Natural Selection = Competition AND....

[Keep The Reason]

...Cooperation.

One of the issues that theists seem to have the greatest problem with is the idea that the materialist has no moral grounding without god; that our morality comes from evolution and evolution does not focus on anything but "selfishness".

Yet this is clearly a core misunderstanding of what evolution actually is, because it is evident that natural selection does not exist only as a leverage of selfishness, but rather as a balance between competition and cooperation. This is a much better foundation upon which to build why Reasonists can attest to a moral grounding; because with only competition -- like the theists inappropriately argue -- no species will be able to survive for very long. Imagine if every bee *only* considered getting all the pollen from every flower. Bees would die within a generation (actually they would never evolve in the first place, but it's an illustration).

So when theists say to us, "Well what's stopping you from stealing and murdering? Doesn't evolution dictate that if you steal something or kill someone for their things, you will have more, and more will help you survive, and therefore you will reproduce and be the more successful individual" our reply should be, "You are mis-stating evolution which is a balance of competition and cooperation. We don't steal because if everyone was permitted to steal, then we are just as likely to be thieves and murderers as we are to be victims of theft and murder. So even in the short term, a society based upon theft and murder would NOT be in any individual's favor, and in fact would be in conflict with everyone's best interests, and we would not have even been able to evolve to reach the point of this discussion.

[mitchellmckain]

One of the issues that theists seem to have the greatest problem with is the idea that the materialist has no moral grounding without god; that our morality comes from evolution and evolution does not focus on anything but "selfishness".

For which Richard Dawkins is to blame because of the silliness of his first book "The Selfish Gene". He wrote much better books later. Like "Ancestor's Tale" and "Climbing Mount Improbable", but that one, ascribing a selfish motivation to DNA molecules was just absurd. From his later dive into atheist propaganda literature ("The God Delusion"), we can see that he has a theological agenda which puts a less rational/objective twist into some of his supposedly scientific works.

[PrometheusWins]

Mitch, if you think that Dawkins in any real sense ascribed "selfish motivation" to DNA molecules, you probably did not read the book very thoroughly. "Selfish genes" are a metaphor, not something to be taken literally.

[mitchellmckain]

Mitch, if you think that Dawkins in any real sense ascribed "selfish motivation" to DNA molecules, you probably did not read the book very thoroughly. "Selfish genes" are a metaphor, not something to be taken literally.

He chose the title of the book and he certainly ascribes a selfish motivation to genes right there in the title. Yes I certainly read the book, did you? I know what it is in that book and I know the arguments he puts forward and not only is there no retraction or qualification of the claim in the title but a systematic defense and justification of the absurd idea that the genes are all in charge and in control. It is pure reductionist BS. DNA is nothing more than an information storage mechanism by which biological organisms pass on what they have learned by the trial and error process of evolution, and that is all.

It is the same situation with his more recent book where he chose a title to flaunt his atheist bigotry for all to see. These two books are ideological claptrap with very poor philsophical and theological research. He really should stick to his area of expertise and not make an ass of himself outside his field. I hope people don't think that this sort of junk is what they can expect in his other books, because some of them are quite good.

[PrometheusWins]

Before moving on with this discussion, it might be necessary to set some things straight. I think that both you and I and Dawkins would agree that "motivation" is a meaningless concept unless applied to an entity with some form of mind or consciousness. Unless Dawkins postulates that individual genes have minds, he could not have literally ascribed selfish motivation to genes. And I don't think that he postulates, nor would ever do so, that individual genes have minds. Do you claim that he does?

[mitchellmckain]

I think that both you and I and Dawkins would agree that "motivation" is a meaningless concept unless applied to an entity with some form of mind or consciousness.

You think that statement has some obvious meaning but I do not. People have different ideas about what the words "mind" and "consciousness" refer to, and you might be surprised to learn what they mean to me. The upshot is that I would not agree. BUT, perhaps we would agree that it does not refer to DNA molecules. Doesn't really matter though, because it doesn't change what Dawkins said.

For me the mind refers to a non-biological form of life. You see I think that life is defined as a process of self-organization with basic abilities to adapt and learn new things, and I think there is a process of self-organization in the information processing of the human nervous system that can be identified with the human mind. But I do not think that "consciousness" is a word that arbitrarily refers to an activity of the human mind which is not exclusive to the human mind at all. In other words, I think that all forms of life have processes which are only superficially or quantitatively different that what we are doing.

So you see I have not the slightest problem with ascribing to motivation to any form of life whatsoever. But it is something which should be ascribed to the process of life and is certainly NOT a property of any material components that participates in the process. Selfishness and motivation are not properties of the meme components of our mind any more than they are properties of the gene components of biological organisms. Again these memes and genes are just embody a means of passing on an inheritance of information to the next generation.

Unless Dawkins postulates that individual genes have minds, he could not have literally ascribed selfish motivation to genes.

He shouldn't have, but he did! And the fact that he did this, despite the fact that he shouldn't have, points to his ideological agenda. And furthermore it promotes the very kind of thinking that you complain about in your OP.

[PrometheusWins]

Unless Dawkins postulates that individual genes have minds, he could not have literally ascribed selfish motivation to genes.

He shouldn't have, but he did! And the fact that he did this, despite the fact that he shouldn't have, points to his ideological agenda. And furthermore it promotes the very kind of thinking that you complain about in your OP.

And I would claim that he did no such thing. I would ask you to point out where he states this. I suspect that there is some qualifier somewhere that "selfishness" represents a useful (figurative) way of representing a gene-centered perspective.

[darkumbra]

Mitch... Repeatedly in this forum you insist that everyone has the right to believe what they want. That nobody has the right to force their belief on others. It doesnt matter if they believe in Angels or angles, end of the world deadlines, or miracles from the mundane to the wondrous... Its all good. This is the Mitch Mantra AND I'll admit there is a certain attraction to the notion.

Then you post this... "He shouldn't have, but he did! And the fact that he did this, despite the fact that he shouldn't have, points to his ideological agenda. And furthermore it promotes the very kind of thinking that you complain about in your OP."

If we all have the right to believe as we wish, then how do you justify the judgement that he should or should not use the concept of 'selfishness' with respect to DNA? How does 'should not' even exist in your vocabulary with respect to what anyone believes?

I also happen to believe that 'the selfish gene' is a metaphor for how genes persist, survive and change from one generation to another. I think it's a great metaphor. it forces me to realize that since DNA *is* the info storage mechanism of living things (on earth), and since DNA is the thing that literally shapes these living things, DNA is actually the thing that is 'evolving' - the living things that walk and crawl and fly and ooze and slide and flit are 'nothing more' than the larger, 'external' representations of DNA. According to the Mitch Mantra... I'm allowed to believe this.

You don't share that perspective. That's obvious. According to the Mitch Mantra... You're allowed to have that perspective.

Or have I totally misunderstood your philosophy, and there are viewpoints that I, and others, are not allowed to have? Ie. I and Dawkins should not ascribe selfishness to genes, even metaphorically, as per your quote above?

[darkumbra]

In Dawkin's own words... Intro to 30th anniversary edition

"The Selfish Gene has been criticized for anthropomorphic personification and this too needs an explanation, if not an apology. I employ two levels of personification: of genes, and of organisms. Personification of genes really ought not to be a problem, because no sane person thinks DNA molecules have conscious personalities, and no sensible reader would impute such a delusion to an author. I once had the honour of hearing the great molecular biologist Jacques Monod talking about creativity in science. I have forgotten his exact words, but he said approximately that, when trying to think through a chemical problem, he would ask himself what he would do if he were an electron. Peter Atkins, in his wonderful book Creation Revisited, uses a similar personification when considering the refraction of a light beam, passing into a medium of higher refractive index which slows it down. The beam behaves as if trying to minimize the time taken to travel to an end point. Atkins imagines it as a lifeguard on a beach racing to rescue a drowning swimmer. Should he head straight for the swimmer? No, because he can run faster than he can swim and would be wise to increase the dry-land proportion of his travel time. Should he run to a point on the beach directly opposite his target, thereby minimizing his swimming time? Better, but still not the best. Calculation (if he had time to do it) would disclose to the lifeguard an optimum intermediate angle,  {xi}  yielding the ideal combination of fast running followed by inevitably slower swimming."


And from chapter 6 - 3rd paragraph

"Should we then expect albinos to be especially nice to each other? Actually the answer is probably no. In order to see why not, we must  {89}  temporarily abandon our metaphor of the gene as a conscious agent, because in this context it becomes positively misleading"


Case closed as to the metaphor question?

[PrometheusWins]

My reason for getting involved in this discussion in the first place was actually to reply to the original post, and caution against a too naive perspective on the evolution of morality. Therefore it is just as well that we have a discussion regarding the meaning of "selfish genes". If morality is to evolve, it must still satisfy a "selfish gene" criterion in that the gene(s) governing moral behaviour must themselves receive direct "benefits" from their moral phenotype, i.e. it must somehow facilitate their expansion in the gene pool.

Vague references to the common good of the species or the group are by no means sufficient to explain the evolution of altruistic morality, even in social species. On the contrary, every gene variant that expands its own relative proportion of the gene pool will be selected for, even if this leads to huge detrimental effects to the group or community as a whole, and eventually to the demise of the community including the gene variant itself.

[mitchellmckain]

And I would claim that he did no such thing. I would ask you to point out where he states this. I suspect that there is some qualifier somewhere that "selfishness" represents a useful (figurative) way of representing a gene-centered perspective.

I have no problem with that, because I frankly don't see any difference whatsoever. The absurdity is in reductionism of the gene-centered perspective itself.

Mitch... Repeatedly in this forum you insist that everyone has the right to believe what they want. That nobody has the right to force their belief on others. It doesnt matter if they believe in Angels or angles, end of the world deadlines, or miracles from the mundane to the wondrous... Its all good. This is the Mitch Mantra AND I'll admit there is a certain attraction to the notion.

No. "Everyone has the right to believe what they want" does not equate to "its all good". Another one of my "mantras" is that just because everyone is free to make their own choices does not mean that all choices are equal. Sure people are free to believe that the world is flat or that God created the world in six days only 6000 years ago, but that doesn't mean that this makes any sense whatsoever in the light of all the information that is available. People are free to choose but the choices include willful ignorance, hatred and all sorts of self-destructive thinking and behavior that amounts to a choice of death over life. Yes we are free to make those choices but that does not mean that these choices are "all good".

Then you post this... "He shouldn't have, but he did! And the fact that he did this, despite the fact that he shouldn't have, points to his ideological agenda. And furthermore it promotes the very kind of thinking that you complain about in your OP."

Yes and that makes perfect sense in the context. PrometheusWins was explaining throughout this thread why this doesn't make sense and why people shouldn't think this way and I was laying some of this at Dawkins door. Sure Dawkins is perfectly free to advocate such BS but if PrometheusWins is going to point this out the BS then I wanted to make sure He understood where some of that BS is coming from.



Anyway. Have to go. Will respond to recent post later.

[Aaron]

Keep The Reason,

Welcome to the forum. I've often wondered about evolution and the morality that it might produce, so to speak. I see what what you're saying about competition and cooperation, bees obviously need to cooperate with one another in order for the species to survive. But I think you've improperly placed a sort of personality into natural selection. Let me explain what I mean by personality. Natural selection (NS) is simple, it is merely a form of the principle of least resistance. For example, X is more powerful, more efficient, and more durable than Y therefore over the course of time population X will increase and population Y will decrease if not disappear altogether. Easy peasy lemon squeezy. Back to the bees. Perhaps by becoming more community oriented (less selfish, perhaps) bees were able to increase their net efficiency. Therefore it would seem that NS might indeed be a balance between competition and cooperation as you've put it. By cooperating together the bees have increased their competitive edge. But here the truth is revealed. NS is not a horizontal entity with competition on one end of the spectrum and cooperation on the other. It is a vertical entity. Competition is at the top, and everything else is below it (if there even is anything else). Survival is the highest priority. Cooperation is often a tool used to achieve survival, there is no doubt. But cooperation cannot be placed on the same level as competition. The bees cooperate to compete; they do not compete to cooperate.

By trying to make out NS to be a sort of horizontal spectrum, with competition on one side and cooperation on the other I'm afraid we've allowed our humanity to seek in where it does not belong, if you know what I mean. It sounds nice to have evolutionary theory balancing between competition and cooperation. We could have a healthy amount of competition to stimulate growth and progress complemented by a side order of beneficial cooperation. That sounds nice to me. But that is not NS. NS does not care whether cooperation or competition is used to gain the advantage only that an advantage is gained and that that advantage is allowed to pass on to the next generation. So that's what I meant when I said I thought you had slipped in a sort of personality into NS.

You seem to have appealed to evolution for the reason you do not steal and do not murder, the source of your morality if you will. You made a case that evolution was a balance of competition and cooperation and out of the cooperation comes our desire to do good, if you will, the desire to resist stealing, to resist murdering, and I will go further: to resist taking a women at a moment’s whim, to resist our fear of standing up for those who cannot stand up for themselves. Hopefully I have shown that evolution is first and foremost of competitive nature, BUT as we clearly observe in nature there are many instances when cooperation is the path by which a species becomes maximally competitive. Therefore your statement is not unreasonable. It seems quite possible that your morality has arisen through the process of NS.

So what about that evolutionary morality? This is where it really becomes fascinating to me. Suppose during the course of NS the human race found it beneficial, so to speak, to cooperate with one another in order to increase the vitality of the species, as you mentioned this would mean we don’t steal and we don’t murder each other, just like the bees. But now suppose humans suddenly fall upon the ability to reason (because obviously we haven’t always been rational, somewhere along the way we began to pick up the ability to reason). What do we do now? All this time we’ve supposedly kept ourselves from stealing and murdering because it was beneficial to the survival of our species but now we are suddenly aware of the source of our morality: mindless evolution!

We now have a choice, will we continue to steer our morality down this path of least resistance or will we decide to do something else? This is fascinating. Evolution seems to have outsmarted itself. We are no longer not stealing because we have been subtly guided that way through countless years of NS. No, now we are not stealing because we make a conscious choice not too. An evolutionist might say, “But the reason we think stealing is wrong is because it is beneficial for a society to make stealing wrong. It is merely an extension of millions of years of NS into our culture, simply the path of least resistance in action. There is no need whatsoever for God to be the source of our morality.” But we know this is not true. The source of our morality is not NS. As soon as we happened upon the ability to reason the source of our morality changed (actually I would go so far as to say we did not actually have morality until we had reason). Reason allowed us to take a step back and consider our motivations for the morality that NS had seemingly produced. We may still choose the same path that NS has supposedly led us on all these years, but it is now us doing the choosing. We take a moment and consider why it is we do what we do. We ask ourselves why we don’t steal, and perhaps might say, “We don’t steal because if everyone was permitted to steal, then we are just as likely to be thieves and murderers as we are to be victims of theft and murder and this would not be beneficial to our survival and we want to survive because living is good.”

But what is going on here? This is not NS selection talking. NS does not care if a species wants to live. Living is not good and dying is not bad. The concept of good has no place in NS. It is only by a random chance that the first living organisms possessed within themselves a desire to continue to live and to reproduce and which allowed NS to take action. For if living things do not have a will to live NS cannot take effect, or I suppose it’s effect is short, sweet and right into the grave. But now this random chance has been discovered. Now we know that the only reason we want to live is because some time long ago a gene was randomly created which gave life the desire to push forward, the desire to live. The truth about our sense of good has been blown wide open. There is no such thing as good. Living is not good, nor is it bad. Now a person has a lot to consider, a lot to rethink, how are they going to respond to this new found truth?

This path is dark and meaningless. There is no good, no bad, no worse, and no better. There is no hope because there is no such thing as despair. All things simply are. In fact this path is so inhabitable for human life that even the purest of naturalists have trouble contending with it. Instead these naturalists attempt to create their own purposes and attempt to give their own lives meaning (and I do not blame them for how can anyone really live in such an environment?).

It is interesting to see now that the evolutionist’s response for why we don’t steal is entirely unfounded:
“We don’t steal because if everyone was permitted to steal, then we are just as likely to be thieves and murderers as we are to be victims of theft and murder and this would not be beneficial to our survival and we want to survive because living is good.” We have just shown that there is no such thing as good, which is what the whole argument for the evolutionists mortality depended on. In effect and in all honesty a naturalistic world cannot have a moral system, which at the fundamental level says one thing is better than another. Remember there is no good, no bad, no worse, and no better. Perhaps the only hope (but really if he was to be honest the naturalist would never need hope, it should never cross his mind that he needs to find a hope) that the naturalist has is to invent his own moral system and perhaps try and unify the rest of his brethren on what exactly that moral system should have in it, even though they are well aware their morals are not founded outside of themselves and are actually contrary to the careless indifferent flow of the rest of the universe.

So perhaps when theists say to you, “Well what’s stopping you from stealing and murdering? Doesn’t evolution dictate that if you steal something or kill someone for their things, you will have more, and more will help you survive, and therefore you will reproduce and be the more successful individual?” your reply should be, “Yes perhaps and perhaps not, but what of it? We are free to make our own moral laws. We are responsible to ourselves; it’s up to us to make sure our laws are obeyed.”

Now here come my opinions on the matter of good and bad and morality. The good stuff

During my time at college we often studied mathematical models which we used to model various systems in real life. It was clearly understood that if a mathematical model failed to represent the actual system with in the desired tolerances it should be cast out and a better one found. I’d like to apply that same principle to the naturalistic world view.

Currently I’m in Alaska sitting in front of the north side of the Alaska Range. Summer has finally taken full hold and the leaves are bursting green, the mountains loom with epic style jutting into the deep blue sky, and there are birds singing their happy tunes everywhere! I then think about what the evolutionist said and I cannot agree more. Living is good! There is so much life. I will be the first to testify: it is good.

Then I think about our (humans) strong desire to have purpose and meaning in our lives, so much so that many naturalists are willing to pretend and live out their lives.

Then I think about the human desire to have a moral system and our strange practice of questioning whether or not moral laws make sense and the odd sense of pride that we all share in thinking our societal moral values have gotten better and better over time. It used to be that we were barbarians who did barbaric things, but now we are civilized and only act rationally. Where is it that we derive the standard by which we judge the changes in our societal moral values as improvements?

Then I think about our ability to reason. How strange that something so beautiful and so fundamental to our humanity would arise out of mindless processes. It is with this reason we can judge between truth and lies. We quite nearly owe everything we are to our reason.

It is during this observation that I personally find naturalism to be most incompatible with the world as it appears to be. It is also during this observation that I find Christianity to fit better and better. I finally begin to understand myself and the reason why I am on the earth. I finally see that along with the rest of creation I was made to glorify God. I finally see that only then, only when I am fully devoted to doing the will of God will I be totally and wonderfully fulfilled. I finally see that this is the fuel that I was designed to run on. Just as it was said, man does not live on bread alone…

Indeed it is hard for me to believe the naturalistic model describes with any sort of accuracy the world as it actually is…

[PrometheusWins]

Hey Aaron; am I right in my interpretation of your (rather lengthy) post:
You see before you two options regarding the true nature of the world. One that is unpleasant to you (although I think that you are being unfairly negative here in the way you characterize it) and one that is pleasant. In a choice between these two options, you do not try to distinguish which one may be the correct description of reality, but instead go for the one that is most pleasant. In other words, you prefer the comforting illusion rather than trying to find out which one is the true alternative.
Could you please confirm whether I understood you properly? If I have in any way mis-characterized your position, please let me know how.

[Aaron]

Hey Prometheus,
Thanks for reading my post. It was a long one. Yes, pleasantness has something to do with it, although I think I need to clarify what I mean. I do see two options before me. One is a naturalistic world and one a Christian world, if you will. As I explained in my previous post the primary objective is to find the model which best represents the world as we find it, just as we would in choosing a mathematical model to model an actual real life system. As I’m sure you will agree this is not accomplished in any logical fashion by making our decision simply by choosing one that is most pleasant. Otherwise we might fall into a similar trap as Keep The Reason fell into when he tried to insert cooperation where it did not belong into the concept of natural selection, probably (but maybe not) because it sounded good to have an almost loving side in the seemingly indifferent flow of NS.

This is not what I was doing. Very carefully I stepped through the kind of world that one would expect to arise from NS, a purely naturalistic world. Hopefully I convinced you that in such a world there is no good, no bad, no worse, and no better. If a person is to use such words to describe something they must define for themselves what is good, what is bad, what is worse and what is better. It is pretend time. For really if a person is to be honest in naturalism there is no justification outside of themselves for why living is good, or likewise that living is bad. As many naturalists have concluded before me if a person wants to have meaning in their life they must add it themselves, people have no purpose except that which they provide for themselves.

What I was doing was noting the fact that people seem to desire meaning and purpose, so much so that if we don’t have them we simply pretend that we do. We could probably say having meaning and purpose is pleasant. Therefore I’m forced to reconsider the fit of naturalism with the world as I find it. Since nearly every person wants to have meaning and purpose it is not unreasonable to think that there actually is something such as meaning and purpose outside of the whim of the individual person and that they are actually pleasant and we are not just inventing our own pretend feelings and pretend good and bad and better or worse. Good actually exists and it is not dependent upon the individuals whim. Living is good and that’s why most people think living is good, because it actually is good. This is in contrast to the naturalists world where living is only good if he defines it that way, because nothing is actually good or bad except that which we define for ourselves.

So I have to disagree with your interpretation. I did not choose Christianity because it was more pleasant, rather I chose it because pleasantness is something that actually exists independently of the individual, we don’t have to pretend and that seems to fit much better with what I find in reality: because nearly every person desires meaning and purpose. It might also be worth noting that nearly every persons idea of what is pleasant is the same, which would fit well into the idea that pleasantness exists independently of the individual. Have I made sense? Please understand that I do not wish to prove anything absolutely. My objective is to accurately describe naturalism and explain why I think Christianity provides us with a better fitting model with how we find reality to be.

Also if you wouldn’t mind please point out what exactly you found to be unfairly negative about what I said about naturalism. I thought my description was quite accurate.

[Keep The Reason]

Hi Aaron,

Thanks for the well thought out reply and the welcome.

I avoided the Dawkins derailing issue since it's not germane to my OP, and even Dawkins himself regrets the title since it was easily misinterpreted (he states with hindsight.). Others have adequately addressed it as well, so we can leave it as not applicable to this thread.

Ok, so onto your post:

I think you've improperly placed a sort of personality into natural selection. Let me explain what I mean by personality. Natural selection (NS) is simple, it is merely a form of the principle of least resistance. Competition is at the top, and everything else is below it (if there even is anything else). Survival is the highest priority. Cooperation is often a tool used to achieve survival, there is no doubt. But cooperation cannot be placed on the same level as competition. The bees cooperate to compete; they do not compete to cooperate.

So the way I interpret it is this-- since NS is mindless and only directed by success in survival, there is not only no personality ascribed to it (I believe you've incorrectly assumed that I imply there is), but rather all tools are equally important to survival. In short, NS makes no specific (conscious) choice that "survival is at the top of the hierarchy"; rather, survival is a priori with NS because anything that doesn't survive has no say in the outcome.

The bees cooperate to survive. A lone bee without a flower will neither survive nor even evolve in the first place (which is an argument against creationism in and of itself, at least as any valid scientific proposal -- by necessity, a created nature would require miracles from start to finish, even if relegated to the Deistic "winding it up and walking away" paradigm).

We are in agreement that survival, in the end, is the only outcome that matters in the NS model, but I don't agree that there is a degree of importance or less importance in how that survival is achieved-- it's all important, for every successful species.

By trying to make out NS to be a sort of horizontal spectrum, with competition on one side and cooperation on the other I'm afraid we've allowed our humanity to seek in where it does not belong, if you know what I mean. It sounds nice to have evolutionary theory balancing between competition and cooperation. We could have a healthy amount of competition to stimulate growth and progress complemented by a side order of beneficial cooperation. That sounds nice to me. But that is not NS. NS does not care whether cooperation or competition is used to gain the advantage only that an advantage is gained and that that advantage is allowed to pass on to the next generation. So that's what I meant when I said I thought you had slipped in a sort of personality into NS.

On this we agree to a point. It is NS's very lack of consciousness that compels it to the balance of cooperation and competition. NS is powerless to make a choice as to what is more important -- competition or cooperation. Since no successful living entity is wholly unto itself, we must conclude that competition and cooperation are equally (though not consciously) important. Remove either, and the organism fails.

You seem to have appealed to evolution for the reason you do not steal and do not murder, the source of your morality if you will. You made a case that evolution was a balance of competition and cooperation and out of the cooperation comes our desire to do good, if you will, the desire to resist stealing, to resist murdering, and I will go further: to resist taking a women at a moment’s whim, to resist our fear of standing up for those who cannot stand up for themselves. Hopefully I have shown that evolution is first and foremost of competitive nature, BUT as we clearly observe in nature there are many instances when cooperation is the path by which a species becomes maximally competitive. Therefore your statement is not unreasonable. It seems quite possible that your morality has arisen through the process of NS.

Except altruism functions in part because it has a self-ish (not "selfish") component. Even one's willingness to sacrifice one's life for a common benefit is mutual back-scratching; indeed the only instance of the system going awry that I can cite is that of a suicidal individual whose sacrifice really doesn't benefit his or her survival rate (it negates it). But "suicide" in furtherance of an ideology has positive application (providing you and your tribe ascribe to that ideology of course). Throwing oneself on a hand grenade in combat is the cliched example. Does this have a practical survival based outcome? Yes. If it furthers ones protecting of one's liberty and safety or the safety of one's culture and family (i.e., offspring), self-destruction may have a practical, positive outcome.

So what about that evolutionary morality? This is where it really becomes fascinating to me. Suppose during the course of NS the human race found it beneficial, so to speak, to cooperate with one another in order to increase the vitality of the species, as you mentioned this would mean we don’t steal and we don’t murder each other, just like the bees. But now suppose humans suddenly fall upon the ability to reason (because obviously we haven’t always been rational, somewhere along the way we began to pick up the ability to reason). What do we do now? All this time we’ve supposedly kept ourselves from stealing and murdering because it was beneficial to the survival of our species but now we are suddenly aware of the source of our morality: mindless evolution!

Well, I consider the ability to reason to be a key component that assist us with our survival. In fact, our reason is our key natural weapon against extinction, though there are evolutionary complexities that are very evident. As another animal on the vast stage of evolutionary experimentation (and all species are a form of "will this work?" albeit without a conscious driver behind it), we happen to represent a unique niche between baser instinct and higher level intuitions. We can think beyond our evolutionary programming at a number of levels, though not at the ultimate "core survival" level (and this applies even if we are willing to self-sacrifice for a higher purpose, as illustrated above). What is unique about humanity is that we clearly demonstrate the ability to make choices above instinctual behavior, which is evident from our reworking of our environment, our discipline of thought, our art, our cultures, religions, civilizations, etc.

And yes, that has pushed us to a new level of species, which, at the very least, should give us pause as to the nature of this unique and complicated animal. So, to your next section:

We now have a choice, will we continue to steer our morality down this path of least resistance or will we decide to do something else? This is fascinating. Evolution seems to have outsmarted itself. We are no longer not stealing because we have been subtly guided that way through countless years of NS. No, now we are not stealing because we make a conscious choice not too. An evolutionist might say, “But the reason we think stealing is wrong is because it is beneficial for a society to make stealing wrong. It is merely an extension of millions of years of NS into our culture, simply the path of least resistance in action. There is no need whatsoever for God to be the source of our morality.”

Agreed to the above... but then this hard right turn:

But we know this is not true. The source of our morality is not NS. As soon as we happened upon the ability to reason the source of our morality changed (actually I would go so far as to say we did not actually have morality until we had reason).

But we already know that creatures without reason cooperate in ways that are altruistic, and this dismantles the theists case for a god-ordered morality (well, it makes it unnecessary). Dolphins, apes, dogs, even species of antelopes have been seen holding at bay predators while others make an escape. There are many examples of this, and you can find them online -- but here's one:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VYZQbZ1jK58 -- Dog saves another dog hit by a car

Reason allowed us to take a step back and consider our motivations for the morality that NS had seemingly produced. We may still choose the same path that NS has supposedly led us on all these years, but it is now us doing the choosing. We take a moment and consider why it is we do what we do. We ask ourselves why we don’t steal, and perhaps might say, “We don’t steal because if everyone was permitted to steal, then we are just as likely to be thieves and murderers as we are to be victims of theft and murder and this would not be beneficial to our survival and we want to survive because living is good.”

I would disagree on this as well. what has really happened is an artifice has come into play -- something called "civilization". Civilization, by definition, is a construct of humanity-- without humanity, it would not exist (that we know of). And this social lever has now overshadowed brute-force evolution. If we doubt this, consider our reaction to warfare scenarios where all pretense of civilization has been removed. We recoil from this, because it violates now thousands of years of social consciousness-raising; though it too can be shed in a moment due to other effective artifices, like nationalism or patriotism. But in terms of what now drives people to not steal, murder, and so on-- that has had its roots in evolutionary balances of cooperation and competition, but is now coming from a cultural leverage.

In short, much like humans harnessed evolutionary techniques to breed dogs and fatter cows and better yields of wheat, we have also harnessed those self-same levers in our social constructs. What leads to greatest opportunities of survival? A balance of competition and cooperation -- thus, we adopt those behaviors and flourish. When we abandon them-- that's when chaos, suffering, and ruin rule the day, and we rightly recoil from it.

But what is going on here? This is not NS selection talking. NS does not care if a species wants to live. Living is not good and dying is not bad. The concept of good has no place in NS.

Nor does such moral imperatives need to be applied to a simple function of reality -- and now it is you who are applying human personality where it does not apply. Just like logic needs not be "good" or "bad"-- it simply needs to be logical -- and as long as it is neutral in its process but consistent it its production, we either derive a benefit or not from it. But in and of itself, it need not be either good or bad.

It is only by a random chance that the first living organisms possessed within themselves a desire to continue to live and to reproduce and which allowed NS to take action.

Again-- here you are the one personalizing it a directionless biological function. No, simple organisms possessed no desires whatsoever-- they do not have the complex wiring upon which to found "desires". This is tantamount to asserting that stars pursue a desire to change hydrogen to helium using fusion. They do not. They simply function under the laws of physics that permit them to function this way.

That life fell into a pattern of change and mutation that led to complexity (and in a sense, the universe becoming aware of itself via our consciousness, if you want to be poetic about it), is perfectly acceptable given what the physics of biology clearly allows. There is nothing magical nor mystical about it. Assigning "desire" to it though is fallacious and inaccurate.

For if living things do not have a will to live NS cannot take effect, or I suppose it’s effect is short, sweet and right into the grave.

Again-- anthropomorphizing it. No "will". Simply reproductive capability.

But now this random chance has been discovered.

Evolution isn't "random". That which adds to the complexity and helps the organism to survive is kept, that which does not will cause the organism to fail and self-filter out of the equation. that's not randomness; that is incremental compiling of information.

Now we know that the only reason we want to live is because some time long ago a gene was randomly created which gave life the desire to push forward, the desire to live.

Again -- "desire". that's not applicable.

The truth about our sense of good has been blown wide open. There is no such thing as good. Living is not good, nor is it bad. Now a person has a lot to consider, a lot to rethink, how are they going to respond to this new found truth?

No because life happens to feel good ("good" as in enjoyable, not as a moral judgment). The survival instinct, married to more complexity, does create the desire to live. Equating a single cell organism with a complex human animal is a very problematic argument. Yes, now we have desires. We are more complex.

This path is dark and meaningless. There is no good, no bad, no worse, and no better.

Why not? Of course there are things we consider good or bad now -- but just because they are human constructs doesn't diminish them. Building are human constructs as well-- they are complex, serve a wonderful purpose, and help us to survive. Do we need to argue or posit a god to build buildings then? No we do not. Human constructs have purpose simply because we say they do. So "good" and "bad" things are ours to define.

For some reason, theists seem to think this is somehow a nihilistic viewpoint, which to the atheist is actually somewhat comical because-- you created god as well, so your "model" is, in fact, as much a human construct as a shed, an outhouse, a skyscraper or an ideology. there's no objective reality to the idea that your god construct has any validity whatsoever, and indeed the Judeo-Christian god-model is forever cursed with really horrific unjust behavior and examples that force the believer into saying "Uh, er, well... uhm-- anything that god does is good! There, that solves it!" Except, of course, it does not-- it merely highlights the circular nature of the god construct.

(And I don't know if you believe or not-- but it doesn't matter as I am addressing the perspective, not you personally).

There is no hope because there is no such thing as despair.

Again-- of course there is despair (and as a result, hope). Because not all things worked to our specific interests and desires. So if one loses their family to a tidal wave, they will have precisely the evolved responses higher-thinking complex, sapient/sentient beings will have-- they will have an emotional response. In fact, one is hard-pressed to understand why a supernatural-after-life-god-believing theist has any despair; after all, in the end god will make all things right so-- whatever is now, simply is.

All things simply are.

See above.

In fact this path is so inhabitable for human life that even the purest of naturalists have trouble contending with it. Instead these naturalists attempt to create their own purposes and attempt to give their own lives meaning (and I do not blame them for how can anyone really live in such an environment?).

There is nothing negative to developing one's own purpose and meaning in life. In fact, we all do it. Theists develop a god-head to worship to give their lives meaning and purpose. I don't see the concern here.

It is interesting to see now that the evolutionist’s response for why we don’t steal is entirely unfounded:

“We don’t steal because if everyone was permitted to steal, then we are just as likely to be thieves and murderers as we are to be victims of theft and murder and this would not be beneficial to our survival and we want to survive because living is good.”

We have just shown that there is no such thing as good,

No, you have not shown it. You remove human desire from the equation, and subjectively our desires have meaning for us. There is a "good and bad" for humans, pertinent to humans.

which is what the whole argument for the evolutionists mortality depended on. In effect and in all honesty a naturalistic world cannot have a moral system, which at the fundamental level says one thing is better than another. Remember there is no good, no bad, no worse, and no better.

I disagree with your premise and conclusion. In fact, there is a good, bad, better, worse, etc. for and from humans. It's just that we define it for ourselves, and evolution has been the mechanism by which we attained it. Survival instincts remain, blended with sapience and culture/civilization levers. It's a very well-ordered, completely functional model, and it doesn't require us to postulate extra unnecessary explanations that actually create more mystery, like "the supernatural".

I can easily demonstrate benefits and costs to humans within various models (read: good vs bad; or, naturalistic morality) whereas no theist can even remotely hope to demonstrate a supernatural realm much less a god realm that drives it. It's simply a specious assertion that such is true (and--- there are a few thousands of such assertions, none more demonstrable than the next, which permeates human history, many of which have been summarily... abandoned). In fact, they seem to only rely on writings from a time when people were vastly less sophisticated about the workings of reality than they are now.

And ironically, not only do they not solve and mysteries (about why there is a good or evil) they actually complicate the entire model by asserting a whole new realm of mysteries they couldn't possibly hope to solve (the supernatural, etc.). That's lose-lose. What you basically gain out of it a dead model you can point to and claim is realm, but has utterly no grounding in the natural realm whatsoever (because... it's "super" natural).

Perhaps the only hope (but really if he was to be honest the naturalist would never need hope, it should never cross his mind that he needs to find a hope) that the naturalist has is to invent his own moral system and perhaps try and unify the rest of his brethren on what exactly that moral system should have in it, even though they are well aware their morals are not founded outside of themselves and are actually contrary to the careless indifferent flow of the rest of the universe.

Yes, it's obvious that you have come to a conclusion you feel (but cannot demonstrate) is "true" and your entire premise is founded upon it. But in terms of being able to demonstrate actual reality, I have the upper hand -- I can demonstrate natural altruism, and I can do it devoid of human involvement (i.e., you don't even need sapience to be altruistic); furthermore, I can demonstrate competition and cooperation paradigms, and show how these are not specific to humans but instead across the entire fabric of life.

Respectfully-- what can the theist demonstrate about the call to a supernatural realm that drives it all?

This post of yours was a little long and I have to go so I will respond to more later.

KTR