Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

God and gorillas (or evo uncovered as quasi anti science)
Salon.com ^ | Jan. 31, 2007 | Barbara J. King

Posted on 01/30/2007 11:46:34 PM PST by RunningWolf

God; doesn't it explain why religion continues to be so pervasive? But many scientists are coming up with their own, decidedly secular, theories about the origins of faith. In fact, over the last few years, a small cottage industry made up of scientists and philosophers has devoted itself to demystifying the divine.

(Excerpt) Read more at salon.com ...


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Miscellaneous; News/Current Events; Unclassified
KEYWORDS: anthropology; god; gorilla; janegoodalldidit; religion
A glimpse into the mind of 'evo'

And I say no thanks to that. If that is the map, then throw it away and sail on uncharted waters.

1 posted on 01/30/2007 11:46:35 PM PST by RunningWolf
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: All
Oohhh so now they saw the religious impulse in the ape-man/sarc>
ancient ancestors millions of years ago. And today, King says, we can see the foundations of religious behavior in chimpanzees and gorillas; watching our distant cousins can do much to explain the foundations of our own beliefs /NOT
2 posted on 01/30/2007 11:59:21 PM PST by RunningWolf (2-1 Cav 1975)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RunningWolf

3 posted on 01/31/2007 12:06:47 AM PST by HighWheeler (A true liberal today is a combination of socialist, fascist, hypocrite, and anti-American.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: HighWheeler
Sorry my friend (if I may so audacious) actually I don't like it either.

There is a war going on, and the evo ping list people would suggest/insist that it is already over.

What do you think? About this article that is.

And does that actors hairline rally extend down that far??

Wolf
4 posted on 01/31/2007 12:23:32 AM PST by RunningWolf (2-1 Cav 1975)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: All
This quote is getting down to the essence of the evo core ideology

a whole group of scholars who insist that religion is a mere byproduct of something in the brain, that our brain has evolved and adapted to selection pressures of our ancient hunting and gathering world. And if we're religious, it's really just a mistake. The most famous example of this is the work of Pascal Boyer. He says our brains are so attuned to predators who might eat us that we developed a God detector in our brains. We're really just going too far in detecting agency
5 posted on 01/31/2007 12:32:12 AM PST by RunningWolf (2-1 Cav 1975)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RunningWolf
There is not a soul in the world that believes that atheist tripe...although some bio chemical reactions might cause an organism to mimic such a beleif...
6 posted on 01/31/2007 1:27:51 AM PST by AndyTheBear (Disastrous social experimentation is the opiate of elitist snobs.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: RunningWolf
This is an interesting discussion. Towards the end there's this:
I'm part of the camp of people who thinks it's perfectly possible to see religion and science as compatible areas of thought and inquiry. In my book, I lay out three choices. You can say you've got to choose one. You can believe in science or you can have faith in God -- the Richard Dawkins school of thought. Or you can say there are "non-overlapping magisteria" -- the famous Stephen Jay Gould answer that religion will help us with meaning, and science will tell us about other things. I'm actually in a third place. If you can avoid being a biblical literalist, and if you can avoid being an arrogant scientist who tells everyone else what to think, you can think on multiple levels at once. There's a lot of beauty in seeing that religion and science are really about the same things. They can be perfectly compatible.

7 posted on 01/31/2007 1:43:56 AM PST by samtheman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RunningWolf

IMHO King watched Lance Link as a child and has been damaged psychologically. The socialists should be alarmed.


8 posted on 01/31/2007 2:17:13 AM PST by carumba (The secret of life is honesty and fair dealing. If you can fake that, you've got it made. Groucho)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: RunningWolf

bump


9 posted on 01/31/2007 5:13:13 AM PST by Tribune7 (Conservatives hold bad behavior against their leaders. Dims don't.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: AndyTheBear

Not even the guy who wrote it?

Oh, and I am and atheist :) But this is simply wrong. Religion comes from mans desire to explain what he doesn't understand. Once he understands, religions is no longer needed. But some people have a tendancy to hold on.

It's that easy.


10 posted on 01/31/2007 9:51:20 AM PST by Raymann
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: RunningWolf
Anthropologist Barbara J. King explains what our distant cousins can tell us about religion and why it's OK for scientists to believe in God.

Ah, so God and the Bible doesn't have the answer for them so scientists are turning to the animals to seek their thoughts on the subject. Ok, let's begin. How many bananas am I holding up?

11 posted on 01/31/2007 10:33:56 AM PST by taxesareforever (Never forget Matt Maupin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Raymann
Religion comes from mans desire to explain what he doesn't understand. Once he understands, religions is no longer needed.

Nothing to do with a civilizing force in unciviclized times? Nothing about man's need for Hope? Nothing about a code of conduct for sanitary living? It's just spackle for a knowledge gap? Interesting.

(Oh, and that pesky possibility that something actually created the Big Bang (or its predecessor) and our evolutionary cycles might be included in the discussion somewhere.)

(I'm not a church-goer, by the way, but you casually dismiss some really important parts of Faith with your post, so I thought I'd chime in before the flame wars begin.)

12 posted on 01/31/2007 10:43:52 AM PST by Teacher317 (Are you familiar with the writings of Shan Yu?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Raymann

So, you "understand."

That's called "arrogance," my friend.


13 posted on 01/31/2007 11:28:32 AM PST by Theo (Global warming "scientists." Pro-evolution "scientists." They're both wrong.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Teacher317; Theo

Well like I said, I am an atheist. You can only get some much out of us on religion.

However to answer your questions, why do you need religion for any of that? Y'all act as if religion is the only means to morality when that is clearly no so.

If anything that my real gripe with this. I post a lot on this forum and naturally most everyone here is religious. I show respect but I have a hard time getting it. There are a few really good, rational discussions that keep me coming back but half the time people think I'm a damn socialist anyway.

(Trust me, I hate them more then anyone and I have more of a reason to do so)

BTW: I'm an objectivist, that's where I'm coming from.


14 posted on 01/31/2007 11:54:54 AM PST by Raymann
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Raymann
However to answer your questions, why do you need religion for any of that? Y'all act as if religion is the only means to morality when that is clearly not so.

1. Why do you use the personal terms "you"? As I stated, I'm not much of a church-goer.
2. Why do you assume that, if there are other paths to satisfy those needs, that our forebears should have followed them? (And doesn't it say something important that virtually every civilization and society followed the same basic path?)

I'm an objectivist

a la Ayn Rand? (I loved Atlas Shrugged). An interesting approach, but full of holes for me to call myself a "believer". ;^) It also still leaves open the question of "Who/what started all this gunk we call a universe?" I call that entity "God". (And of course, you can always counter with, "Who/what created God?", and the we go around once more, LOL.)

15 posted on 01/31/2007 3:53:08 PM PST by Teacher317 (Are you familiar with the writings of Shan Yu?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Raymann
Not even the guy who wrote it?

Not a soul. Are you implying the guy who wrote it has one?

16 posted on 01/31/2007 4:51:06 PM PST by AndyTheBear (Disastrous social experimentation is the opiate of elitist snobs.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: AndyTheBear
Well certainly I do not.

However some people do believe the atheist tripe. In fact they eat it up with a vigor.
17 posted on 01/31/2007 5:43:41 PM PST by RunningWolf (2-1 Cav 1975)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Teacher317

1. You as in you believe in a god
2. Our forebears followed the best path they knew of, I don't fault them for that.

"And of course, you can always counter with, "Who/what created God?""

Nope, I'd counter with "Why did someone need to create the universe? Even if the ultimate answer is "we don't know" the lack of evidence of something does not give evidence of something else.


18 posted on 01/31/2007 5:52:55 PM PST by Raymann
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: RunningWolf
Sometimes I think my humor is to subtle for my own good.

My point was that not a soul believes it. The exception for a biochemical process of an organism mimicking such a believe was meant to imply this context.

So far it seems like I'm 0-2 for leading my audience to the proper inference.

19 posted on 01/31/2007 6:50:10 PM PST by AndyTheBear (Disastrous social experimentation is the opiate of elitist snobs.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Raymann
Even if the ultimate answer is "we don't know"

This is a reasonable answer for a materialist approach to philosophy. The more argumentative atheists seem to have a presumption that "we may not know now, but all the religions must be wrong. And science will someday give us the answer." The latter parts seemingly irrational in my not-as-humble-as-it-probably-should-be view.

A good theological approach seems the most rationale. The idea is that we can't know everything on our own, but we can know what God chooses to reveal to us. The trick here is either to know the voice of God apart from your own, or to find evidence of who might be legitimately prophesying on behalf of God. Of coarse, many religious folks are not particularly good at either one. But on the evidence the atheists are even worse (being convinced that God isn't even real, and usually even maintain the absurd presumption that they themselves don't have a spirit or soul).

20 posted on 01/31/2007 7:11:06 PM PST by AndyTheBear (Disastrous social experimentation is the opiate of elitist snobs.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: AndyTheBear
No I got it somewhat as I was posting to you, and since I did not have a lot of time at the moment I just went with that.


Your post was very clever actually :-)
21 posted on 01/31/2007 9:30:03 PM PST by RunningWolf (2-1 Cav 1975)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: AndyTheBear

No, that's not the approach we use, I for one use the best information I have now available to make a decision. So religion is wrong not because it "must be" but because we lack any evidence that it is the truth.

As for your theological approach, it's seems that you assume that there is a god in the first place and move on from there. Why can't we know everything on our own? Why is it absurb that I believe that I don't have a soul?


22 posted on 02/01/2007 6:51:46 AM PST by Raymann
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Raymann
I'd counter with "Why did someone need to create the universe? Even if the ultimate answer is "we don't know" the lack of evidence of something does not give evidence of something else.

The lack of evidence? You mean there's no evidence that the universe exists? ;^)

The fact that everything is here is evidence that it came from somewhere and/or from something. There is an Original Cause, and whatever/whomever it is, I'm grateful.

23 posted on 02/01/2007 9:19:50 AM PST by Teacher317 (Are you familiar with the writings of Shan Yu?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: AndyTheBear
Are you implying the guy who wrote it has one?

Are you saying he doesn't?

24 posted on 02/01/2007 9:25:27 AM PST by tacticalogic ("Oh bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Teacher317

"The lack of evidence? You mean there's no evidence that the universe exists?"

Where did you get that from?

I was talking about the creation of the universe


25 posted on 02/01/2007 10:25:09 AM PST by Raymann
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Raymann

(a joke... hence the wink...)


26 posted on 02/01/2007 12:14:41 PM PST by Teacher317 (Are you familiar with the writings of Shan Yu?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Raymann
No, that's not the approach we use

I'm not sure what you mean by "we". I don't think all materialists or atheists use the same approach. But it defiantly seems some use the approach I described.

I for one use the best information I have now available to make a decision. So religion is wrong not because it "must be" but because we lack any evidence that it is the truth.

Information is somewhat self-directed in this life. I really doubt anybody uses all the information that is available. I for one certainly don't have time to do this. There are many things I have accept on authority, and many more things I am not qualified to decide.

Why is it absurb that I believe that I don't have a soul?

Well materialists usually refer to the soul as "self-awareness" or "consciousness" or the like with the shared assumption that our brains and nervous system et al create an illusion of a "self". Such rationalizations are silly because they never address who or what is the observer of such an illusion. Neurologists can at best look at the "user interface" the soul uses. And many seem inspired to go to great lengths to try to do so. To a rational observer this looks like desperation to prove the absurd.

Whereas the exact nature of our "souls" or "spirits" is harder to pin down, the fact that they are supernatural is obvious, as almost everyone has known for all of world history.

27 posted on 02/01/2007 1:39:35 PM PST by AndyTheBear (Disastrous social experimentation is the opiate of elitist snobs.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: tacticalogic
Are you saying he doesn't?

No. I'm strongly inclined to the view that everyone has a soul, and deep down everybody knows that they do.

The question was rhetorical humor in that those who don't believe people have souls should not expect a single soul to agree with them.

28 posted on 02/01/2007 1:44:34 PM PST by AndyTheBear (Disastrous social experimentation is the opiate of elitist snobs.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: AndyTheBear

I never said I use all the information, I said "the best" information. Second, you kind of ducked the statment I made there. I gave a very clear reason why I think religion is wrong and you replied by saying you accept some things on authority.

Is religion one of those things?

As for my self-awareness, I don't see myself as an illision. I don't know about you but all the parts of my brain work together to compromise "me". I think you're still thinking of my as a leftist atheist, I ain't and Freud was a fool.

As for your last point, how is the supernatural nature of our soul "obvious"? As far as I can tell, the only evidence you use to support that assertion is that the majority of people believe it so.


29 posted on 02/02/2007 7:24:22 AM PST by Raymann
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: RunningWolf
I'm not suggesting that apes are religious. In fact, I have to say that, because Jane Goodall, who is such a renowned and loved figure for her chimpanzee studies, has said very provocatively that chimpanzees may have an incipient sense of religious awe.

For example, when she comes upon them looking at a waterfall -- something in nature that is amazing -- they're riveted. She's wondering what's going through their minds and if they may be spiritual in some sense. That's a fascinating idea, but that's not my approach. I don't look for things in apes that are religious.

Seek and ye shall find.

30 posted on 02/02/2007 7:27:38 AM PST by <1/1,000,000th%
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Raymann
I never said I use all the information, I said "the best" information.

You said all the best information available. The "best" seemingly always a self directed choice.

I gave a very clear reason why I think religion is wrong and you replied by saying you accept some things on authority.

Second, you kind of ducked the statement I made there. I gave a very clear reason why I think religion is wrong and you replied by saying you accept some things on authority.

You did not exactly elaborate on what the best evidence was and how it showed religion was wrong. So the only sort of constructive assessment I could make was based on the parts of the arguments you constructed for me. Specifically that you use the best evidence available. I suggested what I thought was wrong with that approach, and used myself as an example to be polite.

Is religion one of those things?

In part. When I form my assessment about large issues I find I must depend on some information I do not have first hand. This is what I mean by accepting things on authority. Obviously one must choose what authorities they find credible (which is one of the reasons "the best" evidence is not always the same for those who want to see things differently).

When evaluating the evidence for evolution for example, I have never personally carbon-dated any fossils. Nor have I ever personally verified that carbon-dating techniques (however they are really done) are as accurate as claimed. However, I accept (for the time being) that others have done this with reasonable diligence and integrity, thus relieving me of the responsibility of doing so myself.

I accept similar assumptions about much of the evidence for Christianity. Although I know almost no Hebrew, Aramaic or Greek, I do for (for the moment) accept the authority of many scholars of such subjects who seem credible to me, as giving me the reasonably accurate translations, cultural analysis, et al.

For me personally, all this evidence is second hand and only confirmation of what I have experienced personally in my walk with God. However for the purpose of public discussion I only mention this to explain what I mean by "in part". I do not think its productive to share my experiences, because if I were still an agnostic, I wouldn't have believed me.

As for your last point, how is the supernatural nature of our soul "obvious"? As far as I can tell, the only evidence you use to support that assertion is that the majority of people believe it so.

Having a soul is something everyone experiences directly. Thus we have, essentially, billions of direct witnesses to a phenomena. Possibly they are mistaken (thus my reference to an illusion). But what is clear is that we either have a soul, or it at least seems like we do to ourselves.

Thus isn't it a reasonable expectation that one should offer an alternate natural explanation before entertaining the idea that it isn't supernatural?

31 posted on 02/02/2007 8:42:14 AM PST by AndyTheBear (Disastrous social experimentation is the opiate of elitist snobs.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: RunningWolf

Okay, what I get out of this article is that scientists are admitting that God created the animals. Hee hee hee.


32 posted on 02/04/2007 5:41:58 PM PST by taxesareforever (Never forget Matt Maupin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson