On Sunday, January 4, 2015 2:22:06 AM UTC, Kim Jones wrote: > > > > Why would you recommend others read something you have not? You don't see > that as being just a little strange? >
I don't do that that I can remember. I doubt I would ever bother. But what exactly 'reading' involves and how much of it is good enough....that'll be varying quite a lot from piece to the next. IN the case of the above paper it's one of those jobs of work once in a while, that a once over the abstract leaves us feeling like we get it where they want to go. There's only so many ways to set things up. mutual exclusivity, independent, symbiotic, etc. I'm sure the list runs plenty more. r E.g. Brent's position, from memory, sees a social revolution kicking off first, with elites struggling for a moment, but solving eventually with rigid religious stack. Bruno saw religion stabilizing revolution. Of course they're both right at various places and times. Which strikes out both of their positions...as it turns out along with the full set of all the other positions. Save one.....which reduces two to a single phenomenon.....with two or more faces. Which serendipity turn out the objectively correct initialization....jackpot champagne supernovas.....as they are carried along in the pulse of their idea 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. > IMHO it's one of instances the meat gets boosted up-level causing structure. Glib is alright if what gets said is corroborated or not. . > 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. > Perhaps he has seen something we have not. Like science is not a secured long term legacy. I don't know I agree he's OTT....but he's pure with it....gets overwhelmed. probably groans into his pillow later in the evening. many time. > > 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 > That looks like another kind of theorizing....intellectual perhaps. legitimate but incomparable, or unnecessary to compare. -- 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 [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
