Humans alone practice religion because they're the only creatures to have evolved imagination.
That's the argument of anthropologist Maurice Bloch of the London School of Economics. Bloch challenges the popular notion that religion evolved and spread because it promoted social bonding, as has been argued by some anthropologists.
Instead, he argues that first, we had to evolve the necessary brain architecture to imagine things and beings that don't physically exist, and the possibility that people somehow live on after they've died.
You can read more here.
Some questions:
-So, is religion just a figment of our imagination?
-Do you agree Bloch? Why?
-Do you agree with the other theory: Religion evolved and spread for social bonding purposes? Why?
-Or, do you agree with the vast majority of the human population that believe religion (at least 1) is true? Why?
-Why are those in academia so inclined to focus time, money and effort into "explaining away" religion?
1 comment:
Those that are in academia feel the need to have a concrete purpose and explanation for everything that they believe. Religion completely negates that entire idea. Belief in something that you cannot see, belief in someone you cannot look at or talk to face to face is a "fantasy" life. It's not reality to most people in that world. To be an academic Christian you have to seperate that part of your intellegence to accept the "faith" aspect of religion.
Post a Comment