What are the Evolutionary Origns of Religiosity?

[sandandfoam]

I dont want it.


Its sad most people cannot see reality due to lack of education.

In my view anyone who thinks they have some sort of privileged access to reality would benefit from a little more education.

 

[outhouse]

In my view anyone who thinks they have some sort of privileged access to reality would benefit from a little more education.

So do you doubt those with education have a more clear picture then those who follow pseudo history and pseudo science?


Or is all education and knowledge bad in your eyes?

 

[sandandfoam]

So do you doubt those with education have a more clear picture then those who follow pseudo history and pseudo science?


Or is all education and knowledge bad in your eyes?

I have spent most of my adult life pursuing education. I think education is wonderful.

Clearer picture? Depends on the subject.

The most educated people I have been fortunate enough to meet were modest regarding their knowledge.
It seems to me that wise people would regard knowledge as provisional. Knowledge of reality could not be provisional.

 

[metis]

As Confucius is reported to have said, the more you know, the more you know you really don't know. Or, to put it another way, to a child a tree is simple, but to a botanist it's very complex.

 

[outhouse]

Clearer picture? Depends on the subject.

.

No it does not matter on the subject.


Not a word you stated addresses what I stated in context. It avoids an answer.


So by your own words people living in fantasy land have a better grasp on reality? and it really depends on the subject?

 

[outhouse]

As Confucius is reported to have said, the more you know, the more you know you really don't know. Or, to put it another way, to a child a tree is simple, but to a botanist it's very complex.

While true.

It does not separate those living in fantasy land, and those following the reality of nature using education and knowledge to help guide them.


I am far from educated and only possess knowledge in certain areas.


What I "do not have" is almost more important. Theistic blinders promoting a biased view keeping people away from reality.

 

[sandandfoam]

No it does not matter on the subject.


Not a word you stated addresses what I stated in context. It avoids an answer.


So by your own words people living in fantasy land have a better grasp on reality? and it really depends on the subject?

You make my point for me. Thank you. We all see everything through the lens of our own minds. We see things as we are. I see my answer in a wholly different light than you did. There is no reality apart from us lying around waiting to be picked up. Your mind does not perceive a reality that is separate from you - rather it generates reality for you.

 

[outhouse]

You make my point for me. Thank you. We all see everything through the lens of our own minds. We see things as we are. I see my answer in a wholly different light than you did. There is no reality apart from us lying around waiting to be picked up. Your mind does not perceive a reality that is separate from you - rather it generates reality for you.

Sorry but that is factually avoiding reality.


If one chooses to live in fantasy land, that is factually avoiding reality.


To say there is no distinction between the two is a factual error.


Why you would choose this methodology is a good question.

 

[outhouse]

There is no reality apart from us lying around waiting to be picked up. .

Is that reality or fantasy?

 

[Sapiens]

The most educated people I have been fortunate enough to meet were modest regarding their knowledge.
It seems to me that wise people would regard knowledge as provisional. Knowledge of reality could not be provisional.

The most educated (and brightest, they don't always vary directly) people that I have known are extremists. Extremely modest or extremely egotistical, very little in the middle.

 

[outhouse]

very little in the middle.

You need to get out more.


What I see is people avoiding the truth, or accepting it.


Generally speaking those with the most education accept the truth, those without it often appeal to ignorance

 

[outhouse]

back on topic.




The Human conscious mind is weak, and it evolved into a required imagination skill that evolved into place as a survival instinct since any mammal existed.


One who could imagine a lion waiting for him in the grass, was the one who survived and spread this imaginative trait on to the next generation.


Parental love, tied with imagination is not hard to figure out HOW ancient men answered questions they did not know. They used their imagination and mythology was born.


These answers are simple and not worthy of a prize. Its sad most people cannot see reality due to lack of education.

 

[Ingledsva]

There seems to be increasing evidence that human religiosity has a genetic or inherent component to it. If so, that would seem to imply that human religiosity somehow and for some reason evolved in us.

But if so, then why?

There appear to be two current theories. First, that it evolved as a spandrel. Second, that it evolved because it furthered survival and reproduction.

So, the question is: Did human religiosity evolve because it in some way furthered survival and reproduction, or did it evolve as a spandrel? And if it in some way furthered survival and reproduction, in what way did it do that?

Hallucinogens releasing dopamine, etc., in the brain, causing altered states of consciousness.



*

 

[Monk Of Reason]

Actually it is to a large extent as you mention above, but like so many other characteristics, it also has some negative aspects. Evolution does not mean or imply perfection, but merely that certain traits may prove advantageous over not having them. Just about every trait we can think of that we might think as being positive can have some negative drawbacks.

Very young children tend to get frightened quite easily when in the presence of people that are different than what they're used to. The more different, the more adverse the reaction tends to be. Since this is an untaught trait, we simply cannot blame it on one's upbringing.

We see similar characteristic with many other animals, such as my last dog that terribly "racist" if any blacks or Asians were around, and yet he certainly wasn't taught as such.

Fearing people that are different undoubtedly must have been part of our survival while living in bands whereas people who were different were potential enemies. We have to remember that most of our evolution did not occur in large societies with thousands or millions of others. Unfortunately, one of the negative drawbacks is that this trait can continue as we age, and racism appears to be one of those characteristics.

The root of racism and the root of what caused the incredible success of religion were beneficial at one time but it doesn't not directly imply that the Racism or Religion itself was beneficial. Though it may have played important roles. You can make the case that religion has had benefits and I can agree with that but not that its existence alone means it was necessarily beneficial.

If you lived in a tribe surrounded territorially by say five other tribes and the members of those tribes were racist, racism might be of concievable benefit.

I'm not sure I follow. It would be beneficial to be racist because others were racist? And usually if you lived right next to another tribe genetically you would be very similar. It isn't till you look at the macro scale that you get large differences in appearance.

 

[`mud]

hey Metis,
Quote: "Very young children tend to get frightened quite easily..."
In reaction to the quote above,
I notice that in very young, near the running state of advancement, children experience a sort of curiosity about other children of different skin color and hair texture etcetera.
They are almost overly freindly and touching in their curiousity.
Maybe some of those children you've observed were 'frightened' by some reaction gained from the reaction of the adults in the environment they occupied.
Maybe a dislike picked up by the children that was a different acceptance of the characteristics or 'race' of these children ?
Maybe not.....but likely ?
~
'mud

 

[metis]

hey Metis,
Quote: "Very young children tend to get frightened quite easily..."
In reaction to the quote above,
I notice that in very young, near the running state of advancement, children experience a sort of curiosity about other children of different skin color and hair texture etcetera.
They are almost overly freindly and touching in their curiousity.
Maybe some of those children you've observed were 'frightened' by some reaction gained from the reaction of the adults in the environment they occupied.
Maybe a dislike picked up by the children that was a different acceptance of the characteristics or 'race' of these children ?
Maybe not.....but likely ?
~
'mud

Even though it's my fault that I didn't make it clear, I was referring to children's reactions to adults that are different. Children generally don't see other children as being a threat, but they often do with some adults.

BTW, gotta tell you a true story. Our one daughter was maybe about 8 years old, and we were camping, and she befriended a black girl roughly around the same age. After a couple of days, my daughter came up to me and asked how the black girl got such a dark tan.

 

[metis]

The root of racism and the root of what caused the incredible success of religion were beneficial at one time but it doesn't not directly imply that the Racism or Religion itself was beneficial. Though it may have played important roles. You can make the case that religion has had benefits and I can agree with that but not that its existence alone means it was necessarily beneficial.

Anytime as anthropologists when we see a particular characteristic that is virtually repeated in every society that we see and ever has studied, then we have to conclude that there is something intrinsic in us that drives us in this direction. And if this particular characteristic wasn't somehow helpful, then it begs the question why it wasn't weeded out through natural selection. This is why we list "religion" as one of the "five basic institutions".

As far as "racism" is concerned, the working trait is actually not "racism" itself but what appears to be a natural tendency to focus in people who are substantially difference in appearance, and the initial impulse tends to be more of one of suspicion. Familiarity can overwhelm this to the point whereas it may disappear as an impulse, so we're not talking about any permanence on this.

 

[idav]

There seems to be increasing evidence that human religiosity has a genetic or inherent component to it. If so, that would seem to imply that human religiosity somehow and for some reason evolved in us.

But if so, then why?

There appear to be two current theories. First, that it evolved as a spandrel. Second, that it evolved because it furthered survival and reproduction.

So, the question is: Did human religiosity evolve because it in some way furthered survival and reproduction, or did it evolve as a spandrel? And if it in some way furthered survival and reproduction, in what way did it do that?

I think we have always strived to justify our actions and way of life and religion is one of those methods we use to justify our ways. Some say its about power and who has what, which it is but it is also about what people should be willing to share. We develop codes and continue to live by them when we know they work. We know we all need help so we all try to share our methods hoping to help someone in return.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

Anytime as anthropologists when we see a particular characteristic that is virtually repeated in every society that we see and ever has studied, then we have to conclude that there is something intrinsic in us that drives us in this direction. And if this particular characteristic wasn't somehow helpful, then it begs the question why it wasn't weeded out through natural selection. This is why we list "religion" as one of the "five basic institutions".

As far as "racism" is concerned, the working trait is actually not "racism" itself but what appears to be a natural tendency to focus in people who are substantially difference in appearance, and the initial impulse tends to be more of one of suspicion. Familiarity can overwhelm this to the point whereas it may disappear as an impulse, so we're not talking about any permanence on this.

Granted. I was making the point that it may be underlying causes of religion rather than religion itself that has continued its persistence to this day and age. And it is important to note that negative traits can be positive for survival.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

There seems to be increasing evidence that human religiosity has a genetic or inherent component to it. If so, that would seem to imply that human religiosity somehow and for some reason evolved in us.

But if so, then why?

There appear to be two current theories. First, that it evolved as a spandrel. Second, that it evolved because it furthered survival and reproduction.

So, the question is: Did human religiosity evolve because it in some way furthered survival and reproduction, or did it evolve as a spandrel? And if it in some way furthered survival and reproduction, in what way did it do that?

I suspect, like most human behaviors, the causes and paths are complex and multi-faceted. I also suspect that "religiosity" in itself is a complex behavior which can be broken down into more fundamental behaviors in terms of evolutionary drives and forces, e.g., social cohesion, pattern seeking, agency assumption, etc.