Dimensions of Value: Maslow's Hierarchy

After writing it, I felt that this post was a bit "over the top". I thought of deleting it, but decided to leave it in, since it actually does connect to many of other ideas. It's just that I don't think our situation is quite this dark. I've got to stay away from Russian novels ...

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs

We really should give a nod to Maslow's attempt to visualize the human situation in terms of "needs", which are almost the same thing as "values". Let's discuss Maslow's ideas - assuming that we somehow manage to "value" what we "need". My general impression is that Maslow's summary is somewhat misleading. It tempts us to over-simplify human motivation and overlook the fantastic complexity of these "needs". Once we shift to "values" and unpack the "values", we wind up with something that can actually explain practical things like political parties, war, persistent poverty, "fake news" and all the other things that seem to arise from the depths of human nature to form "social hurricanes" that leave us feeling helpless and in need to at least understand what's going on.

Maslow's "analysis" doesn't seem to provide much immediate help to individuals wondering how to organize their lives and priorities. But that's not the worst of it.

Maslow's cute diagram was flashed on the screen in millions of "Social Studies" classes around the world as a quick and dirty way of getting the issue out of the way and providing teachers with a good source of multiple choice questions. But it is horribly misleading. It is a lie to imagine that the business of human life boils down to the individual seeking to meet individual needs. The fact is that one must choose between (a) abandoning society naked savage in the jungle or (b) absorbing oneself into the society which may or may not allow you to live.

NETWORKS

We all exist within social networks. We also find ourselves in a physical environment which, for many of us, is man-made and (therefore) a world of ideas-made-real. We are born into such a world that has been designed by society to meet the needs Maslow discusses. In fact, we find ourselves in a "matrix" that society provides for us to meet at least the bottom 3 tiers of Maslow's pyramid. For most of us, whether we struggle to meet our "needs" at the bottom of the pyramid or the top is a matter that society makes for us.

This tells us that our fundamental need (and value) is to be accepted into a network of social relationships that provide for our needs in detail. Through this web of relationships, we acquire food, money, safety and all the other good things that keep us (and our society) going. Of course, it remains to discuss how these networks and value-transactions work in real life.

It turns out that there is not an exact correspondence between "need" and "value". We value lots of things we don't need - such as drugs, sugar, jewelry, viral videos, alcohol, new cars ... We also tend to not value things we actually do need, such as a healthy mind and body. It is more fruitful to analyze values than needs. For example, where, in Maslo's, hierarchy do we find cocaine? Prostitution? Child soldiers? Nuclear weapons? Obesity? There seems to be something missing in the assumption that human life is mainly concerned with meeting our needs.

SELF ACTUALIZATION (TOP NEED)

I have always found this term to be an annoying catchphrase of the self-involved California hippy. We still hear it a lot - mostly from people who have - through skepticism or laziness - rejected all other value systems and wound up with "be all you can be". Back when Maslow did this work, the choice seemed to be between "religion" (discredited) and nihilism. A false choice.

Maslow is here assuming that humans, in general, do not regard self-sacrifice and/or self-denial as a value. For example, he's assuming that humans won't be happy living as Muslims, Christians, following Confucious, joining the armed services or devoting their life to service of any kind.   The challenge for Maslow would be to ask if the ultimate need in human life is not to lose oneself in a higher goal - something that transcends the self. I seem to remember that Maslo himself acknowledged the ultimate need is to lose oneself in something beyond yourself - transcendence. I also remember that this was taken in a kind of mystical "hippy" kind of way.

To a certain degree, one needs to surrender to this need/value if one expects to be a valued member of a group. On a very basic level, this means that one may be asked to clean toilets in a MacDonalds in order to make enough money to eat. The fact is that society rather strongly forces the individual into a role that serves society at large. In post-WW II America, this pressure was widely resented. Although we may regard some spectacular examples of "self-made men" "being all they can be", if we scratch the surface, we find people who are massively supported by society for the ends of society itself. Many others who have followed this path are known as criminals - especially psychopaths. The self-actualizing individual who rises to the top of a major corporation effectively surrenders himself to the myopic and psychopathic goals of the corporation (profit at all cost). Maslow's hierarchy makes no distinction between the people we call heroes and the people we call criminals.

I'm sure that Maslo imagined that everyone would become a philosopher like him if they could only succeed in "being all they could be". The fact is that freezing to death on the street is about all that some of us can manage. Beyond that, we all seem to need a lot of help. Some of us have come to the conclusion that the highest values of life are to be found with "a little help from our friends". Not just finding but providing help.

THE FOURTH TIER - BEING ACCEPTED

This is the need to "fit in". Maslow provides few details about how this is achieved, but we can see that the general idea is to find one's place in the social network to maximize the flow of value transfer between the individual and those who he/she is connected by bonds of employment, debt, business, obligation etc.  We note that Maslow makes no distinction between "fitting in" with the Mafia, fitting in with the Republican Party and fitting in with a campaign to save the whales. Doesn't it matter which group we "fit in" with? Doesn't it matter what we surrender, as individuals, to "fit in"?

The nature of these bonds needs to be "unpacked" if we are to wind up with a general view of what motivates human beings, which seems to be what Maslow is going for.

A CULTURE'S PYRAMID OF VALUES

Perhaps I will come back and put this in a pretty picture, but let's consider things from the point of view of a "network" or "superorganism" S, starting at the bottom. We can think of S as being a corporation, or nation-state.

Physiological

The continued existence of S doesn't depend on the survival of individuals - they are expendable. What needs to be preserved is the agreed-to system of values that prevent mass defection of individuals required to keep things going. Workers who are no longer needed can be off-loaded and taken care of like other externalized costs, like pollution and wounded soldiers. They are somebody else's problem. 

Safety

Again, the individual is expendable. The safety of S preempts the safety of the individual. The individual must be convinced that the bravest thing to do is to die for S, or at least work himself/herself to death for S at the expense of any personal benefit. Beyond a certain size, the corporation is immune from prosecution for any crimes it may commit. The nation-state need never acknowledge crimes committed in its name. Superorganisms are immortal or at least act as if they have a natural right to exist and grow forever.

Love/Belonging

It is necessary for S to maintain some kind of social cohesion by promoting values that make sense to individuals (both employees and customers) but may or may not be actually promoted in practice by S. A Strong feeling of "us" and "them" is necessary. "They" can be killed or starve to death or slowly killed by a poison produced by S. Whatever is good for "us" (namely S) is good. It is essential that unanimity be achieved on this score. Those individuals who challenge the common value system must be suppressed or expelled. "They" must handle the "externalities", preferably without taxing S.

Esteem

Depending on the type of S, it's called "protecting the brand". The national "brand" -  "national pride" should preempt the individual's desire to live. The "brand" should seek to preempt the individual's freedom of choice as a consumer. The actual benefit to the consumer (from Maslow's pyramid) is irrelevant. The consumer must be lead to think there is a benefit - even a need. Ideally, the consumer will see benefit from the bare brand itself - on a flag pole or T-shirt for example.

Self Actualization

A corporation becomes the ideal corporation by crushing competition, driving down wages or possibly eliminating human workers entirely. It dictates prices and convinces consumers to buy its products. All risks and costs are externalized. Ideally, the corporation can buy back its own shares, eliminating the need for pesky shareholders demanding return. It can suck up capital by leveraged finance, offloading risk by issuing bonds and buying insurance. The ideal corporation has no employees and no shareholders. It has no tangible product but accumulates profit and grows solely by amassing patent rights and leveraged financial capital. It is everyone's absentee landlord. It manages to "tax" every financial transaction while outsourcing all risk. Imagine one bank absorbing all the others and being run by a machine. Sometimes I think of this as being the ultimate state of Amazon. Just a machine that taxes the movement of goods from manufacturer to consumer, all done by robots and a vast machine we call the "cloud".

The ideal nation-state has crushed all other nations and dominates the world. Outside its own borders, there are only "they". Inside its borders, a tiny cadre has the precarious honor of being "us". All others are "they", under constant suspicion of treason. Imagine Stalin's Soviet Union covering the world. Imagine, in this world, all material goods being crap sold by Amazon.

The ideal nation-state and the ideal corporation are actually the same thing. The goals of a nation-state are best served by co-opting the corporation. The goals of the corporation are best served by absorbing the nation-state. Such a nation-state is called a "kleptocracy". To me, Russia looks like it "wants" to be like this. Where do the "oligarchs" end and the nation of Russia begin?

THE DARK TRUTH

In the real world, there is nothing to prevent superorganisms from taking over the planet while humans chase after Maslow's "needs". The world of "Terminator" is not as far-fetched as it seems. We need to understand that we are not the only sentient beings on the planet. The "needs" of every cell in my body are met by a system they don't understand. In fact, the organism called "me" doesn't understand much about the process either. But the analogy breaks down when we consider that I am (presumably) "smarter" than any of the cells in my body. The survival of all these cells is (mostly) up to me. But the "superorganisms" of which we are apart are usually pretty stupid. Their rules of growth and survival seem to make them even more destructive and stupid.

It is important to understand that "morality" exists only on our scale of things. 

I'll leave it there. I've talked myself into feeling rather unsafe. A nice friendly chat is called for. Besides, I'm kinda hungry...

----
More dark thoughts on the malignant influence of superorganisms may be found here

Dimensions of Value: Socialism and Capitalism

Socialism and Capitalism are both ways of combining theories of value with practices "on the ground" which purportedly reflect these perceived values.

SOCIALISM

It seems that Socialism pays special attention to three value-related concepts:

• "Fairness" in the system of allocating things of value. This needs to be unpacked a bit since there is a different concept, also called "fairness" in capitalism. The two concepts are so different that we can see part of the dispute as encouraged by a problem of language. The same word used in opposite senses, as in "newspeak".
• Equal influence on public policy. The "government" should act on behalf of all citizens and not be dominated by a certain segment. Being "rich" should not equate to being politically powerful. One person, one vote, not one dollar one vote.
• Since "Socialism" is fundamentally a political world view, "socialists" are, of course, willing to stretch the truth, sweep details under the rug and ally themselves with the devil to "win power for the people". This process often seems to throw the baby out with the bathwater, as with the Canadian NDP, who seems to totally accept the capitalist lexicon in an attempt to grab power. The ultimate value with any political party is political power itself.
• "Socialist" countries are willing to sacrifice the lives of their citizens for the sake of "society". I regard the willingness to do so on a spectrum. At one end are the "democratic socialists" who will fight to preserve general welfare. At the other end are "communists" who regard "society" as an abstract entity that has little do do with the actual welfare of actual citizens. Actual citizens are expendable. Dissent is to be suppressed to preserve the illusion of "society" as a "thing" worth defending. I regard "society" to be an illusion - a fiction - quite like the "Invisible hand" of the market so popular on the right.

CAPITALISM

• "Fairness" in capitalism boils down to holding property rights sacred - baked into the constitution. Any re-distribution of property, especially by the Government in (for example) taxes is "unfair". Morally wrong.
• In Marxist terms, those who own the "means of production" are entitled to all profits that arise from the use of those means of production. Profits, as well as the means themselves (industry), are private property. Re-distrubtion of these is morally wrong.
• Modern capitalist thinking makes room for "middlemen" - merchants and "platforms" such as Amazon, to have a moral right to their profits. It's a simple matter of arithmetic to see that the allocation of such profits is a zero-sum game between labor and capital. Therefore, the capitalist (valuing property rights) sees the suppression of wages (and therefore the value of life itself) as an "externality".  "Culture" or "society" is meant to deal with these "externalities" but not by means of expropriating of capital, especially through taxation.
• Capitalistic rhetoric often features "jobs" as a substitute for the value of human life. "Jobs" are the rabbit pulled out of the hat that, mysteriously, leads us to think of people as raw material for capitalistic production and therefore profits. The purpose of society, in general, is to provide "inputs" to industry and consumers for its outputs.
• Capitalists tend to treat "money" as the measure of all things. The entire discipline of "economics" is an effort to reduce all human value to money. If there is anything such as "socialist economics" I have failed to find it.
• To the capitalist, political power, like everything else, is to be purchased and owned. The capitalist loves to risk other people's money and other people's lives. You often see this attitude emerging in claims that the rich "own" the country because "they" built it. "They" own the real estate, the factories, the banks. They, therefore, have the moral right to "run the country". This is a claim that is rarely challenged in open debate. We tend to forget that their claim to ownership extends beyond the borders of our country (including Canada), resulting in "shooting wars" and the deaths of hundreds of thousands of politically misguided peasants in "other" countries. "Ownership" is everywhere achieved, maintained and defended at the point of a gun.

BETWEEN THE CRACKS

Both of these worldviews tend to systematically ignore whole categories of value. At bottom, they represent different worldviews along with different ideas about the way political power should be allocated in a "fair" way. Mostly economic power. Money power. Jobs. Taxes. GDP. 

We all seem to agree that political power is a value worth fighting for. In personalities likeMitch McDonnell, we see people who are willing to sacrifice anything to gain power, even allowing the country to be ruled by Russia rather than the Democrats. In every "political" struggle, it is power itself, rather than "values" of any type that are being fought over.

Stalin was the ultimate capitalist, clothed in Socialist rhetoric. Stalin owned the country. Its wealth was his to distribute. Every citizen lived and died at his whim. He starved millions to death to build up a modern industrial economy (capital). Individual citizens had zero political power and zero value in themselves. They lived in fear of their lives. Allowing millions to starve and millions of others to be imprisoned or exiled represents the logical end of a system of thought that attaches no significance to any human value. Yet, "right wing" rhetoric paints Stalin as the "ultimate socialist".

I tend to see the "Nordic" countries as examples of socialism at work. Everyone is guaranteed access to the necessities of life. Such values as a good education are taken for granted and "fairly" distributed. Major resources (such as fossil fuels) and the revenue from them are owned by the state. There are instructive differences between these countries. Iceland is not Sweden. Denmark is not Finland. But you see a commonality of assumptions - how people think of value. I call this system of values "democratic socialism". It is not even a close relative to "communism" - a totally different animal which I may come back to at some point. 

America is a country without a coherent system of values. "Capitalist" assumptions fill the vacuum, resulting in an atmosphere of false alternatives and alienation. Ignorance of the population (itself a consequence of education being a "commodity" to be bought and sold) leaves America open to almost any rhetoric. There are no accepted values worth defending. The American voter is effectively for sale, resulting in de facto rule by the rich. 

Even in this brief introduction, we see that our left wing/right wing assumptions place us with a false alternative. Socialism seems to cast a wider net than traditional capitalism and it seems to attract those who want to make the net bigger, such as "environmentalists". Even so, Socialists seem

to find it hard to admit to any concern that is not fundamentally economic. Who pays for health care? Why do the rich not pay their fair share of taxes? Why do a small number of people own the lion's share of wealth? The "left" cedes the floor to the capitalist "right wing" by treating these sorts of issues and this dimension as fundamental.

Climate change is an example of an issue "falling between the cracks". Both sides struggle to find an economic reason to avoid destroying the planet. Both sides manage to find the logic that supports massive investment in weapons that will if used, destroy us all. Both sides have trouble seeing over their borders to the suffering created for the masses who "fall between the cracks" as they arm wrestle for power within their borders and struggle to expand their domination at the expense of actual people.

The most glaring example of this is the USA, which makes laws for the entire planet, assumes the right to invade any country, kill anyone, destroy any economy but claims no responsibility whatsoever for the catastrophe it leaves behind for "others". There is a large aspect of "entropy" in this project. The USA doesn't leave "order" behind (such as tame capitalist economies). It leaves chaos behind. Ruined economies. Impoverished political debate. Kleptocracies. We need to step back and see the entropy in this situation. We can see it also in pictures of Europe in the aftermath of World War II. We can see it in failed nuclear reactors and the unrecoverable environmental mess that military activities leave behind in their wake.

MORALITY

Both "sides" of the political debate regard the "other side" as morally corrupt. Yet, in private, the individual is rudderless when it comes to defining what is or is not "moral". It seems arbitrary. It's in the "eye of the beholder". Yet, our "eye" is being steered in definite directions and away from the horrible truth.

Pope Paul's encyclical (on Human Life) points the way to a moral issue that both sides skip over. Are we morally obligated to leave an inhabitable planet for our descendants? Is it morally right to steal that planet for the benefit of people now living? Pope Paul attempts to expand orthodox Catholic theology to include a few "new sins". He also makes a brave attempt to convince non-Catholics that they need to re-assess their view of morality even if they reject "religion". There is a troubling connection between the Catholic concern for the "unborn" fetus and the welfare of the people who do actually get born. Most non-Catholics don't want to go anywhere near this way of seeing things.

I maintain that "morality" reflects the way we see (or fail to see) "dimensions of value". It boils down to how we see (or fail to see) the world with the full range of dimensions of value. Similarly, we see (or are made to see) certain aspects of value (such as money and the "good life") as the only values worth attention.

To a certain extent, we are free to challenge the way we see things. To exactly the same extent, morality is a matter of choice. But all of these frameworks of value are sold to us like Corn Flakes. They are woven into the very language we use. We can't address the question without figuring in the way that humans are "programmed" to see things a certain way, just as our biology programs us to see light in certain wavelengths and hear certain sounds but not others.

We arrive at the conclusion (not so surprising) that morality and values are intimately linked. The link is not something "out there" like the laws of physics. Or laid down by some supernatural being. It is the link between the individual and society. The individual sees morality (and therefore value) only through the filter held up by society and the environment. Under the spell of the capitalist, we can be made to "see" the "Invisible Hand" and the "Market" at work.  Under the socialist spell, we are tricked into feeling like we are supporting the "common good" without really knowing what this means.

Break the spell and a whole different world comes into view.

More on "Dimensions" here.

Making Choices in a World Without God

It's natural to ask whether all this speculation matters. Asking this, it is easy to slip into the trap of making general conclusions and offering general advice for those who may agree with me on the issues raised here. That's a mistake. All I can do is say what it means to me Others may draw their own conclusions.

Basically, I can ignore religion's claims of authority (derived from beyond the observable Universe) as well as its claims that its insights trump observation reality.

If I compare my life and priorities with others who allow religion to totally dominate, the advantage is huge. Millions are willing to die for their particular religious fantasy. Millions of others willingly surrender their right to chose for themselves in matters of great personal impact. It matters.

This blog recognizes that I am embedded in a culture that is strongly influenced by "Christian" values and mythology. Many of us are broadly familiar with the stories in the Bible. However, actual in-depth knowledge of this book is rare. Young people - even those who think of themselves as Christian - are as shockingly ignorant about the Bible as they are about all other topics. As an influence on "Western" culture, Christianity has been so misunderstood, misapplied and discredited that it is now safe for any individual to disown it without looking back.

What is less clear is whether, by turning one's back on Christianity, I am left with the need to replace it with something else. If we accept that the soul (if any) dies with the body and there is no other Universe but the one Science describes, what are we to do without the supposed guidance that religion provides? This question remains even when we acknowledge that religion has a terrible track record in providing its supposed benefit - namely a population of believers who behave in anything like a moral, principled way.

Absent religion, Is there anything like good and evil? What is justice?

I am still left in my own personal "Matrix" in which every object, event, and situation is colored with value - everything is "good" or "bad". That's the way my brain works. If it didn't I'd starve to death in my bed, not caring to move.

One starting point is to accept the gift and the burden of free will - both for me and for those around me. We are all free to be murderers, liars, cheats and/or general parasites on society. Conversely, we can choose to be honest, principled and dedicated to the welfare of humanity. Moreover, we must admit that the choices we make and those made by others are often dictated by forces beyond our control. This observation leads us to an attitude of compassion and forgiveness (including self-forgiveness). Such an attitude recommends itself even if only to support personal peace of mind. We can choose not to be the angry sword of justice. Of course, we may choose differently but to do so flies in the face of true understanding and is bound to cause us personal grief.

But what do we do about the palpable danger that certain individuals pose to us personally and society at large? I think it makes sense for us to act to prevent such individuals from harming others. That is a supportable aim of what we call a "Justice" system. At the same time, we need to avoid the tendency for revenge and moral judgment to taint our core aim, which is to prevent harm. We need to take into account the actions of those who commit no "crime", but, through neglect and indifference. Especially in this category, the only effective action is to avoid these sins myself.

It is striking that one of the core values promoted in the Bible is what we might call tribalism. This is particularly evident in the Old Testament, which is the (largely mythical) story of how the ruler of the Universe concerns himself with the "chosen people": Israel. The "us and them" message continues in the New Testament with the message that belief in Jesus is the one and only criterion for selecting the individual for eternal life. The "us and them" mentality runs through the entire history of Christianity, as it splits into innumerable sects that regard themselves to have the keys to heaven and "outsiders" to be bound for Hell. Systematic indifference toward people who have been left out of the story entirely (such as those who never heard the "Gospel") continues in the form of indifference toward "enemy" civilians killed by the thousands in other countries.

I feel personally free to challenge this message and to do so wherever it occurs - whether in a religious context or not. It is the toxic message that is left behind even when the other-worldly justifications for it have been rejected.  We need to stop thinking in terms of "us and them". "We" have no right to be killing "them". "They" have all the rights and aspirations that "we" do. "They" are not wrong about everything just because they are "they". "We" have no special insight into ultimate truth just because we are "we".

SOCIAL JUSTICE WITHOUT RELIGION

Leaving aside morality as it pertains to social issues, we are increasingly confronted with issues that arise out of an increasing appreciation of our place in the Universe - the place that is shared by all human beings - whatever they may believe about supernatural forces or authority. To cite just one question that each of us must answer for himself: Is it right and good that life should survive on Planet Earth? It is amazing to me that many young people are so lost in the moral vacuum left by religion that they will be indifferent to this question or shrug their shoulders to answer, No. More narrowly, many people regard humans as to be a positive evil on the planet and welcome the demise of the human race. The stunning truth is that is hard to find anyone who thinks such questions are worth a moment's thought.

Our chance to prevent catastrophic climate change is slipping away from us on a daily basis. There is a very real possibility that the end of the human race is not far off and we may, in fact, prevent that from happening by personal actions in our lifetime. Will we?  Will we try? The Biblical story is not helping us here. The story of Noah tells us that God judged all of humanity to be worth destruction (indeed all of Nature). God condemned all of humanity because of the disobedience of one man (Adam) over one instruction, then arbitrarily reversed that decision because of the sacrifice of one man (Jesus) but that saved only "believers". All this mythology predisposes believers of all sorts (not just Christians) to be open to the idea that the Universe would somehow be better off without us.

I'm not quite arrogant enough to propose a solution to this ultimate existential question. All I can do is make a choice for myself. I chose not to commit suicide out of guilt for being a human being. I chose not to give up on humanity. I chose to regard saving the natural world from destruction as being a cause worthy of my active support.

The fashionable trend toward "save the planet" ideology is encouraging to me, but the really big, nasty threats are not being prevented or even challenged. We march to save the whales but fail to save the oceans. We are willing to save the planet as long as it doesn't cost jobs or raise taxes. We are happy to watch the planet die because others are not doing their share to prevent it. It can all seem silly and sad. Personally, it often seems that all I can do is to see the situation as clearly as possible and share that knowledge (or at least the desire to have that knowledge) with others.

From what I know of the "big picture", there is no ultimate guarantee that things will turn out the way I'd like. I'm certain of my own fate. The thought that there may come a time when there is no living thing left in the Universe is even more fearful. The Universe without God (which is what I believe to be the case) has no special love for us or life itself.

There is a daily corollary of this attitude, which is a love for life in all its forms. For me at least, such love takes the place of religion. Like faith, it is a free choice.

Thoughts on Religion vs. Reality

For the moment, let me talk about the world of human experience as "E".

The world that Science investigates is assumed to exist apart from human experience, although we can only know it through human experience. Without really thinking about it, we imagine the "real world" to be about the shared experience: verifiable, consistent and augmented by what we call "reason". But we have long admitted that Universe, which I will call U, is not the same as "E". In fact, we assume that we can never know "U" entirely, directly or completely.

We all know that "E" is not the same for each of us. In fact, it is quite remarkably different between different cultures and different times or even for a single individual throughout his or her lifetime.

The question at hand is, is there anything "out there" apart from E and U?

In most religious traditions the answer is "yes".  Most religions postulate a universe in which the individual "soul" - the most important part of E  - exists apart from the individual physical body and survives death into a realm that may or may not is occupied by spirits, gods, occult forces and a whole world. Christianity specifically claims that the "soul" always exists apart from the body - an idea that appears in modern Science Fiction in many forms. Mystical traditions claim that some varieties of E (mystical experience) perceive alternate universes or perceive U directly, whatever that may mean. At least in the early days of the "drug culture", drugs like LSD were seen as a means of exploring that alternate reality - not just a way of bending the brain out of shape.

Religions also tend to assume that there is a moral universe that exists beyond the world of mere mortals but applies in some way to the moral choices we make. For example, the fate of our souls depends on the moral choices we make. In such a moral universe, the concept of "free will" is an essential attribute of the soul. If we have no free will, the entire idea of merit and reward beyond death (or even in this world) makes no sense. Religious apologists are well aware of this problem - frequently claiming that in a world without God (or their religion), morality cannot exist.

But if we stick to the evidence available, we are forced to conclude that our minds and therefore all of E are happening between our ears and are therefore embedded in U, like the rest of our bodies. There is no other Universe. Mind, like gravity, however mysterious, is a phenomenon within U.

One of the most impressive bits of evidence for this is the structure of the brain. Brain structure heavily contributes to "character" in the sense that lesions, injuries, tumors, and drugs can dramatically alter moral behavior. What we consider to be "moral" choices - the ones that supposedly chart the progress of the soul - are the work of identifiable brain structures.  If you break down "free will" into components, you wind up with faculties (brain structures, processes and systems) that may or may not work as expected. These faculties may fail individually or in combination as a consequence of specific injury to specific brain systems. For moral decisions to take place:

• You need to be aware of the alternatives for action;
• The alternatives need to be emotionally "tagged" - some "feel" better than others - otherwise you don't care;
• You need to access applicable memory and social "rules";
• You need to feel things like disgust, lust, shame, pride, and empathy;
• You need to be able to hold all this in working memory long enough to work out an action;
• You need to be able to act according to your mental "computation" (many people "know" what is right but behave in alarming, self-destructive ways anyway).

Drastic departures from "normal" capabilities in these areas are labeled with morally-tinged "disorders" such as psychopathy or even mild character judgments such as "laziness" or "impulsiveness". We are just beginning to understand the physical roots of these personality patterns. The field of psychological neurology is gradually stripping away our common sense idea that "bad" people are acting out of free choice - making "bad choices". What's left is a view that "normal" people make "normal" choices using "normal" brain structures. There is no room left for the idea that morality is something that exists outside of E (what we experience) and our bodies (part of U). We may need to toss wickedness onto the same scrap heap as demon possession.

Brain structures are stunningly complex in a way that shouts "design". Of course, we put aside the "Santa's Workshop" view of this "design". There is no "designer". But what then? We must say that our brain structures are a result of strong evolutionary pressure.

Our nervous systems extract an astonishing amount of detail from basic sensory information. To cite just one example, there are 20 different types of ganglia in the visual system. These nerve cells extract the "analog" information coming in from the retina. Each type of ganglion "speaks its own digital language" to the deeper structures of the brain. At the moment, we have a vague idea what five of these ganglion types are "talking about". What the others are "saying" remains mysterious. In no case are we in a position to decipher the language that each type speaks.*

There are hundreds of different cell types in the hippocampus - the brain area critical to memory. The complexity of this design is several orders of magnitude beyond anything that has come out of human design efforts. What is motivating this incredible process? It can be nothing but what we call R. The "real world". Our brains are embedded in R and they are a direct consequence of phenomena in R. Specifically, evolutionary "pressure" from events in R have consequences for even subtle differences in the design of our bodies - especially our brains. This applies to the way our brains make "moral" choices. There is no particular need for us to know what these "pressures" are. For example, we have been breathing for millennia before we discovered oxygen.

Evolutionary "pressure" is "adaptive", or "survival of the fittest". But for humans, survival depends on acting together with other humans. Great sections of the brain are specifically devoted to this job, including obvious things like speech but even more sophisticated "circuitry" that computes socially acceptable behavior - that's what we call "morality".

The main business of religion is to help us "compute" our behavior in socially acceptable ways. Religion is the result of many brains "computing" general solutions to the problems of existence, especially existence together with other humans.

We are left with a view of the world and our role in it that departs significantly from virtually all religions, but, at the same time, tells us why we have religions and why there is no particular reason for them to "make sense":

• There is no "soul" apart from the body. Consciousness - and all the mysteries of the self - are created by the brain. The "self" can be disassembled bit by bit or ultimately destroyed by injury to the brain. The fact that we can't "explain" this does not put the phenomenon in a special category. We have no ultimate explanation for anything at all - including gravity.
• "Free will", if it exists at all, is severely constrained by the details of our individual brain structure and health.  Wild departures from "normal" - such as psychopaths - have brain abnormalities not much different from being blind from birth. We must challenge our common-sense idea that others may be regarded as fundamentally "good" or "bad" in some absolute sense. 
• With no "soul" or independent realm that dictates moral choices outside of our minds, the need for anything like "heaven" or "god" vanishes. As Pascal famously noted: "We have no need for that hypothesis".

But does the need for religion itself vanish? Our brains are designed to depend heavily on the input from other brains. To cite a simple example, our courts could not function without laws. Laws could not exist without language and the deep history behind the moral "computations" performed by cultures over the centuries. The fact that different cultures compute different answers to the moral problems presented does not diminish the fact that individuals are not "designed" to make moral choices entirely on their own.

It does seem possible for these insights to inspire something that looks like "morality". For example, perhaps we should back off from our natural tendency to regard people with different moral standards as "evil". Perhaps we should be more skeptical of ideas like deliberation and willfulness in those who offend against our laws. Perhaps we need to re-think our ideas of "justice" entirely - especially when it comes to our systems of punishment and reward that supposedly motivate people to behave in the "right" way. It seems to me that people who accept compassion as a core religious belief are already close to accepting this attitude for simple "scientific" reasons. It is a simple, verifiable fact that E is a creation of the human mind in response to the "real" pressure from R plus our efforts to survive in partnership with others (also playing itself out on a stage in R).

The vast majority of the human race believes or acts "as if" their own cultural standards of morality are absolute and not "invented" by "mere" humans. We want to think that their worldview is not "merely" mythical but in some sense reflecting a special insight into the nature of reality, usually augmented by some kind of "supernatural" (not part of U) history. I don't think it is too much of a leap for such people to accept that their worldview is a special case of "E". Other worldviews - even conflicting worldviews - need to be understood as fundamentally human and not uniquely valid conclusions of the nature of reality. For the individual, morality boils down to what we should do - here and now, in this world. Practical experience tells us that it's quite possible for folks with utterly different worldviews to agree on a wide range of common action.

On the other hand, it should be possible for us to deny "supernatural" justifications for actions that cast others as "evil" - deserving suppression or even death.

It's not too much to ask.

* More on visual system ganglia and the "big picture" posed by the brain here.

Alien Invasion

In Alien 1979, we were introduced to a creature that invades its host and connects itself so deeply to the host's internal organs that removal of the invader will kill the victim.

When religion is installed in the mind of a baby and left to grow for years, disentanglement seems close to psychological suicide. The human "self" is so entangled with the invader that survival without the resident alien seems impossible. In fact, the invader has become the "self".

The alien egg is planted soon after birth. The victim is raised in a deeply religious household that is itself part of a religious culture. Inside the bubble, the fantasy is daily reality. This is particularly insidious for women, who may find themselves mothers in their early teens, saddled with caring for (and infecting) families of their own long before they develop brains that are capable of "pushing back" against bubble-think. Religion tends to be "hard wired" into generations of women, who form the cultural back bone of religious culture, even if it seems that men play the dominant role in such cultures. Religion is built in to the rituals of daily life from morning to night, day to day, month to month and birth to death.

The idea of God is inherently an insult to reason, but inside the bubble this tension is twisted into a never-ending state of emergency in the real world. The believer puts aside the question of how an all-powerful, just and loving God could create such an awful world. The "solution" to this paradox would seem simple outside the bubble: there is simply no God, at least not in the literal sense. But inside the bubble, the "solution" is in terms of "us and them", personal sinfulness, the threat of ostracism and eternal damnation. The concept of a loving God is turned into an ever-present threat, especially for those who would think for themselves or ask impertinent questions. The occasional beating or witch burning ensures that all this is real, physical and terrifying on a daily basis.

Inside the bubble, the natural human desire to be loved and accepted is made conditional. As soon as the toddler starts to talk, she is taught not to ask questions. She quickly learns how to find the carrots and fear the sticks.

If, by some circumstance, she is ripped out of the bubble and dropped into the world at large, she carries with her so much trauma that it is virtually impossible to even form the right questions or realize that she has taken the bubble with her. She wears a kind of space suit that isolates her from the way people think in the world outside.

• For her, God must exist and, for her, He does. He has a voice inside her head and holds a filter before her eyes that makes Him seem to be present in every moment. Challenging God as an "idea" makes no sense to her - it would be like doubting her own existence.
• In fact, her self image is irrevocably distorted. Her religion has taught her that she is an immortal soul. It is impossible for her to challenge what she means by some of the first words she learned: "I" and "me".
• Her education has taught her that the universe itself is governed by ethical principles. Therefore, all the terrible things in the world "should not", in some sense, be happening. They are unfair, unjust. Doubting God doesn't fix this, and without God (she has been taught) the world would be even more terrible and beyond salvation (whatever that means).
• She has long been taught that everything that happens is part of the drama with God pulling the strings. Her own sinfulness (part of her DNA) is part of the reason things are so horrible. Things don't "just happen". They happen for a reason - part of a cosmic drama with a beginning, an end, good guys and bad guys. She is part of the drama, constantly challenged to ask, What can I do? Why is this happening?
• She has been inoculated at a young age to regard other religions as false, evil and dangerous. Outside the bubble she is suddenly surrounded with people who have other beliefs. It is literally impossible for her to ask why she is suddenly alone among people who share few if any of her core beliefs. She is too terrified and isolated to challenge her world view as an idea. To her, it's just real. While she may be deeply troubled by her beliefs, she is unable to ask, Is my own religion false, evil and dangerous?

Learning to survive in a Godless world is to be forced to learn a new language at a late age. You can learn to speak like a native, but with a heavy accent. In the new language, words like "God" and "justice" and even "should" don't mean the same to you as they do to everyone else. For you, God is not an idea. He is somebody real that you left back home. Somebody who is still out to get you. "Hell" is not a four-letter word. It is a place waiting for you.

A central idea of this blog is that our "inner voice" is essentially a "virtual machine" - a proxy for the culture at large. Our "minds" belong to that culture, speak for that culture in the language of that culture. Therefore, when we debate with the true believer, we debate with her culture - she speaks for it. In some sense, in that conversation, she is the religion you are attempting to "un-install".

The metaphor of a language learned too late in life applies when we encounter people crippled by a life-long exposure to deep religious culture. You need to speak about things that have shared meaning - real things in the practical world. It is unkind and perhaps dangerous to attempt to "rescue" such a person from what you regard as a world of myth and illusion. We are all trapped in such a world. For all of us, the way our world view fits reality can be uncomfortable at some times and utterly wrong at others.  Do we really have an alternative that can replace the appeal of religion on every level?  It's not just about "ideas" but the need to completely re-invent the self and learn to talk all over again from scratch. Religions use the metaphor of "rebirth" as a door in to the faith. It applies equally to the door out.

I was raised in a "Christian" culture (hence the title for the blog) but was always expected to "make up my own mind" - in other words, I was also raised a skeptic. It was easy for me to treat religious ideas as theories to be accepted or set aside based on evidence, consistency or simple usefulness. There was never a time when a single version of Christianity dominated my world. I must accept that I have no idea what it would be like to be raised in a bubble. I can clearly see the damage that does, but, lacking any "cure" for the psychic disease, I can't go around bursting bubbles.