Battle of the New Atheism

[Pidesco]

Like the Holy Trinity.

 

This was the subject of many important debates and councils in the early days of Christianity.

[Pop]

Dawkins argues that there is no altruistic acts, in fact, one of his most famous  books attacks the point.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Dawkins is not credible as a thinker then, if he would argue that there are no altruistic facts. He might have many necessary arguments for his viewpoint, but he would not have sufficient counterpoints against the well-established arguments that altruism, in fact, exists. We went over this with Rand some time ago in the gaming forum.

 

The "Could God make a rock he couldn't lift", prima facae, looks like a good argument against the omnipotence of God. But it isn't. It presumes, fallaciously, that if God can do something, he will do something. If he does create the rock, he is no longer omnipotent. But if he doesn't, he remains omnipotent. For this reason, the "unliftable rock" example fails.

 

Or to put it a little more densely, I found this on a philosophy site (this un):

Flaw: Definition of "power."

Question: Can an omnipotent being create a rock so heavy that even he can

Edited October 29, 2006 by Pop

[kumquatq3]

Dawkins argues that there is no altruistic acts, in fact, one of his most famous  books attacks the point.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Dawkins is not credible as a thinker then, if he would argue that there are no altruistic facts. He might have many necessary arguments for his viewpoint, but he would not have sufficient counterpoints against the well-established arguments that altruism, in fact, exists. We went over this with Rand some time ago in the gaming forum.

 

I knew I shouldn't have brought it up, as I'm not about to write an essay to defend it, nor did I state it perfectly, I'm sure. However, just because you decided something in a gaming forum doesn't make it so. I do believe you're looking at altruism from a individual level, which is not where Dawkins makes his argument for both evolution and the "selfish gene".

 

 

The book is called the "Selfish Gene", here is one of those nibblet thingys, not his words:

We animals exist for their preservation and are nothing more than their throwaway survival machines. The world of the selfish gene is one of savage competition, ruthless exploitation, and deceit. But what of the acts of apparent altruism found in nature - the bees who commit suicide when they sting to protect the hive, or the birds who warn the flock of an approaching hawk? Do they contravene the fundamental law of gene selfishness? By no means: Dawkins shows that the selfish gene is also the subtle gene. And he holds out the hope that our species - alone on earth - has the power to rebel against the designs of the selfish gene.

 

AHumans, via being super dupper smart, can be altruist in theory. Just as we can do alot of things contrary to our instincts because of our intelligence.

Edited October 29, 2006 by kumquatq3

[Pop]

What about a lifeguard who instinctually and reflexively risks his own life for the sake of another, where there is no self-interest and no thought involved? The case is easily made that humans are not naturally selfish.

[Musopticon?]

You could argue that he gets a "high" out of it, a good feeling that's enough for him to continue risking himself. Sort of like sportsmen and adrenaline. A reason enough.

[Pop]

You could argue that he gets a "high" out of it, a good feeling that's enough for him to continue risking himself. Sort of like sportsmen and adrenaline. A reason enough.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You could, but that wouldn't prove that humans are always naturally self-interested. If we accept that premise, when the lifeguard sees a drowning child, his desire is not to save the child, but to avoid a guilty conscience, or get a thrill out of risking his own life. That's counterintuitive. Of course the lifeguard's goal in saving the child is to save the child.

[kumquatq3]

You could argue that he gets a "high" out of it, a good feeling that's enough for him to continue risking himself. Sort of like sportsmen and adrenaline. A reason enough.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You could, but that wouldn't prove that humans are always naturally self-interested. If we accept that premise, when the lifeguard sees a drowning child, his desire is not to save the child, but to avoid a guilty conscience, or get a thrill out of risking his own life. That's counterintuitive. Of course the lifeguard's goal in saving the child is to save the child.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Again, looking at it from the individual level. This will have to wait to tues, as I'm trying to finish two papers for a midnight deadline tonight + class all day tomorrow, however:

 

You could argue that, but that wouldn't prove that humans arn't always naturally self-interested (Remember, Dawkins argues that human intelligence may be able to overcome such gene self-interest). It may be argued that it is counter-intuitive that the life guard risk his own life to safe that of another's (he is being paid btw). So, if that is counter-intuitive, what drives him to do it? Hint: Think genes!

 

Aka Dawkins argue that altruism isn't natural, is cultural. Hence the term "meme".

 

as I said, it's deep, and me rushing through it isn't doing it justice at all.

[Sand]

That's not really possible given today's society.  And I don't see any reason why someone should be forced to keep his or her religious views to himself.  You might as well say one should keep all his or her personal opinions to himself.  As long as they don't constantly harass someone, I don't see the reason.  Besides, Muso does have a point.  You've been guilty of many of the same things you criticize religious folk for.  I know what you're gonna say, every Christian you've met is an ****, you just had to throw out a Christian from your store for trying to convert someone the other day, blah blah blah.  Save it.  Point is, as long as you have that mentality, nobody can take you seriously.

 

I did say it is something we all need to work on. Including me.

 

Also I am not saying keep all viewpoints to oneself, just religious views, especially if the other person doesn't want to hear it.

Edited October 29, 2006 by Sand

[Plano Skywalker]

There are examples of "altruistic" bacteria, i.e. microbes that will actually sacrifice themselves for the good of the colony ... even though they have less than a rudimentary  mode of communication (as far as has been observed so far, anyway ), with proteins that are not much larger than chemicals.

 

Does that mean there is a God of Bacteria, or that bacteria "believe" in universal truths, or just that altruism can (in some instances) be a useful surivial trait?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

no, bacteria are not sentient beings....well, I've just made a negative assertion, which is actually harder to prove than a positive one.

 

altruism being useful is a universal reality, yes...one that is with us in this life and will be there in the next.

[Sand]

3 gods violates the 1 god principle

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Not if it's the same God.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

That is a very a Hindu-like system, except they don't stop at 3.

 

I still count it as being polytheistic.

Edited October 29, 2006 by Sand

[WITHTEETH]

altruism being useful is a universal reality, yes...one that is with us in this life and will be there in the next.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

If altruism goes by this definition then i would have to say there is no altruism personally -

1.  selflessness: an attitude or way of behaving marked by unselfish concern for the welfare of others 

 

Microsoft

Edited October 29, 2006 by WITHTEETH

[metadigital]

Dawkins argues that there is no altruistic acts, in fact, one of his most famous  books attacks the point.

 

I don't have the time to spell out the argument, but basically he sees evolution as about the genetic level. Rather the group or individual.

 

...I don't think that makes sense as is, but I don't have time for 3 page paper.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Sure, I was providing some non-intelligent (in any sense that humans are aware of) organism that DOES act in an altruistic manner.

source

source

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

So it is perfectly possible for altruism to spontaneously occur in nature. Is this evidence of the hand of god? Or just another permutation out of the infinite variety of survivability traits available?

[Dark Moth]

That is a very a Hindu-like system, except they don't stop at 3. 

 

I still count it as being polytheistic.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

If one God manifests himself in three different forms, how is that polytheistic? It's still the same God; same spirit. Just three different forms. That's not polytheistic. It would be polytheistic if each God were a separate entity in itself.

[metadigital]

There are examples of "altruistic" bacteria, i.e. microbes that will actually sacrifice themselves for the good of the colony ... even though they have less than a rudimentary  mode of communication (as far as has been observed so far, anyway ), with proteins that are not much larger than chemicals.

 

Does that mean there is a God of Bacteria, or that bacteria "believe" in universal truths, or just that altruism can (in some instances) be a useful surivial trait?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

no, bacteria are not sentient beings....well, I've just made a negative assertion, which is actually harder to prove than a positive one.

 

altruism being useful is a universal reality, yes...one that is with us in this life and will be there in the next.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Convincing an organism to make the ultimate sacrifice for the good of the species / colony / group / collective is a non-trivial matter, though.

[Sand]

The same reason why people see the Hindu religion being polytheistic. Sure, the three aspects are all the same god, but each aspect has its own place, its own personality, its own set of duties, yet they are come from the same source. I see it as a form of polytheism.

[WITHTEETH]

Woah, I'm just getting that Meta. So it takes non intelligence to be altruistic, because if one is conscious then they would be able to automatically tap into their feelings, right?

Edited October 29, 2006 by WITHTEETH

[Pidesco]

Non-zero-sum games are the way to go, if we wish to survive.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero-sum_game

 

http://www.nonzero.org/

Edited October 29, 2006 by Pidesco

[Dark Moth]

The same reason why people see the Hindu religion being polytheistic.  Sure, the three aspects are all the same god, but each aspect has its own place, its own personality, its own set of duties, yet they are come from the same source.  I see it as a form of polytheism.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

It's not polytheistic. In Hinduism, there are gods that are distinctly separate entities. That does make it polytheistic. In Christianity, it's one God with one soul who supposedly manifests in 3 different forms. That does not make it polytheistic.

[WITHTEETH]

The same reason why people see the Hindu religion being polytheistic.  Sure, the three aspects are all the same god, but each aspect has its own place, its own personality, its own set of duties, yet they are come from the same source.  I see it as a form of polytheism.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

It's not polytheistic. In Hinduism, there are gods that are distinctly separate entities. That does make it polytheistic. In Christianity, it's one God with one soul who supposedly manifests in 3 different forms. That does not make it polytheistic.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Yes but everything in hindu is made of that which cannot be described, It just is. So the hindu gods do have this in common.

 

Also why does jesus talk to himself on the hill the day before he gets crucified? Why would he also sacrifice himself to himself?

 

So the Christian god at the very least has multiple schizophrenic personality.

Edited October 29, 2006 by WITHTEETH

[Plano Skywalker]

If altruism goes by this definition then i would have to say there is no altruism personally

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

just to be clear, I was not actually providing a definition for altruism. I was just stating that one could argue that it is a universal reality.

 

 

Have you ever heard of a psychological hedonist?  I think I could debunk every human action into being selfish one way or another. We do think to make us happy. The natural ability we have empathy lets us put ourselves in others shoes and get a glimpse into what they might be feeling, giving us a chance to be compassionate. Doing that compassionate deed makes us feel good, which is why we did it in the first place. We want to feel good. It is the "Good".

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I am actually of the view that everything we do, we do for ourselves. This includes acts of kindness and altruism. In a theological/philosophical context, though, "true altruism" could exist even though human beings cannot themselves practice it.

[kumquatq3]

Dawkins argues that there is no altruistic acts, in fact, one of his most famous  books attacks the point.

 

I don't have the time to spell out the argument, but basically he sees evolution as about the genetic level. Rather the group or individual.

 

...I don't think that makes sense as is, but I don't have time for 3 page paper.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Sure, I was providing some non-intelligent (in any sense that humans are aware of) organism that DOES act in an altruistic manner.

source

source

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

So it is perfectly possible for altruism to spontaneously occur in nature. Is this evidence of the hand of god? Or just another permutation out of the infinite variety of survivability traits available?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Only on the surface. Remember, the books called the "Selfish Gene"

 

From article:

A spore is a cocoon of sorts that serves as a seed for future generations.

 

Aka their DNA and such continue on, even when the "host replicator" dies off.

 

I'm going to just quit for now, because I am obviously not getting my point across in these rushed burst.

 

I just want to say that Dawkins is part of a group who argues evolution on a genetic level, not on the individual or group level. It's about the gene's survival.

 

 

EDIT: Altruism, if evolution was on the individual level, would poss serious problems to theory of evolution. After all, if the "best" of a species kills itself for a weak one that violates what evolution is about. Then you get evolution for the group and that fails to....and I'm going to be soooo late with these papers...**** me.....

Edited October 29, 2006 by kumquatq3

[Sand]

The same reason why people see the Hindu religion being polytheistic.  Sure, the three aspects are all the same god, but each aspect has its own place, its own personality, its own set of duties, yet they are come from the same source.  I see it as a form of polytheism.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

It's not polytheistic. In Hinduism, there are gods that are distinctly separate entities. That does make it polytheistic. In Christianity, it's one God with one soul who supposedly manifests in 3 different forms. That does not make it polytheistic.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Every god in Hinduism come from the same source, the same god. They aren't separated for they all come from the same god. Just as J-man, the spook, and big G are all connected, they are different aspects of the same person. That is form of polytheism.

[Dark Moth]

Every god in Hinduism come from the same source, the same god.  They aren't separated for they all come from the same god.  Just as J-man, the spook, and big G are all connected, they are different aspects of the same person.  That is form of polytheism.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

If that were true though, that would then make Hinduism a monotheistic religion. Unless each god has a separate conscience, then that would make them separate entities regardless of their origin. You might also find it interesting that some people don't consider Hinduism a polytheistic religion.

[Sand]

I know, but I consider it a polytheistic religion. Just as I view modern Christianity as a polytheistic religion.

 

Personally, I don't think Jesus is God. Just some bloke that had some keen ideas which the establishment didn't like, then it got blown all out of proportions.

Edited October 29, 2006 by Sand

[Dark Moth]

Also why does jesus talk to himself on the hill the day before he gets crucified? Why would he also sacrifice himself to himself?

 

So the Christian god at the very least has multiple schizophrenic personality.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Woah! Your logic (or lack thereof) blows me out of the water! Everything Jesus did he did for a reason. You'll also notice in the Bible (if you've even picked one up) that he does in fact say that he and God are the same person. You'll notice that Jesus went to the Synagogues on the Sabbath day as well. Bottom line is, he did everything to set an example and to teach humans how to live, even right down to his death. As for the whole crucifixion thing, it's a very deep concept that can't be explained easily. But it involves God taking sin onto himself, lowering himself so that he could get close to humans and vice-versa, to take the punishment for himself so that we wouldn't have to. Watch Chronicles of Narnia sometime. " Or try researching it for yourself, if you can be bothered to do so.

 

I know, but I consider it a polytheistic religion.  Just as I view modern Christianity as a polytheistic religion.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

So you still think of it that way, despite the mounting evidence that it's not? Whatever. Believe what you want to believe, but you're not thinking this through logically. Using your logic, then that should mean that my dressing up in different costumes and acting a different way makes me a different person. Or that in the Genesis story, Satan manifesting himself as a snake makes him a different person. Correct?

Edited October 29, 2006 by Dark Moth