(September 12, 2012 at 4:21 pm)liam Wrote: In case you hadn't noticed, we are primates too and your assumption that altruism is impossible for atheists is (1) personally insulting, and (2) completely incorrect.You misunderstood me. Altruism is not impossible for atheists because they are created by God with a moral code like anybody. I argued that altruism would be impossible if humans evolved. Perhaps I should ask you: how does altruism fit with evolution? Be careful in your answer, because many scientists believe true altruism does not fit at all. Take Richard Dawkins:
Quote:"We now have four good Darwinian reasons for individuals to be altruistic, generous or 'moral' towards each other. First, there is the special case of genetic kinship. Second, there is reciprocation: the repayment of favours given, and the giving of favours in 'anticipation' of payback. Following on from this there is, third, the Darwinian benefit of acquiring a reputation for generosity and kindness. And fourth, if Zahavi is right, there is the particular additional benefit of conspicuous generosity as a way of buying unfakeably authentic advertising."
Every 'altruistic' action he mentions reflects back to the individual. In other words, I do nice things to 1) get nice things done back, 2) have my or similar genes passed on, 3) receive fame or 4) because am persuaded by other people who do good for the first three reasons. Are not 1) and 3) selfish? Is not 2) narcissistic programming, akin to the ability of a robot? Dawkins means actions appear altruistic, but the gene is inherently selfish. Do you think morals are still morals even if followed for selfish or robotic reasons? If so, your definition of moral is different from a Christian's.