?s about atheism but were afraid to ask

02/10/2011 06:28:24 PM · #51

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

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.

As with the fine tuning argument you were trying to foist on us earlier, you're reversing cause and effect. Evolution is not a driver, but the aggregate, long term result. Caring for the infirm might offer a survival advantage (a productive member returning to health, knowledge and experience from elders, bringing families closer together, etc.), or it might not. It doesn't have to. You've got nipples and a vestigial tail... what advantage do those confer?

Moths have evolved the ability to use the sun or moon as navigational aids: keep a constant angle to a distant light source and you can fly in a straight line to any point. However every adaptation does not have to be 100% beneficial, and an extension of that same trait can prove deadly when the light source isn't an infinitely distant point. A moth adjusting its flight path to keep the angle to a nearby flame constant will follow a logarithmic spiral to its doom.

Empathy and compassion are obvious benefits for a social animal with a protracted infancy and no claws or armor, and caring for the infirm may be an extension of that trait even if it also reduces survival in some cases. Toothed whales demonstrate similar high intelligence and strong social cohesion. Maybe pods of healthy whales end up stranded as they attempt to aid a distressed companion for the same reason we often try to help others even if it's detrimental to our own survival?

02/10/2011 06:36:53 PM · #52

Originally posted by Bear_Music:

Originally posted by scalvert:
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.

That'd be an interesting debate. On a number of social issues- gay marriage, contraception, abortion, slavery, women's suffrage- the primary objection of conservatives is that it's against the Bible (exactly the correlation you're objecting to).

02/10/2011 06:37:09 PM · #53

I have nipples because women have nipples. It's easier to have one bodyplan instead of two.

So you are arguing that our moral inclinations are misguided behaviors like a moth thinking the streetlamp is the moon? That makes me feel good.

Many social animals also exhibit the behavior I've been speaking of. An incoming male lion kills all the current cubs in the pride so as to produce estrus in the females so he can propogate his own genes. Where's the empathy and compassion in that? Wolves will ostracize or leave behind weak members of the pack. These seem like natural behaviors so why would our moral code abhore similar behavior if we found it in man? Our social structure doesn't preclude benefits from such activity.

Message edited by author 2011-02-10 18:38:21.

Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 24-70mm f/2.8G ED

02/10/2011 06:44:05 PM · #54

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

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).

What makes you think our moral systems will result in long-term success? Selfishness and greed could easily wipe out our species in the not-too-distant-future. Fundamentalist terrorism and organized campaigns to thwart climate change solutions spring to mind.

Dr.Confuser

Nikon D800

02/10/2011 06:47:45 PM · #55

Why does a tribe preserve the old and the infirm? I think there are two reasons.

The survival of the tribe depends not only on the physical health/strength/reproductive success of the individuals, but it depends on the collective knowledge or wisdom of the tribe. Knowledge grows and evolves over time and preserving the thinkers conveys greater survival ability on the tribe. The elderly have had longer to develop wisdom. and up to a point, can contribute best to tribal survival problem solving. It's in the tribe's interest to preserve the ability to deal with ambiguity, deal with new threats. By preserving the old and the infirm, the tribe enhances its diversity and diverse is a better survival strategy than lone-wolfism. The old are also vessels of tribal knowledge ... without which tribe survival chances would be diminished.

And second, successful tribes develop an abundance of resources that exceeds the needs of its fittest members. They can be spent without harming the tribe, on individuals that contribute something, but less than its fittest, to the tribe's survival. Lesser contributions might include child rearing, creation of art which preserves tribal wisdom, etc. These contributions, if less than full card carrying members', still convey added survival chances on the tribe as a whole.

As an aside, Richard's post about apostrophies has got me to proofreading this more than I might otherwise have. Thanks

hahn23.

02/10/2011 06:56:23 PM · #56

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

I have nipples because women have nipples. It's easier to have one bodyplan instead of two.

According to your sacred history of creation, men were around before women. Does your wife have the same parts as you?

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

So you are arguing that our moral inclinations are misguided behaviors like a moth thinking the streetlamp is the moon? That makes me feel good.

Putting aside your disingenuous categorization, nobody said you have to feel good about it.

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

These seem like natural behaviors so why would our moral code abhore similar behavior if we found it in man?

You're trying to invoke a naturalistic fallacy here. Nature doesn't care.

Message edited by author 2011-02-10 19:04:18.

02/10/2011 06:57:30 PM · #57

I don't disagree with that Dr., but you are trying to change the thought experiment and convey a benefit to the individuals "on the chopping block". We can, of course, change it to make sure there is no obvious benefit. People with severe mental retardation. People in persistent vegitative states. Alzheimer's patients. etc. Can you convey the selective advantage of making sure these people are protected? I do not know how the fitness of the tribe is increased by keeping them around. And while an abundance of resources may allow times where there isn't an overall disadvantage, a dearth of resources would exacerbate the situation. We are not apt to consider our moral codes to be extraneous when the going gets tough. In fact, we would argue that this is when our moral codes mean the most!

02/10/2011 06:58:10 PM · #58

Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I have nipples because women have nipples. It's easier to have one bodyplan instead of two.

According to your sacred history of creation, men were around before women. Does your wife have the same parts as you?

Originally posted by DrAchoo:
These seem like natural behaviors so why would our moral code abhore similar behavior if we found it in man?

You're trying to invoke a naturalistic fallacy here. Nature doesn't care.

Up to your same old lunacy, I see Shannon....

02/10/2011 07:05:08 PM · #59

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Up to your same old lunacy, I see Shannon....

Thanks, Ron.

02/10/2011 07:20:01 PM · #60

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

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?

"An example of a naturalistic fallacy in this sense would be to conclude Social Darwinism from the theory of evolution by natural selection"

02/10/2011 07:20:39 PM · #61

I'll rise above my genetic imperatives and play the bigger man.

02/10/2011 07:28:15 PM · #62

All I'm hearing here from people is that we are all uncomfortable with the precepts of Social Darwinism (whatever that exactly defines). But nobody has explained WHY the precepts do not hold true if we start from the idea that all aspects of human behavior are grounded at some level in natural selection.

I'm certainly not arguing that we undertake a program of Social Darwinism. I'm asking why you don't think we have naturally gravitated toward such a program. An answer of "ooh gross!" doesn't really help.

Darwin recoils from the idea but doesn't really have an answer himself:
Thus the weak members of civilized societies propagate their kind. No one who has attended to the breeding of domestic animals will doubt that this must be highly injurious to the race of man. It is surprising how soon a want of care, or care wrongly directed, leads to the degeneration of a domestic race; but excepting in the case of man himself, hardly any one is so ignorant as to allow his worst animals to breed.
The aid which we feel impelled to give to the helpless is mainly an incidental result of the instinct of sympathy, which was originally acquired as part of the social instincts, but subsequently rendered, in the manner previously indicated, more tender and more widely diffused. Nor could we check our sympathy, even at the urging of hard reason, without deterioration in the noblest part of our nature. The surgeon may harden himself whilst performing an operation, for he knows that he is acting for the good of his patient; but if we were intentionally to neglect the weak and helpless, it could only be for a contingent benefit, with an overwhelming present evil. ... We must therefore bear the undoubtedly bad effects of the weak surviving and propagating their kind; but there appears to be at least one check in steady action, namely that the weaker and inferior members of society do not marry so freely as the sound; and this check might be indefinitely increased by the weak in body or mind refraining from marriage, though this is more to be hoped for than expected.

He says that sympathy, like Shannon's moth following a lampost is "mainly an incidental result". But he still considers the neglect of the weak to be "an overwhelming present evil". He doesn't say why though.

Message edited by author 2011-02-10 19:31:23.

Nikon AF Nikkor 85mm f/1.8D

02/10/2011 07:36:04 PM · #63

Originally posted by scalvert:

Moths have evolved the ability to use the sun or moon as navigational aids: keep a constant angle to a distant light source and you can fly in a straight line to any point. However every adaptation does not have to be 100% beneficial, and an extension of that same trait can prove deadly when the light source isn't an infinitely distant point. A moth adjusting its flight path to keep the angle to a nearby flame constant will follow a logarithmic spiral to its doom.

Empathy and compassion are obvious benefits for a social animal with a protracted infancy and no claws or armor, and caring for the infirm may be an extension of that trait even if it also reduces survival in some cases. Toothed whales demonstrate similar high intelligence and strong social cohesion. Maybe pods of healthy whales end up stranded as they attempt to aid a distressed companion for the same reason we often try to help others even if it's detrimental to our own survival?

So let's take this to its logical conclusion. Since we possess the intelligence to realize that our empathy might reduce survival in some cases. Shouldn't we avoid the mistake of the moth following the flame to its death and extinguish such behavior in these circumstances? What possible reason would we have to keep it around once it's been identified as counterproductive?

Message edited by author 2011-02-10 19:46:34.

Louis

Nikon D800

02/10/2011 07:37:10 PM · #64

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I have nipples because women have nipples. It's easier to have one bodyplan instead of two.

According to your sacred history of creation, men were around before women. Does your wife have the same parts as you?

Originally posted by DrAchoo:
These seem like natural behaviors so why would our moral code abhore similar behavior if we found it in man?

You're trying to invoke a naturalistic fallacy here. Nature doesn't care.

Up to your same old lunacy, I see Shannon....

That's how you answer a sound retort?

And you're not reading properly. In its most widely understood definition, Social Darwinism is not science, and it isn't Darwinism. Read any latter-day history of the Third Reich for clarification.

02/10/2011 07:50:47 PM · #65

Originally posted by Louis:

That's how you answer a sound retort?

Laying fundamentalist beliefs which you all already know I don't hold at my feet when we were talking about evolution is a sound retort? *snort*

02/10/2011 07:53:40 PM · #66

This is important enough to bring to the bottom again so we can have a reply:

Originally posted by scalvert:

Carl Zeiss 50mm ZE f/1.4 Planar T for Canon

02/10/2011 07:54:18 PM · #67

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

But nobody has explained WHY the precepts do not hold true if we start from the idea that all aspects of human behavior are grounded at some level in natural selection.

I'm certainly not arguing that we undertake a program of Social Darwinism. I'm asking why you don't think we have naturally gravitated toward such a program.

As I said before, you wouldn't know a fallacy if you tripped over it... you're still trotting out the same faulty argument you deny using: nature "is" X, so we "ought" to gravitate toward it. Classic naturalistic fallacy.

Creationists often apply the naturalistic fallacy to natural selection ("survival of the fittest"), as part of their continuing campaign of anti-evolutionary propaganda. In nature the weakest (least fit) die, so the naturalistic fallacy says that we should dismantle welfare states and withhold charity and health care, to leave poor and ill people to die, or even to exterminate the weak.

yanko

Canon EOS-5D Mark II

02/10/2011 07:56:52 PM · #68

Originally posted by K10DGuy:

There is no atheist 'version'.

Why bother? It'll only get ignored like the other million times. If one could photograph this discussion it would have to be of a man arguing in front of a mirror...

02/10/2011 08:04:11 PM · #69

Originally posted by yanko:

Originally posted by K10DGuy:
There is no atheist 'version'.

Why bother? It'll only get ignored like the other million times. If one could photograph this discussion it would have to be of a man arguing in front of a mirror...

I actually just purely missed Ed's post. It was during a flury of posting, I believe. Sorry. We seem to be past it now.

Nikon AF Nikkor 85mm f/1.8D

02/10/2011 08:04:34 PM · #70

This is important enough to bring to the bottom again so we can have a reply:

Originally posted by scalvert:

Louis

Nikon D800

02/10/2011 08:05:52 PM · #71

That is extremely annoying. Stop baiting.

02/10/2011 08:07:29 PM · #72

Originally posted by Louis:

That is extremely annoying. Stop baiting.

Baiting? I'm waiting for the damn answer.

Canon EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS

02/10/2011 08:08:48 PM · #73

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

This is important enough to bring to the bottom again so we can have a reply...

It's still the poster child for a naturalistic fallacy no matter how many times you repeat it.

Strikeslip

Canon EOS-5D

02/10/2011 08:09:51 PM · #74

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 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...

Bolded above for emphasis.

What I was getting at, and I think nobody else is, is that the cavemen who were "empathetic" tended to survive to pass their "morality genes" on.

I think it's pretty simple.