Religion from an evolutionery stand point, Why?

[Emp-Naval]

Hi, I've just joined these forums, and I wish I'll find a nice comunity to discuss my thoughts with.

Now to the subject, I'm an evolutionist -and an atheist too-, and the concept of religion have always puzzled me, I mean sure it was first a handy tool to explain things mythologically, but then shouldn't humanity, as a race, kind of grew up and left religion as science kicked in and explained alot of these things rationally -sure there is alot that we still don't know, but it's only a matter of time-.

Recently though, I started to think that maybe, just maybe, religion is in fact a favourable trait in the evolution of human race, maybe we needed religion to survive, not in the cheesy 'we need god' way, but in a social objective way.

In order for a society to properly function, it needs a definition for the norms, what is ok and what is not, otherwise the society 'practically' does not exist, or at least so do I assume. Here is where religion kicks in, it takes the initiative, and does what it does best, telling people what and what not to do.

I mean, throughout history, religion was the base of the moral code in societies all over the world -not that moral codes are all the same in all religions, since this is a totally subjective matter-, it wasn't until recent time that secular morals started to emerge.

Just as a last desclaimair, I AM an atheist, and I don't think that you NEED relegion to tell you right from wrong, it's just easier, that's all I have to say.

Any ideas on te subject?

 

[Revoltingest]

Greetings!

I speculate:
Humans survive because we're driven to figure out & use patterns/phenomena we see in our environment. We're prone to making connections, & creating explanations. Religion is that process gone wrong, ie, the leap to comforting but false conclusions. Now, some will say that many religions with wrathful gods are not so comforting, but this gets into complex relationships between control of believers by their priests, & the comfort they enjoy in between episodes of wrath.

 

[Thana]

Firstly, Science does not contradict religion so that theory is irrelevant.

And secondly,
Almost all cultures have believed in something above themselves, And religion is a concept that I don't believe has never not existed.

People don't want to feel alone in a world filled with millions, They want purpose in a life where they're considered unnecessary. And they need something to explain the things that we have no answers for, And they need something that stops them from fearing death, As so many do.

From a psychological standpoint, Religion is very reasonable.

 

[LuisDantas]

Hi, I've just joined these forums, and I wish I'll find a nice comunity to discuss my thoughts with.

Now to the subject, I'm an evolutionist -and an atheist too-, and the concept of religion have always puzzled me, I mean sure it was first a handy tool to explain things mythologically, but then shouldn't humanity, as a race, kind of grew up and left religion as science kicked in and explained alot of these things rationally -sure there is alot that we still don't know, but it's only a matter of time-.

Religion and science aren't mutually exclusive, despite the best commited efforts of so-called creationists and the like; science had already "kicked in" by the time most if not all of the current major religions were still developing.

In any case, painting in very broad strokes I don't think religion is much meant to explain things, not in that sense. Science deals with the "how", religion with the (speculative) "why".

Recently though, I started to think that maybe, just maybe, religion is in fact a favourable trait in the evolution of human race, maybe we needed religion to survive, not in the cheesy 'we need god' way, but in a social objective way.

That seems to be the current consensus.

In order for a society to properly function, it needs a definition for the norms, what is ok and what is not, otherwise the society 'practically' does not exist, or at least so do I assume. Here is where religion kicks in, it takes the initiative, and does what it does best, telling people what and what not to do.

I mean, throughout history, religion was the base of the moral code in societies all over the world -not that moral codes are all the same in all religions, since this is a totally subjective matter-, it wasn't until recent time that secular morals started to emerge.

Not sure I agree, or to what extent. I think that it would be more accurate to say that the role of religion and its influence over day-to-day matters has been unduly exacerbated in the last few centuries instead. I have reason to believe that even many of the religious founders and early adepts would be flabbergasted by what is often claimed to be "religion" these days.

Just as a last desclaimair, I AM an atheist, and I don't think that you NEED relegion to tell you right from wrong, it's just easier, that's all I have to say.

Any ideas on te subject?

Religion is mainly about social values, IMO, and a sense of community. It is indeed not necessary for morals, although I suppose there was a considerable historical melding of the two back in the day.

 

[Revoltingest]

Firstly, Science does not contradict religion so that theory is irrelevant.

I should've clarified that I use "false" in a narrow sense, ie, that the thought process is false.
The conclusions themselves (eg, Xianity, FSM, Jainism) cannot be falsified.

And secondly,
Almost all cultures have believed in something above themselves, And religion is a concept that I don't believe has never not existed.

No argument here. This shows how wide spread defective thinking is within us.
I've lept to many looney conclusions too, but I specialize in faulty reasoning outside of religion (eg, investments).
(It makes me wonder when I'll reach the stage when I've learned from all my mistakes, & become completely rational.)

People don't want to feel alone in a world filled with millions, They want purpose in a life where they're considered unnecessary. And they need something to explain the things that we have no answers for, And they need something that stops them from fearing death, As so many do.
From a psychological standpoint, Religion is very reasonable.

I agree.

Btw, I'm on to you guys.
Australia is a myth. Like the platypus, it doesn't exist.

 

[Emp-Naval]

Firstly, Science does not contradict religion so that theory is irrelevant.

Well allow me to clarify here, and somewhat disagree.

What I meant here is, when human didn't know how thunder was generated, they invented Zeus to explain it, now we know for sure that Zeus is a myth -or an extinct god, you choose-, that's what I meant by religion explained things mythologically.

And no, all religions contradict some scientific facts, and it really depends on what kind of relegion you believe in.

And secondly,
Almost all cultures have believed in something above themselves, And religion is a concept that I don't believe has never not existed.

People don't want to feel alone in a world filled with millions, They want purpose in a life where they're considered unnecessary. And they need something to explain the things that we have no answers for, And they need something that stops them from fearing death, As so many do.

From a psychological standpoint, Religion is very reasonable.

Correct, correct, and correct. The psychological aspect is clearly a factor for the survival of religion, I just wanted to discover other factors.

 

[Thana]

Well allow me to clarify here, and somewhat disagree.

What I meant here is, when human didn't know how thunder was generated, they invented Zeus to explain it, now we know for sure that Zeus is a myth -or an extinct god, you choose-, that's what I meant by religion explained things mythologically.

And no, all religions contradict some scientific facts, and it really depends on what kind of relegion you believe in.



Correct, correct, and correct. The psychological aspect is clearly a factor for the survival of religion, I just wanted to discover other factors.

Yes but where in science is it proven that Zeus never sent those lightning bolts?
We know what lightning bolts are, We know why they happen, But do we have proof that Zeus did not send them? Or create them?

"all religions contradict some scientific facts"
I'd appreciate some examples with proof.


Factors other than psychology.
Are there any?
I could give you a religious answer, But I don't think that's what you want to hear.
Aside from religion, I don't think there are any other factors unrelated to psychology.

 

[InformedIgnorance]

From what I understand there are a few reasons posited for an evolutionary basis for religion
-Our facility with pattern seeking combined with our inclination to attribute agency might result in new beliefs
-Our inclination for confirmatory bias (and a number of related factors) to reinforce certain beliefs and behaviors
-Our inclination to trust those we deem authority figures might assist belief propagation

Religion incorporates each of these aspects and as such has found a niche due to our genetic composition and thus psychological predispositions; that does not comment on the truth or lack thereof of all religious philosophies but it does help explain the vast diversity of religious traditions. These psychological predispositions would have corresponding genetic material which in turn likely corresponded to some degree of advantage in terms of our ancestor's ability to survive to produce offspring... these could range from to being able to predict where you should position yourself near where the alpha-male is eating so as to be able to scavenge the left overs without getting so close as to rouse his wrath to learning more quickly when a parent tells you to run away when a predator appears (and thus not making an error that costs you your life).

As for the discussion of norms; what more 'logical' source would people consider than a widely held set of beliefs? Particularly when they are asserted as unchanging and infallible; many of these norms would have been similar between groups others would have differed depending on the history of the group involved (and thus the events that would have shaped the psychological processes). The propagation of the norms resulting from beliefs - held to be unchanging (which plays on our desire for minimizing/controlling the occurrence of change) and infallible (which plays on our ethnocentrism) would likely have resulted in proto cultues that formed the first psuedo-nations, which would have only further increased tribalism (where membership is not just hereditary but significantly defined by their beliefs), further entrenching norms in a continuously compounding effect.

 

[Riverwolf]

Hi, I've just joined these forums, and I wish I'll find a nice comunity to discuss my thoughts with.

Now to the subject, I'm an evolutionist -and an atheist too-, and the concept of religion have always puzzled me, I mean sure it was first a handy tool to explain things mythologically, but then shouldn't humanity, as a race, kind of grew up and left religion as science kicked in and explained alot of these things rationally -sure there is alot that we still don't know, but it's only a matter of time-.

Recently though, I started to think that maybe, just maybe, religion is in fact a favourable trait in the evolution of human race, maybe we needed religion to survive, not in the cheesy 'we need god' way, but in a social objective way.

In order for a society to properly function, it needs a definition for the norms, what is ok and what is not, otherwise the society 'practically' does not exist, or at least so do I assume. Here is where religion kicks in, it takes the initiative, and does what it does best, telling people what and what not to do.

I mean, throughout history, religion was the base of the moral code in societies all over the world -not that moral codes are all the same in all religions, since this is a totally subjective matter-, it wasn't until recent time that secular morals started to emerge.

Just as a last desclaimair, I AM an atheist, and I don't think that you NEED relegion to tell you right from wrong, it's just easier, that's all I have to say.

Any ideas on te subject?

I'd think from an evolutionary perspective, I actually argue that the most important aspect of religion is the ritual element. The ritual element allows for an easy, memorable routine which can then be applied to hunting, farming, etc., as well as allowing for a good memorization for when the seasons are going to change; knowing THAT meant survival, neglecting that meant absolute destruction.

Humans learn by repetition, and ritual allows for that very, very well.

 

[Riverwolf]

What I meant here is, when human didn't know how thunder was generated, they invented Zeus to explain it, now we know for sure that Zeus is a myth -or an extinct god, you choose-, that's what I meant by religion explained things mythologically.

1. Zeus as a God was around a LOT longer than that; he's likely derived from the Proto-Into-European Sky God *Dyēus ph2ter, and who's name is related to the Vedic Dyaus Pita, the Roman word Deus, and the Germanic Tiw/Tyr.
2. Though small, the Cult of Zeus survives to this day, and Greek revivalist Neopaganism is a very real movement (called Hellenism or Olympianism). As a polytheist Asatru myself, I don't think Zeus is dead at all. (...for clarity's sake, I'm using "cult" here in the academic sense.)

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

Yes but where in science is it proven that Zeus never sent those lightning bolts?
We know what lightning bolts are, We know why they happen, But do we have proof that Zeus did not send them? Or create them?

"all religions contradict some scientific facts"
I'd appreciate some examples with proof.


Factors other than psychology.
Are there any?
I could give you a religious answer, But I don't think that's what you want to hear.
Aside from religion, I don't think there are any other factors unrelated to psychology.

Yes because we can generate it ourselves. We know the circumstances that create lightening, we can witness it, replicate it to a small degree in a laboratory setting, and we know it's not Zeus...that being said...if your notion is "well you can never know for sure" Shrug...ok.

 

[Thana]

Yes because we can generate it ourselves. We know the circumstances that create lightening, we can witness it, replicate it to a small degree in a laboratory setting, and we know it's not Zeus...that being said...if your notion is "well you can never know for sure" Shrug...ok.

True enough.
But we cannot create lightning in the sky,
Or have it as large as it is.

My notion is that you cannot prove Zeus did not create lightning in the first place, Or share it with us humans etc etc.

But.... Meh.

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

True enough.
But we cannot create lightning in the sky,
Or have it as large as it is.

My notion is that you cannot prove Zeus did not create lightning in the first place, Or share it with us humans etc etc.

But.... Meh.

There are certainly things we cannot prove. Perhaps at one point in the past, there was a God name Zeus who did those things but he left. But when you get into those positions than it becomes a situation of "anything can be the cause"

As for us creating lightening in the sky, I'm not sure if we are there yet, but theoretically it wouldn't be impossible. I mean part of what causes the generation of Lightening is the negative and positive balance of ions in the atmosphere (If I remember my earth science classes correctly). It would be possible to reproduce this, I mean we've worked on cloud seeding to help increase rain so I wouldn't say creating lightening is impossible.

But you can't prove something doesn't exist. So I could not reasonably expect you to disprove the existence of a giant teapot out there in space.

 

[Thana]

There are certainly things we cannot prove. Perhaps at one point in the past, there was a God name Zeus who did those things but he left. But when you get into those positions than it becomes a situation of "anything can be the cause"

As for us creating lightening in the sky, I'm not sure if we are there yet, but theoretically it wouldn't be impossible. I mean part of what causes the generation of Lightening is the negative and positive balance of ions in the atmosphere (If I remember my earth science classes correctly). It would be possible to reproduce this, I mean we've worked on cloud seeding to help increase rain so I wouldn't say creating lightening is impossible.

But you can't prove something doesn't exist. So I could not reasonably expect you to disprove the existence of a giant teapot out there in space.

Mm well, Here's hoping there is one, For when one finds themselves in need of tea when visiting space.

Do you think there will ever come a time in humanity where we would be able to disprove God, Any and all Gods?

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

Mm well, Here's hoping there is one, For when one finds themselves in need of tea when visiting space.

Do you think there will ever come a time in humanity where we would be able to disprove God, Any and all Gods?

Nope, because the thing is as I have said before independent of what God actually is, which I feel humanity has not really ever been able to come up with a way to actually define God in a way that would encompass an all powerful being; the God concept itself is forever mutable, because it is based on what we know and what we have.

God is love, God is Wrath, God is Jealous, God is Mercy, God is Justice, God is whatever we need God to be even non-existent.

The God concept will forever be a part of humanity, and you can't disprove such a mutable concept.

 

[Me Myself]

"all religions contradict some scientific facts"
I'd appreciate some examples with proof.

I wouldnt necessarily say all, but many.

The Earth is not a dome for example, the world was not created in seven days, there are not four turtles sustaining the world.

There are many others of course, but good ol laziness sets in.

 

[Emp-Naval]

True enough.
But we cannot create lightning in the sky,
Or have it as large as it is.

My notion is that you cannot prove Zeus did not create lightning in the first place, Or share it with us humans etc etc.

But.... Meh.

As with the notion of we can't create thnudre in the sky or as big as it, I'll only add yet...

As for the possibility that Zeus might have created thunder then died/left/over slept in a 5th dimension, where does thunder come from now? It's not like a reservoir of thunder up in the skies, unless he created the mechanism for it to happen, which is again something that has never been claimed before.
Besides, Zeus is supposed to throw his thunder with his hand -letterly- in order for it to happen, now please don't go all Decartian on me and say that we don't know for sure that he doesn't throw them.

 

[HonestJoe]

Recently though, I started to think that maybe, just maybe, religion is in fact a favourable trait in the evolution of human race, maybe we needed religion to survive, not in the cheesy 'we need god' way, but in a social objective way.

Maybe not religion in itself necessarily but I think many of the things that led to religion developing as we know it are. There are, after all, many different aspects to religion, and they vary greatly between different faiths.

There is a common theme of explaining the unknown, which I see as a function of our curiosity, intelligence and imagination, giving us not only a desire to know things but a healthy fear of the unknown. Blind faith in something at least understandable is more comforting that admitting we don't know.

The other aspect is the social one, people gathering together and sharing religious activities. That's also developed from the social structures, with religious heads taking on social leadership roles.

In more general terms, I'm not convinced it's helpful to think of evolutionary traits as favourable or not, especially at such an abstract level. These kind of characteristics are complex and inter-react so much as to have so many different and varying outcomes. Religion has started wars and ended them, killed people and saved lives, inspired development and blocked it in pretty much equal measure.

It's academically interesting to try to understand how these things work but I'm not sure how practically useful it is. After all, this is really philosophy which, in the context of your question, isn't at all unlike religion itself.

 

[BruceDLimber]

>All religions contradict some scientific facts.

"All?"

Not that I've seen: IME, some don't!

Indeed, some religions explicitly endorse science and stress its importance!

And as to evolution, religion evolves over time just as humanity (and life in general) do! That's why some of us call it "Progressive Revelation."

Peace,

Bruce

 

[Sunstone]

I mean, throughout history, religion was the base of the moral code in societies all over the world...

Religion has been closely associated with morals in a few cases -- most notably, perhaps, in the cases of several of the major religions. But there is little or no evidence that it has provided the base for morals "through-out history", and "in all societies all over the world".

On the contrary, Jared Diamond reports that of the New Guinea tribes he spent 30 years studying, not one of them had a religion that provided a basis for morals. Diamond then goes on to speculate that linking morals to religion might be a rather unusual or exceptional thing to do in human history.