Pain and sufering

[ggazoo]

I would say the society is shaped by morals.

Jan.

I don't think so. The view that altruistic genes were passed down to us and now the great majority of us feel that unselfish behaviour is "right".

An individuals self-sacrificing, altruistic behaviour toward his or her own blood kin might result in a greater survival rate for the individual's family or extended clan, and therefore result in a greater number of people. However, for evolutionary purposes the opposite response - hostility to all people outside ones group - should be just as widely considered moral and right behaviour. Yet today we believe that sacrificing time, money, emotion and even life - especially for someone "not of our kind" or tribe - is right.

If we see a total stranger fall in the river we jump in after him, or feel guilty for not doing so. In fact, most people will feel the obligation to do so even if the person in the water is an enemy. How could that trait have come down by a process of natural selection? Such people would have been less likely to survive and pass on their genes. On the basis of strict evolutionary naturalism, that kind of altruism should have died out of the human race long ago. Instead, it's stronger than ever.

ggazoo, the question is;

"Is god willing, but not able to avert suffering, or not willing, but able to avert suffering?"

Please write a concise argument for both propositions, and I'll get back and discuss those with you.

It would be my pleasure. Unfortunately, my stance would stem from my Christian beliefs. And seeing the narrow-mindedness of some posters on where my view is coming from, that would make our debate an exercise in futility.

 

[KennyJC]

I don't think so. The view that altruistic genes were passed down to us and now the great majority of us feel that unselfish behaviour is "right".

An individuals self-sacrificing, altruistic behaviour toward his or her own blood kin might result in a greater survival rate for the individual's family or extended clan, and therefore result in a greater number of people. However, for evolutionary purposes the opposite response - hostility to all people outside ones group - should be just as widely considered moral and right behaviour. Yet today we believe that sacrificing time, money, emotion and even life - especially for someone "not of our kind" or tribe - is right.

If we see a total stranger fall in the river we jump in after him, or feel guilty for not doing so. In fact, most people will feel the obligation to do so even if the person in the water is an enemy. How could that trait have come down by a process of natural selection? Such people would have been less likely to survive and pass on their genes. On the basis of strict evolutionary naturalism, that kind of altruism should have died out of the human race long ago. Instead, it's stronger than ever.

Well it just so happens there are many things that persist in our behavior that you wouldn't exactly call vital to our survival, but what is not always obvious is that certain actions can be a byproduct of something else. What if I was to say that love of god was a byproduct of having the ability to love a relative? Love of relatives obviously very useful for survival in mammals, but it's byproduct love of god obviously isn't.

Your thesis on the genetics of alturism is probably very niave, espeically if you're using it in such a way to prove that god exists. That doesn't prove god exists anymore than violent behavior proves the non-existence therefor.

Oh, and my theory is that alturistic behavior is a byproduct of those important moments that solidify tribes/groups/society; minute silences, funerals, standing to attention of national anthems... that sort of thing - I maintain that people get a kick out of occasions like these. Or maybe it's just a byproduct of being able to be alturistic to those in your 'tribe'... Or maybe some acts of alturism are selfishly aimed to increase your status in societies ladder.

Well I think it's a better theory than your 'alturism proves god exists' theory.

It would be my pleasure. Unfortunately, my stance would stem from my Christian beliefs. And seeing the narrow-mindedness of some posters on where my view is coming from, that would make our debate an exercise in futility.

Well that pretty much means you shouldn't post here at all then? But I'd be awfully bored if you stopped.

 

[ggazoo]

Your thesis on the genetics of alturism is probably very niave, espeically if you're using it in such a way to prove that god exists.

Not really. Especially considering that the theory that altruistic genes were passed down to us has been give some devastating critiques, namely by Philip Kitcher's Vaulting Ambition: Sociobiology and the Quest for Human Nature, and John Dupre's Human Nature and the Limits of Science, just to name a couple.

Well that pretty much means you shouldn't post here at all then?

Well said; maybe you can tell me why this forum even exists then?

 

[KennyJC]

Not really. Especially considering that the theory that altruistic genes were passed down to us has been give some devastating critiques, namely by Philip Kitcher's Vaulting Ambition: Sociobiology and the Quest for Human Nature, and John Dupre's Human Nature and the Limits of Science, just to name a couple.

From wiki'ing their names, it seems a common notion amongst philosophers who can't stand the idea that everything about us can be reduced to grey matter.

So I'd be interested to hear where else alturism came from if not from our genes. Is it even possible for us to do anything that is not in our blueprint?

Is it true Kitcher is a creationist?

 

[Norsefire]

Of course the argument of pain is moot. What is pleasure, without pain? In a balanced world, we need pain to have pleasure. We need violence to have peace. Otherwise, peace and pleasure have no meaning. They have no value, and there is no point in going after them.

 

[EndLightEnd]

What if God is willing, able, loves us all to shit but is just lazy as hell?

Im starting a new religion, who wants in?

 

[KennyJC]

What is pleasure, without pain?

In a word: Pleasure.

 

[Norsefire]

In a word: Pleasure.

But how can you know that pleasure is pleasure if you experience nothing else? Duality is necessary. In order to crave peace, we cannot have it. In order to crave pleasure, we cannot have it.

I'd say creating duality was a wise choice, if God exists, that he made.

 

[Raithere]

But how can you know that pleasure is pleasure if you experience nothing else? Duality is necessary. In order to crave peace, we cannot have it. In order to crave pleasure, we cannot have it.

You can have a state that is neither and therefore a system where we merely felt pleasure or the lack of it. You could also simply have an escalating scale of pleasure where some things feel good but others feel better.

~Raithere

 

[KennyJC]

But how can you know that pleasure is pleasure if you experience nothing else? Duality is necessary. In order to crave peace, we cannot have it. In order to crave pleasure, we cannot have it.

I'd say creating duality was a wise choice, if God exists, that he made.

Clearly you lack imagination.