Evolution and Evil

[Naraoia]

Someone falling is too vague an example for natural selection, survival of the fittest, or fight or flight.

Ok, then let's suppose that he fell because his sense of balance was rubbish. Sense of balance is a perfect trait for NS to act upon. Do you accept the question now?

By the way, the original falling example wasn't about NS, it was about gravity. In which case the cause of poor victim's falling makes no difference, since in either case it was gravity that stopped him from levitating away and surviving.

 

[AV1611VET]

Ok, then let's suppose that he fell because his sense of balance was rubbish. Sense of balance is a perfect trait for NS to act upon. Do you accept the question now?

By the way, the original falling example wasn't about NS, it was about gravity. In which case the cause of poor victim's falling makes no difference, since in either case it was gravity that stopped him from levitating away and surviving.

And again, someone falling is much too vague.

If you want to discuss the hypocrisy of accepting lemmings running into the sea, but not humans; or try to dance around the Malthusian Doctrine --- those would be much better doctrines.

But, of course, you'd rather discuss vague examples, like someone being shot as soon as they step off an elevator (that was embarrassing to type - and it wasn't even my idea) so as to make it look like a difficult point to defend.

 

[MrGoodBytes]

How is providing evidence that the holocaust is linked or caused by a theory you don't believe in defending?

Just so you don't forget, AV. You still haven't told me how the holocaust is linked to fight-or-flight, hunter-gatherers etc.

 

[Loudmouth]

The way I am thinking, is that the world is full of bad things. Man is capable of doing the most horrid things. I just want to know why.

What is bad? That seems to be the first question.

There seems to be a pragmatic view. Many societies do take this view, most notably communist systems. What is good for the state is good for the citizen. What works (i.e. pragmatic) is good. What doesn't work for society is bad.

Then there is the personal view which is best summed up in the Golden Rule. From this view, bad things are things that you don't want done to yourself. If you want personal freedoms then taking away someone's personal freedoms is bad. If you don't want to be shot then shooting someone is bad.

You can only do something "bad" if you realize it is bad before you do it. Evil is best defined as a person knowing something is really, really bad and doing it anyway. Evil implies intent to do something that one knows is wrong.

Why men do evil probably has more to do with psychology than evolution directly.

You will probably blaim war mostly on religion... but if man is evolving as you claim... why is he evolving in the way he is.

I blame war on humans.

Is the idea of religion part of evolution?

Our psychology is a product of evolution in that we evolved a big brain that allows us to manipulate our environment. Religion, happiness, evil, and philanthropy all seem to stem from the same source, our evolved brain.

In my opinion, religion is as much a product of evolution as constellations in the night sky are products of gravity. The main driving force of recent human evolution is our ability to think. A byproduct of that evolution is a tendency to ascribe a deeper meaning to things we do not understand.

Why does not man evolve without religion?

They have. They are called atheists.

 

[consol]

Evolution is the simplest thing in the world to understand.

If a thing can survive, it breeds, it if can't survive, it doesn't breed,
and in order to survive in a changing world, some offspring are slightly different from their parents,
the ones who are best at adapting survive and breed the most, the others decline.

That is evolution in a nutshell.

There is no emotion whatsoever attached to nature, there is no good and no bad, a thing lives or it dies,
and things die so that others may live, from the bottom to the top, everything will get it's chance,
and when another comet hits the earth or the sun burns out, everyone and everything dies,
and all of their imaginary Gods will die with them.

 

[thaumaturgy]

And again, someone falling is much too vague.

If you want to discuss the hypocrisy of accepting lemmings running into the sea, but not humans; or try to dance around the Malthusian Doctrine --- those would be much better doctrines.

But, of course, you'd rather discuss vague examples, like someone being shot as soon as they step off an elevator (that was embarrassing to type - and it wasn't even my idea) so as to make it look like a difficult point to defend.

So what about the Malthusian Doctrine? If indeed the population increases geometrically while the means to provide for the survival of the population increase arithmetically, sooner or later we won't be able to continue increasing our population.

This isn't morality, this is mathematics. And we aren't the first to run up against it.

I seem to recall a paleontological example (which I am unable to track down right now) about an area that was overgrazed by a herd of diploticus that ultimately suffered a die-off because they ate the vegetation and left themselves with nothing to eat.

Even today as deer populations are allowed to run amok in areas of high vegetation growth (like the suburbs on the East Coast) they overpopulate and disease runs rampant in their herds and when there is a decrease in the food supply it causes starvation.

Is this somehow "mystical"?

Humans are, whether you like it or not, animals that must have sufficient food and water to survive.

 

[trunks2k]

I don't get the way you think also. I'm trying to understand... I may need time to consider it.

That's fine. As others have pointed out you're thinking of morality, sin, and good/evil in a very different way than we are.

The way I am thinking, is that the world is full of bad things. Man is capable of doing the most horrid things. I just want to know why.

We need to define what is "bad" first. To me, and many other atheists (as well as some other theists, depending on their religion), there is no universal good or bad. What is good and bad is defined by a given culture. Our modern culture teaches us that slavery is bad and evil, our culture 200 years ago would not have taught us that.

What we consider good or evil today, may not be the same tomorrow. You previously brought up the Holocaust. If Hitler had indeed won WWII and had taken over all of Europe and achieved his final solution, I'd bet you that we wouldn't be viewing the Holocaust as a bad thing right now (that is if we lived in a place that was controlled by Germany).

You will probably blaim war mostly on religion...

I don't blame war on religion per se. Rather I think the causes of war are much more fundamental - the need to control land and resources. But religion often works as an excellent way to galvanize the population and make them more willing to fight a given war. If you think god is on your side, then you're more likely to fight.

but if man is evolving as you claim... why is he evolving in the way he is.

why not? Most of the things, such as war, that we see today are basic natural behaviors taken to a much larger scale. Look at groups of social animals, they constantly fight each other for control over territory. It makes sense in terms of evolution. But we have the ability to provide for and control a much larger social group (i.e. an entire nation) than an animal can. So our fights over territory are on a much grander scale.

Is the idea of religion part of evolution?

There's nothing about religion that would really be a reproductive disadvantage. In many situations it could be an advantage, or can just be the side effect of other advantageous properties like abstract thinking.

Why does not man evolve without religion?

Because that's just the way we evolved. The bigger question is what reason would there be for the concept of religion not to have evolved?

 

[Gary51]

Evolution is the simplest thing in the world to understand.

If a thing can survive, it breeds, it if can't survive, it doesn't breed,
and in order to survive in a changing world, some offspring are slightly different from their parents,
the ones who are best at adapting survive and breed the most, the others decline.

That is evolution in a nutshell.

There is no emotion whatsoever attached to nature, there is no good and no bad, a thing lives or it dies,
and things die so that others may live, from the bottom to the top, everything will get it's chance,
and when another comet hits the earth or the sun burns out, everyone and everything dies,
and all of their imaginary Gods will die with them.

Does everyone agree with this Guy?

 

[Naraoia]

And again, someone falling is much too vague.

Why?

If you want to discuss the hypocrisy of accepting lemmings running into the sea, but not humans;

LEMMINGS DON'T VOLUNTARILY KILL THEMSELVES. Lemmings have bad years and good years and too good ones. When they breed more little lemmings than their habitat can support they go out and try to find a new habitat. If there's a river on their route... well, they don't have much choice but to try to swim.

or try to dance around the Malthusian Doctrine --- those would be much better doctrines.

What is it you want with the Malthusian Doctrine? I'm willing discuss it, but only if you ask specific questions that can be addressed. In other words, don't be vague.

But, of course, you'd rather discuss vague examples, like someone being shot as soon as they step off an elevator (that was embarrassing to type - and it wasn't even my idea) so as to make it look like a difficult point to defend.

Thought experiment =/= vague... I think this was a very well-defined situation. It seems you are redefining 'vague' to mean something it doesn't.

Main Entry vague
1 a: not clearly expressed : stated in indefinite terms <vague accusations> b: not having a precise meaning <a vague term of abuse>2 a: not clearly defined, grasped, or understood [...]

Which of these fits the elevator or the falling man example? Or are you implying that you don't understand them?

 

[AV1611VET]

Just so you don't forget, AV. You still haven't told me how the holocaust is linked to fight-or-flight, hunter-gatherers etc.

• [ ___ ] Remind me again in 1 day.
• [ ___ ] Remind me again in 3 days.
• [ ___ ] Remind me again in 1 week.
• [ _x _] Don't remind me again.

 

[trunks2k]

Does everyone agree with this Guy?

Mostly yes. But I some issue with the "if it survives, it breeds". That's not true. Just because a given organism survives doesn't mean it will breed, or breed effectively.

But in general yes. There is no good or bad in the processes of nature. They just are. We decide on our own whether or not something is good or bad. And different cultures have different ideas of what is good or bad.

 

[Naraoia]

• [ ___ ] Remind me again in 1 day.
• [ ___ ] Remind me again in 3 days.
• [ ___ ] Remind me again in 1 week.
• [ _x _] Don't remind me again.

The best way to avoid being reminded about questions is answering them

 

[TheOutsider]

Does everyone agree with this Guy?

I agree with all of it except the last 2 lines. Evolution really isn't that difficult of a concept if you understand basic biology and chemistry. An organism is born with genetic material. If it is viable enough (and lucky enough) it will reproduce but the offspring will have slightly different genetic material. If that organism then is viable enough (and lucky enough) it will then reproduce. And so on and so on and so on... Birth, growth, reproduction, death. It's one big circle of life.

 

[AV1611VET]

The best way to avoid being reminded about questions is answering them

I'm becoming very selective in what I answer. If a point starts breeding one question after another --- it's time to shut off the spigot.

 

[Naraoia]

Does everyone agree with this Guy?

Nope, I quite firmly disagree on some points.

in order to survive in a changing world, some offspring are slightly different from their parents,

No.

(1) ALL sexually derived offspring are different from BOTH their parents except in the highly unlikely case that the parents have at least one allele of each of their genes in common AND the offspring happens to get the exact same complement of alleles that are found in one of its parents. Since crossing over and chromosome segregation are random, the probability of that is very small.

Asexual organisms will differ from their parent if a mutation has occurred in the cell they developed from.

(2) Very importantly, offspring aren't different from their parents "in order to" do something, they are different because recombination and mutation (more or less random processes) exist. However, this does lead to heritable variation which is a necessary condition for evolution to occur.

things die so that others may live

In a sense this may be true in colonial/social organisms. But only in a sense of 'if you aren't willing to die for your relatives, perhaps none of you will survive. If you are willing, at least one of you may live and pass on the genes that made you willing to sacrifice yourself'. Genetic relatedness is a very important factor in the evolution of altruism.

If a thing can survive, it breeds

I'd modify this to:

If a thing breeds, it surely was good enough to survive.

I went to a week-long plant science summer school in July where one of the stars of the course was Arabidopsis thaliana, the classic model organism of plant genetics & development. I saw several mutants which were perfectly viable - but they had defective reproductive parts, or lacked them altogether (ironically, the only Arabidopsis specimen I could perhaps call beautiful, one with several whorls of snow-white petals, was one of them ).

 

[Naraoia]

I'm becoming very selective in what I answer. If a point starts breeding one question after another --- it's time to shut off the spigot.

Or time to shoot off into the unexplored. Who knows, you might even find knowledge on the other end of the chain In any case, just leaving a question directed at you unanswered isn't very nice. It's slightly better to say you're not going to answer it, but why on earth do you come to a debate if you aren't willing to defend your point of view?

 

[MrGoodBytes]

• [ ___ ] Remind me again in 1 day.
• [ ___ ] Remind me again in 3 days.
• [ ___ ] Remind me again in 1 week.
• [ _x _] Don't remind me again.

As you wish. I shall extend the List of Things AV1611VET Doesn't Understand But Uses As Arguments Anyway by one item.

 

[Gary51]

I’m still not getting it… the way you guys think that is.

There are posts flying about all over the place, and they are not all in agreement. There are too many of you firing answers at me, its hard to keep track of who said what.

I am simply trying to understand how an atheist views the nature of man. Humanity has the knowledge to know the difference between right and wrong. An animal does not know the difference between right and wrong, animals live by instinct… Now don’t go rushing off to tell me your dog knows when it has done something wrong, your dog has just learnt to know what displeases you… Humanity is forever at war… it never seems to learn that war is bad. Again don’t go running off saying that most wars are caused by religion, so it is religion that’s bad. According to you guys God does not exist, so humanity must have invented God, so humanity invented religion.

You will all have answers as to how and why religion evolved, but what is its purpose for it evolving? How is it beneficial to humanity when it poses a threat of total destruction from nuclear conflict? It seems to me that man’s inherent nature for warfare will not aid in the future of human evolution. Humanity appears to have an illogical attitude to progress.

As for atheist reason to what many of you claim, that evil does not exist… well it’s beyond me.

There is evil in this world… how can it be denied… it’s all around us. I just heard on the news tonight that a baby was torture to death by it’s own father. I’m sorry but that kind of thing really upsets me in a big way. What will you guys say… the father is mentally ill… maybe he is… or maybe he is just evil.

I don’t think you do yourselves any favours by denying that evil exists…. but then it’s not for me to judge.

I also think that we will never agree… so this will be my last post in this thread. But I do appreciate your responses none the less.

I know this will probably grate on your nerves… but I don’t say it to do that… I say it because I mean it.

God be with you.

Gary

 

[thaumaturgy]

I am simply trying to understand how an atheist views the nature of man. Humanity has the knowledge to know the difference between right and wrong. An animal does not know the difference between right and wrong, animals live by instinct&#8230;

Hmm. Why do you say that? Don't you think humans are animals?

Honestly, think about what you are claiming here:

Humans "know" right from wrong like killing their friend is "wrong". But how many dogs do you see, in a pack, killing other dogs in the pack?

Probably virtually NONE. The pack survives by enforcing "laws" very strictly, but they don't survive by killing each other off.

Humans are exactly the same. Some researchers I once recall reading, indicated that early humans might have actually learned from wolfpacks how to cooperate in social structures. Again, sorry I can't find a reference for that.

But indeed what differentiates us from other animals other than your wish that we be somehow different?

Why is murder wrong? Is it because God told you so? Or is it more fundamental and animalistic? Social creatures simply cannot survive if their society is threatened from within.

Why does this seem to cause you some consternation?

 

[Loudmouth]

I am simply trying to understand how an atheist views the nature of man. Humanity has the knowledge to know the difference between right and wrong. An animal does not know the difference between right and wrong, animals live by instinct…

Perhaps our knowledge of right and wrong is also instinctual. We instinctually know what other people feel like when something happens to them. We call it empathy. We are able to put ourselves in other people's shoes, as it were. Therefore, we know when our actions cause pain or distress. We also know that we don't like it when we are in pain or distressed. This leads to one and only one conclusion, causing pain and distress is wrong. Empathy and the Golden Rule is the foundation for all human morality.

Humanity is forever at war… it never seems to learn that war is bad. Again don’t go running off saying that most wars are caused by religion, so it is religion that’s bad. According to you guys God does not exist, so humanity must have invented God, so humanity invented religion.

Humans are also easily influenced. They will inflict pain if ordered to.

I can't remember who conducted the experiment, but there was a very interesting study done in the mid 1900's. The study subject was put in charge of a box that produced an electric current. The box was hooked up to another human being. The subject was told to input different amounts of voltage, and then the person hooked up to the box was administered a shock at that voltage. No matter how much someone screamed when being shocked the test subject would keep increasing the voltage if they were told too. All they were ever told is that the study was important and they had to keep shocking the person because they needed the results of the test.

The person hooked up to the box was actually an actor, but the test subject didn't know that. People even administered what they thought were lethal levels of voltage. It is a fascinating study. Wish I could remember who did it.

You will all have answers as to how and why religion evolved, but what is its purpose for it evolving?

It didn't evolve, our brains did. Religion is a consequence of evolving a big brain that is quick to make associations between unrelated phenomena. Most of the time these associations are helpful, and sometimes they are not helpful but not harmful either. The association between fire and dead animals was a helpful association. Our earliest hominid ancestors probably burned large tracts of grassland and fed on the animals killed by the fires. At other times people made associations between physical phenomena using superstition which isn't helpful but it isn't harmful either.

As for atheist reason to what many of you claim, that evil does not exist… well it’s beyond me.

Atheists do not belong to a single denomination. We tend to be islands unto ourselves. I believe evil does exist just as bad and good exist. Evil is an action, not a thing per se.

There is evil in this world… how can it be denied… it’s all around us. I just heard on the news tonight that a baby was torture to death by it’s own father. I’m sorry but that kind of thing really upsets me in a big way. What will you guys say… the father is mentally ill… maybe he is… or maybe he is just evil.

If he knew it was wrong then he was evil. If he did not know that it was wrong then he is sick.