The author speculates that religious behavior is an adaptation that conferred considerable advantages to early human tribes. Religion was the basis for group cohesion, reciprocal altruism, ritual, etc -- things that, in short, made members of a tribal group more loyal to that group. This loyalty meant that these members were more willing sacrifice themselves for the group, and thus human groups with religion could overpower those without religion, and those with a strong religious sense could overpower those with a mild religious sense. Thus there was the basis for natural selection.
Since all human groups in their natural state seem to have a form of religion, just like all humans have language, it's likely that we have an innate something or other that is ready to absorb the religious values of our community as a child grows up, just like we have an innate faculty that is ready to absorb the languages of our communities.
It could be merely the case that there are a specific set of behaviors that result in a member being all the more loyal to a group: long, collective dancing that can induce trances, being bound in a cycle of altruism with members of the tribe, eating/hunting together, etc. Religion comes to unite and encompass all those behaviors.
The author points how the evolutionary psychologist Steven Pinker, and the atheist crusader Richard Dawkins, are both resistant to the hypothesis that religious behavior is an adaptation since both seem to hope that religious behavior is something that humanity can merely cast aside.
It would be ironic then if the same weapon with which atheists use against religion -- evolution -- comes to, in a way, vindicate religious behavior as natural. It surely won't be a comfort for religious people as far as the arguments against the existence of a God/afterlife are concerned, but it would really all the more paint as jackasses militant atheists and those who root for them.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
It is an interesting hypothesis.
Amused by the portrayal of evolution as a 'weapon,' though. A spear, or a cudgel?
Posted by Cindy Carter (Member # 12311) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: Amused by the portrayal of evolution as a 'weapon,' though. A spear, or a cudgel? [/QB]
I was referring to the "evolution is true! therefore, no God" argument that people who dislike religion make all the time.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Cindy Carter: ... the atheist crusader Richard Dawkins, are both resistant to the hypothesis that religious behavior is an adaptation ...
Not so much.
quote:The cultural equivalent of genetic drift is a persuasive option, one that we cannot neglect when thinking about the evolution of religion.
quote:In the early stages of a religion's evolution, before it becomes organized, simple memes survive by virtue of their universal appeal to human psychology.
[url= http://books.google.ca/books?id=yq1xDpicghkC&pg=PA189&dq=dawkins+%22evolution+of+religion%22&client=firefox-a&cd=1#v=onepage&q=&f=false]link[/url]
Posted by Cindy Carter (Member # 12311) on :
He's talking about culture in the first quote and in the second he's saying that religion merely appeals to human psychology. He's not going so far as to say that religion stems from human psychology itself.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
I'm not sure I understand the distinction that you're drawing.
Maybe this hypothetical could help me understand where you're going. Say I'm hungry and so I kill a bovine and grill a nice juicy steak. Would you consider that steak to merely appeal to human appetite or would you say that the steak stems from human appetite itself? And whats the difference between the two options?
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
religion was the means to explain the unknown and later to instill a natural authority to those who claim to understand the will of the unknown better then those who didn't, ie the King Priests of Egypt and other ancient civilizations until the work of administration grew to the point a separate religious caste was required.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:It would be ironic then if the same weapon with which atheists use against religion -- evolution -- comes to, in a way, vindicate religious behavior as natural.
Why? Atheists believe that all kinds of behaviors which are "natural" and may have once conveyed selection advantages are not things which are advantageous in a modern society. Don't you?
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:It would be ironic then if the same weapon with which atheists use against religion -- evolution -- comes to, in a way, vindicate religious behavior as natural.
Why? Atheists believe that all kinds of behaviors which are "natural" and may have once conveyed selection advantages are not things which are advantageous in a modern society. Don't you?
Seconded.
It's completely natural to be xenophobic and suspicious of outsiders, often to an irrational extent. And it often is a benefit to the societal group, because you will drive away the occasional outsider that does intend harm. But that doesn't make it a good thing.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
Thirded. I've heard this point before and think it is both interesting and pretty likely to be true, but it says nothing about the validity of religion nor its usefulness in modern society.
Posted by Sean Monahan (Member # 9334) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:It would be ironic then if the same weapon with which atheists use against religion -- evolution -- comes to, in a way, vindicate religious behavior as natural.
Why? Atheists believe that all kinds of behaviors which are "natural" and may have once conveyed selection advantages are not things which are advantageous in a modern society. Don't you?
Fourthed. For example, rape has evolved originally as a mating strategy. (The rape of females, at least. Male rape is something completely different.)
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
Hmmm...alliterative name, beginning with C's.....
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
I hope Captain Crunch is next.
Posted by Cindy Carter (Member # 12311) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:It would be ironic then if the same weapon with which atheists use against religion -- evolution -- comes to, in a way, vindicate religious behavior as natural.
Why? Atheists believe that all kinds of behaviors which are "natural" and may have once conveyed selection advantages are not things which are advantageous in a modern society. Don't you?
Some things are disadvantageous, but atheists most certainly do not seem eager to acknowledge that religious behavior could be an adaptation.
Posted by Cindy Carter (Member # 12311) on :
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: religion was the means to explain the unknown and later to instill a natural authority to those who claim to understand the will of the unknown better then those who didn't, ie the King Priests of Egypt and other ancient civilizations until the work of administration grew to the point a separate religious caste was required.
Religion could take that form, but it might have evolved because it was a vehicle for many other behaviors that instilled in-group loyalty at the time when our species lived in egalitarian communities (i.e, most of human history.)
Posted by Cindy Carter (Member # 12311) on :
quote:Originally posted by Sean Monahan:
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:It would be ironic then if the same weapon with which atheists use against religion -- evolution -- comes to, in a way, vindicate religious behavior as natural.
Why? Atheists believe that all kinds of behaviors which are "natural" and may have once conveyed selection advantages are not things which are advantageous in a modern society. Don't you?
Fourthed. For example, rape has evolved originally as a mating strategy. (The rape of females, at least. Male rape is something completely different.)
The naturalistic fallacy asserts that just because something is natural, it is good. That's not my stance. The claim is that atheist rhetoric often seems to completely neglect the question whether or not religion is an adaptation. They could be convinced that it isn't an adaptation and, therefore, something that people can easily cast aside, a presumption which fuels their anti-religion crusade all the more.
Posted by Cindy Carter (Member # 12311) on :
Also, no mother or father would want to see her or his daughter raped. The best way to severely reduce instances of this possibility is to punish all rapists and therefore deter any would be rapist. Thus, it is in the interest of every sane person to, like, be anti-rape, whereas the same can't be said for religious behavior, something which billions of people find harmless and fulfilling. Just as evolution has made us derive pleasure from the act of eating in order to encourage us to eat and, therefore, continue to live, so too could it be that we are hardwired to derive a sense of fulfillment from religion because of the biologically advantageous behaviors it results in.
[ March 18, 2010, 08:12 AM: Message edited by: Cindy Carter ]
Posted by Cindy Carter (Member # 12311) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mucus: I'm not sure I understand the distinction that you're drawing.
Maybe this hypothetical could help me understand where you're going. Say I'm hungry and so I kill a bovine and grill a nice juicy steak. Would you consider that steak to merely appeal to human appetite or would you say that the steak stems from human appetite itself? And whats the difference between the two options?
The contention is that religious behavior partly shaped human psychology itself. Dawkins assertion leaves open the possibility that religion came along and merely appealed to what what was already there.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:The claim is that atheist rhetoric often seems to completely neglect the question whether or not religion is an adaptation.
Mainly because it's not particularly relevant, unless the atheist in question is an evolutionary anthropologist. It's a fundamental misunderstanding of evolution to suggest that somehow selection advantages should also be considered recommendations -- or that a given selection advantage shouldn't be cast aside.
For my part, I don't know an atheist alive who rejects the claim that religion is a useful mechanism for group bonding. That does not, of course, speak to the question of whether or not any given religion is true.
If you are suggesting that we should lie to ourselves because we don't have any other decent alternatives when it comes to group bonding, I'm certainly prepared to argue against that position. Posted by Cindy Carter (Member # 12311) on :
Again, there's the atheist's hope that humans cast aside religion. Well, that kind of might be impossible if religion is an adapted behavior. It's very relevant. I do agree it's a consideration that's beside the point as far as the validity of any religion concerned, but perhaps it's a point that might make militant atheists more compassionate to their fellow human beings who happen to be religious. Militant atheists seem downright contemptuous of religious folk, and -- as an atheist myself -- I think that contempt and religion having a biological basis are not compatible.
Posted by Foust (Member # 3043) on :
quote:-- as an atheist myself --
hm
Posted by Cindy Carter (Member # 12311) on :
By the way, I do believe it's possible to get rid of religion as long it is replaced with something that compels an individual towards the same advantageous behaviors that religious behavior tends to result in.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
But, Clive, I assume that was the point of the rape analogy: that it's perfectly possible (and reasonable) to have "contempt" for a behavior that has a biological basis.
Posted by Cindy Carter (Member # 12311) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: But, Clive, I assume that was the point of the rape analogy: that it's perfectly possible (and reasonable) to have "contempt" for a behavior that has a biological basis.
It's a really good analogy if you are of the viewpoint that religion is like rape.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
I'm actually not willing to jump on the "Cindy is Clive" just yet. But I will note:
a) I like how Cindy doesn't notice that Tom called her Clive. (To be fair, the names are similar enough that I actually had a hard time telling them apart when she first showed up, so I don't regard that as conclusive proof)
b) If she is Clive, it amuses me that the thread turned out to be about rape and that it isn't his fault.
Anyways... religion does not have to be like rape in any way other than being an adaptive behavior for the analogy to hold.
Posted by Dr Strangelove (Member # 8331) on :
I'm not in the mood to argue points, but I will throw out some recommended readings for those who have not read them: Elementary Forms of Religious Life by Emile Durkheim, some Max Weber (I'd go with an edited selection of his writings personally), and finally, The Disenchantment of the World by Marcel Gauchet, and don't forget to read the foreword by Charles Taylor.
Off to my busy day now.
Edit to add: Almost forgot E. O. Wilson's Sociobiology. I think the relevant chapter is 21, but I could be mistaken on that. The whole book is good. Pretty pictures.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Cindy Carter: ... The contention is that religious behavior partly shaped human psychology itself. Dawkins assertion leaves open the possibility that religion came along and merely appealed to what what was already there.
I'm not sure why it couldn't be both or why the former is relevant. Explain what you mean by "shaped human pyschology."
Also, a non-religious person wouldn't really think that a religion just "came along." They would usually think that religions are man-made and thus would have to appeal in order to spread.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Raymond Arnold: I'm actually not willing to jump on the "Cindy is Clive" just yet. But I will note:
a) I like how Cindy doesn't notice that Tom called her Clive. (To be fair, the names are similar enough that I actually had a hard time telling them apart when she first showed up, so I don't regard that as conclusive proof)
b) If she is Clive, it amuses me that the thread turned out to be about rape and that it isn't his fault.
Anyways... religion does not have to be like rape in any way other than being an adaptive behavior for the analogy to hold.
Let's just use CC and not worry about it.
Posted by Stephan (Member # 7549) on :
I think of religion as stemming from two sources.
1. Stories told to children to explain why the world does what it does. The Children grow up and pass on the same stories, eventually some generation forgets that it was just a childhood fairy tale.
2. Leaders of early nations using gods to control their people.
Posted by Not Noemon (Member # 12309) on :
I am not Clive.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stephan: I think of religion as stemming from two sources.
1. Stories told to children to explain why the world does what it does. The Children grow up and pass on the same stories, eventually some generation forgets that it was just a childhood fairy tale.
2. Leaders of early nations using gods to control their people.
I think you're projecting a post-Enlightenment world-view onto vast swaths of history.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Not Noemon: I am not Clive.
I am not Clive's brain. I am not Clive's brain on Candy.
Posted by Stephan (Member # 7549) on :
quote:Originally posted by dkw:
I think you're projecting a post-Enlightenment world-view onto vast swaths of history.
Possibly. But I have a hard time accepting that it is a chemical process.
Though, is language a chemical process? The two seem similar in some ways. The way they branch and spread.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
A chemical process is far from the only other option. For instance, you're ignoring options such as "legitimate attempts to explain (and influence) observed phenomena".
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
quote:Originally posted by Cindy Carter:
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: But, Clive, I assume that was the point of the rape analogy: that it's perfectly possible (and reasonable) to have "contempt" for a behavior that has a biological basis.
It's a really good analogy if you are of the viewpoint that religion is like rape.
You're forgetting the point of the analogy - just because something had adaptive/survival benefit in the past doesn't mean that we shouldn't change it now. It's not meant to equate the two things in any moral or ethical or legal sense, so there's no need to ridicule the comparison on those grounds.
You're quite right that religion occupies a niche of human psychology and it definitely seems to act to perpetuate itself. So it's reasonable to say that it's unlikely to go away unless replaced with something else with similar function.
I actually think that secular humanism and rule of civil law (with a human rights-focused basis) are sufficient to bond people together to collectively act to protect the interests of the group. Also, I would note that atheists participate in charity and volunteer service as well - so there's reason to think that the vital local services so often provided by religious groups can be sustained even if people ceased to be religious.
In other words, I don't think that the historical - or even present - adaptive value of religion is a sufficient reason not to seek a further adaptation of those quirks of our psychology, and I think that's what a lot of secular humanists are trying to do. Not just cut out a valuable part of human existence, but show how equal or greater value can be attained in other ways.
Posted by Misha McBride (Member # 6578) on :
quote:Originally posted by Raymond Arnold: I'm actually not willing to jump on the "Cindy is Clive" just yet. But I will note:
a) I like how Cindy doesn't notice that Tom called her Clive. (To be fair, the names are similar enough that I actually had a hard time telling them apart when she first showed up, so I don't regard that as conclusive proof)
b) If she is Clive, it amuses me that the thread turned out to be about rape and that it isn't his fault.
Anyways... religion does not have to be like rape in any way other than being an adaptive behavior for the analogy to hold.
By the time I read "Cindy's" fourth post in this thread I was already thinking it was Clive, the posting style is certainly very Clive-esque. Maybe we could get PJ in here to do an IP check? Reregistering to circumvent a topic ban so one can continue trolling should be grounds for an IP ban IMO.
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
IP address bans are not a very good option. Someone could be behind a proxy server, and the IP ban would effectively cut off everyone using the same proxy.
Posted by Omega M. (Member # 7924) on :
To flourish, humanity probably needs a set of ideals that can't be derived purely from observation of the natural world; but it's an open question whether those ideals need to involve spirit-worshiping of the sort that so many religions have.
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
I've also heard the theory that it isn't so much that religions are adaptive, but the method that they spread is adaptive. The simple trait, however this translates genetically, of children being more likely to believe something told to them by a parent or authority figure. This serves well when dealing with things like "run when you see a big cat" or "don't play so close to the edge of that cliff", but could easily work for things like "if we kill this goat, the rains will come."
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
I would say that religions fill an evolutionary need to have a feeling of safety and of control over ones environment.
We evolved to enjoy the thrill of the hunt, but many people produce those same chemical rewards with sporting events, or thrill rides or action movies, instead of physically chasing down a deer.
We have found that there are multiple ways to give ourselves the same emotional responses that our bodies evolved to reward us for beneficial behavior, and organized religion can act as a evolutionary skeleton key to turn on responses for community, a protective authority figure, being on the "winning team", having a way to influence and control the world, and understanding why things are the way that they are.
One of the reasons I find religion to be maladaptive is precisely because it offers a false sense of security. It tricks our desire for understanding by saying it has all the answers, and in the process, it forces people who gain their emotional reward from this source to fight against people who look elsewhere.
That is the real reason religious hardliners fight so strongly against evolution education - it is trying to take away their feeling of security gained by having all the answers.
Posted by swbarnes2 (Member # 10225) on :
I think another part of it is that evolution gave us a strong ability to look for patterns, expeically in the motivations of others. You need to be able to understand patterns of causality to manipulate the world, and you need to understand human motivations to get around in society.
But evolution didn't give us a robust sense of "Give up, there's no pattern here" So we see patterns when they are not there, and we attribute personal motivations to phenomena that don't have them.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)