In
article <a6irdv$10p$1@helle.btinternet.com>,
"Alan" <alan@nospam.com>
wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I have a few questions for any willing atheists.
>
> If we have a conscience, to benefit society (which is the
only evolutionary
> explanation),
"Society"
doesn't enter into it. Any benefit,
is derived by the
individual
- this is what self-interest is.
However, humans are (in
broad
terms) pack animals; we are social critters - and since we can
think in
the abstract and reason out consequences, the benefit of
self-interest
doesn't have to be directly aimed at the individual.
> then why do we not kill ourselves if we are a burden on it?
> (I.e. physically/mentally disabled people.)
Many do
just that - they kill themselves, for whatever reason. But most
people
are genetically programmed to survive.
> If we have a conscience to benefit ourselves, then why do we
care what
> happens to society? I.e. If we can get on well in this life
then why do we
> care about others?
See
above. We are not governed by our
instincts - it is possible to
gain a
benefit indirectly. You call it
conscience - *I* call it
_enlightened_
self-interest.
> How is a standard of conduct created?
>
> If we do wrong, why do we feel guilt?
Guilt is
societal.
> Surely that just gets in the way of
> survival/reproduction?
How
so? You've not provided any
examples. For a reasoning being,
personal
survival can be overridden, as can the instinct to breed. I
(for
instance) will never have children - this was a conscious decision
on my
part - and I can envision several scenarios in which I would be
willing
to die to serve a specific goal.
> Being sad inhibits survival.
Supposition
on your part. How do you figure?
What's your argument for
this?
> People become suicidal, they cut themselves,
> why do traits that cause people to get depressed not die
out?
Medical
science. Faulty culture.
> People die to save others (e.g. Soldiers, Fire fighters).
People help
> animals. They are not passing on, or protecting their blood
line. So why do
> genes and memes that cause this kind of self sacrifice not
die out?
First,
memes have not been proven to exist (I think they do, but I *may*
be
wrong), so we'll leave them out of this argument, ok?
This goes
back to the fact that we can reason out consequences and
judge
risks.
> How can we evolve social conduct to protect society?
Evolution is blind, it
> does not see the bigger picture. When new situations occur,
new technologies
> etc are found, people respond with foresight, something
which evolution does
> not have.
But
evolution has bred it into us, by giving humans the ability to
forecast,
to reason, and to abstract.
> For example, when knives where first discovered, people could
have done a
> number of things.
> Two examples are:
>
> A) Use knives to kill animals prepare food etc.
> B) Use knives to kill people, and steal their food, gain
territory etc.
>
> If some people choose A and some people choose B. B is
easier,
Is
it? What makes you think so? People are *far* harder to kill than
animals,
and much, much more dangerous if you fail to do so.
> therefore
> evolution would select B would get rid of A, then when A was
gone B would
> die out.
You are
assuming the validity of your arguments without really testing
them to
see if they are valid.
> I cannot understand how anyone can believe blind evolution
can account for
> these seemingly illogical morals people have. To me there
must be some kind
> of higher force at work to guide us from savagery to
civilization.
That's
entirely you problem, and your delusion.
> Can anyone account for morals with natural explanations?
See
above.
> I am not a troll and am genuinely interested.
In that
light, I've responded politely. I give you no more than 50%
likelihood
of answering intelligibly.