Alleged problems with small attorneys riding big elephants

I've previously written about Jonathan Haidt's approach to human moral psychology. His approach is termed the "Social Intuitionist Model" of moral motivation and it suggests that

moral behaviors are typically the product of multiple levels of moral functioning, and are usually energized by the "hotter" levels of intuition, emotion, and behavioral virtue/vice. The "cooler" levels of values, reasoning, and willpower, while still important, are proposed to be secondary to the more affect-intensive processes.

Haidt has used the metaphor of an intellectually-nimble lawyer riding on top of a huge emotion-permeated elephant to illustrate his counter-intuitive approach, suggesting that the small articulate lawyer on top often lacks meaningful control over the elephant. Moral judgments are usually dominated by emotions such as empathy and disgust (the strength of these is represented by the big-ness of the elephant). In short, Haidt is quite sympathetic to David Hume's suggestion that moral reasoning is essentially "the slave of the passions." In the March 25, 2010 edition of Nature (available here), Paul Bloom expressed concern that something important has been left out of Haidt's model. In reaction, Haidt defended himself against Bloom’s attack (see below), indicating that Bloom (whose work Haidt admires, for the most part) has misconstrued Haidt’s Social Intuitionist Model. I believe that summarizing this exchange between Haidt and Bloom sharpens the focus on the meaning of Haidt’s Social Intuitionist Model. [More . . . ]

Continue ReadingAlleged problems with small attorneys riding big elephants

Tolerance of Religion Scale

In The God Delusion (at page 50), Richard Dawkins presented the following spectrum of theistic probability:

1. Strong theist. 100 per cent probability of God. In the words of C.G. Jung, 'I do not believe, I know.' 2. Very high probability but short of 100 per cent. De facto theist. 'I cannot know for certain, but I strongly believe in God and live my life on the assumption that he is there.' 3. Higher than 50 per cent but not very high. Technically agnostic but leaning towards theism. 'I am very uncertain, but I am inclined to believe in God.' 4. Exactly 50 per cent. Completely impartial agnostic. 'God's existence and non-existence are exactly equiprobable.' 5. Lower than 50 per cent but not very low. Technically agnostic but leaning towards atheism. 'I do not know whether God exists but I'm inclined to be sceptical.' 6. Very low probability, but short of zero. De facto atheist. 'I cannot know for certain but I think God is very improbable, and I live my life on the assumption that he is not there.' 7. Strong atheist. 'I know there is no God, with the same conviction as Jung "knows" there is one.' Incidentally, Dawkins placed himself at a “6″ on his 7-point scale. See also here.
This above scale is quite useful. How sure are you that there is no “God”? Now you can rank your own confidence level based on a scale that quantifies your beliefs; you can then compare your degree of beliefs to that of others. [More . . . ]

Continue ReadingTolerance of Religion Scale

Exploring reasonable doubts by listening to “Reasonable Doubts” podcasts

If you are interested in hearing well-considered podcasts putting religious claims under the microscope, here's a good source: Reasonable Doubts. The site is a labor of love by the following three individuals:

JEREMY BEAHAN is an Adjunct Professor teaching classes on: Philosophy, World Religions, Biblical Literature, Aesthetics, and Critical Thinking through FSU. LUKE GALEN is an Associate Professor of Psychology at Grand Valley State University. He teaches classes on: the Psychology of Religion, Controversial Issues in Psychology, and Human Sexuality. DAVID FLETCHER is the founder and former chair of CFI Aquinas College. He is an English and Speech teacher as well as an adjunct professor of Mythology.
What distinguishes this site from many other skeptic/freethinker sites is that the authors offer dozens of carefully-reasoned podcasts putting specific religious claims under the microscope. There is no ranting or bloviating here; the tone is academic and the presentations are clear. Listeners will come away with thorough understandings of the topics addressed:
What distinguishes us from many other skeptical podcasts is our special focus on counter-apologetics. We provide detailed counter-points to the fallacious logic and blatant misinformation used by religious apologists when attempting to discredit skepticism and provide rational arguments for their dogmas. We also defend the sufficiency of reason, science and naturalistic philosophies to provide a satisfactory and morally compelling understanding of the cosmos, human nature, art and culture.
For example, in the podcast titled "Which Jesus?" (a presentation originally given at CFI), Jeremy Beahan discusses the many contradictions within the Gospel narratives. The lecture includes a powerpoint (see a sample slide below, setting out difference in the Christmas narrative): I also listened to a second podcast discussing Ernest Becker's work, leading to the modern theory of "terror management theory" (TMT) (this is a topic that fascinates me). Becker's general idea is that we are electric meat with large brains that can project into the future by generating "what if" hypotheticals. This makes us self-aware, but also tends to create a mind-body dualism riddled with anxiety--we deeply worry about death. Because we face our inexorable deaths, a paradox is created: we put lots of energy into denying death. We spin elaborate defenses through our symbolic systems (religion, capitalism, political). Becker argues that these defense symbols constitute buffers to our self-esteem, and we can only read self-esteem through our interactions with others. We latch onto group-based symbolic ideologies such as religions that offer simple steps to fend off death in order to enhance our self-esteem. All of our cultural strivings are to achieve a "heroic" feeling (even by serving a powerful Being, or by joining into warmongering) and a system of ready-made ethics for being a "hero" and "transcending death." Cultural striving = immortality striving. I was here and I mattered. But any threat to these immortality strivings threaten believers. Therefore, being presented with a contrary world view (e.g., atheism) is inevitably threatening to our self-esteem and our mortality. Converting others to one's own world view is a way to enhance one's own world view. If one can't convert others they still might be able to convince others to downplay their differences in public ((or even destroying others). About 20 years ago, many social scientists began testing these theories, with notable success (Judges reminded of their deaths set prostitution bond of $455; control judges--not reminded of their deaths--set bonds of $50). Reminders of death profoundly affect our behavior (e.g., 9/11 was a profound reminder of our impending deaths that dramatically kicked up our embrace of religion and patriotism--it urged people of all political persuasions to embrace others like themselves and to embrace more simplistic beliefs than before). Some of these experiments are described in this excellent lecture (I also described some of them in my previous posts on "Terror Management Theory). Beahan highly recommended viewing a documentary exploring Becker's ideas: "Flight From Death." Here is the menu of podcasts currently offered by Reasonable Doubts. I highly recommend a visit.

Continue ReadingExploring reasonable doubts by listening to “Reasonable Doubts” podcasts

A former Christian describes his former Christianity

Mike Baker submitted a few comments to DI over the past few months. Then, after I published yet another installment of my favorite quotes (read: I took a night off from actually writing), Mike offered me his substantial collection of provocative quotes (we’ve published them here and here, and there’s more to come). We started an email correspondence a few weeks ago. When Mike told me that he was formerly a Christian, but no longer, I asked him a few follow-up questions. It turns out that there is an unexpected twist to Mike’s story. He is no longer a Christian, but he believes in God. Yet he believes that organized religions are generally harmful to society. Yet he also admits that good things are sometimes accomplished by religious organizations. After a few rounds of back and forth, I asked Mike whether he would be willing to allow me to share his thoughts with the DI community, and he agreed. I think that you’ll enjoy reading Mike’s genuine thoughts and his engaging writing style. Without further adieu, here is that email conversation: Mike: Thanks for sharing your thoughts on religion in that five-part essay you wrote. As a person who has always called himself a Christian (albeit a loosely wrapped one), I've recently walked away from my "faith". In large part by the inactions and apparent acquiescence of "Christians" to G.W. Bush's invasion of Iraq. Feeling somewhat "lost", I began reading Bertrand Russell, Sam Harris and C. Hitchens just to name a few. I was totally engrossed and amazed too at what is not discussed in church. I now see religion (almost all of the brands) as a brake on human advancement at best and quite possibly the catalyst for civilizations’ destruction at worst. I guess you could say I am in the Sam Harris camp there. I do agree, however, with your summation that bridges need to be built. Here's a little on me. My mother grew up in Nazi Germany and brought me up to fully appreciate the meaning of our Constitution and what true freedom and democratic principles represent. Much to my mothers chagrin (something I didn't fully understand at the time) I joined the Marine Corps after high school and served for eight yrs. Believing that we were the "good guys", bringing peace and freedom where ever we went I served proudly. Time and a better understanding of history have taught me that that is not always the case. [More . . . ]

Continue ReadingA former Christian describes his former Christianity

Deeply and ineffably religious, on the couch

One of the biggest mistakes one can make when trying to figure out people, in my opinion, is to assume that conscious thoughts in the form of words do most of the work of cognition. I believe this has it upside down, and that 90% of the engine our cognitive engine is not available to consciousness--it is subconscious and not available for introspection. It is a huge foundational mistake to ignore Freud's recognition that a large and powerful portion of the mind is not conscious. This is an especially important thing to note for those who cling to the notion that they can explain human behavior on the basis that it is generally rational. This mistake is compounded by the fact that humans are exquisitely good at confabulating, both consciously and unconsciously. We drum up ex-temporary reasons for our decisions post facto. We don't really know why we do the things we do but we brashly claim that we do know why we do the things we do.

Continue ReadingDeeply and ineffably religious, on the couch