Hypothesis: the more educated you are the less likely you are to be religious - by SubJeff
zombe on 5/2/2012 at 23:02
Quote Posted by faetal
((
http://vimeo.com/11653660) As a brief aside, I've not finished watching this yet, but it seems pretty interesting)
It is interesting ... but not in science sense to me ... just interesting (like some goofy time-travel star trek episode). Watching it rings just way too many warning bells per minute to take it seriously (using tv/BBC for some scientifically useless bullshit and bringing it up as something noteworthy - seriously?). Don't have any access to search for his publications, but at least Google gives the impression that he has long abandoned science completely and is focusing on books etc. Also, it is claimed that no-one has been able to repeat his results (whatever that actually means as the tests he described all looked too weak to me [rendering statistical significance irrelevant ... like, significance of what???]).
Muzman on 5/2/2012 at 23:03
Evolution is about the survival of populations as much as it is about individuals. There is nothing to say that it will select against detrimental individual behaviors if they help overall survival somehow.
Self sacrifice is easily seen as a byproduct of any number of human traits; a sense of justice and fairness, parental bonds, community and group bonds, even this sense of 'something greater' that we keep coming back to (all of which has been covered earlier).
Whatever evolutionary explanations for these things we can speculate are just that; speculation. The precise mechanism isn't necessarily part of the question, however. The only real question that matters is if any of these things are precluded by evolutionary theory. And they aren't, ya'see.
faetal on 5/2/2012 at 23:18
Quote Posted by Beleg Cúthalion
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.
Then you must not be explaining it too well if it is such an easy concept. Bear in mind that various people have not accepted your point of view on this, so if it is for lack of understanding, then the problem is more likely yours than those who didn't get it, as you seem to thinkk.
Quote:
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.
I'm not a teenager, so I don't need gratification in "shattering someone's views" or whatever you seem to be getting at. I'm pretty well adjusted emotionally speaking, so I don't get off on winning arguments on the internet or even thinking I did. What I have been doing is dialectically address points in a topic I am interested in. There is no sense in getting emotional over this or trying to make me look or feel like I'm somehow a militant atheist bully just because I haven't said the words "well said Beleg, I'll recant my views on morality and altruism and in future, think along the terms you have stated". Now to try and address your point, which falsely tries to differentiate between evolved behaviour and "intentional" behaviour:
Deliberate employment of behaviour is a behavioural response to environment. If someone decides to do something thought out, to their immediate detriment and other people's benefit, a good example is Lawrence Oates' famous "I'm going for a walk, I may be some time." speech before leaving Captain Scotts' camp to his death in order that provisions last longer for the survivors, then I agree it is a tough one to put into the context of evolution. However, because we don't see this kind of thing as normal behaviour, I don't see any reason why it should be contrary to it. In much the same way as there is no evolutionary advantage to being sexually aroused by pain, but some people do indeed exhibit this behaviour. You seem to be trying to focus in on one aspect of human behaviour as if it somehow disproves the very well established theory that altruism and morality are inherent animal behaviours and notably in humans (notable (a) because we are so complex and (b) because we obviously are most interested in ourselves). The reason myself and others have been responding in an exasperated fashion is not because we're dogmatic and will stop at nothing until we crush the believers (horns, fangs and red eyes at the ready), it is simply because what you are saying is not particularly rigorous and ignores or attempts to side step a large amount of what is known about the origins of human behaviour. Now I admit I am guilty of assuming that it is because you have an emotional investment in the notion that there is a part of your behaviour which is divine in origin, but can you say that this is definitely not the case? If so, I won't raise it again.
jay pettitt on 5/2/2012 at 23:19
Quote Posted by Beleg Cúthalion
As long as you guys do NOT get my point (although I really doubt it's so hard to understand).
I'm sure it's not. But what ever it is, you're doing a piss poor job of communicating it.
Sheldrake is the dog telepathy guy. No judgement is intended by that statement.
Dr Richard Wiseman is another great name (
http://vimeo.com/11653478) http://vimeo.com/11653478
faetal on 5/2/2012 at 23:22
Quote Posted by zombe
It is interesting ... but not in science sense to me ... just interesting (like some goofy time-travel star trek episode). Watching it rings just way too many warning bells per minute to take it seriously (using tv/BBC for some scientifically useless bullshit and bringing it up as something noteworthy - seriously?). Don't have any access to search for his publications, but at least Google gives the impression that he has long abandoned science completely and is focusing on books etc. Also, it is claimed that no-one has been able to repeat his results (whatever that actually means as the tests he described all looked too weak to me [rendering statistical significance irrelevant ... like, significance of what???]).
Yeah, I got those vibes a few minutes in. His preamble was really promising and then he became a bit shit. Most notably, scorning certain pricniples due to them being without evidence....right before launching into his own set of even crazier ideas with even less evidence.
I may or may not finish watching it, but it's hard given the way it has begun.
Nicker on 6/2/2012 at 02:07
Quote Posted by Beleg Cúthalion
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.
And as long as you keep going on about some idealised sort of altruistic act without providing a concrete example of one (or at least a passable hypothetical example) then you are pissing up the wrong tree.
It's not like people haven't tried to understand you or just brushed you off but you keep insisting that
we don't get what you are talking about. So, what are you talking about? What is a truly selfless act and when did one occur? Names and dates please.
faetal on 6/2/2012 at 02:25
I used (
http://www.wardsbookofdays.com/17march.htm) Lawrence Oates as a potential example. But also mentioned that as conscious an act as it was, it doesn't in any way undermine the notion of altruism and morality being inherent traits rather than taught (or divinely inspired) ones.
Nicker on 6/2/2012 at 03:41
I was hoping that Beleg would provide his own example, since he's the one who insists that absolute altruism is a reality.
Yeah the Lawrence Oates story is inspiring but it's not pure, idealised altruism. It was still a calculation of the sort that soldiers make all the time. That's a result of their training, the old throwing yourself on the grenade, scenario. He knew that he would likely die and that he would likely cause some friends to die if he continued to be a burden.
That comes down to a calculation too. All soldiers know that they are expendable assets and that it's a matter of chance whether you get to be cannon fodder or heroes. Sometimes you avoid the danger and sometimes you are thrown into it. There is the expectation that you will take your turn.
Altruism always has an aspect of selfishness, even if it's to avoid the shame of not doing the selfless thing.
Vasquez on 6/2/2012 at 06:50
Quote Posted by Beleg Cúthalion
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.
Why didn't God set up the evolution to produce 100% of perfectly altruistic people?
Beleg Cúthalion on 6/2/2012 at 08:38
Probably because it would be utterly boring? Oh how I love theodicy questions...
The examples I tried to outline with "self sacrifice" or "not killing the guy who tries to rob my family" are exactly those. But if you need a bigger picture, I'd take for instance an early-Christians-in-Rome-inspired story. A Christian family is harassed by the non-Christian Romans although they didn't do anything bad to their fellow citizens, finally charged with something related to it and taken to execution. For the record let's assume they had a certain chance to defend themselves (mansion, domestic staff) but they chose not to because their beliefs or reference to Jesus told them that they cannot judge others and must not hate them. With "told them" I don't mean that they feel forced to do so but they have taken this in and consider it valiant.
Quote Posted by faetal
Deliberate employment of behaviour is a behavioural response to environment. If someone decides to do something thought out, to their immediate detriment and other people's benefit, a good example is Lawrence Oates' famous "I'm going for a walk, I may be some time." speech before leaving Captain Scotts' camp to his death in order that provisions last longer for the survivors, then I agree it is a tough one to put into the context of evolution. However, because we don't see this kind of thing as normal behaviour, I don't see any reason why it should be contrary to it.
What I'm still missing here is the statement that doing something intentionally against nature (like, as in this example, deciding not to survive) gives you some sort of notable natural feedback/reward. This might work with being sexually aroused by violence but what about doing a lot of ugly paperwork in the evening although you don't really have to and rather read a good book instead? If decisions are always made in your body before your concisousness "notices" that it makes a decision, does it always give you positive feedback for anything you decide to do (and this being the reason to do it)?
And concerning the diplomatics:
Quote Posted by faetal, bold by me
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...)?
Quote Posted by Beleg Cúthalion
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.
Quote Posted by faetal
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.
I'm all for being precise and exact, but your first statement of these two says quite clear that you consider these people "weak" or disabled in any other sort, simply because healthy people wouldn't need a crutch. Or are you insisting that "mentally weak" is completely different from "having a need for an emotional crutch"? It's not like politely saying "you're an idiot" is having a different attitude than saying it non-politely. Since we're talking about transcendent layers of reference about which no one can give testimony, judging these things is idle, unless things are as clear as with a statement à la "my religion says that plants don't use photosynthesis as we believe they do".
