The Existence Of Morality

[crowTrobot 2]

Careful, the: 'You don't understand evolution' line is crow's favorite, if you point out areas that he 'doesn't get it' you will deprive him of his entire argument baseline.

i used an incorrect term and corrected it. point still stands. by focusing only on what you intuitively think would benefit an isolated individual you're missing the big picture.

I would argue that you guys are approaching the question with the answer already fully believed. Of course we see that value of morality to a community, a species, and a family unit. But just because it would be good doesn't mean that therefore it must have evolved. That's all I hear from your side of the argument. 'Oh, it would benefit us, and as we know humans do everything that benefits them, therefore it evolved'.As of now, I think you guys have actually done more to hurt your argument than help it.

lame attempt to shift the burden of proof.

[brvheart 1,752]

lame attempt to shift the burden of proof.

This is easily my favorite thing that you say to make your 'point'.

[crowTrobot 2]

This is easily my favorite thing that you say to make your 'point'.

this is BG's thread, and HIS hypothesis (that morality could not have come from anywhere but god). the people responding to him are just explainingwhy morality COULD have evolved without divine intervention, which is all that needs to be done to invalidate his hypothesis. they are not saying it "must"have evolved, nor is it necessary for anyone to prove that it definitely did.

[vbnautilus 48]

I would argue that you guys are approaching the question with the answer already fully believed. Of course we see that value of morality to a community, a species, and a family unit. But just because it would be good doesn't mean that therefore it must have evolved. That's all I hear from your side of the argument. 'Oh, it would benefit us, and as we know humans do everything that benefits them, therefore it evolved'.

The bolded is all something needs to evolve. As long as it provides a benefit, it will proliferate compared with traits that do not provide benefit, because communities with the successful trait will have more offspring. Since it would benefit us, it is therefore consistent with having evolved. That's all. You keep saying that compassion is inconsistent with evolution but have provided no argument to support this claim.

[solderz 0]

Earlier I pointed out that the existance of morality in animals doesn't prove or disprove anything unless you can first prove animals at one point did not have a semblance of morality.

Really? Why can't altruism be written into the basic genetic code for all life? Why did it have to originate separately? It quite clearly doesn't. There is no problem with morality and the theory of evolution. None. Now there is lots of problems with the concept of a soul that lasts after death. Nothing but problems. So sick of otherwise rational human beings, who apparently have the ability to think logically and problem solve, throw it all out the window because their parents told them the bible was gods word. You are the ones making the extreme claims; extreme claims require extreme evidence, but you have none. Absolutely none. Pseudo science like this is just ridiculous. You might as well travel to Sedona and try locating a vortex of power.

[BaseJester 1]

BG, do you find the evolution of social behaviors particularly implausible as compared to physical traits? If so, why?

Edited August 7, 2009 by BaseJester

[Balloon guy 158]

Really? Why can't altruism be written into the basic genetic code for all life? Why did it have to originate separately? It quite clearly doesn't. There is no problem with morality and the theory of evolution. None. Now there is lots of problems with the concept of a soul that lasts after death. Nothing but problems. So sick of otherwise rational human beings, who apparently have the ability to think logically and problem solve, throw it all out the window because their parents told them the bible was gods word. You are the ones making the extreme claims; extreme claims require extreme evidence, but you have none. Absolutely none. Pseudo science like this is just ridiculous. You might as well travel to Sedona and try locating a vortex of power.

If you want to pretend that at one time, in the millions and millions of lines of code, an accidental change up of the order resulted in people being nice to one another happened, then I got no problem. An infinite number of monkey's on an infinite number of typewriters is not the type of faith I would want to claim, but you are free to if you want.Just don't act like it's proven science is all.

[Balloon guy 158]

The bolded is all something needs to evolve. As long as it provides a benefit, it will proliferate compared with traits that do not provide benefit, because communities with the successful trait will have more offspring. Since it would benefit us, it is therefore consistent with having evolved. That's all. You keep saying that compassion is inconsistent with evolution but have provided no argument to support this claim.

So anything that is beneficial will always evolve?There is a direction to evolution?

[Balloon guy 158]

BG, do you find the morality of social behaviors particularly implausible as compared to physical traits? If so, why?

I find that the notion that evolution is the catalyst for the creation of morality to be implausible because it is contrary to the very notion of evolution.Take the evolutionary building block of survival of the fittest.This one trait of evolution would prevent most morally based ideas from becoming fixed in our society. But the atheist making the case for morality evolving has failed to demonstrate any reasonable explanation, yet it is gospel to the atheist playbook.This thread started in response to an athiest claiming that morality evovled.The only argument presented so far is that it would be good if it did, therefore it did. That isn't an answer to me.

[Balloon guy 158]

this is BG's thread, and HIS hypothesis (that morality could not have come from anywhere but god). the people responding to him are just explainingwhy morality COULD have evolved without divine intervention, which is all that needs to be done to invalidate his hypothesis. they are not saying it "must"have evolved, nor is it necessary for anyone to prove that it definitely did.

Actually this is BG's thread questioning your hypothesis that you claimed a while back.So if you are going to make these foolish claims, than it is necessary for you to prove that it definately did.Especially when you used it as a claim that supports your equally false idea that there is no God.

[crowTrobot 2]

I find that the notion that evolution is the catalyst for the creation of morality to be implausible because it is contrary to the very notion of evolution.

just stating that over and over doesn't make it true lol

[Balloon guy 158]

just stating that over and over doesn't make it true lol

flying spaghetti monsterflying spaghetti monsterflying spaghetti monsterflying spaghetti monster

[crowTrobot 2]

Actually this is BG's thread questioning your hypothesis that you claimed a while back.So if you are going to make these foolish claims, than it is necessary for you to prove that it definately did.Especially when you used it as a claim that supports your equally false idea that there is no God.

i've never said there is no god, and the only hypothesis i hold about moral behavior is that evolution is the best explanation for it, and why it isthe best explanation has been explained to you over and over in this thread.

[crowTrobot 2]

flying spaghetti monsterflying spaghetti monsterflying spaghetti monsterflying spaghetti monster

stop taking the lord's name in vain

[Balloon guy 158]

i've never said there is no god, and the only hypothesis i hold about moral behavior is that evolution is the best explanation for it, and why it isthe best explanation has been explained to you over and over in this thread.

Yea, the explanation that since it's here, it must have evolved because it would be good if it did.Sorry if I find that explanation lacking, but keep pretending that it delves deeply into the issue.

[BaseJester 1]

I fixed my post.

I find that the notion that evolution is the catalyst for the creation of morality to be implausible because it is contrary to the very notion of evolution.Take the evolutionary building block of survival of the fittest.

We're suggesting that moral behavior makes a group more fit. Do you disagree?

[crowTrobot 2]

Yea, the explanation that since it's here, it must have evolved because it would be good if it did.

no - the explanation that because it's beneficial in a social context, because we can SEE it evolving throughout human history, and because lower level but similar behavior exists elsewhere in the animal kingdom, moral behavior in humans could have evolved.

[vbnautilus 48]

So anything that is beneficial will always evolve?

Simply put, yes. (im not even going to bother with the disclaimers because they are obvious)

There is a direction to evolution?

There is a "direction" to the flow of the Nile; it goes downhill. That doesn't mean it is intentional or preconceived.

[Balloon guy 158]

no - the explanation that because it's beneficial in a social context, because we can SEE it evolving throughout human history, and because lower level but similar behavior exists elsewhere in the animal kingdom, moral behavior in humans could have evolved.

Oh good, you have examples of when man didn't have morality.Well that really puts me at a disadvantage then doesn't it.Man I am going to get it now....Okay..let's see the proof...waiting...

[Balloon guy 158]

We're suggesting that moral behavior makes a group more fit. Do you disagree?

Of course, that's why God created it.

[Balloon guy 158]

Simply put, yes. (im not even going to bother with the disclaimers because they are obvious)There is a "direction" to the flow of the Nile; it goes downhill. That doesn't mean it is intentional or preconceived.

Well thanks for keeping it simple.I usaully get blamed for being shallow when I keep it simple.So once a trait that is better for a species is introduced, that trait will always continue? Simply because the change is beneficial?Always? * with obvious disclaimers because they are obvious to us..but could you maybe explain it for those idiots who don't know what we mean?

[vbnautilus 48]

So once a trait that is better for a species is introduced, that trait will always continue? Simply because the change is beneficial?Always? * with obvious disclaimers because they are obvious to us..but could you maybe explain it for those idiots who don't know what we mean?

There's no guarantee a trait will "always continue" because what works better can change over time. Example: white was a pretty good color for peppered moths, but once the trees they live on turned black due to the industrial revolution, the ones who were black started to survive better (they camouflage better), and they evolved towards black. Of course now there are more white ones showing up since things cleared up a bit over there.

[Balloon guy 158]

There's no guarantee a trait will "always continue" because what works better can change over time. Example: white was a pretty good color for peppered moths, but once the trees they live on turned black due to the industrial revolution, the ones who were black started to survive better (they camouflage better), and they evolved towards black. Of course now there are more white ones showing up since things cleared up a bit over there.

Let's not pretend micro evolution is a good example to explain macro evolution

[vbnautilus 48]

Let's not pretend micro evolution is a good example to explain macro evolution

This is an artificial distinction.

[crowTrobot 2]

Oh good, you have examples of when man didn't have morality.

our tendency toward what you would describe as moral behavior has increased (gradually)throughout human history. however that doesn't mean there has to be a time when we had none. there isno reason to think our pre-human ancestors didn't have a more simple "proto"-morality that has expandedwith our increasing self-awareness and intelligence, and increasingly complex social structuresand interdependency.