The Evolution of Religion

[Bede]

It seems to me that the starting point of Dawkins and Dennett in their analyses of religion is not "God doesn't exist". Rather, it is "we hate religion." The reason for their animosity is a strong belief that religion is harmful and we would be better off without it. They rationalise this belief with the usual string of historical anecdotes and misconceptions that are so popular on atheist websites (such as the imaginary conflict between science and religion; religion causing wars, intolerance and suicide bombers; no atheist ever killed someone else because their atheism etc etc etc.). It all boils down to Steven Weinberg's fatuous and false sound bite "For good people to do bad things, that takes religion." Presumably he lives in a world without jealousy, revenge, money, hunger, anger, a mistaken sense of duty, scientific ignorance or stupidity.

In fact, I don't see how any consistent Darwinist could say religion is a 'bad thing'. Religion is human nature. Dennett and Dawkins both try to explain it as an unwelcome side effect of some other evolutionary adaptation. But this is highly unlikely because it is too in-built and multi-centred. Religion is caused by our brains ability to generate mystical experience; our instinctive desire for God or gods; our feeling for an objective moral order; our sense of wonder at nature and our skills at social cohesion. These traits are far too varied mean that religion is not a side-effect, it is a fundamental part of human nature. We also know religious belief is partly inheritable which further proves that speculation about memes is way off beam.

If religion is fundamental to our nature then, according to Darwinists, it can only have arisen in one way - selected by evolution. And it would only be selected if it was advantageous. The inherent propensity towards religion, that everyone bar a few mutants have, must be an adaptation that helped human beings dominate the planet. Furthermore, about the only working definition of 'good' and 'bad' that a Darwinist can get a handle on is whether or not a behavior has helped humans survive and multiply. Religion must, by Darwinian lights, be a 'good thing'.

It is just that like many other good things, it can go wrong.

Best wishes

Bede

Bede's Library - faith and reason (http://www.bede.org.uk)

[David B]

If religion is fundamental to our nature then, according to Darwinists, it can only have arisen in one way - selected by evolution. And it would only be selected if it was advantageous.

I write in haste.

So just one key point on the OP. Advantageous for what?

Religions can be viewed as things in themselves, which descend with modification using the human mind as a medium, and religions can be viewed as selected by evolution insofar as a combination of happenstance and how effective the memeplexes behind the various religions, current and extinct, are effective at propagating themselves.

Bede's argument is not sufficient to say that religions are advantageous to humans - any more than other ideologies, like communism or fascism, which have also had their times of being selected, are are necesaarily advantageous to humans.

Let's rephrase the quote in different terms.

'If being subject to parasitic attack is fundamental to our nature then, according to Darwinists, it can only have arisen in one way - selected by evolution. And it would only be selected if it was advantageous.'

Again - advantageous for what?

Note that I'm not claiming that parasitic attack is a perfect analogy for religion by any means.

Just that the OPs misunderstanding of evolutionary theory does not show that religon is advantageous for humans, as seems to have been the aim.

David B

[Codec]

I guess it depends how you look at things. I think religion has a lot going for it, as it can force people in certain circumstances to do "the right thing" because of divine retribution, or eternal punishment.

I think many view religion like bicycle training wheels - very useful to help you in your infancy, but restricting when you become adult.

Evolutionary it will be a good thing to get you to a certain state, but restriciting beyond a certain point.

Consider the science of vaccination - when it first came out it was seen as against god. The people with typhoid or whatever were being punished by god, therefore should not be interfered with. Get to a certain level of maturity, and we can break through these limitations and cure ourselves, and then the God meme becomes dangerous as it holds back development.

[post tenebras lux]

Rape and highway robbery (i.e. robbing a stranger if you can get away with it) are both 'human nature'. Does Bede want to try and claim that we can't call either of those things a 'bad thing'?

[fromdownunder]

Bede, you seem to have overlooked the possibility that supernatural beliefs have not necessarily been selected for, but are social constructs. After all, we would not have survived if we were not social animals. It could be argued that as such they are selectively nuetral, rather than beneficial or disadvantageous when it comes to selection.

After all, the millions who claim flying saucer abductions and Elvis sightings do not have their reproductive qualities reduced because of irrational beliefs.

So, it possible, that the early acceptance of religions (as espoused by the Shamans of early society, who happened to also be in power, and used their power to convince people of the reality of, say, Volcano and Earthquake gods) simply grew into a neutral social construct which neither hindered or helped society develop. Or maybe it did help, as it gave tribes a common goal.

I am not arguing from a scientific point of view - it is simply guesswork - and I dislike extremism in any form, as I know you do. I dislike any arguments which use science per se to denigrate religion, and religion per se
to denigrate science.

Norm

[Bede]

Bede's argument is not sufficient to say that religions are advantageous to humans - any more than other ideologies, like communism or fascism, which have also had their times of being selected, are are necesaarily advantageous to humans.

David, writing in haste you have got confused between particular religions and the human propensity towards religion per se. Being subject to a parasitic attack is not fundamental to our nature although it is likely that we are vulnerable to such attack due to something inherent about us. That thing that makes us vulnerable must be so vital that it is selected for despite its disadvantage.

Just that the OPs misunderstanding of evolutionary theory does not show that religon is advantageous for humans, as seems to have been the aim.

I do understand evolutionary theory very well indeed. For instance, I know that it is nothing to do with memes (which are probably nothing to do with anything.)

Best wishes

Bede

[Bede]

Rape and highway robbery (i.e. robbing a stranger if you can get away with it) are both 'human nature'. Does Bede want to try and claim that we can't call either of those things a 'bad thing'?

Neither are human nature because most of us do neither thing and would never do them.

If you were talking about a human propensity towards violence, you might be on firmer ground but you'll need to tighten up your thinking a bit.

[Bede]

Bede, you seem to have overlooked the possibility that supernatural beliefs have not necessarily been selected for, but are social constructs.

Hi Norm,

Specific religions might be social constructs but the overall propensity of humans towards religion is certainly genetic. I think you are making the same mistake that David did. I am talking about religion at the deepest and most general level. I'd say a social construct cannot be used to explain a universal experience of humanity.

Best wishes

Bede

[Vorkosigan]

Specific religions might be social constructs but the overall propensity of humans towards religion is certainly genetic. I think you are making the same mistake that David did. I am talking about religion at the deepest and most general level. I'd say a social construct cannot be used to explain a universal experience of humanity.

I agree, Bede. But religion is probably fallout from cognitive biases, and not something that evolution has directly selected for. The fact that something has a genetic basis and is universal does not mean that it was selected for directly, nor does the fact that it could be advantageous also mean it was selected for. Religion is probably universal for the same reason television is -- it appeals to something innate, but itself it is not innate.

Vorkosigan

[Bede]

I agree, Bede. But religion is probably fallout from cognitive biases, and not something that evolution has directly selected for.

The reason I reject this (religion as side effect) is that it doesn't explain enough. The first question is - side effect of what?

Lewis Wolpert makes a similar suggestion to you - that religion is due to our over developed but useful ability to find causes for effects. I think, elsewhere, you have suggested it is due to our habit of intuiting other minds to inanimate objects because our useful desire to empathise is so great. No doubt someone could come up with a source for mystical experience that is the reason our brains generate it.

Herein lies the problem with the 'religion as side effect' explanation. It ends up being postulated as a side effect of many unrelated behaviors. This means religious propensity itself is not directly heritable (which, in fact, we know it is). Worse, with each behavior selected individually, it is much less likely the combined side effect would manifext universally. You can do some tough math to show that accidental corrilations like this won't last long. It is far more parsimonious to assume that the complex of religious behaviors is selected as a group which means that it is heritable and universal in a species.

Best wishes

Bede

PS: Welcome back!

[post tenebras lux]

Neither are human nature because most of us do neither thing and would never do them.Well, I would query whether most of us never do the latter (take something that we're not entitled to when we think it's unlikely that we'll get caught) but the reason why 'most of us do neither thing and would never do them' is because our society frowns on them.

And even then, the social conditioning is not all that strong if a 1993 study is correct:35% of college men who voluntarily participated in psychological research conducted at several universities indicated they might commit a rape if they knew they could get away with it.Referenced here. (http://72.14.205.104/search?q=cache:-v7QZBSOEucJ:www.denimdayinla.org/documents/RapeSexualStats2006.doc+rapes+in+america+in+2005&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=7)

Unfortunately, our society does not particularly frown upon people being delusional, provided said delusion is concidered 'religious'.If you were talking about a human propensity towards violence, you might be on firmer ground but you'll need to tighten up your thinking a bit.Or you just need to take off your rose-tinted glasses and think a little more about 'human nature'.

[David B]

David, writing in haste you have got confused between particular religions and the human propensity towards religion per se. Being subject to a parasitic attack is not fundamental to our nature although it is likely that we are vulnerable to such attack due to something inherent about us. That thing that makes us vulnerable must be so vital that it is selected for despite its disadvantage.

Back from my urgent business, a couple of points here. One being that if there is a propensity to religion per se, (of which more later) and if particular religions sometimes are incompatible with other religions (which I don't doubt), then religion would not seem a particularly valuable way of finding truths about the world, unless there were extraordinary evidence to say that one rather than another were particularly a source of proof.

The other you bring up yourself in a post below. The possibility that religion is not selected for in itself (from the point of view of people, that is - from the POV of the religions is another matter), but is a side effect of something else. That is an idea I take very seriously. I can grasp that it might have been advantageous to ascribe intent to whole classes of things. Ideas like 'certain plants seek lots of water', 'animals seek out water', or 'x sort of animal seeks particular food plants', things like that. Which become rather less useful when ascribing intent to things like volcanos and tsunamis, but is understandble (isn't it?) for all that.

I'm not convinced by your arguments against religion being a side effect, but I need a little time and thought to find a good form of words to try to explain why not



I do understand evolutionary theory very well indeed. For instance, I know that it is nothing to do with memes (which are probably nothing to do with anything.)

Well, it is true that memes are not part of classic Darwinism or Mendelism. To say that memes are nothing to do with evolutionary theory now, though, seems to me to be overstating the case. For all the difficulties involved with getting some sort of theory of memetics, I'd still say that memes have been a part of evolutionary theory ever since the publication of The Selfish Gene'.

Best wishes

Bede

And to you

David B

[Y.B]

Daniel Dennett, at least, does not argue that religion is necessarily a bad thing. He raises the question: how can it be explained as a natural phenomenon? It might be good for something, or it might not be for anything - maybe it exists because it can, like the common cold.

Here is a link to interviews with Dennett (I find his explanation for the origin
of "folk religions", which then became "domesticated religions", fascinating):

http://www.reitstoen.com/dennett.php

[Anat]

Bede, don't forget that Dawkins argues that the unit of selection is the gene, not the individual or the species. So even if religion (or the tendency to think in religious ways) evolved naturally, it does not necessarily serve the interest of anything but those of the genes for religious thinking. According to Dawkins, from the gene's POV individuals are survival machines that support the spreading of that gene. But individuals with consciousness may have interests of their own, which may be in conflict with the spreading of such genes. Thus a gene that arose naturally and spread within the population can be a source of misery to the individuals that carry it. That sickle cell anaemia evolved naturally does not mean it isn't a disease that can cause suffering. That the murine T mutation can take over whole populations does not mean that having it is good for individual mice or the population as a whole (it's a mutation that is homozygous lethal, causes some defects in heterozygous animals, but also causes the gametes of heterozygous animals to preferentially contain the mutant allele, hence its quick spread). Our genes are necessary for our existence, but in a way they are also our parasites.

[Y.B]

Here is an article called "What use is religion?" by Dawkins (I don't believe it has been released in any of his books?) looking for evolutionary explanations for religion:

http://www.secularhumanism.org/library/fi/dawkins_24_5.htm

[Peez]

Bede:
If religion is fundamental to our nature then, according to Darwinists, it can only have arisen in one way - selected by evolution.Your post is full of misunderstandings, but this one stuck out. It is, quite simply, false. Until you understand that, I don't see how you can meaningfully discuss it.

Peez

[Flint]

I think there's not much question that it's human nature to Make Stuff Up when evidence-based explanations are either unavailable or uncongenial. It might also be the case that illusions, delusions, and kidding ourselves are built into the structure of our brains. And it might finally be the case that these misfortunes are side-effects of some very necessary structures we couldn't live without, and if we "cured" these problems, we'd be vegetables.

But it still strikes me that even if this is true, it's a thin justification for embracing deleterious side-effects. Wouldn't it be preferable to try to work around them instead?

[Bede]

Here is an article called "What use is religion?" by Dawkins (I don't believe it has been released in any of his books?) looking for evolutionary explanations for religion:
http://www.secularhumanism.org/library/fi/dawkins_24_5.htm

Another side effect. So many suggestions.... always the sign of a theory in trouble.

Also, Dawkins's suggestion doesn't explain adult conversion at all.

B

[Bede]

Bede, don't forget that Dawkins argues that the unit of selection is the gene, not the individual or the species.

Hi Anat,

Yes he says this. But, as I'm sure he is perfectly well aware, selection is really on complexes of genes working together. Some complexes are single genes and this is the easiest example so he uses it to explain things to non-specialists. Some of the unfair criticism of Dawkins comes from his being accused of over-simplifying.

Best wishes

Bede

[Y.B]

Another side effect.

That should be considered as a possibility, no?

So many suggestions.... always the sign of a theory in trouble.
O rly? Suggestions as opposed to blanket statements about something which hasn't been researched thoroughly are a sign of "a theory in trouble"?

Also, Dawkins's suggestion doesn't explain adult conversion at all.
It's not a complete explanation for all religious experiences by no means, I agree.

[Demigawd]

The reason I reject this (religion as side effect) is that it doesn't explain enough. The first question is - side effect of what?

I think it's a "side effect" of humanity's storytelling capacity. I believe it was Terry Pratchett who said that Pan Narrans would be a more apt description for us than Homo Sapiens.

Religion has held the most important stories for the longest time: tales of who we are, what we are, where we came from, and where we're going. But they are stories in the end; and as such, they mutate with each retelling in whatever media replicates them.

[David B]

Also, Dawkins's suggestion doesn't explain adult conversion at all.

B

Your suggestion that religion is fundamental to our nature doesn't explain adult deconversions at all.

It's worth remembering, I think, that adults will also convert to or from fascism or communism or whatever, sometimes, too.

David B

[JamesBannon]

Your post is full of misunderstandings, but this one stuck out. It is, quite simply, false. Until you understand that, I don't see how you can meaningfully discuss it.

Peez

I'm with you Peez. To my lay mind the idea that there is some gene or gene complex that has been selected for religion is, to be quite frank, total bollocks. I mean wtf is that? Show me where it is. Then, when that's done, show me how this gets expressed by environment into the myriad of beliefs we see today or have been over the millenia.

[Malintent]

The thing that makes religion "selected for" by evolutionary process is called "apeal to authority". If children did not trust their parents with cautions like "don't go in the water, there are crocs that will eat you in there, even though you cannot see them right now", then we never would have gotten very far, now would we.

So, belief in what we have no evidence for is selected for in humans becasue we are social creatures that rely on eachother to survive.

[Y.B]

The thing that makes religion "selected for" by evolutionary process is called "apeal to authority". If children did not trust their parents with cautions like "don't go in the water, there are crocs that will eat you in there, even though you cannot see them right now", then we never would have gotten very far, now would we.

That is precisely Dawkins' argument.

[ninewands]

Another side effect. So many suggestions.... always the sign of a theory in trouble.
No, drawing tentative conclusions based upon appearances are part of the scientific mindset. The theory would be "in trouble" if such things were stated in absolute terms ... like religious principles are.
Also, Dawkins's suggestion doesn't explain adult conversion at all.
Nor does theistic religion explain adult deconversion which I'd be willing to bet is much more common than adult conversion of those who were fortunate enough to be raised as atheists/agnostics/secular humanists.

[Flint]

I have never heard of an adult conversion to religious (i.e. evidence-free) faith, that on closer examination wasn't in fact a case of recidivism from a childhood spent in a religious family.

However, I'm fairly confident that if by some miracle we could raise a couple generations of children worldwide without the slightest exposure to any religious faith, organized religions as we know them would soon return. Because (all together now), it is human nature to Make Stuff Up when actual evidence is unavailable or uncongenial.

[ninewands]

Because (all together now), it is human nature to Make Stuff Up when actual evidence is unavailable or uncongenial.
Agreed 100%. :D

[Bede]

Your suggestion that religion is fundamental to our nature doesn't explain adult deconversions at all.

Well, rather obviously, it does in as much as it explains anything.

It's worth remembering, I think, that adults will also convert to or from fascism or communism or whatever, sometimes, too.

I am coming around to Burleigh's idea of political religion as being quite useful. If I may be allowed an analogy. Imagine that there is a religion organ, much like Chomsky's language organ. Then that organ will suffer from pathologies like any other. Maybe Nazism and Islamo-Fascism are such pathologies.

Also, I need to add one other idea to my theory. Clearly, traits do first appear when they are the side effect of something else. Evolution can hardly select a trait that doesn't exist. But once they do appear, then they can be selected and they are often selected in complexes. Thus claws and fast legs go well together, so do feathers and wings etc. This ability to select many traits in one go is part of what makes natural selection so powerful (a point not realised by naive creationists who tend to think one thing must happen at a time).

David, I look forward to your explanation of what is wrong with my idea of religion as many traits selected together. All the suggestions on this thread seem to further strenghthen my point that religious propensity is a complex, don't you think?

Best wishes

Bede

[BioBeing]

What would Bede's alternative to the "side effect" suggestion be? Is he saying "religions exist, therefore God"? If so, then how does his theory explain the plethora of religions that humans have invented?

[Odin2006]

I think religion evelved out of a tendency for people to anthropomorphize nature. This original animism evolved into various religions by memetic evolution.

[DNAReplicator]

The reason I reject this (religion as side effect) is that it doesn't explain enough. The first question is - side effect of what?

My hunch is superstition. Or perhaps more accurately the capacity to develop new behaviours through intuitive rather than inductive pattern recognition. At its most prosaic, this means not walking on the cracks in the pavement. At its most advantageous, this would be planting seeds when a particular star appears above the horizon. As long as the reproductive payoff from planting crops at the right time outweighs the cost of walking in wiggly lines down pavements then this will be selected for.

One can take this idea one step further. Individuals without strong intuitive pattern recognition could still increase their chances of reproductive success by learning behaviours from those that do and have been successful. In fact, if they have a strong inclination to mimic the behaviour patterns of intuitive individuals that do have backed the right horse, they could reap all the rewards without taking the risk.

Hmmm…..shepherds and flocks, anyone?

[Flint]

Yeah, the progression goes:
Everything we do is done for a purpose
Therefore, everything that happens has a purpose
Therefore, there must be an agency to hold that purpose
Therefore, god(s) exist to be responsible for everything not explainable in any other way

This becomes so thoroughly internalized and institutionalized that when we find the *real* explanation for things, it must be denied.

[Anat]

Bede, you ignored my main point: According to Dawkins, it is entirely possible for a trait that is harmful to the individual that carries it to arise by evolution. Thus even if one demonstrates that there are genes influencing religious attitudes that does not make those genes or the traits influenced by them benefitial to individual humans or to humanitybas a whole.

[Bede]

Bede, you ignored my main point: According to Dawkins, it is entirely possible for a trait that is harmful to the individual that carries it to arise by evolution. Thus even if one demonstrates that there are genes influencing religious attitudes that does not make those genes or the traits influenced by them benefitial to individual humans or to humanitybas a whole.

Sorry, I assumed you knew how sickle cells genes are beneficial and why they don't breed out. Your other example is more interesting but would lead the species extinction which religion hasn't done. Well, not yet anyway!

Edited to add: actually if this mutation increases its chances of being passed on and is deleterous, I suppose you'd classify it as a heritible genetic illness. These are not selected for by evolution although the process they are passed on with is through the germ line. Not sure the analogy works, for this reason. Still, your point that bad genes can spread still stands. So does mine, that a population where this becomes widespread has had it. I think sex selection might be a better angle of attack for you.

Best

B

[Bede]

What would Bede's alternative to the "side effect" suggestion be? Is he saying "religions exist, therefore God"? If so, then how does his theory explain the plethora of religions that humans have invented?

I think my last reply to David covers this.

B

[SophistiCat]

Herein lies the problem with the 'religion as side effect' explanation. It ends up being postulated as a side effect of many unrelated behaviors. This means religious propensity itself is not directly heritable (which, in fact, we know it is).

No, this doesn't follow. If the set of traits that gives rise to religiosity is heritable, then so is religiosity. If all of these traits are conserved for reasons independent from religiosity, then it is quite plausible for religiosity to be a mere side effect.

Worse, with each behavior selected individually, it is much less likely the combined side effect would manifext universally.

Our species' genotype is remarkably uniform - more so than in our closest relatives, for example. Therefore, it is very likely for a set of cognitive traits, however large, to be present in most members of our population. If that set happens to give us propensity for religiosity as a side effect, then religiosity will be as widespread as it is.

You can do some tough math to show that accidental corrilations like this won't last long.

Even if the religious trait was indeed fragile (and I think I demonstrated that this doesn't have to be true), you have to keep in mind that religion as we know it is a very recent phenomenon - an instant on evolutionary scale. Its survival for several thousand years shouldn't be surprising, even if it was a glitch, so to speak.

We know little about our ancestors' superstitions, although the evidence of some kind of cultic practices goes fairly deep in time. It is possible that some primitive superstitious behaviour was originally selected, yet our most recent religious ideas and practices are an excessive outgrowth, produced as a side-effect of our developing civilization, of which other examples are non-cultic art, philosophy, and Internet :)

I am not arguing for the opposite position, that religion can only be a side-effect of other cognitive abilities. I am only saying that none of your arguments so far show that it is implausible for religion to be an incidental neutral or even mildly deleterious phenomenon.

[Anat]

In countries where malaria does not occur sickle cell anaemia is merely deleterious. It is still around (among populations historically from malaria stricken areas). T/+ mice are viable and fertile (though less healthy than +/+ mice), so a population where this mutation has spread can still survive. My point is the mere existence of a widespread trait isn't sufficient evidence for its benefit on the individual or population level.

[t.w.]

Yet again we see the assumption that if something is favoured by natural selection we 'Darwinists' have an obligation to favour it ourselves. Religion has been 'favoured' by natural selection and so, we are asked, why on earth don't we Darwinists like it? I hope he realises how absurd his question is.

Let's say for the sake of argument child molestation is favoured by natural selection. Do you then think that we 'darwinists' are being dishonest or unfaithful to our religion if we don't favour and condone child molestation?

[Anat]

Considering that pigeons can exhibit superstitious behavior on being exposed to random reward I wouldn't be surprised if it were shown that some aspects of religious thinking are the result of pattern recognition in overdrive. I can understand that it would benefit individual survival to be overly sensitive to recognising potential threats, but that does not mean one should persist in such behaviors when there is no reason to think it is based in reality.

[David B]

David, I look forward to your explanation of what is wrong with my idea of religion as many traits selected together. All the suggestions on this thread seem to further strenghthen my point that religious propensity is a complex, don't you think?

Best wishes

Bede

It was something else I thought was wrong, as I recall. Which I'm still thinking about the best way to address.

My view is that there is a propensity towards religion/ideology, which does in fact rely on many traits. Fortunately, however, there also seems to me to be a human propensity to value truth, which, with appropriate critical thinking skills, can counteract this.

David B

[fromdownunder]

Hi Norm,

Specific religions might be social constructs but the overall propensity of humans towards religion is certainly genetic. I think you are making the same mistake that David did. I am talking about religion at the deepest and most general level. I'd say a social construct cannot be used to explain a universal experience of humanity.

Best wishes

Bede

Bede, I probably did not make myself clear enough, in that I accept that there was probably a stage early in humanity that developed, to use the scientific term :), the "conform or die" gene.

So I agree with a large part of what you wrote. (different time zones make it difficult to carry on these sort of conversations, especially with those of you who live in the wrong hemisphere, and those of me who are partial to red wine).

Superstition was, to me, encouraged by the leaders of the day and they used it as one of their methods of retaining power. The people who conformed to the prevailing paradigm lived, and those who did not, died, with religion being the major power play. Thus I agree with your basic argument - but I simply meant to add that I think it was the "social" construct of the day which largely caused the "survive or die" gene to become the prevalent one.

This has continued throughout history, as a combination of survival technique (genetic), and cultural upbringing (social mores). I don't know if this makes what I intended more clear, but I hope so.

Regards

Norm

[JamesBannon]

I would like someone to please explain to me and to show me evidence of any genetic encoding of belief. Sure, humans have genes, as does all life and evolution wouldn't be possible without them, but the idea that genes encode belief seems to me to be patently absurd.

As for the evolution of belief through memes that's an analogy. We used to use similar ideas when discussing diffusion of technological innovations in economic theory; e.g. the simplest analogue used the diffusion process of heat through a slab of finite width. These, however, are analogies and abstractions not "real" mechanisms.

It is all well and good to use the evolutionary process as an analog for the spread and maintenance of belief systems, whatever their nature, but please don't claim that the analog is the actual mechanism. This is like saying that neural networks are equivalent to brains.

[David B]

I would like someone to please explain to me and to show me evidence of any genetic encoding of belief.

I don't think that anyone has actually made such a claim. A genetically inspired tendency to believe, as a child, what you are told by adults, for instance, has been claimed.

But not that specific beliefs are genetically encoded.

David B (sees no reason to doubt the former)

[JamesBannon]

David,
I can understand a capacity to believe just as I can understand a capacity for language as part of our general make-up but it seems to me that Bede is suggesting something more than that. What I think he is suggesting is a capacity for religion. If bede is using religion as a generic term for belief then fine I can deal with that but the characteristics of religion specifically? After all, science is a particular belief system, namely a set of rationally based beliefs about how the world works.

[JLK]

Once upon a time, Bede and I had a formal IIDB debate involving science and religion, and Bede agreed to a definition of "religion" that included secular humanism. Are you, Bede, using that definition now?

[lpetrich]

There is the serious problem that many people have believed in religions other than what Bede considers the One True Religion. So he ought to ask himself why do people believe in false religions.

Most of the older religions and some of their survivors, like Hinduism, feature worship of many gods. They also have the belief that worship of one god does no preclude the worship of another -- they don't believe in an "only god". Furthermore, some Xian and Muslim sects have backdoor polytheism in the form of saints. So if there is a genetic tendency toward religion, it would likely include a genetic tendency toward polytheism.

As Xenophanes noted, people tend to make gods in their likeness, whatever it happens to be. So is there a genetic tendency toward believing in anthropomorphic gods? Even the Bible has plenty of anthropomorphism -- and it is never something held against pagan religions. Idolatry is also a common practice; some Xian sects are well-known for it.


Going beyond religion to beliefs and practices commonly disdained as "superstition", we note that some are very widespread and long-lived; some are likely as old as humanity. Ought we to believe and practice them for that reason?

A very common belief before the development of the shadow theory of eclipses was the belief that eclipses are caused by monsters eating the Sun and the Moon, or else by sorcerers making them go away. And as Richard Carrier noted in his work Cultural History of the Lunar and Solar Eclipse in the Early Roman Empire (http://www.columbia.edu/~rcc20/ma.pdf), the two sorts of belief coexisted in that society, with the educated elite believing in the shadow theory and the rest of the populace believing in the monster/sorcerer theory.

The efficacy of sorcery has widely been believed in, and not just as psychological warfare -- it was believed that sorcery could have powerful physical and biological effects.

In much of sub-Saharan Africa, it used to be believed that all death is caused by sorcery, even in cases where people are aware of alternative hypotheses, like hunted elephants or collapsing granaries.

Likewise, divination has often been practiced, and continues to be practiced by some people -- consider Tarot cards. The leaders of ancient Rome would judge whether or not to do something by watching how eagerly the sacred chickens pecked the ground -- or at least they pretended to do so.


And this argument seems like "I can't help but believe in the religion I believe in -- my genes made me do it".

[Pisano112]

I'm a mathematical biologist, so I think of things - especially evolution - in a mathematical way. There's a wonderful paper on Darwinian extinction you can find here (http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/cgi-bin/resolve?id=doi:10.1086/345858) if you're feeling mathematically brave (I don't understand most of the paper, and I've had it very carefully explained to me many times by the person who wrote it), but the idea is this.

You can think of a population that's evolving as crawling up a fitness surface. Selection pressure pushes it up to the peaks. The population is pressured to get to the highest peak on that fitness surface so that they can maximize their fitness (that is, reproduce like.. er.. bunnies). However, the very act of crawling up this fitness surface can cause it to sink - if the population ever reaches the point on the surface that equals zero (or sea level if you prefer :P), it goes extinct.

The peacock's tail is a classic example. A peacock population will crawl up its fitness surface with each successive generation, maximizing fitness. However, that surface, by the very act of evolution, is sinking. They are evolving themselves to extinction. THe paper above calls this Darwinian Extinction.

My point? Evolution produces structures that are advantageous for the moment, even if it guarantees extinction in the long run. Bede, I agree with you that evolution produced religion, and I agree with you that there must have been a net selection pressure in favor of religion in order for it to arise. I agree that religion is probably a complex of emergent properties that are coupled in ways we don't fully understand yet, and are selected for in tandem (in your example, feathers and wings, although I prefer bat screeching-and-powerful hearing to get sonar).

That does not indicate that religion is advantageous in the long run for a species (although I believe it might be), nor does an evolutionary analysis necessarily conclude that religion is a "good thing." Hell, prairie dogs have no resistance to the plague whatsoever because the costs to developing it simply can't be overcome. That doesn't mean that resistance is disadvantageous or a "bad thing."

[RBH]

Coincidentally, this story (http://sciencenow.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/2006/921/2) just out three days ago may be an illustration of that process of 'Darwinian extinction' in progress.

RBH

[JamesBannon]

The peacock's tail is a classic example. A peacock population will crawl up its fitness surface with each successive generation, maximizing fitness. However, that surface, by the very act of evolution, is sinking. They are evolving themselves to extinction. THe paper above calls this Darwinian Extinction.

A Peacock's tail is not a belief last time I checked. Religion and Science, on the other hand, are. Are you saying that evolutionary pressures might eliminate Science? Religion? Will it eradicate the capacity to believe in anything? In that case the human species will itself go into extinction I suggest. Evolutionists sometimes forget I think that while humans are natural creatures that are a product of evolution they have the capacity to overcome evolutionary pressures.

[hyzer]

Why do we have comic book super heroes? Heck, might as well say we have an evolved disposition to create stories. What is the basis of religion except a bunch of stories written and told to explain stuff and teach stuff and control the flock . . .

[lpetrich]

Excellent point, hyzer. And consider Lord Raglan's Mythic-Hero profile -- which well-documented people have ever come close to fitting it. So do we have some genetic tendency to make notable people try to fit Lord Raglan's profile?

And the same for the other things I mentioned earlier -- polytheism, anthropomorphism, idolatry, sorcery, eclipse monsters, etc.

And I'm sure that Bede has first-hand experience with polytheism and idolatry. :devil3:

As Sam Harris says, religion often gets a pass for things that would be dismissed outright if they appeared anywhere else. :(

[Bede]

Pisano112 and Sophisticat,

Thanks for your intelligent and helpful repies. I'm trying to get hold of Mithen's Prehistory of the Mind but it was checked out the library yesterday. On reflection, I don't think I have proof of anything. But, the idea has legs and I'll see where it goes. Certainly, I do think Dawkins and many posters here start from a personal bias (religion is bad) and then try to come up with evolutionary rationalisations for this. I've been deliberately using the term religion as broadly as possible.

Sadly, [due to this dispute (http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=180784)] I'm probably not going to post here anymore. [further comments on the matter]

Best wishes

Bede

[post tenebras lux]

<Edited>

[DefendsReason]

The inherent propensity towards religion, that everyone bar a few mutants have, must be an adaptation that helped human beings dominate the planet.
Though I am apparently just a mutant (and always have been), I thought Frank Zindler wrote an excellent piece on this topic back in 1999.

"Why Is Religiosity So Hard To Cure"

http://www.americanatheist.org/smr99/T1/zindler.html


While the particular details of religion are transmitted verbally by culture - our substitute for instinct - I submit that the religiosity of Homo sapiens can be considered to some extent instinctual. That there could be such a thing as a religious instinct becomes plausible, I think, when we consider the implications of the fact that we evolved as a social species, not a solitary species. We evolved as social animals - herd animals. We evolved as wolves, not foxes.

In the evolution of big-brained social species there must arise a conflict between the desire for autonomy - self gratification - and the group need for integration and subservience. In many social species, autonomy and separation from the group produces anxiety. A lost sheep is not a happy animal, and many Christians separated from their congregations, priests, and pastors experience profound Angst. (This is why excommunication and shunning can be so devastating to certain people.) It appears to be one of the functions of religion that it allows people to “escape from freedom,” as the psychiatrist Erich Fromm once put it. When we do what our priests tell us to do, we avoid the anxiety that comes from having to make our own decisions - anxiety that arises from painful knowledge of our own inadequacies and proneness to make mistakes. Religion serves as a vehicle for discharging anxiety by connecting isolated individuals to the group and making them feel as though somehow the power of the entire group flows through them. In doing so, I shall argue, religion employs the neuronal circuitry evolved in prehuman social animals for non-verbal communication within the group.



One Last Time - Why is religiosity so hard to cure?

Analogous to hypnosis, religion distorts perceptions, rendering them resistant to correction. Often, strong emotions must be evoked before the spell can be broken: it is like using ice-water to awaken a hypnotized person. The neural circuitry of religion is intimately intertwined with that which distinguishes us as herd animals, as a social species. Surgical attempts to remove the harmful, religious components of this circuitry are quite naturally resisted - as though they were attempts to deprive people of their group identity. Loss of religion produces more autonomy, but this again can increase anxiety levels. Illusions that reduce anxiety will not be given up easily. Not withstanding all I have said here today, fear remains the soil in which the roots of religion feed. Unless better means are made available for reducing fear, religion will continue to feed upon our neuroplasm.

[lpetrich]

I think that Bede's position is the sort of hyperselectionism that Stephen Jay Gould and others have repeatedly criticized.

There are many things that we do that we were not "selected" to do, like using writing. This ought to be clear from the history of writing. It was invented in only a few places, but many of the world's people are now literate, including people whose ancestors learned to read and write only a few centuries ago.

And as to religion, one has to look at the types of religion that were likely believed in over most of humanity's history. Most early religions are polytheistic, involving a multitude of deities, and some "primitive" people had no clear idea of any sort of god. So should we therefore be polytheists?

And since religious artifacts have been common over the millennia, should we therefore be idolators?

And since sacred books became possible only as a result of literacy, should we forget about sacred books?

So according to Bede's arguments, one ought to become an illiterate pagan polytheist.