In his new book “The Righteous Mind”, Jonathan Haidt argues as follows:
Morality is not learned from parents, schools or friends, but is actually hard-wired into us as another item in the armoury of survival. The evolution of moral behaviour developed in groups of people . Groups of people support one another, reward cooperation and generally expel or discipline the disruptives. What you believe is less important than who you share your beliefs with. Religion is about shared values and solidarity. Haidt compares religion with soccer clubs – the ball matters less than the shared solidarity of the rowdies on the benches, swilling beer.
The implication of this is that it is pointless reasoning with people in a logical way, no use telling the believer in the literal truth of the Old Testament that he should take a course in science and infer that he’s an ignorant nincompoop. Only an appeal to the emotions can change his mind.
There are implications for Epicureanism here. We need heart-rending stories about young girls whose lives have been blighted by nunneries or who have seen the Light and have achieved eternal life on entering an Epicurean Garden. We need some good stories, not dry philosophic reasoning.
The other implication is that people will believe that god is a green rhinoceros if everyone else in his community believes it too. It’s called tribalism or cattle herd mentality. Mooo……..
Persuade a man against his will; he’s of the same opinion still. Even, and possibly in spite of and particularly appealing to his emotions wont change his mind.
I dont entirely agree with the ‘group think thesis’ where everyone is concerned. There have always been many individuals who have thought for themselves and followed their own ethical persuasions rather than follow the majority.
Even in Hitler’s Germany where the pressure to conform must have been extremely strong, and it would seem, (I imagine) that every-one else had ‘climbed aboard’ the general opinion, we must remember that theNazis did not achieve a majority in any election. They rose to power for other complex reasons.
It is important however, for some people, that they identify themselves with a group of some sort, whether it is political or religious or epicurean – perhaps to persuade themselves that they are not alienated or totally rejected.
I was told firmly as a child that just because the ‘others’ were doing something naughty, did not mean that I should do so as well.
And yes, or course if we belong to a group, we are more likely to survive in evolutionary terms.
Speaking only for myself, I am not a member of any group, and indeed have expelled myself from every club, society and committee, old boys gathering, car parking or kite flying organization I have ever had the stupidity to join. Not that clubs, societies and committees are necessarily bad things; it’s just that some of us are determined non-joiners and cannot see the point.
The downside of this is that I am not in a position to ask for favours from anyone, find a new job (mostly done on the basis of who, not what you know), or get anything done by the local government because some years ago, in sceptical mood, I criticized our local representative and now he won’t answer my emails. So the joiners win. But I still stay stubbornly independent.
I add to my former comment (Mooo…) the expletive Baaaa……..