"But so long as a tree is a tree, it does not frighten us at all. It begins to be something alien, to be something strange, only when it looks like ourselves. When a tree really looks like a man our knees knock under us."

Is this about Al Gore?

I find Chesterson's take interesting, but I have to ask - what makes him think that he has a better handle on the mind of the primitives? By his reasoning such ceremonies as the Catholic sacraments have no intrinsic meaning and have no end in mind. But we know that they do. Catholics baptize their children and put them through Communion and Confirmation with the intent of seeing them safely into Heaven. But a future Chesterson, in the year 5000, will chide the anthropologists of the day for taking such sacraments at their stated value.

When you rip out another man's living heart, you must be taking ritual seriously, but it does not follow that it's a good thing.

There are two kinds of gods. Indifferent gods who can be appeased by rituals; and greedy gods, who also require appeasement by ritual but who also seek to humiliate humans by making them behave atrociously.

But, as St. Boniface proved in rather expensive fashion, the scientists were right and Chesterton was wrong. It's all moonshine.

"[H]eroic distinction" is relevant only to social animals.
Families make no sense, unless humans are social animals.
Religion is clearly a social activity among humans.

War, crime, and vice are often guided by rational self-interest. Not morality, but self-interest.
For instance, the "war" on terror is perceived by American citizens to be in their self-interest.
Two ancient tribes warring over a water source certainly wouldn't have been fighting for the fun of it.

Holding up 'Hamlet' as a model of structured beauty that refutes Darwinists is circular reasoning.
We like 'Hamlet' because we developed in the specific random way that we did; If we'd developed in some significantly other way, we probably WOULDN'T like 'Hamlet'.

Spells, spirits, shamans, and vengeful gods do comfort humans, in the same way that we now sometimes claim a tragic event was "God's will".
Not because such things are intrinsically comforting, or not scary, but because humans are more afraid of the Universe being random than we are of vengeful gods or zombies.

"humans are more afraid of the Universe being random than we are of vengeful gods or zombies."

I take an anthropological interest in knowing the source of that belief. Granted atheism can be a little depressing at times, but what makes anyone think man is "afraid" of a godless world?

Peter:

Man is afraid of a Godless world, because man is afraid of death. Most, if not all, theistic religions have their own firmly held eschatology. Correct believers will have a life beyond this mortal coil.

Which is why atheism will always be a minority taste.

Not afraid of a godless world, but made anxious by a random one.

Humans' brain structures are biased to perceive patterns, so much so that patterns can be imposed on random blotches, leading to seeing the Virgin Mary on a tortilla or the bust of Elvis in a potato.
Or the "Man in the Moon".

Humans also like predictability. We are creatures of habit and assumption.

What this leads to is a bias for random, chaotic, or unpleasant events to be blamed on the actions of a higher power.
Having a harvest god that demands human sacrifice, even if it demands human sacrifice every day, makes humans happier than thinking that next year might be a bumper crop, or, there might be a famine, but either way, there's not much to be done about it.

I've read and re-read this little Chesterton gem, and I still can't work out what point he's trying to make. He seems a very decent sort of fellow and all that, but what's he for?

Incidentally, this illusion of there being a conflict between a Darwinist explanation of humanity and human behaviour (really OJ just means materialist) and the great artistic capacity and achievements of humans (such as Hamlet and Chartres), disappears once you realise that there is more than one way of looking at the same thing.

An art critic, or just an art lover, can tell you why a painting is great, or beautiful, or unique. A molecular chemist can tell you what makes up the pigmentations and the paints.

Neither one invalidates the other.

Michael:

Spot on throughout.

Jeff:

You're right, of course. But prepare for Peter to pour scorn on your 'existentialist angst'.

Michael:

Just like people are inclined to infer imposed patterns were none exist--like "everything happens in threes?"

Jeff:

That is far too facile. In the first place, I don't think it is true about either Judaism or Buddhism. In the second, theological connections between this life and the next usually put some onus on man to get it right without perfect knowledge, which is hardly a comforting thought. And do you honestly think it is less frightening to be caught in a hurricane you think is caused by an angry deity than by natural forces?

And while we are on the subject, what do you think is the source of man's fear of death and preoccupation with it? Any evidence of that in the chimps?

You guys are simply substantiating Chesterton's point, which is NOT, as he cleary states, to say that naturalist explanations are wrong, but that your certainty that there always is one leads you to develop tunnel vision and force the evidence into a rationalist mold irrespective of ambiguity, plausibility or consistency. Talk about a comforting faith! Among other problems, this leads you to be all over the map on whether religion is some enslaving, oppressive mess of guilt or a soothing balm for the soul. Do you think Harry believes religion is a comfort?

Michael does this above. Because SOME of man's behaviour appears to be social or guided by self-interest, we are entitled to assume it all is and just fiddle around with definitions to make it work. (BTW, isn't defining man as a social animal and then arguing at the same time that the bank robber is pursuing rational self-interest a little wild?)

You are also unable to shake the line that the religious simply lack or ignore knowledge and that they would all drop it if they were better educated or less stubborn or braver. Sola Fides, I guess.

"In the second, theological connections between this life and the next usually put some onus on man to get it right without perfect knowledge, which is hardly a comforting thought."

The level of comfort depends on what it is necessary to "get right". Right behaviour or right theology? From my understanding of Judaism, it is right behavior - a good unbeliever can acheive salvation, but a bad believer is at risk of damnation. However, for Protestants, it is right theology. A good unbeliever will never be saved, but a bad believer will. The second is more comforting than the first, since it is easier to acheive. Given that Protestantism's "market share" far exceeds that of Judaism, I'd say that is a good indication that the comfort factor has a lot to do with the success of religion.

"And do you honestly think it is less frightening to be caught in a hurricane you think is caused by an angry deity than by natural forces?"

If you are actually caught in the hurricane, it is probably more frightening to believe that god is behind it. But during the rest of the time, I think that it is less frightening, because it gives the believer a sense of control, that by behaving in a way to please god he is able to influence the weather and avoid bad things like hurricanes. We don't need to look to the primitives for evidence of this, just recall how Pat Robertson claimed credit for praying a hurricane away from the North Carolina coast a few years ago.

This is a well established finding of psychology. Studies have shown that giving people a sense of control over events lessens their anxiety.

Robert:

That is not my understanding of Judaism, (nor Protestantism actually) but perhaps we should wait and see whether we get some help here. Are you sure you are not a little out of date? Like about five hundred years?

Market share? That is an interesting test. Protestantism may beat Judaism in the advertising wars, but neither can touch those seventy-two virgins! :-)

I have no quarrel with your assertion that a sense of control reduces anxiety, but I'm at a loss as to why you think the religious feel in more control. Brothersjudd atheists may convince themselves the world is random and unconscious, but most of the non-religious out there think they and they alone are in full control of their own destiny, morality and definition of what is good for them. Certainly many of them could benefit from a little more anxiety.

BTW, did Pat Robertson really say that?

Peter, here is a link on Pat Robertson http://www.wtkr.com/global/story.asp?s=1444935

Or just Google on Pat Robertson Hurricane.

I do think people embrace religion because they are told it will bring them comfort when it counts, which is in the face of death.

It's a bill of goods. I come from a religious family; not, for the most part, exceptionally noisy or demonstrative about it, sort of resolute and determined.

It breaks down at funerals, though. Just when they need it most, they get full of doubt.

According to Orrin, and I agree with him completely, most people are so empty that without foisting off everything on some deity they cannot function.

I'm held up inside by bone and muscle and sinew, thanks, and while I cannot do anything I might want to do, I can do what I can do on my own. Don't need no Big Spook to hold my hand.

See, Robert, no anxiety there.

Peter:

Many people do, for absolutely no reason whatsoever, believe things happen in threes--it is a simple observation about people's desire to find some kind of order, even of the most flimsy kind.

The source of man's fear of death is simple: we are able to conceive of both the future, and death, and the inevitability of the latter. People are afraid of the unknown, death is no different. Religions, try to remove that unknown, and promise an escape from oblivion.

Because of that, I am convinced religion functions as a comfort to most people. That isn't the only function, but it certainly is one.

Regarding self-interest and social behavior. Why should it be one, or the other? To function as social animals in a group requires a balancing act--given the variation among people, some are going to operate at different tradeoffs. Some people are taller than others. Some people are more empathetic than others.

I, for one, do not believe there is a materialist explanation for everything. Based on available evidence, it seems that a material explanation for a material phenomena is mor likely to be correct than one scripturally derived. But that could all end tomorrow.

I have also never said, or implied, that the religious, in general, lack or ignore knowledge. However, what say you about fundamentalists who insist the earth is only 6,000 very literal years old--are they lacking knowledge, or merely ignoring it?

Where religion claims to possess absolute truth, and it happens to be universalist and salvationist, then there are going to be problems to the extent the religion has the secular power to do anything to impose its absolute truth.

Thankfully, in the West rational inquiry has succeeded in leavening even claims of absolute truth with just a pinch of doubt.

Islamists have yet to experience that. The consequences of their enslaving absolute truth are all too apparent.

As Robert noted, Pat Robertson really did say that. He also said 9/11 was God punishing us for our social decay.

Peter

"Brothersjudd atheists may convince themselves the world is random and unconscious, but most of the non-religious out there think they and they alone are in full control of their own destiny, morality and definition of what is good for them."

Speaking for myself here, certainly I think that evolution is random and unconscious, at the level of changes in flora and fauna in biological history.

But that's an entirely different matter from autonomy at the individual level.

One can both believe in individual free will (to greater or lesser degrees) at the small scale and in unconscious evolution at the large scale.

Brit:

"One can both believe in individual free will (to greater or lesser degrees) at the small scale and in unconscious evolution at the large scale."

Yes, I understand that, even though the distinction is completely illogical. That is why existential angst is trumpeted too loudly by you Sartre wannabes. Most of your team avoids it by making yourselves into gods.

Look, I understand how religion can be a comfort and give strength--Psalm 23 wouldn't make much sense if it didn't. But you are picking and choosing, because it also operates as a restriction on autonomy and source of anxiety. It simply doesn't make sense to suggest man invented religion because, in his natural state, he was confused and frightened and there were no darwinists around to explain it all. But your philosophy compels you to hold such a belief, and so you do. I imagine it is because any other explanation would cause you a great deal of anxiety.

Jeff:

That is very nice and reasonable, and very general. I am standing by eagerly waiting for my friend who thinks poetry and car design have a materialist explanation to tell us all what he thinks doesn't.

Peter:

"even though the distinction is completely illogical..."

Care to explain why the distinction is illogical?

Brit:

Sorry, you are right. I forgot about the doctrine of soul infusion.

It is your theory, not mine, so how about you explain how and at what point the small scale emerges from the large.

Peter:

There's no question of "the small scale emerges from the large." There's just different ways of looking at the same thing.

Blind, unconscious, directionless, unguided, unintelligent evolution has produced individual organisms with some capacity for deciding their own destinies, making choices etc. What's the logical problem?

The question of how much autonomy humans actually DO have, is separate, but interesting.

Are humans really 'free' to decide our own destinities? Clearly our autonomy is limited by different constraining factors. Uncontroversial limits, might include:
a) the physical constraints of our bodies (i can't choose to run 100 metres in 10 seconds, or have a baby.)
b) physical constraints of our environment (a prison inmate has less autonomy than me)
c) financial contraints (Bill Gates has more choices on what to do with his disposable income than me)

More controversially, limits might include:
d) upbringing, neuroses, psychological damage etc (do children abused at home have less control over whether they bully other kids? do alcoholics have less choice than me about whether to have a drink?)
e) genetic factors and biological instincts.

The last is interesting. Humans have considerable control over whether to obey their biological urges, but how much, and do some have more control than others?

A victim of a stroke, or a sufferer of MS, has less autonomy than a healthy person.

A dog seems to have less autonomy than a human, but more than say, an oyster.

Perhaps autonomy is a matter of degree.

Brit:

Would all that possibly mean that you don't know where free will comes from and don't have a conjecture?

Peter

nice one....

I acknowledge that there are lots of difficult questions.

My cautious conjecture is that autonomy is a function of intelligence, but that the constraining factors on it are variable, so there are probably varying degrees of autonomy.

Experience tells me that most people have control over most of their actions most of the time, and should consequently be held responsible for them.

But I also know that the questions are there, and that it's never going to be easy to say where autonomy begins and ends.

An interesting thought-experiment concerns degrees of 'vegetarianism'.

Some vegetarians will eat seafood.
Most meat-eaters will eat cows and sheep but refuse to eat horses.
Fewer meat-eaters will eat horses, but even they draw the line at cats and dogs.
Nearly everyone would refuse to eat a dolphin or a chimp unless they were REALLY hungry!

Why is that? My conjecture is that we tacitly acknowledge that there are degrees of autonomy. The less autonomy an animal has, the less guilt we feel about eating it.

What do you think?

Mmmm...dolphin!

Munched on a lot of slugs recently?

slugs are icky. i don't have an idealogical problem with their consumption.

snails are ok, if you pile on the garlic butter and don't think about it too long

Brit:

Lots of people eat monkeys, horse, dogs, cats, all kinds of clever game, etc. There may be something to what you say, but I suspect the reason we don't has more to do with a combination of custom and Disney than evolution.

Of course, you could argue that our more discriminating culture has reached a higher stage of evolution than the others, but that would be making an ethnocentric argument and THAT WOULD BE WRONG!

I hadn't noticed any existential angst in Brit.

All the angst seems to be on the other side. I'm an optimist, till I die, then nothing.

Not how I'd have arranged things if I had been god, but nobody gave me that choice.

Peter:

My answer was general, because that is the level of detail at which I was operating.

In terms of overall complexity, there is little to tell between a mouse, and a man. Absent the brain, a mouse is every bit as complex as a human. Obviously, a mouse brain doesn't reach that same exalted plain.

But it is still darn complex. And, limited though it may be, meeses do exercise some free will.

Climb the ladder of brain to body mass ratios, and the brain gets progressively more complex. As the skull gets bigger, the volume is proportional to the cube of the radius.

By the time you get to human skull size, that is a bloody lot of nueronal connections. Who the heck knows what they are going to get up to.

The point I am obliquely approaching is that there is a plausible materialist explanation for how the human brain came to be. There are a few reasonably precise explanations for how certain mental functions work, or at least where they take place. (The distributed processing of the visual system is fairly well described--it makes for fascinating reading; it is astonishing how much pre-processing your eye does.)

Why does materialism need to explain poetry or car design? Or, put differently, the inability to explain precisely how those things occur doesn't vitiate the explanation at a more abstract level of detail.

Free will. 20 years ago, I was greatly enamored of free will. The older I have gotten, the more convinced I am that free will, while it certainly exists, is greatly overrated.

For instance, it seems very likely that one's tendency towards religiosity (or lack thereof) is inherited. I did not choose to become an areligious agnostic. And, absent something along the lines of God grabbing me by the shoulders and giving me a good scolding, it isn't possible for me to choose otherwise.

No more than I could choose to physically attracted to another man, or Maggie Thatcher. And I would probably be better off without certain thrill issues.

I have a conjecture for why free will exists: humans can conceive the future.

Jeff:

C'mon, come clean. You stated above that you do not believe materialism explains everything. All I an asking is that you tell us which of yours or life's experiences you believe it does not explain.

Why do otters slide down riverbanks? Because of their souls?

Nothing humans do is any more inexplicable than what otters do.

Peter:

Materialism explains my capacity to have, and react to, experiences. It clearly can't explain what those experiences or reactions will be.

Newtonian mechanics explains the operation of the solar system to a fare thee well. But Newtonian mechanics can't prove the solar system is stable.

Does that mean the material understanding for the solar system is wrong, or that the complexity of systems rapidly overcomes the ability to provide detailed explanations?

The Uncertainty Principle, a material explanation, ensures that.

Harry:

Thanks. You condensed a half dozen of my paras to a couple sentences.