I think some of the arguments in this thread beg important questions. E.g., altruistic behavior doesn't require faith because it leads to success as a species; success is an outcome of evolution, so altruism evolved. Is that right?
Except that some (most?) things we consider to be altruistic are to some degree, not. This due to the idea that cooperation is beneficial to all and thus "selfish" to some degree.
The first part begs the question of "success" as a species. If success is
nothing more than survival (is there another scientific definition?), then
this is the anthropic principal.
By that definition, crocodiles are successful. Doesn't the anthropic principal have something to do with intelligence? I'm not sure how I would define success, but it would include factors such as the ability to shape ones development (actually influence evolution), the ability to understand ones environment beyond what is necessary to survive, and the ability to expand ones influence beyond ones original confines. To dominate ones envoronment.
The second part (altruism is an outcome of
evolution) is circular, since it assumes that our characteristics are derived exclusively from evolutionary processes. Even if true, it begs the question of the origin of evolution as we understand it. Like everything else, evolution would seem to be grounded in the fundamental physics of the universe, but that doesn't really answer anything about altruism, does it? In fact, it starts to seem imaginary, doesn't it?
That makes little sense to me, could you step me through how (pseudo) altruism is circular?
How about if we apply the same reasoning to religious behavior? It must lead to success as a species; otherwise it wouldn't have evolved. One can justify any human characteristic that way.
I have no doubt that religion has contributed to the success of our species.
I see bigger problems than the logical ones above. First, nobody knows if anyone does anything for just one reason, I'd argue -- we never really know if our motivations are altruistic or not, and it's not a Boolean function! Clearly, we know a lot of what happens in our brains, so we have far less than perfect knowledge of our motivations. I certainly have had flashes of insight that some of my supposedly altruistic behavior had big selfish components. Imagine, for example, a person who is quite certain that disrupting this community to demand better behavior, who realizes that he actually is craving the disruption and attention that results (any similarity to persons living or dead is probably less than a coincidence).
Yes, pseudo altruism. I volunteer several hours a month, and the work I do is often drudgery, disgusting, and even dangerous, but I have no doubts that the reasons I do so are not purely altruistic.
I think the same sort of argument applies to us as a species. While evolution may be the mechanism that gave us altruistic behavior, none of us has perfect knowledge of what behavior in a specific situation will contribute to evolutionary success. Without that knowledge, such decisions cannot be logical, at least in the formal sense of logic.
But no one altruistic (or pseudo-altruistic if you will) act by itself is relevant. It is the community that, through religion or other means, began to codify their behavior and became more successful. This kind of behavior is evident to a lesser extent in lower animals - wolves have an alpha male and a pecking order, for instance. Do wolves need faith for their "laws"?
For me, faith is largely a response to imperfect knowledge. Although I'd like to operate as if I know myself, my species and everything else well enough to remove ambiguity (supervisor-of-the-universe mode), I've only found peace when I accept that I will never fully understand my own motivations or those of humanity in general (humble mode, much harder to stick with). I have faith because I am convinced that it leads to greater wisdom than logical processes alone. This doesn't just mean that I accept a lack of knowledge, it means that I believe that some valuable ideas just cannot be understood rationally.
My response to imperfect knowledge is to believe that we should attempt to make it more perfect. I don't need faith because I believe it is an impediment. I do not believe that there are valuable ideas that cannot be understood rationally, con you give an example?
Perhaps this means nothing more than the fact that a society is smarter than its individuals and no member can assimilate all that it knows, so we are obligated to accept some of society's teachings on faith or live outside of society. Or perhaps it means that there is a God who has perfect knowledge, to which we have access in a less comprehensible way. I don't know, but I've made a choice and while it isn't the most logical, it is the most life-giving, to paraphrase Rich Mullins.
IMO, gods and religion have outlived their usefulness. We need to give credit to ourselves for our accomplishments rather than share credit with what in all probability is a figment of our imagination. If we use the word faith it should be in reference to ourselves as in "I have faith that humanity can overcome it's differences and expand beyond the confines of this one infinitesimal planet. And if there is spirituality it is the result of many minds with a defined purpose and a laudable goal.
Even if there is a god, it is irrelevant.
Doug
_______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
