He glosses over a very important consideration. The difference between authentic versus inauthentic belief in religion. The average believer is not authentic but to someone who gains pleasure from alignment and execution of religious moral imperatives wouldn't it be logical to assume that they use scripture as a guide? or as my mother (an authentic catholic) puts it, "what would christ have you do here? think that then do the right thing". Its silly to make a generalization like "religion doesn't work" because people dont use it correctly. That would be like saying the car doesnt work because most people are too lazy to learn to use it. Its a valid induction but incorrect (clearly the car works its just the effort to learn it seems to be too much for most people).
Frankly, I think religious people have to answer Christopher Hitchens challenge: Name one moral or ethical action or behaviour committed or carried out by a believer that could not have been committed or carried out by an atheist. Name one immoral or unethical action or behaviour that has been committed or carried out in the name of God.
Well, I'm not religious, but I can think of no moral or ethical behavior that demands (or prohibits) religious connection. An atheist is every bit as capable of charity and compassion as a believer, and many demonstrate it regularly. Confucius was one of the greatest moral philosophers and teachers of his day, yet he specifically avoided hypothesizing about death and the supernatural. Conversely, while countless moral atrocities (up to and including mass murder) HAVE BEEN carried out in God's name, theoretically atheists are every bit as capable of THAT, too. Overall, as stated in this video, with or without religion, people will do what people will do. Unfortunately, while most major religions' texts DO have passages that promote "inhumanity toward one's fellow man", more often than not religion is merely "hijacked" as an excuse for immoral actions, that have no REAL religious motivation. On the other hand, when was the last time you saw a headline like, "Man Kills 20 In The Name Of Atheism"? If a scientist wants to debate the existence of God, it's best to stick to "objective evidence" arguments and contradictions within specific texts. Historical immorality "in the name of God" is a red herring.
OmniphonProductions "...theoretically atheists are every bit as capable of THAT [mass murder], too." Yes, but the point is they are not motivated by their Atheism. Rather, it must be something else that is motivating them. Lack of religion often exposes the true reasons for immoral actions. "Historical immorality 'in the name of God' is a red herring." I don't think so. I think it is the core issue. I don't think any intelligent people actually believe in a "God". The concept of "God" itself is a red herring that is designed to distract from the true issues that humans face. Intelligent people arguing in favor of the existence of "God" are merely trying to make the case that morality is dependent on this red herring. Their argument is generally based on the circular logic that morality doesn't exist without the red herring, therefore, they may lie or distort the truth to their heart's content in order to enforce their views of morality. It's messed up. But that's the world we live in.
"Isn't that a little too easy?" As Clark rightly points out, that is the point. However, clearly, many people don't realize how easy it is, hence, the "challenge".
ThinkTank255 Your points are absolutely valid. When I said religions' "moral ambiguity" was a red herring, I simply meant that scientists would be better served by simply hammering the fact that there is zero observable evidence for the existence of god(s). Once people stop believing in god(s), religion can no longer use "God's will" as a rallying flag for immorality. Yes?
In short.. people are tribal and social animals. Their behavior mostly revolves around those things. Its community that influences people, a sense of belonging. Not the fairy tales.
What I wonder is, how did morals we have now developed? Long time ago, it was normal for people to hung a criminal in public and there were many things that is considered inhumane in this generation. We can see that its pretty easy for the human to do horrible things without realising that. So what have caused today's morality to be developed? Does religion's moral guide take part in the development of today's common morality we have?
Not only did Paul Bloom and his hairstyle massage the very curiosities of my mind, but they also abducted me from my bedroom, dropping me off in a sea of puzzling cogitation. Why is a 'moral core' so directly ingrained with trust? Are there neurobiological consequences of accepting or refuting a particular religion? Does he tease his hair to get it like that or simply let it go? Furthermore, what makes the interconnection of psychology and religion so damn difficult to study? Because it is generally correlational? Speculative? Hmmmmm...
Joseph Abbate You've got some really interesting insight there. I think the main reason why the connections between psychology and religion become so difficult to study is exactly because of their interconnectedness. Most religious readings seem to have been arbitrarily created for comfort or to avoid pain. Feeling sad? There's a verse to cheer you up. Feeling generous? There's a verse that'll tell you why helping others is the right thing to do, and even how you can benefit from it. I believe religion was founded on the notion of not being able to fully comprehend the human mind, or the reasons behind morality. Thus, stories were developed to influence a specific type of thinking. A larger group of moralistically 'mindsetted' individuals will definitely lead to communities, and will also leave people with philosophical questions that seem best answered in a parable or story. There's a lot that goes into the two, and religion is a byproduct of humans trying to understand how their own psychological state can have an affect the world. (Sins, Heaven/Hell)
+Arron Taylor Religion is there to dupe atheists into 1- believing their granny was a circus ape, 2- believing it is good to devote your life to a political aristocracy and 3- to forfeit your life to serving a foreign Theistic cult, as 100% of all Americans do these days.
The big mistake in his thought is that religion is a source of morality. He doesn’t understand that morality in itself is what shaped the religion into moral codes, aside from its other aspects. However, the truth is that religion began as a philosophy that gives answers to people’s questions. He must not forget that at the time of the forming of religion, there was no science. And so, the moral culture and behavior of religious groups isn’t caused by religion, rather by other aspects of those groups. When he measures these so called less religious people, these aren’t really less religious in terms of being affected by the thoughts of religion.
When I was a Christian at 25, I didn't think women could preach... because that is what my religion taught. Fundamental theists dislike homosexuality more predictably than seculars. The second part of of this video seems to muddle up the fact that religious beliefs directly influence a person's morality.
He glosses over a very important consideration. The difference between authentic versus inauthentic belief in religion. The average believer is not authentic but to someone who gains pleasure from alignment and execution of religious moral imperatives wouldn't it be logical to assume that they use scripture as a guide? or as my mother (an authentic catholic) puts it, "what would christ have you do here? think that then do the right thing".
Its silly to make a generalization like "religion doesn't work" because people dont use it correctly. That would be like saying the car doesnt work because most people are too lazy to learn to use it. Its a valid induction but incorrect (clearly the car works its just the effort to learn it seems to be too much for most people).
Frankly, I think religious people have to answer Christopher Hitchens challenge:
Name one moral or ethical action or behaviour committed or carried out by a believer that could not have been committed or carried out by an atheist.
Name one immoral or unethical action or behaviour that has been committed or carried out in the name of God.
Well, I'm not religious, but I can think of no moral or ethical behavior that demands (or prohibits) religious connection. An atheist is every bit as capable of charity and compassion as a believer, and many demonstrate it regularly. Confucius was one of the greatest moral philosophers and teachers of his day, yet he specifically avoided hypothesizing about death and the supernatural. Conversely, while countless moral atrocities (up to and including mass murder) HAVE BEEN carried out in God's name, theoretically atheists are every bit as capable of THAT, too.
Overall, as stated in this video, with or without religion, people will do what people will do. Unfortunately, while most major religions' texts DO have passages that promote "inhumanity toward one's fellow man", more often than not religion is merely "hijacked" as an excuse for immoral actions, that have no REAL religious motivation. On the other hand, when was the last time you saw a headline like, "Man Kills 20 In The Name Of Atheism"?
If a scientist wants to debate the existence of God, it's best to stick to "objective evidence" arguments and contradictions within specific texts. Historical immorality "in the name of God" is a red herring.
OmniphonProductions "...theoretically atheists are every bit as capable of THAT [mass murder], too." Yes, but the point is they are not motivated by their Atheism. Rather, it must be something else that is motivating them. Lack of religion often exposes the true reasons for immoral actions.
"Historical immorality 'in the name of God' is a red herring." I don't think so. I think it is the core issue. I don't think any intelligent people actually believe in a "God". The concept of "God" itself is a red herring that is designed to distract from the true issues that humans face. Intelligent people arguing in favor of the existence of "God" are merely trying to make the case that morality is dependent on this red herring. Their argument is generally based on the circular logic that morality doesn't exist without the red herring, therefore, they may lie or distort the truth to their heart's content in order to enforce their views of morality. It's messed up. But that's the world we live in.
***** Point of the challenge. You will never find someone who can answer the first statement, you will never find someone who can't answer the other.
"Isn't that a little too easy?"
As Clark rightly points out, that is the point. However, clearly, many people don't realize how easy it is, hence, the "challenge".
ThinkTank255 Your points are absolutely valid. When I said religions' "moral ambiguity" was a red herring, I simply meant that scientists would be better served by simply hammering the fact that there is zero observable evidence for the existence of god(s). Once people stop believing in god(s), religion can no longer use "God's will" as a rallying flag for immorality. Yes?
Wow Professor Bloom has some really great insights! Thank you Sir!
In short.. people are tribal and social animals. Their behavior mostly revolves around those things. Its community that influences people, a sense of belonging. Not the fairy tales.
What I wonder is, how did morals we have now developed? Long time ago, it was normal for people to hung a criminal in public and there were many things that is considered inhumane in this generation. We can see that its pretty easy for the human to do horrible things without realising that. So what have caused today's morality to be developed? Does religion's moral guide take part in the development of today's common morality we have?
Not only did Paul Bloom and his hairstyle massage the very curiosities of my mind, but they also abducted me from my bedroom, dropping me off in a sea of puzzling cogitation. Why is a 'moral core' so directly ingrained with trust? Are there neurobiological consequences of accepting or refuting a particular religion? Does he tease his hair to get it like that or simply let it go? Furthermore, what makes the interconnection of psychology and religion so damn difficult to study? Because it is generally correlational? Speculative? Hmmmmm...
Joseph Abbate You've got some really interesting insight there. I think the main reason why the connections between psychology and religion become so difficult to study is exactly because of their interconnectedness. Most religious readings seem to have been arbitrarily created for comfort or to avoid pain. Feeling sad? There's a verse to cheer you up. Feeling generous? There's a verse that'll tell you why helping others is the right thing to do, and even how you can benefit from it.
I believe religion was founded on the notion of not being able to fully comprehend the human mind, or the reasons behind morality. Thus, stories were developed to influence a specific type of thinking. A larger group of moralistically 'mindsetted' individuals will definitely lead to communities, and will also leave people with philosophical questions that seem best answered in a parable or story. There's a lot that goes into the two, and religion is a byproduct of humans trying to understand how their own psychological state can have an affect the world. (Sins, Heaven/Hell)
+Arron Taylor Religion is there to dupe atheists into 1- believing their granny was a circus ape, 2- believing it is good to devote your life to a political aristocracy and 3- to forfeit your life to serving a foreign Theistic cult, as 100% of all Americans do these days.
+TitusRockjaw thanks for sharing, Titus.
Paul Bloom is a radical thinker, he's a great speaker, and I regret making fun of his hair.
The big mistake in his thought is that religion is a source of morality. He doesn’t understand that morality in itself is what shaped the religion into moral codes, aside from its other aspects. However, the truth is that religion began as a philosophy that gives answers to people’s questions. He must not forget that at the time of the forming of religion, there was no science. And so, the moral culture and behavior of religious groups isn’t caused by religion, rather by other aspects of those groups. When he measures these so called less religious people, these aren’t really less religious in terms of being affected by the thoughts of religion.
Hark hark! So much to learn here! And: There is enough for everyone!
Wow - great interview!
really well spoken dude, communicated super clear
Nice exposé, professor Bloom! And now everyone go and read Blooms review of Robert Wright's 'The evolution of God' (2009).
Thank you sir. Your insight is very useful.
When I was a Christian at 25, I didn't think women could preach... because that is what my religion taught. Fundamental theists dislike homosexuality more predictably than seculars. The second part of of this video seems to muddle up the fact that religious beliefs directly influence a person's morality.
I don't know if I can agree with this psychologist on any of the things that he stated. He is not in putting the fact tha 64% of the US is religious.
You may have missed his intro, around 15 seconds in... not US specifically but why would you expect him to focus on just the US?