Jonathan Haidt: "How Human Beings Got Morality, Religion, Civilization, and Humanity"
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 22 янв 2014
- May 29, 2013 in Eugene, OR
Jonathan Haidt, Thomas Cooley Professor of Ethical Leadership, New York University; author of The Righteous Mind: Why Good People are Divided by Politics and Religion (2012). This was the 2012-13 Kritikos Lecture.
7:15 -- the start of the lecture.
She keeps speaking? ffs
Thank you!
Not all heroes wear capes.
Thank you
Starts at : 7:11
Thank you very much, you saved 7min of my life
Good talk!
He's spot-on about the connection between drops in violent crimes and use of leaded gas.
I was hoping/waiting for a reference to the evolution of articulate speech (FOXP2 gene) in his discussion of human intentionality. Hard to imagine development of human cooperation or transfer of knowledge between generations without articulate speech.
Birds gotta flock (learn to fly together). Fish gotta school (learn to swim together). People gotta civilize (learn to dwell together).
Thomas D, “I gotta love my man till I die. Can’t help lovin that man of mine..... “.
Tell that to the people of seattle and you'll be called a white sepremist.
Human gotta walk, obviously.
One thing I find interesting about fossil fuels, is that the first steamships did not perform better than sailing ships under ideal conditions. Basically, if there was wind, then sailing was fine, but steam became far more reliable.
Shocked anyone from Oregon invited him.
You’re brainwashed by right wing media
I like to listen to various scientists and lecturers while I work but some of these videos are so quiet that you can't hear anything in a factory environment.
@Robert Leruyet Nah. I'd have a new job the next day.
A fucking brilliant and well read man! Thanks for up loading this!
why is there a relationship between the number of sacrifices and the longevity? how large where the groups? I think there is most probably a third factor involved - age? upbringing of the people involved in the communities?
33:29 How do explain wolf packs hunting or Lions hunting a pray esp some will chase and others wait for the cue and when the prey starts running cut them off and puposely push to the direction they cannot escape and over powered?
Yes dogs and even cats can read intentions. But hes talking about our ansestors.
I've never seen Haidt be even the slightest bit defensive until that first person's questions. Even then, he was still tactful and respectful. Solid guy as far as I can tell, huge fan of all of his work.
He is so calm. I Like the presentation
The 34:48 reference is to a book called Neuromancer by William Gibson (the book was not called Matrix).
Fiction NEVER gets its due!
7:16 Jonathan Haidt begins
I wonder if Haidt has taken into account what Joseph Tainter has said as far as the happily ever after goes. The point being that all forms of progress are problem solving. Societies grow by solving problems but each solution comes with extra complexity with costs and problems of its own. Can one maintain an indefinite pace while increasing complexity and costs? That's the question isn't it.
An indefinite pace. The universe continues growing at an ever increase pace.
Mental disorders and rise in sucide is the new problem
@@dimplemainicreated by you
Haidt is right about a lot of things but I don't trust his optimistic outlook. Maybe natural selection has shaped me to look for threats but I see a lot of them.
Peter McLoughlin defensive pessimism, effective but takes a toll on you.
I find its best to embrace both extremes then integeate them to find a nice middle ground. And that applies to many things.
You are blinded by liberal hystria
It has been 8 years, I think it’s safe to say John was overly optimistic.
Starts at 9 minutes into recording.
Thank you
Start at 7:32 or 7:43 to not miss the introductory question.
@@JohnChampagne thanks.
Instead of evolving to be religious, perhaps human beings have evolved to conform to authority figures, of which God is the ultimate authority. Evidence of this is found in how human children learn and develop. We accept information given to us by authority figures. Religion therefore preys upon those predispositions.
preys or prays I think is the question
I wouldn't say conform. Because humans nor any other primate that I'm aware is static on his relation to whatever social hierarchy they find themselves. They tend to fight to acquire a safe position.
Regarding toddlers and their relation to other people, specially their parents, see that they are of a very exploratory nature. It is the phase for them to learn how to socialize, regulate their impulses, and see what is acceptable and what is not. Naturally, the get so out of hand.
Here comes an idea which goes in your favor, authority figures (they have to earn that status in the eye of the kids) may serve as a type of judge for them to play property with others. Not to kick, not to bite. Something interesting is that kids who engage in rough and tumble play with father, are generally better coordinated, they regulate better their impulses, and generally are better liked by their peers, when compared to those who do not.
Remember, how when you tell something to a kid, and the say "Why?"
Yeah, what you already state as obvious is a wonder from the eyes of kids. Then I would say they just don't accept new information from others. But I guess you can make a case they are too trustful.
Totally lost me when he said that China and India had no wealth and everyone was living at subsistence level because they rejected capitalism. There is A LOT wrong with that characterization of events.
"Is" or "was"? Interesting topics.
Comparatively it's accurate,particularly if you ignore around 4 people in each of those countries
WOW
By the grace of God.
With vast wealth comes vast destruction of the environment. Capitalism encourages waste and environmental destruction. It needs to be tempered with some sort of concern for general good.
We will innovate pur way out of this. Look up brillant light power.
You can simply present better facts to people. Anyone who is genuinely convinced of the environmental threats associated with modern capitalist practices will cease to support the companies doing that damage. The truth is, most people are not compelled by what they are shown regarding global warming.
Wow never heard anyone spit out unfounded postulates with that rate of speed.
He seems to ignore what happens in the long run, AFTER capitalism has been introduced. As we've seen the past decade since this talk and his predictions -- just because average daily income goes up dramatically does't mean much if capitalists use natural and other disasters to jack up the material costs of living even more than that.
Be-coming, in Principle, here-now-forever Conception in superposition point-positioning singularity is the re-evolution circularity quantization identification perspective understood Psychologically in Consciousness as The Mirror Test, the real-time realization of self identity.
The default human perception of time sync-duration timing in the i-reflection containment connection coordination is to be Mindful, and therefore include a social network of group-think social identity, and that requires some order out of chaos development. The big picture in the mirror world is basically a policy based point-positioning within Gaian Planetary Perspective. We all win, or we will all lose when total annihilation is an instantaneous option.
Cool looking paragraphs, but the words inside don't seem to mean anything!
I have never unterstood the name Gaia. Is the whole world turning gay ?
He has an answer for everything, doesn’t he?
I really think Haidt's ideas about morality make a lot of sense and explain a lot about people's political beliefs. Some thing didn't quite gel for me, but it's early days yet, and he launched a very important conversation! I wish he'd stuck to figuring out where morality comes from instead of pretending that progressive college kids are crazy for not wanting white supremacists to speak at their campus despite the fact that conservatives ban speakers from campuses just as often
Do conservatives ban speakers? Outside of religious schools do you have any examples?
When has someone ever been banned from campus by a conservative? I think part of the issue is that ws is a Boogie man, used to dehumanise a range of right wing perspectives.
@@TheNanotech97conservatives ban books .
All The Time .
Conservatives get professors fired ( is that “ banned “?).
Intolerance is plentiful on both sides of the political spectrum .
@GardenerGeorge those book bans are almost always just removing them from an elementary school library ( I have heard of middle school and high school but less often) which honestly seems like it makes it question of age appropriateness which isn't something applicable at colleges. professors are incredibly difficult to fire often, I was under the impression that mostly conservative professors were being fired for their beliefs. Though maybe you meant schoolteachers
@@TheNanotech97 thanks for the response - I did not expect it seeing the conversation I was adding to was two years ago.
Briefly - books … actually the first thing I thought of was Public Libraries in my state (WA) … in Conservative counties there have been book banning crusades that were effective in their goals .
I forget the targets but generally the themes are Evolution vs God and
Any sexual divergence from a strict
definition of what is “normal “ in
Certain people ‘s eyes .
As for Conservative attacks on Universities …
The firing of Professors and Administration for the recent blurring of lines regarding voicing opinions on US foreign policy -
I.e - If you criticize Israel you are
Anti Semitic and donor pressure or
Alan Dershowitz type lawsuit pressure
Results in termination .
Many examples - Google .
In a more general sense I have listened to many conservative think tank voices
Whose rhetoric in backlash to what they see as an out of control radical Left sounds just as intolerant and intent on erasure as the voices they are condemning .
I cannot cite examples off the top of my head - the Anti Semitic slur is the current weapon of choice that gains traction , but I expect there will be other precedents soon .
Human Gotta Evolve
Real human evolution stopped with the rise of the agricultural revolution. The 'advances' Haidt promulgates as progress are artefacts of a stunted imagination (itself indicative of the lack of evolution in the last 15-20,000 years) caused by the adoption of an (admittedly) cultural conception of wealth.
Easier is not always better. Living forever loses its allure for the sane, especially if youth is not also forever.
The idea that 'shrinking population' is a problem is at best myopic;
it might be a problem for old people, but its been obvious from time immemorial what degree of respect the young have for those who fail to see they've outlived their usefulness, and haven't the gumption to realize it.
Certainly a more serious 'problem' will be the effects of all this new-found 'wealth' on a population that have no idea of what its true costs are, or perhaps worse, any idea or feeling of how or why they are recipients of it. Ever wondered about the costs of the obesity epidemic? or of the failing work ethic epidemic? or, what Haidt is currently working on, the costs and effects of the latest product of his world-changing technology, (anti)social media on the young of this new undeserving 'wealthy'?
Leaving aside the nauseating statistical racism inherent in many of his points, at least Haidt could have closed with the appropriate Y. Berra quote, “It's tough to make predictions, especially about the future." , but alas he seems to caught up in his own, as he calls them, hallucinations.
❤️❤️❤️❤️
Don't fire until you see the whites of their eyes . . . may I have your ( will you share with me your) attention please?
He didn't factor in the rise of Islam in his predictions
Well it's the resurgence of Fascist Islam really isn't it? Petroleum wealth suddenly 'given' to bandit nomads by an industrial west will tend to do that. It is a relatively short run thing though. Like Socialism it is appealing to societies in crisis but requires stagnation inducing oppression to sustain itself. Liberalism will always be more innovative and accomodating. Saudi Arabia is generating most of the problems, as the third generation of leaders age and fossil fuels become less relevant it too will fall back.
Its important that you call them radical Islamists. Missnaming the problem leads to problems.
@@DavidL-wd5pu all Islamists are radicals.
41:00 "Half of them were religious, half of them were secular (usually socialist)".
I wonder how the secular but non-socialist communes fared.
Injecting new money supply into an economy (we have a global economy now) causes a boom. The boom is analogous to an amphetamine rush in a biological organism. A crash will follow, as basic physical resources necessary for functioning of the economy (or organism) are depleted.
Introducing new natural wealth has a similar effect. We see now, with the global economic boom, some progress regarding poverty reduction. But this boom relies on deployment of fracking technology that is extracting vast quantities of gas and oil. We have artificially low prices for energy because the externalities (the side-effect costs of pollution and lost opportunities for future citizens) are not reflected in prices. Artificially low prices for fossil fuels leads to higher profits and overinvestment in the industry. (This means more extraction of and reliance on fossil fuels than what would result if all costs were reflected in prices.)
If free markets were also honest, so that prices integrated these hidden costs, then we would see corporate profits align with societal interests. We can account for externalities most efficiently by charging fees to industries that put pollution or deplete resources or disturb/destroy wildlife habitat. The policy will be fair if fee proceeds are shared to all the world's people. (This should be a global policy because our economy is a global system.)
Recognizing natural wealth as belonging to all will promote sustainability and justice. Embodying the basic precept that says natural wealth belongs to all will create a human society that resembles not a cancer but a brain, with functioning sensory or autonomic nervous system for Earth.
From cancer cells to brain cells of Earth:
Integration of human society and the biosphere:
gaiabrain.blogspot.com/2007/09/gaia-brain-integration-of-human-society.html
Biological Model for Politics and Economics (shorter):
gaiabrain.blogspot.com/2010/03/biological-model-for-politics-and.html
Cutie pie 🙂😀😊
Is the assumption correct? Some people in the tribe need punishment or they will be slackers and let others carry their load. What if the society fo the tribe had no idea what work was? What if there was not something called work - to slack off on and let others do for us? What it hunting and gathering was not considered work - something to avoid if possible...? What if the 2 hours you need to spend everyday doing survival tasks like make shelter, making tools, getting food and water, preparing food, cleaning up, etc.... appeared to be FUN? Then you dont need punishment to have succesful cooperation do you? Ok. But this tribe has never existed, right? Wrong. There is no word for work in the languages of the "upper paleolithic" tribes living in the Andaman Islands. They have lived there from 40 to 60 thousand years ago....Interesting that modern society, modern civilized people do not teach about these tribes in our educational systems - in every country in the world....hummmm...now why would that be? Why dont our schools want you to know about people who only do required survival activities 2 hours a day? AND do not consider that stuff work? They also dont scold or hit their chidlren, in fact they treat their children like royalty. Oh, and there are no leaders in these tribes...none are needed. ANd there are no dysfunctional people....no chid abuse, no divorce, no crime....Now why dont our modern societies teach everyone about these people? Like we teach about the aboriginies of Austrailia or the San of Africa....hmmmmm....Why should these people be kept secret?
Because then only intrinsic morality would be enacted...there would be no need for operant morality....This notion is obscene to our modern vertical societies. Dont tell anyone or they might rusticate you for contumacy!
Is this lead poisoning thing a thing or is it just a running gag in his talks?
I would google it, but you what Haidt said about that.
China and India did have capitalism, it came in the form of British exploitation. India in particular was the source of the wealth of those marvelous, capitalist innovations like the East India Company Haidt is in love with. These 'innovations' were pernicious monopolies granted by the crown with little restraint on how they operated. A lot of European wealth derived from theft from Africa, India, etc. Theft not just of raw materials, but of labor, of lives, as well. Much of America's early wealth was produced with the slaves imported from Africa and then bred. Then there is the decimation of indigenous peoples all over the world. Want to know what successful capitalism is? Force the indigenous locals off their lands, usually brutally, murderously, then exploit the land and resources, in collusion with a few elite locals. And voila! You get huge GDP increases, that benefit maybe .1-1% of the population, the vast majority are living destitute lives in slums, or dead in huge numbers. That is what capitalist success is.
You can assert "european colonialism and slavery had its upside cuz noway capitalisms maturity with industrial revolution would likely have happened" all you want, but it's not something you can demonstrate. What you are asserting is all of those oppressed and exploited peoples couldn't have made a much larger contribution if dealt with as equals and cooperatively. Violent and brutal exploitation is not economically efficient.
The silk road is a metaphor, I understood that, my question to expose that your choice for a metaphor wasn't well thought out, you don't seem to understand how the silk road symbolizes the international trade that was thriving without a huge empire running things, an Asian trade system largely, not Western, the West was at one end. As Wikipedia says, "Trade on the Silk Road was a significant factor in the development of the civilizations of China, the Indian subcontinent, Persia, Europe, the Horn of Africa and Arabia, opening long-distance, political and economic relations between the civilizations." Very different from how the Brits and then the Americans 'facilitated' global trade, which was to virtually enslave anyone it dealt with, for the enrichment of only themselves.
You don't even understand some basics about slavery, it wasn't a significant factor in shipbuilding, only in supplying the goods for trade, a big chunk of it by being the 'good' traded, but mostly by being the labor used produce the goods.
You shouldn't say the exploitations by The West have a silver lining, most of the ways the world is fucked up today results from the imperialists activities, which are continuing today, BTW, if you're not aware of that, you're sadly ignorant of such an important fact. It's an extremely tarnished silver.
This is all non-responsive, you're just repeating what you already said. Do you realize that all counterfactual arguments can't be proven? I can't prove that the world would be in far better shape without slavery, I gave my arguments for why you're assertion is less likely true. You haven't even tried to address the issues I raised. Simply gainsaying what I say is no way to argue, there's a clinic on arguing you might want to try out;) I've never denied there were huge benefits to some that the exploitation provided, I'm disputing that they wouldn't have come about without the exploitation. I'm saying we'd be in a better position worldwide and in every country without the exploitation but with mutually beneficial cooperation.
What?!!! You done veered off into crazyland, and still can't address a single issue I raised. Not worth my time
crazyland is where you believe capitalism is synonymous with rape and theft. This isn't nuance, it is perversion.
I think it is important (and very revealing) to understand how capitalism originated. The process for how capitalistic property "rights" arose is usually referred to as "primitive accumulation". Basically, before the development of capitalistic property "rights" in the 1600s, everyone had access to the land and resources necessary to produce enough food for subsistence - this was done through individually owned but communally farmed tracts plus common land used for grazing and subsistence by landless peasants. From the 1600s through the 1900s, the British parliament passed hundreds of acts of legislation which stole common land from poor communities and transferred it to capitalists/nobility (this was first done in the UK, and was later brutally enforced throughout the west and the colonies).
This process was necessary for the development of capitalism because people who have access to enough land to subsist on would never willingly perform cheap wage work for the capitalists - historically the only way for the capitalist class to have its cheap (or free) labour is either through enslavement or through a process of enclosure/dispossession, by which people lose our ancestral subsistence lands, followed by being forced into low wages.
This process was brilliantly described in detail by Marx in the 1800s after decadesof studying it, but it was very actively protested already when it first started in the 1600s. Everywhere it was introduced it was fiercely resisted, sometimes for hundreds of years until the cruel inhumane ruthless Godless capitalists were finally able to completely break humanity's spirit and resistence in the 20th century and normalize this process as if it is a normal part of life (this slavery was so deeply imprinted by the billionaire capitalists into the minds of those they exploit to the point that today ignorant propagandized right-wingers hate you if you don't willingly join the capitalist plantation and work for The Man "like all normal people do").
But all the way up to the early 20th century, working for the capitalists was known as 'wage slavery'. Only towards the middle of the 20th century was this resistence completely broken and this came to be considered as a "normal" part of life
Now, deceived and heavily-propagandized right-wingers are often hypnotized and propagandized into screaming that the WEF are "communists" becasue they said "you will own nothing and be happy", but becasue of their historical ignorance of what capitalism actually is, they fail to see that the global capitalists in the WEF do exactly what capitalists have always been doing.. The WEF wants to take away everything from you in order to enrich themselves (the 1000 biggest corporations on the planet) and force you to be dependant on them. This is the EXACT project that the capitalists have been up to since the 1600's with their enclosure and disposesion of humanity out of the basic survival necessities in order to enrich themselves and force you into wage slavery for them (the capitalist psychopayhic loveless Godless insensitive mind is all about violent forcing and imposing, hierarchy and selfishness)
Today's capitalists in WEF, the Gates Foundation, BIS (bank of international settlements), IMF and World Bank are working under exactly the same guiding principle that has guided psychopathic immoral anti-life capitalists since the 1600's, of pursuit of their narrow self-interest as the highest value, of taking private ownership over all that is necessary for survival so that humanity will have no choice but to submit to them in order to survive. Control freaks and psychopaths of the highest order..their project has always been from the very beginning to destroy humanity's ability to survive without submitting to them, to privatize EVERYTHING into their private ownership so that they'll never cease to be ultra-wealthy, never cease to be at the top of the pyramid (and that there will never cease to be a hierarchical pyramid to begin with), and in control everyone else..
To say it differently:
People often assume that capitalism is defined by markets and trade. But markets and trade existed for thousands of years before capitalism. Capitalism is only about 400 years old. So what is distinctive about this economic system? Mainly two things (there are more, of course, but two main things for now) :
1. First, and most importantly, it is defined by enclosure and artificial scarcity. Capitalism originated from systemic efforts by the elites to restrict humanity's access to the commons and to independent subsistance in order to render us reliant on wage labor for survival.
Over the past 400 years some of the forms this has taken are privatization of the commons, forced dispossesion out of ancestral lands, deliberate destructuon of subsistance economies (everywhere but particularly brutally in the colonies) and in general privatizing the most basic necessities of life into the private hands of capitalists and then having us pay them to have accesss to survival...
This continues today with attempts to ensure artificial scarcity to essentials like housing, healthcare, high quality food, clean water, education, transit and so on. Things that could very easily be provided at high quality to everyone, but are deliberately prevented by right-wing capitalists from being available as it hurts their profit agenda (the highest value in the hearts of psychologically-undeveloped capitalists) and in addition, the removal of artificial scarcity also removes the capitalists' ability to force us to desperately work for them (to seek wages to survive). This is a huge threat to their narrow self-interests and that is why they do everything possible to insure that these essentials will not be available to humanity (including billions spent on propaganda to ensure their followers hate and attack anyone who works to bring back the essentials of life to everyome after the capitalists stole and/or restricted access to them through privatization) .
Where universal public goods (and other basic human rights and worker/health protections) do exist, they have been won by intense and longstanding battles by left-wing labour movements and other progressive forces, and are constantly under attack by right wing capitalist billionaires who attempt to take them away and put behind a paywall to access, as they have always done, to enrich themselves and create artificial scarcity that forces us into cheap labor for them.
2. Second, capitalism is organized around - and dependent upon - perpetual expansion. Meaning, ever increasing production of commodified goods. It is the only intrinsically expansionary economic system in human history (meaning, it intrinsically has to have a crisis if it doesn't continually expand)
Crucially - under capitalism, the purpose of the ever increasing production is NOT primarily to meet human needs, but rather to extract and accumulate profit. This is the overriding objective of this system.
To sustain the process of perpetually increasing surplus accumulation, Capital requires an ever increasing quantity of inputs (labour and nature), and requires that these inputs be obtained as cheaply as possible.
This introduces constant pressure by the right-wing to depress real wages and attack environmental and worker protections whenever they possibly can (in the absence of countering political forces). The result is a system that, left to itself (to its own logic), AUTOMATICALLY generates exploitation of human beings and ecological breakdown.
In sum, the tendency to equate capitalism with "markets and trade" naturalizes a system that is overwhelmingly not natural and profoundly harmful for the vast majority of humans and for all life, and prevents us from having a clear-eyed view of how this destructive system actually operates.
Capitalism may create wealth but can t distribute it well. As a whole those countries (US, China, India, Brasil) get wealthier (macro economics) but we have to look inside (micro economics) to see how this wealth is distributed. So the big question is: capitalism gives some individuals the opportunity to create wealth? Now are they willing to share it with the rest of us who hasn t have the same possibilities. And I am not talking about free riders, here.
ytinformes2
Lol
mises.org/sites/default/files/Economic%20Calculation%20in%20the%20Socialist%20Commonwealth_Vol_2_3.pdf
They are sharing their wealth. The top "1%" pays 40% of the taxes generated. Big government and monopolies are the enemy. Capitalism creates opportunities. If you can't think of anything to better yourself and your circumstances why must others that have carry you?
I am a working class woman and I admire people that have the courage of their convictions to follow and fight for their dreams. Because of people that rise above the norm we can watch awesome people from all over the world on a hand held device and have interesting conversations with someone the other side of the world. Autumn greetings from South Africa ♡
If no "outside forces" (GOV) are used, distribution of the wealth would be optimal: even within organizations it have to be competitive against other organizations, because resulting spending, or keep is reflected on price of products or services (more you want to keep, more you have to ask customer to pay). Therefore only way how to make "distribution" not work is to create laws or exceptions from laws (on GOV level) so competition actually does not work in some cases. Note: Wealth is usually not kept hidden in bank, but it is invested so it does not loose a value, but (hopefully) gains.
Testosterone is down. Marriage is down. Children born to single mothers are UP 800% in fifty years. Tragic. Not all good.
Give testosterone to young men problem solved. lol
Haidt talks about marriage a lot in other talks. I don't think he'd disagree about that.
animals have morals - he seems religious and does not back up his argument about morality and humans as its inventors -- and yet plenty stuff out there on animals and morality. Ever saw animals offended? animals helping? animals feeling for others ?
he's actually an atheist and you're confusing morality and empathy
Keith of course you don't and I was backing you up on saying that Ania Lian is confusing empathy and morality :)
Llamas get offended really easily. But not the Dalai lama, which is why I would like to feed hay to one sort of lama but not Obama's mama.
Haidt is making a great mistake about God and religion: 1:16:23 he says "we evolved to be religious" and supposes that the cult of a Supreme Being is rather new. It is not. The most primitive cultures we know of such as the Australian Aboriginals, Fuegians of South America, Pygmies of Africa, Yuki-Maidú of Californa, and the Eskimo were all Monotheistic and acknowledged a Supreme God who punished mankind for immorality. This Idea of a Supreme Being did not "evolve" from anywhere. The old paradigm of "evolutionist religion" has been long disproved by 20th century ethnology. It is well known today that Monotheism is the most archaic form of religion in human history. I.e. Wilhelm Schmidt - The Origin and Growth of Religion, or Corduan's "In the Beginning God" are a couple of works illustrating the vast amount of evidence showing that the Idea of a Supreme God is not "new" and did not "evolve" out of previous phases of development in material culture or social complexity as evolutionists have proposed since the 19th century. This was one of the major discoveries in 20th century ethnology of religion... It is known as "Urmonotheismus" or "Primitive Monotheism" and it is a fact that the most primitive cultures we know of worshiped a Supreme Being with moral authority. Gross mistake on his behalf on this point.
you need to update your research. "Primitive Monotheism" has been thoroughly rejected in the 2nd half of the 20th C. "By the 1950s, the hypothesis of primitive ethical monotheism was rejected by the academic establishment, so its proponents of Schmidt's "Vienna school" rephrased it to the effect that while ancient cultures may not have known "true monotheism", they at least show evidence for "original theism" (Ur-Theismus, as opposed to non-theistic animism), with a concept of Hochgott ("High God", as opposed to Eingott "Single God"). Christian apologetics in the light of this have moved away from postulating a "memory of revelation" in pre-Christian religions, replacing it with an "inkling of redemption" or virtuous paganism unconsciously anticipating monotheism.[2] That said, E. E. Evans-Pritchard noted in "Theories of Primitive Religion," first published in 1962, that most anthropologists have abandoned all evolutionary schemes like Schmidt and Pettazoni's for the historical development of religion, adding that they have also found monotheistic beliefs existing side-by-side with other religious beliefs.[8]" Wikipedia
Most early tribal societies practiced ancestor worship along with totem and taboo systems. Some had no concept of the supernatural at all.They believed that the spirits of their ancestors were natural phenomena like the wind, which is also invisible.
It is true that ethnologists have abandonded the evolutionary focus on religion, but Schmidt already spoke about this mistake as early as 1931, and it remains a fact that the most primitive cultures practiced monotheism along with forms of totemism and animism. You are mistaken in saying that some primitive cultures had no concept of the supernatural... Australians, Melanesians, Americans, Central Asians and Africans all had a very clear notion of the supernatural, and they did not associate the Ancestor Spirits to natural phenomena (Australians and Fuegians, for example had a very complex relationship between Ancestors and geographical locations, animal species, and natural phenomena, and yet they worshipped a Supreme Being)... The Historical method has become most prominent and was headed by Eliade for the second part of the 20th century, but the reality of Primitive Monotheism has never been proven wrong at all... It remains a fact that the most primitive material cultures ever investigated practiced a cult to a Supreme Being along with other cults such as totemism and animism... The method has changed since the second half of the 20th century, but in any case, the idea of animism at the earliest periods of human culture (still promoted today), and likewise the idea that "we evolved to be religious" is completely lacking any evidence ...
Why, because you say so?
No, because there is no evidence to suggest that we "evolved to be religious" as Haidt says, since religion is right there among the most primitive material cultures just as it is in our highly developed material culture... the notion posed at 1:16:23 that the idea of a Supreme Being is rather new is false... it is at the very beginning of written texts from civilized spiritual cultures (Wisdom of Ptahotep) and present in the most primitive material cultures (Australians, Fuegians, Californian Indians, Eskimo, African and Melanesian Pygmies, etc.. That's why.
You just keep repeating the same thing. You failed to address the objections raised in the Wikipedia article. "My guy doesn't agree with it" just is not an adequate response.
Your claim that a Supreme Being is present in the very beginning of written texts is false. The earliest texts from China and India reflect ancestor worship, not a supreme being. They describe rituals designed to manipulate magical forces, not appeasement of gods.
Most tribes in the arctic regions had no concept of the supernatural; and, a few scattered tribes in other regions also had no supernatural.
Modern scholars have rejected your thesis for good reasons,
Simply repeating, "My guy says this." can't change those facts.
All sounds rosy but we still have Islam...
correction, its Islamism or radical Islam.
92 + minutes of science fiction.
I seek not to understand in order that I may believe, I believe in order that I may understand. Amen
Prayer of St. Anselm.
So incredibly naive..
He is ignorant of that the ‘communism’ he says has been a total failure he and those that toe that line conflate authoritarian rule with so-called communism. He is ignorant of worker-owned cooperatives that are definitely profit oriented, but within the context that the interests of worker-owners is absolutely not the same as capitalist- board of directors - stock owned companies.
Simpleton
Had 2 get out when he said big bang. Another liar devil in this world
Jesus Christ, that woman at the start really was a rambling fool.
The cultured lotion electronically name because dancer weekly shock out a misty aunt. nutritious, sad swedish