Evolutionary advantage of religion?

Schuhart

I feel this deserves a thread all of its own.

There's no evidence that Dinosaurs had religion as a trait. We do. So what was the thing that along the line meant that organisms with a disposition towards religion were more reproductively fit than those that don't?

Bear in mind, this means not only that religious folk would have more children. It also requires that their children would both inherit religion and pass it on to the next generation.

Flamed Diving

Schuhart wrote: »

I feel this deserves a thread all of its own.

There's no evidence that Dinosaurs had religion as a trait. We do. So what was the thing that along the line meant that organisms with a disposition towards religion were more reproductively fit than those that don't?

Bear in mind, this means not only that religious folk would have more children. It also requires that their children would both inherit religion and pass it on to the next generation.

Social bonding for communities so large that it is impossible to know everyone, hence lacking the auto-generation of mutual kinship/trust. Religion solved this problem, nationalism replaced it.

Zillah

Complex, problem solving, technology creating intelligence is an evolutionary advantage but the dinosaurs didn't have it. What's you point?

Schuhart

Zillah wrote: »

Complex, problem solving, technology creating intelligence is an evolutionary advantage but the dinosaurs didn't have it. What's you point?

That, just as complex, problem solving, technology creating intelligence must have given some reproductive advantage to organisms that possessed it, religion must have given some reproductive advantage to organisms that possessed it. Otherwise, neither feature would be present in humans now.

The reference to dinosaurs is just to set a context. At some stage between dinosaurs and us, organisms must have emerged with complex, problem solving, technology creating intelligence and religious faith. Those organisms must have found those features made them more fit, in the sense of being relatively better at reproducing.

Galvasean

Schuhart wrote: »

. At some stage between dinosaurs and us, organisms must have emerged with complex, problem solving, technology creating intelligence and religious faith. Those organisms must have found those features made them more fit, in the sense of being relatively better at reproducing.

Those organisms are often referred to as humans.

lmtduffy

Religion is a feature of society not the species,

if you wanna get socially scientific about it we can say that the questioning of religion and the decline of its power show were evolving socially not genetically like how we got thumbs or whatever.

Schuhart

Gaviscon wrote: »

Those organisms are often referred to as humans.

I'm sure they are. Several of them are also called Cyril.

lmtduffy wrote: »

Religion is a feature of society not the species

The society is, surely, just a feature of the species. Or are you saying religion was given to the species by something outside them?

Zillah

I would hypothesize that religion is not an evolutionary trait per se. Perhaps we have a genetic disposition towards spiritual experiences and supernatural "encounters". Combine that with other traits such as the craving for answers to questions, transmission of ideas and predisposition towards authority structures and you've got a pretty thorough explanation for religion.

Schuhart

Zillah wrote: »

I would hypothesize that religion is not an evolutionary trait per se. Perhaps we have a genetic disposition towards spiritual experiences and supernatural "encounters".....

OK, that would do for a start. What would be the evolutionary advantage of a genetic disposition towards spiritual experiences and supernatural "encounters"?

(Bearing in mind that this trait, on meeting other traits, would be honed into religion.)

anti-venom

Schuhart wrote: »

OK, that would do for a start. What would be the evolutionary advantage of a genetic disposition towards spiritual experiences and supernatural "encounters"?

(Bearing in mind that this trait, on meeting other traits, would be honed into religion.)

Professor Robert Winston has said - and you can take it or leave it - that the reason the Neanderthals went extinct, in the face of human advancement, is that they probably lacked the ability to create a god or a religion. This 'god centre' in the brain gave humans an added advantage in that they had something other than themselves to fight for.

I don't accept this hypothesis myself. However, the presence of a disposition towards supernatural belief does not, in any way, signify the reality of any god being. It's an evolutionary trait - according to Winston - as
fundamental as any other evolutionary trait and as vital to our survival.

Zillah

Well, there's two of my hypothetical traits that could have had benefits earlier; question answering and fake supernatural encounters. They both require a degree of preexisting intelligence so for my hypothesis I will assume these traits came into being long before homosapien sapiens but long after, say, tree squirrels.

Question answering is the easiest one. Once a species starts to reach a self-aware level of intelligence they are presented with difficult questions; Why am I here? Why am I me and not the chief? Whats that terrifying gigantic banging sound coming from the sky? Fundamentally they lack the capacity to answer such questions (as do we still for some of them). This stressful not-knowing is the only downside to the otherwise environment-shatteringly useful 'intelligence' trait. Being able to wrap up such existential and ultimately meaningless questions with souls/God/magic is a nice balancing trait.

The second one is a litle harder to explain but it becomes far more interesting if you ponder that it came into being after the previous trait. We now have a species that believes in spirits, destiny, souls and whatever other nonesense that placates their newfound existential angst. Well, now imagine that Tibor the Fatone comes back from his fishing trip and announces to everyone with incredible sincerity that he, while fishing, saw a flash of lightning, and when it was gone a large man stood there and told him something interesting/terrifying/whatever. Bang, we now have our first Shaman, direct line to these new God-things that can make the sky shake and decide if your pregnancy will be successful or not. Combine that with the human predisposition towards authority structures, some clever stories and especially parasitic memes and you can easily see how world spanning religions might appear in the distant future.


All that said I'd imagine that as plausible as it sounds its probably at best an over simplistic and hamfisted attempt, but I'd imagine a sociological thesis on the matter would say something much like the above.

Schuhart

anti-venom wrote: »

This 'god centre' in the brain gave humans an added advantage in that they had something other than themselves to fight for.

I'm not sure that sounds like something that makes it a killer app. I'm more inclined to the idea that the answer is somewhere in the daily discipline of life - something that, by slow accretion, means that religious humans would have consistently more children surviving to adulthood.

anti-venom wrote: »

However, the presence of a disposition towards supernatural belief does not, in any way, signify the reality of any god being.

Agreed, except the consequence of this is we are saying humans have a disposition to be deluded. That may be true, but it would seem like an assertion that requires some kind of explanation.

anti-venom wrote: »

It's an evolutionary trait - according to Winston - as fundamental as any other evolutionary trait and as vital to our survival.

I'm inclined to agree. I feel our reluctance to accept this is a phenomenon of the same nature as the reluctance of Creationists to accept that the Genesis story is not a factual record of the creation of the Earth.

Schuhart

Zillah wrote: »

All that said I'd imagine that as plausible as it sounds its probably at best an over simplistic and hamfisted attempt, but I'd imagine a sociological thesis on the matter would say something much like the above.

In fairness, we're all just trying to find a plausible explanation. However, I feel the flaw in what you've suggested is that it assumes that beings that first develop any rudimentary self awareness will find the experience unpleasant. I cannot see why beings that find rudimentary self awareness to be unpleasant would be reproductively favoured over beings that do not. I thought that pretty much any successful trait would need to be explained in terms of it being positive in itself.

Zillah

I would imagine that any species that develops self awareness must at some point deal with potentially-unanswerable existential questions. Our intellect is built around the concept of cause and effect, the apparent causelessness of our existence I suspect would be a rather disturbing one for a primitive species. Traits don't have to save or kill you 100% of the time to develop. Even a slight penalty is amplified across many generations. The increased stess and depression that could result from such a situation could be evolutionarily relevant. The positives of my hypothetical solution are also quite potent; social cohesion, objective basis for law, stability of leadership structures etc.

If we put two tribes on a large island and leave them to duke it out for a few generations, I suspect the tribe that has a religion will trounce the other one. In terms of stable leadership, respect for laws, group identity, culture and many other traits they have a huge advantage.

Zillah

For example, imagine you're a primitive human. Which of these is more likely to succeed?

1 - Hey guys, stop lying in the sand and watching your children play, we should go raid the other tribe and take their stuff.

2 - Hey guys, the elder Shaman had a vision and the Blood God Khorne demands tribute in the form of dead enemies and bounty.

The second one, of course, requiring that you believe in the Blood God.

Schuhart

Zillah wrote: »

Traits don't have to save or kill you 100% of the time to develop. Even a slight penalty is amplified across many generations.

But consider how fish found in pitch dark underground pools no longer have eyes. As I understand it, the reason assigned to that is that evolution will cut out any unnecessary feature. Hence, even the slight disadvantage of needing to nourish eyes in an environment where they are not needed will reduce reproductive fitness enough for it to fail. Hence, it would strike me that a slight penalty should not be amplified.

That statement in the Bible 'the fool says in his heart there is no god' suggests that there were atheists at a time when we could not possibly have known that we're standing on a ball rotating around the sun. So, despite having no explanation for the world about them, it would still look like some aware beings will choose atheism. Hence, it seems to me reasonable that at any stage we might imagine, there would be a 'self aware but genetically disposed to finding this uncomfortable' trait and a 'self aware but genetically disposed to finding this comfortable' trait. I think the 'uncomfortable' trait would need to have a clear advantage - and maybe it does, and maybe we will think of a very plausable one.

Zillah wrote: »

For example, imagine you're a primitive human. Which of these is more likely to succeed?

1 - Hey guys, stop lying in the sand and watching your children play, we should go raid the other tribe and take their stuff.

2 - Hey guys, the elder Shaman had a vision and the Blood God Khorne demands tribute in the form of dead enemies and bounty.

The second one, of course, requiring that you believe in the Blood God.

Except, consider how religiously inspired warriors might take risks to prove how well they are fulfilling the Blood God's wishes.

Also, consider how some of the stuff we here about early religions might have impacted on the faithful themselves. "The Blood God will send no more rain for our crops, unless we sacrifice a dozen virgins." That's twelve fewer wombs, meaning the remaining wombs would have to be especially fit compared to the tribe over the hill who say "Haven't a clue how we got here, or why its not raining, but I'm not going to make a load of stuff up to pretend I do".

Zillah

Schuhart wrote: »

Hence, it would strike me that a slight penalty should not be amplified.

Er, nourishing eyes in an environment where eyes are useless is a small penalty. Not a big one for any given animal, but the penalty is amplified over many generations resulting in eyeless fish.

There's also genetic drift of course. A fish that develops a mutation that means his eyes don't work could reproduce effectively in a sunless environment, hence his eyeless nature will 'drift' throughout the population, the trait is neither a penalty nor a benefit.

Hence, it seems to me reasonable that at any stage we might imagine, there would be a 'self aware but genetically disposed to finding this uncomfortable' trait and a 'self aware but genetically disposed to finding this comfortable' trait.

Simplistic to the point of uselessness I think. There would be a collection of traits resulting in intelligence, there would be a collection of traits dealing with emotional disposition, and there would of course be environmental factors. Yes, perhaps there were a few atheists back in the day, but as we have seen they're few and far between. Also, see below:

I think the 'uncomfortable' trait would need to have a clear advantage - and maybe it does, and maybe we will think of a very plausable one.

Imagine being the one person in a room that doesn't have a powerful, irrational hatred for communists.

Except, consider how religiously inspired warriors might take risks to prove how well they are fulfilling the Blood God's wishes.

Yes, but if they get back to the tents they have quite a story to tell and likely will the chieftain has found a new husband for one of his daughters. I propose the danger does not outweigh the rewards.

Also, consider how some of the stuff we here about early religions might have impacted on the faithful themselves. "The Blood God will send no more rain for our crops, unless we sacrifice a dozen virgins." That's twelve fewer wombs, meaning the remaining wombs would have to be especially fit compared to the tribe over the hill who say "Haven't a clue how we got here, or why its not raining, but I'm not going to make a load of stuff up to pretend I do".

How often do you think dozens of healthy human beings were sacrificed? Compare that to hundreds of thousands of years of accrued benefits of a cohesive social group. Most traits can have downsides. Aggressiveness helps you kill predators and rivals but it also makes people kill their own family. Immune systems kill bacteria but also can attack your own organs. Few traits are completely beneficial. We must consider the long term usefulness of a stable society compared to what I think would be very infrequent human sacrifice.

Schuhart

Zillah wrote: »

Er, nourishing eyes in an environment where eyes are useless is a small penalty. Not a big one for any given animal, but the penalty is amplified over many generations resulting in eyeless fish.

I've feeling I'm just missing your point here - apologies.

Zillah wrote: »

There would be a collection of traits resulting in intelligence

Surely not irreducibly complex? Did God assemble all those points? Or at what stage was there an 'I'm sure there must be something more' trait, looking for other elements to be assembled with?

Zillah wrote: »

Yes, perhaps there were a few atheists back in the day, but as we have seen they're few and far between.

Indeed, but is the point not why they were few and far between. The vanilla flavour would surely be atheism. If dinosaurs (so far as we know) had no religion, then organisms must have been atheist originally and then invented and adopted religion at some point. So its a new trait, the origin of which has to be accounted for. If, at a particular snapshot, we see few atheists, that means the trait appeared and was found to be reproductively fit compared to atheism before that point in time.

Zillah wrote: »

I propose the danger does not outweigh the rewards.

In practice (and this is a question, not a statement) do other apes engage in warfare? What I'm getting at is does reproductive fitness display itself as something that makes me more able to fight off other humans, or something that makes me better than other humans at fighting off the threats that the species faces.

Making that thought more concrete, does religion do something to make the daily practice of life more supportive of infants growing to adulthood. Would an atheist cave dweller throw his baby at an attacking tiger and run for it, while a theist cave dweller would be more likely to think how to arrange a situation so that the whole family could better avoid assault by tigers?

AtomicHorror

Religion provides question-ending answers to the really big questions. In the absence of enough information, it helps us to put a stop to potentially unending lines of thought. The capacity for self deception also allows us to put to rest big things like our rather unfortunate realisation of our mortality. Cowering in cave whilst overcome with existential angst is a distinct survival disadvantage in the absence of a society that can support this. :pac: Nietzsche wouldn't have made a great cave man.

As was suggested, it also helps provide a "rational" justification for some necessary evils which our over-developed minds have trouble with- but these days people will use science for that purpose as well!

Schuhart

AtomicHorror wrote: »

The capacity for self deception also allows us to put to rest big things like our rather unfortunate realisation of our mortality.

I know I'll be told to feck off in a minute, but the question that came to mind with this is what was the evolutionary advantage of a capacity for self deception? When did the trait of reckoning that sabre-tooth tiger was just misunderstood and ate your Da by mistake improve reproductive fitness?

Now, I know we can speculate that it might be displayed when you think of that Billy Connolly routine about why Wildebeest will happily continue grazing while one of their number is being eaten by a predator ("I'm not one of those Wildebeest. I'm one of those stripy things over there.") But, in fairness, its easier to see why lack of delusion would be what would get you ahead of the pack.

Alternatively, I suppose delusion would work if it encouraged Wildebeest to go on having babies in the belief that there would be more to their lives than being eaten.

AtomicHorror

Schuhart wrote: »

I know I'll be told to feck off in a minute, but the question that came to mind with this is what was the evolutionary advantage of a capacity for self deception? When did the trait of reckoning that sabre-tooth tiger was just misunderstood and ate your Da by mistake improve reproductive fitness?

When did I suggest that evolution would favour such an extreme? That extent of self delusion would certainly emerge at various times. But is the behavior you suggest above likely to result in successful reproduction? Evolution of traits is all about finding optimal levels of expression. In this case, natural selection places penalties on under-expression of self delusion as well as over-expression.

Naturally we still see both emerge to varying extents, but the norm is still a state of partial self delusion.

Schuhart

AtomicHorror wrote: »

In this case, natural selection places penalties on under-expression of self delusion as well as over-expression.

Perhaps , and I accept I'm running the risk of being pain in the arse about this. It just strikes me that a society would have to be fairly advanced for self delusion to be a trait with a purpose. I don't understand what would allow the trait to survive all through situations where it would seem to be a burden. Surely it would be about as useful as the trait of being born without an anus, and therefore should be as rare.

Flamed Diving

What was the point that Dawkins made in one of his tv shows, that many animals have a means of sensing patterns in our surroundings, and sometimes this process overshoots and senses patterns where none exist? Perhaps this is linked to religion, superstition, etc?

AtomicHorror

Schuhart wrote: »

Perhaps , and I accept I'm running the risk of being pain in the arse about this. It just strikes me that a society would have to be fairly advanced for self delusion to be a trait with a purpose.

I already suggested why that would not be so. In more primitive circumstances, where life and death decisions are everyday occurrences, contemplating the nature of one's existence is a real survival disadvantage. You need a question-ending answer. A lie to keep you alive. Far from the society needing to be advanced to permit self deception, it is only the comfort and vast information available to modern society that allows us to begin to discard it. With a system in place to provide us with food an shelter for less work, we can afford the luxury of stopping to think. The selective pressure in favour of self deception has slackened somewhat.

Schuhart wrote: »

I don't understand what would allow the trait to survive all through situations where it would seem to be a burden. Surely it would be about as useful as the trait of being born without an anus, and therefore should be as rare.

Why would you assume that we'd apply a self-deceptive behaviour equally to all situations? When you see a dangerous animal it is not at all the same situation as wondering what makes the sun move. There's a huge difference. We can distinguish a difference consciously and subconsciously.

In a sufficiently intelligent species, I would say a capacity for limited self deception is essential.

AtomicHorror

Flamed Diving wrote: »

What was the point that Dawkins made in one of his tv shows, that many animals have a means of sensing patterns in our surroundings, and sometimes this process overshoots and senses patterns where none exist? Perhaps this is linked to religion, superstition, etc?

I suggested that in a post here before- I think it is indeed this pattern-recognition tendency combined with our capacity to stop the process and thus prevent us from becoming preoccupied. The human mind has historically been too sophisticated for the information actually available to us. We had these huge questions that could only be answered with sophisticated stop gaps such as astrology and religion.

Galvasean

Zillah wrote: »

2 - Hey guys, the elder Shaman had a vision and the Blood God Khorne demands tribute in the form of dead enemies and bounty.

Blood for teh blood God!!!

*picks up axe*

Schuhart

AtomicHorror wrote: »

I already suggested why that would not be so. In more primitive circumstances, where life and death decisions are everyday occurrences, contemplating the nature of one's existence is a real survival disadvantage.

Perhaps, but one of the solutions to that dilemma is surely for whatever nascent ability for such abstract considerations to simply lose out and not become so common.

AtomicHorror wrote: »

Why would you assume that we'd apply a self-deceptive behaviour equally to all situations?

I suppose because, initially, that is how the self-deceptive facility would have to operate. Plus, I suppose a compelling reason would have to be produced to explain why self-deception would become so common.

Apologies again on being such a pain. I suppose I'm looking for that reason that makes me say 'oh, how obvious once its been said', but I haven't seen it yet. By comparison, no-one needs to explain why some animals might have a claw. The advantage is easy to contemplate. I'm looking for a reason that similarly explains religion.

nozzferrahhtoo

Daniel Dennett and Dawkins have both dealt with this in a different way. Not my words I hasten to add so I won’t be defending the positions from any replies, but it’s a good enough set of ideas to warrant mentioning here.

They usually start with giving a good example of the moth. Moths fly into the flame of a candle and fry themselves. We can ask ourselves "What is the evolutionary advantage of the moth doing this" and spend our entire lives trying to figure it out and we wont. The reason being we have asked the wrong question from the outset.

If we were to ask the question instead "What evolutionary advantage has the moth got that results in it flying into the flame" we instantly get the answer. At night the moths only source of light is the moon, which if it has a gene that says "fly with the light from the moon at optical infinity" results in the moth flying in a straight line parallel to the ground.

Along come humans lighting their dastardly candles and suddenly the new light source causes the moth to, using the same rule as before, fly in a logarithmically declining spiral into the flame resulting in self immolation.

The same, it is suggested, can be said of religion. Our pattern seeking behaviour, our tendency to believe elders and our tendency to look for the design behind actions and events all provide a fertile ground for an evolutionary side effect such as religion. “What is the evolutionary advantage of religion?” turns out to be the wrong question therefore, as religion ends up just being an unfortunate side effect of other evolutionary advantages.

Dennett then goes on to suggest that not only does religion not have evolutionary advantage to us, it has evolutionary advantage to itself. At the level of the meme pool rather than the gene pool. In genetics a piece of information that replicates using the facilities provided by another organism is called a parasite. In memetics religion is an idea that uses the human mind and speech to reproduce itself, infecting the minds of others. Religions come and go, are born and go extinct, in the same way as viruses. Natural Selection will tend to select for the religions that are better at reproducing themselves…. that is better at convincing hosts of their truth and better at convincing the host to pass the ideas on.

Dennett’s idea is similar to asking “What is the evolutionary advantage of that mouse running up to that cat and antagonising him until the dog eats it”. There simply isn’t one! However it turns out there is a parasite that infects cats that infects their nervous system in such a way as to make the cat think its Mighty Mouse. The parasite needs to get into the stomach of a cat to complete its life cycle. Clearly all the benefit of the behaviour is to the parasite not the mouse.

Are there parallels with religion? As Dennett points out Islam means “Surrender”. You surrender your life to the will of Allah and in the case of some people you even kill yourself for that ideal using planes or bombs strapped to yourself. The host has no evolutionary benefit with this religion, but the parasite itself does.

Zombrex

Schuhart wrote: »

I'm looking for a reason that similarly explains religion.

As nozzferrahhtoo says, you are asking the wrong question.

There may be absolutely no evolutionary advantage to being religious. Humans have only been religious for the last 20,000 years, a blip on evolutionary time scales. Religion may be completely gone from human society in another 20,000 years.

That you need to look at is the underlying causes for religious behavior and look can they have evolutionary advantages. Things like applying agency to the natural world around us, pattern matching, seeking to explain the world around us.

The same tendency that allows an early human to figure out that a branch can be turned into an arrow makes them think that a man is moving the sun around the Earth.

Religion probably isn't an evolutionary stage in of itself. It is the end product of the way humans have developed intelligence and problem solving over the last 500,000 years.

robindch

Schuhart wrote: »

I'm looking for a reason that similarly explains religion.

As Wicknight and nozzferrahhtoo have pointed out, your question incorrectly assumes that there is an evolutionary answer, or at least, an answer which includes some measure of first-order selection advantage which accrues to holders of religious beliefs above those who don't. Which I don't think generally happens to be the case.

Rather, religion is principally a second-order phenomenon -- something which piggy-backs upon things which were evolved through natural selection. You could view it as something like chess or cricket, for which there's no direct selection advantage either.

My own view, which is similar to Dawkins' and Dennett's, is that once humans began to communicate, the ideas that they communicated assumed a kind of life within the mind, propagating themselves and their rules for propagation in a way which is faintly analogous to manner in which their physical hosts (us!) propagate ourselves. The three top-level parameters which are necessary for natural selection to take place -- fecundity, heritability and variation -- apply to these ideas too. So that once you have a substrate, in the form of a brain and linked systems, which supports the existence of more ideas than it can hold, these ideas being propagated from person to person while being changed from time to time, means that these ideas will be subject to natural selection and over time, the ones which propagate best will outbreed those which don't, and will eventually come to dominate the idea pool. In a nutshell, that's what memes are all about. Susan Blackmore's "The Meme Machine" is the best general text I've read on this topic.

Religion is most interesting at the propagatory level, instructing its unwitting carriers to ensure its own propagation and most, if not all, religions have such rules. Ignoring hinduism and buddhism which I'm not familiar with, the dominant religions in the world today, islam, christianity and judaism include instructions to its meme-carriers to make war upon meme-non-carriers and with religion being a social binding agent, it seems likely to me that meme-carriers will be more united than non-carriers, so they stand at least an even chance in a one-on-one-conflict. Also, most of these religions have a host of other elaborate instructions to require, for example, their carriers to abstain from sex unless given permission by the religion (encouraging early, immature marriage), to abstain from contraception when they do have sex with religious sanction, to indoctrinate any children that show up, to control as much of the education system as possible, and once grown to adulthood, to work to spread the religion, to pay 10% of their overall income to it, to avoid questioning it, to feel good if they accept something without supporting evidence, and in many cultures, to boycott non-meme-carriers, non-heterosexuals (non-breeders) and so on.

Bearing the quite startling variety of these evolved rules and behaviours, and the several thousand years that these rules have done their best to direct human biological evolution, I think it's quite amazing that there are any of us atheists on this planet at all.

AtomicHorror

Schuhart wrote: »

Perhaps, but one of the solutions to that dilemma is surely for whatever nascent ability for such abstract considerations to simply lose out and not become so common.

Not really, since human reason and creativity gave us our greatest edge versus the other species. All we needed to do was maintain a balancing act between intelligence and self deception and the result was that a mediocre primate came to literally dominate the world within 100,000 years. A very short time in evolutionary terms.

Schuhart wrote: »

I suppose because, initially, that is how the self-deceptive facility would have to operate. Plus, I suppose a compelling reason would have to be produced to explain why self-deception would become so common.

Well I've already told you why I think that is. Too much thinking about situations with limited information is a survival disadvantage in harsh circumstances.

Dave!

Schuhart wrote: »

I'm looking for a reason that similarly explains religion.

As robindsch and Wicknight and nozzferrahhtoo have pointed out.................

Schuhart

Dave! wrote: »

As robindsch and Wicknight and nozzferrahhtoo have pointed out.................

Yes, we are all individuals. Yes, we are all different.

robindch wrote: »

As Wicknight and nozzferrahhtoo have pointed out, your question incorrectly assumes that there is an evolutionary answer, or at least, an answer which includes some measure of first-order selection advantage which accrues to holders of religious beliefs above those who don't. Which I don't think generally happens to be the case.

I'm perfectly open to an argument that we live in a world surrounded by organisms with features that owe little or nothing to evolution. I'm not sure where that exactly leaves us, but we'll continue with the meme idea.

robindch wrote: »

ideas will be subject to natural selection and over time, the ones which propagate best will outbreed those which don't, and will eventually come to dominate the idea pool.

Fine, so religion is, in meme evolutionary terms, a very robust formula.

And, put simply, I'd guess that we could confirm that religious folk have larger families, giving them a head start, and that folk raised in religious families tend to pass that religion on to their children.

robindch wrote: »

meme-carriers will be more united than non-carriers

Surely they're all meme-carriers, its just some of them have a meme that makes them more united.

robindch wrote: »

I think it's quite amazing that there are any of us atheists on this planet at all.

Indeed, its a miracle.

Soul Winner

robindch wrote: »

Ignoring hinduism and buddhism which I'm not familiar with, the dominant religions in the world today, islam, christianity and judaism include instructions to its meme-carriers to make war upon meme-non-carriers and with religion being a social binding agent, it seems likely to me that meme-carriers will be more united than non-carriers, so they stand at least an even chance in a one-on-one-conflict.

If that's true for Christianity then why does Jesus (the founder) tell us to love our enemies? And when struck on the face to turn the other cheek etc??? Sort of throws that whole hypothetical memes assertion about religion into disarray doesn't it? Or perhaps I jump the gun and mistake your words to make war as being literal instead of merely metaphorical? Did I?

nozzferrahhtoo

Soul Winner wrote: »

If that's true for Christianity then why does Jesus (the founder) tell us to love our enemies? And when struck on the face to turn the other cheek etc???

The message may be to love them, but the message clearly is not one against smiteing them anyway. You can love them all you like while you slice them all up.

Soul Winner

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

The message may be to love them, but the message clearly is not one against smiteing them anyway. You can love them all you like while you slice them all up.

But then slicing them up is not exactly turning the other cheek. Is it?

robindch

Soul Winner wrote: »

If that's true for Christianity then why does Jesus (the founder) tell us to love our enemies? And when struck on the face to turn the other cheek etc???

Taking the USA, for example, I see no "turning the other cheek" in mainstream christianity there. It's an aggressive and political heavyweight of a religion if ever there was one

Anyhow, phrases like the ones that you quote simply increase, not decrease, the number of people who find christianity attractive. It's a bit like the phrase "compassionate conservatism" -- bilious conservatives will like the second word, while decent people will like the first -- one phrase captures both markets. As do instructions both to kill your neighbor, while loving him.

With religion, you really can get it both ways, or at least, the religious think they can.

nozzferrahhtoo

Soul Winner wrote: »

But then slicing them up is not exactly turning the other cheek. Is it?

No, but then you take the turning the other cheek quotation out of context. I would heartily urge you to read the entire sermon on the mount passages and the interpretations thereof. Instead the quotes come from an era where honour and shame were both important and could be used as more effective weapons than violence in a struggle.

Culturally at the time turning the other cheek was a form of passive resistance rather than acceptance of the beating as it would suggest to us now. Due to certain cultural reasons it would be unlikely that the other cheek would be struck due to certain beliefs about the left hand.

The other forms of resistance mentioned in the full quote also have cultural connotations which also display a crafty way to injure the attacker without the use of violence.

A similar mistake is that of saying there is a commandment saying "Thou shalt not kill". This is erroneous and the commandment is actually "Thou shalt not murder" and the bible is rife with what qualifies a just killing over an unjust murder.

Jesus was also said to say that if you do not have a sword you should get one even if you have to sell your clothes to get the money. Hardly the position to be held by a complete pacifist. If total non violence was his creed then espousing the bronze age equivalent of NRA doctrines that everyone should carry a gun is hardly a formative first step.

I would guess the message in these words is more to do with avoidance of violent retaliation where possible, not complete prohibition against it. Of two victors the greater will be the one that achieves victory without recourse to violence.

Soul Winner

robindch wrote: »

Taking the USA, for example, I see no "turning the other cheek" in mainstream christianity there. It's an aggressive and political heavyweight of a religion if ever there was one

I agree, most mainstream "Christianity" has long since departed the true message of real Christianity. Which is "Grace and Peace to you from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ" both salutations they seldom extend to other Christians never mind the world in general, so to hold them up as representative of the Christian message is indeed a tragedy for the faith.

robindch wrote: »

Anyhow, phrases like the ones that you quote simply increase, not decrease, the number of people who find christianity attractive.

Did you mean that the other way around???

robindch wrote: »

It's a bit like the phrase "compassionate conservatism" -- bilious conservatives will like the second word, while decent people will like the first -- one phrase captures both markets. As do instructions both to kill your neighbor, while loving him.

I'm lost now

robindch wrote: »

With religion, you really can get it both ways, or at least, the religious think they can.

Well as long as Jesus was performing miracles (whether you believe that or not), feeding people, healing people He was thronged by crowds, but as soon as He told them to take up their cross and follow Him, they all left Him (which said crosses meant to leave family and friends etc and follow Him). The true message of Christianity which involves bearing your cross has never been a popular message and never will be, because it involves denying oneself. I rarely see that displayed amongst the religious right tin America. Catholics are probably the closest to it but even they serve self over God in many respects also. What people think Christianity is these days (especially in America) is not Christianity at all. They seek out a version of it that they can approve of and find likeminded people and then set up or join that Church. A true Church takes all of what Jesus said on board and shouldn’t cherry pick the parts they like best and only do them.

Here's how it should work: God gave some Apostles, Prophets, Evangelists, and Pastoring Teachers to perfect the saints to the work of the ministry. This outlines some important points. 1. You start out as a saint. 2. It shows that saints are not perfect when they do start out contrary to what tradition would have us believe. The word for saint in the Greek is 'Hagios' and it has to do with commitment not performance, the word 'holy' is also traced back to this word, something that is given over to the use of something or someone in commitment, not restricted to religion, could be anything.

But anyway there is always two ways to look at religion. They way the founder wants it to be, or the way the followers want it to be. It’s called objective and subjective opinions. The only opinion that should count is the founder’s objective opinion. So if you are truly following that religion then you will do what the founder says. If you are not doing what the founder says, then you are not a real follower of that religion and this is the case for most of Christianity in the world, especially in America. They are not doing most of the things that the founder (Jesus) said to do, especially denying self and following Him.

Zombrex

Soul Winner wrote: »

The true message of Christianity which involves bearing your cross has never been a popular message and never will be, because it involves denying oneself.

This is the thing, and one of the reasons why the Christianity meme has been so successful, there is no true message of Christianity, at least not one revealed through the New Testament. God might know it, but we don't.

Jesus' stories and parables are so vague that the have no actual substance, again like a phrase such as "compassionate conservatisim". It means 10 different things to ten different people.

A phrase like "turn the other cheek" can have a million different interpretations based on the context that one wishes to apply it. It has never stopped wars, and some Christians claim it should another claim it shouldn't. A "just war" is an accepted concept in the vast majority of Christian denominations. When and why and in what circumstances one turns the other cheek is left up to the person themselves.

Same with something like love thy neighbor. What does that actually mean? Again it has little actual substance, it means what ever the person wishes it to mean. Even the definition of neighbor Jesus answered with an vague parable. When a Christian solider is popped out of a helicopter in 'Nam such pleasantries are of little use.

Christianity's strongest fitness as a meme, in my view, is its vagueness.

Jesus' pleasantries appeal to people inner sense of good, while being so vague and abstract as to not really force them into any particular course of action or moral straight jacket. Reading through the New Testament is like listening to one of those Self Help Guru's going through his list of motivational phrases.

Just remember, if you aren't a human being you are a human doing. Think about it. :pac:

Galvasean

Wicknight wrote: »

Just remember, if you aren't a human being you are a human doing. Think about it. :pac:

Pfft, you bore me. I'm a human going...

Soul Winner

Wicknight wrote: »

This is the thing, and one of the reasons why the Christianity meme has been so successful, there is no true message of Christianity, at least not one revealed through the New Testament. God might know it, but we don't.

So memes when related to religion has suddenly gone from hypothetical to hard fact all of a sudden? Handy that.

Wicknight wrote: »

Jesus' stories and parables are so vague that the have no actual substance, again like a phrase such as "compassionate conservatisim". It means 10 different things to ten different people.

That’s why when it comes to these sayings you’re better off taking what they are actually saying as what they actual mean in the context of how and when they were said. For instance Jesus tells the Pharisees that the if you sin against the Holy Spirit then there is no remission. He said this in the following context: The Pharisees had said amongst themselves that no man could do the things Jesus was doing unless God be with Him. Then a few verses later they say to Jesus that He does these things by the power of Beelzebub. They willfully went against what they believed to be true in order that their position could be respected. When you read the context of the sayings you can get the general intended meaning, if you don’t you can get any meaning you like.

Wicknight wrote: »

A phrase like "turn the other cheek" can have a million different interpretations based on the context that one wishes to apply it.

I agree and by the same token so can any saying made by anybody fit whatever you want it to fit. You must put it back into the context in which it was said in order to know the meaning that it was intended to convey.

Wicknight wrote: »

It has never stopped wars, and some Christians claim it should another claim it shouldn't.

Well you don't really know that it has never stopped wars in fairness. Maybe it didn't but you don't really know so arbitrary statements like that are hardly helpful.

Wicknight wrote: »

A "just war" is an accepted concept in the vast majority of Christian denominations.

What’s wrong with a just war?

Wicknight wrote: »

When and why and in what circumstances one turns the other cheek is left up to the person themselves.

But that doesn’t change the context in which the words “turn the other cheek” where uttered by Jesus does it?

Wicknight wrote: »

Same with something like love thy neighbor. What does that actually mean?

There are 3 words in the Greek for love. Eros, Phileo and Agapao. Eros is sensual. Phileo is brotherly love hence the city of Philadelphia is called the city of brotherly love, the you do for me and I do for you kind of love. Then we have Agapao which is the word used in this context. It is a selfless act of love in order to do for somebody else without any thought of anything in return. This is the kind of love that Jesus was talking about. Phileo sought is phileo never attained, because in order to get phileo you must first have Agapao. An example of Agapao would be like, lets say you are drowning in a river and you know that you are drowning and know that you cannot escape and somebody at risk to themselves jumps in and saves you and brings you to safety, you will not have to talk yourself into liking that person on the riverbank. That love you feel is phileo, you want to do something for that person now. The act that he or she did for you was the agapao kind of love. And this is the love that Jesus was talking about when He said love thy neighbor. Does that clear the ‘love thy neighbor’ thing up a bit for you?

Wicknight wrote: »

Again it has little actual substance, it means what ever the person wishes it to mean.

No it doesn’t, I’ve just explained what it means so it can’t have any other meaning other than the words that were used to say it. You see you need to learn a bit of Greek in order to understand the New Testament a bit better. It was written in Greek not English, so if the English seems somewhat ambiguous then that is just the way it was translated from the Greek. English does not have the words that the Greek uses so they used the same English to translate three different words in the Greek. English is a very ambiguous language. One word can have many meanings which is probably one of the reasons why God chose that in the fullness of time when He would send forth His son into the world that it would be dominated by a language frame like Greek. Probably the most precise language the world has ever known.

Wicknight wrote: »

Even the definition of neighbor Jesus answered with an vague parable. When a Christian solider is popped out of a helicopter in 'Nam such pleasantries are of little use.

To what are you referring?

Wicknight wrote: »

Christianity's strongest fitness as a meme, in my view, is its vagueness.

It might be many things but vague is not one of them. Learn some Greek and by a Greek New Testament and read that then tell us it is vague.

Wicknight wrote: »

Jesus' pleasantries appeal to people inner sense of good, while being so vague and abstract as to not really force them into any particular course of action or moral straight jacket. Reading through the New Testament is like listening to one of those Self Help Guru's going through his list of motivational phrases.

I can only point to the reply I just gave.

Wicknight wrote: »

Just remember, if you aren't a human being you are a human doing. Think about it. :pac:

Or a human being doing

Schuhart

Soul Winner wrote: »

What’s wrong with a just war?

Just an aside. As I recall it, the Selfish Gene talks about research into Game Theory that suggests the most successful strategy is what’s termed ‘tit for tat’. That’s basically where you respond in kind to the other player. If they scratch your back, you scratch theirs. If they hit you, you hit back.

I’d say that Islam runs explicitly on a ‘tit for tat’ basis. Christianity implicitly runs on a ‘tit for tat’ basis.

robindch

Soul Winner wrote: »

Did you mean that the other way around??? [...] I'm lost now [...] A true Church takes all of what Jesus said on board and shouldn’t cherry pick the parts they like best and only do them.

If Jesus had wanted people to know what he meant, he should have spoken in plain, straightforward language that clearly states what he means. He didn't. Instead, if we are to believe the text of the NT, he chose to express himself, by and large, in bland metaphorical prose that supports many interpretations. This is good for the meta-religion, since many people will then be able to interpret the text to retrieve whatever meaning they want. The nice people take the nice bits, the anti-social people take the nasty bits -- instant cross-cultural appeal!

Even here in this small corner of boards, there are many conflicting interpretations of the text on offer. The only common belief is that the belief-holder is pretty-much right, and everybody else is pretty-much wrong.

This capacity for multiple-interpretations is central to the religion's continuing, if declining, popularity.

Soul Winner wrote: »

There are 3 words in the Greek for love. Eros, Phileo and Agapao.

Saving Wicknight a google here, I can think of three more without even reaching for a dictionary -- kraoömai, binw and the wonderfully precise paidepoieo. Each one with at least one English equivalent.

Soul Winner wrote: »

English is a very ambiguous language. [...] Greek [...] Probably the most precise language the world has ever known.

Good heavens, where did you hear that? Classical Greek is a complex and nuanced language and whether or not some text is precise or not is down to the author, not the language. Same as any other language.

.

Zombrex

Soul Winner wrote: »

So memes when related to religion has suddenly gone from hypothetical to hard fact all of a sudden? Handy that.

A "meme" is a unit of culture information. It was always a "fact", what people dispute and debate about is if they propagate through society along Darwinian lines.

Soul Winner wrote: »

That’s why when it comes to these sayings you’re better off taking what they are actually saying as what they actual mean in the context of how and when they were said.

That just makes it even more vague and open to interpretation. Who was Jesus talking to, and what significance does that have on the parable. Where was he at the time, and what significance does that have on the parable. How similar to Old Testament parables is Jesus' parable and what significance does that have on the parable etc etc. All this is left to the opinion of the person reading the passage. The weight they put on each factor is left to them to decide. A person can shift around the weight any way they wish, like a child playing in a sand box.

If there is any true meaning it is lost in a sea of necessary interpretation and re-interpretation.

Soul Winner wrote: »

What’s wrong with a just war?

"Just" is often defined by those waging the war.

Saying love thy neighbour but have wars against them if necessary is largely pointless.

Soul Winner wrote: »

But that doesn’t change the context in which the words “turn the other cheek” where uttered by Jesus does it?

It makes the "lesson" meaningless.

Jesus is telling his disciples to turn the other cheek toward those attacking them, to embrace the violence as demonstration that they are righteous and the person is evil.

Or not.

Jesus might be telling his disciples that they should walk away from evil without getting involved.

How one interprets that passage is up to them.

Soul Winner wrote: »

It is a selfless act of love in order to do for somebody else without any thought of anything in return. This is the kind of love that Jesus was talking about.

That still doesn't explain what that actually means. I'm not asking what syntaxically it means, I know that. I'm asking what it means in a practical sense.

Again it is just a silly sound bite, designed to sound appealing but which has absolutely no substance, like a hippie saying "All you need is love". How someone interprets that in a practical sense is left entirely up to them.

Soul Winner wrote: »

To what are you referring?

When a Christian soldier is standing on a battlefield with a load of Viet Cong baring down on him, what does "love thy neighbour" mean to him in that context? Are they his neighbour? How is he to love them?

Does he fire back or does he let them kill him. Does he throw down his weapon or does his point it at them. Does he turn the other check or does he lob a grenade. What would Jesus do?

You see none of Jesus' vague sound bites actually mean anything in any tangible sense. They don't translate to how someone actually lives. They don't form morality, a shape of how someone reacts in a situation based on moral principles.

They just sound nice, appeal to a vague sense of decency that we all have, like Lennon saying "All you need is love", or "War is Over". But there is no substance there.

Actually forming a morality is left to the reader, and they do that based on how they interpret Jesus' sound bites, not based on what they say.

AtomicHorror

Posted this over in the creationism thread but I reckon it has a better home here.

Here's a nice article on superstition which would easily extend to religion.

New Scientist: Superstitions evolved to help us survive.

To summarise- making causal connections based on insufficient information will tend to give an evolutionary selective edge. The connection is non-existent in the vast majority of cases, but in very rare cases there's a threat to life. The cost:benefit ratio is favourable. They suggest that this is not the case in the modern world, hence our mis-application of the habit so that we now salute magpies, refuse to walk under ladders and talk to a man in the sky. Evolution works in terms of hundreds of thousands of years and we've changed our world too quickly. Essentially confirms some stuff I was suggesting regarding the advantage of religion.

Primary paper is in the works but it looks like they've really nailed that one. Their basic model is very cleverly designed but very simple.

Soul Winner

AtomicHorror wrote: »

Posted this over in the creationism thread but I reckon it has a better home here.

Here's a nice article on superstition which would easily extend to religion.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn14694-superstitions-evolved-to-help-us-survive.html

It could extend to religion, and in a lot of cases the two do overlap but it is still sepreate and disticnt from religion.

I grew up as a Catholic. I always thought that I believed that there was a God but I never really knew anything about Him on a personal level. My mother always thought me to bless myself (make the sign of the cross) before leaving the house or when passing a church or a graveyard. For years I did these things out of fear of what might happen if I didn't. In fairness to my Mam she never said that anything bad would happen, she herself didn’t really know why she did these things, it was just implied that bad things might happen if you didn’t, so we both did them simply because they were passed down by older generations and no questions were allowed to be asked. I believe these habits are a good example of an extension of manmade superstition overlapping with religion, in this case it was with Catholicism, I’m sure every religion has its own versions.

But the distinction should be made that superstition and religion are different. Does that mean I’m against people having superstitions? Nope, I don’t care, just don’t tell me that I have to have them without explaining why adequately. And to this day my Mam still can’t tell me why I need to bless myself, or why I need to have my kids Christened and so on. Jesus said we make void the Word of God by our traditions. There is nothing in God’s Word that says we have to bless ourselves or that we have to get our kids Christened and make their communion and so on. Nothing about not walking under ladders, or eating meat on Good Friday and so on. They've just been added on by men through the centuries to the extent that they eclipse the original God intended message and therefore replaces it, until God raises up somebody like Martin Luther to shake it back to its foundations.

Anyway, years later and after I had learned a thing or two about my religion and about the Christ which is presented to us in the pages of the New Testament and the letters of the Apostle Paul, I grew out of those old habits. You could say that hearing the truth about Jesus delivered me from them. Now it doesn’t bother me at all that I don’t bless myself anymore because I’ve learned that I can’t bless myself, if God exists then only He can truly bless me. So yeah, these things can extend into religion, but when you study and read a few books about your religion, religion itself can deliver you from the practice of such things.

St Paul says, let no man judge you in meat and drink or in respect of an holy day, this also applies to superstitions. The thing about things like this is that you will always have people who hate religion wanting to make religion one and the same with superstition and as has just been pointed out you can’t do that, they are different even though they can overlap with the intrusion of man, even to the detriment of the religion in question which I’m sure was not their intention, it's just that Satan is very crafty