I'm not looking for religion, but radical, practical changes in society, the way we live and could live - this, of course, sounds rather religious! <Arc
Religious sounding only with loose usage of the word. In that way to say one followed his new dietary regimen religiously nearly implies a prayer session with each dose of vitamins when actually all that is transpiring is healing the ills of the body. All being analogous to the ills of society, the radical, practical changes need not be dependent on tenets. We seem to have this dogging notion that all things must have a consensus drafted by a board of directors follow by decree and policing. We've lost the ability to condense it down to "Let's all have a nice day at the park" without drafting volumes of annotated texts defining the individual elements eg; what is let's, who is all, what is nice, what time does day end and are we stepping on the rights of those who do not want to have a nice day. This for me weakens the idea that religion is linked to pre-existing cognitive functions and more so leans towards the idea that it originated out of the need to adapt in order to reduce or prevent those who deviate from base level moralistic judgement. Simple social meliorism can be independent of moralistic decrees and dictates by governing bodies, it is a simple concept of getting along, working together without all the complexities that cause stagnation and quagmire. In principle it sounds easy but in the practical sense it tends to be utopian because people are not equal beyond their physical sense in any terms. Out of all that comes religion and government which can be a religion of itself when gilded with patriotic ideals and themes, for some government is a god. On Feb 9, 10:50 pm, archytas <[email protected]> wrote: > This is an extract from a recent article. > The details surrounding the emergence and evolution of religion have > not been clearly established and remain a source of much debate among > scholars. Now, an article published by Cell Press in the journal > Trends in Cognitive Sciences on February 8 brings a new understanding > to this long-standing discussion by exploring the fascinating link > between morality and religion. > > There is no doubt that spiritual experiences and religion, which are > ubiquitous across cultures and time and associated exclusively with > humans, [actually something similar seems to have been observed in > chimps] are ultimately based in the brain. However, there are many > unanswered questions about how and why these behaviors originated and > how they may have been shaped during evolution. > > "Some scholars claim that religion evolved as an adaptation to solve > the problem of cooperation among genetically unrelated individuals, > while others propose that religion emerged as a by-product of pre- > existing cognitive capacities," explains study co-author Dr. Ilkka > Pyysiainen from the Helsinki Collegium for Advanced Studies. Although > there is some support for both, these alternative proposals have been > difficult to investigate. > > Dr. Pyysiainen and co-author Dr. Marc Hauser, from the Departments of > Psychology and Human Evolutionary Biology at Harvard University, used > a fresh perspective based in experimental moral psychology to review > these two competing theories. "We were interested in making use of > this perspective because religion is linked to morality in different > ways," says Dr. Hauser. "For some, there is no morality without > religion, while others see religion as merely one way of expressing > one's moral intuitions." > > Citing several studies in moral psychology, the authors highlight the > finding that despite differences in, or even an absence of, religious > backgrounds, individuals show no difference in moral judgments for > unfamiliar moral dilemmas. The research suggests that intuitive > judgments of right and wrong seem to operate independently of explicit > religious commitments. > > "This supports the theory that religion did not originally emerge as a > biological adaptation for cooperation, but evolved as a separate by- > product of pre-existing cognitive functions that evolved from non- > religious functions," says Dr. Pyysiainen. "However, although it > appears as if cooperation is made possible by mental mechanisms that > are not specific to religion, religion can play a role in facilitating > and stabilizing cooperation between groups." > > Perhaps this may help to explain the complex association between > morality and religion. "It seems that in many cultures religious > concepts and beliefs have become the standard way of conceptualizing > moral intuitions. Although, as we discuss in our paper, this link is > not a necessary one, many people have become so accustomed to using > it, that criticism targeted at religion is experienced as a > fundamental threat to our moral existence," concludes Dr. Hauser. > > I tend to see religion much as I would view political correctness - > that is, peevish, hostile, posturing pretense to be on the moral high > ground. Even Orn, who is a splendid example of the opposite most of > the time, lapses to this and so do I. I'm sure he won't take offence > and think I'm merely pointing to difficulties, not accusing him. Any > quest for origin is fraught with self-deception and the struggle to > sort wheat from chaff. > > I'm not looking for religion, but radical, practical changes in > society, the way we live and could live - this, of course, sounds > rather religious! -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups ""Minds Eye"" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/minds-eye?hl=en.
