Alturism: A weakness in creationist reasoning

Ichneumonwasp said:
I think that is a potentially dangerous view because it seems to imply, at least to me, that homosexuality is a choice. While there may be some choice involved, I think it is more of an orientation.
Click to expand...

<derail> If homosexuality were to be a choice, so what? That doesn't make it wrong or bad. If someone is "against" homosexuality, whatever that means, they need to show why it is problematic, regardless of how it comes about. </derail>
 
Terry said:
<derail> If homosexuality were to be a choice, so what? That doesn't make it wrong or bad. If someone is "against" homosexuality, whatever that means, they need to show why it is problematic, regardless of how it comes about. </derail>
Click to expand...

Doesn't bother me one way or the other but it makes it more difficult to discuss the matter with the fundies who want to cite biblical support for the evils of homosexuality.
 
I don't know why but I just find some of the research on this topic interesting.

The first break was the demonstration of that subnucleus in the hypothalamus (whose name escapes me at the moment) that seemed to have some influence in mate choice (sexual preference). And the later studies that showed that homosexuality in men was more prevalent in younger sons who usually had several brothers raises the strong possibility that there are local intrauterine factors, perhaps mothers' immune response to some male antigen similar to the Rh story, that play a role in determining sexual preferences. If we want to find the "gene for homosexuality" we are probably looking in the wrong place. Don't look in the homosexuals. Look to their mothers and their immune response genes. It's just another one of those instances where we can't look to genes as the absolute answer. The whole nature/nurture "debate" is silly. There is no nature without nurture and vice versa.
 
articulett said:
Did you watch the clip where the hippo attempts to save the baby impala-- I have a couple that shows gorillas (one male; one female) protecting a toddler that fell in their enclosure at a zoos. Have you read much about mirror neurons? Did you read those articles? Some degree of moral sense and altruism evolved-- the way mother mammals often nurture those of a different species-- cats going in burning buildings to save kittens... apes risking their lives to save friends that fell in zoo moats. Yes, some is definitely a cultural byproduct... but we evolved to be cultural--social-- we evolved to learn language, but the language has to be "programed" via culture.
Click to expand...

You seem to be missing the points I raised that actually agree with much of this paragraph. I do agree that there are forms of altruism in nature -- I came right out and said that. I also hypothesized that a more refined form of altruism might be our ability to observe and expand upon behaviors that we see as beneficial to survival --- and that culture and society might well reinforce that behavior from one generation to the next. We, as humans, can think abstractly enough into taking what is biological altruism into psychological altruism --- and that is what I would argue as being different, somewhat, from an evolutionary development (biologically speaking).

We evolved to fill niches as well. Most mammals do most of their brain development in utero-- humans do much of it on the outside depending entirely on others while the brain develops.

I would say altruism is no more culture than language-- maybe less so, because it's more primal-- not really thought out... rather instinctive... like that man who jumped upon another man in the subway who had fallen from a seizure as a train was coming. There was no time to think... and he had his kids with him. But he jumped on the guy (a stranger) and lied over him as the subway passed safely over the both of them. He saved the guys limbs if not his life. But I bet he wouldn't have known he would do something like that before him. There had to be some extinct.
Click to expand...

The above situation is rather extreme, but it does raise some points. As I said earlier, I do think that psychological altruism comes out of biological altruism, so there is something primal in all of it --- how much is what I'm questioning. As for the man jumping on the stranger in the subway I can see that there is much to consider here. You say he didn't have time to think, but I'm not so sure. We can think quite rapidly in certain situations --- even on a complex level; just because it may be happening on a subconscious level doesn't make it any less involved. (Ever look at complex math equations and say 'something isn't quite right', only to later examine it and find out that there was in fact an error made? I have .... and more than once.) A good deal of mental processing may have been going on in this man's brain --- both instinctive and cultural --- and he came to a conclusion on which he knew he had to act immediately upon and did. But how many others that were there did the same, or even thought of doing so? Also, what of the man who jumped initially? What of that behavior? Maybe his death was an escape from what he considered to be something far worse than death. Did our hero consider that? Who knows?

When you have a kid, most people feel very strongly that they would rather die or suffer than have their kid do so-- it must be encoded on some level and then extended by culture or as a byproduct of the primal instinct (our love of baby looking animals). What humans see as cute is a byproduct of the evolutionary advantage of finding babies cute--especially one's own.
Click to expand...

Yes ... I did mention parental bonding as a possible pre-courser to what we developed into societal altruism.
 
Okay, it seems that too much is being made of my insertion of religious views into this matter. It's a mionor point, realy. I do not require anyone to accept the existance of God when I explain how what is came to be. Creationionists do. By the same token, I do not have to accept atheism to believe the scientific explanations of the cosmos. If God is rational, should His creation not also be rational? Otherwise, rational beings with free will, seeing what He has created might go far astray.

Take it to the sub-atomic level for a moment. All matter isa collection of charged particles moving in formation, all insentient as units. Very well. Charged particles of what?

There is as valid a reason to consider these particles the texture of God as anything else.

Could there be moral lessons in evolution? Of course. Most importantly, it teaches us that we are subject to very real physical laws and limitations. Ritual magic is not going to get us anything. We can be the instruments of our own destruction if we do not learn to take care of our environment and each other.

I especially fear the mischeif that the creationists can do now, in their religious right-wing political manifestation, by putting us above natural law, on the pretext that God will rapture us out of here before we can totally screw up the creation.

I still have some trouble with the idea of the meme because it seems just a little bit Lamarcian. It seems like something that can really only function in reasoning creatures.

I would, however, attribute the ability to reason to a lot of non-human creatures as well, to some degree.

Altruism, at the same time, can very readily develop and survive in a Darwinian model, because a complex creature incapable of it just wouldn't work.
 
Leftysargant, may I recommend Frans der Waal's books expecially his latest "Our Inner Ape" (titled to echo Desmond Morris, and with a forword by him...)

Lots about bonobos and chimps, and other social animals.

"Chimpanzee Politics" is a seminal work, too.
 
leftysergeant said:
Some of what I have been able to dredge up off the Internet about Dawkins doesn't look especially unique...
Click to expand...
The is a rather odd thing to say. Dawkins is a preeminent intellectual in his field because of his contributions to evolution.

...and frankly, there is a slight flavor of woo about his "meme. theory.
Click to expand...
Again, odd. I know there are are reputable scientists who disagree with Dawkins and that is perfectly fine but I've never heard anyone accuse Dawkins of woo. On what basis do you make this claim? You are making and ad hominem attack.

Memes can really only function in a rather advanced creature. Yet you can see behaviors suggestive of (but not really fully developed as) altruism in creatures as lacking in intellect as some of the cichlids. Have you ever watched how tilapia breed?
Click to expand...
Entirely irrelevant to the point. That a meme can really only function in an advanced creature is entirely beside the point.
 
Terry said:
<derail> If homosexuality were to be a choice, so what? That doesn't make it wrong or bad. If someone is "against" homosexuality, whatever that means, they need to show why it is problematic, regardless of how it comes about. </derail>
Click to expand...
Bingo.
 
RandFan said:
This isn't argument. It's rhetoric.
Click to expand...

There is some rule here against rhetoric? Personally I think it's one valid way to discuss something, among others.

I've noted you're a fan of Dawkins (you even described him as 'the master')
He quite regularly uses rhetoric.
Are you saying it's ok for him to use rhetoric, but not me?

For illustration here are just a few of many examples :



It is absolutely safe to say that, if you meet somebody who claims not to believe in evolution, that person is ignorant, stupid or insane (or wicked, but I'd rather not consider that).

I think a case can be made that faith is one of the world's great evils, comparable to the smallpox virus but harder to eradicate.

My last vestige of "hands off religion" respect disappeared in the smoke and choking dust of September 11th 2001, followed by the "National Day of Prayer," when prelates and pastors did their tremulous Martin Luther King impersonations and urged people of mutually incompatible faiths to hold hands, united in homage to the very force that caused the problem in the first place.

Yes, testosterone-sodden young men too unattractive to get a woman in this world might be desperate enough to go for 72 private virgins in the next.

To describe religions as mind viruses is sometimes interpreted as contemptuous or even hostile. It is both.

To an honest judge, the alleged convergence between religion and science is a shallow, empty, hollow, spin-doctored sham

To fill a world with ... religions of the Abrahamic kind, is like littering the streets with loaded guns. Do not be surprised if they are used.
 
plumjam said:
There is some rule here against rhetoric?
Click to expand...
Yes, RandFan is the only poster allowed to use rhetoric. ;)

Personally I think it's one valid way to discuss something, among others.
Click to expand...
Rhetoric is like sachrine. It can be sweet but it has empty calories.

I've noted you're a fan of Dawkins (you even described him as 'the master')
He quite regularly uses rhetoric.
Are you saying it's ok for him to use rhetoric, but not me?
Click to expand...
If Dawkins only used rhetoric for any purpose I would not call him the master.

For illustration here are just a few of many examples :

It is absolutely safe to say that, if you meet somebody who claims not to believe in evolution, that person is ignorant, stupid or insane (or wicked, but I'd rather not consider that).

I think a case can be made that faith is one of the world's great evils, comparable to the smallpox virus but harder to eradicate.

My last vestige of "hands off religion" respect disappeared in the smoke and choking dust of September 11th 2001, followed by the "National Day of Prayer," when prelates and pastors did their tremulous Martin Luther King impersonations and urged people of mutually incompatible faiths to hold hands, united in homage to the very force that caused the problem in the first place.

Yes, testosterone-sodden young men too unattractive to get a woman in this world might be desperate enough to go for 72 private virgins in the next.

To describe religions as mind viruses is sometimes interpreted as contemptuous or even hostile. It is both.

To an honest judge, the alleged convergence between religion and science is a shallow, empty, hollow, spin-doctored sham

To fill a world with ... religions of the Abrahamic kind, is like littering the streets with loaded guns. Do not be surprised if they are used.
Click to expand...
I engage in rhetoric all of the time. Rhetoric has it's purpose. However, when one is responding to logical argument a rebuttal of only rhetoric is just laziness.
 
plumjam said:
There is some rule here against rhetoric? Personally I think it's one valid way to discuss something, among others.
Click to expand...

Occasional rhetoric is fine. We all post waffle every now and then. But to consistently post little else, especially with lazy one sentence objections which have no substance, highlights you as a troll. When challenged you still refuse to engage in debate, choosing to hide behind such rhetoric.

If there was something to your opinions we might have a discussion. Instead I see nothing but attention whoring. Feel free, but I fail to see the point of why you choose to waste your time.

Athon
 
athon said:
Occasional rhetoric is fine. We all post waffle every now and then. But to consistently post little else, especially with lazy one sentence objections which have no substance, highlights you as a troll. When challenged you still refuse to engage in debate, choosing to hide behind such rhetoric.

If there was something to your opinions we might have a discussion. Instead I see nothing but attention whoring. Feel free, but I fail to see the point of why you choose to waste your time.

Athon
Click to expand...

nice rhetoric + insults.
keep it up
 
I think you guys are really nice to elevate plumjam's self aggrandizing blither to "rhetoric". I find his arguments... when I can parse them... vain and vapid and devoid of any content except to confirm how ignorant belief can make
people and how very blind they become to that ignorance.

The funny thing is, that like T'ai and Hammy and other woos... he talks like others on this forum agree with him. But the woos don't even seem to understand each other. They all think their woo is the true woo but none can succinctly sum up their own blather much less any other person on this forums point- less so the edifying concepts of people like Dawkins, Randi, and the many fine forum members they insult. Where is this imagined agreement they see coming from?-- the voices in their heads? Their invisible savior? (And aren't they a fabulous illustration of my sig article. They belittle people who have so much insight and knowledge to share while foisting of inane platitudes that they have bought as "higher truths".)

Makes one glad for synaptic connections. :)
 
articulett said:
I think you guys are really nice to elevate plumjam's self aggrandizing blither to "rhetoric". I find his arguments... when I can parse them... vain and vapid and devoid of any content except to confirm how ignorant belief can make
people and how very blind they become to that ignorance.

The funny thing is, that like T'ai and Hammy and other woos... he talks like others on this forum agree with him. But the woos don't even seem to understand each other. They all think their woo is the true woo but none can succinctly sum up their own blather much less any other person on this forums point- less so the edifying concepts of people like Dawkins, Randi, and the many fine forum members they insult. Where is this imagined agreement they see coming from?-- the voices in their heads? Their invisible savior? (And aren't they a fabulous illustration of my sig article. They belittle people who have so much insight and knowledge to share while foisting of inane platitudes that they have bought as "higher truths".)

Makes one glad for synaptic connections. :)
Click to expand...

You're right. T'ai, Hammy and myself should be burnt.
 
plumjam said:
yep, i accept most of what you say.
I'm just wondering why it is that, if survival value is the supreme value in life (according to Darwinism), why don't we live our lives like that?
Click to expand...

It's survival of the species that really matters. The earth is so vastly populated with humans that having abortions, safe-sex and being homosexual doesn't seem to be any threat to the survival of our species at all, not in any significant way.
 
thaiboxerken said:
It's survival of the species that really matters. The earth is so vastly populated with humans that having abortions, safe-sex and being homosexual doesn't seem to be any threat to the survival of our species at all, not in any significant way.
Click to expand...

And the stupid spawn at excessive rates... darwin just cares about what works-- what genes make vectors that copy more copiers... and so far the stupid are winning. Sure, the stupidity would have been a liability in the past--but thanks to science we save even the dumbest and on they spawn.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom