• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Religions in Human Evolution

Shantanu

Well-Known Member
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.
Why would the Indian society from Vedic times 6000 years ago give rise to so many different religions?
 

Orbit

I'm a planet
Why would the Indian society from Vedic times 6000 years ago give rise to so many different religions?

Because that's what happens. Social needs change, religions react; religions travel to new regions and get adapted to local culture and values. It's a reflection of the diversity of societies in the region, and changing social needs over time.
 

Orbit

I'm a planet
By definition of a society.

The definition of society is "a collection of institutions". Religion is one of those institutions, no less or more important than the other institutions such as economy, family, and government.
 

Nietzsche

The Last Prussian
Premium Member
Do you know what you're talking about?
I think so.

Start with the "proto-religion" or "ur-Faith" as the base and make a family tree of sorts. Doing this you would find how each faith slowly became something different. When, for instance, a heretical sect of Judaism became Christianity, or when the original Germanic faith became something more than just the proto-IndoEuropean faith in a different setting.
 

Sapiens

Polymathematician
What I'm saying is, Jonathon Swift notwithstanding, the real conflict is rarely actually over incompatible religious beliefs. That's just cover for disagreements concerning wealth, power, resources, etc.
 

Sunstone

De Diablo Del Fora
Premium Member
Shantanu:

Darwin's Cathedral: Evolution, Religion, and the Nature of Society
by David Sloan Wilson advances the notion religiosity evolved in humans because it provided survival advantages via group cohesion.

In Gods We Trust: The Evolutionary Landscape of Religion by Scot Atran advances the notion that religiosity evolved in humans as a side-effect of certain other traits, such as Agent Detection, which had evolutionary advantages.

You might also want to check out The Evolutionary Psychology of Religion.

Finally, you might want to contact Moni_Gail, who is a member of this Forum and who did her thesis in neuropsychology on this subject.

I hope this helps.
 

Orbit

I'm a planet
I think so.

Start with the "proto-religion" or "ur-Faith" as the base and make a family tree of sorts. Doing this you would find how each faith slowly became something different. When, for instance, a heretical sect of Judaism became Christianity, or when the original Germanic faith became something more than just the proto-IndoEuropean faith in a different setting.

This only works for splinter religions and can't account for independent invention in other cultures. For example, Native American religion has nothing to do with India.
 

Brickjectivity

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
I think so.

Start with the "proto-religion" or "ur-Faith" as the base and make a family tree of sorts. Doing this you would find how each faith slowly became something different. When, for instance, a heretical sect of Judaism became Christianity, or when the original Germanic faith became something more than just the proto-IndoEuropean faith in a different setting.
I see what you mean. The Baptists of North America are enough to fill a huge hierarchy according to that method.
 

Shantanu

Well-Known Member
What about religions that don't bind people together under rules of conduct? That seems like an oversimplification.
The development of religions begins in a small way, a person has mental conceptions brought about from brain/mind activity, however that is precipitated whether through internal convictions or through external revelations. He or she publicises this. People listen and if they are convinced they enquire what he is talking about. He acquires disciples and with them may or may not formulate the full conception of a religion. If people then like what this group are saying they will follow the person as a saviour and the religion. If they do not like it, it will die there and then or may just acquire a small number of followers. This way some relitions develop into group activity in which people are bound together as a social group.

If the social group thus formed successfully propagates itself, it is said to be adapted to the environment by natural selection and human evolution is charted accordingly.

This is the nature of human evolution, which is different from purely biological evolution in which religion plays no part, and which is guided by social genetic speciation through genetic mutations just like in all other animal species. Human evolution proceeded by social genetic speciation for up to 2 million years from Homo ergaster out of Africa but in the past 20,000 years has been supplanted by religious social speciation. I believe that there is a reason for this. God does exist and has commandeered human minds in the past 2,000 years into a more civilised form of living and this has been done by making humans aware of the supernatural dimension to life.
 

Asha

Member
Namaste

Why would the Indian society from Vedic times 6000 years ago give rise to so many different religions?

The way I see it is that because our conditions are allways changing we need differnt answers to the different problems that we are facing.

These problems that we experience are due to our living under the Illusury power of Maya so we are constantly forgetful of our relationship to the supreme being and of the laws of nature. So because of our forgetfulness the supreme being re appears time and time again for the sole purpose of re awakening our consciousness. of course we then veiw him differenly depending upon which tradition we follow.

But realy there is one true God, how does the saying go, ''we all know him by different names''

And as Krishna says in the Gita ''When ever there is a decline in morality and a rise irriligion I myself will appear''

Jai Shree Krishna

Asha
 

Shantanu

Well-Known Member
Namaste



The way I see it is that because our conditions are allways changing we need differnt answers to the different problems that we are facing.

These problems that we experience are due to our living under the Illusury power of Maya so we are constantly forgetful of our relationship to the supreme being and of the laws of nature. So because of our forgetfulness the supreme being re appears time and time again for the sole purpose of re awakening our consciousness. of course we then veiw him differenly depending upon which tradition we follow.

But realy there is one true God, how does the saying go, ''we all know him by different names''

And as Krishna says in the Gita ''When ever there is a decline in morality and a rise irriligion I myself will appear''

Jai Shree Krishna

Asha
You seem to be suggesting that God has not left us to natural forces of evolution where animals adapt to their physical environment, with those people who adapt best succeed in passing on their genes to create new generations. If you are indicating this it means that the purpose of our existence is not to survive and by doing so pass on our genes but something else. Am I right?

And if so, what do you think the purpose of our living is? What happens to us individually or as humanity if we do not live according to the dharma established by Sri Krishna from yuga to yuga? Do we suffer? Does Nature get harmed? Is that why He comes from time to time to restore dharma? If so, what are His means for getting us to follow Him instead of following our adharma ways?

Or does God come to us from time to time just to show off and establish His authority over us?
 
Last edited:

Asha

Member
Namaste

You seem to be suggesting that God has not left us to natural forces of evolution where animals adapt to their physical environment, with those people who adapt best succeed in passing on their genes to create new generations. If you are indicating this it means that the purpose of our existence is not to survive and by doing so pass on our genes but something else. Am I right?

On one level it is possible to say that there is some sort of evolution of the species, and this we can observe through science and archeology.
But there is also evolution on a very differnt level this has nothing to do with genes, so there are two things hapening here one is the evolution of the soul, whos purpose it is to attain all knowingness, to escape this physical realm and attain pure knowledge of Godhead. on the other level there is evolution whthin the material realm, this is evolution of matter where by the earth and its inhabiting life forms mutate depending upon the material conditions prevailing. This is a natural prosess although we observe it as evolution.
Both are depending to some extent on karma; action, our spiritual activities create the conditions for our spiritual development and our mundane activities create the causes of our phisical conditions.

And if so, what do you think the purpose of our living is? What happens to us individually or as humanity if we do not live according to the dharma established by Sri Krishna from yuga to yuga?

Individual is the soul whos purpose is to attain the realisation of Shree Krishna, and Humanity is the vehicle by which the soul can acheive this.
If we live by the Dharma; the law of truth enumerated to us countless times by Vishnu in his multiple forms and by Sree Krishna himself we will attain liberation from this material realm, but we will also out of respect cherish this material realm for the sake of countless other souls who will follow us in this process of self realisation.
If we do not live acording to this Law we must face the concequences of repeated births in this material realm. and if by not supporting Dharma, if by not upholding its laws we allow this earth planet and its societies to become degraded then we will suffer the consequences of repeated births in steadily degraded positions of life.


[quoteDo we suffer? Does Nature get harmed? Is that why He comes from time to time to restore dharma? If so, what are His means for getting us to follow Him instead of following our adharma ways?

Yes we suffer by becoming traped in a constantly deteriorating conditions and nature itself suffers due to our lack of respect.

Yes Sree Krishna promices that he will come time and time again to re establish Dharma. Last time he came in his own personal form as Bhagavan Shree Krishna he came to re establish rightious rule and to see in the begining of this age of Kali, he came in his personal form which is all atractive he came to steal the hearts of everyone. As a child he atracts the love of every mother, everyone adores him even though he is sometimes a little naughty, then when he grows up he befrends the cowheard boys, then he steals the harts of the cow heard madens of Vrindarvan. Then he defeats the evil Kamsa freeing everyone from his tyrany. Everywhere he went the people loved him, then as an adult he stood by as a knoble friend to the Kshatriya families to the Kuravas and the Pandavas, but due to their wickedness and desirous nature the Kuravas in their blindness would not listen to the advice of Sree Krishna so he used the pretext of war to deliver the Gita the song of Sree Bhagavan. thus he taught Dharma in a way accessable to the people of the coming age of Kali, and rid the world of the wicked Kuravas.
And still 5000 years after many devotees read the Gita everyday so that they might understand how to act and what is their constitutional position in relation to Lord Krishna.


Or does God come to us from time to time just to show off and establish His authority over us?

Why would the Supreme personality even be interested to show off to such insugnificant beings as ourselves?

We are so stupid to even think that he needs to establish autority he is all powerfull, he could blow away this entire universe if he wished but he lives in our hearts, he resides in every living moving thing, it is for us to realise his authority.

Also if Sree Krishna wanted to show his might he could do so many powerfull things but instead when Indra became puffed up with his own self importance and tried to show of his power by throwing terible rain storms at the inhabitants of Goverdhan, Krishna could easily have destroyed him as he did Kamsa, but no He just held up the Goverdhan hill to shelter the cowheard folk and all of their animals.untill indra realised his stupidity.

Also he came as Lord Chaitanya Mahaprabhu, in this instance he did not show off he hid himself, all he did was to show his attractiveness and enchant people to follow in the chanting of Harinama. this shows the gentle and loving nature of Shree Krishna, he will use his allatractiveness to win your heart.

Jai Shree Krishna

Asha
 

Shantanu

Well-Known Member
Individual is the soul whos purpose is to attain the realisation of Shree Krishna, and Humanity is the vehicle by which the soul can acheive this.
If we live by the Dharma; the law of truth enumerated to us countless times by Vishnu in his multiple forms and by Sree Krishna himself we will attain liberation from this material realm, but we will also out of respect cherish this material realm for the sake of countless other souls who will follow us in this process of self realisation.
If we do not live acording to this Law we must face the concequences of repeated births in this material realm. and if by not supporting Dharma, if by not upholding its laws we allow this earth planet and its societies to become degraded then we will suffer the consequences of repeated births in steadily degraded positions of life.

Asha
But every individual has a different soul, depending on the guna consciousness energy that he or she is accessing. And this soul dies by dissolving into its constituent atoms when we stop living and are buried or cremated. The soul is not something that goes into the atmosphere and then waits for another human being or an animal into which it deserves to go for its next birth. That would be impossible for even God to implement, would it not?
 

LegionOnomaMoi

Veteran Member
Premium Member
Please can anyone point me to any publications/critique on

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

Thanks.
"So is religion an adaptation or a by-product of our evolution? Perhaps one day we will find compelling evidence that a capacity for religious thoughts, rather than ‘religion’ in the modern form of socio-political institutions, contributed to fitness in ancestral times. For the time being, the data support a more modest conclusion: religious thoughts seem to be an emergent property of our standard cognitive capacities."
from the attached/uploaded Nature article "Religion: Bound to Believe?"

"Religious belief and disbelief share the same underlying pathways and can be explained within a single evolutionary framework that is grounded in both genetic and cultural evolution"
From the abstract to the attached/uploaded Trends in Cognitive Science paper "The origins of religious disbelief"

"Most attempts at an evolutionary account of religion have proved unsatisfactory because a single characteristic identified as crucial to the origin of religion is not in fact general"
From the only remaining of the three uploaded/attached papers
 

Attachments

  • Religious thought and behaviour as by-products of brain function.pdf
    297.7 KB · Views: 62
  • Being human- Religion Bound to believe.pdf
    649.2 KB · Views: 96
  • The origins of religious disbelief.pdf
    213.7 KB · Views: 196

Shantanu

Well-Known Member
"So is religion an adaptation or a by-product of our evolution? Perhaps one day we will find compelling evidence that a capacity for religious thoughts, rather than ‘religion’ in the modern form of socio-political institutions, contributed to fitness in ancestral times. For the time being, the data support a more modest conclusion: religious thoughts seem to be an emergent property of our standard cognitive capacities."
from the attached/uploaded Nature article "Religion: Bound to Believe?"

"Religious belief and disbelief share the same underlying pathways and can be explained within a single evolutionary framework that is grounded in both genetic and cultural evolution"
From the abstract to the attached/uploaded Trends in Cognitive Science paper "The origins of religious disbelief"

"Most attempts at an evolutionary account of religion have proved unsatisfactory because a single characteristic identified as crucial to the origin of religion is not in fact general"
From the only remaining of the three uploaded/attached papers
The evidence is strong that the most successful religious groupings (Islam, Christianity, Hinduism) as determined by the number of their followers focused on the importance of marriage and having children as well as nurturing them while atheistic religions do not place such emphasis. The more intense this aspect of a religion is, the greater its success in proliferation terms regardless of adverse climatic conditions in terms of environmental impact on human survival. This would suggest that religions can indeed have an evolutionary role in the propagation of the species.

This is of course different to the standard theory of the selection of human genes by the natural environment (Darwinism) as it is the result of a mentally-inspired drive to procreate. Whether the source of this mental-drive to procreate is gene-formulated or externally woven into the psyche is a matter for debate. The fact that there are atheistic religions and philosophies that focus on other aspects of living (sattvic, versus tamasic or rajasic) indicates that the mental thoughts inspiring humans is differentiated into these three gunas and so produces a more complex picture on how human evolution proceeds. As such it assigns a role for God in generating the guna-consciousness that then generates the differences in human behaviour.
 

LegionOnomaMoi

Veteran Member
Premium Member
The evidence is strong that the most successful religious groupings (Islam, Christianity, Hinduism) as determined by the number of their followers focused on the importance of marriage and having children as well as nurturing them while atheistic religions do not place such emphasis.
Hinduism is a fairly recent religion that became one largely in the exchanges between Western thought and Eastern tradition during colonialism. In fact, the modern concept of religion is fairly new. Honestly I don't really care. I think the evidence is in favor of religion being an evolutionary advantage rather than a by-product. I just gave you some critiques of this view I had on hand.

The more intense this aspect of a religion is, the greater its success in proliferation terms regardless of adverse climatic conditions in terms of environmental impact on human survival.
The single greatest predictor of success in religion is a doctrinal system. Of course, that cuts out the vast majority or religions.

This is of course different to the standard theory of the selection of human genes by the natural environment (Darwinism)
So is modern evolutionary theory.

Whether the source of this mental-drive to procreate is gene-formulated or externally woven into the psyche is a matter for debate.
As open to debate as evolutionary theory is, I suppose. It's sort of fundamental, but then people debate whether or not the Earth was created 6,000 years ago, so in some sense everything is a matter of debate. That doesn't mean it should be.

The fact that there are atheistic religions and philosophies that focus on other aspects of living (sattvic, versus tamasic or rajasic) indicates that the mental thoughts inspiring humans is differentiated into these three gunas and so produces a more complex picture on how human evolution proceeds.

That can't possibly be true, as atheism is a fairly modern phenomenon, and humans today have been around for well-over 100,000 years. How could concepts that didn't exist until long after the environment(s) which dictated our evolutionary trajectory determine our evolutionary trajectory?
 
Top