Subject:
|
Re: Worthlessness
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Sun, 19 Sep 2004 11:17:26 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1649 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, John Neal wrote:
| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, David Koudys wrote:
| |
I don’t go “I’m contributing to this charity *because* I’m a Christian!”
|
You should, or else Dave! is correct.
|
Just about every time I’ve been completely disgusted by a post on Lugnet, it’s
been for this reason. “Or else Dave! is correct?” So many people around here
turn everything into an us-vs-them. Somebody disagrees with your ideas, you
could rationally discuss the merits of each viewpoint and come to some kind of
consensus, but instead you react as if they just made threats on your life.
Would you actually die if you had to admit you were wrong? Or even that there
were alternative opinions that might also be correct? I wouldn’t mind this
mindset so much if it stayed in o.t.d. where it belongs, but it’s always
spilling out into the other newsgroups and making me insane. Listen, if it gets
to the point that it’s more about winning than about finding the truth, then
you’ve already lost by default.
| |
Not at all the same. I still don’t have a satisfactory answer from atheists
to the question “why do good?” (from a personal standpoint rather than some
overall societal efficiency explanation)
|
It was mathematically proven in 1950 using general equilibrium theory, in a
paper that really kicked off the modern study of game theory and later won the
Nobel Prize for redefining modern economics. You need to know some math to
understand it, but it’s only 27 pages and you should be able to find a copy
online. It’s called the “Nash Equilibrium” paper. In essence it states that
the most profitable course of action for any individual within a system is to
serve the interests of that system as much as his own. Originally Nash was
referring to economic systems, but the theory is extensible to social and
familial systems. And in fact, as has been shown in later decades, genetics
actively select for this behavior.
I would submit that everything we think of as “good” can also be described as
“behavior that serves the interests of the social system.” Submitting to social
norms, providing aid to those in need, making people feel good rather than bad,
etc., all make society perform more smoothly and increase the potential for
reward for individuals participating in the system. And you can easily see that
in general, what a person believes is “good” is closely aligned with which
social systems he most closely identifies with - whether “American,”
“conservative Christian,” “Lego fan,” “family member,” etc.
It’s not necessarily something we have to consciously think about, either. We
feel “good” when we contribute to and participate in our communities, we feel
“bad” when we harm or feel excluded from our communities. The same as we feel
“good” when kissing an attractive potential mate and feel “bad” when we see
disgusting rotten food that might give us diseases. We’ve evolved to have
emotional responses to things that will help us to survive and procreate, and
“being good” has been proven to be one of those things.
| |
| |
Some Christians would say your choices to support your fellow person are
‘Gods laws written on your heart’ even if you don’t believe in Him. Eh,
whatever...
|
Again, if that were the case, what is the point of believing in Him?
|
I don’t think believing in God has to have a point. If it did, then you’d be
saying that that “point” was what justified God - in effect, that it was more
important than Him. If you believe in God, then He is His own justification or
“point.” Being “good” is good regardless of religious belief.
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Worthlessness
|
| (...) You should, or else Dave! is correct. (...) You should, or else Dave! is correct. (...) Not at all the same. I still don't have a satisfactory answer from atheists to the question "why do good?" (from a personal standpoint rather than some (...) (20 years ago, 16-Sep-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
44 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
