From: Timothy Bates <email@example.com> To: firstname.lastname@example.org <email@example.com> Date: Thursday, February 25, 1999 11:25 PM Subject: Re: Extropianism & Theology
>Aaron Davidson said
>> Since myself and many others do not seem to feel this instinct, I think
>> must be more of a conditioned factor.
>Well try the same logic out in this sentence
>"Since i myself do not have brown eyes, I think it must be a conditioned
>I think that God-believing is a heritable neural module present in the
>of the great majority of human brains.
>A module which evolved around 150,000 years ago and which served the
>valuable purpose of enabling teleological reasoning (reasoning about
>I think myself, with no evidence whatsoever, that about 3,000-5,000 years
>ago, either a mutant variant entered the population or perhaps merely
>selective breeding in a small tribe (of Ionic Greeks for instance) created
>an emergenic phenotype which lacks this neural module.
>Those of us on this list who believe in the kind of extropy that I have
>discussing lack this module.
>I think also that the majority of principles which I espouse follow very
>directly from simply being incapable of explaining events in terms of
>"spiritual" happenings, being constrained instead to operate solely in the
>materialist reductionism space.
>I think that we learn Occam's Razor. We learn the fragile culture of
>science. But we are born either able or unable to use immaterial events as
That's the first I've heard of the God gene. Interesting. But if we actually apply Occam's Razor, how do you come to the conclusion that your theory is the parsimonious alternative. Say as compared to more psychologically-based theories? (e.g. cultural conditioning, need for parent figure, need to explain the unknown, coping woith fear of death, coping with death of of mate, etc)