Thats an interesting crossover analysis :) I'd say that it's both right and wrong - in attempting to presume on known definitions. Religous people *may* correctly penetrate the superficial, and thus have a stronger grasp on Truth & Reality ; but who is qualified to stick the label 'Religous' ? Disciples of Truth under many a guise embroider a colorful parade of humanity through the millenia.
The Truth of climbing is that one must pay attention to many domains - mental wellbeing, physical training, dietary regime, social relations, plus comprehension of logisitics, mechanics and science to ensure success. Not forgetting scrupulous self honesty ! I'm sure we could have a good discussion over the 'look' of religiosity !
I'll see you at the crag one day, but will I see what you expect me to see ?!
Many thanks for the comment Lee. I would say that this article's contention isn't that the religious have a stronger grasp on truth & reality but that religious belief/practice does *some amount of measureably good stuff* and thus it is instrumentally rational to be religious. This might be because when utilise all the cognitive modules our species has evolved over the millenia that we function better than we would otherwise. This has no baring as to whether these cognitive modules reflect the underlying reality of the universe as we might well have evolved them just because they help us function together better in groups. Either way, we have them, we can't change that fact, and it seems as though they deliver some benefits. Might as well make the most of our lot.
Do get in touch with my instagram account if you're keen to discuss this more or to chat about anything else.
Inshallah we will see each other at the crag one day.
The studies that appear to support religiosity as a positive factor in performance may be occupying a separate field of inquiry, if only because the vast majority of all scientific studies entirely avoid religion as a factor in anything. Psychological studies may support belief as a powerful factor in human actions, but lumping any and all brands of "religion" into a claim of advantage dodges the inevitable debate about which version is most beneficial - "My God beats your god."
Less devout sports fans like myself find the particular version of piety, as shown by many a track athlete, to be tedious, displaying the antithesis of humility religion is generally supposed to foster. It feels unseemly to be thanking a Higher Power for victories in the arena where the greatest degree of genetic advantage and refined training protocols can be credited; spiritual sustenance would seem more apropos of success in the longest, most grueling endurance tests, where mental states can push the ordinary to extraordinary results. My bias leans to prayers made in the most dire and hopeless times, and these can be interpreted as self-meditations which sustain the person to carry on, as opposed to self-glorifying boasts which obscure the basic childish, self-centered desire to vanquish others in a rather transient and meaningless contest.
My experience of fifty years has found climbers to be generally less overtly religious, more cerebral, yet with more personal "spirituality" that does not manifest in Bible-thumping. A few overtly religious individuals have done well enough in competitions, and route establishment, but hardly to where that trait seems to have been significantly advantageous, with any lasting measurable superiority to peers.
The other paradox is that one can research and train, but one either believes, or doesn't. Immersion in a faith does not equate with belief, and false piety should not result in any performance boost. I may be misreading, but the whole of this essay feels a bit facetious, and perhaps intentionally bland, to disguise a sardonic undertone.
Many thanks for the comment OC. This essay is satire and doesn't contain my sincere attitude towards religion. I wrote this essay because there is a certain type of climber out there who seeks to find all the factors scientifically shown increase performance by "1%" (see the hi-tech Craft approach in the latest post). I just wanted to highlight that the logical conclusion of this attitude is to also having to adopt one of the oldest forms of social technology: religion. I also thought it was funny that the borderline religious approach some climbers have to 'optimising' and 'rationalising' their climbing is that they have to adopt something so antithetical to contemporary ideas of rationality.
I think you make good points as to whether religion would work for everyone's performance and almost certainly it will not; however this evidence suggests that, on average, it does do something. At the end of the day, I think G. K. Chesterton's point holds true: "the best way to see if a coat fits a man is not to measure both of them, but to try it on."
As to your other point: I talk about the 'spiritual' side of climbing in the latest essay in the Climbing as Worship section. I'm currently reading more into this area by writers like R. L. G. Irving and Frank Smythe (among others, as I am discovering) who articulate this feeling; indeed in Irving's case he blends it with his devotion to Christianity. If you're interested in this area then I would recommend The Romance of Mountaineering (1935) and The Spirit of the Hills (1941).
Thats an interesting crossover analysis :) I'd say that it's both right and wrong - in attempting to presume on known definitions. Religous people *may* correctly penetrate the superficial, and thus have a stronger grasp on Truth & Reality ; but who is qualified to stick the label 'Religous' ? Disciples of Truth under many a guise embroider a colorful parade of humanity through the millenia.
The Truth of climbing is that one must pay attention to many domains - mental wellbeing, physical training, dietary regime, social relations, plus comprehension of logisitics, mechanics and science to ensure success. Not forgetting scrupulous self honesty ! I'm sure we could have a good discussion over the 'look' of religiosity !
I'll see you at the crag one day, but will I see what you expect me to see ?!
Many thanks for the comment Lee. I would say that this article's contention isn't that the religious have a stronger grasp on truth & reality but that religious belief/practice does *some amount of measureably good stuff* and thus it is instrumentally rational to be religious. This might be because when utilise all the cognitive modules our species has evolved over the millenia that we function better than we would otherwise. This has no baring as to whether these cognitive modules reflect the underlying reality of the universe as we might well have evolved them just because they help us function together better in groups. Either way, we have them, we can't change that fact, and it seems as though they deliver some benefits. Might as well make the most of our lot.
Do get in touch with my instagram account if you're keen to discuss this more or to chat about anything else.
Inshallah we will see each other at the crag one day.
Best wishes, CC
The studies that appear to support religiosity as a positive factor in performance may be occupying a separate field of inquiry, if only because the vast majority of all scientific studies entirely avoid religion as a factor in anything. Psychological studies may support belief as a powerful factor in human actions, but lumping any and all brands of "religion" into a claim of advantage dodges the inevitable debate about which version is most beneficial - "My God beats your god."
Less devout sports fans like myself find the particular version of piety, as shown by many a track athlete, to be tedious, displaying the antithesis of humility religion is generally supposed to foster. It feels unseemly to be thanking a Higher Power for victories in the arena where the greatest degree of genetic advantage and refined training protocols can be credited; spiritual sustenance would seem more apropos of success in the longest, most grueling endurance tests, where mental states can push the ordinary to extraordinary results. My bias leans to prayers made in the most dire and hopeless times, and these can be interpreted as self-meditations which sustain the person to carry on, as opposed to self-glorifying boasts which obscure the basic childish, self-centered desire to vanquish others in a rather transient and meaningless contest.
My experience of fifty years has found climbers to be generally less overtly religious, more cerebral, yet with more personal "spirituality" that does not manifest in Bible-thumping. A few overtly religious individuals have done well enough in competitions, and route establishment, but hardly to where that trait seems to have been significantly advantageous, with any lasting measurable superiority to peers.
The other paradox is that one can research and train, but one either believes, or doesn't. Immersion in a faith does not equate with belief, and false piety should not result in any performance boost. I may be misreading, but the whole of this essay feels a bit facetious, and perhaps intentionally bland, to disguise a sardonic undertone.
Many thanks for the comment OC. This essay is satire and doesn't contain my sincere attitude towards religion. I wrote this essay because there is a certain type of climber out there who seeks to find all the factors scientifically shown increase performance by "1%" (see the hi-tech Craft approach in the latest post). I just wanted to highlight that the logical conclusion of this attitude is to also having to adopt one of the oldest forms of social technology: religion. I also thought it was funny that the borderline religious approach some climbers have to 'optimising' and 'rationalising' their climbing is that they have to adopt something so antithetical to contemporary ideas of rationality.
I think you make good points as to whether religion would work for everyone's performance and almost certainly it will not; however this evidence suggests that, on average, it does do something. At the end of the day, I think G. K. Chesterton's point holds true: "the best way to see if a coat fits a man is not to measure both of them, but to try it on."
As to your other point: I talk about the 'spiritual' side of climbing in the latest essay in the Climbing as Worship section. I'm currently reading more into this area by writers like R. L. G. Irving and Frank Smythe (among others, as I am discovering) who articulate this feeling; indeed in Irving's case he blends it with his devotion to Christianity. If you're interested in this area then I would recommend The Romance of Mountaineering (1935) and The Spirit of the Hills (1941).
Best regards, CC.