• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Rejection

stilicho said:
Saskatchewan Roughriders.

Faith-based fandom.
Click to expand...
In Richard Dawkins' The Selfish Gene he points out the natural tendency of people (and animals) to defend those who are most like themselves. When humans were evolving and travel distances were limited, this meant the family and the tribe, most of whom they were related to. As humans expanded we kept expanding our group of "who we defend" to encompass such concepts as "city pride" and even "nationalism". Indeed, one of the hardest things for humans to accept is people who look different from themselves. It is the root of racism and it is entirely natural.

But as we grow and become more enlightened, we recognize other humans as part of our gene pool and accept them into the group of those we will defend. Indeed, the recent emergence of animal-rights activists indicates that we are willing to extend this protection even beyond our own species. Dawkins says it is a natural urge that the "selfish gene" imbues us with the desire to protect the DNA that is most like itself.

So think, who do people protect the most? Why their immediate family, i.e. the genes most like themselves. They will defend their family against other local families, but they will defend the community (gene pool) against other communities, and they will defend their nation (larger gene pool) against other nations. It is all an outgrowth of the selfish gene.

You call it faith. I call it the evolution of survival instincts.
 
Last edited:
Hokulele said:
In most cases, immigration is financially motived rather than a simple "lack of faith".
Click to expand...

I had to think about this for a while. Are you with me that, given enough money, all social bonds would vanish? Is our faith-based social system so fragile that a few greenbacks could dissolve it?

We know amply that people travel from poor economic circumstances to better ones. But what if faith in one's family or homeland was so frail that you could simply buy loyalty from an individual?

I think you're wrong, of course, because people don't always move away from their mystical social bonds to get cash. They normally insist that their families come with them. They hold their regard for the religious social unit higher than their desire for money.

Your employer really doesn't give two cents about your family, Hokulele. They want your talent and rarely remember the simple Christian names of your spouse or your progeny. It is your mystical bond with those you consider your family that drags them along--willingly or otherwise.
 
Tricky said:
You call it faith. I call it the evolution of survival instincts.
Click to expand...

Much appreciated.

But how do you discern this evolution from simple mysticism? Why should a reasonable human being recognise any particular other human being as a symbolic entity called "Father" or "Mother"?

Such recognition smacks of a mystical bond rather than a rational one.
 
Hokulele said:
Please explain why you find reliance on family, municipalities, and states to be mystical because I just don't see it that way. Is it due to the fact that a family, community, or nation can fail one or more of its members?
Click to expand...

Reliance on a larger ordering of things is a facet of mysticism. We have merely replaced religion with other faith-based systems, including the ones that I prepared for you.
 
stilicho said:
So, in your humble opinion, patriotism is not based on faith. What is it based on then?

Describe concisely how patriotism affects one any differently than religion might.
Click to expand...

You're making the claim, not me, so why don't you describe what article of faith patriotism is based around? You keep throwing that word around without much of any justification. Christianity is based around these articles of faith: God exists and so loved the world that etc. Patriotism is based around ... what article of faith? Familial loyalty is based around what article of faith? Liking the Eagles more than the Patriots is based around what article of faith?

Are you using 'faith-based' as a synonym for irrational? Because your argument would make a lot more sense if you are. Not saying that I'd agree with it, but I'd at least understand where you're coming from.
 
Last edited:
stilicho said:
I had to think about this for a while. Are you with me that, given enough money, all social bonds would vanish? Is our faith-based social system so fragile that a few greenbacks could dissolve it?
Click to expand...


It is not so much that a few greenbacks could dissolve it, so much as the prospect of no greenbacks, ever. Hunger is a pretty strong motivator. In that sense, every person has a price (survival).

We know amply that people travel from poor economic circumstances to better ones. But what if faith in one's family or homeland was so frail that you could simply buy loyalty from an individual?
Click to expand...


Wealth is always relative rather than an absolute. If someone is already in a comfortable situation, I don't see it as likely that someone else could buy their loyalty. If someone is strapped, it would be much more likely. To follow on from Tricky's argument, most immigrants/emigrants are far more likely to abandon nation/community before family. The price and starting situation would have to escalate for each condition.

I think you're wrong, of course, because people don't always move away from their mystical social bonds to get cash. They normally insist that their families come with them. They hold their regard for the religious social unit higher than their desire for money.
Click to expand...


See my previous point. I have no idea what you mean by holding a religious social unit higher than the desire for money. Are you referring to a specific church, denomination, or religion? Heck, people start religions for monetary gain.

Your employer really doesn't give two cents about your family, Hokulele. They want your talent and rarely remember the simple Christian names of your spouse or your progeny.
Click to expand...


Well, my employer does (self-employed). ;)

It is your mystical bond with those you consider your family that drags them along--willingly or otherwise.
Click to expand...


I am just guessing here, but are you defining a mutually beneficial relationship as a "mystical bond" or the simple accident of birth? My country, community, and family members are all based on partnerships rather than pre-existing relationships.

I guess I am still confused by what exactly you mean when you asked someone to "prove decisively that you have no faith-based allegiance to any social unit".
 
stilicho said:
Reliance on a larger ordering of things is a facet of mysticism. We have merely replaced religion with other faith-based systems, including the ones that I prepared for you.
Click to expand...


OK, I think I am finally starting to understand your argument (I hope).

Most humans cannot survive completely unaided. Because of this, they are social animals, much like other creatures. The greater the aid that can be gained from a relationship, the more important the relationship. The terms "Mother" and "Father" imply a relationship with a high level of benefit (without a mother, you would not exist at all). Not all blood parents are chosen to fit that role, other people can substitute. Most people eventually choose one or more partners or spouses based on benefit (whether financial, emotional, or to fill some other need). The same argument can be made for community, religion, nation, etc.

There are some people who claim to reject all ties, anarchists, nihilists, etc., as you noted in the OP, but few of them are in a situation where they can walk their talk (I think most of us have met people like that).

I don't see this as mystical at all, but rather practical. In other words, most people develop communal ties based on perceived benefit. For example, if I treat my (theoretical) children well while they are dependent on me, it will increase the odds they will treat me well when I eventually become dependent on them. If my (theoretical) children turn out to be monsters, there is always the option of disowning them.

Risk/benefit analysis and game theory are both extremely relevant as tools to empirically determine one's relationships, no?
 
Family bonds can be maintained even when rational evidence indicates that they shouldn't be. That much of Stilicho's claim is correct.

But that doesn't mean family has to be irrational. It is possible for a relationship to benefit everyone involved.

If a relationship isn't perfect, does it have to be ended?
My taxes pay for a war I don't agree with. But how would I get a health service without paying those taxes? Is it worth moving to New Zealand? What if I don't agree with everything the NZ government does over the next 10 years? Should I move again?
 
Last edited:
stilicho said:
Why is loyalty to any social unit not under intense scrutiny? A truly reasonable and independent human would merely adhere to the best available arrangement and not necessarily the social unit into which he/she was born.
Click to expand...
I think loyalty is a trait which is valued for its practical effects. I prefer to associate with people who are not likely to betray me to benefit themselves. My friends and family have shown, by their past actions, that they can be trusted. I have shown, by my past actions, that I can be trusted. Mutual trust is thus based on evidence rather than faith.

stilicho said:
It is simply unscientific to suggest that the bonds formed at birth ought to be continued once one becomes self-aware. To continue an arrangement otherwise is simply to become faithful rather than to accept reason.
Click to expand...
If my parents behaved in a way that was likely to harm me rather than help me, there might be a reason to break the bonds. Breaking them simply because I've become "self-aware" seems to me deeply irrational.

stilicho said:
I am not so sure I am that dramatically pessimistic as you are. I think people are capable of freeing themselves from both religion and so-called natural bonds.
Click to expand...
I think people who demonstrate no loyalty and behave like self-absorbed know-it-all jerks are likely to find the shackles of natural bondage dissolving away quite quickly.

stilicho said:
Why have we humans retained faith in abstracts such as families, municipalities and states? That's pretty mystical. A reasoning human being has the privilege of rejecting all such nonsense.
Click to expand...
Sure. This "reasoning human" is also likely to find himself without even the support of a sympathetic ear if he ever runs into hard times.

stilicho said:
As to whether there are practical or pragmatic reasons to support a social unit, I can only assume you are referring to a church, mosque or synagogue.
Click to expand...
Many people do support churches, mosques, and synagogues for the sense of community that such places provide.

stilicho said:
Like imaginary links to family, village, municipality or state, religious adherence is false and unsupportable to a sceptic.
Click to expand...
Probably I'm not sufficiently skeptical, but I don't find such institutions unsupportable per se. If they become more harmful than beneficial, it's probably time to dissolve the bonds. If they're beneficial, dissolving the bonds would seem irrational. If they're more or less neutral, loyalty and inertia would probably be enough to maintain at least some ties.
 
He's also confusing opinion with a belief.

Facts are the same for everyone no matter what you believe.
Beliefs tend to be about things that either are or are not factual.
Skeptics tend to doubt or disbelief things for which there is no good evidence.
That doesn't mean that skeptics don't have preferences, feelings, ideas, opinions, and things that move them or that they are passionate about. They just prefer that those things have a basis in reality... not a myth, illusion, or magical idea.

Believing I'm the reincarnation of Cleopatra might make me feel super duper... it doesn't make it useful or true. Believing that reason and evidence is the best way to understand the world gives me something to focus on and feel impassioned about. Understanding that all humans share a common ancestor with each other and all of life inspires me and moves me in a way no religion could. I don't have any strong nationalistic feelings-- I am more of a "Pale Blue Dot" person and see nationalism like religion and racism--an artificial division.

A lot of believers will confuse facts with non facts such as: mottos ("All Men are Created Equal"), feelings (love), faith (I believe there is a god or have felt god-- therefore god exists), trust (atheists have "faith" that the sun will come up tomorrow) etc. There's this very sloppy thinking promoted amongst believers because they need to believe that something good comes from believing that non-believers and skeptics lack. But having been around tons of believers and skeptics, and the only thing I see believers (and apologists) having that non-believers lack is their "imagined moral superiority". (Of course they appear to pay for that with a lesser sense of humor.)
 
stilicho said:
Reliance on a larger ordering of things is a facet of mysticism. We have merely replaced religion with other faith-based systems, including the ones that I prepared for you.
Click to expand...

Yet co-operation with "a larger ordering of things" is a good survival strategy.

Whether wooish persons and institutions seek to manipulate that to their own advantage does not mitigate the intrinsic value of social organization for mutual support and protection.

IMHO, such structures would emerge independent of need, simply because people tend to enjoy each other's company for its own sake. Perhaps it is these "hard wired" biological traits that you are confusing with "faith".
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom