= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
RichardKennaway comments on The Pre-Historical Fallacy - Less Wrong Discussion
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (30)
The second statement is not merely hard to prove, it is obviously wrong. Evolution does not have a goal. Things do not evolve because they are going to be useful. They evolve because each incremental change was an improvement, measured by reproductive success compared with the absence of the change.
Yes, but it would be fair, for example, to say that 'eyes evolved for seeing'. This is fair because for the last few billion years, that is indeed what they were being optimized for. This get more abstract when talking about things like religion, and much more dubious when you are talking about a period of perhaps a million years, but it is not quite to the point that I would call it 'obviously wrong'.
I would agree that the statement 'specifically with the intent of experiencing religion' would be wrong; if you hold 'purpose' to mean 'intent', I have no objection to changing my language -- perhaps 'primary function'?
It would be fairer to say that eyes evolved by seeing.
"Purpose" and "intent" are synonyms.
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.
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.