A few Dawkins quotes to think about.

by AK - Jeff 328 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  Nickolas

  Thank you, Paul, for illustrating my previous post so well.
• 

  PSacramento

  Thank you, Paul, for illustrating my previous post so well.

  Anything to help Sam, he needs it ;)
• 

  Nickolas

  Yes, I understand from a previous conversation that you are not his biggest fan.
• 

  PSacramento

  Bible writers seemed to have struggled with the question of suffering, too.

  Of course, and those before them and those after them.

  Over the course of the last 2000+ years Christians ( and those of other religions)have debated and written about suffering a great deal.

  But why?

  Because we KNOW the difference between what IS and what OUGHT to be, but why do we know that?
• 

  Nickolas

  Because we KNOW the difference between what IS and what OUGHT to be, but why do we know that?

  Not knowledge, Paul, wish thinking.
• 

  bohm

  ps:

  My point is why should any of us care if another human or animal suffers?

  the "why do we care another human or animal suffer" is easily answered by evolution. Perhaps the "why should we care" does not have a definitive answer? perhaps there is no definite answer to any should question?

  I mean, i can easily explain (with a bit of hand-weaving, anyways ;-)) why we think 1+1 = 2. But i cannot explain why we should think 1+1 = 2. Anyone can allways say: "Yah, but that just show saying 1+1 = 2 is neat or advantageous. Can you really show me objectively why 1+1 should be 2 and not 3?". I cannot see there is an answer to that, nor can i see why there should be one (hehe).
• 

  PSacramento

  Yes, I understand from a previous conversation that you are not his biggest fan.

  I admire his faith in atheism and admire his relentless pursuit of trying to explain morals within the atheist context.

  I think that VOx Day reamed him over the coals BIG time in His book,perhaps more than he deserved, but what I have seen from Sam in his debates and read in his works, I think atheisim can do much better than Sam Harris.

  Sam was the guy that said if he could eliminate religion or rape, he would eliminate religion, that was him right?
• 

  PSacramento

  the "why do we care another human or animal suffer" is easily answered by evolution. Perhaps the "why should we care" does not have a definitive answer? perhaps there is no definite answer to any should question?

  You may be right.

  Can you explain how evolution explains why we DO care about the suffering of others and animals?
• 

  bohm

  ps: Yes, basically because cooporation is advantageous and will arise spontaneously. You should worry i am making a tautology here (why is cooporation advantageous? because otherwise evolution would have breed it out. Why do we coorporate? because we evolved that way...), but this is seen again and again both in artificial life simulations (where the robots "learn" to coorporate) and in game theory.

  I think the results in game theory is particulary strong. Particulary the tit-for-tat strategy arise as a nash equilibrium (nash. eq. mean that it is unfavorable for any agent to select another strategy) in a very general game:

  • Be generally good to others when you meet them.
  • Do to others what they did to you. (eg. if they coorporated, continue coorporation. If they cheated and left you out to dry, dont coorporate)
  • forgive when they change strategy.

  Notice this is how most of us will try to act. Ofcourse this is a very crude model, in particular games with many agents where a "reputation" is involved are very prone to favor coorporative behaviour as nash equilibrium, it is interesting how "reputation" play a huge role in human society.
• 

  Nickolas

  I admire his faith in atheism

  I see the old chestnut that atheism = faith is alive and well. I think you have a pretty good grasp on what atheism really is, but there are still a few blanks you need to fill in.

  Vox Day, as you realise, is a play on the Latin "Vox Dei" which of course means "The Voice of God". Just a little pretentious, don't you think?

  Sam was the guy that said if he could eliminate religion or rape, he would eliminate religion, that was him right?

  Not that I have read, but I trust your memory. I don't agree with everything anyone says. If he said this, he's got a screw loose, but the rest of his intelligence machine seems to tick over rather well.