God Delusion part deux

[Berzerker]

Now, if I was to argue for the existence of "God" - an intelligence behind the universe - I would point out that the morality that comes with higher intelligence is in conflict with evolution. The Golden Rule is about rejecting a form of hypocrisy evolution employed to get us to this point. But what happens when a species becomes so dominant because of its intelligence it threatens life itself? Somebody has to apply the brakes, so are these brakes evidence of intelligent design?

We evolve to a point where we can recognize hypocrisy and we reject the evolutionary mandate of conflict to spread our genes. Morality is born... Not as the whimsical thoughts of people with too much time on their hands, but as the Creator's regulator on behavior.

[Flip McWho]

Sure it has, it was born the moment human beings discovered the bitter taste of hypocrisy...

Humans never 'discovered' the bitter taste of hypocrisy. People have always treated those within their immediate group better than those without. Firstly the group woulda been family, secondly the clan/tribe. Those outside of you wouldn't have cared about. Plenty of examples of this throughout history. The only thing* is that the group is becoming larger and larger, till now, when its almost universal.

* There are other factors at play here too, for example the continual refinement/creation of ideas.

Equality" and evolution are contradictory, equality and morality are not.

Evolution is simply the passing of your genes onto the future generations. It does this via natural selection. Genes aren't 'chosen', they're either not detrimental or they help the situation and thus pass forward. This at the basic level is helped through cooperation. You need to cooperate with your group in order for the group to survive and for yourself to survive and pass on your genes.

Equality is a form of morality.
Equality within the group is not contradictionary to evolution.

Now, if I was to argue for the existence of "God" - an intelligence behind the universe - I would point out that the morality that comes with higher intelligence is in conflict with evolution.

a) our intelligence is not proof that there is a higher intelligence, therefore it is possible that we have evolved to such a point as to concieve of the Golden Rule all on our own.
b) What brakes?

We evolve to a point where we can recognize hypocrisy and we reject the evolutionary mandate of conflict to spread our genes. Morality is born... Not as the whimsical thoughts of people with too much time on their hands, but as the Creator's regulator on behavior.

Firstly I agree that we have evolved to a certain point that we have recognised that what divides humanity into groups is largely constructed (even if those constructions are entirely natural (i.e. language)) and thus there is no valid reason (unless you deny freedom and equality for individuals) why morals cannot be applied across the board.

Soceities morals nowadays are enshrined within the law, an individuals moral system and the willingness to judge others based upon that system is dependant on the person and their own characteristics.






The main thing I see amongst the people that deny that morality has anything but a divine origin is a failure to comprehend that morality started initially as a way to regulate the behaviour within a group as well as a system that enables one to identify the group to which they belong. These two factors are essential for evolution to apply.

Morality has also evolved throughout the ages. For example the morals we subscribe too now are significantly different to the morals present in the 18th Century and increasingly more so backwards in time.

[Berzerker]

Humans never 'discovered' the bitter taste of hypocrisy. People have always treated those within their immediate group better than those without. Firstly the group woulda been family, secondly the clan/tribe. Those outside of you wouldn't have cared about.

Is it moral to not care about those outside the clan? You just made my case, the departure point between "animal" (evolution) and "human" (morality) is caring about those outside the clan too. This is where the Golden Rule enters the picture, not with Jesus...

Evolution is simply the passing of your genes onto the future generations. It does this via natural selection. Genes aren't 'chosen', they're either not detrimental or they help the situation and thus pass forward. This at the basic level is helped through cooperation. You need to cooperate with your group in order for the group to survive and for yourself to survive and pass on your genes.

So equality and morality are or are not products of evolution?

Equality is a form of morality.
Equality within the group is not contradictionary to evolution.

Of course equality and evolution are contradictory, life is hierarchical, not equal. Morality created the notion of equality, not evolution. So why is morality in conflict with evolution?

a) our intelligence is not proof that there is a higher intelligence, therefore it is possible that we have evolved to such a point as to concieve of the Golden Rule all on our own.

But why would the Golden Rule be in conflict with evolution? Why would we evolve thoughts that inhibit the evolutionary mandate to eat, sleep, fight and mate?

b) What brakes?

Morality, the Golden Rule... These intellectual pursuits have devised a system of morality that rejects evolutionary mechanisms. Why?

The main thing I see amongst the people that deny that morality has anything but a divine origin is a failure to comprehend that morality started initially as a way to regulate the behaviour within a group as well as a system that enables one to identify the group to which they belong. These two factors are essential for evolution to apply.

You're confusing morality with pragmatism. Monkey clans have rules about behavior, so what? So do ant colonies... Morality - the Golden Rule - stems from the recognition of the hypocrisy of mistreating others while wanting better treatment for yourself.

Morality has also evolved throughout the ages. For example the morals we subscribe too now are significantly different to the morals present in the 18th Century and increasingly more so backwards in time.

That isn't morality evolving, just different ideas about morality over time. The Golden Rule is as valid today as it was 100,000 years ago...

[Flip McWho]

Is it moral to not care about those outside the clan?

Well that depends on what time you're living in. Did Romans consider it moral to not care about the Gauls? Did The Pope consider the crusades moral? Even now, do Arabs consider it moral to hate Jews? In those times, for those people, these things were considered the moral thing to do.

You just made my case, the departure point between "animal" (evolution) and "human" (morality) is caring about those outside the clan too

That's a rather meaningless departure point. The examples I gave above show that still today it can be considered the moral thing to not care about/actively hate another clan.
Also, human is short form for Homo Sapiens which is a specie of primates, so we're animals, just very clever ones.

So equality and morality are or are not products of evolution?

Morality is a word used in a similar vein to the word History. History refers basically to all that has happened in the past, it's not prescriptive of a particular history. Morality basically refers to the way in which society regulates the behaviour of its members, again not prescriptive of a particular code of morals.

Equality is a basic assumption for a particular code of morals. Equality in various forms has existed as long as humanity has been forming groups. For example, the peasants of one of the German states in the 13th Century could have been considered equal to one another. Now though, the notion of universality has come to the fore although the concept has existed since Roman times.

Of course equality and evolution are contradictory, life is hierarchical, not equal. Morality created the notion of equality, not evolution. So why is morality in conflict with evolution?

Key phrase of mine was "within the group", and it depends on what you mean in reference to equal. We are not physically, mentally or economically equal. We are socially though. Thats what law enshrines as one of it's fundamental pillars, we are all, regardless of social position, equal before the law. The law is the official enshrinement of the majorities morals.

Morality isn't in conflict with evolution. Morality is essential to evolution. Tell me, how can a social animal like humans be social without a system that tells them how to behave in regards to one another?
Equality is a form of morality.

But why would the Golden Rule be in conflict with evolution? Why would we evolve thoughts that inhibit the evolutionary mandate to eat, sleep, fight and mate?

It's not in conflict with evolution.
Does it help humanity as a specie survive and thrive?
Evolution isn't an individual thing, it's changes in a population over time.

Morality, the Golden Rule... These intellectual pursuits have devised a system of morality that rejects evolutionary mechanisms. Why?

See above, Golden Rule is not at odds with evolution.

You're confusing morality with pragmatism. Monkey clans have rules about behavior, so what? So do ant colonies... Morality - the Golden Rule - stems from the recognition of the hypocrisy of mistreating others while wanting better treatment for yourself.

Morality is the way society regulates the behaviour of its members, the Golden Rule is a form of morality. The term Morality is kinda like the term physics, covers a vast array of topics yet is essentially about matter and energy, Morality covers a vast array of forms but essentially about the interactions between humans.

Monkey clan rules of behaviour I'm guessing would be similar to the very rudimentary ones humans would have had a 100,000 years ago or so. Ants don't really formulate rules of behaviour, rather they just do what they're born to do. Morality evolves as the concepts of individual and collective evolve. Ants are collective, they would have no notion of an individual ant acting according to it's own will. Monkeys generally are individuals yet live within a group, the possess a concept of themself.

What do you think the recognition of hypocrisy of mistreating others stemmed from? Empathy towards your fellow man. The definition of your fellow man has continuously been expanding throughout history till it became universal.
Where do you think the notion of animal welfare came from? Empathy towards animals.

Also in some cases mistreating another could be considered quite essential. For example, say the unravelling of the whole 9/11 plot hitched on getting this one guy in US custody to talk, what methods should be used?

That isn't morality evolving, just different ideas about morality over time. The Golden Rule is as valid today as it was 100,000 years ago...

I agree wholeheartedly with the first sentence.

Then you go and forget that the Golden Rule is just another idea about morality.
An idea that is based on two essential assumptions:
1) Every human is born socially equal
2) Every human has the capacity for rational thought

[beingofone]

Whaleboy:

Bo1: Of course the rain with no clouds could be explained through jet stream and fancy physics. The only problem is it was pouring rain straight down and there were multiple eyewitnesses - I guess we might as well tag another half dozen as deluded so we can continue to maintain a strong grip on what may overturn our pet beliefs huh?

Whaleboy: You'll need to do better than that .

Life is full of little incidents that have an absense of data. Are they repeatable and something that can be demonstrated?

Yup; and the absence of data is in you cherry picking what you want in as sense data - the most recent example is you ignoring the bulk of my post.

You see, you have an absense of evidence, why are you attributing what you have seen to God. What reason can you give to make that assumption, other than "I can't explain it, ergo it must be a miracle"?

Well le me see; tapping head - oh yeah - my dad had just passed like 4 hours prior. All of a sudden, I see (with multiple eyewitnesses) two events I have never even heard of, let alone see with my own eyes.

How could I have overlooked a car covered in a 1/4 inch of water, and the pavement, all other cars, and theground itself dry.

I guess I should submit it to scientific methodology and ignore the fact that I had just witnessed my dad passing.

Probably completely unrelated in nihilistic material fantasy land - with nice trees.

Unless you claim to have seen the Almightly relieving his bladder on the roof of some random car, you have no reason to attribute what you have seen to God, and no reason to reject a rational explanation.

You know; for all your smarts, you have alot to learn.

I guess the events cannot be linked because you just read a book by an idiot and now are enlightened.

Since I was not there, nor have any knowledge of what happened other than that which you have told me, I can't comment on it further. If you produce a link or reference to an article, that would be interesting to read.

How can I give you a link? Did you bother to read my post?

How about I give you the e-mail of all the eyewitnesses?

Altogether there are seven.


You said this:

BO1: Open your mind and heart and let a little light in there Whaleboy. The universe is in a state of infinite momentum and there is more for you to experience than you could possibly imagine. But not if you continue to cut yourself off from your own heart.

Whaleboy: Since you don't know me, I don't think you're particularly able to talk about my heart.

I don`t have to since you said this:

A leaking gutter?

This statement speaks volumes of your heart. It is not an assumption, you told me alot in this one quote.

I'm open to religion, and I will not say with absolute certainty that God does not exist. I do not think that God does not exist, I "judge" that God does not exist, and I have argued accordingly. Why should I accept that God exists through my heart?

Pause right here and contemplate your question youngster.

Your argument is a convenient little shortcut that avoids the rigours of intellect and critical enquiry. "Since reason will show God doesn't exist, ignore reason". No thanks .

Then you tell me. how my dad passed - four hours later it rains with no clouds - four hours later a minister that helped my dad in his last hour; his car was covered in water and there was no other car out of a dozen that had not even a DROP?

Go ahead and give me your superior intellect there.

BTW - if you want the e-mails, I will send them to you so you can verify it for yourself.

Or are you saying "don`t confuse me with the facts, my mind is already made up."

[Elok]

Okay then GePap: morality isn't a very fun game. It denies me a lot of the things I want. Why should I play it, if I'm making it up and it doesn't matter?

[Flip McWho]

Elok,

You play it to avoid people disliking you, and you play it to avoid your conscience.

The question though is whether morality is nature or nurture. All humans have the ability to be moral in virtue of being social beings. What form that morality takes though is nurtured in my opinion.

[Drake Tungsten]

Science damn you, Dawkins! You and your transgendered lover have unleashed the sea otters upon humanity! Science damn you to hell!

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by MOBIUS
Shouldn't this be "Part Deus"?

Cool, 500+ more posts of laughing at religious people!

Just make sure you have enough windex and paper towels to wipe the *** off your monitor.

[Berzerker]

you play it to avoid your conscience.

where did this "conscience" come from and why does it conflict with our evolutionary past?

[Flip McWho]

Well our conscience is a product of environmental factors acting with/upon inherent factors innate to each person.

It doesn't conflict with our evolutionary past. Remember I deny that the Golden Rule is contradictionary to evolution. Humanity (note I'm talking about every human) has a vested interest in humanity surviving. What aids? Cooperation amongst groups. Hence why there has historically been instances of certain groups of people being classified as sub-human, or regarded as not human. Therefore cooperation amongst groups of humans is essential to humanities survival as a specie.

So does the Golden Rule foster cooperation amongst groups of humans?

(I could argue that the Golden Rule is the best at fostering cooperation simply because it is universal in its application, it doesn't divide humanity into groups which can be subjugated to different rules.)

[Thorn]

I'm not a religious person at all, but I communicate with god regularly, so what does that make me?

[DaShi]

[Flip McWho]

Thorn:

Spiritual I suppose.

[Thorn]

No I'm not spiritual either, I literally talk to God, why is that concept so hard for people to fathom..... oh well probably for the best, least this way I can avoid the million questions problem.......