Henry: Probably the main reason you haven't had any problems with anyone else on this board is that hardly anyone else seriously tries to engage with you on any of these topics. Haven't you noticed?

As for your own earlier, essentially incoherent, comments on consciousness, you can remind yourself of what they were by reading my post here (which quotes you), or your previous posts from which I was quoting, and which you can look up on your own ( http://exmormon.org/phorum/read.php?2,1543290,1543290#msg-1543290 ). And by the way, in addition to not even venturing to provide any even remotely intelligible account of consciousness, you didn't even come close to answering many of the problems I pointed out in your writings. In any case, I invite you to provide us a more intelligible account than the summary I provided of your account of consciousness (if you can).

As for my request for you to provide an account of how sexual instinct has a biological basis, you misunderstood me. In asking you, I was not expressing doubt that there is a biological basis. I was asking YOU to provide one, so that you'd show exactly what sort of argument you're looking for when it comes to the biological basis of religiosity. That is, I asked because I have come to doubt that there IS any such argument, or collection of facts, which would convince you. You seem entirely closed. But because I might be wrong about that, I am asking you to provide a template of the sort of answer which would convince you. Can you do it?

By the way, the implication of your comments is that there is something quite silly about assuming a biological basis for religiosity. In reality, a growing number of scholars, from fields as diverse as endocrinology, anthropology, biology, psychology, cognitive science and sociology have come to that conclusion, based on accumulating evidence from numerous fields of inquiry. I don't expect you to change your view merely based on "growing consensus"; but I AM asking you to explain what sort of evidence would convince YOU that these scholars are on to something, so that when I take the time to write up a post, it won't be in vain. Again I ask - what sort of evidence would convince you that religiosity has a biological basis?



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 01/23/2016 12:13AM by Tal Bachman.

"Henry: Probably the main reason you haven't had any problems with anyone else on this board is that hardly anyone else seriously tries to engage with you on any of these topics. Haven't you noticed?"

COMMENT: Yes, and I agree. I assume that the vast majority on the Board are just not interested in these theoretical discussions. Others are unable to follow them because of a lack of background knowledge. And some who may be interested do not feel competent enough to engage in discussion. However, I also note that there are highly educated academics on this Board from a wide variety of fields of expertise, who are also interested in these issues and follow these posts, and are competent to engage me or challenge me, when they think I am wrong. Frankly, in this case, I am quite confident that such people see quite clearly that I am right. But, let them step up.
__________________________________

"As for your own earlier, essentially incoherent, comments on consciousness, you can remind yourself of what they were by reading my post here (which quotes you), or your previous posts from which I was quoting, and which you can look up on your own ( http://exmormon.org/phorum/read.php?2,1543290,1543290#msg-1543290 ). And by the way, in addition to not even venturing to provide any even remotely intelligible account of consciousness, you didn't even come close to answering many of the problems I pointed out in your writings. In any case, I invite you to provide us a more intelligible account than the summary I provided of your account of consciousness (if you can)."

COMMENT: Tal. If you think I am incoherent it is YOU, not ME that is having a problem. Moreover, in essentially all of our dialogues on the Board, it is me criticizing some vague, speculative, theory or claim proposed by you that lacks evidence and background understanding. I have admittedly not provided any theory of consciousness, or theory of religiosity. What you, and many others, do not seem to understand is that a theory or claim is not supported by the simple lack of a well-defined alternative explanation. The alternative explanation may simply be two complex to be encompassed by theory--especially in the social sciences and evolutionary biology, where complexity rules the day. In short, my failure to propose an alternative does not make your proposal any more viable, and specifically does not render my criticisms of your proposal any less valid. If YOU propose a theory, then YOU must be prepared to support it. And you do not answer my criticisms, or support your theory in the least by demanding an alternative, or pathetically insisting that I am being incoherent.
_____________________________________

"As for my request for you to provide an account of how sexual instinct has a biological basis, you misunderstood me. In asking you, I was not expressing doubt that there is a biological basis. I was asking YOU to provide one, so that you'd show exactly what sort of argument you're looking for when it comes to the biological basis of religiosity. That is, I asked because I have come to doubt that there IS any such argument, or collection of facts, which would convince you. You seem entirely closed. But because I might be wrong about that, I am asking you to provide a template of the sort of answer which would convince you. Can you do it?"

COMMENT: Well, my proposed exercise with a biology textbook was an answer in the sense you describe above. With regard to the sex "instinct" the textbook provides a narrative of specific biological facts and evidence that support the existence of the instinct. With respect to religiosity, there are no such biological facts, and no such narrative. So, as I have said, over and over again, what I need are biological facts that provide a causal inference that connect such biological facts to "religiosity," however that is defined. I am not closed on the issue, there are just presently no such facts.
______________________________

"By the way, the implication of your comments is that there is something quite silly about assuming a biological basis for religiosity."

COMMENT: Well, it is a bit silly. The reason is because "religiosity" is so poorly and broadly defined. (Compare: The sex instinct is very clear and specific, and directly linked to reproduction mechanisms.) It is really hard to see just what sort of biological mechanism could be specifically identified with any such definition. With the sex instinct, there are well known biological "switches" that if absent would turn it off. (e.g. hormonal imbalance or deficiency of some sort) That is what we would need to find in religiosity; some sort of biological component that if turned off, or undermined, would specifically affect religiosity in the precise and specific way it might be defined.
______________________________________________

In reality, a growing number of scholars, from fields as diverse as endocrinology, anthropology, biology, psychology, cognitive science and sociology have come to that conclusion, based on accumulating evidence from numerous fields of inquiry. I don't expect you to change your view merely based on "growing consensus";

COMMENT: You're right I cannot respond to a vague claim of consensus. But there is no "accumulating" evidence that links biology to "religiosity" in the specific and explanatory sense as I stated above. Otherwise, you would have identified it by now. As for biologists, please identify one biologist, that has provided something more than speculative assumptions in this regard; i.e. who has proposed, with evidence, a specific biological link to some specifically identified behavior called "religiosity."
______________________________________

but I AM asking you to explain what sort of evidence would convince YOU that these scholars are on to something, so that when I take the time to write up a post, it won't be in vain. Again I ask - what sort of evidence would convince you that religiosity has a biological basis?

COMMENT: See above: As for your post, I will be looking for the following: (1) A well-defined "phenotype" of religiosity in the form of specific human behavior that can be differentiated; (2) A biological mechanism (i.e. genetic, developmental, molecular, whatever); and (3) A link between the biological mechanism and the phenotype, such that when the mechanism is undermined, the phenotype (religiosity) is undermined in direct and observable ways.

If I may?

A true discussion of this type is not biological but philosophical. That is the reason that HB doesn't have anyone jumping up to proclaim his correctness. HB draws perfectly valid philosophical conclusions and most of us are content to read them and quietly disagree, agree, laugh, or just read. I happen to disagree somewhat that we are free to act, instead believing that multiple items in our environment have subtle but profound impact on our ability to act independently. But that isn't the topic and my disagreement is to tepid to be worth the mental energy. And I may have misread HB making me less likely to jump up and start declaring his conclusion incorrect.

Tal, you on the other-hand dismiss out of hand the philosophy instead relying on a premise that is impossible to define and thus answer. You have pigeon holed the entire conversation, and as such we just read HB's response and think, yep, probably.

I already gave a response, but I will give it to you again. I was and still am a fan of Foundation and the Foundation universe. Particularly the idea of Phycohistory. Asimov elegantly built a deterministic universe around characters that seemed to be free to act and decide on the future of the universe. He shows nuanced characters that make seemingly universe altering decisions, doing exactly what they would have always done. Asimov's determinism is displayed by an algorithm so complex and so integrated that it takes two separate advanced civilizations to even partially understand it. To say that just one thing, and only one thing can make or break the actions of a whole species sounds really, really stupid.

Besides a god gene is so damn specific that you would think it would display itself in a specific manner. After all, I have blue eyes and brown hair, I have average height weight, and I look surprisingly like my father because of my genes. Why is it that my genes get all of that right but the god thing remains a mystery?

Henry:

I entirely agree that valid criticisms of an idea need not emerge from a specific, well-developed, alternative proposal, and that you have not ever provided one of those is not really my complaint.

Leaving consciousness aside for the moment, it is also true I have not gone into much detail about how hardwired biological mechanisms can combine to produce religiosity. One reason for this is that you and Human seem like the only two people interested in seriously engaging on this, and I already know that Human suspects that religiosity is as much a part of what it means to be human as sexuality is - leaving only you to convince. The problem with that is trying to discern exactly what sorts of facts, marshaled in what sort of way, would convince you.

In any case, you did leave a few indications in your latest post, so when I get chance this weekend, I'll venture a few details. I trust you will assess them with an open mind.

Henry:

I happened to get a few minutes here, so just wanted to post a few follow-up questions to help me understand what exactly it is you're looking for, and where you even are on this stuff.

1.) First, let's make sure we share an understanding of the term "religiosity". I mean by it a propensity to:

A.) Subscribe to, and organize one's mental, spiritual, or physical life around, unevidenced propositions (which might explicitly invoke the supernatural, but do not need to) about the meaning of life and universal values;

B.) Sacralize objects, claims, values, places, people, words, stories, songs, etc., and manifest intense reverence toward those things, either through prescribed ritual or more informal, ad hoc methods;

C.) Sacrifice to causes "more important than oneself";

D.) Seek belonging, and participate, in a community whose specific expressions of (A), (B) and (C) you agree with;

This is a pretty standard "starter" conception of what the term "religiosity" means (see, e.g., http://sociology.about.com/od/Disciplines/a/Sociology-Of-Religion.htm ). Do you accept it?

If you don't, can you explain why? If you do, let's move on.

2.) It is either the case that religiosity is, in some way, biologically hard-wired, or it is not. Am I correct in understanding that you believe religiosity is *not* biologically hard-wired?;

3.) If, as I understand, you do not believe religiosity is biologically hard-wired, can you provide any sort of plausible account, however general, and regardless of whether you believe it or not, of a non-biological explanation for religiosity?;

4.) Just to be absolutely clear...some scholars (Jonathan Haidt, D. S. Wilson, Shermer, Charles Darwin, etc.) have proposed that religiosity is most likely an adaptation. Others (like Richard Dawkins, Pascal Boyer, Gould, etc.) have proposed that religiosity itself is not an adaptation, but is rather an inevitable by-product of other adaptations.

Both proposals would mean that religiosity emerges from biological hard-wiring, and is thus ineradicable from humans. Do you reject both of those possibilities? If so, on what grounds? That is, what sorts of arguments - what specific type of evidence - would convince you that one or the other is true?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/23/2016 07:15PM by Tal Bachman.

Tal, you are already in trouble by your definition of "religiosity." Rather than a "starter" it is a non-starter. Here's why:

First, your reliance on the term "propensity." If you mean "predisposition" you are starting out begging the question, because predisposition implies something innate, which suggests something biological, the very question that is at issue. Thus, you need a definition that does not depend upon the notion of propensity or predisposition. Here is our familiar example. One might make the following statement:

"Human beings engage in sexual activity."

Here, there is no explanation or source suggested, it is only a statement of observational fact, which is true or false. (In this case obviously true.) But, consider the different statement:

"Human beings are predisposed to engage in sexual activity."

What this statement claims is that there something innate about human beings (biological) that predisposes them to engage in certain behavior, i.e. sex. This is a further claim than the previous statement. However, since the innate character of sexual conduct is well-established it is not problematic. But it *is* problematic when the biological connection is at issue, as in our discussion.

Second, if you want to characterize human behavior in biological terms, you must view the subject matter being considered as a "trait" that can be individualized for analysis. The present discussion is not about evolution, but nonetheless, "religiosity" must be presented as a distinct trait, and as part of a phenotype, in order to get a discussion as to its biological source off the ground; i.e. in order to establish something specific to which biological mechanisms can be linked, whether ultimately adaptive or not. You have not identified religiosity as a trait here. What you have provided is nothing but a convenient definition.

In the social sciences it is common to confuse a definition with a trait. A trait is a distinct observable, whether a physical trait, like hair color, or a behavioral trait, like sex. A definition is a human construction in language that abstracts observables into a concept. Although, of course, a trait can be conceptualized, a concept abstracted from human behavior is not necessarily a trait. Thus, when a psychologist observes certain characteristics in children's behavior, links them together to form a concept, say Attention Deficit Disorder (ADD), they are not identifying a trait, they are creating a concept for practical therapeutic purposes. ADD is NOT a biological trait just because it was conceptualized. For it to become a trait, it must be determined that (as luck would have it) there is a biological mechanism that can be identified and that uniquely instantiates ALL of the specific behavioral components identified in the definition.

Your "religiosity" suffers from the same problem. It is fundamentally a definition abstracted from a multitude of observational facts. It is then mistaken for a trait. To establish it as a trait (extremely unlikely) the components of the definition must be linked together into a biological mechanism, even if it is complex and intractable. This is what I argue you cannot do.
______________________________________

2.) It is either the case that religiosity is, in some way, biologically hard-wired, or it is not. Am I correct in understanding that you believe religiosity is *not* biologically hard-wired?;

COMMENT: Your "either-or" premise is flawed. As I have said, what you call religiosity is culturally and biologically complex. If "hard-wired" means it can be explained solely by biology, it is definitely NOT hard-wired. If hard-wired means that it has a biological component, then it is.
__________________________________________

3.) If, as I understand, you do not believe religiosity is biologically hard-wired, can you provide any sort of plausible account, however general, and regardless of whether you believe it or not, of a non-biological explanation for religiosity?;

COMMENT: Sure. "Religiosity" is the product of our biological and genetic make-up, to be sure, but coupled with our existential condition, and our human need to understand our environment, and seek the companionship and approval of our peers. As groups are formed, human beings experience psychological satisfaction which reinforces group beliefs and commitments. In addition, the cultural background of such beliefs and commitments are reinforcing in a wide variety of complex ways, and encourage humans beings to form and participate in new groups and form new commitments. These are transferred across generations through family and other group commitments.
__________________________________

4.) Just to be absolutely clear...some scholars (Jonathan Haidt, D. S. Wilson, Shermer, Charles Darwin, etc.) have proposed that religiosity is most likely an adaptation. Others (like Richard Dawkins, Pascal Boyer, Gould, etc.) have proposed that religiosity itself is not an adaptation, but is rather an inevitable by-product of other adaptations.

COMMENT: Well, first I question your identification of the views of the individuals named, but substantively, I view all such simplistic conclusions as nonsense.
_________________________________

Both proposals would mean that religiosity emerges from biological hard-wiring, and is thus ineradicable from humans. Do you reject both of those possibilities? If so, on what grounds? That is, what sorts of arguments - what specific type of evidence - would convince you that one or the other is true?

COMMENT: Yes. I reject both suggestions. Why? There is no evidence for such an adaptive claim, and it flies in the face of common sense. This type of social Darwinism is entirely speculative and scientifically unsupportable. It reflects the penchant of the social sciences to explain everything in evolutionary terms in order to gain scientific credibility.

I've "engaged" with both of you numerous times.
And along with Henry, I've pointed out the numerous flaws in Tal's "religiosity is biological" arguments.

I'm "standing up:" Henry takes this one by a mile.


p.s. It's this kind of stuff:

"Others (like Richard Dawkins, Pascal Boyer, Gould, etc.) have proposed that religiosity itself is not an adaptation, but is rather an inevitable by-product of other adaptations."

...that seriously weakens your arguments. Not a one of those have proposed that religiosity is an INEVITABLE by-product of other adaptations. Not a single one. By-product, yes. Inevitable, no.

When you misrepresent other peoples' arguments, you're blowing it.

I'm guessing there are many of us following these interesting discussions without posting because others have made our points more effectively than we could.

Personally, I lean towards the HB position because we find evidence of successful human tribes without religiosity. In fact, here in America the growing number of citizens who self-describe as "spiritual but not religious" results in the increasingly strident voices of the evangelical community shrieking to exercise and maintain power through "God's will."

Religiosity is dead in Europe and they are doing great--with the exception of the Muslim extremists who threaten their socialist society with jihad.

Despite the attempts of the media to be politically correct and use terms like "sectarian violence" instead of "religious war," the average person--even a child--can see (in Europe its so clear) that RELIGIOUS EXTREMISM is the problem.

It is only a baby step from that attitude to "Religion is the problem."

I am very hopeful :) and am thankful for interesting threads like this.


Kathleen


Kathleen

Religiosity may be a by-product of other evolutionary adaptations, however, isn't group religiosity, as found in most cultures around the world, an expression of "group contagion" described as a primative, automatic, and unconscious behavior?

The term, " group contagion" should actually read as "emotional contagion" for some reason the spam filters on this site kept blocking that term.

I've also read most of Tal's,Henry's,and Kolob's postings.My only comment is that I don't understand any of the stuff you guys are talking about.

lr2014:

Thanks for your candid comment. Speaking for myself, I do not claim to have all of the answers, but I participate on the Board just in case I have something to offer to exMormons (like myself) who are trying to establish a new worldview in the face of lots of clashing opinions. Presenting my thoughts in a way that is understood by all readers on the Board is very important to me, particularly when someone, like you, is reading and trying to understand it. Please do not hesitate to jump into the discussion, even if just to ask a question, or to request a book reference.

P.S. I read a great deal of material that I do not understand at first and which requires a great effort. It is all relative!

Hi Henry:

Let me cut right to the chase.

You write above that "'religiosity' is the product of our biological and genetic make-up, to be sure, but coupled with our existential condition, and our human need to understand our environment, and seek the companionship and approval of our peers."

Focusing on the first clause of that sentence, in what way do you think religiosity is "the product of our biological and genetic make-up"? How does that work? What, in your view, is the link between "biological and genetic make-up" and "religiosity"?

AND...in what way does that link *not* constitute a "biological propensity to"?

TAL: You write above that "'religiosity' is the product of our biological and genetic make-up, to be sure, but coupled with our existential condition, and our human need to understand our environment, and seek the companionship and approval of our peers."

COMMENT: First, keep in mind that my simplistic statement was in response to your request: "If, as I understand, you do not believe religiosity is biologically hard-wired, can you provide any sort of plausible account, however general, and regardless of whether you believe it or not, of a non-biological explanation for religiosity?" Now, you are apparently attempting to cite this as a synopsis of my view. IT ISN'T! My view is that the very notion of "religiosity" is questionable, and that if in fact some sort of statistical point can be made that human beings have some such propensity, it is not explainable by appeal to biology, even though biology plays a role in ALL of our mental states and behavior. Human behavior on the individual or cultural levels is far to complex, including its underlying biology, to pigeon-hole simplistic explanations simply because we hunger for a "scientific" explanation.
___________________________________________

TAL: Focusing on the first clause of that sentence, in what way do you think religiosity is "the product of our biological and genetic make-up"? How does that work? What, in your view, is the link between "biological and genetic make-up" and "religiosity"?

COMMENT: Again, I do not think it is "the product" of biology, only that biology is a component of any human behavior, simply because we are biological creatures. Any link between biology and "religiosity" is merely incidental; meaning it does not provide anything that remotely can be called an explanation.
__________________________________________

AND...in what way does that link *not* constitute a "biological propensity to"?

COMMENT: As I read "biological propensity" it is a biological fact (however complex) that is sufficiently dominant to both induce the behavior and explain it.
__________________________________________

FINAL COMMENT: Note also that I have couched my responses in this and the previous post in the familiar language of classic biology, where in DNA and genes are viewed in accordance with Neo-Darwinism as the "code" for certain biological traits and phenotypes, and natural selection is the sole mechanism for variation and change. Such views are now disfavored in biology, in favor of the more complex system theory approach, which takes into account the overwhelming evidence for developmental facts and influences that shape human traits, as well as epigenetic influences from the environment which can affect the role of genes in development, and ultimately in the phenotype.

What this means for our discussion is that human behavior, including what you call "religiosity" encompasses a complex dynamic of system forces and influences, which transcend the components of the organism itself. As such, even talk of "mechanisms of biology" as if human behavior, or human traits generally, was an algorithmic result of even complex biological functions is misplaced. Instead, rather than reductive explanations to genetics, development, cells, etc., specific instances of behavior require an understanding of the system itself, and its dynamics as an open system. Here are a few recommended books that are accessible (more or less) to the general reader that address these issues. However, I don't necessarily agree with their conclusions:

Susan Oyama, "A Systems View of the Biology-Culture Divide."

Evan Thompson, "Mind in Life: Biology, Phenomenology, and the Sciences of Mind."

Robert Rosen: "Essays on Life Itself."

Sean B. Carroll, "Endless Forms Most Beautiful: The New Science of EVO DEVO."

Nessa Carey, "The Epigenetics Revolution: How Modern Biology Is Rewriting Our Understanding of Genetics, Disease, and Inheritance."

I've never heard anyone suggest that "the very notion of 'religiosity' is questionable" before.

In what way do you believe it is "questionable"? Do you mean, you think it might not exist? How do you describe - or to what do you ascribe - the ubiquity of religious belief and behaviour in human cultures?

Here is my answer:

Suppose I am an astute social scientist, and I notice that the vast majority of people in the Western world brush their teeth each morning. Wow, I think to myself. How did this come about? I then coin the phrase "Dentalosity" to describe this behavior, and embark upon a research program to explain it. I immediately think, "Maybe there is a dentalosity gene." Soon I am insisting that it must be biological, probably an adaptation of some sort. Then, I notice that some people use soft bristles, some hard bristles, and some use electric tooth brushes. Immediately, I wonder how this might be reflected in biological mechanisms. I generate impressive statistics, and draw marvelous conclusions about the population dynamics of dentalosity; all supporting my biological thesis. After several years of study, I finally write a paper, called "Dentalosity: The biological basis for tooth-brushing." It is immediately accepted for publication by the best social science journal in the land (they love this sort of thing), and I am proud of my accomplishment. Others follow my lead, and soon "dentalosity" is accepted as a term of art, creating great interest and controversy.

Then, when my five-year-old is brushing his teeth, I tell him casually, about the paper Daddy was been working on. He looks up at me incredulously, and says, "Maybe people just want to keep their teeth clean."

Same with religiosity. Sure, you can baptize a new word with some meaning; and go about pretending it has some deep significance, biologically or culturally, but when all is said and done, the reality is simply that people like to form, join, and participate in groups with others who are like minded; which sometimes generates strong feelings of commitment to a particular ideology.

So, the moral of the "story" is that noticing a social phenomena, and inventing some name for it, does not make it meaningful in any scientific sense--regardless of how many people subscribe to it, or opine on it.

I think this is enough on this topic, don't you?

Henry Bemis Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

>
> Same with religiosity. Sure, you can baptize a
> new word with some meaning; and go about
> pretending it has some deep significance,
> biologically or culturally, but when all is said
> and done, the reality is simply that people like
> to form, join, and participate in groups with
> others who are like minded; which sometimes
> generates strong feelings of commitment to a
> particular ideology.


Wow. Henry. You are being even more of a reductionist than all the reductions we've jointly been balking at for years here on RfM. This is like saying of the important work of Robert Trivers, say, "oh, people sometimes like to do nice things for others without hoping or even wanting something in return" or "people often like lying to themselves and others and there's nothing else more to it than that."

I've always been with you on hesitating (practicing scepticism) on all things evo-devo, but I would never be so dismissive. I may not have full confidence in attempts to pin down religiosity in biology, but there's no question about the utility of the concept in sociology.


Human

(I'm only seeing this thread now, and have skipped over it to read the ending first, so I'm probably missing some crucial context.)

HUMAN: "Wow. Henry. You are being even more of a reductionist than all the reductions we've jointly been balking at for years here on RfM. This is like saying of the important work of Robert Trivers, say, "oh, people sometimes like to do nice things for others without hoping or even wanting something in return" or "people often like lying to themselves and others and there's nothing else more to it than that."

COMMENT: *I* am being reductionist? How so? Robert Trivers is from the old Neo-Darwinism school (As I recall he wrote the original introduction to Dawkins' The Selfish Gene) and has spent a good part of his career attempting to define human behavior in evolutionary, biological, adaptionist terms, e.g. altruism. Do I think all of his work is misguided? No. Do I think much of his work is nonsense? Yes! Like Dawkins, he is very dated in his commitment to neo-Darwinism and human sociobiology. However, I am not dismissive of sociobiology generally; particularly as applied to social insects and the work of E.O. Wilson.

But more to the point, my comments were in response to Tal's specific and continual defense of biological religiosity. I am not saying that human behavior cannot be "usefully" studied by the social sciences in all sorts of ways. However, when people, like Trivers, translate human cultural data into evolutionary adaptive theories, they stumble into a web of materialist speculation that is not logically or scientifically supportable. And, they get all sorts of misplaced accolades for doing so.

Now, with all respect, if you have a specific point or claim to make, make it. Or if you have a particular social theory you want to articulate and defend, then present it. But, so far you have just jumped into a long discussion and announced that I am too dismissive, without saying what specifically you think I am dismissive of, or why I am wrong. Give me something specific to respond to.
______________________________________

HUMAN: "I've always been with you on hesitating (practicing scepticism) on all things evo-devo, but I would never be so dismissive. I may not have full confidence in attempts to pin down religiosity in biology, but there's no question about the utility of the concept in sociology."

COMMENT: O.K. So you would never be so dismissive. Then tell me just what the "utility" of "religiosity" is in sociology. Is it theoretical utility? Clinical utility? Just interesting? Or is its usefulness mostly in generating research grants? Once you tell me that, we will see if we have a disagreement. And if we do, we can argue are positions.

I give Tal a lot of credit for sticking his neck out with specific positions and arguments, even if I do not agree with him. You are at your best when you do the same. So, tell me a specific sociological theory, and its justification, that has been presented by Trivers (or anyone else) that you deem true, insightful, or otherwise useful; particularly as it relates to "religiosity." I am very interested in your point of view, as always.

Was away. Saw the stuff and just jumped in, too quickly you say. Fair enough.

I quoted your dismissiveness.

I don't understand how you think Trivers writes nonsense but at the same time isn't misguided in doing so. That's nonsense.

You and ifi- tell me I shouldn't write unless I have arguments and theories to offer. I'm here mostly for the conversation, but okay, fair enough.

Human

Human Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> You and ifi- tell me I shouldn't write unless I
> have arguments and theories to offer. I'm here
> mostly for the conversation, but okay, fair
> enough.

Can't recall ever having said that...?
I do ask you to back up claimed facts (when you don't), but that's not the same thing.

:)

"I don't understand how you think Trivers writes nonsense but at the same time isn't misguided in doing so. That's nonsense."

COMMENT: I said, "Do I think all of his work is misguided? No. Do I think much of his work is nonsense? Yes!" To be more charitable, I should have just said that I strongly disagree with much of his work, particularly his work on "reciprocal altruism" and game theory. I am not an expert on Trivers' body of work, but it is my understanding that he is locked into a social-Darwinism mindset, which I think is fundamentally misguided.
__________________________________________

"You and ifi- tell me I shouldn't write unless I have arguments and theories to offer. I'm here mostly for the conversation, but okay, fair enough."

COMMENT: Well, I know I didn't say that. As far as I am concerned, your comments are always welcome. What I meant to say is that the more substantive your comments, the more I am able to respond and dialogue with your about them. Also, your substantive contributions have affected my views in the past on many occasions.

I'm not sure it's enough.

I'll try to find time in the next few days to respond.

By the way, Henry writes:

"You can baptize a new word with some meaning; and go about pretending it has some deep significance, biologically or culturally, but when all is said and done, the reality is simply that people like to form, join, and participate in groups with others who are like minded; which sometimes generates strong feelings of commitment to a particular ideology".

How about this as a response?

"You can deny a word meaning, and go about pretending the phenomenon it refers to has no deep significance, biologically or culturally; but when all is said and done, the reality is simply that human beings possess deep-seated instincts which end up driving them - in every society of which we have record - to form, join, and participate in groups which sacralize certain objects, figures, entities, concepts, stories, places, etc.; adhere to a certain moral code; practice certain rituals; amd almost always invoke the transcendent or supernatural; in other words, to communal religious practice and belief".

My point? Glib, trivializing, dismissive words (as well as wildly inapt analogies to toothbrushing) no more diminish something's existence, than different sorts of words augment its existence. That is, I have no idea why Henry thinks his triumphantly-toned paragraph supports any of his claims. It is just a restatement of - well, not really an opinion, but just a posture of imperious disdain, for which Henry's enthusiasm seems to be inversely proportional to the amount of evidence he has adduced for it (i.e., none).

Though Henry portrays his attitude as very "now", to me it seems more like a vestige of a vanishing world in which social scientists and philosophers - perhaps unconsciously insecure about their own authority or epistemological footing - viewed biology as a disagreeable realm entirely irrelevant to their own inquiries.

I have to add, I have no idea how anyone can look at the massive influence and persistence and ubiquity of religious belief and practice throughout history, and then seriously ask us to believe that its comparable to toothbrushing. This analogy is so inapt, I felt embarrassed just reading it.

In any case, I acknowledge that the onus is on me here to present an evidence-based argument for biologically-driven religiosity. I'll try to find time to respond adequately some time in the next few days.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 01/29/2016 05:15AM by Tal Bachman.

"In any case, I acknowledge that the onus is on me here to present an evidence-based argument for biologically-driven religiosity. I'll try to find time to respond adequately some time in the next few days."

COMMENT: This is the only non-rhetorical comment you have made here, Tal. I am glad you finally get it. Sometimes it takes a ridiculous analogy to make a point that finally sinks in.

Henry Bemis Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> COMMENT: This is the only non-rhetorical comment
> you have made here, Tal. I am glad you finally
> get it. Sometimes it takes a ridiculous analogy
> to make a point that finally sinks in.

A lot of rhetoric could have been saved had Tal bothered to read my post in the original thread -- that use of fire being ubiquitous among humans does not mean it's biological.
Oh, well :)

Keep on, HB.

The simple act of building a fire is not analogous to the complexity of the cross-cultural, multi-millennia phenomena of religiosity. Not even remotely. You offered a false analogy.

Language, on the other hand, is analogous, and probably shares the same mix of biology and the environment as does religiosity.

Human

(By the way, I get why Tal ignores you.)

As always much more understandable than my rambling musings.

I would say that fire building is more biology than not. The capacity and capability to build a fire seems to me to be, some random high percentage number, biology.

I tried to say it above, but the complexity of how humanity interacts with social constructs is... complex.

The fire in our brain is certainly biological.

So ya, everything we do, think and feel is biological. Makes sense to me.

Human Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The simple act of building a fire is not analogous
> to the complexity of the cross-cultural,
> multi-millennia phenomena of religiosity. Not
> even remotely. You offered a false analogy.

No, just one you didn't like.

"building a fire" -- turned into using fire for warmth and cooking. Using it to accomplish social goals (clearing forests). Using it symbolically, in funeral rituals. Turned into large-scale social and industrial uses.

Yet it all started with building a simple fire.
Like "religiosity" could have started with imagining magical beings.

Seems to me the analogy was quite apt, just your failure to pick up on that which was 'false.'

> (By the way, I get why Tal ignores you.)

I really don't care...but it stems from two simple things: his own misunderstanding and over-sensitivity (claiming I misquoted him, when I didn't), and not agreeing with him on some things, and saying so.
So actually, I doubt you do understand.

ificouldhietokolob Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> I really don't care...but it stems from two simple
> things: his own misunderstanding and
> over-sensitivity (claiming I misquoted him, when I
> didn't), and not agreeing with him on some things,
> and saying so.


Well you seem to care enough to think about and to guess at the reason Tal ignores you. And you certainly care enough to continue responding to his posts. So forgive me if I do not believe you when you say, "I really don't care..."

Human

Henry - I don't deny, and have never denied, that anyone proposing something about how the world operates needs to provide some sort of argument and evidence if they hope to convince others. Of course, that includes me.

At the same time, I must say that I object to the fact that you yourself, certainly in earlier discussions, have refused to provide evidence to support your own claims. Over and over again, you have given the impression that you assume that mere announcement of your conclusions is epistemologically valuable to the rest of us.

Moreover, certainly in our past discussions on consciousness, you over and over again simply ignored counterarguments to your statements. In other words, I don't think you have much grounds for complaining about *my* posts, given your own track record on here...but I guess I'll leave that to others to judge.

While I'm on here complaining :), let me add that your habit of dismissing out of hand ideas proposed in incipient form only *because* they are still in incipient form, or because you perceive them as eventually threatening your own personal moral values, is inconsistent with conscientious philosophical or scientific investigation into how the world actually operates. I'd like us to get past that sort of thing for good.

In any event, in the present case, your quick dismissal of a biologically-driven religiosity here seems to rely on some combination of brute denial that religiosity even exists (which might actually be a position you alone hold on this entire planet) and wildly inapt analogizing, which assumes, against all sense, that the phenomena of religiosity and religion are no more worth taking seriously, and require no more profound explanation, than brushing one's teeth.

Why you are mistaken on that, no doubt, we will discuss this coming week.

Have a good weekend.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/29/2016 06:52PM by Tal Bachman.

I may be poo pooed for this but I agree with Henry Bemis(not because he has all the time in the world to read books with broken glasses)

Henry's premise(forgive me if I am misrepresenting it. And feel free to correct me) is that religiosity is just a human made label to explain observation. The reason might be more simple than a human need for religion. Instead it can be easier explained and simplified into us being social creatures and needing a herd to belong to. Religion being one of those herds where we can associate and belong to. Religiosity might be our human need to label and classify something we have observed. It might also be better explained if it can be broken down into smaller and simpler pieces. In my eyes religiosity is a product of a more base human trait. Could religion have sprouted from a human nature to explain and understand something? Our understanding of lightning and Thor's hammer come to mind. Could the term religiosity sprouted from the same core human nature? An attempt to explain something that we have observed?

With psychology being a pseudo science to begin with none of our conclusions are verifiable as more than likely true, or false. In this instance I choose to use Occam's razor. There seem to be more assumptions involved with physiological religiosity than other, more simple explanations.

If I have misunderstood someones argument I apologize.

Bemis is wrong because his reduction is ridiculous. Trying to reduce religiosity to our inherent sociality misses a lot that makes religiosity *more* than that. For just one, it misses the numinous. We may join a club to play board games to satisfy our sociality, and no one would call playing Risk with strangers religious.

What is this numinous? Let’s allow the atheist’s champion answer that:

There’s a conversation between Hitchens and Dawkins and Dennett and Harris somewhere on-line that has an interesting moment, a moment wherein Hitch turns to Harris and says “…but we must not deny the numinous…”

Late in his life, Hitchens debated Tony Blair for the prestigious Munk Debates series in Toronto. This is what he said on behalf of the numinous:


“HITCHENS: Admirable question, thank you for it. The remark Tony made that I most agreed with this evening, I'll just hope that doesn't sound too minimal, was when he said that if religion was to disappear, things would by no means, as it were, automatically be okay. I mean, he phrased it better than that. But it would be what I regard as a necessary condition would certainly not be a sufficient one, at any rate religion won't disappear, but the hold it has on people's minds can be substantially broken and domesticated. He's quite right about that, of course. I hope I didn't seem at any point to have argued to the contrary. I come before you after all as a materialist. If we give up religion, we discover what actually we know already, whether we're religious or not, which is that we are somewhat imperfectly evolved primates on a very small planet in a very unimportant suburb of a solar system that is itself a negligible part of a very rapidly expanding and blowing apart cosmic phenomenon. These conclusions to me are a great deal more awe inspiring than what's contained in any burning bush or horse that flies overnight to Jerusalem or any other of that—a great deal more awe inspiring, as is any look through the Hubble telescope at what our real nature and future really is. So he was quite right to say that, and I would have been entirely wrong if I implied otherwise. I think I could say a couple of things for religion myself—would, in fact.

“First is what I call the apotropaic. We all have it: the desire not to be found to be claiming all the credit, a certain kind of modesty, you could almost say humility. People will therefore say they'll thank God when something happens that they are grateful for, or—there's no need to make this a religious thing. The Greeks had the concept of hubris as something to be avoided and criticized. But what the Greeks would also call the apotropaic, the view that not all the glory can be claimed by a load of primates like ourselves is a healthy reminder too.

“Second, the sense that there's something beyond the material, or if not beyond it, not entirely consistent materially with it, is, I think, a very important matter. What you could call the numinous or the transcendent, or at its best, I suppose, the ecstatic. I wouldn't trust anyone in this hall who didn't know what I was talking about. We know what we mean by it, when we think about certain kinds of music perhaps, certainly the relationship or the coincidence but sometimes very powerful between music and love. Landscape, certain kinds of artistic and creative work that appears not to have been done entirely by hand. Without this, we really would merely be primates. I think it's very important to appreciate the finesse of that, and I think religion has done a very good job of enshrining it in music and in architecture, not so much in painting in my opinion. And I think it's actually very important that we learn to distinguish the numinous in this way. I wrote a book about the Parthenon, I'll mention it briefly. I couldn't live without the Parthenon. I don't believe any civilized person could. If it was to be destroyed, you'd feel something much worse than the destruction of the first temple had occurred, it seems to me. But—and we would have lost an enormous amount of besides by way of our knowledge of symmetry and grace and harmony. But I don't care about the cult of Pallas Athena, it's gone. And as far as I know it's not to be missed. The Eleusinian mysteries have been demystified. The sacrifices, some of them human, that were made to those gods, are regrettable but have been blotted out and forgotten. And Athenian imperialism is also a thing of the past. What remains is the fantastic beauty and the faith that built it. The question is how to keep what is of value of this sort in art and in our own emotions and in our finer feelings the numinous, the transcendent, I will go as far as the ecstatic, and to distinguish it precisely from superstition and the supernatural which are designed to make us fearful and afraid and servile and which sometimes succeed only too well.

Thank you.”

http://www.munkdebates.com/debates/religion


If you’ll allow us to reduce the history of religion to the religiosity at its essence then we could we use this from Mircea Eliade:

“Man becomes aware of the sacred because it manifests itself, shows itself, as something wholly different from the profane. To designate the *act of manifestation* of the sacred, we have proposed the term *hierophany*. It is a fitting term, because it does not imply anything further; it expresses no more than is implicit in its etymological content, i.e., that *something sacred shows itself to us*. It could be said that the history of religions —from the most primitive to the most highly developed—is constituted by a great number of hierophanies, by manifestations of sacred realities. From the most elementary hierophant —e.g., manifestation of the sacred in some ordinary object, a stone or a tree— to the supreme hierophany (which, for a Christian, is the incarnation of God in Jesus Christ) there is no solution of continuity. I each case we are confronted by the same mysterious act —the manifestation of something of wholly different order, a reality that does not belong to our world, in objects that are an integral part of our natural “profane” world.”

—Mircea Eliade—
—The Sacred & The Profane—


It is not a stretch to find the numinous in and thus create a hierophany (to sacralize) out of Fenway Park, the Marine Corps League’s book of Rituals or the Constitution of the United States. Or not, it depends on what manifests itself to you. The point here is plain: *something* does manifest itself to virtually all humans through millennia as something to be set aside as *more than*, as something to be set apart from “the profane”, as something wholly ‘other’ to be made “sacred”.

Sans the numinous, “we really would merely be primates,” as Hitchens says. If the numinous is at the heart of our religiosity, then it is also at heart of our humanity.

Human

(scaredhusband, in my opinion, thinking of religion as a way explaining or understanding something, like lightening, is a modern day atheist straw man. It misses the point.)

"Trying to reduce religiosity to our inherent sociality misses a lot that makes religiosity *more* than that. For just one, it misses the numinous. We may join a club to play board games to satisfy our sociality, and no one would call playing Risk with strangers religious."

I guess since we are pointing out straw-men... Perhaps, I should have been more specific. What I was trying to say is that religiosity isn't just a product of human need to socialize, but of many human traits, where socialization is a factor of many variables.

I don't see how the reduction makes the argument, any more or less, ridiculous.

I'll see your Hitchens quotes and will raise you an appeal to authority fallacy.

If something *more than* is manifesting itself to me I have yet to get the message.

In jest I will add. During risk I have prayed to the dice gods of risk for a favorable roll many times.

If you don't mind expressing your opinion on how religion isn't a way to describe or make sense of the supernatural, I would appreciate it. What is the point of religion, or a belief in deity/deities? Feel free to make another topic.

I quote Hitchens not to "appeal to his authority", for he hasn't any more than you or I on this subject. I quoted him because he describes the numinous well.

If you haven't the kind of experience Hitchens describes then that's okay.

I would say that religion isn't a way of explaining the numinous or even to understand the numinous, for the experience thereof is most often described as something beyond explanation and understanding. I would say the point of religion is to honour the experience, to set it apart as sacred. To raise it above the "profane".


(The gods of Risk seem to hate my guts; or I just hubristically always try to hold Europe.)