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.
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.