Four Resons Why Religion Should Be Avoided at All Cost

REASON 1

Religion is an obstacle to moral development. According to psychological theorist, Lawrence Kohlberg, the first stage of moral development centers on the individual modifying his/her behavior in order to avoid punishment and earn rewards. Small children, dogs, and adult sociopaths tend to operate at this level of moral development. 

In the second stage of moral development, the individual desires to be considered a good person and so conforms to an external system of rules (example: laws, cultural norms, family values, and religion). An internal moral sense cultivated by indoctrination to external belief systems becomes deeply ingrained in people. At this level of development, moral "feelings" are mistaken for undeniable truths. For many reasons, questioning the validity of religious morals can ignite extreme hostility and defensiveness.

The pitfall of uncritically accepting a moral code learned from one’s culture, such as that offered by religion, is that it may include elements that are truly harmful to others. An individual raised in the environment of Nazi Germany would have the same deep commitment to that moral code as anyone indoctrinated into any external moral code.  In the pre-Civil War South, ministers used the Bible to justify the enslavement of other human beings. The Bible and the Koran are currently being used to justify racism and homophobia. The results? Torture, murder, and suicide.

The highest level of moral development requires a critical examination of values using universal litmuses like harm done, fairness, and empathy. Without a rational, compassionate evaluation of every aspect of one’s moral code, the potential for harm is great. Religion is a barrier to advanced moral development.

REASON 2

Religion inhibits intellectual development. The touchstone for intellectual growth is changing positions when disputing evidence for a pre-existing belief outweighs supporting evidence for said belief. Most of the dominant religions require accepting the legitimacy of their doctrines not on evidence, but on faith. Faith is often considered an admirable quality. However, faith and gullibility seem to be two sides of the same coin. Webster's defines faith as, "(a)firm belief in something for which there is no proof." Gullible means, "easily persuaded to believe something." So, aren't faith and gullibility inseparable? In other words, wouldn't it require gullibility to firmly believe something without proof?

Believing without evidence is a slippery slope. If I choose to accept one supernatural manifestation on faith, am I not then susceptible to believing any absurdity? Talking snakes, invisible deities, angels, pixies, leprechauns, and unicorns are all supported by faith and disputed by reason. How does one justify belief in a god, but not in a pixie, or in some other god? Disregarding evidence in favor of faith-based beliefs perpetuates ignorance. Religion is a barrier to advanced intellectual development.

REASON 3

Religion obstructs social development. In a modern global community, appreciation for the benefits of cultural diversity is paramount. Of the six Americans who won Nobel Prizes for Science in 2016, all were immigrants. By nature, religions are exclusionary. They create an "us and them" mentality wherein the "us" are good and the "them," not as good. This kind of social identity has been at the root of every war since the dawn of time. 

Prepackaged, religious beliefs rob people of the opportunity to create personal meaning and to truly define a unique understanding of self separate from cultural definitions. The number one regret of terminally ill patients is that they conformed to the values of others rather than living lives true to themselves. Religion is an impediment to social development.

REASON 4

Religion is a barrier to emotional development. Emotional maturity results from coming to terms with difficult, often frightening, realities. Failure to take responsibility for one's actions is one aspect of emotional immaturity. Children tend to blame others or make excuses for mistakes. Mature adults take responsibility, attempt to make reparations, and try to learn from mistakes. While Christianity holds the individual accountable to a degree, it also provides an easy loophole. Per Christian doctrine, serial killer Jeffrey Dahmer was absolved of responsibility for his actions before his death because he sincerely asked for God's forgiveness. 

Another element of Christianity inconsistent with taking responsibility is the concept of Satan. Satan is ultimately responsible for all evil in the world and God is ultimately responsible for all good. 

By encouraging belief in a fantasy afterlife, religion inhibits adults from maturely coming to terms with mortality. Developing the emotional maturity to deal with the realities of death, unanswered questions, and all of the other uncertainties of human life without resorting to magical and superstitious fantasies requires courage and unyielding integrity. One must be committed to all truths regardless of how scary or difficult. Religion impedes emotional development.

Given that religion is an obstacle to nearly every domain of human development, I consider it a social ill. It is clear to me that outcomes such as charity, love, kindness, and peace have been mistakenly associated with religion. Historically, the opposite outcomes of greed, hate, cruelty, and conflict have just as often been the fruits of religion. Benevolent outcomes result from empathy, a quality independent of religion. If I value the Greek ideal of the fully developed person, I can not also value a system that prohibits human development. 

Blue Lives Matter / Black Lives Matter

That Blue Lives Matter is not in dispute. Unjust killings of police officers are met with outrage, demands for justice,

systemic support for victims' families, and an effort to decrease these incidents in the future. We honor such victims as heroes. This is as it should be. Unjust killings should never be tolerated in a civilized culture. When I hear of an officer killed in the line of duty, my reaction is sympathy and appreciation for the officer's sacrifice. Criticizing or blaming an innocent officer for her own death would be vulgar and repulsive.

That Black Lives Matter is in dispute. Black people are being shot to death while shopping, or playing in a park, or seeking assistance for a broken down vehicle. Video evidence of innocent, unarmed, black people being shot to death is somehow met by otherwise moral people with complete indifference. Worse yet, these otherwise moral people blame the victims and become enraged when black people complain.

No one believes that all or most police officers are bad apples. On the contrary, most people appreciate law enforcement. However, just as a teacher, truck driver, or bricklayer must be prosecuted for criminal behavior, so must police officers.

Like teachers, police officers receive low pay for an extremely responsible job. Unlike teachers, police officers must be prepared to manage life and death situations on a regular basis. Also unlike teachers, who must complete a Bachelor's degree and an internship to be certified, basic law enforcement training in NC requires only a HS diploma or GED and 620 hours of training. To put that in perspective, cosmetologists must complete 1500 hours of training to be licensed in NC.

Innocent American citizens are being killed by police officers on a regular basis. Instead of black people, imagine if these executions were being perpetrated against people with blue eyes. Because a 12-year-old in a park had blue eyes, police felt threatened and shot him to death. Because a stalled motorist had blue eyes, police shot him to death as he held his hands in the air. Because a father had blue eyes, police shot him to death in Walmart when he picked up a toy gun to buy for his kid's birthday.

For any moral patriot, shock and outrage should be the appropriate responses to

these events. This is not an issue that should be debated. It is an issue requiring immediate action! How could anyone think otherwise!? Accountability and increased training are obvious places to start.

Should Mental Health Be Privatized?

A well regulated free market can be a wonderful thing. At its best, regulated competition leads to fair prices and quality goods and services. However, the free market is necessarily fueled by profit. Failure to produce a profit results in a failed endeavor. The system works well as long as the goods and services in question are not negatively affected by profit as the overarching goal.

Having profit as the key goal automatically relegates more noble aspirations to minor positions. Fairness, compassion, and honesty become subsidiaries to profit in privatized services. We have all experienced firsthand situations where privatized healthcare has failed the litmus’ for fairness, compassion, and honesty.

The state of North Carolina privatized mental health services several years ago. The result? North Carolina jails are filled with indigent folks suffering from mental illness. Mental health services for the poor in North Carolina are nearly inaccessible. State-run community mental health centers have the prime goal of effective mental health services to the community, not profit. State-run facilities are not always successful (especially when underfunded), but effective treatment is at least their main objective.

At a community mental health center, if a patient fails to show for an appointment, a case worker may make a home visit to ensure treatment. In the private sector, when a patient fails to show for an appointment, follow up is much less aggressive (What happens when you miss an appointment with your family doctor?). Community mental health centers assume a good deal of responsibility to ensure their patients receive treatment. Many indigents with mental illness do not place a high priority on their own treatment. Failure to treat these folks is not just harmful to the individual, it is detrimental to society. Financial, social, emotional, and physical harm to other members of the community often results when the poor do not receive the treatment they need.  

Despite stereotypes of lazy, ineffective government workers, many services are more effectively delivered through the public sector. The US Military, Post Office, Medicare, Mental Health, FDA, and Social Security are all examples of services better managed by the public sector.

Why Government should NOT be run like a Business

I think this conclusion should be a no-brainer for anyone who takes the time to think about it. What is the primary function of business? On the most basic level, the function of business is to generate profit. Profit is good and necessary for any successful business. But, profit is a motive without conscience. When profit is the guiding force, higher human motives such as patriotism, fairness, social responsibility, loyalty, honesty, generosity, and kindness become subordinate.

What is the primary function of government? The function of government is to serve the citizenry. The US Constitution articulates this purpose very eloquently: "establish Justice (fairness), ensure domestic Tranquility (peace), provide for the common defense (protection), promote the general Welfare (social responsibility), and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our posterity (protect the rights and freedoms of current and future generations of American citizens)."

Consider a hypothetical individual, modeled after business, who is motivated by personal profit to the exclusion of all other influences. This individual would be characterized as a sociopath and government would be charged with protecting the populous from him/her.

Now, consider a hypothetical individual, modeled after government, whose dominant motivators in life are to stand up for people who are being treated unfairly, to maintain social harmony, to protect those who are in danger, to share with those who are in need, and to support the freedoms and rights of all people. This person would be characterized as a hero.

Running government like a business is not just a bad idea. It is an immoral one. Government protects society by enforcing laws and regulations that restrict individual citizens and businesses from engaging in behaviors that harm others. This must be accomplished while ensuring that the liberties of each individual are protected and that there is a level playing field for the free market. 

This is not rocket science. When one’s moral compass is not compromised by base motives (greed, bigotry, selfishness, arrogance, clannishness, indifference to the suffering of others, cruelty, etc.), direction becomes clear and obvious. 

Are You an American Patriot, or an American Nationalist?

In his book, Capture the flag: a political history of American patriotism, Woden Teachout distinguishes American patriotism from American nationalism.[1] American nationalism requires love and support for our country. I relate nationalism to the commitment one feels for a favorite sports team. Regardless of who is playing on the team, who is coaching the team, who owns the team, and how well the team is doing this season, the fan proclaims, “My team is the best!” Likewise, regardless of the foreign policies of this country, domestic policies of this country, and data on how this country ranks in the world on myriad issues, the nationalist proclaims, “America is the best!” Nationalistic flag waving support for any and all military actions initiated by the US very much resembles a sports fan rooting for his/her favorite team. The mantra of the American nationalist is, “AMERICA, LOVE IT OR LEAVE IT!”

Conversely, the focus of American patriotism is love and support for the ideals of our country. The Declaration of Independence and the United States Constitution articulate these values:

·         Popular Sovereignty: The people are the ultimate source of the authority for the government. It derives its right to govern from their consent.

·         Majority Rule and Minority Rights: While decisions are ultimately made by the majority, these decisions may not infringe on the rights of the minority

·         Limited Government: The powers of government are limited by law and kept in check through separated and shared powers, due process of law, and leadership succession through elections

·         Basic Rights: Life, liberty, property, and the pursuit of happiness.[2]

There is a significant correlation (.78) between the nature of legislation passed in the US and the desires of the economic elites in America.[4] There is a near zero correlation (.03) between the nature of legislation passed in the US and the desires of the average citizen in America.[5] These statistics demonstrate that popular sovereignty does not currently exist in the US! The American patriot is outraged by such information that cuts to the heart of our democracy. The nationalist may shrug it off as, “just politics.”

American patriots ensure that minority rights are protected. The Constitution is very clear on this point. However, disregard for the rights of minorities are in the news every day. African Americans represent 13.2%[6] of the US population, but are arrested at a rate “10 times higher than people who are not black.”[7] Unfairness to any minority group is repugnant to a patriot, but may be seen as trivial or even "getting what they deserve" to the nationalist.

American patriots support the separation and limitations of power in government. Laws like Citizens United nullify the checks and balances put into place by the framers of the Constitution to ensure that power is never in the hands of a privileged few. When the economic elite fund politicians from both sides of the isle at all levels of government, there is no longer any real separation of power. Any process that undermines our democracy will outrage a patriot. Nationalists, however, will continue to wave the flag and shout, “We’re the best!”

American patriots support the natural rights of everyone everywhere to live freely and pursue their own happiness. Freedom is a fragile and complex notion. Initially, a capitalistic, free-market economy is a healthy environment to foster freedom. However, anyone who has played the game Monopoly knows that it always ends the same way. One player will own everything while the other players have nothing. Monopoly is an unrestrained capitalist, free-market economy. In the real world, if a society wishes to preserve freedom, capitalism must have checks and balances that continuously even the playing field. Regulations on banking, Wall Street, and others at the top of the food chain protect liberty and freedom for the average citizen.

American patriotism, by its very nature, prohibits nationalism. A true American patriot holds government accountable to the people. The Iraq War, which ultimately killed between 144,745 and 166,468 civilians and orphaned over half of Iraq’s children, was initiated despite the CIA’s “best Intelligence” indicating Saddam Hussein did NOT have weapons of mass destruction.[3]  A war precipitated by ignoble motivations is tantamount to mass murder and should be repellant to a real American patriot.

The fundamental values outlined in the Constitution are forever in the hearts of American patriots. American liberals and American conservatives should also be American patriots. Nationalists wrapped in the American flag, who claim patriotism, need to be outed for what they really are.

---

[1]  Teachout, Woden (2009). Capture the flag: a political history of American patriotism. New York, New York, USA: Basic Books. p. 230. 

[2] "CONSTITUTIONAL DEMOCRACY." CONSTITUTIONAL DEMOCRACY. N.p., n.d. Web. 30 Oct. 2015.

[3] Taylor, Peter. "Iraq War: The Greatest Intelligence Failure in Living Memory." The Telegraph. Telegraph Media Group, n.d. Web. 30 Oct. 2015.

[4] Gilens, Martin, and Benjamin I. Page. "Testing Theories of American Politics: Elites, Interest

Groups, and Average Citizens." Perspect. Polit. Perspectives on Politics 12.03 (2014): 564-81. Web.

[5] Gilens, Martin, and Benjamin I. Page. "Testing Theories of American Politics: Elites, Interest

Groups, and Average Citizens." Perspect. Polit. Perspectives on Politics 12.03 (2014): 564-81. Web.

[6] "USA QuickFacts from the US Census Bureau." USA QuickFacts from the US Census Bureau. N.p., n.d. Web. 30 Oct. 2015.

[7] Heath, Brad. "Racial Gap in U.S. Arrest Rates: 'Staggering Disparity'" USA Today. Gannett, 19 Nov. 2014. Web. 30 Oct. 2015.

Guns, Mass Shootings, Evidence, and Opinions

In the wake of repeated mass shootings and the predictable subsequent media debates arguing simple solutions to a very complex problem, I did some research to find what the empirical evidence on the issue would reveal. My personal bias prior to the research might be categorized as a pro-gun liberal. I would support reasonable gun regulations such as background checks and a ban on assault weapons, but I firmly stand behind the Second Amendment.

The American Sociological Association (ASA) summarizes a study conducted by Adam Lankford.[1] Lankford provides a quantitative assessment of all mass shootings worldwide (171 countries) from 1966 through 2012. Omitting gang-related, hostage-taking, robberies and domestic shootings, the study borrows the FBI definition of mass shooting: a shooting that killed more than 4 victims. (ASA)

Lankford found that, unlike shooters from other countries, American mass shooters were more likely to strike in schools, factories, warehouses, and office buildings. American shooters were also more likely to use multiple weapons. (ASA) Lankford also found a strong correlation between civilian firearm ownership rate of a country and that country’s mass shooting rate. The top 5 countries for firearms owned by civilian population were also in the top 15 countries for mass shootings within that population. Lankford cites gun ownership rates as the best predictor of mass shootings. (ASA)

In an interview with Science of Us, award winning sociologist, Abraham De Swann, cites three qualities that make an individual more likely to commit mass murder:

1.   Their sense of conscience is limited to friends and family (low morality with regards to minorities and the less fortunate in society).

2.   They are low on self-efficacy. That is, they don’t feel particularly responsible for their lives. Life happens to them. Others are to blame for their problems (fate, God, luck, destiny, minorities, people who are different).

3.   They have very little empathy for people outside of their social circle ("If it doesn't affect me or mine, then they deserve what they get").[2]

Stanley Milgram’s famous obedience experiment and Phillip Zimbardo’s Stanford Prison Experiment, provide evidence that heinous behaviors do not manifest in a vacuum, but result from complex interactions between an individual and his/her social environment.[3] America is ranked number one in mass shootings. In a list ranking the top 5 countries for incidents of mass shootings, America is followed by the Philippines, Russia, Yemen, and France.(ASA) How does the social environment in America contribute to our having nearly twice as many mass shootings as the other four countries on this list combined?

Frederike Sommer et al, conducted a “systematic search” of the professional literature on school shootings which included 35 international primary studies.[4] While there was no single factor that was present in all school shootings, certain factors did emerge as strong predictors. The following is a breakdown of frequent and infrequent qualities in perpetrators of mass shooting:

·       88.1% social conflict within the school

·       53.7% peer rejection           
                                         

·       43.3% conflicts with teachers                                            

·       29.9% victim of bullying:                                                  

·       29.9% romantic rejection                                                 

I love westerns, biker flicks, and gangster movies. I like guns, and swords, and other dangerous toys. Courage, strength, violence, and heroes are concepts that resonate with my inner 7^th grader. A thirst for adventure is the emotional element that draws me to dangerous themes.

That said, while I own guns, I have never carried one or even considered it. Why would I? If tears say, “I am sad,” and punching a wall says, “I am angry,” then carrying a gun says, “I am scared.” And, I am not scared.

Only a terrified person would need to have a firearm on his person at all times. Some situations warrant such fear. If one is in combat, law enforcement, a violent street gang, or any position where one might reasonably expect to be the target of some else’s firearm, then carrying a weapon is sensible. But, what level of paranoia and anxiety would be required to prompt a person living in ordinary circumstances to believe that, at any moment, someone might try to kill him? If life itself is so frightening that one feels the need to carry a firearm everywhere, I interpret that as evidence of a level of anxiety bordering on delusional. And, if I’m not mistaken, an absence of psychiatric problems is a prerequisite for obtaining a concealed weapon permit.

I have been fortunate in my life. At 55, I have resolved every conflict through conversation or an ass whipping. Whether I am at a motorcycle rally or in a bad part of town late at night, I move through life without fear of my fellow man.  I’m not saying that I am against guys carrying firearms, only that those who do are also carrying more fear than I can muster. 

The odds of my dying in a mass shooting are 1 in 12,000,000. I am 4 times more likely to die by a lightning strike! If I am ever in the unfortunate situation of being present at a mass shooting, I will try to stay alive and try to help others stay alive. Otherwise, I will continue to be a kind and generous person, rather than a well-armed one.

---

[1] "U.S. Has 5% of World's Population, But Had 31% of Its Public Mass Shooters From 1966-2012." American Sociological Association N.p., n.d. Web. 08 Oct. 2015.

[2] "An Author Explains How Mass Killings Happen." Science of Us. N.p., 04 Feb. 2015. Web. 08 Oct. 2015.

[3] Zimbardo, P. G. (1971). "The power and pathology of imprisonment", Congressional Record (Serial No. 15, 1971-10-25). Hearings before Subcommittee No. 3, of the United States House Committee on the Judiciary, Ninety-Second Congress, First Session on Corrections, Part II, Prisons, Prison Reform and Prisoner's Rights: California. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

[4] Sommer, Frederike, and Et Al. "Bullying, Romantic Rejection, and Conflicts with Teachers: The Crucial Role of Social Dynamics in the Development of School Shootings – A Systematic Review."International Journal of Developmental Science 8 (n.d.): 3-24. 12 Oct. 2015. Web.

How Can Atheists Have Morality Without God?

Image by tdietmut via Flickr

All organisms demonstrate a tendency to avoid harm. Even amoeba will avoid aversive stimuli. This is one of the basic premises of behavioral psychology's operant conditioning. Behaviors that yield pleasing results tend to be repeated. Behaviors that yield aversive results tend to be avoided. Amoebas have no need for morality, only self-preservation.

Unlike amoeba, humans are social animals requiring the assistance of other humans in order to survive in the natural environment. For humans, self-preservation is interdependent with preservation of "the tribe."

Other social animals like wolves, lions, and buffalo will often behave in ways that promote the health and safety of the group over the health and safety of the individual. These animals engage in what might be considered benevolent behaviors even without the benefit of higher cognitive functioning.

To my knowledge, humans are the only species capable of higher order empathy. Empathy does not mean sympathy. Many species demonstrate sympathy. For our purposes, we will define sympathy as feeling sad when one observes the suffering of others. Sympathy is often a very natural response and requires no effort. Conversely, higher order empathy is a complex skill requiring development and practice. We will define higher order empathy as the cognitive attempt to deeply understand an issue from another's viewpoint. With huge effort, it is possible to put our collective ego aside and on some level understand the world from another person's perspective.

Babies have no morality. Morality is a learned behavior. Feral child research has shown that children who are not exposed to other humans do not develop a moral sense.[1] Research on feral children reveals that empathy is a learned behavior. Proficiency in higher order empathy demands levels of maturity, commitment, and metacognition few attempt to achieve. If humans developed and regularly employed higher order empathy skills, conflict with each other and the destruction of other species could be virtually eliminated.

We begin to socialize very young children by rewarding culturally acceptable behaviors and punishing culturally unacceptable behaviors. The moral rules for a culture will come from external sources like parents, teachers, religious texts, laws, etc.[2]

At first, children will follow the rules whenever a rule enforcer is watching, but will break the rules when they feel there will be no consequences. Adults who remain at this level of moral development are categorized as sociopaths.[3]

Older children will internalize the rules and will self-regulate their behavior, because they wish to be a “good boy/girl.” This is the stage of moral development where much of humanity remains. Christian doctrine requires adherents to progress no further. At this level one can easily navigate one’s social environment.[4] However, individuals at this level of moral development are merely reflecting the culture in which they were raised. So, an individual reared in Nazi Germany would feel perfectly moral in following the norms of that culture. In the 1800s, a rural Southerner in the US might feel perfectly moral as he/she enslaves another human being. Modern Christians might feel perfectly moral in the mistreatment of homosexuals.

People at the highest level of moral development will test the rules of their respective cultures against certain universal litmus’ such as “justice, ... reciprocity and equality of human rights, and... respect for the dignity of human beings as individual persons.”[5] [6] Religious dogma can be an obstacle to achieving the highest level of moral development, when the moral code must be accepted and never challenged. People at the highest level morally transcend time and place and achieve a moral sense that can override cultural programming. 

---

[1] "Feral Children and Clever Animals: Reflections on Human Nature." Choice Reviews Online 31.08 (1994): 31-4641. Web.

[2] Hoffman, Martin Leon, and Lois Norma Wladis Hoffman. Review of Child Development Research. New York: Russell Sage Foundation, 1964. Print

[3] https://www.psychologytoday.com/articles/201305/how-spot-sociopath

[4] "Kohlberg - Moral Development | Simply Psychology." Kohlberg - Moral Development | Simply Psychology. N.p., n.d. Web. 11 Feb. 2015.

[5] "TheTheoryofMoralDevelopment." Docstoc.com. N.p., n.d. Web. 02 Mar. 2015.

[6] Duska, R.: and Whelan, M. Piaget- and Kohlberg. Moral Education. A Guig.e to New York: Paulist Press, 1975

Becoming Human

“In no case is an animal activity to be interpreted in terms of higher psychological processes if it can be fairly interpreted in terms of processes which stand lower in the scale of psychological evolution and development.” Morgan’s Canon

The truth is, we are animals with the potential to develop humanness. Homo sapiens share the following behavioral traits with other species within the Great Ape family:

1.     Formation of social structures

2.     Establishment of pecking orders through demonstrations of dominance

3.     Cooperation within social in-groups (groups of apes/people with which one member identifies and belongs)

4.     Competition/conflict with social outgroups (groups of apes/people that are different from the ones within which a single member belongs and identifies)

5.     Use of language and development of unique cultures[1]

6.     Utilization of instinct and intuition in decision making[2]

Likely related to some unique brain structures,[3] two potential abilities that may be used to define "humanness" are higher order critical thinking and higher order empathy skills.[4] [5] Other animals have been shown to demonstrate critical thought and empathy, so these traits in and of themselves are not exclusively human. However, the human capacity for cultivating these skills to extremely high levels is unique. For our purposes, humanness should be understood as an artificial, social construct and not a scientific distinction. 

Higher order critical thinking and empathy are skills that require development. So, though genetics determine whether or not one falls into the biological category of homo sapiens, a subspecies in the Great Ape family,[6] the characteristics that define true humanness present on a continuum and are not fully developed in all members of the group, Homo Sapiens.

Like all Great Apes, homo sapiens form families and social groups. We LOVE our in-groups whether they be political, religious, regional, national, or sports related. We establish pecking orders within these groups based on dominance. On the playground, human dominance is often determined by who is biggest. As adults, dominance may be determined through superior intelligence, physical strength, wealth, attractiveness, ambition, confidence, or any number of other factors. 

Like chimpanzees, we will often cooperate with our ingroup, but we tend to view outgroups with suspicion. Our nature is to consider them threats and often to classify them as “lesser than” or even “evil.” This instinctual behavior is at the root of all forms of bigotry. From an evolutionary standpoint, it is easy to understand that a “go to” position for early humans of assuming people who are different are threats would be more adaptive than assuming their benevolence. In the natural environment, early humans were constantly at risk, so tendencies resulting in cautiousness aided in their survival. 

Intuition governs the lives of all animals. It is closely related to instincts housed in primitive brain regions. Intuition, or “gut feeling,” is an automatic, cognitive short-cut that provides a crude, organic, sort of meta-analysis of the culmination of one’s entire life experience relating to a given concept.

Dictionary.com defines critical thinking as, “disciplined thinking that is clear, rational, open-minded, and informed by evidence.”[7] The scientific method was born of critical thought. It is a process designed to factor out emotional human biases, such as ingroup/outgroups behaviors. Prior to the advent of the scientific method, our natural tendencies towards preconception and superstition were the primary stumbling blocks to the advancement of our species.[8] [9]

By nature, critical thinking leads to more questions than answers. For a skilled critical thinker, issues are rarely simple. Because critical thought requires approaching a problem from many angles and many perspectives, solutions tend to come in shades of gray rather than black and white. H.L. Menken wasn’t far off the mark when he said, “For every complex problem, there is a simple solution… and it is always wrong.” The animal within us is highly attracted to simple solutions.

Prior to the Enlightenment, humans used a simple catch-all to explain any phenomena beyond our understanding, “God.” Few seemed to notice that “God” really wasn’t much of an explanation at all. It simply moved the goal post back one yard. If God causes all things, then what causes God? “God” is still the catch-all for unexplained phenomena. Science has been able to provide evidence-based, rational explanations for most of the physical phenomena we encounter in daily life. The expanse of unknowns that homo sapiens now use God to explain has shrunken to a handful of areas.

Homo sapiens are often not inclined towards critical thinking, and therefore, have a much greater tendency to interpret the world in concrete terms. For human animals, conforming to a solution posed by dominant members of their ingroups is obviously the "right thing to do." They may interpret the failure of critical thinkers to do likewise as "crazy" or "stupid." Conforming to the decisions of dominant members of one’s group is a trait human animals share with other primates. Critically evaluating the relative merits of dominant group members’ decisions is unique to true humanness.

Higher order critical thinking does not come naturally to any species. It requires ongoing training and self-discipline. The difference between the skilled critical thinker and the average thinker is as dramatic as the difference between the physique of a professional bodybuilder and that of the average couch potato.

Some guidelines for critical thinking:

1. High levels of certainly often correlates to low levels of critical thinking (Think, talk radio hosts and New Age gurus)

2. Objective evidence and logic outweigh popular views and intuition

3. "Feelings" are not evidence. "Common Sense" is not evidence. "Faith" is not evidence. "How I was raised" is not evidence. "Anecdotes" are not evidence.

4. Changing positions when opposing evidence outweighs supporting evidence is the hallmark for critical thought.

5. Ego is the greatest obstacle to critical thought.[10]

The scientific method has proven a magnificent modality for examining the world through critical thought. Application of the scientific method has enabled us to advance beyond the wildest imaginings of our ancestors. That said, alternative theories to the scientific consensus are a VERY good thing. On occasion, the scientist who disagrees with the consensus will be able to demonstrate strong opposing evidence. As opposing evidence accumulates and eventually outweighs supporting evidence, the scientific consensus will shift to the new position. So, if and when evidence opposing immunization or opposing climate change theory accumulates to the tipping point, good critical thinkers (like the scientific community) will shift to the new position.

All organisms demonstrate a tendency to avoid harm. Even amoeba will avoid aversive stimuli. This is one of the basic premises of operant conditioning. Behaviors that yield pleasing results tend to be repeated. Behaviors that yield aversive results tend to not be repeated. Amoeba have no need for morality, only self-preservation.

But, we are not amoeba. Humans are social animals requiring the assistance of other humans in order to survive in the natural environment. For humans, self-preservation is interdependent with preservation of "the tribe." Other social animals like wolves, lions, and buffalo will predictably behave in ways that promote the health and safety of the ingroup over the health and safety of the individual. These animals species engage in what might be considered benevolent behaviors even without benefit of higher cognitive functioning.

Humans are the only species capable of higher order empathy. Higher order empathy does not mean "sympathy." Many species demonstrate sympathy. The term “sympathy” is from the Greek “sympathia.” It actually means to “feel with someone.”[11] If you feel sad because someone you know lost a loved one, you are demonstrating sympathy. Sympathy can be instinctual and often requires little effort.

Higher order empathy requires the complex attempt to cognitively "see through the eyes of another." Empathy requires effort and imagination. To empathize is to “project” you into another person’s frame of reference.[12] It is our nature to criticize others from our own egocentric viewpoint. This is why we tend to judge the driver in front of us as an idiot when he slams on his brakes but feel perfectly justified when we have to slam on our own brakes. With huge effort, it is possible to put our collective ego aside and, on some level, understand the world from another person's perspective.

Research on feral children has shown that empathy is a learned behavior.[13] Higher order empathy is an extremely difficult skill that many humans rarely even try to master. If all people demonstrated true humanness and regularly employed this skill, conflict with each other and the destruction of other species could be virtually eliminated. Children reared in environments devoid of contact with people do not demonstrate humanness [14]

Take a look in the mirror. Do you practice humanness? If so, you are likely experiencing deep, meaningful relationships with other people. And, you also suffer deeply when you become aware of social injustices (homophobia, racism, genocide, intolerance, man’s inhumanity to man, etc.). You are not easily duped by the barrage of manipulative, emotionally charged, nonsense you receive from the media, the pulpit, and the political arena. You are likely able to override primitive emotions to some degree, enabling you to maintain a healthy body and a stable mind. Your moral code comes from evaluating an ideal based on universals such as “harm done,” “fairness,” and “empathetic understanding” rather than from “how you were raised,” cultural norms, or religious/legal text.

We are all human animals, and this is not a bad thing. We are literally wired to be such and wouldn’t want to throw the baby out with the bathwater. However, some of these animal traits are not adaptive in a civilized culture. With hard work, metacognition, courage, and a tireless commitment to intellectual honesty, we can all come closer to being truly human.

---

[1] Kappeler, Peter M., and Joan B. Silk. Mind the Gap: Tracing the Origins of Human Universals. Berlin: Springer, 2010. Print.

[2] "What Is Intuition, And How Do We Use It?" Psychology Today. N.p., n.d. Web. 19 Feb. 2015.

[3] "Newly Discovered Brain Region Is Uniquely Human, Scientists Think."International Business Times. N.p., n.d. Web. 19 Feb. 2015.

[4] Nussbaum, Martha Craven. Cultivating Humanity: A Classical Defense of Reform in Liberal Education. Cambridge, MA: Harvard UP, 1997. Print.

[5] Elder, Lina. "Critical Thinking Across the Disciplines." Inquiry Winter XVI.2 (1996): n. pag. Web. 28 May 2014. 

[6] "Mammal Species of the World : A Taxonomic and Geographic Reference."(Book, 2006) [WorldCat.org]. N.p., n.d. Web. 09 June 2014.

[7] Open Source. (2014 ). Critical Thinking. Available: http://www.reference.com/browse/critical+thinking?s=t. Last accessed 28th May 2014.

[8] Harris, William. "How the Scientific Method Works." HowStuffWorks. HowStuffWorks.com, 14 Jan. 2008. Web. 09 June 2014.

[9] Killeen, P. R. "Superstition: A Matter of Bias, Not Detectability." Science199.4324 (1978): 88-90. Web.

[10] "Chapter 2: Six Steps Of Critical Thinking." Chapter 2: Six Steps Of Critical Thinking. N.p., n.d. Web. 19 Feb. 2015.

[11] "Empathy vs. Sympathy on Vocabulary.com." Empathy vs. Sympathy : Choose Your Words : Vocabulary.com. N.p., n.d. Web. 19 Feb. 2015.

[12] Empathy vs. Sympathy on Vocabulary.com." Empathy vs. Sympathy : Choose Your Words : Vocabulary.com. N.p., n.d. Web. 19 Feb. 2015.

[13] "Feral Children and Clever Animals: Reflections on Human Nature." Choice Reviews Online 31.08 (1994): 31-4641. Web.

[14] Plessis, Susa Du, and Jan Strydom. "Chapter 7." The Right to Read :Beating Dyslexia and Other Learning Disabilities. N.p.: n.p., 2000. N. pag. Print.