12 ms·

It is ironic, and sad that this was so quickly flagged. It may be that, given something like 80-90% of humans on earth follow such religious institutions, we a

It is ironic, and sad that this was so quickly flagged. It may be that, given something like 80-90% of humans on earth follow such religious institutions, we as a species have some genetic factors that make us intolerant of differing viewpoints. I can imagine such genetic factors could have played a role in social cohesion early in human evolution.

wheresmyshadow 3y ago
You're completely right, this couldn't be any more ironic. Article on how people can't debate got flagged with lots of comments proving the point, ah...
- fallingknife 3y ago
  Just had an idea. The power of a flagging should be scaled by the inverse of how often the flagging user uses flags.
  - system7rocks 3y ago
    I'd love to engage with others about this. Richard Dawkins has not done himself any favors as being open to this conversation. There is so much to learn and appreciate about the diversity within humanity, including the concept of sexuality and gender. That would be a great conversation, and yet Dawkins and others just complain but don't open it up.
stakhanov 3y ago
Jordan Peterson has some interesting thoughts on how the psychology behind environmentalism, wokism, social justice warriordom etc. has a lot of overlap with the psychology behind religion. And when he says that, that's not a shallow dismissal of something he disapproves of, because he's actually pro-religion. The problem is the fact that people who hold these viewpoints see religious people as their enemy, so they're weirdly blind to how they themselves are religious. And it's a young and immature religion that hasn't yet been through the formative historical chapter of the Spanish Inquisition, the witch hunts etc., and the reckoning that followed. History will repeat itself.
- crazydoggers 3y ago
  > The problem is the fact that people who hold these viewpoints see religious people as their enemy, so they're weirdly blind to how they themselves are religious. It’s a fascinating realization. It reminds me of the religious history of the Soviet Union. The Soviets attempted to “delete” religion, which instead of creating a rational secular society, instead pushed people into pseudoscience, occultism and superstition. It may be that in a culture pushed away from orthodox religions, due in many cases to those religions often actually engaging in hate against certain groups, a kind of replacement religious system takes hold.
  - stakhanov 3y ago
    Yeah, it's weird how this particular social transformation has no sticking power and instead produces oscillations. Coming at it from the Christian perspective (since it's the only religion that I know anything about): Jesus himself is portrayed in the New Testament as a rebel against the religious orthodoxy at the time. This resulted in a religion which, itself, eventually turned into an orthodoxy worth opposing. And now, secular opposition to that orthodoxy is weirdly turning into an orthodoxy of its own.
- operatingthetan 3y ago
  >The problem is the fact that people who hold these viewpoints see religious people as their enemy, so they're weirdly blind to how they themselves are religious. And it's a young and immature religion that hasn't yet been through the formative historical chapter of the Spanish Inquisition, the witch hunts etc., and the reckoning that followed. History will repeat itself. First this requires accepting an inaccurate definition of what a religion is, in other words you are mischaracterizing others beliefs. Second it seems like you are shooting your own religious position in the foot by dismissing your opponent's view 'just religion' as well. The rest is condescension.
  - blubbity 3y ago
    How do you define religion? Is Shinto a religion? What about Confucianism? Do you believe that religions need a centralized governing body? Do religions require community? What is an accurate definition of religion that isn’t immediately fraught with counter-examples?
maegul 3y ago
I share similar feelings. <armchair anthropology time> I recall a recent genetics study[1] concluding that the homo sapiens (or direct ancestor) population bottle neck was ~1000 people for about 100,000 years. My mind immediately wondered whether that length of time was long enough for some evolution to occur that reflected those conditions. Surely that world was insular for the people/hominids and extreme enough that survival was at the forefront of nearly all behaviours and social phenomena. If any of that rubbed off on our genetics and all of human evolution and history since has not provided any sufficient forces to alter those traits, then it stands to reason our psychology is somewhat hard wired for catastrophic/post-apocalyptic in-group survival defensiveness/aggressiveness beyond even our animal/primate cousins. All of that rests however on what time periods are required for evolutionary changes. My vague memory of studying a tiny bit of population genetics is that big changes can happen pretty quickly if there are factors capable of altering the size of the population substantially and that persist for a few generations. </> Otherwise, yea ... seems pretty obvious to me that our world (global society) and its complexity is very much a "reach exceeding grasp" scenario for our species. Generally, I suspect greater stability and prosperity is rather possible but would require a drastic change in what we prioritise in our education and upbringing, where I would guess that we have a fundamental choice between what is compartmentalised or distributed in the way of social thinking, processing and decision making. It seems to me we've de-prioritised the average ability of the population to effectively participate and understand broad social and economic issues and decisions, and, are instead emphasising specialised/compartmentalised economic roles. Naively, I would propose that investing in more distributed social/economic understanding would be better for society at large, which has arguably taken place with modern wealthy western civilisation. But, in line with my armchair anthropology above, I wouldn't be at all surprised if plugging more humans into the broad social issues of the day, however good attempts at their education etc have been, will naturally lead to tumult and division that is inevitably irrational and driven by inapt or misaligned psychological drives. Going sci-fi on this ... it's curious to think about whether the "great filter" may simply be whether a species evolves intelligence etc by following only a narrow, and therefore unlikely, set of evolutionary paths or biological/geological histories that confer the required innate traits for being able to scale up to larger and well coordinated civilisations. Like, could the ice age dynamic of our planet have limited the possible evolutionary paths a species could take to those which make population scaling difficult and unproductive? [1]: https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.abq7487 https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.abq7487

wheresmyshadow 3y ago

You're completely right, this couldn't be any more ironic. Article on how people can't debate got flagged with lots of comments proving the point, ah...

fallingknife 3y ago
Just had an idea. The power of a flagging should be scaled by the inverse of how often the flagging user uses flags.
- system7rocks 3y ago
  I'd love to engage with others about this. Richard Dawkins has not done himself any favors as being open to this conversation. There is so much to learn and appreciate about the diversity within humanity, including the concept of sexuality and gender. That would be a great conversation, and yet Dawkins and others just complain but don't open it up.

stakhanov 3y ago

Jordan Peterson has some interesting thoughts on how the psychology behind environmentalism, wokism, social justice warriordom etc. has a lot of overlap with the psychology behind religion. And when he says that, that's not a shallow dismissal of something he disapproves of, because he's actually pro-religion. The problem is the fact that people who hold these viewpoints see religious people as their enemy, so they're weirdly blind to how they themselves are religious. And it's a young and immature religion that hasn't yet been through the formative historical chapter of the Spanish Inquisition, the witch hunts etc., and the reckoning that followed. History will repeat itself.

crazydoggers 3y ago
> The problem is the fact that people who hold these viewpoints see religious people as their enemy, so they're weirdly blind to how they themselves are religious. It’s a fascinating realization. It reminds me of the religious history of the Soviet Union. The Soviets attempted to “delete” religion, which instead of creating a rational secular society, instead pushed people into pseudoscience, occultism and superstition. It may be that in a culture pushed away from orthodox religions, due in many cases to those religions often actually engaging in hate against certain groups, a kind of replacement religious system takes hold.
- stakhanov 3y ago
  Yeah, it's weird how this particular social transformation has no sticking power and instead produces oscillations. Coming at it from the Christian perspective (since it's the only religion that I know anything about): Jesus himself is portrayed in the New Testament as a rebel against the religious orthodoxy at the time. This resulted in a religion which, itself, eventually turned into an orthodoxy worth opposing. And now, secular opposition to that orthodoxy is weirdly turning into an orthodoxy of its own.
operatingthetan 3y ago
>The problem is the fact that people who hold these viewpoints see religious people as their enemy, so they're weirdly blind to how they themselves are religious. And it's a young and immature religion that hasn't yet been through the formative historical chapter of the Spanish Inquisition, the witch hunts etc., and the reckoning that followed. History will repeat itself. First this requires accepting an inaccurate definition of what a religion is, in other words you are mischaracterizing others beliefs. Second it seems like you are shooting your own religious position in the foot by dismissing your opponent's view 'just religion' as well. The rest is condescension.
- blubbity 3y ago
  How do you define religion? Is Shinto a religion? What about Confucianism? Do you believe that religions need a centralized governing body? Do religions require community? What is an accurate definition of religion that isn’t immediately fraught with counter-examples?

maegul 3y ago

I share similar feelings. <armchair anthropology time> I recall a recent genetics study[1] concluding that the homo sapiens (or direct ancestor) population bottle neck was ~1000 people for about 100,000 years. My mind immediately wondered whether that length of time was long enough for some evolution to occur that reflected those conditions. Surely that world was insular for the people/hominids and extreme enough that survival was at the forefront of nearly all behaviours and social phenomena. If any of that rubbed off on our genetics and all of human evolution and history since has not provided any sufficient forces to alter those traits, then it stands to reason our psychology is somewhat hard wired for catastrophic/post-apocalyptic in-group survival defensiveness/aggressiveness beyond even our animal/primate cousins. All of that rests however on what time periods are required for evolutionary changes. My vague memory of studying a tiny bit of population genetics is that big changes can happen pretty quickly if there are factors capable of altering the size of the population substantially and that persist for a few generations. </> Otherwise, yea ... seems pretty obvious to me that our world (global society) and its complexity is very much a "reach exceeding grasp" scenario for our species. Generally, I suspect greater stability and prosperity is rather possible but would require a drastic change in what we prioritise in our education and upbringing, where I would guess that we have a fundamental choice between what is compartmentalised or distributed in the way of social thinking, processing and decision making. It seems to me we've de-prioritised the average ability of the population to effectively participate and understand broad social and economic issues and decisions, and, are instead emphasising specialised/compartmentalised economic roles. Naively, I would propose that investing in more distributed social/economic understanding would be better for society at large, which has arguably taken place with modern wealthy western civilisation. But, in line with my armchair anthropology above, I wouldn't be at all surprised if plugging more humans into the broad social issues of the day, however good attempts at their education etc have been, will naturally lead to tumult and division that is inevitably irrational and driven by inapt or misaligned psychological drives. Going sci-fi on this ... it's curious to think about whether the "great filter" may simply be whether a species evolves intelligence etc by following only a narrow, and therefore unlikely, set of evolutionary paths or biological/geological histories that confer the required innate traits for being able to scale up to larger and well coordinated civilisations. Like, could the ice age dynamic of our planet have limited the possible evolutionary paths a species could take to those which make population scaling difficult and unproductive? [1]: https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.abq7487 https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.abq7487