Are "New Atheists" Too Obsessed With Religion?

[Bunyip]

Given some of our previous exchanges, and my own frustration at them, it's kind of cool to me that in reality we have some goals in common. Cheers

If there is ever something you want me to clarify, or you wish to discuss further just ask. I'm always happy to talk to you.

 

[Prophet]

Well no, the assumption is that atheism equates to an intention to destroy all religions and the religious. Kind of a bogeyman mentality.

No, I did not make a fearful assumption about atheism in general. This is about your specific case of atheism. I have read your words so extensively that I could conclusively prove, with your testimony as evidence alone, that your worldview has either very recently changed from anti-theism to simple atheism, or you are currently engaging in political theater in which you mimic reasonable rhetoric but underneath hold the same fundamentalist "one way" attitude which you've exhibited everywhere before today.

I delight in the fact the the world's cities are graced by Cathedrals, temples, synagogues, mosques and so on. Religious thought, art and philosophy has made a stunning contribution to modern civilisation. What I contest is the influence of our traditional mythologies on politics, science and in law. Along with radical and militant sects, and the increasing trend towards religious extremism.

Please do tell us about some religious thought and philosophy you admire for its contributions to modern civilization, because before today I'm pretty sure you characterized all of it as blind, baseless faith.

By a common language, I mean that my experiences in debating with and studying fundamentalists I have noticed that any meaningful dialogue is often obstructed by the fact that we are not using a common language - For example, when discussing evolution with a US young earth creationist whilst I would define 'evolution' as changes in allele frequency over time, they often define 'evolution' as something very, very different (Monkeys turning into people, primordial soup turning into people etc etc). Unless we are talking about the same thing when we use terms like 'God','evolution','faith' etc we can not have a meaningful dialogue.

I had a debate with a similarly simple-minded atheist about evolution once where he made evolution into this semi-sentient process that could sense what was "good" for the species and guided species towards these "good" goals, for the sole purpose of making self-sacrifice possible through evolution, never mind that evolution does not act this way for ANY OTHER TRAIT. His was a stunning departure from Darwin's theory of Natural Selection which explicitly calls evolution a passive, blind force. So I do know your pain here.

 

[Bunyip]

No, I did not make a fearful assumption about atheism in general. This is about your specific case of atheism. I have read your words so extensively that I could conclusively prove, with your testimony as evidence alone, that your worldview has either very recently changed from anti-theism to simple atheism, or you are currently engaging in political theater in which you mimic reasonable rhetoric but underneath hold the same fundamentalist "one way" attitude which you've exhibited everywhere before today.



Please do tell us about some religious thought and philosophy you admire for its contributions to modern civilization, because before today I'm pretty sure you characterized all of it as blind, baseless faith.



I had a debate with an imbecile atheist about evolution once where he made evolution into this semi-sentient process that could sense what was "good" for the species and guided species towards these "good" goals, for the sole purpose of making self-sacrifice possible through evolution, never mind that evolution does not act this way for ANY OTHER TRAIT. His was a stunning departure from Darwin's theory of Natural Selection which explicitly calls evolution a passive, blind force. So I do know your pain here.

Your misguided assumptions leave me nothing of any weight to address.

 

[serp777]

No, I did not make a fearful assumption about atheism in general. This is about your specific case of atheism. I have read your words so extensively that I could conclusively prove, with your testimony as evidence alone, that your worldview has either very recently changed from anti-theism to simple atheism, or you are currently engaging in political theater in which you mimic reasonable rhetoric but underneath hold the same fundamentalist "one way" attitude which you've exhibited everywhere before today.



Please do tell us about some religious thought and philosophy you admire for its contributions to modern civilization, because before today I'm pretty sure you characterized all of it as blind, baseless faith.



I had a debate with a similarly simple-minded atheist about evolution once where he made evolution into this semi-sentient process that could sense what was "good" for the species and guided species towards these "good" goals, for the sole purpose of making self-sacrifice possible through evolution, never mind that evolution does not act this way for ANY OTHER TRAIT. His was a stunning departure from Darwin's theory of Natural Selection which explicitly calls evolution a passive, blind force. So I do know your pain here.

So do you not accept evolution as well as the abundance of evidence which supports it? I'm inferring this because you were seemingly arguing against an atheist about evolution. So correct me if im wrong or if you were playing devil's advocate. You're denying basic science with a plethora of evidence. It requires a "blind, baseless faith" to deny it.

One of the most blatant examples of evolution and the power of the theory is something, which was predicted by evolutionary psychologists 100 years ago: anti biotic resistant bacteria. Evolutionary biologists urged caution about using too many anti biotics because bacteria with some random mutation might be more resistant, and thus survive, therefore creating a new strain of more resistant bacteria. Several thousand iterations of this occur and suddenly you have anti biotic resistant TB or staff infection that doesn't respond to any anti biotic. anti biotic resistant TB is particularly prevalent in Africa where some patients have to take 50 different medications to fight resistant TB. I'll cite plenty of evidence if need be. Similar examples of evolution are very important for aspects of modern medicine, and its becoming even more relevant as we learn about the evolutionary history.

Now, another common fallacious argument, which i'm sure you wouldn't make, is that micro evolution doesn't lead to macro evolution. Its like saying that the exchange of individual dollars doesn't eventually lead to the economy on a large scale. When you have a billion cases of micro evolution, suddenly it begins to look like macro evolution, just like billions of dollars starts to look like an economy. Over the course of billions of years you have an incredible number of gradual changes that lead to new organisms without a definite starting point. Furthermore all the genetic evidence shows the inheritance of humans and other apes from a common ancestor several million years ago. It can be precisely determined that chimpanzees are in fact cousins and do have a remarkably similar genome. Too argue that small changes can't lead to large changes would be preposterous and foolish.

Another terrible argument against evolution is the so called problem of creating new information from which new organisms come into fruition. Mutation has the ability to change DNA or add new strands of dna, or even subtract them, or break the DNA apart, and a variety of mechanisms exist. So adding something new onto the genome is new information, and this can be observed in the lab, for instance, when a retrovirus using some DNA invades the cell and deposits new information. In fact, viruses are proposed to be an essential part of evolutionary history. Even bacteria are essential--they form the basis of mitchondria. It shows how close our common ancestor was to simple bacteria several billion years ago. Evolution can also be simulated on computers where mutating programs that copy themselves compete for CPU and memory resources. This is known as evolutionary computing and shows how simple programs can gain complexity by themselves, through the process of natural selection.

of course there are all the fossil records too which demonstrate a fascinating hierarchy of changing organisms and missing links. Opponents of evolution always argue about gaps. But no matter how many fossils you find, there will always be an increasing number of gaps.

One final thing to note is that you don't seem to understand how natural selection works. Self sacrifice is clearly an evolutionary advantage since a species which cooperates and sacrifices for others increases the chances the entire species will continue to exist. its a naive simplification to assume that evolution is purely about the survival of an individual organism's genetics--it can often be about the survival of the species rather than the individual. Some animals commit suicide when food is limited so that the species can survive and crisis. Ants also put their lives on the line and die for their colony. Self sacrifice helps a human colony similarly because the sacrifice of one person could help the species survive in general by keeping the gene pool diversified and therefore more resistant to disease. There are a variety of other explanations too. And its also a simplification to call evolution a blind, passive force. Natural selection converges over time on successful solutions to various problems. The selection of traits which boost survival is a simple algorithm that results in outcomes far different and better than random chance at improving survival. In many ways it resembles a recursive computer program which is not really passive but is perhaps blind.

 

[Prophet]

So do you not accept evolution as well as the abundance of evidence which supports it? I'm inferring this because you were seemingly arguing against an atheist about evolution. So correct me if im wrong or if you were playing devil's advocate. You're denying basic science with a plethora of evidence. It requires a "blind, baseless faith" to deny it.

One of the most blatant examples of evolution and the power of the theory is something, which was predicted by evolutionary psychologists 100 years ago: anti biotic resistant bacteria. Evolutionary biologists urged caution about using too many anti biotics because bacteria with some random mutation might be more resistant, and thus survive, therefore creating a new strain of more resistant bacteria. Several thousand iterations of this occur and suddenly you have anti biotic resistant TB or staff infection that doesn't respond to any anti biotic. anti biotic resistant TB is particularly prevalent in Africa where some patients have to take 50 different medications to fight resistant TB. I'll cite plenty of evidence if need be. Similar examples of evolution are very important for aspects of modern medicine, and its becoming even more relevant as we learn about the evolutionary history.

Now, another common fallacious argument, which i'm sure you wouldn't make, is that micro evolution doesn't lead to macro evolution. Its like saying that the exchange of individual dollars doesn't eventually lead to the economy on a large scale. When you have a billion cases of micro evolution, suddenly it begins to look like macro evolution, just like billions of dollars starts to look like an economy. Over the course of billions of years you have an incredible number of gradual changes that lead to new organisms without a definite starting point. Furthermore all the genetic evidence shows the inheritance of humans and other apes from a common ancestor several million years ago. It can be precisely determined that chimpanzees are in fact cousins and do have a remarkably similar genome. Too argue that small changes can't lead to large changes would be preposterous and foolish.

Another terrible argument against evolution is the so called problem of creating new information from which new organisms come into fruition. Mutation has the ability to change DNA or add new strands of dna, or even subtract them, or break the DNA apart, and a variety of mechanisms exist. So adding something new onto the genome is new information, and this can be observed in the lab, for instance, when a retrovirus using some DNA invades the cell and deposits new information. In fact, viruses are proposed to be an essential part of evolutionary history. Even bacteria are essential--they form the basis of mitchondria. It shows how close our common ancestor was to simple bacteria several billion years ago. Evolution can also be simulated on computers where mutating programs that copy themselves compete for CPU and memory resources. This is known as evolutionary computing and shows how simple programs can gain complexity by themselves, through the process of natural selection.

of course there are all the fossil records too which demonstrate a fascinating hierarchy of changing organisms and missing links. Opponents of evolution always argue about gaps. But no matter how many fossils you find, there will always be an increasing number of gaps.

I am not and have never argued here against evolution, so all but your last paragraph is completely irrelevant to me as I do deny the ability of self-sacrifice to evolve.

One final thing to note is that you don't seem to understand how natural selection works. Self sacrifice is clearly an evolutionary advantage since a species which cooperates and sacrifices for others increases the chances the entire species will continue to exist. its a naive simplification to assume that evolution is purely about the survival of an individual organism's genetics--it can often be about the survival of the species rather than the individual. Some animals commit suicide when food is limited so that the species can survive and crisis. Ants also put their lives on the line and die for their colony. Self sacrifice helps a human colony similarly because the sacrifice of one person could help the species survive in general by keeping the gene pool diversified and therefore more resistant to disease. There are a variety of other explanations too. And its also a simplification to call evolution a blind, passive force. Natural selection converges over time on successful solutions to various problems. The selection of traits which boost survival is a simple algorithm that results in outcomes far different and better than random chance at improving survival. In many ways it resembles a recursive computer program which is not really passive but is perhaps blind.

You believe evolution can bestow traits with the evolutionary fitness of the entire species prioritized over and above the evolutionary fitness of the individual. I am saying that this belief you promote with evolution acting for the good of a species rather than the individual is completely special and unique to morality--no other traits allegedly bestowed by evolution necessitate such a perverted picture of Darwin's theory. In the case of every other trait known to be bestowed by evolution, such as the different shaped finch beaks (each suited to a different favorite food source) across the Galapagos Islands which caused Darwin to discover his theory, evolution promotes traits which are individually beneficial and literally could not care less how the survival or death of any individual affects the evolution of a species.

It is very easy to reason how evolution could dial in the proper aggression level on a given species. Beings of the species who are not aggressive enough won't proactively care for themselves and their situations and thus will lose evolutionary fitness. Beings who are too aggressive won't be able to coexist with others, also costing themselves evolutionary fitness. It makes full sense that the normal level of aggression for highly social species would be lower than the normal level of aggression for comparatively antisocial species, as a high aggression level in a member of a highly social species such as us would be absolutely devastating to evolutionary fitness, whereas a high aggression level in a member of an antisocial species such as crocodiles would not be nearly as problematic.

It is not easy to reason how evolution could dial in the proper self-sacrifice level. Beings of a species who are not highly self-sacrificing do not suffer for it in loss of evolutionary fitness. Beings who are highly self-sacrificing will OFTEN willingly suffer losses in evolutionary fitness, in extraordinary circumstances losing even their lives. The cowards live to cower another day while the hero William Wallace gets tortured on the rack. Evolution favors the survivor. Evolution favors the immoral. Evolution favors the coward. If evolution is creating the morality we should follow, we should admire the coward who runs for his life. Since it doesn't, we mostly uniformly admire the self-sacrificing hero.

You believe that evolution considers the well-being of a group or species in promoting traits that will help the group and that is how it gives rise to morality despite the individual evolutionary fitness loss suffered by those who self-sacrifice. Contrastingly, I side with Darwin. I believe that evolution considers nothing, allows less evolutionary fit traits to die off over the eons by natural selection.

Now we know for a fact that evolution influences physical characteristics. It should stand to reason that were your model of evolution true, there should be physical characteristics or behaviors outside of morality of some species, which, like self-sacrifice, would hurt the individual but help the species. When I asked for you to point some of these out, you gave about five examples of non-human beings acting morally such as a bird mother feeding her young and ants who self-sacrifice in dire combat situations to help their friends, qualifying your answer by saying that they aren't human so they don't count as moral--pathetic. Whatever. Frankly, you are being unreasonable and obstinate in your forcible misunderstandings of extremely simple arguments.

I challenged you all to present any trait of a being aside from moral behaviors in which evolution invokes its bio-socio-psycho-mysterious forces to allow the preponderance of a condition which costs evolutionary fitness to individuals and makes Darwin's concept of natural selection outdated. Instead of this, I've been given non-human mothers selflessly caring for and feeding their young, non-human animals selflessly protecting their peers against predators, and insects selflessly giving their lives in combat for their peers, and quite a few other bad misses for amoral traits or behaviors.

The reason why I challenged you all for just one more trait is not that complex. I suspected (rightly, it seems) that the "modern" "complex" model of evolution you all tout so authoritatively as correct was specifically created with the agenda of explaining altruism with evolution.

Authoritatively referencing a model created with such an agenda in mind as proof that said agenda is true is straight up circular reasoning.

Yes, you've told me repeatedly how "complex" the process really is in lieu of explaining the exact mechanic by which it operates. It remains that I can explain step by step how finches on the Galapagos Islands got different beak shapes in language so simple a five-year-old could understand. It is likewise simple with explaining how evolution gave rise to every other trait outside of morality, including many behavioral traits like aggressiveness. It is when evolution must explain morality that the process involves "bio-psycho-social concepts" that are apparently so "complex" they can't be rationally explained to a critical adult.

I don't think you're bringing anything new to the table for me.

 

[serp777]

I am not and have never argued here against evolution, so all but your last paragraph is completely irrelevant to me as I do deny the ability of self-sacrifice to evolve.













I don't think you're bringing anything new to the table for me.

You believe evolution can bestow traits with the evolutionary fitness of the entire species prioritized over and above the evolutionary fitness of the individual. I am saying that this belief you promote with evolution acting for the good of a species rather than the individual is completely special and unique to morality--no other traits allegedly bestowed by evolution necessitate such a perverted picture of Darwin's theory.

Its not a belief, its a logical deduction based on the theory. A species where members self sacrifice in order to save the group or sacrifice themselves (or whatever) for the greater good are more likely to survive that a cutthroat, selfish species. Furthermore, its a natural consequence of empathy, social skills, cooperation, and a theory of mind which all have their own evolutionary advantages to a species. These attributes then interact together to produce an organism that has a predisposition to self sacrifice. Because these traits only determine

When one member die of a species dies to save everyone else it means the aggregate gene pool is preserved, which contains the genotype that determines the probability of being a person who would self sacrifice (based on an average). But actually, you don't need everyone to self sacrifice for this to work--only some percentage of the total population have to be willing to sacrifice themselves while the others aren't in order to be efficient when the need for sacrifice arises. This range indicates evolution and natural selection as well, and variation in organisms is always best explained by evolution.

evolution promotes traits which are individually beneficial and literally could not care less how the survival or death of any individual affects the evolution of a species.

This is entirely false. Ant colonies are a great example like I mentioned earlier. Some ants are sacrificed to protect the hive. Sick ants will often suicide from the hive in order to protect the group. Furthermore ants will sacrifice themselves to attack dangerous predators if they are close to the queen. Many insects similarly behave like this. Fish schooling is another good example--fish will stay on the outside of the school even though it makes them more prone to being eaten. By your logic fish schooling shouldn't exist as well as the entire concept of the ant collective, since they're acting mostly on instincts determined by their genetics. Id argue similarly that self sacrifice is an instinct for humans--it requires an emotional component which psychopaths dont have, for example. There are hundreds of other examples of sacrificial behavior in organisms.

You're ultimately associating evolution with an incredibly simplistic model that ignores the breadth of genetics. What matters is the aggregate gene pool--this is the average of the total genes pertaining to a species. This determines the probability that a certain members of the species will have a trait. So even if an organism with self sacrificial tendencies dies more often, (therefore you would think that those genes would be gone) it is actually preserved just as well because it was the result of the aggregate gene pool that produces a probability which is more or less constant across all organisms; the argument is that almost all organisms of some species will have a certain gene which determines the probability that a particular member will have a predisposition to self sacrifice. So even if none of the self sacrificial members of a species survive, the next generation will have the same probability of an organism having self sacrificial tendencies.The probability gene (or genes) varies over long periods of time in order to "zoom in" on the most efficient probability that allows for the greatest survival.

Species evolved to maintain an aggregate gene pool which is in fact a pre requisite to these more advanced "behaviors." Species which have this aggregate gene pool ability enabled them to work together and use behaviors that allow for certain genotypes to be kept regardless of the death of an individual organism, which can be more help than just individualistic evolution. Since many of these behaviors are essential for the survival of many species, the aggregate gene pool clearly allows for more adaptations (thus fulfilling natural selection), which then leads to traits like self sacrifice.

You believe that evolution considers the well-being of a group or species in promoting traits that will help the group and that is how it gives rise to morality despite the individual evolutionary fitness loss suffered by those who self-sacrifice. Contrastingly, I side with Darwin. I believe that evolution considers nothing, allows less evolutionary fit traits to die off over the eons by natural selection.

No i don't believe evolution considers anything. Its a recursive algorithm that produces more complexity over time which assists with survival, including making the survival of the aggregate gene pool more important than that of the individual in the correct conditions. If you understand that certain genes contain probabilities that determine some behavior or trait on average in a population(just like the gene that determines the probability of being male or female), then suddenly you will understand that the total average of genes is what is important here for explaining self sacrifice.

But I am interested to here what your personal explanation is for self sacrifice, or rather if you're just questioning an aspect of evolution. I also suggest that since evolution has been so successful then why wouldn't it be logical, in the very least, that there is currently no satisfactory explanation yet, rather than you simply asserting that evolution CANNOT explain it period.

 

[Prophet]

Its not a belief, its a logical deduction based on the theory. A species where members self sacrifice in order to save the group or sacrifice themselves (or whatever) for the greater good are more likely to survive that a cutthroat, selfish species. Furthermore, its a natural consequence of empathy, social skills, cooperation, and a theory of mind which all have their own evolutionary advantages to a species. These attributes then interact together to produce an organism that has a predisposition to self sacrifice. Because these traits only determine

When one member die of a species dies to save everyone else it means the aggregate gene pool is preserved, which contains the genotype that determines the probability of being a person who would self sacrifice (based on an average). But actually, you don't need everyone to self sacrifice for this to work--only some percentage of the total population have to be willing to sacrifice themselves while the others aren't in order to be efficient when the need for sacrifice arises. This range indicates evolution and natural selection as well, and variation in organisms is always best explained by evolution.

A species where ALL members self-sacrifice in order to save the group has obvious advantages over a cutthroat society. That I will not debate against. However, it doesn't seem like you consider how a species could reach such a point if morality, altruism, and self-sacrifice are emergent attributes that derive from evolution. Morality is not an evolutionary advantage on the individual level. Were one moral being to emerge amongst an amoral species, he would certainly not derive any evolutionary fitness from his morality. Quite the contrary. He would lose evolutionary fitness as he would be regularly taken advantage of. How this society eventually becomes fully moral in your mind is a mystery to me.

This is entirely false. Ant colonies are a great example like I mentioned earlier. Some ants are sacrificed to protect the hive. Sick ants will often suicide from the hive in order to protect the group. Furthermore ants will sacrifice themselves to attack dangerous predators if they are close to the queen. Many insects similarly behave like this. Fish schooling is another good example--fish will stay on the outside of the school even though it makes them more prone to being eaten. By your logic fish schooling shouldn't exist as well as the entire concept of the ant collective, since they're acting mostly on instincts determined by their genetics. Id argue similarly that self sacrifice is an instinct for humans--it requires an emotional component which psychopaths dont have, for example. There are hundreds of other examples of sacrificial behavior in organisms.

You're ultimately associating evolution with an incredibly simplistic model that ignores the breadth of genetics. What matters is the aggregate gene pool--this is the average of the total genes pertaining to a species. This determines the probability that a certain members of the species will have a trait. So even if an organism with self sacrificial tendencies dies more often, (therefore you would think that those genes would be gone) it is actually preserved just as well because it was the result of the aggregate gene pool that produces a probability which is more or less constant across all organisms; the argument is that almost all organisms of some species will have a certain gene which determines the probability that a particular member will have a predisposition to self sacrifice. So even if none of the self sacrificial members of a species survive, the next generation will have the same probability of an organism having self sacrificial tendencies.The probability gene (or genes) varies over long periods of time in order to "zoom in" on the most efficient probability that allows for the greatest survival.

Species evolved to maintain an aggregate gene pool which is in fact a pre requisite to these more advanced "behaviors." Species which have this aggregate gene pool ability enabled them to work together and use behaviors that allow for certain genotypes to be kept regardless of the death of an individual organism, which can be more help than just individualistic evolution. Since many of these behaviors are essential for the survival of many species, the aggregate gene pool clearly allows for more adaptations (thus fulfilling natural selection), which then leads to traits like self sacrifice.

If my opinion that evolution promotes traits which are individually beneficial and literally could not care less how the survival or death of any individual affects the evolution of a species is entirely false as you say, it should be child's play for you to spout off a list of attributes other than altruism for which evolution must jump through all of these hoops to promote an individually disadvantageous trait to the advantage of the whole.

No i don't believe evolution considers anything. Its a recursive algorithm that produces more complexity over time which assists with survival, including making the survival of the aggregate gene pool more important than that of the individual in the correct conditions. If you understand that certain genes contain probabilities that determine some behavior or trait on average in a population(just like the gene that determines the probability of being male or female), then suddenly you will understand that the total average of genes is what is important here for explaining self sacrifice.

Recursive algorithm, huh? What I read here is you saying evolution doesn't have to actively consider anything because now apparently evolution is some vaguely computer-like entity that can behave intelligently yet is not self-aware. In my opinion, this isn't an explanation. This is lawyering. And it doesn't sound substantively different from the vague, complex, unexplainable mess of an explanation I was given in the last debate.

But I am interested to here what your personal explanation is for self sacrifice, or rather if you're just questioning an aspect of evolution. I also suggest that since evolution has been so successful then why wouldn't it be logical, in the very least, that there is currently no satisfactory explanation yet, rather than you simply asserting that evolution CANNOT explain it period.

From wikipedia:

Moral realism (also ethical realism) is the position that ethicalsentences express propositions that refer to objective features of the world (that is, features independent of subjective opinion), some of which propositions may be true to the extent that they report those features accurately.

 

[serp777]

A species where ALL members self-sacrifice in order to save the group has obvious advantages over a cutthroat society. That I will not debate against. However, it doesn't seem like you consider how a species could reach such a point if morality, altruism, and self-sacrifice are emergent attributes that derive from evolution. Morality is not an evolutionary advantage on the individual level. Were one moral being to emerge amongst an amoral species, he would certainly not derive any evolutionary fitness from his morality. Quite the contrary. He would lose evolutionary fitness as he would be regularly taken advantage of. How this society eventually becomes fully moral in your mind is a mystery to me.



If my opinion that evolution promotes traits which are individually beneficial and literally could not care less how the survival or death of any individual affects the evolution of a species is entirely false as you say, it should be child's play for you to spout off a list of attributes other than altruism that evolution jumps through all of these hoops with.



Recursive algorithm, huh? You're saying evolution doesn't have to consider anything because now apparently evolution is some vaguely computer-like entity that can behave intelligently yet is not self-aware. This isn't an explanation. This is lawyering.



From wikipedia:

Moral realism (also ethical realism) is the position that ethicalsentences express propositions that refer to objective features of the world (that is, features independent of subjective opinion), some of which propositions may be true to the extent that they report those features accurately.

However, it doesn't seem like you consider how a species could reach such a point if morality, altruism, and self-sacrifice are emergent attributes that derive from evolution. Morality is not an evolutionary advantage on the individual level. Were one moral being to emerge amongst an amoral species, he would certainly not derive any evolutionary fitness from his morality. Quite the contrary. He would lose evolutionary fitness as he would be regularly taken advantage of. How this society eventually becomes fully moral in your mind is a mystery to me.

All of this becomes irrelevant when you consider aggregate genetics and probability genes as i explained later in the post. Individual advantage doesn't necessarily matter as i've shown, and you've already agreed that self sacrifice is good for a species' survival. Here's a theoretical way it could emerge initially though: one hominid ancestor develops a gene which gives him a low probability of having a tendency to self sacrifice, but since genes are often interconnected it probably made also him more social or something. Since he has above average social skills, (or some other positive trait) he reproduces more and leads to a lineage of humans with a gene that gives low probability for self sacrifice in addition to something else (maybe immunity to some disease, or moreintellect). This gene, over time, is introduced into a larger population.

Since only a small number of these humans will sacrifice initially due to the low probability, it wouldn't stop this gene from becoming more prominent in the average population since there is a another good individualistic advantage associated with it. But because some minority of humans do self sacrifice at that point, albeit a tiny amount, the groups that does have those people will do better than those without the genetic variant. Suddenly now have large scale evolution where groups which self sacrifice more survive more, and therefore natural selection allows those groups to eventually become modern day humans.

Now its what you would call jumping through hoops, but explanations like this are certainly possible. Unless you have intelligent design somewhere in there how else do you explain the early hominid tendency for self sacrifice and altruism? If evolution can offer an explanation to it then i'd bet on evolution since it has been highly reliable in the past. Moral realism certainly doesn't explain it, or if it does that definition doesn't show how. All the definition is saying is that some propositions are true because they reflect features accurately. Sounds like a tautology instead of an explanation. And everything regarding morality is subjective anyways. Its all a matter of interpretation.

If my opinion that evolution promotes traits which are individually beneficial and literally could not care less how the survival or death of any individual affects the evolution of a species is entirely false as you say, it should be child's play for you to spout off a list of attributes other than altruism that evolution jumps through all of these hoops with.

The amount of things I can list off has nothing to do with the validity of my argument. But I also didn't claim that evolution doesn't promote traits that are also individualistically beneficial. Some traits can be individual and some can be aggregate. It need not be mutually exclusive. And some species are more dependent on aggregate evolution than the others. And jumping through hoops? Have you seen videos demonstrating the inner workings of the cell? Many, many things about genetics, protein folding, mitochondria, etc are all extremely complicated.

But ill list some more traits anyways: superstition, intelligence (its why its very difficult to breed intelligence in mice for example), the immune system, etc.

You also didn't address anything about aggregate gene pools and probabilities, which i thought would be fairly convincing, even without my hypothetical scenario describing how the trait of self sacrifice could get started. I argued how aggregate gene pools and probabilistically determined traits for a species can maintain specific traits even when members of the species with certain traits die off; the traits were a result of probability rather than directly from a certain mutation that was only particular to that one organism. The way these probabilities could change, which i though you might address, is that differences between groups within the average (in other words different probability groups) survive and reproduce more over the other groups, therefore changing the average probabilities over time. Its evolution still, but its at a larger scale and is more complicated/sophisticated than simple individualistic

Recursive algorithm, huh? You're saying evolution doesn't have to consider anything because now apparently evolution is some vaguely computer-like entity that can behave intelligently yet is not self-aware. This isn't an explanation. This is lawyering.

If using the definitions of words and drawing an analogy is now "lawyering", i guess I am. Recursive means that the current state of the algorithm is fed back through the inputs, which changes it, then outputs it again, which is then fed back to the inputs and so on.

"Considering" implies a mind or intention, and evolution has neither. It is a logical process of selection for traits that produce survivability. The algorithm part comes in because a mutation is introduced randomly into an organism, which is then copied. Its recursive because the first organism has information which is fed into the inputs of the evolution algorithm, and then the copy of organism that is the output, which then feeds into the inputs of the evolution algorithm during reproduction, and therefore produces another organism as an output and so on. Death results in the end of a recursive sequence. it produces a binary tree that you would also expect to see in a recursive computer algorithm. They're similar in many ways. This is an explanation for how evolution is not as simple as random chance and how evolution might appear to consider things, but doesn't.

You can actual simulate evolution of a computer by creating programs which have random mutations and compete for cpu and memory resources. These are inherently recursive algorithms.

 

[Prophet]

All of this becomes irrelevant when you consider aggregate genetics and probability genes as i explained later in the post. Individual advantage doesn't necessarily matter as i've shown, and you've already agreed that self sacrifice is good for a species' survival. Here's a theoretical way it could emerge initially though: one hominid ancestor develops a gene which gives him a low probability of having a tendency to self sacrifice, but since genes are often interconnected it probably made also him more social or something. Since he has above average social skills, (or some other positive trait) he reproduces more and leads to a lineage of humans with a gene that gives low probability for self sacrifice in addition to something else (maybe immunity to some disease, or moreintellect). This gene, over time, is introduced into a larger population.

The selfless gene "probably made also him more social or something" and on this rock of an argument you edit Darwin's theory of natural selection? Darwin didn't need to include any guesses "probably's" or "maybe's" to explain how the Galapagos finches received their unique beak shapes. By introducing your guesses you've perverted a rock solid, for all intents and purposes proven scientific kind of theory which conclusively explains the origin of species through survival of the fittest into nothing more than a layman's kind of a theory--a guess in which a nebulous force which may "interconnect" whatever genes are good for group survival with some gene that is good for individual survival making these intelligent survivability assessments not by survival of the fittest, but by unknown active means which, to me, is the atheist equivalent of a god concept.

Since only a small number of these humans will sacrifice initially due to the low probability, it wouldn't stop this gene from becoming more prominent in the average population since there is a another good individualistic advantage associated with it. But because some minority of humans do self sacrifice at that point, albeit a tiny amount, the groups that does have those people will do better than those without the genetic variant. Suddenly now have large scale evolution where groups which self sacrifice more survive more, and therefore natural selection allows those groups to eventually become modern day humans.

Yes, a potentially fatal gene could become pervasive in the opinion of a person if he does all in his power to downplay the potential for self-sacrifice in a pre-civilization, savage world AND assumes some vague interconnected genes having to do with "social or something" would more than offset the losses.

Now its what you would call jumping through hoops, but explanations like this are certainly possible. Unless you have intelligent design somewhere in there how else do you explain the early hominid tendency for self sacrifice and altruism? If evolution can offer an explanation to it then i'd bet on evolution since it has been highly reliable in the past. Moral realism certainly doesn't explain it, or if it does that definition doesn't show how. All the definition is saying is that some propositions are true because they reflect features accurately. Sounds like a tautology instead of an explanation. And everything regarding morality is subjective anyways. Its all a matter of interpretation.

I am saying moral law is real on the level of scientific law. I am saying selflessness did not emerge, but rather is a condition of our universe like gravity, affecting and being perceived by all sentient beings regardless of their knowledge of it. And I'm saying a lot of other things that may or may not apply to you. Quoting myself from that same debate I referenced earlier:

My counter opinion is that moral laws are real on the level of physical laws which govern the universe and our differing and changing opinions on morality which you use as your basis for believing that morality is relative can be as fully attributed to our collective ignorance as our differing and changing opinions on science. You bring up past and current backwards cultures with less intelligent ideas on morality as if that is support for your ideas. I could just as easily point out that past cultures believed the world was flat and if they went far enough, they'd fall off. By your own flawed reasoning, this should make the physical realm relative as well.

The amount of things I can list off has nothing to do with the validity of my argument. But I also didn't claim that evolution doesn't promote traits that are also individualistically beneficial. Some traits can be individual and some can be aggregate. It need not be mutually exclusive. And some species are more dependent on aggregate evolution than the others. And jumping through hoops? Have you seen videos demonstrating the inner workings of the cell? Many, many things about genetics, protein folding, mitochondria, etc are all extremely complicated.

But ill list some more traits anyways: superstition, intelligence (its why its very difficult to breed intelligence in mice for example), the immune system, etc.

These traits don't directly cause the death of their bearer which makes them fully explainable through the unperverted theory of natural selection. The fact that you cannot name even one trait outside of morality which requires changes to Darwin's theory is support for my belief that your incursion into Darwin's theory of natural selection is not based upon any of the sort of scientific observations that Darwin used to craft it, but rather a small-minded prejudice that evolution must necessarily be the source of all things previously attributed to God.

You also didn't address anything about aggregate gene pools and probabilities, which i thought would be fairly convincing, even without my hypothetical scenario describing how the trait of self sacrifice could get started. I argued how aggregate gene pools and probabilistically determined traits for a species can maintain specific traits even when members of the species with certain traits die off; the traits were a result of probability rather than directly from a certain mutation that was only particular to that one organism. The way these probabilities could change, which i though you might address, is that differences between groups within the average (in other words different probability groups) survive and reproduce more over the other groups, therefore changing the average probabilities over time. Its evolution still, but its at a larger scale and is more complicated/sophisticated than simple individualistic

I watched you soft sell the evolutionary fitness disadvantages of selflessness in pre-civilization earth. I watched you over sell some gene "interconnect" which would offset those TINY fitness disadvantages by making the bearer more "social or something". I have a difficult time talking about probabilities with anyone demonstrably twists them and submits guesses as evidence worthy of revising a proven theory. Frankly, we have bigger fish to fry.

If using the definitions of words and drawing an analogy is now "lawyering", i guess I am. Recursive means that the current state of the algorithm is fed back through the inputs, which changes it, then outputs it again, which is then fed back to the inputs and so on.

"Considering" implies a mind or intention, and evolution has neither. It is a logical process of selection for traits that produce survivability. The algorithm part comes in because a mutation is introduced randomly into an organism, which is then copied. Its recursive because the first organism has information which is fed into the inputs of the evolution algorithm, and then the copy of organism that is the output, which then feeds into the inputs of the evolution algorithm during reproduction, and therefore produces another organism as an output and so on. Death results in the end of a recursive sequence. it produces a binary tree that you would also expect to see in a recursive computer algorithm. They're similar in many ways. This is an explanation for how evolution is not as simple as random chance and how evolution might appear to consider things, but doesn't.

You can actual simulate evolution of a computer by creating programs which have random mutations and compete for cpu and memory resources. These are inherently recursive algorithms.

Evolution just tries all of the paths, some die, some survive, and some thrive. There is no algorithm. These traits have always been randomly stumbled upon by trying every variation. There has never been any "logical process for traits that produce survivability", just survival of the fittest.

 

[serp777]

The selfless gene "probably made also him more social or something" and on this rock of an argument you edit Darwin's theory of natural selection? Darwin didn't need to include any guesses "probably's" or "maybe's" to explain how the Galapagos finches received their unique beak shapes. By introducing your guesses you've perverted a rock solid, for all intents and purposes proven scientific kind of theory which conclusively explains the origin of species through survival of the fittest into nothing more than a layman's kind of a theory--a guess in which a nebulous force which may "interconnect" whatever genes are good for group survival with some gene that is good for individual survival making these intelligent survivability assessments not by survival of the fittest, but by unknown active means which, to me, is the atheist equivalent of a god concept.



Yes, a potentially fatal gene could become pervasive in the opinion of a person if he does all in his power to downplay the potential for self-sacrifice in a pre-civilization, savage world AND assumes some vague interconnected genes having to do with "social or something" would more than offset the losses.



I am saying moral law is real on the level of scientific law. I am saying selflessness did not emerge, but rather is a condition of our universe like gravity, affecting and being perceived by all sentient beings regardless of their knowledge of it. And I'm saying a lot of other things that may or may not apply to you. Quoting myself from that same debate I referenced earlier:





These traits don't directly cause the death of their bearer which makes them fully explainable through the unperverted theory of natural selection. The fact that you cannot name even one trait outside of morality which requires changes to Darwin's theory is support for my belief that your incursion into Darwin's theory of natural selection is not based upon any of the sort of scientific observations that Darwin used to craft it, but rather a small-minded prejudice that evolution must necessarily be the source of all things previously attributed to God.



I watched you soft sell the evolutionary fitness disadvantages of selflessness in pre-civilization earth. I watched you over sell some gene "interconnect" which would offset those TINY fitness disadvantages by making the bearer more "social or something". I have a difficult time talking about probabilities with anyone demonstrably twists them and submits guesses as evidence worthy of revising a proven theory. Frankly, we have bigger fish to fry.



Evolution just tries all of the paths, some die, some survive, and some thrive. There is no algorithm. These traits have always been randomly stumbled upon by trying every variation. There has never been any "logical process for traits that produce survivability", just survival of the fittest.

The selfless gene "probably made also him more social or something" and on this rock of an argument you edit Darwin's theory of natural selection? Darwin didn't need to include any guesses "probably's" or "maybe's" to explain how the Galapagos finches received their unique beak shapes. By introducing your guesses you've perverted a rock solid, for all intents and purposes proven scientific kind of theory which conclusively explains the origin of species through survival of the fittest into nothing more than a layman's kind of a theory--a guess in which a nebulous force which may "interconnect" whatever genes are good for group survival with some gene that is good for individual survival making these intelligent survivability assessments not by survival of the fittest, but by unknown active means which, to me, is the atheist equivalent of a god concept.

This paragraph is abundantly full of hot air. Darwin didn't have knowledge of genetics and obviously there has been significant development in evolution since the time of darwin. I gave you a scenario in which selflessness could have emerged-- the gene making people predisposed to sacrificial behavior could be linked to another positive trait that made it able to achieve a foothold in the aggregate gene pool. It still ultimately follows the principles of natural selection which is not a perversion in the slightest. You asked for an explanation for how it could occur. I gave you one that would align with an understanding of genetics. I never claimed for it to be proven, which is why I say probably, or maybe. Either way your explanation to the problem is infinitely less likely, which ill address at the end. Does evolution explain everything right now? No, there are holes, just like basically every other theory that exists. Since there is a possible explanation, and evolution has so far been extremely accurate, evolution seems the most likely candidate to explain morality, even if its not my explanation. And in regard to your last sentence--you must either have completely misunderstood the argument or you a purposefully constructing a massive strawman. There is no nebulous force. Certain genes or genetic strands can have a multitude of different effects. If a low self sacrifice probability was associated with another positive trait, then it could have entered the aggregate gene pool very easily. Since you seem unfamiliar with some aspects of genetics, i'd recommend reading about pleiotropy. my scenario is certainly possible within the parameters of genetics. So its not "vague interconnected genes", its multiple traits being associated to changes of a gene. Its simply called genetics.

"Pleiotropy occurs when one gene influences multiple, seemingly unrelated phenotypic traits, an example being phenylketonuria, which is a human disease that affects multiple systems but is caused by one gene defect.[1] Consequently, a mutation in a pleiotropic gene may have an effect on some or all traits simultaneously."
Pleiotropy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

These traits don't directly cause the death of their bearer which makes them fully explainable through the unperverted theory of natural selection. The fact that you cannot name even one trait outside of morality which requires changes to Darwin's theory is support for my belief that your incursion into Darwin's theory of natural selection is not based upon any of the sort of scientific observations that Darwin used to craft it, but rather a small-minded prejudice that evolution must necessarily be the source of all things previously attributed to God.

Once again, you're completely misrepresenting the argument. It doesn't require any modification to natural selection, just a better understanding on genetics. If my reasoning is small minded prejudice, then your alternate solution requires such an open mind that the skull would need to be entirely removed and your brain able to freely fall out. You propose a new moral law of physics for God's sake. Please, give me a break. its much too unreasonable for someone with your intelligence.

I am saying moral law is real on the level of scientific law. I am saying selflessness did not emerge, but rather is a condition of our universe like gravity, affecting and being perceived by all sentient beings regardless of their knowledge of it. And I'm saying a lot of other things that may or may not apply to you. Quoting myself from that same debate I referenced earlier:

This is a complete guess. This is no explanation for why we have morality; its just asserting that morality is some bizarre, vague law of physics. This is a nebulous, vodoo postulate without any kind of supporting logic or reasoning. In conclusion, you assault evolution without providing any kind of counter theory that makes predictions or has evidence. Evolution is the best theory we have to explain the origins sacrifice and morality since it has explained most other traits. I find it amazing that you reject a hypothesis regarding the emergence sacrifice, and yet you accept this fantasy. Perhaps you can create the theory of magic moral relativity, or maybe Hogwarts quantum ethical mechanics /

id also recommend giving a look to evolutionary explanations to altruism. There are many postulates for all aspects of human behavior with supporting studies.

Here's one small example:

"Vested interests. People are likely to suffer if their friends, allies, and similar social ingroups suffer or even disappear. Helping such group members may therefore eventually benefit the altruist. Making ingroup membership more noticeable increases cooperativeness. Extreme self-sacrifice towards the ingroup may be adaptive if a hostile outgroup threatens to kill the entire ingroup.[8]"

Altruism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Evolution just tries all of the paths, some die, some survive, and some thrive. There is no algorithm. These traits have always been randomly stumbled upon by trying every variation. There has never been any "logical process for traits that produce survivability", just survival of the fittest.

An algorithm is just a set of rules that leads to some outcome. So you're ironically just saying that the algorithm is: iterate through all combinations randomly. If a particular combination fails, stop that particular line of recursion. This, in fact, can be programmed into a computer through a process known as evolutionary computing. It is certainly an algorithm if it can be programmed into a computer.

 

[Bunyip]

The theory of natural selection, like all scientific and academic knowledge, is built upon rational inferences, thus, editing said theory would also require rational inferences. Blind guesses as you've supplied won't do for academics who know that real knowledge must be built and advanced on such grounds. Nor will arguments like 1) Claim genetics 2) ??? 3) Profit, again unless you only intend to convince imbeciles.



Yes, intelligent people should necessarily all think like you and believe without considering any other case that morals are nothing more than a convention we could have written any way we or evolution wanted giving us license to be a dick to anyone who theorizes that morals could be true to reality. This is as fundamentalist as ANY religion.

That doesn't make sense. You just pretend that your opponant thinks that morals are nothing more than a convention and then attack your own strawman labelling your opponant as a fundamentalist for holding the belief you invented on their behalf. Your argument is as weak as it is possible to get.

It appears that you give yourself at least as much rope to guess when you attempt to edit Darwin.

 

[Bunyip]

My opponent openly implied that the usual theistic position that morals are true to reality was stupid and that intelligent people should necessarily assume the usual atheistic position, that morals are not true to reality and thus, are nothing more than a convention. Fundamentalists, religious and atheistic alike, both commonly resist debate on issues they consider "fundamental" to their worldview.

Can you rethink that response please? Atheism is not a worldview, and morals are not simply arbitrary conventions - so I am struggling to see your point, particularly where you imagine 'fundamentalism' is relevant. What are you trying to say?

 

[Bunyip]

Okay. Atheism is not a world view in your language. If not worldview, than "beliefs". You can admit that you have beliefs right?

Well atheism is the absence of a specific belief, not a belief. Theists believe in a god, atheists do not share that belief.

And if morals were invented by evolution, than it is a simple matter to reason that morals are mere conventions that could've been written any other way like all of the other attributes evolution bestows.

No, that doesn't follow I'm afraid. Morals are an emergent property of the formation of social groups, they are not just conventions that could be written any other way. Unfortunately you have confused atheism for religion - it is religions that can and do write their moral codes in any way they wish. Whatever god says is by definition moral - which is an entirely arbitrary approach. According to the non-religious view morality is much more complex, it emerges as a consequence of the formation of social groups as a survival mechanism.

 

[serp777]

Are the religious too obsessed with atheists? There are vastly more religious people than atheists.

Also this is like asking--are a-santaclausists obsessed with religion or are a-celesteapotists obsessed?

 

[Obviously]

...

 

[Bunyip]

"Belief in no god" is not the atheistic belief which I am drawing attention to

Belief in no godis a strawman mischaracterisation of atheism. Atheism is the absence of a specific belief.

but rather the assumption that altruism evolved and is not based upon any underlying moral reality, which certainly ARE beliefs.

No, not at all. It is a hypothesis that the evidence supports. That altruistic behaviour can emerge naturally and has survival benefits for social species is thoroughly evidenced. It is not an assumption, it is the best explanation of the available facts.

If morals are not based upon any underlying moral reality and instead are an emergent property of the formation of social groups, then they ARE conventions that could be written any other way, like the tax code, or which side of the road we drive on.

No, you got that the wrong way round. Religious morals are arbitrary, evolved morals are not. They can only be 'written' in the way that provides the best outcome, that is how evolution works. Any 'convention' that does benefit survivability will tend to be selected over those that do not.

 

[Obviously]

...

 

[Bunyip]

Perhaps, but I don't think it goes too far in the case of "new" atheism. I imagine that being a dick to someone because they don't think the same as you would require a bit more than simply non-belief.

New atheism is just the name given to a small group of popular authors. It remains simply the absence of a specific belief.

You just believe that because altruistic behaviour exists, it must have emerged. I imagine this assumption is the extent of your "evidence"

No, not at all - the extent of the evidence is vast, including anthropology, neuro biology, behavioural psychology, evolutionary biology and so on. Decades of correlating evidence and research from a wide number of fields. To pretend otherwise is just either denialism or ignorance. Altruism has clear benefits for a social species, we can see such behaviour across the animal kingdom. I believe that altruism emerged because that is what a vast body of evidence demonstrates. Conversely you believe that it has some external source for which no evidence exists. Unfortunately you are (as I said) confusing the religious position for that of atheists. How's the new sock account by the way Prophet?

 

[Willamena]

New atheism is just the name given to a small group of popular authors. It remains simply the absence of a specific belief.

Yeah, that's why I prefer plain old atheism.

No, not at all - the extent of the evidence is vast, including anthropology, neuro biology, behavioural psychology, evolutionary biology and so on. Decades of correlating evidence and research from a wide number of fields. To pretend otherwise is just either denialism or ignorance. Altruism has clear benefits for a social species, we can see such behaviour across the animal kingdom. I believe that altruism emerged because that is what a vast body of evidence demonstrates. Conversely you believe that it has some external source for which no evidence exists. Unfortunately you are (as I said) confusing the religious position for that of atheists. How's the new sock account by the way Prophet?

I'm curious how altruism is evidenced in anthropology.

 

[Bunyip]

Yeah, that's why I prefer plain old atheism.

I'm curious how altruism is evidenced in anthropology.

Well I recommend that you look into it. Studies on altruism in the animal kingdom from ants and bees to chimps are all freely available. In a social group our welfare is no longer separable from that of the other members. Altruistic behaviour strengthens social bonds as well as increasing survivability for the group.

If you type into your search engine 'the evolution of altruism', or any other such key terms you will find links to thousands of articles.