[Osx-nutters] The separation of church and state.

[David Cake]

At 8:56 PM +0000 4/12/07, Stefano Mori wrote:
>On 2007-Dec-04, at 20:18, LuKreme wrote:
>
>>>>My usual method is to point out that they are being selfish (almost
>>>>
>>>>all bad behavior can be traced to selfishness, from yelling at your
>>>>
>>>>brother to the bad drivers on the highway) and point out that they
>>>>
>>>>don't like it when other people are selfish.  It's worked pretty well
>>>>
>>>>with the two kids so far (10 and 5).
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>And what I'm wondering is, do they have an inner formed cognitive
>>>
>>>understanding of "selfish", or do they merely see, as a 4 year old,
>>>
>>>the power figure telling them not to do something, and "selfish" is
>>>
>>>just another word for "bad" and bad is another word for a possible
>>>
>>>punishment?
>>>
>>
>>Oh, kids learn 'selfish' right off the bat.  It's one of the first  
>>causes of conflict ("He took my toy!"  "He won't share his toys!" "He  
>>took the bigger piece!").
>>
>
>
>There was a troubled 20 something in court once, accused of various 
>crimes, mostly antisocial. They asked him, "why did you steal?" He 
>replies, "because I needed the money." They then ask him, "what if 
>someone stole from you?" He thinks about it and replies, "that's 
>wrong." "Why?" "Because I need my money."
>
>The ability to stand outside oneself and take another's perspective, 
>and care about what happens to them, is something that we aren't 
>born with, and develops later, and if it doesn't then it'll be one 
>troublesome adult. The guy in court couldn't stand outside himself. 
>There was just him, his needs and wants, and a world full of objects.
>
>But before a child has the ability, they basically obey or be 
>punished. The mythic punishing God is just an extension of that 
>training system. But the point is, it is a myth with a function. 
>It's the imaginary supervisor.
>
>See, that's one problem with Mark's notion that any good morality 
>can simply be arrived at rationally and without anything irrational. 
>Myths are irrational, but they can function to create a social order 
>and standards of behavior very early on and even with people who 
>aren't selfless.

	If you can't arrive at it rationally, there is an argument 
its not good morality. But its

>You can do it rationally, but until you are rational, while you are 
>growing up, going through those stages 
>that developmental psychologists call "pre-rational", stories and 
>myths are far more effective.

	Actually, while you are pre-rational, punishment and reward 
and simple conditioning is what is really effective. Stories are 
useful, because they teach appropriate behaviour in situations that 
you may not have had to actually deal with yet personally, but 
stories don't need to be based on myths and lies.
	If, once you are able to rationally analyse the behaviour you 
have been taught, you realise its based on lies and nonsense, then 
you have a choice. Choose what you have been taught, and reject 
rationality, or choose rationality, and rebellion (of course, this is 
an oversimplification - most people in this position choose some 
mixed strategy). Neither is really desirable, I presume.
	If, once you are able to rationally analyse the behaviour you 
have been taught, you can see that it is based on rational principles 
and that what you were told about it is true, you can just get on 
with your life.

>In the developed world we expect every adult to grow up to rational 
>stage by adulthood. Hence we don't need those myths anywhere near as 
>much in our culture. Hence Mark can throw them in the bin.
>
>But there are billions of people not living in broadly rational 
>culture yet, and there it's not so easy to claim that religion is 
>holding them back, it's just as likely that religion is providing 
>the glue that's stabilising their culture at that level.

	Oh, I agree that religion has generally been observed to 
fulfill a social function in pre-Enlightenment societies.
	The question of whether religion is the only thing that can 
fulfill that role is another, quite different, one. A single counter 
example would be sufficient.
	Not being an anthropologist, I have a relatively small number 
of examples to draw on. But off hand, in Norse society is was quite 
acceptable to be effectively a disbeliever or person with no interest 
in religion, and the social stability was almost all provided by 
civil courts, that made only the most minimal attempt to justify 
individual actions as absolutely morally right or wrong, only to 
determine if someone had been injured and deserved redress.

>
>After all, we have had thousands of years of religion in the 
>development of our culture, so how can we be so sure that it wasn't 
>necessary?

	We had thousands of years of years of smallpox. How can we be 
so sure that it wasn't necessary?
	My intention isn't to equate religion with smallpox, but to 
point out that your reasoning is flawed -- no amount of speculation 
about the past changes our ability to make rational judgements now.

	Cheers
		David
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.tit-wank.com/pipermail/osx-nutters/attachments/20071205/7070b35b/attachment-0001.htm