Narcisism

[Thinkbigger]

I found this entry at:http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/narcissist

nar·cis·sismâ€, â€,
[nahr-suh-siz-em]  Show IPA
â€"noun
1.
inordinate fascination with oneself; excessive self-love; vanity.
2.
Psychoanalysis . erotic gratification derived from admiration of one's own physical or mental attributes, being a normal condition at the infantile level of personality development.

Nothing new here except it got me to thinking about childhood development and religion, or the lack thereof.

Point one:
Being born with one brain and totally without the ability to survive or to effect your situation in even the smallest way, makes us all start out in life as being totally amoral. At this point in development we have only one point of concern and that is ourselves. As we develop, it is hoped and expected that we will gradually become less self centered. Although some fail to gain empathy, most of us are groomed by example and lesson to reach full social maturity and to become, if not completely altruistic, to at least become much less self centered. The key is in teaching/learning how to react to the misfortune of others with real and actual emotional pain of our own, and similarly, to actually share in and to feel the joy of others.

Point two:
Organized religion serves in the process learning empathy. (Some religions are better at serving this need than others.) Religious doctrine concerns itself with rules of personal conduct and all religions contain their own punishment/reward mechanism for accomplishing the goal of homogeneous restrained conduct. This mechanism is a centralized doctrine that exists in the written word/law/gospel/ect., such as found in the Bible, Koran, Torah, etc. One advantage to centralized doctrine is that it yields group think which spans a vast array of human beliefs and activities. The effect being that most avid practitioners of any given faith are somewhat on the same moral page. This, I believe, is the central goal at the heart of all organized religion. This is the big plan! The commonality of behavior produced serves as a defense against the chaos of the amoral mindset that we are all born with and some never seem to lose.

Problem:
With Atheists, I have no notion as to what the moral basis for an individual's empathetic capacity is based upon. Everyone is just creating/inventing/dreaming up their own moral reality. Does this represent chaos? Enlightenment at the expense of safety from sociopaths? Is this Atheism's Achelies' heal?

[xSilverPhinx]

Firstly, why is religious morality superior to secular/humanist morality (which most atheists would see themselves as having) and secondly, within religious morality (which you over simplified) what parts do you adopt? Of with sect or part of the bible?

Religions cultivate tribal behaviour. Atheists might find other groups to align themselves with, but it's in no way chaos.

Who's the narcissist, the religious fellow who thinks his morals are god-like? Sees himself as a saint or angel? Or the atheist with all their shades and colours that defy simple classification?

[Jolly Sapper]

Problem:
With Atheists, I have no notion as to what the moral basis for an individual's empathetic capacity is based upon. Everyone is just creating/inventing/dreaming up their own moral reality. Does this represent chaos? Enlightenment at the expense of safety from sociopaths? Is this Atheism's Achelies' heal?

Having no notion of what an atheist might base his/her morals on, is not a problem.  Though I could  point to socialization and social reinforcement as two notions of what morality is based on.

Everyone creates their own moral reality.  The sociopath has created a moral reality that is in direct opposition of the larger more established moral reality.  The sociopath is labeled "bad" and is hunted, imprisoned, and/or killed.  Less extreme differences between the moral reality that you may create and that which a society at large maintains are fine in tolerant societies.

I wouldn't think that this represents any aspect of chaos.  The mechanisms that create the morality of a society, maintain that morality, pass that morality onto the next generation, and changing that morality aren't chaotic.

I don't understand the "enlightenment at the expense of safety from sociopaths" comment.  Sociopaths have no genuine empathy for anyone outside of themselves, no amount of socialization to the norms of society can change that.  The sociopath may be able to rationally understand that society at large requires a certain type of behavior in a situation and behave in a way that keeps the sociopath in the good graces of the larger society but the sociopath doesn't feel the empathy that convinces others to behave in a certain way.

I don't think this qualifies as an Achilles heal for atheism.

[Twentythree]

Morality at its core is a set of rules by which an individual discerns right and wrong behavior. Behavior does not create reality, behavior is how we respond to perceived reality. Therefore morality is simply a personal interpretation of behaviors inspired by our perception to reality and our own classification as to their “rightness” or “wrongness”.  The notions of right and wrong are completely subjective under our modern understanding of right and wrong. However, the concept of right and wrong evolved just as our intellect evolved and thus morality is a product of evolution and as a product of evolution morality had to at some point provide a competitive advantage over those individuals without morals. This is easy to see in a simplified example:
 Caveman A has developed empathy and can relate to his fellow caveman, Caveman B does not have empathy and cannot relate to his fellow caveman. Because of his empathy caveman A is able to plan on or decide on behaviors to that will lead to feelings of joy, comfort or safety (right) in his tribe. Conversely he will avoid behaviors that cause feelings of anger, pain or fear in his fellow tribesmen.  This will make caveman A more likely to be accepted into his social group, to find a mate, to have access to the tribes food supply and will ultimately live longer and have more offspring than caveman B. Caveman B will continue to live his life as a “narcissist”. He will not plan his behaviors and will unknowingly engage in behaviors that cause pain, anger or fear in his fellow tribesmen. This will lead him to a more solitary existence. By not being accepted into his social group he will experience more exposure to predators less chances to mate and a more difficult time acquiring food. In a nutshell a shorter life and less offspring. That being the case genes that promote empathy will thrive and those that do not will be selected out. Ultimately leading to the conclusion that morality and  empathy are simply biological tools designed to increase the propagation of genes through social success. Of course this is the simplest of models and the truth is that this development happened over thousands of years from very small breakthroughs in proto human intellect. It also does not cover any of the ideas that morality is now transmitted intellectually and can be taught. It is simply used to illustrate that even ideas as seemingly altruistic as morality find their roots in the selfishness of natural selection.

[Whitney]

this topic is not appropriate for the lounge...moved to philosophy.

[dloubet]

Obedience is amoral.

Therefore the question should be, can the religious be moral?

If one is forced to figure out their own moral code, then one understands why one behavior is good and another is bad. Without that understanding, adherance to a moral code is merely blind obedience.

[Wilson]

Twentythree is right in his definition of what morality is.  The only quibble I have is that within a group or tribe, being selfish and self-centered and brutal also has advantages in terms of surviving and carrying one's seed forward.  An individual may seize more food and more women and kill his enemies within the group and dominate.  So I think group selection is also important.  Those groups which by a combination of family genetic similarity and chance have more cooperative, empathetic, and altruistic members definitely have a better chance of surviving than those groups whose members are all for themselves alone - better protection, food gathering, sheltering, and hunting through cooperation.  And early homo-sapiens were hunter-gatherers who traveled in groups.  So with cooperative groups surviving and selfish groups not, gradually the average level of compassion, empathy, and tendency toward morality increased in our species.

[fester30]

I am only one kind of animal so I can't say for sure, but I don't think other species have religions or believe in gods.  Animals that form communities, such as elephants, primates, lions, etc., have standards of behavior within their groups.  Just watch Animal Planet and you'll see some examples of this.  I saw an episode where an elephant was kicked out of a herd because it was behaving in a manner unacceptable to the rest of the herd (he was too much of a bully).  Male lions have to compete for a pride, and male lion cubs are forced out of a tribe when they approach mating age, to prevent incest.  There are many stories of humans hurt or suffering, and another animal will see this and try to either get the human to safety or care for the human.  

However, even the kindest, gentlest animals are all heathen atheists and all going to hell.  What a shame.

[xSilverPhinx]

Twentythree is right in his definition of what morality is.  The only quibble I have is that within a group or tribe, being selfish and self-centered and brutal also has advantages in terms of surviving and carrying one's seed forward.  An individual may seize more food and more women and kill his enemies within the group and dominate.  So I think group selection is also important.  Those groups which by a combination of family genetic similarity and chance have more cooperative, empathetic, and altruistic members definitely have a better chance of surviving than those groups whose members are all for themselves alone - better protection, food gathering, sheltering, and hunting through cooperation.  And early homo-sapiens were hunter-gatherers who traveled in groups.  So with cooperative groups surviving and selfish groups not, gradually the average level of compassion, empathy, and tendency toward morality increased in our species.

I would have to read Dawkin's "The Selfish Gene" again to be sure, but he looks at that problem with genes and not individuals as units. A natural selection of genes and not individuals (which are the extensions - what he called the "extended phenotype"). It explains kin selection quite well, where in a group where they have a high chance of sharing the same genes (family/small hunter-gather tribe/pack/pride etc.), those genes will act selfishly to preserve themselves and by extension, the indivuduals belonging to the group. Genetic selfish altruism, quite interesting.  :cool:

[Wilson]

Dawkins is very insightful, but he's not God.  In the past, he discounted group selection as a factor in evolution, but I believe he's changed his mind somewhat in recent years.  His use of game theory to explain altruism never rang quite true as a total explanation.  My thinking is that things like height, muscularity, penis size, and empathy are not controlled by a single gene, but by a number of genes.  And that this is the mechanism that evolution uses to fine tune the proper size of these and many other characteristics.  It's not classic single gene evolution, where a particular gene is either helpful or hurtful for survival and reproduction, and therefore is more or less likely to be carried forward.  If groups where the combination of genes tends by chance (or kinship) toward more cooperation are more likely to survive than either those where the genes tend toward selfishness or where the genes tend toward overgenerosity (sharing food with those of a competing tribe), then eventually the levels of altruism, empathy, and cooperation tend toward the optimal level within the species.

[fester30]

Dawkins is very insightful, but he's not God.  In the past, he discounted group selection as a factor in evolution, but I believe he's changed his mind somewhat in recent years.  His use of game theory to explain altruism never rang quite true as a total explanation.  My thinking is that things like height, muscularity, penis size, and empathy are not controlled by a single gene, but by a number of genes.  And that this is the mechanism that evolution uses to fine tune the proper size of these and many other characteristics.  It's not classic single gene evolution, where a particular gene is either helpful or hurtful for survival and reproduction, and therefore is more or less likely to be carried forward.  If groups where the combination of genes tends by chance (or kinship) toward more cooperation are more likely to survive than either those where the genes tend toward selfishness or where the genes tend toward overgenerosity (sharing food with those of a competing tribe), then eventually the levels of altruism, empathy, and cooperation tend toward the optimal level within the species.

My mechanism must be broken.

[xSilverPhinx]

Dawkins is very insightful, but he's not God.  In the past, he discounted group selection as a factor in evolution, but I believe he's changed his mind somewhat in recent years.  His use of game theory to explain altruism never rang quite true as a total explanation.  My thinking is that things like height, muscularity, penis size, and empathy are not controlled by a single gene, but by a number of genes.  And that this is the mechanism that evolution uses to fine tune the proper size of these and many other characteristics.  It's not classic single gene evolution, where a particular gene is either helpful or hurtful for survival and reproduction, and therefore is more or less likely to be carried forward.  If groups where the combination of genes tends by chance (or kinship) toward more cooperation are more likely to survive than either those where the genes tend toward selfishness or where the genes tend toward overgenerosity (sharing food with those of a competing tribe), then eventually the levels of altruism, empathy, and cooperation tend toward the optimal level within the species.

I think his insight was having explained those things with simplified units (though yes, the extended phenotype is based on interaction of genes more than individual ones and especially interaction with the environment). The genes by themselves are just data, with interactions they become information. I'm going to have to read his book again to see what he says about those things. Also, it can be tricky when analysing group selection because of its higher complexity, especially when looking at human groups, since we are not 100% at the mercy of our genes.  

The way I understood it, he uses game theory to explain just the selective process by which genes for altruism can be favoured by favouring a group. It doesn't go far in explaining what altruism is. For example, there are cases when animals of different species (which defy limited kin selection) which he explains are the result of those genes 'misfiring'.  
 
As for group selection, I don't think he leaves it out, at least not anymore. He uses memes (cultural "genes") often as well, even when trying to explain how some cultural groups survive and propagate in his analogies.