The Thing About Religious (and Other) Ideals

[Sunstone]

The thing about ideals is that, no matter how noble they are, they do not replace human nature. Yet, it seems some us expect them to.

One is forever hearing hints, innuendos, and even declarations from the folks following this or that religion, movement, or cause that they are better than the folks following some other religion, movement, or cause because they have better ideals than the other folks.

Not just that their ideals are better -- no, why leave it at that? Why leave it at where it might still have some small chance of making sense? Our species is apparently compelled, driven, fated to step off the path of reason and onto the path of ego just about every chance we get. So, it strikes us humans as mere common sense that 'my group' not only has better ideals, but that my group is therefore comprised of better people.

Alas! "Out of the crooked timber of humanity, no straight thing was ever made", as Kant said. And he was right, none of us are going to change fundamental human nature. We can only make ourselves aware of it for whatever benefits doing such might bring us.

All of the above is opinion. Just my two cents.

Comments? Criticisms? Offers of paid yard work?

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

The thing about ideals is that, no matter how noble they are, they do not replace human nature. Yet, it seems some us expect them to.

One is forever hearing hints, innuendos, and even declarations from the folks following this or that religion, movement, or cause that they are better than the folks following some other religion, movement, or cause because they have better ideals than the other folks.

Not just that their ideals are better -- no, why leave it at that? Why leave it at where it might still have some small chance of making sense? Our species is apparently compelled, driven, fated to step off the path of reason and onto the path of ego just about every chance we get. So, it strikes us humans as mere common sense that 'my group' not only has better ideals, but that my group is therefore comprised of better people.

Alas! "Out of the crooked timber of humanity, no straight thing was ever made", as Kant said. And he was right, none of us are going to change fundamental human nature. We can only make ourselves aware of it for whatever benefits doing such might bring us.

All of the above is opinion. Just my two cents.

Comments? Criticisms? Offers of paid yard work?

What exactly is "fundamental human nature," and how exactly do we know that it is fundamental human nature, and also somehow, unalterable?

Has that been proven beyond a reasonable doubt? I must have missed that newsflash...

 

[sun rise]

onto the path of ego just about every chance we get

That's the nature of the ego whether individual or collective. One of my favorite poems about the nature of the "hydra headed ego" which seeks to fasten itself to anything whether apparently good or apparently bad:

Friend, please tell me what I can do about this world
I hold to, and keep spinning out!

I gave up sewn clothes, and wore a robe,
but I noticed one day that the cloth was well woven.

So I bought some burlap, but I still
throw it elegantly over my left shoulder

I pulled back my sexual longings,
and now I discover that I'm angry a lot.

I gave up rage, and now I notice
that I am greedy all day.

I worked hard at dissolving the greed,
and now I am proud of myself.

When the mind wants to break its link with the world
it still holds on to one thing.

Kabir says: Listen my friend,
there are very few that find the path!

 

[Thief]

Our species is apparently compelled, driven, fated to step off the path of reason and onto the path of ego just about every chance we get

hence the paradox

yes of course....there's a bone to pick with anyone that makes a practice of a 'higher' level of person

and yes of course....with any step up, someone will attempt to kick the legs out from under you

religion is just one of many venues that play this way

 

[osgart]

Some people's humility is another calling it ego. Very tough to gauge what the genuine thing looks like.

Some people might say why would I need humility and go full steam on pride or ego.

I think humanity is at its best with humility. Then again people have different definitions of that.

Then there is certain kinds of faith where people have repented and now they are all of a sudden on the road to a royal calling. Lookout for that exceptionalism.

That's why I thought the Founding Father's were wise as can be to be wary of power corruption in establishing the Constitution.

If mankind ever gets hold of the genuine gauge of what virtues really are they might just trample them under foot. But that's just my ego talking like I know something again!

The definition I use for humility is to see yourself as you are, no greater, and no lesser. The way I check for it is if the fruits are ego then lookout danger ahead. If the fruits is charitable compassion then the humility is a good one.

Do you think that the most successful people were humble? I would vote yes half the time.

I know of some people who are really good at what they do, but struggle mightily with love and humility.

I mean if greatness is about self glorification then troubled times are ahead. But if greatness is about giving back then I think peace lies ahead.

 

[Sunstone]

What exactly is "fundamental human nature," and how exactly do we know that it is fundamental human nature, and also somehow, unalterable?

Has that been proven beyond a reasonable doubt? I must have missed that newsflash...

That's a good question. Thanks for asking.

That aspect of our nature that is rooted in our genes, as opposed to that aspect of our nature that is learned. I am told current thinking on the subject is that no human behavior is wholly without some genetic component.

The thinking has changed quite a bit since I was an undergrad. Back then, you could be hard pressed to find many scientists who failed to belong to the school of thought that genes have little or no influence on behavior.

To be sure, I think individuals can, in some significant way, change themselves on this matter. They can become aware of the human tendency here and check their own behavior. But the next generation will be right back at the starting gate. Genes.

 

[Sunstone]

That's the nature of the ego whether individual or collective. One of my favorite poems about the nature of the "hydra headed ego" which seeks to fasten itself to anything whether apparently good or apparently bad:

Friend, please tell me what I can do about this world
I hold to, and keep spinning out!

I gave up sewn clothes, and wore a robe,
but I noticed one day that the cloth was well woven.

So I bought some burlap, but I still
throw it elegantly over my left shoulder

I pulled back my sexual longings,
and now I discover that I'm angry a lot.

I gave up rage, and now I notice
that I am greedy all day.

I worked hard at dissolving the greed,
and now I am proud of myself.

When the mind wants to break its link with the world
it still holds on to one thing.

Kabir says: Listen my friend,
there are very few that find the path!

Yup. That's about the sum of it. And the poem beautifully illustrates the folly in the Western approach of attempting to "overcome", "abolish", or "anihilate" our ego. Such a trap. Typical to fall into it. Hard to get out of it.

So far as I can see, the ego is a beast to be domesticated and put to service, not a beast to exterminated.

Just my two cents.

 

[osgart]

That's a good question. Thanks for asking.

That aspect of our nature that is rooted in our genes, as oppose to that aspect of our nature that is learned. I am told current thinking on the subject is that no human behavior is wholly without some genetic component.

The thinking has changed quite a bit since I was an undergrad. Back then, you could be hard pressed to find many scientist who failed to belong to the school of thought that genes have little or no influence on behavior.

To be sure, I think individuals can, in some significant way, change themselves on this matter. They can become aware of the human tendency here and check their own behavior. But the next generation will be right back at the starting gate. Genes.

I never bought into the idea that human nature is genetic. I buy into learned behaviour from the previous generation. Those that know better do better and those who lack resources and guidance have a harder time of it.

I'm wondering if the gene studies are a mirage of factual knowledge and there is other factors that could fit better??

 

[Sunstone]

The definition I use for humility is to see yourself as you are, no greater, and no lesser.

We see eye-to-eye on that. I don't claim credit for the idea of defining "humility" that way, but I think it's brilliant.

The way I check for it is if the fruits are ego then lookout danger ahead. If the fruits is charitable compassion then the humility is a good one

What a remarkably astute test! I'm going to give it a shot, see how it works for me. Thank you so much, Osgart. Remind me someday to repay you the money I owe you.

Do you think that the most successful people were humble?

If by "successful" you mean something along the lines of they substantially accomplished in life what they wished to accomplish, then I am not sure how to directly answer your question. That is, I have never seen any studies done on it, and I don't trust myself to calculate an answer based on my own experience. That's in part because -- as a millionaire friend of mine puts it, "Luck is the single biggest factor in success." So far as I can see, luck favors/disfavors the humble and the arrogant alike.

However, I have time and again seen a relatively arrogant person throw up obstacles to his or her own success. And likewise, I have seen humble people wisely avoid traps that less humble people routinely fall in. So, there's that to it, as well.

I mean if greatness is about self glorification then troubled times are ahead. But if greatness is about giving back then I think peace lies ahead.

Food for thought.

Thanks so much for your post!

 

[Sunstone]

I never bought into the idea that human nature is genetic. I buy into learned behaviour from the previous generation. Those that know better do better and those who lack resources and guidance have a harder time of it.

I'm wondering if the gene studies are a mirage of factual knowledge and there is other factors that could fit better??

I don't know that anyone is arguing human behavior is all genetic, with no other factors involved. From what I've seen, it's generally agreed that it's a mix of genes and learning.

Here's an example.... Tool use. The instinct to use tools is genetic, but your genes don't teach you how to use a screwdriver. That's learning.

Again, no one has to teach a 13 or 14 year old boy to start craving sex. That's genetic. But someone had sure better teach him how to use a condom. That's learning.

So far as I know, the best popular book on the subject is Stephen Pinker's The Blank Slate.

 

[osgart]

I don't know that anyone is arguing human behavior is all genetic, with no other factors involved. From what I've seen, it's generally agreed that it's a mix of genes and learning.

Here's an example.... Tool use. The instinct to use tools is genetic, but your genes don't teach you how to use a screwdriver. That's learning.

Again, no one has to teach a 13 or 14 year old boy to start craving sex. That's genetic. But someone had sure better teach him how to use a condom. That's learning.

So far as I know, the best popular book on the subject is Stephen Pinker's The Blank Slate.

I've heard of him. I'll give it a read!

 

[Sunstone]

I've heard of him. I'll give it a read!

If you're interested in the ebook, it's five bucks on Amazon right now.

 

[Valjean]

What exactly is "fundamental human nature," and how exactly do we know that it is fundamental human nature, and also somehow, unalterable?

Anthropology, psychology, neurology. Read the textbooks.

Has that been proven beyond a reasonable doubt? I must have missed that newsflash...

"Fundamental human nature" is that which has been neurologically programmed into our psychology, from millions of years on the plains of Africa, living as small bands of hunter-gatherers: Tribalism. Intense in-group loyalty and altruism. Distrust of "the other," Focus on the here and now. Neuro-behavioral short-cuts to decision-making.
These got us through the Pleistocene.

We have the minds and brains of the plains-apes we recently were. Culture and technology evolve more quickly than biology. Many of us are ill-suited to living in large, multi-cultural civilizations.

 

[Valjean]

I never bought into the idea that human nature is genetic. I buy into learned behaviour from the previous generation. Those that know better do better and those who lack resources and guidance have a harder time of it.

I'm wondering if the gene studies are a mirage of factual knowledge and there is other factors that could fit better??

Our psychology is a product of evolution, just as are our anatomy and physiology.

There is no gene for five fingered extremities, or bipedalism, Nor is there a single gene for xenophobia, tribalism or altuism. Our brains are complex. But the psychology that got us through the Pleistocene remains, little altered, and it's not always well suited to the demands of a massive, multicultural civilization.

 

[osgart]

Our psychology is a product of evolution, just as are our anatomy and physiology.

There is no gene for five fingered extremities, or bipedalism, Nor is there a single gene for xenophobia, tribalism or altuism. Our brains are complex. But the psychology that got us through the Pleistocene remains, little altered, and it's not always well suited to the demands of a massive, multicultural civilization.

That's a whole other way to look at it. I just don't buy into it at this time.

What book is a good read to prove such a thing?

 

[Mock Turtle]

My main gripe about any ideals (and ideology), often being religious ones but will include others, is that they shouldn't start from the premise of being set in stone and likely to apply for all time, but should be amenable to the knowledge we develop and the circumstances within which we will likely find ourselves if we progress as a species - progress seen as how you like to define it. And too often all I see in so many religious beliefs is the opposite of this - that they are rooted in the past and clinging on to something possibly coming from some divine source but probably not - and not being that helpful whilst doing so, especially when they conflict with so many other beliefs.

The one solid thing we do know, and can do research to know more, is that our human nature (the spectrum of such) is rooted in the past - via our common ancestry with other life and having much in common behaviour-wise with many other species - such that this is something that we can build on if we want certainty over some things. Not that we might ever know enough concerning our past, but we should be able to know enough to help us into the future. Religions are not helping if they tend to refute what science seems to show us concerning such matters - that is, producing other reasons (whatever they might be) when we should be taking responsibility for our behaviour when we understand why we tend to behave as we do, and might have the means to control such rather better than just following rules.

 

[Thief]

the premise of being set in stone and likely to apply for all time,

a stone tossed at Moses?

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

That's a good question. Thanks for asking.

That aspect of our nature that is rooted in our genes, as opposed to that aspect of our nature that is learned. I am told current thinking on the subject is that no human behavior is wholly without some genetic component.

The thinking has changed quite a bit since I was an undergrad. Back then, you could be hard pressed to find many scientists who failed to belong to the school of thought that genes have little or no influence on behavior.

To be sure, I think individuals can, in some significant way, change themselves on this matter. They can become aware of the human tendency here and check their own behavior. But the next generation will be right back at the starting gate. Genes.

Genes--depending on aspect of human health of behavior being investigated--show between about 35 and 70 percent of the variance...but there is also lots of evidence that upbringing/environment contribute about 35 to 70 percent...the big problem is that it's hard to define exactly what the behavior being studied is, and exactly which genes contribute to that...

Individual choice and effort to change works someplace into that upbringing/environment contribution to "human nature."

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

That's a good question. Thanks for asking.

That aspect of our nature that is rooted in our genes, as opposed to that aspect of our nature that is learned. I am told current thinking on the subject is that no human behavior is wholly without some genetic component.

The thinking has changed quite a bit since I was an undergrad. Back then, you could be hard pressed to find many scientists who failed to belong to the school of thought that genes have little or no influence on behavior.

To be sure, I think individuals can, in some significant way, change themselves on this matter. They can become aware of the human tendency here and check their own behavior. But the next generation will be right back at the starting gate. Genes.

One thing about that, though: some common behaviours of theists don't make sense even when considering human nature.

One of those deep-seated behaviour traits among humans is to alter our behaviour when we think we're being watched.

I heard an illustration of how ingrained this is... IIRC in a Steven Pinker lecture: in an office that has a coffee pot in the break room where people pay by the honour system, you get fewer people not paying fir their coffee if you put up a poster with a picture of eyes than if you put up a poster with a picture of flowers.

... but it's not at all uncommon for theists who say that they believe in an omniscient God to do things they consider sinful that - if they actually believe as they say - they would think were in full view of God.

This strikes me as strange... and contrary to human nature for someone who actually believes in God.

 

[Mock Turtle]

a stone tossed at Moses?

Could have used concrete I suppose, since I believe the Romans used such, or just planted so as to take root.