Thoughts on religion

[Steve81]

This is a carryover of thoughts from another thread regarding human development, the integral part shame plays in it, combined with the evolution of enlightened philosophies. Relevant quotes about how shame is related to our development are from Building Self Esteem by Joseph Burgo, Ph.D. Since I've been accused of spamming the book, I'll refrain from posting a cover shot. I will include the relevant page at the end.

Inferring from the book a bit, human development has relied upon shame-driven human behavioral modification, combined with societal advancements with respect to enlightened philosophies. This presents a problem as it relates to religion.

As you all are surely aware, religions tend to be slow to change (if they change at all) their guiding philosophies. The world's major religions are over a thousand years old, and while the Catholic Church as an example has evolved from the bad old days of the Spanish Inquisition, it remains well behind the times on a variety of topics (gay marriage and abortion to name a couple big-ticket items). Fundamentalist Islamic societies are even worse, the Taliban as an example (women's rights anyone?).

The implication here is that devout followers of these religions will follow that outdated moral code, and that will be their basis for feeling shame. While something may be deemed a gross violation of human rights by our standards, by theirs, it's just the way things are supposed to be. They may literally feel NO shame when engaging in bigotry, because they aren't programmed to do so. Moreover, given the fanatical adherence to dogma that some of these individuals exhibit, there may be no feasible way to change their minds.

 

 

 

Edited August 13, 2023 by Steve81

[exchemist]

3 hours ago, Steve81 said:

This is a carryover of thoughts from another thread regarding human development, the integral part shame plays in it, combined with the evolution of enlightened philosophies. Relevant quotes about how shame is related to our development are from Building Self Esteem by Joseph Burgo, Ph.D. Since I've been accused of spamming the book, I'll refrain from posting a cover shot. I will include the relevant page at the end.

Inferring from the book a bit, human development has relied upon shame-driven human behavioral modification, combined with societal advancements with respect to enlightened philosophies. This presents a problem as it relates to religion.

As you all are surely aware, religions tend to be slow to change (if they change at all) their guiding philosophies. The world's major religions are over a thousand years old, and while the Catholic Church as an example has evolved from the bad old days of the Spanish Inquisition, it remains well behind the times on a variety of topics (gay marriage and abortion to name a couple big-ticket items). Fundamentalist Islamic societies are even worse, the Taliban as an example (women's rights anyone?).

The implication here is that devout followers of these religions will follow that outdated moral code, and that will be their basis for feeling shame. While something may be deemed a gross violation of human rights by our standards, by theirs, it's just the way things are supposed to be. They may literally feel NO shame when engaging in bigotry, because they aren't programmed to do so. Moreover, given the fanatical adherence to dogma that some of these individuals exhibit, there may be no feasible way to change their minds.

 

 

 

I'm sure there is a lot of truth in this idea of shame. I'd be intrigued to know where the author thinks the concept came from, from an anthropological, or evolutionary, point of view. Shame does seem to inform a far amount of the thinking in the more fundamentalist branches of the Abrahamic religions. But I'm not sure how much of a role it  plays in, say, Buddhism or Hinduism. Does the author claim it is fundamental to all religions or just to those most widespread in "western" cultures ?  

It's also worth pointing out out that even in the Abrahamic faiths, shame plays a fairly subservient role nowadays. In Christianity the concept of sin remains central, but I'm not convinced that sin has a one to one correspondence with shame. Does the author talk about the concept of sin, or would that be too theologically specific to one faith? 

 

[Steve81]

1 hour ago, exchemist said:

I'm sure there is a lot of truth in this idea of shame. I'd be intrigued to know where the author thinks the concept came from, from an anthropological, or evolutionary, point of view. Shame does seem to inform a far amount of the thinking in the more fundamentalist branches of the Abrahamic religions. But I'm not sure how much of a role it  plays in, say, Buddhism or Hinduism. Does the author claim it is fundamental to all religions or just to those most widespread in "western" cultures ?  

It's also worth pointing out out that even in the Abrahamic faiths, shame plays a fairly subservient role nowadays. In Christianity the concept of sin remains central, but I'm not convinced that sin has a one to one correspondence with shame. Does the author talk about the concept of sin, or would that be too theologically specific to one faith? 

 

The author posits that shame developed as an evolutionary survival mechanism. (pg15)

Quote

Recent studies suggest that the capacity to experience shame evolved during the millennia when human beings lived primarily in small social units or tribes. Survival depended heavily upon cooperation among members of the tribe. Members who violated the norms of their tribe, or who behaved in ways that damaged the collective interest, would find themselves shunned or ostracized by others within a group. The tribe might withdraw protection, stop sharing food, and exclude the individual, thus lowering the odds of that person's survival.

The book doesn't really go into the topic of religion (at least not based on my recollection / quick scan), as the focus is on the concept of core shame primarily developed during early childhood, and then jumps into a series of case studies. That said, this is the relevant bit on cultural values being the "software" that codes our shame "hardware". (pg16)

Quote

That software, or set of cultural values, also changes over time within each culture - that is, it is constantly being updated. In the immortal words of Cole Porter, though "in olden days a glimpse of stocking/was looked on as something shocking," now just about "Anything goes!" Here in the West, for example, we're in the process of reevaluating the shame attached to homosexual behavior; what formerly lead to contempt and social stigma may now be consecrated with wedding vows, although a large portion of our society still endorses the former view.

In this case, I'm proposing that within religious zealots, the software is not coming from society at large, but from their church/synagogue/mosque/temple. This would explain a great deal of documented bigoted behavior, which I can link, but I expect most that read the news are familiar with various cases of LGBTQ people being discriminated against.

With respect to Hinduism and Buddhism... I'm not sure that shame is used much (if at all) in Buddhism. It may well be the most enlightened of the major religions, at least from my recollections of taking Art and Philosopy of the East back at CSU East Bay. Hinduism with its caste system certainly embraces shame.

Edited August 13, 2023 by Steve81

[Genady]

14 minutes ago, Steve81 said:

within religious zealots, the software is not coming from society at large, but from their church/synagogue/mosque/temple

As within any social group, e.g., gangs, fraternities, sororities, meditation classes, etc.

[exchemist]

1 minute ago, Genady said:

As within any social group, e.g., gangs, fraternities, sororities, meditation classes, etc.

Yes, you have anticipated my reaction too. "Society at  large" comprises a mix of the views and attitudes of all the many groupings that people belong to, religious adherence being one.  But, of all of them, the grouping that most overtly propounds a view of what constitutes moral values and behaviour is probably religious affiliation.  

[Steve81]

2 minutes ago, Genady said:

As within any social group, e.g., gangs, fraternities, sororities, meditation classes, etc.

Indeed. Proximity (which doesn’t have to be physical) matters. This coding would explain how people get radicalized and commit various heinous acts like the 2022 Buffalo mass shooting.

[Peterkin]

I can't see why you would put shame at the center of religion. Shame is a secondary emotion, a byproduct of indoctrination. Whatever rules a society has for the demeanour and behaviour of its members is taught to the young in their most impressionable formative years. Whatever they were consistently punished for in early childhood, they internalize as a taboo. In effect, we all carry some version of a police force inside our heads. The same rules are lodged in our neighbours' , colleagues' and rivals' minds; they're always watching and judging and shaming. We fear the threat of censure, of exclusion, of derision and shunning.

This is the most cost-effective way to insure relatively smooth operation of a society. In that sense, yes, it's a survival strategy. Religion is later superimposed to lend more weight to the rules: a supernatural carrot and stick enforcement of social norms. 

[Steve81]

14 minutes ago, Peterkin said:

I can't see why you would put shame at the center of religion. Shame is a secondary emotion, a byproduct of indoctrination.

Incorrect. From pg14/15 of the book I referenced above:

Quote

Darwin long ago observed that people from every culture around the world physically express shame with the same set of physiological signs: lowering of the eyes and gaze aversion, a slumping posture, and usually a blushing of the face or other body parts. A century later the painstaking observations of the neuropsychologist Silvan Tomkins confirmed the biological basis of shame, identifying it as one of nine primary affects encoded in our DNA; the others include enjoyment-joy, interest-excitement, fear-terror, and anger-rage.

Edited August 13, 2023 by Steve81

[Peterkin]

1 hour ago, Steve81 said:

Incorrect.

Even if we accept that a psychologist can read what's encoded in DNA, all that means is that shame is an evolutionary adjunct of socialization. It is exhibited by dogs, who have no religion beyond reverence for the human master, who makes and enforces the rules which puppies internalize and they make the appropriate gestures of shame when caught in a transgression. Parrots don't, and they're arguably smarter than dogs, but less obedient.

[Steve81]

6 minutes ago, Peterkin said:

Even if we accept that a psychologist can read what's encoded in DNA, all that means is that shame is an evolutionary adjunct of socialization. It is exhibited by dogs, who have no religion beyond reverence for the human master, who makes and enforces the rules which puppies internalize and they make the appropriate gestures of shame when caught in a transgression. Parrots don't, and they're arguably smarter than dogs, but less obedient.

I think you may be missing my point, so I will attempt another explanation.

If the shame encoded in our DNA is the hardware, then the moral philosophies that we espouse are the software. If that software doesn’t trigger a shame response for a given action, you don’t feel shameful for doing it.

As it relates to extremist religious and social elements and their outmoded and/or dangerous philosophies, this allows people to commit acts of violence and bigotry without shame. Further, depending on the extent of their zealotry, they may not be able to be reasoned with at all. It’s difficult to have a reasonable conversation with someone who believes they have the word of God on their side.

Edited August 13, 2023 by Steve81

[Peterkin]

17 minutes ago, Steve81 said:

It’s difficult to have a reasonable conversation with someone who believes they have the word of God on their side.

Or Mao or the Fatherland or King George. So? The root of organized religion is patriarchy. The Father is the arbiter of right and wrong, virtue and vice, pride and shame. It's still early, internalized socialization.

[Steve81]

10 minutes ago, Peterkin said:

Or Mao or the Fatherland or King George. So? The root of organized religion is patriarchy. The Father is the arbiter of right and wrong, virtue and vice, pride and shame. It's still early, internalized socialization.

So taken in aggregate, we have people who believe they have God or whatever else on their side who can't be convinced otherwise, with no moral qualms about causing harm to others.

[Peterkin]

Just now, Steve81 said:

So taken in aggregate, we have people who believe they have God or whatever else on their side who can't be convinced otherwise, with no moral qualms about causing harm to others.

Yeah - so?

[Steve81]

5 minutes ago, Peterkin said:

Yeah - so?

I've provided an explanation for why this is so. If you don't find that interesting, you are well within your rights to ignore me. If you do feel compelled to respond, I'd appreciate a better reply than "Yeah - so?"

Edited August 13, 2023 by Steve81

[Genady]

50 minutes ago, Peterkin said:

Even if we accept that a psychologist can read what's encoded in DNA, all that means is that shame is an evolutionary adjunct of socialization. It is exhibited by dogs, who have no religion beyond reverence for the human master, who makes and enforces the rules which puppies internalize and they make the appropriate gestures of shame when caught in a transgression. Parrots don't, and they're arguably smarter than dogs, but less obedient.

I agree about the dogs' behavior, with a caveat that they don't have to be puppies to internalize the rules. They do it very quickly as adults when a new human master with different rules takes over. I suspect that humans do the same, when their social environment changes.

[Peterkin]

2 minutes ago, Genady said:

They do it very quickly as adults when a new human master with different rules takes over. I suspect that humans do the same, when their social environment changes.

Superficially, yes. But people brought up in Saudi don't adapt so readily to the Finnish sauna and westerners sojourning in Arab countries regularly run afoul of alcohol laws. Even when they overcome, intellectually, the taboos of their native culture and assume the mores of a more permissive one, the deep shame regarding body, sexuality, profanity, unclean food, etc is never wholly erased; whereas, moving from a liberal to an authoritarian environment, they may obey the letter of the law and keep up appearances, but never develop a sense of shame if they get away breaking a rule. Dogs, btw, don't seem to be abashed unless they're caught in wrongdoing. Sometimes they'll even pretend innocence in the very teeth of overwhelming evidence.    

It's easier to adapt in childhood and becomes more difficult to impossible as a person grows older in an environment where some behaviours carry social stigma. It's not all that easy, breaking older dogs of learned behaviour patterns, either. There are other factors besides age: intelligence, imagination (have you always secretly or overtly questioned the validity of your culture's mores?) subservience/emotional dependency on others; the consistency of early indoctrination and how stringently it was enforced in your formative years; the level of disapproval you've encountered from peers...  

[dimreepr]

On 8/13/2023 at 5:35 PM, Steve81 said:

If the shame encoded in our DNA is the hardware, then the moral philosophies that we espouse are the software. If that software doesn’t trigger a shame response for a given action, you don’t feel shameful for doing it.

That doesn't make sense, if shame is innate the software wouldn't run, if it's shameful.

On 8/13/2023 at 5:35 PM, Steve81 said:

As it relates to extremist religious and social elements and their outmoded and/or dangerous philosophies, this allows people to commit acts of violence and bigotry without shame. Further, depending on the extent of their zealotry, they may not be able to be reasoned with at all.

It depends on what you use to reason with them, for instance, The grapes of wrath 

Quote

Set during the Great Depression, the novel focuses on the Joads, a poor family of tenant farmers driven from their Oklahoma home by drought, economic hardship, agricultural industry changes, and bank foreclosures forcing tenant farmers out of work. Due to their nearly hopeless situation, and in part because they are trapped in the Dust Bowl, the Joads set out for California along with thousands of other "Okies" seeking jobs, land, dignity, and a future.

Illustrates the causes of desperation; now, imagine your Tom Joad, are you going to engage in a reasoned debate with a gun to your head, or an offer of bread?

On 8/13/2023 at 5:35 PM, Steve81 said:

It’s difficult to have a reasonable conversation with someone who believes they have the word of God on their side.

Sometimes, it's more difficult to have a reasonable conversation with an athiest, about the philosophy of religion, because of God.

Edited August 27, 2023 by dimreepr

[Steve81]

2 hours ago, dimreepr said:

That doesn't make sense, if shame is innate the software wouldn't run, if it's shameful.

It depends on what you use to reason with them, for instance, The grapes of wrath 

Illustrates the causes of desperation; now, imagine your Tom Joad, are you going to engage in a reasoned debate with a gun to your head, or an offer of bread?

Sometimes, it's more difficult to have a reasonable conversation with an athiest, about the philosophy of religion, because of God.

On point 1, the capacity to feel shame is built into our hardware. It’s how our society / family / close friends / church / etc. program the software that determines what will be shameful to us. 
 

As to reasoning with them…clearly some methods are better than others. Re: Athiesm, it is its own little religion in a way, inasmuch as they have a belief in no God(s). Agnostics may be more willing to listen to arguments in either direction.

[Genady]

12 minutes ago, Steve81 said:

Athiesm, it is its own little religion in a way, inasmuch as they have a belief in no God(s).

How do you call it if it is not a belief but rather an assumption, a null hypothesis?

[iNow]

Not playing golf is not a sport.

Not collecting stamps is not a hobby.

Not believing in god(s) is not a belief system, nor a religion.

[Steve81]

46 minutes ago, Genady said:

How do you call it if it is not a belief but rather an assumption, a null hypothesis?

Given an absence of evidence of some type of deity (though I could go along with Spinoza’s god), and an inability to actually prove the null hypothesis, the only correct conclusion, is simply that we don’t know, i.e., agnosticism. 

[Genady]

1 minute ago, Steve81 said:

Given an absence of evidence of some type of deity (though I could go along with Spinoza’s god), and an inability to actually prove the null hypothesis, the only correct conclusion, is simply that we don’t know, i.e., agnosticism. 

The idea of a null hypothesis is that it is not to be proved. It rather holds until refuted.

[Steve81]

17 minutes ago, Genady said:

The idea of a null hypothesis is that it is not to be proved. It rather holds until refuted.

Indeed, but it's the very lack of proof that makes it a belief, rather than a provable truth. It's more grounded in logic than the idea of an all-loving God that commands his follower to murder his son and intervenes at the last moment with a just kidding, don't do that. But it's still a belief. The truth is that we simply don't know. 

[Genady]

53 minutes ago, Steve81 said:

Indeed, but it's the very lack of proof that makes it a belief, rather than a provable truth. It's more grounded in logic than the idea of an all-loving God that commands his follower to murder his son and intervenes at the last moment with a just kidding, don't do that. But it's still a belief. The truth is that we simply don't know. 

I disagree that every null hypothesis is a belief. I think it is a wordplay.

[Phi for All]

2 hours ago, Steve81 said:

Re: Athiesm, it is its own little religion in a way, inasmuch as they have a belief in no God(s). 

To add to what iNow said, you're framing a lack of belief as a belief itself, similar to saying bald is a hair color. Your framework is askew.

43 minutes ago, Steve81 said:

Indeed, but it's the very lack of proof that makes it a belief, rather than a provable truth. It's more grounded in logic than the idea of an all-loving God that commands his follower to murder his son and intervenes at the last moment with a just kidding, don't do that. But it's still a belief. The truth is that we simply don't know. 

Since this is a science site, it's my duty to point out that science doesn't deal in "proofs" and "logic". Philosophy and mathematics use formal logic and proofs. Science deals with theory, which is the best current explanation for a specific phenomenon. Some may dub what science uses as informal logic, but I think critical thinking/reasoning is more accurate and less misleading. Spock from Star Trek spawned a bad pop-sci trend with his interpretation of logic, and nowadays many use it as shorthand for "this makes sense to me".