Re: Evolution of pro-social religions
On Sunday, January 4, 2015 2:22:06 AM UTC, Kim Jones wrote: Why would you recommend others read something you have not? You don't see that as being just a little strange? I don't do that that I can remember. I doubt I would ever bother. But what exactly 'reading' involves and how much of it is good enoughthat'll be varying quite a lot from piece to the next. IN the case of the above paper it's one of those jobs of work once in a while, that a once over the abstract leaves us feeling like we get it where they want to go. There's only so many ways to set things up. mutual exclusivity, independent, symbiotic, etc. I'm sure the list runs plenty more. r E.g. Brent's position, from memory, sees a social revolution kicking off first, with elites struggling for a moment, but solving eventually with rigid religious stack. Bruno saw religion stabilizing revolution. Of course they're both right at various places and times. Which strikes out both of their positions...as it turns out along with the full set of all the other positions. Save one.which reduces two to a single phenomenon.with two or more faces. Which serendipity turn out the objectively correct initializationjackpot champagne supernovas.as they are carried along in the pulse of their idea Anyway I read the paper. The authors' conclusion? That pro-social religion (which I understand to mean institutionalised religion is probably here to stay. They kind of just elaborate a bit on that theme. I don't detect much meat in their sandwich. IMHO it's one of instances the meat gets boosted up-level causing structure. Glib is alright if what gets said is corroborated or not. . There is no question that institutionalised pro-social religion is here to stay. Look at the amazing harmonising effect that Dawkins has had on the atheists. Perhaps he has seen something we have not. Like science is not a secured long term legacy. I don't know I agree he's OTTbut he's pure with itgets overwhelmed. probably groans into his pillow later in the evening. many time. I'm sure there were peace-loving and compassionate humans around before Jesus appeared. The galvanising effect however, of the leader of the religion is what causes any aspiring belief system to cease to be real, authentic religion. They don't mention that because they are looking at the social effects of religion only, not at whether it is really scientific theology or not. The authors have not encountered the concept of personal religion in their work, oddly. I have never thought of Christianity, Islam, Judaism etc. as anything more than warring tribal clans - not serious communities of scholars at the interface of the phenomenon and the noùmenon. One might say that they have a rather glib view of religion if humanity's future MUST necessarily be conditioned by it, merely on the basis that it has persisted up to here. So much is what they are asserting. But I am clearly distinguishing the 3p version from authority from the inner 1p version which is incommunicable anyway. Kim That looks like another kind of theorizingintellectual perhaps. legitimate but incomparable, or unnecessary to compare. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: Evolution of pro-social religions
I know that the mere notion of human sacrifices as the cornerstone of every society inspire horror to modern men and they don´t dare to consider it. And yet the conclusion is unescapable. That explain a lot about the modernity. If you dismiss organizeed religion and his altar of sacrifices, then everyone will try to be a priest, and everywhere will be altars where sacrifices will be executed. The organized religion just tries to maximize the benefits and minimize the costs of the necessary sacrifices to build trust. 2015-01-04 14:50 GMT+01:00 Alberto G. Corona agocor...@gmail.com: There are previous evolutionary studies of religion leaded by David Sloan Wilson. I think that they only scratch the surface. But it is a good start. I wrote in this group about the need of human sacrifices to create an stable society if natural selection and game theory are accepted as premises. This indeed add a big significance of Christ sacrifice for non-believers, and explain the historical appetite for blood in every regime that want to construct itself from scratch (like the current New world order) 2015-01-04 2:14 GMT+01:00 zibblequib...@gmail.com: In the first instance I'm posting this recently accepted paper (link is to full paper), for Bruno and Brent reference a recent discussion between them about the part of large scale religion in the emergence of ever-more complex society. Brent has me on ignore...I'm not sure about Brunoperhaps someone not ignoring will do a reply in the thread so that it becomes visible for them. In the second instance I think the guys behind the paper have a good idea and/or chimes with what I'd imagine was a fairly common intuition on the matter. In the third instanceI thought what the paper aspires to deliver was worth consideration just for itself. I'll paste it below right after mentioning I haven't read the paper yetI shall be, but only just saw it yesterday. Given I haven't read itI have no idea whether and to what extent they live up to what they aspire to. *This framework (1) reconciles key aspects of the adaptationist and byproduct approaches to the origins of religion, (2) explains a variety of * *empirical observations that have not received adequate attention, and (3) generates novel predictions. Converging lines of evidence drawn from diverse disciplines provide empirical support while at the same time encouraging new research directions and opening up new questions for exploration and debate.* *http://dericbownds.net/uploaded_images/Norenzayan.pdf http://dericbownds.net/uploaded_images/Norenzayan.pdf* -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- Alberto. -- Alberto. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: Evolution of pro-social religions
There are previous evolutionary studies of religion leaded by David Sloan Wilson. I think that they only scratch the surface. But it is a good start. I wrote in this group about the need of human sacrifices to create an stable society if natural selection and game theory are accepted as premises. This indeed add a big significance of Christ sacrifice for non-believers, and explain the historical appetite for blood in every regime that want to construct itself from scratch (like the current New world order) 2015-01-04 2:14 GMT+01:00 zibblequib...@gmail.com: In the first instance I'm posting this recently accepted paper (link is to full paper), for Bruno and Brent reference a recent discussion between them about the part of large scale religion in the emergence of ever-more complex society. Brent has me on ignore...I'm not sure about Brunoperhaps someone not ignoring will do a reply in the thread so that it becomes visible for them. In the second instance I think the guys behind the paper have a good idea and/or chimes with what I'd imagine was a fairly common intuition on the matter. In the third instanceI thought what the paper aspires to deliver was worth consideration just for itself. I'll paste it below right after mentioning I haven't read the paper yetI shall be, but only just saw it yesterday. Given I haven't read itI have no idea whether and to what extent they live up to what they aspire to. *This framework (1) reconciles key aspects of the adaptationist and byproduct approaches to the origins of religion, (2) explains a variety of * *empirical observations that have not received adequate attention, and (3) generates novel predictions. Converging lines of evidence drawn from diverse disciplines provide empirical support while at the same time encouraging new research directions and opening up new questions for exploration and debate.* *http://dericbownds.net/uploaded_images/Norenzayan.pdf http://dericbownds.net/uploaded_images/Norenzayan.pdf* -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- Alberto. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: Evolution of pro-social religions
On 04 Jan 2015, at 02:14, zibblequib...@gmail.com wrote: In the first instance I'm posting this recently accepted paper (link is to full paper), for Bruno and Brent reference a recent discussion between them about the part of large scale religion in the emergence of ever-more complex society. Brent has me on ignore...I'm not sure about Brunoperhaps someone not ignoring will do a reply in the thread so that it becomes visible for them. In the second instance I think the guys behind the paper have a good idea and/or chimes with what I'd imagine was a fairly common intuition on the matter. In the third instanceI thought what the paper aspires to deliver was worth consideration just for itself. I'll paste it below right after mentioning I haven't read the paper yetI shall be, but only just saw it yesterday. Given I haven't read itI have no idea whether and to what extent they live up to what they aspire to. This framework (1) reconciles key aspects of the adaptationist and byproduct approaches to the origins of religion, (2) explains a variety of empirical observations that have not received adequate attention, and (3) generates novel predictions. Converging lines of evidence drawn from diverse disciplines provide empirical support while at the same time encouraging new research directions and opening up new questions for exploration and debate. http://dericbownds.net/uploaded_images/Norenzayan.pdf I read it quickly. It is interesting, but not my field, so i cannot judge the plausibility of the analysis. I have not seen any obvious contradiction with computationalism, above the mere fact that the author does not address the ontological question and stays in the Aristotelian frame, which is fair enough, given its anthropological interests. Might reread some part when I have more time. Bruno -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Evolution of pro-social religions
In the first instance I'm posting this recently accepted paper (link is to full paper), for Bruno and Brent reference a recent discussion between them about the part of large scale religion in the emergence of ever-more complex society. Brent has me on ignore...I'm not sure about Brunoperhaps someone not ignoring will do a reply in the thread so that it becomes visible for them. In the second instance I think the guys behind the paper have a good idea and/or chimes with what I'd imagine was a fairly common intuition on the matter. In the third instanceI thought what the paper aspires to deliver was worth consideration just for itself. I'll paste it below right after mentioning I haven't read the paper yetI shall be, but only just saw it yesterday. Given I haven't read itI have no idea whether and to what extent they live up to what they aspire to. *This framework (1) reconciles key aspects of the adaptationist and byproduct approaches to the origins of religion, (2) explains a variety of * *empirical observations that have not received adequate attention, and (3) generates novel predictions. Converging lines of evidence drawn from diverse disciplines provide empirical support while at the same time encouraging new research directions and opening up new questions for exploration and debate.* *http://dericbownds.net/uploaded_images/Norenzayan.pdf http://dericbownds.net/uploaded_images/Norenzayan.pdf* -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: Evolution of pro-social religions
Why would you recommend others read something you have not? You don't see that as being just a little strange? Anyway I read the paper. The authors' conclusion? That pro-social religion (which I understand to mean institutionalised religion is probably here to stay. They kind of just elaborate a bit on that theme. I don't detect much meat in their sandwich. There is no question that institutionalised pro-social religion is here to stay. Look at the amazing harmonising effect that Dawkins has had on the atheists. I'm sure there were peace-loving and compassionate humans around before Jesus appeared. The galvanising effect however, of the leader of the religion is what causes any aspiring belief system to cease to be real, authentic religion. They don't mention that because they are looking at the social effects of religion only, not at whether it is really scientific theology or not. The authors have not encountered the concept of personal religion in their work, oddly. I have never thought of Christianity, Islam, Judaism etc. as anything more than warring tribal clans - not serious communities of scholars at the interface of the phenomenon and the noùmenon. One might say that they have a rather glib view of religion if humanity's future MUST necessarily be conditioned by it, merely on the basis that it has persisted up to here. So much is what they are asserting. But I am clearly distinguishing the 3p version from authority from the inner 1p version which is incommunicable anyway. Kim On 4 Jan 2015, at 12:14 pm, zibblequib...@gmail.com wrote: In the first instance I'm posting this recently accepted paper (link is to full paper), for Bruno and Brent reference a recent discussion between them about the part of large scale religion in the emergence of ever-more complex society. Brent has me on ignore...I'm not sure about Brunoperhaps someone not ignoring will do a reply in the thread so that it becomes visible for them. In the second instance I think the guys behind the paper have a good idea and/or chimes with what I'd imagine was a fairly common intuition on the matter. In the third instanceI thought what the paper aspires to deliver was worth consideration just for itself. I'll paste it below right after mentioning I haven't read the paper yetI shall be, but only just saw it yesterday. Given I haven't read itI have no idea whether and to what extent they live up to what they aspire to. This framework (1) reconciles key aspects of the adaptationist and byproduct approaches to the origins of religion, (2) explains a variety of empirical observations that have not received adequate attention, and (3) generates novel predictions. Converging lines of evidence drawn from diverse disciplines provide empirical support while at the same time encouraging new research directions and opening up new questions for exploration and debate. http://dericbownds.net/uploaded_images/Norenzayan.pdf -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
