That is how evolution works by the way. No one planning or programming. Even if you believe in some intelligent design, you can still realize that for the most part, it must have been created then left to evolve on its own. Hence the frequent fuckups.
No matter how evolution works, if you accept that people make choices then there is no sense that you can say that their choices are 'programmed'.
Logical Fallacy: Two False Negatives.
A person can make a choice AND still can be programmed to make that choice.
A person makes a decision mostly based on: the information and resources available as well as set precedents and acceptable norms. There is plenty of room (days, weeks, years, generations) to program a person before he takes that decision.
Evolution results in a range of instincts and urges that, while they may influence human choice, does not programme them. Same with social influences and upbringing.
Wrong Assumption. Where did I say I was not subject to programming myself?
Note that it was a question, not an assumption.
wrong question then!
in context however, it looked like an assumption.
Sparky:
Who or what is doing the programming? How are
they any more or less 'programmed' than you are?
Or are they subject to social evolution and you aren't?
Yes, people do believe in what they do. How does that negate my assumption that people are programmed to behave in certain ways? If you ask me why I eat fava beans in the morning here in Canada I will tell you it is the best goddamn breakfast on Earth. But if I think a little more about it, I might come with more explanation.
Whatever the influences, you choose to eat fava beans. You could also choose not too. The fact that you have this choice means that it is nonsense to say that the fact that you eat fava beans was because you were 'programmed' to do so.
Side Point: You give too much credit to our capacity for making a free choice. Why do you do that? Is it important for you to believe that our choices are 'free choices'? Does the world makes more sense to you when you maintain the belief that choices we make, are 'free choices'? I am curious to know if you put a lot of thought into it in the Past, or if you are just reacting to my attack on some comfortable Truth that you always took for granted.
The chances of me eating Fava bean in the morning at least once a month is a good 90%. Your chances could be anywhere from 0.1% to maybe 50%. Why is it a difference? What else is different between us? At what point did I choose to like the taste of this tasty feces-looking pasty Brown vegetable in the morning?
Of course, my assumption about fava beans might be false, and then I really do not know why I like fava beans. I just like them in the morning.
Indeed. Just like your assumption about why Christians make the choices they do was false and failed to explain them at all.
The example I put forward is still valid. A Christian grows up to think life is precious, a muslim grows up to think chastity is precious. I will add a few more if discussing Christianity sends you on tangeants, a Sikh grows up to think fighting is cool, some indians grow up to think eating meat is disgusting, some think eating mice is cool.
Now you and me can disagree on the reason why our precious Christian grows up to think "Life is precious", but I will have to insist we do it on a different thread. And I request that you treat my example for what it is, in regards to this subject.
Sparky, now what do you mean there is no programming? how else do women go on wearing a veil in a searing hot summer. Circumcize the daughters? accept a marriage between a kid and an old farter? Accept that a man can divorce with a single word, yet a woman has to goto court. How can a population accept that in a country in africa, where 20%+ of the population is currently infected with AIDS, that we withhold condoms from them (a crime against humanity IMO). Of course if you ask them why they act this way, they will say 'koran', they will say it is to 'preserve the chastity', to make the woman 'clean', to 'preserve life(!!?!)', because men work hard, excuses, justifications, some right, some wrong, etc.
I think 'programmed' is a poor choice of words. You might say that they are 'programmed' with a variety of influences - genetic, social, etc - but they make the choices and hence they are responsible for what they choose. If you say their choices themselves are the result of 'programming' you also diminish their own responsibility.
I do diminish our own responsibility. I know we do not like to think like that but it is True. We do not like to think about 'diminished responsiblity' because we have, an entire system of reform and punishment, built on the premise that each of us is responsible for their action, and will only be punished for "our own action". But hey, the system is not perfect.
As for freedom of speech, In the West, we do not tolerate spreading of hate and murder (except perhaps in the USA although it is highly frowned upon). Why so? because we do not want to 'influence' 'impressionable' youth?
What does the word 'impressionable' mean to you?
And do you honestly believe that, once we become adult we become 'impervious' as opposed to being 'impressionable'? Or is it perhaps, that as we become adults, we just become better at building defences?
Now you put a bunch of kids in good schools and give them good homes, then on average, those kids will excel over kids in broken homes and in bad schools.
Two girls from a similar simple background, On a fateful day at the state college, One goes to meet a guy that will become her future wonderful husband, and the other one goes to get inducted in a cult.
Both village bumpkins were vulnerable to cults, but One got caught and the other escaped not knowing how lucky she was that day.
Why on earth should I ignore the reasons they give to assume some subconscious influence rather than the more obvious that they are choosing according to their beliefs?
People will just come up with all kind of justifications, based on their prior religion and culture and family and education and job and friends and hobbies, and psychology, etc..
So what?
So what yourself
I was replying to the logical fallacy: double negation that you put forward:
Sparky: "The fact is that people, being people,
make choices according to the things that they believe
are true. It is nonsense to talk about 'programming'
or subconscious motivations"
Believing does *not* preclude programming and sub-conscious motivation. Even as the person might think they are making a 'free choice'.
A person justifying child marriage, coming from an entire society that has an unusually high number of justifications for child marriages, he states, that he believes child marriage is okay for reasons A and B and C and D. Why do I have to give a high credence to the reasons he gives me? He is programmed to think like that. He was even fed those reasons. A nd perhaps his programming was so successful that he came up with some of his own reasons to justify the habit. Screw his reasons. His reasons are only a tool out of many other tools, that I can use to get a glimpse of his psychology and of how he was built.
Just because a person believes something, it does not preclude programming. A Christian baby grows up to believe life is precious. A Muslim baby grows up to believe chastity is precious. You will have an extremely hard time trying to convince me that either baby made by the time they turned 18, arrived to their conclusion (belief) on their own, without programming.
The choice about what they believe is indeed their own. Who else's is it? Of course, they have been influenced in this choice by a variety of sources including their family, community, experiences etc. but they choices is very much their own.
Is it their own? and why so? because they have their name on that choice? because they signed that choice and proclaimed it as their own choice made by their own free will under no stress or duress or threat or harm?
Well too bad. Because, I do not believe them. The choice was made by them. It came from them. It was their own voice and hand writing. But the information that went into formulating that choice, was not theirs. And people are predictable particularly, to doctrines that predate the human they influence by centuries and/or own a disproportionate amount of resources relative to this human they influence.
Topic: Sam Harris. Right or wrong?