CIVIL RELIGIOUS DISCUSSION: Public displays of religiosity

[steveh_131]

Because men you are "nice" are selected by women to father their children.

are we living on the same planet? lol

 

[eldirector]

are we living on the same planet? lol

Yep.

Women have a HUGE investment (biologically) in child rearing. They need a mate that will stick around through their pregnancy and through at least a few years of raising the offspring.

While modern "pop" culture Americans don't exhibit this trait, it is beyond common in the rest of the world.

 

[T.Lex]

Wait.

Mourdock's comments notwithstanding, evolution doesn't care about consent to intercourse.

 

[rambone]

When I help the old lady, I get nothing tangible from it. I have no evidence that more people will help me in my old age simply because I helped her. But you're right, it's mostly not selfless. It makes me feel good about myself. Why? Aiding non-reproductive elderly people serves no evolutionary purpose. In fact, helping them serves the opposite purpose. They consume resources and offer very little.

So let's assume this desire is genetic. This desire causes me to expend finite energy and resources aiding people who are absolutely no help to me. How does this enhance my survival probabilities, thereby ensuring that this gene propagates to future iterations of my species?

And yet there is no part of me helping that old lady that contributes to myself having children, or those children helping me someday. There is no biological connection. So how did that genetic desire, if it mutated randomly, translate into me (the one with the mutated gene) having a better chance of survival?

Its not just helping useless old people that serves no evolutionary purpose. This is true for pretty much all forms of "secular morality." Morality, by my estimation, gets in the way of individuals maximizing their earthly potential. Having morals inhibits procreation, pleasure, wealth, and power.

 

[steveh_131]

Women have a HUGE investment (biologically) in child rearing. They need a mate that will stick around through their pregnancy and through at least a few years of raising the offspring.

Your rationale is tenuous at best, in my opinion. It's really reaching. Even the research you provided is pretty vague.

It seems that everywhere else in nature, 'survival of the fittest' looks vastly different than the moral code that we strive towards.

 

[eldirector]

Its not just helping useless old people that serves no evolutionary purpose. This is true for pretty much all forms of "secular morality." Morality, by my estimation, gets in the way of individuals maximizing their earthly potential. Having morals inhibits procreation, pleasure, wealth, and power.

You must not know too many Amish, Mormon, etc... Lots of kids, wealthy by their own standards, and pretty happy. As a matter of fact, I believe that there is an inverse relationship between wealthy/powerful folks and number of progeny (morals not considered).

 

[T.Lex]

You must not know too many Amish, Mormon, etc...

You mean... religious people.

 

[eldirector]

Your rationale is tenuous at best, in my opinion. It's really reaching. Even the research you provided is pretty vague.

It seems that everywhere else in nature, 'survival of the fittest' looks vastly different than the moral code that we strive towards.

Monogamy is very common in nature, especially if you only look at the time between mating and the offspring reaching maturity. It actually makes the offspring much more fit in these cases.

 

[eldirector]

You mean... religious people.

And so, the thread comes full circle.

 

[steveh_131]

Monogamy is very common in nature, especially if you only look at the time between mating and the offspring reaching maturity. It actually makes the offspring much more fit in these cases.

Then why isn't it common among humans?

Sure, the belief that it is right is common. But it certainly doesn't happen much.

What evolutionary purpose is served by this disconnect between our moral code and our actions?

 

[T.Lex]

And so, the thread comes full circle.

Yes, that's kinda my point, as well. If there is such a thing as secular morality, why is it that the conversation comes back around to morality defined by religions?

 

[eldirector]

Then why isn't it common among humans?

It isn't?

 

[DoggyDaddy]

A-hem...

https://www.indianagunowners.com/forums/break-room/385493-stay-classy-beach-grove.html

He said men who were "nice". He never said anything about men with good taste in women.

 

[steveh_131]

It isn't?

Not from my vantage point, it isn't.

Of course, I doubt we'll ever find much proof of all of the non-monogamous activities taking place.

 

[rambone]

You must not know too many Amish, Mormon, etc... Lots of kids, wealthy by their own standards, and pretty happy. As a matter of fact, I believe that there is an inverse relationship between wealthy/powerful folks and number of progeny (morals not considered).

You think 12 kids in an Amish family is a lot? That's just with one woman! Imagine how many offspring a male could produce if he had no honesty, no loyalty, no monogamy, no morals. Hundreds!

I'm observing this from a purely "evolutionary" POV, assuming no moral component of society is enforcing fatherhood responsibilities. That moral component slows down unchecked reproduction -- such as charging child support and removing rapists from society.

Speaking of rape; rape is the norm of reproduction in the Animal Kingdom. Its just spreading the seed of the species. How can it be evil for a soulless animal to spread his seed like his 4-legged ancestors?

 

[T.Lex]

I think the phrase is "serial monogamy." Generally, humans have sex with more than one person in their life, but when child rearing, tend to stay with their mate for an extended period of time.

Emphasis on "generally." Some of us have family members from the multiple-kids-by-multiple-partners category.

 

[eldirector]

From:
http://worldfamilymap.org/2014/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/WFM-2014-Final_ForWeb.pdf

• Although two-parent families are becoming less common in many parts of the world, they still constitute amajority of families around the globe. Children are particularly likely to live in two-parent families in Asia and theMiddle East, compared with other regions of the world. Children are more likely to live with one or no parent inthe Americas, Europe, Oceania, and sub-Saharan Africa than in other regions.

Contrary to the trend here in the US, and what Pop TV would have you believe, having a mom and dad is still the most common "family".

 

[steveh_131]

Ok, so we're not really talking about monogamy. We're talking about optimal living arrangements for child-rearing. Which could be achieved with or without monogamy, if you're looking at this from an amoral standpoint. Why bother with monogamy at all?

You still didn't answer the disconnect that occurs in humans. Is it also common in other species? If a species evolved in such a way that raising offspring with exactly two parents was an evolutionary imperative, does as much as 30-40% of the species fail to adhere to it?

What evolutionary purpose does it serve to so commonly ignore those evolutionary imperatives?

 

[warthog]

The real question isn't do they have a mom and dad but should be are they BOTH the child's dad and mom? Kids do know whether ot not you aren't birth daddy or mommy

From:
http://worldfamilymap.org/2014/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/WFM-2014-Final_ForWeb.pdf


Contrary to the trend here in the US, and what Pop TV would have you believe, having a mom and dad is still the most common "family".

 

[KLB]

The real question isn't do they have a mom and dad but should be are they BOTH the child's dad and mom? Kids do know whether ot not you aren't birth daddy or mommy

Only if they are old enough to know when the parents get together. Genetics is less important than actually caring for and loving the child.