| Author | Thread |
|
|
02/10/2011 03:37:43 PM · #26 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I didn't equate the two. One is part of the other (hence the use of the word "concept"). We are aware that natural selection is the engine that allows the species to survive. We seemed to take this to heart in the 30s and 40s, but we don't seem so keen on it now with regard to morality? Why not? |
Since you apparently couldn't be bothered to read the link: Popular interpretations of "survival of the fittest" typically ignore the importance of both reproduction and cooperation. To survive but not pass on one's genes to the next generation is to be biologically unfit. And many organisms are the "fittest" because they cooperate with other organisms, rather than competing with them. |
|
|
|
02/10/2011 03:38:41 PM · #27 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
...he was not exactly what you would call a died-in-the-wool atheist. He was more a secular minded religious opportunist....[/i] |
Isn't that the "no true scotsman" fallacy? |
|
|
|
02/10/2011 03:39:10 PM · #28 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I didn't equate the two. One is part of the other (hence the use of the word "concept"). We are aware that natural selection is the engine that allows the species to survive. We seemed to take this to heart in the 30s and 40s, but we don't seem so keen on it now with regard to morality? Why not? |
Since you apparently couldn't be bothered to read the link: Popular interpretations of "survival of the fittest" typically ignore the importance of both reproduction and cooperation. To survive but not pass on one's genes to the next generation is to be biologically unfit. And many organisms are the "fittest" because they cooperate with other organisms, rather than competing with them. |
I actually did read it, but that doesn't speak to my question. Why are we so into individual rights in our morality? I have a religious answer for that, but I want to hear from the other side of the fence...
Message edited by author 2011-02-10 15:40:01. |
|
|
|
02/10/2011 04:05:30 PM · #29 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by scalvert:
...he was not exactly what you would call a died-in-the-wool atheist. He was more a secular minded religious opportunist....[/i] |
Isn't that the "no true scotsman" fallacy? |
You've proven time and again that you wouldn't know a fallacy if you tripped over it. Your attempts to link Stalin & Co. with atheism are called an association fallacy (many of the acts that Stalin made are inherently fearful, but it is doubtful whether he ordered them on account of atheism or communism. Even if this doubt wasn't present, to attribute the negative aspects of Stalin to these beliefs is fallicious as the beliefs themselves say nothing about mass murder). The "no true scotsman" applies when specific cases are arbitrarily discounted to retain the assertion. Given that atheists by definition reject the notion of gods, it's as fair to suggest that someone who is raised religious and establishes churches wasn't "exactly what you would call a died-in-the-wool atheist" as it is to say somebody who enjoys the occasional cheeseburger isn't exactly what you would call a dyed-in-the-wool-vegan. |
|
|
|
02/10/2011 04:05:52 PM · #30 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
...Why are we so into individual rights in our morality? I have a religious answer for that, but I want to hear from the other side of the fence... |
I want to protect the tribe, so that it might protect me. Our chances of survival are better as a group. Maybe this trait has been preserved and passed along more than that of being a loner, as many of them were eaten by tigers, or too weird to be accepted by a mate.
I guess the religious answer to that would be... "Because a book told me to."
Message edited by author 2011-02-10 16:19:44. |
|
|
|
02/10/2011 04:21:39 PM · #31 |
Originally posted by Strikeslip:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
...Why are we so into individual rights in our morality? I have a religious answer for that, but I want to hear from the other side of the fence... |
I want to protect the tribe, so that it might protect me. Our chances of survival are better as a group. Maybe this "desire" has been preserved, because all the loners were eaten by tigers. |
But weren't the loners, on average, the weak and infirm? How were you benefitting the tribe by saving them? Doesn't that expose the tribe as a whole to more danger?
Shannon, I guess, is asserting that nobody ever does anything in the name of atheism because it isn't a creed. I call this the "now-you-see-me-now-you-don't" argument where people can assert, "I am an atheist", but as soon as something negative is pinned on someone, we find out that there's no such creed. We don't think that Stalin was capable of using the church to further his political gains? Are you telling me his revival of the ROC was a sign that he believed in God?
Of course we could just ask him...Stalin is quoted as saying "You know, they are fooling us, there is no God...all this talk about God is sheer nonsense" in E. Yaroslavsky, Landmarks in the Life of Stalin, Foreign Languages Publishing House, Moscow 1940.
Message edited by author 2011-02-10 16:22:11. |
|
|
|
02/10/2011 04:25:35 PM · #32 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I actually did read it, but that doesn't speak to my question. Why are we so into individual rights in our morality? |
The desire for human rights stems from empathy and compassion (that social cooperation aspect that you just said doesn't speak to your question). Those who repeatedly claim that only faith matters to God basically preclude any religious justification for morality.
Interesting to note that the most religious people in this country tend to be the ones most opposed to immigration, gay marriage, unemployment compensation, gun controls, etc... favoring personal freedoms over the welfare of others. |
|
|
|
02/10/2011 04:31:23 PM · #33 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I actually did read it, but that doesn't speak to my question. Why are we so into individual rights in our morality? |
The desire for human rights stems from empathy and compassion (that social cooperation aspect that you just said doesn't speak to your question). Those who repeatedly claim that only faith matters to God basically preclude any religious justification for morality. |
And so empathy and compassion are derived from social cooperation? And we have empathy and compassion toward the weak and unfit because? I'm not quite following. If you had two tribes who were otherwise equal, but one killed deformed babies at birth and the elderly once they could not care for themselves, which is going to have the selective advantage? More food for the fit who can then cooperate and have empathy for each other as well.
These aren't new questions. Like I said, this was hot stuff less than a hundred years ago and it was religious thinking that said, "this is insanity!". Our own country was no exception to this.
Message edited by author 2011-02-10 16:33:35. |
|
|
|
02/10/2011 04:32:22 PM · #34 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
...But weren't the loners, on average, the weak and infirm? How were you benefitting the tribe by saving them? Doesn't that expose the tribe as a whole to more danger?... |
I don't think so, though I have no stats on that. The way I'm thinking, the weak & infirm are cared for by the tribe. The anti-socialites take off, or maybe are exiled.
If your second question is serious, I don't understand it. If it's a poke at me, personally, good one, hehe. :-D Anyway, safety in numbers, and more progress through specialization. |
|
|
|
02/10/2011 04:35:19 PM · #35 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Shannon, I guess, is asserting that nobody ever does anything in the name of atheism because it isn't a creed. I call this the "now-you-see-me-now-you-don't" argument where people can assert, "I am an atheist", but as soon as something negative is pinned on someone, we find out that there's no such creed. We don't think that Stalin was capable of using the church to further his political gains? Are you telling me his revival of the ROC was a sign that he believed in God? |
Once again, atheism is a disbelief. It carries no creed and demands no action, positive OR negative. Have you ever done anything in the name of your disbelief in unicorns or Zeus? Does it make any sense whatsoever that Stalin would kill a bunch of people because there is no God? There is no logical connection- get over it. Stalin targeted the church for exactly the same reason somebody trying to seize power in North Korea would target Kim Jong Il. |
|
|
|
02/10/2011 04:37:00 PM · #36 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
... this was hot stuff less than a hundred years ago and it was religious thinking that said, "this is insanity!". Our own country was no exception to this. |
Hitler was trying to "cleanse" this way, and he was religious, wasn't he? You're making a blanked statement as if you're bigoted against Atheists. I may be wrong, was Hitler an Atheist?
Message edited by author 2011-02-10 16:38:27. |
|
|
|
02/10/2011 04:39:50 PM · #37 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
...Have you ever done anything in the name of your disbelief in unicorns or Zeus?... |
I'd be willing to do something to preserve my freedom from having to praise God for this, that, and the other thing. |
|
|
|
02/10/2011 04:41:48 PM · #38 |
Originally posted by Strikeslip:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
...But weren't the loners, on average, the weak and infirm? How were you benefitting the tribe by saving them? Doesn't that expose the tribe as a whole to more danger?... |
I don't think so, though I have no stats on that. The way I'm thinking, the weak & infirm are cared for by the tribe. The anti-socialites take off, or maybe are exiled.
If your second question is serious, I don't understand it. If it's a poke at me, personally, good one, hehe. :-D Anyway, safety in numbers, and more progress through specialization. |
I'm not sure what you were referring to there as the "second question". I'm carrying the idea further in my other thread with the tribe who kills deformed babies and the infirm. You have to feed the infirm. When you go out hunting, someone has to stay with them (less hunters). Etc. etc. etc. What is the selective advantage gained through keeping them around? |
|
|
|
02/10/2011 04:43:19 PM · #39 |
Originally posted by Strikeslip:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
... this was hot stuff less than a hundred years ago and it was religious thinking that said, "this is insanity!". Our own country was no exception to this. |
Hitler was trying to "cleanse" this way, and he was religious, wasn't he? You're making a blanked statement as if you're bigoted against Atheists. I may be wrong, was Hitler an Atheist? |
I actually was trying to preserve Godwin's name and not talk about Hitler. I'd say he was a whack. He probably had some weird religious beliefs and wasn't an atheist. But he definitely carried out his program in the name of "Science" rather than any religious cause.
But we can stick with our own country and programs of forced sterilization, for example. |
|
|
|
02/10/2011 04:45:54 PM · #40 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by Strikeslip:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
...But weren't the loners, on average, the weak and infirm? How were you benefitting the tribe by saving them? Doesn't that expose the tribe as a whole to more danger?... |
I don't think so, though I have no stats on that. The way I'm thinking, the weak & infirm are cared for by the tribe. The anti-socialites take off, or maybe are exiled.
If your second question is serious, I don't understand it. If it's a poke at me, personally, good one, hehe. :-D Anyway, safety in numbers, and more progress through specialization. |
I'm not sure what you were referring to there as the "second question". I'm carrying the idea further in my other thread with the tribe who kills deformed babies and the infirm. You have to feed the infirm. When you go out hunting, someone has to stay with them (less hunters). Etc. etc. etc. What is the selective advantage gained through keeping them around? |
Perhaps they have other skills beside hunting that benefit the tribe. You are limiting fitness to physical strength and abilities. Fittest does not always equal strongest. |
|
|
|
02/10/2011 04:46:24 PM · #41 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Interesting to note that the most religious people in this country tend to be the ones most opposed to immigration, gay marriage, unemployment compensation, gun controls, etc... favoring personal freedoms over the welfare of others. |
You don't need ME to point out the fallacy in that statement, do you, Shannon? You've certainly "called" that specific fallacy on others often enough. Want to man up and call it on yourself?
R. |
|
|
|
02/10/2011 04:48:10 PM · #42 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by Strikeslip:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
...But weren't the loners, on average, the weak and infirm? How were you benefitting the tribe by saving them? Doesn't that expose the tribe as a whole to more danger?... |
I don't think so, though I have no stats on that. The way I'm thinking, the weak & infirm are cared for by the tribe. The anti-socialites take off, or maybe are exiled.
If your second question is serious, I don't understand it. If it's a poke at me, personally, good one, hehe. :-D Anyway, safety in numbers, and more progress through specialization. |
I'm not sure what you were referring to there as the "second question". I'm carrying the idea further in my other thread with the tribe who kills deformed babies and the infirm. You have to feed the infirm. When you go out hunting, someone has to stay with them (less hunters). Etc. etc. etc. What is the selective advantage gained through keeping them around? |
The advantage is that you will one day be cared for, in turn. No consideration for improving genetics. But that's just the opinion of this Atheist.
Message edited by author 2011-02-10 16:49:42. |
|
|
|
02/10/2011 04:55:44 PM · #43 |
Originally posted by Strikeslip:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by Strikeslip:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
...But weren't the loners, on average, the weak and infirm? How were you benefitting the tribe by saving them? Doesn't that expose the tribe as a whole to more danger?... |
I don't think so, though I have no stats on that. The way I'm thinking, the weak & infirm are cared for by the tribe. The anti-socialites take off, or maybe are exiled.
If your second question is serious, I don't understand it. If it's a poke at me, personally, good one, hehe. :-D Anyway, safety in numbers, and more progress through specialization. |
I'm not sure what you were referring to there as the "second question". I'm carrying the idea further in my other thread with the tribe who kills deformed babies and the infirm. You have to feed the infirm. When you go out hunting, someone has to stay with them (less hunters). Etc. etc. etc. What is the selective advantage gained through keeping them around? |
The advantage is that you will one day be cared for, in turn. No consideration for improving genetics. But that's just the opinion of this Atheist. |
But if you follow evolution theory, genetics is always considered. You shouldn't want to be cared for because goes against the betterment of the tribe. There is no individual rights. |
|
|
|
02/10/2011 05:24:22 PM · #44 |
Exactly what Nullix said. The idea that I would want to be cared for when I'm elderly and can't contribute doesn't convey any advantage to the tribe. It actually conveys a disadvantage. Cooperation and empathy are good things and can definitely lead to survival advantages, but only to the extent that the individuals we cooperate with can better the tribe's survival. An individual who only consumes resources but provides none is considered to be a "parasite" (although we usually use this term for cross-species relationships, it can be used in a group dynamic as well). There is no selective advantage in keeping parasites around, even if we one day will be a parasite ourselves.
Yet our moral codes tend to be concerned especially with the "parasites". Again, I have a religious reasoning that can explain this, but I want to know the atheist version of it. Or should it be like that? Should we return to the 30s when our supreme court declared that "three generations of imbeciles is enough".
Message edited by author 2011-02-10 17:36:59. |
|
|
|
02/10/2011 05:37:01 PM · #45 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Exactly what Nullix said. The idea that I would want to be cared for when I'm elderly and can't contribute doesn't convey any advantage to the tribe. It actually conveys a disadvantage. Cooperation and empathy are good things and can definitely lead to survival advantages, but only to the extent that the individuals we cooperate with can better the tribe's survival. An individual who only consumes resources but provides none is considered to be a "parasite" (although we usually use this term for cross-species relationships, it can be used in a group dynamic as well). There is no selective advantage in keeping parasites around, even if we one day will be a parasite ourselves.
Yet our moral codes tend to be cocerned especially with the "parasites". Again, I have a religious reasoning that can explain this, but I want to know the atheist version of it. Or should it be like that? Should we return to the 30s when our supreme court declared that "three generations of imbeciles is enough". |
There is no atheist 'version'. You're on a hunt for the Loch Ness Monster. Atheists are as widely and varied in their 'worldviews' (as you so love to use) as people can possibly get. Atheism DOES NOT EQUAL natural selection. Religion IS NOT the polar opposite of natural selection either. Human emotions exist, but they DO NOT need a supernatural reason to do so. Someone in here can answer your question to the best of THEIR 'worldview' all they want, but it won't speak for every atheist. There is no creed. There is no dogma. There is no standard. It is merely a term that describes one specific aspect of thought. Which is that there is no need or desire to put faith in a supernatural over-ruling power. Period.
If you ever stop thinking of atheism as a religion in and of itself, you'll be so much better off. There are no parallels. |
|
|
|
02/10/2011 05:43:50 PM · #46 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by scalvert:
Interesting to note that the most religious people in this country tend to be the ones most opposed to immigration, gay marriage, unemployment compensation, gun controls, etc... favoring personal freedoms over the welfare of others. |
You don't need ME to point out the fallacy in that statement, do you, Shannon? You've certainly "called" that specific fallacy on others often enough. Want to man up and call it on yourself? |
You're actually going to deny that there's a significant correlation on these issues? There are exceptions, to be sure, but religious conservatives are often at the forefront of these campaigns. |
|
|
|
02/10/2011 05:59:45 PM · #47 |
First, and has been pointed out in other threads, there is no logical inference to Social Darwinism from evolution. To hold such is to misrepresent an incorrect and overly-simplistic view of evolutionary theory--even of the un-updated version of evolutionary theory put forth by Darwin in Origin of the Species. As much better thinkers than I have quipped, "the problem with Social Darwinism is that it ain't social and it isn't Darwinism."
Social Darwinism is flawed both in its understanding of evolutionary theory and its application. Evolution is not a zero-sum game of individual genetic winners and losers, and humankind has a proven track record of abject failure in self-identifying traits within individuals and populations that are evolutionarily advantageous. Social Darwinists are not concerned with "uplifting" the species, but rather entombing and defending their own individual and social group's position and privileges. In other words, Social Darwinism is actually antithetical to evolution, since it fundamentally seeks to undermine diversity, change and "progress" within the species.
Second, even if evolution did create some sort of endorsement of Social Darwinism or some other morally objectionable inference, the fact that one might not like the inferences raised by evolutionary theory says nothing about the truth of the theory. Evolution is a fact not because it is the most "morally satisfying" theory (whatever that might mean), it is a fact because it is the model that most accurately describes the biological world in which we live, provides the most accurate and reliable predictions relating to that biological world, and is shown to be accurate by an ever-increasing mountain of supportive evidence across multiple scientific disciplines.
All of which, Doc, I know you know. These types of too-cute, point-scoring arguments are beneath you. |
|
|
|
02/10/2011 06:03:28 PM · #48 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by scalvert:
Interesting to note that the most religious people in this country tend to be the ones most opposed to immigration, gay marriage, unemployment compensation, gun controls, etc... favoring personal freedoms over the welfare of others. |
You don't need ME to point out the fallacy in that statement, do you, Shannon? You've certainly "called" that specific fallacy on others often enough. Want to man up and call it on yourself? |
You're actually going to deny that there's a significant correlation on these issues? There are exceptions, to be sure, but religious conservatives are often at the forefront of these campaigns. |
Oh, I don't deny the connection. I would debate the implication that these people are opposed to all these issues BECAUSE they are religious. I'd argue, instead, that very conservative people are disproportionally drawn to fundamentalist religions. I can't quite remember the name of the fallacy there, danggit; but correlations are not causes.
And I know you're going to say that you are NOT saying "religion is a cause of xenophobia" or whatever, and show me that your sentence just shows the correlation, but nevertheless the way you constructed it slyly implies cause-and-effect at some level, and I disagree with that.
You could as easily have said "It's interesting to note that the segment of our society most opposed to (list issues) seems disproportionally drawn to fundamentalist religious views." and that would be a much more neutral statement.
R. |
|
|
|
02/10/2011 06:22:50 PM · #49 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Why are we less concerned about the species and more concerned about the individual in our morality? |
THAT is a brilliant question! |
|
|
|
02/10/2011 06:25:19 PM · #50 |
Originally posted by shutterpuppy:
First, and has been pointed out in other threads, there is no logical inference to Social Darwinism from evolution. To hold such is to misrepresent an incorrect and overly-simplistic view of evolutionary theory--even of the un-updated version of evolutionary theory put forth by Darwin in Origin of the Species. As much better thinkers than I have quipped, "the problem with Social Darwinism is that it ain't social and it isn't Darwinism."
Social Darwinism is flawed both in its understanding of evolutionary theory and its application. Evolution is not a zero-sum game of individual genetic winners and losers, and humankind has a proven track record of abject failure in self-identifying traits within individuals and populations that are evolutionarily advantageous. Social Darwinists are not concerned with "uplifting" the species, but rather entombing and defending their own individual and social group's position and privileges. In other words, Social Darwinism is actually antithetical to evolution, since it fundamentally seeks to undermine diversity, change and "progress" within the species.
Second, even if evolution did create some sort of endorsement of Social Darwinism or some other morally objectionable inference, the fact that one might not like the inferences raised by evolutionary theory says nothing about the truth of the theory. Evolution is a fact not because it is the most "morally satisfying" theory (whatever that might mean), it is a fact because it is the model that most accurately describes the biological world in which we live, provides the most accurate and reliable predictions relating to that biological world, and is shown to be accurate by an ever-increasing mountain of supportive evidence across multiple scientific disciplines.
All of which, Doc, I know you know. These types of too-cute, point-scoring arguments are beneath you. |
I'm trying to follow all your points so I can address them, but I may be off. First, I'm not somehow making the backward argument that our morality indicates that evolution has been debunked. I'm not saying anything of that sort. What I am asking about, is why do our common moral systems look so different than we would expect from evolution? To quote Richard Dawkins "Much as we might wish to believe otherwise, universal love and the welfare of the species as a whole are concepts that simply do not make evolutionary sense." (The Selfish Gene, p.2)
So the argument or questioning goes like this: For those who ground morality in our genetic imperatives, why do we find that typical moral systems seem so opposite what we'd expect? We'd expect a system that upholds ideals that benefit the "selfish gene"; ideals that can incorporate cooperation and empathy, but only to the extent it benefits us (meaning ME not "us" the species). How do you, as an atheist, justify the differences? Is there a justification? or are our moral systems "misinformed" through things like religious ignorance?
Message edited by author 2011-02-10 18:26:27. |
|
