News:

Look, I haven't mentioned Zeus, Buddah, or some religion.

Main Menu

Tribalism as the basis for theism and moralism

Started by Inevitable Droid, December 27, 2010, 12:31:27 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

Inevitable Droid

I define tribalism as, "the inclination of self to (1) hold as true what the tribe holds as true; (2) hold as sacred what the tribe holds as sacred; (3) hold as anathema what the tribe holds as anathema; (4) hold as beautiful what the tribe holds as beautiful; (5) hold as desirable what the tribe holds as desirable; (6) hold as necessary what the tribe holds as necessary; (7) hold as dangerous what the tribe holds as dangerous."

I speculate that tribalism is genetically compelled and naturally selected.  In this I am partially prompted by statements from Whitney, but she used different words and was addressing a narrower subject, so she may well disavow what I am saying, or perhaps may not, I won't know unless/until she responds to this thread.  As for me, tribalism is sufficiently commonplace to be thought genetic, and sufficiently conducive to cooperation to be thought naturally selected, since cooperation is sufficiently conducive to human survival to be thought naturally selected, and in this last claim I am but following the lead of sociobiologists and game theorists.

Saying tribalism is genetically compelled isn't to say that it's a universal trait.  Genetic variation is always a possibility.  Perhaps most people have the tribalism gene, but some don't.

I further speculate that what the tribe holds as desirable or necessary can gradually come to be held by the tribe as sacred, and what the tribe holds as dangerous can gradually come to be held by the tribe as anathema.  Finally, I speculate that what the tribe holds as sacred or anathema wil gradually come to be held by the tribe as true in a cosmic, universal, absolute sense.  The self will take on all of these perspectives due to the tribalism gene.  The solidarity amongst tribespeople on these matters will help cement cooperation on practical matters, which in turn will help make survival and success of the tribe and thus of the individual likeliest in our harsh and unforgiving world.

Placating the invisible anthropomorphized forces of luck was seen by primitive man as necessary or at least desirable, and failing to placate those forces, or actively aggravating them, was seen as dangerous.  These invisible anthropomorphized forces of luck became the gods and demons, gods if the default stance was friendly to the tribe, demons if the default stance was unfriendly.  Their existence came to be seen as true in a cosmic, universal, absolute sense.  The self would embrace all of this due to the tribalism gene.  Solidarity would cement cooperation which would foster survival and success for tribe and individual tribesmember.

Behaviors deemed necessary or at least desirable to the tribe gradually came to be deemed sacred to it, and their rightness eventually deemed true in a cosmic, universal, absolute sense.  Behaviors deemed dangerous to the tribe gradually came to be deemed as anathema to it, and their wrongness eventually deemed true in a cosmic, universal, absolute sense.  The self would embrace all of this due to the tribalism gene.  Solidarity would cement cooperation which would foster survival and success for tribe and individual tribesmember.

Thus would both theism and moralism be genetically compelled and naturally selected, as aspects of tribalism.

Why do some people reject theism, and some reject moralism?  Genetic variation.  Minus the tribalism gene, the individual will decide independently what is true, sacred, anathema, beautiful, desirable, necessary, and dangerous.  This independent decision process will place weight on the input of all five senses, the recollection of what has happened and not happened in the past, and the application of logic thereto.

Is tribalism a problem today?  To some extent.  First, if it tells the individual what is true, and the alleged truth is contra-scientific, a conflict with science can result.  Second, if it tells the individual that harmless or even helpful behaviors are anathema, a conflict with democratic freedoms can result.  Third, if it identifies the tribe too narrowly, and deems those outside the tribe as dangerous, and enlists the individual in fighting those outsiders, needless war can result, with all its death and destruction.  Fourth, if it identifies the tribe too narrowly, and deems the welfare of those outside the tribe to be of no consequence, the short-circuiting of cooperation can result, reducing the survival and success capacity of our species.

The solutions are easy to articulate but difficult to achieve.  Tribalism as a source of truth must be rejected.  Tribalism's designation of harmless or helpful behaviors as anathema must be rejected.  Finally, Homo sapiens as a single unitary collective must be identified as the tribe for all.

The first and second solutions amount to the rejection of scriptural theism in favor of secularism.  The third amounts to the rejection of parochialism in favor of humanism.  Secular humanism, then, is faced with the task of struggling with the genetic tendency toward tribalism and striving to push it away from some of its oldest bastions.  Secular humanism, engaging in this struggle, will need to take care that it doesn't lose sight of the importance of solidarity to cooperation, and the importance of cooperation to survival and success of species and individual.
Oppose Abraham.

[Missing image]

In the face of mystery, do science, not theology.

Wilson

Tribalism is in our DNA, all right.  It evolved during hunter-gatherer days.  Compassion, cooperation, altruism, and a lot of characteristics I consider positive evolved so that one group would have a better chance at survival than other groups that didn't have as much of those qualities.  But it was also important to the survival of that group that it not have those same feelings toward those outside their group.  If you feed outsiders, or act to protect them, that could be bad for the survivability of your own group.  So we developed this line that divides "us" and "them".  That's what tribalism is, and it has persisted to the current time.  All of us feel a sense of community with certain people and little or none toward others.  Nationalism, sports fandom, religion, you name it.  I even feel a slight kinship with my fellow freethinkers here.  And selective empathy is not always bad; placed in a situation where our lives or those of our families are at stake, almost all of us would not hesitate to defend ourselves against an aggressor; he would be on the other side of that compassion line.  Religious ties are indeed one way that some people define their "circle of empathy" or whatever you want to call it.  That's why suicide bombers consider it moral to kill infidels; they are on the other side of the compassion line.

Inevitable Droid

Quote from: "Wilson"Tribalism is in our DNA, all right.  It evolved during hunter-gatherer days.

Seems likely.

QuoteCompassion, cooperation, altruism, and a lot of characteristics I consider positive evolved so that one group would have a better chance at survival than other groups that didn't have as much of those qualities.

Compassion and altruism are genetic, I'm sure, but they aren't what I mean by tribalism.  Cooperation is also genetic, I'm sure, but while it may be strengthened by tribalism, it isn't identical to it.  Tribalism is identifying self with tribe, such that groupthink takes over your brain.  This can be conducive to cooperation, which can be conducive to survival and success.

QuoteBut it was also important to the survival of that group that it not have those same feelings toward those outside their group.  If you feed outsiders, or act to protect them, that could be bad for the survivability of your own group.  So we developed this line that divides "us" and "them".  That's what tribalism is, and it has persisted to the current time.

The "us" and "them" mentality is certainly part of the groupthink that most tribes exhibit.

QuoteAll of us feel a sense of community with certain people and little or none toward others.  Nationalism, sports fandom, religion, you name it.  I even feel a slight kinship with my fellow freethinkers here.  And selective empathy is not always bad; placed in a situation where our lives or those of our families are at stake, almost all of us would not hesitate to defend ourselves against an aggressor; he would be on the other side of that compassion line.  Religious ties are indeed one way that some people define their "circle of empathy" or whatever you want to call it.  That's why suicide bombers consider it moral to kill infidels; they are on the other side of the compassion line.

Your comment about suicide bombers illustrates one of my main points, which is, we secular humanists would be well advised to try to nudge the tribalism of our species in such a way that tribe is identified as Homo sapiens.  Accomplish that, and much that is unfortunate about global culture will evaporate.
Oppose Abraham.

[Missing image]

In the face of mystery, do science, not theology.

grim-reaper

I think that evolutionary survival forces could have created a genetic "tendency" toward an individual's psychological acceptance of a tribe's traditional beliefs and practices. This would explain why culture evolved so slowly during the stone age. But there is a theory that it was mostly children and young people who discovered new ways of doing things and brought about the small changes that did occur. If this theory is correct, it suggests that a period of indoctrination was still required in addition to genetic factors.

Wilson

Quote from: "Inevitable Droid"Compassion and altruism are genetic, I'm sure, but they aren't what I mean by tribalism.
It seems to me that if we have developed general feelings of kinship towards others in our group - with all that implies - and have no such feelings of kinship toward those in a competing group, that's the essence of tribalism.  And I agree that we should encourage expansion of our circle of kinship to include everybody who isn't a direct threat to us.

Inevitable Droid

Quote from: "Wilson"
Quote from: "Inevitable Droid"Compassion and altruism are genetic, I'm sure, but they aren't what I mean by tribalism.
It seems to me that if we have developed general feelings of kinship towards others in our group - with all that implies - and have no such feelings of kinship toward those in a competing group, that's the essence of tribalism.  And I agree that we should encourage expansion of our circle of kinship to include everybody who isn't a direct threat to us.

I agree with the words you've written, but not with their applicability to the words of mine you quoted.  So let me first acknowledge my gratification that you and I agree with respect to a main point of mine, that being the desirability of biggest tent tribalism.

Now, let me say that there are people whose compassion and altruism isn't centered on tribe at all.  They exhibit compassion and altruism toward anyone they encounter.  There are also people whose lack of compassion and altruism isn't focused exclusively outside the tribe.  They lack compassion and altruism toward anyone, even the closest of kin.  I conclude from this that compassion and altruism are a separate phenomenon from tribalism.  However, I agree that tribalism can short-circuit compassion and altruism.

Incidentally, I suspect compassion and altruism are genetically compelled, and being conducive to cooperation, are naturally selected.
Oppose Abraham.

[Missing image]

In the face of mystery, do science, not theology.

Wilson

Quote from: "Inevitable Droid"Now, let me say that there are people whose compassion and altruism isn't centered on tribe at all.  They exhibit compassion and altruism toward anyone they encounter.

This may be mostly semantics, but to my way of thinking, people who exhibit compassion and altruism to everyone are including everyone in their tribe - in other words, in their circle of kinship.  And as in genetic kinship, there are degrees of compassion within one's tribe.  Most of us feel more kinship with family members, a bit less with our community, a bit less with our country, a bit less with those outside our country.  Even that paragon who is kind to everyone would draw the line at someone who was a threat to him or his family.  What I believe is that each of us draws that dividing line between us and them differently.  We in the West did not always think the whole world was our tribe, but as the media informs us, people in other countries are not so different, so we tend to bring them into the fold nowadays.

xSilverPhinx

I should've read this thread before posting on your other on objective morality but oh well.

QuoteI think that evolutionary survival forces could have created a genetic "tendency" toward an individual's psychological acceptance of a tribe's traditional beliefs and practices.

By genetic tendency do you mean a tendency that's caused by genes or a tendency because a tribe usually shares the same genes?

Memes seem to be more reliant on culture than genes.
I am what survives if it's slain - Zack Hemsey