Meh, the morality thread ran it's course so I thougth I'd come up with something new.

Did religon evolve? Every society that lasted no matter how diverse has had a component
of religon mostly consisting of Gods and spiritual beliefs. Is supernatural belief a genetic
trait? I can't see how it fits into Darwin's theory since it doesn't appear to be a survival trait.

What was it that made all societies throughout civilation do goofy things like put bones through
thier noses, grow long hair or go on hunger strikes to prove their belief in such religon was stronger
than others? In many cases religon seems counter-productive to survival.

It seems that religon holds a benefit to a group as a survival charachteristic since it would help keep
members in line and act more moral but it wouldn't seem like a genetic trait in that sense. So how would
that pass down the line?

It would seem that BG (and others) would be more likely to argue that God gave us the predisposition to
believe in the supernatural than to argue that he instilled a morality code into our genetics. So where did
this predisposition come from and how did it last?

Coco butter.

Religion is devolving. Because lets face it, this shit made a lot more sense in the bronze age.

Unfortunately it isn't, largely because religiosity correlates with increased birth rate. The most secular places, like in Europe, have a slow to negative population growth.

don't know if i agree but dawkin's theory is that religious belief isn't socially beneficial, and is in fact a "behavioral parasite" propagating through the (already evolved) parent/child teaching relationship.

I disagree and that's kind of my point. 92% of Americans hold a religious belief and also in an ultimate creator and things like
heaven and hell. Given the absolute absurdity of even the concept it is still prevalent in all societies. So where did this predisposition
to believe in the supernatural come from? It is also not much of a beneficial trait that I can tell so why did it keep evolving and stay
a prevelent part of society? Did it in fact evolve? Is it in the genes?

I remember reading that but wasn't thinking along them lines when I wrote it. I think that he refered to it as a parasite because it helped to propogate
something he clearly sees as a falsehood and the negative effects of religon. I am thinking of the generations of long ago whereby someone claiming to
be the religous leader (of a tribe or something) could hold together the clan better (probably through fear) and in turn helped to keep the clan more moral,
loyal and protective of the clan thus adding an obvious social benefit.

I find it oddly fascinating that every society has invented a God of some sort so that's why I was wondering how it could have been something that evolved
from primal ancestors and why or how?

I think people don't want to think that it just...ends. I think people want to believe that there is something else after you die and religion gives them that...hope?

I don't necessarily believe that there is a "heaven" of sorts as in clouds and angels and signing and such, but a part of me hopes there is something. But I don't care enough to go to church and learn more or guarantee a spot just in case, but I think a lot of people do. That is not the main reason why people believe in the supernatural but I think it is one of the reasons.

I am calling for Atheists of the world to bang your neighbor. Go forth and bear fruit

Find a MILF near you!


And please prick your atheist's friends condoms with a needle. Though, they are probably pro-choice too, so not sure if this will help. One can always hope.

yes, like ALL things, it's continually evolving. as society and culture developed religion has evolved along with it. i view what most call "science" as an evolution of what most call "religion." both look for understanding of existence. as technologies and understanding have gotten better so too has our understanding of the physical world in which we exist.

i believe that soon we'll evolve past what we currently call "science."



not genetic, cultural. but humans have the biological capability to understand that they will die one day. religion (culture) is a great example of how people deal with this knowledge and their fear of the unknown.



human population growth alongside technological evolution (especially alcohol), led to the formation of larger and larger societies. in early societies understanding of language and the physical world was crude. cultural belief patterns evolved alongside the growth of city/states.

but the fact is that very few of us have little clue as to our exact origins. and again this leads to fear. pretending to know, which is what all men do, is a great way to quell fear in potential female mates. so, to me, it seems to stem from a direct evolutionary trigger.

history is made by individuals, but it's easy to forget.



i'd bet you have your father's accent. you probably treat women the same way he does. you may shave the same way he does, etc.

humans, like most species, learn from watching their parents. this is how culture gets passed along.

early human guesses at our origins and the physical world, while crude, were often better than what proceeded it. you can't expect authors to not write just because someone in the future will have a better understanding than they have.

"the singularity is near" by kurzweil is probably the greatest book a layman who wants a fuller understanding of evolution can read. understanding technological evolution is pretty easy and it works as an amazing tool to help understand evolution as a whole.

for the record: buddhism is my favorite of what most people call "religion," but i respect all peoples of all beliefs.

edit: i'm an idiot.

given that "science" encompasses any and all forms of learning from objective observation, what do you even mean by evolve "past" that? short of A. learning everything that can possibly be objectively known and becoming pseudo-gods ourselves or B. devolving into morons who don't care about knowing anything objectively, i don't see any way we will outgrow learning from observation.

closer to A. if i had to guess, but, again, i really have no clue.

you mean we're not headed for idiocracy? no costco's the size of large cities? darn.

The concept of religion grew from man's attempt to explain natural phenomena like lighting, wind, rain etc. Then, as civilization advanced gods started to become more about abstract representations of "good" and "evil." By following the rules of the "good" gods, inner-societal friction was decreased making the respective societies more successful at things like food production and increasing population. Thus, a cultural trait moved to fill the same evolutionary role as a successful genetic trait. Even some of the religious practices that would be considered by modern societies to be "evil" could fill a practical evolutionary role. Human sacrifice, as an example, could have been used to help relieve the pressure of a scarcity of resources by culling the human herd of a particular location.

What does this even mean?

This is nonsense.

I hate this kind of shit.

It is either a meaningless catch-phrase, an ignorant position or a literally psychotic world-view.

"Respecting" a "peoples" who believe superstitious absurdity is bad enough, but "respecting peoples" who's beliefs lead to STUPID ASS SHIT THAT I HAVE TO PROTECT OTHER, NOT-STUPID PEOPLE FROM is downright reprehensible, and falls within one of the categories above.

Jesus I hate that "respecting beliefs" bullshit.

I totally agree.

Do you "respect their beliefs" if they are in the KKK? I don't think all beliefs are worthy of respect.

Or to make it easier to hide from the conquistadors.


Oh wait. That didn't work out too well, did it?

Well, I understand how it has passed down generations since the evolution of the written word. I'm talking back further. Did prehistoric man have
a belief in God. Dinosaurs? I guess I am saying that animals obviously don't have this trait and all human societies have so where did it come from?




Why didn't some societies form without the belief. Couldn't one guy in one society lead the others in a more rational thought process rather than
coming up with a suernatural belief? Beneficial traits usually are passed down the generations but it doesn't appear to have much of a benefit.



This is pretty much along my line of thinking as far as being a benefit to society, but evolution doesn't really recognize group traits as evolutionary, though I suppose it could be a byproduct of some other traits.

Thinking about it I also think that once humans developed a conscienceness they realized that others had it as well and it probably freaked them out. Thinking someone else was talking to them was probably a reasonable explanation for inner dialogue. If there were invisible voices, creating invisible people speaking was probably a logical step.

I guess this still doesn't explain why squirrels don't have bones in their noses and pray at noon every day.

thanks for the clarification but i wasn't aware of a figuratively psychotic world view.

each person is a product of culture. to hate someone for their beliefs, no matter how bizarre, is to judge them (improperly in my opinion) for something they have no control over.

i get it though, you're spademan, you can kill and fuck, and you know all.



then i guess i am lucky that my beliefs do not require your consent. and extra lucky that i do not fear your judgment.

btw, you'd probably be better served if you quit trying to get my dick to rise and worried about your own.

You experience one every time you interact with me.

Now you're aware of one.



OK. That's great.

What though, exactly, does any of that have to do with respecting someone's beliefs?

Yup. Nothing.



I would say I respect these beliefs but they aren't beliefs.

Those are stone cold fucking FACTS babbbyyy. OHHH YEA!

I respect those facts.




True. Unless your beliefs were to lead you to violence against innocents.

You'd fear my judgment then.

But you aren't delusional so continue your fearless thought experiments.





I'd respond to this if I knew what the hell you meant by it.

I can't tell if it's a joke or a flame or a come-on or what so I'm just going to pretend like I never read it.




There we go.

I am at peace once again.

I was expecting a youtube video with that guy from evolution of dance.

Tom.

It's because we're smarter than other animals. By a friggin lot. We're the only animal that can understand the concept of the universe, history, physical laws, and metaphysical theories like lot of religions. That doesn't answer your question about why religion is so widespread, but it shouldn't be surprising that it's unique to humanity. Like, most everything we do and think is unique to humanity.

Okay so all humanity has the genetic makeup to believe in a spiritual god, heaven and hell just like eye color and boob size? You mean
all this time crow has been trying to convert BG to enlightenment has been for naught? He can't help it because he is predisposed genetically
to believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster?

Thinking more about this maybe I didn't make this clear. Obviously God has spiritually waved a wand on only humans
and gave them the inate power to think spiritually, look to a God, heaven and hell etc.

For some unknown reason it has been prevalant in all human societies and lasted throughout generations with
no individual survival benefit. Despite logic clearly most still believe that way.

It's probably the best reason as to why it has lasted since it isn't a genentic trait. I could be arguing that
the mere existence of religon in the first place is more apt to be from God than morality.

It's not genetic, it's a learned behavior. It's not like flat molars in grazing herbivores that help break down grasses. That was a mutation that proved to allow those with the mutation to eat better, live longer, and have more offspring with the same mutation. It's more like primates using twigs to "fish" for termites. It's a learned behavior but still helped humans adapt to a set of evolutionary pressures, thus making them more "fit" to survive and reproduce.

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 for
everything 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?

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.

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?

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 here
seems 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,”

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.)

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.

<hat tip>

Duh, that makes sense. The Devil created religon.