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.
The topic subject is explained in the OP.
I am taking it as a given that the supernatural assumptions of religion are not objectively true. If somebody disagrees and wants to discuss that instead then that would be a different thread.
Did religion play a valuable role in our evolution, binding together large groups of people to achieve common goals? Despite the obvious problems with religion do we lose anything valuable by discarding it completely?
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.
Which is why we have science.
I'm having trouble connecting this with the topic though.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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."
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.
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?
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.
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?
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- "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.
