Science: Religion is a product of evolution

[Reason]

God may work in mysterious ways, but a simple computer program may explain how religion evolved

By distilling religious belief into a genetic predisposition to pass along unverifiable information, the program predicts that religion will flourish. However, religion only takes hold if non-believers help believers out – perhaps because they are impressed by their devotion.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn13983-religion-is-a-product-of-evolution-software-suggests.html

[figuer]

There is no mystery as to why something like religion would evolve: It is psychologically soothing/stimulating and it helps bind society together.

[Lógos Sokratikós]

Science: Religion is a product of evolution
Sorry, you got it misspelled:
Science: Religion is a product of revolation.



------------
No, I did not misspell. It's not "revelation", it's revolation, as in ravioli. It may not be correct, but it comes acceptable unto Your Lord the Sauced One.

[Reason]

Science: Religion is a product of evolution
Sorry, you got it misspelled:
Science: Religion is a product of revolation.

Hey, don't blame me. I just quoted from the article. :wave:

[dalehileman]

Faith and devotion are protective reactions to the concepts of our loneliness in the Universe and our inevitable destruction

[ashurbanipal]

I've pointed this out before but I will do so again:

The first accounts of an afterlife we possess are far from comforting or encouraging. In most of them, there is a final destruction of the self which occurs some short time after death--and the nature of that destruction is in fact far worse than death itself. Given the choice between either ceasing at death, or having my soul torn apart and turned into larvae (as in the Chaldean or Hittite systems), I think I would choose the former. It is only many centuries later, in the axial age, that we begin to see accounts of religion that don't go this route.

So it hardly seems the case that religious belief was invented for the purposes indicated in this thread.

[Lógos Sokratikós]

Faith and devotion are protective reactions to the concepts of our loneliness in the Universe and our inevitable destruction

I agree with the "fear of destruction" part, but people don't naturally feel "lonely in the universe" −that's too abstract and philosophical IMO.

[Lógos Sokratikós]

I've pointed this out before but I will do so again:

The first accounts of an afterlife we possess are far from comforting or encouraging. In most of them, there is a final destruction of the self which occurs some short time after death--and the nature of that destruction is in fact far worse than death itself. Given the choice between either ceasing at death, or having my soul torn apart and turned into larvae (as in the Chaldean or Hittite systems), I think I would choose the former. It is only many centuries later, in the axial age, that we begin to see accounts of religion that don't go this route.

So it hardly seems the case that religious belief was invented for the purposes indicated in this thread.

Correct me if I'm wrong: You're suggesting that religions started at first as mere superstitions (just plain wrong pre-scientific ideas) and then the wishful thinking comes in? That would be more realistic an account. It probably was not that sequential though: humans have had defense mechanisms for as long as we can know, so I'd be expecting our wishes to seep into our wrong ideas.

[ashurbanipal]

Correct me if I'm wrong: You're suggesting that religions started at first as mere superstitions (just plain wrong pre-scientific ideas) and then the wishful thinking comes in? That would be more realistic an account. It probably was not that sequential though: humans have had defense mechanisms for as long as we can know, so I'd be expecting our wishes to seep into our wrong ideas.

No, the case is somewhat different than you have cast it.

For one thing, labelling those beliefs as superstition seems unecessarily belittling. They do not fall into the same category as not walking under a ladder or trying very hard not to break a mirror, especially as such superstitions are wholly culture-dependent. There is nothing remotely similar about the superstitions one encounters on the Tibetan plateau and the superstitions one encounters in Spain. There are some remarkable similarities between afterlife accounts across cultures.

But this isn't really the point. There's no particular reason for someone to invent, out of whole cloth, the notion of an afterlife that doesn't provide any kind of comfort. We can understand why someone ignorant of optics might have invented the idea that breaking a mirror would bring 7 years bad luck. But why someone would invent the notion of Sheol is a whole other matter.

[Lógos Sokratikós]

Correct me if I'm wrong: You're suggesting that religions started at first as mere superstitions (just plain wrong pre-scientific ideas) and then the wishful thinking comes in? That would be more realistic an account. It probably was not that sequential though: humans have had defense mechanisms for as long as we can know, so I'd be expecting our wishes to seep into our wrong ideas.

No, the case is somewhat different than you have cast it.

For one thing, labelling those beliefs as superstition seems unecessarily belittling. They do not fall into the same category as not walking under a ladder or trying very hard not to break a mirror, especially as such superstitions are wholly culture-dependent. There is nothing remotely similar about the superstitions one encounters on the Tibetan plateau and the superstitions one encounters in Spain. There are some remarkable similarities between afterlife accounts across cultures.


I do not see any surprising similarities. You die, you shazam back into life −nothing to overcomplicate much. It's like the probability/improbability of developing a cross symbol: throw some sticks together and you'll get loads of crosses. The only big difference is between reincarnation and "going somewhere else" (heavens and hells). Even in the subject of heavens and hells there's no big deal: one good place, one bad place, simple black-and-white thinking, a rather primitive thought pattern, it's really no big accomplishment to be "manichæan": every child is, at the earliest age.


But this isn't really the point. There's no particular reason for someone to invent, out of whole cloth, the notion of an afterlife that doesn't provide any kind of comfort. We can understand why someone ignorant of optics might have invented the idea that breaking a mirror would bring 7 years bad luck. But why someone would invent the notion of Sheol is a whole other matter.
As I said, I don't see much of a difference. It's not exactly rocket science to postulate a netherworld. You see, it takes time to desensitize yourself from a stimulus gestalt, so "I can feel mom right now", just pour and mix with a generous amount of concrete operational (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_cognitive_development#Concrete_operational_stage) thinking, and you've got it made.

[Holly3278]

Pretty cool. I have always had an inkling of suspicion that religion was the product of evolution.

[Tigers!]

God may work in mysterious ways, but a simple computer program may explain how religion evolved

By distilling religious belief into a genetic predisposition to pass along unverifiable information, the program predicts that religion will flourish. However, religion only takes hold if non-believers help believers out – perhaps because they are impressed by their devotion.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn13983-religion-is-a-product-of-evolution-software-suggests.html
That is true if religious belief has a genetic component. When did the religious gene get found?
Does this explain why women seem to be more religious than men?

[Lógos Sokratikós]

That is true if religious belief has a genetic component. When did the religious gene get found?
Does this explain why women seem to be more religious than men?

I believe Richard Dawkins made a very convincing case that there are biological predispositions to components of religion, basically, the inherent trust children have to the authority of elders, which has the very necessary function of helping children learn the massive amounts of information required, but also, makes erroneous information linger on for very long.

At the present time, I don't believe there is a God gene, but there definitely are genetically inherited predispositions in reactions to fear and blind trust. Also, the way children are reared can make them dependent on the help of others for their whole lifetime, feeling of low self esteem ("I'm bad, you're awesome!") and low self efficacy ("I can't do it, but you're the powerful one!").

For instance, compare

These selections from the Bhagavad Gita (http://thinkexist.com/quotes/bhagavad_gita/),
The book of Job (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Job;&version=9;),
And these Christian examples: http://blusteryday.wordpress.com/2006/09/11/church-today/ , http://www.originalgospelmusicbyedking.com/view/?pageID=244052 , http://peebles.wordpress.com/2007/09/17/god-is-our-refuge-and-strength-a-very-present-help-in-trouble/
Common themes: The deity is strong, I am weak, the deity is all love, I am a lowly trespasser ("sinner"). It mirrors childhood feelings −"I would be nothing without you (daddy and mommy), they are great, I am small, they can do anything, they are my refuge, I do not understand the magic that you do, oh unfathomable mystery", etc. We can see similar phenomena when falling in love... if you don't think so, check out songs from The Platters, Righteous Brothers, etc. Especially songs from the 50s.

[WCH]

If you follow Jung's line of argument, religion develops as a way of codifying metaphors for life experience, a process which is sped along any time interpretation is done of any kind of contact with the unconscious, including dreams and drug-induced visions.

Same as fairy tales and myths, really. They're useful as ways of communicating values and speaking about life processes such as aging, puberty, how to deal with various things, etc.

Someone's internal conflict between the desire for war and the desire for healing can get played out metaphorically as a debate between two gods. That people were stupid enough to take it literally and think these gods actually exist in the external world is not the fault of the metaphors themselves.

[Lógos Sokratikós]

If you follow Jung's line of argument, religion develops as a way of codifying metaphors for life experience, a process which is sped along any time interpretation is done of any kind of contact with the unconscious, including dreams and drug-induced visions.

[...]
Someone's internal conflict between the desire for war and the desire for healing can get played out metaphorically as a debate between two gods. That people were stupid enough to take it literally and think these gods actually exist in the external world is not the fault of the metaphors themselves


Jung's ponderations have a very loose empirical support. And I'm being lenient upon him.


Same as fairy tales and myths, really. They're useful as ways of communicating values and speaking about life processes such as aging, puberty, how to deal with various things, etc.


Definitely. That's the current scientific understanding. Some of those values can be supportive while others quite erroneous and misleading.

[figuer]

Jung's ponderations have a very loose empirical support. And I'm being lenient upon him.
I disagree. Some of his ideas are rather solid.

[Lógos Sokratikós]

Jung's ponderations have a very loose empirical support. And I'm being lenient upon him.
I disagree. Some of his ideas are rather solid.

Solid meaning "empirically substantiated", or meaning "Solid, duuude..." ? :D

[figuer]

Solid meaning "empirically substantiated", or meaning "Solid, duuude..." ? :DThe first...I don't even get the second.

[Lógos Sokratikós]

Would you like to support that affirmation?

[MxM111]

Of cause religion is a product of evolution - everything is.

Also, religion must be somehow beneficial to the survival of the tribes. I suspect having common god creates extra incentive to cooperation and self-less action. It also makes crowd do be more manageable.

So yeah, I can clearly see how religion was beneficial. The question is if it is still beneficial, or we can be better off without it. Or should we keep some people "fooled" by religion, and some not?

[Electric Plasma]

God may work in mysterious ways, but a simple computer program may explain how religion evolved

By distilling religious belief into a genetic predisposition to pass along unverifiable information, the program predicts that religion will flourish. However, religion only takes hold if non-believers help believers out – perhaps because they are impressed by their devotion.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn13983-religion-is-a-product-of-evolution-software-suggests.html

It might help to read others' points of views (http://www.skepticalchristian.com/evolutionofbelief.htm). Evolution-of-religion theories suffer from a few major flaws, especially the psychology parts. Even if these theories are true, they, as the author points out, do not pose a significant threat to the religious worldview. Also, the fact that this conclusion is based of examination of simple software is really unimpressive. Software as simple as this and humans work almost entirely differently in thought (if machines think at all). For one thing, humans actually program these machines and their behaviors. So, we need to perform studies such as these on humans before we make these kinds of conclusions. Or at the very least, we need to make a machine that can pass the Turing test to draw conclusions off of.

[Reason]

Of cause religion is a product of evolution - everything is.

Also, religion must be somehow beneficial to the survival of the tribes. I suspect having common god creates extra incentive to cooperation and self-less action. It also makes crowd do be more manageable.

So yeah, I can clearly see how religion was beneficial. The question is if it is still beneficial, or we can be better off without it. Or should we keep some people "fooled" by religion, and some not?

I agree with the hypothesis posited by Matthew Alper in his book of the uninspired but aptly descriptive title, "The God Part of the Brain." Although I have not read the book, I have heard a few interviews with the author and read reviews, which left me comfortably confident in Alper's hypothesis.

Quoting a review by Publishers Weekly:

"First published in 1996, this is a minimally revised new edition of Alper's manifesto against belief in God. Beginning with philosopher Kant's supposition that humans cannot know a reality beyond their perception of reality, Alper uses his vast research into scientific phenomenon to build a case that humanity's perception of a spiritual realm is, in fact, the biological result of thousands of years of evolution. Alper writes that this is "'nature's white lie', a coping mechanism selected into our species to help alleviate debilitating anxiety caused by our unique awareness of death." Alper's theory is elegantly drawn, and he shows an admirable grasp of a wide range of scientific disciplines. However, generalizations weaken his case: Alper's proof relies on readers' agreement that all humans are equally spiritual creatures, whose "cross-cultural proclivity toward spiritualism suggests that we must be neuro-physiologically hardwired this way." A harsh anti-religion tone (i.e. "How much longer will be slaves to destructive religious creeds... ?"), though not entirely inappropriate, provides the book's main flaw; aside from the fact that his anti-faith proclamations themselves demonstrate a certain kind of blind faith, he gives no credence to others' views, nor is he compassionate to the helpful role that spirituality plays in peoples' lives. Ultimately, Alper is preaching to the choir, but in a time of renewed interest in the clash between religion and science, this cult classic will appeal to those caught up in the debate."

[4321lynx]

I've pointed this out before but I will do so again:

The first accounts of an afterlife we possess are far from comforting or encouraging. In most of them, there is a final destruction of the self which occurs some short time after death--and the nature of that destruction is in fact far worse than death itself. Given the choice between either ceasing at death, or having my soul torn apart and turned into larvae (as in the Chaldean or Hittite systems), I think I would choose the former. It is only many centuries later, in the axial age, that we begin to see accounts of religion that don't go this route.

So it hardly seems the case that religious belief was invented for the purposes indicated in this thread.

This is a little off-topic, but how certain are the translations of "self" or "soul" from the ancient languages. I mean the belief that the "soul' is torn apart and/or turns into larvae "shortly after death", may merely be descriptions of tissue destruction & fly infestation which would be very rapid in that climate at certain times of year, if the body were not diposed of, or even if buried in a shallow grave.
Or a parallel could be drawn by priests and rulers, to such destruction of the afterlife of an individual if that individual did not "behave" in a politically/religiously correct way. So it could be a priest-created belief with an underlying agenda, as so much in various religions seems to be, rather than a manifestation of some spontaneous evolution of human religiosity.

[WCH]

I disagree. Some of his ideas are rather solid.

Solid meaning "empirically substantiated", or meaning "Solid, duuude..." ? :DThere's a lot of empirical data that went into Jung's work... it's foolish to say that it's not substantiated. It'd also be foolish to say that many of the things he talked about even can be substantiated -- he takes great care to stress that he's speaking about things which are, in essense, unknowable, and which you can only circumambulate, so to speak. So it's important to consider exactly what idea it is that we're talking about when we speak of the question of empirical data... but Jung definitely knew his science, and where it was possible to get data, he did. Way I understand it, one side of his family was very scientific and methodical, and the other side was very spiritual and metaphysical... and in his life's work he did his best to fuse the two.

[Lógos Sokratikós]

Really? I'm a psychologist and all though college and afterwards I didn't/haven't seen a shadow of empirical support for the nazi shrink's theories. I don't see you showing any of Jung's empirical research either.