According to a new cross-cultural study, … people living in communities most like those of Stone Age hunter-gatherers — small in numbers and lacking a “moralizing god” — made the most unfair offers to strangers and were least likely to punish stingy partners.
I wonder to what extent the mass of interesting information in a modern society tends to "crowd out" religion. Reading the comments above, we could all be "monks" in a scientific "monastery" devoting our lives to sorting through the minutia of our "science," which is of course not a religion, heaven forbid! We certainly get the bonding and even the moralizing, with our morals aligned to overcoming human bias in order to get the science right. By contrast, the religious bond and discuss with their moralizing aligned to overcoming human bias in order to get the religion right!
Are there any interesting comparisons between science and religion as institutions that fill a gigantically overlapping set of human and cultural needs? And how this might be behind modern atheism?
those scientifically developed nations also have other institutions, prison, social support, ability to track cheaters and murderers, that reduce the crime rate.
There are many confounding factors for the "atheism makes society better"
I would say that more scientifically developed nations are more likely to have access to materials that support a worldview of atheism. Also, a person in a faith who reads large amounts of outside materials would also be more likely to not be a firm believer(maybe)
People, and societies, who fulfill those criteria have many factors that reduce their crime rate. There is an inverse correlation between intelligence and probability of going to jail, and there is a positive relation between intelligence and lack of belief in god. That may explain what you are looking for.
I don't think that contradicts the statement that "religious social institution improves society as a whole" even though within in group the "better" people are more likely to be atheist.
This is a confusing issue. Does anyone have some relevant and enlightening information on this?
Wilson, I think, calls altruism the “central theoretical problem of sociobiology”.
Um, Wilson is tooting his own horn here. There is a cottage industry of sociobiological models which aim to explain 'altruism' by various combinations of kin selection, group selection, strong reciprocity, signaling and lots of other things which I'm not mentioning here. But sociobiology and other disciplines are a long way from grounding all human behavior in our biological makeup.
Thanks for the reply, Microbiologist. Perhaps philosophers and biologists are talking past one another, to some extent. My interest in sociobiology was spurred by students showing up in my ethics and metaphysics classes telling me that biology had answered various perennial philosophical questions. I thought the suggestion was outlandish - ethics is about what should be the case, not what is the case, and science can only tell us about what is - but indeed my students were not misquoting their teachers: many sociobiologists make just this claim. In particular, my students had read Ridley's The Red Queen, which contains a number of claims that are dubious at best. (Let me know if you disagree, and I'll reproduce some of them for discussion.)
In any case, one central and (if true) damning critique of sociobiology is that it is hostage to various empirical facts about our natural history, "facts" that don't seem to actually be the case. In particular, if there are a lot of "spandrels", then many sociobiological explanations will be bunk. In general, I take it, sociobiology explains various human traits and practices by showing how those traits are fitness conductive, or were fitness conducive in the environment in which they evolved. But if there are a lot of spandrels, then (many) such arguments will be spurious. But there ARE a lot of spandrels. Hence, many sociobiological explanations are bunk.
Secondly, the sociobiological writings with which I'm acquainted seem to deny the individual much, if any, influence over her own behavior - sociobiologists seem to think of us as slaves to our genes/biological heritage. (Wilson, I think, calls altruism the "central theoretical problem of sociobiology". But if he didn't think that biology explained all human behavior, it would be hard to see why this would be a problem.) But I have never seen anything close to a compelling argument that this is the case.
Do you think that these two concerns are wide of the mark? (I.e., do they not touch "basic sociobiology"?) Or do you think that they're just not serious concerns? In either case, I'd be interested in hearing why, if you feel like explaining. If not, of course I understand.
John 4, Kanazawa is the one evo psych guy most often disowned by other evo psych guys. It's not like he is never interesting, but no one visible is less reliable. (I wouldn't read him, except that I have the background to be able to easily perceive when he's off base.) Therefore you've set up a bit of a straw man (perhaps unintentionally).
I suspect that probably most biologists, out of those that have bothered with it, find Fodor not to be a legitimate critic of evolutionary theories like sociobiology. Fodor does not appear to have a good grasp of the theory of evolution, though his attacks have a philosophical rather than a biological nature anyway. Scientists don't care about those philosophical things. Science - at least outside fundamental physics - is not a radical epistemological effort. Instead, like the US Army, it is built upon commonsense naturalism, accepted as an unexamined assumption. Its theory of meaning is simply that scientists agree on whether a sample of fluid has changed color or whether a fluorescing band is present in an agarose gel. If 99 scientists agree that the fluid changed color, and the 100th one disagrees, there is no philosophical crisis, rather, that 100th scientist needs to go home and take a nap, maybe get some sunshine. Basic sociobiology is accepted by all biologists: Hamilton's rule, sibling conflict, mate conflict, parent-offspring conflict (gestational and otherwise), mating strategies/infidelity, you name it.
If you can't take crazy beliefs out of religion, you start your own, the market is open, it is freedom of religion. It would be quite arrogant to think you can do that to all religion, but silly to think it impossible to do with any religion since you can design your own. Atheism is just the religion of the "no god", and more tedious than most.
Ok...sorry I had such a strong/touchy response. As is perhaps obvious, I think that a lot of the claims made by sociobiologists are shaky at best - and are used in pernicious ways to boot. In any case, I would be interested in knowing which arguments you found dishonest or unconvincing, but you certainly shouldn't waste any time looking at the book again if you don't remember.
I'd guess that Mormon stability benefits significantly from selection effects. People really do differ in personalities a great deal. If I'm wrong, maybe everyone should be Japanese or French instead.
It isn't that he criticized sociobiology, it was how he did. Which is why I specifically suggested reading the book. Unfortunately, I read it so long ago that I can't remember any specific details well just my general impression of the book.
While interesting, OKCupid is not a random sample. It tends to be frequented by people who find the idea of matching via large sample size of personality questions, plus personality testing, appealing. Consumers are therefore, on average, probably more intellectual and thus atheist-friendly.
Huh? 'Kitcher criticizes sociobiology therefore Kitcher is not an honest philosopher' is a patently invalid inference. Or perhaps you think his particular arguments are garbage. If so, please do tell why.
In any case, sociobiology is (mostly) a bunch of bull, as plenty of honest philosophers have been tediously pointing out for decades (Peter Singer, Jerry Fodor, David Stove...). This isn't to say there is a philosophical consensus, but then, there never is. In any case, I'm a third rate hack, and I'm pretty sure I can hold my own in an argument about the merits of (most) sociobiology. For example, most of what is said here:
I wonder to what extent the mass of interesting information in a modern society tends to "crowd out" religion. Reading the comments above, we could all be "monks" in a scientific "monastery" devoting our lives to sorting through the minutia of our "science," which is of course not a religion, heaven forbid! We certainly get the bonding and even the moralizing, with our morals aligned to overcoming human bias in order to get the science right. By contrast, the religious bond and discuss with their moralizing aligned to overcoming human bias in order to get the religion right!
Are there any interesting comparisons between science and religion as institutions that fill a gigantically overlapping set of human and cultural needs? And how this might be behind modern atheism?
those scientifically developed nations also have other institutions, prison, social support, ability to track cheaters and murderers, that reduce the crime rate.
There are many confounding factors for the "atheism makes society better"
I would say that more scientifically developed nations are more likely to have access to materials that support a worldview of atheism. Also, a person in a faith who reads large amounts of outside materials would also be more likely to not be a firm believer(maybe)
People, and societies, who fulfill those criteria have many factors that reduce their crime rate. There is an inverse correlation between intelligence and probability of going to jail, and there is a positive relation between intelligence and lack of belief in god. That may explain what you are looking for.
I don't think that contradicts the statement that "religious social institution improves society as a whole" even though within in group the "better" people are more likely to be atheist.
This is a confusing issue. Does anyone have some relevant and enlightening information on this?
If I'm understanding you correctly, humans need a mission? (Not being contentious, I find the idea intriguing).
They did a multiple regression; both effects are observed.
Wilson, I think, calls altruism the “central theoretical problem of sociobiology”.
Um, Wilson is tooting his own horn here. There is a cottage industry of sociobiological models which aim to explain 'altruism' by various combinations of kin selection, group selection, strong reciprocity, signaling and lots of other things which I'm not mentioning here. But sociobiology and other disciplines are a long way from grounding all human behavior in our biological makeup.
Thanks for the reply, Microbiologist. Perhaps philosophers and biologists are talking past one another, to some extent. My interest in sociobiology was spurred by students showing up in my ethics and metaphysics classes telling me that biology had answered various perennial philosophical questions. I thought the suggestion was outlandish - ethics is about what should be the case, not what is the case, and science can only tell us about what is - but indeed my students were not misquoting their teachers: many sociobiologists make just this claim. In particular, my students had read Ridley's The Red Queen, which contains a number of claims that are dubious at best. (Let me know if you disagree, and I'll reproduce some of them for discussion.)
In any case, one central and (if true) damning critique of sociobiology is that it is hostage to various empirical facts about our natural history, "facts" that don't seem to actually be the case. In particular, if there are a lot of "spandrels", then many sociobiological explanations will be bunk. In general, I take it, sociobiology explains various human traits and practices by showing how those traits are fitness conductive, or were fitness conducive in the environment in which they evolved. But if there are a lot of spandrels, then (many) such arguments will be spurious. But there ARE a lot of spandrels. Hence, many sociobiological explanations are bunk.
Secondly, the sociobiological writings with which I'm acquainted seem to deny the individual much, if any, influence over her own behavior - sociobiologists seem to think of us as slaves to our genes/biological heritage. (Wilson, I think, calls altruism the "central theoretical problem of sociobiology". But if he didn't think that biology explained all human behavior, it would be hard to see why this would be a problem.) But I have never seen anything close to a compelling argument that this is the case.
Do you think that these two concerns are wide of the mark? (I.e., do they not touch "basic sociobiology"?) Or do you think that they're just not serious concerns? In either case, I'd be interested in hearing why, if you feel like explaining. If not, of course I understand.
John 4, Kanazawa is the one evo psych guy most often disowned by other evo psych guys. It's not like he is never interesting, but no one visible is less reliable. (I wouldn't read him, except that I have the background to be able to easily perceive when he's off base.) Therefore you've set up a bit of a straw man (perhaps unintentionally).
I suspect that probably most biologists, out of those that have bothered with it, find Fodor not to be a legitimate critic of evolutionary theories like sociobiology. Fodor does not appear to have a good grasp of the theory of evolution, though his attacks have a philosophical rather than a biological nature anyway. Scientists don't care about those philosophical things. Science - at least outside fundamental physics - is not a radical epistemological effort. Instead, like the US Army, it is built upon commonsense naturalism, accepted as an unexamined assumption. Its theory of meaning is simply that scientists agree on whether a sample of fluid has changed color or whether a fluorescing band is present in an agarose gel. If 99 scientists agree that the fluid changed color, and the 100th one disagrees, there is no philosophical crisis, rather, that 100th scientist needs to go home and take a nap, maybe get some sunshine. Basic sociobiology is accepted by all biologists: Hamilton's rule, sibling conflict, mate conflict, parent-offspring conflict (gestational and otherwise), mating strategies/infidelity, you name it.
If you can't take crazy beliefs out of religion, you start your own, the market is open, it is freedom of religion. It would be quite arrogant to think you can do that to all religion, but silly to think it impossible to do with any religion since you can design your own. Atheism is just the religion of the "no god", and more tedious than most.
Fascinating!
Ok...sorry I had such a strong/touchy response. As is perhaps obvious, I think that a lot of the claims made by sociobiologists are shaky at best - and are used in pernicious ways to boot. In any case, I would be interested in knowing which arguments you found dishonest or unconvincing, but you certainly shouldn't waste any time looking at the book again if you don't remember.
I'd guess that Mormon stability benefits significantly from selection effects. People really do differ in personalities a great deal. If I'm wrong, maybe everyone should be Japanese or French instead.
It isn't that he criticized sociobiology, it was how he did. Which is why I specifically suggested reading the book. Unfortunately, I read it so long ago that I can't remember any specific details well just my general impression of the book.
While interesting, OKCupid is not a random sample. It tends to be frequented by people who find the idea of matching via large sample size of personality questions, plus personality testing, appealing. Consumers are therefore, on average, probably more intellectual and thus atheist-friendly.
Huh? 'Kitcher criticizes sociobiology therefore Kitcher is not an honest philosopher' is a patently invalid inference. Or perhaps you think his particular arguments are garbage. If so, please do tell why.
In any case, sociobiology is (mostly) a bunch of bull, as plenty of honest philosophers have been tediously pointing out for decades (Peter Singer, Jerry Fodor, David Stove...). This isn't to say there is a philosophical consensus, but then, there never is. In any case, I'm a third rate hack, and I'm pretty sure I can hold my own in an argument about the merits of (most) sociobiology. For example, most of what is said here:
http://www.psychologytoday....
is sensationalistic bull.
Everyone should be Mormon except for me.