[jimmydasaint]

Quote

=iNow;494946]Hi Jimmy, I'm not sure I'm fully equipped to satisfy your curiosity all by myself, but I'll give a try to addressing your key points. Let me preface by saying that these are my own cogitations on the matter, and may not be fully representative of nor aligned with the most current work in the various research domains we touch.

You are far better qualified in the matter than I am friend.

Quote

Inference is definitely critical to these belief systems, and we very much are born with these logic circuits "in situ." The experiment with the infant who startled at a chair but not a human supports that suggestion rather strongly. A lot of work has been done in other animals where, for example, new borns show a fear of snakes or heights. This suggests that non-human animals have similar neurocortical predispositions and tendencies.

I understand the point but I was just picking out the important cognitive faculties which would enable species to be born with certain inferences or a knowledge of causality. This can then enable observational or molecular genetic studies to look for key molecules that mediate these responses. Moreover, my main purpose was to state that if non-human primates are capable of expressing wonder and awe, then, IMHO, these are traits which are indicators of a ‘proto –faith’ if you will. I recall vaguely some story about chimps dancing in apparent awe at the first sight of a waterfall. What a beautiful story, if it were true. I would also surmise that the parts of the brain which cause wonder and awe in chimps can be subjected to examination. You could then examine developments of these parts of the brain and perform knockout studies etc…

Quote

This is a very interesting question, and TBH, I don't really know. One problem with doing such measurements in non-humans is that we cannot tell them, "Okay... think about god" and measure them in an MRI while they do. The communication barriers are pretty profound, whereas in humans, we can use our communication skills to properly setup the conditions of the experiment and get some solid data. There are several factors when conducting such work. For example, you need to have a shared definition of your key words, and the participant needs to fully understand your meaning before the test begins. That's a bit of a challenge when working with other species.

I suppose the only answer I can come up with is a bit lame but it involves engaging the chimps in a 4-D simulator and examining which areas of the brain ‘light up’ with brain scans. I don’t know if this is feasible in real life.

Quote

My own speculation, though? I'm pretty darned sure (that if we pin down that this is all explainable as a neurocortical phenomenon based on genetic predispositions in humans) that other non-human primates with a close relationship to us will be predisposed to these same things... that they will also have a "deity-esque" understanding of the universe... likely polytheistic... with super non-understood powers describing the rain and thunder and the cold and the heat, etc. I would find it surprising, basically, that we as humans have all of these biological mechanism inclining us toward belief and other non-human primates, or even non-primate mammals, would not as well. That's just my personal opinion, though. It could go either way.

I like those honest opinions. I would think, IMO, that non-human primates would share a similar experience but would be 'one step away' from humans; hence the point above about wonder and awe.

Quote

But, humans... we have our eyes at the front of our head, as that brought us other evolutionary advantages while we were primarily a tree dwelling species, but also some significant disadvantages when we left the trees... as we were much more vulnerable to attack from predators coming from behind us. Hence, the power of social grouping. What happened is basically this. We would be sitting alone, we'd get eaten from behind. However, when sitting with a group of peers, let's say 5 or 10 others... we suddenly could borrow their eyes. We went from having two eyes facing one way to having 10 or 20 eyes facing all different ways. The power of the social group is that the eyes of each group member work together. When one member of the group sees a predator, it sounds a call, and the entire group escapes. They sum the power of their multiple eyes for the collective benefit of the group. Those who cooperated in this way hugely out-survived those who did not... Those who stayed alone, or who lived in unhelpful groups, were consistently removed from the gene pool until we were left with a species hugely predisposed to social grouping and cohesion... Those in a cooperative and like-minded group simply had much better chances at survival over the eons.

Good vision, I see no reason why I cannot agree with that. It would be fascinating if other animals hold strong beliefs or thoughts about their identity, or even thoughts about higher forces. I wonder if cats bring home offerings of the occasional ragged mouse or rat as a sacrificial offering… :)

[iNow]

Martin said:

Here's a link to another forum where this was discussed and there are a lot of links to sources, and a video of a magpie trying to remove a yellow sticky from its neck that it can't see directly but can only see in the mirror.

http://www.sciencech...hp?f=37&t=10101

There is a PLoS journal article about this, and a link there too.

It is said that only humans and 4 ape species, and Asian elephants, and bottlenose dophins, have passed this "mirror test". (not African elephants, not other kinds of dolphin, not other primates, just those specific ones.)

And of course now magpies. Hundreds of animals have been tested. Most types of animal just think it is another individual, not themselves, in the mirror. So if the other guy has a spot painted on, it is no big deal. Only certain species have brains with the ability to figure out that it is them and they better scratch or wipe off the mark.

So what is important here. People are studying the evolution of consciousness which means ultimately the genetic basis---certain structures in the brain that enable certain kinds of recognition, planning, tool use, picturing future situations, internalizing social interaction, concept of self, mental model of other person, personification (projection of a self onto some other thing, like an automobile or the stock market).

Now, that's pretty awesome. Drilling down into the information you shared, I discovered this:


http://www.newscient...irdbrained.html

Self-recognition, once thought to be an ability enjoyed only by select primates, has now been demonstrated in a bird.

The finding has raised questions about part of the brain called the neocortex, something the self-aware magpie does not even possess.

In humans, the ability to recognise oneself in a mirror develops around the age of 18 months and coincides with the first signs of social behaviour. So-called "mirror mark tests", where a mark is placed on the animal in such a way that it can only be observed when it looks at its reflection, have been used to sort the self-aware beasts from the rest.

<...>

The authors suggest that self-recognition in birds and mammals may be a case of convergent evolution, where similar evolutionary pressures result in similar behaviours or traits, although they arrive at them via different routes.

De Waal agrees: "Magpies are known for their ability to steal shiny objects and to hide away their loot. It's not too far-fetched that a master thief like a magpie has that perspective-taking ability," he says, referring to the idea that the birds have a "theory of mind".

HRVGA9zxXzk

Martin said:

It's actually bothering me that I can't make the time to read the stuff in this thread carefully enough. An hour or two ago I was reading and then got interrupted by company. Now I'm back, but have something else that has to be done.

Lol. If it makes you feel any better, I have that feeling myself repeatedly when reviewing your threads and posts. So often, they are rich with all sorts of wonderful information, but real life tends to consistently keep me from immediately diving too deeply into it.

All the same, I usually bookmark the cool bits and come back to them. Hopefully you'll be able to do the same. Thank you for the kind words and feedback, my good man. Have a wonderful weekend. :-)

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

jimmydasaint said:

my main purpose was to state that if non-human primates are capable of expressing wonder and awe, then, IMHO, these are traits which are indicators of a ‘proto –faith’ if you will. I recall vaguely some story about chimps dancing in apparent awe at the first sight of a waterfall. What a beautiful story, if it were true.

I'd never heard that before, but it sounds incredibly plausible, and wouldn't surprise me in the least. I did some googling, and found this which seems to support it's veracity:


http://debunkingchri...rfall-some.html

Elephants caring for a crippled herd member seem to show empathy. A funeral ritual performed by magpies suggests grief. Then there's the excited dance chimps perform when faced with a waterfall – it looks distinctly awe-inspired.

In June 2006, Jane Goodall and I visited the Mona Chimpanzee Sanctuary near Girona in Spain. There we met Marco, a rescued chimp, who dances during thunderstorms with such abandon that he appears to be in a trance. Goodall and others have witnessed chimps, usually adult males, perform a similar ritual at waterfalls. She described a chimpanzee approaching one of these falls with slightly bristled hair, a sign of heightened arousal. "As he gets closer, and the roar of the falling water gets louder, his pace quickens, his hair becomes fully erect, and upon reaching the stream he may perform a magnificent display close to the foot of the falls," she describes. "Standing upright, he sways rhythmically from foot to foot, stamping in the shallow, rushing water, picking up and hurling great rocks. Sometimes he climbs up the slender vines that hang down from the trees high above and swings out into the spray of the falling water. This 'waterfall dance' may last 10 or 15 minutes."

<...>

"A chimpanzee comes to a stunning sight in the midst of a tropical forest: A twenty-five foot waterfall sends water thundering into a pool below, which casts up mist some seventy feet. Apparently lost in contemplation, the chimpanzee cries out, runs excitedly back and forth, and drums on trees with its fists. Here we see the dawn of awe and wonder in animals.

"Famed heart surgeon, Dr. Christian Bernard, witnessed a chimpanzee weeping bitterly and becoming inconsolable for days after his companion was taken away for research. Bernard then vowed never again to experiment with such sensitive creatures."

In addition to sources for those comments, there are also some other really great stories and quotes at the link above which seem to inform this topic, and reinforce the view that humans are probably not as distinct or "special" as many might prefer to think. :-)

jimmydasaint said:

It would be fascinating if other animals hold strong beliefs or thoughts about their identity, or even thoughts about higher forces.

I agree fully. If we could demonstrate that other animals had beliefs in higher powers, then of course people would interpret this finding differently. I imagine that some would argue such a finding gives support that those higher powers truly exist. I, however, would tend to see it more as another demonstration of convergent evolution... common obstacles finding similar solutions... naturally through the process of evolution by natural selection. Either way, it would be supremely cool to have such solid data at our fingertips, regardless of how different people may interpret it.

Also, the links and information Martin brought into the thread really seem to speak clearly about that question of identity you raise. It's so common across so many species... species with vastly different genetic backgrounds and cortical infrastructures... yet present in them all the same. That same trait is parallel in countless ways to our traits which lead to belief in deities and tendencies to religion. (Also, if only we could communicate better with our non-primate partners on this tiny blue planet. How frakkin' cool would that be?)


Btw - Your comment about "proto-faith" is probably one of the single-most thought provoking comments I've heard/read all week. You've managed to sum up this discussion relating to animals and our own beliefs/religious predispositions in a very clean and elegant way... Proto-faith. Nice.

This post has been edited by iNow: 6 June 2009 - 01:03 AM
Reason for edit: Consecutive posts merged.

[jimmydasaint]

Quote

While not a definitive association, this recent study regarding complex toolkits for honey bee extraction suggests that chimps have this same ability to mentally interact with unseen others, a critical factor in belief among humans.

http://dsc.discovery...ool-kit-02.html

Whilst this is possible, tool building seems to be dependent upon the specific environment - honey-building tools in the Gabon and specific termite tools in other regions. I think this is a means of transmission of specific memes. I do take your point about the ability to be spatially aware and interact with others. However, is this the development of a 'proto faith' or is it a development of a culture, similar to those in Cetaceans? I found this interesting article (and have only read the Abstract) but it seems to posit (not surprisingly) independent evolution of cultures in Cetaceans.

Quote

Abstract: Studies of animal culture have not normally included a consideration of cetaceans. However, with several long-term field studies now maturing, this situation should change. Animal culture is generally studied by either investigating transmission mechanisms experimentally,
or observing patterns of behavioural variation in wild populations that cannot be explained by either genetic or environmental factors. Taking this second, ethnographic, approach, there is good evidence for cultural transmission in several cetacean species. However, only the bottlenose dolphin (Tursiops) has been shown experimentally to possess sophisticated social learning abilities, including vocal and motor imitation; other species have not been studied. There is observational evidence for imitation and teaching in killer whales. For cetaceans and other large, wide-ranging animals, excessive reliance on experimental data for evidence of culture is not productive; we favour the ethnographic approach. The complex and stable vocal and behavioural cultures of sympatric groups of killer whales (Orcinus orca) appear to have no parallel outside humans, and represent an independent evolution of cultural faculties. The wide movements of cetaceans, the greater variability of the marine environment over large temporal scales relative to that on land, and the stable matrilineal social groups of some species are potentially important factors in the evolution of cetacean culture. There have been suggestions of gene-culture coevolution in cetaceans, and culture may be implicated in some unusual behavioural and life-history traits of whales and dolphins. We hope to stimulate discussion and research on culture in these animals

http://journals.camb...17e3dfa463249ff

I can imagine the equivalent of a dolphin with a Scouser (Liverpool) accent meeting other dolphins :)

[iNow]

jimmydasaint said:

Whilst this is possible, tool building seems to be dependent upon the specific environment - honey-building tools in the Gabon and specific termite tools in other regions. I think this is a means of transmission of specific memes. I do take your point about the ability to be spatially aware and interact with others.

And it was that second point which was key... It wasn't so much about the tools themselves, or the knowledge of how to build them. The article was just background to my point. To restate, the chimps had the ability to visualize the honey bee nest below the ground. They had a mental picture of it's layout and which tunnels had honey, and used that mental visualization to obtain the honey.

While tool creation and use is quite tool, it was the ability to extract honey from underground nests via visualization where I found parallels. In short, if chimps can visualize "blueprints" for an unseen bees nest in such a clear way, then it doesn't seem to be a big leap when making the assertion that they also have the ability to visualize or contemplate "unseen others."

It was just a cool article, and peripherally related... Not at all central to the premise of the thread. :-)


Speaking of cool, I just got done watching this 2002 lecture by Robert Sapolsky on the Biology of Religion. Sapolsky is a professor of Biological Sciences, and Professor of Neurology, Neurological Sciences, and Neurosurgery at Stanford University.

His lecture talks about the biology of religion in some interesting ways, and draws some really articulate parallels with schizophrenia, OCD, ritualistic behaviors, social cohesion, etc. I found it really very enlightening and epiphanic.

One of the things which stood out to me in the lecture was his repeated point about these various mechanisms and properties of the human psyche being shunned when practiced in the wrong environment, causing one to be pushed to the periphery and removing their ability to pass on genes, whereas if these same properties/behaviors manifested at the right time and place they could be taken up by large masses of people (like a religion). One comparison he made was with sickle cell anemia. It's really bad in most contexts, but in certain times and places its benefit is abundantly clear (like how that same mechanism provides an immunity to malaria).


Here's a link to that lecture, as well it's outline:
http://blip.tv/file/2204956

The Biology of Religion

I. Some opening caveats, disclaimers and fine print

II. Religion and belief

1. A return to the final question of the schizophrenia lecture

2. Genes and the advantages of intermediate penetrance: sickle cell anemia, Tay-Sachs disease, cystic fibrosis....and schizophrenia?

3. The Kety schizophrenia adoption studies: their second discovery, and the continuum of traits.

4. Schizotypal personality disorder: social withdrawal, odd perceptual experiences, a tendency towards concreteness, metamagical belief.

5. Who are the traditional schizotypals?

a. Paul Radin, Erwin Ackerknecht and Paul Devereux: hearing voices at the right time

b. Alfred Kroeber’s elaboration: “Psychosis or Social Sanction.” The common roots of ‘sanction’ and ‘sanctuary.’

c. Western cultures and schizotypalism

III. Religion and ritualistic practices

1. Obsessive compulsive disorder

a. Obsessive thoughts: intrusions, blasphemies, and so on.

b. Compulsive rituals: self-cleansing, food preparation, leaving and entering, numerology and symmetry

c. Genetic, neuroanatomical and neurochemical hints

2. Ritualism of the religious orthodoxy

3. Hindu Brahmans: hours of daily purification rituals involving cleansing, cyclical nostril breathing, defecation, ratios of handfuls of food from the left versus right hand, rules for entering temples....

4. Orthodox Jewry and the magical combination of 365 prohibitions and 248 requirements: cleansing, food preparation, and the importance of numerology over content.

5. Orthodox Islam: rules for numbers of mouthfuls of water, for entering and leaving a lavatory, for handwashing, and, of course, magical numbers.

6. The rituals of Orthodox Christianity: the magical number 3, the multiplicities of Hail Marys and rosary use down to Lutheran organists advised about dotted rhythms in the Lutheran hymnal

7. Freud: “obsessional neurosis as individual religiosity and religion as a universal obsessional neurosis.”

8. Ignatius Loyola and the 15th century concept of “scrupulosity.”

9. The underlying adaptive value of anxiety reduction

10. Making a living as an obsessive compulsive

a. An example in a 16th century monk named Luder: “The more you cleanse yourself, the dirtier you get.”

11. Why should OCD and religious rituals have such similar patterns?

a. An ecological explanation

b. A historical explanation

IV. Religion and the attribution of causality

1. Superstitious conditioning in animals

2. Hippocampal damage and increased vulnerability to superstitious conditioning.

V. Philosophical religiosity

1. Temporal lobe epilepsy: humorlessness; perseveration; neophobia and a "sticky" or "viscous" personality; hypergraphia; concern with religious issues.

Some concluding thoughts: What am I not saying

1. You gotta be crazy to be religious

2. That most people’s religiousness is biologically suspect

3. That faith is any more biologically accessible or interesting than is loss of faith

Enjoy.

[iNow]

Earlier in the thread, I referred to our predisposition to accept information from our parents and elders when we are born, and how following their instructions without question has proven a very beneficial trait evolutionarily.

iNow said:

It's our predisposition toward inference, toward over reading causality, toward social grouping... our innate tendency to learn from and trust our elders, to accept what those in authority tell us, especially at a young age. It's lots of things, all coming together in this very strange way which has changed our culture itself.

Also, at the very start, this thread referred to our ability to interact with unseen others, and how we can visualize and mentally rehearse scenarios with people who are not physically present... and how this ability has proven useful.

This video (the fourth in a four section discussion) touches on these topics in an insightful and fresh way, including a personal story from Douglass Adams (author of Hitchhikers Guide) about how he would often call to mind (interact with) his elementary school english teacher (an unseen other) when we got stuck while writing his book, and how useful this was to him in overcoming the aforementioned writer's block. Really fascinating.

I especially liked the reference to the movie Dumbo, and how the crows in that movie used a "magic feather" to convince Dumbo that he could fly. The "magic feather" got Dumbo into the right state of mind to overcome his fear and disbelief in his ability to flap his ears and fly away. The analogy was that when people like you and me explore topics like this... when we openly and sincerely seek deeper explanations for belief in deities and religious practice... explanations which are satisfying and help to do away with the mysticism... that we may be ruining an otherwise useful crutch on which many people rely... In much the same way as the crows ruined the "magic feather" crutch on which Dumbo relied. In short, though... Dumbo never needed the feather to fly... it had nothing to do with his abilities whatsoever... and THAT's the point. Good stuff. :-)

Enjoy.



IiJg1sCxIic

[iNow]

Andy Thompson, the psychiatrist referenced in the OP who teaches at the University of Virginia, recently did a radio show in Charlottesville. He discusses his work on sociobiology and evolutionary biology, including the effect of neurotransmitters on our brains, as well as the neural infrastructure which results in the emergence of predispositions toward religious practice and belief in deity.

The thrust of the point is that the brain, like the rest of our bodies, has evolved to be a problem solving entity through the millenia. As the problems increased in complexity, so too did our approaches to solving them, as well as the adaptations in our minds. One of these key problem solving approaches in our bias toward looking for explanations, and finding patterns and causes for what we see.


This interesting, short, and straight forward dialog is available here via Quicktime:
http://www.wina.com/...audioId=3860508


It's more interesting than a simple lecture because he also responds to questions from callers.
Enjoy.

[iNow]

I want to take a moment first to thank all of you for sharing with me in the "archive" which this thread has become. I've been pulling together information from many various sources on this topic, and sharing those here has allowed me to collect, organize, and clarify my thoughts all while simultaneously giving me the satisfaction of sharing the information with friends.

On that note, I listened to another interesting program today. It is available below to those of you who are interested in this topic.


http://www.bbc.co.uk...rammes/b00m1nlh

Tom Rees has conducted research into religion and personal insecurity in 50 countries. Using figures on how much people pray and how unequal income is in each of them, he claims to have found evidence to show that the most religious societies are the most unequal, and concludes the inequality leads to religion. Is it fear and hardship that makes people of one country more religious than another, or is there a mysterious third factor that can explain why some nations pray so much more than others? Laurie Taylor talks to Tom Rees about his findings, and to sociologist of religion David Voas.

Listen to the short program here (it's only the first 14 minutes): http://www.bbc.co.uk...onsole/b00m1nlh



Enjoy. :-)

This post has been edited by iNow: 25 August 2009 - 12:14 AM

[iNow]

Here's an interesting story. Maybe it's not all about the wiring of our brains, and belief requires information from taken directly from the structure of society.


http://www.newsweek.com/id/211746

The brain may indeed be predisposed to supernatural beliefs. But that predisposition may need environmental input to be fully realized.

It was a good story, and they leveraged the fact that non-believers have been growing in number at an enormous rate, suggesting that it may be more environmental, despite genetic predispositions.

[dr.syntax]

I disagree with some of what he says. I believe people who embrace religion have serious mental disorders. Like many people my parents made me go to church. It never made much sense to me and when I learned about evolution I pretty much gave up on religion. I think many people embrace religion because of inadequate parenting. They have a need to give internalized pain some value, some meaning, things like that. I have to go now so will keep this short but may come back to this later as I am very interested in this subject. ...Dr.Syntax

[insane_alien]

i wouldn't say people who embrace religion have a mental disorder(well, maybe some of the extremeists).

i know plenty of people who subscribe to various religions and i would class none of them as having a mental disorder.

[JillSwift]

dr.syntax said:

I disagree with some of what he says. I believe people who embrace religion have serious mental disorders. Like many people my parents made me go to church. It never made much sense to me and when I learned about evolution I pretty much gave up on religion. I think many people embrace religion because of inadequate parenting. They have a need to give internalized pain some value, some meaning, things like that. I have to go now so will keep this short but may come back to this later as I am very interested in this subject. ...Dr.Syntax

I don't think the religious have any mental disorders (so far as being religious or just believing in a god or gods).

One of the popular disorders to associate with religiousness is delusion. The definition would appear to match - the belief in something without or in contradiction with evidence. However, we see children having odd beliefs all the time - like the belief that what you see on television is being acted out by miniature actors right inside the box. This belief does not go away when presented with a look at the electronics in the box. (It does go away, however, as a general understanding of the world around that box increases. Belief appears to have a systemic facet.) We don't call these children delusional, even though the definition appears to fit again. This is because it's a natural part of the learning process.

Religious belief also has a learned behavior facet. (This is an environmental factor as mentioned before in this thread.) They learn this belief from their parents and the other adults the parents associate with. In some respects this may be a sign of good parenting, only with the parents passing on unsubstantiated beliefs as the basis for their understanding of reality. Something they probably got from their parents as well, continuing on down the generations.

[iNow]

Thank you everyone for your interest in this topic, and for sharing your thoughts. I do, however, have one request.

Please remain clearly focused on the science of belief and why it may have stayed with us humans for so long. By focusing on the science, we can have an interesting and mostly objective dialog about the topic, all while not offending people who themselves hold belief, and (perhaps more importantly) without breaking the rules of this forum regarding religious discussion.



So, please... Keep contributing, keeping sharing information and thoughts, but let's avoid comments regarding religious people, whether they have mental disorders, and similar lines of thought.


The intent of this thread is to explain, via evolutionary processes, why so many people believe in deities and why so many people are religious.

Thanks! :-)

[dr.syntax]

As this article stated: the least dysfunctional countries are the most secular, the most dysfunctional are the most religious. I consider religion a form of mental illness. And with many a very dangerous one. It is the primary reason for the wars the USA is now forced to be involved in. The same is true throughout the middle east. At least some people are beginning to talk about it. Religion is not some inherited trait. Mentaly ill people can be persuaded to believe in just about anything as long as it fulfills some neurotic needs within them : hope against hopelessness, courage against fear, some loving god when there is no real love in thier lives. Oh yes and you get to live forever in some blissfull state if you measure up somehow and on and on. ...Dr.Syntax

[iNow]

Again, I want to be cautious about some of the negativity I sense in the above, but also wish to take a moment to briefly challenge it.

Since so much of religious practice comes from social custom, and from learning/teaching from our parents, I really do not think it's fair to suggest that all religious people are mentally ill. Now, trust me, I'm not one to be kind to theists, but I also try to stand up for accuracy and truth, and it's simply untrue to assert that religious people are mentally ill.

It's not as if they are running around claiming to be Napoleon. They simply engage in a tradition which has been reinforced socially, and strongly ingrained in their minds during childhood. While belief in god does demonstrate many aspects of delusion, religious practice itself is not on the same footing since it's more about social custom and sharing of stories from trusted elders and parents.

Again, though... This is not the topic of this thread. If anyone desires further comment on this particular tangent, please open a new thread to do so, or I will request the staff move your posts on our behalf via the Report Post feature. Cheers.

[forufes]

IMO

it's either we evolved into believing in god, meaning it's better for us, or more exactly: it's important for our survival.

or the big mac we evolved into liking is bad for us, bringing evolution's functionality into question; and hence it's inability to make us reach the complexity we have become OUT OF NOTHING.. which makes it fail..

:eyebrow:

[iNow]

Huh?

[forufes]

is god a product of our evolution? a step in it?

yes or no?

[iNow]

This is not a discussion about the existence of god. I've tried very hard to prevent this thread from being closed, and I'm not about to let some evolution denier such as yourself change that.

The answer is, No. Our belief in god is a predisposition given by evolution, as is the neocortical infrastructure which predisposes us to be persuaded by the grouping tendency which is known as religion, but it is the belief which is the subject of discussion here, not the existence of the deity.

[tar]

iNow,

"The intent of this thread is to explain, via evolutionary processes, why so many people believe in deities and why so many people are religious."

The OP video presenter, used the idea that religion hijacks genetically predisposed facilities meant for other survival related things. I don't doubt the findings of certain areas of the brain lighting up with certain kinds of thoughts, nor the notion that we have wiring that has been redirected (hijacked) for uses other than the initial problem solving use. But I put it together in a slightly different way.

Looking at the map of religions of the world, one can easily picture the influence of Moses, Christ, Mohammed, Martin Luther, Confucius and their subsequent followers, laws, political systems, armies, societies and cultures. Philosophers all, who hijacked the authority of reality to forward their philosophy and societal rules.

(I have read the Bible, old and new testament, the Koran a couple times, was brought up Presbyterian, and read some Tao stuff. I have visited the Mayan temples, and learned about the Dogon and Egyptian religions. I had a long talk with God one night in bed when I was 13 and understood him, I "felt" the love of Jesus in the air when I was 18. In college where I took Philosophy, I read about the thoughts of many a mind, and decided upon my definition of God, which was "that which is beyond our understanding." As a 24 year old serviceman on a hilltop in (peacetime) Germany for a month I had a "revelation" of sorts where I understood the nature of treeness from beginning to end, and hence life on this planet, and the way life has grabbed hold of form and structure and passed the pattern on for a fleeting instant in the enormity of a universe tending toward entropy.)

So, religous beliefs, to me, are a combination of our personal relationship with the universe, and the teachings of philosphers that usurp the power and authority of the universe and use it, as their own, to establish an authoritative and legitimized political power. This is mostly done to unify the particular set of believers, and cause them to work together, take care of each other, and make sacrifices in the name of the universe, and truth, for the leadership and the set of rules and morals that the group holds dear. Now this is not bad, its good, and promotes the survival of the group, and all its members over individual selfish considerations, and hence has survival value, and might be woven in some manner into adaptive problem solving evolution theory. But that is not the way I look at it. To me, it is, what it appears to be. Philosophy, based on reality, used to substantiate, the adherence to the insights of a Philosophy that solves human problems.

Whatever wiring we have that would naturally allow us to visualize and listen to the thinking of our parents, and think of them quite truely as our creators and protectors and teachers (our authority) combined with our "gap filling" ability would naturally allow us to visualize, maybe even require, an authority that our parents must rely on.

Regards, TAR

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged
P.S. Forgot to mention Buddah.
P.P.S According to Wiki;"Hinduism is formed of diverse traditions and has no single founder.[8]" So, I suppose my suggestion about Philosophers is not such a clean explanation. Except, Krishna does gives us a nice half diety, half person, to inspect. He can be either literal or figurative. We can respect the authority of his teachings, AND know we made him up.

[Mag]

Wow, this thread has grown quite a bit since I last saw it, I'll definitely have to read it again :)

and btw, I saw altruism in animals was mentioned.

If anyone is interested, in APA's magazine "Monitor" - there is an article (in the most recent one) about monkeys being nice and food, and how sometimes they'll give the more desirable food to another monkey for seemingly no reason.
The Evolutionary reason being that it's easier to survive in a group than to go solo or try to find another group, so being nice and getting along can help out.