[image] Nature-inspired Comics? And it’s really true. Nature does not reward trust as much as it does deception. Indeed! But this then make Nature not trustworthy? We are Nature so…? So by being trustworthy & selfless, do we go against our nature? What is our Nature?

[image] isopodguy: what intent That’s where people get into trouble as they’re anthropomorphizing. Evolution doesn’t have any ‘intent’ beyond, ‘survive into the next generation’. There is no end goal, there is no ‘meaning’, etc. We love to assign characteristic like that for a variety of r…

[image] earthknight: Evolution doesn’t have any ‘intent’ beyond, ‘survive into the next generation’. That’s why humans have blind spots in their vision, the ability to choke, etc. Evolution isn’t making ‘the perfect’ animal. Just a ‘good enough’ one. Which why stuff like da pumpkin toadlets a…

I think isopodguy was talking about human intent there. I think you summed up the atheistic evolutionary worldview pretty well though. From that perspective, we are merely the product of dumb luck, abiogenesis somehow happening followed by billions upon billions of “lucky” mutations over eons which …

[image] isopodguy: a tu quoque fallacy That’s a pretty flimsy pretext for suppressing a comment, but we all know that’s not the real reason.

[image] sethshively: To me, this worldview takes more blind faith than creationism. It does!

Honestly * controversial statement warning* I don’t really mind that much about how life and earth, and the universe, or anything came to be. Sure, it’s fun to learn about, but I’m just happy that everything that exists, no matter how it was made, is the way it is*. *Except humans. Most of them su…

[image] sethshively: If this is the sole basis for morality, then there isn’t much room for concepts like caring for the disabled or “unfit”, (especially those with genetic disabilities), and lots of room for concepts like eugenics Short answer: It is not the basis for morality. And no evolut…

[image] eyekosaeder: I think, people, coming from a religious perspective, expect of “science” the same as they do from their religious text of choice: both an explanation for the world, and a basis for a moral system. However, “science” will never give you the latter. This is exactly the poi…

[image] sethshively: My point was that if you look to science as the be-all and end-all of knowledge, then morality beyond biological utility collapses pretty quickly. At best morality becomes a subjective cultural/social construct under such a point of view Human history is filled with diffe…

[image] sethshively: a completely unrelated issue you have with religion You’re the one who brought up religion, not I.

Discussion split from comics

Nature Talk

papernautilus May 4, 2025, 5:21pm 24

You’re the one who brought up religion, not I.

Topic		Replies	Views
Do ethical arguments apply to the actions of non-human animals? Nature Talk	47	2633	December 30, 2022
Ugly side of nature Nature Talk	63	8261	October 12, 2020
Value of non human life Nature Talk	16	1040	October 31, 2020
What does the word 'Nature' include? Nature Talk	41	1713	August 5, 2024
Do we need a new theory of evolution? Nature Talk	57	2446	September 6, 2022

Discussion split from comics

Related topics