[tomder55]

“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 ?

[NeedKarma]

No.

[Choux]

All atheism means is

a-no
Theism-god

Atheists don't believe in gods.


Therefore, your statement is simply propaganda of some sort.

[NeedKarma]

Therefore, your statement is simply propaganda of some sort.

Of course it is - he has many "contempts".

[magprob]

Like suicide bombers?

[excon]

“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 ?

Hello tom:

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

[tomder55]

excon ;Thanks for at least giving an answer that wasn't flippant.

How does Darwinism explain it ? A selfish gene ?

[NeedKarma]

Genes do not define behaviour.

[tomder55]

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 ?

[NeedKarma]

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.

[excon]

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

[tomder55]

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.

[NeedKarma]

Ok.

[jillianleab]

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 think most humans when confronted with the choice would not jump in front of that train.

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.

But if you want to call it the power of god; go for it! :)

[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……. “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.” So what inspired him to that type of self sacrifice ? Can it be explained without religion ?

Hello again, tom:

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

[tomder55]

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 ?

[excon]

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

[jillianleab]

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.

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...

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?

[tomder55]

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?

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.

[jillianleab]

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...