Re: Dawkins was right all along

From: Philip Jonkers (
Date: Fri Sep 28 2001 - 15:46:28 BST

  • Next message: Philip Jonkers: "Re: Dawkins was right all along"

    Received: by id PAA17645 (8.6.9/5.3[ref] for from; Fri, 28 Sep 2001 15:51:00 +0100
    From: Philip Jonkers <>
    X-Authentication-Warning: www-data set sender to jonkers@localhost using -f
    Subject: Re: Dawkins was right all along
    Message-ID: <>
    Date: Fri, 28 Sep 2001 16:46:28 +0200 (CEST)
    References: <>
    In-Reply-To: <>
    Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
    Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
    User-Agent: IMP/PHP IMAP webmail program 2.2.6
    Precedence: bulk

    Quoting Scott Chase <>:

    > >From: Philip Jonkers <>
    > >Reply-To:
    > >To:
    > >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.


    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)

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Sep 28 2001 - 15:57:37 BST