03-10-2007, 12:08 AM
Re the NYTimes article above, its not something new that is being said there. I think such analysis has been presented before within a framework that concluded that monotheism evolved out of polytheism (and hence better). I have found it very hard to place the humanities stuff in the realm of science.
A comment from Jakob.. (also some other interesting followups from others)
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/TheHeathenIn...ss/message/3335
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Balu and I are working on an article on all these evolutionary
explanations of religion, including those by Scott Atran, David
Sloan Wilson and Daniel Dennett. I will not go into the details
here, but let me just give you a sense of some of the arguments.
1. People like Atran and Sloan Wilson abuse evolutionary biology to
produce ad hoc explanations of an explanandum whose truth they
presuppose: the universality of religion. Their explanations are no
better than those discussed by Balu in chapter 5 of 'The
Heathen...'. Paraphrasing Balu, we may say that they consist of 'two
quarters of theology, a quarter of evolutionary biology and a
quarter of illiterate ethnology'.
2. This universality of religion is a pre-theoretical assumption, as
is the case in the earlier explanations by Hume, Freud and others.
Whatever definition one chooses to give of 'religion' ('implausible
beliefs', etc.), it remains the case that these guys commit the
fallacy of petitio principii: they presuppose the truth of a
proposition whose truth they should prove, namely, that religion is
universal. After all, it cannot depend on one's definition of the
word 'religion' whether or not religion is universal. Just imagine
we let the existence of gravitation on all planets depend on our
definition of 'gravitation' ('a force that exists on all planets').
3. In fact, they commit another petitio principii also: they
presuppose that religion is a human product, the product of human
evolution (whether as a by-product or 'spandrel' or as an
adaptation). Since religion claims that it is God's gift to humanity
and not of human origin, one should have proof before one supposes
that it is a human product. It is impossible to prove that religion
is of human and not of divine origin. Therefore, Atran and Sloan
Wilson are engaged in a double petitio principii.
4. On top, these guys are ignorant of the object they claim to
study. Firstly, they do not know what makes some phenomenon into
religion. Hence, they really don't know *what it is they are
explaining*. Secondly, their knowledge of religions like
Christianity and traditions like the Hindu traditions is superficial
at best and non-existent at worst.
So, I would suggest not to take these guys too seriously. If
newspapers spend pages on discussing these evolutionary explanations
of religion, this is the case only because most journalists are not
researchers. Atran, Sloan Wilson and Dennett make fools of
themselves by producing such silly explanations of religion.
Yours,
Jakob<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
A comment from Jakob.. (also some other interesting followups from others)
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/TheHeathenIn...ss/message/3335
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Balu and I are working on an article on all these evolutionary
explanations of religion, including those by Scott Atran, David
Sloan Wilson and Daniel Dennett. I will not go into the details
here, but let me just give you a sense of some of the arguments.
1. People like Atran and Sloan Wilson abuse evolutionary biology to
produce ad hoc explanations of an explanandum whose truth they
presuppose: the universality of religion. Their explanations are no
better than those discussed by Balu in chapter 5 of 'The
Heathen...'. Paraphrasing Balu, we may say that they consist of 'two
quarters of theology, a quarter of evolutionary biology and a
quarter of illiterate ethnology'.
2. This universality of religion is a pre-theoretical assumption, as
is the case in the earlier explanations by Hume, Freud and others.
Whatever definition one chooses to give of 'religion' ('implausible
beliefs', etc.), it remains the case that these guys commit the
fallacy of petitio principii: they presuppose the truth of a
proposition whose truth they should prove, namely, that religion is
universal. After all, it cannot depend on one's definition of the
word 'religion' whether or not religion is universal. Just imagine
we let the existence of gravitation on all planets depend on our
definition of 'gravitation' ('a force that exists on all planets').
3. In fact, they commit another petitio principii also: they
presuppose that religion is a human product, the product of human
evolution (whether as a by-product or 'spandrel' or as an
adaptation). Since religion claims that it is God's gift to humanity
and not of human origin, one should have proof before one supposes
that it is a human product. It is impossible to prove that religion
is of human and not of divine origin. Therefore, Atran and Sloan
Wilson are engaged in a double petitio principii.
4. On top, these guys are ignorant of the object they claim to
study. Firstly, they do not know what makes some phenomenon into
religion. Hence, they really don't know *what it is they are
explaining*. Secondly, their knowledge of religions like
Christianity and traditions like the Hindu traditions is superficial
at best and non-existent at worst.
So, I would suggest not to take these guys too seriously. If
newspapers spend pages on discussing these evolutionary explanations
of religion, this is the case only because most journalists are not
researchers. Atran, Sloan Wilson and Dennett make fools of
themselves by producing such silly explanations of religion.
Yours,
Jakob<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->