I think you’re talking about two different things here.
One is the “supportive positive social groups are beneficial, and church is the only one around”
and the other is “atheists are a grumpy lot but religious people are all happier from their religion”
I won’t comment on the latter for now.
I can, however, attest that it is perfectly possible to find non-religious supportive social groups. Not just self-help groups—and I really think you should rethink your idea of stigma… a “single parents” group or an “ethnic expats” group has (or should have) zero stigma attached. There are also many other socially supportive groups.
I, personally, am not only a geek, but also a bit of a nerd. I belong to a group called the Society for Creative Anachronism. We’re a bunch of people that use “medieval recreation” as an excuse for dressing up nice, eating feasts and learning ancient forms of crafts and/or sport. It’s a hell of a lot of fun… it’s also quite a thriving community. Totally non-religious.
With the principles of “Honour, chivalry, and service” it’s also got its own morality...while I personally have never done a midnight rent-donation, I have seen more acts of effective charity than I ever did when I used to go to church (mainly because I don’t consider evangelism to be a form of charity). We’re a world-wide organisation and I recall the outpourings of help for friends and strangers in time of need (eg the Katrina victims), as well as locally (eg for the Aussie victims of recent natural catastrophes), but mostly for acts of individual, personal service.
I’ve personally seen countless personal acts of altruism of this sort. A lot of our events are outdoor camping events, run entirely by volunteers almost universally for zero profit (the few for-profit events I’ve seen were basically fund-raising for some other event for the group). But even the non-organisers generally help out too. From manning the registration desk to heading out back to the kitchen to wash-up. From helping a burdened woman carry a heavy load, to helping a newbie pattern a frock or build a helmet, or all pitching in to help raise somebody else’s communal tent. I can’t remember the number of times I’ve seen people give away their stuff to newbies to help them get started—with the general advice going with it of “just do this for somebody else some time”.
I am constantly surprised at how well this philosophy works on bringing up honest, sharing children that actually help each other without being asked… (proof that it doesn’t take fear- of hell to motivate ethics if ever I saw one).
So yes, it is possible to be part of a completely non-religious social support group.
Thank you for your thoughtful comment. That sounds awesome. The fact that I’ve had more trouble finding such a group maybe has more to do with my age. How did you find this community; was it accidental or deliberate? What are my chances of finding such a group in my own city?
well, the SCA is in most big cities—so you can just google it and see. :)
I fell into it by accident. But there are lots of them out there. You just have to follow your own interests. There are often tight-knit communities that are built of fans of some obsession… that then just go on to build a community of friends—though not necessarily with the inbuilt morality function, but I don’t think that’s necessary… after all, you could instill a “pay it forward” mentality into any group.
I’m mainly familiar with the geeky and nerdy ones—SF fandom is another good example. But there are communities of expats, people dealing with certain life-issues (eg traditional self-help groups, weight-loss groups, single-parents groups etc), but also entrepreneurs clubs, alumni of various schools… basically whatever you can think up, some group has built a supportive community around it.
The SCA is unusual only in that it really attempts to build a long-term community out of what people would normally consider to be a short-term interest. I’ve known third-generation SCA members (ie their grandparents joined and their children and grand-children grew up in the society).
...and if you really can’t find a group like that nearby… you can always start one.
After reading this, I think that the reason that nonbelievers are known for being more disagreeable is that people who are more disagreeable are more likely to stop believing.
That is to say, everyone has doubts, but the more agreeable a person is the more they weight other people’s opinions and feelings in their consideration, thus making them less likely to, all other things being equal, stop believing.
Or, it’s easier to stop believing when you actually do care more about the truth than continuing to be in your religious community.
This isn’t to say that there aren’t really nice nonbelievers, but the selection effect is probably noticeable.
A very interesting point. At the London get-together we talked about how people that are into rationality are the kinds of people who are driven to question everything.
People that continually question everything would certainly not do well in a dogmatic religion—which is often defined by a set of things that you are not allowed to question. When you’re in the religion, this is often seen as accepting what other people say “on faith”, and that questioning them is being rude to them (perhaps as you say by not taking their feelings into consideration). But a questioner isn’t actually trying to be rude… just trying to get to the truth.
I once wrote a blogpost about the spectrum of preference between Truth and Harmony. People that value Truth will continue to seek the Truth even if it disturbs the harmony amongst a bunch of people—Harmony people will be more likely to “agree to disagree” or make other ameliorating behaviours to preserve the Harmony where people disagree over Truth.
I put forward that everyone is on that spectrum. I think an awful lot of people are on the Harmony end of that spectrum. ie they’re willing to forego the Truth for the sake of some temporary Harmony.
From what I can tell, rationalists are on the other end. Rationalists believe that finding out the Truth is important. They they’ll try hard not to hurt people’s feelings, but when there is a direct conflict between them, that Truth is more valuable in the long run.
I’d agree with this, and there’s obviously a tension in a lot of situations. But it’s not a zero-sum game either: some people care about both and sometimes have to sacrifice one. Some don’t really care about either that much: either because they just don’t care or because they have some value they regard as more important.
I think I personally have moved from “care only about truth and don’t care a whit about harmony” to “trying really hard to keep harmony and yet not compromise on the truth”…
Yep: especially because it’s all to easy to approach one in an artificial way: we can easily create a cargo cult of either, trying to look ‘truthy’ or doing the sort of things that harmonious people do but in a massively counter-productive way.
One HR person I know springs to mind: she tries very hard to follow all the rules on how to make people feel valued and work together, but it doesn’t come at all naturally, and the results feels like you’re being turned into a box to be ticked. Much worse in practice than someone just not caring about harmony at all.
I am way on the end of the Harmony spectrum. I like lively discussion, but I hate conflict. I don’t know if you’ve read Eliezer’s Harry Potter and the Methods of Rationality, but at one point the main character has to learn how to ‘lose’ and admit that other characters are right. I read that part and thought ‘that’s my default already.’ This probably makes it harder for me to be a rationalist.
at one point the main character has to learn how to ‘lose’ and admit that other characters are right.
Really? That’s not at all the lesson I took away, admitting that the other characters were ‘right’. Snape was quite wrong; the bullies were even more wrong. Nothing in the narrative tells us that they were ‘right’.
The lesson I took away was that one shouldn’t try to win in every situation, that doing so is very short-sighted, that some victories are Pyrrhic or Cadmean, that sometimes one has to let wrong people/characters go on their wrong way because the cost of correcting them is too high.
Harry, in those chapters, refuses to lose and is willing to escalate all the way to his nuclear option even when the issue doesn’t merit taking such a risk. One wants to accomplish things, not destroy oneself over principles. Thinking is for doing, as the saying goes.
I guess I phrased that badly. When I’m in conflict with someone else, I don’t necessarily think they’re right, but I almost invariably back down. And usually I TELL them ‘maybe you’re right’ because that pacifies people really well. I don’t think this is a good strategy.
This probably makes it harder for me to be a rationalist.
I suspect less so than being on the opposite end of said spectrum. Of course being towards the middle and being able to play both sides is almost all the way to be. :)
I think you’re talking about two different things here.
One is the “supportive positive social groups are beneficial, and church is the only one around”
and the other is “atheists are a grumpy lot but religious people are all happier from their religion”
I won’t comment on the latter for now.
I can, however, attest that it is perfectly possible to find non-religious supportive social groups. Not just self-help groups—and I really think you should rethink your idea of stigma… a “single parents” group or an “ethnic expats” group has (or should have) zero stigma attached. There are also many other socially supportive groups.
I, personally, am not only a geek, but also a bit of a nerd. I belong to a group called the Society for Creative Anachronism. We’re a bunch of people that use “medieval recreation” as an excuse for dressing up nice, eating feasts and learning ancient forms of crafts and/or sport. It’s a hell of a lot of fun… it’s also quite a thriving community. Totally non-religious.
With the principles of “Honour, chivalry, and service” it’s also got its own morality...while I personally have never done a midnight rent-donation, I have seen more acts of effective charity than I ever did when I used to go to church (mainly because I don’t consider evangelism to be a form of charity). We’re a world-wide organisation and I recall the outpourings of help for friends and strangers in time of need (eg the Katrina victims), as well as locally (eg for the Aussie victims of recent natural catastrophes), but mostly for acts of individual, personal service.
I’ve personally seen countless personal acts of altruism of this sort. A lot of our events are outdoor camping events, run entirely by volunteers almost universally for zero profit (the few for-profit events I’ve seen were basically fund-raising for some other event for the group). But even the non-organisers generally help out too. From manning the registration desk to heading out back to the kitchen to wash-up. From helping a burdened woman carry a heavy load, to helping a newbie pattern a frock or build a helmet, or all pitching in to help raise somebody else’s communal tent. I can’t remember the number of times I’ve seen people give away their stuff to newbies to help them get started—with the general advice going with it of “just do this for somebody else some time”.
I am constantly surprised at how well this philosophy works on bringing up honest, sharing children that actually help each other without being asked… (proof that it doesn’t take fear- of hell to motivate ethics if ever I saw one).
So yes, it is possible to be part of a completely non-religious social support group.
Thank you for your thoughtful comment. That sounds awesome. The fact that I’ve had more trouble finding such a group maybe has more to do with my age. How did you find this community; was it accidental or deliberate? What are my chances of finding such a group in my own city?
well, the SCA is in most big cities—so you can just google it and see. :)
I fell into it by accident. But there are lots of them out there. You just have to follow your own interests. There are often tight-knit communities that are built of fans of some obsession… that then just go on to build a community of friends—though not necessarily with the inbuilt morality function, but I don’t think that’s necessary… after all, you could instill a “pay it forward” mentality into any group.
I’m mainly familiar with the geeky and nerdy ones—SF fandom is another good example. But there are communities of expats, people dealing with certain life-issues (eg traditional self-help groups, weight-loss groups, single-parents groups etc), but also entrepreneurs clubs, alumni of various schools… basically whatever you can think up, some group has built a supportive community around it.
The SCA is unusual only in that it really attempts to build a long-term community out of what people would normally consider to be a short-term interest. I’ve known third-generation SCA members (ie their grandparents joined and their children and grand-children grew up in the society).
...and if you really can’t find a group like that nearby… you can always start one.
After reading this, I think that the reason that nonbelievers are known for being more disagreeable is that people who are more disagreeable are more likely to stop believing.
That is to say, everyone has doubts, but the more agreeable a person is the more they weight other people’s opinions and feelings in their consideration, thus making them less likely to, all other things being equal, stop believing.
Or, it’s easier to stop believing when you actually do care more about the truth than continuing to be in your religious community.
This isn’t to say that there aren’t really nice nonbelievers, but the selection effect is probably noticeable.
A very interesting point. At the London get-together we talked about how people that are into rationality are the kinds of people who are driven to question everything.
People that continually question everything would certainly not do well in a dogmatic religion—which is often defined by a set of things that you are not allowed to question. When you’re in the religion, this is often seen as accepting what other people say “on faith”, and that questioning them is being rude to them (perhaps as you say by not taking their feelings into consideration). But a questioner isn’t actually trying to be rude… just trying to get to the truth.
I once wrote a blogpost about the spectrum of preference between Truth and Harmony. People that value Truth will continue to seek the Truth even if it disturbs the harmony amongst a bunch of people—Harmony people will be more likely to “agree to disagree” or make other ameliorating behaviours to preserve the Harmony where people disagree over Truth.
I put forward that everyone is on that spectrum. I think an awful lot of people are on the Harmony end of that spectrum. ie they’re willing to forego the Truth for the sake of some temporary Harmony.
From what I can tell, rationalists are on the other end. Rationalists believe that finding out the Truth is important. They they’ll try hard not to hurt people’s feelings, but when there is a direct conflict between them, that Truth is more valuable in the long run.
I’d agree with this, and there’s obviously a tension in a lot of situations. But it’s not a zero-sum game either: some people care about both and sometimes have to sacrifice one. Some don’t really care about either that much: either because they just don’t care or because they have some value they regard as more important.
oh definitely agreed.
I think I personally have moved from “care only about truth and don’t care a whit about harmony” to “trying really hard to keep harmony and yet not compromise on the truth”…
it’s a much tougher line to walk.
Yep: especially because it’s all to easy to approach one in an artificial way: we can easily create a cargo cult of either, trying to look ‘truthy’ or doing the sort of things that harmonious people do but in a massively counter-productive way.
One HR person I know springs to mind: she tries very hard to follow all the rules on how to make people feel valued and work together, but it doesn’t come at all naturally, and the results feels like you’re being turned into a box to be ticked. Much worse in practice than someone just not caring about harmony at all.
I am way on the end of the Harmony spectrum. I like lively discussion, but I hate conflict. I don’t know if you’ve read Eliezer’s Harry Potter and the Methods of Rationality, but at one point the main character has to learn how to ‘lose’ and admit that other characters are right. I read that part and thought ‘that’s my default already.’ This probably makes it harder for me to be a rationalist.
Really? That’s not at all the lesson I took away, admitting that the other characters were ‘right’. Snape was quite wrong; the bullies were even more wrong. Nothing in the narrative tells us that they were ‘right’.
The lesson I took away was that one shouldn’t try to win in every situation, that doing so is very short-sighted, that some victories are Pyrrhic or Cadmean, that sometimes one has to let wrong people/characters go on their wrong way because the cost of correcting them is too high.
Harry, in those chapters, refuses to lose and is willing to escalate all the way to his nuclear option even when the issue doesn’t merit taking such a risk. One wants to accomplish things, not destroy oneself over principles. Thinking is for doing, as the saying goes.
I guess I phrased that badly. When I’m in conflict with someone else, I don’t necessarily think they’re right, but I almost invariably back down. And usually I TELL them ‘maybe you’re right’ because that pacifies people really well. I don’t think this is a good strategy.
I suspect less so than being on the opposite end of said spectrum. Of course being towards the middle and being able to play both sides is almost all the way to be. :)