…and this is a 
Sapolsky on belief and biology
Category: Godlessness
Posted on: March 1, 2007 12:54 PM, by PZ Myers
Robert M. Sapolsky is one of my favorite science writers — if you haven't read Why Zebras Don't Get Ulcers(amzn/b&n/abe/pwll), The Trouble With Testosterone: And Other Essays On The Biology Of The Human Predicament(amzn/b&n/abe/pwll), A Primate's Memoir(amzn/b&n/abe/pwll), or Monkeyluv: And Other Essays on Our Lives as Animals (amzn/b&n/abe/pwll), I suggest you get off your butt right now and visit your library or bookstore. He's a primatologist who studies the endocrinology and behavior of baboons, but he always presents his work in terms of the human condition. We aren't so different, we primates.
If you don't feel like getting up right this instant, though, at least click on this link to his speech to the Freedom From Religion Foundation. You'll get a taste of that Sapolsky humanism that will get you wanting more, and he also has an interesting message: that religion is a kind of controlled psychosis.
It's also a message that I'm surprised is not getting targeted by the creationists more. They are so hung up on godless evilutionism that they mostly don't seem to realized that there is another, equally ferocious wolf coming up their flank, the neurosciences. Evolution is shredding their preconceptions about history and their origins, but neuroscience is going to rip out a different, but even more central concept: the soul. Minds are the products of electrochemical and molecular/physiological activity, not spirits or souls or extradimensional magical forces — brains are meat and thoughts are the product of ions and small molecules bubbling about in coordinated patterns. That doesn't demean us and I think it makes us just as interesting and wonderful, but it is another case where the religious guesswork is proving wrong.
Comments
Long-time reader, first-time commenter, because I have to give a hearty 'amen!*' to the Sapolsky love. He is perhaps my all-time favorite science essayist.
*as it were
Posted by: Carrie | March 1, 2007 1:03 PM
Ah, good to see PZ (and Sapolsky) riding my longstanding hobbyhorse about how the believers- and not just the fundies- will really have a shit fit when the implications of contemporary neuroscience finally dawn on them. (I was always amazed that there wasn't a much bigger hooha raised over, say, Crick's "The Astonishing Hypothesis".)
Larry Moran's gonna have a field day with the "shaman theory", though. ;)
Posted by: Steve LaBonne | March 1, 2007 1:10 PM
They're Made of Meat!
Posted by: Johnny Vector | March 1, 2007 1:10 PM
Are you kidding me? Neuroscience? Heck, creationists are still stuck on the evolution of the eye and other such tripe. Dr. Babuna stopped by here in Florida trying to sell his particular brand of snake oil. It will be a while before these idiots step out of their comfort zones.
Posted by: Brandon | March 1, 2007 1:12 PM
Man, I loves me some Sapolsky too.
My vertebrate endocrinology prof is a collaborator of his on some papers. Regarding primate behavior, he told our class of something Sapolsky observed to him once (I'm paraphrasing a second-hand paraphrase from memory, so any errors introduced are mine--sorry about that):
It's funny because it's true--that's primates for you!
Posted by: RavenT | March 1, 2007 1:16 PM
Ah, but neuroscience offers us the potential to change major aspects of our lives. Wanna pill for what ails ya?
Posted by: Blake Stacey | March 1, 2007 1:16 PM
Ah, but when they finally do (and I agree they're pretty slow so it may take a while yet), they're going to have lots of "moderate" allies this time. Evolutionary theory strikes only at dumbass literal readings of ancient scriptures; materialistic theories of the mind- which clearly rule out any idea whatesoever of non-material intelligences- are lethal to ALL forms of religion, be they ever so "sophisticated".
Posted by: Steve LaBonne | March 1, 2007 1:16 PM
My major fault with humanism is that it gives too much value to our species. The idea that we are the peak of evolution - or simply the most advanced species on the planet - and somehow deserving of ethical treatment beyond that of other species is just about as faulty as belief in God. The world still revolves around us.
Posted by: Paul | March 1, 2007 1:16 PM
"It's also a message that I'm surprised is not getting targeted by the creationists more."
Note that Denyse O'Leary is well aware of this issue, and is currently writing a book "on the neurological EVIDENCE for the spiritual nature of human beings".
Posted by: DaleP | March 1, 2007 1:19 PM
Paul- you're not alone. I've always rather disliked the word "humanism" for precisely that reason. It smacks of worship of the human species- a very unfit object of worship.
Posted by: Steve LaBonne | March 1, 2007 1:19 PM
"controlled psychosis" ?!!!
Its far worse, its a contagious psychosis. The serious questions, since it is so prevalent, is how to maximize its benign side effects and minimize its harmful side effects.
You could apply what Einstein told Freud about the roots of "collective psychosis"...it applies to the straying of religion into politics as well as anything else I have heard.
Posted by: greensmile | March 1, 2007 1:23 PM
After reading that link I'll have to check our local bookstores, although I might have to resort to Amazon. The English sections tend to be a tad small. I MISS LIBRARIES!
But also, reading that speech reminded me a bit of Vilayanur S. Ramachandran's Reith lectures, The Emerging Mind. They weren't specifically about religion, but I doubt they'd make a religious person feel particularly comfortable.
Just looking at them again, I see there was at least one bit about religion:
Posted by: BadAunt | March 1, 2007 1:25 PM
Since when does humanism equal speciesism?
Drawing that kind of parallel reminds me of the dust-up in the capitol over an aide's use of the word "niggardly".
Posted by: jtdub | March 1, 2007 1:30 PM
The suffix "ism" nearly always implies a strong and positive focus on the noun that precedes it.
Posted by: Steve LaBonne | March 1, 2007 1:33 PM
Good Sapolsky article/speech.
Posted by: SEF | March 1, 2007 1:40 PM
...except in the case of humanism, which describes a wide swath of philosophical beliefs. The "human" is there to call attention to shared characteristics of disparate groups of people, and bases morality off of that. It isn't there to be in opposition to other species.
Posted by: jtdub | March 1, 2007 1:44 PM
BadAunt:
Libraries still exist. Did your local library get its funding cut or something?
Posted by: Rey Fox | March 1, 2007 1:45 PM
It is true, however, that when it was coined the word "humanism" meant a return of human beings to a more central role in society, as opposed to the Church being the be-all and end-all of life.
Posted by: Aureola Nominee, FCD | March 1, 2007 1:47 PM
It isn't the phenomenon of humanism (on the whole) that I object to, it's precisely that the name gives a misleading impression of it. Which is not to say that I have a better one handy.
Posted by: Steve LaBonne | March 1, 2007 1:49 PM
Agreed! Here's to better taxonomy in the philosophies.
Posted by: jtdub | March 1, 2007 1:55 PM
It's not really surprising that the ranks of the vapidly scientifically-illiterate would be unaware of another sciencey threat to their stupidity, is it?
Posted by: Warren | March 1, 2007 1:58 PM
Johnny Vector. Paging Johnny Vector.
Very nice link!
That is all.
Posted by: J-Dog | March 1, 2007 1:59 PM
I think humanist is a better word than Bright (not that the two are synonymous, or more than roughly linked sociologically). Personally, I think it's more informative than atheist, which only conveys what I don't believe in — hi, my hobby is not-stamp-collecting — rather than what I do.
Skeptic refers to the process by which I moderate beliefs, not necessarily to any specific position I hold. "Global warming skeptics" and "9/11 skeptics" adopt the word to make themselves sound streetwise, but we could better describe them as credulous contrarians. So, in looking for a word which describes what I believe, which indicates my general principles — the Big Ideas which motivate me to practice skepticism — I'm led back to humanism, faute de mieux.
To wax unnecessarily metaphorical, humanism is the path, skepticism the walking-stick and truth the destination.
Posted by: Blake Stacey | March 1, 2007 2:04 PM
When people insist you can be a theist and still believe in evolution, I now think, "Yes, but can you be a theist and still believe in neuroscience?"
Great speech, thanks for the heads-up.
Posted by: Will E. | March 1, 2007 2:09 PM
There is already have enough evidence against the soul to convince any rational person. As far as I know, no major religious group (at least here in the U.S.) still explains insanity as demon possession. But if a person is insane, what about the soul. Is it insane too or is it trapped watching the crazy brain do crazy things. If the soul can exert control, but the brain is malfunctioning at a chemical or physical level, insanity makes no sense.
Neuroscience is just another chunk of reality for the theists to ignore.
Posted by: tharding | March 1, 2007 2:23 PM
Love it! I've read lots of Ramachandran and Sacks because the brain is so fascinating, now I have another author to add to my amazon.com wishlist. I even forwarded the link to my 13 year old, who's reading "The Emerging Mind" and is a budding atheist. Thanks for this, PZ!
Posted by: Alison | March 1, 2007 2:30 PM
For those congenitally disposed to doubt single-factor explanations of anything so complex as human religious urges, it's helpful to recall Burrhus Skinner (B.F. Skinner) and his observations of "superstitious" behaviors in pigeons. The wikipedia biography includes a pretty full summary of his 1940's notion and the subsequent interpretive doubts, with references.
(Congenital? Or is it that I'm getting more "frontal" per Sapolsky? And FWIW I'm a happy reader of Sapolsky's essays.)
Posted by: thwaite | March 1, 2007 2:33 PM
I believe that the word humanism implies value in humanity over the interests of other species, and also implies that there is something about humanity that gives us need to state that we have a special place in the discussion of life in general on this planet, from a moral, ethical, or evolutionary point of view, none of which I believe to be true (other than we have the ability to talk, being nothing special because we spend so much time berating eachother).
Now, as for the discussion of the term atheism. I personally don't see why being theistic is normal, and we are required to post an a- in front of this moniker. Instead, I think that atheists should simply be considered normal, and theists should either obviously be theists, or ab-normal.
Posted by: Paul | March 1, 2007 2:39 PM
Like Steve LaBonne and others here, I've also felt that the findings in neuroscience were much more damaging to a top-down religious view of reality than evolutionary biology. After all, if you get to exempt the Mind and all its products from those slowly accumulating mindless processes of nature, both the ghost in the machine and the ghost in the universe stay safely out of the way of science, and reign supreme.
But I suspect that mind/brain physicalism (or its variations) will never stir quite the same passions among the general public. Why? Because it's not going to be taught in the classroom to kids. That's what gets people upset. Push the button, mass hysteria.
"They're coming after our children, and undermining our attempts to tell them about God!"
Every schoolchild is taught that the brain is connected to thinking and feeling, sure, but that doesn't prevent them -- or anyone else -- from vaguely visualizing the brain as a sort of tool which the Self uses to do work with. But imagine what happens if high school textbooks ever begin to address the issue of the "soul" directly, in any way other than "of course, none of this brain science stuff has anything to say about whether there are souls or not, that's a different magisteria." You'd see the public up in arms again, just like with evolution.
They need to protect their babies, even more than they need to prop up their faith.
Posted by: Sastra | March 1, 2007 2:40 PM
Posted by: Steve LaBonne | March 1, 2007 2:44 PM
I think Sapolsky goes over the top when comparing OCD rituals with religious rituals. One might as well say that personal habits such as wiping ones ass with only the left hand are OCD symptoms then. It's more useful to think of habits as mental subroutines that once programmed are no longer necessary to think explictly about. I always put my car keys and wallet in the same place at night, so that in the morning when I am rushed I automatically pick them back up without having to search the whole damn house for them. Does that make me OCD? Of course not. It makes me a little better organized, that's all.
Posted by: David Wilford | March 1, 2007 2:44 PM
Read Primate's Memoir, loved it. Fantastic writing (I mean in the sense of "good", not "pertaining to fantasy" ;-), full of excitement and pathos (and bathos) and rage, wonderful descriptions of place, and you learn some science along the way. Good speaker, too -- we're now working our way through his Neurobiology lectures in the "Great Courses" DVD series.
Posted by: Steve Watson | March 1, 2007 3:08 PM
"materialistic theories of the mind- which clearly rule out any idea whatesoever of non-material intelligences- are lethal to ALL forms of religion, be they ever so "sophisticated". "
Nope. Doesn't bother Theravada Buddhists, possibly the other varieties too. The perceived "self", in classical Buddhist teachings, is the union of five aggregates (khandhas)- form, consciousness, feeling, perception, and mental formulations. Consciousness is the result of contact between a sense organ and an object. Feeling, perception, and mental formulation are the result of the contact of form and consciousness. Pretty materialistic stuff.
Posted by: MJ Memphis | March 1, 2007 3:10 PM
are some of us saying "humanism" and meaning "secular humanism"? Just curious.
Posted by: greensmile | March 1, 2007 3:17 PM
Posted by: Steve LaBonne | March 1, 2007 3:22 PM
Evolution is a farce...but it's your God-given choice whether to be taken by it.
Posted by: Shandooga | March 1, 2007 3:24 PM
Good to see you recognize Sapolsky and his brilliance. I've had him as a lecturer for a couple classes--his "Human Behavioral Biology" is one of the top 5 at Stanford--and his lecture on the biology of religion was so good it would make you cry, PZ. Amazed you haven't cited that research more often.
Posted by: Stanbio | March 1, 2007 3:28 PM
Jeremy Stangroom wrote an interesting essay "There is Something Wrong With Humanism". Definitely worth a read. I'd also recommend Dennett's book "Elbow Room" for those that are concerned about the issue of free will and determinism.
Posted by: Jeff Alexander | March 1, 2007 3:33 PM
Nope. Doesn't bother Theravada Buddhists....
Is that what Sam Harris is into? Should be interesting to see if his non-physicalism survives his dissertation (is he finished yet?)
Agree on the central thesis, that neurology is as big or bigger a threat to traditional Christianity than evolution. However, I suspect liberal Christianity could survive the loss of the non-physical soul. The loss of the non-physical God, though, would be a major problem for all but the most rarified theologies, in which God seems to be a metaphor for bits of our own psyche.
Posted by: Steve Watson | March 1, 2007 3:35 PM
Neuroscience has never been as controversial as evolution and probably never will be.
1. Neurosciences aren't taught in public secondary schools.
2. Neuroscience is associated in the popular imagination with doctors, not scientists. Doctors are familiar local figures whom everyone has met. Everyone has a friend or relative who is a doctor. Everyone sort of understands what doctors are supposed to do. Scientists live off somewhere else at special departments in universities. No one is quite sure what scientists actually do. (Which is a shame really.)
3. Neuroscientific explanations can be understood piecemeal without adherence to any overarching Old Testament-wrecking theory. And neurological explanations can be very comforting to families. Grandpa Joe did those strange/awful things b/c he had a 'Syndrome' or a 'Condition' or a 'Disorder'-- something with a name and a predicted manifestation. Something others have had with similar consequences. And who knows, maybe tomorrow they'll be an operation or a pill to fix it.
Posted by: lockean | March 1, 2007 3:45 PM
Semantics. 'Humanism' does not define our morals, our morals define 'humanism'.
Secular humanists are respectful of all life. Perhaps 'humanist' means "being human", and being human means being a life form with understanding and compassion; and respect and love of our nature and place in it.
Posted by: mikmik | March 1, 2007 3:51 PM
Sastra,
I don't think it would need to be taught to kids in public schools to stir up the religious masses. It would just need to be demonstrated. Presumably, at some point we will understand the brain and the mind well enough to be able to build intelligent machines comparable to human beings. That will surely throw the religious for a loop.
Posted by: Jason | March 1, 2007 3:57 PM
Oh but religions need not worry about a neuroscience threat, there's already enough evidence for the soul:
1) NDEs
2) OBEs
3) haunted houses
4) reincarnation
5) ESP
6) PK
And you can also add theories of consciousness involving quantum coherence în microtubules and Eccles' "psychons", plus defenders of qualia and the "hard" problem. Remember, the last pope had (almost) no problem endorsing evolution, as long as humans kept their soul: presumably he had good evidence for the latter, whereas he had to let go the former.
Posted by: onclepsycho | March 1, 2007 4:02 PM
That was a fantastic read!
Posted by: Bretty | March 1, 2007 4:11 PM
mikmik noted:
Semantics. 'Humanism' does not define our morals, our morals define 'humanism'.
Secular humanists are respectful of all life. Perhaps 'humanist' means "being human", and being human means being a life form with understanding and compassion; and respect and love of our nature and place in it.
The last part gets me a little bit. Although I am a vegan, I still consume power, pollute, breed, drive to work, etc., in massive amounts (especially as an American). This is neither respect or love for nature. Thinking about ethical living, most 'civilized' humans talk about it, but don't really live it. However, there are many indigenous tribes that live it, and most of life on earth does as well, however, they don't waste time discussing it.
I guess I have a lot of self-hate.
Posted by: Paul | March 1, 2007 4:12 PM
Good stuff PZ. I keep rereading the speech. Thanks.
Posted by: Greg Kucharo | March 1, 2007 4:15 PM
Yeah. Lets list a whole series of completely debunked nonsense that the "also" ignore evidence against to support the idea of souls. lol And its always fun how, much like with ID, its usually some nut that understands engineering or quantum mechanics, but doesn't know a damn thing about "biology" or "neuroscience" that come up with silly stuff like quantum coherence in microtubules... Its like watching a plumber take apart a light bulb in an attempt to find what **really** produced the light in it, because obviously a bit of metal wire couldn't possibly be enough to explain where it all comes from...
Posted by: Kagehi | March 1, 2007 4:27 PM
Jeremy Stangroom wrote an interesting essay "There is Something Wrong With Humanism". Definitely worth a read. I'd also recommend Dennett's book "Elbow Room" for those that are concerned about the issue of free will and determinism.
Posted by: Jeff Alexander | March 1, 2007 03:33 PM
Hmm, the old "everything is just a form of belief" argument.Posted by: mikmik | March 1, 2007 4:27 PM
Steve Labonne,
Actually, although it may be a form that appeals more to Westerners, what I wrote is pretty orthodox for Theravada (maybe Mahayana and Vajrayana, I am not familiar with their beliefs on the subject). From the Samyutta Nikaya: "When all its constituent parts are there, we use the word 'cart'. Likewise, where the five aggregates exist, we talk in terms of a 'living being'."
Posted by: MJ Memphis | March 1, 2007 4:42 PM
mikmik writes
Could you elaborate? The argument that "everything is just a form of belief" doesn't seem to be one that either Dennett or Stangroom supports. To the contrary it appears that they argue against such a position.
Posted by: Jeff Alexander | March 1, 2007 4:45 PM
#45
mikmik noted:
Semantics. 'Humanism' does not define our morals, our morals define 'humanism'.
Secular humanists are respectful of all life. Perhaps 'humanist' means "being human", and being human means being a life form with understanding and compassion; and respect and love of our nature and place in it.
The last part gets me a little bit. Although I am a vegan, I still consume power, pollute, breed, drive to work, etc., in massive amounts (especially as an American). This is neither respect or love for nature. Thinking about ethical living, most 'civilized' humans talk about it, but don't really live it. However, there are many indigenous tribes that live it, and most of life on earth does as well, however, they don't waste time discussing it.
I guess I have a lot of self-hate.
Posted by: Paul | March 1, 2007 04:12 PM
Yeah, but 'respect', and 'absolute indidgence of behavior' mean the same thing? How could one live in a manner that is completely indulgent of a non technologically enhanced existence. Are you saying that anyone that is using up resources because they were born into our civilization cannot be humanist? If you want to apply such strict behavioral limitations to a meaning, like secular humanism, then there no (almost) true christian, liberal, or even heterosexual.Respect does not mean 100% adherence to a certain class of behaviours, it means a strong consideration of a certain morality and ethics as a driving fotce behind decisions, and a striving to adjust your 'beliefs' to your situation.
Thinking about ethical living, most 'civilized' humans talk about it, but don't really live it
Actually, that is probably a very accurrate assumption.
Well, perhaps 'secular naturalist' is an alternative title the precludes anthrpocentrism, but then it also precludes a known ability for altruism and compassion.
Posted by: mikmik | March 1, 2007 4:48 PM
If Theravada Buddhism really is fully consistent with science and reason, in what sense is it a religion, rather than, say, a school of philosophy or a scientific hypothesis? What feature qualifies it as a religion?
Posted by: Jason | March 1, 2007 4:52 PM
Here you go again. Atheists discussing religion.
Why is that? Because they want their shamans to replace
the other shamans.
SETI is religion dressed up in science, faith without a subject, the next big thing in metamagical thinking.
Posted by: Joel | March 1, 2007 5:05 PM
I think Lockean's #3 is pretty relevant.
The mere fact that in the Neurosciences there's no singular figure analagous to Darwin, and no single specific theoretical framework analagous to Evolution, makes it more difficult for the nuts to find something to latch onto. They still don't like it, but it's tough to rally around.
"I'm against a rejection of the concept of dualism" just doesn't have the oomph of "I don't believe in Evolution".
Posted by: jbark | March 1, 2007 5:15 PM
"brains are meat and thoughts are the product of ions and small molecules bubbling about in coordinated patterns."
I think my small bubbling molecules resent this but for some reason I want to go grill a steak....
Posted by: ellroon | March 1, 2007 5:28 PM
"I'm against a rejection of the concept of dualism" just doesn't have the oomph of "I don't believe in Evolution".
How about "I believe people have souls" or "I don't believe we are just biological machines" or somesuch? I would say that the theoretical framework underlying neuroscience--that the mind is a product or property of physical processes in the brain--is pretty easy to understand and communicate, as are the superficially-appealing objections to it (that unless we have a soul there is no free will, no moral responsibility, no meaning to life, etc.)
Posted by: Jason | March 1, 2007 5:33 PM
I enjoy Jeremy Stangroom, often read Butterflies & Wheels, and found myself agreeing with his article "There is Something Wrong with Humanism." And yet I am a secular humanist.
How? He states it himself in the first paragraph: "The problem has to do with the fluid nature of the concept 'humanism'. It has no single, precise meaning." Well, yes.
He takes on Kenan Malik's variation -- that human beings are somehow outside nature and reductionist explanations are anti-humanists threats -- and makes excellent arguments against that which most secular humanists would agree with. I belong to both Council for Secular Humanism and American Humanist Association. From what I can tell, the former tend to be more hard-nosed materialists than the latter, and more politically diverse. Pick a flavor.
Humanism is more of an approach to life than it is any particular set of conclusions. The "man is the highest of all things" nonsense is either anachronistic or the straw-man version used by traditional Christians to show that humanists "worship man." On the contrary. It's more like "we can only know things from the perspective of our humanity, and its limitations." Science helps correct those tendencies to err.
Posted by: Sastra | March 1, 2007 5:40 PM
There are some Sapolsky lectures available on http://itunes.stanford.edu/ for those that are interested.
Posted by: ron | March 1, 2007 5:44 PM
mikmik writes
Could you elaborate? The argument that "everything is just a form of belief" doesn't seem to be one that either Dennett or Stangroom supports. To the contrary it appears that they argue against such a position.
Posted by: Jeff Alexander | March 1, 2007 04:45 PM
What then is this possible extra ingredient, properly humanist, against which the merits of scientific theories might be judged? The answer is that it is the constellation of ideas which constitutes the human-centred aspect of humanism. These ideas include: that human beings are free, rational agents; that they are, in various ways, the source of morality; that human dignity and flourishing are important; and that there are significant common bonds between people, which unite them across biological, social and geographical boundaries.
and Unfortunately, it may also be that they do not, and to deny this possibility requires a leap of faith. What this means is that it is not rationally justified to assert the truth of the constellation of beliefs which constitutes the human-centred aspect of humanism. Rather, one is forced to concur with Kurtz and Wilson's more general verdict on humanist affirmations, that they are "but an expression of a living and growing faith."
"The constellation of beliefs", and "leap of faith" comments.
You are right, and I agree with you, yet the arguments seem (to me) to be based on an assumption, and that is that it is possible to have an objective perspective, one that is possible only without (my assertation) being a human.
The important point is that Malik is grappling with a tension that lies right at the heart of humanism. If a person is serious about science then they cannot, without fear of contradiction, embrace a doctrine which requires, as humanism might, that human beings have free will or that the stuff of consciousness is non-physical and causally efficacious. To escape the possibility of contradiction by asserting the truth of the kind of science or philosophy which is, in principle, anti-reductionist in its approach to humans is to allow ideology to govern scientific and philosophical commitments.
As humanists might? That is not demonstration of belief, that is conjecture.
Why would free will preclude?
No humanist I know says that conciousness is non physical!
In fact, this is a red herring! Humanists are not concerned with the origin of thought, neither are they concerned with chemistry, nuerochemistry, or anything else to explain their thoughts. They(we), do not count on reductionism, nor argue against it, it is outside the point.
I should have said it comes down to them stating that "everything is a form of belief, except my view"
Posted by: mikmik | March 1, 2007 5:45 PM
That was a great read. I must find some of the stuff that he has written. As a health care worker (scut level, but going into nursing) who often works with those with mental illness, I am often amazed at the extreme out of control religiosity of those who suffer from Schizophrenia and/or Bi-polar disorder. Dr. Sapolsky made a lot of sense when he tied that in to religion. I think that we will learn that religiosity as with most everything else in mental processes lies on a continuim of mental functioning. Insofar as OCD. It is only a disorder if it causes a problem in your life. You would not survive as a nurse or an aide if you weren't somewhat Obsessive-Compulsive.
Ken
Posted by: Kenneth Mareld | March 1, 2007 6:00 PM
Anyways, back to the point:
"Evolution is shredding their preconceptions about history and their origins, but neuroscience is going to rip out a different, but even more central concept: the soul."
I equate it to genetics validating fossil evidence for evolution.
It is profound, presicely because the secondary technology is (was) unpredicted.
The discovery of the origins of our minds and conciousness seems to be on an inexhorible path to a physical origin.
Then what? Plato? Descartes? Will they be vindicated?
dualism
Substance dualists argue that the mind is an independently existing substance, whereas Property dualists maintain that the mind is a group of independent properties that emerge from and cannot be reduced to the brain, but that it is not a distinct substance.
Like I said, Michael Lockwood states, "Our mind superveniates" from physical (material) processes.
He says: "special relativity states that if something exists in time, it also exists in space."
Our minds exist in time.
Posted by: mikmik | March 1, 2007 6:10 PM
mikmik writes:
It seems that you may have missed the introductory paragraph. which reads
It is very clear that Stangroom is not arguing that "everything is a form of belief, except my view", not even close. Your argument appears to be saying exactly what Stangroom complains of in his opening paragraph. When you state that "No humanist I know says that consiousness is non physical!" you are basically claiming that Stangroom is falling into the straw-man fallacy.
If you disagree with his definition of humanism, fine. But to state that he is offering some sort of relative view of truth clearly doesn't fit with either this article or his other writings. He argues very strongly against the notion that "everything is a form of belief". See "Why Truth Matters" by Benson and Stangroom for examples.
Posted by: Jeff Alexander | March 1, 2007 6:13 PM
It is very clear that Stangroom is not arguing that "everything is a form of belief, except my view", not even close. Your argument appears to be saying exactly what Stangroom complains of in his opening paragraph. When you state that "No humanist I know says that consiousness is non physical!" you are basically claiming that Stangroom is falling into the straw-man fallacy. Exactly what I am saying
If you disagree with his definition of humanism, fine. But to state that he is offering some sort of relative view of truth clearly doesn't fit with either this article or his other writings. He argues very strongly against the notion that "everything is a form of belief". See "Why Truth Matters" by Benson and Stangroom for examples.
Posted by: Jeff Alexander | March 1, 2007 06:13 PM
>>
My choice of words is still bad. I meant that he fails to show how his view is not a form of belief - to show that his view is even fundamentally capable of the objectivity he persues.
Like: It may be that complicated robots have consciousness, free will and agency; that is, that they have the things which are important to many humanists. Unfortunately, it may also be that they do not, and to deny this possibility requires a leap of faith.
Humanists have compassion, understanding and empathy. Robots with sentience are a straw man, ot red herring. They do not exist. They are irrellevant, they have nothing to do with "leap of faith", nor does acknowledging or denying any posssibility have to do with faith.
I understand the analogy of course, who doesn't?
But my point is that no one denies any possibility, and saying humanists deny this possibility by using one example, Malik, is anything but an anecdotal diversion.
I still feel to see how using Malik as an example, is in any way representative of humanist thought.
In fact, I see absolutely no way in which this defintion:
Secular humanism describes a world view with the following elements and principles:[2]
* Need to test beliefs - A conviction that dogmas, ideologies and traditions, whether religious, political or social, must be weighed and tested by each individual and not simply accepted on faith.
* Reason, evidence, scientific method - Commitment to the use of critical reason, factual evidence, and scientific methods of inquiry, rather than faith and mysticism, in seeking solutions to human problems and answers to important human questions.
* Fulfillment, growth, creativity - A primary concern with fulfillment, growth, and creativity for both the individual and humankind in general.
* Search for truth - A constant search for objective truth, with the understanding that new knowledge and experience constantly alter our imperfect perception of it.
* This life - A concern for this life and a commitment to making it meaningful through better understanding of ourselves, our history, our intellectual and artistic achievements, and the outlooks of those who differ from us.
* Ethics - A search for viable individual, social and political principles of ethical conduct, judging them on their ability to enhance human well-being and individual responsibility.
* Building a better world - A conviction that with reason, an open exchange of ideas, good will, and tolerance, progress can be made in building a better world for ourselves and our children.
precludes an overall view of our world (existance) in which we are only a small part; it only shows that we are aware of the source of our understanding - us!
Any animal is centered on its own existence, every animal is (probably) only concerned with its own place in reality and that place is the most important part of reality to that animal.
In fact, it is the only possible perspective. There is only the proven ability to imagine reality from unself perspectives in one animal.
All thought originates from one point of perspective, the entity possessing the thought. To argue that humanists are 'human-centric' is moot.
To show that other philosophies are not, these guys do not show. It is very clear that Stangroom is not arguing that "everything is a form of belief, except my view", not even close.
I know they aren't arguing for that, but arguing in that manner.
Posted by: mikmik | March 1, 2007 7:14 PM
True, but the logical problem is that reality (whatever that is) can not be separated from your consciousness, since your consciousness filters everything you know and ever will know - even if you're a genius biologist or physicist. [excuse me, time for a bong hit].
Posted by: dave | March 1, 2007 7:38 PM
Great post! Makes you wonder even more about the likes of Dr Harrub with his Ph.D. in neurobiology and anatomy from the College of Medicine at the University of Tennessee. Someone should send him a link to Sapolsky's speech. Then again he may be an example of of one of those cousins with a full blown pathology and in need of compassion and medication. Seriously though how does someone like him manage to get a Ph.D. in neurobiology without being able to think his own way out of a wet paper bag?
Posted by: Fernando Magyar | March 1, 2007 7:45 PM
...wow, talk about publish or perish. I've been thinking exactly what Sapolsky just gave a speech on for the longest time. Oh well, he gets priority. ^_^
There are plenty of other neurophysical bases for common religious experiences to add to his list:
There's a certain area of the brain -- alas, I can't recall the name -- that's responsible for things like body boundaries, distinguishing between "me" and "not-me." In some of the experiments done on Buddhist meditation under fMRI, that area grew quiet when practitioners reported a sense of "oneness with the universe," or "unity with all living things," or the like.
A recent study of proprioception (the internal sense of the body's position) found that this sense can become off-kilter and lead a person to the sensation that there is someone (their body shadow) behind them, in the same position they are -- for example, with arms wrapped around them, when their own arms are wrapped around their knees. More applicably to religion, when laying on their back and looking down at their own torso or feet, they can imagine themselves to their own ventral -- i.e., above their body -- looking down and seeing what they're actually seeing.
Sapolsky's thesis on OCD is also supported by work on "the Lady MacBeth effect": see a paper in Science by Chen-Bo Zhong and Katie Liljenquist on the connection between bodily cleansing and moral purification. Money line: "[After being asked to think about guilty deeds they had done,] Those who had washed their hands were about 50 percent less likely to volunteer [for a simple charitable project] -- suggesting that, newly cleansed, they felt less guilty and thus had less need to absolve themselves."
There are recent suggestions of a genetically coded "moral grammar" present in mammals, and we know that mirror neurons can generate sympathetic emotional trauma. Dawkins proposes an analogy in answer to the question of why religion is, unlike other psychiatric anomalies, so contagious: he likens religion to a virus, attaching itself to moral codes -- evolutionarily productive to disseminate in a population -- to reproduce itself.
There is much more that can be collected. I submit an additional hypothesis to the disussion of religion's contagiousness: when people (mostly young people or others without solid analytical frameworks) hear a religious claim, it rings the same sort of bells as a mathematical axiom. They can remember having thoughts like that. Magical thnking, moral thinking, and mathematical thinking are, in their nuts and bolts, already a part of a child's mental toolkit; development of personality involves reinforcing some of these tools, neglecting others and erecting countermeasures to others, and only on the rarest of developmental occasions actually adding a new tool that's not a combination of those previously held. Religion simply tends to reinforce the native magical forms. If these become sufficiently categorized, we might even be able to form a component-level description of religion.
Posted by: William | March 1, 2007 8:11 PM
"If Theravada Buddhism really is fully consistent with science and reason, in what sense is it a religion, rather than, say, a school of philosophy or a scientific hypothesis? What feature qualifies it as a religion?"
Well, that would depend on what you use as your definition of a religion. If you define religion as being one that mandates belief in extra-natural features, then Theravada is not a religion, since it does not require any such belief (although, as I think has been pointed out, in practice many do have such beliefs). And if you define religion as requiring some sort of creator god, then none of the Buddhist sects qualifies. On the other hand, if you define religion more as a package of cultural, ethical, and philosophical practices, then it definitely fits as a religion.
Posted by: MJ Memphis | March 1, 2007 8:38 PM
True, but the logical problem is that reality (whatever that is) can not be separated from your consciousness, since your consciousness filters everything you know and ever will know - even if you're a genius biologist or physicist. [excuse me, time for a bong hit].
Posted by: dave | March 1, 2007 07:38 PM
[excuse me, just had a bong hit] But, I maintain that our conciousnesses, our brains etc, are a product and participant in that reality (a fundamental one, I think). Therefore, we have access to all the rules of our reality. In fact, I think that as a product of a certain (ours) reality, we are not only guided by that reality in our understanding, our very ability to exists in that reality means that we already understand it. At least our matter understands it, our atoms and everything, or we wouldn't be here. Everything has to obey the laws (of physics, as we call them, or nature, for that matter), for things that don't obey the laws, do not exist. Existence is proof that you obey the laws of physics, the laws that dictate ability to exist. The laws came first, then us. Therefore, the way we think is shaped by the laws of nature and follows all the laws. So, the way we think is an expression of the deepest, most fundamental, aspects of our reality. This is one of "cause and effect". It is how all things work, even, and especially, evolution.Hows this? We are made of inanimate matter
And time. We are made up of matter and time.
Posted by: mikmik | March 1, 2007 8:55 PM
David Wilford wrote
Ever see a charismatic congregation speaking in tongues, or the congregation in a full gospel church rocking and swaying?Posted by: RBH | March 1, 2007 8:56 PM
Catholic Church doing us a favor?
Maybe the Catholic Church is aware of this schizotypal shamanism problem. They might be trying to rid the world of schizotypal shamans by preventing them from breeding! It's a secret atheist eugenics organization!
Posted by: Jim | March 1, 2007 9:18 PM
I wouldn't define religion to require either a creator God or anything supernatural, so I don't think Buddhism is necessarily excluded on those grounds. But if a religion is defined to encompass a mere "package of cultural, ethical, and philosophical practices" (although I'm not sure what "philosophical practise" means) then all sorts of things that are not generally considered to be religions would seem to qualify as religions. I don't think that's a very useful definition. I don't think it helps anyone to conflate religion with culture or ethics or philosophy. They're related, but