My Beliefs- GDR

It's an easy answer, it's also the answer I was taught as a Christian by Christians and the one used by dictionaries. You have re-defined your god so that it fits with the errors you see in the world. It's just another compromise you've made from the traditional story.Your god is not perfect, therefore he is not a god, he's something lessor.

No. I just don't want you to fixate on quotes (from me or Harris or anyone else) at the expense of objective evidence. Then you have a major problem. Because your position therefore requires you to deny large swathes of scientific research.I typed 'evolution altruism' into google and a number of links to scientific research papers came up. Here is one of the first ones listed: Genetic similarity theory: Beyond kin selectionNow whether you agree with it or not - Do you at least accept that this is a scientific research paper?Can you show me any similar scientific research which supports imperceptible "Tom's" imperceptible influence as the cause of altruism.....?

This article tells us very little and actually tells us that altruism rather than being gene driven is more influenced by physical similarities.

quote:

---

Using digital evolution technology, the team learned how altruism evolves by setting up different experimental situations. Through this, the researchers found that genes were more likely to help others that were physically similar to them, as opposed to strictly helping those that are related to them.
Sometimes, by chance, relatives do not share genes, while complete strangers do, said Jeff Clune, a postdoctoral fellow at Cornell University who recently earned his doctorate from MSU. A potentially better strategy, then, is to help individuals who are very physically similar to you, which may be a proxy for genetic similarity.

---

In the end they found that people tend to be more altruistic to those that they identify with.

quote:

---

Another possibility was that organisms may choose to help only individuals who carry specific markers to indicate the presence of an altruism gene. The mechanism, described as a greenbeard gene, involves a conspicuous marker, such as a green beard, which indicates the presence of the altruist gene. It was theorized that in such a system all organisms with green beards would recognize and be altruistic toward each other.
Clune and his collaborators gave the digital organisms the equivalent of greenbeard genes to see if they would use them to choose who to help.
To our surprise, said team member Heather Goldsby, the digital organisms did not evolve to base altruism on the presence of greenbeard markers — instead, they continued to rely on overall genetic similarity.
Why did the digital organisms ignore the greenbeard markers? It was discovered that the greenbeard mechanism was too inflexible: It did not allow the organisms to adjust how altruistic to be.
The greenbeard mechanism cannot evolve to increase the minimum amount of altruism that needs to be performed to join the greenbeard club, Clune said. For that reason, greenbeards have an incentive to do the minimal amount necessary to reap the benefits of being in the club, and no more. Unfortunately for them, that means they cannot take advantage of the benefits of increased amounts of altruism.

---

The study itself is scientific but it doesn’t show that our altruism for those that are genetically and physically different is genetic. Again, it doesn’t show why we are altruistic in donating to protect anilmals.

quote:

---

The researchers discovered that people with either of two of the variations of the COMT gene (called the Val/Val and Val/Met variations) donated twice as much money to the charity as people with the other variation (called Met/Met), regardless of their gender. In fact, more than 20 percent of the people with the altruistic variations donated all of their money.
While researchers have had evidence for years that altruistic behavior is at least partly influenced by genetics, that evidence has come mainly from studies of twins reporting how altruistic they are, which have found that people with identical genetic material show similar patterns of altruism. This is the first study to link altruism to a specific gene.

---

That study is scientific and does show a genetic component to altruism. However, the money that was used was a small amount that was given to them as part of an experiment which they were aware of. They also were aware of the fact that what they donated would be monitored by others.This is very different from the real world where people donate sacrificially and anonymously to the third world or other humanitarian efforts.

What would you call an intelligence that is responsible for creating all life; instilling some of the life forms with varying degrees of intelligence; instilling in varying degrees within that intelligent life a sense of morality and with the ultimate plan of restoring it all to a world where the suffering and death that we see in this world comes to an end?Personally I’m quite happy to call that being God. For those of us who believe that God exists we then have to go on and determine what we make of Him. It seems to me that the reasonable approach is to use whatever information we have available to us. Do you think that it is more reasonable to form a view of God that is in contradiction to what we see in the world? I don’t know if perfect is the right word or not, but maybe He has done a perfect job with what He had to work with. We aren’t going to be able to sort all this out in this life, so like everyone else, I just do the beat I can.

All I can get without spending a lot of money to get the whole report is the following quote.

quote:

---

We present genetic similarity theory (GST), which incorporates the kin-selection theory of altruism under a more general principle. GST states that a gene ensures its own survival by acting so as to bring about the reproduction ofany organism in which copies of itself are to be found. Rather than behaving altruistically only toward kin, organisms are able to detect other genetically similar organisms and to exhibit favoritism and protective behavior toward these strangers, as well as toward their own relatives. In order to pursue this general strategy, an organism must, in effect, be able to detect copies of its genes in other organisms. We order several data sets with this theory including (a) kin recognition studies in animals raised apart, (b) assortative mating, (c) intrafamilial relations, (d) human friendship and altruism, and (e) ethnic nepotism. We discuss a strong and a weak version of GST and offer some predictions for future research.

---

Yes, I would agree that this is scientific research. However, I don’t see how it shows that I am able to discern genetic similarity between myself and those I support in the third world who I have never met nor even seen pictures of in many cases. Where is the genetic similarity between people who donate to animal rescue agencies where they have never even seen the animals?If you are going to say that it is because there is so much similarity between our DNA then why don’t we feel the same degree of altruism to every living creature? Of course not.

Do you still dipute that there is a scientific evolutionary account of altruism?Or do you now accept that the evolution of altruism is indeed an objectively evidenced scientific position?I know you like quotes so here is Robert Wright again....

quote:

---

Altruism, compassion, empathy, love, conscience, the sense of justiceall of these things, the things that hold society together, the things that allow our species to think so highly of itself, can now confidently be said to have a firm genetic basis."

---

Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

What the hell does that have to do with anything? The point it there is a scientific explanation that covers altruism. There is objective evidence.So concede that there is objective evidence, since you made such an ass of yourself saying there wasn't. This is pathetic, GDR. You have been shown evidence that altruism is genetic, and have been shown genes control altruism.Just because you donate some moeny doesn't make you altruistic. It doesn't even mean you're being kind. There could be a number of reasons one might donate money. This however does NOT change the fact that altruism is genetic. Donating to animals is NOT altrusitic behavior. It just means you feel bad for the animals you're donating to. Your point about animals is irrelevant. Are you really saying the scientist at Berkeley are wrong? Are you, with your LIMITED knowledge of science, saying that these scientist didn't actually pin-point the genes that are attributed to altruism? Donating money is NOT altruism.Here again you simply refuse to concede when you have been shown actual evidence, which you claimed didn't exist. You have been shown not only that altruism has a basis in genetics (and of course also culturally driven) but also, you have been shown evidence that there are actual genes that are attributed to altruism.Concede already that there is objective evidence that altrusim has a basis in genetics AND that you have zero evidence for anything else. We have all taken the time to discuss this with you for well over 1100 posts now. The least you can do is be honest in this debate.- Oni

Hi StragglerI'm pretty much out of time now and will be away from the computer for three days.Here is your Wright quote:

quote:

---

Altruism, compassion, empathy, love, conscience, the sense of justiceall of these things, the things that hold society together, the things that allow our species to think so highly of itself, can now confidently be said to have a firm genetic basis."

---

Are you and oni saying that altruism is deterministic based on our genetic make-up at birth and that socialization has no impact on our degree of altruism?It is one thing to say that there is a genetic component to altruism but that is not the same as saying that it is the entire picture.Can you flesh that out a bit.

I can see that, but you must accept that your personal opinion of what a god is differs from your own religion's opinion and the general understanding of what a god is. Basically, you're making it up. I think it's totally reasonable to check reality against your beliefs. What's not reasonable to do is then rationalise away the discrepancies you find. The rational position is to accept that reality tells us that there is no requirement for a god to explain something like morality. You're anthropormorphising god again. An imperfect god, struggling along doing the best he can is a rather pathetic figure and simply isn't a god at all - and certainly not the Christian god.

Of course not.We are simply demonstating to you that there is indisputably an objectively evidenced, scientific evolutionary account of human morality (altruism, compassion, self-sacrifice etc.). This scientific account of human morality incorprates both genetic and cultural factors. This has been explained numerous times by numerous people in this thread.Whether you personally understand or accept the scientific account of morality is, frankly, irrelevant. The point is that there indisputably is one. No. The objectively evidenced scientific evolutionary account of morality is not a "subjective opinion".You can hold whatever "subjective opinions" you darn well please - But in terms of accuracy and relibaility of conclusion there is no contest at all between your subjective notions of imperceptible Tom and his imperceptible influence and the objectively evidenced scientific conclusion. Obviously the objectively evidenced scientific evolutionary account of morality is more scientific and more objective than your subjective musings about imperceptible "Tom" and his imperecptible moral whisperings.Do you now accept this fact? Or not?

Things can be scientific and not be deterministic at all.
A lot of quantum mechanics (very scientific stuff) deals with probabilities... the exact opposite of being deterministic.Socialization is also very scientific. There are entire fields of science devoted to studying and explaining social atmospheres.When someone says "altruism has an objective, scientific basis" they don't have to be talking about a deterministic system, or some system made up entirely by genes at birth.Reading your response seems to indicate that your idea of "what science is" does not actually line up with what science actually is. Perhaps your definition of science contains some confusion that needs to be cleared up.

My opinion differs from those that believe in an inerrant but very relevant Bible and obviously from anyone who believe in YEC. I have read many books from people with different points of view and am most heavily influenced by N T Wright and C S Lewis. My personal opinion does seem to be in variance with what you think the general understanding of what the Christian God is. If you think that it is rational to believe that intelligence and morality are the result of nothing but a happy combination of mindless particles then I suggest that you have an irrational view of rationality. You can phrase it however you like, but once again we are a work in progress. However a god that is responsible for the existence of life and has an ultimate plan for all life is impressive enough for me.

And, of course, Christian Orthodox, Baptists, Methodist, Catholics etc etc. In fact your beliefs are restricted to a small section of liberal Christians - mostly Anglican - a denomination made up by a King so he could do what he liked with his women.Religions is in trouble as soon as it looses its magisterium - it means that you can pretty much make it up to suit whatever reality is. I still see nothing special about intelligence and morality that makes them un-evolveable - tell me, why are they different from say, an opposable thumb or an emotion such as, say, anger?

I'd like to try and understand your position.Is this correct?There are scientific studies that show that altruism has a genetic basis. (By that I assume that it means that a parent who is altruistic will pass that gene down to the offspring.) In that way we all start in life with a propensity for or aversion to altruistic behaviour.Through socialization our basic genetic altruistic nature can be changed overtime.There have been several posts that have speculated on how altruism might have evolved but oni linked this site that does show a scientific approach to the issue. Is There an Altruism Gene?Do you have another link to an actual scientific study that shows a genetic basis for altruism?

In a nutshell - Science has provided us with an objectively evidenced explanation for human moral behaviour as observed. Genetic and social - But entirely natural (i.e. not supernatural)Do you accept this fact?Or do you still insist that human moral behaviour cannot be explained without recourse to imperceptible "Tom" and his imperceptible influence?