Instincts and God

[shawmutt]

One of my favorite books during my Christian days was Mere Christianity. On a superficial level, it satisfied some of my doubts about religion and made me feel I was on the side of logic. One of the arguments I remember from the book was that God was the force between two conflicting instincts--the God of Moral Law.

Supposing you hear a cry for help from a man in danger. You will probably feel two desires--one a desire to give help (due to your herd instinct), the other a desire to keep out of danger (due to the instinct for self-preservation). But you will find inside you, in addition to these two impulses, a third thing which tells you that you ought to follow the impulse to help, and suppress the impulse to run away. Now this thing that judges between two instinct, that decides which should be encouraged, cannot itself be either of them...

(Funny dusting off that old copy and immediately recoiling from the really crappy arguments made in this book)

I read something interesting from SA.com today. That "thing" can simply be time!

http://www.scientificamerican.com/p...imply-atruism-takes-t-10-03-02&sc=DD_20100302

Sinking Ships Imply Altruism Takes Time
A study in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences looked at the survival rates of men, woman and children from the Titanic and the Lusitania, and found more men stayed alive when the ship went down fast, and panic overtook chivalry.

 

[sphenisc]

The thing may take time, I don't think it can be time.

 

[Bikewer]

One can simply look at these things (altruism and self-preservation) as being part of our evolutionary background.
In many cases, there's a juggling act involved..."Should I jump in the frozen lake to save my kid? I might drown myself.....?
The conditioning that leads us to one act or another would be predicated on culture, individual temperament, and so forth.
I don't think any supernatural prompting is necessary....

 

[Beerina]

Supposing you hear a cry for help from a man in danger. You will probably feel two desires--one a desire to give help (due to your herd instinct), the other a desire to keep out of danger (due to the instinct for self-preservation). But you will find inside you, in addition to these two impulses, a third thing which tells you that you ought to follow the impulse to help, and suppress the impulse to run away. Now this thing that judges between two instinct, that decides which should be encouraged, cannot itself be either of them...

Yeah, it's called a "meme", an idea, an ethic in this case, built up in the mind to induce actions that help spread said meme to other people. The meme doesn't care if you croak while trying -- but if you succeed, hooo boy! Will it then spread far in excess than you dying would hurt it.

 

[I Ratant]

At work, we'd get the occasional false fire alarm.
Me, I'd go look for the source of the fire.
A couple other guys, don't be between them and the door!
In a Lusitania situation, I think I'd help others get to the lifeboats.... while being close to the one I was assigned to. (couple voyages to and from Europe)
And see the rafts were loose to float.

 

[Trent Wray]

I think that, more or less, when someone isn't acting on instinct (like in your example) and they stop to think, more or less they are looking for a reason to justify what they are about to do. If they help the person, maybe it's because:

* it's the right thing to do
* it makes them feel like a hero
* they pity the person
* they don't want to see the person suffer
* they want a reward somehow for their efforts
etc etc etc

If they don't help, it's because:

* they don't want to get caught up in something that will take effort and time away from their lives
* it's too dangerous
* they do not like the person or value them enough
* they are unable to physically accomplish the task
* they think it is the right thing to do (let the person struggle) for other reasons

etc etc etc

So one might ask, "why do they have to justify whatever they are about to do?"

Perhaps because they don't trust their instincts?

 

[samm]

Did the article differentiate between the effect of time and the effect of peer pressure/witnesses? That is, as things take more time there is a more orderly effort which allows an individuals actions to be witnessed by more people and the influence of other people's awareness then has a greater influence.

Also, did the article factor out that with more time there is more opportunity for altruism?