Why would you recommend others read something you have not? You don't see that as being just a little strange?
Anyway I read the paper. The authors' conclusion? That "pro-social religion" (which I understand to mean "institutionalised religion" is probably here to stay. They kind of just elaborate a bit on that theme. I don't detect much meat in their sandwich. There is no question that institutionalised "pro-social" religion is here to stay. Look at the amazing harmonising effect that Dawkins has had on the atheists. I'm sure there were peace-loving and compassionate humans around before Jesus appeared. The galvanising effect however, of the leader of the religion is what causes any aspiring belief system to cease to be real, authentic religion. They don't mention that because they are looking at the social effects of religion only, not at whether it is really scientific theology or not. The authors have not encountered the concept of "personal religion" in their work, oddly. I have never thought of Christianity, Islam, Judaism etc. as anything more than warring tribal clans - not serious communities of scholars at the interface of the phenomenon and the noùmenon. One might say that they have a rather glib view of religion if humanity's future MUST necessarily be conditioned by it, merely on the basis that it has persisted up to here. So much is what they are asserting. But I am clearly distinguishing the 3p version "from authority" from the inner 1p version which is incommunicable anyway. Kim > On 4 Jan 2015, at 12:14 pm, zibblequib...@gmail.com wrote: > > In the first instance I'm posting this recently accepted paper (link is to > full paper), for Bruno and Brent reference a recent discussion between them > about the part of large scale religion in the emergence of ever-more complex > society. Brent has me on ignore...I'm not sure about Bruno....perhaps someone > not ignoring will do a reply in the thread so that it becomes visible for > them. > > In the second instance I think the guys behind the paper have a good idea > and/or chimes with what I'd imagine was a fairly common intuition on the > matter. > > In the third instance....I thought what the paper aspires to deliver was > worth consideration just for itself. I'll paste it below right after > mentioning I haven't read the paper yet....I shall be, but only just saw it > yesterday. Given I haven't read it....I have no idea whether and to what > extent they live up to what they aspire to. > > "This framework (1) reconciles key aspects of the adaptationist and byproduct > approaches to the origins of religion, (2) explains a variety of > empirical observations that have not received adequate attention, and (3) > generates novel predictions. Converging lines of evidence drawn from diverse > disciplines provide empirical support while at the same time encouraging new > research directions and opening up new questions for exploration and debate. > > > > http://dericbownds.net/uploaded_images/Norenzayan.pdf > > -- > 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 everything-list@googlegroups.com. > Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- 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 everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
