# 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:** 39
**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, 6:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952/761 "2010-09-09T06:23:12Z")
> [@CurtC](#): > > 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. I haven’t suggested there is. I asked the question and got three different answers. None of these three are satisfactory. ---
**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, 6:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952/762 "2010-09-09T06:25:46Z")
> [@GSV\_Consolation\_of\_Dreams](#): > > > [@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. It is amusing that you persist with this issue rather than address the objections being debated. Tooth and claw is a common expression. Are you that threatened by the expression “tooth and claw society”? It’s not that difficult. ---
**Author:** ![Lobohan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lobohan/32/79_2.png) [@Lobohan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lobohan)\ **Post date:** [September 9, 2010, 7:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952/763 "2010-09-09T07:24:35Z")
> [@aigonz](#): > > It is amusing… It’s actually amusing that in sixteen pages you haven’t actually learned anything. You’re still making the same silly, ignorant mistakes. Amusing, but sad. ---
**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, 7:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952/764 "2010-09-09T07:27:57Z")
> [@Lobohan](#): > > > [@aigonz](#): > > > > It is amusing… > > It’s actually amusing that in sixteen pages you haven’t actually learned anything. > > You’re still making the same silly, ignorant mistakes. Amusing, but sad. Here is the argument again that I put forward yesterday. Perhaps you could attempt a reasonable rebuttal, rather than making claims you cannot substantiate. 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:** ![Latro](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/a87d85/32.png) [@Latro](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Latro)\ **Post date:** [September 9, 2010, 8:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952/765 "2010-09-09T08:09:34Z")
> [@aigonz](#): > > 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. Let me ask you, **aigonz** , how far back in time do you think the first social behaviorisms started propping up? It seems to me you place it far too late, with the arrival of primates or such. In fact the absence of a “wantonly killing” behaviour is observable in way more primitive creatures. ---
**Author:** ![martu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e0b2c6/32.png) [@martu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/martu)\ **Post date:** [September 9, 2010, 8:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952/766 "2010-09-09T08:35:31Z")
> [@aigonz](#): > > 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. Hello **aignoz**. Why do you assume that the default is to kill other beings indiscriminately? Killing other beings uses up resources, using up resources frivolously can lead to one’s death. What actually happens is that species do just enough to survive, indeed why would they do anymore?, and most of the time avoiding conflict accomplished this. And you know what? The animals that stopped getting into fights and avoided conflict passed on their genes, those that didn’t well didn’t. Most animals only kill enough to eat. Most animals will only fight if attacked. What is in it for the animal to ‘wantonly kill’ others? ---
**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, 8:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952/767 "2010-09-09T08:40:34Z")
> [@Latro](#): > > > [@aigonz](#): > > > > 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. > > Let me ask you, **aigonz** , how far back in time do you think the first social behaviorisms started propping up? > It seems to me you place it far too late, with the arrival of primates or such. > > In fact the absence of a “wantonly killing” behaviour is observable in way more primitive creatures. Let’s be careful with terms. “Social behavourisms” covers a broader spectrum than the behaviours we are discussing. So let’s stay with murder. The answer is we have no way of knowing. Naturally the later they are alleged to have developed, the less likely any species would survive; your point is that conversely the opposite is likely. The problem with this is that all evolutionary theory appeals to time. When challenged for observable evidence for evolution, protagonists appeal to the vast amounts of time required for mutations and natural selection to result in meaningful change. They cannot have their cake and eat it too. The time required to evolve an aversion to murder is too long for any species to survive, given the other factors already outlined. ---
**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, 8:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952/768 "2010-09-09T08:51:32Z")
> [@martu](#): > > > [@aigonz](#): > > > > 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. > > Hello **aignoz**. > > Why do you assume that the default is to kill other beings indiscriminately? Killing other beings uses up resources, using up resources frivolously can lead to one’s death. What actually happens is that species do just enough to survive, indeed why would they do anymore?, and most of the time avoiding conflict accomplished this. And you know what? The animals that stopped getting into fights and avoided conflict passed on their genes, those that didn’t well didn’t. > > Most animals only kill enough to eat. Most animals will only fight if attacked. What is in it for the animal to ‘wantonly kill’ others? Hi Martu Unfortunately you have no way of verifying your claims are true for the earliest life forms. The only behaviours we can observe are those exhibited by todays life forms, but this is hardly indicative of life forms billions of years ago. We are discussing life forms PRIOR to the evolution of any aversion to murder. Conflicts over food, territory, mates, social dominance, habitat, protection of family and sometimes even for contest, will almostt certainly prohibit population growth, without even consideration of disease and other factors. ---
**Author:** ![Latro](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/a87d85/32.png) [@Latro](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Latro)\ **Post date:** [September 9, 2010, 8:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952/769 "2010-09-09T08:57:42Z")
> [@aigonz](#): > > > [@Latro](#): > > > > Let me ask you, **aigonz** , how far back in time do you think the first social behaviorisms started propping up? > > It seems to me you place it far too late, with the arrival of primates or such. > > > > In fact the absence of a “wantonly killing” behaviour is observable in way more primitive creatures. > > Let’s be careful with terms. “Social behavourisms” covers a broader spectrum than the behaviours we are discussing. So let’s stay with murder. > > The answer is we have no way of knowing. Naturally the later they are alleged to have developed, the less likely any species would survive; your point is that conversely the opposite is likely. > > The problem with this is that all evolutionary theory appeals to time. When challenged for observable evidence for evolution, protagonists appeal to the vast amounts of time required for mutations and natural selection to result in meaningful change. They cannot have their cake and eat it too. The time required to evolve an aversion to murder is too long for any species to survive, given the other factors already outlined. But “Aversion to Murder” is already a misnomen, IMHO. Killing, in the natural world is not just “wanton killing”. For to most part killing is done to get food. But you must expend energy to kill too plus you run the risk of getting injured as well. Most creatures, above very simple organisms, already have a trade-off system where an impulse to kill is weighed against other factors. Especially competition to breed is usually settled with posturing rather than actual killing. ---
**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, 9:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952/770 "2010-09-09T09:22:25Z")
> [@Latro](#): > > > [@aigonz](#): > > > > Let’s be careful with terms. “Social behavourisms” covers a broader spectrum than the behaviours we are discussing. So let’s stay with murder. > > > > The answer is we have no way of knowing. Naturally the later they are alleged to have developed, the less likely any species would survive; your point is that conversely the opposite is likely. > > > > The problem with this is that all evolutionary theory appeals to time. When challenged for observable evidence for evolution, protagonists appeal to the vast amounts of time required for mutations and natural selection to result in meaningful change. They cannot have their cake and eat it too. The time required to evolve an aversion to murder is too long for any species to survive, given the other factors already outlined. > > But “Aversion to Murder” is already a misnomen, IMHO. > Killing, in the natural world is not just “wanton killing”. For to most part killing is done to get food. But you must expend energy to kill too plus you run the risk of getting injured as well. > > Most creatures, above very simple organisms, already have a trade-off system where an impulse to kill is weighed against other factors. > > Especially competition to breed is usually settled with posturing rather than actual killing. Let me explain how we got to the ‘natural world’. In my summary position earlier I began with the aversion to murder in man. It has been suggested that this can be explained by evolution, in other words by the process of natural selection and mutation. My position is simply that it is not plausible that the life forms posited in the evolutionay trees leading to man could have survived throughout millions of years of ‘tooth and claw’ survival. Your point about wanton killing not being the only form of ‘killing’ is qute correct, however that reinforces my point. When ‘wanton’ killing is added to conflicts over food, territory, mates, social dominance, habitat and protection of family, plus contest and disease, the chance of survival diminishes even further. I also agree that animals resolve disputes without necessarily resorting to fighting, however the evolutionist argues this is evolved aversion. And therein lies his problem. In earlier times, with this aversion either diminshed or lacking completely, ‘posturing’, and other alternatives, would give way to just more killing. ---
**Author:** ![Latro](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/a87d85/32.png) [@Latro](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Latro)\ **Post date:** [September 9, 2010, 10:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952/771 "2010-09-09T10:06:24Z")
> [@aigonz](#): > > Let me explain how we got to the ‘natural world’. > > In my summary position earlier I began with the aversion to murder in man. It has been suggested that this can be explained by evolution, in other words by the process of natural selection and mutation. I know how we got there. Your position is that “aversion to murder” is an example of ‘objective moral’ shared by all humans and therefore is evidence for a creator, as it must be instilled. This position has been countered with objections to the whole idea of an “objective” moral, morals always being subjective. “aversion to murder” is your last (or latest) ditch to defend the “objective moral” idea This particular example of instilled moral has been countered with explanations how this could easily have come through evolution, instead of necessarily needing a magic cause. > [@](#): > > My position is simply that it is not plausible that the life forms posited in the evolutionay trees leading to man could have survived throughout millions of years of ‘tooth and claw’ survival. What I hoped to show was that the state of NOT wantongly killing/murder everything you meet is not a radically new devellopment in animals. > [@](#): > > Your point about wanton killing not being the only form of ‘killing’ is qute correct, however that reinforces my point. When ‘wanton’ killing is added to conflicts over food, territory, mates, social dominance, habitat and protection of family, plus contest and disease, the chance of survival diminishes even further. huh? convolute much? > [@](#): > > I also agree that animals resolve disputes without necessarily resorting to fighting, however the evolutionist argues this is evolved aversion. And therein lies his problem. In earlier times, with this aversion either diminshed or lacking completely, ‘posturing’, and other alternatives, would give way to just more killing. again, social behavior happenend very early on, even some species of insects have it. Your vision of Australopithici bashing each other’s braisn in over every morsel of food is wrong. ---
**Author:** ![martu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e0b2c6/32.png) [@martu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/martu)\ **Post date:** [September 9, 2010, 11:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952/772 "2010-09-09T11:28:45Z")
> [@aigonz](#): > > > [@martu](#): > > > > Hello **aignoz**. > > > > Why do you assume that the default is to kill other beings indiscriminately? Killing other beings uses up resources, using up resources frivolously can lead to one’s death. What actually happens is that species do just enough to survive, indeed why would they do anymore?, and most of the time avoiding conflict accomplished this. And you know what? The animals that stopped getting into fights and avoided conflict passed on their genes, those that didn’t well didn’t. > > > > Most animals only kill enough to eat. Most animals will only fight if attacked. What is in it for the animal to ‘wantonly kill’ others? > > Hi Martu > > Unfortunately you have no way of verifying your claims are true for the earliest life forms. The only behaviours we can observe are those exhibited by todays life forms, but this is hardly indicative of life forms billions of years ago. > > We are discussing life forms PRIOR to the evolution of any aversion to murder. Conflicts over food, territory, mates, social dominance, habitat, protection of family and sometimes even for contest, will almostt certainly prohibit population growth, without even consideration of disease and other factors. If you read my post again you’ll notice I asked why you assume that ‘wanton killing’ is the default behaviour. Please answer my question. ---
**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, 11:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952/773 "2010-09-09T11:50:25Z")
> [@Latro](#): > > 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? Well, go-it-alone types are still out there NOW too; it’s not all symbiotic plants and insect hives and aquatic mammals who stick around to raise their young and big cats who hunt in packs and thus and such. Once you get down to _ **really** _ primitive life-forms, they don’t especially _ **need** _ much in the way of cooperation or restraints on behavior or whatever. Take, say, an inoffensive little single-celled organism like the euglena: combine a knack for photosynthesis with asexual reproduction by fission and it doesn’t need to mate any more than it needs to raise the ensuing offspring, sure as they don’t need to hunt in packs or practice cooperative agriculture or whatever; they don’t need teamwork sure as they don’t need to refrain from much; they can’t _ **do** _ much; they get by just fine with little more than sunshine and fresh water, swimming around to eat the occasional bit of algae in the wild. That’s life. > [@](#): > > 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. I’m afraid I don’t follow you. First off: which two points are you referring to? Second, which posters here categorically rule out both the hard-wired impulse in question and the hard-wired impulse for survival? ---
**Author:** ![monavis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e0b2c6/32.png) [@monavis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/monavis)\ **Post date:** [September 9, 2010, 11:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952/774 "2010-09-09T11:56:45Z")
> [@aigonz](#): > > > [@monavis](#): > > > > 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. I have no theory of orgins, I just consider that if something is proven (in time) like the earth not being flat, the earth the center of the universe etc.( and the proof for that which we all now know to be proven) Science does seem to prove itself more than beliefs. The difference between the debate as to weither God had a beginning makes just as much sense as if existence itself had no beginning. so much can be shown as the world evolves. Scientists now have pictures of stars being born even though that happened eons ago. Thanks to the Hubble and other telescopes put in space! ---
**Author:** ![Meatros](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/b4bc9f/32.png) [@Meatros](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Meatros)\ **Post date:** [September 9, 2010, 12:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952/775 "2010-09-09T12:15:25Z")
> [@aigonz](#): > > Your questions could all be posed of the variety of competing beliefs submitted for the origin of the universe. No, not all of them and certainly not for the same reasons as I’ve outlined for the ‘god theory’. I get the sense that you aren’t really thinking about this, that you are trying to brush off all objections without getting into it too deeply. > [@aigonz](#): > > 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? I’ve stated many things with regard to the big bang. What you are referring to is the contradiction of a creator creating time. I’ve pointed out time and time again that in order to create time you have to presuppose an already existing time. Otherwise it’s impossible to say there was a time before time. > [@aigonz](#): > > The creator could exist in a time and space we don’t understand. Where did this time come from? Further, if _this_ time could exist without a creator, then why couldn’t the universe? You are begging the question and multiplying entities - in the end your position is ‘it’s magic’ and you are basing this off of the idea of an ‘unknowable’ entity! This is _not_ a competing explanation on the origin of the universe. > [@aigonz](#): > > This is, after all, the argument of the virtual particle (‘we don’t know what caused it therefore it is uncaused’). Not exactly - as I’ve repeatedly stated, if you posit that something can come from nothing, then it certainly cannot have a creator since there is nothing to act upon. Keep in mind that _my_ position does not require such things. > [@aigonz](#): > > And why are previous or parallel universes any more plausible than an intelligent agent? Because they are explanations and they have theoretical models. They may not be perfect, but they give us something to understand. An ‘intelligent agent’ that operates outside of time/space without physical materials who has mental states without a brain/time/space is simply incoherent. So, on the one hand we have an imperfect scientific model on another hand we can admit that we don’t know. There are no hands to support the notion of an incoherent magic man. > [@aigonz](#): > > There is no empirical evidence to support these notions. None. So what? The point you seem to be missing is that these are explanations while what you are putting forward is _not_. These explanations maybe wrong, but it is more rational to hold to them because they are coherent and have some physical models to work with. A magic immaterial man has none of these. Therefore it is not rational to support such a notion. > [@aigonz](#): > > 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. Assertions are not arguments. Further, I’m not asking for proof - if YOU are, then you certainly should _NOT_ be a theist. Your double standard is horrendous! Not only do you have _no_ evidence, your _god theory_ isn’t coherent! > [@aigonz](#): > > 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. This begs the question - block time makes better sense out of our physical theories, as I’ve explained (and you’ve ignored). As to skepticism, I agree - we should be skeptical of all cosmological models/theories that explain the origin of the universe. We should consider what’s on the table. So far you have utterly failed to make the case that ‘God did it’ is on the table. In fact, even beyond that, you’ve failed to make the case that ‘God did it’ is even coherent. I would argue that you _cannot_ make this case since you’ve already conceded that God is unknowable. Therefore, God is off the table. > [@aigonz](#): > > An untested theory or model is no more plausible simply because you put the word ‘scientific’ in front of it. Actually it is, since in theory, it could be tested and in theory it could work. Further, they are understandable and even the ones that seem wrong (big crunch) are to be preferred over the incoherent (god did it) that have _NO_ explanatory power. > [@aigonz](#): > > 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. This is a red herring. You are running from this discussion since your ‘defense’ consists of appealing to an unknowable magic man. You do realize this? The fact is your position is incoherent and you have to reject large swaths of science in order to maintain it. Admit that you hold your position on faith, not because it’s rational and I’ll leave you alone. Otherwise, you are going to have to start actually defending your position instead of retreating by explaining blatant contradictions with ‘god’s unknowable’. Once you’ve given up logic, you’ve conceded the debate. ---
**Author:** ![Meatros](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/b4bc9f/32.png) [@Meatros](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Meatros)\ **Post date:** [September 9, 2010, 12:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952/776 "2010-09-09T12:19:48Z")
> [@aigonz](#): > > 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. The word proof relates to deductive logic, not necessarily ‘natural things’. If you are saying God is beyond logic, your position is automatically incoherent and not worth discussing (since it would be literally impossible to discuss). Further, you cannot logically comment on how probable God is if you consistently say that God is unknowable. So our choices, according to you, are: 1. Scientific theory/model/etc 2. Admit uncertainty 3. An incoherent unknowable thing you’ve called God. I cannot see how it is at all rational to choose ‘3’ here, since you cannot use anything to support it (you would have to _know_ something about God in order to support the contention). ---
**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, 1:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952/777 "2010-09-09T13:37:10Z")
> [@aigonz](#): > > 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. Ah, but what about before the species developed into a social one? In a species where it’s every organism for itself, you’d expect a strategy where a creature is more vicious would be the one to be favored (and therefore instilled by evolution). But when a population of them needs to cooperate to survive, like we apes clearly do, the individuals with those more brutal instincts would be selected out, leaving the more empathic ones. By the way, you keep using “tooth and claw” with the word “fight.” I think the phrase you may be looking for is “tooth and nail,” which is a common expression that denotes an especially vicious fight. ---
**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 9, 2010, 2:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952/778 "2010-09-09T14:33:25Z")
> [@aigonz](#): > > > [@GSV\_Consolation\_of\_Dreams](#): > > > > 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. > > It is amusing that you persist with this issue rather than address the objections being debated. Tooth and claw is a common expression. Are you that threatened by the expression “tooth and claw society”? It’s not that difficult. There is no such thing as a “tooth and claw **society**.” That would be a contradiction in terms. If you want to insist otherwise, please provide an example of a “tooth and claw society” which has ever existed. ---
**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, 11:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952/779 "2010-09-09T23:03:24Z")
> [@Latro](#): > > > [@aigonz](#): > > > > Let me explain how we got to the ‘natural world’. > > > > In my summary position earlier I began with the aversion to murder in man. It has been suggested that this can be explained by evolution, in other words by the process of natural selection and mutation. > > I know how we got there. > Your position is that “aversion to murder” is an example of ‘objective moral’ shared by all humans and therefore is evidence for a creator, as it must be instilled. > > This position has been countered with objections to the whole idea of an “objective” moral, morals always being subjective. > “aversion to murder” is your last (or latest) ditch to defend the “objective moral” idea > > This particular example of instilled moral has been countered with explanations how this could easily have come through evolution, instead of necessarily needing a magic cause. > What I hoped to show was that the state of NOT wantongly killing/murder everything you meet is not a radically new devellopment in animals. > > huh? convolute much? > > > [@](#): > > > > I also agree that animals resolve disputes without necessarily resorting to fighting, however the evolutionist argues this is evolved aversion. And therein lies his problem. In earlier times, with this aversion either diminshed or lacking completely, ‘posturing’, and other alternatives, would give way to just more killing. > > again, social behavior happenend very early on, even some species of insects have it. Your vision of Australopithici bashing each other’s braisn in over every morsel of food is wrong. 1\> You are wrong about the very issue at discussion. This is not about objective morality. The issue is whether the EVOLUTION of objective morality is even possible. We settled the deabte on the existnece of objective morality some pages ago. Objective morality is real. 2\> I have out together a coherent case for how an aversion to murder could not have arisen by evolution. Thus far ALL objections to my case have been answered. You can continue to claim otherwise, but it doesn’t make it so. ---
**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, 11:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952/780 "2010-09-09T23:05:52Z")
> [@martu](#): > > > [@aigonz](#): > > > > Hi Martu > > > > Unfortunately you have no way of verifying your claims are true for the earliest life forms. The only behaviours we can observe are those exhibited by todays life forms, but this is hardly indicative of life forms billions of years ago. > > > > We are discussing life forms PRIOR to the evolution of any aversion to murder. Conflicts over food, territory, mates, social dominance, habitat, protection of family and sometimes even for contest, will almostt certainly prohibit population growth, without even consideration of disease and other factors. > > If you read my post again you’ll notice I asked why you assume that ‘wanton killing’ is the default behaviour. Please answer my question. I did. Wanton killing isn’t the default position. It is one of many postions, all of which demonstrate the improbability of species surviving through the millions of years required for aversion to murder to elvolve in humans. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952.md?page=38) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952.md?page=40)