Agnostic.com

5 9

REligious fundamentalism -- Christian, Jewish, Islamist, Buddhist or whatever -- is always a threat to humanity. Fundamentalist are "True believers" who are absolutely certain that their interpretation of the fundamentals of their faith constitutes the one and only truth, the one and only set of commandments on how to live.. Believing that, they are more than willing to try to tyrannically impose their religious will on everyone else and to judge everyone else by their dogma. They go to extremes of cruelty to impose their will -- genocide, torture, imprisonment. Accordingly any theocracy , regardless of the religion, will always be a pernicious cancer.

wordywalt 9 Oct 13
Share

Enjoy being online again!

Welcome to the community of good people who base their values on evidence and appreciate civil discourse - the social network you will enjoy.

Create your free account

5 comments

Feel free to reply to any comment by clicking the "Reply" button.

0

You nailed it Walt!

3

Would it not be lovely if we could get all those people together and put them on an island somewhere far, far away from anyone else and leave them there.

3

Not cancer - not evil - not demonic - just biology.

Demonizing and blaming doesn’t help.

Understandable - but not constructive.

The only antidote to bad culture is better culture.

Let’s understand the science, and work to build better culture.

From PubMed:

“…humans are extraordinarily well-adapted rule enforcers, often intrinsically motivated not only to enforce rules themselves, but also to punish others who do not punish violators.

Boyd argues that the so-called ‘second-order free-rider problem’ is not a concern here; so long as only some fraction of individuals fail to punish those who do not punish, while others do so, the proportion of non-punishers should decrease with each successive iteration of the problem. Thus our strong tendency to follow and enforce social norms turns them into a powerful tool for enforcing co-operation at a large scale.

Why, then, are many norms detrimental to individuals and even maladaptive from the point of view of the individual or the group? For Boyd, the explanation lies in our exquisite ability to enforce and stabilise any norm at all; like our tendency to imitate successful others, it is content-neutral.

And while our norm psychology has evolved genetically because it is highly advantageous, its content neutrality means that we are prone at times to adopt norms which themselves may not be advantageous, and may even be detrimental. The selection of adaptive versus maladaptive norms is a distinct process that takes place, Boyd argues, through cultural group selection. Those groups that adopt advantageous norms will be more likely to survive, to attract new members, and to be imitated. Thus at any given time, all manner of norms may be present across multiple groups, but cultural evolution suggests there is an ongoing process of selection and adaptation.”
[ncbi.nlm.nih.gov]

skado Level 9 Oct 13, 2023

That is so close to my negative effects of culture, that the difference hardly matters.

@Fernapple
It doesn’t matter at all for the short term, but as the last paragraph explains, it is eventually sorted out at the group level where it matters to the tune of survival or non-survival.

@skado No that is not what I am talking about, sorry I should have been plainer. I was talking about our current debate under religious naturalism.

@Fernapple
Yes, that’s how I took it.

1

Exactly.

2

Well said.

Write Comment
You can include a link to this post in your posts and comments by including the text q:733804
Agnostic does not evaluate or guarantee the accuracy of any content. Read full disclaimer.