151. Comment #95689 by epeeist on December 9, 2007 at 1:11 am

Comment #95682 by Diacanu

Until you can come up with something as savory as bacon that gives me the same drug hit, I'm well and stuck on the carnivore side.

SWMBO teaches at an all girls school in Manchester and we have taken a number of parties of them sailing around Scotland (Captaining a boat full of 16 year old girls, its a hard life but somebody has to do it).

Many of the girls profess to be vegetarians, however the smell of bacon grilling for breakfast converts a good 50% of them by day 3 of the trip.

Other Comments by epeeist

152. Comment #95693 by Goldy on December 9, 2007 at 1:30 am

Damn! I am going to go to bed hungry. Curse you and your bacon...drool....
Exits left, sound of stomach growling...

Other Comments by Goldy

153. Comment #95699 by ungodlystheist on December 9, 2007 at 2:12 am

BMMcArdle on December 8, 2007 at 6:38 pm

I like to know if an immature response is the result of someone's age, and not their temperment.
You don't seem to know the difference between insult and argument.

Gee, you are a sensitive one.

First of all, please tell me where I have insulted you.

Secondly, you brought up the subjet of 'age' obviusly implying immaturity.

Thirdly, you failed to follow an argument, and reduce it to accusing me of saying eating meant is to be a barbarian.

I have not insulted you, and I have not said eating meat is barbarian.

I suggest you learn to follow an argument.

The argument I presented to you, - if you remember I briught up cannabalism and rape - was simply to say to do an action merely because it is pleasurable - regardless of any ethical implications is barbarian.

Now if you wish to stop implying I am immature, go on about people's ages, as if that as anything to do with an argument - and learn not to be so senstive - just maybe my posts will not be so terse.

So stop whineing, stop gping on about age and immaturity, and ether address the arguments people present or just ignore a posting.

Why get so touchy because people may disagree with you, even strongly disagree with you.

Other Comments by ungodlystheist

154. Comment #95725 by Northern Bright on December 9, 2007 at 3:49 am

181. Comment #95703 by krisking on December 9, 2007 at 2:26 am

I think Dawkins needs to decide whether he is just an animal, or something more than an animal.

What would "more than an animal" mean? There isn't a biological category for "more than an animal", so the question is meaningless.

Humans are quite clearly animals by every biological test known to us. We fit the description of "animal" whichever way you care to look at it. There is no argument: humans are animals.

From your questions on this thread you appear to think that if we are animals this must mean we are slaves to our instincts. This is not the case and you must surely realise it, since presumably you don't imagine yourself to be slave to your instincts with no control over them whatsoever?

If you have difficulty understanding where our ability to control our instincts comes from, then all I'll say now is "psychology", "neurology", "sociology", "anthropology". Add books from one or more of those subjects to your reading list, and you'll be a lot better informed at the end of it.

To answer your first point quite specifically, I am confident in speaking for Richard Dawkins on this point and saying that he thinks he is an animal that has evolved to the point where he is capable of not just acting purely on instinct.

If it's not our genes, then what does determine our moral behaviour?

In a nutshell, humans are social animals. We evolved in small groups, groups whose cohesion was absolutely essential to their survival. Entirely wanton, selfish behaviour is not conducive to group cohesion, consequently it is not conducive to the survival of any individual whose survival depends on the cohesion of their group. All supposedly "moral" rules can be reduced to the need for a certain degree of agreed types of behaviour that are required for the successful co-existence of groups of people. By the way, a number of different social animals display similar behaviours that we would be inclined to interpret as "moral" when displayed by humans.

This is a very simplified answer, krisking - if you're genuinely interested in this area, I'm sure that between us we could suggest more books to add to your reading list. But start with TGD. You'll find that that answers just about every question you've raised here.

But why is it important? If we are merely evolved animals like the rest then we are no more important than the extinct dinosaurs, or the fly that we crush because it is annoying us.

Why is it important that we don't destroy ourselves and the planet with us? Let me put that straight back at you, krisking. Why do YOU think it's important? Assuming you do? You're not truly suggesting that, without a god, we have no interest in our own survival, are you? I'm not dodging your question, and I am happy to answer it specifically after you have given your view on this. But I do want you to think about why you seem to be finding this a difficult concept. My guess is that it will be for theological reasons rather than for any other kind.

Surely we are simply part of the on-going evolutionary process, which will determine whether we go extinct or not in spite or any intervention on our part

No, no, no, no, no! There is NOTHING deterministic about evolution. Evolution simply explains how we have reached our present stage of complexity. It just so happens that we have evolved to SUCH a degree of complexity that we have the freedom to choose how to USE that complexity.

To a very large extent, our own choices and decisions will determine how well the human race continues to survive - or not. We certainly don't have complete control over it: there are a number of possible external events that could wipe us out that we have next to no control over at all - the impact of an asteroid of sufficient size, the simultaneous eruption of a number of super-volcanoes etc etc. It's even possible that a virus would mutate (another example of evolution in action) into something utterly deadly and incredibly fast-moving, that would wipe us out before we'd had time to find a way of immunising ourselves from it. So our survival is not entirely in our hands.

HOWEVER, for the most pressing and genuine threats, the answers do indeed lie in human hands. Whether or not we destroy the atmosphere that protects our planet and keeps it habitable is in our hands. Whether or not we unleash our nuclear arsenals is in our hands.

Evolution explains how we got to be complex enough to be in that situation. It doesn't determine what we do with that power.

Krisking, if you are genuine about seeking answers to questions like these, some very basic reading will supply them. TGD is an excellent place to start, and it's a bit perverse to keep posting questions like this when it is incredibly easy for you to gain your own access to the answers. Might I suggest you go away, read TGD and then come back and post your questions and objections based on just a little bit of knowledge? There is absolutely no point in your making claims about what evolution does or does not do, or whether evolution is or is not satisfactorily demonstrated, or what RD does or does not say in TGD, when those claims are based on a lack of knowledge that you could so easily rectify. If you don't want to buy the books, I'm sure your local library will have a copy.

Other Comments by Northern Bright

155. Comment #95731 by BMMcArdle on December 9, 2007 at 4:05 am

I post a humorous quote from Ted Nugent and state that I eat meat.
You lose it, ask me if it's ok to eat babies, vivisect cows, and rape, as if that's what my statement implies, and by doing so, I'm a complete barbarian.
And now you're saying it was I who overreacted?
You're going to have to backpedal pretty hard to get out of this one.

Other Comments by BMMcArdle

156. Comment #95747 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on December 9, 2007 at 5:17 am

No, no, no, no, no! There is NOTHING deterministic about evolution. Evolution simply explains how we have reached our present stage of complexity. It just so happens that we have evolved to SUCH a degree of complexity that we have the freedom to choose how to USE that complexity.

This is a the classic theist confusion, evolutionary theory as binding law like the Bible. We don't "worship" evolution, we just think it explains our origins more coherently than the 6000 year old creation myth of bedouin nomads.

We are not bound by the "laws" of evolution, like christians are (ostensibly) bound by the laws of the bible, or Muslims by the ravings of the Koran. We can do what we like, and we do.

Other Comments by briancoughlanworldcitizen

157. Comment #95758 by Wosret on December 9, 2007 at 6:24 am

Bonzai, I can see that you are wholly not interested in changing anything. Or spending even five seconds actually reading up on the arguments.

You also continue to make dishonest moves, both intellectually, and rhetorically.

I never said that I don't kill "anything" as you said that I did, I said that I don't kill "things" and when pushed specified what I meant. You ignored all of my points, and dismissed them without addressesing them.

You simply assert that didn't say "since we can't stop all suffering we shouldn't try to prevent any" (which was of course and extrapolation of your argument, not a direct quote), and then move on. You do not even attempt to justify your assertion.

Your second argument also shows a ignorance of the debate, a long refuted and predictable move. Which I thought someone refuted by mentioning infants, or how about the mentally hadicapped? Hmmm, what about killing the unexpecting in their sleep? They won't see it coming, no suffering there.

Also vegetables are cheaper than meat, I am a poor student, who litterally spends less than 30$ a week on food, and I eat just fine. Although I can't afford tofu burgers all the time, I get them once in awhile. If you are poor like me, whether you are eating meat or being a vegetarian, you still likely are not going to be eating all that great, so there is not big change in the quality of what I eat, just in what it is I'm eating. I also happen to think that I eat better now, than I did before.

You say that you did not appeal to the naturalistic fallacy, and then say it is fallacious for me to think so, then go on to something unrelated. This is yet another in a long line of assertions. I laid out my reasoning why it was. If you think what you said afterwards addresses that, it does not. You need to read about what that means as well.

I have no supplied my own value judgements, in fact I clearly said that doing so would be arbitrary, and indefensible. What I applied was a system of suffering and happiness. A universal system. "The good" if you will. The good is a universal moral standard. Every living thing strives for what benefits them, and avoids what damages them. At least all the normal and healthy ones. It is egocentric for me to notice this in myself, and not allow it for everything else, especially when it can be demonstrated true of everything else. We allow this for other people and not for non-human animals. That is anthropocentric. It is not my own value judgements, it is everyone's combined. Do you not killing people because it is illegal? Or do you not because you think it is wrong? I am pretty sure that the vast majority choose the latter reason.

I laughed at your anthropocentric claim, that was rich. You don't seem to know what the term means, it is not anthropomorphic to point out that dogs have legs. Nor is it to point out that they can suffer, feel fear and pain, just like us. Anthropomophism is attributing qualities to non-human objects things or animals that do not already possess them.

It is not anthropocentric to notice that non-human animals are capable of being wronged in the same ways that humans are, that we have rights and laws against do to each other, so extending those rights. For the same reasons we extend them to each other, it's quite obviously anthropocentric to not do so.

Pain suffering, fear, these are not "human qualities" they are qualities that humans possess. They are evolved qualities that are survival mechanisms for many many species, and genuses. Perhaps someday science will show exactly which ones.

Again when you talked about the cockroaches, I conceded that I did not value them as I do creatures that I know pocess similar conscious facualties as I do, but I would still rather not kill one if given the choice, and not because I think it might be my granny.

We live in a subjective universe, I am only privy to what I know, have experienced and understand. If there are other reasons to not kill, or avoiding doing things that are outside my understanding experience and knowledge, than there is nothing I can do about it, I cannot act on what I don't know. This is simply a fact. If we ever come accross an alien race, that would undoubtable be inconceivable different from us. Their experiences and the way they perceive the would would undoubtable be nothing like how we do, non-human animals subjectivity would be undoubtable far similar. This does not downplay their worth, if they are conscious entities that do not want to die, and can be wronged in some way. I would instantly want to know what I am to avoid doing. Until I am aware of what to avoid doing and why, I obviously cannot avoid doing it. I would think that this is stunningly obvious. Pointing this out is beyond absurd.

So, not extending the rights and privilages you think you deserve to other people for the same reasons you think you deserve them is egocentric, and not extending similar rights to non-human animals for the same reasons you think you deserve them in anthropocentric, and speciest. Quitely obviously not the other way around.

You finish with more assertions, strung together with ad hominem. I would have liked to see this demonstrated...however I would have liked to say everything you said move past mere assertion.

Anywho, I won't be wasting anymore time replying to arguments I've heard a million times. Please, do yourself...no no, do the world a favor, and do some research. That way you won't feel compeditive, in a arguments platform (as discoussions online so often tend to degrade into) and you might be in a better mindset to think clearly and logically, without worrying about winning or losing.

Other Comments by Wosret

158. Comment #95794 by ADH on December 9, 2007 at 8:13 am

OK Northern Bright, Dawkins argues that we have evolved to the point where we can act not only by instinct. And yet in "River out of Eden" he claims that "DNA neither knows nor cares. DNA just is, and we dance to its music". Please forgive me if I have misunderstood what he is saying, but a straightforward reading would lead one to believe that we are "puppets on a string" (to quote Sandy Shaw), and that it is DNA that is pulling the strings. Now this suggests that there is little if any possibility of transcending the genetic determinism that makes us act as we do. Or is he saying that, by some curious twist of fate, we have been genetically endowed with the ability to transcend our genetic endowment? Is this logically coherent? Is he not actually trying to have his cake and eat it? And what is it that Dawkins is invoking when he claims that we can transcend our DNA? What is there but DNA? If he is saying that we have the power of choice to act in defiance of our DNA (I agree with him there by the way) he is arguing for free will (which I also agree with). So in the event of being confronted with a choice to obey or not to obey the inclination of our DNA, not to obey our instincual drive, there must be a standard that we can appeal to which is not itself instinctual. Or is it a matter of being pulled one way by our "let's act on behalf of the tribe" instinct and the other way by pure unmitigated self-interest instinct? In which case there must be an independent arbiter in our minds which enables us to choose in favour of the tribe, or in another circumstance against our tribe and in accordance with a higher principle of justice. This is something that those who argue that justice and morality are functions of natural selection have not addressed satisfactorily.

Other Comments by ADH

159. Comment #95807 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on December 9, 2007 at 8:45 am

ADH, can I refer you to : http://richarddawkins.net/articleComments,1974,Richard-Dawkins---Science-and-the-New-Atheism,Point-of-Inquiry,page4#95747, which although brief goes some way to addressing your point.

The Dawkins quote is more theist silliness. Nothing he says there contradicts the idea that our consciousness, coupled with detailed scientific knowledge, allows us to transcend our genes.

I still have drives to procreate, kill "threats" and jump around wildly if a bee lands on me. So in a clear sense I do still "dance to the music of DNA.", it says nothing about me slipping on a johnny as required. This is just quote mining, indeed, such ham fisted quote mining, that I don't even need to see the context to know your "straightforward reading" is, at a minimum, rather peculiar.

The larger issue of consciousness, and free will is what is actually bothering you here, and it is certainly more interesting. These are complex systems that science has made some progress in understanding, but there is a long way to go. Given the last 300 years of breathtaking discovery, I have confidence that we will eventually get there, but this is tough stuff, and we may never fully grasp it. Stephen Pinker has some very interesting stuff to say on the subject, check him out.

This is something that those who argue that justice and morality are functions of natural selection have not addressed satisfactorily.

Is anyone arguing that they are products? I don't think so, byproducts perhaps. Our desire for Justice and morality do however appear to be products of the process of consciousness, layered on a biological substrate of neurological modules competing for attention. Recent research using MRI scans show this incredibly clearly. A case can be made for morality, altruism and love based purely on the observable universe. How is this less sensible or coherent than appealing to an invisible, unknowable (and this by admission!!!??), creator of the universe?

Other Comments by briancoughlanworldcitizen

160. Comment #95811 by steve99 on December 9, 2007 at 9:00 am

Or is he saying that, by some curious twist of fate, we have been genetically endowed with the ability to transcend our genetic endowment? Is this logically coherent?

I am not sure what 'genetic endowment' is supposed to mean in this context. Once a species have brains above a certain size, they gain independence from instinct. Not every thought or action is determined by DNA.

Other Comments by steve99

161. Comment #95817 by Northern Bright on December 9, 2007 at 9:24 am

187. Comment #95794 by ADH on December 9, 2007 at 8:13 am
You'd really need to check out the context of that DNA quote from River out of Eden. I haven't read that book by Dawkins, so can't help you with that. However, "DNA neither knows nor cares" is certainly true in the context of evolution by natural selection.

The way a gene (part of our DNA) mutates in the first place is entirely random - DNA "neither knows nor cares" how it mutates or what the result of that mutation is.

What happens as a result of that mutation is also something that DNA "neither knows nor cares" about - it is simply subject to the inexorable law of natural selection which states that those mutations that are best able to reproduce are the ones which get reproduced most often and therefore, over time, become prominent in the gene pool. No "knowing", no "caring", no "planning", no "designing" - just the natural consequence of something being either a) good at reproducing itself or b) bad at reproducing itself or c) neutral at reproducing itself.

Now, what emerges from all that natural selection is an organism (you, say) with a whole load of DNA that has simply been subject to the process of natural selection - over which it has had no control whatsoever.

That DNA will result in you having all kinds of characteristics: for example, you may have a genetic predisposition to certain kinds of cancers; you may have a sixth toe; you may have green eyes; you may be a carrier of haemophilia; you may have a brain that is wired up in such a way that you have a natural ability to learn languages.

Let's stick with that last example for a moment, because at no stage do you (currently - who knows what the future holds?) have any influence over what happens about your genetic susceptibility to cancer / a sixth toe / green eyes etc.

The case of your having a natural ability with languages is rather different. If you have it, it's because of your (unknowing, uncaring) DNA. But having the DNA that gives you a natural ability with languages is not the same as saying you speak 12 foreign languages fluently. For that to have happened, a whole lot of other things – many of which you WILL have had control over – will have to have happened too. It is perfectly possible that you could have a brain that has a natural ability to learn foreign languages, yet you are never in a position to find that out, to give it a go, to do anything with it. In other words, you could have the ABILITY to learn several foreign languages yet never learn a single one.

Likewise, the process of "unknowing, uncaring" production of DNA has resulted in a brain that is capable of being aware of other people and their needs, and is capable of recognizing that your wellbeing isn't JUST dependent on the things that happen to you but the things that happen in your group (family / community / nation/ world), and that as a consequence of both these things has the capacity to act morally. This doesn't mean that there's any morality inside the DNA – just that the blind processes of natural selection have resulted in a brain that is able to work in ways that we deem consistent with morality. We, as a social animal, have evolved with the awareness of being members of a group and the awareness that the social cohesion of the group (and therefore our ability to survive) depends on certain behaviours being encouraged and others discouraged. What lies behind OUR knowing and caring is DNA that is UNknowing and UNcaring.

Or is he saying that, by some curious twist of fate, we have been genetically endowed with the ability to transcend our genetic endowment?

Well, change the words "curious twist of fate" for "the process of evolution by natural selection" and yes, I think that is what he's saying.

The very best example of this is contraception. Contraception is the ultimate anti-evolutionary device. It is our genes' worst nightmare. Our genes (our "unknowing, uncaring" DNA) would have us reproduce and reproduce and reproduce until we dropped dead of exhaustion. Our DNA wouldn't care that we were about to drop dead of exhaustion (it would already have got itself replicated into the next generation so its mission is accomplished), but we would. So what's in our DNA's best interests doesn't necessarily have to be in the best interests of the organism as a whole.

We have evolved to the point where we are aware of how to control our reproduction. We have also evolved to the point where, thanks to advances in science and medicine and diet, in most parts of the world we don't need to have 10 children in order to be confident that at least 2 will survive through to reproductive maturity. And we have also evolved to the point where many of us can think of other ways we'd prefer to spend our lives, rather than in bearing and rearing children.

I suspect the reason you're thinking that this is logically incoherent may be that you're assuming that Dawkins is claiming that evolution is a perfect mechanism that always gets things right in the end and that every change that happens in an organism must always be for the better. But he is absolutely NOT saying this. Some changes at the genetic level are reproductively DISadvantageous. These are the ones that lose out in the subsequent natural selection, for, by definition, a characteristic that is bad at getting itself reproduced won't end up being reproduced very often.

For proof that evolution does NOT have to be a one-way street to perfection, you only have to consider the startling fact that well over 99.9% of all species that have ever lived on this planet are now extinct.

Evolution is not a means to an end. It's simply the process by which simple things became more complex.

Other Comments by Northern Bright

162. Comment #95841 by ungodlystheist on December 9, 2007 at 10:34 am

Comment #95731 by BMMcArdle:
I post a humorous quote from Ted Nugent and state that I eat meat.
You lose it, ask me if it's ok to eat babies, vivisect cows, and rape, as if that's what my statement implies, and by doing so, I'm a complete barbarian.
And now you're saying it was I who overreacted?
You're going to have to backpedal pretty hard to get out of this one.

Good grief, get a grip!

Now I agree that our exchange is becoming to immature, even for me.

This is a public space, when we post here other people may decide to respond to our posts. You and I were not having a private email.

So in a thread in which the ethics of meat eating is being discussed, you posted that you like meat because it tastes good.

Fair enough, but I hardly see why you should feel the need to complain if someone else follows up by asking what about the ethical implications.

You say I "lost it" beause I asked you some questions to consider?

"lost it,'" are you verging on paranoia??? You must have hated school, all those terrible people losing it by asking questions.

Now to our exchange. I asked you to consider if doing something just because it is pleasurable would outrule any ethical concerns.

I give some examples where even you would agree it does not. That is perfectly logical and acceptable way to argue a point - push for consistency, or unacceptable conclusions.

You respond by enquiring about my age?!?!

Now come on, do you really think I have anything to back paddle about?

Other Comments by ungodlystheist

163. Comment #95843 by Northern Bright on December 9, 2007 at 10:36 am

Any chance of a truce on the veggie vs meat-eaters front?

Other Comments by Northern Bright

164. Comment #95847 by ungodlystheist on December 9, 2007 at 10:44 am

Northern Bright:
Any chance of a truce on the veggie vs meat-eaters front?

Depends what you mean by a truce.

If you mean people getting offensive, asking about people's ages and complaining because someone asked questions, then I agree a truce in such things should be called for.

On this matter of a 'truce' I am happy to oblige.

If by a truce, lets not discuss whether there are ethical implications, I disagree.

Having a debate should never need people calling for a truce, not unless people are laying their ego on the debate table, the one place no delicate ego belongs

Other Comments by ungodlystheist

165. Comment #95848 by seals on December 9, 2007 at 10:49 am

137. Comment #95559 by krisking on December 8, 2007 at 3:26 pm
....and why does he think he needs social courage to break out of eating meat? Plenty of people I know don't eat meat.

I'm beginning to wonder if there is some social bonding thing going on with eating meat. Not quite so much when choosing the veggie option in a restaurant, but when you visit someone's house and refuse the offer of say, a sausage roll (cos you know they aren't the Linda McCartney kind) - you have to explain that you don't eat meat, and this does seem to cause a reaction. Even though I don't volunteer why I don't eat it, which apart from the factory farming aspect, is because I don't like the taste, texture or smell (not even bacon grilling, the thing that's supposed to turn us all into instant carnivores). Not eating baked beans, curries, eggs or whatever, is seen as just a harmless fad but there does seem to be a wariness of the vegetarian - or am I being paranoid?

I find that when having safely pre-ordered a veggie option at the restaurant quite often when you arrive that option is no longer available, is part of "an out of date menu" and you're left with the more common veggie dishes eg. veg lasagne or even on occasion, cheese salad - although according to the menu, there is a wide variety of vegetarian choices. Makes me wonder if some of these menus are just for show! (nothing wrong with veg lasagne, but if that's all they have, their menu should make this clear).

Other Comments by seals

166. Comment #95849 by Northern Bright on December 9, 2007 at 10:49 am

No problems with debate. It's the not daring to venture onto the thread unless I'm prominently displaying a white flag that I'm objecting to :-)

Other Comments by Northern Bright

167. Comment #95851 by Bonzai on December 9, 2007 at 10:50 am

Mitchell,

You are right that I am not interested in your arguments because you ain't got any. You are sermonizing and I hate people who sermonize. You are trying to push a life style choice on others by guilt tripping, that in my book puts you at the same level as an evangelizing Christian fundamentalist.

Your whole system of "pleasure and pain" breaks down because it is based on an unfounded assumption that human ethical concepts apply universally to all animals, that is not self evident, nor is it logical. Arguments such as "if it is ok to kill a cow humanely since it doesn't involve pain it would be ok to kill a mentally handicapped person in his sleep.." is just plain stupid and dishonest.

You insist on using big words like "naturalistic fallacy" without even understanding it. There is a difference between saying whatever it is natural is right and asking you to supply valid reasons to override nature. In the absence of such reasons we don't even have an ethical debate because ethics doesn't apply. But judging from the general muddled headiness of your arguments you wouldn't able to see the difference.

In real life when I meet people like you I would eat a big hamburger in front of them for the sole purpose of pissing them off. I don't even like hamburgers.

Other Comments by Bonzai

168. Comment #95852 by mdowe on December 9, 2007 at 10:52 am

On the topic of human evolution and food, I suspect it won't be too much longer before we have, at least, the technical ability to alter our genetic endowment so that our bodies could manufacture all the (non-elemental) nutritional factors we currently have to ingest. Of course any research with this kind of potential will immediately raise a moral outcry from religites, and be banned by brainless politicians.

Other Comments by mdowe

169. Comment #95855 by Northern Bright on December 9, 2007 at 10:58 am

Seals:

I'm beginning to wonder if there is some social bonding thing going on with eating meat

Well, it certainly seems to be a rather emotive topic! :-)

Re your experience of veggie alternatives in restaurants, I remember going into a restaurant a few years back, looking at their menu (which only had meat and fish on it) and asking what their veggie option was.

"Oh, we never offer a vegetarian option", came the reply.
"Oh really? Why not?" I asked.
"Well, we never get any vegetarians in here, so there's no point" ...

Maybe I should have told him about natural selection?

Other Comments by Northern Bright

170. Comment #95857 by ADH on December 9, 2007 at 11:04 am

Thank you for your lengthy and detailed explantion Northern Bright. You have given me some things to think about. But just one other question. You say that our brain enables us to behave in ways that are consistent with morality. True. That means that the morality that the resulting behaviour is consistent with already existed before the first members of our species found themselves grappling with these issues. So this "morality" is not itself part of the biological, evolutionary process. Where did it come from? Not from "culture", surely, as in the case of our first human ancestors "culture" had not begun to be constructed and to provide individuals with a frame of reference. In any case, locating "morality" in culture is extremely problematic. It would mean that we would have no right to denounce as wrong the behaviour that any given group of people have come to accept as right. But every time people on this thread denounce the evils inflicted by religion that is exactly what they are doing.

Other Comments by ADH

171. Comment #95860 by BMMcArdle on December 9, 2007 at 11:09 am

I post a humorous quote from Ted Nugent and state that I eat meat.
You lose it, ask me if it's ok to eat babies, vivisect cows, and rape, as if that's what my statement implies, and by doing so, I'm a complete barbarian.
And now you're saying it was I who overreacted?

I like to know if an immature response is the result of someone's age, and not their temperment.
You don't seem to know the difference between insult and argument.

The hole you are digging is getting deeper.

Other Comments by BMMcArdle

172. Comment #95868 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on December 9, 2007 at 11:30 am

That means that the morality that the resulting behaviour is consistent with already existed before the first members of our species found themselves grappling with these issues.

Why does this follow?

Other Comments by briancoughlanworldcitizen

173. Comment #95872 by ungodlystheist on December 9, 2007 at 11:36 am

Comment #95860 by BMMcArdle:
I post a humorous quote from Ted Nugent and state that I eat meat.
You lose it, ask me if it's ok to eat babies, vivisect cows, and rape, as if that's what my statement implies, and by doing so, I'm a complete barbarian.
And now you're saying it was I who overreacted?


The hole you are digging is getting deeper.

This is getting ridiculous!

I do not wish to engage in this childish behaviour. Though I will happily debate/argue/discuss what ever term you are happy with, when/if you decide to do so.

All this talk of digging holes and backpadling etc is just plain silly.

Please get on with the discussion and stop this pointless whinging.

I know that is what I intend to do.

Other Comments by ungodlystheist

174. Comment #95880 by ADH on December 9, 2007 at 11:59 am

"That means that the morality that the resulting behaviour is consistent with already existed before the first members of our species found themselves grappling with these issues.

Why does this follow?"

It follows, Brian, because in order for choices to be consistent with something that "something" is prior to the choices that they end up making.

Other Comments by ADH

175. Comment #95902 by Northern Bright on December 9, 2007 at 12:42 pm

Mea culpa, ADH, I can see how you got to your conclusion from what I wrote, which was:

Likewise, the process of "unknowing, uncaring" production of DNA has resulted in a brain that is capable of being aware of other people and their needs, and is capable of recognizing that your wellbeing isn't JUST dependent on the things that happen to you but the things that happen in your group (family / community / nation/ world), and that as a consequence of both these things has the capacity to act morally.

Even as I wrote it I had this niggly feeling that the last 3 words could be misinterpreted, but it had been a long post and I had other things to do and I skimped on going back to make it crystal clear.

What I should have written - was "as a consequence of both these things [the brain] has the capacity to act in ways that we now call moral.

Though actually I think the next sentence kind of covers this: where it suggests that "blind processes of natural selection have resulted in a brain that is able to work in ways that we deem consistent with morality."

I most certainly do not see morality as being something pre-existing, something that exists independently of the human brain. So – evolution does not result in a brain that is in accord with some externally set standard of morality; it results in a brain that is capable of thinking in terms that we now think of as moral.

I must stress that there's a considerable literature on the topic of the (naturalistic) origin of morality, and I haven't read it as yet, so my thoughts here are only my own thoughts, unsubstantiated. I'm hoping that others who have read more widely on this subject than I have might add their own comments. But I don't want to dodge your question, so I'll tell you that I see morality as simply a more imposing-sounding term for "rules". And it all stems from our nature as social animals.

The group discovers that certain modes of behaviour appear to have more successful outcomes for the group than other modes of behaviour do? Humans are quick to learn, so rules are created to enshrine those ways of behaving, and disincentives are created to discourage rogue individuals who may not wish to comply. A god or gods are invoked as policemen - beings who can observe what you're getting up to even when the tribal chief cannot. The concept of "morality" is born. The various ceremonies deemed to be required by those gods also get elevated by society to the status of "morality", and get confused with the more utilitarian imperatives that started it all off.

Whatever the problems of deeming morality to be culture-specific, I don't see we have any option but to recognize that the concept of morality DOES differ across different cultures. Is it or is it not moral for a widow to commit suttee? Is it or is it not moral for a small girl to have her genitals sliced off? Is it or is it not moral to deem women to be subservient to men? Is it or is it not moral to be tolerant of homosexuality? Should we or should we not stone adulterers to death? Is it or is it not moral to name a teddy bear Mohammed? Does someone who works on the Sabbath deserve to die, or does he not?

The interesting thing here is that it seems to me that if you look at the "morality" that pretty much all cultures share, it consists of the really utilitarian stuff that genuinely is beneficial to a society that wants to run smoothly and successfully. I can't think of a single culture that doesn't actively discourage the murder of innocents, or the stealing of property from other members of that culture, or rape of its own members. And you can see that such behaviours within a social group really would have a very de-stabilising effect all round.

It is the religion-specific additions that get promoted to the status of "morality" that are the most divisive and least obviously beneficial. And if you want to know how those got a grip on the human psyche if they weren't helpful to us, then you need to read Daniel Dennett's book, Breaking the Spell. :-)

Other Comments by Northern Bright

176. Comment #95907 by Dr Benway on December 9, 2007 at 12:53 pm

ADH: That means that the morality that the resulting behaviour is consistent with already existed before the first members of our species found themselves grappling with these issues.

brian: Why does this follow?"

ADH: It follows, Brian, because in order for choices to be consistent with something that "something" is prior to the choices that they end up making.

That a priori something is a circuit in the nucleus accumbens which rewards you when you're good and punishes you when you're bad. A version of it pre-dates our species, yes. But "good" isn't the same for all mammalian species.

Other Comments by Dr Benway

177. Comment #95912 by ungodlystheist on December 9, 2007 at 1:01 pm

Comment #95703 by krisking on December 9, 2007 at 2:26 am

Comment #95703 by krisking:
I think Dawkins needs to decide whether he is just an animal, or something more than an animal.

I do not think Dawkins is in any doubt. He, like you and I, is an animal. Just look at our bodies we share the same physiology as other mammals.

You seem to dislike the thought of being 'only' an animal, for myself I share no such distaste. I think it is wonderful to consider that I am a part of the web of life, which I share with all other life forms. That when I look at the natural word I see not 'strangers,' but distant cousins who I share a common ancestor with. I love the fact that I am a part of this great interconnected tree of life, not alien to it.

We are unique animals, in that we are humans. But dogs are unique animals in that they are dogs. You want to say that we are only 'special,' 'have 'value' etc, because we are more then 'just' animals. But be careful, because rather then elevate human beings as you think, that idea can also be used to lower human status.

If you say that there is no reason to say life is important, apart from something outside of life 'the divine,' then you are saying if God does not exist human life is valueless. In other words human life is valueless unless there is a God. But I would disagree, human life has value regardless of whether there is a God.


Theists struggle with the idea of being able to make moral judgements if there is no God, but to me this is equally and obviously false.

For example. Feeding a starving child is what we would consider to be a positive moral action.

But why? I would say because it is morally good to relive hunger -full stop. Yet many theists argue that feeeding a starving child only has meaning if God exists. In other words feeding a starving child is valueless, in and of itself. I find that idea repugnent. Feeding a starving child has value in and of itself, and needs no 'deity' to give the act meaning.

You fall into the same trap by denying human life has value if there is no God. ie, it is you who are saying our life is meaningless - not atheists. Atheists (at least humanists) would say life has meaning in and of itself, and needs nothing from the outside to give meaning to it.

Comment #95703 by krisking:
If it's not our genes, then what does determine our moral behaviour?

A two year old boy pulls his four year old sister's hair. His mother tells him to stop, otherwise she will pull his hair. The boy pulls his sisters hair and so the mother gently pulls the boys hair. The boy soon learns that he should not pull his sisters hair if he does not want his hair pulled.

The boy at this stage of his development has learnt nothing about ethics, he has learnt that there are more powerful beings then him who will 'bully' him if he does not stop pulling his sisters hair.

However, as the boy gets older he decides he no longer wishs to pull his sisters hair, not because his hair will be pulled in turn, but because pulling his sisters hair makes her unhappy, and he no longer wishes to make her unhappy - Unless he is really pissed off with her :-)

The boy has now learnt how to behave morally. He now no longer pulls his sister's hair, not out of concern for his own welfare, but out of concern for his sister's welfare.

This is what morallity is, and its explanation and origin are fairly simply. All animals that are social animals and depend upon being part of the social group for survival, develop some form of 'moral' behaviour'. Humans like other social animals would find it difficult, if not impossible, to survive totally cut off from its social group.

The best way to survive in the social group is through co-operation. That co-operation, that desire to protect others welfare along side ones own, is rewarded by the group. Such behaviour is then passed on within the tribe - it becomes a meme that is transmitted from one generation to the next. So our wish to avoid pain, and our ability to empathise with other is a social skill that helps our survival.

If you say God is needed for morality then you are like the boy who does not pull his sister's hair only because he fears god will one day pull his. It is not even morality, it is pure selfishness.

Comment #95703 by krisking:
But why is it important? If we are merely evolved animals like the rest then we are no more important than the extinct dinosaurs, or the fly that we crush because it is annoying us.

Why? extinct dinosaurs are dead, they no longer matter, you are aive, therefore you do.

You do matter, you are not merely a fly. By the way do not assume everyone would crush a fly just because it is annoying them, I would open the window and encourage it to leave - they usually do.

We have only a few short years to live, that is why it matters.

Let me ask you a question. Are you saying that if there was no after life you would have no reason to love your parents? You mean the fact that they give you life, feed you, care for you, educate you - does not deserve your gratitude or love. You would only love them if you knew you would spend eternity with them in heaven???

If you knew your mother was about to die, would you not value the time you have together more, not less?

This life is precious, it is the only one you have - don't waste it on dreaming about another one.

Comment #95703 by krisking:
Why should we? What is the imperative? Surely we are simply part of the on-going evolutionary process, which will determine whether we go extinct or not in spite or any intervention on our part.

The house you live in now you will leave one day, either when you move or when you die. You will not always be in that house. So tell me, why do you care for it? Why do you not just trash it?

The same reason I suspect you would not trash your house, even though you know one day you will leave it, is all the motivation we need for not trashing this earth.

In fact, the analogy breaks down. There is always another house you can move into, yet you still do not trash the one you live in. There is not another Earth waiting for us to move into, all the more reason not to trash it.

Don't think life has no meaning if there is no God, the opposite is true. This life has no meaning if there is a god, after all, if there is a god and a heaven and a hell, then this life is just a waiting roon, it is nothing special. What a terrible view to go through life with.

Other Comments by ungodlystheist

178. Comment #95913 by BMMcArdle on December 9, 2007 at 1:06 pm

You're the one who has painted yourself into a corner, you are responsible for getting yourself out of it.
Always think carefully before you hit the submit button, as what you write may come back and bite you in the ass.

Other Comments by BMMcArdle

179. Comment #95915 by ungodlystheist on December 9, 2007 at 1:13 pm

Comment #95913 by BMMcArdle on December 9, 2007 at 1:06 pm

You're the one who has painted yourself into a corner, you are responsible for getting yourself out of it.
Always think carefully before you hit the submit button, as what you write may come back and bite you in the ass.

I have not painted myself into a corner.

I really do not know what the hell your going on about,

Please desist from these pointless posts.

Other Comments by ungodlystheist

180. Comment #95928 by BMMcArdle on December 9, 2007 at 1:34 pm

I can be, agreed it can all be great fun, but it does not tell me if your a barbarian or not?

Though it may give a hint

CHOMP
(Sound of someone's ass being bitten.)

Other Comments by BMMcArdle

181. Comment #95941 by ungodlystheist on December 9, 2007 at 2:06 pm

ungodlystheist
I can be, agreed it can all be great fun, but it does not tell me if your a barbarian or not?

BMMcArdle
Though it may give a hint
CHOMP
(Sound of someone's ass being bitten.)

This is beconing boring and tedious, and yes childish.

Go back and read the thread, and please follow the agument.

There again, it seems fairly obvious that your incapable of doing that.


Your under the wrong impression that I said that eating meat makes people barbarian. Wrong!

Let me make it easier for you, you snip a post that has me saying

"I can be, agreed it can all be great fun, but it does not tell me if your a barbarian or not?"

Now since you already said you eat meat, if I was accusing you of being a barbarian because you eat meat why would I have wrote "but it does not tell me if your a barbarian or not?"

Now surely even you can see the inconsistency in your false claim.

Now as I said before, please desist from these pointless posts

Other Comments by ungodlystheist

182. Comment #95944 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on December 9, 2007 at 2:10 pm

Guys ... please .. just walk away. It's better for everyone. Really.

No one, is to post anything, until I blow this whistle .... and I want to make this absolutely clear, even if they DO say Jehovah.

Other Comments by briancoughlanworldcitizen

183. Comment #95945 by Dr Benway on December 9, 2007 at 2:13 pm

There's something strangely reassuring about a little girl slap fest. Makes me feel that yes I must be in the right place as I recognize my species.

Other Comments by Dr Benway

184. Comment #95946 by GBile on December 9, 2007 at 2:13 pm

ungodlystheist,

I thank you for your comment # 206. You very clearly addressed some interesting topics. Some time ago, on an other forum, I was asked by someone who called himself 'Evangelical' what my preoccupation was with 'mere' animals (I had written about the 99% of all living species, who already have gone extinct during the past billions of years) and about the in his view existing 'greater importance' of humans. My ideas and convictions in this matter resemble yours very much. Being an animal, seeing a distant relative in your cat or in the bird in your garden is uplifting, dignifying. Religionists seem to think the opposite. I hope krisking will read your comment carefully and rethink how a religious 'straightjacket' might warp his view on life.

Other Comments by GBile

185. Comment #95950 by ungodlystheist on December 9, 2007 at 2:20 pm

briancoughlanworldcitizen
Guys ... please .. just walk away. It's better for everyone. Really.

No one, is to post anything, until I blow this whistle .... and I want to make this absolutely clear, even if they DO say Jehovah.

It would no doubt be more adult of me just to ignore the posts, but when someone misrepresents ones argument, and then proceeds to post mindless comments, posts so short they amount to not much more then trolling, in an effort to and publicly belittle one, it does irritate, and like a scab I do find it hard not to pick.

Other Comments by ungodlystheist

186. Comment #95952 by BMMcArdle on December 9, 2007 at 2:25 pm

So what? If babies tasted delicious would that justify eating them too?

What about cats or dogs?

Tell me, if cutting a piece of flesh off a live cow tasted far more delicious then eating the piece of flesh off a dead one, would you have no objection?

I imagine rape, for the rapist, may well be a very pleasureable experience, hardly justifies it though.

Not unless one is a complete barbarian

CHOMP CHOMP
All this from a humorous quote by Ted Nugent and the statement that I eat meat.
I'll take that as a compliment Dr B.
She hit me first!

Other Comments by BMMcArdle

187. Comment #95956 by ungodlystheist on December 9, 2007 at 2:34 pm

Dr Benway:
There's something strangely reassuring about a little girl slap fest. Makes me feel that yes I must be in the right place as I recognize my species.

Not 'little girl' but 'little person slap fest' please. :-)

Other Comments by ungodlystheist

188. Comment #95957 by ungodlystheist on December 9, 2007 at 2:39 pm

Comment #95946 by GBile
I thank you for your comment # 206. You very clearly addressed some interesting topics. Some time ago, on an other forum, I was asked by someone who called himself 'Evangelical' what my preoccupation was with 'mere' animals (I had written about the 99% of all living species, who already have gone extinct during the past billions of years) and about the in his view existing 'greater importance' of humans. My ideas and convictions in this matter resemble yours very much. Being an animal, seeing a distant relative in your cat or in the bird in your garden is uplifting, dignifying. Religionists seem to think the opposite. I hope krisking will read your comment carefully and rethink how a religious 'straightjacket' might warp his view on life.

Thank you for your kind words.

I can never understand this view that human life only has value if God gives it value.

It is a bit like saying a gold coin only has value if God gives it value.

I am not quite sure what such statements can actually mean - they appear to be without any meaningful content, apart from to say human life is valueless, and so are gold coins.

Rather then give human life value, it denies that it has any!

A strange and puzzling argument.

Other Comments by ungodlystheist

189. Comment #95958 by Dr Benway on December 9, 2007 at 2:39 pm

Hmm. Perhaps "girlish little slap fest" would be more precise.

Other Comments by Dr Benway

190. Comment #95961 by ungodlystheist on December 9, 2007 at 2:44 pm

Dr Benway:
Hmm. Perhaps "girlish little slap fest" would be more precise.

Marginally better, but still leaves me wondering why it is only 'girlish'behaviour?'

Sorry if the thread has been hijacked, hope it can get back on course especially as I look forward to conversing with krisking some more.

Other Comments by ungodlystheist

191. Comment #95962 by Corylus on December 9, 2007 at 2:47 pm

Roger me rigid!

This is getting even more stroppy than the global warming threads.

I was considering writing a thoughtful post about the reasons for my vegetarianism (hippy that I am), but I see that people are getting very wound up so I will wait till Brian says 'Jehovah'.

P.S. Just to show that I do not slavishly follow either crowd I feel constrained to point out that, although vegetarian (for over 20 years now) I have NEVER managed to cultivate a liking for tofu.

I'd rather eat my grandmother's old sofa cushions that her pekinese piddled on - probably taste the same.

Other Comments by Corylus

192. Comment #95970 by ungodlystheist on December 9, 2007 at 2:58 pm

Corylus:
Roger me rigid!

Send me a picture and I might me willing :-)

Other Comments by ungodlystheist

193. Comment #95973 by BMMcArdle on December 9, 2007 at 3:06 pm

You didn't hijack it, you just went into hysterics over a humorous quote by an aging rock-star and my simple statement of fact.

Other Comments by BMMcArdle

194. Comment #95975 by ungodlystheist on December 9, 2007 at 3:13 pm

I asked you some questions, please do not call me hysterical for doing that.

I promise never to ask you a question again and leave you to your slumbers.

Now please can we call a truce to this lunacy.

And for others, I promise not to scratch this particular scab any further

Other Comments by ungodlystheist

195. Comment #95978 by BMMcArdle on December 9, 2007 at 3:29 pm

Why are your questions worded like insults?
Leave me to my slumbers? Are you trying to insult me again? It's 6:25PM here.
Can't finish what you started?
You can end it, with a simple statement.


Other Comments by BMMcArdle

196. Comment #95980 by ungodlystheist on December 9, 2007 at 3:41 pm

briancoughlanworldcitizen

on Comment 135, I addressed a post to you, I think now after reading more of your posts here I may have misunderstood your position.

However if you care to comment on it I would like to know what you think

Thanks

Other Comments by ungodlystheist

197. Comment #95981 by go swimmer on December 9, 2007 at 3:49 pm

Bonzai,

It probably makes you feel better to think of vegan ideas as evangelical nutbag ranting, because that helps you to marginalize them without a moment's consideration. I don't think anyone is trying to 'guilt trip' you, but merely arguing a position. If you are feeling guilty enough to ascribe it with that intention, I would look into the reasons why. In my long experience, meat-eaters react like religious people when you confront their cherished practices - they get extremely defensive very quickly and try to shut down the debate before it begins. This is what you appear to be doing.

The difference between vegan sentiments and religious ones, is that the former are arrived at via logical reasoning.

You keep talking about 'false arguments' without providing any evidence that they are false.

Also, you keep talking about veganism/vegetarianism as a 'lifestyle' choice that people are trying to push on you. Well, only a meat-eater could think of it as a casual 'choice'. It is a life and death issue, no matter which way you look at it... it just depends on whether you draw speciesist distinctions or not.

You also implied that we don't have any evidence that other animals feels pain. What?! I can assure you that we do. And the ethical implications drawn by people like Singer from Darwinian relatedness are sound and worth consideration.

My position is much simpler though. Here you are as a self-aware creature, able to make novel decisions based on new information, saying essentially that everyone should do what 'nature intended' by default, unless someone can provide convincing evidence to the conrary (this really is an example of the Naturalistic Fallacy, by the way). Well, the evidence is in: you don't need to kill and eat lifeforms with complex nervous systems (and the ability to register pain, emotional responses etc.) in order to live a healthy life. That's a fact. Now, put that free will of yours into action. What is YOUR ethical justification for continuing to do this, now that you know it is superfluous.

And no, i'm not trying to push this on you. I am, however, trying to get you to concede my position... maybe even convince you of it. That is the very point of an argument. The fact that this ongoing debate is reasonable sets it apart from the flailings of an evangelical madman. You seem to be a little too defensive about a simple argument though. You seem to want people who disagree with you to just 'live and let live'. Is someone's choice to kill/dietry preference sacred? Unable to be questioned? And if it IS questioned, should you accuse the questioner of preaching, or pushing, or forcing their views on you even when they are merely presenting an opinion? This is a pattern I encounter extremely often, with both meat-eaters and the religious, and I think the over-reaction points to two things: secretly knowing you are wrong, and an ad hominem attempt at discrediting your opponent before the debate begins (preacher! pusher! evangelical! leave me alone!).

Other Comments by go swimmer

198. Comment #95987 by BMMcArdle on December 9, 2007 at 4:16 pm

I'm a scab?

You say nothing about me, but a lot about yourself.

Other Comments by BMMcArdle

199. Comment #95989 by Corylus on December 9, 2007 at 4:18 pm

Ungodlystheist

Send me a picture and I might be willing :-)

You first, sunshine.

Other Comments by Corylus

200. Comment #95991 by ungodlystheist on December 9, 2007 at 4:21 pm

After saying I was not going to scratch this scab any further, I do still feel the need to defend myself, since I am being publicly attacked, as being hysterical, insulting people, and of apparently claiming that I called meat eaters barbarian.

And since people seem to think I should allow such attacks to go unanswered. I do feel the need to give a defence. Especially since many people will not read the beginnig of this frankly bazarre exchange, and also not wanting my credability undermined by this constant snipping.

There is a debate that was going on long before I entered this thread that involved the ethics of meat eating, arising from Dawkins saying he feels that he is being ethically inconsistent by eating meat.

In that thread BMMcArdle posted

BMMcArdle :
I love animals, they're delicious." Ted Nugent
I rarely eat beef, but lean pork, chicken, and tuna are consumed on a daily basis. Mostly chicken-it tastes like T-Rex.

To which I responded

So what? If babies tasted delicious would that justify eating them too?

What about cats or dogs?

Tell me, if cutting a piece of flesh off a live cow tasted far more delicious then eating the piece of flesh off a dead one, would you have no objection?

I imagine rape, for the rapist, may well be a very pleasureable experience, hardly justifies it though.

Not unless one is a complete barbarian

It should be fairly obvious, that my quip, "unless one is a complete barbarian, was not aimed at meat eaters.

I was assuming that BMMcArdle would agree with me that to eat babies, remove strips of flesh from a live animal for consumption, or to rape someone, all because it felt 'good' would not pass muster, and anyone who supported such things could rightly be considered in the eyes of most people a complete barbarian.

I was hoping he might, if he so chose, and he certain was under no obligation too, come back and explain why he thinks eating animals becasue they taste good is exempt from the moral slippery slope of thinking pleasure should 'necessarily' outweigh ethical concerns.

Or explain why he does not think eating animals does not raise any ethical concerns.

I did not call him a barbarian, did not call meat eaters barbarian, I was merely presenting an argument.

And why should presenting an argument be considered, rude, hysterical.

For that I see no reason to apologise or to act as if I need to wear ashes and sackcloth, or remain quiet while someone tries to publicly humiliate me.

Now after gettig that of my chest, I can move on.

Other Comments by ungodlystheist