As a non-christian/atheist, I believe that people can learn to love each other, but without the addition of a God. People should not have to follow counterintuitive faith in order to belong to a group that enhances their fitness by creating a net of trust and community. This is exactly what the Unitarian Universalists have done, with which I consider myself to be a member. In unitarianism, we believe in a set of axioms that guide an individual toward moral behavior, but without an omnipotent being. We have still created a community of tolerance and trust that resembles that in a monotheistic setting.
Secondly, the theories of agent detection, causal reasoning, and theory of mind seem much more plausible than believing in something or someone that cannot be sensed or observed. Brain behavior, cognitive development, and evolutionary genetics have progressed greatly in the last century, even in the last ten years making the actual physical manifestations of the psychological of human behavior more readily observed. Scientific research through repetition of observation from a creditable source carries more weight than faith (Atran, James).
I do agree that religion can bring a level of comfort, security, and peace that science may not be able to provide. I believe that religion is a necessary crutch in a positive way. But the definition of religion to me means a guideline for living life in a healthy manner. This does not mean that a belief in God or faith in immaterial beings is necessary.
In addition, religion may have been a byproduct of brain evolution and an adaptation to environment at the same time. But I also agree that these theories probably will not affect people's personal beliefs, whether atheistic or not.
Friday, March 30, 2007
Thursday, March 29, 2007
Neanderthals in Love: critique
I found the "Neanderthals in Love" by Steve Mithen somewhat imaginary. The theory that Neanderthals hummed in order to communicate (p. 221) is a strange phenomenon, if it actually occurred. Humming was utilized to sing to infants as well, and to sing in general. Mithen also claims that Neanderthals danced and sang in caves, using all sorts of percussive materials including bone fragments and stone in order to make noise (242). The only way to know with certainty how Neanderthals lived their culture is to be there when it happens.
The main topic for discussion that was compelling in "Neanderthals in Love" was the debate about whether Neanderthals could speak a language. According to Mithen, humming is enough if sufficient inflections and emphasis variables are included. The physiology of Neanderthals suggests that they may have been properly equipped to speak a language, since their oral and pharyngeal morphology closely resembles that of Homo sapiens (226). Auditory sensations should have been close to that of modern humans by 300000 years ago (227). The hypoglossal canal was larger than that of Homo sapiens, which may have increased speaking ability. In addition, the average brain cavity was larger than that of modern humans, suggesting a higher intelligence than Neanderthal ancestors. The brain volume to body mass ratio, or encephalization quotient, is 5.3 in Homo sapiens, while Homo neanderthalis had a ratio of 4.8. Homo heidelbergensis had an encephalization quotient of about 3.5 (p. 223). Lastly, the tool making procedures, burial of dead, and hunting of animals had to have had some form of communication. In order to coordinate such pursuits, some form of complex communication was needed.
Unfortunately, there are many arguments against the idea of speech in Neanderthals. Neanderthals had a fairly stable society, which meant that they may not have needed to develop complex methods of communication to teach the same methods of survival from parent to child. Males also developed according to Mithen from a singing and tool bearing courtship behavior to the provider, a role that did not require the ability to sing or communicate as well. Further, many modern apes have large hypoglossal canals as well as large brains, but they cannot communicate as well and are not nearly as intelligent as Homo sapiens (p. 226). In addition, Neanderthals were fairly isolated from one another, and lived in small groups. This does not allow for much spread of knowledge or communication enhancement. More importantly, Mithen states that although Neanderthals had higher encephalization quotients, they did not possess the "cognitive fluidity" (p. 233) to make intuitive connection between different aspects of life. They lacked the neural networks to bridge the gaps between culture and hunting. Therefore making a flute from a bear bone was inconceivable for a Neanderthal. Lastly, there are no symbolic artefacts to point to a written language, or any art for that matter. The lack of symbolic artifacts points to a lack of language development. I believe this would include humming, which sounds ridiculous anyway. According to these findings, the more convincing argument is the no language one.
The main topic for discussion that was compelling in "Neanderthals in Love" was the debate about whether Neanderthals could speak a language. According to Mithen, humming is enough if sufficient inflections and emphasis variables are included. The physiology of Neanderthals suggests that they may have been properly equipped to speak a language, since their oral and pharyngeal morphology closely resembles that of Homo sapiens (226). Auditory sensations should have been close to that of modern humans by 300000 years ago (227). The hypoglossal canal was larger than that of Homo sapiens, which may have increased speaking ability. In addition, the average brain cavity was larger than that of modern humans, suggesting a higher intelligence than Neanderthal ancestors. The brain volume to body mass ratio, or encephalization quotient, is 5.3 in Homo sapiens, while Homo neanderthalis had a ratio of 4.8. Homo heidelbergensis had an encephalization quotient of about 3.5 (p. 223). Lastly, the tool making procedures, burial of dead, and hunting of animals had to have had some form of communication. In order to coordinate such pursuits, some form of complex communication was needed.
Unfortunately, there are many arguments against the idea of speech in Neanderthals. Neanderthals had a fairly stable society, which meant that they may not have needed to develop complex methods of communication to teach the same methods of survival from parent to child. Males also developed according to Mithen from a singing and tool bearing courtship behavior to the provider, a role that did not require the ability to sing or communicate as well. Further, many modern apes have large hypoglossal canals as well as large brains, but they cannot communicate as well and are not nearly as intelligent as Homo sapiens (p. 226). In addition, Neanderthals were fairly isolated from one another, and lived in small groups. This does not allow for much spread of knowledge or communication enhancement. More importantly, Mithen states that although Neanderthals had higher encephalization quotients, they did not possess the "cognitive fluidity" (p. 233) to make intuitive connection between different aspects of life. They lacked the neural networks to bridge the gaps between culture and hunting. Therefore making a flute from a bear bone was inconceivable for a Neanderthal. Lastly, there are no symbolic artefacts to point to a written language, or any art for that matter. The lack of symbolic artifacts points to a lack of language development. I believe this would include humming, which sounds ridiculous anyway. According to these findings, the more convincing argument is the no language one.
Genesis Critique
I would like to address a few subjects concerning Genesis of the Bible. Firstly, whoever wrote Genesis was obviously anthropocentric. Man was supposedly created by God in God's image (1.26). Why would man be in God's image, when we know that humans have evolved for long periods of time due to adaptation to environmental conditions? Further, mankind is given dominion over the "wild animals of the earth" (1.26). What makes man any less wild than the animals that were called so? The only logical answer is that whoever wrote Genesis thought highly of mankind over any other species. On the same note, no plants or herbs could grow in the Earth before it was tilled, suggesting that agricultural practices of mankind were needed for plants to grow (2.5). Humans in the grand scheme of ecosystems are not all that important. Needless to say, we are not necessary for the ecosystem, except to fix all of the problems that we have created by imposing our dominion over nature. Genesis only seems to try to justify our overuse of resources.
The second subject I would like to address is the idea that women were made from men (2.22). Supposedly Adam was put to sleep and one of his ribs was used to create a woman. This tries to explain the difference in bone structure between men and women, which is entirely false. The extra rib is due to evolution especially for child bearing. Another tenet of Genesis is that women are ruled by men (3.16). In evolution, feminism came first long before masculinity existed. Consider the fact that in mitosis replicated cells are called daughter cells. A second example is that female aphids reproduce clonaly in the summer, called parthenogenesis. The offspring are all female, which are born with viable ovaries as well. Lastly, childbirth in mammals is painful for all species, not just humans. However, only humans are addressed because of the original anthropocentric bias to Genesis. The reasoning for women being suboordinate to men in the Bible was probably driven by the church in order to retain power in a patriarchal society in the Middle Ages and Renaisance Period.
The third subject I would like to address is the idea of original sin. Original sin revolves around the exile of the first people from the Garden of Eden because of the transgression against the will of God (3). Why create a tree of knowledge of good and evil if people cannot use it? I cannot think of a worse argument for this religion than the idea of ignorance is bliss. According to Genesis then, pain and toil are the prices of knowledge. Again, Genesis tries to explain the ways of the world by blaming snakes for causing the exile from Eden since they lack legs (3.14). Snakes have vestigial legs in their skeleton however, suggesting that evolution was the most likely causal agent. Lastly, The Garden of Eden was located according to Genesis somewhere in Southern Iraq. What about the rest of the world? Only four rivers in the middle East are described. Nothing is mentioned about the Americas because no one knew about those areas yet. If there was a God, then wouldn't the authors of Genesis be a little more worldly, especially since clergy were supposed to be able to communicate with Him? The idea of original sin and a Garden of Eden makes me angry, because no such place ever existed. Why spread lies and try to instill hope for a place that does not exist?
The second subject I would like to address is the idea that women were made from men (2.22). Supposedly Adam was put to sleep and one of his ribs was used to create a woman. This tries to explain the difference in bone structure between men and women, which is entirely false. The extra rib is due to evolution especially for child bearing. Another tenet of Genesis is that women are ruled by men (3.16). In evolution, feminism came first long before masculinity existed. Consider the fact that in mitosis replicated cells are called daughter cells. A second example is that female aphids reproduce clonaly in the summer, called parthenogenesis. The offspring are all female, which are born with viable ovaries as well. Lastly, childbirth in mammals is painful for all species, not just humans. However, only humans are addressed because of the original anthropocentric bias to Genesis. The reasoning for women being suboordinate to men in the Bible was probably driven by the church in order to retain power in a patriarchal society in the Middle Ages and Renaisance Period.
The third subject I would like to address is the idea of original sin. Original sin revolves around the exile of the first people from the Garden of Eden because of the transgression against the will of God (3). Why create a tree of knowledge of good and evil if people cannot use it? I cannot think of a worse argument for this religion than the idea of ignorance is bliss. According to Genesis then, pain and toil are the prices of knowledge. Again, Genesis tries to explain the ways of the world by blaming snakes for causing the exile from Eden since they lack legs (3.14). Snakes have vestigial legs in their skeleton however, suggesting that evolution was the most likely causal agent. Lastly, The Garden of Eden was located according to Genesis somewhere in Southern Iraq. What about the rest of the world? Only four rivers in the middle East are described. Nothing is mentioned about the Americas because no one knew about those areas yet. If there was a God, then wouldn't the authors of Genesis be a little more worldly, especially since clergy were supposed to be able to communicate with Him? The idea of original sin and a Garden of Eden makes me angry, because no such place ever existed. Why spread lies and try to instill hope for a place that does not exist?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)