How Does Evolution Explain Religion?

[Sunstone]

What are the evolutionary origins of religiosity?

Can your notion of the evolutionary origins of religiosity be phrased as a falsifiable hypothesis? If so, please feel free to do so.

Can your notion of the evolutionary origins of religiosity be made to wear a black lacy garter-belt, matching panties, and silk stockings? Please?

 

[tumbleweed41]

What are the evolutionary origins of religiosity?

The greatest survival trait in humans is curiosity, the unfortunate side effect is religion.

 

[Oneatatime]

One aspect of religious belief, supernatural intervention, can be explained as being a result of our habit of seeing causal relationships where there is perceived correlation This tends to happen because we attribute more significance to events which confirm causal relationships that we do to those events which don't, otherwise known as confirmation bias. This is true of those religious rituals where the participants are appealing for a specific outcome but pervesely even if they don't get the desired outcome blame is usually attributed to someone unrelated to the ritual itself.

This can be tested by subjecting religious claims of a causal relationship between ritual and supernatural intervension to double blind randomised trial, and reviewing the responses of the participants to the results of the trial. I predict that the study would find no causal relationship between religious ritual and supernatural intervension which can be falsified by observing the desired outcome of the ritual being carried out. I also predict that in the event that no causal relationship is found that the participants will attribute this failure to something other than their ritual being innefective which can be falsified by them accepting that their ritual doesn't work.

 

[ellenjanuary]

Can your notion of the evolutionary origins of religiosity be made to wear a black lacy garter-belt, matching panties, and silk stockings? Please?

As an evolutionary deist, I have generated some synthetic moral outrage... grr...

I'm not scientific enough to form a falsifiable hypothesis.

For me, its like; we're social animals, compassion is a survival trait - bada-boom, bada-bing - god. Didn't ever think there was anything to religion, until "god showed up on the job site" in 2005... which about killed any hope of becoming the type of scientist, present a falsifiable hypothesis...

And what I do have, the YTH... straight outta Ezekiel... :biglaugh:

 

[Skwim]

As a hard determinist, I feel it could not have been any other way.

 

[painted wolf]

What are the evolutionary origins of religiosity?

My hypothesis is that it is a result of multiple alleles that influence behavior as well as social structure of the given culture.

Can your notion of the evolutionary origins of religiosity be phrased as a falsifiable hypothesis? If so, please feel free to do so.

That is the tricky part... how can you test it?

Honestly, behavioral evolution is a problematic field for just such reasons. I wish I could think of a good way to test this... it would be a great study. You could do a broad genetic comparison of believers and non-believers. But I don't know what experimentally you could do from there that would be viable and legal.

Can your notion of the evolutionary origins of religiosity be made to wear a black lacy garter-belt, matching panties, and silk stockings? Please?

Don't I wish!

wa:do

 

[Biblestudent_007]

How about if religion explains evolution? . .

 

[outhouse]

What are the evolutionary origins of religiosity?

man has imagined things for which he did not know.

man has done this im sure before homo sapiens. Species before us had beliefs and explanations for what he did not know.

lighning spirits
thunder gods
earthquake gods
volcano spirits

ect ect ect

these unknown things to them, happening in their life were all unknown. They created their gods and at some point added to the myths and worshipped them.

homo sapiens writing goes back roughly 6000 years for most different people, most of these early writings all have different spirits and they all had different religions that were all myth based on what they did not know.

 

[painted wolf]

How about if religion explains evolution? . .

God-did-it... there that was easy.

wa:do

 

[Sunstone]

The greatest survival trait in humans is curiosity, the unfortunate side effect is religion.

man has imagined things for which he did not know.

man has done this im sure before homo sapiens. Species before us had beliefs and explanations for what he did not know.

lighning spirits
thunder gods
earthquake gods
volcano spirits

ect ect ect

these unknown things to them, happening in their life were all unknown. They created their gods and at some point added to the myths and worshipped them.

homo sapiens writing goes back roughly 6000 years for most different people, most of these early writings all have different spirits and they all had different religions that were all myth based on what they did not know.

I seem to recall the notion that humans invented the gods as explanations for natural phenomena dates back at least to the ancient Romans who both speculated there was once a time in human history before humans lived in groups and a time when humans invented the gods in order to explain lightening strikes, earthquakes, wars, loves, and other natural catastrophes.

One problem I have with the notion the gods arose in some kind of proto-scientific effort to explain nature is that I believe that particular notion is no less unfounded and wildly speculative than the notion humans once lived individually -- apart from any community. So I'm curious whether there is any material evidence nowadays that the ancient Romans were not just blowing smoke on this one?

Another problem I have with the notion is that it does not seem to explain several characteristics either of all religions or of most religions. For instance, one of the few traits that is characteristic of every religion ever known is ritual. Some religions say they have no rituals, but there have been no religions in which rituals have not been observed by scientists and/or others. But how does the notion the gods arose in a spasm of proto-scientific speculation account for the ubiquitous presence of ritual? I don't think it does. And therefore it does not account for one of the most remarkable of all religious traits.

Again, the notion religions arose to explain natural phenomena doesn't seem to jive very well with what little we do know of the origins of various religions such as Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, Confucianism, and Zen. None of those religions seems to have originated in order to explain nature. But if that's the case, then how does the seemingly speculative notion that religions arose to explain nature explain the religions that did not arise to explain nature?

I have other quibbles about the notion that religions arose to explain nature, but I hope those will do for now. So far as I am concerned, the notion religions arose to explain nature is not a scientific idea, but a proto-scientific zombie idea that is both wildly speculative and quite bad, and that simply won't die.

 

[Sunstone]

One aspect of religious belief, supernatural intervention, can be explained as being a result of our habit of seeing causal relationships where there is perceived correlation This tends to happen because we attribute more significance to events which confirm causal relationships that we do to those events which don't, otherwise known as confirmation bias. This is true of those religious rituals where the participants are appealing for a specific outcome but pervesely even if they don't get the desired outcome blame is usually attributed to someone unrelated to the ritual itself.

This can be tested by subjecting religious claims of a causal relationship between ritual and supernatural intervension to double blind randomised trial, and reviewing the responses of the participants to the results of the trial. I predict that the study would find no causal relationship between religious ritual and supernatural intervension which can be falsified by observing the desired outcome of the ritual being carried out. I also predict that in the event that no causal relationship is found that the participants will attribute this failure to something other than their ritual being innefective which can be falsified by them accepting that their ritual doesn't work.

Thank you for a very interesting response to the OP.

I am curious how the Buddhist, Taoist, Zen, and Confucian religions, among other lesser known religions, can be seen as having arisen to explain supernatural intervention? And if the notion religion evolved to explain the appearance of supernatural intervention has any explanatory merit, then for which religions does it have merit, and why does it not appear to have merit for all religions?

 

[Sunstone]

How about if religion explains evolution? . .

What is your falsifiable hypothesis here? Or are you asking us to indulge in sexy, wild and wanton speculations? Not that anyone is opposed to doing so. This, after all, is RF. But I'm just trying to clarify where you're coming from.

 

[Sunstone]

My hypothesis is that it is a result of multiple alleles that influence behavior as well as social structure of the given culture.

I would, at this point in our knowledge (and based on what pathetically little I know of that knowledge), guess almost exactly the same thing, Wolf. But that's scary that we're thinking pretty much along the same lines. So, I'm going to go hide under my bed now.

That is the tricky part... how can you test it?

Honestly, behavioral evolution is a problematic field for just such reasons. I wish I could think of a good way to test this... it would be a great study. You could do a broad genetic comparison of believers and non-believers. But I don't know what experimentally you could do from there that would be viable and legal.

I too am stumped at the moment for some test beyond what you suggest.

 

[outhouse]

I seem to recall the notion that humans invented the gods as explanations for natural phenomena dates back at least to the ancient Romans who both speculated there was once a time in human history before humans lived in groups and a time when humans invented the gods in order to explain lightening strikes, earthquakes, wars, loves, and other natural catastrophes.

One problem I have with the notion the gods arose in some kind of proto-scientific effort to explain nature is that I believe that particular notion is no less unfounded and wildly speculative than the notion humans once lived individually -- apart from any community. So I'm curious whether there is any material evidence nowadays that the ancient Romans were not just blowing smoke on this one?

Another problem I have with the notion is that it does not seem to explain several characteristics either of all religions or of most religions. For instance, one of the few traits that is characteristic of every religion ever known is ritual. Some religions say they have no rituals, but there have been no religions in which rituals have not been observed by scientists and/or others. But how does the notion the gods arose in a spasm of proto-scientific speculation account for the ubiquitous presence of ritual? I don't think it does. And therefore it does not account for one of the most remarkable of all religious traits.

Again, the notion religions arose to explain natural phenomena doesn't seem to jive very well with what little we do know of the origins of various religions such as Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, Confucianism, and Zen. None of those religions seems to have originated in order to explain nature. But if that's the case, then how does the seemingly speculative notion that religions arose to explain nature explain the religions that did not arise to explain nature?

I have other quibbles about the notion that religions arose to explain nature, but I hope those will do for now. So far as I am concerned, the notion religions arose to explain nature is not a scientific idea, but a proto-scientific zombie idea that is both wildly speculative and quite bad, and that simply won't die.

I was just touching a small part of a religious base, mans fear of dying and the loss of loved ones. You combine all that and throw the star's into the mix with what was previously said and your getting somewhere. people are emotional and imaginitive cretaures.

take this example, I havent been able to find a remote tribe anywhere that doesnt have some sort of god or spirit. generally speaking the further away from society a tribe is, the more whacked out their beliefs are. the more advanced and educated a society is the less need one has for any religion.

 

[painted wolf]

generally speaking the further away from society a tribe is, the more whacked out their beliefs are. the more advanced and educated a society is the less need one has for any religion.

You keep saying this but never backing it up.
Are they really more "whacked out" than groups like: Heavens Gate, Scientology or the Raelians?

wa:do

 

[Penumbra]

What are the evolutionary origins of religiosity?

Given that religion has arisen in virtually every culture, in numerous shapes in forms, I wager it must be evolutionarily driven for the survival of our species.

It can bring together communities, comfort loss, and promote certain behaviors within a group. It's a complex component of social awareness that helps deal with the universe, and group it into more readily understandable concepts (including ritual), whether or not those understandings are accurate or not.

It's obviously not something beneficial or useful to everyone, but on a societal level, it seems to have developed for a reason. Religion is typically much less present in areas of high education and resources, but still common enough. It becomes more extreme and prevalent in areas and times of trouble and scarcity.

Can your notion of the evolutionary origins of religiosity be phrased as a falsifiable hypothesis? If so, please feel free to do so.

Maybe not, but that's why I wouldn't put it forth for being published in a scientific journal.

Given an appropriate control group, it might be. Studying coping mechanisms and group behavior, including levels of religiousness during times of trouble and scarcity compared to times of plenty, may provide reasonable evidence one way or the other.

Can your notion of the evolutionary origins of religiosity be made to wear a black lacy garter-belt, matching panties, and silk stockings? Please?

Maybe in the bedroom but not in public.

 

[The Neo Nerd]

Given that religion has arisen in virtually every culture, in numerous shapes in forms, I wager it must be evolutionarily driven for the survival of our species.

It can bring together communities, comfort loss, and promote certain behaviors within a group. It's a complex component of social awareness that helps deal with the universe, and group it into more readily understandable concepts (including ritual), whether or not those understandings are accurate or not.

It's obviously not something beneficial or useful to everyone, but on a societal level, it seems to have developed for a reason. Religion is typically much less present in areas of high education and resources, but still common enough. It becomes more extreme and prevalent in areas and times of trouble and scarcity.

I whole heartedly agree with Penumbra in this.

I would like to go further on to say that religion promotes social cohesion and a socially cohesive group will be safer from attack by other groups and predators. A social cohesive group will be able to gather and share resources which contributes greatly to the survivability of the group.

Of course this social cohesion will happen anyway, but religion can help strengthen it.

 

[Sunstone]

If religion evolved as a means of promoting social cohesion, then should we not see religiosity remain more or less constant regardless of how economically and financially secure people are? But in fact, that is not the case. Instead of religiosity remaining more or less constant, religiosity dramatically declines when people achieve economic and financial security. Hence, I do not think it can reasonably be said that religiosity must have evolved as a means of promoting social cohesion.

 

[Penumbra]

If religion evolved as a means of promoting social cohesion, then should we not see religiosity remain more or less constant regardless of how economically and financially secure people are? But in fact, that is not the case. Instead of religiosity remaining more or less constant, religiosity dramatically declines when people achieve economic and financial security. Hence, I do not think it can reasonably be said that religiosity must have evolved as a means of promoting social cohesion.

I don't see how the premise leads to your conclusion.

For what reason are you linking religion's effect on social cohesion to its constancy?

Would social cohesion not be more needed/endangered when people are scared than when people have more of what they want and need? Is social cohesion more likely to break down in times of peace and plenty, or strife and scarcity?

And it's arguably not just social cohesion. I don't think that isolating the component is appropriate. The social cohesion aspect is likely combined with aforementioned things like ability to bear tragedy and loss, and to develop strategies to interpret the environment in a more limited/understandable manner.

 

[Sunstone]

For what reason are you linking religion's effect on social cohesion to its constancy?

Are you saying that religion evolved to promote social cohesion but after it evolved the function of promoting social cohesion disappeared from religion? If so, why? What would cause that to happen?