Hitchens: Domesticating religion an unceasing chore of civilization

Writing in Slate, Christopher Hitchens says the taming and domestication of religious faith is one of the unceasing chores of civilization. In the article, titled "Free Exercise of Religion? No, Thanks.", Hitchens asks himself: Am I in favor of the untrammeled "free exercise of religion"? Not surprisingly, his answer is no.

He tasks a number of religions to task for what he sees as moral inconsistencies and hypocrisies, everything from the Mormons through to Roman Catholicism. He writes:

The Church of Scientology, the Unification Church of Sun Myung Moon, and the Ku Klux Klan are all faith-based organizations and are all entitled to the protections of the First Amendment. But they are also all subject to a complex of statutes governing tax-exemption, fraud, racism, and violence, to the point where "free exercise" in the third case has—by means of federal law enforcement and stern public disapproval—been reduced to a vestige of its former self.

And concludes:

Reactions from even "moderate" Muslims to criticism are not uniformly reassuring. "Some of what people are saying in this mosque controversy is very similar to what German media was saying about Jews in the 1920s and 1930s," Imam Abdullah Antepli, Muslim chaplain at Duke University, told the New York Times. Yes, we all recall the Jewish suicide bombers of that period, as we recall the Jewish yells for holy war, the Jewish demands for the veiling of women and the stoning of homosexuals, and the Jewish burning of newspapers that published cartoons they did not like. What is needed from the supporters of this very confident faith is more self-criticism and less self-pity and self-righteousness.

Those who wish that there would be no mosques in America have already lost the argument: Globalization, no less than the promise of American liberty, mandates that the United States will have a Muslim population of some size. The only question, then, is what kind, or rather kinds, of Islam it will follow. There's an excellent chance of a healthy pluralist outcome, but it's very unlikely that this can happen unless, as with their predecessors on these shores, Muslims are compelled to abandon certain presumptions that are exclusive to themselves. The taming and domestication of religion is one of the unceasing chores of civilization. Those who pretend that we can skip this stage in the present case are deluding themselves and asking for trouble not just in the future but in the immediate present.

Read more.

Diane Benscoter on how cults rewire the brain

In this TED talk from 2009, cognitive deprogrammer Diane Benscoter talks about her efforts to help people leave cults.

At the age of 17, Benscoter joined The Unification Church—the religious cult whose members are commonly known as “Moonies.” After five long years, her distressed family arranged to have her deprogrammed. Benscoter then left The Unification Church, and was so affected by her experience that she became a deprogrammer herself. She devoted her time to extracting others from cults, until she was arrested for kidnapping— but the shock of her arrest caused her to abandon her efforts for nearly 20 years.

Now, after decades of research and study, Benscoter is once again talking about her experiences. She recently completed a memoir describing her years as a member of The Unification Church and as a deprogrammer.

In addition to this, she has embarked on a new project to define “extremist viral memetic infections”. She believes that defining extremism as a memetic infection, from a cognitive neurological perspective, might allow us to develop better memes that would inoculate against the memes of extremist thought. These inoculating memes could prevent the spread of extremist viral memetic infections and their inherent dangers.

It's a control thing: Religion and human reproduction

Christianity is, like many other religions, a reproduction control system.

Its various sects take great pains to enforce a sexual code of conduct—and for very good reason. There's no better way for churches to control group behavior and ensure the growth of their flock than through the control of human reproduction. This explains why many Christians find it so important to get involved in biotechnological and bioethical discourse; it's crucial for Christian leaders to show their followers that they have authority over these areas, as authority imbues a sense of ownership.

Catholicism is a prime example. The Vatican's uncompromising stance on virtually all facets of reproduction shows how integral it is to the faith. Birth control, abortion, homosexuality and recreational sex (including sexual acts and positions that cannot lead to procreation) are considered taboos as each of these things represent a kind of subversion. And as far as health science is concerned, procedures like in vitro fertilization (IVF) are shunned upon as such practices wrest control away from the Church and towards individual couples and doctors. The injunction to 'not play God' is a memetic trick which convinces the faithful to avoid certain areas of inquiry traditionally reserved for the Church.

At the same time, Christians work to uphold so-called family values, knowing full well that the family unit is unquestioningly the most important vector for the entrenchment and spread of religious values.

Religious leaders and ideologues may argue that the reasons for their interest in human biology extend beyond mere reproduction. Instead, they argue that their domain extends into the realm of morality and spirituality, and that 'reproductive control' is a trite interpretation of their motives.

Now, I'm sure many of them are sincere when they make this case. That's how memes work, with hosts convinced that they're acting rationally and in the collective best interest. Memetics is, at its core, a study of the tendencies and vulnerabilities in human psychology.

In the case of human reproduction, Christians make the case for such things as embryonic personhood (or ensoulment) and espouse a strong interpretation of naturalism (i.e. humans were created in God's image). The problem with these arguments, however, is that they are rooted in fictions. The subsequent rationalizations and injunctions that emerge from these premises are thus intrinsically flawed.

Ultimately, once the arguments are stripped down and exposed for what they are, it's painfully obvious that the Christian memeplex is merely working to control human reproduction and the makeup of family units for the purpose of producing more willing hosts. One merely needs to stand back and look at the world's most successful religions as proof; those faiths that work to control human reproduction, namely Christianity, Islam and Hinduism (though Islam and Hinduism less so than Christianity) are undeniably the ones who have fared the best over the ages. It's the killer memetic adaptation.

As an example of the opposite effect, take the Shaker movement. It's a 250 year old Christian sect that acquired a rather disadvantageous characteristic—call it a maladaptive trait. According to Shaker law, all members of the faith are forbidden to engage in sexual activity. Reproduction is completely prohibited. The only way for Shakers to have children is through adoption, but even that was rejected in 1960. The only way new members could be acquired was from outside the community, which happened with great infrequency.

Today, the Shakers are all but finished. Their communities started to dwindle in the late 1800s. Although there were 6,000 believers at the peak of the Shaker movement, there were only twelve Shaker communities left by 1920. As of today, they are down to their last three members.

While most Christian sects have avoided this particular problem, they're not immune to changing social patterns and mores. The Vatican is having fits over the whole birth control thing. When it comes to family planning and recreational sex, Catholics and Christians alike are increasingly turning a blind eye to scripture. Couples want to continue engaging in sexual activity without having to have eight children. Additionally, infertile couples are choosing to have babies through IVF despite the Church's admonition against it.

The decline of Christian influence in much of the developed world (especially in Europe, but except, quite perplexingly, the USA) can be attributed to higher living standards and improved education—factors that lead couples to want smaller families and less to do with organized religion. Meanwhile, Christianity and Islam continues to spread in developing nations whose populations are still primed for religious memes.

But given the speed with which the developing world is catching up to the rest, it will only be a matter of time before they too start to shun religious laws that govern sexual activities and reproduction. Mark this as yet another reason to bring everyone up to first world standards.

Matt Ridley is the Rational Optimist

Matt Ridley published a book earlier this year called, The Rational Optimist: How Prosperity Evolves. There's some good ammo in here for those futurists who are regularly accused of having too many starry eyed visions of what tomorrow holds—and for those who simply believe that the human condition is steadily improving.

Throughout history, says Ridley, the engine of human progress has been the meeting and mating of ideas to make new ideas. It's not important how clever individuals are, he argues, what really matters is how smart the collective brain is.

As an aside, and not that this is his particular argument, the notion of the 'collective brain' being superior to the super-enhanced human or artificial brain is an idea that's starting to gain some currency in futurist circles. Some argue that base intelligence doesn't matter. Rather, it's the collectivity of ideas that gives human civilization its power. I'm not quite sold on this premise, but it's certainly worth considering; I certainly recognize the realization that we are standing on the shoulders of giants.

Promo blurbage:

Life is getting better—and at an accelerating rate. Food availability, income, and life span are up; disease, child mortality, and violence are down — all across the globe. Though the world is far from perfect, necessities and luxuries alike are getting cheaper; population growth is slowing; Africa is following Asia out of poverty; the Internet, the mobile phone, and container shipping are enriching people’s lives as never before. The pessimists who dominate public discourse insist that we will soon reach a turning point and things will start to get worse. But they have been saying this for two hundred years.

Yet Matt Ridley does more than describe how things are getting better. He explains why. Prosperity comes from everybody working for everybody else. The habit of exchange and specialization—which started more than 100,000 years ago—has created a collective brain that sets human living standards on a rising trend. The mutual dependence, trust, and sharing that result are causes for hope, not despair.

This bold book covers the entire sweep of human history, from the Stone Age to the Internet, from the stagnation of the Ming empire to the invention of the steam engine, from the population explosion to the likely consequences of climate change. It ends with a confident assertion that thanks to the ceaseless capacity of the human race for innovative change, and despite inevitable disasters along the way, the twenty-first century will see both human prosperity and natural biodiversity enhanced. Acute, refreshing, and revelatory, The Rational Optimist will change your way of thinking about the world for the better.

The WSJ recently published an excerpt from his prologue:

To argue that human nature has not changed, but human culture has, does not mean rejecting evolution – quite the reverse. Humanity is experiencing an extraordinary burst of evolutionary change, driven by good old-fashioned Darwinian natural selection. But it is selection among ideas, not among genes. The habitat in which these ideas reside consists of human brains. This notion has been trying to surface in the social sciences for a long time. The French sociologist Gabriel Tarde wrote in 1888: 'We may call it social evolution when an invention quietly spreads through imitation.' The Austrian economist Friedrich Hayek wrote in the 1960s that in social evolution the decisive factor is 'selection by imitation of successful institutions and habits'. The evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins in 1976 coined the term 'meme' for a unit of cultural imitation. The economist Richard Nelson in the 1980s proposed that whole economies evolve by natural selection.

This is what I mean when I talk of cultural evolution: at some point before 100,000 years ago culture itself began to evolve in a way that it never did in any other species – that is, to replicate, mutate, compete, select and accumulate – somewhat as genes had been doing for billions of years. Just like natural selection cumulatively building an eye bit by bit, so cultural evolution in human beings could cumulatively build a culture or a camera. Chimpanzees may teach each other how to spear bushbabies with sharpened sticks, and killer whales may teach each other how to snatch sea lions off beaches, but only human beings have the cumulative culture that goes into the design of a loaf of bread or a concerto.

Yes, but why? Why us and not killer whales? To say that people have cultural evolution is neither very original nor very helpful. Imitation and learning are not themselves enough, however richly and ingeniously they are practised, to explain why human beings began changing in this unique way. Something else is necessary; something that human beings have and killer whales do not. The answer, I believe, is that at some point in human history, ideas began to meet and mate, to have sex with each other.

Continue reading.

Ridley's recent TED talk:

Susan Blackmore: Memes, temes and the 'third replicator'

Neat article by Susan Blackmore in the New York Times about information and how it's subject to Darwinian processes. Blackmore's focus in the essay is on the copying aspect where she presents the idea of the third replicator, namely 'technological memes', or what she's dubbed 'temes'.

"They are digital information stored, copied, varied and selected by machines," she writes, "We humans like to think we are the designers, creators and controllers of this newly emerging world but really we are stepping stones from one replicator to the next."

Blackmore continues:

Computers handle vast quantities of information with extraordinarily high-fidelity copying and storage. Most variation and selection is still done by human beings, with their biologically evolved desires for stimulation, amusement, communication, sex and food. But this is changing. Already there are examples of computer programs recombining old texts to create new essays or poems, translating texts to create new versions, and selecting between vast quantities of text, images and data. Above all there are search engines. Each request to Google, Alta Vista or Yahoo! elicits a new set of pages — a new combination of items selected by that search engine according to its own clever algorithms and depending on myriad previous searches and link structures.

This is a radically new kind of copying, varying and selecting, and means that a new evolutionary process is starting up. This copying is quite different from the way cells copy strands of DNA or humans copy memes. The information itself is also different, consisting of highly stable digital information stored and processed by machines rather than living cells. This, I submit, signals the emergence of temes and teme machines, the third replicator.

What should we expect of this dramatic step? It might make as much difference as the advent of human imitation did. Just as human meme machines spread over the planet, using up its resources and altering its ecosystems to suit their own needs, so the new teme machines will do the same, only faster. Indeed we might see our current ecological troubles not as primarily our fault, but as the inevitable consequence of earth’s transition to being a three-replicator planet. We willingly provide ever more energy to power the Internet, and there is enormous scope for teme machines to grow, evolve and create ever more extraordinary digital worlds, some aided by humans and others independent of them. We are still needed, not least to run the power stations, but as the temes proliferate, using ever more energy and resources, our own role becomes ever less significant, even though we set the whole new evolutionary process in motion in the first place.

Link.

H/T CC.

Daniel Dennett on domesticating the wild memes of religion

Check out this fantastic talk by philosopher Daniel Dennett from 2006 about religion as a natural phenomenon and how it works to manipulate its hosts for replicative purposes. Be sure to set aside the 40 minutes and watch the entire lecture.

If you're interested in this topic, be sure to check out his book, Breaking the Spell: Religion as a Natural Phenomenon.

Those with 'fused' identities more willing to die for their social group

Psychologist William B. Swann, Jr., of the University of Texas has come up with the idea of "fused identities" to describe people who are exceptionally bound to their social group—so much so that they're willing to kill themselves to preserve it.

Those people who are "fused" with a group—a bond even stronger than group identification—will take extreme actions to protect other group members, but not outsiders. It is thought that this intense bond to a group may help explain the actions of suicide bombers.

Swann believes that there is something particularly unique about terrorists and other extremists that goes beyond simple identification. He calls this phenomenon identity fusion and argues that it has two characteristics that make it different from plain old group identity: (1) a sense that you and the group have a shared core essence, and (2) a feeling of reciprocal strength.

"You give the group strength and the group gets strength from you," says Swann. People who are fused with a group, whether it's a country or a military unit, often say they would be willing to fight and die for the group.

To test how fused people behave, Swann and his colleagues asked Spanish volunteers how they saw themselves in relation to Spain. This was done using a pictorial scale in which the person and "Spain" were overlapping circles; those who said their circle was completely inside Spain's were considered fused. Each participant answered some variation on the classic trolley problem (in which a runaway trolley is about to kill some people).

In one variation, the dilemma was whether the participant would jump on the tracks and die to save five Spaniards. People whose identities were fused with Spain were more likely to sacrifice themselves, while others would let their fellow Spaniards die. Additional experiments found that fused people would also sacrifice themselves for a group of Europeans—a group that includes Spaniards—and that they would be more likely to do so for Europeans than for Americans.

Perhaps the most striking finding was in the last experiment. In that scenario, participants imagined that it was the day of the Madrid bombings, and someone else was about to jump on the train tracks to kill both himself and the bombers. Fused respondents were more likely to say they would push the would-be martyr out of the way so that they could die to save others. "It's amazing to me that these guys would endorse that kind of behavior," says Swann. "It's just a little hard, as outsiders, to wrap our heads around the idea that people will sacrifice themselves to produce an outcome that would occur even if they did nothing."

This study may help explain why suicide bombers are willing to kill themselves: Fused individuals see their own essence and strength as coupled to the group they belong to. The research also has other applications, says Swann. In the military, for example, having service members fused to their group is important, so they'll act as a unit. "But when they come back, you want them to de-fuse with their group and re-fuse with their family," Swann says—an adjustment that is difficult for many people.

Just say no to mind controlling parasites

Genomes can be nasty. All they care about is self-replication, an agenda that often leads to some very strange and not-so-nice reproductive strategies. Genes are truly selfish.

Take mind controlling parasites, for example. These are viruses and simple organisms that have evolved such that they can alter the behavior of their hosts. Essentially, they cognitively re-engineer their victims, turning them into their transmission vectors. It is not uncommon for organisms to leech off several different species in this way as part of their reproductive cycle.

For example, there is Plasmodium gallinaceum, more commonly known as malaria. It's been known for some time that this virus protozoan uses mosquitoes as its vector. What has not been known until recently, however, is how malaria alters the blood sucking behavior of mosquitoes. Malaria has had a significant impact on the evolution of mosquitoes and their behavior, much like flowers have contributed to the evolution of its pollinators, namely bees and other flying insects.

Specifically, a mosquito will continue to search for victims until it reaches a threshold volume of blood. When it hits this threshold point, it stops host-seeking. It is thought that the stage-specific effect of the malaria parasite on host-seeking behavior is likely to be an active manipulation to increase its transmission success.

Then there's Dicrocoelium dendriticum. It's a virus that primarily infects sheep -- but it has a rather convoluted way of going about its reproductive business. First, adult worms lay eggs in the bile ducts of the sheep and are excreted. These eggs are in turn ingested by various species of land snails and the eggs hatch in their digestive tracts. This hatching releases a compound that continues to change until it is released by the snail in the form of a slimeball. This slimeball is then eaten by ants. This eventually develops into metacercariae within the abdominal cavity of the ants.

And here's where it gets interesting (not that it hasn't been a riveting tale to this point): the ant's behavior is in turn altered such that it is compelled to climb to the very top of a blade of grass where it waits to get eaten by sheep. The sheep eats the grass with the ant on it and subsequently becomes infected. The cycle is complete.

Similarly, Euhaplorchis californiensis causes fish to shimmy and jump so wading birds will grab them and eat them for the same reason.

Hairworms, which live inside grasshoppers, eventually need to leave their hosts to continue their life cycle. Rather than leave peacefully, however, they release a cocktail of chemicals that makes the grasshoppers commit suicide by leaping into water. The hairworms then swim away from their drowning hosts. Nice, eh?

Think humans are immune to mind controlling parasites? Think again. It is suspected that Toxoplasma gondii, a parasite that is often contracted by humans from their cats, affects human psychology. Normally the parasite works to manipulate rodents, but some scientists speculate that human cognition can also be altered.

Jaroslav Flegr, a parasitologist at Charles University in Prague, administered psychological questionnaires to people infected with Toxoplasma. He discovered that those who are infected show a small tendency to be more self-reproaching and insecure. Strangely, infected women tend to be more outgoing and warmhearted, while infected men tend to be more jealous and suspicious. Flegr has also shown that Toxoplasma may have an effect on human sex ratios -- to the tune of 260 boys for every 100 girls! (As an aside, it's worth noting that Flegr's research has been rejected by 8 journals, usually without formal review). Less controversial are studies that have shown links between Toxoplasma and schizophrenia.

This brings to mind a number of issues (no pun intended), including the freewill problem and the disturbing ease at which a virus can impact on something as important as an agent's behavior. The prospect exists for a deliberately engineered virus that can direct human psychology and decision making. The degree to which a virus could control behavior is an open question, but I'm inclined to think it's fairly limited. There's only so much you can do with germs, and simple organisms seem to be the most manipulable. Nano is a different story altogether, though.

Of course, there are other self-replicating entities that control human psychology much more profoundly than any mind control virus could. I'm thinking, of course, of memes. Cults, most notably Scientology, thrive on manipulating people with memetic techniques. Religions work in a similar manner but the degree to which a person is impacted varies from religion to religion. Propaganda is yet another way in which people's behavior can be modified.

Cults, religions and propaganda aside, a significant portion of human behavior is dictated by memetic influences. You can't escape the memepool; all our thinking is guided in part by the memes we carry. Our individual psychologies are molded by three basic influences: the memes we are exposed to, our genetic predispositions, and how we've been socially conditioned. This is a dynamic process that changes over time. It's my feeling that memes take up the largest chunk of this pie in terms of impact.

Oh, and apparently there's a fourth influence: Toxoplasma gondii. Just keep this in mind the next time you have to clean up your cat's poop.