Thread:User talk:WaitingforGodot/Free book/reply (3)

In this case, of religious studies, it's not even neuro grounded. It's far more "this makes sense to me, cause it's what I'd have done, so I'm going to postulate it and say it's proven". (I will never release my PhD Dissertation for this very reason. It is more than half bunk "makes sense to me", but it worked in the late 80's and when you use the right "in" words (othering and dialogics at the time) you look all uber impressive or some shit).

Often, "ur" is treated as if it were *a single religion*, and an ACTUAL theological/religious concept that can be studied "if only they wrote down", that all ancients tapped into. BULLOCKS. If we are predisposed to be "religious" in some way, there is no compelling reason that your predispostion would react the way mine would, nor that our cultures we invent in two different parts of the world, with two very different challenges and privileges would look at all the same or express this "religion" at all the same.

Unqualified statement: I fully *believe* religion is a direct human creation related to how our brains are wired, and what we experience in the world. That said, I could or would make no comments about how those views would appear.