Thanks for your explanations. They do seem to tread a line between the gnomic and the oracular, with a little Mohammed Ali thrown in ("inscrutable while not immutable"??). I do have a few comments for you, though.
Not necessarily--sometimes less is more. You know, that old "had I more time I would have written less" thing. My meaning here was a simple acknowledgement that by attempting brevity with a complex subject my
message had become opaque.
This doesn't sound like anthropology to me, more like evolutionary biology. And I'm always concerned when folks imply evolution is driven by some purpose. And who identified this developmental need? Is there a deity hidden in your passive construction? I do not attempt here either intentionally or unintentionally to imply that some particular "who" identified a developmental need. I simply point out, true to the understanding of science, that life itself, the component parts therein, are self deterministic. Nature. A seed planted will no doubt grow.
Really? How do you know that? Anthropology has shown it is true. Does this explain the cultural and behavioral shifts in accordance? No. Simple biological facts. I appear to be shifting between first person and third person POV.
So we invent God to explain what we don't understand? You seem to be saying humankind has an innate need for religion, which might be another way of saying religiosity is part of our being, which is my definition of what God is. No, I do not claim to understand why man feels driven to have a universal daddy other than the understanding that life is a lonely business when all around you is larger, seemingly more powerful, and scary. As it no doubt was during the primordial soup kitchen era. Man from the beginning needed a protector. If man today has an intrinsic need toward religiosity, genetic antecedents explain it.
I don't know what you mean by this. Here I am unmoored and rambling about scientific precepts. A mini "Science 101" if you will.
I don't know what you mean by this, either. Religion can be quite complex, it seems to me. Ah, and here you answer the question to which I queried. Religion IS complex, a wonderful tool for man to exercise control over his legion, a codified structure with a single end. But faith, FAITH, is as simple as simple can be, as faith is not a matter of seeing is believing, but rather believing is seeing. Not facetious backhand, but a glorious insight into the world of God (Nature) if you will.
Not necessarily. My OED defines anthropology as: "The science of humankind, in the widest sense." That seems to ran the gamut from most basic to most esoteric. Yes, but anthropology is also the study of human beings' similarity to and divergence from other animals. A deconstruction and study of man through study of his component parts. Simple.
Evolution doesn't answer anything; it just is. You're off point here. The evolutionary process is one of adaptation, answers to a developmental need. In this way the evolutionary process answers the needs. This statement was not meant as a thesis or grand unifying theory of determistic philosophy.
So you think it is our striving to be top organism on the planet that explains religion, that it is a means to this end? But you said religion was an attempt to explain our place in the universe, not a calculated strategy to dominate all the other carbon-based life forms. No, striving to be top organism (I limit this discussion to the organism called man) is nothing more than survival of the species. Instinct. In talkiing about faith and religion I have a clear deliniation between the two. Faith is belief. Religion is the codified articles of conducting faith's expression. Two different things. Faith simply does, Religion, very dangerous in its philosphical power, seeks to control the its followers. Religiosity and aggression run hand in hand throughout history.
As you can see, I'm struggling a little with yours.
Nice epigram for a bumper sticker, but what does it mean? I think there is less here than meets the eye. Oh come now. The difference between want and need. You're telling me you don't understand the difference? My quote means exactly what it says, no more, no less. Forget the fallacy that man beleives what he wants to as it relates to his spiritual beliefs or lack thereof. Too minimalist. It is all too clear when one examines motivations that behind man's belief is a deeply held conviction driven by need. A need for what, whom, etc.? Anybody's guess.
Yes, it does a little. Okay, I rant therefore I am.
A wee bit grandiose, don't you think? Not grandiose, a debate closer. Nuff said, that sort of tag. And what would and anthropologist say? What's for lunch? of course.
Distilling all this down, you seem to be saying religion is a social construct that derives from humankind's innate drive to explain our world; that is an old, widely-held notion. But you also seem to be saying that religion somehow is a tool, one selected by an evolutionary process, that has allowed us to run the planet; sorry, but that seems bizarre to me.
