h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

You're allowed to get away with murder in my book Taff

Back to Clive's *puppets* of a crocodile and a mouse...

No.

The kids we're shone an obvious fantasy tale and asked to comment in that context. Nothing was illustrated about agency being separate from physicality: the mouse puppet was still whole. It couldn't have a drink because it was stuck in the belly of a crocodile with no kitchen tap nearby.

Show the kids a real baby antelope being torn to bits by a pride of lions, as them the same questions and then I'll give more weight to the study.

>> "third star to the left and straight on till morning!!!!
lets see whats out there!!!" <<

Define 'morning' on an interstellar starship.


~jwf~

>>Show the kids a real baby antelope being torn to bits by a pride of lions, as them the same questions and then I'll give more weight to the study.<<

It's a fair point, I'd like to read the book to see if my summary left out any major detail that address that concern so it's gone on my Amazon wish-list, shall report back later.

Now, I'm not saying that I dismiss out of hand the possibility that such metaphysics is wired into (some or all) human brains. I think it is very likely true and is a part of the collection of hard-wired things (follower/leader propensities, sensitivity to numinousities, etc.) which has led to the profligate evolution of religions. But, it always comes back to the fact that human perception, even if (particularly when?) universal and/or hardwired does not necessarily accurately reflect reality. Just because the kids (perhaps) think the mouse puppet's ego continues to exist after being swallowed whole by the crocodile puppet doesn't necessarily mean that the mouse puppet has an consciousness which exists independently of the mouse puppet's body.

This was the interview - check it out for yourself.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tMuY_Y_cvFA

Just watching the video Clive. The researcher is Jesse Bering, author of 'The Belief Instinct'.


It is said quite clearly in the video that at the beginning the children were told 'it was just a game' which to me sort of throws the whole thing out the window. And, there is no indication that the children were led to believe that the mouse puppet was, to use the term in the video, 'disembodied'. There's no indication in the interview that the children saw the mouse puppet as being dead after the alligator's meal. They were given a Jonah in the Whale scenario: Could Jonah still go have a beer? No. Could he wish he had a pint? yes. Could he go skiing with his grandmother? No. Could he still be angry at the crew of the ship? Yes. A strictly non-dualist view of the puppet's situation could produce the same responses to the questions *as described in the video*.

Again, I am friendly to the idea -- which makes me doubly sceptical of it -- but I don't find the experiment *as described* terribly compelling. If the same statistics came out of a study involving an unequivocal death which was not described to the children as 'just a game' and which involved questions on the `physical side which required an intact, living body, then I would be more impressed.

I would also be interested to know how many children answered all the questions with 'nah, are you daft? the mouse is dead, in't it?'

I think your scepticism is well justified and I agree, it would be well worth substantiating the point with a harder-edge look at the scenario based question.

A strictly non-dualist view of the puppet's situation could produce the same responses to the questions *as described in the video.


That's a very good point.

Indeed.


although perhaps traumatic for the little tykes.


not to mention the baby antelope.

>> I'd like to see Warner take Gif's argument apart..

the bit about "being motivated by reward", as if it's something distasteful

It's a puppet!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f64H3hDa93Y

Hi Warner,

>It's easy to say that we can all act morally or be honest (true), but we see that when we investigate what you & I consider moral, we more often than not, don't agree.

I don't agree I think that the bulk of our moral values are very similar. We agree about murder, theft, lying, giving to charity, helping old ladies across the road, etc. We only disagree in a small minority of cases, such as whether belief itself is a moral virtue (and even then, only about belief in your specific God).

>you still insist that *you* should be the one that deserves to go to heaven, as a believer merely considers the reward of the after-life.

To be honest, I wasn't thinking of myself at all. I don't think I have any chance of getting to heaven, since I don't think heaven exists.

Your point that a majority doesn't make something right is a good one... but remember that I have basically said exactly the opposite, that what is 'right' and what is 'wrong' is defined by consensus, just like the meanings of words are. I am slightly surprised that you seem to be taking the line that selfishness is not immoral - if you don't like public opinion and (apparently) your own moral sense tells you otherwise, I'm sure I could point to suras that preach against selfishness. If I can, would you concede that selfishness is wrong? Or would this be an occasion where your own 'moral sense' overrules scripture?

Gif

>> ..the bulk of our moral values are very similar..

What about marriage and adultery? That's a major issue .. as is usury.

>> would you concede that selfishness is wrong?

In the general meaning of the word, yes.
but:
You are accusing believers of being motivated by selfishness, when considering their duty to God, or considering a reward and so on .. so come on .. what do you think that an atheist's intention is?

Certainly not 'doing their duty to God' .. just 'being good', eh?

Ah .. but who's the judge of that? Public opinion, you say? Are these public you refer to atheists or religious scholars?
Those who judge other than by what Almighty God has revealed are just guessing

Steps to keep your child a creationist:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5aioYsowd18&feature=autoplay&list=WL664601592CF3A4D5&lf=bf_next&playnext=3

Hi Kuzushi,

Back acha:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TUsgUPX8Pho&feature=related

Gif

Hi Warner,

>What about marriage and adultery? That's a major issue

OK, what do we diagree about there? That people shouldn't cheat on their partners?

We probably disagree on whether unmarried sex is wrong. Like I said, a few small differences.

>.. as is usury.

If Ed were here, he would take you to task around the way that Muslims rebrand interest on 'sharia' loans, mortgages, etc, as something other than interest. I will simply point out that there is no agreement among the religious that usury is wrong (Jewish families famously (notoriously?) became wealthy as moneylenders, for instance). How do you know that you understand God better than them?

>You are accusing believers of being motivated by selfishness, when considering their duty to God, or considering a reward and so on .. so come on .. what do you think that an atheist's intention is?

A believer may or may not be motivated by the reward of heaven. (I suspect fewer are than you think.) But an atheist clearly isn't. What I was doing was disputing your view that only believers can act morally, because only believers are 'aiming for heaven'. I am saying that if you do something because you want to get something out of it, you're not acting morally. F'r instance, imagine one person who gives money freely to a charity that uses it to feed the starving in Africa. Now imagine another person who grudgingly pays their tax because they don't want to go to jail, and that tax is used to feed the starving in Africa. The actions are the same, but are the people acting equally morally? I would say not.

Which is not to say that *all* believers *only* behave morally because they want/expect reward. A believer who helps others because 'it's what God wants' is acting just as morally as a humanist who helps others because 'they need my help' - neither is more or less moral than the other, as far as I can see. It's only believers who do something purely for the reward who are acting in their own self-interest.

>Ah .. but who's the judge of that? Public opinion, you say? Are these public you refer to atheists or religious scholars?
Those who judge other than by what Almighty God has revealed are just guessing

Some are atheists, some are scholars, most are neither. And yes, we're all 'just guessing' (or rather, trying to have a democratic conversation (ghost of Ed again) and come to a common conclusion). But are we 'just guessing' any less than believers who have to 'just guess' what God's opinion on the subject is - whether the Quran, Bible, Torah, Baghvad Gita, Silmarillion, Popul Vuh, etc, are God's word or not?

At least by starting from the basis of humanism, we know that the results we come to will be beneficial to humans.

Gif

>> How do you know that you understand God better than them?

Didn't you know? Whether Jew or Muslim, a pious person should not be involved with usurious tranactions.
The problem is, some of them judge that they have no duty to the disbelievers, but God didn't tell them that .. they make their priority to become rich in this life rather than enjoining the truth on people ..
Almighty God is wrath with the guilty, who know the truth but hide it from others for a 'quick buck'.

>> What I was doing was disputing your view that only believers can act morally

That's not really what it's about. Anybody who does things with a good intention, God knows it, so why should that person not get what's due .. they will!
However, a person who sees is not equal to a person who can't see ( I'm not talking about human rights and the physically blind ), and in my experience, people who swear regularly and scoff at the righteous, for instance, cannot be believers .. their deeds have covered their sight. The converse is also true .. those that have a sense of decency and sincere care for others will have more spiritual sight, and respect religious belief.

>> It's only believers who do something purely for the reward who are acting in their own self-interest.

God rewards whomsoever He wills, and He punishes whomsoever He wills. Somebody who does something for God's sake alone gets a reward. Every deed is judged by its intention .. we can't fool God .. yet we can fool ourselves

Off current topic, but for your consideration:
http://giford.blogspot.com/2011/10/kalaam-cosmological-argument.html

Gif

Slightly tangential, but:

Warner>> What about marriage and adultery? That's a major issue

Gif> OK, what do we diagree about there? That people shouldn't cheat on their partners? We probably disagree on whether unmarried sex is wrong. Like I said, a few small differences.

There is a difference though, which is that christians and other religious folk give adultery a special status. For us atheists, it's something that in most cases would be considered rather nasty for the cheated upon partner, but is only different in degree to being rude to someone, something which is not considered a sin. So they give it a special status. In addition, the reasons behind it are different: for us it's considered bad only insofar as it causes or has the potential to cause emotional hurt to the cheated upon partner, but for religious people it's inherently wrong. Even if the cheated upon partner knew about and didn't mind the cheating, to a religious person it would still be wrong.

I don't know if those count as small differences or not. In some way yes, but they're important small differences.