Religion as a product of evolution

#1 09-10-2005, 05:05 AM

Religion vs evolution? No, religion as a product/result of evolution!

As we experience life, we build a model of reality that enable us to cope with it, more or lesss succesfully, later. The success is not dependent on the rightness/accuracy of the model, but on it's "fitness".

What if irrationality in humans and/or religions ( [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img] ) was just an evolutionary product that prevents us from freezing on the spot when we have an inaccurate or inadequate model, as when we don't/can't make a decision fast enough. I would see such a mechanism as very advantageous to the species and the individual.

To get the ball rolling, could I suggest a read of this article in the The Guardian . This gives good background/context for this question. It is rather longish, but very gripping [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

Enjoy

MidGe

sexdrugsmoney · #2 09-10-2005, 05:09 AM

Déjà vu

#3 09-10-2005, 05:29 AM

Correct and my apologies if that is not according to the posting rules. I'll incorporate it in my model of "what/how to post" on 2+2 [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

I did it because it offered a different slant from my first mention of it, I thought it had sufficient importance on it's own, and, I was seeking views without hijacking the other thread.

Noted [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

benkahuna · #4 09-10-2005, 05:53 AM

I recommend Descartes's Error by Antonio Damasio. He discusses in detail the necessariness of emotion and the ability to make arbitrary decisions.
The case of Phineas Gage is both amusing and sad, like most strange psych disorders.
Religion seems mostly to take advantage of the need for life to have meaning as a mechanism for social control. It's not the only route to irrationality, nor does irrationality seem necessary, per se.

#5 09-10-2005, 06:23 AM

benkahuna,

Unfortunately, I was dissatisfied with Descartes statement a very lomg time ago. The only thing you can infer from "I am thinking", is , that there is thinking.. not that there is a thinker.

benkahuna · #6 09-10-2005, 06:54 AM

That has nothing to do with the book. And the book criticizes Descartes, too, hence his error.

#7 09-10-2005, 08:04 AM

benkahuna,

on re-reading your post, I realise my mistake. We both agree: Descartes was wrong [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

Sorry for my mistake [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

#8 09-10-2005, 08:32 AM

Yes I'd bet that religion has been a result of evolution

One simple argument that comes to mind is that if there was a war between two civilisations, with one being mostly religious and the other being mostly atheist, my money would be put on the religous to win

benkahuna · #9 09-10-2005, 02:44 PM

Yes, because nothing says evolved like the ability to destroy other members of your gene pool!

#10 09-10-2005, 07:21 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Yes, because nothing says evolved like the ability to destroy other members of your gene pool!

[/ QUOTE ]

It sounds like you're being sarcastic, but you're right...