About Me

Name: Jack Fisher
Email: slickboy44@fastmail.fm Biography
Loading...

Create Your Own Blog Find Other Townhall Blogs

Comments

Blog Roll

 
Objective Religions Studies
Reason Resources
Debunking Creationisms

Humanity's Natural Altruism (No Deity Need Apply)

Posted by Jack Fisher on Saturday, December 12, 2009 10:42:26 AM
It is an age-old debate in philosophy. Is mankind naturally good or naturally bad? Philosophers and theologians have made their respective cases throughout history. Some traditions such as ancient Chinese philosophies in Confucianism and Taoism assert that man is naturally good. They use the example of a child drowning in a well and how man is naturally inclined to help that child. Other traditions, like the Judeo-Christian philosophy, argues that mankind is naturally bad. If given the opportunity to be greedy, malicious, or spiteful most people will give in and do what is bad before doing what is right. It is not an easy debate to resolve because there are so many cases throughout history that favor both. There are cases of tremendous altruism, the most famous being the soldier who dives on a grenade to save the lives of his squad. There are also cases of tremendous atrocity, most notably the bloody reign of tyrants like Stalin, Mao, Hitler, Pol Pot, and Caligula. It's hard to assert which state is dominant because everybody is different and there are personality and environmental factors to consider. But the question remains. Is man in his basic essance inclined to altruism or selfishness?

Philosophy can debate this, but science is shedding new light on the subject. Since the study of evolution began, it has been popular to assert that it is a selfish process highlighted by the mantra of 'survival of the fittest.' Creationists and religious zealots have condemned this method for decades. However, that mantra may be wrong and a new concept known as 'survival of the kindest' is taking hold.

Charles Darwin himself once stated that sympathy is mankind's strongest instinct. In an evolutionary context, it makes sense for man to be both selfish and altruistic. To be selfish is to ensure one's own survival, which is paramount to any species. To be altruistic is to foster cooperation, communication, and group cohesion that is equally important in an constantly changing environment. Mankind is not like other species in that an individual is strong enough to evade any predator and capture any prey, but as a group mankind functions in a way that favors the survival of not just the individual but the entire species.

A good way to picture this is to go back to the hunger/gatherer days. If an individual was selfish and malicious, he would not get much help from his peers. He would have to fend for himself, finding his own food and fight to procure his own mate. If at any point he should face danger or be unable to secure food for himself, there would be no one to help him and he would not survive. If this individual worked in a team, sacrificing selfishness in favor of group harmony he is better able to get the resources he needs to survive. If he faces those same dangers, there are mechanisms to help him. This makes getting food and securing mates much easier and these traits would be favored by natural selection. So in the grand scheme of evolution, mankind has been bred to be altruistic.

Contrast this with religious subversions that assert mankind needs a deity of some kind to watch over him and threaten him with divine retribution in order for them to be good. Some even argue there must be a threat of damnation, a hell or an underworld where the spirit suffers for their transgressions, and if there wasn't then man would naturally indulge in greed, violence, and lust. Whether it's through a deity or a threat of suffering after death, one of religion's most powerful recruiting tools is creating a supernatural judge to keep people in line. But is that judge really necessary? Aren't mankind's collective instincts enough? There appears to be evidence that no deity is needed.

Below is an article highlighting a study that shows this and sheds new light on human altruism without any need for gods and spirits of any kind.

ScienceDaily: New Studies Into Human Altruism

ScienceDaily (Dec. 9, 2009) — Researchers at the University of California, Berkeley, are challenging long-held beliefs that human beings are wired to be selfish. In a wide range of studies, social scientists are amassing a growing body of evidence to show we are evolving to become more compassionate and collaborative in our quest to survive and thrive.

In contrast to "every man for himself" interpretations of Charles Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection, Dacher Keltner, a UC Berkeley psychologist and author of "Born to be Good: The Science of a Meaningful Life," and his fellow social scientists are building the case that humans are successful as a species precisely because of our nurturing, altruistic and compassionate traits.

They call it "survival of the kindest."

"Because of our very vulnerable offspring, the fundamental task for human survival and gene replication is to take care of others," said Keltner, co-director of UC Berkeley's Greater Good Science Center. "Human beings have survived as a species because we have evolved the capacities to care for those in need and to cooperate. As Darwin long ago surmised, sympathy is our strongest instinct."

Empathy in our genes

Keltner's team is looking into how the human capacity to care and cooperate is wired into particular regions of the brain and nervous system. One recent study found compelling evidence that many of us are genetically predisposed to be empathetic.

The study, led by UC Berkeley graduate student Laura Saslow and Sarina Rodrigues of Oregon State University, found that people with a particular variation of the oxytocin gene receptor are more adept at reading the emotional state of others, and get less stressed out under tense circumstances.

Informally known as the "cuddle hormone," oxytocin is secreted into the bloodstream and the brain, where it promotes social interaction, nurturing and romantic love, among other functions.

"The tendency to be more empathetic may be influenced by a single gene," Rodrigues said.

The more you give, the more respect you get

While studies show that bonding and making social connections can make for a healthier, more meaningful life, the larger question some UC Berkeley researchers are asking is, "How do these traits ensure our survival and raise our status among our peers?"

One answer, according to UC Berkeley social psychologist and sociologist Robb Willer is that the more generous we are, the more respect and influence we wield. In one recent study, Willer and his team gave participants each a modest amount of cash and directed them to play games of varying complexity that would benefit the "public good." The results, published in the journal American Sociological Review, showed that participants who acted more generously received more gifts, respect and cooperation from their peers and wielded more influence over them.

"The findings suggest that anyone who acts only in his or her narrow self-interest will be shunned, disrespected, even hated," Willer said. "But those who behave generously with others are held in high esteem by their peers and thus rise in status."

"Given how much is to be gained through generosity, social scientists increasingly wonder less why people are ever generous and more why they are ever selfish," he added.

Cultivating the greater good

Such results validate the findings of such "positive psychology" pioneers as Martin Seligman, a professor at the University of Pennsylvania whose research in the early 1990s shifted away from mental illness and dysfunction, delving instead into the mysteries of human resilience and optimism.

While much of the positive psychology being studied around the nation is focused on personal fulfillment and happiness, UC Berkeley researchers have narrowed their investigation into how it contributes to the greater societal good.

One outcome is the campus's Greater Good Science Center, a West Coast magnet for research on gratitude, compassion, altruism, awe and positive parenting, whose benefactors include the Metanexus Institute, Tom and Ruth Ann Hornaday and the Quality of Life Foundation.

Christine Carter, executive director of the Greater Good Science Center, is creator of the "Science for Raising Happy Kids" Web site, whose goal, among other things, is to assist in and promote the rearing of "emotionally literate" children. Carter translates rigorous research into practical parenting advice. She says many parents are turning away from materialistic or competitive activities, and rethinking what will bring their families true happiness and well-being.

"I've found that parents who start consciously cultivating gratitude and generosity in their children quickly see how much happier and more resilient their children become," said Carter, author of "Raising Happiness: 10 Simple Steps for More Joyful Kids and Happier Parents" which will be in bookstores in February 2010. "What is often surprising to parents is how much happier they themselves also become."

The sympathetic touch

As for college-goers, UC Berkeley psychologist Rodolfo Mendoza-Denton has found that cross-racial and cross-ethnic friendships can improve the social and academic experience on campuses. In one set of findings, published in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, he found that the cortisol levels of both white and Latino students dropped as they got to know each over a series of one-on-one get-togethers. Cortisol is a hormone triggered by stress and anxiety.

Meanwhile, in their investigation of the neurobiological roots of positive emotions, Keltner and his team are zeroing in on the aforementioned oxytocin as well as the vagus nerve, a uniquely mammalian system that connects to all the body's organs and regulates heart rate and breathing.

Both the vagus nerve and oxytocin play a role in communicating and calming. In one UC Berkeley study, for example, two people separated by a barrier took turns trying to communicate emotions to one another by touching one other through a hole in the barrier. For the most part, participants were able to successfully communicate sympathy, love and gratitude and even assuage major anxiety.

Researchers were able to see from activity in the threat response region of the brain that many of the female participants grew anxious as they waited to be touched. However, as soon as they felt a sympathetic touch, the vagus nerve was activated and oxytocin was released, calming them immediately.

"Sympathy is indeed wired into our brains and bodies; and it spreads from one person to another through touch," Keltner said.

The same goes for smaller mammals. UC Berkeley psychologist Darlene Francis and Michael Meaney, a professor of biological psychiatry and neurology at McGill University, found that rat pups whose mothers licked, groomed and generally nurtured them showed reduced levels of stress hormones, including cortisol, and had generally more robust immune systems.

Overall, these and other findings at UC Berkeley challenge the assumption that nice guys finish last, and instead support the hypothesis that humans, if adequately nurtured and supported, tend to err on the side of compassion.

"This new science of altruism and the physiological underpinnings of compassion is finally catching up with Darwin's observations nearly 130 years ago, that sympathy is our strongest instinct," Keltner said.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (3) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Religion and Plato's Noble Lie

Posted by Jack Fisher on Sunday, November 22, 2009 8:07:49 AM
In the annuls of Western philosophy and politics, the Ancient Greek philosopher Plato ranks among the heavyweights of notable figures that have contributed greatly to modern musings. His work had been cited many times as a source for the inspiration that later led to the free society and the American Republic. It is undeniable that the modern world owes a great deal to Plato in the Ancient Greeks. The very words 'freedom' and 'liberty' have Greek origins. Yet one concept in particular stands out that often gets overlooked in the effort to make sense of current isses. This concept is what Plato called the Noble Lie.

The Noble Lie, according to Plato, is a myth or untruth that is often of a religious or supernatural nature knowingly told by the elites to maintain social harmony. It plays off of human nature that often believes in authority figures, whether it be parents or rulers, and propogates a non-enlightened view of how the world works to the masses. These myths and untruths can keep the people from rising up and questioning the authority of the state by either claiming that the state's powers come from a supernatural force or somehow the cause of their discontent is of a supernatural origin. It has no basis in logic or reason, but because the populace doesn't have the knowledge or capacity to disprove the stories they are assumed on faith. 

The reason this was so important was because in Plato's view, society was highly stratified. The enlightened elites that ruled society from the top down were privy to the concepts of reason and logic while the vast majority of the population had no such luxuries. It would be inefficient and detrimental to the state if they tried to teach every human being in the society the logic behind their rule because not everybody is inclined to understand it and even those that do may not be inclined to believe it. So for the benefit of the rulers and the population, the Noble Lie is used to keep the rulers in power so they can focus on matters of state and the citizens content with the false knowledge that has been fed to them.

Since Plato's time, a lot has changed. Society has become more enlightened and knowledge has become more widespread and available. Yet the Noble Lie persists in the form of modern religion. Plato understood as do many other philosophers that there are two big brokers of power. One is religion and the other is government. While the government is ordained by law, religion is a more complicated force. It is ordained by prophets, myths, and alleged revelations. One notable difference between the two is that religion is often a lot slower to change and adapt with the ongoing shifts in modern society. Whereas government can make new laws, religion often requires a whole new set or revelations or a new set of prophets. In an uneducated populace this wasn't much of a problem in pre-modern times, but now that the populace is more educated the act of adapting for religion becomes much harder. This is why Plato often asserted that the rulers should use the Noble Lie to overtly guide religion into a system that best reflected the needs and goals of the state. Governmet, however, has long since lost control of religion and in a free society religion has taken on a new and more complicated existance.

The Noble Lie that ancient rulers used, albeit overtly or unknowingly, propogates today in the modern Christian Right and the culture wars that surround it. These groups, composed of the religious leaders that now control the message of the Noble Lie, now no longer aid the goal of the state. They challenge it. In Western society a great many of the causes pushed by the Christian Right and other religious organizations is at odds with the notion of freedom and liberty. They stand against homosexuality, pornography, free speech, science, and oftentimes the very reason that philosophers like Plato championed. They have taken the Noble Lie to a whole new level in as such they try to make the Noble Lie the absolute truth even when the evidence is to the contrary. To them, the truth is not dictated by reason. It is dicated by the supernatural forces they so dogmatically believe and anything that is different must somehow be flawed or conspiring against them.

It is a facet of the Noble Lie even Plato never could have foreseen. Thanks to movements like the Enlightenment and the Protestant Reformation, religion no longer stands as a tool of reason. It stands as an enemy of reason. Those that arrogantly cling to this Noble Lie do so with arrogant pride, at times setting themselves apart from others that believe differently. They boast how they have the truth and others do not. The true irony is that this so called truth is steeped in this concept that is known as the Noble Lie and they will not change their beliefs until all opposition has either capitulated or been rendered obsolete. It is a dangerous precedent, religious leaders asserting authority with such selfish and arrogant pride. It causes them to forget or even reject that fragile notion of humanity that allows them to relate to their fellow man on an equal footing. This concept of all individuals being of the same flaws and limitations is core tenant of the individualism that the Ancient Greeks championed. The Religious Right, especially the Christian Right in America, is going against such notions by parading their beliefs as some sacred knowledge that makes them better than everybody else.

This arrogance can come at a great cost in terms of human suffering. Religious leaders who push their arrogant social agenda are immune from the guilt and responsibility of those they hurt. The victims include those dying in Africa because of AIDS, which is made much worse by religious leaders opposing the distribution of condoms. Homosexuals throughout the world are also victims as they routinely have their rights denied and their very existence criminalized under the guise of religious zealotry. There are also the non-believers, the religous minorities, and educated scholars that shed light on the ancient myths used to justify such inhumanity. All are targets by those who abuse the concept of the Noble Lie. They are without excuse, denying their own humanity in exchange for the selfish vindication of being elevated above their fellow man.

Now does this mean that all religion and religious organizations are guilty of such atrocities? Of course not. The Noble Lie in the modern context does not denote that all religion is based on an underlying lie from the authorities. Religion propogated in the true name of spirituality, that which does not engage in outright culture wars, is a vital and often inevitable aspect of society. Human beings are often pre-disposed to such beliefs because no human being can know everything so some fil that gap with spirituality. It can be a very good thing and it can drive people to do acts of great charity. 

Even major religions like Christianity, Judaism, and Islam can have these effects by keeping these concepts of god and spirit in the proper context. That context is and always has been the personal beliefs of the individual and the kin around them. What one person believes is theirs and theirs alone. It is only when those individuals and their peers elevate their beliefs above that of their fellow man that they succumb to the arrogant pride that drives them away from their humanity. The people of the Christian Right and many other radical religions throughout the world, including Islamic terrorists, have shunned their brothers and sisters and ignored all guilt and responsibility. They are the true danger to freedom and peace and they will never understand that until they humble themselves before their fellow man. So long as their arrogant pride keeps them from doing so, conflict will continue.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (22) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

The True Burden of Proof

Posted by Jack Fisher on Wednesday, June 17, 2009 7:59:04 AM
It's an age-old mantra. You can't prove a negative. Reasonable people engaging in reasonable debates understand this. Irrational people engaging in baseless propaganda do not. Unfortunately, it's the irrational people in power throughout government and religion that abandon reason and spew nonsense to the masses with no basis in fact. This is all well and good in a free society. The problem is, uneducated and uninformed people believe it can lead to destructive policies.

First off, the idea of proving a negative isn't so clear cut. While the mantra is true for the most part, in a strictly philosophical sense it is in fact possible to prove a negative. But it is only possible when the claim is falsifiable. For instance, if someone asks a random person to prove that there isn't a rat in their left pocket, the person can prove that by reaching into their pocket and showing that there is nothing there. The claim stated was falsifiable, meaning it could be disproved.

Proving a negative with reason: Evolving Thought

Other claims made in this context are a lot more complicated and more often then not, they are impossible to prove. Many of the claims come across every day and are used as arguments. These include questions such as:

You can't prove Obama's stimulus package didn't help the economy.

You can't prove banks and customers didn't know the loans they were giving out were bogus.

You can't prove the drug war didn't contribute to the violence in Mexico.

You can't prove that god doesn't exist.

You can't prove that Jesus Christ wasn't the son of god.

You can't prove creationism didn't happen.

You can't prove homosexuality isn't a choice.

You can't prove gay marriage won't harm society.

You can't prove abortion isn't murder.

Every one of these claims has the same fallacy. Proving something isn't present just isn't reasonable. This is because proving negatives require that the entire domain of the argument is understandable, measurable, and verifiable. It must fit the test of falsification. But the breadth of these matters is beyond falsification because it is impossible to verify facts with esoteric and intangible factors.

That is why rational people making rational arguments ask that those making the claim prove it. Their mantra is positive claims require positive evidence (evidence that something is present). Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Making the claim that a certain bill from the president did improve the economy can be verified by quantitatively measuring the changes of the economy in conjunction with the changes of the bill and verifying that there was a causal relationship. That is purely reasonable. The problem is, most people in the news and in politics don't do this. Obama famously said "We can't afford to do nothing." It is a negative claim that isn't verifiable, but most people didn't understand that and nothing could be done to stop it.

The same issues emerge in religion. Believers often put the burden of proof on the non-believers, saying they are the ones who have to prove their invisible deity doesn't exist. But the same fallacy applies. Richard Dawkins made the same argument by claiming you can't prove there isn't a teapot orbiting the sun. That is why reasonable people say unless you can prove there is a teapot there, then they don't believe it. It is the believers that are making the claim that there is a deity present, but they offer proof of it. They rely on other fallacies like anecdotal evidence, emotional appeals, and religious texts they allege were divinely inspired. None of this is proof. That is why it is assumed on faith. In a strictly reasonable context, it is impossible to prove any deity. One can only have faith that the deity is there. But too often people equate faith with truth or fact. It isn't. It is an unprovable claim that too many people avoid and pass off as truth and those who do not understand reason are prone to accept it.

Fearmongering, propaganda, and moral panics all emerge from irrational rhetoric. Religion and government use it all the time and so does the media because in many ways, it's easier than checking facts. In a free society people are free to believe, behave, and carry themselves as they wish so long as they do not impose on others. But to defend these freedoms, there needs to be rational policy with reasonable people. So long as religion and government stand in the way, the free society will constantly be challenged. And reason is the best weapon against nonsense.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Celebrating Charles Darwin's 200th Birthday

Posted by Jack Fisher on Thursday, February 12, 2009 1:27:57 PM
On February 12, 1809, Charles Darwin was born and the scientific world would never be the same. 200 years later, his impact cannot be understated not just in his contributions to science, but also in his profound effect on religion, culture, and philosophy. It is ironic as well because Charles Darwin never saw himself as anything more than a man of science. It would be future generations that would take his simple theory and extrapolate so much more from it.
 
For better or worse, Charles Darwin is a figure constantly referenced in the culture wars. His theory flew in the face of many old traditions, most notably that of creationism. Like Pasteur before him along with Newton and Galileo, most people had only age-old stories to explain forces they didn't understand. Darwin's idea was revolutionary in its reasoning. For the first time a mechanism of change within living things was identified and the principle of evolving, adapting, dynamic systems of life made sense. And it did this without evoking supernatural forces. This upset many ardent believers and still does to this day. But some people take it further.
 
Religous coservatives and even radical political groups like the Nazi's condemned evolution. Ironically it was those who despised it that gave it the ideologicial connotations that are frequently used in the culture wars today. Darwin never mentioned anything about philosophy, politics, or morality in his work. Yet there are those who see evolution as a philosophy of sorts that those opposed to traditional spiritual beliefs support. This is completely ignoring the essance of what evolution is and it ignores the very tenants of science, but the conflict persists as evolution is an easy target because it's so vast and explains something so grand that some people can't accept that there were no divine forces involved.
 
This uncertainty and ignorance about evolution is why many don't believe it, particularly in the religous landscape of America. A recent gallap poll revealed that only 39 percent of American's believe in evolution. Many do so on religious grounds without understanding what evolution truly is or what Darwin truly laid out. In most other industrialized countries the vast majority of the population accepts evolution. Even the late Pope John Paul conceded that evolution was a well founded theory that should be taken seriously and shouldn't be rejected on the grounds of faith. In the academic circle, it's even more widely accepted. Over 95 percent of all scientists agree with evolution and it remains the foundation for modern biology.
 
But regardless of how many people believe it, evolution has proven the test of time. Darwin was very bold for his time to make such a hypothesis when there was no knowledge of DNA, cells, or advanced biochemistry. There were even fewer fossils to be referenced yet he predicted that over time science would uncover a fossil record that would illustrate the common descent of species over the ages. And he was correct. Fossils along with many other advances on biology and chemistry have proven Darwin's theory with a wealth of information even he couldn't have dreamed.
 
Evolution has shined light on our understanding of life and while still entrenched in the culture war, has left an undeniable impact on the world. And it all began 200 years ago with the birth of a man with humble beginnings. Charles Darwin's contribution to the world is arguably one of the most important in the annals of science. It continues to draw controversy from those who do not understand it, but it is still a feat worthy of celebration two centuries later. 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive
« Previous1Next »