The Moral Instinct

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
[b]You have absolutely no idea what evolution is about, do you?
Since you are so certain that I am ignorant of its content, why don't you enlighten me?

Can I suggest you lay aside your concept that somehow 'evolution' is destructive to your beliefs, get a few balanced books and try to understand what it is actually about.
Unlike you, I have ...[text shortened]... insult to injury, the theory creates more questions than were thought of in the first place.[/b]

A scientific theory will often lead to questions regarding related matters; that is hardly exceptional. The Theory of relativity and Quantum Mechanics have expanded our understanding of the physical world, but have led to expanded searches into its many mysteries. The simple explanations of ancient Western religious texts don't raise questions with their bland assertions of what reality is - and that remains a great weakness, not a strength.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
I agree with many of the points the author makes in the article, if not all of his final analysis. For instance, I don't agree that God is necessarily 'in charge' of morality and that man somehow dresses himself up with the designer's latest fashions: man has inherent knowledge of morality, irrespective of belief.

However, man also possesses an inherent drive for life, as well, also irrespective of life's source.

If God said otherwise, would you challenge him?

That is...which is more important - your concience; your instinctive sense of good and evil; or is God more important?

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
Actually, morals make no sense whatsoever from an evolutionary standpoint. Morality assumes an objective reality upon which the concepts themselves are dependent, of which they reflect all or part. Evolution, put simply, is just pure, dumb luck/chance. Nothing objective, nothing subjective, no purpose. Survival of the fittest doesn't allow for weakness, has no plan in mind.

Morals do make sense from an evolutionary standpoint. I recommend you read up on the biologists' view of altruism.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
Quite a bold statement for a theory which rests so heavily on assumptions and subjectivity.

I never said anything about a theory. I mentioned evolution the process not "The Theory of Evolution" the theory. Evolution the process does not rest on "assumptions and subjectivity" but is a mathematically definable concept and, as I said, one can prove (and I do mean mathematical, irrefutable proof) that it is not only possible but the expected outcome that altruism would arise from evolution.
In fact the pattern predicted as the most likely matches the observed morals of most living things extremely closely. Religion however has no good explanation for the observed pattern of behavior.

Originally posted by twhitehead
I never said anything about a theory. I mentioned evolution the process not "The Theory of Evolution" the theory. Evolution the process does not rest on "assumptions and subjectivity" but is a mathematically definable concept and, as I said, one can prove (and I do mean mathematical, irrefutable proof) that it is not only possible but the expected outcome ...[text shortened]... mely closely. Religion however has no good explanation for the observed pattern of behavior.

I never said anything about a theory.
You emphactically did make a claim about a theory: game theory, specifically, and they were your words, not anyone else's.

I mentioned evolution the process not "The Theory of Evolution" the theory.
What--- exactly--- is "evolution the process?" A new movie?

The theory to which I referred as assumptive and subjective is the same one introduced by you, again, game theory. It is a highly subjective field, despite its use of formulas and numbers. For instance (and clearly not the only one) your term of "the expected outcome..." and etc., etc.

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
If God said otherwise, would you challenge him?

That is...which is more important - your concience; your instinctive sense of good and evil; or is God more important?

If God said otherwise than what He has already said? What are you suggesting He might say, exactly?

Clearly, the only arbiter of reality, God, is the most important piece of the puzzle. All others are suspect. Nonetheless, the reality of an existent morality surely does not fit consistently with any other world view.

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
Morals do make sense from an evolutionary standpoint. I recommend you read up on the biologists' view of altruism.

Sure: work the problem backwards from an already-determined answer, omit any pieces left over and -presto!- it works!

Originally posted by no1marauder
A scientific theory will often lead to questions regarding related matters; that is hardly exceptional. The Theory of relativity and Quantum Mechanics have expanded our understanding of the physical world, but have led to expanded searches into its many mysteries. The simple explanations of ancient Western religious texts don't raise questions with their bland assertions of what reality is - and that remains a great weakness, not a strength.

Ironically, science is just now beginning to understand on its own terms what the Bible has always said about reality, the physical world and etc.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
Ironically, science is just now beginning to understand on its own terms what the Bible has always said about reality, the physical world and etc.

I missed the part of the Bible where it talks about relativity and quantum theory. Is that in the same section where Joshua makes the Sun stand still?

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
You emphactically did make a claim about a theory: game theory, specifically, and they were your words, not anyone else's.

The theory to which I referred as assumptive and subjective is the same one introduced by you, again, game theory. It is a highly subjective field, despite its use of formulas and numbers. For instance (and clearly not the only one) your term of "the expected outcome..." and etc., etc.[/b]

My apologies, I assumed you were talking about a different Theory. Note however that 'game theory' is still not 'a theory' it is a branch of mathematics. It is not 'highly subjective' as you claim, but fairly simple mathematics and as I said, provable. A mathematical proof is indisputable.

What--- exactly--- is "evolution the process?" A new movie?
If you don't know then don't bother about it. But also don't bother partaking in any conversations involving the word evolution. Also I shall disregard your comments about game theory and my 'expected outcome' as you obviously don't know what the hell I am talking about.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
If God said otherwise than what He has already said? What are you suggesting He might say, exactly?

Clearly, the only arbiter of reality, God, is the most important piece of the puzzle. All others are suspect. Nonetheless, the reality of an existent morality surely does not fit consistently with any other world view.

If God said "My Word is Morality. What you think is irrelevant. If you feel otherwise, you are wrong and must go against your conscience."

Originally posted by twhitehead
My apologies, I assumed you were talking about a different Theory. Note however that 'game theory' is still not 'a theory' it is a branch of mathematics. It is not 'highly subjective' as you claim, but fairly simple mathematics and as I said, provable. A mathematical proof is indisputable.

[b]What--- exactly--- is "evolution the process?" A new movie? ...[text shortened]... 'expected outcome' as you obviously don't know what the hell I am talking about.[/b]

It is not 'highly subjective' as you claim...
I beg to differ. Here are a few lines from Stanford's Encylopedia of Philosophy, the content of which I had no influence over, whatsoever:

"Game theory is the study of the ways in which strategic interactions among rational players produce outcomes with respect to the preferences (or utilities) of those players, none of which might have been intended by any of them." emphasis added

"An agent is, by definition, an entity with preferences. Game theorists, like economists and philosophers studying rational decision-making, describe these by means of an abstract concept called utility. This refers to the amount of ‘welfare’ an agent derives from an object or an event. By ‘welfare’ we refer to some normative index of relative well-being, justified by reference to some background framework." emphasis added

In my view, such a theory (branch, discipline or what-have-you) which depends so critically on highly subjective input and/or parameters cannot but be condemned to (at minimum) equal amounts of subjectivity.

... as you obviously don't know what the hell I am talking about.
Who is zooming whom?

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
If God said "My Word is Morality. What you think is irrelevant. If you feel otherwise, you are wrong and must go against your conscience."

That's a big if. Fortunately, an if which has no basis in reality.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
That's a big if. Fortunately, an if which has no basis in reality.

Just like OT Monster God.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
[b]You have absolutely no idea what evolution is about, do you?
Since you are so certain that I am ignorant of its content, why don't you enlighten me?

Can I suggest you lay aside your concept that somehow 'evolution' is destructive to your beliefs, get a few balanced books and try to understand what it is actually about.
Unlike you, I have ...[text shortened]... insult to injury, the theory creates more questions than were thought of in the first place.[/b]

Actually, morals make no sense whatsoever from an evolutionary standpoint. Morality assumes an objective reality upon which the concepts themselves are dependent, of which they reflect all or part. Evolution, put simply, is just pure, dumb luck/chance. Nothing objective, nothing subjective, no purpose. Survival of the fittest doesn't allow for weakness, has no plan in mind.

You state that Evolution is 'dumb luck', and yet you claim to have studied 'everything around it'. Can I ask what books you read and absorbed? I cannot recollect any that made such a statement.