Hey, anti-Darwinists! Reconcile this!
In Chimpanzee Politics: Power and Sex among Apes (1982), Frans de Waal discusses reconciliation, but he’s not talking about human beings who are making up after fighting. Rather, de Waal is describing the reconciliation he has observed in communities of chimpanzees:
Sometimes the maneuver is fairly obvious. Within a minute of a fight having ended the two former opponents may rush towards each other, kiss, and embrace long and fervently and then proceed to groom each other. But sometimes this kind of emotional contact takes place hours after a conflict. When I observed very carefully, I saw that the tension and hesitancy remained as long as the opponents had not reconciled their differences. Then suddenly the ice would break in one of the chimpanzees would approach the other . . . currently, there is no doubt that primates are capable of reconciling; the question rather is under which circumstances they do so. (Page 27, 29).
(The above photo and caption are from Chimpanzee Politics)
Most fundamentalists would argue that we should not study “animals” in order to draw any conclusions about human behavior, as though human beings are not animals. They argue that you can’t draw conclusions about humans based upon an “animal species.” They then proceed to make their own wild conclusions about human animals based upon zero other animal species. Their conclusions are mostly ad hoc and a priori, often completely contradicted by scientific observations. Fundamentalists thus create souls and heavens completely out of their embellished imaginations and their apocryphal old book. In this way, fundamentalists are blindered and unrelenting armchair anthropologists/primatologists/zoologists.
(This photo of these chimpanzee youngsters and the caption are also from Chimpanzee Politics)
De Waal argues that claims of human uniqueness “are a bit like advertisements for squirrel proof bird feeders,” in that both claims are way overstated. He argues (in all of his books) that there is an obvious continuity between humans and chimpanzees to anyone who cares to look.
The time has come to define the human species against the backdrop of the vast common ground we share with other life forms. Instead of being tied to how we are unlike any animal, human identity should be built around how we are animals that have taken certain capacities a significant step farther. We and other animals are both similar and different, and the former is the only sensible framework within which to flesh out the latter.
(The Ape and the Sushi Master (2001), page 362). Why else start with the assumption that there is a strong continuity running from human behavior and behavior of other animals? See here, here, here, here, here and here.
Scholar: I would caution you to keep in mind that there are many kinds of Christians. For many of them, religion is an opportunity to associate with like-minded others to consider traditional (albeit far fetched) stories as a springboard from which to draw moral lessons. They don’t buy into the literalness of extraordinary or oxymoronic aspects of these stories. They are often brilliant in their professions and dedicated to their families. These people often make wonderful neighbors, friends and co-workers. They are often strong allies of freethinkers and non-believers. Even though on Sunday they sit in churches and utter things that would be hard on our ears.
On the other end of the scale are the fundmentalists, who have, indeed, shut off their minds for such a length of time that they now strut about working hard to smugly harness the police power of the state to invade the liberties of total strangers. They somehow claim that the Bible is inerrant. The people in this latter group (maybe half the U.S., depending on how you measure) are the real targets of your frustration.
I think we need to be careful not to smear the first group, poetic believers, with the sins of fundies. They don’t deserve it. They are just too often good people who live and let live, despite the strangeness of their articulated versions of their world view. In fact, I agree with Daniel Dennett that most of them believe in belief rather than believe in the articles of faith of their religions. They have been raised to think that belief in something supernatural is important, so they strive to do this–such beliefs are intertwined with the traditions and morals they value. In short, many of them are closet agnostics.
On the other hand, having an “education” is not the same as being a wonderful person. I have known many intellectually brilliant people who are either A) frozen with indecision or B) unwilling to consider practicing common sense empathy toward those around them who need it desperately. Good education does not (yet) mean high emotional IQ (though Howard Gardner is working to change this). I am often challenged by what I’m about to say: Show me someone who selflessly jumps to the aid of a hurt stranger and I’ll show you someone who likely believes in some sort of God.
I certainly don’t like being written off with all of the “atheists” who make the headlines. Therefore, I would urge all of us not to paint all members of all religions with the same broad brush. A typical Unitarian is very different than a typical member of one of the new big fundamentalist mega-churches. I’m trying to not sound too “preachy”–sorry if I’ve failed in this.
My bottom line: isolating virulent strains of dogma is always a worthy quest. Inviting all Believers to question their claims and beliefs is always a worthy quest. Attacking all religions as per se equally harmful is not, because it’s not true and it’s too often counter-productive. This topic was addressed repeatedly at the recent La Jolla conference. See http://dangerousintersection.org/?p=763 .
My initial reaction (not having studied your post or heard all the conferences yet), is that I agree. In fact, at some point I was, going to make ammends with certain groups, but I was sidetracked, as you can see is possible. I think I am a little less tolerant of “passive ignorance” than you may be. At the same time (this was gonna be one of my next posts, I swear on the holy… oh nevermind), I realize the danger in awakening the “sleeping dog”. I think our wise friend Hogiemo is in this situation. He may not want nor require “awakening”. Please do not judge me by what I say (not that you have), I am very different in real life, less talkative and aggressive, I think. Plus, any faults I have are just God’s faults. See how easy being Christian is.
Great post Erich, just want to point out one thing, for now. You said (knowing you would get a reaction out of me
)…. “Show me someone who selflessly jumps to the aid of a hurt stranger and I’ll show you someone who likely believes in some sort of God.” The flaw which I see is that you say ’selfless’, but if you think about it, that person is really just serving God. The fact is, if they believe that God is all powerful and controls everything, they are really just acting “selfishly” in an attempt to please God and get a quick ticket to Heaven by doing good deeds. Complicated, but I think important that it is possible to see an act of generosity where really the motive is just as “human”/selfish as ever.
As the administrator of the site, you have attempted (and succeeded) in maintaining a level playing field. You probably have encountered and discussed some issues which required restraint on your part in order not to alienate your opponents. An admirable, yet rarely acquired, ability (in my experience on the Internet).
I guess that I am somewhat dishonest in that I present a slightly more aggressive attitude when I am posting, as opposed to when talking over the dinner table, at a party, etc. My reasoning is that, having witnessed some of the extremist and downright *afflicted* attitudes here on the web, my defenses are indeed raised. For many years I did not voice my opinions online and was content to be one of the smart folks who “just isn’t concerned” with those Christian Fundamentalist Mor(m)ons. Now that I am actually posting, and as my interests (addictions) tend to change with circumstance, I want to make an impact while I am here on the web. I prefer to play the role of the *extreme opposite* of what I have disliked and disapproved of over the years. I may still have some atheist rage pent up, or it could be my unconscious using the game theory strategy that “a good offense is the best defense”. I guess I was/am willing to let the “poetic” Christians dismiss me as an extremist in exchange for being (attempting) the countervoice to their extremists, thus providing a decoy so as to diffuse attacks on the “average” atheist. Noble, I know.
Gentle Scholar, I respectfully disagree.
If I lived in an hypothetical world where there were truly no God, I would still believe in God. Perhaps I would be wrong in this belief but, it would not be drugged induced.
I have examined many faiths and question my own but, unless I were the sole occupant of the hypothetical world (and therefore God) I would believe in God, and we would still have something like what we have now as far as belief or non-belief goes in the world. If your premise of the non-existence of God is true then, the world without God is not hypothetical at all but our current reality.
The question is why? Why do some human animals postulate the existence of a being which is “God”?
I assert that a sense of the numinous is an essential part of what differentiates humans from other animals. As our ancestors looked up in awe at the night sky, they sought to explain that for which they had no explanation. As our knowledge has increased, so too has our understanding of the limits of our knowledge, and still we are in awe.
Some sense the numinous and might seek a unifed field theory, or another a faith explanation, or another some amalgram of the two. That is also not to say that upon the description of a unified filed theory, my belief in God will wink out of existence!
I have chosen to believe in God, and I see the revelations of science as the unfolding of the wonders of the universe which God has made.
As for my faults, I own them. I don’t take potshots at others without any knowledge of who they are but, I do like to give those which do a Rockefeller salute!
Hogiemo, I have learned from you, and I hope you have learned from me. Thanks again. (potshot omitted)
In other news today, I stumbled upon what looks to be a valuable website, Americans for Informed Democracy. Here is the link to AID…
http://www.aidemocracy.org/
Seems like a very high quality news and opinion source, let me know if any of you folks disagree.
So, if you don’t know what a “Rockefeller salute” is, go to http://www.wilsonsalmanac.com/images2/Oct25_rockefeller_finger/jpg
And I from you, gentle person. Live free, die well!
Hogiemo, I offer you some alternative reference websites. Unfortunately they lack all of the opinions, flashing banners, ads, religious jargon, and unsupported “facts” in your Wilson’s “almanac”. The links I provide will however, prove to be MUCH more reliable, searchable, up-to-date, and *accurate*.
http://www.encylopedia.com
It’s called “Highbeam” encylopedia and is funded by top Universities. It’s a modern encyclopedia, a very valuable resource, completely free to use!
Or try….
http://en.wikipedia.org/
If it’s something related to pop culture, you can’t beat Wikipedia.
I like to look at the wikipedia archives for “Stephen Colbert” and the “Daily Show” with John Stewart. It has histories, summaries, video links, and the latest buzz. Also, you (Hogiemo) may be happy to know that Wikipedia has become *quite* well represented by Christians in terms of their input. Anybody can write and edit the stories, but they also have real editors too, so the Christians can’t run completely rampant on the science posts. But sadly, the radical Christian influence has become obvious to me, and many of the controversial articles (God vs. Science) seem to be getting swallowed and spoiled by minutiae.
Hogiemo, gentle soul, I asked you about whether you would believe in God even if there was no God and you responded…
“If I lived in an hypothetical world where there were truly no God, I would still believe in God. Perhaps I would be wrong in this belief but, it would not be drugged induced.”
I feel that I may have conveyed my question unclearly, or perhaps it was misunderstood. Please let me re-phrase my question and ask it again…
If you lived on a hypothetical world where there truly were no God, and no knowledge of God, and no ability to formulate a belief in God, would you still believe in God? Hogiemo?
Stephen Colbert has a monkey’s brain… Go here for the story.
Ben: Thanks for sharing the de Waal clip. He was a good sport on Colbert’s show. As you might suspect, reading his books will give you an immensely more detailed picture of the differences (but mostly the similarities) between humans and the other apes.