The God Delusion

Originally posted by knightmeister
Objective

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 appl g and ammoral powered by blind forces of evolution and physical laws. Where's your object?

You are a retard.

Objective morality exists within humans. But its existence is real. The universe may be ammoral (how could it be anything else?) but we are not.

EDIT: I suppose a Universe that was Pantheistic could be "moral" but you don't believe in that, do you?

Originally posted by knightmeister
"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?

Good question. Two reasons, I suspect. One, the possibility of a benefit. Depends to a large extent on the cost-benefit ratio.

Two, decision making went wrong. For example, the young are often cocky. When they get behind the wheel of a car, this can be fatal. However, as we all know young people are invincible, or at least they tend to believe so. Now, in the past, it would have made evolutionary sense for the young to be adventurous. They are likely yo be competing for females on an unequal basis to older, more established males. They also perhaps have less to lose, the young are less likely to get seriously hurt in a fracas. Finally, of course, a young person's brain is still learning the boundaries of what it can and can't do. So, several reasons why young (esp. males) tend to push the proverbial envelope. In the past, this wasn't too serious - most things didn't kill you, especially things like falling out of a tree, or off a horse. Nowadays, a bad call can kill you very easily. The trait that was, in the past, useful, suddenly can become a disadvantage. Of course, many young women also like a risk taker, so there is a possible sexual selection thing going on there too. Again, a cost-benefit thing. But you are right, the important thing is the predominance of any given gene set in the gene pool. If I have a gene that compels me to commit suicide, whilst saving three brothers, because of the relatedness thing, that gene may come to predominate over a gene pool which lacks that gene, and my brothers are killed. It's not about any conscious choice, it's just a mathematical and statistical reality. This is why I tend to say that people who don't understand evolution tend to be people who don't understand statistics. Evolution - statistics writ large.

Originally posted by scottishinnz
Yes, 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.

Sorry if I don't have time to read a book before continuing every discussion in an internet forum, particulary on a subject that I already have some knowledge of.

Your analysis is flawed due to the nature of human groups. A "selfish free rider" would be tolerated only so long in an altruistic group and removal from the group would definitely reduce its ability to reproduce. Humans are social animals and socially desirable behavior is rewarded and socially undesirable behavior is punished. Since humans have always existed in groups which were essential for human survival, "selfishness" would NEVER have been a favorable evolutionary trait for an individual human.

Originally posted by no1marauder
Sorry if I don't have time to read a book before continuing every discussion in an internet forum, particulary on a subject that I already have some knowledge of.

Your analysis is flawed due to the nature of human groups. A "selfish free rider" would be tolerated only so long in an altruistic group and removal from the group would definitely ...[text shortened]... "selfishness" would NEVER have been a favorable evolutionary trait for an individual human.

The argument is that our genes are selfish, not necessarily the organisms that carry them. So altruism at the organism level must still be selfish at the gene level or it will not survive as a behavior.

And even at at the human organism level some level of selfishness is definitely rewarded -- the squeaky wheel gets the grease, etc.

Originally posted by spruce112358
The argument is that our genes are selfish, not necessarily the organisms that carry them. So altruism at the organism level must still be selfish at the gene level or it will not survive as a behavior.

And even at at the human organism level some level of selfishness is definitely rewarded -- the squeaky wheel gets the grease, etc.

I know what the argument is. It's wrong.

EDIT: Here's an interesting article: http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn10750-why-altruism-paid-off-for-our-ancestors.html

Originally posted by no1marauder
Sorry if I don't have time to read a book before continuing every discussion in an internet forum, particulary on a subject that I already have some knowledge of.

Your analysis is flawed due to the nature of human groups. A "selfish free rider" would be tolerated only so long in an altruistic group and removal from the group would definitely ...[text shortened]... "selfishness" would NEVER have been a favorable evolutionary trait for an individual human.

Sorry, Marauder, but you are wrong here. You may have "some knowledge" of this subject, but it is a personal passion of mine, and of course I've studied it extensively during the course of my first degree and taught it too. As for your "selfishness NEVER being a favourable evolutionary trait" comment, well, that's patently wrong. People lie and cheat all the time to get their own way. We have a society of haves and have nots - that's not a society of altruists! That's a society of the "haves" taking from the "have-nots". Or perhaps you defend people legally for free? Selfishness is at the very base of being human - the need to manipulate others is the very basis for the evolution of our large brain. For reference see Darwinism, Dominance, and Democracy: The Biological Bases of Authoritarianism (Human Evolution, Behavior, and Intelligence) by Albert Somit and Steven A Peterson

Originally posted by no1marauder
I know what the argument is. It's wrong.

EDIT: Here's an interesting article: http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn10750-why-altruism-paid-off-for-our-ancestors.html

Oh, and your article here is missing an "apparent" in the title. It is not altruism at all, in fact, it's actually genetic selfishness. The genes, as modelled by Bowles, are merely acting to maximise the number of their own copies in the population - thus it is genetic selfishness. As I pointed out above, the traits, such as giving to charity, with no possibility of (direct) reciprocation (although there are possible side benefits, especially is members of the opposite sex know of your altruism) are just throwbacks to days when we lived in small groups, which is why Bowles model works. Nothing novel in that report. Sorry, old boy.

Originally posted by no1marauder
You are a retard.

Objective morality exists within humans. But its existence is real. The universe may be ammoral (how could it be anything else?) but we are not.

EDIT: I suppose a Universe that was Pantheistic could be "moral" but you don't believe in that, do you?

"Objective morality exists within humans. But its existence is real. The universe may be ammoral (how could it be anything else?) but we are not." NO 1 Marauder

So because the concept of morality exists within humans therefore it's existence is real? I would agree with that . There is definitely a CONCEPT known to humanity as "morality" and this CONCEPT exists. It is a fact . We know that the human mind organizes behaviour into catagories that humans refer to as "good" and "bad". We also know that there are some disagreements and agreements about what is good and bad. If you are saying that the CONCEPT of morality is an objective fact then I agree , but you seem to be saying something more. You are saying that morality itself (not just the concept) is objective and really exists??? Where abouts is it in humans? In the kidneys , the feet , the brain? What does it smell like? You have no proof that the concept of morality is anything other than a evolutionary inspired fantasy designed to get humans to behave altruistically in the shared goal of geen pool preservation.

Using your logic , I could say that the concept of God also "exists within humans" and therefore God's "existence is real" (given that the vast majority of humans have and do believe in a deity). God must objectively exist then ? But you would protest , surely!? Would you say beauty exists objectively?

You can say that objectively the concept of morality exists within humans and is a real concept but how can you logically go further to say morality actually exists objectively? You would be turning a concept (or social behavioural construct) into an objective fact without any external proof. That's faith. I can say the concept of a tree exists and I can also say that objectively a tree's existence is real because I can touch it and experiment on it etc etc. How can you claim morality exists "objectively"?

Now that I have looked up objective in a dictionary maybe you would like to look up "phenomenology" yourself. You seem to have a difficulty understanding the subtle and vital difference between a human concept and real objective existence.

Originally posted by no1marauder
You are a retard.

Objective morality exists within humans. But its existence is real. The universe may be ammoral (how could it be anything else?) but we are not.

EDIT: I suppose a Universe that was Pantheistic could be "moral" but you don't believe in that, do you?

"You are a retard." NO1MARAUDER

As someone who knows many people who work with people with special needs and learning difficulties . I find this statement offensive and childish.

The ironic thing is it just makes you look far more foolish in the end. You are better than this marauder , you don't need to resort to this kind of thing.

Originally posted by scottishinnz
Oh, and your article here is missing an "apparent" in the title. It is not altruism at all, in fact, it's actually genetic selfishness. The genes, as modelled by Bowles, are merely acting to maximise the number of their own copies in the population - thus it is genetic selfishness. As I pointed out above, the traits, such as giving to charity, with ...[text shortened]... mall groups, which is why Bowles model works. Nothing novel in that report. Sorry, old boy.

You're just being dumb. Man's natural state is existing in small groups - that how he existed for the vast majority of his time on earth. Your snobbery aside, you've offered no justification for your view - you're only doing what the fundies do and using the Fallacy of Equivocation to argue that something doesn't exist (altruism) which obviously does.

Originally posted by knightmeister
"You are a retard." NO1MARAUDER

As someone who knows many people who work with people with special needs and learning difficulties . I find this statement offensive and childish.

The ironic thing is it just makes you look far more foolish in the end. You are better than this marauder , you don't need to resort to this kind of thing.

Tough. Go have a good cry.

Originally posted by knightmeister
"Objective morality exists within humans. But its existence is real. The universe may be ammoral (how could it be anything else?) but we are not." NO 1 Marauder

So because the concept of morality exists within humans therefore it's existence is real? I would agree with that . There is definitely a CONCEPT known to humanity as "morality" and this CON e and vital difference between a human concept and real objective existence.

You really are a clown. What is so hard to understand about saying that morality i.e. a sense that certain behavior is right and other behavior is wrong exists? Not, the CONCEPT, but the reality.

Please don't try to restate someone's argument; every time you do this you make an utter fool of yourself. The difference between morality and God is that God is something external to Man, so that if you say such a thing exists you must look for proof outside Man. But if I say human objective morality exists, I need only look to the actions of men. And across cultures and time, men have acted in the same basic way inside their cultures: altruistically and cooperatively like the social animals we are. That is what we are, and that is a fact, not a CONCEPT. Do you know the difference?

Originally posted by scottishinnz
Sorry, Marauder, but you are wrong here. You may have "some knowledge" of this subject, but it is a personal passion of mine, and of course I've studied it extensively during the course of my first degree and taught it too. As for your "selfishness NEVER being a favourable evolutionary trait" comment, well, that's patently wrong. People lie and cheat ...[text shortened]... (Human Evolution, Behavior, and Intelligence) by Albert Somit and Steven A Peterson

Bunk. If humans hadn't acted in a cooperative manner based on altruism and empathy, we would have been extinct a long time ago.

Originally posted by no1marauder
You're just being dumb. Man's natural state is existing in small groups - that how he existed for the vast majority of his time on earth. Your snobbery aside, you've offered no justification for your view - you're only doing what the fundies do and using the Fallacy of Equivocation to argue that something doesn't exist (altruism) which obviously does.

How does altruism obviously exist?
If you define it as doing something that benefits another organism, then it does. However, if you define it as doing something which has no benefit to you (i.e. your genes), which is what you seem to be doing, then it definitely doesn't.

Since you seem to think it does, please give us an example.

Originally posted by no1marauder
Bunk. If humans hadn't acted in a cooperative manner based on altruism and empathy, we would have been extinct a long time ago.

All "altruism" is selfish in nature. Its that simple. I can point you to the original papers by Haldane, Fischer et al. if you'd like. Really, it's no problem. Really, go read a good book on evolution, such as any of those by Dawkins, it's all there.