Archived
E-mail Discussion List
|
|
Return to E-mail Discussion page Previous in threadThis has grown into an interesting discussion and is evolving as it progresses. Lessov, I think that you have provided a good perspective onthis. I share your perspective. Here is some fuel for thought on one of the current threads:I am not a expert on cognitive thought. But a few years ago, I heard aboutan hypothesisthat proposes that the human brain evolved to be able to handle the complex relationships necessary when living in a social culture. The claim is that hunting and gathering do not place the burden on the brain that living in a social group does. Other animals live in groups, so I don't quite understand what makes the human group different??? I never fully explored this idea. Please excuse my digression to the origin of this discussion. My intention is not to squelch the current thrust, but to point out faulty logic resulting in misleading conclusions in the original philosophy talk. I would encourage us all to be astute when presented with such arguments. I cannot sit silent given the provocative nature of the title of the talk "Examining the cognitive foundations of the conflicts between religion and science" and one of the conclusions of the talk---that our innate cognitive function is better for understanding "religion" than "science" . The original message mentioned a talk attended by Eric (I clipped the opening description): ======================================= Hi SII-mailing list folks, I heard an interesting talk this weekend by Robert N. McCauley, a professor of philosphy at Emory University. The talk was entitled "Examining the cognitive foundations of the conflicts between religion and science." He was arguing that religion (not theology, just religion) comes "naturally" to humans, in terms of our innate cognitive functioning, and that science, in particular the scientific method, is "unnatural" and hard to learn. ======================================= I asked for clarification about the term religion (here is part of the reponse): ======================================= McCauley was using religion in a very broad sense, he pointed out it didn't necessarily mean belief in a supreme being or beings. As I mentioned, he was even willing to consider merely the ritual burial of dead to be "religious". Also, he was definitely drawing a distinction between religious activity ("natural") and theology. He pointed out that while religious rituals do have meaning, often the participants are unaware of the meaning or not thinking about it while participating in the ritual. ======================================= Given this description. Clearly McCauley has nothing to say about our innate cognitive abilities applied to "practiced religion" vs "practiced science". Why? Because he considers any natural act a religious act. How do animals react with other dead animals? Mother animals recognize when one of their offspring die and they react. Even baby animals react to the death of their mothers. Possibly McCauley is finding out that we have a cerebellum and a midbrain each evolving at different times and handling different functions. Maybe some of these early cognitive "religious" acts are early cereberal, so there may be stratification in this later brain. One could equally define "science" as any bit of knowledge of anything, such as knowing which berries to eat. Thus, science is very natural to us. My objection is that from the title one expects a more reasonable comparison of the two. There are a number of different "practiced religions" and practitioners of one would find the rituals of another to be quite absurd. Comparing learned behaviors would be very interesting an appropriate. I see no evidence of science being unnatural and religion being natural from his talk or in my observations of the world.-rjh At 12:21 AM 02/01/2001 -0500, Viathantilly@aol.com wrote: >Hi. I'd sent this response earlier, but not to the list. It starts where >the ------------ is. >ml > > Joey wrote: > > So, when the inevitable question first popped in the > > mind of Early man "why are we here?" Is > > it really suprising that man's answer involved a > > story, rather than a desire to catalogue and > > analyze the physical world? > > I agree with all of what Joey wrote and I think it addresses > Todd's questions quite nicely: > >----------------- Yes. Unfortunately, something about being alive and >conscious precludes us from direct contact with The Rules. Although things >that aren't alive and conscious don't have any more "contact" with them than >we. In fact, if any matter were expected to experience itself, it would be >the reflective life forms. And yet, as Todd points out, we are shut out, >despite the fact that we are the only things made of atoms that realize it. > Maybe being made of isn't enough. Atoms are made of atoms. They don't >know anything, as far as we can tell. Rabbits are also made of atoms and >their realization is questionable. So, why should we be so special? Maybe >life least of all should have a direct link to the rules. That isn't its >work. By definition, the reason we call it life, is because it is matter >that has evolved the tendency to propagate, in like form, in a singularly >efficient manner. Not depending purely on chance, like crystal or coal, >does. > So evolution hasn't favored plugged-in varieties of life. Maybe they get >distracted thinking and aren't too good at replicating. At any rate, I think >if we were meant to have all the answers, this would have become obvious by >now. And I'm suggesting that something inherent in the definition of "life >form" precludes it from also being "universe understander." And maybe the >Eastern religions are right and only the whole universe together knows >everything that it is doing and is. Maybe sections can't develop that eye. >Because, as we've seen, when they develop an eye, it is in order to optimize >survival, and who said survival has anything to do with knowledge? > >M Lessov >---------------- > > > Todd wrote: > > Something else to ponder is *why* our mental processes and the > > way nature works are such that the scientific method is such > > a struggle for us. I mean, since we are made of stuff that is > > operating according to principles we discover through science, > > why aren't we just directly tuned into those principles? Why > > do most of our ideas turn out to be wrong, so that we need > > the scientific method to zero in on the principles that work > > in describing what happens in nature? > > > If you are happy with the theory of evolution, then our > brains evolved to solve certain problems of getting through > life, exactly what Joey described. In fact our brains are > well-suited to handle pre-civilization life, we probably > haven't done much evolving in the time civilization has been > around (although certainly it's had a large effect on how our > brains are taught as we grow up). In any event our brains > are not optimized to understand the principles of science, > or to handle the scientific method easily, because neither of > these would serve any evolutionary purpose. > > The moral of this: > Let's face it, science is not a career you enter to attract > lots of members of the opposite sex and pass on your genes! :-) > > --Eric |
