Spindoc, thanks for your gracious concession. "not sure I agree that personalities and AVB’s are abstractions. In the broader sense I see human cognitive skills as embracing all identifiable forms of intelligence".
Though I'm not sure to what "AVB's" refer?
Indeed the self is "constituted by language", as Habermas has it (another vein of thought is that "language thinks us"), thus by "others", making a nonsense of traditional subject-object cognition (and the present cult of the self that our economic system thrives on). The vaunted cogito has had a hard time of late, indeed has been radically decentered by Lacan (among others) via his so-called "copernican revolution". This would seem to render those traditions of non-self, Relda mentions, or aspirational "self-lessness", redundant?
Indeed, what are the implications for religious notions of soul or atman?
The bigger can of worms, for secular instrumentalism/realism is, on what does it base its calls for ethical conduct? I go on about ethics myself, but can a value system be imposed willynilly, in other words without valid premises? Can ethics be sustained merely by some ostensibly intuitive capacity--for their own sake?
To which George has spontaneously volunteered, "Today mathematicians don’t speaks of axioms (Euclidean or other) as self-evident or “necessary truths” any more. So maybe this might hint at a more open-minded view of the articles of one’s own faith, although “the (religious) man in the street” will still be able to see his articles of faith only as necessary truths, as he will also Euclid’s axioms".
The trouble is, bland, albeit "necessary", "articles of faith", engender neither commitment nor tolerance as social norms; both are liable to abuse, witness the morass of modern culture. According to Charles Taylor, "high standards need strong sources", yet history is replete with "glorious" atrocities--so much for sociology.
I suspect we're not done with the self (soul?), or dualism, yet. It seems to me individuals are capable of transcending their apparent constitutional limits--that is, acting spontaneously under constraint.

Oliver,
>>Your comment had unfamiliar and unnecessary bite.<<
I concede and I apologise. I should not have made it sound personal. What I meant was that one should not offer simple answers to a problem that has occupied the Western mind for centuries. I know, I myself offered a simplified (Christian) answer by pointing to its resolution in the afterlife (an answer meaningless to an atheist). However, I explicitly acknowledged it was a simplification (well, I used the term partial answer).

Yes, I asked a direct question “Do you mean to say that one has to be an atheist in order to be recognised as a scholarly anthropologist?” and I did not want to believe your answer was Yes. I expressed my attitude above as: “anthropologists (and others) should ‘leave at the door’ theist or atheist world-views (prejudices) that could unfairly compromise their research.” So if you do not agree, please let us again just agree to disagree. By the way, is not “theist’s right to cherish a belief” also a somewhat “unfamiliar and unnecessary bite” irrelevant to the question I asked?

Also, as I said, I am not an anthropologist nor an expert on comparative religion, but I doubt “taxonomy” is the right word to describe their research, and I am sure it is not their task to make conclusions about the superiority of this or that religion or no religion at all (in the sense of being “closest to truth” or the “strongest construct”).

I think I can understand what you are after - why this religion rather than that or none - although I doubt you can get an answer from anthropology that would satisfy you.

I have learned a lot from you - and for this I am grateful - albeit more from your questions than from the answers you offer (or hint at). I think it was Bertrand Russell who said that Aquinas was an important philosopher because of the question he aked, not so for his answers. So I think you are in good company here.

Squeers, AVB’s (Attitudes, Values and Beliefs) are the basis of Social Intelligence. These are formed by our upbringing, socio/economic/parental circumstances and our education. It’s less to do with measuring, more to do with positioning on the reality/non-reality spectrum. No right or wrong, just our own reality or perspectives.

Relda, you are challenging the limits of my scholarly ability on spirituality. For what it’s worth, I see spirituality as self knowledge, an understanding of our reactions to everything and everybody. I also think that this has been part of us since we first developed rudimentary awareness, part instinct from flight or fight reactions and part imagination and inquisitiveness.

Sadly this very individual and personal self understanding has been hijacked by institutionalized religions. These religions now “impose” their interpretation of spirituality through “rules”. Given that there are now some 34,000 registered religions (all explained by theology), we can see the extent to which many humans have been drawn away from self knowledge and self development. It’s simply too easy to let someone else work it out and just follow.

I see all human attributes as pyramids of topics, each growing in content. The further we drill down into content, the more entities we have to deal with, the more complex it becomes and the further we are from understanding self. Our societies are increasingly content driven and in order for any of us to understand self and become a benign species, we must drill upwards to find “self reconciliation” rather than downwards into “abstraction”.

Was it not Thomas Aquinas who declared after a lifetime dedicated to learning and writing “All that I have written it but straw”.

IMHO, Theology is an interesting academic exercise, totally out of proportion in its “knowledge value” to humans and an inhibitor to our progress towards becoming a benign species.

Such concepts can only exist at the base of the pyramid where the shear volume of trivia allows some humans to take their “answers to anything and everything pets” for a walk.

Bravo Spindoc, yer done good.

I'd concur with your short burst of reality there, if I were asked to.

Damn it, I'll concur anyway, and live dangerously in the lion's den of Sells OLO mystical columns.

34k registered religions, eh? And all of them 'right', no doubt.

Interesting, how much we rely on not-thinking to survive isn't it?

On requiring 'things' to live by, on needing to oppose others all the time, for ideas that have no answer?

Sad, sad and, really, rather pathetic. How on Earth did we get this far?

Oops, how far have we really got?

Best not think about that, pass the smoking handbag and move to hymn number 36.

No foreign coins in the collection tray please.

Grim,
True, I am“fond”of reiterating another’s belief or opinion - their acknowledgement can only help in the formation or challenge of my own. In discovering what is currently believed and has been believed over time we can discover, not only how unoriginal our own beliefs usually are but perhaps also, their fallacy. Obviously, we all cherish our ‘own’ opinions as being in some way unique and important to us - in this regard my beliefs or opinions do not surpass yours, I’m sorry you’ve found my words patronizing.

I also believe co-operation amongst us humans to be important, and Jesus certainly wasn’t the first to mention the ‘Golden Rule’ which, incidentally, I’ve never suggested. My mention of‘social Darwinism’was to challenge your statement,“Ultimately, ethics and morality are about survival. Not survival of the fittest, or of the self, but of the species”.I do not think "survival" is the key point for morality. Social Darwinism after all similarly suggests that life is a struggle for human beings and that, in order for the best to survive, it is, according to Herbert Spencer (creator of the Social Darwinism theory), also necessary to pursue a policy of non-aid for the weak: "to aid the bad in multiplying, is, in effect, the same as maliciously providing for our descendants a multitude of enemies." Perhaps “the best” can be replaced with, “the species”and,from a sense of compassion, the “weak” catered for. This, however, doesn’t address the core issue of morality and what drives it.

It can be argued that if the evolutionary process directs us towards survival, we have an egoistic (or selfish) reason for being moral. However, if we equate survival with morality,it becomes merely a value judgment i.e.,without evidence to support it. Philosophically,we can easily arrive at two important age old questions: How can we distinguish between good and evil and why should we be good? Where we fail to distinguish good from evil, social Darwinism becomes particularly contentious because,as recently demonstrated,it is mostly understood as"an apology for some of the most vile social systems that humankind has ever known,"for instance German Nazism(Ruse,1995).

Hey Relda, thanks for dipping delicately into the dangerous waters of Godwin’s Law; it allows me to credibly say “well, he started it!”
As an example of my ideas on cooperation, compare the WW2 army of Germany to the mythical army of Orcs and others under Sauron. When Sauron was thrown down, his army automatically dispersed. Without direct mind control, the concept of an ‘evil’ army is absurd.
Consider an army without esprit de corps. Without concepts of loyalty, or honour or courage or personal sacrifice such an army could probably never form, much less remain cohesive. Hitler may have been (was) a monster, but the German soldiers must have had the same stirling qualities as the allied soldiers, to be so competitive. I don’t think blind obedience is enough for a great army.
In fact, this strikes at the very definition of good and evil. The most evil person imaginable (a sociopath) is also the most totally selfish; whereas outstandingly ‘good’ people are those who are prepared to sacrifice themselves ‘for the greater good’: say Gandhi or mother Teresa, or all the soldiers who have died for a cause they truly believed in.
Of course, this argument doesn’t prove: ‘Cooperation good, individuality bad’.
It does however indicate that without cooperation -or direct mind control- great achievements are unlikely to happen. For good or ill.
I would suggest ensuring the survival of the human race would be a great achievement.