Cafe Hayek: Are Humans Genetically Disposed to Pray to the State?
Randy
· 4 years ago
So we are all naturally religionists and conspiracy theorists. Then how is it that some of us are not? Or is it just that we've changed our chosen religions and conspiracies?
John P.
· 4 years ago
Bloom's theory would also help explain why the general Western view of God or "the gods" has evolved the way it has. Surprisingly, as our mastery of physical nature has grown over the millennia, God has become (in the general view) *more* powerful (omnipotent, omniscient) rather than less. But the view of God's or gods' nature has changed to reflect our greater ability to control what happens to us: gods have morphed from a variety of malevolent, warring deities, none of which is able to gain the upper hand for long; to a family of related deities with one "father" who is vaguely interested in mankind and, while not omnipotent, is more potent than his fellow gods; to one benevolent god and one evil god, with the balance of power going to the benevolent god; to one all-loving, all-good god who wants nothing but the best for mankind. (This is a simplification of Western religious history, of course.) In other words, while we're still unable to give up our need to anthropomorphize, the shape of our illusion has changed to stay consistent with our changing relationship to the forces being anthropomorphized.
Gavin Kennedy
· 4 years ago
Don Boudreaux writes: “Just as it is perhaps inevitable that most people will continue to believe in a supernatural god, it is likely that most people will remain blind to the invisible hand. (It’s not called the "invisible hand" for nothing.) And just as it is appropriate to insist on scientifically sound explanations for natural phenomena such as volcanic eruptions, hurricanes, and acne outbreaks, it is appropriate to insist on scientifically sound explanations for complex phenomena such as rising prices, trade patterns, and differences in incomes across households. Explaining such economic patterns by resort to intentions (such as “greed”) is religion, not science.”
Comment
I find the first sentence rather odd.
Belief in “a supernatural god” is often attributed to Adam Smith partly because he is associated in popular thinking from using Shakespeare’s metaphor of the invisible hand (Macbeth, 3:2) in “Wealth of Nations” (though only once and not directly about how markets work). His use of the invisible hand metaphor is quoted a ‘proof’ of Smith being at least a Deist, if not a believer in the Christian religion.
This is not evidence, I would have thought, of Smith, or anyone else, being ‘blind to the invisible hand’. If anything it must be a case of the reverse: belief in supernatural beings and invisible hands seem to go together. I am referring here to the connection in the sense of the attribution made by the many who talk of the ‘miracle’ of markets and such like (which I regularly criticize on my Blog: www.adamsmithslostlegacy.com).</p>
The second part of the paragraph is correct in my view and accords with Adam Smith’s philosophy as expressed in his “History of Astronomy” (written between 1743-48). Smith saw philosophers searching for the ‘connecting events’ between phenomena and his work from then on until he died in 1790 was based on that objective.
All supernatural beings are beyond scientific study; they are based on faith that an invisible being, or beings, complete with ‘invisible hands’, operate or operated to initiate natural phenomena operating in ways which can be studied scientifically, though the invisible beings cannot. Religions believe that the closed system of the natural universe had an unseen first cause (maybe with a continuing role).
Given the scathing comments of Smith in his essay, the “History of Astronomy”, on “vulgar superstition”, I am not convinced that he was even a Deist.
Anshu
· 4 years ago
I see this all the time when I am with friends and family. Someone does not get a promotion and blames the 'company' for not taking care of their career. The fact is that there is NO entity ('the company') there.
Similarly, when I get charged a late fee by a credit card company my immediate reaction is to punish 'them' back by taking my business elsewhere even if it is inconvenient and my experience is unlikely to be any better. Yes, taking my business elsewhere - if 100s/1000s of others do the same, may result in improved behavior but it is very unlikely. However this innate genetic desire to conjure up a 'them' does make me think about moving my business.
This is also true for nationalistic pride we feel when our national team wins a game. "USA defeated Mexico". Or in war. We first imagine a them, then we imagine an us. It then leads us to pay taxes, raise an army and then go kill people.
Anthropomorphization is evil. Irony, anyone?
Matthew Cromer
· 4 years ago
I think what is far more interesting is the unquestioned assumption that genes mold behavior and create a sense of spirituality.
All Comments
So we are all naturally religionists and conspiracy theorists. Then how is it that some of us are not? Or is it just that we've changed our chosen religions and conspiracies?
Bloom's theory would also help explain why the general Western view of God or "the gods" has evolved the way it has. Surprisingly, as our mastery of physical nature has grown over the millennia, God has become (in the general view) *more* powerful (omnipotent, omniscient) rather than less. But the view of God's or gods' nature has changed to reflect our greater ability to control what happens to us: gods have morphed from a variety of malevolent, warring deities, none of which is able to gain the upper hand for long; to a family of related deities with one "father" who is vaguely interested in mankind and, while not omnipotent, is more potent than his fellow gods; to one benevolent god and one evil god, with the balance of power going to the benevolent god; to one all-loving, all-good god who wants nothing but the best for mankind. (This is a simplification of Western religious history, of course.) In other words, while we're still unable to give up our need to anthropomorphize, the shape of our illusion has changed to stay consistent with our changing relationship to the forces being anthropomorphized.
Don Boudreaux writes: “Just as it is perhaps inevitable that most people will continue to believe in a supernatural god, it is likely that most people will remain blind to the invisible hand. (It’s not called the "invisible hand" for nothing.) And just as it is appropriate to insist on scientifically sound explanations for natural phenomena such as volcanic eruptions, hurricanes, and acne outbreaks, it is appropriate to insist on scientifically sound explanations for complex phenomena such as rising prices, trade patterns, and differences in incomes across households. Explaining such economic patterns by resort to intentions (such as “greed”) is religion, not science.”
Comment
I find the first sentence rather odd.
Belief in “a supernatural god” is often attributed to Adam Smith partly because he is associated in popular thinking from using Shakespeare’s metaphor of the invisible hand (Macbeth, 3:2) in “Wealth of Nations” (though only once and not directly about how markets work). His use of the invisible hand metaphor is quoted a ‘proof’ of Smith being at least a Deist, if not a believer in the Christian religion.
This is not evidence, I would have thought, of Smith, or anyone else, being ‘blind to the invisible hand’. If anything it must be a case of the reverse: belief in supernatural beings and invisible hands seem to go together. I am referring here to the connection in the sense of the attribution made by the many who talk of the ‘miracle’ of markets and such like (which I regularly criticize on my Blog: www.adamsmithslostlegacy.com).</p>
The second part of the paragraph is correct in my view and accords with Adam Smith’s philosophy as expressed in his “History of Astronomy” (written between 1743-48). Smith saw philosophers searching for the ‘connecting events’ between phenomena and his work from then on until he died in 1790 was based on that objective.
All supernatural beings are beyond scientific study; they are based on faith that an invisible being, or beings, complete with ‘invisible hands’, operate or operated to initiate natural phenomena operating in ways which can be studied scientifically, though the invisible beings cannot. Religions believe that the closed system of the natural universe had an unseen first cause (maybe with a continuing role).
Given the scathing comments of Smith in his essay, the “History of Astronomy”, on “vulgar superstition”, I am not convinced that he was even a Deist.
I see this all the time when I am with friends and family. Someone does not get a promotion and blames the 'company' for not taking care of their career. The fact is that there is NO entity ('the company') there.
Similarly, when I get charged a late fee by a credit card company my immediate reaction is to punish 'them' back by taking my business elsewhere even if it is inconvenient and my experience is unlikely to be any better. Yes, taking my business elsewhere - if 100s/1000s of others do the same, may result in improved behavior but it is very unlikely. However this innate genetic desire to conjure up a 'them' does make me think about moving my business.
This is also true for nationalistic pride we feel when our national team wins a game. "USA defeated Mexico". Or in war. We first imagine a them, then we imagine an us. It then leads us to pay taxes, raise an army and then go kill people.
Anthropomorphization is evil. Irony, anyone?
I think what is far more interesting is the unquestioned assumption that genes mold behavior and create a sense of spirituality.
See this url for a different interpretation on the role of genes: http://www.sheldrake.org/papers/Morphic/morphic...>