Religion as part of human evolution

[Noku]

I just read an article from a scientific journal in which they evaluated religious behavior being more or less contradictory behavior for humans because it doesn't seem to be more than waste of time and energy or it doesn't make it more probable for one to get in the gene pool, usually it has quite opposite effect.

In traditional Darwinist view of evolution natural selection picks the survival of the fittest and the ones not making it to the next generation are irrelevant for the next generation, the next generation has no adaptational benefits of the individuals who died out in the previous generation.

In modern view of evolution the group/generation as a whole has significance to the survival of the whole group. Even though this view is highly debated one, it makes some sense for social animals. In its weakest sense, the ill animals getting eaten before others makes the survival opportunity of the whole group in future more probable.

When it comes to humans and apes (as an example) stability of the community enhances the quality of gene pool (less individuals do get killed in fights). Even though an individual could not be have offspring because of the social status, they still might contribute to the groups future success.

In ape societies the elderly individuals have certain meaning in the sense of group stability, but more so in the hunter gatherer society. It is pretty obvious that the hunter gatherer religions like shamanism mostly benefited the elderly people, who instead of getting left to die were respected. Obviously this kind of behavior was benefical for the community, not only did the wisdom of elders make it better to share valuable experience but also they affected positively to the stability of the community.

After the hunter gatherer society when humans began to form bigger cities where social relations reached below relatives or direct personal contact shamanistic religions weren't enough anymore. The experience of past was still important and elders made the family life and the society as a side product more stable. However the biggest issue that the humans faced in city community was trust, which also was the biggest concerne for stability of the city life.

Organized religion offered common rules, means to measure ones efforts for community (as participating religious person) and means to unify the entire population under one organization, which didn't diverse people by profession or social status (at least in a degree).

In future religion has still behaved as a stabilizing force for the community and made the definitions about "us" and "them" easier for mankind. However, are they needed today might be questionable. Is science enough to bring stability in our life?

[Jude]

A religious impulse is unique to all societies (albeit not all humans); therefore it's a human universal, therefore it almost certainly evolved, therefore it probably had some kind of adaptive value at some point. The fact that we can't figure out exactly what function it may have served in the past isn't grounds for a criticism of Darwinian psychological analysis. That kind of nonsense is what's getting in the way of a real scientific understanding of human nature.

Personally, I'd be inclined to believe that it probably united groups, increasing group cohesion and identifying outsiders, but who the hell knows?

[Noku]

What exactly is Darwinian psychological analysis? Isn't Darwinian view of evolution merely about physical traits (even though they in some cases lead in better psychological capabilities).

[Led_Zep_Bonham]

Religion is directly proportionate to language and the most detailed intricacies of others' variations and interpretations of such. This can mean many different things. Mainly, it means that the only real religion is that passed directly from experience to experience.

[McP3000]

Religion is directly proportionate to language and the most detailed intricacies of others' variations and interpretations of such. This can mean many different things. Mainly, it means that the only real religion is that passed directly from experience to experience.
you lost me at the last sentence

[mph4ever]

religion brought the masses together under the control of the few who knew how to exploit fear. it was handed down to every generation.

hush now baby baby don't you cry.......its all mama's fault

[(*The Noonward Race*)]

you lost me at the last sentence
experiences in faith but with no jargon, terminology and anything to describe it

[McP3000]

religion brought the masses together under the control of the few who knew how to exploit fear. it was handed down to every generation.

hush now baby baby don't you cry.......its all mama's fault
you wont give up will you

[misterfitch]

A religious impulse is unique to all societies (albeit not all humans); therefore it's a human universal, therefore it almost certainly evolved, therefore it probably had some kind of adaptive value at some point. The fact that we can't figure out exactly what function it may have served in the past isn't grounds for a criticism of Darwinian psychological analysis. That kind of nonsense is what's getting in the way of a real scientific understanding of human nature.

Personally, I'd be inclined to believe that it probably united groups, increasing group cohesion and identifying outsiders, but who the hell knows?

the piraha tribe in brazil has no religion

http://www.time.com/time/arts/article/0,8599,1859528,00.html

Religion is directly proportionate to language and the most detailed intricacies of others' variations and interpretations of such. This can mean many different things. Mainly, it means that the only real religion is that passed directly from experience to experience.

yeah if i understand you correctly i think i agree. though maybe not necessarily language? just social/technological progress... religion is usually a natural result of collective existentialism, which is an unintentional by-product of our intelligence that is magnified when we don't have to fight constantly to survive. that's my theory anyway. i'm not as convinced about the social evolution theory.

[mph4ever]

you wont give up will you


theres nothing to give up

[beso negro]

people naturally have a fear of death that's why religion was invented. it's for the weak-hearted who need to think that life will continue after their time on earth has passed.

[McP3000]

thats funny because most if not all older religions had no concept of the afterlife

[beso negro]

pls don't defend religion i hate it

[McP3000]

we all have our faults, i wont judge beso

[BassRevelation0]

Is science enough to bring stability in our life?
No.

Science cannot answer the philosophical questions of origin, meaning, morality, and destiny. Religious philosophy can.

[McP3000]

theoretically

[BassRevelation0]

Obviously.

[Mr. Ron]

religious philosophy is basically making stuff up that sounds good though so

[McP3000]

ur right im wrong how culd i evar be so dum

[BassRevelation0]

religious philosophy is basically making stuff up that sounds good though so

This unfounded proposition is irrelevant. There are questions that are outside of the bounds of science, rendering it insufficient to bring any fulfillment to existence on its own.

[Led_Zep_Bonham]

–noun
1. a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.
2. a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects
3. the body of persons adhering to a particular set of beliefs and practices
4. the life or state of a monk, nun, etc.
5. the practice of religious beliefs; ritual observance of faith.
6. something one believes in and follows devotedly; a point or matter of ethics or conscience

In this sense every person has their own distinct religion, and for that matter any action in the universe could have its own religion depending how you see it. It's all about the sex, though.

[BassRevelation0]

They're called worldviews, not necessarily religions.

[Led_Zep_Bonham]

Depends on what phonies you're talking to and during which phase of life that you're in.

[StreetlightRock]

Religion arises out of social contexts, no doubt about it. Like any thing else, it's a cultural phenomenon used to achieve certain ends, be that social stability/acceptance or self fulfillment in the face of society not being able to provide for other means of it. But I seriously doubt that it is innate in us - that sort of explanation offers no insight as to why religious belief has fluctuated over time or why forms of religious belief vary across time and space.

That said I think it's unfair to characterize religion as inherently 'stabilizing' or 'destabilizing' in itself, because it has the potential to be both depending on the context. The increasing diversity of modernity and globalization can both lessen its impact (by providing other means of social organization/self fulfillment) and increase it (by providing a space in which people can hold a established form of identity in an increasingly fluctuating world). The deepening ambivalence towards God arises out of the first instance while the shift towards more extreme forms religion comes from the second impulse, both of which can be seen in the world today.

[beso negro]

No.

Science cannot answer the philosophical questions of origin, meaning, morality, and destiny. Religious philosophy can.

lol

[gregulus]

No.

Science cannot answer the philosophical questions of origin, meaning, morality, and destiny. Religious philosophy can.

The issue of origin is debatable. Regardless, religious philosophy isn't required for discussing issues like meaning or morality either.

[Jude]

What exactly is Darwinian psychological analysis? Isn't Darwinian view of evolution merely about physical traits (even though they in some cases lead in better psychological capabilities).

Psychological traits are inextricable from physical ones. The brain (and hence mind) evolved like everything else

Also, the Piraha are pretty wacky, anthropologically. But they don't violate any previously established human universals, people just try to paint them like they do.

[misterfitch]

okay yeah that's cool but they don't have a religion

[Noku]

Psychological traits are inextricable from physical ones. The brain (and hence mind) evolved like everything else

But isn't the brain a physical trait?

[BridgeToSolace]

No.

Science cannot answer the philosophical questions of origin, meaning, morality, and destiny. Religious philosophy can.

Why are answers necessarily for stable life?

I feel comfortable asking you questions because you're banned and cannot respond.

[die of starvation]

the evolutionary purpose of religion is to make the people on bottom accept the presence of the people on top

didnt you guys read marx he was right about lots of stuff
except when he was predicting the future

[Virus278]

people naturally have a fear of death that's why religion was invented. it's for the weak-hearted who need to think that life will continue after their time on earth has passed.

That's not true at all.

didnt you guys read marx he was right about lots of stuff
except when he was predicting the future

you talking about the Manifesto?

[Jude]

But isn't the brain a physical trait?

Um yeah how does that contradict what I said

the evolutionary purpose of religion is to make the people on bottom accept the presence of the people on top
Extremely unlikely for something that probably is caused by tendencies which evolved among foragers

[Noku]

Um yeah how does that contradict what I said

Do you mean that the way our brains evolved in the past determined us to walk on Moon, build skycrapers and made the organized religion happen?

I would claim that those are cultural advances are, beyond the effects of our biological evolution.


Extremely unlikely for something that probably is caused by tendencies which evolved among foragers

The system exists in our biological past. While it makes positive results to happen in the survival of the fittest, in city sized institution constant fight for power would make the society as whole unfunctional because of the unstability. Thus religion justified the unnatural system and made the system more stable.

[beso negro]

That's not true at all.

explain

what religions don't believe in an afterlife

[Angmar]

The Unspeakable Kult Ov Goatpenis doesn't, trust me I'm der high priest.

[Mr. Ron]

The issue of origin is debatable. Regardless, religious philosophy isn't required for discussing issues like meaning or morality either.
mainly because the archetypes for morality are rooted in biological mechanisms.

[Noku]

mainly because the archetypes for morality are rooted in biological mechanisms.

Isn't it pretty much the opposite? Or was that sarcasm I just missed...

[The Human Language]

I just read an article from a scientific journal in which they evaluated religious behavior being more or less contradictory behavior for humans because it doesn't seem to be more than waste of time and energy or it doesn't make it more probable for one to get in the gene pool, usually it has quite opposite effect.

In traditional Darwinist view of evolution natural selection picks the survival of the fittest and the ones not making it to the next generation are irrelevant for the next generation, the next generation has no adaptational benefits of the individuals who died out in the previous generation.

In modern view of evolution the group/generation as a whole has significance to the survival of the whole group. Even though this view is highly debated one, it makes some sense for social animals. In its weakest sense, the ill animals getting eaten before others makes the survival opportunity of the whole group in future more probable.

When it comes to humans and apes (as an example) stability of the community enhances the quality of gene pool (less individuals do get killed in fights). Even though an individual could not be have offspring because of the social status, they still might contribute to the groups future success.

In ape societies the elderly individuals have certain meaning in the sense of group stability, but more so in the hunter gatherer society. It is pretty obvious that the hunter gatherer religions like shamanism mostly benefited the elderly people, who instead of getting left to die were respected. Obviously this kind of behavior was benefical for the community, not only did the wisdom of elders make it better to share valuable experience but also they affected positively to the stability of the community.

After the hunter gatherer society when humans began to form bigger cities where social relations reached below relatives or direct personal contact shamanistic religions weren't enough anymore. The experience of past was still important and elders made the family life and the society as a side product more stable. However the biggest issue that the humans faced in city community was trust, which also was the biggest concerne for stability of the city life.

Organized religion offered common rules, means to measure ones efforts for community (as participating religious person) and means to unify the entire population under one organization, which didn't diverse people by profession or social status (at least in a degree).

In future religion has still behaved as a stabilizing force for the community and made the definitions about "us" and "them" easier for mankind. However, are they needed today might be questionable. Is science enough to bring stability in our life?

Alongside the stability benefits I perceive the religious impact as an advancement of arts and culture, and this has benefited the progress of society tenfold from whence it begin. There is some reverence we must pay religion for the evolution of mankind, despite my views as a generally staunch atheist.

[Mr. Ron]

Isn't it pretty much the opposite? Or was that sarcasm I just missed...
There is a reason mentally healthy people don't feel the need to kill or harm others, tbh. The very simple beginnings of what we perceive as right or wrong lay within our biological processes and are expanded by society.

[Noku]

There is a reason mentally healthy people don't feel the need to kill or harm others, tbh. The very simple beginnings of what we perceive as right or wrong lay within our biological processes and are expanded by society.

Well, even the most stable ones of us do kill or harm others, they also steal, rape, cheat and such. I'd claim that our biology is actually doing quite the opposite than support the morals of our culture. Why do we need law enforcement for something which is supported by our biological tendencies?

[Mr. Ron]

Well, even the most stable ones of us do kill or harm others, they also steal, rape, cheat and such. I'd claim that our biology is actually doing quite the opposite than support the morals of our culture. Why do we need law enforcement for something which is supported by our biological tendencies?
Well yes, they're not full proof.



We do need things like law enforcement because, like I said, its not fool proof. Even the most mentally healthy person can slip up once in a while.

[The Human Language]

Well, even the most stable ones of us do kill or harm others, they also steal, rape, cheat and such.

No.

[Noku]

Well, what is the proof that without our cultural pressure we would behave according to the morals?

Nothing more than the morals that exist in animal world and there is none other than the survival of the fittest and the natural behavior, which is well outside the modern human ethics.

[The Human Language]

Well, what is the proof that without our cultural pressure we would behave according to the morals?

Claiming an individual is stable would mean they would not resort to such means.

[Noku]

We were discussing stable as not being mentally ill. It's quite old fashioned to claim that only mentally ill do behave unconstructively in moral sense.

[Jude]

Do you mean that the way our brains evolved in the past determined us to walk on Moon, build skycrapers and made the organized religion happen?

I would claim that those are cultural advances are, beyond the effects of our biological evolution.
Of course we didn't evolve "to" do those things; if we evolved to do anything, it was to survive and reproduce and help our offspring the most effectively. All the abilities we evolved were helpful in some way toward those ends, but we can still direct them toward other ends.

No cultural advance is "beyond the effects of our biological evolution" because if our evolution hadn't provided us with the mental apparatus to develop that cultural advance, we wouldn't have it.


The system exists in our biological past. While it makes positive results to happen in the survival of the fittest, in city sized institution constant fight for power would make the society as whole unfunctional because of the unstability. Thus religion justified the unnatural system and made the system more stable.
I mean, sure, religion as an organization obviously does other things that whatever its original purpose may have been. But the religious impulse which, again, seems to appear in basically all human societies in one way or another, must have had some reason to evolve.

We were discussing stable as not being mentally ill. It's quite old fashioned to claim that only mentally ill do behave unconstructively in moral sense.
Definitely. It's not going to further the debate by saying that everyone who does an antisocial or destructive act is mentally ill. To the contrary, lust for revenge on being wronged, aggression in certain situations, desire to better oneself at the expense of others, and so on, are all features of normal people. Social sanctions exist to control these impulses in regular people, not just to address the defective minority.

[die of starvation]

Extremely unlikely for something that probably is caused by tendencies which evolved among foragers
there's been people on top and people on bottom since as long as there's been people

[Iskandar]

Sounds kinky.

[die of starvation]

well man-woman-child was the original unequal power structure

[Iskandar]

Really?! It is?!

[TheDarkHorse]

The issue of origin is debatable. Regardless, religious philosophy isn't required for discussing issues like meaning or morality either.

Religion IS philosophy. Philosophy is required to explain such things, which are outside of the realm of science.
Why are answers necessarily for stable life?

I feel comfortable asking you questions because you're banned and cannot respond.
good move

I don't particularly understand your question. Why are answers explaining our existence (or reason for existence) a key to stability? Seems kind of self explanatory

There is a reason mentally healthy people don't feel the need to kill or harm others, tbh. The very simple beginnings of what we perceive as right or wrong lay within our biological processes and are expanded by society.
If this "biological process" is what you would call a conscience I would accept this

also if you would admit that humans rarely ever follow right and wrong I will accept this

[Berner]

Religion IS philosophy. Philosophy is required to explain such things, which are outside of the realm of science.



Simply saying they are outside the scope of science doesn't mean they actually are. How is origin outside of science? If you mean the origin of life there is actually a good body of research that can demonstrate how life started here.

How is morality outside the realm of science? Considering that people are generally good without using a supernatural agent to threaten them it would seem intuitive that our basic morality is innate.

Also, why does life have to have a meaning?

[McP3000]

well man-woman-child was the original unequal power structure
that's kinky

[TheDarkHorse]

Simply saying they are outside the scope of science doesn't mean they actually are.
perhaps you should take time to understand it

How is origin outside of science? If you mean the origin of life there is actually a good body of research that can demonstrate how life started here.
And most of this is not science.

How is morality outside the realm of science? Considering that people are generally good without using a supernatural agent to threaten them it would seem intuitive that our basic morality is innate.
First of all, where did you come up with this term 'good?' Has science defined it?

Secondly, I don't entertain for a second that people are "generally good," yet if I did, your argument still doesn't follow.

Lastly, how innate? IF you're arguing that each of us is born with an understanding of moral principles, which would be a conscience, I would agree. However you've failed to show where science can answer such a question.

Also, why does life have to have a meaning?

Would you like a meaningful answer to that question?

[Berner]

perhaps you should take time to understand it

Fluff answer much?


And most of this is not science.

How so?


First of all, where did you come up with this term 'good?' Has science defined it?

Why does Science need to define it's own usage of good? Why can't they use the standard definition? Unless of course you're meaning specific traits a "good" person would have. More than likely it'd be defined as acting in ways that are non-detrimental towards the propagation of the species as a whole.


Secondly, I don't entertain for a second that people are "generally good," yet if I did, your argument still doesn't follow.

How aren't they? It's only a very small subset of us who are actually detrimental to the species as a whole.


Lastly, how innate? IF you're arguing that each of us is born with an understanding of moral principles, which would be a conscience, I would agree. However you've failed to show where science can answer such a question.

Natural selection. Would you like me to explain how or would it simply be an exercise in futility?


Would you like a meaningful answer to that question?

You can give it a go but something tells me it won't be meaningful to me.

[TheDarkHorse]

Fluff answer much?
I honestly mean you should stop and think.

How so?

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/science


Why does Science need to define it's own usage of good?
What?

my whole point is that science cannot answer questions regarding morality, where it came from, what it means, etc

Why can't they use the standard definition?
You mean like the one derived from philosophy
gg


More than likely it'd be defined as acting in ways that are non-detrimental towards the propagation of the species as a whole.
You just defined good as not acting bad
gg


How aren't they? It's only a very small subset of us who are actually detrimental to the species as a whole.
"Detrimental to the species as a whole" is kinda weak.

Natural selection. Would you like me to explain how or would it simply be an exercise in futility?
Brief answers are rarely sufficient.

You can give it a go but something tells me it won't be meaningful to me.
Why does my answer have to have meaning?

[Berner]

I'm stopping now because if you're only going to respond to my points with one liners and links to definitions, then it's useless to even discuss anything with you. You're too arrogant to even consider that you may be wrong.

[TheDarkHorse]

Yeah I kinda thought you were wrong too.
gg

[1338 h4x0r]

I hate to say this, BassRev, and will most likely never say it to another person, but please go back to Africa

[TheDarkHorse]

You surprisingly drew a laugh from me. Props.

[1338 h4x0r]

Thanks

[Berner]

Yeah I kinda thought you were wrong too.
gg


Point proven goat boy.

[TheDarkHorse]

Point proven goat boy.

Oh no this isn't childish and arrogant

I love when people contradict themselves

[Berner]

Oh no this isn't childish and arrogant

I love when people contradict themselves


Why should I continue to be courteous to you when you're an acting like an arrogant twat?

[gregulus]

Religion IS philosophy. Philosophy is required to explain such things, which are outside of the realm of science.
I said religious philosophy, not philosophy in general. It is possible to discuss issues of morality without religious philosophy. Science is capable of providing the philosopher with tools and information that could prove invaluable. Trying to draw a distinct line between the two disciplines might lead to some problems.

[1338 h4x0r]

The way I set it religion is a proper subset of philosophy and mostly retarded

[TheDarkHorse]

Why should I continue to be courteous to you when you're an acting like an arrogant twat?

Two wrongs make a right awesome logic

You must be the change you wish to see on the forums

or better yet just resort back to childish name-calling

[TheDarkHorse]

I said religious philosophy, not philosophy in general. It is possible to discuss issues of morality without religious philosophy.

I accept that. Science is not one of those ways

Science is capable of providing the philosopher with tools and information that could prove invaluable. Trying to draw a distinct line between the two disciplines might lead to some problems.
Elaborate please. I don't see it.

[Berner]

Two wrongs make a right awesome logic

You must be the change you wish to see on the forums

or better yet just resort back to childish name-calling


Nah I'm done wasting my time.

[TheDarkHorse]

Nah I'm done wasting my time.

And you keep coming back for more

You've said "I'm done" 3 times already just leave my forums already

[McP3000]

TheDarkHouse Forums

your place for faggotry

[Berner]

And you keep coming back for more

You've said "I'm done" 3 times already just leave my forums already


You dish it out so well I can't help myself. Maybe I love you or something.

TEACH ME HOW TO BE AWESOME!

[TheDarkHorse]

TheDarkHouse Forums

your place for large bundle of sticksry

lol "bundle of sticksry"

swear filter fail
You dish it out so well I can't help myself. Maybe I love you or something.

TEACH ME HOW TO BE AWESOME!

Refer to my various "lessons" threads in the pit
:wave:

[Jude]

BassRev are you doubting that natural selection can produce an innate sense of morality in humans

because it can and did

[Noku]

there's been people on top and people on bottom since as long as there's been people

I would like to add to this that it probably isn't coincidence that first forms of governments were theocracies. If religion brought stability for unbalanced social structures, then what lead to other forms of governments like democracy? A natural counterculture? More civilized culture?

[die of starvation]

well theocracies weren't the first forms of government there were 'big men' for who knows how long and then later chiefs and so on

and i wouldn't call 'i'm the king because i control the army, oh and by the way i'm also god' an actual theocracy

[Noku]

Well I was refering with government as a system of large civilizations, if there is a tribal community I wouldn't say it would fulfill of what is considered to be a government. Also, my argument is that organized religion brings stability to a society, thus it is easier to govern big crowds when your status is divine, than it would be if you were not.

The interesting question is that what gave birth to democracy and other such governing bodies, which did not rely on religion. Didn't religion convince big enough group in satisfying way? Perhaps even though religion made the system more stable there was still too much competition for power and only way to build stable society in that situation would be to "give away some power", make the people believe they actually have even slight amount of power.

[The_Malcontent]

here's my take,overly simplistic compared to the earlier theories but mine just as well;
I think religeon was an explaination for those who wanted to know something else,wanted to have an alternative thought process in a time before science,but in later years, i think religeon was diluted and imbibed fear throught a counter culture that became the conglomerate majority.
I beleive religeon,especially christianity, used to be something respectable in the time span that it perpetuated itself as something positive.
Or put simply, untill about the 1700's when a little thing known as science became valid.

[Jude]

christianity was good until about the 300's when Constantine got a hold of it

[The_Malcontent]

well, really i guess it was good untill about the holy wars and crusades took momentum.
but even that's debatable because royalty was next to godliness in early france, family memebers procreated, ya get abot three hundred royal people with freakin hemeophilia...
just to make sure the blood line was pure.
uuuuuhhh, doc,we got ourselved a bleeder.

[Jude]

well, really i guess it was good untill about the holy wars and crusades took momentum.


No it went downhill as soon as it became a state religion and used to justify rich people having the power and fighting wars

[DxRocker]

Well, what is the proof that without our cultural pressure we would behave according to the morals?

Nothing more than the morals that exist in animal world and there is none other than the survival of the fittest and the natural behavior, which is well outside the modern human ethics.

I disagree with that. First, it would depend on wich animal you are comparing to. Not all animals behave in the same way.
The homo sapiens is a social species, just like the chimpansee (although the chimpansee is less social in some ways).

While you will see chimps fight from time to time, you will only very rarely see 2 chimps of the same group try and kill eachother.
Simply because that is not beneficial for the group. Yes, that is the only reason why we wouldn't go on random killing sprees: because it wouldn't be beneficial to the group you belong to.

A human, just like a chimp, will have a very hard time to survive on its own.
So it will naturally and instinctively have some sort of collective awareness to defend the others in his group and to not double cross the others in its group.

This should however not be confused with friction between the "leader" of the pack and some of the pack itself. Rebellion against the leader is also found in the chimp tribes from time to time. But even that is mostly because of the social aspect. In most cases, it will be because of a lack of trust that the leader is leading the group well or that he isn't strong enough.

Other times it will just be the leader bullying the others around, showing that it is he who is boss. And even that can be argued as being beneficial to the group, since it increases his position of power.

In my opinion, every single trait of human behavior - from wars to entertainment - can be linked all the way back to very "primitive" social behavior we also see in chimp groups and alike.

So, while I wouldn't really now the actual detailed explanation, I certainly am convinced that religion must have been beneficial to the group in the very beginning. We can clearly see that as societies grew, the amount of religions got smaller. Today, 50% of the world population follows one of the three abrahamic religions.

Today, friction is found there is well through to so-called clash of civilisations. I prefer to call it a clash of cultures, or even a clash of religions.

We should assume that religion was beneficial to the group, more specifically for the unity of the group.

Today, as we move more and more to globalisation, all these religions come in conflict with eachother. Religious wise, not much has changed compared to 50 years ago... But community wise, a LOT has changed.
The other end of the world is "only a click away" these days.

So it should be save to assume that after this "clash of civilisations", we will again loose a bunch of religions and replace it with another more global thing to promote unity in the entire world population.

And I'm fairly sure that it will not involve some invisible, all powerfull, all knowing mythical being residing on another plain of existance. :lol:


Most likely we will be united through atheism and science. Our consiousness will be raised by the fact that we are one big family. By the fact that all of us, including cats and dogs and whatnot, can be traced back to a common ancestor.

This is a very interesting time to be alive, but a dangerous one as well.

In Michio Kaku's model, this is the time where we shift from a Type 0 to a Type 1 civilisation. This is the most dangerous shift in the lifespan of civilisation... we might not make it.

The big cultural groups of the world today have been in an "us and them" mentality for hundreds, thousands of years. And today, we need to unite all of them under the same banner in a matter of decades.

Obviously, that won't happen without resistance.

[Jude]

I hope you aren't basing that post on a premise of group selection as it appears by the first couple paragraphs

[Berner]

So, while I wouldn't really now the actual detailed explanation, I certainly am convinced that religion must have been beneficial to the group in the very beginning. We can clearly see that as societies grew, the amount of religions got smaller. Today, 50% of the world population follows one of the three abrahamic religions.


I'd agree more with Dawkins in the God Delusion when he says that religous practices weren't necessairly beneficial but proported to be by claiming that they were the reason for our innate morality.

[McP3000]

why would you believe anything Richard Dawkins says on religion. There so many other Atheists with better opinions than him.

[Berner]

Because he made an interesting case for it's propogation through society.

[Jude]

I do like his idea of memetics

[YDtoad]

I'd agree more with Dawkins in the God Delusion when he says that religous practices weren't necessairly beneficial but proported to be by claiming that they were the reason for our innate morality.

By claiming that they're not beneficial he impugns the secular argument for religion as a part of evolutionary biology. If there was no benefit then religion would've been long ago been abandoned. Yet across pretty much all societies through all of human history, there has been a belief in a power greater than humans.

[Smokey D]

I'm not sure I buy into the idea that religion is purely a function of a gene. It seems more plausible to me that it's an emergent property of various other bits of social psychology. That is, I don't think we need to depend on evolutionary biology to explain it, and in no way does Dworkin weaken the argument against religion by impugning an evolutionary branch of the argument.

[combustion07]

I can't add much to this argument. I'm agnostic I just take life as it comes, I'll believe in heaven or hell when I see it.

[Berner]

By claiming that they're not beneficial he impugns the secular argument for religion as a part of evolutionary biology.


How so?


If there was no benefit then religion would've been long ago been abandoned.


Ok I guess I should have been more clear. I was referring more towards the origin of morality. Religion at one point probably had benefits ie group cohesion and a sense of identity.


Yet across pretty much all societies through all of human history, there has been a belief in a power greater than humans.


Only because they needed an explanation for everything they see around them. As science progresses, the gaps these gods fill are dwindling.


I'm not sure I buy into the idea that religion is purely a function of a gene. It seems more plausible to me that it's an emergent property of various other bits of social psychology. That is, I don't think we need to depend on evolutionary biology to explain it, and in no way does Dworkin weaken the argument against religion by impugning an evolutionary branch of the argument.


As with most psychology it's probably some combination of both biology and environment.

[Jude]

The fact that religion exists in every society indicates there's something innate to humans that drives us to generate it, but it's hard to say if there was ever an adaptive benefit to it or if it just emerged as a property of other adaptations

[sweboy]

The fact that religion exists in every society indicates there's something innate to humans that drives us to generate it, but it's hard to say if there was ever an adaptive benefit to it or if it just emerged as a property of other adaptations

This.

For example it's plausible that religion arises because of our heavy tendency to, firstly, see meaning or purpose in everything even though there is none (see i.e the prevalence of various kind of superstition among human minds), and secondly to anthropomorphize everything around us - to ascribe mental properties to non-mental objects. It seems that hunter-gatherer people very often think that trees, rivers, the sun etc. have desires and goals and that there's spirits in every little object. And it's not like these spirits or mental entities are neccessarily powerful or god-like, they're just generally mental. But given these kind of cognitive tendencies in humans, it's not hard to imagine how religion as we know it can arise in societies.

[Berner]

The fact that religion exists in every society indicates there's something innate to humans that drives us to generate it, but it's hard to say if there was ever an adaptive benefit to it or if it just emerged as a property of other adaptations


I think that's the position Dennet takes on the whole thing.

[Iskandar]

Ok I guess I should have been more clear. I was referring more towards the origin of morality. Religion at one point probably had benefits ie group cohesion and a sense of identity.It still does have these benefits but other institutions can fulfill these needs.

[Berner]

True.

[Jude]

I think that's the position Dennet takes on the whole thing.

It's pretty much, afaik, the standard position on this issue resulting from believing in evolutionary psychology

[DxRocker]

I'd agree more with Dawkins in the God Delusion when he says that religous practices weren't necessairly beneficial but proported to be by claiming that they were the reason for our innate morality.

Sorry if this was addressed in subsequent posts allready... Didn't get around to reading the rest yet, but wanted to respond to this.

I'ld argue that both say the same thing.
You'ld have to ask yourself what to beneficial aspect of religion was. It's not religion itself... It's not the blind faith in some mythical entity. It's the result of religion wich is the beneficial aspect.

The control it gives over population. The answers it gives to life's questions (wrong answers off course - but still answers). And last but not least, a motivation for morality.

[DxRocker]

I'm not sure I buy into the idea that religion is purely a function of a gene. It seems more plausible to me that it's an emergent property of various other bits of social psychology. That is, I don't think we need to depend on evolutionary biology to explain it, and in no way does Dworkin weaken the argument against religion by impugning an evolutionary branch of the argument.

Actually... a gene was discovered wich is refered to sometimes as the "religious gene". People with this gene are far more likely to believe and to become a radical believer then people who don't have that gene. Those without the gene are far more likely to end up agnostic or atheist.

[sweboy]

Actually... a gene was discovered wich is refered to sometimes as the "religious gene". People with this gene are far more likely to believe and to become a radical believer then people who don't have that gene. Those without the gene are far more likely to end up agnostic or atheist.

A Gene That Accounts for Less Than One Percent of the Variance Found in Scores on Psychological Questionnaires Designed to Measure a Factor Called Self-Transcendence, Which Can Signify Everything from Belonging to the Green Party to Believing in ESP, According to One Unpublished, Unreplicated Study

- Alternative book title for "The God Gene" proposed by Carl Zimmer

[SugarCoatedSour]

Communal aspects important. The herding of people and appointing of strict belief system no good. "Evolution" occurs at the point of commune realizing closer aspects of each others' relations, realizing abstractions of primordial symbols or the symbols themselves. Religion is not a good foundation for any set of progressive modes within humans. But in that I most easily associate catholicism due to its popularity and history.

[Berner]

Sorry if this was addressed in subsequent posts allready... Didn't get around to reading the rest yet, but wanted to respond to this.

I'ld argue that both say the same thing.
You'ld have to ask yourself what to beneficial aspect of religion was. It's not religion itself... It's not the blind faith in some mythical entity. It's the result of religion wich is the beneficial aspect.


Not necessairly. If anything it's practice in full can be harmful to a population of people (witch trials and subsequent torture/burning, Sharia Law, observance of Sabbath as described in the Torah etc) which is counter productive in an evolutionary sense.


The control it gives over population. The answers it gives to life's questions (wrong answers off course - but still answers). And last but not least, a motivation for morality.


I'll give you the control part and the answers part but I won't give it morality. It seems that some of the most heinous attrocities commited have been in the name of religion and it's specific teaching. Here's a fitting quote:

"With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion."

-Steven Weinberg

[SugarCoatedSour]

a little bit of book learnin eh?

[Berner]

It helps me get my brain thinking in order. I've got my grade 10 so I know stuff about things.

[Noku]

I disagree with that. First, it would depend on wich animal you are comparing to. Not all animals behave in the same way.
The homo sapiens is a social species, just like the chimpansee (although the chimpansee is less social in some ways).

While you will see chimps fight from time to time, you will only very rarely see 2 chimps of the same group try and kill eachother.
Simply because that is not beneficial for the group. Yes, that is the only reason why we wouldn't go on random killing sprees: because it wouldn't be beneficial to the group you belong to.

A human, just like a chimp, will have a very hard time to survive on its own.
So it will naturally and instinctively have some sort of collective awareness to defend the others in his group and to not double cross the others in its group.

This should however not be confused with friction between the "leader" of the pack and some of the pack itself. Rebellion against the leader is also found in the chimp tribes from time to time. But even that is mostly because of the social aspect. In most cases, it will be because of a lack of trust that the leader is leading the group well or that he isn't strong enough.

Other times it will just be the leader bullying the others around, showing that it is he who is boss. And even that can be argued as being beneficial to the group, since it increases his position of power.

In my opinion, every single trait of human behavior - from wars to entertainment - can be linked all the way back to very "primitive" social behavior we also see in chimp groups and alike.

So, while I wouldn't really now the actual detailed explanation, I certainly am convinced that religion must have been beneficial to the group in the very beginning. We can clearly see that as societies grew, the amount of religions got smaller. Today, 50% of the world population follows one of the three abrahamic religions.

Today, friction is found there is well through to so-called clash of civilisations. I prefer to call it a clash of cultures, or even a clash of religions.

We should assume that religion was beneficial to the group, more specifically for the unity of the group.

Today, as we move more and more to globalisation, all these religions come in conflict with eachother. Religious wise, not much has changed compared to 50 years ago... But community wise, a LOT has changed.
The other end of the world is "only a click away" these days.

So it should be save to assume that after this "clash of civilisations", we will again loose a bunch of religions and replace it with another more global thing to promote unity in the entire world population.

And I'm fairly sure that it will not involve some invisible, all powerfull, all knowing mythical being residing on another plain of existance. :lol:


Most likely we will be united through atheism and science. Our consiousness will be raised by the fact that we are one big family. By the fact that all of us, including cats and dogs and whatnot, can be traced back to a common ancestor.

This is a very interesting time to be alive, but a dangerous one as well.

In Michio Kaku's model, this is the time where we shift from a Type 0 to a Type 1 civilisation. This is the most dangerous shift in the lifespan of civilisation... we might not make it.

The big cultural groups of the world today have been in an "us and them" mentality for hundreds, thousands of years. And today, we need to unite all of them under the same banner in a matter of decades.

Obviously, that won't happen without resistance.

You have to consider the fact that yes, animals get around well with each others as long as they belong to the same group. Being only "us" without "them" rarely leads to conflict, unless there is disagreement about the power structures.

When humans started to live in bigger communities and cities the group gets more and more unstable without stabilizing features. Even though we are not beings killing each other just for fun the tendency towards power conflicts or not honoring "their" rights gets more serious issues. That is why all the good ethics enforcing methods need power over the people, be it religion, philosophy or police forces.

If the ethics would be effectively part of our brains and our reasoning we wouldn't need ethics enforcing because we wouldn't be behaving against the ethics. However, the ethics built in our brains can't survive the stress of modern social structures where trust and mutual benefits are more of a luxury than commodity. We just have to trust and call for justice when we have been betrayed.


About uniting the global community, well I think that won't happen unless there will be extraterrestial "them" or at least non-human "them", maybe robots will do.

[Noku]

Not necessairly. If anything it's practice in full can be harmful to a population of people (witch trials and subsequent torture/burning, Sharia Law, observance of Sabbath as described in the Torah etc) which is counter productive in an evolutionary sense.

Funny because that was the starting point of the article I read which inspired me to make this thread. Why humans would behave in counter productive way in Darwinist evolutionary sense. Wouldn't that mean the devout religious members of the society would "die out".

The answer it gave was that the group as a whole becomes much stronger by the aid of the devout religious people who had very strong trust and stability strengthening affect to developing civilizations. The flourishing theocracies soon enslaved the tribal communities around. After that it was war of survival between the theocratic civilizations.

At this point I would like to ask if theocracy is a good term for describing ancient Egypt or part of Romes history with godlike dictators etc.


I'll give you the control part and the answers part but I won't give it morality. It seems that some of the most heinous attrocities commited have been in the name of religion and it's specific teaching. Here's a fitting quote:

"With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion."

-Steven Weinberg

That quote completely misses the importance of stability or moral enforcing aspects of religion. I would rephrase it:

"With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes propaganda."

[SugarCoatedSour]

Yes thank you for your re-connoting.

Propoganda is a subreference quite a bit removed from the base point.

[SugarCoatedSour]

It helps me get my brain thinking in order. I've got my grade 10 so I know stuff about things.

Lifes about gettin learnins, one of us has to know better cause round here it's gorilla see gorilla do.

[Jude]

"With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion."

-Steven Weinberg

That's really dumb there's plenty of ways to get good people to do evil things and many experiments have shown it

[Berner]

That's really dumb there's plenty of ways to get good people to do evil things and many experiments have shown it


Yeah I'll concede that. The Milgram study showed that.

[SugarCoatedSour]

That's really dumb there's plenty of ways to get good people to do evil things and many experiments have shown it

well its really dumb of you to point that out considering words aren't "set in stone".

[die of starvation]

i dont see how the milgram study proves that it's easy to make good people do evil things
good people doing evil things doesn't even make sense as a concept
doing evil things is what makes someone evil

[SugarCoatedSour]

The human spirit is impartial to good and evil. I'd say. It's the case of influence, when one feels an action is accepted as norm. Otherwise the only form and function of being is to conduce to conduct and be a conduit for realization merging of concept, abstraction and materialization through means of action. This is innate, and one who has associated ego with many contextual elements of being can denote this as god-complex.

[die of starvation]

is that supposed to be funny

[SugarCoatedSour]

hmm....laugh and we'll see.

[sweboy]

i dont see how the milgram study proves that it's easy to make good people do evil things
good people doing evil things doesn't even make sense as a concept
doing evil things is what makes someone evil

You're hugging the definitions of words when you should be hugging statistical trends in reality. The "good people" in "good people doing evil things" are of course people who largely, on average seen over all their actions and thoughts, fall within the general region of people-space that we call "good" - that is, they don't normally do evil things and they don't think about doing evil things. This is in contrast with "evil people" who often do evil things and think about doing evil things. "Evil people" do evil things under normal conditions - "good people" do evil things only under special conditions (according to Jude/Berner/Milgram).

If you however just bluntly define "evil people" as "people who do evil things", then you will put both on-average-good people and on-average-evil people in the same category and thus loose information about their properties. So when you say "he is an evil person" under these definitions, the responder recieves less information, thus making our language less efficient.

for more info see: http://lesswrong.com/lw/nz/arguing_by_definition/

[SugarCoatedSour]

You just can't hug your children with nuclear arms


but on point tho, what is meant can be divided into context and connotation. One holds context while the other tries to find it's connotation to the meaning.

[die of starvation]

You're hugging the definitions of words when you should be hugging statistical trends in reality. The "good people" in "good people doing evil things" are of course people who largely, on average seen over all their actions and thoughts, fall within the general region of people-space that we call "good" - that is, they don't normally do evil things and they don't think about doing evil things. This is in contrast with "evil people" who often do evil things and think about doing evil things. "Evil people" do evil things under normal conditions - "good people" do evil things only under special conditions (according to Jude/Berner/Milgram).

If you however just bluntly define "evil people" as "people who do evil things", then you will put both on-average-good people and on-average-evil people in the same category and thus loose information about their properties. So when you say "he is an evil person" under these definitions, the responder recieves less information, thus making our language less efficient.

for more info see: http://lesswrong.com/lw/nz/arguing_by_definition/

except willingness to kill someone because somebody at yale told you to is really evil i dont see how a day spent thinking about good things outweighs that

[SugarCoatedSour]

thank you for that, try to apply to the concept next time please.

[sweboy]

except willingness to kill someone because somebody at yale told you to is really evil i dont see how a day spent thinking about good things outweighs that

Ok sure, but now you're just arguing about the definition of the word "evil". You're also trying to change my message by replacing "on average seen over all their actions and thoughts" with a "a day". Assume we have two general clusters of people in people-space, two statistically distinct groups: group A people think about good things in 80% of their thoughts and bad things 20%, they donate $100 to charity and rob 0.001 senior citizens per year - group B people think 30% good and 70% bad, donate $0.02 and rob 3 senior citizens per year, and also head oppressive fascist states that uses its military power to kill children for sports. We know ask, what does it take for A-people and B-people, respectively, to do evil things - for example, to give some dude electric shocks when instructed to?

This is a real question, and it is what is generally intended when people ask "what does it take for good people to do evil things?", "good people" refering to A-people (or similar). You can define "evil" in any way you want, but changing the definition does not change the cognitive properties of real humans in the real world - and it is these real, empirical properties that the question seeks to obtain information about, regardless of the language and definitions we use. If you define "evil people" as "everyone who shocks the dude", then learning that a person is evil tells me nothing about the cognitive properties of the person - he might be an A or B person - all it tells me is that he shocked a dude, because that's true by definition. But the question doesn't care about your definitions, it cares about empirical properties of the things in the universe.

[die of starvation]

the real question is more along the lines of 'is this person before me good or evil?'
one way to test that is to put on a lab coat and tell them to do something they believe will kill a stranger

there wasn't any vetting in the experiment to determine if the people were A or B people
and somebody who is 20% evil isn't a good person or anything near it really
a good person will only do evil things if there's some fundamental mistake of fact that they had no way of reasonably clarifying

[DxRocker]

Not necessairly. If anything it's practice in full can be harmful to a population of people (witch trials and subsequent torture/burning, Sharia Law, observance of Sabbath as described in the Torah etc) which is counter productive in an evolutionary sense.

You forget something... All these things are based on scripture... wich was developped after religion was allready established. When I said that religion had to be beneficial at the beginning, I meant the very very beginning.
By the time Shariah entered this world, the abrahamic religion that introduced it, was allready well over 1000 years old. Religions evolve. And it all started with the earth god and the god(s) of fire, water, wind, sun,... Without scripture. And, in the very very beginning, without idiot rituals. These rituals only developped AFTER the idea arose of a holy entity.

I'll give you the control part and the answers part but I won't give it morality. It seems that some of the most heinous attrocities commited have been in the name of religion and it's specific teaching. Here's a fitting quote:

Hey, I'm not saying that those morals are actually "moral". I'm also not saying that religions introduced morals in this world. I'm saying that it was an easy way to invent and enforce morals without having to lift a finger. Eternity in hell anyone? In some ways, it comes down to control as well.


"With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion."

Nice quote :)

[Jude]

As always sweboy is right