1. Comment #391578 by silent mike on June 27, 2009 at 11:27 am

LoL, i thought the Caveman Logic was the logic of man betrays wife...

To him, such phrases reflect a "caveman logic" that helped our ancestors survive the Pleistocene Age, but which is keeping our species from realizing its true potential.

true potential :/

It's just a woman with a broken heart. If She recovers... the caveman logic will go away. Love makes people look fool.

Other Comments by silent mike

2. Comment #391584 by PaulJ on June 27, 2009 at 11:59 am

A refreshing article. I especially liked the final line about pages from a manuscript.

Other Comments by PaulJ

3. Comment #391590 by black wolf on June 27, 2009 at 12:42 pm

It's ironic that caveman logic leads many people to believe that cavemen never existed.

Other Comments by black wolf

4. Comment #391593 by George Jelliss on June 27, 2009 at 12:58 pm

I'm not convinced that "cavemen" were as stupid as he makes out! It's only when religion, and in particular monotheism, appears that ideas such as "everything happens for a reason" makes sense. And surely things really do happen as a matter of luck or chance; it is a rational explanation.

Other Comments by George Jelliss

5. Comment #391597 by Machinus on June 27, 2009 at 1:07 pm

silent mike:

Having a broken heart is no excuse for adults exhibiting infantile behaviour and making excuses for life's occurences. You might need time to get over it, but believing that the universe cares about you, or even knows about you, is quite stupid. No, it didn't happen for a "reason." The marriage failed for obvious reasons, and it does not offer your life any other meaning.

And yes, our species has much more potential than we use. We spend our energy fighting each other or wasting resources on things that don't actually make us happy. Take war for example - you don't see how much we have to gain?

Other Comments by Machinus

6. Comment #391602 by Gwiss on June 27, 2009 at 1:21 pm

This "Caveman Logic" article reminds me of Michael Shermer's Paternicity and Agenticity articles from Scientific American.

A good read.

Other Comments by Gwiss

7. Comment #391627 by j.mills on June 27, 2009 at 2:24 pm

Is good article.

George Jelliss said:

And surely things really do happen as a matter of luck or chance; it is a rational explanation.

Luck implies something a little bit more individual and fateful than chance. For example, in role-playing games, players' characters have quantified attributes such as Strength and Intelligence. Often, one of the attributes is Luck; but never Chance. That reflects the easy temptation to regard someone as 'lucky' - as if it were a magical quality attached to them. Perhaps we should follow the French and wish people bon chance rather than good luck...

Other Comments by j.mills

8. Comment #391641 by standfair on June 27, 2009 at 2:57 pm

The trouble with the 'caveman's logic' statement is that it has not considered the scientific fact that a woman in grief merely wants a shoulder to lean on or a pair of sympathetic ears (when she pours her trouble to you); NOT advice on what is the solution to her problems.

Other Comments by standfair

9. Comment #391644 by j.mills on June 27, 2009 at 3:04 pm

Doesn't sound like he offered "advice", standfair: only that he answered her question honestly.

Other Comments by j.mills

10. Comment #391659 by milovictor on June 27, 2009 at 3:22 pm

This proves that religion is just a survival mechanism.

Other Comments by milovictor

11. Comment #391671 by Shuggy on June 27, 2009 at 4:35 pm

Not only would cavepeople who were hypercautious be more likely to survive, but those with particular sensitivity to the sounds and sights of danger would be more likely to survive when they acted on them, so that we all probably have some sensitivity to signals that are subliminal/pre-conscious, and our hunches and intuitions that "something is wrong with this place/person" may have some basis in fact.
... I wonder how this could be tested?

And while it may not be logical, the woman who guessed that everything happens for a reason would exercise her mind usefully trying to find that reason, and could productively conclude that the reason was that it was time to move on from that man and get a better grip on her life, or something of the sort.

People who use irrational means to give their lives some shape may fare better than those who are completely rational but drift.

Or as Piet Hein grooked:

A Psychological Tip
Whenever you’re called on to make up your mind,
and you’re hampered by not having any,
the best way to solve the dilemma, you’ll find,
is simply by spinning a penny.
No — not so that chance shall decide the affair
while you’re passively standing there moping;
but the moment the penny is up in the air,
you suddenly know what you’re hoping.

Other Comments by Shuggy

12. Comment #391678 by silent mike on June 27, 2009 at 5:24 pm

5. Comment #391597 by Machinus
And yes, our species has much more potential than we use."


You could be wrong you know. It's like that myth that we use only 10% of our brains.
Sure, we fight. maybe what makes us fight is linked to what makes us explore. Natural selection does this things. It mixes everything. people even fight with words.

Other Comments by silent mike

13. Comment #391686 by glenister_m on June 27, 2009 at 5:54 pm

Personally I don't have a problem with saying "Good luck." I look at it as, in the case of flipping a coin you have a 50% chance of either outcome, may probability fall in your favour this time.

Other Comments by glenister_m

14. Comment #391707 by mbannonb on June 27, 2009 at 7:28 pm

The problem with the communication with the woman is that the woman did not want the "blame" of what has happened in her life.

The doctor related to it as being "responsible" for her life and she heard that as "blame".

Thus, she dismissed his explanation.

People do that automatically, she just lacked the intellectual sophistication to come up with a way of making a more socially accepted way of of avoiding blame/responsibility.

Other Comments by mbannonb

15. Comment #391713 by firstelder_d on June 27, 2009 at 8:44 pm

4. Comment #391593 by George Jelliss
Maybe a more accurate word would be ignorant. It wasn't that they lacked intelligence, its that they had so little knowledge, and ways of obtaining it they would probably seem like complete morons to most people today.

On another note I took Prof. Davis's class Evolutionary Psychology. It was awesome, he's really good at explaining this stuff, and the first time I heard the name Richard Dawkins too, now I want to read his book.

Other Comments by firstelder_d

16. Comment #391721 by ev-love on June 27, 2009 at 11:57 pm

I think we need to acknowledge that the caveman logic of religion is still culturally pretty deeply embedded in all of us.

Many years ago now, I lost a child. The dark place I went to is beyond description. In the midst of the torment I found myself resorting to childhood rituals and lighting a candle in a church. It wasn't because I believed in a Baby Jesus or a praying Virgin - even now I can't explain how I found myself there, save that it was beautiful and peaceful - but I do know the ritual soothed me and helped me get through a few more hours.

If it helped me, how much more would it help a believer?

I'm not trying to make a case for religion, but I'd be interested to hear if anyone can report similar experiences...

ev-love

Other Comments by ev-love

17. Comment #391724 by Vaal on June 28, 2009 at 1:22 am

Moreover, when cavemen were faced with catastrophes like earthquakes or hurricanes, they had no means by which to understand them, so they attributed them to the gods expressing displeasure. These days, however, we have enough information that we do not have to default to primitive, magic explanations, Prof. Davis said.

Unfortunately, after the Tsunami, many religious leaders, mostly Islamic, blamed sin and western decadence for the tragedy. Even David Robertson, who in fairness is not an unintelligent man, subscribes to such infantile reasoning.

"I would be more optimistic about our species' chances for survival if pseudoscience, organized religion, and a host of other delusions were voluntarily taken off the table," says Prof. Davis

Hear hear! Can never be said loudly enough.

Other Comments by Vaal

18. Comment #391729 by John Desclin on June 28, 2009 at 2:21 am

7. j.mills #391627 "perhaps we should follow the French and wish people bon chance rather than good luck"

Sorry, j.mills, this wouldn't be of any help, because it is mere words' play. In French, we say "j'ai eu de la chance" or "je n'ai pas eu de chance", which translates exactly as "I was lucky " and "I was unlucky", respectively, which means that "je vous souhaite bonne chance" is exactly the same as the english "I wish you good luck".
Chance in english translates in French as " le hasard ". Unfortunately, the French don't say "bon hasard" (good randomness), which would more or less tally with your proposed "bon chance". ;^)
Sorry if I sounded somewhat pedantic.

Other Comments by John Desclin

19. Comment #391740 by 7Fred7 on June 28, 2009 at 4:22 am

Comment #391686 by glenister_m on June 27, 2009 at 5:54 pm

Personally I don't have a problem with saying "Good luck." I look at it as, in the case of flipping a coin you have a 50% chance of either outcome, may probability fall in your favour this time.

Yes, of course. You'd hardly think it necessary to explain that to anyone with some sense. Still, Prof. Davis can be excused, being a psychologist. I wish him luck...I mean I hope events unfold in his favour. Now, where did I leave my flint axe...?

Other Comments by 7Fred7

20. Comment #391743 by irate_atheist on June 28, 2009 at 4:47 am

17. Comment #391724 by Vaal -

Even David Robertson, who in fairness is not an unintelligent man, subscribes to such infantile reasoning.

I call on the right honourable gentleman to retract that statement. We have no evidence that he is not unintelligent but we have a great deal to the contrary. Cunning, yes, but so is I am told is the fox.

Other Comments by irate_atheist

21. Comment #391749 by George Jelliss on June 28, 2009 at 4:59 am

firstelder_d wrote: "Maybe a more accurate word would be ignorant. It wasn't that they lacked intelligence, its that they had so little knowledge, and ways of obtaining it they would probably seem like complete morons to most people today."

I'd just like to put in a word again for the poor old much-maligned cavemen! Psychologists like Prof Davis should be more respectful to our ancestors. My suspicion is that they were a good deal more intelligent, and less in the thrall of superstition, than he supposes.

Other Comments by George Jelliss

22. Comment #391794 by Jack Rawlinson on June 28, 2009 at 9:08 am

For me, there are certain things a person may do or say which are big, big red flags that they're simply not very bright. One example would be that they have a religious belief. Another would be that they say "Well, everything happens for a reason".

Other Comments by Jack Rawlinson

23. Comment #391817 by firstelder_d on June 28, 2009 at 10:26 am

Another would be that they say "Well, everything happens for a reason".

Definitely I'm getting so tired of hearing that one

Other Comments by firstelder_d

24. Comment #391887 by j.mills on June 28, 2009 at 2:40 pm

Since John Desclin has heartlessly deconstructed my bon chance suggestion, maybe we could counter-attack the rest of the world by casually dropping into every conversation: "Well, not everything happens for a reason."

Other Comments by j.mills

25. Comment #391931 by Border Collie on June 28, 2009 at 5:10 pm

Moreover, when cavemen were faced with catastrophes like earthquakes or hurricanes, they had no means by which to understand them, so they attributed them to the gods expressing displeasure. These days, however, we have enough information that we do not have to default to primitive, magic explanations, Prof. Davis said.

Except, of course, for tolerance of homosexuality in New Orleans causing Hurricane Katrina to destroy it.

Other Comments by Border Collie

26. Comment #391944 by j.mills on June 28, 2009 at 6:44 pm

That's funny, homosexuality apparently caused the floods in parts of England a couple of years ago too! (According to Bishop of Carlisle.) Must be sex-magick. Presumably homosexuality is absolutely rampant in Bangladesh...

Other Comments by j.mills

27. Comment #391950 by Goldy on June 28, 2009 at 6:55 pm

J. Mills
Seems the Almighty has been taken in by Sacha Cohen's spoof Bruno...
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,528945,00.html

Other Comments by Goldy

28. Comment #391968 by fontor on June 28, 2009 at 10:08 pm

Sam from 'Exploding Dog' has done a comic entitled

everything happens for a reason

In this case, unfortunately, the reason is 'I decided to do that'.

Other Comments by fontor

29. Comment #391993 by Vaal on June 29, 2009 at 2:34 am

20. Comment #391743 by irate_atheist

I call on the right honourable gentleman to retract that statement. We have no evidence that he is not unintelligent but we have a great deal to the contrary. Cunning, yes, but so is I am told is the fox.

Much as I would like to agree with you Irate, DR is definitely one of the more articulate theists on this site, and I think many of us would be hard put to deny that he is not intelligent. However, his arguments are at best vacuous, and at worst, nothing more than sniping personal attacks, ad-homs, wishful thinking, and gross scientific illiteracy.

I am convinced that DR knows his arguments are based on willful ignorance, and that he doesn't believe them himself. That is why he likes to reassure himself with his forays on this site, even though he is torn apart every time. Of course, it looks good to his malleable sheep, helps sales of his books and gives him a public platform to proselytize, so he is not daft.

Now, when we have the usual theists on here, they are not the brightest sticks on the planet, so it is always a source of bewilderment to me how any educated intelligent person can really honestly believe in the supernatural. To me, the whole concept of God(s ) are preposterous, and I haven’t heard a single argument from a theist on this site, or anywhere, that isn’t sheer nonsense. The louder they bay, the more irrelevant and ridiculous they portray themselves and their antediluvian beliefs, for everyone to see.

Other Comments by Vaal

30. Comment #392131 by mikey nails! on June 29, 2009 at 9:19 am

Part of what gets my goat about “Everything happens for a reason,” is that the people who say it, do so as if they’re putting a perspective on things -- as if they’re the voice of, well, reason. You know, it’s that sanctimonious tone they use. It is always fun to give materialist reasons:
“Yeah, they didn’t think I was qualified for that job.”
“Yeah, the other people were in a position to buy that house before we were.”

Other Comments by mikey nails!

31. Comment #392132 by irate_atheist on June 29, 2009 at 9:24 am

29. Comment #391993 by Vaal -

I am convinced that DR knows his arguments are based on willful ignorance, and that he doesn't believe them himself. That is why he likes to reassure himself with his forays on this site, even though he is torn apart every time.

It is possible. But if it looks like a whackaloon and talks like a whackaloon, it's probably DAR.

Either way, he's a first class piece of shite.

Other Comments by irate_atheist

32. Comment #392139 by God fearing Atheist on June 29, 2009 at 9:58 am

From the article:

Indeed, in the first few minutes of our conversation, Prof. Davis refers to himself as "lucky" to have found a publisher for Caveman Logic as quickly as he did, and happily acknowledges the slip.

I don't regard that as a slip. If I am gambling on a fair flip of a coin such that I win 3 quid if I call correctly, and it costs me a quid to bet, I would consider it a correct description to say I was "lucky" to win and "unlucky" to lose. I consider them linguistic terms used to state the personal value of the outcome of a probabilistic event. (If the winnings were less than 2 quid, I would be an idiot to take the bet, and a lucky idiot to win)

Similarly, Davis can be said to have been "lucky" to get his book published quickly if he beat the average time a book of the same quality takes to be published, over the same number of publishing house approaches.

Other Comments by God fearing Atheist

33. Comment #392256 by Hank Davis on June 29, 2009 at 5:18 pm

Hi, it’s Hank Davis here, author of Caveman Logic. I wanted to comment on a few of the points you raised about the interview that was published in the National Post. First, I hope many of you will visit the book’s website (www.cavemanlogic.com) which should be up and running by July 6th. I hope the site and – better yet – the book will expand on some of the issues you’ve raised in your interesting postings here.
The discussion about the abandoned wife saying “Everything happens for a reason” occupies a small section of my book dealing with teleology – the belief that things are caused by their ultimate effects. This woman "lost her husband yesterday so she could meet the man of her dreams tomorrow.” I don’t buy it for a second, but J. Mills’ reaction is correct: I never offered her “advice.” Nor did I engage her in debate. I may not have shared her world view, but I did appreciate her giving me something to write about.
The concept of “luck” seemed to trigger a lot of comment here as well. In my view, luck is a perfectly useful description of an event (“he was lucky to have avoided the falling piano”) but it shouldn’t be mistaken for a force in the universe that causes things to happen. Once you let in “luck,” you’re unleashing all kinds of supernatural causality. Which takes us to “Tsunami Theology.” I’ve heard it said that if god was punishing New Orleans for its sinful ways, then he has very poor aim. Much of the French Quarter – ground zero for booze, sex and music – was left standing.
I had to smile at Black Wolf’s comment that Caveman Logic leads many people to believe that there were no cavemen. With your permission, I may use that line in some of the interviews I’ll be giving in the next few months. Again, please visit the book’s website later this week and, if you haven’t already done so, have a look at the Prometheus Books catalogue. As many of you know, that’s quite a collection of worthwhile titles. Thanks again for your interest in my book.
Hank Davis

Other Comments by Hank Davis

34. Comment #392291 by Shuggy on June 29, 2009 at 7:16 pm

The point about wishing someone "Good luck!" is not the luck, but the wish. You're letting them know you hope things will turn out they way they want, when they might not. Contrast that with the tiny difference of tone when you're neutral about the outcome but think their hopes are foolish: "Good luck! [You'll need it.]"

I guess "caveman logic" is a fair enough description, but it buys into the implication that cavepeople were not just ignorant but foolish and stupid. They weren't at all like Barney Rubble, even if they did grunt a lot. They had our brains, which must have been whirling away processing everything they could, in terms of what every sight, sound and smell might mean in terms of potential harm vs potential benefit.

Nor are people who believe "Everything happens for a reason" necessarily stupid. I had a dear friend with that kind of mindset, a yoga teacher who was innocent of science - I took her out to see Halley's comet and found the stars might as well have moved in crystalline spheres for her - but with a beautifully intuitive way of approaching other people.

Other Comments by Shuggy

35. Comment #392296 by alovrin on June 29, 2009 at 7:31 pm

33. Comment #392256 by Hank Davis

Thanks for that I for one will be taking a look.

Shuggy

I guess "caveman logic" is a fair enough description, but it buys into the implication that cavepeople were not just ignorant but foolish and stupid.

I thought he was saying it was the other way round. That it's Modern man that is stupid.
What made sense then, doesnt look so flash now.

For a while there all I needed to do was look at an image of good ole Dubya and I was sure that that was a truism.

Other Comments by alovrin

36. Comment #392460 by Hank Davis on June 30, 2009 at 11:33 am

Shuggy observed:

"For a while there all I needed to do was look at an image of good ole Dubya and I was sure that that was a truism."

I believe that George W Bush will remain a useful and iconic figure for many years to come. There is no reason to believe that he is working with different cognitive architecture than any of us or our Pleistocene ancestors. But today we have access to far more information than our ancestors did. Bush's belligerent know-nothing attitude and his willingness to wage war based on "what his gut told him" made him a poster boy for Caveman Logic. I had to restrain myself on many occasions from making the book about him.
We all have those Caveman impulses, including each of us on this forum. The trick is to recognize them for what they are and not submit reflexively to them - no matter how much social support there may be. For many of our species, that's a hell of a task.
Hank
______

Other Comments by Hank Davis

37. Comment #392499 by alovrin on June 30, 2009 at 1:59 pm

The trick is to recognize them for what they are and not submit reflexively to them

Must not submit, must not submit.

Other Comments by alovrin

38. Comment #392874 by Shuggy on July 2, 2009 at 2:56 am

36. Comment #392460 by Hank Davis on June 30, 2009 at 11:33 am

Shuggy observed:

"For a while there all I needed to do was look at an image of good ole Dubya...

I wish I'd said that, but for the record, it was alovrin.

Other Comments by Shuggy

39. Comment #392878 by CaptainMandate on July 2, 2009 at 3:34 am

Great article, will definitely have to get hold of a copy

this made me laugh though:

He hopes the ideas in his book, its spirit of skepticism and call for higher standards of critical thought, will spread in the same manner that religion so easily does.

yeah, fingers crossed eh

Other Comments by CaptainMandate

40. Comment #392880 by CaptainMandate on July 2, 2009 at 3:58 am

ev-love

even now I can't explain how I found myself there, save that it was beautiful and peaceful - but I do know the ritual soothed me and helped me get through a few more hours.

actually I don't think this is caveman logic so much. when we're unhappy we resort to childish behaviour and it makes us feel better.

even "having a good cry" can be included in this. as children we cry for attention but as adults the benefit seems to be more connected with release of dopamene.

We learn things as children partly because it gives us pleasure, particularly when young and by repeating the actins of childish learning we can relive that pleasure.

As atheists we can still understand the ritualistic pleasures of religion without having to ascribe any higher meaning, they just help us get through the bad times as you were aware at the time. maybe as a child you were told the act of lighting a candle in church has some effect on the soul of the departed or gets god's attention but also as a child these concepts would probably not have meant much to you so much as the experience of being in a cool, ornate and peaceful building watching small flames dance.

I'm very sorry about your loss and while none of my problems in life has been as serious I do empathise with the need to relive the comfort of rituals. I think even retraining our cave-man like minds would not render this unneccesary

Other Comments by CaptainMandate

41. Comment #393204 by Hank Davis on July 3, 2009 at 3:56 pm

I am pleased to report that the Caveman Logic website is officially up and running.

www.cavemanlogic.com

I guess this means I have been dragged, kicking and screaming, into the 21st century. Please have a look at it when you have a moment.

Other Comments by Hank Davis

42. Comment #393210 by Frankus1122 on July 3, 2009 at 4:27 pm

Reading this article made me feel good.

I just finished reading the Sam Harris / Philip Ball debate.
I find the unwavering and unembarrassed commitment to reason and rational thought, with its consequences for religion, seen in the aforementioned debate (at least on the part of Harris), echoed in the work of Hank Davis.

I understand the desire for pattern; and for making one where none really exists. It's fun and can have benefits. We can twist patterns and make art. But because we can recognize that we see pattern where none exists (we have the ability to determine reality from fantasy), we should strive to realize this about ourselves, and take appropriate action.

Asking people to retrain their brains to question their most fundamental beliefs is a tall order.

This does not mean we abandon art, literature, wonder, speculation, fantasy; only that we recognize them as such, and in so doing we do not allow them to determine our behaviour with regard to the reality of the way things are.

The last 3 paragraphs tell a nice little story. There is significance in this for me. I believe the story to be true. The journalist felt there was some significance to the pages of the manuscript facing the outside world. Hank Davis replied that they were placed there with no intention other than to help prevent birds from flying into the windows. This makes sense as his solarium is surrounded by trees. I believe this.
It nicely wraps up the article by giving a clear example of what the article was all about. We see pattern and significance where none was intended.

Does it too nicely wrap up the article? Do patterns like this regularly occur in the natural world as I know it? Could it be the case that the journalist invented the scene to neatly tie his article together? I am applying some critical thought to this - or at least I am being slightly skeptical. But I said I believed it to be true. Does it matter if it is or not? Are there consequences if it turns out to be false?
For me, not really.

Believing in the truth of religious or psuedo-scientific claims is a different matter because of the consequences of such beliefs.

I just took a look at the Caveman Logic website. The book will be a part of my school library in the fall.

Thank you Hank.

Other Comments by Frankus1122

43. Comment #393212 by j.mills on July 3, 2009 at 4:51 pm

Glad to have you here, Hank. Book sounds fun.

Say, you might wanna include a link on your website to the book on the UK version of amazon too:

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Caveman-Logic-Stone-Thinking-Modern/dp/1591027217

Other Comments by j.mills

44. Comment #393213 by Steve Zara on July 3, 2009 at 4:56 pm

I wonder how much of this overlaps with 'Kludge' by Gary Marcus?

Other Comments by Steve Zara

45. Comment #393221 by Frankus1122 on July 3, 2009 at 6:06 pm

44. Comment #393213 by Steve Zara

I wonder how much of this overlaps with 'Kludge' by Gary Marcus?

I saw a connection between the topic of this book (that our brains create mysterious, 'spiritual' forces to explain phenomena) and the debate you were/are having with Dr. Hameer over the mysterious spiritual entity that is consciousness.

Like Jesus in the grilled cheese sandwich, we think there is something there, more than what is there.

Other Comments by Frankus1122

46. Comment #393222 by Frankus1122 on July 3, 2009 at 6:20 pm

Another connection that popped into my head that is related to what I regard as the central idea of this book (based on the article and recommendations): karma.

A student asked me if I believed in Karma. I told her I did not and explained why. She was not convinced. She believed that good and bad things happened to you because of good and bad things you did.

I asked her to explain how that worked. How does the Universe 'know' what I do and keep tabs on what I do? How does it meet out reward and punishment? By what standard does the Universe deem my actions to be good or bad in the first place?

She was unable to answer but stuck to her belief. I want to get this book because of what I think it might say. I am guessing that it will provide more examples of irrational thought and perhaps allow readers to see this at work in themselves and then do something about it.

Other Comments by Frankus1122

47. Comment #393241 by Eric Blair on July 3, 2009 at 10:46 pm

Sorry, I’m not really buying this. If this article was intended to entice me to read Davis’s book, it fell a bit short.

Yes, it would be better if people took responsibility for their actions and didn’t shrug off the consequences as “God’s will.” But does this happen very often? Do many of us do this, as Davis says? I’m not convinced we do but maybe he has evidence I don’t.

The phrase “Things happen for reason” annoys me, too, but I have to say I hear it more often in the context of apparently arbitrary events like car accidents, or expected events not happening – like a sure-thing job falling through or a freak storm cancelling a party. Seeing some higher design helps some folks temporarily deal with disappointment – it may not be a rational way to view the world but I’m not sure what the harm is.

As for the questionable example of the woman friend – still a friend, is she? - whose husband left her and who clearly picked the wrong shoulder to cry on (and the wrong phrase to use), Davis puts a lot of rhetorical weight on her verbal response. OK, so she says there must be some divine purpose in all the bad things that have befallen her – so what? Did she turn around and marry the next cad who came along, thinking God has chosen him for her? Did she give all her money to a church in thankfulness for the lesson God had taught her?

On the other hand, what would “taking responsibility for her actions” mean? Blaming herself for her husband’s unfaithfulness? Or for finding it hard to raise kids alone? There’s no guarantee her “rational” approach to thinking about her situation would lead to the “correct” lessons. Maybe her "caveman" approach works in her life.

But, more to the point, I think Davis has some major research to do if he wants to make the case that mouthing irrational platitudes clearly shows people are being handcuffed by “caveman” thinking. Without such research, he’s merely mouthing a new chant he’s borrowed from a host of others: “Religion bad, reason good!”

EB

Other Comments by Eric Blair

48. Comment #393247 by Shuggy on July 4, 2009 at 12:27 am

46. Comment #393222 by Frankus1122 on July 3, 2009

A student asked me if I believed in Karma. I told her I did not and explained why. She was not convinced. She believed that good and bad things happened to you because of good and bad things you did.

I asked her to explain how that worked. How does the Universe 'know' what I do and keep tabs on what I do? How does it meet out reward and punishment? By what standard does the Universe deem my actions to be good or bad in the first place?

That's a naïve, mystical view of karma. Karma means doing, and your karma is what you do. In ordinary terms, what goes around, comes around; nobody likes a nasty person; if you behave like an arsehole, you'll have a shitty life. (Hmm, that works better than I meant.) And vice versa, people like and behave well to those who behave well toward them. (Back when we used cash a lot more, I found that if I took the trouble to give exact change, shop people treated me better than the people who get off on complaining about "bad service".)

Of course, when you factor in bad things happening to good people and vice versa, and good people getting the short end of the stick, it all works out pretty much like an ordinary materialistic view of the world, but it helps to give one a positive outlook without actually doing any harm....

Other Comments by Shuggy

49. Comment #393266 by j.mills on July 4, 2009 at 6:53 am

IIRC, 'karma' isn't actually a positive view of the world in its original buddhist formulation. For them, there is no such thing as 'good karma' - there are debits but no credits, and debits trap you in the cycle of reincarnation. The usage Frankus1122 described is more like 'natural justice' or 'fate' - which is regression to the mean at best, wishful thinking and delusion at worst. If there's a 'danger' in such an outlook, it may be that it discourages taking action to improve your life. But I agree that we're maybe chewing more than we've bitten off. :)

Other Comments by j.mills

50. Comment #393294 by Frankus1122 on July 4, 2009 at 11:52 am

48. Comment #393247 by Shuggy

if you behave like an arsehole, you'll have a shitty life.

Maybe. Maybe not.
I have no statistics but I would wager that there are a great many happy arseholes in the world.

Sometimes there are direct consequences of 'good' and 'bad' behaviour. If I leave a nice tip at a restaurant I may get better service the next time I visit. There is a reason for this. There is a direct causal relationship between my actions and future actions of the wait staff. They may remember me as a good tipper and consequently go out of their way to provide me with good service when next they see me.

I don't see this as karma.
I think what people generally refer to as karma has more to do with sending 'good vibes' out into the world and as a result goodness will come back. If I am pleasant and friendly and tip well at one restaurant, and as a result get good service, this does not mean I will receive good service at all restaurants.

Maybe I have been hanging out with too many old hippies.

As you said:

...when you factor in bad things happening to good people and vice versa, and good people getting the short end of the stick, it all works out pretty much like an ordinary materialistic view of the world

If you are saying that stuff just happens sometimes and there is no relation to how you behave, then I agree. All I am saying is that there is no magical connection between the general good or bad that one does and the general good or bad one experiences. It is the Caveman Logic to ascribe good or bad fortune some sort of agency.

Other Comments by Frankus1122