If We All Became Atheists?

[Augustus]

For the misanthropic view, you've taken in this thread,

Why would you say it is “misanthropic” to view our particular species of animal as having cognitive limitations that prevent us from transcending our nature?

I’ve always found it interesting that such a view is deemed unduly pessimistic.

For me, a rational approach to creating human society should start by recognising our limitations so we can best mitigate them, and I’d say many of these cognitive limitations are pretty well established by science and human history.

Recognising the negative characteristics of other animal species is never seen as being “pessimistic” after all.

 

[plodding inarticulateness]

Im less confident than many that the mass jettisoning of traditional beliefs will lead to long term development of stable, humanistic societies.

I suppose only time will tell. I'm leaning the other way.

 

[Augustus]

I suppose only time will tell.

True.

Will likely find out over the next few decades as parts of “the west” (most probably) go into relative decline.

 

[plodding inarticulateness]

You don't think humanity as a whole can come up with a list of values we all share in common with could bring some cohesion?

My view would be that the goal of a universal and perpetual set of cohesive values is a tall order that may be beyond our genetic blueprints. Our whole process of reproduction is designed to shuffel and mix genetic material such that each of us is a unique expression of the populations gene pool, each with a unique underlying personality. Sure socialization tempers and exercises some conformity over our individuality and uniqueness, but there will always be differences and there will always be extreme outliers.

Beyond this, our environment, seen in the broadest sense, is ever changing. Culture isn't static and that constant change affects unique individuals differently and therefore they will respond differently.

Our only hope is to develop the best possible social system that is dynamic and resilient enough to accommodate the ingrained differences of individuals set in an ever changing environment. And of course, that best possible system would have to be universally applied over the planet which would be just another tremenous hurdle.

 

[plodding inarticulateness]

True.

Will likely find out over the next few decades as parts of “the west” (most probably) go into relative decline.

A permanent, irreversable decline in your view? A decline in one area tends to result in a rise elsewhere. Do you foresee a rise elsewhere, if so, where or in what form?

 

[Augustus]

A permanent, irreversable decline in your view? A decline in one area tends to result in a rise elsewhere. Do you foresee a rise elsewhere, if so, where or in what form?

Nothing is permanent or irreversible, I just think it most probable that there may be trouble ahead.

The liberalish secularish humanisticish culture that has developed has done so in line with increasing prosperity and living standards and relative peace in “Western” lands.

Sooner or later these trends disappear, and this may well be sooner.

I could be wrong though of course.

 

[Augustus]

I'm leaning the other way.

To add to this.

I feel we are best served when we have a tension between small c conservative and small p progressive ideas.

Change is always needed but lots of faddish beliefs are worse than what they replace.

Religion, for all its faults, has often played this role against even worse ideologies.

I’m a big believer in Chesterton’s Fence:

There exists in such a case a certain institution or law; let us say, for the sake of simplicity, a fence or gate erected across a road. The more modern type of reformer goes gaily up to it and says, “I don’t see the use of this; let us clear it away.” To which the more intelligent type of reformer will do well to answer: “If you don’t see the use of it, I certainly won’t let you clear it away. Go away and think. Then, when you can come back and tell me that you do see the use of it, I may allow you to destroy it.”

 

[plodding inarticulateness]

To add to this.

I feel we are best served when we have a tension between small c conservative and small p progressive ideas.

Change is always needed but lots of faddish beliefs are worse than what they replace.

Religion, for all its faults, has often played this role against even worse ideologies.

I’m a big believer in Chesterton’s Fence:

There exists in such a case a certain institution or law; let us say, for the sake of simplicity, a fence or gate erected across a road. The more modern type of reformer goes gaily up to it and says, “I don’t see the use of this; let us clear it away.” To which the more intelligent type of reformer will do well to answer: “If you don’t see the use of it, I certainly won’t let you clear it away. Go away and think. Then, when you can come back and tell me that you do see the use of it, I may allow you to destroy it.”

There is certainly nothing wrong with what you say above, and I see myself in somewhat of a like mind. My only caveat would be that in terms of Religion generally, it is not sufficiently dynamic in my view. I do not see it as necessary to specifically preserve Religions, per se, nor immediatly abolish them. It is my view that we are already on a trajectory slowly weaning ourselves away from what I would characterize as static, traditional Religions. I don't know if what follows, what is considered to have filled what might be seen as necessary roles met by Religions, will still be considered Religion, something else entirely, or just absorbed into secular society in a way that those roles no longer stand out as distinctly separate from it.

 

[Heyo]

Why would you say it is “misanthropic” to view our particular species of animal as having cognitive limitations that prevent us from transcending our nature?

I’ve always found it interesting that such a view is deemed unduly pessimistic.

Because it is. What's the percentage of people, you directly know, who were convicted for a violent crime? (Or should have been.)
My guess is that it's below 50%. Which means that the majority of people are either not that aggressive or able to control their emotions.

Most people are good, most of the time. They are also lazy, fearful and stupid.

Our western, humanistic values have done a good job to help create a mostly non-violent society. (With the US being an outlier, but then they are also much more religious.)

For me, a rational approach to creating human society should start by recognising our limitations so we can best mitigate them, and I’d say many of these cognitive limitations are pretty well established by science and human history.

Yep, and aggression is not one. Laziness, anxiety and stupidity are.

 

[Martin]

"Praise the absence of Lord"?

 

[Augustus]

Because it is.

Recognising chimps are prone to violence would not be to hate chimps

What's the percentage of people, you directly know, who were convicted for a violent crime? (Or should have been.)
My guess is that it's below 50%. Which means that the majority of people are either not that aggressive or able to control their emotions.

Human society isn’t simply “my friends scaled by 1 billion”.

The fact that (some) families can share possessions and resources without rancour doesn’t mean global communism is possible.

In human society scale matters as global society is not simply the aggregate of individuals but is an emergent phenomenon

Yep, and aggression is not one. Laziness, anxiety and stupidity are.

I would say the insistence that aggression is not as much a characteristic of human nature as friendship or love is akin to creationism in its rejection of scientific evidence.

Surely you must accept humans are prone to violence at the collective level. This says nothing about individual humans in their specific contexts.

 

[1213]

...
You're talking about some 7 million years worth of evolution here. It's near impossible to do such a thing as genetic change occurs every generation in every individual.

But it is possible to show that we are all related? I think it is funny how one can have such contradictory beliefs. But, if it would really be true that we are related, only way to show it, is to show what were the genetic changes that led to the differences.

If one would be interested of this scientific study, I think whale would be a good starting point. The common belief is that whales evolved as this image shows. It gives the changes, now it should be checked, what were the changes in DNA that were required for it. And obviously, if this is actual science, and not just modernized mother earth cult doctrine, it should be possible to test the theory in laboratory conditions. We could for example take rats and start to breed them into mini whales with the same principles as the whale "evolved". Or should we just have faith in the great oracles of "science" and believe all their ridiculous claims without questioning them?

 

[1213]

...
A special tool in the geneticist's box are Endogenous retroviruses, an insertion made by viruses, which mostly hits non-coding areas but gets inherited. We share some insertions with chimpanzees and bonobos, but not gorillas,...

Even if true, that could be because people were infected by the same viruses at the same time. Doesn't necessary mean any relationship, except maybe that they lived in same area.

 

[Heyo]

I would say the insistence that aggression is not as much a characteristic of human nature as friendship or love is akin to creationism in its rejection of scientific evidence.

I didn't say that it isn't a characteristic, I said it isn't the problem you make it out to be.

Surely you must accept humans are prone to violence at the collective level. This says nothing about individual humans in their specific contexts.

Humans are too lazy to think about consequences, especially when they are afraid to not belong. That makes some stupid enough to follow violent leaders.

 

[Heyo]

Even if true, that could be because people were infected by the same viruses at the same time. Doesn't necessary mean any relationship, except maybe that they lived in same area.

Only if you know nothing about genetics.
The location where an endogenous retrovirus is inserted is random. We wouldn't expect to find it on the same chromosome at the same location, if there were two infections.
Another interesting mutation is the loss of a functional GULO gene, which regulates the production of vitamin C in most mammals.
It has been shown that that mutation happened around the time of the haplorhini/strepsirrhini divergence and the dysfunctional GULO gene, named GULOP was inherited from there. (Conservation of a Chromosome 8 Inversion and Exon Mutations Confirm Common Gulonolactone Oxidase Gene Evolution Among Primates, Including H. Neanderthalensis - PubMed)
Guinea pigs have a very similar but distinct mutation. This shows that mutations may happen randomly to the same gene, but there is almost always a way to differentiate separate mutation events from inherited mutations.

 

[1213]

...We wouldn't expect to find it on the same chromosome at the same location, if there were two infections.

Unless that location is where the virus likes to be.

...
It has been shown that that mutation happened around the time of the haplorhini/strepsirrhini ...

Sorry, I don't see any good reason to believe that.

Guinea pigs have a very similar but distinct mutation. This shows that mutations may happen randomly to the same gene, but there is almost always a way to differentiate separate mutation events from inherited mutations.

Almost always makes it something that can be always something else.

 

[Heyo]

Unless that location is where the virus likes to be.

Sorry, I don't see any good reason to believe that.

Almost always makes it something that can be always something else.

In other words, you prefer to be ignorant.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

But it is possible to show that we are all related?

Yes.

I think it is funny how one can have such contradictory beliefs.

There's nothing contradictory about it. Perhaps a crash course in genetics might help you understand why there isn't.

But, if it would really be true that we are related

It is.

, only way to show it, is to show what were the genetic changes that led to the differences.

No.

The way to show it, is to map out genetic matches and see the result form a nested hierarchy.

If one would be interested of this scientific study, I think whale would be a good starting point. The common belief is that whales evolved as this image shows. It gives the changes, now it should be checked, what were the changes in DNA that were required for it. And obviously, if this is actual science, and not just modernized mother earth cult doctrine, it should be possible to test the theory in laboratory conditions.

Whale evolutionary history is mapped out from the fossil record (paleontology and comparative anatomy).
And when we sequence their extant genome, we find they share ancestors with land mammals and the estimated level of relatedness, matches the time periods of the fossils.

We could for example take rats and start to breed them into mini whales with the same principles as the whale "evolved".

That would require you to condense 10s of millions of years worth of evolution within a single human lifetime.
I shouldn't have to explain how ridiculous that is.

Or should we just have faith in the great oracles of "science" and believe all their ridiculous claims without questioning them?

You don't need faith when you have evidence.
Science also doesn't deal in "oracles". It follows evidence.
Science is also not unquestionable. Au contraire. Science is supposed to be questioned all the time.
It's how science makes progress.

 

[Augustus]

I didn't say that it isn't a characteristic, I said it isn't the problem you make it out to be.

I would say the human potential for violence combined with modern technology is a major problem that might even lead to the end of our species (or at least a massive destruction of large parts of it).

This risk exists even if most humans are peaceful, a small percentage is all that is required.

Humans are too lazy to think about consequences, especially when they are afraid to not belong. That makes some stupid enough to follow violent leaders.

Following violent leaders seems to work in other social primates. It does not seem to be a form of cognitive error if any kind, no matter how much we may like to wish otherwise.

If you are likely to be successful, it seems to be evolutionarily advantageous (at least arguably).

Why would this make someone “stupid”?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Even if true

It is true. It's genetic fact.

, that could be because people were infected by the same viruses at the same time

There are, give or take, some 3000 different such viruses.
There are about 3 billion potential insertion spots.

The probability of 1 identical ERV to form in 2 different species through 2 distinct independent infections, is thus 1 in 3000*3 billion.
For 2 such identical ERV's to form in 2 different species through distinct independent infections, is thus 1 in (3000 * 3 billion)^2
For 3 such identical ERV's to form in 2 different species through distinct independent infections, is thus 1 in (3000 * 3 billion)^3

We share HUNDREDS. And they map out in the same nested hierarchy as other genetic markers, matching the same phylogenetic tree (aka, family tree).
We obtain this same tree from various multiple independent lines of evidence.
Even including geographic distribution of species and even fossils. Comparative anatomy, DNA sequencing, full genomes, ERV's, other genetic markers,...

All independent lines of evidence that all converge on the same family tree.

Doesn't necessary mean any relationship, except maybe that they lived in same area.

It means exactly that.

When 2 individuals share the same ERV, it means a common ancestor had the initial infection which inserted itself into its DNA which was then past on to off spring.

That's literally what and ERV is.