Questions about evolution

Vangelis

How do you explain religious faith or spiritual faith from an evolutionary point of view?

Would scientists say that all religious people are genetically weak organisms whose "religious genes" will be exterminated by evolution because their irrational minds are no longer needed now that we have obtained so much knowledge?

Has religion been an evolutionary way of self-sustenance for humans, a kind of survival mechanism or psychological "self-deceit" that motivates us to keep living(it gives hope, the knowing that you're loved etc)?

Zombrex

Vangelis wrote:

How do you explain religious faith or spiritual faith from an evolutionary point of view?

Humans tend to bend what they know around what they don't know, it is part of our logic reasoning to try and fit experience to problem solving ... so religion is an attempt to bring an everyday order to things that they can't explain. A classic modern example would be intelligent design ... we don't understand how it happens so we model what we do understand around it, ie some form of intelligence like ours must have done it (ie God, which as a concept is also modelled on ourselves).

God has been traditionally presented like a father figure, and the after life is pretty similar to this life etc. In non-Christian religions like the Roman and Greek religions the Gods and Goddess took roles that wouldn't look out of place in a modern soap opera. Animals often become Gods, as in Egyption and Indian religion.

That isn't really from a evolutionary point of view, religion is more an invention of a modern (relatively speaking) society. The Walking with Cavemen series (again on BBC) dealt with a time when early humans had no concept of ritual (dead bodies were just left where they died), into a time where ritual, especially around the dead, began to take form. It is a relatively new concept, I am not sure how much direct role evolution had on it. I might be wrong, if someone else knows more I would be interested myself.

Vangelis wrote:

Would scientists say that all religious people are genetically weak organisms whose "religious genes" will be exterminated by evolution because their irrational minds are no longer needed now that we have obtained so much knowledge?

I doubt there exists a "religion" gene.

Vangelis wrote:

Has religion been an evolutionary way of self-sustenance for humans, a kind of survival mechanism or psychological "self-deceit" that motivates us to keep living(it gives hope, the knowing that you're loved etc)?

You imply that without religion people would believe no one loves and cares about them. I don't think that is true.

I would agree though that religion can often be a form of physcological defense mechanism to protect ones self from tramatitic events in life.

Vangelis

Wicknight wrote:

You imply that without religion people would believe no one loves and cares about them. I don't think that is true.

I would agree though that religion can often be a form of physcological defense mechanism to protect ones self from tramatitic events in life.

Wicknight, I'll leave your first two paragraphs for now. It'd be nice with more replies so I'll wait. Thanks for writing!!

What you say here... Erm.. How do you then explain, from an evolutionary point of view, that people state they have found inner peace, a meaning to their lives, they have heard god's voice telling them what to do, and they are in harmony with themselves, i.e as when God tells me "Be not afraid" and my fear ends ?

PS Funny spelling of traumatic. Tramatitic?

Crucifix

Very good post Wicknight.

Vangelis wrote:

...heard god's voice telling them what to do...

No offense intended, but this sounds a little unsettling.

aidan_walsh

Vangelis wrote:

How do you then explain, from an evolutionary point of view, that people state they have found inner peace, a meaning to their lives, they have heard god's voice telling them what to do, and they are in harmony with themselves, i.e as when God tells me "Be not afraid" and my fear ends ?

Survival mechanism. The end.

Vangelis

Crucifix wrote:

Very good post Wicknight.

No offense intended, but this sounds a little unsettling.

Of course, you haven't heard his voice! In your eyes I'm mad.
But then you could count another 1,3 billion other mad individuals who pray and have their prayers answered.

Back on topic, please.

Stark

Interesting point, scientists have discovered the particular region of the brain which makes people want to believe in God. I think it's in the frontal lobes somewhere. Whether you want to put that down to accident or some sort of "intelligent design" is up to you.

Vangelis

I've heard, Stark. It's a bit odd though, but interesting anyhow.
If it means anything is a different question.

Crash

Stark wrote:

Interesting point, scientists have discovered the particular region of the brain which makes people want to believe in God. I think it's in the frontal lobes somewhere. Whether you want to put that down to accident or some sort of "intelligent design" is up to you.

So would it technically be possible to have religious lobotomy? actually more interesting would be the effects of the removal of that area on a firm religious believer - would other parts of the mind take up the slack and keep the belief going or would it just fail?

dalk

Might it all be down to brain chemistry? (Pretty sure Richard Dawkins tried the "religious experience brain stimulator" thingy, with no effect. Not surprisingly, he would seem to not be prone to religious experience).

Like a lot of things, some people are more prone to religious belief/experiences than others. One thing i am sure of is that religious belief will never die out. History and anthropology shows us that nearly every human culture, no matter where, or when, holds/held some sort of religious ritual/belief. It seems to me to be as 'human' an impulse as music and art... Which is why some people like to think that the trait that most seperates us from the animals is not our big wise (sapiens) brain but that we practice religious rites of some sort (homo religiousos).

I find it all rather curious tbh...

toiletduck

Wicknight wrote:

I doubt there exists a "religion" gene.

i think maybe the OP should look at the concept of memes. the religion meme has been very successful.


[edit] see here for more about memes[/edit]

seamus

Religion is a belief. Simple as.

As humans, we believe a lot of things. As Wicknight points out, when we're confronted with something, we use our existing knowledge to hypothesise, and create a belief about how and why something occurs.

Science has been doing this for years. An unknown is found, some investigation is done, and a theory is formulated. Then the theory is proven or disproven - or even left as a theory, a belief.

Belief in a God is no different, except that it's more a fallback syndrome. If you don't have capability or the understanding to investigate the phenomenon, then it makes sense to attribute it to a higher power.

To imply that a religious belief is a genetic weakness is at best bigotry, and at worst fascism. Ultimately we all believe something. Believing that there is no God, that it's all chance and science, is no more or less valid than believing that there is a God. To believe that ultimately everything is discoverable, that one day we will know everything is just as equally delusional as believing that there are some things we'll never know.

Unless you can somehow prove otherwise that religious belief is invalid.

Dades

Vangelis wrote:

Of course, you haven't heard his voice! In your eyes I'm mad.
But then you could count another 1,3 billion other mad individuals who pray and have their prayers answered.

What about the other 4 billion? Do their prayers go unanswered? If not - who answers those prayers? An "answered" prayer (IMO) is a result of one, or all of: human generosity, hard work, coincidence/luck. Reminds me of the adage:

Teach a man to fish and he'll eat for life. Teach him to pray and he'll starve praying for fish.

bonkey

Vangelis wrote:

How do you explain religious faith or spiritual faith from an evolutionary point of view?

You don't. Its got nothing to do with evolution.

Would scientists say that all religious people are genetically weak organisms whose "religious genes" will be exterminated by evolution because their irrational minds are no longer needed now that we have obtained so much knowledge?

They might, but only when speaking from a non-scientific perspective.

Has religion been an evolutionary way of self-sustenance for humans, a kind of survival mechanism or psychological "self-deceit" that motivates us to keep living(it gives hope, the knowing that you're loved etc)?

Nope. Religion still has nothing to do with evolution.

How do you then explain, from an evolutionary point of view, that people state they have found inner peace

You don't. Such statements have nothing to do with evolution.

A trend should be emerging here....

jc

Wibbs

bonkey wrote:

Nope. Religion still has nothing to do with evolution.

While I take your point, I would feel that religion as a concept has evolved for some purpose. As was pointed out, earlier humans didn't appear to have a religious feeling if we take their death rituals, or lack of them on board. Animals don't appear to be religious either. Given that our rapid brain growth is a relatively recent event and pretty much all the structures in the human brain have grown markedly, I'd be surprised if such an inherent part of humanity didn't have some survival purpose. If we take the other point mentioned, ie that we appear to have a religious/spirtual center in the brain that hypotheses is further strengthened. It seems to me unlikely that evolution would favour such an area without good reason(self deceit/protection from thoughts of death etc).

It may also have a part to play in human curiosity and search for novelty as atheists and artists brains appear to light up in the self same areas when confronted with elegant scientific topics, art and music.

Maybe religion/spirituality is a side effect of this, but as various studies over the years have also shown the devout of many faiths live longer, even when other environmental pressures are factored out, there seems more to it. This would suggest that it is an evolutionary advantage and hence it evolved in the first place. The meme angle regardless of transmission could be thought of as an evolutionary vector. Memes like genes tend to be selected if they confer advantage and the religion/spirtuality meme is a bout the biggest there is.

Your religious might even claim that this brain area acts as a reciever to "God". Who knows, but interesting all the same.

lazydaisy

Religion refers to many other religions outside of Christianity. God is a monotheistic concept introduced to the world by Judaism and later adopted by Christianity. There are polythiestic religions, godless religions, primitive religions, etc etc. Try not to be so eurocentric when talking about religion.

There have been some theories connecting evolution to religion. For example, the ancient Greek polytheistic religions - some evolutionists have proposed that at that time in man's development our corpus cerebellum hadnt fully developed so we were more prone to hallucination, which is what brought forth the gods, godesses, and mythical creatures of ancient Greece. Also if you look at the cave paintings in France, some anthropoligists have surmised that they refer to a prayer for food and sustenance.

Basically man is curious, and wants to know where we come from and why are we here, religion has offerred some explanation before turned to science for the answers.

Religion was once all tied in with ritual, sex, art and magic to ensure survivorship. As we have evolved the relationship between these parts of our experiences have become more and more separate, although we all know that religion has used art and ritual to control rather than explain our sexuality and propagation of our species.

Vengelis, there are tons of books on the subject if you want to know more.

Vangelis

The Atheist wrote:

What about the other 4 billion? Do their prayers go unanswered? If not - who answers those prayers? An "answered" prayer (IMO) is a result of one, or all of: human generosity, hard work, coincidence/luck. Reminds me of the adage:

Teach a man to fish and he'll eat for life. Teach him to pray and he'll starve praying for fish.

Are their prayers answered?

I was alone when I had my prayers answered. No hard work or generosity for me.

The theory about memes seems rather peculiar. But than Dawkins is a peculiar scientist.

Vangelis

lazydaisy wrote:

Religion was once all tied in with ritual, sex, art and magic to ensure survivorship. As we have evolved the relationship between these parts of our experiences have become more and more separate, although we all know that religion has used art and ritual to control rather than explain our sexuality and propagation of our species.

Just where does the thing about survivorship come from?

Christianity or Judaism does not have roots in sexual rituals.

lazydaisy

Right. But pre-Christian religion does, as in the fertilty rituals of ancient Greece for example which were tied in around drama and music and sexuality. And the many other rituals, like the rites of spring, etc that have to do with fertility not just of men and women, but of the land.

Even Christmas and Easter is timed on the old fertility rituals that pre-date Christianity.

And that was my point, Christianity and Judaism are only 2 religions out of many which have existed in and out of time, and we shouldnt abstract huge generalisations about religion and evolution based on just two western religions.

Vangelis

lazydaisy wrote:

Right. But pre-Christian religion does, as in the fertilty rituals of ancient Greece for example which were tied in around drama and music and sexuality. And the many other rituals, like the rites of spring, etc that have to do with fertility not just of men and women, but of the land.

Even Christmas and Easter is timed on the old fertility rituals that pre-date Christianity.

And that was my point, Christianity and Judaism are only 2 religions out of many which have existed in and out of time, and we shouldnt abstract huge generalisations about religion and evolution based on just two western religions.

I know all that. I was just eliminating Judaism and Christianity from that branch. Islam too actually.

Okay.

The Corinthian

Vangelis wrote:

Christianity or Judaism does not have roots in sexual rituals.

Actually it does, after a fashion. The point that was - crudely made - was that religions were often as much a codification of social order (including sexual morality) as anything else. In this regard Christianity or Judaism is no different to any other religion; it simply happens to be a little more repressive than most - at least St Paul dumped all the Jewish dietary prohibitions.

Still sex was only part of what religion seeks to socialize. Typically religion is the first law giver in primitive Societies and the legal and moral status of life, family and property generally are described within the moral tenets of all religions - a role that it continues onto this day.

Of course, this is only one aspect to religion in general.

Vangelis

That's one way of looking at it too.

The Corinthian

Vangelis wrote:

That's one way of looking at it too.

It’s more sociological viewpoint, however it does not contradict a religious one.

Citing the emergence of a shaman or priest cast in primitive societies might however. The supernatural has been used throughout history to control populations and prop up oligarchies, after all.

GuanYin

Vangelis wrote:

How do you explain religious faith or spiritual faith from an evolutionary point of view?

Would scientists say that all religious people are genetically weak organisms whose "religious genes" will be exterminated by evolution because their irrational minds are no longer needed now that we have obtained so much knowledge?

Has religion been an evolutionary way of self-sustenance for humans, a kind of survival mechanism or psychological "self-deceit" that motivates us to keep living(it gives hope, the knowing that you're loved etc)?

Hopefully this sums it up for you (but you seem to selectively ignore my posts so maybe not) -

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=50415608#post50415608

Humans evolved an ability to communicate, that has by and large, manifested in making associations and telling stories.

IF you do (A) then (B) will happen. After a few hundred retellings or occurances this can "evolve" into a story that puts great emphesis on one or more aspects of the events. We tend, naturally to personify things - its more the nature of the way we make associations and tell stories than it is any biological evolutionary influence (then again, that may be the way our brains are wire dto tell stories and how they evolved).


Terry Pratchett once made a reference in a book to a hermit/prophet living in the wilderness eating local shrubs and berries, many of which are not fit for consumption - and then talks about hearing voices and seeing strange appearances.... The wrong stories sometimes get told and rather than information about what berrie sto eat if you spend a month in the wilderness, someone is founding a religion based on the hallucinagenic trip of some hermit!

Vangelis

Corinthian,

To give you a more proper reply to your post.

The Corinthian wrote:

Actually it does, after a fashion. The point that was - crudely made - was that religions were often as much a codification of social order (including sexual morality) as anything else. In this regard Christianity or Judaism is no different to any other religion; it simply happens to be a little more repressive than most - at least St Paul dumped all the Jewish dietary prohibitions.

I was anticipating that you meant that Christianity/Judaism had its origin in a sexual rite or sexual doctrine. It is not. If you want the Biblical explanation for it, which is the only one I can really give, it is that God "interfered" with Mankind's way of life because it was often immoral. In your view, God put a repressive law on us humans. And that is your opinion. The truth, if you read in the Bible, is that he gave corrections and guidance to Mankind so that they should live the way he had meant them to live.

A Christian reconciles with the truth that God knows what is best for his us. Therefore, to a Christian, his laws are not repressive.

Unfortunately, non-Christians seem to focus on the seemingly negative parts of the Bible. When a person comes to faith in God and learns about God's will and intention for his Creation, this person will want to do what is right according to God. Non-Christians see Christianity as stiff and imposterous. It is not. There is joy too. But I will stop before I get banned.

Still sex was only part of what religion seeks to socialize. Typically religion is the first law giver in primitive Societies and the legal and moral status of life, family and property generally are described within the moral tenets of all religions - a role that it continues onto this day.

Of course, this is only one aspect to religion in general.

I would not call ancient Egypt, ancient Israel or Arabia(Islam) for primitive societies. That is degrading. Ancient peoples all around the world have aquired great knowledge of mathematics, medicine, physiology/physiotherapy, astronomy, seafaring, weaponry and building that we should thank them for. Hadn't it been for all of this which comes from all the ancient cultures long lost, we wouldnt have had the knowledge we have today. Egypt had it's religions which were much the base of laws and customs. So did many other societies.

This I say only to defend the ancient cultures' un-primitiveness.

Vangelis

psi wrote:

Hopefully this sums it up for you (but you seem to selectively ignore my posts so maybe not)

I do not selectively ignore your posts. In fact, I don't ignore your posts at all. I only try to take time for each post. If I haven't replied to all, that is because I haven't had the time. But I will reply.

Humans evolved an ability to communicate, that has by and large, manifested in making associations and telling stories.

IF you do (A) then (B) will happen. After a few hundred retellings or occurances this can "evolve" into a story that puts great emphesis on one or more aspects of the events. We tend, naturally to personify things - its more the nature of the way we make associations and tell stories than it is any biological evolutionary influence (then again, that may be the way our brains are wire dto tell stories and how they evolved).

The ability to tell stories results in religious faith? That is odd. Story-telling is not a genetic trait. Neither can story-telling be inherited. Lamarck might claim that, be his theories were debunked. Your arguement is otherwise very imaginative.

Terry Pratchett once made a reference in a book to a hermit/prophet living in the wilderness eating local shrubs and berries, many of which are not fit for consumption - and then talks about hearing voices and seeing strange appearances.... The wrong stories sometimes get told and rather than information about what berrie sto eat if you spend a month in the wilderness, someone is founding a religion based on the hallucinagenic trip of some hermit!

Where does this come from? When did it happen?
Obviously, this story did not shape the person's(story teller's) genes.

I don't really see where you're going here...

The Corinthian

Vangelis wrote:

I was anticipating that you meant that Christianity/Judaism had its origin in a sexual rite or sexual doctrine. It is not.

You can anticipate all you desire, but that’s not actually what I said.

If you want the Biblical explanation for it, which is the only one I can really give

No I didn’t as it is by your own definition of the topic at hand completely off topic. And if you cannot offer any other, then that is for you to rectify, not I.

A Christian reconciles with the truth that God knows what is best for his us. Therefore, to a Christian, his laws are not repressive.

That’s not actually what repressive means. Repression denotes a process by which unacceptable desires or impulses are excluded from consciousness and left to operate in the unconscious. Of course this does not mean that repression is a negative thing in all cases, we repress many harmful desires and fears for the good of Society, for example.

And so in the case of Abrahamic religions sexuality tends to be regulated and repressed to various degrees. I am not making any moral judgment on whether this is a good thing or not, simply pointing out a pretty well established fact.

I would not call ancient Egypt, ancient Israel or Arabia(Islam) for primitive societies. That is degrading.

And you’re being highly presumptive - where did I call any of them that?

Actually, where did I even mention those societies?

Unfortunately, non-Christians seem to focus on the seemingly negative parts of the Bible. When a person comes to faith in God and learns about God's will and intention for his Creation, this person will want to do what is right according to God. Non-Christians see Christianity as stiff and imposterous. It is not. There is joy too. But I will stop before I get banned.

That’s touching, but also off topic, and you appear to know it is.

You are the one who raised the topic of the evolution of religion and now seem unwilling or unable to discuss it. I would understand were you capable of arguing perhaps that it was divine rather than the result of an evolutionary social process, but even there you’ve yet to put forward a case.

In short, and with respects, have you actually thought out what you’re trying to say here? You’ll find argument works better than simply stating your position.

Crucifix

Vangelis wrote:

The ability to tell stories results in religious faith? That is odd. Story-telling is not a genetic trait. Neither can story-telling be inherited. Lamarck might claim that, be his theories were debunked. Your arguement is otherwise very imaginative.

I would think it is rather that our brains evolved to the point that we could tell and appreciate stories.

GuanYin

Vangelis wrote:

I do not selectively ignore your posts. In fact, I don't ignore your posts at all. I only try to take time for each post. If I haven't replied to all, that is because I haven't had the time. But I will reply.

Funny, you seem to ask lots of questions that I and others have answered previously in posts. If you read them, you certainly didn't take them in.

The ability to tell stories results in religious faith? That is odd. Story-telling is not a genetic trait. Neither can story-telling be inherited. Lamarck might claim that, be his theories were debunked. Your arguement is otherwise very imaginative.

You obviously don't have much of an understanding of genetics. Genetics describes expression of genes (segments of DNA) that may (or may not) result in a protein being made. What do you think it means, and how do you think any genetic trait could lead directly to religion?

The "genes" that encode the proteins that ultimately make up the structure of our brain (there is actually ALOT more to it than this, but for the purpose of this, we'll keep the simplified version). The structure and components of our brain (specifically the abundance of essential fatty acids) allow us faster and better processing of information, reason, rationale and logic. They also allow us advanced communication abilities.

Now, for whatever reason, historically (and remember there is such thing as "cultural evolution" its not just physiology that is tracked in evolutionary terms) we evolved culture and society through stories. This is effectively how we warn others.

We don't say "don't go there the lion is there". We tell a complex story to engender fear associated with the idea of a lion and ultimately the place we are warning about. This is how we have and still do communicate. We pass on emotions through stories.

Religion is no different. Incidents converted to stories, passed on through societies and cultures, they're embellished and eventually you get extraordinary stories that religions are based on. Its effectively the phenomenon referred to as chinese whispers.

OF course there are other instances where religions are formed through other means. But basically the isea of stories is how they take hold on peoples minds (think of christianity "bad people go to hell - all descriptive stories designed to promote anxiety - "God speaking to people through a burning bush" etc etc - all impressive stories.)

Where does this come from? When did it happen?
Obviously, this story did not shape the person's(story teller's) genes.

Again I'd labour it is your mis-conception of what genetics is that clouds your understanding here.

I don't really see where you're going here...

The last part was paraphrasing a farce/parody of the formation of religion.

One bible story tells of a man in the desert hearing the voice of god in a burning bush. A very impressive occurance for anyone. But it was (apparently, I'm not an expert in this area, I'm just recounting the point here) quite common for wanderers to partake in eating berries and fungi available in the wilderness/deserts that had hallucinagenic effects.

Its the nature of humans to take an incident where somebody has a vision of god while drugged and not focus on 90% who tell a story about a guy who ate some magic mushrooms (or whatever) and instead focus and spread the account by the other 10% that makes the guy out to be a prophet.

Vangelis

psi wrote:

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=50415608#post50415608

I will reply to this post later, psi.

GuanYin

Vangelis wrote:

I will reply to this post later, psi.

maybe read the subsequent posts first, so like, you aren't retreading old ground.

Vangelis

The Corinthian wrote:

You can anticipate all you desire, but that’s not actually what I said.

I responded to how I interpreted your post.

No I didn’t as it is by your own definition of the topic at hand completely off topic. And if you cannot offer any other, then that is for you to rectify, not I.

So let's minimize the number of points here because I'm getting confused.
I don't have to rectify anything. I answered in my own way.

That’s not actually what repressive means. Repression denotes a process by which unacceptable desires or impulses are excluded from consciousness and left to operate in the unconscious. Of course this does not mean that repression is a negative thing in all cases, we repress many harmful desires and fears for the good of Society, for example.

I KNOW what repression is. And I presumed that you regarded the Bible as repressive in its LAWS. Perhaps I presume too much, or you will have to explain yourself better.

And so in the case of Abrahamic religions sexuality tends to be regulated and repressed to various degrees. I am not making any moral judgment on whether this is a good thing or not, simply pointing out a pretty well established fact.

Yes.

And you’re being highly presumptive - where did I call any of them that?

Actually, where did I even mention those societies?

I should have asked: Which societies are you referring to then? Be a little more exact, please. It's easy to misunderstand/misinterpret.

That’s touching, but also off topic, and you appear to know it is.

I'm a talented off-topicer.

You are the one who raised the topic of the evolution of religion and now seem unwilling or unable to discuss it. I would understand were you capable of arguing perhaps that it was divine rather than the result of an evolutionary social process, but even there you’ve yet to put forward a case.

In short, and with respects, have you actually thought out what you’re trying to say here? You’ll find argument works better than simply stating your position.

I contribute with what I can. I don't have a PhD in philosophy, but I'm doing what I can. Maybe I'm not as devoted to boards.ie as you are. Maybe I participate in too many discussions. I'll try to figure that out.

Actually, I'm studying evolution right now so hopefully I will get back to the discussion with a more evolved brain.

Vangelis

psi wrote:

Funny, you seem to ask lots of questions that I and others have answered previously in posts. If you read them, you certainly didn't take them in.

You haven't posted elsewhere in this thread.

You obviously don't have much of an understanding of genetics. Genetics describes expression of genes (segments of DNA) that may (or may not) result in a protein being made. What do you think it means, and how do you think any genetic trait could lead directly to religion?

I have some understanding of genetics, and currently enhancing my understanding of it through studying.

I cannot give any ideas of how a genetic trait could lead directly to religion.
If that is at all possible.

The "genes" that encode the proteins that ultimately make up the structure of our brain (there is actually ALOT more to it than this, but for the purpose of this, we'll keep the simplified version). The structure and components of our brain (specifically the abundance of essential fatty acids) allow us faster and better processing of information, reason, rationale and logic. They also allow us advanced communication abilities.

Thank you, now I've learned something new.

Now, for whatever reason, historically (and remember there is such thing as "cultural evolution" its not just physiology that is tracked in evolutionary terms) we evolved culture and society through stories. This is effectively how we warn others.

Yes...

We don't say "don't go there the lion is there". We tell a complex story to engender fear associated with the idea of a lion and ultimately the place we are warning about. This is how we have and still do communicate. We pass on emotions through stories.

Religion is no different. Incidents converted to stories, passed on through societies and cultures, they're embellished and eventually you get extraordinary stories that religions are based on. Its effectively the phenomenon referred to as chinese whispers.

Darwin understood that for a new genetic trait to "wake up"/become active, it must allready exist in the genes of an organism. So if there is a gene for religious/spiritual faith it must have existed for a loooong time? I'm not sure if you are talking about the possibility of a "religious gene" and before I say anything more, are you?

OF course there are other instances where religions are formed through other means. But basically the isea of stories is how they take hold on peoples minds (think of christianity "bad people go to hell - all descriptive stories designed to promote anxiety - "God speaking to people through a burning bush" etc etc - all impressive stories.)

Get it.

The last part was paraphrasing a farce/parody of the formation of religion.

I did not comprehend that. It's easy to misunderstand as I've said before.

One bible story tells of a man in the desert hearing the voice of god in a burning bush. A very impressive occurance for anyone. But it was (apparently, I'm not an expert in this area, I'm just recounting the point here) quite common for wanderers to partake in eating berries and fungi available in the wilderness/deserts that had hallucinagenic effects.

Its the nature of humans to take an incident where somebody has a vision of god while drugged and not focus on 90% who tell a story about a guy who ate some magic mushrooms (or whatever) and instead focus and spread the account by the other 10% that makes the guy out to be a prophet.

I see. But I don't see why you are speaking about wanderers who eat hallucinogenic berries and fungi in the wilderness/deserts. Are you asserting that the man who heard God's voice had eaten such hallucinogenic berries/fungi? To confirm this, we need someone with a knowledge of the vegetation in the Middle-East/Africa 4000 years ago and where exactly this man(for your information it was Moses!) walked.

One can have religious-like experiences when doped, yes. But what about me for instance. When I can feel God's spirit, I haven't consumed hallucinogenic berries.

GuanYin

Vangelis wrote:

You haven't posted elsewhere in this thread.

No but the topic wa stouche don briefly in the "lust" thread.

Darwin understood that for a new genetic trait to "wake up"/become active, it must allready exist in the genes of an organism. So if there is a gene for religious/spiritual faith it must have existed for a loooong time? I'm not sure if you are talking about the possibility of a "religious gene" and before I say anything more, are you?

Ok, you clearly don't understand genetics and how it applies to evolution.

Ther eis no such thing as a "religion" gene. There is no such thing as an "alzheimers gene" or a "cancer gene" or a gene for any human condition.

The human body is a very complex system of proteins that act as building blocks, messenger systems, on/off switches, or "keys" to activate switches (ok you understand that I am not using literal descriptions here, but imagery to try help you understand).

Genes are merely segments of DNA that contain the code for the initiation and building of these proteins.

Now, it may be that some people do or do not have a certain gene that change sthe way a protein is made, or whether it is made at all, and the effect of the gene on the protein may or may not lead to a higher chance of alzheimers, cancer or whatever. This DOES NOT infer that the gene itself is a "cancer gene".

So, there could not EVER be a "religion gene" because genetics doesn't work like that. genes code for proteins. That is all. Nothing else.

Now, the complexity of the human body, means that a single gene mutation, can lead to a major change in the organism, dpending on the gene itself and how it is coded.
That is how evolution works. If a gene change is significantly expressed in a body AND if the gene itself is a significant gene, you may see a change in the organism. If its an advantagous change, it survives. If not, it doesn't.

Genes simply don't code for large scale apparent things. You don't have an "eye gene" or a "sight gene" you have many many genes that create many different types of cells that through a range of factors converge to form an organ like the eye.

What CAN happen, is that genes may dictate that proteins that are formed in a certain way and these proteins may lead to the formation of something wonderfully complex, like the human brain.

And the way we think, well thats still up for debate, but the neurotransmitters and chemicals are upstream of genetics.

Go buy a nice simple eas to access (by which I mean accessible to lay people) book like Genome by Matt Ridley.

Your current level of understanding is your failing in this discussion.

I see. But I don't see why you are speaking about wanderers who eat hallucinogenic berries and fungi in the wilderness/deserts. Are you asserting that the man who heard God's voice had eaten such hallucinogenic berries/fungi? To confirm this, we need someone with a knowledge of the vegetation in the Middle-East/Africa 4000 years ago and where exactly this man(for your information it was Moses!) walked.

One can have religious-like experiences when doped, yes. But what about me for instance. When I can feel God's spirit, I haven't consumed hallucinogenic berries.

No, I'm suggesting that areligion could easily be formed through the stories people may tell about a man who has a religious experience.

Likewise, you have been socially conditioned through exposure throughout your life to feel that you have felt gods spirit.

The Corinthian

Vangelis wrote:

I responded to how I interpreted your post.

You should not interpret me. I say what I mean, nothing more.

If you need to interpret me, then I would suggest you either cannot understand what I have said or you’d prefer I’d said something else. Or both.

So let's minimize the number of points here because I'm getting confused.
I don't have to rectify anything. I answered in my own way.

Let me explain; you began a debate on specific topic. When others engaged you, you then replied not by debating it (this is what this forum is for, after all) but by essentially regurgitating dogma. Ultimately, you did not ask for a debate on what Bible says, you asked for a debate upon the (I presume social) evolution of religions in general. And to date you’ve been unable to engage the latter.

I KNOW what repression is. And I presumed that you regarded the Bible as repressive in its LAWS. Perhaps I presume too much, or you will have to explain yourself better.

I explained myself perfectly quite adequately; it is you who seem not to understand the definition of the word ‘repression’.

My own guess (only a guess, of course) is that you heard what could have been interpreted as a criticism of the Bible and so ran to its defence before understanding what was actually said.

Yes.

Well, at least something got through.

I should have asked: Which societies are you referring to then? Be a little more exact, please. It's easy to misunderstand/misinterpret.

I’m sorry but it’s not easy to misunderstand or misinterpret if you’re paying attention. I cited primitive societies and that’s what I meant - I even mentioned shamanism in relation to this, so it’s not so difficult to follow, TBH.

Look up the anthropological definition of the word primitive, if you’re still confused.

I'm a talented off-topicer.

And you’ll find you’ll be demonstrating your talent to no one but yourself if you continue to initiate debates and then fail to engage them. No one likes a time waster, after all.

I contribute with what I can. I don't have a PhD in philosophy, but I'm doing what I can. Maybe I'm not as devoted to boards.ie as you are. Maybe I participate in too many discussions. I'll try to figure that out.

Actually, I'm studying evolution right now so hopefully I will get back to the discussion with a more evolved brain.

You do not need to have a PhD in philosophy or be any more devoted to Boards.ie. and you will not return to the discussion with a more evolved brain, only (perhaps) a more educated one.

I suggest you do get back to the discussion, but more so when you’re less flippant rather than more evolved.

Vangelis

psi wrote:

Likewise, you have been socially conditioned through exposure throughout your life to feel that you have felt gods spirit.

While I may need further education in genetics, I don't accept that someone gives me a diagnosis as a victim of indotrination.

My faith is actually very different from my parents' and so is my respect for scientific evidence.

If you say that, I can say the same thing about you: You've been exposed to the science and to trust science only. That has shaped you.

GuanYin

Vangelis wrote:

While I may need further education in genetics, I don't accept that someone gives me a diagnosis as a victim of indotrination.

My faith is actually very different from my parents' and so is my respect for scientific evidence.

The word "may" was missing for that line, it should have read:
"Likewise you may have been..."

apologies for the misunderstanding.

If you say that, I can say the same thing about you: You've been exposed to the science and to trust science only. That has shaped you.

You'd be wrong, I grew up in two very devout religious family households. I studied both religions in depth, one through school the other from my time with family. One I ultimately rejected, the other I respect and appreciate, althoughit does not play a part in my life.

During this time I was exposed to science and trust science only.

All of these shaped me.

So, the difference between you and I, is that I made an informed choice after seeing several pictures.

Vangelis

psi wrote:

So, the difference between you and I, is that I made an informed choice after seeing several pictures.

I made an informed choice myself having read the Bible in-through-and-out.
After that I was informed enough to make a choice to believe or not.
And I chose to believe.

GuanYin

Vangelis wrote:

I made an informed choice myself having read the Bible in-through-and-out.
After that I was informed enough to make a choice to believe or not.
And I chose to believe.

You can't make an informed choice between two scenarios without being informed about both.

you made a choice, it wasn't an informed one because you were only informed about one of your choices.

Vangelis

psi wrote:

you made a choice, it wasn't an informed one because you were only informed about one of your choices.

So I was informed but not informed?
Aha. Eureka.

GuanYin

Vangelis wrote:

So I was informed but not informed?
Aha. Eureka.

No, youre being obtuse now.

If you have two options. And you only have information about one of your options.

You cannot say you made and informed choice.

Its a very simple concept.

It also applies directly to you.

Vangelis

Okay, okay, okay.
You win.