|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Morality of atheists: where does it come from?
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
A religious outlook gives comfort in having a set of rules, something also we humans like.
Somebody upthread was complaining about religious people telling atheists what they believe.
I don't think believing that ethics is consistent is the same as believing that ethics is a set of rules. Nor does a religious outlook amount to having a set of rules either.
[ 28. November 2013, 22:04: Message edited by: Dafyd ]
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Justinian
Shipmate
# 5357
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by seekingsister:
And in almost every culture in the world, the reasons given for the benefits of altruism have been through the lens of religion. Suggesting that altruism as means for survival of the species is not self-evident outside of the framework of a religious philosophy.
Given that altruism in animals is doccumented even at a cross-species level religion can not be the precursor to altruism - although it is entirely possible that it takes credit for it.
--------------------
My real name consists of just four letters, but in billions of combinations.
Eudaimonaic Laughter - my blog.
Posts: 3926 | From: The Sea Coast of Bohemia | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
Altruism in animals is quite a fascinating topic, and is probably very complex. For example, when ants sacrifice themselves, they may be doing that for their relatives, so here there is a kin-related idea, or if you like, gene-related.
However, there may well be non-kinship type altruism, for example, crèches are found amongst some mammals and birds (lions and Canada geese).
No doubt, as I speak, various mathematicians are working out the game theory permutations here.
Maybe it's better to call these things proto-altruism, since it's rather different from human altruism, i.e. less conscious.
The working out of the place of altruism within evolutionary biology is a vast topic in its own right, but suffice it to say, that at first it was seen as a problem, since we would expect natural selection to aid the organism's own chances of survival and reproduction. But - here, drum roll, and swelling music may be in order - things are not so simple.
But at any rate, as Justinian more tersely said, altruism may be expressed in various religions, but doubtfully originates there.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Soror Magna
Shipmate
# 9881
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dinghy Sailor:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Dinghy Sailor:
This is analogous to science. We don't know the complete set of the laws of the universe. We do however believe that at root these laws are universal and invariant - properties which allow us to investigate what they are. If we thought there were no universal laws governing the universe, or that they fluctuated unpredictably, scientists would just give up and go home.
The difference here is that with science we have a way of getting closer and closer to a right understanding of what is going on: testing our hypotheses against data from the real world.
There is no such mechanism for theistic ethics.
No mechanism at all? I don't think you believe that. You and I believe in revelation from God. Other people believe different things. ... Rules that change every day are no rules at all, and that applies just as much to moral rules as to any others.
Except that the mechanisms for testing theistic ethics and the mechanisms for testing science work in opposite directions. Theistic ethics looks at the world and says what's going on is right or wrong, based on objective moral standard. Science looks at the world, and tests whether the theory / law / model is right or wrong, based on observations. See the difference?
Scientific laws do change, though not usually every day. But you know something? Even religious laws change too. They change based on what happens when they are applied in the real world. When they cause suffering for no good reason, or hurt people who aren't even part of the religion, they should be and, usually after much hollering and screaming, they do get changed.
--------------------
"You come with me to room 1013 over at the hospital, I'll show you America. Terminal, crazy and mean." -- Tony Kushner, "Angels in America"
Posts: 5430 | From: Caprica City | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dinghy Sailor
Ship's Jibsheet
# 8507
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
Scientific laws do change, though not usually every day. But you know something? Even religious laws change too. They change based on what happens when they are applied in the real world. When they cause suffering for no good reason, or hurt people who aren't even part of the religion, they should be and, usually after much hollering and screaming, they do get changed.
Scientific laws, as in the governing principles behind the interactions of particles of matter and antimatter, fields, waves and energy in the in the universe? If you have evidence they change, you'd better submit it to Nature right now - and make sure you put me as second author. Einstein can eat his heart out!
Here's the thing: whatever approximations we make to scientific rules have no power over the universe at all - they're based on observations of the real things. We can change our approximations based on new data all we like, but the actual laws governing the physical universe won't be affected one bit.
Similarly, if certain actions are morally right or wrong, we can't change that by changing what we society accepts. If I believe X is morally right and you believe it's wrong, one of us is incorrect, has always been and will always be incorrect - and there's nothing we can do to change that. That's what objective morality means. Of course, if human beings are the top moral minds in the universe, we make our own rules for our own game and our own judges, so morality is fluid like you say. The problem with subjective morality is that you lose the ability to say something else is wrong.
[mended link]
[ 30. November 2013, 21:01: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
--------------------
Preach Christ, because this old humanity has used up all hopes and expectations, but in Christ hope lives and remains.
Dietrich Bonhoeffer
Posts: 2821 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
That is ridiculous. For one, Christians have a single rule book, but fail a single, or constant, interpretation.
For another, societies agree* on moral standards. These are subject to that culture, but they do change. Once again I say you are looking for the stark admidst the subtle. It doesn't exist.
*Yes, to a point and roughly.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dinghy Sailor
Ship's Jibsheet
# 8507
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
That is ridiculous. For one, Christians have a single rule book, but fail a single, or constant, interpretation.
For another, societies agree* on moral standards. These are subject to that culture, but they do change. Once again I say you are looking for the stark admidst the subtle. It doesn't exist.
*Yes, to a point and roughly.
What has any of that got to do with anything? The existence and essence of an objective moral law have absolutely nothing to do with what anyone thinks about them - any more than astronomers believing in geocentrism makes the sun rotate around the earth.
Furthermore, believing in absolute morality is in no way equivalent to believing you have access to that morality: it merely means a belief that it is possible for someone to be absolutely, objectively morally wrong in a way that is independent of whether anyone else thinks that is so.
--------------------
Preach Christ, because this old humanity has used up all hopes and expectations, but in Christ hope lives and remains.
Dietrich Bonhoeffer
Posts: 2821 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
If there is no access to this objective morality, how does one ascertain that it exists?
All well and good if I say my morality is dependent on the Flying Purple People eater, then.
And what the Hell is your bible for if not to instruct you?
The switch away from heliocentrism was by observation. As is the position that morality is an evolutionary trait. Though, to be fair, not demonstrable to the same level as yet.
An objective, universal morality is faith alone.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
If there is no access to this objective morality, how does one ascertain that it exists?
This is presumably a false dichotomy. Access doesn't necessarily imply a fully reliable can't be mistaken access. It just needs to imply that there are things which you can do that make your judgements more reliable than they would otherwise be. (Putting yourself in the shoes of the other people concerned, for example. Trying to eliminate double standards. And so on.)
quote:
The switch away from heliocentrism was by observation. As is the position that morality is an evolutionary trait. Though, to be fair, not demonstrable to the same level as yet.
An objective, universal morality is faith alone.
I would have thought that evolution is objective. So the position that morality is an evolutionary trait is a position that morality is objective. If evolved morality is not objective and universal, and evolved morality is objective, it follows that evolved morality is not universal. Different groups of people have evolved different moralities. The implications of that are umm... unfortunate. We might want to rewind down the implications until we get to a premise we want to retract. For example, we might want to claim that an evolved morality is universal.
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
I would have thought that one solution to that is to argue that a moral capacity has evolved; and perhaps in some animals a proto-moral capacity.
But this capacity can be infilled by various contents, which are subject to social and other influences. Thus, different groups highlight different areas of life, around which are prescriptions and proscriptions.
Presumably, part of this capacity is also the ability to over-ride it, if needed. As Dawkins says, we are not genetically determined.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
I would have thought that evolution is objective. So the position that morality is an evolutionary trait is a position that morality is objective.
Well, no. Evolution is the description of the change of inherited characteristics. Characteristics such as pentadactyl limbs are different from behavioural characteristics. Think of a behavioural characteristic as a tool. The tool's use is dictated by design, but the design may not be precise. Its use may be variable. Thus, we have the characteristic to be social, but how that manifests is shaped by culture and environment. So no completely objective standard of how that social trait manifests.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Soror Magna
Shipmate
# 9881
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dinghy Sailor:
quote:
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
Scientific laws do change, though not usually every day. But you know something? Even religious laws change too. They change based on what happens when they are applied in the real world. When they cause suffering for no good reason, or hurt people who aren't even part of the religion, they should be and, usually after much hollering and screaming, they do get changed.
Scientific laws, as in the governing principles behind the interactions of particles of matter and antimatter, fields, waves and energy in the in the universe? If you have evidence they change, you'd better submit it to Nature right now - and make sure you put me as second author. Einstein can eat his heart out! ...
You are confusing scientific laws with scientific theories:
quote:
... A scientific law is a statement based on repeated experimental observations that describes some aspect of the world. A scientific law always applies under the same conditions, and implies that there is a causal relationship involving its elements. ... Laws differ from scientific theories in that they do not posit a mechanism or explanation of phenomena: they are merely distillations of the results of repeated observation. As such, a law is limited in applicability to circumstances resembling those already observed, and may be found false when extrapolated.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_laws
Scientific laws, in this context, are analogous to moral laws derived from sacred texts. I don't think there can be any argument that there have been a great many -- of great variety -- occasionally in conflict with each other -- moral laws in 2000 years of Christianity.
quote:
... Here's the thing: whatever approximations we make to scientific rules have no power over the universe at all - they're based on observations of the real things. We can change our approximations based on new data all we like, but the actual laws governing the physical universe won't be affected one bit. ...
Here's the thing: while humans make up and change moral laws all the time, God's nature remains unchanged. Christianity, like all human religions, consists of a vast number of ever-changing religious laws, derived from multiple theories about God's nature. Through two millennia, God's nature, just like the natural world, remained unchanged, but Christianity sure as hell didn't. Same for other faiths. The only reason to believe that any religion is a complete and accurate rendering of God's nature is, well, faith.
The amazing thing is not that atheists have morality but that religious people can be so amazingly certain they've picked the right one out of so many.
[fixed ubb code]
[ 01. December 2013, 06:16: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
Posts: 5430 | From: Caprica City | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
The amazing thing is not that atheists have morality but that religious people can be so amazingly certain they've picked the right one out of so many.
Sadly, I don't think this is all that amazing. The desire to be sure of things, to pick one thing and hang onto it for dear life, is pretty normal for humans. It's opening up and considering new evidence that's the hard thing. It's not amazing when people hunker down; it's amazing when people change their worldview.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
I was chewing over the topic of empathy, and remembered the discovery of mirror neurons, which basically fire when I do something, and also when I see somebody do the same thing.
They were initially discovered in monkeys by Italian neurologists, but as one might expect, there has been considerable controversy about the role they play in things like empathy.
For example, the neuroscientist Ramachandran argues that they do lend support to an empathy type experience in various animals.
Then there is all the philosophical debate about whether empathy itself provides the basis for any type of moral discernment, and so on. Too complicated to get into here, at any rate.
But it does demonstrate some possible scientific contribution to the debate over morality, empathy, the awareness of others' intentions, 'do other minds exist?', and so on. Presumably, atheists are as likely to posses mirror neurons as theists!
Interesting!
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dinghy Sailor
Ship's Jibsheet
# 8507
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
You are confusing scientific laws with scientific theories
I'm really not. The equations governing the universe do not change based on how we approximate them, and definitely don't change based on something someone wrote on Wikipedia.
quote:
The amazing thing is not that atheists have morality but that religious people can be so amazingly certain they've picked the right one out of so many.
The truly amazing thing is how often that particular canard gets repeated on this thread, when it's not supported by anything anyone's posted and is anyhow irrelevant to the discussion. Could you try making an actual argument rather than chucking ad hominems based on straw men?
--------------------
Preach Christ, because this old humanity has used up all hopes and expectations, but in Christ hope lives and remains.
Dietrich Bonhoeffer
Posts: 2821 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
seekingsister
Shipmate
# 17707
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
quote:
Originally posted by seekingsister:
And in almost every culture in the world, the reasons given for the benefits of altruism have been through the lens of religion. Suggesting that altruism as means for survival of the species is not self-evident outside of the framework of a religious philosophy.
Given that altruism in animals is doccumented even at a cross-species level religion can not be the precursor to altruism - although it is entirely possible that it takes credit for it.
The claim I was responding to is that altruism developed through evolution because it makes our species more successful.
It would have to be the case that a species is more successful based on how it exhibits altruism, so the presence of the behavior in animals in and of itself doesn't support the claim.
If altruistic behavior among humans was clearly evident as a means of survival, I have a hard time understanding
A) why we exhibit it so poorly, even in situations where altruism would deliver a more optimal outcome
B) why humans have so for long only managed to be convinced of the benefits of altruism through the lens of a spiritual or objective moral truth, most often described in religious terms
Posts: 1371 | From: London | Registered: May 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
One issue to do with altruism and evolution, is that altruism is not the only strategy which animals (including humans) have at their disposal. For example, they also have the potential for all-out attack, for defensive maneuvering of various types, for surrender, negotiation, and so on.
So animals are not one-trick ponies! (Sorry about that).
Watch red deer stags rutting, and you will see a complex array of strategies, including attack, defense, surrender, running away, triumphant displays, and so on. And then the winner gets to mate and make babies.
Sounds familiar!
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dinghy Sailor
Ship's Jibsheet
# 8507
|
Posted
Richard Dawkins has a good bit in The Selfish Gene on how altruism is not an evolutionarily stable strategy. I understand that this isn't an uncontested claim, but it provides a good riposte to the glib "we evolved altruism because it helps us survive if we work together" type arguments.
--------------------
Preach Christ, because this old humanity has used up all hopes and expectations, but in Christ hope lives and remains.
Dietrich Bonhoeffer
Posts: 2821 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
Yes, but research on altruism in animals has focused on those behaviours which do show a stable system. First, this was shown conclusively in relation to kinship, where treating your own kin well has demonstrable benefits in terms of gene-replication, for example, broken wing displays by birds (saves their young).
But then there are non-kin acts of altruism by some animals, for example, some animals which live in groups often post sentinels (those bloody meerkats). However, while it would seem that the sentinel is acting altruistically, it would also seem that in some species, he/she is also benefited, as he escapes from predators very successfully, partly because he sees them first!
When we come to humans it's very very complex, as the benefits from altruism may be rather obvious (say, with my children); or not so obvious.
For example, being altruistic can give me high value in a particular community; it can also give me high value in my 'internal world', so that I feel good, which may make me healthier and more attractive.
It's getting pretty complex.
But I don't think this kind of analysis contradicts a religious view at all. Why would it?
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
But I don't think this kind of analysis contradicts a religious view at all. Why would it?
Evolution offers an alternative view, God is no longer necessary. This is seen as a threat. And it should be. Not because science should inherently contradict faith,* but because transmission of faith is often rubbish.
*Believer or not, they are truly different questions.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
I keep thinking about that point about Dawkins saying that altruism is not a stable strategy, and if I remember rightly, in 'The Selfish Gene', this is the point that a wholesale altruistic system would not be stable, simply because several cheats would undermine it, and it might well collapse.
Imagine if banks just laid out cash on tables, and had a honesty system, so that you took what you wanted, and left an IOU.
This would be a sort of co-operative system, or 'reciprocal altruism' and it would not work, because some people would cheat.
So the task in accounting for altruism via evolutionary theory, is to account for the simultaneous presence of altruism (and cooperation), and guards against cheating.
For example, in a wolf pack, if you try to cheat, the alpha male will come alongside and give you an almighty clout or a bite!
In religion, you get sent to hell!
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
To put it simply, species work to advantage the species and individuals try to strengthen their own line. But this is also a species advantage. A dominant wolf passes more of its genes along, strengthening the species. But also passes along the inherited behaviours that benefit the species.
At some point, some behaviours must be taught. But the tendencies which allow for these behaviours to work are genetic.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
To put it simply, species work to advantage the species and individuals try to strengthen their own line. But this is also a species advantage. A dominant wolf passes more of its genes along, strengthening the species. But also passes along the inherited behaviours that benefit the species.
Species are not essential biological entities. For example, many species of ducks hybridise with fertile offspring. Does that mean that there's really only one species or that there are several species that interbreed? Which entity gets strengthened when a dominant drake passes on his genes?
Suppose the individuals that pass on their genes lead to the evolution of a new species? Which species is strengthening itself in that case?
Talking about strengthening a species in addition to individuals is a category mistake. All there is to a species is a set of sufficiently similar individuals that interbreed. The species has no additional explanatory role.
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
from Wikipedia:
quote:
A species is often defined as a group of organisms capable of interbreeding and producing fertile offspring. While in many cases this definition is adequate, the difficulty of defining species is known as the species problem. Differing measures are often used, such as similarity of DNA, morphology, or ecological niche. Presence of specific locally adapted traits may further subdivide species into "infraspecific taxa" such as subspecies (and in botany other taxa are used, such as varieties, subvarieties, and formae).
Bold mine.
The ability to interbreed goes further up the taxonomic ladder than species in some cases. At least as far as genus.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Soror Magna:
An equation is a abstract concept describing a real phenomenon. Equations are not reality; they are no more real than e.g. lines of latitude and longitude. If an equation does not correctly predict additional observations, we develop a new one. Equations don't "govern" the universe any more than a speed limit sign stops cars from going faster or a border on a map keeps people from travelling across it.
Your words are an abstract concept describing a real mathematical phenomenon. Your words are not the reality of the relation between equations and the universe; your words are no more real than e.g. lines of latitude and longitude. Et cetera et cetera.
This is one of the general problems of all philosophy of language, of which philosophy of science is really a subdiscipline. On the one hand, you have statements, equations, theories, maps, pictures, and so on that are about and represent selected aspects of the world. On the other we have the aspects of the world so represented (which may include statements, theories, equations, pictures). And the basic problem for all such philosophy is that it's impossible to talk about the aspects of the world so represented without using the statements, theories, equations, etc. We have no way of talking about the behaviour of the world described by an equation except by using an equation.
The equation of course isn't reality. But in order to talk about that particular piece of reality we have to use that equation. So while we have quite a lot of words that remain firmly on one side or other of the symbol - world gap for when we want to make distinctions, we also have quite a lot of concepts that indifferently straddle the gap for when the distinctions would just be so much mist on the windscreen. Sometimes a human that looks on glass needs to stay his eye on it to check its properties. But there's no point in having the glass if you don't look through it from time to time to espy the heavens. Facts are such a concept: are facts on the symbol side or on the world side? Deciding on the symbol side leads to the fallacy of the coherence theory of truth; deciding on the world side leads to the fallacy of the correspondence theory of truth. Scientific laws are just such another concept - we talk about them just when we need to talk about the behaviour of the world without having to philosophise about language.
Lines of longitude and latitude do not make predictions. Speed limit signs and border lines on maps certainly don't make predictions. (If you have a speed limit sign that says 30 and a car goes past at 57, you don't declare that the sign has been falsified and replace it; you fine the driver.) They can't make predictions, because they don't refer. They're not descriptions. Scientific laws do make predictions because they do refer. They are descriptions. Like all descriptions, they are not necessarily accurate. But they aim at accuracy.
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
from Wikipedia:
That doesn't refute anything I said.
If one pair of species is treated as distinct on the basis of ecological niche despite having similar DNA and another pair is treated as distinct on the basis of dissimilar DNA despite having similar ecological niches, that just goes to show that 'species' is an artificial category that in some cases has no more reality than, to use Soror Magna's example, latitute or longitude lines. Or say, the boundary between Europe and Asia.
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
...that just goes to show that 'species' is an artificial category that in some cases has no more reality than, to use Soror Magna's example, latitute or longitude lines. Or say, the boundary between Europe and Asia.
I'd say that it would be more accurate to say not that it's artificial, but sloppily defined.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
But I don't think this kind of analysis contradicts a religious view at all. Why would it?
Evolution offers an alternative view, God is no longer necessary. This is seen as a threat. And it should be. Not because science should inherently contradict faith,* but because transmission of faith is often rubbish.
*Believer or not, they are truly different questions.
What is striking in this thread, is that while evolutionary biology appears to show that human morality may connect with various phenomena in animals, such as altruism, cooperation, mirror neurons, and so on, some theists seem determined to disconnect them, so that only religion can tell humans about morals.
So maybe the connectedness of the animal world is a threat to some kinds of theist, since humans are taken by them to be sui generis (of their own kind)? Well, they are, but they are also connected.
I'm not sure why this should be a threat though.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
Dafyd,
We may be talking across each other instead of to each other.
So, rather than dig through the thread let me restart.
I am saying that morality and altruism have evolutionary components and research appears to support this. This does not entirely negate the effect of culture.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
So maybe the connectedness of the animal world is a threat to some kinds of theist, since humans are taken by them to be sui generis (of their own kind)? Well, they are, but they are also connected.
I'm not sure why this should be a threat though.
I think you've hit on something with the sui generis idea. Things like morality, intelligence, etc. have long been taken to be things that distinguish us from "the animals" -- and thus are part of what it means to be made in God's image. If they are not unique to our species, then, the argument runs*, then we're not really made in God's image.
Of course the other way of dealing with it is to say, if it's not unique to our species, then it's not part of what distinguishes us, and thus not part of what "God's image" means. And indeed people who get wigged out about this are in good number scripture literalists, but does scripture say that animals are amoral? or unintelligent? I don't know. There may be passages that can be spun that way, but I can't think of any off the top of my head.
*(I am imagining; I've never heard this but I'm trying to piece it together to find something that makes sense at least internally)
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
I've had discussions with atheists who claimed that altruism in animals (notably dolphins rescuing drowning people) were a proof of the non-existence of God.
I've never been able to follow the logic of their argument. I can't see why God couldn't give some kind of proto-morality to animals.
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
mousethief
I wonder if this is connected with the idea of soul being unique to humans. Maybe it's OK (for some theists) to have physical similarities with animals, e.g. being vertebrates, but to be connected with animal morality or proto-morality is too near the bone, and threatens our status as unique and special.
Le Roc
Yes, this is the reverse argument, I suppose. If we are not all that distinct from animals, then we are not in God's image?
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I wonder if this is connected with the idea of soul being unique to humans.
One hopes not, since the soul is not unique to humans. Aristotle divided soul into three parts: the vegetative soul, which all living things have, the animal soul ("animal" comes from the Greek word for soul, "anima" -- from which we also get "animate"), which all animals including humans have, and the rational soul, which only humans have.
So right here we have (a) humans aren't the only ones with a soul, and (b) the idea that humans stand apart from the other animals is not an originally Christian idea, or at least not solely (no pun intended), and the idea that what separates us from the animals is our intellect is Aristotelian, not Biblical. I wonder if it got into Christianity through Aquinas? Would be interesting to look into.
I dunno. For my own part I don't really need to puzzle out what makes us different from the critters, other than that we were made in the image of God, and they apparently were not. Whatever that means, I don't know.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
quote:
quetzalcoatl: If we are not all that distinct from animals, then we are not in God's image?
I wouldn't have a problem with the idea that animals are a little bit in God's image too. I guess I have a broad definition of 'image'. (In fact, I'm something of a Panentheist, so in a way the whole Universe is in God's image.)
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
quote:
quetzalcoatl: If we are not all that distinct from animals, then we are not in God's image?
I wouldn't have a problem with the idea that animals are a little bit in God's image too. I guess I have a broad definition of 'image'. (In fact, I'm something of a Panentheist, so in a way the whole Universe is in God's image.)
That's an interesting solution to the question of relations between humans and other animals. It reminds me of the Great Chain of Being, although I think that did say that animals were non-spiritual, and humans were both spiritual and animal.
In an odd way, evolutionary biology has resurrected the Great Chain, although not in relation to spirituality.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
IconiumBound
Shipmate
# 754
|
Posted
Although altruism has been exhaustively debated here as to its source and meaning, I'd like to through another branch on the fire. That is, the universal dislike for the "free rider". The person who violates tribal rules and gets away with it. This person threatens the unity of the tribe because "if he got away with it then so can I". And there goes the neighborhood.
Is this the origin of altruism as virtue?
Posts: 1318 | From: Philadelphia, PA, USA | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IconiumBound:
Although altruism has been exhaustively debated here as to its source and meaning, I'd like to through another branch on the fire. That is, the universal dislike for the "free rider". The person who violates tribal rules and gets away with it. This person threatens the unity of the tribe because "if he got away with it then so can I". And there goes the neighborhood.
Is this the origin of altruism as virtue?
That's interesting, as the various accounts of altruism in evolutionary theory talk a lot about cheating.
This is the problem with universal altruism, as you only need several cheats, for it to break down, or maybe collapse.
So there are usually guards against cheating. But it becomes very complicated - for example, some male birds nip round the back of the nest to have sex with another female, and then the females might develop strategies to forestall that.
But also a certain amount of cheating might be OK, and the system would not break down.
But think of 'benefit cheats' and the anger that it provokes.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
In the interests of fair play, I should mention that there are bird species, where the male pecks the cloaca of the female, in order to eject the sperm of a rival, in case she has been cheating.
Caution - do not try this at home.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Grokesx
Shipmate
# 17221
|
Posted
quote:
But think of 'benefit cheats' and the anger that it provokes.
Hm. Not so sure about that one. I'd say that was more to do with othering/out group issues. After all we happily let the biggest fucking cheats rule the show.
--------------------
For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong. H. L. Mencken
Posts: 373 | From: Derby, UK | Registered: Jul 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Grokesx:
quote:
But think of 'benefit cheats' and the anger that it provokes.
Hm. Not so sure about that one. I'd say that was more to do with othering/out group issues. After all we happily let the biggest fucking cheats rule the show.
But the fact that you can say 'biggest fucking cheats' surely indicates that there is a kind of awareness of cheating. I don't think it's complete at all; there is probably hidden cheating in all kinds of areas.
So our male magpie nips round the back to have sex with another female, and his home female never knows. But counter-cheating checks also develop - see the male bird above who pecks his female just to get rid of previous sperm.
It would be interesting if everybody cheated - I can't get my head round that.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
It would be interesting if everybody cheated - I can't get my head round that.
It would be true anarchy. And we would be no more than leopard shit.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
It would be interesting if everybody cheated - I can't get my head round that.
It would be true anarchy. And we would be no more than leopard shit.
Yes, it would be anarchy.
I suppose this thread should be allowed to die a natural death now!
But I was thinking of games and sport, where cheating often occurs. But there seems to be a sort of limit to it.
For example, in football (soccer), the referee is there to police the rules and stop major cheating. Players groan at the ref, but they accept his rulings, as to do otherwise would make the game impossible, or at any rate, unplayable.
I remember playing as a kid, without a referee of course, and we administered the rules ourselves, and cooperated reasonably well, as of course, if we didn't, there would be no game!
I suppose you could compare this to various strategies of animals - for example, they fight, but they also retreat and surrender quite a lot. That way, most of them survive.
Males and females cheat on each other, but also cooperate in raising young (well, in some species, the sexes cooperate; in some, the males bugger off). And then there are cuckoos, ultimate cheats!
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
rolyn
Shipmate
# 16840
|
Posted
To a large degree I believe their a profound force that makes us want to conform . Maybe in part it's to do with us craving order and fearing chaos.
For example when looking at a motorway teaming with private motor cars, and multiplying that the country over, I sometimes consider what proportion of those vehicles are fully road legal . My guess the vast majority of them .
Not because all us vehicle owners fear being stopped at checkpoints every time we go out , (it's unusual for me to ever see the police on most journeys), no , it's because we want to do the 'right thing' .
--------------------
Change is the only certainty of existence
Posts: 3206 | From: U.K. | Registered: Dec 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Grokesx:
I think this is apposite to the discussions here.
I think this is illustrated well in how we treat people differently as our perception of who is us and who is them change.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
