"Henry: Probably the main reason you haven't had any problems with anyone else on this board is that hardly anyone else seriously tries to engage with you on any of these topics. Haven't you noticed?"
COMMENT: Yes, and I agree. I assume that the vast majority on the Board are just not interested in these theoretical discussions. Others are unable to follow them because of a lack of background knowledge. And some who may be interested do not feel competent enough to engage in discussion. However, I also note that there are highly educated academics on this Board from a wide variety of fields of expertise, who are also interested in these issues and follow these posts, and are competent to engage me or challenge me, when they think I am wrong. Frankly, in this case, I am quite confident that such people see quite clearly that I am right. But, let them step up.
__________________________________
"As for your own earlier, essentially incoherent, comments on consciousness, you can remind yourself of what they were by reading my post here (which quotes you), or your previous posts from which I was quoting, and which you can look up on your own (
http://exmormon.org/phorum/read.php?2,1543290,1543290#msg-1543290 ). And by the way, in addition to not even venturing to provide any even remotely intelligible account of consciousness, you didn't even come close to answering many of the problems I pointed out in your writings. In any case, I invite you to provide us a more intelligible account than the summary I provided of your account of consciousness (if you can)."
COMMENT: Tal. If you think I am incoherent it is YOU, not ME that is having a problem. Moreover, in essentially all of our dialogues on the Board, it is me criticizing some vague, speculative, theory or claim proposed by you that lacks evidence and background understanding. I have admittedly not provided any theory of consciousness, or theory of religiosity. What you, and many others, do not seem to understand is that a theory or claim is not supported by the simple lack of a well-defined alternative explanation. The alternative explanation may simply be two complex to be encompassed by theory--especially in the social sciences and evolutionary biology, where complexity rules the day. In short, my failure to propose an alternative does not make your proposal any more viable, and specifically does not render my criticisms of your proposal any less valid. If YOU propose a theory, then YOU must be prepared to support it. And you do not answer my criticisms, or support your theory in the least by demanding an alternative, or pathetically insisting that I am being incoherent.
_____________________________________
"As for my request for you to provide an account of how sexual instinct has a biological basis, you misunderstood me. In asking you, I was not expressing doubt that there is a biological basis. I was asking YOU to provide one, so that you'd show exactly what sort of argument you're looking for when it comes to the biological basis of religiosity. That is, I asked because I have come to doubt that there IS any such argument, or collection of facts, which would convince you. You seem entirely closed. But because I might be wrong about that, I am asking you to provide a template of the sort of answer which would convince you. Can you do it?"
COMMENT: Well, my proposed exercise with a biology textbook was an answer in the sense you describe above. With regard to the sex "instinct" the textbook provides a narrative of specific biological facts and evidence that support the existence of the instinct. With respect to religiosity, there are no such biological facts, and no such narrative. So, as I have said, over and over again, what I need are biological facts that provide a causal inference that connect such biological facts to "religiosity," however that is defined. I am not closed on the issue, there are just presently no such facts.
______________________________
"By the way, the implication of your comments is that there is something quite silly about assuming a biological basis for religiosity."
COMMENT: Well, it is a bit silly. The reason is because "religiosity" is so poorly and broadly defined. (Compare: The sex instinct is very clear and specific, and directly linked to reproduction mechanisms.) It is really hard to see just what sort of biological mechanism could be specifically identified with any such definition. With the sex instinct, there are well known biological "switches" that if absent would turn it off. (e.g. hormonal imbalance or deficiency of some sort) That is what we would need to find in religiosity; some sort of biological component that if turned off, or undermined, would specifically affect religiosity in the precise and specific way it might be defined.
______________________________________________
In reality, a growing number of scholars, from fields as diverse as endocrinology, anthropology, biology, psychology, cognitive science and sociology have come to that conclusion, based on accumulating evidence from numerous fields of inquiry. I don't expect you to change your view merely based on "growing consensus";
COMMENT: You're right I cannot respond to a vague claim of consensus. But there is no "accumulating" evidence that links biology to "religiosity" in the specific and explanatory sense as I stated above. Otherwise, you would have identified it by now. As for biologists, please identify one biologist, that has provided something more than speculative assumptions in this regard; i.e. who has proposed, with evidence, a specific biological link to some specifically identified behavior called "religiosity."
______________________________________
but I AM asking you to explain what sort of evidence would convince YOU that these scholars are on to something, so that when I take the time to write up a post, it won't be in vain. Again I ask - what sort of evidence would convince you that religiosity has a biological basis?
COMMENT: See above: As for your post, I will be looking for the following: (1) A well-defined "phenotype" of religiosity in the form of specific human behavior that can be differentiated; (2) A biological mechanism (i.e. genetic, developmental, molecular, whatever); and (3) A link between the biological mechanism and the phenotype, such that when the mechanism is undermined, the phenotype (religiosity) is undermined in direct and observable ways.