Re: Review of the 36 Arguments for the Existence of God #17. THE ARGUMENT FROM ALTRUISM
4 views
Skip to first unread message
Pastor Jennifer v2
Feb 23, 2012, 11:30:33 AM2/23/12
to Evidence For God
17. THE ARGUMENT FROM ALTRUISM
1. People often act altruistically—namely, against their interests.
They help others, at a cost to themselves, out of empathy, fairness,
decency, and integrity.
2. Natural selection can never favor true altruism, because genes for
selfishness will always out-compete genes for altruism (recall that
altruism, by definition, exacts a cost to the actor).
3. Only a force acting outside of natural selection and intending for
us to be moral could account for our ability to act altruistically
(from 2).
4. God is the only force outside of natural selection that could
intend us to be moral.
5. God must have implanted the moral instinct within us (from 3 and
4).
6. God exists.
FLAW 1:
Theories of the evolution of altruism by natural selection have been
around for decades and are now widely supported by many kinds of
evidence. A gene for being kind to one’s kin, even if it hurts the
person doing the favor, can be favored by evolution, because that gene
would be helping a copy of itself that is shared by the kin. And a
gene for conferring a large benefit to a non-relative at a cost to
oneself can evolve if the favor-doer is the beneficiary of a return
favor at a later time. Both parties are better off, in the long run,
from the exchange of favors. Some defenders of religion do not
consider these theories to be legitimate explanations of altruism,
because a tendency to favor one’s kin, or to trade favors, is
ultimately just a form of selfishness for one’s genes, rather than
true altruism. But this is a confusion of the original phenomenon. We
are trying to explain why people are sometimes altruistic, not why
genes are altruistic. (We have no reason to believe that genes are
ever altruistic in the first place!) Also, in a species with language—
namely, humans—committed altruists develop a reputation for being
altruistic, and thereby win more friends, allies, and trading
partners. This can give rise to selection for true, committed,
altruism, not just the tit-for-tat exchange of favors.
FLAW 2:
We have evolved higher mental faculties, such as self-reflection and
logic, that allow us to reason about the world, to persuade other
people to form alliances with us, to learn from our mistakes, and to
achieve other feats of reason. Those same faculties, when they are
honed through debate, reason, and knowledge, can allow us to step
outside ourselves, learn about other people’s points of view, and act
in a way that we can justify as maximizing everyone’s well-being. We
are capable of moral reasoning because we are capable of reasoning in
general.
FLAW 3:
In some versions of The Argument from Altruism, God succeeds in
getting people to act altruistically because he promises them a divine
reward and threatens them with divine retribution. People behave
altruistically to gain a reward or avoid a punishment in the life to
come. This argument is self-contradictory It aims to explain how
people act without regard to their self-interest, but then assumes
that there could be no motive for acting altruistically other than
self-interest.
R Goldstein
1. People often act altruistically—namely, against their interests.
They help others, at a cost to themselves, out of empathy, fairness,
decency, and integrity.
2. Natural selection can never favor true altruism, because genes for
selfishness will always out-compete genes for altruism (recall that
altruism, by definition, exacts a cost to the actor).
3. Only a force acting outside of natural selection and intending for
us to be moral could account for our ability to act altruistically
(from 2).
4. God is the only force outside of natural selection that could
intend us to be moral.
5. God must have implanted the moral instinct within us (from 3 and
4).
6. God exists.
FLAW 1:
Theories of the evolution of altruism by natural selection have been
around for decades and are now widely supported by many kinds of
evidence. A gene for being kind to one’s kin, even if it hurts the
person doing the favor, can be favored by evolution, because that gene
would be helping a copy of itself that is shared by the kin. And a
gene for conferring a large benefit to a non-relative at a cost to
oneself can evolve if the favor-doer is the beneficiary of a return
favor at a later time. Both parties are better off, in the long run,
from the exchange of favors. Some defenders of religion do not
consider these theories to be legitimate explanations of altruism,
because a tendency to favor one’s kin, or to trade favors, is
ultimately just a form of selfishness for one’s genes, rather than
true altruism. But this is a confusion of the original phenomenon. We
are trying to explain why people are sometimes altruistic, not why
genes are altruistic. (We have no reason to believe that genes are
ever altruistic in the first place!) Also, in a species with language—
namely, humans—committed altruists develop a reputation for being
altruistic, and thereby win more friends, allies, and trading
partners. This can give rise to selection for true, committed,
altruism, not just the tit-for-tat exchange of favors.
FLAW 2:
We have evolved higher mental faculties, such as self-reflection and
logic, that allow us to reason about the world, to persuade other
people to form alliances with us, to learn from our mistakes, and to
achieve other feats of reason. Those same faculties, when they are
honed through debate, reason, and knowledge, can allow us to step
outside ourselves, learn about other people’s points of view, and act
in a way that we can justify as maximizing everyone’s well-being. We
are capable of moral reasoning because we are capable of reasoning in
general.
FLAW 3:
In some versions of The Argument from Altruism, God succeeds in
getting people to act altruistically because he promises them a divine
reward and threatens them with divine retribution. People behave
altruistically to gain a reward or avoid a punishment in the life to
come. This argument is self-contradictory It aims to explain how
people act without regard to their self-interest, but then assumes
that there could be no motive for acting altruistically other than
self-interest.
R Goldstein
Brock
Feb 23, 2012, 6:19:50 PM2/23/12
to Evidence For God
On Feb 23, 11:30 am, Pastor Jennifer v2
<jennifer.s.jo...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> 17. THE ARGUMENT FROM ALTRUISM
>
> 1. People often act altruistically—namely, against their interests.
> They help others, at a cost to themselves, out of empathy, fairness,
> decency, and integrity.
> 2. Natural selection can never favor true altruism, because genes for
> selfishness will always out-compete genes for altruism (recall that
> altruism, by definition, exacts a cost to the actor).
> 3. Only a force acting outside of natural selection and intending for
> us to be moral could account for our ability to act altruistically
> (from 2).
> 4. God is the only force outside of natural selection that could
> intend us to be moral.
> 5. God must have implanted the moral instinct within us (from 3 and
> 4).
> 6. God exists.
>
Again, the same limitations apply to this treatment:
> 17. THE ARGUMENT FROM ALTRUISM
>
> 1. People often act altruistically—namely, against their interests.
> They help others, at a cost to themselves, out of empathy, fairness,
> decency, and integrity.
> 2. Natural selection can never favor true altruism, because genes for
> selfishness will always out-compete genes for altruism (recall that
> altruism, by definition, exacts a cost to the actor).
> 3. Only a force acting outside of natural selection and intending for
> us to be moral could account for our ability to act altruistically
> (from 2).
> 4. God is the only force outside of natural selection that could
> intend us to be moral.
> 5. God must have implanted the moral instinct within us (from 3 and
> 4).
> 6. God exists.
>
* there is no one "THE ARGUMENT ...", rather it refers to a general
category of arguments, thus to defeat one specific example is not
adequate to dismiss the category
* the argument, to the degree it is a paraphrase, doesn't adequately
represent (either intentionally or accidentally) the argument as put
forward by a proponent, and faces the danger of being simply a straw-
man
Regards,
Brock
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages