bg12345@apexmail.com wrote:

M Dunne wrote:

from:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/atheism/features/dawkins/

Q: Was the human brain selected to develop religion?

A: I don't know, but my guess is 'no'. The way I would answer that question
is to say that the human brain was selected to develop something which
manifests itself as religion under some circumstances.

That's what I've said before. Religion is a consequence of fear
and intelligence; no, not a fear of something that exists (which
the godbots would claim) but rather a fear of not knowing what
happened or why.

Humans are capable of thinking and may have some answers, but
when we don't have the answers, we can either (a) be brave and
admit we don't know, or (b) disguise our fear and pretend we
know with the lie that is religion.

The other thing about human brains is that they evolved to function in
complex social groups.
There is lots of survival value in being able to see or "guess
correctly x% of the time" the *intent* of others in the group - reading
the thoughts and intentions of others - particularly high ranking
individuals - leaders.
It is a small step to wondering about the "inner mind" of prey animals
and lightning storms.
So instead of just thinking "***** happens" our brains are hard wired to
constantly ask "why is ***** happening to me - why is the sky angry -
why has all the game left the forrest - why did my child die? etc"
Another very small step to Monotheist and the Catholic Church.

In article <iun412ddgcnruv2dut4b212m4dhe2v2dnm@4ax.com>,
Michael Gray <fleetg@newsguy.spam.com> wrote:

On Sat, 11 Mar 2006 00:13:49 GMT, "M Dunne" <MarcusDunn@homework.com>
wrote:
- Refer: <1DoQf.65$ZJ2.54@newsfe6-gui.ntli.net>

from:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/atheism/features/dawkins/

Q: Was the human brain selected to develop religion?

A: I don't know, but my guess is 'no'. The way I would answer that question
is to say that the human brain was selected to develop something which
manifests itself as religion under some circumstances. If I take an analogy
of... well, one that I'm particularly fond of is the tendency of moths to
fly into candle flames, and it's tempting to label that suicidal behaviour
in moths, and ask what on earth is the Darwinian advantage of suicidal
behaviour in moths. If you put it like that, clearly there isn't any. But if
you say instead 'What is the Darwinian survival value of having the kind of
brain which under some circumstances leads moths to fly into candle
flames?', then you're getting somewhere, because then you can say 'Well in
the world where moths evolved, there weren't any candle flames. The only
lights you would see if you were a night-flying moth would be things like
the moon and the stars, and they are at optical infinity, which means that
their rays are coming parallel. And if you have a rule of thumb in your
brain that says 'Steer a steady angle of say 30 degrees to the rays of the
moon,' that's a very useful thing to do, because that keeps you going in a
dead straight line. That rule of thumb is then misapplied to candles, which
are not at optical infinity, where the rays are radiating outwards. And if
you follow the same rule of thumb, of keeping an angle of 30 degrees to the
candle's rays, then you'll simply spiral into the candle and burn yourself.

So we have rephrased the question. We've said it was the wrong question to
say 'Why do moths fly into candle flames?'. The right question is 'Why do
they have the kind of brain which in the wild state made them do something
which, in the human-dominated state where there are candles, makes them fly
into candle flames?'. Now in the case of religion, I think there was
something built into the human brain by natural selection which was once
useful and which now manifests itself under civilised conditions as
religion, but which used not to be religion when it first arose, and when it
was useful.

---------

M.D.

As always, Dawkins hits the nail squarely on the head.
Thanks.

It seems that he always does.