Good book on science/religion

[philh 0]

I dont think you are quite accurate in respect to cooperation and evolution. It is well understood that we have evolved either through genetic evolution or cultural evolution the ability to cooperate. Cooperation is widespread throughoutt species and there are even examples of inter species cooperation. Recently I was in Norway where interspecies cooperation had been observed to prevent Orca predation. In terms of evolution those that use conflict to resolve issues are less likely to have their genes passed on than those that use cooperation. For a more detailed discussion of this , but still appropriate for the laymen see "The Origins of Virtue"by Matt Ridley.
What is clear is that virtue predates the bible. Furthermore morality itself evolves and the morality of the bible is certainly out of date as it condones genocide, torture, slavery, sexism etc.

[billvon 3,131]

>It is well understood that we have evolved either through genetic
>evolution or cultural evolution the ability to cooperate.

If we didn't have wars every few years, that might make sense. But we do. And the people alive today are the people who won the wars throughout history, not the people who died in them. That's evolution in action. People good at winning wars survive - and more importantly, their culture of war survives.

Think we have cooperation as a central theme today? Go to any UN assembly.

>Cooperation is widespread throughoutt species . . .

Cooperation is widespread within _communities_ in species, because local cooperation often helps communities survive. On a small scale, cooperation often works as a survival mechanism. But on a larger scale often it doesn't.

[philh 0]

The fact that we have evolved the ability to cooperate does not necessarily mean we always cooperate. My point is that cooperation is entirely consistent and not in contradiction with evolution. Of course wars occur. But i would allege that there are more people not in violent conflict with one another then there are people who are in violent conflict.
I would still like to hear why you believe the bible which endorses wars of genocide amongst other hateful philosphies should have moral relevance today?

[SpeedRacer 1]

b/c there's more to it than that. The ancient world was even more warlike than the modern world. & that was everyone across the board, not just the Isrealites.

Speed Racer
--------------------------------------------------

[CanuckInUSA 0]

We humans since we started on this planet, have liked to kill each other as well as the other creatures we come across. I don't see any change to this tendancy any time soon. I think I need to jump more ...

Try not to worry about the things you have no control over

[SpeedRacer 1]

Speaking of war in the ancient world compared to the modern world:

In spite of all the advancements in weapons technology, the total casualties due to war has not changed all that much since ancient times. It may have even gone down. Due in large part to the fact that in ancient times, when a nation went to war, ALL the men fought, but in modern times, only a small percentage of the population become soldiers.

But in ancient times, thousands of men would die in a single battle. A whole war could mean tens or even hundreds of thousands slaughtered. And in the ancient world, it was common for the conquering army to enter the city or town & put all the people to the sword, men, women, old people, children, babies, etc. Or they'd take the children/ teenagers as slaves, especially the female ones.

kinda glad to be living now & not back then.

Speed Racer
--------------------------------------------------

[billvon 3,131]

>I would still like to hear why you believe the bible which endorses
> wars of genocide amongst other hateful philosphies should have
> moral relevance today?

Same reason a constitution that endorses slavery has political relevance today, I suppose.

[philh 0]

and what reason is that?