The Boulder Church

Primates and morality as a social phenomenon - notes

Timsy — Mon Jul 30, 2012 1:48 pm

Author: Timsy

Posted: Mon Jul 30, 2012 1:48 pm

"Morality [is] a suite of interrelated other-regarding behaviors that cultivate and regulate complex interactions within social groups. These behaviors relate to well-being and harm, and norms of right and wrong attach to many of them. Morality is an essentially social phenomenon [and] acts as a social glue."
-- Marc Bekoff, Wild Justice

Categories of morality, per Bekoff: cooperation, empathy, justice

Frans De Waal TED talk: http://www.ted.com/talks/frans_de_waal_do_animals_have_morals.html

Paper on Capuchin and cucumbers/grapes experiment: http://www.emory.edu/LIVING_LINKS/pdf_attachments/BrosnanUnequalPay.pdf

General information about primate behavior: http://www-personal.umich.edu/~phyl/anthro/

Paper - The Evolution of Reciprocal Altruism: http://www.cdnresearch.net/pubs/others/trivers_1971_recip.pdf

Peter Singer on why evolution of altruism doesn't mean that altruistic behavior is necessarily selfish: http://newsstore.theage.com.au/apps/viewDocument.ac?page=1&sy=age&kw=Peter+Singer&pb=all_ffx&dt=selectRange&dr=entire&so=relevance&sf=author&rc=10&rm=200&sp=nrm&clsPage=1&docID=SMH0203021AUH85BVALE

Book on chaos

Timsy — Fri Jun 15, 2012 7:17 am

Author: Timsy

Posted: Fri Jun 15, 2012 7:17 am

Thanks, Chris! I hope to read Ch. 7, but so far I just read 2 and the beginning of 3. The author seems really good.

I like his explanation of chaos: local instability and global mixing of trajectories.

As for being semi-literate in math, I think everyone is in that state. Math and logic seem to have infinite supplies of fancy-looking symbols and terms.

Events precipitating African civil unrest

Chris Burkhardt — Thu Jun 14, 2012 9:50 pm

Author: Chris Burkhardt

Posted: Thu Jun 14, 2012 9:50 pm

And I wrote a short post about the North American unrest which these events helped to inspire: North America is Stirring.

Discussing Psychology of Religion, and Animals and Religion?

Chris Burkhardt — Thu Jun 14, 2012 9:46 pm

Author: Chris Burkhardt

Posted: Thu Jun 14, 2012 9:46 pm

Here's a link to the dog podcast Laura mentioned (posting as a reminder to myself to listen to it sometime!):

http://www.cbc.ca/ideas/episodes/2010/12/13/dogs-themselves-part-1---3/

Jesus and Divinity

EvanA — Sat Oct 08, 2011 8:31 pm

Author: EvanA

Posted: Sat Oct 08, 2011 8:31 pm

From http://www.debunkingskeptics.com/Debunking_Christians/Page12.htm:

�What [the advocates of the Trilemma] are trying to prove, is this:
1. Jesus was either a liar, a lunatic, or Lord.
2. Jesus was neither a liar nor a lunatic.
3. Therefore, Jesus is Lord.

However, there are some HUGE problems with this.

1) First of all, these apologists do not successfully rule out the Liar or Lunatic choices. Their attempts to do so are based on shabby conjecture. One can say wise things and be honest, yet still be insane in some of their beliefs, for example. Also, just because someone is generally honest doesn�t mean that 100 percent of everything he said must be honest as well. It can even be argued that not everything Jesus said came to pass, since as mentioned in Argument # 3 he stated many times that he would return in the lifetimes of the First Century Christians, to rapture the end of the world, and he didn�t. Furthermore, the apologists do not rule out the possibility of Jesus being a great moral teacher either, since a) being crazy does not make one immoral, and b) you can lie and still preach great morals in principle (US Presidents and politicians have done that throughout history in fact).

2) Second, again there is no evidence or reason to believe that the Gospel accounts are historical facts. The term �Gospel� means �good news� and were written for an agenda. Therefore, we have no basis for assuming that what the New Testament claimed about Jesus� life and ministry ever even happened.

3) Third and most importantly, the Trilemma argument TOTALLY IGNORES a fourth and more likely explanation than the other three, which is that the Jesus of the Gospels is a legend. In fact, as mentioned earlier (in the Argument # 6 section), that fourth explanation is the official position of most secular unbiased historians and of the Jesus Seminar. But the Trilemma argument completely ignores it altogether! How convenient.�

On the Resurrection: http://www.debunkingskeptics.com/Debunking_Christians/Page11.htm

union of theology and science?

Tim — Sat Jan 08, 2011 8:47 am

Author: Tim

Posted: Sat Jan 08, 2011 8:47 am

"I accept Reality and dare not question it,
Materialism first and last imbuing.
Hurrah for positive science! long live exact demonstration!
Fetch stonecrop mixt with cedar and branches of lilac,
This is the lexicographer, this the chemist, this made a grammer of the old cartouches,
These mariners put the ship through dangerous unknown seas,
This is the geologist, this works with the scalpel, and this is a mathematician.

Gentlemen, to you the first honors always!
Your facts are useful, and yet they are not my dwelling, I but enter by them to an area of my dwelling."

- Song of Myself, Leaves of Grass by Walt Whitman, 1855

How are we to love? What does that look like?

Tim — Sun Nov 28, 2010 7:35 pm

Author: Tim

Posted: Sun Nov 28, 2010 7:35 pm

In the last few weeks, we have had some important questions come up in our discussions from the book of 1 John. One was from Dennis, at our house in Lafayette. He asked, "What does John mean, that our commandment is to love one another? How does this apply in our lives today?" This is a question we've been discussing for years now on Sat nights, and I believe it is an important one for us. Perhaps more important than we could even imagine.

What came to mind recently, is a sentence Paul writes in 1 Timothy 1:5, where he says "...the goal of our instruction is love from a pure heart and a good conscience and a sincere faith." Good, clean motives. A simple, honest, and genuine love flowing from ourselves to others. This is critical. For John, this was absolutely necessary for anyone to connect with the Creator.

Amazing.

John even asked follow up self-tests you could do, to see if you were loving correctly: do you hate your brother? (emphasis on actions rather than emotions); do you love the world (that which is passing away) more than God and his children?; do you practice sin? (as in, is your life characterized by sin); etc. He says, �...whoever has the world's good and sees his brother in need and closes his heart against him, how does the love of God abide in him? Little children, let us not love with word or with tongue, but in deed and truth.�

A simple, honest, and genuine love flowing from ourselves to others.

In our discussions we have explored such questions as �How can anyone really know God?� Perhaps this is a key.

Being able to embrace God's love for us, as in, completely surrender to that idea...can be terribly difficult for us. But, it may just allows us to see reality more accurately.

I think we need to come to face to face with the idea of God's love for us. How we respond to this idea...is important. And this response from each of us, is probably unique. And a Creator who created us unique, I believe would be anticipating...perhaps waiting...for our own unique responses.

Much of our life experience has to do with our perspective and attitude. Most great stories have to do with a transformation of viewpoint in a main character's life. Perhaps we need a good transformation of viewpoint concerning God's love for us.

I love you guys a ton. I pray and yes, at times, shed tears for all of you. And even if we don't agree about everything, I am always going to be on your side.

"Be kind, for everyone you meet is in a great battle."

Love,
Tim

I John

Louis.com — Wed Nov 10, 2010 8:48 am

Author: Louis.com

Posted: Wed Nov 10, 2010 8:48 am

This quote introduces the short Wikipedia article on the letter from John--the article offers a quick introduction that you might enjoy:

The First Epistle of John, usually referred to simply as First John and often written 1 John, is a book of the New Testament. This fourth catholic or "general" epistle is attributed to John the Evangelist, traditionally thought to be the author of the Gospel of John and the other two Epistles of John. This Epistle was written in Ephesus between the years 100-110. The work was written to counter the heresies that Jesus did not come "in the flesh," but only as a spirit. It also defined how Christians are to discern true teachers: by their ethics, their proclamation of Jesus in the flesh, and by their love.

Notes from discussion on Christian Mysticism

Tim — Sat Oct 23, 2010 1:20 pm

Author: Tim

Posted: Sat Oct 23, 2010 1:20 pm

What a great discussion Evan! I'm sorry to have missed it.

Religion, Philosophy, and the Breakdown of Categorization

Timsy — Tue Aug 24, 2010 9:59 pm

Author: Timsy

Posted: Tue Aug 24, 2010 9:59 pm

Nice posts, Evan!

Science also depends on premises and assumptions about the accuracy of measurements and observations, right?

Quote:

When religion and science are brought together, some absurd pseudo-scientific theory usually emerges. This happens when people try to gain spiritual insights from quantum mechanics

Heheh - you mean like this? http://www.npr.org/blogs/13.7/2010/08/23/129375622/free-will

Article on measuring poverty

EvanA — Sun Aug 08, 2010 11:24 pm

Author: EvanA

Posted: Sun Aug 08, 2010 11:24 pm

I agree, Timsy. I like the Multidimensional Poverty Index, or at least the approach behind it, better. Health and standard of living are particularly useful indicators, in my opinion.

I would also include life expectancy. For example, some of the most prosperous African countries, like Botswana, have very low life expectancies nonetheless, largely due to AIDS in most cases.

I didn't like all of the indicators listed in the report linked to that article (http://www.ophi.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/OPHI-MPI-Brief.pdf), such as assets (including radio, TV, etc. - though cars and bicycles may be a little bit more useful indicators), like you, but I did like the more detailed analysis it presents.

I liked the map of India, the pie chart, and the comparison of the Kikuyu and Embu in Kenya a lot, too.

And it is true that African countries are by far the most impoverished, but it is equally true that the seven nations of South Asia (three in particular: India, Pakistan, and Bangladesh) have the majority of the world's impoverished people, at least by the MPI standard, and I am guessing by the daily income standard as well. This is certainly due to the fact that India alone has more people than all of Sub-Saharan Africa, and all of Africa for that matter, but it is worth noting.

Definitions of Eternity, following an e.e. cummings poem

Louis.com — Tue Jul 06, 2010 7:45 pm

Author: Louis.com

Posted: Tue Jul 06, 2010 7:45 pm

Sat. July 3, we read this poem from e.e. cummings:

i thank You God for most this amazing
day:for the leaping greenly spirits of trees
and a blue true dream of sky;and for everything
wich is natural which is infinite which is yes

(i who have died am alive again today,
and this is the sun's birthday;this is the birth
day of life and love and wings:and of the gay
great happening illimitably earth)

how should tasting touching hearing seeing
breathing any-lifted from the no
of all nothing-human merely being
doubt unimaginable You?

(now the ears of my ears awake and
now the eyes of my eyes are opened)

Then the group came up with definitions of "eternity" which I volunteered to consolidate (but am not being too thorough, meaning I'm leaving out some of the better parts):

-- a forever after that I cannot totally comprehend, Bliss
-- humanism, love
-- that which is not subject to the constraints of time (whatever that means)
-- the Next, the New, the Beyond
-- knowing God; eternal contentment
-- forever backwards and forwards...like the stuff beyond the stars
-- all that is not changeable (superimposed over a pencil drawing)
-- and then instead of using a borrowed book as a surface for her paper, Mindy opened the book and borrowed Gerard Manley Hopkins' lines from "Spelt from Sibyl's Leaves" (EARNEST, earthless, equal, attuneable, ' vaulty, voluminous, � stupendous / Evening strains to be t�me�s v�st, ' womb-of-all, home-of-all, hearse-of-all night.). . . "that's long-hand for 'don't know'"

Original Sin, one more question.

EvanA — Tue May 18, 2010 11:43 am

Author: EvanA

Posted: Tue May 18, 2010 11:43 am

I guess it is difficult to argue that each organism with neurons has a subjective set of values. I was refuting Chesterton's claim about sin being a fact as plain as potatoes, etc., in my original response to his quotation. He also seems to think that because his favorite philosophers and theologians all believed in positive evil, that proves that positive evil exists. In truth, it is not relevant whether Aristotle, Plato, Augustine, Thomas Aquinas, Kant, and Paul all believed in absolute standards of morality. All that matters is whether their arguments are strong or weak. They are quite weak, yet all of them, and many others, have maintained quite adamantly that absolute moral standards do exist.

The greatest skeptics are those who see through these specious arguments, as Hume, Pyrrho, and Nietzsche all did in the West, the Daoist philosophers Chuang Tzu and Lieh Tzu did in East Asia (as did many Zen Buddhists later on), and some heterodox philosophers did in India. Hume: he believed, as far as I understand him, that moral beliefs are rooted in subjective emotional reactions that vary from person to person. I think he has a strong argument.

Pyrrho, Chuang Tzu, and Lieh Tzu seem to emphasize transcending all dualistic beliefs, including those based on conventional notions of right and wrong, benefit and harm, pleasure and pain, etc. Then again, they make non-dualistic thinking the standard of morality, though they would almost certainly agree that thinking of non-duality in ethical terms prevents its realization.

Nietzsche generally argued that subtle psychological proclivities based on one's position in society, one's cultural background, and one's level of confidence, among other factors, influence (perhaps even determine) the creation of all ethical and metaphysical systems. His argument for the will to power starts with the belief that there are no absolute standards of morality, but that moralities that glorify strength rather than weakness are more life-affirming, and so better in his subjective estimation.

All of these guys had good arguments against absolute standards of morality, yet all realized the inevitability of having some sort of moral standard based on subjective factors. I cannot argue with you there.

However, I do think that the belief that there are not absolute moral standards goes against the Platonist and Aristotlean strains of Western Philosophy, Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Zoroastrianism, Hinduism, Buddhism, Jainism, Sikhism, Baha'i, Confucianism, all traditional African religions, all traditional religions of Oceania, and all traditional Native American religions. However, these traditions all have what their adherents believe are absolute standards because of the adherents' emotional attachment to certain views, based on subjective factors, not to mention a very ethnocentric worldview.

The "problem" of living once's life in conformity with natural law (which I would say is probably the most common philosophical or ideological dilemma in human history) no longer exists once people admit that any belief in absolute standards of morality is empirically baseless.

(This is an addition to my last posts.) Even life and death and pleasure and pain are not necessary standards, as I discussed previously, and they tell us very little in the way of practical information even if people choose to make them the standard: many value systems are compatible with life, unless people try to define organisms' purposes or natures, of course, but no organism, particularly not the human being, has a particular/unique purpose, function, or nature that can be pinned down with precision. People can survive in many different ways, and people disagree sharply about what truly constitutes pleasure and pain. The Theravada Buddhists think that attachment to people, ideas, and specific courses of action ultimately leads to suffering because none of those things last, and so advocate calming the mind and seeing that things are impermanent, that the human "self" is in a constant state of flux and so lacks any substantial or permanent existence, and that suffering results from clinging to impermanent things (and either preferring to have or avoid those things). In practice, this is, in my opinion, a form of hedonism (making suffering the standard of good and evil cannot be called anything else), yet is a very far cry from all forms of prosperity-based hedonism. (So is Epicureanism, for that matter.)

I guess I'm rambling. Oh well. Chris, I think you probably agree with most of what I have written so far. My point is that if you are right, which I think you are, that subjective moral standards are inevitable, and all we have to go by, that goes against the dominant Western philosophical traditions and the whole Christian religion, not just as traditionally practiced, but as it undeniably exists in the language of the Bible as well. It means people can choose whatever moral standards they want, inasmuch as they have free will. And we all have apparent free will. So we can all appear to change our views by free choice. In practice, this means people can truly have whatever moral beliefs they want. That goes against Chesterton and most philosophies and religions in human history.

Hafiz poem mentioned tonight

Tim — Sat Apr 03, 2010 8:39 pm

Author: Tim

Posted: Sat Apr 03, 2010 8:39 pm

TRIPPING OVER JOY

What is the difference
Between your experience of Existence
And that of a saint?

The saint knows
That the spiritual path
Is a sublime chess game with God

And that the Beloved
Has just made such a Fantastic Move

That the saint is now continually
Tripping over Joy
And bursting out in Laughter
And saying, �I Surrender!�

Whereas, my dear,
I am afraid you still think
You have a thousand serious moves.

Anne Frank Quote

Tim — Sat Dec 26, 2009 7:27 am

Author: Tim

Posted: Sat Dec 26, 2009 7:27 am

"People who have a religion should be glad, for not everyone has the gift of believing in heavenly things. You don't necessarily even have to be afraid of punishment after death, purgatory, hell and heaven are things that a lot of people can't accept, but still a religion, it doesn't matter which, keeps a person on the right path. It isn't the fear of God but the upholding of one's own honor and conscience. How noble and good everyone could be if, every evening before falling alseep, they were to recall to their minds the events of the whole day and consider exactly what has been good and bad. Then, without realizing it, you try to imporve yourself at the start of each new day; of course, you achieve quite a lot in the course of time. Anyone can do this, it costs nothing and is certainly very helpful. Whoever doesn't know it must learn and find by experience that: 'A quiet conscience makes one strong.'"