Explaining all behaviour in terms of selfish genetics strikes me as adopting the same logic. Even if it is right, it is shallow. — Banno
if we have an intrinsic inclination toward altruism, which we do, it will have had some survival benefit in the past, — Kenosha Kid
This is an outdated view. As Banno mentioned, it dove-tailed nicely with some 19th and 20th century outlooks, but it never had empirical backing — frank
Depends if they interfere with claims made by evolutionary theory. — Saphsin
does have ample, recent empirical backing, some of it enumerated with references in my thread on natural morality. You have to, you know, read the journals to know what they say. — Kenosha Kid
You are mistaken. — frank
Did you check the references, or do you prefer to protect your position with ignorance? — Kenosha Kid
Saying that you need to be an atheist to also accept Evolution as scientific theory or else you're a creationist is a really high standard that I don't think works. — Saphsin
My position is the same as that of contemporary biology — frank
The contemporary biology you refuse to read, thus remain ignorant about — Kenosha Kid
There is no contemporary research — frank
That wasn't the question. — Saphsin
I disagree with Gould on NOMA, but creationism implies divine intervention & rejection of Evolutionary Biology.
— Saphsin
Creationism implies a creator. — Kenosha Kid
When people say creationist, they don't mean lack of any belief in a religious God involved with the universe, they mean a belief system that rejects Evolution. — Saphsin
This means that the unsung heroes of science are all of those guys who sacrificed their careers and reputations by supporting the wrong positions. No Nobels for those guys. But no science without them. — flaco
But further, and this should bother anyone here who has read even a modicum of ethics, even if our behaviour is best explained by genetic imperatives, the question remains open: Ought we do as our genes say? — Banno
That is a good point, and I would add, given our genetic code, is it possible to even answer this question in a non self interested way? — Pop
Okay, cool. TSG is forty years old, and even at that time one-sided and misses some important stuff. Sounds good. It's not my field but I could imagine this is all true. And if Pigliucci is right to characterize Dawkins as dug-in and dismissive of alternative views then that's interesting, but it's mainly consumers of popular science books who would need to be wary, as working scientists aren't taking their cues from such stuff anyway. — Srap Tasmaner
Well that opens a whole can-o-worms. For those of us who view humans as devices to propagate genes, our purpose is to propagate genes. Can we transcend that particular purpose? Can we come up with a new purpose "in a non self interested way" until we understand how our brain, conscious and emotional, is processing information about our world? — flaco
And I don't think the comparison to Quine is fair. — StreetlightX
I agree with how you explain humanity, but there must be a way. Consciousness is an evolving process of self organization so it seems it will at some point transcend this impasse. Can you think of a solution? — Pop
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.