What is God to you?

MagicMarker

Tucker Flaky Blonde wrote: »

How is it saying the opposite? I originally said altruistic behaviour is not the same as moral behaviour. I then said that most of those examples eventually benefit the animals in question or point back to the tribal mentality point. They don't really form opposites.

You're being petty for the sake of being petty.

You first referred to the behaviour as altruistic. Then you said that the behaviour would eventually benefit the animal in question in most cases.

This is the opposite of altruism.

The Mad Hatter

Tucker Flaky Blonde wrote: »

Here we go. You HAVE to. This indicates a need. That need is the need to survive. Moral actions/thoughts are not brought about by needs. The animals are not acting morally, they are acting out of their need to survive and stay with the pack.

They are acting morally out of their need to survive and stay with the pack.

gu10

My brother yelled to me
I love you inside Ed

My loony bun is fine benny lava
Minor bun engine made benny lava

ldxo15wus6fpgm

MagicMarker wrote: »

You first referred to the behaviour as altruistic. Then you said that the behaviour would eventually benefit the animal in question in most cases.

This is the opposite of altruism.

Tucker Flaky Blonde wrote: »

How is it saying the opposite? I originally said altruistic behaviour is not the same as moral behaviour. I then said that most of those examples eventually benefit the animals in question or point back to the tribal mentality point. They don't really form opposites.

You're being petty for the sake of being petty.

See anything you missed the first time? :rolleyes:

The Mad Hatter wrote: »

They are acting morally out of their need to survive and stay with the pack.

You seriously need to look up the definition of morals.

Terry

Tucker Flaky Blonde wrote: »

EDIT:


I am not the OP.

You quoted me saying how Christianity is the dominant religion in Ireland and that is has taught a certain set of morals.
You then said that we were quite civilised before St. Patrick came to Ireland. (btw, the first person to bring Christianity to Ireland was St. Palladius, but that's beside the point)
You also said barbarians would not have been able to construct Newgrange etc.

I asked you if you had ever heard of Celtic polytheism. I asked this because you seemed to think that there was no religion in Ireland before Christianity (you would not be the first person to have expressed such thoughts to me) yet the Irish people still had morals. Of course they did, but they were not the same set of morals people today would have.

Ok. Let's follow the morals of early Christians then.
Woohoo. Crusades ahoy. Kill the Muslims.
It's grand though. God said so.

ldxo15wus6fpgm

Terry wrote: »

Ok. Let's follow the morals of early Christians then.
Woohoo. Crusades ahoy. Kill the Muslims.
It's grand though. God said so.

Exactly. They were fine with it, because the pope had said that god would not punish them for killing an infidel. Thus, their religion dictated their morals. QED.

MagicMarker

Tucker Flaky Blonde wrote: »

See anything you missed the first time? :rolleyes:

lol, clutching at straws now.

raah!

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

Understanding someone is sad is not the same as sharing their sadness or even being sad they are sad, capiche? Humans, among other animals, feel sympathy and pity as well as empathy.

That's pretty much what I've been saying. It boils down to you using empathy wrong and then redefining it twice.

Also that's a bit external to the argument as everything I have said either applies to my correct use of the word empathy, or your use of empathy along with other emotions. It makes no difference to the argument.

The OP was arguing that religion - specifically christianity - gives humans morals, I disagree. I think it's quite obvious that a moral code would have to exist to allow people to live together and it will have existed for as long as people have been living in larger groups - which pre-dates any organised religion now preaching morality. You can try to argue that the rules and superstitions are no different to religion but that doesn't actually make them religion - I think religion is more likely to have developed from early moral codes to enable humans to live in greater numbers than the other way around.

It was not necessary to have morality for apes to live together. Empathy, rather, was what was evolutionarily advantageous. A "moral code" cannot be evolved, but must be stated, or written. Unless you mean a genetic moral code... which isn't a real thing. There is a code for the release of certain chemicals at certain times, not a genetic code for innate ideas and make no mistake morality is a set of concepts, namely good and bad.

Where did I say empathy leads to morality? As it happens I would suggest that having the ability to read emotions is very much related to having a code of conduct and both of which are related to being able to live in a larger group and take advantage of all that offers - certainly more so than any holy book, which is the debate at hand.

That's the argument you're putting forward, that morality stems form empathy, or empathy and a collection of things, but the same criticisms apply. The word empathy is completely worthless if it doesn't include sharing in someones emotions, and nobody uses it in the sense where it entails only understanding.

You seem to be conflating morality with religion and are reluctant to accept it is a trait that evolved with us, rather than one preached at us. :cool:

Well I haven't actually said much about religion, I've only been arguing that empathy isn't morality. Conflate means mixed together by the way, I would perhaps suggest that religion leads to morality or is a source of it, but not that they are one in the same.

So I think you are simply misusing words, and definitely the term morality. Any definition of morality will contain the words "good" and "bad". These are concepts, evolution does not operate by concepts.

Are you arguing that people are born with certain ideas due to evolution? I don't think you are, and if you are then that is weelllll beyond the realms of science at the moment. It would make more sense scientifically to explain it materialistically. Through things like emotions and chemicals.

Also, in a certain sense the two terms religion and morality are inseperable as there are few religions which do not have morals within their doctrines.

To quote napoleon "religion keeps the poor from murdering the rich".

Also, empathy can lead to morality, It was never my intention to argue against that, my main pont was that a morality which is derived from empathy is vastly inferior to one derived from something like religion, or just some arbitrary set of moral rules. If we see religion as an arbitrary set of beliefs. Then all moral systems are by definition religions. But this does not mean that all religions are moral systems.

Ickle Magoo

Tucker Flaky Blonde wrote: »

Exactly. They were fine with it, because the pope had said that god would not punish them for killing an infidel. Thus, their religion dictated their morals. QED.

Except all it demonstrates is the orders from rome were to kill infidels and rome had sufficient control to do that. It doesn't suggest that morality in general is dictated by religion.

Presumably the crusades ended because people didn't agree that murdering another race or religion is a good moral stance and despite christianity declaring killing arabs was god's will in those times, christian countries now think it is wrong to kill anyone, arabs included. So, it appears that peoples morals rewrote the word of god, rather than the other way around - QED.

ldxo15wus6fpgm

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

Except all it demonstrates is the orders from rome were to kill infidels and rome had sufficient control to do that. It doesn't suggest that morality in general is dictated by religion.

Presumably the crusades ended because people didn't agree that murdering another race or religion is a good moral stance and despite christianity declaring killing arabs was god's will in those times, christian countries now think it is wrong to kill anyone, arabs included. So, it appears that peoples morals rewrote the word of god, rather than the other way around - QED.

Actually, the crusades ended because Saladin managed to negotiate the way to peace. Sorry.

Also, it really does suggest that their morals were dictated by their religion, you're just trying your hardest to not see that.

philologos

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

Presumably the crusades ended because people didn't agree that murdering another race or religion is a good moral stance and despite christianity declaring killing arabs was god's will in those times, christian countries now think it is wrong to kill anyone, arabs included. So, it appears that peoples morals rewrote the word of god, rather than the other way around - QED.

This has been an interesting thread so far, but this is deserving of correction.

Christianity has never said that it is acceptable to kill Arabs. Jesus quite clearly says that all people of all nations are deserving of respect, and this is the reason why all people across the earth are deserving of hearing His good news and coming to His fold. Christianity from the get go in Jerusalem was a message for all nations, and it was a life-transforming message to anyone who wished to hear it, as it is today!

What did happen was in a time when the Biblical text was only in Latin, and unintelligible to most of the public, was that men corrupted Christianity in order to carry out atrocities.

Let's be forthright with the facts please!

As for morality, people have pointed out that morality pre-dates religion, this is true. Can I ask, does morality pre-date God? This would be of more concern to believers no doubt. If our sense of conscience is given to us by God, this involves Him fully in our lives as a moral guide, irrespective of whether or not Christianity post-dates Him. God has been around since the beginning according to Christianity, and this would mean that He was active in the world before the Biblical text was revealed to us through prophets.

raah!

It's funny how people keep citing the crusades like that when they have no knowledge of them. I don't have a massive knowledge of them, but with teh small part I do know, I would not put religion as the number one cause. The crusades were fairly similar to the troubles up north, although it could be argued that pre crusade arab invasions were religion inspired, but I don't know about that at all.

Anyway, I maintain atheistic moral systems are mostly (moral systems of atheistic religions or some sort of love cults excluded) inferior to religioiusly or theistically based ones. And people with moral systems based on empathy are as good as heroin addicts (by their definition of good).

Moral action does not always imply morality also, that has been rigorously proved. But that was unneccesary, actions cannot be called "moral" till there is a definition of what is good or bad there. These definitions generally have to be arbitrary, unless based on another system of belief such as religion. So naturally someone whose morals can be explained has a superior position that someone who can respond only with tautolgies.

If people spend a little less time proselytizing and more time looking at the contradictions in their positions... then their positions would be less ridiculous. Which they are.

Killer Pigeon

God is a fictitious entity that man uses as a quick fix to questions regard the nature of the universe.

caseyann

Comfort and hope and warmth and love.

Ickle Magoo

raah! wrote: »

It was not necessary to have morality for apes to live together. Empathy, rather, was what was evolutionarily advantageous. A "moral code" cannot be evolved, but must be stated, or written. Unless you mean a genetic moral code... which isn't a real thing. There is a code for the release of certain chemicals at certain times, not a genetic code for innate ideas and make no mistake morality is a set of concepts, namely good and bad.

Why do you assume a moral code requires to be written down? Do you know chimps have been documented as helping handicapped members at great risk and resource to the other members of the group? Did you read the other examples provided?

raah! wrote: »

That's the argument you're putting forward, that morality stems form empathy, or empathy and a collection of things, but the same criticisms apply. The word empathy is completely worthless if it doesn't include sharing in someones emotions, and nobody uses it in the sense where it entails only understanding.

Firstly, I have no idea which came first from empathy or morality as to state one formed from the other, or if they developed simultaneously.

My dictionary states: Empathy - Identification with and understanding of another's situation, feelings, and motives.

It doesn't necessary follow that understanding or reading of others feelings must result in sharing those feelings. I'm sure we've all empathised with someone who has lost someone close without actually feeling grief ourselves.

raah! wrote: »

Well I haven't actually said much about religion, I've only been arguing that empathy isn't morality. Conflate means mixed together by the way, I would perhaps suggest that religion leads to morality or is a source of it, but not that they are one in the same.

So I think you are simply misusing words, and definitely the term morality. Any definition of morality will contain the words "good" and "bad". These are concepts, evolution does not operate by concepts.

Are you arguing that people are born with certain ideas due to evolution? I don't think you are, and if you are then that is weelllll beyond the realms of science at the moment. It would make more sense scientifically to explain it materialistically. Through things like emotions and chemicals.

Also, in a certain sense the two terms religion and morality are inseperable as there are few religions which do not have morals within their doctrines.

And as there are many without religion who are moral, morals pre-date religion and there are many examples of animals who display moral behaviour, limiting the word to mean religious means seems rather silly and pointless to me. I appreciate religious people have a vested interest in pushing that morals are only displayed by humans and are heaven sent but I don't think reserving words to protect sentimental sensibilities is necessary.

raah! wrote: »

To quote napoleon "religion keeps the rich from murdering the poor".

Not a man I would look for moral guidance from, tbh and I disagree with his point. Most modern religion is based solely on power and wealth, everything else is secondary.

raah! wrote: »

Also, empathy can lead to morality, It was never my intention to argue against that, my main pont was that a morality which is derived from empathy is vastly inferior to one derived from something like religion, or just some arbitrary set of moral rules. If we see religion as an arbitrary set of beliefs. Then all moral systems are by definition religions. But this does not mean that all religions are moral systems.

If morality in general has evolved from the need to live cohesively in larger groups then I'm not sure how it can be inferior to an ancient set of rules developed as a result, most of which seem to have to be taken as metaphorical these days. The moral codes which seem to have the greatest meaning to the greatest number of people would appear to be those that would have to exist in order to live cohesively in larger groups. Not a coincidence, I would suggest.

Tucker Flaky Blonde wrote:

Actually, the crusades ended because Saladin managed to negotiate the way to peace. Sorry.

Also, it really does suggest that their morals were dictated by their religion, you're just trying your hardest to not see that.

Again, their behaviour was dictated by rome, it says nothing about their morals. Biblical interpretations differ, religious sects differ, global behavioural etiquette differs, evolves, does a complete U-turn and bows to popular opinion yet there are a few golden rules of society that don't change and I would suggest these have evolved with humans as they started to group together. Then religion spawned from ignorance of the natural world and as it often does, it assimilated local tradition and threw in a few extra rules of its own.

Jackass wrote:

This has been an interesting thread so far, but this is deserving of correction.

Christianity has never said that it is acceptable to kill Arabs. Jesus quite clearly says that all people of all nations are deserving of respect, and this is the reason why all people across the earth are deserving of hearing His good news and coming to His fold. Christianity from the get go in Jerusalem was a message for all nations, and it was a life-transforming message to anyone who wished to hear it, as it is today!

What did happen was in a time when the Biblical text was only in Latin, and unintelligible to most of the public, was that men corrupted Christianity in order to carry out atrocities.

Let's be forthright with the facts please!

The pope said it was acceptable to kill arabs, Jackass, the pope and the christian byzantine empire. Now you may not hold them as "christianity" today but they certainly appear to be christians upholding christianity in their day. I'm sure we'll probably look back at those fighting equality legislation and trying to cap the compensations claims to victims of clerical abuse in the same way.

In saying that, I have no wish to get into a bible text discussion with you because we both know the ability of biblical text to mean whatever the reader wishes it to - or not as the case may be - is quite extraordinary and usually tedious in the extreme.

Jackass wrote:

As for morality, people have pointed out that morality pre-dates religion, this is true. Can I ask, does morality pre-date God? This would be of more concern to believers no doubt. If our sense of conscience is given to us by God, this involves Him fully in our lives as a moral guide, irrespective of whether or not Christianity post-dates Him. God has been around since the beginning according to Christianity, and this would mean that He was active in the world before the Biblical text was revealed to us through prophets.

I presume that's not aimed at me...it's a bit of a no-brainer from my perspective.

raah!

lolzzz, that napoleon quote is actually "religion keeps the poor from murdering the rich", typoo

Rubberlegs

God to me is someone I don't even consider until something goes wrong, then I pray to him like F**k. I'm nothin but a user:D

philologos

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

The pope said it was acceptable to kill arabs, Jackass, the pope and the christian byzantine empire. Now you may not hold them as "christianity" today but they certainly appear to be christians upholding christianity in their day. I'm sure we'll probably look back at those fighting equality legislation and trying to cap the compensations claims to victims of clerical abuse in the same way.

In saying that, I have no wish to get into a bible text discussion with you because we both know the ability of biblical text to mean whatever the reader wishes it to - or not as the case may be - is quite extraordinary and usually tedious in the extreme.

Wasn't Pope Urban II a man? Likewise, wasn't Emperor Alexis of the Byzantine Empire? The history of the First Crusade in particular is very telling, it involves about as much money, wealth and perceived military threat as it does religious invocations.

These are men, who corrupted Christianity in order to pursue violence. Christianity from the beginning, I.E derived from the values of Jesus and the Apostles would have never dreamt of violently butchering Arabs and Jews. This is a valid point, and it is where your post was lacking.

Distinguishing between the corruption of mankind, and what Christianity actually teaches about this is too important to ignore.

Let's be honest about this!

raah!

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

Why do you assume a moral code requires to be written down? Do you know chimps have been documented as helping handicapped members at great risk and resource to the other members of the group? Did you read the other examples provided?

Tbh I didn't because quite frankly the idea of moral animals is absurd. Why would you try to explain with morality what can be explained with empathy (this is directed at pepole who claim to be scientific materialists, naturally there are God arguments for morality before empathy, and empathy being an outcome of innate morality)? Where it isn't beneficial to the group just means that empathy isn't a perfect system, and it would be ridiculous to think that empaty is only possible to be applied where it's advantageous, it's only necessary for it to be advantageous most of the time

This is a misunderstanding of evolution on your part. That is completely unscientific.

Firstly, I have no idea which came first from empathy or morality as to state one formed from the other, or if they developed simultaneously.

Well which do you think evolution would be more likely to supply to say... a wolf with; An idea of good and bad... which requires higher thought. Animals being capable of that is another area, and isn't the status quo in science which we are all so f ond of arguing for.
My dictionary states: Empathy - Identification with and understanding of another's situation, feelings, and motives.

My dictionary states: Empathy - Identification with and understanding of another's situation, feelings, and motives.
It doesn't necessary follow that understanding or reading of others feelings must result in sharing those feelings. I'm sure we've all empathised with someone who has lost someone close without actually feeling grief ourselves.

The identify with part strongly suggests that though.

And as there are many without religion who are moral, morals pre-date religion and there are many examples of animals who display moral behaviour, limiting the word to mean religious means seems rather silly and pointless to me. I appreciate religious people have a vested interest in pushing that morals are only displayed by humans and are heaven sent but I don't think reserving words to protect sentimental sensibilities is necessary.

That does not imply that at all. As has been pretty much proved by a million people, working together to catch a cow doesn't constitute morality.

I said inseperable because while it's possible for morality to exist outside of religion, you rarely find religions without an inbuilt moral system.

That last argument is more evidence of your vested interests to argue against "religious people" than mine to protect sentimental sensibilities which you don't know I have.

If morality in general has evolved from the need to live cohesively in larger groups then I'm not sure how it can be inferior to an ancient set of rules developed as a result, most of which seem to have to be taken as metaphorical these days. The moral codes which seem to have the greatest meaning to the greatest number of people would appear to be those that would have to exist in order to live cohesively in larger groups. Not a coincidence, I would suggest.

Well you can read earlier posts for arguments in favour of that.

Benny Lava

A non-existent entity.

That's just my opinion though.

HereNorThere

caseyann wrote: »

Comfort and hope and warmth and love.

:):)

vibe666

speaking as an atheist, God.....is a DJ :D:D:D

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6hcfxm8wM0A

Sparticle

God is the shackles that holds back humanity.

Ickle Magoo

raah! wrote: »

Tbh I didn't because quite frankly the idea of moral animals is absurd. Why would you try to explain with morality what can be explained with empathy (not, this is directed at pepole who claim to be scientific materialists, naturally there are God arguments for morality before empathy, and empathy being an outcome of innate morality)? Where it isn't beneficial to the group just means that empathy isn't a perfect system, and it would be ridiculous to think that empaty is only possible to be applied where it's advantageous, it's only necessary for it to be advantageous most of the time

This is a misunderstanding of evolution on your part. That is completely unscientific.

I think denying animals can show moral behaviour, choosing instead to shoe-horn such behaviour into a kind of unnecessary empathy for the sole purpose of avoiding accepting they may have a code of what is right and wrong is absurd - especially given our common ancestry and the similar social structures that certain species have. We appear to to have reached an impasse.

I don't think I misunderstand evolution at all - we (animals) have evolved to have complex social structures and we have had to develop complex social rules as a result - these pre-date religion where religion is even relevant. What's to misunderstand?

raah! wrote: »

Well which do you think evolution would be more likely to supply to say... a wolf with; An idea of good and bad... which requires higher thought. Animals being capable of that is another area, and isn't the status quo in science which we are all so f ond of arguing for.
My dictionary states: Empathy - Identification with and understanding of another's situation, feelings, and motives.

I'm not sure I'm following you now...your sentence is a little fragmented.

In terms of natural selection, it would be an advantageous trait to be able to adhere to social norms in a society that such behaviour gave a better assurance of survival than being an aggressive loner.

raah! wrote: »

The identify with part strongly suggests that though.

Not at all - experience enables us to empathise without ever having to share the feeling. When someone says they feel guilty you automatically know that feeling because you once felt guilt - but you don't feel guilt with them or share in their guilt.

raah! wrote: »

That does not imply that at all. As has been pretty much proved by a million people, working together to catch a cow doesn't constitute morality.

I said inseperable because while it's possible for morality to exist outside of religion, you rarely find religions without an inbuilt moral system.

Of course, because morality pre-dates religion - it's a no-brainer.

raah! wrote: »

That last argument is more evidence of your vested interests to argue against "religious people" than mine to protect sentimental sensibilities which you don't know I have.

I can see no other reason to blindly insist morals can only be a human construct given through religion than clinging onto some kind of sentimental protectionism of vocabulary or trying to insist on some kind of special dispensation because it also has religious connotation unless to protect the sensibilities of the religious...I make no assumptions about your own beliefs in saying that.

Jakkass wrote: »

Distinguishing between the corruption of mankind, and what Christianity actually teaches about this is too important to ignore.

Let's be honest about this!

Tbh Jackass, most of the time it's nigh on impossible to see where religion ends and the corruption of mankind starts - or visa versa for that matter. The insistence that the distinction be made and involves honesty no less is, frankly, laughable.

philologos

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

Tbh Jackass, most of the time it's nigh on impossible to see where religion ends and the corruption of mankind starts - or visa versa for that matter. The insistence that the distinction be made and involves honesty no less is, frankly, laughable.

I think you are being a bit dishonest in your assessment of the Crusades, or that you haven't looked into the actual circumstances of the Crusades, in that one only need look to Jesus' teaching in the Gospels to see that Pope Urban II and Alexis weren't living up to that example. One need only read the accounts of the crusaders in the First Crusade and their leaders to see that more than mere religion was involved.

The insistence that the distinction be made is one that should be expected. If the facts are being skewed it needs to be cleared up.

Hank_Jones

vibe666 wrote: »

speaking as an atheist, God.....is a DJ :D:D:D

That sentence makes absolutely no sense.

Look to the good book for answers child.




















The dictionary.

Ickle Magoo

I wasn't just referring to the crusades, Jackass, I was referring to religion in general, transcending all ages right to present day.

It's clear to all but those who don't want to see that the most religious in the world have used and do use their respective holy books to justify all manner of things - and equally today claim that their books mean this or don't mean that or are metaphorical or allegorical or basically whatever suits, let's be honest. That there are so many religions all vying to claim they have it right would suggest to me that what was actually said by whom, if said at all, isn't actually known by anyone - never mind claim that "facts" are being skewed.

kylith

raah! wrote: »

Tbh I didn't because quite frankly the idea of moral animals is absurd.

I don't agree.

Chamber's dictionary definies 'moral' as:
1 belonging or relating to the principles of good and evil, or right and wrong. 2 conforming to what is considered by society to be good, right or proper; ethical.
(Emphasis mine.)

The examples given earlier conform to definition 2. Animals which live in a pack often have a rigid social structure with rules on who can do what, when, where and with whom, their own moral code; this adherance is an example of animals conforming to what their society considers to be good, right and proper. It is moral for an animal to suckle an orphan even though they have nothing to benefit from it* because it is beneficial to their society, and their society considers that good and proper. It is a moral act.

*the infant will not pass on the adopter's genes.

Ben Hadad

The laws of nature.

raah!

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

I think denying animals can show moral behaviour, choosing instead to shoe-horn such behaviour into a kind of unnecessary empathy for the sole purpose of avoiding accepting they may have a code of what is right and wrong is absurd - especially given our common ancestry and the similar social structures that certain species have. We appear to to have reached an impasse.

I don't thikn we have reached an impasse, but rather you don't understand the implications of your own position. It's not absurd from your perspective, and forgive me for presuming your a naturalistic materialistic yada ydaydyaydyayda, but you probably are. What your saying resembles only, platonic idealism, or chomsky's thing about certain aspects of language. It's very close to chomsky's thing actually. But neither of this fit with what I assume your position is.

I don't think I misunderstand evolution at all - we (animals) have evolved to have complex social structures and we have had to develop complex social rules as a result - these pre-date religion where religion is even relevant. What's to misunderstand?

The words you're using.

I'm not sure I'm following you now...your sentence is a little fragmented.

Following your views as an empricist, it makes more sense to assume that it is chemicals, or measurable things, that unmeasurable ones, such as a conception of right and wrong

Not at all - experience enables us to empathise without ever having to share the feeling. When someone says they feel guilty you automatically know that feeling because you once felt guilt - but you don't feel guilt with them or share in their guilt.

Well this isn't really an important point, and we could even go on to argue about the dictionary itself. Words change over time. We can use either the word empathy on its own, or we can add in some other words with emotional attachments.

I can see no other reason to blindly insist morals can only be a human construct given through religion than clinging onto some kind of sentimental protectionism of vocabulary or trying to insist on some kind of special dispensation because it also has religious connotation unless to protect the sensibilities of the religious...I make no assumptions about your own beliefs in saying that.

To do otherwise is first to attribute higher thought to animals, and second to attribute a particular kind of higher thought to all animals. As I've said earlier, it can all be explained empircally rather than through some mysterious propogation of ideas through genetics.