plays directly on those "instincts" that we're wired with and for good reason (I have myself served for 31 years and have three more years before they force me to retire). And our brains didn't get wired in the present day, but rather in the ancient past, in the tribes populated by our relatives and by those who would directly care for our family and our own personal contribution to the gene pool. How could altruism possibly not be due to natural selection?
Your insistence that altruism is the antithesis of natural selection makes absolutely no sense. The chain of posts supports my statement that the position you had stated, whether sarcastically or not, makes not sense. If you disagree, then please make the case for your stated, sarcastically or otherwise, statement. Please show that you were indeed tring to make sense and not merely being "sarcastic".
dwise1 writes: Is that how you went about it? of course not! Because that is not how we breed, now is it? You bred in accordance with the natural drives that we all possess. In accordance with human nature. To do it in a completely rational manner would be an aberration. Really? If that were so, we'd all act upon these sex drives with reckless abandonment, and jump on the first girl we thought was attractive and start raping her. Is that your Darwinian version of how sex is in human beings? OK, that is so far off-the-wall nonsensical that you must be sarcastic yet again. Why do you need to be so fracking sarcastic all the fracking time? What is wrong with you? There's an old creationist canard from the 1920's (for cryin' out loud!) that if we tell the kids that they are animals then they will behave like animals. How else are they going to behave? Get a fracking clue, already! Yes, they will behave like animals. Just as all of us behave like animals. Like homo sapiens sapiens! Hello!!? Get a fracking clue! We are humans. Humans are animals. Human have a set of behaviors, inclinations, instincts, etc, which is called "human nature". Therefore, humans will tend to behave in accordance with human nature. "Tend", since aberrant behavior is known to occur. Does human nature normally involve raping every girl we are in any way attracted to? Uh, no! So why do you immediately assume that human nature dictates that we rape? Is that your own inclination? If so, then I advise that you seek professional help. "reckless abandonment"? Where the frak does that come from? Again, please seek professional help if that is your idea of "normal". Human nature involves forming strong pair bonds, bonds that need to endure long enough for the resultant offspring to survive to reproductive maturity. That has nothing to do with raping randomly selected females, nor with "reckless abandonment". I do realize that you must love sarcasm extremely, but to the exclusion of all reason?
dwise1 writes: In most such cases, a soldier or marine jumps onto a grenade to save his comrades. It's a part of human nature Then why do some humans, few humans, possess it, and most don't? Indeed, what are the numbers? How could we know until each and every one of us has been put to the test? We won't know how someone will act until that person has been placed in that life-or-death situation. And how could we possibly justify putting everyone to that test? Especially since it would wipe out every person with the "altruistic gene". And remember, that gene gets passed on either through ones own offspring or through ones nieces, nephews, or cousins. If you ensure the survival of your cousins to continue the line, then you have succeeded. Do we have actual statistics of fire teams saved by a member, as opposed to those teams lost for lack of an altruistic member? That would be needed to support your question of how many have this trait.
dwise1 writes: in the case of an evolved human nature, we can examine it and see where it would make sense and even be able to work out how it could have evolved. We don't see anything like that, and it is rested upon pure conjecture to assert it. You don't know that people jump on grenades, against natural selection, in order to fulfill some evolutionary purpose. Rather, evolution is the only means that you are willing to accept, and so you have to think of reason why it must be that way. But you don't know that in any kind of empirical sense. You are just guessing. By all means, feel free at any point to substantiate the audacious claim. "against natural selection"? That is pure nonsense! If it is truly "against natural selection", then do please explain how that would be. More than one of us have already explained to you why it isn't and you have provided no cogent objection to our explanations. Nor do they do it "to fulfill some evolutionary purpose". As I have tried -- and obviously failed -- to point out, the actions we take are due to human nature, not to some ber-rational appreciation for our particular place in the complete scheme of the further evolution of our species. Now, yes, we can look back and work out how such actions fit into a evolutionary view. But the situation still stands that an evolutionary explanation is the only one that makes any sense; by your own admission, you cannot make any sense out of your own non-evolutionary approach.
Now, could it be as you describe? Sure, anything is possible. But you will find it more and more ridiculous as time goes on. You will find that more and more hypotheses will have to be formed in order to make sense, in order to cover up the discrepancies as you go along. Altruism obviously presented a problem with natural selection which is why it was necessary for Dawkins to write a whole book on why it doesn't really present a problem, only that one appears that way superficially. Really? And what book was that? I am only familiar with [b]The Blind Watchmaker[/i]. And while you're at it, where did Dawkins' book go wrong? As you seem to imply.
The rest of your post does not apply to me because I'm not a creationist. I am perfectly content on accepting large portions of the theory of evolution to describe heredity and natural tendencies. This one does not make any sense. At the least, concede that it is the antithesis of Darwins own theories concerning natural selection. Could you please be more specific -- very specific, meaning citing the precise text -- where your assertion is true of "Darwins own theories concerning natural selection." I must admit that I do not follow Darwin dogmatically, since much more has been learned since his time. I mean, it's not as if Darwin had written some Divinely-inspired holy book, now is it? Science does not anchor itself dogmatically to an old source, but rather proceeds from it through new research and new developments. Are you advocating that science should shun new discoveries and cleave dogmatically to original documents? Why? Yet again, you're not making any sense. Are you being sarcasitic again? Why must you be sarcastic all the time? Edited by dwise1, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
|
Granny Magda Member  Posts: 2462 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 3.8 |
Hi NJ,
The assertion throughout this thread is that atheism produces more moral people than Christians, which is silly, not because it is or isn't true, but because these kind of comparisons are asinine. Well, for a start, I don't see why the comparison is asinine. Either theism or non-theism will be better at promoting good morals than the other, or maybe they are equal, but if we make no attempt to compare the two, we won't be any closer to knowing. It is clearly a very complex issue, and one that would be incredibly hard to answer in a concrete way, but I don't see why we shouldn't try. As far as I can see, the assertion in this thread is not that so much that atheism produces morally superior people or that religion produces morally inferior people, because none of us really has enough info to answer that categorically, but simply what the OP says; good behaviour doesn't require superstition. This is a constant irritant to atheists. We are constantly accused of having no moral framework, of abandoning morality in favour of amoral selfishness. Most of us find this insulting and patronising, because it simply isn't true. In order to combat this falsehood and demonstrate that morality is, in fact, not based on religion, it is necessary to compare and contrast the moral outlooks of atheists and theists. Bluegenes has chosen to do this by reference to crime rates and rates of religious belief in various countries, but there could be other means of comparison. Comparing crime/altruism against atheism/theism in various places is just his way of giving the lie to the "atheism = immorality" nonsense, not to claim total moral superiority. (Of course I can't speak for anyone else, but that is how I read it.) You chose to bring up the Monsoor case. You say that he was not consciously thinking of promoting his pseudo-tribes genetic success as he chose to sacrifice himself, and I agree with you, but equally, I doubt very much that he was pondering what Jesus would do either. Was his action based on religion? If so, how?
If you'll note, Idi Amin was an atheist, and look what he had done in Uganda. Is there some connection? Can I now scourge atheists all across the world? Can I now scourge Christians all across the world now? You seem to be saying that evil men are evil men, whatever their religious affiliations. Naturally I agree. It seems though, that you have only proved the OP correct. Joseph Kony is deeply religious and he is a monster. You are religious and you are not. Ergo, morality is not based on religion but is largely independent of it. I would like to point out however that there is a difference between Kony and Amin. Kony does what he does in the name of the Biblical God. This is not his only motivation of course, tribalism plays an enormous part as do many other factors, not least, good old fashioned lunacy. But he is acting in large part as an expression of his horribly misguided religious fervour. Idi Amin didn't commit his atrocities in the name of atheism. Indeed if he ever claimed atheism motivated his actions at all, I am unaware of it.
Try and remember that it was Dwise and Bluegenes that have asserted that Christianity is responsible for all this death. DWise and Bluegenes didn't even mention Uganda. No-one is suggesting that Christianity is the root of all evil, merely that is is behind some evil.
It's not that atheists or Christians, in and of themselves are evil for any particular brand of atrocity, but rather a common thread that unites them. Angry fundamentalists. They both share more in common than they have differences. I kind of agree with that. I think that the characteristic that unites the most evil people is simply fundamentalism and merciless adherence to dogma, be it religious or secular. Just ask yourself this though; who is more likely to be the fundamentalist? Atheists or theists? How many atheist fundamentalists, willing to kill in the name of no-God can you name? How many theists? If uncompromising dogma is the root of this particular variety of evil, then religion must take credit for originating it. Mutate and Survive
|
|||||||||||||||||||
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024
