Religion & Moral Psychology | Dr Azim Shariff | Jan 2018

Like the material? We're fan funded! Please support us on Patreon:
/ transliminal
---
Podcast link:
/ religion-moral-psychol...
---
Transliminal Interviews - Episode 01
In this inaugural episode of the new 'Transliminal Interviews' series, I talk with psychology professor Azim Shariff about the origins of religion, morality, and how and why we make the moral judgments that we do.
Dr Shariff is a former student of Dr Jordan B Peterson, as well as a brilliant (and enviably well-published) young thinker in his own right.
To see some more, check out this sample lecture from the MOOC we made together. It's actually pretty funny, given the weightiness of the material (moral reasoning): vimeo.com/200656826/9cdbb78d26
---
Our MOOC, the Science of Religion:
www.edx.org/course/science-re...
---
Links to some of the papers we discuss in the episode:
Haidt:
www.victorkumar.org/uploads/6/...
Boyer and Petersen:
www.cambridge.org/core/servic...
Roemer paper (We made a mistake during the podcast: it’s John Roemer, not Paul Roemer, and he’s the second author. Woojin Lee is the first):
citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/...
Luttig et al paper on the racism about the mortgage assistance program:
drive.google.com/file/d/0BzCu...
Sznycer paper on compassion, envy and redistribution:
www.pnas.org/content/114/31/84...
Shariff et al.'s paper on punishment and free will: www.researchgate.net/publicat...
---
Henrich’s Sackler talk:
• JOE HENRICH
---
Rough transcript of the captions to this interview available here:
goo.gl/ZK6JAH (Courtesy of Louise Parberry)
---
*NOTE TO OTHER KZbinRS*:
If you wish to re-post any of this video content on your own channel, please simply contact me first to discuss terms. I'm quite reasonable.
---

[@deathbybassofficial]

You should definitely have him talk to Jordan Peterson and film it because I find it very fascinating the difference in approaches they both take. Dr Shariff says that Religion was responsible for spreading group trust beyond Kinship and National boundaries but then implies that once it has reached that level it is no longer necessary. But then he also says that most of the European groups that still exhibit this national group trust are racially homogenous, and that implies to me that once the religious effect is taken away the vacuum is filled with the closest strongest bond then, in this case racial or nationalistic.

[@arizonaboy59]

I took the Science of Religion MOOC course and really learned a lot. It was a great course.

[@Transliminal]

John Wells thanks John! Glad you enjoyed ... we’ll be updating over the next few years as well, to keep pace with research

[@SherieAnnPeterson]

@@Transliminal I took the Science of Religion MOOC course and would like to repeat it.

[@quigonjim8364]

Thank you for this interview, and for especially providing links to the research articles.

[@Transliminal]

Quigon Jim my pleasure, hope you find it of value

[@jimmylemessurier332]

Great, engaging interview, I hope Dr. Shariff will come back to Transliminal many times in the future. Thanks for the references too. They provide a launch-pad to further study!

[@heythere160]

Woah! Fascinating interview. And great questions too. Thanks a ton (:

[@Alan_Duval]

Loved the 'Tide goes in, tide goes out' reference :D

[@PrimitiveOs]

You are a great interviewer, you actually hear what the other person Is talking about and ask questions that add to the conversation. With the big plus of great video and audio quality. Hope that you are doing well with this videos so you can dedicate more time to them

[@nabeelmk1804]

Incredible topic and speaker. My new favourite channel!

[@kevinlee1906]

Very interesting and informative conversations as usual...Thank you! I trust the Cambodian meal afterward was as delightful as the conversation! Thanks again...

[@wcropp1]

This was a good one. Thanks!

[@Transliminal]

wcropp1 my pleasure

[@jonleo99]

Great work! Gotta get these up on iTunes.

[@Transliminal]

Jonathan Leo you bet, that’s the plan :)

[@crisisactor420]

Anyone else catch that Bill O'Reilly reference? Thanks for another captivating..mind-expanding...seizure inducing gem of an interview! It feels almost unnatural for me to be giving so much praise in a comment section, but these talk have been so very useful to me, I just can't help it!! This should win an Oscar, no shit.

[@grungehead12]

Thank you ! You are blessing ! I will be your pateron..as soon as I sort my self out ! :)

[@gattuccina]

Thank you

[@marianam8643]

Excellent

[@arizonaboy59]

Robert Wright wrote a book, Why Buddhism is True. He also taught a MOOC course on Buddhism and presented his thinking and research in evolutionary psychology. It was very interesting. He made the statement that human behavior is determined more by natural selection than by ones self. He believed that Buddhism has the right view of reality and that meditation as practiced by Buddhism was one way we could override natural selection's influence. He is the first scientist I have heard of who has come out in support of a religious practice.

[@jtan8130]

Respectfully, I think that there is a huge difference between Cognitive Biases or Heuristics that make us predisposed to Religious systems and ideas, and Archetypal answers to the set of all games (as this Jordan and the other Jordan {peterson} emphasizes). Yes, we should be wary of the way in which our Human Nature or Heuristics might populate our minds with bad answers to the questions we ask of the modern world. This is different from taking an Archetypal lens to Religious Systems like Christianity because the archetypal lens looks specifically for those features which are not adaptively beneficial heuristic systems that are biologically instantiated, but Cultural programs to place as software on the Hardware of Human Nature that result in the best possible solutions to the set of possible problems. A good example of this is Christ as the hero Archetype. The Archetypal lens can have us see the message here as a way to approach Suffering and the Unknown. You volunteer for suffering, and you face the unknown as though it contains something of value, and something of terror, but you are willing to encounter it in order to parse these things for the community. Love Azim and his research, but I do think this point might be overlooked.

[@Transliminal]

J Tan great point-as I mention in the vid I think this is a big reason why JBP is so compelling for people: he deals with the *normative* implications of (religious) symbols and stories. ... To be fair to Azim et al., that’s not their aim. They’re examining the empirically testable mechanisms underpinning religious / moral cognitions. Azim says as much, too-it’s just a different (though not mutually exclusive) exercise, entirely.

[@jtan8130]

Entirely agree. What Azim says here is wildly illuminating. I'm working my way through the Science of Religion course you guys put together right now, and I find it deeply fascinating. Through it, I also discovered Henrich's work and that has been a gem. I don't want to seem as though I want to disregard Azim at all. I have a great deal of respect for his work. I guess what I want to emphasize is the distinction you are pointing out in your response. If we are asked the question: "What value does Religion have for modern man?" There are a number of answers you can give depending on the lens you start out with. Azims point about "which Christianity?" here was a good one. You have to decide which framework you are bringing to bear on the wealth of information in Christianity to decide which information is relevant. As I understand it, the CS approach would focus on the Heuristics/Cognitive Biases that made the belief adaptive at a specific time, but also might want to emphasize the environmental contingency of that Cognitive structures adaptation. JBP and the Archetypal lens would focus on the solutions proposed in Religious systems to the problems endemic to the set of all possible games, solutions that lead perhaps asymptotally to a Piagetian Equilibrated state. If we construe the tools of Religion as only the Cognitive structures that make it appealing or made it adaptive, we might lose the archetypal insights that don't seem to be contingently adaptive [by this I mean that they are tools that may have evolved but their use is not restricted to the environment they were produced in (unless you say their environment was an archetypal one)]. I guess if I were to parse and simplify my point more now that I've fleshed it out for myself, I would say that what I dont want to be lost in the conversation is the that their might be normative implications in Religious systems that are not dependent upon the environment that they originally adapted to. Anyway, thanks for the incredible material! Your interviews with JBP are some of my favorite and its because of the depth of your questions. You guys are awesome.

[@ThompsonDB]

Fascinating discussion. Many paradoxical thoughts to contend with. With the sign off message of it being important to self doubt in order to not become overconfident in currently held beliefs, this is true if others draw a similar conclusion to you. However I fear that open minded Westerners are encountering very self confident, non-flexible ideologies in some sub-sets of Islamic thinking, radical feminism, black lives matter, hard right wingers etc. They all play on the open minded persons ability to sympathise with out groups and in a way parasitize the inaction that comes with contending with two or more opposing views while they remain closed minded themselves. As Shariff said, intuitive ideas are quick and simple and can out compete more nuanced, potentially more moral ones.

[@Transliminal]

ThompsonDB indeed

[@jasonaus3551]

Very well put

[@etagged]

I took a Psychology of Religion course with Kristin Lauren at UBC where we discussed these ideas. I find that the UBC school of thought subscribes more to the Terror Management style of understanding religion (if you keep disorder and fear of death at bay, a particular society can outcompete others). It’s also amusing because the Cultural Psychologist there, Steven Heine, helped develop the Meaning Maintenance Model, which presupposes there might be more to the metaphysics of culture/religion than just staving off death and surviving. I think Peterson espouses a significantly more aspirational model of religion, which may not be more accurate looking at the current state of religion, but having him in a room with Laurin, Norenzayan, Shariff and others would be a dream come true. A discussion like that would probably be able to provide outlines of what a group of objective researchers could contribute directly to religions, which are intensely subjective by nature, rather than just telling religions what researchers think they are.

[@Transliminal]

etagged I agree, that’d be a dream... my sense is JBP might run thin on patience listening to purely functionalist models, but would be fascinating regardless ... have you watched our (free) UBC-based MOOC? Highly-recommended: www.edx.org/course/science-religion-ubcx-religionx ... the UBC school, as a group (see www.hecc.ubc.ca), is decidedly not terror management-centric... they’re focused on cultural evolutionary models, primarily.

[@etagged]

Thanks for the link, I’ll definitely check it out. I know they’re not TMT-centric. Just taking the course and reading all the papers, I would say their cultural evolutionary stance is tinged with a certain degree of skepticism with regard to the current efficacy of religion. All that is fair though, when considering the prevailing scientific views about religion that were floating around before the evolutionary perspective was considered. Make it happen and you’re the man!

[@Transliminal]

etagged yes, very much so re: scepticism, but specifically regarding the *truth claims* of religion (virtually all cog sci of religion researchers are atheists), not its functionality. ... of course, if you’re as much a pragmatist as a Darwinian, like JBP (or myself tbh), the distinction between truth and function is more dubious.

[@whitneydavis124]

There is an economic reason for lower taxes. I feel like it would be more accurate to study voluntary charity donations. Would be interested in his response.

[@Alan_Duval]

I think the main thing that is missing from Haidt's intuitionist model (aside from the fact that Haidt has gotten into a bad habit of misrepresenting the moral flavours that liberals rely upon), is that it fails to take into account the material upon which that intuition is based. Indeed, the latter part of this interview pointed out just how often the conservative view is akin to the evolved view (which is unfortunate for conservative evangelicals). Conservatives (probably) have this view because people that are high in fear-based reasoning (see also Terror Management Theory) are cognitively more closed and thus less open to experience. However, it is your experiences that your intuitions are based on. If you don't have many different experiences, then evolved intuitions are all you've got, but if you've spent time with other races, religions and creeds and in other countries, your intuitions are based on a broader palette of available responses.

[@Xeanorth95]

Were the omniscient gods useful for the society or for the authority?

[@Transliminal]

Both

[@progressholistic7126]

Metaphysical Scaffolding.

[@tiagovasc]

17:00 economic intuitions, 45:00

[@jasons8756]

Whenever there is a discipline that analyzes human behavior in terms of "evolution," it likely can be reduced to a more neutral theory. This just studies the incentives that can come to exist among rational actors, whether consciously or not. The authors of these articles are social psychologists with a preconceived view of “evolutionary religion,” which leads them to omit or ignore or explain away these small groups of people that hold to monotheism. It just helps to remember genetic fallacy, too. That is, just because a group historically came about having an idea uncritically (learned from parents, copied from others), doesn't undermine the truth of the idea itself. That is a separate argument or discussion. There several stories from various missionaries that have run into small previously unreached (isolated) peoples that hold to a “folk religion” which speak of a “sky God” with attributes very much like the God of the Bible. A common misconception is that people of tribal nations/areas are totally lost without the Gospel, fumbling around in darkness. The conscience of humans...God has left of Himself in the hearts of mankind throughout their history and cultures. The notion and understanding of God is something that transcends culture in general. It must not be the case that the notion of a monotheistic God developed out of any single culture, but rather is shown to exist in many independent cultures. Now, God's special revelation seems to have been communicated through a specific culture or cultures. However, God's general revelation (what Jesus who was GOD incarnate into man, has achieved for us through his sacrifice and resurrection) seems to be independent of culture, which is what we would expect from the reality of God. The evidence tells me that God isn't something made up in our minds. Rather, God is a reality that has an affect on our minds and being. This is consistent with a God of the Bible that transcends culture. www.amazon.com/Neighboring-Faiths-Christian-Introduction-Religions/dp/0830839704/ref=sr_1_1?keywords=Winfried+Corduan&qid=1559496567&s=gateway&sr=8-1 Most isolated tribes create a monotheistic god...the sky god being the most common. So there is evidence that monotheism is the first stage of religious development among people groups. Monotheism then can degenerate into corrupt forms of monotheist ( which I believe Islam) or into polytheism (multiple gods) or pantheism (do whatever we want and god is whatever we want, because god is in the form of being impersonal), etc., due to various reasons, e.g., manipulations of people in ruling positions, the fallen nature of mankind, etc. This is more aligned with what we see in reality, that humans, whose very nature since the dawn of time is to want to be able to do whatever we desire or want, are more inclined to create a GOD who doesn't punishes, but permits or endorses our humanly whims, wants, and desires. www.amazon.com/Beginning-God-Fresh-Original-Monotheism/dp/0805447784/ref=sr_1_3?keywords=Winfried+Corduan&qid=1559496369&s=gateway&sr=8-3

[@roygbiv176]

Im not entirely sure that marriage outside of family was a result of catholic policies, but rather a pre-christan genetic/cultural instinct, or even a reaction to cold climate or genetic homogenaity of a group.

[@Transliminal]

Jonathan Fay apparently not... more to do with Charlemagne using the Church to break up rivals’ familial dynasties ... Henrich does a great analysis of it in the vid I linked above, in the description

[@footballpsych]

"Let's go have some Cambodian food"

[@Transliminal]

Juraj Hanke we have a great place here in Van. One does not simply visit and not go eat at Phnom Penh :)

[@Wib0]

I know that this guy was a student of peterson, but I find peterson way more logical. I know that my instinct might be wrong from time to time (a lot of times in some areas of my life btw), but I think I'll rather build my house on a rock.

[@Transliminal]

Singula Shariff and JBP aren’t really disagreeing on anything, here. They’re looking at similar phenomena at different scales of analysis.

[@Wib0]

Looking back at the guy I was at that moment, I think I was indeed a bit too fast with that comment. Also, it's not really a question. If I don't understand it, I could ask a question instead of saying something ridiculous about the concept of instinct that I don't really have given any serious thought. I could go on about the guy of that moment, but I think that'll be enough selfreflection for a public comment on yt ;) Apologies, mate.

[@morthim]

"if iran is benefiting from a deal we must be losing as a result" that isn't really ecconomic intution but satiation intution. "are they taking our jobs or our unemployment benefits" those aren't mutually exclusive. if they come and get employed and leave the job, they get unemployment benefits. more generally regardless of unemployment, they get social safetynet benefits. "we have hazing because of freerider detection" nope. we have hazing because individuals who get hazed become more part of a group than those who dont. "evolutionarily speaking thsoe who didn't do this wouldn't survive and thrive" it still holds true today. "jobs and benfits are in some ways opposites" no.

[@andrecostin1288]

morthim I sort of wonder if this is what academia is all about. "Yay, I've discovered this explanatory model; let me try it on absolutely everything and see what sticks." Hey, if this dude can do it why can't I?

[@Transliminal]

Andre Costin academics do this as much as everyone else... they just get called to task on it more, through peer review (in theory) ... depending, of course, on the discipline

[@Transliminal]

morthim to be fair to Shariff, your argument about hazing is not mutually exclusive to his point ... it’s an alternative phrasing of the same ultimate function (successful group cohesion) As for the benefits vs jobs point, you’re right in that they’re not *entirely* mutually exclusive, but they are indeed in *some* ways opposites, when, e.g., speaking specifically of unemployment benefits & welfare ... as for ‘satiation intuition’, I’m not sure I know what you mean

[@ramaraksha01]

Primitive people living under Kings/Dictators used such men as their template for God In a violent, dangerous world, such Kings/Dictators demanded obedience and loyalty & rewarded/punished accordingly. Think of living in Russia or North Korea today - you must always credit the "Dear loving leader" or else! Back then brought before the King, a slave was expected to get down on one's knees, beg for his mercy, swear eternal loyalty and obedience If you can't do that the King/Dictator would not allow you to remain in his kingdom And that is the kind of afterlife that the ancients envisioned A King-like God sits on his throne in the Heavens, it is his kingdom and only loyal supporters may enter and live in his Kingdom Just simple, primitive ideas of God & the afterlife What is scary is to see today's bright educated people blindly following these primitive ideas! Like watching a chimp teaching humans!

[@1214gooner]

So Americans don't like being taxed because it goes to "those blacks?" This is an astonishingly presumptuous conclusion. The American concept of lower taxes has nothing to do with race. Low taxes is a fiscal expression of America's ethos of individual liberty, which takes precedent over government regulation. On a side note: The socioeconomic status of black communities was rising until the 60s, when Lyndon Johnson began the "War on Poverty," which mobilized the welfare programs that have henceforth crippled the black communities. So no, redistribution has not benefited, but damaged those it was supposed to help.

[@Danish9248]

Is he Pakistan

[@Transliminal]

Danish9248 Dr Shariff is a Canadian-born citizen of Gujarati descent.

[@spiralofhope]

19:15 -- Oh man, the either-or and hazing.. this guy doesn't understand. I'm out.