Altruism

[El_Machinae]

I think that we should all aspire to be better than rats.

Rats free each other from traps, then share chocolate

The finding suggests the common pest shows a level of empathic behaviour previously thought unique to primates.

Inbal Ben-Ami Bartal and Peggy Mason at the University of Chicago housed 60 rats in pairs. Two weeks later, one of each pair was placed in a plastic trap that could be opened if the other nudged the door with its snout.

The free rats showed signs of distress at their cage-mates' predicament, says Bartal. After 12 days of practice, 77 per cent of them learned how to open the door and liberate the trapped rat. In control experiments featuring an empty trap, or a trap containing a toy mouse, just 12 per cent of rats learned how to open the door.

To see how far they could push this empathy, the researchers gave the free rats a tempting alternative. "We pitted chocolate against liberating a trapped rat," says Bartal. The free rat was confronted with a trap restraining their cage-mate and another harbouring a tasty chocolate treat. Which would they open first?

On average, the free rats were as quick to free their cage-mate as to liberate the chocolate. In a control experiment involving the chocolate trap and an empty trap, free rats opened the chocolate trap more swiftly, on average.

although the liberator could choose to eat all the chocolate before freeing their cage-mate, they were more likely to share.

Or, to phrase in terms I use, they delayed their consumption in order to alleviate distress to their fellows

 

[Crackerbox]

Despite whatever good Ayn Rand did with Objectivism, she totally didn't understand Altruism. She elevated Selfishness to such a degree that she couldn't see Altruism as anything more than a handout to a beggar that doomed him.

“The man who attempts to live for others is a dependent. He is a parasite in motive and makes parasites of those he serves. The relationship produces nothing but mutual corruption. It is impossible in concept. The nearest approach to it in reality -- the man who lives to serve others -- is the slave. If physical slavery is repulsive, how much more repulsive is the concept of servility of the spirit. The conquered slave has a vestige of honor. He has the merit of having resisted and of considering his condition evil. But the man who enslaves himself voluntarily in the name of love is the basest of creatures. He degrades the dignity of man, and he degrades the conception of love. But that is the essence of altruism” Ayn Rand

In reality, much of altruism is NOT a handout whatsoever. Altruism from a Christian perspective has been about facilitating their success through something like good clean used clothing so that a young person can get a job. It's Heifer International gifting seeds and lifestock to impoverished farmers BUT ALSO creating a system of then passing on the gift, mentorship, loan programs from within the community to help others, etc.

It's paying it forward, just a little bit, not a handout.

I find Ayn Rand's version of atheism to be repulsive. One can even make the case that Ayn Rand's ideas are Satanic.

 

[Lohrenswald]

Despite whatever good Ayn Rand did with Objectivism, she totally didn't understand Altruism. She elevated Selfishness to such a degree that she couldn't see Altruism as anything more than a handout to a beggar that doomed him.

Oh come on.

 

[Valka D'Ur]

I find it hilarious how every time deification of science is denied it is always Carl Sagan who gets named as the non-deity. It appears as if he is seen as the true son of science, the path and the way.

Go read my thread on the new Cosmos TV series and then tell me that. There are some people who think Neil Degrasse Tyson is the supreme science spokesman.

I can't pack books I don't own. If warpus, El Machinae, and I are going doorknocking to spread atheism, I have to pack the support materials I have - and that means Carl Sagan.

I respect Sagan tremendously and have quoted him from time to time here, but I don't worship him.

Crackerbox is somewhat demonstrating this right here. The "I will blast blue text Bible verses at every turn of the page" is a one trick marketing pony that might bring an occasional stray soul to Christ...if he happens to bump into a soul that is astray because they have lived under a rock with no bibles until yesterday when they found the internet. But most people are going to take his actions not as the proselytizing called for by his faith, but as at least quasi intentional effrontery that has more of an antagonizing effect than the proselytizing effect he is called to be producing. In my opinion it is a show of proselytizing rather than a genuine Christian effort, but of course I'm not the judge.

I agree with this paragraph.

And what in the world do most of these posts have to do with altruism? Isn't it obvious why atheists don't donate time, talent, and treasure? Many of them don't believe it exists! That the word "altruism" is a sham based upon a reward of a "good feeling". This despite innumerable definitions of selflessness being part of the meaning for altruism and altruists!

And here we go again...

Crackerbox, I have donated money, time, and labor to animal charities for the purpose of feeding them, giving them veterinary care, and socializing them so they could be adopted faster. The latter sometimes meant me slogging through the snow a half-mile there and back on foot, in -30°C (no, it wasn't uphill both ways but given that I'm physically disabled with mobility problems, I almost had some spectacular wipeouts on the ice), to spend a couple of hours with homeless cats who were in need of someone to play with them, cuddle them, groom them, etc. This was a twice a week minimum thing. The cats at this shelter were ones who had issues that meant they were unsuited for regular shelters - some were older (many shelters won't take adult cats over the age of 5), a few were sick, one or two had such severe behavior problems that they were basically unadoptable so the shelter was where they could live out their lives, and so on. One of the things this shelter did was match older cats with senior citizens who wanted a pet for companionship but couldn't afford regular adoption fees, and also preferred an older cat because they're generally easier to care for than a rambunctious kitten. No, I didn't save the world by doing this. But hopefully my working with these cats enabled some of them to eventually find a forever home with a human whose quality of life was improved by having a companion to care for and receive love in return.

I'm not at all impressed by the pop atheism I've seen so far. It's nothing like the atheist philosophers from the Humanities nor the Sciences. The only reasonable conclusion from these weak atheism posts is that the posters don't truly know atheism whatsoever!

Define "pop atheism." I looked it up, and I'm curious to see if your definition agrees with the one I found.

Any atheist who embraces evolution should be among the top donaters of time, talent, and treasure. Why not, as it benefits the species of Humanity as well as the altruism in organizations that assist all of the other species like The Nature Conservancy?

Link to video.

A worthwhile endeavor, certainly.

So my theory is that the average person who claims to be an atheist, really doesn't understand atheism at all. If they only read about evolutionary biology AND altruism within it, then it would be self-evident that all of those species are born with an instinct to act altruistically.

It seems as though you are saying we should sacrifice our reproductive capabilities, run out and plant trees, and then we will be true atheists.

 

[Borachio]

Despite whatever good Ayn Rand did with Objectivism, she totally didn't understand Altruism. She elevated Selfishness to such a degree that she couldn't see Altruism as anything more than a handout to a beggar that doomed him..

"Whatever good Ayn Rand did with Objectivism?"

Did she do any good with Objectivism? (Or was she being purely altruistic only when talking about Objectivism?)

Still, at least you're not a libertarian, Mr Box. (I think. Probably)

So that's good. If a bit confusing.

 

[warpus]

By atheists he of course means "non-religious people who don't donate to charities"

Re-defining atheism in a way in which he can say things like that about it.

 

[Borachio]

Come, come, Mr Soup. You surely recognize that imputing anything less than righteousness to Mr Box is simply not on.

And what about the religious people who don't donate to charity?

Ah, but there's no such animal is there?

 

[warpus]

I don't think it's that far off.

Let me clarify, Crackerbox, I don't think you're re-defining that on purpose.. you might be, but that's not what I'm saying. I'm just saying that the definition that you use allows you to say that - because that's the definition you use.

You don't see "Atheist Soup Kitchen" organizations around and conclude that atheists aren't charitable. And that's.. kind of weird, so I thought I'd point it out. It's a complete breakdown of logical deduction, starting with incorrect assumptions, flawed deductions, and a ridiculous conclusion.

 

[El_Machinae]

By atheists he of course means "non-religious people who don't donate to charities"

Re-defining atheism in a way in which he can say things like that about it.

I think he's clarifying between those who self-identify as 'non-religious' vs. 'atheist'. It could very well be that the type of person to self-identify as 'atheist' generates less charity (in the aggregate) than 'non-religious'. Then we just have to watch out for per-capita vs. combined totals

 

[warpus]

I think he's clarifying between those who self-identify as 'non-religious' vs. 'atheist'.

I think he just means those people who read Dawkins books, yell anti-religious slogans on message boards, and so on. Which will perhaps skew the numbers in the direction that then allows him to say "Look, atheists aren't very altruistic, now are they?" .. And that seems like a very far-fetched and just right out incorrect argument to use.

 

[Valka D'Ur]

By atheists he of course means "non-religious people who don't donate to charities"

Re-defining atheism in a way in which he can say things like that about it.

I think he just means those people who read Dawkins books, yell anti-religious slogans on message boards, and so on. Which will perhaps skew the numbers in the direction that then allows him to say "Look, atheists aren't very altruistic, now are they?" .. And that seems like a very far-fetched and just right out incorrect argument to use.

I guess we'll find out when he answers my request to define "pop atheism." The site I found differentiates between "pop" and "meta" atheism. I'm really curious to see how he thinks we three fit into these definitions.

 

[Borachio]

Here's what I found:

Meta Atheists are people like Sam Harris and Richard Dawkins. They arrived at their Atheism through a rigorous, lifelong quest for truth. Now that they identify as Atheists they’re still pushing the limits of their own understanding as well as the limits of human understanding. They’re more likely to be quoted by Atheists than to quote other Atheists, but any instance when they identify as Atheists or quote other Atheists or do anything Atheist-related is merely a by-product of their search for truth.

Pop Atheists are not engaged in a rigorous, lifelong quest for truth. After reading a few books and a few internet memes they accepted that the universe wasn’t created by a magical unicorn, but once they embraced that elementary fact they went out and bought a $50 T-shirt that says, “MY HOBBY IS NOT COLLECTING STAMPS!” and have spent their life ever since then insulting Christians on the internet. Their Atheism is not a means to an end. It is the end destination, and they will spend the rest of their lives wallowing in it…or at least until they move onto the next big fad.

Meta Atheist and Pop Atheists aren’t mutually exclusive. They’re opposite ends on a scale. The main difference is that one thinks proactively and objectively. The other thinks reactively and subjectively. This outlook on life leads them to behave differently, but nobody thinks completely proactively/objectively or reactively/subjectively all the time.

Here’s a few signs you might be a Meta Atheist:
You don’t believe in God. You believe that Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism, “Mormonism,” Scientology and Wicca are mythologies entirely invented by humans. In addition to all that….
You’re engaged in a lifelong quest for truth and understanding. You may identify as an Atheist, but you identified as a truth-seeker before you arrived at Atheism. Not that you feel the need to back up your claim to be a truth-seeker, but if you had to you could produce a growing list of books you’ve read that are not on the best-seller’s list. You can also explain a pattern of conscious decisions that led you to seek out these books; they weren’t just random books that fell into your lap. You can also produce a stack of notes you’ve taken personally that show how you’ve made a conscious and objective effort to tweeze patterns of truth out of what you’ve learned.
You have an articulate philosophy on ethics that you actually use. If a child came up to you and asked you, “What’s the difference between right and wrong?” or “What’s the most important piece of advice you can give me?” You’ll have an answer ready to go since all you’ll have to do is give the answers you live by. You won’t say, “Uh, well, you know? I think we all just…” And you won’t give any answers that are vague to the point of being useless like, “Be good to everyone.”
You’re not a dick. You don’t take joy in tearing down other people. You’re not vindictive, and when you argue it’s not to win, it’s to arrive at truth.
Your identity isn’t strongly defined by your association with popular subcultures. Sure, you might like Star Treck, but you’re not a Trekkie. You might have been to a football game, but you don’t own a room full of football memorabilia.
You don’t watch TV for 7 hours a day and listen to “the hits of the 70’s, 80’s, 90’s and today” every moment you’re in your car. You don’t constantly bombard your brain with pop culture. If you know what “American Idol” is, you hate it for everything it is and everything it isn’t.

Here’s a few signs you might be a Pop Atheist:
You don’t believe in God. You believe that Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism, “Mormonism,” Scientology and Wicca are mythologies entirely invented by humans. In addition to all that….
Your identity is rooted inseparably to Atheism. Here’s a test you can take (or give). Draw a blank mind map on a piece of paper. In the middle circle write down what you identify most as. Then in the surrounding circles write down what you identify as in a secondary fashion. A pastor might put “Christian” in the centre circle. Then in the secondary circles he might put, “husband, father, citizen.” In a tertiary ring of circles he might put, “American Idol fan, long distance runner, traveller.” If you would put Atheism in that center circle you might be a Pop Atheist, because a Meta Atheist would likely put something like “sentient start dust, life form, mammal, human being, or truth-seeker” in the centre circle.
You’ve spent a load of money on Atheist-themed merchandise.
You’re a dick. You savour winning arguments and tearing other people down. You will not accept defeat. You must have the last word.
You left religion for subjective reasons like you hated your Christian father or you decided God doesn’t exist after watching your grandfather die a painful death from cancer.
You can point to a place in a book, movie or song where you learned everything you know. Don’t get me wrong, learning is vital. But if you’ve never figured anything out on your own and the extent of your beliefs is a list of regurgitated footnotes…then you’re not a meta thinker; you’re a product of your environment, and you’ll never break free from that box. The only hope you have of growing is if someone else pushes the limits of human knowledge, writes about it and you stumble upon that book.
You gorge yourself on popular culture day in and day out. You’ve seen every episode of every prime time sitcom as soon as it came out. You love pop music. The best night of your life was at a concert. You’re on top of the latest fashion trends. You identify with pop culture. You think wearing a “Star Trek” or “Bieber Fever” or “Cannibal Corpse” shirt makes you cool.

https://wisesloth.wordpress.com/2012/06/25/meta-atheists-v-s-pop-atheists/

I'll be honest: I've never heard of either of them.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Okay, that's freakin' hilarious.

Obviously written by someone who considers themselves a 'meta atheist', to which can be attributed all the traits of the noble savage whether they have anything to do with belief in a god or not, as opposed to the 'pop atheist', who is summarized by 'you're a dick'.

For what it's worth, I divide atheists into two groups the same way I divide religious people:

Do their actions indicate they take the existence of non believers as a threat to their faith?

There is a normal human need to proselytize, and everyone does it. When people who are confident in their faith proselytize and encounter "I don't agree" they go on about their business. When people who aren't confident in their faith proselytize and encounter "I don't agree" they turn to

 

[warpus]

Your identity is rooted inseparably to Atheism.

There you have it.

 

[Valka D'Ur]

https://wisesloth.wordpress.com/2012/06/25/meta-atheists-v-s-pop-atheists/

I'll be honest: I've never heard of either of them.

Yeah, that's the site I read. I'm curious to know which camp Crackerbox thinks we belong in.

I tried that "mind map" exercise, and without even thinking about it, for the first circle I wrote down "human."

I don't follow fashion trends, I've watched maybe 1.5 episodes of a current sitcom (the TV remote was mislaid and I was too lazy to get up and turn the TV off right away), I've never seen "American Idol", and consider Justin Bieber a national embarrassment. Yeah, one of the best times I ever had was at a concert... an Irish Rovers concert, back in the late '80s/early '90s. I got to finally meet a musician I'd had a crush on since childhood, and spend a few minutes in conversation with him.

Lifelong quest? Yep. Since long before the internet existed, and before personal computers.

But I've been a Star Trek fan for nearly 40 years, so I guess that's enough to condemn me as a "pop atheist" in this blogger's estimation.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

But I've been a Star Trek fan for nearly 40 years, so I guess that's enough to condemn me as a "pop atheist" in this blogger's estimation.

Actually he listed liking Star Trek under Meta Atheism as well. I'm guessing Star Trek would fall in the center of his mind map, since it is the only thing common to both.

 

[Valka D'Ur]

Actually he listed liking Star Trek under Meta Atheism as well. I'm guessing Star Trek would fall in the center of his mind map, since it is the only thing common to both.

Thing is, there are different degrees of fandom. This would best be gone into elsewhere so as not to derail anything here, but there's no reason why someone who collects Star Trek memorabilia has to be dismissed as a "pop atheist." Even Isaac Asimov once wrote a fan letter to Star Trek during its first season, and later he was a guest at several of the early conventions in the '70s.

 

[Sommerswerd]

Actually he listed liking Star Trek under Meta Atheism as well. I'm guessing Star Trek would fall in the center of his mind map, since it is the only thing common to both.

Correct. Self-serving article identified

Also, I would guess that he is a football fan, but he is not a superfan by his standards so he condemns "Trekkies" in the same way that he condemn memorabilia collectors... They are too enthusiastic by his standards for something that he likes.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

There is a normal human need to proselytize, and everyone does it. When people who are confident in their faith proselytize and encounter "I don't agree" they go on about their business. When people who aren't confident in their faith proselytize and encounter "I don't agree" they turn to

Thing is, there are different degrees of fandom. This would best be gone into elsewhere so as not to derail anything here, but there's no reason why someone who collects Star Trek memorabilia has to be dismissed as a "pop atheist." Even Isaac Asimov once wrote a fan letter to Star Trek during its first season, and later he was a guest at several of the early conventions in the '70s.

These actually fit together fairly well.

Star Trek fan of one degree: "It's a great show."
Innocent bystander: "Never really cared for it."
Star Trek fan of one degree: "To each their own."

Star Trek fan of another degree: "It's a great show."
Innocent bystander: "never really cared for it."
Star Trek fan of another degree:

At root, there are fans who are confident in their faith, and others who insist that their faith be justified by being shared and take anyone not sharing as an obstacle. Just like in religion.

 

[Sommerswerd]

As I get older and older, it seems more and more apparent that people tend to define "crazy" as simply "one step further than whatever I myself am willing to do"