Question one and two According to Pascal Boyer, why are “Intellectual Scenarios” inadequate to explain the origin of religion? How might one attack Boyer’s assessment of them?

Some people are religious and some are not; religious beliefs are different in different places. Buddhists hold their religious information too much, they prefer conserving information regarding their religion thus brings about complexities when trying to understand the origin and evolution of religion. Some human’s beings do not understand the meaning or the in-depth analysis of religion; this is due to gospel disparity and lack of respective channels for delivering the gospel to such people.

Occupational hazard; the general intuition that the origin of religion is systemic rather the general evolution brings the gap of professionalism in dispatching the origin of religion. This has brought about diversity in professionalism when arguing about the origin of religion.

How are memes like genes? Drawing from Dennett and/or Blackmore, explain the reproductive success of any one religious

Human imagination; this is a phenomenon that is devolved from a fount of creativity. Humans imagine things and facts that they have never seen nor heard, for example, imagining events or actions that someone has never seen and that are most impossible to happen in the real world. Creative imagination is believed to solve some biological actions that take course in a person’s life.

Unique capacity for creativity; humans are the most creative species among all creatures. Most animals have the capability of learning and arguably both operant conditioning and classical analysis involve a clear capacity and level for procedural imagination.

Difference between hominid ancestors and modern humans; modern humans are constantly busy with simulation of new ideas and plans as compared to hominid ancestors who had adequate time in devolving and coming about with religion matters. Cultures were also created by ancestors hence this brought about the devolution of religion.