Atheism And Moral Progress

[seer]

Survival of the fittest is the opposite to blind luck.

It is not blind luck that some species survive and others don't? And where did this ability - survival of the fittest - come from? Did that ability come about by blind luck?

[thormas]

Survival of the fittest is the opposite to blind luck.

But even the fittest among us are subject to happenstance.

[Electric Skeptic]

How is it not blind luck? Be specific please.

Survival of the fittest is the opposite to blind luck.

[seer]

No, the point is that it is not blind luck as you repeatedly claim.

How is it not blind luck? Be specific please.

[Electric Skeptic]

That is the point - you can't apply decision to mindless processes. Or aim or direction. These require intellectual fore though.

No, the point is that it is not blind luck as you repeatedly claim.

[seer]

I'm sorry but, again, you're wrong. There is always a 'decision' for survival - again, as far as 'decision' can be applied to a natural biological process.

That is the point - you can't apply decision to mindless processes. Or aim or direction. These require intellectual fore though.

[Electric Skeptic]

Yes, and I know that there is no direction in evolution, no aim, no decision for or against survival. Some species just get lucky and other don't.

I'm sorry but, again, you're wrong. There is always a 'decision' for survival - again, as far as 'decision' can be applied to a natural biological process.

[seer]

It’s “immoral” because society says it is. You seem to think that there are absolute moral values floating around in a realm of Platonic forms that have to be adhered to. There is no good reason to think that ‘morality’ exists separate from man-made communal rules of behavior. Morals have demonstrably evolved and varied from culture to culture over time – including in religious cultures.

That makes no sense, the society or tribe that defeats the other tribe and takes their stuff does not believe their acts are immoral. You saying otherwise has no meaning.

[seer]

Do you know nothing about evolution? About Darwin's theory? About survival of the fittest? About Malthus?

Yes, and I know that there is no direction in evolution, no aim, no decision for or against survival. Some species just get lucky and other don't.

[seer]

If by "some species just get lucky" you include that some species just happen to develop adaptations that make them more likely to survive in the environment they inhabit, then I guess that's true.

(Of course, some just get unlucky, and have their environment destroyed by some catastrophe, like asteroids, massive volcanoes, or humanity.)

Good we agree...

[Tassman]

And why isn't intellectual capacity just as instinctual as anything else?

“Intellectual capacity” has evolved in some species for the same reason that Natural Selection has favored every other successful mutation over the eons. Namely, to promote survival . Cockroaches have done particularly well.

Well obviously it didn't work well for 99% of all species. It is more correct to say that some species get lucky and others don't. There is no over all biological aim for survival.

It works well enough for as long as conditions on Earth are able to sustain particular life forms. After all, life has evolved to fit the prevailing conditions, NOT the other way around. Conversely, it doesn’t say much for ‘Intelligent Design” that 99% of all species have gone extinct. What a failure. for your creator god.

The question is why is that immoral? It certainly isn't for the tribes that win.

It’s “immoral” because society says it is. You seem to think that there are absolute moral values floating around in a realm of Platonic forms that have to be adhered to. There is no good reason to think that ‘morality’ exists separate from man-made communal rules of behavior. Morals have demonstrably evolved and varied from culture to culture over time – including in religious cultures.

[Electric Skeptic]

How exactly? How is it anymore than some species get lucky and others don't? What else is there?

Do you know nothing about evolution? About Darwin's theory? About survival of the fittest? About Malthus?

[Stoic]

So your analogy doesn't work. Biology does not aim or seek anything. It doesn't care, intend or act. Some species just get lucky and others, most, don't.

If by "some species just get lucky" you include that some species just happen to develop adaptations that make them more likely to survive in the environment they inhabit, then I guess that's true.

(Of course, some just get unlucky, and have their environment destroyed by some catastrophe, like asteroids, massive volcanoes, or humanity.)

[seer]

A correct assertion.

How exactly? How is it anymore than some species get lucky and others don't? What else is there?

[Electric Skeptic]

That is merely an assertion...

A correct assertion.