Sorry I can't settle on a better thread title, but there it is. One thing which intrigued me in earlier discussions was an apparent assumption that religious people act how they do (presumably good) because they believe they have to due to religious mandates, while non-believers act good due to more, I don't know, selfless reasons. Perhaps this is accurate and some (all?) of the "believers" who frequent the forum "do what is right" primarily because their faith tells them to. But I am curious; one thing I have always tried to do personally is separate what I do because I personally judge it to be the correct thing to do, and what I do because my faith tells me I must. Hopefully I haven't made a hash of this - it makes some sense in my mind at least!
I think that because humans are very social animals it is a huge advantage for us to, generally, behave kindly to each other. You have a better chance of surviving in a group if the other members of the group treat you well and look after you and there's a better chance of this happening if you treat others well and look after them. I don't think 'acting in a good way' is so much of a conscious decision. I don't think people help other people out because they're thinking, 'there's more chance of this person helping me out if I help him out'. I think the part of us which has evolved to make us act in this way though is our conscience. Having empathy for others means that you feel sorry for people who are in a bad situation and you want to help them. It almost sounds selfish to say that you're a good person because you'd feel bad if you weren't but on a conscious level I think being a good person is still a pretty selfless thing. I think that being a 'good person' obviously has benefits in terms of natural selection and that's why people are 'good', seemingly for no reason. I tend to think that good people who are religious would be good people without religion anyway. I also think that some arse holes who are religious only give the outside appearence of being a good person because they want to give off that impression, but deep down, they're still b@stards.
I think people do things because it's in their nature more than anything else. After that it's probably more a question of them rationalising what they're already inclined to do. In my experience being religious, agnostic or an atheist doesn't make a blind bit of difference. Funnily enough I used to do volunteer work a couple of days a week and many people there were religious but, tbh, they often weren't particularly helpful to the callers. They weren't allowed to mention any particular belief system such as religion and this left them rather stuck when it came to the more difficult questions.
I think that is precisely right. It seems we have an (almost?) instinctive understanding that we're better off treating others the way we'd expect to be treated. It's just practical really.
I just want to add that scientist believe our ancestors killed off the "alpha males" who tend to be more sadistic and narcissistic. We're the children of meeker people who decided to stand up to a bully.
I've always thought that both altruism and tribalism make perfect sense in an evolutionary context. I recently saw a TV documentary about chimps which pointed out something interesting in their behavior. Apparently, chimps within any particular group will behave altrustically - they will show kindness to each other for no apparent personal or group benefit. For example, they showed an older chimp who wasn't physically able to get to the water supply, and youger chimps would actually bring water to her, cupped in their hands. On the other hand, as soon as a foreign or unfamiliar group of chimps was introduced, the same animals could turn mercilessly violent. It all seems to support a very simple principle: we are hardwired to engage in behaviors that benefit members of our tribe, but to turn competitive and feel the opposite impulses when interacting with other tribes.
There's no question but that people need to cooperate to achieve their goals. That was the situation back in the stone age and it's the position now. The idea that people need to constantly compete with each other for everything is a fallacy, usually pushed by someone who wants to go around shafting others. Any society where that was given completely free rein wouldn't last a fortnight. Regarding the chimps that demos just mentioned... the reality is that we're exactly the same BUT we have the intellectual capacity to recognise that if we steal off others or become violent toward them, the same thing will be visited on us. In that sense we're all part of the same 'tribe'. We have a name for this concept... they're called 'laws'.
I wouldn't describe 'being a good person' as instictive. Sometimes it goes very much against instinct.
Well, I was refering to the collectiveism that we share with each other. We naturely group/gather with our own kind. None of us seek solitute with zebras. We go for our own herd. Being a good person means being a good member of the herd. I would argue that religion causes us to reach beyond our own sub group. Chimps get along fine within their subgroup but don't with other chimp groups. Humans have evolved (a bit) beyond that to where some of us have dropped the animosities when it comes to such things as race, culture & religion. Sadly though, not enough of us. We are, after all, merely animals in the physical sense.
Well OK, fair point. Funnily enough, one thing the internet does is show us how alike we are. It can make us feel more of a 'tribe, if you will.
Actually, that's not true. If you want to see an amazing documentary about what chimps are able to do (and think), check out this link: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/apegenius/ However, there seems to be one major difference between humans and other animals, namely empathy. I regularly drive long distances and I'm sick and tired of my music and the music that's played on the radio, so I listen to other programs. The other day, I was lucky enough to catch a great radio program about that topic. It was over an hour, so I can't do it any justice here, but I'll try to outline the basic thoughts. There was a biologist on the radio who had an interesting theory about why humans feel empathy. First he quoted an autist who wrote a book and she said that autists love animals because they're autists too. His theory was that it all comes down to smiling. There are two different kinds of smiles, one to indicate that we're happy and another one that's intended to form bonds to other individuals. In humans, those two sorts of smiles happen to be identical (and he brought forth an evolutionary explanation for this). There is no other species where this is the case. This means that we cannot differentiate among those two kind of smiles. So when we see somebody who's just happy, we subconsciously think he's trying to bond with us. This realization starts at early childhood and changes the way we think. Because this means that we want to make other people happy, because if they're happy we think they want to bond with us. It triggers a mechanism in our brain that makes us happy in return. This way, unlike other animals, we can actually share joy. A very fascinating idea...
i know that i'm being picky -- what else is new! -- but if we cannot differentiate between the two kinds of smiles, we must be relying on the report of the person who is smiling to determine what the motivation for the smile was. this means that there has to be an agreement that there are two distinct kinds of smiles and that persons reporting are clear on the distinction. was there a research study on this topic? i think the conclusion is dodgy.
The point is that what used to be two distinct kinds of smiles (and still is for every other animal) evolved into only one kind of smile. So for us there's no difference between those smiles. When you see someone smile - especially when that someone is close to you - your brain triggers a gratification system. The hypothesis is that this "confusion" is the basis for human compassion. By acting "selfless", you're actually being quite selfish, because you want that gratification by making someone else happy. One example that was used is the fact that human children are the only ones who actually feed their parents. At about 18 months, they typically start giving their parents sweets for example and ask "good?". They are fishing for a smile from their parents because that in return makes them happy...so much so, that it beats the gratification of eating the sweets themselves. This is something that has never been observed with any other animal. Well, it was basically this guy talking...unfortunately, I don't remember his name, but he was a student of the famous behaviorist Konrad Lorenz and is also a professor for biochemistry. He cited many studies done by various institutes, so I'd suppose that the facts are there. I was driving in my car, so I can't remember any of those, but this PBS documentary I've linked to shows some examples. His conclusions however are probably still only hypotheses (I don't know) - but they seem entirely logical.
The truth is that everyone is a robot. Everything we do is the result of the programming or the conditioning of our minds as we grew up from childhood into adulthood. We are conditioned not only by our parents but also by the culture, the education system, various religious and government propaganda and etc... Those things are set by the ruling elites of any particular country which include a country like the US in order to benefit the ruling elite. For example people in this country are programmed to believe that they must chase the American dream - to become corporate zombies and get material things in return. And they boost the wealth and power of elites while doing so. I don't see a lot of difference between an organic human being and a robot. Both contain a physical hardware and programming. I will quote from the great Alan Watt " We seldom realize, for example, that our most private thoughts and emotions are not actually our own. For we think in terms of language and images which we did not invent, but which were given to us by our society, we copy emtional reations from our parents...society is our extended mind and body."
it isn't the truth. what is more the case is that everyone has been acculturated in ways that make their behavior more conforming to a set of values, expectations, parameters that have been generated and instilled by the culture at large. most of us are selective about the cultural/societal "programming". there are mores and attitudes that control our behavior that we fully endorse, and there are those which we eschew. i, for example, have stopped purchasing clothing with the brand logo visible, except for Dockers, which happen to fit me better than most other pants i have tried, because it's too much trouble -- plus it would be silly -- to try to remove the little tag, and sport shoes, which are almost impossible to find without some brand logo. i spend quite a lot of time making decisions about what i consider important purchases. i rarely buy something just to have more stuff or better stuff. i have an ego -- everyone does -- and i am pleased when someone tells me that they approve of something i have purchased, but i wouldn't stop wearing or using something because someone i like told me i got ripped off or that it's not a good product. if it serves my purpose, that's sufficient.
All our actions are basically just controlled by chemical and sub-atomic reactions in our brains and bodies. They are so complex and there are so many that it gives the illusion that we're not just robots made from flesh and bone but we are.
if they are so complex and so many there is no way to be certain of how the process works. what you're saying is nonsense. the "sub-atomic" is a great touch. keep it up. that must be where charm fits in.