| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Sound of Trumpet" |
| Date: |
11 Jun 2006 08:33:00 PM |
| Object: |
Should Ghengis Khan Be A Role Model For Atheists? |
http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=168322
Ghengis Khan, role model
Given that there are no gods or afterlife, I would think that our role
model should be Ghengis Khan. He was able to successfully pass on his
DNA (and his ancestors) to more people than any one else in history.
This afterall is the only true measure of success in the natural world.
Scientific and medical discoveries are well and good, but if you have
no progeny, then you are by definition a biological failure.
Replication of DNA is the highest pusuit of all species on the planet,
by any means necessary.
Observe a pride of lions, a lone male comes upon a pride, drives off or
kills the head male, kills all the cubs, then mates with the females.
This is perfection in nature, why should we go against it by prolonging
the lives of mental vegetables or even worse, allowing them to breed
with other imbeciles, to pass on their defective genes?
Why is ok to practice eugenics on other mammals, but not on our own
species?
Am I wrong in my conclusions?
.
|
|
| User: "Steven J." |
|
| Title: Re: Should Ghengis Khan Be A Role Model For Atheists? |
11 Jun 2006 10:18:34 PM |
|
|
Sound of Trumpet wrote:
http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=168322
Ghengis Khan, role model
Given that there are no gods or afterlife, I would think that our role
model should be Ghengis Khan. He was able to successfully pass on his
DNA (and his ancestors) to more people than any one else in history.
In the long run, everyone alive at one point in history will either be
the ancestor of everyone alive at a later point in history, or the
ancestor of no one alive at that later point in history. Obviously,
Ghengis Khan's grandparents must have at least as many descendants
today as he did, perhaps even more. Hitler, on the other hand, has no
known descendants, and Mussolini has done about average in that regard.
So there's something wrong with your argument even before you get to
the serious logical fallacies.
This afterall is the only true measure of success in the natural world.
Your position seems to be that if there is no Deity to reward us for
deeds pleasing to Him (whether in this life or another), and no
afterlife where we can be rewarded or punished for what we do in this
world, we ought to seek ... what? Rewards in this world? "Success" in
this world, whether we find it satisfying or not? That which seems
good, whether it rests on the mandates of a Deity or not, whether we
enjoy doing it or not? These are not at all the same things as one
another.
Organisms which are not reproductively successful will not pass on
their genes to future generations. This does not make them, or even
their genes, "bad." It does not make organisms that do pass on their
genes "good" (or, perhaps more to the point, happy or personally
successful). Your entire argument here depends on, among other
fallacies, what is known as the "naturalistic fallacy:" the assumption
that if something happens in nature, it *ought* to happen, is somehow
"right." Of course, all sorts of things happen in nature; why we ought
to take examples from some of them and not others is another matter
that cannot be settled merely by adducing observations that certain
things happen.
Biology, and evolutionary theory in particular, deals with reasons why
some genes and combinations of genes leave more copies to future
generations than others, not justifications for this fact. Without the
assumption that some Deity desires particular outcomes, the fact that
biology has such outcomes no more justifies them than gravity justifies
rocks falling, or, to take an example of an agent making a choice,
justifies jumping off tall buildings or pushing other people off them.
Scientific and medical discoveries are well and good, but if you have
no progeny, then you are by definition a biological failure.
And if you have progeny, but no grandprogeny, are you a success or
failure? What if you have grandprogeny, but no great-grandprogeny?
Sooner or later, almost every lineage goes extinct. And, again, you
have that problem of reasoning from what does happen to what ought to
happen: why should anyone care whether he is a "biological failure?"
Replication of DNA is the highest pusuit of all species on the planet,
by any means necessary.
Evolutionary theory (or, indeed, other fields of science) do not deal
in judgments of what is "highest" or "best." For that matter, until
very recently for human beings, and even today for most humans and all
nonhumans, no one "pursued" DNA replication; it happened without our
knowledge or interest. Most organisms (plants, fungi, protists,
sponges, even insects and the like) don't "pursue" reproduction at all;
they act, as mindlessly as any machine, in such a way that reproduction
is more likely than if they acted otherwise -- because they are
descended from other organisms that acted that way, and passed on their
genes. This is not their "pursuit," and there is no reason to declare
it their "highest" whatever-it-is-instead-of-a-pursuit.
Observe a pride of lions, a lone male comes upon a pride, drives off or
kills the head male, kills all the cubs, then mates with the females.
That is how lions act. That is not, generally, how humans act. Why
should we act like something we are not, rather than something we are?
Whales spend up to two hours under water without rising for a breath;
perhaps you should try to emulate them. It would be no less silly than
your suggestion above.
This is perfection in nature, why should we go against it by prolonging
the lives of mental vegetables or even worse, allowing them to breed
with other imbeciles, to pass on their defective genes?
Uh, because we like them? Because they're family and friends? Because
we'd like other people to do the same for us if we needed it?
Strictly speaking, the lion isn't trying to weed out defective lions;
he's trying (well, not *trying* to do this, of course, but this is the
presumed selective rational for why such behavior survives) to ensure
that the lionesses' care and resources are available to care for copies
of his genes, not copies of some other lion's genes. He doesn't have
the slightest concern for the good of liondom as a whole, or of
"defective genes." For that matter, biology, again, has no concept of
"defective genes," as such; it has a concept ("fitness") of genes that,
in a given environment, aren't likely to be passed on to future
generations, but then, if genes tend to be passed on, they presumably
are "fit" in the particular environment in which they occur. Natural
selection gives us no reason to prefer one selective regime to any
other.
If you will not accept the argument of David Hume (that one cannot
reason from an "is" to an "ought"), will you accept one from C.S.
Lewis? He pointed out that one cannot designate something as our
"highest" instinct or "pursuit" without making a surreptitious moral
judgment that cannot be derived from the mere facts that we have those
instincts or tendencies. Your judgment that something in nature is
"perfect" cannot be derived merely from the fact that it happens, but
depends on some independent standard of what is good or bad.
Even if that standard was constructed by mutation and natural
selection, it does not follow that natural selection ought to be the
model for how we make moral choices (or that it even could be). Your
shovel does not serve as a well (nor vice-versa), and natural selection
does not serve as a moral code. As evolutionary psychologist Steven
Pinker notes, his genes are not him, and as far as he cares they can go
jump in a lake (at least at the time he said that, he had no children
and no desire for any). Indeed, your entire post, to the extent that
it is not an attempt to construct an argument from bad consequences
(another fallacy) against evolutionary theory or atheism (they are not
the same thing, by the way), is an attempt to argue that if we can't
live our lives for God, we ought to live them for little strands of
chemicals in our cells. And, again, this really does not seem to
follow.
Why is ok to practice eugenics on other mammals, but not on our own
species?
We don't regard other animals (or at least most other animals) as moral
agents.
Because humans in general (aside from a minority of humans who,
admittedly, have a distressing tendency to end up with political power
-- but that does not justify their aberrations: see above) feel that
you should not do to others things that you find hateful when done to
you. You wouldn't like it if I decided to have you sterilized because
I didn't want your genes in future generations; why should you feel
justified in doing it to "genetic defectives?"
Am I wrong in my conclusions?
Well, sure, but you go wrong before you get that far.
-- Steven J.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "cactus" |
|
| Title: Re: Should Ghengis Khan Be A Role Model For Atheists? |
12 Jun 2006 11:32:26 PM |
|
|
Sound of Trumpet wrote:
http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=168322
Ghengis Khan, role model
Given that there are no gods or afterlife, I would think that our role
model should be Ghengis Khan. He was able to successfully pass on his
DNA (and his ancestors) to more people than any one else in history.
This afterall is the only true measure of success in the natural world.
Scientific and medical discoveries are well and good, but if you have
no progeny, then you are by definition a biological failure.
Replication of DNA is the highest pusuit of all species on the planet,
by any means necessary.
Observe a pride of lions, a lone male comes upon a pride, drives off or
kills the head male, kills all the cubs, then mates with the females.
This is perfection in nature, why should we go against it by prolonging
the lives of mental vegetables or even worse, allowing them to breed
with other imbeciles, to pass on their defective genes?
Why is ok to practice eugenics on other mammals, but not on our own
species?
Am I wrong in my conclusions?
Actually he's a better role model for Christians - he rose from nothing
to kill thousands upon thousands of people who disagreed with him.
Christianity has a long history of killing or exiling anyone who
disagreed with the local theology, in fact mounting huge Crusades to
kill, plunder and rape unbelievers. Unlike Genghis Khan, who confined
his activities to two continents, Christians worked their evil on five.'
Don't blame atheists when you have a lot of history to live down.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Chris Johnson" |
|
| Title: Re: Should Ghengis Khan Be A Role Model For Atheists? |
11 Jun 2006 09:59:34 PM |
|
|
Sound of Trumpet wrote:
http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=168322
Ghengis Khan, role model
Given that there are no gods or afterlife, I would think that our role
model should be Ghengis Khan. He was able to successfully pass on his
DNA (and his ancestors) to more people than any one else in history.
By all means, take this route if you wish. Oh you don't? Gee, why do
you expect atheists to then?
Is it that fucking difficult to understand that apart from the
superstitions there is often little to distinguish a theist from an
atheist?
This afterall is the only true measure of success in the natural world.
Scientific and medical discoveries are well and good, but if you have
no progeny, then you are by definition a biological failure.
Replication of DNA is the highest pusuit of all species on the planet,
by any means necessary.
Observe a pride of lions, a lone male comes upon a pride, drives off or
kills the head male, kills all the cubs, then mates with the females.
A lion is essentially at the top of the foodchain, and does not need a
large community to ensure its survival. It needs enough strength and
speed to bring down prey. Consequently, the strongest lion eliminating
intra-species competition is highly advantageous not only to the
individual lion but the species as a whole.
Contrast this with humans. A lone human can be fairly easily killed by
most predators. Our advantages lie in intelligence and numbers. It is
reasonable, then, that we evolved cooperative natures and mechanisms
(violent retribution) for eliminating those that exhibit anti-social
behaviors like rape and murder.
This is perfection in nature, why should we go against it by prolonging
the lives of mental vegetables or even worse, allowing them to breed
with other imbeciles, to pass on their defective genes?
Because we've also developed, as a species, a sense of pity, compassion
and empathy. Perhaps those tribes that took care of their sick and
deformed when circumstances allowed it became more successful than
those that killed or abandoned them to the mercies of nature. Perhaps
it's just a quirk that came with our learning to live in groups.
Why is ok to practice eugenics on other mammals, but not on our own
species?
I oppose human eugenics for a couple reasons. First, there's no
guarantee that whoever administrates the program wouldn't choose to
cull people like me out of the gene pool. Selfish of course, but I
rather like living. Second, culling out aggressive or scrawny livestock
is a little simpler than human eugenics would be. We'd want to select
for a lot of attributes, and an improper understanding of the
relatedness of attributes could lead to mistakes that would be
devastating for the species. I don't have a problem with allowing
natural selection to run its course (which it will anyway), but
artificially selecting humans is too prone to error, in my estimation.
Am I wrong in my conclusions?
I think you're wrong in thinking that evolution provides a foundation
for morality. It is not a replacement for religion, no matter what the
creationists claim. It is an explanation for the diversity of life and
the mechanism through which it changes.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Should Ghengis Khan Be A Role Model For Atheists? |
13 Jun 2006 07:33:37 AM |
|
|
Whoops, I forgot to quote. Second attempt (removing ridiculous
cross-posting):
Sound of Trumpet wrote:
*static*
Is "trumpet" a mass (= uncountable) noun?
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
