Is philosophy verboten?

Just curious.  After all, chess is often called 'the philosopher's game.'    But lots of people get super worked up over things like free will and ethics.

I have also read some interesting articles about evolution and the belief in god, in other words, the theory of evolution's power to explain why people do believe in god.

Not that I actually want to discuss such topics.  I am only mentioning them.

We can't discuss it so I'll mention it as well, but an evolutionnary theory of religion makes sense (not biological evolution, of course). But I think that if you follow history of societies (which is kind of hard as it is not delimited with a clear line, but it is possible to have a, at least gross idea of a defined society) you can compare it's evoltion with that of an individual. Applying Piaget's theory of human developpement, for example, to societies brings interesting results. Just as I think you can make psychanalysis of societies, as society is not simply the adition of all individuals (of course it is, but hear my precision) but since the individual is very much shaped by society, the particular character of the society is brought to the individuals so the society, in part makes the individuals, and in this sense, this quite abstract part which is the society is somewhat independant from the individual, even though it's part of him.

Note that analysing all this is not a clear cut analysis, as pschology and sociology are far from being exact sciences, and when combined together (as I think it is possible to do) and targeting not the individual, but the society (this means a huge amount of individuals, a society could be defined as far as the "west" for example). But I could show some examples which will show where I'm getting. I've rambled enough, but I'd rather not give examples as it will irremediably fall in religion or politics, as these are the two easiest and principal ways we can "monitor" a society, psychologically speaking.

Hope it was clear enough, I feel like I'm rambling... 

As non-exact sciences I was referring to psychology and sociology, which my post is about more than philosophy are you saying these two are speculative reasoning and logic? No, they are sciences but they are still some part of philosophy (but again all sciences are derivatives of philosophy, pefore almost all intellectual thought was considered as philosophy, besides mathematics, but they have been separated by name for more precision as they became more specialised and philosophy now refers almost exclusively to ethics), but are not speculative as they observe and reason from facts and observations, only their facts are "approximations" but again, just like physics or even mathematics are. Because often the big picture is enough and you don't need the exactitude. Just like if someone wins a 100m race by running it in 9.63 seconds, and the second did it in 9.73 seconds, you don't need to know the third decimal to know who has finished first and who second. My point was a bit this, it's that a certain psychological development theory might be right, but it will never be right for everyone, it's guidelines that help understand it in most people, or that when talking about a society, there is no clear cut line defining a society, but you can take rather loose set of general traits set in a certain geographical space, for example, and it gives you a society, but since not every part of the society is like the whole, and the whole is not the sum of all the individual part, it is not exact. You are merely judging some traits that are particular or not to this society.

Just like statistics are not exact, but they give the precision margin (what's the exact term for this in english?), however, even this margin might be totally wrong, but it will be right 9 times on ten for example. Hence 37.7% results may vary by 0.2% 19 times on 20, for example. This means that 37.7% is quite reliable, but there is still a chance that it's completly false. My point here is to show you that nothing is exactly perfect, that doesn't mean it should be considered speculative reasoning. And I wonder why you always add logic to it, as logic is the very basis of any scientific research...

Etienne:

On the contrary, a biological theory is exactly what I meant, e.g. did belief in god make for a better statistical chance at survival for pan sapiens?

Egoigwe:

What's an example of an exact science?  You would seem make everything mere speculation by that criterion!

What kind of exact science have you made the foundation for the above evaluation?  You seem to point your finger at yourself!

Margin of Error. At least, it was called that when I studied statistics in the last century.

 Anaxagoras:

What's an example of an exact science?  You would seem make everything mere speculation by that criterion!

What kind of exact science have you made the foundation for the above evaluation?  You seem to point your finger at yourself!

Ettiene:

"Note that analysing all this is not a clear cut analysis, as pschology and sociology are far from being exact sciences..."

I think that question ought to be for Ettiene. I was only trying to figure out where he was headed. I had assumed by exact science he meant that which was driven by empirical deductions, which indeed is what an exact science is. My definition would be a mechanism that relies on evidence or consequences that are verifiable and observable. I still think he meant stuff like mathematics and perhaps physics, chemistry and biology but you must really ask him for his definition of it. 

I believe I saw a story in the paper written by an AP journalist, which talked about recent human remains that were discovered that poked holes in the theory of human evolution because the remains were from the approximate time of the evolution time frame. 

The Joker

 Well I pointed out in my other post how no science was exact, some are more precise than other, that's all. But to conclude certain things (or come up with reliable theories) you don't have to be exact. That was the whole meaning of my previous post.

"I believe I saw a story in the paper written by an AP journalist, which talked about recent human remains that were discovered that poked holes in the theory of human evolution because the remains were from the approximate time of the evolution time frame. 

The Joker"

 And what does this have to do with the topic at hand? You just said that because you saw the word evolution? Some people...

"On the contrary, a biological theory is exactly what I meant, e.g. did belief in god make for a better statistical chance at survival for pan sapiens?"

Maybe you can show (if it's online) the article, or explain it? 

Hello Anaxagoras:

Perhaps you were aware that a colleague of your ancient namesake had a rather impressive theory of natural selection himself!

=== begin quoted passage ===

... [Empedocles] had a theory (somewhat fantastic, it must be admitted) of evolution and the survival of the fittest. Originally, "countless tribes of mortal creatures were scattered abroad endowed with all manner of forms, a wonder to behold." There were heads without necks, arms without shoulders, eyes with-out foreheads, solitary limbs seeking for union. These things joined together as each might chance; there were shambling creatures with countless hands, creatures with faces and breasts looking in different directions, creatures with the bodies of oxen and the faces of men, and others with the faces of oxen and the bodies of men. There were hermaphrodites combining the natures of men and women, but sterile. In the end, only certain forms survived.

As regards astronomy: [Empedocles] knew that the moon shines by reflected light. and thought that this is also true of the sun; he said that light takes time to travel, but so little time that we cannot observe it; he knew that solar eclipses are caused by the interposition of the moon, a fact which he seems to have learnt from Anaxagoras....

[from Bertrand Russell's "A History of Western Philosophy," Chapter 6 ("Empedocles"), p. 54; Simon & Schuster, ISBN 0-671-20158-1, copyright 1945, renewed 1972.]

=== end quoted passage ===

Text of some fragments of Empedocles may be viewed here:

http://history.hanover.edu/texts/presoc/emp.htm

My own musing on this: when we reflect on ancient Greek mythology/cosmology, it is not surprising that a doctrine of natural selection might arise.  Consider...

Who is chief among the Greek gods?  Zeus.

And from whom was Zeus born?  Chronos (Time).

And from whom was Chronos born?  Gaia, the goddess of nature and earth (said to be described as "the everlasting foundation of the gods of Olympus" in Hesiod's "Theogony" (here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaia_%28mythology%29 )

And -- here is the main point -- from whom was Gaia born?  Gaia was born from...

... CHAOS!!

Yes, Chaos -- said to be described by (Roman poet) Hesiod (in the "Thegony") as "the nothingness out of which the first objects of existence appeared" and by Ovid (in his "Metamorphoses") as "rather a crude and indigested mass, a lifeless lump, unfashioned and unframed, of jarring seeds and justly Chaos named". ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaos_%28mythology%29 )

So, the ancient Greeks had a concept of celestial and terrestrial order arising out of primordial disorder within their mythologies.

Aristotole was familiar with Empedocles' ideas and discusses the possibility of spontaneous emergence of order from disorder in parts 4 and 8 of Book II of the "Physics":

http://classics.mit.edu/Aristotle/physics.2.ii.html

Similar ideas can be found in Book V of (Roman) Lucretius' "De Rerum Natura" (often translated "On the Nature of Things"):

http://classics.mit.edu/Carus/nature_things.5.v.html

Thanks for your thoughts on this!

BishopBerkeley

 Well, in this sense I will have to agree as many laws, rules and rites often have a hidden point (health, reproduction, make the population more lawful, etc). But that doesn't make it biological evolution though as the only evolution caused by it is societal (although this does influence biological evolution).

 Patriotism

But I think what Dawkin might mean is that religion was created as a vehicle, a middleman, for the morals, laws, and beliefs that will consitutite what is beneficial. This part is true, in my opinion, but where I disagree is with the way it's put, which only shows a bias toward religion, as these "beneficial things" are part of religion, but Dawkin tries to dissociate religion of it's "good sides" and limiting it to the "absurd belief in magic".

 Individuals sacrificing themselves for the clan would contribute to the clan in a group selection sense. But for a specific individual being born in this clan the survival value would increase if he did not possess this values and merely stood back a little and let the others do the dying.

...which is why we always talk about the survival of the species rather than the individual.  From the point of view of the gene, it doesn't matter if it's me or my 3rd cousin who survives to procreate.

Another reason why supernatural beliefs would benefit the species:  the terror of death could be debilitating without them. 

Life is like chess. Some moves you see, some moves you don't.