While I agree with your view, and Carlin's view on the toxic absurdity of organized religion, I don't see the connection between a child's tendency to accept the beliefs of their parents with the assumption of evolutionary origin of the God concept itself. I think Roger has a point in the sense that there are no obvious practical reasons why the idea of belief in God should appear in the first place. It seems like whatever practical function such an idea could serve would be served just as well with something impersonal, like 'fate' or 'power' (juju, mana). This doesn't lend credibility to the idea per se, but it does point toward something other than evolution to explain it. As I have said, I suggest that the God concept is a projection of consciousness itself - of private physics onto the outside word. God is the image or universalized reflection of the ultimate Self. This is why the God idea appears in many cultures all over the world, and doesn't trace back to a single vector. That's why it is so easy to spread from culture to culture; because we instinctively and intuitively identify with the image, and images like that (archetypes, personified super-signifiers). Craig > John K Clark > > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to email@example.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.