Religion is a Product of Evolution, Software Suggests
|
Submitted by: ronpaulican  Subscribe to this Author Paste this code into your site to promote this story! |
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn13983-religion-is-a-product-of-evolution-software-suggests.html?DCMP=ILC-hmts&nsref=news5_head_dn13983
Type of Content: Article What an interesting topic! This article was sent to me by a friend who I had been discussing the Creation Vs. Evolution topic with. I can see religion playing a part, but had never considered it to be a product of evolution. I'd love to hear what people think of this article. God may work in mysterious ways, but a simple computer program may explain how religion evolved
Created 26 weeks 4 days ago
Made popular 26 weeks 4 days ago |
- Flag as offensive
- Login or register to post comments
- 196 reads
Actually, there is much merit to this idea.
There is a well documented and easily observed predisposition in humans to believe in things that have no truth in reality.
That explains why crystal healing and Jesus worship, as well as varying forms of reincarnation beliefs and all of the previous but various god beliefs, flourished.
Once humans attained some level of intellect and could ask questions, they filled their boxes with answers even though they weren't the "right" answer.
Fear of death and a desire for "purpose" where there really is no purpose, are two of the reasons.
We could argue that we aren't yet fully evolved and rational, yet, or we could argue that belief actually had survival positives and therefore the propensity to believe was passed on...
I would attribute it all to a lack of rationality.
Since the thought process is volitional, which is to say that you can engage in it or not, all of the above is the result of not.
To posit a as the cause of b, without first establishing that a is valid, and using the fact of b to explain a is a logical effor. You have to establish a before you can even begin a claim that it causes b. It suffers from the fallacy of post hoc ergo propter hoc. The fact that b occurs after a does not establish a. a must be established on its own.
So human beings pass down a predisposition to believe in something that the senses determined by their genetics can't detect? I'm curious as to how such a genetic coding could have evolved, and what would be the survival advantage of delusion?
Now I can understand the survival advantage of volition, by which I mean the choice to raise the level of mental focus or not. The ability to expend effort to raise the level of awareness and cognition could have an enormous survival advantage, but what the heck is the survival advantage of delusion?
I'm not sure if genetic code would account for the passing on of religious information. This could be a nature/nurture issue. Religion would be the nurture aspect. Some religious teachings are healthy guidelines that might preserve the individual or group of individuals. Thou shalt not kill for example would certainly preserve more genes as well as a do unto others as you would have them do unto you code of ethics. So even though the reason for practicing these behaviors may have been "delusional" the end result proves beneficial. I'm trying to understand it myself.
"If God did not exist, it would be necessary to invent him." ~Voltaire
"Thou shalt not kill." would have the desired effect. If you are in a situation where there are believers in this tenet and non believers, the believers would be at a severe survival disadvantage. The non-believers could kill them with impunity. Which, of course, is one of the reasons so many 'Christians' fail to practice what they preach and go to war.
A better statement might be, "Thou shalt not initiate physical force." It permits you to have friends that will aid in your protection, and motivates you to protect your friends - in fact it is in your mutual self interest ti do so to protect you from non-believers in the principle. In the case of "Thou shalt not kill.", banding together does not protect you from non-believers.
"Do unto others..." or the golden rule would probably have a good effect if you decided to do good to others. If you were self-destructive, it could create some pretty severe problems. So I think it's a good rule if the other principles you hold are good, to universalize them, but not otherwise.
But I do agree with you, that it is a nurture issue. If the people who are so stoutly Christian or Jewish had been raised in Iran they would probably be muslims, and similarly most muslims raised in the US would probably be Christian. Their children were in large part raised to be what they are. However, human beings being human can change that - they might question what they are taught. Now, do we attribute that questioning to a genetic predisposition to question, or do we contend that human beings can begin to think and to question at any time. I'm not saying that they will do it, and some may be sheep forever, but it is in their nature that they are able to.
When I was last involved in the academic debate over nature/nurture it was quite unclear where most behavioral traits came from. I would gamble that it is still the case today. Is rebellion genetic? I'm no where near qualified to give a solid answer to that one.
"If God did not exist, it would be necessary to invent him." ~Voltaire
I see where you are going with this one, I think. I can see one of the "survival positives" derived from religious beliefs could be guidance. One thing we must remember is that religion has it's roots in a time before written word. You can see today in what few cultures exist that are purely oral how even the written word is magical to them, as is the concept of writing for an audience that is not there. [1] Religion likely began as an oral code of conduct to promote behaviors that were favorable to the people and kept the peace among them. Stories, like songs or poetry are easier to remember and relate to.
[1]Amusing Ourselves to Death chapter 2 (not a direct quote)
"If God did not exist, it would be necessary to invent him." ~Voltaire
> "I see where you are going with this one, I think. I can see one of the "survival positives" derived from religious beliefs could be guidance."
As in guiding other people to sacrifice their own interests and do what the storyteller wants? Hmm, conmen do that. I can see that. The village strongman is getting older and doesn't want to have to enforce his rule anymore, so he hires a shaman to fabricate a wonderful story as to why other people should sacrifice their own good and serve his purposes willingly.
That would appear to explain a lot of human history.
Isn't that what our government demands of us? Now I understand public schools and universities, and unions of church and state, and an unquestioning mass media, and...
i would simplify all of your points into: wishful thinking and possibly: denial
but i just can't buy the concept of humans being somehow predisposed to believe in a higher power.
religion is an instrument for social control.
it exploits some basic emotions but no one particular predisposition.
that's my take on it. i hope you take it easy on me in your rebuttal :)
I certainly won't argue that religion is closely tied to social control, in fact that was one of my problems with it too. I however can see how humans could be predisposed to believe in a higher power in ancient times.
There may not be as many reasons to believe in a higher power today, but it gets many people through their day and gives them strength they don't feel without it. Many people feel powerless, because in many ways we are, but if there is a higher power I can see that thought being comforting as well as allowing for a sense of power to communicate one's wishes to a God who may have mercy.
What works for some does not work for others. The world needs believers and non believers to balance the scales I guess.
"If God did not exist, it would be necessary to invent him." ~Voltaire
> a simple computer program may explain how religion evolved By distilling religious belief into a genetic predisposition to pass along unverifiable information, the program predicts that religion will flourish.
you can write a program that 'predicts' that gravity will seize to exists next year.
as if having coded a piece of software legitimizes anything in any way.
> However, religion only takes hold if non-believers help believers out – perhaps because they are impressed by their devotion."
right. another fact. non-believers help believers out. this can be clearly seen here on these forums how much help their getting. nobody is impressed by 'devotion' to religion, that's like saying you're impressed by the guy across the street who is devoted to believing that he was abducted by aliens. it's an unfortunate state of delusion. don't make me post a picture of ceiling cat again.
Higher animals teach their young to hunt. For example, one of the greatest causes of raptor mortality in the wild is that the young birds do NOT learn to hunt. It would seem to be that there would be an enormous pressure to be able to pass that information down genetically, but it isn't. But human beings have a "predisposition to pass down unverifiable information".
Might I propose that that is in fact the unverifiable information that was passed down, passed down the internet, that is.
ROFLMFAO! I wish I could get paid for that kind of "research". Posting another picture of ceiling cat will only encourage others to follow him, and possibly prove his existence! You do realize I posted this just for you, don't you? I thought you would have a good time with it.
BTW, I think you have placed me in the wrong box... I may be spiritual, but I am not your average religious nut. I'm just a regular flake.
"If God did not exist, it would be necessary to invent him." ~Voltaire