• Scott Atran

Scott Atran has been one of the most impressive researchers into the psychology of religion, more to come.

Bah! I dont have time to read all of that, I wont know if I care untill I reach the end

Et voulois - read the OP: it’s short and sweet. :wink:

Yeah, once again I don’t care. I want to have a discussion on the psychology of religion and I want to have a discussion on exactly the comments by the specific author I quoted. This is a topic I talked about at length, in over a dozen different threads, if I want to devote a thread, with a quote from the person who did the research on the subject and devised the experiments i’m talking about I see no issue with that.

I simple don’t buy the idea that theres no merit in discussing specific quotes about research that the researcher specifically made.

I also think that in many situations the author states their own case more elegantly and coherently then I can, and that has no issue on my understanding of their work either. When a specific quote is so elegant and well-done such that it can convey easy understanding to other readers, theres no reason for me not to.

Its the science section, discussion on scientific ARTICLES is to be expected, which naturally brings about quoting that material. I haven’t seen anything so anal before.


I dont see you getting many responses from such a large opener. Just my oppinion, we will see

I actually haven’t gotten many replies about these massively influential ideas, i’ve posted them numerous times in my own words and in atrans, and not a peep out of anyone.

Thats not entirely surprising though, as to get the entire effect of what atran and pascal boyer are saying, you need to do a bit of reading. I just hoped to spawn more people’s interest then this, but its not the most straightforward concepts around (its not complicated but theres a bit to it).

yeah personally i dont get into long paragraphs unless im being paid for it, esspecially in a forum context. there is just to much to coment on and not enough time.

Look dude, I’ve read this shit. I’ve backed this shit up from time to time. This shit backs up a Confucian world-view and I love it! Psychology in general dones, mostly because Confucianism works off the sort of common-sense observations that your average retard circa 5000BCE could make.

But what am I to do with a big block of text that re-affirms my worldview? Look for those few passages that conflict? Hell no! This is modern psychology! I want to agree with it. I’ll throw those differences under the bus!

But since I do agree with it, what am I to do? Make a tool-like post saying “hell yeah”? No!

So, difficult middle ground. Lemme segue for a bit:

When I was in Comedy Spotz (an American improve comedy stueck) I always dug the really specific references. “Wagnarian Opera” would always result in a funnier sketch than “peanut butter”. Not to say I don’t dig peanut butter, but by making it specific, there was a clearly defined realm to play around in (one that lead to someone wearing a blonde wig and a viking hat, yes. But tell me how having the fat lady sing isn’t funny) lead to better sketches than strange meta-shit that nobody can work with.

What about the article do you want to discuss? Tell me and I’ll tell you why that is a Confucian concept or, alternatively, why that is wrong.

Alright, if I ever make general posts about people at ILP, its usually directed at specific individuals in mine, or groups of them. I don’t mean everyone.
Its more than just the article but a lot of atran’s research in general i’d like to talk about.

For instance atran goes on about how our inherent fear of predatory animals lends itself to fear/worship of evil serpent gods and predatory animals (or creatures with aspects of them) as much as kind-all mighty protectors or mothers. That only makes sense on top of the conceptual frame-work which he talks about briefly in the OP.

he also goes on about evidence that shows exposure to death/misery scenes increases religiousity and is a much huguer motivator then normal religious scenes.

basically he’s saying that religions are byproducts of existential anxieties, and ontological violations to folk-mechanics, folk-biology and folk-psychology.(well, their normal byrpoducts as well, +innate releasing mechanism for detection of predators, protectors, prey) I’d like to talk about any of those ideas seperately to if anyone was interested. We categorize animals based on essences which also reflects on how we use langauge as pinker connects (theres dog all over the driveway is gramatically correct, while 'theres cup all over the driveway isn’t)

david living stone smith postulates that our ability to project essences like that can become critically envolved when we become aggressors/in war, when people are seen as unclean or whatever. (germans who were completely integrated into german society and who had no idea of tiny jewish ancestery were killed. as if there was a taint to the blood itself.) theres many examples of this.

endless topics in this area of behavorial science.

uits not surprising why some religions are obsessed with suffering/mistery scenes as it increases people’s feelings of being religious.

I bet watching scenes/thinking about christ being beaten to shit and stabbed like a pin-cushion is probably like getting your batteries charged.