1 edit
Originally posted by dj2beckerI have covered this before.
The question was, what is your personal preference?
So how exactly does the TOE explain that some people love their neighbours and other people eat them based purely on their own feelings?
The point you don't seem to get is that when you use feelings to establish what is right and wrong, it all boils down to personal preference. Thus there cannot be any absolute moral standard.
Your theological knowledge is obviously very rusty.
Basically, cannabalism is not just a "eat your neighbour" practice. It is way more complex. Cannabalism tends to evolve in cultures where very little protein is available, especially small island nations, where large endemic animal prey is scarce. Cannabals do not eat their own, normally preferring to eat strangers. The reasons for both of these are examples of "kin selection". The individual can most help the copies of their own genes in relatives by (a) utilising any source of protein, provided it is not a relative, except in a very last resort.
Please, deej, tell me, why is God so keen on people eating each other that he would create them with full foreknowledge that they'd do it?
1 edit
Originally posted by FreakyKBHEvery organism has built into it the innate 'desire*' to pass on its
Helped us? Helped us what? If all chance, what good is survival? What is good?
genetic material. In order to do this, the organism must remain alive
at least long enough in order to procreate. Those individual organisms
which remain alive long enough to procreate will pass on the the
specific genetic material which is tied to that ability to live long enough.
Those 'weaker' organisms will not.
When you ask 'what good is survival,' I'm assuming that you aren't
enquiring about the moral good. Nature isn't interested in morality,
only utility -- it is good to be faster than your neighbor in order to
outrun a predator, it is good to be smarter than your neighbor in order
to outsmart prey, it is good to be stronger than you neighbor in order
to prevent them from mating and allowing you to mate and pass on
your genetic material.
Biological altruism is the development of what appears to be 'working
together.' A wolf cannot take a moose down by itself, but a pack of
wolves can. So, they 'work together' so that the individual might
be able to obtain more in the group than he would alone.
So, those human ancestors which engaged in this biological altruism
did better -- ate more, grew stronger, lived longer by working in a
group -- than those who remain in solitude.
Ultimately, brain size became the arbiting factor over brawn, for with
intelligence, a group of humans could roundly outsmart even much,
much stronger prey, which is why we see a demonstrable increase in
cubic volume within the skull as the humans evolved, even while their
body strength became weaker relative to their ancestors.
Nemesio
* -- I don't mean a conscious desire, more of a mindless urge.
Edit: The only lingering question I have (and perhaps Scott will be
willing to contribute) is the development of what I would have to label
as empathy. We know from anthropological study that tribes of these
early humans kept injured loved ones around. That is, if a person
became injured in a battle with a prey such that he couldn't walk, the
tribe would cart him around, feed him, and keep him alive, even while
he was no longer of benefit to the tribe (i.e., the perpetuation of the
species). We know this because we can trace injuries versus time of
death, and we have found remains that have debilitating injuries far
removed from that time. I can not fathom what biological advantage
this might have or where this empathy (that is, the ability to see
yourself in another person and, consequently, adopt their needs as
your own) might have come from.
Originally posted by FreakyKBHWhoever said all was chance? If all was chance, evolution wouldn't work. That's the requirement for differential survival.
Helped us? Helped us what? If all chance, what good is survival? What is good?
"Good" and "Bad" are subjective terms. Happily, evolutionary biology needs neither of them - we deal with differential survival.
Originally posted by NemesioYour empathy question is a good one. Personally, I think that this is a conflict between the "biological utility" as it were and the psychology of the brain, although an alternate, purely evolutionary explanation also manifests.
Every organism has built into it the innate 'desire*' to pass on its
genetic material. In order to do this, the organism must remain alive
at least long enough in order to procreate. Those individual organisms
which remain alive long enough to procreate will pass on the the
specific genetic material which is tied to that ability to live long enough. ...[text shortened]... person and, consequently, adopt their needs as
your own) might have come from.
First, the pure evolution explanation. All individuals within a group are normally related to a greater or lesser degree. By helping another individual within that group, you may be helping your own genes inside that other individual. When resources are not limiting, it may be of advantage to your genes to try and nurse the individual back to health. However, when things get harder, my bet is that the unwell individual will be the first abandoned, because helping my own genes in my body is better evolutionarily for a number of reasons; 1) I share all my own genes, but my brother (or parent / child) only shares 50% of my genes (and less as the genetic relationship gets more distant), I can help quantitatively more of my genes by helping myself, (2) the injured individual got hurt - I did not. I may represent a superior individual to him, and it may be a better use of resources to invest them in me than him. (3) It may take alot of resources to nurse the individual back to health - other members of the tribe may become too weakened by nurseing one individual back to health to be sensible.
Another possible explanation. Whilst it may be of greater biological utility to become healthier ourselves, we may, because of our social heritage, have an inbuilt, innate, desire to help individuals within our tribe who are weaker than us. It seems plausible that this desire is so strong that it may exert itself even if it is to the detriment of the individual. Of course, in the longer term, this will be selected against. It's for this reason that I believe the evolutionary, rather than this "psychological" explanation is correct. Perhaps both are, in their own ways though.
Originally posted by NemesioYour response begs the question. Chance is the driving force, the impetus behind the origin. Impersonal chance (in opposition to personal determination) does not allow for good, bad, preferred or undesirable. No matter how far we try to extrapolate the equation back--- even to the point of conferring upon 'uncreated matter' self-contained preference codes--- at some point, value enters into the discussion.
Every organism has built into it the innate 'desire*' to pass on its
genetic material. In order to do this, the organism must remain alive
at least long enough in order to procreate. Those individual organisms
which remain alive long enough to procreate will pass on the the
specific genetic material which is tied to that ability to live long enough. ...[text shortened]... person and, consequently, adopt their needs as
your own) might have come from.
Attempting to impart matter with subconsciousness (or, worse, consciousness) necessarily borrows from the theistic viewpoint in order to eliminate the need for personal determination. Your argument wants to give mindless organisms drive, make that drive the orchestrated impetus for the propogation of the universe, and call it all good. Yet good doesn't exist, as there cannot be a preferred state unless there is a target in the first place.
And the biggest question remains unanswered still: why? There is no meaning to it. And that's just the main obstacle.
- Joined
- 01 Aug 05
- Moves
- 61074
you believe that it is dumb to say that the views of the Bible are accurate but are willing to accept the view point of a scientist who at best is utilizing a scientific guess. Okay! To take that point of view is obviously your choice but with one question in mind lets take a step in a strange direction. Scientificly speaking I think that the reason we as humans walk on 2 feet is that our backs would explode and we wouldn't have any matter to hold them together(my scientific guess) that is why other animals can walk on all 4's! I think I will take the chance with my dumb Bible!!!
Originally posted by cnrmadSo, if our backs would explode if we go on all fours why am I able to crawl?
you believe that it is dumb to say that the views of the Bible are accurate but are willing to accept the view point of a scientist who at best is utilizing a scientific guess. Okay! To take that point of view is obviously your choice but with one question in mind lets take a step in a strange direction. Scientificly speaking I think that the reason we as ...[text shortened]... s why other animals can walk on all 4's! I think I will take the chance with my dumb Bible!!!
The reason that we disbelieve the bible is that it can (a) be shown to be false on several counts and, (b) requires the supernatural to exist to be true (for which there can never be any proof). Natural explanations are better for scientists, since they require only that which can be experimentally verified.
Originally posted by FreakyKBHWhy does there have to be a reason?
Your response begs the question. Chance is the driving force, the impetus behind the origin. Impersonal chance (in opposition to personal determination) does not allow for good, bad, preferred or undesirable. No matter how far we try to extrapolate the equation back--- even to the point of conferring upon 'uncreated matter' self-contained preference cod ...[text shortened]... mains unanswered still: why? There is no meaning to it. And that's just the main obstacle.
1 edit
Originally posted by FreakyKBHPerhpas the way YOU see it. I see meaning within my life - because I choose to give meaning to things, but these are personal aspects of my life - I see no reason why life needs to exist - it certainly doesn't exist in most places most of the time.
Exactly honest, that one. There is no reason possible with chance. Without a reason, then there is no such thing as meaning. All things are equal... but that certainly doesn't remotely agree with the world as we see it.
This is "big bang syndrome" again - you require a "cause" for the big bang, I do not. You require a "meaning" for life, I do not.
[edit; your quote "there is no reason possible with chance". Why? Are you saying that there is not a chance that reason came into being through chance? That would be a logical fallacy.]
Originally posted by scottishinnzThe Supernatural is true:
So, if our backs would explode if we go on all fours why am I able to crawl?
The reason that we disbelieve the bible is that it can (a) be shown to be false on several counts and, (b) requires the supernatural to exist to be true (for which there can never be any proof). Natural explanations are better for scientists, since they require only that which can be experimentally verified.
Jesus resurected Lazarus from the dead
(don't think you or I could do that)
Jesus walked on water
(go for it, I'd like a picture too!)
Jesus died for everyone's sins
(yeah, what have you got to say for that one Scott?)
There are many other supernatural occurrances in
the Bible, and they are too numerous to mention.
I suggest that you, Scott, read it for yourself.
You might just believe that the supernatural can happen!
Lastly, Scott, try this:
Out of thin air (yes thin air) make a hand appear
You know, a human hand like we each have two of.
Then make the hand write on a wall.
I'm sure, Scott, a being of your advanced (?) intelligence
will be able to acomplish all of the above feats
WITH NO PROBLEM!
Oh, yeah, while you're at it:
Create man from dust.
That's a good one, but I know that you can do it Scott!!!!!
Originally posted by NosracProve that any of those things actually ever happened.
The Supernatural is true:
Jesus resurected Lazarus from the dead
(don't think you or I could do that)
Jesus walked on water
(go for it, I'd like a picture too!)
Jesus died for everyone's sins
(yeah, what have you got to say for that one Scott?)
There are many other supernatural occurrances in
the Bible, and they are too numerous to mention.
...[text shortened]... t:
Create man from dust.
That's a good one, but I know that you can do it Scott!!!!!