Atheism And Moral Progress

[seer]

Still wrong.

That is merely an assertion...

[Electric Skeptic]

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.

Still wrong.

[seer]

Which is completely irrelevant. Do I have to (again) quote my own earlier statement? "Biology (i.e, natural selection) always aims for survival (as far as a natural process can be said to 'aim' at anything)".

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.

[seer]

Of course biology doesn't care. To speak as if it cares is anthropomorphizing, which we all tend to do from time to time.

Then we agree that biology aims at nothing.

[Electric Skeptic]

But your team has a mental intention to win. There is no such intention in biology.

Which is completely irrelevant. Do I have to (again) quote my own earlier statement? "Biology (i.e, natural selection) always aims for survival (as far as a natural process can be said to 'aim' at anything)".

[Stoic]

So biology aims that some should survive and others not? I didn't think biology cared - silly me.

Of course biology doesn't care. To speak as if it cares is anthropomorphizing, which we all tend to do from time to time.

[Stoic]

There are some pretty clever animals out there, they build things, use tools and like my dog, problem solve. Is that any more than instinctual?

Not according to your definition of "instinctual", but as I said, yours is not a commonly accepted definition.

Some animals have learned behaviors. I don't consider such behaviors to be instinctual, because I prefer commonly accepted definitions.

[seer]

It makes perfect sense. What word are you having trouble with?

What does the result have to do with what something aims for? My favourite football team aims to win every game - this season they went 3 and 17. Could I say "in what sense to they aim to win when the majority of their games, they lose"?

But your team has a mental intention to win. There is no such intention in biology.

[seer]

But back to your definition of "instinctual." If any behavior that is not driven by "immaterial" conceptual truths, thoughts or fact is "instinctual", then yes, all behavior is "instinctual." But that is not a commonly accepted definition.

There are some pretty clever animals out there, they build things, use tools and like my dog, problem solve. Is that any more than instinctual?

[seer]

That's just another way of saying that biology tends to get rid of the species that aren't so good at surviving.

So biology aims that some should survive and others not? I didn't think biology cared - silly me.

[Electric Skeptic]

All you have to do is link the post.

I'm (still) not interested in playing your "show me where" game.

[Electric Skeptic]

Sorry that makes no sense, in what way does biology aim for survival when the majority of species have gone extinct?

It makes perfect sense. What word are you having trouble with?

What does the result have to do with what something aims for? My favourite football team aims to win every game - this season they went 3 and 17. Could I say "in what sense to they aim to win when the majority of their games, they lose"?

[Stoic]

Sorry that makes no sense, in what way does biology aim for survival when the majority of species have gone extinct?

That's just another way of saying that biology tends to get rid of the species that aren't so good at surviving.

[Stoic]

I would define it as what is biologically driven. Rather than what is driven by immaterial conceptual truths, thoughts or fact. Because I don't see how a materialist could hold to any position but epiphenomenalism.

I'm not an expert in philosophy, but my understanding is that epiphenomenalism is a type of dualism, whereas materialism (more recently physicalism) is a type of monism. So I don't really think a materialist could hold to epiphenomenalism.

But back to your definition of "instinctual." If any behavior that is not driven by "immaterial" conceptual truths, thoughts or fact is "instinctual", then yes, all behavior is "instinctual." But that is not a commonly accepted definition.

[seer]

What there is, is the evolved intellectual capacity to categorize ‘acceptable’ and ‘unacceptable’ behavior as a moral code so as to promote our survival as a communal species.

And why isn't intellectual capacity just as instinctual as anything else? You are a materialist and determinist correct?

Biology predisposes evolved creatures via Natural Selection to behave so as to survive. The fact that 99% of creatures throughout natural history are now extinct (great Intelligent Design BTW <sarcasm>) does not alter the attempts of living creatures to survive despite all odds being against them. Ever tried to swat a fly?

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.

“Our tribe slaughtering a neighboring tribe and taking all their stuff” is what humans have done throughout history – including, notably, the Christian colonialists. But, given that much of the bible can be made to reinforce what the society of the day believes at any given period of history, immoral behavior such as this has been rationalized.

The question is why is that immoral? It certainly isn't for the tribes that win. You are not making sense.