When two worldviews collide.

[Bradskii]

You have posted that the genetics does not explain the self-sacrificial act. You are a professed materialist. So, where is the material cause for the self-sacrificial act?

I have spent post after post explaining it.

That is not in question. I know why a Christian would self-sacrifice. The question is why an atheist (no belief in an afterlife) would self-sacrifice when, in his worldview, that is all that there is?

Your position is that if someone sacrifices themself then it must be because there is an afterlife. Seriously? None of the reasons I have given are applicable? Someone says: 'Well, the first building collapsed but hey, there's an afterlife so let's go'. And any atheist first responder backs off and makes his or her excuse?

The lifeboats are filling up so all the Christians think 'Well, I'm heaven bound when the ship goes down, so after you madam'. And all the atheists are throwing kids overboard to get in? That's quite a farcical position to take.

 

[o_mlly]

I have spent post after post explaining it.

And I have asked in reply how can a coherent materialist simultaneously claim that we have do not have free will and yet we can freely deny our "selfish genes" impulses. Only rational agents with free will have control over their body's impulses. So, it would seem in order to be coherent that an alternate material source for the materialist's self-sacrificial act is necessary. So far <crickets>.

Your position is that if someone sacrifices themself then it must be because there is an afterlife.

No. Belief in heaven (or hell) may facilitate the self-sacrificial act but Love (aka, the Holy "Inspirer") is the primary motivator.

None of the reasons I have given are applicable? Someone says: 'Well, the first building collapsed but hey, there's an afterlife so let's go'. And any atheist first responder backs off and makes his or her excuse?

The reason you have given as noted above remains incoherent. I have not said that the atheist is incapable of a self-sacrificial act. God loves all His creatures, even those that reject Him. So, He may inspire the atheist as well.

 

[Bradskii]

And I have asked in reply how can a coherent materialist simultaneously claim that we have do not have free will and yet we can freely deny our "selfish genes" impulses. Only rational agents with free will have control over their body's impulses. So, it would seem in order to be coherent that an alternate material source for the materialist's self-sacrificial act is necessary. So far <crickets>.

How many times must I explain it? We have preferences for how we live. We prefer to be considered courageous, brave, gallant. We prefer to not be considered cowardly. We avoid acts that might cause us shame. So we give up a potential seat in the lifeboat to the woman with the child, knowing that we'll die.

No. Belief in heaven (or hell) may facilitate the self-sacrificial act but Love (aka, the Holy "Inspirer") is the primary motivator.

Then you can use that as a determinant. Except note what follows.

I have not said that the atheist is incapable of a self-sacrificial act.

But you asked for examples. If you accept that atheists can sacrifice themselves for others then what's the point of asking for examples to prove it?

God loves all His creatures, even those that reject Him. So, He may inspire the atheist as well.

So all the reasons I have given, the step by step points I have made, it's all countered by 'God did it'. So shame, honour, cowardice, heroism, respect, indignity, bravery, gallantry...all these things count for nothing? We don't act on them? They can be ignored? Don't Christians act on them? Don't they guide their decisions? Or are you saying that God has instilled us, Christian and atheist alike, with these emotions which will then enable our sacrifice?

 

[o_mlly]

How many times must I explain it?

Just once will do quite nicely.

We have preferences for how we live. We prefer to be considered courageous, brave, gallant. We prefer to not be considered cowardly. We avoid acts that might cause us shame.

Yes, yes, yes -- we know all that.

We have the "selfish gene" as the material cause for acting so as to survive. So exactly where is the material cause that trumps our "selfish gene's" impulse to survive? According to evolution, we may sometimes act to cause a bye-product of something useful to evolution, provided that it is not too damaging to reproductive prospects. Death ends any reproductive prospects.

But you asked for examples. If you accept that atheists can sacrifice themselves for others then what's the point of asking for examples to prove it?

Thanks to impulses from a loving God, the possibility for an atheist to self-sacrifice exists. However, if the frequency of atheist's self-sacrificing is lower than non-atheists then we look for evidence. Are atheists more likely to reject God's impulse, you know ... use that free will thing or not. Do you have examples?

So shame, honour, cowardice, heroism, respect, indignity, bravery, gallantry...all these things count for nothing? We don't act on them?

Those things count.

But again, that's not the question, the question to which you cannot or will not respond. Where is the material cause for those movements of the soul?

 

[o_mlly]

So all the reasons I have given, the step by step points I have made, it's all countered by 'God did it'.

Please stop straw manning me.

The impulse to do good, the inspiration (yes, the root of that word is "spirit") for all good acts is Divine in origin. However, we may accept or reject God's suggestion to do good. We call that free will.

So we have a spiritual explanation for denying the "selfish genes" enabling the self-sacrificial act. Still waiting on your material explanation -- you know, those atoms and molecules where they are and where they come from.

 

[Bradskii]

Those things count.

At last.

So rather than keep repeating 'You haven't given any reasons', you now accept that these emotions do actually count when people make a decision to sacrifice themselves for others. They are the reasons. And if you talk to people who have made that decision and survived then they'll tell you that 'It was the honourable thing to do'. They will tell you of their disgust with other people who only thought of themselves. They will tell you of the shame that those people must feel. Even the people who did only did think of themselves will tell you of the shame they felt.

These are incredibly powerful emotions. And in times of extreme danger they are often paramount and supersede any concern for the self. Christians and atheists, anyone of any religious persuasion, indeed, anyone with a pulse feels these emotions. And are prompted to act on them. Are they God given emotions? Has He instilled in us these prompts which allow us to think of others rather than ourselves?

Well, feel free to believe that if you will. Maybe I'm wrong and there is a God and that's exactly what He has done. How can we tell? Because these emotions are real and we know for a fact that they have incredibly powerful effects on us.

Your alternative? Well, see the next post.

 

[Bradskii]

The impulse to do good, the inspiration (yes, the root of that word is "spirit") for all good acts is Divine in origin. However, we may accept or reject God's suggestion to do good. We call that free will.

So those impulses are God given. That impulse to avoid shame is God given. That impulse to be thought of as being courageous is God given. That impulse to give up your seat in the lifeboat is God given. Fair enough, go with that if you like. I have no problem with accepting that. In fact, if I were a Christian I would give you the exact same explanations as I have over multiple posts and told you that the emotions I have given as a reason for self sacrifice are indeed God given.

But your explanation wants to discount all that. It simply wants to say 'Ah, but it's just an inspiration from God'. Which tells us absolutely nothing. This appeal to divine origin has no explanatory power in the slightest. It tells us nothing except that 'God did it'. And that's not straw manning. Just take it on trust. He's God so He wants us to love our fellow travellers.

And you don't see the problem in that. You'll tell us that love (God inspired!) enables us to do those things. You'll emphasise that one emotion, but discount all the rest, even if you believe, as you must, that they are also divinely inspired. Shame? Oh, well...it counts I guess. A sense of honour? Well, that too. Courage? Mmm. I guess we can include that. Bravery? Heroism? Yeah, they all count.

Your problem is not that you haven't been given an answer. You are just desperate to find ways to disagree.

So we have a spiritual explanation for denying the "selfish genes" enabling the self-sacrificial act. Still waiting on your material explanation -- you know, those atoms and molecules where they are and where they come from.

You want to know about the physical aspects of those God given emotions that enable self sacrifice? Those 'self-conscious emotions, such as shame and guilt, (which) play a fundamental role in regulating moral behaviour and in promoting the welfare of society.' The Neural Signatures of Shame, Embarrassment, and Guilt: A Voxel-Based Meta-Analysis on Functional Neuroimaging Studies

'Among moral emotions, a sub-group of emotions (e.g., shame, embarrassment, guilt, and pride) defined as self-conscious emotions helps individuals to navigate the complexities of fitting into groups [1], satisfying the human need of belonging to social groups [17]. Self-conscious emotions are evoked by self-reflection and self-evaluation [18], and occur when social norms or agreed-upon social rules are violated [19], providing an immediate feedback that promotes inhibition or reinforcement of behaviour.'

I'm sure you'll recognise the part about the 'human need of belonging to social groups'...

But you want to know where those molecules actually are. Well, luckily for you, other people have had the same curiosity and have done the hard yards. And you'll surely be pleased to know that we are reasonably sure that the material causes are electrical, physical and chemical processes here:

'At the neural level, shame has been selectively associated with the dorso-lateral prefrontal cortex (dlPFC), the posterior cingulate cortex, and the sensory-motor cortex, whereas embarrassment has been associated with the ventro-lateral prefrontal cortex (vlPFC), the amygdala, and occipital areas, and both emotions with the hippocampus and midbrain.'

Well done, God. Nicely designed I must say.

 

[o_mlly]

So rather than keep repeating 'You haven't given any reasons', you now accept that these emotions do actually count ...

(I skipped your multiple strawman attempts. Please use the "Quote" utility rather than straw manning me in future. Gee, haven't I asked you that before?)

Of course, emotions count. That's not in question.

Unfortunately, the meta-study you cited does not answer the question. I hope that you did not spend too much time desperately searching for it. The emotions of shame and guilt do not provoke heroic behaviors, rather are experienced as the result of simply not behaving normally.

The meta-study simply suggests (read: "6. Limitations") that if I prick you then you will experience specific physiological reactions and psychosomatic responses (limited to the emotions of shame/embarrassment and guilt). The question is what or Who pricked you to enable a self-sacrificial act. I've given you the "Who"; we're still waiting on you to tell us the "what".

 

[Bradskii]

Of course, emotions count. That's not in question.

So they prompt actions.

 

[partinobodycular]

We have the "selfish gene" as the material cause for acting so as to survive. So exactly where is the material cause that trumps our "selfish gene's" impulse to survive?

You don't seem to understand the nature of the "selfish gene" It's just as apt to make you run into the burning building as it is to make you run away from the burning building.

Why?

Because the selfish gene is stupid. It doesn't know what's inevitably going to kill it. It doesn't know that running into a burning building might end in the destruction of your entire species, and it really doesn't care, because it's got a secret weapon... diversity. That selfish gene is simply playing a numbers game, with you and every other living thing on the planet. If some of you die... ehhh, no big deal, he's got something else waiting in the wings to take your place, either by modifying your branch of the gene pool or replacing it altogether.

But in this mindless process of continually tweaking the gene pool that selfish gene has hit upon some very successful strategies, such as bisexual reproduction, quadrupedal locomotion, binocular vision... oh and self-sacrifice for the sake of the greater good. That selfish gene is all about what's best for it and not necessarily what's best for you.

On the other hand, that selfish gene may be stupid... but it's still awful darn good at what it does. Which is why it makes some people run into the burning building, and other people run away from the burning building. Now this may seem irrational, how can dying help my genes survive? Ah, but that selfish gene is sneaky, because it's stashed some of that dying guys genes in with the running away guy's genes. So what looks heroic, and what looks cowardly is actually an absolutely brilliant strategy on the part of that selfish gene. Because you see, thanks to that run away guy, a couple of generations from now there's going to be a whole bunch of heroic guys wandering around again, and once more those cowardly guys are going to fade back into anonymity, at least until fate calls upon them to do what they do best... run away.

You gotta hand it to that selfish gene and the whole remarkable process of evolution... it may look haphazard and irrational, but it's pretty darn good at what it does. It hasn't made a mistake yet. Even God would be impressed.

 

[partinobodycular]

So they prompt actions.

To me it's those emotions that help raise the heroic genes to the top of the gene pool, and relegate the cowardly genes to the bottom without eliminating them entirely. This preference for the heroic in society offsets the higher likelihood that heroes will die in greater numbers. Evolution has simply balanced a greater likelihood to die, with a greater likelihood for the ones that don't die to reproduce.

 

[Bradskii]

To me it's those emotions that help raise the heroic genes to the top of the gene pool, and relegate the cowardly genes to the bottom without eliminating them entirely. This preference for the heroic in society offsets the higher likelihood that heroes will die in greater numbers.

Excellent article that touches on the subjec here: https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2007/10/the-selfless-gene/306196/

Evolution has simply balanced a greater likelihood to die, with a greater likelihood for the ones that don't die to reproduce.

Women and children first...Which was a conclusion that would have been rejected not so long ago because that implies selection at the group level. For some reason that used to be difficult to accept. It always seemed obvious go me. And now (the article mentions it) it's back in favour, even if there is a distinct societal consideration as well as evolutionary.

 

[o_mlly]

You don't seem to understand the nature of the "selfish gene" It's just as apt to make you run into the burning building as it is to make you run away from the burning building. ...

Wow! You do know that the "selfish gene" is just a metaphor, and a tortured metaphor at that. Now, you would further extend that tortured metaphor to a rival metaphor well, let's say some kind of "pluripotent" gene that having reason and free will, can move us in any way it wants. If your pluripotent gene can move us anywhere then it moves us nowhere and explains nothing. Can we get some empiricism here instead of just more blather based on fantasies?

Do you have evidence that our genes are rational and have free will? Of course not. Your fellow atheist has dismissed genetics as explanatory for the self-sacrificial act and so should you.

So, you are back to identifying the material cause for the self-sacrificial act. Got anything scientific? And a little math as a foundation would be much appreciated.

 

[partinobodycular]

You do know that the "selfish gene" is just a metaphor,

Yes, I'm well aware of that... what I find really fascinating is that God is also an apt metaphor for the selfish gene. They're the same thing.

Do you have evidence that our genes are rational and have free will?

Wow, how quickly you forgot that it's a metaphor.

But oddly enough, it would be the exact same evidence that you have for God possessing these things. So I guess it's a tie. Your God against my "selfish gene". I'll buy a ticket for that one.

Your fellow atheist has dismissed genetics as explanatory for the self-sacrificial act and so should you.

I can't really speak to that, because I haven't read everything that @Bradskii has posted in this thread... and I'm not going to.

However, having been reading Bradskii/Bradski posts for many years I'm fairly certain that whatever he said was perfectly rational. Things such as shame can indeed be great motivators, but one shouldn't forget that such psychological and emotional forces are at their core genetic in origin. Something that I'm pretty sure Bradskii is well aware of, but if he'd like to correct me on that point I'd be more than interested to hear what he has to say.

So, you are back to identifying the material cause for the self-sacrificial act.

It's a genetic predisposition toward the well being of others, which may or may not be combined with emotional, psychological, and social pressures. In other words it's not always genetics alone, it's genetics in combination with other outside forces.

 

[o_mlly]

... psychological and emotional forces are at their core genetic in origin ... It's a genetic predisposition toward the well being of others ... it's genetics in combination with other outside forces. ... emotional forces are at their core genetic in origin.

No observations ... no math, not even one number? Just more naked assertions w/o evidence. Not very scientific. I think the proper term for such things is "opinions." Everybody has one of those.

The honest scientist would admit that he just doesn't have a good hypothesis. The deliberative scientist would declare his assertions are merely possibilities while designing a study to produce some evidence, measurable stuff (that math thing, again). The lazy scientist is one who simply opines his opinions as if they were facts. (See above.)

So, as there is no science evidencing a material cause for the self-sacrificial act, we will rely on the spiritual one.

God is also an apt metaphor for the selfish gene.

What? You just made that up, didn't you? No need to respond as I have read some of your other posts. Aren't you genetically ashamed?

 

[partinobodycular]

No observations ... no math, not even one number? Just more naked assertions w/o evidence...

...So, as there is no science evidencing a material cause for the self-sacrificial act, we will rely on the spiritual one.

Wow, if that ain't a pot and a kettle. Then again you're free to believe whatever you want to, I just find it interesting that you'd jump directly from "... no math" to "God did it". Is that always your level of scientific scrutiny, ask some random guy on the internet for math? On the other hand that would explain a lot.

God is also an apt metaphor for the selfish gene.

What? You just made that up, didn't you?

Not really... it's seemed obvious for quite some time. My "selfish gene" can do anything that your God can do. (Remember it's a metaphor... so it's not literally a gene) It's simply another name for what philosophy would describe as a first cause. You've just anthropomorphized the heck out of it. But a first cause by any other name is still a first cause. It's just not quite as fealty inspiring or fear invoking.

But you asked for a material cause and I gave you one. If you don't like it that's your problem.

 

[partinobodycular]

Aren't you genetically ashamed?

Nope... I don't do ashamed. It's an emotion... I don't do emotions.

 

[o_mlly]

Got anything scientific?

It's a genetic predisposition toward the well being of others, which may or may not be combined with emotional, psychological, and social pressures. In other words it's not always genetics alone, it's genetics in combination with other outside forces.

Sorry, I inferred from your reply that you might be a scientist. Obviously, I was wrong.

 

[partinobodycular]

Sorry, I inferred from your reply that you might be a scientist. Obviously, I was wrong.

Seeing as how I only have a 9th grade education I'll consider that a compliment. I take 'em where I can get 'em. For future reference, many of my posts are an attempt at being snarky... (I'm still working on it) With relevant points often being well hidden. You seem to be a practitioner of the craft as well, so I take no offense to any snark you may contribute to our conversations.

But just to be clear, there are relevant points in my posts lest you think them totally facetious.

 

[Bradskii]

It's a genetic predisposition toward the well being of others, which may or may not be combined with emotional, psychological, and social pressures. In other words it's not always genetics alone, it's genetics in combination with other outside forces.

Exactly! It's the point I have been making for umpteen posts. I don't think you're going to have much more success than I did in getting that across. There seems to be some block that there is no material cause. But...

...If I'm caught sneaking onto a lifeboat wearing a wig to escape the sinking ship with the women and children then I'm dragged off and publicly ridiculed and quite possibly beaten. If that's not a material cause of my shame then...I'm at a loss to explain it. It's an emotion I desperately want to avoid. To the point where I will risk sacrificing my own life to avoid it. It's a given that some people who have been publicly shamed will commit suicide. It's that strong an emotion.

Is that the only reason? No. Is genetics involved? Yes. Will everyone act in exactly the same way? No. Will I act the same way in different situations? No. Are there other emotions involved? Yes.