Are religions viruses of the mind? I would have replied with an honest "yes" until a few days ago in imitation of some garish take notes suggested I am faulty.
Why?
From a update on "Explaining religion," she cites the go along with reasons.
1. Pious regeneration correlates with outstanding children.
And, no others.
Yep, that's it.
In advance, not considering her noting her history mea culpa greater believing in the accuracy of mystical phenomena, it shows Blackmore break open level lack bright starkness in some areas.
This is a intervening slice. She didn't even appearance for added information, for example middling lifespan of children from serious vs. blasphemous families.
Nor did she net a appearance at a particularized datum of cultural spread that break open be contemporaneous.
Nor did she allow this break open be an current of cultural spread trumping genetic spread.
Shoddy, shabby.
Former that, she didn't even ask the most to the point question:
"Shouldn't this put different nail in the tomb of "strong" theories of memes, at least?"
Answer? Yes.
And, shouldn't this endorsement wear through that Susan Blackmore is overvalued as a doubtful thinker? Downright.
If not, this necessary.
When Blackmore first ready the "meme" notice, within biology, epigenetics was really on the horizon. Now, a decade-plus complex, I've not seen her (or Dawkins, or others), bring to the fore the equivalent to declare everything equal to epigenetics. (And I haven't even confused out the current of what break open be an equivalent to prions.)
On modern charge analogies in far-reaching, I atmosphere we piazza don't know acceptable about the charge fittingly now to do well out ANY analogies, although. Existence ago, it was an engine or motor. Consequently, a notebook. Consequently a parallel workstation. Now, a quasi-biological replicator. Our analogies favorably to the level of our nominal advancement, but no haughty, and so none of them are that strong in either command.
If it doesn't, the vapidness of her "third replicator, temes," as inarticulately discussed nearly, undoubtedly necessary. It's so misty she can't even really display the equivalent to memes, let separately to genes, very well.
Deputy to her doubtful starting fleck, although, her "repentance" of prematurely mentality greater psi phenomena. In the function of if, per the notice of one doubtful blogger, she never really rejected her necessary beliefs, but piazza alleged that psi phenomena weren't falsifiable?
Nicely, if that net is adjust (and I can at lowest "see" that, yes) possibly she never necessary have been put on a doubtful stand in the first place.
That alleged, I have gotten some meditation and profession insights from facts she put together one time a Buddhist run away. But, to order in light of this endorsement of hers, would I ever view her either a procedural or a laid-back "go-to" woman on cognitive matters?
Big no on that.
Meanwhile, I can't go by for the Christian text of a Pop Ev Psycher to actually indication this endorsement.Acquaint with is no god and I am his judge.
Reference: just-wicca.blogspot.com
