Agnostic.com

8 10

E. O. Wilson: Science Explains Religion

"“The predisposition to religious belief is the most complex and powerful force in the human mind and in all probability an ineradicable part of human nature.” Religion is a universal of social behavior, recognizable in every society in history and prehistory, and skeptical dreams that it will vanish are futile."

[reasonandmeaning.com]

.

skado 9 Feb 15
Share

Enjoy being online again!

Welcome to the community of good people who base their values on evidence and appreciate civil discourse - the social network you will enjoy.

Create your free account

8 comments

Feel free to reply to any comment by clicking the "Reply" button.

0

E. O. Wilson sounds like an idiot studying hard to be a moron and failing the course miserably.... Religion is not a "predisposition" it is the result of brainwashing children....

How many new branches of science did you invent?

@skado Asks the guy from Alabama, the state which will soon have more that one in every 250 people dead from COVID.....
Newsflash but humans are not ants even in Alabama....

@Lizard_of_Ahaz
Well the guy from Alabama was at least able to get you to google E. O. Wilson. Thank me later.

@skado Amazing how few people realize that E. O. Wilson was subject to the same mental issues that lead to the discovery of of the Dunning-Kruger effect.... Entomologists are NOT experts in Human Sociology and if you really want to know about what makes people who and what they are I would suggest spending a few years working at a used car lot that carries it's own paper.... You can learn more that way than you could ever learn in any university. Either that or end up losing your job when the company goes bankrupt.

0

There is a big difference between the amorphous superstitious beliefs hunter-gatherers have had and religion as we know it. The former cannot be called religion at all. Moreover, the point is not to eradicate religion but to eradicate its inordinate influence over society.

0

Most of it is about money!

0

When science can prove the supernatural, then it can explain religion.

That time is now.

@skado If someone could prove the supernatural they would get a nobel prize and several other prizes.

@xenoview
I don’t doubt they did.

It’s just a semantics issue.

0

I hate religion. I truly do.All it ever did for me was take me to extremes and I thought all of that was normal.

Maybe what you hate is your experience of religion.

@skado Maybe. I was tricked into believing and lots of study got me out.

@DenoPenno
To your credit indeed.

1

imo....this predisposition he speaks of is not so complex. "god" becomes the default answer/solution to what mankind could not/cannot explain. the human ego cannot tolerate leaving any blanks unfilled. as science does finally fill those blanks with god patch fewer of those questions get the pat god answer. our own ego or dissatisfaction with not knowing provides a substitute until understanding comes along.

I can’t think of anything that science has made simpler. Truer, yes. Simpler, no.

@skado makes god simplerish.

maybe that's why we had to wait for science to catch up to our imagination.

@hankster

Only if science sides with your particular assessment does it become simpler.

To my reading, science hasn’t made that determination yet, and is heading in a different direction. The most scientific assessment to my thinking (😁) makes God a personification of the universe, which isn’t simple at all.

@skado then I suppose when the pursuit of the god question gets slotted into the red herring category it gets real simple. I am not prepared to wait on science to measure some final "answer" to that question. god is a feature of our imagination, not more. it's as real as a mind can make it. it's as complex as chasing a fence post. what's complex really is how determined we can be to give meaning/credence to it.

@hankster
You’re in the right ballpark but I think there’s another twist to it.
Yes, it’s in our imagination… like language is in our imagination. We can imagine any language we want, and make it happen.

What’s not in our imagination is our genetically inherited capacity to learn and use complex languages.

@skado the capacity to learn and use language is only engaged when the language is used. the imaginary meanings are only realized/imagined when learned. learned, not encoded.

@skado I'll blather some more.....I'll accept the word predisposed because of psychological or sociological influences, but not genetic. the capacity to believe in imagination can be genetic but what is imagined is not. the consistency of religion in the human experience is because of another feature all people share...a lack of omnipotence.

@hankster great distinction!

2

"... humanity needs a way to divert the power and appeal of religious belief into the service of scientific rationality." I agree with this.

My thought is that the truth of science will overtake religion, at least until a new myth, more plausible with the science of the day, is created and embraced by the masses. One based on the scientific origins of the universe, with a nameless and unknowable power of energy to be respected and understood using science.

Lessons can be learned with new myths more in keeping with the intellect of society.

I feel it's a mistake to try to use the science of the day to explain the old religions, but I believe the opposite is possible, to create a religion supported by science, which could be adaptable as new information is discovered, in a never ending quest, rather than the closed book of the old religions.

I don't feel we have a "pre-disposition" for religious belief, but rather I feel we have a pre-dispostion for the curiosity of how we came to be and what might be the potential we are striving toward fulfilling, collectively and individually. We like to have a goal in mind to participate in humanity's efforts toward achieving. That's what a plausible mythos can provide.

I think going forward is better than looking backward. The old myths are dead or dying because they aren't adaptable as new information becomes known, and we discover better ways to get along. We can learn from the old myths but we should continue looking to improve the outlook for the future.

I wouldn't object to a new religion based on what we know so far, with no supernatural beings in command, just the unknowable force of nature, the source of creation we have now. But would that really be a religion, in the common sense of the word, or would it just be the reality of life as we know it and allow that knowledge to guide our path forward? In other words, our mythos.

I guess that's why I'm happy with my own beliefs. I have created a story in my head that helps me make sense of the world around me - and the fact that not everyone thinks the same as me is only a little bit of a bother. 😉

Would I like to have everyone believe exactly the same as me? Maybe, but I think I prefer that everyone come to their own conclusions or philosophy of life between traditional thought and the ever changing science of the day. It's good to have different philosophies of life available for people to choose from. Why people are easily led to believe strange things is another matter.

I can’t think of anything that would be a mistake for science to explain. The old religions are (IMO) a lot more adaptable than most realize. In order for them to be fully compliant with current science we have only to see them with the eyes of those who created them, instead of with modern eyes. That is to say, metaphorically rather than literally. Their truths, in that view are not only still relevant, but astoundingly, still ahead of today’s science.

0

As does Marxism and Anthropology. Read his full quotes:

twang goes the string of your ganglia

Write Comment
You can include a link to this post in your posts and comments by including the text q:650778
Agnostic does not evaluate or guarantee the accuracy of any content. Read full disclaimer.