Believers, Non-Believers & Morality

Originally posted by @romans1009
Then on what basis did they evolve beyond a motivation of self-interest?

Whose self-interest? You mean the self-interest of communal groups, families, neighbourhoods, villages, tribes, races/ethnic/national/trans-national groups, and so on till you get to humanity as a whole?

What "basis"? ...apart from the basis of cultural memory, propagation and continuity that I have mentioned? It's not clear what you are referring to.

You have difficulty imagining human beings growing and developing over time from being motivated and governed by simple individual self-interest to sensibilities that are in tune with something more intricate and on a greater scale?

Originally posted by @romans1009
<<I am allowing him to answer for himself. How can I possibly be seen as 'disallowing' him anything?>>

Reword my question as either, “Why do you feel compelled to answer questions addressed to Ghost?”

It's a public forum. For debates. And discussions. My chosen topic. My thread. What you said is relevant to what I have said to you and to what you have said to me.

Now, you seem to have dodged - once again - my response to the silly thing that you said about what somebody who studies theology apparently "knows". Are you going to respond?

Originally posted by @fmf
Whose self-interest? You mean the self-interest of communal groups, families, neighbourhoods, villages, tribes, races/ethnic/national/trans-national groups, and so on till you get to humanity as a whole?

What "basis"? ...apart from the basis of cultural memory, propagation and continuity that I have mentioned? It's not clear what you are referring to.

Y ...[text shortened]... interest to sensibilities that are in tune with something more intricate and on a greater scale?

If a poor population lives far enough away from a wealthy population to not pose a threat to its well-being or resources, on what basis did the wealthy population’s interest in helping the poor population evolve? When and on what basis did the motivation change from self interest to altruism?

Originally posted by @romans1009
I made no assertion beyond one’s morality is easy to maintain in a comfortable environment but is put to the test - and therefore its genuineness or lack thereof is revealed - in extremely stressful or dire circumstances. That is where the authenticity of one’s morality is tested.

How could you possibly disagree with any of that?

Place an atheist and a Christian in an extremely stressful or dire circumstance. There’s the test.

What do you reckon would happen?

Originally posted by @fmf
It's a public forum. For debates. And discussions. My chosen topic. My thread. What you said is relevant to what I have said to you and to what you have said to me.

Now, you seem to have dodged - once again - my response to the silly thing that you said about what somebody who studies theology apparently "knows". Are you going to respond?

My question was addressed to something specific that Ghost said. I’m interested in hearing his response as he seemed unaware that God’s Holy Spirit indwells Christians, which is very odd for a student of theology not to know.

Originally posted by @fmf
[b]Place an atheist and a Christian in an extremely stressful or dire circumstance. There’s the test.

What do you reckon would happen?[/b]

I think the Christian would fare better for many reasons.

Originally posted by @romans1009
If a poor population lives far enough away from a wealthy population to not pose a threat to its well-being or resources, on what basis did the wealthy population’s interest in helping the poor population evolve? When and on what basis did the motivation change from self interest to altruism?

On the basis of evolving and developing morality that embraces ever larger social groups, like I think I have explained sufficiently well, right?

If a poor population lives far enough away from a wealthy population to not pose a threat to its well-being or resources, on what basis did the wealthy population’s interest in helping the poor population evolve?

Maybe the "wealthy population" didn't, isn't and won't help the "poor population". Maybe other ones will or do or did. You are harping on about something that seems to be a dud to me. If you think you have something sharp to say, I suggest you sharpen it and try again.

Originally posted by @romans1009
I think the Christian would fare better for many reasons.

Give an example of "an extremely stressful or dire circumstance" and some indication how this "test" has been handled by atheists and Christians in reality, so I can see the validity of your assertion. It'd need to be something more than an anecdote or two.

Originally posted by @fmf
On the basis of evolving and developing morality that embraces ever larger social groups, like I think I have explained sufficiently well, right?

[b]If a poor population lives far enough away from a wealthy population to not pose a threat to its well-being or resources, on what basis did the wealthy population’s interest in helping the poor population evolve ...[text shortened]... dud to me. If you think you have something sharp to say, I suggest you sharpen it and try again.

In my example, the wealthy population does help the poor population. That occurs in reality.

The question is, why? If morality developed through an evolutionary process, at what stage and why would self interest give way to altruism?

Originally posted by @fmf
Give an example of "an extremely stressful or dire circumstance" and some indication how this "test" has been handled by atheists and Christians in reality, so I can see the validity of your assertion. It'd need to be something more than an anecdote or two.

I’m not aware of any studies that have been done on the subject. I’m just offering my opinion.

Originally posted by @romans1009
My question was addressed to something specific that Ghost said.

I am sure he will respond at some point.

I’m interested in hearing his response as he seemed unaware that God’s Holy Spirit indwells Christians, which is very odd for a student of theology not to know.

He knows that Christians CLAIM such a thing. But he's an atheist, so it's ludicrous to say that he needs to be aware "that God’s Holy Spirit indwells Christians". You already know from numerous conversations that he is aware of the CLAIMS that Christians make about themselves.

Originally posted by @fmf
I am sure he will respond at some point.

[b]I’m interested in hearing his response as he seemed unaware that God’s Holy Spirit indwells Christians, which is very odd for a student of theology not to know.

He knows that Christians CLAIM such a thing. But he's an atheist, so it's ludicrous to say that he needs to be aware "that God’s Holy Spirit indwel ...[text shortened]... rom numerous conversations that he is aware of the CLAIMS that Christians make about themselves.[/b]

I was referring to something specific that he seemed not to know and that he has not stated since I’ve been posting in the forums.

Originally posted by @romans1009
If morality developed through an evolutionary process, at what stage and why would self interest give way to altruism?

Raw, existential motivations would have given way to more refined and intricate moral sensibilities - and less personally self-interested ones - as the reach of the developing moral philosophy grew in scale - as it encompassed larger and larger populations - became more and more complex and less rooted in providing for and protecting basic needs - and became refined into varying ideologies which gave rise to political action - which is what philanthropy by groups of people would count as.

Originally posted by @romans1009
You studied theology and don’t understand that God’s Holy Spirit indwells Christians?

He's an atheist. So for him there is no "God’s Holy Spirit". How on earth would you think that he'd "understand" that it does "indwell" in you? As a student of theology he can "understand" that it is your CLAIM that there is some supernatural thing that happens, that's all. Don't forget, he's an atheist.

Originally posted by @fmf
Raw, existential motivations would have given way to more refined and intricate moral sensibilities - and less personally self-interested ones - as the reach of the developing moral philosophy grew in scale - as it encompassed larger and larger populations - became more and more complex and less rooted in providing for and protecting basic needs - and became re ...[text shortened]... h gave rise to political action - which is what philanthropy by groups of people would count as.

Going from self-interest to altruism is going from one extreme to another. And I don’t see how it happens gradually - to me, that’s like saying someone is a little bit pregnant.

At some point, if morality developed through evolution, the motivation for self-interest had to give way to a motivation for altruism for altruism to exist - and it’s even harder to explain from an evolutionary basis if the altruism is self-sacrificing to a significant degree.