1 edit
Originally posted by scottishinnzOne size fits all apparently to the "biologists" of your school. How intellectually lazy.
It'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.
[edit; oh, and the peacock's tail is unique too. The moral - so what?!]
2 edits
Originally posted by scottishinnzLMAO! That's EXACTLY what Dawkins is apparently doing: making up explanations for phenomena (i.e. human altruism) that is already adequately explained. But since that explanation - that humans are naturally cooperative because they are social animals - doesn't fit into a "dog eat dog" mechanistic model, we have to hear nonsense like firemen rush into a burning building because it might, at some point in the future, enhance their possibility of getting laid. Do you actually believe such idiocies?
Why make up explanations to phenomena which are already adequately explained? The fact that you are too lazy to read the book on the subject is your problem not mine.
I've been exposed to the theory (I went to college in the 80's) and don't have time to read a book I have little interest in. I quoted a passage from it here and like a good Fundie you misinterpreted even that!
EDIT: You are also making the error identified in this passage from the Stanford Encyclopedia article on Sociobiology:
What morality is and why selection favors it are distinct. Thus, phrases such as “we are social manipulators when it is in our genetic interest to do so and we are honest social cooperators when it is in our genetic interest to do so” are misleading. ‘My genetic interests’ are not really ‘my interests.’ ‘My genetic interests’ is elliptical for talking about selection pressures that affect which alleles will increase in frequency in one's population in subsequent generations, whereas ‘my interests’ involves my own psychological states right here and now in my generation. In animal sociobiology, many studies identify situations in which honest signaling maximizes fitness and other situations in which deceptive signaling maximizes fitness. Both situations pervade human sociality.
The selfish gene metaphor, then, applies only to ‘genetic interests’ and should not be read as making substantive claims about the evolution of genuine altruism. We should keep this distinction in mind as we consider an example of sociobiological research using selfish gene metaphors.
However, as I have pointed out, you have went far beyond "genetic selfishness" to claim that humans act in an selfish manner.
1 edit
Originally posted by no1marauderHere we go
LMAO! That's EXACTLY what Dawkins is apparently doing: making up explanations for phenomena (i.e. human altruism) that is already adequately explained. But since that explanation - that humans are naturally cooperative because they are social animals - doesn't fit into a "dog eat dog" mechanistic model, we have to hear nonsense like firemen rush into a b in. I quoted a passage from it here and like a good Fundie you misinterpreted even that!
"THE EVOLUTION OF RECIPROCAL SHARING
Ethology and Sociobiology 5: 5-14 (1984)
Received Sept. 16, 1982; revised April 17, 1983.
Jim Moore
Anthropology Dept., Harvard University, Cambridge, MA 02138
[1998 Eprint: Current address: Anthropology Dept, UCSD, La Jolla CA 92093-0532]
ABSTRACT
Genetical models of the evolution of reciprocal altruism (as distinct from cooperation, mutualism, or nepotism) have difficulty explaining the initial establishment of an altruist gene in a selfish deme. Though potential mechanisms have been suggested, there is an alternative: much "altruistic" behavior may in fact be purely selfish in origin and consequently reciprocity need not be invoked to provide a selective benefit to the actor. Sharing and helping are fundamentally different behavior categories and should not be confused. Patterns of resource sharing in chimpanzees correspond to predictions made by a selfish model but not to those of a reciprocal altruism model, and many observations of human gift exchange are consistent with the selfish, but not the altruistic, model. This suggests that presumed hominid meat exchange may have been the result of competition, not altruism or even cooperation, and that evolutionary models of "altruistic" behavior should be treated with caution. "
http://weber.ucsd.edu/~jmoore/publications/Recip.html
You may also want to look at
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reciprocal_altruism
although this does not explain some phenomena, such as social rank.
And
"The Evolution of Cooperation
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
The Evolution of Cooperation is a 1984 book and a 1981 article of the same title by political science professor Robert Axelrod. The nine-page article is currently one of the most cited articles ever to be published in the journal Science ([1]).
In it, Axelrod explores the conditions under which fundamentally selfish agents will spontaneously cooperate. To perform this study, Axelrod developed a variation of prisoner's dilemma (PD), involving repeated PD interactions between two players (i.e., strategies written as computer programs) in a computerised tournament. This iterated prisoner's dilemma (IPD) format, he found, tends to offer a long-term incentive for cooperation, even though there is a short-term incentive for defection (the opposite of cooperation).
Axelrod invited academic colleagues all over the world to devise strategies to compete in an IPD tournament. The results ranged in many variables: algorithmic complexity, initial hostility, capacity for forgiveness, etc. After an initial tournament that simply compared pairs of strategies for success when paired in an IPD, Axelrod arranged a meta-tournament where strategies represented sub-populations in a large population of agents, and an agent could switch to another strategy if it noticed that one of its neighbors was using that strategy with greater success than its own. It should also be noted the simplest system, Tit for Tat, won the tournament.
The book included two chapters comparing Axelrod's findings to surprising findings in seemingly unrelated fields. In one of these, Axelrod examined spontaneous instances of cooperation during trench warfare in World War I. Troops of one side would shell the other side with mortars, but would often do so on a rigid schedule, and aim for a specific point in the other side's trenches, allowing the other side to minimize casualties. The other side would reciprocate in kind. The generals on both sides were satisfied that shelling was occurring and therefore the war was progressing satisfactorily, while the men in the trenches found a way to cooperatively protect themselves."
You may want different theories for why both apples AND oranges fall to the ground when dropped, but I'll stick with just the one. Oh, and it appears that your "experience" of Darwinism at college was either (a) a long time ago, and you still BELIEVE you remember everything about it, or (b) not a very in depth study. Perhaps a single semester? I've only studied it fairly intensively for around 4-5 years - what would I know.
Originally posted by no1marauderYou asked me to look the word up and I did if you remember.
I thought what we meant in this discussion when we use the word "objective" is that moral principles have an existence beyond the personal preferences of individuals (which are "subjective"😉.
Here's some more...
(Metaph.) 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 is exterior to the mind, or which is simply an object of thought or feeling, as opposed to being related to thoughts of feelings, and opposed to subjective.
Objective has come to mean that which has independent existence or authority, apart from our experience or thought. Thus, moral law is said to have objective authority, that is, authority belonging to itself, and not drawn from anything in our nature.
- Calderwood (Fleming's Vocabulary)
Objective means that which belongs to, or proceeds from, the object known, and not from the subject knowing, and thus denotes what is real, in opposition to that which is ideal - what exists in nature, in contrast to what exists merely in the thought of the individual.
- Sir. W. Hamilton
Now marauder , You have shown that moral principles are common to many individuals but you have not shown they exist "beyond" individuals' minds or beyond mere human concepts. I knew you couldn't do this. Objective means exterior to the mind in my book . Moral principles are not objects , they don't actually exist any more than beauty actually exists. To have truely objective morality you need something to actually exist outside of humanity and mens minds that was moral , and that would mean a God of some sort
1 edit
Originally posted by scottishinnzI'm getting a little sick of your snotnose attitude. You continue to pretend that there is no dispute over one of the most hotly debated issues in science. This is sloppy and arrogant. Even if the position you are taking is a majority view among biologists (and that is debatable), it is certainly not a predominant view of the sciences that concentrate on human behavior.
Here we go
"THE EVOLUTION OF RECIPROCAL SHARING
Ethology and Sociobiology 5: 5-14 (1984)
Received Sept. 16, 1982; revised April 17, 1983.
Jim Moore
Anthropology Dept., Harvard University, Cambridge, MA 02138
[1998 Eprint: Current address: Anthropology Dept, UCSD, La Jolla CA 92093-0532]
ABSTRACT
Genetical models of the evolution of 've only studied it fairly intensively for around 4-5 years - what would I know.
EDIT: What exactly do you think that the article on chimpanzee meat sharing and Axelrod's experiment prove that I disagree with? That humans and other social animals engage in cooperative behavior that may have an immediate, direct benefit? Of course they do. What is at issue is why humans in particular engage in altruistic acts with little possibility of any reciprocal benefit at any point (i.e. running into burning buildings, digging stranger's cars out of the snow, etc. etc.). For those all you are doing is essentially claiming that humans delude themselves on a grand scale.
1 edit
Originally posted by knightmeisterI don't care what objective means to you.
You asked me to look the word up and I did if you remember.
Here's some more...
(Metaph.) 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 is exterior to the mind, or which is simply an object of thought or feeling, as opposed to being rela utside of humanity and mens minds that was moral , and that would mean a God of some sort
EDIT: Rather amusingly, the two definitions in your post contradict each other.
Originally posted by no1marauderIt's also on human behaviour. In the Wiki entry it explains pretty much all social interactions that occur between organisms, although is a little deficient on social structures. There is bound to be a page on the adaptive benefits of social structures and social organisation, certainly it's an evolutionary thing and, as such, is a selfish behaviour.
I'm getting a little sick of your snotnose attitude. You continue to pretend that there is no dispute over one of the most hotly debated issues in science. This is sloppy and arrogant. Even if the position you are taking is a majority view among biologists (and that is debatable), it is certainly not a predominant view of the sciences that concentrate on ...[text shortened]... ose all you are doing is essentially claiming that humans delude themselves on a grand scale.
As far as I'm concerned, this "biological" explanation for altruism is subject to the same criticisms as psychological egoism:
According to psychological egoism, while people can exhibit altruistic behavior, they cannot have altruistic motivations. Psychological egoists would say that while they might very well spend their lives benefitting others with no material benefit (or a material net loss) to themselves, their most basic motive for doing so is always to further their own interests. For example, it would be alleged that the foundational motive behind a person acting this way is to advance their own psychological well-being ("good feelings"😉. Critics of this theory often reject it on the grounds that it is non-falsifiable; in other words, it is impossible to prove or disprove because immaterial gains such as a "good feelings" cannot be measured or proven to exist in all people performing altruistic acts. Psychological egoism has also been accused of using circular logic: "If a person willingly performs an act, that means he derives personal enjoyment from it; therefore, people only perform acts that give them personal enjoyment". This statement is circular because its conclusion is identical to its hypothesis (it assumes that people only perform acts that give them personal enjoyment, and concludes that people only perform acts that give them personal enjoyment).
From the wiki article on Altruism
More to the point, coming up with an explanation of some sort is not evidence supporting the explanation.
Originally posted by no1marauderTrue, but the thing about non-reciprocal altruism is that it just isn't an evolutionary stable strategy - it can never evolve, and if it did it'd be quickly overrun.
As far as I'm concerned, this "biological" explanation for altruism is subject to the same criticisms as psychological egoism:
According to psychological egoism, while people can exhibit altruistic behavior, they cannot have altruistic motivations. Psychological egoists would say that while they might very well spend their lives benefitting others wit ...[text shortened]... coming up with an explanation of some sort is not evidence supporting the explanation.
Originally posted by dottewell"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.
In 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.
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.
Y ...[text shortened]... e objective (e.g. behavioural) criteria for saying that she does (or doesn't).
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." DOTTEWELL
I do take the objective existence of God to be true based on introspection, reflection , personal observation of the world and this process is called FAITH. So when Atheists do the same with "objective" morality and don't own it as FAITH (for that is what it is if it can;t be proved ) then I do become sceptical because us Theists are always getting slagged of for having faith in something we can't prove objectively.
This is why I need to play devils advocate with some Atheists because they simply hate the idea that they are engaged in a faith process.
It's them that are inconsistent , You don't really think I actually believe all that stuff about morality not existing!!!! I'm playing a game with them so that they will get to the point where they will have to call faith faith and leave it at that. Marauder is convinced that morality exists , just as I am convinced God exists. He wants one without the other and he won't own his faith in objective morality. If he just said "that's the way it is because I'm convinced of it " then I wouldn't have to play devils advocate any more. But then he (or any Atheist) wouldn't be able to slag theists off any more for having this irrational thing called "faith".
"Besides, "scientific" evidence is not the only admissible evidence for verifying factual claims." DOTTEWELL
THIS IS WHAT THEISTS HAVE BEEN SAYING UNTIL THEY ARE RED IN THE FACE!!!! Well Done . I AGREE!! yIPEE!!!!😀😀😀
1 edit
Originally posted by knightmeisterA) I'm not an atheist;
"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." DOTTEWELL
I do take the objective exi IL THEY ARE RED IN THE FACE!!!! Well Done . I AGREE!! yIPEE!!!!😀😀😀
B) The fact that there is an objective morality can be used as support for the idea that there is a God, but the claim is a secondary one. We come to the conclusion that there is a HUMAN objective morality based on observations of how humans act, which lead us to conclusions about human nature. How such human nature came about is an issue that you only get to once it is agreed that humans have a particular nature;
C) Who the **** doesn't know that Christian theists believe in objective morality? You're not being clever;
D) You're playing the usual Fallacy of Equivocation with the word "faith"; I (and the dictionary) don't consider coming to the most likely conclusion based on a preponderence of the evidence as "faith". I don't generally bother with characterizing someone else's belief as "faith" or not - that is semantic games (played almost always by theists). What is required is for anyone to justify their beliefs with evidence and the evidence for an entity like the OT God is particulary unpersuasive.