Why Did We Evolve the Notion of God?

[Escéptico]

Why not?

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

Willamena,

I appreciate your taking the time to contribute so thoughtfully to the discussion. You seem to have such a probing imagination, I can see why this subject would light a spark in your analytical mind. Your posts have given me so much food for thought.

Would you care to offer your opinion on the subject at hand? Have you ever read Scott Atran's In Gods We Trust: The Evolutionary Landscape of Religion, or Daniel Dennett's Breaking The Spell: Religion As A Natural Phenomenon, both of which are fascinating reads on the topic of the evolution and development of religion in human history? Do you have anything substantial to add to the discussion?

 

[Somkid]

In spite of how chaotic humans are we try to put every thing in a box so we have a neat package of whatever. For some reason we have to have an answer for everything, I mean we can't leave anything unanswered so, even if the answer is silly and really doesn't do anything except create other questions we will settle for it for the moment for lack of any other explanation. We can see in history all of the Greek, Roman, Egyptian, pagan, etc. gods faded away as science prevailed until we were left with the one god concept that still stands to represent the answer for the big question, "how did we get here"? Some day when we have the answer to that question it means we will have bigger questions as that is our nature so, we will either create new myths or at some point we may become "evolved" enough to admit we don't know all the answers and our technology is lacking so we have to work harder to find the answer.

 

[Rolling_Stone]

There are two things I don’t think we can ignore: human beings will always be in the position of being able to believe more than we can know, and if they cannot penetrate to true origins, they will invent them in order to have constancy of thought.

Edit:
Ultimate explanations of phenomena and of contingent entities can only rest in what itself requires no explanation.

 

[Magic Man]

Willamena,

I appreciate your taking the time to contribute so thoughtfully to the discussion. You seem to have such a probing imagination, I can see why this subject would light a spark in your analytical mind. Your posts have given me so much food for thought.

Would you care to offer your opinion on the subject at hand? Have you ever read Scott Atran's In Gods We Trust: The Evolutionary Landscape of Religion, or Daniel Dennett's Breaking The Spell: Religion As A Natural Phenomenon, both of which are fascinating reads on the topic of the evolution and development of religion in human history? Do you have anything substantial to add to the discussion?

I've learned a lot more from Willamena here than from you. She might not say many words, but she doesn't have to, to get her point across. It goes back to her question about simplicity.

 

[Willamena]

Willamena,

I appreciate your taking the time to contribute so thoughtfully to the discussion. You seem to have such a probing imagination, I can see why this subject would light a spark in your analytical mind. Your posts have given me so much food for thought.

Would you care to offer your opinion on the subject at hand? Have you ever read Scott Atran's In Gods We Trust: The Evolutionary Landscape of Religion, or Daniel Dennett's Breaking The Spell: Religion As A Natural Phenomenon, both of which are fascinating reads on the topic of the evolution and development of religion in human history? Do you have anything substantial to add to the discussion?

No, thanks. I get the feeling that only by having read those books and agreeing with your position might I have anything you'd consider "substantial" to contribute. If the purpose of your sarcasm is simply to push me out the thread door, so be it.

 

[Escéptico]

No, thanks. I get the feeling that only by having read those books and agreeing with your position might I have anything you'd consider "substantial" to contribute. If the purpose of your sarcasm is simply to push me out the thread door, so be it.

Just giving you a chance to demonstrate that you can do better than firing off puerile responses like "Why not?" I guess you don't want to pollute your unique perspective with anything resembling familiarity with the subject at hand. Forget I mentioned those boring books.

 

[Magic Man]

Just giving you a chance to demonstrate that you can do better than firing off puerile responses like "Why not?" I guess you don't want to pollute your unique perspective with anything resembling familiarity with the subject at hand. Forget I mentioned those boring books.

Again, Willamena's responses are many times more insightful than any I've seen from you, including her "Why not?" response.

 

[logician]

Again, Willamena's responses are many times more insightful than any I've seen from you, including her "Why not?" response.

Are we having a contest here?

 

[Magic Man]

Are we having a contest here?

I'm just trying to say that Willamena's responses have added more to this discussion for me than Esceptico's, and so I'd rather have her as a part of it than have him. I would like Willamena to stay a part of this thread assuming she wants to because we could all learn something.

 

[meogi]

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.

Stress. Stress from losing members of your family and friends, seemingly random natural disasters that take heavy tolls, and survival in general. The idea of the divine allows for an assemblance of control over that which we really have no control over. It would reduce stress and thus increase survivability.

(I havn't read through most of the thread, appologies if this has been stated.)

 

[logician]

I'm just trying to say that Willamena's responses have added more to this discussion for me than Esceptico's, and so I'd rather have her as a part of it than have him. I would like Willamena to stay a part of this thread assuming she wants to because we could all learn something.

I think these threads are open to everyone, no matter what opinion each poster may have of the posts of others.

 

[Magic Man]

I think these threads are open to everyone, no matter what opinion each poster may have of the posts of others.

Exactly. That's why I would like Willamena to stay a part of it. I never said that Esceptico couldn't participate, all I said was that it would be beneficial to keep Willamena as a part of it.

 

[Escéptico]

Exactly. That's why I would like Willamena to stay a part of it. I never said that Esceptico couldn't participate, all I said was that it would be beneficial to keep Willamena as a part of it.

I asked for input from her, amigo. She refused.

You decided to make this all about you and your low opinion of my posts.

Feel better now?

 

[Magic Man]

Willamena,

Do you have anything substantial to add to the discussion?

This is not asking for her opinion. This is in other words saying that she should either say something more than what she said, or something "more pertinent" to the discussion, or she should stay out. Maybe that's not what you meant, but that's the way it came off to at least a few people. If I misconstrued your words, I apologize, but that's where I got the impression I got.

Anyway, if you want to discuss it more, let's do it in another area, as we've already hijacked this thread too much. If you don't, that's fine, too.

 

[Sunstone]

**MOD POST**

Please return to the topic in the OP.
​

 

[Escéptico]

Once again, I'll recommend Daniel Dennett's Breaking The Spell: Religion As A Natural Phenomenon to anyone interested in an honest and comprehensive look at this subject.

Dennett sees religion as a meme, a self-perpetuating cultural construct that has undergone a co-evolution with humanity. He's wondering if religion evolved in the same way our tastebuds did: we crave the sugar that kept our ancestors active, but now the evolutionary vestige is more likely to cause health issues. Or maybe it's like lactose tolerance, which combines genetic factors with cultural ones: if our ancestors belonged to societies that domesticated dairy animals, we're less likely to have problems digesting dairy products. Or maybe it's something we still don't understand about our biology, like why we blink with both eyes at once.

Anyone who has read Dennett's other works (like the fabulous Darwin's Dangerous Idea) knows what to expect from his writing: challenging thought experiments, a keen philosophical edge, and a reluctance to settle for facile solutions to complex issues. He lays out a program for studying religion as a natural phenomenon that can be useful for believers and nonbelievers alike.

 

[Magic Man]

Once again, I'll recommend Daniel Dennett's Breaking The Spell: Religion As A Natural Phenomenon to anyone interested in an honest and comprehensive look at this subject.

Dennett sees religion as a meme, a self-perpetuating cultural construct that has undergone a co-evolution with humanity. He's wondering if religion evolved in the same way our tastebuds did: we crave the sugar that kept our ancestors active, but now the evolutionary vestige is more likely to cause health issues. Or maybe it's like lactose tolerance, which combines genetic factors with cultural ones: if our ancestors belonged to societies that domesticated dairy animals, we're less likely to have problems digesting dairy products. Or maybe it's something we still don't understand about our biology, like why we blink with both eyes at once.

Anyone who has read Dennett's other works (like the fabulous Darwin's Dangerous Idea) knows what to expect from his writing: challenging thought experiments, a keen philosophical edge, and a reluctance to settle for facile solutions to complex issues. He lays out a program for studying religion as a natural phenomenon that can be useful for believers and nonbelievers alike.

That sounds very interesting. Thank you for the good description. I'll be going to Barnes and Noble one day this week, and maybe I'll have to pick up a copy.

 

[Escéptico]

Food for thought from Daniel Dennett on the evolution of religion:

It is not surprising that religion survives. It has been pruned and revised and edited for thousands of years, with millions of variants extinguished in the process, so it has plenty of features that appeal to people, and plenty of features that preserve the identity of its recipes for these very features, features that ward off or confound enemies and competitors, and secure allegiance. Only gradually have people come to have any appreciation of the reasons - the heretofore free-floating rationales - for these features. Religion is many things to many people. For some, the memes of religion are mutualists, providing undeniable benefits of sorts that cannot be found elsewhere. These people may well depend for their very lives on religion, the way we all depend on the bacteria in our guts that help us digest our food. Religion provides some people with a motivated organization for doing great things - working for social justice, education, political action, economic reform, and so forth. For others, the memes of religion are more toxic, exploiting less savory aspects of their psychology, playing on guilt, loneliness, the longing for self-esteem and importance.

(Breaking the Spell, p. 309-310)

 

[Rolling_Stone]

Food for thought from Daniel Dennett on the evolution of religion:

It appears the excerpt was written by someone just as norrow-minded and dogmatic as any creationist trying to rationalize their beliefs.

 

[Magic Man]

It appears the excerpt was written by someone just as norrow-minded and dogmatic as any creationist trying to rationalize their beliefs.

How do you figure that? What in that excerpt implies that conclusion to you?