Is any good on an evolutionists side?

[Wootah]

A thought bubble from me: An evolutionist will be on my side when they realise there is no good on their side.

Is there any good on the evolutionist's side?

[Purple Knight]

A thought bubble from me: An evolutionist will be on my side when they realise there is no good on their side.

Is there any good on the evolutionist's side?

Yes and no.

If by good you mean the idea that people should be meek, totally altruistic, sacrifice themselves for murderers and rapists, gain nothing by it not even genetic success, and that's moral, then yes, the religious side wins that one 100%.

If by good you mean reciprocity, the Golden Rule (think how well a population that follows this succeeds over one that does not), and sacrificing ourselves for our children, there's every reason to believe this is something Nature selects for.

I can understand thinking that if there's an evolutionary reason behind something, that makes it not good. I concede thinking this myself. In an evolutionist's view, good doesn't go beyond genetic interest and it's almost a synonym for selfishness. When you concede that we are our genes, it is selfishness.

But the modern world is full of the first sort of morality, the higher morality, demanding more and more in terms of non-reciprocated sacrifice and even genetic altruism - favouring genetic unlikes over genetic likes - and the more it does this, the less I like living in it. The more the world demands purity of altruism, the more it demands that we accept punishment or scorn for doing the right thing, the more it shames us as SELFISH SELFISH SELFISH for wanting even acknowledgement when we make such a sacrifice, the more I hate this moral world. We would all be better off, if the second sort of good was called good, and nobody thought there was anything higher. It's genetic selfishness, which sometimes lets people be altruistic to their loved ones. I think it's a good place to stop. I don't think humanity is ready for more, and if we pretend so, we're going to end up with less. Sometimes you can get the little fish, and if you go for the big one, you'll end up empty-handed.

[TRANSPONDER]

Evolution is not always nice. It is not always good. It produces solutions to environmental challenges to survival. They are not always nice. But they are what they are, and on evidence they are true. Christians and any who ascribe this nasty (often) stuff to their deities have to deal with this problem, either by blaming it on man, or just ignoring it. Evolution doesn't. It doesn't claim it to be Good, in the moral sense, just how it happened.

[Purple Knight]

Evolution is not always nice. It is not always good. It produces solutions to environmental challenges to survival. They are not always nice. But they are what they are, and on evidence they are true. Christians and any who ascribe this nasty (often) stuff to their deities have to deal with this problem, either by blaming it on man, or just ignoring it. Evolution doesn't. It doesn't claim it to be Good, in the moral sense, just how it happened.

It doesn't claim to be good, but it does help us survive. And when we help someone else survive, we often say, that is good.

[TRANSPONDER]

Evolution is not always nice. It is not always good. It produces solutions to environmental challenges to survival. They are not always nice. But they are what they are, and on evidence they are true. Christians and any who ascribe this nasty (often) stuff to their deities have to deal with this problem, either by blaming it on man, or just ignoring it. Evolution doesn't. It doesn't claim it to be Good, in the moral sense, just how it happened.

It doesn't claim to be good, but it does help us survive. And when we help someone else survive, we often say, that is good.

Yes. This is the challenge of existence, life, morals and the ideal. Life (the hypothesis is) emerged out of star stuff (heavy elements and biochemicals) and a hot earth of toxic chemical soup. One molecule self- replicated, and that was how 'Life' started, and the first predation of one cell on another kick started the evolutionary arms race, of which pack co -operation emerged as a survival strategy and that was the beginning of society, a sense of identity and ethics. That's the theory, and there is evidence for it.

There are problems; greed, war and exploitation being one. disease, famine and natural disasters being another. Ignorance and denial leaves us unaware of how much better life is now than a couple of hundred years ago when people died at 40, as often as not in pain from untreated disease. Much as I love LoR, I disapprove of the science skeptic luddites who help themselves to any convenience and then berate science for producing the gadgets and advantages they use without thought.

I have a theory...that the thing that is missing, seriously, is that we don't teach critical thinking. People don't see the need for the social good because ethics seem to be left to the University of Life, which teaches by rumour and opinions, let alone clickbait headlines. Logic....I remember (Lock the doors so the audience can't leave, Fred) as a kid watching an American comedy with the meme -character of some supposedly intellectual kids. They ended a disagreement about a philosophical quote yelling "Aristotle!" .."Plato!" at each other, instead of looking it up. Comedy, I know, but a hint of people without logic strawmanning as idea of what logical thinking looks like.

And maybe I'm cynical (realistic) but at best, critical thinking is not curriculum because those who decide on it do not us it or, worse case, the last thing they want is for the Flock, voters and Herd to start using it.

[boatsnguitars]

The Extraordinary Evolution of Cichlid Fishes
Cichlid fishes have undergone a mind-boggling degree of speciation. New research is revealing features of their genomes that primed them to diversify so spectacularly
https://www.scientificamerican.com/arti ... id-fishes/

Lake Victoria harbors more than 500 endemic cichlid species [1, 2]. They are thought to have undergone explosive adaptive radiation during a very short evolutionary period, because Lake Victoria dried up at the end of the Pleistocene and was refilled only 15,000 years ago [3]. Lake Victoria cichlid species share polymorphic nucleotide sites [4,5,6,7] due to this short radiation period. Nevertheless, fixed genetic differences were thought to exist between species at loci responsible for the adaptive traits distinguishing the various forms from one another. The long-wavelength-sensitive (LWS) opsin gene has been identified as one such gene possessing fixed differences among species, and this has been interpreted as an adaptation to contrasting light regimes [8].
https://bmcecolevol.biomedcentral.com/a ... 017-1040-x

[Purple Knight]

...They ended a disagreement about a philosophical quote yelling "Aristotle!" .."Plato!" at each other, instead of looking it up. Comedy, I know, but a hint of people without logic strawmanning as idea of what logical thinking looks like.

And maybe I'm cynical (realistic) but at best, critical thinking is not curriculum because those who decide on it do not us it or, worse case, the last thing they want is for the Flock, voters and Herd to start using it.

I think of this as fact, but I don't think that teaching critical thinking will help. I'm even more cynical than you. I think if you've got the mind for it, critical thinking happens on its own. There are times when I don't want to do it and I can't help it. There are legitimately times when it's not right or helpful, and a good example is when we all have to follow the same laws, which have to be made so the lowest can follow them. But if you don't have the mind for critical thinking, it probably won't happen even if someone tries to teach you how. There might be a whole 5-10 points of IQ where instruction could make the difference, probably in the 100 - 110 range.

And frankly, if you manage to teach stupid people to think critically, all that will do is rob them of their sole defence against being exploited. It's downright evil to force people who only survive in a competitive, dog-eat-dog world by being resistant to argument and persuasion, onto the field of debate where smarter people will convince them of anything and everything and leave them wearing barrels.

[TRANSPONDER]

...They ended a disagreement about a philosophical quote yelling "Aristotle!" .."Plato!" at each other, instead of looking it up. Comedy, I know, but a hint of people without logic strawmanning as idea of what logical thinking looks like.

And maybe I'm cynical (realistic) but at best, critical thinking is not curriculum because those who decide on it do not us it or, worse case, the last thing they want is for the Flock, voters and Herd to start using it.

I think of this as fact, but I don't think that teaching critical thinking will help. I'm even more cynical than you. I think if you've got the mind for it, critical thinking happens on its own. There are times when I don't want to do it and I can't help it. There are legitimately times when it's not right or helpful, and a good example is when we all have to follow the same laws, which have to be made so the lowest can follow them. But if you don't have the mind for critical thinking, it probably won't happen even if someone tries to teach you how. There might be a whole 5-10 points of IQ where instruction could make the difference, probably in the 100 - 110 range.

And frankly, if you manage to teach stupid people to think critically, all that will do is rob them of their sole defence against being exploited. It's downright evil to force people who only survive in a competitive, dog-eat-dog world by being resistant to argument and persuasion, onto the field of debate where smarter people will convince them of anything and everything and leave them wearing barrels.

You may be right, but it's worth a try, and if just 30% extra get at least the basics of logical and critical thinking and 20% more the mindset that this is the right way to reason, not loudmouths trying to shout each other down and the audience of dunces approving 'Well, at least they have the courage of their convictions' While a charismatic speaker will often sway the audience at least the idea that the one who doesn't strut, rant and gesture, but quietly states their case might actually have more to say.

"Stand up for your right to be wishy -washy" (Charlie Brown)

Whether or not one wants to do it or not, teaching how it is done, makes it easier, even if smart persons could work it out themselves. I know that an apprenticeship on 'Positive atheism' taught me a lot, so even a mediocre mind can have a stab at rational thinking. And if I can do it, anyone can.

Bottom line; teaching it is going to enable some people to use it. Like everything from Evolution to history, most won't know it but everyone (aside from science deniers) values it (1) and a lot want to get some idea of it or are at least aware of it. The more I think, the more it seems that teaching logical critical thinking would have a big effect and only the Theists (perhaps) would balk at being aware at least of the reasons why morality matters, gods or not.

(1) and even those, if it seems to help their apologetic. They only dismiss it as opinions of scientists when it doesn't fit their claims.

[Purple Knight]

And if I can do it, anyone can.

You vastly overestimate people. Even if you don't test genius on the IQ scale, there is something there that makes you curious, that makes you go toward knowledge like a paramecium goes towards food. Something made you go for that apprenticeship. Some people just... lack that. Actually I think it's most people. They cannot change their minds, ever. It's got people making memes that the world is populated by NPCs, and they're funny, because they ring so true. Really what this is, is a hard-earned genetic resistance to persuasion, because when there are deceivers - and buyer-beware capitalism speeds up this process probably tenfold - the smart become the deceivers, the stubborn survive, and the credulous die out.

I would like to see a world where critical thinking is taught, though. I think it's not beyond imagining that you're right and it could help, but it would have to go hand-in-hand with putting a halt to selection for stubbornness and resistance to persuasion, and that would have to come in the form of abandonment of capitalism, or unbelievably strong protections against scams. Letting people who can change their minds or be convinced, get ruined and die off, makes the state of the world irreversible.

Something that could help selection proceed in the opposite direction is making primary education voluntary, and ending a host of other policies where we simply force the best choice on everyone for their own good. It protects the mindlessly stubborn from the natural consequences of their attitude, while harming those who are curious by elevating everyone to their level of education, thus making it worthless.

[TRANSPONDER]

I think you underestimate people. I could be wrong. I do see laziness in thinking as an instinct. Rather than question and do the research it is easier to grab an opinion (original or borrowed) and then stick the fingers in the ears and yap rejection.

And yet I conclude that a survival instinct we have is curiosity. I think that is what makes us human. I reckon that many people have the capacity to do a bit of logic or a lot and the only reason they don't is because they don't get taught it. It wouldn't hurt to add it to the curriculum. I see it as a need but so far as I know,no culture ever has. Maybe Greece, teaching Philosophy.