As for any alleged immaterial soul . . . that has yet to be manifest in any verifiable way. So how else does our kind rate as totally above and beyond all others? What exclusive characteristic makes us ontologically fabulous?

As scientists are learning more and more about other species, and are getting better and better at shedding anthropocentric blinders, it is becoming clear that we aren’t so whole-cloth exceptional. Consider the following two new findings:

1) ‘Look at That!’ Ravens Gesture With Their Beaks to Point out Objects to Each Other

Previous research has shown that while dogs understand human pointing, chimpanzees do not. And chimpanzees don’t point in the wild. At least not with an extended index finger at something in the distance. Dogs don’t either.

So is intentionally directing the attention of another a uniquely human trait? Maybe not.

For two years, Simone Pika und Thomas Bugnyar investigated the non-vocal behaviour of individually marked members of a wild raven community in the Cumberland Wildpark in Grünau, Austria. They observed that ravens use their beaks similar to hands to show and offer objects such as moss, stones and twigs.

Hmm. What else have we got?

2) Plant-food and tool transfer among savanna chimpanzees at Fongoli, Senegal

Chimpanzees found to share food and tools?! What we have here is more evidence revealing that nature isn’t completely red in tooth and claw (and thus in need of religion to save it from itself).

From the study abstract -

Transferring food is considered a defining characteristic of humans, as such behavior is relatively uncommon in other animal species save for kin-based transfer. Chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes) are one exception, as they commonly transfer meat among nonrelatives but rarely transfer other resources. New observations at Fongoli, Senegal, show habitual transfer of wild-plant foods and other non-meat resources among community members beyond transfers from mother to offspring.

Chimpanzees sharing tools . . . those hairy communists!

Okay, we’ve still got our Stanford-Binet scores and other ways to convince ourselves we aren’t “mere” animals. Oh, and language! Almost forgot language. No other animals are capable of using a completely symbol-based means of communication. Right? Well, at least as far as we currently know.

[recycled material - first appeared here]

Many religious folk claim that without a god in your life, well, all hell will break loose. Why? Their god is the source of morality. For years I have found this claim to be patently absurd. First, examine the many social groups around the globe and you will find many lacking “the” god of the Bible, or any supreme being for that matter, and, guess what — no wanton immorality. People seem to get along just fine. Though certainly with some exceptions. Just as you find among believers in a most high god.

Second, I have extensively studied risk factors for crime, and non-belief isn’t one of them.

Now new research further refutes the “first God, then morality” claim. In fact, the research argues that the claim has things backwards. It states:

“It seems that in many cultures religious concepts and beliefs have become the standard way of conceptualizing moral intuitions.”

That from, Morality research sheds light on the origins of religion.

So yes, religion and morality are likely related. But that relationship may consist of religions “conceptualizing” pre-existing “moral intuitions.”

Here’s the old view of the relationship, favored by pro-religion naturalists:

“Some scholars claim that religion evolved as an adaptation to solve the problem of cooperation among genetically unrelated individuals…” [bold mine]

But the new scholarly research refutes:

Citing several studies in moral psychology, the authors highlight the finding that despite differences in, or even an absence of, religious backgrounds, individuals show no difference in moral judgments for unfamiliar moral dilemmas. The research suggests that intuitive judgments of right and wrong seem to operate independently of explicit religious commitments.

And so “Dr. Pyysiainen and co-author Dr. Marc Hauser, from the Departments of Psychology and Human Evolutionary Biology at Harvard University” were led to this conclusion -

“This supports the theory that religion did not originally emerge as a biological adaptation for cooperation, but evolved as a separate by-product of pre-existing cognitive functions that evolved from non-religious functions,” says Dr. Pyysiainen.

Those who claim that you need religion to love thy neighbor and whatnot likely have placed the cart before the horse. This new research reveals that without the horse, there would be no cart. And as for atheists, they have no need for the cart of religion. And can love their neighbor just fine.

In research both thought-provoking and potentially controversial, we find this:

A study conducted by Daniel Bartels, Columbia Business School, Marketing, and David Pizarro, Cornell University, Psychology found that people who endorse actions consistent with an ethic of utilitarianism—the view that what is the morally right thing to do is whatever produces the best overall consequences—tend to possess psychopathic and Machiavellian personality traits. [emphases added; source]

Could a philosophical position–a school of thought even!–have a psychopathic underpinning?! Oh my.

But consider these words by the study authors:

“These methods fail to distinguish between people who endorse utilitarian moral choices because of underlying emotional deficits (like those captured by our measures of psychopathy and Machiavellianism) and those who endorse them out of genuine concern for the welfare of others.”

As a skeptic educated in psychology I have a few concerns. First, “emotional deficits” are not an all-or-nothing proposition. It may be wiser to think of them as emotional dispositions that become problematic beyond a given threshold in particular circumstances.

Also, it is nearly impossible to tease apart our selfish instincts from our “true” pro-social concerns. We simply don’t have transparent access to those regions of our brain. So to speak. Furthermore, the relationship is likely bi-directional. Just as our emotional self influences our political self, the reverse is likely true.

Finally, I find in the research the assumption that those psychological traits most functional in today’s society are absolutely the most functional, socially healthy and best no matter the who, what, where and when. That’s an assumption I wouldn’t make.

Imagine the following “ethical dilemma”: Your homeland has been invaded. Resistance is futile, suicidal even. The enemy is going from household to household, killing all infants. If the household surrenders any young child, they are spared. If they fail to hand them over, all are killed. Do you hand over the child in your household?

Of course, we do not want to live in a world in which parents readily hand over their children to be killed. But, faced with definite annihilation, should a parent hand over their child? Wow. Talk about difficult. But, as a social animal, I do not find it crazy to consider that in such a personally paralyzing predicament someone else in the household would step in to surrender the child.

Yes, this is a very interesting subject. A potentially controversial one as well. Particularly when we stick with generalities and attempt to apply them to all specific situations.

—

* Some temperamental traits that influence social behavior–such as introversion/extroversion, may not be completely nonsensical outside the social realm insofar as they can influence basic exploratory behavior.

Then the LORD said to Moses, “I will rain down bread from heaven for you. The people are to go out each day and gather enough for that day. In this way I will test them and see whether they will follow my instructions”….However, some of them paid no attention to Moses; they kept part of it until morning, but it was full of maggots and began to smell. So Moses was angry with them. (Exodus 16:4,20, New International Version)

That was no Wonder Bread the Lord rained from heaven. After one day it bred maggots and stank. Seems the Lord delivered to earth an inferior product. I’d like to know whom he commands to operate the Cloud Nine Bakery. God is certainly too busy and important to personally work the ovens. Why not Satan? Put the storefront on Divinity Drive, the factory on Hell Alley. All Satan needs is some bricks and a wooden paddle. Ta da! This might explain the maggots and the stink. Satan spat in the dough.

I’d love to write a Bible. Andrew’s Big Book O’ Mythology. Here’s what I’d need: 1. a force or forces of Good (to promote and provide what I value); 2. a force or forces of Bad (to endanger what I value and/or to illustrate and advance what I don’t); 3. a code of honor/conduct for the Good to follow, despite opposition; 4. heinous misconduct (or a really scary costume) on the part of the forces of Bad; and 5. a holy grail, whether it be justice, trails end, a bodacious babe, or, better yet, all three, which, when attained, would result in the playing of a victorious orchestral score as the scene fades to white.

Wait a minute. I just described a your average Hollywood script. And Hollywood, according to fundamentalists, is not holy, but evil. Why? Because of the graphic violence, the sex, and the perversion in the movies it produces. The Bible, on the other hand, is squeaky-clean, good family reading. Right?

You be the judge:

O Daughter of Babylon, doomed to destruction, happy is he who repays you for what you have done to us–he who seizes your infants and dashes them against the rocks.

Friday the 13th Sabbath, or Psalms 137:8,9?

There she lusted after her lovers, whose genitals were like those of donkeys and whose emission was like that of horses. So you longed for the lewdness of your youth, when in Egypt your bosom was caressed and your young breasts fondled.

Debby Does Damascus, or Ezekiel 23:20,21?

Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.

Brokeback Mount of Olives or Romans 1:26,27?

Bambi the Bible ain’t. Wholesome family reading? Not if you read it all.

A new science finding has shown the opposite can occur.

A study by Rimma Teper, Michael Inzlicht, and Elizabeth Page-Gould of the University of Toronto Scarborough (UTSC) on human morality has just been published in Psychological Science, a journal of the Association of Psychological Science.

The study tested the difference between moral forecasting and moral action—and the reasons behind any mismatch. The findings look encouraging: people act more morally than they would have predicted. [source; emphasis added]

That’s a bit of surprise. Considering that other studies have gone the other way: people act less morally than they would have predicted. To me this points out a disconnect (at least partial) between a person’s rational behavior — their thinking — and their behavior. What causes the disconnect? I think the the study write-up got it partly correct:

What’s the missing link between moral reasoning and moral action? Emotion. Emotions—fear, guilt, love—play a central role in all thinking and behavior, including moral behavior. But when people are contemplating how they’ll act, “they don’t have a good grasp of the intensity of the emotions they will feel” in the breach, says Teper, so they misjudge what they’ll do.

While I do think that emotions play a role in moral behavior, I think they are only part of the story. For in human beings emotions are primarily about social phenomena. Love, hate, guilt, embarrassment, etc. All of these mean nothing to an individual in isolation. We are social creatures and our emotions provide a sort of non-verbal magnetic force — attraction, repulsion, and more –that influences how we interact with others.

Consider these two superficially disparate illustrations -

1) You tell a co-worker how your boss has wronged you. You say you are going to confront the boss and give him/her a piece of your mind. You confront the boss and . . . fail to walk your talk.

2) The classic moral dilemma of a fork in the train tracks, with one person doomed if the train goes X, 5 to die if it goes Y. Most people say they would throw the switch to save the 5. But if asked if they would push the one onto the tracks to save the 5, the numbers dwindle. Why? The second is a more intimate, a more social and thus emotional, situation.

Social context is powerful stuff. We may think one way, but in given situation we may behave another. Because social influences are very powerful.

This also relates to the expression, “If I were in his/her shoes . . . ” Trouble is, we can’t be in another person’s shoes and experience their emotional response to a given social situation. Sure, we can guess. But guesses are tepid next to the heat of actually being there, in those unique emotional shoes.

We are not robots controlled by pure thought alone.