tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7583674511519808833.post3098834341634252769..comments2024-03-27T00:26:19.644+00:00Comments on Rosa Rubicondior: The Evolution of GodRosa Rubicondiorhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06063268216781988588noreply@blogger.comBlogger33125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7583674511519808833.post-19526369074049026232012-11-11T12:17:47.556+00:002012-11-11T12:17:47.556+00:00Decent hypothesis for this particular form of god,...Decent hypothesis for this particular form of god, but evo-psych is full of trap hypotheses which are probably wrong.<br /><br />What we know for sure is a massive human tendency, a cognitive bias towards personification (the psych lit on this is so long people can find their own sources). This has got to be the basis of most beliefs in spirits, made clearly visible in animism; I've seen no alternate hypothesis other than "animism is true", which is clearly wrong.<br /><br />We also know that "alpha male" behavior actually existed in numerous human societies, including ancient Middle Eastern ones (though interestingly, not all hunter-gatherer societies, from what we can tell).<br /><br />(Your descriptions of alpha male chimp behavior are roughly right, as far as I can tell from everything I've read; big bio lit on that. Bonobo behavior is different, though. So generalizing directly to humans is iffy. But since we know ancient kings behaved like this, we don't need to make the jump.) <br /><br />This -- personification and the presence of people who act like alpha male chimps -- is all that is necessary to generate the belief in an "alpha male" God who runs the world or any part of it.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7583674511519808833.post-21809521618201018312012-08-12T10:15:15.222+01:002012-08-12T10:15:15.222+01:00Good question to the religionist, like VictorGood question to the religionist, like Victordrilyashttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17359030341699497943noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7583674511519808833.post-82191406560992461412012-04-22T07:01:55.792+01:002012-04-22T07:01:55.792+01:00Rosa, I think your speculation on this earliest st...Rosa, I think your speculation on this earliest step in the evolution of gods is very cogent and it lines up quite well with egalitarian cultures at the end of the hunter-gatherer era. Nicholas Wade's, The Faith Instinct takes off from here by discussing the role of the alpha male's replacement--belief in a supervisor. Great, thanks.Beachbumhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16872466812837980647noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7583674511519808833.post-81868797722133104392012-04-14T23:21:16.271+01:002012-04-14T23:21:16.271+01:00"Do you remember who fooled you with it or we..."Do you remember who fooled you with it or were you too young to remember?"<br /><br />If I were to follow the precedent you have set in an earlier thread, I might at this point just accuse you of ad hominem abuse. But not without good reason in this case.<br /><br />I would, however, genuinely be interested in your take on "the nature of evidence" as you put it. <br /><br />For the record, I am not doubting the way in which science books generally communicate evidence. I will also add that in this case, my background is such that what you actually say seems plausible to me (although, as I have just noted elsewhere, this is not proof that God does not exist, if that's what you were tyring to achieve).<br /><br />Let me go back to what I asserted originally. "The issue at stake is that you seem to expect more in terms of evidence from others than you are prepared to give yourself. It's not that I'm expecting peer-reviewed work but that what you present is sometimes inconsistent."<br /><br />If I made a claim and suggested that "I would imagine that there are texts out there which support it" you would quite probably note that I hadn't shown you the evidence. Yet you are quite happy to say the same thing without giving a reference to a text. <br /><br />I presume that you are well read on the subject and that therefore to suggest a good reference or two would not be beyond you.JP...https://www.blogger.com/profile/00951577183105761317noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7583674511519808833.post-10968476491976528432012-04-14T17:45:23.003+01:002012-04-14T17:45:23.003+01:00It looks like you don't understand the nature ...It looks like you don't understand the nature of evidence and how this is communicated in science books. That could be the cause of your problem and why you've fallen for the 'faith' fallacy. <br /><br />Do you remember who fooled you with it or were you too young to remember?Rosa Rubicondiorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06063268216781988588noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7583674511519808833.post-86421379180402197612012-04-14T13:06:12.885+01:002012-04-14T13:06:12.885+01:00How is "accept[ing] that the people whose acc...How is "accept[ing] that the people whose accounts [I'm] accepting didn't [take it on faith] but were given evidence" any different from your statement that you "would imagine almost any book or article on ape or other primate social behaviour, and on human evolution and cultural development would give a sufficient understanding of the subject"?JP...https://www.blogger.com/profile/00951577183105761317noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7583674511519808833.post-12699667653011018922012-04-14T10:27:15.250+01:002012-04-14T10:27:15.250+01:00>Yet one of the points made by your contrived p...>Yet one of the points made by your contrived post here - http://rosarubicondior.blogspot.co.uk/2012/03/help-what-should-i-do.html#comment-form - is the implication that because your friend from Oxford has not met the man from Essex (i.e. he is not an eye-witness to the events described) then it cannot possibly be true.<br /><br />As you will know, because, presumably you actually read the blog you are quoting, I'm asking there whether I should take what he says 'on faith' or should I require evidence before I believe it.<br /><br />What would you advise?<br /><br />As a Christian of course you accept the accounts in the Bible on faith and yet seem to accept that the people whose accounts you're accepting didn't but were given evidence.<br /><br />Does this lower standard only apply to people who claim to be Jesus or should we just accept everything anyone says on faith?Rosa Rubicondiorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06063268216781988588noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7583674511519808833.post-76066238525262265512012-04-13T14:26:35.462+01:002012-04-13T14:26:35.462+01:00I think that you're missing the point. The is...I think that you're missing the point. The issue at stake is that you seem to expect more in terms of evidence from others than you are prepared to give yourself. It's not that I'm expecting peer-reviewed work but that what you present is sometimes inconsistent.<br /><br />Interestingly your question "do you imagine something is only true if the author was an eye-witness to the events described?" implies that you don't think this.<br /><br />Yet one of the points made by your contrived post here - http://rosarubicondior.blogspot.co.uk/2012/03/help-what-should-i-do.html#comment-form - is the implication that because your friend from Oxford has not met the man from Essex (i.e. he is not an eye-witness to the events described) then it cannot possibly be true.JP...https://www.blogger.com/profile/00951577183105761317noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7583674511519808833.post-57830142934545149712011-08-28T16:53:53.102+01:002011-08-28T16:53:53.102+01:00For those of you looking for something to read on ...For those of you looking for something to read on the topic, I would highly recommend reading Richard Dawkins' "The Selfish Gene" in its entirety. It explains a lot of the basic principles this post is based on, and I think it will help to answer many of your questions.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7583674511519808833.post-58980932021178297102011-08-10T07:59:27.364+01:002011-08-10T07:59:27.364+01:00Luke. You still seem not to understand the differ...Luke. You still seem not to understand the difference between a blog and a peer-reviewed scientific journal.Rosa Rubicondiorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06063268216781988588noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7583674511519808833.post-34338684681513200842011-08-10T02:02:11.450+01:002011-08-10T02:02:11.450+01:00Junaid, the substantive claim is about God's e...Junaid, the substantive claim is about God's evolution, aspects of which are merely asserted here rather than demonstrated. That's the complaint, not whether/how humans evolved/sprang out of Africa.Luke Scientiaehttp://www.lukesci.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7583674511519808833.post-53818526994711899652011-08-08T05:16:01.908+01:002011-08-08T05:16:01.908+01:00For those who are questioning the article can read...For those who are questioning the article can read up on the following scientific research on human genetics and how 180,000 thousand years ago, humans sprang out of Africa and colonised the rest of the planet.<br /><br />https://genographic.nationalgeographic.com/genographic/index.htmlJunaid Noorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14952811793361022532noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7583674511519808833.post-91980038892726729612011-08-08T04:01:22.893+01:002011-08-08T04:01:22.893+01:00I'm an atheist and I'm sure that the blog ...I'm an atheist and I'm sure that the blog post's content is infinitely more accurate than any theistic account. But the problem is the one we're seeing in the comments: atheists can't expect to persuade the faithful by demanding "a citation for any substantive claim" whilst at the same time themselves writing huge sweeping descriptions without a single citation. That doesn't make the atheistic account wrong, but unpersuasive to the believers (clearly!). And if the idea isn't to persuade the believers, then why bother? You can't mount good arguments without reference to the facts, and, as the blog owner recognizes, you should say where these facts come from. Otherwise, only assertion remains, or appers to remain. And its precisely mere assertion that atheists so object to in the theistic accounts. This leads to theists claiming that atheism itself is a faith position. It's not, but with blog posts that refer to no external sources it's considerably harder to show it.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7583674511519808833.post-64947208105184006242011-08-06T10:42:54.974+01:002011-08-06T10:42:54.974+01:00Tim. I'm glad the mistake was yours, not mine...Tim. I'm glad the mistake was yours, not mine.Rosa Rubicondiorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06063268216781988588noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7583674511519808833.post-86170050053197362492011-08-06T10:02:58.450+01:002011-08-06T10:02:58.450+01:00Ah, my mistake. I was led astray when Victor asked...Ah, my mistake. I was led astray when Victor asked you for some evidence, and you implied you had some ("Nothing of what I've described is new to anthropology, sociology, geology, psychology, memetic theory or even to the study of our close relatives. All I've done it boil it down into a short blog."). You listed so many ologies in order to sound like you knew what you were talking about, I was quite taken in! And then there was the part where you mistook me for a theist because I - gasp - asked for evidence. ...You might want to check to see if your irony meter's broken.<br /><br />Seriously though. If I mistook your blog for more than idle speculation, it's because you present it as more than such. You presented this post as truth ("Cultural evolution explains both the origin of the idea of a god and its fallacy"). When other readers bought your story hook, line, and sinker (e.g. "As far as I'm concerned this is by far the most likely explanation of 'where we are now'; a very nicely nailed together chain of events and a joy to read), you did not correct them by saying "Actually this is just speculation and we don't really know if this is true or not." No, you let the endorsement stand. And when a creationist asked you for evidence, you didn't admit to having none. You tried to sound credible, lest a <i>creationist,</i> of all people, be the one to point out that you were credulously accepting an explanation based on little evidential support.<br /><br />Man, that's ironic. And wait... what's this bit of text above the comment window?<br /><br />"Please provide a citation for any substantive claim and remember that, whilst you are fully entitiled to your opinion, you are not entitled to have it regarded as established fact needing no further supporting evidence."<br /><br />*IRONY METER EXPLODE*<br /><br />Perhaps you should add an addendum, "The blog owner, however, is under no such restrictions."<br /><br />Tim MartinAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7583674511519808833.post-69629343376557591442011-08-04T17:06:03.710+01:002011-08-04T17:06:03.710+01:00Tim.
You appear to have mistaken my blog for a Sc...Tim.<br /><br />You appear to have mistaken my blog for a Scientific journal rather than a platform for opinion and speculation.Rosa Rubicondiorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06063268216781988588noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7583674511519808833.post-34013269645261137922011-08-04T15:49:07.261+01:002011-08-04T15:49:07.261+01:00Science must produce detailed proof of everything,...<i>Science must produce detailed proof of everything, usually to an impossibly high standard, yet all religion requires is assertion with no supporting evidence whatsoever.</i><br /><br />What on earth are you talking about? I don't recall saying anything about religion. I asked you for some evidence to support your story. You implied that you had some, and now it seems you're saying that you don't have any, but "you imagine" it's out there. Thank you, I have my answer.<br /><br />You don't seem to be familiar with research in evolutionary psychology. Notice I said "research." While much of evo-psych is plagued by just-so stories (such as yours and the ones I linked to in my first comment), it is a branch of science like any other in which the goal is to make <i>testable</i> hypotheses. An excellent example of real research on the evolution of religion would be this paper: http://www.scribd.com/doc/52186189/Scott-Atran-The-Evolution-of-Religion<br /><br />Creating evolutionary explanations for various phenomena is easy - creating accurate explanations is not. The problem I have with your post is that you pass it off as an accurate explanation ("Cultural evolution explains both the origin of the idea of a god and its fallacy."), when really it is just speculation with no evidence to back it up.<br /><br />Tim MartinAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7583674511519808833.post-49762860062956243212011-08-01T09:07:01.332+01:002011-08-01T09:07:01.332+01:00I would imagine almost any book or article on ape ...I would imagine almost any book or article on ape or other primate social behaviour, and on human evolution and cultural development would give a sufficient understanding of the subject.<br /><br />Speculations and hypotheses of this sort can never be more than mind experiments - the thinking through of what is likely to have happened.<br /><br />The whole point is to demonstrate that a natural explanation for something like the origin of the religion meme is entirely possible.Rosa Rubicondiorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06063268216781988588noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7583674511519808833.post-40380615827280206512011-08-01T08:53:19.002+01:002011-08-01T08:53:19.002+01:00I would like to ask for further reading on the sub...I would like to ask for further reading on the subject, just where you got all your knowledge o the subject from. It's important to be skeptical on everything we read. It's not unreasonable to ask for evidence as I'm sure you'd ask a theist for evidence too. I've read something similar to this before but I just want to know what books you read, etc.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11755229055906194777noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7583674511519808833.post-8353346197987843312011-07-29T10:01:18.243+01:002011-07-29T10:01:18.243+01:00Interesting example of double standards there. Sc...Interesting example of double standards there. Science must produce detailed proof of everything, usually to an impossibly high standard, yet all religion requires is assertion with no supporting evidence whatsoever.Rosa Rubicondiorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06063268216781988588noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7583674511519808833.post-80874565238066978262011-07-25T05:24:36.690+01:002011-07-25T05:24:36.690+01:00Well I'm going to have to (partially) agree wi...Well I'm going to have to (partially) agree with Victor on this one.<br /><br />"Were you there" is a horrible question - it doesn't matter if someone was there, what matters is if they have evidence.<br /><br />Victor also asked you for your evidence. I, too, would like to see it. This is a very interesting story you've written, and I would love to know if it's anything more than a story (as, for example, <a href="http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2011/01/16/evolutionary-psychology-for-the-masses/" rel="nofollow">so many</a> hypotheses in evolutionary psychology are). If there is so much support for this explanation coming from fields such as psychology, anthropology, sociology, etc, all you need do is cite some of the relevant studies. Instead of doing that, you've basically said "trust me, lots of smart people have said something similar." <br /><br />Great. Show me the evidence.<br /><br />Tim MartinAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7583674511519808833.post-40987294599683669322011-04-09T20:05:36.385+01:002011-04-09T20:05:36.385+01:00Beautiful, Rosa - you've done a little more th...Beautiful, Rosa - you've done a little more than "boil it down into a short blog". As far as I'm concerned this is by far the most likely explanation of 'where we are now'; a very nicely nailed together chain of events and a joy to read.<br />CheersCrispy Seahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01785485472381609247noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7583674511519808833.post-46439978454753468112010-12-23T20:34:20.451+00:002010-12-23T20:34:20.451+00:00The key is to allow the logical conclusions from t...The key is to allow the logical conclusions from the facts to show them the hope of living for ever is false. The intellectual dishonesty of Pasquel's wager should be apparent to anyone who learns to appreciate knowledge, logic and reason, and to believe in a god who demands such dishonesty is absurd.<br /><br />I do not want a long death; I want a good and rewarding life. Death holds no fear for me, though I will regret knowing that I won't know what happens next. <br /><br />I was dead for 14 billion years before by birth and it did me no harm at all.Rosa Rubicondiorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06063268216781988588noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7583674511519808833.post-70136905192051399632010-12-22T19:39:13.989+00:002010-12-22T19:39:13.989+00:00I'm pretty sure that would have been the gener...I'm pretty sure that would have been the general set of events of how it unfolded,the concern that I have is where will it end. people get exposed to info at a rate we could never have imagined, this will have a effect on people's ability to absorb bullshit, the Ace that religion have up their sleeve is so ingenious. we want to live forever, so when you are telling a intelligent individual that he has to think, the evidence is clear,remember the first decision he has to make before he can even start to play with the idea of that this whole thing called religion is just a clever way to control him, is to give up the chance however slim it is, to receive eternal life. <br />you can only give them the truth and facts, there is now way that can compete with eternal live. I'm not sure if you have any religious back ground, but I came through the christian system. and I tell you your brain will not easily give up the chance to live forever.fannahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04723518023134435311noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7583674511519808833.post-20517790054734308762010-11-12T20:35:23.299+00:002010-11-12T20:35:23.299+00:00Great summary. A modern example of this is the dic...Great summary. A modern example of this is the dictatorship of North Korea, where the Kims are deified as the "alpha" protectors of the people, but also feared by the people. Hitchens has a great discourse on North Korea in this view.EBhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15812484527523840337noreply@blogger.com