Evolutionary psychology is a fascinating area to look into.

Evolutionary psychology is fascinating in the same way that theology is fascinating – it’s a thought experiment and that’s all it ever can be. Kind of like the very thought experiment on religion I threw out there in this very thread.

Your equation of morality is pretty much on a par with my equation of religion and indeed is something that fits well into my assertion. But it is not evolution, because it does not have any biological foundation – at least that we know of. Given the lack of any functional and consistent moral axioms, if there is a biological component, it is completely peripheral. I am not saying yea or nay, I am just saying that you are making assertions of fact, based on nothing more than supposition.

I never attributed the higher level of criminal behavior to religion DuWayne.

It is certainly what your statement implied, but is also irrelevant to my response. Your baseline assumption that AA’s are the most religious, is flawed.

I simply showed that a belief in god is in no way linked to a higher ethical or moral standard and that religion has failed miserably at improving human ethics.

So what? No one here has argued otherwise – not a single damned person.

The evolution of morals in humans has everything to do with environment. It is environment that shapes us and this is the basic principle of natural selection.

It is one thing to use the word evolution to describe the growth and development of societies and cultures. It is another to imbue this conflation with the principles of biological evolution. The equation simply doesn’t stand up to scrutiny – especially given your next statement…

Differing environments will create differing results and moral sense is not immune from this. The rules of group co-operation (morals) have greater importance to survival in a cold harsh climate than a temperate tropical one.

This is a stunning display of absolute and abysmal ignorance of how primitive social constructs operate. There is a reason why a hunter/gatherer society is exponentially more stable than a state level society. H/G societies cannot exist without absolute group cooperation. Note we are talking about egalitarian societies that do not use overt force to keep everyone in line. Everyone does their part and everyone contributes to the greater good. For most people in an H/G society, it wouldn’t ever occur to them to steal, rape or abuse anyone else. It also wouldn’t occur to the folks who just brought in a Gemsbok, to hoard that meat or refuse anyone a share.

No laws being enforced, order is kept through good natured mockery, discussions with elders, fear of spirits and if all else fails, banishment. According to my anthropology professor (who has spent a great deal of time in the N Kalahari with the !Kung people), banishment is exceedingly rare. And these are people who actually cooperate enough with not only each other, but there environment as well, that they rarely give birth during a season that would make breastfeeding difficult and rarely give birth to more babies than their environment can support in the very worst years.

You actually have things pretty ass backwards really. Because the actual living conditions aren’t what determines cooperation, it is the type of subsistence a society lives by. And the least stable, least cooperative and most work intensive type of society, is a state level society. State level society, could easily be described as the very least moral type of society, if you are defining morality as pure social lubrication. State level society is certainly the only type of society that requires extreme shows of force, to enforce order.

As to your poverty excuse for the behavioral differences between the races, did you know there are far more white people at the poverty line than black in the USA simply due to population numbers differences?

And did you know that there are also a hella lot more white criminals than ever get caught, simply because they’re white?

When economic status is taken into account, blacks are still far more criminal and far more violent than whites so poverty doesnâ??t explain it.

Not entirely, but again, you’re assuming a much larger difference in crimes committed, than actually exists. Bottom line, white criminals are far more likely to get away with it than blacks and hispanics, because they just aren’t as heavily on the radar.

The “cycle of babies having babies” that you mentioned simply shows that blacks are willing to devote more effort to reproduction than they are to child-care which in my opinion is just yet another moral deficit.

No you fucking moron, what it indicates is that someone who was raised by a baby, is likely to reproduce at that age. Especially when this is consistent with what they see around them. And someone raised without a father around, is more likely to become a young single parent, because that is what they see.

It has nothing to do with morality and everything to do with the environment in which people are raised.

“First of all, attributing this rather blatantly racist characterization to religion is a huge logical fallacy. There is absolutely no reason to assume that the crime and violence that occurs among AA’s has anything to do with religious inclinations. Indeed, there is a great deal of evidence that it has far more to do with poverty and the cycle of babies having babies.” by DuWayne

I never attributed the higher level of criminal behavior to religion DuWayne. I simply showed that a belief in god is in no way linked to a higher ethical or moral standard and that religion has failed miserably at improving human ethics. The evolution of morals in humans has everything to do with environment. It is environment that shapes us and this is the basic principle of natural selection. Differing environments will create differing results and moral sense is not immune from this. The rules of group co-operation (morals) have greater importance to survival in a cold harsh climate than a temperate tropical one.

As to your poverty excuse for the behavioral differences between the races, did you know there are far more white people at the poverty line than black in the USA simply due to population numbers differences? When economic status is taken into account, blacks are still far more criminal and far more violent than whites so poverty doesnâ??t explain it. The “cycle of babies having babies” that you mentioned simply shows that blacks are willing to devote more effort to reproduction than they are to child-care which in my opinion is just yet another moral deficit.

First of all morals are nothing more than the rules of group co-operation.

This is an extreme simplification and not even an accurate one. Morality is the personal arbitrator of right and wrong. Moral frameworks are often quite similar within a given cultural paradigm, but that is easily explained by environmental similarities.

Morals evolved in us naturally because there is a survival advantage in possessing them.

Wow. This is an incredibly ignorant statement. Morality is not biological, except insofar as our minds are biological constructs. This is no different than saying that fall safety courses evolved, because there is a survival advantage for construction workers who have taken them.

I tend to think that my assertion about religion or spirituality being an essential component in the initial steps from instinctual subsistence to higher cognitive function. But I would categorically reject the notion that evolution had anything to do with it. Religion and religious thinking had a great deal of social utility at one point. Morality also has a social utility, in that it governs one’s actions outside the coercive social order paradigm of the state. But these are social utilities, not biological. Biology doesn’t dictate morality or, excepting certain neuropathologies, whether we have a moral frame at all.

God giving imperfect humans free will is like giving a baby a razor blade then punishing the baby when it cuts itself.

I love this line and intend to use it the next time I get into it with theists at the coffee shop…

Which group has the highest level of belief in god? The answer is African Americans.

Really? I would have pegged that to republicans. If you really need to throw a racial/ethnic group out there, I would peg Hispanics. But using AA’s as an example, is rather essential to a good racist paradigm.

They also happen to be the group that exhibits the least social control in their behavior with a crime and violence problem much higher than that of our nation as a whole.

First of all, attributing this rather blatantly racist characterization to religion is a huge logical fallacy. There is absolutely no reason to assume that the crime and violence that occurs among AA’s has anything to do with religious inclinations. Indeed, there is a great deal of evidence that it has far more to do with poverty and the cycle of babies having babies.

Secondly, you are assuming that because the social controls in play aren’t those of the larger culture in which they exist, there simply aren’t any. This is indicative of your resounding ignorance, rather than outright racism. Make no mistake, there are absolutely social controls within the group you are describing here. Enforcement of those conventions include, ridicule, intimidation, violence and death. The fact that these social conventions fall outside the scope of our larger cultural paradigm doesn’t come close to implying that they don’t exist – ultimately another logical fallacy.

And this is not somehow inherent to AA’s. Every ethnic and racial group in the U.S. that lives in poverty, makes a substantial contribution to this same sort of cultural paradigm. Poverty means that people play by different rules than the larger culture. Violence and crime are always more prevalent. At least overt and obvious violence and crime.

I would suggest that before you try to engage in this discussion again, you go through a short primer of elementary logic and logical fallacies. A post or two down, from the top of my blog, links really concise primers in both.

Many religions attempt to explain “creation”. Explaining nature and our situation in it is an important element to many many religions.
Religion as a means of social control has proven itself to be a complete failure and religion does more to facilitate poor behaviors than it does to prevent them. The most secular countries – those with the highest proportion of atheists are among the most stable, peaceful, free, wealthy, and healthy societies. And the most religious nations, where worship of God is in abundance, are among the most unstable, violent, oppressive and poor. Look in America for example. Which group has the highest level of belief in god? The answer is African Americans. They also happen to be the group that exhibits the least social control in their behavior with a crime and violence problem much higher than that of our nation as a whole.

Then you are just making an argument that faith = ignorance, fear and inflated ego. First of all morals are nothing more than the rules of group co-operation. They allow civilization to exist, for people to live in close proximity to each other without killing each other, for trade and commerce to exist and so forth. Morals evolved in us naturally because there is a survival advantage in possessing them.

The “life would be meaningless without eternal life or god” belief is nothing more than the product of a foolish inflated ego. Humans have always attempted to place themselves at the center of importance in the universe and that is exactly what religion does. Not only are you taught to believe you were created by a supernatural god but that he spends every second of every day keeping track of the trivial behaviors of billions of humans so he knows who to punish. The idea of a god punishing the objects of his own creation is rather absurd when you think about it. God giving imperfect humans free will is like giving a baby a razor blade then punishing the baby when it cuts itself.

You wrote “without a divinity to keep us honest”. I can’t help but point out that faith itself is dishonest. Honest people admit to not knowing things that are unproven, they won’t blindly believe in things through faith just because the beliefs are appealing, so if anything “divinity” is keeping a lot of people dishonest. Any person who says they KNOW there is a god is nothing but a liar. No man knows that god does anything, that god knows anything, or that there even is a god. Theists may believe in god but they do not know there is one.

You have the scientific purists, who hold that science compromised in the name of not offending popular opinion isn’t science so much as propaganda – which is the group I fall under (fair disclosure).

This side is generally written off as being “New atheists” but it is hardly restricted to atheists. One of the criticisms of science I have come across when arguing with creationists, is that they don’t trust scientists who are more about telling them what they want to hear than the truth.

The second group you get are the scientific accomodationists. These are not the same as the people who think there is no conflict, it must be stated, they are instead those who think whether there is a conflict or not is secondary to “promoting science.”

Hence in order to “popularise” science they argue that scientists should not hold controversial positions or use scientific evidence to maintain these positions, hence so far as I can see, what they are arguing for amounts to sacrificing scientific accuracy in the name of political expediency.

Here is why I disagree with them:

In arguing how to communicate science, one should take into account how other concepts have been successfully argued, or held back. Politics demonstrates that people are actually comfortable with controversy, and will rally to it.

This is how woo operates – homeopaths make their money by claiming “big pharma” is evil, the “Secret” operates on the idea that it includes something “they” don’t want you to know about. In South Africa, the ANC is the ruling party of our country yet still makes effective use of rhetoric involving third forces and “counter-revolutionaries.”

Why? Because controversy, even manufactured controversy sells.

And trying to hush it up doesn’t. There is no more effective way to convince people there is something to see than to adopt a bored tone of voice and say “Nothing to see here.”

By glossing over any given controversy, any given argument within the scientific community the accomodationists effectively sacrifice scientific accuracy and ethics, in the name of zero real gain.

By putting across an argument that essentially says “shut up, that’s why” they undermine the very cause they claim to champion, leaving science to the position of the Democratic party – where ultimately support for it wains until the forces of anti-science stuff up so royally that the said stuff-up is too big simply to ignore.

GW Bush was a bad president by 2004, he was president until the end of 2008 – because Kerry, was milquetoast and the Democrats had a name for rolling over, a name they maintain and which will go back to hurting them once Bush is long past enough to be forgotten.

I am not saying scientists should copy Rovian politics, as popularity is not the end goal of science, but rather that if you want to popularise science, you shouldn’t copy the Democratic Party either – you shouldn’t compromise in the name of political expedience because compromise is not actually politically expedient.