Jonathan Haidt: Religion, evolution, and the ecstasy of self-transcendence

www.ted.com Psychologist Jonathan Haidt asks a simple, but difficult question: why do we search for self-transcendence? Why do we attempt to lose ourselves? In a tour through the science of evolution by group selection, he proposes a provocative answer.
TEDTalks is a daily video podcast of the best talks and performances from the TED Conference, where the world's leading thinkers and doers give the talk of their lives in 18 minutes. Featured speakers have included Al Gore on climate change, Philippe Starck on design, Jill Bolte Taylor on observing her own stroke, Nicholas Negroponte on One Laptop per Child, Jane Goodall on chimpanzees, Bill Gates on malaria and mosquitoes, Pattie Maes on the "Sixth Sense" wearable tech, and "Lost" producer JJ Abrams on the allure of mystery. TED stands for Technology, Entertainment, Design, and TEDTalks cover these topics as well as science, business, development and the arts. Closed captions and translated subtitles in a variety of languages are now available on TED.com, at www.ted.com/tra...
If you have questions or comments about this or other TED videos, please go to support.ted.com

[@OvenBakedCookie]

Before you dislike the video, watch the whole thing. Read the Selfish Gene, and compare. This is intriguing. TED is not about who's right & wrong, it's more about new ideas.

[@m042g]

Self-transcendence is not about losing self, it's about transcending self, you are still conscious about your self, but you see it in a bigger context, as just a role in a game, life forms are born, struggle to survive then die, it's natural. To be in a state of self-transcendence means to see your self playing a role and being able to accept what is natural.

[@elsaconnolly8930]

I wish the internet had more comments like these

[@funkyboodah]

"nothing brings people together like war, and that bringing them together opens up the possibility of extraordinary transcendent experiences."

[@elpampa9817]

O sea q la guerra es algo q debemos agradecer?

[@hugofilho1954]

Wonderful lecture. One does not need to agree 100 percent to be grateful for the enlightenment.

[@ge2827]

His thesis and his books are amazing

[@SkaterK3]

I much preferred the 3 minute overview at the end to the metaphor-laden speech at the beginning for his argument. I found it took that entire ~14 minute speech to properly connect all the metaphors he used. Regardless, he makes an interesting yet unsurprising point about human collectives. I was talking to an intellectual the other day who reported on a study he read which stated ~90% of people in the world need some form of religion in their life. Not necessarily an organized religion.

[@exitrealitatis]

The idea that an individual trys to transcends itself through group consciousness is interesting but I like to think that transcendence means moving beyond human definitions and ideas such as individuals and groups. I think that to transcend oneself means to leave every earthly feeling such as love, hope, gratitude, fear and despair behind and reach a level of consciousness where one can calmy look upon chaos and find truth, peace, balance and perfect order without emotional attachment.

[@giveamanafish2324]

Is it actually possible beyond placebo? Maybe the best we can do is to transcend the individual into the group and beyond that it only becomes the mind convincing itself it's detached from earthly attachments when it's really trying to ignored them. Asking for a friend

[@exitrealitatis]

@@giveamanafish2324 In all honesty I have absolutely no idea if it is possible (I didn't have an idea 9 years ago either) - Also as an Atheist and a Chemist my personal views on things like religion (which I don't really get), spirituality (which I kinda get since I've read the Musaeum Hermeticum and the Theatrum chemicum) and transcendence (of which I have a pretty transhumanism-influenced view) are rather simple - but it's weird that (at least some) of my views haven't changed a bit in 9 years, that was one blast from the past, thx! :D

[@christophertelesford7579]

I agree. That's what I think about the afterlife. Clinging on to earthly materials prevents our consciousness from passing on to higher dimensions.

[@squishycommander]

It deeply concerns me that people dislike this video, just because it is slightly religious. Most of the video wasn't even about religion. Don't confine yourself to one belief. Open yourself up and try to learn as much as you can about the world and break yourself away from ignorance.

[@cl1mbat1ze]

That last video resonated with me. It moved me. His theory of how the sacred arises is very interesting, I hope someone delves more deeply into this subject maybe with some neuroscientific studies that could investigate aspects of this. I also think that humans can transcend themselves when connecting deeply with others, but I don't think that is the only way, though (I remember he also mentioned drugs, but nothing else). Other ways could be meditation, or through losing oneself in a project.

[@MusicbyWordPlay]

In my eyes the main purpose of this talk was for people to realize there is more to life than filling your face and satisfying every desire we may have. There is something else to life that humans have access to but must seek out on their own, which can even be showcased by evolution. He uses religion as a mere example of the coming together that humans can experience as a result of self-transcendence.

[@vxllvxn]

I'm an atheist but I felt and realized this after taking psychedelics.

[@davids2368]

Mxrvxn Vxllvnuxvx Same here, it bugs me other athiests are so quick to dismiss these arguements. Its like they hear anything to do with drugs, spirituality and conciousness and they think they know it all already

[@zxyatiywariii8]

Could you maybe please tell me what kind? It's something I've heard about long ago, but I've never met anyone who has had this experience.

[@Jamie-Russell-CME]

you forgot, because you were high, that you actually had watched this during your trip. Haaha

[@KarlSnarks]

Also an atheist, but never really believed in the "religion as a bug" idea. It is true though that going to raves and doing MDMA, having psychedelic trips, and practicing mindfulness, really made me understand it more on a intuitive level.

[@KarlSnarks]

@@zxyatiywariii8 Any classical psychedelic (LSD, psilocybin mushrooms and truffels, mescaline cactuses, ayahuasca or synthetic DMT) can give you those experiences, though they can differ in specifics. Some non-psychedelic drugs can also give you a feeling of transcendence (like MDMA), but often without a deeper sense of "being one with the universe", but more in a "everyone around me is a beautiful human being and I feel connected with them" way. If you're interested in trying psychedelics (or any other drug), I'd advice you to do some desk research first (set and setting are really important, as is dosage) and depending on were you live, be cautious in buying the substance (maybe invest in a test kit for the particular substance).

[@loramoore2714]

2022 and I just tapped into his wisdom…I trust I am part of the Great Becoming…I will now follow these teachings…I am so incredibly Grateful♥️🌀

[@Plant..]

You sound like one of those people that has a shelf full of cool rocks and thinks you’re special because you’re willing to do psychedelics

[@FeistyJackball]

That's fucking interesting, man. Daniel Dennett's book "Breaking The Spell" addresses this idea to a great deal as well.

[@andrejaxon2309]

Sorry to be off topic but does any of you know of a method to get back into an Instagram account? I was dumb forgot my login password. I appreciate any tricks you can offer me

[@maysondamian4231]

@Andre Jaxon Instablaster :)

[@andrejaxon2309]

@Mayson Damian Thanks so much for your reply. I got to the site thru google and im waiting for the hacking stuff atm. Takes a while so I will reply here later when my account password hopefully is recovered.

[@andrejaxon2309]

@Mayson Damian it did the trick and I actually got access to my account again. I am so happy:D Thanks so much, you saved my account!

[@maysondamian4231]

@Andre Jaxon No problem :D

[@Eggs-n-Jakey]

One of the most beautiful comment sections on youtube. Should be in a museum.

[@MrOnairos]

I love this talk!

[@chebob2009]

Since I'm unlikely to buy the book, can you explain to me how group selection actually makes sense? Cos I've read a fair bit of evolutionary biology and I have to say, it just seems to me that EO Wilson and Haidt are confused about group selection means (or could possibly mean). In what way can a group act like a gene. It seems so obvious to me that it just can't. They're completely different in almost every way. What am I missing?

[@francismausley7239]

"Man ever aspires to greater heights and loftier goals. He ever seeks to attain a world surpassing that which he inhabits, and to ascend to a degree above that which he occupies. This love of transcendence is one of the hallmarks of man." - Abdu’l-Baha, Baha'i Faith

[@freesk8]

Contradiction: the "self" melts away, and the feeling is incredible... If there is no self, there is no feeling. When people say "spiritual" the only coherent thing they could really mean is "sublime or intensely good non-sexual emotion." Spirituality is just another word for some kinds of emotions. Emotions happen in the brain. If it is supposed to be good for the self to dissolve, isn't that just death worship? I value life, not death. Flow is good. That is concentration, not death.

[@Tatarevic23]

What is George Clooney doing here?

[@ElvishShellfish]

He's like a nerdy cross between George Clooney and Jay Leno with Winnie the Pooh's voice.

[@talkingoutloud9694]

@@ElvishShellfish Wow, somehow that is spot on! 💯

[@operachild]

Competition is understood because it is rooted in fear and foolishness. Communal thinking is what transcendence encourages. However, cooperation with discernment will control those parasitic free-radicals that he mentioned. I can drop that speech to 4 words: choose kindness, share love. #choosekindness

[@Jared-kh3uk]

Very interesting yet I don't think he really connected the concept of self transcendence and human cooperation enough

[@JerFhilm]

There's a big connection there I agree :D If you can see truth in both the positive and the negative you can willfully choose the positive without condemning the negative. Positivity facilitates communication which in turn facilitates cooperation.

[@kikiperry8176]

Is survival not enough?

[@freesk8]

This guy is excited about situations in which war and tragedy makes us work together. He wants us to be unified. But these are BAD situations! I'd rather we were disunited and peaceful and prosperous, thank you very much.

[@Exceltrainingvideos]

Interesting insights...

[@epeo22]

It's not because immortality is a nice story that we must believe it. Bertrand Russel said "It seems to me fundamental dishonesty and fundamental treatory to intellectual integrity to hold a belief because you think it's useful and not because you think it is true." I AM part of something bigger than myself. I really hope that the positive effect I bring to the world will outlast me. I simply don't expect it to last FOREVER. There is something BETWEEN infinity and zero, and we are there.

[@evilpandakillabzonattkoccu4879]

even at the end "No man is an island entire of itself; every man is a piece of the continent, a part of the main"...and the main works toward a common goal, not because it loses the self but because the self also benefits. this isnt transcending the self... this is using reciprocity as an advantage to get closer to the self's goal.

[@ndndndnnduwjqams]

I agree, 6 years later

[@elpampa9817]

Por eso gano Milei.El individuo al luchar por él es lo más justo socialmente.Y se puede sin el colectivismo.

[@bokiboy]

where is Jacques Fresco on TED talks ??????? Why is he not in here??? The most important idea worth spreading is the evolution to the civilized world. Resource based economy. Peace and love to all of us.

[@benediktzoennchen]

This fits perfectly into the philosophy of Martin Buber and the teaching of Viktor Frankl, very interesting!

[@jestermorales03]

Martin Butler?

[@eyesofwight]

All you've said makes sense to me. An individual's self should still be apparent though. There's no sense in locking down personal ideas and expressions. If self-transcendence is about losing the self entirely, then ultimately what is there ever to fight for, what be to live for, if only to lose self? If all lose self, what is there? --- Is that collective conscious or unconscious?

[@steveodavis9486]

Perhaps a desire to be one with God.

[@-etaq8474]

I feel like I was at the top stage of self-transcendence a few years ago when I was in middle school. But now, the cruelty of life had forced me down to more of a self-interested being. The society today needs to provide better living standards for the general public as well as more inspirational thinkers to help people maintain a high level of "sacred" morals. People need to open their minds to understand the rightful existence of and find the balance between globalism and nationalism.

[@mariaserrano98]

Couldn't have said it any better!

[@Jamie-Russell-CME]

you need to consider that you may not understand the answer. Christ is the only way to the light. I am just telling you this fact, because I have found it. No desire but for you to be happy. In the example and hope of life. If you haven't seen it, you didn't listen. Read Jesus words and life with your full mind. And find what is needed to have meaning.

[@-etaq8474]

@Corvus Morve I pretty-much agree with what you said. But if with the help of new technologies, for example, institutions could help our society figure out a way to do so efficiently, it could become part of the new balance.

[@-etaq8474]

@Corvus Morve Exactly! Although I would admit that the state of "enlightenment" achieved by second-hand knowledge might not be as consistent without real experiences of struggles, something is definitely better than nothing.

[@mildlycurious8333]

@@Jamie-Russell-CME boo looser

[@pchamney]

Oh, dear. If you think that evolution is a false concept, you have a great deal to learn.

[@Hermit_mouse]

This explains why every single person on Instagram is trying to inspire every single other person

[@AL_THOMAS_777]

Instagram, fakebook & co = pure MASS media. What do you expect of them ? Really i n t e l l i g e n t folks will l e a v e them soon . . . And the most intelligent never tried them at all . . .

[@czabeats2964]

Good video. insightful. I do not agree with his conclusions but these are interesting topics. wonder what a free rider is is modern society.

[@MrAndersJensen]

Profound talk ❤️

[@francismausley7239]

Transcending the ego - angel over animal is a constant life aim... "Man ever aspires to greater heights and loftier goals. He ever seeks to attain a world surpassing that which he inhabits, and to ascend to a degree above that which he occupies. This love of transcendence is one of the hallmarks of man." ~ Abdu’l-Baha, Baha'i Faith

[@lukethegreat101]

Wonder what is going through Steven Pinker's head listening to this talk (he's sitting on stage). Considering he and many others reject group selection.

[@BUSeixas11]

Exactly my though. He was probably very frustrated

[@leandro6151]

Yeah, Pinker totally destroyed group selection in his Edge article. I wonder why Haidt is so attached to the idea. We can make sense of groupishness without group selection

[@BrandenIsMe]

Haidt has done ground breaking work in the study of social psychology that is, as far as we are capable of, unbiased. Pinker is also responsible for exceptional work. i agree that you should question what makes Haidt grasp so tightly to these ideas, but a good psychoanalyst would also question why Pinker grasps so tightly to his ideas. what is one in support of? what does it allow you to deny or be against? what are your motivations? etc...

[@three10media]

explains why people love Coachella so much.

[@dan69052]

Found your presentation very interesting. I recently read the book " Why God Won't Go Away" byAndrew Newberg. It reinforces your talk in much detail. I highly recommend it

[@Navenanthen]

There's a distinction between 'ego-identification' and 'self-transcendence' that Haidt fails to make, which becomes gravely evident in his promotion of war as an experience of self-transcendence.

[@apocalypse359]

Self-interest is simply choosing to act upon something that benefits you. It doesn't have to harm anyone else, or be beneficial ONLY to you. if you had no personal interest in a movement, then you would have absolutely no reason to join. Sometimes, being in a group, one has to sacrifice some interests, but the reason a person joined the group was so that his primary interest is fulfilled. People simply don't do things that have absolutely no beneficial outcome for themselves.

[@riddler251]

Finally, A TED talk! Unfortunately, it seems many people are incapable of looking beyond the title.

[@railander]

So many liberal individualistic tears here on the comments just cause this guy showed the most obvious facts about human nature.

[@BabylonianHebrew]

Is that who these whiners are? was trying to figure out their gripe

[@1110-s1t]

railander haha I came here as an individualist liberal who recently awoke to the fact that we have to compromise with conservatives on certain points to have a cohesive society. my mind has been somewhat blown of late.

[@AjaxNixon]

Shadilay Kekistanis, my dude. Im right there with you. It has a lot to do with group psychology, game theory and darwinism. A team who is individualistic and who doesn't participate in the natural rallying around a mascot/symbol and demonization of the competitor, will probably lose against the team that does. Whether it's families, team sports, business, countries, etc. Then there is a level of sportsmanship established, as it's mutually beneficial for the teams to establish these ground rules in order to mitigate risk. These things can be shaking hands after a game, prisoner of war treatment, not trying to take out a quarterbacks knees, or not hiding among civilian populations as a combatant. These sportsmanship 'rules' are self regulated by the community of teams, who will shun the bad team (no one wants 8 v 1), or just by understanding that if you break the rules then the enemy has free reign to break the rules on you, so it's better not to break them for both reasons. The problem with current warfare with guerrillas and terrorists, is that they break the rules, but they aren't punished for not following the sportsmanship rules(geneva convention). If a football team can get away with targeting a QBs knees, they'll keep doing it - it has strategic benefit. If combatants are doing things like using civilians as shields, not wearing uniform, ect, and they aren't being punished, then no one will be incentivized to follow RoE. If RoE and punishment/benefit is strictly enforced, then you'd see more revolutions following those codes as to avoid death, torture, international intervention and to be treated less harshly if they lose.

[@AjaxNixon]

+Shadilay Kekistanis If our view is correct, Nationalists will out-compete globalists. It's less so of a debate on 'what is right' and more so of a debate of 'what will work.' Us and SJWs don't see eye to eye on this because SJWs deny basic human nature and group psychology in favor of marxist sociology, so the debate never even goes into that realm that is constructive. I don't talk to SJWs anymore, because it's a waste of time. Just classical liberals, conservatives, traditionalists, etc. The main issue is making sure America turn around from Globalism, because we don't want to be a loser. Let some European countries go globalism and wait for them to fail and then show the SJWs why they are stupid in real time. That is the only hope. The idea of globalism won't die by debate, it'll have to eat a few countries first. We just don't want one of those countries to be America. That is all.

[@1110-s1t]

Basekitball well I'm in Australia and just started an Arts degree. It is all predicated on Marxist sociology and there is no room to challenge it. I try every day and I won't stop because I think it is imperative to expose my fellow students to different ideas. We only really produce resources and services so globalisation is kinda helpful for us but we need to reign it in a little bit to be sustainable.

[@Navenanthen]

Why do we search for self-transcendence? Why do we attempt to lose ourselves? Because we falsely believe that we, in fact, are separate selves, but the awareness that we are on a deeper level, pulls us towards the truth. It is this sense of gravitational attraction then, our separate selves signify as a 'search'. Being thus misguided, the only thing our separate selves find - externally, is a sense of belonging within the hive-mind of other similarly misguided souls through activities they collectively mistake for "self-transcendence".

[@damaristighe3227]

And that is why nationalism is inevitable.

[@kcy88]

I get the feeling that a good chunk of the dislikes are from religious fanatics who missed the point and took it as criticism of their faith.

[@michalchik]

Like most people, he really does not understand the concepts of group selection. We do have plenty of prosocial biases but they do not come from group selection, they come from a variety of mechanism ranging from kind selection to systems of collective punishment and reciprocal altruism. EO Wilson may revive the debate, but not amongst the evolutionary biologists. He will just annoy them.

[@michalchik]

Which does not, BTW vitiate his essential point that we are capable and well adapted to extraordinary feats of cooperation. Its just not by group selection.

[@thekarmaslap]

michalchik it seems that to me that this argument can go in circles. You can argue that collective punishment and reciprocal altruism are mechanisms evolved to promote group selection. They both promote group fitness as the 'in group' survives. So how can you go about making the distinction of individual versus group fitness, when one promotes the other. Functionally religion can act as a signifier that brings social cohesion within a community but also through differentiating 'us' vs 'them', which is also why religion on the whole is costly. A costly signal indicates the reliable intentions of an individual. So my argument against your interesting point is why else would we have these mechanisms if not to ensure group and individual selection?

[@michalchik]

thekarmaslap Its hard to really make this issue clear until you get into the math of group selection versus individual types of selection that help the group, but the dynamics are fundamentally different as are the conclusions. For example, if group select was the main driving force of human evolution we are basically screwed, because our civilization does not have separate, genetically sealed groups that compete with eachother and then reproduce. Our only best hope for prosocial behavior to last against parasitic sociopathy is to fracture our society into genetically sealed groups that compete for dominance. Drive other groups to extinction and then grow and split into new groups. If the other elements of fishers equation are in play we can have a variety of complex interconnected societies that still weed out parasites and antisocial individuals though exactly how we do that depends on other parameters like the stability of family, pressures of cultural conformity, tolerance for certain behaviors, how hierachical we are... I seriously doubt though, that even with other strong factors that punish free riders and reward altruism in play, group selection ever was or ever will be a major factor because it established fact that humans have a very strong drive to out breed and seek mates from other groups. Every culture has some mechanism to do this. With this much genetic mixing selective forces at the level of groups have no ability to create evolution.

[@thekarmaslap]

michalchik I am researching this topic at the moment so by no means do I think I am an expert just trying to understand it all a bit more. I dont think that group selection is the main driving force of human evolution, I think natural selection and interaction with environment and other species is, which cause adaptations. My argument was mainly focused on the evolution of religion. So if religion was an adaptation it would have to be strongly linked with group selection as it would play a larger role than individual selection because of its costs and the fact that it produces social solidarity, enforces co-operation and so on. The issue I am struggling most with is whether religion evolved as an adaptation or whether it is a by product, spandrel. My opinion is that it was initially a byproduct and then adapted through group selection and other mechanisms as a means of being beneficial to society. What do you think?

[@michalchik]

thekarmaslap If your math is solid, i can give you a good reference to look at.

[@valentinsarmagal]

Can't believe I’m finding this 11 years late

[@rstdot]

What if the staircase actually leads down? What if the journey to a hive mind does not raise humankind but lowers it to the level of ants or hyenas?

[@zatoichiMiyamoto]

there is non "levels" in evolution. this is just another stretegy to survive, acceptable as any other meanwhile it works..to survive.

[@jeanetteb2347]

Then we will be taken over by artificial intelligence and robots, don't you think?

[@JerFhilm]

The staircase going down is ritualized negativity. It's anti-group pro-self, it's armoring up under the unbreathable shell of ego.

[@synergyzer07]

I think that the question whether people in the crowd in the picture of Winston Churchill are seeking their self interest or communal interest is a false dilemma. I think we don't "lose ourselves to become part of a crowd". We simply realize that we are on the same boat. To become a worthy member of the crew, not to become undifferentiated. Because when people become undifferentiated, they start thinking they are "The Good", and non-conforming opinions get deemed to be dangerous, as problematic free-riders, rather than the creative contributors they intend to be. Groupthink. We need solidarity without groupthink.

[@shahidiqbal9040]

Just believe on God and see what will happen .God said if you will remember me I will you.

[@welshmouse]

That's not how belief works. Could you just decide to believe in the flying spaghetti monster? We don't believe because there is no reason to believe.

[@IIllytch321nonadinfinitum]

Look up circular reasoning or "begging the question". Peace.

[@psalm1tree466]

Let's look at some evidence for the Creator, of the Bible, in the area of science. A new book called Physicians' Untold Stories lists many doctors' reports about divine intervention they have seen in their practice. In one case a woman who had not walked for years, and who was on her death bed from multiple sclerosis. was prayed over. Suddenly the Almighty told her to "Get up and walk." That she did, with the sudden appearance of new muscles in her legs. She is now leading a completely normal, healthy, life. . And there is much, much more... Anyone: When you see the well documented miracles below, if you want to say "Anecdotes", sorry, I can't take you seriously. I'm quite sure that when you get your own medical or doctor reports that you say no such thing. If you can't tell the difference between anecdotes and medical reports, and scientific research, perhaps you should spend some time curled up with a dictionary. . Also, if you want to quote some site that tries to trash the Shroud of Turin, I leave you with a rhetorical Q. Should I listen to people who were never anywhere near the Shroud , or to the team of scientists who examined it and put their findings in peer reviewed science journals, and to the scientist who invented carbon 14 dating who is seen in the vid? (There he can be seen saying that the "medieval age" carbon 14 datings of the Shroud are invalid due to contamination.) That's not a tough decision. . Now in the Bible we are told of a Man Who believed in Adam and Eve and Noah as being actual, historical figures. The Bible says He did miracles and raised the dead and healed the sick. He multiplied food out of nothing. He said we could do even greater things than He did. The Bible also describes His death and burial. Is there any actual scientific data to support those stories? . See secular news reports about Val Thomas, dead for 17 hours but now alive and normal after prayers from her family and her Church. kzbin.info/www/bejne/qYGrqpapfsl1Z7s . . See Medical Marvel Beyond Chance, from a secular source, with a pediatrician giving his report. this one attesting to a dying child's healing which cannot be explained by modern medicine, and came after a relative laid hands on her and prayed for her. kzbin.info/www/bejne/jqrOoGBra7N2idk The DNA in every cell in her body was changed. . See CBN's short vid with Dean Braxton. You'll hear his critical care doctor, rated the best patient care doctor in Washington state, saying "It is a miracle...a miracle..." that Braxton is alive, has no brain damage and is normal in every way. Why? He had no heart beat and no respiration for 1 3/4 hours! His family believed in divine healing and they and others were praying for him. kzbin.info/www/bejne/mWS9m6dup5KbhKM . Also see CBN Dr. Chauncey Crandall Raises A Man From The Dead. kzbin.info/www/bejne/qV6ai56imrGoZ9k Part 1. This video is a bit faded but has the most complete information on this story. . Get Dr. Richard Casdorph's book The Miracles. There he gives medical documentation for miracles, mostly, but not all, from Kathryn Kuhlman's healing services. Casdorph came to Kuhlman's meetings to debunk her but turned into a supporter, as did other doctors. You can see him and other doctors in some of her healing services on YT. (She is now deceased.) Delores Winder is one of the cases documented in his book. You can watch her amazing story on YT with Sid Roth. kzbin.info/www/bejne/eZfHeGiZr8aIjpI The book The Audacity of Prayer by Don Nordin lists medically documented miracles. . On Andrew Wommack's vids you can see doctors talking about "miracles" too. At the end of the book Don't Limit God you see a medical statement by a doctor saying that his patient used to have M.S. and diabetes but is now cured. . Bruce Van Natta was in a horrific accident where he lost about 80% of his small intestine. Someone he didn't even know was told to get on a plane and lay hands on him and pray for him. His small intestines grew back competely and you can see his doctors testifying to that. kzbin.info/www/bejne/nIrad6Sbfad0aJo . Here we see many witnesses reporting donated food being miraculously multiplied for people who lived in a dump in Juarez. kzbin.info/www/bejne/najWpoyPfq9miMk . And btw do you think that Someone Who can raise the dead and heal people of deadly "incurable" diseases, Someone Who can make body parts and food out of nothing, Someone Who created time, space, matter, and energy - needed "evolution" to make life forms? No, He created them fully formed and fully functional in 6 days just as Genesis, a Book He always supported, tells you. . Then there is the Shroud of Turin. If you don't know, the Shroud is a blood stained linen burial shroud with the faint image of a crucified man on it. If you have heard that the Shroud was proven to be a Medieval fake based on carbon 14 testing, in the documentary Jesus And The Shroud of Turin you can see the very inventor of carbon 14 testing saying that the sample was invalid due to contamination. kzbin.info/www/bejne/joXXdZusoMSUrZY . The vid demonstrates many miraculous features such as pollen from Jerusalem and faint images of flowers that are found only in the Jerusalem area during the spring, as at Passover when Messiah was crucified. With modern technology we also see that the Shroud has an x ray quality which reveals the bones and dentition of the Man on the Shroud. . In the 70s a NASA scientist noticed the Shroud's photographs had inexplicable, unique in the world, qualities. He got up a team of scientists, called STURP, to examine it in person in Italy. (No, the Shroud is not "just a Catholic thing" as the Vatican only came into stewardship of it fairly recently in history.) They used NASA, and other, high tech equipment with 100s of thousands of hours of research. Their findings are seen all over the net and were published in respected science journals. . The team was composed of 3 Jews, at least one agnostic and one atheist, and people of various faiths. They all agreed on these things: The Shroud image was not painted on, and they have no clue how it got there. It exactly matches, down to blood stains where a crown of thorns would be, the description of Messiah's death and burial as given in the Bible. The image could not be duplicated with modern technology. . About the Shroud I say "If it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck and waddles like a duck, maybe it's a duck." . Maybe that Man on the Shroud is your very Best Friend and Savior. I pray you will find that out. You're going to need a miracle some day friend. They are out there in abundance for those who humbly seek them from their Creator, the One Who made all that DNA out there, and Who said, "Whoever comes to Me I will no way cast out." . It's not about religion. It's about Him. And you.

[@psalm1tree466]

@demigodzilla Oh yeal, right. Like when medical doctors get on public television and acknowledge a man has had his intestines grow back, and when a prominent emergency physician gets on public t.v. and says that it is a miracle that a man with no heart beat and no respiration for 1 3/4 hours is now normal in every way, those kinds of things should not be taken seriously? But you, who weren't anywhere near there, and no doubt are no way a medical professional, just some anonymous person on YT, should be taken real seriously? Did you have a chance to examine the medical records, question the attending medical staff, the patient or the family? They physicians did,. In great detail, in depth. All those things are on public record and of course the doctors would risk their licenses for making up the outrageous lies you claim they fostered. You, of course, have nothing to lose, as an anonymous poster on YT who had zero to do with those cases. It's hard to see when closed eyes. Delusional and dishonest? Yeal, but who, in what direction?. Welcome to mute as you currently don't want to hear anything that rattles your box.. Open your mind to the truth, or reject it at your own peril. One way or another, though, you can't make the truth go away. You can just miss out on its benefits. Like, forever. Bye!

[@aviator-kn8zq]

@@psalm1tree466 shut up. nonsense.

[@Sardonac]

@thalamay He doesn't pit egoism against spirituality. He contrasts the adaptive value of individual tendencies towards personal advantage and impersonal group benefit. His mentioned evidence for 'spirituality' leading towards cooperation is the psychological states characteristic of certain people in war, collective civil action, and their [supposed] analogue in 'spiritual'/meditative mindsets.

[@theroadupward]

Or there actually is a God. Einstein said "Mine is the God of Spinoza. Spinoza said "not only is there God, there is nothing else." Religion is just assigning meaning-this is important, this is mundane. Its part of human consciousness.

[@Neanderthalcouzin]

Again that doesn't make an act per se selfish, just occurring from a suite of capacities that the individual possesses. Big difference.

[@johntrip2915]

Probably the most bs I've ever seen

[@anim8dideas849]

it just pseudo-science propaganda for the militant atheist religion for the globalist elite

[@BuissonYt]

Golden thoughts, well, now explain yourself with arguments, oh sorry you can't, you are probably religious

[@TheFolkUtopia]

Self-transcendence is directly related to self preservation. As is adhering to a group dynamic to prevent becoming prey. I felt this speaker was reaching so hard for a profound finding of a greater good that he failed to see it is at odds with itself. Even if as populations grew and cooperation was necessary for survival it is still in the interest of the self. It does not transcend but adapts the self to be more cooperative.

[@111sunder]

Not only the immediate physiological feedback, but also the memorized perceptions of all past feedback as well. As Buddha said: All that I am, is all that I know. What would be the other possible secondary motivators?

[@SeraphimGoose]

Everyone needs to accept that 'spiritual' is just a word for lack of a better word. There's nothing wrong with using it if we know what he means and can manage to detach it from it's supernatural associations.

[@JohnBoen]

Good discussion. It presented information and multiple perspectives. What's to dislike?

[@kettlebell_dan]

@alalal777 That's exactly what he said. The desire, or possibly innate need to belong to a group (religion in this case) is also what pits one group against another. Belonging to a group doesn't meant that you are at peace with the world, in fact it puts you at odds with all other groups. Abolishing religion would not end war. There would still be ideologies and banners that people would unite behind causing conflict. Our species isn't beyond this need yet. We have to get in the "same boat" 1st.

[@MrNikolaid]

Most of the time, the communal interest boils down to self interest. If the community is harvesting something helpful and useful, the individual person will be benefitting from it in the end.

[@m042g]

... cooperating on a base of moral pinciples, honoring wisdom, honesty, virtue and using light of reason, which will be able to survive. Not a selfish individuals manipulating crowds, keeping them in dumbness, missusing collective behaviour. And finally as an argument for group selection - all properties of members of group cooperating on a base of moral principles can only be manifested thru self-transcendence, extended consciousness.

[@apocalypse359]

Technically, if you think about it, if you become a part of a larger group, you are still experiencing self-interest. You're joining a group because the people inside of that group have a common self-interest. That's all.

[@AshwinEAcharya]

@ZirconCode Very true. One only joins a "group" if they feel it will benefit them in some way. I agree with a lot of what Haidt said, but there a so many questions left untouched.

[@LeafVillItachi]

I love these videos something to think about and learn before going to sleep

[@piprod01]

What would be interesting is to see how Jonathan shows which genes are responsible for transmitting spirituality. It seems more likely to me that spirituality is a by product of our psychology. Our attribution of agency, ect. Since these don't require a genetic explanation, of what would have to be a fairly complex neurological pathway.

[@TheLivirus]

@ClintSevilla No. He specifically stated that this elevated state of mind can be achived without religion.

[@reallyeasy100]

I think an argument can be made that THE INTERNET is the new 'religious experience'. It's the new hive mind that transcends and even replaces religion, national politics and local culture.

[@TheGerogero]

'Spiritual' and 'sacred' are tricky words.

[@ZenSkin]

Professor Haidt eluded to the ideas central to John Nash's equilibrium, which, by its nature, is unstable. Cooperation pays off for the group, but it is easy for an agent to defect and take the larger short-term gain. The Nash equilibrium is ubiquitous in nature, we can observe it self-organizing phenomena. It is reasonable to assert that evolution can be viewed as an interplay between selfish and self-less memes.

[@Kenchan1337]

i'd say the tribes battle is decided by a better battle plan, his example only counts in a fair fight.

[@jamespollard302]

Anyone know of sociologists arguing similarly, or where he's getting his sources from?

[@drummergeorge9642]

Not sure. Read his books like me

[@Oluwatoyosi.A]

Fascinating 🎉

[@mattdolan]

This guy jacked the rowing analogy from The Selfish Gene by Dawkins.

[@Naturalist1979]

Interesting talk. No evolutionary theorist disputes the fact that we have evolved to function in groups, as our innate in/outgroup psychology evidences; but genecentrism could also account for this. And surely, one of Mother Nature´s tricks to make human groups cohere is to enable them to envision sacred values, rites and symbols, and indeed to implant an intense joy whenever you're unselfishly merging in a group. Whether it's gene- or group-selection; we could agree on the adaptation-claim.

[@TheLivirus]

@somor98 If you think about it, this "trust" is not necessary. There are other options: The group could either force the slacker to contribute, or they could just exclude the slacker from the group. And if you look at nature, that is a common occurence.

[@Havvdon]

@kernell32bcn The point he was making was not that we evolved to be religious or hooligans, but that we evolved to have the capability to be loose ourselves into groups, be it religious or not, because it helped us survive. Yes, he made the point trough group selection, but the point could have been made just as well trough kin selection or any other alternative. Also, he never said that we can't criticize people for their actions because they were evolved to it.

[@falsificationism]

@chadpt Good point about kin selection. He should have said something like, 'but humans don't funnel their breeding through a queen to become a eusocial species, they create social institutions (e.g., religions, norms, experiences) that encourage self-loss, fictive kinship etc...to achieve ultrasociality to create groups with nonkin. Reciprocal altruism and kin selection explain most, but not all aspects of human nature...' But of course, TED talks are no place for footnotes.

[@Naturalist1979]

Interesting talk. No evolutionary theorist disputes the fact that we have evolved to function in groups, as our innate in/outgroup psychology evidences; but genecentrism could also account for this. And surely, one of Mother Nature´s tricks to make human groups cohere is to enable them to envision sacred values, rites and symbols, and indeed to implant an intense joy whenever you're truly merging in a group. Whether it's gene- or group-selection; let's at least agree on the adaptive endresult.

[@ethionel]

This is s good one.

[@1877theflip]

It is not a factor of evolution that cooperation need be adopted between but rather a simple reality, a spiritual truth if you will. Because satisfaction can be thought of as a flame: a flame may burn for a good amount of time on it's own provided the foundation it has for burning is upheld (self interest), but eventually even with foundations, unless the flame has something to fuel it that did not come from its own charred foundations (collective interest), it will go out.

[@SpinyNormanDinsdale]

This reminds me of Dawkins "Selfish Gene" book. Which was amazing, but wasn't illustrated with nice projector awesomeness like this.

[@GodsendNYC]

I think this means something!

[@Neanderthalcouzin]

Consult cross cultural research in "Foundations of Human Sociality" by Henrich et. al, the work of Fehr & Fischbacher, theoretical developments in "A Cooperative Species" by Herbert Gintis and Sam Bowles, and other research that uses behavioural economics under an evolutionary synthesis. Also consult child psychology research such as Michael Tomasello, Phillip Rochat on the emergence of strong reciprocity in children, and neuroscience such as Hausser and his book "Moral Minds".

[@PuckthePup]

@14:30 he basically quoted Himmler by saying how people coming together can move mountains.

[@Sardonac]

@thalamay He doesn't argue that it's 'right' or 'good.' Only that it may be an advantageous adaptation in the right context. And he said, more specifically, that humans evolved the capacity for 'Sacred' psychological states, which in turn directly facilitate the development of religious groups. Whether these are 'good' or 'right' is entirely circumstantial.

[@Longtack55]

Where is this? The location has relevance to the first show of hands poll.

[@carinamoses2704]

Fascinating, thank you for sharing.

[@magister343]

It seems truly strange to use the term Sacred to refer to a sense of interconnectedness and action for the communal good, considering that the word Sacred literally means "separated, set apart, severed, cut off, or isolated." To the Romans a Homo Sacer was an outlaw with whom no one in the group was allowed to have any dealings.

[@joebazooks]

Interpreting relations and relating interpretations!

[@x0x89]

thx very much from Germany ^^ so much fascinating and inspiring work from Jonathan Haidt

[@TheLivirus]

@AdamDLDixon Did you miss this part? "...but you don't need religion to 'get you through the staircase'. Lots of people find self-transcendence in nature, other overcome their selves at raves..." 03:17

[@globalnomad1221]

humanity is a condition that must be overcome...

[@thalamay]

@Sardonac I think he literally said that we evolved to be religious. But even if we use "transcendent" or "spiritual" instead, it doesn't change the fact that he implies a purpose which is ludicrous. It doesn't matter whether it gave our ancestors a selective advantage or whether it's a bug. That has absolutely no bearing on it being right or good.

[@Ptownpwnage]

Steven Pinker and Ken Robinson in the background, good company.

[@hotstixx]

marvellous critique on truthdig by chris hedges of this twerps latest offering.

[@Shaunt1]

You don't have to be religious to see the value of cooperation or team work. You can serve yourself interests by working together on a common goal.

[@giraffesareburning]

My problem with this videos, and other similar discussions, is the language used to deal with evolution. He claims that the elevated state, or spirituality, is either an "adaption" or a "bug." If this spirituality is an adaptation, it doesn't mean we evolved "to be religious," it just means that some point in the line of human evolution it was advantageous to be form spiritual communities. On the other hand, if it is not an adaptation, it doesn't mean it's a fluke or flaw.

[@somor98]

@TimothyStuartRiches That does not explain why the individuals in the boat cooperate in the first place. You have to take into account that each of the individuals take a chance in trusting that others in the boat are trustworthy.

[@2168017]

the best TED video I've seen

[@Truthiness231]

@Creaform003 "Without conflict there can be no evolution, and without evolution we cannot hope to become better." I concur with you up to that point: evolution is blind development that - yes, if we just ignore our progression from this point onward - would continue on our species. But we're able to rationalize things and control our future and become better without blind evolution (if you define "evolution" simply as "progression", then yeah I guess we're always "evolving" in that sense)

[@Sardonac]

Please 'Like' this comment so folks don't misinterpret Mr. Haidt: This talk is not arguing that religion or ideology is a good thing. It makes no moral claims. The speaker is arguing that the notion of group identity and camaraderie - found in many religious traditions - is analogous to other kinds of group activities (e.g. activism). He argues that this activity may be an evolutionary adaptation rather than a 'bug in our system.' See: Biologist Edward O. Wilson for more about this.