| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"darth_versive" |
| Date: |
03 Jan 2004 02:18:57 PM |
| Object: |
Evolutionary psychology of religion |
Over the past couple of centuries or so, many people have predicted
that, along with the increase of scientific knowledge about the
universe in general, and about the nature and history of life and of
our own species in particular, and about the nature and development of
civilization, that various religions which originated before such
knowledge was available would tend to fade away and be replaced with
more secular, rationalistic or scientific ways of thinking, and that
such ways of thinking would be accepted by the majority of people in
the world. It appears that such predictions were widely off the mark.
While particular religions have evolved over the centuries and
continue to do so, the tendency among most human beings to think in
mythological, spiritual or religious terms seems pretty much the same
as it has always been, since as far back as we can tell.
Perhaps the continuing prevalence of religion in human society today,
in spite of the increase in scientific knowledge, is a result of the
structure of our cognitive architecture, which may have evolved the
way it did because it gave our ancestors a competitive advantage to
believe in such things as gods and spirits, etc. Our brains evolve
much too slowly for our modern scientifically and technologically
advanced civilization (or even simpler agricultural-based
civilization) to have had any measurable effect upon our cognitive
architecture, and so we're stuck with "stone-age" minds living in a
scientific age.
If such a hypothesis is correct, perhaps it's possible to make it
through this scientific age, to not go extinct as a species, even with
all the dangers that threaten us, even with stone-age minds. If we
take due account of how we got here, and of the nature of our
cognitive architecture, and if we accelerate research regarding the
structure and functioning of that cognitive architecture, it may be
possible to devise some kind of cultural or educational corrective
measure to compensate for our stone-age cognitive architecture.
Otherwise, if those behavioral hypotheses we eventually have to rely
upon in moments of crisis are based on some other views of the mind,
which turn out to be incorrect, our chances may not be so good.
But then again, on the other hand, there's always the policy of
wishful thinking and trusting to luck to fall back on. That policy
seems to have worked occasionally in the past. Maybe it will work
this time as well. And maybe too much knowledge about the mind is a
dangerous thing. There are many people throughout history who have
warned us that science is a bad thing and that the quest for knowledge
has been the bane of humanity. That people should be satisfied with
what they already know and not seek to learn more. Perhaps they were
right all along, and that there are some things that should never be
discovered.
It's a question that everyone has to answer for themselves.
DV
.
|
|
| User: "Goodness Godless" |
|
| Title: Re: Evolutionary psychology of religion |
03 Jan 2004 07:40:38 PM |
|
|
"darth_versive" <darth_versive@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:8e0e3045.0401031219.9233c6a@posting.google.com...
Over the past couple of centuries or so, many people have predicted
that, along with the increase of scientific knowledge about the
universe in general, and about the nature and history of life and of
our own species in particular, and about the nature and development of
civilization, that various religions which originated before such
knowledge was available would tend to fade away and be replaced with
more secular, rationalistic or scientific ways of thinking, and that
such ways of thinking would be accepted by the majority of people in
the world. It appears that such predictions were widely off the mark.
I think you are widely of the mark. Yes in the developing world
the scientific world veiw is not well developed, but for most of the
developed world the grip of religion over peoples minds is fading
very rapidly. The US may be an exception, but even in that country,
though only 5% feel able to say openly they are atheist, church
attendances are falling away quite fast.
By the way, what is Evolutionary Psychology? The other apes
do not seem to be interested in religion at all.
<snip>
As all the rest depends on your original premise
<except>
And maybe too much knowledge about the mind is a
dangerous thing. There are many people throughout history who have
warned us that science is a bad thing and that the quest for knowledge
has been the bane of humanity. That people should be satisfied with
what they already know and not seek to learn more. Perhaps they were
right all along, and that there are some things that should never be
discovered.
Can someone who can read, write and recon really live in fear of knowledge?
I despair!
And what do you mean 'what we already know'
What we knew yesterday, last week, last year or over 1000 years ago
when they finished writing the Koran and the Bible?
DV>
--
Goodness Godless
When I was young there was no respect for the young, and now that I am
old there is no respect for the old. I missed out coming and going.
J.B. Priestley
.
|
|
|
| User: "C.J.W." |
|
| Title: Re: Evolutionary psychology of religion |
03 Jan 2004 08:47:51 PM |
|
|
Goodness Godless wrote:
"darth_versive" <darth_versive@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:8e0e3045.0401031219.9233c6a@posting.google.com...
Over the past couple of centuries or so, many people have predicted
that, along with the increase of scientific knowledge about the
universe in general, and about the nature and history of life and of
our own species in particular, and about the nature and development of
civilization, that various religions which originated before such
knowledge was available would tend to fade away and be replaced with
more secular, rationalistic or scientific ways of thinking, and that
such ways of thinking would be accepted by the majority of people in
the world. It appears that such predictions were widely off the mark.
I think you are widely of the mark. Yes in the developing world
the scientific world veiw is not well developed, but for most of the
developed world the grip of religion over peoples minds is fading
very rapidly.
This is what socialists have been saying for some time now. America has always
demonstrated the failure of socialism.
The US may be an exception,
Yes, and it illustrates the failure of socialism so well that European
socialists tend to hate it almost as much as they tend to hate the Jews.
<snip>
--W
.
|
|
|
| User: "Goodness Godless" |
|
| Title: Re: Evolutionary psychology of religion |
03 Jan 2004 11:11:53 PM |
|
|
"C.J.W." <watt2020@bellatlantic.net> wrote in message
news:3FF77F3C.A7F5E855@bellatlantic.net...
Goodness Godless wrote:
"darth_versive" <darth_versive@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:8e0e3045.0401031219.9233c6a@posting.google.com...
Over the past couple of centuries or so, many people have predicted
that, along with the increase of scientific knowledge about the
universe in general, and about the nature and history of life and of
our own species in particular, and about the nature and development of
civilization, that various religions which originated before such
knowledge was available would tend to fade away and be replaced with
more secular, rationalistic or scientific ways of thinking, and that
such ways of thinking would be accepted by the majority of people in
the world. It appears that such predictions were widely off the mark.
I think you are widely of the mark. Yes in the developing world
the scientific world view is not well developed, but for most of the
developed world the grip of religion over peoples minds is fading
very rapidly.
This is what socialists have been saying for some time now. America has
always
demonstrated the failure of socialism.
Socialism? Socialists?
No I think this is actually what is happening in Europe, Canada,
Australia, Japan etc.
The US may be an exception,
Yes, and it illustrates the failure of socialism so well that European
socialists tend to hate it almost as much as they tend to hate the Jews.
<snip>
I wondered if that *socialist hater of the US, Tony Blair was also a hater
of Jews ;)
But seriously, in the US the scientific world view is also gaining ground
and the
fall in church attendance is a very powerful indicator. The 5% who say they
are
atheist (I like to add that it was 1% under McCarthy) might be higher but
for
the
traditional conformity of US citizens or, as some would argue, from the
level of
intolerance that exist towards them.
Still, we have a long way to go.
Africa, India, Middle East, South and Central America are all still
influenced.
But I think China and Eastern Europe do not seen to have reverted as much as
some had hoped.
Who knows?
--W
--
Goodness Godless
When I was young there was no respect for the young, and now that
I am old there is no respect for the old. I missed out coming and going.
J.B. Priestley
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "\Rev Dr\ Lenny Flank" |
|
| Title: Re: Evolutionary psychology of religion |
03 Jan 2004 10:41:56 PM |
|
|
C.J.W. wrote:
Goodness Godless wrote:
"darth_versive" <darth_versive@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:8e0e3045.0401031219.9233c6a@posting.google.com...
Over the past couple of centuries or so, many people have predicted
that, along with the increase of scientific knowledge about the
universe in general, and about the nature and history of life and of
our own species in particular, and about the nature and development of
civilization, that various religions which originated before such
knowledge was available would tend to fade away and be replaced with
more secular, rationalistic or scientific ways of thinking, and that
such ways of thinking would be accepted by the majority of people in
the world. It appears that such predictions were widely off the mark.
I think you are widely of the mark. Yes in the developing world
the scientific world veiw is not well developed, but for most of the
developed world the grip of religion over peoples minds is fading
very rapidly.
This is what socialists have been saying for some time now. America has always
demonstrated the failure of socialism.
America is . . . . "socialist" . . . . . ?
Does the Republican Party know that?
===============================================
Lenny Flank
"There are no loose threads in the web of life"
Creation "Science" Debunked:
http://www.geocities.com/lflank
DebunkCreation Email list:
http://www.groups.yahoo.com/group/DebunkCreation
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----
.
|
|
|
| User: "George Dance" |
|
| Title: Re: Evolutionary psychology of religion |
04 Jan 2004 03:51:10 PM |
|
|
"\"Rev Dr\" Lenny Flank" <lflank_nospam@ij.net> wrote in message news:<3ff799ea$1_4@corp.newsgroups.com>...
C.J.W. wrote:
This is what socialists have been saying for some time now. America has always
demonstrated the failure of socialism.
America is . . . . "socialist" . . . . . ?
That's not what he said, troll.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Kermit" |
|
| Title: Re: Evolutionary psychology of religion |
04 Jan 2004 10:17:31 PM |
|
|
George Dance wrote:
"\"Rev Dr\" Lenny Flank" <lflank_nospam@ij.net> wrote in message news:<3ff799ea$1_4@corp.newsgroups.com>...
C.J.W. wrote:
This is what socialists have been saying for some time now. America has always
demonstrated the failure of socialism.
America is . . . . "socialist" . . . . . ?
That's not what he said, troll.
As you have demonstrated the tendency of idiots to post too frequently.
Feel insulted? If you read my statement again, you'll see that it can be
read in two very different ways.
When I first read that sentence above, that "America has always
demonstrated the failure of socialism" I also read it as a claim that
America is (too) socialist. I can read it either way: a conservative
might assert that America is the proof to the socialist lie, or that
America is too influenced by the "socialist" left.
But it's not stupidity to misread an ambiguous sentence. Which did you
mean, C.J.W.?
--
Kermit
Remove _your_inhibitions_ to reply.
.
|
|
|
| User: "George Dance" |
|
| Title: Re: Evolutionary psychology of religion |
05 Jan 2004 05:41:15 PM |
|
|
Kermit <freehand_your_inhibitions_@charter.net> wrote in message news:<vvhpfahhm1ob4b@corp.supernews.com>...
George Dance wrote:
"\"Rev Dr\" Lenny Flank" <lflank_nospam@ij.net> wrote in message news:<3ff799ea$1_4@corp.newsgroups.com>...
C.J.W. wrote:
This is what socialists have been saying for some time now. America has a
always demonstrated the failure of socialism.
America is . . . . "socialist" . . . . . ?
That's not what he said, troll.
As you have demonstrated the tendency of idiots to post too frequently.
Feel insulted? If you read my statement again, you'll see that it can be
read in two very different ways.
When I first read that sentence above, that "America has always
demonstrated the failure of socialism" I also read it as a claim that
America is (too) socialist. I can read it either way: a conservative
might assert that America is the proof to the socialist lie, or that
America is too influenced by the "socialist" left.
Good point, and excellent exanple.
But it's not stupidity to misread an ambiguous sentence. Which did you
mean, C.J.W.?
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "\Rev Dr\ Lenny Flank" |
|
| Title: Re: Evolutionary psychology of religion |
04 Jan 2004 04:47:24 PM |
|
|
George Dance wrote:
"\"Rev Dr\" Lenny Flank" <lflank_nospam@ij.net> wrote in message news:<3ff799ea$1_4@corp.newsgroups.com>...
C.J.W. wrote:
This is what socialists have been saying for some time now. America has always
demonstrated the failure of socialism.
America is . . . . "socialist" . . . . . ?
That's not what he said, troll.
Go away, little boy. No one's talking to you.
===============================================
Lenny Flank
"There are no loose threads in the web of life"
Creation "Science" Debunked:
http://www.geocities.com/lflank
DebunkCreation Email list:
http://www.groups.yahoo.com/group/DebunkCreation
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Louann Miller" |
|
| Title: Re: Evolutionary psychology of religion |
04 Jan 2004 09:50:35 AM |
|
|
On Sun, 4 Jan 2004 02:47:51 +0000 (UTC), "C.J.W."
<watt2020@bellatlantic.net> wrote:
I think you are widely of the mark. Yes in the developing world
the scientific world veiw is not well developed, but for most of the
developed world the grip of religion over peoples minds is fading
very rapidly.
This is what socialists have been saying for some time now. America has always
demonstrated the failure of socialism.
(etc)
Okay, we know what automated responses you come out with when someone
pushes your buttons. Having done that, do you have anything to the
point to say? Like "no, CJW is wrong about church attendance dropping
and here's a link to my source for saying this?" (I honestly suspect
CJW is mistaken on this particular point, and I was hoping someone
would provide a cite one way or the other.)
Louann
.
|
|
|
| User: "darth_versive" |
|
| Title: Re: Evolutionary psychology of religion |
04 Jan 2004 05:03:29 PM |
|
|
Louann Miller <louann_m@yahoo.net> wrote in message news:<0adgvvskb3ul6vkt183vtm9bplt7jd7nr9@4ax.com>...
On Sun, 4 Jan 2004 02:47:51 +0000 (UTC), "C.J.W."
<watt2020@bellatlantic.net> wrote:
I think you are widely of the mark. Yes in the developing world
the scientific world veiw is not well developed, but for most of the
developed world the grip of religion over peoples minds is fading
very rapidly.
This is what socialists have been saying for some time now. America has always
demonstrated the failure of socialism.
(etc)
Okay, we know what automated responses you come out with when someone
pushes your buttons. Having done that, do you have anything to the
point to say? Like "no, CJW is wrong about church attendance dropping
and here's a link to my source for saying this?" (I honestly suspect
CJW is mistaken on this particular point, and I was hoping someone
would provide a cite one way or the other.)
Louann
And please note that the hypothesis I've put out for discussion
doesn't directly depend upon statistics regarding *formal* church
attendence. That is, even if only a minority of people in the world
belonged to any organized religion, if they instead believed in some
type of informally-organized or unorganized mysticism or spirituality,
or belonged to some UFO cult, or followed some type of
Marxist-Leninist ideology, that would still be compatible with what
I'm saying. Non-secular, non-rationalistic, non-scientific thinking
takes many forms, only some of which fit into the "formal organized
religion" category in the minds of most people nowadays.
That is, whether CJW is mistaken on this particular point or not,
whether formal church attendence is rising or falling, it doesn't seem
to me that the influence of mythological, spiritual, supernaturalistic
or religious-type thinking is fading away, if you accept my broader
definition to include such things as I've mentioned above, that is.
DV
.
|
|
|
| User: "Goodness Godless" |
|
| Title: Re: Evolutionary psychology of religion |
04 Jan 2004 08:28:37 PM |
|
|
"darth_versive" <darth_versive@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:8e0e3045.0401041504.35b12c1b@posting.google.com...
Louann Miller <louann_m@yahoo.net> wrote in message
news:<0adgvvskb3ul6vkt183vtm9bplt7jd7nr9@4ax.com>...
On Sun, 4 Jan 2004 02:47:51 +0000 (UTC), "C.J.W."
<watt2020@bellatlantic.net> wrote:
I think you are widely of the mark. Yes in the developing world
the scientific world veiw is not well developed, but for most of the
developed world the grip of religion over peoples minds is fading
very rapidly.
This is what socialists have been saying for some time now. America
has always
demonstrated the failure of socialism.
(etc)
Okay, we know what automated responses you come out with when someone
pushes your buttons. Having done that, do you have anything to the
point to say? Like "no, CJW is wrong about church attendance dropping
and here's a link to my source for saying this?" (I honestly suspect
CJW is mistaken on this particular point, and I was hoping someone
would provide a cite one way or the other.)
Louann
And please note that the hypothesis I've put out for discussion
doesn't directly depend upon statistics regarding *formal* church
attendence. That is, even if only a minority of people in the world
belonged to any organized religion, if they instead believed in some
type of informally-organized or unorganized mysticism or spirituality,
or belonged to some UFO cult, or followed some type of
Marxist-Leninist ideology, that would still be compatible with what
I'm saying. Non-secular, non-rationalistic, non-scientific thinking
takes many forms, only some of which fit into the "formal organized
religion" category in the minds of most people nowadays.
That is, whether CJW is mistaken on this particular point or not,
whether formal church attendence is rising or falling, it doesn't seem
to me that the influence of mythological, spiritual, supernaturalistic
or religious-type thinking is fading away, if you accept my broader
definition to include such things as I've mentioned above, that is.
DV
Thanks for coming back Dathe and your kind words Louann.
here is a link to some comparative Stats, that may help, Louann.
http://www.secularhumanism.org/library/fi/bishop_19_3.html
this is the secular humanist web site but the article is by an
American College. I personally think it is a bit bent towards
the religious analysis, but I suspect some would disagree ;)
Dathe, I know it is a bit pat to say, but in a sense we can only
go on what we know *formally*, but if you do look a the data there
it does look at some ideas like belief in Angels etc. which kind of
close to unorganised belief.
.
|
|
|
| User: "darth_versive" |
|
| Title: Re: Evolutionary psychology of religion |
05 Jan 2004 04:04:06 PM |
|
|
"Goodness Godless" <goodness@godless.net> wrote in message news:<1073269849.37735@athnrd02.forthnet.gr>...
"darth_versive" <darth_versive@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:8e0e3045.0401041504.35b12c1b@posting.google.com...
Louann Miller <louann_m@yahoo.net> wrote in message
news:<0adgvvskb3ul6vkt183vtm9bplt7jd7nr9@4ax.com>...
On Sun, 4 Jan 2004 02:47:51 +0000 (UTC), "C.J.W."
<watt2020@bellatlantic.net> wrote:
I think you are widely of the mark. Yes in the developing world
the scientific world veiw is not well developed, but for most of the
developed world the grip of religion over peoples minds is fading
very rapidly.
This is what socialists have been saying for some time now. America
has always
demonstrated the failure of socialism.
(etc)
Okay, we know what automated responses you come out with when someone
pushes your buttons. Having done that, do you have anything to the
point to say? Like "no, CJW is wrong about church attendance dropping
and here's a link to my source for saying this?" (I honestly suspect
CJW is mistaken on this particular point, and I was hoping someone
would provide a cite one way or the other.)
Louann
And please note that the hypothesis I've put out for discussion
doesn't directly depend upon statistics regarding *formal* church
attendence. That is, even if only a minority of people in the world
belonged to any organized religion, if they instead believed in some
type of informally-organized or unorganized mysticism or spirituality,
or belonged to some UFO cult, or followed some type of
Marxist-Leninist ideology, that would still be compatible with what
I'm saying. Non-secular, non-rationalistic, non-scientific thinking
takes many forms, only some of which fit into the "formal organized
religion" category in the minds of most people nowadays.
That is, whether CJW is mistaken on this particular point or not,
whether formal church attendence is rising or falling, it doesn't seem
to me that the influence of mythological, spiritual, supernaturalistic
or religious-type thinking is fading away, if you accept my broader
definition to include such things as I've mentioned above, that is.
DV
Thanks for coming back Dathe and your kind words Louann.
here is a link to some comparative Stats, that may help, Louann.
http://www.secularhumanism.org/library/fi/bishop_19_3.html
this is the secular humanist web site but the article is by an
American College. I personally think it is a bit bent towards
the religious analysis, but I suspect some would disagree ;)
Dathe, I know it is a bit pat to say, but in a sense we can only
go on what we know *formally*, but if you do look a the data there
it does look at some ideas like belief in Angels etc. which kind of
close to unorganised belief.
I'm not so much talking about "formal knowledge" of something (of
course we want to base our views on empirical evidence rather than
"gut instinct," etc.), but instead about what constitutes "formal
religion." Is a belief in crystal healing formal religion? Maybe
not. A belief in telepathy or premonitions? Maybe not. Are they
examples of mythological, spiritual, or religious thinking? I'd say
definitly yes.
Over and above this type of case, the point I wanted to stress in my
last post was that many belief systems, which many people nowadays
would not necessarily classify as "religious," would still fit into
the general category of mythological, spiritual, or religious thinking
in the context of the hypothesis I'm proposing. Like utopian
socialism, etc. Or UFOism etc.
Once this broader conception of the term is taken into account, things
begin to look a little different, and the type of statistics you cited
above become less relevant to the hypothesis under discussion. For
example, if large numbers of people are, hypothetically, giving up the
belief in a transcendent deity and in an afterlife, but they are all
shifting to Marxism-Leninism, for example, then, according to the
hypothesis, no net change has occurred in the percentage of people
holding to "mythological, spiritual, or religious" thinking. That is,
Marxism-Leninism would be considered to be just as mythological and
unscientific as a belief in a transcendent deity and an afterlife
would be. And so the same proposed phenomenon would be at work in
both cases: a stone-age cognitive architecture which tends to lead
people to think in such terms. And so such data would tend to
support, rather than undermine, the hypothesis.
On the other hand, using a more narrow definition of "mythological,
spiritual, or religious" thinking, which would classify belief in a
transcendent deity and an afterlife as unscientific and mythological,
etc., but not Marxism-Leninism as being such, the same data about
shifting belief patterns would be counted as an abandonment by large
numbers of people of mythological, spiritual, or religious thinking,
and an acceptance of secular, rationalistic, or scientific thinking,
and therefore would undermine and not support the hypothesis. But to
me, it would fly in the face of what we know about Marxism-Leninism to
classify it in this way. So I think that the broader definition
(including such things as belief in Marxism-Leninism, crystal healing,
telepathy, UFOism etc.) is the more proper one to use in the context
of this hypothesis. They are not "formal religion," but they still
count as this general type of thinking, in my view.
So the definition of the term, whether it's broad or narrow, is
relevant to the discussion. As I said, I hold to the broad definition
of the term, and all my points and counterpoints should be read with
this definition in mind. At least, it should be read this way if you
want an accurate understanding of what I'm trying to say. If you want
to dispute the actual definition itself, and say that the term should
more properly be defined in a more narrow sense, that's another issue,
and we can discuss that point at further length. But if you want to
understand the hypothesis as I've proposed it, this broader definition
of the term is an integral part of it.
DV
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Carol Lee Smith" |
|
| Title: Re: Evolutionary psychology of religion |
04 Jan 2004 10:00:51 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 5 Jan 2004, Goodness Godless wrote:
Thanks for coming back Dathe and your kind words Louann.
here is a link to some comparative Stats, that may help, Louann.
http://www.secularhumanism.org/library/fi/bishop_19_3.html
this is the secular humanist web site but the article is by an
American College. ...
The article is by an individual named George Bishop who is Professor of
Political Science at the University of Cincinnati.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Goodness Godless" |
|
| Title: Re: Evolutionary psychology of religion |
05 Jan 2004 03:59:16 AM |
|
|
Sorry for the top post
but thanks for the expansion.
Comparitive Religion is so iffy.
--
Goodness Godless
When I was young there was no respect for the young, and now that I am old
there is no respect for the old. I missed out coming and going.
J.B. Priestley
"Carol Lee Smith" <human@csd.uwm.edu> wrote in message
news:Pine.OSF.3.96.1040104220133.7720F-100000@alpha1.csd.uwm.edu...
On Mon, 5 Jan 2004, Goodness Godless wrote:
Thanks for coming back Dathe and your kind words Louann.
here is a link to some comparative Stats, that may help, Louann.
http://www.secularhumanism.org/library/fi/bishop_19_3.html
this is the secular humanist web site but the article is by an
American College. ...
The article is by an individual named George Bishop who is Professor of
Political Science at the University of Cincinnati.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Goodness Godless" |
|
| Title: OT but PS Bush's Best Pal is a *Socialist* |
04 Jan 2004 08:52:05 PM |
|
|
As I was writing in this thread to "C.J.W." , it occured to me.
Any lefties out there ever thought, but
Gerogy Bushes best pal Tony Blair is a Socialist.
He is a bit shy to admit it, and skirts around the issue, but
even more frightening for the fundies, he says he is fully paid up menmber
of
a small but insidious group called Christian Socialists.
Yes a Christian Socialist - definately Satan inspired!!
--
Goodness Godless
When I was young there was no respect for the young, and now that I am old
there is no respect for the old. I missed out coming and going.
J.B. Priestley
.
|
|
|
| User: "Kate " |
|
| Title: Re: OT but PS Bush's Best Pal is a *Socialist* |
05 Jan 2004 12:04:50 AM |
|
|
On Mon, 5 Jan 2004 02:52:05 +0000 (UTC), "Goodness Godless"
<goodness@godless.net> wrote:
As I was writing in this thread to "C.J.W." , it occured to me.
Any lefties out there ever thought, but
Gerogy Bushes best pal Tony Blair is a Socialist.
He is a bit shy to admit it, and skirts around the issue, but
even more frightening for the fundies, he says he is fully paid up menmber
of
a small but insidious group called Christian Socialists.
Yes a Christian Socialist - definately Satan inspired!!
Actually Bush's family is very close to the royal family in Saudi
Arabia - where most of the terrorists originated and where he quietly
flew Bin Laden's family right after 9/11.
Makes you think, doesn't it?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Goodness Godless" |
|
| Title: Re: OT but PS Bush's Best Pal is a *Socialist* |
05 Jan 2004 03:59:22 AM |
|
|
Thanks Kate
It is a compex world we live in.
--
Goodness Godless
When I was young there was no respect for the young, and now that I am old
there is no respect for the old. I missed out coming and going.
J.B. Priestley
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "William Barwell" |
|
| Title: Re: Evolutionary psychology of religion |
04 Jan 2004 09:45:46 PM |
|
|
darth_versive wrote:
Louann Miller <louann_m@yahoo.net> wrote in message
news:<0adgvvskb3ul6vkt183vtm9bplt7jd7nr9@4ax.com>...
On Sun, 4 Jan 2004 02:47:51 +0000 (UTC), "C.J.W."
<watt2020@bellatlantic.net> wrote:
I think you are widely of the mark. Yes in the developing world
the scientific world veiw is not well developed, but for most of the
developed world the grip of religion over peoples minds is fading
very rapidly.
This is what socialists have been saying for some time now. America has
always demonstrated the failure of socialism.
(etc)
Okay, we know what automated responses you come out with when someone
pushes your buttons. Having done that, do you have anything to the
point to say? Like "no, CJW is wrong about church attendance dropping
and here's a link to my source for saying this?" (I honestly suspect
CJW is mistaken on this particular point, and I was hoping someone
would provide a cite one way or the other.)
Louann
And please note that the hypothesis I've put out for discussion
doesn't directly depend upon statistics regarding *formal* church
attendence. That is, even if only a minority of people in the world
belonged to any organized religion, if they instead believed in some
type of informally-organized or unorganized mysticism or spirituality,
or belonged to some UFO cult, or followed some type of
Marxist-Leninist ideology, that would still be compatible with what
I'm saying. Non-secular, non-rationalistic, non-scientific thinking
takes many forms, only some of which fit into the "formal organized
religion" category in the minds of most people nowadays.
That is, whether CJW is mistaken on this particular point or not,
whether formal church attendence is rising or falling, it doesn't seem
to me that the influence of mythological, spiritual, supernaturalistic
or religious-type thinking is fading away, if you accept my broader
definition to include such things as I've mentioned above, that is.
DV
From surveys I have seen in the past, yes it is fading.
The anti-intellectualism of the creationist movement and the thoughtless
far right religous political movement is taking a toll on Christianity,
there is backlash.
And it looks petty to many when compared to such things as the
amazing findings of science such as seen from the amazing Hubble telescope.
14% of Americans now are self described as Atheist, agnostic, secular
in some surveys. Many are revolting against religous obscurantism and
anti-intellectualism.
--
Bush! Chimp or chump?
Cheerful Charlie
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "William Barwell" |
|
| Title: Re: Evolutionary psychology of religion |
04 Jan 2004 09:41:51 PM |
|
|
Louann Miller wrote:
On Sun, 4 Jan 2004 02:47:51 +0000 (UTC), "C.J.W."
<watt2020@bellatlantic.net> wrote:
I think you are widely of the mark. Yes in the developing world
the scientific world veiw is not well developed, but for most of the
developed world the grip of religion over peoples minds is fading
very rapidly.
This is what socialists have been saying for some time now. America has
always demonstrated the failure of socialism.
(etc)
Okay, we know what automated responses you come out with when someone
pushes your buttons. Having done that, do you have anything to the
point to say? Like "no, CJW is wrong about church attendance dropping
and here's a link to my source for saying this?" (I honestly suspect
CJW is mistaken on this particular point, and I was hoping someone
would provide a cite one way or the other.)
Louann
There are a number of surveys that show religous belief dropping.
Last year, there was a long article in USA Today on the phenomenon
concentrating on the Northwest where 14% of the population is now firmly
secular, Atheist, agnostic, nonbeliever, and growing. Many people are just
tired of Christianity, fundamentalism, right winger evangelicals, and
irrational anti-intellectualism of religious believers. There is a growing
movement of peole who get their spirituality from nature, and science.
The awe insipring findings from the Hubble telescope and a longhike,
camping trip, or canoe trip in the Great Northwest outdoors makes
listening to some ignorant preacher bray about right winger politics in
some church look punk.
As we speak, there is also a growing movement in England to officially
disestablish the Anglican church, google disestablishment for a million
articles. Religion is dying there.
I have seen a few articles around in the past on Western Canada, where
mirroring the USA today, secularism and Atheism along with political unrest
is growing.
I suspect that googling around for survey's on religion in America will
eventually lead back to more info.
--
Bush! Chimp or chump?
Cheerful Charlie
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "ImpBush" |
|
| Title: Re: Evolutionary psychology of religion |
03 Jan 2004 06:16:56 PM |
|
|
"darth_versive" <darth_versive@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:8e0e3045.0401031219.9233c6a@posting.google.com...
Over the past couple of centuries or so, many people have predicted
that, along with the increase of scientific knowledge about the
universe in general, and about the nature and history of life and of
our own species in particular, and about the nature and development of
civilization, that various religions which originated before such
knowledge was available would tend to fade away and be replaced with
more secular, rationalistic or scientific ways of thinking, and that
such ways of thinking would be accepted by the majority of people in
the world. It appears that such predictions were widely off the mark.
Not widely off the mark. Secular, Atheist and Agnostic groups are on the
rise, while church attendence is the lowest its ever been.
While particular religions have evolved over the centuries and
continue to do so, the tendency among most human beings to think in
mythological, spiritual or religious terms seems pretty much the same
as it has always been, since as far back as we can tell.
Where do you come up with this info?
Perhaps the continuing prevalence of religion in human society today,
in spite of the increase in scientific knowledge, is a result of the
structure of our cognitive architecture, which may have evolved the
way it did because it gave our ancestors a competitive advantage to
believe in such things as gods and spirits, etc. Our brains evolve
much too slowly for our modern scientifically and technologically
advanced civilization (or even simpler agricultural-based
civilization) to have had any measurable effect upon our cognitive
architecture, and so we're stuck with "stone-age" minds living in a
scientific age.
Speak for yourself. Not everyone still believes in 2,000 year old mythical
books written by man when he thought the earth was flat and the sun revolved
around the earth.
But then again, on the other hand, there's always the policy of
wishful thinking and trusting to luck to fall back on. That policy
seems to have worked occasionally in the past. Maybe it will work
this time as well. And maybe too much knowledge about the mind is a
dangerous thing. There are many people throughout history who have
warned us that science is a bad thing and that the quest for knowledge
has been the bane of humanity. That people should be satisfied with
what they already know and not seek to learn more. Perhaps they were
right all along, and that there are some things that should never be
discovered.
Science is a "bad thing"? No, the business of organized religion is a bad
thing. It breeds hate, discrimination, greed and wars. All of which have
killed more people and done more damage than science could ever do.
Perhaps you should stick your head in the sand and leave it there. You might
feel safer then having to deal with the real world.
Gheeeze, you people never seem to amaze me with your lack of common sense. I
guess that comes with being a follower instead of a leader.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Newton Joseph" |
|
| Title: Re: Evolutionary psychology of religion |
03 Jan 2004 08:24:48 PM |
|
|
It was the scientist Luther Burbank who said "science unlike religion never
caused insanity"
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "ZenIsWhen" |
|
| Title: Re: Evolutionary psychology of religion |
04 Jan 2004 05:06:17 AM |
|
|
"darth_versive" <darth_versive@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:8e0e3045.0401031219.9233c6a@posting.google.com...
Over the past couple of centuries or so, many people have predicted
that, along with the increase of scientific knowledge about the
universe in general, and about the nature and history of life and of
our own species in particular, and about the nature and development of
civilization, that various religions which originated before such
knowledge was available would tend to fade away and be replaced with
more secular, rationalistic or scientific ways of thinking, and that
such ways of thinking would be accepted by the majority of people in
the world. It appears that such predictions were widely off the mark.
While particular religions have evolved over the centuries and
continue to do so, the tendency among most human beings to think in
mythological, spiritual or religious terms seems pretty much the same
as it has always been, since as far back as we can tell.
Perhaps the continuing prevalence of religion in human society today,
in spite of the increase in scientific knowledge, is a result of the
structure of our cognitive architecture, which may have evolved the
way it did because it gave our ancestors a competitive advantage to
believe in such things as gods and spirits, etc. Our brains evolve
much too slowly for our modern scientifically and technologically
advanced civilization (or even simpler agricultural-based
civilization) to have had any measurable effect upon our cognitive
architecture, and so we're stuck with "stone-age" minds living in a
scientific age.
If such a hypothesis is correct, perhaps it's possible to make it
through this scientific age, to not go extinct as a species, even with
all the dangers that threaten us, even with stone-age minds. If we
take due account of how we got here, and of the nature of our
cognitive architecture, and if we accelerate research regarding the
structure and functioning of that cognitive architecture, it may be
possible to devise some kind of cultural or educational corrective
measure to compensate for our stone-age cognitive architecture.
Otherwise, if those behavioral hypotheses we eventually have to rely
upon in moments of crisis are based on some other views of the mind,
which turn out to be incorrect, our chances may not be so good.
But then again, on the other hand, there's always the policy of
wishful thinking and trusting to luck to fall back on. That policy
seems to have worked occasionally in the past. Maybe it will work
this time as well. And maybe too much knowledge about the mind is a
dangerous thing. There are many people throughout history who have
warned us that science is a bad thing and that the quest for knowledge
has been the bane of humanity. That people should be satisfied with
what they already know and not seek to learn more. Perhaps they were
right all along, and that there are some things that should never be
discovered.
It's a question that everyone has to answer for themselves.
Some people say the same thing about religion.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Kevin L. OBrien" |
|
| Title: Re: Evolutionary psychology of religion |
04 Jan 2004 11:55:49 PM |
|
|
(darth_versive) wrote in message news:<8e0e3045.0401031219.9233c6a@posting.google.com>...
Perhaps the continuing prevalence of religion in human society today,
in spite of the increase in scientific knowledge, is a result of the
structure of our cognitive architecture, which may have evolved the
way it did because it gave our ancestors a competitive advantage to
believe in such things as gods and spirits, etc. Our brains evolve
much too slowly for our modern scientifically and technologically
advanced civilization (or even simpler agricultural-based
civilization) to have had any measurable effect upon our cognitive
architecture, and so we're stuck with "stone-age" minds living in a
scientific age.
Another possibility is that when human beings became intelligent
enough to ask questions like "why do we exist", "what is the purpose
of life", etc., God gave us souls, which allowed us to interact with
Him better and thus come up with reasonable answers. Hence the
continued prevalence of religion may be due to our spiritual natures.
Kevin L. O'Brien
.
|
|
|
| User: "darth_versive" |
|
| Title: Re: Evolutionary psychology of religion |
05 Jan 2004 04:41:30 PM |
|
|
(Kevin L. O'Brien) wrote in message news:<ed6ccb78.0401042157.7229ab40@posting.google.com>...
darth_versive@yahoo.com (darth_versive) wrote in message news:<8e0e3045.0401031219.9233c6a@posting.google.com>...
Perhaps the continuing prevalence of religion in human society today,
in spite of the increase in scientific knowledge, is a result of the
structure of our cognitive architecture, which may have evolved the
way it did because it gave our ancestors a competitive advantage to
believe in such things as gods and spirits, etc. Our brains evolve
much too slowly for our modern scientifically and technologically
advanced civilization (or even simpler agricultural-based
civilization) to have had any measurable effect upon our cognitive
architecture, and so we're stuck with "stone-age" minds living in a
scientific age.
Another possibility is that when human beings became intelligent
enough to ask questions like "why do we exist", "what is the purpose
of life", etc., God gave us souls, which allowed us to interact with
Him better and thus come up with reasonable answers. Hence the
continued prevalence of religion may be due to our spiritual natures.
Kevin L. O'Brien
You are quite right. This is indeed another possibility.
But I think that the hypothesis that I've proposed, that involving the
structure of our cognitive architecture, which evolved the way it did
due to naturalistic causes, is a more reasonable one, given the
available empirical evidence.
Of course, we each tend to interpret that evidence according to our
own subjective perspectives, which are based upon our own assumptions.
But I think that the assumptions of metaphysical naturalism,
including the one that everything in the universe is governed by the
laws of nature, and that scientific methods are the best way we have
of evaluating and interpreting empirical evidence, are more reasonable
than those of metaphysical supernaturalism and a belief in divine
revelation as a source of evidence.
So we can agree to disagree on these points. At least I hope we can
agree to disagree.
DV
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Christopher A. Lee" |
|
| Title: Re: Evolutionary psychology of religion |
05 Jan 2004 05:13:22 AM |
|
|
On Mon, 5 Jan 2004 05:55:49 +0000 (UTC),
(Kevin L. O'Brien) wrote:
Another possibility is that when human beings became intelligent
enough to ask questions like "why do we exist", "what is the purpose
of life", etc., God gave us souls, which allowed us to interact with
Him better and thus come up with reasonable answers. Hence the
continued prevalence of religion may be due to our spiritual natures.
Which of course totally begs the question, and is no different than
all the other possibilities like the Great Arkleseizure sneezing us
out in a giant ***** so we ask these questions.
Kevin L. O'Brien
.
|
|
|
| User: "Kevin L. OBrien" |
|
| Title: Re: Evolutionary psychology of religion |
05 Jan 2004 11:27:07 AM |
|
|
"Christopher A. Lee" <calee@optonline.net> wrote in message news:<0pfivv0hg5taid6108iqms8ud8su2e264r@4ax.com>...
On Mon, 5 Jan 2004 05:55:49 +0000 (UTC),
(Kevin L. O'Brien) wrote:
Another possibility is that when human beings became intelligent
enough to ask questions like "why do we exist", "what is the purpose
of life", etc., God gave us souls, which allowed us to interact with
Him better and thus come up with reasonable answers. Hence the
continued prevalence of religion may be due to our spiritual natures.
Which of course totally begs the question . . .
Total begs what question?
. . . and is no different than
all the other possibilities like the Great Arkleseizure sneezing us
out in a giant ***** so we ask these questions.
I didn't claim it was different. I simply suggested it as an
alternative to the idea that religion and spirituality were
evolutionary baggage.
If it gives you comfort to believe that you are the by-product of
divine phlem then I am happy for you, though personally I think my
idea is both more uplifting and more hygenic.
Kevin L. O'Brien
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Severian" |
|
| Title: Re: Evolutionary psychology of religion |
05 Jan 2004 12:11:56 AM |
|
|
On Mon, 5 Jan 2004 05:55:49 +0000 (UTC),
(Kevin L. O'Brien) wrote:
darth_versive@yahoo.com (darth_versive) wrote in message news:<8e0e3045.0401031219.9233c6a@posting.google.com>...
Perhaps the continuing prevalence of religion in human society today,
in spite of the increase in scientific knowledge, is a result of the
structure of our cognitive architecture, which may have evolved the
way it did because it gave our ancestors a competitive advantage to
believe in such things as gods and spirits, etc. Our brains evolve
much too slowly for our modern scientifically and technologically
advanced civilization (or even simpler agricultural-based
civilization) to have had any measurable effect upon our cognitive
architecture, and so we're stuck with "stone-age" minds living in a
scientific age.
Another possibility is that when human beings became intelligent
enough to ask questions like "why do we exist", "what is the purpose
of life", etc., God gave us souls, which allowed us to interact with
Him better and thus come up with reasonable answers. Hence the
continued prevalence of religion may be due to our spiritual natures.
Religion
========
Your fear of dying masquerades as love
for God. Despising those who do not fear,
you threaten, scare, intimidate. You cover
your frantic fear with hymns and prayer. How queer
it is to walk among you, unafraid.
You see the world as something God has done,
but God is only something men have made.
There's so much joy that men can know: You stun
me with your cries of righteous superstition,
your stillborn hate, your self-delusion. Find
a more humane foundation --—seek a mission
based on life. Encourage hope. Remind
yourself that only man anticipates—--
Only man determines his own fate.
Copyright 1999, Phillip A. Crews. All Rights Reserved.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Kevin L. OBrien" |
|
| Title: Re: Evolutionary psychology of religion |
05 Jan 2004 08:11:45 AM |
|
|
Severian <severian@chlamydia-is-not-a-flower.com> wrote in message news:<830ivvorgml6l8ppcdnkdfugncecphj1mg@4ax.com>...
Religion
========
Nice poem. Did you write it? If so you ought to try to get it
published.
Unfortunately it has nothing to do with what I wrote.
Your fear of dying masquerades as love for God.
That's an interesting premise, because it is total off the mark. I
have no fear of dying, and it is because of Christianity.
Christianity teaches that those who believe in the divinity of Christ
shall not die but have everlasting life. Of course, that does not
mean I will not physically die; I still will. But the fear of death
stems from two sources: the fear of loosing (physical) life and the
fear of what comes after. Christianity teaches that there is a
sprititual life after death and that it is far better than physical
life, so I have nothing to fear on either score. So I don't "love"
God out of fear of death, but out of gratitude for His gift of life.
Despising those who do not fear, you threaten, scare, intimidate.
I think you would be hard-pressed to find any statement that I have
made in which in which I threaten, scare, or intimidate anyone, much
less someone not afraid of death. Atheism has its own answers to the
question of life after death, and if they satisfy you then I am happy
for you.
You cover your frantic fear with hymns and prayer.
Since you know nothing about me aside from what I post here and on my
personal website, is it not rather presumptuous of you to claim to
know why I do something?
How queer it is to walk among you, unafraid.
You see the world as something God has done,
but God is only something men have made.
God is inside all of us, waiting for us to open a dialogue with Him.
The proof you need for God's existence lies inside your own heart; you
need only look for it.
There's so much joy that men can know: You stun
me with your cries of righteous superstition,
your stillborn hate, your self-delusion.
Until you find God within yourself, obviously my faith is going to
seem like superstition and self-delusion to you, but again you have no
justification for saying that I hate simply because I have faith in
God.
Find a more humane foundation -- seek a mission
based on life. Encourage hope.
Funny you should suggest this: I can think of no mission with a
stronger humane foundation, that is more rooted in life, or that
encourages hope more than Christianity.
Remind yourself that only man anticipates --
Only man determines his own fate.
You are entirely correct; God gave man free will, so man's ultimate
fate is entirely up to him.
Kevin L. O'Brien
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Dave" |
|
| Title: Re: Evolutionary psychology of religion |
04 Jan 2004 03:34:04 PM |
|
|
(darth_versive) wrote in message news:<8e0e3045.0401031219.9233c6a@posting.google.com>...
[...] many people have predicted that, along with the increase
of scientific knowledge [...] various religions which
originated before such knowledge was available would tend to
fade away and be replaced with more secular, rationalistic or
scientific ways of thinking [...] It appears that such
predictions were widely off the mark. [...]
There is no reason for it to change. People still get sick and die.
They still get old and die. They still have car accidents and die.
They still get killed by criminals and terrorists and military
actions. They still have lots of fears.
Crying to your local scientist isn't going to help, because he would
suggest airbags in your car and a fat-free diet, and you'll die
anyway, but if you cry to your local priest he will tell you that
_certain beliefs_ can comfort you and help you and protect you, even
after your death, and that has been the case throughout human history.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Varicose Brain" |
|
| Title: Re: Evolutionary psychology of religion |
04 Jan 2004 06:31:27 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 4 Jan 2004 21:34:04 +0000 (UTC), (Dave)
wrote:
There is no reason for it to change. People still get sick and die.
They still get old and die. They still have car accidents and die.
They still get killed by criminals and terrorists and military
actions. They still have lots of fears.
Crying to your local scientist isn't going to help, because he would
suggest airbags in your car and a fat-free diet, and you'll die
anyway, but if you cry to your local priest he will tell you that
_certain beliefs_ can comfort you and help you and protect you, even
after your death, and that has been the case throughout human history.
It's called searching for the "meaning of life." The tough questions
(Why are we here? What are we doing? Where are we going?) have
different answers for each individual. I don't begrudge the person
that truly believes that they've found the answers to these questions,
but to say that what is good for one person is good for EVERYONE is
wrong, and has been the cause of much strife and suffering throughout
time.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
