Evolutionary Need for Religion

[Prometheus]

I am religious, but I would like to look at the topic scientifically - so everyone assume that religion is false for this thread.

Why does our species so consistantly create religions? Every culture has a religion - throughout all of history.

Lets look at the evolutionary advantages of religion:

(1) It fosters altruism (kin selection), which is advantagous to a species

(2) It helps deal with pain (for some)

(3) It often prevents suicide

(4) It often serves as a plecebo cure for illness

(5) many religions cause people to think about their posterity (obviously an evolutionary advantage)

(6) Many religions restrict diet to be more healthy (Drinking, Smoking etc.)

(7) It promotes pair-bonding (which is universally considered advantagous by animal behaviorologists)


Lets hit some rebuttals really quick:

(1) Celabate monks - many animal cultures have developed non-breeding community members that help the species be more successfull.

(2) Less Sex (by religions that teach that) - When a religion teaches to only have sex with your spouse, it may seem evolutionarily detremantal, but it increases the fitness of your offspring to be raised with both parents (see numerous psych studies)

[Sonart]

Sorry, Prometheus, beat'cha to it see my post #94, this page)

Quote by: Prometheus (2) Less Sex (by religions that teach that) - When a religion teaches to only have sex with your spouse, it may seem evolutionarily detremantal, but it increases the fitness of your offspring to be raised with both parents (see numerous psych studies)

Indeed. It takes about 8 years to raise a child to the point where it has any reasonable chance to survive on their own. Therefore it is in the interest of a tribe's survival for families to remain together to raise children to adulthood. Adultery creates instability within families and threatens the successful raising of children. Likewise, promiscuous sex outside of marriage creates children outside of stable family relationships.

The invention of reliable birth control in the 60's threw a real monkey-wrench into this whole paradigm, since sex suddenly no longer bore the burden of pregnancy if we didn't want it to... hence the sexual revolution. We're still trying to come to grips with this today. The backlash finally appeared when sex-addled baby boomers grew up and realised that, a) birth control isn't perfect and b) stable families are still important to society.

Likewise, "Thou shalt honor thy parents" is a survival trait, since children must focus on learning the lessons of being a harmonious and contributing adult from their parents.

"Thou shalt not bare false witness"... lying creates disharmony and friction within the social group.

Etc. etc. etc.

.

[RickSp]

I think there is a very simple reason why religion seems to be a psychological need.

When early man sat around a campfire, there was a circle of darkness beyond which the fire could not illuminate. There were many dangers in that darkness. Creating a god for protection and guidance was comforting.

We all still face the same figurative circle of darkness, a region beyond which we cannot see and cannot know. We are finite in both body and minds in an effectively infinite universe. It is comforting to create the omniscient. Man creates god in his own image so god can create man in his.

[rez]

In conclusion RELIGION is an instinctual survival trait..

if you want to say GOD gave us it, then you may have your egotistical way with it.

[Prometheus]

I was not trying to make a point about where it came from.

The only real point to take from this is that maybe religion should not be treated with such abject scorn, even by atheists. It's gotton us this far hasn't it.

Wheather you beleive we still need it is a matter of personal opinion.

But if we can agree that it is a trait of evolutionary fitness, maybe that says something about the atheists...

[rez]

Quote by: Prometheus I was not trying to make a point about where it came from. The only real point to take from this is that maybe religion should not be treated with such abject scorn, even by atheists. It's gotton us this far hasn't it. Wheather you beleive we still need it is a matter of personal opinion. But if we can agree that it is a trait of evolutionary fitness, maybe that says something about the atheists...

We have people trying to hurt America's science program, people blowing up abortion clinques, and blowing themselves up (Iraq War)

It has brought humans to a certain POINT, but does that mean we can stop evolving ideas? How new is the ATHEIST dogma? Quite simply, Religion is primitative thinking and something new needs to come along.

[RickSp]

Quote by: Prometheus The only real point to take from this is that maybe religion should not be treated with such abject scorn, even by atheists. It's gotton us this far hasn't it.

As an atheist I find the study of religion to be interesting for what it says about culture and psychology. The "gotten us this far" argument doesn't hold much water. A theist might make that claim, while an atheist might suggest that religion has "gotten us this far" in spite of the damage done. Both is a difference in perspective without being much of an argument either way.

[Prometheus]

The "gotten us this far" argument doesn't hold much water. A theist might make that claim, while an atheist might suggest that religion has "gotten us this far" in spite of the damage done. Both is a difference in perspective without being much of an argument either way.

I am certainily willing to admit that my own biases certainily influance the way I spin the evolution thing. I guess it's a matter of half full or half empty.

[Starboy]

Quote by: RickSp When early man sat around a campfire, there was a circle of darkness beyond which the fire could not illuminate. There were many dangers in that darkness. Creating a god for protection and guidance was comforting.

Agreed. It was a very natural thing for those people to anthropomize reality and then try to negotiate with it. Religion is a best attempt to find the mind in reality. Science is the best attempt to find the mindless rules of reality. Science presumes that no one is in charge. That nature is mindless. Science and religion are at a very fundamental level at odds with each other. They are in conflict. What allows so many of the religious to still accept science and perhaps even revel in its discoveries and explanations is either extreme double think or an extreme form of cherry picking till there is just about nothing left to their religion. As for extreme double think, I came across a Christian amateur astronomer the other day that understood the vast distances and ages of stars but still insisted that the earth was about 10,000 years old and then there are the Christians that pretty much discount just about the entire bible.

Starboy

[dev]

fear. We're scared by that which we cannot understand, so we create understandable boundaries and limits for our own existence.

[tman_ndsu08]

The purpose of religion is to explain the unknown.

When something unexpected happenes it's god's plan (aka fate). When something unbelievable happens it's a miracle. When someone asks an unexplainable question (what happenes when you die? why did mommy get killed in a plane crash? how come that man didn't die even though he was swept out to sea for 5 days?), religion gives you an answer.


As far as modern religions go, they also serve as a moral guideline for how a person should live their lives. The 10 commandments, for example, are an arbitrary set of rules that some people thought would be a correct way to live.



As far as the whole sex thing goes. Modern religions definiately promote lifelong pairs, which is exactly opposite of what evolution has programmed humans to do.

For humans to have the best chance of survival, men need to impregnate as many different women as possible. The more that different genes spread around, the more likely humans will be able to resist the changing climate of the earth.

I also disagree that it's better for human children to have 2 parents. I think mother's are programmed by evolution to care for their children until their children can live on their own. While some fathers are certainly capable of helping to raise their own children, they're simply not programmed for it.

[GWilikers]

Since I regard religion as another political system or vice versa, it would seem that regardless of the argument over evolution versus creation, both religion and politics (entwined) serve a purpose to most people. It can have positive and/or negative effects.

[tman_ndsu08]

A culture's government doesn't neccessarily have to reflect its religion, but often the constituents of the government are under the infulence of the religion.

So obviously if modern religion tells us how we should live our lives and the governing rulers believe that these rules are true, they'll make them laws.

[Sonart]

Quote by: Prometheus I was not trying to make a point about where it came from.

I know, that's why I put the little smiley wink on it Just wanted to share my previous post with you, since you hadn't seen it.

Quote by: Prometheus The only real point to take from this is that maybe religion should not be treated with such abject scorn, even by atheists. It's gotton us this far hasn't it.

Agreed. I'm a complete and total atheist, but I believe that religion has been an overall benefit to mankind, despite a few horrific downsides. That's why nature gave it to us.

Quote by: Prometheus But if we can agree that it is a trait of evolutionary fitness, maybe that says something about the atheists...

If you read to the bottom of my link... I think nature finds it beneficial to have a few unbiased observers of nature within the ranks.

Quote by: RickSp The "gotten us this far" argument doesn't hold much water.

Sure it does. If faith has provided individuals with courage, comfort and hope in their daily struggles, and bound social groups together with a common guide to living their lives in harmony with each other, I'd call that a benefit.

Quote by: dev fear. We're scared by that which we cannot understand, so we create understandable boundaries and limits for our own existence.

We fear what we don't understand, yet have evolved brains with the capacity and imagination to understand a great deal. Again, evolving a "God Spot" (religion gene) would benefit humans in coping with this paradox of having the capacity to ponder all the whys of the world but not knowing all the answers.

Quote by: tman_ndsu08 For humans to have the best chance of survival, men need to impregnate as many different women as possible. I also disagree that it's better for human children to have 2 parents. I think mother's are programmed by evolution to care for their children until their children can live on their own.

And needed fathers to hunt and provide for the mothers and children, as well as to provide male role models, for both boys to emulate and girls to learn how to relate to.

Indeed, men need to spread their genes around, but only to the point where they start raising families. They still needed to have lots of sex, just with the mother of their young, in order to have enough children to ensure that a sufficient number would survive childhood. An instinct to compell such behavior, to counteract their simultaneous instinct to "spread it around", is therefore beneficial.

I'm as pro-women's liberation as anyone, but I think the benefits of having a two parent family are beyond doubt.

.

[ericsp23]

There is also the possibility that, while religion my have come about as a result of evolution, we have continued to evolve beyond the need for it.

I read a book many years ago called The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind by Julian Jaynes (it sounds intimidating but it is a fairly accessible read, http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg...books&n=507846) that seems to draw this conclusion. Jaynes' theory is that about 4000 years ago the human species went through a major evolutionary change which resulted in the self awareness that we associate with consciousness. Before this, our brains were structured differently, and the result was humans did not have a well developed sense of self. Instead of doing things out of self-interest, people did the things that they needed to do to survive individually and collectively out of a sense of religious obedience to the gods, which to them were very real. Mystical revelations and visions were fairly common, and Jaynes even hypothesizes that schizophrenia is a genetic throwback to this era. I know it sounds kind of out there, and I was skeptical at first, but he provides a lot of evidence to support his theory and makes quite a convincing case in my opinion.
The relevance to this discussion is that, while religion may have evolved as a way to help primitive human beings survive by making sure that the things that needed to be done got done, we have evolved beyond this need by becoming more self aware.
Now, I'm not saying that religion has become irrelevant, because it has evolved along with human beings, but I do think that its evolutionary reason for existance is no longer relevant.

[belverron]

I'm glad you posted this, Prometheus. I think it's entirely viable that, whatever the initial impetus for religion was, its continued success is due to its positive effects. A very interesting idea, indeed.

Quote by: tman_ndsu08 I also disagree that it's better for human children to have 2 parents. I think mother's are programmed by evolution to care for their children until their children can live on their own. While some fathers are certainly capable of helping to raise their own children, they're simply not programmed for it.

I'm afraid I'll have to disagree here. I can't speak with explicit knowledge of this issue with regard to humans, but I learned something of how it works with birds. Birds mate for a season in which they are not supposed to fool around, basically; however, the female sometimes sees a better mate and messes around. If the male discovers this, he will abandon her and usually her eggs do not survive that abandonment. I know it isn't quite the same with humans, but consider how beneficial it is to have more than one provider, to have more attention to direct at the offspring. I'm not saying it's better in all cases, but I think it's pretty clear that it is in the majority.

[tman_ndsu08]

Sonart,

it's not as beneficial to the species to simply have a lot of kids with the same women. That's not how the maximal amount of genes get to interact. The most benefit comes when a man has children with many different women.

If you want to think of it like this: man A has 10 kids by 10 different women and man B has 10 kids (10-tuplets) with 1 woman. The population goes up by the same amount but biologically man A has helped his species many times more than man B.

The point is not a maximal number of kids, it's a maximal number of impregnated women.


bel,

I don't think there is anything wrong with having two parents. I just think that evolution has programmed the mother to take care of the child more so than the man. With the divorce and sposal abuse rates in this country, it would seem like there is a greater chance for their to be psychological damage done from having two parents vs. just the mother.

[Capitalist Pig]

Quote by: belverron I'm glad you posted this, Prometheus. I think it's entirely viable that, whatever the initial impetus for religion was, its continued success is due to its positive effects. A very interesting idea, indeed.

I'm definitely in agreement with this.

However, some obvious cristicisms -- in addition to those stated -- may include that the institution of religion could impede the advancement of humanity. For an historical example, see the struggles of famous scientist and philosopher Galileo Galilei. He was met with fierce opposition, and not just him. Mathematicians on the whole were regarded as heretics -- science, a tool of the devil. Galileo's work on Copernican heliocentrism was deemed atheistic. We can even see an extension of these dangerous, archaic beliefs in modern times. It is at the core of every creationist debate, a struggle between science and dogma. Fortunately, these attitudes are no longer the mainstream amongst Western practitioners. Science has prevailed. The fundamentalists pose a dying threat, their equivocal rhetoric, however greatly refined, has remained relatively unchanged for centuries, I dare say. Each new criticism of a new acquisition of scientific data, is simply a rehash of the same old nonsense, adapted to fit a new situation.

Another modern example -- and perhaps a far more politically controversial one -- is the Middle East's perpetual state of abject squalor. The Muslims who have not yet adopted Western attitudes, and the progress of the first world; the ones who choose to remain as fundamentalists, wishing to return the world as it were in the 7th Century. The ones who do not recognize universal suffrage, and do not hold the tenets of freedom of speech and press as dearly as the citizens of more civilized nations, pose a threat to our survivability, and are an embarassing stain on our species. They are intent on destroying the progress they abhor. This is a problem I think should be recognized by everyone, with any amount of concern for the progression and longevity of the human race.

To anyone with any amount of intelligence, it is inherently obvious the blame for the present situation of the Middle East, can not be laid entirely upon the shoulders of the West. For a long time has the Middle East antagonized us, and on many different occasions over the centuries have they had their chances to progress. They either failed to do so, or they simply shun the opportunities away. May I remind you, containment and re-education was tried, with the British. Their policies failed worldwide.

The source of the problem isn't poverty, nor is it a history of mistreatment from other nations. While in some cases, they may indeed be legitimate complaints, they are more often purported as excuses. Their disease rates, their poverty, and their lack of many of the civil rights which we, in civilized first world nations enjoy almost obliviously, is the direct result of their failing ideology. The solution is to remove the ideology.

Sorry, this seems more of a political argument than anything else. I had intended to play the Devil's advocate. But I like what I wrote too much to rewrite it, or put it into it's own thread.

[grandpa]

Quote by: Prometheus I am religious, but I would like to look at the topic scientifically - so everyone assume that religion is false for this thread. Why does our species so consistantly create religions? Every culture has a religion - throughout all of history. Lets look at the evolutionary advantages of religion: (1) It fosters altruism (kin selection), which is advantagous to a species (2) It helps deal with pain (for some) (3) It often prevents suicide (4) It often serves as a plecebo cure for illness (5) many religions cause people to think about their posterity (obviously an evolutionary advantage) (6) Many religions restrict diet to be more healthy (Drinking, Smoking etc.) (7) It promotes pair-bonding (which is universally considered advantagous by animal behaviorologists) Lets hit some rebuttals really quick: (1) Celabate monks - many animal cultures have developed non-breeding community members that help the species be more successfull. (2) Less Sex (by religions that teach that) - When a religion teaches to only have sex with your spouse, it may seem evolutionarily detremantal, but it increases the fitness of your offspring to be raised with both parents (see numerous psych studies)

religion can be good for some people, but only in moderation. When it comes to war, however, religion is still one of the biggest reasons for it.
Non-secular governments have been proven repeatedly as a major source of ethnic conflict.

Grandpa h.

[Capitalist Pig]

Quote by: grandpa religion can be good for some people, but only in moderation. When it comes to war, however, religion is still one of the biggest reasons for it.

Well this begs the question: What is at the heart of a reason for any war? A difference in beliefs. By removing religion, you're not stopping war completely, people will just find a different excuse. I don't think war is predestined, but I doubt stopping religion entirely will cease the waging of wars.