Surprise! Human morality is based on our innate morality and not on religion. Religion is not the rock. Our innate morality is.

5th of october 2009

Read article Marc Hauser's 'Morality without religion'. It contains more details on the empirical "evidence" that religious believers and atheists and agnostics share the same moral faculty. All human beings share the same moral faculty that guides our intuitive judgments on right and wrong. Our own nature, our own human moral faculty is the source of our species morality. Religion is not necessary for judging what is right or wrong. We don't need God!

29th of september 2009
Do we need religion to behave good? Answer: NO we are born with a universal sense of right and wrong. Our inborn moral sense is the rock of all our human behaviour. The rock on which religions are built on. Shocking - to me it is? Who says so? Well ... it's not something I invented or dreamed last night. It's "proven" by serious (still ongoing) science by Marc Hauser. Do you want to participate? Fill in The Moral Sense Test.

28th of september 2009

Translation quote from dutch into english (by JeanD99):

"Hauser' research [to the innate human morality] brings up lots of questions, and often outrage. "Yes, it's an issue everyone has an opinion on," he laughs. People in religious circles are generally not very happy with him. "I have shown that atheists have the same moral scores as deep believers" says Hauser. It seems undeniable that religion is based on our innate morality and that religion doesn't found our morality.

It doesn't matter who they are, is Hauser' clear message. Even psychopaths have the same scores in the Moralitytest. That is very recent research. Hauser also shows that our intuitive moral judgments are not based on emotions. "From psychopaths we know that they hardly feel anything while doing terrible things. But they know what is right and wrong. Their scores don't diverge. ""

 
Original quote from Liesbeth Koenen in dutch. NRC Handelsblad, 26th of september 2009 in article 'De intuïtieve mensenmoraal'.

"Hausers onderzoek [naar de menselijke aangeboren moraal] roept wel meer vragen op, en ook nogal eens verontwaardiging. "Ja, het is een onderwerp waar echt iedereen iets van vindt", lacht hij. In gelovige kringen is men meestal niet erg blij met hem. "Ik heb laten zien dat atheïsten dezelfde morele scores hebben als diepgelovigen", zegt Hauser. Het lijkt hem daarom niet onaannemelijk dat onze aangeboren moraal als bodem onder religies dient, in plaats van dat het geloof die bodem aanbrengt.

Het maakt niet uit om wie het gaat, blijkt Hausers boodschap. Zelfs psychopaten vullen de Moralitytest niet anders in. Dat is heel recent onderzoek. Het laat volgens Hauser ook zien dat onze intuïtieve morele oordelen niet op emoties gebaseerd zijn. "Van psychopaten weten we dat ze bij allerlei vreselijke dingen heel weinig voelen. Maar ze weten wel wat goed en fout is. Hun scores wijken niet af.""

Knowledge of history benefits evolutionary fitness

Translation quote from dutch into english (by JeanD99): "Knowledge of and interest in history in general can certainly benefit evolutionary fitness. If you understand a little how the world works, and realize how you've become who you are, you clearly are slightly more fitted than those who don't." 

Original quote from Chris Buskes in dutch: "Kennis van en belangstelling voor de geschiedenis kan zeker evolutionair voordeel hebben betekend. Als je enigzins begrijpt hoe de wereld in elkaar steekt, en ook beseft hoe je bent geworden wie je bent, heb je onmiskenbaar een streepje voor op individuen die dit alles ontgaan." NRC, 30/8/2009 in article 'Met ons historisch besef gaat het fantastisch' by Hans Goedkoop.

People don't realize everything disappears. Including feelings

Original quote from Orhan Pamuk in dutch: "Wij mensen willen niet vergeten worden. We willen niet beseffen dat het leven tijdelijk is, dat alles verdwijnt, ook gevoelens." NRC, 4/9/2009 bookreview 'Het museum van de onschuld' by Margot Dijkgraaf.

Translation quote from dutch into english (by JeanD99): "People don't want to be forgotten. We don't realize that life is temporary, everything disappears, including feelings."

Do I have to redefine my definition on communication? Footnote on 'Twitter a killer application? No! But ...'

A few steps back.

I joined Twitter on 17th of july 2009. Just lurking a bit. From the very beginning I try to understand what Twitter is about. I try to define if Twitter is a killer application – like some say. I try to predict from the inside if Twitter is really going to change our human lifes. Last 2 weeks I was thinking on the followers and following statistics on Twitter. How is it possible to follow (‘following’) more than 43.000 twitterers and to be followed (‘followers’) by more than 74.000?

Desmond Morris tells in his book 'The Naked Ape' (1967) that our human behaviour is largely evolved to meet the challenges of prehistoric life as hunter-gatherers who lived in groups from 40-60 people to survive. This “40-60 people group” concept is according to Morris still alive and something I always recognize in my personal life. But what I do not know is how this 40-60 people group concept works in relation to Twitter.

Questions:
(a) Is 40-60 people group a correct concept of our human survival?
(b) Is internet since 20 years, step by step, changing our human lives?

(c) Is it possible that Twitter is going to change our human lives?
(d) How can someone communicate with more than 43.000 people who he is following?
(e) Do I have to redefine my definiton on “communication”?

Gartner's hype curve. Is Twitter at the point ‘Peak of Inflated Expectations’? Or already passed that a long time ago?

My comment on Meg Pickard's blog 'The many ways in which the experience of Twitter’s development and growing popularity is very much like the experience of early blogging'.

Nice clarifying timeline AND Gartner’s Hype Curve! When I think and rethink about it I’m not sure where to put Twitter right now in the Gartner’s hype curve. Is Twitter at the point of ‘Peak of Inflated Expectations’ (that’s how I feel about it right now) or already passed the point ‘Slope of Enlightenment’? Should we not devide the Twitter users into a couple of groups? My assumption is that each groups rounds the timeline with a different speed and at a different time. The group ‘early adapters’ already rounded this timeline a few times. They had their own early adapters, media, experts, celebrities etc.

The groups I see: early adapters, new users and their friends, small media, mainstraim media, celebrities, experts, people you never expected, everyone (= it became a killer application = we can’t be a social human being without it).