# 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:** 42
**Author:** ![aigonz](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/4491bb/32.png) [@aigonz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/aigonz)\ **Post date:** [September 10, 2010, 8:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952/821 "2010-09-10T20:32:38Z")
> [@monavis](#): > > > [@aigonz](#): > > > > 1\> I agree with you on ‘proof’. It is interesting to note that the Bible stated that the earth was round, and not at the centre of the universe, long before man knew these to be true. > > > > 2\> Science is about establishing truth about the natural world. It is about trial and error, experiment and observation. But it’s very nature it may proove itself wrong more often than it proves itself right. I have no issue with science, however I have a healthy scepticism of scientists. Scientists compete for funding, distort results, exagerate claims and even (in the worst cases) fabricate findings. Not a good look. > > You do realize you are using the same analogy for a Supreme being don’t you? > > Please cite the chapter and verse where the the Bible states the world is round or the center of the universe! It does talk of the 4 corners of the earth. Augustian in his City Of God states, it would be impossible for the world to be round!! Firstly I said that the Bible stated the earth is NOT the centre of the universe. And by Augustian, do you mean Augustine? Earth is round: Isaiah 40:22 Job 26:10 Isaaih 22:18 (The modern belief that especially medieval Christianity believed in a flat earth has been referred to as The Myth of the Flat Earth. It was started in the 19th century, thanks largely to the publication of Washington Irving’s fantasy The Life and Voyages of Christopher Columbus in 1828). Earth is not the centre of the universe: Isaiah 40:22 Job 26:7 ---
**Author:** ![aigonz](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/4491bb/32.png) [@aigonz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/aigonz)\ **Post date:** [September 10, 2010, 8:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952/822 "2010-09-10T20:34:11Z")
> [@monavis](#): > > > [@aigonz](#): > > > > 1\> Actually there are many forms of truth, so I take your point. Let me clarify. God is not beyond logic. In fact we have logic only because of God. > > > > 2\> If I stated God is ‘unknowable’ then I erred. We can not understand everything about Gid, but we can certainly know Him, and know about Him. But even if He weree unknowable, that would not limit our ability to comprehend the probability of His existence. ‘Knowing’ about something is quite a different matter to comprehending its existence. > > > > 3\> The choices are: > > a\> faith in the hypothesis that everything that is can be accounted for by purely naturalistic explanations, and that nothing exists outside the natural. > > b\> faith in the hypothesis that an intelligent agent existing outside of the natural universe, brought the natural universe into existence. > > Even theologins admit God is unknowable,all about God is faith, belief in one’s own thoughts or the thoughts, teachings, and beliefs of some other human. If you really “KNOW” anything about God you can prove it! You even state that “FAITH” in the hypothesis etc. is your answer! So I didn’t say that God was unknowable? I thought not. I’m not sure which theologians you are referring to. If you can quote one I may be able to help you out. ---
**Author:** ![aigonz](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/4491bb/32.png) [@aigonz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/aigonz)\ **Post date:** [September 10, 2010, 8:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952/823 "2010-09-10T20:35:14Z")
[quote=“monavis, post:814, topic:551952”] > [@aigonz](#): > > I wonder where was this creator before there was existence? If it was nowhere it would be nothing. A Being would need a place to exist or it would not be in existence! You are making an awful lot of assumptions! Wh said God was ‘nowhere’? ---
**Author:** ![aigonz](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/4491bb/32.png) [@aigonz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/aigonz)\ **Post date:** [September 10, 2010, 8:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952/824 "2010-09-10T20:41:17Z")
> [@Meatros](#): > > > [@aigonz](#): > > > > 1\> Actually there are many forms of truth, so I take your point. Let me clarify. God is not beyond logic. In fact we have logic only because of God. > > Are you a presuppositionalist? Do you support the TAG? > > I’d say that this is false, but irrelevant to our discussion at hand. I don’t want to open that bag of worms until the one you’ve already opened is sufficiently dealt with. As it is, I’m a little tired of pointing out the worms that are already on the table, so-to-speak, only to have you ignore them. > > I’m not sure how you determine the first part, so I’ll ask you to elaborate. > > As to if God were unknowable, if that were the case, then you couldn’t say anything about his existence. How exactly would you calculate the existence of something that you have no data on or no idea of what data would look like? I think you are equivocating on the term unknowable here. > > This is not a ‘faith’ proposition. To accept that everything can be accounted for by naturalistic explanations is to accept it based on reasons, models, and evidence. The idea that there is nothing outside of the natural would need to be further defined in order to have any comment on whether or not it should be regarded as rational to hold. > > It is not a hypothesis, since a hypothesis is meant to explain phenomenon and facts. Positing an ‘intelligent designer’ does not explain anything. Further, as has been pointed out repeatedly, what we can figure out about this ‘intelligent agent’ leads to absurdities. > > Hence, it is irrational to accept ‘B’. > > Why? Just because you say so, in spite of arguments to the contrary? That isn’t very convincing. > > I don’t even know what this means. Please explain. > > Here’s what you have: > > 1. You can multiply entities and posit an ‘absolute time’ and ‘absolute space’ that require no creation in which your intelligent agent can act. > > 2. Or you can hold to the idea that this intelligent agent acted without time/space on ‘nothing’ to create time/space. > > If you hold to 1, you would have just created a further mystery. If that absolute time/space can exist, why can’t our universe? Why can’t _this_ time/space exist? If you say it can, then parsimony favors rejecting 1. > > If you hold to 2, you hold to a contradictory mess of ideas that are incoherent. > > I’m sorry that this upsets you, but you’ll have to do more then baselessly assert that an intelligent creator could create in light of this in order to be convincing. > > This is flatly false. Block time does not require an uncaused first cause. > > So we can reject ‘1’. > > This is flatly false, again. A first cause, is the first event. There is no ‘before’, so there is no way it could be ‘caused’. It is not outside of time, it is the first moment of time. > > If something is ‘uncaused’ then it cannot have a causal agent. > > So we can reject the notion that an intelligent agent had anything to do with this first cause. > > I don’t need evidence, since it is the most coherent explanation of what we experience. That alone makes it the most rational choice to hold. > > Whereas the idea you put forth is incoherent and _cannot_ be rationally held since it is actually unclear what you are positing! > > Nonsense - these ‘thoughts’ are coherent, which is why it is rational to hold to them. The concept that you’ve put forth isn’t. > > Which is why rational people should reject it. > > Actually they are, since I’ve repeatedly pointed out (and you’ve repeatedly ignored) that they are coherent whereas an ‘intelligent agent’ is not. > > You keep ignoring that the option you are putting forth is **incoherent** , that is why we can take it off the table. > > If you want it on the table as an explanation then you have to make it coherent! > > Again, it doesn’t matter - the multi-verse model is still more rational to hold to then the ‘intelligent designer’ model, since it has some theoretical framework and actually attempts to explain the phenomenon. It is not flatly incoherent as the intelligent design model is. > > Yes, which are still vastly more rational to hold to as opposed to the idea that the earth was headed for a radical transformation into candyland. > > Do you get that? Even though that model turned out to be wrong (the ice age), it was still more rational to hold to it, since it could have been correct. > > The candy land model (ie, God did it) could never have been correct since it is ‘magic’ and incoherent (technically it’s more coherent then the God model, but I digress). > > I don’t know how you would define ‘belief’, so I don’t want you to equivocate. When I speak of believe, I speak of a rational appraisal of the facts. > > As in, ‘makes sense’, able to be understood. > > This is nonsense, as I’ve repeatedly shown. > > Please tell us how it is coherent to hold to a contradiction? The idea that a creator could create time/space requires time/space. The idea that this creator did not have either of these things, but created them is a contradiction (since they would be necessary for the creation). > > This is funny - you accept this, yet you seem to think that block time, which doesn’t need something coming from nothing, is somehow not as rational as a creator who would presumably create something from nothing?? > > You don’t get it - I’m not saying that models are evidence. Some of the models have evidence, some don’t. Some have facts that seem to refute their positions, others do not. > > All of these are more rational to accept then the idea you are putting forth. PLEASE understand that - even if you don’t agree with it. > > Nonsense - I’ve repeatedly shown that what you are putting forth is simply nonsense. It’s incoherent. > > All you can do is assert that we should accept that God is coherent and on the table. That might be good enough for church, but it’s not good enough for reasonable people. > > If you want God on the table, then present a coherent explanation of God’s creation. > > > [@aigonz](#): > > > > ‘Could’ be tested. ‘Could’ work. But nether has happened has it? > > This is hypocritical - your position _CAN’T_ even be tested. It _DOESN’T_ even make sense, yet you accept it. > > So why the double standard? > > I’m going to give you one last chance to answer my points and then I’m done, since it will be apparent that you aren’t interested in demonstrating your point of view is rational. You are simply interested in preaching. I have no interest in accepting your irrational, incoherent dogma. Perhaps you might actually care to outline your points in a coherent manner, devoid of the ramblings. It would also help if you (and others) took the time to actually confirm what I HAVE said, before taking a pot shot at what I HAVEN’T. ---
**Author:** ![aigonz](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/4491bb/32.png) [@aigonz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/aigonz)\ **Post date:** [September 10, 2010, 8:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952/825 "2010-09-10T20:44:08Z")
It would seem that many of you are a little too eager to accept any hypothesis, no matter how absurd or unsubstantiated, just as long as it doesn’t involve anything outside the natural. Yet there are a number of things science cannot explain about the natural world. ---
**Author:** ![Latro](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/a87d85/32.png) [@Latro](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Latro)\ **Post date:** [September 10, 2010, 9:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952/826 "2010-09-10T21:36:03Z")
> [@aigonz](#): > > 2\> You still haven’t explained how, if indeed the contact was ‘more fierce back then’, that species populated. > > 3\> Your contentions (for that’s all they are) require that the “experiemnts to play out billions of times”. But my point is that they can’t, because the species will not survive the depopulation caused by this lack of aversion. Djeez, **aigonz** , what’s so difficult about this? There are thousands of (“lower”) life forms to be observed _today_ that still live that way. Besides from being prey to ferocious hunters they are ferocious hunters themselves that eat their own kind and even their own young. The answer; lots and lots of offspring… ---
**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 10, 2010, 11:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952/827 "2010-09-10T23:43:21Z")
> [@aigonz](#): > > Your explanation are based on the very assumptions my propositions undermine. Is that “undermine” or “disprove”? Because you’re apparently doing reverse-Sherlock-Holmes logic, here: some folks prefer to figure that, “when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth” – and you’re essentially saying, _er, no; if something sounds improbable, then let’s postulate the impossible._ Still, let’s go with that for a moment. You say your propositions undermine the very assumptions in question? Fine by me; they’re _ **your** _ assumptions, which is why I’m happy to drop 'em for to swap in other assumptions. Here, watch: > [@](#): > > 1\> You have no evidence that there is a ‘here to there’, ie that animal behavour millions of year ago was any different than we observe today. You point is based on pure speculation. Again, I was merely taking _ **your** _ claim at face value. Perhaps you’ve forgotten: > [@](#): > > 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 That’s your claim; I shrugged and ran with it for the sake of argument, since, hey, why bother disagreeing with you? I’d first replied that, 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.” Your reply was to of course agree that _“Altruism in the wild is observable NOW”_, before then claiming that it _ **wasn’t** _ that way earlier. If you want to stick with the stuff you’d written before, I’ll stick with my replies. If you now want to drop those claims and replace 'em with something else, I’ll of course reply in kind. The assumptions you supply are, so far, a matter of profound indifference to me. > [@](#): > > _2\> You still haven’t explained how, if indeed the contact was ‘more fierce back then’, that species populated._ Again, let’s just make clear that we’re talking about whether your propositions allegedly undermine _ **your** _ assumptions; I’m just as happy to assume the contact _ **wasn’t** _ “more fierce back then”. You just now copy-and-pasted your own quote to that effect: _“one can reasonably assume earlier life forms were even more brutal.”_ If you no longer wish to assume it, then don’t. > [@](#): > > _3\> Your contentions (for that’s all they are) require that the “experiemnts to play out billions of times”. But my point is that they can’t, because the species will not survive the depopulation caused by this lack of aversion._ So stop assuming they lacked any such aversion. I’m not insisting on that assumption; are you? > [@](#): > > _Your skirting the issues completely._ Well, yeah; “agreement” is presumably the ultimate way to skirt an issue, and I’m simply _ **granting** _ whichever assumptions you supply, because I’ve yet to see any reason why I should bother disputing 'em. ---
**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 11, 2010, 12:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952/828 "2010-09-11T00:03:12Z")
> [@aigonz](#): > > Perhaps you might actually care to outline your points in a coherent manner, devoid of the ramblings. > > It would also help if you (and others) took the time to actually confirm what I HAVE said, before taking a pot shot at what I HAVEN’T. It’s sickening that you don’t even have the decency to actually respond to what he said. Someone takes the time to actually rebut your nonsense in detail and you revert to the same old blanket dismissals. ---
**Author:** ![aigonz](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/4491bb/32.png) [@aigonz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/aigonz)\ **Post date:** [September 11, 2010, 5:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952/829 "2010-09-11T05:53:49Z")
> [@Latro](#): > > > [@aigonz](#): > > > > 2\> You still haven’t explained how, if indeed the contact was ‘more fierce back then’, that species populated. > > > > 3\> Your contentions (for that’s all they are) require that the “experiemnts to play out billions of times”. But my point is that they can’t, because the species will not survive the depopulation caused by this lack of aversion. > > Djeez, **aigonz** , what’s so difficult about this? > > There are thousands of (“lower”) life forms to be observed _today_ that still live that way. > Besides from being prey to ferocious hunters they are ferocious hunters themselves that eat their own kind and even their own young. > > The answer; lots and lots of offspring… You just aren’t getting it. I’ll try to simplify this. 1\> The claim is that an aversion to murder can be explained by the greater theory of evolution. 2\> The Greater theory of Evolution, often called Macro Evolution, claims that a combination of mutation and natural selection has produced all of the deiversity of life that ever lived on earth from a single organism. 3\> For this aversion to murder to evolve from the tooth and claw societies of the earliest creatures, species would have to survive millions of years of competition for food, mates, territory, family and tribal dominance; in addition to disease and wanton killing. 4\> In such an environment, the most vulnerable, generally females and the young, the very elements necessary for the survival of the species, would be at great risk. 5\> These ‘thousands of species’ that you allege survive this way are already invested with this trait via millions of years of previous evolution. You’re going around in circles and ending up nowhere. ---
**Author:** ![aigonz](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/4491bb/32.png) [@aigonz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/aigonz)\ **Post date:** [September 11, 2010, 5:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952/830 "2010-09-11T05:57:06Z")
> [@Lobohan](#): > > > [@aigonz](#): > > > > Perhaps you might actually care to outline your points in a coherent manner, devoid of the ramblings. > > > > It would also help if you (and others) took the time to actually confirm what I HAVE said, before taking a pot shot at what I HAVEN’T. > > It’s sickening that you don’t even have the decency to actually respond to what he said. Someone takes the time to actually rebut your nonsense in detail and you revert to the same old blanket dismissals. Gee you really do have double standards don’t you. I will respond when someone responds to what I have actually said. I will not repsond when someone misquotes me and then procceds to attack a position I did not take. ---
**Author:** ![aigonz](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/4491bb/32.png) [@aigonz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/aigonz)\ **Post date:** [September 11, 2010, 6:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952/831 "2010-09-11T06:10:12Z")
> [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](#): > > Again, I was merely taking _ **your** _ claim at face value. Perhaps you’ve forgotten: > > That’s your claim; I shrugged and ran with it for the sake of argument, since, hey, why bother disagreeing with you? > > I’d first replied that, 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.” Your reply was to of course agree that _“Altruism in the wild is observable NOW”_, before then claiming that it _ **wasn’t** _ that way earlier. > > If you want to stick with the stuff you’d written before, I’ll stick with my replies. If you now want to drop those claims and replace 'em with something else, I’ll of course reply in kind. The assumptions you supply are, so far, a matter of profound indifference to me. You seem confused. I am arguing against evolution; when I refer to it, I am speaking as to how evolution is said to work. For example, Evolution depends on fundamental changes occurring over millions of years. It is not logical to observe living things today and directly compare their behaviour with that of living things millions of years ago. But that is exactly what you atempt to do. As a case in point, in your post above you speak again of allruism in species TODAY. This is irrelevant. Evolution demands that these traits developed over long period sof time, from non-existence in the first life forms, to what you obsevre today. Can you not understand that the challenge is to explain how species survived while this trait evolved? ---
**Author:** ![aigonz](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/4491bb/32.png) [@aigonz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/aigonz)\ **Post date:** [September 11, 2010, 6:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952/832 "2010-09-11T06:17:58Z")
[quote=“The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper, post:827, topic:551952”] > [@aigonz](#): > > So stop assuming they lacked any such aversion. > > I’m not insisting on that assumption; are you? If evolution is assumed, earlier life forms MUST have lacked this aversion, if this aversion evolved! My comment about this “lack of aversion” is not an assumption under evolution, it is a given. ---
**Author:** ![Latro](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/a87d85/32.png) [@Latro](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Latro)\ **Post date:** [September 11, 2010, 6:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952/833 "2010-09-11T06:27:08Z")
> [@aigonz](#): > > Can you not understand that the challenge is to explain how species survived while this trait evolved? Gods, you really are willfuly ignorant. You are actively ignoring answers. Watch a bloody nature documentary once in a while. These “pre-aversion-to murder”, “claw-and-tooth-societies” species still exist today and have existed for millions and millions of years. Have a look at insects, spiders, even fish. ---
**Author:** ![aigonz](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/4491bb/32.png) [@aigonz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/aigonz)\ **Post date:** [September 11, 2010, 6:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952/834 "2010-09-11T06:27:16Z")
Someone recently made reference to the expression ‘the selfish gene’. Of course this was the title of Richard Dawkins 1970’s book. It is interesting to note that the Hamilton rule was made famous by Richard Dawkins. The Hamilton rule states simply that an organism will sacrifice to help another organism so long as they share enough genetic material. In other words, if they don;t, they won’t. Of course this has since been discredited by the discovery of events such as the interspecies adoption of oryxes by lionesses in Kenya. ---
**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 11, 2010, 6:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952/835 "2010-09-11T06:29:20Z")
> [@aigonz](#): > > You seem confused. I am arguing against evolution; when I refer to it, I am speaking as to how evolution is said to work. For example, Evolution depends on fundamental changes occurring over millions of years. It is not logical to observe living things today and directly compare their behaviour with that of living things millions of years ago. But that is exactly what you atempt to do. > > As a case in point, in your post above you speak again of allruism in species TODAY. This is irrelevant. Evolution demands that these traits developed over long period sof time, from non-existence in the first life forms, to what you obsevre today. I’m just not seeing the conceptual problem, here. You’re saying the wild is, TODAY, a place where both altruism and red-in-tooth-and-claw fierceness can be observed. You’re saying there must have been less altruism and more ferocity millions of years ago; _ **why?** _ Why not figure the first breakthrough was altruistic rather than fierce? Why not figure on simple life-forms that lacked _ **both,** _ and then ask whether organisms in that context would benefit by taking an interest in, say, the survival of their offspring? > [@](#): > > _Can you not understand that the challenge is to explain how species survived while this trait evolved?_ ::shrugs:: Okay, there ya go. > [@](#): > > _If evolution is assumed, earlier life forms MUST have lacked this aversion, if this aversion evolved! My comment about this “lack of aversion” is not an assumption under evolution, it is a given._ You say they must have lacked said aversion – because, otherwise, there would have been no check on the indiscriminate ferocity you’re assuming they had. I say it’s just as easy to figure they lacked said _ **ferocity** _ while lacking said aversion; there are single-celled organisms that still lack both today, so why assume life back in antiquity had ferocity from the get-go? ---
**Author:** ![aigonz](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/4491bb/32.png) [@aigonz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/aigonz)\ **Post date:** [September 11, 2010, 6:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952/836 "2010-09-11T06:34:12Z")
> [@Latro](#): > > > [@aigonz](#): > > > > Can you not understand that the challenge is to explain how species survived while this trait evolved? > > Gods, you really are willfuly ignorant. > You are actively ignoring answers. > Watch a bloody nature documentary once in a while. > > These “pre-aversion-to murder”, “claw-and-tooth-societies” species still exist today and have existed for millions and millions of years. > Have a look at insects, spiders, even fish. Are you serious, or was this just a comment made in haste? ---
**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 11, 2010, 6:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952/837 "2010-09-11T06:39:00Z")
> [@aigonz](#): > > Someone recently made reference to the expression ‘the selfish gene’. Of course this was the title of Richard Dawkins 1970’s book. It is interesting to note that the Hamilton rule was made famous by Richard Dawkins. The Hamilton rule states simply that an organism will sacrifice to help another organism so long as they share enough genetic material. In other words, if they don;t, they won’t. Of course this has since been discredited by the discovery of events such as the interspecies adoption of oryxes by lionesses in Kenya. Well, not exactly. The idea is that a general trait which often enough produces selfish-gene benefits will persist even though it may also lead to outcomes that don’t produce selfish-gene benefits. Like, if you typically hang out among kinfolk, and have a general willingness to “adopt orphaned babies”, it’ll often produce selfish-gene benefits, since you often adopt your sister’s kids or your brother’s kids or whatever – even though “adopt orphaned babies” is overly broad and so can _ **also** _ lead to stuff like interspecies adoption. The question is whether it’s a successful enough approach to stick around by dint of not running too far afoul of selfish-gene purposes – not whether it _ **always** _ advances selfish-gene purposes. ---
**Author:** ![aigonz](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/4491bb/32.png) [@aigonz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/aigonz)\ **Post date:** [September 11, 2010, 6:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952/838 "2010-09-11T06:42:10Z")
> [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](#): > > > [@aigonz](#): > > > > You seem confused. I am arguing against evolution; when I refer to it, I am speaking as to how evolution is said to work. For example, Evolution depends on fundamental changes occurring over millions of years. It is not logical to observe living things today and directly compare their behaviour with that of living things millions of years ago. But that is exactly what you atempt to do. > > > > As a case in point, in your post above you speak again of allruism in species TODAY. This is irrelevant. Evolution demands that these traits developed over long period sof time, from non-existence in the first life forms, to what you obsevre today. > > I’m just not seeing the conceptual problem, here. > > You’re saying the wild is, TODAY, a place where both altruism and red-in-tooth-and-claw fierceness can be observed. You’re saying there must have been less altruism and more ferocity millions of years ago; _ **why?** _ Why not figure the first breakthrough was altruistic rather than fierce? Why not figure on simple life-forms that lacked _ **both,** _ and then ask whether organisms in that context would benefit by taking an interest in, say, the survival of their offspring? > > ::shrugs:: Okay, there ya go. > > > [@](#): > > > > _If evolution is assumed, earlier life forms MUST have lacked this aversion, if this aversion evolved! My comment about this “lack of aversion” is not an assumption under evolution, it is a given._ > > You say they must have lacked said aversion – because, otherwise, there would have been no check on the indiscriminate ferocity you’re assuming they had. I say it’s just as easy to figure they lacked said _ **ferocity** _ while lacking said aversion; there are single-celled organisms that still lack both today, so why assume life back in antiquity had ferocity from the get-go? 1\> I take your point about the altruism/fierceness ‘matrix’, however the claim we are discussing is that altruism has ‘evolved’, not that ‘fierceness’ has evolved. 2\> One of the pillars of evolutionary theory is an assumption that organisms and species either progress or die. Would you define a change from altruism to firceness as progress? ---
**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 11, 2010, 6:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952/839 "2010-09-11T06:43:04Z")
> [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](#): > > > [@aigonz](#): > > > > Someone recently made reference to the expression ‘the selfish gene’. Of course this was the title of Richard Dawkins 1970’s book. It is interesting to note that the Hamilton rule was made famous by Richard Dawkins. The Hamilton rule states simply that an organism will sacrifice to help another organism so long as they share enough genetic material. In other words, if they don;t, they won’t. Of course this has since been discredited by the discovery of events such as the interspecies adoption of oryxes by lionesses in Kenya. > > Well, not exactly. The idea is that a general trait which often enough produces selfish-gene benefits will persist even though it may also lead to outcomes that don’t produce selfish-gene benefits. Like, if you typically hang out among kinfolk, and have a general willingness to “adopt orphaned babies”, it’ll often produce selfish-gene benefits, since you often adopt your sister’s kids or your brother’s kids or whatever – even though “adopt orphaned babies” is overly broad and so can _ **also** _ lead to stuff like interspecies adoption. The question is whether it’s a successful enough approach to stick around by dint of not running too far afoul of selfish-gene purposes – not whether it _ **always** _ advances selfish-gene purposes. I’m gonna make a prediction here and say that Aigonz will not understand what you’re saying and dismiss it out of hand. ---
**Author:** ![aigonz](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/4491bb/32.png) [@aigonz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/aigonz)\ **Post date:** [September 11, 2010, 6:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952/840 "2010-09-11T06:44:27Z")
> [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](#): > > > [@aigonz](#): > > > > Someone recently made reference to the expression ‘the selfish gene’. Of course this was the title of Richard Dawkins 1970’s book. It is interesting to note that the Hamilton rule was made famous by Richard Dawkins. The Hamilton rule states simply that an organism will sacrifice to help another organism so long as they share enough genetic material. In other words, if they don;t, they won’t. Of course this has since been discredited by the discovery of events such as the interspecies adoption of oryxes by lionesses in Kenya. > > Well, not exactly. The idea is that a general trait which often enough produces selfish-gene benefits will persist even though it may also lead to outcomes that don’t produce selfish-gene benefits. Like, if you typically hang out among kinfolk, and have a general willingness to “adopt orphaned babies”, it’ll often produce selfish-gene benefits, since you often adopt your sister’s kids or your brother’s kids or whatever – even though “adopt orphaned babies” is overly broad and so can _ **also** _ lead to stuff like interspecies adoption. The question is whether it’s a successful enough approach to stick around by dint of not running too far afoul of selfish-gene purposes – not whether it _ **always** _ advances selfish-gene purposes. What is the motivation, in a purely naturalistic view of the world, for a lioness to adopt an oryx? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952.md?page=41) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952.md?page=43)