May 5, 1998
What's on your mind?
May 5, 1998
I became a christian when i was about 12 years old. I've been having
second thoughts ever since. My parents are christians. When we moved
to this small town that I am currently living in, they decided we
should go to church. I was 5 then. Now we go to church ever Sunday
and I participate in our youth group. I love my youth group, I've had
very fun times there, made some lasting friendships and had many
religious experiences, but i still doubt it. I keep thinking it is all
fake, made up, just an excuse so we don't feel so alone. Now lately
this has all come into focus. What is wrong with making up a God? I'm
perfectly fine with it. It definitely makes me feel less alone. So,
the point I'm trying to make her is, what is the point in being
atheist? If there is not a God, then we will all die anyway with
nothing more to it. There will be no afterlife, we will just be gone
forever. But, if there is a God and you are atheist, and assuming the
christians are right, the atheist would go to hell. If you believe in
God then you would be going to heaven, and if you do believe in God
and the christians are right, then we will just be dead. No afterlife.
So, I say once again, What's the point in being an atheist.
Thank you for your time.
Will.
PS: Who ever owns this homepage, will you please email me?
will_snider@hotmail.com
May 6, 1998
I understand what William is saying. This notion is sometimes called, "Pascal's Wager." He said, "Either God is or he is not. But to which view shall we be inclined? How will you wager?" (Pensees #418). Wager against God (for humanism) and you retain some illusion of control over this chaotic existence. Wager in favor of God (against humanism) and find a direction and purpose, as well as, the reward of an afterlife existing with him.
Some are lead to a belief in God through this argument. Many remain in a walk with God because their intellectual assumptions (beliefs) are proven true experientially. Religion certainly runs the danger of becoming an "opiate of the masses" (Marx) when it is controlled by presumptuous powers and blindly accepted by ignorant followers, but true faith can only be born in the HEARTS and MINDS of individual believers.
The advantages of a personal belief and walk with God (not religion) far exceed the supposed advantages of not believing.
May 7, 1998
Just wanted to comment that a personal belief and relationship with God IS religion. I have a fundamentalist Christian sister who has been taught the same misunderstanding of the term religion. It seems like a way of redefining terms to engender a sense of elitism to me. Look up "religion" in the dictionary, and find out what the many definitions are. On closer discussion with my sister, I found out that what she had come to believe that "religion" meant was ritualism. Of course the fundamentalist viewpoint of ritualism as being negative, causes any who see the words as synonymous to use "religion" in a negative framework also. Whether you see important benefits to ritualism or not, religion is still a very broadly defined word, and to remove a personal relationship and/or belief in Deity from the category of "religion" is linguistically incorrect, and also somewhat annoying ;-)
I read some of the comments that you highlighted. I'm so tired of the arrogance that exists in this world. One person referred to the Bible as a "tale." I would like to ask that person, have YOU ever read it? It would be awfully hard to contrive such a "tale," especially one that discusses not only the past and present, but also the FUTURE. You will be sorry to have said that when you are bowing at the Judgment Seat of Christ, and that time is coming sooner than we think. As far as the ones who say religion is based on faith and that science is getting us closer and closer to the truth: science is ALL hypothesis, so there has to be a certain amount of faith involved. Scientists keep altering their theories on the age of the Earth and evolution, because they are finding their dating techniques are not accurate. There is not one single shred of evidence that supports their theories regarding the age of the Earth and evolution. Faith, in belief in God and religion is a GIFT FROM GOD, not something that we have based on blindness. You can't have faith in something that doesn't GIVE you faith.
Jun 4, 1998
The entry above is classic. I've noticed, that many of the religious people who enter their thoughts on this page sound, at least to me, a little threatened. I've noticed this by watching their responses. Usually, the argument for religion is composed of several self reinforcing statements, like:
You have to have faith to believe in God, and you have to have God in order
to have faith.
These statements are then followed by an attack on scientists (although sometimes the attack on scientists comes first). That attack usually has something to do with science being made up of hypotheses, which I agree with entirely. Albert Einstein sat around drinking beer and guessing at his ideas on relativity. It was all really a big accident, but it made no sense at all and since he was famous, that constitutes a break through. It's all a big joke really. Scientists don't know anything, they're mostly composed of bums that get taken by the government and given high paying jobs so that the rest of you look really stupid for working hard.
Certainly, the greatest amount of evidence to this can be found real world examples. Scientists thought that we could go to the moon (they were drinking again OK). But could they figure out how? no. That's when religion stepped in. Someone read the bible, the chapter on how to pray to God to get people to the moon. And there you have it folks, a miracle. God put Armstrong on the moon.
More seriously though, if scientists have no basis for any of their conclusions, then how do they reach these conclusions? How do they keep turning out to be right? When a fact, like the age of the earth, is changed. It's because science has come up with a better way of determining this. Accuracy is the important part here. But on a more general not, when the world was discovered to be round, did this prove humans to be incapable of science? Of course not, to the contrary, it shows that we are capable of discovering the
truth about the world, not through religion, through research.
Jun 9, 1998
HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA
(you know I could have deleted this entry but maybe there is some hidden message in the billionth decimal place -Keith)
Neil Armstrong is a Christian who has strong Christian beliefs.
Jun 18, 1998
In my opinion, the reason science and religion can't get along is because religion is hostile to new ideas about the universe or nature. Like Carl Sagan said, "Science is applicable to anything." Also, the people that say science cannot disprove God are correct. BUT, science can't explain something invisible or that doesn't exist. I believe also that it is only a matter of time before science figures out what caused the big bang or the universe and cosmologists are working on that as I type. In the past we didn't understand where wind or the weather came from so we attributed it to the gods but when we got out into space and looked down on the earth we understood wind and weather was caused by the rotation of the earth and the sun. That's how we will glance at the beginning of the universe and what caused it when we understand it by science and not give credit to a supernatural God or gods!
Jun 19, 1998
Virtus (if that's his/her real name) has a point. It's one that I have been having a tough time coming to terms with. I am reminded of Steven Hawking's description of the history of cosmology. For a long time the earth was thought to be the center of the universe. One reason this thought stayed alive is because it was in line with what the church believed. When science moved closer to the truth the church resisted, but eventually the church changed its doctrine.
For the most part I don't think science has some hidden agenda to disprove religion. There may be some angry scientists out there but I think they are a minority. In fact, from what I have seen scientists enjoy disproving each other. Is there really a planet zipping around 51 Pegesi? Anyone into astronomy wanted to believe that the planet was there, but many astronomers tried to prove that it wasn't. Remember the cold fusion bit in Utah? It was only a matter of days before that was ripped apart. According to Sagan honest science is supposed to be skeptical with no hidden agenda. That is the only way it can approach the truth. So, the question is if science is approaching the truth why doesn't it approach religious truth? Shouldn't we see a convergence instead of a divergence? I would like to see some examples of converging science and religion. Can anyone give me one?
Jun 19, 1998
Keith said, "So, the question is if science is approaching the truth why doesn't it approach religious truth?"
I sincerely regret that I cannot give you any examples where science and faith converge onto a common path. However, I would like to share why it is, I believe, you will find that they never will. Does anyone remember in the movie when Ellie quoted Palmer's book, saying something like, "Ironically, the one thing people are most hungry for -meaning-science has been unable to provide." (I don't remember the exact words, but….)
My point is this: Thomas Kuhn, a science historian, says that science cannot provide us with "ultimate meaning" or "final causes," as it were. And when you think about it, most of science is about conducting experiments, solving problems, hypothesizing about the physical nature of one thing or another, et cetera. Very rarely does science cross into the realm of "ultimate meaning," and when it does, it is in the form of a question, not an answer. For example, do you remember in the movie, Ellie asked, "Why are we here? What are we doing here?" Isn't this the "ultimate cause"? Isn't this Palmer's "meaning"?
That is, I believe, the question that religion tries to answer -our ultimate purpose. Here's an example. What does 2 + 2 mean? We know it equals four, but does it mean anything? Here's another example: can science tell us whether or not abortion is wrong? We know that science can tell us what the health consequences would be. It can tell us how old the baby/fetus has been living inside the womb. It can tell us many things about the natural state of pregnancy, but can it discern human morality? Can science even confirm the existence of human morality? So exactly what kind of truth does science provide us? Is comparing religion and science like comparing apples and oranges? (please excuse the clichéd metaphor).
One example of converging paths might be found in man's reason, most prominently emerging from the 17th century, which has provided us with such truth as, "all men are equal." And seventeen hundred years before the Age of Reason, Judeo-Christianity had already come to that conclusion. I think that's the closest kind of truth they'll ever share.
Jun 21, 1998
There's one other point I'd like to make which deals with something Keith had mentioned about the Church and the center of the universe. We hear all the time about how the Church was wrong, how they suppressed information by banning Galileo's book, how they oppressed Galileo by placing him under house arrest. They were trying to save appearances, keep the status quo, to salvage their authority. Indeed, they were naughty, to say the least.
Therefore, I want to address two key issues in this post: 1) WHY was the Church so adamant about clinging to a geocentric cosmology? 2) Did the Church actually get their cosmological view from the Bible or from science?
It is not very often recognized that it was Aristotelian Natural philosophy and Ptolomy's "Almagest" that popularized the notion that we are at the center of the universe, that everything circles the earth; it wasn't the Church --initially. In 150 AD, Ptolomy wrote up his "Almagest," basing it on Aristotelian physics (e.g. earth is at center of the universe, then water above earth, then air above water, then fire). And when Ptolomy wrote "Almagest" it HAD to account for Aristotelian physics because that was the only physics in place. Moreover, it is important to note that any cosmological view which did not place earth at the center was not even considered.
So about 1200 years later we see the Church advocating this cosmology... why? By about 1100 AD, more and more Aristotelian logic was being translated into Latin texts. It was the basis for all education. (Even the theologian St. Augustine was trained in Aristotelian philosophy.) We have to remember that the first universities were set up specifically to educate and perpetuate Greek philosophy, particularly Aristotle's. The big problem came when, eventually, Aristotelian philosophy had gained so much acceptance and influence, that it began to compete with Christian doctrine. It became necessary for the Church to answer some of the obvious contradictions in the two competing beliefs. So, in the 13th century St. Thomas Aquinas sought out to integrate Aristotle with Christian doctrine, fusing them together in order to show that they were compatible and basically one truth. Essentially, what he did was Arostotelianize Christian doctrine (or Christianized Aristotelian philosophy, depending on how you look at it.) What he TRULY did however, was create a heresy, both to Christianity and to Aristotelian philosophy. But the Church appreciated it because it saved face. In fact, they appreciated it so much, that this is how St. Thomas became a Saint. St. Thomas was the one who turned though the scripture to find verses that supported a geocentric universe, so that it would be compatible with Aristotle's natural philosophy. So the question I keep asking myself is whether or not the Bible was ever really saying this… or was St. Thomas just trying to make it seem like the Bible was saying this in his attempt to blend the scripture with the popular natural philosophy?
When I think about the Copernican Revolution I almost want to shutter, perhaps even flinch. It seems like such an outcome was inevitable. But what seems more apparent than anything is the fact that the Bible was never addressing our position in the universe, not before Aristotle and not after. It was Galileo who said that "in discussions of physical problems we ought to begin not from the authority of scriptural passages, but from sense-experiences and necessary demonstrations." In other words, we should look to nature when inquiring about the physical universe, and look to scripture to answer questions pertaining to spirituality. I cannot speak for other religions, but I know the key issue with the Bible is addressing Man's nature, his heart. It's not a scientific text book left by God so that we can confirm the verses along-side what we discover through science. I have to wonder that if we held to Galileo's lofty words, how then could science and religion ever contradict each other?
So often we fixate on the Church's catastrophic blunder that a more important issue completely eludes us. Many have argued that the Copernican Revolution proved religion to be a fallacy, specifically Christianity and the Bible. But what it really proved is that man suffers from an unfortunate condition, and so do man's institutions. We complain so much about the blatant evil of the Crusades (indeed it was not our brightest hour), blaming Christianity and religious zealots of all faiths. And in this shinny light of knowledge we seem to be unable to trace the roots and evil in the materialist's philosophies (Hitler, Marxism, etc.). And while we're so busy pointing fingers and feeling oppressed, both atheist and religious alike continue with their self righteousness; both have lead us to tyranny, to murder, and to oppress each other. Why don't we know by now that these things are rooted far deeper in humanity than in science and religion?
Jun 24, 1998
Due to the nature of religion, it is very important that it does not admit
any mistakes. That is why religion has attempted, and I believe continues
to attempt to oppress science. The bible clearly states in the first couple
of pages everything that we are supposed to need to know about the universe.
If they were wrong about his, what else could they be wrong about. That is
why the church resists change, they're supposed to have all of the answers.
For this reason, science has a very convenient advantage, it can change its
story.
Also, I find that it is not necessary to point all meaning in human life
to religion. Why can't we find a reason to live, what we are doing here, and
where we are going, through other means? Why can't people have morals simply
because they don't care to hurt other people?
Jun 26, 1998
I would argue that atheists love to attack the Bible, much in the same way that religious people attack science, pointing out that the Bible was wrong about our position in the universe, so it must be wrong about everything else. If one were to examine my last post (and you don't even have to examine it closely), they would hopefully come away with the notion that it wasn't the Bible that was wrong, but man --both in the form of scientific paradigms and "the Church" attempting to salvage their authority in society. Remember, the Church never had an official cosmological view until Aristotelian philosophy (what was then science) forced them to reconcile Christian doctrine with Aristotelian philosophy. So should they be scorned for trying to agree with science? Of course not. True, they were wrong for trying suppress the truth, for oppressing Galileo and his followers, but that doesn't make the Bible wrong, only those who saw their authority being challenged, those who controlled the Church. If I told you, "the Bible says the earth is flat," would that mean I was an idiot or would it mean the Bible is fake? Even Galileo contended that the Bible was never addressing the physical make up of our universe, but the spiritual make up of humanity --the human condition. I don't deny that, at present, there are many religious affiliations, especially in Christianity, that try to use the Bible as a science textbook. What can I say... they haven't learned their lesson. And so long as they do, the same finger pointing and blaming will continue, not unlike it has for the last century and a half, not unlike it continues today.
Jun 26, 1998
At the heart of secularism is the hope that religion should slowly wither away (maybe not even slowly) and that a strong sense of goodness should not come from a fear of God or hope in salvation, but from reason, instinct, and sympathy. So Daniel (the other Daniel of course) makes a good point. Why can't people who have no religious affiliation possess a strong sense of morals? I suppose in theory this is not impossible. It sounds good on the surface, but I run into a furious contradiction when I place myself in this train of thought. Patrick Glynn explains the situation wonderfully: At the heart of this philosophy lies a kind of hidden truth we keep to ourselves. If we are alone, if there is no God/god, if our existence is, in fact, the result of random chance, then really good and evil are not absolutes; there's really no difference between right and wrong. All values are just cultural and social necessities we've set in place for the good of survival. In other words, anything goes. If this is true then survival is masquerading as "good." Good has become replaced by the desire to save one's skin, so to speak, and the only flaw from which murderers, rapists, and child molesters suffer is a severe case of social ineptness. I don't doubt that people who have no religious affiliation whatsoever can live and lead "moral" lives. But in everything they do, I question the motive of their acts. How sincere is the love, goodness, and sympathy of someone who knows that "anything goes." I wonder how long it will be before they wake up one day and realize that, in reality, it's all for nothing.
Jun 26, 1998
Just a few comments:
I can't help but recommend the Daystar site. The main purpose of the site is to sell the book 'Show me God' by Fred Heeren, but there is an on going discussion (like this one) that has a lot of good stuff on it. As a commercial site I am sure it is well publicized so it gets a lot of traffic. Although I have never read it apparently the book is about science and God and toward the end it gets specifically into Christianity. I am not pushing the book but I am pushing the discussion board. Many of the entries on the discussion board are in support of the book but there are enough differing views to keep it interesting. I would not be at all bothered to see an entry from anyone here over there. On the other hand maybe you don't want to get caught up in that 'rat race' over there (not to mention the fact that there can be some real weird entries over there), so put your thoughts here if you want to.
Occasionally someone comes along and makes a major contribution to this site... I was going to make a long drawn out speech but never mind, I'll get to the point: Thank you Daniel Ball for your excellent entries. Obviously you have done some study on the subject and I really like your attitude. It sets a good tone for my site. Thanks to every else too...
Jul 1, 1998
Human morality may be nothing more than another byproduct of natural selection. This "morality" does indeed serve our own selfish purposes. Not selfishness on a species level but as Richard Dawkins (professor of zoology, Cambridge) has shown, selfishness on the individual or genetic level. Thus human mores which may seem benevolent and philanthropic on the surface are actually just another survival strategy.
Game theorists using computer simulations have examined the concept of the "prisoners dilemma" to investigate the most successful interaction strategies among members of the same species. Without going into too much detail, the best strategy turns out to be what has been named "tit-for-tat", or cooperation with swift retaliation for those who defect, and forgiveness for those that are willing to play fair again. Since this turns out to be the best survival strategy, it isn't surprising that these are roughly the rules that many societies live by (read The Moral Animal, or The Selfish Gene for more information).
There are other reasons why helping others helps ourselves. One reason is that in our prehistoric, hunter-gatherer beginnings, most of our time would have been spent living in clans in which the majority of the other clansmen would have been blood relatives. Since relatives share a certain amount of genetic heritage, when someone saved their brother from starvation, they were really saving 50% of their own genetic code.
So how did natural selection ensure that we follow the best survival strategies for our genes? EMOTIONS.
I do not subscribe to any religious doctrine and yet I love my son very, very much. On a fundamental level, I understand WHY I love him. My love for him helps his prospects for survival, and he is 50% me. I am bound by instinct to love him. But this knowledge doesn't make my love for him any less sincere nor does it make it any less profound.
Likewise, I have a number of close friends whom I sincerely love. Having a number of loyal allies who cooperate fairly (tit-for-tat) would have been a great asset for anyone living in the hunter gatherer era. A desire to form strong extra-familial relationships is a survival strategy and is still a very powerful human instinct.
Maybe it IS all for nothing. There is no right or wrong, no good nor evil. But as humans we possess the ability to understand our predicament. Either we learn to cooperate for our best interests or we may just end up blowing ourselves to kingdom come. As an agnostic, I am not looking to any higher power to come to our rescue, to save us from ourselves. The task is ours.
Religion has not given mankind its morals. Mankind has given its morals to religion. Religion is created by and patterned after the human mind. The morals of mankind run deeper than his religion. The kindnesses of an agnostic are just as "sincere" as the morality of religion. They both have their origins in the same place - our remotest past.
Jul 1, 1998
Perhaps one of my favorite quotes from Contact is the one that people try to use against me most often when in these kinds of discussions. Palmer says, "Do you love your dad?"… "Prove it." I don't know how many people thought that this statement was the definitive argument for religion, but it seems to have a lot of followers. I would like to comment on it.
The question has no place in the conversation. Elle was telling Palmer that she would need proof of the existence of a higher power, then Palmer asks her if she loves her dad. What is he trying to say here? That a belief in God is nothing more than an emotion, or is it that God is nothing more than an emotion. I think that it is the latter. She says, prove the existence of God, he says, prove an emotion. So what does that mean, God is an emotion? That doesn't make any sense, I can understand the belief in God being emotional in nature, I can understand a love of God being emotional, but not God itself. Clearly this counter argumen signifies nothing, yet for some reason Elle is baffled by it.
So how else could this statement be used against agnostics and evolutionists like myself. I suppose that it is often pointed out that science has no explanation for emotions, I would refer these people to Christians entry just above this one. I tend to agree with the whole natural selection thing. Doesn't it make sense that everything we do, all of our morals, all of our sense of competition, love, hate, fear, pain, all of it stems from our own well being, and the protection of what we consider to be good genes, either in ourselves, family members, or friends.
Jul 1, 1998
It’s always good to hear from Christian and Daniel. As I recall you have both mentioned the evolution-morals-emotions concept before. I just purchased Contact yesterday and watch it last night. Ellie does seem baffled when Palmer says "prove it". I don’t think the issue was to prove that we have emotions. I don’t need to have faith know that I feel, but I do need faith to know that every one else feels. I saw a show on the Discovery channel (or one of those channels) about animal thought processes. They presented the dilemma that there is no way to really know what is going on in an animals mind. Palmer wanted Ellie to prove that she had emotions. There a name for this philosophy but I have forgotten it. It’s that "I think therefore I am" thing, help me out. The only thing I can really know for sure is that I exist. I know that at such an extreme this philosophy not practical. It seems like there is a point at which we have to decide what is real and what is faith.
After reading Christian’s entry I found myself wondering which of God’s commandments could I disobey and still stay in good shape from an evolutionary stand point. I came up with a few but lunch time is over, I got to go. Later.
Jul 1, 1998
Keith, I'm interested in what you said about Palmer wanting Elle to prove that she had emotions. Why did he want her to prove that? It doesn't seem to be relevant to the conversation. -Descartes "Cogito ergo sum" "I think therefore I am."-
Jul 2, 1998
Wow, you guys sure give a lot of food for thought. Daniel, I want to address what you said about Palmer's proof-of-love proposition to Ellie. But first I'd like to touch on a few things from Christian's post about morals, natural selection, et cetera. Christian: First and foremost, thanks for your post. I whole-heartedly agree that whether we walk in the presence of God, or if we dwell in his absence, man must take responsibility for himself. The task IS ours, I totally agree. God or no God.
Further, I don't often hear as good of an argument for moral awareness (based solely on secular grounds) as your above post. However, I still have trouble with the following: You said that human morality may only be another byproduct of natural selection, and you offered Richard Dawkins' selfish gene thesis as an explanation --who by the way is prof at Oxford, not Cambridge.
Unfortunately, I cannot --intellectually or otherwise-embrace this philosophy on the grounds that it has been successfully refuted by Stephen Jay Gould and Niles Eldredge with their "Punctuated Equilibrium" hypothesis. (see Reinventing Darwin). Now, before I get into this whole evolution thing, let me say for the record that, though I believe in a personal God, I also accept mainstream evolution or some kind of common decent theory (the jury is still out on that.) I DO NOT believe in "Creation-science" or 6 literal day creation, or anything of the like. So anyway, I do not make any claim to be an evolutionary biologist or even close to it, but I feel confident in accepting the Punctuated Equilibrium hypothesis over the selfish gene thesis because P. E. is better able to explain the prevalent anomalies in the fossil record which natural selection or the selfish gene cannot. (see also the endosymbiosis hypothesis-it goes a lot further to explain the presence of eukaryotic cells than natural selection could ever dream). But don't misunderstand me; I don't deny that natural selection is a real and present force in nature. Moving on.
Daniel wanted to know what Palmer meant by asking Ellie to prove she loved her father. From my Shakespeare class I am reminded of the law of quantity vrs quality, which states that any two objects existing in the physical world cannot occupy the same space; however, any two objects of "quality" can occupy the same space in our minds/hearts. It can help us understand paradoxes such as feelings of love and hate toward the same person. Applying this to Palmer's challenge, I do not think he was suggesting that God is an emotion, nor that the belief in God is an emotion. My opinion (for what it's worth) is that Palmer was merely pointing out that things exist in this world which cannot be quantified. What would we think of our spouses, friends, or family if they said "I'll love you as long as..." Christian said that he loves his son, but who does he love more, his son or his wife? The question is absurd! And what would we generally say to someone who said that love did not exist at all? Personally, I would say that he/she had not yet experienced love. Christian's love for his son "helps his [son's] prospects for survival, he is 50% [of Christian.]" But I think that Christian has achieved something beyond a basic instinct to perpetuate his genes. A true expression of love addresses the eternal self, the part of us that cannot be quantified, expanded or reduced. We love without limits, and love exists without limits. As the Jewish philosopher, Martin Buber said, "We dwell in love, but love dwells in us." And it is more than an emotion. It can be rational as much as it can be foolish; an action can prove its existence as much as a feeling can. Now, I don't know if this is a good enough explanation for the belief in God, nor would I necessarily say that this is what the film-makers were hinting at. But in this light, belief in God doesn't seem so unreasonable, does it? Just my two cents worth...
But let me shift gears for a second so I can wrap this up. Since we're talking about love, instinct, survival, etc. Why do we hear all the time about young woman who leave their children for dead in dumpsters or on the side of the road? Do they not love their children? Why are they not concerned with perpetuating the genes of their offspring? On the other hand, why are there people who seem to love more than their own kin or close friends, people they've never met? (I am reminded of the individual last year who sent the winning, million dollar McDonalds game-piece to a charity instead of keeping it for themselves.) Also, within the animal rights movement there is a strange and curious anomaly: It's not only our own species we want to protect, but our kind takes great measures to preserve and protect all species, no matter how seemingly insignificant they are. Why would there be such a strong front to stop all animal testing, even though these tests could prove helpful in the medical field? A common rebuttal to this argument is that the only reason we want to save other species is because we know that our existence is dependent on theirs. But it seems like a fair trade off-We sacrifice a few animals (preserving them at the same time by only using a FEW for testing) in order to save human lives. Yet, these animal rights groups are willing to forego any medical benefits, to sacrifice their own kind in order to save a FEW animals of another species. This doesn't seem to fit in with the selfish gene or the Punctuated Equilibrium hypothesis. But intertwined within it all is compassion, perhaps even misplaced, but compassion none the less. What I'm really asking is do we strive to save ourselves or to save the human species? Are we wired for survival or for love? The selfish gene thesis says it is to save the self, not the population. The Punctuated Equilibrium hypothesis says it is to save the population, not the individual.
I've got to dash off to class for now.
Jul 6, 1998
Daniel, First of all you are absolutely correct about Richard Dawkins being a professor at Oxford and not Cambridge (that's embarrassing!). I have read "The Blind Watchmaker" and "The Selfish Gene" By Richard Dawkins, but have not yet read anything from Stephen Jay Gould or Niles Eldredge so I may have a tendency to be overly enthusiastic about the slow-change, non-punctuated equilibrium aspects of natural selection. I will read Reinventing Darwin very soon. I am not very well aquatinted with the theory of punctuated equilibrium, yet from what little knowledge I do have on the subject it also uses the principles of natural selection to bring about beneficial adaptations - only the mutations are much greater and operate on a much smaller time frame. Yet it seems irrelevant to what I mentioned about the adaptive values of human emotions and benevolence. Either theory, selfish gene or PE could account for human morality. But if you know of a reason why PE could not, I would sincerely like to learn. One of the last chapters of "The Blind Watchmaker" entitled "Puncturing Punctuated equilibrium" attempts to dispel PE. So I think the jury is still out on that whole issue as well. Now, on to what you asked about mothers that routinely neglect their children or worse, kill them. First of all, there will always be exceptions to any rule. What I am interested in is the behavior of the great majority of people. There have been controlled studies of rats that show that when population levels rise to an overcrowded level, the mother rats stop making nests for their young and eventually stop taking care of them altogether (and sometimes eat them). When these mother rats were dissected, it was found that a number of hormones were found to be less abundant. It may be explained in terms of natural selection that since overcrowded conditions make it unlikely that the young will survive, it is in the mothers best interest to let them die and to not spend energy needlessly. This makes it more likely that the mother will survive to have a new litter once food is more abundant. Perhaps this may shed some light on what humans are doing to their own kids (it would be interesting to find out if child neglect is more likely in crowded inner-city areas). As I mentioned before, our emotions play a crucial if not sole role in our ethics. Emotions are very broad, so it is possible that for some (if not most) humans, love and compassion are not restricted for humans alone. I remember reading about a gorilla that would constantly cuddle a kitten. Did it "love" it? There are many examples of altruism and even of what we could call "love" in the animal kingdom (one book "When Elephants Weep" contains many examples). This might not be the best answer to your questions, however, keep in mind that the human brain is very complex. Natural selection may have given us the general structure of our brains, but environmental factors can alter our perceptions and even our emotions. This ability of our brains to adapt to different environments and cultures is why we have been so successful as a species.
Jul 10, 1998
Christian, I don't think that the inner city child neglect rout is the right way to go. I think that the rats that you mentioned were neglecting and even killing their young because they could not provide for them due to the overpopulation and lack of resources. I do not necessarily believe that it is overpopulation that causes this in humans, I do think that it is the same lack of ability to provide for our young, though. I think that you would find that most of the cases that Daniel Ball was referring to dealing with child neglect, happen in situations where the parents of that child feel it difficult or impossible to provide for their children, much as the rats did.
Daniel Ball, I think, after your last entry, that you have given me more to think about (in an opposing viewpoint) than any other entry on this page. Your explanation for Palmer's usage of the proof of love opened my eyes. In addition, I thought that the child neglect example was an excellent counter argument to Christian's last entry. I appreciate your input on this page. But I have to side with Christian on this point. Natural selection and evolutionary mutation go a long way to describing human emotions and traits. Most of your arguments have been addressed, but I would like to talk about the human compassion that you refer to, and you thoughts on the proof of love statement in Contact.
These animal activists that you refer to are very different to figure out. I don't think that they should be dismissed offhand. Human compassion has changed quite a bit throughout our evolution. When we were cavemen, I believe that we would have killed almost anything for food. Over the years we learned how not to kill so many animals, so that we could stop chasing them across continents. These days only select people kill the animals that so many of us eat. I think that if many of the people now that eat out at McDonalds or have bacon in the morning were forced to kill their own food they may have trouble doing so, at least I think that McDonalds would be slightly less popular. This is because animals have become personified to a great extent within the last hundred years. I think that this is, in part, the reason why we have so many animal rights groups. To some extent, animal rights groups have a real necessity, from a gene pool point of view. We have learned a great deal from animals, and the more species that we can keep from becoming extinct, the greater the gene pool. Every species of animal has an important role in our environment. At least that's what I was told in elementary school, except fire ants, which I see a lot of. I believe that even humans cannot consider themselves above the food chain. So I think that whether or not they are aware of it, animal rights activists are very helpful in this aspect. It needs to be done with moderation, though.
Now for this proof of love thing... Human emotions are certainly something that we are not able to prove right now, but I don't think that it's going to be too long before we can. Everything that we do has some sort of manifestation in our brains. Scientists have even been able to discover why we dream. Emotions have a rational explanation, both chemically and logically. God, also has a rational explanation logically, not chemically. People need God, they need to feel that it exists. I'm not advocating that there is no supreme being, that would undermine everything that I stand for, there certainly is a possibility. But there is not proof, and I think that there should be for a person to have such a strong belief. In addition, I think that it's completely unfounded to believe that not only does a supreme being exist, but it exists exactly as was written in the Bible. I continue to feel that the argument for the proof of love has no foundation in that conversation between Palmer and Elle.