Re: [asa] Religious brainwashing

*The word "complete" is key -- and I'm in full agreement with you. But
> are you accepting it as a potential partial explanation, then?*

Well, I'd have to nuance this. Could it be that people are naturally wired
to desire supernatural explanations for the troubles and vagueries of life?
Sure. Does this partially "explain" religion? That notion makes me nervous
because that seems to say that religion isn't a phenomenon with its own
integrity. It seems to make a "scientific explanation" the final and
complete arbiter of reality. What I think I'd prefer to say is that the
natural human disposition towards the supernatural supports human contact
with the supernatural. In other words, God wired us to facilitate
fellowship with Himself.

On 9/21/07, mrb22667@kansas.net <mrb22667@kansas.net> wrote:
> Quoting David Opderbeck <dopderbeck@gmail.com>:
> > If the "wish fulfillment" meme is really so powerful, then, for all we
> > really know the "laws" of physics will change tomorrow and all human
> > pretenses to knowledge about anything will be wiped away.
> >
> > As a critical realist of some sort, of course, I don't accept such a
notion
> > as reasonable. I can't rule it out, but I have no real reason to accept
> > it. But this suggests I have no real reason to accept it as a complete
> > explanation of religious belief either. If human perception and
cognition
> > evolved to interact with some degree of fidelity to an actual external
> > physical reality, then it seems reasonable to suggest that human
religious
> > psychology also evolved to interact with some degree of fidelity to some
> > actual external reality -- that there actually is something spiritual
behind
> > the human inclination towards spirituality. It seems to me that the
only
> > reason to exclude this possibility *per se* is a prior commitment to
> > philosophical materialism.
>
> We agree that nothing here is proven either way --as most every serious
thinker
> would agree. It is in the operating assumptions we're merely "pretty sure
> about" -- or at least sure enough to live by them where things get
interesting.
> I hear echoes of Lewis in your assertions -- I think he was pretty strong
on
> the exclusiveness of naturally explained morality from true <M>orality.
I.e.
> both explanations couldn't be true. (I hope I'm not butchering Lewis
here.)
> But that "exclusivist" assumption is exactly what I'm poking at here --
and I
> think Lewis got challenged on this too while he was still alive in his
debates
> with Elizabeth Anscombe, [another Christian]. Yet you go on to say..."I
have
> no real reason to accept it as a complete explanation of religious belief
> either." The word "complete" is key -- and I'm in full agreement with
you. But
> are you accepting it as a potential partial explanation, then? Am I
reading
> you rightly?
>
> --Merv
>

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Fri Sep 21 20:41:49 2007