Posts by cofty

74

Was/Is Religion Useful Even if it isn't True?

by cofty in

in his book "the righteous mind" jonathan haidt proposes that religion served - and continues to serve an important role in bringing about cohesion within non-kin groups.. to put it very briefly haidt advocates a form of group selection but only insofar as it applies to humans.

our unique brains have made it possible for us to cooperate in groups in ways that are impossible for all non-human species.

despite their intelligence you will never see two chimps helping each other to carry the same log or one chimp pulling down a branch while the other removes the fruit.. his description is that humans are 90% chimp and 10% bee.

cofty

if evolution is true, then it follows that our mental perception is a tool which has been shaped for survival rather than a tool for accurately depicting the world around us - SBF

That is a false dichotomy between perceiving what is objectively true about the world and survival. What we choose to believe about unknowable future events is a different matter.

Science is the best tool we have to discover what is true. It makes up for the weaknesses in our subjective perception of the world.

It is certain that superstitious religious beliefs are not objectively true. However it is also possible that the advent of groupish religious ritual conferred an evolutionary advantage. If our brains are descended from ancestors whose brains tended towards groupish ritual that would explain a lot about our world.

74

Was/Is Religion Useful Even if it isn't True?

by cofty in

in his book "the righteous mind" jonathan haidt proposes that religion served - and continues to serve an important role in bringing about cohesion within non-kin groups.. to put it very briefly haidt advocates a form of group selection but only insofar as it applies to humans.

our unique brains have made it possible for us to cooperate in groups in ways that are impossible for all non-human species.

despite their intelligence you will never see two chimps helping each other to carry the same log or one chimp pulling down a branch while the other removes the fruit.. his description is that humans are 90% chimp and 10% bee.

cofty

I was really hoping he and Harris would have gotten into that when they spoke - Azor

Yes that was a very disappointing conversation.

Think secular humanism - Fink

Yes I would identify as a secular humanist but I don't feel in any way connected to any other human just because they share that philosophy.

74

Was/Is Religion Useful Even if it isn't True?

by cofty in

in his book "the righteous mind" jonathan haidt proposes that religion served - and continues to serve an important role in bringing about cohesion within non-kin groups.. to put it very briefly haidt advocates a form of group selection but only insofar as it applies to humans.

our unique brains have made it possible for us to cooperate in groups in ways that are impossible for all non-human species.

despite their intelligence you will never see two chimps helping each other to carry the same log or one chimp pulling down a branch while the other removes the fruit.. his description is that humans are 90% chimp and 10% bee.

cofty

Being that religion is mostly composed of ignorance, circumventing power, fear and deception, it might be better for humanity to leave religion and move away from all of which religion is composed of. ???

Ok it's hard to disagree. But if it's true that religion has been a main factor in social cohesion what will fill that role?

Are some of the social problems we face in the west today at least in part due to an extreme emphasis on individualism? I know it is controversial and there are studies supporting both sides but Haidt presents some data to support the claim that religious people are more community minded. That includes contributions to the community that are not directly related to church.

74

Was/Is Religion Useful Even if it isn't True?

by cofty in

in his book "the righteous mind" jonathan haidt proposes that religion served - and continues to serve an important role in bringing about cohesion within non-kin groups.. to put it very briefly haidt advocates a form of group selection but only insofar as it applies to humans.

our unique brains have made it possible for us to cooperate in groups in ways that are impossible for all non-human species.

despite their intelligence you will never see two chimps helping each other to carry the same log or one chimp pulling down a branch while the other removes the fruit.. his description is that humans are 90% chimp and 10% bee.

cofty

while I understand why Dennett and Dawkins refer to religion as a virus, I now find that viewpoint to be overly simplistic and incomplete

I also find Haidt's evidence to that effect to be persuasive.

How would it be possible to replace the group cohesion of religious ritual without lying to ourselves about the supernatural?

496

This is What I Would Need in Order to Believe

by cofty in

sometimes theists challenge atheists about what evidence would be required before they would believe.

various unlikely scenarios are offered in reply.

i have taken the bait myself in the past.. i think the correct answer is much more ordinary.

cofty

Waton - As a skeptic that's the sort of extreme example that I am not asking for.

As I said in my OP "If the god of christian theism did exist a lot of simple things would just make more sense."

74

Was/Is Religion Useful Even if it isn't True?

by cofty in

in his book "the righteous mind" jonathan haidt proposes that religion served - and continues to serve an important role in bringing about cohesion within non-kin groups.. to put it very briefly haidt advocates a form of group selection but only insofar as it applies to humans.

our unique brains have made it possible for us to cooperate in groups in ways that are impossible for all non-human species.

despite their intelligence you will never see two chimps helping each other to carry the same log or one chimp pulling down a branch while the other removes the fruit.. his description is that humans are 90% chimp and 10% bee.

cofty

There is absolutely no doubt that religion has been responsible for a huge amount of harm and oppression. I have often described myself as anti-theist .

My question is about the roots of religious ritual. Was it necessary in our transition from small bands of related hunter-gatherers into larger groups of people?

19

The Evolution of Morality - Jonathan Haidt

by cofty in

the question of how humans came to have a moral sense is one of the more interesting challenges offered by believers against unguided evolution.

even informed christians who accept the reality of evolution feel a need to add an additional step where god imbued man with a conscience.. non-supernatural explanations of the origin of morality usually focus on simple examples of reciprocal altruism and the ability to empathise with fellow creatures.

secular moral systems most often rest on the single foundation of the effects actions have on the well-being of conscious creatures.

cofty

I have to describe more about the sanctity/degradation foundation. It explains so much.

Haidt locates its roots in the "omnivore's dilemma".

Tomorrow - unless Azor has time to describe this part before then?

19

The Evolution of Morality - Jonathan Haidt

by cofty in

the question of how humans came to have a moral sense is one of the more interesting challenges offered by believers against unguided evolution.

even informed christians who accept the reality of evolution feel a need to add an additional step where god imbued man with a conscience.. non-supernatural explanations of the origin of morality usually focus on simple examples of reciprocal altruism and the ability to empathise with fellow creatures.

secular moral systems most often rest on the single foundation of the effects actions have on the well-being of conscious creatures.

cofty

Cofty- "experiments suggest that those on the right are far better at accurately understanding the perspective of those on the left than vice-versa."
Links? - GT

Haidt did an experiment along with Jesse Graham and Brian Nosek. They asked 2000 Americans to fill out the Moral Foundations Questionnaire. One third of the time they had to fill it out as themselves, one third as they thought a typical liberal might respond and one third as a typical conservative.

The results were clear and consistent. Liberals were really bad at trying to think like a conservative. They seemed to wrongly assume that care and fairness were not important parts of a conservatives moral matrix. Liberals also have difficulty understanding how Loyalty, Authority and Sacredness have anything to do with morality.

The problem for liberals is that these things are innate and the right know how to speak to these values.

19

The Evolution of Morality - Jonathan Haidt

by cofty in

the question of how humans came to have a moral sense is one of the more interesting challenges offered by believers against unguided evolution.

even informed christians who accept the reality of evolution feel a need to add an additional step where god imbued man with a conscience.. non-supernatural explanations of the origin of morality usually focus on simple examples of reciprocal altruism and the ability to empathise with fellow creatures.

secular moral systems most often rest on the single foundation of the effects actions have on the well-being of conscious creatures.

cofty

I wanted to say I can't believe somebody downvoted your comment; but of course I can. Which is very much Haidt's point.

You would really enjoy his book. He is a self-confessed liberal who has used experimental work to really try to understand why the right and left don't get each other.

One of the funny moments in the book is when he felt an irresistible urge to put a flag on his car after 9/11 The group instinct had kicked in despite his years of liberal conditioning. In the end he put a flag sticker in his window and balanced it up with a UN flag.

19

The Evolution of Morality - Jonathan Haidt

by cofty in

the question of how humans came to have a moral sense is one of the more interesting challenges offered by believers against unguided evolution.

even informed christians who accept the reality of evolution feel a need to add an additional step where god imbued man with a conscience.. non-supernatural explanations of the origin of morality usually focus on simple examples of reciprocal altruism and the ability to empathise with fellow creatures.

secular moral systems most often rest on the single foundation of the effects actions have on the well-being of conscious creatures.

cofty

Good question GT.

Haidt admits that as a liberal he too equated hierarchy = power = exploitation = evil.

He was later influenced by the work of Alan Fiske who described the "Authority Ranking" social relationship. Drawing on his own work in Africa Fiske showed that people who relate to each other in this way have mutual expectations that are more like those of a parent and child than those of a dictator and fearful underlings.

Conservatives react negatively to anything that subverts the traditions, institutions or values that provide stability.

The liberty/oppression intuition is interesting. It was a late addition to Haidt's scheme. It arose out of the need to control oppressive hierarchies. Once we invented spears and the language skills to gossip about bad leaders no tyrant was safe. We see it today in the right's demand for small government and Tea Parties slogan "Don't Tread on Me". Conservatives are more parochial. For them the sacred value is liberty.

But exactly the same moral intuition is motivating the left's drive for social justice and opposition to capitalism. Liberals are more universal in their moral concerns. Hatred of of oppression is found on both sides of the political spectrum. For liberals who rely more heavily on the care/harm foundation the Liberty/Oppression foundation is employed in the service of underdogs everywhere. It leads to appeals not just for equality of opportunity but equality of outcome.