Evolution does explain why we have certain base ethical concerns and care about each other. It explains it, but it doensn’t justify it. That’s in the same way that no finding in science should ever be taken to mean “this is how we should act”. Evolution is beautiful in a sense, but in another sense it’s rather cruel and barbaric. To the point, some species evolve straight into dead ends of extinction, with every step along the way in their immediate best interest, but not their long term best interest. Sometimes, this does happen, and to quote Richard Dawkins “that’s just too bad”, however also to paraphrase him, the point is that evolution should NEVER be taken as a moral imperative or a source of moral conduct. It’s a fact, but so is gravity. I don’t see many people saying flight is immoral (yes I know flight doesn’t break the law of gravity at all, but neither does having a moral code that doesn’t take into account evolution).

Just because we are shaped by evolution doesn’t mean anything we do is justified by it. We have other rather evil things that evolution may have had a hand in, and that would be a reality but it would be something for us to overcome, not consider “just”.

We can form a moral code outside of evolutionary pressure, and to be frank, in a lot of ways, we should. In fact, we should not count on the slow process of evolution, the completely blind to the future process, any more. We can do better, improve on nature, and it’s in our best interests to. If we can develop a keen understanding of genetics, it’s in our best interests, perhaps in the best interests of every strain on the planet, for us to take hold of the reins of blind evolution and use our capacity for forsight to steer ourselves in a better direction.

Evolution is a fact. Evolution does NOT dictate morality. This goes both for idiotic creationists saying “evolution leads to genocide” and those who would argue that evolution justifies our good behavior. Yes, it is a source of some of our good behavior, and some of our bad behavior, but at this point the realm of ideas kinda has that beat. The recent centuries of moral change had nothing to do with evolution, for example. Clearly whatever our current moral code is derived from, it isn’t from evolution, at least not in it’s entirety. So no, I would not argue that evolution fully explains our morality, and indeed, I would not argue at all that even if it DID fully explain it, it would justify it. To do that would justify certain reprehensible traits, such as a genetic disposition to believe without evidence and force that on others.

I’d much rather go with a basic principle of “do no harm to others”, and let the definition of harm be determined by the “other” in question. Clearly life isn’t as simple as that but it’s a good principle to start with.

It wasn’t you who said “All Christians lie,” but an earlier poster (scroll up). All you did was back him up.

And you didn’t say that Christians drank the blood of atheist babies, but you more or less said it was true in effect. Go back and read your own post!

And I still think your contention that the Bible was repeatedly rewritten is conspiracy-theory stuff. I’m familiar with some of the original manuscripts, which you apparently are not. Nobody has engaged in any wholesale, or even partial, rewriting of the Bible. It’s a popular myth, an urban legend. There’s no actual scholarship backing it up. It’s like thinking Columbus proved the Earth was round. Or that the Proctor and Gamble logo contains Satanic symbols.

Examples: Pavel, Paulo, Paul, Pauli. Leonardo, Lenard.
Johanssen, Johanson, Johnson. Abraham, Ibrahim, Brahma.]]

Ah. So the fact that the way names are written has changed throughout history proves that people rewrote the Bible? You seem to have a few intermediate logical steps missing there.

[[@ Barton Paul Levensonon 10 Mar 2008 at 8:39 am
All of them?
Do they drink the blood of atheist babies, too?
———————–
They _do_ spill some of that blood on occasion today, and in history, _lots_ of independently verifable sources point to large-scale blood-spilling of atheists’ babies and wives. Factually correct.]]

[[So it’s factually correct that all Christians lie (the original contention), ]]
Hardly did I contend that. I can’t even see where *I* wrote that.
This is what I did write:
[[Remember, the Bible has been repeatedly modified throughout history by the rulers and oppressors of the day. Not one of those jerks knew what the Bible actually said or cared about what Jesus actually said.

The church was a seat of **power** and the Bible was the constitution. The Right-wing lawmakers of that day deliberately amended that constitution adding more and more crap, much like today’s Far Right adds more and more laws to deny personal liberty to citizens.
The similarity is just too much to ignore.]]
Are you trying to say that saying this: “the rulers and oppressors of the day”
is exactly the same as saying this: “all Christians lie (the original contention)”

Or that this: “The Right-wing lawmakers of that day deliberately amended that constitution adding more and more crap, much like today’s Far Right adds more and more laws to deny personal liberty to citizens.”
also means this:”all Christians lie (the original contention)”

Far from what you assume I say, I actually typed this:
“Mike J on the other post was quite right – People typically don’t like hating and fighting, unless they’re brought up in such an atmosphere.”

I did make one mistake: “What on Earth shows that the Ten commandments are being followed perfectly by the Reps or the GOP? Give me ONE example, please.”

There ARE good Reps and there are good people in the GOP who really believe in a good, reasonable Lord and want people in general to live happily. My apologies to those Republicans and members of the GOP.

Still, I NEVER said “all Christians”.

May I expect a similar apology…?

You seem to not deifferentiate between me and the “stereotype” Rationalist/non-religious/Christian-basher categories that you have eloquently described on your website.

I’m *NOT* giving you the same crap that you claim they do. Do you notice that?

[[and all Christians drink the blood of atheist babies.]]
Just where did I say that?
This and the above claim clearly prove that you have a habit of classifying people probably thinking that classifying them is the best way to discuss things. It is _not_.

I am not your stereotype as you can clearly see.
I pray to God daily. I fight with Him too, however amusing or abusive He (and maybe His group of higher beings) may find that.
What is fair is fair, what is not is not. God or Demon or Satan or Barton or PeaceLovingReligious.
Chiefly, I don’t stretch sentences of others, put in incorrect words of my own
and then say that *their* sentences are incorrect.

[[I assume you also think that all Jews are greedy, ]]
Precisely the problem with your categorization habit. I admire good Jews and clearly realize the torment that the majority of them have been facing at the hands of their small-minded corrupt leaders. Who would want half a century of war with a neighboring anarchy?

[[that all blacks are criminals,]]
Please give me a break. Just what are you trying to force in my name? Where did I say this?

[[and that all women are lousy drivers?]]
Again, where did I say that?

I learnt a few good conventions from you, right away.
The double square brackets – “[[" and "]]”
Will you say of this frank admission as a hidden assault in some sarcastic way?
It is not. Really, it is not.

I’m not here for personal vendetta.
That activity is damaging to *my* being (the source) more than it is to yours (the target).

[[Do you understand what “fallacy of composition” means?]]
pretty much.
Do you know of “Guilt By Association”?
See these:
http://www.stallman.org/archives/2004-jan-apr.html#29%20March%202004%20(Guilt%20by%20Association)
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=3181284&mesg_id=3182944

[[ Have you ever taken a course in formal logic?]]
Many. Scored well too. 100% in one.

[[Do you realize why most people nowadays tend to disregard the arguments of bigots?]]
*sigh* More reverse-hate.
I would love to start a blog explaining my views on each of the wrong arguments you have used to probably classify me as a “bigot” – without ever naming either you or me in the process, All the while getting the message clearly across to the ignorant fence-sitter. The reader must decide on his own, but he needs all the help from either side (assuming fairly, that both sides are correct or at least should be treated as so till one of them makes a clear obvious mistake in argument)

But all that takes one hell of a lot of time, dear.

Right now, I’m working on about _three_ really neat projects that help common folk get more say than “the powerful few” in those fields and those, you will agree, are far more tempting to invest my time and energy on than cleaning up the lazy categorizing habits of *one* single incorrectly thinking “convert from left to right”.
Sorry if it sounds personal, but I have to defend myself and my views.
Nothing personal, i take the “forgive thy enemy” words seriously, because of the most important thumb rule in social life- “love the sinner, but not the sin”

Another thing, many of your claims on your website declaring the reasons why your stand makes sense, use one particularly powerful tool of argument – I’ll call it the “SurelyYoureJokingFeynman” tool.

Read up the book “Surely You’re Joking, Mr. Feynman” by Dr. Richard Feynman.
One gem of a scientist he was. And brutally, ruthlessly frank about everything.
Being a scientist, a physicist and a mathematician, his words could never be disputed.
Either he spoke like that or he would not speak at all.
And, as far as I know, on matters of public or scientific importance, in widely published literature quoting him, he never flinched from speaking where it was needed of him to speak. So he had a conscience and a stong sense of duty too.
His ruthless analysis of the space shuttle disaster is stuff of legend.
Do read that as well.

The SurelyYoureJokingFeynman technique involves openly admitting your crime in such an unexpectedly emphatic way that people think you are joking. When in fact you actually are not. People use your stated reputation, gauge your declaration, and imemdiately conclude that it is humor. In his specific case, he actually did steal the door in question, since he was a notorious prankster as well. And he safely got out of it by stating upfront that he had, in fact, stolen the door. People thought that he was surely joking.

Another technique you use (or misuse, to state it un-mathematically) is, as a I said above, taking the sentence of the person you argue with, add your own words, and then criticise the person for those added words.

In effect, as I now realize, you have, by your above reply, directly **demonstrated** one among the many techniques used by the medieval power-hungry class and the present-day hypocritical section of the far-right ruling class. It was exactly by “pulling fast ones” like this tehcnique that the Bible was modified repeatedly.
Just wait till one of the wikileaks groups, or someone brutally frank like Dr. Feynman, from _within_ the ruling far-right (RFR), brings out a list of such modifications of the Bible throughout the centuries. From the point of view of the RFR, he will be a “betrayer”, but the revelations will be startling, nonetheless.
It is just a matter of time, Nature has its own ways of bringing crooks to book.
Scientists, by virtue of being honest (their trade demands that as a basic prerequisite, or they get argued out of reputation and credibility ), are dear to Nature/God/The Force/Jesus/…

As i said before, I believe that Religion poses questions for scientists to answer. And in-fighting is not an optimum solution for the problems of the human race. Wait till we hear from the Planet of Apes – President Reagan said that in different words, mind you.

Why we were forced to be ignorant to begin with, by Nature/God, is a question too big for this discussion and correctly for Nature/God to answer. Its/His crediblity has always been at question on that topic, but It/He rarely bothers to answer. Answering _that_ question is Its/His job, not mine.
At least, my present qualifications in formal logic (and informal knowledge/information) do not qualify me yet to answer that question.

If you reply equally venomously as before, and if it interests me to continue this discussion, my next reply will be using mathemtaical inequalities or equations or maybe a popular syntax like BASIC, which is a language displayed on your website, assuming it is written by you.

That will help make things much more unambiguous and aid quicker (for me) transfer of information.

Case rested.

All thoughts would then precede from earlier causes, none of which are rational; they would merely be what I had to think at a particular time. Where is the connection between such a thought and objective reality?

If all thoughts precede from earlier causes, then those thoughts are directly connected to objective reality — they’re a product of objective reality.

When you say “none of which are rational”, to what are you referring? Calling “earlier causes” rational or non-rational is making a category error. Calling the thoughts non-rational is begging the question.

Thank you. Barton, it’s not even clear if these folks are supporting BA’s initial position which is what I thought we were arguing about.

BA: “Evolutionary biology does in fact explain our concepts of justice, equality, and freedom”

BA: “What I have read of evolutionary biology (Dawkins, PZ, and others) does seem to indicate that our social mores (justice, fairness, etc) were evolutionarily reinforced when we became a tribal species.”

Dang it!, Don’t know why I didn’t see this in the first place. Doh! (Homer Simpson version). Jim, your argument is with BA who claims that the theory of evolution explains something you think is nonexistent. I’ll let you two fight that one out. LOL.

My position is contrary to both sides: Morals do exist and evolution does not explain them. Note, this is not a claim that some deity does explain them.

[[The opinion is fluid based on the time and needs of the group. Hence the varying ‘morals’ of time period to time period. What is perfectly moral today may not be 50 years from now or in the reverse.]]

If the group defines what is moral, what about those who defy the group, but are later accepted by the group as having been right? M.L. King, Jr., comes to mind.

I dispute that it is the consensus of the group that makes an action right or wrong. You’ve claimed this repeatedly, but you haven’t offered anything approaching a logical proof for it.

If you want to say “What is perfectly moral today may not BE CONSIDERED SO 50 years from now” you have a point. But if you’re saying “What is perfectly moral today may not BE SO 50 years from now” your point, I think is incoherent.

[[Examples: Pavel, Paulo, Paul, Pauli. Leonardo, Lenard.
Johanssen, Johanson, Johnson. Abraham, Ibrahim, Brahma.]]

Ah. So the fact that the way names are written has changed throughout history proves that people rewrote the Bible? You seem to have a few intermediate logical steps missing there.

[[@ Barton Paul Levensonon 10 Mar 2008 at 8:39 am
All of them?
Do they drink the blood of atheist babies, too?
———————–
They _do_ spill some of that blood on occasion today, and in history, _lots_ of independently verifable sources point to large-scale blood-spilling of atheists’ babies and wives. Factually correct.]]

So it’s factually correct that all Christians lie (the original contention), and all Christians drink the blood of atheist babies.

I assume you also think that all Jews are greedy, that all blacks are criminals, and that all women are lousy drivers?

Do you understand what “fallacy of composition” means? Have you ever taken a course in formal logic? Do you realize why most people nowadays tend to disregard the arguments of bigots?

[[So there is no uniform standard of morality that all people accept - and there (to the best of our knowledge of people) will probably never be.]]

You can’t claim both that morality is derived from our natural selection history, and is thus genetic, and that humans can’t agree on morality. It has to be one or the other. If A is true B is false and vice versa.

Charles Darwin said: “With me, the horrid doubt always arises whether the convictions of man’s mind, which has been developed from the mind of the lower animals, are of any value or at all trustworthy. Would any one trust in the convictions of a monkey’s mind, if there are any convictions in such a mind?”

JBS Haldane: “If my thoughts are merely the motions of atoms in my brain, I have no reason to trust my thoughts… and therefore no reason to believe my brain to be made of atoms.”

Patricia Churchland: “Boiled down to essentials, a nervous system enables the organism to succeed in the four F’s: feeding, fleeing, fighting and reproducing. The principle chore of nervous systems is to get the body parts where they should be in order that the organism may survive. . . . . Improvements in sensorimotor control confer an evolutionary advantage: a fancier style of representing is advantageous so long as it is geared to the organism’s way of life and enhances the organism’s chances of survival. Truth, whatever that is, definitely takes the hindmost.”

Alvin Plantinga: “[F]rom a naturalist point of view the thought that our cognitive faculties are reliable (produce a preponderance of true beliefs) would be at best a naïve hope. The naturalist can be reasonably sure that the neurophysiology underlying belief formation is adaptive: but nothing follows about the truth of the beliefs depending on that neurophysiology. In fact he’d have to hold that it is unlikely, given unguided evolution, that our cognitive faculties are reliable. It’s as likely, given unguided evolution, that we live in a sort of dream world as that we actually know something about ourselves and our world.”

[[“Natural selection would definitely promote wide-scope selfish behaviour–that just happens to confer a benefit to other members of that population–over narrow-scope since the population has a new advantage: Synergy.”
“All it takes is a side effect to a strictly self-benefiting mechanism to either be helpful to others out-of-the-box, or become altered such that it is. That’s it.”
This sounds suspiciously like an exaptation - an accidental side effect of an adaptation. Natural selection cannot ever promote or favor an exaptation. If it could then it would be an adaptation, not an exaptation. It is also incorrect to say that natural selection explains the exaptation since they are accidental and essentially random. Unless one wants to claim that we can explain the outcome of a coin toss by saying it’s random.]]

You miss the beauty of the sociobiological scheme. If a behavior can be plausibly described as self-beneficial, it’s genetically-based behavior. If not, it’s genetically-based behavior misfiring. Check Dawkins’s books for repeated examples of this kind of reasoning. Tails I win, heads you lose. This is one of my biggest objections to considering sociobiology as a science — it’s unfalsifiable. Whatever the evidence, you can always come up with a reason why it’s genetic.

Jim, if you’re going to use the behaviorist paradigm then please, at least be consistent about it. These “opinions” you cite are not observable and thus meaningless in a behaviorist system. You must have observable behavior in order to draw any conclusions in behaviorist theory.

Thats exactly what I’ve been saying. The opinions are meaningless(well not to those who hold them) and ‘morality’ as a word is as well. Observable behaviour is all you ever actually have and the observable actions of the social group. From this we can make hypothesis and evidence based inferences. if someone says you are of good ‘moral’ character they are saying that you exhibit behaviour that is, in their opinion, consistent with group actions as they perceive them. That is all.

Again, is this KNOWLEDGE of the murderer observable? Answer: No. Is the hidden action of the murderer available for analysis by the group? Answer: No.

? ?The knowledge of the murderer is when he is observed murdering or a member of the group is missing. The hidden action isn’t available but most murders aren’t hidden and certainly aren’t in most primate societies where the origin of it’s distaste would have likely originated.

Again the murderer hiding his action shows he is aware what the groups overall stance on the behaviour is and perhaps the punishments that may be levied for the action.

Oh really, and does natural selection act this way? Can natural selection build a behavior or an opinion on Monday and then completely change it on Tuesday? Answer: No, it cannot. Got two words for you: BRAIN PLASTICITY.

You simply don’t understand all the mechanisms of natural selection and learned behaviour. And your misunderstanding a point I’ve made again and again. It’s the behaviour that matters not the opinion. The opinion is fluid based on the time and needs of the group. Hence the varying ‘morals’ of time period to time period. What is perfectly moral today may not be 50 years from now or in the reverse. But all that has changed is the opinion on the same behaviour.

The behaviour remains constant. Same culture to culture. The behaviour is the common ground and likely a result of selective pressure. That each group views such behaviour in a different light for a variety of reasons is neither suprising nor unexpected as it occurs in all species that are seperated from a primary or original population.

Jim, if you’re going to use the behaviorist paradigm then please, at least be consistent about it. These “opinions” you cite are not observable and thus meaningless in a behaviorist system. You must have observable behavior in order to draw any conclusions in behaviorist theory.

“Ug, Tom I really don’t see how this is difficult. The murderer hides his action because he KNOWS the group does not approve.”

Again, is this KNOWLEDGE of the murderer observable? Answer: No. Is the hidden action of the murderer available for analysis by the group? Answer: No.

“Morality as commonly used is simply opinion and that changes with the wind.”

Oh really, and does natural selection act this way? Can natural selection build a behavior or an opinion on Monday and then completely change it on Tuesday? Answer: No, it cannot. Got two words for you: BRAIN PLASTICITY.

You’re proving my point which is that natural selection cannot explain these differences in moralities among the various cultures of the earth. If you take a Hottentot out of the Kalahari desert and a Englishman out of Piccadilly Circus and examine their brains how different will they be? Not much, at least structurally. They both have cerebellums, cerebral cortexes, Broca areas, etc., etc. They have both been evolved by natural selection to be essentially the same organ.

Now compare the moral systems of the Hottentot and the Englishman. What do you find? Vast differences. The brains are functionally the same. So you still believe BA’s assertion that natural selection explains morality?

Tom-

Seriously. Natural selection produces alot of differences not just in physical functions but also in terms of behaviour. In fact it is often one of the precursors for the division of a species when the group seperates and identical organisms learn such different behaviours to become unrecognizable by their former group.

The problem isn’t that evolution provides a solid framework for the evolution of morality in this discussion but your cursory understanding of the science. Nothing wrong with that but it makes further discussion of limited value.

1.) Actions that the group doesn’t know about are neither moral nor immoral. E.g., a murderer who can keep his actions hidden is performing neither a moral nor an immoral action since the group cannot judge them.

Ug, Tom I really don’t see how this is difficult. The murderer hides his action because he KNOWS the group does not approve. It still doesn’t change the behaviour. The society has already taught him this.

2.) If the group disagrees on whether the action is moral or immoral then what does that mean? Say, half the group approves and half the group disapproves? Since there is no consensus what is the status of the behavior being analyzed?

Then there is no concensus on the opinion. This is not even remotely an objection.

And there are a variety of other objections to this notion along the same lines.

Neither of these even remotely touch on the premise. They are irrevelant.

And even if we were to accept this explanation it still goes no further in proving that natural selection explains it. If the opinion concerning the behavior is the relevant factor behind morality and not the behavior itself, then you still haven’t proven that natural selection can explain the opinions of the primate group.

Using the scientific method we can make observations of other primate groups and attain a large amount of evidence as to how behaviour of one is influenced by social and group dynamics in primate societies. By tracing the origins we can show a strong selective pressure for much of what we are speaking about in this discussion.

Indeed, you’ve made the explanation much more difficult, unless you’re saying that the assertion that the opinions constitute the morality is the explanation – which has absolutely no predictive power whatsoever.

Your missing the point. The ‘morals’ people toss around are opinions nothing more. The behaviours that allow for peaceful and productive primate group living are selected for and against and learned from generation to generation. The opinions of these behaviours vary from group to group, location to location. Like it or not what you consider moral may not be shared by the fellow 1 town over. Morality as commonly used is simply opinion and that changes with the wind.

And actually Badger was complementing my main point quite nicely.

No, I’m NOT claiming it. It’s what JImC is claiming. Please pay attention to the posts I’m replying to.

“So there is no uniform standard of morality that all people accept – and there (to the best of our knowledge of people) will probably never be.”

You’re proving my point which is that natural selection cannot explain these differences in moralities among the various cultures of the earth. If you take a Hottentot out of the Kalahari desert and a Englishman out of Piccadilly Circus and examine their brains how different will they be? Not much, at least structurally. They both have cerebellums, cerebral cortexes, Broca areas, etc., etc. They have both been evolved by natural selection to be essentially the same organ.

Now compare the moral systems of the Hottentot and the Englishman. What do you find? Vast differences. The brains are functionally the same. So you still believe BA’s assertion that natural selection explains morality?

You claim to be scientific, but you keep making the same error over and over.
—————————-
Pointed questioning does force some people to think.

Too many self proclaimed skeptics are very short on actual reasoning capabilities and critical thinking, and I wish you’d go find another hobby because you make it really hard for the rest of us.
——————————
When you know facts and you know factual, statistical patterns, reasoning hould be the smallest part of the effort. I’m not discussign philosophy here. Applying this sentence of mine for or against each of the topics touched upon in this lengthy debate will produce unexpected results. Please be reasonable.

Assuming as you say, that nothing else in my post produces any positive effect, this has:
GETTING CONCRETE HISTORICAL EVIDENCE OF THE DELIBERATE MODIFICATION OF BIBLICAL TEXT BY MEDIEVAL BARBARIANS.
PUT THAT ON WIKILEAKS – SCANNED AS IMAGES.
AND DO A GODDAMN **VERSION DIFF** ON THE BIBLE TEXT.

And the guys who might undertake this aren’t fence-sitters who are short on facts, skills, and position in society. Obviously, wikileaks, for one.

Yet if you feel I harmed the peaceful debate so very globally, you should see what happens when people from this camp do not shout loudly enough – heard of EFF?

@ The Barber of Civilityon 09 Mar 2008 at 6:35 am
I find it truly depressing that so much of this debate ends up in name calling and posters on all sides (not all posters) speaking in absolutes. There are no absolutes in science. We are always coming up with better ways to define things, but all explanations (+/- x%) have a margin of error.
It also depresses me that so many posters deny that both religion and science can coexist.
————–
True. Religion presents questions for scientists to answer. Forming two camps is not the optimum solution for us humans. But the *fact* of the day is that Religion is being blatantly misused by some crooked leaders, from each continent, and from almost each major religion. And people *do* listen to their falsehoods.

@SteelReso: THANKS!! More of these, please.

@ Barton Paul Levensonon 10 Mar 2008 at 8:46 am
Ah, the conspiracy theory of Biblical inspiration.
Who “modified” the Bible, Peace? Do you mean, by any change, “translated” the Bible? What was “modified?” Did somebody cut something out and replace it, using medieval paste and scissors, and without other people with Bibles noticing?
Your view of the situation is rather like the 911 Truthers view of 9/11.
—————————————
How it’s done:
1) take version 1, read it up.
2) See which part can be modified due to distortion – “Chinese whispers” has been a statistical fact of human communication, whether written word or oral, wildly successful prior to invention of today’s near-fool-proof data storage methods. I’m talking of 1 AD to 1700 AD, and after as well, depending on the political importance of the text in question. Your own _name_ has a few __clues__.
Examples: Pavel, Paulo, Paul, Pauli. Leonardo, Lenard.
Johanssen, Johanson, Johnson. Abraham, Ibrahim, Brahma.
Damian, Damjan. Kris, Chris, Rijkaard, Richard, Ricardo, Kryzstzof.
Isn;t your name supposed to be a unique key (since you are a programmer after all – btw, great site, some of the observations on your website are spot-on, statistically right, or very intuitive. But proofs are proofs. So intuitive doesn;t prove anything. Other parts very thought-provoking.)

@ Barton Paul Levensonon 10 Mar 2008 at 8:39 am
All of them?
Do they drink the blood of atheist babies, too?
———————–
They _do_ spill some of that blood on occasion today, and in history, _lots_ of independently verifable sources point to large-scale blood-spilling of atheists’ babies and wives. Factually correct.

For all else, a few words: re-birth, google, thomas andrews, Titanic, Charles Robert Richet, for instance.

Finally, we only see between 4000 to 7000 Angtrom, IIRC.
The rest, as they sadly don’t say, is _mystery_.
Enough for an intelligent thinker to start at least one new branch of science.

I could express my views on more detail, but i have work like everyone else and i prefer doing deeds to talking words.
That’s the end of my “chatter”, so be happy.
win-win.

2.) If the group disagrees on whether the action is moral or immoral then what does that mean? Say, half the group approves and half the group disapproves? Since there is no consensus what is the status of the behavior being analyzed?”

How so? Number one is a pretty nice strawman, since it seems to assume that, since morality is decided pretty much by society in general (whether this is three or three billion is irrelevant), that is means a behavior or action must be seen to be judged? Is this seriously what you are claiming? Humans long ago decided that unjustified killing is wrong (even though the justification varies immensely), then we can call it murder and still say it is wrong, even if we do not see anyone commit it. We can deal in such abstracts and hypotheticals without problems. We have an evolved sense of the basic guidelines for morality (cooperation, guilt, etc – research primatology and behavior – chimps especially show evidence of highly evolved social behavior), and these are modified by the society we live in.

As for number two, that is called society. Years ago (or as it is in certain backwards countries) women were immoral for showing any part of their body, or for doing such things as working, or talking to men, or asking them out, or even (gasp) enjoying sex. It was immoral for different “races” to marry. These days, some think it is immoral for two people of the same sex to have the same legal rights as two people of opposite sexes in a legal ceremony we call “marriage”. People still say argue that some things (pictures of nude men or women, perhaps) are immoral. Others disagree. Even in extreme cases (say, adults having sex with children), people will argue for the morality of that. So there is no uniform standard of morality that all people accept – and there (to the best of our knowledge of people) will probably never be. So if several people disagree over morals, then there will be a disagreement until the society moves in one direction or another (the latest studies I have seen indicate that younger people are more accepting and tolerant of gays than older, so the society may move towards the decision that their actions are moral). That’s how it always seems to work.

I’m not sure if I understood you correctly, and if not, then sorry.

Other than that, for general snits and grins, some more recommendations on behavior, morality and evolution:

The Agile Gene: How Nature Turns on Nurture; Matt Ridley, Perennial, 2003; ISBN: 0-06-000679-x

Moral Minds: How Nature Designed Our Universal Sense of Right & Wrong; Marc D Hauser, HarperCollins, 2006; ISBN: 0-06-078070-3

The Origins of Virtue: Human Instincts and the Evolution of Cooperation; Matt Ridley, Penguin, 1996; ISBN: 0-14-026445-0

Our Inner Ape, A Leading Primatologist Explains Why We Are Who We Are; Frans De Waal, Riverhead Books, 2005; ISBN: 1-57322-312-3

The Science of Good & Evil; Michael Shermer, Owl Books, 2004; ISBN: 0-8050-7769-3

Shadows of Forgotten Ancestors; Carl Sagan & Ann Druyan, Ballantine, 1992; ISBN: 0-345-38472-5

The Third Chimpanzee: The Evolution and Future of the Human Animal; Jared Diamond, Harper Perennial, 2000; ISBN: 0-06-098403-1

Sorry about the font – copied it from my reading list.

Now what does exist are behaviours, animal behaviours. Behaviours that are present in every single primate species. Our opinion of these behaviours within our society we call morals.

I agree fully. We are discussing behaviors that we call “moral”, why some related animals adhere to such behavior, and how evolution explains this.

But if that’s so, then our scientific examinations of the brain and senses are not reliable, either.

I don’t see any problems with the reliability of neuroscience. I do see a lot of problems with philosophical musings on science though.

What you call materialism and I call monism for lack of a better descriptor seems perfectly compatible with science as we know it. And it should be, as it uses prediction and parsimony on observation as other theories.

I posted a longer reply but it apparently didn’t make it. What you seem to be saying is that the behavior itself has no intrinsic morality or immorality. It is only the opinion of the group that matters. Of course, several corallaries would follow from such a view such as:

1.) Actions that the group doesn’t know about are neither moral nor immoral. E.g., a murderer who can keep his actions hidden is performing neither a moral nor an immoral action since the group cannot judge them.

2.) If the group disagrees on whether the action is moral or immoral then what does that mean? Say, half the group approves and half the group disapproves? Since there is no consensus what is the status of the behavior being analyzed?

And there are a variety of other objections to this notion along the same lines.

And even if we were to accept this explanation it still goes no further in proving that natural selection explains it. If the opinion concerning the behavior is the relevant factor behind morality and not the behavior itself, then you still haven’t proven that natural selection can explain the opinions of the primate group. Indeed, you’ve made the explanation much more difficult, unless you’re saying that the assertion that the opinions constitute the morality is the explanation – which has absolutely no predictive power whatsoever.

Don’t be a complete idiot. Of course homosexuals are capable, physically, of reproduction. A gay man’s sperm is every bit as capable of fertilizing an ovum as a straight man’s. It’s just that, being gay, gay men and gay women don’t have straight sex. And the reason they’re gay is, in all likelihood, a genetic predisposition. A gay person didn’t wake up one morning and decide, “I think I’ll be homosexual,” any more than straight people “choose” to be heterosexual.

With all due respect, how does this disprove Big Bill or Vox on the fact that you are a species on its way to extinction?

You did not beget (oh I like that Biblical word) any children. You are simply raising 2 children from 2 people who are not you or your husband’s offspring. Homosexuals are incapable of reproduction hence a genetic dead end if I believed that homosexuality’s cause was genetic.

I’m sure not everyone on this board would agree with that definition. A rock falling down a hillside is exhibiting physical behavior but we would look rather silly claiming that the rock’s behavior was moral or immoral.

Then they are simply wrong. Your continued lack of understanding is based on incorrect presuppositions. A rock is not an animal. It does not exhibit behaviour. A rock falling down the hill is a physical action and hence is a poor analogy.

In order for the behavior of the entity in question to be classified as moral/immoral don’t the following properties have to apply to the entity itself:

1.) the entity is conscious of its actions
2.) the entity has some insight into the future and can choose between alternative actions
3.) the entity can foresee (at least to some degree) the consequences of its actions

No. In hindsight you may analyze a behaviour using these questions and the result may allow you to choose based on your view a moral/immoral opinion. But the behaviour remains just that as an observation. It’s your opinion of the action we term ‘moral/immoral’. The precept itself doesn’t exist.

But I think 1-3 pretty much describe more than a few animal species and that number grows every year as we advance into behavioural studies.

Those are the minimum requirements and the falling rock doesn’t meet them, nor does the amoeba slithering its way through the drop of water. It’s not clear to what extent the higher primates such as chimpanzees do or do not meet these requirements. It is also not clear to what extent man-made constructions such as artificial intelligence programs do or do not meet these requirements. So I would disagree with the notion that morality is a word to describe behavior in general. It has a lot to do with the capabilities of the entity performing the behavior.

No again. Even a ‘higher’ performing entity performs behaviours innate to it’s being. All you are ever seeing is behaviour. All ‘morality’ boils down to is other members of the primate groups analysis on said behaviours good or bad.

A better way of looking at this is from the outside in. When we study animals we observe them for long periods of time in various scenarios and we watch the choices they make. They can have the same scenario 10 times and choose different paths 5 different times. Eventually however they can learn that some paths lead to more success in regards to safety, food, etc. These learned traits can then be passed on to their offspring who will be confronted with their own sets of choices as well. So the behaviour is partly genetic and partly learned.

Imagine a space alien doing the same to the human race. They would see the same thing without any concept of ‘morals’ but rather see the behaviour and the choice. Over time the human animal learns the same way and passes the information on to the offspring. Morals vary among nations and cultures because the opinions of the individuals in the group are different from another group. But the human behaviour remains the constant. That is because we all come from the same base stock.