Again, I see it as far simpler. There is a need to model the world and, in the absence of an understanding of software, you use anthropomorphic models such as animism to explain things.
In a similar vein, studies have shown that it is hard to get people to stop believing something if the reinforcement is intermittent. But it’s simpler to recognize that if reinforcement is intermittent, the absence of an event isn’t a contradiction. It also means that belief systems persist if you are looking for confirmation even if not always finding it, your beliefs can persist, especially when “confirmed’ by authority (and community) and are comforting. This is also true in other fields like politics, economics and … well, just about any. From: Kiran K Karthikeyan <kiran.karthike...@gmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, January 17, 2024 12:29 To: Intelligent conversation <silklist@lists.digeratus.in> Cc: silkl...@bobf.frankston.com Subject: Re: [Silk] A religion for atheists On Wed, 17 Jan 2024 at 10:05 PM, Bob Frankston via Silklist <silklist@lists.digeratus.in <mailto:silklist@lists.digeratus.in> > wrote: 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. Fair. It wasn’t neuroscientists that were involved in the research but rather anthropologists and social scientists if I remember correctly. I have tried to find the article but have failed. After some hunting, here are a few that are adjacent to ideas in my initial email. Kiran https://www.sapiens.org/biology/religion-origins/ https://www.theosthinktank.co.uk/comment/2019/08/19/where-did-religion-first-come-from https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20190418-how-and-why-did-religion-evolve
-- Silklist mailing list Silklist@lists.digeratus.in https://mailman.panix.com/listinfo.cgi/silklist
