Religion without hell?

I know. Why is it so hard for people to act altruistically? Was it because of selfish genes within us?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Andya Primanda:
I know. Why is it so hard for people to act altruistically? Was it because of selfish genes within us?

---

I can't think of a compelling reason why a true altruism would develop. Actually, I can't think of a truly altruistic act at all-- that is, an act which unquestionably has no benefit for the actor.So yes, I think selfish behavior is embedded in our biochemistry.------------------
www.hells-handmaiden.com

...which would really make a good excuse for the need of a moral system. Anyway, we know that without rules, we tend to follow our selfish selves (forgive the pun).

quote:

---

Originally posted by Andya Primanda:
...which would really make a good excuse for the need of a moral system. Anyway, we know that without rules, we tend to follow our selfish selves (forgive the pun).

---

I agree. Morals, religion, government, ethics.... all there to make us work together on a scale larger than that of two or three friends.------------------
www.hells-handmaiden.com

It's hard because of choice. I think terms such as selfishness, and altruism quickly lose their original meaning when associated with biological systems. There are no selfish genes, selfish plants, or altruistic fish, it's not appropiate to use those terms that way in my opinion.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

Well, we are stuck with those terms [no] thanks to Dawkins. Can't you consider those terms as metaphorical? Of course DNA doesn't know what it is doing, it just replicates. DNA have no consciousness so you are right that it cannot be selfish or altruistic. Maybe you can suggest another term to replace Dawkins' frequently misunderstood 'selfish gene', Syamsu?

It's not so much a case of people misunderstanding, but more a case of Dawkins writing in a convoluted way. It is perfectly sensible to be a nazi-racist on account of Dawkins works of pseudoscience.(or that of other populists-Darwinists such as Haeckel, or Lorenz).I thought selfsustaining might replace selfishness, but then I really do not understand what Dawkins means by selfishness. As far as I can tell, everything that has a chance of reproduction would be noted as selfish in Dawkins doctrine.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

I have to ask - have you actually read "Selfish Gene"? This isn't even his best or most popular work - it's an interesting perceptual piece but hardly earth-shattering, and certainly not being used as the basis (as you have repeatedly stated) for some kind of neo-nazi political movement. You are far over-emphasizing the influence of this one "popular science" book. Dawkins's "Climbing Mount Improbable", "Blind Watchmaker", and "Unweaving the Rainbow" are all much more popular and probably more influential.Other than Dawkins, for whom you somehow have developed a special hatred, have you ever read ANY other science popularizer? I'm thinking of people like Gould, Zimmer, Futuyma, Mayr, Eldredge, Conway-Morris, Wilson, etc on the evolution side, or Sagan, Azimov, Hawking on the cosmology side, or Shermmer and Gardner on the basic science side? Do you have ANY basis for your assertions that scientists - especially evolutionary biologists - are today foisting a racist conspiracy on the world?Haeckel I admit could probably be considered a racist since he created a society in Germany - the Monists - around the turn of the 20th Century that tried to prove Europeans were the epitome of evolution. Of course, the Monists went out of existence in the early 1920's - in the competition of ideas theirs were untenable primarily BECAUSE they were racist at core - and were overturned by accumulated evidence. Even so, Haeckel's biology was pretty sound; it's the social and political aspects of his personal interpretation that were fallacious.I wish you would get off this bald assertion kick and actually post some evidence for your claims.

In my opinion Dawkins is seriously evil. I don't think it's wise to bring in evidence other then the evidence you can produce yourself. You give some (faulty) interpretation of Haeckel, and omit any mention of Lorenz. The rest of your post also has much emphasis on damagecontrol. I think it's useless to discuss this way.As before, take the selfish gene theory and philosophise about it for some hours, as Dawkins encourages people to do. Put it in the back of your mind for some time, and see how nature and society appears to you on account of it.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

quote:

---

Originally posted by Syamsu:
In my opinion Dawkins is seriously evil. I don't think it's wise to bring in evidence other then the evidence you can produce yourself. You give some (faulty) interpretation of Haeckel, and omit any mention of Lorenz. The rest of your post also has much emphasis on damagecontrol. I think it's useless to discuss this way.

​

As before, take the selfish gene theory and philosophise about it for some hours, as Dawkins encourages people to do. Put it in the back of your mind for some time, and see how nature and society appears to you on account of it.

​

regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

---

What in the world are you talking about? What "evidence" are you talking about? You have consistently failed to provide any evidence of any assertion you have ever made. I HAVE considered the selfish gene concept - I actually read the book. Perhaps I didn't make myself clear: I don't subscribe to all of Dawkins's theory. I don't think he makes a compelling enough case for selection at the genetic level. His idea is interesting because he is describing a genetic basis for behavior and talks a lot about the concept of memes (a valid if somewhat subjective idea). Of course, I'm an ecologist by training - I work with the results of natural selection on the individual organism, population, community and ecosystem levels. I haven't seen evidence that selection operates at the genome level. Therefore, once again, I question your insistance that Dawkins - especially - is particularly influential in the world of biology. Is that what you mean by damage control? If so, you have not provided any evidence that Dawkins is either "evil" or pernicious. Please do so now.You have failed once again to answer my questions:1. Have you read "Selfish Gene"?2. Have you read any of Dawkins's other works?3. Have you read any other evolutionary scientist or science popularizing? If so, which ones?Additional questions: How is my interpretation of Haeckel faulty? I told you he was wrong - his sociological theories were a bunch of bunk.What have you got against Lorenz (I assume you mean Nobel Prize winner Konrad Lorenz)? Or are you talking about some other Lorenz?

Konrad Lorenz worked for a Nazi race office, and more to the point he advocated Nazism on account of Darwinism. This is also referenced in the essay about Mendel that I referenced before. He later said he was sorry for his Nazi-past, but he never told anyone he worked for the nazi-race office, which was only found out some years ago, and in other circumstances he said he was mostly sorry for his nazi-past because he put eugenics in a bad light that way. So he still was a fervent eugenicist even after saying he was sorry for helping the Nazi's. http://www.mpiz-koeln.mpg.de/~loennig/mendel/mendel05.htmThe evidence of Dawkins being evil would show, or not, if you would do as I say, the evidence from personal experience.I think it's pretty useless go on about evidence, and then ignore this primary evidence.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

As to Lorenz, I have no idea. He was German during wartime - the most militarized nation since Sparta. He spent most of it, supposedly, in various Russian prisoner of war camps. Okay - he worked in a race office. Bad man. What does that have to do with Dawkins? As to that, what does that have to do with anything whatsoever? Lorenz was a nazi, according to you. Okay, he was a nazi. This has WHAT exactly to do with evolution? If you're still trying to insist that biological evolutionary theory is some kind of social darwinist evil plot based on the actions of now-dead fascists, you're really barking up the wrong tree. Are you claiming that all evolutionary biologists, ecologists, botanists, paleontologists, mainstream geologists, not to mention microbiologists, etc are all either deluded or members of some sinister racist plot? Because of the social and political beliefs of a few people who also happened to be evolutionists? That would be like me proclaiming that all Moslems are anti-Western terrorists because of a few nutcases. You really need to take a hard look at your rationale for this one.

quote:

---

The evidence of Dawkins being evil would show, or not, if you would do as I say, the evidence from personal experience.

---

WHAT EVIDENCE ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT, SYAMASU? I have absolutely no idea to what you are referring. You have not given me any "primary evidence" to ignore!! I can't respond intelligently until you explain what it is I'm supposed to be examining!If somehow you think Dawkins is the leader of a nazi cult based on "Selfish Gene", you MUST ABSOLUTELY provide some kind of evidence from the real world - not your private fantasy universe - that this is the case. I can't consider your imaginings to be legitimate without some kind of evidential support. I mean, is there some group somewhere proclaiming itself Fascists for Dawkins? An Evil Dawkinsonian Conspiracy to rule the world? Even a ridiculous pseudo-cult like the Monists would be acceptable as evidence that you're not just making the whole thing up. You want to convince me? SHOW ME THE EVIDENCE!!!!! I can't make it any plainer than that.And you still haven't bothered to answer my questions. What is it about you that you ignore everything anyone says to you, while at the same time calling people liars, ignorant, etc?

​

[This message has been edited by Quetzal, 07-01-2002]

It seems you dismissed the evidence about Lorenz as meaningful, so it's useless to give you that sort of evidence. Just tell me what it means to you to be born selfish as Dawkins says, that is the primary evidence I am talking about. What nature and society look like on account of Dawkins theory. If you can't find anything questionable when philosphising about Dawkins theory that way, then that would tend to weaken my case.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

Okay, now we're getting somewhere. Before I respond, let me make perfectly sure I understand what you're asking for. You want me to engage in a thought experiment concerning the implications of the "selfish gene" concept - i.e., the genetic basis of altruistic behavior as Dawkins has presented. Is this correct? If so, I'll plan on opening a new thread as I don't want to even more disrupt this thread off-topic.By the way: I didn't dismiss the Lorenz information you provided as not being meaningful. I dismissed it as being irrelevant - as I would for the relevancy of ANY individual's beliefs as they relate to non-scientific endeavors.

A thought experiment yes.What it means for children to identify as being born selfish.What it means for parents to view their children as being driven by selfish genes.What does this selfishness consist of?That sort of thing.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu