3 important questions
how can we legalize religous profiling?
what is the highest political position currently taken by an atheist?
would religion still evolve with modern scientific explanations if we started fresh today without any trace of organized religion? ...is there a "faith" gene?
sam harris, you are the next galileo. i admire your bravery
Good analogy: Sam Harris = modern Galileo. Fascinating book, by the way…
And three fascinating questions…
With the current global political climate, I am not sure any athetist in a high government position in any country would feel free to openly expose their so-called “lack of faith”.
There has been mention recently of a so-called “God” gene (was it on Newsweek magazine?). Where are the genes for intelligence when we need them!
In America you are absolutely right! The point of political persuasion is to bring as many ‘believers’ as possible in to your camp. Successful politicians, including GW Bush are pretty vague about their beliefs.
I haven’t seen the Newsweek piece, but I’ve seen an evolutionary explanation for religion somewhere that went like this:
Humans evolve a brain that enables them to see beyond the current moment.
While this feature is quite useful for survival, it also creates anxiety about the future (e.g., what will happen when I die?).
The solution: a gene that makes humans susceptible to religious beliefs; this ameliorates the future-anxiety and allows humans to get on with the (evolutionarily) important stuff, i.e., reproducing and spreading their genetic material.
I dont think its a gene.
It’s just a by-product of a self-aware brain in a body that dies.
Religion in its most primitive form was an attempt to control forces beyond our control, rain, earthquakes, animal movements, death.
It was an attempt to understand and deal with natural forces.
At its core, it still is, but we have quite an imagination don’t we?
Children, when traumatized, have a hard time re-joining society. Why do we think that all the wise men that went before did not understand that the strong benevolent ‘father’ figure (patriarch) was a comfort to the young and to those in need.
Possibly these wise men did not ‘believe’. Would they tell those that were dependent upon them that there was no ‘hope’? Or would they give hope, love and the possibilty of better days to those who might actually have a chance if they had the ‘spirit’ to survive?