Freethought & Rationalism Archive

lpetrich · 11-23-2002, 07:56 AM

I also have a problem with the view of religions as necessarily exclusivist. That may be a familiar feature of Abrahamic religions, but it is rare among non-Abrahamic ones.

Simply consider New Agers -- they practically make a principle out of cafeteria theology, encouraging people to shop for the most satisfying belief system or practice or whatever.

Present-day Japanese and Taiwanese are also somewhat like that, often practicing more than one religion. Thanx, Vorkosigan, for your comments about Taiwan and religion. And even the "Western" world's history has not been all-exclusivist; non-exclusivism was typical of the Greco-Roman world.

eh · 11-23-2002, 08:33 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Ojuice5001:
Why is it that it is quite common for evolutionary thinkers to see that there is likely to be a survival advantage to believing in a supernatural, magical aspect of the world, and yet, when they look for an explanation this fact, they seldom or never consider that supernaturalism may be true? I

My guess would be that is has something to do with the fact there has never been a shread of evidence for the supernatural. Scientists are a funny group like that.

Nic Tamzek · 11-23-2002, 09:18 AM

<cough>CLAPTRAP</cough>

Excuse me.

I agree with the generally skeptical sentiments regarding the initial post.

One thing to bring out in the initial post and the authors it is based on is the confusion between (1) Darwinian evolution and (2) atheist apologetics. Among certain ultra-Darwinists there is a tendency to follow these lines:

1) I am rational, I think religion is bunk
2) So why do people believe it?
3) They have been designed by evolution (favored by NS) to be religious for reasons X, Y, and Z.
4) Therefore, religion is bunk.

...an exceedingly hazardous line of argument, especially since one must also explain the origin of rationality in evolutionary terms, but if "faculty designed by evolution" means "faculty is bunk" then we get "rationality is bunk" which is disastrous to pretty much everything.

Or, if as echoes here attempts to do, we try to equated "favored by NS" with "rational" in order to save rationality, then you've got to let religion back in as it is similarly favored.

Christian apologists, starting with at least CS Lewis, have noted the above with significant impact. What is unique about echoes' post is that it fits into the Xtian apologist caricature to a tee.

The solution, as many have noted, is to realize that neither the genetics-mind relationship, nor the effects of NS, nor most of the other things discussed in the post are so simple. Primarily I think that we have to start by taking the premises of rationality and free will/thought as given in order to even begin serious investigation.

nic

Nic Tamzek · 11-23-2002, 09:47 AM

Oh yeah. And:

What is it with the finding-a-genetic-basis-for-homosexuality-plus-a-natural-selection-reason-for-its-persistence folks anyway?

In the first place, at most a few percent of the population self-identifies as homosexual (I think; and this would be in western countries, I expect the number is rather lower in Saudi Arabia...which might tell us something right there). It is not a dominant feature of the human species, like having two arms, that necessarily requires a genetic explanation. Any number of cultural and environmental (hormone-mimic chemicals released by industrial processes, anyone?) factors could tweak things a few percent. So I think you have to be careful to separate the modern identity politics from the prehistoric biology.

In a similar vein, it is far from clear that there really is a clear distinction between homosexual and heterosexual, at least for most of human history. How many homosexuals have never had heterosexual sex? This is a significant point if we are going to discuss genetics and selection...particularly, what was the prevalance of exclusive-homosexuals in stone-age hunter-gatherer groups with an average lifespan of ~18 years (according to this months Discover magazine).

And finally, homosexual behavior appears to be widespread among other mammals (as well as humans) but again (to my knowledge) this kind of hard-and-fast binary distinction appears artificial. It might be worth thinking for a moment about the prevalance of dog sexual behavior towards human legs, hyena dominance behavior, and certain forms of dolphin socialization, along with things like ancient greeks with their young male... companions, the sexual tendencies of lifers in all-male prisons, and the adulthood rituals of certain (indonesian?) tribes (you don't want to know), before drawing any conclusions about the usefulness of modern categories of sexual preference.

OK I'm done.
nic

echoes · 11-24-2002, 11:51 AM

Thank you all for your input.

theyeti: Thank you for the information on Wilson's theory. Do you have any more information on the rejection of that theory, or perhaps know anything about some competing theories?

Nic Tamzek: I'm not quite sure I understand your post... the purpose of my paper isn't to argue that religion is bunk. You're definitely right that this issue isn't all that simple, and it now seems that my exposure to these ideas in class barely scratched the surface.

I was originally going by the premise that religion offers an evolutionary advantage, and then from there, investigate why nontheism has persisted. Wilson's theory about homosexuality seemed to be somewhat analogous to what I was going to do.

When I made this post, my idea for the paper was just a rough, unpolished idea, and it's now evident that I'll have to rethink much of it.

The actual assignment is to "evaluate the evidence that the human behavior you choose to investigate is or is not under genetic control, and the extent to which both environment and genetics contributs. You needn't argue for genetic determinism, simply offer both sides of the issue and reach your own conclusion."

It seems now that if I stick with nontheism as a topic, then I won't have much to write about. Crap... anyone have any ideas?

Doubting Didymus · 11-24-2002, 04:48 PM

Quote:

It seems now that if I stick with nontheism as a topic, then I won't have much to write about. Crap... anyone have any ideas?

Hey, this is science, right? In science, it is just as viable to write about negative findigs and theories as it is to write about positive ones. Stick with your original premise, and present your findings, wherever they take you.

echoes · 11-24-2002, 08:45 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Doubting Didymus:
<strong>

Hey, this is science, right? In science, it is just as viable to write about negative findigs and theories as it is to write about positive ones. Stick with your original premise, and present your findings, wherever they take you.</strong>

You're absolutely right, it's just that now my paper will have a slightly different focus. Also, instead of being a unique topic that my professor said was "really cool" and that he would be "interested in reading that" it will be more generic.

Dr.GH · 11-24-2002, 10:01 PM

For openers, I appreciate that your initial idea was not intended to focus on homosexuality. But there are a few points of interest in the subsequent discussion.

First of all, it is more difficult to categorically describe 'homosexual' than would be
naively thought. Sexual play among early adolescent peer groups, nearly always homosexual, is typical, and normative. Situational homosexual behavior is common place among otherwise practicing heterosexuals. Incidental homosexual behavior might be waved away as the acting-out of a repressed homosexual, but, what do we then make of the occasional heterosexual behavior of otherwise homosexual individuals? I suppose that this could be ignored as merely the influence of the dominate social ethic. ( as an extreme case, I once dated (around 25 years ago) a fierce, and predominately homosexual feminist who remarked one night, “I would sleep with you, but that would be sex with the enemy.&#8221

Clearly defined persistent homosexuality is found in all known extant cultures, and is known from quite ancient documents as well. Further, homosexual behavior is persistent even under the sociopolitical threat of death. Thus, I would conclude that there is a degree of involuntaryness involved. This would, I think, be biological in the sense that it is a typical behavior, whether there is a “gay gene” or not. I rather think not. Just as schizophrenia is undoubtedly biological, and not a selection positive condition, I see that homosexuality is graded and similarly persistent. And, like the example of schizophrenia, we have no evidence of gay genes.

As for the biological basis for religion, I think that we are all aware that disassociative mental states are biological, and that they can be induced. Induced disassocitive states are known from drug studies such as PCP, and the analysis of induced trance states. This seems to me to be a consequence of a complex termporal cortex. If we administer PCP to a horse, it simply looses consciousness. Humans similarly drugged experience a subjective out-of-body, and/or disassocitive state. (Out-of-body experiences have recently been shown to be associated with abnormality of the visual cortex). With no elaboration, I think that these disassocitive states are the basis fo religious experience.

cricket · 11-24-2002, 11:56 PM

Echoes, here's a <a href="http://www.lib.latrobe.edu.au/AHR/archive/Issue-November-1997/wilson.html" target="_blank">link</a> to one alternate posssibility, from Jim McKnight:

Quote:

McKnight surveys a number of different explanations for why any putative gene for homosexuality may persist in the population over time (e.g., a link between a gene for homosexuality and a gene for altruism), and then offers his own hypothesis. He suggests that sexual orientation is heterozygotically controlled: the 'gay gene' is not only to be found in gay men, but also in straight men (genetic closeting, if you like). So there are three kinds of genetic sexual orientation to be found in men: homozygotic gay men, homozygotic straight men (who have no homosexual genetic loading), and heterozygotic straight men (who carry homosexual genetic material, but who are not themselves gay). The evolutionary paradox is solved by examining how "at an individual level some advantage is conferred to straight men ... by their one, or possibly many, homosexual alleles, which allow the survival of an otherwise deleterious gene" (p. 65).
It is these 'homosexually-enabled straight men' that are at the centre of McKnight's explanation. Homosexuality survives, not because gay men, per se, are adaptive, but because the gay gene makes straight men more successfully heterosexual. McKnight hypothesises that this homosexual genetic loading endows some straight men with two crucial characteristics - enhanced sexual drive and charm. Such sexually enhanced and charming straight men become highly successful heterosexuals i.e., they produce more offspring than their un-enhanced straight brothers. Thus the genes for homosexuality (now simply the genes for libido and seductiveness) are passed on to the next generation. We have the occasional gay man (3% of the population according to McKnight) merely as an effect of too much of this libidinal and charming genetic loading in one individual. In McKnight's terms, exclusively homosexual outcomes are a by-product of an enhanced heterosexuality.

Dr.GH · 11-25-2002, 12:20 AM

cricket,

I will agree that there is somewhat less negative selection presure on a putitive female homosexual gene. But I don't see how McKnight solves female homosexuality/lesbianism.

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

11-23-2002, 07:56 AM	#11
lpetrich Contributor Join Date: Jul 2000 Location: Lebanon, OR, USA Posts: 16,829	I also have a problem with the view of religions as necessarily exclusivist. That may be a familiar feature of Abrahamic religions, but it is rare among non-Abrahamic ones. Simply consider New Agers -- they practically make a principle out of cafeteria theology, encouraging people to shop for the most satisfying belief system or practice or whatever. Present-day Japanese and Taiwanese are also somewhat like that, often practicing more than one religion. Thanx, Vorkosigan, for your comments about Taiwan and religion. And even the "Western" world's history has not been all-exclusivist; non-exclusivism was typical of the Greco-Roman world.

11-23-2002, 09:18 AM	#13
Nic Tamzek Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: California Posts: 646	<cough>CLAPTRAP</cough> Excuse me. I agree with the generally skeptical sentiments regarding the initial post. One thing to bring out in the initial post and the authors it is based on is the confusion between (1) Darwinian evolution and (2) atheist apologetics. Among certain ultra-Darwinists there is a tendency to follow these lines: 1) I am rational, I think religion is bunk 2) So why do people believe it? 3) They have been designed by evolution (favored by NS) to be religious for reasons X, Y, and Z. 4) Therefore, religion is bunk. ...an exceedingly hazardous line of argument, especially since one must also explain the origin of rationality in evolutionary terms, but if "faculty designed by evolution" means "faculty is bunk" then we get "rationality is bunk" which is disastrous to pretty much everything. Or, if as echoes here attempts to do, we try to equated "favored by NS" with "rational" in order to save rationality, then you've got to let religion back in as it is similarly favored. Christian apologists, starting with at least CS Lewis, have noted the above with significant impact. What is unique about echoes' post is that it fits into the Xtian apologist caricature to a tee. The solution, as many have noted, is to realize that neither the genetics-mind relationship, nor the effects of NS, nor most of the other things discussed in the post are so simple. Primarily I think that we have to start by taking the premises of rationality and free will/thought as given in order to even begin serious investigation. nic

11-23-2002, 09:47 AM	#14
Nic Tamzek Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: California Posts: 646	Oh yeah. And: What is it with the finding-a-genetic-basis-for-homosexuality-plus-a-natural-selection-reason-for-its-persistence folks anyway? In the first place, at most a few percent of the population self-identifies as homosexual (I think; and this would be in western countries, I expect the number is rather lower in Saudi Arabia...which might tell us something right there). It is not a dominant feature of the human species, like having two arms, that necessarily requires a genetic explanation. Any number of cultural and environmental (hormone-mimic chemicals released by industrial processes, anyone?) factors could tweak things a few percent. So I think you have to be careful to separate the modern identity politics from the prehistoric biology. In a similar vein, it is far from clear that there really is a clear distinction between homosexual and heterosexual, at least for most of human history. How many homosexuals have never had heterosexual sex? This is a significant point if we are going to discuss genetics and selection...particularly, what was the prevalance of exclusive-homosexuals in stone-age hunter-gatherer groups with an average lifespan of ~18 years (according to this months Discover magazine). And finally, homosexual behavior appears to be widespread among other mammals (as well as humans) but again (to my knowledge) this kind of hard-and-fast binary distinction appears artificial. It might be worth thinking for a moment about the prevalance of dog sexual behavior towards human legs, hyena dominance behavior, and certain forms of dolphin socialization, along with things like ancient greeks with their young male... companions, the sexual tendencies of lifers in all-male prisons, and the adulthood rituals of certain (indonesian?) tribes (you don't want to know), before drawing any conclusions about the usefulness of modern categories of sexual preference. OK I'm done. nic

11-24-2002, 11:51 AM	#15
echoes Senior Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: PUERTO RICO Posts: 750	Thank you all for your input. theyeti: Thank you for the information on Wilson's theory. Do you have any more information on the rejection of that theory, or perhaps know anything about some competing theories? Nic Tamzek: I'm not quite sure I understand your post... the purpose of my paper isn't to argue that religion is bunk. You're definitely right that this issue isn't all that simple, and it now seems that my exposure to these ideas in class barely scratched the surface. I was originally going by the premise that religion offers an evolutionary advantage, and then from there, investigate why nontheism has persisted. Wilson's theory about homosexuality seemed to be somewhat analogous to what I was going to do. When I made this post, my idea for the paper was just a rough, unpolished idea, and it's now evident that I'll have to rethink much of it. The actual assignment is to "evaluate the evidence that the human behavior you choose to investigate is or is not under genetic control, and the extent to which both environment and genetics contributs. You needn't argue for genetic determinism, simply offer both sides of the issue and reach your own conclusion." It seems now that if I stick with nontheism as a topic, then I won't have much to write about. Crap... anyone have any ideas?

11-24-2002, 10:01 PM	#18
Dr.GH Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Dana Point, Ca, USA Posts: 2,115	For openers, I appreciate that your initial idea was not intended to focus on homosexuality. But there are a few points of interest in the subsequent discussion. First of all, it is more difficult to categorically describe 'homosexual' than would be naively thought. Sexual play among early adolescent peer groups, nearly always homosexual, is typical, and normative. Situational homosexual behavior is common place among otherwise practicing heterosexuals. Incidental homosexual behavior might be waved away as the acting-out of a repressed homosexual, but, what do we then make of the occasional heterosexual behavior of otherwise homosexual individuals? I suppose that this could be ignored as merely the influence of the dominate social ethic. ( as an extreme case, I once dated (around 25 years ago) a fierce, and predominately homosexual feminist who remarked one night, “I would sleep with you, but that would be sex with the enemy.&#8221 Clearly defined persistent homosexuality is found in all known extant cultures, and is known from quite ancient documents as well. Further, homosexual behavior is persistent even under the sociopolitical threat of death. Thus, I would conclude that there is a degree of involuntaryness involved. This would, I think, be biological in the sense that it is a typical behavior, whether there is a “gay gene” or not. I rather think not. Just as schizophrenia is undoubtedly biological, and not a selection positive condition, I see that homosexuality is graded and similarly persistent. And, like the example of schizophrenia, we have no evidence of gay genes. As for the biological basis for religion, I think that we are all aware that disassociative mental states are biological, and that they can be induced. Induced disassocitive states are known from drug studies such as PCP, and the analysis of induced trance states. This seems to me to be a consequence of a complex termporal cortex. If we administer PCP to a horse, it simply looses consciousness. Humans similarly drugged experience a subjective out-of-body, and/or disassocitive state. (Out-of-body experiences have recently been shown to be associated with abnormality of the visual cortex). With no elaboration, I think that these disassocitive states are the basis fo religious experience.

11-25-2002, 12:20 AM	#20
Dr.GH Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Dana Point, Ca, USA Posts: 2,115	cricket, I will agree that there is somewhat less negative selection presure on a putitive female homosexual gene. But I don't see how McKnight solves female homosexuality/lesbianism.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.