| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"darth_versive" |
| Date: |
24 Dec 2003 12:55:47 PM |
| Object: |
Evolutionary psychology and God |
Perhaps the prevalence of religion in human society today is a result
of our cognitive architecture, which evolved the way it did because it
gave our ancestors a competitive advantage to believe in such things
as gods and spirits, etc.
And now we're stuck with it. Our brains evolve too slowly for our
current civilization, which values a more realistic attitude, to have
had any measurable effect upon our cognitive architecture.
What can we do in a cultural sense to counteract this tendency which
our cognitive architecture gives us? It seems that the answers that
various atheists and secularists have come up with to counteract this
tendency so far haven't worked very well in practice. Could this be
because they don't take into account that our cognitive architecture
evolved during the stone age, when believing in gods and spirits, etc.
gave us a competitive advantage? Could be...
Perhaps a more serious, scientific discussion of the roots of
religious thinking would be more useful in terms of solving this
problem.
DV
.
|
|
| User: "|-|erc" |
|
| Title: Re: Evolutionary psychology and God |
25 Dec 2003 12:33:15 AM |
|
|
----------------------------- <^> <(·¿·)> <^> -----------------------------
"darth_versive" <darth_versive@yahoo.com> wrote
Perhaps the prevalence of religion in human society today is a result
of our cognitive architecture, which evolved the way it did because it
gave our ancestors a competitive advantage to believe in such things
as gods and spirits, etc.
And now we're stuck with it. Our brains evolve too slowly for our
current civilization, which values a more realistic attitude, to have
had any measurable effect upon our cognitive architecture.
What can we do in a cultural sense to counteract this tendency which
our cognitive architecture gives us? It seems that the answers that
various atheists and secularists have come up with to counteract this
tendency so far haven't worked very well in practice. Could this be
because they don't take into account that our cognitive architecture
evolved during the stone age, when believing in gods and spirits, etc.
gave us a competitive advantage? Could be...
Perhaps a more serious, scientific discussion of the roots of
religious thinking would be more useful in terms of solving this
problem.
Its an accurate theory, but it should be considered as duality.
If you're on the outside in the dark and the susceptible people are in
the light, then the people in the dark would conjure the same theory you have,
that they are susceptible to see things. If the world is alive it doesn't
have to reveal itself to everyone, but will likely maintain a strong following
of what is true!
Herc
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jay Jerome" |
|
| Title: Re: Evolutionary psychology and God |
25 Dec 2003 12:58:55 PM |
|
|
"|-|erc" <trymyform@wwwadamskingdom.com> wrote in message news:<SrvGb.57$nB6.2068@nnrp1.ozemail.com.au>...
----------------------------- <^> <(·¿·)> <^> -----------------------------
"darth_versive" <darth_versive@yahoo.com> wrote
Perhaps the prevalence of religion in human society today is a result
of our cognitive architecture, which evolved the way it did because it
gave our ancestors a competitive advantage to believe in such things
as gods and spirits, etc.
And now we're stuck with it. Our brains evolve too slowly for our
current civilization, which values a more realistic attitude, to have
had any measurable effect upon our cognitive architecture.
What can we do in a cultural sense to counteract this tendency which
our cognitive architecture gives us? It seems that the answers that
various atheists and secularists have come up with to counteract this
tendency so far haven't worked very well in practice. Could this be
because they don't take into account that our cognitive architecture
evolved during the stone age, when believing in gods and spirits, etc.
gave us a competitive advantage? Could be...
Perhaps a more serious, scientific discussion of the roots of
religious thinking would be more useful in terms of solving this
problem.
Its an accurate theory, but it should be considered as duality.
If you're on the outside in the dark and the susceptible people are in
the light, then the people in the dark would conjure the same theory you have,
that they are susceptible to see things. If the world is alive it doesn't
have to reveal itself to everyone, but will likely maintain a strong following
of what is true!
Herc
I believe what "darth_versive" said is correct. There's a genetic
disposition for our species to ‘believe' in the existence of gods. All
cultures, every one that ever existed on this planet, has had core
‘religious' beliefs.
Why is this so? What is the 'evolutionay advantage' of a belief in
god(s)? I'm not sure there is one. And if not, what other answer
besides the darwinian one explains the pervasiveness of religious
beliefs throughout history?
Jay Jay
.
|
|
|
| User: "JTEM" |
|
| Title: Re: Evolutionary psychology and God |
26 Dec 2003 12:41:47 AM |
|
|
"Jay Jerome" <jayjerome@earthlink.net> wrote
All cultures, every one that ever existed on this
planet, has had core 'religious' beliefs.
Yeah, but that's not exactly a surprise. Military/warrior
traditions are equally well represent amongst human
cultures. In a very real sense, both forms of power use
the fear of death to maintain authority.
The competition between these two power structures long
ago gave way to hybrids, with each borrowing from the
other. A society that did not grow/adapt along these lines
would eventually fall victim to a neighbor. An example
might be a purely militaristic society where confidence in
the man (the military leader) would be paramount. His
defeat/death/disgrace would jeopardize the entire culture.
What we're looking at here is the age-old struggle between
brains & brawn.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "darth_versive" |
|
| Title: Re: Evolutionary psychology and God |
26 Dec 2003 12:04:01 AM |
|
|
(Jay Jerome) wrote in message
I believe what "darth_versive" said is correct. There's a genetic
disposition for our species to ?believe' in the existence of gods. All
cultures, every one that ever existed on this planet, has had core
?religious' beliefs.
Why is this so? What is the 'evolutionay advantage' of a belief in
god(s)? I'm not sure there is one. And if not, what other answer
besides the darwinian one explains the pervasiveness of religious
beliefs throughout history?
Jay Jay
I've addressed this issue, of what could be the possible 'evolutionay
advantage' of a belief in god(s), in a number of threads.
A typical one can be found in alt.atheism, titled, "Is religion a
necessary evil?"
From that thread, Dated Sat, 26 Apr 2003, 12:02 PM, I pulled this
excerpt, which concerns the question of what could be the competitive
advantages to a species which possessed the capacity for religious
thinking, over a species which lacked such a capacity, in terms of the
actual religious practices involved ("Wilson" refers to D.S. Wilson,
who writes on the topic of evolutionary psychology; his book refered
to is "Darwin's Cathedral: evolution, religion, and the nature of
society"; "Boyer" refers to Pascal Boyer, who also writes on the topic
of evolutionary psychology):
"I suppose that the religious practices in question would somehow
involve the greater level of social organization and military
aggressiveness which might be associated with a greater capacity
to
think in terms of various mythological and religious perspectives,
involving belief in an afterlife, the sacredness of particular
places,
natural objects, artifacts, one's own social group, etc., and the
greater capacity for the ritualistic behavior patterns which might
inculcate and reinforce such perspectives.
But working out the actual details of this hypothesis might be
rather
difficult if approached directly, given the scarcity of perishable
data from this period in our prehistory. That's why I think that
looking at recorded history, and the role that religion has played
in
it, is very relevant to the confirmation or rejection of this
hypothesis. And this will have to await further research, since
I'm
not aware of many people who are working along these lines. That
is,
there's plenty of this kind of data available, but few people with
the
kind of interdisciplinary focus necessary to use it to try and
answer
such an evolutionary psychological question. Perhaps this will
soon
change, as the hypothesis becomes more widely known (Wilson's book
only came out in 2002, I think).
Have you ever read about Wilson's ideas or about this
particular
thesis before? I consider it to be much more in line with
historical
and anthropological facts than Boyer's thesis.
DV
No, I'll have to look.
I won't contest the claim that religious thought has largely
shaped the
history of mankind, but I'm skeptical that of your claim "The
reason why
I think that people believe in God(s) is that our minds have
been
hardwired, through the processes of evolutionary psychology, to
seek out
simple and emotionally-comforting explanations for the
complexities of
the world around us, and for getting around the hard facts of
the human
condition." I just don't see the selective pressure from the
comfort
perspective...especially since it appears to me that most
religious
thinking creates more worries than not!
As should be clear from what I said above, the selective pressure
does
not derive from the "comfort perspective," but from those very
aspects
of religious thought and behavior that many people today rightly
condemn religion for--its capacity to "brainwash" people into
following a rigid social structure, and its role in motivating
agressive, warlike conduct. Such behavior patterns may indeed
confer
a selective *disadvantage* in today's social and political
environment, but in the environment of our prehistory, when we
were
competing with other hominid species, such characteristics would
have
been greatly to our *advantage* over those species which lacked a
strong social organization and an aggressive, warlike behavior
pattern."
DV
.
|
|
|
| User: "|-|erc" |
|
| Title: Re: Evolutionary psychology and God |
26 Dec 2003 01:01:03 AM |
|
|
----------------------------- <^> <(·¿·)> <^> -----------------------------
"darth_versive" <darth_versive@yahoo.com> wrote
excerpt, which concerns the question of what could be the competitive
advantages to a species which possessed the capacity for religious
thinking, over a species which lacked such a capacity, in terms of the
actual religious practices involved ("Wilson" refers to D.S. Wilson,
To label this 'practicality' as God Fearing or Not God Fearing.
Each would have its own advantages and disadvantages, so the optimal
survival of the species would occurs when the species was divided,
part one and part the other, exactly what it is today.
Herc
.
|
|
|
| User: "darth_versive" |
|
| Title: Re: Evolutionary psychology and God |
26 Dec 2003 01:49:56 PM |
|
|
"|-|erc" <trymyform@wwwadamskingdom.com> wrote in message news:<ZXQGb.119$ma.4307@nnrp1.ozemail.com.au>...
----------------------------- <^> <(·¿·)> <^> -----------------------------
"darth_versive" <darth_versive@yahoo.com> wrote
excerpt, which concerns the question of what could be the competitive
advantages to a species which possessed the capacity for religious
thinking, over a species which lacked such a capacity, in terms of the
actual religious practices involved ("Wilson" refers to D.S. Wilson,
To label this 'practicality' as God Fearing or Not God Fearing.
Each would have its own advantages and disadvantages, so the optimal
survival of the species would occurs when the species was divided,
part one and part the other, exactly what it is today.
Herc
No, this isn't the sort of thing I'm referring to. I'm talking about
two different species (like homo sapiens and Neanderthals) with
different cognitive architectures (that is, different biological
structures within their brains which involve how they understand and
interact with the outside world).
What you are referring to (God-fearing vs. not God-fearing) involves
members of the same species, with the same cognitive architecture,
either believing or not believing in a particular belief system.
While I agree that the particulars of the content of someone's belief
systems matters in terms of their behavior, this would fall into the
realm of cultural or conceptual evolution, not biological evolution,
and so it's not what I'm talking about here. I'm talking about a
competitive advantage of one species over another in terms of
biological evolution.
Sorry if I didn't make this clear enough by the particular text I
chose to quote. I hope these comments clear up any confusion on this
issue.
DV
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Dave" |
|
| Title: Re: Evolutionary psychology and God |
25 Dec 2003 04:45:00 PM |
|
|
(Jay Jerome) wrote in message news:<b1832d25.0312251058.7978a067@posting.google.com>...
"|-|erc" <trymyform@wwwadamskingdom.com> wrote:
"darth_versive" <darth_versive@yahoo.com> wrote:
Perhaps the prevalence of religion in human society today is a result
of our cognitive architecture, which evolved the way it did because it
gave our ancestors a competitive advantage to believe in such things
as gods and spirits, etc.
And now we're stuck with it. Our brains evolve too slowly for our
current civilization, which values a more realistic attitude, to have
had any measurable effect upon our cognitive architecture.
What can we do in a cultural sense to counteract this tendency which
our cognitive architecture gives us? It seems that the answers that
various atheists and secularists have come up with to counteract this
tendency so far haven't worked very well in practice. Could this be
because they don't take into account that our cognitive architecture
evolved during the stone age, when believing in gods and spirits, etc.
gave us a competitive advantage? Could be...
Perhaps a more serious, scientific discussion of the roots of
religious thinking would be more useful in terms of solving this
problem.
Its an accurate theory, but it should be considered as duality.
If you're on the outside in the dark and the susceptible people are in
the light, then the people in the dark would conjure the same theory
you have, that they are susceptible to see things. If the world is
alive it doesn't have to reveal itself to everyone, but will likely
maintain a strong following of what is true!
Herc
I believe what "darth_versive" said is correct. There's a genetic
disposition for our species to ?believe' in the existence of gods. All
cultures, every one that ever existed on this planet, has had core
?religious' beliefs.
Why is this so? What is the 'evolutionay advantage' of a belief in
god(s)? I'm not sure there is one. And if not, what other answer
besides the darwinian one explains the pervasiveness of religious
beliefs throughout history?
Jay Jay
I'm not drawing any conclusions but we all can see the obvious
parallel between the child-parent and parent-gawd relationship. If the
mind evolved expecting a parent figure then maybe the gawd fixation is
the result we end up with.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Paul M. Koloc" |
|
| Title: Re: Evolutionary psychology and GoQ |
25 Dec 2003 08:04:45 PM |
|
|
Jay Jerome wrote:
I believe what "darth_versive" said is correct. There's a genetic
disposition for our species to ‘believe' in the existence of gods. All
cultures, every one that ever existed on this planet, has had core
‘religious' beliefs.
Why is this so? What is the 'evolutionay advantage' of a belief in
god(s)? I'm not sure there is one. And if not, what other answer
besides the darwinian one explains the pervasiveness of religious
beliefs throughout history?
Jay Jay
The development of the mammalian brain to point it can image the reality
around it and then to generalize and to form mental image mosaics of
that reality has had its repercussions. This evolved ability may form
the basis for mankind's perception of religion, mythology and even
science in as much as the latter is a more sophisticated form of
mythology. Basically we call things the way we "see" things. Our
ability to generalize promotes conceptualizations that go beyond our
mere physical senses. Science can see reality in more detail, since it
has the advantage of instrumentation that amplifies the detection of
aspects of our reality. Yet our minds can generalize ideas beyond our
perception of physical reality and even instrumentally enhanced views of
our physical reality. That means that our theoretical capacity is
capable of producing a myriad of believable theories, religions,
mythologies, fairy tales, and even delusions. The fun part is to merge
the complete gamut of our generalized concepts into a self consistent
overall concept of "everything". If we realize that science can only
reach to edges of our measurable "real space" for verification, then it
may become more comfortable with religious notions or advanced mythology
constructs that could be ascribed to the theoretical existence of other
(non measurable) dimensional universes.
Our ability to engage in silliness such as Loop QG or String Theory may
be gift given to us by whatever mental religious component we have
inherited from our brain's evolution. So what, theology or theoretical
physics, it may be that the playground is in different places (spaces).
--
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------
| Paul M. Koloc; Prometheus II, Ltd.; 9903 Cottrell Terrace,
| Silver Spring, MD 20903-1927; FAX (301) 434-6737: Tel (301) 445-1075
| Grid Power -Raising $$Support$$ <http://www.neoteric-research.org/>
| http://www.prometheus2.net/ mailto:pmk@plasmak.com
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "JTEM" |
|
| Title: Re: Evolutionary psychology and God |
24 Dec 2003 11:55:19 PM |
|
|
"darth_versive" <darth_versive@yahoo.com> wrote
Perhaps the prevalence of religion in human society
today
If anything, it's far less "prevalent" today than it has been
in past cultures.
It's certainly absent amongst our culture's "Leaders," including
(but not limited to) corporate America, the religious-right and
the politicians who claim to espouse their "values."
Presently, the religious/political/economic right defines "moral"
as "Legal." What is legal is moral. Period. It was not illegal for
***** Cheney to go on tv and lie about the compensation that
Halliburton is paying him even as I type this. This is why he did
just that, instead of fully disclosing the exact amount of the
payments and the formula for establishing this amount.
is a result of our cognitive architecture, which evolved the
way it did because it gave our ancestors a competitive
advantage to believe in such things as gods and spirits, etc.
Without religion human history would surely have taken a
different course, but it would progressed. Your first error
(at least after misrepresenting evolution) is in assuming that
our species could not exist without religion, or at least that
the progress seen with religion is somehow superior than we
might have experienced without it.
This is baseless.
In fact, I could even argue that religion hastened (if not caused)
the downfall of the greatest civilizations of the ancient world.
It certainly was a factor in Rome's demise, when, in an attempt
to use religion as a unifying glue, the government fostered division,
creating "Enemy's of the state" out of loyal citizens. Previously, in
Egypt, the temples grew to control as much as a third of all the
land -- the wealth -- and, challenging the central government, left
the civilization fragmented & vulnerable to invaders.
And now we're stuck with it.
We're not "stuck" with it. We have religion because we want
religion. Maybe not you & I personally, but a great many others
have far too much at stake in religion, and pretty much all of it
is in cash.
Bush is going to win in 2004 because of religion. Sure, it's going
to destroy this country and, in the end, everything he holds dear,
but in the mean time he'll get to ride in Airforce-One.
.
|
|
|
| User: "darth_versive" |
|
| Title: Re: Evolutionary psychology and God |
25 Dec 2003 04:09:04 PM |
|
|
"JTEM" <gymraven@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<G8WdnWclNsRn53eiRVn-hA@comcast.com>...
"darth_versive" <darth_versive@yahoo.com> wrote
Perhaps the prevalence of religion in human society
today
If anything, it's far less "prevalent" today than it has been
in past cultures.
It may be somewhat less prevalent than it was in Medieval Europe,
etc., but I wouldn't say it's "far" less so. I'm looking at various
cultures around the world, not just at those in modern Europe. In the
US, it seems to be pretty much as prevalent as it ever was, judging by
the number of churches, synagogues, mosques, etc., as well as by more
informal expressions of spirituality, etc.
It's certainly absent amongst our culture's "Leaders," including
(but not limited to) corporate America, the religious-right and
the politicians who claim to espouse their "values."
I don't think it's absent among the world's political leaders,
especially in the US and in the developing world. And it's certainly
*not* absent among the religious right in the US and among politicians
who claim to espouse their values. I don't see how you can say that
religion is absent among these people.
Presently, the religious/political/economic right defines "moral"
as "Legal." What is legal is moral. Period. It was not illegal for
***** Cheney to go on tv and lie about the compensation that
Halliburton is paying him even as I type this. This is why he did
just that, instead of fully disclosing the exact amount of the
payments and the formula for establishing this amount.
Maybe. But that doesn't mean that ***** Cheney is not religious. One
can lie and still be religious.
is a result of our cognitive architecture, which evolved the
way it did because it gave our ancestors a competitive
advantage to believe in such things as gods and spirits, etc.
Without religion human history would surely have taken a
different course, but it would progressed. Your first error
(at least after misrepresenting evolution) is in assuming that
our species could not exist without religion, or at least that
the progress seen with religion is somehow superior than we
might have experienced without it.
I'm not drawing alternate historical what-if scenarios, I'm just
saying that our cognitive architecture gives us a tendency to think in
these sorts of religious ways, and that any scientifically-based
history of our species must take this cognitive architecture into
account. How our history as a species might have unfolded with a
*different* cognitive architecture is beyond the scope of my
hypothesis. So I'm not comparing alternate historical what-if
scenarios (with religion vs. without religion). I might just as well
try to compare alternate histories with the use of language in the
modern sense vs. without it.
Also, I don't think I'm misrepresenting evolution. I think what I'm
saying is fully consistent with it, and reflects legitimate
interpretations of evolution in terms of how it has influenced the
history of our species.
This is baseless.
Obviously, I disagree. I think it has a solid base in empirical
evidence. Interpretations of that evidence, of course, will differ
from person to person.
In fact, I could even argue that religion hastened (if not caused)
the downfall of the greatest civilizations of the ancient world.
It certainly was a factor in Rome's demise, when, in an attempt
to use religion as a unifying glue, the government fostered division,
creating "Enemy's of the state" out of loyal citizens. Previously, in
Egypt, the temples grew to control as much as a third of all the
land -- the wealth -- and, challenging the central government, left
the civilization fragmented & vulnerable to invaders.
I don't disagree with you here. Well, not exactly. I think that the
particular religion of Christianity hastened the downfall of the Roman
Empire. But, on the other hand, the particular religious systems of
polytheism prevalent in Rome and surrounding territories aided in its
rise, in my view.
So, if one wants to blame "religion" for its fall, one must also
credit "religion" for its rise. Just different forms of religion.
As for Egypt, whatever resources were diverted by the religious
systems for the building of the pyramids, etc., these systems did
provide a unifying force within that culture. Those neighboring
states with a less-unified form of religion were more prone to
disunity and conquest than Egypt, in my view. You'll not find *any*
state of the period without *some* form of religion, so it's a mistake
to say that "religion" per se created disunity. What was
determinitive, in my view, was the particular *form* that the
religious system took.
And now we're stuck with it.
We're not "stuck" with it. We have religion because we want
religion. Maybe not you & I personally, but a great many others
have far too much at stake in religion, and pretty much all of it
is in cash.
We're stuck with our cognitive architecture. There are many different
forms of belief systems that can be manifestations of that cognitive
architecture. Not all of which would fit into the standard definition
of "religion" (like Marxism-Leninism, UFOism, etc.). The slow pace of
biological evolution means that we are stuck with the type of
cognitive architecture that gives rise to these various forms of these
belief systems.
So *that's* what I meant by, "we're stuck with it." With the
cognitive architecture, not with any particular form of religion.
And I wouldn't say that "we have religion because we want religion."
Not exactly. I'd say we (or many people) *want* religion because our
cognitive architecture has evolved in such a way that these religious
belief systems are favored, that they seem to meet human needs, that
they seem to enable most people to make sense of the world more easily
and in a more satisfactory manner than the alternative, strictly
scientific views of the world do.
Not that people can't develop the latter. They often do in our modern
culture. It's just that we have to overcome our natural tendencies to
achieve this, which are the manifestations of our cognitive
architecture, which has evolved the way it has because it gave our
ancestors a competitive advantage over other hominid species. Or
perhaps it didn't evolve this way *because* of this, but as a
byproduct of the evolution of other cognitive features, and it simply
gave us a competitive advantage to our ancestors once it had evolved
this way for these other reasons. But the fact that it *did* give
them such an advantage (in my view) is one primary reason why we're
still stuck with it. We still have stone-age minds.
Anyway, I think it's a hypothesis well worth considering, and I think
it is able to explain much about human cognition that other hypothesis
I've heard about don't do as well.
DV
.
|
|
|
| User: "JTEM" |
|
| Title: Re: Evolutionary psychology and God |
25 Dec 2003 11:43:31 PM |
|
|
"darth_versive" <darth_versive@yahoo.com> wrote
If anything, it's far less "prevalent" today than it has been
in past cultures.
It may be somewhat less prevalent than it was in Medieval
Europe, etc., but I wouldn't say it's "far" less so.
I would. I definitely would. Yes, the lunatics claim that Bush was
placed in office by "God," but in the past royalty ruled by "Divine
Right," and it was the royals claiming that right.
I'm looking at various cultures around the world, not just at
those in modern Europe.
It's certainly more prevalent elsewhere than it is here, granted.
It's certainly absent amongst our culture's "Leaders,"
including (but not limited to) corporate America, the
religious-right and the politicians who claim to espouse
their "values."
I don't think it's absent among the world's political leaders,
especially in the US and in the developing world.
It's completely absent in American politics, apart from lip service.
Bush, for example, has raised the religious rhetoric to new heights,
yet oversees the single most corrupt administration in 100 years,
if not for all time.
And it's certainly *not* absent among the religious right in the
US and among politicians who claim to espouse their values.
There's not a drop of "Christianity" in any of their actions. Heck,
few of the words they label as "Christian" can qualify as anything
other than malice.
I don't see how you can say that religion is absent among these
people.
Start with the greed and the dishonesty, then move to the body
count.
Presently, the religious/political/economic right defines
"moral" as "Legal." What is legal is moral. Period. It was
not illegal for ***** Cheney to go on tv and lie about the
compensation that Halliburton is paying him even as I type
this. This is why he did just that, instead of fully disclosing
the exact amount of the payments and the formula for
establishing this amount.
Maybe.
Your conclusion requires a "Definitely not."
But that doesn't mean that ***** Cheney is not religious.
It does. It most certainly does. He can & does pretend to be
religious, but he can't be "Religious" even as he mocks the
very beliefs he pretends to uphold.
One can lie and still be religious.
We're not talking about a single lie here.
I'm not drawing alternate historical what-if scenarios, I'm just
saying that our cognitive architecture gives us a tendency to think in
these sorts of religious ways, and that any scientifically-based
history of our species must take this cognitive architecture into
account.
I don't see any evidence for this. That's the plain & simple truth. Yes,
I agree that people have a "Spiritual" or "Mystical" component to
our minds -- just as we have emotions & instinct -- but that's a far cry
from religion.
Religion appears to be a protect of society, rather than society a
product of religion.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "JTEM" |
|
| Title: Re: Evolutionary psychology and God |
26 Dec 2003 12:25:21 AM |
|
|
"darth_versive" <darth_versive@yahoo.com> wrote
I'm skipping out everything else, starting over from a new
perspective....
How our history as a species might have unfolded with a
*different* cognitive architecture is beyond the scope of my
hypothesis.
Maybe it would help if you explained what you mean by "cognitive
architecture," in plain & simple english terms. And, yes, I went
back and did a google search but couldn't find anything that
contradicted my position.
Maybe it's a simple communications problem -- my last psychology
class was a good long time ago -- but I haven't been able to establish
even that much...
As for Egypt, whatever resources were diverted by the religious
systems for the building of the pyramids, etc., these systems did
provide a unifying force within that culture.
Perhaps, or perhaps the Egyptians were telling the truth when they
said that an ancient king unified the country by force.
Those neighboring states with a less-unified form of religion
were more prone to disunity and conquest than Egypt, in my
view. You'll not find *any* state of the period without *some*
form of religion, so it's a mistake to say that "religion" per se
created disunity.
It certainly did create disunity, by rivaling the central government
in wealth & power.
What was determinitive, in my view, was the particular *form*
that the religious system took.
What you're labelling as "Religion" here is "Power." The temples
in Egypt grew powerful at the expense of the central government,
the net result being a weaker nation. The Roman emporers grew
weaker over time. They turned to religion in an attempt to bolster
their power, inventing rivals (enemies) out of competing religions.
Here in the United States, the undeniable link between the Christian
"Right" and the Republican party testifies to the fact that religion
remains POWER.
The Pharoah as Horus. The god Emporer. The European royalty who
ruled by "Divine right." The Popes. George Bush and the religious
Reich. Bob Jones, Jerry Falwell & Pat Robertson. Power.
There's no more sense in defining world history in terms of "religion"
than in terms of political power.
Is religion *The* power? No. It's one of many forms that power
takes. It's one of the competing forms of power.
We're not "stuck" with it. We have religion because we want
religion. Maybe not you & I personally, but a great many others
have far too much at stake in religion, and pretty much all of it
is in cash.
We're stuck with our cognitive architecture.
Maybe, but we don't need it to explain religion.
There are many different forms of belief systems that can be
manifestations of that cognitive architecture. Not all of which
would fit into the standard definition of "religion" (like
Marxism-Leninism, UFOism, etc.).
But religion is the only form that translates into political power.
The slow pace of biological evolution means that we are
stuck with the type of cognitive architecture that gives rise
to these various forms of these belief systems.
Oh, well, I agree that some kind of "mysticism" or "Spirituality"
appears to be ingrained. I'm not denying that. I'm one of the few
here who is willing to call a spade "a spade."
And I wouldn't say that "we have religion because we want
religion." Not exactly. I'd say we (or many people) *want*
religion because our cognitive architecture has evolved in
such a way that these religious belief systems are favored,
that they seem to meet human needs,
Assuming, of course, that humans have a "need" to fly 757s
into buildings...
Whatever true "need" there is to be filled can be filled quite
easily without religion. If we want to understand why we
have religion, we have to look at what we can only have with
religion. And that, my dear friend, is power.
.
|
|
|
| User: "darth_versive" |
|
| Title: Re: Evolutionary psychology and God |
26 Dec 2003 01:33:13 PM |
|
|
"JTEM" <gymraven@hotmail.com> wrote in message
<snip>
The slow pace of biological evolution means that we are
stuck with the type of cognitive architecture that gives rise
to these various forms of these belief systems.
Oh, well, I agree that some kind of "mysticism" or "Spirituality"
appears to be ingrained. I'm not denying that. I'm one of the few
here who is willing to call a spade "a spade."
I think we may be suffering from a communication problem due to
(possibly) different definitions of the term "religion."
Perhaps if you'd re-read my post by substituting "mysticism" or
"spirituality" in place of "religion," you'd get a closer
approximation to what I mean by "religion." And to be more precise,
religion as a "belief system involving some transcendent or
supernaturalistic entities" might be even closer. You seem to be
using the term in a different way (as when you said, about the Bush
administration, "There's not a drop of "Christianity" in any of their
actions. Heck, few of the words they label as "Christian" can qualify
as anything other than malice"). I don't base my view of whether
someone is religious or not (or Christian or not) on the criterion of
whether I agree with the morality of their actions.
I'm of the opinion that a discussion between parties that are using
key terms in different ways is generally not productive. If my
understanding of the term "religion" is incorrect in your eyes,
perhaps the communication problem is my fault for clinging to it. But
still, arguing with someone over the definition of a word is not
something I like to do. It's generally not productive.
DV
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Denis Loubet" |
|
| Title: Re: Evolutionary psychology and God |
24 Dec 2003 03:13:20 PM |
|
|
"darth_versive" <darth_versive@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:8e0e3045.0312241055.4c855ce9@posting.google.com...
Perhaps the prevalence of religion in human society today is a result
of our cognitive architecture, which evolved the way it did because it
gave our ancestors a competitive advantage to believe in such things
as gods and spirits, etc.
And now we're stuck with it. Our brains evolve too slowly for our
current civilization, which values a more realistic attitude, to have
had any measurable effect upon our cognitive architecture.
What can we do in a cultural sense to counteract this tendency which
our cognitive architecture gives us? It seems that the answers that
various atheists and secularists have come up with to counteract this
tendency so far haven't worked very well in practice.
What answers are you talking about?
--
Denis Loubet
dloubet@io.com
http://www.io.com/~dloubet
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dr. DuFonet" |
|
| Title: Re: Evolutionary psychology and God |
24 Dec 2003 10:08:59 PM |
|
|
"Denis Loubet" <dloubet@io.com> wrote in message
news:_JKdnbed7Z4QnHei4p2dnA@io.com...
"darth_versive" <darth_versive@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:8e0e3045.0312241055.4c855ce9@posting.google.com...
Perhaps the prevalence of religion in human society today is a result
of our cognitive architecture, which evolved the way it did because it
gave our ancestors a competitive advantage to believe in such things
as gods and spirits, etc.
And now we're stuck with it. Our brains evolve too slowly for our
current civilization, which values a more realistic attitude, to have
had any measurable effect upon our cognitive architecture.
What can we do in a cultural sense to counteract this tendency which
our cognitive architecture gives us? It seems that the answers that
various atheists and secularists have come up with to counteract this
tendency so far haven't worked very well in practice.
What answers are you talking about?
Jesus is the answere. What was the question. Seriously what question? Ate
too much spaghetti because I chose to be alone.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Alexander Korabelnikoff" |
|
| Title: Re: Evolutionary psychology and God |
08 Apr 2004 09:33:53 AM |
|
|
Dr. DuFonet <accordiondoc@mindsproing.cop> wrote in message
news:vptGb.18717$Pg1.1581@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
"Denis Loubet" <dloubet@io.com> wrote in message
news:_JKdnbed7Z4QnHei4p2dnA@io.com...
"darth_versive" <darth_versive@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:8e0e3045.0312241055.4c855ce9@posting.google.com...
Perhaps the prevalence of religion in human society today is a result
of our cognitive architecture, which evolved the way it did because it
gave our ancestors a competitive advantage to believe in such things
as gods and spirits, etc.
And now we're stuck with it. Our brains evolve too slowly for our
current civilization, which values a more realistic attitude, to have
had any measurable effect upon our cognitive architecture.
What can we do in a cultural sense to counteract this tendency which
our cognitive architecture gives us? It seems that the answers that
various atheists and secularists have come up with to counteract this
tendency so far haven't worked very well in practice.
What answers are you talking about?
Jesus is the answere. What was the question. Seriously what question? Ate
too much spaghetti because I chose to be alone.
The prevalence of religion in our society has less to do with our cognitive
architecture and more to do with our instincts.
Let me explain: religion appeals to the masses because it is like an opiate
(as Mao Tse Tung suggested) - when our stone-age ancestors sensed danger,
their minds triggered an adrenalised "fight or flight" response which made
them more aggressive, heightened their alertness and their senses of sight,
hearing, touch, smell and perhaps even taste....
We still experience this, for example, while watching a horror movie, or if
we experience fear.
Religion arouses fear of imaginary devices such as hell, sin, the devil,
god(s), demons, ghosts, etcetera, ad nauseum... before movie theatres,
people (who had developed complex social patterns) would flock off to the
local community hall which in western culture happened to be the church. The
powers that be, in order to survive in a position of privilege, created
imaginary dogs by which to keep the fold under their thumbs.
2nd and 3rd century Xianity began this process by demonising their
opposition - whom they labeled heretics. Alternative Xianities, most of them
gnostic (meaning "enlightened, or secret knowledge") had as valid a claim to
Geezus as did "Orthodox", in fact, the considered the orthodox as heretical,
and that they themselves were the orthodox.
Where the gnostic Xians differed in their approach was that they believe
each individual Xian should have their own personal revelation (or delusion)
of Xianity and that the Xian god was actually a pretty nasty sort who was
responsible for screwing up the creation, and did so maliciously...
The prevailing Xianity killed off the gnosticism of the day by censoring it
and destroying its literature (sound familiar?) and attributing its
following to the satanic, the evil, the scary
The fight or flight instinct works in two ways in religion - it scares the
flock into the fold, and it provides euphoria (perhaps the excitement that
the caveman/ woman/ person felt when it thought "I can kill off/ conquer
this threat"). Religion adds the dimension of making its respondents want to
save their arses in this life AND the afterlife... Perhaps this part of the
equation makes it exploit the fight/ flight instinct even more effectively
than would otherwise have been the case. It is this euphoria that accounts
for the so called "spiritual experiences" that many Xians claim to have. It
is caused by the heightened alertness, preoccupation with enemies/ threats/
conquering/ fighting (and maybe even a raw sexual energy that made the
cavemen do anything to get the woman - transposed onto god - which is why
fundy ppl commit suicide for their deities) and the primitive chanting
behaviour that occurs...
It has less to do with rational thought and more to do with raw emotion. In
my experiences as a former fundamentalist Xian, I came to realise that
religious passion actually made ppl closer to primitive animals in their
behaviour and treatment of others, and made them more arrogant, destructive,
dangerous... it triggers parts of the brain/ body left over from those
head-slamming, rock-pounding, beast-killing days in our evolutionary
history.
A couple of yrs ago I was debating with a Xian about the basis of some of
this theological beliefs. I used the ole' book to consistently smash away at
the foundations of these beliefs. Once this job was complete, his tact
changed from calm and reasoning and self - assured and he reverted to
neanderthal emotion. This went on for about a minute, before he stopped,
checked himself and apologised ("I don't know what came over me," he said).
Case in point
Therefore religion would not exist if it wasn't for the survival instinct.
The problem is, we needed the survival instinct (and still do sometimes) but
we need religion like a hole in the head. The solution? Due to the
prevalence of Xianity and its systems, nothing but wholesale social reform
will do. The problem is, what's to stop the leaders of tomorrow's society
from inventing some other myth that utilises "fight or flight" responses to
control the masses?
Can a new myth be created that can control another generation of drones? L
Ron Hubbard and the like proved it can...
.
|
|
|
| User: "darth_versive" |
|
| Title: Re: Evolutionary psychology and God |
09 Apr 2004 01:45:38 PM |
|
|
"Alexander Korabelnikoff" <Ialdabaoth@idx.com.au> wrote
The prevalence of religion in our society has less to do with our cognitive
architecture and more to do with our instincts.
Many of our instincts are manifestations of our cognitive architecture
(like the fight or flight response you mention below). Perhaps your
conception of "cognitive architecture" is more narrow than my own.
Let me explain: religion appeals to the masses because it is like an opiate
(as Mao Tse Tung suggested) - when our stone-age ancestors sensed danger,
their minds triggered an adrenalised "fight or flight" response which made
them more aggressive, heightened their alertness and their senses of sight,
hearing, touch, smell and perhaps even taste....
<snip>
It has less to do with rational thought and more to do with raw emotion.
This is perhaps also a false dichotomy, the same way as the "instinct
vs. cognitive architecture" is one, in my view. Those who reason
logically valid conclusions from false premises (like theologians) are
engaged in rational thought, while scientists who conceive of the
wonder of galactic evolution are often quite emotional about it,
especially when they consider our place in the universe.
So, each of us engages in both rational thought AND "raw" emotion
(whatever that is, and however it is distinguished from "refined"
emotion) all the time, in my view.
DV
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Kilolani" |
|
| Title: Re: Evolutionary psychology and God |
09 Apr 2004 10:01:54 PM |
|
|
"Alexander Korabelnikoff" <Ialdabaoth@idx.com.au> wrote in message
news:40756300@news1...
Let me explain: religion appeals to the masses because it is like an
opiate
(as Mao Tse Tung suggested) - when our stone-age ancestors sensed danger,
their minds triggered an adrenalised "fight or flight" response which made
them more aggressive, heightened their alertness and their senses of
sight,
hearing, touch, smell and perhaps even taste....
ummm... actually it was Karl Marx who suggested that.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Dr. DuFonet" |
|
| Title: Re: Evolutionary psychology and God |
24 Dec 2003 10:08:58 PM |
|
|
"darth_versive" <darth_versive@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:8e0e3045.0312241055.4c855ce9@posting.google.com...
Perhaps the prevalence of religion in human society today is a result
of our cognitive architecture, which evolved the way it did because it
gave our ancestors a competitive advantage to believe in such things
as gods and spirits, etc.
And now we're stuck with it. Our brains evolve too slowly for our
current civilization, which values a more realistic attitude, to have
had any measurable effect upon our cognitive architecture.
What can we do in a cultural sense to counteract this tendency which
our cognitive architecture gives us? It seems that the answers that
various atheists and secularists have come up with to counteract this
tendency so far haven't worked very well in practice. Could this be
because they don't take into account that our cognitive architecture
evolved during the stone age, when believing in gods and spirits, etc.
gave us a competitive advantage? Could be...
Perhaps a more serious, scientific discussion of the roots of
religious thinking would be more useful in terms of solving this
problem.
DV
Eat less spaghetti.
--
:"Everythin's better with DoFunny on it."
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Caram" |
|
| Title: Re: Evolutionary psychology and God |
25 Dec 2003 10:48:50 AM |
|
|
(darth_versive) wrote:
Perhaps the prevalence of religion in human society today is a result
of our cognitive architecture, which evolved the way it did because it
gave our ancestors a competitive advantage to believe in such things
as gods and spirits, etc.
And now we're stuck with it. Our brains evolve too slowly for our
current civilization, which values a more realistic attitude, to have
had any measurable effect upon our cognitive architecture.
Don't assume evolutionary processes are dumb. Changes such as we've
seen in he past few centuries are blinks of an eye in evolutionary
time. Assuming a kind of de facto intelligence in the process, it
should "know" apart from sudden mutations you don't overhaul
everything in the blink of an eye. In other words, suppose some
horrible catastrophe befalls humanity and we're thrown back to the
stone age. It's not impossible. An evolutionary process that failed to
account for such things would be dumb. So if that happened, then the
cognitive architecture that may have helped societies form and evolve
in the stone ages should be on-call to do its thing again.
In the meantime we just keep advancing sciences and contrary ideas
will keep losing power, as has been the case. And moreover, if some
people still need religion, then that's the best and only test we have
that there still needs to be some religion. Be skeptical of the
feeling that you know what best for everyone else. Evolutionary
processes are in control; they know what's best; sit back and relax.
What can we do in a cultural sense to counteract this tendency which
our cognitive architecture gives us? It seems that the answers that
various atheists and secularists have come up with to counteract this
tendency so far haven't worked very well in practice. Could this be
because they don't take into account that our cognitive architecture
evolved during the stone age, when believing in gods and spirits, etc.
gave us a competitive advantage? Could be...
Perhaps a more serious, scientific discussion of the roots of
religious thinking would be more useful in terms of solving this
problem.
DV
.
|
|
|
| User: "JTEM" |
|
| Title: Re: Evolutionary psychology and God |
26 Dec 2003 12:44:53 AM |
|
|
"Caram" <caram@caram.new> wrote
In other words, suppose some horrible catastrophe
befalls humanity and we're thrown back to the stone
age. It's not impossible. An evolutionary process
that failed to account for such things would be dumb.
Which explains "Extinction."
And, yeah, the average species can expect to be around
for no more than 1 million years or so, before going
extinct itself.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Caram" |
|
| Title: Re: Evolutionary psychology and God |
26 Dec 2003 10:42:29 AM |
|
|
On Fri, 26 Dec 2003 01:44:53 -0500, "JTEM" <gymraven@hotmail.com>
wrote:
"Caram" <caram@caram.new> wrote
In other words, suppose some horrible catastrophe
befalls humanity and we're thrown back to the stone
age. It's not impossible. An evolutionary process
that failed to account for such things would be dumb.
Which explains "Extinction."
Actually it might explain an extinction "near miss", i.e., a species
that just manages to survive some catastrophe thanks to maintaining
some "backup" genetic program that had fallen into under used prior to
the catastrophe but that proved to be essential afterwards. But
obviously some catastrophes can be so great as to exhaust a species
survival mechanisms.
And, yeah, the average species can expect to be around
for no more than 1 million years or so, before going
extinct itself.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
