How. Not when.ant wrote:Oh, so inadvertance is when humaness began.
At last I have something good to put into the google scholar search bar.
I don't know if we can know when.
Regards
DL
In total there are 4 users online :: 1 registered, 0 hidden and 3 guests (based on users active over the past 60 minutes)
Most users ever online was 789 on Tue Mar 19, 2024 5:08 am
How. Not when.ant wrote:Oh, so inadvertance is when humaness began.
At last I have something good to put into the google scholar search bar.
Not quite. We have a moral code that is instinct based while lions are following pure instinct.Flann 5 wrote:[
My point here was that Bishop in my opinion applies Darwinism not just to animals but humans also and the killing of other tribes and babies might be viewed as no more immoral than a lion doing so on this basis.
Humans don't simply lose their moral emotions. It's just that we don't apply them universally by default, and can override them quite easily toward strangers. It's the in-group out-group mentality that I've mentioned many times before. Moral emotions have evolved to be elicited by acquaintances.Flann wrote:Do humans simply lose their evolved moral emotions and just how real is this evolutionary advance it if it can disappear so easily?
Search deeper into what you mean here. How does this innate sense manifest? What you feel are your moral emotions. But your moral emotions don't automatically engage regarding all parts of our moral code. There are many types of theft that we must learn are in fact theft. Adultery doesn't elicit negative moral emotions in many, unless we know it's wrong to commit adultery. These moral emotions are a product of biological evolution.I don't think our current moral sense is that dependent culturally but we have an innate sense of right and wrong and of what is good and bad independent of our culture.
This is exactly why we must outsource our beliefs to process. Otherwise, we base them on emotion, subjected to bias. You reject evolution for what appear to be good reasons, but is in fact emotional. For example, do you truly understand the science in such detail that you can say it's wrong? Do you realize that even if you believe you can prove evolution wrong, that does absolutely nothing in support of your religious beliefs? Proper process is pedantic and ruthless regarding what we want to believe.Not all science Interbane. I would admit to bias in favour of my beliefs but I do think there are problems with the theory in macro terms nonetheless which are not answered satisfactorily.
Skepticism is fantastic. But you're simply not skeptical enough. You need to be skeptical of your own reasoning also. The walking whale hypothesis, as you call it. Let's say it is utterly wrong(however, the claim has actually been debunked). If it were wrong, that does not mean evolution is wrong. Even more, it does not mean your religious beliefs are right.So I must just take their word for it and not be sceptical?