• beyondtheveil said on Mar 05, 2007....

  Ed- I had heard of Sam Harris and Richard Dawkins. Two who come down very hard on believers to the point of blatant insults, which makes me not to care for their teachings. Although they do not insult me, I don't like their delivery.
   
  The quote "...religious belief is an outgrowth of brain archetecture that evolved during early human history" I believe to be a given. Don't all of our archetypes come about the same way?
   
  Did you happen to notice the article in your link "Where Indian Cuisine Reaches for the Stars?".

• silverwhisper said on Mar 05, 2007....

  i've heard that of dawkins, but not harris. brain architecture relates specifically to the biology of the brain, so no, it's not at all the same thing as archetypes.
  
  funny, i didn't see that ad. heh. :D
  
  ed

• Chimaera said on Mar 05, 2007....

  I think that biology informs the spiritual in the sense that biology allowed the instantiation of the human mind -- I don't see biology as necessary (otherwise, I would be pretty silly to be working on AI), nor is it the proximal cause, IMV.  I think that it is the nature of mind to seek transcendance.
  
  
  And yes, Dawkins is a big wanker.

• beyondtheveil said on Mar 05, 2007....

  Ed- A synopsis by Sam Harris about head of Human Genome Project Francis Collins book "The Language of God".
   
  In it he attempts to demonstrate that there is a consistent and profoundly satisfying harmony between 21st century science and Christianity. To say that he fails at his task does not quite get at the inadequacy of his efforts. He fails the way a surgeon would fail if he attempted to operate with his toes.His failure is predictable, spectacular, and vile. The Language of God reads like a hoax text......
   
  Is this someone who comes down hard on believers?

• CreativeWoman said on Mar 05, 2007....

  Where does having faith stand in this?
  
  I have to admit that the concept of belief being genetic is just a little over my head.  My first thought would be that if it is the case, then our creator deemed it that way. Am I missing something?
  
  CW
  

• FaithfulDisciple said on Mar 05, 2007....

  there seems an inherent human drive to believe in something transcendent, unfathomable and otherworldly, something beyond the reach or understanding of science...
  
  The reason why it is inherent in every human is due to the fact that man possess a soul, a spiritual faculty the constantly seeks to unite with a higher spiritual being.  Thus this spiritual desire to explore the spiritual aspect is built-in and is something beyond the physical realm; thus making it difficult for science to quantify or measure in absolute physical terms.
  
  How does science measure or quantify the existence of a soul?
  

• Chimaera said on Mar 06, 2007....

  The short answer is that it doesn't.  We have trouble enough quantifying the mind, let alone the soul.  I would also like to point out that finding mechanisms fo rhow the brain works doesn't invalidate the search for transcendance.
  
  
  As for faith, all belief ultimately cashes out in faith -- I don't think that faith is the relevant variable here, nor is science the relevant discipline with which to discuss it.  Faith is more a question of epistemology.

• silverwhisper said on Mar 06, 2007....

  beyond: having no familiarity w/ the text in question, i cannot meaningfully comment upon it, i'm afraid.
  
  CW: well, the article is really musing about the scientific basis for a capacity for belief. whether that capacity is utilized--that's quite another matter, if you ask me.
  
  FD: i believe that chimaera's response is more or less the way i would respond to it.
  
  chimaera: i was hoping you might make an appearance here, given your own familiarity w/ the subject at hand. :>
  
  i like the spandrel concept mentioned in the article, and insofar as we really are possessed of such a pro-divine bias biologically* it strikes me as the most reasonable hypothesis, in the final analysis, i think that the most significant issue i have w/ the article is that the author appears not to recognize the very simple yet critical fact that a pro-religious leaning is invariably a default assumption in almost every human culture and has been so, AFAICT, since prehistoric times.
  
  since a religious orientation tends to promote greater selflessness, this would suggest that given this particular example...
  

  the article quoth
  to explain how a self-sacrificing gene can persist, wilson looks to the level of the group. if there are 10 sentries in one group and none in the other, 3 or 4 of the sentries might be sacrificed. but the flock with sentries will probably outlast the flock that has no early-warning system, so the other 6 or 7 sentries will survive to pass on the genes. in other words, if the whole-group advantage outweighs the cost to any individual bird of being a sentry, then the sentry gene will prevail.

  
  ...religion and this self-sacrificing trait is itself the quality that might make a pro-divine bias a biological spandrel.
  
  ed
  
  *i'll confess i have to wonder about that but recognize i lack the specific training & knowledge to appreciate the evidence and its meaning

• Chimaera said on Mar 06, 2007....

  Read William Casebeer's work on naturalizing ethics -- he provides a really good argument for Darwinian evolution being consistent with Aristotlean virtue ethics.

• silverwhisper said on Mar 06, 2007....

  i'll confess i'm giggling a little bit about the gentleman's surname. any particular work for which i should be looking? i see he has several works out there.
  
  ed

• Chimaera said on Mar 06, 2007....

  Natural Ethical Facts, although if you do a web-search, or hit Google Scholar, you should be able to find enough free PDFage to get the gist.

• silverwhisper said on Mar 06, 2007....

  thanks for the tips, sir.
  
  ed

• kelly said on Mar 08, 2007....

  "...a pro-religious leaning is invariably a default assumption in almost every human culture and has been so, AFAICT, since prehistoric times."
  
  
  Meaning what?  That it's a primitive response to a complex world?  And which came first, religion or god?

• silverwhisper said on Mar 08, 2007....

  kelly: meaning that it's consistently a human response across time. and i'd argue that given the multitude of poltheistic religions which predate judaism, the world's first monotheistic religion, i'd say religion came first.
  
  ed

• kelly said on Mar 08, 2007....

  silver:  Oh, OK, but I still don't understand what you're getting at.  People have been afraid of the unknown and unexplainable since forever and they've tried to explain it away in a superstitious context.  Perhaps the god thing is really just another one of the organism's psychological defense mechanisms, similar to antibodies in the blood stream.
  
  
  Oh, and I don't buy the magic box experiment.  Being dubious to put your hand in a box is nothing more than being cautious and guarding against human trickery rather than a niggling belief that something supernatural may actually occur.

• silverwhisper said on Mar 08, 2007....

  i don't buy the magic box experiment either: supernatural <> god, as the existence of most folklore can attest.
  
  yes, explanations would arise from a supernatural basis. however, as i stated just above, supernatural <> god, divinity, or any analogous such term.
  
  i think that we have a tendency to look to the realm of belief when we feel we've exhausted the realm of deduction--assuming that we look first to deduction in the first place.
  
  ed

• kelly said on Mar 08, 2007....

  Hm, interesting.  I put gods firmly in the supernatural since they are always attributed supernatural powers.
  
  
  I think your last sentence hit on it.  It's also sad to me that we can't just say "I don't know yet" rather than resorting to making up some wild story.  Perhaps it's the same reason we can't stop to ask for directions when we're lost.  :-)
  
  
  By the way, I haven't really followed Dawkins all that closely of late but I absolutely loved "The Blind Watchmaker."  I'm looking forward to having time to read "The Selfish Gene" at some point.

• silverwhisper said on Mar 08, 2007....

  kelly: well, as a man, i resent the implication that--o wait, i do that, too. :D i haven't actually read any of dawkins. if i wanted to become familiar w/ his work, is there a particular one that you would recommend?
  
  ed

• Chimaera said on Mar 08, 2007....

  The Selfish Gene is Dawkins' actual, relevant contribution to scholarship.  He has since descended into incoherent hate-speech directed at religion.

• kelly said on Mar 10, 2007....

  It's not incoherent hate speech, it is quite specifically reasoned and rational argument and that is what is so very refreshing to people like me.  Dawkins is, after all, a scientist.
  
  
  Silver, I'm not a Dawkins expert by any means.  I've only read "The Blind Watchmaker" and I thought it was brilliant.  It's a thorough defense of Darwin's theory and as I recall not a dry read at all.  In fact, I though it was riveting.  As they say, your mileage may vary.
  
  
  Or in modern internet-speak: You're milage may very.

• silverwhisper said on Mar 10, 2007....

  chimaera: i shall keep that in mind.
  
  kelly: i've seen some of dawkins's statements and they definitely seemed religion-hostile to me. and now we know why everyone abbreviates everything online. :>
  
  ed

• kelly said on Mar 11, 2007....

  :-)
  Oh, I've no doubt they're religion-hostile comments.  But that is a far cry from incoherent hate speech.  In fact, they're probably painfully coherent.

• truthsayer said on Mar 12, 2007....

  ...religious belief is an outgrowth of brain architecture that evolved during early human history....

  Pardon me sw, but exactly how does he know that it "evolved"?

  Also, you said "meaning that it's consistently a human response across time. and i'd argue that given the multitude of poltheistic religions which predate judaism, the world's first monotheistic religion, i'd say religion came first."

  Why would you say that religion came first?
  

• silverwhisper said on Mar 12, 2007....

  truthsayer, you aren't thinking these comments through very well.
  
  1. it evolved b/c the human organism has evolved through the ages. example: coccyx.
  
  2. my answer to your question is contained in the portion you quoted. ?
  
  ed

• truthsayer said on Mar 12, 2007....

  Ah!  Well, that is why I need you, apparently ; )  So, you are assuming that the coccyx ("the small triangular bone at the lower end of the vertebral column...and articulating with the sacrum", Webster's New World College Dictionary, Fourth Edition) means that your progenitors once had tails?  Or is there more? 

  You feel that the coccyx proves that the theory of evolution, is absolute truth?  Or are you speaking of adaptation, as opposed to evolution?  I don't want to put words into your mouth, and I may need your help with thinking this through.  Please be patient with me, and I know that this is important to you too.  Why else would you blog about it? 

  The second question I asked, was how you, personally, know that religion came before "God".  I guess I don't understand how you can prove that.  I understand your need to believe that.  I need to be true to my beliefs as well.  

  So, you are saying that "God" only appears-to-appear, because of the evolution of human-brain archtecture, which seems to have an  "inherent (existing in someone...as a natural and inseparable quality, characteristic, or right; innate; basic; inborn*) need" for religion?  Or God?

  Thanks,

  truthsayer 

  *this definition is from the aforementioned dictionary.  

• silverwhisper said on Mar 12, 2007....

  truthsayer, why are you trying so very hard to take this into an evolution discussion?
  
  you're misreading. i never said "know"--that's your phrasing, not mine. i said in the original comment to kelly that i would argue that's the case.
  
  ed

• truthsayer said on Mar 12, 2007....

  Because dear sir, it could be, that God preceded everything.  

• silverwhisper said on Mar 12, 2007....

  please see my response in zayda's eternal questions blog re: concept of god. i find myself wanting to repeat my comment there.
  
  ed

• truthsayer said on Mar 12, 2007....

  And your "biology" is based on the theory of evolution...I have one quick moment to check Zayda's, if it is a new comment.  I have an appointment out of town.

  truth 

Comment on "is belief in god biological?"

Currently tagged	god faith Seeking the numinous spiritual faculty naturalizing ethics Casebeer biology evolution Creator (Click to add tags below)
Tag this post	(Separate tags using commas, for example: New York, dating, vegetarian)
Your comment