The evolution of religion?

That's what I'm saying. A ritual doesn't necessarily have to be religious, a ritualistic burial doesn't necessarily imply religious beliefs. When a pet dies, we comfort our children with "he's in Turtle Heaven". We comfort adults with "he's in a better place" or "he's not suffering any more".We do that even if we don't have a specific belief in the "spirits" that we give lip service to. I wonder if the belief in spirits might have come from the social need to comfort each other.

---

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

It would say that it evolved more that once and independently. I haven't thought much about the implications of this. Here's what I was replying too: It could comfirm that god and religion were widely spread, that they were an old idea, not unique or attributed to humans, and also that it evolved on seperate occasions in different places for different reasons.What do you think the implication is? Does religion fit into that category?

---

From Message 46How is that so different from religion? Is it because the comforter doesn't believe what they are saying that makes it not religion? If the comforter does believe it, does that make it religion? That's probably one of many sources. Religion is ritual but ritual is not neccessarily religion. But rituals that have no practical purpose are religion, aren't they? Can you think of an example of a ritual that has no practical purpose and is not religous?

Only if it was determined that the Neanderthals did, in fact, have religion. So far, as far as I know, the jury is still out on that point. All we have is a possible indication that they might have had something like religious beliefs. That's basically what I'm getting at. It seems likely that the rituals and social practices did evolve on separate occasions in different places for different reasons. One of the reasons might have been belief in god(s). Another reason might have been fads that survived. Another reason might have been charismatic leaders with mental health issues.I'm just wondering if a lot of different reasoning didn't converge into what we now think of as "religion". For some people, it certainly does.(Present company excepted. You seem to be a pretty level-headed guy, even though you're always wrong when you disagree with me. ) It isn't. I'm just saying that that kind of behaviour might be the origin of rituals and social practices that are often attributed to "belief in God". It's possible that "the gods" were invented by scam artists to take advantage of people's natural social behaviour. Do you really want to get into "Lies, Fairy Tales and Religion"? Obsessive Compulsive Disorder.Edited by Ringo, : Ye olde spellinge.

---

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

Re: Mental illness. It's often been suggested so, including suggestions of connections between the prophet/seer phenomenon and schizophrenia further up this thread (by me).It certainly involves delusions.Somewhere around posts 32-35, RAZD gives a link to an interesting paper which suggests strongly that schizophrenics are the prime inventors of all religions.The paper here: Political and Social Science

I remember seeing a video of a chimp mom where the baby died, and she carried the dead body around for days afterwards. Obviously in mourning and denial. Being able to have a ceremony to bring peace may have positive benefits for the whole group.

---

Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click)

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

I don't see any reason why they wouldn't. (well, there's always goddidit ) Well I'm using "religions" pretty loosely in this thread. If the Neandertals didn't believe in gods or spirits, but had a mysticism - or any other made up stuff - behind their burials, then I would call that "religion". Albeit a very primitive form of it. Ok, I think we are defining "religion" a little differently. I don't mean that they have to believe in gods for it to be a religion. Any non-practical ritual could be considered a religion, IMHO.Where do we draw the line on where primitive rituals get to be called religion?From what I've seen - and I'm relying on memory - the Neandertal's primitive rituals should be on the religion side of that line. I'd like to research some of the evidence - in my copious amounts of free time - and get a better idea. But, from what I remember, there are Neandertal burial sites with ornaments and other indications of rituals that suggest that they were practicing some kind of religion.And what are the implications if religion arrose in an unrelated species, independently, from purely supernaturalistic reasons, rather than from some sort of coping mechanism, or deranged leader? Isn't there a perceived practicality for the compulsive behavior?

How so certain?If god really does exists and prescribed religion to man, then it wouldn't be delusion at all, would it? I'm not really all that interested, sorry. I was just looking for Ringo's opinion and perhaps setting him up for a good joke I wasn't really looking for a deep answer to discuss.

I saw a Hippo mother stay near her dead baby in the same manner on a National Geographic program. It wasn't so obvious for the hippo I wonder what kind of instinct could yield that behavior. Good point. Even if they didn't believe in the rituals, it might stick around just because it makes them feel better.

I'm drawing a (dotted) line at some external "reason" for the behaviour.If I like to drink coffee out of my lucky Giant Tiger mug, it's because the handle fits my hand, not because the gods will reward me. That's not religion. If I'm buried wearing my favourite Three Stooges T-shirt, it's because that's the way I want to be remembered, not because I need it to get into heaven. That's not religion.If you get sprinkled or dunked or hosed because you think that will wash away your sins, that's religion. If you're good to your neighbours because that's what you think God wants, that's religion. That's what I'm asking though: How do trinkets, etc. "indicate" religion? Again, that's my point: How would you know the reasons were "purely supernaturalistic"? I don't know. I don't know. I don't know.Does perceived practicality count as practicality?What do we know about Neanderthal perceptions?

---

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

That's a good spot. Because its impractical and unnecessary. After removing all other reasons we are left with religion. I'm not saying that this (the Neadertals having religion) is definitively so, just that it is a resonable conclusion.Assuming they buried their dead in a ritual with ornaments, "religion" is a fine conclusion for the reason for the behavior. We can think up other non-religious reasons too, but why are they more plausible?If it looks and sounds like a duck.... we shouldn't call it something else jsut because we don't want to call it a duck. It'd be difficult and we could never get to purely, but I suppose there's archeaologists who are qualified to label their reasons. They've done more with less I don't know. Anything?I'd bet that they know something.

---

In the context of OCD, if a person washed their hands 10 times to avoid getting sick, in actuallity, there is no practical reason for all the extra washing. But in their mind, it is practical. That perceived practicality makes their ritual non-religious, even if it was, ultimately, impractical.How's that?

quote:

---

bluegenes: It [religion] certainly involves delusions.

---

There are thousands of different religions, so there must be a whole lot of delusion involved in the phenomenon of religion. The beliefs all tend to contradict each other, so most, if not all, must be false. Why not? If a creator God exists, he wants us to have physical and mental illnesses, because we've got them, and that certainly includes delusions, so why not give us the organized group delusions we call religions along with all the other sicknesses?

How do you know you have eliminated "all" other possibilities, Sherlock? I've suggested a couple of possibilities - mental illness, comfort. How can you reasonably eliminate those? If the question is, "Is it a duck?" we should be fairly slow to come to that conclusion. We should have more than two criteria (or in the case of the Neanderthals, one) to base a conclusion on.Since the question here is, "Is it religion?" we shouldn't be confirming our biases by finding examples of religion under every rock. Take a less practical example, like counting steps. (I do that, by the way. )
What's the practical reason, perceived or real?Is it religious or non-religious?

---

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

You don't. Reasonably? To you: I can't. To me: it doesn't seem as plausible as religion. True. Like I said. Its not definitive, but its reasonable, IMHO. Come on now, I'm not confirming bias under every rock. The Neandertals seem to have behaved, to me, in a way that suggests they had religious - albeit primitive - beliefs. Its not that big of a deal that I feel the need to eliminate every other possibility before I conclude this one. Its plausible to me. Actually, now that I've thought about it more. Religion has a perceived practicallity, so by my definition, that would make religion not religion Whoops, oh well.Have a nice night, Ringo. Thanks for typin'. I'm off.

please state just one real fact of proof for macro evolution

Four things.First. There is no "proof" in biology. Proofs are used in mathematics, not biology.There is, however, scientific consensus and overwhelming evidence regarding both evolution and natural selection.Second. There is no difference between "micro" and "macro" evolution.Third. I strongly suggest you take the time to read the threads you post in. I get the sense you are simply jumping on threads with the word "evolution" in the title and throwing down the gauntlet.Fourth. If you would like to research "micro" and "macro" evolution on this site, you can google "site: macroevolution".You'll find things like: MACROevolution vs MICROevolution - what is it?.