Darwiniana

History, Evolution, and The Darwin Debate

Darwiniana header image 2

The failure of biological theories of the evolution of religion

March 28th, 2015 · No Comments

http://portside.org/2015-03-28/%E2%80%98rap-guide-religion%E2%80%99-examines-why-humanity-created-god
Clever vide0, but it shows how secular humanists are misled by bad biology.

http://darwiniana.com/2015/03/28/another-non-darwinian-biologist-we-need-to-know-about-mae-wan-ho/

I am disappointed that as the author of WHEE I was never invited to such occasions as the Altenberg, etc, conferences. I was actually interviewed by Suzan Mazur, but she and all biologists can’t handle the radical new paradign in WHEE. Biologists need to see what ‘evolution’ means in the larger context of human emergence into history. Suddenly we realize that genetics is not the key. The Altenberg group produced a misleading commentary that seemed radical but never escaped the darwinian background.

Why do you need to study WHEE? Consider the first link and consider the way education in darwinism creates confusion. But even dissenters against darwinism, as with the Altenberg 16 etc, are unable to escape the paradigms beyond the paradigm.
The question of the evolution of religion is a good example: there is no biological explanation for the evolution of religion. We can’t conclude much without defining religion, but it is pretty clear that evolutionary psychology bungles the job totally.
WHEE shows the clear context of historical ‘macroevolution (?)’ in the emergence of religion with respect to the data of the Axial Age. And much else. We cannot muck about with genetic reductionism.

The model in WHEE is helpful for looking at evolution in a larger context, and this is almost essential in the study of the emergence of homo sapiens (and no doubt homo erectus et al.) Suddenly we are outside of pure biology.
I think that biologists are simply frozen in place: it should be obvious that human evolution needs something drastically different from darwinism. The issues of consciousness, art, creativity, religion, soul, and ethical agency are simply not going to yield to genetic analysis.

What do we mean by soul? we don’t even know that: we suspect a noumenal aspect. But, whatever the case, the issue is that the human ‘macro-organism’ or ‘total body’ has an element that is outsdie of space/time. It is hard to avoid the suspicion this is the key to the complete misunderstanding. Every culture of man, until the rise of modern science, always assumed, and tried to make sense of the larger dimension of man. So biology is in many ways a retreat from the real problem.

Take the question of ‘soul’: many thinkers far from biology have suggested that the ‘soul’ factor enters with homo sapiens. What does this mean, and how can science understand the ‘spirit world’ that so obsessed early men? Biologists are unable to even conceive of what is necessary here. Not that anyone else is much better. But the issue won’t go away: the human frame has a non-genetic component that we don’t understand at all.It is worth noting that earliest men do not seem to be monotheists: we see the birth of monotheism much later….

WHEE: http://history-and-evolution.com/whee4th/intro1_1_1.htm

Tags: General

0 responses so far ↓

  • There are no comments yet...Kick things off by filling out the form below.

Leave a Comment