The origins of religion : evolved adaptation or by-product?

[Ken Morgan]

Usually there is so much fluff out there, its really nice to find a piece were one has to fire up those dormant IQ points…

Considerable debate has surrounded the question of the origins and evolution of religion. One proposal views religion as an adaptation for cooperation, whereas an alternative proposal views religion as a by-product of evolved, non-religious, cognitive functions. We critically evaluate each approach, explore the link between religion and morality in particular, and argue that recent empirical work in moral psychology provides stronger support for the by-product approach. Specifically, despite differences in religious background, individuals show no difference in the pattern of their moral judgments for unfamiliar moral scenarios. These findings suggest that religion evolved from pre-existing cognitive functions, but that it may then have been subject to selection, creating an adaptively designed system for solving the problem of cooperation.

http://www.cell.com/trends/cognitive-sciences/fulltext/S1364-6613(09)00289-7?large_figure=true

 

[seasoned]

No matter what the origins, somewhere I read "every knee shall bow", or something like that.........

 

[Omar B]

It was man trying to understand the world around him with what little knowledge he possessed. Why did the sun come and go, the seasons change, trees prioduced fruit at a certain time, weather changes. There's a lot that needs to be explained when there is zero knowledge of science and how the natural mechanisms in our universe function.

Either way, there's no use for it now. Except for those who really like it I guess.

 

[jks9199]

That's kind of a simplistic response.

There's plenty about the universe that we haven't come close to explaining. Look at consciousness... There's definitely something different about human consciousness compared to animals -- but what is it? What is thought?

Minimizing faith to the level of "it's OK if you like it" is unfair and simplistic. I look at the universe around me, and I see wonders. Wonders that somehow work on their own -- and it begs the question how it came about. To say it was all random chance, I think, ignores the complexity. To paraphrase one of the common examples, even if I took a box of springs and gears and other parts, the odds that it would come together into a working watch are minuscule. More amazing to me is the idea that the Creator that guided it all would deign to notice as tiny a part of creation as me... or any of us.

 

[Omar B]

"Minimizing faith to the level of "it's OK if you like it" is unfair and simplistic" - You can't expect everyone to hold faith (belief without proof) up to the same standard you do right?

"To say it was all random chance, I think, ignores the complexity." - I don't think I said anything about random chance. Life, the universe, everything is a complex system that starts from simpler sub systems that get progressively more complex as they go up, but still adhere to the same basic rules.

"To paraphrase one of the common examples, even if I took a box of springs and gears and other parts, the odds that it would come together into a working watch are minuscule." But we didnt start with parts of a watch or end with a watch, that's a simplistic example. Matter, like energy cannot be destroyed, only it's form changed. taking that into consideration, one can assume (with observation of other galaxies) that big bangs are fairly common, swirling clouds of debris do reconstitute, solar radiation through no atmosphere do change carbons to amino acids (the building blocks of life). Life is uncommon, the mechanisms that can get it started, not so much.

Edit:

Something I didn't speak on before because I was rushing and totally didn't think about it at all. Specifically, despite differences in religious background, individuals show no difference in the pattern of their moral judgments for unfamiliar moral scenarios. I think this is a point that religionists always throw around except that they seem to think morality/ethics and religion are one in the same. Religions may have a morality content, but it is a different discipline. After all, morality and ethics are those actions that benefit and enhance man's life on earth. We live in societies so that labor can be subdivided, so we don't grow all our own food, sew all our own clothes, etc, we specialize in areas and without specialization there would be no rockets to the moon because Nasa guys would be busy catching dinner. So morality is that which benefits life without causing harm (physical or financial) to those around you.

If I were to speak your kind of language, I would say that man’s only moral commandment is: Thou shalt think. But a “moral commandment” is a contradiction in terms. The moral is the chosen, not the forced; the understood, not the obeyed. The moral is the rational, and reason accepts no commandments.
My morality, the morality of reason, is contained in a single axiom: existence exists—and in a single choice: to live. The rest proceeds from these. To live, man must hold three things as the supreme and ruling values of his life: Reason—Purpose—Self-esteem. Reason, as his only tool of knowledge—Purpose, as his choice of the happiness which that tool must proceed to achieve—Self-esteem, as his inviolate certainty that his mind is competent to think and his person is worthy of happiness, which means: is worthy of living. These three values imply and require all of man’s virtues, and all his virtues pertain to the relation of existence and consciousness: rationality, independence, integrity, honesty, justice, productiveness, pride. - Ayn Rand

 

[Makalakumu]

There is a part of the brain that can be stimulated to induce feelings of awe...or in other words the same feelings that people experience from various religious practices.

 

[Ken Morgan]

There's plenty about the universe that we haven't come close to explaining.

But that’s the point.

A lack of knowledge doesn’t automatically mean that the only possible remaining answer is god.

I don’t have the math background to understand this equation, but that doesn’t automatically mean that the correct answer is god.

I would argue that 90% of all human scientific knowledge has only been obtained over the past 70 or 80 years and considering our species has been on the earth for perhaps 200000 years, that’s an amazing accomplishment. Imagine what we can do just until the end of our own lives! I’m jealous of what my grandchildren and other descendants will get to experience.

How is it that stories written about the origins of the earth and of man two and three thousand years ago, have greater validity then our understanding today?

Then of course you have to get into the old argument, which god? There have been thousands of gods worshiped over the centuries, why is the god of Abraham the correct one?

 

[seasoned]

These are some perplexing questions. Bottom line is simple, those that know know it is by faith. Faith is a belief in things not seen. Some people need tangible evidents, some don't. The best part of it all is, we will all have somewhere to go, when we die. Some will like it, some won't. What is very interesting is the fact that everything around us known to man came from this earth. Everything to sustain life, all here, on or in the earth, now that takes foresight, holy cow,who would have known. I try to stay away from the study, and now I know why.

 

[Ken Morgan]

I try to stay away from the study, and now I know why.

Why?

This is a polite discussion about some very important things. I think its better to be brave, as you have been by participating in it, then to stick one’s head in the preverbal sands and pretend the questions were never asked.

The only time I ever obeyed without question is when I was in the military. In school, in life, in relationships I always ask questions and broaden my understanding of things in due course.

You can only be a better person and a better christian if that is what you want, if you actively engage yourself.

 

[Omar B]

What is very interesting is the fact that everything around us known to man came from this earth. Everything to sustain life, all here, on or in the earth, now that takes foresight, holy cow,who would have known. I try to stay away from the study, and now I know why.

Everything known to man is not on earth dude. I've never seen a nebula on earth but there they are.

As for everything needed for life already being here. The likley answer is that life adapts to what is available. Just like the beaks on finches has different shapes depending on their specialized diet.

 

[theletch1]

Science is what we know.
Religion is what we know.
I've given up on "organized" religion years ago. I saw too much hypocricy in the church. I'm much more of a spiritual guy than religious guy now-a-days. While I welcome any quality scientific knowledge we can come up with I find comfort in the belief that this isn't all there is, that there's something more than what I see every day. Maybe that's part of the evolution of religion. Folks just like me hundreds of thousands of years ago peaked out of the cage and thought...man, there has got to be more to life than this... eventually several of them got together, chatted about the fact that they were all having similar thoughts, codified those feelings into religions and it grew from there. I give this one 5 question marks on the "who knows" scale.

 

[seasoned]

Everything known to man is not on earth dude. I've never seen a nebula on earth but there they are.

Well of course not on earth dude, them there nebula are up in heaven.

 

[Omar B]

Well of course not on earth dude, them there nebula are up in heaven.

But you said "What is very interesting is the fact that everything around us known to man came from this earth" which puts everything outside of our planet also in the realm of the unknown and unknowable since man's knowledge is firmly earthbound as you say. Ships to the moon, planets, telescopes, satellites and space stations be damned since they are not on earth and thus unknown.

 

[seasoned]

Why?

This is a polite discussion about some very important things. I think its better to be brave, as you have been by participating in it, then to stick one’s head in the preverbal sands and pretend the questions were never asked.

The only time I ever obeyed without question is when I was in the military. In school, in life, in relationships I always ask questions and broaden my understanding of things in due course.

You can only be a better person and a better christian if that is what you want, if you actively engage yourself.

Questioning too much does takes it out of the "by faith" realm a bit. At my age I have been through all the questioning, and do find a measure of peace residing in the faith thing.

 

[seasoned]

But you said "What is very interesting is the fact that everything around us known to man came from this earth" which puts everything outside of our planet also in the realm of the unknown and unknowable since man's knowledge is firmly earthbound as you say. Ships to the moon, planets, telescopes, satellites and space stations be damned since they are not on earth and thus unknown.

Omar, I speak of the tangible things, like all the materials to make things like space ships, telescopes, satellites and space stations. Everything we ever needed is all here, but my bad, because since God made the heavens AND the earth, I quess there may be other things out there to discover. You really make a guy work, don't ya?

 

[Ken Morgan]

Questioning too much does takes it out of the "by faith" realm a bit. At my age I have been through all the questioning, and do find a measure of peace residing in the faith thing.

In all seriousness? Whatever makes you happy and gets you through to where you want to be.

I need something different.

 

[Makalakumu]

I don't really have any issue with people believing in this or that deity or phenomenon or principle. I can tell you what I believe and why I believe it, but the bottom line is that you are still going to make a choice and I'm going to make a choice and we need to LEARN how to be okay with that. I don't believe in god and for me, these papers and factoids are informative for that choice. If someone asks me why I am an atheist, I can point to these things and give some reasons.

 

[Omar B]

Seasoned - I don't make you do anything, least of all work.

Yes, you speak of tangible things. So I guess comets are not made of iron, rocks on the moon and mars not made from the same elements here on earth.

So god made the heavens and earth now, this is news to me. I could make the same assertion about any number of other fictional beings including ones worshiped (most religions) and others just used for entertainment (comics and such).

 

[JDenver]

Interesting discussion, like always.

The only thing I would have to add is that there are many things that happen each day that could be considered 'facts' if we chose to label them that way, but we reserve that word for very particular things.

We seem, and this is odd to me, to ignore the complicated interconnections of things which happen with us each day. People of the past did not. They spent a good deal of time and effort putting name to them.

 

[jks9199]

Interestingly enough, I didn't specify which belief was correct. I only said that I personally find it hard to dismiss the simple fact that, in the end, the complexity and wonders of the universe, and the way the universe orders itself begs for an answer beyond randomness. I happen to be Roman Catholic. But I also personally believe that a God who gave His Son for our salvation would do all He can to present himself to all his creation; in short, while I believe only the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church are 100% correct as regards faith and doctrine -- truth can be contained in many other faiths. (You might look for Fr. Andrew Greeley's book The Catholic Myth as well as some of his other works about the sociological nature of faith.)

But I think we're drifting away from the original topic, and into trying to justify faith. In the end, Faith is either something you have or you do not have. You either make that leap, and accept something unproven -- or you don't. I'm not likely to change your mind by a few words here.

The OP is about the origins and development of religion, and why so often they've come to similar conclusions about moral actions. That's a bit of a different question. The article is interesting, and I need to give it a much closer reading. It is interesting; is there something intrinsic about morality? About religion? Or is it something we acquire and developed simply to get along?