Review of The Faith Instinct

It is a truth universally acknowledged that if a New York Times writer produces a book, it will also be reviewed by the New York Times — and favorably. The latest instantiation is Judith Shulevitz’s review of Nicholas Wade’s The Faith Instinct in today’s NYT. What “criticism” she levels is halfhearted.

I was asked to blurb this book by the publishers, but refused on the grounds that it was financially supported by the Templeton Foundation and its contents were, apparently, vetted by Templeton-selected reviewers (see the acknowledgments).

Lest you think that NYT authors always getting favorable reviews is just a happy coincidence, I have heard of at least once case in which the solicited review turned out strongly negative, so the Times rejected it and commissioned a more favorable review.

UPDATE: The Economist heads its review of The Faith Instinct thusly: “An Evolutionary Biologist on Religion.” Wade, of course, is a journalist, but The Economist in its wisdom apparently thinks that anyone who writes on evolution is an evolutionary biologist.

Nicholas Wade is an inveterate gene-for-X enthusiast — he's got 68 stories in the NYT index with "gene" in the headline — and he's had two opportunities to celebrate this idea in the past few days: "Speech Gene Shows Its Bossy Nature", 11/12/2009, and "The Evolution of the God Gene", 11/14/2009. The first of these articles is merely a bit misleading, in the usual way. The second verges on the bizarre.

The "Speech Gene", of course, is FOXP2, and Wade's article covers a paper by Genevieve Konopka et al., "Human-specific transcriptional regulation of CNS development genes by FOXP2", Nature 462: 213-217, 11/12/2009. We've been muttering on this weblog for more than five years about the overselling of FOXP2 as "the Language Gene" or the "the Speech Gene" — for a recent summary of the issues, see "Mice with the 'language gene' stay mum" and "More on FOXP2", 6/5/2009. ...

The beauty part is the universality of this argument. My current favorite application leads us to postulate the Hat Gene. (OK, the Head-Covering Gene — but Wade should really be writing about "the spirituality gene" or "the transcendence gene", since "God" is hardly a cultural universal. So I'm going to stick with my Hat Gene, since it's catchier.)

Think of the manifold advantages of

Quoting jeffpeterson: Mr. Wade's understanding of early Christianity is out of date, representing scholarship that's been superseded by a generation or two, and some of his statements are seriously misleading: e.g., that Christianity originated among speakers of Greek and not Aramaic (Paul's first surviving letter to Christians at Corinth includes the Aramaic phrase _maranatha_, "Our Lord, come!" — a prayer addressed to the glorified Christ derived from the worship of Aramaic-speaking churches in Jerusalem or Antioch), or that the Eucharist derives from non-Jewish mystery cults (1 Corinthians also attests that it represents a complex interpretation of the Jewish Passover festival, with the image of drinking Jesus' blood — which certainly challenges conventional Jewish sensibilities — based on Jesus' own words at the last supper which identified one of the cups of wine drunk in the Passover festival with his blood, shortly to be shed in martyrdom), or that Paul was the originator of what we recognize as Christianity (the letters to the Galatians and Romans show that Christians in Jerusalem, Antioch, and Rome all shared Paul's understanding of the person of Christ). The earliest Christians' adaptation of Jewish tradition in the formulation of their

Quoting Ocean: I enjoyed this diavlog and found very thought provoking and informative although I have no authority to opine on the accuracy of the information presented. The ideas Nicholas presented about a critical period to develop religious belief made sense to me. Also his description of ritualistic group behavior having a function of creating altered mental states (some) and strong bonding was particularly well expressed.

I wish that Razib's cadence was more considerate to his audience.

I also wish that the commenters that object to the alleged funding of Nicholas' book by the Templeton foundation would also express an opinion on the contents of the book as well.

I enjoy Antonio Vivaldi's music regardless of his funding.

Lastly, 'the proof of the pudding is in the tasting' will make some commenter at BhTV happy.

Quoting claymisher: -- The hunt for the Hat Gene at Language Log.

Quoting AemJeff: Razib just sounds young to me. He was a good interviewer here, I thought, asking good leading questions and then mostly staying out of the way while Wade explained his ideas in some detail. Wade seems to me to a perfectly legitimate point of view, though I'm in no better position to judge the factual case than you say you are.

Quoting AemJeff: Razib just sounds young to me. He was a good interviewer here, I thought, asking good leading questions and then mostly staying out of the way while Wade explained his ideas in some detail. Wade seems to me to a perfectly legitimate point of view, though I'm in no better position to judge the factual case than you say you are.

Quoting Francoamerican: When will Darwinians understand that human history has nothing to do with biological survival?

Quoting Ocean: I agree that overall Razib conducts reasonably good interviews. He is young indeed. My objection was about his speech cadence. It's just painful to make sense out of his sentences at times. He is misusing one of the tools that speech allows to enhance communication.

Quoting Ocean: ...

The hat gene is silliness. It has been lost to Western civilization, except for snobs.

Quoting cognitive madisonian: From Grouch Marx or Woody Allen referencing Marx?

Quoting AemJeff: I never leave the house without a hat: either a black felt gambler, or a straw gambler when it's hot out. But I wouldn't belong to any club that would have me as a member.

Quoting Ocean: I edited my comment.

Quoting Ocean: I wouldn't say that 'it has nothing to do', but I would agree that there is much more to human history than biological survival of the individual.

The hat gene is silliness. It has been lost to Western civilization, except for snobs and AemJeff types.

Quoting Francoamerican: Like codpieces?

Hats at least draw attention to the nobler faculty.

I enjoyed this diavlog and found very thought provoking and informative although I have no authority to opine on the accuracy of the information presented. The ideas Nicholas presented about a critical period to develop religious belief made sense to me. Also his description of ritualistic group behavior having a function of creating altered mental states (some) and strong bonding was particularly well expressed.

Quoting Ocean: I wonder what made you think about codpieces. We were talking about covering a different end of the human body.

Quoting Francoamerican: Free association: hats=fashion=vanity=clothing=nudity=state of nature=natural selection.

Quoting Wonderment: As for Razib's speech patterns, they are not idiosyncratic. He speaks a common sociolect with clear markers for class, education level, age and geography. Totally normal.

Quoting Ocean: I also wish that the commenters that object to the alleged funding of Nicholas' book by the Templeton foundation would also express an opinion on the contents of the book as well.

The Faith Instinct: How Religion Evolved and Why It Endures

What explains the universality of religious behavior? How did it become hardwired into human nature? In his new book, supported by a grant from the John Templeton Foundation, the acclaimed New York Times science writer Nicholas Wade traces how religion grew to be so essential to early societies in their struggle for survival. He describes how religion influences morality and trust, governs people’s reproductive practices and demography, motivates soldiers for warfare, and unites social organizations as small as parishes and as vast as civilizations. A compelling and original contribution to the scientific study of religion, The Faith Instinct examines both the weaknesses of modern religions and the strengths that account for their remarkable persistence.

Quoting Wonderment: I also found Razib's comments on the future of religion to be mostly on target. I would join him in speculating that only a small percentage of people will become strong atheists, while new agey and "higher power" belief systems will continue to dominate human consciousness.

Quoting Ocean: Lastly, 'the proof of the pudding is in the tasting' will make some commenter at BhTV happy.

Quoting bjkeefe: He said "eating," as well he should, but yes, wasn't that a delight?

Quoting bjkeefe:
Generally, I agree, as I said back when the TF used to fund the weekly Percontations diavlogs. However, for some people, like Jerry Coyne, this is a matter of principle, and that's not necessarily a bad thing. If nothing else, it does save one some time; i.e., since the TF does participate in not a few objectionable activities (to the way I and others think, at least), it's reasonable to see the choice to just have nothing to do with anything connected with their money as an efficient one with only a small cost paid in the occasional missed opportunity.

Quoting thprop: All that aside, I found the diavlog - and many of the points made, interesting. Religion is a fascinating subject.

When will Darwinians understand that human history has nothing to do with biological survival?

...unsavory behavior (Hitler!!!1! Stalin!!!1! Mao!!!1! Pol Pot!!!1!)

Quoting Ocean: The problem is that what you qualify as a reasonable choice (a shortcut to save time) is discrimination* and one has to be extremely careful with that path. Discrimination is a cognitive 'skill' that we all use all day long in multiple situations. But, when applied to a group with which one disagrees it starts to get tricky.

* definition: 'Treatment or consideration based on class or category rather than individual merit; partiality or prejudice.'

Quoting bjkeefe: To return to the example at hand, the TF may be associated in people's minds with a larger group; e.g., "all Christians," but I do not think one is in danger of becoming an anti-Christian bigot merely because one has a policy of having nothing to do with the TF.

Quoting Ocean: I never implied that Jerry Coyne or the others who object to anything that has TF funding are bigots. I do find problematic when people "demonize" a group they disagree with.

Quoting Ocean: It appears to the outside observer that there is a knee-jerk reaction to anything that may be 'contaminated' by the other side. It is, in a way, the same kind of treatment that atheists have received for centuries. I think that if you object to one, you

Quoting bjkeefe: To some extent, I agree, but not completely. To my mind, it is okay -- while, admittedly, not being 100% accurate -- to completely write off some organization as useless if you have a problem with a lot of what they do. In other words, while the TF, for example, is very likely not completely evil, it is a useful first approximation to say they don't merit any further chances based on one's experience that what they do is so often objectionable.

As far as "demonizing" goes, it's hard to say. Leaving aside the TF specifically, wouldn't you say it is legitimate to say Group X is "bad" if very much of what they do is bad, even if someone could point to some good things that they might do? [Insert obligatory "Hitler liked dogs" reference here.]

It may be that the perception of atheism -- even in many atheists' and near-atheists' minds -- is still colored by, for example, unfortunate connections to nihilism, unsavory behavior (Hitler!!!1! Stalin!!!1! Mao!!!1! Pol Pot!!!1!), and more recently, to the tone of the so-called New Atheists that many find too abrasive.

Quoting Wonderment: The price of atheism is eternal vigilance

Quoting Ocean: My last try on this point.

Quoting Ocean: I don't have a problem with people taking that cognitive/ideological shortcut to directly avoid certain organizations they have deep disagreements with. But, what does that avoidance entail? It is understandable that they may not want to do business with the organization or interact directly. But, what else? Would they avoid everything and anything that's in any way related to it?

That last part is the one I have a problem with. It points at the degree of intolerance, which at times may approximate a purity standard.

This raises an interesting question. What is a person's true belief? Is it that which they subscribe to for 99.9% of their existence or is it that which they will choose in a moment of life/death crisis.

Quoting Wonderment: Atheism still has a stigma attached, I agree. A lot of atheists will call themselves "agnostic" or use the new (Obama?) euphemism "non-believer" to avoid the A word.

But I'm still betting that real atheist numbers remain stable over the next few decades (prior to the Singularity and/or Rapture, that is ).

Quoting Wonderment: I don't think there's much left for modern science to do to debunk theism and superstition. If people don't get it by now, they never will.

Quoting Wonderment: I also think there's a fad aspect to some atheism. Many high school and college students, for example, may espouse atheism now (just as they were Maoists in my time) only to retreat to religion at the first life crisis. In other words, atheist numbers may already be inflated. Lots of self-proclaimed atheists are probably closet believers or will drift in and out

Wade's views on the origins of religion were interesting. I especially liked the linkage among language, dance and religion. (I actually think language alone can carry much of the baggage of social cohesion and differentiation from other human groups. You don't even need mutual incomprehensibility to hate and wage war on your neighbor; a "funny" accent will suffice.)

Wade's comments on "evolution" of the three monotheistic Western religions seemed less substantive and more speculative to me.

I thought the analogy between language and religion was forced, which Razib pointed out, although if Wade's only point is to explore how we are hard-wired for religion, that's fine.

Quoting thprop: I do not object to the Templeton funding - just to the fact that Wade does not disclose it. And it is not alleged - Templeton is promoting the book and its grant:

Quoting bjkeefe: They're making a choice to espouse a certain philosophy and to pursue certain goals, and it is legitimate for someone to be so put off by these that he or she says, "Okay, then, that's your right. And it is my right to have nothing to do with you, and to boycott everything you touch."

Again, it's not so much the TF in particular. This is just the current example. I am fairly certain that if I knew you better, I could come up with some group or other that you would have nothing to do with, because you've found them in the past to be sufficiently reprehensible to say enough's enough. I imagine that if someone tried to get you to spend a few hours reading something from, say, the KKK or

Quoting Ocean: I don't question that the person has the right to reject the whole thing. I also understand why they may want to do it. I simply do not particularly appreciate that kind of stance when it generalizes to "everything you touch".

There is always more that education can do, and better ways to educate, particularly when you also consider that the population is not static, but instead, has a constant infusion of new members.

Quoting Wonderment: We mostly agree so I just clarify the following:

What I meant is that the data to reject religious claims has been pouring in for a couple of centuries. We now know all we need to know about astronomy, anthropology, linguistics, biology, geology, etc. to refute 99.9% of religious assertions. That's why "intelligent design" was a non-starter: everything it purports to explain is already explained quite adequately without an intelligent designer.

Yep. So clearly, either we don't provide most people with a decent high school education, or that is insufficient to the task.

P.S. It's not just the fundamentalist monotheists, either. Your choice of the vaccine metaphor was an unfortunate one, I'm afraid.

Quoting Wonderment: I hate to admit it, but I probably agree with Hitchens on this point: We are too gentle with believers (or worse, too intimidated by them) in our high schools. Teachers who know better often pretend that science and creationism are compatible, for example, out of "respect" for religion. Educators who understand that the Bible is a collection of myths are fearful of saying so.

Yeah, in some ways pseudo-science is even more disturbing than religious fundamentalism. As I've discussed with you before, I'm pretty comfortable with the Gouldian "separate (or non-overlapping) magisteria" as an imperfect but adequate framework to defuse or even dissolve conflict between religion and science.

"Teachers who know better..." Nobody knows, because that implies provability and currently there is no proof one way or the other, otherwise there would be no debatable points. You have your beliefs just as the religious have theirs; there is no way of knowing, outside of death, and I have yet to see anyone that knows debating the issue.

There are very few 9/11 Accommodationists, if you see what I mean.*

Quoting Wonderment: True, but that's largely because everyone realizes that something serious is at stake.

One of the reasons people "accommodate" the religious is because faith in general seems innocuous. You have to get into the weeds to see how toxic religion can be, and sometimes it isn't toxic at all.

For example, if someone claims her belief in a Higher Power makes her a more charitable person, I am inclined to say, "Cool, have a nice day." If someone says, however, that homosexuals and adulteresses must be stoned to death, that's quite a different story. I'm a disinterested accommodationist in the former case and radically intolerant in the latter.

Quoting thprop: From Why Evolution is True

UPDATE: The Economist heads its review of The Faith Instinct thusly: “An Evolutionary Biologist on Religion.” Wade, of course, is a journalist, but The Economist in its wisdom apparently thinks that anyone who writes on evolution is an evolutionary biologist.

Whatever Darwin’s personal sensibilities, Mr Wade is convinced that a Darwinian approach offers the key to understanding religion. In other words, he sides with those who think man’s propensity for religion has some adaptive function. According to this view, faith would not have persisted over thousands of generations if it had not helped the human race to survive. Among evolutionary biologists, this idea is contested. Critics of religion, like Richard Dawkins and Steven Pinker, suggest that faith is a useless (or worse) by-product of other human characteristics.

And that controversy leads to another one. Does Darwinian selection take place at the level only of individuals, or of groups as well? As Mr Wade makes clear, the notion of religion as

Quoting bjkeefe: * Well, perhaps not all of us. "Overwhelmingly most" is more accurate -- there do seem to be some people who practically make a fetish out of trying to mine reasonable-sounding nuggets of known mother lodes of craziness.

Yeah, but that's not really the same thing, I don't think. To return to the example, people who will have nothing to do with TF-related events are not reacting based on one aspect that they find offensive. It would more relevant (though perhaps extreme) to imagine a coworker who, say, was obsessed with white supremacy and no matter what you were discussing, he or she tried to find a way to connect the matter at hand back to WS. After a while, you would not, I suspect, be inclined to keep looking for other ways to interact with that person.

I'd agree, except that I don't really think we've been disagreeing.

But seriously, I think we're really just looking at this from two different angles, which are separated by far less than 180°.

Quoting bjkeefe: Also from NW, just for fun: Cat-blogging! And more cat-blogging!

Quoting Ocean: Or perhaps by far more.

Quoting bjkeefe: Hurrah for math jokes!

Quoting uncle ebeneezer: They are probably waiting for an alternative version of human history that somehow doesn't mention: fire, cooking, agriculture, disease, vaccines etc. Any narrative that ignores the historical significance of any of those factors, and the role that "biological survival" played in their significance, would be the just-so story to end all just-so stories.

Quoting piscivorous: From your reply it is obvious that your definition of "Creationists" seem limited to the standard leftist talking point that all creationists are believers and practitioners of the "Young Earth" hypotheses. From my experience this is not the case. My definition is broader and incorporates those that believe that the universe and life, human life in particular, were created in some form by a supernatural being or beings. This includes religions and belief systems, other than just the Christian sects that insist on a literal reading of the book of Genesis.

Quoting Wonderment: I don't think there's much left for modern science to do to debunk theism and superstition. If people don't get it by now, they never will.

Quoting bjkeefe: Is it just me, or has anyone else noticed that as soon as any thread develops a religious discussion component, the banner ad at the top of the thread page very frequently becomes one from the Scientologists?

I think the only one investing more in this site, through Google AdSense at least, is Ann Coulter's book publisher.

Quoting SkepticDoc: I try to click on the Scientology link, Google will bill them and send a check to BhTv!

Quoting Francoamerican: Bad enough, I agree. But what about the banners for Palin 2012 whenever her name comes up? If Sarah is fishing for votes in these troubled waters, she must be desperate.

Quoting SkepticDoc: Even if BhTv only gets a quarter/click, it all adds up!

Quoting Francoamerican: ...Science has absolutely nothing to say on the subject.

Quoting SkepticDoc: Only Scientology, Google and BhTv know for sure...

Quoting SkepticDoc: What if Google charged Scientology $1 per click and paid BhTv only $0.25?

Would that be fair?

I bet BhTv does not know how much Google charges their clients...

There are millions of people, including scientists, who consider themselves theists---if only in a vague Spinozist, pantheistic kind of way: deus sive natura.

To think that science has definitively "debunked" theism is anything but a scientific belief. Science has absolutely nothing to say on the subject.

Quoting AemJeff: Science says (emphatically): "Show me the data." Where is the observation? Why believe this "just so" story over some other?

Quoting Francoamerican: If you are a Kantian sceptic, as I am, the answer would go something like this:

"Science", i.e. the ensemble of special sciences that make up the collective enterprise of science, long ago gave up the attempt to understand the universe as a whole and the place of man in it. What are the "data" in which you place so much confidence? The data of physics? Of chemistry? Of biology? Of psychology? Of history? The sciences of nature can only establish causal connections between the "phenomena" (observations) without ever being able to go beyond the phenomena to the "thing-in-itself," and to the universe as a whole.The human sciences depend on the natural sciences, so...

As long as human beings continue to ask metaphysical questions about the whole, there will be "just-so" stories.

Quoting AemJeff: I think you're misreading the point, to some extent. To have something to say about religion is not equivalent to providing a definitive answer with regard to "the nature of the universe as a whole." Science has no such answer for that latter question. What science has to say about religion is that religion also lacks any basis for providing such an answer.

It boils down to epistemic humility. Science has been a very successful engine of discovery, in regard to the nature of the world. Science makes no claim to be a tool that will unlock every secret. Religion can be generically shown, I think, to have been a far less useful means of divining such secrets, and yet religious claims of infallibility are not unknown, or even particularly rare.

Quoting Francoamerican: No, I am not misreading you. Epistemic humility? If you mean, with Kant, that the limits of scientific knowledge are insuperable because the human mind can only know the world as it appears to us--the phenomena---then I agree with you. If all you mean is that scientists are humble, then I think you are mistaken as a matter of fact. Scientists have often been quite immodest in their claims to know.

Of course, the extravagant claims of religion go without saying.

Quoting AemJeff: Why would I say something as silly as "all scientists are humble?" What would lead you to believe that I think they have any different status from the rest of us?

The issue, as I see it, is between empiricism and simple assertion (which how I characterize most religious epistemology.) Empiricism is "humble," in my sense of that, in that it makes no extravagant epistemic claims. At most, it claims to provide a basis for judging such claims; and, science - as a specific class of application within empirical methodologies - provides a way to quantify those judgments for comparative analysis.

Quoting AemJeff: ... it's fairer to say that I referring more directly to David Hume.

Quoting graz: OT but sort of linked:
At least, you aren't referencing Brit Hume as your source.

Quoting AemJeff: Lordy... what can you possibly say to that?

Quoting piscivorous: "Let there be light" and a big bang latter there was.

What evidence do you have of anything not being supernatural?

Quoting Wonderment: Not much to hang your supernatural hat on there. .

Quoting Wonderment: As AemJeff has already pointed out, scientists DO have something to say on the subject. What they say is , "How do you know that what you assert is true?"

The answer, "How do you know it isn't?" is patently ridiculous.

Quoting AemJeff: Why would I say something as silly as "all scientists are humble?" What would lead you to believe that I think they have any different status from the rest of us?

The issue, as I see it, is between empiricism and simple assertion (which how I characterize most religious epistemology.) Empiricism is "humble," in my sense of that, in that it makes no extravagant epistemic claims. At most, it claims to provide a basis for judging such claims; and, science - as a specific class of application within empirical methodologies - provides a way to quantify those judgments for comparative analysis.

Quoting piscivorous: "Let there be light" and a big bang latter there was.

What evidence do you have of anything not being supernatural?

Quoting AemJeff: I should add - yes, I am explicitly invoking Kantian skepticism; though, since I've never been able to parse any translation of Kant and keep my eyes open long enough to find the end of any sentence, it's fairer to say that I'm referring more directly to David Hume.

I have no supernatural beliefs. None to compare with your pacifist delusions, which are in fact supernatural beliefs, as fact-free as any religious delusion.

Quoting Wonderment: Well, certainly the 99.9 reflects who the person was more than the .1%

Quoting popcorn_karate: I disagree.

for example, lets say you are extravagantly wealthy and give to charities for 99.9% of your life.
you then become poverty stricken and eventually even steal food from a child.

has the 0.1% of your life lived in extremity been more revealing of your true character, or the choices that you made when there was no price for making a choice? are you a "giving" person while stealing a kids dinner because of what you did in the other 99.9% of your life?

it is exactly in those extreme moments, which will probably constitute something less than 1% of your life, that you find out what your true character is and often what the nature of your beliefs are.

Quoting bjkeefe: Extreme moments in your life may not say much beyond the fact that you're at an extreme moment.

Quoting bjkeefe: you might not steal food unless you truly are starving.

Quoting bjkeefe: Or, you might not perform an action unless someone points a gun at your head. Or the head of someone you love. It's not at all clear to me that this is any more "truly you," except in the limited sense that we would then know, perhaps for the first time, how you will act under this particular extreme duress scenario. Are, for example, the things people say when tortured likely to be "true?" Or are they more likely, at

Quoting Wonderment: Pacifist delusions? Oh, you mean the idea that peace is better than war, and its corollaries a) war is not inevitable, b) science can provide us with sound guidelines for nonviolent conflict resolution, and c) peace is a human right? What's deluded about that?.

Quoting Wonderment: There is nothing inherently supernatural about pacifism nor is there anything irrational or anti-scientific about it..

Quoting Wonderment: I certainly don't claim that warism (apparently your philosophy) is based on supernatural beliefs. Both warists and pacifists often rely on religion for one reason or another ("God is on our side" sort of thing), but people do that in walks

it is exactly in those extreme moments, which will probably constitute something less than 1% of your life, that you find out what your true character is and often what the nature of your beliefs are.

Quoting popcorn_karate: yes nearly everyone (including me) would steal food when they are starving - but would i steal it from a hungry child? I truly hope not.

Quoting piscivorous: To accept your argument would mean that if one is true the other is false. I don't believe that an acceptance in the laws of physics or evolution is and of itself reason to disregard creationism or proof that supernatural forces may have played some role in creation of our plain in reality.

Quoting piscivorous: I's not my word it is yours; but in the thread it would relate to a "divine/omnipotent" entity/being; "Jehovah, God, Allah, Zeus, Peter Pan whatever.

A Peter Pan worshipper?!!!

Quoting piscivorous: While I agree with your basic premise three days without food is not even a decent cleansing fast! Much less on the verge of starvation. To compare that with "...people who survived internment camps or blockades have done..." seem somewhat trite.

Quoting Wonderment: Pantheism.

Quoting SkepticDoc: With a Tinker Bell sect?

For magical wishful thinking?

Quoting uncle ebeneezer: On a related note, I would like to hear what the difference is from the religious form of "knowing" (the one that doesn't involve observation, prediction, testing etc.) and pure fantasy, or wishful thinking, or hallucination. Are the grand epiphanies that I come up with while I'm ingesting Psilocybin real "truths?" If not, why not.

Note: this question is not aimed at Aemjeff or Pisc., specifically, this just seemed like an appropriate place to ask it.

Are Bonobos religious?

Quoting Wonderment: They are spiritual beings, but not religious. Their brains are very similar to ours, so they surely have much of our social wiring and tendencies, including xenophobia, empathy, mammalian nurturing, rudimentary altruism.

They are, however, infinitely better at conflict resolution than we are -- perhaps, in part, because they are very sexually promiscuous. Lots of gay and straight oral sex, among other variations.

Beyone bonobos, I'd say that all species that are self-aware (apes, dolphins, whales, elephants, some birds, etc.) have spiritual lives. That is, they live lives of love, wonder, joy and awe. None except humans, however, have (or need) religion.
I hold -- half-seriously -- to the view that human intelligence (with its bellicosity, mega-predation and delusional belief systems) is a Great Ape aberration, destined biologically to fizzle out in a few hundred thousand years, but not before taking an enormous toll on the biodiversity of the planet. Thinking otherwise is part of the problem: delusions of grandeur.

Quoting look: On what do you base this belief?

On what do you base this belief?

Quoting Wonderment: Religion requires conceptual content and language that I don't see any reason to believe most other Earth life forms have. Maybe some big-brained whales. They'd be the best candidate. Elephants also seem to grieve, bury and remember their dead.

As Brendan points out, many self-aware animals do have the rudimentary biological equipment, but I think it's ridiculous to imagine they have creation myths, prayers, theology, deities, belief in afterlife, souls, willingness to kill for an idea, etc. That's what I mean by religion.

Quoting Wonderment: I enjoyed this conversation too. I like Razib's interviews every time, although he has to learn from Bob and other companion-animal and baby-parent guests to let the Timneh be seen and not just heard.

Quoting bjkeefe: On an unrelated note, I adore suggestion "36E."

Quoting bjkeefe: (Related.)

Quoting Ocean: I had forgotten that comment. Impeccable memory!

Is Wonderment posting elsewhere as "Joe Sharkey?" It would be irresponsible NOT to speculate.

On an unrelated note, I adore suggestion "36E."

Quoting bjkeefe: Thanks. But not completely.

The funny thing is I had remembered the punch line as "you didn't tell it right," and it was driving me crazy that Google wasn't finding that. Then I remembered.

Be a hell of a thing when computers are able to do more than just guess at misspelled words, so that here, Google might have asked, "Did you mean you told it wrong?"

I had forgotten that comment. Impeccable Google!

Quoting Wonderment: Ha! That article gives a whole new meaning to "Spread 'em."

But no, I'm not Joe Sharkey. My baby is a DNA-tested male, doesn't know the "eagle" trick (or any other trick), and would likely have bit the inspector's fingers off or delayed the flight for 48 hours while basking in police-state attention and gazing nevermore-esquely at his fellow flyers.

I do think Joe should teach Rosie to scream "Allah hu akhbar" at airports in order to prove to one and all that Islam is a religion of peace.

Quoting Wonderment: Religion requires conceptual content and language that I don't see any reason to believe most other Earth life forms have. Maybe some big-brained whales. They'd be the best candidate. Elephants also seem to grieve, bury and remember their dead.

As Brendan points out, many self-aware animals do have the rudimentary biological equipment, but I think it's ridiculous to imagine they have creation myths, prayers, theology, deities, belief in afterlife, souls, willingness to kill for an idea, etc. That's what I mean by religion.

Quoting Wonderment: I hold -- half-seriously -- to the view that human intelligence (with its bellicosity, mega-predation and delusional belief systems) is a Great Ape aberration, destined biologically to fizzle out in a few hundred thousand years, but not before taking an enormous toll on the biodiversity of the planet. Thinking otherwise is part of the problem: delusions of grandeur..

Quoting SkepticDoc: I doubt that Bonobos are religious, but I am not a Primate communication expert. They are definitely peaceful and matriarchal, they do not engage in marauding killing parties against themselves or their owners like chimpanzees do...

You do not need religion to be peaceful, au contraire, religion can justify horrendous atrocities against other religious groups.

You require intellect and sensitivity to realize that peaceful co-existence and fair commerce practices yield more productivity and technological advances than wanton destruction of life and property.

Quoting Francoamerican: Are you addressing anything I said in my two previous posts to wonderment?

No.

Quoting SkepticDoc: "No hay peor ciego que el que no quiere ver"

I am confident you can figure it out... (there is probably an equivalent phrase in French, share it with us...)

Why do you sound so angry? Are beret wearers picking on you because you you are an "ugly American" in France? Do you need to take out your frustrations on the anonymous participants of an Internet forum?

Maybe you can follow Mr. Ricard's path...

Quoting Francoamerican: What makes you think I am angry? Your remark has nothing to do with the question I addressed to wonderment. It is also childish.

Quoting SkepticDoc: I rest my case...

Quoting Wonderment: Religion requires conceptual content and language that I don't see any reason to believe most other Earth life forms have. Maybe some big-brained whales. They'd be the best candidate. Elephants also seem to grieve, bury and remember their dead.

As Brendan points out, many self-aware animals do have the rudimentary biological equipment, but I think it's ridiculous to imagine they have creation myths, prayers, theology, deities, belief in afterlife, souls, willingness to kill for an idea, etc. That's what I mean by religion.

Quoting look: Lacking opposable thumbs and the ability to manipulate their environment could have lead to hyper-development of brain capacity, if all they had to do was move around and THINK.

Quoting Francoamerican: I am just curious why you think it is possible to hold both views at once without self-contradiction.

What is the evolutionary basis for believing that it is rational to be non-violent?

I am still waiting for an answer to the question I asked above, and that you chose to ignore (unsurprisingly).

Quoting Wonderment: Like SkepticDoc and others, I prefer not to engage with you because of your tendency to go ballistic without provocation. I suggest you have a look at this article.

Quoting Wonderment: I would keep it simpler and make a more modest claim.

Violence may be rational.

Although Franco loves to put words in my mouth, I never said violence was irrational.

I won't argue that violence violates the kind of Golden Rule that Bob and others think is the basis of morality and the starting point of the "moral arc" of the universe. It might.

I'm content, however, with observing the effects of violence (great suffering and death), particularly in the context of ever more sophisticated WMDs, and concluding a) that war is unsustainable and b) that nonviolence -- with the help of science and reason -- is capable of resolving conflicts and

Quoting bjkeefe: Now wait a minute. Isn't the ability to simultaneously hold contradictory ideas in one's mind a mark of advanced intelligence, something that we in fact take pride in? Or was ol' F. Scott just being cynical?

(I grant that Orwell gave a useful and hilarious addition.)].

Quoting bjkeefe: It seems to me that one explanation would say that

Quoting Francoamerican: Self-contradiction may be a mark of advanced intelligence in literary circles--I enjoy it myself when I am inebriated--- but it is merely a mark of confusion in philosophical or scientific discussions (thanks for the amusing Orwell quote).

Wonderment said in an earlier post that scientific rationality is the basis of non-violence or pacifism. I disputed this and said that reason or rationality is ethically neutral (in contemporary jargon going back to Hume: you cannot derive "ought" from "is," or values from matters of fact). Then Wonderment said---"half-seriously"---that homo sapiens is an evolved ape with religious delusions of grandeur that incline him to violence and rapaciousness.

Quoting bjkeefe: I have found the world makes a lot more sense if we start by assuming that Wonderment is God.

I kid, I kid. I really think he's just a mere archangel.

Quoting Ocean: I think we should consider this possibility a little more seriously... All the unrelenting peace talk is highly suspicious...

Quoting bjkeefe: Naw. That's just 'cause he's a not so seekrit Muslin.

Quoting SkepticDoc: Look at what you brought up in the ads.

I have found the world makes a lot more sense if we start by assuming that Wonderment is God.

Quoting Wonderment: That assumption has actually got me in a lot of trouble.

I am having considerably more success in life by abdicating and letting other people play God ...

You and Donald Shimoda, huh?

Quoting SkepticDoc: Thanks, another book to put on the list!

Quoting Wonderment: [...]

Quoting SkepticDoc: Maybe Google is the real world version of the "Messiah's handbook"...

I hope you know I have been entirely unserious in this whole subthread. Until the above line, I mean.