|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5310 Posts |
 Posted - 03/18/2007 : 05:01:50 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by marfknox
Gorgo wrote: quote:
No one "needs" cigarettes. No one "needs" supersition. They "need" to tell themselves that they do.
I again find this sort of statement to be a muddling of the issue with vague abstractions. What does it mean to need something? I don't need physical therapy for my plantar faciitus in any general sense. But I do need it to alleviate certain symptoms of pain. I don't need to drink alcohol recreationally in any general sense. But I do need it to be tipsy. I don't need my husband in any general sense. But I do need him to be in love with him.
I think you are the one that's muddling. The point is what do you mean when you say someone needs religion? Do they need it the same way someone needs insulin or food? Or do they need it the same way that some people "need" cigarettes?
Are you saying that atheists have a different genetic makeup than believers that they "need" religion? Or are you simply saying they enjoy religion? What do they enjoy about it? Singing? Getting together with people? |
I know the rent is in arrears
The dog has not been fed in years
It's even worse than it appears
But it's alright-
Jerry Garcia
Robert Hunter
|
 |
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5310 Posts |
Posted - 03/18/2007 : 05:05:10 [Permalink]
|
quote:
For all practical purposes, religious people can be just as skeptical and rational as atheists.
Wouldn't they then be atheists? |
I know the rent is in arrears
The dog has not been fed in years
It's even worse than it appears
But it's alright-
Jerry Garcia
Robert Hunter
|
| Edited by - Gorgo on 03/18/2007 08:54:45 |
|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5310 Posts |
Posted - 03/18/2007 : 05:07:14 [Permalink]
|
quote:
quote:
I'll go so far as to submit that when people say that without promise of an afterlife, life is "hopeless," what they're actually indicating is clinical depression, and they're "self-medicating" with God. But religion is just masking the symptoms, much like cocaine might. I'd much prefer that such people get treated for their depression, because self-medication isn't reliable, and can indeed do harm.
Do you mean this literally or as a metaphor? If you mean this literally, I completely disagree and I disagree because there is no evidence that religious people suffer from depression more often and more intensely than non-religious people. In fact, there are studies that show that religious people are happier (although I think that has more to do with the byproducts of most religious which are stable families and communities). I also don't think that what one believes as a worldview affects their mental health as much as the attitude that they take with that worldview. Any worldview – Christainity, atheism, skepticism – can be framed in a derogatory or complimentary way. I also think that if someone is truly clinically depressed, they are likely to view any worldview they hold in a dark rather than hopeful light.
Dave seems to be making a diagnosis and wonder if he's qualified. It is not 'clinical depression.' |
I know the rent is in arrears
The dog has not been fed in years
It's even worse than it appears
But it's alright-
Jerry Garcia
Robert Hunter
|
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 03/18/2007 : 09:03:56 [Permalink]
|
Halfmooner wrote: quote:
But I'll accept your word that you aren't being arrogant toward the religious, as I'd implied.
Thank you. I really appreciate that.
quote:
So you'll debate the merits of magical thinking not with the moderately religious in general, but only with a handful of people who enjoy such debates? Did I get that right?
Hmmm, I'm not sure. Basically I was trying to say that I think a lot of people either aren't smart enough to understand deep discussions on these kinds of philosophical issues, and many others who are smart enough just don't care. (Frankly, I can feel myself moving more and more toward that second category) Given that, I find it sort of annoying when atheists like Sam Harris make such a big deal out of faith itself. To me, his constant blaming of faith itself is a big fat simplification of a lot of very complex problems in human society. I think the proper place for discussions and debates about the merits of faith and Rationalism is among philosophers, theologians, and every day thinkers (like ourselves) who take an interest in the subject. This thread began with celebrating a politician admitting his atheism. I'm saying I think it is bad to make an issue of someone's personal beliefs in the public and political arena. Now if this was a thread for talking about the merits of reason and science over faith for discovering objective truth, you and I'd be on the same side.
quote:
I think it's vital to speak out against the whole of this ancient evil called religion.
See, I find that astounding considering that the vast majority of religious people don't do any harm, and in fact are just as likely to do good in this world as atheists. That alone to me proves that religion by itself is not great scourge to humanity or “ancient evil” as you put it. This is really where we part ways.
quote:
I think of your approach, as I (mis?)understand it, as a kind of atheistic parlour game, played only with willing players, while outside this polite group crimes are being committed in the name of God.
Those crimes are committed by a minority of believers, and equally heinous crimes are committed every day in the name of secular ideals. The idea that we should extend the blame to all faithful when one fanatics blows himself and others up in the name of Allah is dangerous because it promotes bigotry (real bigotry – the kind that actually institutionalizes prejudice against a group of people regardless of what individuals in that group have done) against religious people.
quote:
Those I refer to as the moderate religious are far more likely to be amenable to reason than the True Believing fundies. If we don't talk to these people in the middle, we may be looking at more decades of growing theocracy.
Sam Harris wants to narrow the conversation to a criticism of faith itself. But don't you see that these vital conversations are happening, have been happening, and are leading to a move away from theocracy? Since the Englightenment, religious people in |
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
| Edited by - marfknox on 03/18/2007 09:05:47 |
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 03/18/2007 : 09:36:02 [Permalink]
|
Gorgo wrote (my emphasis in bold): quote:
I didn't say you said it was always a good idea. You seemed to be saying that self-medicating with alcohol and other licit and illicit drugs without benefit of doctors was a good idea. I can't say that it ever is, and see little evidence to the contrary.
You can't say that it ever is? I agree that it is very very rarely a good idea of self medicate with alcohol, but I won't say it is not ever a viable alternative. I don't like making those kinds of absolute claims. Ilicit drugs include marijuana, and there is evidence that the use of marijuana can often be medically beneficial, even without doctor supervision – which is by definition self medicating. And as for licit drugs, I t suspect that self medicating with licit drugs without benefit of doctors is usually a good thing – or are you against Tylenol and Nyquil? Lemme see, I got about 5 licit drugs in my own medicine cabinet right now… Aleve, Excedrin, Excedrin PM, Claritin, and Tylenol Cold.
You are also straying from the point, which was that there are exceptions to the rule. Are you against the use of recreational drugs? If not, you concede that sometimes it is OK, even good, to engage in inherently but mildly destructive behavior so long as it is in responsible moderation and a choice made by a consenting adult. I am comparing this to religious faith which brings pleasant emotional experiences (in the same way that responsible drinking can bring pleasant emotional experiences) but which are also held tentatively enough that these beliefs do not cause one to abandon reason when it matters, such as in making practical ethical decisions or when deciding public policy in a pluralistic society.
quote:
The point is what do you mean when you say someone needs religion? Do they need it the same way someone needs insulin or food? Or do they need it the same way that some people "need" cigarettes?
I didn't say people need religion, Garafalo did. (Damn it, again it comes back and bites me in the ass. ) I don't like that quote from Garafalo because I think it is condescending, but I used it because I thought it was a different take on the same basic point that I was trying to make. So to answer your questions, some people “need” religion in the same way that I need my evening shot of good single malt scotch in order to have the pleasant experience it gives me. I don't want to use the cigarettes example because the vast majority of people who smoke don't really enjoy it so much as they are addicted to it, and that is not the metaphor I'm going for with advocating responsible religiosity.
Actually, I like that the conversation has gone in this direction because now I'm thinking about religion in terms of potential addiction. Smoking or drinking is called an addiction when the person doing it has become abusive and irresponsible in their use of the substance, and oftentimes they themselves experience internal conflict over the use of the substance. I've met people who experience religion this way. For example, I had a friend who wanted to date and have sexual experiences without getting married, but also wanted to hold on to his Christian morals which called for no sex before marriage. As a result he remained a tortured virgin, occasionally looking at porn or going to strip clubs in desperate attempts to alleviate his urges that he couldn't bring himself to act on in a way that was responsible and healthy. I felt bad for him and thought that in his case his religion was bringing him way more misery than fulfillment, and I wis |
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
| Edited by - marfknox on 03/18/2007 09:41:35 |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 03/18/2007 : 10:55:57 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by marfknox
Our skepticism also evolved as a benefit to our species' continuation.
That is certainly arguable. Skepticism, at its core, is simply a mental tool that we use for determining the likelihood that various propositions are true. As such, it's a learned skill, and not an evolved trait. Just like we didn't evolve hammers, but instead learned about the benefits of the inherent properties of a large mass at the end of a stick, humans discovered skepticism (and it appears they did so only within the last 3,000 years or so).quote:
This statement sounds to me a lot like the concept of natural vs. manmade. We all know what it means when used in context, but if we are going to really get into this sort of discussion deeply, we have to admit that man is part of nature. And if we are going to get deep into what you have just said, man cannot really overcome his nature. He can only use one part of his nature to overcome another part when they are in conflict.
No, what I said wasn't anything like the manmade-vs-natural issue. You seemed to be saying that because we've evolved the ability to do something, then it's okay to do it. In other words, you seemed to be arguing that "what is" is "what ought to be." But of course, if that were generally true, we wouldn't have outlawed murder and a host of other offenses. We've obviously "evolved" the ability to steal candy from babies, but that doesn't mean that there's any practical benefit from the act or that it's a good thing to do.quote:
Well, for all practical purposes, lots of things that people really enjoy and gain personal fulfillment from are worthless. I was just saying that I don't think religion makes people act better or nicer to each other. The value of it is much smaller and more personal to the individual, sort of like the enjoyment of a hobby.
And I would agree with you if religion were not a "hobby" wherein the participants are encouraged to treat fiction as truth. Few people would have a problem with understanding that a Trekkie who seriously believes that he has met an actual Vulcan is delusional. But theists are not only encouraged to believe in a mythical being, but will openly distrust those who don't share those beliefs.quote:
Do you mean this literally or as a metaphor? If you mean this literally, I completely disagree and I disagree because there is no evidence that religious people suffer from depression more often and more intensely than non-religious people.
Good grief, I didn't say nor imply that. I'm talking about a specific subset of religious people: those who openly display their near-complete loss of hope.
Is that not one of the symptoms of depression? Would you not be terribly concerned for a person who tells you that they think that life is pointless and there's no reason to go on? I'm just as concerned for the people who say - quite openly - that they think that life is pointless and there'd be no reason to go on if God doesn't exist. Their entire reason for living is a fiction. These same people will sometimes say that if it weren't for the threat of Hell, they'd see no reason to avoid murder, rape and eating babies, so they're n |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5310 Posts |
Posted - 03/18/2007 : 11:26:00 [Permalink]
|
quote:
I t suspect that self medicating with licit drugs without benefit of doctors is usually a good thing – or are you against Tylenol and Nyquil? Lemme see, I got about 5 licit drugs in my own medicine cabinet right now… Aleve, Excedrin, Excedrin PM, Claritin, and Tylenol Cold.
I said earlier that over the counter drugs might be a good idea, but I couldn't see how you'd say self-medicating with alxohol and illicit drugs are ever a good idea. Maybe a necessity in some cases, though I doubt it, but not ever a good idea. When I said 'licit' drugs, I meant ordinarily legal, but not being used for what they are prescribed.
quote:
You are also straying from the point, which was that there are exceptions to the rule. Are you against the use of recreational drugs? If not, you concede that sometimes it is OK, even good, to engage in inherently but mildly destructive behavior so long as it is in responsible moderation and a choice made by a consenting adult. I am comparing this to religious faith which brings pleasant emotional experiences (in the same way that responsible drinking can bring pleasant emotional experiences) but which are also held tentatively enough that these beliefs do not cause one to abandon reason when it matters, such as in making practical ethical decisions or when deciding public policy in a pluralistic society.
Would I make some drugs illegal? No. It's foolish to do so. I'd make drunk driving illegal, or drunk teaching or whatever.
If you think you need to drink or have religion in order to have pleasant emotional experiences, then you don't think very much of yourself. In fact, I don't think drinking or taking drugs is in and of itself a pleasant emotional experience. It's just a change in body chemistry that some think "must be pleasant." If you look at how you feel, I think some would agree that drunk is mostly negative, not positive. If that happened to you without someone paying for it, you'd be at the doctor's office. Some say that heroin is extremely pleasurable. I'll have to take their word for it, but while I enjoy a drink occasionally, I haven't found much pleasure in having more than one.
Is there anything wrong with drinking to get tipsy? Maybe not. I didn't say there was anything wrong with religion, either. What I said was that when you talk to people who believe in superstition, like the Rabbi, they'll tell you that they do it because they don't think very much of themselves. We all have ideas like that. It's not that there is anything wrong with that, just that it's a false idea. It's living in a false world.
(edited to say that I didn't word that correctly. There is something wrong with religion for the reasons I state above. What I meant to say is that I would not make it illegal. It's not "wrong" in the sense that there is a black and white right and wrong carved in stone by god, but there is something wrong with it in the sense that it's not very constructive) |
I know the rent is in arrears
The dog has not been fed in years
It's even worse than it appears
But it's alright-
Jerry Garcia
Robert Hunter
|
| Edited by - Gorgo on 03/18/2007 11:51:01 |
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 03/18/2007 : 13:01:35 [Permalink]
|
Dave wrote: quote:
That is certainly arguable. Skepticism, at its core, is simply a mental tool that we use for determining the likelihood that various propositions are true. As such, it's a learned skill, and not an evolved trait.
OK, you are right here, and I suppose I should have phrased it that our capacity to use the tool of skepticism evolved because it was beneficial to our survival. But aren't you splitting hairs here? I mean, the details of any religion are also learned, not evolved, but it is the predisposition to have faith that is part of human nature in general. Same thing with language – the actual words aren't hardwired into our DNA, but out capacity to learn a language is innate and evolved. And our ability for making and learning to use tools such as hammers is also part of our evolved nature.
quote:
humans discovered skepticism (and it appears they did so only within the last 3,000 years or so).
The Greeks formalized skepticism around that time, but the human capacity to utilize aspects of skepticism began before that. We didn't so much discover it as we gave it a name as we became consciously aware of a mode of thought that we were sometimes engaging in and which was proven to be useful.
quote:
You seemed to be saying that because we've evolved the ability to do something, then it's okay to do it. In other words, you seemed to be arguing that "what is" is "what ought to be."
I don't know how you would come to that conclusion after I've repeatedly agreed that religion can also be used in a bad way and that rationalism and skepticism are generally superior.
You are here distorting my argument by taking one aspect of it out of context rather than trying to understand it within the whole context of what I've said in this discussion.
I am not at all convinced that faith by itself is a universally harmful thing just because it is often associated with harmful things. I am also convinced that the human capacity to have faith evolved for several reasons, some of which may no longer apply in modern society, some of which might be harmful to modern society, and some of which might still be beneficial to certain individuals in certain situations.
quote:
But theists are not only encouraged to believe in a mythical being, but will openly distrust those who don't share those beliefs.
That is a generalization that hardly applies to all theists. Theists and nontheists in Unitarian and Quaker communities get along perfectly well. Almost everyone in my family is a theist, and hardly any of them distrust me because I am very out as an atheist. To the contrary, the members of my family who enjoy discussing matters of belief often enjoy having civil conversations with me about our different points of view, not in an effort to convert each other, but in an honest effort to better understand each other and thereby develop a closer relationship. And what about the Presbyterian church that welcomed the atheist?
Peoples' personal experiences and thoughts about faith and religion are incredibly diverse. Many people with faith would even argue that we're dealing with the wrong questions in this conversation. So why should it be surprising that |
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
|
|
|
Vegeta
Skeptic Friend
United Kingdom
238 Posts |
Posted - 03/18/2007 : 13:56:04 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Sex appears to have strong effects on the happiness of highly educated people than those with low levels of education
Is that a direct quote? Because it doesn't really make sense, and if you interpret it as 'stronger' effects, then are we assuming stronger, positive effects on happiness? I could go through the 29 pages and check but I got things to do. |
What are you looking at? Haven't you ever seen a pink shirt before?
"I was asked if I would do a similar sketch but focusing on the shortcomings of Islam rather than Christianity. I said, 'No, no I wouldn't. I may be an atheist but I'm not stupid.'" - Steward Lee |
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 03/18/2007 : 17:47:28 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Is that a direct quote?
Oh, sorry - that's a direct quote from the article's abstract. |
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
|
|
|
R.Wreck
SFN Regular
USA
1191 Posts |
Posted - 03/20/2007 : 17:47:43 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by marfknox:
R. Wreck wrote:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Moderate, or liberal, or whatever you want to call them believers are contributing to the harm done by lunatic religiosity by helping to create a culture where the belief in bullshit is acceptable. When cancers like Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell spew their latest hate-filled, bigotted bilge, does society treat it like the garbage that it is?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Actually yes, a huge proportion of American society does regard the rantings of the likes of Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell to be garbage. They and their ilk have been viciously criticized left and right for years.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
and the majority of the "liberal" believers won't call them on it.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Talk about bullshit! Do you hang out with active Democrats or other types of liberals? They are very critical of and disgusted by Falwell and Robertson, as well as the Religious Right. From wikipedia's entry on the US Democratic Party http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_Party_%28United_States%29#Ideology_and_voter_base:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In recent decades, the party advocates civil liberties, social freedoms, equal rights, equal opportunity, fiscal responsibility, and a free enterprise system tempered by government intervention (what economists call a mixed economy). The party believes that government should play a role in alleviating poverty and social injustice, even if that means a larger role for government and progressive taxation to pay for social services.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Don't give me this crap about liberals not countering the Religious Right when liberals stand up all the time for abortion rights, gay marriage or the legal equivalent of it, and the protection of religious minorities.
Look, you clearly see the problem as with faith itself. I see the problem as with the things that directly cause harm, such as bigotry against gays, sexism, racism, the denial of plain and overwhelming scientific evidence, or the mingling of church and state. Until I see evidence that faith itself is directly the cause of the harms often associated with various aspects of religion, I refuse to blame all faithful people by their association.
My point is that the fundy whackjobs are repudiated for having repugnant beliefs, which is fine in and of itself. However, nobody besides the godless repudiates them because the foundation (or so they claim) for those repugnant beliefs is a nonsensical imaginary load of nonsense. Because all believers, to one degree or another, believe in the same nonsense.
quote:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In real news here on planet Earth, we have seen the real harm done to people who believe in bullshit.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Did I ever deny that? No. But that is not proof that faith itself is always harmful. The vast majority of people who have various kinds of faith are nothing like Jim Jones, Marshall Applewhite, David Koresh, or their followers. This line of reasoning reminds me of when fundamentalists drag out Stalin and Mao and Pol Pot to criticize atheism, as if those people are good representati |
The foundation of morality is to . . . give up pretending to believe that for which there is no evidence, and repeating unintelligible propositions about things beyond the possibliities of knowledge.
T. H. Huxley
The Cattle Prod of Enlightened Compassion
|
|
|
|
perrodetokio
Skeptic Friend
275 Posts |
Posted - 03/21/2007 : 14:18:00 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Siberia
My irrelevant two cents:
I don't personally get what's the relevance, either - in our primarily Catholic country, we've had at least two atheist presidents (including the current one). One recanted and said he wasn't an atheist, but he was talking to, guess what, a religious interviewer. That was P.R. Both were elected twice. It's no big deal.
But it is a big deal in a country that (seems) to be moved by religious beliefs more and more. So I get your point of view, even if over here it would be a non-issue.
My two pesos (less than 2 american cents!):
In Argentina the constitution (written over 150 years ago) stated that only a catholic christian could be elected as president. Then, in 1982 a muslim governor "changed" his religion to catholic, got elected president and afterwards he and other politicians ammended the constitution in order that anybody could be elected president regardless of his/her religion. That was a good thing, even though that particular president bankrupted the country (I mean, even more than it was!). 
Special greetings to Siberia and all my brasilian brothers and sisters.
PD: Don´t let the stupidity (and inferiority complex) of many argentinans put you off. There is also some worthy people here 
edited to add: I apologise if this post seems out of place. I have been busy at work and just now read this topic, came across Siberia´s post and posted something myself. Now (after the 4 pages of discussion) my post is not relevant. Oooops! |
"Yes I have a belief in a creator/God but do not know that he exists." Bill Scott
"They are still mosquitoes! They did not turn into whales or lizards or anything else. They are still mosquitoes!..." Bill Scott
"We should have millions of missing links or transition fossils showing a fish turning into a philosopher..." Bill Scott |
| Edited by - perrodetokio on 03/21/2007 15:09:44 |
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 03/21/2007 : 15:24:38 [Permalink]
|
R. Wreck wrote: quote:
My point is that the fundy whackjobs are repudiated for having repugnant beliefs, which is fine in and of itself. However, nobody besides the godless repudiates them because the foundation (or so they claim) for those repugnant beliefs is a nonsensical imaginary load of nonsense. Because all believers, to one degree or another, believe in the same nonsense.
...
I believe the "faith mindset" can be harmful to people. If you believe in a diety who is his own son and had himself killed to save humanity from himself, you're more likely to believe damn near anything.
Please provide evidence that moderate believers are more likely to switch to fundamentalism than atheists and agnostics. You are making a claim about human psychology that I think is completely unsubstantiated by evidence. If such evidence exists and piles up, then I'll agree with you. Until then, I still think this is a slippery slope fallacy, not very different from the argument that alcohol should be prohibited because it is the root cause of alcoholism.
I understand if you personally find faith distasteful, ugly, sad, pathetic, or whatever, but those are all subjective opinions. There is no evidence (as far as I know – and I've really looked) that faith itself causes people to feel better or act better than the faithless, just like there is no evidence of the reverse. And so I find it equally offensive when an atheist purports that being atheistic makes someone more likely to be a better citizen or happier as when a religious person says the same about godless heathens such as myself. You wanna claim that we're more right about the facts of the natural world, I totally agree with ya. But we're not talking about that, we're talking about impact on the quality of the human condition.
quote:
I don't think I painted your opinions as foolish. I thought we were discussing a topic about which we obviously do not agree. No offense meant.
No offense taken. I was just being cavalier in my vocabulary, and I, too, mean no offense to you. I should use the emoticons more frequently.
|
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
| Edited by - marfknox on 03/21/2007 15:25:05 |
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 03/21/2007 : 15:37:50 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by marfknox
If there was no practical benefit to the occasional self delusion, humans in general would not have evolved such a strong predisposition for it.
Dave touched on this comment, but I should add that the expression of a trait or tendency is not evidence that the trait is beneficial. Sometimes deleterious or disadvantageous traits arise because they are linked to other traits which are beneficial.
PZ Myers recently wrote an essay about the fascinating stalk-eyed fly, which possesses eye stalks so large that they prove a hinderance to flight. In that case sexual selection seems to have been the driving force, but a commenter (#7) also mentions fin-size in guppies:
quote:
Reminds me of a study someone did on guppies, where he claimed to show that larger fins in males were selected for their use in courtship displays, but he didn't even consider the possibility that, since the gonopodium is just a modified anal fin, larger copulatory organs could have been the driving force behind increasing fin size.
So here, large fins may not confer any evolutionary advantage per se, but merely be the result of growing bigger balls.
Similarly, it is far from a settled question among developmental biologists whether religion (or the propensity for it), conferred a direct evolutionary advantage to our ancestors, or whether it was simply an unintended side-effect of some other evolved traits, like self-awareness and our ability to imagine future consequences, for example.
So arguing that religion must have some benefits simply because we tend to be religious is not a valid line of reasoning.
|
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
| Edited by - H. Humbert on 03/21/2007 16:55:03 |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 03/21/2007 : 16:42:53 [Permalink]
|
H.H. said:
quote:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
quote:
Originally posted by marfknox:
If there was no practical benefit to the occasional self delusion, humans in general would not have evolved such a strong predisposition for it.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dave touched on this comment, but I should add that the expression of trait or tendency is not evidence that the trait is beneficial. Sometimes deleterious or disadvantageous traits arise because they are linked to other traits which are beneficial.
Also, lets not forget that a beneficial trait is one that lets you survive to an age where you can pass along your genetic material. Anything that manifests beyond that point isn't a trait that natural selection "selects" for.
As for the human capacity for self delusion, you could probably make a strong case for it being linked to our ability to think abstract thoughts, which is arguably our most potent survival adaptation.
(edited to make sense when read....)
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
| Edited by - Dude on 03/21/2007 16:49:27 |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Thank Stark
