Leaderboard

@rkbabangyeah thats an interesting thought and IMO makes perfect sense...potential for behaviors/traits to develop and pass along through the generations that are not necessarily a positive contributing to advancement and "selected" to lead and continue...but also not bad enough to be weeded out. Interesting to think about where that "line" might be and maybe those things/traits that arent a hard NO for advancement, but also arent a strong YES will eventually fall off, but maybe it just takes longer to weed out. I dont know if you are familiar with the Russian farm fox experiment, I first read about it in a big article in National Geographic many years ago. The interesting thing to me, and what made me think about and remember this was what you said about insignificant side effects or unintended results that arent a game changer either way...showing up. And thats exactly what has happened with these fox. Breeding based ONLY on level of tameness, and the continuation and encouragement of that trait alone. But other traits that were "insignificant" but shared with current domesticated dogs started showing up. Changes in color of the coat, ears started drooping, tails started curling, craniofacial morphology, the face of the fox started to change to a more juvenile look. -For the last 59 years (2018) a team of Russian geneticists led by Lyudmila Trut have been running one of the most important biology experiments of the 20th, and now 21st, century. The experiment was the brainchild of Trut’s mentor, Dmitri Belyaev, who, in 1959, began an experiment to study the process of domestication -Every generation he and his team would test hundreds of foxes, and the top 10% of the tamest would be selected to parent the next generation. They developed a scale for scoring tameness, and how a fox scored on this scale was the sole criteria for selecting foxes to parent the next generation. -Belyaev knew that many domesticated species share a suite of characteristics including floppy ears, short, curly tails, juvenilized facial and body features, reduced stress hormone levels, mottled fur, and relatively long reproductive seasons. Today this suite of traits is known as the domestication syndrome. Belyaev found this perplexing. Our ancestors had domesticated species for a plethora of reasons—including transportation (e.g., horses), food (e.g., cattle) and protection (e.g., dogs)—yet regardless of what they were selected for, domesticated species, over time, begin to display traits in the domestication syndrome. Why? Belyaev hypothesized that the one thing our ancestors always needed in a species they were domesticating was an animal that interacted prosocially with humans. We can’t have our domesticates-to-be trying to bite our heads off. And so he hypothesized that the early stages of all animal domestication events involved choosing the calmest, most prosocial-toward-human animals: I will refer to this trait as tameness, though that term is used in many different ways in the literature. Belyaev further hypothesized that all of the traits in the domestication syndrome were somehow or another, though he didn’t know how or why, genetically linked to genes associated with tameness. -Belyaev was correct that selection on tameness alone leads to the emergence of traits in the domestication syndrome. In less than a decade, some of the domesticated foxes had floppy ears and curly tails (Fig. 2). Their stress hormone levels by generation 15 were about half the stress hormone (glucocorticoid) levels of wild foxes. Over generations, their adrenal gland became smaller and smaller. Serotonin levels also increased, producing “happier” animals. Over the course of the experiment, researchers also found the domesticated foxes displayed mottled “mutt-like” fur patterns, and they had more juvenilized facial features (shorter, rounder, more dog-like snouts) and body shapes (chunkier, rather than gracile limbs) (Fig. 3). Domesticated foxes like many domesticated animals, have longer reproductive periods than their wild progenitors. Anyway, some of that is basically what I was trying to say regarding horses. And the insignificant traits in the fox could also have similarities in humans. If you understand these basics, the concept that the SAME thing is/has happened to humans over thousands of years, IMO it makes more sense. The article goes into more detail regarding explanation of genetics, brain chemistry if you want to look into it further. I find it really fascinating. https://evolution-outreach.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12052-018-0090-x

I think if you believe in God, you may as well believe in Santa Claus. You don't need god for anything - how life started out, to explain the Universe, or the foundation of ethics. Santa Claus is a convenient and comfortable belief for 4 year old and god or religion is convenient and comforting belief for adults. I also think ethics are developed evolutionary both on a biological as well as on a societal level. For example it is human (or mamal) instinct to care for our young, because it makes evolutionary sense to do so. If we would be a species that is programmed (by evolution) to eat the weak younglings to let the strong survive, the ethics of a society that this species develops, would likely indeed condone and reward this practice.

https://moralfoundations.org/ Jonathan Haidt has some interesting theories and research, covered in brief on that page but in more depth in his book "The Righteous Mind: Why Good People are Divided by Politics and Religion" The gist of it is that evolution baked into us a basic framework of "moral taste buds" -- we can tell when something is fundamentally unfair, or when someone is being disloyal or cheating, etc. Troops of monkeys with an overly vicious alpha will naturally form a coalition to do away with the tyrant. Sic semper tyrannis, since before humans walked the earth. I remember hearing about a study with monkeys where two monkeys are separated but they can see each other, and they each have to do the same task in order to get a reward. The first monkey is given some grapes, a favorite food for them. The second monkey sees this. Then the second monkey is given some cucumber slices instead of grapes for its reward. The second monkey brain must emotionally be screaming "UNFAIR!" because it takes the cucumber slices and throws them in the face of the lab tech. Being able to detect when things seem fair will tend to lead toward survival of the group, so genes which help us detect fair treatment have been kindly baked in through evolution, or they're god-given by his/her magnificent evolutionary process. We've got a lot of pro-social genetic behaviors baked in like that. We experience a thing called "Elevation Emotion" when we witness acts of moral beauty. Just witness this pizza delivery guy who saved a bunch of kids from a burning house and try not to feel elevation emotion. That feeling is baked in to most of us (minus perhaps the psychopaths) But that's just the beginning. Biological evolution gets you to cave man level where life is pretty much like the Hobbes quote "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short." Then comes the cultural dynamics. By the power of language we have shared stories and myths. Using these shared stories, we humans have been improving on our genetic hardware by installing new moral ideas as software "Necktop Apps" (Daniel Dennett's fun term) ... we build agreed sets of guidelines and hard rules for the really important stuff ... but it has morphed over time. We have evidence that very ancient people used to kill children and bury them under the foundation stones of new dwellings. Perhaps their gods told them that it helped ward off evil spirits. Warding of evil spirits was an important concern through the ages. People in England during Shakespeare's time would put three big scratch marks on their fireplace mantles to repel witches who might otherwise descend into the house through the chimney. Even up through the middle 1800s in American folk religious belief, people used "Lamen parchments" with religious power words on them like "Tetragrammaton" and seven pointed stars and funky line drawings, and amulets on necklaces and coin shaped talismans. Why did they stop sacrificing kids? In the Abrahamic tradition it's arguable that they stopped because of the story of Abraham and Isaac and the ancient interpretation which is essentially: "This story proves it's okay to stop killing kids, and kill rams and sheep instead." To our modern minds it is so far out of context that it just looks like Abraham had a psychotic break and turned murderous on his kid. Just because something is "made up" as you say, it doesn't mean it has no power. Money is "made up" and yet Osama Bin Laden, a great hater of all things USA, had suitcases full of dollars. Why? Because if everyone else in the world agrees that you can trade suitcases full of green paper for real physical goods, then it's real. The superpower of humans is our ability to have millions or billions of people share the same ideas and act according to them. Take the story of Job in the Old Testament. I don't think that guy really existed and I don't think god and satan placed bets on how far he could be pushed, etc. But whether or not Job was a real person is like the least interesting question you could ask about the text. The interesting questions are along the lines of, "What were the authors grappling with and how did this story serve their community? What can we learn from the story?" Can anyone name one single way in which the story of Job is _more_ powerful if there is a real human versus an allegory. Our lives are uncertain and temporary. Against this backdrop, the human mind craves certainties. I admit I grew up believing Job was a totally real person, but I find the story so much more interesting when I'm not painted into that corner of believing an all powerful being did a good guy so dirty just because of a bet. There are plenty of hints that Job wasn't real, by the way, which is why I changed my mind. (There are multiple different endings to the story right there in the text of the old testament, for example -- and this is a pretty good indication that some editing was taking place.) One more way to look at it: Aesops Fable of the Tortoise and Hare. Does the power of that fable derive from the fact that a real tortoise one day had a race with a hare and won because he kept at it slow and steady? Nope. But when you're having a hard slog of it one day, you might remember the old story and feel a bit of inspiration to just keep plugging away at your task and eventually complete it. The inspiration came from the story, not from a literal physical race. At least when the atheists think there's a right thing to do they can be expected to give you their rationale. Because they aren't leaning their moral authority against the idea of a god, they basically _have to_ back up their arguments and try to be convincing. On the other hand, I have often experienced an exasperating form of know-it-all-ism where religionists think they get to declare "This is what is right, both for me and for you. Because god." And then they walk off like they think they just dropped the mic. I don't think any human deserves that much unquestioned loyalty. That kind of environment would be an incubator for religious tyrants. When you boil it all down, why would you say our sense of morality needs to be founded on a god, I mean the kind that exists even when nobody believes in him/her? Why does that provide anything better than what we've got which is a set of moral rules that have evolved with our civilizations? If there really does exist an unambiguous Absolute Morality with a real god backing it up, then which god is it and what are the North Star rules? And more to the point, why would those rules be _more_ valid if the god is real?

Morality evolved because it is what is necessary for the majority to adhere to for civilization to progress. Its the natural result of thousands of years of trial and error. To have a functioning, progressing society, the major moral pillars are necessary and they were figured out years ago and passed down as a blueprint for what works. Call it natural selection, evolution, whatever, the winners survive, the losers dont. Lets look at it from a different angle, rather than "morality" ie no stealing, no killing etc etc lets just look at the most basic survival. You have a "tribe" that lives in the northernmost part of the globe, the inughuit, formerly known as "polar eskimos" they are a group of Inuit. For this example let these folks represent ALL of humanity. This tribe is split down the middle, half of the tribe wants to hunt/gather/work together and make shelter to escape the elements (let this represent acting "morally" as most would define it today). The other half of the tribe doesnt make shelter from the elements a priority, doesnt hunt/gather to store food and refuses to work together to accomplish these things for the good of all of their half of the tribe (let this behavior represent acting immorally). Without a supernatural being telling this tribe that they should store food/shelter themselves from the severe elements and work together...it works itself out. Those who figure out what "works" (what is moral) survive and continue, learn, work together and progress and those who do not, probably die or see what they are doing isnt working, the other half of the tribe has a better quality of life, so they change and adapt behavior proven to work. You put a group of people together, some believe "anything goes" and they steal, rob, kill and behave in all sorts of immoral ways. This becomes absolute turmoil, and the other half of the group says, hey, these guys are a pain, we cant get anything done, they're wrecking everything we have worked hard for etc and they are outcast, killed, or maybe they just dont survive because rather than helping their neighbor, conducting commerce honestly, working hard, they are out throwing a wrench in everything productive and structured, so they fail...the "good/moral" group flourishes and progresses either ending the bad group (maybe they are outcast and cant survive without working together, maybe they are killed) or the "moral" group just surpasses them by such a large margin that the bad group becomes insignificant or alters behavior to mimic what works. Divine intervention isnt needed for this to happen, it would happen naturally. Nazis, honor killings dont last because that isnt what progresses civilization. You cant have a tyrant attempting genocide that lasts for very long before the rest of the group (on earth) says HEY! You're F*ing up a good thing here! And throwing a wrench in the normal balance of things and stops it. A group that continually kills for honor, pretty soon doesnt have people left to kill, fizzles out, people figure out that doesnt work, and that idea/belief/experiment is found to be faulty and falls by the wayside. Civilization adapts/learns...and progresses without those extreme beliefs/ideas. This has been evident throughout history. Extreme views fizzle out when they upset the status quo. Humans crave stasis/equilibrium, we want to be comfortable, and severely "immoral" behavior is not conducive to what has allowed civilization to progress this far. Thats why I think its funny that people too often people add unnecessary complexity to a topic and it makes for less rational thinking. The above is the most rational explanation for morality "aka rules/guidelines how we should live, what works". The idea that there is an all powerful being that previously made himself accessible or presented himself (depending on what you believe) to everyday common folks regularly, provided these "guidelines/rules" and then disappeared for thousands of years just isnt logical. If there is one true religion, and one all powerful being that wants people to live a certain way, then why the mystery? If humans have free will, why nothing recent? Why not regular interaction (present day) so that there was not 1000's of interpretations all claiming to know unequivocally the "right/true" answer. Just lay it out there...do this, no secrets, no confusion...do it or dont, your choice but no guessing. Why the stark difference in temperament between the new testament and the old. "God is love" but trolls Abraham to slit the throat of his son and then burn the body. Pretty messed up really. If there was a cult leader today that told a follower to trick his son to go with him up on a mountain, then tie him up, lay him down on an alter, put sticks on his chest and just as he is about to slit the poor kids throat, the cult leader is like...WHOA dont do it...yeah I was just kidding, just wanted to see if you would really do it man. What is moral about that? You'd think the guy was pretty sick. And what about Isaac, imagine you're a young boy, your hero, your dad, wants a male bonding camping trip up on a mountain, and you're excited...you get up there and he jumps you, ties you up, puts you on an alter, and walks over with a torch and a knife, by this time you're freaking out, probably pleading with your dad. Dad! What are you doing! You said we were going camping! I love you! Your dad raises the knife up above you, laying there, tied up, vulnerable, cant move, crying and just as Dad is about to deliver the death blow, stops...says he heard a voice tell him not to do it. Takes the rope off you, helps you hop off the alter and says...alright! lets camp! How would that affect your relationship with your dad? How would that traumatize you. You would either never speak to him again, run away, or think that your dad was a schizophrenic psychopath. Genesis 22 1 Some time later God tested Abraham. He said to him, "Abraham!" "Here I am," he replied. 2 Then God said, "Take your son, your only son, Isaac, whom you love, and go to the region of Moriah. Sacrifice him there as a burnt offering on one of the mountains I will tell you about." 3 Early the next morning Abraham got up and saddled his donkey. He took with him two of his servants and his son Isaac. When he had cut enough wood for the burnt offering, he set out for the place God had told him about. 4 On the third day Abraham looked up and saw the place in the distance. 5 He said to his servants, "Stay here with the donkey while I and the boy go over there. We will worship and then we will come back to you." (Doesnt tell these two guys what he is up to) 6 Abraham took the wood for the burnt offering and placed it on his son Isaac, and he himself carried the fire and the knife. As the two of them went on together, 7 Isaac spoke up and said to his father Abraham, "Father?" "Yes, my son?" Abraham replied. "The fire and wood are here," Isaac said, "but where is the lamb for the burnt offering?" (Wait a sec, somethings not right here!) 8 Abraham answered, "God himself will provide the lamb for the burnt offering, my son." And the two of them went on together. (Not telling Isaac what he's in for) 9 When they reached the place God had told him about, Abraham built an altar there and arranged the wood on it. He bound his son Isaac and laid him on the altar, on top of the wood. 10 Then he reached out his hand and took the knife to slay his son. 11 But the angel of the LORD called out to him from heaven, "Abraham! Abraham!" "Here I am," he replied. 12 "Do not lay a hand on the boy," he said. "Do not do anything to him. Now I know that you fear God, because you have not withheld from me your son, your only son." What about 2 Kings 2:24? Some "small boys" tease an old guy for being bald, he cant take a joke and asks God to take care of these punks, so he sends 2 female bears to tare 42 (FORTY TWO) to shreds...maul them! What is moral about that? Plenty of other examples in the Bible of behavior that anybody today would call irrational and immoral. I can acknowledge proof of intelligent design. I dont think this entire set up (nature, math, galaxy, human body systems) came about via an accident, but if there is/was a grand architect, they seem to have grown bored with the project and moved on to something else. And maybe, the work is done, maybe the sand castle is built, and it was never meant for anything more than to enjoy for a bit and then for the tide to come in and wash it away, maybe its just an experiment to see how long it takes. You have billions of people for thousands of years pleading with a supernatural being for help and leadership. "They kingdom come, they will be done on earth, as it is in heaven." H E L P U S !!! Man cant rule himself, govern us. Put an end to this suffering, we're struggling, you created all this, its a mess, please fix it, we want you to fix it! Nothing...crickets. All the problems in the world, the struggles of mankind and nothing...but he wants you to honor your father and your mother, only pray to him for help, dont use his name in vain when the help doesnt come and remember the day he took a break. Why? EDITED: Seems like Richard and I share the same sentiment and he was faster on the draw/submit button.