This will upset people who have not recognized we live in a deterministic world. For those of us who have, it's old hat. Some of the specifics like "humidity produces more xenophobic people" are quite interesting conjectures - quite plausible, but not earth shaking.
On the other hand, the statement, "Our opinions are not predetermined: we can control our beliefs" is false. We might think so only because we don't fully recognize the causes involved. We are components of a vast universe and there is no "ghost in the machine" running things that is not subject to the causal connections of all things.
Agreed - for me, the main takeaway is that various unexpected, non-rational factors shape what we believe.
That said, beliefs can be shaped to a greater or lesser degree by arguments, evidence, and rational thought processes, even though those processes are themselves determined.
To put it another way, we can control our beliefs with reason, even though the ways in which we exert that control are themselves shaped by deterministic laws.
There is, of course, no ghost in the machine. But we are also, as Darren Schreiber puts it 'hardwired not to be hardwired’. The world is too complex a place for us to have evolved predetermined responses to all its circumstances. That’s where our intellectual wriggle room is, even if, as Steve points out, the ways we reason are also - obviously - anchored in the same physics as the rest of the universe.
If we accept that we are - at best - predisposed to our opinions and beliefs, it seems to me the only escape from our most basic attitudinal predispositions is the encounter with the other: books, conversation, etc... We might not know where those encounters take us, but they take us out of ourselves. It turns out those encounters are good for reasoning - we reason best in conversation, in conflict with others. But it’s also good for us - it’s the pleasure of discovery.
I agree with all you and Steve write, but it seems you are both trying to cushion the stark fact we are biological robots. When it comes to our choice of ice cream flavor, whatever choice we make is determined by causes going back to the big bang - causes too complex and too vast to comprehend precisely, yet causes "we" can do nothing about except recognize their existence.
The notion that climate determines beliefs & values is clearly Blank Slate nonsense (far too many counter-examples exists), and the false association of Abrahamic religion with Moralistic thinking is a Modern phenomenon (The Bible & Quran themselves repeatedly call the very idea of Objective Morality into question, and there were plenty of Medieval sects & schools of Theology of every major religion that rejected the existence of Good & Evil).
The idea that climate 'determines' beliefs would indeed be nonsense.
It doesn't. But climate does correlate with many beliefs and attitudes - for a wild array of reasons (lots to do with behavioural immune responses to pathogens, but also to do with agricultural practices).
The Abrahamic religions, however, are rightly considered moralising in contrast to - say - the pantheistic ones of Greece and Rome. Moralising in a very specific sense: their Gods impose moral rules for humans to follow - like the 10 commandments - which non-moralising religions do not.
Pantheism itself is a Modern Western concept. There's not a single World Religion out there that's traditionally pantheistic despite common misconceptions among Modern people. There isn't even a word for Pantheism in any classical language, the word was first coined in the late 17th century.
And most Polytheistic religions actually do have their gods pass down moral edicts, such as the Ancient Egyptians, Chinese, Vedic Hindus, most Native Americans, etc.
Thank you Steve!
Looking fwd to reading yours immensely.
Pub day in eight days!
Arrives 4th June for me!
This will upset people who have not recognized we live in a deterministic world. For those of us who have, it's old hat. Some of the specifics like "humidity produces more xenophobic people" are quite interesting conjectures - quite plausible, but not earth shaking.
On the other hand, the statement, "Our opinions are not predetermined: we can control our beliefs" is false. We might think so only because we don't fully recognize the causes involved. We are components of a vast universe and there is no "ghost in the machine" running things that is not subject to the causal connections of all things.
Agreed - for me, the main takeaway is that various unexpected, non-rational factors shape what we believe.
That said, beliefs can be shaped to a greater or lesser degree by arguments, evidence, and rational thought processes, even though those processes are themselves determined.
To put it another way, we can control our beliefs with reason, even though the ways in which we exert that control are themselves shaped by deterministic laws.
There is, of course, no ghost in the machine. But we are also, as Darren Schreiber puts it 'hardwired not to be hardwired’. The world is too complex a place for us to have evolved predetermined responses to all its circumstances. That’s where our intellectual wriggle room is, even if, as Steve points out, the ways we reason are also - obviously - anchored in the same physics as the rest of the universe.
If we accept that we are - at best - predisposed to our opinions and beliefs, it seems to me the only escape from our most basic attitudinal predispositions is the encounter with the other: books, conversation, etc... We might not know where those encounters take us, but they take us out of ourselves. It turns out those encounters are good for reasoning - we reason best in conversation, in conflict with others. But it’s also good for us - it’s the pleasure of discovery.
I agree with all you and Steve write, but it seems you are both trying to cushion the stark fact we are biological robots. When it comes to our choice of ice cream flavor, whatever choice we make is determined by causes going back to the big bang - causes too complex and too vast to comprehend precisely, yet causes "we" can do nothing about except recognize their existence.
The notion that climate determines beliefs & values is clearly Blank Slate nonsense (far too many counter-examples exists), and the false association of Abrahamic religion with Moralistic thinking is a Modern phenomenon (The Bible & Quran themselves repeatedly call the very idea of Objective Morality into question, and there were plenty of Medieval sects & schools of Theology of every major religion that rejected the existence of Good & Evil).
The idea that climate 'determines' beliefs would indeed be nonsense.
It doesn't. But climate does correlate with many beliefs and attitudes - for a wild array of reasons (lots to do with behavioural immune responses to pathogens, but also to do with agricultural practices).
The Abrahamic religions, however, are rightly considered moralising in contrast to - say - the pantheistic ones of Greece and Rome. Moralising in a very specific sense: their Gods impose moral rules for humans to follow - like the 10 commandments - which non-moralising religions do not.
Pantheism itself is a Modern Western concept. There's not a single World Religion out there that's traditionally pantheistic despite common misconceptions among Modern people. There isn't even a word for Pantheism in any classical language, the word was first coined in the late 17th century.
And most Polytheistic religions actually do have their gods pass down moral edicts, such as the Ancient Egyptians, Chinese, Vedic Hindus, most Native Americans, etc.