Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Bill · 09-21-2003, 05:05 PM

Today's Washington Post has an extremely interesting article by conservative pundit George will, HERE:

Quote:

The problem is a deficit of connectedness. The deficit is the difference between what the biological makeup of human beings demands and what many children's social situations supply in the way of connections to other people and to institutions that satisfy the natural need for moral and spiritual meaning.

The need expresses itself in religious cravings -- the search for moral meaning and an openness to the possibility of a transcendent reality. The need is natural in that it arises from "our basic biology and how our brains develop." The report draws upon the science of infant attachment and of brain development, particularly during adolescence, when the brain changes significantly.

...

So biology, it seems, buttresses important moral conventions. And they may have evolved in conformity to biological facts.

The scientific fact, if such it is, that religious expression is natural to personhood does not vindicate any religion's truth claims. A naturalistic hypothesis is that the emotions of religious experience have neurobiological origins: The brain evolved that way to serve individual and group survival.

This research, summarized by Will, seems to tie into any number of ideas that have intrigued me for years, including:

Teen Rebellion: could it be that teen rebellion is simply a natural phenomena related to the ongoing restructuring in teen brains?
Non-Believer Church Attendance: could it be that many non-believers prefer to attend church simply to experience the "connectedness with others" which a religious environment provides?
Empathy: could it be that "empathy," which has always seemed to me to be closely related to moral behavior, is simply an expression of how "connected" we feel towards others?
Truth: could it be that, the more we learn about how the evolutionary attributes of human development caused humans to produce various sorts of religious beliefs, we can finally accept that no religion can ever be true?

The evidence, in my view, continues to mount, higher and higher. When a conservative icon like George Will is able to admit it, then it seems to me that only the most fundamentalist of believers can fail to see the handwriting on the wall (mene mene tekel uparsin, which means something like "counted and counted; weighed and divided"). So, what will be the fate which science will mete out to traditional religious beliefs?

== Bill

one ryder · 09-21-2003, 10:07 PM

I have too much respect for the scope of Will's general knowledge to believe that much of the material on which he reports was a revelation to him. Rather, I suspect that his approach indicates his accessment of the general ignorance of his readership on the issues covered. If not, then I'm reminded of William F. Buckley's revalatory treatement of his cradle Catholicism a few years ago. He wrote in much the same tone one would expect from a high school freshman chemistry maven reporting on his having been introduced to the periodic table for the first time. To the reader it might appear that the kid thought the elements were just organized in that way about four days prior to his exposure to the textbook.

Summaraized, the information Will presents indicates that homo sapiens are essentially social animals by nature. I would hope that such a notion wouldn't come as a new revelation to most of his readers, but, in many cases, I wouldn't be surprised.

Will, in an apparent attempt to emphasize his conclusion that we're social types, chooses to cite a quote by the UCLA School of Medicine's Allan N. Schore, "The idea is that we are born to form attachments, that our brains are physically wired to develop in tandem with another's, through emotional communication, beginning before words are spoken."

I assume that Will -- and certainly Schore -- remember their Psych I class 25 or 30 years ago. The textbook photo of the unfortunate juvenile monkey who had been separated from its mother clinging pitifully to a towel-covered wire form in her place was pretty common in those days. So was the knowledge that deprivation of social contact -- separation from parents, siblings, play partners, general interaction with others -- was detremental to proper psychological and emotional development. In fact, such information was available years before the photo was. Such conclusions are hardly revolutionary. So, could this all really be news to either Will or the folks at UCLA?

Combining the research Will reports on with modern brain science and knowledge of genetics may further verify the negative effects of aberant social contact during formative years among primates (including us). But it's not new to Into to Psych students over the last four or decades or so.

Will further quotes Schore as saying, A child's "relational context imprints into the developing right brain either a resilience against or a vulnerability to later forming psychiatric disorders."

Yup. It's nature and nurture working in concert. Deprive kids (or juvenile monkeys, and I think prairie dogs and hampsters) of proper social contact, and they not only get visible symptoms of separation anxiety at the time, but they often go nuts later on. Sounds like a real behavioral breakthrough to me.

Anyway, I knew it was coming. But I expected Will to expose his political agenda prior to the last sentence of the article. But I guess he wanted to leave us with the following thought fresh in our minds:

"And evidently the Bush administration's belief in the wisdom of delivering social services through faith-based institutions is not just a matter of faith."

Say what!!?? Uh, yeah, right, George. Whatever you say, pal. The idea that Bush-the Believer's social plan is the answer to every problem that the tax cut can't solve is now supported by science, isn't it?

You know what I think? I think every one of the Bush crowd, starting from the top down, and Will, too, was deprived of adequate social contact as juveniles. And someday, science will prove it. Probably the UCLA guys.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

09-21-2003, 10:07 PM	#2
one ryder Junior Member Join Date: Aug 2003 Location: N. America Posts: 30	I have too much respect for the scope of Will's general knowledge to believe that much of the material on which he reports was a revelation to him. Rather, I suspect that his approach indicates his accessment of the general ignorance of his readership on the issues covered. If not, then I'm reminded of William F. Buckley's revalatory treatement of his cradle Catholicism a few years ago. He wrote in much the same tone one would expect from a high school freshman chemistry maven reporting on his having been introduced to the periodic table for the first time. To the reader it might appear that the kid thought the elements were just organized in that way about four days prior to his exposure to the textbook. Summaraized, the information Will presents indicates that homo sapiens are essentially social animals by nature. I would hope that such a notion wouldn't come as a new revelation to most of his readers, but, in many cases, I wouldn't be surprised. Will, in an apparent attempt to emphasize his conclusion that we're social types, chooses to cite a quote by the UCLA School of Medicine's Allan N. Schore, "The idea is that we are born to form attachments, that our brains are physically wired to develop in tandem with another's, through emotional communication, beginning before words are spoken." I assume that Will -- and certainly Schore -- remember their Psych I class 25 or 30 years ago. The textbook photo of the unfortunate juvenile monkey who had been separated from its mother clinging pitifully to a towel-covered wire form in her place was pretty common in those days. So was the knowledge that deprivation of social contact -- separation from parents, siblings, play partners, general interaction with others -- was detremental to proper psychological and emotional development. In fact, such information was available years before the photo was. Such conclusions are hardly revolutionary. So, could this all really be news to either Will or the folks at UCLA? Combining the research Will reports on with modern brain science and knowledge of genetics may further verify the negative effects of aberant social contact during formative years among primates (including us). But it's not new to Into to Psych students over the last four or decades or so. Will further quotes Schore as saying, A child's "relational context imprints into the developing right brain either a resilience against or a vulnerability to later forming psychiatric disorders." Yup. It's nature and nurture working in concert. Deprive kids (or juvenile monkeys, and I think prairie dogs and hampsters) of proper social contact, and they not only get visible symptoms of separation anxiety at the time, but they often go nuts later on. Sounds like a real behavioral breakthrough to me. Anyway, I knew it was coming. But I expected Will to expose his political agenda prior to the last sentence of the article. But I guess he wanted to leave us with the following thought fresh in our minds: "And evidently the Bush administration's belief in the wisdom of delivering social services through faith-based institutions is not just a matter of faith." Say what!!?? Uh, yeah, right, George. Whatever you say, pal. The idea that Bush-the Believer's social plan is the answer to every problem that the tax cut can't solve is now supported by science, isn't it? You know what I think? I think every one of the Bush crowd, starting from the top down, and Will, too, was deprived of adequate social contact as juveniles. And someday, science will prove it. Probably the UCLA guys.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.