Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id XAA18495 (8.6.9/5.3[ref email@example.com] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from firstname.lastname@example.org); Fri, 28 Sep 2001 23:17:39 +0100 X-Originating-IP: [188.8.131.52] From: "Scott Chase" <email@example.com> To: firstname.lastname@example.org 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: email@example.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: firstname.lastname@example.org
>From: Philip Jonkers <P.A.E.Jonkers@phys.rug.nl>
>Subject: Re: Dawkins was right all along
>Date: Fri, 28 Sep 2001 16:46:28 +0200 (CEST)
>Quoting Scott Chase <email@example.com>:
> > >From: Philip Jonkers <P.A.E.Jonkers@phys.rug.nl>
> > >Reply-To: firstname.lastname@example.org
> > >To: email@example.com
> > >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)
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Sep 28 2001 - 23:22:48 BST