Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Evolutionary advantage of religion?
Options
-
22-08-2008 6:45pm#1I 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.Tagged:0
Comments
-
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.0 -
Complex, problem solving, technology creating intelligence is an evolutionary advantage but the dinosaurs didn't have it. What's you point?0
-
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.Complex, problem solving, technology creating intelligence is an evolutionary advantage but the dinosaurs didn't have it. What's you point?
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.0 -
. 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.0 -
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.0 -
Advertisement
-
I'm sure they are. Several of them are also called Cyril.Those organisms are often referred to as humans.
The society is, surely, just a feature of the species. Or are you saying religion was given to the species by something outside them?Religion is a feature of society not the species0 -
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.0
-
OK, that would do for a start. What would be the evolutionary advantage of a genetic disposition towards spiritual experiences and supernatural "encounters"?I would hypothesize that religion is not an evolutionary trait per se. Perhaps we have a genetic disposition towards spiritual experiences and supernatural "encounters".....
(Bearing in mind that this trait, on meeting other traits, would be honed into religion.)0 -
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.0 -
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.0 -
Advertisement
-
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: »This 'god centre' in the brain gave humans an added advantage in that they had something other than themselves to fight for.
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: »However, the presence of a disposition towards supernatural belief does not, in any way, signify the reality of any god being.
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.anti-venom wrote: »It's an evolutionary trait - according to Winston - as fundamental as any other evolutionary trait and as vital to our survival.0 -
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.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.0 -
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.0 -
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.0 -
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.Traits don't have to save or kill you 100% of the time to develop. Even a slight penalty is amplified across many generations.
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.
Except, consider how religiously inspired warriors might take risks to prove how well they are fulfilling the Blood God's wishes.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.
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".0 -
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.0 -
I've feeling I'm just missing your point here - apologies.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.
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?There would be a collection of traits resulting in intelligence
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.Yes, perhaps there were a few atheists back in the day, but as we have seen they're few and far between.
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.I propose the danger does not outweigh the rewards.
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?0 -
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!0 -
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?AtomicHorror wrote: »The capacity for self deception also allows us to put to rest big things like our rather unfortunate realisation of our mortality.
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.0 -
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.0 -
Advertisement
-
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.AtomicHorror wrote: »In this case, natural selection places penalties on under-expression of self delusion as well as over-expression.0 -
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?0
-
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.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.0 -
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.0 -
-
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: »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.
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.AtomicHorror wrote: »Why would you assume that we'd apply a self-deceptive behaviour equally to all situations?
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.0 -
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.0 -
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.0 -
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 looking for a reason that similarly explains religion.
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.0 -
Advertisement
-
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.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.0
Advertisement