• In total there are 39 users online :: 1 registered, 0 hidden and 38 guests (based on users active over the past 60 minutes)
    Most users ever online was 789 on Tue Mar 19, 2024 5:08 am

Zimmerman: Debating Creationism Serves No Intellectual Purpose

Engage in conversations about worldwide religions, cults, philosophy, atheism, freethought, critical thinking, and skepticism in this forum.
Forum rules
Do not promote books in this forum. Instead, promote your books in either Authors: Tell us about your FICTION book! or Authors: Tell us about your NON-FICTION book!.

All other Community Rules apply in this and all other forums.
User avatar
Flann 5
Nutty for Books
Posts: 1580
Joined: Tue Jul 16, 2013 8:53 pm
10
Location: Dublin
Has thanked: 831 times
Been thanked: 705 times

Re: Zimmerman: Debating Creationism Serves No Intellectual Purpose

Unread post

Interbane wrote:Flann wrote:
"It may pay an organism to help another if there is an expectation of the favour being returned in the future. The cost of helping by the likelihood of the return benefit."

In the case of dolphins hazarding their lives,survival and genes reproduction to save humans, how does this fit Triver's 'explanation'.




Social groups aren't as simplistic as you're imagining. Take the studies on second order alliances of bottlenose dolphins in shark bay. There is little chance the recipient of an altruistic deed will be able to repay the favor. But when considered in aggregate, the favors are repaid all the time. This is the sense of accomplishment we get when we "pay it forward". It's looser than kin altruism, but is still altruism. Many people conceptualize it as karma. But it's game theory.

All it would take to imprint on a dolphin enough to be considered part of a second order alliance is playing with them, which many humans do.
So it's all about imprinting now? Programming. Just as we are being told how intelligent and empathetic dolphins and Bonobo's are suddenly they're so stupid they think humans are second order dolphins.

You can believe all the ad hoc excuses of the econo-biologists if you like.

And the soldier who falls on a grenade to save his comrades? Expecting future reciprocation no doubt. Yes he knows they'll probably buy him lunch later. Just watch those goalposts move now.

Well no it's for the common good of humanity's genes. Even though he was previously shooting opposing human soldiers to wipe out their future gene's prospects.

They're so fixated on genes they forget people do these things for other real living breathing people,not their genes.

These theorists seem to know much more about animal behaviour than those with real contact with them.

E.O.Wilson is almost certainly right in ditching kin selection. He probably spent too much time on ants and bees and could do with looking at other animals.

Do elephants have souls?
http://www.thenewatlantis.com/publicati ... have-souls
User avatar
geo

2C - MOD & GOLD
pets endangered by possible book avalanche
Posts: 4779
Joined: Sun Aug 03, 2008 4:24 am
15
Location: NC
Has thanked: 2198 times
Been thanked: 2200 times
United States of America

Re: Zimmerman: Debating Creationism Serves No Intellectual Purpose

Unread post

Interbane wrote:Many people conceptualize it as karma. But it's game theory.
Also, altruism arises out of social organization. You can expect to see highly social animals like dolphins and wolves to be more altruistic than less social animals. Indeed, E.O. Wilson defines eusociality as the "highest level of organization of animal sociality." One of the pathways to eusociality is that multiple generations share the same nest and contribute to raising the young. How eusociality evolves through natural selection is that more altruistic groups will out-reproduce their less cooperative competitors.

Flann mentions the controversy over E.O Wilson's group selection theory, but this is not to say that group selection does not occur, only that group selection may not be as strong as E.O. Wilson has theorized. Likewise, over the years, Dawkins' gene-centric theory has fallen out of favor, but I don't think that means that gene-centric selection is non-existent. Probably both Dawkins and E.O. Wilson are at least partially correct with their respective theories and that selection pressures work on multiple levels.

Here's more about altruism from Nature:

http://www.nature.com/news/2010/100825/ ... 0.427.html
-Geo
Question everything
User avatar
Interbane

1G - SILVER CONTRIBUTOR
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame
Posts: 7203
Joined: Sat Oct 09, 2004 12:59 am
19
Location: Da U.P.
Has thanked: 1105 times
Been thanked: 2166 times
United States of America

Re: Zimmerman: Debating Creationism Serves No Intellectual Purpose

Unread post

Flann wrote:So it's all about imprinting now? Programming. Just as we are being told how intelligent and empathetic dolphins and Bonobo's are suddenly they're so stupid they think humans are second order dolphins.
Imprinting has a place in psychology Flann.

I'm not saying dolphins mistake humans for dolphins. I'm saying there is low level reciprocity. Lower than the relationship between a dog and a human, but still there.
Flann wrote:You can believe all the ad hoc excuses of the econo-biologists if you like.
You're awful dismissive of something you appear not to understand.

Why do you see these as excuses? Or ad hoc? Do you not see how there is reciprocity?
They're so fixated on genes they forget people do these things for other real living breathing people,not their genes.
We do good deeds in part because of our psychological makeup, which is determined by genes. Moral emotions, empathy, compassion. Genes are a part of the person, and doing something for the person is also doing something for the genes. Your intent is where the difference lies, but you need to understand your intent is a soup where genetics is a principal ingredient. Intention is something of a phenotype, supervening on mechanisms that trace back to your genes. It goes full circle.
In the beginning the Universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry and has been widely regarded as a bad move.” - Douglas Adams
User avatar
Flann 5
Nutty for Books
Posts: 1580
Joined: Tue Jul 16, 2013 8:53 pm
10
Location: Dublin
Has thanked: 831 times
Been thanked: 705 times

Re: Zimmerman: Debating Creationism Serves No Intellectual Purpose

Unread post

Interbane wrote:We do good deeds in part because of our psychological makeup, which is determined by genes. Moral emotions, empathy, compassion. Genes are a part of the person, and doing something for the person is also doing something for the genes. Your intent is where the difference lies, but you need to understand your intent is a soup where genetics is a principal ingredient. Intention is something of a phenotype, supervening on mechanisms that trace back to your genes. It goes full circle.
What I find with these theories is that they are so rigid whereas real animal and human behaviour is complex. For example we're told about tribal behaviour being adaptive and part of human nature. There's some truth in that.

Consider this. Many thousands of Irish men emigrated to America during the famine here in the 19th century. They needed work to live. They were met at the docks by people conscripting for soldiers for the American civil war. It was the luck of the draw whether they signed with the Confederate or Union army.

They had no particular tribal affiliations,they just needed a job and pay.In the course of the war many ended up killing each other, though if there was a tribal attachment it would have been with each other.

These theories are theories but real life is not so obliging.

Sure there is evidence for imprinting in animals particularly newborns. But it's never quite that simple. That's why I referenced that interesting article on elephants.

Despite protestations to the contrary these theories disembowel human altruism and evil of real content with it's deterministic evolutionary emphasis.
Where's the reciprocity in the soldier sacrificing his life to save others in the company or the guys on the plane who tried to overpower the terrorists during 9/11?

And so much for the drive to survive, reproduce and pass on their genes. That's the bedrock of Darwinism.

Triver's line is just nonsense in these cases and many others no doubt. What future reciprocation did they do it for or how could that that even have been in their minds?

Reciprocity is a real factor in many cases in human relationships,but Trivers explanation is chillingly cynical. Real life is not game theory.
Last edited by Flann 5 on Fri May 20, 2016 4:24 pm, edited 3 times in total.
User avatar
Interbane

1G - SILVER CONTRIBUTOR
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame
Posts: 7203
Joined: Sat Oct 09, 2004 12:59 am
19
Location: Da U.P.
Has thanked: 1105 times
Been thanked: 2166 times
United States of America

Re: Zimmerman: Debating Creationism Serves No Intellectual Purpose

Unread post

Despite protestations to the contrary these theories disembowel human altruism and evil of real content with it's deterministic evolutionary emphasis.
That entirely depends on your opinion of what qualifies as "real content".
What I find with these theories is that they are so rigid whereas real animal and human behaviour is complex. For example we're told about tribal behaviour being adaptive and part of human nature. There's some truth in that.
These sorts of theories deal with larger order trends. On average, people don't go around killing their kids. The exceptions to this do not undo the theory. It isn't rigid as you're envisioning it. There will always be exceptions to the general trends.

In many cases, it is the exception that pushes evolution forward. The bird that can't fly finds a niche in an arctic climate. Generational pools are wildly diverse, and that diversity includes the main normal body as well as the outliers. This applies to cultural evolution as well, from all I can tell.
In the beginning the Universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry and has been widely regarded as a bad move.” - Douglas Adams
User avatar
ant

1G - SILVER CONTRIBUTOR
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame
Posts: 5935
Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2011 12:04 pm
12
Has thanked: 1371 times
Been thanked: 969 times

Re: Zimmerman: Debating Creationism Serves No Intellectual Purpose

Unread post

Youre welcome to divert the the topic and graft philosophy onto science. But thats all your doing.

Please, continue your spin.
User avatar
Interbane

1G - SILVER CONTRIBUTOR
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame
Posts: 7203
Joined: Sat Oct 09, 2004 12:59 am
19
Location: Da U.P.
Has thanked: 1105 times
Been thanked: 2166 times
United States of America

Re: Zimmerman: Debating Creationism Serves No Intellectual Purpose

Unread post

ant wrote:Youre welcome to divert the the topic and graft philosophy onto science. But thats all your doing.
Graft? Show me the boundary between the two where the grafting is taking place.

You're the one that diverted the topic when you said the explanation crumbles when you consider certain altruistic deeds. You're the one leading this tangent.
In the beginning the Universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry and has been widely regarded as a bad move.” - Douglas Adams
User avatar
LanDroid

2A - MOD & BRONZE
Comandante Literario Supreme
Posts: 2800
Joined: Sat Jul 27, 2002 9:51 am
21
Location: Cincinnati, OH
Has thanked: 195 times
Been thanked: 1166 times
United States of America

Re: Zimmerman: Debating Creationism Serves No Intellectual Purpose

Unread post

Mr. Tulip wrote:I think that if we do not heed that gospel message today our species is headed for extinction.
...if we do not shift to the new paradigm of love we are doomed as a species.
Then we are certainly doomed! Many followers of the Gospel do not see it as a new paradigm of Love, that has evolved into some beast like the following.

Image
User avatar
Flann 5
Nutty for Books
Posts: 1580
Joined: Tue Jul 16, 2013 8:53 pm
10
Location: Dublin
Has thanked: 831 times
Been thanked: 705 times

Re: Zimmerman: Debating Creationism Serves No Intellectual Purpose

Unread post

Interbane wrote:Quote:
Despite protestations to the contrary these theories disembowel human altruism and evil of real content with it's deterministic evolutionary emphasis.




That entirely depends on your opinion of what qualifies as "real content".
Evolutionary psychology says that we are sculpted by the process. Thus religious belief was a useful (though false? )adaptation.

Such adaptations are supposedly myriad and are said to explain why we believe things and do things.

The future reciprocation idea further undercuts the concept of true altruism.

Between both theories you tell me what reality is left in altruistic acts? As I see it these are just attempts to explain altruism away glossed with evolutionary psychology masquerading as science.

In short, spin. Just one more 'illusion' to add to to all the others we are told by materialists are illusions.
Last edited by Flann 5 on Sat May 21, 2016 3:26 pm, edited 2 times in total.
User avatar
Interbane

1G - SILVER CONTRIBUTOR
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame
Posts: 7203
Joined: Sat Oct 09, 2004 12:59 am
19
Location: Da U.P.
Has thanked: 1105 times
Been thanked: 2166 times
United States of America

Re: Zimmerman: Debating Creationism Serves No Intellectual Purpose

Unread post

Flann wrote:The future reciprocation idea further undercuts the concept of true altruism.
One more thing that is no longer allowed to be magic because there is an actual reason behind it.

I've always thought pure altruism was a misnomer for another reason.

Psychology Today

"There can be no such thing as an ‘altruistic’ act that does not involve some element of self-interest, no such thing, for example, as an altruistic act that does not lead to some degree, no matter how small, of pride or satisfaction. Therefore, an act should not be written off as selfish or self-motivated simply because it includes some inevitable element of self-interest. The act can still be counted as altruistic if the ‘selfish’ element is accidental; or, if not accidental, then secondary; or, if neither accidental nor secondary, then undetermining."
Between both theories you tell me what reality is left in altruistic acts? As I see it these are just attempts to explain altruism away glossed with evolutionary psychology masquerading as science.
Just because something is explained doesn't mean it's explained away. Why do you think that?
In the beginning the Universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry and has been widely regarded as a bad move.” - Douglas Adams
Post Reply

Return to “Religion & Philosophy”