Our Brains Don't Work Very Well, And We Know It

Zillah

I was just thinking about how religion might be viewed in the future. I hope for a day where our species is no longer slave to such silly notions, where they will look back and think how strange and unfortunate all of that was. I think there could be a world where our over-active agency seeking is a known human flaw and children are taught to avoid it. Here are some other evolutionary brain-relics that we need to teach out of people:

- Aggression. Everyone, men especially, can be angered, and often our preferred solution would be to take a heavy object and bash the source of that anger with it, or to simply roll up our sleeves and tackle them to the ground. In the past this would have been a normal element of human culture, weaker males got beaten up and the stronger ones got to be the bosses. Today we teach children that even though they might get angry sometimes that they must deliberately exercise self control.

- Promiscuity. Back in the day people shagged, got pregnant and started having children pretty much as quickly as they were able. Today people are taught various combinations of abstinence and birth-control. Many people are in their mid to late thirties before they have kids these days.

So what I'm getting at is this: Can you see a day where kids will be taught to avoid irrational ways of thinking just as they are taught to take control of other redundant ways of thinking now?

Zillah

By partaking in this thread you assert that God does not exist and that, as an axiom, you accept that religious, supernatural and other similar forms of thought are redundant. This thread is not to discuss whether religion is good or bad for society. You hereby beg Lord Dades to provide you with a free temp ban should you renege upon this assertion.

amacachi

****ing, killing and eating are the main things most animals are "meant" to do is it not? Are you saying it's logical or illogical to be promiscuous?

Blackhorse Slim

Being promiscuous without birth control is clearly irrational (unless you are trying to increase the population) - but promiscuity with effective birth control? Rational or irrational? That's a tough one.

Herbal Deity

Sex is pleasure, but with potential life changing consequences (pregnancy).

Sex with birth control is all the pleasure with a much, much lessened chance of serious consequences.

Lessened chance of serious consequences is pretty rational IMO.

Blackhorse Slim

Compared to to sex without birth control, of course. But promiscuous sex compared to longer term monogamous relationship? There is an argument either way, particularly at different stages of one's life.

Dades

Most sci-fi books (that touch on the topic) imagine a society without religion. Even Gene Roddenberry specifically requested that religion was to be left out of Star Trek as it had no place in his vision of Earth's future.

For this to happen though, and this links with another thread from today, is that the causes or necessity for religion must be dealt with first.

robindch

Zillah wrote: »

Can you see a day where kids will be taught to avoid irrational ways of thinking

Not while the church controls the schools.

Blackhorse Slim

I don't think there's anything wrong with irrational thinking - it has its place. The trick is to be aware of when one is thinking irrationally.

Improbable

Blackhorse Slim wrote: »

I don't think there's anything wrong with irrational thinking - it has its place. The trick is to be aware of when one is thinking irrationally.

Not quite sure I get that.

In regards to the OP, one of the theories of the origin of religion is that the meme evolved by conferring a benefit to desert tribes, increasing their support for each other. The only other one that I know of is that it doesn't directly confer a benefit but is a by-product of something that does.

If the first case is true, as we evolve and the small tribe mentality leaves us, the need for religion will slowly decrease. I definitely look forward to that day though I can't even think of when that might be. Not any time soon, that's for sure.

Truley

Zillah wrote: »

I was just thinking about how religion might be viewed in the future. I hope for a day where our species is no longer slave to such silly notions, where they will look back and think how strange and unfortunate all of that was. I think there could be a world where our over-active agency seeking is a known human flaw and children are taught to avoid it. Here are some other evolutionary brain-relics that we need to teach out of people:

- Aggression. Everyone, men especially, can be angered, and often our preferred solution would be to take a heavy object and bash the source of that anger with it, or to simply roll up our sleeves and tackle them to the ground. In the past this would have been a normal element of human culture, weaker males got beaten up and the stronger ones got to be the bosses. Today we teach children that even though they might get angry sometimes that they must deliberately exercise self control.

- Promiscuity. Back in the day people shagged, got pregnant and started having children pretty much as quickly as they were able. Today people are taught various combinations of abstinence and birth-control. Many people are in their mid to late thirties before they have kids these days.

So what I'm getting at is this: Can you see a day where kids will be taught to avoid irrational ways of thinking just as they are taught to take control of other redundant ways of thinking now?

Kind of goes back to Norbert Elias' theory of the Civilising Process, how our human instincts are so shaped and moulded by societal laws that they become internalised. However he also described how modern humans, living in such a pacified society find different, often negative outlets for their suppressed urges. For example mental illness, addiction, abuse etc At the end of the day it's just a particular theory of behaviour and morality that is imposed on us, seemingly at odds with our true nature.

That's the idea behind it, don't know a whole heap about Elias' works and I'm not pretending to either.

Zillah

Improbable wrote: »

Not quite sure I get that.

In regards to the OP, one of the theories of the origin of religion is that the meme evolved by conferring a benefit to desert tribes, increasing their support for each other. The only other one that I know of is that it doesn't directly confer a benefit but is a by-product of something that does.

If the first case is true, as we evolve and the small tribe mentality leaves us, the need for religion will slowly decrease. I definitely look forward to that day though I can't even think of when that might be. Not any time soon, that's for sure.

Key issue is though, I suspect there is an underlying gentic component that makes the memetic selection possible in the first place. Memetics determines which particular form of overactive agency seeking magic-thinking is dominant, but our brains clearly have an innate bias towards that mode of thought. Hence why I think a sceptical mindset would need to be internalised as Truley suggests.

Truley

Zillah wrote: »

Key issue is though, I suspect there is an underlying gentic component that makes the memetic selection possible in the first place. Memetics determines which particular form of overactive agency seeking magic-thinking is dominant, but our brains clearly have an innate bias towards that mode of thought. Hence why I think a sceptical mindset would need to be internalised as Truley suggests.

Actually it wasn't was I was suggesting myself. If, as you are suggesting, humans have some sort of innate yearning for a supersensible aspect to their lives, then surely it would make more sense for us to 'train' ourselves to embrace or channel that spiritual desire more positivitely and beneficially? Rather than trying to deny it outright, which most people, lets face it, are unable or unwilling to do.

Similar to your example of sexuality, we have learned to channel our sexual desires, but we don't outright deny or suppress them. We've seen the issues that arise when we've tried to.

Improbable

Truley wrote: »

Actually it wasn't was I was suggesting myself. If, as you are suggesting, humans have some sort of innate yearning for a supersensible aspect to their lives, then surely it would make more sense for us to 'train' ourselves to embrace or channel that spiritual desire more positivitely and beneficially? Rather than trying to deny it outright, which most people, lets face it, are unable or unwilling to do.

Similar to your example of sexuality, we have learned to channel our sexual desires, but we don't outright deny or suppress them. We've seen the issues that arise when we've tried to.

Tell that to gay people who have denied their sexuality and hidden it out of fear because of religion.

Truley

Improbable wrote: »

Tell that to gay people who have denied their sexuality and hidden it out of fear because of religion.

Eh? I don't understand what you're getting at?

Improbable

The influence of religion on sexuality and how the lives of gay people would have been much improved without it.

Zillah

Truley wrote: »

Actually it wasn't was I was suggesting myself. If, as you are suggesting, humans have some sort of innate yearning for a supersensible aspect to their lives, then surely it would make more sense for us to 'train' ourselves to embrace or channel that spiritual desire more positivitely and beneficially? Rather than trying to deny it outright, which most people, lets face it, are unable or unwilling to do.

Similar to your example of sexuality, we have learned to channel our sexual desires, but we don't outright deny or suppress them. We've seen the issues that arise when we've tried to.

I don't agree that sexuality and supernatural-thinking are likely to have similar consequences for their suppression. I and millions of other sceptics and atheists have trained ourselves to overcome supernatural-thinking, and are only all the better for it. It has nothing like the drive behind it that sexuality does.

Truley

Improbable wrote: »

The influence of religion on sexuality and how the lives of gay people would have been much improved without it.

Well that's like a chicken and egg argument because people can and have been homophobic without religious influence. And while people can use religion to justify certain behaviours the idea of religion itself isn't the direct cause of homophobia, or at least it would be very difficult to prove that it is.

It's beside the point anyway because I'm not talking about promoting religious dogma. In fact I'm discussing the opposite.

Zillah wrote: »

I don't agree that sexuality and supernatural-thinking are likely to have similar consequences for their suppression. I and millions of other sceptics and atheists have trained ourselves to overcome supernatural-thinking, and are only all the better for it. It has nothing like the drive behind it that sexuality does.

With respect, people like you and I can easily say that because it's our personal experience, and I would wager you have been a skeptical person before athiesm even came into the picture. Even you say yourself that people have an innate drive towards the supernatural, do you think that maybe some people's drive is higher than others? Personally I think it's something very ingrained in people's personalities, and it isn't something that can be trained out of us without going down some sort of seriously Orwellian route. I also don't think it's up to you or I do decide what's best for other people, because we don't know what's best for other people.

How do you know that our supersensible drives aren't akin to our sexual ones? Coercing people to suppress innate desires, be it sexual or psychological, will have correspondingly negative effects. Most people can agree on that.

My own opinions aside, how would you propose carrying out this training?

smokingman

Zillah: you saying we should aim to be Vulcan?

Valmont

You make it sound like we know exactly what we have to do to make the world a perfect place; that sounds far too optimistic. It's not as if the world will be sorted if we can stop school boys having fights, sluts sleeping around and people killing for religion.

When you say that skepticism is important, in what respect do you mean, exactly? What about skeptics of the state or of climate change?

Turtwig

Valmont wrote: »

What about skeptics of the state or of climate change?

Contrary to the way many people like to promote themselves as skeptics, the vast majority of so called climate skepticism is purely an ideological movement that if it applied the rules of actual skepticism would not be producing such ignorant tripe as a means of challenging a theory. Pseduoskepticism, is what you actually call it. The are genuine skeptics out there but the majority of these tend to be actual climate scientists who publish in the field of climate science and consistently keep trying to refine the science. The majority of these also seem to accept the consensus as well but they are skeptical of it. And they should be if they are good scientists, just like you should be skeptical of evolution, gravity etc. Generally speaking, if the argument made by a skeptic is one of motive instead of science, then you're most likely dealing with a pseudoskeptic. If the argument is blatant misrepresentation of science then you're dealing ideologically driven idiots. I said generally speaking because eventually enough confusion is sewn that innocent people get hoodwinked into such positions. At which point, a part of that flame I have for the awe of what humanity has achieved, dies a little inside.:(

Valmont

It seems you're only willing to tolerate skepticism if it's something you think we should skeptical about. What about some climate change skeptics who simply draw attention to the scientific issues with AGW? Are they still pseudoskeptic ideologically driven idiots? Do you not see the inherent danger in labelling skeptics in this way? I mean, even if AGW is completely objectively true and you support the cause, having some naysayers poke holes in the theory can only drive the AGW scientists to find better, more concrete data thus improving the whole thing. Personally, I don't know much about AGW but the smear tactics used against any skeptics is so underhanded and vindictive that I can't help but becoming a small bit suspicious of the whole movement.

Pushtrak

amacachi wrote: »

****ing, killing and eating are the main things most animals are "meant" to do is it not? Are you saying it's logical or illogical to be promiscuous?

It isn't about logical or illogical. It is about rising above a more animalistic nature. Basically, what seperates us from other animals is our brain. We should be using them, and overcoming base instinct.

smokingman wrote: »

Zillah: you saying we should aim to be Vulcan?

Well, I think that'd be good. But, it'd be something like the advice given in Tropic Thunder. You can't go full vulcan.

Valmont wrote: »

What about skeptics of the state or of climate change?

Skepticism in the face of evidence is irrationality and not the intended skepticism, I'm sure.

Valmont wrote: »

It seems you're only willing to tolerate skepticism if it's something you think we should skeptical about. What about some climate change skeptics who simply draw attention to the scientific issues with AGW?

There are scientists who are working on the basis that it isn't caused by humans. They are putting the research in and there should be no problems with them. Or the people who cite the research in question. It is the people who rather say it isn't so because they don't like it that are the problem.

It is the ostrich response, which is in the same line of thinking as the religious thinking. Don't look at this too closely, just go with preconceived notions and all is good. Such a response, and the people who go with that are not worthy of respect.

Turtwig

Valmont wrote: »

What about some climate change skeptics who simply draw attention to the scientific issues with AGW? Are they still pseudoskeptic ideologically driven idiots? .

Of course they're not but you need to be very careful here if someone uses what was said in newspaper or media article then they're not a skeptic.

Do you not see the inherent danger in labelling skeptics in this way?

I don't label the person until they first produce their arguments for why their oppose a certain theory. Then, depending on their argument, how emotional and how galileo like they perceive themselves to be it's becomes very hard to not draw the label. Seriously, I'm not going to bull****t, with the exception of Lindzen,Svensmark and a few others I've yet to read a skeptic argument that I thought was plausible. People tend to keep going on about how AGW is a religion and how anybody who disagrees with them labels them as creationist/deniers etc. I don't, but what I will do is point out to someone if their argument is along the lines of creationist logic. I'm always very reluctant to label some a denier,but I think the term pseudo skeptic is more than accurate. That said some people, you just have no choice to label as denier. Even if AGW is a complete hoax, the quality of their arguments will mean they were wrong anyways. Yes, they quite simply are THAT bad.:(

having some naysayers poke holes in the theory can only drive the AGW scientists to find better, more concrete data thus improving the whole thing. Personally, I don't know much about AGW but the smear tactics used against any skeptics is so underhanded and vindictive that I can't help but becoming a small bit suspicious of the whole movement.

To this I just have to say three things. One : This post will probably be moved to the global warming thread. Two : Yes minority opinion in science is vitally important, but this is being overshadowed by an ideological push. Read this post for a more elaborate explanation, oh and this.
Three : Having seen some of the methods used by so called skeptics, I'd have to disagree on that. In fact, I'll go one further, ID advocates claim scientists are smearing them when in fact they are actually smearing scientists. Anti Vaxxers do the same thing, and, alas, anti-climate science folks do it too. In fact that's what anti science folks generally do : they prey on the ignorance of the public and try to create the illusion that there exists this massive divided debate and that those "authoritarians" in the scientifc establishment are just censoring out the other side because they are either on the payroll of some large group or have religiously held irrational theories. Actually folks, they're just filtering bull****. My sig is an example of a scientist who doesn't accept the current understanding of the fossil record and actively publishes his claims in reputable journals. The aforementioned Svensmark and co, do just that in climate science. Their papers don't get rejected either. In fact, if you look through the so called climategate emails you'll see that Jones et al. actually complemented Svensmark. Svensmark, understands the sun better than they do, and they admit that. He hasn't been able to show what he thinks is the case with solar forcing, but who knows? He might someday, and I certainly don't see him being smeared against for trying. Generally speaking the only people who cry that they are being smeared against are those that can't get a paper published simply because its not good enough. There will be exceptions, and there will be times when bad papers on both sides make it through the peer review filter. The system isn't perfect, but most of the time it get's it right.

Goduznt Xzst

Zillah wrote: »

So what I'm getting at is this: Can you see a day where kids will be taught to avoid irrational ways of thinking just as they are taught to take control of other redundant ways of thinking now?

I hope not. The capacity to be utterly irrational is a trait I admire about humans. I think it is a travesty that we are in a race to separate ourselves from our animal, beastlike origins. All of the evidence leads one to imagine we simply aren't ready. The more we try to disconnect ourselves from our origins, the more we seem to rebound back to them.

I've found more joy in sleeping under the stars, crouched in undergrowth stalking prey, feeling my heart beat out of my chest as I ascend a cliff face, days travel from society than I ever had when taking full advantage of all the benefits modern society has to offer.

Thankfully though, as you mentioned, we have trained humans in the Western world to seek out their own personal goals ahead of choosing to sacrifice their time to concieve and raise a child. Couples in prosperous societies are choosing to leave it later and later to have children and then wondering why they find it so difficult in their mid to late 30's to conceive or bring even 1 child to term. By doing so we allow those without the training of western ideals to spread their genes more abundantly among numerous children when they are in the most fertile stage of their lives.

Humans do not want to live in large cities surrounded by machinery, concrete and glass. If you ask someone what they'd be rather doing right now it will more than likely be doing something physical or natural, or feeding some base impulse from our beastlike pasts.

MonkeyBalls

Zillah wrote: »

I was just thinking about how religion might be viewed in the future. I hope for a day where our species is no longer slave to such silly notions, where they will look back and think how strange and unfortunate all of that was. I think there could be a world where our over-active agency seeking is a known human flaw and children are taught to avoid it. Here are some other evolutionary brain-relics that we need to teach out of people:

- Aggression. Everyone, men especially, can be angered, and often our preferred solution would be to take a heavy object and bash the source of that anger with it, or to simply roll up our sleeves and tackle them to the ground. In the past this would have been a normal element of human culture, weaker males got beaten up and the stronger ones got to be the bosses. Today we teach children that even though they might get angry sometimes that they must deliberately exercise self control.

- Promiscuity. Back in the day people shagged, got pregnant and started having children pretty much as quickly as they were able. Today people are taught various combinations of abstinence and birth-control. Many people are in their mid to late thirties before they have kids these days.

So what I'm getting at is this: Can you see a day where kids will be taught to avoid irrational ways of thinking just as they are taught to take control of other redundant ways of thinking now?

Good post. Unfortunately, evolutionary relics are pretty hard to do away with, and so, like you point out, the only way to deal with them is to learn to override them.

The consensus seems to be that religion parasites upon numermous cognitive "modules" that evolved for separate, non-religious reasons. So, the underlying itch will never be removed, but educated people (teach children how to think critically) can learn to recognise that their intuitions and supersitious inclinations need to be looked at objectively, a kind of "metacognition".

Poor impulse control predicts both a flighty temper and a flightly vag, and the ability to exercise self-control and to delay gratification probably correlates with an ability to grasp that you shouldn't believe everything you think; your brain is prone to perceptual illusions - seeing patterns that don't exist (and making up stories about these patterns), infering supernatural intentions where it's mere random mechanics at work, etc.

Bottle_of_Smoke

I think this is already done to an extent. We're thought to look at things from other people's point of view rather than react to seeing red.

Though thinking about it this is not done near enough. Look at the rows between some public/private sector people, or between some republicans/unionists

robindch wrote:

Not while the church controls the schools.

A bit harsh. Whilst yes the church's view on God/how the earth came about is irrational, it doesn't mean they are neccesarily irrational about all social issues. OK they're plain retarded about some but not necessarily so. I think 'church-run' schools could still teach people logic and reason from an evidence based point of view for real world interactions. I'd say you'd get less resistance to it from the Catholic or Anglican churches than evangelical churched to be honest. Think of the likes of Father George Coyne or the Archbishop of Canterbury

robindch

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »

I think 'church-run' schools could still teach people logic and reason from an evidence based point of view for real world interactions.

They certainly could, but they don't.

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »

I'd say you'd get less resistance to it from the Catholic or Anglican churches than evangelical churches to be honest.

Yes, you may be right, but I still don't really see any serious sign of any of these churches actively encouraging people to think independently, unless the church is there to help them do it

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »

Think of the likes of Father George Coyne or the Archbishop of Canterbury

I'd be happy to have George Coyne do it, but Rowan Williams -- have you see some of the things that he's come out with over the years? :eek: