# Questions on Christianity (Again...) **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [August 30, 2010, 2:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952 "2010-08-30T02:13:22Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 37
**Author:** ![Apollyon](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/apollyon/32/4238_2.png) [@Apollyon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Apollyon)\ **Post date:** [September 8, 2010, 8:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952/721 "2010-09-08T08:26:13Z")
> [@aigonz](#): > > > [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > > > It is a. … None of it has a damn thing to do with the subconscious. > > When you people can agree on what the answer is, we may move forward. > > Three posters, three answers. Geez. Just to note, when I said some of it could be “b” I may have interpreted this differently to **DtC** and others. > [@aigonz](#): > > b\> a neurological response to a subconscious desire for survival? I was thinking of game theory and iterative prisoner’s dilemma. I see now from reading up-thread that the intent was more around a subconscious knowledge of depleting the gene pool; this I didn’t mean. ---
**Author:** ![aigonz](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/4491bb/32.png) [@aigonz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/aigonz)\ **Post date:** [September 8, 2010, 8:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952/722 "2010-09-08T08:31:17Z")
[quote=“Lobohan, post:718, topic:551952”] > [@aigonz](#): > > Yes it can. Because the desire to help others made primitive tribal bands more successful. Imagine if you will: > > Tribe A: Is the asshole libertarian tribe. Everyone is out for themselves. At the first sign of weakness they gang up and kill members of their own. They don’t cooperate or assist each other. > > Tribe B: The Jesus-Like communist tribe. They assist each other, because they have an evolved trait that makes helping others feel good. > > Which of the tribes is going to do better? Which is going to be more successful and sire more children? > > People we are competing with are enemies. And I think you may have noticed that humans regularly kill their enemies. For instance you would never burn a child to death (I assume). But if you were a fighter pilot you would drop a bomb that would probably cause a child to burn to death. But you’d rationalize it as a necessity of war. > > The people we live with, that we aren’t actually fighting are the ones we have empathy to. But you live in a big city, so your mind isn’t seeing the people around you as threats, so your natural empathy comes to the fore. Gee you really are missing the point aren’t you. Are you suggesting that Tribe B is ‘hard wired’ for empathy but not Tribe A? ---
**Author:** ![aigonz](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/4491bb/32.png) [@aigonz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/aigonz)\ **Post date:** [September 8, 2010, 8:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952/723 "2010-09-08T08:38:10Z")
[quote=“Lobohan, post:718, topic:551952”] > [@aigonz](#): > > People we are competing with are enemies. And I think you may have noticed that humans regularly kill their enemies. For instance you would never burn a child to death (I assume). But if you were a fighter pilot you would drop a bomb that would probably cause a child to burn to death. But you’d rationalize it as a necessity of war. > > The people we live with, that we aren’t actually fighting are the ones we have empathy to. But you live in a big city, so your mind isn’t seeing the people around you as threats, so your natural empathy comes to the fore. Your seem to be swaying between the survival impulse and a hard wired mechanism. Which is it? In this case you suggest a survival mechanism. Big city or small town, other people arre competiton for scarce reosurces. That’s simple economics as well as biological necessity. ---
**Author:** ![Apollyon](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/apollyon/32/4238_2.png) [@Apollyon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Apollyon)\ **Post date:** [September 8, 2010, 8:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952/724 "2010-09-08T08:39:33Z")
> [@aigonz](#): > > The question was to name an animal into whom aversion to murder was not hardwired, and explain how it survived. Define “murder”. No, not an attempt at semantic gaming, just that I don’t think it means (for the issue at hand) what you think it means. Animals kill members of their own species, animals may also protect their own group / tribe / pack / whatever. These are not contradictory goals. Young male lions that take over a pride – killing or chasing off the current male – will systematically kill the cubs. The cubs are not of the new males gene-line and eliminating them increases his chance of passing his genes to the next generation. Looking at just our closest (living) cousins, chimps carry out raids and a simple form of warfare on neighbouring groups – this increases the resources available to their own group and gives their own off-spring & relatives a great chance of survival. Male gorillas will attack nursing females and slay infants, in response – and I’ll understand if you find this perverse – the female will mate with the killer and become part of his group. (He’s demonstrated that she “needs” his protection – her current protection not being good enough). Humans (to go back to the pre-state Yanamamo example) do not have an aversion to murdering those outside their group. I’m not sure where you have this idea of an aversion to murder (with an exception of close family). ---
**Author:** ![aigonz](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/4491bb/32.png) [@aigonz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/aigonz)\ **Post date:** [September 8, 2010, 8:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952/725 "2010-09-08T08:41:03Z")
> [@Apollyon](#): > > > [@aigonz](#): > > > > When you people can agree on what the answer is, we may move forward. > > > > Three posters, three answers. Geez. > > Just to note, when I said some of it could be “b” I may have interpreted this differently to **DtC** and others. > > > [@aigonz](#): > > > > b\> a neurological response to a subconscious desire for survival? > > I was thinking of game theory and iterative prisoner’s dilemma. I see now from reading up-thread that the intent was more around a subconscious knowledge of depleting the gene pool; this I didn’t mean. So do you suggest a purely ‘hard wired’ solution to empathy? If so, how do you explain that this is not the default position with evolutionary psycologists? ---
**Author:** ![Apollyon](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/apollyon/32/4238_2.png) [@Apollyon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Apollyon)\ **Post date:** [September 8, 2010, 9:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952/726 "2010-09-08T09:18:40Z")
> [@aigonz](#): > > So do you suggest a purely ‘hard wired’ solution to empathy? If so, how do you explain that this is not the default position with evolutionary psycologists? I’m not an evolutionary psychologist, or even terribly knowledgeable in the area. I did a few Anthropology courses more years ago than I care to remember, and have read books by Gould, Dawkins, Pinker, and others. I’m no expert. We do seem to be hard-wired / have instincts to protect our own young and close family. Some of the same triggers can fire for other young – heck even the young of other species – I can’t find my copy of The Panda’s Thumb at the moment, but Gould’s essay on the [Evolution of Mickey Mouse](http://www.monmsci.net/~kbaldwin/mickey.pdf) – or why we like Mickey Mouse more than Mortimer Rat – is worth a read. We also have memory and can plan and predict. Game theory shows that the optimum outcome of an iterated prisoner’s dilemma is initial co-operation followed by whatever the other party did last time – in short co-operate with the other guy if he co-operates with you, punish him if he fails to co-operate, forgive him if he begins co-operating again. (See Sagan [The Rules of the Game](http://www.dallasuu.org/re/adult/huumanist/TitTatSagan.pdf)) Our societies have got built on a balance of co-operating for mutual survival, and punishing cheaters, while at the same time trying to gain personal advantages. Interestingly we can also find altruism suspicious – we trust benevolence less than mutual assistance. My impression then, and once again – not an expert – is that it’s a mix of wiring and learned behaviour. ---
**Author:** ![aigonz](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/4491bb/32.png) [@aigonz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/aigonz)\ **Post date:** [September 8, 2010, 9:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952/727 "2010-09-08T09:44:47Z")
Apollyon…thanks for your posts. By the word ‘murder’ I essentially mean the wanton taking of an innocent life. It is difficult to provide a definition as comprehensive as may be necessary, but suffice it to say it excludes genuine self defence, actions within the rules of engagement, etc. In response to your other points, which are well made, I will outline my position more fully. Let’s begin with contemporary humans. Most (if not all) sane contemporary humans share an aversion to ‘murder’. Perhaps the most obvious evidence for this is found in the legal statutes of individual nations. Unless it is proposed that this aversion was present in the earliest prokaryotes, (and that would raise a whole load of other problems), then evolutionary psychology suggests that this aversion has developed over time, from not being present at all, to what it is today, commencing at some indeterminate stage of the evolutionary ‘tree(s)’, and jouneying along throughout and across various species, arriving at what it is in the present. My argument is simply this. 1. Species did not simply wake up one morning with an aversion for murder. During the evolution of this aversion, species would be wantonly killing for survival (competing for mates, resources etc) without compulsion, until the development (or at best the earliest stages of development) of this aversion. Put simply, survival, let alone population expansion, would be extremely unlikely. 2. It would seem logical that the development of this aversion would commence with ones immediate ‘family’, then progress to ones ‘tribe’, ones ‘nation’ and so forth. But in the meantime, competition for scarce resources would result in murder of neighbouring tribes, including children. Once again we have a factor operating against population growth. 3. If, as has been claimed, these aversions are a subconscious responses, it is not logical to argue that the species will understand that it’s actions threaten its own survival, or if they did, that they could not be reversed. In summary, the evolution of an aversion to murder is not viable. ---
**Author:** ![aigonz](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/4491bb/32.png) [@aigonz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/aigonz)\ **Post date:** [September 8, 2010, 9:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952/728 "2010-09-08T09:46:57Z")
Just a point on game theory. It is largely irrelevant to the subject at hand, simply because it has only been tested on contemporary ‘animals’, not any of our alleged predecessors. In other words EGT is based on untested and untestable models as far as previous populations arre concerned. I have used basic forms of game theory for business applications. For predicting results over millions of years, it is simply guess work. ---
**Author:** ![monavis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e0b2c6/32.png) [@monavis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/monavis)\ **Post date:** [September 8, 2010, 11:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952/729 "2010-09-08T11:19:23Z")
> [@raindog](#): > > > [@monavis](#): > > > > It would take a long post to show the innocent people that God has supposed to have killed, The Flood, Sodom and Gommorah, Joshua killing the people at Jericho etc.; surely there were babies and young children among the dead. A supreme being could have found a better way to help His children. And God didn’t really do anything as far as I can tell, it was some writer or person who blamed it on God. Thinking they were a chosen people. I do not see any kind of a good supreme being that knows all things, created people who (if he knew ahead of time they were going to be bad or disobey His orders or commands) why He would create them in the first place. It seems He is blaming people for His errors that could have been avoided. This doesn’t sound like a loving or all knowing being, and it would be an insult to such a being to say He made it happen! > > > > Love doesn’t need chastisment, if the creator is all knowing. and Killing some one is a little far fetched, when the person or person’s are being judged again after they have died!! > > And what was this but you _witnessing about your subjective beliefs?_ > > Ain’t irony grand? It is not my beliefs, but quotes from the Bible that are just beliefs in what a God said or did! I stated that “if” the creator you believe in, is all knowing and loving the Bible doesn’t present Him in that way, but an unloving unfair monster. Of course I can prove the writers were just human, can you prove that God spoke through them? ---
**Author:** ![Latro](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/a87d85/32.png) [@Latro](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Latro)\ **Post date:** [September 8, 2010, 11:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952/730 "2010-09-08T11:33:28Z")
> [@monavis](#): > > Of course I can prove the writers were just human, can you prove that God spoke through them? And, again, if he could speak through the writers, why did he have difficulties with the english translators? Why did “murder” become “kill” ? ---
**Author:** ![monavis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e0b2c6/32.png) [@monavis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/monavis)\ **Post date:** [September 8, 2010, 11:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952/731 "2010-09-08T11:33:29Z")
> [@aigonz](#): > > > [@monavis](#): > > > > Athiesm is not an ideology. it is a doubt about an ideology. Of course you have your position and I believe you are entitled to that, but it is not fact, and that causes more questions than it answers. The agent doesn’t need to be a supreme being,maybe a chemical reaction to another chemical? > > > > There are thousands of ways to consider an existence of a God, hence the many different religions, many contradicting each other. If religion is used for good that is one thing, but now there are some Christian preachers trying(it seems) to stir up animosity by burning the Koran, calling it the work of Satan, then the extremists in Islam wanting to take revenge because they are insulted. Perhaps if either side really trusted in the God they claim to believe in, they would leave it up to This GOD to handle things and just live a peaceful and good life. I wonder if they know it is really the work of another human and just want their own way! > > 1\> There are various definitions of ideology, but most encompass a set of ideas. We can debate the etent of formalisation of the ideology of atheism, however it would seem self evident that it encompasses a ‘set of ideas’. > > 2\> The ‘agent’ that explains the existence of the universe needs to be uncaused. If this agent is a chemical reaction, then the chemicals must be uncaused. But we have no examples of uncaused anything in the natural universe. It is simply my position that the nature of our universe REQUIRES that the uncaused first cause be seperate from it, ie super-natural. > > 3\> Your final points are well made. Indeed I would suggest that God looks down on humanity and groans at times. Yet there is a grand purpose behind all this…another topic perhaps. And you “know” this because? It is just as likely that God should have had a beginning as any other explaination. Until one can prove that God is a separate entity, apart from existence than the idea is moot! No one can say in truth they know anything about God, just Belief that there is a God. Huge difference!! The word God has had different meanings through the ages. The Pharo’s were called Gods, in those days it just meant some one in power. The Jews believed their God was another being not seen, except for His back side that he was to have showed to Moses. The idea of an unseen god evolved. The Jews decided they were the only people of God. So if that were so, then Christians etc. would not be considered as God’s children. And God had his chosen children kill the others. ---
**Author:** ![monavis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e0b2c6/32.png) [@monavis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/monavis)\ **Post date:** [September 8, 2010, 11:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952/732 "2010-09-08T11:40:48Z")
> [@Latro](#): > > > [@monavis](#): > > > > Of course I can prove the writers were just human, can you prove that God spoke through them? > > And, again, if he could speak through the writers, why did he have difficulties with the english translators? > > Why did “murder” become “kill” ? Of course people like to use God as an excuse for a lot of things, the extremeist Muslims for example believe they can kill because they make claim s that they are doing God’s will, just as the crusaders did when they killed Jews and Muslims. And the Jews killed whole towms of people to get the land they claimed God promised them. Rather than God speaking through the writers why didn’t Jesus (who is said to be God) not write a book Himself so that all people would see it in their own language, and understand as he would want them to do? Why did kill become murder? The person is dead no matter how you look at it! ---
**Author:** ![The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/the_other_waldo_pepper/32/12370_2.png) [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Other_Waldo_Pepper)\ **Post date:** [September 8, 2010, 12:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952/733 "2010-09-08T12:09:21Z")
> [@aigonz](#): > > The entry of objective morality into the discussion came abut for two reasons. > > 1. Objective morality speaks to an agent beyond mankind. > 2. Evolution alone cannot explain objective morality, benevolent behaviour etc. 1. Cite? 2. Do you believe that, in the long run, objective morality and benevolent behavior lead to good results? That, say, a society which promotes such values – awarding medals and throwing parades for people who risk their lives for their fellow citizens, say, and talking up the importance of honesty, and showering praise on those who make charitable donations, and teaching little kids about the accomplishments of self-sacrificing heroes – will do better than a society that encourages its populace to rape and murder each other? ---
**Author:** ![Meatros](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/b4bc9f/32.png) [@Meatros](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Meatros)\ **Post date:** [September 8, 2010, 12:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952/734 "2010-09-08T12:20:59Z")
> [@aigonz](#): > > 2\> The ‘agent’ that explains the existence of the universe needs to be uncaused. If this agent is a chemical reaction, then the chemicals must be uncaused. But we have no examples of uncaused anything in the natural universe. It is simply my position that the nature of our universe REQUIRES that the uncaused first cause be seperate from it, ie super-natural. This begs several questions: 1. That an agent can cause nothing to become something. 2. That the universe requires a cause. 3. That there was time/space for this agent to operate in. 4. That this ‘super-nature’ does not also need a cause. > [@aigonz](#): > > 1\> I have explained what God ‘is’. God is ‘spirit’. God is ‘super-natural’. God is beyond our understanding of time and space. This is not an explanation. This just moves the question back. What is ‘spirit’? What is ‘super-natural’? As to God being beyond our understanding of time and space, what does that mean? That God can do something impossible? How do you know any of this if God **is beyond our understanding**? How can you sit there and say that, on the one hand, God is beyond our understanding, yet on the other hand contradictorily claim that God is Spirit, Supernatural, beyond time and space, etc? > [@aigonz](#): > > 2\> To consider the concept of God to be contradictory is to misinterpret even the most basic definition of ‘God’. God is all powerful, and therefore although beyond time and space, he is able to create time and space. Seems to me that the most basic definition is incoherent then. You can’t just assume that it’s coherent. How did God have time/space/materials to create time and space? Magic? > [@aigonz](#): > > 3\> Philosohical theories of time have been around for centuries, and continue to develop. Certainly some aspects of quantum mechanics appear to support the B theory of time, but there are many dissidents. True, but so what? You can’t just beg the question on the a theory. The B theory is more parsimonious with our understanding of relativity. It also makes more sense out of cosmology. Both of which are reasons to support this interpretation over the A theory. > [@aigonz](#): > > However let’s review yourr claim: “To cause something to exist, is to create something with pre-existing materials/energy within time and space. It takes an agent acting upon something. Now, take away materials/energy, what is there for an agent to act upon? Take away time and how is there any time for an agent to act?” But the issue is ‘first cause’. If physical matter is not eternal, then at some point there is no ‘pre-existing materials’. Fair enough - however, let’s remember you are the one putting forth the notion that this universe is not eternal. Further, my point is that if you support the idea that something can come from nothing, then it seems to me to make more sense to say that this something is necessarily uncaused for the reasons I outlined. > [@aigonz](#): > > At some point, something came from nothing in a real physical sense. This goes against everything we observe and know about the natural world. This remains to be shown. You are completely begging the question against eternalism/B theory/block time in favor of an incoherent appeal to magic. Which is fine by me, but you can’t then turn around and claim to be rational. > [@aigonz](#): > > There is NO evidence for time loops, previous universes or other parallel universe. None. This is simply your opinion. Neither do you have any explanation of how ‘nature’ caused the universe we know exists. Every single compoenent of your view is unable to be supported by anything empirical. Time loops, previous universes, and parallel universes are still more rational to hold then your magic man simply because we can _start_ to make sense of them. We can’t out of your magic man who would require time in order to create time. You are still completely ignoring block time. > [@aigonz](#): > > There is not a shred of evidence for any alternative to the origin of the universe. The multiverse, previous universes, an eternal concept of time etc etc are all postulations of a finite mind. There is not a grain of empirical data to support any of them. There are models and explanations to support them. Therefore they are to be favored over the incoherent gibberish you are putting forth. Further, as I have repeatedly made plain, you completely ignore block time. > [@aigonz](#): > > Which leaves us with simply this. The universe exists. It consists of order, design and life. We can either accept that this comes from an intelligent mind that exists outside of our understanding of time and space, or we can assume that everything that exists MUST at some point have a naturalistic explanation. Utter nonsense. We can either accept one of the many theories that we have or we can admit that we don’t know. We cannot rationally accept the idea of an incoherent magic man acting incoherently to create time and space. What does ‘outside’ time and space mean? Further, I’ll point out again that you are ignoring the most parsimonious answer: Block time. No creation necessary and it makes sense with regard to relativity. In short, you are asking us to accept incoherent magic, based on _NOTHING_. My question is, why? > [@aigonz](#): > > The Big Bang is not a competing theory to that of a God. The Big bang points to a moment of ‘beginnings’. A moment that fits with a creator. The Big Bang does no such thing - this is, again, begging the question. Further, it does not fit with a ‘creator’, it contradicts a creator, since a creator would require time/space in order to act. Asking us to accept incoherent nonsense is insulting when the purpose of this board is to squash ignorance. > [@aigonz](#): > > 2\> There is no empirical evidence for any other proposition of origins. Opinion? Yes. Evidence ? No. If this is the case, then we should prefer the theories/models that do the best explaining. As I pointed out (and you failed to rebut), “God” is not even on the table in terms of explanations. > [@aigonz](#): > > 2\> Other universes are ‘possible’. The existence of God is ‘possible’. Both can be assumed as ‘possible’ from the existence of one universe. Please demonstrate that the existence of God is ‘possible’. So far, this remains to be seen, you can’t even define what you mean by ‘God’. I find it extremely hypocritical for you to put forward “God” as possible when you can’t even define it, much less present _ANY_ evidence in favor of it, yet you are harping on the inadequate evidence for all other branches of science. You are picking and choosing what you want to accept/believe. > [@aigonz](#): > > 3\> The existence of a god is demonstrated as possible by the evidenece of morality and design, nether of which currently enjoy a satisfactory naturalistic explanation. Nonsense, appealing to ignorance is not ‘evidence’. How did God create organisms or morality? God is non physical, did he take two scoops of nothing and create a single cell? You are simply guessing and then claiming that this guess is on par with scientific theories and models. ---
**Author:** ![Meatros](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/b4bc9f/32.png) [@Meatros](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Meatros)\ **Post date:** [September 8, 2010, 12:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952/735 "2010-09-08T12:27:15Z")
So, to recap, here are the rational choices we have right now for the following, in terms of morality/cosmology/origin of the species: 1. Ignorance - I don’t know. 2. A scientific theory or model. Either of these is perfectly acceptable. What is _not_ an acceptable rational reasons is: 1. An entity that creates both inside of space/time and outside of space/time (yet impossibly does not have space/time in which to act) that is immaterial yet acts on the material. We have no evidence of this, we have no coherent explanation of this, and we have no reason - outside of our ignorance - to believe this. It is not on the table, in terms of rational explanations, primarily because it is not actually **an explanation**. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [September 8, 2010, 12:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952/736 "2010-09-08T12:37:40Z")
> [@aigonz](#): > > > [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > > > No. We don’t have “knowledge” of anything. We are instinctively _repulsed_ by the idea because we are biologically hardwired to feel distress when we see injury inflicted on those close to us (i.e. the empathic response). There isn’t any “knwledge” involved. It’s an innate emotional reaction, and we had it before we were even humans. You can still see it in other animals. It isn’t magic, and it isn’t objective. You should be familiar with this response yourself, unless you have had your empathic response damaged in some way. > > OK, so let’s go with hard wiring. > > So we are hard wired to “feel distress when we see injury inflicted on those close to us”. > > 1\> As you subscribe to common descent, I assume you would posit that this empathetic response ‘evolved’ from the very earliest life form. Of course not. Why would you assume that? > [@](#): > > 2\> How did we develop an empathy for strangers? The same as we developed it for anyone else. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [September 8, 2010, 12:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952/737 "2010-09-08T12:41:07Z")
> [@aigonz](#): > > > [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > > > What the fuck is a “tooth and claw society?” > > > > What is this “no longer” shit. It IS wired into many animals. If you’d bothered to check any of the links you’d been provided with, you’d know that. > > 1\> Do some reading. A tooth and claw society is one based on the evolutionary premise that actions are motivated by survival. You don’t know what you’re talking about. There is no such society. > [@](#): > > 2\> Wired into ‘many’ animals. What you are suggesting is that some animals do not have this aversion. So how did they survive? Not all species have to be social to sustain. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [September 8, 2010, 12:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952/738 "2010-09-08T12:44:21Z")
> [@aigonz](#): > > > [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > > > The ones that got themselves expended, like those exploding ants. > > These exploding ants are irrelevant to the subject. This is about an empathtic response, not a biological or physical one. The empathic response is both biological and physical. ---
**Author:** ![CurtC](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ce73a5/32.png) [@CurtC](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CurtC)\ **Post date:** [September 8, 2010, 12:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952/739 "2010-09-08T12:54:29Z")
> [@aigonz](#): > > 1\> Do some reading. A tooth and claw society is one based on the evolutionary premise that actions are motivated by survival. Since you’re being insulting about it, I’m going to call your bluff - what book(s) that we should have read mention this phrase? ---
**Author:** ![Apollyon](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/apollyon/32/4238_2.png) [@Apollyon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Apollyon)\ **Post date:** [September 8, 2010, 1:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952/740 "2010-09-08T13:18:51Z")
> [@aigonz](#): > > 1. It would seem logical that the development of this aversion would commence with ones immediate ‘family’, then progress to ones ‘tribe’, ones ‘nation’ and so forth. > But in the meantime, competition for scarce resources would result in murder of neighbouring tribes, including children. > Once again we have a factor operating against population growth. > [snip] > In summary, the evolution of an aversion to murder is not viable. I cannot quite see how the the lack of population growth pressure leads to your conclusion. I agree that our aversion begins with close family – we don’t kill our kids because they’re _our_ kids – and then it extends in part to the wider group. We don’t kill our neighbour, even when he uses his leaf blower at 6am on a Saturday morning because: a) we do see him as part of our wider tribe , b) we live in a society with a social contract that has norms and rules of reasonable behaviour, and c) because burying bodies in the backyard is hard work and not likely to prevent an eventual long jail stint with a cellmate named Bubba. Now, you’re arguing that until we don’t kill our neighbours for these reasons there would be murder aplenty which would stymie population growth… and murder aplenty and low population growth is what we see in pre-state societies. But as I mentioned earlier, if you are good at killing your neighbours, then the family that you aren’t killing (because of genetic wiring) get more resources and a higher survival chance, which leads to tribes who are good at co-operating at helping each other and killing off the neighbours really efficiently… which leads to bigger tribes, and us extending our family killing aversion to more people, some of whom are only notionally family with little shared genetics… and the more internally co-operative and externally aggressive states out compete the others, and so on and so forth… …it doesn’t seem to need any outside agency to reach the point where I don’t shoot my neighbour for using the leaf blower. (I might leave something unpleasant in his mailbox however). 🙂 [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952.md?page=36) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952.md?page=38)