Is religious belief a result of evolution?

And if so, why?

There’s an article on an interesting topic here: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/04/magazine/04evolution.t.html?pagewanted=print. It asks questions such as “Which is the better biological explanation for a belief in God — evolutionary adaptation or neurological accident? Is there something about the cognitive functioning of humans that makes us receptive to belief in a supernatural deity?”

God I hope not.

Wow…Look at the colors man… :rainbow: :dance:

[quote=“Dragonbones”]And if so, why?
Is there something about the cognitive functioning of humans that makes us receptive to belief in a supernatural deity?"[/quote]

Yes. Its called the “Godspot”. Its an area of the brain that lights up under relgious fervour. Given that it differs in size between people, one could say that we have a variable tendency for faith.

Can’t find anything on the net about it, but i remember and article from New Scientist about it.

[quote=“Tyc00n”][quote=“Dragonbones”]And if so, why?
Is there something about the cognitive functioning of humans that makes us receptive to belief in a supernatural deity?"[/quote]

Yes. Its called the “Godspot”. Its an area of the brain that lights up under relgious fervour. Given that it differs in size between people, one could say that we have a variable tendency for faith.

Can’t find anything on the net about it, but i remember and article from New Scientist about it.[/quote]

Actually, a recent studyhas found that several areas of the brain, not one “God spot”. are activated by spiritual experiences. Not that this proves or disproves anything about causation. Nor does it prove or disprove the existence of “God” of course.

You love google don’t you Erhu :smiley:

I wouldn’t say evolution:- perhaps anti-evolution.

Certainly in early Christian society where the brightest and best educated joined the priesthood, only to be prevented from passing on thoses genes.

[quote=“Dragonbones”]

Is there something about the cognitive functioning of humans that makes us receptive to belief in a supernatural deity?"[/quote]

I would say it seems that way. CS Lewis takes it a bit farther than I would and says this is strong evidence of an existence of God. I wouldn’t quite go that far, though.

Matt

Not a terrible rehashing of the argument.

This made me laugh:

[quote]Dawkins once called Wilson’s defense of group selection “sheer, wanton, head-in-bag perversity.” Atran, too, has been dismissive of this approach, calling it “mind blind” for essentially ignoring the role of the brain’s mental machinery. The adaptationists “cannot in principle distinguish Marxism from monotheism, ideology from religious belief,” Atran wrote. “They cannot explain why people can be more steadfast in their commitment to admittedly counterfactual and counterintuitive beliefs — that Mary is both a mother and a virgin, and God is sentient but bodiless — than to the most politically, economically or scientifically persuasive account of the way things are or should be.”[/quote] It that really supposed to be a persuasive argument? How much of what people generally believe is based on an understanding of the facts? How much is logically inconsistent? How much is believed with a fervor all out of proportion to the evidence in support of it?

Seriously poor argument against adaptation.

I prefer Yahoo search. But this poses a good question. Is there some evolutionary reason why some of us know how to find data to support our positions and some of us don’t?

Or why one has a starting position rather than simply playing the devils advocate?

I basically agree with these guys on the broad point of religion being some sort of beneficial adaptation (whatever the details), but only Pascal Boyer (“Religion Explained”) really seems to appreciate the diversity of religious belief. “God” is present in a few religions, but we also need to consider concepts like mana, ghosts, heaven / the underworld, and divine kingship. Also, religion doesn’t just have one function but at least a dozen. And in many societies the prevailing worldview and way of life (etiquette, taboos, the social order) are not thought to be religious, yet serve a comparable function. (Confucius, for instance.) It would be interesting to ask what specific types of religions or unreligions would provide the greatest evolutionary advantages, and under what circumstances.

Having said all that, I do admit to various supernatural / metaphysical quasi-beliefs, for example relating to the nature of consciousness (which even Dennett has trouble explaining).

From the article:

[quote]The trick in thinking about adaptation is that even if a trait offers no survival advantage today, it might have had one long ago. This is how Darwinians explain how certain physical characteristics persist even if they do not currently seem adaptive — by asking whether they might have helped our distant ancestors form social groups, feed themselves, find suitable mates or keep from getting killed. A facility for storing calories as fat, for instance, which is a detriment in today’s food-rich society, probably helped our ancestors survive cyclical famines.

So trying to explain the adaptiveness of religion means looking for how it might have helped early humans survive and reproduce. As some adaptationists see it, this could have worked on two levels, individual and group. Religion made people feel better, less tormented by thoughts about death, more focused on the future, more willing to take care of themselves. As William James put it, religion filled people with “a new zest which adds itself like a gift to life . . . an assurance of safety and a temper of peace and, in relation to others, a preponderance of loving affections.”

Such sentiments, some adaptationists say, made the faithful better at finding and storing food, for instance, and helped them attract better mates because of their reputations for morality, obedience and sober living. The advantage might have worked at the group level too, with religious groups outlasting others because they were more cohesive, more likely to contain individuals willing to make sacrifices for the group and more adept at sharing resources and preparing for warfare.[/quote]

This assumes that there are no survival advantages of belief in a higher power today. However, studiesshow that there is a clear link between health (both physical and mental) and religious faith. I would argue that this still puts those of us who have some sort of faith at an evolutionary advantage over those who don’t.

Interesting comment.

Julian Jaynes in The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind theorizes that ancient peoples were pre-conscious and received “God-like” commands from the right hemisphere of their brains. The theory is complex and has been attacked severely by academics, but it is well researched and argued and his reasoning surrounding the rise and fall of ancient theocracies (Mayans, Egyptians, Mesopotamian, etc.) is sound. So too is the link to modern schizophrenia, and glossalalia (DB, I’ll E-mail you the article soon). Tendency toward religious belief appear–to Jaynes–to be the result of a lost vestigial connection between the two hemispheres of our brains.
[/i]

Interesting article. Yes, religious people have faired better through evolution, it’s a product of evolution, so what does this conclude? Nothing. Seems a zero sum gain in researching into why we have religion. Because we understand the workings behind the clock face does that mean the clock is meaningless? That’s the really interesting question: why does the universe have rules that have made us evolve a specific way? What is evolution a result of? Why do atoms stick together just so? Why are there laws of physics?

I’m a very logical person, but open minded. I try not to close myself off from anything. I believe that if there is a God, He’s hidden Himself too well (leaving out “miracles” and “predictions”), we will never find Him with our eyes, only with our hearts.

[quote=“Erhu”]
This assumes that there are no survival advantages of belief in a higher power today. However, studiesshow that there is a clear link between health (both physical and mental) and religious faith. I would argue that this still puts those of us who have some sort of faith at an evolutionary advantage over those who don’t.[/quote]

I disagree with your conclusion. In the link you provided, the subjects who faired the best were the most religious. High levels of personal religiosity and high levels of church attendance and participation in religious activities accounted for less depression, less illness, less propensity for smoking cigarettes, etc. in patients compared to those with low levels of personal religiosity, church attendance, and participation in other religion activities. The studies were not between those with “some sort of faith” versus people with no faith, but between those with very strong faith versus those with weaker faith.

I wouldn’t be surprised if religion offered some kind of evolutionary advantage. The studies Erhu posted do indicate a higher level of health in deeply religious people. But human behavior cannot be explained by evolutionary theory alone. If it could, men would be lining up at sperm banks and women would be having their eggs harvested so everyone could spread as much of their DNA as possible.

I need to do some more reading on the subject before I comment further. After I read Dennett’s “Breaking the Spell” I will probably resurrect this thread. Anybody read it?

I suspect that religion continues to offer evolutionary advantages of various types. Group solidarity is a likely one, but there are probably others.

I’ve read Julian Jaynes and think that he is nuts. His thesis assumes that the thought processes of ancient people were fundamentally different from ours–for example, that the people of Homer’s time actually experienced their gods in the way that Homer describes.

[quote=“Screaming Jesus”]I suspect that religion continues to offer evolutionary advantages of various types. Group solidarity is a likely one, but there are probably others.
[/quote]

Perhaps thats why the Catholic church is against the use of condoms…

Hard to believe that there’s any evolutionary advantage today, just because it’s hard to believe there’s an evolution taking place today, save perhaps towards a greater tolerance for environmental pollutants.

Can you point to any group that’s unable to breed? There are obvious shifts in that certain populations that are breeding more or less frequently, but is there any body type or economic (in)capacity, that’s being actively selected for/against? None that I can see.

Oops, there’s one. Geneticists have argued that blonds have had their advantage marginalized by dye-job competitors.

[quote=“Screaming Jesus”]I’ve read Julian Jaynes and think that he is nuts. His thesis assumes that the thought processes of ancient people were fundamentally different from ours–for example, that the people of Homer’s time actually experienced their gods in the way that Homer describes.[/quote]I haven’t read his thesis, but for what it’s worth, he wouldn’t be the only one to make that sort of argument. Eric Havelock, in Preface to Plato, argues that Greek drama was experienced by the audience as en mass. Not that the audience experienced their gods as Homer describes, but that they responded collectively in ways that would be very foreign to us today.