Researcher/Agnostic with an attitude problem -- me

[Stein]

Some while back, I wrote some quite disgruntled remarks here when no one bothered to address the precise details of what I had submitted on the most retreaded topic on this board: to wit, Show me any logical evidence why deity might exist. The operative word here is "might". I present this neither to debunk nor to confirm the notion of deity. Instead, I present this purely because it is the only (possible) evidence of any kind that I don't find ludicrously puerile and altogether circular. It is still not proof, but I don't think it is a waste of a smart reader's time either. Consequently, it interests me to see any and all alternate explanations that intelligent readers here might come up with to explain certain odd patterns described in the following.

As I wrote testily a while back, Look, the question is not whether or not there is evidence for deity. The question is whether or not it is _good_ evidence. If an alternate explanation can be provided for the evidence I cite, then it is obviously not good evidence and can be dispensed with altogether. Fine. But you won't know that unless you peruse the balance of the posting first, will you?

I hold no brief for this evidence being tantamount to proof. But I do hold a brief for maintaining that anyone who ignores the aspects I discuss is merely an atheist on faith. That suggests a very uninteresting and parochial person to me. Now, faith has never done it for me. Never did. Never will. If someone tells me that he has come to any conclusion -- any conclusion at all -- on faith, I lose interest. I'm only interested in that which is objectively verifiable.

Beyond being an agnostic, what I am above all else is a researcher. I wait to see what the facts on the ground are. Those people who are not interested in that are boring and a waste of time. If you continue to decline to address the aspects I've brought to the table but kick up dust instead, then I will stop responding to you.

Read this and address it honestly. If not, there are smarter people on this board better worth my time who will address this honestly.

My own take is that there is some degree of evidence for any number of things that may be unlikely. But the question in each case is, Is it strong evidence or poor evidence? Not all evidence is automatically strong. At the same time, even if evidence is poor, it can still be counted as evidence. Just evidence for ... what? If certain evidence is duly weighed by peers and found to be lacking in buttressing one particular argument -- argument A -- that only means that that evidence is poor in sufficiently buttressing argument A. It is still useful in buttressing argument B, particularly if argument B convincingly disposes of argument A. It is simply that it is evidence that has been misinterpreted to mean one thing when it more likely meant another. So it is poor evidence in what it may be used to argue for. But it is still evidence, since it is evidence for something else that is being overlooked. That's why it still constitutes evidence. If it's not strong evidence for one thing, it makes sense to determine what it is indeed strong evidence for. One simply interprets it differently than at first. After all, evidence, whether poor or strong, doesn't simply go away. Does it make sense to just dismiss evidence out of hand without proper scrutiny? Of course not. It is still useful evidence down the road for arguing B, even if trying to argue A with it has not panned out.

My take is that there is some degree of evidence for deity, but the huge question is, How strong is that evidence? After all, even the evidence for deity that we may or may not have is still a "some-degree-of" proposition only. It is not proof. Furthermore, I see no clear evidence at all for deity being specifically Allah, or Yahweh, or Jehovah, or Brahma, or Ningirsu, or Baal, or Jove, or Jupiter, or Zeus, or Tian -- or what/who/ever. Whatever evidence for deity there is -- and again, such evidence is distinct from proof -- is only rooted in huge historic cycles showing cultural transformations within the homo sapiens species among various communities and societies throughout the ages, not connected with any one take on deity within any one region or any one era. Instead, it's what "goes down" in era after era and region after region -- all taken together -- that is ultimately useful to this question.

Why do so many different regions and eras bear witness to this startling notion of a deity? Sure, one could well maintain that a primitive hankering after any old explanation for everything is ultimately at the back of the deity notion in one case or two or three or four .... or five ............. But dozens? That's what history gives us. And if there isn't something more concrete and relevant at the back of this deity notion, as would appear by its staggering level of recurrence in culture after culture, could there be something basic in our brains instead that is invariably present and induces this deity notion across the eons? If there is indeed something that is indeed that basic in our brains, that may still say nothing much on whether or not that is grounded in a pure delusion or something more concrete.

Small minds may have trouble dealing with this huge question simply because their outlook may be too parochial. One really has to view this question globally and historically to get a proper grasp of its huge dimensions.

Recent scientific research suggests some symbiotic connection between gluing community together and the notion of the metaphysical and/or the divine. Trafficking in delusion? If so, how come?

I invite us, first off, to look at these two pages on the Web. What do they suggest to you? --

http://news.wustl.edu/news/Pages/902.aspx

http://www.slate.com/id/2165026/

There is also a curious dual pattern that I've encountered that I believe needs more scrutiny -- preferably from a whole panel of thoroughly up-to-date scientists, brain specialists, and cultural historians -- researchers who will also be numerous enough to reflect all attitudes ranging from atheist to Hindu to agnostic to Christian to Jewish to Buddhist to Platonic to Confucian to .......... every philosophical slant you can name in order to neutralize any possible individual bias.

In brief, this dual pattern involves the concrete literary record of the beginnings of various cultural doctrines throughout time and what these earliest documents from each paradigm-shifting doctrine can tell us. To assess all this properly at the outset needs 8 concrete steps involving certain premises, a few hypotheses to be tested rigorously, and alternate interpretations of curious pieces of literary data:

1. Premise 1 -- any species dependent on socialization, such as humanity, needs an ethic of mutual caring in order just to survive;

2. Hypothesis 1 -- human history reveals all autonomous altruistic doctrines, advanced to reform occasional human indifference, as a positive for the species;

3. Datum 1 -- in their primary texts, autonomous altruistic doctrines seem to show a symbiotic relationship to autonomous formulations for the divine (twelve such figures hardly cover all of this, and they are not each personally altruistic at every stage, but they are illustratively useful -- Mesalim | Urukagina | Moses | Wen Wang | Hesiod | Lao-tzu | Siddhartha Gautama Buddha | Confucius [Kung-fut-ze] | Socrates | Jesus Christ | John Locke | Thomas Jefferson);

4. Hypothesis 2 -- the reason for that symbiotic relationship may be a link of some kind between pioneering altruism and some kind of deity, although indicating nothing re theists in general.

5. Premise 2 -- humanity sows the seeds of its own destruction if too critical a mass of its members look out only for themselves;

6. Hypothesis 3 -- all autonomous self-centered doctrines are a negative for the species;

7. Datum 2 -- in their primary texts, autonomous self-centered doctrines seem to show a symbiotic relationship to autonomous formulations for atheism (Brhaspati | Critias | Jean Meslier); and

8. Hypothesis 4 -- the reason for that symbiotic relationship may be a link of some kind between autonomous "self-ism" and autonomous atheism, although indicating nothing re atheists in general.

Now, in its bald form, does this dual pattern tell us that human society needs some self-propelled insight into some divine construct in order not to devolve into a self-destructive orgy of greed and selfishness? Is that really how hopeless humanity is? Can human community, then, evolve into a functional society that is prosperous, free and considerate of each other only when such a construct of the divine is concurrently promulgated? Again, if so, how come?

Must this construct be related to something really divine that really exists, or can it really be related to a delusion that is hard-wired in our brains? If it is a delusion, can we come up with any other normal evolving process that has also helped fashion human communities effectively through the eons and yet has always been symbiotically tied to a generally conceded delusion? If no other clear parallel to this exists, then could this more general construct of the divine contain a kernel of truth? If so, it might only make sense (of a sort) if one restricts the construct to minimal elements that are common to all faiths (which would mean that one would have to jettison any notions of deity as, among other things, creator or controller of events, since these constructs are not present in all faiths).

Only a rigorous and long-term scientific project geared toward a large-scale, multi-attitude, multi-perspective, multicultural study of this cultural evolution pattern for cultural/social doctrines throughout time could even begin to answer such questions satisfactorily.

Thoughts?

Stein

[FBM]

Just off the top of my head, if altruism helps the community survive, it helps the individual survive, thus it's not really altruistic. There are rare examples of extreme self-sacrifice, but that's the exception to the rule. When I look at human behavior, I see no altruism. If an ostensibly "altruistic" act has a covert intent to win one favor with one's chosen deity, then it's not altruism. If it's just done to make one feel better about him/herself, it's not altruism. Could you provide some real-life examples of true altruism that are common enough to hold humanity back from this alleged devolvement into chaos?

[Stein]

Just off the top of my head, if altruism helps the community survive, it helps the individual survive, thus it's not really altruistic. There are rare examples of extreme self-sacrifice, but that's the exception to the rule. When I look at human behavior, I see no altruism. If an ostensibly "altruistic" act has a covert intent to win one favor with one's chosen deity, then it's not altruism. If it's just done to make one feel better about him/herself, it's not altruism. Could you provide some real-life examples of true altruism that are common enough to hold humanity back from this alleged devolvement into chaos?

A total stranger, who's not even a fireman, rescuing an old man from a burning building. Don't recall the names, but I do recall it being in the news roughly twenty years ago. The old man was very old, a widower with no prospect for having any more children. The rescuer was quite well off, with a lot to lose, and quite young, with his whole life ahead of him. He had had no children yet. Nothing of practical value seemed behind this one perfect stranger risking his young life by rescuing someone else who was very near the end of his. But something kicked in and made the young man do that anyway. The young man was fairly solitary and not avid for social company. What made him rescue the old man? I also seem to recall that one reason why it made the evening news was that the young man had poor recall of the incident after it happened, leading some to believe that the shock of plunging into the flames had induced some kind of partial amnesia, or perhaps there was such a rush of adrenalin in rushing in in the first place that some instinct kicked in over which the rescuer had scant control.

Stein

[FBM]

A total stranger, who's not even a fireman, rescuing an old man from a burning building. Don't recall the names, but I do recall it being in the news roughly twenty years ago. The old man was very old, a widower with no prospect for having any more children. The rescuer was quite well off, with a lot to lose, and quite young, with his whole life ahead of him. He had had no children yet. Nothing of practical value seemed behind this one perfect stranger risking his young life by rescuing someone else who was very near the end of his. But something kicked in and made the young man do that anyway. The young man was fairly solitary and not avid for social company. What made him rescue the old man? I also seem to recall that one reason why it made the evening news was that the young man had poor recall of the incident after it happened, leading some to believe that the shock of plunging into the flames had induced some kind of partial amnesia, or perhaps there was such a rush of adrenalin in rushing in in the first place that some instinct kicked in over which the rescuer had scant control.

Stein

Is that not easily explainable in terms of a conditioned response to social mores, opportunity, perhaps the desire, perhaps secret or unconscious, to be a hero? I would also rush into a burning building to save a unknown old man, not out of altruism, but out of conditioning. I would feel horrible -perhaps for the rest of my life- if I didn't at least try, I don't want to feel horrible. I used to go to Central America on medical mission trips once or twice a year. I thought I was being altruistic until a friend of mine pointed out that I was getting a psychological reward from it. Several, actually.

[Stein]

A total stranger, who's not even a fireman, rescuing an old man from a burning building. Don't recall the names, but I do recall it being in the news roughly twenty years ago. The old man was very old, a widower with no prospect for having any more children. The rescuer was quite well off, with a lot to lose, and quite young, with his whole life ahead of him. He had had no children yet. Nothing of practical value seemed behind this one perfect stranger risking his young life by rescuing someone else who was very near the end of his. But something kicked in and made the young man do that anyway. The young man was fairly solitary and not avid for social company. What made him rescue the old man? I also seem to recall that one reason why it made the evening news was that the young man had poor recall of the incident after it happened, leading some to believe that the shock of plunging into the flames had induced some kind of partial amnesia, or perhaps there was such a rush of adrenalin in rushing in in the first place that some instinct kicked in over which the rescuer had scant control.

Stein

Is that not easily explainable in terms of a conditioned response to social mores, opportunity, perhaps the desire, perhaps secret or unconscious, to be a hero? I would also rush into a burning building to save a unknown old man, not out of altruism, but out of conditioning. I would feel horrible -perhaps for the rest of my life- if I didn't at least try, I don't want to feel horrible. I used to go to Central America on medical mission trips once or twice a year. I thought I was being altruistic until a friend of mine pointed out that I was getting a psychological reward from it. Several, actually.

Are you saying that all altruism is pure conditioning? Does that mean that altruism doesn't exist at all? I've heard that argument before, and I always have the feeling that that argument also comes from conditioning -- the conditioning of not wanting to seem too sentimental with hard-bitten peers. I've always had the sense that I encounter this argument from people who were browbeaten into the idea that altruism never exists and given pat rationales for believing that rather than arriving at that conclusion by private reflection of their own (kind of like the way some people are browbeaten into ultra-orthodox brands of theism..........).

Stein

[FBM]

Are you saying that all altruism is pure conditioning?

Uhm. I didn't use the word "all" at all. I'm saying that in my experience to date, every instance of what is commonly called "altruism" has had an equally-compelling, less romantic explanation based on closer examination of psychological conditions. What I'm pointing out in your argument is that you're assuming the existence of altruism. I'm suggesting that you examine that assumption.

Does that mean that altruism doesn't exist at all?

If you can present an example in which altruism is clearly the superior explanation, I'd be glad to consider it. I'm not entrenced in any camp here. Like you, I respect evidence and necessary inference above assumptions and speculation.

I've heard that argument before, and I always have the feeling that that argument also comes from conditioning -- the conditioning of not wanting to seem too sentimental with hard-bitten peers.

This feeling you have...are you very sure it applies here? Do you know anything about me, my conditioning, my resulting tendencies? Seems you're heading off into a wilderness of generalization and speculation here.

I've always had the sense that I encounter this argument from people who were browbeaten into the idea that altruism never exists and given pat rationales for believing that rather than arriving at that conclusion by private reflection of their own (kind of like the way some people are browbeaten into ultra-orthodox brands of theism..........).

Stein

Is "I've always had the sense that" equivalent to evidence of any sort? Mind if I ask what makes you so (apparently) convinced of the existence of altruism? Is this an emotional preference, or have you arrived at that conclusion after examining evidence (i.e., empirically)?

[Rum]

I would refer you to a whole book about this issue called The Selfish Gene...

[Stein]

I've heard that argument before, and I always have the feeling that that argument also comes from conditioning -- the conditioning of not wanting to seem too sentimental with hard-bitten peers.

This feeling you have...are you very sure it applies here? Do you know anything about me, my conditioning, my resulting tendencies? Seems you're heading off into a wilderness of generalization and speculation here.

I've always had the sense that I encounter this argument from people who were browbeaten into the idea that altruism never exists and given pat rationales for believing that rather than arriving at that conclusion by private reflection of their own (kind of like the way some people are browbeaten into ultra-orthodox brands of theism..........).

Stein

Is "I've always had the sense that" equivalent to evidence of any sort? Mind if I ask what makes you so (apparently) convinced of the existence of altruism? Is this an emotional preference, or have you arrived at that conclusion after examining evidence (i.e., empirically)?

If I've been swayed by anything at all -- and who among us hasn't -- it's been by the current tussle among evolutionary biologists and researchers on the question of group selection. A good intro to this thorny question is a clutch of articles by evolutionary biologist David Sloan Wilson. But there are other in-depth articles on the Web treating this question as well. You'll want to look at some of those other articles as well, because Wilson comes at it from one side of the question, albeit he is quite thorough in explicating the other side, and you'll want to read both sides. So it's worthwhile Googling all those other articles as well under "group selection".

A general gateway to one useful series of Wilson articles, although there are other Wilson articles as well, including many more than just those on Group Selection, can be found here --

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-sloan-wilson/

The downside here, though, is that one needs to scroll down this page quite a ways through a number of individual links to quite a number of additional Wilson articles before getting to the first of the series on Group Selection. So, for those who would find it more convenient to have the separate links in proper order --

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-slo ... 53696.html

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-slo ... 54660.html

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-slo ... 55769.html

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-slo ... 57711.html

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-slo ... 60688.html

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-slo ... 72402.html

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-slo ... 77941.html

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-slo ... 85590.html

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-slo ... 88176.html

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-slo ... 88707.html

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-slo ... 90008.html

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-slo ... 02753.html

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-slo ... 06248.html

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-slo ... 66316.html

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-slo ... 92114.html

Enjoy.

Stein

[FBM]

Thanks for the links! It does look very promising, though I haven't run into anything yet about altruism specifically.

[devogue]

I must admit I was a little bit confused by the point of the OP.

At the start it seemed that Stein was going to post evidence for a deity, either extremely poor or extremely good evidence, but evidence nonetheless, so I approached his post with an open mind:

My take is that there is some degree of evidence for deity, but the huge question is, How strong is that evidence?

But the post then seemed to discuss evolutionary psychology and memes - I didn't see any evidence, strong or weak, nothing that would suggest evidence of the supernatural.

[Surendra Darathy]

My take is that there is some degree of evidence for deity, but the huge question is, How strong is that evidence? After all, even the evidence for deity that we may or may not have is still a "some-degree-of" proposition only. It is not proof. Furthermore, I see no clear evidence at all for deity being specifically Allah, or Yahweh, or Jehovah, or Brahma, or Ningirsu, or Baal, or Jove, or Jupiter, or Zeus, or Tian -- or what/who/ever. Whatever evidence for deity there is -- and again, such evidence is distinct from proof -- is only rooted in huge historic cycles showing cultural transformations within the homo sapiens species among various communities and societies throughout the ages, not connected with any one take on deity within any one region or any one era. Instead, it's what "goes down" in era after era and region after region -- all taken together -- that is ultimately useful to this question.

Why do so many different regions and eras bear witness to this startling notion of a deity?

...Thoughts?

What, no evidence for a deity in the fossil record prior to the evolution of humans? What you have is evidence that people have active imaginations, and that some (perhaps even many!) are nuttier than fruitcakes for the idea of social status.

If we can't bend a spoon with our notion of deity, or burn a hole in a piece of wood, what good is it?

Right! Never give a sucker an even break.

Beyond being an agnostic, what I am above all else is a researcher.

Life is short, and there isn't really time to investigate everything — particularly that which doesn't bend any spoons.

What am I missing out on by not being open-minded enough to consider the possibilities of deity? Right. The opportunity to schmooze with bright-eyed and bushy-tailed agnostics such as yourself.

[RuleBritannia]

[Twiglet]

I respectfully read yourt first post, so forgive the brief answer:

I can't think of any phenomenon where the existence of a deity is simpler than an alternative scientific explantion. It's an argument I originally came across in the book Rum recommended "The selfish gene" and it is expanded in "The blind watchmaker".

There is plenty of evidence which could point to a deity, organic systems are very complex, how could they come about by chance? Yet surely the simple steps of evolution are easier than a being as complicated as a deity. After all, how did a deity come about? Isn't the idea that an omnipotent superbeing capable of creating universes existing a harder thing to explain than a few bits of RNA mixing up from the chemical soup into a pattern which self replicates?

There are things I suppose others might classify me as spiritual for believing... I think at some level we are all interconnected. I've had some personal experiences which lead me to believe that ESP happens (I don't mean mental phone conversations with your mates)...

Aside from the existence of altruism, do you have any other suggestions of evidence to support the existence of a deity?
Why also would altruism be evidence of a deity? If a God did create altruism, aren't we confining our idea of what God is by making that assumption?

[Stein]

I must admit I was a little bit confused by the point of the OP.

At the start it seemed that Stein was going to post evidence for a deity, either extremely poor or extremely good evidence, but evidence nonetheless, so I approached his post with an open mind:

My take is that there is some degree of evidence for deity, but the huge question is, How strong is that evidence?

But the post then seemed to discuss evolutionary psychology and memes - I didn't see any evidence, strong or weak, nothing that would suggest evidence of the supernatural.

There is a cultural paper trail for how relatively increasing levels of other-consciousness and altruism have been infused into umpteen cultures of the past and present, from time to time: These patterns reveal an odd symbiotic link between countercultural doctrines of increased altruism and countercultural takes on deity, and vice versa. Is the recurring link between countercultural takes on deity that always flout a prevailing view of the time and countercultural increases in altruism that always flout a prevailing insular selfishness of the time indicative of

A) some odd quirk in our brains that invariably makes that link no matter what the era or place, or is it indicative of

B) some kind of external connection between the two phenomena?

Please, can you come up with a persuasive argument maintaining either conclusion?

Thank you,

Stein

[Stein]

Aside from the existence of altruism, do you have any other suggestions of evidence to support the existence of a deity?

Nope.

Why also would altruism be evidence of a deity?

The question is, Can it be construed as evidence for a deity? I don't know the answer. But I don't see what's gained by ignoring the odd recurring How and the odd recurring Context in which relatively increasing levels of altruism have been introduced in culture after culture throughout history. As I just wrote previously --


"There is a cultural paper trail for how relatively increasing levels of other-consciousness and altruism have been infused into umpteen cultures of the past and present, from time to time: These patterns reveal an odd symbiotic link between countercultural doctrines of increased altruism and countercultural takes on deity, and vice versa. Is the recurring link between countercultural takes on deity that always flout a prevailing take of the time and countercultural increases in altruism that always flout a prevailing insular selfishness of the time indicative of

A) some odd quirk in our brains that invariably makes that link no matter what the era or place, or is it indicative of

B) some kind of external connection between the two phenomena?"


-- If A is the answer, then how come there is such a quirk? If B is the answer, then what is the nature of that external connection?

If a God did create altruism, aren't we confining our idea of what God is by making that assumption?

Yup. It could mean that deity is not responsible for all that happens. It could mean that deity is not a creator. It could mean that deity has no say-so in human actions -- or in natural disasters either. It could mean that deity only exerts one kind of influence (and one that's not always successful): an influence on the motives and feelings of humans but never on their final actions.

Guess what? There are already some religions that confine deity to little more than that. We often forget, here in the West, that the Judeo-Christian tradition is not the only religion on our planet.

Cheers,

Stein