First, beware of taking social evolution theories too seriously. The “research” is a good example of the problem. It is a vague statement that is so soft we can find confirmation but not contradiction.
This does make me think of the issue of paradigms or how we frame questions rather than just how we answer them. From: Silklist <silklist-bounces+silklist=bobf.frankston....@lists.digeratus.in> On Behalf Of Thaths via Silklist Sent: Wednesday, January 17, 2024 10:09 To: Intelligent conversation <silklist@lists.digeratus.in> Cc: Thaths <tha...@gmail.com> Subject: Re: [Silk] A religion for atheists On Tue, Jan 16, 2024 at 8:15 PM Kiran K Karthikeyan via Silklist <silklist@lists.digeratus.in <mailto:silklist@lists.digeratus.in> > wrote: I remember reading about research that suggests we evolved to be religious which essentially means natural selection favored those who were or it is a byproduct of other evolutions. Replacing it with something atheist/secular/humanist is perhaps difficult because that isn't what we want or feel the lack of i.e. shared belief in something bigger, rituals, insularity etc. are critical. If a predilection for religious thought is a result of evolution, wouldn't there be analogues of it in our primate cousins? Thaths -- Homer: Hey, what does this job pay? Carl: Nuthin'. Homer: D'oh! Carl: Unless you're crooked. Homer: Woo-hoo!
-- Silklist mailing list Silklist@lists.digeratus.in https://mailman.panix.com/listinfo.cgi/silklist
