ReliStuPhD wrote:Skip, I apologize for a point-by-point response. I'm trying to avoid those but don't always succeed.
Why? Seems the easiest way to address the specific point; saves wear on the eyes, trying to find the appropriate place.
1. Is it reason or instinct that animals follow?
Can you tell where one leaves off and the other begins? One way to be sure it's reason is by putting the subject in an unnatural environment, for which no genetic process could have selected.
http://dailypicksandflicks.com/2014/02/ ... zle-video/
2. Does science operate as a religion for some/many?
I could possibly answer that if you defined 'religion', explained how religion is supposed to 'operate' and what it is supposed to 'do for' people.
But not in this context, where it's a red herring.
S - Even if rats, crows, dogs and elephants lack the concept of logic, they nevertheless use logic.
That's a strong statement. I'd like to read some scientific studies showing animals use logic rather than responding to training and/or instinct.
I could recommend material. It's a large and rapidly growing body of knowledge. Lots of documentary videos available, too.
even so, it's the concept that would ultimately matter for my point.
Why? Since, you only raised it to counter my use of the word "imaginative", this would seem a needless side-issue.
Anthropocentrism doesn't necessarily equate to "incorrect." It doesn't mean we're not right to consider ourselves to be the only (Earth) animals "endowed with the capacity to reason." So again, I think we're stuck instinct verses reason, with the latter, in my experience, meaning that one can choose not to act on instinct.
Anthropocentrism isn't necessarily incorrect, but it is necessarily biased. You're leaning pretty heavily on the poorly-defined concept "instinct", and in the poorly-controlled sense of "
mere instinct" which is put in contention against reason. I think this is a gross misrepresentation of how biology actually works. All living things, including humans, have instincts and also a long, gradual slope of reasoning capability as brains and social organizations grow more complex.
There is no versus.
And, again, what difference does it make? We
are the only animal [we know of] that tells stories. Whether we can choose not to act on instinct doesn't address the nature of god.
[Bird example]
That's certainly how a human would think through it. But the bird? Wouldn't it be more like "I use this stick to get the grub. I don't why, though. I just know I'm compelled to get a stick. But I also get the grub, so woohoo!"
They didn't always do this. There was a first one. She taught it to her young. Later generations improved on the technique, so now they trim the stick and even sharpen it: evolution and innovation, genetic memory and learning work in tandem.
And what if the getting at the grub didn't require a stick but string? Would the bird think through the problem and go get that piece of string?
A raven would. A jay might. A robin couldn't. There is no string in nature, but a great many birds make brilliant use of vines and grasses.
S - If gods are the result of rational enquiry, what was the problem?
Well, I think the problem/question was simply "why?"
No, there is never "
simply why". There is "Why
this?"
That is to say, the very questions that drive us to understand why a feather and a ball fall at the same speed in a vacuum drive us to ask "why something rather than nothing?"
Probably, though I can't see early hominids worrying about nothing - they had too much real stuff to worry about. But the difference there is: you can actually find a definitive, reproducible answer to the ball and feather question, the other one is open for endless speculation; no answer is more provable than any other.
And since can't answer that latter question with science, religion works.
Since you can't answer it, you're free to make up stories. People did. Religion doesn't "work" in that regard, until you enforce one authoritative version of a story, but it does work when you come to questions, like, "Where is my dead father?" A story can be a satisfying answer to an emotional problem. As such, it's infinitely customizable to the user.
As for why we've come up with so many different answers (I think "improbable" is the wrong word here),
Okay. Implausible.
I think we can ask the same of science.
Since I haven't invoked science in any form except the study of animal behaviour, I don't choose to engage this herring.
In fact, the whole science-religion controversy smells too much of fish. And they're mostly stupid, fish are. Octopi are smart.
... I see no reason why religion shouldn't be afforded the same access to trial and error.
Just the one reason: Science is a wholly human endeavour: it didn't exist until we invented it, and it develops only as we develop it.
If God already existed, shouldn't he reveal his consistent, eternal truth instead of all these lies and distortions?
