I usually just buy the magazine every now and again, so haven’t read the full article, but it sounds very interesting
[newscientist.com]
How biology, not religion, gave humans morals.
We must collectively advance the evidence and non evidence of nothing exists that is god or God.
Just fed up of saying it doesn't exist.
Now enter, science.
Funny, I seldom have the conversation. Recently felt a bit rude talking about being non religious when a Muslim colleague was present. But that’s life, I didn’t mean any disrespect, but it is still true that I have no faith.
We are bio- organisms first, not a slave from God. Survival is first. Since all animals love, the Religious have a lot to learn about unconditional love. God wants your own your soul, that is far beyond sharing love.
Cooperation and sacrifice for the tribe, pack, troupe, flock..... seems to me to reflect the highest of survival instincts.
The article seemed like an advertisement trap, didn't read all, but from your comment: "...biology, not religion gave people morals."
Biology - the study of living organisms, divided into many specialized fields that cover their morphology, physiology, anatomy, behavior, origin, and distribution.
Religion ... pure and faultless is this: to help widows and orphans in need and avoiding worldly corruption. James 1:27
Moral - a lesson, especially one concerning what is right or prudent, that can be derived from a story, a piece of information, or an experience.
Explain to me how biology the "study of living organisms etc." would promote religion "helping widows etc." which is principles of "moral right ...from information, etc. "things to do.
No you’re ok, it was just interesting that scientists are coming up with this kind of thing, I thought. I’m not interested in writing an essay explaining it. But thanks for the option but it’s not about biology promoting religion, it’s saying people are decent regardless.
Our biological evolution found that co-operative behavior is much more survival prone than competitive behavior.
Human evolution did not stop at biology, it shifted to social evolution and technological evolution, and our biological evolution enabled that. When we are co-operative we can and do overcome huge problems, like survivors of a Tsunami, we then set all thingsaside (social norms) to simply help other humans.
The notion of personal success and of competing among ourselves in order to either own or control more arises out of personal greed for power and wealth, and society has yet to evolve beyond that. In fact we hold up those with the most as if that makes them a role model all by itself, sometimes willfully ignoring the bodies of those they exploited at their feet.
Like the old Joke "The person who dies with the most toys wins"
never seemed funny to me, true for much of the world, not too humorous.
Seems to me that the person who spent the most time doing what they loved and enjoiyed won, on the personal level.
That selfful, egotistical idea of "What I deserve (want)" drives our whole damn economy, so do not expect it anytime soon, we have created an annual festival of greed in my lifetime, we call it "Black Friday" and I imagine most of you eploited it in some way.
I’ve found some people and cultures are more selfish than others, some parts of culture/ families even have a greater sense of mateship. I general enjoy doing my bit to make the world go around, but am not over ambitious about it.
@girlwithsmiles I agree cultural varience can be dynamicly different, evolved due to circumstance need, and whomever held power . . .
@Davesnothere I think there’s a new way of looking, possibly pushed by the ecological issues, of certain people in affluent societies asking what they can do without. Some living without money.
It’s tempered by those using their affluence to drink wine and eat what were seen as luxury foods daily though. But I’m getting off the subject now!
Such great morals from religions caused millions of deaths, crusades, inquisition, religious cleansing, protected pedophile priests, inti fadas, terror, and the lust goes on and on per omnia secula seculorum! Spare me of their fucking morals please.
It’s saying morality isn’t limited to religion, that it has developed in animals despite of religion.
I think you may have got the wrong end of the stick. Sorry
@girlwithsmiles by saying "isn't limited to religion" proves my point. Religions have no morals.
@Mofo1953, ‘thou shalt not kill’ sounds like a moral to me. We’ll just have to agree to disagree.
@girlwithsmiles the real question is do they follow it? Millions of deaths caused by religions tells me they are fucking hypocrites, sorry but I wholeheartedly disagree.
You’re changing the goal posts again!
@girlwithsmiles nope, all in line with my original comment if you care to read it.
@Mofo1953 I thought we had moved, but you’re insistent on linking in your dislike of religion? Well it’s a great site for it, knock yourself out.
@girlwithsmiles definitely and obviously.
Altruism is evident in most animal species and even in plants, which share their nutrition with each other, even after the tree or plant is cut down. For people to think altruism is unique to highly intelligent, or human species is old human-centric thinking.
Theist claim morals are objective, and they come from god. If morals come from god, then they are subjective. If morals are objective, then everyone would know them, and no god or human laws would be required.
Parents and religion start teaching behaviour and acceptance of it at such a young age I think it would be very difficult to do a nature nurture comparison.
I do know atheists that have more exacting morals than most though. I’ve never met an atheist who’s used it as a reason to commit a crime; you just have to see the Penn, ‘I’ve murdered and raped everyone I’ve wanted to’ radio segment. (On YouTube and already posted elsewhere on site.)
What I do know is that some people lack social skills or empathy and that makes them a slightly different kettle of fish when it comes to morals.
Well it only makes rational sense that in 'communal animals such as humans, etc, the preservation of the group as a whole depends solely upon the group being morally and ethically bound together.
Most animals will protect and defend their off-spring until those off-spring are old enough to be able to fend for themselves, humans, well the majority of us anyway, will do the same but we extend that to even when our off-spring have grown way beyond the needs for us to protect and defend them, our moral codes and ethics have developed over thousands, if not millions, of years, they did NOT just suddenly come into being because of some arcane, archaic collection of stories and tales written down in the last 1,600+ years.
And then there are the interbreed young rearing stories and tendency to care for animals too.
I keep an eye out for other people too and help them where possible, I think you’re right.
Stephan Jay Gould, pre-eminant evolutionary biologist, discussed the appearance and role of altruism in organisms as related to evolutionary theory. It does occur in organism besides humans, but is rare as opposed to other behaviors. Generally altruism is mal-aladaptive for the host species.
I've read numerous articles on passing on altruistic genes and how they support survival if a group.