Evidence for God from Science

I've heard, for the third time recently, an atheist use the example of dolphins swimming around humans to protect them from sharks. Is this being commonly used to explain that animals are altruistic and that altruism has an evolutionary function?

Can anyone explain their argument to me and then explain why it's nonsense ?

I've often mused this myself, wondering if my animals would give their lives to protect me. But often, I'm left with the fact that animals have sentient souls that are not made in the image of God, and generally act in a defensive manner (being territorial).

I have a sense that many of those who argue this position can't understand the difference between learned social behaviour and true altruism, but that's just a hunch.

Hi Monica. I think it's simple really.

Human altruism is a free choice, which is why some people are altruistic, while some are not. Someone may rescue you from the sharks, while someone might throw you in the sea full of them. So, my first conclusion would be that altruism is not a universal human trait - it's something we choose. We do have an innate sense of right and wrong, but we also have plenty of other instincts and to be honest, the world would be a huge jungle if we all acted upon those instincts. What differs us from animals, among other things, is free will, and rationality that comes along with it. Personally, I always make rational decisions and I am greatly offended by comparisons with animals. As I said in another thread, the fact that some people can't or don't want to resist their urges, is not my problem. The very fact that we discuss whether this or that is an evolutionary trait (in humans), is obvious proof that it's not an evolutionary trait, because by discussing it, we evaluate whether it's right or wrong, and therefore we decide if it makes sense to accept or reject it. Animals most certainly don't contemplate whether it's morally right to hunt their prey.

Furthermore, animals behave according to their instincts. Dolphins protecting humans from sharks is something that may seem altruistic to us, but the truth is, we can't know for sure why they do it and what their motives are. For instance, a dog may protect its owner, but not for altruistic reasons - wild dogs, wolves and similar breeds live in packs where they have an alpha-male, a leader of the pack, so now that they're tamed, they see their human owner as their alpha-male and act upon that notion. Cats, on the other hand, are independent animals, and as such, are much less likely to assist or protect humans. So I believe there is a simpler explanation of "altruism" in the example of dolphins.

Cats, on the other hand, are independent animals, and as such, are much less likely to assist or protect humans. So I believe there is a simpler explanation of "altruism" in the example of dolphins.

I have to disagree about cats being less likely to protect humans. At least in the case of my cat. Well maybe my cat was protecting my dog, but nonetheless, he was very protective of his "little brother".
My wife's brother's family, visited with their two small dogs. Their two dogs "ganged up on" my dog. My cat heard, and then saw the commotion. My cat then attacked one of their dogs, and then jumped on my sister in law's leg, with all 4 paws of clawed fury. It happened so fast, that I didn't even know what happened, until it was over. My cat is VERY protective of my dog.

RickD wrote:

Cats, on the other hand, are independent animals, and as such, are much less likely to assist or protect humans. So I believe there is a simpler explanation of "altruism" in the example of dolphins.

I have to disagree about cats being less likely to protect humans. At least in the case of my cat. Well maybe my cat was protecting my dog, but nonetheless, he was very protective of his "little brother".
My wife's brother's family, visited with their two small dogs. Their two dogs "ganged up on" my dog. My cat heard, and then saw the commotion. My cat then attacked one of their dogs, and then jumped on my sister in law's leg, with all 4 paws of clawed fury. It happened so fast, that I didn't even know what happened, until it was over. My cat is VERY protective of my dog.

Interesting. I guess experiences differ - I've dealt a lot with cats during my life, and the reason I'm fond of them is their independent attitude. Though I sometimes think them to be opportunistic (their attitude towards me depended on how much food I fed them with, and they'd run to the neighbours if daily rations given by me weren't enough ). In your case, I think your cat, being bonded with its living space, became bonded with its inhabitants as well, including your dog.

Anyway, as we've drifted off topic, any ideas on why dolphins protected humans from sharks?

Reactionary wrote:Anyway, as we've drifted off topic, any ideas on why dolphins protected humans from sharks?

I would presume an instinct to be on guard when sharks are around, more than it is an altruistic 'decision' to save humans.

Byblos wrote:

Reactionary wrote:Anyway, as we've drifted off topic, any ideas on why dolphins protected humans from sharks?

I would presume an instinct to be on guard when sharks are around, more than it is an altruistic 'decision' to save humans.

Maybe the instinct evolved.

Dogs can exhibit this behavior as has already been pointed out.

Altruism in humans can often be a matter of overcoming instinct, or selfish desire. Example: Our instincts tell us to flee the house fire, yet we resist and return to help others, knowing our own life is in danger.

The simple truth is we can't survey dolphins or dogs and ask them, 'why?'

These are great answers guys, thanks a lot. I completely agree. It seems like a very simple answer for something they're trying to make seem complicated and "embedded in evolution".

What is human altruism.
Would you sacrifice yourself for an athiest?

BGoodForGoodSake wrote:What is human altruism.
Would you sacrifice yourself for an athiest?

I read a story once of a Nazi prisoner who somehow escaped and was being pursued by the prison guard. Just as the prisoner was about to cross to safety he noticed the prison guard had fallen into quicksand. If he went back to help the guard he was sure to go back to prison and be put to death. If he didn't go back, he was free but the guard will surely die. He went back, helped the guard, was immediately arrested and dragged back to prison. A week later he was executed. I may have butchered it but I believe this to be a true story. I will see if I can find it somewhere.

I would say that is true altruism no animal is capable of exhibiting.

If you boil this down to its essence it is simply one individual potential giving up one's own life for another individual.
At one end of the continuum is one who never will, and the other end is one who is always willing.
Are you saying that there is a definite line beyond which is only the doimain of humanity?
And if people are so altruistic, why do so many find altruism to be be something apart from nature? Why find it so shocking or unnatural?

BGoodForGoodSake wrote:If you boil this down to its essence it is simply one individual potential giving up one's own life for another individual.
At one end of the continuum is one who never will, and the other end is one who is always willing.
Are you saying that there is a definite line beyond which is only the doimain of humanity?

It certainly seems to be the case, yes. A conscious decision to go against one's instinct for survival to the detriment of one's self. And of course there is a spectrum, I'm not sure what your point is. No one claimed all humans display altruism.

BGoodForGoodSake wrote:And if people are so altruistic, why do so many find altruism to be be something apart from nature? Why find it so shocking or unnatural?

Because the natural inclination tends to gravitate towards survival, not against it. It certainly would not be advantageous to the survival of the species to have extreme altruism. There is no natural explanation for it.

Byblos wrote:

BGoodForGoodSake wrote:If you boil this down to its essence it is simply one individual potential giving up one's own life for another individual.
At one end of the continuum is one who never will, and the other end is one who is always willing.
Are you saying that there is a definite line beyond which is only the doimain of humanity?

It certainly seems to be the case, yes. A conscious decision to go against one's instinct for survival to the detriment of one's self. And of course there is a spectrum, I'm not sure what your point is. No one claimed all humans display altruism.

But there was a claim that animals cannot behave altruistically.

StMonicaGuideMe wrote:I'm left with the fact that animals have sentient souls that are not made in the image of God, and generally act in a defensive manner (being territorial).

I have a sense that many of those who argue this position can't understand the difference between learned social behaviour and true altruism, but that's just a hunch.

But if there is a spectrum, where on the spectrum is a mother bear protecting her cubs?

Byblos wrote:

BGoodForGoodSake wrote:And if people are so altruistic, why do so many find altruism to be be something apart from nature? Why find it so shocking or unnatural?

Because the natural inclination tends to gravitate towards survival, not against it. It certainly would not be advantageous to the survival of the species to have extreme altruism. There is no natural explanation for it.

So then what you are saying is that altruism is a behaviour affected by genetic makeup? Otherwise natural selection cannot act on it.
So like the man who was killed after saving the Nazi, animals born with extreme altruism are unlikely to leave any offspring, but that shouldn't mean they don't exist, only that it would be rare, due to some mutation.

And as someone mentioned before there is a social aspect to it, meaning any animal or human in order to display altruism must be in some sort of social context.

BGoodForGoodSake wrote:

Byblos wrote:

BGoodForGoodSake wrote:If you boil this down to its essence it is simply one individual potential giving up one's own life for another individual.
At one end of the continuum is one who never will, and the other end is one who is always willing.
Are you saying that there is a definite line beyond which is only the doimain of humanity?

It certainly seems to be the case, yes. A conscious decision to go against one's instinct for survival to the detriment of one's self. And of course there is a spectrum, I'm not sure what your point is. No one claimed all humans display altruism.

But there was a claim that animals cannot behave altruistically.

We don't know whether they can or can't. We may observe and perceive an act to be altruistic but we don't know for sure. Those dolphins that circled humans to protect them from sharks, did they do so based on an altruistic 'decision'? Or were they acting based on certain survival instincts that say protect anything that moves from predators. We simply don't know. What we do know is the prisoner who went back to save the guard did so knowing full well he will suffer and die for his action. Yet he CHOSE to do it regardless.

BGoodForGoodSake wrote:

Byblos wrote:

BGoodForGoodSake wrote:And if people are so altruistic, why do so many find altruism to be be something apart from nature? Why find it so shocking or unnatural?

Because the natural inclination tends to gravitate towards survival, not against it. It certainly would not be advantageous to the survival of the species to have extreme altruism. There is no natural explanation for it.

So then what you are saying is that altruism is a behaviour affected by genetic makeup? Otherwise natural selection cannot act on it.

Now where did I say any of that, BGood? I'm not even certain what it is you're driving at here. Altruistic behavior is affected by genetic makeup? What does that even mean? As for natural selection acting on it, what I am saying is that natural selection has no explanation for it because it goes against everything natural selection is known for.

BGoodForGoodSake wrote:So like the man who was killed after saving the Nazi, animals born with extreme altruism are unlikely to leave any offspring, but that shouldn't mean they don't exist, only that it would be rare, due to some mutation.

You will have to rephrase this.

BGoodForGoodSake wrote:And as someone mentioned before there is a social aspect to it, meaning any animal or human in order to display altruism must be in some sort of social context.

I don't know who said that but certainly the prisoner was not in a social context. The guard wasn't family or a relative or a tribesman. He was a total stranger, he was his jailer, his oppressor, yet he chose to save him and die in his stead. We see this kind of self-sacrifice all the time, mother Theresa would be a good example.

Byblos wrote:We don't know whether they can or can't. We may observe and perceive an act to be altruistic but we don't know for sure. Those dolphins that circled humans to protect them from sharks, did they do so based on an altruistic 'decision'? Or were they acting based on certain survival instincts that say protect anything that moves from predators. We simply don't know. What we do know is the prisoner who went back to save the guard did so knowing full well he will suffer and die for his action. Yet he CHOSE to do it regardless.

If your speaking to intentions then of course we cannot know. But at some level I think the dolphins knew they were in danger.

Meaning that if an alien were to come to earth and see human nature, they would conclude that we were acting in self defence, because they would not be able to pick out the Mother Theresa's from the pack. And then come to the conclusion that humans are incapable of altruism.

How many animals have you encountered, do you think that is enough to conclude that animals are incapable of acting foolishly in terms of self-preservation?