The relation of atheism to fatalism

[juantoo3]

Kindest Regards, JosephM!

Originally Posted by JosephM

Quote:
Originally Posted by JosephM
Perhaps your logical cosequence of reasoning is flawed.

That is always a possibility.

Since when did a lack of belief in God affect man's reasoning.

I don't recall making a statement to this effect...I do think it is pretty obvious people can think and reason with or without belief in G-d. In fact, I may stray so far as to suggest that many atheists are so *because* of reasoning, and that many believers lose faith by reasoning. The question then comes around to the quality of the reasoning...reasoning alone is insufficient if it is misguided or incomplete.

To value others has much to do with reason and intellect which in some ways inhibits a true search beyond the boundaries of itself for God until it has exhausted itself.

I'm afraid I do not follow what you are trying to say...valuing others is *not dependent* on reason or intellect, despite Randian objectivism. We, as humans, place a value even on our dead; not a material value but a psycho-spiritual value. Would you not agree that one's dead grandmother is worth more than the $2.98 worth of raw materials and organic compounds and a couple of liters of water? I do not follow about "exhausting itself" and "boundaries."

Dispair is not the result of not believing in God but rather derived from a view of hopelessness and apathy.

Agreed.

Reason and understanding itself can assure one of a meaningful life.

"Itself?" I have already acquiesced that perhaps this is a view I overlooked, are we to keep hounding on one point to the exclusion of all others? It still does not negate the overwhelming search by neolithic humanity for G-d, nor does it prove conclusively the atheist POV. The *only* thing it does, is say that despair is not contingent upon belief in afterlife / rebirth, therefore atheists are not by default destined to despair.

Even Babe Ruth struck out once in awhile, get over it guys and move on.

In which case wisdom usually dictates ones actions.

Yet, one *should* recognize that "wisdom" is a relative term. Is it wise to overlook things that disagree with your view point?

Accepting a belief in God does not eliminate despair especially if one sees God as condemning.

At no time did I ever suggest anything like this. It would be nice if words were not put into my mouth, please. There's isn't much room when my feet are there too.

Just a view for you to consider 123.

Thank you.

[JosephM]

Quote: JosephM
To value others has much to do with reason and intellect which in some ways inhibits a true search beyond the boundaries of itself for God until it has exhausted itself.

Originally Posted by 123

I'm afraid I do not follow what you are trying to say...valuing others is *not dependent* on reason or intellect, despite Randian objectivism. We, as humans, place a value even on our dead; not a material value but a psycho-spiritual value. Would you not agree that one's dead grandmother is worth more than the $2.98 worth of raw materials and organic compounds and a couple of liters of water? I do not follow about "exhausting itself" and "boundaries."

Greeting 123,

OK. I'll try again.
Sound Intellect and reasoning tell us we need each other to survive and enjoy the fruits that life has to offer. Therefore it is sufficient, if sound, to keep us from despair and will extend our values beyond the confines of our immediate family. Yet on the same hand reasoning has its limitations in that God cannot be experienced with reasoning. One can of course believe and know 'about God' through conceptualization but all concepts have to be surrendered to 'know God'. Therefore I implied that reasoning has boundaries that one must transcend to experience God. For those well entrenched in reasoning it appears to be difficult to go beyond because reasoning, itself is a barrier to that which is beyond it.

Best Wishes,
JM

[JosephM]

Again 123,

Concerning the rest of the post. I was only responding to your comment from my original post way back. I must admit I did not read the posts after that. Also was not putting words into your mouth as supposed but it is alright if you see it that way. I was merely speaking my view which may or may not agree with yours. In no way do I wish to prove or is it possible to prove you wrong. We are speaking of things that cannot be proved and as you know.....thats why this is called the philosophy forum.

Best Wishes,
JM

PS As you can see from my post #30 on this thread. I ended it with "Just a view for you to consider 123." Tearing it apart into sentences can cause it to be interpreted differently.(It was not given as an attack on your words or to put words in your mouth but of course you are the one that determines how it is taken.)

[juantoo3]

Originally Posted by JosephM

Sound Intellect and reasoning tell us we need each other to survive and enjoy the fruits that life has to offer.

Hmmm, I am thinking someone like H.D. Thoreau might take exception to this; Waldon Pond was specifically an exercise in "self-reliance." While I can agree life is far easier with others one can depend on, life is also a bigger pain in the arse with others one cannot depend on. So I question the "sound" part of the assessment, it implies a loner (a "do-it-yourselfer) is by default not of sound intellect and reasoning ability and incapable of enjoying life.

Therefore it is sufficient, if sound, to keep us from despair and will extend our values beyond the confines of our immediate family.

Since the initial premise is faulty to begin with, it really doesn't follow. However, presuming a sound mind (which has no bearing at all on preference for solitude), should keep us from despair...OK, that to me says if you are mentally healthy, you are mentally healthy; actually a bit redundant. I do not see where mental health (or lack of) has to do with extending values beyond family, at least in the case of the aforementioned loner. In other words, so far, I'm afraid I see a lot of disconnected associations that are being forcibly brought together in an attempt to make a point.

Yet on the same hand reasoning has its limitations in that God cannot be experienced with reasoning.

I'm not certain I agree. I can reason (about) G-d. There are countless sacred writings that reason about G-d. Yet, I *can* experience G-d without reasoning about G-d. Again, reason and experience are not connected even when relating to the same issue / topic.

Example: I can read a book on how to build a house, or I can pick up a hammer and build a house. Reading is reason(ing), building is experience(ing). It helps if the two work together, but it is not required; they are not connected, but can be brought together.

One can of course believe and know 'about God' through conceptualization but all concepts have to be surrendered to 'know God'.

From a reasoning POV this is conjecture. A lot depends on what exactly one means by "know." Hypothetically, I can know about G-d by reading sacred texts, certainly this is the path a great many take. Alternately, I can know about G-d by living as I understand and experience, this is a path others take. Ideally, reason and experience come torgether, and a better knowledge of G-d is realized by doing both. With the caveat that we really won't know with certainty until we die, yet in this life we can experience many things that supercede reason.

Therefore I implied that reasoning has boundaries that one must transcend to experience God.

I see these as apples and oranges. And actually, transcending reason (as in setting it aside or going beyond reason) is not necessary. Unless one is pointing to those elements of life that reason alone is insufficient to address.

For those well entrenched in reasoning it appears to be difficult to go beyond because reasoning, itself is a barrier to that which is beyond it.

Now I think I see where you are going, and I don't think I agree.

Even an athiest can experience G-d. S/he just doesn't realize it, or know how to deal with it. For many, it is easier to rationalize things, to label them and place them in appropriate boxes. In that sense, maybe you are correct, those that are bound by their intellect are seldom free enough in their minds to allow an experience with G-d.

[juantoo3]

Originally Posted by JosephM

Concerning the rest of the post. I was only responding to your comment from my original post way back. I must admit I did not read the posts after that. Also was not putting words into your mouth as supposed but it is alright if you see it that way. I was merely speaking my view which may or may not agree with yours. In no way do I wish to prove or is it possible to prove you wrong. We are speaking of things that cannot be proved and as you know.....thats why this is called the philosophy forum.

That's OK, I really didn't sense any ill intent, perhaps my words came out more harshly than I intended. You are quite free in my view to disagree with me. (Bet 'cha don't hear that very often)

PS As you can see from my post #30 on this thread. I ended it with "Just a view for you to consider 123." Tearing it apart into sentences can cause it to be interpreted differently.(It was not given as an attack on your words or to put words in your mouth but of course you are the one that determines how it is taken.)

Taking it point by point is not an attack, it is a rebuttal. To rebutt so thoroughly is to examine the legitimacy of the argument. I did not consider your words as an attack, I certainly hope you do not view my disagreement and thorough rebuttal as an attack.

[JosephM]

Quote:
Originally Posted by JosephM
Sound Intellect and reasoning tell us we need each other to survive and enjoy the fruits that life has to offer.

Originally Posted by juantoo3

Hmmm, I am thinking someone like H.D. Thoreau might take exception to this; Waldon Pond was specifically an exercise in "self-reliance." While I can agree life is far easier with others one can depend on, life is also a bigger pain in the arse with others one cannot depend on. So I question the "sound" part of the assessment, it implies a loner (a "do-it-yourselfer) is by default not of sound intellect and reasoning ability and incapable of enjoying life.

You are indeed picky with words... There are always unstated exceptions to any statement but even Thoreau and Pond could not have enjoyed their later solitude if it were not for others during their earlier years. No man is a world unto himself.

Quote:JosephM
Therefore it is sufficient, if sound, to keep us from despair and will extend our values beyond the confines of our immediate family.

Originally Posted by 123

Since the initial premise is faulty to begin with, it really doesn't follow. However, presuming a sound mind (which has no bearing at all on preference for solitude), should keep us from despair...OK, that to me says if you are mentally healthy, you are mentally healthy; actually a bit redundant. I do not see where mental health (or lack of) has to do with extending values beyond family, at least in the case of the aforementioned loner. In other words, so far, I'm afraid I see a lot of disconnected associations that are being forcibly brought together in an attempt to make a point.

My ... My... We are touchy here on the philosopy forum. I think I will yield and forgo the details of challenging your assesment. One sees diconnection where another see connection. I have no need to defend my view.

Quote:JosephM
Yet on the same hand reasoning has its limitations in that God cannot be experienced with reasoning.

Originally Posted by 123

I'm not certain I agree. I can reason (about) G-d. There are countless sacred writings that reason about G-d. Yet, I *can* experience G-d without reasoning about G-d. Again, reason and experience are not connected even when relating to the same issue / topic

.

That is quite well 123. Agreement was never sought in the first place. Was merely clarifying my original statement you said you didn't understand.

Originally Posted by 123

Example: I can read a book on how to build a house, or I can pick up a hammer and build a house. Reading is reason(ing), building is experience(ing). It helps if the two work together, but it is not required; they are not connected, but can be brought together.

Some indeed logically do equate building a house with experiencing God. Yet I find the two do not mix well. Yet that is fine if that is your view.

Quote:JosephM
One can of course believe and know 'about God' through conceptualization but all concepts have to be surrendered to 'know God'.

Originally Posted by 123

From a reasoning POV this is conjecture. A lot depends on what exactly one means by "know." Hypothetically, I can know about G-d by reading sacred texts, certainly this is the path a great many take. Alternately, I can know about G-d by living as I understand and experience, this is a path others take. Ideally, reason and experience come torgether, and a better knowledge of G-d is realized by doing both. With the caveat that we really won't know with certainty until we die, yet in this life we can experience many things that supercede reason.

It will always be conjecture from a reasoning POV. Didn't mean to reason with you. Only clarifying my view from your question.

Quote:JosephM
Therefore I implied that reasoning has boundaries that one must transcend to experience God.

Originally Posted by 123

I see these as apples and oranges. And actually, transcending reason (as in setting it aside or going beyond reason) is not necessary. Unless one is pointing to those elements of life that reason alone is insufficient to address.

I think you got it here. Reason alone is insufficient to address it

Quote:JosephM
For those well entrenched in reasoning it appears to be difficult to go beyond because reasoning, itself is a barrier to that which is beyond it.

Originally Posted by 123

Now I think I see where you are going, and I don't think I agree.

Even an athiest can experience G-d. S/he just doesn't realize it, or know how to deal with it. For many, it is easier to rationalize things, to label them and place them in appropriate boxes. In that sense, maybe you are correct, those that are bound by their intellect are seldom free enough in their minds to allow an experience with G-d.

Very Nice 123. You got it. Perhaps I am correct. It really doesn't matter. No one 'here' is keeping score. Are you? In the future it might be good to consider it all as one rather than dissecting content instead of context.
Muchos Gracias Amigo,

JM

[JosephM]

Originally Posted by juantoo3

Taking it point by point is not an attack, it is a rebuttal. To rebutt so thoroughly is to examine the legitimacy of the argument. I did not consider your words as an attack, I certainly hope you do not view my disagreement and thorough rebuttal as an attack.

Ignorant me... I didn't realize this was a debate or argument. I thought people were just sharing views. Sorry, I'm just a KY hillbilly and out of place here on the philosophy forum. Didn't realize we were suppose to agree or disagree. hmmmm. Learn something new here every day.

Thanks for the exchange 123. I like and enjoyed sharing but you sure work em hard here.

In love,
JM

[libertylover76]

This thread has moved too far away from it's original intent for my post to be part of the discussion.


Is there another, more current thread I could join?

[Jaiket]

Originally Posted by juantoo3

Perhaps, but I am inclined to go with the genome researchers on matters concerning the genome. People like Francis Collins. Seems I recall Mr. Collins stating emphatically and for the record, that there were no *behavior* genes as such.

I can only assume Mr Collins was having a bad day, or the statement is not what it seems.

Originally Posted by Juan

What I alluded to with epigenetics, which I only recently learned of, is that it is within that realm that behaviors can be shown to affect multiple generations following. Say, for example, alcoholism; one alky in the family can trigger similar behavior for several generations. Perhaps, in a tribal / family way, there is some merit to your point about moral behavior being passed on through some mechanism not unlike epigenetics.

I haven't learned a great deal about epigenetics, though it seems like an interesting and attention-worthy subject. Cheers.

[Eudaimonist]

Originally Posted by juantoo3

Very well, and I did respond to this general point already earlier. If you are content with this summation in accord with your heart and mind, more power to ya! I simply find more circumstantial evidence to support my belief that there is something out there, the IS. Whether or not it is the Christian concept of G-d, I often wonder, no doubt to the chagrin of my fellows. I certainly do not view G-d, as bb puts it, as some old grey beard sitting on a cloud hurling thunderbolts at whoever displeases Him. Nor likewise some aged tites in the sky either, hurling whatever temper tantrum at whoever displeases Her. I *do* think that the general Christian depiction of G-d is overly simplistic. I also think that none of the world faiths do much better in this regard, that G-d is simply too big for a human mind to completely fathom. Yet, all of these religions *point to* what IS. And, in my assessment after long years of diligent searching, I have concluded that G-d IS. Can I prove it? No. It is merely the weight of circumstantial evidence bearing on my critical processes.

Huh? What does this have to do with what I wrote? I was talking about atheists being able to have meaning in life, and suddenly you are talking on a completely different topic.


eudaimonia,

Mark

[juantoo3]

Kindest Regards, Eudaimonist!

Originally Posted by Eudaimonist

Huh? What does this have to do with what I wrote? I was talking about atheists being able to have meaning in life, and suddenly you are talking on a completely different topic.

Originally Posted by juantoo3

We did look into this in the lengthy thread on morality in evolution. I do not disagree with you, but I do see a *huge* difference between "natural" morality and "learned" morality. For instance, in nature it is quite moral to kill one's offspring. I hardly think that is a moral thing in civilized society. There is also the issue of "us and them" at a natural level, the pack / herd / tribe does not necessarily extend moral courtesy to others of the same species if they are "outsiders." (In much the same way, I would think, that "we" foster the sense that the enemy is an "other" during wartime propaganda.) In other words, a "foreign" ape, for example, is quite likely to be ripped to shreds by a tribe of similar apes.

Originally Posted by juantoo3

Perhaps, but a "logical" consequence of not believing in a "god" is that there is only the societal motivator for morality (e.g.: latent religious indoctrination). Once one realizes that, and withdraws from the societal motivator because it *is* linked to latent religious indoctrination, there is no more throttle to sustain a moral sway. Keep in mind I am referring to morality in a modern, civilized sense of the term. Logic would realize that self, and / or immediate circle (mate, possibly children only to a point), are what to value, defend and support. Could care less if others get theirs, gonna make sure "I" got enough (or more). Logic, in the absence of morality, tends to justify all of the base attributes of humanity. That's my basic point, and the reasoning behind the "despair" (or whatever it was) comment.

Originally Posted by juantoo3

Logic, as *the* generator of morality, can be demonstrated by the book "Lord of the Flies," as it can be demonstrated by the series of Mad Max / Road Warrior movies. I do not know the authors to give credit, but I think these are excellent looks at the human psyche when turned loose without a "throttle." In short, the prognosis is not very good. Logic has this nasty habit of looking out for self at the expense of others, where morality seems to be looking out for others in spite of self. Logic and morality obviously coexist, but I question their relation to each other, I really doubt logic generates morality at a root / core / base level. (one might even dare point to elemental morality among herding and pack animals, and attempt to find "logic" among same...)

Originally Posted by Blizzardry

why does fatalism have to be slashed with despair? Couldn't somebody be happy and perfectly content to leave the universe in it's own hands to unfold as it will?

I suppose they could, now that the thought has been brought to my attention. I'm not certain I agree yet, but I can understand the premise.

You may have hit on something I had not considered..."cynical nihilist." Accepting that we use our "labels" in our minds in order to construct and guide our thoughts, perhaps I was saying "atheist" and meaning "cynical nihilist." I guess the thought hadn't occurred to me that an athiest could be anything but a cynical nihilist, so in that regard I suppose an apology is due.

I offer my full and complete apology to anyone offended by my misinterpretation.

In short, no different subject, merely fleshing the subject out. I can't help if the "natural" connections are a bit...unsavory...to present company. I simply follow where the evidence (archeological and anthropological, psychological and physiological) leads. Scientific method, and all that jazz.

[Jaiket]

Originally Posted by juantoo3

People like Francis Collins. Seems I recall Mr. Collins stating emphatically and for the record, that there were no *behavior* genes as such.

Sorry to drag up old stuff, Juan, but this really stuck in my mind. I can't imagine any geneticist saying anything like that. Where did you hear this?

[juantoo3]

Kindest Regards, Jaiket!

Originally Posted by Jaiket

Sorry to drag up old stuff, Juan, but this really stuck in my mind. I can't imagine any geneticist saying anything like that. Where did you hear this?

Thank you for asking! With pleasure:

http://www.pbs.org/inthebalance/arch...RANSCRIPT.pdf#

ERIC LANDER:
Look, there are a small number of things that are destiny. A small number
of genetic certainties where you can say the baby, God forbid is, gonna have
some terrible disease that we can't do anything about. But most of the
genetic information that's encoded in the human DNA is not about certainty.

It's about the fact that perhaps when she grows up she'll have twice the risk
of diabetes. That's not good but it's not a disaster. I think, as a parent, that
you have to add this long list of maybe's that genetics is gonna potentially
give you to a much longer list of worries that every parent has had since
there were parents.

FRANCIS COLLINS:
Well, we say that knowledge is power, but knowledge also carries with it
tough decisions and responsibilities for making those decisions, which I
think frankly many people find quite discomforting and-- and
understandably so. Right now one can test for a small number of things, in
the future, that list will grow. And so the challenge to educate people who are
contemplating the test will also grow. And the difficulty in making the
decisions will also grow. And if we're having trouble now, hold onto your hat.
It's going to be much more challenging for couples like this.

Let me hasten to say that what we're considering here is a small part of the
consequences of understanding genetics. We're considering probably the
most wrenchingly difficult part, the part that plays out in the pre-natal
decision-making arena.
But the real pay-off of genetics is not there, I'm sorry. It's not there. I-- The
p-- The pay-off is in understanding diseases and so if faced with the
possibility of having a child with cystic fibrosis, in ten or 20 years, it will not
be a big deal, because we'll know what to do for it. That's where we're
headed.

FRANCIS COLLINS:
--let's be sure we get a science right here. While I agreed that there is a
hereditary contribution to perfect pitch, it is certainly not the sort of thing
that you dial in by doing the appropriate test on the right embryo, and putting
it back in there. John, you may end up then with a son, whose particularly
appreciative of the heavy metal music that he listens to in his room while he
smokes pot. (LAUGHTER) He may be completely disinterested in playing
the violin. In fact, he may be insulted that you tried to track him into that.
And this whole notion that simply by picking this gene or that gene, you can
improve your chances of having what your vision is of the child you want, is
scientifically severely flawed. What happened to learning and the
environment?

This is taken from one round table discussion out of six, all of which were in my opinion quite eye opening on the subject of genetic manipulation and cloning, looking at legal and ethical issues surrounding the technologies. Here is a link to the series, I tried to get my school to buy the videos for the medical ethics class. For one who is patient and can sit through this type of discussion, there are some very interesting points of view raised from various quarters. I recommend these programs very highly.

BTW, I haven’t the time just now to pull out the specific quotes I was looking for from Mr. Collins, dealing with “the alcoholic” gene and the fact that there isn’t one.. It was this specifically to which I was referring, but I hope the excerpts I did pull will suffice.

Also, Eric Lander is a colleague of Mr. Collins involved at that time with the Genome Project, hence the reason I did not hesitate to include his comment earlier.

Our Genes / Our Choices . Download Program Transcripts | PBS

[juantoo3]

Found it...

http://www.pbs.org/inthebalance/arch...TRANSCRIPT.pdf

STEPHEN BREYER:
Well, I'd like to have a voire dire. I'd like to hear what the witnesses are
going to say on that point. Because isn't that the relevant point?

JOHNNIE COCHRAN:
I think that-- I think that does kind of crystalize the issues. And I'd like to
address and -- and Dr. Collins, with regard to what the court just said. You-- you've had occasion to examine my client. Is there a likelihood that he did not have-- free will in this regard?

FRANCIS COLLINS:
This is a moderately weak predisposing factor of intense scientific interest
because it may help us understand what to do for this disease. But I would
certainly not argue that this particular DNA sequence does anything to
abolish the importance of free will.
And let me make one parallel here that I think is really worth thinking
about. You and I, and about half the people in this room are predisposed to get in trouble with the law at about a tenfold increased risk than the other half of the people in the room. And that's because we have a Y-chromosome.

CHARLES OGLETREE:
And what do you mean by Y-chromosome, so we'll be clear to this audience what you're talking about?

FRANCIS COLLINS:
So all males have a Y chromosome, we have an X and a Y. All females have two X chromes--

CHARLES OGLETREE:
And that influences predisposition?

FRANCIS COLLINS:
Well, we don't understand the connection in terms of the biological pathways but the fact remains that males get in trouble with the law a lot more often than females. And yet, that is not used as an argument to say that males are not responsible for their actions. At least I haven't heard it used.
(LAUGHTER)

JOHNNIE COCHRAN:
I want to just ask – if I may – I want to just ask Doctors Goldman and Doctor Hamer whether or not you agree with Doctor Collins in that regard.

DAVID GOLDMAN:
Not completely. There was another finding in our study which is that people who have this variant and who drink do tend to be more impulsive and have actual problems with violence. And so it's an interesting thing that although it's-- you could call it a “gene for alcoholism" or a gene that contributes to alcoholism vulnerability but no genes really act in this type of narrow fashion. The brain and the genome--

VICTORIA TOENSING:
Well, does that take away their free will?

DAVID GOLDMAN:
Are compartmentalized-- well it doesn't take away their free will…

VICTORIA TOENSING :
Thank you, no further questions. (LAUGHTER)

JOHNNIE COCHRAN:
Would you allow him to finish, counsel?

CHARLES OGLETREE:
Let me just move for a second, assuming that we've got that. Just as a
member of the public, hearing this, is this something the public wants to
hear? Needs to hear?

NADINE STROSSEN:
I'm very disturbed about this and I would love to have a chance to talk to Mr. Cochran about the potential adverse social consequences, particularly for the Tracy Islanders. And I-- we heard it-- from Victoria Toensing when she said the flip side of the defense of this particular individual is an indictment, so to speak, of not only him but the entire community. [LOWER THIRD: Nadine Strossen/President/American Civil Liberties Union]
Aha! They are admitting that they have a predisposition, not only to drink,
but to become unconscious and to commit violent acts. We know where Brad Blueblood is going to go with that. Why don't we lock them up? You know, we've got one in preventive detention. Why not keep him there and keep the rest of them there?

JOHNNIE COCHRAN:
If you're my client, and certainly I would be concerned about the community and the impact – I'm always against stereotypical kind of thinking. But if I have a job to represent my client, do I say, “Hey this is bad for the community,” so I let him go off to prison? [LOWER THIRD: Johnnie L Cochran, Jr/Defense Attorney]

NADINE STROSSEN:
I heard your client actually make that point when he said he had some
concerns.

JOHNNIE COCHRAN:
So, he may have some concerns, but he’s gonna – but when I explain to him if you don't make this argument, this police officer is still dead. And I have scientists who say there is some likelihood that the justice – judge allows me to do this. It's a legitimate scientific defense. And a trier of fact will have to make that decision.

**STEPHEN BREYER:
The question that immediately comes to mind that I'd like to ask the
witnesses-- or the experts is-- is the following:
There are children who have abusive parents. Now, take one of those
children and let him grow up to the age of 18. He may commit crimes. In
fact, I suspect he's predisposed to do it, a lot of them. Because of that
background. And tell that child, “control yourself.” It's hard for that child
to control himself. Very hard. Now, what I'd like to know is if we have this
ten percent probability that your genes are one way or the other Is it any
harder for this person to control themself in respect to alcohol than it is for
that person who grew up with an abusive family?

**FRANCIS COLLINS:
Justice, you make an extremely good point. And I think what it means to be human, and what it means to make decisions, and the responsibility for that is not going to be made obsolete by our uncovering the genetic script. And just as you are saying very eloquently, all of us face things where we have to make choices between right and wrong that are difficult. We all carry something in the way of baggage that makes those choices hard. But I can't see why genetics should be put into a special category and considered as an excuse if other social conditions are not.

STEPHEN BREYER:
So – so you'll say that in fact, if you have the gene, well, it's tougher not to drink. But you have that choice. We're not going to say you couldn't do
otherwise.

FRANCIS COLLINS:
Exactly.

STEPHEN BREYER:
All right. Well, if it's something like that…we're tough on that. And we
expect people to rise to that occasion despite backgrounds that are very, very difficult. So before this— science begins to change something like that, I think there's a lot ahead of us.

I recommend the entire dialogue, including input from Supreme Court Justice Breyer, Attorney Johnnie Cochran, Journalist Gwen Ifill, American Civil Liberties rep, clergy, and more, in addition to testamony from Dr. Collins and other researchers.

Quite eye opening...

[Jaiket]

Thanks Juan. I think I undertsand what you were saying more clearly now, that is to say I misunderstood it originally.

When you said that (I paraphrase) 'there are no genes for behaviour' I took the word behaviour in a differentlight than you meant I think. From a zoological point of view genes and behaviour are undeniably linked, but not always as a simple automatic relationship.

However, given what Mr Collins said, how would you argue that what he proposed considering the male Y chromosome is contradictory to what I said regarding morals?

(I don't think a morality gene is likely to be found. Genes that program/influence human minds to percieve cheating, killing tribe members, etc as 'bad' may have been selected for, in the same sense that genes that encourage staying put while predators abound would be selected against. Something relatively simple like that strikes me as likely.)