My Beliefs- GDR

It's terribly modern to chuck away the devil and blame ourselves. It's also terribly Anglican. But making god the good guy and us the bad, is far too convenient an invention given that God apparently made us. Well of course you do, but the problem is we've no reason to consider that as anything other than your personal opinion. This is more interesting because it touches on reality rather than your personal beliefs. You are saying that God gets actively involved somehow. I'd like you to say how and I'd like you to provide some reason why anyone would find what you say convincing.

So now you consider the scientific, evolutionary account of morality to be some sort of atheistic plot.......? Pardon.....?Genes exist. Attributes that facilitate the propagation of genes flourish.Now I could also talk about the commonality of human psychology, the fact that the human brain is an evolved organ, the effects of physiological damage to the brain on moral reasoning, MRI scans, moral and altruistic behaviours in non-human species, altruism, compassion et al as instincts borne from the ancestral environment, the golden rule AND our inclination to make exceptions to it as naturally derived....and so on and so forth.I could mention all those things. But there is no need.Because just the fact that genes exist and that attributes which facilitate the propagation of genes flourish puts the evolutionary account of morality on a level of objective evidence that undetectable Tom and his undetectable influence on some undetectable mind-body-problem-plagued aspect of ourselves can only dream of.I'm afraid that in terms of objective evidence there is just no contest.Here is Wright on evolution, compassion and the golden rule - Link

I probably tossed that off too quickly. The Bible essentially talks about the satan. As humans pretty much the best we can do when it comes to dealing with these things is to anthropomorphise them so that we can properly deal with it. Dealing with a specific devil seems to make things easier somehow.There does seem to be a force for evil that does suck large groups of people into things such as the Holocaust. Now whether that force is stems simply from our base nature, or whether there is a force actually acting against God’s nature I don’t know. I just happened to be inclined to the former. I do know that evil is a very potent force in our human consciousness.As far as it coming from God is concerned I just see evil itself as a necessary evil. If we are to become truly moral creatures then we have to have had the opportunity to freely and joyfully choose to be moral. My own particular belief though is that with God’s perfect justice the suffering that is endured as a result of sin in this world will be made right in the next. Sure, it is my belief. I don’t know it objectively. It is my subjective conclusion formed from what I objectively know. I don’t know how and I doubt I can say anything convincing. Certainly part of the reason I am so convinced is my personal experience which of course is meaningless to anyone else. I do contend though that we all have pangs of conscience. Presumably it is your contention that those pangs are exclusively the result of evolutionary processes. It is my contention that there is more than that involved, and that the processes have a pre-existing moral intelligence basis. In addition I contend that this intelligence still quickens our conscience by subtly influencing us to want to make the right moral choice. I realize that I am just re-stating what I said before, but the point is that we have subjectively come to opposite conclusions and that is all anyone can do.

I didn't say that. I often get accused of conforming my subjective conclusions based on my theistic beliefs. When that happens I don't consider that I am being accused of being part of a theistic plot. Interestingly enough he winds up by saying that nobody said that doing God's work was going to be easy.I really enjoyed Wright's talk and don't disagree with any of it. It does not however tell us anything about whether there is an ultimate plan or if Tom continues to nudge our conscience.He outlines the processes but doesn't delve into the subjective conclusion about whether or not the processes are mindless or intelligently designed.Here is a quote by Robert Wright his book Nonzero which I haven't yet read, but will eventually.

quote:

---

That biological evolution has an arrow -- the invention of more structurally and informationally complex forms of life -- and that this arrow points toward meaning, isn't, of course, proof of the existence of God. But it's more suggestive of divinity than an alternative world would: a world in which evolution had no direction, or a world with directional evolution but no consciousness. If more scientists appreciated the weirdness of consciousness -- understood that a world with sentience, hence without meaning, is exactly the world that a modern behavioral scientist should expect to exist -- then reality might inspire more awe than it does.

---

I was looking around for more material by Wright and found this. Robert Wright in NY TimesEdited by GDR, : To add the last bit.

Straggler and I aren't claiming this because we pulled it out of our ass (or arse for Straggler). We are telling you this because it is a fact. Altruism is also something that at the genetic level would selected for over selfishness. A group containing lots of altruists will have a survival advantage over a group composed mainly or exclusively of selfish individuals.There is plenty of evidence for this. You can start here: Kin selection

quote:

---

Kin selection causes changes in gene frequency across generations, driven by interactions between related individuals. This dynamic forms the conceptual basis of the theory of social evolution.

---

Read up on it. Learn the facts before you try to argue against this stuff, GDR. Are your kids not homo-sapiens? Umm, but it is the same gene pool. You and an individual from Uganda are cousins. We are ALL related, GDR. Did you go to grade school? Right, but since you guys don't operate on an individual level, and in fact work for the better of the ENTIRE SPECIES, you look after those people who are in other countries. Don't let our geographical locations fool you, GDR, we are all related. So what? You've adapted other charitable behaviors. You feel bad so you donate. Huh? Why would we subjectively need to conclude anything about that?- Oni

That is my a... not yours. I think this is wrong as an explanation for what is going on. We evolved with both kin selection and a strong xenophobia. Us vs them.What is happening not, I think, without knowing a damned thing about it all, that the kin selection is what is working here. At least not because everyone in the world is a "kin" (at least not a close enough one). In many cases evolved traits get confused when the environment changes as drastically as it has in the last very few millenia. Our tendency to support others is a side affect of the evolved kin selection which is meant to be supporting the local few dozen people of our village who actually are kins. It gets "out of hand" (like many of our eating habits do in todays world) and applies to non kins because we don't have the tribal boundaries defined as obviously, constantly and incessantly as they used to be.Just my guess is all.

Yes we can see the benefits of co-operative behaviour but that is not the same as altruism. You are making claims that just aren't provable any more than Tom is provable. In the hunter gatherer world and still today the tribes with the biggest meanest guys wiped out the tribes with the nicest guys.Francis Collins has a PHD in Physical Chemistry a degree in medicine and was chosen to head up the human genome project, which was successfully completed.

quote:

---

To my surprise, I found myself fairly easily compelled by his arguments about the existence of some sort of a God, because even as a scientist, I had to admit that we had no idea how the universe got started. The hard part for me was the idea of a personal God, who has an interest in humankind. And the argument that Lewis made there the one that I think was most surprising, most earth-shattering, and most life-changing is the argument about the existence of the moral law. How is it that we, and all other members of our species, unique in the animal kingdom, know what's right and what's wrong? In every culture one looks at, that knowledge is there.

​

Where did that come from? I reject the idea that that is an evolutionary consequence, because that moral law sometimes tells us that the right thing to do is very self-destructive. If I'm walking down the riverbank, and a man is drowning, even if I don't know how to swim very well, I feel this urge that the right thing to do is to try to save that person. Evolution would tell me exactly the opposite: preserve your DNA. Who cares about the guy who's drowning? He's one of the weaker ones, let him go. It's your DNA that needs to survive. And yet that's not what's written within me.

---

I don't pretend to understand genetics or evolution but Collins does and I'll repeat the one key line in this interview.

quote:

---

I reject the idea that that is an evolutionary consequence, because that moral law sometimes tells us that the right thing to do is very self-destructive.

---

This is not to say that he is right but he is likely better informed in this field than everyone else put together.I say again that regardless of where you have pulled this from you are using your pre-concluded atheistic beliefs to fit into your theories.

Surely you must have noticed that you've anthropomorphised Tom too? Good = God, Bad = Satan. There is no difference. The 'force for evil' is exactly the opposite of the force for good - the golden rule - but you don't ascribe this to any godly thing - only the nice things are god derived. Don't you see a problem here?

In response to Collins....

quote:

---

Collins’ case for the supernatural origin of morality rests on the further assertion that there can be no evolutionary explanation for genuine altruism. Because self-sacrifice cannot increase the likelihood that an individual creature will survive and reproduce, truly self-sacrificing behavior stands as a primordial rejoinder to any biological account of morality. In Collins’ view the mere existence of altruism offers compelling evidence of a personal God. But a moment’s thought reveals that if we were to accept this neutered biology, almost everything about us would be bathed in the warm glow of religious mystery. Does our interest in astronomy owe its existence to the successful reproduction of ancient astronomers? (What about the practices of celibacy and birth control? Are they all about reproduction too?) Collins can’t seem to see that human morality and selfless love may be elaborations of more basic biological and psychological traits, which were themselves products of evolution. It is hard to interpret this oversight in light of his scientific training. If one didn’t know better, one might be tempted to conclude that religious dogmatism presents an obstacle to scientific reasoning.

---

LinkIn fact on the subject of morality Collins seems intent on being wilfully ignorant:

quote:

---

Though other animals may at times appear to show glimmerings of a moral sense, they are certainly not widespread, and in many instances other species’ behavior seems to be in dramatic contrast to any sense of universal rightness.(Collins, 2006, p.23)

---

To whihc Harris responds:

quote:

---

One wonders if the author has ever read a newspaper. The behavior of humans offers no such dramatic contrast??? How badly must human beings behave to put this sense of universal rightness in doubt? While no other species can match us for altruism, none can match us for sadistic cruelty either. And just how widespread must glimmerings of morality be among other animals before Collinswho, after all, knows a thing or two about genesbegins to wonder whether our moral sense has evolutionary precursors in the natural world? What if mice showed greater distress at the suffering of familiar mice than unfamiliar ones? (They do.[11]) What if monkeys will starve themselves to prevent their cage-mates from receiving painful shocks? (They will.[12]) What if chimps have a demonstrable sense of fairness when receiving food rewards? (They might.[13]) Wouldn’t these be precisely the sorts of findings one would expect if our morality were the product of evolution?

---

The problem is that what Wright refers to as "God" or "divine" seems to be the Platonic mathematical existence of non-zero sum logic......(rather than some conscious loving being)That which (he argues) provides the direction for the naturally occurring expansion of the moral circle.Tom's relentless whispering as advocated by you here isn't remotely compatible with Wright's view of evolved morality as a consequence of kin selection and then non-zero-sum logic. How can it be when your entire moral position is based on the assertion that anything which is detrimental to the survival or procreation of the individual cannot possibly evolve.......?

I'm talking about altruism, not coopertation, but I can see where the two overlap. GDR, these are facts that we are explaining to you.Here, from the University of Standford: Biological Altrusim

quote:

---

If selection acts exclusively at the individual level, favouring some individual organisms over others, then it seems that altruism cannot evolve, for behaving altruistically is disadvantageous for the individual organism itself, by definition. However, it is possible that altruism may be advantageous at the group level. A group containing lots of altruists, each ready to subordinate their own selfish interests for the greater good of the group, may well have a survival advantage over a group composed mainly or exclusively of selfish organisms. A process of between-group selection may thus allow the altruistic behaviour to evolve. Within each group, altruists will be at a selective disadvantage relative to their selfish colleagues, but the fitness of the group as a whole will be enhanced by the presence of altruists. Groups composed only or mainly of selfish organisms go extinct, leaving behind groups containing altruists.

---

You're watching too many movies... Yes I know of him. He is a Christian who has let his beliefs in the Bible interfere with his science. There is no moral law. Knowing right from wrong is not a moral law. It's a by-product of evolving within a social group.That being said though, please provide the link where you got that quote from. It seems to be the case that religious websites have faked a lot of quotes concerning Collins and lie about his beliefs. What website did you find that quote in? Well, no, he is not. Better informed than him when it comes to the biological evolution of altruism are those who actually do research on the evolution of altruism - like the Standford Uni link I provided for you. What I have explained to you are facts. If you like to reject them because you subjectively feel there is a god somewhere and he made us altruistic then fine. But you do so in the face of hard facts that contradict your beliefs.- Oni

I'm not sure xenophobia fits here. We also evolved with group selection, but I've not seen xenophobia in anything I've read.But my point to GDR was in his use of the term gene pool. We are all from the same gene pool.But yes I agree that BOTH kin selection and group selection are at play here, and it is backed up by the link I provided to GDR in my last post to him.- Oni

The only possible way we can understand Tom is anthropomorphically. The only real requirement is that Tom is a unified intelligence that is always good and always just. So yes I anthropomorphize Tom as well as the presence of evil. It is a way of comprehending the concept even though I believe Tom actually does exist although I`m a lot less sure of Satan. As I believe that Tom is responsible for all life then I have to assume that he has allowed for evil to exist. If we can’t choose evil we are robots. If Tom wants to ultimately wind up with a society who have all rejected evil and embrace his vision of humble mercy, kindness and justice, then I can see where evil becomes necessary.However IMHO Tom does nudge us to choose the good, as well as instilling in our collective hearts and minds an understanding of the Golden Rule. We don’t have attacks of conscience when we do the right thing.

OK Straggler. Let's look at Harris's quote. In Harris' own words Collins claim is that " Because self-sacrifice cannot increase the likelihood that an individual creature will survive and reproduce, truly self-sacrificing behavior stands as a primordial rejoinder to any biological account of morality".Collins point is that a scientific understanding of evolution shows that altruism cannot come from a strictly biological account of evolution.Harris responds with not a scientific argument but a philosophical one and the winds up with a stab in the dark with this; "Collins can’t seem to see that human morality and selfless love may be elaborations of more basic biological and psychological traits, which were themselves products of evolution'.Like all arguments for strictly mindless biological explanations for altruism it is based on the argument that as we know there is no god there just has to be another explanation no matter how far-fetched, but the explanation is not science.

I realize that Wright is not a theist however he is not an atheist either. He has referred to himself in various ways but on the Colbert Report he called himself an agnostic.In the wiki report on Wright it has this quote.

quote:

---

Wright has a strictly materialist conception of natural selection; however, he does not deny the possibility of some larger purpose unfolding, that natural selection could itself be the product of design

---

In the end he sits comfortably straddling the line between our views.