GeorgeW

I think that is essentially what they argue. As a species, we need some members to be more selfish than others. If it were evolutionarily advantageous, we would have developed to have no 'chimp' side in our nature and we would be like bees (to use Haidt metaphors). And the 'chimp' component varies somewhat from person to person. As a result, we have Donald Trump (all chimp) and Mother Teresa (all bee) with most of us somewhere in the middle. George

Donald and Paul, There is strong evidence that we are genetically inclined toward religious belief. Pascal Boyer (in "Religion Explained") discussed this at great length. His thesis is related to our natural tendency to assume agency which developed through evolution. When we cannot account for some occurence by natural means (a hurricane, good fortune, a plague, etc.), we have a tendency to assume a divine agent. Chistakis & Fowler (in "Connected") suggest that religion is related to our evolution as social animals and social connectedness. They think that God can function as a "node" in social networks. George

An example of this (recently discussed here) is the issue of abortion. If someone refers to the unborn as a 'fetus' we know instantly that they are pro-choice where if they use 'baby,' we know they are pro-life. I think a similar situation is with the issue of gay rights. If a person uses 'gay' they are likely be favorable where if they use 'homosexual' they are likely to be opposed. George

A book I am reading now ("Connected" by Chistakis & Fowler) makes a similar point in a different context. They say that empathy is an evolutionary development in humans and variation between individuals can be, at least, partially accounted for by genes. They have used twin studies to test this. So maybe, we should be a little more empathetic toward hard-hearted people as they likely inherited the inclination. What is also interesting (to me) is that natural selection resulted in variation where some people are more selfish and empathetic than others. If it were advantageous for the species, we would all be just alike in this but we are not. George

Thanks Annie. George

Randall, Welcome. I too hope you will join the discussions in our forum. George

Donald, my question was more about the historical basis of the Aramaic word. I certainly find nothing in your theology to quarrel with. I especially like what you have to say about your concept of God as personal and not a claim to universal truth. I think we should apply this standard to others on both the left and right as long as what they believe is benign and not asserted as exclusive, universal truth. George

Donald, You have referred to the Aramaic word alaha several times. I don't know much about Aramaic, but I am interested in the Semitic languages generally (Arabic and Hebrew more specifically). You are suggesting, I think, that Aramaic-speaking Jews (including Jesus) had a concept of God different from that presented in the Bible and Apocrypha. Do you have a good reference for this word and its meaning to Aramaic speakers. George

Donald, as an aside, I heard an interesting explanation of this verse recently. It was pointed out that it occurs in the context of conflict resolution. It was proposed that the spirit of Jesus is present when people are gathered trying to resolve differences. I thought that was cool. George

Dennis, with all due respect, that is just a subjective assertion of a point-of-view, it is not an objective statement of truth. It is fine, but it is not, IMO, sufficient to impose on all of human kind. Yes, "All law is the imposition of a moral viewpoint" (or at least many laws are). But, these depend on some demonstrable good or preventable harm and the consensus of the society. The question of when protected life begins, in our society, has no consensus. Most of us agree that birth, while not necessarily the exact point, would a point at which the fetus/child should be legally protected. Any earlier point begins erode the consensus. And, moving to conception has, I think, only minority support. George

Donald, welcome. I am pleased that you have joined us. George

Although the sentiment of the letter was, as I understand it, consistent with Billy Graham, the impetus to have it printed in newspapers was probably his son. I am confident that Billy is opposed to gay marriage and he has endorsed Mitt Romney. George

In our Sunday paper, there was a full-page ad by Billy Graham urging people to vote "biblical values." He specifically mentioned the one-man, one-woman marriage issue. I guess, from his perspective, caring for the least among us is a lower ranked "biblical value" than preventing gays from marrying. Although he has, in the past, called Mormonism a "cult" he endorsed Mitt Romney several weeks ago. I guess keeping gays from marrying also trumps cultism in his "biblical values." George

Norm, "Who said that marriage was only about legal benefits?" I think that is the issue. Gays now can form whatever private union they wish and can even get it sanctioned by a consenting church. What they do not have is any legal status for this union in most states - no tax benefits, no protection by inheritance laws, etc. We cannot compell people to accept this relationship, but we can compel them to recognize legal rights if the laws are changed as I think they should be. However, in time I think most reasonable people will come to accept it as we have come to accept integration, women's rights, etc. George

Tentex, I agree with Joseph that you pose some interesting questions. I too am interested in the idea of "spiritual." Can one be spiritual and, at the same time, an atheist? It seems to me that one can have a fuzzy sense of some higher, creative force without being able to define it or describe it with any degree of specificity. BTW, welcome to the forum. We usually ask new members to introduce themselves in the thread with that name. We would be interested in the path that led you here. I hope you will hang around and join the other discussions. George

There does not seem to be a great deal of interest in discussing the book. Should we proceed? If so, would any of the other readers like to do a summary of the next chapter, Chapter 3? George

Marko, Welcome. I hope you will join the discussions. George

DCJ, So, there is no functional difference between fertilized human egg and a newborn? Hmm. It doesn't matter that the newborn can breath on its own? It has its own heart? It has its own brain? it has its own organs? Granted it can't drive a car, hold a steady job, or express an opinion on abortion. But, I think there is a huge difference between the two. One is a sentient, feeling independent being. The other a glob cells with the potential of becoming a newborn and completely dependent on the mother to realize that potential. As I have said, I don't object to your point of view. I am not trying to argue that my view is 'right.' Both views are subjective and personal. What I do object to are those who insist on imposing their point of view on everyone else given there is no objective means of establishing when protected life begins or consensus in our society. George

Whoops, sorry. I think I had just seen his name on another thread and somehow it got stuck in my head. (I suspect Haidt and/or Damasio would have something to same about that - priming?). George

Steve, that is essentially what Haidt says. George

Yes he does, extensively. I counted 12 citations. George

In this context, I think we mean a life that should be protected by law. Clearly roaches have life as do grass and weeds, but they have no legal (or moral) protection. In fact, I think it could be argued that an adult roach has more attributes of "life" than a just fertilized egg. The roach is fully and independently functional. The just fertilized egg has only the potential for life in terms of biological functionality of its species. George

Sorry, it wasn't well worded. He is talking about people with brain damage such that their emotional input is impaired. He says they have great difficulty making decisions despite the fact that their reasoning ability is fine. For what it is worth, sales people know this quite well. They depend on emotional reaction to their products.They advertise the sizzle rather than the steak. George

Dennis, I think I have repeated myself too many times already. So, I think it best that I go back to my corner. George

“Two – The Intuitive Dog and its Rational Tail” Haidt continues, in this chapter, to build his case that morality is basically intuitive and not reasoned. He begins with what he calls “the rationalist delusion;” the false notion that our moral values are derived from reason. He notes that Darwin was very much a nativist (vs. rationalist) about morality; he thought that natural selection gave us minds preloaded with moral emotions. This fits into the realm of what we call “human nature.” In this chapter, Haidt gets into the evolutionary basis of morality. He says that emotions, something we share with apes, are building blocks for morality. He cites studies of brain damage to specific parts of the brain that disable emotion. People who suffer this damage have difficulty in decision making. They had no intuitive emotional reaction to right and wrong although they retain full rationality. He says that people make awful decisions when deprived of emotional input. He says that these situations were “a shocking revelation that reasoning requires the passions.” In an experiment using the incest taboo, Haidt demonstrates that our moral reaction is intuitive, not rational. Subjects are given a hypothetical “harmless-taboo” scenario in which a brother and sister have sex using condoms. The subjects were asked if it was okay. They would say no. Then they would be asked why and reasons such as the possibility of genetically defective offspring would be given. When they were reminded that the couple used condoms, the subjects could not give a rational reason. This is an example of “post hoc search for reason to justify the judgments people had already made.” I think we have all experienced this when someone tries to convince another, using reason, that their position on an issue is wrong. In spite of all the good reasons given and the illogical explanations the other offers, they remain unconvinced. We hear things like, ‘Well, I can’t explain it, I just don’t agree.’ My grandfather used to say, “Convince a man against his will and he will be of the same opinion still.” This is the “rationalist delusion.” Questions and comments? George