Reed:
>> 1) Belief in God must not be very adaptationally problematic...
>We don't know this because of number 2 below. If these systems did not
>exist, we might already be moving between the stars.
This is called a "grass is greener" argument. I think anyone must
admit that the world MIGHT be better given the absence or presence
of one characteristic or another.
But I could say "Gender differences and discrimination cause a lot
of strife and wasted resources, if we didn't have sexes and genders
we might already be moving between the stars." or
Language causes much confusion of meaning and leads to the creation
of words like "God" which seem to take on such significance that people
are willing to kill, suffer, and die for something they can't even see.
If we didn't have language, perhaps we would already be moving
between the stars.
But wait! We aren't paying attention to the benefits any of these
characteristics might have which mitigate or exceed their problems.
Exactly. But the grass always SEEMS greener on "the other side".
Reed:
>> 2) ...There are no examples of cultures which thrive without these systems.
>We have murder in every society that ever existed, yet all of us can say
>that society would be better without murderers. Thrive and progress are
>such relative terms. In the USofA where religion is important, but is
>legally excluded from the state, technology thrives. In religious
>governments everywhere, where religion is the dominating factor, the
>standard of living, educatiuon, and scientific advancement is at it's
>worst.
I think that is not true. You are ascribing successful science to an exclusion
of religion from the state. The Soviet Union excluded religion, but scince
still suffereed under a repressive ideological regime. There has been a
revolution in the past 50 years in science in Isreal and India. I think
successful
science is correlated more with expendable community wealth, freedom
of thought and expression, and a compeditive market driven economy than
the presence or absence of religious convictions.
I agree that "thrive" and "progress" are relative terms. But the fact remains
that there is NO EXAMPLE of a culture without a religion, broadly defined.
> An assumption and faith, are very different things. But I don't
>diagree with #3 otherwise.
If "faith" is belief without evidence then assumptions are identical to faiths.
Reed
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Reed Konsler konsler@ascat.harvard.edu
---------------------------------------------------------------------