Originally posted by no1marauderYes, but an altruistic group would quickly be overrun by "selfish" mutants - it does tend towards a balance between the two though. See "selfish gene" for more info.
The issue is more complex than you are suggesting. I cite from this book review:
natural selection only favors what is “selfish” from the standpoint of the gene, and as Field points out, “what is selfish from the standpoint of the gene is altruistic from the standpoint of the acting organism” (p. 152). Hence, “organisms are thus evolved to be altruist ...[text shortened]... members of the group from birth; it stands to reason that altruistic behavior would be favored.
Originally posted by scottishinnzDo you think the Illiad was passed down fundamentally intact? Doesn't research indicate that cultures without written languages are able to pass down folktales and traditions orally for hundreds of years?
Hows about I tell you something today, and you wait 60 years before writing it down. Would you trust your memory so much?
Among the Jewish people, however, storytelling has been maintained as an intrinsic part of the faith. Folktales have been a vehicle of Judaic religious instruction since the earliest times. The Old Testament contains moral tales, parables, and proverbs based on stories; the Talmud (legal code) records many legends concerning wise men; in postbiblical times, the Midrash (a compilation of legalist commentary and interpretation of the Old Testament) recounted oral traditions, or Hagada, about the wisdom of Abraham, David, Solomon and other spiritual heroes.
http://www.historical-museum.org/folklife/tradition5.htm
Why not Jesus?
Originally posted by no1marauderYes, I appreciate the storytelling tradition. However, it seems difficult to work out the veracity of transference. For example, I do not really believe that Jesus fed 5,000 with a few fish and a couple of loaves. I personally believe this to be an exaggeration. When an exaggeration like this can slip in, how can we realistically believe that Moses parted the waters, or that Noah took the animals aboard his boat 2 by 2?
Among the Jewish people, however, storytelling has been maintained as an intrinsic part of the faith. Folktales have been a vehicle of Judaic religious instruction since the earliest times. The Old Testament contains moral tales, parables, and proverbs based on stories; the Talmud (legal code) records many legends concerning wise men; in postbiblical tim ...[text shortened]... roes.
http://www.historical-museum.org/folklife/tradition5.htm
Why not Jesus?[/b]
Originally posted by scottishinnzI thought we were talking about the sayings of Jesus. Certainly his message could have passed down relatively intact even if some stories were liberally added to compare him favorably with other God-men. I'd say the same with Moses (although there is a lot more question if a figure like Moses actually existed). The flood myth is in another category entirely; I don't believe it was ever meant to be taken as fact (and flood myths have survived in many cultures).
Yes, I appreciate the storytelling tradition. However, it seems difficult to work out the veracity of transference. For example, I do not really believe that Jesus fed 5,000 with a few fish and a couple of loaves. I personally believe this to be an exaggeration. When an exaggeration like this can slip in, how can we realistically believe that Moses parted the waters, or that Noah took the animals aboard his boat 2 by 2?
Originally posted by no1marauderSo, that leaves the question. How much of what was reportedly said by Jesus actually was? It's a question we cannot answer. Jesus' actual words are lost to us, all we have is second hand accounts, and ones that are highly sus, at that.
I thought we were talking about the [b]sayings of Jesus. Certainly his message could have passed down relatively intact even if some stories were liberally added to compare him favorably with other God-men. I'd say the same with Moses (although there is a lot more question if a figure like Moses actually existed). The flood myth is in another categor ...[text shortened]... elieve it was ever meant to be taken as fact (and flood myths have survived in many cultures).[/b]
Originally posted by scottishinnzIt makes a lot of evolutionary sense actually . If you have read "the selfish gene" you would know that Dawkins also proposed that the individual is expendable and it is the furthering of the overall gene pool that is paramount. You may lose your genes but you would preserve the gene pool. Evolution doesn't care about you or even your genes to an extent . Evolution "cares" about the right genes making it through. The gene pool is everything.
Dawkins has written some excellent stuff on altruism, you should read it, because your statement makes no evolutionary sense.
Why would I risk my own genes (I may get run over) to help promote those of someone else? I wouldn't, not unless there was a greater benefit to me. This benefit may be immediate, a girl might see my doing it and it may hel ...[text shortened]... else. A psychological trick of the brain, a hardwired "helping cripples is good" response.
In any case , if you can't explain acts of selfless morality involving personal risk using evolution then how else are you going to explain them. There is little point saying "why would I/One risk my own genes " when we know that people DO risk their own genes , so why do you think do they do it if it makes no evolutionary sense to you?
1 edit
Originally posted by no1marauderObjective
Buy a dictionary, look up the word "objective" and then get back to me.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Of or pertaining to an object.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Of or pertaining to an object; contained in, or having the nature or position of, an object; outward; external; extrinsic; -- an epithet applied to whatever ir exterior to the mind, or which is simply an object of thought or feeling, and opposed to subjective.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pertaining to, or designating, the case which follows a transitive verb or a preposition, being that case in which the direct object of the verb is placed. See Accusative, n.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So marauder are you able to show that your objective morality exists as an "object". Where is this "objective morality" you speak of ? The only place you can locate it in is in men's minds. External/objective morality needs an external object of some sort. All you have externally is nature and the universe which you have already admitted is uncaring and ammoral powered by blind forces of evolution and physical laws. Where's your object?