Re: virus: Origin of religion theory

Brett Robertson (BrettMan35@webtv.net)
Wed, 15 Apr 1998 18:47:37 -0500


On another list, the question was raised about the "laws of nature"
(rules that apply across situations). The observation was made that
within a particular system the "+" sign has come to stand for the
"addition" numbers, etc. And thus the thing for which the + stands is
as surely a law of nature as the "truth" behind the math which uses such
a formulation. Yet, can it be said that a + etched into a rock by
natural forces of evolution also follow this same rule (if so, to what
extent... if not, why not).

I say that the forces of nature which might "etch" faces upon humans
(and/ or which might hardwire their recognition into the human
consciousness) also works to etch face formations into rocks, clouds,
etc. I do not see why there would be another force at work (besides the
un-named one which created human hard-wired facial recognition); neither
do I search for this force by which such formations are *not* also
formed.

SO, I don't see why the recognition of this law as it applies to
different degrees in other "natural" phenomenon (rocks, trees, clouds,
etc.) either proves or disproves the search for a common law. Nor do I
uderstand what this search for a spiritual unity has to say about what
humans call "religion" (usually in the derogatory sense of those damned
savages and their "ignorance").

Though, yes, I think that seeing human characteristics in non human
situations is a good argument for the existence of certain natural laws.

Brett Lane Robertson
Indiana, USA
www.window.to/mindrec