the psychological case for Evolution

I read his argument to say that evolutionary psychology's explantions remove god from the equation. I don't think that they do. Better referred to as: "Mod's improvement upon tomato's argument" It seemed to me like he was saying that accounting for the behavior without the need for sinful stuffs means that the process is not god's will. That's what I was saying didn't necessarily follow.

They don't remove all gods from the equation, the unfalsifiable ones can never be removed by definition! But it does show that a god is not necessary for humans developing a moral sense that is at odds with some of their natural instincts.God is therefore as removed from the equation as it is for any other scientific theory. One is welcome to be a 'theistic evolutionary psychologist' or something, just as you can be a theistic theory of relativitist or theist gravitationalist or whatever.If tomato was trying to argue that he could demonstrate that unfalsifiable gods are falsified by his argument - then I concur he has erred. But it seems to me he his just showing that the classic god of western culture...Yahweh in his various guises isn't needed to explain this paradox in our lives and I think by an appeal to parsimony should just be, for all intents and purposes, ignored.In that sense god is being left out, but its the same reason all those other unfalsifiable concepts are being left out too so its nothing personal <ego>The pumpkin has not blinded you so much as to prevent you from seeing clearly in this case, at least.</ego>

I agree. I think me and Tomato have got off on the wrong foot. I think this thread is a potentially interesting one. I think the foundation of his argument raises some questions worth asking. I suspect that I would agree with the underlying point he is trying to make. At least to some extent.But his use of some rather simplistic and not very apt examples has led me and him down a mildly confrontational blind alley.

I never claimed that science could disprove religion.
For that matter, science can't even disprove ancient polytheism.At one time, people believed in a sun god.
We now know that the sun is a mass of hydrogen and helium.
How do we know there isn't a sun god living inside that mass of hydrogen and helium?At one time, people believed in a thunder god.
We now know that thunder is caused by hot air meeting cold air.
How do we know that there isn't a thunder god confronting hot air with cold air?When it comes to defining "good" and "evil," we might be on common ground.
I can think of three explanations for thoughts, feelings, and behavior which is commonly called "evil":1. the gap between evolution and civilization.
We've already discussed this one.2. violation of our instincts.
Inventing a sexual perversion could fall in this category.3. masculine behavior.
Most of the examples in this category could fall in the other categories also.
Aggressive behavior could fall in this category.
Looking at girlie magazines, patronizing prostitutes, or watching a strip tease could fall in this category.
If the man is married, this could fall in category #1.
But even if he isn't, he is considered guilty of "committing adultery in his heart." (Matthew 5:27)Women do not patronize Playgirl magazine, male prostitutes, and male strippers as generously as the other way around because women need time to get to know the other person first.
A woman, therefore, is less likely to feel attracted to a man whom she does not already know.This is because a woman suffers a heavier penalty for choosing the wrong partner.
If a prehistoric man chooses a wrong partner, he can just walk on and find another one.
If a prehistoric woman chooses a wrong partner, she is stuck by herself with a caveful of children.
"Alimony"? "Child support"? "Skip traces"? Never heard those words before!We sometimes hear a woman say "Men are nothing but animals! They have only one thing on their mind, and that's sex!"
Perhaps we should retaliate by saying "Women are nothing but animals! They have only one thing on their mind, and that's relationships!"

"But, babies don't seem to have a great deal of instinctive fear full stop."Then why do they cry when a perfect stranger pounces on them and cootchie-coo's at them?
I say that that is because they are inbred with a perfectly healthy and perfectly natural fear of strangers.Some people, especially those trained in the counselling profession, try to tell us that one should be perfectly honest and spill his guts out to every person he meets.
I say that it is perfectly natural and perfectly rational to test the other person first."With reference to the bolded part, I have to ask 'how do you know?'"Because other species manage to practice monogamy without all this folderol--unless God has been delivering canine and feline Krishnas and Mohammeds to other species.All right, so there is such a thing as polygamy. And if you say that the monogamous instinct is more deeply ingrained in other species than in ours, I will agree.But I still say that monogamy gets the most votes. And I still say that most societies frown on a male who walks off and leaves a mate whenever he takes a notion, as is the norm with most other species.I just did a google search to find out if chimpanzees are monogamous and found that they are not. Since the chimps are our closest cousins, I admit that that weakens my case. But I still wonder why I have lived in three different cultures and all three are monogamous. Is that a mere coincidence?Edited by tomato, : No reason given.Edited by tomato, : No reason given.

Newborn babies pretty much giggle at anyone. As they get older, some babies become fearful of strangers who aren't there often...but some don't. It's tough making any sort of generalization, because humans are very good at behaving contrary to the way others behave.

. . . fast moving objects capable of killing them might suddenly appear on those strange things called roads that balls and other toys have a habit of rolling into.If you place a kid in the middle of a road and force him to watch a roaring car charge at him then the reaction would be pretty similar to if that car were a lion in my opinion.Okay, I'll change my stance:
It's not the automobiles that children are not afraid of but should be afraid of, it's the roads.I'll even change my initial claim:
I'll say that children are attracted to anything that is good for them or anything that resembles anything that was good for them in the forest primeval.
Conversely, children are repelled by anything that is harmful to them or anything that resembles anything that was harmful to them in the forest primeval.
Roads were not dangerous then, so children think they're not dangerous now.
Huge, ugly things that came charging at children were dangerous then, so children realize that they're dangerous now.
What children fail to realize is that if they venture into a road, a huge, ugly thing might come charging at them.Primitive interpretation of modern technology is not unique to children.
Tree branches and telephone wires are both long, thin, cylindrical, and horizontal, so birds react the same to both.
Tree trunks and fire hydrants are both thick, cylindrical, and vertical, so dogs react the same to both.In fact, no amount of education and no amount of maturity can ever overcome the tendency toward p. i. m. t.
When you watch a monster movie, you can say "It's only a movie" all you want to, but it won't do any good.PS How do you get that dark blue background for quotes?Edited by tomato, : No reason given.

For anything you see that you want to use just click the "peek" button in the lower right of the post that you are interested in. That opens another window with what the author typed exactly.{Added by edit - Also see here. This page is also available via the "dBCodes On (help)" link found to the left of all message creation and editing windows. - Adminnemooseus}Edited by Adminnemooseus, : See above.

Well familiarity breeds contempt. Kids in the modern world see roads, see people safely navigate roads and are led across roads themselves all the time. Any toddler who was innately and instinctively fearing of roads would be in a constant state of panic and terror if they lived in any significant urban area anywhere in the world. Likewise I suspect that any child raised surrounded by tame lions would not be instinctively afraid of lions. And yet most adults are quite capable of watching monster movies and not running for their lives in the way that they might well do if genuinely confronted with a 2 tonne man eating alien reptile (or whatever).I think the points you are trying to make about evolved and innate human psychology are valid. But they are more complex, more subtle, more generic than you are giving them credit for and thus not able to be demonstrated by the very specific and simplistic examples you are citing.I think this is the part of the problem with evo-psych as a science. It is not at all easy to make specific predictions regarding new phenomenon. Thus it often seems like it is just being made up as it goes along to incorporate the evidence as it is found in a rather ad-hoc and contrived manner. That is not to say it has no worth or that we shouldn't study psychology in that context.But it does mean it isn't easy and it does mean that extra effort is required to draw conclusions that are not influenced by cultural and persoanl biases.

Let's see you explain evolutionary psychology, then.

And what makes you think that I think that I can? Especially given that I have been consistently saying that the very nature of the subject makes it very difficult to study scientifically in a way that is not deeply prone to cultural and personal bias?If you just want a definition from me then how about the following:Evolutionary psychology attempts to explain the psychology of humans and other animals as products of natural selection and evolution. Essentially treating the physiology of the brain, and the resulting psychological effects of this physiology, no differently except in terms of complexity to the evolution and function of any other organ.I haven't looked this up at all and it certainly isn't definitive or complete. But I am not sure if you are trying to define what evolutionary psychology (EP) is in this thread or cite meaningful evidence for it? Or both?Have you read any of Steven Pinker's books at all? He makes a good argument for language as a very generic but instinctive human ability as a result of EP. For example.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

Although it is unethical these days, back in the glory days of psychology studies something of this ilk was tested.It is possible to make a child fear a rabbit through negative reinforcement.
But it is much easier (less negative reinforcement required) to get them to fear snakes or spiders.I'm not sure of course, but I'd be inclined to think that if you were really devious and raised a child by actors who all pretended to be afraid of rabbits and another by adults that were afraid of spiders - you'd find that the spider phobia was more readily transferred.So it might be a simplification to suggest that kids always fear lions by instinct whereas they aren't afraid of roads by instinct - but the EP prediction is that there would be a tendency to more quickly learn about certain dangers common to our past (I don't think lions really count, but maybe they do) and more slowly learn about dangers (and by 'learn about' I don't mean academically but 'develop an innate fear reaction proportional to the danger posed') that are not common to our evolutionary history.Ethically - being mean to child every time they see a bunny rabbit is frowned upon now - so this hypothesis has to rely on mostly older experiments and some carefully constructed less definitive modern experiments.

Yes I too was thinking of phobias. Both in terms of prevalence and the difficulty or ease with which different examples of specific phobias might be overcome. I was trying to work out how these could go some way to making Tomato's point more subtly.I think your "more readily transferred" approach sums it up nicely. So great minds think alike in this instance. Even if some great minds are quicker off the mark and more to the point than others.

If I remember correctly, I read How the Mind Works by Steven Pinker several years ago, but wasn't much impressed.
(Do you really think he pleads the case better than I do?
If you do, I guess I'll just have to live with it.)
I decided to give him another chance, so I ordered Blank Slate.I never heard of Robert Wright before, so I'll give him a try.
I also ordered Moral Animal.Edited by tomato, : No reason given.

I thought "The Language Instinct" was the best argued and most solidly evidenced (as far as I can tell with my laymans knowledge of these things) book Pinker has written.Human language acquisition might make an interesting side topic in this thread......?Pinker's other books "Blank Slate" and "How the Mind Works" were interesting but more woolly IMO. "The Stuff of Thought" I have not yet read. "The Evolution of God" is Wright's latest book. I haven't read it but would like to. "The Moral Animal" is again interesting and all the stuff on game theory and the prisoners dilemma etc. I found fascinating. But still I think a lot of the examples are very explanatory only in the sense that they seems to be fitting a preconceived theory to facts in a somewhat contrived manner. IMO.