24 Total Votes


14 votes


10 votes
Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
maslow says2016-07-15T20:39:23.8755978Z
In practice, the question posed here is probably not answerable with certainty because a genuine experimental test of the question is impossible. For both pragmatic and ethical reasons, we could never randomly assign individuals to a condition in which they were raised in a religious environment and randomly assign others to be raised in a nonreligious environment, all the while ensuring that all participants in this fanciful Gedanken experiment experienced little or no contact with the contrasting worldview. Putting it differently, we will almost certainly never know the hypothetical counterfactual (Dawes 1994) to the question posed at the article’s outset; by “hypothetical counterfactual,” we mean the outcome that would have resulted had the world, or a large chunk of it, never been exposed to religion. That is not to say, however, that circumstantial scientific data cannot inform the question or adjust a rational individual’s assignment of probability to its answer.
sadolite says2016-07-15T21:35:33.5100198Z
When speaking of religion speak for yourself
maslow says2016-07-15T23:17:49.1273744Z
Sadolite: you do mean that to include yourself?
Anomalis says2016-07-18T17:03:00.7188819Z
@Maslow: That's true, a really scientific answer would take some doing. I can hardly speculate what humans would be like had it not occurred (Or what we would be like in the future never knowing about it). I should of made the questions "Do we *Still* need religion" because of course religion has played a tremendous role in our evolution. But do we Still need is what I was really wondering.

Freebase Icon   Portions of this page are reproduced from or are modifications based on work created and shared by Google and used according to terms described in the Creative Commons 3.0 Attribution License.

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.