GeorgeW

Paul, I am not sure that the wheels have come off (yet), but the cart is wobbling badly. I think one of Romney's problems is he has no understanding of what ordinary people think or experience. So, he says these really stupid things without realizing how stupid they are. As one columnist said, these are the kind of things that wealthy people say to each other at their exclusive clubs and it becomes received wisdom. George

I also think that Spong is wrong in his analysis of cause and effect. He seems to think that if one would just change theology, one's behavior would change. I think the change is needed in worldview which then motivates the theology and behavior. George

I don't think the Bible causes people to behave hatefully although it is sometimes used as a rationale. Humans don't need religious texts to motivate hateful behavior. This has occurred throughout history within religions and outside of religions and before religious texts were in existence. Some of the worst behavior in recent history occurred in secular societies (USSR and Red China) and in non-Bible believing societies such as Cambodia. George

In the U.S., speech is not completely free; we are not allowed to incite violence. I can't stand on a street corner and advocate killing, as an example, Muslims. There is, I think, is a thin line between this and hate speech that might reasonably be expected to lead to violence. Given the recent history of these denigrations of Islam in a sensitive period of time (with American military forces in one Islamic country, recently withdrawn from another and maybe attacking another one soon), it would be hard, I think, to argue that this particular film had a benign intent and the producer was just naive. As an aside, to my knowledge, Romney while defending "American freedoms" has also not condemned the content of this film. This, I think, implies that he does not find the content objectionable, or more likely thinks that many of his supporters would not find the content objectionable. Given the Islamophobic attitude of many on the right, this is probably a reasonable assessment. George

This may well be the case with the embassy attack in Libya. But, the demonstrations in Egypt, Yemen and elsewhere were almost certainly reactions to the film. This isn't the first time that a Western action interpreted as anti-Islamic has caused such a reaction. There was the Danish cartoon several years ago and more recently the idiot preacher burning a Qur'an. George

Ginger, welcome. You will find others here who have been down similar paths. There have been a number of threads here dealing with some of the issues you bring up. You ended your intro with several questions. It might be worthwhile to start a thread with a more specific issue or question. George

Yes, I think this is an important book. It has been several months since I read it, but if enough others are interested in reading it and having a book discussion, I would gladly facilitate it. I know that some here are interested in evolution and Haidt gives an evolutionary explanation for the various features of "the righteous mind." George

When Jesus commanded, "love your enemies" (i.e. altruism should trump tribalism) perhaps this can be implemented first by carefully defining one's enemies. Is this group really an enemy? Do they pose some threat to my group? If so, does that threat have any justification in our behavior? If so, is there anything can we do to change our behavior? Etc., etc., etc. We can ask, is Islam really "an existential threat" (see Newt Gingrich, et al.) to western culture? Does gay marriage really threaten traditional marriage? Do Mexican immigrants really threaten American jobs? Do they really burden social welfare programs? George

Yes, I think that is the challenge. And, as you or someone said earlier, it begins with awareness. We can, I think, also maintain our in-group identity while respecting the out-group. 'Tribalism' (in the better sense of the word) need not entail hatred, discrimination, and the like. George

I am not advocating boycotting coffee, but this is a legacy of the colonial period in which balanced agriculture communities of village farms were converted into monocultures by western planters. The result, in many places, was to create a dependence on exports to eat where they previously were self sufficient. It is also interesting that our government promotes globalism and free trade - except when it comes to agriculture. There, we subsidize domestic mostly factory farms at the expense of farmers in undeveloped countries. FWIW, I think the word 'tribalism' carries negative connotations. But, this isn't, in all instances, a bad thing. E.O Wilson (The Social Conquest of the World) talks a lot about group and individual selection in evolution. He says that if "individual selection were to dominate, societies would dissolve. If group selection were to dominate, human groups would come to resemble ant colonies." Neither of these, would, IMO, be positive developments. George

If anyone is interested, here is a link to watch the trailer that has stirred up so much trouble: I have seen it described as "amateurish," "bad taste," 'incoherent," etc., etc. I agree. If someone wanted to denigrate a religion with a film, they should, at a minimum, do a good job. I don't think this would convince anyone of anything other than what a bunch of incompetent idiots the producers are. George

Yeah, pretty much so. We do have libel and slander laws. I can't say false and harmful things about another person. I think this is very much misunderstood around much of the world, particularly the Middle East. People there think that something like this must government concurrence otherwise it couldn't be done. George

I wondered that as well. Was this a dog whistle to the Islamophobes? The Republicans are accustomed to other dog whistles, like racist ones. George

Again, in the last few days, we have another example of people denigrating Islam with a violent (and predictable) reaction. I am referring to the film defaming Islam and the Prophet. Mitt Romney immediately criticised the president for the U.S. embassy condemnation of the provocative film. Romney said that the president had "apologized for American values." This begs the question, what values does Mr. Romney refer to. I assume that he means freedom of speech (not anti-Islamic values) which includes the right to denigrate the religion of others. If freedom of speech is the value to which he refers, I agree that we do have that right. But, having the right doesn't mean that some speech is not despicable and should not be condemned because, IMO, there is another American value at play - respect for religious diversity and differing beliefs. I wonder how Mr. Romney would react to a film denigrating Mormons and depicting Joseph Smith as a deranged monster. Would he criticise the Mormon church if they condemned the film? George

Myron, Along the same line, almost always, foreign aid or intervention is framed as being in our "national interest" (i.e. our self interest). We cannot justify assisting others unless it can be demonstrated as also having a self benefit. I suspect a Senator Jesus would say, if they need help, we should do it whether we benefit or not. George

What seems to be clear is that physical and social distance are important factors in altruism and often trump factors of need and suffering. The closer the distance, the greater the altruism. The closer the relationship (ethnic, national, religious, etc.), the greater the altruism. I would argue that this is motivated intuitively by our tribal impulses. If the decision is purely rational, I would expect the level of suffering to be the decisive factor. George

The /p/ and /f/ sounds are often hard to distinguish. In fact, this group came from Persia as Farsis, but apparently when they got to India Sanskrit had no /f/ sound, so they became Parsi instead of Farsi (which is the way Indians would have also heard the word). I had guessed you meant Parsi since I had also heard the NPR story about their vultureless plight. George

Or, he could home school the child so that the child grows up unaware of a world outside of Greek Orthodoxy. This story caused me to wonder what they might be teaching in Canadian elementary schools that a Greek Orthodox would find so objectionable. George

Dutch, Please excuse my ignorance, but I don't know what a "vulture-Farsi problem" is. Are you referring to the burial practices of the Indian Parsis? In the school-trip vs starving Somali example, I was trying to pose a situation in which the choice is constrained by resources - one could do one but not both (or more realistically, do less for one because of the other). Maybe that was not a good example. George

I would say they might, depending on the situation, be for one of two reasons - self interest or altruism. If the latter, I would propose that they overcame the tribal constraint. Myron, as you said in an earlier post, this is a complex issue. I definitely agree with that, but I think the main players in these situations are our altruistic and tribal impulses. To add another thought, I feel like (as Wright suggests in The Evolution of God), that over human history, we are developing a broader perspective and getting closer to universal love. At least, I hope that is the case. George

Kay, this is, IMO, a derisive and disrespectful characterization of even fundamentalists. Without addressing this particular expression directly, Pascal Boyer (Religion Explained: The Evolutionary Origins of Religious Thought) demonstrates why a "flying spaghetti monster" would not be consistent with religious thought. He says, "Religious representations are particular combinations of mental representations that satisfy two conditions. First, the religious concepts violate certain expectations from ontological categories. Second, they preserve other expectations." He goes on to explain that the first condition (violation of ontological categories) are minimal. The "flying spaghetti monster" would be a maximal violation and therefore an aberration. So, I would say that those who use this expression are themselves uninformed. George

Yes. I find myself sometimes wrestling with this question. Should I give to some local charity (like a school trip) that benefits middle class, American kids, or to a charity that feeds starving people in Somalia? About the same time as Katrina, there was a devastating earthquake in Pakistan in which millions were homeless and stranded. I have no doubt, which got the most American contributions although the needs were not even close to equal. The influence of tribalism constraining altruism? George

Salvation Army? George

Critical thinking can result in a benefit to only the critical thinker. One can critically examine an issue or proposition in order to decide what action the thinker might take. Voting, is a good example. We would like for voters to carefully examine the candidates and issues before casting a secret ballot instead of acting emotionally or intuitively. The person may also wish to share their conclusions with others, but this is not necessary for there to be a constructive result. I can also think of a number of religious propositions that I think should be examined with critical thinking. George

Norm, I think there are a number of soup kitchens run by conservative Christian groups. But, I wonder if the motivation is concern for the material well being of others (who are strangers) or proselytizing. The food, as I understand, is always accompanied by a sermon and/or religious tracts. The same is true of foreign missionaries. Is their objective conversion to Christianity or the material well being of the people? If one is interested primarily in winning converts, is the accompanying charity really an expression of altruism or recruiting new members to one's tribe? George