Jeff

@ Nicholas and Whomever: I%u2019m not really sure that genetics answers all of the questions concerning human personality and morality. I think there are other sociological and yes, theological issues which must be addressed. I know you wrote that it is %u201CTHE CODE%u201D which prompts us to behave a certain way. But we do not have to obey this code evidently because you said that it is much easier to deviate from this code than it would be to defy God. I%u2019m not sure if this is what you meant or not. I think it was in response to my asking whether we have a choice in our behavior or not from a genetics standpoint. You used the example of homosexuality as being a genetic trait as opposed to something that people choose. Is this correct? Has there been any evidence found for a genetic link to homosexuality? If there is no evidence, what explains homosexuality? Is it a choice? I also note what you wrote in relation to God being UNJUST because he does not give us a choice between Heaven and Hell. In thinking about God and understanding him to be just, why should he ever give us a possibility of Heaven at all, if, as the Bible says, we have chosen to disobey him? I guess some of what we are talking about here stems from what it means for God to be just. I do think God has provided a %u201Cway out%u201D from hell, however, and that is found in the person of Christ. Is God using us in a plan to which we cannot agree to join and thus he becomes UNJUST? I do not think we are just pawns in some kind of game in which God is playing with us. However, God has a purpose for creation. In understanding the Bible, we are not here by random chance, but by design and it%u2019s only when we live the way we were designed does life make sense. The problem, however, is that we have inherited rebelliousness from our ancestors and this problem is one in which we drift toward disobeying our Creator. So, if God is just and righteous, we deserve Hell, not Heaven. It%u2019s not that we do not have a choice, it is that we have MADE THE CHOICE to disobey. God%u2019s plan is to bring us back to that which we were designed which is to glorify Him. Well, I know this will more than likely bring about a ton of questions and I believe that is a good thing. I%u2019m open to hearing what people think! Once again, anyone open to discussing these things over coffee? Let me know!

Jeff Kennon

I'm a little behind on posting some comments...actually I'm MORE than just a little behind. I do have one thought, is it possible for some to meet together soon and discuss some of the ideas being posted face to face. What about a monthly meeting? Let me know what you think!

Rod

Human behavior is an extremely complex phenomenon. It is a synergistic combination of influences namely genes and enviroment. The extent to which one or the other affects behavior may not be clear for every situation. The ways in which genes and enviroment interact is a constent topic of study for a wide range of disciplines. Humans present a problem they bring alot of "baggage". But if we look at the behaviors of slightly less intelligent primates and other animals we can more clearly see the primary motivators of their behavior and of our own.

Nicholas

@Jeff: Just to clarify: A genetic code evolved from selfishness would certainly survive over a code not evolved from such a motive. You said:"Example: I save my daughter from drowning because she is genetically closer to me. But that is in my best interest is it not?" and I would like to point out, a genetic code, like the one we are clearly discussing, is prevalent and predominant within a species, not an individual, at this point. As such I feel it necessary to point out that you have not acknowledged this, instead you still argue from the individuals' perspective. Is it in YOUR (individual) best interest? Maybe, maybe not. However, saving your daughter (who shares this genetic code with you in a direct connection) is in the best interest of THE CODE, which is why you are driven to save her. Indeed, many people choose to "do good" from motives other than TRUE altruism, but that impluse or motive comes not from an individual deciding to do good simply because it is good, but rather from THE CODE compeling us to "do good" (in this case helping others). I really want that to become the idea behind the discussion of genes and selfishness v.s. altruism. Also, on another note, you point out that "if it is just genetic, then do we have a say in how we behacve or think or is it just handed down to us from our parents?" A good arguement, however, one easily turned against you, if you are a Christian, or against Christians, if you do not count yourself in their number. If it is just religious, then do we have a say in how we behave or think or is it just handed down to us from God? And let me also point out that the view of God as omniscient, omnipotent, and omnipresent makes it far more likely to be able to simply defy genetics than to defy him on such a wide spread scale. Right-wingers and Christians (often one and the same) believe (challenge me if I am wrong) that homosexuality is a choice, not a genetic imperative (meaning you can't be "born gay"). If it's not genetics, and therefore easier to deviate from, and it really is God then how can there be gay people? And before anyone says "There are gay people because God gives us free will and they choose to be gay," think in the opposition. Is it really so hard to think of denying your genetic impulses rather than to defy divine imperative? On a side note: If God gives us a choice then why is there no way out, no choice between Heaven and Hell? Obviously no one would CHOOSE to go to Hell, as it exists in the Christian doctrine, so essentially God is using us in a plan to which we cannot, in principle, agree to (philosophers understand this idea as Kantian Injustice), thereby making God UNJUST. However if it is not God, but rather genes, then I would think that Christians would then give a little on the issue of homosexuality by nature (genetic) and keep their idea of a Just God unopposed by nonbelievers. To say that God makes us do what he wants is to make God UNJUST. To say, on the same hand, that God sends our eternal souls to a place of fire, brimstone, and eternal punishment if we choose poorly after he gives us "a choice and free will" is to make God UNJUST. Sorry if I'm kindof all over the place with this one. If there are any questions (not insults) please direct them at me specifically and I'll clarify.

Jeff

Katie: Good thought about meeting again sometime! Let's try to get something together soon.

Jeff

Rod: Thanks for the further response concerning the concept of the selfish gene. As you explained further, however, it did seem that the reason that genes continue is due to their "selfish" desire to continue. Example: I save my daughter from drowning because she is genetically closer to me. But that is in my best interest is it not? Granted, I would want to save my daughter from any harm but the question is why I do such a thing? Or why would I want to save anyone or help anyone? Studies have shown that many people help others not from true altruism but for reasons to better themselves or for their own selfish reasons. I personally think I do things at times for selfish reasons. Another question is are there others who do not have the genetic makeup to help others? I guess I still am wondering if it is possible to link all of what we do morally or immorally to genetics. If it is just genetic, then do we have a say in how we behave or think or is it just handed down to us from our parents? Just still thinking about the issue. Forgive me if I still don't understand what you are thinking.

Katie

It is very rare, I have found, that a group of non-believers and believers get together in the same room to discuss religion and philosophy. What does everyone think about maybe having a monthly or bi-weekly meeting to discuss and talk about questions that we normally wouldnt get to discuss with one another? Maybe each session can have a specific topic/question as to not have it drag on from one topic to the next for hours. Or does anyone else have any ideas of what they would like to do? I think it would be really interesting and beneficial in certain ways.

Rod

Just because you can say that atheists have no way to explain why we have morals and why they matter does not make it so. Nor does it leave "god did it" as the only alternative. Please explain to me how this "The difference is that as Christians, we are held to an even higher standard of morals than that of the non-believer. " is supposed to be taken as anything but a pompus arrogant holier than thou self serving insult to everyone else one the planet? I think atheist who do good are more moral than their religious counterparts who do the same good deeds. Because atheists are not afraid of hell or trying to brown nose the big boss in the sky. When they do good it's be Jase it is good. Not to long ago I saw blind man trying to cross 34th around rush hour. I walked over to him and asked if he needed help and helped him cross. Not for fear or love of god but because my highly evolved brain can compute a simulation of what it would be like to try and cross a busy street blind. It moved me emontionaly. Which is to say that the simulation my brain ran altered the levels of certain hormones and chemicals present in my brain and body. A over simplification of the complex mechanisms through which we feel emotion and make decsions. But I was able to empathize with my fellow human being and feel the fear and helplessness he felt. I do not need god to tell me it is right or wrong I make my own conclusions based on the evidence and information I have. I think god could not make something right which is wrong. I point you back to my previous post and psalms 137:9 and I say they that bash little ones on rocks are not blessed but bad people and anyone whose says they are blessed is more than a little messed up.

Jacob

I am a follower of Christ. I think that we all have an overall sense of right and wrong because Adam and Eve in Genesis ate of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil, so I think we all have a good idea of what is right, and what is not. The difference is that as Christians, we are held to an even higher standard of morals than that of the non-believer. Loving your enemies is a good example. The Atheist, as an Atheist has no way to explain these inherent morals we all have (including everyone), or why morals even matter (in a scientific way that stays true to atheism). Something that someone touched on was that we had certain morals before Christianity, Judaism, or before Christ came. From a Christian perspective, this does not suffice, since God has been around and in contact with man from before the beginning of Christianity, or even Judaism for that matter. Someone also asserted that Christianity came from Judaism which came from the teachings of Zoroaster. I am aware there are certain history courses here at Tech that even I have taken that teach this, but it is simply inaccurate to say that Judaism came from Zoroastrianism since the book of Job was written hundreds of years before Zoroaster. This is significant because Dr. Forsythe, for example, teaches that the Hebrews got their idea of Satan from Zoroaster, while in Job, Satan is central to the book. Just thought I'd share some things not completely related to the video. Thanks for reading.

Rod

So humans have an innate moral code because we were created in gods image. Could god make something moral that we now consider Immoral? If god is the source of morality then it should be no problem for him to adjust the laws he made. But if he did not make them and they come from somewhere else then he could not make something moral just by saying it is.  "Happy shall he be, that taketh and dasheth thy little ones against the stones." psalms 137:9 kjv still sounds immoral even when god says it?

Rod

I am sorry as I was very distracted as I completed my explanation of evolution of alturism. I will try to do better but I recomend you read the book. Survival of the fittest is most often interpretted as the fittest individual. But a more modern version of the theory post 1960-70 is more like survival of the fittest gene or group of genes. The point brought up at the movie was how does reciprocal alturism explain the giving of resources to hati when there can be no reasonable expectation of reciprocation. Well it does not but that is not considered the cause of all alturism in humans and other primates. The selfish gene explains the alturistic individual. If you consider the gene as what needs to be fit to replicate and look at the individual as the vehicle through wich it replicates. Then you start to unerstand human alturism. Let's pretend you have a wife and a daughter (you may have I do not know) So I will pose some theoretical questions. You Are out on a lake enjoying a beautiful day on the lake when tragedy strikes the boat flips you can only save one person your wife or your daughter.........................%u2026%u2026%u2026......... The overwhelming majority of people chose to save their offspring over their significant other why? Because you know they have the second closest genetic relation possible between two people. Where as your significant other shares very little. So if a part of you genetic code is able to figurativly say "help all those who share your this gene" you can see how it would help the survival of the gene even at a cost to some of the individuals fittness. Why save a drowning man with no k own relation to you from certian death? Because from the genes point of veiw it can save itself from the lake with a slight risk to the person doing the saving. Thereby saving two copies of itself. Human share an overwhelming amount of the same genes. Humans and mammels share alot of the same genes too. Why do you cringe when someone kicks a puppy? Well puppys share alot of the same genes and when they are young they have not yet had time to reporduce another key factor in the level of risk one is willing to take to help others. Save the elderly person from drowning or the child? Generally the child. Why? Why do we have less affection for reptiles or amphibians or fish or plants than we do mammels? We are still very closely related to mammels. And related closer still to the hatians who are in great need were as we have a great abundance of wealth and resources it would greatly behove our genes to motivate us emotionally to assist the hatian people. Which we have done. Exactly as the theory of evolution would have predictaded. True altuirsm? Yes I think it does exist becuase there is not one overwhelming force to give or one to be selfish they are both present in each indivdual to different degrees. Which one a person chooses could be based on external factors childhood tramas of doing without basic necessities could make some one unreasonably selfish. Being raised in a home where all needs are taken care of then some might lead to someone willing to freely give. But nurture influences are also affected by genetics. Where someone might just be more inclined one way or another.

Jeff

Nicholas: I would agree that moral behavior existed before Christ, Moses, and Abraham. I believe this is so because of being created in the "image of God." All peoples have a moral code. Why? Because of our creator. I also think it is important to understand that the giving of the "ten commandments" was not just a moral code. I believe to fully understand the "ten commandments" we must understand what is meant by "covenant" in the Old Testament. God was not just issuing some laws, he was entering into a relationship. I will try to post more on what I mean by this if further questions arise.

Jeff

Rod: I have a few questions in regards to your comments on Dawkins' book and concept of "the selfish gene." You wrote that it is not "survival of the fittest" and yet you used the word "fittest" in relation to "genes." So is it not those genes that are "fit" the ones that survive? Does not the evolution of genes come about by those genes that are "selfish" and seek their own survival? Granted, one of those genes could form our genetic makeup of altruism, but again, if that was so, would that not mean that our so-called "altruism" evolved only for our own survival? And, if our altruistic tendancies are tied to genes, can one say they are really a giving person? Is not the understanding of altruistic behavior that of choice? If it's tied to genes then is our choice for giving no different than our choice for the color of our hair? I also have one final question: Does "true" altruism really exist?

Nicholas

@Robert: Strawman? I think not. The entire point of my arguement was not to refute that America is a Christian Nation (though indeed it does that as well) but rather to force the people who claim that Christianity is good for the world to open their eyes to the fact that Christianity can't even be proven to be good for America, so how can one possibly argue it could be good for the entire planet? And, not to attack you personally, but at least my arguement coherently followed from the question posed rather than simply denouncing the validity of another simply because I could not see it's intent or message, as yours did. Nonetheless, as the veracity of my argument is not the subject of this debate, to call out that my arguement is worthless on the subject of the question posed without supplementing one of your own or furthering my arguement with conclusions of your own, not only makes your arguement one of ignorance in that you did not see the message of mine, but worthless as it does not even bother to ponder or pose a solution to the question at all, nor does it take a definite postion in the debate as mine obviously did. I would kindly ask you to, please, not simply attack any arguement that you feel does not support any conclusion that may be derived from the debate at hand until you further your understanding of the arguement itself, whether in asking the individual who penned it, or reflecting upon it until such a conclusion reveals itself to you through that arguement. And, as Robert has shown, obvioiusly we must be blatant in our positions in order to be understood. Therefore I say to clear up any further confusion concerning my initial arguement below: No. Christianity is NOT good for the world. 1. Those who claim it is often use America as proof. "Look at us! We are a Christian Nation and we have done splendidly!" To which I say (and said) "No. This is not the case. America is NOT a Christian Nation. And here's my evidence. From this evidence it follows that you must first prove or show that Christianity is good for any one nation before you attempt to prove it may be good for the world as a whole, which you have not and cannot do."

Nicholas

To use Rod's comments on the genetics of survival and, therefore, the survival of altruism, I would like to move one step further and point out that during the course of the film itself, as well as the discussion that followed, it was, on several occasions, presented that morality does not come from religion. As Hitchens put it, the Jews did not wander about thinking it was perfectly satisfactory to kill, steal, and lie, only stopping when some divine figure revealed himself to their leader and gave them such rules as to inhibit that behavior. That is utter nonsense! Christians often say (and as I was raised in a fiercly Baptist home, I may speak thus with authority of experience and prior knowledge) that we should not boast, a wise man does not boast of his work, be not prideful, to be proud is to be foolish, or several other statements to that effect. Yet for Christians, and indeed ANY creed or faith or religion, to claim that the morality of humankind would not be as it is without the revelation of their god is a deeply prideful declaration. The Greeks, the Chinese, the Japanese, the Native American Peoples, the Indians all no doubt had innate, natural, and instinctual revulsions to murder, theft, lying, dishonoring elders or parents, adultery, disregard of the holy days, profaning their deities names, or any of the other things that may be found in the ten commandments of Judaism and Christianity. These socities existing THOUSANDS of years before the birth of Christ, before the birth of David, before the birth of Moses, before the birth of Abraham, surely had no ties with the largely uneducated and uncivilized desert peoples and as such had no way of knowing of the prophecies or teachings that Judeo-Christian believers base their faiths on. Yet these people still did not kill, lie, steal, and the like, at least not without punishment for those crimes. Christianity is not a new idea of punishment for crimes, it merely introduced crimes that eternally stained the soul, followed by punishments eternally acted out after the death of the body...arrogance again. Pride again. Finally, to take it back to the main of the arguement, Morality does not, and CAN NOT have come from religion. The evolutionist theory of survival of the fittest does not mean the fittest individual unless, by default, that individual had the fittest genetic code thereby enabling survival and procreation in his genetic image. Third, as I mentioned before in my tirade against the idea of a Christian Nation, were altruism an inspired idea of divine origin, America would still not have basis for it's political or humanitarian efforts in religious doctrine. And lastly, a Christian, a Jew, a Muslim, a Pagan, an Athiest, an Agnostic, a Daoist, a Buddhist, a Hindu, or any other believer or non-believer in faith or creed can school you in the basics of HUMAN morality, not religious morality, but HUMAN morality, which has evolved throughout the history of humanity, in nations of different peoples, different histories, and different beliefs, and has reached a vastly similar consensus of what is right and what is wrong which cannot be explained by the introduction of one religion or another.

Robert

@Nicholas Your entire argument below is a complete strawman. Even if you assume the US was founded completely on Christian principles, that assumption doesn't get you anywhere in arguing that Christianity is good or bad for the entire world. So refuting that argument is worthless - its veracity doesn't do any work.

Rod

I would like to respond to the question that came up in the theater that was not completely responded to at the time and that is " how does evolution explain the alturistic behavior of the U.S. in giving aid to the haitians when we can be certian that it will not be reciprocated in our lifetime." This critisism has been around quite some time and was answered best by Dawkins in his book the selfish gene. A title that has led to a great deal of confusion as it is mostly about alturism. A very simplified version of the idea is that you are looking at evolution from the wrong perspective it is not survival of the fittest individual but of the fittest replicator or genes. An obvious atribute of fit genes that would help the genes survive and replicate; is for it to figuratively say something like help things with the same gene.

Rod

Religion in general and Christianity in particular are definitely bad for the world.

Drew

The secularists will be there!

Geoff

I had the same impression....very dissappointed that Christopher Hitchens won't be appearing!

Oscar

The movie will be shown with a discussion afterward.

Chris

So is Christopher Hitchens coming, or are they just showing the film. The flyer, which doesn't mention a film, would suggest that they are coming to campus for a debate, but this webpage seems to suggest otherwise. If they are not coming, the Tech Activities Board or whoever should be more careful about their advertisements.

Nicholas

Good for the world? As a whole is Christianity good for the entire Planet Earth? I don't think so. And before the right wing bible thumpers jump and scream that America (in particular) was founded as a Christian nation and as leaders of the world order we need to show the rest of the world the light and the way, they need to sit and think again because that is just not true. Founded by Christian individuals? Yes. Were all of the Fathers Christian? A resounding "NO!" and indeed the vast majority of the founding fathers were specifically NOT CHRISTIANS. Remember that one of the biggest reasons that America was founded was because of England's refusal to seperate church and state. George Washington's personal diaries show that he rarely attended church. Thomas Paine wrote that each of the religions accuse the others of unbelief and he himself disbelieved all of them. Educated Christians like to quote Patrick Henry and his various declarations of founding America on the basis of the Christian faith, however he lost the battle to put Christianity in the Constitution, and as an anit-federalist, he vigorously opposed ratification of the Constitution in the FIRST PLACE. Presidents John Adams and Thomas Jefferson denounce Christianity, and Judaism, as full of fairytales and fables, as well as denying belief in the divinity of Jesus, godly miracles, the Trinity, and the spirituality of souls, respectively. In short, before the Christians cry out that the world would be lost without Christianity, mayhaps they should look at the lack of faith in the foundation of their own nation, then sit and think on the fact that religiouly based arguements and faith driven proclimations of necessity fall as deafly on "non-believer's" ears as the cries of other faiths fall upon their own. And on a final note, to claim that their faith is superior, and by default THEY are superior for that faith, is a fantasticaly arrogant claim, filled with overweening pride (a sin), condemnation (which they do not have the privelage of expressing), and judgement (which, by their own account, they do not have the right to pass, only God does).

Paul Richardson

This is going to be one very interesting event.

Oscar

I think the world has used Christianity to form a moral code and call it it's own. I don't know where we'd be without it.