Post by humphreyclarke on Apr 27, 2009 15:35:06 GMT
Here is a hoot of a video which is worth persevering with.
richarddawkins.net/article,3779,Why-We-Believe-in-Gods---Dr-Andy-Thomson---American-Atheists-09,Andy-Thomson
Dr Andy Thomson is a psychiatrist who has explored various evolutionary explanations for religion. Of course, because he is a devout atheist he is cheerleading for the 'unwanted byproduct' thesis, one in which religions are parasitic on our various cognitive faculties.
I think we have discussed this on this forum before and the most favoured one is an adaptationist explanation, in which evolution creates the mental capacities for religious belief (the hardware). Humanity then provides the software through contemplation and revelation. You can think of this as analogous to similar proposals for a 'language instinct' or 'moral instinct'.
Dr Thomson can't go down that road so he basically lists a number of our interesting cognitive abilities -among them that children naturally believe in God, have dualist tendencies and tend to see purpose everywhere - and then says religion exploits them all. He also cites this particular study with approval (again with the spin that the higher order brain functions in the frontal lobes are simply being exploited):
www.newscientist.com/article/dn16725-theory-of-mind-could-help-explain-belief-in-god.html
Interestingly at the end of the video he then says that 'science and religion are definitely in conflict' raises the subject of the Scopes trial and says that in the future psychology textbooks will have to carry sections on the cognitive aspects of religious belief; again with the tacit suggestion that religion is a misfiring, or a parasitic virus from which we have to emancipate ourselves from. He says that this will inevitably result in a Dover trial type case, but then he says 'bring it on!'. He also rather charmingly says that atheists have been able to overcome the cognitive malfunctioning he described because they are 'more intelligent' and have higher IQ.
I have to say this reminds me a lot of the Freudian psychoanalysis controversies. If you remember, when Freud's ideas were criticised, the Freudian practitioners simply said that the critics were suffering from mental disorders and sat around inventing conditions that they might be suffering from. Things haven't moved on very much.
richarddawkins.net/article,3779,Why-We-Believe-in-Gods---Dr-Andy-Thomson---American-Atheists-09,Andy-Thomson
Dr Andy Thomson is a psychiatrist who has explored various evolutionary explanations for religion. Of course, because he is a devout atheist he is cheerleading for the 'unwanted byproduct' thesis, one in which religions are parasitic on our various cognitive faculties.
I think we have discussed this on this forum before and the most favoured one is an adaptationist explanation, in which evolution creates the mental capacities for religious belief (the hardware). Humanity then provides the software through contemplation and revelation. You can think of this as analogous to similar proposals for a 'language instinct' or 'moral instinct'.
Dr Thomson can't go down that road so he basically lists a number of our interesting cognitive abilities -among them that children naturally believe in God, have dualist tendencies and tend to see purpose everywhere - and then says religion exploits them all. He also cites this particular study with approval (again with the spin that the higher order brain functions in the frontal lobes are simply being exploited):
www.newscientist.com/article/dn16725-theory-of-mind-could-help-explain-belief-in-god.html
Interestingly at the end of the video he then says that 'science and religion are definitely in conflict' raises the subject of the Scopes trial and says that in the future psychology textbooks will have to carry sections on the cognitive aspects of religious belief; again with the tacit suggestion that religion is a misfiring, or a parasitic virus from which we have to emancipate ourselves from. He says that this will inevitably result in a Dover trial type case, but then he says 'bring it on!'. He also rather charmingly says that atheists have been able to overcome the cognitive malfunctioning he described because they are 'more intelligent' and have higher IQ.
I have to say this reminds me a lot of the Freudian psychoanalysis controversies. If you remember, when Freud's ideas were criticised, the Freudian practitioners simply said that the critics were suffering from mental disorders and sat around inventing conditions that they might be suffering from. Things haven't moved on very much.
