Newbie Question

On Fri, 11 Jun 2004 15:55:06 +0000 (UTC), [email hidden]

(porterboy) said:

Hi, I'm no biologist, so this may be a stupid question.
Evolutionary theory put an end to the Adam and Eve version
of the origin of the human species. But I'm curious as to
how belief in God would serve humanity from an evolutionary
point of view. Given that 90% of the planet believe in God,
it seems that we must have found it beneficial over the
millenia... (ergo, those who didn't believe in God didnt
live long enough to reproduce... probably died of cynicism
:-)... Anyway, I'm neither a religious freak nor a
scientist, just curious... PB

This is more in the line of cultural evolution, not
biological. So it doesn't really have to have value in terms
of reproductive fitness.

Humans do have a burning curiosity to explore and
understand the world around us and to have answers to how,
why, whence type of questions. This drive does have obvious
evolutionary benefits: the knowledge gained allows us to
evaluate the particular situation we find ourselves in and
to formulate plans of action to deal with it. The "big"
questions about origins, about birth and death, about good
and evil, about the source of the enormously powerful
forces of nature, and so forth do not have ready
explanations. Still humans demand answers.

porterboy <[email hidden]> wrote or quoted:

Quoted message said:

Evolutionary theory put an end to the Adam and Eve version
of the origin of the human species. But I'm curious as to
how belief in God would serve humanity from an
evolutionary point of view. Given that 90% of the planet
believe in God, it seems that we must have found it
beneficial over the millenia... (ergo, those who didn't
believe in God didnt live long enough to reproduce...
probably died of cynicism :-)... [...]

Cancer is also widespread - but that doesn't mean it's
beneficial.

Ideas folow the rules of memetic evolution - and memes don't
*have* to be beneficial to their carriers to be able to
spread - any more than viruses do.

It is not hard to see how the idea of an all-powerful god
flinging unbelievers into eternal damnation might motivate
people to save the souls of others.

It's rather like the chain letter that says to forward it
to five of your friends - or something *REALLY* nasty
will happen.

The /main/ reason many humans believe in god is because they
are suceptible to memetic infections - and why being easily
able to pick up ideas from other people might be beneficial
seems clear enough.
--
__________
|im |yler timtyler.orgtimtyler.orgOpen ↗ [email hidden] Remove
lock to reply.

in article [email hidden], porterboy at
[email hidden] wrote on 6/11/04 8:55 AM:

Quoted message said:

Hi, I'm no biologist, so this may be a stupid question.
Evolutionary theory put an end to the Adam and Eve version
of the origin of the human species. But I'm curious as to
how belief in God would serve humanity from an
evolutionary point of view. Given that 90% of the planet
believe in God, it seems that we must have found it
beneficial over the millenia... (ergo, those who didn't
believe in God didnt live long enough to reproduce...
probably died of cynicism :-)... Anyway, I'm neither a
religious freak nor a scientist, just curious... PB

Your initial idea on the evolution of a belief in God
assumes heritability of this belief, which seems very
unlikely to have much of a genetic component. That is fine,
because cultural inheritance works pretty well as a mode of
inheritance for this sort of thing. With that in mind, you
might want to check out a recent book by David Sloan Wilson
called "Darwin's Cathedral" on the evolution of religion.

Cheers,

Guy

Hi, I'm no biologist, so this may be a stupid question.
Evolutionary theory put an end to the Adam and Eve version
of the origin of the human species. But I'm curious as to
how belief in God would serve humanity from an evolutionary
point of view. Given that 90% of the planet believe in God,
it seems that we must have found it beneficial over the
millenia... (ergo, those who didn't believe in God didnt
live long enough to reproduce... probably died of cynicism
:-)... Anyway, I'm neither a religious freak nor a
scientist, just curious... PB

A belief in God would serve and does serve humanity in a
Darwinian evolutionary point of view. Darwin himself
believed in God. So it was beneficial for a long time but
now its not so beneficial. Science and technology have
pretty much destroyed the idea of an anthropomorphic all
caring God. How could something like the Holocaust happen
and there be a God? And as far as reproducing there are far
too many people on earth...most who probably do believe in
"God". Not very beneficial. And what "God" are you referring
too. In the Middle East there is a movement which draws
fanatical religious inspiration and praises "Allah".

Michael Ragland

A professor asked a student, "If you had a choice between
the oppressed and the oppressor which would you choose." The
student replied, "Neither". The Professor shook his head and
stated, "You don't have a choice." The student paused and
said, "The oppressed".

<< But I'm curious as to how belief in God would serve
humanity from an evolutionary point of view. >>

Well for one thing, religion often states a specific code of
social behavior for its members. It also helps educate its
members, builds unity or social glue, is a massive support
group, etc. Religion is metaphysics, but it is also ethics,
and socializing with like minded others.

Because it encourages altrusitic behaviour - where you help
in some joint activity to receive a payoff in the afterlife,
it benefits the community while you are alive. This is also
the basis of rule of law - fear of Satan. Cultures which
have this succeed and colonise the world.Its a cultural
meme, not a genetic one.

But still a very reasonable question which I myself
nave pondered.

"porterboy" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Hi, I'm no biologist, so this may be a stupid question.
Evolutionary theory put an end to the Adam and Eve version
of the origin of the human species. But I'm curious as to
how belief in God would serve humanity from an
evolutionary point of view. Given that 90% of the planet
believe in God, it seems that we must have found it
beneficial over the millenia... (ergo, those who didn't
believe in God didnt live long enough to reproduce...
probably died of cynicism :-)... Anyway, I'm neither a
religious freak nor a scientist, just curious... PB

"porterboy" <[email hidden]> wrote

Quoted message said:

Hi, I'm no biologist, so this may be a stupid question.
Evolutionary theory put an end to the Adam and Eve version
of the origin of the human species.

The theory that humans were created out of clay about 6000
years ago is definitely disproved. Monogenesis - the theory
that all humans are descended from a single couple without
interbreeding with outsiders, is nearly but not absolutely
disproved.

Quoted message said:

But I'm curious as to how belief in God would serve
humanity from an evolutionary point of view.

If supernatural forces are real then there might be an
advantage in being able to communicate with them. (In the
same way, echoes are real, and humans have a very primitive
ability to echolocate which we are hardly aware of.)

Quoted message said:

Given that 90% of the planet believe in God, it seems that
we must have found it beneficial over the millenia...
(ergo, those who didn't believe in God didnt live long
enough to reproduce... probably died of cynicism :-)

The sociologist Emile Durkheim, writing in 1912, didn't find
a single example of a secular society. If you read _Phantoms
in the Brain_, by Ramachandran, you will find a description
of an area of the brian which produces excessive religious
behaviour when it is over-stimulated by epilepsy. Putting
two and two together, it seems obvious that religion isn't
just a rogue "meme", as Richard Dawkins, the famous
Darwinist and atheist, would have it, but is something that
has evolved.

Explaining just why anything has evolved is difficult,
because it we can't travel back in time, and it is seldom
easy to test hypotheses. Obviously if the existence of
supernatural beings could be demonstrated independently then
the "supernatural forces are real" hypothesis would become
very attractive. There is also some evidence that in modern
conditions a religion is a force for social advancement.
Jews are famous for gravitating to prestigous professions,
for example. It is not so clear that this would apply to
hunter gatherers. There could be more subtle advantages.
Certainly Durkheim found that in primitive religions there
was no clear distinction between religious symbolism and the
identifying totem, or emblem, of the tribe. Its easy to see
that anyone who didn't accept the ideology of the tribe
would be at a disadvantage, though exactly how religion
might have evolved is still quite unclear.

If you are asking "does God exist?" then evolutionary
biologists aren't really in a better position to answer this
than anyone else. We know that biblical literalism is wrong,
but then St Augustine said as much in the 5th century when
some Christians rejected Greek philosophy on scriptural
grounds, so we are not exactly saying anything new. Human
suffering is implict in the process of natural selection,
but the argument from evil isn't a new objection to theism
either. We don't understand free will, consciousness, or
language, the three things that define our identity as
humans. You will find both atheist and religious biologists.

"TomHendricks474" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

<< But I'm curious as to how belief in God would serve
humanity from an evolutionary point of view. >>

Well for one thing, religion often states a specific code
of social

behavior

Quoted message said:

for its members. It also helps educate its members, builds
unity or social glue, is a massive support group, etc.
Religion is metaphysics, but it is also ethics, and
socializing with like minded others.

Good point. It raises the question of whether there could be
a non-metaphysical substitute for religion. One thinks of
Confucianism, which AFAIK offers those other benefits
without the metaphysics.

But why aren't non-metaphysical "religions" more common?
People seem to want the metaphysics, in addition to the
other stuff. And religions split over issues of
metaphysics rather than over codes of behavior or disputes
over the right way to handle the social welfare functions.
So it seems that the metaphysics in not a dispensible part
of the package.

If you are asking "does God exist?" then evolutionary
biologists aren't really in a better position to answer this
than anyone else. We know that biblical literalism is wrong,
but then St Augustine said as much in the 5th century when
some Christians rejected Greek philosophy on scriptural
grounds, so we are not exactly saying anything new. Human
suffering is implict in the process of natural selection,
but the argument from evil isn't a new objection to theism
either. We don't understand free will, consciousness, or
language, the three things that define our identity as
humans. You will find both atheist and religious biologists.

Malcom

Do you "believe" in God. A "belief" in God is predicated on
faith and not evidence. I believe Hawking once said he
"believed" God was the laws of the universe but that was
more of a definition than proof of existence. I agree with
you human sufferring is implicit in the process of natural
selection but that the argument from "evil" isn't a new
objection to theism. Cetainly, however, the idea of an "all-
caring" God is destroyed in light of natural selection or
what we would also call evil.

I agree we don't "fully" understand consciousness, free will
and language (all of which are interrelated). But that is
not sufficient to state God exists. Anybody, however, can
believe in God. But science chooses evidence and there is no
evidence God exists. There is no evidence God doesn't exist.
So you are right that biologists are in no position to
answer that question. But as you will find both atheistic
and theistic biologists this is another part of their lives
and it does not guide their work which is based on evidence
and not belief.

Quoted message said:

From my brief reading of some of your posts you seem to
gravitate toward

believing in the supernatural, free will and God. That is
fine but there is no evidence for all three. The
supernatural could be defined as that which we don't
know..obviously alot...but science bases itself on evidence
and what can be proved. Therefore, the supernatural is moot
except as an enticing factor for science to discover and
learn more about the universe. That is where I see the
benefit of the "supernatural"....not that which can never be
explained but as an enticement to learn more knowledge and
expand a greater understanding of ourselves.

I think in light of Darwinian evolution free will is an
illusion. Certainly if we had free will many would want to
end human sufferring and evil. The fact these persist
argues against the idea of free will. But I don't think
that means free will doesn't possibly exist. As we learn
more about ourselves that affords the opportunity of
genetically altering ourselves so that we no longer our
bound like a ball and chain to Darwinian evolution. This
would be one of the most profound and brilliant expressions
of our "free will" ever. It remains to be seen if we truly
have free will.

Michael Ragland

A professor asked a student, "If you had a choice between
the oppressed and the oppressor which would you choose." The
student replied, "Neither". The Professor shook his head and
stated, "You don't have a choice." The student paused and
said, "The oppressed".

"porterboy" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Hi, I'm no biologist, so this may be a stupid question.
Evolutionary theory put an end to the Adam and Eve version
of the origin of the human species. But I'm curious as to
how belief in God would serve humanity from an
evolutionary point of view. Given that 90% of the planet
believe in God, it seems that we must have found it
beneficial over the millenia... (ergo, those who didn't
believe in God didnt live long enough to reproduce...
probably died of cynicism :-)... Anyway, I'm neither a
religious freak nor a scientist, just curious... PB

Am just going to say that: You are as terrifically right-on-the-target-
true as anybody new to evolution-theoretical thinking can
possibly be!

In fact, when most people (evolutionary biology professors
included) try to say more about this aspect about how the
members of our species typically behaves (including being
addicted to attitudes other than some religious one) they go
logically of the rails or fail to focus in the most optimum
(or anthropobiologically appropriate) way.

I have recognized that, to me personally, the simplest and
most efficiently (yet, clearly, to most people not easy
enough) way to supplement traditional scientific facts and
thinking [in order to achieve a thorough and philosophically
unifying understanding of how we are and got (and get) to be
this way(s)] is to look at ourselves from the vantagepoint
of carefully chosen/approximated categories of evolutionary
(_including_ classic Darwinian "naturally selective"😉
pressures faced, as far as relevant throughout our
phylogeny, by individuals of our "ancestral populations".

P

"Malcolm" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

"porterboy" <[email hidden]> wrote

Quoted message said:

Hi, I'm no biologist, so this may be a stupid question.
Evolutionary theory put an end to the Adam and Eve

version of

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

the origin of the human species.

The theory that humans were created out of clay about 6000

years ago is

Quoted message said:

definitely disproved. Monogenesis - the theory that all

humans are descended

Quoted message said:

from a single couple without interbreeding with outsiders,

is nearly but not

Quoted message said:

absolutely disproved.

Quoted message said:

But I'm curious as to how belief in God would serve

humanity

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

from an evolutionary point of view.

If supernatural forces are real then there might be an

advantage in being

Quoted message said:

able to communicate with them. (In the same way, echoes

are real, and humans

Quoted message said:

have a very primitive ability to echolocate which we are

hardly aware of.)

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Given that 90% of the planet believe in God, it seems

that we

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

must have found it beneficial over the millenia...

(ergo, those who

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

didn't believe in God didnt live long enough to

reproduce...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

probably died of cynicism :-)

The sociologist Emile Durkheim, writing in 1912, didn't

find a single

Quoted message said:

example of a secular society. If you read _Phantoms in the

Brain_, by

Quoted message said:

Ramachandran, you will find a description of an area of

the brian which

Quoted message said:

produces excessive religious behaviour when it is

over-stimulated by

Quoted message said:

epilepsy. Putting two and two together, it seems obvious

that religion isn't

Quoted message said:

just a rogue "meme", as Richard Dawkins, the famous

Darwinist and atheist,

Quoted message said:

would have it, but is something that has evolved.

Explaining just why anything has evolved is difficult,

because it we can't

Quoted message said:

travel back in time, and it is seldom easy to test

hypotheses. Obviously if

Quoted message said:

the existence of supernatural beings could be demonstrated

independently

Quoted message said:

then the "supernatural forces are real" hypothesis would

become very

Quoted message said:

attractive. There is also some evidence that in modern

conditions a religion

Quoted message said:

is a force for social advancement. Jews are famous for

gravitating to

Quoted message said:

prestigous professions, for example. It is not so clear

that this would

Quoted message said:

apply to hunter gatherers. There could be more subtle
advantages. Certainly Durkheim

found that in

Quoted message said:

primitive religions there was no clear distinction between

religious

Quoted message said:

symbolism and the identifying totem, or emblem, of the

tribe. Its easy to

Quoted message said:

see that anyone who didn't accept the ideology of the

tribe would be at a

Quoted message said:

disadvantage, though exactly how religion might have

evolved is still quite

Quoted message said:

unclear.

If you are asking "does God exist?" then evolutionary

biologists aren't

Quoted message said:

really in a better position to answer this than anyone

else. We know that

Quoted message said:

biblical literalism is wrong, but then St Augustine said

as much in the 5th

Quoted message said:

century when some Christians rejected Greek philosophy on

scriptural

Quoted message said:

grounds, so we are not exactly saying anything new. Human

suffering is

Quoted message said:

implict in the process of natural selection, but the

argument from evil

Quoted message said:

isn't a new objection to theism either. We don't

understand free will,

Quoted message said:

consciousness, or language, the three things that define

our identity as

Quoted message said:

humans. You will find both atheist and religious

biologists.

I also was going to mention Ramachandran's work--it's very
intriguing...probably the best evidence for a biological
evolutionary pathway to religion besides the memetic
(cultural) evolution ones mentioned by others here. I have
often wondered how such a thing first started on the
bioevolution road and come to these thoughts:

Certainly within the first primitive tribal groups, the
mystery, and fear of death sparked individual thoughts of
gods, and life after death--heaven and other factors came
later. Probably even in the smallest of family groupings,
religion and the afterlife had a calming effect on the community---
one can speculate that without it, individuals could go
berserk with fear and/or anger on losing a close relative or
friend, harming others and herself perhaps. Religion and a
code of behavior might provide just the tiniest edge on
survivability to make it a worthwhile characteristic for
Darwinian propagation (honed over millions of years.) Its
acceptance and utilization by those in power would also
provide the tribe/society with added fitness vis a vis those
not so doing. Others her have noted these factors also. The
"god spot" road, once taken, would continue up until today
regardless of the truth or falsity of the theologies in
question as long as they continued to provide this marginal
opiate effect on the population. ....tonyC

(This reply-post is not a reply specifically to Tim Tyler's
reply-post.)

IMO you all have come up with more or less shallow,
crucially deficient, and even in some irrelevant, answers.

You are merely, like most people around here, avoiding the
"in principle available" affirmative answer to this question
(and the already by the poser tentatively proposed answer).

Am made a tad sad to see how reluctant you all are to
apply hardcore evolutionary logic creatively - somewhat
similar to not daring to hang appropriate decorations on
your Christmas-tree.

Just one more depressing confirmation of the AEVASIVE aspect
of: our phylogeny and normal human behaviour and
neuropsychobiology.

P

Malcolm <[email hidden]> wrote or quoted:

Quoted message said:

Monogenesis - the theory that all humans are descended
from a single couple without interbreeding with outsiders,
is nearly but not absolutely disproved.

That's not what the dictionary has for monogenesis:

1. The theory that all living organisms are descended from a
single cell or organism.

- dictionary.reference.comsearchOpen ↗

Quoted message said:

From that I would say monogenesis was currently the height
of orthodoxy.

--
__________
|im |yler timtyler.orgtimtyler.orgOpen ↗ [email hidden] Remove
lock to reply.

Tim Tyler said:

Malcolm <[email hidden]> wrote or quoted:

Quoted message said:

Monogenesis - the theory that all humans are descended
from a single couple without interbreeding with
outsiders, is nearly but not absolutely disproved.

That's not what the dictionary has for monogenesis:

1. The theory that all living organisms are descended from
a single cell or organism.

Quoted message said:

- dictionary.reference.comsearchOpen ↗

Quoted message said:

From that I would say monogenesis was currently the
height of orthodoxy.

Malcolm is, dictionary notwithstanding, correct. The two
accounts, which predate modern biology and go back to
theological disputes, were monogenism (a single parental
pair for all humans) and polygenism (independent creation of
other races, making them distinct species). Agassiz was a
polygenist as late as the Civil War.

Both Darwin and Wallace were convinced monogenists, as was
Agassiz's friend and sometime promoter James Dana.
--
John S Wilkins PhD - www.wilkins.id.au a little emptier, a
little spent as always by that quiver in the self,
subjugated, yes, and obedient. -- Seamus Heaney

Tim Tyler <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

Malcolm <[email hidden]> wrote or quoted:

Quoted message said:

Monogenesis - the theory that all humans are descended
from a single couple without interbreeding with
outsiders, is nearly but not absolutely disproved.

That's not what the dictionary has for monogenesis:

1. The theory that all living organisms are descended from
a single cell or organism.

Quoted message said:

- dictionary.reference.comsearchOpen ↗

Quoted message said:

From that I would say monogenesis was currently the
height of orthodoxy.

There is more than one dictionary, and hence more than one
definition:

tiscali.co.ukdifficultwOpen ↗
ords/data/d0008433.html thebigletterlist.netmOpen ↗
Monogenesis.html
monogenesis.bluerider.commonogenesisOpen ↗ ht-
tp://pharyngula.org/~pzmyers/MyersLab/teaching/Bi104/l02/m-
onogen.html

Don't you just love the scientific practice of creating
neologisms from Greek and Latin roots. It is a big boon for
communication. NOT!!!!!

Important points made by of you two old-timers! :-)

"TomHendricks474" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

But why aren't non-metaphysical "religions" more common?

They are - excEPT they would best be called something like
"behavioral (also including mainly 'mental-behavioral'😉
addictions". Or, IOW, "addictions to certain ways of
focusing actention".

Quoted message said:

People seem to want the metaphysics, in addition to the
other stuff. And religions split over issues of
metaphysics rather than over codes of behavior or disputes
over the right way to handle the social welfare functions.
So it seems that the metaphysics in not a dispensible part
of the package.

In some cases they ARE actually dispensed with. So, you
stated a 'pink herring' (so to speak). :-)

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Well if I may, I'll go back to basics. It is my contention
that any organism has 4 options in dealing with that which
is around it. And these evolve from energy in (2 options)
waste out (2 options).

To evolve this to social behavior we can restate it
this way.

1. move toward what nurtures (or nurture self) the 'friend
and tend behavior'.

Or, as if 'cave in' to an "opportunity type
evolutionary/motivational pressure"

Quoted message said:

OR

2. move against what does not nurture ( or separate from
what does not nurture self) the 'fight or flight
behavior'

Or, to meet the challenges posed by (having evolved as if to
cope with) "adversity type selective/motivational
pressures/situations".

One (or two) such, which is (are) of key importance if one
is to achieve an 'in-dEPTh' [~ evolutionary
{neuro}psychological type] understanding of the dynamics and
phylogeny of the AEVASIVE aspect of human Behavior
(including, amongst else, religious ideations), is [censored]
(come CURSES) type lifetime pressures/situations.

Quoted message said:

So every positive aspect of religion is either

help in moving toward what nurtures

or its opposite

help in moving against or separating from that which does
not nurture

IOW: This is reflected by what _in respect of real-life
coincidences (in the phylogeny of fauna) that exemplifies
the above categories_ has been "ambi-advantageous"
mutations.

Quoted message said:

Those two option-sets are at the basis of all behavior IMO

What is impossibly complex are the novel ways those two
sets of options can evolve in human society.

A 'convenient' (EPTly understood to be AEVASIVE)
attitude to take.

P