Over the past couple of centuries or so, many people have predicted
that, along with the increase of scientific knowledge about the
universe in general, and about the nature and history of life and of
our own species in particular, and about the nature and development of
civilization, that various religions which originated before such
knowledge was available would tend to fade away and be replaced with
more secular, rationalistic or scientific ways of thinking, and that
such ways of thinking would be accepted by the majority of people in
the world. It appears that such predictions were widely off the mark.
While particular religions have evolved over the centuries and
continue to do so, the tendency among most human beings to think in
mythological, spiritual or religious terms seems pretty much the same
as it has always been, since as far back as we can tell.

Perhaps the continuing prevalence of religion in human society today,
in spite of the increase in scientific knowledge, is a result of the
structure of our cognitive architecture, which may have evolved the
way it did because it gave our ancestors a competitive advantage to
believe in such things as gods and spirits, etc. Our brains evolve
much too slowly for our modern scientifically and technologically
advanced civilization (or even simpler agricultural-based
civilization) to have had any measurable effect upon our cognitive
architecture, and so we're stuck with "stone-age" minds living in a
scientific age.

If such a hypothesis is correct, perhaps it's possible to make it
through this scientific age, to not go extinct as a species, even with
all the dangers that threaten us, even with stone-age minds. If we
take due account of how we got here, and of the nature of our
cognitive architecture, and if we accelerate research regarding the
structure and functioning of that cognitive architecture, it may be
possible to devise some kind of cultural or educational corrective
measure to compensate for our stone-age cognitive architecture.
Otherwise, if those behavioral hypotheses we eventually have to rely
upon in moments of crisis are based on some other views of the mind,
which turn out to be incorrect, our chances may not be so good.

But then again, on the other hand, there's always the policy of
wishful thinking and trusting to luck to fall back on. That policy
seems to have worked occasionally in the past. Maybe it will work
this time as well. And maybe too much knowledge about the mind is a
dangerous thing. There are many people throughout history who have
warned us that science is a bad thing and that the quest for knowledge
has been the bane of humanity. That people should be satisfied with
what they already know and not seek to learn more. Perhaps they were
right all along, and that there are some things that should never be
discovered.

It's a question that everyone has to answer for themselves.

DV

Hi,

I am new, or rather back after absence in this group.

'stone-age cognitive architecture' lagging behind scientific knowledge?
Remedies for that would help save us from extinction?

I would criticise two premisses here:

The premisse of 'simplicity' in religious beliefs and ritual has been
corrected by structural anthropology (revealing highly elaborate systems of
cognitive and social order in low technology societies).

The premisse of increased scientific knowledge shared by mankind ignores the
fact that at least 90% of mankind has no access to or hold on that body of
knowledge (which is basically technology), while those who have are happy to
use religious symbols to keep it that way.

more secular, rationalistic or scientific ways of thinking, and that
such ways of thinking would be accepted by the majority of people in
the world. It appears that such predictions were widely off the mark.

Over the past couple of centuries or so, many people have predicted
that, along with the increase of scientific knowledge about the
universe in general, and about the nature and history of life and of
our own species in particular, and about the nature and development of
civilization, that various religions which originated before such
knowledge was available would tend to fade away and be replaced with
more secular, rationalistic or scientific ways of thinking, and that
such ways of thinking would be accepted by the majority of people in
the world. It appears that such predictions were widely off the mark.
While particular religions have evolved over the centuries and
continue to do so, the tendency among most human beings to think in
mythological, spiritual or religious terms seems pretty much the same
as it has always been, since as far back as we can tell.

Perhaps the continuing prevalence of religion in human society today,
in spite of the increase in scientific knowledge, is a result of the
structure of our cognitive architecture, which may have evolved the
way it did because it gave our ancestors a competitive advantage to
believe in such things as gods and spirits, etc. Our brains evolve
much too slowly for our modern scientifically and technologically
advanced civilization (or even simpler agricultural-based
civilization) to have had any measurable effect upon our cognitive
architecture, and so we're stuck with "stone-age" minds living in a
scientific age.

If such a hypothesis is correct, perhaps it's possible to make it
through this scientific age, to not go extinct as a species, even with
all the dangers that threaten us, even with stone-age minds. If we
take due account of how we got here, and of the nature of our
cognitive architecture, and if we accelerate research regarding the
structure and functioning of that cognitive architecture, it may be
possible to devise some kind of cultural or educational corrective
measure to compensate for our stone-age cognitive architecture.
Otherwise, if those behavioral hypotheses we eventually have to rely
upon in moments of crisis are based on some other views of the mind,
which turn out to be incorrect, our chances may not be so good.

But then again, on the other hand, there's always the policy of
wishful thinking and trusting to luck to fall back on. That policy
seems to have worked occasionally in the past. Maybe it will work
this time as well. And maybe too much knowledge about the mind is a
dangerous thing. There are many people throughout history who have
warned us that science is a bad thing and that the quest for knowledge
has been the bane of humanity. That people should be satisfied with
what they already know and not seek to learn more. Perhaps they were
right all along, and that there are some things that should never be
discovered.

It's a question that everyone has to answer for themselves.

DV

Hi,

I am new, or rather back after absence in this group.

'stone-age cognitive architecture' lagging behind scientific knowledge?
Remedies for that would help save us from extinction?

I would criticise two premisses here:

The premisse of 'simplicity' in religious beliefs and ritual has been
corrected by structural anthropology (revealing highly elaborate systems
of
cognitive and social order in low technology societies).

The premisse of increased scientific knowledge shared by mankind ignores
the
fact that at least 90% of mankind has no access to or hold on that body of
knowledge (which is basically technology), while those who have are happy
to
use religious symbols to keep it that way.

Best
Leo


"darth_versive" <darth_versive@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:8e0e3045.0312261941.520f4f5e@posting.google.com...
Over the past couple of centuries or so, many people have predicted
that, along with the increase of scientific knowledge about the
universe in general, and about the nature and history of life and of
our own species in particular, and about the nature and development of
civilization, that various religions which originated before such
knowledge was available would tend to fade away and be replaced with
more secular, rationalistic or scientific ways of thinking, and that
such ways of thinking would be accepted by the majority of people in
the world. It appears that such predictions were widely off the mark.
While particular religions have evolved over the centuries and
continue to do so, the tendency among most human beings to think in
mythological, spiritual or religious terms seems pretty much the same
as it has always been, since as far back as we can tell.

Perhaps the continuing prevalence of religion in human society today,
in spite of the increase in scientific knowledge, is a result of the
structure of our cognitive architecture, which may have evolved the
way it did because it gave our ancestors a competitive advantage to
believe in such things as gods and spirits, etc. Our brains evolve
much too slowly for our modern scientifically and technologically
advanced civilization (or even simpler agricultural-based
civilization) to have had any measurable effect upon our cognitive
architecture, and so we're stuck with "stone-age" minds living in a
scientific age.

If such a hypothesis is correct, perhaps it's possible to make it
through this scientific age, to not go extinct as a species, even with
all the dangers that threaten us, even with stone-age minds. If we
take due account of how we got here, and of the nature of our
cognitive architecture, and if we accelerate research regarding the
structure and functioning of that cognitive architecture, it may be
possible to devise some kind of cultural or educational corrective
measure to compensate for our stone-age cognitive architecture.
Otherwise, if those behavioral hypotheses we eventually have to rely
upon in moments of crisis are based on some other views of the mind,
which turn out to be incorrect, our chances may not be so good.

But then again, on the other hand, there's always the policy of
wishful thinking and trusting to luck to fall back on. That policy
seems to have worked occasionally in the past. Maybe it will work
this time as well. And maybe too much knowledge about the mind is a
dangerous thing. There are many people throughout history who have
warned us that science is a bad thing and that the quest for knowledge
has been the bane of humanity. That people should be satisfied with
what they already know and not seek to learn more. Perhaps they were
right all along, and that there are some things that should never be
discovered.

It's a question that everyone has to answer for themselves.

DV

Over the past couple of centuries or so, many people have predicted
that, along with the increase of scientific knowledge about the
universe in general, and about the nature and history of life and of
our own species in particular, and about the nature and development of
civilization, that various religions which originated before such
knowledge was available would tend to fade away and be replaced with
more secular, rationalistic or scientific ways of thinking, and that
such ways of thinking would be accepted by the majority of people in
the world. It appears that such predictions were widely off the mark.
While particular religions have evolved over the centuries and
continue to do so, the tendency among most human beings to think in
mythological, spiritual or religious terms seems pretty much the same
as it has always been, since as far back as we can tell.

Perhaps the continuing prevalence of religion in human society today,
in spite of the increase in scientific knowledge, is a result of the
structure of our cognitive architecture, which may have evolved the
way it did because it gave our ancestors a competitive advantage to
believe in such things as gods and spirits, etc. Our brains evolve
much too slowly for our modern scientifically and technologically
advanced civilization (or even simpler agricultural-based
civilization) to have had any measurable effect upon our cognitive
architecture, and so we're stuck with "stone-age" minds living in a
scientific age.

If such a hypothesis is correct, perhaps it's possible to make it
through this scientific age, to not go extinct as a species, even with
all the dangers that threaten us, even with stone-age minds. If we
take due account of how we got here, and of the nature of our
cognitive architecture, and if we accelerate research regarding the
structure and functioning of that cognitive architecture, it may be
possible to devise some kind of cultural or educational corrective
measure to compensate for our stone-age cognitive architecture.
Otherwise, if those behavioral hypotheses we eventually have to rely
upon in moments of crisis are based on some other views of the mind,
which turn out to be incorrect, our chances may not be so good.

But then again, on the other hand, there's always the policy of
wishful thinking and trusting to luck to fall back on. That policy
seems to have worked occasionally in the past. Maybe it will work
this time as well. And maybe too much knowledge about the mind is a
dangerous thing. There are many people throughout history who have
warned us that science is a bad thing and that the quest for knowledge
has been the bane of humanity. That people should be satisfied with
what they already know and not seek to learn more. Perhaps they were
right all along, and that there are some things that should never be
discovered.

It's a question that everyone has to answer for themselves.

DV

"Leo Schmit" <ltschmit@wanadoo.nl> wrote in message
news:<3fed75b3$0$16880$1b62eedf@news.wanadoo.nl>...
Hi,

I am new, or rather back after absence in this group.

'stone-age cognitive architecture' lagging behind scientific knowledge?
Remedies for that would help save us from extinction?

I would criticise two premisses here:

The premisse of 'simplicity' in religious beliefs and ritual has been
corrected by structural anthropology (revealing highly elaborate systems
of
cognitive and social order in low technology societies).

I don't hold to the premise that religious beliefs and rituals are
simple in their structure. They are, as you say, quite elaborate in
detail. Nor does the idea that our cognitive architecture evolved
during the stone age, and gave us a tendency to think in these types
of ways, mean that our conceptual systems are simple in their
structure. After all, that same cognitive architecture enables us to
do complex mathematical calculations, etc.

So, I think you're wrongly attributing to this hypothesis a premise
that isn't actually a part of it.

The premisse of increased scientific knowledge shared by mankind ignores
the
fact that at least 90% of mankind has no access to or hold on that body
of
knowledge (which is basically technology), while those who have are
happy to
use religious symbols to keep it that way.

This is also a good premise to criticize, but like with the first one,
this hypothesis doesn't involve this premise either. It fully
recognizes that the majority of the world's population has little or
no acquaintance with modern science or technology. In fact, this
hypothesis stated this explicity:

more secular, rationalistic or scientific ways of thinking, and that
such ways of thinking would be accepted by the majority of people in
the world. It appears that such predictions were widely off the mark.

Which is to say, that the majority of the world's people do *not*
embrace scientific ways of thinking.

So, while I grant that both of these premises should rightly be
criticized if someone were to promote a hypothesis that was based upon
them, neither of them has anything to do with the hypothesis that I'm
promoting here.

DV

Points taken. Let me go back to your argument then and try out some furhter
comments:

"the increase of scientific knowledge about the
universe in general, and about the nature and history of life and of our own
species in particular, and about the nature and development of
civilization"...

This line suggests "increased availability of/access to science", which
brings you to the question how it can be expected to impact on the
'evolution of our cognitive architecture? That's why I bring up the kowledge
gap (90%). You cannot manipulate or 'correct' stone-age cognitive structures
scientifically, when presently the basic awareness among the large majority
of the target population of scientific achievements is absent. In any case
'evolution' is a misnomer for such brave-new-world interventions.

Which brings me back to my first point: Think of the strand in anthropology
that analyses religion and ritual as proto-scientific (cognitive)
endeavours, mapping the prevailng body of knowledge (tools, technics, herbal
healing, colours, alliances, economics, etc.) of a community.

Thus in a very effective (repetitive) way, knowledge and belief systems are
matched for all participants from infants to elders.

"Otherwise, if those behavioral hypotheses we eventually have to rely upon
in moments of crisis are based on some other views of the mind, which turn
out to be incorrect, our chances may not be so good."

Which hypothesis you counter with the OTH point that perhaps the
'incorrect', stone-age views might prove once more to be helpful.

Equation of science with 'correctness' is risky too, we know from Popper:
refuting is the best we can do.

Other comments, other angles may bring this thread further.

darth_versive@yahoo.com (darth_versive) wrote in message news:<8e0e3045.0312261941.520f4f5e@posting.google.com>...

There is nothing wrong with our Stone Age cognitive architecture. It
worked just fine for Einstein, Beethoven and Michaelangelo.

Most likely "the continuing prevalence of religion in human society
today, in spite of the increase in scientific knowledge, is a result
of"... the state of our pre-Stone Age (and actually declining)
education system.

There was a posting to Usenet just a while back on the number of
people who didn't know that the Sun is part of the Milky Way galaxy,
or what that is, the number who thought the earth was only a few
thousand years old, who thought dinosaurs and humans shared the Earth,
and - quite shockingly - the number who thought the Sun revolved
around the Earth.

Obviously, if you raise kids to be dumb and docile and prey to mushy
sentimentality, then bible-thumping fundamentalism is what you get. It
is the neuron-rotting enslaved sentimentality of such minds that's the
problem, not mythological or spiritual conceptions as such.

skeptickal1@yahoo.com (Skeptical1) wrote in message
news:<b9492359.0312271956.3bec859f@posting.google.com>...
darth_versive@yahoo.com (darth_versive) wrote in message
news:<8e0e3045.0312261941.520f4f5e@posting.google.com>...

There is nothing wrong with our Stone Age cognitive architecture. It
worked just fine for Einstein, Beethoven and Michaelangelo.

Problem is, it also worked just fine for Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, and
now for Osama bin Laden, etc. Do you still think that there's
"nothing wrong with it"?

The long-term aim of this hypothesis is to help grease the skids for
the new Einsteins, Beethovens, and Michaelangelos, while throwing
roadblocks in the way of the new Hitlers, Stalins, and Pol Pots, etc.

And to do this, a better understanding of the nature of that cognitive
architecture, of the environment in which it arose, and of the
knowledge structures which arise from it is necessary, in my view, if
we are to have a reasonable chance of accomplishing this long-term
aim.

Most likely "the continuing prevalence of religion in human society
today, in spite of the increase in scientific knowledge, is a result
of"... the state of our pre-Stone Age (and actually declining)
education system.

Exactly. But our educational system was devised, and is implemented
by, people who possess this stone-age cognitive architecture, and who
subscribe, in large part, to these various religious views. If we
want to reform it, we need behavioral hypotheses which rest on an
accurate view of the nature of the mind. Hence the need for more and
better research on this score.

There was a posting to Usenet just a while back on the number of
people who didn't know that the Sun is part of the Milky Way galaxy,
or what that is, the number who thought the earth was only a few
thousand years old, who thought dinosaurs and humans shared the Earth,
and - quite shockingly - the number who thought the Sun revolved
around the Earth.

Yes. Like I said in my original post, "many people have predicted
that, along with the increase of scientific knowledge about the
universe in general, and about the nature and history of life and of
our own species in particular, and about the nature and development of
civilization, that various religions which originated before such
knowledge was available would tend to fade away and be replaced with
more secular, rationalistic or scientific ways of thinking, and that
such ways of thinking would be accepted by the majority of people in
the world. It appears that such predictions were widely off the
mark."

Obviously, if you raise kids to be dumb and docile and prey to mushy
sentimentality, then bible-thumping fundamentalism is what you get. It
is the neuron-rotting enslaved sentimentality of such minds that's the
problem, not mythological or spiritual conceptions as such.

Yes. But our cognitive architecture is at the root of the problem, in
my view. Like I said.

Those who raise their kinds to be dumb and docile have the kind of
cognitive architecture that leads them to tend to think this way. And
their kids raise their own kids in the same way. To break the cycle,
we need behavioral hypotheses which are based on a more scientific
view of the mind--and that includes a recognition of the role of
evolutionary psychological processes in shaping our cognitive
architecture, in my view. And the role of that cognitive architecture
in shaping our knowledge structures.

DV

skeptickal1@yahoo.com (Skeptical1) wrote in message news:<b9492359.0312271956.3bec859f@posting.google.com>...
darth_versive@yahoo.com (darth_versive) wrote in message news:<8e0e3045.0312261941.520f4f5e@posting.google.com>...

There is nothing wrong with our Stone Age cognitive architecture. It
worked just fine for Einstein, Beethoven and Michaelangelo.

Problem is, it also worked just fine for Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, and
now for Osama bin Laden, etc. Do you still think that there's
"nothing wrong with it"?

The long-term aim of this hypothesis is to help grease the skids for
the new Einsteins, Beethovens, and Michaelangelos, while throwing
roadblocks in the way of the new Hitlers, Stalins, and Pol Pots, etc.

And to do this, a better understanding of the nature of that cognitive
architecture, of the environment in which it arose, and of the
knowledge structures which arise from it is necessary, in my view, if
we are to have a reasonable chance of accomplishing this long-term
aim.

Most likely "the continuing prevalence of religion in human society
today, in spite of the increase in scientific knowledge, is a result
of"... the state of our pre-Stone Age (and actually declining)
education system.

Exactly. But our educational system was devised, and is implemented
by, people who possess this stone-age cognitive architecture, and who
subscribe, in large part, to these various religious views. If we
want to reform it, we need behavioral hypotheses which rest on an
accurate view of the nature of the mind. Hence the need for more and
better research on this score.

There was a posting to Usenet just a while back on the number of
people who didn't know that the Sun is part of the Milky Way galaxy,
or what that is, the number who thought the earth was only a few
thousand years old, who thought dinosaurs and humans shared the Earth,
and - quite shockingly - the number who thought the Sun revolved
around the Earth.

Yes. Like I said in my original post, "many people have predicted
that, along with the increase of scientific knowledge about the
universe in general, and about the nature and history of life and of
our own species in particular, and about the nature and development of
civilization, that various religions which originated before such
knowledge was available would tend to fade away and be replaced with
more secular, rationalistic or scientific ways of thinking, and that
such ways of thinking would be accepted by the majority of people in
the world. It appears that such predictions were widely off the
mark."

Obviously, if you raise kids to be dumb and docile and prey to mushy
sentimentality, then bible-thumping fundamentalism is what you get. It
is the neuron-rotting enslaved sentimentality of such minds that's the
problem, not mythological or spiritual conceptions as such.

Yes. But our cognitive architecture is at the root of the problem, in
my view. Like I said.

Those who raise their kinds to be dumb and docile have the kind of
cognitive architecture that leads them to tend to think this way. And
their kids raise their own kids in the same way. To break the cycle,
we need behavioral hypotheses which are based on a more scientific
view of the mind--and that includes a recognition of the role of
evolutionary psychological processes in shaping our cognitive
architecture, in my view. And the role of that cognitive architecture
in shaping our knowledge structures.

DV

This thread is not worth any more of my time. You are confusing
cognitive capacities and mental contents. The former evolve over
biological timeframes, the latter are formed at memetic speeds and are
subject to education, socioeconomic pressures and so forth. The
cognitive basis of mythology includes such things as the capacities
for analogy, metaphor and attribution. These are useful, necessary and
part of our humanity. The specific phenomena of religious
fundamentalisms, however, are memes and can be cured at the level of
education. Read Dawkins.

Harry (Skeptical1)

darth_versive@yahoo.com (darth_versive) wrote in message
news:<8e0e3045.0312281412.7c9eff4c@posting.google.com>...
skeptickal1@yahoo.com (Skeptical1) wrote in message
news:<b9492359.0312271956.3bec859f@posting.google.com>...
darth_versive@yahoo.com (darth_versive) wrote in message
news:<8e0e3045.0312261941.520f4f5e@posting.google.com>...

There is nothing wrong with our Stone Age cognitive architecture. It
worked just fine for Einstein, Beethoven and Michaelangelo.

Problem is, it also worked just fine for Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, and
now for Osama bin Laden, etc. Do you still think that there's
"nothing wrong with it"?

The long-term aim of this hypothesis is to help grease the skids for
the new Einsteins, Beethovens, and Michaelangelos, while throwing
roadblocks in the way of the new Hitlers, Stalins, and Pol Pots, etc.

And to do this, a better understanding of the nature of that cognitive
architecture, of the environment in which it arose, and of the
knowledge structures which arise from it is necessary, in my view, if
we are to have a reasonable chance of accomplishing this long-term
aim.

Most likely "the continuing prevalence of religion in human society
today, in spite of the increase in scientific knowledge, is a result
of"... the state of our pre-Stone Age (and actually declining)
education system.

Exactly. But our educational system was devised, and is implemented
by, people who possess this stone-age cognitive architecture, and who
subscribe, in large part, to these various religious views. If we
want to reform it, we need behavioral hypotheses which rest on an
accurate view of the nature of the mind. Hence the need for more and
better research on this score.

There was a posting to Usenet just a while back on the number of
people who didn't know that the Sun is part of the Milky Way galaxy,
or what that is, the number who thought the earth was only a few
thousand years old, who thought dinosaurs and humans shared the Earth,
and - quite shockingly - the number who thought the Sun revolved
around the Earth.

Yes. Like I said in my original post, "many people have predicted
that, along with the increase of scientific knowledge about the
universe in general, and about the nature and history of life and of
our own species in particular, and about the nature and development of
civilization, that various religions which originated before such
knowledge was available would tend to fade away and be replaced with
more secular, rationalistic or scientific ways of thinking, and that
such ways of thinking would be accepted by the majority of people in
the world. It appears that such predictions were widely off the
mark."

Obviously, if you raise kids to be dumb and docile and prey to mushy
sentimentality, then bible-thumping fundamentalism is what you get. It
is the neuron-rotting enslaved sentimentality of such minds that's the
problem, not mythological or spiritual conceptions as such.

Yes. But our cognitive architecture is at the root of the problem, in
my view. Like I said.

Those who raise their kinds to be dumb and docile have the kind of
cognitive architecture that leads them to tend to think this way. And
their kids raise their own kids in the same way. To break the cycle,
we need behavioral hypotheses which are based on a more scientific
view of the mind--and that includes a recognition of the role of
evolutionary psychological processes in shaping our cognitive
architecture, in my view. And the role of that cognitive architecture
in shaping our knowledge structures.

DV

This thread is not worth any more of my time. You are confusing
cognitive capacities and mental contents. The former evolve over
biological timeframes, the latter are formed at memetic speeds and are
subject to education, socioeconomic pressures and so forth. The
cognitive basis of mythology includes such things as the capacities
for analogy, metaphor and attribution. These are useful, necessary and
part of our humanity. The specific phenomena of religious
fundamentalisms, however, are memes and can be cured at the level of
education. Read Dawkins.

Harry (Skeptical1)

Perhaps the continuing prevalence of religion in human society today,
in spite of the increase in scientific knowledge, is a result of the
structure of our cognitive architecture, which may have evolved the
way it did because it gave our ancestors a competitive advantage to
believe in such things as gods and spirits, etc.

Our brains evolve
much too slowly...and so we're stuck with "stone-age" minds living in a
scientific age.

I passed because I noted that DV and Skep were discussing this topic at
another level.

However, I do appreciate the lucid engagement from DV on the more
down-to-earth rejoinders I could think of.

LS