Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 d-usa wrote:
Is Atheism something cultural that you learn from others? Or would a person growing up completely isolated from anything be atheist?

Well, such a person would probably end up being an autist, at which point the question becomes impossible to answer.

If they were isolated from any belief system which touches on matter of religion, then I could see it going one way or the other, depending how much imagination the person has.

 Medium of Death wrote:

 Manchu wrote:

 Medium of Death wrote:
How would you explain empathic behaviours in animals?

I would say it is immaterial because such behaviors are not the result of a value system in the human sense.

I guess my point was that if animals can develop these behaviours without a value system, why can't we? The most "intelligent" animals usually show these behaviours.

FWIW I wouldn't say Humans evolving a sense of empathic emotions outrules the possibility of a God, whatever you could define that as; Man on a cloud, or something more subtle.

I think that in many ways, we actually do... If you watch enough Nat Geo, Discovery, etc. you'll see that a good portion of the animal kingdom only feels empathy towards it's own kind and more narrowly, it's own family unit (whatever it may be) On the whole, I think that most of us human animals are like this. We care a great deal for those we develop feelings for, or always love, and not so much for people outside of that circle. For instance, if my good buddy "joe" is having a tough time, I'll probably feel somewhat bad, and have a desire to help him if I can; the polar opposite is true of the guy that I see squatting under a bridge.

What evolutionary benefit does empathy create?

 d-usa wrote:
What evolutionary benefit does empathy create?

in certain animals, it ensures that the species lives on.. I mean, outside of gators and sharks and the like, most newborn animals are fething useless, and will die without an empathic parent to care for them.

 Manchu wrote:
I never tire of your insensible assumption that I have no education ...

How you've manage to be insulted by what I said, I do not know...

In any event, it is deconstructivist in the general meaning of that term. There is a complex phenomenon signified by the term "culture." In order to explain the phenomenon, you are attempting to dismantle the complexity by locating "essential" characteristics. In other words, you have reduced the phenomenon to a formula and found that you can apply the formula to non-humans. This process is what Quine noted is the strange irony of empiricism, that it insists on abstracting away from reality. I call that movement deconstructive because I see it as a reductionist shift in narrative emphasis.

That's about the most imprecise use of the term 'deconstruction' I have ever seen. Not surprising that you could perceive it correct to apply it to what I've said, the process you've described is large enough to refer to about any intellectual process, from definition to analysis.

Deconstruction refers to the analysis of the frame of reference underlying a proposition or a text, without references to information gleaned on the life or thoughts of the author. I see it as is the opposite of Montesquieu's method, that is to always ascribe the best possible meaning to a text.

What evolutionary benefit does empathy towards other people create? Or empathy towards another species?

Parental empathy aside.

 d-usa wrote:
What evolutionary benefit does empathy create?

I could imagine many. The simplest would be in the distribution of food ; if you feel someone else's hunger as your own, then you are prompted to end that hunger.

What is the benefit/purpose of evolution?

It's amusing that we are only talking about the positive aspects of animal social behavior.

 d-usa wrote:
What is the benefit/purpose of evolution?

Scientific rigour requires to say none, evolution has no 'aim', it just is a consequence of how the universe is.

In philosophy, it's still very much debated. My thesis supervisor is currently in Austria at a phenomenologist summit on the topic of intentionnality and consciousness,




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Monster Rain wrote:
It's amusing that we are only talking about the positive aspects of animal social behavior.

Refering to habits like pogroms in advanced mammals?

Well, I usually assume that most folks think of evolution as passing along genes that give you (or the race) an advantage over others. If it makes you better, you have a better chance to beat competitors than your peers, your genetic advantage gets passed on.

Interesting for you to bring up pogroms. Watch documentaries on chimps and their treatment of other primates in their vicinity.

 Monster Rain wrote:
Interesting for you to bring up pogroms. Watch documentaries on chimps and their treatment of other primates in their vicinity.

Cats kill for fun.

Indeed. Dolphins are known to bully/kill other marine mammals just for the sheer fun of it. Whales often toy with their food.

The benefits of evolution? Becoming more adapted to ones environment, for a start. Worms have evolved to resist high levels of arsenic in soil over a relatively short period of human generations, although this represents many hundred, if not thousand worm generations.

 d-usa wrote:

 Monster Rain wrote:
Interesting for you to bring up pogroms. Watch documentaries on chimps and their treatment of other primates in their vicinity.

Cats kill for fun.

Well, killing is fun. It's the naturally most available and most undeniable way to prove yourself superior to the other.

 Medium of Death wrote:

The benefits of evolution? Becoming more adapted to ones environment, for a start. Worms have evolved to resist high levels of arsenic in soil over a relatively short period of human generations, although this represents many hundred, if not thousand worm generations.

But how does empathy make a species more adapted to the environment?

 Monster Rain wrote:
Interesting for you to bring up pogroms. Watch documentaries on chimps and their treatment of other primates in their vicinity.

Even with other families/clan/whathaveyou they can be dicks. Yes, culture also has it's bad results, that's undeniable.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 d-usa wrote:
But how does empathy make a species more adapted to the environment?

It doesn't (or only indirectly). Empathy allows you to form stronger bonds with others, which in turn holds many advantages.

If I care about your suffering, and see a threat closing in on you, I might warn you (if I'm bright enough). If I don't have a slightest urge to save you from suffering, why should I bother?

But if evolution makes you more adapt to surviving in your environment, empathy wouldn't help our species. Why give away resources that I gathered because I have a genetic advantage of some kind and give them to somebody that is too weak? Wouldn't that diminish my genetic advantage and hurt the species?

If I jump in a river to help somebody that is drowning and I kill myself in the process, then empathy just beat evolution.

Seems like helping the weak doesn't help the survival of the fittest.

Things are easier if you work together. Empathy forms part of that. You can't take down that Woolly Mammoth and enjoy its spoils by yourself. Get a group of equally hungry people together and now were talking.

Darwin saw survival of the fittest as important to a state of nature, whereas empathy is important to a state of civilization.

He put man in a state of civilization.

And feeding the sick grandparents who can't help hunt or cook the mammoth anymore helps how?

 d-usa wrote:
But if evolution makes you more adapt to surviving in your environment

It isn't that simple, and it doesn't always work like that.

 d-usa wrote:
Why give away resources that I gathered

Becuase you alone die in 30 odd years with nothing from anyone else of any kind.*

You are viewing this far to narrowly when we are talking about large groups, not individuals. A single man cannot explore the world or build a galleon, nor travel to the moon. Nor can a single man create disease fighting drugs or create systems of mathematics and logic. A single man can not reproduce nor can he build a functioning town or city. If you let everyone else around starve and die, guess who is next? Sure it might be from a fall or some disease, but with no one to aid you in any way you are fethed. Even when we work against each other we still, in a way are working together.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 d-usa wrote:
And feeding the sick grandparents who can't help hunt or cook the mammoth anymore helps how?

Institutional memory. There aren't many societies that just pulled a Logan's Run, and often in fact venerated the elders.



*Assuming your mother is far less selfish and actually raises to some extent. Without her empathy you wouldn't make it more than a handful of hours.

Besides, even in situations where elders weren't capable of hunting, they could still be useful for raising children or education.

 d-usa wrote:
And feeding the sick grandparents who can't help hunt or cook the mammoth anymore helps how?

As long as they're around they can share the knowledge they have and give advice to others.

And yes, sometimes empathy causes us to to help someone we 'optimally' shouldn't. But empathy has not evolved to be that precise, and hopefully it never will.

Will Wikipedia replace institutionalized memory? Grandmother better be careful!

I think family empathy would be different from societal empathy. We want our genes to get passed along, so letting our kids and family die wouldn't make any sense.

It's also the reason we don't like our in-laws; they don't have our genes so they are our enemy.

True story!

But can evolution and empathy result in the same argument of "makers vs takers"? Is empathy always beneficial or could it become a liability at some point?

 d-usa wrote:
But can evolution and empathy result in the same argument of "makers vs takers"? Is empathy always beneficial or could it become a liability at some point?

Takers risk much everytime they try to take. While the end result might mean that they gain more with less expense then the maker, they risk to lose everything everytime a maker decides to defend his goods. Making is a more reasonnable, less risky mode of life.

Interesting.

Just asking questions and encouraging discussion.

There were actually some very compelling studies done by Axelrod/Trivers in the earlier 80s that showed reciprocal altruism is strongly favored by natural selection (which shows how bad our intuition can really be). Whereas you have;

Always punish/take
Always allow/make
Tit for Tat

Tit for tat is the most evolutionary stable (at least all studies thus far points to this finding)---and human beings demonstrate this in a variety of ways (barring an outlier).

 LordofHats wrote:
Yes. I can certainly speak to religious individuals claiming atheists are bad because they have no moral obligations. I hear it plenty often.

Yeah, there's been a few of them here on Off Topic. Anyone remember that guy who was claiming there'd never been a Christian serial killer?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Monster Rain wrote:
As do I.

I was more referring to people who dream of a completely "atheist" Shangri-La of a nation.

Yeah, and it was a fair point. There is a number of atheists who hold to this dream that without religion we'd all suddenly become perfectly rational voters who would bring a new utopia of scientific reason.

I was just commenting to say that, basically, as I guy that thinks democracy is pretty cool, I extend that to thinking that it's perfectly fine when people form their political views and voting decisions based on their religious beliefs (within reason of course - civil liberties aren't a matter for the voting public to decide on).


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Manchu wrote:
Whether these virtues exist in non-Christian cultures and religions is immaterial to the issue of whether Western people find them compelling. The reason Western people may find them compelling is that they resonate with the Christian heritage of Western culture.

Maybe go back and re-read those virtues. They're not particularly Christian.

 sebster wrote:

 LordofHats wrote:
Yes. I can certainly speak to religious individuals claiming atheists are bad because they have no moral obligations. I hear it plenty often.

Yeah, there's been a few of them here on Off Topic. Anyone remember that guy who was claiming there'd never been a Christian serial killer?

"There were no Christian serial killers, because if you believe in Jesus you don't kill. So if somebody is a serial killer then it shows he wasn't really Christian!"

Was it something like that?

For the OT:

I can see the desire for an Atheist like the author to want to prove that you can have morality without religion. But dressing it up like a pseudo religion ('virtues/commandments" and meeting in a "church") probably doesn't help to advance his goal. It just makes the waters muddy again.