1. Comment #178347 by maton100 on May 11, 2008 at 9:34 am

Thanks for the posting.

Other Comments by maton100

2. Comment #178353 by 27513 on May 11, 2008 at 9:42 am

shoulden't this be a video?

Other Comments by 27513

3. Comment #178357 by Big Gus on May 11, 2008 at 9:43 am

I've certainly not heard this one before. Straight to the heart of the matter as usual!

Other Comments by Big Gus

4. Comment #178371 by Solarium Solaris on May 11, 2008 at 10:02 am

Its strange how nature is overwhelmingly piloted by greed and self-interest but at the same time so beautiful, mysterious, and loved.

Other Comments by Solarium Solaris

5. Comment #178372 by toomanytribbles on May 11, 2008 at 10:03 am

'understanding evolution in order to plan for our long-term survival is like understanding gravity in order to make airplanes fly.'
- toomanytribbles

Other Comments by toomanytribbles

6. Comment #178385 by mordacious1 on May 11, 2008 at 10:32 am

This reminds me of an experiment we did in elementary school. We took a petri dish of blood agar and placed a small amount of bacteria in it. They spread and thrived, until they eventually started dying off by the abundance of their own waste products. Soon there were few bacteria left. This is our planet if we don't use our reasoning skills to overcome our Darwinian instincts to avoid this outcome.

Other Comments by mordacious1

7. Comment #178397 by flobear on May 11, 2008 at 10:56 am

This is why he's a Professor of Public Understanding of Science.

Other Comments by flobear

8. Comment #178406 by JernJane on May 11, 2008 at 11:07 am

Time to add this to my general list of memorable quotes, I think:

"I'm a passionate Darwinian in the academic sense (...), yet I am a passionate Anti-Darwinian when it comes to human social and political affairs."

Other Comments by JernJane

9. Comment #178407 by HourglassMemory on May 11, 2008 at 11:13 am

Was this a debate?
A discussion with more scientists and experts?

Someone would have to ask the person who put it on Youtube, where he or she got it, and try to find out the whole, complete thing.

I would very much like to see it.
"Science, technology and our future: the big questions" is a pretty interesting subject.

The video response to that video is also interesting(funny) to watch.

Other Comments by HourglassMemory

10. Comment #178413 by 82abhilash on May 11, 2008 at 11:22 am

Dawkins seemed to be a bit lost. If a non-intelligent purposeless process, without foresight called evolution can create an intelligent purposeful creature with foresight (humans). Then you needed not compartmentalize your mind into darwinian and anti-darwinian. The natural world driven by darwinian evolution in itself can provide explanation for the uniqueness of human beings. Which is what Daniel Dennett claims by the way.

Intelligence can result from non-intelligence. A process without foresight can create a creature with foresight (all be it rarely). Pretty much any human endeavor can be understood as an outcome of micro processes that by them selves have no capacity to appreciate these endeavors or understand their significance.

The world filled with wonder would not need any real magic. Conjuring tricks are enough. If the trick is good enough we will appreciate it even after we find out how the trick is done.

Other Comments by 82abhilash

11. Comment #178417 by ZT on May 11, 2008 at 11:32 am

sadly the numbers of intelligent and aware people on this planet are few and far between.
we are screwed because our western materialistic society has lost all long term goals, instead focusing on short term material gain.
'the brain' may be able to see a long term view, but who's eaxtly going to act on it when we have such a herd mentality?

in a darwinian selection process it will be those who survive the starvation and disease as our planet goes down the pan from global warming, overcrowding and lack of resources. this is presuming a nuclear holocaust doesnt exterminate everything!

life will find a way through it all, it just might not be humankind!

Other Comments by ZT

12. Comment #178424 by DalaiDrivel on May 11, 2008 at 11:47 am

"I'm a passionate Darwinian in the academic sense (...), yet I am a passionate Anti-Darwinian when it comes to human social and political affairs."

This is what I see lying, illogical IDiots as attacking the most, in order to portray Dawkins as a hypocrite.

82abhilash:

"The world filled with wonder would not need any real magic. Conjuring tricks are enough. If the trick is good enough we will appreciate it even after we find out how the trick is done."

Ths is a confusing statement. The world, filled with wonder, does indeed not need any real magic- nor conjuring tricks. Why would you then say that conjuring tricks are enough?

I hesitate to label a trick as "good." A trick is a deception. The creationist deception we already understand, as a prolonged trick played by humans on humans, valuing dogma and ignorance over truth and curiosity, long past its credibility sell-by date (which for some people, predated Darwin).

What are you getting at in the first two paragraphs of your post? This is not clear.

Intelligence does NOT result from non-intelligence, at least not immediately. To find non-intelligence I'm not sure if you would have to rewind back to our origins in bacteria or not. The non-inteligent, abstract idea of evolution is the means, the cause, but not a precursor. Human intelligence evolved, result from, less sophisticated ape intelligence. All animals possess a degree of intelligence, so to say we resulted from non-intelligence in strictly true, but only in a specific, limited and distant sense. :)

Other Comments by DalaiDrivel

13. Comment #178432 by 82abhilash on May 11, 2008 at 12:09 pm

DalaiDrivel

The world, filled with wonder, does indeed not need any real magic- nor conjuring tricks.

There are conjuring tricks all over the place and a really good magician can invoke a sense of wonder. But when I used the word 'trick' here it had multiple meanings. And in any case my statement stands.

Trick can be a good deception, but not necessarily. For people of say the fifteenth century lot of technology today will seem magical. They are all good tricks, instruments that tap in to the knowledge of how the world is. They testify to our developed sense of understanding of our world, in the same fashion a magician has a developed understanding of the human mind. Neat tricks but not real magic. Even if we can appreciate how the trick is done we may still be able to enjoy it, if it is a neat trick.

Creationists used to point out that the beauty of nature testifies to the greatness of god. Understanding evolution helps us to appreciate the beauty of nature without invoking a great god. Evolution is one of those neat tricks - complicated phenomena that tap into the fixed laws of nature. Something what magicians do all the time. Understanding it does not take away from the beauty of nature, in fact it enhances it.

Now there is another way the word 'trick' is used. As a synonym for deception. Which is what you have mentioned. Although I submit creationism was not deception for the longest time in human history. It was reduced to one only when better ideas (neater tricks, may I say) came along. So their propaganda piece is a trick intended to deceive (as opposed to a trick for survival (evolution) or a trick for entertainment (a magic show)). Well even in that case I would still say knowing the trick is still important. I think you will agree.

Other Comments by 82abhilash

14. Comment #178435 by Byrnie on May 11, 2008 at 12:16 pm

I'm not sure whether this was recorded before/after expelled. However, a terrific and plaintive answer to the odious connection between social-darwinism and darwinian evolution.

Other Comments by Byrnie

15. Comment #178437 by 82abhilash on May 11, 2008 at 12:16 pm

DalaiDrivel

Intelligence does NOT result from non-intelligence, at least not immediately. To find non-intelligence I'm not sure if you would have to rewind back to our origins in bacteria or not. The non-inteligent, abstract idea of evolution is the means, the cause, but not a precursor. Human intelligence evolved, result from, less sophisticated ape intelligence. All animals possess a degree of intelligence, so to say we resulted from non-intelligence in strictly true, but only in a specific, limited and distant sense. :)

I agree. Intelligence does not result from non-intelligence immediately. Evolution is an extremely slow process. Which is why it is so difficult to see within the time scales we are accustomed to. A fact that the creationists try to take advantage of. 'All animals possess a degree of intelligence' and we evolved from them. Although I would call animal intelligence as proto-intelligence.

What I understand from Dennett is that we can track the evolution of the phenomenon called intelligence beginning with species that are non-intelligent all the way up to us, the most intelligent species on the planet. Which is where things stand now. Perhaps in the distant (or not so distant future) if we go extinct and another intelligent specie may emerge or it may not. Evolution has no foresight. Besides even in evolutionary terms intelligent life seems complicated enough so as not to emerge too often compared to say single cellular life.

Other Comments by 82abhilash

16. Comment #178442 by Barry Pearson on May 11, 2008 at 12:31 pm

HourglassMemory asked: Was this a debate? A discussion with more scientists and experts?

I think this is it (April 19, 2002):

http://www.greenpeace.org.uk/media/reports/new-scientist-greenpeace-science-debates

http://www.greenpeace.org.uk/about/new-scientist-and-greenpeace-debate-the-big-questions

Other Comments by Barry Pearson

17. Comment #178443 by JernJane on May 11, 2008 at 12:32 pm

"I'm a passionate Darwinian in the academic sense (...), yet I am a passionate Anti-Darwinian when it comes to human social and political affairs."

This is what I see lying, illogical IDiots as attacking the most, in order to portray Dawkins as a hypocrite.

Well, some people just love to misinterpret on purpose.

Other Comments by JernJane

18. Comment #178454 by DalaiDrivel on May 11, 2008 at 1:00 pm

JernJane,

Indeed. A rational person knows there is no need to misinterpret for the sake of truth, other than for the sake of manufactured truths, or for the sake of continuing our personal opposition to something.

God tells us he created the Earth in six days, and then gives all the evidence to the contrary. God is a prick.

We would have to misinterpret, wouldn't we?

I should have credited you with that cut-and-paste. I am sorry. But thank you.

82abhilash:

I understand where you are coming from now. Thanks for clearing that up.

Other Comments by DalaiDrivel

19. Comment #178464 by Artful_Dodger on May 11, 2008 at 1:08 pm

"I'm a passionate Darwinian in the academic sense (...), yet I am a passionate Anti-Darwinian when it comes to human social and political affairs."

I really can't get over the fact that nobody on this site is willing to challenge Dawkins on the glaring inconsistncy here. The obvious question is this: if we get everything from natural selection, and natural selection "selects" for individual and group survival, where do we get the idea that we must transcend this natural impulse? If all nature is "red in tooth and claw", how on earth can human nature be exempted from that, from where on earth does it derive the inclination to fight against nature? This is a question which, try as he might and mince it as he will, Dawkins has abjectly failed to address.

Other Comments by Artful_Dodger

20. Comment #178466 by rthille on May 11, 2008 at 1:14 pm

Natural selection created brains which have a mechanism we term 'morals' in order to maximize the success of those genes. In small groups/tribes, without the human morals we have evolved, we would have been unable to cooperate and would have been much less successful. Wolves, I contend, have morals as well. Think about a wolf pack where the Alpha couple are the only breeders, and the other females act as 'nannies' to the pups. If a nanny wolf were to kill a pup not it's own, I have to believe that the rest of the pack would react negatively toward the nanny wolf, but further, I believe that they would see the act as "immoral", as evolution has tuned the brains of wolves to succeed in packs and the emotional reactions we term 'morals' must reinforce those actions which help the pack (and therefore the genes) succeed.

As for humans, we evolved our moral sense in small groups, but with our evolved intellect, we can see that the best way to guarantee our success as individuals is to aid the success of our species, and further most if not all the other species which make up our ecosystem. Sure, we wouldn't find it immoral to wipe out the polio virus or the common cold. But if it was determined that thru unintended consequences doing so would have detrimental effects on other species or ourselves, we _would_ find it immoral.

Morality is just a higher-level abstraction in brains for optimizing the success of the genes creating those brains.

Other Comments by rthille

21. Comment #178469 by Barry Pearson on May 11, 2008 at 1:20 pm

DalaiDrivel said: This is what I see lying, illogical IDiots as attacking the most, in order to portray Dawkins as a hypocrite.

They are not illogical. They are fighting a political (not scientific) battle, and destroying the credibility of their opponents is a logical, rational, tactic.

Have a look at the "The Wedge" (document). They don't oppose evolution because they think it is factually inaccurate. They oppose it because they object to what they consider to be the consequential "materialistic Worldview". I think the truth or otherwise of evolution is largely irrelevant to their motivation, except for their need to be able to convince others that it is untrue. (So if it is true, that is an inconvenience to be covered up).

Other Comments by Barry Pearson

22. Comment #178474 by Artful_Dodger on May 11, 2008 at 1:31 pm

rthille, on a naturalistic premise committed to the "natural slection" paradigm, how can you say that natural selection "created" anything? "Created" is an active verb which requires personal, conscious agency. All you can say is that this "mechanism" by which you define morals "popped into existence" without any rhyme or reason. Emerging as it necessarily does in this way, over whatever period of time might be involved, it cannot be said to be "directed" towards the organisation of human society, or towards anything else, as this is also to attribute intentionality to this mechanism, which requires it to have been set up by some purposeful agent which is external to the mechanism itself.

Other Comments by Artful_Dodger

23. Comment #178476 by epeeist on May 11, 2008 at 1:34 pm

Comment #178464 by Artful_Dodger

"I'm a passionate Darwinian in the academic sense (...), yet I am a passionate Anti-Darwinian when it comes to human social and political affairs."

I really can't get over the fact that nobody on this site is willing to challenge Dawkins on the glaring inconsistncy here.

You really are a tosser aren't you? The only reason you raise this is to cause quarrel dialogue.

Who says we get "everything" from natural selection? Do you really think that Beethoven's Opus 131, Homer's Illiad, Newton's Principia or even religion are a direct product of natural selection?

I had a moan on another thread about the way theists seem to conduct arguments. Your post typifies what I said, emotive language, loaded questions and simply bad reasoning.

And by the way - you still owe me a description of how you separate the literal from the metaphorical in your "holy book". And who gives you the right to do it.

Other Comments by epeeist

24. Comment #178482 by Artful_Dodger on May 11, 2008 at 1:40 pm

Do you really think that Beethoven's Opus 131, Homer's Illiad, Newton's Principia or even religion are a direct product of natural selection?

No, epeeist, I don't. That's my point!

Other Comments by Artful_Dodger

25. Comment #178483 by Cartomancer on May 11, 2008 at 1:40 pm

if we get everything from natural selection, and natural selection "selects" for individual and group survival, where do we get the idea that we must transcend this natural impulse?

You've answered your own fatuous question Artful: We get it from natural selection, same as everything else. Being able to think rationally is a tremendously useful survival trait - much better than simply following instinctive programming to the letter. Instinctive programming was useful before reason came about, but once reasoning had developed its carriers were almost bound to out-compete the old units working on the less effective software of instinct alone. Only someone who misconcieved of natural selection in a narrowly teleological way could possibly be confused by this simple idea.

Other Comments by Cartomancer

26. Comment #178485 by Quetzalcoatl on May 11, 2008 at 1:41 pm

Artful-

I notice you Dodged the rest of Epeeist's post. Shocking.

Other Comments by Quetzalcoatl

27. Comment #178486 by Mitchell Gilks on May 11, 2008 at 1:43 pm

Artful Dodger, that is because he need not address it. It is logically fallacious to suggest that because something is natural, that it is therefore good. That is the naturalistic fallacy. Diseases, cancer, and rape are all natural. Do you think they then must be good? It is only inconsistent if you think that natural equals good. He need not address that it doesn't because he expects everyone listening to already know that it doesn't.

Other Comments by Mitchell Gilks

28. Comment #178491 by Artful_Dodger on May 11, 2008 at 1:46 pm

Do we get our concern for "Truth" (Dawkins is notoriously concerned about it!) from survival-oriented natural selection? Is falsehood not often much more conducive to survival than "Truth?" It may be another fatuous question, but it's another one that still hasn't received a satisfactory answer.

Other Comments by Artful_Dodger

29. Comment #178492 by Paula Kirby on May 11, 2008 at 1:47 pm

Artful:
Evolution by Natural Selection DESCRIBES how complex life forms came about. It does not PRESCRIBE how best they should run their societies.

Other Comments by Paula Kirby

30. Comment #178494 by Artful_Dodger on May 11, 2008 at 1:51 pm

Artful:
Evolution by Natural Selection DESCRIBES how complex life forms came about. It does not PRESCRIBE how best they should run their societies.

Indeed, Paula. So where does the PRESCRIPTION come from then, if everything, as Cartomancer has reminded us, comes from natural selection?

Other Comments by Artful_Dodger

31. Comment #178495 by Mitchell Gilks on May 11, 2008 at 1:52 pm

Clearly holding true beliefs in certain situations is more beneficial than holding false ones, and holding false ones is often neutral to ones survival. For instance; knowing what a bear will do to you if it gets ahold of you is beneficial to your survival. Knowing what will happen if you fall from a high distance is beneficial to you. Knowing what the moon and stars are, or the shape of the planet is not, and that is why we held false beliefs in those areas. We are much more likely to hold false beliefs that do not readily effect our survivability than we are to hold false beliefs that do.

We are mostly concerned about the truth because we are a social animal, and falsehoods are often signs of deception, which we interpret as unethical because we don't like being deceived, and being deceived is often disadvantaging. We like to hold true beliefs because they are beneficial to us. As the practicality of arquiring them has been demonstrated over and over again by science.

Other Comments by Mitchell Gilks

32. Comment #178497 by Paula Kirby on May 11, 2008 at 1:53 pm

Artful: So where does the PRESCRIPTION come from then,

Who says there is one?

Other Comments by Paula Kirby

33. Comment #178500 by phasmagigas on May 11, 2008 at 1:54 pm

If all nature is "red in tooth and claw", how on earth can human nature be exempted from that, from where on earth does it derive the inclination to fight against nature? This is a question which, try as he might and mince it as he will, Dawkins has abjectly failed to address.

imagine if an individual thought 'ok, lets see how far i get with the red tooth claw behaviour, as humans are my most direct competitors it makes sense to go around and kill every human i see and i'll have more resources for myself' its quite clear that the consequences of that would be disastrous for the individual, within seconds of the killing spree you would be killed yourself by a mob who realised that you were a danger to them. You see it in nature and our own societies that there is a variety of optimum behaviours that work over different timescales but that aid the fitness of the organisms in that group.

what you also have to realise is that as soon as things get tough things DO become more red in tooth and claw, take a walk through a rough neighbourhood or some failing country and you will immediately see that being a victim is really to be expected. In settled communities we mainly want to behave well as it aids us in those communities but these communities are always on a knife edge, some last a while others will fail, the world right now shows communities developing and those collapsing and those in utter chaos, not the type of thing to expect if there is a loving god (the theist could find a billion justifications though from homosexuality to greed to atheism to looking at other mens wives to testing the faith, the usual hotch potch of made up bullshit) but just the type of thing you'd expect to find if evolution were true.

Other Comments by phasmagigas

34. Comment #178501 by Artful_Dodger on May 11, 2008 at 1:57 pm

Who says there is one?

Dawkins does, when he says that a world where "nature red in tooth and claw" rules is the kind of world that he would not wish to live in, and when he encourages his peers to fight for a better one. But maybe he's wrong?

Other Comments by Artful_Dodger

35. Comment #178504 by phasmagigas on May 11, 2008 at 1:58 pm

So where does the PRESCRIPTION come from then,

if thesre is a prescription it could come from allah or even kali in some peverse way but i personally dont accept either of those explanations.

Other Comments by phasmagigas

36. Comment #178505 by Mitchell Gilks on May 11, 2008 at 1:59 pm

Indeed, Paula. So where does the PRESCRIPTION come from then...

Quite clearly, demonstratably, and obviously it comes from human beings. People say what we ought and ought not do. That is how ethics work. We don't go around punching people in the face because they don't want to get punched in the face, and the result of doing so would often result in behaviour that you don't want.

Other Comments by Mitchell Gilks

37. Comment #178509 by RamziD on May 11, 2008 at 2:13 pm

The fact that we evolved into thoughtful human beings with foresight is obvious, but it does beg the interesting question on how and when it happened. I'm sure there has been research done on this, but I am ignorant of it and it's hypotheses to date.

Other Comments by RamziD

38. Comment #178510 by phasmagigas on May 11, 2008 at 2:16 pm

it makes sense that in an evolved biological world that animals (for eg) have some type of 'behaviour code' they simply have to other wise they would just be randomly buzzing about and that could never seemingly be selected for. A forgaing ant doesnt bite through every grass stem it finds as that would be a waste of time, whirling dervishes of destruction tend not to exist in nature, a captive tarantula doesnt constantly strike at the glass of its tank, it just sits there 'behaving' itself as such, it doesnt need a god to sit quietly and a lack of a god doesnt mean it will bite eveything in its path.

we judge our own behaviour in a biased way, is our good behaviour any different from that of a tarantula sitting quietly in its tank??

Other Comments by phasmagigas

39. Comment #178511 by Mitchell Gilks on May 11, 2008 at 2:16 pm

It's merely levels of forsight, we are not the only animal with forsight, just the one with the best forsight. Don't believe me, hit your dog three time and then raise your hand. If it flinches, then it must be able to infer that you raising your hand is followed by it getting hit.

None of the qualities of people magically appeared one day. Even language, art, music and things of that nature must be a by-product of other traits that other animals have by lack the proper combinations or developement of certain traits to do it themselves. Everything developed gradually.

It has been suggested (quite plausably in my opinion) that our affinity for mathematics and logic is a by-product of learning to throw spears and rocks accurately, which take extremely powerful and fast calculations, and muscle and limp dexterity in order to do.

Other Comments by Mitchell Gilks

40. Comment #178517 by Dr Benway on May 11, 2008 at 2:22 pm

epeeist: And by the way - you still owe me a description of how you separate the literal from the metaphorical in your "holy book". And who gives you the right to do it.

Non-responsiveness is not honorable, Artful_Dodger.

Each new post from you without an answer will count as a strike. Strike three, and we'll have proven who you are beyond a shadow of a doubt.

Other Comments by Dr Benway

41. Comment #178519 by Artful_Dodger on May 11, 2008 at 2:25 pm

It is a truism Mitchell that people say what we ought to do and what we ought not to do. This is a no brainer. It is also true that individual human beings make choices irrespective of what other people tell them. There is an innate sense of right and wrong within every human being. The question to be addressed is this: on what basis do they choose or fail to choose what is right? It is obviously not a case of always choosing what is conducive to their survival, as their are many cases when the survival choice is not the right choice. There are many cases where people choose (or fail to choose) what is "just" or "fair" irrespective of the consequences for themselves.

As a rule it is true that people do not go around punching each other in the face, and the fact that they don't want to get punched in return might have something to do with it in many cases. Nevertheless, there are those who, despite this observation, criticise and condemn human behaviour in many instances. And rightly so! If our behaviour is on the whole orientated towards our survival, what's the problem? No one condemns lions for devouring antelopes! In fact we don't have any moral problems with the behaviour of any other organism on the planet, however cruel and bloody it might be! We don't praise ants for their organisational capacities.

Other Comments by Artful_Dodger

42. Comment #178521 by Artful_Dodger on May 11, 2008 at 2:28 pm

Each new post from you without an answer will count as a strike. Strike three, and we'll have proven who you are beyond a shadow of a doubt

I have answered the literal v metaphor question. Now you are the ones that are side-stepping the questions!

Other Comments by Artful_Dodger

43. Comment #178526 by Cartomancer on May 11, 2008 at 2:42 pm

There is an innate sense of right and wrong within every human being. The question to be addressed is this: on what basis do they choose or fail to choose what is right?

I think you will find that the calculations which are made differ from individual to individual. As does the precise nature of the innate evolved moral sense. For most people there is a creative tension between what simply "feels right" and what has been reasoned out using the critical faculties. There are plenty of good articles on this site describing the progress of psychology and neurophysiology in mapping this phenomenon, why don't you go and read some of those? And then follow the links to some more?

Other Comments by Cartomancer

44. Comment #178535 by Artful_Dodger on May 11, 2008 at 2:49 pm

Yes I know there are some good articles on the mind/brain interface Cartomancer. I can direct you to a few of them if you wish.

Other Comments by Artful_Dodger

45. Comment #178537 by Cartomancer on May 11, 2008 at 2:53 pm

Why then, I wonder, do you insist on asking these questions again and again as if there were not good enough answers in the literature? If you have neurophysiology questions that need answering, ask a neurophysiologist, not a web forum!

Other Comments by Cartomancer

46. Comment #178539 by mordacious1 on May 11, 2008 at 2:56 pm

Cartomancer You crack me up. Thanks.

Other Comments by mordacious1

47. Comment #178542 by Artful_Dodger on May 11, 2008 at 3:02 pm

These are questions that anyone committed to natural selection and convinced of its explanatory power needs to address. So far answers have been thin on the ground!

Other Comments by Artful_Dodger

48. Comment #178544 by Dr Benway on May 11, 2008 at 3:08 pm

STRIKE ONE! for the Artful_Dodger

STRIKE TWO! oh, he lives up to his name

STRIKE THREE! HE'S OUT!

There you have it, folks. No answer to the question: "How does one know which parts of the Bible are literal and which are metaphoric?"

And yet he pretends to know.

Other Comments by Dr Benway

49. Comment #178546 by Dr Benway on May 11, 2008 at 3:14 pm

Artful_Dodger: These are questions that anyone committed to natural selection and convinced of its explanatory power needs to address. So far answers have been thin on the ground!

We have an answer: morality is the set of rules that sustain relationships. People in relationships negotiate those rules.

Someone like you who claims that morality is something else has to try a little harder to answer the question. If it comes from God, how do you get it? Does the Holy Spirit magic it into your head? If it's from the Bible, how do you interpret... oh wait, we know you won't answer that one.

Other Comments by Dr Benway

50. Comment #178548 by Cartomancer on May 11, 2008 at 3:19 pm

These are questions that anyone committed to natural selection and convinced of its explanatory power needs to address. So far answers have been thin on the ground!

The question you asked was essentially "how do we make moral decisions?" On a technical level, that's a matter of neuroscience, and the neuroscience of decision-making is a very new discipline. Research continues apace in exploring its subtleties.

But we have understood for quite a long time that those subtleties are there to be explored: that decision making is entirely a function of the evolved brain. There is no evidence anywhere which suggests that it is not, and masses of evidence which shows that it is. Given this I fail to see where you raise anything remotely resembling a legitimate concern.

Or are you seriously saying that you fail to see any survival advantage in the possession of a decision-making capacity along with a set of inbuilt moral guidelines?

Other Comments by Cartomancer