 |
“Atheism has no explanation for... acts of self-giving and even self-sacrificing charity... Darwinian evolution cannot explain this kind of altruism: How does one who willingly dies for another pass on his or her genetic traits for the improvement of the species? No, defenders of atheism and Darwinism, if true to their convictions, should sneer at this kind of self-sacrifice as weak and pointless."Mark Earley
Is this a true statement ?
No.
All atheism means is
a-no
Theism-god
Atheists don't believe in gods.
Therefore, your statement is simply propaganda of some sort.
Of course it is - he has many "contempts".Quote:
Originally Posted by Choux
Like suicide bombers?
Hello tom:Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
Let's start with just the first five words. The writer wrongly assumes there is some central tenet among atheists, that there's some book that all atheists adhere to, that they all believe the same thing...
It's just wrong. Atheism isn't a belief. There isn't “atheism”. There are only atheists.
Darwinian evolution explains EXACTLY how the genes of altruisim are passed on. If only the writer understood evolution, he'd understand that.
I don't know who the writer knows and I don't know if they're atheists, but I doubt it. No atheist I know sneers at self sacrifice. No atheist I know thinks protecting his family till his death is weak and pointless.
Frankly, I think the writer is ignorant and insulting. How could somebody this stupid and bigoted say anything close to the truth?
excon
excon ;Thanks for at least giving an answer that wasn't flippant.
How does Darwinism explain it ? A selfish gene ?
Genes do not define behaviour.
Then what does ?
Here is an example Earley cites :
Wesley Autrey, a construction worker with two small children, jumped onto the New York subway tracks to rescue a young man who had fallen off the platform. Then Autrey sheltered the man with his own body as a train passed overhead.
After the rescue, Autrey told an interviewer: “It was as if something was telling me to do what I done. A voice out of nowhere said, 'Go and save that life, that life is a life worth saving, and don't worry about your own.' It seemed like something just lifted me up off the platform.”
Here's another :
Liviu Librescu, a Holocaust survivor and the professor at Virginia Tech used his body as a shield to protect his students from the gunman.
So what inspired him to that type of self sacrifice ? Can it be explained without religion ?
Yes, living with people. The Golden Rule has nothing to do with religion and everything to do with living socially. I'm assuming his parents raised him to be a caring empathetic individual.
Hello again, tom:
Me? Flippant? You must have me confused with that other excon.
It's not the selfish gene we're talking about. It's the selfless gene. I don't see selfish as being part of this equation. Oh, we have a selfish gene all right. But that's not the one directing the operation when you give up your life "selflessly" in the protection of others. Indeed. The “selfish” gene is probably telling you to run like hell.
In its basest form, the act of protecting family, friends, others - whomever, is a survival technique. If we didn't inherit this gene, we probably wouldn't have survived.
When I watch nature shows on TV, I see water buffaloes protecting their offspring against lions to the degree that they'll give themselves up in the process. Seems to me, that if they didn't do that (have a selfless gene), they wouldn't have lasted as a species.
I don't think we're any different.
excon
No I think this behavior is the exception. I think most humans when confronted with the choice would not jump in front of that train. The morality is in deviating from the natural instinct to not get in the harm's way.
By the way I was calling the first 5 responses flippant.
Ok.
Since this world is all there is, this life is all there is, for me, I want to make it as good of a life and as great of a world as I can. I want my kids, my grandkids, my great-grandkids, and so on to have a great world to live in; and in order to make this a great world, you have to help others, you can't be selfish all the time. Also, since I don't believe in an afterlife, the only way I can "live on" after my death is through the way I lived my life. So would there be a selfish element in jumping in front of a train? Sure - a little, but I doubt that's what I'd be thinking when/if I did it.
I agree. It's an individual thing. I think most people aren't cut out to run into burning buildings to save people either, but lots do. Most people aren't cut out to save the life of a child molester in an operating room, but some do. I think it has more to do with individual personality and the way one was raised.Quote:
I think most humans when confronted with the choice would not jump in front of that train.
But if you want to call it the power of god; go for it! :)
Hello again, tom:Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
You are right on. You nailed it.
I said nothing about moral. I only spoke about the gene and why we have it and what it does. It's got nothing to do with morality. I don't think the water buffalo is being “moral” when it saves its offspring. I don't think the water buffalo is capable of deciphering between moral and amoral behavior. It just acts.
Nope, the water buffalo doesn't consider what he's doing. He just does it. We're no different. We've been protecting our offspring for as long as we've been a species. That's quite a bit longer than we even considered “morality”. Nope, we did it because our gene made us do it. We don't have any more choice in the matter than does the buffalo.
Please note that I'm talking about offspring here. I'm not talking about saving some odd stranger from certain death. Saving a stranger doesn't have the same species wide effect as does saving your offspring. I'm certain we did that stuff on occasion, as we do now on occasion. So, what you say above is true. Most humans would not jump in front of that train. I certainly know I wouldn't.
Unless it was my child in front of that train.
Then I would. I think most humans would too. Therefore, I suggest there are TWO behaviors (genes?) we're discussing here. The one I describe, and the one you describe above. One is the “selfless” gene at work. The other IS religion at work – or the “selfish” gene if you will. You are correct again.
Hearing a voice out of nowhere telling you to sacrifice yourself IS religion - not your genes. It's no different than strapping on a vest of explosives and sacrificing yourself. That's religion at work too. There are no genes that tell us to do that.
And, I agree with you further. When religion causes you to sacrifice yourself, it IS the “selfish” gene at work. Because you don't sacrifice yourself as a selfless act. You do it because you're seeking glory.
When the “selfless” gene is working, thought and morals have nothing to do with it.
excon
I don't think the person jumping in front of the train is seeking glory . That is a harsh judgement of a selfless act... not a selfish act.
Besides I think your first point is flawed . I thought free thinkers were free will type people . Where is the free will in a selfless act if it is programed into our genes ?
Hello again, tom:
That's the first time I've been called a free thinker. If that means that I'm free to think for myself, I'm guilty.
Free thinking, however, isn't to be confused with free will. I don't think we have a whole lot of free will. Indeed, I think what most people call free will, is your programming (genes) at work.
Nope, when you take away the religious crap, we're just smart buffaloes.
excon
Depends on why they did it. If they said to themselves, "Here's my chance to be a HERO and get on TV!" there's an element of selfishness in there. If you subscribe to the hedonistic view of life, ANY reason for doing it is selfish - doing it because you don't want to see a guy get squished is selfish, and so on. But doing it because you are compelled to, because you think it's the RIGHT thing to do, no, that's not selfish (again, unless you are a hedonist). Some say there is no such thing as a selfless act...Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
Sorry, is that directed at me, or at excon?Quote:
Besides I think your first point is flawed . I thought free thinkers were free will type people . Where is the free will in a selfless act if it is programed into our genes ?
At excon ,but would love to hear your input. I hope you don't deny that humans have free will beyond the programed responses from out genes. I hope you say that humans ;evolved or not ,are a not the equivalent of smart water buffalo... that our reasoning abilites far exceed any other example on this globe.Quote:
Quote:
Besides I think your first point is flawed . I thought free thinkers were free will type people . Where is the free will in a selfless act if it is programed into our genes ?
Sorry, is that directed at me, or at excon?
I think to discuss that we need to make sure when we say "free will" and "free thinker" we are talking about the same thing.
If you think we have all been placed on a path by god, but we have the free will to choose which direction we take on that path, then I, as a heathen non-believer, must disagree with you about the existence of "free will".
I'm not sure how you might define "free thinker"; to me, being a "free thinker" is one who makes their own decisions about things, has their own thoughts and opinions. One who doesn't follow blindly those in positions of authority. Essentially, someone who is an individual, not a "copy" of someone else. To me, one can be a free thinker and still share similar thoughts and opinions as others (or even the same thoughts and opinions) as long as they have come about those decisions on their own.
Forgive me if this isn't all making sense, to be honest I haven't given it much prior thought and I'm sort of talking out my ear right now... :)
I do recognize that our reasoning abilities far exceed those of any other animal on the globe, but I'm not sure what significance that really holds. I mean, significant that yes, we're the smartest, but not significant in respect to free will. Or perhaps I haven't thought it through enough...
Hello again:
I watch my cat wander around. I know my cat doesn't think. I wonder, then, how it chooses to go one way or another. It certainly doesn't do so because it thought about it. Indeed. My cat goes through life making choices - using free will to make 'em, and does very well.
Frankly, I think my cat has a free will, in the very same sense you mean OUR free will. I don't think intelligence, or the lack thereof, has anything to do with "free will".
We're intelligent. We go through life making choices - using our free will to make 'em. I don't see a difference, except that our choices should be better than my cats. And, that isn't true.
Bottom line, I don't think that you have to think in order to have free will. And, I don't think that HAVING such a free will, overrides your genetic programming.
excon
Exxon…You sure think a lot.:)
Free will is simply the ability to reason in syllogism I. e. a major premise, a minor premise, and a conclusion. An example is, "All birds have feathers, penguins are birds, therefore penguins have feathers."
That dear friend is the difference between you and your Cat!:D
And it also explains why people are capable of altruistic acts.
“Toddlers spontaneously offer toys and help to others and try to comfort people they see in distress.Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
The idea that the moral sense is an innate part of human nature is not far-fetched. A list of human universals collected by the anthropologist Donald E. Brown includes many moral concepts and emotions, including a distinction between right and wrong; empathy; fairness; admiration of generosity; rights and obligations; proscription of murder, rape and other forms of violence; redress of wrongs; sanctions for wrongs against the community; shame; and taboos.”
The Moral Instinct - New York Times
Would that make it Genetic? :)
I don't know . That seems to go in line with Excon's argument that humans act as a collective like the herd of water buffalo for their mutual preservation.
This debate on the nature of morality is as old as Plato .Steven Pinker's thoughts seem to go over the same old nature vs. nurture theory . To be honest ;the church long ago argued that souls had natural laws imprinted onto them. All he really is doing is leaving God out of the equation . But if not God's imprint then what ?
Excon's cat does nothing close to making choices nor does it take any responsibility for it's actions.
Actually it might: Behavioral GeneticsQuote:
Originally Posted by Dark_crow
Insects' 'giant leap' reconstructed by founder of sociobiology
"Eusociality is a CHALLENGE for biologists TO UNDERSTAND because worker castes in eusocial species forgo individual reproduction but rear young that are not their own, a behavior that biologists label altruistic"
Evolutionists at war over altruism's origins - Independent Online Edition > Science & Tech
"Conventional Darwinian theory could not really explain why one individual should sacrifice its own life, and its precious genes, for the benefit of another individual, unless it could be viewed in terms of group selection, when indi-viduals do it for the benefit of the colony or the species."
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It appears that these evolutionary atheist don't have an explanation for it either.
But neither kin nor group selection explains the train rescue example.
It is amazing to me that evolutionists study insects and "lower" animals to figure out why humans do the things that they do. Oh, that's right evolutionists would have us believe that humans are just like chimps and insects, just different genetic material in differing environments.
I believe we have evolved beyond the water buffalo stage, well most Humans anyway.:pQuote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
Cats do make choices; they don’t however make choices based on deductive reasoning.
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 01:49 PM. |