> But pure science is not ordained to increasing control, or salving a > fear. Like religion, pure science is ordained to the love of truth.
Religion is not "the love of truth." By it's very nature it is the opposite. Not that no religion contains any truth, but rather, it is the embodiment of " this is what I'd like to be true, therefore this is how we describe truth." Science is the act of exploration and discovery of knowledge when one has no answer...yet. Religion is the act of "knowing" something and spending time trying to justify that "knowledge." On Feb 13, 2:32 pm, Alan Wostenberg <[email protected]> wrote: > Suppose we asked "what is the origin of science"? And somebody > answered of science as you did of religion: "the inner fear of the > unknown". > > Clearly the applied sciences are useful in controlling the world > through technology. And this might to some degree reduce "the inner > fear of the unknown" for those who suffer this way. > > > On Feb 13, 1:56 pm, Manfraco Frank Elder <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Hi everybody! > > Very interesting tread, The Origins of Religion, so I am following > > it. > > Let me have my personal say about these beliefs. > > I believe that it all started out from our inner fear of the unknown. > > What I have just said may hurt some people feelings, but we are a > > fearful lot. We are looking for security all the time, so we live in > > communities to feel safe; it is human nature to feel this fear of the > > unknown and it is good because it helps us survive. > > The origin of religion therefore is an extended reaction to our inner > > fear, which we try to control by simple reasoning of our mental > > capacity. So when we were facing unexplainable things, we found a way > > out in religion, which is good at explaining the unexplainable. > > This is what I personally believe. > > My regards > > Manfraco. > > > On Feb 14, 7:27 am, Alan Wostenberg <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > The scholars seemed to rule out the simplest explanation of the origin > > > of religion: God. It would be like asking about the origin of > > > science, and neglecting to mention it is because man naturally desires > > > truth. > > > > In fact, does anybody even ask about the evolutionary origins of the > > > the sciences? Do they think of sciences what as they think of religion > > > "...can play a role in facilitating and stabilizing cooperation > > > between groups"? Possibly so. But that is not the greatest good of > > > science, or religion. Love of neighbor is the second greatest > > > commandment, not the first. > > > > On Feb 9, 8:50 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!- Hide quoted text - > > > > - Show quoted text - -- 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.
