Does secularism make people more ethical?

[Sammi79]

Skybird, the reason people want to believe in a purpose for themselves and/or humanity in general is because it was taught to us by religion directly. Particularly the monotheistic religions all echo the same 'Humans are special, humans are the best, humans are gods chosen rulers of earth' It just doesn't sit well with many peoples conceit that in reality it is likely that there is no grand purpose beyond continuing to reproduce, which we share with every other living thing. This is not to say human lives can not have meaning - its what you make it. Many lives are certainly less than grand, and have little more meaning than my cats. Occasionally exceptional individuals have lives full of meaning, creation and change that effect many others lives continuing through the ages long after their life has ended. Most of us are somewhere in between.

Originally Posted by Skybird

Second, the claims for validity of both camps - religions as well as areligious/secularists/atheists, needs to be relativised. In the end we need to see that any claims for valdity of content and for communal power, are as valid as the claim to be superior because of one's skin power.

Well I'm afraid I have to point out that claims that are closer to the truth are more valid than claims that are further from it. The only fully honest and scientific viewpoint is agnosticism, but this does not give equal weight to both sides. Just because I can't prove fairies don't exist, doesn't mean there is a 50/50 chance that they do. Using our scientific method we can state with confidence 'I am 99.9% sure that god in any religious sense does not exist, though I must admit there is a 0.1% chance that this is not the case'

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by Sammi79

Skybird, the reason people want to believe in a purpose for themselves and/or humanity in general is because it was taught to us by religion directly. Particularly the monotheistic religions all echo the same 'Humans are special, humans are the best, humans are gods chosen rulers of earth' It just doesn't sit well with many peoples conceit that in reality it is likely that there is no grand purpose beyond continuing to reproduce, which we share with every other living thing. This is not to say human lives can not have meaning - its what you make it. Many lives are certainly less than grand, and have little more meaning than my cats. Occasionally exceptional individuals have lives full of meaning, creation and change that effect many others lives continuing through the ages long after their life has ended. Most of us are somewhere in between.

Sammi, the argument risen by science is that there is a neurological basis for the desire of people to believe in relgious claims, namely theistic concepts. I just tried to combine that with the psychological insight that man seems to depend on living in the belief that he is safe and lives in a secure, ordered world where the future is not uncertain. Lack of that belief can lead to very seriopus psychological breakdowns, it really can effect psychological health and sanity. There is a reason why some therapy schools even talk of spiritual crisis and spiritual syndroms.

The argument also is that there are strong indices that whether or not we more easily sympathise with believing or becoming "secular", has a genetical basis and a condensate in brain hardwiring. The degrees of freedom we have to chose for the one or the other, may be decided by our genes. Consider it to be an equivalent to "genetic vulnerability theories" that are popular in biology, medicine and psychology.

Well I'm afraid I have to point out that claims that are closer to the truth are more valid than claims that are further from it. The only fully honest and scientific viewpoint is agnosticism, but this does not give equal weight to both sides. Just because I can't prove fairies don't exist, doesn't mean there is a 50/50 chance that they do. Using our scientific method we can state with confidence 'I am 99.9% sure that god in any religious sense does not exist, though I must admit there is a 0.1% chance that this is not the case'

"Truth"?

Science thinks in hypothesis that have to be tested, theories, and paradigms. Hypothesis are being shown right or wrong. Theories stay for some time, until a better emerges from theoretical work, observation, experiment, trial-and-error. Paradigms change the slowest - but they do, every couple of decades or centuries. In the end, our idea of "working with and on reality" is feeding-back into itself to such a degree that we cannot claim to be fully objective and independent in our perceptions and conclusions on what we call the reality out there. The eye never can look at itself - even when looking into a mirror, it just is a reflexion.

My point was, if you read again, that science tries to refine its theories constantly, and should do so - while religions claim there is no need at all to test themselves because they surely own the ultimate "truth" anyway.

[Penguin]

I seem to be the only person who uses the word secularism in a different way. To me it describes the concept of separation of church and state - sometimes also called Laïcité. I think the article got translated in a bad way. The original talks about unbelievers, which the Germans also use in the sense of non-believers.

A better word would be non-deitism. It's not only semantics, as these are two different concepts which may overlap. A secularist can or can not be religious, a non-believer is not.

So, in this context: secularism is more ethical, non-belief not necessarily.

[Sammi79]

Ah, Ok I think I understand your point now. You are saying that science (specifically genetics) may provide insights into why people want/need belief structures, and that it may be dangerous to the psyche to not provide it with these

hmmm. It is an interesting question, but one I feel has not been thoroughly researched yet, and certainly no conclusions have been drawn. I would also add that even if there is a genetic predisposition to desire a (quite obviously false) belief structure that it does not mean that this is healthy. And yes I use the word "Truth" for decribing reality as we can never quite define it. Philip. K. Dick. said 'Reality is that which when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away' - lol in that case religions are certainly reality.

Anyway this is getting off-topic although I appreciate your thoughts on the matter, Skybird.
back to the OP - I think anything divisive is harmful and discourages ethical behaviour, and as a flip side, anything inclusive helps and encourages ethical behaviour.

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by Sammi79

Ah, Ok I think I understand your point now. You are saying that science (specifically genetics) may provide insights into why people want/need belief structures, and that it may be dangerous to the psyche to not provide it with these

I said that there are neurological indices for an inbuilt desire to believe or secular, and the trinagle experiment: an obvious difference in people to antromporphise or not do so when observing a culture-free, value-neutral-neutral stimulus.

Diffent, but complementary to that I pointed out that psycholgical health in many people suffers if they are stripped of the conviction that their life is not safely embedded in any theoretical conception that gives them the illusion to control the security of their living conditions. This can be their idea of the meaning of life, andf the role theis existence plays in the chaoptiuc chaos around them - which you can see as either a blessed divine garden of manifestations in which each and everything has its place and legitimiation and meaning that just is too high for our ouzr minds to be understood - or as a brooding chaos that simply pays no inettrest at all at our individual existence and survival or death at all.

I described that before in other threads that we know from the Nazi'S death camps that people still being able to put their suffering their into the context of a higher meaning they believed in, showed greater survival chances due to greater psychologicaly health and robustness, not giving themselves up. As Victor Frankl, a camp survivor himself, put it: "He who has a Why to live for, can bear almost every How."

hmmm. It is an interesting question, but one I feel has not been thoroughly researched yet, and certainly no conclusions have been drawn. I would also add that even if there is a genetic predisposition to desire a (quite obviously false) belief structure that it does not mean that this is healthy. And yes I use the word "Truth" for decribing reality as we can never quite define it. Philip. K. Dick. said 'Reality is that which when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away' - lol in that case religions are certainly reality.

Feel...? Feeling has nothing to do with it, according research prohjects are goping on since years, as I pointed out, and have been published in their results since several years. And the genetic desire for belief does not, like you imply, decide on the belief'S content, but describes a vulnerability, or a need in the individual to believe in a meaning of existence in general. Thnjat the studies deiffer between members of a relgious community and secularisdts, is for methdologioc reasoins only, you need to foirm the two experimentation groups by any kind of solid criterion. But the results do not show a genetic marker for theism or church-dogma-attractiuon, but show a correlation between brain activity patterns and more or less belief-oriented worldview orientation (in this case: theistic beloievers and secularists/atheists), and show different strengths of trends in people to antropomorphise the objects of their percpetions.
[/quote]

- I think anything divisive is harmful and discourages ethical behaviour, and as a flip side, anything inclusive helps and encourages ethical behaviour.

That is too generalistic. Being divisive regarding the difference of humanism and Nazism hardly discourages ethical behavior when you defenbd the psoition of humanism, and beinbg inclusive regarding totalitarian ideoloigies when it comes to your willingness to be tolerant will not do you any good, but will destroy first your ideal of tolerance and next yourself.

What you mean, is probably this, which I find best expressed in the Kalamas Sutra from the Buddhist canon:

Do not put faith in traditions, even though they have been accepted for long generations and in many countries. Do not believe a thing because many repeat it. Do not accept a thing on the authority of one or another of the sages of old, nor on the ground of statements as found in the books. Never believe anything because probability is in its favour. Do not believe in that which you yourselves have imagined, thinking that a god has inspired it. Believe nothing merely on the authority of the teachers or the priests. After examination, believe that which you have tested for yourself and found reasonable, which is in conformity with your well being and that of others.

[Sammi79]

Originally Posted by Skybird

I said that there are neurological indices for an inbuilt desire to believe or secular, and the triangle experiment: an obvious difference in people to anthropomorphise or not do so when observing a culture-free, value-neutral-neutral stimulus.

Right, hold on. I must confess I have not got a shred of a whisker of a clue as to exactly what you are on about here. what is a value-neutral-neutral stimulus? it reads sort of : there are levels of brain (activity?) to either think 0 or 1 , the triangle experiment - (you mean an experiment to see if a few random numbers add up to either an acute or obtuse triangle or not? or do you mean the technological triangle experiment, which is a collaboration and staff exchange of scientific establishments in europe? or maybe even http://thechurch.co.nz/inspiration/2010/12/triangle-experiment-1/?) an obvious difference in people to project human thoughts and actions or not when looking at culture-free... ? I'm sorry but that just sounds like gibberish. maybe is a language thing?

"He who has a Why to live for, can bear almost every How." I can understand him feeling that. typically people who go through intense mental/physical pressure or trauma are more open to these ideas, especially at their weakest point. You could also say "He who has a why to die for, can bear almost any life"

enough off topic.

Originally Posted by Skybird

That is too generalistic. Being divise regarding the difference of humanism and Nazism hardly discourages ethical behavior when you defenbd the psoition of humanism, and beinbg inclusive regarding totalitarian ideoloigies when it comes to your willingness to be tolerant will not do you any good, but will destroy first your ideal of tolerance and next yourself.

I mean being inclusive on a human level. To not exclude people. Ethics must be at least in part learned via human interaction within a social group, and the broader the group the greater the sensitivity to broader ethical concerns.

Originally Posted by Skybird

What you mean, is probably this, which I find best expressed in the Kalamas Sutra from the Buddhist canon:

Do not put faith in traditions, even though they have been accepted for long generations and in many countries. Do not believe a thing because many repeat it. Do not accept a thing on the authority of one or another of the sages of old, nor on the ground of statements as found in the books. Never believe anything because probability is in its favour. Do not believe in that which you yourselves have imagined, thinking that a god has inspired it. Believe nothing merely on the authority of the teachers or the priests. After examination, believe that which you have tested for yourself and found reasonable, which is in conformity with your well being and that of others.

Yeah thats a lovely quote. I would still say, about the probability thing that if the odds are so staggeringly loaded in one direction, you can pretty much rely on it. I'm willing to take the risk anyway.

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by Sammi79

Right, hold on. I must confess I have not got a shred of a whisker of a clue as to exactly what you are on about here. what is a value-neutral-neutral stimulus?

My fast-typing. Value-neutral stimulus, culture-free stimulus, by which I meant not based on pre-education, not resulting a ciulture-depending reaction

it reads sort of : there are levels of brain (activity?) to either think 0 or 1 , the triangle experiment - (you mean an experiment to see if a few random numbers add up to either an acute or obtuse triangle or not? or do you mean the technological triangle experiment, which is a collaboration and staff exchange of scientific establishments in europe? or maybe even http://thechurch.co.nz/inspiration/2010/12/triangle-experiment-1/?) an obvious difference in people to project human thoughts and actions or not when looking at culture-free... ? I'm sorry but that just sounds like gibberish. maybe is a language thing?

I meant the triangle experiment that was described in the article I linked in the very first post that started this thread.:
quote: Test subjects watch a film in which triangles move about. One group experiences the film as a humanized drama, in which the larger triangles are attacking the smaller ones. The other group describes the scene mechanically, simply stating the manner in which the geometric shapes are moving. /quote

them as a group o ftriangles being "attacked"

"He who has a Why to live for, can bear almost every How." I can understand him feeling that. typically people who go through intense mental/physical pressure or trauma are more open to these ideas, especially at their weakest point. You could also say "He who has a why to die for, can bear almost any life"

No, it would be: "he who has a why to die for, is easier willing not to cling to life, if according situation arises." Frankl is founder of the socalled Logotherapy, a therapy firm that tries healment of psychological suffering by helping people finding a mneaning in what makes them suffer, a meaning in the loss they suffer(ed), or whatever. In pure form it is almost irrelevant today - but basic conceptions and considerations of it have found entrance and use in practically all major therapy forms that dominate the market and enjoy wide acceptance and support by socialcare. Maybe with the exception of behavoioruistzic shcools - and even these have oepned their doors for some of the socalled humansiotic therapy concepts. Puristic therapists are rare today. Maybe only psychoanalytics work in that puristic way anymore. And even pychoanalysis has diversified.

Anyhow, the point is the individual pecpetion of own suffering, whether it be due to being locked in a camp, or suzffering a loss of meaning and self-assrunace in and over once' own existence. The mildest form of that, is boredom. The heaviest form is exiostential despair, a symptomatology of majhor depression, suicide. Having a mesaning to live mfor, strengthens your psychologic immune system, so to speak, against aversive, threatening, doubting stimuli.

It also can help to keep the doubt away. That is comfrotable, and thus very tempting. But the price is that it makes you stop asking questions and reflecting your ways.

I mean being inclusive on a human level. To not exclude people. Ethics must be at least in part learned via human interaction within a social group, and the broader the group the greater the sensitivity to broader ethical concerns.

I reserve the right to decide that on an individual levbeöl as well as a level of where I also include the goals, desaires and ideological convictions somebody clings to. Thus I reserve the right to include some - and exclude others. I also reserve the right to say that not all and everything is of equal value, is just vartiations of just one and the same unerlaying quality, or must be accepted just becasue "it is".

As a consequence of thios, I am tolerant on some things, and intolerant on others. Tolerance needs limits.

Yeah thats a lovely quote. I would still say, about the probability thing that if the odds are so staggeringly loaded in one direction, you can pretty much rely on it. I'm willing to take the risk anyway.

That's what we do all the time, every day. But our problems, mentally as well as materially, arise when we think that just because we have never seen a black swan, there indeed are no black swans. Link. Probabilities are just this: probabilities. And as every student of classic test theory knows, there is one mahjor probloem with test theory and theories on the relevance of probabilities for realty: probabilities win in relevance by total number of events being taken into account for calculating them. Total relevance and trustworthiness they only gain in case of an infinite ammount of such events - and that practically is impossible to imagine. That throwing a six with a dice has a probability of 1/6, does not exlcude the possibility that for the rest of all your life you will only throw sixers whenever you use a dice. That that is "unlikely", does not really hold any factual information. Becasue when it happens nevertheless, the imporbbale suddenly reaches a likelihood of 100.000% and the highly improbable plummtes down to 0.000%.

Granted, that is academic fun only. But in classicv test theory, which is repsonsible fpor major tools of data analysis and scientific test design, this has fundamental consequences and raises problems that so far nobody could solve. And so - they get simply ignored.

It is good habit imo to operate by probabilities, yes - but also to be in the knowedfge of certain unsolved problems and implications. Like flying a modern aircraft with glass cockpit - but being able to operate old analogue backups for navigation nevertheless. Just in case. Some people just pick a GPS, and nothing else. I am the type who also picks up a compass and a map, and in case of doubt - skip the GPS, but not the latter two.

P.S.
Imagine to live in a uniform, supressive society, under a totalitarian regime. Youhave been grown there, you do not know it any different. What then with probabilites to decide which decisions to make? These probabilities would be defioned and formed - by said totalitarianism around you. So basing on socially constructed and induced probabilities would lead you on what right now you would probbaly agree to call a wrong way. It would make sure you stay "inside", and don't break "out".

In an anarchic regime, your probabilities wopuld lead you totally different, away from conformism, and towards individualism and jungle law.

Obviously, probability alone does not do the trick.