What is the evolutionary advantage to religion?

Hi Ned. Although I agree that CE and BE are different, I would suggest that there are substantial similarities as well. I don't think your statement that "they are very, very different processes" is entirely accurate. This might be an interesting alternate topic to explore in another thread.

Short answer? No. BE is wholly dependent on generational transmission (i.e., genetic inheritance), whereas CE can be transmitted laterally as well as generationally. Some have proposed the term "meme" as the cultural equivalent of genes, but I have some problems with the concept. As I mentioned to Ned, it's pretty OT for this thread, and might be better served in a new thread. The topic of this thread seems to be more, "is there a genetic basis for religiousity" or maybe "is there a genetic basis for why humans seem to invent religion from very early on", or something.

Heh. Yeah it is a confusing topic. "Religion" is strictly cultural, whereas a case could be made that "religiousity" or "magical thinking" that forms the foundation of all religion is based in biology."Cultural evolution" strictly speaking (as you noted) would not be "evolution" as we understand it in biology. OTOH, cultures do change over time (equivalent to biological evolution), can be eliminated (equivalent to biological extinction), can splinter (sort of like speciation), and can be "born" (sort of like the initiation of a new lineage). All in all, CE isn't a bad term for it, although probably misleading and open to confusion.

This is interesting. You and I, for instance, see that maintaining genetic diversity is a good thing. However, outside of a handful of gregarious or eusocial species, the vast majority of lifeforms on this planet have no interest in the survival of the group (or species) as a whole. Rather, it is individual survival/reproduction that is the important element. Which makes sense, if you think about it: selection acts on the individual, not the species (leaving aside theories about group or species selection a la Eldredge/Gould, etc).My point is that evolution does not take the long-term view. Adaptations are not directed at the good of the species, only at the good of the individual and its future progeny. Schraf's point about genocide is on-target: among more "conscious" organisms, group survival, including elimination of potential or actual competitors = increased individual survival. Only humans, however, appear to take this to the genocidal extreme.

Uhh, okay. I would say that would be a very idiosyncratic definition of "genocide", however. Please let me know if you every run into a peer-reviewed study showing how a population of Pan from, say, Rwanda conquered and eliminated all other populations of Pan. There is a substantial difference between territorial battles - which chimps are known for - and extermination.

My opinion? No. Religion if anything provides justification for genocide.edited to add: I'm not sure I understand what you were asking about group think. If I didn't answer what you asked, would you please clarify?This message has been edited by Quetzal, 01-02-2005 13:03 AM

Okay, thanks for the clarification. Now I understand what you were asking. I think a good case can be made that competition, at least in the sense of taking over or defending territory, etc, is well-referenced in animal behavior, at least as far as social species go. So I'd venture to guess that it's a fairly common, non-religious trait. Obviously, as you note, religion can provide a pretty good rationale for this behavior, and may even render it more effective - i.e., this competition carried to its logical conclusion = genocide. As you said. Religion appears to reinforce the behavior rather than being a cause of it. I'd say that a pretty good case can be made that in pre-scientific societies, the combination of religious and secular governance provides a very strong cohesive society. In modern times, however, the secular has been more often opposed to the religious in terms of power. I think one of the key problems in post-colonial North Africa, for instance, has been this dichotomy and conflict. In the cases of Tunisia, Morocco, and especially Algeria and Lebanon (although here you have massive external meddling which tends to obscure the internal divisions) for instance, most of the recent (last 20 years) internal conflict has been fostered by religion vs secular power. So I don't think the combination is a good or healthy one today. It remains a powerful one, however (note Khomeini's Iran).

Hmm, I used Khomeini's Iran because that's the only example of a recent theocracy that truly combined civil and secular power. The Taliban didn't qualify because they weren't really the government, just controlled it. Whereas you might be correct that the Council of Imams might have been able to remove Khomeini if he stepped too far out of line, AFAIK (and I used to have a bunch of historical references on the subject some two or three computers ago...) his will was never even questioned. It was a true theocratic autocracy. The civil government was wholly subordinate to and controlled by Khomeini and his religious council. Obviously, once he was out of the picture, things got a bit better (and quite a bit less theocratic), but I think you are underestimating the actual secular and religious power he wielded. Every aspect of the society was subordinate to his whim. I'm not sure I completely agree. Most of the history of Western Europe between the fall of the Western Roman Empire and the Enlightenment (with a brief interlude for Charlemagne) was a history of at best uneasy alliance between the religious and secular arms, or occasionally one or the other attaining brief control and using the other for their own ends. Many (all?) of the wars on the Continent during this timeframe used religious grounds or trappings as a basis for what were purely secular conflicts. Stability was not a hallmark of this era. More like dynamic disequilibrium (with apologies to Robert Whittaker). He he. I totally agree here. "Opiate of the masses" is right...

Oh, I dunno. I think we're mostly on topic in the majority of the posts. I'm not sure that would have been the case. However, in the event, Khomeini was nothing if not a very ascetic True Believer, so the problem never arose. If I was a cynic I would say that there IS no species-level benefit currently - rather the opposite. The persistence of religion is more do to what you later posted (manipulation by the "cheaters"). OTOH, cynically speaking humans apparently don't like to think for themselves or take responsibility for their own actions/lives very much. Religion fills the gap by allowing people to let something else take on those tough issues.From a evo-psych point of view, I'd speculate the persistence of religion has to do with a fundamental desire for relief of anxiety. In the modern world, we face a for-all-intents-and-purposes incomprehensibly complex social system. Coping with this complexity allows the unscrupulous (or even the well-intentioned scrupulous) to derive personal advantage. Consider that it is highly likely humans are genetically "programmed" gregarious and hierarchical (like all our closest relatives except perhaps the bonobo - which may likely be an anomaly whose environment allowed them to take a different path than the rest of the primates). It is fairly easy to substitute the high priest for the high male. We're programmed for obedience. If the high priest can relieve our anxiety, so much the better: we're programmed to seek this relief out.

Hee hee. That's EXACTLY the glue that holds bonobo society together. They use sexual encounters as the primary social interaction. The most sexually oriented species on the planet, bar none. Also the least aggressive primate. Hmmm, wonder if there's a correlation there? Indeed.

Hi contra,Quite a few species seem to "enjoy" sex. The reason I listed bonobos as the "most sexual" species is that the vast majority of their social interactions are sexual in nature. It is literally the main thread that weaves the society together. See, for example, any of Frans de Waal's work, some of which may be on-line. In fact, here's one: (a reprint of a Scientific American article by de Waal: Bonobo Sex and Society). Now, I don't agree with de Waal that bonobo society has much if anything to do with human behavioral evolution, but his look at bonobos is very interesting.

I "think" so, but I don't "know". The report you referenced concerned a survey of 1/3 of Salongo National Park (the only protected bonobo reserve) in Congo. No live bonobos were discovered. However, as of December last year, WWF believes there may be around 10,000 still living in other parts of the reserve and the country. Note: this may not be sustainable, even if they're not all extinct.It would indeed be a great tragedy. Our nearest living relatives wiped off the face of the Earth through human ignorance and need. Part and parcel of the wonderful legacy we are leaving our children.