Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
I read the news story, but there was nothing of substance in it other than the stated opinion of this one academic. He talks about the existence of studies to support his opinion, but he doesn't actually name them or go into many details in that article. One can, of course, cite academics arguing both sides of the issue, so we really need to know more about the specific kind of evidence that backs up his claim. For example, anthropologist Stewart Guthrie in Faces in the Clouds argues that we are hardwired to see ourselves in everything and that this is the reason for the ubiquitous belief in the existence of deities with human-like attributes. He cites lots of corroborating evidence for his hypothesis, but it is hard to find anything in it that would allow one to test the hypothesis. My own speculation is that deities represent idealized parental or adult authority, and belief in a deity helps one transition from childhood to adulthood without losing that comforting sense of guidance from an all-knowing, all-loving, all-powerful authority. However, I haven't a clue as to how to turn this speculation into a falsifiable hypothesis. AFAICT, there is no reason to believe that theism is anything more than a consequence of other human traits, many of which may be heritable.
Teleology makes more philosophical sense than that there is no purpose. The latter is something to "wrap our minds around."
Some FYI notes:
Pardon the annoying question, but which issue? That is, obviously Barrett's opinion isn't that of all scientists everywhere. However, I'm not sure I quite understand what the two sides you refer to are. Simply whether we are inclined towards belief in god, a more specific hypothesis, a more general one, or am I way off here? Thanks.
I hesitate to do this but just in case it is worthwhile for anybody Barrett has looked into this very question in e.g.,
As a neuroscientists do you deny that we have parts of our brain that have developed in ways that favor language? And that it is possible (probable and evolutionary necessary) that our language skills have shaped the development of our brain over the course of the last million years?
No. I believe we have.
Possible, yes. Directionality gets a bit dicey, though (chicken vs. egg and all).
This is incredibly wrong unless you are arguing against something I am not proposing. Language and communication was a key part of the evolution of our brains. **** poor communication as we advanced would have meant death. Picking up cues ect. However if you are arguing that we did not develop an innate language in our brain then yes that would be folly. It would also be folly to say that we evolve to meet any particular end.
You are correct on this matter. I have educated myself somewhat on the subject and have evolved my own position. It does bring into question the innate "ability to learn language" in the "fuzzy" threshold. The existence of this "fuzzy" threshold indicates that we have an innate ability to learn language and communicate. This still works towards my claim however I was very wrong about feral child syndrome.
Which rounds back to a point I made at the beginning of the post. I had never intended to state that there was a "single portion of our brain that deals with language" but that we have portions of our brain that deals specifically with our language skills. Major losses in most of those areas would debilitate our ability to speak. This is one reason why when people have strokes or other injuries to the brain they may still have the cognitive ability to think and have complex thoughts but be rendered incapable of translating that into language. I know such an individual. Brilliant man but can't string words together to prove it in many cases.
I don't think so and would like to see the specific evidence in which you would base this. The begingins of language and communication is found in almost every mammal and several non-mammal animals. This would indicate, to me at least, that it has been part of our brain for a long long time. However religious belief which may have come about from false agent detection. Or it could have been from responses to the higher level of understanding of one's own mortality as we developed more complex minds able to develop concepts. Either way, both of those would be far newer developments than simply communication. At least on the levels that we have.
To be clear my wording was not an attempt to indicate that we had a "direction" or "destination" for our evolution.
I didn't think you implied that. I meant directionality in terms of causation. That is, whether our brain has shaped our language skills vs. that "language skills have shaped the development of our brain"
Usually in evolution it is whatever survives to the next generation and whatever genes end up being useful at any given point in time. Though in several cases specific advantages can be honed over time if in almost all cases having the advancement or having a more advanced form of it would be universally "good" for its survival. I believe that language and other communicative skills would fall under this category. Those with more or better communication skills would usually survive better than those who do not in an almost universal way. Obviously other factors would be in play but I can't think of a single instance where having better communication would be worse than not.
