Summations Only

Huh?Try to make sense. Use sentences.

GDRYou seek the God of the Gaps.Consider that if there was a pre-existing intelligence, --- and that that intelligence was still alive and not consumed by its own merging or becoming the big bang, then,if unable to communicate with us or show itself, then what good would it be to us if we somehow found it? We could never know that it was really the first cause.If a God wanted to be relevant to man then it would show up. The fact it hides tells me all I need to know and that is why I discuss the morals of the Gods on offer and do not care if any even exist.God should be as important to us as we are to him and he is ignoring us and we should do the same with his absentee ass.Better to stop lying to ourselves about supernatural entities that do not exist. We have fought enough wars over imaginary Gods.Regards
DL

RingoI guess I should not assume that we are in step.Your original, --- "No, I think we live in states where the government doesn't/can't legislate religion."I responded with, ---" Hint. Taxing power."What I meant that Government can and does control the churches tax exempt status and can withdraw it as required.Let me add that Governments already force churches to comply with some secular laws.I E.
J. W.'s and their blood transfusion policy and some churches are ordered not to protest close to funerals for soldiers.I see no reason to not tie their immoral homophobia and misogyny to their tax exemption. You and I make up the shortfall that they do not pay and I for one resent my tax dollars in effect paying for immoral policies against the women in my family.I am a man of peace but ---- if I hadhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N7vCww3j2-wRegards
DL

After a discussion with Straggler I stopped discussing cause for the Big Bang. ( I concluded that there is something instead of nothing simply because there always has been something.) Frankly, if you look at our universe as we experience it, and from what current science postulates I don't think that it is unreasonable to suggest that our universe is just one aspect of a greater infinite reality. We are so accustomed to thinking of time flowing in one direction it is difficult to conceive of more than one dimension of time. Presumably with there dimensions of time we could experience moving in time in the same way that we move around in our 3 spatial dimensions. Possibly this could be one of the characteristics of the greater reality. Who knows?However I suggest that the formation of life is a different sort of issue. We can see in our own experience of time that life began at an actual point of time in whatever form that took. I don't believe that you can equate cause and effect with those parameters. I still believe that life requires cause and that cause is either intelligent or non-intelligent. And monotonously again, IMHO, the chance of sentient moral life resulting from a pre-existing moral intelligence is more reasonable that it arising from the chance combination of mindless particles.

If it is ok I'll skip the first part of your post as I think you already know what it is that I will reply anyway and the other parts I'll cover here.I read through the link above. Here is a quote from the last section entitled is it real altruism.

quote:

---

5. But is it ‘Real’ Altruism?
The evolutionary theories described above, in particular kin selection, go a long way towards reconciling the existence of altruism in nature with Darwinian principles. However, some people have felt these theories in a way devalue altruism, and that the behaviours they explain are not ‘really’ altruistic. The grounds for this view are easy to see. Ordinarily we think of altruistic actions as disinterested, done with the interests of the recipient, rather than our own interests, in mind. But kin selection theory explains altruistic behaviour as a clever strategy devised by selfish genes as a way of increasing their representation in the gene-pool, at the expense of other genes. Surely this means that the behaviours in question are only ‘apparently’ altruistic, for they are ultimately the result of genic self-interest? Reciprocal altruism theory also seems to ‘take the altruism out of altruism’. Behaving nicely to someone in order to procure return benefits from them in the future seems in a way the antithesis of ‘real’ altruismit is just delayed self-interest.

​

This is a tempting line of argument. Indeed Trivers (1971) and, arguably, Dawkins (1976) were themselves tempted by it. But it should not convince. The key point to remember is that biological altruism cannot be equated with altruism in the everyday vernacular sense. Biological altruism is defined in terms of fitness consequences, not motivating intentions. If by ‘real’ altruism we mean altruism done with the conscious intention to help, then the vast majority of living creatures are not capable of ‘real’ altruism nor therefore of ‘real’ selfishness either. Ants and termites, for example, presumably do not have conscious intentions, hence their behaviour cannot be done with the intention of promoting their own self-interest, nor the interests of others. Thus the assertion that the evolutionary theories reviewed above show that the altruism in nature is only apparent makes little sense. The contrast between ‘real’ altruism and merely apparent altruism simply does not apply to most animal species.

​

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.

​

Do theories of the evolution of biological altruism apply to humans? This is part of the broader question of whether ideas about the evolution of animal behaviour can be extrapolated to humans, a question that fuelled the sociobiology controversy of the 1980s and is still actively debated today (cf. Boyd and Richerson 2006, Bowles and Gintis 2011, Sterelny 2012). All biologists accept that Homo sapiens is an evolved species, and thus that general evolutionary principles apply to it. However, human behaviour is obviously influenced by culture to a far greater extent than that of other animals, and is often the product of conscious beliefs and desires (though this does not necessarily mean that genetics has no influence.) Nonetheless, at least some human behaviour does seem to fit the predictions of the evolutionary theories reviewed above. In general, humans behave more altruistically (in the biological sense) towards their close kin than towards non-relatives, e.g. by helping relatives raise their children, just as kin selection theory would predict. It is also true that we tend to help those who have helped us out in the past, just as reciprocal altruism theory would predict. 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.

​

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.

---

Obviously the writer takes your position but he is very clear that it is just his opinion. and the opinions of others. The article is from the "Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy". It is philosophy. It isn't science as you claim it to be. He clearly differentiates between helping others where there is a hoped for benefit to yourself or your gene pool in the end, and true altruism which involves self sacrifice for the benefit of others.You talk about it being an emotion. How many promos do we see on television with pictures of emaciated children in the third world. Sure, pretty much everyone is touched but out of all those people how many are touched enough that they do something about it, and even of that group how many are touched enough that they do enough that it actually reduces there life style? People generally think they should do something but they don't. Others like an 85 year old nurse in our little Anglican congregation recently returned from Uganda where she worked in a Aids clinic. She also sends every penny that she can over there to help individual kids to get an education. As I say, most people think they should do something but don't and others give until it hurts. I have said numerous times on this forum that " It is absolutely not the case that morality only exists in Christianity or that it didn't exist before Christ". It is a human characteristic that is universal. Christianity calls us to embrace true altruism.The article you cited was actually pretty clear that animals do not exhibit true altruism although I'm not sure I agree. Here again is what they say.

quote:

---

This is a tempting line of argument. Indeed Trivers (1971) and, arguably, Dawkins (1976) were themselves tempted by it. But it should not convince. The key point to remember is that biological altruism cannot be equated with altruism in the everyday vernacular sense. Biological altruism is defined in terms of fitness consequences, not motivating intentions. If by ‘real’ altruism we mean altruism done with the conscious intention to help, then the vast majority of living creatures are not capable of ‘real’ altruism nor therefore of ‘real’ selfishness either. Ants and termites, for example, presumably do not have conscious intentions, hence their behaviour cannot be done with the intention of promoting their own self-interest, nor the interests of others. Thus the assertion that the evolutionary theories reviewed above show that the altruism in nature is only apparent makes little sense. The contrast between ‘real’ altruism and merely apparent altruism simply does not apply to most animal species.

---

So you drag up that old chestnut. Just which gap am I trying to fill? He did show up in the Christian view with Jesus embodying His "Word" or wisdom and you ignored Him anyway.Assuming that you have that still small voice of your conscience, then I suggest He's talking to you on a daily basis and you still don't believe He exists.We have fought more than enough wars for all sorts of reasons and in some cases where the name of God was unfortunately invoked.

GDRI ignore your imaginary friend for sure but not the Jesus I follow.Have a look at what he says compared to your Roman created ass kissing slave loving wimp. This one believes in freedom from religion.Gnostic Christians are perpetual seekers after God. God here I define God as the best laws and rules to live life with.We believe that those laws and rules, as Jesus said, are found in our minds/hearts.I use the following to try to illustrate this notion. A bit of history and then a mindset and method to do what I promote.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oR02ciandvg&feature=BFa&l...The thinking shown below is the Gnostic Christian’s goal as taught by Jesus but know that any belief can be internalized to activate your higher mind.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=alRNbesfXXw&feature=playe...This method and mind set is how you become I am and brethren to Jesus, in the esoteric sense.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FdSVl_HOo8YWhen you can name your God, I am, and mean yourself, you will begin to know the only God you will ever find. Becoming a God is to become more fully human and a brethren to Jesus.Regards
DL

Wow!

I'm going to list the things that I am assuming we can agree on. I've asked you some of these before, but you've avoided aswering me which doesn't make for a useful debate.1. biological altruism is an accepted fact in science
2. it's found in many species that live in groups from ants to apes
3. evolution is a fact
4. people are an evolved species that live in groupsIf you agree those things it's impossible to avoid the conclusion that people have inherited some form of biological altruism through the process of evolution. In fact, it would be very surprising to find the opposite. Are you with me so far?Your issue now seems to be that it's not 'true' altruism.The article you quoted agrees with you, an ant or bee is not a conscious being and is not making a calculation when it helps its group. But as explained, this fact does not help you. The ant's altruism is instinctive - it's a reflex that it can't control. People have similar - but different instincts. 'Normal' people - that is those people that are not mentally ill or suffering from a brain injury - have instinctive, reflex reactions to suffering. We can't help ourselves feeling sorry for people who suffer and wanting to help them. It's a response that can be seen happening in the brain with fMRI scans when they are shown pictures of people in pain or babies crying and so on. Can you accept that? If so, you accept that5. human empathy is a reflexand because of agreeing the earlier premises you must consider that this is the next logical conclusion6. because people are an evolved species, the reflex of empathy in people is also evolved functionNo-one is claiming that human atruism is the same as that shown by say, an ape. Ours is far more advanced, modified by our culture which is a function of our conscious brain and our social development. But equally, because we can show that when our brains lack that reflex the people who are otherwise 'normal' simply don't understand why they should help others we can say that altruism is simply another evolved function - at least at the basic level. Not a god given special quality that religious minded people want it to be.

So what do you think of G.I.A. saying that he considers his God to be himself? (I'd like to hear Tangles point of view, for the peanut gallery among you)

A couple of questions.

How can you "follow" yourself?

​

How do you interpret Genesis 3:5 in context?

---

God created war so that Americans would learn geography. —Mark Twain
"A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." —Mark Twain

I think he's just messing with you and you're biting.On a more reasonable level, the atheists views is the humanist one where the notion of god is replaced by that of humanity. So he's just saying that is a silly and provocative way.This is the humanist society of Britain's take on it (and mine):

The government can not tax radicals into moderates. But it can't force them to change their doctrine. The reason is freedom of religion. Everybody is entitled to homophobic and/or misogynistic beliefs. The government can only forbid them from acting on their beliefs.

PhatGenesis 3:5 For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.The context is the talking serpent informing Eve of the information that God had lied about by omission in telling Adam of the benefits and punishments of eating of the tree of knowledge of good and evil.You will note that in the story, God warns of dying, which ends up looking like a lie, while the talking serpent gives a longer list. God later confirms what the serpent says and then arbitrarily and immorally adds on a bunch more penalties or consequences including God murdering A & E by neglect by denying them what would keep them alive. The tree of life.As to how I follow myself. Do you not follow what your mind tells you to do?When you do, as we all do, are you not following yourself and whatever you are thinking?Regards
DL

TangleIn a provocative way? Perhaps.I just see it as in the Gnostic Christian and older Jewish traditional way.Like Jesus does when asking if we have forgotten that we are Gods.He of course was thinking of the Jewish Divine Council.I do agree that it serves humanists ideologies well but adds an esoteric or Gnostic component.Regards
DL