Login |
New User
Over 1.5 million copies sold
Books by Richard Dawkins
The Oxford Book of Modern Science Writing
by Richard Dawkins
The Selfish Gene
by Richard Dawkins
The Blind Watchmaker
by Richard Dawkins
The Ancestor's Tale
by Richard Dawkins
Unweaving the Rainbow
by Richard Dawkins
Climbing Mount Improbable
by Richard Dawkins
Print
Religion a figment of human imagination
by New Scientist
Thanks to Graham Bolby for the link.
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn13782-religion-a-figment-of-human-imagination.html?DCMP=ILC-hmts&nsref=news8_head_dn13782
Religion a figment of human imagination
Andy Coghlan
Humans alone practice religion because they're the only creatures to have evolved imagination.
That's the argument of anthropologist Maurice Bloch of the London School of Economics. Bloch challenges the popular notion that religion evolved and spread because it promoted social bonding, as has been argued by some anthropologists.
Instead, he argues that first, we had to evolve the necessary brain architecture to imagine things and beings that don't physically exist, and the possibility that people somehow live on after they've died.
Once we'd done that, we had access to a form of social interaction unavailable to any other creatures on the planet. Uniquely, humans could use what Bloch calls the "transcendental social" to unify with groups, such as nations and clans, or even with imaginary groups such as the dead. The transcendental social also allows humans to follow the idealised codes of conduct associated with religion.
"What the transcendental social requires is the ability to live very largely in the imagination," Bloch writes.
"One can be a member of a transcendental group, or a nation, even though one never comes in contact with the other members of it," says Bloch. Moreover, the composition of such groups, "whether they are clans or nations, may equally include the living and the dead."
Modern-day religions still embrace this idea of communities bound with the living and the dead, such as the Christian notion of followers being "one body with Christ", or the Islamic "Ummah" uniting Muslims.
Stuck in the here and now
No animals, not even our nearest relatives the chimpanzees, can do this, argues Bloch. Instead, he says, they're restricted to the mundane and Machiavellian social interactions of everyday life, of sparring every day with contemporaries for status and resources.
And the reason is that they can't imagine beyond this immediate social circle, or backwards and forwards in time, in the same way that humans can.
Bloch believes our ancestors developed the necessary neural architecture to imagine before or around 40-50,000 years ago, at a time called the Upper Palaeological Revolution, the final sub-division of the Stone Age.
At around the same time, tools that had been monotonously primitive since the earliest examples appeared 100,000 years earlier suddenly exploded in sophistication, art began appearing on cave walls, and burials began to include artefacts, suggesting belief in an afterlife, and by implication the "transcendental social".
Once humans had crossed this divide, there was no going back.
"The transcendental network can, with no problem, include the dead, ancestors and gods, as well as living role holders and members of essentialised groups," writes Bloch. "Ancestors and gods are compatible with living elders or members of nations because all are equally mysterious invisible, in other words transcendental."
Nothing special
But Bloch argues that religion is only one manifestation of this unique ability to form bonds with non-existent or distant people or value-systems.
"Religious-like phenomena in general are an inseparable part of a key adaptation unique to modern humans, and this is the capacity to imagine other worlds, an adaptation that I argue is the very foundation of the sociality of modern human society."
"Once we realise this omnipresence of the imaginary in the everyday, nothing special is left to explain concerning religion," he says.
Chris Frith of University College London, a co-organiser of a "Sapient Mind" meeting in Cambridge last September, thinks Bloch is right, but that "theory of mind" — the ability to recognise that other people or creatures exist, and think for themselves — might be as important as evolution of imagination.
"As soon as you have theory of mind, you have the possibility of deceiving others, or being deceived," he says. This, in turn, generates a sense of fairness and unfairness, which could lead to moral codes and the possibility of an unseen "enforcer" - God — who can see and punish all wrong-doers.
"Once you have these additions of the imagination, maybe theories of God are inevitable," he says.
Journal reference: Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B, (DOI:10.1098/rstb.2008.0007)
The Human Brain - With one hundred billion nerve cells, the complexity is mind-boggling. Learn more in our cutting edge special report.
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn13782-religion-a-figment-of-human-imagination.html?DCMP=ILC-hmts&nsref=news8_head_dn13782
Religion a figment of human imagination
Andy Coghlan
Humans alone practice religion because they're the only creatures to have evolved imagination.
That's the argument of anthropologist Maurice Bloch of the London School of Economics. Bloch challenges the popular notion that religion evolved and spread because it promoted social bonding, as has been argued by some anthropologists.
Instead, he argues that first, we had to evolve the necessary brain architecture to imagine things and beings that don't physically exist, and the possibility that people somehow live on after they've died.
Once we'd done that, we had access to a form of social interaction unavailable to any other creatures on the planet. Uniquely, humans could use what Bloch calls the "transcendental social" to unify with groups, such as nations and clans, or even with imaginary groups such as the dead. The transcendental social also allows humans to follow the idealised codes of conduct associated with religion.
"What the transcendental social requires is the ability to live very largely in the imagination," Bloch writes.
"One can be a member of a transcendental group, or a nation, even though one never comes in contact with the other members of it," says Bloch. Moreover, the composition of such groups, "whether they are clans or nations, may equally include the living and the dead."
Modern-day religions still embrace this idea of communities bound with the living and the dead, such as the Christian notion of followers being "one body with Christ", or the Islamic "Ummah" uniting Muslims.
Stuck in the here and now
No animals, not even our nearest relatives the chimpanzees, can do this, argues Bloch. Instead, he says, they're restricted to the mundane and Machiavellian social interactions of everyday life, of sparring every day with contemporaries for status and resources.
And the reason is that they can't imagine beyond this immediate social circle, or backwards and forwards in time, in the same way that humans can.
Bloch believes our ancestors developed the necessary neural architecture to imagine before or around 40-50,000 years ago, at a time called the Upper Palaeological Revolution, the final sub-division of the Stone Age.
At around the same time, tools that had been monotonously primitive since the earliest examples appeared 100,000 years earlier suddenly exploded in sophistication, art began appearing on cave walls, and burials began to include artefacts, suggesting belief in an afterlife, and by implication the "transcendental social".
Once humans had crossed this divide, there was no going back.
"The transcendental network can, with no problem, include the dead, ancestors and gods, as well as living role holders and members of essentialised groups," writes Bloch. "Ancestors and gods are compatible with living elders or members of nations because all are equally mysterious invisible, in other words transcendental."
Nothing special
But Bloch argues that religion is only one manifestation of this unique ability to form bonds with non-existent or distant people or value-systems.
"Religious-like phenomena in general are an inseparable part of a key adaptation unique to modern humans, and this is the capacity to imagine other worlds, an adaptation that I argue is the very foundation of the sociality of modern human society."
"Once we realise this omnipresence of the imaginary in the everyday, nothing special is left to explain concerning religion," he says.
Chris Frith of University College London, a co-organiser of a "Sapient Mind" meeting in Cambridge last September, thinks Bloch is right, but that "theory of mind" — the ability to recognise that other people or creatures exist, and think for themselves — might be as important as evolution of imagination.
"As soon as you have theory of mind, you have the possibility of deceiving others, or being deceived," he says. This, in turn, generates a sense of fairness and unfairness, which could lead to moral codes and the possibility of an unseen "enforcer" - God — who can see and punish all wrong-doers.
"Once you have these additions of the imagination, maybe theories of God are inevitable," he says.
Journal reference: Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B, (DOI:10.1098/rstb.2008.0007)
The Human Brain - With one hundred billion nerve cells, the complexity is mind-boggling. Learn more in our cutting edge special report.
Add to del.icio.us
Posted: Monday, April 28, 2008 | PermalinkComments 1 - 50 of 61 |
Reload Comments | Back to Top | Page Numbers2. Comment #171399 by Johnny O on April 28, 2008 at 1:22 pm
Humans alone practice religion because they're the only creatures to have evolved imagination
An interesting article, but they're forgetting that goddidit...
Other Comments by Johnny O
3. Comment #171460 by Wosret on April 28, 2008 at 1:55 pm
I think that this is patantly, and demonstratably wrong. I think that zoologists would fervently disagree that we are the only animals with imaginations, ethical codes, or a sense of fairness.
I think that the obvious secret ingedient is language. The imagination is abstract, and conceptual, and has no referents in reality. It is impossible to communicate your abstract ideas to someone without language. Every creature on earth could believe in supernatural gods and afterlives but it wouldn't equal a group belief, like a religion, without the ability to communicate the abstract and conceptual.
To have specific words to describe your thoughts...and perhaps more importantly to the religious, have words of ambiguity and abfiscation.
Your imagination could be exceptionally prolific, but your ideas would all die with you without the ability to communicate them to others. I think that it is beyond obvious that although imagination is a necessary vactor of religion, it isn't sufficient by itself, you also need to be able to communicate your invented concepts to the members of your society to have a unifying and shared superstition.
Other Comments by Wosret
4. Comment #171465 by Ty_Webb on April 28, 2008 at 1:57 pm
Interesting idea. I always figured religion to be the result of a lack of imagination. The inability to imagine what being dead must be like resulted in creating the various stories about what happens when we die.Other Comments by Ty_Webb
5. Comment #171474 by sane1 on April 28, 2008 at 2:04 pm
I'm pretty sure my dog thinks of me as a god. Other Comments by sane1
6. Comment #171479 by Chuk15 on April 28, 2008 at 2:10 pm
I don't think your dog even understands the concept of god.Other Comments by Chuk15
7. Comment #171485 by PJG on April 28, 2008 at 2:16 pm
Dogs think their owners are Gods
Cats think they (cats) are Gods
Other Comments by PJG
8. Comment #171494 by movingshadow on April 28, 2008 at 2:21 pm
"I'm pretty sure my dog thinks of me as a god. "I'm not a gambling man, but I'd be willing to wager your dog thinks you're the alpha male of it's pack.
Other Comments by movingshadow
9. Comment #171500 by phil rimmer on April 28, 2008 at 2:23 pm
I think Gods a bitch. Other Comments by phil rimmer
10. Comment #171503 by D'Arcy on April 28, 2008 at 2:24 pm
Well, surprise, surprise! You have to be able to imagine things that aren't there to believe in gods!
Now if Big G were to show Himself in an unambiguous way, then there would be a very good reason to believe, but as this is highly unlikely to happen before the sun's conversion to a red giant star, atheists can continue to have a more focussed view of reality.
Other Comments by D'Arcy
11. Comment #171507 by LaurenceH86 on April 28, 2008 at 2:26 pm
I agree with Mitchell, without the facility of language to express our imagination nothing would ever be communicated and no ideas shared which are neccesary for a belief system of any kind to form.Other Comments by LaurenceH86
12. Comment #171511 by prettygoodformonkeys on April 28, 2008 at 2:28 pm
God, Satan...
put both those bitches on a leash.
Other Comments by prettygoodformonkeys
13. Comment #171513 by emmet on April 28, 2008 at 2:29 pm
I think there's evidence that orcas have imagination. See this YouTube video:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oxDZW4k8tCY
In the clip, orcas collaborate (three swimming together) in order to swim under an ice floe, creating a wave to upset the floe and knock a seal off. This requires some or all of having the idea, planning, communication, an expectation of what will happen, some kind of "model". I fail to see how this could be done without something that could reasonably be termed imagination.
Other Comments by emmet
14. Comment #171516 by Rick and his Ward on April 28, 2008 at 2:29 pm
Try telling this to the time wasters that hold cushy jobs, knock on our doors promoting mythology and indoctrinating our kids.
I disagree on the sharp dividing line though, I'm sure animals have memories, a goldfish has at least a 90 second memory!
Other Comments by Rick and his Ward
15. Comment #171522 by rod-the-farmer on April 28, 2008 at 2:32 pm
I agree with Mitchell Gilks. I bet a zoologist, especially of the marine sub-species, would tell you all kinds of interesting stories about dolphins that would surely indicate they are highly intelligent, and can imagine things. Didn't we see an article recently about a chimp or a gorilla who made up words to describe fruit he/she had tasted, but for which he/she had not been given the name ? Life is wonderful, in all its varieties. Other Comments by rod-the-farmer
16. Comment #171527 by 82abhilash on April 28, 2008 at 2:34 pm
4. Comment #171460 by Mitchell Gilks on April 28, 2008 at 1:55 pm
I think that zoologists would fervently disagree that we are the only animals with imaginations, ethical codes, or a sense of fairness.
So you think it is written language that makes the difference. It could be. It might be that all animals have a sense of proto-morality from which our sense of morality emerged. Shaped by natural selection of course.
It is even possible that we share common brain structures with our primate relatives. It might be only a small difference in our brain structure that makes us able to develop civilizations and them incapable.
Knowing how animals are different from us is as important as knowing how they are similar to us. I hope they can zero in on where exactly the differences began.
Other Comments by 82abhilash
17. Comment #171599 by MelM on April 28, 2008 at 3:40 pm
Religion is just a fantasy.Other Comments by MelM
18. Comment #171618 by ukvillafan on April 28, 2008 at 4:13 pm
When one examines sufficiently the argument that ideas cannot be communicated without "language", it becomes self-evidently false after a short period of time.
Communication takes many forms and, clearly, other animals communicate in ways that we, as humans, do not call "language", at least not in the sense that is meant in this thread. Joint action and community knowledge clearly exists in the animal world without verbal communication.
Whether the ability to pass on knowledge and ideas in the animal world requires "imagination" or not is an interesting question. To act in concert to hit ice floes from underneath to dislodge a food source would require a certain amount of imagination if undertaken by humans, even if after countless years the ability becomes second nature due to the passage of information down the generations. The person who first contemplated such an action would have had to "imagine it" â€" the same must go for other animals.
As I understand it, the point being made here is that the ability to imagine the abstract must have pre-dated the infiltration of religion in human development, on the ground that religion is, essentially an abstract concept. Effectively, the transcendant can only exist after the ability to imagine "evolved".
Personally, that element of the story is, surely, self-evident. In order to believe in the concept of a god, one has to postulate the concept in the first place. Even if the existence of god was implanted by god, he would have had to have implanted the ability to imagine the divine first.
Other Comments by ukvillafan
19. Comment #171623 by FightingFalcon on April 28, 2008 at 4:17 pm
If only the imaginary friends of Theists didn't kill people. At least mine don't... Other Comments by FightingFalcon
20. Comment #171634 by Damien White on April 28, 2008 at 4:30 pm
I think that certain animals do display at least a limited capacity to understand language. The best example of this would be a sheepdog. While they may not understand the words used themselves, they can link sounds and tasks such that sounds can be used to get them to perform quite complex tasks. If this is not at least proto-language, I don't know what is.Other Comments by Damien White
21. Comment #171638 by Lucas on April 28, 2008 at 4:32 pm
This is all totally right on. It seems a bit obvious to me, but I'm happy to get some anthropologists on my side. There is indeed a point at which we were physiologically able to imagine, though I think the slow evolution of this occurrence is missed when you think of it as a sudden, single event. I have a theory about what I call 'powerful fictions', but I'll spare you all. It goes along quite nicely with the article above.Mitchell - You're correct to stress language, and the mental abilities of animals are often underestimated, but I would be careful also of overestimating them. Most creatures on earth are significantly less mentally developed; that is a fact. A few, like whales and dolphins and chimps and elephants, may be awful close to what we can do. "Good luck, and thanks for all the fish!" and all that, sure. But this article is not really about animals. It's about humans, and most likely different groups of humans that evolved at slightly different rates, allowing some to produce art and imaginative stories, as well as lie, con, and grift, at an earlier time. Who do you think won out? Who do you think took advantage of who? It may be that we have since been divided very generally in to the tellers and the listeners. Those of us here interested in the origin of religion should be paying very close attention to this period of human development. Again, I'll mention the bi-cameral mind thing. There may be a link here.
Other Comments by Lucas
22. Comment #171644 by Hobbit on April 28, 2008 at 4:40 pm
Religion a figment of human imagination!
Well "Duhhh".
I'd like to see that as a head line in all the major news outlets around the world and then watch the faithheads go very red in the face with rage as they come up with the same old arguments.
Other Comments by Hobbit
23. Comment #171645 by Wosret on April 28, 2008 at 4:41 pm
I never said that other animals lack communication of anykind, or the ability to share ideas of all kinds. I was specifically talking about sharing ideas that do not have a referent in reality. That require complex communication skills to be able to explain my idea to you without the aid of the world in anyway. When conveying to you an idea of something that in no was exists, or can be demonstrated to you in an meaningful sense. Other Comments by Wosret
24. Comment #171652 by Wosret on April 28, 2008 at 4:47 pm
Lucas, we are animals, and I think you mean developed mentally differently. Not "less". Otherwise I would like to know what scale of mental developement you possess that I am not aware of.
Clearly human beings are smarter, and can do some mental tasks that other animals can't. That doesn't make us more developed, and them less developed. No more than are ducks more developed cause they can fly.
Surely every species has different brains, and are developed differently, and have different mental facualties. Since we are all related, we also undoubtably have many similar aspects.
I think they are plainly wrong saying that other animals have no imagination. I am fine with the claim that humans are capable of a level of abstract thought that other animals are not. Or our system of morality and ethics is far more involved, and entires a lot more. I don't think that is true of our sense of fairness, I've seen some other primates act with an extremely strong sense of fairness.
My disagreement was in their saying all other animals lacked those facualties completely, and that imagination was the most important. I think that complex language is more important.
Other Comments by Wosret
25. Comment #171664 by Darwin's badger on April 28, 2008 at 4:56 pm
Dolphins definitely have imagination, if you include their penchant for blow-hole sex. Other Comments by Darwin's badger
26. Comment #171686 by savroD on April 28, 2008 at 5:19 pm
Phil Rimmer Says:
I think Gods a bitch
Phil... is that like god's a bitch and then you marry one? or god's a bitch and then you die? or Both?
Cheers my friend!
Other Comments by savroD
27. Comment #171705 by SPS on April 28, 2008 at 5:45 pm
Or'Imagine no religion...'
Had to throw that in.
Other Comments by SPS
28. Comment #171720 by Apeseed on April 28, 2008 at 6:12 pm
Studies have shown that brown Capuchin monkeys have a sense of fairness.http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2003-09/euhs-yrf091503.php
The likeliest scenario must be that the basis of our morality comes from our evolution as social animals. Then our imagination comes up with "Just So" stories to account for why we have the sense of good and bad, fair and unfair.
Perhaps someone who understands better could explain why Chris Frith says "theory of mind" might be as important as the evolution of imagination. I had always assumed "theory of mind" was an act of imagination.
Other Comments by Apeseed
29. Comment #171733 by MorituriMax on April 28, 2008 at 6:26 pm
emmet wrote,In the clip, orcas collaborate (three swimming together) in order to swim under an ice floe, creating a wave to upset the floe and knock a seal off. This requires some or all of having the idea, planning, communication, an expectation of what will happen, some kind of "model". I fail to see how this could be done without something that could reasonably be termed imagination.
Hmm, I think the whales just remember that "if we bump this ice, tasty food falls into our mouths."
heh heh, almost like a south park episode.. the seal is kenny.
Other Comments by MorituriMax
30. Comment #171734 by riki on April 28, 2008 at 6:26 pm
I think you'd also need a complex system of written and spoken language, to describe your imaginary world, so that others can live there as well.btw the New Scientists Magazine subscription is great value. I've been a subscriber for about two years now.
Other Comments by riki
31. Comment #171740 by Jack Rawlinson on April 28, 2008 at 6:38 pm
I think they mean god is a figment of the human imagination. Religion, sadly, is all too real. Other Comments by Jack Rawlinson
32. Comment #171751 by Border Collie on April 28, 2008 at 7:00 pm
Why polarize or separate imagination & language? They probably evolved hand in hand, so to speak.Other Comments by Border Collie
33. Comment #171765 by dragonfirematrix on April 28, 2008 at 7:43 pm
Well, I suppose a portion of the text (quoted below) from the article says enough...
..."imagine things and beings that don't physically exist,"
Which means, of course, all the gods created by humanity since humanity was old enough to create gods and (so called) prophets.
Religion is full of things and beings that do not exist.
Other Comments by dragonfirematrix
34. Comment #171779 by lievemebe on April 28, 2008 at 8:11 pm
I also agree with Mitchell Gilks. There is evidence for imagination, ethics and communicative abilities in animals. The antithesis requires that animals and humans evolved in fundamentally different ways. It is more likely that animals occupied different niches with varying requirements for imagination.Religion took a hold in human development before science because it is an easier activity.
Other Comments by lievemebe
35. Comment #171798 by lbq on April 28, 2008 at 8:46 pm
Bloch is wrong. First, a belief in the afterlife is a very recent phenomenon. A belief in an after-death paradise arose first with the Hellenistic mystery cults, so it's not integral to religion.Second, his timing is wrong. At the time when he thinks religion arose (40,000 years ago, when modern man arrived in Europe, needless to say) modern humans had already spread to nearly all corners of the Old World. And all their descendants have religion. So it is a common derived character and must be older than the split into local groups (there is no molecular evidence for a late replacement). Does he think that the Cro-Magnon sent a group of missionaries to Australia by Quantas?
Other Comments by lbq
36. Comment #171826 by Andrew Stich on April 28, 2008 at 9:48 pm
Really? I'm surprised by the distinction that many people here make between animals "and" humans, or "There is evidence for imagination, ethics and communicative abilities in animals," as if humans somehow didn't count. There is no meaningful way in which humans are separate from "animals". If we are not animals, what, taxonomically speaking, pray tell, are we? We're just as animal as any other... animal. A note to our species: get over yourself.Unless, of course, you don't believe in evolution, in which case you can be excused for the distinction between human and animal (they've chosen the greater of two evils).
As a sidenote, have you ever noticed that it is impossible to find an atheist who doesn't believe in evolution?
Other Comments by Andrew Stich
37. Comment #171828 by matthendrix on April 28, 2008 at 9:58 pm
RE: comment 14."I think there's evidence that orcas have imagination. In the clip, orcas collaborate (three swimming together) in order to swim under an ice floe, creating a wave to upset the floe and knock a seal off."
I think this is a 'Fixed Action Pattern' i.e. a learnt behaviour that is inherited by subsequent generations.
Other Comments by matthendrix
38. Comment #171830 by lievemebe on April 28, 2008 at 10:07 pm
Comment #171826 by Andrew Stich :Really? I'm surprised by the distinction that many people here make between animals "and" humans, or "There is evidence for imagination, ethics and communicative abilities in animals," as if humans somehow didn't count.
I stand by my statement that there is evidence for imagination, ethics and communicative abilities in animals, whether the animals are baboons, humans or stick insects. If you are unclear as to the meaning of antithesis, look it up.
I haven't met any atheists who believe in evolution. They examine the evidence and test the theory.
Other Comments by lievemebe
39. Comment #171842 by Ohnhai on April 28, 2008 at 11:17 pm
I will have to agree, it is the imagination that makes the concept of the supernatural possible. This only means anything if you have the means to communicate this concept to others. We have language, written, drawn and spoken, that serves us in this function. If we were limited to the communication levels of even the great apes (primitive vocalizations, simple gestures, physical negative reinforcement, chemical…) then it would be hard if not impossible to communicate a concept that lies entirely with the imagination and outside the boundaries of the physical world…
Try this.
Imagine something utterly weird and strange. Imagine something totally outside the realm of reality. Now without speaking a word, without writing anything down, without drawing anything try and communicate this new notion to a friend. Oh, they can't speak, sign, write, draw either.
Without language, visual or aural, then our ability to transmit ideas that lie within the realm of the imagination is virtually non-existent. You can dream up all the personal god's you like, but without language you can't have religion.
Other Comments by Ohnhai
40. Comment #171889 by Henri Bergson on April 29, 2008 at 1:32 am
Interesting article, though somewhat obvious. As it suggests, not only religion, but ethics, are delusions.Wait for my book on this.
Other Comments by Henri Bergson
41. Comment #171892 by Christopher Davis on April 29, 2008 at 1:42 am
"Really? I'm surprised by the distinction that many people here make between animals "and" humans, or "There is evidence for imagination, ethics and communicative abilities in animals," as if humans somehow didn't count. There is no meaningful way in which humans are separate from "animals"."---Andrew Stitch
Of course there are "meaningful" ways in which humans are separate from (other) animals. They are simply differences in degree, not differences in kind.
Acknowledging this very observable truth does not make a person a theist.
Other Comments by Christopher Davis
42. Comment #171918 by old-toy-boy on April 29, 2008 at 2:33 am
There is another possibility. Big brains allow for multipal personalities, Multipal Personalities means hearing voices in your head.That's what 'we' think.
Other Comments by old-toy-boy
43. Comment #171919 by Wosret on April 29, 2008 at 2:33 am
On that basis we can at least speculate that the fact that animals behave as if they understand and think about fairness and as if they have imagination and can speculate, and as if they have thought-through ethical codes doesn't mean that they do necessarily have these attributes.
I have to address this right away, because it is an eye-sore. This says absolutely nothing. Everything we know about the world is built upon induction, and induction only ever implies our conclusions, never necessitates them. Nothing we can say about the objective world is necessarily true. It isn't necessarily true that people other than yourself contain those facualties. We decide that they do by observing their behaviour, which is worth a hell of a lot more than words. So what you say above, I would say is not even wrong it holds zero information value, and makes no point.
I agree largely with the rest of what you said. I think that the cure for superstition is of course reason.
Other Comments by Wosret
44. Comment #171924 by Wosret on April 29, 2008 at 2:37 am
43. Comment #171892 by Christopher Davis
Of course there are "meaningful" ways in which humans are separate from (other) animals. They are simply differences in degree, not differences in kind.
Acknowledging this very observable truth does not make a person a theist.
You appear to be misunderstanding, there are meaningful ways in which ducks are different than (other) animals. That doesn't change the fact that they, like us, are 100% animal. Andrew was talking about people's inclination to talk about humans as if they are fundamentally different than animals, and are not animals at all.
Other Comments by Wosret
45. Comment #171981 by NakedCelt on April 29, 2008 at 4:07 am
I can't back this up off the top of my head, but the source was a clued-up psychologist, so hopefully others will be able to verify it. What I've heard is that you can teach lots of different animals in Skinner boxes to press one switch and get food, and avoid pressing another switch because it gives them electric shocks. Move the animal to a new box with new switches and it starts from scratch, unless it's a human, who, having learned to fear one switch, will transfer the fear to all switches. That sounds like "imagination" to me, but the psychologist reckoned it was a by-product of having evolved language (which requires that very same ability/tendency to generalize concepts).Other Comments by NakedCelt
46. Comment #171990 by Christopher Davis on April 29, 2008 at 4:37 am
"You appear to be misunderstanding, there are meaningful ways in which ducks are different than (other) animals. That doesn't change the fact that they, like us, are 100% animal. Andrew was talking about people's inclination to talk about humans as if they are fundamentally different than animals, and are not animals at all."---Mitchell Gilks
Maybe, but I kind of thought the whole point of the article (and therefore the following discussion) centered on how humans differed from (other) animals.
For what it's worth, I see a pretty big divide between human's ability to communicate abstract ideas among each other and that same ability in other species. I don't know if I would classify it as a "fundamental" difference (several examples posted here could be used to argue against that...although no one mentioned vervet monkeys), I'd definitely call it "meaningful".
Anyway, Andrew if I misunderstood your post I apologize. As it reads to me however, in this context, it just seems nitpicky.
Other Comments by Christopher Davis
47. Comment #172022 by Lula on April 29, 2008 at 6:37 am
The other articles in that series look interesting too. I just have to share with you this from the end of the one on consciousness:
"When did I realise I was God?" says the psychotic aristocrat in the old film The Ruling Class. "Well, I was praying and I suddenly realised I was talking to myself." My epiphany was less grandiose. It was quite the opposite. I realised I was talking to myself, but no one was listening.
(http://www.newscientist.com/channel/being-human/mg19225780.073)
Other Comments by Lula
48. Comment #172070 by Andrew Stich on April 29, 2008 at 7:50 am
"Of course there are "meaningful" ways in which humans are separate from (other) animals."That's true, but we're still completely animal. I have no problem with you as long as you say the word other, and don't make a false dichotomy between man and the beast.
"I stand by my statement that there is evidence for imagination, ethics and communicative abilities in animals, whether the animals are baboons, humans or stick insects." Fair enough, but if humans count as animals (which they should), that's a pretty obvious statement.
Sorry for the poor post quality; I have limited time.
Other Comments by Andrew Stich
49. Comment #172168 by CShepGuy on April 29, 2008 at 9:41 am
I accept this imagination argument for all gods except the real one which I believe in. Other Comments by CShepGuy
50. Comment #172174 by lol mahmood on April 29, 2008 at 10:02 am
Apropos of nothing, really, but I was reading an article about the new series of 'Peep Show' (British sitcom about a disfunctional relationship between two friends) over the weekend. The article previewed a scene in which one of the characters is wandering around a Christian rock festival in a state of depression, enviously thinking to himself: "Look at them. They're all so happy! Perhaps I could be happy too if I believed in a load of old shit."
Well, made me laugh, anyway...
Other Comments by lol mahmood
Comment Entry: Please Login
Register a new account
Upcoming Events:
Mailing List
Enter your email:
DVDs
'The Enemies of Reason: The Uncut Interviews' DVD
'Voices of Reason' DVD
'Richard Dawkins: Appearances & Events 2007-2008' DVD
'Enemies of Reason' DVD
'Root of All Evil?' DVD
'Root of All Evil? The Uncut Interviews' DVD
'Growing Up in the Universe' DVD
'Voices of Science' DVD
'The Four Horsemen' DVD
'Break the Science Barrier' DVD
1. Comment #171392 by sane1 on April 28, 2008 at 1:20 pm
Other Comments by sane1