Reply
Sat 7 Jun, 2014 08:45 am
Context:
The idea of psychological by-products grows naturally out of the
80
important and developing field of evolutionary psychology.
Evolutionary psychologists suggest that, just as the eye is an
evolved organ for seeing, and the wing an evolved organ for flying,
so the brain is a collection of organs (or 'modules') for dealing with
a set of specialist data-processing needs. There is a module for deal-
ing with kinship, a module for dealing with reciprocal exchanges, a
module for dealing with empathy, and so on. Religion can be seen
as a by-product of the misfiring of several of these modules, for
example the modules for forming theories of other minds, for form-
ing coalitions, and for discriminating in favour of in-group
members and against strangers. Any of these could serve as the
human equivalent of the moths' celestial navigation, vulnerable to
misfiring in the same kind of way as I suggested for childhood
gullibility. The psychologist Paul Bloom, another advocate of the
'religion is a by-product' view, points out that children have a
natural tendency towards a dualistic theory of mind. Religion, for
him, is a by-product of such instinctive dualism. We humans, he
suggests, and especially children, are natural born dualists.
@oristarA,
Yea Ori, I for one would think so
Quote:…... points out that children have a
natural tendency towards a dualistic theory of mind.
However somebody smarter than I needs to explain this one
@dalehileman,
Thank you.
Any one care to confirm Dale?
@oristarA,
oristarA wrote:Thank you. Any one care to confirm Dale?
What else could it mean, Ori? Apart from other people, where else will you find other minds than your own?
@contrex,
contrex wrote:
oristarA wrote:Thank you. Any one care to confirm Dale?
What else could it mean, Ori? Apart from other people, where else will you find other minds than your own?
Thanks.
I wonder whether I should rewrite "Any one care to confirm Dale? " as "Any one cares to confirm Dale? " The latter sounds wrong to me though.
@oristarA,
oristarA wrote:"Any one cares to confirm Dale? " The latter sounds wrong to me though.
It is 'care', not 'cares'. In full it is "Does anyone care to confirm Dale?", although in casual conversation it is common to abbreviate, omitting 'does'.