Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id XAA18495 (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 23:17:39 +0100 X-Originating-IP: [209.240.220.143] From: "Scott Chase" <ecphoric@hotmail.com> To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk Subject: Re: Dawkins was right all along Date: Fri, 28 Sep 2001 18:12:43 -0400 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: <F261v3ONSHOSai506Ff0000a112@hotmail.com> X-OriginalArrivalTime: 28 Sep 2001 22:12:43.0865 (UTC) FILETIME=[B253BC90:01C1486A] Sender: fmb-bounces@mmu.ac.uk Precedence: bulk Reply-To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
>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: Fri, 28 Sep 2001 16:46:28 +0200 (CEST)
>
>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.
>
>
There's a difference between acknowledging the fact of evolution including
humans and accepting some particular "just so story" as an explanation for a
particular aspect of human behavior.
It appears to me that EP erects the bogeyperson of the SSSM for rhetorical
ammo, in justification of their existence.
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp
===============================================================
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 - 23:22:48 BST