Is religion just an evolutionary tool?

[frazzledgear]

A child isn't born with a conscience. The first thing a child learns is to be obedient or be punished. A conscience is developed through socialisation. Some individuals, sociopaths, fail to develop a conscience and are rightly seen as deviant. Having a conscience, then, is learned behaviour and a such is gained through experience. So while humans have the capacity for conscience, probably due to our superior brain, we have to learn how to develop one. The purpose of the development of conscience is to ensure social compiance in situations where there is little or no surveillance. That is beneficial to the survival and growth of the human species.

Religion provides a very strong surveilance mechanism. If an individual doesn't reach the upper stages of development of moral reasoning (referring to Kohlberg's stage theory) and they're still down in the first phase, the childlike phase where compliance is given because of fear of discovery and punishment, they will still comply even if there's no human surveillance because their god is watching them. A god, by definition, has at least a modicum of omnipotence. Being a very strong surveillance mechanism is beneficial for the survival and growth of the species, it ensures compliance and social order.

Current psychological thinking is that sociopaths really are born with no conscience and is not the result of abandonment, depraved surroundings or abuse.

That is because they have discovered that the vast majority of sociopaths had unremarkable upbringings with quite normal parents and normal siblings. Most people hear the word "sociopath" or "psychopath" and think of violent, dangerous people. But most sociopaths are not violent, obey the law but only because of the fear of punishment and not from any internal moral code -and function quite well in society, less so in their private life. They hold jobs, work hard, pay taxes. They simply have no conscience. They tend to see whatever benefits them as "right and good" and whatever doesn't as "bad and wrong". They know how to imitate emotions but the emotion isn't really there and many people can spot something wrong but just can't put their finger on it. Where the words sound right but something is just "off".

We have all probably run into or dealt with at least a couple of sociopaths. It is believed that the combination of a lack of conscience AND a depraved upbringing results in the violent and dangerous sociopath.

As for saying religious beliefs provide a strong surveillance mechanism in a society. So what? I could also point out that in some societies, religious beliefs were used in order to increase the wealth of the rulers. But so what again? How religious beliefs were ultimately used by a society does not prove or explain WHY religious beliefs came about in the first place and in no way shows it to be a "natural" occurrence of evolution. Especially since there still exists to this day religious beliefs that involve no threat of punishment in the afterlife for doing "bad" things in this life.

The theory of evolution says that when a species evolves -either by changing its physical appearance or its behaviors, it is in response to environmental pressures that threaten its future existence unless it adapts by changing its physical traits or behaviors. If a species makes the correct change in either behavior or physical appearance, that pressure is relieved. If it makes the "wrong" change that does not result in adaptation, that physical change or behavior is extinguished. So what environmental pressure were humans around the world experiencing that led to the change of behavior that was relieved with religious beliefs?

The original post was regarding a study to show that the species acquired religious beliefs as a step in the species' EVOLUTION -not what some cultures and societies later did with those beliefs once acquired. But that means that before the emergence of religious beliefs, humans worldwide must have experienced some kind of intense environmental pressure that posed a threat to their existence as a species first -and acquiring religious beliefs released that pressure. What was it? If the theory holds water at all, that the species acquiring religious beliefs was due to evolution -then the species had to first be experiencing intense environmental pressure that threatened it future existence and those religious beliefs relieved the pressure and allowed them to adapt to the pressures of their environment. Otherwise, acquiring religious beliefs wasn't due to "evolution" at all.

According to atheists, religious beliefs are merely delusionary beliefs -yet it is now some theory that human beings NEEDED to acquire these delusionary beliefs in order to survive as a species? Give me a break. Ant colonies do extremely well without any religious beliefs, share community living and thrive in far greater numbers than human beings around the world. So it must be something different.

 

[Diuretic]

I did say that none of us are born with a "conscience", that it's a learned process. Does that mean we're all sociopaths? Of course not. Most of us develop moral reasoning abilities and have a functioning conscience. Some of us may suffer personality disorders for one reason or the other. And yes, there are plenty of sociopaths that aren't axe murderers.

The study mentioned in the opening post has a while to go yet so it will be interesting to read further reports, it hasn't yet proven anything.

On my remarks about religion as a surveillance mechanism. I made the point in my post. I wasn't making a point about evolution but about social cohesion.

 

[Ravi]

Certainly not a new theory but I see a few problems with trying to prove religion is a "natural" result of evolution.

A conscience doesn't exist in the animal world. Animals kill to eat and do so without remorse, they will kill the young of even their own kind in order to eat -and lose no sleep over it. They will kill even their own kind to compete for mates and territory -again without remorse. They do what they have to do to survive.

There aren't many animals species that will eat their young but I imagine the ones that do have an evolutionary benefit to doing it. How exactly do you know that they lose no sleep over it?

It's perfectly possible that some series of happy coincidences led humans to develop a conscience long before other species. That in no way means that other species neither have one nor will never develop one.

A community is a way of ensuring survival of the species. Religion is a community. Therefore, religion most probably does contribute to the survival of the species and can be considered an evolutionary tool.

Why anyone dreamed up the idea of religion is certainly an interesting topic. I imagine it has something to do with a quest for knowledge. It could be this very quest that is responsible for our evolutionary superiority over other species.

 

[jillian]

Black people would still exist, just not the specific individuals that decended from slave owners mixing with slaves. I don't see a lot of West African-black African Americans so I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that most of them have slave owner (white) blood somewhere in their lineage. Without that mixing, those individuals would have never came into existence.

If Shogie is like just about every other white, product of western civilization, then religion is an important part of his history. Who knows what would have happened without it, but chances are, all the individual breeding pairs that came together over the last several millenia to ultimately produce the self-important windbag we know and love as Shogun, would have happened differently. I never said mankind owes it's existence to religion, I said each individual owes his specific existence to religion. There would probably still be 300 million people in the US, they'd just be a different 300 million than the ones that currently exist. Yes, it's kind of an "out there" concept, but statistically speaking, every single individual life is like winning the most ridiculously low odds lottery ever imagined. If you traced your ancestry back 2000 years and from that point charted every single breeding possibility, the odds that it would lead to you 2000 years later is several trillion to one. So, for every life that eventually exists, there are trillions that never happen. All I'm saying is that it's ludicrous to assume that history could have been so radically different, yet Shogie would still win his trillion to one lottery ticket to life.

OK... I see where you're going with this. But I don't see religion as being any more or less important than anything else in our history. If you're saying we are all the sum total of our experiences and history, I'd certainly agree with that. And I do believe it's true that religion has been the cause of so much bloodshed, as has race, so I suppose to that degree you're correct.

But do you think religion has any greater importance than say, race, ethnicity or national origin of one's ancestors? Seems to me that each fact goes into making us who we are.

 

[midcan5]

Full disclosure: I haven't read all the posts - but I will look through them.

To answer the original question, no, religion is not an evolutionary tool. I think we anthropomorphize things too much, or said another way, assign human thinking to things that don't think. But surely evolutionary natural selection favors some behaviors over others and parts of religion are sometimes the good parts and sometimes the bad parts. Let's face it if we can remove our modern, more scientific mind for a second and imagine ourselves primitive, how do we explain the universe once we have gained consciousness that we exist in it. We witness birth, we witness change, that becomes the framework for how things come to be. There must be a first cause.

It is this consciousness that is the source of religion and so long as death exists (forever) we/consciousness will not imagine its own demise easily. We/I exist therefore we/I are/am religious - at least some are. In the modern world politics has come to replace religion for some. Even hard core atheists would wonder what a continuation of life could be, trouble is living forever on clouds gets boring so some realize it just ain't so. I think there are things that are so complex science can only speculate, and while many think we should rid ourselves of religion, imagine for a moment that world? I can't, even though I have no religion, a loved one's death is so hard....

Mary Midgley examines this question in "the myths we live by."

"It is absurd to talk as if religion consisted entirely of mindless anxiety, bad cosmology, and human sacrifice."

"It turns out that the evils which have infested religion are not confined to it, but are ones that can accompany any successful human institution. Nor is it even clear that religion itself is something that the human race either can or should be cured of."

"The ideology Dawkins is selling is the worship of competition. It is projecting a Thatcherite take on economics on to evolution. It's not an impartial scientific view; it's a political drama."

"Few scientists would treat their cars as badly as they treat their conceptual schemes."

Mary Midgley

 

[manifold]

OK... I see where you're going with this. But I don't see religion as being any more or less important than anything else in our history. If you're saying we are all the sum total of our experiences and history, I'd certainly agree with that. And I do believe it's true that religion has been the cause of so much bloodshed, as has race, so I suppose to that degree you're correct.

But do you think religion has any greater importance than say, race, ethnicity or national origin of one's ancestors? Seems to me that each fact goes into making us who we are.

I'd say all those things, along with religion, were of great importance. Arguing over where they rank relative to each other is subjective to say the least. I singled out religion because I knew that would piss off our resident angry, beligerent atheist and I'm a bit of a troublemaker that way.

 

[manifold]

Religion serves no evolutionary purpose at all and has not and does not benefit of the ability of the species to survive.

Every shred of historical evidence condradicts this opinion completely. You can dismiss religion's potential evolutionary purpose going forward, but to dismiss the purposes it has served to this point is wholly ignorant.

Fact: The species [mankind] has not just survived, but thrived.

Fact: An overwhelming majority of the members of the species throughout history practiced religion.

Mathematically, you'd be hard-pressed to find another single social attribute that is so highly correlated with survival. Just because you are stuggling with the "why" isn't sufficient reason to dismiss the readily observable "what."

 

[jillian]

I'd say all those things, along with religion, were of great importance. Arguing over where they rank relative to each other is subjective to say the least. I singled out religion because I knew that would piss off our resident angry, beligerent atheist and I'm a bit of a troublemaker that way.

He does have a few blind spots, doesn't he?

 

[manifold]

He does have a few blind spots, doesn't he?

Indeed. The lingering cloud of Marlboro smoke can't be helping him see clearly either.

 

[Shogun]

oh Jills just bitter because some dirty goyim don't put much stock in the whole "chosen" status... As far as smoking.. why don't you ask Jill all about that ninth amendment.


Now, regarding religion? humans have practiced BY FAR a majority of illiteracy, disease, dirtiness and conquest too. Pray tell, does having my logical ring finger welt your ignorant forehead really give your self esteem the boost it need to get through the day?

Maybe after Jillian tells us how useless the Ninth Amendment is regarding American liberties you can retarget your ass kissing cannon.

 

[Shogun]

Indeed. The lingering cloud of Marlboro smoke can't be helping him see clearly either.

says the dogma junky.

indeed, tell me all about blowing smoke, dude!

 

[manifold]

Now you're starting to remind me of Paul Newman getting his ass kicked by George Kennedy in Cool Hand Luke. Somehow cute and sad at the same time.

 

[Shogun]

Now you're starting to remind me of Paul Newman getting his ass kicked by George Kennedy in Cool Hand Luke. Somehow cute and sad at the same time.

much like your jewish ghost fantasy It's clear that delusions re more interesting to you than facts. YOU, sir, remind me of Antonio Salieri, bitter and jealous, following a chuckling Mozart as if walking in my shadow will make you look smarter than you are.

 

[manifold]

Like I said:

Fact: The species [mankind] has not just survived, but thrived.

Fact: An overwhelming majority of the members of the species throughout history practiced religion.

Mathematically, you'd be hard-pressed to find another single social attribute that is so highly correlated with survival. Just because you are stuggling with the "why" isn't sufficient reason to dismiss the readily observable "what."

You want to talk about facts yet you readily dismiss the ones that in your mind don't support your atheist dogma. What you fail to understand is that even if you are right and there is no God, these facts are still facts. The existence of God was never part of this discussion. You've repeatedly tried to make it the center of a discussion for which it is not relevant. I'm starting to think you might be a closeted fundie.

 

[Shogun]

Like I said:



You want to talk about facts yet you readily dismiss the ones that in your mind don't support your atheist dogma. What you fail to understand is that even if you are right and there is no God, these facts are still facts. The existence of God was never part of this discussion. You've repeatedly tried to make it the center of a discussion for which it is not relevant. I'm starting to think you might be a closeted fundie.

yea.. FACTS like a whole MYRIAD of factors which have just as much input in where we are today than the dogma that you seem to think rules everything like a ring from a tolkien trilogy. The FACT is that Assyrian religion has not molded us anymore than the world ALgebra or ALchemy is necessarily reflective of the culture that created the concept. You can wave religion around as if it were some eureka influence on humanity and youd STILL be wrong since, CLEARLY, the pattern of knowledge indicates a REDUCTION of faith based tradition rather than an INCREASE of such. You know, like how there was a reduction in SLAVERY and ILLITERACY after we collectivley decided to shake that shit off of the shoe of our culture...

Poor guy.. not only are you woefully unimaginative but, by evidence of this and other threads, pretty good at getting Pwned left and right...

 

[manifold]

 

[Shogun]

Like I said in other threads... given your quickness in having your ass handed to you in these threads lately....

 

[manifold]

Like I said...

Blah blah blah...

You've had your entire position decimated by superior logic and reason and now you're throwing a fit. I'm sorry, but the "if you can't dazzle'em with brilliance, baffle'em with bull shit" technique you've worked hard to develop doesn't work on me.

I'd apologize for making you my bitch, but I'm not sorry.

 

[Shogun]

"blah blah blah" = DEEP, lemme tellya.

 

[manifold]

Your inability to cope with being wrong ain't my problem bubba!