Quote:
Originally Posted by InfiniteNow
Request thread be moved to Strange Claims bucket.
This is not science (as expressly conceded in the OP), and, in fact, stands in direct opposition to the actual science (even Wiki has an entire section discussing this specific issue of it being cultural).
|
Might not be Science with a capital "S" yet, but it seems HB is still developing his argument in his last post, albeit with a bit of a detour.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by InfiniteNow
Surely, if it were "instinctual," you wouldn't have such cultural variation, and likely not such a high incidence of infidelity to begin with.
|
I agree with that, but discussing the origins of the
idea that humans are supposedly monogamous, and whatever benefits upholding that pretension might have, is surely scientific.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by InfiniteNow
Seems to me somebody is engaging in wish thinking in an attempt to justify their faith based worldview.
|
I don't recall HB dragging religion into it anywhere.
Religion might be a strong angle in defense of this particular idea, but the fallacy of human monogamy cuts across all racial, cultural and religious lines. Western Europeans have religion to thank for their monogamous viewpoint, but amongst the Bushmen of the Kalahari, strict monogamy is part and parcel of their makeup. And they've only been in contact with Christianity for a relatively short while. I have a suspicion that in their desert conditions, the original basis for their monogamy has more to do with keeping the population limited in the face of harsh living conditions than with religion.
So, while I certainly understand your objections and your call for moving this thread to Strange Claims, I do see fertile soil for a proper discussion of the Scientific Kind with regards to this particular topic.
