Religions in Human Evolution

[Shantanu]

Please can anyone point me to any publications/critique on

''the adaptation function of religions in the evolution of humanity by natural selection''

Thanks.

 

[Orbit]

Please can anyone point me to any publications/critique on

''the adaptation function of religions in the evolution of humanity by natural selection''

Thanks.

Do a google search on "theory of mind" and "attribution error".

 

[Sapiens]

Please can anyone point me to any publications/critique on

''the adaptation function of religions in the evolution of humanity by natural selection''

Thanks.

Wiki and Google are your friends:

God gene - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

https://www.google.com/search?q=god+gene&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8

 

[Shantanu]

Do a google search on "theory of mind" and "attribution error".

My theory is that religions have been constantly evolving through history and therefore serve an adaptation function which not only explains their diversity but also the success of the human species? If there are any counter arguments that you can point to I will be grateful.

 

[Orbit]

My theory is that religions have been constantly evolving through history and therefore serve an adaptation function which not only explains their diversity but also the success of the human species? If there are any counter arguments that you can point to I will be grateful.

The classic anthropological view of religion can be found in Emile Durkheim's Elementary Forms of Religious Life. Religion promotes social solidarity, and is actually the social order worshipping itself.

 

[Shantanu]

Wiki and Google are your friends:

God gene - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

https://www.google.com/search?q=god+gene&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8

It is highly unlikely that a God-gene explains the diversity of religious practices across the world. Spirituality or mysticism are simply thoughts in the mind: a gene cannot tell the mind to have different beliefs and values that characterise humanity.

 

[Shantanu]

The classic anthropological view of religion can be found in Emile Durkheim's Elementary Forms of Religious Life. Religion promotes social solidarity, and is actually the social order worshipping itself.

Why would there be different social orders of religiousity within the same geographical area, eg atheists, Muslims, Christians, Hindus, Buddhists, all living together apparently without too much animosity and conflict?

 

[Orbit]

Why would there be different social orders of religiousity within the same geographical area, eg atheists, Muslims, Christians, Hindus, Buddhists, all living together apparently without too much animosity and conflict?

The answer is in history, migrating peoples, empires, and war. These all spread religion to one degree or another.

 

[Ouroboros]

Please can anyone point me to any publications/critique on

''the adaptation function of religions in the evolution of humanity by natural selection''

Thanks.

I'm not sure what you're looking for. Can you break it down and explain the parts. What exactly do you mean with "adaptation function"? Are you asking about the benefits of religion in evolution, i.e. how and why religion evolved and the survival benefits?

 

[Ouroboros]

My theory is that religions have been constantly evolving through history and therefore serve an adaptation function which not only explains their diversity but also the success of the human species? If there are any counter arguments that you can point to I will be grateful.

Ah. Ok. Then I didn't misunderstand. I thought that's what you meant.

Sorry. I have no links or books to point to.

 

[Sapiens]

Why would there be different social orders of religiousity within the same geographical area, eg atheists, Muslims, Christians, Hindus, Buddhists, all living together apparently without too much animosity and conflict?

Because it is not religion, per se, that people fight over ... but peoples who are divided by wealth, power, resources, etc., use religion as a rallying point.

 

[Shantanu]

The answer is in history, migrating peoples, empires, and war. These all spread religion to one degree or another.

If religions serve an adaptation function then the differences between religious groups within nations will, over time, be wiped out and a common culture then prevail that enables the population to survive together; but we see no indication of this happening anywhere except in Islamic countries where there are strong laws on apostasy, blasphemy and promotion of abhorrence of other faiths.

The lack of progress towards a common culture in non-Islamic countries may indicate that there are other factors operating which prevent the consolidation into a single cultural society.

 

[Orbit]

Religions don't evolve separately from the society that creates them; they evolve as part and parcel of the society. You can't separate out religion to say it is a driving force in social development, because it's not. Most religion is tied to the level of social organization of the society, and arises to fulfill needs that the society has. That's the classic structural-functionalist view in anthropology.

 

[Orbit]

If religions serve an adaptation function then the differences between religious groups within nations will, over time, be wiped out and a common culture then prevail that enables the population to survive together; but we see no indication of this happening anywhere except in Islamic countries where there are strong laws on apostasy, blasphemy and promotion of abhorrence of other faiths.

The lack of progress towards a common culture in non-Islamic countries may indicate that there are other factors operating which prevent the consolidation into a single cultural society.

You have a basic misunderstanding. Religion doesn't arise as an adaptation to the physical environment. It is an adaptation to the social environment. It does not follow that a common culture will arise.

 

[Brickjectivity]

Lets look at this in terms of hierarchies. Can a single hierarchy of branching explain and organize the mutations of all the religions? No. Of course not. You need multiple hierarchies with cross links between them. One hierarchy is due to social change. One might be due to something else.

 

[Nietzsche]

Lets look at this in terms of hierarchies. Can a single hierarchy of branching explain and organize the mutations of all the religions?

Yes actually, I'm willing to bet you could.

 

[Shantanu]

Religions don't evolve separately from the society that creates them; they evolve as part and parcel of the society. You can't separate out religion to say it is a driving force in social development, because it's not. Most religion is tied to the level of social organization of the society, and arises to fulfill needs that the society has. That's the classic structural-functionalist view in anthropology.

Are you not contradicting yourself? - a society cannot possibly have two or more distinct and in many ways conflicting religions to further itself. Religions therefore evolve independent of the needs of society - through another mechanism.

 

[Brickjectivity]

a society cannot possibly have two or more distinct and in many ways conflicting religions to further itself.

Why not?

 

[Orbit]

Are you not contradicting yourself? - a society cannot possibly have two or more distinct and in many ways conflicting religions to further itself. Religions therefore evolve independent of the needs of society - through another mechanism.

You have to go back to social origins--each society did evolve one religion, which could then splinter, develop, and spread by immigration and empire. The societies that you see now with multiple religions within their borders did not develop that way from one source religion. That situation came about through immigration, empire, war, trade, and cultural exchange. Religions do not evolve independently of society--for it is society itself that gives rise to them.

 

[Shantanu]

Because it is not religion, per se, that people fight over ... but peoples who are divided by wealth, power, resources, etc., use religion as a rallying point.

Religions are social orders binding people together under rules of conduct. It is inevitable that there should be conflicts between these incompatible groups.