Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The difference between a human and a rock
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2106 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 76 of 102 (539327)
12-15-2009 5:20 AM
Reply to: Message 72 by Bolder-dash
12-15-2009 2:47 AM


Re: Empirical evidence
I have even given you some empirical evidence...
As have others, I ask that you point out the empirical evidence you have for your contentions.
...and you have no empirical evidence, and yet....
You must be joking! I (i.e., science) has no empirical evidence? I have seen a substantial amount of evidence supporting the theory of evolution; I studied evolution, fossil man and related subjects in graduate school for six years. Then you have biology and genetics and all of those subjects which provide as much or more evidence than do the fossils.
Perhaps the problem is you are unwilling to see the evidence?

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 72 by Bolder-dash, posted 12-15-2009 2:47 AM Bolder-dash has not replied

  
Peepul
Member (Idle past 5018 days)
Posts: 206
Joined: 03-13-2009


Message 77 of 102 (539338)
12-15-2009 6:59 AM
Reply to: Message 72 by Bolder-dash
12-15-2009 2:47 AM


Re: Explaining the evil that does exist
For some empirical evidence that empathy is under genetic control and that it is selectively advantageous see my Message 62.
On the other hand, all you have produced are statements that the importance of morals to us means that they must have been created by a supernatural being. Nothing empirical about that.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 72 by Bolder-dash, posted 12-15-2009 2:47 AM Bolder-dash has not replied

  
DevilsAdvocate
Member (Idle past 3101 days)
Posts: 1548
Joined: 06-05-2008


Message 78 of 102 (539362)
12-15-2009 11:51 AM
Reply to: Message 69 by Bolder-dash
12-14-2009 10:31 PM


Re: Explaining the evil that does exist
Boulder,
Do you have children? Have you raised a human child from birth?
Why am I asking this question? Because if you have this experience (and I have), you realize that we instill, teach, indoctrinate, inculcate, admonish, etc our children with our values, our morality, our religious beliefs or lack thereof, our political views, our vices, our virtues which we have accumulated and learned from our parents, peers, teachers, mentors, preachers, political leaders, as well as ourselves. Stories exist of feral or somewhat feral children who were left to fend for themselves and had minimal to no human contact. Many of these children acted no different than the animals around them, with no concept of good and evil.
What is my point? My point is that without this self-perpetuating system of accumulated culture, values and knowledge, our human concept of morality would cease to exist. We see a hint of very ruditementary moral systems in the highly social organisms at the top of the intelligence ladder of life but these creatures do not have the immense accumulated knowledge that humans have. Without this system we would be lock-step with the rest of the animals with no concept of our anthropomorphic concepts of good and evil.

One of the saddest lessons of history is this: If we've been bamboozled long enough, we tend to reject any evidence of the bamboozle. We're no longer interested in finding out the truth. The bamboozle has captured us. It is simply too painful to acknowledge -- even to ourselves -- that we've been so credulous. - Carl Sagan, The Fine Art of Baloney Detection
"You can't convince a believer of anything; for their belief is not based on evidence, it's based on a deep seated need to believe." - Carl Sagan
"It is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring." - Carl Sagan, The Demon-Haunted World

This message is a reply to:
 Message 69 by Bolder-dash, posted 12-14-2009 10:31 PM Bolder-dash has not replied

  
Briterican
Member (Idle past 3949 days)
Posts: 340
Joined: 05-29-2008


Message 79 of 102 (539376)
12-15-2009 1:29 PM
Reply to: Message 68 by Bolder-dash
12-14-2009 9:31 PM


We invented morality
Bolder-dash writes:
I understand, you don't feel anything about a chicken, and won't mind what happens to it. But if you have to grab the chicken, and twist its neck to break it, and listen to it, will that bother you? What if it was a cow instead of a chicken, and you needed to hit it in the head with a hammer to kill it-feel anything? A horse?
The horse should be the same as smashing a rock to you, if this is all just about your own ability to pass on your genes.
The further you take this line of thought, the more unpleasant each stage becomes - to a human being. You are correct that if I had to twist the chicken's head off myself, I would find it a less than pleasant experience. That is not evidence that a supernatural being gave me the morality that makes such a thought repugnant. It is only evidence that we with our larger brains and complex social structure have developed guidelines which we (mostly) adhere to, called morals.
Modulous writes:
It does appear that we are like beasts, capable of creating social strategies and navigating the various challenges that come our way.
I agree wholeheartedly with this, but would extend it a step further to say that we ARE beasts, and the only thing that separates us in these respects from other animals is a long history of intelligent debate about exactly what is right and wrong. The "moral zeitgeist" is a shifting one - what is considered moral by 16th century standards might well be considered reprehensible by today's.
As others have pointed out as well, morals are not black and white.
You may have heard of Hauser's moral dilemmas.
In one hypothetical scenario there is a runaway trolley on a railway line which threatens to kill five people. If you were in a position to divert the trolly onto a siding thereby saving the lives of five people, you would undoubtedly do so. But what if the only place you could divert it was onto a siding where one old lady would be killed? Would you divert it, thus saving 5 lives and killing 1? Many can agree that, as horrible a decision as this is, it would be the right thing to do. (I'd like to hear a fundamentalist's response, as I suspect that in their mind the act of diverting the train and killing the 1 is murder, a violation of the ten commandments.)
Similarly, there are 5 patients in a hospital who need organs with haste or they will die. In the waiting room is a healthy young patient with a minor ailment who happens to be the right blood type to serve as a donor to the previously mentioned five. Would the doctor be making a "moral" decision to forcefully execute the one man in the waiting room and take his organs in order to save the 5 in need? Of course not... this would be murder.
As the specifics of these conundrums are expanded upon, there is more and more uncertainty as to exactly what the most "moral" course of action would be.
For a thorough treatment of the Darwinian origins of altruistic behaviour you should read "The Science of Good and Evil" by Michael Shermer. Likewise there is a chapter in Richard Dakwins's "The God Delusion" that discusses Darwinian rationale for morality. In that are listed no less than four Darwinian bases for altruistic behaviour.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 68 by Bolder-dash, posted 12-14-2009 9:31 PM Bolder-dash has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 80 by Bolder-dash, posted 12-15-2009 1:45 PM Briterican has replied
 Message 92 by Bolder-dash, posted 12-16-2009 7:27 AM Briterican has replied

  
Bolder-dash
Member (Idle past 3630 days)
Posts: 983
From: China
Joined: 11-14-2009


Message 80 of 102 (539383)
12-15-2009 1:45 PM
Reply to: Message 79 by Briterican
12-15-2009 1:29 PM


Re: We invented morality
And are you going to try to tell me that in Dawkin's fantasies that he provides the same level of empirical evidence that you demand from the other side?
In fact can anyone on your side provide empirical evidence that morality gave a selective advantage over the immoral which would have directly resulted in increased offspring? *Remember the level of empirical evidence you are asking the other side to provide before answering that-you are not contend with conjecture right?
I have seen some of the things your side tries to call evidence, such as the Peepul's UoB studies which suggest that people who are generous are more respected in society. Well, well, there you go, no more proof needed! And guess who was conducting these studies? Social scientists who were trying to build a case for survival of the kindest! What do you know, just look and ye shall find!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 79 by Briterican, posted 12-15-2009 1:29 PM Briterican has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 82 by Briterican, posted 12-15-2009 2:41 PM Bolder-dash has not replied
 Message 83 by Capt Stormfield, posted 12-15-2009 5:04 PM Bolder-dash has not replied
 Message 84 by bluescat48, posted 12-15-2009 5:49 PM Bolder-dash has not replied
 Message 99 by Peepul, posted 12-18-2009 10:51 AM Bolder-dash has not replied

  
1.61803
Member (Idle past 1504 days)
Posts: 2928
From: Lone Star State USA
Joined: 02-19-2004


Message 81 of 102 (539388)
12-15-2009 2:35 PM


Troll fodder

  
Briterican
Member (Idle past 3949 days)
Posts: 340
Joined: 05-29-2008


Message 82 of 102 (539389)
12-15-2009 2:41 PM
Reply to: Message 80 by Bolder-dash
12-15-2009 1:45 PM


Some evidence > no evidence. And we're still looking
I'd have to disagree with most of your post.
Bolder-dash writes:
And are you going to try to tell me that in Dawkin's fantasies that he provides the same level of empirical evidence that you demand from the other side?
There is some empirical evidence on the side of a Darwinian explanation for altruism, and none on the side of creationism. If you disagree, I would ask you again, as have Granny Magda, RickJB and Coyote, to provide this empirical evidence that you keep mentioning.
Bolder-dash writes:
In fact can anyone on your side provide empirical evidence that morality gave a selective advantage over the immoral which would have directly resulted in increased offspring?
I think you'd have to first come up with a non-anthropic definition of "moral" and "immoral". The ambiguous nature of "moral vs immoral" when used in any way not directly related to human behaviour prohibits you from adequately defining them outside the human experience. What "morals" does a rock have? What "morals" does a paramecium have? Meanwhile, can the creationist side give any empirical evidence showing another plausible answer to the origins of altruism or "moral behaviour"? Also, how do you explain the shifting moral zeitgeist within the human species?
Bolder-dash writes:
I have seen some of the things your side tries to call evidence, such as the Peepul's UoB studies which suggest that people who are generous are more respected in society. Well, well, there you go, no more proof needed! And guess who was conducting these studies? Social scientists who were trying to build a case for survival of the kindest! What do you know, just look and ye shall find!
This demonstrates a lack of understanding of the zest with which a great many scientists around the world pursue these questions. "Well there you go, no more proof needed!" sounds like a statement from a religious fundamentalist who finds his answers through ancient texts as opposed to any activity remotely resembling research, not a scientist. If you wish to imply that these specific studies were biased, that can and does happen, but any such bias is quickly spotted by the many other scientists working on the same thing who would be thrilled to "catch someone out" and replace their results with something more robust. I am, however, not in a position to address any possible bias in this specific study.
Science is a work in progress, but it is the ONLY method by which to understand nature that doesn't involve pixie dust or "chocolate sprinkles" as someone fondly described it in another thread.
I can only suggest further reading on your part, and a bit less of a defensive stance. We are still waiting for that empirical evidence of yours that you've mentioned, and we've pointed you to some sources for ours.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 80 by Bolder-dash, posted 12-15-2009 1:45 PM Bolder-dash has not replied

  
Capt Stormfield
Member (Idle past 456 days)
Posts: 428
From: Vancouver Island
Joined: 01-17-2009


Message 83 of 102 (539414)
12-15-2009 5:04 PM
Reply to: Message 80 by Bolder-dash
12-15-2009 1:45 PM


Re: We invented morality
...can anyone on your side provide empirical evidence that morality gave a selective advantage over the immoral which would have directly resulted in increased offspring?
You seem to still be confused about the difference between individuals and populations. A population of physically weak, socially strong organisms like humans (and our recent ancestors) does not benefit reproductively from excess individualism. The increased fecundity of one individual at the expense of cooperative behavior (aka morality) results in an environment of increased mortality for the population as a whole - including the offspring of the individual in question.
Capt.
Edited by Capt Stormfield, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 80 by Bolder-dash, posted 12-15-2009 1:45 PM Bolder-dash has not replied

  
bluescat48
Member (Idle past 4190 days)
Posts: 2347
From: United States
Joined: 10-06-2007


Message 84 of 102 (539424)
12-15-2009 5:49 PM
Reply to: Message 80 by Bolder-dash
12-15-2009 1:45 PM


Re: We invented morality
In fact can anyone on your side provide empirical evidence that morality gave a selective advantage over the immoral which would have directly resulted in increased offspring?
Why would immoral increase offspring or are you simply saying sexual intercourse in immoral? Thus this would show that morality was "man" invented.

There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002
Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969
Since Evolution is only ~90% correct it should be thrown out and replaced by Creation which has even a lower % of correctness. W T Young, 2008

This message is a reply to:
 Message 80 by Bolder-dash, posted 12-15-2009 1:45 PM Bolder-dash has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 86 by ICANT, posted 12-15-2009 6:02 PM bluescat48 has replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 85 of 102 (539426)
12-15-2009 5:57 PM
Reply to: Message 69 by Bolder-dash
12-14-2009 10:31 PM


Re: Explaining the evil that does exist
I thought the physical didn't explain why we would go to war, because the physical theory has taught us that by killing others we are making ourselves less safe.
Nope. The physical theory says that we are forced to make decisions about what to do using the decision making machine that is our brain. There are certain people, under certain contexts that are viewed as people we care for and protect. These are our allies. The people that cooperate with us and with whom we have cooperated. This cooperation increases our success in the world and this is can be a non zero-sum situation. By helping you, I don't necessarily hinder myself by a proportional amount.
However, there are some people who are not allied with us. They are in competition with our group for resouces. This brings about a conflict.
i thought that was how the whole concept of morality got into our population, because we gained some mutations which made us realize that not killing others was to our advantage?
No. It wasn't about 'realizing' anything.
You mean we also got another mutation which which made us realize that going to war was good for our survival? gee, I hope there are no other contradictory mutations we have to select for with natural selection, because now we are starting to run out of time.
There are no 'contradictory mutations'. There is a brain that has certain in built knowledge of mixed strategies depending on context. There is no reason to expect only Pure strategies (always go to war, always avoid killing), Mixed strategies can be in Evolutionarily Stable too.
I am not asking for an optimal solution from your theory, how about even a decent one.
I gave you one. Sometimes I'll choose to die.
Guilt and mourning serve absolutely no purpose as a means of propagating our gene pool.
That sounds like a definite statement of fact. How did you come to know this? From the statements that follow it appears to be based on nothing but your own incredulity. A response more in line with an appropriate level of epistemic humility would have been 'I can not see how guilt and mourning could serve a purpose that would be selected for'.
Anyway, I don't know all the details, obviously, but it is not impossible to consider possibilities here using the physical theory. Guilt is clearly a motivation to behave according to the prevailing social rules - to obvious benefit. Bereavement is more difficult, naturally. It certainly seems to be readily apparent to others when someone is greaving, and people react poorly to people that don't grieve. It maybe then that grief is just the motivation for causing us to advertise that we really do care about family and allies and don't see them as mere resources to be exploited.
Could you explain how guilt and grief make any sense in the supernatural theory?
We already know that guilt and stress actually lead to premature destruction of our body not increased survival.
Your focus on survival is telling. Behaviour that decreases survival prospects can still increase the chances of the allele that causes that behaviour to increase in frequency. Otherwise suicidal bee attacks would be mysterious.
You see no evidence that we are subconsciously aware of a great struggle between good and evil that continues for eternity?
That's right. For us to be aware of this, in any sense, it would need to exist. So I'd need to see evidence that there was this great struggle.
Our feelings of love and morality are feelings we can never escape from-unless of course we choose to become immoral
That's right, the morality exists within all of us, we can't choose to have morality, we can only choose to abandon it.
You just quoted yourself so I'm not surprised you think it was right. At least it shows consistency.
However - you don't explain anything. You simply say that sometimes we are moral, and sometimes we choose to ignore morality. That is an observation, and nothing more. Is there a supernatural explanation that does better than the physical one? How do these choices get made?
According to you, we wouldn't be able to make a choice of right and wrong, but instead would only be able to choose between what will make me survive longer and what won't. If something will make me survive longer on average, that is automatically the choice I will make.
No.
According to me, evolution will find a non-perfect non-optimal mixed strategy for attempting to negotiate around a world with other beings that are useful but dangerous. There is no need for an 'always act in fashion x' type of simple-minded description.
This won't necessarily be to the advantage of the individual organism that exhibits the behaviour, but it might to the advantage certain alleles, which will tend towards being increased in frequency in the population as a result.
And once again, why do you think it is that love and empathy hold such a high priority for our existence, which is completely disproportionate with any selective advantage your theory proposes it may or may not incur?
Another absolute statement of fact. How do you know it is disproportionate? That implies you've done the maths.
And no, my supernatural theory doesn't say that we love each other and sometimes decide not to, it says that we know the difference between right and wrong, and sometimes choose to ignore it.
Oh well that's much better explanation. We know what's right and wrong but sometimes we ignore that knowledge. But how does the decision to ignore it occur? Why does it occur? What's the explanation? You've just described observable facts, not given a theory to explain them.
Something other animals can't do, because they don't have a conscience.
And yet many animals are aware of social rules (right and wrong) and sometimes they follow them and sometimes they don't. That's another observable fact. So erm...you're just wrong on that account.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 69 by Bolder-dash, posted 12-14-2009 10:31 PM Bolder-dash has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 88 by Bolder-dash, posted 12-16-2009 1:29 AM Modulous has replied
 Message 89 by Bolder-dash, posted 12-16-2009 1:41 AM Modulous has replied

  
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 86 of 102 (539428)
12-15-2009 6:02 PM
Reply to: Message 84 by bluescat48
12-15-2009 5:49 PM


Re: We invented morality
Hi bluescat,
bluescat48 writes:
Why would immoral increase offspring or are you simply saying sexual intercourse in immoral? Thus this would show that morality was "man" invented.
I think the opposite it true and offspring would be decreased. Unless you call the disposing of 88 humans a minute unnaturally by abortion is moral.
God Bless,

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 84 by bluescat48, posted 12-15-2009 5:49 PM bluescat48 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 87 by bluescat48, posted 12-15-2009 10:15 PM ICANT has not replied

  
bluescat48
Member (Idle past 4190 days)
Posts: 2347
From: United States
Joined: 10-06-2007


Message 87 of 102 (539438)
12-15-2009 10:15 PM
Reply to: Message 86 by ICANT
12-15-2009 6:02 PM


Re: We invented morality
I think the opposite it true and offspring would be decreased. Unless you call the disposing of 88 humans a minute unnaturally by abortion is moral.
I'm not saying anything in regards to abortion in the line you quoted.
Again this instance shows the creation of morality by man. To some abortion is always immoral to others there are situation where it could be termed moral.

There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002
Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969
Since Evolution is only ~90% correct it should be thrown out and replaced by Creation which has even a lower % of correctness. W T Young, 2008

This message is a reply to:
 Message 86 by ICANT, posted 12-15-2009 6:02 PM ICANT has not replied

  
Bolder-dash
Member (Idle past 3630 days)
Posts: 983
From: China
Joined: 11-14-2009


Message 88 of 102 (539450)
12-16-2009 1:29 AM
Reply to: Message 85 by Modulous
12-15-2009 5:57 PM


Re: Explaining the evil that does exist
Nope. The physical theory says that we are forced to make decisions about what to do using the decision making machine that is our brain. There are certain people, under certain contexts that are viewed as people we care for and protect. These are our allies. The people that cooperate with us and with whom we have cooperated. This cooperation increases our success in the world and this is can be a non zero-sum situation. By helping you, I don't necessarily hinder myself by a proportional amount.
However, there are some people who are not allied with us. They are in competition with our group for resources. This brings about a conflict.
Ah ha, so now the concept of our inherited "innateness" of morality seems to have shifted from the previous argument. Now it is no longer something that just happens to be inside us that we inherited, it is actually something which we can control. We now can make a judgment about who are our allies, and who are not and we can shift our morality to suit our situation. So now, smashing a life that is not our ally is indeed the equivalent of smashing a rock, because they are not needed for us to survive, in fact they are in conflict with us to survive, so indeed we should smash them. In a crowded world that would mean smashing a lot of people who are in competition with us for food, resources, mates, etc.. Nothing wrong with this, because as you have just explained, this is how we are wired.
"Guilt and mourning serve absolutely no purpose as a means of propagating our gene pool."
That sounds like a definite statement of fact. How did you come to know this? From the statements that follow it appears to be based on nothing but your own incredulity.
Well, now you are not playing fair at all (perhaps that is wired into your being). Everyone of the statements about evolutionary presumptions are not based on fact. They are all just based on your own levels of credulity. If you think it could have been that way, then so it must be. Not a shred of anything other than speculation supports this idea of yours. You have interpreted the facts one way, in much the same way others have interpreted them another way-no side has an edge in this respect.
It maybe then that grief is just the motivation for causing us to advertise that we really do care about family and allies and don't see them as mere resources to be exploited.
Here again, you are at odds with the theory others here have put forth, that they have an innate morality inside them for all of humanity, which is beyond reasoning. You suggesting that it is just a reasoning proposition-morality for those we need (allies), and immorality for those we don't need. Smashing that stranger vying for your job wouldn't seem a very unreasonable thing under your scenario.
Your focus on survival is telling. Behaviour that decreases survival prospects can still increase the chances of the allele that causes that behaviour to increase in frequency. Otherwise suicidal bee attacks would be mysterious.
Um, yes my focus on survival is telling. As is your focus on assuming that actions which lesson your chance for survival would somehow benefit your alleles chance for survival. And, not so oddly as it turns out, bee attacks are mysterious, as are any genetic traits for a defense mechanism which when utilized causes instant death (ie bee stings). That one requires a whole lot of story telling, which almost sound they are statements of fact- a practice you claim to be firmly against (or at least against when non-evolutionists do it).
And yet many animals are aware of social rules (right and wrong) and sometimes they follow them and sometimes they don't. That's another observable fact.
Ah, once again, these are observable facts when observed by an evolutionist. Quite convenient. When exactly did you observe an animal knowing the difference between right and wrong as a fact-as opposed to an animal just doing what it wants to do?
Heck, if that were the case, I guess we wouldn't need to scold dogs, by yelling or hitting at them when they don't do what we want, or petting them or giving them food when they do, we could simply explain what is right and what is wrong, so they could decide for themselves, instead of forcing them to react to the threat of punishment and the promise of free food.
Again, I know in any argument, people always want to be right, but please don't use the idea of "my story is more believable than your story" to claim your rightness. It is only more believable to you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 85 by Modulous, posted 12-15-2009 5:57 PM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 102 by Modulous, posted 12-23-2009 8:14 PM Bolder-dash has not replied

  
Bolder-dash
Member (Idle past 3630 days)
Posts: 983
From: China
Joined: 11-14-2009


Message 89 of 102 (539452)
12-16-2009 1:41 AM
Reply to: Message 85 by Modulous
12-15-2009 5:57 PM


Re: Explaining the evil that does exist
And yet many animals are aware of social rules (right and wrong) and sometimes they follow them and sometimes they don't. That's another observable fact. So erm...you're just wrong on that account.
BTW, since you have already determined it as fact, that animals are behaving based on their knowledge of right and wrong, and not based on the threat of violence or reprisals from the stronger animals for not obeying the stronger animals desires- (like when the strongest male lion does we he wants until he is no longer strong enough to do as he wants?)- then I am now declaring that it is FACT that people are moral not because it benefits them or their alleles, but because we have this thing inside us called a conscience-which is not an evolutionary trait.
So erm, you are just plain wrong on this one.
Wow, it's easier winning arguments around here than I thought. I get to declare it! Whoopee!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 85 by Modulous, posted 12-15-2009 5:57 PM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 90 by Meldinoor, posted 12-16-2009 2:58 AM Bolder-dash has replied
 Message 93 by Modulous, posted 12-16-2009 10:14 AM Bolder-dash has not replied

  
Meldinoor
Member (Idle past 4809 days)
Posts: 400
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 02-16-2009


(1)
Message 90 of 102 (539456)
12-16-2009 2:58 AM
Reply to: Message 89 by Bolder-dash
12-16-2009 1:41 AM


Bolder-dash writes:
BTW, since you have already determined it as fact, that animals are behaving based on their knowledge of right and wrong, and not based on the threat of violence or reprisals from the stronger animals for not obeying the stronger animals desires- (like when the strongest male lion does we he wants until he is no longer strong enough to do as he wants?)
Lovely strawman. It comlements you're flawed understanding of evolution nicely. In fact, we could just have called this thread "Bolder-dash defeats his own brand of evolution" and watched you beat your strawman to death without having to waste time trying to explain to you how evolution is actually understood to work.
Bolder-dash writes:
then I am now declaring that it is FACT that people are moral not because it benefits them or their alleles, but because we have this thing inside us called a conscience-which is not an evolutionary trait.
So, animals know right from wrong ERGO humans act according to some kind of supernatural conscience. What was your evidence again? Oh, yes, you didn't have any. But you declared it. Very well Bolder, I declare that the earth is flat because all you stupid Round-Earthers can't explain why Scandinavians like to take hot sauna baths before skinny-dipping in the snow. So take that! Hah!
Now to address your previous post:
Bolder-dash writes:
Now it is no longer something that just happens to be inside us that we inherited, it is actually something which we can control.
You can not control the "innate" moral framework you have as a human. You can not simply decide to all of a sudden feel good about eating babies. To feel good about something we feel innately is bad requires loads of brainwashing and rationalizing.
The fact that we can sometimes act against our instincts, is nothing stranger than the fact that we can act against our instinct to avoid pain. If a burning house was coming down on me, I would rather get through the burning corridoor and experience pain for a few moments, than die in the collapse. This doesn't mean that I can turn the pain off.
Likewise, if someone I loved was being threatened by someone, I would be compelled to go against my inhibitions toward killing another human. And if there was great reward in doing something "immoral", my brain would have to judge whether I'd be better off doing the immoral thing or not.
Let's take infidelity as an example. Let's assume I was married, and at some point tempted to have an affair. How would my brain resolve the situation? Well, it might begin by weighing the instinctive desire to have several mates, against the consequences of such a decision. One (of many) consequence would be the social one, people wouldn't like me as much if they found out I was a cheater. (Just look at Tiger Woods) This of course is BAD, and would have been bad for our ancestors who needed the support of their group to survive. It is not surprising that natural selection would favour those individuals who felt bad about violating the rules of their group.
Contrast this with an individual in an open marriage. Now there is an agreement with his spouse, and with the community as a whole, that he can have extra-marital relations. Would he feel bad if he slept with another woman? No, because the consequences are gone! If, instead, we acted according to divine morals, wouldn't we still feel bad about sleeping with someone besides our wife?
Bolder-dash writes:
In a crowded world that would mean smashing a lot of people who are in competition with us for food, resources, mates, etc.. Nothing wrong with this, because as you have just explained, this is how we are wired
In the western world, people rarely compete for food or mates. In fact, the food on your table is probably produced by other people, so if you went around smashing them you'd have to make your own. We'd all revert to the stone age if that's how we lived. Each one gathering his own food. Do you really think you'd be more successful if you started "smashing" people indiscriminately?
Bolder-dash writes:
Well, now you are not playing fair at all (perhaps that is wired into your being). Everyone of the statements about evolutionary presumptions are not based on fact.
Kindly provide an assertion by "evolutionists" that is not based on facts and we can go from there.
Bolder-dash writes:
Here again, you are at odds with the theory others here have put forth, that they have an innate morality inside them for all of humanity, which is beyond reasoning. You suggesting that it is just a reasoning proposition-morality for those we need (allies), and immorality for those we don't need. Smashing that stranger vying for your job wouldn't seem a very unreasonable thing under your scenario.
Ok, let's look at the scenario you've given us. You're applying for a job, it goes pretty well, but as you leave the office you notice that the next applicant in to see the employer is a well-dressed, highly educated and effluent person. One week later you get a letter from the employer thanking you, but telling you that the position has been filled by someone else. For a moment there, don't your fists ball up? Might you not let loose an obscenity or two? Might you not fantasize about doing something mean to the person who took the job you wanted?
Your brain is expressing it's anger at the person who took the job, but, unless you happen to be psycho, it will also remember that killing the person will not get you the job either, and the social consequences would have you even worse off. It goes as far as it can go, muttering an obscenity, and then you return to your job hunt, hopefully better luck next time.
Notice, this is exactly what we expect from Natural Selection. Would NS favour an individual who killed his competing kin? Do you really think psychopathic individuals stand a better chance of survival in the real world? Why do you keep insisting that evolution would make us immoral?
Bolder-dash writes:
And, not so oddly as it turns out, bee attacks are mysterious, as are any genetic traits for a defense mechanism which when utilized causes instant death (ie bee stings). That one requires a whole lot of story telling, which almost sound they are statements of fact- a practice you claim to be firmly against (or at least against when non-evolutionists do it).
Statement of fact: Bees that sting in defense of the hive would not have passed on their genes if they survived. They are sterile, so the only way they will ensure the survival of their alleles is by keeping the queen (egg-layer) alive.*
Statement of fact: Bees that defend themselves violently against intruders will survive better than bees that don't. (Unless they are kept by a beekeeper who happens to have a fence).
Statement of fact: The fact that bees give their lives is not incompatible with evolution. The bees that die ARE making sure their genes are passed, yet they do not survive themselves.
Statement of fact: I'm a beekeeper, so if you have any other questions about bees, ask away.
Statement of fact: I sincerely doubt you even gave much thought to the reasons for bee behaviour before making your silly claim that "bee attacks are mysterious".
Bolder-dash writes:
Ah, once again, these are observable facts when observed by an evolutionist. Quite convenient. When exactly did you observe an animal knowing the difference between right and wrong as a fact-as opposed to an animal just doing what it wants to do?
Chimpanzees have been known to give their lives to rescue their kin. Link
Elephants and dolphins have been known to help injured individuals.
These are both statements of fact by the way.
Now these animals have evolved this behaviour in the exact same way that we have. Because by helping our kin, who share our alleles, we are promoting the survival of our alleles. We may not be promoting our own survival, but we are promoting the survival of our genes, and that is ALL THAT MATTERS!
Back when these altruistic traits would have evolved, individuals were usually surrounded by close relatives. By promoting the survival of nearby individuals, our ancestors would have promoted the survival of their own altruistic genes. In today's world it is no longer true that we are surrounded only by close relatives. But our genes don't know that yet, so we still behave similarly to our pack behaviour.
I challenge you to find something in my above statements that is pure fairy-tale, and we can discuss that. For now, accept that you've been misrepresenting how evolution really works, and try to understand what other people actually are saying to you.
Respectfully,
-Meldinoor
*Male bees (drones) also give their lives for the survival of their genes. They die in copulation. This means the hive will no longer have to support them after they've fulfilled their only purpose in life. But it also means that the queen gets the maximum amount of semen out of them (their genitalia are torn off and remain in the queen). While they die in their violent desire to have sex, and bees that sting die in defense of the hive, they are both doing it for the same reason. Which one is more moral? Which one is more in-line with a supernatural conscience bestowed upon the bees by a creator?
Edited by Meldinoor, : Removed spiteful comment. Sorry, I'm feeling rude today

This message is a reply to:
 Message 89 by Bolder-dash, posted 12-16-2009 1:41 AM Bolder-dash has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 91 by Bolder-dash, posted 12-16-2009 7:06 AM Meldinoor has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024