Religion - Caveman Logic

[RandFan]

The Saturday Interview: A caveman's logic (http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=1739762&p=1)

..."It was a sign," "Thank God" and even "Good luck." To him, such phrases reflect a "caveman logic" that helped our ancestors survive the Pleistocene Age, but which is keeping our species from realizing its true potential. While we are well past the primitive age, he argues, we still happily shroud ourselves in superstition, magic and blind faith rather than burn the extra mental calories it takes to think critically and reach rational conclusions.

"We don't have to default to those kind of explanations. But we do. And that's what caveman logic is really about," Prof. Davis said during an interview at his home. "We continue to default to the same magic explanations that our caveman ancestors did. I can't put them down for doing it -- they didn't have any information to work with. But I certainly do wonder about my fellow humans when they do the same thing."
Modern religion is a very complex dynamic. To understand why religious thinking is so universal we need much more in our evolutionary psychology toolbox but this is a very good start.

[Safe-Keeper]

We continue to default to the same magic explanations that our caveman ancestors did.So true. We think about how odd it is that the Indians believed rain dances caused rain, or that the Aztecs thought the Spaniards were gods... not to mention the guys in The Gods Must Be Crazy thinking the coke bottle had a divine origin. Or a billion other examples I could bring up.

But we're thinking in precisely the same terms today - 'we currently can't explain this, thus let's just say it's God/ghosts/a curse/{insert unproven skyhook here}'. Also, for some reason, it's not even a temporary placeholder belief - it persists even after we've found real culprits for the phenomenons we've been trying to explain.

[Tsukasa Buddha]

Gee, was that guy an ***hole.

I fail to see the horrible consequences on our constrained human potential by allowing that woman cope with the life stress of her husband cheating and being a single parent with a comforting philosophical thought.

In my experience, "thank god" is our way of expressing our feeling of gratitude, and is usually unrelated to a YHWH, and "good luck" is an expression of good will and wishing happiness for another, not an endorsement of some superstitious belief. They are just coloured with cultural influences.

[Gate2501]

Gee, was that guy an ***hole.

I fail to see the horrible consequences on our constrained human potential by allowing that woman cope with the life stress of her husband cheating and being a single parent with a comforting philosophical thought.

In my experience, "thank god" is our way of expressing our feeling of gratitude, and is usually unrelated to a YHWH, and "good luck" is an expression of good will and wishing happiness for another, not an endorsement of some superstitious belief. They are just coloured with cultural influences.

For people like you and I perhaps, but when some people talk about "luck" or "thank" that magic sky daddy for their aforementioned "good luck", they don't see them as mere expressions.

I tried just the other day to explain to a friend that "luck" is not real in the way that most people think it is, and is just something that humans constructed because we can't calculate all of the variables contained within a given event. I got a bunch of LOL's and everyone thought that I was pretty stupid. I just did a /sigh and got another beer.

[RandFan]

Gee, was that guy an ***hole.You are entitled to an opinion.

I fail to see the horrible consequences on our constrained human potential by allowing that woman cope with the life stress of her husband cheating and being a single parent with a comforting philosophical thought. I fail to see the horrible consequences of embracing the truth. It's arguable that lying in the long run is what is best. Perhaps a neutral stance is the diplomatic thing to do but I'm not so sure.

In my experience, "thank god" is our way of expressing our feeling of gratitude, and is usually unrelated to a YHWH, and "good luck" is an expression of good will and wishing happiness for another, not an endorsement of some superstitious belief. They are just coloured with cultural influences.Thank you so much. I guess that modern anthropology should now be based on your experience. In the future anthropologists and evolutionary psychologists will just need to call you. No need for the scientific method.

You would make Theodoric of York (http://www.hulu.com/watch/3529/saturday-night-live-theodoric-of-york) proud.

I'm so glad you solved that problem.

[Pink Booties]

People need it, I see that at the hospital all night. Woman who was raped wants to read her bible... family of patient on respirator wants me to pray with them. I do. They've never asked me if I believe, because if I know a few prayers there can be no doubt.

I've never told anyone they're a fool for using a crutch.

[RandFan]

People need it, I see that at the hospital all night. Woman who was raped wants to read her bible... family of patient on respirator wants me to pray with them. I do. They've never asked me if I believe, because if I know a few prayers there can be no doubt.

I've never told anyone they're a fool for using a crutch.If someone was suffering and they wanted a stuffed bear or rabbits foot I wouldn't dream of calling them a fool. If someone asked me if their suffering was part of a divine plan I wouldn't lie to them.

Therin lies the difference.

Let's not confuse the two.

[RandFan]

People need it, I see that at the hospital all night. Woman who was raped wants to read her bible... family of patient on respirator wants me to pray with them. I do. They've never asked me if I believe, because if I know a few prayers there can be no doubt.

I've never told anyone they're a fool for using a crutch.I work as a computer consultant for a Cancer support group. The admin, an atheist, doesn't denigrate beliefs. However, if someone asks her if faith is a reasonable alternative to traditional medicine she is adamant that the statistics paint a grim picture.

Faith without works is dead. --James 2:20

Then again, works with faith is indistinguishable from works without faith.

[Rasmus]

People need it,

They do. I consider this a very bad thing.

I see that at the hospital all night. Woman who was raped wants to read her bible... family of patient on respirator wants me to pray with them. I do. They've never asked me if I believe, because if I know a few prayers there can be no doubt.

That there are bad times to educate people doesn't mean it should never be done.

I've never told anyone they're a fool for using a crutch.

So we should never try to teach people how to walk without one?

People only need the crutch because they are brought up that way.

[Tsukasa Buddha]

You are entitled to an opinion.

I fail to see the horrible consequences of embracing the truth. It's arguable that lying in the long run is what is best. Perhaps a neutral stance is the diplomatic thing to do but I'm not so sure.

Thank you so much. I guess that modern anthropology should now be based on your experience. In the future anthropologists and evolutionary psychologists will just need to call you. No need for the scientific method.

You would make Theodoric of York (http://www.hulu.com/watch/3529/saturday-night-live-theodoric-of-york) proud.

I'm so glad you solved that problem.

:dl:

Wow, that was the most productive response ever.

I would ask you to note that I prefaced my remarks with "In my experience" because I explicitly didn't claim to be making an absolute claim on reality.

Now tell me, what is the objective scientific method for determining the philosophical content behind certain phrases?

As for that middle argument, that is a great case of sophistry. You just mixed words around without regard to the situation presented.

[Tsukasa Buddha]

For people like you and I perhaps, but when some people talk about "luck" or "thank" that magic sky daddy for their aforementioned "good luck", they don't see them as mere expressions.

I tried just the other day to explain to a friend that "luck" is not real in the way that most people think it is, and is just something that humans constructed because we can't calculate all of the variables contained within a given event. I got a bunch of LOL's and everyone thought that I was pretty stupid. I just did a /sigh and got another beer.

Yes, but that does not mean that we should scorn the very phrases, or that that is what is the content a majority of the time.

[Tsukasa Buddha]

If someone was suffering and they wanted a stuffed bear or rabbits foot I wouldn't dream of calling them a fool. If someone asked me if their suffering was part of a divine plan I wouldn't lie to them.

Therin lies the difference.

Let's not confuse the two.

But not lying doesn't equal making her feel bad because you say she is wrong.

[RandFan]

:dl:

Wow, that was the most productive response ever.

I would ask you to note that I prefaced my remarks with "In my experience" because I explicitly didn't claim to be making an absolute claim on reality.

As for that middle argument, that is a great case of sophistry. You just mixed words around without regard to the situation presented.:dl:

I would ask you to note that your experience is meaninless but you've every right to post your musings. Just understand there is no reason that anyone should consider them over science.

Now tell me, what is the objective scientific method for determining the philosophical content behind certain phrases?That superstition existed in our past and today is not controversial. Perhaps many people "knock on wood" without really understanding what that means. Perhaps some people buy rabbits feet without understanding the superestitious underpinning of the reasons for rabbits feet.

13th floor (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thirteenth_floor).
Lucky #7
Broken window
Umbrella
Walking under a ladder
Black cats
Apolo 13 (many people really thought, and said so, that it was wrong for NASA to lunch Apolo 13).
Etc.,

You really want us to believe that superstition (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superstition) doesn't underpin our culture in spite of all of the evidence? That the idea of "good luck" could not possibly have resulted from this superstitious basis? Really?

Dude!

[RandFan]

But not lying doesn't equal making her feel bad because you say she is wrong.?

I've said one can be diplomatic I'm just not sure it's the best thing. You think it is but that you think something doesn't make it true.

Sometimes the truth hurts us. If I've got a terminal illness I want the doctor to tell me and not spare me my feelings.

I'm not equating the two only pointing out that just because a person feels bad is not a reason to lie or lie by ommision.

[Tsukasa Buddha]

:dl:

I would ask you to note that your experience is meaninless but you've every right to post your musings. Just understand there is no reason that anyone should consider them over science.

:dl:

Did I kill your cat or something?

The major thing we do on these forums is share our experiences and musings, otherwise we would just be looking at linked citations.

And consider them over what science? What science was posted? That a guy who is an "evolutionary psychologist" decided he was also a mind reader and knew that the use of those phrases reflected superstitious beliefs? What studies or scientific method did he use to determine that?

That superstition existed in our past and today is not controversial. Perhaps many people "knock on wood" without really understanding what that means. Perhaps some people buy rabbits feet without understanding the superestitious underpinning of the reasons for rabbits feet.

13th floor (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thirteenth_floor).
Lucky #7
Broken window
Umbrella
Walking under a ladder
Black cats
Apolo 13 (many people really thought, and said so, that it was wrong for NASA to lunch Apolo 13).
Etc.,

You really want us to believe that superstition (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superstition) doesn't underpin our culture in spit of all of the evidence? That the idea of "good luck" could not possibly have resulted from this superstitious basis? Really?

Dude!

I see no relation to what I have written and this.

[Elizabeth I]

This brings up something that just occurred to me very recently. I had always been puzzled by the whole "witchcraft," "satanism" thing about popular books - I saw it with LOTR and again with Harry Potter and always wondered why some people reacted that way to something that was obviously fiction. Then I figured out it's because they already subscribe to magical thinking. If God can turn a woman into salt, or make the sun stand still, or make the rivers of Egypt run with blood, or raise someone from the dead, then unpredictable magic could happen at any time. It's just a short step from there to believing that evil wizards and magicians have turned to the Adversary for their own magic.

[Tsukasa Buddha]

?

I've said one can be diplomatic I'm just not sure it's the best thing. You think it is but that you think something doesn't make it true.

Sometimes the truth hurts us. If I've got a terminal illness I want the doctor to tell me and not spare me my feelings.

I'm not equating the two only pointing out that just because a person feels bad is not a reason to lie or lie by ommision.

Again, I am talking about the situation given.

This person claims that the woman using that coping phrase was part of the limitation of our human potential and thought she should be invalidated.

I see no harm to our human potential by her particular coping skill. Indeed, her's didn't even influence her behaviour or cause her to forgo mainstream medicine or any of that.

And what is the benefit in the situation? I fail to see one except that you have a chance to try to convert her to you worldview, spreading your metaphysical Truth (TM) and all that.

[Tsukasa Buddha]

They do. I consider this a very bad thing.

... Okay... So how is removing a coping skill from them a good thing?

That there are bad times to educate people doesn't mean it should never be done.I don't believe anyone claimed that.

So we should never try to teach people how to walk without one?Or that.

[I Ratant]

Not that long ago I was called a "godsend" by a lady with a twisted ankle I was assisting to her car.
I'd just happened by as she was attempting to hobble on the ankle. Her kids were too young and short to assist.
Rather than dispute the nature of my presence, I just supported her with an arm around her back, and didn't cop a feel, although there was quite a lot there to cop... :) (And the thought did take a stroll or two in the old headbone.)
Sometimes one just has to roll with the situation.
In the true definition of the word "godsend", it would mean that my life and hers were so controlled that in our combined 100 years of living ALL our activities were directed towards THAT instant in 2009 at the Mall.
This is micromanaging of an incredible fineness, which is eminently lacking in the realities of our existences.
Unless for instance those 72 people most recently murdered in Baghdad were all so micromanaged as to be in the wrong spot at the wrong time.
What kinda manager does that?

[Pink Booties]

?

I've said one can be diplomatic I'm just not sure it's the best thing. You think it is but that you think something doesn't make it true.

Sometimes the truth hurts us. If I've got a terminal illness I want the doctor to tell me and not spare me my feelings.

I'm not equating the two only pointing out that just because a person feels bad is not a reason to lie or lie by ommision.

..because the perfect time to nicely tell someone the god they so desperately need isn't really there is when you're standing over their deathbed and they are in your care, among the last people they will ever see.

[Safe-Keeper]

OK, catch-up time. Summary of my view: while the points my earlier posts stand - namely, that the God of the Gaps, and superstition, can be quite silly, I have to side with Tsukasa Buddha on this one. A person going through the process of grief should not have his or her coping methods interfered with unless they're destructive. 'Destructive' meaning something else than 'believing something I think is bullocks'.

ETA: sure, she did ask him, and shouldn't ask unless she's ready for the answer. But still, if someone asks me if there's a higher meaning to their loss, what does it cost to reply with at least something neutral like, "Hmm, yeah, maybe"?

There's a time and a place for everything, I guess. Not too long ago a friend of mine was really upset and sad over something I won't elaborate on here, and I decided that even though I could see an "other side", I decided that my backup was what she needed right there and then, and that I could always tell her my views when she'd calmed down. Of course scenarios differ greatly (had she been talking about how she was using homoeopathy to cure cancer I'd have fielded my views pronto), but in that case, I figured that she needed me as a friend, not as a devil's advocate.

In my experience, "thank god" is our way of expressing our feeling of gratitude, and is usually unrelated to a YHWH, and "good luck" is an expression of good will and wishing happiness for another, not an endorsement of some superstitious belief. They are just coloured with cultural influences.You know, it's a bit like asking why we celebrate Christmas or Yule. To some, it's to celebrate the birth of Christ. To others, it's a totally unrelated term. In my culture, too, 'good luck' is more of a declaration of support. 'Oh my god' and similar phrases are just an expressions of shock or other emotions.

See also this panel debate on Americans forgetting the true meaning of Halloween (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1cEQwPI4D80):p.

13th floor.
Lucky #7
Broken window
Umbrella
Walking under a ladder
Black cats
Apolo 13 (many people really thought, and said so, that it was wrong for NASA to lunch Apolo 13).
Etc.,

Tuesday (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tuesday#Origins_of_the_name)
Thursday
Mars
Venus
Mercury
Jupiter
Neptune
Haumea (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haumea_%28dwarf_planet%29)
Makemake (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Makemake_%28dwarf_planet%29)
Eris (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eris_%28dwarf_planet%29)
Ceres (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ceres_%28dwarf_planet%29)
Apollo 13

Were I still a Christian, I'd be worried about the apparent obsession with pagan gods, particularly those of Greek/Roman origin, that apparently floats around in the US, even at NASA/Astronomer level.

You really want us to believe that superstition doesn't underpin our culture in spite of all of the evidence? That the idea of "good luck" could not possibly have resulted from this superstitious basis? Really?See the Halloween debate above. The origins of something, and their contemporary usage, are two different things. I agree with you that superstition is real - what I disagree with is you using common expressions as a means of proving this.

[RandFan]

:dl::dl:

Can we toss the dog?

The major thing we do on these forums is share our experiences and musings, otherwise we would just be looking at linked citations.

I see no relation to what I have written and this.?

Do you or do you not agree that superstition plays a significant part of our culture? Yes? No?

[RandFan]

This person claims that the woman using that coping phrase was part of the limitation of our human potential and thought she should be invalidated.I think he simply offered her the truth.

I see no harm to our human potential by her particular coping skill. Indeed, her's didn't even influence her behaviour or cause her to forgo mainstream medicine or any of that. I see no harm in embracing the truth.

And what is the benefit in the situation?I don't know that there is always a benefit to honesty other than one's own conscience.

[RandFan]

..because the perfect time to nicely tell someone the god they so desperately need isn't really there is when you're standing over their deathbed and they are in your care, among the last people they will ever see.People must follow the dictates of their own ethics. I think Tsukasa has a point about situational ethics. I wouldn't bother trying to convert someone on their dethbed and of course this isn't the subject fo the OP. This woman wasn't on her deathbed and facing the truth might have been a good strategy. I don't know. When should we lie to people? My father-in-law was much respected person and loved by myself and most people I know. He was honest as the day is long and that earned him much respect. He would have told this woman the truth. Not because he was malevolent, he wasn't. He would have told her the truth because that was his own personal ethic.

[RandFan]

See the Halloween debate above. The origins of something, and their contemporary usage, are two different things. I agree with you that superstition is real - what I disagree with is you using common expressions as a means of proving this.Thank you. I can agree with this to a point and I even conceded it (see my point about knocking on wood).

However, I think there is a degree of superstitious belief. While not everyone that says "good luck" does so superstitiously many people will quickly knock on wood in the hopes they ward off bad luck.

People will avoid ladders and black cats.

That we can't easily discern where superstition and cultural tradition begin and end doesn't obviate that modern humans are steeped in superstition.

Great post BTW.

[plumjam]

Reading the article, this guy keeps going on about specific behaviours, coping-mechanisms if you like, 'cave-men' used during the Pleistocene era. According to Wiki the Pleistocene supposedly covers from 1.8 million years ago up to 10,000 years ago.

Seeing as Professor Davis seems to have written a whole book on the topic, I'd be interested to know what actual evidence he has about specific human behaviours, such as coping-mechanisms and common everyday phraseology, from prior to 10,000 years ago.
Or is this just more materialist/evolutionist just-so imagination at work?

[joobz]

Or is this just more materialist/evolutionist just-so imagination at work?
This is a simple, dishonest attempt at raising hackles. You are fully unable to refute evolution, yet you pretend like it's obvious. Why would you do this?

[RandFan]

Reading the article, this guy keeps going on about specific behaviours, coping-mechanisms if you like, 'cave-men' used during the Pleistocene era. According to Wiki the Pleistocene supposedly covers from 1.8 million years ago up to 10,000 years ago.

Seeing as Professor Davis seems to have written a whole book on the topic, I'd be interested to know what actual evidence he has about specific human behaviours, such as coping-mechanisms and common everyday phraseology, from prior to 10,000 years ago.
Or is this just more materialist/evolutionist just-so imagination at work?If there were evidence would you care? Would you take the time to study and find the truth? Have you read any of Jared Diamond's work on the subject or Napolean Chagnon (Shermer discusses Chagnon in his book How We Believe)?

This is a video of Diamon explaining the evolution of religion.

th7CFye03gQ

[plumjam]

If there were evidence would you care? Would you take the time to study and find the truth? Have you read any of Jared Diamond's work on the subject or Napolean Chagnon (Shermer discusses Chagnon in his book How We Believe)?

This is a video of Diamon explaining the evolution of religion.

th7CFye03gQ

What does that have to do with the question?
I'm interested as to whether this Professor, who has written a book which apparently addresses the matter of the behaviour and phraseology of Pleistocene man, (and seemingly in his personal life uses the same kind of outlook presented in his book in a way which has hurt the feelings of at least one of his friends) actually has something to back it up.

Maybe someone can correct me, but I thought the standard view was that the only evidence we have about man from 10,000 years ago and beyond are some cave paintings. So even if you accept that standard view it would seem he's making an enormous stretch based on... nothing?

[RandFan]

What does that have to do with the question?If someone writes a book today about rocket propulsion they don't bother to prove the theory of gravity or newton's laws of motion.


I'm interested as to whether this Professor, who has written a book which apparently addresses the matter of the behaviour and phraseology of Pleistocene man, (and seemingly in his personal life uses the same kind of outlook presented in his book in a way which has hurt the feelings of at least one of his friends) actually has something to back it up.
I'm interested to find out if you are willing to educate yourself. (Oh, it doesn't apparently address phraseology of Pleistocene man) nice straw man.

Maybe someone can correct me, but I thought the standard view was that the only evidence we have about man from 10,000 years ago and beyond are some cave paintings. So even if you accept that standard view it would seem he's making an enormous stretch based on... nothing?Chagnon, Diamond and others provide the basis and foundation. Of course, you can lead a horse to water but you can't make it drink.

[plumjam]

If someone writes a book today about rocket propulsion they don't bother to prove the theory of gravity or newton's laws of motion.
Newton's physical theories have been thoroughly tested in the recent past. They could be tested tomorrow too. What tests has this Professor done wrt the psychology or language of pleistocene man. Does he have any evidence at all? Or is he just assuming stuff according to a worldview?

I'm interested to find out if you are willing to educate yourself. (Oh, it doesn't apparently address phraseology of Pleistocene man) nice straw man
Prof. Davis has spent the past 20 years paying attention to the use of such seemingly benign phrases: "It was a sign," "Thank God" and even "Good luck." To him, such phrases reflect a "caveman logic" that helped our ancestors survive the Pleistocene Age, but which is keeping our species from realizing its true potential. While we are well past the primitive age, he argues, we still happily shroud ourselves in superstition, magic and blind faith rather than burn the extra mental calories it takes to think critically and reach rational conclusions.

Chagnon, Diamond and others provide the basis and foundation. Of course, you can lead a horse to water but you can't make it drink.
Do any of these guys know how pleistocene 'cave-men' spoke to each other, or explained stuff to each other within their culture?
Or are they just guessing because it fits a worldview and such assertions would be inherently difficult to disprove?

[RandFan]

Does he have any evidence at all?Yes, it's called social anthropology. It's not controversial.

Do any of these guys know how pleistocene 'cave-men' spoke to each other, or explained stuff to each other within their culture?"Spoke"? That's a straw man. The point isn't the words they used but their means of understanding the world around them (again, NOT controversial.)

Or are they just guessing because it fits a worldview and such assertions would be inherently difficult to disprove?The researchers in the field have many means at their disposal to gain insight into ancient peoples. Diamond and Chagnon have both worked with people who were largely separated from modern culture and they both offer insights into the human mind sans modner culture. Also, there is much research and study done on ancient cultures.

You are trying to create controversy where there is none.

[RandFan]

When modern civilizations began to explore the world they came into contact with many societies and peoples who lived as "cavemen" did in the Pleistocene. This included indigenous people of Native Africa, North and South America, Polynesia, Australia, New Zealand, etc., etc.

Plumjam,

How many of these groups were without superstition?
Has there ever been a group of people without modern civilization that was also without superstition?

You want us to believe that superstition is a universal but only a modern day phenomenon? Really?

[Ron_Tomkins]

Religious Belief: So easy, a Caveman can do it

[plumjam]

Yes, it's called social anthropology. It's not controversial.
What evidence is there, in social anthropology, that 'cave-men' used these modes of thinking? And if they did, so what? People do today too, in 'modern' societies.
Even if it could be shown to be the case it tells us nothing.

"Spoke"? That's a straw man. The point isn't the words they used but their means of understanding the world around them (again, NOT controversial.)
How do you, or the Professor, know what concepts people from over 10,000 years ago used to understand/explain reality?

The researchers in the field have many means at their disposal to gain insight into ancient peoples. Diamond and Chagnon have both worked with people who were largely separated from modern culture and they both offer insights into the human mind sans modner culture.
No, those are modern human beings who live in contemporary cultures. To suppose that all human cultures prior to 10,000 years ago were similar to 'modern primitive' cultures is just that: supposition. As is the supposition that they were psychologically given to 'superstitious' explanations of the world more than are modern cultures.


Also, there is much research and study done on ancient cultures.

You are trying to create controversy where there is none.
You could always just admit that you don't know, and are taking it on faith, driven by imaginative embroidering of a worldview. I'd actually think more of you if you were to come to that kind of realisation.

[RandFan]

Even if it could be shown to be the case it tells us nothing.? It tells us they had superstition which is the only salient point.

How do you, or the Professor, know what concepts people from over 10,000 years ago used to understand/explain reality? We have people today who lived as they did 10,000 years ago. We also have evidence that they left behind.

No, those are modern human beings who live in contemporary cultures.BS, false. No. Are you really ignorant of anthropology? Are you really ignorant of the Yanomamo ?

You could always just admit that you don't know, and are taking it on faith, driven by imaginative embroidering of a worldview. If there was no anthropology I would admit it.


I'd actually think more of you if you were to come to that kind of realization.
How did people stretched around the world and on every continent of the world and Islands of Indonesia and Polynesia all have superstition?

Where did it come from if Ancient people didn't have it? Why is it universal?

I'd think more of you if you didn't simply assert nonsense without justification. If you didn't ignore pertinent questions because it was convenient to do so.


More questions you won't answer:
When did people first travel to America?
When did people first travel to Polynesia?
When did people first travel to New Zealand?
When did people first travel to Australia?
What traits do they all share in common?
Why do they ALL share these traits?
How many years separated did the traits persist?
How could people separated by oceans and thousands of miles of land have the same traits that didn't go away?
Can we make any reasonable conclusions from the answers to these questions?
You are entirely ignorant as to the subject of anthropology.

It's ok to be skeptical but skepticism based only on ignorance only makes you look like a fool.

[joobz]

[quote=RandFan;4853012It's ok to be skeptical but skepticism based only on ignorance only makes you look like a fool.[/quote]
Plumjam doesn't even believe in the well documented and well proven biological evolution. Arguing about the possibilty of an evolutionary type developmet of social structures and beliefs would be like arguing about the finer features of boyancy with a person who doubts gravity.

[RandFan]

Plumjam doesn't even believe in the well documented and well proven biological evolution. Arguing about the possibilty of an evolutionary type developmet of social structures and beliefs would be like arguing about the finer features of boyancy with a person who doubts gravity.Fair point.

[Earthborn]

BS, false. No. Are you really ignorant of anthropology?I don't think there are many anthropologists who claim that some cultures are "less evolved" than others. There are no groups of people who today live in the same way as they did 10 000 years ago.

[RandFan]

EB,

Sometimes you really surprise me with your choice of criticisms. This one seems particularly odd.

I don't think there are many anthropologists who claim that some cultures are "less evolved" than others. There are no groups of people who today live in the same way as they did 10 000 years ago.I'm confused by your post on a number of levels.


What does your second statement have to do with the first?
What does "less evolved" have to do with the discussion at hand?
Did someone claim that some cultures were "less evolved"?
Who said that there are groups of people who live today in the same way they did 10,000 years ago?
How did ancient groups live that no groups in recorded history have lived?
My argument is as follows:
Disparate groups of people, including indigenous people's of North and South America, Polynesia, Indonesia, Australia and New Zealand all share universal traits.
These traits include superstition.
These groups have been separated for thousands of years.
That these traits are understandable and predictable given our understanding of sociobiology and human evolution (see Jared Diamond's excellent lecture on religion) leads us to infer that humans have likely had superstition from our earliest ability to think abstractly and solve problems. Humans would want to explain the world around them. Every bit of evidence we have suggests that they did.
There is explanatory and predictive power to the theory that human adaptive traits include theory of mind, pattern seeking and problem solving and that the byproduct of these traits is for humans to explain the natural world by anthropomorphic means (see Diamond and Chagnon) and that the human mind has evolved to find causal relationships and a byproduct of this is that humans often find perceived causal relationships between events even when there is none (even objective minded scientists must pro-actively work to avoid making such relationships).
It is not at all far fetched to infer that superstition has likely been a human trait from our earliest point. In fact, I would posit that it would be very unusual for our earliest ancestors to gaze up at the stars and look at the world and not draw any conclusions as to the cause of the fantastic things they saw around them.

Plumjam wants us to believe that it wasn't until some arbitrary point in the recent past that all humans everywhere suddenly got religion.

I'm not buying that, you?


In any event.

Evolution isn't a ladder. There is no pinnacle or goal of evolution.

That said, if one takes as a premise the survival of the species then any adaptive trait that increases the survivability of the species could be argued to be superior. That's trivially true.

One more thing, if you were writing in support of my thesis then I apologize. That's the only way I can reconcile what you wrote but you've never responded to me by agreeing with me so I find that unlikely.

[slingblade]

I don't think there are many anthropologists who claim that some cultures are "less evolved" than others. There are no groups of people who today live in the same way as they did 10 000 years ago.

Do these people count?

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6786476/

[RandFan]

I don't think there are many anthropologists who claim that some cultures are "less evolved" than others. There are no groups of people who today live in the same way as they did 10 000 years ago.

Do these people count?

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6786476/

And what of the Yanamono, the indigenous people's of North and South America, Australia and New Zealand and Papua New Guinea?

How did ancient people live that was different from these?

Native Americans didn't have guns, horses, etc.. They were capable of metal working but they had no steel.

It's a rather bizarre claim. And FTR, I'm talking about groups of people discovered since Europeans began to explore and document their findings. They DID find people who were living with stone age to bronze age technology.

How are they different? EB doesn't tell us. Only that anthropologists think they lived differently.

[Niggle]

How do you, or the Professor, know what concepts people from over 10,000 years ago used to understand/explain reality?

A couple of examples off the top of my head:

- Cave paintings (what they depicted and how).
- Grave goods (what did they feel was important to send with the dead).*
- Jewelry/ornamentation, if any (was there importance attached to non-utilitarian items such that they chose to spend the time to make them, and did they spend time decorating utilitarian items).

* Also, the simple fact that they took the time to bury the dead in ceremonial fashion (in special places, with special items, etc.) means they placed significance on there being something beyond death. In an environment where it's a struggle just to survive, you don't otherwise waste resources on people who can't help you any more.

Disclaimer: The above is from my college courses in anthropology, which were quite awhile ago now. I'm sure someone here can come up with other examples and explain their significance better than I can, but it sounds like these kinds of concrete examples are what PJ is looking for, so I gave it my best shot.

[Earthborn]

Did someone claim that some cultures were "less evolved"?
Who said that there are groups of people who live today in the same way they did 10,000 years ago?You did, and I quote: "We have people today who lived as they did 10,000 years ago."

What does "less evolved" have to do with the discussion at hand?By saying "We have people today who lived as they did 10,000 years ago" you suggested that some cultures didn't experience any of the cultural evolution that other cultures did. According to anthropologists, all cultures are changing constantly.

What does your second statement have to do with the first?If there are no people living today as they did 10 000 years ago, no cultures that haven't undergone cultural evolution, then your claim that "We have people today who lived as they did 10,000 years ago" is false.

How did ancient groups live that no groups in recorded history have lived?Every culture is different. No ancient group could have lived in exactly the same way that other groups of other times lived. Sure there will be similarities between ancient cultures and modern non-technological cultures, but those similarities will be fairly superficial. It will not mean they will have the same beliefs, the same myths, the same rituals... Of those things we don't know anything about ancient cultures.

My argument is as follows:
Disparate groups of people, including indigenous people's of North and South America, Polynesia, Indonesia, Australia and New Zealand all share universal traits.Not surprising, as cultural universals are universal to all cultures.

These traits include superstition.Anthropologists would likely not use the term "superstition" to describe the stories cultures use to make sense of their world, as it implies a negative moral judgement of those beliefs.

[Earthborn]

Do these people count?

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6786476/Not unless you can show that they skipped the past 10 000 years.

[Earthborn]

How are they different?How are they the same, except for their "stone age" or "bronze age" technology? Do they have the same beliefs, the same rituals, the same social structure, the same myths and legends? It is pretty unlikely that none of that changed over the past 10 000 years, especially considering that many of those cultures didn't have writing, so they couldn't have stored the necessary information for 10 000 years and relied on constant retelling of stories.

[HansMustermann]

Gee, was that guy an ***hole.

I fail to see the horrible consequences on our constrained human potential by allowing that woman cope with the life stress of her husband cheating and being a single parent with a comforting philosophical thought.

In my experience, "thank god" is our way of expressing our feeling of gratitude, and is usually unrelated to a YHWH, and "good luck" is an expression of good will and wishing happiness for another, not an endorsement of some superstitious belief. They are just coloured with cultural influences.

While I do see your point, IMHO an elaborate lie does do more harm on the whole than facing the truth.

I'll start with a non-religious example: the "Beauty And The Beast" tale, because according to one anthropologist's study it's actually done a lot of harm. Apparently girls who grew up with such fairy tales where love always wins, getting a man is the big reward, and where you can change a beast by just staying with him... are a lot more likely to end up battered wives than those who don't. They stick to their comforting lie instead of facing the truth and leaving an abusive relationship.

And in the long run, some even end up killed. E.g., those who didn't even have the sense to leave some a**hole that threatened them with a gun before.

So are such comforting lies (religious or not) all that good?

It seems to me like whether they base their psychological comfort on Jesus or on a fairy tale, the result is the same: they still stay in an abusive relationship, instead of facing the truth and f-ing doing something to improve their own situation. They'll end up just as abused, and a certain subset just as dead.

Sometimes (in fact IMHO almost every single time) what you need isn't a comforting lie. You need to face reality as it is, and make your decisions based on _that_. Having a comforting lie is probably the #1 cause of people staying on a course that's self-destructive in the long run.

A lot of people live their life as a train wreck in slow motion, heading towards the opposite train at full speed, and believing all along that it's not happening. Because their guardian angel, ancestor spirit, prayer to Jesus, good karma, place in the universe, lucky rabbit foot, or favourite fairy tale assure them that it won't happen.

Plus, it seems to me like such lies are a source of stress and low self-esteem by themselves. If you believe real hard that prayer, or true love, or whatever, will keep you safe and change the Beast, and you see that they don't, then the only conclusion is that you're not doing it right. Maybe you're not praying hard enough, or maybe you're not fulfilling the Beast's every whim right, or whatever. Suddenly it all becomes your own guilt.

And my take is: enough! Facing reality and removing the source of stress (or rationally deciding if you want that or not) can't be any worse than telling yourself pretty lies to deal with it.

[slingblade]

Not unless you can show that they skipped the past 10 000 years.

I didn't make a claim. I asked you a question.

Apparently, your answer is "no."

[RandFan]

You did, and I quote: "We have people today who lived as they did 10,000 years ago."I used the word "as" to mean roughly the same. How are they different.

By saying "We have people today who lived as they did 10,000 years ago" you suggested that some cultures didn't experience any of the cultural evolution that other cultures did.That is trivially true. Have you read Diamond's Guns, Germs and Steel?

According to anthropologists, all cultures are changing constantly.In ways significant to obviate superstitious beliefs in the past?

If there are no people living today as they did 10 000 years ago, no cultures that haven't undergone cultural evolution, then your claim that "We have people today who lived as they did 10,000 years ago" is false.Roughly the same today as then. No advancement in technology. Incrimental advancement in culture.

...but those similarities will be fairly superficial.
Nonsense.

It will not mean they will have the same beliefs, the same myths, the same rituals... Of those things we don't know anything about ancient cultures. We are nto talking about the specific details. We are talking of the adaptive traits mentioned by Diamond in his lecture. Did you watch the video?

Anthropologists would likely not use the term "superstition"...
Nonsense. Here you are just making stuff up. How many anthropologists using the word "superstition" would you accept before you agreed that you were just making that up?

[RandFan]

Not unless you can show that they skipped the past 10 000 years.? That's not an answer. You don't get to declare that 10,000 years of existence obviates any inference we can make about culture past from present living.

[RandFan]

How are they the same, except for their "stone age" or "bronze age" technology? Do they have the same beliefs, the same rituals, the same social structure, the same myths and legends? It is pretty unlikely that none of that changed over the past 10 000 years, especially considering that many of those cultures didn't have writing, so they couldn't have stored the necessary information for 10 000 years and relied on constant retelling of stories.You are missing the point. By a mile.

It's that they have myths and legends. The details of the stories are not relevant to the discussion. That you accept that they HAD myths and legends in their past puts the argument to bed.

That is and was my only point.

Do you understand that?

Caveman logic = Myths and legends.

Nothing more. Nothing less.

Got it?

Plumjam has taken issue with the idea that people in the past had myths and legends. You don't like my word "superstition". At best your point is pedantic but I could, for arguments sake, accept your terminology, myths and legends.

Diamond's thesis that theory of mind and anthropomorphizing natural events leads to spurious conclusions as to how the natural world works still stands and neither Plumjam nor you have refuted that. For some bizarre reason you want to engage in semantics. That's fine.

[RandFan]

Not surprising, as cultural universals are universal to all cultures.In formulating an argument one must include premises that are axiomatic and lead via inference to the conclusion.

Your point here isn't even petty. The premise is central to the argument and pointing out that it is obvious doesn't negate the conclusion. You are engaging in fallacy.

Anthropologists would likely not use the term "superstition" to describe the stories cultures use to make sense of their world, as it implies a negative moral judgment of those beliefs. Superstition as defined includes "belief or notion not based on reason or knowledge". Superstitions are irrational and are often the means to explain the unknown. It's true that the word is often used pejoratively but "myth and legend" doesn't adequately explain the nature of giving false attribution to causes like dancing causes rain (rain dance) or sacrificing a goat will improve crop yeilds. These things are by definition superstition and one can find the use of the word by anthropologists. That anthropologists might avoid the use of the word for cultural sensativity purposes doesn't obviate my point. Again, you are at best engaging in semantics.

[Earthborn]

It's that they have myths and legends. The details of the stories are not relevant to the discussion.If you do not know the details of those stories, and if you do not know which aspects they believed and which they considered to be fictional, you do not know which aspects constitute "cave man logic".

These ancient people's likely also had doubt and skepticism, so why not call those things "cave man logic" ?

[RandFan]

If you do not know the details of those stories, and if you do not know which aspects they believed and which they considered to be fictional, you do not know which aspects constitute "cave man logic".

These ancient people's likely also had doubt and skepticism, so why not call those things "cave man logic" ?The indigenous people of North and South America, Australia, Africa, New Zealand, etc., etc.

All had found ways to explain the world around them using non-scientific means. Humans are pattern seeking and problem solving people. That IS one of those evolved adaptive traits I spoke of.

So, here is the question, why should we assume that people 10,000 years ago were any different from ALL of those people I have been referencing?

You are special pleading. Making a case for ancient peoples based on their special circumstances and our ignorance (not complete BTW there is some basis beyond comparative data). You are stating that their doubt and skepticism would override their wanting to fill in the gaps with myths and legend. What is your basis for that?

ETA: Of course I'm happy to add doubt and skepticism. Those are also adaptive traits. However all of the people we've been speaking about including indigenous people around the world that did not possess modern technology have had those traits. That doesn't obviate their filling in the gaps of their understanding with myths and legends (superstition).

[stamenflicker]

Modern religion is a very complex dynamic. To understand why religious thinking is so universal we need much more in our evolutionary psychology toolbox but this is a very good start.

I think you might enjoy Dudley Young's "Origin of the Sacred." I fine book indeed on these matters and it reads like poetry. Simply beautiful.

[RandFan]

I think you might enjoy Dudley Young's "Origin of the Sacred." I fine book indeed on these matters and it reads like poetry. Simply beautiful.I will put it on my list. Thank you.

[Pardalis]

What evidence is there, in social anthropology, that 'cave-men' used these modes of thinking? And if they did, so what? People do today too, in 'modern' societies.
Even if it could be shown to be the case it tells us nothing.


How do you, or the Professor, know what concepts people from over 10,000 years ago used to understand/explain reality?


Why don't you ask an anthropologist?

I'm sure you can find a university near you.

[Hank Davis]

Hi - It's Hank Davis here. I wrote Caveman Logic, which seems to have triggered much of the discussion in this thread. I'd like to address a comment made by a poster named "plumjam." He questioned how we could possibly know what kind of explanatory systems our ancestors used during the Pleistocene age - roughly 100,000 years ago.
The answer to that is actually quite simple. You don't need an anthropologist with a tape recorder to answer the question. Fortunately, there are other approaches to the question. The simplest one involves neuro-anatomy. There is absolutely no reason to believe that our cognitive architecture has changed in the past 100,000 years. In short, we are carrying around the same brain as our Pleistocene ancestors. If you want to know how these minds work, just study us. What kind of cognitive shortcuts and strategies do we use today? What sorts of heuristics and patters do we embrace when we're trying to make sense of the physical universe interpret incomplete evidence? I'm talking about the kinds of things that transcend culture. The things that reflect on us - Home sapiens, not where we grew up.
Fortunately, there is plenty of information out there to answer that question. We can use that information to speculate about the mental lives of earlier humans. The specifics of their belief systems aren't important, any more than the specific differences between world religions today. That's all fluff. It's the underlying similarities between these religions that lead us to understand the human mind and how it misperforms. Whether it's Jesus or Sylvia Browne of Uri Geller. It's all the same nonsense. This is the essence of my book, Caveman Logic. I'd love to discuss any aspects of this idea with you here in this forum. In fact, you don't need me. You're smart, skeptical and curious people. As of this week, the book is freely available and the new website bearing the book's name with a . com is up and running.

[tsig]

Hi - It's Hank Davis here. I wrote Caveman Logic, which seems to have triggered much of the discussion in this thread. I'd like to address a comment made by a poster named "plumjam." He questioned how we could possibly know what kind of explanatory systems our ancestors used during the Pleistocene age - roughly 100,000 years ago.
The answer to that is actually quite simple. You don't need an anthropologist with a tape recorder to answer the question. Fortunately, there are other approaches to the question. The simplest one involves neuro-anatomy. There is absolutely no reason to believe that our cognitive architecture has changed in the past 100,000 years. In short, we are carrying around the same brain as our Pleistocene ancestors. If you want to know how these minds work, just study us. What kind of cognitive shortcuts and strategies do we use today? What sorts of heuristics and patters do we embrace when we're trying to make sense of the physical universe interpret incomplete evidence? I'm talking about the kinds of things that transcend culture. The things that reflect on us - Home sapiens, not where we grew up.
Fortunately, there is plenty of information out there to answer that question. We can use that information to speculate about the mental lives of earlier humans. The specifics of their belief systems aren't important, any more than the specific differences between world religions today. That's all fluff. It's the underlying similarities between these religions that lead us to understand the human mind and how it misperforms. Whether it's Jesus or Sylvia Browne of Uri Geller. It's all the same nonsense. This is the essence of my book, Caveman Logic. I'd love to discuss any aspects of this idea with you here in this forum. In fact, you don't need me. You're smart, skeptical and curious people. As of this week, the book is freely available and the new website bearing the book's name with a . com is up and running.

Welcome to JREF.

PJ likes to play word games and take contrarian positions to get a rise out of folks.

Hope your book does well and you enjoy your time here.

[RandFan]

Hi - It's Hank Davis here. I wrote Caveman Logic, which seems to have triggered much of the discussion in this thread. I'd like to address a comment made by a poster named "plumjam." He questioned how we could possibly know what kind of explanatory systems our ancestors used during the Pleistocene age - roughly 100,000 years ago.
The answer to that is actually quite simple. You don't need an anthropologist with a tape recorder to answer the question. Fortunately, there are other approaches to the question. The simplest one involves neuro-anatomy. There is absolutely no reason to believe that our cognitive architecture has changed in the past 100,000 years. In short, we are carrying around the same brain as our Pleistocene ancestors. If you want to know how these minds work, just study us. What kind of cognitive shortcuts and strategies do we use today? What sorts of heuristics and patters do we embrace when we're trying to make sense of the physical universe interpret incomplete evidence? I'm talking about the kinds of things that transcend culture. The things that reflect on us - Home sapiens, not where we grew up.
Fortunately, there is plenty of information out there to answer that question. We can use that information to speculate about the mental lives of earlier humans. The specifics of their belief systems aren't important, any more than the specific differences between world religions today. That's all fluff. It's the underlying similarities between these religions that lead us to understand the human mind and how it misperforms. Whether it's Jesus or Sylvia Browne of Uri Geller. It's all the same nonsense. This is the essence of my book, Caveman Logic. I'd love to discuss any aspects of this idea with you here in this forum. In fact, you don't need me. You're smart, skeptical and curious people. As of this week, the book is freely available and the new website bearing the book's name with a . com is up and running.:)

http://cavemanlogic.com/

Hank, I can't thank you enough and on behalf of other skeptics here at the JREF, if I may be so presumptuous, we are honored.

I just moved your book to the top of my list. Michael Shermer's just got pushed down one peg.

[Oliver]

Modern religion is a very complex dynamic. To understand why religious thinking is so universal we need much more in our evolutionary psychology toolbox but this is a very good start.


My theory is the following one:

Humans were scared about a lot of things like thunder, predators, hunger, coldness, heat etc.

Then they started to evolve language.

As a result they talked about why this and that is the way it is.

Then someone came up with the idea that there must be a superior something making thunder.

All the other nuts agreed and the next one added: But then there must be a superior something killing most of our unborn as well.

And everybody agreed again, they invented names for all kinds of Gods like the Sungod, the Moongod, the Raingod, the there isn't any milk in my refrigerator-god and so on.

Then the god-idea spread amongst different cultures because those who heard the new idea thought: Hell yeah! That's it. That's the answer to all our questions, there are Gods doing all the nasty [and beautiful] stuff.

Next all those people wondered what those Gods intentions were and why they did punish them with things like cold winters and reward them with things like luck, good hunting, long summers etc.

So the conclusion was those thoughts were that "We have to appeal to our gods, let's sacrifice some animals, childs and pray to our imaginary friends.

Finally, after a while, someone dumbminded wasn't able to learn all the names of the different gods and as a result, claimed that there is only one god. That of course made sense to a lot of people since it was hip and much easier to pray to one god only.




:p

[Pardalis]

All the other nuts agreed

Why do you call them "nuts"? As professor Davis just said, they had the same brain as ours.

Then the god-idea spread amongst different cultures because those who heard the new idea thought: Hell yeah! That's it. It's not one "new" idea that spread throughout humanity, it's rather that humans inherently come up with the same ideas. Superstitions and god concepts are a part of the way we think. The idea is to break free of it.

You completely failed to understand the point of the thread.

[HansMustermann]

No offense, but religion existed before Homo Sapiens existed. We have evidence of ritual burial among the _Neanderthals_.

So here's two hypotheses.

1. Humans started from one place and just took their magical thinking with them everywhere they went, as they spread around the globe.

2. Somehow they all forgot it along the way, and rediscovered it independently later all over the place.

If you're asking me to believe that religious thinking was independently rediscovered all over the place, you're asking me to believe version 2. And, well, Occam's Razor and all that.

[Pardalis]

If you're asking me to believe that religious thinking was independently rediscovered all over the place, you're asking me to believe version 2. And, well, Occam's Razor and all that.

Not if it's part of our genetic makeup. Crudely said, it's not one idea that managed to survive thousands of years, it's the propensity to have the same ideas that survived in us.

[HansMustermann]

Not if it's part of our genetic makeup. Crudely said, it's not one idea that managed to survive thousands of years, it's the propensity to have the same ideas that survived in us.

Honestly, I don't think there's anyone in the world who could tell you your genetic makeup in that much detail, when it comes to the brain. Sure we have funny names for the genes and some idea of where they go and sorta what breaks when this or that is broken, but if anyone wants to tell you that this or that gene hard-wires you for religion... they're probably exaggerating the current knowledge level a bit ;)

At any rate, I don't see a conflict there anyway. Especially _if_ it's an idea that's so natural to humans, then I have a hard time believing that it would be forgotten at any point and need to be rediscovered independently.

[Tsukasa Buddha]

No offense, but religion existed before Homo Sapiens existed. We have evidence of ritual burial among the _Neanderthals_.

But is that necessarily motivated by religious thinking?

(I mean, if the ritual was putting a sign saying "God, take this soul to Heaven", then sure :p )

[marksman]

Okay, if we can put the argument over whether cavemen prayed aside for the moment, I have a different question about the thesis....

If humans, as a species, have an inbred genetic need (the extent to which might vary from individual to individual) for magical thinking, might it be unhealthy for humans to force ourselves to ignore that need?

To give a tortured analogy, it used to be that people used to force lefties to use their right hands. I read somewhere (long lost) that doing this can have adverse effects with real physical consequences of stress, ulcers, and other conditions. If we work to compel people to ignore their "God impulse" could that too cause people stress and stress-related illnesses?

Certainly, I don't advocate allowing people to use their God-impulse to do things that are self-destructive, such as ignore medical advice for their children. But if someone uses terms like "God bless" or "Goddammit", or even if someone prays before going to bed, why should we tell them to abandon non-harmful expressions of religious faith. And if we had the ability to prohibit such behavior, might we be doing more harm than good?

In other words, even accepting the given premise -- that prayer is a behavior that is genetically hardwired into our brains -- doesn't that indicate that, to some extent, prayer satisfies an inborn genetic need in some people, and that denying them the ability to satisfy that desire might cause harm?

I don't have an answer to this. I'm just sort of musing out loud.

[RandFan]

Okay, if we can put the argument over whether cavemen prayed aside for the moment, I have a different question about the thesis....

If humans, as a species, have an inbred genetic need (the extent to which might vary from individual to individual) for magical thinking, might it be unhealthy for humans to force ourselves to ignore that need?

To give a tortured analogy, it used to be that people used to force lefties to use their right hands. I read somewhere (long lost) that doing this can have adverse effects with real physical consequences of stress, ulcers, and other conditions. If we work to compel people to ignore their "God impulse" could that too cause people stress and stress-related illnesses?

Certainly, I don't advocate allowing people to use their God-impulse to do things that are self-destructive, such as ignore medical advice for their children. But if someone uses terms like "God bless" or "Goddammit", or even if someone prays before going to bed, why should we tell them to abandon non-harmful expressions of religious faith. And if we had the ability to prohibit such behavior, might we be doing more harm than good?

In other words, even accepting the given premise -- that prayer is a behavior that is genetically hardwired into our brains -- doesn't that indicate that, to some extent, prayer satisfies an inborn genetic need in some people, and that denying them the ability to satisfy that desire might cause harm?

I don't have an answer to this. I'm just sort of musing out loud.Fair questions and I think a good point for discussion.

I'm not sure what you mean by "force".

I only have anecdotal evidence but I've not suffered from giving up belief and to be sure I was a very fervent believer. I volunteered two years of my life to serve a mission.

I've heard Dennett and others musing on this with different degrees of concern. None are woried about the personal emotional health of those who give up religion as far as I remember.

IMO, it's likely more akin to our changing attitudes of women and minorities. Once we learn it's not needed we can get over it and move on.

[marksman]

IMO, it's likely more akin to our changing attitudes of women and minorities. Once we learn it's not needed we can get over it and move on.

Ah, except that's not what Professor Davis appears to be discussing. From hsi post on this thread:

What kind of cognitive shortcuts and strategies do we use today? What sorts of heuristics and patters do we embrace when we're trying to make sense of the physical universe interpret incomplete evidence? I'm talking about the kinds of things that transcend culture. The things that reflect on us - Home sapiens, not where we grew up.

Racism and sexism do not "transcend cultures" but, according to Davis, magical thinking does. That means it's not a cultural attitude we can simply discard. It may, in fact, be hardwired into our brains (or in a portion of the population's brains) like a preference for using your left hand.

I often wonder similarly about whether too much skepticism may do harm in another way -- eliminating the placebo effect. Sadly, the placebo effect requires the patient's own ignorance, but it has real benefits. If someone is taking a placebo -- without ignoring any proven scientific therapies -- is getting a real benefit, would revealing that they are taking a placebo cause that person harm? Is it more important to be truthful, or do we allow a lie to persist because the person gains a real benefit thereby?

I don't know the answer to this quandary. Perhaps "magical thinking" is like racism and sexism -- not inborn within us and discardable without ill side effects. But maybe it's not. Maybe some forms of magical thinking are like a placebo and, if it is not otherwise causing harm, it might be better to let people have their harmless superstitions.

[Elizabeth I]

Hi - It's Hank Davis here. I wrote Caveman Logic, which seems to have triggered much of the discussion in this thread. I'd like to address a comment made by a poster named "plumjam." He questioned how we could possibly know what kind of explanatory systems our ancestors used during the Pleistocene age - roughly 100,000 years ago.
The answer to that is actually quite simple. You don't need an anthropologist with a tape recorder to answer the question. Fortunately, there are other approaches to the question. The simplest one involves neuro-anatomy. There is absolutely no reason to believe that our cognitive architecture has changed in the past 100,000 years. In short, we are carrying around the same brain as our Pleistocene ancestors. If you want to know how these minds work, just study us. What kind of cognitive shortcuts and strategies do we use today? What sorts of heuristics and patters do we embrace when we're trying to make sense of the physical universe interpret incomplete evidence? I'm talking about the kinds of things that transcend culture. The things that reflect on us - Home sapiens, not where we grew up.
Fortunately, there is plenty of information out there to answer that question. We can use that information to speculate about the mental lives of earlier humans. The specifics of their belief systems aren't important, any more than the specific differences between world religions today. That's all fluff. It's the underlying similarities between these religions that lead us to understand the human mind and how it misperforms. Whether it's Jesus or Sylvia Browne of Uri Geller. It's all the same nonsense. This is the essence of my book, Caveman Logic. I'd love to discuss any aspects of this idea with you here in this forum. In fact, you don't need me. You're smart, skeptical and curious people. As of this week, the book is freely available and the new website bearing the book's name with a . com is up and running.

See, this is one of the big reasons I really, really, really like this forum. We get people like this visiting.

We now return you to our regularly schedule atheist-theist brawl.

[RandFan]

Racism and sexism do not "transcend cultures" but, according to Davis, magical thinking does.I disagree but I don't care. I don't think it is relevant as my opinion of your point has nothing to do with the subject at hand.

That means it's not a cultural attitude we can simply discard. It may, in fact, be hardwired into our brains (or in a portion of the population's brains) like a preference for using your left hand.It's far more likely a bi-product. Dawkins compares the behaviors of moths and candles. We know that suicide by candle flame isn't an evolutionary advantage for the moth. It appears to be a byproduct of a moths navigation system using the moon at optical infinity.

You can find a discussion of that here (http://www.openlibrary.ws/authors/richard-dawkins/what-use-is-religion-part-2/).

I often wonder similarly about whether too much skepticism may do harm in another way -- eliminating the placebo effect.I seriously doubt it and I don't think that philosophers like Dennet and evolutionary psychologists like Pinker take that concern seriously. I've read books by socio-biologists including E.O. Wilson, Pinker and Dawkins and I can I don't think that is really a concern.

I'm not an expert though.

Sadly, the placebo effect requires the patient's own ignorance, but it has real benefits. If someone is taking a placebo -- without ignoring any proven scientific therapies -- is getting a real benefit, would revealing that they are taking a placebo cause that person harm? Is it more important to be truthful, or do we allow a lie to persist because the person gains a real benefit thereby?

I don't know the answer to this quandary. Perhaps "magical thinking" is like racism and sexism -- not inborn within us and discardable without ill side effects. But maybe it's not. Maybe some forms of magical thinking are like a placebo and, if it is not otherwise causing harm, it might be better to let people have their harmless superstitions.I seriously doubt there is a "quandary". We have people on this forum who have studied the placebo effect and it is of limited value. Beyond making someone feel good for a brief amount of time it doesn't do much. There is some controversial claims and studies about length of healing but those studies are not at all conclusive and they are only incremental advantages at best.

BTW: I can take an aspirin and feel relief long before the pill could possible work. The placebo effect doesn't absolutely rely on ignorance. Only the belief that something that can work has been taken.

Just my .02.

BTW: I've emailed and gotten responses from Pinker, Ramachandran and Wilson. Why don't you ask them? If they agree with you I'd happily acknowledge it. You might also want to read books by socio-biologists and evolutionary psychologists.

[godless dave]

The example in the article wasn't about someone using a "comforting phrase". The woman's use of the phrase in that context suggests that she actually believes, at least some of the time, that "everything happens for a reason". It's the belief, not the verbal behavior, that I think Davis thinks is potentially detrimental. The argument can be made, and maybe he's making it, that the verbal behavior reinforces the belief. I think there's some truth to that.

[Pardalis]

Honestly, I don't think there's anyone in the world who could tell you your genetic makeup in that much detail [...]but if anyone wants to tell you that this or that gene hard-wires you for religion... they're probably exaggerating the current knowledge level a bit :wink:

I didn't say there was a specific gene for religion, or that we could map out the exact genes that make us think that way, but there are indications that superstitious and religious thinking are by-products of our cognitive capabilities, which they have been selected for through our genes. Just like dogs aren't "programmed" to be man's best friend, but their fidelity to their owner is sort of the "unintentional" result (of course there isn't really an intent, but I use the word as a figure of speech) of their social predispositions. At least that's how I understand it.

At any rate, I don't see a conflict there anyway. Especially _if_ it's an idea that's so natural to humans, then I have a hard time believing that it would be forgotten at any point and need to be rediscovered independently.Nobody said they have to be rediscovered, they are a part of us naturally. They are certainly passed on through oral stories, and since the invention of writing, they have even more so, but ultimately, we already have the propensity to invent these ideas in us naturally, if we didn't the stories would have no interest for us, they couldn't "stick" around, they wouldn't be constantly renewed and reinvented, and they would ultimately disappear.

[HansMustermann]

But is that necessarily motivated by religious thinking?

(I mean, if the ritual was putting a sign saying "God, take this soul to Heaven", then sure :p )

Well, you don't bury someone with weapons and grave goods, unless you think he's still going to use them somehow.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Okay, if we can put the argument over whether cavemen prayed aside for the moment, I have a different question about the thesis....

If humans, as a species, have an inbred genetic need (the extent to which might vary from individual to individual) for magical thinking, might it be unhealthy for humans to force ourselves to ignore that need?

To give a tortured analogy, it used to be that people used to force lefties to use their right hands. I read somewhere (long lost) that doing this can have adverse effects with real physical consequences of stress, ulcers, and other conditions. If we work to compel people to ignore their "God impulse" could that too cause people stress and stress-related illnesses?

Certainly, I don't advocate allowing people to use their God-impulse to do things that are self-destructive, such as ignore medical advice for their children. But if someone uses terms like "God bless" or "Goddammit", or even if someone prays before going to bed, why should we tell them to abandon non-harmful expressions of religious faith. And if we had the ability to prohibit such behavior, might we be doing more harm than good?

In other words, even accepting the given premise -- that prayer is a behavior that is genetically hardwired into our brains -- doesn't that indicate that, to some extent, prayer satisfies an inborn genetic need in some people, and that denying them the ability to satisfy that desire might cause harm?

I don't have an answer to this. I'm just sort of musing out loud.I would question the application of the word, "need", here. Having a particular trait doesn't necessarily mean one has a psychological need for that trait. We have lots of genetic traits we change or modify after we're born.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Well, you don't bury someone with weapons and grave goods, unless you think he's still going to use them somehow.While this is one possible explanation, ownership is another. You could bury the dead with things they owned that you feel belong with the person out of some kind of respect.

Clearly somewhere along the way humans began to believe in the afterlife. Whether it also occurred with Neanderthals is possible and maybe even likely. But I don't think using the tools later is the only explanation for including them in a grave.

[Skeptic Ginger]

The example in the article wasn't about someone using a "comforting phrase". The woman's use of the phrase in that context suggests that she actually believes, at least some of the time, that "everything happens for a reason". It's the belief, not the verbal behavior, that I think Davis thinks is potentially detrimental. The argument can be made, and maybe he's making it, that the verbal behavior reinforces the belief. I think there's some truth to that.Magical thinking is a recognized method of coping. One needn't even believe in some things to benefit.

For example, when someone dies from trauma, grieving loved ones often go over and over in their minds how the outcome might have differed, "If only..." Typically there is daydreaming about rescuing the person.

While it is hard to say how this benefits the person it seems to move the person along in the grieving process. Perhaps it allows brief respites from the grief. But what is known is this is common phenomena during grieving. So it probably does serve some purpose.


I'm not sure this complex coping mechanism implies the beliefs involved are the core of the process or just an artifact of how we cope. I hope Professor Davis is still reading the thread because I'm curious what he thinks of my comments.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Honestly, I don't think there's anyone in the world who could tell you your genetic makeup in that much detail, when it comes to the brain. Sure we have funny names for the genes and some idea of where they go and sorta what breaks when this or that is broken, but if anyone wants to tell you that this or that gene hard-wires you for religion... they're probably exaggerating the current knowledge level a bit ;)

At any rate, I don't see a conflict there anyway. Especially _if_ it's an idea that's so natural to humans, then I have a hard time believing that it would be forgotten at any point and need to be rediscovered independently.You are confusing the nature of patterns with which humans organize observations and the content within individuals' interpretation of the incoming data that was subject to the brain's organization.

For example, the brain is hardwired to seek connections and patterns. We know from refining our observation skills as we've evolved that this brain function is rather crude and we can learn to improve on it. So initially, early humans thought they saw connections between rituals and weather. Now we can refine that observation and determine the rituals really weren't related to the weather.

The way our brains seek patterns is the part that is genetic. Drawing the wrong conclusion that rituals affect the weather because of that pattern seeking is not part of the genetic trait.


I think Professor Davis (though I haven't read his material yet) is looking, not just at the brain's tendency to look for cause and effect patterns, but also at those inherited coping mechanisms which come into play when we are grieving or stressed. You don't need irrational thinking like a belief that gods exist to cope, but we may still benefit from some kinds of temporary magical thinking which helps the brain cope with loss.

[HansMustermann]

While this is one possible explanation, ownership is another. You could bury the dead with things they owned that you feel belong with the person out of some kind of respect.

Clearly somewhere along the way humans began to believe in the afterlife. Whether it also occurred with Neanderthals is possible and maybe even likely. But I don't think using the tools later is the only explanation for including them in a grave.

In a society which routinely suffered from chronic shortages and hunger (according to tooth enamel analysis in neanderthal skeleton), and which seemed to eat only meat, hence needed those weapons to hunt and survive themselves... burying someone with perfectly good weapons just out of a sense of ownership, while being aware that they're not going to use them any more anyway... I dunno, seems a bit dumb to me, doesn't it?

Arguably we have the most evolved framework of ownership concepts ever, but we don't bury grandpa with his WW2 pistol, and with his collection of rare stamps, and why not his car too while we're at it, just because he used to own them :p

I'm pretty sure that even the most primitive tribes understand that ownership is not something that inanimate things can do. Nobody assumes that a tree owns its apples or that a mountain owns its rocks. Where that extension was sorta made, it was via ascribing a soul to that inanimate item, but that already requires the concept of a soul, i.e., you're already at religious life after death as concepts go.

The only reasonable assumption about ownership continuing is if you still think of that guy somehow as a still living entity capable of ownership.

[HansMustermann]

You are confusing the nature of patterns with which humans organize observations and the content within individuals' interpretation of the incoming data that was subject to the brain's organization.

For example, the brain is hardwired to seek connections and patterns. We know from refining our observation skills as we've evolved that this brain function is rather crude and we can learn to improve on it. So initially, early humans thought they saw connections between rituals and weather. Now we can refine that observation and determine the rituals really weren't related to the weather.

The way our brains seek patterns is the part that is genetic. Drawing the wrong conclusion that rituals affect the weather because of that pattern seeking is not part of the genetic trait.


I think Professor Davis (though I haven't read his material yet) is looking, not just at the brain's tendency to look for cause and effect patterns, but also at those inherited coping mechanisms which come into play when we are grieving or stressed. You don't need irrational thinking like a belief that gods exist to cope, but we may still benefit from some kinds of temporary magical thinking which helps the brain cope with loss.

_Or_ you can look at it like this: cognitive dissonance is a function of at least monkey brain too, presumably other mammals too, and is just how you learn. And humans are capable of control what goes into their model, including incidentally the ability to build it based on wishful thinking.

I.e., there doesn't need to be any built-in propensity for woowoo as such.

Both mechanisms I've mentioned there, aren't there just _for_ wishful thinking, but are actually necessary in order to have a complex world model in your head. To get anywhere past trivial reflex complexity, you need some mechanisms:

1. to keep a large and complex model consistent,

2. the ability to filter and process the data before dumping it in there. If nothing else, because you don't have nearly enough neurons to just record the raw film of your life, nor fast enough neurons to work on such a non-structured stream.

There is nothing in there made for coping with grief by creating cognitive dissonances. It's just a misuse of the same pathways that evolved so you could notice, process and use the complex patterns that the human brain can process.

It can be (mis)used for woowoo, in much the same way as hands can be used for masturbation, but it doesn't have to mean that there was an evolutionary advantage in that.

[HansMustermann]

I think Professor Davis (though I haven't read his material yet) is looking, not just at the brain's tendency to look for cause and effect patterns, but also at those inherited coping mechanisms which come into play when we are grieving or stressed. You don't need irrational thinking like a belief that gods exist to cope, but we may still benefit from some kinds of temporary magical thinking which helps the brain cope with loss.

Which sounds a lot less useful when I realize that "stress" is just another name for the "go satisfy your needs" signals in the brain. See Maslow's pyramid, for a handy-dandy list of such needs.

E.g., if you feel anxiety, that's your "need for safety" signal kicking in.

Finding pretty lies to cope with it... isn't even coping for a start. It can just make you stay in a stressful situation. E.g., if you persist in being in a situation where your brain says "dude, you're not safe here!", just having that pretty lie won't make the signal go away. Doing something about it would. But the pretty lies get in the way of that, and keep you in the stressful situation longer.

Again: the pretty lie doesn't make the needs and fears go away. As a trivial example, see the statistic that the religious are actually _more_ affraid of death, and will insist to be kept alive until the bitter end, no matter how incurable. Now I'm not saying religion causes the anxiety, but merely that it doesn't make it go away.

Second, unresolved cognitive dissonance is a source of mental discomfort and stress by itself. And having a woowoo model is a recipe for continuously running into data that contradicts it. That's an endless stream unresolved dissonances, and of more discomfort and mental gymnastics to resolve them as, basically, the woowoo is right after all.

As I've said in other threads, when _some_ theists basically go all hostile at the mere idea of atheism... that's just because we actually make them that stressed and uncomfortable. We're forcing their cognitive dissonance back to unresolved status, and it's genuine stress and discomfort. And the more twisted and untenable that model got, the greater the pain we're causing there when they have to defend it.

So basically, yeah, someone traded a couple of days of grief for a lifetime of stress. Smart trade that ;)

Third, and probably most important: those pretty lies get in the way of doing something when it _mattered_, instead of coping afterwards when it doesn't matter any more.

Maybe realizing that grandma isn't going to heaven, hell or anywhere else, would help convince you to go do something to make her last years happier _before_ she dies. You know, instead of rationalizing later why it's OK that you didn't. And maybe it would also result in less remorse when you know that you did do whatever you could, too.

[marksman]

I would question the application of the word, "need", here. Having a particular trait doesn't necessarily mean one has a psychological need for that trait. We have lots of genetic traits we change or modify after we're born.

That is true. Not all genetic predispositions are needs. But some are. I'm using need in the sense that if the impulse is not satisfied, then it causes mental, emotional or physical stress on the body. That's why I used left-handedness as an analogy. Lefties compelled to use their right hands will suffer physical signs of stress. (I imagine righties forced to use their left hands would suffer the same ill effects.) There's no mechanical reason why someone prefers one hand over the other. It's all in our brains.

Could magical thinking be similar for some people? Could depriving some people of superstitious behavior cause stress-related symptoms akin to those suffered by lefties forced to act right-handed? I would hope not. But I'm not willing to assume not either.

The difference is between endeavoring to eliminate magical thinking in society to channeling magical thinking into ways where the person does not suffer stress from its denial but also doesn't make harmful personal choices because of its presence (like ignoring dying loved ones due to a belief in the afterlife or refusing to get medical treatment).

[Beth]

Hi - It's Hank Davis here. I wrote Caveman Logic, which seems to have triggered much of the discussion in this thread.
Welcome to the forum Hank. Glad to have you here to participate.

It's the underlying similarities between these religions that lead us to understand the human mind and how it misperforms. Whether it's Jesus or Sylvia Browne of Uri Geller. It's all the same nonsense.

You catagorize this as a 'misperformance'. I take you you don't see any benefits of such beliefs? Is this correct? If not, could you give some examples of what you perceive as the benefits?

[RandFan]

Could magical thinking be similar for some people? Could depriving some people of superstitious behavior cause stress-related symptoms akin to those suffered by lefties forced to act right-handed? I would hope not. But I'm not willing to assume not either.

Is someone advocating depriving anyone of free thought or conscious?

I'm a bit confused as to your thesis here? People should be free to believe what every they wan't. I don't much care for the idea of thought police. I guess you are suggesting that should rational humanism rise to significant levels then social stigma would kick in.

It's possible but I think that's quite a stretch.

[marksman]

Is someone advocating depriving anyone of free thought or conscious?
No. I'm discussing the implications of Professor Davis' suggestion: that we as a society discard magical thinking in all its forms. I am exploring the notion that accomplishing Professor Davis' goals may have negative unintended consequences. I don't know why you keep searching for some more sinister underlying motivation to my posts. Can you just accept what I'm saying at face value?

People should be free to believe what every they wan't. I don't much care for the idea of thought police.
I'm not discussing a social policy where we force people to stop praying. I'm discussing what might be a consequence of the very thing Professor Davis advocates: a universal voluntary cessation of magical thinking. Stop trying to read more into it.

[RandFan]

No. I'm discussing the implications of Professor Davis' suggestion: that we as a society discard magical thinking in all its forms. I am exploring the notion that accomplishing Professor Davis' goals may have negative unintended consequences. I apologize. I guess I'm having difficulty getting from "discard" to "deprived".

Society can discard something like magical thinking in one of two ways. Individuals can see the value of skepticism and critical thinking and voluntarily discard it or society can use social stigma to induce others to discard the thinking. Since you reject the later then can you explain how the former would lead to problems?

I confess that my best evidence is my own anecdotal self but increased skepticism and critical thinking has been a very good thing for me. I'm having trouble seeing how adopting rational humanistic ethics, skepticism and critical thinking could result in unintended consequences. You've not sold me on that yet.

[marksman]

I apologize. I guess I'm having difficulty getting from "discard" to "deprived".

Society can discard something like magical thinking in one of two ways. Individuals can see the value of skepticism and critical thinking and voluntarily discard it or society can use social stigma to induce others to discard the thinking.
If I were convinced to stop usign my left hand (let's say people convinced me that I was being irrational, that lefties live shorter lives, that I run the risk of a power tool mishap, etc.). I would be deprived (voluntarily) of using my left hand. This would have the unintended result of exposing me to higher incidence of stress-related conditions like ulcers and migraines.

If people were convinced to stop all magical thinking, could that also lead to the unintended consequence of an increased rate of stress-related conditions? It could if some people have an innate need to engage in some magical thinking, which is something Professor Davis' post indicates might be true. We simply don't know if humans (or some humans) have an innate need to engage in magical thinking.

Humans have the capacity to be rational. But we clearly have the capacity to be irrational. Moreover, humans are not as free-willed as we would sometimes like to believe. Many of our behaviors are inborn. Handedness and sexual preference are two examples. Gender identity may be another. There can be real physiological consequences when we ignore or suppress these behaviors. Could magical thinking be another behavior similarly inborn in people?

So, yes. I'm assuming that, somehow, Professor Davis' article is read and accepted universally. People are convinced that magical behavior is holding humanity back. People voluntarily make the effort to purge themselves of magical thinking. Isn't that what you're hoping for? A voluntary elimination of all magical thinking?

I am merely musing whether such an event would have negative unintended consequences. I'm not sure why you're having so much trouble wrapping your head around this. Lots of things really good things have unintended consequences. There's no harm in exploring whether the elimination fo magical thinking does as well.

[RandFan]

If I were convinced to stop usign my left hand (let's say people convinced me that I was being irrational, that lefties live shorter lives, that I run the risk of a power tool mishap, etc.). I would be deprived (voluntarily) of using my left hand. This would have the unintended result of exposing me to higher incidence of stress-related conditions like ulcers and migraines.

If people were convinced to stop all magical thinking, could that also lead to the unintended consequence of an increased rate of stress-related conditions? It could if some people have an innate need to engage in some magical thinking, which is something Professor Davis' post indicates might be true. We simply don't know if humans (or some humans) have an innate need to engage in magical thinking.

Humans have the capacity to be rational. But we clearly have the capacity to be irrational. Moreover, humans are not as free-willed as we would sometimes like to believe. Many of our behaviors are inborn. Handedness and sexual preference are two examples. Gender identity may be another. There can be real physiological consequences when we ignore or suppress these behaviors. Could magical thinking be another behavior similarly inborn in people?

So, yes. I'm assuming that, somehow, Professor Davis' article is read and accepted universally. People are convinced that magical behavior is holding humanity back. People voluntarily make the effort to purge themselves of magical thinking. Isn't that what you're hoping for? A voluntary elimination of all magical thinking?

I am merely musing whether such an event would have negative unintended consequences. I'm not sure why you're having so much trouble wrapping your head around this. Lots of things really good things have unintended consequences. There's no harm in exploring whether the elimination fo magical thinking does as well.Ok, well, to be fair to me I've tried to contribute and tell you why I don't think it is any cause for alarm. I've told you that socio-biologists and evolutionary psychologists, by and large, see it as byproduct of other adaptive behaviors.

But, let's assume that there are some negative consequences, is there any reason to believe they are greater than the benefits? Are there any reports of increased depression or suicide among atheists or skeptics?

It could be that the current crop of skeptics, critical thinkers and non-magical thinkers are more likely to be college educated and or have other skill sets and resources that would negate any negative consequences (should they exist) of giving up magical thinking.

Perhaps poor uneducated people won't do as well.

I'll grant you that I don't have the expertise to completely dismiss it. There might be something there. Then again skepticism and critical thinking might provide their own skill sets for coping in a complex and sometimes troubling world.

[marksman]

Ok, well, to be fair to me I've tried to contribute and tell you why I don't think it is any cause for alarm.
Except I've never indicated any "alarm". I'm only casually musing about unintended consequences.

I've told you that socio-biologists and evolutionary psychologists, by and large, see it as byproduct of other adaptive behaviors.
Sure. But Professor Davis' statement that magical thinking "transcends" cultural boundaries got me thinking that perhaps it's not a byproduct of adaptive behavior, but an biological behavior.

But, let's assume that there are some negative consequences, is there any reason to believe they are greater than the benefits?
No reason to believe or disbelieve. We have no data from which to formulate a model.

Are there any reports of increased depression or suicide among atheists or skeptics?
I don't know, but it would not necessarily matter if there were not. It might be a skewed self-selecting sample. If a predilection for magical thinking exists in a subset of individuals (just as only a subset of people are left-handed), then it stands to reason that skeptics and atheists might be part of a subset of people who lack the biological need for magical thinking. People without such a need would find it easier to be atheists and skeptics while someone with an inborn need for magical thinking might find it difficult to accept atheism and skepticism.

It could be that the current crop of skeptics, critical thinkers and non-magical thinkers are more likely to be college educated and or have other skill sets and resources that would negate any negative consequences (should they exist) of giving up magical thinking.

Perhaps poor uneducated people won't do as well.
Maybe. Also, maybe some atheists engage in other forms of magical thinking. I'm sure we've all met people who proclaim to be skeptics and yet have weird habits or quirks. I know a guy who is an absolute atheist but who also will only wear his "lucky jersey" to football games. He acknowledges his superstition has no rational basis, but he just can't go to the game without it -- even in a different jersey for the same team! That's a form of magical thinking too.

Maybe magical thinking is a manifestation of an inborn psychological compulsion. Who knows? I find it interesting to speculate.

Then again skepticism and critical thinking might provide their own skill sets for coping in a complex and sometimes troubling world.
Maybe it does. Maybe magical thinking isn't inborn and abandoning it will have no perceptible negative consequences for anybody.

[godless dave]

That's why I used left-handedness as an analogy. Lefties compelled to use their right hands will suffer physical signs of stress. (I imagine righties forced to use their left hands would suffer the same ill effects.) There's no mechanical reason why someone prefers one hand over the other. It's all in our brains.

Our brains our mechanical. Handedness isn't just about which hand someone uses, it also involves which areas of the brain handle certain functions.

[marksman]

Our brains our mechanical. Handedness isn't just about which hand someone uses, it also involves which areas of the brain handle certain functions.

Yes. So is sexual preference, which also involves our brains. Everything, at a basic level is mechanical. The question is whether a predilection for magical thinking could also be mechanical in the way handedness, sexual preference, and other inborn behaviors are.

[RandFan]

Yes. So is sexual preference, which also involves our brains. Everything, at a basic level is mechanical. The question is whether a predilection for magical thinking could also be mechanical in the way handedness, sexual preference, and other inborn behaviors are.I'm sure you are speaking of the group level but I can't help but ask, why do I perceive my life as being improved by skepticism and critical thinking? Am I in some way superior? I must admit, I find your "musing" somewhat patronizing. As if humans, in general, might be no better than children unable to give up their thumb to suck. That we are, for some unkown reason incapable of accepting reality over mere perception at the risk of harming ourselves. I guess I find your proposition rather cynical. That's not a rebuttal to any argument but then you aren't really advancing any but simply musing.

[RandFan]

I would also like to say that it seems that less superstition and magical thinking the greater the moral and social progress. I think there is hard data to suppose that our lives have become better and better the more and more secular and rational we become.

Society without God: What the Least Religious Nations Can Tell Us About Contentment (http://www.amazon.com/Society-without-God-Religious-Contentment/dp/0814797148)

"Most Americans are convinced that faith in God is the foundation of civil society. Society without God reveals this to be nothing more than a well-subscribed, and strangely American, delusion. Even atheists living in the United States will be astonished to discover how unencumbered by religion most Danes and Swedes currently are. This glimpse of an alternate, secular reality is at once humbling and profoundly inspiring - and it comes not a moment too soon." SAM HARRIS, founder of the Reason Project and author of the New York Times best sellers The End of Faith and Letter to a Christian Nation"
Of course this speaks specificaly to religion and not so much magical thinking. Perhaps the least religious nations have higher incidents of new age thinking or something. I don't know.

Still, if we compare societies with increased magical thinking with those with less it seems to me that there is a predictible and quantitative difference (for the better as societies become more secular and embrass less and less magical thinking).

[marksman]

I'm sure you are speaking of the group level but I can't help but ask, why do I perceive my life as being improved by skepticism and critical thinking?
Because it probably improved your life.

I find your "musing" somewhat patronizing. As if humans, in general, might be no better than children unable to give up their thumb to suck.[/quote]
In some ways, we might have certain behaviors that are biological in nature that it would be harmful for us to abandon. I'm not sure why observing that is patronizing. I don't think it would be helpful for me to stop using my left hand as dominant, even though it might mean I have a slightly higher than average chance to injure or kill myself in a power tool accident.

I guess I find your proposition rather cynical. That's not a rebuttal to any argument but then you aren't really advancing any but simply musing.
I wasn't trying to be cynical. All I'm observing is that some of our behaviors are inborn rather than learned, and that not it is not necessarily healthy to suppress some of those behaviors. I don't think that's a radical or cynical observation. Why does it become cynical if we apply that principle to the behavior known as magical thinking?

[HansMustermann]

If I were convinced to stop usign my left hand (let's say people convinced me that I was being irrational, that lefties live shorter lives, that I run the risk of a power tool mishap, etc.). I would be deprived (voluntarily) of using my left hand. This would have the unintended result of exposing me to higher incidence of stress-related conditions like ulcers and migraines.

Well, that's one possible analogy, but not the only one. The questions that remain are:

- is woowoo magical thinking as benign, and perfectly interchangeable with, and indeed producing the same results as, critical thinking as left-handedness is with right-handedness?

- is the stress long term?

- are there benefits to make up for it?

- is the woowoo magical thinking perhaps more of a source of stress than a relief in the long run?

And so on.

I can give you other perfectly good possible analogies, that don't trivialize it as much as just left-handed vs right-handed. E.g.,

1. Hunt-and-peck one-finger typing, vs 10 finger typing. Sure, it takes a bit of effort, time and perhaps even stress to move from the former to the latter, but there are good reason to do it anyway.

2. Smoking. What most smokers could tell you is how a cigarette temporarily improves their mood and reduces their stress. But actually that's only true for the first couple of cigarettes, then the brain chemistry moves the baseline. Soon it's not that a cigarette makes you happier than normal, it's that lack of nicotine makes you _less_ happy than would be your normal. The cigarette just brings you back to baseline again. So the nicotine only helps you cope with the stress of... lack of nicotine. Smoking only helps to cope with... the problem that smoking created in the first place.

Can it be that religion is the same? Can it be that the stress and uncertainty it helps you deal with is... just the stress and uncertainty resulting from trying too hard to stick to a fairy tale?

Now I'm not a priori saying either is a perfect analogy, but the possibility is there that it's nowhere as trivial as just left-vs-right handedness.

If people were convinced to stop all magical thinking, could that also lead to the unintended consequence of an increased rate of stress-related conditions? It could if some people have an innate need to engage in some magical thinking, which is something Professor Davis' post indicates might be true. We simply don't know if humans (or some humans) have an innate need to engage in magical thinking.

Well, you could ask the same about smoking, alcoholism, and really any other addiction. Is it worth giving up heavy drinking, when it _will_ make you more stressed and uncoordinated? Is it worth giving up smoking? Just a thought.

Unresolved cognitive dissonance is real stress by itself. And unresolved cognitive dissonances you _will_ get every time reality, or your own judgment, or your own uncertainty, conflict with your fairy tale. Sure, you can make yourself temporarily feel better by forcing it all back to "yes, I believe in the fairy tale" and twisting your mental model some more, i.e., resolving it back to broken again. But that's just the recipe for the next cognitive dissonance because your mental model is still broken.

But that's the smoker scenario under another name. Each cigarette gives you temporary relief from the stress of the withdrawal syndrome, but reinforces the setup that will get you the next withdrawal syndrome.

Is it really helping you deal with the stress in your life, or does it just solve the stress it created itself?

Humans have the capacity to be rational. But we clearly have the capacity to be irrational. Moreover, humans are not as free-willed as we would sometimes like to believe. Many of our behaviors are inborn. Handedness and sexual preference are two examples. Gender identity may be another. There can be real physiological consequences when we ignore or suppress these behaviors. Could magical thinking be another behavior similarly inborn in people?

Humans also have the capability of being non-smokers or getting addicted to nicotine. It doesn't make it an inborn thing like gender identity. Maybe it's just an addictive self-destructive behaviour.

The difference is between endeavoring to eliminate magical thinking in society to channeling magical thinking into ways where the person does not suffer stress from its denial but also doesn't make harmful personal choices because of its presence (like ignoring dying loved ones due to a belief in the afterlife or refusing to get medical treatment).

The better question is if such a chimaera can even exist. Or is it merely like asking "what if we found a way to get drunk all day long without ruining your liver?" Is it even _possible_?

The human brain just isn't made to work interchangeably with two conflicting models:

- one for when you need to take rational choices,

- one for when you need comforting woowoo.

Your brain works by having _one_ model, and trying to elliminate all internal conflicts and inconsistencies in it. You can't have, say, "all grass is red" _and_ "all grass is green" in it, other than temporarily.

When such a conflict happens, that's what cognitive dissonance _is_. A conflict within the model is an unresolved cognitive dissonance and is actual active stress until it's solved one way or another.

Anyway, briefly, you _can't_ have two models and switch back and forth between them. If your model has woowoo, it has woowoo full time. _Can_ you construct a kind of woowoo that absolutely never interferes with any decisions or behaviours? It seems to me like such woowoo couldn't possibly cover much or thus be much comfort. And conversely that actual woowoo that people believe in, invariably does touch domains that influence their actual behaviour.

So, sure, it would be nice if you had a belief where you still have all the comfort of a religion, but it doesn't alter your behaviour in any way. But is it possible?

[RandFan]

Why does it become cynical if we apply that principle to the behavior known as magical thinking?Because it infantilizes adults. It suggest that as a society we are too infantile to accept reality on its own terms and we need the equivalent of a thumb to suck or blanket to hold. I'm just not buying it.

[marksman]

Well, that's one possible analogy, but not the only one. The questions that remain are:
- is woowoo magical thinking as benign, and perfectly interchangeable with, and indeed producing the same results as, critical thinking as left-handedness is with right-handedness?
- is the stress long term?
- are there benefits to make up for it?
- is the woowoo magical thining perhaps more of a source of stress than a relief in the long run?
And so on.
I think that's a good summary of the questions involved.

Can it be that the stress and uncertainty it helps you deal with is... just the stress and uncertainty resulting from trying too hard to stick to a fairy tale?

Now I'm not a priori saying either is a perfect analogy, but the possibility is there that it's nowhere as trivial as just left-vs-right handedness.
It could be. It would be difficult to measure how difficult it might be for some people to abandon magical thinking, I imagine.

Is it worth giving up heavy drinking, when it _will_ make you more stressed and uncoordinated? Is it worth giving up smoking? Just a thought.
Fortunately, we have a lot more data about the costs and benefits of quitting alcohol and tobacco than we do about quitting magical thinking. So I think we're pretty much convinced that for almost anybody, quitting smoking and drinking is worth the stress. (Well, there are some otherwise healthy 90 year-olds who are habitual smokers who I'd probably say, they could continue to smoke, but that's a digression.)

The human brain just isn't made to work interchangeably with two conflicting models:

- one for when you need to take rational choices,

- one for when you need comforting woowoo.
I'm not so certain the brain can't hold all sorts of self-contradictory positions. The brain's a weird thing and doesn't always work in the most logical manner.

_Can_ you construct a kind of woowoo that absolutely never interferes with any decisions or behaviours?
My friend who has to wear his lucky jersey seems to be one such person. His need for that jersey doesn't interfere in his life at all, except to watch a football game, but even then I can't see how it is detrimental to him. Heck, it may be he gets more enjoyment from the game by wearing the jersey than he would without the belief in its luck. I don't know. But outside the football game, he doesn't have any other magical thinking of which I am aware and seems a perfectly well-adjusted fellow.

it would be nice if you had a belief where you still have all the comfort of a religion, but it doesn't alter your behaviour in any way. But is it possible?
I don't know. It's a good question. Of course, maybe a belief system that has some of the comfort of religion but doesn't alter your behavior in any detrimental way would be a more reasonable goal, if it turns out magical thinking is akin to some sort of biological compulsion in some people.

[HansMustermann]

My friend who has to wear his lucky jersey seems to be one such person. His need for that jersey doesn't interfere in his life at all, except to watch a football game, but even then I can't see how it is detrimental to him. Heck, it may be he gets more enjoyment from the game by wearing the jersey than he would without the belief in its luck. I don't know. But outside the football game, he doesn't have any other magical thinking of which I am aware and seems a perfectly well-adjusted fellow.

Then your friend is either an odd exception, or not really that much of a believer in the lucky jersey.

Because here's one way in which believing in some lucky item or personal luck can affect you: think of all the people who've gone and bet the house on some race or game, because they believed real hard in their luck.

Or, well, without transforming it into a personal whining session, let's just say that I actually have one family member who's ruined their health and done other dumb stuff, just out of believing in their incredible luck when it matters. You know, the kind of person where this or that couldn't possible happen to them, because they're too lucky for that. Then it turns out it can, after all.

Or thousands of people die in car accidents every year who've thought they're too lucky to put on the belt, or to obey the speed limit. Then one day they kinda get that disproven the nasty way.

So even the belief in the lucky jersey, I wouldn't really see it as the universal benign recipe for a religion substitute. It may work for your friend, and I'm glad for him, but in a lot of other people it would produce detrimental behaviours.

[Lithrael]

Also, maybe some atheists engage in other forms of magical thinking. I'm sure we've all met people who proclaim to be skeptics and yet have weird habits or quirks. I know a guy who is an absolute atheist but who also will only wear his "lucky jersey" to football games. He acknowledges his superstition has no rational basis, but he just can't go to the game without it -- even in a different jersey for the same team! That's a form of magical thinking too.

Then your friend is either an odd exception, or not really that much of a believer in the lucky jersey.

Because here's one way in which believing in some lucky item or personal luck can affect you: think of all the people who've gone and bet the house on some race or game, because they believed real hard in their luck.

I think there's a distinction that could be made between magical thinking with skepticism on top and just plain magical thinking. This 'friend', I'll bet you are right that he doesn't believe in his lucky jersey, rather he simply feels compelled to wear it by his superstitious feeling. If he went without it, he'd have to spend the whole game ignoring the niggling feeling that his lack of jersey was screwing up his team, even though he'd know full well it wasn't.

Here's my magical thinking: I'm scared of zombies sneaking up on me. Seriously, in my own apartment I can get a good cold splash of real adrenalin just going to the laundry closet on a dark night by myself. I don't think it's a misdirected fear of intruders cause I only developed it after becoming a fan of the zombie genre. And of course I know with TRUFAX certainty that no zombies are after me. But that frisson still grabs me and I have to ignore my fright responses, even while I'm rolling my eyes at myself.

This, I assume, is what people are talking about when they say that magical thinking is stuck way down in the function of the human mind. And if this is the case, I don't think we need to worry about 'taking it away' from anyone - how could it be? I mean - I welcome advice on getting rid of my fear of zombies!

I'm close to sure that it's the systems of reinforcement of magical thinking that many of us would like to see less of. No one's trying to remove the natural tendency for magical thinking from humanity's makeup. They're just wondering if we'd do better if we wouldn't tell people their magical thoughts are good, right and true and all that.

[marksman]

Then your friend is either an odd exception, or not really that much of a believer in the lucky jersey.
Well, he professes to be a believer in it. He also acknowledges that the belief is irrational (and he's a big proponent of rational thought). It's just an example of how our brains can actually hold two dissonant concepts without apparent ill effects of cognitive dissonance.

I wouldn't really see it as the universal benign recipe for a religion substitute. It may work for your friend, and I'm glad for him, but in a lot of other people it would produce detrimental behaviours.
Well, I wasn't proposing it as a panacea or even as something to be emulated. Only as an anecdote of someone who is apparently able to engage in some magical thinking without having it adversely affect his life.

[Skeptic Ginger]

In a society which routinely suffered from chronic shortages and hunger (according to tooth enamel analysis in neanderthal skeleton), and which seemed to eat only meat, hence needed those weapons to hunt and survive themselves... burying someone with perfectly good weapons just out of a sense of ownership, while being aware that they're not going to use them any more anyway... I dunno, seems a bit dumb to me, doesn't it?

Arguably we have the most evolved framework of ownership concepts ever, but we don't bury grandpa with his WW2 pistol, and with his collection of rare stamps, and why not his car too while we're at it, just because he used to own them :p

I'm pretty sure that even the most primitive tribes understand that ownership is not something that inanimate things can do. Nobody assumes that a tree owns its apples or that a mountain owns its rocks. Where that extension was sorta made, it was via ascribing a soul to that inanimate item, but that already requires the concept of a soul, i.e., you're already at religious life after death as concepts go.

The only reasonable assumption about ownership continuing is if you still think of that guy somehow as a still living entity capable of ownership.A shortage of game can occur with an abundance of weapons so your assumption "they needed those weapons" to survive doesn't fly. And look at how much gold was buried by people in the presence of tremendous poverty. Sometimes power influences what gets buried, not just need, even in a small tribe.

I don't find all your assumptions here to be well founded.

[HansMustermann]

A shortage of game can occur with an abundance of weapons so your assumption "they needed those weapons" to survive doesn't fly.

Well, if nothing else, less weapons being buried means less people making new ones, hence more people who could be out hunting instead. Now it probably wasn't a major factor, but, still, if I or my family were hungry I'd rather go at least try to hunt something than make a spear to replace the one I buried with grandpa.

That is, again, unless I actually think that grandpa is going to use that spear.

And look at how much gold was buried by people in the presence of tremendous poverty. Sometimes power influences what gets buried, not just need, even in a small tribe.

I don't find all your assumptions here to be well founded.

Gold and other grave goods got buried pretty much out of two reasons, in every civilization I know of:

1. As some offering to the dead or to the spirits. This covers probably 99% of everything that ever got buried.

When Egyptians buried their Pharaoh with jewellery and furniture and expensive engraved weapons and statuettes of his soldiers and servants, it was literally because they thought he _will_ use them. Their main afterlife concept (until Romans made that idea undesirable) was that, literally, you'll wake up in a shadow world that's like this one, and will still need furniture, food, weapons against the various monsters of the afterlife, etc. Their gods wouldn't provide any of that. (Cheap barstards;)) You'd go sow and reap the fields, or if you were a pharaoh or noble you'd tax the guys working the fields of the afterlife. They buried their pharaohs with, say, boats, because they thought they'll still need to do some sailing in the afterlife and they'll need a boat for that.

Heck, even in Christianity, there are plenty of people who _still_ think that giving away some food or wine results in it being received by the deceased in the afterlife.

It seems to be the kind of thinking that's popped up everywhere with humans, and it doesn't quite go away. I'd be somewhat suprised if Neanderthals, who were uncanny-valley kind of close in most aspects to the contemporary Cromagnons didn't at least borrow that idea from them.

2. Pretty much just as conspicuous consumption. In more modern times (but the emphasis is on relatively modern) we bury grandma with some nice looking clothes and in some cases with jewellery, just to show that we can and make a show of how much we care.

But the thing is: it's kinda the domain of the rich. You don't see the people working at the gas station burying their dead with jewellery.

I'm not sure a society suffering from chronic shortages is in a position to make that a standard.

[Hank Davis]

I've been away for a few days and I'm just catching up with the discussion. I'd like to respond to several of the points some of you have raised. One of you questioned the idea that religions with common elements could have developed independently. That seemed like quite a coincidence, according to the poster.
I don't think so at all. I believe this is exactly what it means for humans to share cognitive architecture. Sure, the gods may have light skin over here, and curly hair over here, but ultimately they share the same magical properties that make them "sale-able" to our minds. This is no more surprising than saying humans seem to walk upright on two legs wherever they are found. Hell of a coincidence, that! Hardly, given that all those humans living in all those places share anatomy. That (and not culture) will get you walking upright every time. Want another example? Given the nature of human males, it is just about inevitable that porn will exist. Technology will affect its format and culture will tweak its content, but the bottom line is: There will be porn. (That almost sounds biblical!)
Religion piggybacks on Caveman Logic. That is one of the main points of my book. If you could remove Caveman Logic with the wave of a wand, religion would vanish almost immediately. But you can't You can hope to immunize against Caveman Logic, and develop social support AGAINST it. But that's going to take sustained effort on the part of people just like you. If you are reading this message, if you log onto to this site, you are a special person and more likely than most to fight in the battle against those who tolerate, even nurture Caveman Logic.
Finally - sorry for the length - it's a mistake to argue that religion is here because it provides comfort. At the very least, let me repeat an argument that many before me have made. Religions the world over cause more stress and anxiety than they could ever relieve. Think about the edicts of the religions you know best. Eternal damnation, the flames of hell. Do they sound like joyous consequences for giving vent to acts and thoughts that are natural parts of human nature?
Anyway, please visit the cavemanlogic.com website when you have a moment and keep contributing to this thread. It is healthy and stimulating for all of us.
Hank