GeorgeW

Rivanna, I am not clear on what you mean by this:

"I guess I need to see social sciences as a subset of a greater spiritual view, rather than the other way around."

I see the social sciences (as it may be applied to religion) as an attempted objective analysis and explanation. I don't think scientists such as Haidt see themselves as promoting any particular form of religion, or even religion in general. And, I don't think Haidt sees people as being inherently depraved as depravity is a value judgement, not a scientific finding. His attempt, as I understand it, is to understand and explain human behavior. It is then up to the reader, if they wish, to decide if this is depraved, noble, or neither.

FWIW, I did a word search of two of his books that I have on my Kindle. He does not use the words 'depraved' or 'depravity' in either one.

George

What interests me about it is that it addresses the 'extinguishing' of beliefs. That was one thing that Haidt's book made me wonder - if we seek only to reinforce our belief, how come many of us have stopped believing in things we once did?

Haidt doesn't claim that we are 100% intuitional and zero% rational. He uses the elephant (intuition) and rider (reason) metaphor which suggests that reason does play a role, but not as much as we like to think.

George

Sometimes changing beliefs goes along with moving into different social groups that we want to fit into, eg when I started uni I was more impressed by lecturers' views than by those of the minister of the conservative church I had attended for many years.

Rodney Stark, a sociologist who specializes in religion, has said that generally people join churches because of social connections. They first go because of family or friends. Then, they embrace the theology. I suspect a number of people remain because of social connections even when the theology is not perfectly suitable.

Social connections are very powerful in our lives. But, this should not be surprising for a highly social animal ("eusocial" according to E. O. Wilson).

George

The CYJA allows for lighter sentences for youths - chances at rehab programs, less time in custody, halfway houses instead of hard prison, that sort of thing. Their names and pictures are often not released to the public, so as not to prevent them from having a future - this is true even in cases of violent crimes. Personally, I don't find this to be "justice" for those who are harmed/killed, or for the community.

So, what do you think the purpose of justice should be? Giving the victims 'justice' sounds a little like retribution.

George

While I've never doubted my decision to leave I've never found a comfort level discussing it.

Jay, welcome. I hope you will find this forum a place in which you will be comfortable saying what you wish.

George

4. Given a bit of ambiguity, we will see what we want to see. We will see the flaws in something we don't want to believe in, and justify the flaws in something we do believe in.

In research, this has been called "confirmation bias." Once we form a hypothesis, we tend to see only things that confirm it and ignore, or reason away, things that refute it.

I often find myself doing this in political material. I tend to read opinions that support mine and avoid opposing points of view. I am aware of this (from Haidt and others) and try to avoid it, but it is hard to do. We really don't want to find out, or admit, that we are wrong or our opponents may have a good point. (Even in attempts at balance, I refuse to listen to Rush Limbaugh or watch Faux News).

George

Wisdom_Bodhisattva, Welcome. You have certainly had an interesting journey. I hope you will join the discussions here.

George

Bearpawss,

Welcome.

I think that we should recognize that Christians are humans like all other humans. Some are real jerks, some are saints and most of us are somewhere in between. Unfortunately, our theology and behavior too often go don't hand in hand.

George

Thanks jonny.

Happy Thanksgiving to all.

George

P.S.

I think, to a certain degree, the pro-life (i.e. conception) view has the benefit of clarity. Later points, such as viability, are fuzzier and potentially changing with medical science. A conservative worldview in general, I think, prefers moral clarity over ambiguity and instability.

George

That doesn't mean we have to stop trying to convince others that their arguments against abortion should be reviewed.

The problem is this a value issue in which there is no empirical evidence to assert (although we try). But yes, we should discuss it and, I think, respect differences of opinion. I personally have no objection to someone believing that life begins at conception. I would ask that they give those with differing views equal respect.

George

I think more than just a right to decide, society in fact has a responsibility to decide, particularly when it is stopping people from proceeding with their choice to have an abortion.

But what about when there is no consensus in the society? Does one side get to impose their will on everyone else?

If one is pro-life, no one is suggesting they must, by law, terminate their own pregnancy. They are free to give birth no matter the risk to the mother or their inability to care for the child. The issue is not one of preventing a person from exercising their personal values, but someone imposing their values on those who have different values.

George

Haidt does seem convincing to me, but I admit to knowing next to nothing about conflicting theories / studies in this area.

Good point. I am not familiar as well with any contemporary competing theories. However I have read other things that are consistent with Haidt's ideas.

George

I was understanding your "un-loanability" as regarding the Kindle owners ability to loan a book- or not - from the initial seller, not as loaning a book to another kindle owner.

Sorry that I was not more clear. Yea, I was thinking of book owner to another person which many of us have done extensively with hard-copy books. Although I am sure it is technically possible with e-books, I don't think Amazon or the other distributors allow it.

George

Well, not quite true on the Kindle. Amazon have a "Prime" service where you pay £49 a year and then can download many books for "free" and delete them when read. Not really my cup of tea but the offer is there.

With the 'Prime' service, one can loan a purchased book to friends? Are you sure about this?

George

The bible says "thou shalt not kill".

Actually, the English translation "kill" of the Hebrew word in this commandment is, IMO, a bad translation. I think 'murder' is a more appropriate translation. The OT does not ban killing generally. The Israelites, like almost every society, banned only specific acts of killing. And, and has been pointed out previously in this thread, the Bible does not ban abortion. In fact, it suggests that the fetus is property of the parents.

George

Do you find Haidt's arguments convincing (in this chapter, and generally)? Is there anything you disagree with?

Annie, I would ask the same of you. I was generally very persuaded by his arguments and evidence. But, it has been awhile since I read the book and I don't recall any specifics that I had serious doubt about or disagreement with.

George

On a happier note it was hard to look at the results of the last election and not feel that the ball for legalization of same-sex marriage isn't rolling down hill!

Too bad that it must be voted on. IMO, it should be a protected constitutional right. In any event, four for four ain't bad.

George

only down side for me is that it's oh-so-easy and tempting to buy new books with one click.

And, un-loanability.

I also find it more difficult to navigate a book - look back and forward, scan, find my place, etc. However, I realized that I had crossed the line when I first refrained from buying a book until it came out in e-form. All in all, I much prefer the e-form to 'treeware.'

George

Steve,

I seem to recall reading somewhere that the change had something to do with the breakup of the Jesus movement and the Jewish congregations. The newly independent 'Christians' wanted to differentiate themselves from Judaism in a variety of ways. (Or maybe, I am just dreaming this up)

George

Lisa, Welcome. I look forward to your participation in the discussions. (FWIW, I thought the UCC was rather progressive).

George

In a way, I am hearing you offering up a 'genetic' card to maintain an argument for the existence of God. It is a bit backward from the usual examples as it holds that due to humankinds near universal development of a supernatural creator being; through such 'wiring', indeed, such a being exists.

Sorry, I was not clear and was mixing points. The genetic explanation is not an argument for the existence of God. It is an argument that explains the universal cultural condition - why humans are inclined to have religious thought.

Independently, there is also a logical argument based on agency. Do we, or science, know of anything that has no cause? If everything within natural law has a cause, it follows that our existence itself has a cause (an agent).

George

Donald, a quick PS,

Religion is a cultural universal - it is found in every human society. It can be documented back 40-50K years (cave art and grave goods). It persists even when suppressed (see USSR and Red China). This universality and persistence suggests a genetic basis - something shared by all humans. As a result, a number of scientists have proposed various evolutionary motivations and explanations.

This does not mean that there is a biological imperative for everyone, but that religious thought is a strong, human tendency.

George

I do not find anything genetic in this. Do you have other examples that would support such a gene? I'd be very interested in that.

To grossly oversimplify Boyer's case, we intuitively and automatically assume agency when something happens. This is evolutionarily beneficial. If our ancient ancestors had to stop and reason every time they heard a threatening sound, a number of them would not have survived. They would have been eaten by the tiger or whatever before they reached a reasoned conclusion about the source. Those who had the 'agency gene' (my term), reacted automatically, avoided danger and lived to procreate. There was no harm to assume danger even when none existed. So, we developed an intuitive instinct that assumed agency behind all events. (Sorry Pascal if you are reading this).

George