Religion IS crazy!

[Biosemiosis org]

VC: Now, I am not an expert in DNA or Cells, but I think such claims are probably equally false. Why don't you link a bit more info.

BIO: I already linked to an entire website Biosemiosis.org, that is dedicated to explaining these issues at the laymen's level, and that website has a bibliography of more than two dozen peer-reviewed sources in the literature.

VC: Basically I see a lot of special pleading and logical fallacies

BIO: Name one.

VC: Why don't you just come clean and tell us what your religious beliefs are

facepalm

My beliefs have nothing to do with the material evidence. They don’t change that evidence in any way whatsoever. Neither do yours. We are all in the same boat.

If you look closely, you’ll notice I do not make claims that I cannot support with physical evidence and universal experience. And frankly, I say just the opposite of what you’ve accused me of. At one point in the argument I say that there are those who may take the evidence to mean more than it does, but that it does not and cannot prove those claims to be true. The argument is about the material conditions required to organize the heterogeneous living cell. When a cell uses genetic information to produce proteins, it uses a system that a physicist can uniquely identify among all other physical systems. The only other place in the cosmos that such a system can be found is in recorded language and mathematics - two unambiguous correlates of intelligence. These are empirically-substantiated statements of fact

Nowhere do I say “therefore God” and I do not say that because it cannot be drawn from what is empirically known. What more could you want someone to do than to recount the evidence accurately and then make no claims that are not supported by that evidence?

It’s a rhetorical question.

cheers...

 

[SirRumpole]

probably a few different reasons, some times such things are misfires of our inbuilt evolutionary "care for the group/others rule", eg evolution has built in a rule that in general we should care for others, as our society has developed we have started giving a form of "person hood" to some other species, we realise we wouldn't want to be treated badly so we don't want to treat others including animals badly, it all stems from the same basic line of thought.

Gee wizz, so we pick up a koala out of a bushfire because we hope they will do the same for us one day ?

:screwy:

secondly,

Some of it is logical, us humans are coming to the conclusion that we rely on the natural environment, and destroying it and the creatures that live in it is probably not good for us either.

As I said, species extinction has been going on for millions of years, so why worry ?

This is getting pretty far away from the original point, which was that I believe everything is physical in nature, are you still trying to link back to that some how? or have we switched to discussing the development and application of morality in humans?

Yes, I'm still questioning your assertion that everything is physical in nature.

Your arguments seem all over the shop. First you say we have a 'selfish gene' by which we favour our close relatives in order to pass our own genes down the line, then you widened that to all humanity when I pointed out that we do good deeds for strangers, now you invoke a "built in evolutionary rule" to explain our caring for other species.

OK , if there is a "built in evolutionary rule", how and why did it get built in ? This seems like you are saying that the dice has been loaded by ... ?

if you are still trying to get at the materialist question, a better line to be inquiring would be can any of these thought processes either moral or immoral which you seemed to think were based in something non physical, exist outside of a physical brain / structure.

No, that's not really the point. The first step is to find out IF such things are happening outside the brain, and then find an explanation as to HOW this is happening.

As I believe I've shown , I don't think you can reduce everything to the physical. Altruism exists, and people do good deeds without the possibility of their genes being passed on or because it may benefit them in some way.

 

[Value Collector]

Gee wizz, so we pick up a koala out of a bushfire because we hope they will do the same for us one day ?

.

Nope, as I said its probably a misfire. A general rule built into by evolution to help those around us.

As I said evolution builds in general rules that are helpful to the survival of the gene pool, eg a general rule that says "Help those around you escape from danger" is going to be a pretty good rule for protecting the gene pool, it may also make the individual help other species escape danger too, also notice that the more human like characteristic an animal has the more we want to help, not many people rush in to pull insects out of fires.

:screwy:



As I said, species extinction has been going on for millions of years, so why worry ?



Yes, I'm still questioning your assertion that everything is physical in nature.

Your arguments seem all over the shop. First you say we have a 'selfish gene' by which we favour our close relatives in order to pass our own genes down the line, then you widened that to all humanity when I pointed out that we do good deeds for strangers, now you invoke a "built in evolutionary rule" to explain our caring for other species.

OK , if there is a "built in evolutionary rule", how and why did it get built in ? This seems like you are saying that the dice has been loaded by <shock> someone ... ?

Built in over long periods of time, and many generations. Those individuals or groups that didn't have characteristics that lead to beneficial behaviour survived less often.

eg, a mother that protects her offspring will have her offspring survive at a better rate than the mother that abandons her offspring at the first sign of a predator, so its a positive cycle that leads to that behaviour being built in.

No, that's not really the point. The first step is to find out IF such things are happening outside the brain, and then find an explanation as to HOW this is happening.

As I believe I've shown , I don't think you can reduce everything to the physical. Altruism exists, and people do good deeds without the possibility of their genes being passed on or because it may benefit them in some way

that's got nothing to do with materialism, materialism is a belief on what exists.

ie, A belief that everything that exists is physical in nature, eg Atoms, photons, gravity etc etc

Any discussion about the behaviour of animals is not really going to get anywhere in regards to materialism, because animals are made of matter, everything about them is material.

--------------------------------

I think I have shown that good deeds does in fact have a evolutionary purpose, even if the individual will not benefit.

 

[Value Collector]

Nowhere do I say “therefore God” ...

No, you say "therefore Intelligent designer"

I just want to know why you are so keen to invoke a designer, when you have no evidence a designer exists.

I am more interested in hearing what your religious beliefs are and why you believe them, because I don't think this intelligent design babble is the real reason you are a theist, I think this stuff came after as a way to justify your beleifs, and you think its a good way to dupe others into becoming convinced.

 

[trainspotter]

Religion is CRAZY alright !!

 

[Value Collector]

Missed this one in the above post

sir rumpole said-

Your arguments seem all over the shop. First you say we have a 'selfish gene' by which we favour our close relatives in order to pass our own genes down the line, then you widened that to all humanity when I pointed out that we do good deeds for strangers, now you invoke a "built in evolutionary rule" to explain our caring for other species.

You brought up behaviour where an individual might sacrifice itself, saying this selfless behaviour is evidence against materialism and evolution, I said the genes are selfish and that an individual dying to save its siblings, cousins, nephews and nieces etc, is still helping to ensure the survival of its genes, because its close relatives share so much of its dna.

you then brought up people helping others who are not closely related, so I pointed out that all humans are pretty closely related, sharing 99.99999% of DNA, so protecting another human is still helping to ensure the survival of genes you are carrying, even if they are no closely related.

Instincts are rules and behaviours built in by evolution, certain things are built in impulses that pop up from deep inside, they are generally things that have helped us survive as a species at some stage, I am not sure why you have trouble coming to grips with the fact that kindness and charity might be one of these instincts.

I think maybe you are still thinking evolution is all about the strongest individuals, which is some what a wrong view in many cases, especially social species.

 

[SirRumpole]

I am not sure why you have trouble coming to grips with the fact that kindness and charity might be one of these instincts.

Because kindness and charity doesn't necessarily contribute to the survival of the species.

e.g. parents and society look after severely retarded children who will never make a contribution to society when resources could be better directed towards people who have a greater chance of making a contribution.

If we help the weak survive they pass their genes on to the rest of the gene pool and so weaken the human race in general. This seems contrary to natural selection, and therefore anti evolutionary, so what I'm saying is that some force outside evolution is acting in these cases.


So would you care to relate kindness and charity that weaken the gene pool to your 'selfish gene' hypothesis ? (Richard Dawkins' hypothesis actually).

 

[Value Collector]

Because kindness and charity doesn't necessarily contribute to the survival of the species.

).

How does it not contribute to survival?

sharing food amongst your group etc, directly increases both their survival and your survival, and the survival of the genes you are all carrying.

If we help the weak survive they pass their genes on to the rest of the gene pool and so weaken the human race in general

There are plenty of ways that nature would kill of the weaker individuals, lending a hand and helping a neighbor today, won't weaken the gene pool, it will make it stronger, in fact ejecting the anti social members of the group is the best way to strengthen the group.

you know the old saying, a champion team beats a team of champions.

So would you care to relate kindness and charity that weaken the gene pool to your 'selfish gene' hypothesis ? (Richard Dawkins' hypothesis actually

I don't think it does weaken the gene pool, because just because an individual is having a hard time today because of injury, bad luck, bad weather etc doesn't mean he is genetically weak, he could be just having a hard time, and when he recovers it might be very beneficial to have him around when the leopard comes, and we need as many people throwing rocks and sticks as possible, in fact if a member is brave and fights of a leopard and gets injured, do we say "let him die he is weak" offcourse not, its better to help him recover, he might save us again.

remember evolution isn't about what decisions individuals make, its about what instincts get selected by nature, groups that cared a little survived more than groups that didn't, simple as that, and it built up.

When the leopard comes you want a team around, it makes sense to look after that team.

who do you think survives more, a group that fights for each other or a group that abandons each other?

 

[luutzu]

Because kindness and charity doesn't necessarily contribute to the survival of the species.

If we help the weak survive they pass their genes on to the rest of the gene pool and so weaken the human race in general. This seems contrary to natural selection, and therefore anti evolutionary, so what I'm saying is that some force outside evolution is acting in these cases.


So would you care to relate kindness and charity that weaken the gene pool to your 'selfish gene' hypothesis ? (Richard Dawkins' hypothesis actually).

Wouldn't you help the weak among you so that they become strong and in turn protect you when you are old and weak? That's why we take care of our babies - so they will one day grow up and disappoint us on all counts

Maybe we take care of the weak among us because if we do not, we will not find favours or respect within our group - hence we survive and may be thrive that way. If, for example, we do not or could not take care of the weak children, the female would not want us because we're bums and who'd want to take care of two babies.

In the same sense, we go to war and destroy the weaker states because, we're told or we ourselves believe, they are not one of us, they're using things we could use ourselves, they have nice fertile land and other good loots etc.

But it is not all genetics and instincts. We human have the capacity to learn and reason as we grow and develop; that and societal influences and restraints... So human development is not just the gene at work, but the bio, psycho, social interaction (first year psychology - straight from the textbook's title )

 

[SirRumpole]

Wouldn't you help the weak among you so that they become strong and in turn protect you when you are old and weak? That's why we take care of our babies - so they will one day grow up and disappoint us on all counts

No, the correlation between helping someone today and being helped one day is too remote, especially if those people reside in another country.

I would help someone because I felt sorry for them, and if someone can explain how feeling sorry for someone is a product of evolution, please do so.

 

[SirRumpole]

When the leopard comes you want a team around, it makes sense to look after that team.

Back to animals again, and you ignored the point I made about people caring for individuals who will never make a contribution to society, so you are in fact cherry picking your arguments.

Animals want a team who are strong to fight the leopard which is why they most likely sacrifice the weak so that the others can survive. If a lion attacks an antelope the other antelopes run away, they don't try to save the one being attacked.

Humans on the other hand perform anti evolutionary acts as I described above. We have to explain why we do, and the selfish gene theory does not stack up in these cases.

who do you think survives more, a group that fights for each other or a group that abandons each other?

Quite clearly in the example I gave of the lion and the antelope, the team that runs away lives to fight another day.

 

[bellenuit]

Back to animals again, and you ignored the point I made about people caring for individuals who will never make a contribution to society, so you are in fact cherry picking your arguments.

.....

Humans on the other hand perform anti evolutionary acts as I described above. We have to explain why we do, and the selfish gene theory does not stack up in these cases.

One reason is that humans have evolved to the point that they can control their own destiny and in a sense their own evolution. As hunter/gatherers, the weak (physically/mentally) would most likely have been abandoned if it meant that they posed a threat to the group (for example, hindered migration to more fertile areas as the seasons changed). That is no longer the case. As well as having the ability to cure what previously was incurable, technology has also provided us with aids to mitigate the disadvantages associated with human deficiencies (wheelchairs, prosthetic limbs being examples). Of particular significance is the diminishment of the advantage associated with physical strength. Two centuries ago, being among the strongest 10% in the community was a significant advantage in obtaining employment etc. Nowadays that hardly counts. Mental capability is more important for most jobs in the first world. And with technology enabling those with physical disabilities to contribute intellectually if they are that way talented, people who would previously have been regarded as useless to society are now substantial contributors (Stephen Hawkins for instance).

The selfish gene may still be the driver of evolution, but in a highly evolved society, it may influence us to make decisions that are quite different to what we would have done in our more primitive state.

 

[luutzu]

No, the correlation between helping someone today and being helped one day is too remote, especially if those people reside in another country.

I would help someone because I felt sorry for them, and if someone can explain how feeling sorry for someone is a product of evolution, please do so.

Empathy, maybe. You see your fellow ape being chased and dragged away and imagine what it'd feel like if you were in their shoes. That may then lead you to feel pain and you'd try to stop it from happening to others if you could help it. Then there are some who sit there and laugh or something.

Was watching that something something To the Rescue last week and saw how this VNese family was suffering. The father was diagnosed with terminal cancer; they have a big mortgage; the house was run down; got three young kids he'll leave behind... then saw how a bunch of people step in to help them out. I thought that was nice and wonderful.

Then after that episode there's this show about how the other 1% live. A couple spent 25K pound to throw a dinner for their wedding anniversary. Complete with headphone and a plate of leaves for a truffle hunt where they're sniffing for it like a pig would.

But that's nothing when they take you on those mega yachts where 2k Pound sterling bottle of wine and snail caviar and other fish eggs goes for a thousand pound a kilo are just what you stock up and chow down each day.

 

[luutzu]

Back to animals again, and you ignored the point I made about people caring for individuals who will never make a contribution to society, so you are in fact cherry picking your arguments.

Animals want a team who are strong to fight the leopard which is why they most likely sacrifice the weak so that the others can survive. If a lion attacks an antelope the other antelopes run away, they don't try to save the one being attacked.

Humans on the other hand perform anti evolutionary acts as I described above. We have to explain why we do, and the selfish gene theory does not stack up in these cases.


Quite clearly in the example I gave of the lion and the antelope, the team that runs away lives to fight another day.

Human do good for no apparent reason might do so because they're thinking of the long term; have a more developed sense of responsibility; it makes them feel good to help others; or all of the above and more.

For example, a son would help his parents and his family and friend because - one, he's brought up that way; two, he was not brought up that way so he wanted to help since he know what it was like to need help but receive none; three he may think long term and want to set good examples for his children to look up to.

Further, you are who you attract. If you are good you tend to attract good people as friends and as life partners; You cheat and lies and manipulate then the good people aren't impressed with you but will stay away from you - then those who do not care too much for proper behaviour would be attracted to you, or at least hang around you until things goes bad.

So it is selfish but in a good way. The other selfishness is of course still selfish but it leaves behind many victims, some of whom may come after you.

 

[SirRumpole]

Mental capability is more important for most jobs in the first world.

Indeed, but my point was that we also look after those with serious intellectual disabilities whose contribution to society is likely to be minimal.

Evolution alone cannot imo explain why we do this.

I could envisage a high advanced intellectual society who would not bother to look after such abnormalities regarding them as not worth the effort.

I cannot see a rational reason to contribute resources to such people, so the reasons must be emotional.

There is a rational reason generally for love, of ones offspring to pass our genes down the line, but love for someone who would never do this and could probably never understand or return that love seems a mystery to me if framed under the laws of evolution.

This is a reason why I suspect that materialism is not the only factor that makes us what we are.

 

[luutzu]

Indeed, but my point was that we also look after those with serious intellectual disabilities whose contribution to society is likely to be minimal.

Evolution alone cannot imo explain why we do this.

I could envisage a high advanced intellectual society who would not bother to look after such abnormalities regarding them as not worth the effort.

I cannot see a rational reason to contribute resources to such people, so the reasons must be emotional.

There is a rational reason generally for love, of ones offspring to pass our genes down the line, but love for someone who would never do this and could probably never understand or return that love seems a mystery to me if framed under the laws of evolution.

This is a reason why I suspect that materialism is not the only factor that makes us what we are.

Not really.

A truly advanced and rational society would take care of its weak and disabled, and does it for rational reasons, not merely emotional ones.

Societies that does not take care of its weak and disabled are not intellectually advanced, they're economically poor or barbaric. Such as Sparta way back, Nazi Germany with their solutions to the handicapped, the gays and gypsies and Jews; Or the Eskimos, I heard, who float their elders out to sea. Or the Viets who, a couple centuries back, carry their elders into the woods and leave them there.

What are the rational reasons? One, it set clear examples of a united people working for the common good. That society will take care of you or your loved ones if you or them are injured or died in working towards a common goal to advance society.

Who would take risk or labour, who would want to volunteer and lend a hand when the moment they're injured or disabled they're abandoned?

Then there's the slippery slope... if we get rid of the disabled because they drain our resources; once that's done let's also get rid of such and such people because they don't contribute as much.

Again, why would anyone want to share and contribute when the moment they can longer society will abandon them?

If that happen, society will be fragmented and will be difficult to rule or to unite. Once fragmented and divided, once it's every man for himself the chances of civil war breaking out is high; until then every person will carry guns and shoot on suspicion.

It benefits everyone to live in a civilised society.

 

[Value Collector]

Back to animals again, and you ignored the point I made about people caring for individuals who will never make a contribution to society, so you are in fact cherry picking your arguments.

Animals want a team who are strong to fight the leopard which is why they most likely sacrifice the weak so that the others can survive. If a lion attacks an antelope the other antelopes run away, they don't try to save the one being attacked.

Humans on the other hand perform anti evolutionary acts as I described above. We have to explain why we do, and the selfish gene theory does not stack up in these cases.



Quite clearly in the example I gave of the lion and the antelope, the team that runs away lives to fight another day.

Several points you are missing.

Firstly, humans are animals, and when talking about the evolution of instinct and impulses we are talking about things that have been built into us over long periods of time, probably millions of years, 1000's of years ago the only humans you were likely to meet were close relations to you, distant cousins at the most, so having a evolutionary instinct to help others you come across in need not only might help you directly later, but is also helping protect your gene pool, the impulse to give to charity to help others today, probably stems from this primal urge to assist those around us, the fact that the person you might be helping now is on the other side of the world won't switch off this primal urge,

Secondly I am not missing your point about humans caring for indivduals that won't contribute back, I have offered several reasons for this, one I mentioned above, the other is that assisting any human even those not closely related still helps the survival of the species in general, which is a big part of evolution, because for a species to evolve, first it has to survive, another reason is misfiring of impulses, eg the same parts of the brain that cause a person to feel love and protection for a baby, can misfire and the person can feel affection for another species, eg dogs, cats etc and even koalas, there is actually research that shows the more an animals dementions resemble that of a human baby, eg big head, large eyes etc the more we are likely to care for it.

What's an example of an anti evolution thing humans do?

There are different strategies that different species use, a lot of herd animals will fight back against lions to protect their young, some have relied on running really fast, I doubt apes such as us would have survived if we chose to always run across flat ground to evade big cats.

Throughout history apes have lived in small groups, we have always relied on each other to survive, it doesn't seem crazy to me we would develop impulses to look after each other, if you don't agree I really think you have bought into the silly 1980's social Darwinism concepts rather than understand the complexities of real world evolution.

 

[Value Collector]

.

This is a reason why I suspect that materialism is not the only factor that makes us what we are.

I am still not sure you understand what materialism is, it's got nothing to do with what we are talking about.

Luutza's point about empathy is also extremely valid, our brains have evolved to the point that we can have very complex thoughts, and we have developed the ability to put ourselves in other people's shoes, seeing some one else experiance something terrible, and being able to imagine what that something must feel like can make us uncomfortable and want to stop it, and it can give us satifaction, like the satisfaction of solving a complex puzzle.

also, we shouldn't discount the "showing off" value of giving, being able to give a lot of money away can be a way to show off your "status", it can be ego driven, or it can even be a bribe to try and get people to join your group, how many religions do that? Lots

Also who said helping people on the other side of the world doesn't help us, I mean if we can help a starving country kick start their economy, and get their health care up, they may become productive, in 20years they maybe be drinking Coca Cola, using Heinz ketchup or even watching Disney movies. When you lift people out of poverty and they become consumers, the global economy should do better.

 

[Biosemiosis org]

Congratulations VC. It takes a real commitment to acknowledge upfront that your biases mean more to you than empirical evidence. Most people try to hide such things, or keep them in check. But not you, you've managed to seamlessly integrate logical fallacy into your outlook, without even a whisper of self-awareness. And I can easily understand why you are so willing to be open and unambiguous about it - unlike everyone else, you know you are right.

You might want to lose the whole "I am a man of science and reason" schtick though. You are neither.

 

[SirRumpole]

Luutza's point about empathy is also extremely valid, our brains have evolved to the point that we can have very complex thoughts, and we have developed the ability to put ourselves in other people's shoes, seeing some one else experiance something terrible, and being able to imagine what that something must feel like can make us uncomfortable and want to stop it, and it can give us satifaction, like the satisfaction of solving a complex puzzle.

Oh yes, I agree that we have empathy for others and that this is good, but what I'm saying is that empathy and sympathy are not a part of Darwinian evolution if it weakens the gene pool or diverts resources to caring for the weak at the expense of the fitter or more able.

So, after putting forward the 'selfish gene' concept, you seem to be saying that it no longer applies to human behaviour in terms of the survival of the species, but that we now operate on a 'feel good' basis ?

So feeling good now takes priority over taking tough decisions for the good of the 'tribe' ?

Well that's fine if we do that but the point I'm always making is WHY is feeling good about something more important than rational thinking ? How is a feel good factor built in to the evolutionary process ?

Also who said helping people on the other side of the world doesn't help us, I mean if we can help a starving country kick start their economy, and get their health care up, they may become productive, in 20years they maybe be drinking Coca Cola, using Heinz ketchup or even watching Disney movies. When you lift people out of poverty and they become consumers, the global economy should do better.

That may apply on a government scale but do you really think that an individual who gives a donation to World Vision gives any thought to the concept of global consumerism ?