Future studies and debates might decide whether cooperative and reproductive theories of religion are competing or complementary theories.
As evolutionary studies of human beings repeatedly produce multi-layered results for example, linking biological roots and sociocultural products in the evolution of speech or music , I would place my bet on future complementary models in the evolutionary studies of religion. Michael Blume was born in in Filderstadt, Germany. Blume then specialized on the reproductive potentials of religiosity — the complex workings of religious communities augmenting cooperation, birth and survival rates and thus: evolutionary success of religious people in comparison to their more secular neighbors.
It not just fertility, it is subscribing to an external, non-negotiable, moral order that holds one to sexual morality. Compare with the secular ideal of autonomy which demands to accept no outside rules and self-rule instead.
Are Men 'Cleverer' Than Women? Deconstructing the Dogma of Female Intellectual Inferiority
If they are just seen as rules of Darwinian fertility maximization they will be discarded as restrictions on utility. It seems like a rather narrow view… almost as if the authors see nothing more happening with religious sexual and reproductive codes than staunch heterosexuals making as many babies as they can.
Anyway, thanks. I think this text adressed your topics quite directly and would love to read about your opinions. Dogma — the deconstruction of our mental evolution and psyche advocates that self-actualization and its opposing counterpart denied self- actualization are the prime driving forces of our mental evolution. Every thing else is a product of our god given ability to think, learn and pass information between generations. The connection between these premises is complicated but explained in enough detail in the book and documented by a critical look at our history.
This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed. Hit enter to search or ESC to close. This seems to be a pretty explicit claim by Atran that Harris has misrepresented what Atran said whether intentionally or accidentally. Or do you have some other way of reading this? A convert to Christianity, his politics had the stamp of Chola supremacy with Saivism, different to Hinduism in Jaffna. This new brand of Thamil culture embraced a sacrificial element in life in an obligatory sense.
Given your ignorance of this issue, I suppose one must take your other assertions with a grain of salt. I disagree with Atran, but your assertion that Prabhakaran was a Christian is a weird conspiracy theory that is not subscribed to at all in academia. If anything, these additional aspects only reinforce the point I was making. This is radically different from Islamic terrorism because the foundational text of Islam i. Muhammad himself demonstrated this during his own life. There are numerous verses in the Koran attesting to this. In the UK, the year on year number of guards that faint while guarding Buckingham Palace is a good predictor of the year on year apple crop from the orchards of Kent.
In this case the common causal factor is, of course, the annual weather experienced in Southern England. A highly motivated religious group may well be a special case of an action-oriented social network. I hope you guys have not forgotten the origin of thought and the effect it has had on our evolution, both mental and physical and the multiple factor interactions it presents on our individual thought patterns.
On practical basics, it is little wonder how the likes of Hitler and many others were created. As a second thought, you should listen more to the people our mental evolution has greated. You may learn more interesting stuff for your studies. I also call your attention to my book Dogma : Deconstruction of our Mental Evolution and Psyche, for mere food for your thoughts.
I just want to correct you on the teachings of Quran. Did you study Quran yourself? O is your observation based on hearsay?
Science and Religion are Compatible. Science and Dogma are Not. - Big Think
This might have not come to you naturally while studying Quran. If you have studied Quran yourself; then please quote just One verse of Quran, not a list taken from a website that opposes Islam; and then establish your viewpoint from the verses in the context, a rational thing to do. Yes, there are so many places in Quran talking about killing infidels. You have three verses in Al-Tawbah: 5, 29 and Having worked in counter terrorism for several years, having met terrorists and interviewed radicalised people, I see absolutely not a shred of evidence to corroborate Harris and everything pointing firmly at the view Atran holds.
Res uipsa loquitur.
You have the benefit of experience, but I have to say that I question your assertion based on the discussions stimulated by the likes of Maajid Nawaz, where he makes the point that Islam ism has at least something to do with religious extremism in Islam. Maajid Nawaz is a poster boy for conservative think tanks. According to his own family he is sparing with the truth and has always sought the lime light. Their claims are such that they are too wrong to admit them without being truly ashamed.
It is a neocon ideology based on a pretext of western supremacism. Ex-Muslim on this page, referred to some violent text in the Quran—Lesley Hazleton eloquently expains it see below. Sam and his ilk, and the extremists among Muslims read the Quran selectively. Note tha the overwhelming Muslim scholars, and lay alike, rejected the extremists among Muslims.
Verily, Allah loves those who deal with equity. Islam is not a strange religion as it has shown its tolerance when it ruled people of various ethnic and religious background. Or take the infamous verse about killing the unbelievers. Yes, it does say that, but in a very specific context: the anticipated conquest of the sanctuary city of Mecca where fighting was usually forbidden, and the permission comes hedged about with qualifiers.
Laughter This was perhaps the biggest surprise — how flexible the Koran is, at least in minds that are not fundamentally inflexible.
Kinda just ran into this old post. I believe Scott has intentionally mis-quoted the context in which Sam had commented of his stance. Sam, Dawkins and Mahzarin all disagreed with you on the subject matter. All said that religion does play a role, even to form your group dynamics, to the violence that people do. All three of them agreed with Dawkins almost calling you an idiot for thinking that there were not other variables besides religion.
How little do you think of your colleagues to be embarrass by your accusation. Both Dawkins and Sam have cited examples time and time again and you failed to respond to each of them.
Related books and articles
How can a mother send her 10 kids out into a mine field to be killed all for martyrdom? And if anybody ever express any interest in doing it for the virgins they be refuse. I never seen one a single one of these guys angry, ceding, hateful, spiteful. I seen them quite idealistic and nice guys.
- The Politics and the Science of Disputing Evolutionary Psychology | The American Conservative?
- Quick Tips: Understanding the Basics of Home Canning and Pickling (Quick Tips to).
- Here He Goes Again: Sam Harris’s Falsehoods!
- Strategy and Organization: Realizing Strategic Management;
- Voodoo Vol. 2: The Killer in Me;
The last is a contradiction quote is a contradiction. So yes, Sam is correct. He is correct in the sense that you have set aside religion and their dogmas for your dynamic group theory including the paradise of virgins and Martyr. For you to claim otherwise is disingenuous and grotesquely mis-representing. You may have had a different stance but you did not make them during this conference; in fact, you were so arrogant you stuck to your theory despite Sam, Dawkings and Mahzarin agreeing but with the inclusion of religion as one of the driving causes for the violence.
You did not say those lines to Sam, you said it in response to Dawkings question and thus to the entire conference. In short, they accepted your theory but you rejected theirs and everyone else. Samenvatting Dogma is based on beliefs that have established the state of mental evolution of man and is based on his history of mental consciousness. It establishes factors which influenced our present psyche and its progression leading to our present dismal state of affairs. It outlines, projects and recommends future changes in attitudes and conditions which may have profound influences of the future of our planet.
More specifically, it recommends changes dictated by a more diverse America, with equally diverse attitudes towards each other, coupled with needed changes in competitive relationships and Christian attitudes of how we relate to each other. Dogma explores the most reflective changes in the path to our future quality of life, liberty and happiness which are reflected by our education system where the whys, whose and whats of how we educate our people, must be in prime focus to augment realistic progress towards our desired goals.
Because of complexities dictated by the psychological research involving diverse people, Dogma recommends that our educational system be changed to a more technically based system capable of better analytical analysis involving multiple and more complicated interactions characteristic of problems of the mind. The contentions of Dogma lay heavily with unexplained life observations and studies coupled with diligent applications of scientific methods to answer the complex questions posed future trends.
For example, Why do poorer nations display increased dogmatic attitudes than more developed nations? And, why do more developed nations acquiesces to and accepts things that are obviously not correct? What are the causes of mass murders, and poor academic performances of minority groups?
Why is compromise such a dirty word? The answers cannot be in more incarcerations or more wars.