Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Albert Cipriani · 02-20-2003, 02:23 PM

Vork reminds me of the old psychoanalysis double bind:

Quote:

 You feel compelled to touch all doorknobs as an expression of you subconsciously sublimated desire to fondle your mother.
 But Doctor, I was raised in an orphanage and never knew my mother.
 Ah ha! This only further proves my analysis correct. You see, the trauma of not having a mother made you all the more fixated upon her.

Dr. Vork says:

Quote:

First, Cipriani would have to explain how this feeling which he labels "awe" does not in any way shape or form enhance the human organism's ability to get its genes into the next generation, or why, even if it does not, that is a particular black mark against evolution.

Gee, and I though the theory of evolution, like all good theories, explained something!

But according to Vork, evolutionary theory gets no black marks even if it doesn�t seem to work. Rather, it�s up to me to prove the impossible, to prove a negative, to prove that the human instinct for awe DOES NOT enhance our survival. Once I hurdle that mountain, Vork tells me what I�ve done doesn�t matter, for just because such proof would show that evolution was not working, it still wouldn't show that evolution is not working. $#%^#@@!@#$^%^& Then why the hell should I accept you mission impossible and prove that the awe gene doesn�t enhance our survival?!

I thought you guys were professionals here. That�s why Diana moved my post here from the Existence of God forum. So I sit here dumbfounded as the refrain to John Lennon�s refrain goes through my head:

Quote:

Can you take me back where I came from,
can you take me back,
Momma can you take me back�
oh take me back.

� Albert the Traditional Catholic
www.hypertracker.com/go/bgponder/ar121103

Kosh · 02-20-2003, 02:45 PM

Quote:

Stonehenge and the pyramids and a myriad of archeological evidence points to the reaction of our forefathers as being more than awe, as being the big sister of awe, that is, our ancestors worshiped the heavens. It's not enough to accept this. One must ask why

Simple. The same reason these things are happening today.

Some rich powerfull guy, being more adept at manipulating people than others, figured out a way to control them using mythology. He conned everyone to buy into his make believe Gods, and got them build big monuments for him. He probably got a cut of the "sacrifices" as well. Not to mention all them vestial virgins!

In short Diana, he was a good Poker player!

Taint no big thang!

diana · 02-20-2003, 07:24 PM

Quote:

It�s an uncontestable fact that the response of our ancestors to the heavens was one grade more than awe, it was worship. How illogical of them!

Well, yes it was, now that you mention it. Do you still worship the heavens? Or have you moved on to worshipping something else? Why is that?

Their awe was mixed with a healthy dose of ignorance, you remember. They didn't have telescopes, and their science had not progressed to the "round earth" stage yet. So their minds moved to fill the gap with the Dab'll-Do-Ya-One-Size-Fits-All putty: superstition.

Out of their ignorance of what caused the moon to "rise" and the wind to blow, they assumed, as the ignorant are wont to do, that it had something to do with themselves. Voila! Religion.

Also, chrstphr said:

Quote:

But I know I would feel awe in the presence of a T Rex, and would run for my life while feeling it too. I'm not equating awe with fear, but there are strong grounds for an interrelation of the two.

Back to T Rex, and the skies as well ... is there really no survival value in a mixture of reverence and dread for that which can squash you?

You appear to have overlooked this, as you repeated your claim that

Quote:

If you agree that awe serves no logical or utilitarian purpose, why hasn�t natural selection deselected it?

I don't remember anyone agreeing with you on that point.

d

lpetrich · 02-20-2003, 08:23 PM

If there was some well-defined "awe mechanism" in the brain that is specified by some genes only involved in specifying it, one can indeed wonder what had selected for it.

But if feelings of awe are some side effect of something else that's difficult to get rid of, then that's another story.

For example, our larynx is low down in the throat, a position that makes for producing a wide variety of speech sounds, but at the expense of a risk of choking on food. Apes and human babies have it high up, the more usual position -- which is (1) safer and (2) less convenient for speaking.

scigirl · 02-20-2003, 08:36 PM

Quote:

As a caveman, wouldn�t Tyrannosaurus Rex have all the qualities of the stars to make us feel awed in its presence? But taking the time to contemplate it, or build stone monuments to it from which to observe its movements would not be a good survival strategy. Ergo, if our capacity for awe were genetic, natural selection should have long ago rid our race of it.

Umm, cavemen would have not seen a T rex. Dinos went extinct before humans evolved. Keep your examples scientifically relevant - after all this is E/C!

scigirl

Doubting Didymus · 02-20-2003, 08:38 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by scigirl
[B]Umm, cavemen would have not seen a T rex. Dinos went extinct before humans evolved. Keep your examples scientifically relevant - after all this is E/C!

I was wondering when someone would point that out.

Kosh · 02-20-2003, 08:43 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Doubting Didymus
I was wondering when someone would point that out.

<snicker>. She says she's taking a break, but it's just so easy to bait SciGirl!

scigirl · 02-20-2003, 09:00 PM

Quote:

But according to Vork, evolutionary theory gets no black marks even if it doesn�t seem to work. Rather, it�s up to me to prove the impossible, to prove a negative, to prove that the human instinct for awe DOES NOT enhance our survival. Once I hurdle that mountain, Vork tells me what I�ve done doesn�t matter, for just because such proof would show that evolution was not working, it still wouldn't show that evolution is not working. $#%^#@@!@#$^%^& Then why the hell should I accept you mission impossible and prove that the awe gene doesn�t enhance our survival?!

I'm not exactly clear on what your argument actually is. Evolutionary theory cannot, explain every single aspect of human behavior. This is not a weakness of evolution. Do you doubt quantum physics because physicists can't predict vegas dice rolls? I didn't think so.

Furthermore, scientists don't accept evolution because of some current theories by evolutionary psychologists - they accept evolutionary theory because of the abundant genetic and physical evidence. It is clear that we did evolve from primates. What is not so clear is how exactly it occured, and also how much about us can be explained by this fact. As lpetrech pointed out, evolution does a nice job in explaining certain facets of our biology. But how much of human behavior can be explained by evolution? Who knows!

Albert, are you saying that human awe is detrimental to our survival, and thus disproves natural selection, since it hasn't been eliminated? If indeed that is what you are claiming, than yes the burden of proof is on you to show that human awe is detrimental to our existence. Good luck...

Oh one more thing, what do you mean by "the awe gene?" I am not aware of experiments that have identified one gene that causes us to feel awe. But then again, maybe I missed the paper. Please enlighten us, if you have access to those scientific studies.

scigirl

scigirl · 02-20-2003, 09:13 PM

Interesting - it appears our 'cousins' might be able to feel awe:

Quote:

Goodall said she has observed what could be interpreted as a precursor to an animist religion among the chimps when they come upon a spectacular waterfall in the jungle. She said the chimps seem to exhibit a sense of awe, standing in the stream below for 50 minutes at a time and staring at the falling water when they don't normally like to get wet. They will sometimes sit on a rock and watch the cascade, or swing from a vine into the mist caused by the falling water.

"We find that chimps do have a sense of wonder, of awe," Goodall said. "I think we can see the roots of some kind of religion from chimp behavior - [inhibited] by their lack of language."

Jane might be speculating a bit too much - but this finding is very interesting.

Here's more info:

http://www.janegoodall.org/chimp_cen...ain_dance.html

scigirl

lpetrich · 02-20-2003, 09:59 PM

I looked for "awe gene" and "awe genes" at PubMed, and "awe" only appeared in some people's names and userids.

And the idea of an "awe gene" seems too much like "beanbag genetics". It works fine for peptide chains and the like, but not much else.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

02-20-2003, 08:23 PM	#14
lpetrich Contributor Join Date: Jul 2000 Location: Lebanon, OR, USA Posts: 16,829	If there was some well-defined "awe mechanism" in the brain that is specified by some genes only involved in specifying it, one can indeed wonder what had selected for it. But if feelings of awe are some side effect of something else that's difficult to get rid of, then that's another story. For example, our larynx is low down in the throat, a position that makes for producing a wide variety of speech sounds, but at the expense of a risk of choking on food. Apes and human babies have it high up, the more usual position -- which is (1) safer and (2) less convenient for speaking.

02-20-2003, 09:59 PM	#20
lpetrich Contributor Join Date: Jul 2000 Location: Lebanon, OR, USA Posts: 16,829	I looked for "awe gene" and "awe genes" at PubMed, and "awe" only appeared in some people's names and userids. And the idea of an "awe gene" seems too much like "beanbag genetics". It works fine for peptide chains and the like, but not much else.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.