Catholic v Protestant: Robert George v Cornel West

[swoleupinya]

[quote]kamui wrote:
swoleupinya

altruism may be a “more successful long-term strategy”.
but a a successful long-term strategy for what exactly ?

our specie ?

the problem is that even if we try to express evolutionism in finalist terms (assigning “goals” to evolution, and strategy to evolutive actors) species have no such goals, and they are NOT evolutive actors.

genes are evolutive actors with specific goals (spreading)
individuals are evolutive actors with specific goals (surviving)
populations are evolutive actors with specific goals (reproducing)

but species are simple by-products of evolution.
and they are abstractions.

which means that an utilitarian ethic based on evolution, even if it justify altruism as a successful strategy will never consistently care for “our specie”, nor for all humans.

your starting point let you two consistent possibilities :

being altruist with some humans. at a population or gene pool scale.

or, if you want to be more altruist than that, you can be altruist with ecosystems and/or the entire biosphere. which ARE evolutive actors.

you can choose between biological racism or biocentrism.

but anthropocentric humanism is NOT a consistent option.[/quote]

I use the term “strategy” as is commonly done to describe behaviors consistent with a genome that has persisted natural selection. Does that help?

Also, we’re not necessarily talking about a “final” goal here. We’re talking about a long-term goal.

Additionally, all animals can through cognitive choice effect which of their genomes persist epigenetically. The degree to which they are able to is dependent on their level of cognitive ability. For example, some human populations tend to abort fetuses that exhibit abnormalities that would indicate Down Syndrome. This is a very visceral example of this mechanism at work.

Another, less obvious example of this mechanism at work is phenotypic regulation in the manner of intellectual memes. An emerging theory in evolutionary biology/psychology is that cultural influences actually effect phenotypic expression of certain cognitive skills, which then persist genetically.

Does this make sense to you?

[thunderbolt23]

[quote]swoleupinya wrote:

Terrible writing - this marks the first time that anyone has characterized my writing as terrible.[/quote]

It won’t be the last.

[quote]So, are you simply choosing to ignore the possibility that I presented in which respect for the sanctity of life is a more successful long-term strategy? I can understand why you would… I mean, it does present a difficult hurdle of logic to overcome.

Go ahead, though. I would like to see you try to disprove one of the more widely understood characteristics of the success of humans in relation to natural selection. This should be fun.[/quote]

Nope, not ignoring the issue at all. What you seek has already been asked and answered.

If what you say is right - that the “sanctity of life moral” best promotes the “more successful” evolutionary long-term strategy and that explains why we engage in that approach - then all species (not just humans) would be engaging in it on a full-time basis.

But, as a matter of science and fact, we know that isn’t true. Sometimes they opt for “sanctity of life”, sometimes they don’t - sometimes they opt for the “law of the jungle” approach that is the opposite of the “sanctity of life” approach in order to reduce pressures on ecosystems/competition for resources. And, in doing so, they live to fight another day when the ecosystem is under less strain, and at that time they opt for a “sanctity of life” approach (or not).

Different environmental situations, different environmental pressures, and therefore different “choices” designed to best promote survival in those different situations. The point is, from a pure survival standpoint, the “sanctity of life moral” is not always the right evolutionary option - if it were, species would never allow/choose a “cull the herd” approach. But they do. So, theory down.

Humans, however, opt for an override of the “cull the herd” approach even when…wait for it…doing do would be anthithetical toward the best strategy for survival, even as…wait for it…other species do not.

So, no, the “sanctity of life” approach-as-best-evolutionary-strategy doesn’t add up because it isn’t always the best strategy. We know this because species do not uniformly choose this option. And, further, humans choose this option even when it impairs their chance of survival. Again, we know that because humans don’t choose “cull the herd” and plenty of other species do, and we are subject to the same environment. So, theory down and more thought is required.

Let me guess - someone is a sophomore or similar in college and has taken a class that has shown him the light with the one idea that “explains everything!!!”. Read up on Scientism:

Scientism

Little wonder you and Forlife share so much in common.

[swoleupinya]

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

Nope, not ignoring the issue at all. What you seek has already been asked and answered.

If what you say is right - that the “sanctity of life moral” best promotes the “more successful” evolutionary long-term strategy and that explains why we engage in that approach - then all species (not just humans) would be engaging in it on a full-time basis. [/quote]

Thunder, this statement shows a complete misunderstanding of the process of natural selection. I now know why you are having trouble seeing my position as logical.

Natural selection is not progressive. It filters for what are effectively random mutations. Although, there are arguments about the randomness or predictability of these mutations, a basic working knowledge of natural selection doesn’t require that you delve into this topic.

[quote]But, as a matter of science and fact, we know that isn’t true. Sometimes they opt for “sanctity of life”, sometimes they don’t - sometimes they opt for the “law of the jungle” approach that is the opposite of the “sanctity of life” approach in order to reduce pressures on ecosystems/competition for resources. And, in doing so, they live to fight another day when the ecosystem is under less strain, and at that time they opt for a “sanctity of life” approach (or not).

Different environmental situations, different environmental pressures, and therefore different “choices” designed to best promote survival in those different situations. The point is, from a pure survival standpoint, the “sanctity of life moral” is not always the right evolutionary option - if it were, species would never allow/choose a “cull the herd” approach. But they do. So, theory down.

Humans, however, opt for an override of the “cull the herd” approach even when…wait for it…doing do would be anthithetical toward the best strategy for survival, even as…wait for it…other species do not.

So, no, the “sanctity of life” approach-as-best-evolutionary-strategy doesn’t add up because it isn’t always the best strategy. We know this because species do not uniformly choose this option. And, further, humans choose this option even when it impairs their chance of survival. Again, we know that because humans don’t choose “cull the herd” and plenty of other species do, and we are subject to the same environment. So, theory down and more thought is required. [/quote]

See above. In order to understand my position, you will need to understand natural selection.

[quote] Let me guess - someone is a sophomore or similar in college and has taken a class that has shown him the light with the one idea that “explains everything!!!”. Read up on Scientism:

Scientism

Little wonder you and Forlife share so much in common. [/quote]

Again, you assume too much.

I’m 35. I have two kids, and I’m married to a teacher. I’ve owned a business and had careers in the corporate world and in a sport. I am actually a freshman in college, but that’s a long story.

Interestingly enough, I’m also a published writer whose work was widely applauded… and, no. We’re not talking about a school newspaper here. I’m about halfway through writing my first novel, and judging from the responses that I’ve gotten from a few friends of mine who are influential editors, I’m going to say my writing is pretty damn good.

Assume less. Learn more. I suspect it will help you in the long run.

[Sloth]

[quote]swoleupinya wrote:
Sloth, you are either sadly or willfully dense.

[/quote]

Thanks for leaving me options, I guess.

[Sloth]

[quote]swoleupinya wrote:
Can I extrapolate from this, then that it’s plausible that morality as a concept could be constructed to explain the drive to propagate and better the species, and some of the strategies we’ve inherited to do so?[/quote]

No. You’re trying to make these drives, urges, far more elegant than they are. I’ll agree to a drive for food and sex. But, I don’t accept the existence of a drive to propagate and better the species. If anything these constructs you speak of seem, to me, to master our drives. I’m one to argue that these “constructs” have been greatly secularized in the west, and that the results reflect just as much. So if we must construct them in the first place, and our raising and rearing of children begins to breakdown with their diminishing, which governs which?

[thunderbolt23]

[quote]swoleupinya wrote:

Thunder, this statement shows a complete misunderstanding of the process of natural selection. I now know why you are having trouble seeing my position as logical.

Natural selection is not progressive. It filters for what are effectively random mutations. Although, there are arguments about the randomness or predictability of these mutations, a basic working knowledge of natural selection doesn’t require that you delve into this topic. [/quote]

This is why I criticize your writing - your inability to speak plainly and take a position.

I understand natural selection just fine, don’t hide bhind that copout. The issue is and always has been “why do humans adhere to a moral standard of behavior even when it conflicts with a natural evolutionary strategy of pure survival?”. There is a disconnect there, one worthy of exploration.

You haven’t explained it.

See above. In order to understand my position, you will need to understand natural selection.

This purported “escape hatch” won’t do. I understand natural selection. Make an argument, or stop wasting my time.

[quote]Again, you assume too much.

I’m 35. I have two kids, and I’m married to a teacher. I’ve owned a business and had careers in the corporate world and in a sport. I am actually a freshman in college, but that’s a long story.

Interestingly enough, I’m also a published writer whose work was widely applauded… and, no. We’re not talking about a school newspaper here. I’m about halfway through writing my first novel, and judging from the responses that I’ve gotten from a few friends of mine who are influential editors, I’m going to say my writing is pretty damn good.

Assume less. Learn more. I suspect it will help you in the long run.[/quote]

Super - I don’t doubt you’ll be a successful writer of fiction.

My criticism of your writing does not come from a complaint about “style” - it’s that you bounce around and are unclear.

As for your advice to “learn more”, it gave me a chuckle. See the “Scientism” link I provided for you and spend some time in your classes learning more about evolutionary biology and ethics. You’ll have electives - make it so.

[thunderbolt23]

[quote]kamui wrote:

they seems to have a problem with a specific kind of atheists : the arrogant (pseudo) scientist type. the posivist, ultra-rationalist type.

and i have to confess (!) that i have the same problem with this type.[/quote]

Kamui, I meant to highlight this - excellent observation. I can have a fine discussion about divinity/morality, etc. with atheists - what I can’t do (for long) is tolerate pseudo-scientists who use “science” to backfill an ideology they like.

Science doesn’t care if there is a God or not. It is not asking the question, nor does it have a mission to “refute” religion or theology.

What we have here is an ideological starting point - atheism - adhered to for whatever reason, whether it be through rational academic exploration or immature grudges against religion because a given religion won’t endorse your lifestyle or outright daddy issues, or all of the above - but then, after declaring “atheism is right!”, we have "Science’ being used to prove atheism backwards.

So, rather than Science leading to a conclusion (as it should do), we have a conclusion and then cherry-picked “Science” to light the way to the preferred conclusion.

And, on top of that, we have an adherence to Scientism in an effort to bulletproof this conclusion from inquiry and criticism.

It’s dumb, and frustrating, if you want to have a good debate on the merits. But, between Swole and Forlife, that appears to be what we are left with.

EDIT: typo, added underlined.

[Tiribulus]

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
<<< Because, via reason, I have learned that there exists a portion of existence that cannot be reached solely through reason - and where human reason ends, faith begins. It’s through precisely through reason that I learned of its limits.

This juvenile notion that you suggest - that Man only exist in accordance with that which he can prove - is not only silly and dangerous from a philosophical standpoint, but you don’t even abide by it, were you actually honest with yourself. >>>[/quote]It’s questionable whether we would mean the same thing by this and I don’t think I would state it exactly this way, but there is a mountain of profundity right here. Reason, when worshiped in the place of God is the most maximally secure of all prisons.

[Cortes]

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
What we have here is an ideological starting point - atheism - adhered to for whatever reason, whether it be through rational academic exploration or immature grudges against religion because a given religion won’t endorse your lifestyle or outright daddy issues, or all of the above - but then, after declaring “atheism is right!”, we have "Science’ being used to prove atheism backwards.

So, rather than Science leading to a conclusion (as it should do), we have a conclusion and then cherry-picked “Science” to light the way to the preferred conclusion.

And, on top of that, we have an adherence to Scientism in an effort to bulletproof this conclusion from inquiry and criticism.
[/quote]

Wholeheartedly agree.

This is exactly what I have been saying, over and over and over, throughout the entire debate on the Atheism thread and now this one.

Always to have my “understanding of science” immediately attacked, when the issue doesn’t even take much more understanding of science than to be able to recognize when someone stops using the scientific method and starts filling in the gaps in his logic with faith, just as blatantly as the least grounded religion.

[swoleupinya]

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

[quote]swoleupinya wrote:

Thunder, this statement shows a complete misunderstanding of the process of natural selection. I now know why you are having trouble seeing my position as logical.

Natural selection is not progressive. It filters for what are effectively random mutations. Although, there are arguments about the randomness or predictability of these mutations, a basic working knowledge of natural selection doesn’t require that you delve into this topic. [/quote]

This is why I criticize your writing - your inability to speak plainly and take a position.

I understand natural selection just fine, don’t hide bhind that copout. The issue is and always has been “why do humans adhere to a moral standard of behavior even when it conflicts with a natural evolutionary strategy of pure survival?”. There is a disconnect there, one worthy of exploration.

You haven’t explained it.

See above. In order to understand my position, you will need to understand natural selection.

This purported “escape hatch” won’t do. I understand natural selection. Make an argument, or stop wasting my time.

[quote]Again, you assume too much.

I’m 35. I have two kids, and I’m married to a teacher. I’ve owned a business and had careers in the corporate world and in a sport. I am actually a freshman in college, but that’s a long story.

Interestingly enough, I’m also a published writer whose work was widely applauded… and, no. We’re not talking about a school newspaper here. I’m about halfway through writing my first novel, and judging from the responses that I’ve gotten from a few friends of mine who are influential editors, I’m going to say my writing is pretty damn good.

Assume less. Learn more. I suspect it will help you in the long run.[/quote]

Super - I don’t doubt you’ll be a successful writer of fiction.

My criticism of your writing does not come from a complaint about “style” - it’s that you bounce around and are unclear.

As for your advice to “learn more”, it gave me a chuckle. See the “Scientism” link I provided for you and spend some time in your classes learning more about evolutionary biology and ethics. You’ll have electives - make it so.[/quote]

I’m gonna’ give this one more shot for you, Thunder. I’ll try to rephrase my response to the challenge you made in less technical terms.

Not all species exhibit what you describe as a “natural evolutionary strategy of survival.” In fact, the challenge you presented is one that has been around as a challenge to Darwin’s theory of natural selection pretty much since he published Origins .

Natural selection does not require the purely, mathematical calculus that you presented.

In your example, there are two options:

1. Thin the herd for the better of the species.
2. Respect the sanctity of life.

It’s a false dichotomy. The reason being that you are looking at it through a lens that only allows you to judge the immediate results of the decision. This holds no relevance to the way that natural selection functions, and it ignores much larger implications.

Natural selection does not work within a generation. It also does not force changes in physiology or instinct. It filters for mutations in physiology and instinct based on their success at surviving and propagating.

So, in the example of humans and higher primates, we see very stark differences (especially early in life) in regards to instincts as they relate to sanctity of life. We have, for the sake of simplicity, two different branches of evolution stemming from near the same point: primates and humans.

In the course of the evolution of humans, the genomes that drive the instinct to preserve life presented in a certain number of individuals and populations. Conflicting genomes that drive a more brutal approach also presented. Over the course of millions of years, the genome that drives the instinct to preserve life was more successful than others. So, this is currently the dominant genome in this respect.

On another branch of evolution, primates have not experienced the same results. It is very arguable that one of the reasons that genomes that present a more long-term strategy such as ours have not persisted or possibly even presented in primates is because they have not experienced the mutations that expanded the size and function of our cerebral cortex. Any behavior or physiological characteristic is the result of a complex interaction of numerous genes.

Humans have arguably been much more successful on an evolutionary scale than have been primates. This success has been born out on a scale of millions of years, with MANY failures along the way. This is the nature of natural selection. It is a trial and error system. It is NOT a system that forces adaptation for the sake of survival. It is a system that reacts to adaptations VIA the mechanism of survival.

So, if you want to know why humans adhere to a moral standard of behavior even when it conflicts with a natural evolutionary strategy of pure survival; the answer is that they don’t. And, the conflict that you present does not necessarily exist. It is very arguable, and happens to be one of the aspects of evolutionary biology that holds the highest degree of consensus, that humans urge to prioritize the sanctity of human life is in fact a more successful strategy for the propagation of the species.

We do not struggle with any instinctive urge to do things such as “cull the herd” as you present it, because they are not a part of the collection of cognitive tools that we are born with. There certainly ARE aberrations in this respect, and they are commonly referred to as psychopaths or sociopaths.

Here we see a perfect example of the non-progressive, trial-and-error, imperfect nature of natural selection. Mutations happen for reasons completely unrelated to natural selection. Remember, natural selection does not CAUSE mutations. It simply judges them through the mechanism of survival.

The challenge that you presented, in which we would reason against a “natural evolutionary strategy of pure survival,” is a straw man. It is so, because there is no such thing as a “natural evolutionary strategy of pure survival” inherent in the theory of natural selection. This strategy that you present is one of the oldest and sadly most oft-repeated challenges made to Darwin’s theory. It is also enormously frustrating to respond to, because it demonstrates a lack of understanding of Darwin’s theory. Essentially, you are telling me that natural selection works in a way that it frankly does not, and you are using this to propose that my theory cannot be logical in the context of natural selection.

An equivalent act of intellectual disrespect would be for me to attempt to argue points of the function of the relationship between the christian god and man using what I purport to be my understanding of the Bible’s position in this respect. I went to church when I was younger, and I spent some time in religious schools, but I am no biblical scholar. If you were to give me your interpretation of the Bible’s take on the relationship between god and man, I would probably have to take it as largely valid. If I felt that I couldn’t trust its veracity, I would have a ton of work ahead of me to prove this. The first step would be gaining a familiarity with the subject matter.

*** A note about intellectual honesty and skepticism: I framed a few positions in my above argument as absolutes. I did so, because whenever I’ve offered qualifications in my responses, you have accused me of being essentially obtuse.

For instance, I wrote:

“Natural selection is not progressive. It filters for what are effectively random mutations. Although, there are arguments about the randomness or predictability of these mutations, a basic working knowledge of natural selection doesn’t require that you delve into this topic.”

To which you responded:

“This is why I criticize your writing - your inability to speak plainly and take a position.”

My initial statement used the words “effectively random,” and I offered a qualification of this idea. I did so because to not do so would unfairly posit an absolute that does not exist.

I have purposefully avoided qualifying some of what might appear to be absolutes in this post, so that we can converse more easily. I fully expect that if someone who has studied the theory of natural selection were to read this post, they could easily criticize me on this point. It does not take away from the central point that I am making, though.

[swoleupinya]

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

Kamui, I meant to highlight this - excellent observation. I can have a fine discussion about divinity/morality, etc. with atheists - what I can’t do (for long) is tolerate pseudo-scientists who use “science” to backfill an ideology they like.

Science doesn’t care if there is a God or not. It is not asking the question, nor does it have a mission to “refute” religion or theology. [/quote]

Wrong. Many of the sharpest scientific minds of our time are in fact asking this question. Stephen Hawkings and Paul Davies come to mind. In Cosmic Jackpot , Paul Davies makes one of the most rational cases for the existence of a supreme being that I have ever read.

It goes something like this:
Humans are beginning to generate models of universes in computers. These models are become more and more sophisticated at an astonishingly rapid pace. It is not unreasonable to suspect that within the next few hundred years, we will have the capability to model our universe in a data processing system, down to the last molecule.

Because of the enormous difference in energy values required to create an ACTUAL universe and a VIRTUAL universe, it is much more likely that we exist in a virtual one, created by a higher intelligence.

[quote] What we have here is an ideological starting point - atheism - adhered to for whatever reason, whether it be through rational academic exploration or immature grudges against religion because a given religion won’t endorse your lifestyle or outright daddy issues, or all of the above - but then, after declaring “atheism is right!”, we have "Science’ being used to prove atheism backwards.

So, rather than Science leading to a conclusion (as it should do), we have a conclusion and then cherry-picked “Science” to light the way to the preferred conclusion. [/quote]

Hypothesis > Experiment > Theory > Challenge > Hypothesis > Experiment > Theory > Challenge… should I go on?

Of course, we use science to try to prove the validity of atheism! This is the exact nature of the scientific method… constantly question and challenge.

Although, if you find an atheist foolish enough to say “atheism is right!”… please send him my way, so I can knock some sense into him. Absolutism like this doesn’t jive well with atheism.

[quote] And, on top of that, we have an adherence to Scientism in an effort to bulletproof this conclusion from inquiry and criticism.

It’s dumb, and frustrating, if you want to have a good debate on the merits. But, between Swole and Forlife, that appears to be what we are left with.

EDIT: typo, added underlined.[/quote]

I am beginning to suspect that you also lack an understanding of the relationship between the scientific method and reason.

[swoleupinya]

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]swoleupinya wrote:
Can I extrapolate from this, then that it’s plausible that morality as a concept could be constructed to explain the drive to propagate and better the species, and some of the strategies we’ve inherited to do so?[/quote]

No. You’re trying to make these drives, urges, far more elegant than they are. I’ll agree to a drive for food and sex. But, I don’t accept the existence of a drive to propagate and better the species. If anything these constructs you speak of seem, to me, to master our drives. I’m one to argue that these “constructs” have been greatly secularized in the west, and that the results reflect just as much. So if we must construct them in the first place, and our raising and rearing of children begins to breakdown with their diminishing, which governs which?[/quote]

Sloth, it is hardly I who am trying to make them more elegant than they are. What I am presenting here are very commonly understood paradigms in the field of psychology. In fact, people who do not possess the kind of basic cognitive tools that prioritize life, etc… are usually defined in terms of pathology.

[Sloth]

[quote]swoleupinya wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]swoleupinya wrote:
Can I extrapolate from this, then that it’s plausible that morality as a concept could be constructed to explain the drive to propagate and better the species, and some of the strategies we’ve inherited to do so?[/quote]

No. You’re trying to make these drives, urges, far more elegant than they are. I’ll agree to a drive for food and sex. But, I don’t accept the existence of a drive to propagate and better the species. If anything these constructs you speak of seem, to me, to master our drives. I’m one to argue that these “constructs” have been greatly secularized in the west, and that the results reflect just as much. So if we must construct them in the first place, and our raising and rearing of children begins to breakdown with their diminishing, which governs which?[/quote]

Sloth, it is hardly I who am trying to make them more elegant than they are. What I am presenting here are very commonly understood paradigms in the field of psychology. In fact, people who do not possess the kind of basic cognitive tools that prioritize life, etc… are usually defined in terms of pathology. [/quote]

I’m going to go out on a limb and say that you’re either greatly inflating your claims, or maybe psychology is really that bad. You’re telling me that in an age of abortion and contraception, rising out-of-wedlock rates, dropping fertility rates, internet-porn addictions, chaining a shrinking base of young workers to our entitlement debt (because we want what we’re owed now!), that we’re programmed to be, what? The Cleavers on an altruistic high? Sorry, but with the lessened influence of our “constructs,” it would seem as if your “propogate and better the species” drive has gotten lazy. And, I’m certain that if you’re own construct became the norm this ‘drive’ would go missing for all intents and purposes.

[swoleupinya]

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]swoleupinya wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]swoleupinya wrote:
Can I extrapolate from this, then that it’s plausible that morality as a concept could be constructed to explain the drive to propagate and better the species, and some of the strategies we’ve inherited to do so?[/quote]

No. You’re trying to make these drives, urges, far more elegant than they are. I’ll agree to a drive for food and sex. But, I don’t accept the existence of a drive to propagate and better the species. If anything these constructs you speak of seem, to me, to master our drives. I’m one to argue that these “constructs” have been greatly secularized in the west, and that the results reflect just as much. So if we must construct them in the first place, and our raising and rearing of children begins to breakdown with their diminishing, which governs which?[/quote]

Sloth, it is hardly I who am trying to make them more elegant than they are. What I am presenting here are very commonly understood paradigms in the field of psychology. In fact, people who do not possess the kind of basic cognitive tools that prioritize life, etc… are usually defined in terms of pathology. [/quote]

I’m going to go out on a limb and say that you’re either greatly inflating your claims, or maybe psychology is really that bad. You’re telling me that in an age of abortion and contraception, rising out-of-wedlock rates, dropping fertility rates, internet-porn addictions, chaining a shrinking base of young workers to our entitlement debt (because we want what we’re owed now!), that we’re programmed to be, what? The Cleavers on an altruistic high? Sorry, but with the lessened influence of our “constructs,” it would seem as if your “propogate and better the species” drive has gotten lazy. And, I’m certain that if you’re own construct became the norm this ‘drive’ would go missing for all intents and purposes.[/quote]

Now, there’s a gratuitous insertion of politics!

In all seriousness, though… there is a major and important difference between my model and that of a higher being prescribing a moral code. That difference is that mine doesn’t offer a situation in which “perfect” results could be attained. In fact, it is very arguable that those things you presented above are evidence of my model.

You must understand that by definition natural selection fails, in the sense that not all species are on an evolutionary path to perfection.

At no point have I presented the human species as being “programmed to be the Cleavers on an altruistic high.” I have been careful and deliberate in repeating that my model contains room for the possibility that we are evolving our way towards extinction or a condition that would appear repugnant to our current sensibilities.

This, again, is part of the “selective” as opposed to “predictive” nature of natural selection. It is not an all-powerful, intelligent force. It is not even reactive. It is an elegant theory that explains the processes of genetic mutation and persistence.

[swoleupinya]

I was just sitting on my thinking chair (…grunt… splash!), and a way of expressing where I think this discussion is misdirected occurred to me.

Thunder, if I were to posit that the god of the Bible is illogical because of his apparent capricious nature. You would be right in challenging this on the basis that I do not understand the nature of the god presented in the Bible. I’m no biblical scholar, but I do know that capriciousness is only a characteristic that one could ascribe to the christian god if they have a poor comprehension of or are ignorant of the Bible’s lengthy treatment of the topic.

In this instance, I would be presenting an argument that is not productive in its ignorance.

Likewise, I find myself repeatedly being challenged to defend assertions that I have not made… or assertions that are attributed to underpinning theories such as that of natural selection that they do not make.

[Sloth]

[quote]swoleupinya wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]swoleupinya wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]swoleupinya wrote:
Can I extrapolate from this, then that it’s plausible that morality as a concept could be constructed to explain the drive to propagate and better the species, and some of the strategies we’ve inherited to do so?[/quote]

No. You’re trying to make these drives, urges, far more elegant than they are. I’ll agree to a drive for food and sex. But, I don’t accept the existence of a drive to propagate and better the species. If anything these constructs you speak of seem, to me, to master our drives. I’m one to argue that these “constructs” have been greatly secularized in the west, and that the results reflect just as much. So if we must construct them in the first place, and our raising and rearing of children begins to breakdown with their diminishing, which governs which?[/quote]

Sloth, it is hardly I who am trying to make them more elegant than they are. What I am presenting here are very commonly understood paradigms in the field of psychology. In fact, people who do not possess the kind of basic cognitive tools that prioritize life, etc… are usually defined in terms of pathology. [/quote]

I’m going to go out on a limb and say that you’re either greatly inflating your claims, or maybe psychology is really that bad. You’re telling me that in an age of abortion and contraception, rising out-of-wedlock rates, dropping fertility rates, internet-porn addictions, chaining a shrinking base of young workers to our entitlement debt (because we want what we’re owed now!), that we’re programmed to be, what? The Cleavers on an altruistic high? Sorry, but with the lessened influence of our “constructs,” it would seem as if your “propogate and better the species” drive has gotten lazy. And, I’m certain that if you’re own construct became the norm this ‘drive’ would go missing for all intents and purposes.[/quote]

Now, there’s a gratuitous insertion of politics!

In all seriousness, though… there is a major and important difference between my model and that of a higher being prescribing a moral code. That difference is that mine doesn’t offer a situation in which “perfect” results could be attained. In fact, it is very arguable that those things you presented above are evidence of my model.

You must understand that by definition natural selection fails, in the sense that not all species are on an evolutionary path to perfection.

At no point have I presented the human species as being “programmed to be the Cleavers on an altruistic high.” I have been careful and deliberate in repeating that my model contains room for the possibility that we are evolving our way towards extinction or a condition that would appear repugnant to our current sensibilities.

This, again, is part of the “selective” as opposed to “predictive” nature of natural selection. It is not an all-powerful, intelligent force. It is not even reactive. It is an elegant theory that explains the processes of genetic mutation and persistence.

[/quote]

So, the drive ‘propagate and better the species’ might actually be the ‘screw it all up’ drive.

[swoleupinya]

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]swoleupinya wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]swoleupinya wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]swoleupinya wrote:
Can I extrapolate from this, then that it’s plausible that morality as a concept could be constructed to explain the drive to propagate and better the species, and some of the strategies we’ve inherited to do so?[/quote]

No. You’re trying to make these drives, urges, far more elegant than they are. I’ll agree to a drive for food and sex. But, I don’t accept the existence of a drive to propagate and better the species. If anything these constructs you speak of seem, to me, to master our drives. I’m one to argue that these “constructs” have been greatly secularized in the west, and that the results reflect just as much. So if we must construct them in the first place, and our raising and rearing of children begins to breakdown with their diminishing, which governs which?[/quote]

Sloth, it is hardly I who am trying to make them more elegant than they are. What I am presenting here are very commonly understood paradigms in the field of psychology. In fact, people who do not possess the kind of basic cognitive tools that prioritize life, etc… are usually defined in terms of pathology. [/quote]

I’m going to go out on a limb and say that you’re either greatly inflating your claims, or maybe psychology is really that bad. You’re telling me that in an age of abortion and contraception, rising out-of-wedlock rates, dropping fertility rates, internet-porn addictions, chaining a shrinking base of young workers to our entitlement debt (because we want what we’re owed now!), that we’re programmed to be, what? The Cleavers on an altruistic high? Sorry, but with the lessened influence of our “constructs,” it would seem as if your “propogate and better the species” drive has gotten lazy. And, I’m certain that if you’re own construct became the norm this ‘drive’ would go missing for all intents and purposes.[/quote]

Now, there’s a gratuitous insertion of politics!

In all seriousness, though… there is a major and important difference between my model and that of a higher being prescribing a moral code. That difference is that mine doesn’t offer a situation in which “perfect” results could be attained. In fact, it is very arguable that those things you presented above are evidence of my model.

You must understand that by definition natural selection fails, in the sense that not all species are on an evolutionary path to perfection.

At no point have I presented the human species as being “programmed to be the Cleavers on an altruistic high.” I have been careful and deliberate in repeating that my model contains room for the possibility that we are evolving our way towards extinction or a condition that would appear repugnant to our current sensibilities.

This, again, is part of the “selective” as opposed to “predictive” nature of natural selection. It is not an all-powerful, intelligent force. It is not even reactive. It is an elegant theory that explains the processes of genetic mutation and persistence.

[/quote]

So, the drive ‘propagate and better the species’ might actually be the ‘screw it all up’ drive.[/quote]

Absolutely.

[Sloth]

[quote]swoleupinya wrote:
I was just sitting on my thinking chair…[/quote]

You might consider getting a new one. I think that one’s busted.

Honestly, just kidding. Not a real judgment of you in any way. I simply saw an opportunity to make good on.

[swoleupinya]

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]swoleupinya wrote:
I was just sitting on my thinking chair…[/quote]

You might consider getting a new one. I think that one’s busted.

Honestly, just kidding. Not a real judgment of you in any way. I simply saw an opportunity to make good on. [/quote]

oh… it’s busted alright.

350 grams of protein a day for the last 5 weeks has put a serious dent in it.

[thunderbolt23]

[quote]swoleupinya wrote:

(text)[/quote]

In a hurry, a couple of direct responses to comments you made:

1. I didn’t present a false dichotomy of an “either/or” between “thin the herd” and “sanctity of life”. It was from one of your examples. I presented these “choices” precisely from your own example to demonstrate the point that there clearly is no fixed “moral” with respect to propagation of the human species. Your new “counterpoint” is merely restating my argument and beefing it up - there is no one evolutionary means of species propagation: different situations and different enviroments call for different means at different times. Thus, a group of humans in Borneo may not be undergoing a completely different evolutionary “judgment” by Natural Selection than people in Iowa.

2. That dovetails into point #2 - as much as you gain self-pleasure at lecturing people on what you think they don’t know, I don’t have a misconception of Natural Selection. Natural Selection doesn’t care what means are used to propagate a species, nor does it “aim” for a particular means. If one works, that is the one that gets passed along - if it doesn’t work, it doesn’t get passed along. And, of course, this applies relatively in relative situations - see Borneo and Iowa.

3. You state “Over the course of millions of years, the genome that drives the instinct to preserve life was more successful than others. So, this is currently the dominant genome in this respect.” The problem is - you made it up. You apparently support this idea by saying “On another branch of evolution, primates have not experienced the same results,” which frankly just assumes your premise as a conclusion. If we are trying to figure out if biological evolution determines morality to the exclusion of everything else, your statement “well, hey, case closed - other primates don’t do it and we do, and we evolved differently from those other primates, so that must be the reason” is flawed, particularly in light of evidentiary and logical problems that raise questions as to the evolution-only idea (more on that below).

4. You say “Humans have arguably been much more successful on an evolutionary scale than have been primates.” This is not only incorrect, it demonstrates that you don’t quite know as much as you keep self-advertising on the topic. From a Natural Selection perspective, Natural Selection doesn’t case about any “success” other than species propogation. The fact that Humans have become more “sanctity of life”-oriented as compared to “trim the herd”-oriented is not in any way an example of success “over” other primates. Natural Selection has no such report card - Humans can continue to build nursing homes for old people or they can slaughter themselves in cold blood, and Natural Selection does not care, as long as at that point in time in that environment, such actions are the best chance of propagating. Yet, you do.

You’ve said earlier Natural Selection isn’t “progressive”, yet here we are with your idea that Humans are “ahead” of other primates due to their “evolution” toward altruism, care for others, etc. Nope.

5. You say “So, if you want to know why humans adhere to a moral standard of behavior even when it conflicts with a natural evolutionary strategy of pure survival; the answer is that they don’t” - but this is incorrect. Natural Selection dictates that evolution has no “aim”, yet that is precisely how Humans’ development of morality has been cast - a trajectory by which mandates that Humans lose the savagery and become caring toward his fellow man.

This has problems for a number of reasons. First, it is pure guess - you can’t point to a single environmental catalyst that would provide causation for this shift away from the previous morality to the new morality among Humans. Merely saying “hey, as Humans evolved, this was part of their evolution” is a non-answer; it again assumes the question we are considering.

It also stands in contradiction to the idea that this new morality developed in contravention to Natural Selection. Humans, for example, have no evolutionary need to build institutions to protect the weak, the sick, the barren, the elderly and the diseased - even under the most generous interpretation of altruism toward fellow man as a means to help propagate the species, there is no good “metacognitive” or subconcious urge demanding that we provide assistance to these folks who can’t possibly contribute to the propagation of the species. So, more questions remain.

Darwin himself discussed this kind of problem in his Descent of Man. His answers were unsatisfactory.

6. No, I am not trying to convince you Natural Selection does something it does not. Natural Selection doesn’t “do” anything. It is a means-based process that has no aim or agenda. Humans could disappear tomorrow and Natural Selection doesn’t “care”.

But to your statement “there is no such thing as a “natural evolutionary strategy of pure survival” inherent in the theory of natural selection” is incorrect as well - why? Humans aren’t unthinking animals driven by “metacognitive” urges that they can’t so “yes” or “no” to. And, they haven’t been in millenia. They are biological beings with the ability to reason and choose, and so, yes, in addition to the natural events that shape the lives of Man, Man also influences his own survival.

Thus, Humans add another “wild card” factor into the stew of how they evolve - their free will and use of reason. Your “automaton” approach is insufficient - Humans aren’t solely driven by impersonal natural forces that drive whether they survive or not. Instead, they reason (and unreason) their way to to certain survival scenarios that may or may not be congruent with their underlying “metacognition”.

Quick and dirty example? As well-studied Humans steeped in science, we know that diseases and plagues serve a natural purpose, as unpleasant as they might be. But, despite this “natural” event that certainly serves a “natural” purpose, we spend trillions trying to eliminate diseases. We know diseases are “normal”, are not evil, and serve biological purposes. Yet, we choose to essentially do everything in our power to get rid of them.

This Human agency - which includes reason, but is not limited to do it - overrides “natural” processes and have for centuries. Your “automaton” theory doesn’t properly account for it.

This is true, unless you are willing to argue that free will doesn’t exist.

8. The problem with your theory is that it is lazy. and you don’t provide good explanations for its holes. You get to a convenient answer and you stop, then try to assail anyone who has the audacity to challenge the lazy conclusion as “intellectual disrespect” to your purported expertise. We all get it. You read a book on evolution and you are pretty excited about it. That isn’t going to cut the mustard.

9. In sum, the idea that Natural Selection has determined our morality is, as I have stated all along, insufficient and has problems. I have no interest in any theory as lazy as yours - more questions are required for better answers, and it is clear you are unprepared to ask them.

Not my problem to fix, but an interesting topic nonetheless for the rest of us.