Subscribe to End Hereditary ReligionNews FeedSubscribe to End Hereditary ReligionComments

Home > Blog > Archive by category 'Philosophy'

Bridging the science-religion gap is possible — some stunning new insights
October 16th, 2011 by Richard Collins

Robert A. Burton, M. D. has advanced compelling arguments for radically rethinking the age old science versus religion fight. Burton in the closing chapter of his book, On Being Certain Believing you Are Right Even When You Are Not fingers the glaring error both sides make. Recently gained scientific knowledge shows how humans are biologically constrained to ever know certainty, yet our evolution sets us up to want, nay crave, certainty.
On the science side, Burton argues that evolution must only be granted provisional assent to certainty. Perhaps one day new facts will radically revise what we now think is certain. On the other side, the visceral feelings of the religious that gives them a sense of purpose and meaning must not be lightly negated. Burton says the visceral sensation, often noted by mystics, has real adaptive benefits and equals the power of rationality with respect to benefiting humans. Placebos have power.
Burton writes, “Objectivity and reason must be seen within a larger picture of our biological needs and constraints.”
“The goal of this dialogue should be to maximize personal hope and a sense of meaning while minimizing the untoward effects of unjustifiable personal attitudes and social policies. We should force ourselves to distinguish between separate physiological categories of faith — the basic visceral drive for meaning that has real purpose versus the unsubstantiated cognitive acceptance of an idea. Compassion, empathy and humility can only arise out of recognizing that out common desires are differently expressed.”
“If possible, both science and religion should try to adopt and stick with the idea of provisional facts. Once all facts become works-in-progress, absolutism would be dethroned. No matter how great the “evidence” the literal interpretation of the Bible or Koran would no longer be the only possibility. By exploring and making common knowledge of how the brain balances off contradictory aspects of its biology we might gradually turn absolutism into an untenable stance of ignorance.”
“Imagine how different dialogue might be with future generations raised on the idea that there are biological constraints on our ability to know what we know. To me, that is our only hope.”
Science has a leg up in this respect because scientists and rationalists fundamentally accept that all knowledge is susceptible to change and all knowledge must be rigorously challenged. Religion is just the opposite, because their foundational beliefs are asserted to come directly from a supreme being who is all powerful and created the universe and everything in the entire universe. Yet, clear headed humans not swayed by indoctrination can easily spot the giant cracks in this belief. Burton says in as much as belief in god is a placebo for billions of people, we need to recognize that it has power. He does not defend all the ramifications that flow from belief in the supernatural.
Open mindedness is a key component of critical thinking, which is something freethinkers have accepted for centuries. The trick is getting our social systems firmly behind this concept so that our schools, homes, and institutions start turning out people that can think independently and live their lives autonomously  as they personally choose to live them and not the way others demand they live.
Related articles

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MuyUz2XLp1E The four horseman have a discussion.

Enhanced by Zemanta


To All Religious Teenagers
July 10th, 2011 by Richard Collins

Reblog from YouTube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8RkbDUc9HBA&NR=1

Hit REPLAY to watch To All Religious Teenagers

Would you believe in Giraffism if only one person believed in it? Of course not!


Imagine a new idea as vital as democracy.
July 9th, 2011 by Richard Collins

Imagine a new idea as vital as democracy. Now imagine helping it spread quickly throughout the world! Child Honouring is one such idea, an idea whose time has come.

We invite you to be a part of the global movement that views honouring children as the best way to create sustainable, peacemaking societies.

Nelson Mandela, The Dalai Lama, Graca Machel are among the growing chorus of luminaries calling for a world fit for children.

The Centre for Child Honouring – on Salt Spring Island, BC, Canada – is a non-profit organization dedicated to advancing Child Honouring as a universal ethic, an organizing principle for societal transformation.

Child Honouring is a unique social change revolution, one with the child at its heart. It is a positive vision that stresses “the primacy of early years” as key to activating the powerful potential of our species.

Supporting the Earth Charter and the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, A Covenant for Honouring Children is a poetic declaration of our duty to respect children, “to honour their caring ideals as the heart of being human”.

The Child Honouring principles offer a guide for living as conscious beings. They constitute the basis for a multi-faith consensus on societal renewal.

At this critical point in human history, we invite you to join the Centre’s work to co-create a vast change in the human paradigm.

http://twitwall.com/view/?who=Librehombre

Enhanced by Zemanta


Parents are at a loss to justify forcing their faith on their children
April 21st, 2011 by Richard Collins

 

A forum participant writes:
Richard’s original proposition that children are being “forced” by their parents to blindly accept religion has been discounted by multiple participants. If all of those replies don’t at least partially satisfy the question, then the question isn’t legitimately looking for an answer. Or it’s trying to force a particular answer, which makes it something other than a question.
+++++++++++++
I agree that many of the faithful have offered justifications. I assure you I am looking for answers that are more satisfying than the ones offered. We have explained why we say parents are forcing their children to adopt a chosen religion and the mechanisms they use. The temporal justifications really seem to come down to: tradition, the considered legal approval of the state (at least here in the USA), a desire to raise law abiding and respectful children, and the mundane problem of what to do with children while parents participate in their chosen rituals. The mystical dogmatic reasons have absolutely no consequence in a secular society, and like it or not the United States is founded on secular principles. To say one has a strong regard for their religion and that they find it meets all their needs and therefore it is what is right for their children does not satisfy at all. We have elaborated the reasons why children deserve a shot at choosing for themselves. Principally because our laws and doctrines say that important life decisions belong to the person who must live with the consequences. Forcing faith on your children is an anomaly.
I’ll grant you where to park the kids on the day you worship presents problems, but they are maybe not all that insurmountable. Leaving them in the SUV with the windows rolled up would seem unwise, that is for sure. But why not make a reciprocal agreement with another family that has a different day to worship? Just a suggestion. You babysit their kids for them and they do likewise for you. Problem solved! Or, why don’t the institutions provide “religion-free childcare zones” where children can stay for a few hours on-site.
What to tell the children? How about: mommy and daddy are doing adult things right now, you’ll understand when you get older. Same answer you use when you go in the bedroom and lock the door, or refuse to serve them beer. Religion really is an adult pursuit, don’t you think?
If nothing else, I would say this discussion is raising issues and asking people to challenge their assumptions that they may not have done otherwise. If we accomplish just that much, is the conversation not worthwhile? There is always the possibility that a differently configured Supreme Court might reverse some of the decisions that have tilted the balance too far towards the alleged rights of parents. Indeed in the strict language of the law, the very doctrine that parents have parental rights is open to challenge. I have stated why childhood indoctrination is morally abominable if the reason is to insure the continuance of a religious sect.
Instead of the present emphasis on parent’s rights, a new doctrine stressing children’s rights would assign to parents the privilege of making decisions in the interests of their children. Parents would not have an absolute right and the privilege could be revoked when parents abused their position. Same as with a driver’s license. Privilege implies a conditional situation. Note: the words “rights” and “priviledge” have very closely defined meanings in the law.
Demagogues on the right and their radio-mouth echo chambers have lately started blatantly and defiantly proclaiming that children are the property of their parents to do with as they please. Well, no they are not chattel. We managed to free women from the status of chattel, and human rights workers are keen to free children next. For this reason, parents may favorably regard this discussion as a way to understand what may be coming in the future. They may also start looking at the secular countries of Europe, Canada, Japan, Australia, and New Zealand for a glimpse of this future. Children should be able to file divorce proceedings against their parents. That is one option for battered wives. Why not for battered brow beaten children?
Related articles
Enhanced by Zemanta


The value of believing in free will
April 18th, 2011 by Richard Collins

Research Article
Encouraging a Belief in Determinism Increases Cheating

Kathleen D. Vohs
Department of Marketing, Carlson School of Management, University of Minnesota,

Jonathan W. Schooler
Department of Psychology,

University of British Columbia

ABSTRACT—Does moral behavior draw on a belief in free will? Two experiments examined whether inducing participants to believe that human behavior is predetermined would encourage cheating. In Experiment 1, participants read either text that encouraged a belief in determinism (i.e., that portrayed behavior as the consequence of environmental and genetic factors) or neutral text. Exposure to the deterministic message increased cheating on a task  in which participants could passively allow a flawed computer program to reveal answers to mathematical problems that they had been instructed to solve themselves. Moreover, increased cheating behavior was mediated by decreased belief in free will. In Experiment 2, participants who read deterministic statements cheated by overpaying themselves for performance on a cognitive task; participants who read statements endorsing free will did not. These findings suggest that the debate over free will has societal, as well as scientific and theoretical, implications.

We are always ready to take refuge in a belief in determinism if this freedom weighs upon us or if we need an excuse. (Sartre, 1943/1956, pp. 78–79)

The belief that one determines one’s own outcomes is strong  and pervasive. In a massive survey of people in 36 countries, more than 70% agreed with the statement that their fate is in their own hands (International Social Survey Programme, 1998). Yet the view from the scientific community is that behavior is caused by genes underlying personality dispositions, brain mechanisms, or features of the environment (e.g., Bargh, in press; Crick, 1994; Pinker, 2002). There is reason to think that  scientists’ sentiment is spreading to nonscientists. For example, the news magazine The Economist recently ran the headline, ‘‘Free to Choose? Modern Neuroscience Is Eroding the Idea of Free Will’’ (‘‘Free to Choose?’’ 2006). What would happen if people came to believe that their behavior is the inexorable product of a causal chain set into motion without their own volition? Would people carry on, selves and behavior unperturbed, or, as Sartre suggested, might the adoption of a deterministic worldview serve as an excuse for untoward behaviors?

Full article is here:

Source: “The Value of Believing in
Free Will: Encouraging a Belief in Determinism Increases Cheating,”
by Kathleen Vohs and JonathanSchooler,
Psychological Science(January 2008).
Association for Psychological Science,
1010 VermontAvenue, N.W., 11th Floor,
Washington, D.C. 20005.
Web site
Related articles
Enhanced by Zemanta