Morning Rant - Sex Ed and Dogma

Just had a great rant with my best friend via email.. Figured I would not waste the rant..

Some of what I have seen/read recently has to do with the establishment of moral underpinnings complicating the teaching of sex education. Given the application that a person's morality is based on a set of rules grounded in emotional constructs, and there are negative connotations applied to the basic attributes of human existence (religions/doctrine/archaic texts tend to lay claim to this perspective) and elicit a strong negative response emotionally when there is a perceived violation of these constructs creating cognitive dissonance. These rules are applied to elicit fear or trepidation and less to do with actual learning of reproduction and the actions associated with it.

 Parents of these students are so heavily entrenched in their thinking and the fear of information reaching their child that is contrary to the dogmatic principles they are infected with that it nearly paralyzes their actions. A parent shirking their responsibility for sexual education to the school or another entity should clearly understand that the actions of sexual reproduction, and/or sexual acts will be discussed in detail and without the associated emotional content.

 If one can separate the emotional construct from the context of a behavioral action based in reproductive biology and present only the facts associated with the reproductive act that is sex education. Chillingly there are so many religious and conservative factions that apply artificial rules or frameworks to this associating a strong emotional content because of the morality that was dispensed at a very young age.

 As a matter of circumstance and relevance morality does not come from dogma, doctrine or religious scripture. It existed long prior to the establishment of any religious or dogmatic construct written down in a book or on a rock somewhere.

 What is difficult for many people is to discern the fact that actions of reproduction should be taught, (somewhere, accurately an positively) so that the fledgling humans are not guessing and causing injury, spreading disease or unintentional pregnancies. The willful ignorance that most, if not all, religious sects advocate does nothing to foster development of independent rational actions or thoughts associated with reproduction.

 Whether the religies, conservatives, liberals, or just your basic human loons get it or not.... reproduction is going to happen between humans... whether they like it or not.... Morals taught by parents or teachers are irrelevant if based on complex dogmatic principles. Sexual behavior is a primary drive in humans equitable to the drive to obtain food and water. This has taken place for millions of years and the artificial application of dogmatic morality in the last 3000-4000 years only leads to complicate it further. Think of it this way we are teaching our kids morals and reproductive science based on a Bronze Age dogma. What does that say for us as a species?

 Facts and behaviors are real and can be measured and observed. To apply dogmatic principles to establish some moral code to this conduct only adds a layer of complexity that the student rarely if ever can understand due to the underdeveloped cerebral cortex of any human under the age of 25.

 If we don’t make some kind of effort to grow up we are destine to be stuck in the dark ages.

Conditioning Part II

For this post I would like to create a general overview of ‘religious behaviors’.  These are broad reaching and can incorporate many differing patterns of definable events.  The short list includes; worship, prayer, attendance to church activities, reading of religious texts, expression of religious perspectives, singing religious songs, raising ones hands to the ceiling and swaying to music or choir music.  The list can go on.  These are actions that can be seen, measured, and established by inter-observer reliability to establish religious behaviors.   If there is any disagreement with this definition I would gladly accept it later.

I would also like to define the, for the purposes of explanation, the use of the ABC behavioral chain within the Operant Conditioning Framework to best establish the function of the behavior.  A – Antecedent: the event preceding the behavior (not the cause of the behavior but the event signaling that a reinforcer is available if the participant chooses to engage in the target behavior).  B – Behavior: the action or event that takes place after the presentation of the Antecedent.  Target behavior in this case being religious behaviors described above.  C – Consequence: The event following the behavior.  This can be one of three things a Reinforcer: Item, action, or removal of item or action to increase the likelihood that the preceding behavior will take place again.   A Punisher: Item, action, or removal of item or action to decrease the likelihood that the preceding behavior will take place again.  Extinction/Recovery: Failure to provide any type of signal that the behavior was successful or unsuccessful in obtaining the desired or undesired outcome.

Looking at the ABC model of religious behaviors the Antecedent is typically either related to the day of the week, established holiday, trigger of other person who is guiding or leading the congregation etc. These antecedents are not naturally occurring events, and are not established in our genome.  Extrapolation of this is the event of prayer – a new born or even a toddler does not know innately how to pray or even what to pray.  These are instructed by parent’s teachers and others that the human trusts enough to emulate or follow directives.  What does a newborn human know how to innately do? – Suckle, cry, grasp, explore, swallow, breath, touch and bring items to mouth/face.    Given a typical Antecedent to religious behavior I would challenge any religious petitioner to provide an established Antecedent to religious behaviors and measure the response of a 6 month old.  It is highly unlikely to produce religious behaviors without substantial conditioning.

A child is almost always ‘persuaded’ or in this case reinforced initially to participate in religious behaviors.   It begins with the most rudimentary level of reinforcement at the bottom rungs of Maslow’s Hierarchy.  The learner is presented with food, shelter, warmth, safety, security, and belonging for participation in religious behaviors. 

The child also receives feedback in the form of punishment for failure to participate in religious behaviors.  In the case of when asked if a god exists and the response is “no”.  The social group will ostracize publicly, shame, or resort to physical violence to suppress or limit that response from occurring in the future.  This can also be applied to the adult.

Given that a parishioner does not participate in a group activity the leader or other participants may verbally question the reasons for not participating.  This is more often done in a manner that appears as a matter of concern for the spiritual well-being of the participant.  In actuality it is confrontation of unexpected outcome.   As an adult or a child lacking the understanding of the confrontation dynamic it feels uncomfortable and likely punishing for failing to participate in the religious behavior.  This particular conduct is equitable to bullying.   The goal of the person confronting the non-participant is to increase the participation.  Confrontational behavior is supported and often reinforced by the leaders and other parishioners as it has been reinforced in them by their peers/supervisors.  This is also provided by the delivery of reinforcer events associated with the participation.  A short list; positive verbal praise, coffee and/or treats after Sunday service, shaking of one’s hand, hugs, exclamation of how much they enjoyed spending time with the participant, and invitations to participate in ‘exclusive’ events.

I opted to go through this much detail to describe these events to characterize religious behavior is NOT a foundation to human development.  The teaching of these behaviors starts at a young age and is developed and fostered over time starting with the use of primary reinforcers the goal of the reinforcement being intrinsic in nature.  

In the simplest of terms, persons wishing to have their children become one of the ‘faithful’ build in from a very early age a full system of indoctrination with both strong reinforcers and punishers to entrench the belief structures.  To maintain this over time the introduction of heaven and hell are offered as the ultimate reinforcer or ultimate punisher.

Having been raised as an atheist and not experiencing this dynamic.  It was very alien to have conversations with the faithful.  They used language I was unfamiliar with, however they were very well versed with both reinforcement and punishment. 

Conditioned Part 1

It is a matter of perspectives.  Christians, Muslims and Jews (others), advertise that they are standing on the ‘Moral High Ground’ and use that as the leveraging point to assail atheists and others not of their religious persuasion.  When given the feedback that they have failed to prove a point, establish a solid position, or are just plain wrong they respond harshly and with strong negative emotion.

I always found it interesting that those who call themselves ‘religious’ or ‘faithful’ cannot be wrong or in error in some manner.   The perception of infallibility is well entrenched in the process of indoctrination of the converts and factions.   The perspective is well endowed with logical fallacies, failed reasoning, and a profound lack of self-examination.  Behaviorally speaking, whether portrayed as a cult, addiction, disease, or gang religious affiliation and the corresponding faith attributed has a central theme ‘god first’.   The faithful must protect the religion at all cost.  If an atheist introduces doubt it shakes the foundation and creates an existential crisis for the believer.  This crisis is so profound that it rattles the underpinnings for the believer.  These kinds of processes are akin to the feelings of fight, flight or freeze responses when one’s life is in jeopardy.

Examination of basic behavioral principles applied to Maslow’s Hierarchy of needs.  Tying each of the levels to some feature of the religious practice:

The foundation of the pyramid are well described in most religious texts as to the; who, what, when, how and the where.  Many religious organizations offer, food, water, and a place to sleep if the person is not able to provide for self.   Given the person’s participation in the eating, drinking, sleeping and other basic physiological needs the religious organization only asks that the participant then pray or worship with them.  This is the beginning of the indoctrination, the underpinnings if you will the brain-washing using the basic human needs to entice the participant into the organization.

If the individuals basic human needs are met then safety and security are used as a tool to entice the participant into the religious organization.  They offer security of the individual.  Organizations sometimes an offer of stable income, establishment of a set of moral standards that the person finds appealing, establishing a strong sense of safety and stability; written in the religious texts and applied by the faithful.  This is a very strong motivator for those who have experienced trauma.  Religious aid groups offer support and guidance to individuals who have suffered from natural disasters.  Most if not all have some way of communicating that the ‘religion’ is responsible for the care and comfort of those suffering. 

If an individual’s physiological needs, safety and security are met the religion also offers love and belonging.  One is always greeted with a smile at a church and a hearty welcome.  A great way to advertise: “You are welcome here.”  They offer coffee or conversation after the sermon, and social groups associated with the religion, some are secret – requiring an invitation.  Some require a special handshake lending a lot of secrecy and enhanced inclusiveness.

The religion continues to work all avenues of the pyramid to offer something of reinforcement to the believer.  The holy book comes packed with all kinds of morals, lessons, and tools.  The sermons come filled with self-esteem boosting, and many religious leaders recognize parishioners during the sermon to point out achievement.  There are awards that are given for differing levels of accomplishment.  These are frequently offered (if not always) in front of the audience advertising advancement in the religious practices.  It fills the person with pride and inspiration to do more. 

At the top of the pyramid is self-actualization.  Goals set here by the individual include becoming a teacher of religious doctrine and becoming a leader of the faithful.  There are some issues with abuse of power and influence at the top of the pyramid.  This is best left for a different post.

Atheists chipping away at any one of these parts of the pyramid demonstrating a believers responding to  basic classical (or operant) conditioning perspectives tend to elicit a strong response as an argument on the person directly due to the nature of the conditioning that has taken place. 

The same human needs are applied to atheism as well.    This can be tempered with intelligence and forethought when approaching the needs of humans.  Ego and self-importance are not what atheism is about.  It is the rejection of a god.  The rejection that the only correct way of thinking is a religious way of thinking, any implication to the contrary is horrendously flawed.

The faithful do not understand the influences acting on them.  They feel that they are standing on the top of the pyramid looking down upon all others.  This is an illusion conditioned over time.  They are just as susceptible to all human (animal) conditioning.