This is a mobile optimized page that loads fast, if you want to load the real page, click this text.

Religion IS crazy!

Jump to new
SirRumpole said:
What is the physical nature of morality ?
Click to expand...


You are missing the important distinction between theoretical materialism and actual materialism:- which is, in practice, if you can touch it, see it, smell it, hear it, taste it or imagine it. Proof for the last one is self evident by the fact VC is arguing with people who may or may not exist, if VC exists that is.
 

Maybe it's all just a bad dream...
 
luutzu said:
; because you do not want the murdering being done to you so don't do it to others.

It's a very elementary concept to test morality

Anyway
Click to expand...

The herd wouldn't survive if everyone killed everyone else and it didn't have ethics. Morality (as opposed to ethics) and murder (as opposed to killing) are an individual's own covenant that implies goodness and malice.

Religion taps into the morality core because it rises above the cultural baseiine..... higher purpose, closer to God and all that. This is why I consider myself light years ahead of all you wannabe moral warriors with corrupted compass'.... I'll send God your greetings
 
SirRumpole said:
Maybe it's all just a bad dream...
Click to expand...

Yes maybe we should put on a fondue party where we can act like a collective of wankers and discuss the merits of cogito ergo sum, using big words like marmalade and correcting each other's syntax..... of course avoiding the "go directly to jail, do not collect......"
 

Oh yes, that would be fun

 

What is a fon do ?

Is it a party for flipping old numbskulls ?
 

Another factor may be that once we moved beyond subsistence living and were able to care for the less fortunate without it directly impacting the survival of the group, the more able began to realise that they themselves might be in the same position as the less able in their later lives or even sooner due to potential accidents. That would have encouraged a more caring attitude in the hope of a quid pro quo when they are in need.

A prime example of this is politicians from one party allocating plush overseas positions to retired/defeated members of opposing parties even though they had spent most of their time highlighting the incompetencies of the retired/defeated members when in office. A realisation that they too may one day want support from that other party when they want to board the same gravy train.
 

Yes, like I keep donating money to the unfortunate James Packer in the hope that I may get some back one day.

 

Not at all, don't you think a creatures with empathy and sympathy will be able to develop stronger social groups, and do more to protect each other from external threats.

every thing has pros and cons, the benefits of looking after other members of the genepool, far out way disadvantages. The genepool that stick together in social groups, will out perform stronger gene pool goes it alone as individuals.

Empathy and sympathy has probably evolved due to social groups, do you think a great white shark has empathy? probably not, if would be a disadvantage to it, but to higher animals living in social groups it would be a net plus, despite the disadvantages.

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

A animal that feeds a weaker member, will probably also do a lot of other things to help the gene pool, eg helping the stronger members survive also, be a better parent and aunty to its relatives, and also just because a member is weaker, doesn't mean it won't help the stronger one survive.

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 ?
Click to expand...

Evolution isn't about rational thinking, its not planned, it just happens, the genes that survive spread, and there are many ways to increase the chance of survival, some animals grow big muslces and claws, humans have grown big brains and developed social groups to look after each other.




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
Click to expand...

Nope, as I said they are just responding to our inbuilt impulse to help others.
 
Value Collector said:
Not at all, don't you think a creatures with empathy and sympathy will be able to develop stronger social groups, and do more to protect each other from external threats.
Click to expand...

When talking about members of one's own 'tribe' empathy is stronger but how do we explain empathy towards other tribes of the human race or other species ?

You describe it as an evolutionary 'misfire' , that's a pretty convenient explanation but there are others as well such as empathy and sympathy was built in to evolution, a possibility you acknowledged yourself by this remark

Value Collector said:
Nope, as I said they are just responding to our inbuilt impulse to help others.
Click to expand...

So how was it built in ?
 
SirRumpole said:
When talking about members of one's own 'tribe' empathy is stronger but how do we explain empathy towards other tribes of the human race or other species ?

?
Click to expand...

Because for most of human history, the only people you met were either in your tribe or the tribes around you, so they were all very closely genetically related.

If you can understand that helping your children survive increases they chances your genes survive, you should be able to understand that helping your nieces and nephews also spread your genes, as does helping your brothers and sisters and cousins, even distance cousins.

Being able to help people in foreign countries is a very new thing, for millions of years we have only been able to help those around us who are our relations, so an impulse to help others would be spreading our genes, and as I said a lot of evolution is survival of the species in general, so helping any human is working towards that cause.

You describe it as an evolutionary 'misfire' , that's a pretty convenient explanation but there are others as well such as empathy and sympathy was built in to evolution, a possibility you acknowledged yourself by this remark
Click to expand...

All human emotions have been built in by evolution, including sympathy and empathy.


So how was it built in
Click to expand...

If an individual has no capability for empathy or sympathy, do you think they will thrive in a social group? do you want to be friends with people that are not empathetic? if you are anti social, you will probably have a higher chance of being ejected from the group, and will not thrive, where as a people that are will thrive in social environments.

Even a dog will stay with you and protect you to the death against a predator if you are nice to it and give it some of your scraps, that alone can increase the survival rate of empathic individuals, so if a dog protects nice indivuals increasing their survival, don't you think apes would protect the nice members of their groups that help them out.

if you are nasty and greedy to your group, and you kick dogs, you will probably find yourself alone on the savannah , with no breeding partner, and no one to watch your back.

that's all it takes for it to start to get built in, the people that have the capability, survive at higher rates, those that don't have it survive at lower rates.
 
If an individual has no capability for empathy or sympathy, do you think they will thrive in a social group?
Click to expand...

Sympathy and empathy are not necessary or even desirable for survival. It's been shown that there are very successful people who are psychopaths with no empathy for others. Empathy is a distraction when it comes to making rational decisions.

Viruses have survived far longer than mankind and they have no empathy whatever. They may end up destroying mankind and prove themselves superior to us.

It's certainly possible to envisage an intellectual race that survives because it has no empathy and simply wipes out all its competition.
 
SirRumpole said:
Sympathy and empathy are not necessary or even desirable for survival. It's been shown that there are very successful people who are psychopaths with no empathy for others. .
Click to expand...

A population of social animals would not thrive if 90% of them were pychopaths, unwilling to co-operate so it is not evolutionary stable.

a population would thrive though if 90% of them showed empathy to each other.

Viruses have survived far longer than mankind and they have no empathy whatever. They may end up destroying mankind and prove themselves superior to us.
Click to expand...

So what, that says nothing about the evolution of apes.

It's certainly possible to envisage an intellectual race that survives because it has no empathy and simply wipes out all its competition
Click to expand...

Humans do wipe out their competition, it doesn't mean we don't have empathy. If something is a genuine threat to the human race (our genepool), we have a huge impulse to kill it.
 
SirRumpole said:
So different evolutionary rules apply to different species ?

I'm not sure Darwin thought of that.
Click to expand...

If we are talking about the origins of morality in a species of social apes, it's not relevent to evolution in virus.

Virus arent even animals, its like trying to compare the evolutionary natural selection factors of an animal species to plant species, in fact I am not sure a virus is even considered a living organism, there has been debate on that classification.
 
Here is two things you see as problems explained.

The evolution of morality from group selection.


Why psycho paths (pirates) exist and sometimes thrive, but still don't dominate the population.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Rumpole, this will also help you clear up some of the misconceptions of evolution you have.

If you only have time to watch one of the videos I linked, watch this one.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
It all comes down to the point that evolution (as well as the laws of physics) is a set of principles which we have discovered, think we can describe, but we cannot explain how they originated.

The two choices are a gigantic accident or some sort of design.

Multiverses may exist, but they still have to come from somewhere.

People can say that the Universe is the way it is because it could not be any other way. If that is the case then that points much more to the intelligent design scenario rather than to a freak accident where the odds against would be enormous.

Like it or not, the universe and evolution work to a set of principles, balanced towards life. Finding out how these principles arose is the real question, not the details of their operation.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more...