|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,913 Year: 4,170/9,624 Month: 1,041/974 Week: 0/368 Day: 0/11 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 1435 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: What is the evolutionary advantage to religion? | |||||||||||||||||||||||
PerfectDeath Inactive Member |
errr ya many things that we evolved actualy bite us in the ass but hey what can you do about it... every positive is balanced with a negative... so quite ur bitching control is good to a certain degree, till the absoulute power corrupts absolutly.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
coffee_addict Member (Idle past 507 days) Posts: 3645 From: Indianapolis, IN Joined: |
robinrohan writes:
Read what I stated again. The whole point was that religion was a quick and easy way to get a society going. Even though I never said that there were times when it was absolutely horrible, to our standards at least, you jumped to the conclusion that I stated such. It says something about how you approach someone else's statements.
Hey Lam, I thought this thread was supposed to be about whether or not there was any evolutionary advantage to being religious, not how horrible being religious is.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
robinrohan Inactive Member |
Lam writes: Religion is a quick and easy way to get a moral system going in order to have a working society. Instead of coming up with philosophical concepts, all you have to do is threaten the people by saying, "Do this or enjoy eternal damnation." I did not realize that this was how the history of civilizations worked. We can visualize some leaders of some group getting together and one of them saying,"Hey, I got an idea. How about a God? Let's pretend that there's a God on the nearby mountain--we'll call him Yahweh--and that he has all these rules and regulations we got to follow. That way we can control the people, stick it to the poor, and justify slavery. Because otherwise we would have to spend all this time thinking about philosophy and science, and that would take too long. We need a quick and easy system." You think that's how it went, Lam?
Lam writes: Besides, it justifies a lot of hate that people have. Slavery was justified by religion. Genocide was justified by religion. Racism was justified by religion. Sexism was and still is justified by religion. Homophobia was and still is justified by religion. I wouldn't be surprised if a future nuclear holocaust will be justified by religion. This sounds like a rant against religion to me rather than a comment on the topic. Religion might have justified a few other things as well. Not that I'm religious. And the generalizations you make about the people who post on this forum are rather offensive. This message has been edited by robinrohan, 12-30-2004 08:32 AM This message has been edited by robinrohan, 12-30-2004 08:33 AM This message has been edited by robinrohan, 12-30-2004 09:24 AM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
robinrohan Inactive Member |
I'm just wondering if there is a need to distinguish between cultural evolution and biological evolution.
Or does that not matter? It's a little confusing to me. This message has been edited by robinrohan, 12-30-2004 12:42 AM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
NosyNed Member Posts: 9004 From: Canada Joined: |
I'm just wondering if there is a need to distinguish between cultural evolution and biological evolution. Or does that not matter? It's a little confusing to me. I'd say: Of course there is a need to distinguish between them. They are very, very different processes.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
coffee_addict Member (Idle past 507 days) Posts: 3645 From: Indianapolis, IN Joined: |
robinrohan writes:
Actually, no. I think it was something like: You think that's how it went, Lam? Person A: What's fire? Person B: Um... uh... it must be beyond our comprehension. Person C: Hey, you're right. There must be a "supernatural being" of some sort to maintain the fire. Person A: Ok, let's all worship the fire "god". *Some time later* Person D: Killing each other is not going to get our society very far. Person E: Hooga booga kooga shooga... Person F: I am the translater for the oracle. The oracle said that the fire god wants us to stop killing each other and start fighting off outsiders.
This sounds like a rant against religion to me rather than a comment on the topic. Religion might have justified a few other things as well.
It's a quick and easy way to justify a lot of the things that come naturally to people. People have the tendency think too highly of themselves. Putting black people down sure made a lot of them feel better. But sometime along the way, some must have asked a question like "why are blacks inferior?" "Because they're descendants of Cain," said someone else. It made it a lot easier for people to swallow the concept of an inferior race. So no, it wasn't a rant about how bad religion is. I was stating my opinion that religion has an advantage over science and philosophy because it is easy to swallow and it justifies a lot of prejudice and hate that people tend to have.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
robinrohan Inactive Member |
Ned, you were saying in another thread that evolution is still taking place among humans. Is that cultural evolution (people with road rage killing themselves off)?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
robinrohan Inactive Member |
Lam writes: Person B: Um... uh... it must be beyond our comprehension. Person C: Hey, you're right. There must be a "supernatural being" of some sort to maintain the fire. So, Lam, is your point that people were real stupid and lazy in the past?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Quetzal Member (Idle past 5902 days) Posts: 3228 Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
robinrohan Inactive Member |
Quetzel, does cultural evolution involve the transmission of genes?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Quetzal Member (Idle past 5902 days) Posts: 3228 Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
robinrohan Inactive Member |
Quetzel writes: 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. Yeah, I'm totally confused by this topic. It sounds to me like "cultural evolution" is not evolution at all. The word "evolution" is being used metaphorically, I would think, if it doesn't involve the transmission of genes. I thought at first the topic was about whether or not certain genes carried a religious tendency. (This interested me, because I read that a certain type of epilepsy tends to make one religious). But later it seemed to be about whether a community that was religious tended to survive better than one that was not (I suppose this would be an example of "cultural evolution"?).
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Quetzal Member (Idle past 5902 days) Posts: 3228 Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
robinrohan Inactive Member |
Thanks for the explanation, Quetzel.
I don't like the term "cultural evolution." It makes it sound like it is more of a hard science than it really is. It's really just "cultural studies." Somebody needs to clarify what this topic is supposed to be about.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
coffee_addict Member (Idle past 507 days) Posts: 3645 From: Indianapolis, IN Joined: |
robinrohan writes:
Yes and no. I wouldn't say lazy because they didn't have any choice. They didn't have the motivation or the equipments to investigate certain forces of nature. It was a lot easier just to say "Zeus bestowed the lightning upon thee...."
So, Lam, is your point that people were real stupid and lazy in the past?
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024