Hypothesis: the more educated you are the less likely you are to be religious

Pyrian on 3/2/2012 at 16:19

Quote Posted by Beleg Cúthalion

@Pyrian: No, I wasn't talking about the need for general solutions, just the "need" (if you want to break it down this way) for a reason why there are ethical structures which don't correspond to the inherent ideas of evolution but are still – in this case – altruistic.

But a general solution, by nature, explains structures which don't always work. That's what a general solution is; something that works often enough to make up for the fact that it can't cover every specific.

Beleg Cúthalion on 5/2/2012 at 15:01

Quote Posted by DDL

So back to your weird "5%" thing. If you're asking "why would evolution select for someone who decides to be unlucky", in a pure scenario, not other caveats, I'd have to say..it wouldn't. And to be frank, any religion that encourages people to "decide to be unlucky" would also be a crappy religion, and would vanish from our thoughts pretty rapidly.

Funnily enough, Chrtistianity, according to the sources, would be just such a religion. The sticking point though is that the "crappy" part of it would be compensated on a transcendent level. More relevant for our discussion is however that evolution doesn't decide for you to choose the 5% unlucky percent, it just provides you with the chance of the 5% being there in the first place and if your brain is completely driven by nature, you "just die" as an unlucky bastard. However, my question was what inside nature would backup your active decision to choose the 5%? And all this is preliminary to the question of how relevant this "unlucky decision" is even today. That's what we had in the Hitchen's thread.

Quote Posted by faetal

I think Beleg is trying to insinuate that altruism has a nature and nurture aspect. I'd say that's largely irrelevant since nurture is a feedback mechanism also arising from nature.

I think I might try to introduce another term: Employment of altruism. I'm quite satisfied with your notion of everything life-related evolved naturally and can be explained (at least on the "what" part) with biology. If however you explain away all decisions of a human being as merely done because of a feedback mechanism (i.e. you do what you do because 1. the infrastructure came with evolution and 2. the actual path you choose is chosen because of a certain feel-good reward, left aside that it either helps or discourages your survival), you either degrade all (at least actively-made) decisions to biological "snap-ins", no matter if it refers to the CD in your stereo or the district officials election... OR these biological reactions are tiny enough to still allow the idea of a free will. In the latter case you'd still have the option of choosing an altruistic/self-sacrifice way, even despite the knowledge of it being counter-evolutionary. In your opinion the biological feedback for choosing the self-sacrifice would be more influential than the sum of all other natural benefits (like staying alive, most of all) opting for the fight/run way, did I get this right?

Quote:

I can understand the religious perspective in wanting dominion over morality though, since they no longer have the weather, natural disasters, disease, crop success/failure, biological diversity, creation of celestial bodies etc.., so the fall back is generally "well without religion, we wouldn't have morality". [...] Person: *Engage cognitive dissonance mode*

Yeah, that's probably it. It's not like I truly question the all-encompassing entitlement of biology that you try to set up, I'm merely doing tricks and feints in a desperate attempt to save a small place for religion in a world of white-clad enlighteners. :rolleyes:

Seriously, you ARE aware that you're setting up a killer argument here with which you can shoot down ANY attempt to question your habit of e.g. declaring that the employment of naturally-evolved actions must therefore be naturally-guided...? On the other hand I strongly assume that you'd go on the warpath as soon as someone would bring in a statement suggesting that explaining away everything in the world with little precast natural patterns was merely a weak attempt to cover the hand of a creating god.

faetal on 5/2/2012 at 15:42

Quote Posted by Beleg Cúthalion

However, my question was what inside nature would backup your active decision to choose the 5%? And all this is preliminary to the question of how relevant this "unlucky decision" is even today. That's what we had in the Hitchen's thread.

What? Again? DDL explained the whole thing beautifully. It's called natural variation and it piggy backs through the generation on the back of pure advantages.

Quote:

Hey, we don't get to choose reality, it just is what it is, and just because you don't like the implications, it doesn't mean we go back to the drawing board to try to find a new answer. There is every chance that our illusion of free will IS nothing more than a combination of genes and environmental feedback and how our minds tell us that we should react to certain situations based on desire and experience (genes + environmental feedback). If that seems to "degrade" our existence to you, then I suspect this is because maybe you don't find biology particularly fascinating. In which case, I can see why you are searching for an answer which satisfies your thirst for a supernatural explanation.

Quote:

In your opinion the biological feedback for choosing the self-sacrifice would be more influential than the sum of all other natural benefits (like staying alive, most of all) opting for the fight/run way, did I get this right?

I'm not entirely sure where you are getting at. Please be more specific about what you mean by self sacrifice - give a realistic example.

Quote:

Well I'm sorry, but that's how it appears. You are being given a very decent summary of decades of hard work by extremely talented academic minds, and you just choose to ignore the explanations, opting instead to re-define the meaning of altruism, set up arbitrary scenarios based on some fictitious 5% and basically do anything except keep trying to push forward an idea that is of your making in trying to somehow overturn a fairly firm consensus of how altruism and morality came to humans. So yeah, it does seem as if you are just trying to re-word the discussion in order to make room for god, yes.

Quote:

Seriously, you ARE aware that you're setting up a killer argument here with which you can shoot down ANY attempt to question your habit of e.g. declaring that the employment of naturally-evolved actions must therefore be naturally-guided...? On the other hand I strongly assume that you'd go on the warpath as soon as someone would bring in a statement suggesting that explaining away everything in the world with little precast natural patterns was merely a weak attempt to cover the hand of a creating god.

Warpath? No, I'd just call it what it is, a redundant point. If there is no observable difference between no god (science explains what we know) and god (god is responsible for what scientists have discovered), then what use is god, other than as an emotional crutch for people to use to make extrapolation which science *doesn't* cover (afterlife, salvation etc...)?

Beleg Cúthalion on 5/2/2012 at 18:58

The problem is that with the reference to the "emotional crutch" you are touching a metaphysical area (that is, judging what it "is about"), which however you cannot and we in general cannot survey. We can say for sure (at least more or less) "what scientists have discovered" but we cannot say if this has any meaning beyond the perceivable world. Declaring however that it "is just an explanation for the mentally weak" is excatly this transgression of the field of cognition. Not only because it defames lots of intelligent religious people who do have a well-founded trust in "mother nature" (as it were) but because it lacks the restraint of its in fact limited (i.e. world-based) scope.

And please, my position could be that of an atheist, just because you're not accustomed to self-critical fellows doesn't mean that anyone disagreeing with you is religious. And finally, just for the sake of it, these 5% are the individuals whose altruism doesn't give them an evolutionary benefit... just because they die in a critical situation. Don't know what's so hard to understand about it, especially since it was you who mentioned that there can be unlucky ones.

dreamcatcher on 5/2/2012 at 19:09

Wow, two long-winded gasbags go at each other on an internet forum. News Hour! Let me call CNN, I don't think this ever happened before.

Beleg Cúthalion on 5/2/2012 at 19:14

Now come on, we do still have a certain level of sophistication. :cool:

faetal on 5/2/2012 at 19:18

Quote Posted by Beleg Cúthalion

We can say for sure (at least more or less) "what scientists have discovered" but we cannot say if this has any meaning beyond the perceivable world. Declaring however that it "is just an explanation for the mentally weak" is excatly this transgression of the field of cognition. Not only because it defames lots of intelligent religious people who do have a well-founded trust in "mother nature" (as it were) but because it lacks the restraint of its in fact limited (i.e. world-based) scope.

You're putting words in my mouth now. I didn't say it was an explanation for the mentally weak, but one for those who require something else to be present other than that which we can be sure of. Straw man argument, done.

Quote:

And please, my position could be that of an atheist, just because you're not accustomed to self-critical fellows doesn't mean that anyone disagreeing with you is religious.

Straw man number 2. Just because I am not accustomed to self critical fellows? I am a self critical fellow, as are many people I know. This is not the reason I am disagreeing with you (though I guess it would be nicer for you if it was). However, you made clear early on that you are religious, so of course this is taken into account. Are you saying that you aren't taking into account that I am a biologist when you start throwing your accusations of " all-encompassing entitlement of biology that try to set up"? I learn about what is known, because this is useful and allows greater understanding of the world in which I live. You choose christianity, one of many equally valid religions with varying amount of historical back up and possibility for being overlaid on science, like the you are trying to overlay christianity, e.g. "Funnily enough, Chrtistianity, according to the sources, would be just such a religion".

Quote:
And finally, just for the sake of it, these 5% are the individuals whose altruism doesn't give them an evolutionary benefit... just because they die in a critical situation. Don't know what's so hard to understand about it, especially since it was you who mentioned that there can be unlucky ones.

I don't understand how you can be somehow missing the point which has been painstakingly laid out for you by myself, DDL and others. You are YET AGAIN putting the cart before the horse. Just because there will always be a tiny proportion who do not benefit from an evolved trait, this does not mean that it is not beneficial. As I have mentioned and as DDL has mentioned, so long as this strategy is better than the alternatives (e.g. with everyone being assholes, the fictional figure of people losing out might go up to 30%), then it is the most evolutionarily stable one. I am getting a little exasperated that you seem to be deflecting several patient explanations. Perhaps DDL can come up with a better response.

faetal on 5/2/2012 at 19:23
Quote Posted by dreamcatcher
Wow, two long-winded gasbags go at each other on an internet forum. News Hour! Let me call CNN, I don't think this ever happened before.

Wow person inexplicably takes the energy to sarcastically comment on something they aren't interested in! Quick, called MSNBC, we may have an exclusive here!

faetal on 5/2/2012 at 21:17
((http://vimeo.com/11653660) As a brief aside, I've not finished watching this yet, but it seems pretty interesting)

Hope it doesn't finish out to be a load of wank.

Rupert Sheldrake is an awesome name for an academic though - very Harry Potter.

[EDIT: I'm bearing with it, but it seems to be sliding towards woo. He seems to be trying to make the case that new compounds crystallise more easily the 2nd, 3rd, 4th etc they are formulated round the world. Now he *seems* to be implying that the first crystallisation event is somehow a cosmically universal moment influences future crystallisation. I'll bear with him, but I want to be sure he's ruled out the more simpler explanation that the labs have shared notes, or the methods were published, thus enabling the 2nd, 3rd etc.. people to work more efficiently. I'll hear him out though. It's pretty wild stuff.]

Beleg Cúthalion on 5/2/2012 at 21:58
Quote Posted by faetal
I don't understand how you can be somehow missing the point which has been painstakingly laid out for you by myself, DDL and others. You are YET AGAIN putting the cart before the horse. Just because there will always be a tiny proportion who do not benefit from an evolved trait, this does not mean that it is not beneficial. As I have mentioned and as DDL has mentioned, so long as this strategy is better than the alternatives (e.g. with everyone being assholes, the fictional figure of people losing out might go up to 30%), then it is the most evolutionarily stable one. I am getting a little exasperated that you seem to be deflecting several patient explanations. Perhaps DDL can come up with a better response.
As long as you guys do NOT get my point (although I really doubt it's so hard to understand), your judgement is irrelevant since it refers to something different. If it eases your mind we can leave this for now and you can go home thinking that yet another believer was shattered at the foundation of natural science, but you keep coming back to how evolution works while I speak about the deliberate employment of what has evolved, especially if it's actively employed against the rules which make up survival and of evolution.