Christopher Hitchens Caught Affirming Spiritual Experience as Valid

[mfbukowski]

You only need to listen to about the first two minutes and 30 seconds to catch Christopher Hitchens admit that we are all born with a conscience, something inside us, that guides our moral compasses.

After that I think the theists in the debate blow it and don't follow up, but stick to their pre-planned arguments and miss the opportunity right under their noses!

https://youtu.be/bx1yXvcT2kw

Hitchens is a noted atheist and Positivist who believes that any statement is "nonsense" if it cannot be verified through objective evidence. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Hitchens

He is known for "Hitchens Razor" which virtually defines positivism itself

Quote

The dictum "What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence" has become known as Hitchens's razor.[9][10]

 And yet he believes that the answer to the question "Why would you do the right thing when no one is watching?" leads him to quote Socrates who speaks of a "daemon" or "spirit" - variously translated- to gives our lives direction, a kind of "voice" that everyone has inside of us.

At one point he almost uses the word "spirit" to describe this "daemon"- pronounces the "s" and then switches terms hopefully before anyone notices the "S"-Word. 

So atheists and agnostics- do you have a conscience?

(And please let's not get into the argument that one has to believe in God to be moral- I readily concede one does not have to be a theist to be a moral person)

So what if the James 1, Moroni 10, and all that we call "revelation" can be described as coming from this "Daemon"?

Does that mean that all moral atheists are tacit theists- not because of their moral behavior but the EXPERIENCE of making moral choices seems to come from an inside "voice"?

What IS that "voice"?

Where is his evidence for the existence of such a "Being/ Daemon/ Spirit

I brought this up in another thread but I thought it deserved its own so as not to hijack the other thread- 

I admit readily that this "Other" outside ourselves can deliver wisdom and all we need for a meaningful life to us, and I use the word "revelation" to describe what I personally hear from that "voice"

I know the church likes to slice and dice this into "The Holy Ghost" and the "Light of Christ" and the "Second Comforter" (perhaps) but I find it hard to define them all that closely from experience.

I KNOW (ie am totally psychologically certain) that such a phenomenon exists and has been a benefit to my life.  I call this Other in my consciousness "God".

At some point it all gets pretty undefinable and I don't see much point in trying to slice and dice it further.

So if everyone has this "Daemon" speaking to him- isn't that admitted that everyone has "God revealing wisdom" to him?

What's the  pragmatic difference?

If it is a distinction without a difference in our lives is it even a valid distinction?

[SouthernMo]

1 minute ago, mfbukowski said:

You only need to listen to about the first two minutes and 30 seconds to catch Christopher Hitchens admit that we are all born with a conscience, something inside us, that guides our moral compasses.

After that I think the theists in the debate blow it and don't follow up, but stick to their pre-planned arguments and miss the opportunity right under their noses!

https://youtu.be/bx1yXvcT2kw

Hitchens is a noted atheist and Positivist who believes that any statement is "nonsense" if it cannot be verified through objective evidence. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Hitchens

He is known for "Hitchens Razor" which virtually defines positivism itself

 And yet he believes that the answer to the question "Why would you do the right thing when no one is watching?" leads him to quote Socrates who speaks of a "daemon" or "spirit" - variously translated- to gives our lives direction, a kind of "voice" that everyone has inside of us.

At one point he almost uses the word "spirit" to describe this "daemon"- pronounces the "s" and then switches terms hopefully before anyone notices the "S"-Word. 

So atheists and agnostics- do you have a conscience?

(And please let's not get into the argument that one has to believe in God to be moral- I readily concede one does not have to be a theist to be a moral person)

So what if the James 1, Moroni 10, and all that we call "revelation" can be described as coming from this "Daemon"?

Does that mean that all moral atheists are tacit theists- not because of their moral behavior but the EXPERIENCE of making moral choices seems to come from an inside "voice"?

What IS that "voice"?

Where is his evidence for the existence of such a "Being/ Daemon/ Spirit

I brought this up in another thread but I thought it deserved its own so as not to hijack the other thread- 

I admit readily that this "Other" outside ourselves can deliver wisdom and all we need for a meaningful life to us, and I use the word "revelation" to describe what I personally hear from that "voice"

I know the church likes to slice and dice this into "The Holy Ghost" and the "Light of Christ" and the "Second Comforter" (perhaps) but I find it hard to define them all that closely from experience.

I KNOW (ie am totally psychologically certain) that such a phenomenon exists and has been a benefit to my life.  I call this Other in my consciousness "God".

At some point it all gets pretty undefinable and I don't see much point in trying to slice and dice it further.

So if everyone has this "Daemon" speaking to him- isn't that admitted that everyone has "God revealing wisdom" to him?

What's the  pragmatic difference?

If it is a distinction without a difference in our lives is it even a valid distinction?

Robert Wright has written that our inborn morality is an evolutionary trait that grew out of the benefits of humans coexisting (and thriving) in groups, rather than being alone.  I tend to agree with him.

If religion wants to call this “the light of Christ” that’s fine by me.

[Tacenda]

26 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

You only need to listen to about the first two minutes and 30 seconds to catch Christopher Hitchens admit that we are all born with a conscience, something inside us, that guides our moral compasses.

After that I think the theists in the debate blow it and don't follow up, but stick to their pre-planned arguments and miss the opportunity right under their noses!

https://youtu.be/bx1yXvcT2kw

Hitchens is a noted atheist and Positivist who believes that any statement is "nonsense" if it cannot be verified through objective evidence. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Hitchens

He is known for "Hitchens Razor" which virtually defines positivism itself

 And yet he believes that the answer to the question "Why would you do the right thing when no one is watching?" leads him to quote Socrates who speaks of a "daemon" or "spirit" - variously translated- to gives our lives direction, a kind of "voice" that everyone has inside of us.

At one point he almost uses the word "spirit" to describe this "daemon"- pronounces the "s" and then switches terms hopefully before anyone notices the "S"-Word. 

So atheists and agnostics- do you have a conscience?

(And please let's not get into the argument that one has to believe in God to be moral- I readily concede one does not have to be a theist to be a moral person)

So what if the James 1, Moroni 10, and all that we call "revelation" can be described as coming from this "Daemon"?

Does that mean that all moral atheists are tacit theists- not because of their moral behavior but the EXPERIENCE of making moral choices seems to come from an inside "voice"?

What IS that "voice"?

Where is his evidence for the existence of such a "Being/ Daemon/ Spirit

I brought this up in another thread but I thought it deserved its own so as not to hijack the other thread- 

I admit readily that this "Other" outside ourselves can deliver wisdom and all we need for a meaningful life to us, and I use the word "revelation" to describe what I personally hear from that "voice"

I know the church likes to slice and dice this into "The Holy Ghost" and the "Light of Christ" and the "Second Comforter" (perhaps) but I find it hard to define them all that closely from experience.

I KNOW (ie am totally psychologically certain) that such a phenomenon exists and has been a benefit to my life.  I call this Other in my consciousness "God".

At some point it all gets pretty undefinable and I don't see much point in trying to slice and dice it further.

So if everyone has this "Daemon" speaking to him- isn't that admitted that everyone has "God revealing wisdom" to him?

What's the  pragmatic difference?

If it is a distinction without a difference in our lives is it even a valid distinction?

Pragmatic difference, is loving others. Bingo! Oh, wait. Even if you hate your enemies you see that there is a reason possibly for their terrible behaviour and that you want to help rather than hurt, because most that do bad things most likely haven't been loved properly. I don't know, but what I do know is I do things whether anyone knows or not, including God, and that I hope won't hurt/hinder if possible. But I mess up a lot, I'm sure. But if I don't believe in a God, I still wouldn't steal or murder, commit adultery, physical/sexually abuse etc., sorry. And I think that Atheist, have it a lot better than some Christians because they do good w/o that religious being, or God in their lives. They can be free of some religious dogma and having to give up that inner freedom that makes them follow some dictated path.

Edited April 22, 2019 by Tacenda

[CV75]

48 minutes ago, SouthernMo said:

Robert Wright has written that our inborn morality is an evolutionary trait that grew out of the benefits of humans coexisting (and thriving) in groups, rather than being alone.  I tend to agree with him.

If religion wants to call this “the light of Christ” that’s fine by me.

Has Robert Wright provided evidence for his writing?

[stemelbow]

56 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

You only need to listen to about the first two minutes and 30 seconds to catch Christopher Hitchens admit that we are all born with a conscience, something inside us, that guides our moral compasses.

After that I think the theists in the debate blow it and don't follow up, but stick to their pre-planned arguments and miss the opportunity right under their noses!

https://youtu.be/bx1yXvcT2kw

Hitchens is a noted atheist and Positivist who believes that any statement is "nonsense" if it cannot be verified through objective evidence. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Hitchens

He is known for "Hitchens Razor" which virtually defines positivism itself

 And yet he believes that the answer to the question "Why would you do the right thing when no one is watching?" leads him to quote Socrates who speaks of a "daemon" or "spirit" - variously translated- to gives our lives direction, a kind of "voice" that everyone has inside of us.

At one point he almost uses the word "spirit" to describe this "daemon"- pronounces the "s" and then switches terms hopefully before anyone notices the "S"-Word. 

So atheists and agnostics- do you have a conscience?

(And please let's not get into the argument that one has to believe in God to be moral- I readily concede one does not have to be a theist to be a moral person)

So what if the James 1, Moroni 10, and all that we call "revelation" can be described as coming from this "Daemon"?

Does that mean that all moral atheists are tacit theists- not because of their moral behavior but the EXPERIENCE of making moral choices seems to come from an inside "voice"?

What IS that "voice"?

Where is his evidence for the existence of such a "Being/ Daemon/ Spirit

I brought this up in another thread but I thought it deserved its own so as not to hijack the other thread- 

I admit readily that this "Other" outside ourselves can deliver wisdom and all we need for a meaningful life to us, and I use the word "revelation" to describe what I personally hear from that "voice"

I know the church likes to slice and dice this into "The Holy Ghost" and the "Light of Christ" and the "Second Comforter" (perhaps) but I find it hard to define them all that closely from experience.

I KNOW (ie am totally psychologically certain) that such a phenomenon exists and has been a benefit to my life.  I call this Other in my consciousness "God".

At some point it all gets pretty undefinable and I don't see much point in trying to slice and dice it further.

So if everyone has this "Daemon" speaking to him- isn't that admitted that everyone has "God revealing wisdom" to him?

What's the  pragmatic difference?

If it is a distinction without a difference in our lives is it even a valid distinction?

On those grounds god is anything and everything.  Whose to argue otherwise?  The added issue here is if the voice in each of us is god then god gives wholly inconsistent answers.  One is as happy living what another might consider an immoral life and yet each have a voice guiding them.  

Call it god, fine.  But it kind of flies in the face of god defining absolute truth.  It’s all relative I suppose.  But there’s also the added assumption that each ones voice is either good from god or evil from another, eliminating the apparent grayness of our lives.  Or we assume it’s all good and there’s exolanation each time god tells us a fib and sends us down the wrong road.  

Kinda messy stuff

[SouthernMo]

4 minutes ago, CV75 said:

Has Robert Wright provided evidence for his writing?

Some data, but a lot of anecdotes and reason.  He employs more data than Malcom gladwell, but not enough to be taken seriously in academic circles.  So I do not make any claims that his conclusions are all evidence based. But his reasoning and some data interpretation is very strong.  He makes valid arguments.

In defense of his position (or at least to level the playing field), evidence for spiritual-rooted morality is also lacking. Hence, the need for faith!

One author who has studied “goodness” highly scientifically is Azim Shariff. He calls this goodness prosocial behavior, and has some statistically valid sociological and psychological evidence that shows how, where, and why religious principles make people more or less prosocial.

His findings seem to be equally bothersome to faithful religious adherents and atheists.

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, SouthernMo said:

Robert Wright has written that our inborn morality is an evolutionary trait that grew out of the benefits of humans coexisting (and thriving) in groups, rather than being alone.  I tend to agree with him.

If religion wants to call this “the light of Christ” that’s fine by me.

And both positions are then faith based

The mistake is thinking that there is an answer to the question.

It's like what color is courage? 

We need to learn that there are questions that are unanswerable and therefore irrelevant to the discussion.

We have to live with what we experience directly not with what someone else thinks might be correct.

[mfbukowski]

20 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

On those grounds god is anything and everything.  Whose to argue otherwise?  The added issue here is if the voice in each of us is god then god gives wholly inconsistent answers.  One is as happy living what another might consider an immoral life and yet each have a voice guiding them.  

Call it god, fine.  But it kind of flies in the face of god defining absolute truth.  It’s all relative I suppose.  But there’s also the added assumption that each ones voice is either good from god or evil from another, eliminating the apparent grayness of our lives.  Or we assume it’s all good and there’s exolanation each time god tells us a fib and sends us down the wrong road.  

Kinda messy stuff

God may give inconsistent answers because every person is an individual with their own path.

I have not tried to define absolute truth.

This is not addressed to any issue in the OP

The question is, do you feel something inside of you tell you what is moral or immoral? 

Why return a wallet you find in a cab?

Do you ever feel guilt? Why? What causes that?

Edited April 22, 2019 by mfbukowski

[Hamba Tuhan]

1 hour ago, SouthernMo said:

Robert Wright has written that our inborn morality is an evolutionary trait that grew out of the benefits of humans coexisting (and thriving) in groups, rather than being alone.

In my opinion, this position melts in the face of historical evidence to the contrary. 'Inborn morality' has simply not enjoyed a universal existence across either time or space.

[TOmNossor]

1 hour ago, SouthernMo said:

Robert Wright has written that our inborn morality is an evolutionary trait that grew out of the benefits of humans coexisting (and thriving) in groups, rather than being alone.  I tend to agree with him.

If religion wants to call this “the light of Christ” that’s fine by me.

I have no desire to convince Atheists that they should shun the "light of Christ" that guides them in their life, but ...

If we are but a collection of evolved atoms, I submit the Atheist who has shed his/her INHERITED morality is better/smarter/more evolved.  If I could shun the inner voice and I didn't believe in God, I would advocate that we ALL follow our conscience; but when nobody was looking, I would do whatever benefited me.  If I could do the calculations, I would evaluated every action and ignore societal conventions, compassion, inner voice, ....  My calculation would be about how I could benefit.  I see no moral reason I should feel an obligation to the carbon atom above the silicon atom and I am perfectly willing to buy/sell/assemble/destroy brilliant collections of silicon atoms (such as the one I am using with no consideration of its feelings right this very moment).

Charity, TOm

[SouthernMo]

4 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

In my opinion, this position melts in the face of historical evidence to the contrary. 'Inborn morality' has simply not enjoyed a universal existence across either time or space.

Shockingly, there is evidence that there is a universal morality on the whole. I urge you to read his work before dismissing his findings. Now, to be clear, we must accept that not everyone shares the same inborn morality. We must also accept that not everyone defines morality in the same way.

As for across time and space - that’s a big sample set that I’m not qualified to comment on. Robert Wright only discusses humankind on this planet.

[SouthernMo]

3 minutes ago, TOmNossor said:

I have no desire to convince Atheists that they should shun the "light of Christ" that guides them in their life, but ...

If we are but a collection of evolved atoms, I submit the Atheist who has shed his/her INHERITED morality is better/smarter/more evolved.  If I could shun the inner voice and I didn't believe in God, I would advocate that we ALL follow our conscience; but when nobody was looking, I would do whatever benefited me.  If I could do the calculations, I would evaluated every action and ignore societal conventions, compassion, inner voice, ....  My calculation would be about how I could benefit.  I see no moral reason I should feel an obligation to the carbon atom above the silicon atom and I am perfectly willing to buy/sell/assemble/destroy brilliant collections of silicon atoms (such as the one I am using with no consideration of its feelings right this very moment).

Charity, TOm

You might enjoy the second book of Plato’s Republic. The moral concept of the Ring of Gyges is fascinating.

[TOmNossor]

25 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

God may give inconsistent answers because every person is an individual with their own path.

I have not tried to define absolute truth.

This is not addressed to any issue in the OP

The question is, do you feel something inside of you tell you what is moral or immoral? 

Why return a wallet you find in a cab?

Do you ever feel guilt? Why? What causes that?

Hello,

I am enjoying this topic, but soon back to work.

I do not think the ONLY reason "God may give inconsistent answers" is "because every person is an individual with their own path."

I have experience that is approximated by this: I have not followed God while I tried to follow God and later realized that I was in rebellion.  I understand folks more self aware than I am (and more secure because they have grown more than I have) would be willing to leave out the "approximated" qualifier. 

So what I am saying is that in every communication between God and man there is one flawed imperfect being (the human).  When I communicate with those around me, I do not hear what they say, I hear some form of what they say filtered through my mind.  This has certainly been part of my experiences (no need to say approximated by ...).  I see no reason to believe that the sincere individual who wants to know about his marriage and hears God communicate xyz and the other sincere individual with a similar question that hears abc; means that God is giving different messages.  God could be giving the same message and the two folks don't "hear" it the same.

...

I think you would/might assert that either there is no ABSOLUTE truth or our pursuit of it is futile.  I am suggesting that I still hold out hope that God's truth is the absolute truth and we can move closer to it as we align our will with His will.

Charity, TOm

 

[Hamba Tuhan]

11 minutes ago, SouthernMo said:

Shockingly, there is evidence that there is a universal morality on the whole.

My PhD research interactied directly with the spread of Judeo-Christian values as a consequence of European expansion. This process is still ongoing. Concepts as simple (to some) as 'Thou shalt not kill', 'Thou shalt not steal' and 'Thou shalt not commit adultery' have been huge innovations in other societies, adopted (often aggressively) from the foreigners bringing them.

Now, if you want to argue that 'universal morality' is simply that every society has developed a sense of what it deems right, even though the content of that varies widely and often is in conflict, I think that's a point without much of a purpose.

Edited April 23, 2019 by Hamba Tuhan

[TOmNossor]

15 minutes ago, SouthernMo said:

You might enjoy the second book of Plato’s Republic. The moral concept of the Ring of Gyges is fascinating.

I suspect that Socrates and Plato were better men than I am in more ways that one.   I hope to BECOME better though!

Nietzsche perhaps was not a better man than I am in as many ways as Socrates and Plato were.  You might enjoy reading him.

Charity, TOm

[SouthernMo]

12 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

My PhD research interactied directly with the spread of Judeo-Christian values as a consequence of European expansion. This process is still ongoing. Concepts as simple (to some) as 'Thou shalt not kill', 'Thou shalt not steal' and 'Thou shalt not commit adultery' have been huge innovations in other societies, adopted (often aggressively) from the foreigners bringing them.

Now, if you want to argue that 'universal morality' is simply that every society has developed a sense of what it deems right, even though the content of that varies widely and often is in conflict, I think that's a point without much of a purpose.

You seem to be arguing against a position you do not know.  Happy to discuss the merits and shortfalls I see in Robert Wright’s arguments. But, first we should familiarize ourselves with what he’s written so we can be specific about what is meant by ‘morals.’

[mfbukowski]

15 minutes ago, TOmNossor said:

Hello,

I am enjoying this topic, but soon back to work.

I do not think the ONLY reason "God may give inconsistent answers" is "because every person is an individual with their own path."

I have experience that is approximated by this: I have not followed God while I tried to follow God and later realized that I was in rebellion.  I understand folks more self aware than I am (and more secure because they have grown more than I have) would be willing to leave out the "approximated" qualifier. 

So what I am saying is that in every communication between God and man there is one flawed imperfect being (the human).  When I communicate with those around me, I do not hear what they say, I hear some form of what they say filtered through my mind.  This has certainly been part of my experiences (no need to say approximated by ...).  I see no reason to believe that the sincere individual who wants to know about his marriage and hears God communicate xyz and the other sincere individual with a similar question that hears abc; means that God is giving different messages.  God could be giving the same message and the two folks don't "hear" it the same.

...

I think you would/might assert that either there is no ABSOLUTE truth or our pursuit of it is futile.  I am suggesting that I still hold out hope that God's truth is the absolute truth and we can move closer to it as we align our will with His will.

Charity, TOm

 

Thanks, good to see you!

Yes I agree with you. 

Due to the ambiguity of language, I don't think that absolute truth can be spoken, but only felt and known on this side of the veil. 

...Thru a glass darkly... Etc.

 

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, SouthernMo said:

Some data, but a lot of anecdotes and reason.  He employs more data than Malcom gladwell, but not enough to be taken seriously in academic circles.  So I do not make any claims that his conclusions are all evidence based. But his reasoning and some data interpretation is very strong.  He makes valid arguments.

In defense of his position (or at least to level the playing field), evidence for spiritual-rooted morality is also lacking. Hence, the need for faith!

One author who has studied “goodness” highly scientifically is Azim Shariff. He calls this goodness prosocial behavior, and has some statistically valid sociological and psychological evidence that shows how, where, and why religious principles make people more or less prosocial.

His findings seem to be equally bothersome to faithful religious adherents and atheists.

Since the LDS view of God is "prosocial", there is nothing to disagree with here.

 

[SouthernMo]

5 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Since the LDS view of God is "prosocial", there is nothing to disagree with here.

 

One thing that has bothered some on the religious end of the spectrum is the conclusion that there is no difference in prosocial behavior between those groups that say they believe in God, claim to be religious, or claim to be atheists.

In short, believing in god alone does not make one a better person (in terms of doing good to others).

Shariff did not test whether or not someone feels they are a better person because they are religious or not.

[Tacenda]

1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

God may give inconsistent answers because every person is an individual with their own path.

I have not tried to define absolute truth.

This is not addressed to any issue in the OP

The question is, do you feel something inside of you tell you what is moral or immoral? 

Why return a wallet you find in a cab?

Do you ever feel guilt? Why? What causes that?

Do you need a God to make you feel immoral/moral? If so I peg'd you wrong. I go by a moral inborn compass, I guess. Why wouldn't you want to return a wallet, ever lose something? What does that feel like, why would you want that for someone else?

Edited April 23, 2019 by Tacenda

[Hamba Tuhan]

5 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

Why wouldn't you want to return a wallet, ever lose something? What does that feel like, why would you want that for someone else?

That's because you've been taught to view the situation this way. If you'd been taught that everyone outside of your tribe is an enemy and that finding lost property is one way that your ancestral spirits aid you by disadvantaing your enemies, you'd feel completely different.

[mfbukowski]

7 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

Wow, you need God to make you feel immoral? I go by a moral inborn compass, I guess. Why wouldn't you want to return a wallet, ever lose something? What does that feel like, why would you want that for someone else?

Did you read the OP?

What IS that compass if not God?

That is the whole point of the thread.

Belief in an "inborn compass" IS the belief in what I call God, or the Holy Ghost.

The Word that speaks to all of us 

Some may say that that Spirit within us just evolved to allow us to survive as humans.  Unfortunately there is no evidence either way.

So each position is as much faith based as the other.

[mfbukowski]

15 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

That's because you've been taught to view the situation this way. If you'd been taught that everyone outside of your tribe is an enemy and that finding lost property is one way that your ancestral spirits aid you by disadvantaing your enemies, you'd feel completely different.

But you still have ancestral spirits aiding you.

Who else is Our Father other than an ancestral Spirit aiding us? And what tribe modern or ancient ever sees themselves as the bad guys?

This whole thing reminds me of Paul in Athens preaching the unknown God.

Hitchen's daemon is the unknown God trying to reach him... And all the other atheists who have the same sorts of feelings and inclination.

So which is right? do we take the naturalistic explanation for the theist explanation.?

Since positivism is a faith-based argument as well, it's a toss-up.

 

Edited April 23, 2019 by mfbukowski

[Hamba Tuhan]

2 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Since positivism is a faith-based argument as well, it's a toss-up.

You'll get no argument on that point from me.

But as a trained historian, the whole 'universal morality' argument doesn't sit with me. Every human society has had its own versions of right and wrong, but such moral systems are staggering in their sheer diversity ... and so often shifted over time and in reponse to external and internal events -- including encounters with people whose moral universes were based on completely different assumptions and therefore entailed completely different values.

As Paul noted, how shall we know unless we are taught? That people adopt different moral values when they are taught is something significant.

Edited April 23, 2019 by Hamba Tuhan

[Robert F. Smith]

5 hours ago, SouthernMo said:

Robert Wright has written that our inborn morality is an evolutionary trait that grew out of the benefits of humans coexisting (and thriving) in groups, rather than being alone.  I tend to agree with him................................

Who is Robert Wright?  Would he share E.O. Wilson's views on sociobiology?