GENIUS FORUMS

I just finished reading Daniel Dennett's recent book, Breaking the Spell: Religion as a Natural Phenomenon.

This book seems aimed at the religious reader (especially religious Americans) ; as an atheist I am probably not its target audience, but it was still worthwhile. The main idea seems to be that the excess of religion (e.g., terrorism) can really only be addressed by more moderate groups within those religions. Moderate Muslims need to speak out about extremists, and moderate Christians need to speak out about extremist Christians. If the moderates continue their silence with regard to extremism, they are in fact endorsing it.

So it would be an especially good read for any American moderate Christians. Muslim Extremism can not be effectively countered, it seems, unless Christians are willing to do the same, and come out and say that bombing abortion clinics, hating gays and so on are not Christian and explicitly work against those extremist elements, to not allow them to hide behind the label of Christianity, as if it were all the same thing.

Because of his target audience, Dennett is more sympathetic toward religion than I generally am. He wants to criticize certain elements of religion (the more extreme and dangerous elements), so he goes out of his way to recognize the positive elements of religion. Since I usually tend to think of religion as a kind of disease with little or no redeeming features, this was a different view for me to consider.

One point that crossed my mind concerns religion and morality. Generally I think of religion as being anti-morality: it dictates a fixed set of rules to follow, rather than encouraging moral thought and taking responsibility for your own actions; and these religious rules are enforced with the carrot and stick of heaven and hell.

But many people seem to believe that religion is the source of morality. They don’t think morality is possible without it – that morality needs something supernatural behind it to back it up, or else it would just be an arbitrary set of rules, and would be ignored. I’ve even heard religious people say that without their religion they would have no reason to not run around killing people at random (or some such).

Statistically, a case could be made that the religious are no more moral than the non-religious. For instance, there are no more atheists in jail than among the general population (assuming laws are a form of codified morality).

However, it could still be that religion is the source of morality among the religious. In America, at least, being atheist or non-religious has a correlation with income and social status. Strong religious beliefs are more common among the poor, who also end up in jail more. Who’s to say what is the cause, and what is effect? Does poverty encourage religion?

I guess what I’m arguing is that while religion is not true morality, for a large percentage of the population, it’s a close as they are going to get. For those people, maybe it really does encourage moral behavior, even if (from my point of view) it is for the “wrong” reasons. The average person, on his own, is not going to reason about morality any more effectively than, say a Catholic priest, so the division of labor makes sense – let someone else – an “expert” - think about those things, and just follow their recommendations, do what they say to do, believe what they say to believe.

So people are not just better off with their religion, but are better people than they would be without it. And I think a lot of religious people would say that they are better people because of their religion.

I'm of the opinion that a fella doesn't have to do much thinking to develop desirable ethical stances. If religion doesn't impart them on us, we'll get them from interaction with others, the media, and a plethora of other sources. Add to that the fact that humans have a natural tendency towards a degree of empathy without training, and I really can't imagine that religion does much of anything to positively guide action. On the other hand, without having a religion people are probably going to do some thinking about ethics, and I've heard some pretty stupid ethical ideas flown under the banner of rationality (Ayn Rand anyone?). When you boil it all down, the reason we don't act selfishly (as the term is commonly taken) is because it isn't in our self-interest to do so. Most of us don't want to hurt or harm others as a matter of course, and don't do so because we know we'll feel like shit if we do. Anyone who isn't a natural sociopath would have to have the empathy trained out of them, as opposed to needing to have it actively imparted in them.

ExpectantlyIronic wrote:

When you boil it all down, the reason we don't act selfishly (as the term is commonly taken) is because it isn't in our self-interest to do so. Most of us don't want to hurt or harm others as a matter of course, and don't do so because we know we'll feel like shit if we do. Anyone who isn't a natural sociopath would have to have the empathy trained out of them, as opposed to needing to have it actively imparted in them.

Most people haven’t the foggiest idea of what true empathy is. They talk of not wanting to hurt or harm others, but don’t go to the trouble to find out what the actual roots of suffering are. They’re only interested, as you point out, in having their own personal needs and desires met. And without knowing the deeper consequences of their actions, they share with “sociopaths” the trait of not really caring at all what effect they have on other people’s lives.

-

Dave wrote:

The main idea (of Dennet’s) seems to be that the excess of religion (e.g., terrorism) can really only be addressed by more moderate groups within those religions. Moderate Muslims need to speak out about extremists, and moderate Christians need to speak out about extremist Christians. If the moderates continue their silence with regard to extremism, they are in fact endorsing it.

Even though Dennet’s idea on the surface sounds somewhat rational, it just isn’t going to happen. The “moderates” of any religion are moderates first and foremost because they are timid. They like to keep their religious beliefs vague by being open to interpretation. They don’t want to discern what is, or is not, really true. They just want to keep their own little bubble intact. They know that there are “others” acting in their god's name, but they feel it in no way impacts on their relationship with that same god.

At base, the religious moderates are just like any other moderate group – they’re happy to go along until the day comes when chaos spills over into their own front yard. And even then, being true to form, they continue to take no responsibility for the mess, pointing instead at the chaos, and blaming it for their misfortunes.

So people are not just better off with their religion, but are better people than they would be without it. And I think a lot of religious people would say that they are better people because of their religion.

That Average Joe Religion who reckons he’s a better man for his plain and simple beliefs is blind to his part in creating the environment for extremists to arise from. His clinging to his false beliefs gives ground for the rise of many more false beliefs just to support it - and in such an environment, no wonder extremism flourishes.

I really can't see any justification for encouraging people to keep hold of their illusions in order to maintain the status quo. It is in no way a satisfactory conclusion.
.

Sue Hindmarsh wrote:At base, the religious moderates are just like any other moderate group – they’re happy to go along until the day comes when chaos spills over into their own front yard. And even then, being true to form, they continue to take no responsibility for the mess, pointing instead at the chaos, and blaming it for their misfortunes.

Well, yeah, I think Dennett is arguing that the chaos is already in the front yard, and the current approach is obviously not working. He is trying to convince moderates to take a stand against extremism - that they are betraying their own religion if they don't.

It will be hard to get moderate Christians to do that, but even more so with moderate Muslims, because of the Muslim extremists' willingness to kill people that disagree with them. Islam is very harsh on apostasy.

I really can't see any justification for encouraging people to keep hold of their illusions in order to maintain the status quo. It is in no way a satisfactory conclusion.

It's not an argument for encouraging anything. Rather, recognizing that if you take people's religion away from them, they will come up with something else, and that something else is more likely to be more toxic. Also, some religions also flourish under oppression. It does not hurt a religion to be expensive in some way, to require some sort or sacrifice. (After all, you get what you pay for.)

People don't just believe in their religion - more than that, they believe in belief. They believe that believing in something is a good thing; that it gives life meaning. This is why people are willing to be tolerant of other people's religions, even though they think they are not correct. I will expand on this point later.

Dhodges wrote:

It will be hard to get moderate Christians to do that, but even more so with moderate Muslims, because of the Muslim extremists' willingness to kill people that disagree with them. Islam is very harsh on apostasy.

Another problem with Dennett’s proposal is that even if moderate Muslims and Christians did speak out, I doubt it would have any impact on Extremist behavior. This is true because most Extremist Leaders brainwash their followers to believe that they are acting in full accordance with the specific demands of their religious texts. They also brainwash their followers into believing that the moderates are cowardly because they are not willing to put their teachings into action.

Basically, the extremists are already convinced that they are the superior follower of their religion. Any protest would probably only stregthen their conviction of the inherent weakness of moderates, and the inherent superiority of themselves.

People who are religious are better off with it than without it. If you grow up deferring moralistic decisions to some other entity then you're brain will be stuck in such a path and you'll be unable to make your own moral determinations without using your religion as a crutch.

Since this type of person is unable to think on their own they have to defer to a higher power whether it's simply listening to the Bible (as the word of God) or their local Priest they will not "rise up" and denounce anything unless directed to do so. So unless the religious establishment starts denouncing the actions of fundamentalists there will never be any change.

Another problem is factions within religions preventing anyone from ever speaking out in one voice. Different protestant groups wouldn't particularly care if another group was denouncing them and the Catholic has no power over anything other than it's own constituents. Muslim fundamentalists of every flavor seem to enjoy killing each other as much as they enjoy killing us and the silent (and seemingly invisible) "Muslim moderate majority" don't seem to have any voice whatsoever much less an ability to unilaterally denounce fundamentalism.

Expectantly Ironic wrote:

I'm of the opinion that a fella doesn't have to do much thinking to develop desirable ethical stances. If religion doesn't impart them on us, we'll get them from interaction with others, the media, and a plethora of other sources.

Being unthinking and uncritically accepting what other people say is a perfect recipe for ethical disaster. Apart from anything else, it creates the conditions for mob behaviour, mob lynchings, political correctness, dictators gaining control of the population, and all sorts of related horrors.

At best, all it can do is keep a person unconscious and harmless. However, being unconscious and harmless doesn't constitute ethical behaviour. All it does is cause a person to abrogate responsibility for his own behaviour.

In my view, a person doesn't even begin to engage in ethical behaviour until he removes all delusions from his mind and comprehends the nature of Reality. For only then has he the insight and clarity of mind that can determine what is the wisest course of action in each situation. If a person's mind is still filled with delusions, then his ethical decision-making is going to be affected by these delusions.

Add to that the fact that humans have a natural tendency towards a degree of empathy without training, and I really can't imagine that religion does much of anything to positively guide action.

People also have a natural tendency towards greed and violence. Religion attempts to undermine those tendencies. The main problem is that religion doesn't really deal with the root causes of greed and violence. Instead, its approach is draconian in nature and tries to appeal to people's addiction to greed and violence - e.g. promising them heaven and threatening them with hell.

On the other hand, without having a religion people are probably going to do some thinking about ethics, and I've heard some pretty stupid ethical ideas flown under the banner of rationality (Ayn Rand anyone?).

There is a world of difference between something being flown under the banner of rationality and actually being rational. I don't consider Ayn Rand to be a good example of a rational human being.

When you boil it all down, the reason we don't act selfishly (as the term is commonly taken) is because it isn't in our self-interest to do so. Most of us don't want to hurt or harm others as a matter of course, and don't do so because we know we'll feel like shit if we do. Anyone who isn't a natural sociopath would have to have the empathy trained out of them, as opposed to needing to have it actively imparted in them.

If that was the case, then religion as an ethical force wouldn't be needed. The sad reality is that most people are greedy, violent sociopaths who don't really care about anyone. The only saving grace is that they are usually far too timid to consider pursuing their greedy desires in a full-on manner. Their timidity forces them to rely on others. That is common ethics in a nutshell.

-

David Quinn,

David Quinn wrote:If a person's mind is still filled with delusions, then his ethical decision-making is going to be affected by these delusions.

What I am thinking right now is that some intrinsic value to truth is your delusion. While others might value utility or the ego, all your decisions are based on what will bring about the least delusion.

This is like a delusion in itself, one that Kevin, in a letter, seems to have realized (from my understanding) when he said:

Kevin Solway wrote:I have recently realized how shallow I am. I am shallow because I am not
deeply immersed in fantasy. Because of my fear I flounder on the surface
making foolish and undignified noises.

Zarathustra's last vice was supposed to have been compassion. I have many
vices, but my biggest vice is probably my attachment to truth. Yet it dwindles.

My hatred for the herd is gone, and with it my love of truth. I can no longer
look down on the masses. They are geniuses, Buddhas, truly they are. To
choose to live in fantasy, success and failure, gain and loss, and be happy with
all: happy in pain, happy in joy, and to live long and healthy, is surely godlike
almost beyond comprehension. They feel themselves individual and whole,
free as can be.

David Quinn wrote:In my view, a person doesn't even begin to engage in ethical behaviour until he removes all delusions from his mind and comprehends the nature of Reality. For only then has he the insight and clarity of mind that can determine what is the wisest course of action in each situation. If a person's mind is still filled with delusions, then his ethical decision-making is going to be affected by these delusions.

David, I agree with all that. However, there is the (let's say) 95% of the population that does not.

I originally posted this in "Worldy Matters" because I don't think there is a philosophical issue here. I think it's strictly a practical issue, a political issue - what can or should be done about the majority of humans, given the way they are, and that they are not interested in changing? Can the thoughts of these masses be moved slightly in a way that will avoid, or at least reduce, some of the ongoing bloodshed and wars?

It's kind of a lesser of two evils argument. People need to believe in something. Is it possible to tweak those beliefs in such a way as to reduce the bad results, while still giving people what they need from religion? If that is possible, isn't that a greater good than promoting "truth" among some small group?

--

Consider an example that has nothing to do with religion, but is from my real life. I know this guy who commutes to work, about twenty miles each way. To do this, he bought a big-ass truck. Why? Because he likes to fish. He felt he needed to have something big enough to tow his boat.

His imaginary boat. He does not have a boat, can't afford one, and could not have one given his current living situation (he has no place to store one).

He was constantly complaining about how much money he was spending on gas, so when he was thinking about getting something new, I suggested that he get something smaller that got good gas mileage. But he ended up getting a Ford Explorer, which is a big-ass truck capable of hauling his imaginary boat (which is apparently pretty big).

In retrospect, rather than suggesting that he look for a car that gets good gas mileage, I should have tried to convince him that he didn't need such a large boat - maybe talk up the value of canoes - and suggest a smaller car that is good for towing. I should have addressed his actual needs rather than try to present a rational argument.

--

People are not going to give up religions, but there might be a lot of practical value in convincing them they don't need such a large boat, so to speak. An example would be promoting the idea "God hates intolerance of other religions." While this isn't exactly a true statement, it's a much better belief for people to have than "God wants infidels killed."

For Islam in particular, it might mean promoting the concept of ijtihad instead of jihad.

Is a big thought really harder to lift than a little thought?

Matt Gregory wrote:Is a big thought really harder to lift than a little thought?

Is a big rock really harder to lift than a small rock? Obviously.

Is not drinking alcohol and not having a girlfriend really harder to do than drinking alcohol and having a girlfriend?

For most people, being intelligent is indeed harder to tolerate than being foolish.

Matt wrote:

Is a big thought really harder to lift than a little thought?

Then Cory wrote:

Is a big rock really harder to lift than a small rock? Obviously.

Is not drinking alcohol and not having a girlfriend really harder to do than drinking alcohol and having a girlfriend?

I think it is so difficult to live aligned with the truth because many times big thoughts have very little power over small thoughts.

Small thoughts end up feeling big, and big thoughts end up feeling small.

For instance: The girlfriend issue:

One may have all the realizations of the pettiness of woman, one may have direct experience of how silly she is, how tiny her mind is in the face of god, and one may have all that knowledge, but…

The fact is that ones biology has enormous power over these realizations and insights. The entire body is genetically controlled to behave a certain way, to pursue certain things, and it has functioned this way for thousands of years, and then suddenly, we try to change the entire functioning of the body through realizations, through insight, through logic.

So the question is can ‘intelligent realizations’ fundamentally change the functioning of the body at the genetic level?

I suppose it depends on the degree to which the body is conditioned. For instance: If a large percentage of my ancestors for the last five thousand years were sex addicts and alcoholics, then the probability of logical insights drastically altering my biology is greatly decreased.

Ryan R wrote:The fact is that ones biology has enormous power over these realizations and insights. The entire body is genetically controlled to behave a certain way, to pursue certain things, and it has functioned this way for thousands of years, and then suddenly, we try to change the entire functioning of the body through realizations, through insight, through logic.

I can admire a nice car without wanting to drive it (or own it).

You can't change your biology, but you can change how you respond to it.

DHodges wrote:I originally posted this in "Worldy Matters" because I don't think there is a philosophical issue here. I think it's strictly a practical issue, a political issue - what can or should be done about the majority of humans, given the way they are, and that they are not interested in changing? Can the thoughts of these masses be moved slightly in a way that will avoid, or at least reduce, some of the ongoing bloodshed and wars?

It's kind of a lesser of two evils argument. People need to believe in something. Is it possible to tweak those beliefs in such a way as to reduce the bad results, while still giving people what they need from religion? If that is possible, isn't that a greater good than promoting "truth" among some small group?

Why should we try to stop bloodshed and wars? You seem to be environmentally concerned and overpopulation is a growing problem for this planet. It is inevitable that more people are going to die and I'm wondering why you call this "bad results"? Is it inherently good when human beings don't die and bad when they do?

David,

Being unthinking and uncritically accepting what other people say is a perfect recipe for ethical disaster.

I'm speaking of the formation of core values here. Reason can only help us see the path to actualize what we desire, but there is nothing reasonable to be said about what we should desire. As much as it might pain us to think of ourselves as meme machines, at least such a fact keeps our ethical views somewhat in line with a norm, and allows for productive discussion of matters where the means to the ends we want aren't exactly clear or agreed upon.

If that was the case, then religion as an ethical force wouldn't be needed.

I don't think it is.

The sad reality is that most people are greedy, violent sociopaths who don't really care about anyone.

I think that's where we split on this issue. In my experience, people are more often driven to do the wrong thing out of fear, as opposed to the right thing. To call the majority of people 'violent sociopaths' strikes me as simply absurd. It is possible that the people I know are just atypical and awesome examples of human beings, but somehow I doubt it. I do, though, have a great deal of empathy myself, and can usually see where folks are coming from in even their worst behavior.

Cory Duchesne wrote:

Matt Gregory wrote:Is a big thought really harder to lift than a little thought?

Is a big rock really harder to lift than a small rock? Obviously.

Is not drinking alcohol and not having a girlfriend really harder to do than drinking alcohol and having a girlfriend?

For most people, being intelligent is indeed harder to tolerate than being foolish.

Well what I was (admittedly lamely) trying to get at is the cause of it. I mean, is it really the case that people don't pursue long-term benefits because it is hard to understand them or is it because of some other reason? Maybe I'm just being obtuse but I find it hard to believe that someone can't understand the benefits of good mileage, so I have to think that he got that truck for some completely different reason and just justified it with the boat talk. People rarely say what they're really thinking.

Ryan R wrote:I think it is so difficult to live aligned with the truth because many times big thoughts have very little power over small thoughts.

Small thoughts end up feeling big, and big thoughts end up feeling small.

For instance: The girlfriend issue:

By the way, it will comfort Elizabeth to know that I broke it off with the girlfriend a few days ago. I recently read about a study that found that talking about your problems increases stress, and, although I wonder if reading about that isn't influencing my behavior, I'm completely convinced that that is true and talking about the negative aspects of my relationship on here and elsewhere made me take action due to the increased stress. Anyway, just had to share that.

One may have all the realizations of the pettiness of woman, one may have direct experience of how silly she is, how tiny her mind is in the face of god, and one may have all that knowledge, but…

The fact is that ones biology has enormous power over these realizations and insights. The entire body is genetically controlled to behave a certain way, to pursue certain things, and it has functioned this way for thousands of years, and then suddenly, we try to change the entire functioning of the body through realizations, through insight, through logic.

Yeah, I totally agree that emotions and the body have far more sway over the mind than logic until you condition yourself to function the other way around and value truth. I know it's possible, though, because I've done it to a certain extent in myself. In fact, I see the normal development of a child to an adult not as the collecting of education and facts, but as a series of overcomings of attachments and the gradual change from a bodily/emotionally oriented being to a reason/truth oriented one. That makes a lot more sense to me.

So the question is can ‘intelligent realizations’ fundamentally change the functioning of the body at the genetic level?

I suppose it depends on the degree to which the body is conditioned. For instance: If a large percentage of my ancestors for the last five thousand years were sex addicts and alcoholics, then the probability of logical insights drastically altering my biology is greatly decreased.

I don't know what you mean by changing oneself at the genetic level. You mean changing your sperm so your offspring are wiser? I don't believe that's possible at all. Perhaps you're just referring to your most basic level of functioning?

Frankly I haven't seen a correlation with moral development and religion one way or the other.

I was shocked when I found out that some religious people thought atheists were immoral, and not I'm equally amused to find out that some atheists think that religious people have no morals. Ah, the irony. I'm sensing bias on both sides.

I was actually talking about morality and religion recently with one of my good friends who is Catholic, after I read this...
http://discovermagazine.com/2007/may/th ... m=morality

My friend said that he thought most people wouldn't contemplate morality on their own and that religion gave them an avenue on which to better develop their conscience/sense of morality. He also said that unfortunately some religions may sway the consciences of people away from what they would have otherwise considered "good" or "right".

Another interesting thing I came across, was about Kohlberg who created the stages of moral development and Fowler who created a similar theory of stages of faith development. Kohlberg's research led him to conclude that moral development preceded faith development by a few months.
http://glasnost.itcarlow.ie/~garveya/Stage_7.pdf

All faith is not the same, and all atheism is not the same. Many people believe and many people disbelieve for irrational reasons. I also know good, reasonable people who have faith, and good, reasonable people who are atheists.

I think that the fire and brime stone technique in religion may propel some people to do what is accepted as right, so it might me good for society, but i don't think it's good for the soul. Beyond the idea of heaven and hell, I think religion gives people a support system, whether it be a community of people in the church or a relationship with god through prayer. Sometimes doing what we know is right is really hard, because of our other conflicting desires, and people can find strength in god.

I don't think people are greedy, violent sociopaths either. At least I have come across those kind of people. I think people are generally good, and yet human nature is flawed. I think most of the time people choose the wrong thing because it seems easier, they under-estimate their own strength, and yes fear does seem to have a lot to do with it.

On the other hand, you just have to look to Nazi Germany or read Lord of the Flies to figure out that the moral integrity of individuals(or lack of it) reflects in society, and things can and do fall apart. But I don't think that means that people are evil, i think it means something much worse...that good people are capable of doing horrible things.

I'm not sure how much moderates speaking out would sway the extremists, but perhaps it would impede the conversion of people to extremism, i don't really know. Of course moderates should speak out either way in my opinion. And I would like to make a distinction, moderates aren't called moderates because they believe moderately, they are called moderates because what they believe is a moderate version of the faith. I know moderates who have deep faith. I was always under the impression the extremists had a corrupt version of their faith, and didn't truely understand their religion in context. hmmm.

WhorlyWhelk,

DQ: If a person's mind is still filled with delusions, then his ethical decision-making is going to be affected by these delusions.

WW: What I am thinking right now is that some intrinsic value to truth is your delusion.

I agree that believing truth has intrinsic value is a delusion. In reality, nothing has intrinsic value, not even truth. But nonetheless, I choose to value truth because it pleases me to do so. I can't think of anything better to value.

It is only through the valuing of truth that one can burn away all valuing, even to truth. It is like when a campfire burns away all the wood and then itself disappears.

While others might value utility or the ego, all your decisions are based on what will bring about the least delusion.

Yes. Or more accurately, the complete extinguishing of delusion.

This is like a delusion in itself, one that Kevin, in a letter, seems to have realized (from my understanding) when he said:

I have recently realized how shallow I am. I am shallow because I am not
deeply immersed in fantasy. Because of my fear I flounder on the surface
making foolish and undignified noises.

Zarathustra's last vice was supposed to have been compassion. I have many
vices, but my biggest vice is probably my attachment to truth. Yet it dwindles.

My hatred for the herd is gone, and with it my love of truth. I can no longer
look down on the masses. They are geniuses, Buddhas, truly they are. To
choose to live in fantasy, success and failure, gain and loss, and be happy with
all: happy in pain, happy in joy, and to live long and healthy, is surely godlike
almost beyond comprehension. They feel themselves individual and whole,
free as can be.

I believe he was merely giving a colorful description of his own temporary descent into ordinary egotistical consciousness here.

-

Cat wrote:

I was shocked when I found out that some religious people thought atheists were immoral, and not I'm equally amused to find out that some atheists think that religious people have no morals. Ah, the irony. I'm sensing bias on both sides.

I consider atheists and religious people to be equally immoral. To the degree that a person doesn't seek the ultimate truth and embrace it fully, he is being immoral. To make camp in a belief-system, of whatever kind, is immoral.

I don't think people are greedy, violent sociopaths either. At least I have come across those kind of people. I think people are generally good, and yet human nature is flawed. I think most of the time people choose the wrong thing because it seems easier, they under-estimate their own strength, and yes fear does seem to have a lot to do with it.

If a person seeks personal happiness, he is being greedy. If he blocks out rationality and higher modes of thought, he is being violent. Simply having an ego makes one greedy and violent.

What the world generally calls "good people" are those whose greed and violence is molded to include the well-being of a few other people. Their self-centeredness is widened enough to include a few other people. This is why a "decent" family man has little hesitation in being violent towards anyone or anything which threatens his family and why he constantly tries to extract as much money as possible from the world in order to provide his family with the "good life".

It is why he wants to get on with others and not rock the boat. His own personal happiness depends upon the good will of others.

On the other hand, you just have to look to Nazi Germany or read Lord of the Flies to figure out that the moral integrity of individuals(or lack of it) reflects in society, and things can and do fall apart. But I don't think that means that people are evil, i think it means something much worse...that good people are capable of doing horrible things.

I think it means that people's "goodness" is a surface veneer which easily breaks down when they are no longer getting what they want. Their insatiable lust for happiness is no longer being provided for by normal, ordered society.

-

From the article Cat posted:
http://discovermagazine.com/2007/may/th ... m=morality

A healthy man walks into a hospital where five patients are awaiting organ transplants. Is it morally acceptable to kill the man in order to harvest his organs to save the lives of five others? If you instantly answered no, you share a near-universal response to the dilemma, one offered by peoples and cultures all over the globe. But how did you reach this conclusion? Was it a rational decision learned in childhood, or was it—as Harvard evolutionary biologist and cognitive neuroscientist Marc Hauser claims—based on instincts encoded in our brains by evolution?

Well, I think it's obvious that most people are moral on the most immediate level because it's easiest. I mean, whew! We didn't have to kill someone (and five people just died . . . yeehaw!). I don't think it takes an elaborate scientific theory to prove that people do whatever is easiest.

If the five ill people in question were wise people, and the healthy person an ordinary egotist, then from a wise perspective it would be moral to kill him and use his organs.

It all depends on your values, doesn't it.

The researcher isn't dealing with the reality that most people are unthinking creatures with conventional values that have been mindlessly absorbed.

-

Ryan R wrote:Matt wrote:

Is a big thought really harder to lift than a little thought?

Then Cory wrote:

Is a big rock really harder to lift than a small rock? Obviously.

Is not drinking alcohol and not having a girlfriend really harder to do than drinking alcohol and having a girlfriend?

I think it is so difficult to live aligned with the truth because many times big thoughts have very little power over small thoughts.

A person plagued by little thoughts is those little thoughts, and those little thoughts dictate their deeds which are likewise little, and are likewise a part of what they are. They are, Relatively speaking, little. Now, being little, they have a difficult time tolerating the consequences of having their action guided by their biggest thoughts, for that would lead to big deeds, which would cause them more stress than they are willing to take on. They feel the deed is too much weight for them to lift. It scares them. So they don't think about it, and focus on things that make them feel good. For instance, dwelling on how inferior woman are can actually be quite comforting to the ego.

A person may be able to admire big deeds from afar, and likewise admire the thoughts that motivate those deeds, but he feels that he himself cannot do those deeds. However, he can't know what he is or isn't capable of for certain - the fact is that he just doesn't feel motivated to act. He perhaps apprehends the intense anxiety and agony that might result if he actually acted in accordance with his loftiest thoughts, and thus he apprehends (very vaguely) that deeds and consequences guided by his highest thoughts are simply too heavy for him to handle. And so he merely has a lofty belief system, one that has largely been inherited from other people. He has no will to act, as he knows that if he acts highly, he will have to deal with consequences that are far more stressful than the consequences of smaller deeds, which he adheres to like a child clinging to his mother.

Small thoughts end up feeling big, and big thoughts end up feeling small.

I think that is because ones big thoughts are very remote from ones actual deeds. One perhaps has a very poor relationship to ones thoughts. Consider how small, poorly defined and insignificant a massive, sharp and magnificent object appears when you are far, far away from it.

Another Analogy: children will get excited over things that an adult would consider rather trivial, boring and silly. And it's true that such children will regard the affairs of an adult as not very important. But in this case, I think that children are simply not able to fathom the stress the adult must go through, given that they, as children, are provided less responsibility and live more remotely from the greater responsibility. For instance consider how poorly a child keeps his composure when he accidentally gets lost in a strange place without his mother or father. He may have confidence and well being when he has comforting circumstances such as his family and friends, but when he is suddenly stripped of these comforts that make him secure, his thoughts aren't mature enough to handle the independence, and thus he gets very disturbed and panicky, not to mention, very relieved when he returns to comforting circumstances.

For instance: The girlfriend issue:

One may have all the realizations of the pettiness of woman, one may have direct experience of how silly she is, how tiny her mind is in the face of god, and one may have all that knowledge, but…

All of that knowledge you just mention above, aside from being a very small fragment, is actually very comforting not to mention dangerous in the hands of immature people. It really isn't that disturbing for a young man to think so low of woman, in fact, it bolsters his self esteem and conceit. Those so called big thoughts, are, in small minds, small thoughts which lead to small deeds.

The fact is that ones biology has enormous power over these realizations and insights.

One's biology may be weak, and this biology may limit ones capacity for acting in a way that is too removed from the comforts of conventional social bonds. Religion for instance is a way for people to warmly get together en masse, in a way that is not too confrontational and threatening to their more private comforts. The activity of weak people is a constant escape, a defense from doing anything too challenging and stressful. Watch how angry and/or depressed a Christian or Woman will get if you challenge the sweet syrup of their feminism or Christianity. They aren't strong enough to handle a reality too stark and unemotional.

The entire body is genetically controlled to behave a certain way, to pursue certain things, and it has functioned this way for thousands of years, and then suddenly, we try to change the entire functioning of the body through realizations, through insight, through logic.

Likewise, if you challenge a child to do something that he just isn't mature enough to do, the child finds it very stressful. Some children are not very keen on doing certain activities. They are frightened or stressed out by activities that seem to outweigh their abilities, and some children will cower more easily than others when faced with learning to ride a bike, learning to swim, learning to play a sport, etc.

So the question is can ‘intelligent realizations’ fundamentally change the functioning of the body at the genetic level?

That would be something akin to Lamarckism, which I don't think there is evidence for. However, there is evidence that environmental stimuli can dictate how ones body takes shape. A child raised in an environment where there are a lot of seemingly cool kids 'spitting and smoking' may submit to these conventions and develop very strong habits of spitting and smoking, habits which I think we can trace to physical formations that have developed in one's physiology. So in that sense, one's biology can be altered for the better or worse by the environment.

Environment, depending on its qualities, can bring out the best or worst in one's genes.

I suppose it depends on the degree to which the body is conditioned. For instance: If a large percentage of my ancestors for the last five thousand years were sex addicts and alcoholics, then the probability of logical insights drastically altering my biology is greatly decreased.

I would say the probability of being able to do deeds that are guided by logical thoughts is drastically decreased if you have inherited relatively weaker hardware.

Some hardware is too weak to effectively handle the software that a stronger piece of hardware can more easily perform. I had a motherboard that fried because it was handling software operations far too taxing. The demands of the software required a more advanced hardware system than the one I had.

So basically, there is a big difference between merely having the software, and actually being able to operate the software coherently and efficiently. Likewise, there is a big difference between having a great deal of weight to lift, and the muscles to lift that weight.

Matt Gregory wrote:

Cory Duchesne wrote:

Matt Gregory wrote:Is a big thought really harder to lift than a little thought?

Is a big rock really harder to lift than a small rock? Obviously.

Is not drinking alcohol and not having a girlfriend really harder to do than drinking alcohol and having a girlfriend?

For most people, being intelligent is indeed harder to tolerate than being foolish.

Well what I was (admittedly lamely) trying to get at is the cause of it. I mean, is it really the case that people don't pursue long-term benefits because it is hard to understand them or is it because of some other reason?

I guess you a referring to the guy Dave was talking about, with the imaginary boat. I think that in his case he just imagined the emotional benefits of a small vehicle and then imagined the emotional benefits of a bigger, more showy vehicle. He apparently found the later more comforting and exciting. Who knows, he might have found the idea of small vehicle very anxiety inducing.

Maybe I'm just being obtuse but I find it hard to believe that someone can't understand the benefits of good mileage, so I have to think that he got that truck for some completely different reason and just justified it with the boat talk.

Inwardly he may have very low self esteem, he may be very anguished, and so having a big truck and a boat to brag about makes him feel better. His emotions are ruling over his reason. I'm sure he apprehended the logic of Dave's advice, but he found it too dry and empty. Having anything less than a truck and boat leaves him feeling too naked, vulnerable, anxious. He sounds like a very sensitive and emotional man.

People rarely say what they're really thinking.

That's right - because what they're thinking is often quite embarrassing and disturbing. People put out an image of strength, displaying a big truck, boat, etc as their ID card or badge, but inside they are a mess, as they are hurting, ashamed, embarrassed, frightened, insecure, etc.