What is the evolutionary advantage to religion?

I've been trying out Ifen's idea of going beyond the ego. Haven't had much success yet. But I would like to say that there is no irony in this idea-- no mocking of Ifen's ideas, which I take seriously. But they mean nothing if not put to practical use.I think you start with little things, like doing more work about the house, and being more sensitive as regards one's relatives.That I have done. Nothing yet though as regards enlightenment. But it probably takes a long time.In the meantime, life is a tale told by an idiot.This message has been edited by robinrohan, 01-02-2005 00:13 AM

but I know a couple of apatheists -- they don't fit in either the absolute deity or the nihilist camp. that is my point.but this is wandering off topic: what is the current advantage to religion(s) that allow them to persist?

You know, a lot of people go to churches such as the Unitarian church who don't believe a damned thing. And I suspect that is true of more conventional but long-established churches such as the Catholics.In the long run, it's not about belief.It's about being with people with similar views.And is that so terrible?But on a more philosophical level, It's about having some meaning in life.

Interesting concept: religion continues to exist to provide comfort in the face of the unknown and comfort in numbers at the same time. No, as long as it does not interfere with looking for real answers to how the universe operates (not that there is a {survival\reproductive} value to that ... ) in the evolution of intelligence (not that there is a {survival\reproductive} value to that either ... )Are quick and easy answers better for {survival\reproductive} advantage even if the answers are wrong?

---

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

quote:

---

However, Deuteronomy indicates that the people were commanded to worship no image. God was and is a Spirit.

---

That's nice, but religious thought didn't start with the Jews.Judaism is derivative of the religions that came before it.

quote:

---

In other words, worship the Spirit and not the universe, the technology, other "attractive" people such as movie stars...etc..Early religion was an idea of philosophy.

---

Right, but it began long, long before Judaism.

quote:

---

True enough that religion has been abused. I see human tendencies as proof of a fallen inner nature that no amount of evolution will ever fix.

---

OK.

quote:

---

As for science and philosophy without religion, look at Nazi Germany to see the fruits of THAT logic. IMHO, anyway.

---

There was lots and lots of religion in Nazi Germany. It was a cult of personality for one thing, and Hitler invoked God all the time. He claimed to be ding God's work with the Final Solution.If you really want to look at history, we can look at all of the damage that religion without science has done, and continues to do. Think of the Taliban.

quote:

---

Just as ancients in the jungle knew all about pharmacology by simply knowing which plants to use without being able to explain it

---

...and science is now often able to explain what they could not.Sometimes they believed that the tree root or berry was imbued with a spirit and that is why it healed them.Are they right?When science isolates the chemical compound in the root or berry that heals, what does it mean to the belief of the people who thought it was a spirit?

quote:

---

So it is with spiritual encounters with God being passed down through oral tradition without need of quantification, Quantum Physics, mysticism, or any other of mans feeble attempts to intellectualize a spiritual experience.

---

So, the fact that we figured out that the sun is a star and not Apollo's firey chariot is one of "man's feeble attempts to intellectualize a spiritual experience"?Is the fact that we figured out that germs cause disease, not evil spirits, was another of "man's feeble attempts to intellectualize a spiritual experience"?

quote:

---

For some, Belief works.

---

Works to do what?

quote:

---

Whether from an internal reinforcement or an external impartation, science has as yet been unable to quantify what is certainly more than just daydreams and fantasies.

---

Why is it "certainly more".Do you believe in the Norse or the roman pantheon of gods? What about the hundreds of Hindu gods? No? Don't you consider them to be pretty much "daydreams and fantasies", even though the people who did and do belive in them are just as sure in their beliefs as you are about yours?

quote:

---

I am not saying that the fundamentalists actually are right, but given the wide scope of the types of personalities and individuals who DO believe, and given the fact that religious experiences STILL gather followers, there must be a biological need for a Creator.

---

I think there is a biological predisposition to believe in the supernatural, yes.

quote:

---

genocide can't possibly be an evolutionary positive

---

It is for the group that wins.They get more resources for themselves where they had to share before.More resources usually = greater reproductive success.

yes, but it also decreases genetic diversity and that's bad for everyone.This message has been edited by brennakimi, 01-02-2005 10:55 AM

so the religiously inspired genocide of "others" has reduced the genetic diversity of the non-religious genes?that would explain a greater dependency on religion without making a value judgement on the action.

---

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

This is interesting. You and I, for instance, see that maintaining genetic diversity is a good thing. However, outside of a handful of gregarious or eusocial species, the vast majority of lifeforms on this planet have no interest in the survival of the group (or species) as a whole. Rather, it is individual survival/reproduction that is the important element. Which makes sense, if you think about it: selection acts on the individual, not the species (leaving aside theories about group or species selection a la Eldredge/Gould, etc).My point is that evolution does not take the long-term view. Adaptations are not directed at the good of the species, only at the good of the individual and its future progeny. Schraf's point about genocide is on-target: among more "conscious" organisms, group survival, including elimination of potential or actual competitors = increased individual survival. Only humans, however, appear to take this to the genocidal extreme.

but is religion responsible for that "group think" behavior?

actually, wolves and chimpanzees have been recorded in genocidal wars. just ask jane goodall.

The Nazi's hated Christianity, hated Gods chosen people the Jews, and often touted belief in survival of the fittest. The leaders had a great deal of pride and haughtyness. Yet they were NOT the group that won. The Atomic Bomb was made possible by some of the "inferior genetic" scientists whose people were hated and targeted. Clearly, the "survival of the fittest" appears to be survival of the chosen.

Uhh, okay. I would say that would be a very idiosyncratic definition of "genocide", however. Please let me know if you every run into a peer-reviewed study showing how a population of Pan from, say, Rwanda conquered and eliminated all other populations of Pan. There is a substantial difference between territorial battles - which chimps are known for - and extermination.

Of course I could not argue this with you as you see no absolute truth to spirituality. As a JudeoChristian monotheist, I have a different belief. To me, it is not "MY" belief. It is THE truth. I could never prove to you why many if not most people have followed the wrong path. I will be grouped in with the Taliban. My conclusion goes in line with some who prophesy that in the last days, man will attempt to deify Self and do away with organized religion. This aura of fake world peace will bring about the next Hitler and people such as Christians will be persecuted for believing in such "humanist hindering" doctorines.
In the end, its all a matter of belief in humanity or belief in God.
I DO agree that "religion" gets in the way. Spirituality, however, is another topic. (One Spirit or many?...or none?)