Is Religion Bad For Society?

[Wyman]

CL:

things that I find morally reprehensible, like treating women as inferior beings and a property of men, or killing their religious enemies, and so on.

It's more like basic cognitive science. True that Kant's project ultimately deals with cognition, but it has also found its roots in other sciences.

Are you saying you have an ethics based on cognitive science? How does cognitive science tell you what is morally reprehensible? I was referring to Kant's categorical imperative, which parrots the Christians' golden rule of do unto others, etc. and his other formulation that each person should be treated as an end unto himself/herself. It (Kant's imperative) sounds like your claim that people empathize with others and so would want to treat them as they would want to be treated and value the life of others as they value their own.

I don't see how this is merely 'basic cognitive science,' other than perhaps a bland claim that some (most) people do, in fact, empathize with others. But the fact that people exhibit empathy does nothing to tell us how to act or whether to value empathy over other human dispositions.

[Blaggard]

Blaggard, I don't know exactly what you are maintaining. It seems teleological. Dawkins wrote a book called 'The Blind Watchmaker: Why the Evidence of Evolution Reveals a Universe Without Design.' Mutations are random. Inherited traits become clustered if they provide a substantial survival advantage (but not always.) I get these ideas from Dawkins, I am not a scientist.

If (huge IF that I don't agree with), religion is coded in our DNA and you say that we are evolving away from it, then I take it you are saying that people with such genes previously had a substantial survival advantage and that people without it will have an advantage in the future. This all sounds extremely speculative. Interesting, but too speculative for me, since it all depends on chance - if the Taliban or right winger Americans take over the world then not much chance of your prediction coming true. Or if all the Irish Catholics have sixteen babies each and the secular humanists like CL have 1.5 babies, which gene wins?

You may like Thomas Nagels' newest book (don't have the title in front of me). He argues for the possibility of a teleological explanation of physical laws, including evolution. I did not find the book too convincing (even he maintains that he only thinks he shows the possibility of such a view), but the first half or so sets out the issues nicely.

Probably because you didn't watch the links, no one does, and so basically you did not get my point. I wouldn't worry though no one ever watches links, and few seldom get my point, I am used to it. It's basically an attention thing, people just don't have the time or attention span to actually understand anyone's point of view before they respond to it. Which means you just get trite verbiage in lieu of anything...

If (huge IF that I don't agree with), religion is coded in our DNA and you say that we are evolving away from it, then I take it you are saying that people with such genes previously had a substantial survival advantage and that people without it will have an advantage in the future. This all sounds extremely speculative. Interesting, but too speculative for me, since it all depends on chance - if the Taliban or right winger Americans take over the world then not much chance of your prediction coming true. Or if all the Irish Catholics have sixteen babies each and the secular humanists like CL have 1.5 babies, which gene wins?

Sigh*

It's not speculative, will someone somewhere ever watch links? I doubt it...

It doesn't depend on chance this is actual scientific experiment into psychology and neurology, actual experiments done on the human mind, actual experiments on people who have suffered certain conditions, for real, I didn't say that just to choke your chain. ::)

And you wonder why philosophy is a dying art, seriously guys you need to keep up, this whole post post modern bs is not going to fly. I am not sure why this is now the paradigm, to attack science and ignore religion, but I think your tutors in college are just basically assholes without a clue about the modern world, justifying their existence by teaching 100 year old bs to gullible scholars.

Christ no offence people but you are in the 19th century where as science is in the 21st, I don't begin to understand what lazy pricks did that but it is where you are it seems. So tell your tutors they are lazy, behind the times, and just coasting, if not for your own sake for the sake of decent philosophy. ::)

You may like Thomas Nagels' newest book (don't have the title in front of me). He argues for the possibility of a teleological explanation of physical laws, including evolution. I did not find the book too convincing (even he maintains that he only thinks he shows the possibility of such a view), but the first half or so sets out the issues nicely.

Maybe but does he just ignore the whole scientific field and all experiment, because if he is just the usual philosopher- if so I am not sure I will appreciate vacuous arm waving for the 1 millionth time in lieu of actually knowing anything about the field.

[Wyman]

Blaggard, the first link didn't work and the second - well I watched as much as I could take, as it appeared to present the view of some 'select' scientists who are at odds with the mainstream. I took that to mean they were on the fringe. They spoke of inheriting environmentally influenced traits from recent relatives. That sounds like recycled 19th century thinking to me (Nietzsche believed in that also). Again, I'm not a scientist. I will stick with Dawkins for my amateur knowledge about evolution, however. And who is arguing against science? That's a rhetorical question. By the way, when someone asks for a clarification of your position, giving cryptic replies followed by links to over an hour of videos is not really what most think of when they think of a 'discussion.' Having said that, I enjoyed several of your other posts, I don't know what got stuck in your craw in this topic.

[uwot]

Christ no offence people but you are in the 19th century

None taken, but as someone who understands science, do you think your sample is representative of philosophy?

[Blaggard]

Blaggard, the first link didn't work and the second - well I watched as much as I could take, as it appeared to present the view of some 'select' scientists who are at odds with the mainstream. I took that to mean they were on the fringe. They spoke of inheriting environmentally influenced traits from recent relatives. That sounds like recycled 19th century thinking to me (Nietzsche believed in that also). Again, I'm not a scientist. I will stick with Dawkins for my amateur knowledge about evolution, however. And who is arguing against science? That's a rhetorical question. By the way, when someone asks for a clarification of your position, giving cryptic replies followed by links to over an hour of videos is not really what most think of when they think of a 'discussion.' Having said that, I enjoyed several of your other posts, I don't know what got stuck in your craw in this topic.

Nowhere near an hour any of them but at least you watched it which is cool.

Basically you can get anyone to experience religious experiences just by stimulating certain areas of the brain. You can also find that people who have epileptic religious fits will also experience religion even if they are an atheist, epilepsy can even make those who are not religious see spiritual visions. So it seems that there is some instinct in us to be or believe in religion. We have basically over the 10 million years of our ancestors evolved to have religious beliefs, we are basically programmed to do so. Have been since the start of our evolution and probably will be programmed to experience religion. That said of course is it God exists or is it just that we have been programmed to believe over time? There in lies the rub.

[Blaggard]

Christ no offence people but you are in the 19th century

None taken, but as someone who understands science, do you think your sample is representative of philosophy?

No but it does seem there is a lot of post modernism now in philosophy which I am at a loss to explain. What is it that is so wrong with science guys? I mean we all know it's for shit, because human beings are never that unbiased, but why are you turning on it?

[uwot]

No but it does seem there is a lot of post modernism now in philosophy which I am at a loss to explain.

It's got a lot to do with Feyerabend's Against Method. It makes the point that empiricism is now so dominant that epistemologically, there is no serious challenger.
However, empiricism, as Kant noted tells you nothing about metaphysics. Absolutely any story that isn't contradicted by the empirical data could be true. The fact that scientifically they are equally worthless, was misconstrued by some to mean they are equally valid, hence relativism. But if some story helps people live a 'meaningful' life, it is probably a good thing.

What is it that is so wrong with science guys? I mean we all know it's for shit, because human beings are never that unbiased, but why are you turning on it?

Science is the source of data. It is the way the world Is that needs understanding. It is not philosophy that is turning on science, it is people who fear they will be proved wrong. Philosophy cannot change the world is any more than science can, but as science is concerned with how the world is, philosophy tries to work out what to do about it. They don't need each other, but they might as well try and get along.

[Conde Lucanor]

Are you saying you have an ethics based on cognitive science?

No. I had said there were natural explanations for people having ethics without being compelled to find its source in a supernatural being.

How does cognitive science tell you what is morally reprehensible?

No. Science does not pretend to have a normative function. It doesn't have to, and I never said it did. But it can try to explain why and how there can be norms in society.

I was referring to Kant's categorical imperative, which parrots the Christians' golden rule of do unto others, etc. and his other formulation that each person should be treated as an end unto himself/herself. It (Kant's imperative) sounds like your claim that people empathize with others and so would want to treat them as they would want to be treated and value the life of others as they value their own.

I don't see how this is merely 'basic cognitive science,' other than perhaps a bland claim that some (most) people do, in fact, empathize with others. But the fact that people exhibit empathy does nothing to tell us how to act or whether to value empathy over other human dispositions.

Let's not forget the point in discussion was the intrinsic value of life, in other words, whether we needed to learn from an external agent (natural or supernatural) that life had a value to be preserved. I argued (against your obstinate proposal that someone or something else, external to the agent, has to "tell us how to act") that there are scientific explanations, developed by cognitive sciences, of the natural human tendency to empathize. Being an innate faculty, empathy, and much of its psychological or behavioral correlations, don't need to be imposed on the agent by a third agent (call it a god or a teacher).

Someone might never read Kant's complex disquisitions, but there's no compelling need to move the discussion to the context of Kant's project (although it can be done), since mirror neurons, emotional intelligence, and so on, are basic cognitive science.

[Wyman]

It haven't maintained that someone or something else 'has to to tell us' how to act. I have maintained, on pragmatic grounds, that a large portion of humankind ought to be told how to act, or the consequences would be bad. I guess we misunderstood each other and you were giving a counterexample.

I think that people can act according to nothing but reason (defined as something like scientific method, logic, empiricism). Some will value life more than others, prioritize their core beliefs as they see fit, and follow whatever system they come up with to its logical conclusion (according to their rational abilities). I am pessimistic as to what that would look like, but you seem to be optimistic, that's all. In the scientific spirit, to know who was right, there would have to be experiments, which is impossible. Reference to history leads to arguments that go round in circles due to interpretive differences (among other things).

I would say that finding core ethical beliefs (meaning in life, ethical maxims and such) in science is an empty proposition for me and many others. This is probably why you 'have known very bright people who have also baffled me with their beliefs in completely absurd myths.'

But I often see something in 'satisfied atheists' (to coin a phrase) that seems equally absurd. For I do not understand why they are satisfied. It is as if it is obvious to them that all life has value, that one should not steal, or harm others, etc. - that these are self evident axioms. But since you acknowledge that science is not normative, these axioms must come from outside of science, or be derived from something outside of science (epistemologically speaking).

So, you were right to say that I was obstinate, but not so much in thinking that the foundations for ethics had to come from some other agent (although it should for many), but that it has to be grounded in something besides science. This is not distressing to those who rely on faith, those who don't care, or those who don't follow things to logical conclusions. I leave the first two groups alone, but like to prod the latter group sometimes.

[Blaggard]

Hence Divine command theory. God is perfect, what he says is good is and what he says isn't isn't. Basically.

But what if God does not exist? Is hence possibly one of the most relevant questions in history.

I tend to find it's the theists and religionists that are the more self satisfied to the point of arrogance myself, but then I don't live in a country where 90% of people are Christian, I think it's now about 30% with 10% other religions. In 1950 it was 70% Christian and probably in another hundred years will drop below 10% at that rate.

[Conde Lucanor]

It haven't maintained that someone or something else 'has to to tell us' how to act. I have maintained, on pragmatic grounds, that a large portion of humankind ought to be told how to act, or the consequences would be bad. I guess we misunderstood each other and you were giving a counterexample.

Your statement was well understood, although it keeps being just a belief for which you have offered no support on the grounds of universality and necessity.

I think that people can act according to nothing but reason (defined as something like scientific method, logic, empiricism).

Maybe that's your definition of reason, but certainly not mine and I would hope neither of any other atheist or advocate of humanism and secularism. That definition seems to fit a robot or a computer, more than a human being. Reasoning, especially the inferences ocurring at the level of neocortex in human brains, is what distinguishes us from the rest of animals, but that does not mean we don't have any traces of the animal brains in our evolutionary past, from which ours developed. In fact, our brain was sequentally composed of "new brains" added to the basic reptilian complex and the lymbic mammalian system, until finally the neocortex. All of them conform what is called, in a simplified model, the Triune Brain. The point is that we do have compulsory bodily functions, instinctive mechanisms and emotions, which are part of our mental life and experiences within the natural and social environment. It has been well established that these other drivers are present in people's actions, especially the mechanisms of emotions. So there's no need to exclude any of these factors when conceiving ethics from a purely secular perspective.

Some will value life more than others, prioritize their core beliefs as they see fit, and follow whatever system they come up with to its logical conclusion (according to their rational abilities). I am pessimistic as to what that would look like, but you seem to be optimistic, that's all. In the scientific spirit, to know who was right, there would have to be experiments, which is impossible. Reference to history leads to arguments that go round in circles due to interpretive differences (among other things).

I think you are confusing secularism with scientism and naturalism. It seems more appropiate for atheists to advocate humanism and secularism, than the latter two. Humanism and secularism should rely on the universal value of science in general, but not necessarily support its core principles only on particular empirical sciences. Not all truths are founded on experiments. Empirical sciences are definitely part of the whole spectrum of knowledge, but only a interdisciplinary approach is able to take into account all the multiple factors of reality. In that sense, atheism with a "scientific spirit" means supporting rational propositions with reliable and verifiable data, and that includes multiple disciplines: history, anthropology, psychology, sociology, etc. It does not include religion or theology, which are not sciences.

I would say that finding core ethical beliefs (meaning in life, ethical maxims and such) in science is an empty proposition for me and many others. This is probably why you 'have known very bright people who have also baffled me with their beliefs in completely absurd myths.'

I don't think anyone is expecting science to produce core ethical beliefs. Science gives you knowledge, reliable, verifiable information about the natural and social world, so their relations are understood with a good degree of certainty. You can then base ethics on the true, real mechanisms of reality, instead of the false, illusory mechanisms of religious myths.

But I often see something in 'satisfied atheists' (to coin a phrase) that seems equally absurd. For I do not understand why they are satisfied. It is as if it is obvious to them that all life has value, that one should not steal, or harm others, etc. - that these are self evident axioms. But since you acknowledge that science is not normative, these axioms must come from outside of science, or be derived from something outside of science (epistemologically speaking).

To come from outside of science does not mean "ignoring or denying the truths about reality derived from science".

So, you were right to say that I was obstinate, but not so much in thinking that the foundations for ethics had to come from some other agent (although it should for many), but that it has to be grounded in something besides science.

Well, yes you said it had to be grounded on religion. But, so your argument goes, grounded on religion for pragmatic purposes, because most people will not think for themselves, and some kind of sedative opiate is required to comfort them and keep them quiet. Regardless that I don't buy this, you're still accepting that ethics is founded in another mundane, human practice. Maybe not science, but still pretty much human activity inside our beloved Earth. So far then, you're grounding ethics on the human nature of that ruling minority that you say does know how to act without being told. That they had devised a fantasious mechanism called religion to keep people under control, would be purely circumstancial, so it could be something else, a natural mechanism with no reference to a supernatural reality, some type of "secular religion", as Feuerbach had proposed.

[Wyman]

Well, yes you said it had to be grounded on religion. But, so your argument goes, grounded on religion for pragmatic purposes, because most people will not think for themselves, and some kind of sedative opiate is required to comfort them and keep them quiet. Regardless that I don't buy this, you're still accepting that ethics is founded in another mundane, human practice. Maybe not science, but still pretty much human activity inside our beloved Earth. So far then, you're grounding ethics on the human nature of that ruling minority that you say does know how to act without being told. That they had devised a fantasious mechanism called religion to keep people under control, would be purely circumstancial, so it could be something else, a natural mechanism with no reference to a supernatural reality, some type of "secular religion", as Feuerbach had proposed.

Eureka! We agree(as to what I am claiming). Except that:

you said it had to be grounded on religion.

I didn't say ethics had to be grounded on religion. I'm open to any grounds - even opiates if effective, or a secular religion.

And I added that no such religion, secular or otherwise, could be grounded in reason, which I basically equate with science. You said that reason consists of much more than just science, so the fact that science is not normative does not mean that ethics (as normative) cannot be grounded in reason.

However, I do not buy the way you get around the impossibility of a non-faith based ethics grounded in reason:

The point is that we do have compulsory bodily functions, instinctive mechanisms and emotions, which are part of our mental life and experiences within the natural and social environment. It has been well established that these other drivers are present in people's actions, especially the mechanisms of emotions. So there's no need to exclude any of these factors when conceiving ethics from a purely secular perspective.

There is a difference between explaining human behavior and justifying it. I would of course accept scientific explanations of human behavior as explaining why we behave as we do. Are you claiming that these explanations somehow relate to how we ought to behave - i.e. provide a basis for justifying human behavior?

Blaggart pointed out above that certain areas of the brain are responsible for religious fervor. This explains, to an extent, why some people have such feelings. It is not a justification for holding religious beliefs.

I'm sure we make normative decisions based (at least in part) on deeply seated mechanisms in our brain. Whether or not these decisions are correct cannot be determined by those same mechanisms, can they?

[Conde Lucanor]

Eureka! We agree(as to what I am claiming). Except that:

you said it had to be grounded on religion.

I didn't say ethics had to be grounded on religion. I'm open to any grounds - even opiates if effective, or a secular religion.

So, we must conclude that you support a Machiavellian political ethics, where "the ends justifies the means". It doesn't matter if it's an atheist regime, a theocracy, a world ruled by machines and agents Smiths, or anything, as long as it ensures political stability. Ok, that's your view and I cannot agree with it. I would not support an "atheist regime", more than a "theist regime", if by that we understand state power, deceitful practices, mass manipulation, etc. I advocate for a secular state, which just means remaining neutral about religion and based on a set of universal principles of mankind (more or less covered in the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights). That is perfectly consistent with advocacy for a democratic regime, where the right of all groups to promote their beliefs privately, whether they are religious or non-religious, are guaranteed. I personally prefer an atheist society and feel I have the right to promote atheism in civil society, but my right does not allow me to block other people's right to promote religion. It should work the other way around, too: they cannot block my right to promote atheism. All of this, as long as the fundamental, secular, universal principles of human rights, are respected and guaranteed by the state.

And I added that no such religion, secular or otherwise, could be grounded in reason, which I basically equate with science. You said that reason consists of much more than just science, so the fact that science is not normative does not mean that ethics (as normative) cannot be grounded in reason.

Let's clarify some terms first, because you seem to be contrasting them as if they worked at the same level. Reason is a human faculty, which resides in human brains. Not something floating up in the air, an institution or a cultural practice. Along with other faculties, like language, a psyche adapted to group behavior, and upright walking, reason is essential to the species, an innate feature of humans. Without it, it wouldn't be called human species. Science, as well as philosophy and religion, are human cultural practices or institutions, they are a historical epiphenomenon of those innate features, but they are not essential to the species to survive as species. If they are essential, they're only to civilization.

Science develops the tools of reasoning to explain the universe with a good degree of certainty, seeking objective thruths, bringing to the surface complex and usually unperceivable relations behind the objects it studies. Religion, on the other hand, while still grounded on basic rationalizations of perceived phenomena, does not care about methodical search and discovery of objective truths, nor developing the tools of reasoning. It conforms with mythical, unsubstantiated claims, based on superficial observations and naive hypothesis, often related to supernatural forces from fictional worlds. It is plain superstition. And when confronted with the truths of science, religion usually dismisses that which makes human reasoning a powerful tool for discovering truth, in order to keep its dogmas and fantasies safe from scrutiny. Religion is the greatest friend of naive, infant-like reasoning and the biggest enemy of truthful, reliable, complex type of knowledge, as is found in science. Science may not be normative, but the development of our human potential, which encompasses the growth of our understanding and transforming the world for the good of this and future generations, is an ethical goal that cannot be achieved without the help of science. Religion works in the opposite direction.

However, I do not buy the way you get around the impossibility of a non-faith based ethics grounded in reason:

The point is that we do have compulsory bodily functions, instinctive mechanisms and emotions, which are part of our mental life and experiences within the natural and social environment. It has been well established that these other drivers are present in people's actions, especially the mechanisms of emotions. So there's no need to exclude any of these factors when conceiving ethics from a purely secular perspective.

There is a difference between explaining human behavior and justifying it. I would of course accept scientific explanations of human behavior as explaining why we behave as we do. Are you claiming that these explanations somehow relate to how we ought to behave - i.e. provide a basis for justifying human behavior?

Although behavior and action can be treated as synonyms, a valid distinction can be made in order to understand the difference between what is, and what ought to be. This distinction has to do with what I already explained above, about human's innate features, and what is put on practice in a cultural, historical context. Put in the simplest terms, behavior can be understood as those patterns directly derived from the innate features of the species. All animals, as member of a species, display a particular behavior. And so, a tiger today is the same as was a tiger a thousand years ago. Humans, however, because of their particular innate features (developed neocortex, language, etc.), have been able to invent culture. Through culture, humans have reinvented themselves, they have created a second, "artificial" nature, being the history of mankind actually the history of the dialectical relation between man and nature. The free, autonomous behavior of human beings, then becomes action. Ethics takes place in that cultural context, in which natural drives are part of the equation, but unlike the instinctive features of a tiger, they can be overriden to some extent. That's why a tiger's behavior can only be explained, no need to be justified, unlike a person's actions, which already imply a norm and a justification according to that norm.

Blaggart pointed out above that certain areas of the brain are responsible for religious fervor. This explains, to an extent, why some people have such feelings. It is not a justification for holding religious beliefs.

I'm sure we make normative decisions based (at least in part) on deeply seated mechanisms in our brain. Whether or not these decisions are correct cannot be determined by those same mechanisms, can they?

I think the existence of those brain areas "responsible for religious fervor" are questionable, the same way as many other modularized mechanisms proposed by Evolutionary Psychology. There are no distinctive, specialized "religious feelings", nor "patriotic feelings", and so on. The deep neurological traits of emotions and affective processes appear to be general-purpose brain systems, which are then experienced in cultural contexts, organized in normative systems, and labeled as "religious fervor, patriotism, humanism, etc." Science may allow us to understand which are the deeply seated mechanisms in our brain that explain patriotism or lack of patriotism, but it cannot be derived from it whether patriotism or lack of it are good or bad. I actually think that in our current cultural, political context, patriotism is bad and lack of it, good, despite the fact that both feelings are rooted in deep psychological mechanisms.

[Hobbes' Choice]

Thought you lot might like to read this...


http://www.bedeutung.co.uk/magazine/iss ... spectable/