My Beliefs- GDR

I'm wondering if you really read that article you linked to.Here is the quote you used.

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,. 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.

---

First off, even in this quote it makes this statement.

quote:

---

it is possible that altruism may be advantageous at the group level

---

Does that really sound like a scientific statement. They don't argue that they can show a DNA trail. It is a philosophical argument.However in addition the article goes on to say that what they are talking about there is not true altruism. That paragraph is about co-operative behaviour within a specific group and even at that they aren't dressing it up as being scientific. Once again it is based on the idea that as there is no god then there just has to be another explanation.Let's look at the two concluding paragraphs in the article.

quote:

---

Where human behaviour is concerned, the distinction between biological altruism, defined in terms of fitness consequences, and ‘real’ altruism, defined in terms of the agent's conscious intentions to help others, does make sense. (Sometimes the label ‘psychological altruism’ is used instead of ‘real’ altruism.) What is the relationship between these two concepts? They appear to be independent in both directions, as Elliott Sober (1994) has argued; see also Vromen (2012) and Clavien and Chapuisat (2013). An action performed with the conscious intention of helping another human being may not affect their biological fitness at all, so would not count as altruistic in the biological sense. Conversely, an action undertaken for purely self-interested reasons, i.e., without the conscious intention of helping another, may boost their biological fitness tremendously.

​

Sober argues that, even if we accept an evolutionary approach to human behaviour, there is no particular reason to think that evolution would have made humans into egoists rather than psychological altruists (see also Schulz 2011). On the contrary, it is quite possible that natural selection would have favoured humans who genuinely do care about helping others, i.e., who are capable of ‘real’ or psychological altruism. Suppose there is an evolutionary advantage associated with taking good care of one's childrena quite plausible idea. Then, parents who really do care about their childrens' welfare, i.e., who are ‘real’ altruists, will have a higher inclusive fitness, hence spread more of their genes, than parents who only pretend to care, or who do not care. Therefore, evolution may well lead ‘real’ or psychological altruism to evolve. Contrary to what is often thought, an evolutionary approach to human behaviour does not imply that humans are likely to be motivated by self-interest alone. One strategy by which ‘selfish genes’ may increase their future representation is by causing humans to be non-selfish, in the psychological sense.

---

They are very clear that they are making suggestions from a psychological, or essentially a philosophical POV. The view that you espouse is not scientific. It is based on your non-god world view without any objective evidence.

Then we can't undertand Tom at all can we? And yet the only thing we know about your God is what is written about him in the bible which shows him as jealous, misodgenous, racist and vicious. Are you sure you're not just believing the things you prefer to believe? There is absolutely no necessity for evil, it's very easy to imagine a world without it which doesn't turn us into 'robots.' There is no reason why genocide and rape have to exist, if you believe in a moral god. Christians have always tried to push this issue aside - it's their 'inconvenient fact' isn't it?

The scientific, evolutionary account of morality is scientific. Obviously.....That's why it's advocated by scientists in scientific peer reveiewed papers.You seem to have reached a point where in order to support your arguments you need to deny that science is scientific.....This is not a good place to be. In fact you are only a short hop away from the sort of position taken by the likes of Faith where genuinely scientific evolutionary conclusions are branded as some sort of atheistic world view bias.

Yes of course. The point is to not only read, but to understand what you've read so that you don't post something ridiculous in response. Which you have done. Yet again.

quote:

---

it is possible that altruism may be advantageous at the group level

---

What that statement is saying is that altruism may not be something that affects the group at all.Hey look you even quoted that very thing in your post:

quote:

---

An action performed with the conscious intention of helping another human being may not affect their biological fitness at all, so would not count as altruistic in the biological sense.

---

Here's where you're going to get confused, and I knew you would when I linked the article. No, not at all. It is about whether or not altruistic behavior is something selected for, which is why they say in it that simply helping someone (ie. You donating to the Help the Dog/Third World Child Foundation) may not actually be biological altruism. In other words it may have no fitness consequences.The problem is you have confused one for the other - biological altruism and what this article is calling conscious intentions to help others. What they are doing is drawing a distinction between things that are behavioral and things that are biologically advantageous. Of course it is. Science doesn't deal with the supernatural. If saying this makes you feel better about being ignorant about the evolution of altruism then whatever. Enjoy. But anyone following this thread can see how wrong that is.- Oni

That was hardly my point. The highest intelligent life we know is human. We have no other way of relating or understanding intelligent life other than picturing Tom as human. It has nothing to do with understanding his nature. In the first place I disagree that all I can learn about God is in the Bible and even the Bible agrees with that. I can learn about Him through nature, through human philosophy, through science or essentially through life.The Bible does paint God that way in some cases. It also paints Him as being loving, forgiving, just and merciful. I understand the entire Bible through the lens of the teachings of Jesus. Jesus repudiates the vision of God that you have portrayed. In one sense we all believe what we want to believe. Essentially we all come to either believe that Tom exists or that he doesn’t. As I am convinced of his existence I then want to know all that I can about him while being aware of the fact that I can’t know in the same way that I know the Earth is a sphere. So yes, I learn about Tom in whatever way I can and I have come to the conclusion that he is good, and that he is just, in the way that I understand goodness and justice.In the end I do want Tom to be just and good so I worship or follow him on that basis. If Tom does turn out to be a genocidal tyrant then so be it. I’m not prepared to worship a genocidal tyrant even if he is Tom. Yes it is a faith, however I contend that it is a reasonable faith. It is certainly the most difficult issue that as a Christian I have to deal with. I see it this way. This whole thing is a work in progress with the final product being a world where evil does not exist. However, in order for that to come about it requires the beings of that world to have all chosen to embrace humble goodness and justice and reject evil in its entirety. In order to get to that point the beings in this final and eternal world have to first be in a position to make the choice for themselves. Assay, we see through a glass darkly.

OK. Here again is the quote by Sam Harris that you are calling scientific.

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,. 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.

---

Just read it. It uses words like "may thus allow altruistic behaviour" after saying that "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. " He has to come up with a reason why altruism is the exception to the evolutionary rule.Where is the DNA trail as there is in the real study of evolution? It is all supposition. Where is there any science in his statement.I'm not denying that science is scientific, I am denying that this is science.

I'm not talking about a single quote by anyone.I'm talking about the scientific evolutionary account of morality as described (and investigated) in numerous scientific sources.Are you saying that the scientific evolutionary account of morality isn't scientific? How can it not be......?

Where have I claimed that it does? Fine. Show me one bit of concrete evidence that altruism has a genetic foundation. Biological evolution can be shown to be true with actual evidence, not just speculation.I'll repeat the statement by Francis Collins. Now you discount him as he doesn't hold to your views so therefore he can't be trusted but he is if not the leading, then one of the leading experts in the field in the world. He say:

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.

---

I used that quote because it was the one you had used to make your case.How can it be a scientific account if it is all conjecture without evidence One of the reasons Collins became a theist was that true altruism, (not the I’ll scratch your back if you’ll scratch mine type of co-operative behaviour), was in contradiction to how evolution works. He left his atheistic beliefs behind because of that, as well as for other reasons, after completing a PHD in Physical Chemistry at Yale and then a medical degree. This wasn’t something he had grown up with.Just because an account attempts to explain on a materialist basis the reason that we can behave altruistically doesn’t make it science until there is actual evidence to support it. It is no different than if I were to make the claim that the explanation that Tom did it and call it science. Neither one of us have scientific evidence. We both look at what we do know objectively and form our own subjective conclusions.

I'm a fan of Collins, his work on the genome project was brilliant. But just like I massively admire Dawkins on evolutionary biology - his Selfish Gene stuff changed the world - I distrust them both on religion. I read Collins and still quote him now and then but I almost literally threw up when I read his waterfall garbage - his epiphany: This is a man, like you, desperate to believe in something. He even says it - "I decided to believe in some sort of God."Once you decide that, you've lobotomised yourself - you can be a fully functional, rational scientist by day, then by night throw it all away and believe that the three segments of a frozen waterfall are the trinity.Still, with a bit of luck he'll go on and do some more good stuff with DNA.(btw, he's a chemist, I'd bet my house that he knows as much about the evolution of altruism as I do.)

So Tom has 'work in progress', sacrificing billions of souls until he gets it right?What's wrong with the Japanese method of getting it right first time? You know, he's a god ffs?

No. You can't dismiss the entire scientific evolutionary account of human morality as observed by fixating on one quote in a thread of over 1000 posts!Do you accept that there is a scientific evolutionary account of human morality as observed (altruism, compassion, self sacrifice etc etc etc)? Or not?Do you accept or reject the scientific evolutionary account of human morality?

Well the waterfall account was about his conversion to Christiainity whereas he had converted from atheism to theism much earlier as is pointed out in your quote. And again of course, this was an an adult with a degree in physical chemistry and a degree in medicine.I'd say that to call him a chemist lowballs his credentials by quite a margin. This is from wiki:

quote:

---

Collins is the youngest of four sons born to the late Fletcher Collins and Margaret James Collins. Raised on a small farm in Virginia's Shenandoah Valley, Collins was home schooled until the sixth grade.[1] He attended Robert E. Lee High School. Through most of his high school and college years, he aspired to be a chemist, and had little interest in what he then considered the "messy" field of biology. What he refers to as his "formative education" was received at the University of Virginia, where he earned a B.S. in Chemistry in 1970. He went on to attain a Ph.D. in physical chemistry at Yale University in 1974. While at Yale, however, a course in biochemistry sparked his interest in the subject. After consulting with his old mentor from the University of Virginia, Carl Trindle, he changed fields and enrolled in medical school at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, earning an M.D. there in 1977.
From 1978 to 1981, he served a residency and chief residency in internal medicine at North Carolina Memorial Hospital in Chapel Hill. He then returned to Yale, where he was named a Fellow in Human Genetics at the medical school from 1981 to 1984.

---

Here again from wiki is his work in human genetics:

quote:

---

At Yale, Collins worked under the direction of Sherman Weissman, and in 1984 they published an important paper, Directional cloning of DNA fragments at a large distance from an initial probe: a circularization method.[2] This method was named chromosome jumping, to emphasize the contrast with an older and much more time-consuming method of copying DNA fragments, called chromosome walking.[3]
He joined the University of Michigan in 1984, rising to the rank of Professor of Internal Medicine and Human Genetics. He heightened his reputation as an innovative gene hunter. His gene-hunting approach, which he named "positional cloning",[4][5] developed into a powerful component of modern molecular genetics.
In the 1980s, several scientific teams were working to identify the genes for cystic fibrosis. Toward the end of the decade, progress had been made, but Lap-Chee Tsui, heading the team working at Toronto's Hospital for Sick Children, considered that a shortcut was needed, to speed up the process. For this purpose, he contacted Collins, who agreed to collaborate with Tsui and share his chromosome jumping technique. Subsequently, the gene was discovered in June 1989.[6][7] The discovery was published in the journal Science on Sept. 8, 1989.[8] This was followed by other genetic discoveries made by Collins and a variety of collaborators. These discoveries included isolation of the genes for Huntington's disease,[9] neurofibromatosis,[10][11] multiple endocrine neoplasia type 1,[12] and Hutchinson-Gilford Progeria Syndrome.[13]

---

Also from wiki he is a humaniratian.

quote:

---

Building on his own experiences as a physician volunteer in a rural missionary hospital in Nigeria,[21] Collins is also very interested in opening avenues for genome research to benefit the health of people living in developing nations. For example, in 2010, he helped establish an initiative called Human Heredity and Health in Africa (H3Africa)[22] to advance African capacity and expertise in genomic science.

---

Here is a link to the wiki site of Francis Collins. I know that most of you atheists probably think that way but in my case it isn't true. My life was going great as an agnostic. As I said earlier in this thread I had a great wife, 3 great kids and a job that paid well and that I would have done for nothing. I had a circle of friends I enjoyed, was active in sports and so on. I just decided that essentially it was the truth.Certainly my views have evolved over the years but the more I read, observe and listen the more convinced I am about the basic truth about Tom and his existence as well as how God can be understood through the life, teaching, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. I'm a Christian as I absolutely believe it in the manner that I have laid out in this thread. I don't believe just because I want to believe something. Hmmm.... well ok if you say so.

Well if those billions of life will be carrying on in the next life I don't see them as being sacrificed. As for the reason things are the way they are I answered it the post that you replied to.You are right though, suffering is the biggest difficulty that we Christians have to provide an answer for, but in the end the best way we can do is to do something with our lives that alleviates the suffering of others.

I do understand why you want to back away from the Sam Harris quote. OK, so let's go back to what you posted earlier in the thread.What is scientific about that. You are looking at what we know and then subjectively drawing your own conclusions. I’ll take the same approach.1) Our brains did not evolve in the environment of a globalised world economy consisting of billions of distantly related people.2) Our brains did evolve in small hunter gatherer communities consisting of closely related others.3) Our moral instincts thus developed in an environment where those around us carry almost all of the same genes.4) Our moral instincts thus evolved in an environment where, from a genes eye point of view, the sacrifice of an individual gene carrier can promote the ongoing propagation of those who most closely share our genes to strengthen our gene pool in order to compete with the gene pools of our enemies in other hunter gatherer communities.5) So when I say - "Morality can work against the survival of the genes we carry" I am looking at this from the point of view of genes in our ancestral environment. And, just as it was true then, it is true now.That version is just as scientific as yours, as neither version is scientific. Both views are simply speculative and without evidence. No. Science relies on evidence. What you have offered is simply a speculative account.