Why Did We Evolve the Notion of God?

[Rolling_Stone]

Why did humans evolve the notion of god -- that is, the notion of supernatural agency? When in our evolution did we evolve it?

Bonus Question: What do you think of Scott Atran's views on the evolutionary origin of the notion?

Please note: I do not wish to debate whether deity exists in this thread. That's a separate question. This thread assumes the notion of deity was a product of our evolution. Please make another thread if you wish to debate whether deity exists.

Do you think the notion of deity was selected for because it had one or more survival values? Or do you think, like Atran, that the notion was a by product of natural selection?

To the ordinary material intellect which takes its present organization of consciousness for the limit of its possibilities, the direct contradiction of the unrealised ideals with the realised fact is a final argument against their validity. But if we take a more deliberate view of the world’s workings, that direct opposition appears rather as part of Nature’s profoundest method and the seal of her completest sanction.

For all problems of existence are essentially problems of harmony. They arise from the perception of an unsolved discord and the instinct of an undiscovered agreement or unity. To rest content with an unsolved discord is possible for the practical and more animal part of man, but impossible for his fully awakened mind, and usually even his practical parts only escape from the general necessity either by shutting out the problem or by accepting a rough, utilitarian and unillumined compromise. For essentially, all Nature seeks a harmony, life and matter in their own sphere as much as mind in the arrangement of its perceptions.The greater the apparent disorder of the materials offered or the apparent disparateness, even to irreconcilable opposition, of the elements that have to be utilised, the stronger is the spur, and it drives towards a more subtle and puissant order than can normally be the result of a less difficult endeavour. The accordance of active Life with a material of form in which the condition of activity itself seems to be inertia, is one problem of opposites that Nature has solved and seeks always to solve better with greater complexities; for its perfect solution would be the material immortality of a fully organised mind-supporting animal body. The accordance of conscious mind and conscious will with a form and a life in themselves not overtly self-conscious and capable at best of a mechanical or subconscious will is another problem of opposites in which she has produced astonishing results and aims always at higher marvels; for there her ultimate miracle would be an animal consciousness no longer seeking but possessed of Truth and Light, with the practical omnipotence which would result from the possession of a direct and perfected knowledge. Not only, then, is the upward impulse of man towards the accordance of yet higher opposites rational in itself, but it is the only logical completion of a rule and an effort that seem to be a fundamental method of Nature and the very sense of her universal strivings.

You can download some of Sri Aurobindo's writings here (.pdf format). This was from The Life Divine, which I am just beginning to read.

 

[rojse]

People have a tendency to see things that are not there, contrasted to not seeing things that are there. It is a survival trait.

For example, the person who looks into the shadows, and sees a thief, and acts accordingly, is in a better situation than the person who looks into the shadows, and sees shadows. There might be a thief, there may not. But the person that acts as if there is not might be in for quite a surprise.

It is quite easy, from there, to step up to seeing other things that are not there, including God.

 

[Rolling_Stone]

People have a tendency to see things that are not there, contrasted to not seeing things that are there. It is a survival trait.

For example, the person who looks into the shadows, and sees a thief, and acts accordingly, is in a better situation than the person who looks into the shadows, and sees shadows. There might be a thief, there may not. But the person that acts as if there is not might be in for quite a surprise.

It is quite easy, from there, to step up to seeing other things that are not there, including God.

There is truth in what you say, but it's a half-truth. The brain is also hard-wired in a way that it cannot perceive that what it does not believe is possible. Something not being perceived by you is not an indication that others are hallucinating

If consciousness is fundamental, irreducable, “evolution is the progressive manifestation by Nature of that which slept or worked in her, involved, it is also the overt realization of that which she secretly is. We cannot, then, bid her pause at a given stage of her evolution, nor have we the right to condemn [evolution] with the religionist as perverse and presumptuous or with the rationalist as a disease or hallucination any intention she may evince or effort she may make to go beyond. If it be true that Spirit is involved in Matter and apparent Nature is secret God, then the manifestation of the divine in himself and the realization of God within and without are the highest and most legitimate aim possible to man upon earth.”

 

[Smoke]

If we "evolved" the notion of god, and all any divinity "is" is a product of our thinking, that idea would be something less than the Creator of the Universe, Whom I understand to be God. This person must tell us of the divine existence.

Okay, but not everybody's notion of god defines deity as the creator of the universe. As far as we can tell, the idea of monotheism is relatively recent as compared to polytheisms in which one, or a group, or none of the gods might be creator gods. The Creator idea isn't inherently and universally part of the idea of deity. A full explanation of must take account of deities in general.

 

[doppelganger]

Okay, but not everybody's notion of god defines deity as the creator of the universe.

And not all notions of "creation" are based on the idea of creation ex nihilo.

 

[JamBar85]

The comfort zone.
As we learned more about how the world works and come to realize that less and less was caused by demons, devils, gods, etc. the less we needed God to "protect" us from them.

I agree with that. I think a lot of people use God as an answer because they are afraid to say "I don't know".

 

[Rolling_Stone]

I agree with that. I think a lot of people use God as an answer because they are afraid to say "I don't know".

Perhaps, but to a lot of people God is an experiential reality.

 

[rojse]

There is truth in what you say, but it's a half-truth. The brain is also hard-wired in a way that it cannot perceive that what it does not believe is possible. Something not being perceived by you is not an indication that others are hallucinating

What is the difference between what you and I deem possible? Not in terms of what we believe, but how we came to those conclusions.

If consciousness is fundamental, irreducable, “evolution is the progressive manifestation by Nature of that which slept or worked in her, involved, it is also the overt realization of that which she secretly is. We cannot, then, bid her pause at a given stage of her evolution, nor have we the right to condemn [evolution] with the religionist as perverse and presumptuous or with the rationalist as a disease or hallucination any intention she may evince or effort she may make to go beyond. If it be true that Spirit is involved in Matter and apparent Nature is secret God, then the manifestation of the divine in himself and the realization of God within and without are the highest and most legitimate aim possible to man upon earth.”

I did not understand any thing of what you have posted there, except something about evolution shouldn't be used to make judgements about religious people or non-religious people. Could you please simplify?

 

[Rolling_Stone]

What is the difference between what you and I deem possible? Not in terms of what we believe, but how we came to those conclusions.

Perspective.

I did not understand any thing of what you have posted there, except something about evolution shouldn't be used to make judgements about religious people or non-religious people. Could you please simplify?

I'll try.

Assuming consciousness is fundamental and irreducible, say, like electomagnetism, it is not an emergent property of unconsciousness matter. Rather, through a process of progressive "complexification," it is the manifestation of something already present. We cannot say where the fullness of its manifestation lies. Nor do we have the right to condemn evolution (like creationists), or the right to say (like materialists) that Creation is without intention behind it.

 

[rajakrsna]

the evolution of our brains brought it about. Its reasoning ,see the storm and have to reason it out ,its a by product of our intelligence. we have to catalogue everything in our own image so we give it a name .

If you study medicine. You will get to know anatomy then physiology then biochemstry then histology then microbiology. From macro to micro. We study the universe then the stars then the planets then the living entities that live on the planet. Again from macro to micro & vice versa. We visualize the universe as one gigantic person. Just like the micro-organism within us visualizing you & me as galaxies.

 

[rojse]

Reading "The God Delusion" again (wonderful book), Dawkins discusses the idea that ideas undergo an evolutionary process too. The ideas that we like stay on, and those we don't, go.

To be honest, who does not like the idea of eternal life, or the idea that you will be rewarded for our deeds? The idea of the benevolent person out to protect you personally is a good one, too. That's a good way of explaining the evolution of religion and God - it allows us to keep these ideas, no matter how inconsistent they fit in with actuality.

 

[JamBar85]

Reading "The God Delusion" again (wonderful book), Dawkins discusses the idea that ideas undergo an evolutionary process too. The ideas that we like stay on, and those we don't, go.

To be honest, who does not like the idea of eternal life, or the idea that you will be rewarded for our deeds? The idea of the benevolent person out to protect you personally is a good one, too. That's a good way of explaining the evolution of religion and God - it allows us to keep these ideas, no matter how inconsistent they fit in with actuality.

I wouldn't mind having a read of this book. Sounds interesting.

It's interesting to hear that ideas also have an evolutionary process, or at least the idea of it.

Do you think that this could lead to the idea that God (let's just for arguments sake say he/she/it exists in this context) had an original idea to begin with and then developed it or it evolved into his finished product. After all, I hear a lot of people talking about the earth and universe being an intelligent design and in my experience, you don't just stick with your original design. You refine it and polish it until you think it's as good as it can be. Perfect.

Or is that just silly?

Just a thought.

 

[Persephone]

Ooh, I like that idea.... explains spontaneous mutations in new DNA(that of embryos) perhaps?

cool thought JamBar

 

[mudge991]

I cant get behind the notion of intelligent design, as it sounds like cherry picking the bible for the parts that are least likey to get you laughed out of the room. I figure if you put your foot in poop or swim in it, you still smell the same.
ID and creation science share the belief that the mainstream scientific discipline of evolution is largely incorrect. Both involve an intervening deity, but ID is more vague about what happened and when.
The Discovery Institute's Center for Renewal of Science and Culture serves as an institutional home for virtually all of the prominent ID proponents, including Dembski, Behe, and Wells. The goals of the CRSC, as stated by the Discovery Institute's director Bruce Chapman, are explicitly religious: to promote Christian theism and to defeat philosophical materialism.

 

[Escéptico]

It is a short step from that made up scenario, to there being entire rituals set up to appease the Sun/God into staying in the heavens and continuing to give us what we need to survive, and in turn, sacrificing things in an effort to either make the Sun/God come back, or keep it staying where it is.

I think that, or something very similar, is what started this whole mess we call religion, personally.

In the precarious early existence of Homo Sap, it's almost certain that all phenomena were assumed to be the result of intentional activity by an intelligent agent. Without statistical inference, our ancestors couldn't have had any notion of randomness. As you described, they considered their own behavior an integral part of the dynamic of cause-and-effect that ruled all phenomena. So they developed ever more complicated rituals to effect certain outcomes, recording their lore for the good of posterity.

In fact, this type of proto-religion was actually a crude program of inquiry. Human behavior was intended to produce predictable reactions in Nature. And the program was intended to be obeyed and implemented without question, for the good of the individuals and the tribe. This is the how credulity became a virtue. People didn't have to understand why they were doing what they did, but the program must have saved more than it sacrificed.

Now that more objective methods of inquiry have been developed, we no longer assume that religiously-motivated human behavior will produce verifiable consequences in Nature. But religious people still pray whenever it's time to pray, avoid proscribed foods, and take part in rituals they don't have to understand. They don't even have to believe in a God or gods. Whether or not it benefits the individual or the community, the religious behavior keeps the religion phenomenon alive.

 

[Storm]

In the precarious early existence of Homo Sap, it's almost certain that all phenomena were assumed to be the result of intentional activity by an intelligent agent.

"Almost certain" is it? Please provide the no doubt compelling evidence of this.

Without statistical inference, our ancestors couldn't have had any notion of randomness. As you described, they considered their own behavior an integral part of the dynamic of cause-and-effect that ruled all phenomena. So they developed ever more complicated rituals to effect certain outcomes, recording their lore for the good of posterity.

In fact, this type of proto-religion was actually a crude program of inquiry. Human behavior was intended to produce predictable reactions in Nature. And the program was intended to be obeyed and implemented without question, for the good of the individuals and the tribe. This is the how credulity became a virtue. People didn't have to understand why they were doing what they did, but the program must have saved more than it sacrificed.

Now that more objective methods of inquiry have been developed, we no longer assume that religiously-motivated human behavior will produce verifiable consequences in Nature. But religious people still pray whenever it's time to pray, avoid proscribed foods, and take part in rituals they don't have to understand. They don't even have to believe in a God or gods. Whether or not it benefits the individual or the community, the religious behavior keeps the religion phenomenon alive.

Wow, Esceptico, you seem to know more about the evolution of religion than any archaeologist or anthropologist I'm aware of. And yet your knowledge entirely ignores the reality of mystical experience. Again, please provide evidence, as well as an explanation of why the findings of neurotheology, for instance, are to be so lightly dismissed.

 

[Escéptico]

Storm,

The OP listed a link to an article in the NY Times concerning Scott Atran's research into what he calls the "Evolutionary Landscape of Religion." Daniel Dennett's 'Breaking The Spell' goes through a lot of current anthropological research on the origins and evolution of religion and God-concepts. I highly recommend Dennett's book for anyone interested in how religion has co-evolved with humanity.

I don't know why that post got your hackles up. Nowhere did I insult believers or characterize religious belief as delusional. I just think it's useful (not to mention fascinating) to understand that religious belief doesn't just operate to benefit the individual or the community, but also to perpetuate the phenomenon of religious belief itself.

 

[Storm]

Storm,

The OP listed a link to an article in the NY Times concerning Scott Atran's research into what he calls the "Evolutionary Landscape of Religion." Daniel Dennett's 'Breaking The Spell' goes through a lot of current anthropological research on the origins and evolution of religion and God-concepts. I highly recommend Dennett's book for anyone interested in how religion has co-evolved with humanity.

I don't know why that post got your hackles up. Nowhere did I insult believers or characterize religious belief as delusional. I just think it's useful (not to mention fascinating) to understand that religious belief doesn't just operate to benefit the individual or the community, but also to perpetuate the phenomenon of religious belief itself.

I could spend an hour trying to explain why that post got my hackles up, probably unsuccessfully. So I'll skip it.

Sufice to say that I believe it's more complicated than you made it out to be, and what little science there is backs me up. For instance, the aforementioned neurotheology.

I don't know why you've been rubbing me so wrong, Esceptico, but I'm willing to take the blame. You seem to be quite intelligent, you're certainly well-spoken, and when I take a step back, I think I could get alot out of discussion with you. I'd much rather those exchanges be pleasant and respectful (or at the very least civil) on both sides.

So, I hope you'll accept this post as an olive branch, with my apologies.

 

[Escéptico]

So, I hope you'll accept this post as an olive branch, with my apologies.

Let's never fight again. At least not in front of the lurkers.

 

[Storm]

Let's never fight again. At least not in front of the lurkers.

So, are you familiar with neurotheology? If so, how does it fit in with your views on the evolution of religion?