There is more to the evolution of empathy than that which is supposed to have been 'given' to us by a mythical God, rather than a biological consequence of our human evolution.

If our 'morality' is God-given, then why is it that when a brain is damaged, say after a stroke or cerebral haemorhage, some people become totally different to their previous selves, including a complete change in personality and 'morals'?

The Biological sciences still have a long way to go to explain human behaviours, but I believe they will eventually have all the answers.

Yabby, you say, “that is why we had the evolution of empathy”, as if evolution/biology was deliberately heading toward some goal.

But if materialism is correct, then matter just is and what happens is just what happens to happen with no intention or purpose.

Suseonline – the study of biology can give us no answers as to what is right or wrong no matter how long it is studied. You cannot determine how things ought to be from a study of how things happen to be.

*as if evolution/biology was deliberately heading toward some goal.*

Perhaps it just appears to you that way, JP. Mutations are common
and were perhaps even more common, when the planet was fairly
radioactive.

If empathy benefits the survival of a species, why should natural
selection not continue to select for that genetic trait?

Now take canibalism. Its very rare in nature for good reasons.
If a species started eating each other regularly, they clearly
would not survive for too long. Empathy on the other hand, would
have the opposite effect.

Runner, best you put down that bible for a minute and swat up your
biology 101, which you clearly missed.

I note that you have not yet sold your computer to save the starving
babies which are already on the planet. Before worrying about embryos,
worry about those beings which can actually think and feel.

For of course in nature, far more potential beings will be created
then can ever survive.

Less unwanted babies in the third world might just mean less hunger
and starvation, which is not such a bad thing really, if one feels
empathy.

"A study of biology can tell us how things live but it cannot tell us anything at all about how things ought to live."

"But if materialism is correct, then matter just is and what happens is just what happens to happen with no intention or purpose."

These two statements summarize the reasons why people look to the supernatural/religion for guidance in their lives. The thought of having to decide by themselves how to live, and the reason for living scares the crap out of them.

So, who tells you how to live? God, a man speaking on his behalf? The only thing worse than having no ethics is taking your ethics from someone who tells you what to do.

Yabby – the term ‘natural selection’ is just a short-hand way of saying that what happens to survive is what survives. There is no deliberate choosing of particular traits that are working toward some ultimate goal.

Living things have a survival instinct but there is nothing in biology that shows us that things ought to survive or that anything else ought to happen. Biology is completely amoral.

Stezza – well at least you admit you have no ethics, which is quite a step to make. But a rather disturbing one.

*Biology is completely amoral*

JP, there is no objective morality, so its basically your
subjective opinion. But as we see with empathy, it can evolve
and we can give it value, as its beneficial to our species.

Meantime there is not a scrap of subtantiated evidence of
anyone being in touch with the Almighty him/herself, although
many a snakeoil salesman claims to be so and its a great
way of manipulating others.

Meantime I can claim that its ethical to be empathetic, to
help the little old lady across the street etc.

But if I do it out of my own volition, rather then because
I fear judgement day or burning in hell forever, then
IMHO, my ethics are superior to those of the true believer,
for its not hope and fear that drives me.