IUBio Biosequences .. Software .. Molbio soft .. Network News .. FTP

THE PHILOSOPHY OF BIO-RELIGION

Richard F Hall realistic at seanet.com
Sun Aug 1 07:42:58 EST 1999


On Thu, 29 Jul 1999 11:10:47 -0400, in sci.philosophy.meta you wrote:

Dear Mr. McDill:
First, thank you for this response.
I feel you may be able to responde to a couple of quick questions.
However, I will understand if you feel they cannot be delt with on
usenet.
>	Firstly, your definition of religious thinking suffers the same
>flaws that Sigmund Freud made in his work THE FUTURE OF AN ILLUSION. In
>this work, Freud pulled a definition of religion out of thin air based on
>his own western-protestant prejudices, further flavored by semantic
>relations found in his native German language ("this is synonymous with
>that"). 
Do you recognize the summary I have presented as being of a Freudian 
origin?  Although I have worked on the summary for some time, it was 
supplied by some mentors originally.  I have no idea as to it's origin
if it is not original to my source.

>	There has been a huge amount of research in the fields of
>Sociology, Anthropology, Psychology, and Comparative Religion (and a
>consequent huge body of scholarly work) seeking to arrive at a definition
>or characterization of "religion" that can apply universally to all
>cultures. It's tougher than most people might think. 
I agree, that's why I'm here.

>"Faith" and "humility" are not universal, for example.
If there is an exception, it has excaped my knowledge.  But this is
not important unless you care to address it.

>	If you care to get a start on a more all-encompassing definition
>of religion, start with Emile Durckheim's work, then look at Weber &
>Mauss, Malinowski, Bataille, and Foucault. Forget Jung, Campbell, Freud,
>and Frazer. Too cluttered with myth and archetype.
Sociology, anthropology, evolution of religious literature and
religious philosophy, and the various other approaches represented 
here are actually not as specific as I care to approach the subject.
Plus, there is a ton of literature surrounding these cited authors..
do you have any specifics in mind?  I will continue wading through and
looking for something germain if you don't.  I see Foucault is rather
anti-Freudian. It doesn't bother me one way or the other but much of
his writing has nothing to do with religion-and-biology.  I'm lost so
far.

>	You further complicate your approach by attaching
>biological/functional attributes to religion, little or no hard-science
>citation. Please give a more convincing, empirical argument. 
If you can find any "hard science" regarding this issue, I would
appreciated it. I doubt if many people have even considered this as an
biological issue, which is the purpose for this post.

>Science is no place for semantic games.
ok. But all science started with semantics as reason explaining
evidence.

>	Good luck.
many thanks, 

>	CPM
rich
http://www.seanet.com/~realistic/idealism
realistic idealism
starting this journey with a step.On Thu, 29 Jul 1999 11:10:47 -0400,
Christopher P McDill <cpm20 at columbia.edu> wrote:

>	I feel I should give a nutshell critique of your manifesto here.
>You are clearly trying to promote an idea based on some kind of epiphany
>that you've had, but you've not done enough homework to justify turning a
>hypothesis into a "philosophy."
>	Firstly, your definition of religious thinking suffers the same
>flaws that Sigmund Freud made in his work THE FUTURE OF AN ILLUSION. In
>this work, Freud pulled a definition of religion out of thin air based on
>his own western-protestant prejudices, further flavored by semantic
>relations found in his native German language ("this is synonymous with
>that"). 
>	There has been a huge amount of research in the fields of
>Sociology, Anthropology, Psychology, and Comparative Religion (and a
>consequent huge body of scholarly work) seeking to arrive at a definition
>or characterization of "religion" that can apply universally to all
>cultures. It's tougher than most people might think. "Faith" and
>"humility" are not universal, for example.
>	If you care to get a start on a more all-encompassing definition
>of religion, start with Emile Durckheim's work, then look at Weber &
>Mauss, Malinowski, Bataille, and Foucault. Forget Jung, Campbell, Freud,
>and Frazer. Too cluttered with myth and archetype.
>	You further complicate your approach by attaching
>biological/functional attributes to religion, little or no hard-science
>citation. Please give a more convincing, empirical argument. Science is no
>place for semantic games.
>	Good luck.
>	CPM
>




More information about the Neur-sci mailing list

Send comments to us at biosci-help [At] net.bio.net