My Beliefs- GDR

I am not rejecting it, but merely passing on an opinion. With all humans come from the same evolutionary roots we sure have an incredibly wide variation in our unconscious desire for oxytocin. Sure, and some will agree and some will disagree, as in many peer reviewed scientific theories and even for those where there is broad agreement they can later be found to be false.

OK, but but how is the scientific method being applied in your proposal that altruism and morality evolved because of our hunter gatherer roots. Why is my suggestion that it is more likely to have evolved because people who are relatively more moral and altruistic are generally happier and more content resulting in that trait being passed on to their offspring genetically and through social memes, less scientific than yours? No. Not at all. I'm fine with there being an evolutionary account of morality as a product of the scientific method.Just because there is such an account does not address the issue of whether that account is the product of an intelligent planner, (Tom), or if in addition to the evolutionary account there is a spark of Tom nudging us, (as in our conscience), to live by the "Golden Rule". No. I am merely expressing an opinion on a specific theory.

Human nature and the evolution of our species from a physical sensory consciousness was a catalyst that assisted in defining our spatial existence and behavior enabling successful occupation of an evolutionary niche. I am of the opinion that the ability to comprehend such abstracts as infinity " always was and always will be " to plank time, the absurdity of the quantum states of time and matter is not a capability we were hard wired to conceptually understand. Any evolution of human consciousness, I suspect, was driven by our immediate survival instincts in a hostile environment and when time became available to think abstractly it was a rudimentary beginning to define our world and cosmos in a spiritual sense based on concepts our consciousness were only able to manipulate so our brain could make sense of it's surroundings. Our brain can only fully understand those things perceived, experienced or sensory definable rooted in limitations.

I am not certain about the scientific veracity of your view, but my guess is that the 'happiness' factor is a re-enforcement of the overall mechanism as opposed to the cause.Altruism benefits a social group. The action of being altruistic leads to a more cohesive societal group and increases the likelihood of survival for the group. A re-enforcing aspect of altruism is a feeling of 'happiness' (if we want to call it that) through action of doing something that benefits another member of your social group. But it is not the 'happiness' per se that leads to the genes being passed. It is the altruism itself.A good analogy would be the benefits of exercise. Moderate exercise is good for our bodies; it reduces stress, it maintains muscle tone, reduces the likelihood of cardiovascular problems, etc. For those like myself who like to exercise, we get a 'high' after our workouts which is attributed to an endorphin release which is part of our overall autonomic feedback system.
But it is not the 'high' that is the cause of the benefit, it is merely a re-enforcing consequence of the benefit of exercise. For example, if I artificially produced a 'high' with no exercise (i.e. through drugs for example), I may get the same short term effect of 'happiness', but I am not actually reaping the benefits of the exercise itself, which is the main predicate.

At last!!So the scientific method has provided us with an objectively evidenced explanation for human moral behaviour as observed. One that is both genetic and social - But entirely natural (i.e. not supernatural)Do you now retract your prior assertions that human moral behaviour cannot be explained without recourse to imperceptible "Tom" and his inaudible whisperings? You can express whatever opinions you like.But when it comes to comparing the evolutionary account of human morality with your entirely subjective notions about "Tom's relentlessly whispering influence - There is no contest in terms of objectivity, accuracy or reliability of conclusion. The evolutionary account of morality put forward in this thread is not a "subjective opinion". The way that you have reached your "Tom" conclsuion bears no relation to the scientific method that was used to obtain the evolutionary explanation.It just is not true to say that the two are equally subjective or equally valid as conclusions.

Good post and I agree with all of it. I don't know any biology so I'm not claiming that there is any genetic basis for what I proposed but we all agree that there is an environmental aspect of our social behaviour including altruism.I think it is more likely that from a naturalistic perspective that morality, and more specifically altruism, would have been passed down through generations by social memes.

If the explanation of how moral behaviour evolved as a result of the interaction within hunter gatherer societies is considered to be from using the scientific method then I agree with you. I am in agreement with those like Collins who say that it is contrary to the evolutionary process however you have provided an alternative naturalistic explanation.Let us say that you are right and that all the things that you talked about happened naturally. Firstly you have to go right back and believe that this all evolved as the result of mindless processes or it is the result of Tom the intelligent planner. That leaves you at a point of choosing either atheism or deism.Either way, it still tells us does not touch on the question of whether or not in addition to these natural processes there is a spark of Tom in our hearts nudging us to reach out to world using the "Golden Rule" as a fundamental moral principle. I don't think I ever claimed it did. You are drawing a contrast between the evolutionary account and the existence of Tom. That is an apple and oranges thing. The evolutionary account exists. The question is whether or not the evolutionary account is the result of the mind of Tom or the result of mindless processes.

If you now accept that human morality as observed has a natural evolutionary explanation can you explain what difference there would be between a world in which "Tom" intervenes in human decisions and one in which "Tom" doesn't intervene at all?Because an evolutionary explanation for human moral behaviour as observed would seem to make "Tom" and his inaudible whisperings entirely superfluous. At best. It's got nothing to do with some sort of preconcieved premise at all. One can either follow the objective evidence. Or one can embrace the sort of thinking that has failed so woefully and repeatedly in the past and start invoking subjectively derived (AKA imagined) entities to explain things. I'm sure there are other choices too but those are the two at play here.

Well you said "I don't accept it." I think you mean more like, you don't like that it shows an evolutionary account for altruism which is what you've been arguing against for some time. I feel now you've at least seen all the evidence for it, the strongest of course been the evidence for the actual genes that control our altruistic behavior that I linked some posts back.If you still reject all that then what Straggler is saying about you rejecting scientific evidence is true. It has zero to do with desire, and everything to do with survival. Your brain doesn't desire oxytocin like a junky needing a fix. It simply needs it for the overall health of it's human host. In ALL cases however, it is ONLY the scientific method that is used and NEVER meerly a subjective musing. These are scientist mind you, each with their own task to present the best evidence for peer review. Which will be harsh. So there is no room for garbage.- Oni

How can you have read what Diomedes wrote, said you agreed with it, and responded with: When he clearly said it is being passed on through genes. I've even shown you the evidence for those genes.Why is it that you now insist on it being ONLY socially driven? What's that about?- Oni

Not at all, with Evolutionary/Molecular Biologist Kennith Miller who is both a Christian and understands the evolutionary record.His knowledge of the evolutionary account of human history, to include altrusim, has not made him choose either or. His beliefs are separate from the facts surrounding evolution.- Oni

I accept that there is a plausible natural evolutionary explanation for human morality. That does not mean that the explanation is right, wrong or partially right.I think that you agree that you have a conscience. You have given a natural explanation of how that conscience evolved. Essentially though your explanation is roughly based on it being a short or long term benefit to do the right thing for all mankind, starting from the obvious benefits of co-operating within early hunter gatherer tribes.However let’s look at something simple like exaggerating an event to make myself look good. No one benefits or is hurt. It is a simple lie with no ramifications. I simply said something like I caught a 15 lb fish when it really was only ten. When we do that, unless we have completely shut it out, our conscience tells us that we have done something wrong, yet people do this sort of thing al the time. It is a choice on the spot where we choose truth or pride. Certainly a consideration is that we might get caught in a lie and made to look bad but in this case I caught the fish and released it, and there is no one to refute my account of things and the fish isn’t talking.All we know is the way things are and what we are discussing is why things are. I realize that for you the natural explanations completely answer the question without Tom, whereas I contend that any natural explanation is a result of Tom’s design. Yes, I go further and believe that Tom hasn’t just put the plan in place and departed to warmer climes, but that he still remains involved through a subtle influencing of people’s hearts and minds. I obviously have no idea other than subjective belief the difference that we would see in the world if Tom’s on-going influence was removed, but it is my subjective belief that society would break down virtually completely.

Your link showed that there is a genetic component to altruism. We all agree that there is an environmental factor as well. I don’t disagree with that. The question is about whether it is designed by Tom or not. I don’t find Straggler’s account convincing, but that isn’t really the point. Also of course none of this tells us if in addition to the genetic and environmental factors there is the on-going subtle influence of Tom in our lives. You showed me on study without any peer review. It may well be right but if it is, it isn’t the whole story unless you claim that morality isn’t socially driven at all. Is it possible also that those traits that evolve socially can ultimately become part of our genetic makeup? (I’m only asking as I have no idea what the answer to that question is.) I’m in complete accord with Miller and applaud what he is doing in the schools etc regarding the teaching of evolution. As far as an involved Tom is concerned, here is a quote from a debate between Millar and Chris Hitchens.

quote:

---

Classic deism involves a God who is creator and prime mover, yet uninvolved in the affairs of his universe. But apply some logic here. By what principle would a God, capable of creating such vastness, be constrained from intervening in its affairs? Clearly, that restraint could only come by choice, and given such power, it would have to be a willing choice.

---

The scientific method provides us with the most objective, accurate and reliable conclusions available. Those you are arguing with in this thread are simply going with the science.Your "Tom" claims are however derived from nothing but wholly subjective notions about what you personally find "reasonable".It just is not true to say that the two positions regarding morality are equally subjective or equally valid as conclusions.In fact it's blatantly untrue.

Also, the link I provided you that showed the actual genes that affect altruism. Not a component, but the actual genes. Lets be specific. That is not the question, but I get that it's what you'd like the question to be. However, it remains a fact that there is zero evidence for Tom. So before we can ask whether Tom designs anything, we must first have evidence that there is a Tom.So again, whether Tom designed it the way science has discovered it to work is irrelevant UNTIL there is actual evidence that Tom exists. I'm refering to the evidence of the genes they found that work on our altruistic behavior. That was perr reviewed. No. The genes will be there before it is a social component. At that point, if it is beneficial then it will be selected. Yes, he is a theist. That's why I presented him. No matter what you quote from him, he has admitted that it is only his beleif and not a fact. He makes that distinction. I do respect him for that honesty.- Oni