How Does Evolution Explain Religion?

[Penumbra]

Are you saying that religion evolved to promote social cohesion but after it evolved the function of promoting social cohesion disappeared from religion?

No.

I'm saying the value/need of social cohesion depends to a certain extent on the times. Times of fear/scarcity/problems are more likely to lead to a societal breakdown. Times of plenty/peace are less likely to lead to societal breakdown.

It still seems to be a primary element of religion, and I suspect it always will. But this need is more in demand in some places than others. Highly educated societies with more comfort and resources, and less internal violence and strife, seem to have significantly reduced religious rates, on average. If you look at a map of irreligion, it largely aligns with economics and the human development index in general, with a notable exception for China and what was once the USSR.

Irreligion - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You'll see irreligion most prevalent in Europe, and particularly northern Europe. It's also highly prevalent in eastern Europe and China (probably highest in China), which had a massive effect from strict anti-religion policies and temporary cultures. Places like North America and parts of South America are moderate. Africa, the Middle East, and Southeast Asia are more religious.

It's also worthwhile to measure religious adherence over time in the same place.

 

[The Neo Nerd]

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 think you've come to the wrong conclusion here. Social cohesion is a matter of security.

The more one becomes secure in their life the less they need religion to provide that security.

-Q

 

[fantome profane]

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.

Remember that in order to understand any evolved trait, physical or behavioural (or cultural), you have to try to understand the environment in which it evolved. The environment in which something evolved in not necessarily the same environment in which you may encounter it.

 

[bobhikes]

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?

My question would be if evolution can prove origins of religiosity doesnt that mean that religiosity is a good trait as it has survived.

 

[PolyHedral]

My question would be if evolution can prove origins of religiosity doesnt that mean that religiosity is a good trait as it has survived.

No. It only means that nature did not come up with a better one.

And I'm not even sure that religion was evolutionarily selected for at all. It seems far more sensible for it to be a side-effect of something else, like increased intelligence.

 

[Oneatatime]

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?

There is something in evolution called scaffolding wherby a particular feature evolved and at some point those parts which played an instrumental role in its evolution are selected against and dissapear leaving the appearance of irreducible complexity. Another way to put this an arch made of blocks which will collapse if any one block is removed but whose existance can be explained by scaffolding which supporting the arch until the final block was put in place after which the scaffolding was removed. Its likely that this has played a role in the evoution religions and their beliefs making it difficult to trace the lineage of the varying religions and their beliefs but without there being relics of the scaffolding still around. In biology we may be able to find the corrupted or fossil genes in an organisms DNA or similar features which retained the scaffolding so perhaps similar things may be found in the worlds religions.

 

[painted wolf]

My question would be if evolution can prove origins of religiosity doesnt that mean that religiosity is a good trait as it has survived.

Not necessarily... it could mean it just isn't actively selected against.

Neutral traits are pretty common... like blue eyes, they aren't harmful and they aren't beneficial. So they aren't selected for or against.

wa:do

 

[outhouse]

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

heavens gate was a small isolated group and does not count enough to be a statistic


scientology still does not have the primitive beliefs of some of the remote tribes located in africa and south america.

I made a statement and your welcome to refute it instead of asking me to refute my own statement.

 

[horizon_mj1]

Remember that in order to understand any evolved trait, physical or behavioural (or cultural), you have to try to understand the environment in which it evolved. The environment in which something evolved in not necessarily the same environment in which you may encounter it.

That is what I was thinking. If you take a person from our current technology age and place them 5,000 years BC, they more than likely would not survive. Not only would they have known species to deal with, but also species which no longer exist and left no traces of their existence. I image things would be a bit scary. Maybe people were just looking for a simplified way to explain the world around them?

 

[outhouse]

That is what I was thinking. If you take a person from our current technology age and place them 5,000 years BC, they more than likely would not survive.

poos assumption on your part. dont under estimate homo sapiens will to survive.

adjustment period, oh heck ya. it would be a shock. I would live.

but also species which no longer exist and left no traces of their existence

Not only would they have known species to deal with

what are you talking about

I image things would be a bit scary

only through the lack of language skills if it applied.

 

[painted wolf]

heavens gate was a small isolated group and does not count enough to be a statistic

Really?

scientology still does not have the primitive beliefs of some of the remote tribes located in africa and south america.

I made a statement and your welcome to refute it instead of asking me to refute my own statement.

I'm not asking you to refute it, I'm asking you to back it up...:sarcastic

You know, evidence and stuff.... rather than bald assertions.

And you really think that the idea that aliens killed by the evil lord Xenu in nuclear volcanoes billions of years ago, attaching to humans and causing sins isn't as wacky as any other demon idea?

Really? :areyoucra

wa:do

 

[outhouse]

Really?

39 died and you want to use what less then 50 members a statistic againts 6 billion people???

isn't as wacky as any other demon idea?

Sounds as whacky as a sky daddy who created everything in 6 days and promises life after death if your a good boy and believe, and if you dont believe you will suffer for eternity.

 

[outhouse]

I'm asking you to back it up...

are you to deny that people are naturally spiritualistic???

are you to deny the vast majority of people are not religious????

are you to deny that most atheist belong to developed countries????


I looked for a hour and could not find any proof anywhere of a tribe with no spiritual or religious belief's.

 

[Sunstone]

I think you've come to the wrong conclusion here. Social cohesion is a matter of security.

The more one becomes secure in their life the less they need religion to provide that security.

-Q

Sounds like all forms of security are either identical or at least interchangeable. For instance, sounds like you are arguing that economic security is the same as military security. Is that the case?

 

[Sunstone]

Remember that in order to understand any evolved trait, physical or behavioural (or cultural), you have to try to understand the environment in which it evolved. The environment in which something evolved in not necessarily the same environment in which you may encounter it.

That's very true. In order to posit that religion evolved to promote social cohesion, one would need, I think, to show how animism promotes social cohesion. That is, animism -- or something similar -- is probably the form religiosity took for at least hundreds of thousands of years (and possibly even millions of years) prior to the rise of more familiar kinds of religiosity.

 

[Sunstone]

I wonder how the notion that religion arose to promote social cohesion could be falsified?

 

[The Neo Nerd]

Sounds like all forms of security are either identical or at least interchangeable. For instance, sounds like you are arguing that economic security is the same as military security. Is that the case?

In a word yes.

In many words including some psychobabble, yes because the human mind craves security.

Check out Maslow's Heirarchy of Needs

http://www.basic-counseling-skills.com/images/8stageModel.jpg

-Q

 

[The Neo Nerd]

I wonder how the notion that religion arose to promote social cohesion could be falsified?

It's not falsifiable, no psychological or sociological theories are. There are many theories each endeavouring to explain different parts of the human psyche, each endeavouring to fix the emotional/mental problems of individual. Even Freuds theories whilst being mostly discredited work to help people.

-Q

 

[horizon_mj1]

poos assumption on your part. dont under estimate homo sapiens will to survive.

adjustment period, oh heck ya. it would be a shock. I would live.




what are you talking about



only through the lack of language skills if it applied.

This scenario has nothing to do with the will of homo-sapien survival as a whole, it has to do with the personal survival skills most homo-sapiens have. If you pluck a person from off the street and had the ability to throw them back in time 5,000 years, they would have predatory animals that are extinct, such as spiders and other insects as well as larger animals that maybe they may have seen in their own present time such as bears, tigers, etc. that are not extinct. So you think language skills would save the person from a predatory attack? I would LOVE to see that.

 

[horizon_mj1]

Quaxotic, I agee that people seek security to certain levels, but no way near as much as they crave a good movie, concert or any other form of entertainment. Don't you think it is kind of sickening that people who choose to put their lives on the line for others safety on a daily or nearly daily basis, get paid less than "the jesters of the court". (Jesters of the court in this reference applies to the entertainment industry).

Sorry for stepping so far off of the subject