16 Dec 13
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
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?
16 Dec 13
Originally posted by FreakyKBHhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionary_origin_of_religions
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_psychology_of_religion
16 Dec 13
Originally posted by Proper KnobGee, thanks for the links.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionary_origin_of_religions
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionary_psychology_of_religion
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?
16 Dec 13
Originally posted by FreakyKBHAny ideas of your own?
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?
Nope.
16 Dec 13
Originally posted by FreakyKBHI think you are confusing 'man's penchant for religion' and 'usefulness conveyed as a result of religion'. They are not equivalent.
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?
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.
16 Dec 13
Originally posted by twhiteheadI'm all ears.
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.
Unconfuse me...
16 Dec 13
Originally posted by FreakyKBHMan'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.
I'm all ears.
Unconfuse me...
Originally posted by twhitehead"But to take an example, man tends to look for patterns and will see patterns even in random events." -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.
“Cleopatra's nose, had it been shorter, the whole face of the world would have been changed.” -Blaise Pascal
16 Dec 13
Originally posted by twhiteheadThat penchant for religion, or god gene as I also referred to it, is not found in any animal save man.
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.
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.