What is the evolutionary advantage to religion?

Interesting concept: religion continues to exist to provide comfort in the face of the unknown and comfort in numbers at the same time. No, as long as it does not interfere with looking for real answers to how the universe operates (not that there is a {survival\reproductive} value to that ... ) in the evolution of intelligence (not that there is a {survival\reproductive} value to that either ... )Are quick and easy answers better for {survival\reproductive} advantage even if the answers are wrong?

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

so the religiously inspired genocide of "others" has reduced the genetic diversity of the non-religious genes?that would explain a greater dependency on religion without making a value judgement on the action.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

but is religion responsible for that "group think" behavior?

you said and I classified this as "group think" and asked if religion was responsible for it (or is it a common non-religious trait).certainly I see a lot of the well established religions having a history of enabling this kind of behavior {{and you can see it even today in the various religious wars from ireland to the middle east to the current "crusade" in iraq, etcetera}}, but are they really the root cause of it?this is the {my group good your group bad} that can also be exhibited in highschool sports and similar competitions, and to me is not tied to religion, but to basic ingrained survival behavior patterns (defend my group from all attackers).or is the religious expression of this trait just a continued behavior pattern into the religious context?and is religion combined with government good for the survival of the society? what proportion of todays wll-off people live in a theocracy?enjoy.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

And what proportion of the world population is "the chosen" and what are the parameters for inclusion in "the chosen" eh?But is this really a survival trait of religion - the ability to wage world wars?

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

and one could also say that keeping them in isolated factions also increases diversity so that when disasters (tsunami?) strike there are groups ready and able to carry on ...no other species has formed a world-wide social system.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

heh. you are alluding to sexual selection with the female mate choice issue -- what traits are developed to earn a mate versus to survive.this may have caused the development of the human brain (to develop more creative courtship displays) and it certainly has had a role in the development in the size of human sexual organs compared to other apes ... but in humans you also see a slight sexual dimorphism: males are usually larger than females. this tendency is usually related to sexual dominance behavior (gorillas have a lot of both, while bonobos have very little of either)dominance behavior can lead to warlike behavior in other species as well as humans, just not to the extremes that humans have gone.religion creates restraint for females? a little sexist isn't that? I'd rather say that religion codifies behavioral acceptance in society as a whole. whether that codification has a survival or reproductive benefit is what the question of this thread concerns.my comment on world wars was a little tongue in cheek ...

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

well the point was that you only (mentioned \ singled out} one when the tango needs both ... and I think sexism is older than religion. heck it's as old as sex. (not that sex ever gets old ...)and I would agree that most religions are sexist, but I don't see where that could lead to any added evolutionary benefit.

you've had bits and pieces of it, but not all together like that.sexism gives more males the ability to reproduce so their entrenchment of it into a cultural mechanism (religion) ensures greater availbility of reproduction?I would think entrenchment of marriage {1-husband and 1-wife} would tend to do that as well, for both sexes.certainly all the early religions were focused on fertility.

you have been told of another thread where this discussion IS the topic of the threadhttp://EvC Forum: What is a True Christian? -->EvC Forum: What is a True Christian?go there and sin no more on this page ...

you have been told of another thread where this discussion IS the topic of the threadhttp://EvC Forum: What is a True Christian? -->EvC Forum: What is a True Christian?go there and sin no more on this page ...

yes that is one way to improve your reproductive rate.is it religious? or is it part of the genetic behavior, such as we see in other species that have harems (gosh there are a lot eh?)and religions that go counter to this would then be at a reproductive disadvantage? so there should be more Mormons in the US than Christians?of course one would need to do a genetic analysis to see how many are ex-mormons ... I believe most of the state of Utah used to have a lot of Bringham Young genes before the xian fundies moved in....

thanks. the hard part is getting the whole de-railed train onto the other tracks ... LOL. And it is not like the derailing is not interesting ....but as a side note: it seems that whenever the posts on a topic jump in numbers that there is an off-topic issue going on ... might help admins to watch for it?I wonder if {percy could implement \ admins could administer} a lock on off-topic posts to prevent replies or to tunnel them to a new topic (say in coffeehouse, or short topics, so that it is open for comments). maybe the posts could be "closed" similar to the closing of whole threads?I will post this on the suggestions thread.thanks.

But most of those societies had a religious structure (priests, oracles, etc) and a secular ruling structure (king, army, etc) that mostly worked together (the king ostensibly was appointed by the god(s) in question and the priests ostensibly worked for the god(s) through him ...), but there has always been a bit of separation of church and state in the more successful societies (and by successful I mean not too oppressive as that leads to revolts ....)Even Khomeini's Iran was not totally run by his whim, if he diverged too far from the established religion there, other Imams would have stepped in.So you get a civil government working with the approval of the religious mandate as well as with the popular mandate. If they are all working together then you can have a stable system.Does the religious aspect really make it cohesive? I can certainly work as the opium of the masses in that regard eh?

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

off topic