Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 63 (9161 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,581 Year: 2,838/9,624 Month: 683/1,588 Week: 89/229 Day: 61/28 Hour: 0/3


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   What is the evolutionary advantage to religion?
Phat
Member
Posts: 18248
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 106 of 167 (173364)
01-03-2005 9:02 AM
Reply to: Message 104 by RAZD
01-03-2005 9:00 AM


Re: TOPIC!!
You are right, RAZD> As an administrator, I SHOULD know better! Thanks for being polite!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 104 by RAZD, posted 01-03-2005 9:00 AM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 108 by RAZD, posted 01-03-2005 9:16 AM Phat has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1395 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 107 of 167 (173367)
01-03-2005 9:07 AM
Reply to: Message 97 by nator
01-03-2005 7:55 AM


continuing with discussion on topic
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....

This message is a reply to:
 Message 97 by nator, posted 01-03-2005 7:55 AM nator has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1395 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 108 of 167 (173371)
01-03-2005 9:16 AM
Reply to: Message 106 by Phat
01-03-2005 9:02 AM


Re: TOPIC!!
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 106 by Phat, posted 01-03-2005 9:02 AM Phat has not replied

  
Quetzal
Member (Idle past 5862 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 109 of 167 (173373)
01-03-2005 9:19 AM
Reply to: Message 85 by RAZD
01-02-2005 6:38 PM


Re: General question about this topic
Okay, thanks for the clarification. Now I understand what you were asking.
and I classified this as "group think" and asked if religion was responsible for it (or is it a common non-religious trait).
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.
or is the religious expression of this trait just a continued behavior pattern into the religious context?
As you said. Religion appears to reinforce the behavior rather than being a cause of it.
and is religion combined with government good for the survival of the society? what proportion of todays wll-off people live in a theocracy?
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).

This message is a reply to:
 Message 85 by RAZD, posted 01-02-2005 6:38 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 112 by RAZD, posted 01-03-2005 9:34 AM Quetzal has replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2160 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 110 of 167 (173376)
01-03-2005 9:27 AM
Reply to: Message 102 by Phat
01-03-2005 8:26 AM


Re: General question about this topic
Please explain what an "Ultimate Truth" is, and how it supercedes societal norms.
quote:
How can I explain God?
I don't know.
You said that it "Ultimate Truth" exceeded cultural norms.
If you can't explain what this Truth is, then how can I judge if it exceeds cultural norms or not?
quote:
You will just say that He is a product of my imagination.
MAybe. It depends upon what you say. Mostly I want to know how, specifically, "Ultimate Truth" exceeds cultural norms.
quote:
Perhaps you feel that everything that we imagine or choose to imagine defines our belief.
That is part of what defines our belief.
quote:
If an atheist does not "choose" to imagine God..then...POOF...there is no God!
As an Agnostic, I do not hold that belief.
I don't know if there is a God or not. I have never seen nor experienced any evidence that would lead me to a belief in the supernatural, but that does not mean the supernatural cannot or does not exost, only that I can't tell if it does or not.
quote:
There are things that exist outside of your imagination.
Sure.
quote:
Outside of your comprehension.
Of course.
quote:
You would prefer to let in only that which is comforting and challenging to you.
Isn't that true of every person?
quote:
You have rejected religion, in part, because of the way that it has been perceived by you.
...and others accept religion, in part, because of the way that it has been perceived by them.
quote:
this gives you the special ability to judge who is a "true" Christian or not.
quote:
This what? What is "it" ?
Your "knowledge" of "Ultimate Truth" gives you the ability to judge who is a Chriatian and who isnt, right? Isn't that how you said you knew that those millions of KKK supporters and members weren't "real" christians?
[quote]That's exactly what all Christians say when trying to distance themselves from the more unsavory aspects of Christianity's history[/qs]
quote:
Not at all. We are trying to distance our Spirituality...the living Spirit...from human foible and mistakes. We ourselves are no better than you or anyone else. From your perspective, however, our God is but a product of our minds. So I cannot explain or prove anything to you.
Look, my point is that you are not in a position to decide who is a Christian and who isn't. Each individual who calls themselves Christian, who says that they believe that Jesus is the son of God and died for their sins, is a Christian, even if they were a member of the KKK, the Crusades, the Inquisition, the Salem Witch Trials, Operation Rescue, or any other violent or oppressive group or era in the history of Chritianity.
Those Moslems who flew the planes in to the WTC are real Moslems. They believed thay were doing the work of Allah. They are very poor representatives of their religion, however.
quote:
Absolute Truth supercedes societal norms.
How so?
quote:
Because God exceeds humanity.
How does God exceed humanity and societal norms.
How is God manifested so that I understand how God exceeds societal norms?
Please explain what an "Ultimate Truth" is, and how it supercedes societal norms.
quote:
Again, I can only show you myself. I can not show you God.
Then you cannot show me how God exceeds societal norms, but you assure me that he does.
Then your claim is empty.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 102 by Phat, posted 01-03-2005 8:26 AM Phat has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 113 by RAZD, posted 01-03-2005 9:35 AM nator has not replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2160 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 111 of 167 (173377)
01-03-2005 9:31 AM
Reply to: Message 103 by Phat
01-03-2005 8:32 AM


Re: Does Belief ever evolve? What about human nature?
quote:
No. But I am suggesting that a believer should be taken seriously. It is our God who raises the standard.
In what way does your God raise the standard?
quote:
Just as you may see children as absolved of certain responsibilities because of their age, I see unbelievers as absolved of responsibility as well.
How condescending.
quote:
When I say that anyone who professes belief in an absolute greater than humanity and then abuses this belief by belittling others is worse...I mean worse. They profess belief in a greater standard. They are worse by spitting on their own standard.
What standard is that? Is this standard one of the Ultimate Truths?
quote:
My view maintains that God exists, and is a higher absolute than human wisdom.
OK.
How is this "higher absolute" useful if nobody can describe it?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 103 by Phat, posted 01-03-2005 8:32 AM Phat has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 114 by RAZD, posted 01-03-2005 9:36 AM nator has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1395 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 112 of 167 (173378)
01-03-2005 9:34 AM
Reply to: Message 109 by Quetzal
01-03-2005 9:19 AM


Re: General question about this topic
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.
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}}}

This message is a reply to:
 Message 109 by Quetzal, posted 01-03-2005 9:19 AM Quetzal has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 116 by Quetzal, posted 01-03-2005 10:55 AM RAZD has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1395 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 113 of 167 (173379)
01-03-2005 9:35 AM
Reply to: Message 110 by nator
01-03-2005 9:27 AM


Re: General question about this topic
off topic

This message is a reply to:
 Message 110 by nator, posted 01-03-2005 9:27 AM nator has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1395 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 114 of 167 (173380)
01-03-2005 9:36 AM
Reply to: Message 111 by nator
01-03-2005 9:31 AM


Back on Topic
What is the evolutionary advantage to religion?
what is the advantage given by religion(s) that allows it to persist.
This message has been edited by AdminPhat, 01-03-2005 08:09 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 111 by nator, posted 01-03-2005 9:31 AM nator has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 115 by Phat, posted 01-03-2005 10:21 AM RAZD has replied

  
Phat
Member
Posts: 18248
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 115 of 167 (173392)
01-03-2005 10:21 AM
Reply to: Message 114 by RAZD
01-03-2005 9:36 AM


Re: Back on Topic
RAZD, is there an evolutionary advantage to belief?
Does it matter what belief is being professed?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 114 by RAZD, posted 01-03-2005 9:36 AM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 117 by RAZD, posted 01-03-2005 1:18 PM Phat has not replied

  
Quetzal
Member (Idle past 5862 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 116 of 167 (173401)
01-03-2005 10:55 AM
Reply to: Message 112 by RAZD
01-03-2005 9:34 AM


Re: General question about this topic
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.
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.
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.
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).
Does the religious aspect really make it cohesive? I can certainly work as the opium of the masses in that regard eh?
He he. I totally agree here. "Opiate of the masses" is right...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 112 by RAZD, posted 01-03-2005 9:34 AM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 118 by RAZD, posted 01-03-2005 1:30 PM Quetzal has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1395 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 117 of 167 (173445)
01-03-2005 1:18 PM
Reply to: Message 115 by Phat
01-03-2005 10:21 AM


Re: Back on Topic
Phatboy writes:
is there an evolutionary advantage to belief?
heh, that would be the essence of the question, wouldn't it?
Is there an evolutionary advantage to {{belief in something {absolutely\relatively} unknowable as a {cause\motivator\reason} regardless of what that belief is}}?
And I would say that it doesn't matter what {belief} is being professed, as there have been and are too many different beliefs to say one is better than another in the efffect on {survival\reproduction}.
and I suppose that the belief in question could be that intelligence, education, knowledge, and understanding make one better suited for existence ....

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 115 by Phat, posted 01-03-2005 10:21 AM Phat has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 119 by PerfectDeath, posted 01-03-2005 1:50 PM RAZD has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1395 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 118 of 167 (173450)
01-03-2005 1:30 PM
Reply to: Message 116 by Quetzal
01-03-2005 10:55 AM


Re: General question about this topic
Diverging from topic again ....
But to go with the flow:
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
I think he would have found it different if he had used his position to, say, molest little boys and girls. As long as he wore the robes inside as well as out, he would find no opposition.
a history of at best uneasy alliance between the religious and secular arms ... More like dynamic disequilibrium
Oscillation about a nominal median? ... operating as something of a check and balance on each other over time (albeit, one that can easily be improved on).
So how does the continued benefit to species from the religious alliance get {realized\actuated}?
Religions evolve with time ... to stay current to the needs of the population, is this a feed-back system that allows the benefit of religion to be continued?
{{added by edit}} ... or are the "pushers" adapting their "opiate" to the changing market? (and the original benefit has been lost in time)?
This message has been edited by RAZD, 01-03-2005 13:34 AM

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 116 by Quetzal, posted 01-03-2005 10:55 AM Quetzal has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 124 by Quetzal, posted 01-04-2005 9:13 AM RAZD has replied

  
PerfectDeath
Inactive Member


Message 119 of 167 (173460)
01-03-2005 1:50 PM
Reply to: Message 117 by RAZD
01-03-2005 1:18 PM


Re: Back on Topic
i think what RAZD wants is more oppinions on people's belifes rather than people tearing at something someone said wrong; like me i've told my opinion and decided to put it all together in one post... so give your opinion on the matter and challange mine... i want mine to be challanged so it can become stronger.
but all belifes have some reason for being created. each are similar in their own way that is derived from what i was ranting... or at elast i think.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 117 by RAZD, posted 01-03-2005 1:18 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 120 by RAZD, posted 01-03-2005 5:46 PM PerfectDeath has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1395 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 120 of 167 (173527)
01-03-2005 5:46 PM
Reply to: Message 119 by PerfectDeath
01-03-2005 1:50 PM


Cynical Attitude.
If I were a cynic, I would think that religion is not really beneficial to the general population, but that it continues to be a factor for two reasons:
(1) We have a predisposition to belief and faith due to the side effects of other evolved traits (the large, underworked brain if nothing else, it didn't grow to that size to vegetate, know what I mean?) and
(2) Unscrupulous, self-interested people who are quite willing to put on the cloaks and public attitudes in order to get an easy ride off the rest of the people (who do all the hard work). These people do not even need to be genetically linked, as the willingness of people to be unscrupulous is well documented across the board, around the world, and from highest peak to deepest valley.
There is plenty of evidence for both these factors at work even today.
We see evidence of (1) in the people who are inspired or enlightened (the "saints" in all the religions if you will), these are the ones with the vision(s) and the experiences that can inspire others and create a foundation ...
.... but they alone are not reason enough to keep the ball rolling, and that is done by the type (2) people, today that would be the TV evangelists and their ilk, dobson, falwell, robertson, buchanan, schwubbbia ... anyone that makes a grand public spectacle of their faith for their own aggrandizement and personal benefit.
these people would also be the ones to (unscrupulously) tailor and modify the message(s) of the enlightened ones to keep them marketable in the current society.
...
... that's if I was cynical.
enjoy.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 119 by PerfectDeath, posted 01-03-2005 1:50 PM PerfectDeath has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 121 by PerfectDeath, posted 01-03-2005 6:13 PM RAZD has replied
 Message 126 by contracycle, posted 01-04-2005 9:37 AM RAZD has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024