|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 3617 days) Posts: 1811 From: East Asia Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Evolutionary Origin of Religious Belief | |||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1487 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
If good evidence is found for this idea, what evidence can religion then bring to bear to show that religious ideas have any factual basis? Most likely, the same evidence they've been able to bring throughout human history - none.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Hyroglyphx Inactive Member |
Interesting article, Archer.
This is something that I've wondered about as well. The reason I've pondered this is because religious affinities stretch across time and culture right to the core of humanity. No one can deny the fact that most people in the history of mankind has at one time or another ascribed to some sort of transcendental or metaphysical belief. If there is just such a pervading system of belief, then wouldn't that highly suggest that there is something innate about it? On the flip side of coin, we have post-modernists who deride those religious affinities on the basis that it isn't rational. Consequently, these are often the same people who believe in a wholly natural-- wholly secular world view where urges can best be explained in naturalistic terms. But we've then reached an impasse, because this is the very crux of the argument. People such as Dawkins cannot dismiss the fact that religion is so pervasive. So whether or not their is anything supernatural is actually not even the point. The weightier matter is that this certainly would appear to be a natural occurrence with very reasonable explanations. So why do people like Dawkins and others deride people of faith with such a frenetic passion if it is a completely natural occurrence? If there is no such thing as the supernatural, the metaphysical, or the transcendental, regardless of that, surely there would be a reason why nature selected this predilection so strongly. Wouldn't actually, then, be more irrational for people such as Dawkins to jeer at people of religious faith, than it is for people to ascribe to religious faith? Edited by nemesis_juggernaut, : typo "He has shown you, O man, what is good; And what does the Lord require of you but to do justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God. -Micah 6:8
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
bluegenes Member (Idle past 2497 days) Posts: 3119 From: U.K. Joined: |
nem jugg writes: So why do people like Dawkins and others deride people of faith with such a frenetic passion if it is a completely natural occurrence? People like Dawkins have never argued that religion is not a natural occurence. Precisely the opposite. And they certainly don't argue that it isn't pervasive. Murder and rape are natural, but that's no reason not to argue against them. The question really, relating to the O.P., is whether religiosity ever had any adaptive advantages, or whether it's just a by-product of other advantageous characteristics which were selected for.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Woodsy Member (Idle past 3394 days) Posts: 301 From: Burlington, Canada Joined: |
The question really, relating to the O.P., is whether religiosity ever had any adaptive advantages, or whether it's just a by-product of other advantageous characteristics which were selected for. Indeed. Also, even if it did have advantages in the past, one would like to decide whether it is still desirable or whether it is now a liability, like our natural craving for sweets.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
bluegenes Member (Idle past 2497 days) Posts: 3119 From: U.K. Joined: |
Woodsey writes: Also, even if it did have advantages in the past, one would like to decide whether it is still desirable or whether it is now a liability, like our natural craving for sweets. Absolutely. The question of it having been advantageous at the time it evolved and the question of whether or not it's a good thing now are separate ones. Like our ability to fight wars (which may also be partially byproduct of organized hunting abilities) religiosity may have gained an undesirable momentum of its own.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Hyroglyphx Inactive Member |
People like Dawkins have never argued that religion is not a natural occurence. Precisely the opposite. And they certainly don't argue that it isn't pervasive. I know, I've heard him mention it. This is one aspect of his "meme" concept. I'm simply wondering why he is so vehemently opposed to religion if we all have an affinity for it.
Murder and rape are natural, but that's no reason not to argue against them. A gene or a locus wouldn't determine whether we are rapists and/or murderers. I'm saying that according to some speculation, a draw towards religion was apparently selected for by nature. That would mean that there are many beneficial attributes associated with it. So why is someone Dawkins so adverse towards it? You can't angry with nature because it simply is, right?
The question really, relating to the O.P., is whether religiosity ever had any adaptive advantages, or whether it's just a by-product of other advantageous characteristics which were selected for If it simply co-opted from something else, what would you presume that to be? "He has shown you, O man, what is good; And what does the Lord require of you but to do justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God. -Micah 6:8
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
bluegenes Member (Idle past 2497 days) Posts: 3119 From: U.K. Joined: |
nem jugg writes: A gene or a locus wouldn't determine whether we are rapists and/or murderers. I'm saying that according to some speculation, a draw towards religion was apparently selected for by nature. Complex combinations of genes could certainly make one individual more likely to be a rapist or a murderer than another. Rape and murder are things that our species can do, and some individuals do do. There are mammals that do neither, because it's not in their biological nature to do those things under any circumstances, and "biological nature" means their genomes.
nem jugg(my underline) writes: That would mean that there are many beneficial attributes associated with it. So why is someone Dawkins so adverse towards it? You can't angry with nature because it simply is, right? If the adaptive hypothesis is correct, that would mean that there were some (not "are many") advantages to be gained from it. (See comments from Woodsy and me above). Religiosity could be vestigial! And vestigial characteristics can get in the way and impede an organism.
If it simply co-opted from something else, what would you presume that to be? I wouldn't presume anything. If religiosity is wholly or largely a by-product phenomenon, I'd guess it to be the by-product of a number of useful characteristics. Obviously, imagination and creativity are required. Lying could also help an individual survive. But exactly how these and other things could combine into the end product of religiosity is presumably what the "by-product" researchers described in the article are trying to find out.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
anastasia Member (Idle past 5973 days) Posts: 1857 From: Bucks County, PA Joined: |
bluegenes writes: Religiosity could be vestigial! And vestigial characteristics can get in the way and impede an organism I didn't forget the 'counter-intuitive' discussion, but I haven't had time for that level of complication. If you talk about 'religiosity' as vestigial, what do you mean exactly? I presume you mean a belief in the super-natural? If you say yes, I am not sure we are dealing with a complex monster. Most cultures have formed a concept of the supernatural. This concept evolves from the desire to explain what we can't see or understand. I thought this was obvious? Maybe someone could explain to me the difference between a thing which is biologically evolved as part of our human nature, and a thing which has evolved only in culture and has no roots in physical make-up? In other words, are scientists looking for something like a gene for religion, or merely an explanation? If this is just a ramble please forgive me.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Woodsy Member (Idle past 3394 days) Posts: 301 From: Burlington, Canada Joined: |
Maybe someone could explain to me the difference between a thing which is biologically evolved as part of our human nature, and a thing which has evolved only in culture and has no roots in physical make-up? In other words, are scientists looking for something like a gene for religion, or merely an explanation? One suggestion is known as a "hyperactive agency detector". It may do as an example. The idea is that people have a tendency to assume that events are caused by intelligent "agents", and that this is overdone. If you hear a noise, and it is a tiger, if you assume it wants to eat you, and you run, you don't wind up a meal. If it is a tree falling, and you react the same way, no harm is done. You may get unnecessary exercise, but you are less likely to react wrongly in the actual presence of a tiger. This tendency could lead to the idea that purely physical events are caused by some unseen intelligent agent and soon one is in the grip of religion. However, it is still a byproduct of a "tiger avoidance" mechanism that is very useful. Edited by Woodsy, : formatting
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
bluegenes Member (Idle past 2497 days) Posts: 3119 From: U.K. Joined: |
anastasia writes: If this is just a ramble please forgive me. It isn't just a ramble at all. But did you read the entire article carefully? If not, I seriously recommend it, once again. It's well put together, and it should answer some of your questions on the subject. I think that you might be particularly interested in the views of one very Christian scientist who is a supporter of the "byproduct" theory, something that would seem unlikely on the face of it, but he explains his philosophical attitude. Woodsy gives a very good example of how characteristics in our biological nature can be "byproduct" above. I was only half joking when I said that religiosity might be a vestigial characteristic. If the "adaptive" school of thought is correct, and the tendency to invent and believe in religions was selected for, it may have been of use to our species at the time that it evolved, but may no longer be.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
anastasia Member (Idle past 5973 days) Posts: 1857 From: Bucks County, PA Joined: |
bluegenes writes: If not, I seriously recommend it, once again. It's well put together, and it should answer some of your questions on the subject. Honestly, I didn't, and I will.
Woodsy gives a very good example of how characteristics in our biological nature can be "byproduct" above I am not on that page yet, but hopefully it will come to me.
I was only half joking when I said that religiosity might be a vestigial characteristic. If the "adaptive" school of thought is correct, and the tendency to invent and believe in religions was selected for, it may have been of use to our species at the time that it evolved, but may no longer be. I understand the referene to vestigial, and that reminds me of something 'vestigial' in this sense. I have often thought about the clingy tendency of baby humans when they are first born, which is cute, but so clearly seems to be a left-over instinct from when humans may have had hair, and babies clung to that like baby apes do. I see no other usefulness for this tendency, being that I am a mother and I would likely find a use. But specifically I was asking whether this study pertains to belief in the supernatural. I ask because the mere word religion has different meanings for different people. To me, religion is the set of traditions which surround a belief.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
anastasia Member (Idle past 5973 days) Posts: 1857 From: Bucks County, PA Joined: |
Woodsy writes: This tendency could lead to the idea that purely physical events are caused by some unseen intelligent agent and soon one is in the grip of religion. However, it is still a byproduct of a "tiger avoidance" mechanism that is very useful. But this 'tiger avoidance mechanism' is a form of inferred logic, no? It stems from intelligence. If you believe A, then logically you will avoid action B. As you change your perceptions of A, the responses will be different. If the question is; what caused us to perceive A as God/s, that is easy to explain. No tiger, no tree, MUST be supernatural. Could have been a volcano rumble. Running still good. But, if volcano is unknown, and God is presumed, running may still be good if there was a volcano. Now what happens if the running part gets lost in the God part? Slowly, God becomes human-like. Some run. Some stay and get burned? This is plausible...if our idea of God doesn't keep up with reality, and doesn't accept evidence, we are 'burned'. We reacted wrongly to a situation. I am sure you can think of examples where people committed strange actions that were not useful because they had ascribed boring events to the supernatural. Like, maybe, the witch trials of Salem. So, thank you for helping me understand my question. I think that what I am asking is if evolution explains only the biological, or if it attempts to explain as well things which are not part of the body? For example; natural selection is quite understandable when it comes to creatures adapting certain physical features. Giraffes and elephants adapted ways to reach tall trees, presumably to beat competition for low vegetation. But religion is not a physical feature. It seems to be a product of intelligence. When intelligence begins, we have to give meaning to events, and act accordingly. An animal will usually run by instinct at any noise. We have to think about the noise, and act accordingly. If we 'think' the noise is from a God, we will act in a way that is suitable. That might be running...or it may not. That depends on how we 'see' God. So, the usefullness may be obliterated by the further inferences. I am still rambling, though.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Woodsy Member (Idle past 3394 days) Posts: 301 From: Burlington, Canada Joined: |
An animal will usually run by instinct at any noise. We have to think about the noise, and act accordingly. As I understand it, the idea is that we have an innate tendency to run before thinking. Otherwise, our ancestors might have become someone's lunch. Think of our disgust response, as another example. We don't have to ponder before saying "yuk!". Don't worry about rambling; it's fun to read.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 432 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
anastasia writes: But religion is not a physical feature. It seems to be a product of intelligence. I'm guessing that religion is more in the "pre-intelligence", knee-jerk section of the brain.
quote:
An animal will usually run by instinct at any noise. We have to think about the noise, and act accordingly. If we 'think' the noise is from a God, we will act in a way that is suitable. That might be running...or it may not. But religion is running away, isn't it?Self-preservation. Obedience. Kowtow and you won't be destroyed. When we hear a noise, we want to know what causes it, so we can decide our best course of action - fight or flee. It might be predator or prey. In either case, we decide whether to kill it now or track it and kill it later. It's intelligence that allows us to be proactive in destroying our enemies. So, if the noise is God, He'd better watch His p's and q's. Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation. Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Larni Member (Idle past 184 days) Posts: 4000 From: Liverpool Joined: |
ana writes: I see no other usefulness for this tendency, being that I am a mother and I would likely find a use. It is a form of communication from child to mother that is hard wired. When your child tries to cling to you, what is your instinctive (maybe not actual) reaction?
ana writes: But this 'tiger avoidance mechanism' is a form of inferred logic, no? It stems from intelligence. Yes and No. If you took the time to decide whether to be scared, you would be dead on the eventuality that it was a tiger. For our purposes the reaction to a conditioned stimulus is instantaneous. But you learn that it may be a tiger in the bushes that makes that noise. Just like we learn religion and morality (I know, I know, same old tune: but it is how it works); by conditioning.
ana writes: For example; natural selection is quite understandable when it comes to creatures adapting certain physical features. Giraffes and elephants adapted ways to reach tall trees, presumably to beat competition for low vegetation. But religion is not a physical feature. We are back to your conclusion that the answers provided by evolutionary psychology is 'unfullfilling'. I still don't see why. Here in the UK we had (in the 70s and 80s) birds who learnt to peck at the top of milk bottles. This behaviour transmitted from a few individuals to the country wide popn. This is a clear example of behavioural evolution. Edited by Larni, : No reason given. Edited by Larni, : No reason given.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024