# 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:** 38
**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, 9:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952/741 "2010-09-08T21:08:50Z")
> [@monavis](#): > > > [@aigonz](#): > > > > 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. Fair comments. I say again that I have and would never claim that I can ‘prove’ that there is a God. The word proof relates to natural things; God is supernatural, so the terms don’t relate. The point is what is plausible on the balance of probabilities. Ultimately for all of us that involves belief, for you can no more prove your theories of origins than I can prove the existence of God. ---
**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, 9:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952/742 "2010-09-08T21:10:31Z")
> [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](#): > > > [@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? Yes. The question is not value but origin. ---
**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, 9:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952/743 "2010-09-08T21:21:41Z")
> [@Meatros](#): > > > [@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. > > 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? > > 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? > > 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. > > 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. > > 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. > > 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. > > 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. > > 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? > > 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. > > 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. > > 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. Your questions could all be posed of the variety of competing beliefs submitted for the origin of the universe. You state that the Big Bang contradicts a creator because a cretor would require time and spec in order to act. On what basis do you assume that? The creator could exist in a time and space we don’t understand. This is, after all, the argument of the virtual particle (‘we don’t know what caused it therefore it is uncaused’). And why are previous or parallel universes any more plausible than an intelligent agent? There is no empirical evidence to support these notions. None. Block time is simply another attempt to consider time in a different way. It, like all other non-linear theories, encounters substantial philosophical objections. ‘Models’ and ‘explanations’ are not proof, indeed they barely qualify as evidence. The debate over whether the natural universe had a beginning is one that we will never conclude. A logical view of time suggests strongly that time (as we understand it) had a definite beginning, and until one of the alternatives can move beyond the realm of textbook day dreaming, I suggest we treat them with the scepticism they deserve. ---
**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, 9:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952/744 "2010-09-08T21:24:54Z")
> [@Meatros](#): > > 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**. An untested theory or model is no more plausible simply because you put the word ‘scientific’ in front of it. Lok at the increasing scepticism over global warming models, and these involve in many ways far less complicated events and predictions. Science only confers credibility when used honourably. ---
**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, 9:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952/745 "2010-09-08T21:27:42Z")
> [@CurtC](#): > > > [@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? I’ll do better. Google it. You could also google the term “Nature red in tooth and claw”. It’s a very well worn phrase. ---
**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, 9:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952/746 "2010-09-08T21:36:35Z")
I’m very familiar with the phrase “nature red in tooth and claw.” What I was challenging you about was the phrase “tooth and claw society.” You defined it as a society “based on the evolutionary premise that actions are motivated by survival,” and you insultingly implied that it was common in the literature. So yet again you’ve been caught being condescending regarding a point where you were wrong. I guess it would be too much to ask that you acknowledge it. ---
**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, 9:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952/747 "2010-09-08T21:41:25Z")
> [@Apollyon](#): > > > [@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). 🙂 1\> The pressure is not just lack of population GROWTH, it is a probable DEPLETION of population. This will be exascerbated by the likelihood of competition impacting disproportionately on female and young members of communities because they would be targets of aggression. This then reduces the ability of the group to replenish. 2\> Your comment about your neighbours leafblower may relate to 2010, with a fully evolved sense of morality, but that wouldn’t have helped earlier groups who face extinction from the causes I have outlined. This is the whole point. If the aversion to murder evolved, there is an awfully long time in whihc is development is likely to have wiped out the population. 3\> I haven’t even mentioned infant mortality or disease. 3\> Your point about the successful ‘killers’ prospering is an interesting one, however it relies on the assumption that those successful will be ‘fully’ successful, and this is unlikely. Let me give you an example. The first nations people of my country were resident here for around 500 years before British colonisation (mid 1800’s). Anthropologists maintain that this people group were no more than 50 years from extinction due to competition for resources and the attendant ‘warrior’ mentality. Disease also played a part. Even the dominant tribes were experiencing negative population growth. ---
**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, 9:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952/748 "2010-09-08T21:47:10Z")
> [@CurtC](#): > > I’m very familiar with the phrase “nature red in tooth and claw.” What I was challenging you about was the phrase “tooth and claw society.” You defined it as a society “based on the evolutionary premise that actions are motivated by survival,” and you insultingly implied that it was common in the literature. > > So yet again you’ve been caught being condescending regarding a point where you were wrong. I guess it would be too much to ask that you acknowledge it. Gee whizz you are a sensitive chap. The expression tooth and claw is well known. A tooth and claw society operates on the principles of ‘tooth and claw’. It’s not that complicated is it? ---
**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, 9:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952/749 "2010-09-08T21:48:49Z")
“On into the 20th century, the enthusiastic Darwinist Richard Dawkins used ‘red in tooth and claw’ in The Selfish Gene, to summarize the behaviour of all living things which arises out of the survival of the fittest doctrine.” There we go…happy now? ---
**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, 9:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952/750 "2010-09-08T21:49:49Z")
Meaning A reference to the sometimes violent natural world, in which predatory animals unsentimentally cover their teeth and claws with the blood of their prey as they kill and devour them. > **['Red in tooth and claw' - the meaning and origin of this phrase](https://www.phrases.org.uk/meanings/red-in-tooth-and-claw.html)** > > The meaning and origin of the phrase 'Red in tooth and claw'. ---
**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, 9:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952/751 "2010-09-08T21:56:33Z")
> [@aigonz](#): > > 1\> The pressure is not just lack of population GROWTH, it is a probable DEPLETION of population. This will be exascerbated by the likelihood of competition impacting disproportionately on female and young members of communities because they would be targets of aggression. This then reduces the ability of the group to replenish. Do you not realize that what you’ve described here is exactly the selection pressure that would _naturally_ (no supernatural influence necessary) result in an empathic instinct in a population? Congratulations, I hope now there will be no more nonsense from you about how the empathic response could not have resulted from evolution! > [@aigonz](#): > > “On into the 20th century, the enthusiastic Darwinist Richard Dawkins used ‘red in tooth and claw’ in The Selfish Gene, to summarize the behaviour of all living things which arises out of the survival of the fittest doctrine.” > > There we go…happy now? Ever hear of The First Rule of Holes? ---
**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, 11:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952/752 "2010-09-08T23:28:13Z")
> [@CurtC](#): > > > [@aigonz](#): > > > > 1\> The pressure is not just lack of population GROWTH, it is a probable DEPLETION of population. This will be exascerbated by the likelihood of competition impacting disproportionately on female and young members of communities because they would be targets of aggression. This then reduces the ability of the group to replenish. > > Do you not realize that what you’ve described here is exactly the selection pressure that would _naturally_ (no supernatural influence necessary) result in an empathic instinct in a population? Why? The empathetic instinct is not a reaction to anything. It is ‘hardwired’, as many have been at pains to state. Indeed, as populations diminish, any survival instinct would push the survivors to fight even more for resources, particularly breeding options. Keep trying. ---
**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 9, 2010, 12:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952/753 "2010-09-09T00:57:10Z")
> [@aigonz](#): > > > [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](#): > > > > 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? > > Yes. The question is not value but origin. The value _ **is** _ the origin: if people are sensible enough to realize the value of that stuff, they can of course work consciously to promote it – and if they’re not, we can of course (a) postulate a whole bunch of different cultures that each try different stuff, and (b) figure that cultures fall by the wayside if they fail to hit on the valuable stuff while others keep on keeping on by dint of having valuable stuff. But as nifty as that second step might be, I’d argue that we’re pretty danged solid on the “people are sensible enough” step; just add _ **your** _ answer of _“yes”_ to _ **my** _ answer of _“yes”_ and throw in _“yes”_ after _“yes”_ from other folks hereabouts, and it quickly becomes obvious that we can of course notice the value of that stuff, whereupon it’s not too surprising that we can all sign on for a moral code that condemns rape and murder while praising acts of benevolence, and thus and such, because we prize the good results; answering the question of value means we can then get by with “mere reason” or “enlightened self-interest” or whatever you want to call it. ---
**Author:** ![aigonz](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/4491bb/32.png) [@aigonz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/aigonz)\ **Post date:** [September 9, 2010, 1:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952/754 "2010-09-09T01:39:47Z")
> [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](#): > > > [@aigonz](#): > > > > Yes. The question is not value but origin. > > The value _ **is** _ the origin: if people are sensible enough to realize the value of that stuff, they can of course work consciously to promote it – and if they’re not, we can of course (a) postulate a whole bunch of different cultures that each try different stuff, and (b) figure that cultures fall by the wayside if they fail to hit on the valuable stuff while others keep on keeping on by dint of having valuable stuff. > > But as nifty as that second step might be, I’d argue that we’re pretty danged solid on the “people are sensible enough” step; just add _ **your** _ answer of _“yes”_ to _ **my** _ answer of _“yes”_ and throw in _“yes”_ after _“yes”_ from other folks hereabouts, and it quickly becomes obvious that we can of course notice the value of that stuff, whereupon it’s not too surprising that we can all sign on for a moral code that condemns rape and murder while praising acts of benevolence, and thus and such, because we prize the good results; answering the question of value means we can then get by with “mere reason” or “enlightened self-interest” or whatever you want to call it. Only if you base your assumptions (for that’s all they are) on today’s human. But evolution necessitates we step into the shoes of animals millions of years ago. There is no way you can suppose they had anything like this level of sophistocation. It is more probable that in the ‘tooth and claw’ struggle for survival, empathetic responses would be abandoned before they have any chance to take root. You also need to address the conflict between the notions of ‘hard wiring’ and ‘survival instinct’. If you claim that a survival instinct is behind the development of empathy, I suggest these objections put that idea in serious trouble. If empathy is ‘hard wired’, then no amount of appeal to ‘people are sensible’ will answer to where the ‘hard wiring’ came from. ---
**Author:** ![CurtC](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ce73a5/32.png) [@CurtC](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CurtC)\ **Post date:** [September 9, 2010, 2:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952/755 "2010-09-09T02:06:18Z")
> [@aigonz](#): > > Why? The empathetic instinct is not a reaction to anything. It is ‘hardwired’, as many have been at pains to state. Indeed, as populations diminish, any survival instinct would push the survivors to fight even more for resources, particularly breeding options. The empathic instinct is a reaction to selection pressure, just like all our other instincts. If you take two tribes of a primitive social primate, there will be one that’s on average somewhat more empathic. The tribe that’s more empathic will have a survival advantage over the other (for the reason you pointed out in your example). The one with the survival advantage fares better, produces more little primates that survive to adulthood. Over thousands and thousands of generations, a social species will develop in such a way that its members have empathy for each other. This is all very basic evolution theory. I’m not sure where you learned evolution, but your idea seems to be a distorted caricature of the way it works. ---
**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 9, 2010, 2:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952/756 "2010-09-09T02:24:33Z")
> [@aigonz](#): > > Only if you base your assumptions (for that’s all they are) on today’s human. But evolution necessitates we step into the shoes of animals millions of years ago. There is no way you can suppose they had anything like this level of sophistocation. It is more probable that in the ‘tooth and claw’ struggle for survival, empathetic responses would be abandoned before they have any chance to take root. No, it’s probable that – even in the wild – such responses have value within the group, be it a tribe or a clan or whatever; even animals hunt in packs. And animals go plenty further, as well; reciprocal altruism isn’t just useful in the here and now among sophisticates; it’s found in the jungle; it aids survival. It happens. It _ **works.** _ > [@](#): > > You also need to address the conflict between the notions of ‘hard wiring’ and ‘survival instinct’. If you claim that a survival instinct is behind the development of empathy, I suggest these objections put that idea in serious trouble. If empathy is ‘hard wired’, then no amount of appeal to ‘people are sensible’ will answer to where the ‘hard wiring’ came from. What, it can’t be both? Possibly we’re “hard-wired” to get hungry in certain situations, and yet sensible individuals can in sober moments of course realize that eating is good for us. Possibly we’re “hard-wired” to be afraid of the dark, or to enjoy sex, or to have a fight-or-flight reaction kick in under various circumstances, or whatever – but none of that precludes sensible individuals engaging in sober reflection from accurately concluding that, while such impulses aren’t _ **always** _ helpful and so routinely need a dose of scrutiny, they do more good than harm in the long run. So, okay, figure we’re hard-wired to sympathize readily with others – and sometimes that’s helpful, and sometimes it’s not. And it’s far from the only impulse competing for one’s attention; do you risk your life to help someone in danger, or does the ‘survival instinct’ outweigh the feeling of empathy? Do you rest when you’re tired, or do you keep on until the work is done? Do you flee in stark terror or do you grit your teeth and set your spear to kill the lion so you can eat tonight? The existence of an impulse doesn’t end the debate; it starts one. ---
**Author:** ![CurtC](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ce73a5/32.png) [@CurtC](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CurtC)\ **Post date:** [September 9, 2010, 2:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952/757 "2010-09-09T02:44:34Z")
I’m not sure why aigonz thinks there’s this dichotomy between “hard-wired” and “survival instinct.” I mean, the survival instinct itself is hard-wired. ---
**Author:** ![GSV\_Consolation\_of\_Dreams](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/f1d935/32.png) [@GSV\_Consolation\_of\_Dreams](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GSV_Consolation_of_Dreams)\ **Post date:** [September 9, 2010, 5:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952/758 "2010-09-09T05:46:45Z")
> [@aigonz](#): > > “On into the 20th century, the enthusiastic Darwinist Richard Dawkins used ‘red in tooth and claw’ in The Selfish Gene, to summarize the behaviour of all living things which arises out of the survival of the fittest doctrine.” > > There we go…happy now? The problem we have is you putting the word “society” on the end and then pretending that this is some kind of acknowledged sociological term with a well known meaning. It ain’t. You made it up yourself. Just to be sure I googled the term “tooth and claw society”. First result… this very thread. Other results had no apparent connection to scientific literature of any discipline. You may now commence your usual hand-waving and goal-post shifting. ---
**Author:** ![aigonz](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/4491bb/32.png) [@aigonz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/aigonz)\ **Post date:** [September 9, 2010, 6:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952/759 "2010-09-09T06:13:49Z")
> [@CurtC](#): > > > [@aigonz](#): > > > > Why? The empathetic instinct is not a reaction to anything. It is ‘hardwired’, as many have been at pains to state. Indeed, as populations diminish, any survival instinct would push the survivors to fight even more for resources, particularly breeding options. > > The empathic instinct is a reaction to selection pressure, just like all our other instincts. If you take two tribes of a primitive social primate, there will be one that’s on average somewhat more empathic. The tribe that’s more empathic will have a survival advantage over the other (for the reason you pointed out in your example). The one with the survival advantage fares better, produces more little primates that survive to adulthood. > > Over thousands and thousands of generations, a social species will develop in such a way that its members have empathy for each other. > > This is all very basic evolution theory. I’m sure where you learned evolution, but your idea seems to be a distorted caricature of the way it works. Where is your rebuttal of my argument? All you have done is to restate your ideology. Try answering these points directly. 1\> If empathy evolved, it was not always present. 2\> Until it was, populations had no reason to constrain their ‘tooth and claw’ fight for survival. 3\> The already fledgling populations would not survive ‘thousands and thousands’ of generations of a ‘tooth and claw’ fight for survival. ---
**Author:** ![aigonz](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/4491bb/32.png) [@aigonz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/aigonz)\ **Post date:** [September 9, 2010, 6:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952/760 "2010-09-09T06:21:18Z")
> [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](#): > > > [@aigonz](#): > > > > Only if you base your assumptions (for that’s all they are) on today’s human. But evolution necessitates we step into the shoes of animals millions of years ago. There is no way you can suppose they had anything like this level of sophistocation. It is more probable that in the ‘tooth and claw’ struggle for survival, empathetic responses would be abandoned before they have any chance to take root. > > No, it’s probable that – even in the wild – such responses have value within the group, be it a tribe or a clan or whatever; even animals hunt in packs. And animals go plenty further, as well; reciprocal altruism isn’t just useful in the here and now among sophisticates; it’s found in the jungle; it aids survival. It happens. It _ **works.** _ > > > [@](#): > > > > You also need to address the conflict between the notions of ‘hard wiring’ and ‘survival instinct’. If you claim that a survival instinct is behind the development of empathy, I suggest these objections put that idea in serious trouble. If empathy is ‘hard wired’, then no amount of appeal to ‘people are sensible’ will answer to where the ‘hard wiring’ came from. > > What, it can’t be both? Possibly we’re “hard-wired” to get hungry in certain situations, and yet sensible individuals can in sober moments of course realize that eating is good for us. Possibly we’re “hard-wired” to be afraid of the dark, or to enjoy sex, or to have a fight-or-flight reaction kick in under various circumstances, or whatever – but none of that precludes sensible individuals engaging in sober reflection from accurately concluding that, while such impulses aren’t _ **always** _ helpful and so routinely need a dose of scrutiny, they do more good than harm in the long run. > > So, okay, figure we’re hard-wired to sympathize readily with others – and sometimes that’s helpful, and sometimes it’s not. And it’s far from the only impulse competing for one’s attention; do you risk your life to help someone in danger, or does the ‘survival instinct’ outweigh the feeling of empathy? Do you rest when you’re tired, or do you keep on until the work is done? Do you flee in stark terror or do you grit your teeth and set your spear to kill the lion so you can eat tonight? The existence of an impulse doesn’t end the debate; it starts one. 1\> Altruism in the wild is observable NOW. But the claim is that it evolved. My point is how did the earliest population survive until it did? 2\> If it is both (hard wired and survival) then a\> you contradict other posters here, and b\> yu will need to address BOTH of my points above. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952.md?page=37) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952.md?page=39)