четверг, 5 июля 2018 г.

Why religion is natural and science is not

Роберт Маккол считает религию вполне естественной с точки зрения человеческого, а науку — нет. Наука исправляет предубеждения системы: «Наука является когнитивно неестественной — она трудна. Религия, с другой стороны, в основном представляет из себя то, чему даже не следует учиться, мы и так знаем это».

McCaule R.N. Why religion is natural and science is not

Гугл переводчик вполне хорошо переводит (N.B. мои):

Book Review:
In Why Religion is Natural and Science is Not (2011), Robert N. McCauley seeks to explain why religious concepts seem to persist while scientific ideas require a community and control mechanism to support them. Religion and science are not exactly opposed per se(N.B. yes!), but conflicts between them do take place all around the world, especially in fundamentalism(N.B. and traditionalism)-influenced societies.
To explain the issue, McCauley shows that religion — or, more precisely(N.B. the important clarification), “popular religion” — relies on cognitive processes that are maturationally natural to humans, i.e. either innate to our species or learned at a very early stage. The most central of these to his argument is “theory of mind”, the ability to understand other perceived entities as agents, and following from it, the possibility of postulating the existence of other agents. In contrast, science (which McCauley sees as connected but distinct from technology N.B. i agree) and theology(N.B. and therefore “popular religion” don't include theology) are not maturationally natural. They need abstract thinking, conscious reflection and peer community support. This reliance makes them fragile.

Комментариев нет: