My Beliefs- GDR

But you have unequivocally denied that there is a scientific explanation for human morality. Here it is: Unless you have moved from that position there is little much more that can be said. Because the scientific explanation for human morality is widely publicised and indisputably does exist. Whether you accept it or are personally convinced by it is a completely separate issue. I have asked you if you even accept that a scientific account of morality as observed exists and you have told me "No". What is the point answering detailed questions about a scientific account of morality which you claim doesn't even exist? You have subtly shifted your position from denying that ther is a scientific account of human morality to now implying that the scientific account is wrong because you find it personally less convincing than the whispering "Tom" hypothesis.Can you once and for all clear-up the following:Do you accept that there is a scientific account of human morality as observed? (albeit one that you find personally unconvincing for whatever reason)Or do you reject that there is a scientific account of human morality period?

What this statement signifies is that you are actually invoking a form of circular reasoning. Or 'Assuming the Conclusion', as it is sometimes known.Essentially, you have already come to your conclusion that 'Tom' is responsible for various aspects of our morale and perhaps, biological attributes. No facts lead to this conclusion, it is simply 'faith'.From that point, you begin to work backwards to 'find' evidence that supports your conclusion and discounting the evidence that goes against your conclusion. You are, in essence, cherry picking. But the manner and way you are making selections is very arbitrary.I recognize that this thread is about 'your beliefs', but ultimately, what the other posters are attempting to demonstrate is that your beliefs will deny facts and reality when they feel threatened. And the above statement regarding science confirms it.

If that is the goal then it is no longer altruism. It is being done for the benefit of the self. But you left off the last part of the quote.Here is your quote with the last sentence included.

quote:

---

On the other hand, humans are unique in that we co-operate extensively with our non-kin; and more generally, numerous human behaviours seem anomalous from the point of view of biological fitness. Think for example of adoption. Parents who adopt children instead of having their own reduce their biological fitness, obviously, so adoption is an altruistic behaviour. But it is does not benefit kinfor parents are generally unrelated to the infants they adoptand nor do the parents stand to gain much in the form of reciprocal benefits. So although evolutionary considerations can help us understand some human behaviours, they must be applied judiciously.

---

So when it talks about kin selection you can see evolutionary considerations at work but that they don't apply to adoption.As the article points out when Dawkins talks about a selfish gene it is a metaphor as his point isn't that genes are actually selfish but are mindlessly focused on the gene pool.Here is a quote from the article.

quote:

---

To some extent, the idea that kin-directed altruism is not ‘real’ altruism has been fostered by the use of the ‘selfish gene’ terminology of Dawkins (1976). As we have seen, the gene's-eye perspective is heuristically useful for understanding the evolution of altruistic behaviours, especially those that evolve by kin selection. But talking about ‘selfish’ genes trying to increase their representation in the gene-pool is of course just a metaphor (as Dawkins fully admits); there is no literal sense in which genes ‘try’ to do anything. Any evolutionary explanation of how a phenotypic trait evolves must ultimately show that the trait leads to an increase in frequency of the genes that code for it (presuming the trait is transmitted genetically.) Therefore, a ‘selfish gene’ story can by definition be told about any trait, including a behavioural trait, that evolves by Darwinian natural selection. To say that kin selection interprets altruistic behaviour as a strategy designed by ‘selfish’ genes to aid their propagation is not wrong; but it is just another way of saying that a Darwinian explanation for the evolution of altruism has been found. As Sober and Wilson (1998) note, if one insists on saying that behaviours which evolve by kin selection / donor-recipient correlation are ‘really selfish’, one ends up reserving the word ‘altruistic’ for behaviours which cannot evolve by natural selection at all.

---

The whole last section is titled " But is it "Real" Altruism". They are pointing out that things like kin selection aid the gene pool but things like adoption don't and so evolutionary considerations must be applied judiciously. and here was your quote to go with that statement.

quote:

---

Therefore, evolution may well lead ‘real’ or psychological altruism to evolve. One strategy by which ‘selfish genes’ may increase their future representation is by causing humans to be non-selfish, in the psychological sense.

---

Is that a scientific statement? "Evolution may well lead.... It is a speculation without any particular evidence to support it.Actually however, I agree with it from the POV that we can see that people who are altruistic are in general happier and more self assured. That gets passed on to offspring and so from that POV it does benefit the gene pool, however not by natural selection.If you agree that in general people who are unselfish and truly altruistic are generally happier and more satisfied then we can form our own conclusions about why that is. I would assume that you would say that it is strictly the result of social memes that have somehow come about as part of the evolutionary process and that it all is the ultimate result of a series of mindless processes. IMHO it is part of a plan that gives us the ability to overcome our selfish genes. Neither view is scientific.

Well as I just showed you that the article you gave me refutes that position. However I agree that there is a materialistic explanation but that does not make it science. There is no evidence. We draw our own subjective conclusions and it is my belief that with what we know that Tom's existence is a more reasonable explanation than a mindless materialistic explanation. I say that knowing that everyone else writing in this thread has come to the opposite conclusion.

Not really. I use the facts to help form my faith. Just as we can see that the process of evolution is fact I reject the idea of instant creationism. Do you want me to reject the facts? Well, your point and the point of others seems to be that science makes it obvious that Tom doesn't exist. I'm not a scientist so I am simply pointing out that it isn't that obvious. You ask that question based on the idea that only the material world exists. Where was the idea for the telephone before Bell came up with it? Where is dark energy or dark matter for that matter? Where are particles before they pop into existence?

It has nothing to do with a goal. It's about influencing behavior. That is in fact the point of what you quoted. That there is no real altruistic act that isn't in some way attached to the self. If only that it releases chemicals in your body that make you feel good about yourself. That is a reward system that your body will favor, and your genes will select. Well, it doesn't apply for adoptions outside of your kin - obviously. But again, kin selection was the basis for modern day altrusim. So your genes evolved in a time when adoption was likely to be a kin. No they are not saying that at all. You even quoted it, but may have read past it.

quote:

---

Therefore, a ‘selfish gene’ story can by definition be told about any trait, including a behavioural trait, that evolves by Darwinian natural selection.

---

I truly don't think you're understanding what you read. Which continues to lead you to make confused conclusions about the evolution of altruism. Of course it is a scientific statement, when you understand what it actualy means and that it is placed at the very end of an entire scientific explanation for altruism.What you have quoted is ONLY in reference to the beleif that humans have evolved to be selfish and egoist just because our acts of altruism are beneficial to our genes. Sure! Good deeds are rewarded by the brain: Science of good deeds

quote:

---

"Oxytocin is the mediator of what has been called the 'tend-mend' response, as opposed to the 'fight-flight' response to stress. When you're altruistic and touching people in a positive way, lending a helping hand, your oxytocin level goes up - and that relieves your own stress."

---

More proof that your body has evolved to reward you for altruistic behavior. There is no need to form our own conclusions about why that is. There is plenty of evidence as to why that is. It has to do with chemicals. It is very scientifc. There is a ton of evidence for this. I'm baffled at your ignornace on subjects like this which you debate in with so much confidence.- Oni

Hi Dio and welcome.Psychopathy though is a mental illness. Just as we can't walk with broken legs, psychopathy means we "lack the ability to have empathy".I don't see morality and altruism as being the actions themselves but the motivation for our actions. Psychopathy does not mean that a choice is being made to behave selfishly as there isn't really any other choice to be made.For all we know the individual who suffers from such an affliction may deep down in his consciousness despise what he is doing but the mental illness prevents that aspect of his self from being realized.

Dude, seriously, you have refuted nothing. All you keep doing is quoting things you don't understand but passing it off as though you do with terribly confused conclusions. I have replied to that post. But none of what I have provided you as evidence has been mindless. That's actually a very asshole thing to say about scientific evidence that has tons of research behind it.I mean, your own statement about forming our own conclusions as to why we feel good after we do good things is the epitome of a mindless explanation.Oxytocin is why we feel good. Why? Because there has be a shitload of research done on the subject and there is a mountain of objective evidence to support the conclusion.What is mindless about that?But I can see why you prefer something simple like God did it. It's just easier than actually learning something. I guess...- Oni

I want you to accept the fact that you have no facts - what you have is a belief Science does not, and can not, say that God doesn't exist.What it does is say that there is no evidence for a God and also that there are natural explanations for the things that religious believers ascribe to god - such as morality and how the universe began and how species come about.Additionally, it has shown that the stories in the books that various religious believers hold dear, are in fact, false.The obvious conclusion is that God is highly unlikely - or at least the sort of god which most Christians believe in. I think this answer shows that you don't have an answer.As a reminder, I asked if consciousness doesn't exist in the brain and die when the brain dies, where is it? Science's well evidenced and factual answer is that consciousness in a brain function which ceases when we die - what is your counter evidence?

But once again, this is a supposition on your part as opposed to a tangible statement of fact.I am no neuroscientist, but the condition of psychopathy, as far as I know, is not a simple 'affliction' as you put it. It is actually a genetic condition at birth. i.e., the individual displaying this condition has a brain that is hard-wired differently.To draw an analogy (and I am doing this from my own experience in the computer software space): a computer has both hardware and software. You can get problems associated with both. A software 'bug' or issue is inherent to the programming code that is producing whatever application you might be using. A hardware 'bug' or issue is an inherent defect in the machinery of the computer itself. There is a strong demarcation between these two 'afflictions'.So for example, as a software engineer, if I am attempting to get my program to behave a certain way, but my underlying hardware is malfunctioning, no amount of effort on my part can overcome this issue. It is no longer a 'choice' I can perform.In a similar vein, if an individual has an issue with the machinery of their brain, choices are no longer simply a matter of selection. The brain itself, at the 'hardware' level, is not wired correctly. (Or wired differently; however you want to put it)P.S. And thank you for the welcome. I have been a lurker here for some time; nice to become an active participant.

Of course it isn't black and white. It's a heart thing and morality is always a struggle for everyone. We both have our beliefs and we've been down this road before.

The problem is I can't get from you a clear picture of what constitutes a scientific account. That article we have been talking about looks at the situation and provides a naturalistic account of the evolution of morality. It also provides a very weak statement on how it true altruism might have evolved. If that is science then I agree that there is a scientific explanation of human morality.From my theistic POV I'm fine with that as regardless of how it came about it is a question if it is the result of mindless processes or part of Tom's plan.I am afraid that your theory that it has evolved the way it has is the result of co-operative behaviour in our hunter-gatherer ancestors just doesn't sound reasonable to me for reasons that I explained earlier.As for the final part of the question I still am not clear how to answer it. There is a materialist explanation of how morality could have evolved. If that is synonymous with a scientific explanation then I agree that there is one. I'm not really clear on what you mean by a scientific account, when there is nothing conclusive but merely a subjective view based on what we objectively know.

If we're going to specify an organ can we at least agree that it's the brain? This is a misrepresentation of my position.I do not believe in things the way you do. I accept evidence and lack of evidence and form conclusions which I am prepared to change if new evidence is presented. I do not hold any beliefs that I then fit facts to.You have a belief and everything you see after that will inevitably fit that belief no matter how force fitted it has to be.But although you can abandon some key principles of your traditional religion - such as the need to be a Christian to enter heaven, you inevitably you hit a few road blocks every now and then - like you have with suffering, the imperfection of a god tha allows it, morality having a natural origin and consciouness not being supernatural.Face it, you believe because you believe - no shame in that, most people do.

I understand why you would say that but I don't agree. The conclusion is not about whether Tom did it or not. The conclusion that I'm interested in is what has happened regardless of whether Tom was responsible or not.I simple example is biological evolution. We can observe an evolutionary process over millions of years. I don't put any restrictions on how that process has taken place. We can look at the process in whatever detail we want and then subjectively come to a conclusion about whether Tom was involved in the process or whether it is simply a mindless process.So I am not assuming the conclusion of any scientific research. I may not agree with the answer, as I don't with some of the explanations that have been given for altruism, but it has nothing to do with my belief in the existence of Tom.

My point is that if you are only behaving morally in order to get heaven as a reward then the action might be moral but the motivation isn't. In order for something to be truly altruistic then it has to be something done to the detriment of the individual without thought of reward. I think that is true in a general sense but not necessarily in specific cases. As I said, I think that most people would agree that people who are in general altruistic are happier and more content than those who aren't. However, I'm not convinced that we consciously think of the idea that when we do the moral or altruistic thing, that it will actually consider that it will make us happier if we do it than if we don't. That is a theory but I just don't accept it. I think that a more reasonable theory is what I proposed. If moral/altruistic people are happier that their moral/altruistic cultural memes are likely to be passed on to others. Let’s look at what you have just quoted in its context.

quote:

---

Therefore, a ‘selfish gene’ story can by definition be told about any trait, including a behavioural trait, that evolves by Darwinian natural selection. To say that kin selection interprets altruistic behaviour as a strategy designed by ‘selfish’ genes to aid their propagation is not wrong; but it is just another way of saying that a Darwinian explanation for the evolution of altruism has been found. As Sober and Wilson (1998) note, if one insists on saying that behaviours which evolve by kin selection / donor-recipient correlation are ‘really selfish’, one ends up reserving the word ‘altruistic’ for behaviours which cannot evolve by natural selection at all.

---

They are essentially saying that if you are basing your whole theory on selfish genes then as we see in kin selection then you can use that as a Darwinian explanation. However, if that is true it means that there is no such thing as genuine altruism as, as all that we do has selfishness as a basis. The last statement makes the point that if that is wrong and an act is truly selfless on an individual and/or on a genetic basis, (truly altruistic), then that cannot evolve by natural selection.My own view is that it is kinda wrong in both cases as I don’t agree that we are incapable of acting selflessly, although I agree that morality and altruism are infectious particularly within families. Again, we can come to our own conclusions as to whether that is the result of Tom’s plan or mindless processes. Ok. I just always thought that for something to be scientific meant that it had to be verifiable, but I suppose it is similar to the fact that some scientists believe in string theory and some don’t, but it is still science. That was a good article which supports what I said earlier in that altruistic people are happier and altruism is infectious. Even though that is the case there are those who still infect their offspring with selfishness so that becomes their driving force.Without looking up the quote and with taking a great deal of licence with my paraphrase, CS Lewis writes that what it is that God wants of us, is that we actively infect the world with moral/altruistic cultural memes. I didn’t phrase that well. The chemical part is scientific. The subjective conclusion about whether or not it is part of a plan by Tom is not scientific.