Difference between revisions of "NOV 5"

From Alfino
Jump to navigationJump to search
(Created page with "==20: NOV 5== ===Assigned=== :*We will continue discussing results of our work and exercise on justified partiality. :*Writing: Position Paper on Justified Partiality ===Ju...")
 
m
 
Line 1: Line 1:
−
==20: NOV 5==
+
==21: NOV 5. ==
  
 
===Assigned===
 
===Assigned===
  
−
:*We will continue discussing results of our work and exercise on justified partiality.
+
:*Henrich C4 – “The Gods are Watching. Behave!” (123-152; 29) – Dictator game, “god-priming” research, moralizing gods, Big Gods and the random allocation game, hell, free will, and moral universalism.
−
:*Writing: Position Paper on Justified Partiality
 
  
−
===Justified Partiality: Theorizing the Public Problem===
+
===In-Class===
  
−
:*Forms of Public Partiality (Beneficence)
+
:*Talking about Religion in a Naturalist Context.   
−
::*Favoring taxation to address social problems - depends upon current political climate and culture.  Charitable giving is lower in Europe, partly because government does the job. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_charitable_donation Charitable giving per capita by country]
+
:*Designing a Religion with Cultural Evolution in Mind.
−
::*Voluntary donations of time and money to causes - here's some [https://www.fool.com/taxes/2018/07/02/heres-how-much-the-average-american-taxpayer-gives.aspx info] on charitable giving
 
−
::*Bequests and inheritances (some [https://files.taxfoundation.org/legacy/docs/TaxFoundation_FF458.pdf info] on trends in estate taxes)
 
  
−
:*Resources for answering the question, "What do I owe to strangers?"
+
===Talking about Religion in a Naturalist Context - Some caveats===
−
::*Motivational resources: self-interest and altruism. 
 
−
::*Theoretical resources:
 
−
:::*Rawls' difference principle (review)
 
−
:::*Duty to an ideal.  This could be a Kantian ideal of supporting reason and autonomy in others, or it could be a more traditional ideal about human dignity and the importance of supporting human life.  You may certainly draw on values from your faith commitments and life experience, but try to explicate them in ways that might be attractive to others generally.
 
−
:::*Virtue Ethics --
 
−
:::*Utilitarianism -- The principle of utility has several theoretical virtues.  For meeting acute human needs, it gives us a way of prioritizing need and calculating benefits. 
 
−
:::*Libertarianism -- A good starting point if you feel very minimal "collective" obligations (such as through taxation), but don't forget that Liberatarians answer questions of personal charity and beneficence just like everyone else.
 
  
−
::*You may want to blend features of several theoretical and motivational resources in crafting your position. 
+
:*Naturalism and the Supernatural
  
−
:*Additional considerations:
+
:*Methodological principle - “Whatever else might be true…”
−
::*Theorize from more than one direction:  You can think about obligations to people outside your preference network by thinking about what strangers might need from you given human needs and your values.  You can also start your theorizing by thinking about what it would mean to satisfy your obligations to people in your preference network. 
 
−
::*Breakdown your obligations to your preference networks.  Family, friends, church.  Big one is generational wealth. Is there a limit to how much money you would feel obligated to pass on to descendents?  Depends upon priorities. If absolute priority, then "no". 
 
−
::*Prioritize: Consider priorities for both personal preference and public preferences.  Human health and life, economic development, etc.  Priorities by distance (your community, country, region, world).
 
  
−
:*Small Group exercise on the limits of "justified partiality"
+
:*The beauty and importance of faith commitments.
−
::*Imagine that you are already in your future your life. Your earnings are over $100,000 and you expect to sustain that income or a higher income until you retire.  You have accumulated over 1 million dollars in retirement savings and expect a very good retirement income.  You have taken care of your kids' college education, and you are on track to own your home and a vacation property.  But you live in a country with high rates of homelessness, high inequality, and a small social safety net, relative to other wealthy countries. Under this scenario of income and wealth, would you be able to identify some limits to "justified partiality"?  What principles would you use to decide that you had resources that you were not obligated to spend on your loved ones (and those in your preference network).  Try imagining very concrete kinds of goods that you might be sacrificing if you define limits to your partiality. What values, if any, would make such trade-offs morally attractive to you?
 
  
−
:::*Possibility 1: Even from a position of relative affluence, I would reserve almost all of my resources for my PN.
+
:*Belief in supernatural beings is on the decline.  In light of the real work religious culture has done for humans (acc to cultural evolutionists), this is a critical problem.
−
:::*Possibility 2, 3, and 4: I might still pass along generational wealth, but would give to charities according to averages for my income, above average, below average.
 
−
:::*Possibility 5:?
 
  
 +
==== Henrich C4 – “The Gods are Watching. Behave!” ====
  
−
===Justified Partiality Position Paper: 700 words===
+
:*'''Major explanatory model for evolution of religious culture''' (128-133):
 +
::*Three forces may help explain the evolution of belief in supernatural beliefs:
  
−
:*'''Stage 1''': Please write an 700 word maximum answer to the following question by '''November 10, 2020 11:59pm.'''
+
:::*1 - the power of cultural learning over personal experience (cf. Churchland and Tomasello). Likely adaptive - humans who could take on cultural norms outcompeted others.
−
::*Topic: What do we owe strangers (both those in our communities, societies, and world)?  Develop your answer to this question first by thinking about the extent and limits, if any, of justified partiality. Present your view about the extent of justified partiality. Then try to identify intuitions you already have about obligations to strangers and use some of the theoretical resources we have discussed (and others that you wish to draw upon) to help you ''express your view of our obligations to strangers as a reasoned position drawing on ethical concepts and principles''. Consider near alternatives to your view and try to say why you prefer your view to these alternatives.  
 
  
−
:*'''Advice about collaboration''': I encourage you to collaborate with other students, but only up to the point of sharing ideas, references to class notes, and your own notes. Collaboration is part of the academic process and the intellectual world that college courses are based on, so it is important to me that you have the possibility to collaborate.  It's a great way to make sure that a high average level of learning and development occurs.  The best way to avoid plagiarism is to '''NOT''' share text of draft answers or outlines of your answer.  Keep it verbal.  Generate your own examples.   
+
:::*2 - some of our cognitive capacities - e.g. “mentalizing abilities” facilitated belief in the supernatural. Cognitive traits like empathy favor religious belief among women and ethnicities with high empathy, big brains can imagine non-existent objects (like theoretical objects and alternative futures) - bias toward dualism, mind / body.  Culture on mind/body switches 130.   
  
−
:*Prepare your answer and submit it in the following way:
+
:::*3 - intergroup competition helps explain specific difference among religions and the emergence on “moralizing Gods” (Big God religions). Big God religions out competed Local God religions.
−
::# '''Do not put your name in the file or filename'''. You may put your student id number in the file.  Put a word count in the file.
+
:::*Credibility Enhancing Displays (CREDs) play a role in enhancing religious commitment. (E.g. martyrdom) “costly and hard to fake commitments”.  
−
::# In Word, check "File" and "Options" to make sure your name does not appear as author.  You may want to change this to "anon" for this document.
 
−
::# Format your answer in double spaced text in a 12 point font, using normal margins. 
 
−
::# Save the file in the ".docx" file format using the file name "JustifiedPartiality".
 
−
::# Log in to courses.alfino.org.  Upload your file to the '''"'Justified Partiality' Position Papers" dropbox'''.
 
  
−
:*'''Stage 2''': Please evaluate '''four''' student answers and provide brief comments and a score. Review the [[Assignment Rubric]] for this exercise.  We will be using the Flow, Content, and Insight areas of the rubric for this assignment. Complete your evaluations and scoring by '''TBD, 2020, 11:59pm.''' 
+
:*'''Big God v Local God religions'''
−
::*Use [https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLSf1_WeGn0XsNxLPgHixmA88gbNp4lLcYxvxIs0bSEVLgHvP8A/viewform?usp=sf_link this Google Form] to evaluate '''four''' peer papers.  The papers will be in our shared folder, but please '''do not''' edit or add comments to the papers directly.  This will compromise your anonymity.
+
::*Local God religions (131) hunter gatherer gods are partially human, not always moral, not Omni-
−
::*To determine the papers you need to peer review, I will send you a key with animal names in alphabetically order, along with saint names.  You will find your animal name and review the next four (4) animals' work. 
+
::*Big God religions - Gods have concerns about human behavior and punish immoral behavior, surveil us, omni-potent, omni-present.  More likely in pastoralist and agricultural societies.
−
::*Some papers may arrive late.  If you are in line to review a missing paper, allow a day or two for it to show up.  If it does not show up, go ahead and review enough papers to get to four reviews.  This assures that you will get enough "back evaluations" of your work to get a good average for your peer review credit. (You will also have an opportunity to challenge a back evaluation score of your reviewing that is out of line with the others.)
 
  
−
:*'''Stage 3''': I will grade and briefly comment on your writing using the peer scores as an initial ranking.  Assuming the process works normally, I will give you the higher of the two grades.  Up to 14 points.
+
:*'''Major theses supported by evidence in this chapter''':
 +
::*Religions vary in the types of gods they believe in.  Local god religions v Big God religions, but also note change over time within a religion: OT God v NT God
 +
::*The wide range of religious belief (from Local Gods to Big Gods) have diverse effects on fitness.   
 +
::*Big God religions support large cities.
 +
::*Big God religions improve prosocial norm compliance, impersonal fairness, and other cooperative social behaviors.
 +
::*Big God religions support more impartiality to distant co-religionist distant strangers. 137
 +
::*Gods typically want certain things that are also fitness enhancing.  133
 +
::*Local God religions may still promote food sharing and pro sociality in smaller groups.
 +
::*The Big God religions of Buddhism, Christianity, Hinduism, and (later) Islam all support beliefs in contingent afterlives, free will, and moral universalism.  (Note relevance for our last unit.)
  
−
:*'''Stage 4''': Back-evaluation: After you receive your peer comments and my evaluation, take a few minutes to fill out this quick "back evaluation" rating form: [https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1kD1wkd1G0UuLIvtSPhEw4RUxZuJtLQJ31ZWkKA63WU4/edit].  '''Fill out the form for each reviewer, but not Alfino.''' Up to 10 points, in Q&W.
+
:*'''Evidence for these theses.'''
  
−
::*Back evaluations are due '''TBD, 11:59pm'''.
+
:*God primes — 123: test subjects primed with religious terms give more in the Dictator Game (impersonal fairness).  But these effects only work for religious folks and toward religious benefactors.
 +
:*Secular primes might be equally powerful and work for both believers and non-believers. 125
 +
:*God primes in everyday life - Muslim call to prayer, porn consumption.
 +
 
 +
:*In the evolution of religion toward Big God religions, we find God caring about many of the things that affect cooperation and group cohesiveness:  Adultery (and paternity), norm compliance (through monitoring and punishment).  Suggests connection with evolution.
 +
 
 +
:*Study to test claims about cooperative power of Big God religions 134. Henrich & others created a measure of relative God-size and then found test subject across this spectrum.  Test subjects allocated coins to either an anonymous co-religionist in distant village or either themselves (Self game) or a local co-religionist (Local Coreligionist game).  Result: ''When people believed their God would punish bad behavior they were less biased against distant co-religionists''. Similar results using Dictator game. 
 +
 
 +
:*Study to assess claims about Big God religions and scaling up of societies in large cities with complex dependencies (cooperation).  141.  Watts et al used data from pre-Western contact societies (and their gods) to estimate probability of scaling up.  Close to zero prob for societies with non-punishing gods. 40% with. 
 +
 
 +
:*Evidence on belief in: 147-148
 +
::*Contingent afterlife - >economic prosperity and <crime. Belief in heaven but not hell doesn’t help.
 +
::*Free Will - <less likely to cheat on math test. Read at 148.
 +
 
 +
===Designing (or Redesigning) religion for the 21st century===
 +
 
 +
:*Cultural evolution of religion suggests that religions played (and may still play) a big role helping cultures meet evolutionary challenges that depend upon values (cooperation, norm compliance, impersonal prosociality, impersonal honesty, trust, etc.)
 +
 
 +
:*But religious belief is on the decline.  Also, many of the positive effects from religion only extend to co-religionists (sectarianism).  This wasn’t a problem when societies were religiously homogeneous, but they aren’t now.  Add to this: we have new cooperative challenges like climate change and global resource use
 +
 
 +
:*What is the future of Big God religions?  Do we still need punishing gods?  How have religions already changed in the last few millennia?  (OT —> NT gods, de-emphasis on Hell, etc.).  [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laudato_si' Laudato Si!]
 +
 
 +
:*Questions:
 +
::*Should we be thinking about a new direction for religions, perhaps toward ecumenism or syncretism, or should we be looking beyond religion for other beliefs that would help us “scale up” cooperation? Is there a way around the groupishness of religion? Could a secular or humanistic commitment to human dignity and universalism motivate people today?

Latest revision as of 17:19, 5 November 2024

21: NOV 5.

Assigned

  • Henrich C4 – “The Gods are Watching. Behave!” (123-152; 29) – Dictator game, “god-priming” research, moralizing gods, Big Gods and the random allocation game, hell, free will, and moral universalism.

In-Class

  • Talking about Religion in a Naturalist Context.
  • Designing a Religion with Cultural Evolution in Mind.

Talking about Religion in a Naturalist Context - Some caveats

  • Naturalism and the Supernatural
  • Methodological principle - “Whatever else might be true…”
  • The beauty and importance of faith commitments.
  • Belief in supernatural beings is on the decline. In light of the real work religious culture has done for humans (acc to cultural evolutionists), this is a critical problem.

Henrich C4 – “The Gods are Watching. Behave!”

  • Major explanatory model for evolution of religious culture (128-133):
  • Three forces may help explain the evolution of belief in supernatural beliefs:
  • 1 - the power of cultural learning over personal experience (cf. Churchland and Tomasello). Likely adaptive - humans who could take on cultural norms outcompeted others.
  • 2 - some of our cognitive capacities - e.g. “mentalizing abilities” facilitated belief in the supernatural. Cognitive traits like empathy favor religious belief among women and ethnicities with high empathy, big brains can imagine non-existent objects (like theoretical objects and alternative futures) - bias toward dualism, mind / body. Culture on mind/body switches 130.
  • 3 - intergroup competition helps explain specific difference among religions and the emergence on “moralizing Gods” (Big God religions). Big God religions out competed Local God religions.
  • Credibility Enhancing Displays (CREDs) play a role in enhancing religious commitment. (E.g. martyrdom) “costly and hard to fake commitments”.
  • Big God v Local God religions
  • Local God religions (131) hunter gatherer gods are partially human, not always moral, not Omni-
  • Big God religions - Gods have concerns about human behavior and punish immoral behavior, surveil us, omni-potent, omni-present. More likely in pastoralist and agricultural societies.
  • Major theses supported by evidence in this chapter:
  • Religions vary in the types of gods they believe in. Local god religions v Big God religions, but also note change over time within a religion: OT God v NT God
  • The wide range of religious belief (from Local Gods to Big Gods) have diverse effects on fitness.
  • Big God religions support large cities.
  • Big God religions improve prosocial norm compliance, impersonal fairness, and other cooperative social behaviors.
  • Big God religions support more impartiality to distant co-religionist distant strangers. 137
  • Gods typically want certain things that are also fitness enhancing. 133
  • Local God religions may still promote food sharing and pro sociality in smaller groups.
  • The Big God religions of Buddhism, Christianity, Hinduism, and (later) Islam all support beliefs in contingent afterlives, free will, and moral universalism. (Note relevance for our last unit.)
  • Evidence for these theses.
  • God primes — 123: test subjects primed with religious terms give more in the Dictator Game (impersonal fairness). But these effects only work for religious folks and toward religious benefactors.
  • Secular primes might be equally powerful and work for both believers and non-believers. 125
  • God primes in everyday life - Muslim call to prayer, porn consumption.
  • In the evolution of religion toward Big God religions, we find God caring about many of the things that affect cooperation and group cohesiveness: Adultery (and paternity), norm compliance (through monitoring and punishment). Suggests connection with evolution.
  • Study to test claims about cooperative power of Big God religions 134. Henrich & others created a measure of relative God-size and then found test subject across this spectrum. Test subjects allocated coins to either an anonymous co-religionist in distant village or either themselves (Self game) or a local co-religionist (Local Coreligionist game). Result: When people believed their God would punish bad behavior they were less biased against distant co-religionists. Similar results using Dictator game.
  • Study to assess claims about Big God religions and scaling up of societies in large cities with complex dependencies (cooperation). 141. Watts et al used data from pre-Western contact societies (and their gods) to estimate probability of scaling up. Close to zero prob for societies with non-punishing gods. 40% with.
  • Evidence on belief in: 147-148
  • Contingent afterlife - >economic prosperity and <crime. Belief in heaven but not hell doesn’t help.
  • Free Will - <less likely to cheat on math test. Read at 148.

Designing (or Redesigning) religion for the 21st century

  • Cultural evolution of religion suggests that religions played (and may still play) a big role helping cultures meet evolutionary challenges that depend upon values (cooperation, norm compliance, impersonal prosociality, impersonal honesty, trust, etc.)
  • But religious belief is on the decline. Also, many of the positive effects from religion only extend to co-religionists (sectarianism). This wasn’t a problem when societies were religiously homogeneous, but they aren’t now. Add to this: we have new cooperative challenges like climate change and global resource use
  • What is the future of Big God religions? Do we still need punishing gods? How have religions already changed in the last few millennia? (OT —> NT gods, de-emphasis on Hell, etc.). Laudato Si!
  • Questions:
  • Should we be thinking about a new direction for religions, perhaps toward ecumenism or syncretism, or should we be looking beyond religion for other beliefs that would help us “scale up” cooperation? Is there a way around the groupishness of religion? Could a secular or humanistic commitment to human dignity and universalism motivate people today?
Retrieved from "http://wiki.gonzaga.edu/alfino/index.php?title=NOV_5&oldid=28597"