…of religion.
I don’t know whether or not I’ve blogged on this subject before, but it’s a common notion that while not everyone requires a supreme lawgiver to be good, most people perhaps do, and that a retributive religion promotes a better society. Similarly (and perhaps it’s a corollary, as pointed out in the link), while dying sucks for an individual, some view it as a good for society and the species, by getting the fogeys out of the way and making room for fresh blood and ideas. At least in the latter case, I think that the cure is worse than the disease, and I’d like to have the problems associated with indefinite lifespan, and look for solutions to them, than die without getting the chance to tackle them. Of course, one of those solutions is space migration.
I think one of the interesting corollaries of this argument (which is very persuasive) is the modesty of the evolutionary benefit of individual intelligence. Put simply, the evidence is pretty suggestive that powerful wired-in beliefs are better at preserving the tribe than powerful individual reasoning abilities. As in the heat of battle, or when you’re an airline pilot with a double engine failure and need to land in the Hudson, it appears that often enough you need not to think too much — just following instinct and training gives better outcomes for your tribe.
This could be one reason people who live and die by their intelligent reasoning abilities are so hostile to the notion that religion, or quasi-religious moral absolutism, has value, why they demonize it. If it has more value, then what they sport — rational thinking — has less value, indeed, becomes suspect. Those with powerful guiding faiths that work iwell and allow them to successfully navigate a world full of bullshit artists start to think that the main benefits of good reasoning and arguing abilities are the ability to bullshit yourself, and others.
Indeed, the practical successes of cultures that venerate “rationality” to the point of religion — I’m thinking immediately post-Revolution France, the Marxists before Stalin, the modern Democratic Party — are surprisingly meager. As a religious belief system, a worship of rational reasoning does not seem to work out very well.
As a religious belief system, a worship of rational reasoning does not seem to work out very well.
Well, it might work out a little better if, in addition to worshipping it, they actually engaged in it…
Well, they mostly do, Rand. Part of the problem may lie with the very nature of what we call “reasoning.” We use that term to mostly refer to deductive logic. Start with axioms A, B and C, work out the consequences. Fiscal stimulus fixed the Depression, therefore we should have one now! Heavy lift would solve all our space problems, therefore we should put money there instead of somewhere else. And so forth.
Then we often spend a lot of energy debating the axioms, but mostly by making different ones, drawing deductive conclusions, and then (at best) trying to see if the conclusions hold up. One problem with this approach is that often enough reality delivers mixed verdicts, neither completely confirming nor completely denying the expected results. Then what? The USSR failed: does that mean socialism is stupid, or it wasn’t tried quite right? FDR’s policies before 1940 didn’t work, does that mean they were brainless or that he didn’t thing big enough? We got to the Moon with Apollo, but then everything crapped out. Does that mean Apollo was a dead end, or we should’ve put Apollo on steroids?
Another problem is that getting to a correct prediction doesn’t, by itself, validate the axioms or the logic. There’s such a thing as being accidentally right. This is, after all, the entire basis of astrology and palm-reading. If you’re careful about your guesses, making them general enough that you’re right pretty often, you can lay claim to the power of almost any assumptions and logic that get you there — and people will believe you.
Mathematically, I would describe the inherent problem with deductive reasoning as that at each step we make tiny “rounding” errors. This imposes a random walk away from the “truth” on the chain of deductions. If the chain is long enough, then no matter how careful your logic, and no matter how sound your axioms, you will end up far off in falsehood, miles from the truth.
What we really need is better inductive reasoning, the ability to recognize patterns in noisy data. That should be recognized as the king of rational abilities. Arguably all of the good ideas in science and technology, maybe elsewhere (military leadership?) are the result of really good inductive logic, of the ability to recognize a pattern. The advantage of pattern recognition is that it’s one step from the data to the theory. There’s no long chain of steps where tiny errors can accumulate to disaster. The disadvantage is that the better you are at recognizing patterns based on very noisy data, the more apt you are to “recognize” patterns in pure noise, that aren’t there at all. It may be this relates to the fact that really creative thinking can sometimes not easily be distinguished from insanity.
Carl,
You know why religion is useful? Because it provides maxims which can be used quickly. The deductive/inductive reasoner (no matter how smart) is never going to react as quickly as the guy with trained reflexes. If it were a fight you’d get stabbed while still considering your opening move.
That’s the evolutionary fitness. Not that you can’t take the time to think it out when there is time, but that you don’t need to take the time to think it out when there isn’t time.
—
So, not to too my own horn, but I had a personal post on this just earlier this week. My question was whether (as an atheist) I should be a religious missionary. After all, if my neighbors are going to pick a religion I should probably at least make an effort to ensure they pick a good one (meaning, good for me). I think we can all agree that ceteris paribus, Lutherans and Dutch Amish make better neighbors than certain other religions I could mention.
http://links-thoughts.blogspot.com/2009/03/atheist-missionary.html
My take is that there isn’t a magic “i win” button that will automatically grant the right mix of beliefs and reason for a new human. It’s at best a few runs down a ski slope these days. Hit a tree or never really figure out how to ski? Too bad.
OTOH, there isn’t a lot of room for criticism. Yet it is kind of odd that so many people earn a living telling you how to live and what set of beliefs to believe.
Isn’t that what I said in my first post, Brock? I must learn to economize on the words, so y’all read all the way to the bottom…
Anyway, I think you’re exactly right.
I have a question on the belief / reasoning ideas.
Is religion LESS relevant now, because of the ease of life, as opposed to 500 or 5000 years ago? It seems that the farther you go away from “modern technological living” toward “hunter gatherer living”, the more religious, or even superstitious people are. Is religion an evolutionary drive when people feel the need to pray for rain, to make the crops grow, or to help hunters find game? Or is it just fear of the unknown?
How many people will reason through a car or computer problem that is slowing their trip to the grocery store? Where Amazonian natives would pray, or make a sacrifice if no food is caught for a day or two. Actually, they’d most likely make some sort of supplication before ANY hunting trip.
Few people stop to pray when they can’t get to the Internet to check online banking, to see if they should buy steaks or Hamburger Helper, the day before payday. Likewise few people pray before they crank the car, even if they’ve been having starting problems.
If you checked the bank at noon, you’ll reason you’ve got steak money. If the car won’t start, you’ll reason that although you don’t want scrambled eggs for supper, it’s better than going hungry. A guy who hunts to feed the family, doesn’t have technology to save food for off days. He prays so they don’t come.
Does technology move people away from religion and more toward reasoning based on their available technology?
The scary part is how circular that last thought process is.
Steve, I think the flaw in your reasoning is that religion has only incidentally to do with practical stuff like making it rain. It’s main purpose is social, to reinforce tribal cohesion, give you a template for responding to other people’s aggression, distress, nobility, failures, jealousies, et cetera and so forth. It’s no accident the huge bulk of religious dogma has to do with morality and social relationships.
Besides, animism and practical voodoo are alive and well. No, people don’t necessarily pray to the Internal Combustion God when the car is balky in the morning, but they do buy bogus additives, or go through little rituals like always buying gas on Sunday morning, or from stations with blue signs, et cetera.
Brock’s argument, which I think is exactly correct, is that the advantage of belief over thought is the speed with which you reach the conclusion. Speed is pretty important when it comes to interactions with other people. You really don’t have the luxury of reflective thought for a day or two when the boss makes a lewd crack about his secretary’s bra size in front of the female vice president and you need to decide whether to laugh or frown or pretend you didn’t hear.
Almost all problems in the universe are mathematically np-complete – they can not be solved. It’s trial and error, with the error part determining survival.
A religion that has been around for thousands of years probably has far fewer fatal flaws than a system dreamed up by a coffee house philosopher.
Roy, you just summed up pretty much everything that was wrong with the seventies – someone came up with the idea in a coffee-house during the sixties. Probably while on drugs.
Carl, yeah, I skimmed. Sorry. Brevity is good.
Brock,
Not just the sixties but throughout history. I believe that in all my readings (a bit more than 60 years now) this makes the most sense:
http://www.kirkcenter.org/kirk/ten-principles.html
Regards,
Roy
Do you believe the singularity is coming? Are we all just machines, soon to be replaced by better ones? Or is there something more?
Religion is an attempt to connect with that something more. It is a recognition of something greater than ourselves.
If we are just machines, we will be replaced (or perhaps integrated.)
Descartes believed in a mind-body duality. If he’s right, humans may remain a bit longer. Hmmm… if the mind is a separate thing… could it outlive the body?
I say no, but that’s just an opinion.
Descartes believed in a mind-body duality. If he’s right, humans may remain a bit longer. Hmmm… if the mind is a separate thing… could it outlive the body?
Even if he is wrong, there’s no reason the body need remain human.
Ken: If right, human.
Karl: If wrong, non-human.
Is this a logic puzzle Karl?
No, the mind needs a body. The body provides the sensory experiences that make up who we are. We are the sum of our experiences.
Without a body we are being deceived. We are just a brain in a box being told and shown whatever it is we want to hear and see. This could possibly be a self serving device that is also providing value to some higher being or deity.