Religion a figment of human imagination (http://www.newscientist.com/channel/being-human/dn13782-religion-a-figment-of-human-imagination.html?feedId=online-news_rss20)

Uniquely, humans could use what Bloch calls the "transcendental social" to unify with groups, such as nations and clans, or even with imaginary groups such as the dead. The transcendental social also allows humans to follow the idealised codes of conduct associated with religion.

"What the transcendental social requires is the ability to live very largely in the imagination," Bloch writes.

"One can be a member of a transcendental group, or a nation, even though one never comes in contact with the other members of it," says Bloch. Moreover, the composition of such groups, "whether they are clans or nations, may equally include the living and the dead."

Modern-day religions still embrace this idea of communities bound with the living and the dead, such as the Christian notion of followers being "one body with Christ", or the Islamic "Ummah" uniting Muslims.

Interesting idea,
Michael

Does this mean that atheists are not evolved?

Does this mean that atheists are not evolved?No. It means we've evolved further and can tell the difference between the real and the imaginary. :)

More seriously, I can't speak for all atheists but the ones I know have fine-tuned their imaginations to "unify" with a greater number of real living people, rather than with dead people and imaginary supernatural creatures. My biggest complaint about the Abrahamist communities is not our philosophical disagreements about gods, the afterlife and silly fables about pillars of salt, but the fact that their faith reinforces their tribalism and makes it difficult for them to "unify" with other religious and non-religious communities. To a man (or woman) my atheist friends would all like to see us transcend national borders and unite as a single world community. Most Christians and Muslims--especially the ones who rise to leadership--are only willing to do that after conquering everyone else and converting them to their own religion first.

This is a poorly written article for such a prestigious journal and that makes me question the underlying scholarship. For starters, the editors and proofreaders missed "Upper Paleological," which is meaningless, for "Upper Paleolithic." Furthermore, it is sheer speculation to assert that humans are the only animals who have evolved imagination. Surely imagination evolves by degree, rather than springing up anomalously. As several of the hundreds of comments pointed out, other animals have invented tools, which is quite an accomplishment without opposable thumbs!

This article will surely strike an enormous segment of its readers as an "extraordinary assertion" and therefore is subject to the Rule of Laplace. Let's see some extraordinary evidence, please, before submitting it to laymen readers!

This is exactly the kind of crap that makes laymen suspicious of science.

No. It means we've evolved further and can tell the difference between the real and the imaginary. :)

Lack of imagination, no doubt. :p

Lack of imagination, no doubt.See edit. Sorry, our posts crossed in the ether.

My biggest complaint about the Abrahamist communities is not our philosophical disagreements about gods, the afterlife and silly fables about pillars of salt, but the fact that their faith reinforces their tribalism and makes it difficult for them to "unify" with other religious and non-religious communities.

To a man (or woman) my atheist friends would all like to see us transcend national borders and unite as a single world community. Most Christians and Muslims--especially the ones who rise to leadership--are only willing to do that after conquering everyone else and converting them to their own religion first.

And your post indicates that most atheists would share that view. This article is surely written by an athiest wouldn't you say? Perhaps they are embracing a new kind of tribalism in which theists with their " gods, the afterlife and silly fables about pillars of salt," fall neatly into "the other".

No. It means we've evolved further and can tell the difference between the real and the imaginary.

Oh, really?

Perhaps they are embracing a new kind of tribalism in which theists with their " gods, the afterlife and silly fables about pillars of salt," fall neatly into "the other". Embracing the tribalism created by theists ? I doubt Fraggle would buy in.

Most atheists recognize the establishment of meaning through imagination, which supplies the necessary context and is an essential aspect of human nature. The reductionist attempt - to disenfranchise the imagination and divide the world into separate "material" and "spiritual" realms - characteristic of theisms in their institutional establishment, is what the proposal seems to challenge.

And your post indicates that most atheists would share that view. This article is surely written by an athiest wouldn't you say? Perhaps they are embracing a new kind of tribalism in which theists with their " gods, the afterlife and silly fables about pillars of salt," fall neatly into "the other".

Actually I think he was trying to get across that the difference between a theist and an atheist is that an atheist would want to see humanity united regardless of religion, tribalism, or nation - instead of instead of as a result of a single religion taking conquering the world.

Actually I think he was trying to get across that the difference between a theist and an atheist is that an atheist would want to see humanity united regardless of religion, tribalism, or nation - instead of instead of as a result of a single religion taking conquering the world.

Not really, all atheists want to do is suppress religious expression, that is their major contribution in any society, as atheists.

Nonsense. They simply want all ideas to be examined on their merits. Religious people want some ideas to be off-limits from public debate. That is due to the basic weakness of these ideas.

Not really, all atheists want to do is suppress religious expression, that is their major contribution in any society, as atheists.

It's astonishing that a person of your intellectual fortitude, can be hood-winked by the snake oil antics of Religious salesman. That's exactly what they are salesman. And what are they selling? And Imaginary friend, who didn't exist until man learned the ability to write.

Nonsense. They simply want all ideas to be examined on their merits. Religious people want some ideas to be off-limits from public debate. That is due to the basic weakness of these ideas.

It's astonishing that a person of your intellectual fortitude, can be hood-winked by the snake oil antics of Religious salesman. That's exactly what they are salesman. And what are they selling? And Imaginary friend, who didn't exist until man learned the ability to write.

See?:shrug:

I don't give a shit what you personally believe, but if you want to talk about it, I'll tell you what I think. What's wrong with that?

Religions are useful tools in controlling others with their leadership roles as the way to the eternal life after death. They use their powers to make others do what they want them to do without putting themselves in harms way. It is a good business to be involved with which many have learned and started their own religions / cults over time. If you can convince people to kill, torture, maim, injure or threaten others that if they don't believe in your religion then that's a way to keep others in line and gather new recruits into your business , errr religion. :mad:

i dont think its got to do with imagination. i think its got to do with the need to beileve there is more to life then just cruelty.

Not really, all atheists want to do is suppress religious expression, that is their major contribution in any society, as atheists.

I don't think that and I'm an atheist.

I see religions as analogous to a corporation that has a potentially dangerous and harmful substance that it peddles - a bit like a tobacco company - its down to people's own choice if they want to partake, and its up to the rest of us to show a degree of tolerance - and perhaps even sympathy - for those that do, but there's no obligation for us to give these harmful products a free ride or special privileges that bypass the laws of the country in which I live.

I do think that western democracies can be too tolerant of religious hatred and silly superstition - i.e putting up with christian nutjobs trying to derail education by inserting Intelligent Design fairy stories - or tolerating muslims who publicly call for the deaths of anyone who criticises Islam.

Other than that, what someone does in their own home, and their own church/synagogue/stone circle/mosque is their own business.

Well of course it is.