Lou Manza wrote:
> I would question the adaptiveness argument here, using several case
> studies. People sometimes develop religious beliefs that lead to a
> decidely anti-survival consequences.
I'm sure that the question of overall adaptiveness of religious belief is a
very complex one, depending on the individual, the environment (e.g., the
religiosity of one's peer group and of local authority), and the specific
beliefs in question. It's disappointing to hear it sometimes treated as a
closed question with a simple answer (typically: that religious belief is
necessary to one's mental well-being for reasons innate to being human).
I'm interested in what seems to be an unfounded assumption in the opposite
direction, as well. I think there's a common assumption that a
well-developed rational-empirical epistemology inevitably has survival
value. I've recently asked a fair sample of college students what they do to
avoid catching colds, and their reasons for holding those beliefs. On
looking at the kinds of responses I got, it became really obvious that the
best way for an individual to avoid colds isn't to do careful controlled
tests of potential defenses, but rather to keep using all low-cost
reasonable defenses together. If a cluster of low-cost defenses seem to do
the job, there's no real reason to determine which of the specific defenses
were responsible. Just keep using 'em all. And that certainly seems to be
the behavior nature would select for.
Paul Smith
Alverno College
Milwaukee
