Comments on: The Evolution of Religion http://evolution-of-religion.com/2009/05/04/the-evolution-of-religion/ Blogs on the evolution of religion Sat, 19 May 2012 02:29:01 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.7.1 hourly 1 By: Gruesome_hound http://evolution-of-religion.com/2009/05/04/the-evolution-of-religion/comment-page-1/#comment-10116 Gruesome_hound Fri, 04 Feb 2011 15:58:02 +0000 http://evolution-of-religion.com/?p=1003#comment-10116 Well, the problem of the approach of most evolutionary psychologists towards religion is that they presuppose without evidence the truth of reductive materialism:, namely that the mind, our emotions and our thoughts, can be fully reduced to the interactions of molecules. Assuming that, they then wonder: but why do so many people believe they have a soul, and that invisible beings exist, and that there is a God beyond the universe ? By investigating the possible explanations, they fully rule out the possibility that people have these beliefs because they may be partially true. They have therefore to resort to materialistic explanations like the idea we are deceived by this hyperactive agent detection device. But let us examine the problem of religion's origin from an other standpoint: let us just assume, like many modern philosophers, that feelings (qualia) and thoughts are immaterial, that they are a part of nature, but irreducible to material processes. Thomas Nagel argued for example that the full knowdlege of the neuronal processes going on in a bat sending out signals can not show us how it is felt by the bat itself, and that therefore subjectivity is something radically different from the material world studied by science. If one presupposes this is truly the case, the explanation of religion's appearance looks quite different: people are rightly aware that their feelings, thoughts and personality is something different from matter, and they infer that other humans and animals must also have this kind of subjective experience, they form thus their own theory of mind in this way. Like philosopher Keith Ward argued, since their immaterial mind is the first reality they encounter, they intuitively think that there may be also invisible minds, and that the ultimate reality itself must rather be something spiritual rather than material. The fear of death, coupled with the queerness of their own existence may then lead them to believe they are immortal. Note that my non-reductive account of religion may be fully naturalistic, if one accepts that subjective feelings, ideas, and concepts like mathematical truths are a part of nature, although not reducible to matter. Likewise, I am not a dualist in the traditional sense: I believe that the immaterial feelings, thoughts which makes us a person emerge from the brain and are completely dependent on it, and would disappear if the brain was damaged. According to my non-reductive theory, people began to believe in immaterial spirits mainly because they were puzzled and amazed by the non-material character of their being which they intuitively recognized. Now, many religious beliefs could be false of course: it is quite possible, like Thomas Nagel postulated, that nature does not only consist of matter but also of ideas and the potentiality for subjectivity , but that there is no God, no invisible spirits, and no afterlife. By the way, I believe there are strong reasons for believing so, like the problem of evil and poor design in nature. Basically, I don't agree with the evolutionary psychologists because they assume the truth of reductive materialism and limit the possible explanations to material processes, although many philosophers of mind hold a non reductive position. Well, the problem of the approach of most evolutionary psychologists towards religion is that they presuppose without evidence the truth of reductive materialism:, namely that the mind, our emotions and our thoughts, can be fully reduced to the interactions of molecules.
Assuming that, they then wonder: but why do so many people believe they have a soul, and that invisible beings exist, and that there is a God beyond the universe ?
By investigating the possible explanations, they fully rule out the possibility that people have these beliefs because they may be partially true.
They have therefore to resort to materialistic explanations like the idea we are deceived by this hyperactive agent detection device.

But let us examine the problem of religion’s origin from an other standpoint: let us just assume, like many modern philosophers, that feelings (qualia) and thoughts are immaterial, that they are a part of nature, but irreducible to material processes.
Thomas Nagel argued for example that the full knowdlege of the neuronal processes going on in a bat sending out signals can not show us how it is felt by the bat itself, and that therefore subjectivity is something radically different from the material world studied by science.

If one presupposes this is truly the case, the explanation of religion’s appearance looks quite different: people are rightly aware that their feelings, thoughts and personality is something different from matter, and they infer that other humans and animals must also have this kind of subjective experience, they form thus their own theory of mind in this way.

Like philosopher Keith Ward argued, since their immaterial mind is the first reality they encounter, they intuitively think that there may be also invisible minds, and that the ultimate reality itself must rather be something spiritual rather than material.

The fear of death, coupled with the queerness of their own existence may then lead them to believe they are immortal.

Note that my non-reductive account of religion may be fully naturalistic, if one accepts that subjective feelings, ideas, and concepts like mathematical truths are a part of nature, although not reducible to matter.

Likewise, I am not a dualist in the traditional sense: I believe that the immaterial feelings, thoughts which makes us a person emerge from the brain and are completely dependent on it, and would disappear if the brain was damaged.

According to my non-reductive theory, people began to believe in immaterial spirits mainly because they were puzzled and amazed by the non-material character of their being which they intuitively recognized.

Now, many religious beliefs could be false of course: it is quite possible, like Thomas Nagel postulated, that nature does not only consist of matter but also of ideas and the potentiality for subjectivity , but that there is no God, no invisible spirits, and no afterlife. By the way, I believe there are strong reasons for believing so, like the problem of evil and poor design in nature.

Basically, I don’t agree with the evolutionary psychologists because they assume the truth of reductive materialism and limit the possible explanations to material processes, although many philosophers of mind hold a non reductive position.

]]> By: Pat Tolsfet http://evolution-of-religion.com/2009/05/04/the-evolution-of-religion/comment-page-1/#comment-3104 Pat Tolsfet Fri, 19 Mar 2010 00:33:23 +0000 http://evolution-of-religion.com/?p=1003#comment-3104 Why are there no women involved in your work? Considering the topic ... I would consider having a female perspective would be important and essential. Why are there no women involved in your work? Considering the topic … I would consider having a female perspective would be important and essential.

]]> By: Stellan Håkansson http://evolution-of-religion.com/2009/05/04/the-evolution-of-religion/comment-page-1/#comment-2418 Stellan Håkansson Thu, 31 Dec 2009 09:35:09 +0000 http://evolution-of-religion.com/?p=1003#comment-2418 I was very happy to learn about the project Evolution of Religion and the gathering of astute scholars in the field, to enlighten the very fundamental question of the origin of human belief. When looking at the gowns and gadgets of the clergy, the similarity with the plumage of the peacock is striking, both phenomena being overt examples of Nature's splendour that paradoxical as it may seem, has gained value for the survival and promotion of the two species. It is clear to me that religion is an inexorable expense that evolution has been willing to pay, at least hitherto, for the creation of an intelligent being who eventually must fathom the conundrum of the limits of time, space and energy. I will follow the home page and the progress of your project with great interest. Good luck! I was very happy to learn about the project Evolution of Religion and the gathering of astute scholars in the field, to enlighten the very fundamental question of the origin of human belief. When looking at the gowns and gadgets of the clergy, the similarity with the plumage of the peacock is striking, both phenomena being overt examples of Nature’s splendour that paradoxical as it may seem, has gained value for the survival and promotion of the two species. It is clear to me that religion is an inexorable expense that evolution has been willing to pay, at least hitherto, for the creation of an intelligent being who eventually must fathom the conundrum of the limits of time, space and energy. I will follow the home page and the progress of your project with great interest. Good luck!

]]>