The Evolution Of Religon

[hank213 1,823]

One cannot overlook the nomadic nature of man, this is how culture (including everything from religion to culinary practices) spread. Even if there was no "religious drift" to explain the introduction of the concept of religion between two far flung human populations it can possibly be explained by looking at convergent evolution. Evolution in which two unrelated lineages develop a similar biological trait, like wings. Or a cultural phenomena like writing, painting, or music. Just because two populations are isolated from each other doesn't mean they can't come to a similar conclusion, especially if the conclusion is beneficial.The evolutionary pressure filled by religion was what I stated earlier, the ability to live more harmoniously in a communal situation and thus become a more successful species. It is important to note that evolution is not directed. Evolutionary pressures don't direct what mutations, or in this case ideas, occur. Instead the idea, or genetic mutation, occurs, proves to have positive effect on the ability of a species to survive and reproduce, and thus becomes more widespread. In other words, some caveman somewhere didn't think "If I make everybody believe in the same flying spaghetti monster, we'll all get along and can rule the world!" It simply doesn't work that way what despite what Patton Oswalt says. As far as man "not just accepting what was there" goes, it's probably a good thing they didn't. If they would have, people never would have strayed out of Africa, never built ocean going vessels and on and on and on, so you and I most likely wouldn't exist, and certainly not in our current circumstances. You could just as easily ask "Why did Hammurabi create his code?" and probably come to a similar conclusion.

[vbnautilus 48]

So when fish crawled from the ocean they immediately set up classrooms and taught the others to believe in that a supernatural being was responsible for creating everything? Maybe simultaneously prehistoric man texted others around the world to spread the word? How did every culture, ever, come across learning the exact behavior? What evolutionary pressure was there to decide that God's were responsible foreverything that happened? Don't get me wrong, in civilized society it's obvious how humans can use fear to teach the young about the religon they believe in and also how so many have used it to profit financially, etc. Why initially didn't some cultures just accept what was there versus creating a religon?

Well for one thing, they didn't all decide that the same "god" was responsible for everything that happened. There is quite a wide variety of supernatural and superstitious beliefs around the world. That said, there are some common themes that show up in many cultures, which are likely the result of the common psychological features we all share. Superstition is basically a side effect of our incredibly useful ability to draw associations between events. Associative learning is one of the most powerful mental technologies we have. We can learn that when the clouds form overhead there is going to be a storm. But since our brains are constantly looking for these associations, we often see them when they aren't there. There are 3 conditions which I believe make us ripe for superstition. 1) Lack of control 2) Strong desire for control 3) unpredictability. Take gambling, for example, a circumstance where there is a high incidence of superstition. You cannot really control whether or not the slot machine pays out (1), however you really want it to (2) and it sometimes just does, randomly (3). In this kind of situation people really pay attention to the relationship between what they do just before they pull the lever and what happens. I heard a story of a guy who dropped a penny and happened to step on it just before hitting big. Now, every time he plays the slots he drops a penny and steps on it. Same thing happens in sports... and in ancient cultures where due to lack of knowledge nature is highly unpredictable. If you do some kind of a dance, and then it rains... well, without knowledge of the mechanism of rain you are likely think the association is meaningful. The oldest religious rituals and practices are like this. Then there is the fact that we tend to personify the things around us, mostly because we have such a special understanding of people, we try to understand other things the same way. Most early religions are like this, animist, polytheistic. Think Egypt, or Hinduism. Each god represents one of the natural forces of the world. The single god concept is relatively recent. This turned into kind of a babbling rant, sorry.

[Randy Reed 0]

Well for one thing, they didn't all decide that the same "god" was responsible for everything that happened. There is quite a wide variety of supernatural and superstitious beliefs around the world. That said, there are some common themes that show up in many cultures, which are likely the result of the common psychological features we all share. Superstition is basically a side effect of our incredibly useful ability to draw associations between events. Associative learning is one of the most powerful mental technologies we have. We can learn that when the clouds form overhead there is going to be a storm. But since our brains are constantly looking for these associations, we often see them when they aren't there. There are 3 conditions which I believe make us ripe for superstition. 1) Lack of control 2) Strong desire for control 3) unpredictability. Take gambling, for example, a circumstance where there is a high incidence of superstition. You cannot really control whether or not the slot machine pays out (1), however you really want it to (2) and it sometimes just does, randomly (3). In this kind of situation people really pay attention to the relationship between what they do just before they pull the lever and what happens. I heard a story of a guy who dropped a penny and happened to step on it just before hitting big. Now, every time he plays the slots he drops a penny and steps on it. Same thing happens in sports... and in ancient cultures where due to lack of knowledge nature is highly unpredictable. If you do some kind of a dance, and then it rains... well, without knowledge of the mechanism of rain you are likely think the association is meaningful. The oldest religious rituals and practices are like this. Then there is the fact that we tend to personify the things around us, mostly because we have such a special understanding of people, we try to understand other things the same way. Most early religions are like this, animist, polytheistic. Think Egypt, or Hinduism. Each god represents one of the natural forces of the world. The single god concept is relatively recent. This turned into kind of a babbling rant, sorry.

Not really, I understand what you and Cane are saying, religon is basically a byproduct of having an imagination. Kinda like a belly button. The belly button wasn't created to be one but is the natural consequence or side effect of childbirth. Religon is the side effect of having an imagination and being able to plan.So let's say that it is part of the natural process of evolution, why did it evolve into vast religons prevalent today? Why hasn't logic taken over? Has religon somehow been entwined with our dna or brain to make us "want" to believe despite logic? We have basic drives to have sex, eat, etc; so is there also a biological need to believe in the supernatural/religon or is it simply xenophobia that keeps people believing. I guess I'm saying that if we have evolved biologically to be "good or moral" for survival, is religon an evolutionary byproduct of that morality?

[vbnautilus 48]

Not really, I understand what you and Cane are saying, religon is basically a byproduct of having an imagination. Kinda like a belly button. The belly button wasn't created to be one but is the natural consequence or side effect of childbirth. Religon is the side effect of having an imagination and being able to plan.So let's say that it is part of the natural process of evolution, why did it evolve into vast religons prevalent today? Why hasn't logic taken over? Has religon somehow been entwined with our dna or brain to make us "want" to believe despite logic? We have basic drives to have sex, eat, etc; so is there also a biological need to believe in the supernatural/religon or is it simply xenophobia that keeps people believing. I guess I'm saying that if we have evolved biologically to be "good or moral" for survival, is religon an evolutionary byproduct of that morality?

In short, at this point it is a software issue rather than a hardware issue. It's transmitted culturally, not genetically (guess which religion a kid adopted into a muslim family will become?). For a spreading idea it is rather successful because it comes with mechanisms to subvert things like logic which would otherwise expel it from a mind; for instance the concept of faith is a pretty good defense against reason. The fact is that we are very far from rational creatures, even though we are capable of rationality. Emotion interacts with cognition at every level, and even our purely cognitive processing relies on heuristics and quick tricks that are right most of the time but can lead to error.

[Randy Reed 0]

In short, at this point it is a software issue rather than a hardware issue. It's transmitted culturally, not genetically (guess which religion a kid adopted into a muslim family will become?). For a spreading idea it is rather successful because it comes with mechanisms to subvert things like logic which would otherwise expel it from a mind; for instance the concept of faith is a pretty good defense against reason. The fact is that we are very far from rational creatures, even though we are capable of rationality. Emotion interacts with cognition at every level, and even our purely cognitive processing relies on heuristics and quick tricks that are right most of the time but can lead to error.

It's still pretty interesting that something that seems to be so anti-evolutionary for survival can be such an intrinsic part of humanity. Most everyone hereseems to portray it as a beneficial trait whereas I pretty much thing it was more negative than positive. As belly button bproducts go, Dawkins said, “Religious behavior may be a misfiring, an unfortunate byproduct of an underlying psychological propensity which in other circumstances is, or once was, useful,”

[Spademan 94]

In short, at this point it is a software issue rather than a hardware issue. It's transmitted culturally, not genetically (guess which religion a kid adopted into a muslim family will become?). For a spreading idea it is rather successful because it comes with mechanisms to subvert things like logic which would otherwise expel it from a mind; for instance the concept of faith is a pretty good defense against reason. The fact is that we are very far from rational creatures, even though we are capable of rationality. Emotion interacts with cognition at every level, and even our purely cognitive processing relies on heuristics and quick tricks that are right most of the time but can lead to error.

I don't say this much, but: I couldn't have said it better myself.(I could have said it a little better of course, but it's a hell of a post so let's give vb a little glory unto himself, shall we.)

[vbnautilus 48]

It's still pretty interesting that something that seems to be so anti-evolutionary for survival can be such an intrinsic part of humanity. Most everyone hereseems to portray it as a beneficial trait whereas I pretty much thing it was more negative than positive. As belly button bproducts go, Dawkins said, “Religious behavior may be a misfiring, an unfortunate byproduct of an underlying psychological propensity which in other circumstances is, or once was, useful,”

It's not exactly clear to me that religion is bad for evolutionary fitness. Right now, in fact, religious people are reproducing at a much higher rate than non-religious people. (Part of this may be due to the whole birth-control-is-evil thing, but that's probably not all of it). But Dawkin's whole point is that ideas can exist for their own sake, even if they are not beneficial to their hosts. That's why in this metaphor religion is a parasite; it survives at a cost to its host.

[vbnautilus 48]

I don't say this much, but: I couldn't have said it better myself.(I could have said it a little better of course, but it's a hell of a post so let's give vb a little glory unto himself, shall we.)

<hat tip>

[Randy Reed 0]

It's not exactly clear to me that religion is bad for evolutionary fitness. Right now, in fact, religious people are reproducing at a much higher rate than non-religious people. (Part of this may be due to the whole birth-control-is-evil thing, but that's probably not all of it). But Dawkin's whole point is that ideas can exist for their own sake, even if they are not beneficial to their hosts. That's why in this metaphor religion is a parasite; it survives at a cost to its host.

Duh, that makes sense. The Devil created religon.