/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.17161898]

Which of these is a good book on scientific explanations for religious belief?

[Anonymous No.17161911]

>>17161898
The King James Bible

[Anonymous No.17161927]

>>17161911
jej

[Anonymous No.17161967]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PbWMEWubrk0
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3l7bcb3aoGc

[Anonymous No.17161974]

>>17161911
Wtf happened to his brother? How did Peter turn out normal while the other was all fucked up?

[Anonymous No.17162008]

>>17161974
Weren't they both Trotskists? Peter literally lived under communist russia. he's talked of the whole thing being a myth due to the black market being how people got what they needed.

[Anonymous No.17162057]

>>17161911
Read another book!

[Anonymous No.17162060]

>>17161898
Try this one

[Anonymous No.17162113]

>>17162057
Guess who's still alive, brother. Had I wrested from your hawkish hands the licit drugs of based vice, you'd still be alive. Alas, I didn't, that you might bet the weight of responsibility. You never did read the King James.

[Anonymous No.17162162]

>>17162113
And yet I lived more than you ever will with your complete infatuation with an illusion. Break those mind forged manacles brother, there is still time to emancipate yourself!

[Anonymous No.17162278]

Asimov guide to the Old Testament

[Anonymous No.17162384]

>>17161967
That intro reminded me of Donkey Kong Country lmao

[Anonymous No.17162427]

>>17162384
Imagine if all scientific conferences incorporated elements of DonkeyKong...

[Anonymous No.17162437]

>>17161898
The correct scientific explanation for religious believe is that religious people reproduce the most.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zdgzkqsy_z0

[Anonymous No.17162440]

>>17162437
*belief

[Anonymous No.17162466]

>>17161911
This guy is a genuine moron

[Anonymous No.17162474]

>>17162437
Because religions are genetically adaptive structures that reinforce patterns that encourage the most children to be born.
the world is fucked though, all the smarties were seduced by atheist nihlism and barely have kids....

[Anonymous No.17162530]

>>17161898
You'd better look for religious (or, in general, philosophic) explanations for scientific belief.

[Anonymous No.17162598]

>>17162530
What do you mean? Something like epistemology or psychology? And which books would talk about that?

[Anonymous No.17164203]

>>17161898
Which of these use a philanthropic approach where it isn't just bashing spiritual folk and calling
them sheep?

[Anonymous No.17164247]

None, they're all writing by anthropologically illiterate retards who have never seen a religious person in their life
>>17162474
That's patently false
Most religions have nothing to do with reproduction

[Anonymous No.17164270]

>>17161898
>how can apply my physical models to something metaphysical

[Anonymous No.17164282]

I have a related book I'm wondering about myself
Anyone familiar with William James' "The Varieties of Religious Experience"? Is it good? Any brief takes on it?

[Anonymous No.17164289]

>>17161898
The Dennett book is midwit af
>>17164247
Source?

[Anonymous No.17164293]

>>17161898
There's little evidence to suggest that evolutionary psychology can explain the manifestation of religious beliefs. Not even religious, just research this yourself and you'll see. It's a very lame gotcha attempt

[Anonymous No.17164329]

>>17161898
There's also this, which requires absolutely no background in any science. Good for beginners.

[Anonymous No.17164335]

>>17164289
Source on what nigger

[Anonymous No.17164382]

>>17164335
On the religions having no connection to reproduction you African nigger

[Anonymous No.17164406]

>>17161898
The Bible.

[Anonymous No.17165637]

>>17164270
how can you believe in something metaphysical
>inb4 we are metaphysical too
therefore our "physical" models are mataphysical too

[Anonymous No.17165871]

>>17161898
Your comprehension of what constitutes "scientific" it flawed. General what is meant by "scientific" is observable and empirical. None of these books achieve that and you wont find a single book that does on this subject matter, that's pretty obvious.

[Anonymous No.17165923]

>>17165637
it's called faith.

[Anonymous No.17165929]

>>17165871
have you read all eight of those books?

[Anonymous No.17166337]

>>17164382
Hallpike's on primitive society and ship of fools are your one stop go for the anthropological response to evolutionary schizophrenia, especially in regards to religion

[Anonymous No.17166820]

>>17165871
You can absolutely construct a model that explains why some religious belief is universal to all human populations and support said model with empirical evidence. So you can blow these scare quotes out of your ass.

[Anonymous No.17167201]

>>17164203
I think the last two aren't trying to shit on religion at all.

[Anonymous No.17167237]

>>17164270
I mean, it seems we are at least partially physical, surely we can learn a thing or two about the mechanics of religious belief, no?

[Anonymous No.17167397]

>>17162437
I'm not saying that's not true but it isn't really the answer to the question I had in mind.
>>17164289
I think I'm actually going to start with Dennett, I'm very much a brainlet, then just read stuff from the Oxford handbook on religion and science and see if can understand anything
>>17164329
Thanks for the suggestion anon, seems beginner friendly, might check it out.

[Anonymous No.17168755]

one last bump
Where would one start with Eliade?

[Anonymous No.17168839]

No.

But I'll try explain it myself:
1. religion is normal culture/worldview like anything else, the religious-secular distinction is too memed by the religious and irreligious alike.
2. any society or person needs concepts with which to perceive and understand the world, it's like saying what is the root of the concepts and ways of thinking you use to make sense of things around you and navigate life, to set things in their place and not be dysfunctional/stagnant -- the answer is too broad to be hyping up religion as this distinct thing.
3. this becomes institutionalised for various reasons (centralisation, law (custom), power, intentional movements, intellectualism, economics) and typically creates a priestly, intellectual environment that comes to certain distilled truths and social functions. after all, the basic human condition is the same.

if you want to get particular then you need to look at particular traditions. i don't think they're so easily reducible to essentially the same thing as many would have you believe (despite what i said above), as with culture in general it is complicated.

[Anonymous No.17168891]

>>17164247
>Most religions have nothing to do with reproduction
>Go forth and multiply

[Anonymous No.17169295]

>>17168839
Thank you for your answer anon, your second point kinda reminds me of Peterson's Maps of meaning lectures. However, I think part of the answer I'm trying to get has to do with why religious (and supernatural or metaphysical...?) worldviews exist at all.
Why didn't all worldviews turned out to be secular? I can see how that can more or less be answered by your first point, but I want some other answer. Why did some worldviews start as religious? How did we even manage to come up with them? I'm not sure I'm explaining myself at all. I really appreciate your summary on this topic, specially your remark on how religions aren't that reducible to the same thing, which supports your first point by noting each 'religion' is more of a worldview itself than a kind of worldview.
Is there any book you would recommend that expands on the ideas you mention?

[Anonymous No.17170061]

>>17169295
Part of it is fear of the unknown, part of it is fear of death, part of it is a primitive understanding of physics, and part of it is a more serious philosophical line of reasoning like those employed by Aristotle or Plotinus.

[Anonymous No.17170131]

>>17168755
>Eliade
I started with "The Sacred and The Profane"

[Anonymous No.17170182]

>>17162113
>>17162162

In spite of their differences, there's something essential they had in common: they were both pseuds.