Looking-Glass Selves

I want to qualify this post by saying that I am a sociologist of religion, not a biologist, paleontologist, or physical anthropologist. Personally, I don't understand why old-earth creationists and many intelligent design theologians (i.e., those who actually believe that God is the designer) insist on promoting reductionist views of the Supreme Being. IMO, this approach, as I said here once before, is both bad science and bad religion. First, it is bad science because it ignores the inherent limitations of science and, in some sense, repeats the scientific colonialism, or hegemony, of many Enlightenment thinkers and of the positivists (particularly, Comte), i.e., if we assume that something exists (by creation or design), then science should be able to detect it. Why? Second, it is also bad religion. Creationists, and some intelligent design theologians who believe that the designer is "God" (not some extraterrestrial), are, in my view, engaging in a form of spiritual ma...

Brain, >>Except for the cloak of religion, such beliefs and actions would otherwise cause an individual to be judged insane, and committed to an institution for treatment. Generally speaking, religion improves one's ability to function in the world. In fact, religion has historically been the major force for social control, encouraging people to conform to social norms (mores and folkways) - even if those norms are not always those of the majority (though they usually are). Insanity, on the other hand, diminishes one's ability to function in the world. >>The study of history will further justify the theory that religion is a form of insanity. You then refer to "bloody religious wars and crusades" and to the Inquisition. I would say that religion is sometimes, but not always, a source of social oppression (not insanity). That is because religion has frequently represented the interests of the elites. For instance, as Marx observed, American slave owners wou...

I want to qualify this post by saying that I am a sociologist of religion, not a biologist, paleontologist, or physical anthropologist. Personally, I don't understand why old-earth creationists and many intelligent design theologians (i.e., those who actually believe that God is the designer) insist on promoting reductionist views of the Supreme Being. IMO, this approach, as I said here once before, is both bad science and bad religion. First, it is bad science because it ignores the inherent limitations of science and, in some sense, repeats the scientific colonialism, or hegemony, of many Enlightenment thinkers and of the positivists (particularly, Comte), i.e., if we assume that something exists (by creation or design), then science should be able to detect it. Why? Second, it is also bad religion. Creationists, and some intelligent design theologians who believe that the designer is "God" (not some extraterrestrial), are, in my view, engaging in a form of spiritual ma...

Brain, >>Except for the cloak of religion, such beliefs and actions would otherwise cause an individual to be judged insane, and committed to an institution for treatment. Generally speaking, religion improves one's ability to function in the world. In fact, religion has historically been the major force for social control, encouraging people to conform to social norms (mores and folkways) - even if those norms are not always those of the majority (though they usually are). Insanity, on the other hand, diminishes one's ability to function in the world. >>The study of history will further justify the theory that religion is a form of insanity. You then refer to "bloody religious wars and crusades" and to the Inquisition. I would say that religion is sometimes, but not always, a source of social oppression (not insanity). That is because religion has frequently represented the interests of the elites. For instance, as Marx observed, American slave owners wou...

I want to qualify this post by saying that I am a sociologist of religion, not a biologist, paleontologist, or physical anthropologist. Personally, I don't understand why old-earth creationists and many intelligent design theologians (i.e., those who actually believe that God is the designer) insist on promoting reductionist views of the Supreme Being. IMO, this approach, as I said here once before, is both bad science and bad religion. First, it is bad science because it ignores the inherent limitations of science and, in some sense, repeats the scientific colonialism, or hegemony, of many Enlightenment thinkers and of the positivists (particularly, Comte), i.e., if we assume that something exists (by creation or design), then science should be able to detect it. Why? Second, it is also bad religion. Creationists, and some intelligent design theologians who believe that the designer is "God" (not some extraterrestrial), are, in my view, engaging in a form of spiritual ma...

Brain, >>Except for the cloak of religion, such beliefs and actions would otherwise cause an individual to be judged insane, and committed to an institution for treatment. Generally speaking, religion improves one's ability to function in the world. In fact, religion has historically been the major force for social control, encouraging people to conform to social norms (mores and folkways) - even if those norms are not always those of the majority (though they usually are). Insanity, on the other hand, diminishes one's ability to function in the world. >>The study of history will further justify the theory that religion is a form of insanity. You then refer to "bloody religious wars and crusades" and to the Inquisition. I would say that religion is sometimes, but not always, a source of social oppression (not insanity). That is because religion has frequently represented the interests of the elites. For instance, as Marx observed, American slave owners wou...