tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1344202303192701972.post7034599945438022618..comments2024-01-11T07:17:00.531-05:00Comments on Dem Bones: Evolution of ReligionDrewhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16836469722651598246noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1344202303192701972.post-7602659614730479102009-01-05T03:05:00.000-05:002009-01-05T03:05:00.000-05:00At the risk of over simplification or modern (scie...At the risk of over simplification or modern (scientific) compartmentalization, a more fruitful method for discussing the evolution of religion might veer away from biological explanations and the assumption that a lot of what makes us human can be pinpointed as base sugar pairings and amino acids. I think that Arthur Peacock's slippery, yet memorable, diatribe about "nothing butter-y" is fitting here. As a species, we have developed emergent properties of sorts, things that cannot be easily traced to biological or chemical causes, but instead stem from an essence of self-awareness, reflection, and a recognition of being an em-bodied existence. The question of the evolution of religion might fit nicely next to a discussion on the evolution of philosophical inquiry for a few reasons: 1. both are products of human reflection and stringent intellectual effort that far preceded modern scientific inquiry. This is not a defense of what Aristotle obviously got wrong (e.g. the number of teeth in a horse's mouth), but is rather nod to show that much good thought was done prior to modern scientific inquiry. 2. both seem to have stemmed from an active engagement with human existence that went beyond acceptance to questioning. (No, I am not one of those people who check my brain at the door when talking about religious devotion, and I know there are plenty others who don't "check out" as well.) 3. both are products of human culture, the complex sociological, emotional, linguistic, and historical event that helps define us as a species, organize human society, and provide cohesion for social relations. <BR/>More to the point, the evolution of religious thought is more like unto the evolution of philosophical inquiry than the scientific inquiries and explanations for brain activity in parietal lobes. Religion (and philosophy) are part of the essence of humanity, not the result of being homo sapiens. I will grant that inquiries among the "physics envious" disciplines such as sociology (and subsets thereof like evolutionary sociology) might here provide some quantifiable study of these products of culture, but attempts to reach too far in biology's pockets for explanations should result in a quick ruler rasp to the knuckles. <BR/>For thinking that we may just be more than the sum of our parts then, let the study of the evolution of religion be a cultural, linguistic, historical, sociological, and psychological study (with the aforementioned warning looming especially large over these last two disciplines). To mix such study with scientific inquiry is grant undue presumption to scientific methods to explain humanity rather than the biological existence that supports it. <BR/><BR/>And I can already hear some atheistic detractors cry out, "Then he assumes that religion is part of the essence of humanity, so it would then follow that he would call us in-human were we to reject religion." This is a valid argument, and far be it from me to doubt your ontological claims to human essence. But dialog and rejection of religion is, in and of itself, an engagement with religion. And that makes my atheist friends as "human" as anyone. After all, then at least some people are thinking/reflecting/postulating/arguing for themselves...(Hopefully, I despise atheist posers.)<BR/><BR/>Another set of detractors that now reach my ears are those folks who have imported scientific methods/theory into humanities studies. I am willing to say that the application of scientific inquiry to aspects of human culture and the traditional "humanities" has yielded interesting observations, but I like to think of these observations as "second opinions" of sorts. I am quite baffled as to why so many humanities disciplines have acquiesced to some of this inquiry. After all, I wonder if many scientists would be upset if I were to look at The Origin of Species or Philosophiae Naturalis Principia Mathematica with a literary, gender dynamics fine-toothed comb.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1344202303192701972.post-70564147180398111522008-12-31T15:16:00.000-05:002008-12-31T15:16:00.000-05:00Hi Drew. Interesting topic. Did you notice the N...Hi Drew. Interesting topic. Did you notice the NYT interview is six years old? <BR/><BR/>There is a more recent, and more detailed article at the NYT called Darwin's God which you can find online if the subject interests you.<BR/><BR/>you said <I>"theology should not be solely reactive to scientific inquiry."</I> <BR/><BR/>I don't think I agree with that. Doesn't it have to be reactive to scientific inquiry? If theology makes an assumption which is contradicted by scientific inquiry, then the theology has an epistemological problem. I'm not sure what you meant by "solely", but it seems theology has to be <B>at least</B> reactive to scientific inquiry.<BR/><BR/>If theology doesn't react to scientific inquiry, it is immune from correction when it is false. Would that be a good thing?<BR/><BR/><I>"Evolutionary Biologists and Psychologists are self-professed atheists" </I> <BR/><BR/>Is there a better kind of atheist? :)<BR/><BR/><I>"With this in mind, as I read books on the subject, I usually found myself thinking the authors asked the wrong questions, leading to potentially – and subconsciously! – preconceived findings"</I><BR/><BR/>Imagine how Christian writing appears to all the non-Christians!<BR/><BR/><I>"And, if you don't question the assumptions, you are more likely to grant the conclusions."</I> <BR/><BR/>This is precisely why some people think theology could benefit from asking some basic questions before granting its own preferred conclusions. I think the scientific inquiry into the origin of religion will help with this.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1344202303192701972.post-34757975350943561892008-12-31T00:50:00.000-05:002008-12-31T00:50:00.000-05:00Drew,I have the Dawkins book. I will mail you my c...Drew,<BR/><BR/>I have the Dawkins book. I will mail you my copy if you like.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1344202303192701972.post-8497074025298875022008-12-31T00:25:00.000-05:002008-12-31T00:25:00.000-05:00While I don't exactly remember her argument for wh...While I don't exactly remember her argument for why religion evolved, I'm pretty sure Karen Armstrong in <A HREF="http://www.amazon.com/History-God-000-Year-Judaism-Christianity/dp/0345384563" REL="nofollow">A History of God</A> discusses this a bit...and more!<BR/><BR/>- Joel McDonald<BR/><A HREF="http://vbprogressives.com" REL="nofollow">Virginia Beach Progressives</A>Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1344202303192701972.post-71014244527982582122008-12-30T19:31:00.000-05:002008-12-30T19:31:00.000-05:00Alicia, I have not; it is also on my to-do list.Alicia, I have not; it is also on my to-do list.Drewhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16836469722651598246noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1344202303192701972.post-58576487319689533012008-12-30T18:33:00.000-05:002008-12-30T18:33:00.000-05:00Have you had a chance to read The God Delusion by ...Have you had a chance to read The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins? If so, I would be interested to hear your thoughts on his persepctive. He is an eveloutionary biologist who deeply explores the topic that you mention.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com