Hypothesis: the more educated you are the less likely you are to be religious - by SubJeff
Vasquez on 6/2/2012 at 09:20
Quote Posted by Beleg Cúthalion
Probably because it would be utterly boring?
So we exist to keep God amused? How divine :)
Quote Posted by Beleg Cúthalion
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.
It does reward you, if you believe you're going to Heaven for it, and there you'll be happy ever after etc.
The jihad-thing in Islam takes this to the most tempting level - if you die for your god, you'll get your personal harem of virgins to bang. So, the reward in the end is quite primal: lots of pussy, and not just any pussy, but the kind that can't compare your sex skillz to anyone else ;)
(Not to mention it's "only for men" -reward, or do female jihad martyrs get 7 male virgins?)
Sometimes it also seems some religious people are rewarded with an intense feeling of superiority...
Edit.
Quote Posted by Beleg Cúthalion
Or are you insisting that "mentally weak" is completely different from "having a need for an emotional crutch"?
English isn't my first language either, but afaik "mental" is quite a different thing than "emotional".
Nicker on 6/2/2012 at 09:34
Quote Posted by Beleg Cúthalion
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.
How about the expectation of eternal reward and / or fear of divine retribution? Powerful motivators of a self interested kind.
Even dying for an ideal is done in the hope of future benefits, if not for egotistical motivations. There is always a perceived benefit, if not for the sacrificed then for their physical or spiritual kin.
Quote Posted by Beleg Cúthalion
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".
Beg your pardon but
you were "talking about transcendent layers of reference about which no one can give testimony". If the uber-altruism you speak of cannot
give testimony it has nothing to say about reality and the human condition.
Muzman on 6/2/2012 at 09:54
Quote Posted by Beleg Cúthalion
PWhat 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)?
Has this video come up yet?
(
http://youtu.be/axrywDP9Ii0) Dopamine Jackpot! Sapolsky on the Science of Pleasure
The problem here is the debate is very much centred on that kind of post hoc assessment of the decision making process and assessing it as far as a given concept allows. ie. so and so decided to do such and such, we'll call that self sacrifice or doing your homework when you would rather watch TV, and that name, that label gives us enough to assess the act in terms of a moment in time, a point of moral decision making or pleasure seeking decision making.
This is fine for old timey philosophy and even moral assessment (although really its becoming less and less adequate). But it is not sufficient to discuss the incredibly complex processes that go into a given period of time that result in the behaviour of some being. Which is what seems to be happening here.
It might seem that evolutionary theory et al robs humanity of its grace and dignity and general ownership of its own moral behaviour. But this is only if you try to derive some declarative statements about, which is what you seem to want. On closer inspection behaviour is far too complicated for that and no single factor can be said to be solely responsible, regardless of whether or not it can be explained in an evolutionary sense.
(I'm not sure that made any sense. Oh well. Video good)
Beleg Cúthalion on 6/2/2012 at 10:54
Quote Posted by Muzman
This is fine for old timey philosophy and even moral assessment (although really its becoming less and less adequate). But it is not sufficient to discuss the incredibly complex processes that go into a given period of time that result in the behaviour of some being. Which is what seems to be happening here.
Still you are in your own understanding able to decide between A and B, measure things and even change your decision shortly after. You can be manipulated in this moment in time and you can deliberate long afterwards. Since making decisions affects almost everything on this planet, what would be the new way to deal with it if the current perspective was oldfashioned? It surely isn't to simply ignore it only because it's a product of natural processes.
Quote Posted by Nicker
How about the expectation of eternal reward and / or fear of divine retribution? Powerful motivators of a self interested kind.
Of course, that's what I said earlier. It's only that evolution didn't shape you for a transcendent goal. It shapes you for goals, right, and some might find that goal on a transcendent layer, but it's not what evolution shaped you for in the first place.
Quote Posted by Nicker
Beg your pardon but
you were "talking about transcendent layers of reference about which no one can give testimony". If the uber-altruism you speak of cannot
give testimony it has nothing to say about reality and the human condition.
Employing "über-altruism"
can have effect on worldly life, you just cannot prove if it has any layer other than the worldly one. Surely it's no use considering it for natural science, but asking for testimony from a transcendent layer is missing the point that a not-only-evolutionary reading of the evidence is possible as long as it doesn't contradict it on a comparable level.
Quote Posted by Vasquez
So we exist to keep God amused? How divine :)
Now come on, your question can even be answered within the good old 19th century creation image... why would a god create the rules to be good and altruistic and then only living beings that cannot but obey? It's like building a model railway and expecting it to evolve.
faetal on 6/2/2012 at 11:04
*Sigh* here goes...
Quote Posted by Beleg Cúthalion
Probably because it would be utterly boring? Oh how I love theodicy questions...
Boring / no boring - irrelevant. Yet more fuel for the idea that some people believe in the supernatural simply because they'd prefer it be true, rather than because it's likely to be true.
Quote:
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.
How is picking a fictional story anything even remotely useful in a debate which is trying to address real life? That would be like me saying, "let's suppose that scientists, after years of gruelling research, have discovered that altruism and morality are evolved behaviours inherent in social caste animals, including humans". Even though in my case, it's the genuine truth, it's not true because I framed it into the style of parable, it's true because it happened.
As for your example, like others say, these people were expecting (probably in vain) for an eternal reward in the afterlife. If someone has been conditioned to believe that after they die, some ineffable essence of their being will re-awaken in an afterlife, then I wouldn't consider their behaviour to be entirely normal. Perhaps if this fictional family had realised that in all probability they will have nothing once they die, they might have fought more to hang on to it. Maybe they realised it was useless to resist due to the number of guards, maybe they were severely depressed due to a recurrent skin condition - who knows? This is the problem with using hypothetical situations to try to back up an idea. Let's suppose dragons exist - why humans no have fire-proof skin? Etc...
Quote:
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.
Who said it did? How many people out of every thousand, in ordinary living situations will make this decision? My guess is that the usual natural reaction to such a situation is to defend oneself to the extent possible, regardless of creed. Those who (and I'm still waiting for a real life example, not a hypothetical one), when being robbed for example, stand and watch the robbers plunging a knife into their chest might not feel equipped to do much else. Some people's fight or flight response is so intense that it roots them to the spot for example. How did such a thing evolve? Well even a basic understanding of population genetics tells you that genetic traits tend to be heterogeneous within a population. Let's say that the reaction ranges from not being scared and taking on every attacker, to being so scared that one can not move. The former extreme, unless you happen to also be the most strong and battle savvy, will eventually result in death, or life-threatening / weakening injury. In pre-hospital times, this kind of risk is very high. Now the latter extreme - a person who is too frightened to move - maybe they get killed, maybe they get left alone while their earthly belongings are taken etc.. still not great. Then you get the majority, who have the appropriate response to the fight or flight response - to decide whether to fight or whether to try to escape. This is a hypothetical scenario too, so holds no weight per se, but at least this one is designed to illustrate an aspect of population genetics rather than just buttress a personal idea which I am using to try to make my own personal point.
One of the important things to remember about social caste animals is that there will always be a proportion of the population who is dependent on the group structure because they do not have the genes which have made the group strong. All such individuals need in order to be successful is social skills. They may not be able to fight well, but they are willing to help others, so get their protection. This does not mean that if that person finds themselves not acting while an opportunistic group of bandits loots their house, violates their women and kills them all, that they are calling on some aspect of human behaviour which is somehow contrary to nature, it just means
that gaining benefits from group co-operation doesn't grant invincibility.
Quote:
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?
Humans have the ability to conceptualise and forward plan. It is an amazing benefit of having advanced orders of intentionality (again, look up "theory of mind" - great topic). Tell me one person who does boring paperwork for fun...no one? No. Probably doing it to get paid. We need money to live, which, I think it is safe to say, is a powerful natural impulse.
Quote:
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)?
Straw man. Who said that decisions happen in the body before the consciousness notices it? All I said is that our genetic make up determines what neurotransmitters are associated with certain stimuli. If someone shoves a rotting carcass under your nose, you react with revulsion, because millennia of evolution has rewarded that reaction to potentially pestilent material. Likewise any natural response to the environment. When you see an attractive woman and talk to her, we know that what you found attractive is initially certain physical characteristics which evolution has told us makes someone a suitable genetic partner to attempt to mate with. The "chemistry" which people have in courtship has been shown to be literally that. Not only do we secrete our own behaviour changing hormones in response to finding someone attractive, we also release airborne chemicals which subconsciously notifies the other person that we do, and depending on how mutual the situation is, their hormonal and behavioural response will adapt to the changing situation to give the appropriate signals. The idea that the biochemistry of the body is somehow "separate" from consciousness is baseless. Our consciousness IS a very complex set of biochemical process which is emergent from enough layers of complex self-referential informational processing. Again, check out theory of mind. Now I know that this is where we hit the sticking point as I suspect that such a concept is anathema to anyone of a religious persuasion, because it does away with the notion of a soul. The idea that WHO we are is just electrical and chemical activity in the brain is not only a highly complex notion, but a very uncomfortable one too, not to mention incredulous to those who haven't had the good fortune to study neuroscience at a high enough level. (I may have gone a little off track here, but this is my chosen subject, so I can talk for hours about it).
Quote:
And concerning the diplomatics: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.
No, it's not. If I thought you were an idiot, I just wouldn't waste my time replying. You should take my responses in good faith that they are as literal as I say they are. I don't think that needing an emotional crutch is being mentally weak, it is what it is. Christ, I use computer games as psychological crutch so I can escape from reality and relieve stress. This doesn't make me mentally weak, it makes me human. next.
Quote:
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".
I agree. Hence I can say that belief in god is no different to belief in dragons and no one can materialistically contest it. What I can not say is "altruism and morality are not inherent animal traits" without extraordinary proof, because the science says otherwise.
faetal on 6/2/2012 at 11:17
Quote Posted by Beleg Cúthalion
Still you are in your own understanding able to decide between A and B, measure things and even change your decision shortly after. You can be manipulated in this moment in time and you can deliberate long afterwards. Since making decisions affects almost everything on this planet, what would be the new way to deal with it if the current perspective was oldfashioned? It surely isn't to simply ignore it only because it's a product of natural processes. Of course, that's what I said earlier. It's only that evolution didn't shape you for a transcendent goal. It shapes you for goals, right, and some might find that goal on a transcendent layer, but it's not what evolution shaped you for in the first place.
Evolution didn't shape us to drink tequila shots out of a stripper's navel either, but our natural behaviours adapt to cultures of its time. Religions for example. Many of which have come and gone. Christianity is not special, it is just another religion. One of hundreds. Making decisions is as natural to humans as firing your tongue at a fly is for chameleons. It just seems like something more because (a) it is so complex and (b) we ARE humans, so we see things which we ourselves do as being somehow special rather than purely mechanistic.
Quote:
Employing "über-altruism"
can have effect on worldly life, you just cannot prove if it has any layer other than the worldly one.
You can't even know if there IS any layer other than the worldly one, so why start applying it to human behaviour. Bronze age literature isn't a great source of concepts to bring to a reasoned debate. You can't prove that all of your actions aren't the remote control machinations of giant space lizards, but that doesn't mean we bring it to the table with a serious face expression.
Quote:
Surely it's no use considering it for natural science, but asking for testimony from a transcendent layer is missing the point that a not-only-evolutionary reading of the evidence is possible as long as it doesn't contradict it on a comparable level.
So anything goes? The trouble with dismissing reason is that all admissible efforts become equally probable and equally ludicrous. This is the entire point of the flying spaghetti monster for example. So God gets equal consideration as Zeus, Ra, Yggdrasil etc... Inserting mythology just because there is room for it in the recesses is the god of the gaps argument again. I'll say again - it's a bit convenient the spaces which religious people point to as being god's dominion do conveniently seem to get smaller, darker and more esoteric the more we discover scientifically. At what point do you start to think - "hold on, maybe there is no god?". I'm just curious, because humans have been playing pin the tail on the deity with decreasing success for centuries now.
Quote:
Now come on, your question can even be answered within the good old 19th century creation image... why would a god create the rules to be good and altruistic and then only living beings that cannot but obey? It's like building a model railway and expecting it to evolve.
If god made man in his own image and the universe is for his pleasure, then what can we infer from wormholes?
Beleg Cúthalion on 6/2/2012 at 12:01
Quote Posted by faetal
How is picking a fictional story anything even remotely useful in a debate which is trying to address real life?
It was an example to point out decisions that men can make under certain circumstances. I didn't think it was so hard to imagine that this was a possible situation.
Quote Posted by Faetal
Who said that decisions happen in the body before the consciousness notices it? All I said is that our genetic make up determines what neurotransmitters are associated with certain stimuli.
I probably put it down unexactly, but that's what I read (again) just a few days ago, in any way it comes down to that decisionmaking is often or always precast by bio-chemical (or whatever) reactions (to e.g. stimuli), right? What would be your idea on treating decisionmaking in a social aspect then (just because it might be a more open field of discussion)?
By the way, I don't depend on a separation of soul and body since I consider everything in relation to a worldly environment. If my environment suffers in any way from what parts of me want to do, all of it can be completely natural.
Quote Posted by faetal
I'll say again - it's a bit convenient the spaces which religious people point to as being god's dominion do conveniently seem to get smaller, darker and more esoteric the more we discover scientifically.
That's true for the more or less tangible/perceivable things attributed to a deity but as long as a transcendent layer is per se unperceivable you cannot judge any sort of "size shrink". Even if you were able to explain every single accident in the history of the universe as part of a very big causal chain it would still be limited to what you perceive. I know this is pushing the discussion into the unknown but strictly speaking any attempt to hold "god" at bay or declare his/her/its dominion is superfluous. The weakness of the Flying Spaghetti Monster spoof is that it avoids the discussion, but that's probably why it's a spoof.
Nicker on 6/2/2012 at 12:12
Quote Posted by Beleg Cúthalion
That's true for the more or less tangible/perceivable things attributed to a deity but as long as a transcendent layer is per se unperceivable you cannot judge any sort of "size shrink".
it is immaterial and for all intents and purposes, irrelevant.
Beleg Cúthalion on 6/2/2012 at 12:18
Glad that you got enough inside to judge this.
Nicker on 6/2/2012 at 12:21
Hey! You got something right.
