On becoming atheist - the tug of war (page 18)

SweetBabyCheezits

Shack: Get into a book, stall out for whatever reason, start in on another book...then you have 3 books stalled about 3rd way in.

Gah! That's me! And I can't seem to fix it! I think too much JWN has cost me patience for anything longer than three paragraphs.

To be fair, I think skimming and reading short snippets online in general has hindered my ability finish a worthy book. Kinda like if you lived on a steady diet of wedding reception hors d'oeuvres... (I don't know where to go with that illustration but it felt good at the moment.)

Oops, sorry for the tangent....

Now back to Nick.

unshackled

I think skimming and reading short snippets online in general has hindered my ability finish a worthy book

Funny you say that....Mrs. Shack and I were talking about that very thing the other day. Twitter, Facebook, StumbleUpon...and JWN for me...have all started rewiring our brains for those short snippets . Hits of instant gratification. We've noticed our reading has declined in the past year or so....we pin it on the " hors d'oeuvres".

Okay...now back to Nick (who I think had ribs for lunch...)

Nickolas

Social behaviour is great, but did sympathy originate from IT or did IT originate from being part of a society?

Chicken and egg, Paul. Neither originated from the other. They evolved together.

That's kind of scary, isn't it, dear Nick (again, peace to you!)? I mean, doesn't that negate the WILL be altruistic, thereby suggesting that if, say, your great grandfather was altruistic you probably will be, too...

The genetic connection with altruism is not confined to the passing on from one generation to the next of genes which favour altruistic behaviour or their alleles which favour selfish behaviour. One would have to say the scope of the question dictates a far, far longer term transfer. Much of animal (including human) behaviour is indeed selfish but it is a good assumption that if all of our behaviour was selfish then we would not have evolved at all. It's not so cut and dried as that, of course, and this is where your observation is not so naiive. There is evolution through natural selection, which is strictly at the genetic level, and there is evolution through group and familial selection. Groups (say, societies) will tend to select individuals who demonstrate altruism toward the group. Those disposed genetically to behaviours that accrue to the detriment of the group will tend not to be allowed to stay within the group and therefore will not be permitted to contribute to the groups gene pool. Yes, it is possible (downright probable) that some extremely selfish individuals will figure out the exclusion dynamic and merely pretend to be altruistic, thereby providing their genes the opportunity to prevail within the gene pool of the group. It is also probable that the group will evolve the means to detect such deceptions and thereby minimise the effects of it.

Nickolas

I used to have a moustache just like that. I grew it when I was 18 and my wife, who I met when I was 19, had never seen me without it. I was away on an extended business trip and decided to shave it off because as I aged some of the individual hairs in the moustache turned white while the rest were dark brown. Trouble was, all the white hairs were in the right side of the moustache and it was only while I was walking past a great mirror at a considerable distance and caught sight of myself that I noticed that it looked like I had something hanging out of the right side of my nose, which is also appreciable. Off it went. When my wife picked me up at the airport, unawares, she spotted me, smiled and then took on a puzzled look. She said she was trying to figure out what the stupid look on my face was all about.

Ok, back to the thread....

Nickolas

I've read his The End of Faith...scrutinizes the tolerance of religious fundamentalism, takes Islam to the woodshed.

I rather enjoyed it. (Not one of Paul's faves, though).

SweetBabyCheezits

Nick: Yes, it is possible (downright probable) that some extremely selfish individuals will figure out the exclusion dynamic and merely pretend to be altruistic, thereby providing their genes the opportunity to prevail within the gene pool of the group. It is also probable that the group will evolve the means to detect such deceptions and thereby minimise the effects of it.

[searches Amazon frantically for "Exclusion Dynamic for Dummies" and "Deceiving those who have evolved the means to detect such deceptions and thereby minimise the effects of it"]

breakfast of champions

Well, I am not going to read through all nine pages of this but,
Essentially, the WTBTS taught me to believe all OTHER religions are false.

Then I found out that THEY are AS FULL OF SHIT AS ALL THE OTHERS.

Then I thought to myself, WHAT TRULY CONCLUSIVE EVIDENCE DO I HAVE TO SHOW ME DIRECTLY THROUGH MY OWN SENSES THAT THERE IS CERTAINLY A GOD?

(sorry for yelling)

In the end, there's nothing there, and that's okay.

And I never even had to buy a Dawkins/ Harris/ Whoever book.

AGuest

Groups (say, societies) will tend to select individuals who demonstrate altruism toward the group. Those disposed genetically to behaviours that accrue to the detriment of the group will tend not to be allowed to stay within the group and therefore will not be permitted to contribute to the groups gene pool.

I'm sorry, dear Nick... but it doesn't compute (for me, but don't write me off, just yet, please)... not in light of the whole "survival of the fittest" model. If we look at the definition of "altruism" ("the renunciation of the self, and an exclusive concern for the welfare of others" or "b ehavior by any animal that is not beneficial to or may be harmful to itself but that benefits others of its species") it would seem to ME that t he good of the group would be to send the weakest off, leave them behind, if not kill 'em... a culling out, if you will. Which make the one allowing themselves to BE culled the "altruistic" one, yes? Yet, it is the altruistic who are selected to be part of the group?

Or are you saying that the altruistic ones... are the ones willing to leave, send off, even kill... the weaker... for the benefit of the remaining group? Is THAT the definition of altruism? I mean, I kind of understand that due to films I've seen where primates, elephants, others animals will leave their sick/dying young to continue on with the group (rather than stay with them, regardless). But it seems like they did so because they had no choice - they couldn't make them move/drag them along... but WOULD have if they COULD have... and mourned deeply because they couldn't.

If so, is it Mr. Hawkins' position that this... ummmmm... willingness is genetically disposed, that there are those whose... ummmm... main concern is the group, rather than the individual... as a result of genetics?

I am just trying to understand...

Again, peace to you!

A slave of Christ,

SA

bohm

I'm sorry, dear Nick... but it doesn't compute (for me, but don't write me off, just yet, please)... not in light of the whole "survival of the fittest" model.

...how will the theories of evolution of altruism survive the discovery that "survival of the fittest" is part of evolutionary theory?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Altruism#Evolutionary_explanations

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Origins_of_Virtue

cyberjesus

who is Adriana lima? Ok I'll research that interesting topic.... Lets see if I can have some immoral thoughts after my research

On becoming atheist - the tug of war

Share this