RichardKennaway comments on The Pre-Historical Fallacy - Less Wrong

13 Post author: Tem42 03 July 2015 08:21PM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (30)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: RichardKennaway 06 July 2015 06:56:22PM 0 points [-]

Yes, but it would be fair, for example, to say that 'eyes evolved for seeing'.

It would be fairer to say that eyes evolved by seeing.

if you hold 'purpose' to mean 'intent'

"Purpose" and "intent" are synonyms.

I have no objection to changing my language -- perhaps 'primary function'?

Eyes have evolved into identifiable, specialised organs. One can reasonably say that their primary function is to see. I find it implausible that any part of the brain has religion as its primary function. Sight, even when merely a sensitivity to general illumination level, is of obvious use to any organism living in the light. Can the same be said of religion? Or is a tendency to personalise the forces of nature merely an epiphenomenon of some other useful mechanism?

Anyway, I'm still agreeing with your original point that one cannot strongly argue from the ubiquity of religion throughout human history and geography to its necessity as part of a healthy lifestyle.

Comment author: Tem42 06 July 2015 07:42:35PM 0 points [-]

I think we are generally in agreement, and have reached the same conclusions. However, if you are curious as to why I used this as an example, Google 'god spot'. Depending what words you add to your search, you can see anything from confused science writers to creationists making all sorts of fun claims.