Originally posted by no1marauderGenetic selfishness. I've never said anything else. If you'd actually read the book I suggest, or any good quality, modern (post 1976) book on evolution you and I would not be having this discussion.
Snobbery does you little good in this discussion. Biologists don't have any special claim to expertise in human behavior as there are other scientific disciplines who study that field in greater detail (psychology, anthropology, sociology, economics to need but a few). Your position requires a non-standard definition of "selfish" and an acceptance that h ...[text shortened]... otivations to do altruistic acts. I see little reason to accept either of these propositions.
2 edits
Originally posted by knightmeisterIn answer to your last question, not at all. I merely point out that you take the "objective" existence of god to be self-evident, based on your introspection, reflection, and experience of the world.
I can't prove objectively that my wife loves me or that Hitler was wrong but I can convince many a person of these facts even though I can't put them in a testube.
You are right it's not really a leap of faith . What it is is the kind of proof that you would not accept maybe because your skeptism would not allow room for it. Some faith is needed.
God exists objectively. Or beauty.
Do you really think I can prove God scientifically?
Yet when others say they find the existence of "objective" morality based on precisely the same things, you become a sceptic.
It's not consistent.
You're again confusing questions about knowledge with questions about what exists; the fact you can't scientifically prove that your wife loves you (or doesn't, for that matter), doesn't mean she doesn't love you. It doesn't mean the statement: "Knightmeister's wife loves him" isn't, in actuality, either true or false. Besides, "scientific" evidence is not the only admissible evidence for verifying factual claims. And there are objective (e.g. behavioural) criteria for saying that she does (or doesn't).
2 edits
As an aside, I've noticed that plenty of theists seem to rely on the Cartestian argument that without god, we can have knowledge of the external world. The problem is that if we allow Descartes' sceptical assumptions, we never actually get to god. Descartes "constructive" arguments - about clear and distinct ideas, the ontological argument, etc. - are notoriously weak.
Fortunately for both sides, nobody does (or could) operate on those assumptions.
2 edits
Originally posted by scottishinnzYou're acting more and more like a Fundie. You certainly did not limit yourself to "genetic selfishness" as even a cursory glance at your posts here show. And your claims that there is no such thing as true altruistic behavior in humans is not a serious position in any scientific discipline that concentrates on human behavior.
Genetic selfishness. I've never said anything else. If you'd actually read the book I suggest, or any good quality, modern (post 1976) book on evolution you and I would not be having this discussion.
EDIT: SS: 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.
This is silly. It depends upon how you define selfish.
no1 is defining it as helping your self out. The S dude is defining it as helping your genes out. I think that both definations are objectecty correct. But I think that no1 defination is better.
The same thing is happening with the phase 'Moral Objectivty' in order to debate it we have to define it right.
Originally posted by no1marauderEvolution of the large brain? You want to know what the current theory is? Sexual selection. And sexual selection is what? A selfish behaviour. Females trying to get the best mate. If they were altruistic, then females would mate with anyone. Why not read the book? Why not read any book on evolution?
You're acting more and more like a Fundie. You certainly did not limit yourself to "genetic selfishness" as even a cursory glance at your posts here show. And your claims that there is no such thing as true altruistic behavior in humans is not a serious position in any scientific discipline that concentrates on human behavior.
EDIT: SS: Selfishness is ...[text shortened]... human - the need to manipulate others is the very basis for the evolution of our large brain.
Originally posted by MJW1234123But only one definition is evolutionary correct, and it ain't marauders.
This is silly. It depends upon how you define selfish.
no1 is defining it as helping your self out. The S dude is defining it as helping your genes out. I think that both definations are objectecty correct. But I think that no1 defination is better.
The same thing is happening with the phase 'Moral Objectivty' in order to debate it we have to define it right.
Originally posted by scottishinnzYou really should give up on this stupid snobbery; if you want to use the Fallacy of Equivocation to change the meaning of a word to a non-standard one, go ahead - but stop pretending everyone on planet Earth agrees with such Humpty Dumpty tactics.
But only one definition is evolutionary correct, and it ain't marauders.
Originally posted by no1marauderYou've provided nothing so far which doesn't boil down to reciprocal altruism (either direct or indirect), even if the society that we now exist in is not representative of the society in which those traits evolved.
You really should give up on this stupid snobbery; if you want to use the Fallacy of Equivocation to change the meaning of a word to a non-standard one, go ahead - but stop pretending everyone on planet Earth agrees with such Humpty Dumpty tactics.
Originally posted by scottishinnzNonsense. What has been shown is that you will label ANY ACTION as "reciprocal altruism" no matter how speculative or distant in time the supposed "benefit" to the acting party is. And you are relentless in your refusal to deal with the reality that people think of many of their actions as altruistic. All this thread is showing is your narrowmindedness.
You've provided nothing so far which doesn't boil down to reciprocal altruism (either direct or indirect), even if the society that we now exist in is not representative of the society in which those traits evolved.
Originally posted by scottishinnzThat would be a remarkably stupid theory; last I checked there are many species with male and females but the rapidity of human brain development was a unique event. http://www.hhmi.org/news/lahn3.html
Evolution of the large brain? You want to know what the current theory is? Sexual selection. And sexual selection is what? A selfish behaviour. Females trying to get the best mate. If they were altruistic, then females would mate with anyone. Why not read the book? Why not read any book on evolution?
2 edits
Originally posted by no1marauderIt's exactly the same theory as why peacocks have large tails. In humans, it's the ability to manipulate the member of the opposite sex which is selected for. You may think it's stupid, but you've not presented anything better, or even anything that could even theoretically evolve.
That would be a remarkably stupid theory; last I checked there are many species with male and females but the rapidity of human brain development was a unique event. http://www.hhmi.org/news/lahn3.html
[edit; oh, and the peacock's tail is unique too. The moral - so what?!]
Originally posted by no1marauderAnd your naivety of evolutionary theory.
Nonsense. What has been shown is that you will label ANY ACTION as "reciprocal altruism" no matter how speculative or distant in time the supposed "benefit" to the acting party is. And you are relentless in your refusal to deal with the reality that people think of many of their actions as altruistic. All this thread is showing is your narrowmindedness.
Originally posted by FreakyKBHUpon which part of the statement are you hung? The words are straight-forward, the intended meanings of the same are not hidden. Are you looking for examples?
[b]And I repeat: what does that mean exactly?
Upon which part of the statement are you hung? The words are straight-forward, the intended meanings of the same are not hidden. Are you looking for examples?
Surely, God's character comprises propositional attitudes...
Wrong. The varied aspects of God's character are in and of themselves absolutes. By your standards, nothing objective is able to exist.[/b]
I'm asking you to clarify what you mean when you say that moral truth (well, now it's all truth) is dependent upon, or "reflective" of, God's character. Yes, maybe an example would help. Take my statement that I have hands, which expresses a truth. Me, I always thought it expresses a truth because the propositional content corresponds to a fact about the world. You say that it's because it bears some sort of relation to God's character. What do you mean?
Wrong.
Explain to me how any agent (your God is an agent, isn't He?) can possess a character that is devoid of propositional attitudes.
By your standards, nothing objective is able to exist.
My "standard" is just the usual sense of objectivity -- as constitutive independence from observer attitudes. My contention here is merely that under your metaphysics, moral truths are not independent of such attitudes and are thus not objective.
Originally posted by dottewellNice post.
I merely point out that you take the "objective" existence of god to be self-evident, based on your introspection, reflection, and experience of the world.
Yet when others say they find the existence of "objective" morality based on precisely the same things, you become a sceptic.
It's not consistent.