Jabu Khan

I don't see how xianity offers a moral guide for anyone. All your sins can be forgiven and no amends are neccessary. You can do what ever you want to the world and its inhabitants because its end is near anyways.

If atheism is so anti-morals why do nonbelievers make up 10% of the regular population and less than 1% of prison populations?

If you derive your morals from the bible there is no clear cut rules. You still are using your own interpretation.

Wounded King

As far as the 10% to 1% statistic goes it may simply be that atheists are generally better educated, and that it is the less well educated who make up a disproportionate number of the prison population.

GunnerJ

This speculation is also somewhat off topic. If you want to start a discussion on comparitive religious populations in prison, General Religious Discussions would be the place to do it.

-GunnerJ, E&C Mod

pz

Unless, of course, you can show that prison populations are there for some evolutionary reason, in which case we'll have lots of fun ripping into that argument.

Wounded King

Obviously the prison populations are a beneficial mutation, they remove a disproportionate number of theists from circulation and inhibit their potential to procreate. Dammit, I forgot about conjugal visits, and my theory was so perfect otherwise!!!!!

Non-praying Mantis

Albert,

Obviously, there is an evolutionary advantage in a person rescuing their own offspring from a buring building, as long as the parent does not die (or become mortally wounded) themselves. Their child will live, and so will they. In this case, using your definition, you would not consider this altruism.

Now why would a person (or other animal) endanger itself for its offspring? Obviously, because when it protects its offspring, they have an advantage (usually) over other organisms that do not protect their offspring. However, such behavior would not be passed on to the offspring unless their was a genetic component to it (with a very important exception - learned behaviors). Usually such genetics manifest themselves in a few ways:

1) "fixed action patterns" - what you would call "instinctual" behaviors - behaviors that are genetically programmed and do not vary
2) "drives" - such as for hunger or sex, these make an animal attempt to fulfill the object of such drives. The actions taken result from other processes, but they are an attempt to fulfill the drive
3) "rewards" - similar to drives, these are certain "feelings" that make an animal more likely to do something - usually results from drives being fulfilled: sexual pleasure, eating pleasure, etc.
4) "learning ability" - many animals posses the ability to recognize stimuli and change their behavior based on those external stimuli. Learning is based off of genetics, but the actual behaviors can vary.

Some forms of learning are simple, such as Pavlovian habituation (think of the dogs becoming habituated to a bell when they were fed) and map making (wasps have the ability to make a map of the area around their nests and go for the map signs), but other forms are more complex, such as trial and error learning, and particularly, problem solving. This last form of learning is limited to a few large brained animals, but not just to humans (crows, chimpanzees, and dolphins all have some levels of it, but usually not dogs, or almost all other animals). Problem solving involves abstract thinking (usually some predictive ability) and results in certain novel behaviors in animals that are presented with a problem they want to solve: usually obtaining out-of-reach food, but there are other examples. It is different from trial and error because the behavior can succeed on the first try. The genetic components of learning are undiscovered, and are probably quite complex, but at least the learning ability itself is most likely genetic. However, learned behaviors are NOT genetic!

How are learned behaviors passed on then? They are usually obtained when an animal is in a situation where it can either pick up the behavior directly (from experience), or in a few cases (especially humans) from some type of education (like mimicry - watching another animal, or in our case, actual education). Only humans (or possibly some of our non-human ancestors) have the capability for this type of abstract education, because humans have an ability to abstract that is unequaled (but not absent: see above) in the rest of the animal kingdom. Animals can even pick up behaviors that appear at random - like mutations, but these "mutated" behaviors are usually ineffectual, or sometimes detrimental, and only very rarely advantageous. All types of behaviors, however they are obtained, are not passed on genetically, but they can be passed on through learning.

If you are familiar with Richard Dawkins writings, you are probably familiar with the concept of "memes." These are ideas that can be passed on in a similar way that genes can be passed on, and only ideas that are good at being passed on - or are good at "replicating" in our own brains (by being learned from others), survive. Dawkins has adapted evolutionary ideas for use of describing the spread of behaviors.

Now, with respect to altruism, certain behaviors are passed on from individual to individual, and the "idea" of altruism can also be passed on in this way. Remember, the person does not have to survive to pass on his/her idea, only the idea has to survive in the people that hear it. Altruistic acts that fail (resulting in death), such as going into a burning building to save someone else's child, obviously do nothing to help an individual, but if the idea of altruism gets passed on (for whatever reason) then the idea of altruism will spread. Seemingly, when an individual performs an altruistic act, such as the above, they are thinking of the risk that results, but they weigh the risk with respect to the benefits. A hero might be idolized or rewarded, and if the results are not deadly to the altruist (the hero), then he/she gains a benefit. More importantly, the idea of being a hero is passed on to others that learn of the act.

That is how I envision altruism as being passed on without God being necessary, Albert.

NPM

Majestyk

Good point. This is often an overlooked factor in discussions.

pz

Just think of prisons as a mechanism to reduce the ability of miscreant theists to prevent law-abiding atheists from seducing their spouses. Then it works.

Except...there are more theists than ever before. I think that is the ugly little fact that kills a beautiful theory.

Albert Cipriani

Dear NPM,
Thank you for your post. The idea that memes can spontaneously infect the brains of people continents away from each other seems far-fetched to me. But who am I to challenge such notions. For as we know, evolution works in mysterious ways.

You say, Well, anything is possible. But a theory is supposed to articulate what is most probable. Asserting the possibility that the idea of altruism could be caught like the common cold seems facile.

You forget that altruism is not an idea. It is a behavior, like madness. People can’t “hear it,” only witness it. Witnessing someone’s sacrificial behavior might, for “reasons” beyond my ken, induce someone to learn to mimic that altruistic behavior -- somewhat like how smiling is thought to be a learned mimicked behavior. But such an argument fails the test of introspection. Smiles spread across my face before I’m conscious of smiling, whereas I must painstakingly deliberate before I consent to most of my altruistic behaviors.

Then their behavior is not human altruism as I’ve defined it. “Altruism” that’s based upon a risk reward analysis qualifies only as “reciprocal altruism” something vampire bats and all sorts of vermin are quite capable of.

Nah. We cannot learn the internal cognitive processes of another. The most we can do is witness their exterior behavior and attempt to interpret their verbalizations of their internal cognitive processes. Heroes don’t tend to be talkers, but the strong silent type. Besides most of them perish in their blaze of heroism. So only the memory of the hero, the heroic act itself as opposed to the hero himself, may be passed on, not the “idea of being a hero.”

I never said God was necessary for human altruism. Rather, human altruism necessitates that we be endowed with a non-naturalistic capacity (read: "soul"). – Cheers, Albert the Traditional Catholic

Majestyk

Wouldn't you first have to establish the existence of the non-naturalistic source from which this endowment came? Or is one the affirmation of the other? There is a non-naturalistic source therefore, altruism is non-naturalistic therefore, there is a non-naturalistic source therefore, altruism is non-naturalistic therfore, ...

An inherent tendancy towards atlruisim does not invalidate the Theory of Evolution. It supports it. An inherent tendancy towards insanity does not invalidate the Theory of Evolution. It does explain the rejection of science in favor of mythology, though.