Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id PAA17645 (8.6.9/5.3[ref pg@gmsl.co.uk] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from fmb-bounces@mmu.ac.uk); Fri, 28 Sep 2001 15:51:00 +0100 From: Philip Jonkers <P.A.E.Jonkers@phys.rug.nl> X-Authentication-Warning: rugth1.phys.rug.nl: www-data set sender to jonkers@localhost using -f To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk Subject: Re: Dawkins was right all along Message-ID: <1001688388.3bb48d44af2fc@rugth1.phys.rug.nl> Date: Fri, 28 Sep 2001 16:46:28 +0200 (CEST) References: <F153UpuabjKoMFYsDSz00007ca7@hotmail.com> In-Reply-To: <F153UpuabjKoMFYsDSz00007ca7@hotmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit User-Agent: IMP/PHP IMAP webmail program 2.2.6 X-Originating-IP: 129.125.13.3 Sender: fmb-bounces@mmu.ac.uk Precedence: bulk Reply-To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
Quoting Scott Chase <ecphoric@hotmail.com>:
>
>
>
>
> >From: Philip Jonkers <P.A.E.Jonkers@phys.rug.nl>
> >Reply-To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
> >To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
> >Subject: Re: Dawkins was right all along
> >Date: Mon, 24 Sep 2001 19:55:56 +0200 (CEST)
> >
> >Scott:
> > > There could be an innate or heritable underbelly to the generation
> of
> > > religious belief, whether adaptive or non-adaptive. OTOH, there
> might
> > > not be
> > > such an innate bias. I guess it depends on whether there's a "God
> > > module" or
> > > not.
> >
> >Hi Scott,
> >
> >Interesting of you bringing that up. It seems that there is
> >such a thing of, what you refer to as a, `God module'. I guess
> >it corresponds to an area in the pre-frontal cortex. I posted
> >a mail ages ago, called: `This is your brain on God' which
> >was about some Canadian scientist who invented a brain-machine
> >that could arouse religious/spiritual experiences, depending
> >on the subject's religous commitment of course.
> >Given the fact that the ability to become religious is
> >innate, one may ask:
> >What are the evolutionary forces that drove the development
> >of such a mental module?
> >A clue that springs to mind is that religious communities may
> >have had a survival benefit over not so religious communities
> >through ensuring social coherence within the group.
> >An evolutionary pressure may then have favored the more religious
> >type of brain...
> >
> >Also religous thinking affects just about everybody, including
> >atheist. Think of the universally applied language, terms
> >such as spirituality, eternity, soul, purpose/ goal of life
> >hold sway everywhere. Even evolutionary psychologists are
accused (accidental omission)
> >for spreading the `gospel' of their scientific
> >beliefs in such a fanatical religious kind of way.
> >
> >
> The Standard Social Science Model is a tool of the devil.
..... and an ignorant one at that. Pfff.... I praise the Lord when
the social sciences finally come to accept evolution...
Rutherford once said something along the lines:
The only science is physics, the rest is stamp collecting.
While a little outdated perhaps, this quote still applies
well for the social sciences not acknowledging evolution.
Phil.
===============================================================
This was distributed via the memetics list associated with the
Journal of Memetics - Evolutionary Models of Information Transmission
For information about the journal and the list (e.g. unsubscribing)
see: http://www.cpm.mmu.ac.uk/jom-emit
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Sep 28 2001 - 15:57:37 BST