tim@ihlpf.UUCP (07/04/83)
#R:unc:-543700:ihlpf:22600017: 0:1863
ihlpf!dap1 Jul 3 23:28:00 1983
Silvio,
You are right, Bertrand Russell did not "prove" his assertion (it's not
provable) that religion is learned. Some time ago I posted a note with
a request for replies on the VERY STRONG circumstantial evidence for this
view and never recieved any. Since it is being brought up again, perhaps
I can finally get a response, at least from you.
The evidence is simple. When an overwhelming group of people with some
common cultural background hold common views or common tastes (at least
hold such views or tastes in the vast majority) it is common (and sensible)
to attribute such views to those commonalities which are present in that
culture. Why do more Chinese like snake than Americans? Why do the English
get so worked up about cricket while Americans prefer baseball? It could
be a simple coincidence and even the formidable Russell would have trouble
disproving this hypothesis. However, a MUCH more reasonable explanation is
that the cultures which people have been brought up in affect their views.
The same argument applies equally well to religions. It could be just a
coincidence that most of the people of this country have independently
come to the conclusion that Christianity is the most sensible religion while
those in other countries often come to different conclusions. I prefer to
believe that the dominant reason for most people's choice of religions
is the culture they were brought up in rather than carefully thought out
decisions. This has nothing to do with whether the belief itself is right
or wrong. Perhaps baseball is innately more interesting that cricket or
vice verce. The point is, the people who watch baseball (or believe in
Christianity) have only stumbled on the right sport (religion) rather than
come upon it in a rational, objective manner.
Darrell Plank