The beliefs of Hitler are in dispute, but one thing is certain - He was not a follower of the Christ who said, "Love one another as I have loved you," or "Love your neighbour as yourself," or "Love your enemies."
As I said before, I only want to paint a picture of a world that might have developed based on evolutionary principles alone. Perhaps you need to tell me why that world is incompatible with those principles.
It is incompatible because Scientists have never suggested that we base our society on evolutionary principles. Ironically the predominantly Christian US treats the less fortunate little better than your "athiest" world.
That wasn't the point that I was getting at cheetah100. I think that there are other principles at work in our world. As the story evolves it becomes clear that this actually isn't an atheist's paradise, and I don't think that most atheist scientists would want to build a society like this.
I only want to consider what a world would be like if only evolutionary principles applied.
The part 2 however you seem to be claiming that the humans in that imaginary world would have no self awareness; yet they have names and can execute complex business deals. We are complex machines, and are also fully functional humans. The assertions that someone the humans in this other world are somehow not self aware are logically unsupported.
This isn't a world based on evolutionary principles. Things like community and self-sacrifice are seen in non-human species. It's possible for evolution. A society which decides murder is an okay thing will not last long, and those who are part of it will be selected against, mainly because they will be killed by the others of the society. While we can't prove that our feelings of "conscience" doesn't come from a deity, we can be reasonable sure it can come from natural things.
Are you able to give examples of true self-sacrifice in non-human species, Cyrathil? Richard Dawkins, in his book, "the selfish gene," explains that genes encoding for true self-sacrificing behaviour will be quickly eliminated from a community of survival machines.
What we have in nature is not self-sacrifice, but rather co-operation for mutual benefit, and for the benefit of close family members sharing the same genes.
If we are working for mutual benefit, it isn't a far shot to get to self-sacrifice, and "altruism" which is the word I wanted at the time. A species that shows a self-sacrificing behavior would be a wide majority of the bird species, which will willingly put themselves on the line to save their eggs. It's through empathy, the ability to see pain in others through our mirror neurons, that allows for this. If I don't want to feel pain, I don't want to inflict pain.
Your example doesn't undermine the point that I was making, because eggs carry the same, or very similar, genes to that of bird-parents. What the bird does is beneficial for the propagation of the genes encoding for such behaviour. That is why those genes continue.
But, surely, in Richard Dawkin's model, genes that encode for behaviour such as charity, where the genetic material of unrelated individuals benefit, should not propagate unless there is something of benefit for the one giving.
In your last point you discussed self-awareness, which, as I hope the next video demonstrates, is unaccounted for by people who have a narrow view of what constitutes reality.
But even self-awareness is not enough on its own to produce the effects that you hope for. A selfish machine with selfish genes, even if it is self-aware, will still continue to do selfish things. I think that what is needed is the freedom to be something more than "a machine."
Self-awareness is something which we don't understand exactly how it comes about. This is give fully, and without regret. We don't understand what about the brain gives us our self-awareness, we have ideas, but that's how science works. We look and see what we can do. We don't just say it's unsolvable, and move on. And this selfish gene isn't selfish on the level of an organism, the organism isn't the selfish one. It's the genes which are. They want to be passed on.
But what if, in order to understand self-awareness, we need to change our whole view about reality? I wonder if many scientists are so wedded to an impersonal mechanistic view that it is impossibile for them to see the elephant in the room - that there is no grounds within their world-view to even approach an explanation of self-awareness.
This is not like other natural phenomena. What we are discussing is something so "other" that one doesn't even know where to start in order to explain it.
That's why family members are so important to us, usually. They share our a good majority of our genes, obviously even more so than the others around us. But even those around us share a great number of our genes. Psychology plays a part in this too, people who are adopted into a family are often seen as family members, and are usually given the same respect and love as those who are blood relatives. Our brain tells us those who are around us a lot are closer to family than those who aren't.
In a good number of situations, this can mean that those who we are around a lot we will show a greater love for, and this is known and shown in the preference for an "in-group", even if they've only met once. It is not that far a stretch then to see that those who share the same vicinity with us, we would be more willing to give us more for them, and I believe some money a small fraction of your own life. Charity is not a problem.
I suspect that, in your model, unless there is some underlying benefit in giving resources to unrelated individuals, in time, new genes will develop encoding for behaviour that is more discrimatory in giving, because there is no evolutionary sense in "universal love and welfare of species," as Richard Dawkins said.
I stand by my model of how this world might develop. In my model no free choices are made. These are survival machines without consciousness. The selfish gene will win out.
As society progresses, we see more and more building of these ideas, and with new ideas added, it isn't a far-cry to say that the idea passed on from parent to child that you should show kindness to your family got extended to the community, from the community to the city, and in a global system like ours to humans in general. I'll reiterate, empathy is a key in this. I don't want myself to hurt, and so to make sure no one wants to hurt me I'll keep to myself and try not to upset too many people
That last statement that you made is logical. In the world that Tristan visits I suspect that this will make sense too, unless an individual can build allies to ensure their chances of survival, which is part of what community is about.
The first part of your statement, I think, is overly optimistic, because I think that you are underestimating the powerful pool that the selfish gene will have on a survival machine in terms of its behaviour.
I don't necessarily agree that this selfish gene will be able to gain that much power. It's inherently self-destructive. We're not incredibly strong, or swift compared to the other animals, so we have to live together. Communities are important to us. In this, the person who is too self-absorbed will not survive long. We see communities form in the other primates, so this isn't something special for us, so the evolving humans would have had this community gene already instilled.
I'm not arguing that communities will not evolve. The world that Tristan visits is a world with a community. But, as Richard Dawkins explained in his book, it is a community under tension. They are cooperating for mutual benefit. It is the selfish gene again.
I'm not sure that there is a gene that could be called a "community gene," but if you mean a gene that encodes for universal love and welfare, I doubt that this would be sustained in a model based on evolutionary priniciples alone.
Our problem seems to bo on Mr. Dawkins' use of the word selfish. In the book, do you know of any specific passages that support this claim that evolution is inherently selfish, because seeing as how he has been labeled a militant atheist, and is one of the "four horsemen of atheism", I doubt he would espouse idea that evolution can't give us what we have.
Pg2, "Much as we might wish to believe otherwise, universal love and welfare of the species as a whole are concepts that simply do not make evolutionary sense."
P36, "Any gene that behaves in such a way as to increase its own survival chances in the gene pool at the expense of its alleles will, by definition tautologously, tend to survive. The gene is the basic unit of selfishness."
Also, Pg66, and the chapter, "You scratch my back and Ill ride on yours."
I'm no biologist, and I can't say anything more than what I've said before. In what little problems I see a small jump where I might not know how exactly it occurred, I'm fine saying I don't know and waiting for better evidence. I remain convinced that with the habits of the other mammals and especially the other primates, and given our consciousness we can be fairly confident in saying the tendency to not murder everything we see is not specially given, but evolved.
In the video, the survival machines do not wish to murder everything that they see. The question is about "charity" and universal love, and whether or not this behaviour is compatible with evolutionary principles. The man who is killed is killed because charity does not exist in the world that Tristan explored. The individuals are co-operating for mutual benefit, and if an individual can not contribute, then the society finds a way of removing him/her.
And that's also not the "without god" position. In no way do I not see that things might be. That person, who knows how they could have effected others. The old cliche, they might have discovered the cure for cancer. Again it comes down to the simple fact that humans have a genetic ability to feel the positions of others, called empathy. Because I don't want to be put down because of some mistake in my life, I will tend to not do it to others. Forgiveness is wrought from empathy, not a deity.
If you mean by empathy, the ability for them to simulate in their "circuitary" other's pain or discomfort, then that ability, in Richard Dawkin's model, must involve a survival benefit for the gene encoding for it.
It could be used to assist close relatives carrying similar genes, but for others, I can see it being used in a more cynical and selfish way to manipulate others. Genes encoding for such discriminatory behaviour will predominate. Empathy isn't a sustainable basis for universal love.
But I do believe it is. Empathy is a trait that would have survival benefit, it's an emergent part of another system, so it would be selected for. Once you have empathy, causing pain to others would cause you to feel discomfort. Of course, there are some where this process doesn't exist as strongly or they rationalize it away, but the general person when he feels he is hurting someone else, will start to feel discomfort. It's not because of some moral absolute, it's your empathy.
The model you describe is unstable. You envisage a group of survival machines, where, as a side effect of another system, harm occurs to an individual when his/her actions lead to the demise of another individual, even when it doesn't carry similar genes.
But, in time, evolution will find a way around this. Discrimination, between relatives carrying similar genes and those who don't, will occur because there will be a survival advantage for the gene that encodes for such discrimination.
I understand that most atheist's wouldn't like to live in the place described. None of my friends who are atheists would want to live there. The only reason that I called the place, "an atheist's paradise," is because its a place where God's name is never mentioned.
I want to consider how a world might have developed based on evolutionary principles alone, and ask the question, Is our world different, and, if so, why?
Your "Atheist" paradise is a straw-man of most atheists.
Scrapheap71 3 years ago
The beliefs of Hitler are in dispute, but one thing is certain - He was not a follower of the Christ who said, "Love one another as I have loved you," or "Love your neighbour as yourself," or "Love your enemies."
As I said before, I only want to paint a picture of a world that might have developed based on evolutionary principles alone. Perhaps you need to tell me why that world is incompatible with those principles.
gaychristian 3 years ago
It is incompatible because Scientists have never suggested that we base our society on evolutionary principles. Ironically the predominantly Christian US treats the less fortunate little better than your "athiest" world.
cheetah100 3 years ago
That wasn't the point that I was getting at cheetah100. I think that there are other principles at work in our world. As the story evolves it becomes clear that this actually isn't an atheist's paradise, and I don't think that most atheist scientists would want to build a society like this.
I only want to consider what a world would be like if only evolutionary principles applied.
gaychristian 3 years ago
The part 2 however you seem to be claiming that the humans in that imaginary world would have no self awareness; yet they have names and can execute complex business deals. We are complex machines, and are also fully functional humans. The assertions that someone the humans in this other world are somehow not self aware are logically unsupported.
cheetah100 3 years ago
This isn't a world based on evolutionary principles. Things like community and self-sacrifice are seen in non-human species. It's possible for evolution. A society which decides murder is an okay thing will not last long, and those who are part of it will be selected against, mainly because they will be killed by the others of the society. While we can't prove that our feelings of "conscience" doesn't come from a deity, we can be reasonable sure it can come from natural things.
Cyrathil 3 years ago
Are you able to give examples of true self-sacrifice in non-human species, Cyrathil? Richard Dawkins, in his book, "the selfish gene," explains that genes encoding for true self-sacrificing behaviour will be quickly eliminated from a community of survival machines.
What we have in nature is not self-sacrifice, but rather co-operation for mutual benefit, and for the benefit of close family members sharing the same genes.
gaychristian 3 years ago
If we are working for mutual benefit, it isn't a far shot to get to self-sacrifice, and "altruism" which is the word I wanted at the time. A species that shows a self-sacrificing behavior would be a wide majority of the bird species, which will willingly put themselves on the line to save their eggs. It's through empathy, the ability to see pain in others through our mirror neurons, that allows for this. If I don't want to feel pain, I don't want to inflict pain.
Cyrathil 3 years ago
Your example doesn't undermine the point that I was making, because eggs carry the same, or very similar, genes to that of bird-parents. What the bird does is beneficial for the propagation of the genes encoding for such behaviour. That is why those genes continue.
But, surely, in Richard Dawkin's model, genes that encode for behaviour such as charity, where the genetic material of unrelated individuals benefit, should not propagate unless there is something of benefit for the one giving.
gaychristian 3 years ago
In your last point you discussed self-awareness, which, as I hope the next video demonstrates, is unaccounted for by people who have a narrow view of what constitutes reality.
But even self-awareness is not enough on its own to produce the effects that you hope for. A selfish machine with selfish genes, even if it is self-aware, will still continue to do selfish things. I think that what is needed is the freedom to be something more than "a machine."
gaychristian 3 years ago
Self-awareness is something which we don't understand exactly how it comes about. This is give fully, and without regret. We don't understand what about the brain gives us our self-awareness, we have ideas, but that's how science works. We look and see what we can do. We don't just say it's unsolvable, and move on. And this selfish gene isn't selfish on the level of an organism, the organism isn't the selfish one. It's the genes which are. They want to be passed on.
Cyrathil 3 years ago
But what if, in order to understand self-awareness, we need to change our whole view about reality? I wonder if many scientists are so wedded to an impersonal mechanistic view that it is impossibile for them to see the elephant in the room - that there is no grounds within their world-view to even approach an explanation of self-awareness.
This is not like other natural phenomena. What we are discussing is something so "other" that one doesn't even know where to start in order to explain it.
gaychristian 3 years ago
That's why family members are so important to us, usually. They share our a good majority of our genes, obviously even more so than the others around us. But even those around us share a great number of our genes. Psychology plays a part in this too, people who are adopted into a family are often seen as family members, and are usually given the same respect and love as those who are blood relatives. Our brain tells us those who are around us a lot are closer to family than those who aren't.
Cyrathil 3 years ago
In a good number of situations, this can mean that those who we are around a lot we will show a greater love for, and this is known and shown in the preference for an "in-group", even if they've only met once. It is not that far a stretch then to see that those who share the same vicinity with us, we would be more willing to give us more for them, and I believe some money a small fraction of your own life. Charity is not a problem.
Cyrathil 3 years ago
I suspect that, in your model, unless there is some underlying benefit in giving resources to unrelated individuals, in time, new genes will develop encoding for behaviour that is more discrimatory in giving, because there is no evolutionary sense in "universal love and welfare of species," as Richard Dawkins said.
I stand by my model of how this world might develop. In my model no free choices are made. These are survival machines without consciousness. The selfish gene will win out.
gaychristian 3 years ago
As society progresses, we see more and more building of these ideas, and with new ideas added, it isn't a far-cry to say that the idea passed on from parent to child that you should show kindness to your family got extended to the community, from the community to the city, and in a global system like ours to humans in general. I'll reiterate, empathy is a key in this. I don't want myself to hurt, and so to make sure no one wants to hurt me I'll keep to myself and try not to upset too many people
Cyrathil 3 years ago
That last statement that you made is logical. In the world that Tristan visits I suspect that this will make sense too, unless an individual can build allies to ensure their chances of survival, which is part of what community is about.
The first part of your statement, I think, is overly optimistic, because I think that you are underestimating the powerful pool that the selfish gene will have on a survival machine in terms of its behaviour.
gaychristian 3 years ago
I don't necessarily agree that this selfish gene will be able to gain that much power. It's inherently self-destructive. We're not incredibly strong, or swift compared to the other animals, so we have to live together. Communities are important to us. In this, the person who is too self-absorbed will not survive long. We see communities form in the other primates, so this isn't something special for us, so the evolving humans would have had this community gene already instilled.
Cyrathil 3 years ago
I'm not arguing that communities will not evolve. The world that Tristan visits is a world with a community. But, as Richard Dawkins explained in his book, it is a community under tension. They are cooperating for mutual benefit. It is the selfish gene again.
I'm not sure that there is a gene that could be called a "community gene," but if you mean a gene that encodes for universal love and welfare, I doubt that this would be sustained in a model based on evolutionary priniciples alone.
gaychristian 3 years ago
Our problem seems to bo on Mr. Dawkins' use of the word selfish. In the book, do you know of any specific passages that support this claim that evolution is inherently selfish, because seeing as how he has been labeled a militant atheist, and is one of the "four horsemen of atheism", I doubt he would espouse idea that evolution can't give us what we have.
Cyrathil 3 years ago
The selfish gene by Richard Dawkins-
Pg2, "Much as we might wish to believe otherwise, universal love and welfare of the species as a whole are concepts that simply do not make evolutionary sense."
P36, "Any gene that behaves in such a way as to increase its own survival chances in the gene pool at the expense of its alleles will, by definition tautologously, tend to survive. The gene is the basic unit of selfishness."
Also, Pg66, and the chapter, "You scratch my back and Ill ride on yours."
gaychristian 3 years ago
I'm no biologist, and I can't say anything more than what I've said before. In what little problems I see a small jump where I might not know how exactly it occurred, I'm fine saying I don't know and waiting for better evidence. I remain convinced that with the habits of the other mammals and especially the other primates, and given our consciousness we can be fairly confident in saying the tendency to not murder everything we see is not specially given, but evolved.
Cyrathil 3 years ago
In the video, the survival machines do not wish to murder everything that they see. The question is about "charity" and universal love, and whether or not this behaviour is compatible with evolutionary principles. The man who is killed is killed because charity does not exist in the world that Tristan explored. The individuals are co-operating for mutual benefit, and if an individual can not contribute, then the society finds a way of removing him/her.
This sounds cold, but these are machines.
gaychristian 3 years ago
And that's also not the "without god" position. In no way do I not see that things might be. That person, who knows how they could have effected others. The old cliche, they might have discovered the cure for cancer. Again it comes down to the simple fact that humans have a genetic ability to feel the positions of others, called empathy. Because I don't want to be put down because of some mistake in my life, I will tend to not do it to others. Forgiveness is wrought from empathy, not a deity.
Cyrathil 3 years ago
If you mean by empathy, the ability for them to simulate in their "circuitary" other's pain or discomfort, then that ability, in Richard Dawkin's model, must involve a survival benefit for the gene encoding for it.
It could be used to assist close relatives carrying similar genes, but for others, I can see it being used in a more cynical and selfish way to manipulate others. Genes encoding for such discriminatory behaviour will predominate. Empathy isn't a sustainable basis for universal love.
gaychristian 3 years ago
But I do believe it is. Empathy is a trait that would have survival benefit, it's an emergent part of another system, so it would be selected for. Once you have empathy, causing pain to others would cause you to feel discomfort. Of course, there are some where this process doesn't exist as strongly or they rationalize it away, but the general person when he feels he is hurting someone else, will start to feel discomfort. It's not because of some moral absolute, it's your empathy.
Cyrathil 3 years ago
The model you describe is unstable. You envisage a group of survival machines, where, as a side effect of another system, harm occurs to an individual when his/her actions lead to the demise of another individual, even when it doesn't carry similar genes.
But, in time, evolution will find a way around this. Discrimination, between relatives carrying similar genes and those who don't, will occur because there will be a survival advantage for the gene that encodes for such discrimination.
gaychristian 3 years ago
I guess that I am putting the two together in a way, but I hope that I am not confusing them or making them the same.
I believe personally in the evolution of the species, but I also believe in God, and I believe that there is more to us than flesh and blood.
gaychristian 3 years ago
No thats a facist comunist mentalist paradise, I dont think I'd like to live there.
If this was a religeous planet we'd be twice as worse of.
voltage17121712 3 years ago
I understand that most atheist's wouldn't like to live in the place described. None of my friends who are atheists would want to live there. The only reason that I called the place, "an atheist's paradise," is because its a place where God's name is never mentioned.
I want to consider how a world might have developed based on evolutionary principles alone, and ask the question, Is our world different, and, if so, why?
gaychristian 3 years ago