Comments on: An Open Letter to Jews on Rosh Hashanah http://atheists.org/blog/2009/09/18/an-open-letter-to-jews-on-rosh-hashanah A Blog of Atheist Thought Fri, 10 Feb 2012 10:05:55 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: sgrill http://atheists.org/blog/2009/09/18/an-open-letter-to-jews-on-rosh-hashanah/comment-page-1#comment-109772 sgrill Sat, 26 Sep 2009 22:57:37 +0000 http://atheists.org/blog/?p=1924#comment-109772 what says: It does seem to me that you were calling for more criticism of "jews" Maybe I misunderstood your point. what says: It does seem to me that you were calling for more criticism of “jews” Maybe I misunderstood your point.

]]> By: Shodan06 http://atheists.org/blog/2009/09/18/an-open-letter-to-jews-on-rosh-hashanah/comment-page-1#comment-109744 Shodan06 Fri, 25 Sep 2009 19:05:01 +0000 http://atheists.org/blog/?p=1924#comment-109744 I'm pretty sure that without working together, first in small groups and later in societies, we wouldn't be where we are. "They steal and kill to survive. Survival of the fittest." The competition so frequently refered to in nature, is between individuals of the same species. A lion doesn't compete with the wildebeast, it competes with other lions. Same with the great apes. The competition is with each other. Rarely does the direct competition between males, when competing for a mate or territory, does the competition result in death... The less dominant will USUALLY give up prior to death thereby preserving diversity within the species. The root of the problem when trying to explain where "morals" come from is in the role reversal between man and civilization. Civilization, and morals for that matter, are tools. Tools created by man for the good of man. The purpose is to allow a large group of individuals to live within a samll area without undue conflict. Realizing there is less conflict within a herd of sheep than a pack of wolves, society attempts to render sheeplike the greatest killer the world has ever known, man. The role reversal occurs when society gets large enough that it shapes the indiviual. We then loose sight of how we got here, thinking that we are more important than we really are. "Good" and "evil" are relative. Really, there is no "good" or "evil" there is only what we describe as such. Evolutionary biologist have done a good job of eplaining where "morals" come from and it's not religion, its inate.. I’m pretty sure that without working together, first in small groups and later in societies, we wouldn’t be where we are. “They steal and kill to survive. Survival of the fittest.” The competition so frequently refered to in nature, is between individuals of the same species. A lion doesn’t compete with the wildebeast, it competes with other lions. Same with the great apes. The competition is with each other. Rarely does the direct competition between males, when competing for a mate or territory, does the competition result in death… The less dominant will USUALLY give up prior to death thereby preserving diversity within the species.

The root of the problem when trying to explain where “morals” come from is in the role reversal between man and civilization. Civilization, and morals for that matter, are tools. Tools created by man for the good of man. The purpose is to allow a large group of individuals to live within a samll area without undue conflict. Realizing there is less conflict within a herd of sheep than a pack of wolves, society attempts to render sheeplike the greatest killer the world has ever known, man. The role reversal occurs when society gets large enough that it shapes the indiviual. We then loose sight of how we got here, thinking that we are more important than we really are. “Good” and “evil” are relative. Really, there is no “good” or “evil” there is only what we describe as such. Evolutionary biologist have done a good job of eplaining where “morals” come from and it’s not religion, its inate..

]]> By: ned_ludd http://atheists.org/blog/2009/09/18/an-open-letter-to-jews-on-rosh-hashanah/comment-page-1#comment-109743 ned_ludd Fri, 25 Sep 2009 18:01:08 +0000 http://atheists.org/blog/?p=1924#comment-109743 Two things of note come to me. Stephen J. Gould appropriately remarked, "There are no shortcuts to moral insight. Nature is not intrinsically anything that can offer comfort or solace in human terms – if only because our species is such an insignificant latecomer in a world not constructed for us. So much the better. The answers to moral dilemmas are not lying out there, waiting to be discovered. They reside, like the kingdom of God, within us – the most difficult and inaccessible spot for any discovery or consensus." Of "the kingdom of God" is imagery, but some religious will surely interpret it differently. Then Stephen Pinker gave a good TED lecture on the history of violence. http://www.ted.com/talks/steven_pinker_on_the_myth_of_violence.html Two things of note come to me. Stephen J. Gould appropriately remarked, “There are no shortcuts to moral insight. Nature is not intrinsically anything that can offer comfort or solace in human terms – if only because our species is such an insignificant latecomer in a world not constructed for us. So much the better. The answers to moral dilemmas are not lying out there, waiting to be discovered. They reside, like the kingdom of God, within us – the most difficult and inaccessible spot for any discovery or consensus.”

Of “the kingdom of God” is imagery, but some religious will surely interpret it differently.

Then Stephen Pinker gave a good TED lecture on the history of violence.

http://www.ted.com/talks/steven_pinker_on_the_myth_of_violence.html

]]> By: what http://atheists.org/blog/2009/09/18/an-open-letter-to-jews-on-rosh-hashanah/comment-page-1#comment-109732 what Fri, 25 Sep 2009 06:07:36 +0000 http://atheists.org/blog/?p=1924#comment-109732 Sgrill Pay attention. Nobody here is doing the generalization thing. Sgrill

Pay attention. Nobody here is doing the generalization thing.

]]> By: sgrill http://atheists.org/blog/2009/09/18/an-open-letter-to-jews-on-rosh-hashanah/comment-page-1#comment-109730 sgrill Fri, 25 Sep 2009 02:24:35 +0000 http://atheists.org/blog/?p=1924#comment-109730 Sorry, I posted a similar thing somewhere else above (having trouble figuring out where posts wind up). Tregg asks if there are evolutionary mechanisms which produce morality. I recommend a recent books summarizing some of the scientific literature "The Evolution of Morality" by Richard Joyce and "The Altruism Equation" by Lee Dugatkin. Very interesting reads. There certainly is an advantage to being nice to those you share genes with. 40K years ago we lived in small groups and there was a good likelihood of sharing genes with many in the group. Thus, we helped ensure survival of our shared genes if we helped each other. A man seeing a drowning child from his tribe should save that child even if there is some risk to him in doing so. There is an equation of how likely he should be to save the child based on the risk and the percent of shared genes. Now the man does not do a calculation to decide whether to save the child. Instead, since there is survival benefit in doing so, the evolution of "niceness" simply happened. Also, interesting discussions about the relationships between sister bees. In addition to that, in a society, one's stature is raised by, for example, giving food to others. Lots of other ideas including experiments in chimps where it is clear they have a sense of empathy and fairness. Sorry, I posted a similar thing somewhere else above (having trouble figuring out where posts wind up). Tregg asks if there are evolutionary mechanisms which produce morality. I recommend a recent books summarizing some of the scientific literature “The Evolution of Morality” by Richard Joyce and “The Altruism Equation” by Lee Dugatkin. Very interesting reads. There certainly is an advantage to being nice to those you share genes with. 40K years ago we lived in small groups and there was a good likelihood of sharing genes with many in the group. Thus, we helped ensure survival of our shared genes if we helped each other. A man seeing a drowning child from his tribe should save that child even if there is some risk to him in doing so. There is an equation of how likely he should be to save the child based on the risk and the percent of shared genes. Now the man does not do a calculation to decide whether to save the child. Instead, since there is survival benefit in doing so, the evolution of “niceness” simply happened. Also, interesting discussions about the relationships between sister bees. In addition to that, in a society, one’s stature is raised by, for example, giving food to others. Lots of other ideas including experiments in chimps where it is clear they have a sense of empathy and fairness.

]]>