Skip to main content

Thought for the Day: The Tragedy of Thinking We Evolved

I saw the most unbelievable nonsensical report last night.  That's going some, given the nonsense that gets reported.  It was an article in New Scientist, which I only mention because that is known in the world as a reasonably reliable and sensible source science current events and how they relate our daily life.  Here's the article (link included so you don't think I am making this up adn... with a couple of juicy outtakes.
The Tragedy of Common-Sense Morality
  1. Morality is essentially a suite of psychological mechanisms that enable us to cooperate. But, biologically at least, we only evolved to cooperate in a tribal way.
  2. Going through that reasoning process [taking a more global view] can allow our moral thinking to do something it never evolved to.
Can you spot the obvious problems here?  I'll elaborate just because it's so fun.  First, he declares that there really is no morality; it's just an evolutionary trick that engenders cooperation.  Since cooperation obviously (yes; dripping with sarcasm) makes a species more fit, that explains morality.  This sort of statement is what we used to call, "Proof by blatant assertion."  Questioning it is met with blank stares and/or looks of derision.  Add some facts... for example that cockroaches and mice seem to have done quite well without much cooperation, thank you; and they get belligerent.  Part of the proof by blatant assertion, of course, is to explain it louder and with more disdain each time a contradictory real fact is presented.  (As an aside: My Florida progeny have just gone through rousting a group of recalcitrant cockroaches from their van.  So far so good, but even with lots of cooperation and superior intellect, the jury is still out on who won.)

But let's suppose we accept his premise and say that morality is just a happy accident that these smart monkeys we call human happened to hit upon.  So... his #2 point... uhh... why in the world would he want to re-purpose this evolutionary gem to do something else?  Wouldn't that be, by the very nature of the game, less survivable?  Moreover, even if he is willing to take that hit to be more moral... umm... didn't he just say there is no higher morality?  At this point, of course, they are about bust a vein; the loud belligerence has turned into shouting red face.

That's why I became an Orthodox Jew.  Everything else has way too much screaming and blind faith for my taste.
Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Thought for the Day: Pizza, Uncrustables, and Stuff -- What Bracha?

Many years ago (in fact, more than two decades ago), I called R' Fuerst from my desk at work as I sat down to lunch.  I had a piece of (quite delicious) homemade pizza for lunch.  I nearly always eat at my desk as I am working (or writing TftD...), so my lunch at work cannot in any way be considered as sitting down to a formal meal; aka קביעת סעודה.  That being the case, I wasn't sure whether to wash, say ha'motzi, and bentch; or was the pizza downgraded to a m'zonos.  He told if it was a snack, then it's m'zonos; if a meal the ha'motzi.  Which what I have always done since then.  I recently found out how/why that works. The Shulchan Aruch, 168:17 discusses פשטיד''א, which is describes as a baked dough with meat or fish or cheese.  In other words: pizza.  Note: while the dough doesn't not need to be baked together with the meat/fish/cheese, it is  required that they dough was baked with the intention of making this concoction. ...
Post a Comment
Read more

Thought for the Day: Yetzer HaRa -- Spiritual Force of Tuma vs Physical Ta'avos

In any project planning, there are two basic approaches: top down and bottom up.  Top down starts with describing what you want done at the highest level that seems reasonable.  You then break that down into a list of things that are smaller in scope (they only accomplish part of the job) and are therefore easier to actually accomplish.  That process can is then repeated with each sub-project.  Each iteration produces a new set of smaller projects.  For any of the projects, the level above provides the "why" for the project of interest, and the projects below provide the "how" for the current project.  Bottom up starts, as it's name suggests, from the lowest level -- here is stuff I know I can do, and proceeds by asking "what can I do by putting this stuff together?" For example, I have a project to slake my thirst.  Top down would start by a requirement to get a cool drink into a container from which I can drink.  That breaks down into: (1) fin...
Post a Comment
Read more

Thought for the Day: Why Halacha Has "b'di'avad"

There was this Jew who knew every "b'di'avad" (aka, "Biddy Eved", the old spinster librarian) in the book.  When ever he was called on something, his reply was invariably, "biddy eved, it's fine".  When he finally left this world and was welcomed to Olam Haba, he was shown to a little, damp closet with a bare 40W bulb hanging from the ceiling.  He couldn't believe his eyes and said in astonishment, "This is Olam Haba!?!"  "Yes, Reb Biddy Eved,  for you this is Olam Haba." b'di'avad gets used like that; f you don't feel like doing something the best way, do it the next (or less) best way.  But Chazal tell us that "kol ha'omer HaShem vatran, m'vater al chayav" -- anyone who thinks HaShem gives partial credit is fooling himself to death (free translation.  Ok, really, really free translation; but its still true).  HaShem created us and this entire reality for one and only one purpose: for use...
Post a Comment
Read more