Yes, my concern is only that he implies that his conclusions are scientific. (Haven’t read the book, so maybe he is much more careful in his argument there.)

In this case, I would say that the words “know” or “understand” denote fact-based evidence, but the word “believe” denotes faith, or conviction despite a lack of fact-based evidence. I’ve got no problem with a scientist with “beliefs,” but it’s important not to call a conviction of faith a scientific fact. My overall criticism is that Wolpert probably doesn’t consider his perspective in the belief category at all (notwithstanding “blah’s” post). He claims to argue from “evidence,” but I don’t think anyone could ever accumulate the right kind of evidence to prove things one way or another.

In short, whether tool use encouraged a cause-and-effect sort of worldview in early humans and led to a biologically-based propensity for religion is simply an untestable hypothesis. Fascinating? Yes! An academic topic? Why not. But testable by means of rigorous science? Nope.

Thanks for the comment!