Where do morals come from?

[Pete]

You need to comprehend a little better, this ain't particle physics being discussed.

I may have over reacted to this comment. It now seems to me that you may have been providing constructive criticism whereas I originally thought you were trying to be condescending. If that is the case then I want to humbly appologize for over reacting.

 

Best wishes

 

Pete

[john5746]

Pete,

 

No problem, it is I who should apologize. I thought you were trying to put words in others' mouths and were bordering on trolling, so my intent was to kick at you a little. Of course, its your decision whether to put your shin or balls in the way, but a reaction was expected. I'm not the smartest person around here, so I would be one of the last people to imply that I am smarter than another. I was attacking your intentions, not your intelligence but I was wrong and I apologize.

 

Best Regards,

[pioneer]

Animal instinct is geared to survival of the individual and survival of the species. With human will power, survival of the individual started to shift this natural balance to the individual and away from the species. It was not just survival of the individual, but all types of behavior geared to the ego-centric needs of individual. Morality is a human equivalent of survival of the species since it dictates behaviors that is less geared to ego-centric survival but more toward the group.

 

I am not saying that morality always works but its role is to substitute the needs of the individual for the needs of the species. With religion usually the basis of morality, this would suggest that religion evolved from this survival of the species instinct that is common to animals.

 

If you look in practical terms, animals don't have morality, but seem to go with the flow in terms of what is needed for their species' evolution. They submit to a higher instinctive power that can supersede their own need for personal satisfaction or survival. For example, a mother animal will try to protect her young, at her own risk. If she was fully ego-centric she would save her own hide. But at great risk to herself, she protects the future of the species since her child is the future. Morality is the human version of this with the individual told not to rape, steal, or kill even if this would make them feel good. Instead this check in behavior serves a higher purpose that benefits the species.

 

Again not all morality is optimized with time, but the general trend helps the collective like an extension of survival of the species. The needs of the species changes with time, with morality evolving and serving to creating a better balance between individual and collective survival. This gives religion a connection to instinct. The higher power of collective survival is now personified but helps to give this instinct the weight needed to help check ego-centricity's that harm the species.

[iNow]

Pioneer - You should try reading the thread and determining for yourself where you're wrong.

 

Religion a connection with instinct? Religion the basis of morality? Have you understood ANY of the posts here?

[Paralith]

Animal instinct is geared to survival of the individual and survival of the species.

 

Wrong. Natural selection works on the level of the individual only, and not at the level of groups or species. No non-human animal does what it does for the good of the species; even what appears to be human generosity in this regard has its motivational roots in much more selfish (in terms of genes) goals. What you are talking about is group selection, which has long since been falsified, and thus falsifies the rest of your comment.

[pioneer]

In an atheist culture I can see how collective or species advantage is not important beyond a self interest clique. Religion is the one that is usually geared to reducing the desires of the ego in favor of longer term collective goals. This often led to individual repression, but that was the point. The goal was the needs of the collective. This led to being subsevient to a smaller number of egos who would guide the collective. The atheist don't like this approach since it is not ego-centric enough. You appear to have stacked the deck to support your bias.

 

That is why I complain about empiricism. It allows bull to be called science. If we limit science to logic most of the bull would not even be allowed. I am not a fan of modern behavioral pre-science. It is ego-centric science that tries to reinforce the stacked deck. But it lacks common sense and logic.

 

Jesus said" blessed are the poor". How does this serve the ego? It serves the collective by reducing the stresses from competition, stealing, war, etc. There is little potential for most ego-centric things, by default.

 

If you look at the data, poor people have more children than rich people, on the average. According to evolutionary theory doesn't this higher reproductive rate has something to do with selective advantage and therefore the main direction so the species is better able to evolve? There is less cultural prosthesis being poor and the humans that result are, by default, closer to nature. But they are also further away from full ego-centricity by default. Religion is an natural extension of survival of the collective. Atheism is more geared to survival of the individual. The balance is somewhere in the middle. Morality tries to use the best of the both worlds for the balance.

[Sisyphus]

All social animals have "collectivist" behavior. It's to the individual's advantage because an individual that can exist in a cooperative group has a large advantage over one which cannot, and groups need social rules to function. For humans, religion naturally gets mixed up in these rules for several reasons, but it's not the source of them. We have both natural empathy towards one another, and a natural sense of "fairness," and we're not the only animal to have either. (Since all monkeys are atheists, that rather deflates your hypothesis.) Humans remarkable ability for abstract thinking allows us to generalize our natural impulses and resolve contradictions. That is philosophical humanism. Religion, on the other hand, explains the impulses differently, by creating an external entity to impose them on us.

[dichotomy]

Wrong. Natural selection works on the level of the individual only, and not at the level of groups or species. No non-human animal does what it does for the good of the species; even what appears to be human generosity in this regard has its motivational roots in much more selfish (in terms of genes) goals. What you are talking about is group selection, which has long since been falsified, and thus falsifies the rest of your comment.

 

Not knowingly, but what about reproduction for example? Surely successfully mating as many times as you could, and or, with as many partners as you could is for the good of the species? It’s good because it minimises extinction, adds to a better chance of successful mutations occurring, produces better competition between members of a species and therefore produces stronger stock. All for the, unconscious, good of the species.

[Paralith]

In an atheist culture I can see how collective or species advantage is not important beyond a self interest clique. Religion is the one that is usually geared to reducing the desires of the ego in favor of longer term collective goals. This often led to individual repression, but that was the point. The goal was the needs of the collective. This led to being subsevient to a smaller number of egos who would guide the collective. The atheist don't like this approach since it is not ego-centric enough. You appear to have stacked the deck to support your bias.

 

Your view is one that was often held by researchers a few decades ago, because that does seem to be the case on the surface. But close inspection reveals that it is not so. If you had read the previous posts in this thread in any detail you would have seen that, but now I have to repeat myself and what others have already said.

 

Group living animals live in groups because each individual does better by living in the group than they could by forging it on their own. This became particularly true during the course of human evolution. When everyone cooperates, each person gains more than they could by themselves. Thus we evolved emotional and "moral" motivators that helped us work together better, and each reap the greater benefits.

 

Consider, Pioneer, as many researchers did years ago, the case of a group of humans who all limit their own reproduction "for the good of the group." Born into this group is a mutant individual who is more selfish, and reproduces as much as they can, while the others continue to limit themselves. This selfish individual's offspring will begin to outnumber the offspring of the more generous individuals, and eventually the group becomes full of selfish individuals once again. Group selection does not work.

 

That is why I complain about empiricism. It allows bull to be called science. If we limit science to logic most of the bull would not even be allowed. I am not a fan of modern behavioral pre-science. It is ego-centric science that tries to reinforce the stacked deck. But it lacks common sense and logic.

 

No, Pioneer. When actually using logic and looking at real world scenarios, this is the result we get. Your approach was thoroughly tried and tested because many people thought, at first, that it made sense. When they truly tested it, they found that it didn't. Every example that was thought to support group selection was actually found to have a selfish gene basis. This is not deck stacking. This is the process of science, and you may not be a fan of what it uncovers, but what it uncovers is the truth.

 

Jesus said" blessed are the poor". How does this serve the ego? It serves the collective by reducing the stresses from competition, stealing, war, etc. There is little potential for most ego-centric things, by default.

 

The poor of your group are still members of your group. Cooperation of the group of key. It is tempting to take advantage of the less advantaged of your group, but this lowers group cohesion, which is bad for every individual involved.

 

If you look at the data, poor people have more children than rich people, on the average. According to evolutionary theory doesn't this higher reproductive rate has something to do with selective advantage and therefore the main direction so the species is better able to evolve?

 

Yes, there is some selective advantage going on when one group of individuals reliably reproduces more than another. No, this has nothing to do with what's "better" for the species. It means that those individuals are doing something that spreads their genes better than the other individuals.

 

There is less cultural prosthesis being poor and the humans that result are, by default, closer to nature.

 

Pioneer, humans are the result of nature. Even different aspects of different cultures are responses to the restraints of the environment in which that group of people are trying to make their living. How much money you have says little about how "close to nature" you are. All people raised in a particular culture are subject to that culture. Culture is not "stronger" if you have more money.

 

But they are also further away from full ego-centricity by default. Religion is an natural extension of survival of the collective. Atheism is more geared to survival of the individual. The balance is somewhere in the middle. Morality tries to use the best of the both worlds for the balance.

 

Human-determined morality today tries to balance both. What we're talking about is the ORIGIN of mortality, which began millions upon millions of years before our species evolved, and continued along our line of ancestors up until very recently in terms of evolutionary time. That is not an influence easily shaken off by a paltry few thousand years.

 

Atheism has NOTHING to do with morals. ALL atheism implies is the lack of a deity. That's IT. Whether you want to be more individualistic or more collective is a personal decision that every atheist makes differently, and makes on their own.

 

Not knowingly, but what about reproduction for example? Surely successfully mating as many times as you could, and or, with as many partners as you could is for the good of the species? It’s good because it minimises extinction, adds to a better chance of successful mutations occurring, produces better competition between members of a species and therefore produces stronger stock. All for the, unconscious, good of the species.

 

Do some species last longer than others? Yes. Did they evolve for that purpose? No. They evolved so that each individual could reproduce as successfully as possible, and it turns out that some of the solutions some species developed helps them persist longer than others. That is much more of an accidental side effect.

[stevo247]

We have both natural empathy towards one another' date=' and a natural sense of "fairness," and we're not the only animal to have either.

 

Religion, on the other hand, explains the impulses differently, by creating an external entity to impose them on us.[/quote']

 

Couldn't the natural expression of empathy and fairness be considered instinctive manifestations , something along the lines of an innate sense of right and wrong, “conscience”?

 

Wouldn't the need for religion (i.e. an imposing external entity of morality) indicate that that there has been a significant disturbance in the natural functioning of something that would normally be considered instinctive or innate?

[Paralith]

Couldn't the natural expression of empathy and fairness be considered instinctive manifestations , something along the lines of an innate sense of right and wrong, “conscience”?

 

Yes, it could be. These are the emotional motivators that we evolved to help us live in cooperative groups, that make us feel guilty or upset if the desires of these emotions are not met.

 

Wouldn't the need for religion (i.e. an imposing external entity of morality) indicate that that there has been a significant disturbance in the natural functioning of something that would normally be considered instinctive or innate?

 

stevo, if we lost the desire to be empathic and fair, why would we suddenly turn around and develop a system that pushes us to be empathic and fair? It's not that our instinctive motivators failed, it's that at one point, probably having to do with group size, we needed something stronger, something to help give those motivators an additional boost.

 

When you live in a very large group, it's more tempting to be a cheater, and take advantage of your more cooperative neighbors, as you are but one among many, and it may not be worth your neighbor's effort to punish you for your actions.

 

Religion adds an extra motivational force; it takes the job of punishing you off your neighbors and puts it on the undeniable strength of a super-human deity. It adds extra benefits to the benefits you already gain through cooperation through the promise of happy after life. It makes you more willing to cooperate, and the better your group cooperates, the more they gain and the better they can compete against other groups. Religion can even motivate you to wipe out your competitors by describing them as evil unbelievers, or motivate you to add to your own group's strength by converting your competitors and having them join your group.

[dichotomy]

Do some species last longer than others? Yes. Did they evolve for that purpose? No. They evolved so that each individual could reproduce as successfully as possible, and it turns out that some of the solutions some species developed helps them persist longer than others. That is much more of an accidental side effect.

 

So, is it entirely an accident that the most (all round) successful members of a species produce the widest genetic footprint? No hard work involved here, just more accidental than anything?

I don’t believe so, because they have to be successful enough in the first place to reproduce. So it seems that there is a combination of chance and fitness involved. It’s true that chance plays the largest part to get the ball rolling in the first instance (i.e. energy and matter chancing life into existence), but after that fitness becomes the primary driver of the success of a species, and the species that may branch off that species? Just a thought...

 

What I suggest is that fitness (in mammals for e.g.) is no longer produced by an accidental forces, it is at the point where it is the primary factor for survival of a species. Point being that non-human animals do what they do for the good of their species. Unknowingly, unwittingly, unconsciously, they are chemically driven to do this. For no reason other than to survive, and perhaps evolve into something more resilient.

Edited September 12, 2008 by dichotomy
clarification

[Mr Skeptic]

For example, under Islamic law, it is illegal to kill a virgin (whatever her [it usually tends to be a 'her'] crime). In order to carry out a death sentence, the woman must first be raped (usually by the prison guards) after which, no longer being pure, it's fine to kill her.

 

How barbaric and unreasonable! Reminds me of how supreme court justices read the constitution.

[pioneer]

Getting back to morals, consider the ten commandments. These ten laws tried to control blind ego-centric impulses to create more will power. It was easier to steal than work, since stealing was one notch above an animal. It was easier to go into a blind rage and kill, than count to ten. It was easier to go after your neighbors wife than leave her alone and stick to your own. It was easier to put yourself first, than a higher power. It was easier to follow the lure of fads (false gods).

 

These laws may appear like too much work for the ego, but it had the affect of increasing willpower by limited blind irrational impulse. They were trying to supersede animal or rather beast of the field behavior. Beasts of the field may have been better for the individual, at that time, since all the things that were prohibited were much faster ways toward self gratification. But a bunch of beasts was not the fastest way to evolve the species.

 

It is easier to see if we do the reverse. Say we were to allow an anti-version of the ten commandments. One can steal when the impulse moves you. Or one can hustle their neighbors wife when the husband is at work. Or kill the husband to make it easier. One could move up the ladder faster of self gratification with less effort. But if everyone is doing this, nothing gets done and there is no social stability even though the ego is given maximum flexibility.

[Sisyphus]

But obviously those would have already have been the rules of society, written or not. People didn't just go around killing and raping each other whenever they felt like it, because if they did, there wouldn't have been a society to impose rules on. People follow rules because of both natural impulses and societal pressures. No society tolerates free murder, so it is also to the individual's advantage to conform.

 

Adding religion to the mix does not cause any fundamental change, it's just a reinforcement. It makes it that much more to one's personal advantage to follow the rules. Instead of just general condemnation and exile and perhaps punishment by authority, there is specific religious condemnation. And more importantly, the punishment comes not just from conscience and society (both inconsistent), but from a much more powerful and consistent being. If anything, religion makes morality more about concrete personal gain, because the over-riding motive becomes not internal reason and willpower but external "divine" favor or punishment.

 

The other effect of religion on morality is that it means there no longer has to be a reason for any particular moral rule. You don't have to rationalize why you're not allowed to work on the sabbath, or you have to wear certain fabrics, because the rules are imposed entirely externally, and the answers to "why can't I eat pork" and "why can't I rape my neighbor" are exactly the same: God said so. And because it doesn't have to "make sense" any more than that, it often doesn't, and you get situations like raping the virgin so you can kill her, because the letter of the law is all that matters. If, on the other hand, morality was based on philosophical exploration of empathy and fairness or of the benefit to society generally, that sort of thing would never happen, because it's obviously absurd.

Edited September 12, 2008 by Sisyphus

[iNow]

Getting back to morals,...

Was that your way of saying that you are going to blatently ignore every single counter point which has already crushed your argument and that you are going to continue repeating the same inaccuracies anyway? Fascinating.

 

 

Which part of religion is moral, again? Is it the part where you organize public stonings? What about killing a woman who is not a virgin, or raping a virgin first so it's no longer a sin for you to kill her? Was it the part where homosexuals were hunted and murdered? What about killing people who decide to leave your particular brand of voodoo and who have evolved mentally past the childishness? What about slaves? Not only is it okay to keep slaves, but it's okay to beat them as bloody as possible, so long as you don't hurt their eyes of course.

 

I dunno. While those commandments sure sound nifty, at least 3 or 4 of them talk about what will happen to you if you worship other gods (geesh, how petty), and at least one talks about no murder. They're nothing if not internally inconsistent, so OF COURSE our morality is based on them. They are so very clear and logical.

Edited September 12, 2008 by iNow

[Paralith]

So, is it entirely an accident that the most (all round) successful members of a species produce the widest genetic footprint? No hard work involved here, just more accidental than anything?

I don’t believe so, because they have to be successful enough in the first place to reproduce. So it seems that there is a combination of chance and fitness involved. It’s true that chance plays the largest part to get the ball rolling in the first instance (i.e. energy and matter chancing life into existence), but after that fitness becomes the primary driver of the success of a species, and the species that may branch off that species? Just a thought...

 

What I suggest is that fitness (in mammals for e.g.) is no longer produced by an accidental forces, it is at the point where it is the primary factor for survival of a species. Point being that non-human animals do what they do for the good of their species. Unknowingly, unwittingly, unconsciously, they are chemically driven to do this. For no reason other than to survive, and perhaps evolve into something more resilient.

 

Let me give an example. Let's think of a species of ant living on an island. This island is the only place where this species of ant is found. One colony in particular is has a mutation that makes them very good at attacking and destroying other colonies. By doing so this colony is the last surviving one of the species, and secures the best resource spot for themselves with no competition for it. Potentially they could go on to spawn newer colonies that would all be more fit than the colonies they previously destroyed. But: a flash flood occurs in that one resource rich spot (perhaps such occasional floods are why that spot is so rich!) and the final colony is wiped from the face of the planet. The species is dead. If the colony had let other colonies survive in other areas of the island, where no flood occurred, the species would have at least lived on. But natural selection does not work that way.

 

Here's another example. A species of monkey is on the brink of extinction due to recent severe drought conditions - only a small troop is left. But it has several mothers who recently gave birth, so there is hope. However, a younger, stronger, and healthier male takes the troop from its old alpha male. He does what every new male does - he kills all the recently born infants that are not his own so he can impregnate their mothers himself with all due speed. A few months later, this weakened population is discovered by a lion's pride. If the new male had let the young babies live, by now they would have all at least been old enough to contribute to predator vigilance. But they are all dead, and only pregnant mothers and a newborn or two are available. It is not enough to let the troop see when a predator is coming, and one by one they are picked off until they all are dead.

 

Of course fitness is not accidental. Animals evolve and adapt to be fit for their environment. But sometimes, especially when the environment changes, the individual doing what is normally best for its reproductive fitness may actually harm the future of the species. Being more fit for a particular niche does not necessarily guarantee your species will persist longer. Yes, oftentimes they can go together if that niche lasts for a long period of time. But it is not a necessary relationship by any means.

 

 

 

 

Sisyphus made some very good points - in humans there was, already, an existing degree of social cohesion before religion ever stepped into the picture. Religion reinforced what was already there.

 

These laws may appear like too much work for the ego, but it had the affect of increasing willpower by limited blind irrational impulse. They were trying to supersede animal or rather beast of the field behavior. Beasts of the field may have been better for the individual, at that time, since all the things that were prohibited were much faster ways toward self gratification. But a bunch of beasts was not the fastest way to evolve the species.

 

To evolve is to change the gene frequencies in your population. Some animals, nay even bacteria, evolve far faster than humans ever did. A "bunch of beasts" can evolve quite easily without complex social rules.

 

It is easier to see if we do the reverse. Say we were to allow an anti-version of the ten commandments. One can steal when the impulse moves you. Or one can hustle their neighbors wife when the husband is at work. Or kill the husband to make it easier. One could move up the ladder faster of self gratification with less effort. But if everyone is doing this, nothing gets done and there is no social stability even though the ego is given maximum flexibility. (emphasis mine - paralith)

 

Ah, thank you pioneer. You already repeated one of my points for me. If everyone cheats, nothing gets done, and not a single individual gains any of the benefits of group living. Did any of us say that "the ego is given maximum flexbility"? In no species is anyone given "maximum flexibility." Individuals are always constrained by the needs of their environment; non-human primates can't just live anywhere they want because they require a large percentage of high energy fruit in their diets. Humans can't just do anything they want because then they will be ostracized from the group and they will most likely not survive out on their own.

 

Pioneer, you have been exhorted by multiple people multiple times to educate yourself on evolutionary theory. Clearly you have not done so and it is to your detriment. You may not like what it says, but you are completely unable to argue intelligently against it if you don't even understand what it is you are arguing against! Must I say again that you are debating a point that was debated years ago by experts in the field, and was subsequently shown to be false by those same experts. The book Adaption and Natural Selection was written in 1966 by George Williams, a man excited by the idea of group selection who set out to study it himself - only to discover that the more he studied it, the more he could see it was wrong.

Edited September 12, 2008 by Paralith
multiple post merged

[dichotomy]

Let me give an example. Let's think of a species of ant living on an island. This island is the only place where this species of ant is found. One colony in particular is has a mutation that makes them very good at attacking and destroying other colonies. By doing so this colony is the last surviving one of the species, and secures the best resource spot for themselves with no competition for it. Potentially they could go on to spawn newer colonies that would all be more fit than the colonies they previously destroyed. But: a flash flood occurs in that one resource rich spot (perhaps such occasional floods are why that spot is so rich!) and the final colony is wiped from the face of the planet. The species is dead. If the colony had let other colonies survive in other areas of the island, where no flood occurred, the species would have at least lived on. But natural selection does not work that way.

 

Here's another example. A species of monkey is on the brink of extinction due to recent severe drought conditions - only a small troop is left. But it has several mothers who recently gave birth, so there is hope. However, a younger, stronger, and healthier male takes the troop from its old alpha male. He does what every new male does - he kills all the recently born infants that are not his own so he can impregnate their mothers himself with all due speed. A few months later, this weakened population is discovered by a lion's pride. If the new male had let the young babies live, by now they would have all at least been old enough to contribute to predator vigilance. But they are all dead, and only pregnant mothers and a newborn or two are available. It is not enough to let the troop see when a predator is coming, and one by one they are picked off until they all are dead.

 

Yep, good examples, I totally agree. But I'm not argueing that a species can become extinct no matter how fit it is. I know that's a fact.

 

Of course fitness is not accidental. Animals evolve and adapt to be fit for their environment. But sometimes, especially when the environment changes, the individual doing what is normally best for its reproductive fitness may actually harm the future of the species. Being more fit for a particular niche does not necessarily guarantee your species will persist longer. Yes, oftentimes they can go together if that niche lasts for a long period of time. But it is not a necessary relationship by any means.

 

I largely agree with this, the only thing I’ll say is that an individually fit species, or, group within a species doesn't really matter in itself. What seems to matter, to lifeforms, is that there are many various fit species actively laying the groundwork for ever more fit species to branch off from them. Each species/group, unconsciously, chemically, and naturally selectively, strives to be as fit as it can be, to ensure that some form of life persists somewhere. Basically, higher order lifeforms, like mammals, are no longer just accidental ‘stalactite’ like things that chance across the right conditions to 'grow'. We actively seek the best available partners and environments. We don't accidentally bump into mates and impregnate them, we actively persue and impregnate them.

 

So, evolution is still primarily accidental, but active components (non accidental) came into effect at some point with animal life?

 

Sorry, I've gone off on a tangent. But maybe this ties in if you take 'morals' as initially being accidental and beneficial to a group, and morals today as being generally actively practiced and beneficial to a group.

 

Sisyphus made some very good points - in humans there was, already, an existing degree of social cohesion before religion ever stepped into the picture. Religion reinforced what was already there.

 

I agree totally with this, why direct it to me? Religion is a form of marketing. Marketing is forever taking others ideas as its own.

[Paralith]

Basically, higher order lifeforms, like mammals, are no longer just accidental ‘stalactite’ like things that chance across the right conditions to 'grow'. We actively seek the best available partners and environments. We don't accidentally bump into mates and impregnate them, we actively persue and impregnate them.

 

I don't see why you're restricting this to "higher" lifeforms. Life has been "active" for a long time - because those that were more active in gaining reproductive success spread their genes better than those who didn't. But then again, even mammals "chance across the right conditions." When the ancestors of new world monkeys somehow got across the ocean to south america, there was an explosive speciative radiation - probably because there was nothing there for them to compete with. When the ancestors of lemurs somehow got to Madagascar, they also experience a huge radiation, probably for similar reasons. The same for when the ancestor of Darwin's finches got blown to the Galapgos islands.

 

I agree totally with this, why direct it to me? Religion is a form of marketing. Marketing is forever taking others ideas as its own.

 

I was not directing it to you. It was directed to Pioneer. I had hoped the extra space between the two sections of my post would make it clear to whom each was addressed. My apologies for the confusion.

[dichotomy]

I don't see why you're restricting this to "higher" lifeforms. Life has been "active" for a long time - because those that were more active in gaining reproductive success spread their genes better than those who didn't. But then again, even mammals "chance across the right conditions." When the ancestors of new world monkeys somehow got across the ocean to south america, there was an explosive speciative radiation - probably because there was nothing there for them to compete with. When the ancestors of lemurs somehow got to Madagascar, they also experience a huge radiation, probably for similar reasons. The same for when the ancestor of Darwin's finches got blown to the Galapgos islands.

 

I was using higher life forms to demonstrate that chance survival has given birth to an active component of survival, in something like say a mammal.

‘Active’ - being more able to choose movement, select and plan. ‘Chance’ -being a total reliance on things like wind, and, or water to move them towards successful survival. No ability to plan, select and choose movement.

But I do agree, more so after your 'active' prodding, that even higher life forms rely primarily on chance for their survival than they might rely on planning, selection, fitness and choosing their movements. That is, the right environmental conditions existing for them to exist in the first place is pure chance and very primary.

Being mentally active helps in selecting a fit mate. It's another very handy tool for lifeforms to use for successful survival. But again, other chance factors are still more important for survival, like oxygen and hydrogen, in the right quantities, forming water for e.g.

 

Is there a theoretical percentage of how much chance we rely on compared to active choice when it comes to survival? Or, are there too many variables?

Edited September 16, 2008 by dichotomy

[Pete]

Pete,

 

No problem, it is I who should apologize. I thought you were trying to put words in others' mouths and were bordering on trolling, so my intent was to kick at you a little. Of course, its your decision whether to put your shin or balls in the way, but a reaction was expected. I'm not the smartest person around here, so I would be one of the last people to imply that I am smarter than another. I was attacking your intentions, not your intelligence but I was wrong and I apologize.

 

Best Regards,

Thank you John. Your apology is accepted and greatly appreciated. Your response demonstrates that you are a gentleman and a scholar and a good judge of legs, wine and women.

 

I'm not sure how you came to believe that I was trying to put words in others mouths or gave the impression that I was trolling. I never do that on the internet. I did my best to ask the original question and respond to comments in such a manner so that I would not come across as trolling. I guess I failed to do that. You would do me a great service if you could send me a PM and let me know how you got impression. I ask so that I can make any adjustments to my writing style so as to avoid posting things which may lead to misunderstandings in the future. Thank you.

 

FYI - Perhaps people will understand me better if I explain myself on this point a bit. I'm a Christian and a physicist. I'm one of those Christians who does not accept the Because God did it. explanation of the phenomena in nature. As a physicist I believe that would be like giving up on the search for an understanding of the universe when they do that. I always try to look for a better understanding of reality. Putting these two philosophies together I think it can be described in the same way Einstein phrased it - I want to understand the universe because I want to know what God is thinking. (or something like that).

 

Was that your way of saying that you are going to blatently ignore every single counter point which has already crushed your argument and that you are going to continue repeating the same inaccuracies anyway? Fascinating.

I'm very confused by your response to this notion. You seem to be a little harsh to Pioneer when he may be right in some sense. It is my understanding that there is something that has been referred to as the God gene hypothesis which proposes that human beings inherit a set of genes that predispose them to belief in a higher power. I did a search on the internet and found this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_gene. An article on this subject also appeared in Time Magazine. See http://www.time.com/time/covers/1101041025/. It also appeared in the Washington Times too. See http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2004/nov/14/20041114-111404-8087r/. The author writes

An American molecular geneticist has concluded after comparing more than 2,000 DNA samples that a person's capacity to believe in God is linked to brain chemicals.

Have you ever heard of this God gene? If you have do you reject such an hypothesis? Perhaps I misunderstood your comments on this.

 

I'll be ignoring the comments about religion since I'm trying to avoid discussing religion on a science forum. I'll try to restrain my comments to only the God gene hypothesis and do my best not to get into such discussions along the line of Which part of religion is moral, again?

 

Note - I'm currently reading the book What evolution is, by Ernst Mayr - a well known scientist in the study of evolution. It has a section entitled The Evolution of Human Ethics. If anyone wants to read it I can send scans of those pages in E-mail. I could upload them onto my website and post the URL to the PDF file that the scans are in but I'm not too sure about the copyrights on doing this. If there isn't a problem with copyrights I can do that, if anybody wants to read it that is.

For example, under Islamic law, it is illegal to kill a virgin (whatever her [it usually tends to be a 'her'] crime). In order to carry out a death sentence, the woman must first be raped (usually by the prison guards) after which, no longer being pure, it's fine to kill her.

Where did you learn this from? It doesn't sound like Islam at all!

 

Best wishes to all.

 

Pete

Edited September 25, 2008 by Pete
multiple post merged

[iNow]

Pete - Do a search on Pioneer's posts on this site (and on others where he posts as HydrogenBond) and you will quickly see the reason for my harshness.

 

Context, my friend. I'm not shooting with a flame thrower, just a laser.

 

 

I'm going to leave alone your comments about god because god is bunk, and has no place in a discussion among rational and critically thinking people, accept perhaps when discussing history or psychology.

[Pete]

I'm going to leave alone your comments about god because god is bunk, and has no place in a discussion among rational and critically thinking people, accept perhaps when discussing history or psychology.

I have to say that I take offense at this comment. When you start making comments like this you're really just insulting people like me. I've never insulted your intelligence so please don't insult mine, okay? After all I've never insulted you for being an atheist have I? No, I haven't. There is no need to imply that those of us who believe in God are not logical/rational/critically thinking people. It took a great deal of logic and critial thinking for me to have graduated college with a BA with in both physics and mathematics.

 

There are some really brilliant physicists in this world who are extremely smart, rational and critical thinkers who also believe in God.

 

And I didn't make any comments about God. anyway. I was only talking about the hypothesis of the God gene. This hypothesis has been postulated by the geneticist Dr. Dean Hamer. He's the director of the Gene Structure and Regulation Unit at the U.S. National Cancer Institute. I.e. I was talking science (i.e. genetics), not God. And I'm not discussing religion here because this is not the place for that kind of discussion.

 

I've been doing my best to leave religion out of this. But when scientists postulate things like the so-called God gene it becomes a legitimate topic of discussion here.

 

By the way, I already looked at Pioneer's comments in this thread and saw nothing deserving of what you said to him. Please don't dump on people merely because you disagree with them. There is no reason to do so and its rude to do so. Please tell me exactly what he said to deserve this. You can PM me with the information if you'd like. Thanks.

For example' date=' under Islamic law, it is illegal to kill a virgin (whatever her [it usually tends to be a 'her''] crime). In order to carry out a death sentence, the woman must first be raped (usually by the prison guards) after which, no longer being pure, it's fine to kill her.

I asked a Muslim friend about this and he tells me this is pure nonsense. I myself have never come across such a thing in my studies of Islam. Where in the world did you hear this anyway?

 

My friend gave me some great advice, i.e.

Generally speaking, when you see someone (a muslim or a nonmuslim) talking about Islam without providing any evidence from authentic islamic sources (ie Quran and Sunnah) you shouldn't pay attention to what he/she's saying.

[iNow]

I have to say that I take offense at this comment. When you start making comments like this you're really just insulting people like me.

While we both share a right to free speech, neither of us has a right not to be offended. So really, that's just tough noogies.

 

 

There is no need to imply that those of us who believe in God are not logical/rational/critically thinking people. It took a great deal of logic and critial thinking for me to have graduated college with a BA with in both physics and mathematics.

Actually, the implication is true. You seem to live in a rationalized dichotomy of mind whereby you study physics and you study other sciences so call yourself a rational and critically thinking person (which, in those instances, you are), but then you also believe in iron age fairy tales and purple unicorns and somehow expect us to transfer the previously ackowledged rationality on to these other topics.

 

Sorry. It just doesn't work like that when it comes to my own judgements. I also concede that the above are just my opinions. What interests me is how insecure you seem to be about your belief system, and how deeply my (a stranger on an internet forum) words offended you. Suck it up. If your beliefs have merit, then there is nothing to be ashamed of and you should be immune to my harsh criticisms, and in fact be able to respond with rational ways to support those beliefs.

 

 

There are some really brilliant physicists in this world who are extremely smart, rational and critical thinkers who also believe in God.

Yep. That doesn't make their belief in god any less silly. There are lots of really bright people all over the planet who do and believe some really stupid nonsense, but that doesn't make the stupid nonsense in which they believe and on which they act any more reasonable.

 

 

And I didn't make any comments about God. anyway. I was only talking about the hypothesis of the God gene. This hypothesis has been postulated by the geneticist Dr. Dean Hamer. He's the director of the Gene Structure and Regulation Unit at the U.S. National Cancer Institute. I.e. I was talking science (i.e. genetics), not God. And I'm not discussing religion here because this is not the place for that kind of discussion.

 

I've been doing my best to leave religion out of this. But when scientists postulate things like the so-called God gene it becomes a legitimate topic of discussion here.

I think you might be misrepresenting this concept of the "god gene." The idea is that there may be a genetic predisposition for the wide spread belief in higher powers. I'm fine with that. It seems to stem from the fact that at birth we rely heavily on guidance from our superiors, from our parents and tribal elders to teach us, protect us, and guide us. Those who did not listen to their superiors were much less likely to survive and pass on their genes to offspring. Therefore, selection pressures favored those offspring who put greater trust in authority, and who took the teachings of their elders seriously.

 

It's no surprise that as this trait became stronger and stronger in the genome that the emergent property of "ultimate parent" or "first elder" such as the god concept came to be.

 

Either way, what's your point? This still isn't related to morality, nor is it related to Pioneer and his whacky posts he farts out all over the internet based on logic rooted in false and inaccurate premises.

 

 

By the way, I already looked at Pioneer's comments in this thread and saw nothing deserving of what you said to him. Please don't dump on people merely because you disagree with them.

I said search the site, not the thread. I can appreciate your desire to protect people, but you're very much missing the context of my comments to Pioneer and clearly have little idea how badly he misses points and how consistently he spouts gibberish.

 

 

I asked a Muslim friend about this and he tells me this is pure nonsense. I myself have never come across such a thing in my studies of Islam. Where in the world did you hear this anyway?

Just because you have never heard about it doesn't mean it doesn't happen. That is known as an appeal to incredulity.

 

Under Sharia law, it is illegal to kill a female virgin. Therefore, in many executions and murders, the woman is first raped by the prison guard or the person performing the killing so they are not going against their religious teachings.

 

This happens in tribal areas, this happens in urban areas, and this happens in prisons. Unless your "muslim friend" has spent decades researching it, then he is likely no better informed than you are on these issues.

 

I encourage you to wake up and open your eyes to the ridiculous crowd you've chosen to hang out with by having this belief in iron age fairy tales.

 

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sharia

[Phi for All]

You seem to live in a rationalized dichotomy of mind whereby you study physics and you study other sciences so call yourself a rational and critically thinking person (which, in those instances, you are), but then you also believe in iron age fairy tales and purple unicorns and somehow expect us to transfer the previously ackowledged rationality on to these other topics.

iNow, I'm not sure if anyone else has pointed this out, but I've been meaning to for a long time. Whenever someone professes a belief in God, you jump to the fore with the "purple unicorn" strawman. While I agree that unobservable phenomenon have little significance to scientific discussions, you equate the sum of interest in God to the sum of interest in fairy tales, and I highly disagree with that. It not only is a blatant strawman, due to the differing natures of worship/religion and folklore, but it ALWAYS causes friction in threads where it's mentioned. It's belittling, it's supercilious and it's unnecessary.

 

Science doesn't have to ridicule religious beliefs to get the point across that it is not designed to deal with the supernatural. In this case, I think it's an intellectual high ground you're bulldozing flat with your equations.

 

I encourage you to wake up and open your eyes to the ridiculous crowd you've chosen to hang out with by having this belief in iron age fairy tales.

This approach creates an automatic defensive posture. Even people who are on the fence will leap to oppose you. In politics and religion, even more so.