0
0

The useful lie is not useful


 invite response                
2017 May 23, 11:28am   521 views  1 comment

by Dan8267   ➕follow (4)   💰tip   ignore  

Dan8267 says

And there is no up side to faith.

marcus says

Actually we don't know that. That's like saying there is no upside to humanity.

Bullshit. The statement "there is no upside to faith" is nothing like the statement "there is no upside to humanity". Equating the two is utterly ridiculous.

Furthermore, we have over 10,000 years of history to support the statement that there is no upside to faith. If you are trying to make the ludicrous argument that you can never state "there is no upside to X" then apply that to baby rape. Justify that there may be some hidden benefits to raping babies so the statement "there is no upside to baby rape" can never be known for certain. Yes, this is an extreme example, but extreme examples show the ridiculousness of some presumptions. If a premise results in a conclusion that is ridiculously wrong, then the premise is wrong.

You can make a logical argument as to why we can have morality without religion, and you can cite examples of individuals who are moral without religion, but as a whole collective group of humanity, we always had religion. It has not been proven what happens when you have no religion.

Again, apply this argument to rape. We have never had a society with zero rape. Does that mean a zero-rape society is a risky proposition? Are you afraid that people will die of Bubonic plague if they lived in a rape-free society because, hell, we have no idea what such a society would look like? This is a ridiculous argument.

The fact is that the vast majority of human existence has been painful and miserable. As such, making changes is the only way to make human existence better. Every step towards greater rationality, honest, and a scientific outlook on life has been a great improvement in the quality of life for all human beings.

I'm not arguing that religion is a precondition for having values that allow civilization to work. It's just that we don't know that it is not the case.

I know that is not the case, and any reasonable person can confidently conclude that is the case. You don't have to empirically test every single idea to know whether or not it is a bad idea. Have you ever stuck your dick in an alligator's mouth? Neither have I, but I can quite confidently tell you it is a bad idea. Have you ever walked up to a cop and punched him in the face? Neither have I, but I can quite confidently tell you it is a bad idea. Have you ever let Iran get nuclear weapons? Neither have I, but I can quite confidently tell you it is a bad idea. Have you ever taken all your money and burned it as an offering to Thor? Neither have I, but I can quite confidently tell you it is a bad idea. Have you ever let a six-year-old babysit an infant? Neither have I, but I can quite confidently tell you it is a bad idea. Have you notice a pattern here?

(Note: I don't expect you would ever listen and comprehend this argument without being triggered and reacting long before you've comprehended the point in its entirety).

This is a thinly veiled ad hominin attack that I have just disproved thoroughly by addressing each of your points in detailed without being "triggered". However, I don't expect you to be man enough to admit you were just wrong about me and apologize. (That's called flipping someone's argument.)

Jordan Peterson makes the case better than I can.

OK, I'll now go over his arguments. Please note that Peterson is an idiot and a terrible speaker, so it's not easy to tell what he is attempting to say, but I have done my best to honestly state what his arguments are in the most coherent way. If you want to present other arguments, I'll address them as well.

Argument 1: If there is no god, you can do whatever you want.

Counter-argument 1.1: Morality does not come from god, but from evolution.

Science has proven beyond any doubt that morality is an evolved response to dealing with the problems of social living. Countless mammalian and bird species have morality that is easily demonstrated. From monkeys to meerkats to elephants, to squirrels, moral codes have been observed and documented by animal behaviorists and evolutionary psychologists.

Read The Moral Animal: Why We Are, the Way We Are: The New Science of Evolutionary by Robert Wright.

Counter-argument 1.2: Morality is based on reciprocity and empathy, not the false belief in god.

www.youtube.com/embed/meiU6TxysCg

People are laughing in the video because the sense of injustice is so obviously expressed. It's not even subtle.

Counter-argument 1.3: There is no evidence that belief in god makes people more moral, and plenty of evidence that the belief harms

The most religious societies, i.e. those with the greatest integration of religion and the most fervent faith, have always been the most violent both towards outsiders and members of the society. They have been the societies most often practicing torture and cruelty and devaluing human life. This is a hard, indisputable historical fact. I.e. challenge me so I can humiliate you with pages and pages of evidence making your denial look ridiculous.

Argument 2: Sam Harris is a radical atheist.

Counter-argument 2.1: Radical is a label no different than nigger

Quite frankly, you don't look good appealing to a man who would make such a ridiculous ad hominin attack. The word "radical" is the new "nigger". It used to be that if you wanted to poison the well, you'd call someone a nigger. Now that it is no longer socially acceptable to do so, people label their opposition "radical" which is just code for nigger, someone who shouldn't even be considered a rational, intelligent person. The idea is that you don't listen to the person's argument, because he's been labeled a radical. Of course, anyone with a good argument against someone's position would never have to resort to this underhanded tactic.

Counter-argument 2.2: Sam Harris is not radical in any true sense of the word.

There is nothing radical about the idea that you accept the truth, whatever it is, rather than deliberately persisting in a lie. Sam Harris rationally justifies his statements. Peterson is simply labeling Harris "a radical" because he does not want people to accept Harris's arguments, but he has no justification for people to reject them.

Counter-argument 2.3: Peterson's position is absurd.

Throughout the video you posted, Peterson makes assertions without any reasoning or evidence to back them up. His assertions basically propose lying to the vast majority of human beings and manipulating them. Such a tactic may have worked in the Bronze Age, but it cannot work in the Information Age. Lies get debunked and misinformation is dangerous.

Argument 3: Evil is rational, and good is irrational. Only the irrational belief in a god can keep people good and stop them from being selfish and evil.

Why is it irrational for me to try to get everything I want at every moment from you? Why is cooperation rational? I don't understand that. The psychopathic tendency is rational. Pure naked self-interest is rational.

Counter-argument 3.1: Good works.

Morality and the desire for "good" over "evil" evolved in many species, including but not limited to our own, precisely because it works. Animals that live in social groups do better with cooperation than with selfish behavior. This has been extensively documented by biologists and psychologists. Thousands of independent lines of evidence all confirm that social behavior materially improves survival over anti-social behavior. The greater the group importance, the greater the importance of good.

Furthermore, mathematical models in game theory have shown the advantages of cooperation over defection. The classic game Prisoner's Dilemma illustrates this perfects. Computer similations have shown that morality, and specific moral codes, work best in particular situations. For example, the optimal strategy in Prisoner's Dilemma is moral code called Tit-for-Tat, which has the following properties:
1. It is a nice strategy. It starts with cooperating and always cooperates if the other party does not defect.
2. It is non-naïve. It punishes defectors.
3. It is forgiving. It allows defectors to start cooperating again.

However, Tit-for-Tat does not work in the real world and results in unending feuds, which is why the very name has a negative connotation. Why is that? Because in the real world a player can accidently defect. A noble player could intend to cooperate, but slip up and defect. Then if two Tit-for-Tat players are playing, they will both endlessly defect. So we refine the strategy to handle this situation.

Tit-for-Tat Variant Two randomly forgives one-third of transgressions. This allows accidental defection to be forgiven while not inviting mean strategies to take advantage because the forgiveness is unpredictable and it's statistically not worth defecting for the short-term payoff.

Marcus, you claim to be a math teacher. You should appreciate the power of mathematics to model conflicts and conflict resolution, which is essentially the entire purpose of morality. Game Theory is morality done right with mathematical precision.

And before you make the foolish argument that the common Joe isn't capable of that level of understanding, he doesn't have to be. Morality can still be explained in terms a toddler can understand, with more complicated moral issues being explained with more advanced concepts. These more advance concepts are ultimately needed for complex situations like globalization and intra-species relations. Those more advance concepts, however, do not mean that everyday situations cannot be explained in practical terms that even a dummy can understand.

Counter-argument 3.2: Evil is not stable.

History has demonstrated relentlessly that evil is ultimately unstable. Regimes built on pure selfish desires of individuals always topple because everyone in that society has incentives to topple the power. North Korea is a perfect modern example. Tyrannical regimes are held together in a fragile alliance of power players.

The game theory math also shows in great detail why this is true. So both a priori theory and empirical evidence paint the exact same picture. This demonstrates that the theory is correct.

Quite frankly, the fact that Peterson does not understand this simply demonstrates that he's not that smart. Even toddlers understand they are better off if everyone follows the rules and plays fair. It has nothing to do with supernatural gods and everything to do with group living.

Counter-argument 3.3: Using irrationality to promote good is dangerous.

Irrationality is like an uncontrolled fire consuming everything. Sure, you may think you can control the fire. Lots of people throughout history have thought this. They have all been wrong, so very wrong. But hey, maybe you'll be difference because Jesus! Yeah, that magic will work. Just don't take a look at the years 50 through 1945. They aren't representative of Christianity.

The Useful Lie hypothesis simply does not work. If you can use a lie to get people to behave well, anyone else can use that same lie to get more people to do evil. As soon as you adopt the principle of lying, then you forfeit any objection to other people's lies. So tell me, which lies are more common, the ones that make people behave better or the ones that make people behave worse? I think you know the answer to this question.

Argument 4: People are inherently evil, and only act good if forced to by religion. Remove religion and people will revert to being savages, murdering and raping people.

Counter-argument 4.1: Human nature

For the past 2500 years philosophers have argued about whether human beings are inherently good or evil. One camp says that human beings are vile and selfish creatures who can only be made to behave nicely by outside forces like religion and law. The other camp says that human beings are naturally compassionate and are corrupted by society to become greedy and selfish and cruel.

Both camps are wrong. Biologists and game theorists have proven that it is human nature to
1. Be nice when they expect the behavior to be reciprocated, whether directly or indirectly.
2. Be mean when they expect the behavior will not or cannot be reciprocated either directly or indirectly.

Oh shit, this rule is slightly more complicated than the rules you are used to. Tough shit. Deal with it. It's not that complicated, and unlike the simple-minded rules, it actually reflect reality.

You can see this rule being played out all the time. The people who act like assholes to you while driving would never act like that when face-to-face with you while walking on the street. People don't expect their selfishness while driving to be reciprocated because they don't expect the deal with the same person again, or if they do, that the other person will know it's them again.

Your local supermarket is a lot nicer to you than a car dealership or realtor. (And I'm not talking fake niceness.) The latter is more likely to screw you over because they know it's a one-time purchase. The supermarket needs your repeat business, and screwing you over isn't a good way to get that. A realtor could fuck you over hugely and has no concern of repeat business. He's better off with the one-time payout.

In countless situations the exact same math plays out. This is why morality is NOT absolute. Nor is it relative. That was a false choice fallacy. Morality is like building a bridge. The design has to fit the environment, so different designs work better in different situations, but the underlying math and physics is universal.

Counter-argument 4.2: Law

Scientific studies have shown that although the severity of punishment does not deter criminals, the likelihood of being caught heavily influences them. Put simply, no religion is needed, or useful, for deterring bad behavior. The only thing needed are good, clear laws and effective enforcement of those laws.

Counter-argument 4.3: Economics and social forces

Even without laws, economic and social forces drive a certain degree of moral behavior. I wouldn't murder people even if there was no law against it or I was guarantee to not be caught. I simply find the idea very morally and emotionally repugnant. I don't need the threat of punishment to make me behave good. Nor do I need some bullshit afterlife reward to make me help my fellow human beings or intelligent animals. My compassion and empathy does that.

Religion is not good at promoting compassion and empathy. Again, historical evidence proves this beyond even unreasonable doubt. The more religious a society is, the less compassion and empathy its population has. However, there are many alternative ways of promoting compassion and empathy that actually do work, for example, cultural promotion of empathy through movies and music.

Everything I've said about the individual also applies to aggregations including nation-states and economic zones. Europe used to be in a constant state of warfare for two thousands years under Christianity. That religion did nothing to promote peace and a lot to promote war, very bloody wars.

In contrast, today it is unthinkable that Europe would war with itself. Why? Because the benefits of cooperation through commerce, anti-terrorism efforts, research and development, cultural exchanges, etc. vastly outweigh any potential benefit of defection (war). The peaceful nature of modern Europe is predicted and explained by game theory.

Counter-argument 4.4: Empirical evidence from atheists

I am a hard-core, strong atheist. I disbelieve not only in your god but all possible gods. Yet, as far as I honestly know, I have never harmed another person in my entire life, and certainly not intentionally. Well, one caveat. In high school I punched a guy who strongly disliked me, but it does not seem to be harm because he then liked me and wanted to be friends because I punched him. Some weird guy code thing involving "respect" and standing up for yourself.

Nonetheless, I have not devolved into a raging cave man clubbing women and sexual rivals to get whatever my animal instinct tells me to get. I am a living, breathing empirical example that Peterson is utterly wrong in his assessment, and I am hardly atypical. Scientific studies have shown that atheists make up far less of the prison population than they should if they were as bad as people who believe in a god, and in particular believe in the Christian god. If the universe contradicts your theory, it is your theory, not the universe, that is wrong.

Conclusion

Jordan Peterson is completely wrong in every baseless assertion he has made. Even toddlers understand the concepts that he openly admits, even brags, that he does not understand. His assertions are contradicted by reason, math, and historical fact. Quite frankly, it doesn't look good using this guy to support your case.

Comments 1 - 1 of 1        Search these comments

1   HEY YOU   2017 May 23, 1:09pm  

"Be careful who you piss off" applies to monkeys.
They can't do anything to change their situation in the video.
The monkey is probably thinking:"FUCK YOU"
The masses of poor in America just might decide that they have had enough.
What's the total number of firearms in the U.S.?
Advice to the rich,continue to flaunt your wealth.
You might end up with a monkey on your back.
The poor will be thinking:"Fuck you rich assholes,DIE."
This can't happen?
Wikipedia:
"The American Civil War was an internal conflict fought in the United States (U.S.) from 1861 to 1865."

Please register to comment:

api   best comments   contact   latest images   memes   one year ago   random   suggestions