Growing up as a moderate Jew, I never really gave Santa or the Easter Bunny much thought. My parents pretended to believe in the Tooth Fairy, but I started losing teeth late, around age 10, and by then I could tell pretty easily that they were pretending. I felt vaguely smug about not having been taken in by common myths when people in middle school swapped stories about when they found out Santa wasn’t real, but I don’t think it was that important.
One thing that did bother me was teaching Bible stories in Sunday school, as a college student supervising fifth-graders. My peers and I generally agreed that stories about miracles in the Bible weren’t literally historical, and the kids very earnestly wanted to know whether the stuff we were teaching them about was “real.” I didn’t want to just say “no,” because I thought it wouldn’t capture my real outlook on the stories—I was afraid that the kids would hear my “no, it’s not real” and translate that to “and so it’s fake and it’s not worth paying attention to.”
For me, at the time, the stories were “real” in that they conveyed hopes and morals that I thought were worth having—part of why I have a strong idealist, altruist side today is because when I was a kid I uncritically swallowed stories about my mythic ancestors and started trying to emulate them. I thought, on balance, it would probably be good for these kids if they swallowed the stories too. They spend most of their time in a liberal, scientific culture, so sooner or later they would all probably figure out that the stories aren’t historically accurate, and that particular false belief wouldn’t do any lasting harm in terms of their ability to predict how a current-events scenario might play out. None of them are going to vote for politicians, e.g., who promise to make the sun stop in the sky so that they can finish a battle.
Still, I wonder to what extent it will hurt them to find out that someone who they trusted to tell them the truth about their world manipulated them instead. I know I was really upset when I found out about how history really works. Paternalism is a little less ugly when it’s practiced on 10-year-olds instead of adults, but it’s still something to be very cautious about.
They spend most of their time in a liberal, scientific culture, so sooner or later they would all probably figure out that the stories aren’t historically accurate,
That sounds an awful lot like neglecting externalities.
None of them are going to vote for politicians, e.g., who promise to make the sun stop in the sky so that they can finish a battle.
My understanding is that the more popular saints and prophets did not announce the specifics of their tactically-significant miracles in advance, and that more than a few people voted for Bush on the strength of his claim to communicate with God (along with the implication that he can ask for help when needed, and has a better-than-average chance of receiving it).
All right, both very fair points. Let’s shift gears; please help me leave a line of retreat.
How do atheists generally cultivate altruism? Note that I’m NOT claiming that atheists are less moral on average, still less that theism is somehow required for certain levels of morality. Both of those are really stupid things to say.
What I am concerned about is that even upon being exposed to the logic of non-zero-sum games, some people remain remarkably selfish and/or cynical. Is there any way to deliberately increase their altruism and/or idealism without resorting to mysticism or religion?
I’m aware of no evidence that theistic belief even helps people be more altruistic. I subscribe to the view held by many psychologists, that philosophical rationales (including theistic ones) are usually the effects of behaviors, not their causes, while the actual causes are typically emotional in nature. As TheOtherDave suggests, the kind of emotional response people have to a situation is largely shaped by their previous social experience.
I’m aware of no evidence that theistic belief even helps people be more altruistic.
Note that I’m NOT claiming that atheists are less moral on average.
Right; I agree with you. Theism, in and of itself, doesn’t get you anywhere. It does, however, help enable the rest of organized religion. It’s hard to take church or whatever too seriously if you’re a confirmed atheist. Organized religion, in my opinion, does have many useful and powerful resources for building character. I doubt that getting access to these resources is worth the irrationality, though, so I’m looking for substitute character-building resources.
Other commenters have suggested teaching people about tit-for-tat, collective action problems, etc., but I’m not convinced that game theoretic education can take the place of character education—you can understand quite clearly how the world would be better off if everyone cooperated, and nevertheless feel that your best individual course of action is to defect around the edges and try to hide it.
Why would you expect church to be good character education compared to, say, television, which preaches a much more modern and sophisticated morality. I suggest Nip/Tuck, or for the young, Kimba: The White Lion and maybe the Ewoks Droids Adventure Hour.
If you want a religion though, there are surely factually accurate forms of atheistic Buddhism.
Well, if your church is just preaching at you, then I suppose it would be strictly dominated by good television shows. The churches I bother attending also involve studying, reflection, social activism, community service, mutual support, ritual, indoctrination, etc. It’s a much more participatory experience, and so it’s much more effective than watching television at changing your character.
As for whether the state that it’s changing your character to is desirable, well, that’s a matter of finding the right church. There are a few out there, and, more to the point (if you scroll up a few comments) I would like to identify a better, secular character-change institution. Watching TV wasn’t quite what I had in mind.
If you want a religion though, there are surely factually accurate forms of atheistic Buddhism.
I don’t want a religion; I want a character-building institution. Currently, my known list of sources for that is {Religion.} I would love your help expanding the set.
TV really isn’t so bad. I honestly find it difficult to entertain the possibility that the 90th percentile church is better than the 90th percentile TV show. I’m sure that there are 99th percentile churches, but I’d expect them to be much more like a good dojo, gym, skateboarding/surfing group, band, community theater or the like. The general purpose word for this sort of thing is civil society. Decent colleges are hotbeds of it.
I guess I’d suggest looking for a really good gym. Or in a major city, the local Less Wrong group.
you can understand quite clearly how the world would be better off if everyone cooperated, and nevertheless feel that your best individual course of action is to defect around the edges and try to hide it.
Semi-formally (and game-theoretic understandings should generate this independently) your best course of action is to defect only where pr(found out) disutility of being found out *< gain of defecting—gain of cooperating.
This is my understanding of what you wrote—given that it’s what you intended, this is the way society actually works. Even theistic people unconsciously perform this operation—witness the cases of evangelists thinking they can hide it.
What’s more, and this is only an informal observation on my part, success in society seems to involve some level of defecting around the edges. At least in Australia, the tall poppy syndrome and the popularity of trashy magazines seems to me like an outcome of people suspecting that successful people have defected around the edges, and trying to uncover where they have hidden it.
Basically, it’s my view that defecting around the edges (given that I define the edges correctly) is not something to avoid.
Semi-formally (and game-theoretic understandings should generate this independently) your best course of action is to defect only where pr(found out) * disutility of being found out < gain of defecting—gain of cooperating.
Yes, but only if you’re selfish. If you’re an idealist, then “your best course of action” might be to play by the rules even when P(caught)U(caught) << U(D) - U(C).
Note that this issue is harder than it looks to define away—if you define utility in terms of some ideology (international socialism) or species (humanity) so as to include your preference for playing by the rules, then we can still worry about cases where people of good faith but different ideologies (Spanish Civil War) or species (Three Worlds Collide) are trying to work together. In those cases, your urge to play by your own flavor of altruistic rules is in conflict with tropes like honesty, honor, and symmetry.
Institutions like markets can accomplish a whole hell of a lot with people who always cheat around the edges, but there are a few, erm, edge cases where it’s really handy to have a couple of reliably honest people around. Somebody has to watch the watchers, and it probably doesn’t hurt if they truly believe that God is watching them.
Even theistic people unconsciously perform this operation—witness the cases of evangelists thinking they can hide it.
I suspect that fundamentalists who take vacations with rent boys just have bad character; there are plenty of religious people with bad character. My claim isn’t that religion does make you a better person; my claim is that religion opens doors to self-improvement techniques that make you a better person. Any given theist still has to invest hundreds of hours in learning and applying the techniques in order to see any benefits. Most of 21st century organized religion is very bad at screening out religious leaders who don’t learn or don’t apply the techniques.
Well, yes: encourage them to develop social bonds to a group of secularists among whom altruist and/or idealist activities are highly valued, preferably one with mechanisms to prevent cheap methods for signaling altruism and/or idealism to displace those activities.
Of course, that raises the question of how to identify such a group… or create it in the first place.
Among secularists, the term ‘humanist’ is a good sign. I belong to a community of secular humanists (although it doesn’t have enough families to help with raising children yet).
You can get a close copy of mainline Protestant church socialisation at a Unitarian Universalist congregation in the United States. (Individual congregations vary widely, however, and not all are really secular, with various degrees of monotheism, neopaganism, and pantheism all possible in the culture, although they should be accepting of anybody.)
What I am concerned about is that even upon being exposed to the logic of non-zero-sum games, some people remain remarkably selfish and/or cynical. Is there any way to deliberately increase their altruism and/or idealism without resorting to mysticism or religion?
Interesting point. I have actually noticed that among my friends the religious ones are also the less selfish and cynical ones (even though that wasn’t what you were saying). However, they are less selfish even in zero-sum games, so there’s a point against resorting to mysticism or religion.
As for increasing their altruism, I found that learning of the Iterated Prisoner’s Dilemma and the tit-for-tat strategy make a marked difference for me. Maybe this could generalise to “learn rationality”.
Comparing doing good things for your local community, even in a small way, to doing housework—it’s work, but you benefit from not drowning in crap—seems to get the point across IME. Note that there are no housecleaners to employ. (I’m not sure the police count in the meaning of the analogy I’m using.)
I think David_Gerard is getting at the point that because of interconnectedness, helping others also helps us. Mutual benefit is not the same as altruism, but a stronger awareness or understanding of it can encourage good acts.
If I hoover the living room, my housemates benefit more than I do from less dust, but I don’t have to listen to them sneezing. If I shovel the snow off my neighbours’ front pavement as well as my own, they (who don’t own snow shovels) don’t have to do it, but my post is easier to deliver. Goodwill from the postman goes a long way!The shelter I volunteer at makes some contribution to the safety of this neighbourhood. The money I send each month to a small school in Africa means the children who study there are less likely to be involved in violence which, while seeming far-removed from my life here in the UK, could conceivably have an effect. The idea that everything is interconnected, there are no externalities and the good of another really is to my benefit as well can be a strong argument.
It isn’t altruism, though, as I understand it. Altruism is my doing these things even though the benefit to me is low compared to the benefit if I were to spend my time and energy and money elsewhere. As I also derive significant warm fuzzies and a small amount of good reputation from these actions I cannot claim to be truly altruistic, though I would like to think I am. If this is true of most idealists or altruists, I’m not certain the distinction matters.
My best guess as to how to systematically inculcate altruism is by practical, structured volunteering coupled with discussion. With a bit of luck the warm fuzzies should kick in. In London I thought the Unitarians were fairly strong here but ultimately the community was too small and not theist enough for my other requirements.
I have learned or “caught” warm fuzzies from others being kind to me even when the benefit to them was small. Many of these people are theists but a significant number are not. I submit that if altruism is contagious, then acting altruistically whenever you can may help encourage altruism.
For my own part, I’m inclined to call someone who derives significant warm fuzzies from helping others “altruistic”, by comparison to someone who doesn’t. I’ll grant you that it might be more precise to say that they have altruistic values, rather than that they are performing altruistic acts.
how do we teach or pass on altruistic values outside a religious setting?
if this is difficult or impossible, is it better to convince people to perform altruistic acts even if that runs contrary to their values? Is that possible without an element of dishonesty?
I think religion can be a vehicle for the transmission of altruistic values, but I dislike the way it is often used to bamboozle people into behaving in certain ways (some of which, in more positive cases, are altruistic). I am also wary of some of the other values religion often transmits.
As I said here: encourage people to develop social bonds to a community of secularists among whom altruist activities are highly valued, preferably one with mechanisms to prevent cheap methods for signaling altruism from displacing those activities.
I doubt religion per se has much to do with altruism. But religious communities are typically tangible and visible and persistent, and that’s important for the transmission of values.
And, sure, encouraging people to perform acts that benefit others, even if they don’t want to, is possible without dishonesty. Force is a popular alternative, for example… either physical or social. Whether that’s a good thing or not is another question.
For example, many countries collect taxes from residents and use a significant share of those taxes to provide resources to citizens in need; many taxpayers don’t especially value providing resources to their fellow citizens, but nevertheless pay taxes.
I see a lot of activism that is carried out by groups which, if not specifically secularist, are not explicitly religious, but this tends to be single-issue stuff. Religious communities, in my experience, tend to teach on or examine or respond to every aspect of life (though it is debateable how successful most are, as there is nowadays the problem of people leaving if they don’t like what they hear). Are there secular movements which attempt to be so all-embracing?
I don’t know, but I also don’t think attempting to be all-embracing is necessarily a good idea.
If a community acts altruistically in the contexts that arise to be acted in, then new members of that community will tend to adopt altruistic values, and will in turn act altruistically in contexts that arise to be acted in. That’s true regardless of what those contexts turn out to be.
They don’t ever have to talk about altruism or look for ways to manifest altruism in contexts that don’t seem to require it; indeed, doing so is one way that signaling ends up displacing doing.
Not that there’s anything wrong with talking about one’s values, any more than there’s anything wrong with talking about one’s tastes in food. But talking about food is a different kind of task than cooking or eating, and talking about altruism is different from behaving altruistically.
If a community gives up opportunities to behave altruistically in favor of talking, they communicate the value of talking rather than the value of altruism.
The analogy is community maintenance analogous to household maintenance. You can hire housecleaners, but hiring people for your community can be harder.
Even if they genuinely believed that, claiming to talk to God on a regular basis could sill be reassuring. The smaller-scale equivalent would be
Vote Sgt. Johnson for platoon leader!
He’s not to proud to call for fire support when things get ugly, and plays poker with some guys in the mortar battery every week.
But if this ad is directed at me, and I also play poker with some guys in the mortar battery every week, and I genuinely believe that those guys will provide fire support whenever I ask them, even if I’m a lowly grunt, then what does it matter who’s platoon leader?
Actually, I can think of a reason: It’s best if the platoon leader knows these guys too, since the platoon leader will actually know of more situations than I will to call on these guys. It’s the “better-than-average chance” that shouldn’t affect anybody with a genuine belief in Matthew 7. According to the Bible, the chance is either 1 or 0 (or so close that you might as well round it off), once you know whether a person is Christian or not.
My understanding is that the more popular saints and prophets did not announce the specifics of their tactically-significant miracles in advance,
In the one referred by MassDriver, where Joshua makes the sun stand still, he does ask for that to happen. Note that many Biblical miracles have the prophets saying what will happen in advance. Most likely the stories never even took place. Similarly, many modern faith healers say what will happen well in advance, but the claimed miracles are simply not impressive.
that more than a few people voted for Bush on the strength of his claim to communicate with God (along with the implication that he can ask for help when needed, and has a better-than-average chance of receiving it)
Do you have a citation for this? Certainly there were people who voted for Bush due to his religion. But I’m not aware of any evidence that a substantial number of people voted for him due to claims that he could talk to God.
Growing up as a moderate Jew, I never really gave Santa or the Easter Bunny much thought. My parents pretended to believe in the Tooth Fairy, but I started losing teeth late, around age 10, and by then I could tell pretty easily that they were pretending. I felt vaguely smug about not having been taken in by common myths when people in middle school swapped stories about when they found out Santa wasn’t real, but I don’t think it was that important.
One thing that did bother me was teaching Bible stories in Sunday school, as a college student supervising fifth-graders. My peers and I generally agreed that stories about miracles in the Bible weren’t literally historical, and the kids very earnestly wanted to know whether the stuff we were teaching them about was “real.” I didn’t want to just say “no,” because I thought it wouldn’t capture my real outlook on the stories—I was afraid that the kids would hear my “no, it’s not real” and translate that to “and so it’s fake and it’s not worth paying attention to.”
For me, at the time, the stories were “real” in that they conveyed hopes and morals that I thought were worth having—part of why I have a strong idealist, altruist side today is because when I was a kid I uncritically swallowed stories about my mythic ancestors and started trying to emulate them. I thought, on balance, it would probably be good for these kids if they swallowed the stories too. They spend most of their time in a liberal, scientific culture, so sooner or later they would all probably figure out that the stories aren’t historically accurate, and that particular false belief wouldn’t do any lasting harm in terms of their ability to predict how a current-events scenario might play out. None of them are going to vote for politicians, e.g., who promise to make the sun stop in the sky so that they can finish a battle.
Still, I wonder to what extent it will hurt them to find out that someone who they trusted to tell them the truth about their world manipulated them instead. I know I was really upset when I found out about how history really works. Paternalism is a little less ugly when it’s practiced on 10-year-olds instead of adults, but it’s still something to be very cautious about.
That sounds an awful lot like neglecting externalities.
My understanding is that the more popular saints and prophets did not announce the specifics of their tactically-significant miracles in advance, and that more than a few people voted for Bush on the strength of his claim to communicate with God (along with the implication that he can ask for help when needed, and has a better-than-average chance of receiving it).
All right, both very fair points. Let’s shift gears; please help me leave a line of retreat.
How do atheists generally cultivate altruism? Note that I’m NOT claiming that atheists are less moral on average, still less that theism is somehow required for certain levels of morality. Both of those are really stupid things to say.
What I am concerned about is that even upon being exposed to the logic of non-zero-sum games, some people remain remarkably selfish and/or cynical. Is there any way to deliberately increase their altruism and/or idealism without resorting to mysticism or religion?
I’m aware of no evidence that theistic belief even helps people be more altruistic. I subscribe to the view held by many psychologists, that philosophical rationales (including theistic ones) are usually the effects of behaviors, not their causes, while the actual causes are typically emotional in nature. As TheOtherDave suggests, the kind of emotional response people have to a situation is largely shaped by their previous social experience.
Right; I agree with you. Theism, in and of itself, doesn’t get you anywhere. It does, however, help enable the rest of organized religion. It’s hard to take church or whatever too seriously if you’re a confirmed atheist. Organized religion, in my opinion, does have many useful and powerful resources for building character. I doubt that getting access to these resources is worth the irrationality, though, so I’m looking for substitute character-building resources.
Other commenters have suggested teaching people about tit-for-tat, collective action problems, etc., but I’m not convinced that game theoretic education can take the place of character education—you can understand quite clearly how the world would be better off if everyone cooperated, and nevertheless feel that your best individual course of action is to defect around the edges and try to hide it.
Why would you expect church to be good character education compared to, say, television, which preaches a much more modern and sophisticated morality. I suggest Nip/Tuck, or for the young, Kimba: The White Lion and maybe the Ewoks Droids Adventure Hour.
If you want a religion though, there are surely factually accurate forms of atheistic Buddhism.
Well, if your church is just preaching at you, then I suppose it would be strictly dominated by good television shows. The churches I bother attending also involve studying, reflection, social activism, community service, mutual support, ritual, indoctrination, etc. It’s a much more participatory experience, and so it’s much more effective than watching television at changing your character.
As for whether the state that it’s changing your character to is desirable, well, that’s a matter of finding the right church. There are a few out there, and, more to the point (if you scroll up a few comments) I would like to identify a better, secular character-change institution. Watching TV wasn’t quite what I had in mind.
I don’t want a religion; I want a character-building institution. Currently, my known list of sources for that is {Religion.} I would love your help expanding the set.
TV really isn’t so bad. I honestly find it difficult to entertain the possibility that the 90th percentile church is better than the 90th percentile TV show. I’m sure that there are 99th percentile churches, but I’d expect them to be much more like a good dojo, gym, skateboarding/surfing group, band, community theater or the like. The general purpose word for this sort of thing is civil society. Decent colleges are hotbeds of it.
I guess I’d suggest looking for a really good gym. Or in a major city, the local Less Wrong group.
Semi-formally (and game-theoretic understandings should generate this independently) your best course of action is to defect only where pr(found out) disutility of being found out *< gain of defecting—gain of cooperating.
This is my understanding of what you wrote—given that it’s what you intended, this is the way society actually works. Even theistic people unconsciously perform this operation—witness the cases of evangelists thinking they can hide it.
What’s more, and this is only an informal observation on my part, success in society seems to involve some level of defecting around the edges. At least in Australia, the tall poppy syndrome and the popularity of trashy magazines seems to me like an outcome of people suspecting that successful people have defected around the edges, and trying to uncover where they have hidden it.
Basically, it’s my view that defecting around the edges (given that I define the edges correctly) is not something to avoid.
Yes, but only if you’re selfish. If you’re an idealist, then “your best course of action” might be to play by the rules even when P(caught)U(caught) << U(D) - U(C).
Note that this issue is harder than it looks to define away—if you define utility in terms of some ideology (international socialism) or species (humanity) so as to include your preference for playing by the rules, then we can still worry about cases where people of good faith but different ideologies (Spanish Civil War) or species (Three Worlds Collide) are trying to work together. In those cases, your urge to play by your own flavor of altruistic rules is in conflict with tropes like honesty, honor, and symmetry.
Institutions like markets can accomplish a whole hell of a lot with people who always cheat around the edges, but there are a few, erm, edge cases where it’s really handy to have a couple of reliably honest people around. Somebody has to watch the watchers, and it probably doesn’t hurt if they truly believe that God is watching them.
I suspect that fundamentalists who take vacations with rent boys just have bad character; there are plenty of religious people with bad character. My claim isn’t that religion does make you a better person; my claim is that religion opens doors to self-improvement techniques that make you a better person. Any given theist still has to invest hundreds of hours in learning and applying the techniques in order to see any benefits. Most of 21st century organized religion is very bad at screening out religious leaders who don’t learn or don’t apply the techniques.
Well, yes: encourage them to develop social bonds to a group of secularists among whom altruist and/or idealist activities are highly valued, preferably one with mechanisms to prevent cheap methods for signaling altruism and/or idealism to displace those activities.
Of course, that raises the question of how to identify such a group… or create it in the first place.
Among secularists, the term ‘humanist’ is a good sign. I belong to a community of secular humanists (although it doesn’t have enough families to help with raising children yet).
You can get a close copy of mainline Protestant church socialisation at a Unitarian Universalist congregation in the United States. (Individual congregations vary widely, however, and not all are really secular, with various degrees of monotheism, neopaganism, and pantheism all possible in the culture, although they should be accepting of anybody.)
Interesting point. I have actually noticed that among my friends the religious ones are also the less selfish and cynical ones (even though that wasn’t what you were saying). However, they are less selfish even in zero-sum games, so there’s a point against resorting to mysticism or religion.
As for increasing their altruism, I found that learning of the Iterated Prisoner’s Dilemma and the tit-for-tat strategy make a marked difference for me. Maybe this could generalise to “learn rationality”.
Comparing doing good things for your local community, even in a small way, to doing housework—it’s work, but you benefit from not drowning in crap—seems to get the point across IME. Note that there are no housecleaners to employ. (I’m not sure the police count in the meaning of the analogy I’m using.)
I’m sorry, I didn’t understand your last comment. Would you please try other words or phrases?
I think David_Gerard is getting at the point that because of interconnectedness, helping others also helps us. Mutual benefit is not the same as altruism, but a stronger awareness or understanding of it can encourage good acts.
If I hoover the living room, my housemates benefit more than I do from less dust, but I don’t have to listen to them sneezing. If I shovel the snow off my neighbours’ front pavement as well as my own, they (who don’t own snow shovels) don’t have to do it, but my post is easier to deliver. Goodwill from the postman goes a long way!The shelter I volunteer at makes some contribution to the safety of this neighbourhood. The money I send each month to a small school in Africa means the children who study there are less likely to be involved in violence which, while seeming far-removed from my life here in the UK, could conceivably have an effect. The idea that everything is interconnected, there are no externalities and the good of another really is to my benefit as well can be a strong argument.
It isn’t altruism, though, as I understand it. Altruism is my doing these things even though the benefit to me is low compared to the benefit if I were to spend my time and energy and money elsewhere. As I also derive significant warm fuzzies and a small amount of good reputation from these actions I cannot claim to be truly altruistic, though I would like to think I am. If this is true of most idealists or altruists, I’m not certain the distinction matters.
My best guess as to how to systematically inculcate altruism is by practical, structured volunteering coupled with discussion. With a bit of luck the warm fuzzies should kick in. In London I thought the Unitarians were fairly strong here but ultimately the community was too small and not theist enough for my other requirements.
I have learned or “caught” warm fuzzies from others being kind to me even when the benefit to them was small. Many of these people are theists but a significant number are not. I submit that if altruism is contagious, then acting altruistically whenever you can may help encourage altruism.
For my own part, I’m inclined to call someone who derives significant warm fuzzies from helping others “altruistic”, by comparison to someone who doesn’t. I’ll grant you that it might be more precise to say that they have altruistic values, rather than that they are performing altruistic acts.
That makes sense.
Assuming altruism in general is desirable:
how do we teach or pass on altruistic values outside a religious setting?
if this is difficult or impossible, is it better to convince people to perform altruistic acts even if that runs contrary to their values? Is that possible without an element of dishonesty?
I think religion can be a vehicle for the transmission of altruistic values, but I dislike the way it is often used to bamboozle people into behaving in certain ways (some of which, in more positive cases, are altruistic). I am also wary of some of the other values religion often transmits.
As I said here: encourage people to develop social bonds to a community of secularists among whom altruist activities are highly valued, preferably one with mechanisms to prevent cheap methods for signaling altruism from displacing those activities.
I doubt religion per se has much to do with altruism. But religious communities are typically tangible and visible and persistent, and that’s important for the transmission of values.
And, sure, encouraging people to perform acts that benefit others, even if they don’t want to, is possible without dishonesty. Force is a popular alternative, for example… either physical or social. Whether that’s a good thing or not is another question.
For example, many countries collect taxes from residents and use a significant share of those taxes to provide resources to citizens in need; many taxpayers don’t especially value providing resources to their fellow citizens, but nevertheless pay taxes.
I’d quite forgotten about force.
I see a lot of activism that is carried out by groups which, if not specifically secularist, are not explicitly religious, but this tends to be single-issue stuff. Religious communities, in my experience, tend to teach on or examine or respond to every aspect of life (though it is debateable how successful most are, as there is nowadays the problem of people leaving if they don’t like what they hear). Are there secular movements which attempt to be so all-embracing?
I don’t know, but I also don’t think attempting to be all-embracing is necessarily a good idea.
If a community acts altruistically in the contexts that arise to be acted in, then new members of that community will tend to adopt altruistic values, and will in turn act altruistically in contexts that arise to be acted in. That’s true regardless of what those contexts turn out to be.
They don’t ever have to talk about altruism or look for ways to manifest altruism in contexts that don’t seem to require it; indeed, doing so is one way that signaling ends up displacing doing.
Not that there’s anything wrong with talking about one’s values, any more than there’s anything wrong with talking about one’s tastes in food. But talking about food is a different kind of task than cooking or eating, and talking about altruism is different from behaving altruistically.
If a community gives up opportunities to behave altruistically in favor of talking, they communicate the value of talking rather than the value of altruism.
Incidentally, none of this is unique to altruism.
The analogy is community maintenance analogous to household maintenance. You can hire housecleaners, but hiring people for your community can be harder.
But anyone who asks for help will receive it! (See Matthew 7:7–11.)
I know, I know; nobody really believes that; they only believe that they believe it.
Even if they genuinely believed that, claiming to talk to God on a regular basis could sill be reassuring. The smaller-scale equivalent would be
But if this ad is directed at me, and I also play poker with some guys in the mortar battery every week, and I genuinely believe that those guys will provide fire support whenever I ask them, even if I’m a lowly grunt, then what does it matter who’s platoon leader?
Actually, I can think of a reason: It’s best if the platoon leader knows these guys too, since the platoon leader will actually know of more situations than I will to call on these guys. It’s the “better-than-average chance” that shouldn’t affect anybody with a genuine belief in Matthew 7. According to the Bible, the chance is either 1 or 0 (or so close that you might as well round it off), once you know whether a person is Christian or not.
In the one referred by MassDriver, where Joshua makes the sun stand still, he does ask for that to happen. Note that many Biblical miracles have the prophets saying what will happen in advance. Most likely the stories never even took place. Similarly, many modern faith healers say what will happen well in advance, but the claimed miracles are simply not impressive.
Do you have a citation for this? Certainly there were people who voted for Bush due to his religion. But I’m not aware of any evidence that a substantial number of people voted for him due to claims that he could talk to God.