Let's wait and see how the Discovery Institute or a similar organisation spins this... it's gonna be golden!

Real world social repercussions contribute more to cooperative behavior than any innate sense of right and wrong. The idea that modern organized religions "invented" morality is a laughable statement; one that doesn't need to be refuted through experiment at all. The very fact that you and I exist as social creatures and that our ancestors were able to cooperate enough to succeed in raising offspring for millions of years is proof enough. This was all happening long before we were able to exchange ideas about sky gods.

On a lighter note, I admire Sharing Monkey's sympathy for her less privileged friend.

What would happen with Republican monkeys?

So if this is correct, you don't need religion to "invent" morality, but religion may help people stay moral. I like this guy--he's pissing in everybody's cheerios!

I'm curious if he's carrying out these experiments on healthy, well-fed monkeys. Although it would be unethical to try this, I wonder what the chimps reactions would be if they were near starving. Would they still share even if there was only enough food for one of them? Sharing when resources are abundant, to me, is not evidence of "moral behavior" but of social behavior--and we've known for years that many monkey groups engage in social behavior. I don't see anything in this video to demonstrate monkeys differentiating between some "right" or "wrong" choice.

On a side note, I think it's really iffy to draw conclusions about human behavior from animal behavior. I'm thinking back to certain Republicans, for instance, who encouraged people to emulate the "family values" of the movie "March of the Penguins" since the momma and poppa penguins work together and even sacrifice their lives for the baby penguins. They were quite embarrassed, of course, when zoologists pointed out that penguins take a new mate every single year.

I read his book, Primates and Philosophers:
How Morality Evolved, about a year ago and found it quite convincing.

Evolution being responsible for morality really doesn't seem to be an issue... it's either as a result of evolution, or an emergent behaviour of our complex, arcane neurology. The problem is how the religious will claim that, even in the absence of religion, God installed the basic function of morality... and even atheists have a sense of morality because God made us that way. It commandeers our finest and noblest behaviour as a bulletpoint for their deity's resume. It's not an argument you can contend with and I'm not sure you should try... and as much as I opposed the idea when I was younger, I'm beginning to think that the only thing to do is either ignore or ridicule such infinitely-expanding, unfalsifiable arguments.

Sorry for the tangent.

The reporting has it's own "pro-religion" spin... just in the way its toned.

- The fact it's pitched as a quirky "You won't believe this" surpising discovery. To any non-creationist, surely this is what you'd expect rather than a surprise.

- (1.27) "Poses a provocative question" Like he's a heretic to argue against. It's not provocative and it's not a question. It's tested evidence. Evidence is evidence - it's not up for opinion.
- (1.47) "If there is no god..." Immediately hostile christain combative phrasing.
- (1:57) "that humans, like primates..." Humans are primates. Unless you're a creationist.
- (2:15) "ONE biologist..." clearly pointing out this is just one guys opinion to be discounted. Rather than the common theory of most social behavioural scientists who are not creationists.

I call it "chimpathy"

>> ^Gallowflak:

Evolution being responsible for morality really doesn't seem to be an issue... it's either as a result of evolution, or an emergent behaviour of our complex, arcane neurology. The problem is how the religious will claim that, even in the absence of religion, God installed the basic function of morality... and even atheists have a sense of morality because God made us that way. It commandeers our finest and noblest behaviour as a bulletpoint for their deity's resume. It's not an argument you can contend with and I'm not sure you should try... and as much as I opposed the idea when I was younger, I'm beginning to think that the only thing to do is either ignore or ridicule such infinitely-expanding, unfalsifiable arguments.
Sorry for the tangent.


I think that's exactly right though. As Christopher Hitchens put it, "What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence".

When a religious person resorts to a "god of the gaps" line of reasoning, he has already defeated himself. In attempting to make god completely undisprovable, he's also eliminated any potential evidence for god.

Scientists believe such creatures would be born superior to human Democrats.

>> ^Boise_Lib:

What would happen with Republican monkeys?