Religion / Evolution

[INRM]

I'm thinking this should be a science topic because I'm kind of the camp that believe that religious thinking is a result of the way the brain works.

I was just reading about chimpanzees and how they have little capacity for love compared to humans and as a result use fear and vindictive behavior as a way to maintain control.

Now when I look at the early religions, the Gods were incredibly vindictive, capricious and cruel.

Now later on, the God's became more forgiving and less vindictive and around the same time humans became less vindictive...


Is this a good observation? Or am I missing something? This seems to me pretty good evidence that religions, theologies, etc somehow are reflections, results of human thinking.


INRM

[UnrepentantSinner]

Human religions didn't develop until long after we'd gone down a seperate evolutionary path from chimps. Religions more complex than animism or ancestor worship didn't develop until we began to group together in larger social entities than bands or clans. Michael Shermer has an excellent book describing how religion evolved - How We Believe (http://www.amazon.com/How-We-Believe-2nd-Skepticism/dp/0805074791/ref=pd_bbs_sr_4?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1200820721&sr=8-4).

[bokonon]

I don't think a good case can be made for the proposition that humans are less vindictive now than they were 4000 years ago. The half-dozen instances of genocide that I can name off the top of my head which occurred within the past 100 years seem to be a compelling counter-argument.

The idea that grouping together in larger units than bands or clans has been a useful social evolution seems more well-founded. I haven't read Shermer's book, but I'd question whether this necessarily leads to more enlightened religions. The Greeks gods were still pretty vindictive, and the god of Christian fundamentalists doesn't strike me as any better.

[quarky]

I think god can evolve. After all, god invented evolution. Even if the purpose of evolution is to test the faith of fundamentalists, it still shows some spunk and creativity.

[INRM]

bokonon,

Regardless, many religions have gone from being extremely vindictive and unforgiving to comparitively forgiving over the years. This seems an indicator that these changes are the result of human thinking.

I.E. Religion is the result of human thinking, the way humans think.


INRM
BTW: Quarky, I wouldn't buy that if I were you -- most religions specifically say that God never changes, never evolves, even exists outsides the bounds of space and time.

[kev]

[quote=bokonon;3354108]The half-dozen instances of genocide that I can name off the top of my head which occurred within the past 100 years seem to be a compelling counter-argument.quote]

I agree with your overall premise, but could'nt this specific example be more attributable simply to our ABILITY to kill large groups of people rather than our desire to do it? I mean if you go back 100's or 1000's of years ago our knowledge of "other" groups was much more limited, our ability to go try to kill them was also more limited. Groups of people may have had great desire to "exterminate" other groups in the past - they just lacked the means to do it.

[biomorph]

I'm thinking this should be a science topic because I'm kind of the camp that believe that religious thinking is a result of the way the brain works.
You mean it is an inherent function of the brain? That it is unavoidable?
Perhaps that isn't what you are saying..

Considering the essentialness of "conversion" to current religious thinking, which from then on inhabits the brain does to me seem more like today's religious thinking is using some pre-exisiting function or ability in the brain to reside in.

Also the brain has a great ability to be very inquisitive and curious about the world it inhabits. The first guesses (without the tools to actually get to the truth) formulated were based on little truly objective evidence as we know it today.
Until we had the modern observational tools to get the more accurate information about our world, religious thinking tried to quench the thirst of that enquiring mind.

If that curiosity had been given information based on the tools we have now, then religious thinking probably would not have been so dominant in the past.

Would you then in that scenario be asking now, is there a part of the function of the brain that has to, or does, incorporate rational understanding? Do you see what I'm on about here?



I was just reading about chimpanzees and how they have little capacity for love compared to humans and as a result use fear and vindictive behavior as a way to maintain control.

Is that to control or to order (as in pecking)?

Now when I look at the early religions, the Gods were incredibly vindictive, capricious and cruel.

Those gods seem to me to be acting out the "not-so-easy-to achieve-on-a-practical-level" fantasies of the imaginative early pre-tech humans.

I think they imagined the superhuman, knowing the limits that, in their minds, humans actually had.
The god would do all the things they only dream about, plus all that they could actually do.

Now later on, the God's became more forgiving and less vindictive and around the same time humans became less vindictive...
Is this a good observation? Or am I missing something? This seems to me pretty good evidence that religions, theologies, etc somehow are reflections, results of human thinking.
INRM
Sociologically this is probably a worthwhile observation, if correct.
The observation as regards to biological evolution is probably a non starter for me personally because I don't consider a pre-defined religious function of the brain to be a realistic proposition.

That a pre-existing function of the brain is used by or borrowed by religious thinking (because thats all there was at that time) seems more likely from my own perpsective.

That function could well, of course, be used by something coexisting then, now and in the future too probably...............

The function that is used is curiosity and learning, i'm given to think...............:)

regards

[rocketdodger]

First, I would just like to say that I am constantly impressed by you INRM. Judging by your posts, you seem to be uneducated in many realms of science, even naive. Yet, you seem to spot very important (or potentially important) concepts despite having only a rudimentary understanding of the topic.

Now to your post -- I don't think there is a simple answer. Well, strike that. There is an incredibly simple answer, but it is one of those things that is so complex understanding its simplicity is very difficult and takes time. Heck, I have been working on this topic for 4 years or so and I still don't see the whole thing yet.

I think you are on the right track. As you dive deeper, I would just point out a few things that might help you avoid the common mistakes that I see the typical armchair philosophers making.

1) It is hard to determine whether the religion of a society is a result of the culture or a cause of the culture. Certainly for indigenous peoples, one could argue that their religion was a reflection of their ways. For modern peoples, this is not so obvious, I.E. it is extremely hard to grow up and develop one's "own ways" without a preexisting religion influencing you.

2) At the heart of the human mind there are two forces at work. On the one hand, we are nothing more than intelligent animals that are the products of the mechanisms of evolution. In this light, much behavior can be explained (E.G. "monkeyspheres," etc). On the other hand, our brains are advanced enough that "software" can influence our behavior as much as or more so than the "hardware." In this other light, things like memetics start to make lots of sense. I really think any critical examination of our behavior needs to take both of these influences into account.

[quarky]

bokonon,

Regardless, many religions have gone from being extremely vindictive and unforgiving to comparitively forgiving over the years. This seems an indicator that these changes are the result of human thinking.

I.E. Religion is the result of human thinking, the way humans think.


INRM
BTW: Quarky, I wouldn't buy that if I were you -- most religions specifically say that God never changes, never evolves, even exists outsides the bounds of space and time.

Yes, but that is the old voice of religion. The new voice might claim that God never changes as well...yet our understanding grows.
This is why young Catholics can eat meat on friday, and I couldn't.

Turns out, God never cared about that. (the bastard)

I suspect that most supposedly religious people don't really believe in god.
They just go along with a program that makes their mom happy.
Science is what they believe in, because it makes the world function for them. They all know that prayer won't fill their gas tank, and that without gas, they won't make it home. They put their faith in science.

Religion is a mere decoration in the life science provides.