I think you're misunderstanding me -- I don't disagree with anything you write below.
--- John Thornton <jthorn65 at sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> Chris Doss wrote:
> > That religion broadly defined is a human
> > near-universal, like language, suggests it is not
> > merely a contingent social construction.
>
>
> It suggests no such thing.
> The idea that there is a central metaphysical urge
> behind religion is a
> good example of Nozick's statement to the effect
> that people prefer a
> hidden hand to an invisible hand. The way inference
> systems work in our
> minds is for a preference towards agency.
> Religion can easily, and in my mind more plausibly,
> be described as a
> by-product of human minds.
> A psychologist can easily explain the effects of:
> consensus effect,
> false consensus effect, memory illusions, source
> monitoring defects,
> confirmation bias, and cognitive dissonance
> reduction along with others
> as departures from normative reasoning and every one
> of these play the
> determining roll in the development of religious
> ideas. None of the
> above are social constructs.
>
> John Thornton
> ___________________________________
>
http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>
Mataiotes mataioteton, eipen ho Ekklasiastes, mataiotes mataioteton, ta panta mataiotes.