Secularism the political motivation for evolutionism

lesliedellow said:

Social Darwinism was the idea, current amongst the "intelligentsia" at the beginning of the twentieth century, that, since Evolution was "scientific" it should be used as the basis for morality, and that idea leads straight into eugenics. Nobody today thinks that Evolution can be taken out of its proper context, as a theory about how species evolve. Even Richard Dawkins does not think it is any basis for morality.

Click to expand...

“We are survival machines – robot vehicles blindly programmed to preserve the selfish molecules known as genes. This is a truth which still fills me with astonishment.”
― Richard Dawkins, The Selfish Gene

lesliedellow said:

No there isn't.

Click to expand...

Sure there is. The 'how' of Darwinist evolution (mutation+time=all life we observe today) is based on guesses and suppositions.

justlookinla said:

“We are survival machines – robot vehicles blindly programmed to preserve the selfish molecules known as genes. This is a truth which still fills me with astonishment.”
― Richard Dawkins, The Selfish Gene

Click to expand...

So? Unless you think that human nature is perfection itself, why should that description of human nature give you problems?

lesliedellow said:

So? Unless you think that human nature is perfection itself, why should that description of human nature give you problems?

Click to expand...

Richard Dawkins thought it was a basis for morality. We're programmed and morally act according to our genes. Your actions, my actions, everyone's actions are products of blind genetic programming, according to Dawkins.

justlookinla said:

Richard Dawkins thought it was a basis for morality. We're programmed and morally act according to our genes. Your actions, my actions, everyone's actions are products of blind genetic programming, according to Dawkins.

Click to expand...

Where does he say that exactly? In my hearing he has said the exact opposite. I am no fan of Richard Dawkins, but I will defend him against unjust accusations.

lesliedellow said:

Where does he say that exactly? In my hearing he has said the exact opposite. I am no fan of Richard Dawkins, but I will defend him against unjust accusations.

Click to expand...

The quote indicates it. We are "blindly programmed" for 'selfishness'.

justlookinla said:

The quote indicates it. We are "blindly programmed" for 'selfishness'.

Click to expand...

So? Where does he say that is a basis for morality?

lesliedellow said:

So? Where does he say that is a basis for morality?

Click to expand...

Selfishness impacts morality.

justlookinla said:

“We are survival machines – robot vehicles blindly programmed to preserve the selfish molecules known as genes. This is a truth which still fills me with astonishment.”
― Richard Dawkins, The Selfish Gene

Click to expand...

Need I remind you that Richard Dawkins is not Atheist Jesus? The lack of tact in one man doesn't make a position defining moment.

PsychoSarah said:

Need I remind you that Richard Dawkins is not Atheist Jesus? The lack of tact in one man doesn't make a position defining moment.

Click to expand...

Someone referenced Dawkins, I simply responded. Do you disagree with his premise?

justlookinla said:

Selfishness impacts morality.

Click to expand...

We are what we are. So to repeat the question I implicitly asked earlier, why should somebody who supposedly accepts the doctrine of original sin have problems with the idea that our nature is less than 100% beautiful and wonderful when it comes to morality?

justlookinla said:

Someone referenced Dawkins, I simply responded. Do you disagree with his premise?

Click to expand...

Yes. Selfishness implies conscious intent. While we are biological beings which, ultimately, desire to survive and reproduce to pass on our genes, it is a biological drive. Additionally, humans are a social species, which means we benefit when forming mutually helpful groups. This too is biologically driven in social species such as ourselves, for as no single honey bee can meet its full potential without a hive, so too can no single human thrive completely without the contributions of others.

I disagree more with the phrasing of this biological drive to survive and reproduce being labelled as "selfish" more than anything else, especially when considering social species will often give up their lives or potential to reproduce for the betterment of the group as a whole. And yes, these kinds of actions can be evolutionarily beneficial, given that genes are better preserved when a portion of the population is willing to die to retain the already existing group (which, especially in ancient times, would have been more of a small number of extended families than unrelated people) then running off on their own and each trying to individually survive. Basically, saving your sister, brothers, and cousins, with whom you share many genes, so that they may live on to reproduce, is more evolutionarily sound than all of you going off on your own, and risking death by wild animals or starvation.

lesliedellow said:

We are what we are.

Click to expand...

Yes, Dawkins claims that we're "blindly programmed". We are what we are with no personal responsibility for our actions.

So to repeat the question I implicitly asked earlier, why should somebody who supposedly accepts the doctrine of original sin have problems with the idea that our nature is less than 100% beautiful and wonderful when it comes to morality?

Click to expand...

I was responding to your statement that "Even Richard Dawkins does not think it is any basis for morality", but in fact does think it's a basis for morality (selfishness).

justlookinla said:

Yes, Dawkins claims that we're "blindly programmed". We are what we are with no personal responsibility for our actions.



I was responding to your statement that "Even Richard Dawkins does not think it is any basis for morality", but in fact does think it's a basis for morality (selfishness).

Click to expand...

Hardly, humans are composites of our genetics and our experiences. How much each contributes is the continuous "nature versus nurture" debate, but only extremists would claim genetics are fully responsible (same goes for those that would claim our environment is fully responsible). I highly doubt Dawkins thinks that we are blindly programmed in our actions completely; as it were, instinct and genes generally have less of an impact on behavior and personality than experiences do. The exceptions tend to be in regards to chemical balance in the brain, and basic brain structure, hence why genetics play such a strong role in mental disorders such as schizophrenia.

PsychoSarah said:

Yes. Selfishness implies conscious intent.

Click to expand...

Well....depends on what you mean by conscious intent. Do we choose to be selfish or are we "blindly programmed" to be selfish, as Dawkins claims. If we choose to be selfish, then genetics isn't the determinate in our behavior....something else determines behavior, if are controlled by "blindly programmed" genes, we aren't responsible for our behavior.

While we are biological beings which, ultimately, desire to survive and reproduce to pass on our genes, it is a biological drive.

Click to expand...

That's certainly one view of the purpose of one's existence....but isn't based on anything other than subjective thought.

Additionally, humans are a social species, which means we benefit when forming mutually helpful groups. This too is biologically driven in social species such as ourselves, for as no single honey bee can meet its full potential without a hive, so too can no single human thrive completely without the contributions of others.

Click to expand...

Birds of a feather flock together.

I disagree more with the phrasing of this biological drive to survive and reproduce being labelled as "selfish" more than anything else, especially when considering social species will often give up their lives or potential to reproduce for the betterment of the group as a whole.

Click to expand...

Do you agree that we're "blindly programmed"? That's an interesting claim with many implications.

And yes, these kinds of actions can be evolutionarily beneficial, given that genes are better preserved when a portion of the population is willing to die to retain the already existing group (which, especially in ancient times, would have been more of a small number of extended families than unrelated people) then running off on their own and each trying to individually survive. Basically, saving your sister, brothers, and cousins, with whom you share many genes, so that they may live on to reproduce, is more evolutionarily sound than all of you going off on your own, and risking death by wild animals or starvation.

Click to expand...

That's certainly one of the many subjective views of the purpose of one's existence.

PsychoSarah said:

Hardly, humans are composites of our genetics and our experiences. How much each contributes is the continuous "nature versus nurture" debate, but only extremists would claim genetics are fully responsible (same goes for those that would claim our environment is fully responsible).

Click to expand...

I find that, generally speaking, the 'its' genetic behavior' is employed to explain certain behaviors in individuals when personal choices of that individual is wished to be minimized. For example, the claim is that homosexuality is genetic, not a personal choice of the individual, yet when that same individual behaves in some unacceptable manner it's no longer genetic behavior but free will choices of the individual.

I highly doubt Dawkins thinks that we are blindly programmed in our actions completely; as it were, instinct and genes generally have less of an impact on behavior and personality than experiences do.

Click to expand...

I doubt that too. What I don't doubt is that Dawkins will subjectively pick and choose what behaviors are "blindly programmed" and which are personal choices.

The exceptions tend to be in regards to chemical balance in the brain, and basic brain structure, hence why genetics play such a strong role in mental disorders such as schizophrenia.

Click to expand...

The key is determining which actions of individuals are personal choices and which are results of mental disorders.

justlookinla said:

For example, the claim is that homosexuality is genetic, not a personal choice of the individual.

Click to expand...

Who makes that claim?

justlookinla said:

I find that, generally speaking, the 'its' genetic behavior' is employed to explain certain behaviors in individuals when personal choices of that individual is wished to be minimized. For example, the claim is that homosexuality is genetic, not a personal choice of the individual, yet when that same individual behaves in some unacceptable manner it's no longer genetic behavior but free will choices of the individual.

Click to expand...

Our sexuality is not allowed to be discussed, but a genetically analogous case is autism. In twin studies, if one identical twin is autistic, then there is more than a 70% chance that the other twin will also be autistic. If there were no genetic components to autism, this percentage would equal that of pulling a random person off the street, which is roughly 1%. Obviously, there is a strong genetic link for autism, but as the number is not 100%, genes alone are not to blame. However, the environmental factors that contribute to autism are unknown, and symptoms show before the child is of speaking age. An autistic person cannot choose to not have the disorder any more than a non autistic person can choose to have it, even though genes alone do not guarantee the condition will develop. This is because autism relates to early brain development, and we cannot, with our current understanding and technology, prevent a brain from developing in that way. Just because genetics are not fully to blame does not make it a choice.

justlookinla said:

I doubt that too. What I don't doubt is that Dawkins will subjectively pick and choose what behaviors are "blindly programmed" and which are personal choices.

Click to expand...

The guy just has no tact, hence why it is so easy to quote mine him. Regardless, his opinion on the matter is factually irrelevant by itself. I personally am not a fan of his work when it pertains to the philosophical.

justlookinla said:

The key is determining which actions of individuals are personal choices and which are results of mental disorders.

Click to expand...

We are composites of both biology and environment; while a person may be genetically predisposed to anger issues, it doesn't mean that they will inevitably kill another person. Although, mental disorders that create definable insanity may render decision making incredibly distorted to the point that we do not feel that the individual is responsible for their actions, they are still making a choice. That choice is to attack the monster eating brains, which unfortunately happens to actually be the next door neighbor watering their flowers. You'd probably react to such a beast in a similar fashion, were it to be real, or if you perceived it to be real.

ecco said:

Who makes that claim?

Click to expand...

http://www.natureworldnews.com/articles/10443/20141118/homosexuality-genetic-strongest-evidence.htm

PsychoSarah said:

Our sexuality is not allowed to be discussed, but a genetically analogous case is autism. In twin studies, if one identical twin is autistic, then there is more than a 70% chance that the other twin will also be autistic. If there were no genetic components to autism, this percentage would equal that of pulling a random person off the street, which is roughly 1%. Obviously, there is a strong genetic link for autism, but as the number is not 100%, genes alone are not to blame. However, the environmental factors that contribute to autism are unknown, and symptoms show before the child is of speaking age. An autistic person cannot choose to not have the disorder any more than a non autistic person can choose to have it, even though genes alone do not guarantee the condition will develop. This is because autism relates to early brain development, and we cannot, with our current understanding and technology, prevent a brain from developing in that way. Just because genetics are not fully to blame does not make it a choice.

Click to expand...

Seems to be that the whole nature vs nurture issue is subjective then. Could be this, might be that, maybe a combination of the two.

The guy just has no tact, hence why it is so easy to quote mine him. Regardless, his opinion on the matter is factually irrelevant by itself. I personally am not a fan of his work when it pertains to the philosophical.

Click to expand...

He's certainly a celebrity in the anti-theist world.

We are composites of both biology and environment; while a person may be genetically predisposed to anger issues, it doesn't mean that they will inevitably kill another person.

Click to expand...

Some believe we're composites of both biology and environment, but the specifics are still nothing but subjective guesses. It seems to me that biology is used when certain immoral behavior is wanted to be treated as moral and environment is used when an excuse is needed for less than desirable behavior.