Why Did We Evolve the Notion of God?

[Rolling_Stone]

"God" is the shadow of self-awareness. The question really should be: what might the evolutionary advantage of self-awareness be?

LOL! I think it's just the opposite: human personality is the space-time image-shadow of the Divine, emerging from the static-reactive into the purposive-dynamic.

The first stirrings of religion, the first pursuit of values, is grounded in self-realization and the consciously felt need for self-preservation rather than mere instinct. It was almost certainly accompanied by fear. Its evolution was--and is--slow, but punctuated by great leaps. The God of the Old Testament and the God of the New Testament, for example, were thought by some to be entirely different Gods so dramatic the difference. The pursuit of values shifted from “thou shalt not,” an entirely negative message, to “thou shalt,” a message of positive goodness in pursuit of a Supreme Ideal called “Our Father.”

The God-concept continues to evolve and it's not likely to go away any time soon.

 

[Escéptico]

The notion that our basic idea of deity is a product of evolution does not logically imply there is no deity.

Good point. That's why the question of God's actual existence is, ironically enough, irrelevant to the whole matter of religion's co-evolution with humanity. The issue of religion as a self-perpetuating social construct is the same whether or not God is a coherent entity that actually exists. And it's the same whether people actually believe in God or simply profess and behave as if they do.

 

[crystalonyx]

The notion that our basic idea of deity is a product of evolution does not logically imply there is no deity.

Neither does it imply it does.

 

[Sunstone]

LOL! I think it's just the opposite: human personality is the space-time image-shadow of the Divine, emerging from the static-reactive into the purposive-dynamic.

The first stirrings of religion, the first pursuit of values, is grounded in self-realization and the consciously felt need for self-preservation rather than mere instinct. It was almost certainly accompanied by fear. Its evolution was--and is--slow, but punctuated by great leaps. The God of the Old Testament and the God of the New Testament, for example, were thought by some to be entirely different Gods so dramatic the difference. The pursuit of values shifted from “thou shalt not,” an entirely negative message, to “thou shalt,” a message of positive goodness in pursuit of a Supreme Ideal called “Our Father.”

The God-concept continues to evolve and it's not likely to go away any time soon.

Actually, in this thread, we are not discussing the social evolution of the god-concept. Instead, we are discussing the biological evolution of the inherent human traits that allow for a god concept.

 

[Scarlett Wampus]

On a tangent here. Apologies to Sunstone and others.

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.

No, we can't say where the fullness of its manifestation lies. In fact we can't even say that there is a fullness of manifestation in contrast to an incompleteness of manifestation if we carefully examine our own thinking to root out erroneous discriminations and unjustifiable assertions.

However, even if this is intellectually clear the mind regardless creates a background sense of where things are going and to this whether there is any grand plan at work or whether it is essentially meaningless. As far as I know this mental habit is only shut off in deep meditation, which is the gateway towards Zen enlightenment.

Its worth keeping in mind because that's arguably a big "hole" in the holistic Integral paradigm. No matter how elegant Integral systems are they can't yet touch Satori. Satori represents a system or process quite separate and fundamentally different to the Integral path since Integral builds upon and modifies Hindu philosophy whereas Buddhism began with a dramatic refutation of some core Hindu concepts. This split is still very evident.

 

[Storm]

Actually, in this thread, we are not discussing the social evolution of the god-concept. Instead, we are discussing the biological evolution of the inherent human traits that allow for a god concept.

In that case, I would say that the findings of neurotheology regarding the neurology of trance states is key.

It's not just that we're wired for theophany. Trance states are easily triggered by privation and pain, circumstances that our ancestors frequently encountered. So the question is, what advantage do trance states serve?

 

[Rolling_Stone]

Actually, in this thread, we are not discussing the social evolution of the god-concept. Instead, we are discussing the biological evolution of the inherent human traits that allow for a god concept.

In that case, the question should be, "Why did people evolve the capacity for religion?" What they believe, i.e., "the notion of God," can only be understood in the social context.

The article was fascinating. IMO, though, 'why' people believe in God, or, rather, why the capacity for religion came to be, is rather a silly one from the religious point of view. If one believes in God, the 'why' is self-evident and only the process can be of interest. It seems some of the researchers mentioned in the article confuse 'process' and 'why.'

The capacity for religion appears to be innate and wholly natural, but religion itself is optional. It's the optional part that's of interest. If religion were instinctive, I don't think people would be discussing the 'why' any more than we discuss the 'why' for our interest in sex. So, I go back to what I said: it is grounded in self-realization (the capacity for I-it and I-you relationships) and the consciously felt need for self-preservation rather than mere instinct. Explaining the capacity for self-realization explains the capacity for religion--and this brings us back to the social evolution of religion.

 

[Escéptico]

It's not just that we're wired for theophany. Trance states are easily triggered by privation and pain, circumstances that our ancestors frequently encountered. So the question is, what advantage do trance states serve?

That's an interesting question. But what would qualify as an adequate answer for you?

If our ancestors experienced these states in the desperate conditions you described, it's likely that they weren't selected for at all. That is, there were presumably a whole lot more early humans who experienced them and failed to survive to report the experiences than those who experienced them and later reported them as unique religious epiphanies. In the same way, there will always be more people alive to testify that they prayed for deliverance during crises and were saved, than those who prayed but weren't as favored by the fates.

And like I asked, what answer would suffice for you? You seem certain that these trance states are portals to a higher reality, etc., and serve as the basis for religious belief as it exists today. But isn't the research into the brain chemistry of religious experiences just the sort of reductionist program that denies the supernatural quality of 'theophany'?

I predict that as long as humans are around, research into the historical development and workings of the human brain will fascinate and astound us. But let's not assume that this research justifies any wild speculation we can imagine, especially about religious or supernatural matters.

 

[Storm]

That's an interesting question. But what would qualify as an adequate answer for you?

If our ancestors experienced these states in the desperate conditions you described, it's likely that they weren't selected for at all. That is, there were presumably a whole lot more early humans who experienced them and failed to survive to report the experiences than those who experienced them and later reported them as unique religious epiphanies. In the same way, there will always be more people alive to testify that they prayed for deliverance during crises and were saved, than those who prayed but weren't as favored by the fates.

If it wasn't selected for, why do we still experience it?

And like I asked, what answer would suffice for you? You seem certain that these trance states are portals to a higher reality, etc., and serve as the basis for religious belief as it exists today. But isn't the research into the brain chemistry of religious experiences just the sort of reductionist program that denies the supernatural quality of 'theophany'?

I'll thank you not to comment on my beliefs until you take the time to understand them. For one thing, I'm a naturalistic believer, and consider the unravelling of such mysteries a holy pursuit.

The answer to your question is a bit more complicated, though. I respect any scientist who approaches his work with an attitude of neutrality. FOr instance, I highly respect Dr.s Newberg and D'Aquili, because they don't pretend their work has any bearing on the question of whether or not God exists. Likewise, I dismiss Persinger because of the chip on his shoulder.

I predict that as long as humans are around, research into the historical development and workings of the human brain will fascinate and astound us. But let's not assume that this research justifies any wild speculation we can imagine, especially about religious or supernatural matters.

I don't.

 

[Escéptico]

I'll thank you not to comment on my beliefs until you take the time to understand them.

Well, I'm still waiting for you to expound on them.

Earlier in the thread, you said my analysis of the evolution of religion ignored 'the reality of mystical experiences.' Later, you talked about how humans are 'wired for theophany' and suggested that this is central to the matter at hand.

I'd say humans simply attribute great significance to neurobiological episodes they're unfamiliar with. The neurochemical basis of these states (an increase in N-Dimethyltryptamine, etc.) is probably comparable to those resulting from drug trips and ergotism. Should we assume an experience is mystical just because (like an LSD trip) it feels mystical?

But what exactly is your belief about these experiences? What importance are they in the development of contemporary religion? Please explain your perspective on this matter.

 

[Rolling_Stone]

Well, I'm still waiting for you to expound on them.

Earlier in the thread, you said my analysis of the evolution of religion ignored 'the reality of mystical experiences.' Later, you talked about how humans are 'wired for theophany' and suggested that this is central to the matter at hand.

I'd say humans simply attribute great significance to neurobiological episodes they're unfamiliar with. The neurochemical basis of these states (an increase in N-Dimethyltryptamine, etc.) is probably comparable to those resulting from drug trips and ergotism. Should we assume an experience is mystical just because (like an LSD trip) it feels mystical?

But what exactly is your belief about these experiences? What importance are they in the development of contemporary religion? Please explain your perspective on this matter.

Critics of religion seem to assume that the believer is under some kind of obligation to prove their religious beliefs. But such beliefs are only the outward manifestation, an interpretation, of an inner experience, and while perfectly understandable and logical when view from within, words are often inadequate.

The finest mind whose only reality is the world of objective facts and human sentiment is like a foolish but skilled carpenter who wastes valuable time squaring, measuring, and smoothing worm-eaten and inwardly rotting timber that is in the end rejected as unfit.

In order for their words to carry any consistency of meaning, materialist/atheists must show that they are something more than a mechanisms, and once having done that, follow their materialism/atheism to its logical conclusion, for sentiment is arbitrary and irrational. If they cannot answer the question, "To what end," then all they have in worm-eaten and unwardly rotten timber for a frame and sand for a foundation.

 

[Storm]

Well, I'm still waiting for you to expound on them.

I don't want to hijack this thread. I have a thread of my own, just click the link in my signature.

Earlier in the thread, you said my analysis of the evolution of religion ignored 'the reality of mystical experiences.' Later, you talked about how humans are 'wired for theophany' and suggested that this is central to the matter at hand.

By "the reality of mystical experiences," all I meant was the fact that they happen. They happen because we are wired for them. Given the topic at hand, why we evolved the notion of God, of course they are central.

I'd say humans simply attribute great significance to neurobiological episodes they're unfamiliar with. The neurochemical basis of these states (an increase in N-Dimethyltryptamine, etc.) is probably comparable to those resulting from drug trips and ergotism.

I don't remember anything about the neurochemistry. Such things are over my head, sadly. I do remember that the key element, what distinguishes trance states from drug trips and other hallucinations, was altered functioning of the occipital parietal lobe. Specifically, the area that controls our awareness of the body's spatial boundaries and orientation.

Should we assume an experience is mystical just because (like an LSD trip) it feels mystical?

"Mystical" is a poor choice of word for the topic at hand, it carries too much supernatural baggage. Shall we settle on "trance states"?

To answer the question, no.

But what exactly is your belief about these experiences? What importance are they in the development of contemporary religion? Please explain your perspective on this matter.

In a nutshell, I think most religion comes from someone having a truly intense trace state, and then trying to tell others about it. As time passes, ideas form, then begin to atrophy into dogma as the religion gains followers who don't truly understand.

 

[Magic Man]

In a nutshell, I think most religion comes from someone having a truly intense trace state, and then trying to tell others about it. As tim passes, ideas form, then begin to atrophy into dogma as the religion gains followers who don't truly understand.

I think this is spot on. The only thing I would add is that it seems at some points in history, people used this to their advantage by making up rules about it to control others. Possibly, some people claimed to have "mystical" experiences just to contrive a belief/rule system to have others do their bidding.

And who is this "tim" character?

 

[Storm]

Thank you, and fixed now.

 

[Escéptico]

In a nutshell, I think most religion comes from someone having a truly intense trace state, and then trying to tell others about it.

Okay. So the origin of religion is the mistaken notion that certain neurochemical episodes are dispatches from a Big Magic Guy? I'm trying to figure out how you link these experiences with the development of an apparatus for religious belief in a community.

It doesn't sound like a robust theory, actually. Most people don't have these trance states, so you'd think that the majority of believers wouldn't be likely to relate to them as a basis for sincere belief. Do you think that trance states were universal in the early days of religion? What makes you think that?

 

[Storm]

Okay. So the origin of religion is the mistaken notion that certain neurochemical episodes are dispatches from a Big Magic Guy?

Please don't put words in my mouth. I never said they were mistaken. Also, you're revealing your own ignorance of the topic. Religion probably began with animism and ancestor worship, not monotheism. We KNOW that monotheism came after polytheism, at least.

I'm trying to figure out how you link these experiences with the development of an apparatus for religious belief in a community.

It's pretty simple. They happen, and religions grow up around them.

It doesn't sound like a robust theory, actually. Most people don't have these trance states, so you'd think that the majority of believers wouldn't be likely to relate to them as a basis for sincere belief. Do you think that trance states were universal in the early days of religion? What makes you think that?

I think they were more common, because they're triggered by conditions that were more common.

 

[Escéptico]

It's pretty simple. They happen, and religions grow up around them.

Wow.

I'm so glad you've cut through all the anthropological and historical complexity of this issue and shown us how simple and straightforward the entire issue is. People had these weird experiences, and religion started from there.

Gee, anyone else would think that you might just be offering your own seat-of-the-pants analysis, and trying to pass it off as something other than wishful thinking.

 

[Storm]

I never made a claim to expertise, Esceptico. You said you didn't understand how I was linking them, I explained.

 

[Willamena]

Why Did We Evolve the Notion of God?

Why not?

 

[Willamena]

I'm so glad you've cut through all the anthropological and historical complexity of this issue and shown us how simple and straightforward the entire issue is. People had these weird experiences, and religion started from there.

Complexity is just that. Would you pefer it to simplicity?