1. Territories Unknown
    Joined
    05 Dec '05
    Moves
    20408
    16 Dec '13 13:22
    In a previous thread, the idea was offered how man's penchant for religion could be explained in evolutionary terms, i.e., there existed some evolutionary benefit to the development of religion--- even if such benefits have since expired.

    This positionReveal Hidden Content
    really, anything related to evolution-as-a-guiding force
    leads to a few unresolved questions.

    For starters, what are the supposed benefits to (what usefulness is conveyed as a result of) religion as it relates to evolution?
    Why is man the only creature with the god gene?
    What other temporary steps could religion be compared to, e.g., what other bridges in man's alleged evolutionary climb were formerly useful, now discarded?
    Assuming these formerly useful steps, how many of them are physical in nature in comparison to the amount which were conceptual in nature?
  2. SubscriberProper Knob
    Cornovii
    North of the Tamar
    Joined
    02 Feb '07
    Moves
    51467
    16 Dec '13 14:08
    Originally posted by FreakyKBH
    In a previous thread, the idea was offered how man's penchant for religion could be explained in evolutionary terms, i.e., there existed some evolutionary benefit to the development of religion--- even if such benefits have since expired.

    This position[hidden]really, anything related to evolution-as-a-guiding force[/hidden] leads to a few unresolved que ...[text shortened]... many of them are physical in nature in comparison to the amount which were conceptual in nature?
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionary_origin_of_religions

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionary_psychology_of_religion
  3. Territories Unknown
    Joined
    05 Dec '05
    Moves
    20408
    16 Dec '13 14:17
    Originally posted by Proper Knob
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionary_origin_of_religions

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionary_psychology_of_religion
    Gee, thanks for the links.

    Second sentence of the first link:

    "Barbara King argues that while non-human primates are not religious, they do exhibit some traits that would have been necessary for the evolution of religion."

    And, otherwise, adds nothing but unconvincing and uninteresting speculation.

    The second link offers nearly zero. In fact, were you to substitute, say, nationalism in the place of religion, you'd have nearly the exact substance.

    Any ideas of your own?
  4. SubscriberProper Knob
    Cornovii
    North of the Tamar
    Joined
    02 Feb '07
    Moves
    51467
    16 Dec '13 14:32
    Originally posted by FreakyKBH
    Gee, thanks for the links.

    Second sentence of the first link:

    "Barbara King argues that while non-human primates are not religious, they do exhibit some traits that would have been necessary for the evolution of religion."

    And, otherwise, adds nothing but unconvincing and uninteresting speculation.

    The second link offers nearly zero. In ...[text shortened]... alism in the place of religion, you'd have nearly the exact substance.

    Any ideas of your own?
    Any ideas of your own?

    Nope.
  5. Territories Unknown
    Joined
    05 Dec '05
    Moves
    20408
    16 Dec '13 14:35
    Originally posted by Proper Knob
    [b]Any ideas of your own?

    Nope.[/b]
    Ha!
    Thanks for your honesty!
  6. Standard membersonshiponline
    the corrected one.
    Joined
    03 Jan '13
    Moves
    8601
    16 Dec '13 15:49
    Why is man the only creature with the god gene?


    Freaky! Haven't you heard of the Praying Mantis ?
  7. Territories Unknown
    Joined
    05 Dec '05
    Moves
    20408
    16 Dec '13 15:55
    Originally posted by sonship
    Why is man the only creature with the god gene?


    Freaky! Haven't you heard of the Praying Mantis ?
    Oh, boy...
  8. Standard membersonshiponline
    the corrected one.
    Joined
    03 Jan '13
    Moves
    8601
    16 Dec '13 16:05
    Originally posted by FreakyKBH
    Oh, boy...
    Sorry. Hard to resist.
  9. Standard memberSwissGambit
    Caninus Interruptus
    2014.05.01
    Joined
    11 Apr '07
    Moves
    92274
    16 Dec '13 18:32
    Originally posted by FreakyKBH
    [hidden]really, anything related to evolution-as-a-guiding force[/hidden] leads to a few unresolved questions.
    The hidden part is the key.

    Evolution isn't a guiding force. It's like throwing a pile of crap at a wall. Most slides off, but some of it sticks.
  10. Cape Town
    Joined
    14 Apr '05
    Moves
    52945
    16 Dec '13 19:20
    Originally posted by FreakyKBH
    In a previous thread, the idea was offered how man's penchant for religion could be explained in evolutionary terms, i.e., there existed some evolutionary benefit to the development of religion--- even if such benefits have since expired.

    For starters, what are the supposed benefits to (what usefulness is conveyed as a result of) religion as it relates to evolution?
    I think you are confusing 'man's penchant for religion' and 'usefulness conveyed as a result of religion'. They are not equivalent.
    In addition, 'Man's penchant for religion' is not one single attribute, but a whole range of factors. And it must be noted that religions have evolved over time, to take advantage of most of these factors.
    And lastly, many of the benefits of the factors in question, have not expired. That does not mean they are all beneficial when hijacked by religion.
  11. Territories Unknown
    Joined
    05 Dec '05
    Moves
    20408
    16 Dec '13 19:50
    Originally posted by twhitehead
    I think you are confusing 'man's penchant for religion' and 'usefulness conveyed as a result of religion'. They are not equivalent.
    In addition, 'Man's penchant for religion' is not one single attribute, but a whole range of factors. And it must be noted that religions have evolved over time, to take advantage of most of these factors.
    And lastly, many ...[text shortened]... uestion, have not expired. That does not mean they are all beneficial when hijacked by religion.
    I'm all ears.

    Unconfuse me...
  12. Cape Town
    Joined
    14 Apr '05
    Moves
    52945
    16 Dec '13 19:56
    Originally posted by FreakyKBH
    I'm all ears.

    Unconfuse me...
    Man's 'penchant for religion' is a whole range of factors. Its impossible to list them all. But to take an example, man tends to look for patterns and will see patterns even in random events. This pattern discovering ability is extremely useful for survival. It also encourages religion as every fortune teller knows. This is not equivalent to religion being useful for survival.
  13. Standard memberGrampy Bobby
    Boston Lad
    USA
    Joined
    14 Jul '07
    Moves
    43012
    16 Dec '13 20:00
    Originally posted by twhitehead

    Man's 'penchant for religion' is a whole range of factors. Its impossible to list them all. But to take an example, man tends to look for patterns and will see patterns even in random events. This pattern discovering ability is extremely useful for survival. It also encourages religion as every fortune teller knows. This is not equivalent to religion being useful for survival.
    "But to take an example, man tends to look for patterns and will see patterns even in random events." -twhitehead

    “Cleopatra's nose, had it been shorter, the whole face of the world would have been changed.” -Blaise Pascal
  14. Territories Unknown
    Joined
    05 Dec '05
    Moves
    20408
    16 Dec '13 20:04
    Originally posted by twhitehead
    Man's 'penchant for religion' is a whole range of factors. Its impossible to list them all. But to take an example, man tends to look for patterns and will see patterns even in random events. This pattern discovering ability is extremely useful for survival. It also encourages religion as every fortune teller knows. This is not equivalent to religion being useful for survival.
    That penchant for religion, or god gene as I also referred to it, is not found in any animal save man.
    Its supposed usefulness (as described by those willing to take it on) is nearly indistinguishable from nationalism/tribalism/group-think. Hell, an argument could even be made for racism in terms of similar utility.

    Besides, you're speaking to the ingredients instead of the finished product. The question is related to (first and foremost) why evolution would allow for the god gene in the first place.
  15. Standard membersonshiponline
    the corrected one.
    Joined
    03 Jan '13
    Moves
    8601
    16 Dec '13 20:16
    SwissGambit


    Evolution isn't a guiding force. It's like throwing a pile of crap at a wall. Most slides off, but some of it sticks.


    Do you REALLY believe that such a random process could arrive at the human brain - here contemplating its own existence ?
Back to Top