Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,811 Year: 3,068/9,624 Month: 913/1,588 Week: 96/223 Day: 7/17 Hour: 3/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Can Evolution explain this? (Re: The biological evolution of religious belief)
inkorrekt
Member (Idle past 6081 days)
Posts: 382
From: Westminster,CO, USA
Joined: 02-04-2006


Message 76 of 91 (334593)
07-23-2006 6:48 PM
Reply to: Message 75 by ramoss
07-22-2006 8:58 PM


Re: Why are we here?
We have a need to explain things. For whatever reason, we want to know why we exist, what our purpose in life is, and why does the sun always come up in the morning and go to bed at night?
Well,
I was playing the devil's advocate.
Do we evolve into Gods? Are there 70 virgins waiting for us in Paradise? Do we end up as nothing?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 75 by ramoss, posted 07-22-2006 8:58 PM ramoss has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 77 by ramoss, posted 07-23-2006 7:57 PM inkorrekt has not replied
 Message 78 by ringo, posted 07-23-2006 8:14 PM inkorrekt has not replied

  
ramoss
Member (Idle past 612 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 08-11-2004


Message 77 of 91 (334622)
07-23-2006 7:57 PM
Reply to: Message 76 by inkorrekt
07-23-2006 6:48 PM


Re: Why are we here?
Nope.. we just continue on.
and when we die, we die. That is the cycle of life.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 76 by inkorrekt, posted 07-23-2006 6:48 PM inkorrekt has not replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 411 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 78 of 91 (334629)
07-23-2006 8:14 PM
Reply to: Message 76 by inkorrekt
07-23-2006 6:48 PM


Re: Why are we here?
Inkorrect writes:
Are there 70 virgins waiting for us in Paradise?
I'd settle for one woman who knows what she's doing.

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

This message is a reply to:
 Message 76 by inkorrekt, posted 07-23-2006 6:48 PM inkorrekt has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 79 by Omnivorous, posted 07-23-2006 8:28 PM ringo has not replied

  
Omnivorous
Member
Posts: 3978
From: Adirondackia
Joined: 07-21-2005
Member Rating: 7.3


Message 79 of 91 (334635)
07-23-2006 8:28 PM
Reply to: Message 78 by ringo
07-23-2006 8:14 PM


Re: Why are we here?
Ringo writes:
Inkorrect writes:
Are there 70 virgins waiting for us in Paradise?
I'd settle for one woman who knows what she's doing.
Sorry, Ringo.
That one woman is mine.
AbE: The origins of transcendent experience can be found in sex, drugs, and rock and roll--those are the things evolution needs to explain, and it has.
Edited by Omnivorous, : A patina of topic.

God gave us the earth. We have dominion over the plants, the animals, the trees. God said, ”Earth is yours. Take it. Rape it. It’s yours.’
--Ann Coulter, Fox-TV: Hannity & Colmes, 20 Jun 01
Save lives! Click here!
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC!
---------------------------------------

This message is a reply to:
 Message 78 by ringo, posted 07-23-2006 8:14 PM ringo has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 80 by inkorrekt, posted 09-30-2006 6:29 PM Omnivorous has not replied

  
inkorrekt
Member (Idle past 6081 days)
Posts: 382
From: Westminster,CO, USA
Joined: 02-04-2006


Message 80 of 91 (353327)
09-30-2006 6:29 PM
Reply to: Message 79 by Omnivorous
07-23-2006 8:28 PM


Re: Why are we here?
1)Go for that one single woman wherever she is.
2) My understanding is that Evolution is a continuous process resulting in extinction of existing species and dedvelopment of new species. According to this, what will man become? Will he evolve into a new species? or he will become extinct?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 79 by Omnivorous, posted 07-23-2006 8:28 PM Omnivorous has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 82 by NosyNed, posted 10-01-2006 6:48 PM inkorrekt has not replied
 Message 83 by Dr Adequate, posted 10-01-2006 10:01 PM inkorrekt has replied

  
Archer Opteryx
Member (Idle past 3597 days)
Posts: 1811
From: East Asia
Joined: 08-16-2006


Message 81 of 91 (353460)
10-01-2006 1:46 PM
Reply to: Message 73 by inkorrekt
07-22-2006 6:22 PM


Re: Why are we here?
We are here because a couple of people got laid.
Not a bad reason, generally speaking. Not at all.

Archer
All species are transitional.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 73 by inkorrekt, posted 07-22-2006 6:22 PM inkorrekt has not replied

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 82 of 91 (353518)
10-01-2006 6:48 PM
Reply to: Message 80 by inkorrekt
09-30-2006 6:29 PM


What will H. sapiens become?
2) My understanding is that Evolution is a continuous process resulting in extinction of existing species and dedvelopment of new species. According to this, what will man become? Will he evolve into a new species? or he will become extinct?
What man will become depends on a large number of possible events.
We have a very large, interbreeding population with only, right now, limited selective pressures (that we can see) on it. This slows down the rate of evolutionary change.
However, even under these conditions change is going on. In (say) 20 or 30,000 generations the human gene pool of the time will be different from todays. With the large population the differences may not preclude interbreeding between one of that population and one from todays. However, there is still a chance that those small changes that we wouldn't be able to see from generation to generation (obviously) or even from a generation now to a generation 50,000 years from now might over a few 100,000 years add up to enough difference that an individual from that far future would not be able to (or perhaps just would not want to) breed with an individual from today. If that occurs then there will be a new species and, by definition, H. sapiens will be extinct.
If it doesn't occur in 2 or 3 hundred thousand years then it will almost certainly occur in 2 or 3 million (unless there are very, very specific selective pressures that keep coaxing the population back to a gene pool a lot like todays).
Myself I think it is much, much more likely that the selective pressures will undergo a very large change and that the species will change much more rapidly or (more likely) go extinct within only 100's of years.
Edited by NosyNed, : spelling

This message is a reply to:
 Message 80 by inkorrekt, posted 09-30-2006 6:29 PM inkorrekt has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 83 of 91 (353537)
10-01-2006 10:01 PM
Reply to: Message 80 by inkorrekt
09-30-2006 6:29 PM


My understanding is that Evolution is a continuous process resulting in extinction of existing species and dedvelopment of new species. According to this, what will man become? Will he evolve into a new species? or he will become extinct?
An interesting question, but probably unanaswerable, since it depends on our future history as well as our future biology. You can see that the answer will be very different depending on whether we war ourselves into extinction; or develop a sustainable technological society; or exhaust our environmental resources and collapse into a pre-industrial or even pre-agricultural civilization; all of which seem perfectly possible at this point in time.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 80 by inkorrekt, posted 09-30-2006 6:29 PM inkorrekt has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 91 by inkorrekt, posted 10-07-2006 1:55 PM Dr Adequate has not replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 84 of 91 (354496)
10-05-2006 4:10 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by SalineSage05
11-17-2004 5:21 PM


Similar conclusion
If the theory of non-theistic biological evolution were true along with the big bang theory then why does humankind have a tendancy to worship some sort of higher power(s)? .. It is an overwhelming majority. The argument I am making is that if there is no creator(s)as some suggest then why would man even sense or long for a creator. According to evolution as I understand it this couldn't happen since there never was a creator. There seems to be an internal error in the theory of evolution.
I have wondered the same thing and to me it speaks very loudly that our beliefs are not totally unfounded. I was reading the works of a late 19th century critic of evolution. He made some critical points that I don't think should be overlooked. He questioned why the unity of religions and what their inner-meanings behind them were. Similar questions were spoken about by CS Lewis and other authors. But according to evolution, all religions were evolved or invented by humanoids for some inexplicable reason or to explain lightning or some other natural phenomenon. But I'm not speaking about merely physical elements. There are far more similarities than dissimilarities-- too much to be mere coincidence, some would say.
If the evolution of man was some slow and arbitrary happenstance we should expect to see some fortuitous results and not any kind of homogeneity between the religions. We would expect them to be widely divergent and perhaps would be perplexed to see if different cultures, separated by oceans and mountain ranges, agreed on great and important points, especially on points which could not be clearly arrived at by reason.
What in reason, the question goes, teaches us that an animal sacrifice is a proper way to worship God, especially when it could be viewed as unmerciful, barbaric, and down right bizarre? How could unassisted reason ever arrive at the conclusion that God(s) is/are properly worshipped by the immolation of innocence? We could certainly grant that one section of the anthropoids might have stumbled on the idea, but how can we account for its prevalence or its universality among different cultures? Perhaps it is by revelation-- a revelation that man only had a shadow of an idea. Afterall, isn't animal sacrifice merely a symbolic gesture?
"The earliest extant records of the Egyptians, Babylonians, Assyrians, Hindus and Chinese speak of sacrifices long in vogue. This unity of religions on the point of animal sacrifices bespeaks revelation and not evolution." -Robert Williams
He also made mention of the division of time into weeks of 7 days, prevalent among many ancient cultures. Why a division of weeks in intervals of seven? Why a division of days at all? Could this not hint at something more than pure coincidence?
"The Babylonians observed the 7th, 14th, 21st and 28th of each lunar month as days when men were subjected to certain restrictions; the king was not to eat food prepared by fire, nor offer sacrifice, nor consult an oracle, nor invoke curses on his enemies. They also observed the 19th of each month. It was customary, therefore, in the days of Abraham, for the Babylonians to offer sacrifices and to observe the 7th day as especially sacred. This can only be accounted for upon the assumption, that God had revealed to the human race that creation occupied 6 days or periods, and the 7th was to be observed--all of which was doubtless handed down by tradition." -Dr. J. Drummelow
There are hints of an original religion with the division of time, Sabbath days, sacrifices, the existence of priests, temples, etc.

"There is not in all America a more dangerous trait than the deification of mere smartness unaccompanied by any sense of moral responsibility." -Theodore Roosevelt

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by SalineSage05, posted 11-17-2004 5:21 PM SalineSage05 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 85 by anglagard, posted 10-06-2006 12:11 AM Hyroglyphx has not replied
 Message 89 by DominionSeraph, posted 10-06-2006 3:19 AM Hyroglyphx has not replied
 Message 90 by ReverendDG, posted 10-06-2006 5:19 AM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
anglagard
Member (Idle past 836 days)
Posts: 2339
From: Socorro, New Mexico USA
Joined: 03-18-2006


Message 85 of 91 (354627)
10-06-2006 12:11 AM
Reply to: Message 84 by Hyroglyphx
10-05-2006 4:10 PM


Re: Similar conclusion
NJ writes:
the evolution of man was some slow and arbitrary happenstance we should expect to see some fortuitous results and not any kind of homogeneity between the religions. We would expect them to be widely divergent and perhaps would be perplexed to see if different cultures, separated by oceans and mountain ranges, agreed on great and important points, especially on points which could not be clearly arrived at by reason.
I have often marvelled how the 300,000 incarnations of Vishnu are just like Jesus as described in the gospels.
What in reason, the question goes, teaches us that an animal sacrifice is a proper way to worship God, especially when it could be viewed as unmerciful, barbaric, and down right bizarre? How could unassisted reason ever arrive at the conclusion that God(s) is/are properly worshipped by the immolation of innocence? We could certainly grant that one section of the anthropoids might have stumbled on the idea, but how can we account for its prevalence or its universality among different cultures? Perhaps it is by revelation-- a revelation that man only had a shadow of an idea. Afterall, isn't animal sacrifice merely a symbolic gesture?
Ever been to an animal sacrifice thrown by the Jains?
He also made mention of the division of time into weeks of 7 days, prevalent among many ancient cultures. Why a division of weeks in intervals of seven? Why a division of days at all? Could this not hint at something more than pure coincidence?
Maybe the weeks have something to do with the phases of the moon. Maybe it's something you could ask your wife about. Also, maybe the sun has something to do with the term 'day.' Maybe the earth's rotation around the sun has something to do with the term 'year.'
What a coincidence indeed.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 84 by Hyroglyphx, posted 10-05-2006 4:10 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 86 by Omnivorous, posted 10-06-2006 12:40 AM anglagard has not replied
 Message 87 by Archer Opteryx, posted 10-06-2006 1:20 AM anglagard has not replied

  
Omnivorous
Member
Posts: 3978
From: Adirondackia
Joined: 07-21-2005
Member Rating: 7.3


Message 86 of 91 (354633)
10-06-2006 12:40 AM
Reply to: Message 85 by anglagard
10-06-2006 12:11 AM


Re: Similar conclusion
anglagard writes:
Maybe the weeks have something to do with the phases of the moon. Maybe it's something you could ask your wife about.
No, I'm pretty sure it's about cutting throats.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 85 by anglagard, posted 10-06-2006 12:11 AM anglagard has not replied

  
Archer Opteryx
Member (Idle past 3597 days)
Posts: 1811
From: East Asia
Joined: 08-16-2006


Message 87 of 91 (354635)
10-06-2006 1:20 AM
Reply to: Message 85 by anglagard
10-06-2006 12:11 AM


Re: Similar conclusion
anglagard:
I have often marvelled how the 300,000 incarnations of Vishnu are just like Jesus as described in the gospels.
And Kali. One could hardly ask for a better likeness of the Virgin Mary.

Archer
All species are transitional.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 85 by anglagard, posted 10-06-2006 12:11 AM anglagard has not replied

  
melatonin
Member (Idle past 6208 days)
Posts: 126
From: Cymru
Joined: 02-13-2006


Message 88 of 91 (354641)
10-06-2006 1:54 AM


superstitious Pigeons & humans
To say that a reinforcement is contingent upon a response may mean nothing more than that it follows the response. It may follow because of some mechanical connection or because of the mediation of another organism; but conditioning takes place presumably because of the temporal relation only, expressed in terms of the order and proximity of response and reinforcement. Whenever we present a state of affairs which is known to be reinforcing at a given drive, we must suppose that conditioning takes place, even though we have paid no attention to the behavior of the organism in making the presentation. A simple experiment demonstrates this to be the case.
A pigeon is brought to a stable state of hunger by reducing it to 75 percent of its weight when well fed. It is put into an experimental cage for a few minutes each day. A food hopper attached to the cage may be swung into place so that the pigeon can eat from it. A solenoid and a timing relay hold the hopper in place for five sec. at each reinforcement.
If a clock is now arranged to present the food hopper at regular intervals with no reference whatsoever to the bird's behavior, operant conditioning usually takes place. In six out of eight cases the resulting responses were so clearly defined that two observers could agree perfectly in counting instances. One bird was conditioned to turn counter-clockwise about the cage, making two or three turns between reinforcements. Another repeatedly thrust its head into one of the upper corners of the cage. A third developed a 'tossing' response, as if placing its head beneath an invisible bar and lifting it repeatedly. Two birds developed a pendulum motion of the head and body, in which the head was extended forward and swung from right to left with a sharp movement followed by a somewhat slower return. The body generally followed the movement and a few steps might be taken when it was extensive. Another bird was conditioned to make incomplete pecking or brushing movements directed toward but not touching the floor. None of these responses appeared in any noticeable strength during adaptation to the cage or until the food hopper was periodically presented. In the remaining two cases, conditioned responses were not clearly marked.
The conditioning process is usually obvious. The bird happens to be executing some response as the hopper appears; as a result it tends to repeat this response. If the interval before the next presentation is not so great that extinction takes place, a second 'contingency' is probable. This strengthens the response still further and subsequent reinforcement becomes more probable. It is true that some responses go unreinforced and [p. 169] some reinforcements appear when the response has not just been made, but the net result is the development of a considerable state of strength.
http://psychclassics.yorku.ca/Skinner/Pigeon/
This is from a Skinner paper in the late 40's. Behaviour can conditioned by a stimulus even when the behaviour itself has no effect on outcome. So, we have pigeons repetitively tossing and turning with the superstitious 'belief' that this caused the rewarding outcome.
So, are humans so easily led in their beliefs/superstitions, behaviour and causal explanations? We would think so...
Everyday Magical Powers: The Role of Apparent Mental Causation in the Overestimation of Personal Influence
These studies examined whether having thoughts related to an event before it occurs leads people to infer that they caused the event”even when such causation might otherwise seem magical. In Study 1, people perceived that they had harmed another person via a voodoo hex. These perceptions were more likely among those who had first been induced to harbor evil thoughts about their victim. In Study 2, spectators of a peer’s basketball-shooting performance were more likely to perceive that they had influenced his success if they had first generated positive visualizations consistent with that success. Observers privy to those spectators’ visualizations made similar attributions about the spectators’ influence. Finally, additional studies suggested that these results occur even when the thought-about outcome is viewed as unwanted by the thinker and even in field settings where the relevant outcome is occurring as part of a live athletic competition.
Pronin et al., (2006).
We could very tentatively extrapolate this to early humans performing behaviours to invoke good outcomes from an external effects (rain dances etc). And they may even go further and invoke a cause beyond the norm, i.e. things happen beyond their control, the people see patterns and effects, but no explainable cause, most cause & effect relationships would be seen to the result of an agency. We invent a cause agent to fill the hole - gods/godesses/animal spirits. We start to perform rituals to improve outcomes (please agent), some become associated via conditioning-like effects to a rewarding stimulus. So it's normal for animals to associate behaviours with outcomes and attempt to make causal connections, often erroneously.
It seems to make sense to me, but then again, I haven't slept tonight, so don't be too hard on my insomniac ramblings, haha.
Edited by melatonin, : bad html
Edited by melatonin, : sleepy grammar
Edited by melatonin, : sleepy spelling

  
DominionSeraph
Member (Idle past 4754 days)
Posts: 365
From: on High
Joined: 01-26-2005


Message 89 of 91 (354659)
10-06-2006 3:19 AM
Reply to: Message 84 by Hyroglyphx
10-05-2006 4:10 PM


Re: Similar conclusion
nemesis_juggernaut writes:
We would expect them to be widely divergent and perhaps would be perplexed to see if different cultures, separated by oceans and mountain ranges, agreed on great and important points, especially on points which could not be clearly arrived at by reason.
Except ideas evolve, too.
So, what we have are similar starting points (the root of our ideas is the world around us), and a similar environment -- human psyches. Also, we don't need the evolution of the psychological parasites to be in parallel for each individual. Ideas can move between minds using language.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 84 by Hyroglyphx, posted 10-05-2006 4:10 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
ReverendDG
Member (Idle past 4110 days)
Posts: 1119
From: Topeka,kansas
Joined: 06-06-2005


Message 90 of 91 (354704)
10-06-2006 5:19 AM
Reply to: Message 84 by Hyroglyphx
10-05-2006 4:10 PM


Re: Similar conclusion
I have wondered the same thing and to me it speaks very loudly that our beliefs are not totally unfounded. I was reading the works of a late 19th century critic of evolution. He made some critical points that I don't think should be overlooked. He questioned why the unity of religions and what their inner-meanings behind them were. Similar questions were spoken about by CS Lewis and other authors. But according to evolution, all religions were evolved or invented by humanoids for some inexplicable reason or to explain lightning or some other natural phenomenon. But I'm not speaking about merely physical elements. There are far more similarities than dissimilarities-- too much to be mere coincidence, some would say.
who said they are unfounded? you mean based on reality? the unity of all religion is to explain and form human understanding of the universe, are you trying to claim it has a root outside explaination?
the reason there are similarities is that all the worshipers are humans and we all think along the same lines of thought, that is all.
yes all religions evolve, even christianity evolved, lots of people like to ignore this though.
If the evolution of man was some slow and arbitrary happenstance we should expect to see some fortuitous results and not any kind of homogeneity between the religions. We would expect them to be widely divergent and perhaps would be perplexed to see if different cultures, separated by oceans and mountain ranges, agreed on great and important points, especially on points which could not be clearly arrived at by reason.
your understanding of mankind is just wrong, people think of the samethings no matter the culture because they all have the same problems.
food,shelter,lust,desiers,etc. why do you think we have therapists?
all people have storms,snow,earthquakes etc, or something like it or trade with those that do
What in reason, the question goes, teaches us that an animal sacrifice is a proper way to worship God, especially when it could be viewed as unmerciful, barbaric, and down right bizarre? How could unassisted reason ever arrive at the conclusion that God(s) is/are properly worshipped by the immolation of innocence? We could certainly grant that one section of the anthropoids might have stumbled on the idea, but how can we account for its prevalence or its universality among different cultures? Perhaps it is by revelation-- a revelation that man only had a shadow of an idea. Afterall, isn't animal sacrifice merely a symbolic gesture?
because the human psyche is drawn to things like that, go read some carl jung to get an idea of this, its a universal subconcience archtype.
the part is blood = life, people see blood drain out of someone,they die, they conclude in every culture that blood is life, so they sacrifice live things to the gods to protect them from storms and wolves
He also made mention of the division of time into weeks of 7 days, prevalent among many ancient cultures. Why a division of weeks in intervals of seven? Why a division of days at all? Could this not hint at something more than pure coincidence?
this author needed to read more about things, the romans had a 9 day week before constitine became christian, and we use it because thats what its been
you have to realize that the jews got their week from the babylonians, and the babylonians considered 7 a lucky number, it has to do with numberology and the planets
one theory is sargon after conquring ur instituted a 7 day week most likely to honor the gods. who they believed were the first 5 planets they could see and the moon and sun, it was very common for man to look at the planets and see a god of some sort.
There are hints of an original religion with the division of time, Sabbath days, sacrifices, the existence of priests, temples, etc.
no its just human assioation and thought patterns, its pretty common,
your logic just doens't work, the human mind follows patterns that are easy to see in any religion, but they arn't because of some lost religion,but because we all think alike

This message is a reply to:
 Message 84 by Hyroglyphx, posted 10-05-2006 4:10 PM Hyroglyphx 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