Evolution of religion
This interesting essay/article, which is a summary of current hypotheses concerning the evolution and cognitive function of religion, catches some of the curiously obtuse nature of the debate, in my opinion. Religion, it is posited, is a 'spandrel', an 'unintended byproduct' of certain evolutionary traits, not in itself a feature of adaption; yet it is 'the default position for the human mind' by virtue of the way in which our minds are structured.
Quote:
The article approaches the subject with a degree of respect, which is nice, but fails to address many issues. Religion may well be the inescapable offshoot of necessary biological instincts, but how does, for example, the evolution of religious feeling coincide with the development of moral structures? Did it precede the notion of an absolute judgement of good and evil? Where did the phenomenon of religion as moral barometer come from, and why? The problem with these sorts of hypotheses, as I see it, is that they paint a one-dimensional picture of human nature. Humans are stubborn, willful creatures, and singularly incapable of following evolutionary guidelines. Consciousness itself inhibits our natural instincts. Morality, in any conventional sense, seems to presribe attitudes that do not appear adaptive; religious duty requires self-sacrifice at the expense of self-preservation. Religious feeling is inescapably linked to these two concepts and cannot be fully explicated independently.The question, in short, is not what we are bound to do, but why we choose to do it, and evolutionary anthropology as it stands surely falls short of providing an answer. Any answers or feelings, or is this just gibberish? |
Re: Evolution of religion
Talking about 'religious' experiences and the 'supernatural' is a crazy oversimplification, because it fails to distinguish between relatively naturalistic beliefs (eg Greek religion, witches), and beliefs which are irreducibly supernatural (Christianity, souls, etc). Theres no good apriori reason to believe that Greek religion and Christianity share a common psychological cause, given that pretty much everything about them from the metaphysics to the ethics is diametrically opposed. The mindset that leads a person to Christianity is very different from the mindset that would lead a person to traditional Norse beliefs, and talking about 'religion' in general tends to mask these huge contrasts. The idea of religion being universal strikes me as terribly confused.
The article largely seems to be the usual evo-psych 'far-reaching conclusions with very little directly relevant evidence, and no attempt whatsoever to control for cultural-specific variables' gimmick (the part about 'attributing agency to moving shapes' is particularly blatent - did they also perform this experiment on people who came from a culture whose language/folk-psychology placed less emphasis on individual agency and free-will? If not, what is the justification for postulating a hard-wired cause?) |
Re: Evolution of religion
To me, god seems a product of basic instincts like love, self-preservation, curiousity and the fear of the unknown.
And how can one prove himself, to a higher being, if it doesn't involve humbleness, strenght or doing anything against your will? |
Re: Evolution of religion
Being tall? Owning more than one bottle of Heinz ketchup? It's not really a very meaningful question.
|
Re: Evolution of religion
Quote:
|
Re: Evolution of religion
Is it me or is Richard Dawkins becoming a bit of a knob?
Quote:
Believing in something because you find it comforting seems a pretty valid reason to me. You may dispute the verifiability of that belief but to criticise because someone finds it comforting?!?! Is it any different than people who find comfort in the belief that one day the revolution will come and make everything ok? The intellectual level of his discussions isn't exactly staying high Quote:
|
Re: Evolution of religion
Quote:
Perhaps from a personal point of view a false belief can be useful in some contexts. But really, given all that people in other times and cultures have claimed to derive from religion - the sense of transcendental awe, of being at unity with the universe and the divine, the extremes of emotional experience that have inspired so much great art and caused many to devote their lives to the pursuit of an ideal - is being 'comforting' really the best that religion can do these days? If youre going to practice self-deception, at least set your sights higher. Quote:
|
Re: Evolution of religion
But it was never a rational debate! Peter Kay never sought to advocate creationism, all he said was he found comfort in something that was irrational.
It was valid in the sense there is an irrational 'crutch' that almost everyone relies on. Its difficult for me to concieve of how anyone can find gambling a joyful or comforting activity yet millions do. Don't misunderstand me, im not questioning debates on creationism, but i am...disheartened that the debate has now reached the level of critisicing the comfort an individual obtains from an idea/activity irrespective of how irrational it is. I think David Icke's beliefs are profoundly odd, but i don't question them on the basis that he finds comfort in them. It's irrelevant. I'd never advocate biologists being given an obligation to take your unicorn beliefs seriously but them questioning your beliefs on the basis you found them comforting is pointless. edit to your edit Quote:
Interestingly im basically asking 'is this the best you can do' in relation to Dawkin's remarks. If you take into consideration the sacrifices of Giordano Bruno or Galileo, questioning an individual's comfort is quite a come down. |
Re: Evolution of religion
Dawkins isnt pro-evolution as such, hes pro-science. He isnt advocating Darwinism as much as hes advocating a scientific approach to the world - namely trying to base your beliefs on evidence to the greatest extent possible, rather than believing whatever feels nice. With this is mind, his attack on using beliefs as a crutch seems quite reasonable - it is intellectually dishonest to believe something purely because you want it to be true, and I dont think there is anything wrong with pointing out the irrationality of others.
Quote:
Quote:
|
Re: Evolution of religion
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
Re: Evolution of religion
Quote:
|
Re: Evolution of religion
Quote:
Your statist desire to dictate what type of thought is appropriate for the vote aside, do you vote? |
Re: Evolution of religion
Quote:
|
Re: Evolution of religion
Quote:
It's t'future!! Quote:
I don't want your mental processes infecting elections that affect my life :( |
Re: Evolution of religion
Quote:
I have no problems with gay people aslong as they don't try to convert other people, and especially not try to fondle me or my children or whatever. Just like I have no problems with religious people aslong as they don't try to convert other people, and especially not try to fondle me or my children. You could take "fondle" literally in case of christianity, else use it as a metaphore of influincing me and my environment. |
Re: Evolution of religion
Quote:
|
Re: Evolution of religion
Quote:
Quote:
Yeah but to be honest i kinda appreciate the stoning, its a clear unambigious process of 'ill kill you for disagreeing' the alternative is the kind of preacy non-violent unrelenting crap you get from people with nothing better to do. I'd much rather shake the hands of the mad mullah and headbutt a stone than spend my life answering the door to jehovas witnesses. At least with the former you keep your sanity. |
Re: Evolution of religion
Quote:
The main problem is that most people do not understand how science works, or what it is. The scientific method is merely a way of observing and predicting trends based on experimental evidence. This would, for example, include the "supernatural", if evidence for such things existed. To quote Alpha Centauri: Quote:
Furthermore, many of the more outspoken scientists, no matter their methodology, are subject to both threatened and actual violence from some of the more extreme religious groups. Dawkins certainly didn't start this "war", if war it is. Quote:
The survival of the individual is not paramount, as the individual, from one point of view, merely acts as the mechanism for the transmission of genes. Dawkins's book The Selfish Gene is the one to read on this. Altruism and apparant self sacrifice make perfect sense within this context. Quote:
Quote:
|
Re: Evolution of religion
Quote:
I find him an absurd figure. |
Re: Evolution of religion
Quote:
|
Re: Evolution of religion
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
I'm part of a hippy splinter faction, we disagreed on the big book of what hippies should be and formed our own ideology. I have no idea what nuclear weapons has to do with any of this, assuming you're vaguely bringing in al-queda, i'd say that geo-political factors have a much greater role in the support for AQ than religion. |
Re: Evolution of religion
Quote:
"letting people practice their religion' is ambiguous. Obviously everyone should be allowed to hold and practice reliigous beliefs without being met by forcible opposition or violence. But that doesnt mean that these beliefs should be tolerated in an intellectual sense, or that it shouldnt be pointed out how absurd they are. |
Re: Evolution of religion
I'm not going to re-quote as it gets incredibly annoying to anyone reading, but i do understand your position a little better with that. I still stand by what i originally said though, he may want to understand the way people think, but them thinking the way they do because it comforts them seems perfectly valid to me. To give the reciprocal, would he suggest believing in something that makes you uncomfortable is somehow more 'worthwhile'? Id be genuinely interested if he has some separate argument on why finding comfort in an idea is bad from an evolutionary standpoint.
As to your personal standpoint id say your offence is irrelevant, or as irrelevant as anyone who takes offence at dawkins because he questions their faith. I'm not saying this in an accusatory way but you have a tendency to see your world view as inherently rational, and those who disagree as deluding themselves ('it is intellectually dishonest to believe something purely because you want it to be true'). For the sake of argument lets say the society around you is completely founded on Christian belief, and as you say people won't be rational. In what sense is that harmful so society? Society has chosen its own way and is apparently happy with that choice despite being shown arguments to the contrary. It may be harmful from the perspective of your personal philosophy, but why should your personal philosophy be a better 'judge' of what others do? I don't have a problem with pointing out something is absurd, but im curious what you desire from all this? If your day-to-day activities are being repressed by the masses id understand, but if they aren't dictating a way of life to you - why bother with the irrationality of others? And why religion? The vast majority of deaths in the 20th century were caused by political theories, surely its a bigger threat? |
Re: Evolution of religion
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
Re: Evolution of religion
@ horn
I'd appreciate some concrete examples of how they affect you, in all honesty id say the welfare state imposes itself on those opposed to socialism to a far greater degree. What do you want to do that you can't specifically because of religion? Stem Cell research isn't repressed, state funding is limited but in a similar point to what i said above and to Nod, why shouldn't it be? The society that elected the president and ultimately funds the research is divided over the issue. Private funding exists, but id think a limit on state funding considering the debate wasn't overly draconian. Obviously there shouldn't be state funding to eliminate this kind of debate. Peter Kay didn't link truth to comfort, he doesn't even accept the supernatural aspects of christianity, he just finds it comforting; again to reiterate, this isn't about the scientific method. |
Re: Evolution of religion
When a large group discriminates against a minority group on 'moral' grounds which they get from a 2,000 year old book which has been discredited over the centuries then it affects all of us.
It doesn't matter if it's about homosexuals being married or women having jobs or black people not being lynched in the streets. When beliefs with no legitimate basis are held by vast numbers of people in your country it is always potentially harmful. throughout history people have found comfort in the belief that Jews were the cause of all of the worlds problems. this doesn't justify rounding them all up and killing them or using violence to make them flee the country. |
Re: Evolution of religion
Dawkins has always been a bit of a knob, but he is entirely necessary. If everyone were like him (even if all atheists were like him) then the world would be a bit dull, but the Good Guys require hardliners.
Basically, there's two types of wrong. One that is harmless enough (on it's own) and the second which is very harmful. A passenger on a plane believing that the plane is really being carried by angels when it flies and the engine is for show is harmless enough in most cases. An aircraft engineer on a flight-crew believing the same thing would be much more dangerous. Dawkins argument is that too much tolerance of the former (harmless) nonsense creates room for the latter (harmful) nonsense. And he's probably right. But tactics dictate how you handle these things. In any argument, regardless of how right you are, you never "win" by being a prick. |
Re: Evolution of religion
Quote:
Quote:
Out of curiosity how much do you donate to stem cell research? But yeah the debate has moved on. Lets say a nine year old girl, brought up as a christian is dying of cancer, and she believes she'll go to heaven and finds comfort in that. In the weeks she has left would you respect her personal beliefs and leave her alone or just tell her her life was ultimately meaningless and that shes deluding herself? |
Re: Evolution of religion
In fairness in that situation there's not exactly much she could do which would affect you.
|
Re: Evolution of religion
Nonetheless it centres around whether the comfort for the person possessing belief is valid, and should be respected or confronted.
I won't deny that if a form of tyranny tried to impose itself on me id object, and of course in that circumstance id 'fight' whatever facism there was. The girl example is valid since i genuinely don't think religion is anything like a problem its made out to be, in britain at least. It's an exhausted battle that was fought long before my grandfather was born. What we're left with is confronting people not on some meta-philosophical level, but when they're at their most vulnerable and least offensive. When they want nothing more than comfort. I find it distasteful, and to be honest i think many feel the same way. Richard Dawkins is a clever man, but he and his supporters somehow seem to lack the empathy needed to really connect with those they disagree with. |
Re: Evolution of religion
In answer to the question "would you go around seeking nine year old girls with misguided beliefs about the afterlife in order to inflict psychological damage on them" I'd imagine most of us would answer no. To compare this decision to allowing various groups to control the laws of your country through being a majority or a vocal and influential minority is rather inaccurate. As horn said the question here is largely over the impact of their beliefs on your life.
|
Re: Evolution of religion
Most, but not all!
|
Re: Evolution of religion
Quote:
Horns main objection to religion is that people in another country don't spend their taxes as he would wish. Regardless, if they are the majority, they accurately represent society and i see no problem with 'them' dominating the political process anymore than i would a political philosophy, if they are an influential minority id ask why specifically why they are influential. Both these circumstances do not exist in Britain, i cannot speak for ireland. |
Re: Evolution of religion
Quote:
|
Re: Evolution of religion
Its perhaps a tangential issue but i would be interested to know why you don't donate. Since we're concentrating on britain why or how is religion limiting research? And what religious bodies are controlling the purse strings that affect you? To be honest id say you hate the rich :(
Quote:
|
Re: Evolution of religion
Most of the problems seem to centre around taxation, and as JBG said those issues are endless.
So lets say the revolution occurs and glorious anarchism appears. The majority of people within stateless area A continue to practise religion. They don't interefere with your life, they don't stop you from living as you wish. Would you act against them? Edit: I should probably explain why; It looks like im asking something competely pointless. I don't think religion is a repressive force in modern day britain (relative to other philosophies say). I'm curious whether you have an intrinsic desire to 'make' everyone stop believing in religion, irrespective of whether they harm you, if you do then i'd understand your opinions better. If you don't then i'm curious why you feel so oppressed as i don't think religion holds any real widespread power. |
Re: Evolution of religion
Genghis Khan would.
One day a TV network will listen to my idea and they'll make a cartoon series about Genghis Khan :( Personally I'd imagine horn doesn't donate because he's direly impoverished. |
Re: Evolution of religion
Quote:
This is a fairly similar position to yours, and Nietzsche was a nutjob, ergo I like cheese. |
Re: Evolution of religion
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
I wouldn't support a facist party, but again its curious why you'd bring up such an extreme. Do you think there is an analogy between the nazis winning elections and a religious organisation threatening you? I'm trying to understand where this (very irrational in my opinion) fear of religion is coming from. As far as i can see the debates about theology have been won generations ago, there are no religious parties in existence that are remotely likely to come to power. To me its as absurd as worrying about a reemergence of Communism. Its just a very irrational fear from people supposedly basing their arguments on rationality. Thats why i asked the question about what you'd do in an anarchist type scenario where they didn't harm you. I'll be honest, im trying to understand if its about an underlying bigotry (im not seeking to judge you about your opinions, only clarify them) |
Re: Evolution of religion
Quote:
|
Re: Evolution of religion
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Its a point we'll have to differ on, i think the anti-testing lot try to endorse 'essences' common to humans and lifeform X inorder to justify their arguments. Putting worth on stemcells and mice is equally absurd to me. |
Re: Evolution of religion
Quote:
On 'unattached' motives: Quote:
Quote:
(I'm trying to edge the conversation away from the thorny religion thing here, as it really wasn't my intention to drudge through all that again.) |
Re: Evolution of religion
Quote:
|
Re: Evolution of religion
Quote:
Lets consider a mutation which encourages altruistic behaviour towards members of your immediate family. There can be two results of this altruistic behaviour. The first is that there is a significant benefit gained from the behaviour. The second is that there is not, or an active hindrance. If the former is the case, then the members of your immediate family are more likely to breed. There is a good chance of this gene being passed on to the subsequent generation, in which case the same argument applies - and, over time, if the benefit is sufficiently large, it will become fixed in the population, or the two subsets of the population will stop interbreeding and a new species will be formed over time. If the second is the case, then the mutation will disadvantage the members of the population with it, which will lead to them breeding less and thus, over time, the mutation will be removed from the population (or simply remain in small amounts, if it is not sufficiently deleterious). Look up the Florida Scrub Jays for a decent example of this behaviour - and note that this behaviour does not rely on you surviving, if your death gives a sufficiently large advantage to the rest of your family. Do you see? |
Re: Evolution of religion
Yes, kin selection.
Frankly, I find the idea that reproduction is the central motivation of human behaviour a little difficult to grasp. The fact is, we now don't work like that. Semantically, the notion of of a 'selfish' gene is also pretty difficult to follow (I need to read the damned book), and it is what confused me about your statement. So, the survival of an individual isn't paramount; but who is it 'not paramount' to? The individual? His family? His genes? Is the individual conscious of this motivation? It must be pscyhologically embedded; how does it interact with his other nebulous beliefs and desires? I really am interested in what the article says, although I can understand if you can't be bothered to trawl through it. Quote:
|
Re: Evolution of religion
Isn't paramount to anyone, necessarily; some measure of self-sustanance is not going to be a bad thing, but there are plenty of instances when people, and animals, have died in which it was possible for them to have chosen to have lived. It depends on what the situation is as to how the individual acts, and whether genetic mutations are advantageous, deleterious or netiher.
The concept of the selfish gene is fairly straightforward, as selection will be acting on a genetic level at all points, if you accept a certain level of relationship between the organism and its genes. |
Re: Evolution of religion
Quote:
Seriously though, while I would be reluctant to say anything is "the" central motivator in human behaviour it seems fairly obvious from looking at human cultures generally that reproduction is (directly and indirectly) _one_ of the central motivators that influences pretty much everything we do. Sometimes it's crude and obvious (i.e. someone wearing a particular type of clothing to attract a partner) other times it's not necessarily clear (even to the person who is performing the action) - e.g. career choice. I would say that at the level of complexity of human beings enjoy, one-to-one mapping between sets of genes and behaviour is unlikely to be sufficient for explaining most things. Some of the evo-psych theories which use adaptationist explanaitons for everything suffer from being unnecessarily over-confident. In many cases, rather than positing just-so stories, it'd be more honest to say that we simply don't know. However, a just-so story is perfectly valid if someone thinks a behaviour is proof against Darwinian theory (e.g. "gay genes" or something like that). The "selfish" gene theory taken it's most basic form is pretty much a truism, but I find the name unhelpful as it implies a range of things which Dawkins decidedly did not mean. |
All times are GMT +1. The time now is 02:43. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2002 - 2018