Jazzns' History of Belief

Why?If you believe hell exists isn't it something to be feared and avoided?

I don't think that is exactly what people are saying.What we mean is that there comes a point when the interpretation of something so far outweighs it's explicit meaning that the original text is of barely any consequence at all. It becomes simply a pointless prop for what one believes anyway.You don't seem to be so much basing beliefs on interpretations of the bible as interpreting the bible to be in line with your already held beliefs. In which case that it is the bible becomes irrelevant. I could interpret Lord of the Rings and come up with something that matches my pre-existing moral stance.

That the bible has acted as some sort of catalyst for you personally I don't think is being disputed. But others have read the bible and it has acted as a catalyst for very different conclusions. If you torture it for long enough you can make the bible support pretty much any moral philosophy. From gay hating war mongering fundamentalism to peace and love hippy liberalism. It’s just a matter of interpretation. So how do we decide who is right and who is wrong? Who really has an insight into what God really means? How do you know? What you call your "understanding" of the bible and God is your interpretation. This comes from within you. And what makes you "you" is in turn a product of various factors.We'll never know now but I'd bet that if it hadn't been the bible something else would have inspired you along a similar path at some point. Because you were obviously receptive to the sort of compassionate message you advocate as biblical.Don't give God all the credit.

I think you misunderstand the term "survival of the fittest". The "fittest" can (and indeed very often does) mean most co-operative, altruistic and all those other things you rightly hold in high regard.

But reciprocal altruism is a pretty well established component of evolutionary biology isn't it?The world is a complex, volatile and unpredictable place. And fitness is a relative and situation dependent term. Unless one can guarantee to always be the fittest at all times and in all situations it pays to altruise if one is part of an interdependent social species.Also — Given our discussions on Robert Wright previously — It is worth pointing out that the entire basis of his objective morality argument is based on evolved altruism.

I am now unclear as to whether you agree that altruism is something that has evolved or whether you still consider it to be something that cannot evolve.....? Yes - That is the root of it. Instinctive altruism. But like our propensity to seek out fat and sugar it doesn't really have the evolved-for effect in modern society. Our altruistic tendencies apply in ways that don't really make sense in a modern society because they evolved in a small hunter gathere community. But that doesn't make us any less altruistic.

You now seem to be applying a fairly unique definition of "altruism" to make it sound like something that requires exactly the sort of God you believe in.The sort of altruism we actually observe is well accounted for in evolutionary terms. In fact the altruism we observe is absolutely at the root of the sort of arguments (as espoused by Robert Wright) that you have previously advocated as leading to some sort of non-zero-sum objective morality.Take away evolved altruism and any mathematical notion of morality of the sort you have championed previously goes out the window too.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

If you don't accept altruism as an evolved trait then I don't see how you can accept any of Robert Wright's argument that there is an objective morality or definite direction to moral progress. Reciprocal altruism forms the entire basis of his arguments on this.If you do agree that altruism is an evolved trait then I am not sure what the disagreement is here. Have a look at this vid. Robert Wright on Non-zero-sum game theory and compassion

We are evolved to seek out attractive mates, high calorie food and adrenaline inducing pursuits. The modern day result of these tendencies is pornography, Big Macs and the XBox. Not quite what nature intended.Likewise our evolutionary past results in altruistic behaviour. Which means that when images of people starving on the other side of the world are beamed into our sitting rooms in many cases we feel compelled to do something about it.If you are going to give God credit for making us altruistic to strangers in faraway lands you should also blame him for making us want to stuff our faces with burgers and cheesecake. Because it is all part of the same misplaced evolved natural tendencies at work.

So you agree that altruism is a trait that is a product of biological evolution but you can't believe that certain acts of altruism are the result of purely physical biology at work.You seem to be having your (high calorie) cake whilst scoffing it. I thought that was my entire point regarding the evolved nature of altruism. Most of it is instinctive. Evolved from an evolutionary past when we were in closely related hunter gatherer communities. Thus making altruism, reciprocal or otherwise, very far from a conscious calculation of anything at all. You keep making this distinction between "reciprocal altruism" and "pure altruism". This kinda indicate that you are missing the entire point of how altruism has evolved. But Wright's entire materialist hypothesis is based on altruism having evolved. There is no non-evolved divine "pure altruism" innate in humans because if there were the entire non-zero-sum game theory aspect would be utterly redundant. Wright's talk of a moral direction and objective morality is based on the maths of non-zero sum game theory. Not on inner "pure altruism" shaping things somehow separately. Yes - But what exactly does Wright mean by "god"......?Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

How on Earth are you deciding which human natural tendencies to credit God with and which not to?Is he responsible for all such proclivities or only the ones you happen to consider godly and positive about?

I am not convinced you understand the role of non-zero-sum game theory in Wright's analysis. It forms the entire basis of his objective morality and moral compass analysis. What he calls "divine" is essentially a form of mathematical truth. It shares more in common with the Platonic notion of a perfect circle than it does the Christian (or indeed any religious) notion of God when you really look at it. It isn't even really deistic in any sense that I understand deism as realting to some sort of supernatural being of some sort. Now I don't completely buy into this whole analysis - It seems to be very subjectively picking and choosing which human evolved traits to consider special in some sense - And I certainly wouldn't use the words "god" or "divine" to describe any non-zero-sum game theory abstractions. No matter how mathematically "true" they may arguably be. But I think I understand what he is saying.Frankly I think his terminology is a bit of an act of appeasement. Let's for the sake of argument accept this as true. Do you then accept that God has also given us psychological proclivities? Is he responsible for ALL human psychological tendencies? Or just the ones you think are positive?

Nowhere that I have seen does Wright equate his description of "god" or "divinity" or "purpose" with anything other than the mathematical Platonic notion of non-zero-sumness. Whilst the language he uses certainly provides the leeway theists desire he never explicitly advocates anything that could be considered an intelligent conscious designer of any sort. That you interpret his arguments in a way that is compatible with your theism points to his non-explicit appeasement of such beliefs. I would argue that his language is misplaced. By the terms of his own argument you might as well call Pythagoras theorem "divine".Furthermore his examples are deeply selective. One could equally argue that selfishness is as innate and necessary as altruism for evolutionary success. An entirely selfless species wouldn't last long would it? So actually it is the balance between individual selfishness and evolved altruism that is the interesting question here. This question of balance and how it is achieved he entirely ignores in his thesis. Instead he focuses entirely on the altruistic aspect because, he like you, consider this "special". OK. Do you agree that humans are psychologically predisposed to various things which are not particularly positive in a modern day context (food choices, sexual urges etc.)?

Indeed he does. But all of my quotes from Message 71 were from later on in the same chapter you are quoting the beginning of. A chapter called "Afterword: By the way what is God". And what is being called "god" ultimately amounts to little more than the abstract existence of non-zero-sum logic jazzed up with some (IMHO) inappropriate terminology. His language certainly follows that path. But the concepts he applies such language to don't seem to be any more godly than perfect circles, Pythagoras theorem or some mathematical notion of the electron. Not so much a trap as me seeing how far and how consistently you will follow the logic of your thinking. But humans do have evolved psychological predispositions. Right?Would you agree that humans are instinctively altruistic at times?
Would you agree that humans are instinctively selfish at times?
Would you agree that humans are predisposed towards certain food types?
Would you agree that humans possess instinctive sexual urges which are not always conducive to lifetime monogamy?Which of our psychological proclivities should we give God credit for? All of them? Some of them? Do we? In fact who is "we"....? Link. Increasingly it seems that common conceptions of freewill are illusory.Edited by Straggler, : Chnage link to message 71

But his use of "purpose" again simply seems to be referring to directionality that is the result of non-zero-sum logic. If that qualifies as "purpose" then I am not entirely unsympathetic to the idea of "purpose" myself. But the fact that Wright invokes Dan Dennett (of all people!!!) to his cause rather emphatically tells me that what he means by "purpose" and what you mean are not the same thing here. At the very least there is some serious conflation going on. To invoke Paley and Dennet as advocates of "purpose" in the same sentance is frankly intellectually unjustifiable.But whilst people like Dennett are unequivocal in their use of such language I can certainly see why you see Wright as essentially theistic. He conflates and equivocates and implies a great deal. Terms such as "purpose" and "designer" and "transcendental" and "divine" (and even "god") are used in ways that can easily be construed to be very theistic indeed. But if you actually look at the concepts he is applying these terms to they are not at all recognisably godly. More like Platonic logical entities vaguely mathematical in nature. All of it derived from non-zero-sum logic. So it's all cultural/social as far as you are concerned?They call prostitution "the oldest profession". It has existed in every society and culture ever known to man. Do you think this is simple coincidence? Or does it tell us something rather fundamental about human psychology?I put it to you that if a particular behaviour is humanly universal throughout history then it is not coincidence at all. Rather it is the product of common human psychology. Ultimately a product of evolutionary "design".So - If we are going to give some sort of conscious intelligent designer credit for things like altruism - We should also blame them for things like the the obesity epidemic and the promiscuous nature of our species. Sure we do. So why is it you want to eat that cheesecake when you know you should be eating that broccoli? Why is it that advertisers fill their advertisements with sexually attractive young women when their target market is married middle aged men? We have choices. But we are indisputably "designed" to find some choices more tempting than others.Who or what designed us that way?