Why bother?

[cosmik debris]

First one side says: "I define you this way, and you have to defend my insulting definition of you."

Then the other side says: "Well, some of you believe this so all of you have to defend that absurd belief."

Then the first side says : "You all like watermelon and have rhythm."

And the second side says: "Well, we are more enlightened and have better morals."

Then the weaker side resorts to double and triple negatives and weasel words: "You cannot disprove that the proposition might be invalid!"

Why bother? Is it just for the entertainment?

[SteppingRazor]

1. To give me work?

:evilgrin:

[Az]

2. Because we care

Some of us see others on a path to eternal destruction. Some of us see others leading a life lead by a big lie. Some of us worry that the actions of others will lead to yet other people losing their way. It would all be so easy if we didn't care. We could just watch the show and stand back and chuckle.

But we care. We are concerned about our fellow humans. We are social. We work together to make the world a better place. When we see a fellow person down we have a natural desire to help them up.

The things we come to believe as true we have value in. When we percieve others leading lives that seem guided by things we believe to be false we have a natural desire to share the things we value with them. It's how we came by our values. People who cared about us share their ways with us and from that we created our way. We do the same for those closest to us. We have a desire to do the same for any we care about.

But society lays down restrictions. Plus as we mature our minds form from their lessons it's own sense of the world. We become resistant to other ideas as our's become more structured. Thus when we try to share our ways with others we are increasingly likely to meet with resistance if not outright hostility.

But we still care. For some the social restrictions do not hold back their concern. The threats they believe await their fellow human override their concern of violating social taboos. So they try to share their way with others. This in turn can cause those that hold different views to counter with their views of how others ways are false.

It would be so easy if we didn't care. But of course then there wouldn't be civilization or even humans. You see, we care. That's what we do.

[cosmik debris]

3. Too much to chew on at one time

So lets go straight to paragraph 2.

"We work together to make the world a better place. When we see a fellow person down we have a natural desire to help them up."

I don't believe that this is universally true, and even if it were, it would mutually exclude insults and ridicule. The group of people who have that desire are not the ones posting flame bait.

And another point, you describe a "natural" desire. I would have used the words "learned behavior". Would that exceed your definition of natural? Does the inverse apply, is "not wanting to help" an unnatural desire? Hmmm. Can 'O Worms

[Az]

4. Studies have been done

We seem to have a natural altruistic drive. We respond to the pain of others. We seem to care about what happens to our fellow human beings.

Yes, there is a lot of learning going on. But it seems that a lot of that learning is to defend ourself from potential pain. So yes people do learn not to care.

As to how people go about representing their issues it becomes complex. Each interaction teaches something new. We learn to expect hostility from some things and become defensive. Sometimes we lash out at what we don't understand. Other times we lash out to try to preempt the pain we expect.

But the impetus, the initial reason is we care. If we didn't care we would not become involved with each other.

[cosmik debris]

6. Please clarify

Is the natural altruistic drive instinctive? intuitive? genetic? intrinsic?

You have sorta made the point that people are naturally "good" and they learn to be "not good". That is not the subject of the original post, but it certainly is better than discussing someone's definition of atheist.

So let's discuss the origin of this Good! Do we have a genetic predisposition to good? And does that lead to a genetic predisposition to God?

[salvorhardin]

7. Here's an older NPR Talk of the Nation that discusses altruism

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=889210

[cosmik debris]

9. Worth the 32 minutes

But all I heard was anecdotal evidence of a tendency toward altruism. I did not hear anyone discussing ways of testing the hypothesis that altruism is genetic. The argument seems to be "altruism is genetic because a lot of people do it, but selfishness is learned because a lot of people do it". Did I miss something?

Until I have something better, I will continue to believe that both altruism and selfishness are learned behaviors.

[Az]

18. Here is another study showing we much rather work with each other

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2002/02/020219080248.htm

[cosmik debris]

25. Couldn't have said it better myself

"Essentially what I am saying is people haven’t studied the context of aggression and social behavior and affiliation to see how they all relate and actually organize the animal’s life. That is something we want to do," Sussman said.

[Az]

30. You seem to be looking for absolutes

Sorry, not gonna find such things in complex little entities such as us. We have a miriad of drives. All coelescing into the who of who am I. We have altruistic instincts that can flood our senses beyond our control. We can be greedy in hopes of bettering our own personal condition. It all mixes together. We are a big mess of instincts and learned responses.

[cosmik debris]

34. Actually I was attempting to contradict

What I considered absolutes from you.

i.e. Altruism is Natural, and it is responsible for civilization. If you did not mean these as absolutes, then this discussion has been nothing but an exercise. Thanks for the work out! I always feel better after a work out.

[Az]

11. Here is one study

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2002/07/020718075131.htm

[cosmik debris]

15. This study does not address the origin

It shows that altruism is hard wired, but it does not speculate on the origin of the hard wiring. It does not support the cause for genetic altruism. Memories are hard wired too, but they are not passed on from one generation to the next.

[Az]

17. Memories are hardwired?

Hardwired implies its the unalterable wiring portions of the brain. Memories ... we ain't born with them. Our brains grow new neurons and complete new connections. But thats not quite the implication of hardwiring.

If some form of altruistic behaviour were not embedded in our minds we would not have developed in the directions we have. Concern about our fellow beings is a higher order function seen in many mammals. It is particularly notable in primates.

As other primates do not have dogmatic systems of learned behaviour it is safe to say that the presense of altruistic behaviour is not dependent on dogmatic systems of learning. It must be an impetus in the wiring that draws us together rather than something we learn.

This is not to say that our natural proclivity to cooperate cannot be modified by learned instructions. It can be accentuated or muffled. Depending on what life teaches us. But the instinct is still there. We see another person hurt and we feel a reflection of the pain. We see someone down and we feel an impulse to help them. What we do with those impulses and feelings is dependent on what we have learned.

[cosmik debris]

22. Okay, I pulled out my old logic text

It says that in "if...then" propositions the truth of the consequent does not require the truth of the antecedent. You may have a credible argument, but not when it is presented as conditional statements.

[Az]

24. Are you arguing we are not social beings?

Are you suggesting that we somehow deviated from our primate ancestors who were social beings and instead of being social by instinct we decided to be social? That seems to run afoul of Occam's Razor.

Perhaps you shold clarify your position. I am not sure what you are arguing for other than some sort of rejection of people caring.

[cosmik debris]

26. I am saying

That selfish behavior is just as conducive to social organization as altruistic behavior. Both are rewarding, both are successful some of the time, and both are equally responsible for the result you attribute to altruism alone.

[Az]

28. Never claimed alone

Let us be precise. Selfish behaviour with no social context would have lead to our species dying out quite rapidly. Selfish behaviour can have positive effects in a social structure. But unrestrained it would be destructive.

A system built upon selfish behaviour is dependent on how far seeing the individual is. If they can only see as far as immediate rewards then they will quickly fall into a spiral of behaviour that places them outside of society.

It is possible for some to create a progressive agenda based on selfish reasoning. But a society built upon such thinking would be barbaras indeed.

[cosmik debris]

32. See the last paragraph of post #2

That seems to be a pretty absolute statement attributing civilization to altruism. Would you like to qualify that statement now.

[Az]

36. Impetus

Without a drive to work together, without a social proclivity, we simply would not have developed in the path we did.

It is our social nature that initiates the path to civilization. Its not solely responsible for it. But without it things fall apart.

[cosmik debris]

37. You changed the wording from

"If not X...then Y" to "without X...then Y", but your logic is still faulty.

Do you have any evidence of a cause and effect relationship that could not be used to support the opposite theory that selfishness caused civilization?

[cosmik debris]

27. I am also saying

That the conclusion that one behavior is learned while the other behavior is genetic is not proved.

[Az]

29. Drives

We have both drives of altruism and greed. They are both natural. We want what is good for ourselves. But without a sense of connection to one another we lose social cohesion.

[cosmik debris]

33. In post #4 you gave the impression

that selfish behavior was learned:"So yes people do learn not to care"

and from the more recent post:"But without a sense of connection to one another we lose social cohesion" The James gang had a sense of connection and cohesion that was not particularly altruistic.

From my perspective, you are giving more weight to the evidence that supports your theory that altruism is genetic and responsible for civilization while discounting evidence that contradicts your theory.

[Az]

35. No, not quite whay I am saying

My contention is that our social/altruistic behaviour is an initiator. It is what brings us together. Causes us to work together. Once an infrastructure is built other factors can motivate how we use that infrastructure.

Its sort of like gravity. Our altruistic nature brings us together to try to work with each other. But once in close enough other factors begin to interact as well.

[Az]

20. Check out Dec 04 Scientific American

They have a very good article on studying the Good Samaritan effect.

Intro:

Like many members of the animal kingdom, people will readily lend a hand to immediate family and relatives. But humans alone extend altruism beyond kin, frequently helping perfect strangers for no obvious personal gain. Whether we live in large or small groups, in the global network of the New Economy or in the most isolated Yanomami reservation along the border between Venezuela and Brazil, human cooperation in the absence of family ties is widespread across cultures.
On what is this largehearted behavior built? Does each of us possess an inner samaritan who is selfless and community-minded, as philosophers have sometimes proposed ? Or--as many sociobiologists have suggested--are actions that are seemingly done for the benefit of others really motivated by veiled economic calculations and selfishness or by egoism, with an eye to the very long term?

[cosmik debris]

10. Okay, we chewed up and spit out the second paragraph

Let's look at the last paragraph.

There is no logical validity in the statement that "If we didn't care, there would be no civilization". To validate this statement you must establish that no other condition could lead to civilization. Yet there seems to me to be an equal probability that selfish survival would mandate civilization. I seem to recall that civilization began with rules about what we were not supposed to do to each other rather than what we were supposed to do for each other. Does your perception of history differ from mine?

[Az]

13. This one is pretty simple

If we were not social creatures that cared about one another we would not band together. If we were not drawn together by our social natures we would not have formed agro based communities. Instead we would have lead limited if not interesting lives as a lone nomadic species.

But the simple truth of the matter is that we are a high order primate. Out offspring take an extreme length of time to mature and must be taught a large number of skills that they are not prewired with. As a result our species utilizes an extended family approach to rearing our children. The burden on just one family would be too great. Thus we band together in ever increasing familial communities.

Its not just some idea we come up with. Its our wiring. We are social creatures. We naturally look to each other to enable our survival.

[cosmik debris]

19. You are stating your hypothesis in conditional phrases

If this and If that.

And you are repeating the logical fallacy that only one circumstance can produce the result. No other circumstances have been tested. Therefore the hypothesis that altruism is learned is not jeopardized by you argument.

Your hypothesis also denies the fact that those who profit from selfish behavior are also very social. They tend to congregate in groups, expedite cash flow and capital accumulation and thus contribute to civilization. Since both altruistic and selfish behavior contribute to civilization, how can one be the cause and the other not be the cause?

[Az]

23. Who said they were exclusive

We are complex beings. We have a multitude of drives and needs. The initial question asked was "Why Bother?" The why is because we care. That is the initial cause for budding our noses into each other's lives. After the initial intrusion all bets are off.

Depending on the reaction it may lead to aggressive behaviour based on the sense of intrusion. So you could have someone so enraged at others trying to save them that they counter attack to vent their anger.

We are not all the same people. We each have our collection of experiences and our own individual wiring. The mix of the two create who we are. There are those that due to their wiring have difficulty recognising other's as individuals. And there are those that have trouble distancing themself from the pain others feel. And a plethora of other mixtures in between.

All of these people interacting and acting upon their own drives and needs. You are going to get a near infinite number of interactions. But none of them would initiate if no one cared. If we were all antisocial creatures we would not even converse with each other. We would each go our way and try to keep as much distance between us as possible. But instead we gather together. We try to build a better world. With some exceptions. But that is to be expected in complex beings such as ourselves.

[heidler1]

21. Each individual cuts the selfishness/altruistic cake in a different place

IMO this difference is largely due to intelligence, which is genetic, and overall awareness. It is also affected by environment, but environment can backfire and cause ridicule of the parental influence.

I see the Beatitudes, as supposedly said by Jesus, as the ultimate enlightened selfish viewpoint, if the goal is harmony in society. Sadly I've know very few if any, including self proclaimed Christians, who practice these words. Yeah I'm still an Atheist.

[salvorhardin]

5. "You all like watermelon and have rhythm."

Actually I'm arhythmic. But I'm down with watermelon. As long as it's the good old sensible red kind. Those new fangled yellow watermelons are heretical and will bring about the downfall of society. Don't accuse me of being intolerant though! The red seedless ones are just fine as long as they keep their place.

[cosmik debris]

8. Hang on there

You have defined yellow watermelon lovers like me in a negative light. You must not have very good morals. And you can't prove that I didn't say that!

[TechBear_Seattle]

12. Logical fallacies abound

The problem is, logic isn't taught much nowadays, so most people don't realize it when they fall in to a trap.

The proper response to "I define you this way, and you have to defend my insulting definition of you" is simply, "Straw man, or possibly a personal attack." The proper response to "Some of you believe this so all of you have to defend that absurd belief" is a polite but firm, "Sweeping generalization."

You might find these sites to be useful:

http://www.intrepidsoftware.com/fallacy/toc.php
http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/logic.html
http://www.csun.edu/~dgw61315/fallacies.html

[Brentos]

14. Yeah

<rant><ramble>Some people like the entertainment, some like the debate, some like the trolling. I prefer honest discourse (as most here do) relating to a topic. The unfortunate thing is that, as an example, this forum does to religious people what Righties do to non-religious people (or non-fundies, at least)...it pushes them away. A person who has a faith does not want to be constantly attacked over their faith as many of those who are conretionalists (I'm trying to make a new word that is not atheist or agnostic to avoid confusion! :-) ) do not want to be constantly attacked to believe in the spaghetti monster. The righties tend to push these people away, and as I see in these boards, the lefties tend to push the religious lefties away (yes, I'm overgeneralizing to make a point). Every time I see a religious person post something about their religion, they are usually challenged or attacked about their faith/religion. When they ask the challenger/attacker why they bother posting in a religion board if they are areligious and have their own boards, they claim that they deserve to be here too, etc. Usually liberal-minded religious-lefties posting in a religion board are expecting to discuss/debate their religion with similar minded people and not have to defend their religion constantly. And yes, a religous person needs to be able to defend themselves, but sometimes they just want to chat about a topic without feeling the need to defend constantly, it gets old.

Mind you, if someone posts a negative view of atheists/agnostics/concretionalists here (or anywhere) I definitely expect a strong response in kind.

Mind you, the threads I've been posting in with (what I'm assuming are) non-believers (in how I believe) have been nicely civil and enlightening. Good discourse. I've just seen too many threads fall into flame wars and semantic wars. I've noticed that most (yep, overgeneralizing again) internet debates that get heated are over semantics and not substance. Weird. If we can't agree on terminology, we can't even begin debates.

I would rather see three boards: Atheists (or whatever terminology), Believers (in any religion, I guess), and a Neutral Zone duke-it-out and fight for your beliefs/non-beliefs/rational thoughts board. That would be fun!</ramble></rant>

[Az]

16. We have those

This forum is the neutral ground. We atheists have our own pen and the believers have their own particular areas to gather in dependent on their particular beliefs.

[Brentos]

31. D'oh!

I didn't even realize that! I'll have to hunt down the religious boards. My apologies for my ignorance! (See what religious brainwashing does to ya!) :-)

[Az]

38. No worries

We all start off ignorant. And its by asking questions that we best correct our ignorance.

[shrike]

39. Because we like to waste time

Because it's easier to waste time than do something productive.

[Goldensilence]

40. hmm

define wasting time :P