Reply to comment

Nicolas Wade in the NYTimes Week in Review this morning ...

For atheists, it is not a particularly welcome thought that religion evolved because it conferred essential benefits on early human societies and their successors. If religion is a lifebelt, it is hard to portray it as useless.

For believers, it may seem threatening to think that the mind has been shaped to believe in gods, since the actual existence of the divine may then seem less likely.

But the evolutionary perspective on religion does not necessarily threaten the central position of either side ...

From Kent Flannery, referred to in the Wade article ...

I got to wondering about what archeology needed the most. I decided there probably isn't an urgent need for one more young person who makes a living editing other people's original ideas. And I decided we probably didn't need a lot more of our archeological flat tires recapped as philosophers. There seems to be enough around to handle the available work.

What I don't see enough of ... is first-rate archaeology.

Now that's sad, because after all, archeology is fun. Hell, I don't break the soil periodically to 'reaffirm my status'. I do it because archeology is still the most fun you can have with your pants on.