36 Questions For Men - A Response To Buzzfeed

Hi everyone.

This post is a little off-topic as it doesn't revolve around religion.

Buzzfeed, some years ago, posted a video titled "36 Questions For Men", in which various women ask questions of men in a somewhat accusatory manner.

I've always wanted to make a response, so here it is.

-----

1. How does it feel to be the same sex as Donald Trump?

It doesn't bother me one bit. 

Firstly, I am also the same gender as people both famous and infamous such as Albert Einstein, Bill Gates, Elon Musk, Milo Yiannopoulos, Justin Trudeau, Samuel L. Jackson and many others.

Secondly, people can be as brash and abrasive and foolhardy as they want to be, gender not being a barrier.

Thirdly, one could easily reply, "How does it feel the be the same gender as Elizabeth Bathory, one of history's first serial killers, or Elizabeth Holmes, convicted of one of the largest instances of wire fraud in US legal history?", but these kind of snide questions do nothing to improve understanding and dialogue.

---

2. Why do you hate rom-coms?

I don't hate rom-coms per se. I just hate the unrealistic expectations displayed in them, especially ones such as the handsome guy who has a stable job, no mental health issues and barely any body fat (though 'As Good As It Gets' did help turn the tide).

No, I'm not romantic. I'm a realist. Couldn't you tell.

---

3. Or do you just feel like you need to hate them?

I agree that a pinch of masculine pride gets in the way, but one could  also easily question why women don't get excited about sports documentaries.

The young and foolhardy version of me instantly hated rom-coms. The current version of me just doesn't care.

---

4. Why do you make women sit around talk about men in movies, when y'all easily just sit around and talk about boobs for hours?

I have never made a movie, so I can't give a qualified answer either way. If it grieves you so much, why don't you make a movie that has women talking about men's cocks?

I can honestly say I've never sat around with a bunch of the boys for hours talking about boobs.

Also, the fact is that women are just as hard on other women - especially with regards to physical appearance - as men are accused of being.
A woman can wear the same outfit to work all week, the men wouldn't care, but I can guarantee you that it would be the other women who would be making judgemental and make catty remarks.

Just check out this below clip and tell me that men are the problem:


---

5. Why do you automatically assume that you won’t like TV or movies that star a female lead?

A TV show or movie with a female lead doesn't bother me, and I don't know anyone who is prejudiced against a TV show or movie simply because of the gender of the lead actor.

Just to prove my feminist credentials, I recommend you stream "What Keeps You Alive" and "No-One Gets Out Alive" - two awesome horror films with female leads.

---

6. Why are you surprised when women are funny?

I'm not surprised. Women can be funny and I personally know very funny women. Joan Rivers is a goddess. The whole world mourned when we lost the universally-loved Betty White.

If men were really as sexist as what the question implies, the follow-up should be "Why are you surprised when men aren't funny?".

---

7. Why do you think that we’re obsessed with you when we hook up?

I have no answer either way. I'm not the hook-up kind.

However I think in some cases, sometimes the woman is obsessed, and sometimes men misread interpersonal cues.

And just on that - there seems to be this unspoken line where men are though to be desperate if they're too quick to make contact, or distant or evasive if they hold off. Talk about prejudicial expectations...

---

8. Why can’t I sleep with as many people as I want to without being judged?

In many cases, it's actually women judging other women for sexual activity. So don't just ask this question of men - ask this question of your mothers, your sisters and your grandmothers, especially of those in conservative ethnic groups.

--

9. Why do you consider a woman a tease if she doesn't sleep with you three dates, but a slut if she sleeps with you on the first date?

Again, I don't. 

I actually avoided this problem because I met my wife when I spent my younger years in a Protestant evangelical cult.

I dodged one bullet...and got hit by another.

---

10. In what world does no mean yes?

In a world where men have a brain and a penis, but only enough blood to run one of them at a time - which is this world.

I'll agree that men do need to do better in this regard.

---

11. Why do you say that women are too emotional to be leaders, then justify catcalling by saying men just can’t control themselves?

Part 1 - Again, I don't. I can honestly say that I don't remember ever criticising a female in a position of power for being "too emotional", and I can't ever remember being with anyone who has catcalled.

And on the converse, I've worked with and for numerous men who couldn't keep their emotions in check.

Part 2 - Again, I don't. A man who admits he can't control himself is not worth being around, in any context.

---

12. Why do you think that just because you’re nice to me, I owe you my body?

Again, I don't.

Some men do, and those men aren't worth the time of day, so I suggest learn how to avoid that type, and to combat bad attitudes.

And this goes for everyone - the more we learned how to avoid jerks and starve them of oxygen, the better society would be.

---

13. Why would you ever send an unsolicited **** pic?

Don't know. Not something I've ever felt the need to do.

---

14. Why do you feel like it’s OK to harass women or make offensive comments about women but when somebody does it to your sister it’s not OK?

Again, I don't harass women.

Maybe Buzzfeed's video should have instead been called "36 Questions For Our Feminist Caricature Of Men"

---

15. How does it feel to interrupt me when I’m in the middle of making a point during a meeting?

I've never interrupted you during a meeting. Even better, I try avoid meetings. You should be thanking me :-)

---

16. Why do you have to sit with your legs so wide open?

Because men have testicles, and despite what misconceptions you may have, testicles are an interactive part of our body, just like feet and ears.

Imagine you had two ping-pong balls between your breasts, but these were magical ping-pong balls that were heat and contact-sensitive - you would only be able to enclose them and squish them for so long before you needed to give them space. Therefore, a mild amount of space is required, and men give their nads breathing space by moving the only limb available to do so - the legs.s

True, any man who negligently or crudely takes an unnecessary amount of space is a d*ck. But they're going to be d*cks anyway.

---

17. Why are women perceived as the weaker sex even though we literally birth you?

Well, men do hold all of the weightlifting records...

But pain tolerance is not an indication of physical strength or emotional maturity, and even during childbirth, the number one thing women ask for are drugs, epidurals or caesarians.

---

18. Why is it so bad to show your emotions?

It isn't. My only expectation is that whatever emotion you display, keep it in proportion to the situation at hand.

I cringe as much at the road rager as I do at the Karen as I do at the person complaining the paper tray on the printer that they didn't buy doesn't hold enough paper.

---

19. Why are you always trying to prove your masculinity to me?

Any man who feels they do need to prove their masculinity would likely do so because they're deep-down insecure.

---

20. Why the **** isn’t it ladylike to cuss?

Don't know about you, but I love it when women swear.

---

21. When did words get genders?

Probably at about the same time that they were created. 

But I find it ironic that Buzzfeed have a problem with western culture using English that has some words that are colloquially gendered (particularly in nautical circles) without realising the irony that:

One, the word 'bitch' was appropriated from the field of zoology to mean something it was never meant to, and; 

Two, languages like German, Spanish and Indonesian are actually structurally gendered. For example, in German, when you learn a word, you have to learn not only the word, not only the gender, but also the case, otherwise you end up saying something completely different (and possibly offensive).

---

22. Why is it your first instinct to doubt women who have been sexually violated or raped?

One of the founding principles of our justice system is the presumption of innocence, and publicly spreading rumours of alleged sexual assault prior to a trial actually contributes to a miscarriage of justice - ensuring that the alleged perpetrator won't face justice for their crimes!

This isn't to say we shouldn't give every available assistance to those who have been violated and traumatised. My point, though, would be that to accuse someone of sexual assault is very serious, and there is a difference between believing and encouraging a victim, and propagating unfounded allegations.

Plus, on numerous occasions, false rape claims have been made that have damaged people's careers and lives - so we need to strike that balance.

So it's not that I doubt women, I just reserve judgement until the facts of the matter are established.

---

23. Why do you assume a woman’s angry because she’s on her period?

Because it's statistically more likely than other explanations.

---

24. Why do you think women that wear makeup are false advertising?

Isn't that what makeup is supposed to do - cover over blemishes and variations to present a veneer?

---

25. We could say the same thing about your **** size.

OK. But then that's playing in to the very same sexism that you are rallying against.

---

26. Why isn’t it weird that there’s a bunch of old white men sitting in a room making legislation about what I can and can’t do with my body?

One. Those same unspecified old white men make decisions about my body as well, especially when it comes to pharmaceuticals and mental health treatment, so you're not the only victim.

Two. If you don't like the fact that there's a bunch of old white men, then don't vote for old white men, or even better, get people to vote for the non-old non-white non-men so you can be part of the momentum behind the change the change you want to see in the law.

But Buzzfeed are exposing their hypocrisy - by complaining about old white men, they're using ageist, racist and sexist terms to rally against ageism, racism and sexism.

---

27. Why are straight guys so obsessed with lesbians?

Not all straight guys are obsessed with lesbians. I can tell you I'm not.

I think the team at Buzzfeed need to go past the stereotypes and have a proper, constructive conversation with someone who has views opposing to theirs.

But then this is the problem with modern journalism - Outrage generates clicks. People who need to make money from their content wouldn't interview mild-mannered old me - they'll find a hardcore Men's Rights Activist or Anti-Vaxxer or someone else of an extreme position, interview them and then act as if that extreme person is representative of all people who share the same opinion.

---

28. How does it feel to get kicked in the balls?

It fucking hurts.

Go on to YouTube and look at MMA fights ended by groin shots. If a guy whose living is made by being beaten up and having his body twisted has to stop a fight because of a well-placed nut shot, that should give you an indication of how painful it is.

---

29. Do you ever get tired of trying to be manly all the time?

This is such a vapid and pointless question.

---

30. Why are you so afraid of gender equality?

I'm not. I'm more scared of those who push a socially-acceptable form of sexism to pretend that they're fighting sexism, and then those people pretend they aren't being sexist because their sexism is the good sexism, or that their sexism falls outside of a hyper-narrow definition of sexism that somehow only white men fit in to (in the same vein as reverse racism).

--

31. Why do I deserve to be paid less than you?

You don't. I would expect a person with my experience and my skills and my business acumen to earn at least as much as I do.

--

32. In what world does 77 cents equal a dollar?

I don't disagree that a gender pay gap exists, but it doesn't exist because of the reasons feminists say it exists.

Firstly, it is against all discrimination law that is out there to pay salary inequitably due to gender. If there was a company that was paying women less than men for the same job, they would be liable under the multitude of enforcement procedures out there.

Secondly, men typically earn more than women over a lifetime because men typically work in more hazardous professions that also happen to be higher paying in line with the shortened shelf-life of the people in those professions. Construction, mining, logging, for example - these are all hazardous professions that also just happen to be done willingly by men.

Thirdly, even between men, there is a pay gap. I, as an IT technician, get paid a lot less than the aforementioned construction, mining or logging workers.

--

33. Why are you intimidated by a woman who makes more money than you?

I'm not. I'm more peeved off by people - both men and women - who use their salary/job title/profession/bank balance as reason to look down on people and act like jerks.

I've met numerous women who make more money than me. Not an issue.

--

34. Why are opinionated women seen as *****es?

For much the same reason that opinionated men are seen as wankers and assholes.

--

35. Why aren’t you speaking up when you hear your male friends behind closed doors make jokes that are offensive to women?

For much the same reason women don't speak up when they hear someone make an offensive joke about men - because they're too busy laughing behind closed doors to be worried about someone distant's feelings.

It's when the offense is brought to the intended victim in order to inflict psychological/emotional harm that we need to worry about. But jokes behind closed doors are just that - jokes, and behind closed doors.

What feminists also forget is that for decades, womens magazines such as New Idea ran a column called Mere Male where women wrote in with stories of men doing dumb things with the idea that women are intellectually superior, hence mere male.

--

36. Why are you so afraid of recognizing your own privilege?

Two reasons:

One: I don't see what actual gender-based privilege exists. We in Australia have very few provisions for favouring one gender over another. Anything that engenders sexism is actually illegal (unless it's affirmative action, which is, in reality, government-sanctioned sexism).

Two: What privilege do men get? The privilege of public toilets that smell like cocks?
The privilege of having a shorter average life span?
The privilege of being more likely to die from cancer?
The privilege of being more like to be arrested and incarcerated?
The privilege of losing custody of children?
The privilege of being more likely to die in a road accident, in a workplace accident, or by being murdered?
The privilege of having to pay more for vehicle insurance?
The privilege of being ridiculed for sex work?

Please, tell me what privilege you think I have that you want.

---

Correcting Pre-Suppositionalist Misunderstanding Of Evolution - Part 4

 Apologies for the lengthy delay in getting this post out. There's a reason.

Some time back, this blog used to be at the URL "idontneedfaithtobeanatheist.com", which was a response to the book by Frank Turek & Normal Geisler. Then, as I expanded my online activities, I decided to change the URL to "tallfriendlyatheistdad.com". The problem that then arose was that every link I had in every draft reverted to an admin page in my Blogger account - this is OK for me because I'm the admin, but that meant that whenever a reader tried to click on a link, they'd get a blank page.


However, I only noticed this AFTER the URL change and hadn't saved an offline copy of my word. I was able to rescue (somewhat) previous drafts I had, but this draft I wasn't able to - and when you're discussing something as scientifically meaty as the theory of evolution, and you're trying to counter scientific ignorance writ-large in the form of Fundamental Evangelicalism combined with Presuppositional Apologetics, dotting your i's and crossing your t's is a good practice - especially because you want to remove any scope for anyone to highlight a flaw and act as if they've defeated your entire case.


After much consternation, I've decided to release the 4th and final part, but with most of the links removed. Not that Creationists care much for them, but they are there to show you, the audience, that the theory of evolution is well-substantiated by the science and that human altruism and the theory of evolution are intertwined.


So here goes - the fourth and final instalment of "Correcting Pre-Suppositionalist Misunderstanding Of Evolution"


-----

In the previous 3 parts of 'Correcting Pre-Suppositionalist Misunderstanding Of Evolution', I discussed what I though were the errors with old mate ApoloJedi's blog article wherein he states why he doesn't believe the theory of evolution can account for human altruism - as if that defeats the theory of evolution itself.


The feedback so far from ApoloJedi directly has been that I have engaged in misdirection and nitpicking, a charge I take umbrage at because, as is evident from the fact that this is a 4-part series, I've actually taken the time to engage the argument as strongly as I can, and I have quoted directly from ApoloJedi's blog.


You can find the previous entries here: Part 1 - Part 2 - Part 3 - As well as links to ApoloJedi's blog and original article so you can compare the two sides of the argument to see if I am strawmanning and nitpicking.


In this last entry, I tackle ApoloJedi's last sections in his blog post, as well as get to the heart of the topic: can the theory of evolution explain human altruism?


The next section is what I feel is the actual heart of the matter: theology, not science.
 
 
"When man judges something, they're putting 
themselves in the judge's seat, and no-one is allowed to judge God!" is the ultimate in special pleading, and they need this out BECAUSE the evidence from philosophy, morality and especially the natural sciences all defeat the case for God's existence and his superior qualities when considered strictly on their merits. So the battlefield is shifted away from the merits of the argument at hand, and instead gets moved to weird concepts like having to account for things and proving you're not a brain in a jar.


-----

Can Evolution Account For Altruism?

 

No. Those who believe in evolution recognize that altruism exists, and in an effort to create post hoc theories for its existence, they must either redefine altruism, revive classic Lamarckism, disregard their own definitions of what evolution means or some chimera Frankenstein fantasy combination of all three distractions.

 

Which is a bit rich, considering that ApoloJedi has only used a social definition of altruism, 'good done for no thought of reward', not an academic one. If ApoloJedi is trying to convince like-minded believers of his position, mission accomplished, but has he done enough to convince rational skeptics like me? No.


One big mistake so far has been to use the term "those who believe in evolution". No-one believes in evolution. I, alongside numerous other people, accept the theory of evolution as the most scientifically-replete explanation for the biodiversity we see on earth today - but this does not mean we 'believe in it'. We make no decisions about our daily lives based on the theory of evolution; we don't pray to Darwin or Dawkins or Miller as gods; and when a loved one cries, we don't stop and ask "what will help their DNA replicate in a population competing for limited resources?".


I don't even know what Lamarckism is in any great detail, let alone anyone who espouses it as superior to Darwinian mechanisms, so I'll let that slide.


And evolution is actually a multi-factored phenomenon and multi-disciplinary study that incorporates numerous mechanisms and works at many levels. While it boils down to genetic variation in populations, it is a rich and complex field that actually has applications outside of biology as well (see here).


Unfortunately, ApoloJedi's strongest argument AGAINST evolution is to criticise a paper by two economists writing about evolution from a cultural perspective; a book written over 40 years ago; a college textbook, and then (as we'll see shortly) quote Fundamentalist Protestant theology. This is not the academically rigorous discussion of evolution that ApoloJedi needed to make to convince scientifically-literate atheists such as Jackson Wheat or Professor Dave that they're on the wrong path.


Many of you know that this is a blog dedicated to the truth of God’s eternal revelation.

…it is my intent to always revere Christ Jesus as the authority in all matters…


In all mattersespecially scientific? But why? Why would anyone hold as a scientific authority a person who - despite being the one who created the universe (Colossians 1:16) - didn't know or care to teach about bacteria or atoms or DNA? What was Jesus' knowledge about electricity or vaccines or neurochemistry? The delicious irony of this is that electricity powered Jesus' body, but he said not one thing about it. Jesus' body hosted approximately 10 trillion bacteria, but somehow rated no mention. Neither the presence of a planet over 300 times larger than Earth just nearby with almost 70 moons - as if Jesus was completely unaware and aloof.


Jesus may have been a nice guy, but he's certainly no authority on anything outside of theology, and he's definitely not the guy I want vetting my scientific beliefs.

 

…and not put the God-denier in the judge’s seat as if he/she can correctly judge evidence in accordance with a perfect perception of reality. Only God has a perfect perception of all of reality…

 

This is a common line from Pre-Suppositionalists that I believe actually betrays why they're reluctant to apply the same standard to God as what they happily do every day to everybody and everything else. 

It's funny - Pre-Suppositionalists, and even most Protestant Evangelicals, will happily sit in judgement over other people's behaviour, over the morality other religions, the existence of their associated deities, and over the morality and judgement of certain presidential candidates and their families - yet when it comes to their deity, suddenly being in the judge's seat is wrong. You can't have it both ways. Either judge nothing on its merits, or judge everything on its merits.


So now let's ask: does God have a perfect perception of reality? We can't say, because God has never spoken in a way that can be objectively verified in order to ascertain his ability to perceive reality. 


But let's assume for arguments sake that God wrote every single word of the Bible and that it has been translated perfectly so that when we read it in English, it's as if we're back in ancient Israel reading from the scrolls. 


Now, let's ask the question: from the Bible's perspective, how accurate does God perceive reality? Badly is the answer. For example, Genesis 1:6 describes a firmament, a crystalline dome that divides the sky from outer space and has windows to let the rain in (Genesis 7:11) and covers the earth. And let's be clear: the Hebrew word for firmament, "raqiya", means a solid dome, not simply the atmosphere. Genesis also describes the moon as a "lesser light" in contrast to the sun being the "greater light". The problem? The moon has no capacity to generate light, only to reflect it. The other problem? The moon is only visible at night for a portion of the monthly lunar cycle (think about why we see the moon during daylight hours).

But let's continue to evaluate God's perception of the reality he supposedly created. Isaiah 11:12 refers to the four quarters of the earth, which is a reflection of a classic belief that the earth was a circular disk, not a globe. Job 38:19 asks "What is the way to the abode of light? And where does darkness reside?". Light doesn't live anywhere - light is an electromagnetic wave in certain bands of wavelengths, and darkness is not a thing, it's merely the absence of light.


And the Bible is without any description of our local solar system. God, not once, mentions any other planets or that any of them are up to 300 times larger than ours, or even something as trivial that a smaller planet like Mars has two moons compared to our one. God, not once, mentions that the sun as a very large fusion reaction. God doesn't even mention atoms, molecules, protons, neutrons, bosons…you know, the stuff that makes the stuff!

 

…but God, who is the source of all knowledge, has revealed some of his knowledge so that we can know those things with certainty


Only if we are willing to cede our intellect (as well as our humanity) to a book written by men who wondered where the sun went at night.
 

This article could have been very short: Does a mechanism which purportedly replaces God (evolution)… 


ApoloJedi now lets slip why he argues about evolution so much - because he thinks the theory of evolution by common descent usurps the giver of his moral authority. Which is strange - why are we using theology to discuss a scientific principle? This is completely backwards - we usually use science to discuss theology, not the other way around.


But no. Evolution is simply a theory that descibes the genetic diversity of life on earth. Also, it has to be said that ApoloJedi is in a minority of Christians who reject evolution. People like Pope Francis accept evolution. Billy Graham accepted evolution. C.S. Lewis accepted evolution. Dr. Francis Collins, head of the National Institutes of Health, is both a Christian and a professionally-qualified biologist.


So, does evolution replace God? Not at all. Even ardent Christian philosophers such as William Lane Craig accept human development through evolution.

 

…sufficiently account for behaviors that God commands (altruism)?

 
Does God command altrusim? Only when he's not commanding genocide (1 Samuel 15), endorsing slavery (Exodus 21), literally de-valuing women (Leviticus 27), having his people kidnap little girls after their parents and brothers have been murdered (Numbers 31), and much, much more. The Fundamentalist whitewash of God commands altrusim - not the God we actually find in the Bible.

 

No – evolution cannot account for altruism. So, evolutionists are wrong about altruism being consistent with evolution not only because of the Christian worldview…
 

1. God’s Revelation in creation and scripture are true

2. Evolutionism is discordant with God’s Revelation

 

I will actually get in to a proper evolutionary case for altrusim shortly, but what I want to highlight here is ApoloJedi's reasoning for why he says evolution is false:

ApoloJedi isn't saying the theory of evolution is unscientific because he has conferred with those with professional qualifications and done a comparative study of numerous genomes to come up with a competing data set that has withstood scientific scrutiny to the point that it attracts academic attention. No. He is saying evolution is false because it is discordant with his theology.

This is not just a bad argument - this is William Jennings Bryan-levels of intellectual defeat.


ApoloJedi continues the attack:

 

…but evolutionists are ALSO wrong about altruism because of the inherent contradictions contained within their own worldview
 

1.   Altruism is selfless

2.   Evolutionary biologists propose that genes are selfish

3.   Genes are unchanged by learned behaviors

4.   Altruism is a learned behavior

5.   Natural selection is survival of the fittest

6.   Altruism is artificial intrusion that prevents the least fit from succumbing to natural selection

 

Is ApoloJedi correct in his six-point takedown of evolution?

 

1.  Altruism is selfless

No. Selfless acts are a form of altruism, but remember, altrusim is just "behavior…motivated by a desire to benefit someone other than oneself for that person’s sake." (as per Stanford), so it not true that altruism is is strictly defined as selflessness.

ApoloJedi is correct in a social sense, but not an academic one.
 

2.  Evolutionary biologists propose that genes are selfish

No, they don't.

One evolutionary biologist, writing almost 50 years ago, using a word to employ an analogy of genes having an inherent moral and intellectual capacity, did, but as Stephen J. Gould wrote, "
Dawkins knows as well as you and I do that genes do not plan and scheme; they do not act as witting agents of their own preservation. He is only perpetuating, albeit more colorfully than most, a metaphorical shorthand "

 

3.  Genes are unchanged by learned behaviors

No. There's a whole field of study called behavioural epigenetics that looks at the link between behaviour and genes, both ways.

 

4.  Altruism is a learned behavior

Yes and no. There is great debate in the field of psychology over how innate altruism is. I agree that the effective application of human altruism has to be learned, but this is not to say that human kindness is not somewhat innate or that evolutionary mechanisms have nothing to do with it.

ApoloJedi is somewhat correct.
 

5.  Natural selection is survival of the fittest

Fittest...in regards to the environment. That is all. It does not refer to notions of value, worth, desirability, or anything else.

ApoloJedi is not the first to confuse the notion of "fitness for the environment" with "perceived social value". He won't be the last.
 
 

6.  Altruism is artificial intrusion that prevents the least fit from succumbing to natural selection

Wrong, on two counts. First, altruism is to do with individual acts, whereas natural selection acts at a population level, and second, natural selection is to do with organisms surviving in their surrounding environments.

 

So out of six points ApoloJedi uses to debunk evolution and evolutionary explanations of altruism, he gets two of them half-right.

 

This article entered into the worldview of the God-denier and using their own assumptions, their own research, and their own conclusions to show that they cannot account for altruistic behaviors as a result of evolutionary processes

 
The article didn't enter the worldview of the God-denier, for the simple reason that ApoloJedi's article was a theological hatchet job, and evolution is a science issue - not a theological one. Christians such as Dr. Francis Collins, Dr. Theodosius Dobzhansky and Pope Francis see no threat to their faith when looking at the theory of evolution, so why does ApoloJedi?


To be clear, they cannot account for ANYTHING without humble submission to the LORD of glory, who is worthy of all praise.


Again, this is William Jennings Bryan-levels of intellectual defeat.

So with this mind, how about I take you through the science instead to show you what it actually says on the topic on the link between altruism and evolution.

 -----

Let's see what the Oxford Handbook of Prosocial Behaviour, in a chapter titled "The Devlopment And Evolutionary Origins Of Human Helping & Sharing" (p. 111) says:

 

"…these factors are ontogenetically ordered: children begin with biologically evolved cooperative tendencies…and then various processes of socialisation work on these…both natural selection and social selection have worked and do work against individuals who do not help and share with others, which means, conversely, they have worked and work for individuals who do. Both phylogeny and ontology thus conspire to temper human's natural self-serving impulses with altruistic impulses that enables them to live in interdependence with others"

 

What about The Evolutionary Origins Of Human Generosity (Komter/2010, as part of International Sociology Vol 25(3), pp 443-464)?

 

"The origins of generosity are explored by combining biological, psychological, anthropological and sociological evidence. Kinship altruism, reciprocal altruism, ‘strong reciprocity’, cultural norms and gene-culture co-evolution prove to be major explanations of the evolution of cooperation in human beings." (abstract)


"Since the 1960s and early 1970s evolution theory has acquired two kinds of extensions: the theory of genetic kinship altruism and the theory of reciprocal altruism. The first theory stipulates that by helping one’s relatives one contributes to spreading one’s own genes – which is supposed to increase survival chances – whereas the second theory allows for the explanation of altruistic behaviour among genetically non-related individuals of the same species or even among members of different species. William Hamilton was the first to mathematically model the genetic evolution of social behaviour. He argued that sacrifices involved in parental care can maximize the ‘inclusive fitness’ of the organisms involved because more adult offspring are left as a result; this way, the genes causing its possessor to give parental care will leave more replica genes in the next generation than genes having the opposite tendency (Hamilton, 1964)." (p445)

 

Or, Neural, Cognitive, And Evolutionary Foundations Of Human Altruism (Marsh/2015)?
 

"This article considers three forms of altruism from both a psychological and a neural perspective, with an emphasis on homologies that can be observed across species and potentially illuminate altruism's evolutionary origins. Kin‐based altruism benefits biological relatives and, according to the theory of inclusive fitness, is ultimately beneficial to the altruist from a genetic standpoint"

 

And remember when this God-denier told ApoloJedi in the very beginning:


Altruism is a beneficial trait in social species.

 
The prosecution rests its case, your honour.

The science is not hard to find. In this day and age where information is shared at the touch of a screen, it's not availability that is the issue - it's the willingness to have your beliefs moulded by the most robust investigation tool mankind has invented. If we care about where the evidence leads, we have to understand it may take us some places we're not comfortable with - and we have to be consistent: we can't say for all these areas of life, evidentialism is best, but then when it comes to theology, pre-suppositionalism is the ONLY way to know about God. 

Either the case for God stands on its own merits, or it doesn't. Just like the case for evolution.

Evolution has been tested and tried and honestly examined. Can we say the same about theology?


-----


I hope you have enjoyed reading through this series.

Please leave your comments below, and be kind to one another.



Darwin vs God