Peter says: Robert Sapolskys ideas dovetail very well with my description of the magical period of the Origins of Religion. He does not draw the important causal role of ritual in the forming of language that I mention, that literalist (present day, fundamentalist) approach that obtains in the magical period. So too he misses the origin of metaphor in language at the dawning of the mythological age. But I think his metamagical thinking and o c d origins of ritual and his epilepsy observations (think Paul the Apostle) are right on the mark. In addition the skepticism and emergence of humanist naturalist thought in the Axial Age he misses, thus he misses the historical continuity of his own atheism, this as a religious emergence two plus thousand years old. Despite this critique, I think his findings are very important and dovetail very well with my history. Thanks for posting the link!! + humble says: I suspect that Sapolsky did what he set out to do in his lecture. Having watched it several times, I strongly suspect that his lecture was not intended to be a history of the Origins of Religion but an introductory lecture for Stamford students on the biological basis of religiosity. And I would have said Sapolskys observations rather than ideas, as he did not pull his information out of thin air. A part of what he is saying is simply a condensation of Martin Luthers diary and other historical records. It is mixed in with some other things that he has learned over the years as a neurologist or scientist. Perhaps the most important thing he is saying to the kids is, Read. Listen. Think. Although I have nothing but what I have seen with my two eyes to substantiate this, I would guess that few Stamford graduates have ever joined the Tea Party.
Posted on: Tue, 22 Jul 2014 14:36:33 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015