Something I've seen quite a bit on Mumsnet is confusing me slightly

[GeorgianMumto5]

...I often read statements along the lines of, 'I'm an atheist because I there is no God,' and, 'I don't want my child to be taught about your fairy stories [religious teachings],' which is all fair enough but what's confusing me is, aren't these just people's opinions? One person can't provide definitive proof of the absence of a deity, anymore than another can provide definitive proof of the existence of a deity, surely? Or am I missing something?

This is a genuine query - I'm interested to know. I'm not trying to stir up arguments, although I'm happy to be argued with and told that I'm wrong.

As a person with a faith, I'd say it's all a matter of faith - either you believe it, or you don't. If I was without faith, I guess I'd say it's a matter of opinion. In any case, I don't get the absolute confidence people have that there is no God. I think there is, but I couldn't prove it and wouldn't think to tell another peson that I'm right on that topic and they're wrong. Where does all the certainty come from?

mathanxiety -

I think you are looking at this on a completely different timescale than Grimma. No human nature probably hasn't evolved much in the past 100s of years or even 1000s, but clearly human nature evolved. That how it got to be human nature and not primate ancestor nature.

Dogs are not wolves. There are many similarities (98.8% DNA in common) but there are enough differences to make them distinct. We have tried to domesticate them but failed because they do not relate to humans as dogs do. Wolf-dog hybrids tend to have innate wolf behavioural traits that make them unsuitable companion animals.

The point where modern (thinking and feeling) humans and pre humans of whatever sort and parted company has not yet been ascertained and the factors that go into making a 'human' as opposed to a pre human of whatever kind have not yet been identified. There is a major debate among anthropologists over the issue of whether modern behaviour developed in a single event or developed gradually over millenia.

No matter what, there is a difference between cultural development (arising from environmental factors, factors related to intellect, economy, demographic structure, access to resources, etc.,) and basic human nature/capacity for behaviour of different kinds from altruism to cruelty. If nothing else, the 20th c demonstrated that cultural development and the ability to function well in a complex society can mask much that is negative.

I think I'm looking pretty far back Himalaya.

How do you identify the difference between human nature and primitive ancestor nature? I am not talking about cultural development here or ability to live in societies together or communicate. When did we stop killing each other or stealing or raping?

Mathanxiety

I didn't say primitive, I said primate ancestors.

Humans didn't "part company" with pre-humans, they are our direct ancestors.

Our direct ancestors did part company with the direct ancestors of chimps and orangs at some point, just as the direct ancestors of dogs parted company with the direct ancestors of wolves. Wolves did not stop evolving at that point.

You seem to be misinterpreting evolution as being a process of progress (a ladder) that goes from simple/primitive to "more evolved" with species ceasing to evolve once they part company with those you see as "lower down on the ladder".

This is a complete misunderstanding of evolution. Or maybe a confusion between the everyday meaning of the word as = change over time, and the process in nature.

Everything that is currently alive is equally evolved a - it has all been evolving for the same amount of time since our very first common ancestors. You could perhaps argue that bacteria are more evolved, as they get more generations in. "More evolved" is fairly meaningless really. I am one generation more evolved than my parents, my children are one generation more evolved than me, but the process is so slow and takes place across populations.

It is really non-controversial that human nature evolved.

Our direct ancestors didn't have complex language, reflexive thought (he thinks that I think that he thinks), a sense of justice, a love of ideas, pride, jealousy what have you....all these aspects of human nature evolved. if not evolution how do you think they developed? Of they evolved, what made them break the laws of nature and stop evolving?

We have tried to domesticate them but failed because they do not relate to humans as dogs do.

Exactly! Canis lupus familiaris has a significantly different nature from Canis lupus, which arose over a relatively short period of time. (How short may be suggested by the silver fox studies)

If canine nature can change in response to selective pressure, it would be strange to suppose that the same doesn't apply to other species, humans included. What those pressures were/will be and what the changes were/may be we don't know -just that changes do happen. That's really all I was saying - I think you read far more into a few original words than I meant to imply.

I think it depends on how you define evolution and whether you are looking for changes on a general or macro scale.

If you define evolution as changes to adapt to environment then I do think you can point to examples of changes in societal attitudes that do amount to a change in nature.

In days when infant mortality was high, children were treated far more as 'things' than people: for example, not being named until their first birthday, having as many children as possible rather than investing resources in just a couple, doctors not being called to treat very young, sickly children. Yes, children who died young were grieved for but I doubt to the extent they are now. It was just a fact of life.

This gradually changed, but even in the Victorian times children were not seen as having full personhood: 'be seen and not heard' 'spare the rod and spoil the child', children were seen as chattels. This was a markedly different attitude from today, when the protection of the best interests of the child is a principle enshrined in law. The decline in child mortality and the increased availability of resources means that we are able to be more confident in our ability to raise a child to maturity so the nature of our attitude to them has changed. This is a major factor in the lower birth rate.

Now, a woman having multiple children, investing little in their care, and having yet more children if the first are taken from her is seen as getting it wrong and having a poor attitude to parenthood. Yet if you took a woman from medieval times and earlier and transported her to the current day she would probably see our 'feckless' woman as being sensible and prudent, and the rest of us as being unnaturally attached to our children.

Whether she would 'evolve' in her nature after a year or so of realising the resources we have available to raise our children is debatable. Certainly, our nature has the capacity to evolve far more quickly than physical changes, but there do seem to be people such as our 'feckless' mother or men who still appear to see their wives as chattels who seem incapable of or at least extremely resistant to evolving in their attitudes to fit in with what is now accepted as mainstream attitudes and nature. We simply don't know enough at the moment about the effects of nature vs nurture.

Thistledew, et al, I simply have to butt in here; it is a hardy historical lie that in the past children were less loved and treated more like things than is the case now. Children were at NO time seen merely as chattels. You are downloading the work of Philippe Aries, which has been called into serious question by virtually everyone else.

The result is that you are crediting to the Enlightenment childcare practices that arose far earlier in response to organised religion. For instance, in xtian countries all children were named at baptism, which took place a month or less after the birth.

Not meaning to flame, but this is exactly the kind of problem I tend to have with the antireligious rhetoric of now; it's so deeply unhistorical in its premises and examples.

I have no idea what thistle's points have to do with primates, either; the infancy of other primates is typically longer than human childhood, in that most breastfeed for 5 years or thereabouts.

Thistle - I was thinking more on the level of genetic change than the sort of societal 'evolution' you're talking about.

Sieg - while I've no idea whether Thistle's example was historical or not but it wasn't 'antireligious rhetoric' - it had nothing to do with religion.
Getting things wrong is something we all do on both sides of any debate ... historical and scientific misapprehensions abound, I will assume usually innocent mistakes which one tries to correct.

For instance, in xtian countries all children were named at baptism, which took place a month or less after the birth.

This has certainly not always been true. If you have ever done any genealogy you will know that it is not uncommon for families to have had two or three of their children baptised at the same time, obviously at different ages. The evidence is there in countless parish registers.

It's true that some very badly off families in the industrial cities struggled to get their children to church - I come from such a family myself. here the bad guy is usually the employer, not religion.

I was really thinking of the Middle Ages. Thistle's original implication was that people had evolved an interest in their children over time, while actually something close to the opposite happened.

I agree early baptism was the norm esp for rc and cofe - i was thinking specifically about non conformists. Of course there were folk who didn't think it was important and more who couldn't be bothered. There are quite a few cases of children not being baptised until they were 7 or 8, and some though rare of old folk being baptised on their deathbeds. Anyway, a bit of a digression - just wanted to make the point that it didn't always happen.

If you define evolution as changes to adapt to environment then I do think you can point to examples of changes in societal attitudes that do amount to a change in nature.

I completely disagree. If that were the case you could claim to know what people would or would not participate in a crime such as 'ethnic cleansing'. Or participate in wielding power in an oppressive regime. You could look at a rubric of 'societal attitudes' and predict the future.

Of course every species continues to evolve -- as I said upthread I am not a creationist. But there is no evidence whatsoever for your claim that human nature evolves any more than there is evidence that wolf nature evolves.

It is really non-controversial that human nature evolved. Our direct ancestors didn't have complex language, reflexive thought (he thinks that I think that he thinks), a sense of justice, a love of ideas, pride, jealousy what have you....all these aspects of human nature evolved. if not evolution how do you think they developed? Of they evolved, what made them break the laws of nature and stop evolving?
It is actually a massive controversy; the controversy lies in how and when modern human behaviour began, whether it was a quick burgeoning or a very slow and gradual development. You have absolutely no evidence for your claim that any of the elements of human nature you mention have evolved. Complex language perhaps, but is that in our nature or more of a neuro-biological trait? Reflexive thought evidence to support your claim that we didn't always have that trait? Sense of justice? What exactly is a sense of justice? Pride and jealousy? -- here we stray into the territory of 'fallen mankind'.. If you are able to prove that there are physical or biological foundations to 'human nature' then you will be able to prove that evolution affects human nature as well as human physical development. But you will also open the door to categorising humans according to evolution of their nature, which has already been tried, with disastrous results.

If canine nature can change in response to selective pressure, it would be strange to suppose that the same doesn't apply to other species, humans included. What those pressures were/will be and what the changes were/may be we don't know -just that changes do happen.
And again, I disagree. You have no evidence for any change over time in response to selective pressure or any other factor in basic human nature. Humans have become more domesticated. We have developed complex social structures and technology. But we still need codes of ethics. We still need laws; interestingly, though values have changed over the millenia, the problems that ancient codes tried to deal with (according to the values of ancient societies) still tend to crop up today. While much of Thistledew's post was not as respectful of historical fact as it could have been, she is right to point out that the nature vs nurture debate rolls on with no conclusion in sight.

MostlyLovingLurchers -- if you were looking at Catholic registers you would see baptisms taking place within 6 weeks of birth.

** you would more likely see baptisms..

Yes, i did say early baptisim was the norm for rc. I suspect that might have something to do with the church teaching that unbaptised infants would not make it to heaven. I realise this is no longer rc doctrine btw.

The nature of domesticated animals has certainly evolved though, and dogs are a particularly good example of that because they did evolve from wolves, a process that started about 15,000 years ago. and yet they are now a separate species with very different behaviours to their wild cousins.

Now dog life spans are much much shorter than ours, so the evolutionary process is much faster (many more generations) and of course man has been actively involved, so it's not a particularly natural process, but essentially everything changes over time.

but is that in our nature or more of a neuro-biological trait?

what on earth do you think constitutes 'our nature' except 'neuro-biological traits' and the interplay of physical factors? Do you think there's a ghost in the machine? I'm at a loss to understand where you're coming from on this.

If you are able to prove that there are physical or biological foundations to 'human nature' ...

eh? what the heck else is there? Start with the amygdala maybe, consider the effects of hormones (testosterone, oxytocin, etc etc)... possible genetic markers are being found for psychological variations ... we may not like what people could do with knowledge about some of the factors which form human nature but that is completely irrelevant to whether those factors exist. (its the neutrality of science and the necessity for ethics thing again)

Mathanxiety -

You've lost me again.

Human nature evolved, just as worm nature evolved and bat nature evolved. I really don't see what is controversial about this.

Yes there are questions about how and how quickly characteristics evolved, but quick or slow it was, but it was still evolution.

What are you suggesting shaped the nature of human behavior?

You have absolutely no evidence for your claim that any of the elements of human nature you mention have evolved

I'm not sure what you are suggesting as an alternative.

evidence to support your claim that we didn't always have that trait?

Because if you trace our ancestors back far enough you get to pre-human primates, if you go back further the family tree is made up of small mammals etc...we. None of these creatures could write poetry (or whatever uniquely human characteristics you like). I'm not sure what it could possibly mean to say "our ancestors always had" a sense of injustice, reflexive thought or whatever. That can only be true if you draw an artificial line as to how far back you want to go.

If you are able to prove that there are physical or biological foundations to 'human nature' then you will be able to prove that evolution affects human nature as well as human physical development.

As opposed to what?

you will also open the door to categorising humans according to evolution of their nature

Again you seem to be reading something that is not there.

The RC church still requires baptism at the earliest possible opportunity though I can't see a priest giving anyone a hard time if they turned up years after the birth.

Himalaya -- if you're going to expand your definition of 'human' to include small mammals then this discussion is going to get really ridiculous. A line has to be drawn somewhere and I don't think it should be drawn to include lesser spotted gerbils.

Grimma -- if neuro-biological traits is all there is to human nature then why do we bother with ethics? Are ethical systems redundant and futile? Or do we have a gene that makes us need to construct a god/a system of ethics and is that something essential to a definition of humanity?

Mathanxiety -

As I am sure you know human beings did not evolve from lesser spotted gerbils, but at some point in our history we do share a common ancestor with them.

Of course the traits that amount to being human evolved later than that but it is doubtless they evolved. Nature doesn't "draw lines" - whether it happened relatively fast or slow, there will have been many individuals who were slightly more like humans and slightly less like their non-human ancestors (not to mention the poor old Neanderthals)

Basically what you are saying is that you draw some artificial line after the basic features of modern humans have evolved and then say "we were always like that", "there is no evidence that those features evovlved".

You can do this with any trait - there is no evidence that the human eye evolves if you define the human eye as only something that existed after it had evolved into its current state!!

I wonder if you are thinking this way because you are trying to place the idea of a non material human soul into a natural history framework? Are you placing the "event" of ensoulment at the human soul at the Great Leap Forward? Is it the "soul" which you are arguing couldn't have evolved?

MathAnxiety -

"if neuro-biological systems are all there is why do we need ethics" WTF? If you saw someone kicking the crap out of a dog and they said "don't worry his pain is just a neuro-biological system" would you say "oh, ok then"

We need ethics because otherwise there would be rule by the strongest.

I don't think humans are anything other than particularly smart, sociable, adaptable animals, but this doesn't change the experience of being human . I wouldn't be ok with someone kicking the crap out of someone else just because their pain is a neuro- biological symptom.

I think you have the gene part of this backward. Because humans had the genetic traits which enabled them to go beyond close kin collaboration they were able to expand massively in numbers, living closely together and depending on many strangers and ever bigger social systems. The ability to construct and enforce ethical rules (sometimes with the help of religious ideas) is what enabled human expansion. Now with over 6bn people on the planet we need ethical systems more than ever before.

The RC church still requires baptism at the earliest possible opportunity though I can't see a priest giving anyone a hard time if they turned up years after the birth.

Yes, but what they no longer do is tell you that your baby won't go to heaven unless a priest has dribbled some water on it's head.

"if neuro-biological systems are all there is why do we need ethics" WTF? If you saw someone kicking the crap out of a dog and they said "don't worry his pain is just a neuro-biological system" would you say "oh, ok then"

We need ethics because otherwise there would be rule by the strongest'.

And what is wrong with that - or why is that not ok? After all, we are creatures whose nature is founded in neuro biology and neuro biology alone. Why do we bother deciding behaviour is 'wrong' or 'right' if what we do or think is determined by our genes, our neuro-biology?

'I think you have the gene part of this backward. Because humans had the genetic traits which enabled them to go beyond close kin collaboration they were able to expand massively in numbers, living closely together and depending on many strangers and ever bigger social systems. The ability to construct and enforce ethical rules (sometimes with the help of religious ideas) is what enabled human expansion. Now with over 6bn people on the planet we need ethical systems more than ever before.'
I think you misread me if you didn't think that was what I was hinting at. It was 'nearly always' (if not 'always') with the help of religion that humans developed their ethics systems though. Not 'sometimes'.
How ironic that what may have brought us thus far in our evolution could be something anti-religious posters sniff derisively at.

Mathanxiety -

You seem to be trying to read biology as a moral system with a purpose ('bringing us thus far in our evolution') rather than as a purposeless process that has given rise to a group of organisms capable of thinking in moral terms.

I guess that is a direct analogy from religion where the creative force and the source of morality are seen as the same.

Biology shows how evolution is behind the "creative source" but it doesn't mean that evolution can be read as a moral process.

You ask: Why shouldn't we kill, hurt or steal from other people (...generally)? Really, do you need to ask??

because they don't want us to, because they feel pain, fear, anguish, because they value their own life. Seriously do you think that if it turns out that human consciousness is 'just' a consequence of genes and neuro-biology that there would be nothing wrong with murdering other people?

Mathanxiety

What is your point?

That religion played an important role in building and communicating ethical systems in time gone by? Doubtless this is true.

That religion is still at the core of ethics? I don't think so.

That we shouldn't "sniff derisively" at it because of its important historical role? OK up to a point. But nationalist and racist chauvinism, unequal sex roles, class deference and unquestioning loyalty to leaders have also been part of the social fabric of human society. Arguably an egalitarian society wouldn't have fared so well in competing for survival. Nevertheless we can still sniff derisively at suggestions that sexism (for example) is a good thing because it helped to get us this far in evolution.

'You seem to be trying to read biology as a moral system with a purpose ('bringing us thus far in our evolution') rather than as a purposeless process that has given rise to a group of organisms capable of thinking in moral terms.'

You now appear to be tying yourself up in knots trying to back away from the implications of the constant human preoccupation with ethical systems. What I have suggested is that the human need for god (or an ethical system if you prefer to call it that) may well be what makes us the successful human species. It may well be an innate part of our nature, and in fact one of the adaptations that has served us really, really well as we have evolved.

(I would go further actually, and suggest that the success of any given society depends on the appropriateness of its ethical system in the conditions in which that society exists, and that ethical systems that are not robust or do not address conditions in which that society functions will generally collapse and bring down the societies that adhere to them).

Biology is not and never has been a moral system with a purpose (and I doubt I ever said it was). However, since we choose to live ethically (in general) and since our intellect tells us that living ethically means we live longer and more successfully together, colonise the planet, harness its resources wisely, where living without ethics or with faulty ones means death and/or destruction of our society or the societies of others, and where adherence to the ethics of our society can often be against what we might see as our own individual self interest in many situations, can our evolution be said to be purposeful? You mention the 6bn world population, and maybe you are concerned with us collectively finding some way to keep our species going? Could it be that that our ability to be purposeful about our survival and our recognition that ethical systems are what ensure that goal can be achieved (as you state) represent a purpose-driven evolution of our species, and evolution/continued life on earth is not all random and a matter of chance where humans are concerned?

I ask why we bother designating 'right' and 'wrong' because if biology is all there is to human development then we might as well just admit that, accept the brutal things we do to each other just as we accept them in animals and forget about complicating our lives with thoughts of morality.