[REASON]

Originally Posted by gareth

Insects may already run the planet, but I'm confident I could take any one of them on in a fight.

The one's that like to fight the most will not be agreeable to a one-on-one fight though.

Dorylus - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[gareth]

If I had some kind of flame thrower/pheremone spray combination weapon, I reckon I could down the whole damn nest.

Hmm. Perhaps this thread doesn't belong on the theology forum.

[Buffy]

Originally Posted by gareth

There's only one way to break the cycle of hatred, retaliation and vengeance which plagues the planet, and that is through forgiveness, turning the other cheek and all that.

So sayeth....game theory....rational choices as exemplified by the Prisoner's Dilemma, lead to conclusions that irrational, survival-based instincts are superior. What Dawkins and others are pointing to is that these rational choices have indeed become genetically ingrained over time and this is evidenced in studies of both small children as well as many higher mammals! The whole notion of social groups is that individual desires are suppressed for the good of the group, and it doesn't take being human to get there.

As a result,

Originally Posted by gareth

I admit that genes are an overwhelming factor, but I think stating that forgiveness and turning the other cheek are somehow inbedded in genes is precarious assertion.

...is hardly precarious, its pretty well evidenced!

Originally Posted by gareth

I'd hate to think the apostles were simply 'good at marketing'. You can argue untill you're blue in the face about whether Jesus actually did many of the things that were claimed, it doesn't matter. The fact that the scriptures state how important forgiveness is cannot be looked upon cynically, even by the most hardened cynic/scientist.

No argument with that at all. Of course the issue isn't that scriptures do in many cases promote moral behavior, its that in other cases they do not!

Simply saying that some of it is good doesn't make the bad stuff go away...unless you're going to engage in that bete noir of most Fundamentalists, "moral relativism"....

Originally Posted by gareth

"Without God anything is permissible"

Dostoevsky firmly believed in the inherent evil of men and the moral guidance of redemption provided by religion. This is of course a philosophically powerful statement, but its unfortunately not *proof* that man is inherently evil. In his milieu of mid-19th century Czarist Russia in which he was imprisoned and exposed to the darkest side of humanity, it was quite justified. So was Franz Kafka's dark vision of reality.

Its of course fascinating that Dostoevsky strongly influenced the clearly anti-religious existentialists like Camus and Nietzche...

So....

Originally Posted by gareth

I admit that genes are an overwhelming factor, but I think stating that forgiveness and turning the other cheek are somehow inbedded in genes is precarious assertion.

If we follow your line of thinking, whereby there is a group that 'defends' itself from attack by wiping out every last one of their enemies, then surely the members of this group (whose genes are inclined to ruthlessness and killing) will eventually end up fighting among themselves and wiping themselves out.

...I think you and I are in agreement: it is a genetic trait to "turn the other cheek" and cooperate with your fellow man in order to improve survival of the group... In other words, "morality" is chosen for in Evolution!

I did not bow down to you, I bowed down to all the suffering of humanity,
Buffy

[REASON]

Originally Posted by Buffy

...it is a genetic trait to "turn the other cheek" and cooperate with your fellow man in order to improve survival of the group... In other words, "morality" is chosen for in Evolution!

I have been arguing against this concept in another thread, since I tend to believe that moral, or amoral behavior, is learned.

How do you support the claim of morality as a genetic trait?

[Buffy]

Originally Posted by REASON

How do you support the claim of morality as a genetic trait?

I will admit I've seen this claim in many places, although its a relatively recent area of research, and needs more for wider acceptance, but things are pointing that way....

Google "cooperative behavior" inheritance or genetic... here's one on the first page of results....

Originally Posted by Heritability of cooperative behavior in the trust game
by: David Cesarini, Christopher T Dawes, James H Fowler, Magnus Johannesson, Paul Lichtenstein, Bjorn Wallace
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Vol. 105, No. 10. (11 March 2008)

Although laboratory experiments document cooperative behavior in humans, little is known about the extent to which individual differences in cooperativeness result from genetic and environmental variation. In this article, we report the results of two independently conceived and executed studies of monozygotic and dizygotic twins, one in Sweden and one in the United States. The results from these studies suggest that humans are endowed with genetic variation that influences the decision to invest, and to reciprocate investment, in the classic trust game. Based on these findings, we urge social scientists to take seriously the idea that differences in peer and parental socialization are not the only forces that influence variation in cooperative behavior.

While I agree that this has to be supported, its been shown that many behaviors are genetic, and I see not much counter-evidence to discount this hypothesis either!

Also, apropos to gareth's statement above, I stumbled upon this:

Originally Posted by Albert Einstein

A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death.

...of course that has nothing to do with your question Reason....

The doctrine of innate ideas is one of the most admirable faiths of philosophy, being itself an innate idea and therefore inaccessible to disproof, though Locke foolishly supposed himself to have given it "a black eye." Among innate ideas may be mentioned the belief in one's ability to conduct a newspaper, in the greatness of one's country, in the superiority of one's civilization, in the importance of one's personal affairs and in the interesting nature of one's diseases.,
Buffy

[gareth]

Originally Posted by Buffy

So....
...I think you and I are in agreement: it is a genetic trait to "turn the other cheek" and cooperate with your fellow man in order to improve survival of the group... In other words, "morality" is chosen for in Evolution!

Buffy

I'm afraid I don't agree with you Buffy. Science is on very shaky ground when it comes to accounting for altruism and benevolence. Religion makes a much better fist of it.

Surely helping someone who does not have your genes, or comes from a different creed or social group is in direct conflict with the fundemntal tenets of evolution, which suggest to me that morality is not somehow ingrained in our genes.

"Everything you need to know about life is in The Brothers Karamazov-but damn it! It's just not enough!"

Elliot Rosewater, Slaughterhouse Five .

[InfiniteNow]

Originally Posted by gareth

I'm afraid I don't agree with you Buffy. Science is on very shaky ground when it comes to accounting for altruism and benevolence. Religion makes a much better fist of it.

This couldn't be farther from the truth. I suggest that you are simply not familair with the vast swaths of scientific evidence accounting for altruism and benevolence. If you don't believe me, I'd be happy to come back and post mountains of citations which would quickly demolish your claim.

You seem to be picking and choosing data, ignoring that which runs counter to your preconceptions and only looking at that which reinforces it.

Further, if you'd like me to show you just how non-altruistic and how uncharitable religions really are, I'd be glad to start citing examples, both from scripture and from real life accounts. Hell, I'll even let you choose which religion I have to work from. It won't be hard.


Pretending the evidence is not there does not make it go away. Your position is not only inaccurate and false, but untenable.

[Southtown]

Originally Posted by InfiniteNow

Further, if you'd like me to show you just how non-altruistic and how uncharitable religions really are, I'd be glad to start citing examples, both from scripture and from real life accounts. Hell, I'll even let you choose which religion I have to work from. It won't be hard.

Pretending the evidence is not there does not make it go away. Your position is not only inaccurate and false, but untenable.

Gareth is not talking about religion so much as personal ethics. Hopping back and forth leads to lots of circle-talking.

http://hypography.com/forums/theolog...tml#post230113

[Buffy]

Originally Posted by gareth

Surely helping someone who does not have your genes, or comes from a different creed or social group is in direct conflict with the fundemntal tenets of evolution, which suggest to me that morality is not somehow ingrained in our genes.

Actually, that's exactly the argument: our genes aren't specific enough in that respect, and it takes social structures such as religions and families to *teach* inter-tribal conflict!

See, what a scourge is laid upon your hate, that heaven finds means to kill your joys with love,
Buffy

[gareth]

Originally Posted by InfiniteNow

This couldn't be farther from the truth. I suggest that you are simply not familair with the vast swaths of scientific evidence accounting for altruism and benevolence. If you don't believe me, I'd be happy to come back and post mountains of citations which would quickly demolish your claim.

"Further, if you'd like me to show you just how non-altruistic and how uncharitable religions really are, I'd be glad to start citing examples, both from scripture and from real life accounts. Hell, I'll even let you choose which religion I have to work from. It won't be hard."

OK then - Zoroastrianism .

Thank you SouthTown. I am not talking about 'organised religion'.

It's quite interesting to see scientists getting emotive about how valueless religion is. The title of this thread is religion vs. religion, yet it has now degenerated into a science vs. religion thread (that old chestnut).

It's almost as if science has become a religion of sorts for some people (they seem to get uncomfortable and feel threatened when anyone suggests that perhaps science cannot answer all the big questions, and then they defend science with an almost religious zeal).

It has become very fashionable to denounce belief in God. Its very easy to prove the non-existence of a supernatural being. But dagnabbit, this is a theology/humanities forum, so your scientific evidence doesn't amount to a hill of beans here I'm afraid.

If you can provide evidence (or perhaps even a compelling argument of your own intelligent design*) that proves belief in God is valueless in terms of personal ethics, then please come up with it, as I enjoy having my preconceptions legitimately challenged.

*no pun intended.
If they drive God from the earth, we shall shelter Him underground
Fyodor Dostoyevsky