Gallup: Very religious are healthier

Gallup notes, in a new research poll:

Very religious Americans are less likely to report that they smoke and are more likely to say they eat well and exercise regularly than those who are moderately religious or nonreligious. Nonreligious Americans have the worst health habits of the three groups.

Fortunately, Gallup recognizes that a statistical correlation is not necessarily a causal one:

There are a number of factors that could contribute to very religious Americans' healthier lifestyle choices. Some of these factors are likely overt products of religious doctrine itself, including rules related to smoking and substance abuse. Seventh-Day Adventists, for example, strictly adhere to vegetarian lifestyles free of alcohol and smoking, while orthodox Mormons and Muslims do not drink alcohol. In some Christian denominations, gluttony and sloth are considered two of the seven deadly sins, and many evangelical faiths frown on drinking and smoking. The Bible indicates that one's body is the "temple of God," which could in turn help explain the relationship between religious orthodoxy and exercise and certain types of food consumption. It is possible, of course, that the noted relationship between health and religiosity could go in the other direction -- that people who are healthier are the most likely to make the decision to be religious. This could be particularly relevant in terms of church attendance, one of the constituent components of Gallup's definition of religiousness. Healthier people may be more likely and able to attend religious services than those who are less healthy.

It also notes that, if there is a causal correlation, it could go in the other direction than fundamentalist types will claim?

It may also be possible that certain types of individuals are more likely to make healthy lifestyle choices and more likely to choose to be highly religious. The most parsimonious explanation, however, may be the most intuitive: Those who capitalize on the social and moral outcomes of religious norms and acts are more likely to lead lives filled with healthier choices.

That said, besides allowing for Mormons and Adventists, how much of this is age-specific? I'll bet that once we get past the age of 40 or so, the gap narrows a fair degree.

Adam Smith, mercantilism, 'invisible hand' and Deism

I've written an occasional post touching on the edges of what's at the heart of this one.

And, that is that Smith wasn't such a pure-blooded Platonic idealist capitalist, first.

Even more important, secondly, is how his economic theory, especially as connected to his moral-sense ideas, and economically culminating in his "invisible hand," were based on Enlightenment Deism, an optimistic version of that religion that is scientifically, philosophically and psychologically untenable today.

For defenders of Smith the simon-pure free trader? You're wrong on the mercantilism, Smith and the colonies (Google Docs link). I quote, from a book: "Smith likewise approved of the laws which authorized the payment of a bounty for the production of naval stores in the American colonies and prohibited their export from America to any country other than Great Britain. This typical mercantilist regulation was justified, in Smith’s view, because it would make England independent of Sweden and the other northern countries for the supply of military necessities and this contribute to the self-sufficiency of the empire"

Source? "Wealth of Nations," Book IV, pp. 545-546, 609-610, 484, note 39.

Now, naval stores isn't all colonial goods, but given that they related to national defense, albeit loosely, Smith had no problem bringing them under a mercantilist umbrella.

Elsewhere, Smith accepted government support for start-up industry, retaliatory tarrifs (albeit on a limited basis) and other things.

On whence Smith derived ideas of "an invisible hand" or "the invisible hand," no, I can't prove it's from the wind-up-the-universe God of Enlightenment Deism. Nonetheless, it sounds reasonable, and I know it can't be disproven either, that as a source. Per Wikipedia, referencing his obit as a source, he rejected Orthodox Christianity at Oxford and was generally understood to have become a Deist.

Beyond that, von Mises says in Wikipedia again that he thought Smith thought the invisible hand was God.

Beyond that, we know that Deism was a strong influence on Smith's theory of moral sentiments. (Google Docs link.)

It's arguable, and has been argued by some, that the "invisible hand" doesn't apply to the workings of the market. But, even if it's considered an "inner witness," and not directly linked to Deism, nonetheless, via Smith's theory of moral sentiments being Deist influenced, a denial of any connection at all is hard to maintain. Certainly, the ideas that an invisible hand will rationally maximize production to the ultimate benefit of all is pure Deism at its most optimistic and moonshiney.

And, of course, Deism was scientifically undercut in 1900 by Max Planck. Before that, indirectly, as Voltaire knew, such an optimistic Deism was shaken by the 1755 Lisbon tremblor. Since then, nuclear weapons, world wars and the Holocast have further shattered Smith's blithely optimistic Deism.

Speaking of science, James K. Galbraith argues Smith is non-scientific in another way - he's pre-Darwinian! Very interesting. And, Galbraith applies this thought to all Smithian descendants, namely those nutbar Strausians and related Chicago School economists.

Pop psychology becomes pop philosophy and it's kind of ugly

Just got done reading "How Philosophy Can Save Your Life: 10 Ideas That Matter Most."

It's pop philosophy if it's philosophy rather than psychology.

That's part of my review, noting the book doesn't answer "why" and "how" questions too much.

The biggest "why" that Marietta McCarty doesn't answer? Why are these the 10 most important ideas in philosophy? Personally, "skepticism" would be at or near the list of my top 10, with Hume definitely being one of the two or three exemplar philosophers. What led her to the conclusion that these are the 10 most important ideas? How does she justify the generalization that what appear to be the 10 main ways philosophy can save HER life will apply to all?

The biggest "how" question that is unasked? How do different of McCarty's 10 principles balance with each other? "Individuality" and "belonging" came immediately to mind. Now, one could say that McCarty is inviting the reader to figure that out on his or her own, but ... if one is to make a value judgment between two principles, is there a guiding idea McCarty has for that?

And, it gets worse. It's got some great individual and small-group reflection and discussion exercises, but with such a non-critical background, the author might have them discussing peripherals.

Free will not so free? And not so human-specific?

I've long been of the opinion that "free will" vs. "determinism" is, if not a false dilemma, at least something close — a pair of false polarities, rather than something on a continuum.

(I've also been of the opinion, taking Dan Dennett's stance on consciousnesss that there's no "Cartesian meaner" to its logical conclusion — as does Daniel Wegner and others, I'm not alone — that there's no conscious, central, controlled location for free will in humans, as well. That is, there's no "Cartesian free willer" either. But, I digress.)

There's a German-based neuroscientist who agrees with me on the "polarities" angle. But, that's not all.

Bjoern Brembs also says that this free will — free will within constraints — is exhibited by animals, too.

Brembs and others have used mathematical models to simulate brain activity on a computer, finding that what worked best was a combination of deterministic behaviour and what is known as stochastic behaviour - which may look random but actually, in time, follows a defined set of probabilities.

Personally, I actually don't see this as that big of a deal. Given that consciousness itself is understood as being on some sort of continuum, rather than "we conscious humans" vs. "you unconscious animals," how could a will, and a will that is partially free, also not exist, and again, on a continuum?

That then said, I do find it a bit more questionable to extend some degree of free will, as Brembs does, all the way down to the level of flies, just as I would find it questionable to attribute consciousness to an animal with so few neurons.

To talk about a dog, or the old laboratory vertebrate standby, the lab rat, as having some degree or type of free will? Yes. The laboratory insect standby, a fruit fly? Per Carl Sagan, that's an extraordinary claim. I expect more evidence.

I'll stand by for more research; this is surely going to be a hot topic not just for months but for years.

ANGER IN THE KEY OF C-SHARP MINOR

Minor keys often have melancholy, plaintive laments,
More so than jarring stridency,
Unless a sudden dissonance intrudes;
And, so it is with my anger.
Slow to form, with an undercurrent of counterpoint,
Spoken and developed in individual voices,
Like a late Beethoven quartet,
Or, maybe, even more, one by Shostakovich.
I don’t even realize that I am angry until the score plays out,
Usually about halfway through the third movement.
Then, a diminished seventh lingers, a four-part pedal point, if you will,
Until the cello transitions out, into a growling presto ostinato,
And I can no longer deny to my conscious self that I am angered,
As my emotions now move attacca, without pause,
Into a final movement,
Where resolution is supposed to be found,
But, per the style of musica moderna,
Is not guaranteed.
— Dec. 14, 2010

Why Socrates is overrated

Yeah, given my blog name and handle, it sounds ironic for me to say that, no?

Of course, some people might accuse me of being hypocritical, if I do think he's overrated. That said, my blog name trades on the myth of Socrates, which we shall now call into account ... by using some Socratic-like questioning!

Questions
1. If he really were ignorant of so much, how could he always be right in his dialogues -- especially since he proves his opponents wrong in every one of them and therefore he couldn't have learned from them?

2. If he really were so ignorant, and knew that he were, then why didn't he follow Wittgenstein and remain silent about what he did not know?

3. If he really were so ignorant, then how can we believe he understood the Sophists' teachings so well?

Answers

The baseline answer to all of these individual questions and more is that Socrates, that is, the Socrates who is a Platonic mouthpiece (and, an ideal one for Plato, pun intended!) makes straw men out of Sophists and their thought, opposes the democratization (for money) of knowledge that they offer because it upsets his classist views and more.

But, specifically:

1A. The Platonic wordsmith hoists him by his own petard, not to mention, especially in the Cave analogy, also getting hoist on the petard of ineffability.

2A. Because it does that, Plato's Socrates only mimicked the idea of being ignorant.

3A. This builds on the "baseline" answer. In a sense, Socrates, to the degree we can really guess at who he was, DOES know the ideas of the Sophists well — and fears their democratizing strain.

Memory, time and change

A poem on change, influenced by the book, "How Philosophy can Change Your Life."

Memory's malleability and time's tempo
Play out life in complex 7/8 rhythm
Like free verse that shifts mood, mode and meaning
Midstream.
An unconscious under-rhythm, more than mere backbeat,
Is each individual's I Ching
A changing round of changes on the them of change.
Nature is a humanist, with contradictions writ large.