Jump to content
Itoero

Religion as evolutionary trait

Recommended Posts

4 minutes ago, Reg Prescott said:

Well, forget specifics then. Just consider the rate at which the non-religious convert to religion -- any religion.

 

No, I don't have statistics, but whatever they are, it's gotta be faster than natural selection can keep pace with. Happens overnight sometimes. All it takes is an encounter with a burning bush, say, or an epiphany on the road to Damascus (I jest slightly).

In third world countries maybe...  but in the west (UK anyway) the number that declare religious beliefs is dropping (as far as I know).  

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, DrP said:

In third world countries maybe...  but in the west (UK anyway) the number that declare religious beliefs is dropping (as far as I know).  

 

 

Well, supposing just one staunch card-carrying atheist (Richard Dawkins perhaps) converts to Islam overnight -- due to whatever reasons (make up your own scenario LOL).

 

Clearly, appeal to evolution/natural selection is not gonna work.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Reg Prescott said:

Well, forget specifics then. Just consider the rate at which the non-religious convert to religion -- any religion.

Again, not the point. It is not about whether any particular individual has a particular belief or none, the question is where the "ability" to have that belief comes from. Studies have shown that there are is a variation of this in the population (which is one requirement for it being possibly selected for/against by evolution). Some people have a greater tendency to belief in religious/spiritual ideas than others. 

Some people (presumably those in the middle of this range) may go from believing in something to not believing or vice versa. Or may change their faith from one religion to another.

14 minutes ago, Reg Prescott said:

I suppose you could argue that a "latent gene" suddenly got activated.

I'm not sure whether it is genetics or psychology that you totally don't understand. (Or are you just making straw man arguments for fun?)

If someone hears a new form of music and thinks "I like that" it isn't because a gene has turned on, even if the ability to appreciate music has a genetic component.

5 minutes ago, Reg Prescott said:

 

Well, supposing just one staunch card-carrying atheist (Richard Dawkins perhaps) converts to Islam overnight -- due to whatever reasons (make up your own scenario LOL).

 

Clearly, appeal to evolution/natural selection is not gonna work.

I can only assume this is deliberately playing dumb.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Strange said:

Again, not the point. It is not about whether any particular individual has a particular belief or none, the question is where the "ability" to have that belief comes from. Studies have shown that there are is a variation of this in the population (which is one requirement for it being possibly selected for/against by evolution). Some people have a greater tendency to belief in religious/spiritual ideas than others. 

Er, how exactly do you know this again?

 

Personally, I'd rate my own degree of religiosity as zero right now.

 

But hey, if God comes to pay me a visit in the middle of the night, I'll be a ten tomorrow.

 

Speaking of which, it's kinda late here. Nighty-night!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Reg Prescott said:

Er, how exactly do you know this again?

Because I have read of studies done on the subject (and how they correlate with other things). This is not something I am hugely interested in so I can't immediately point you to anything, but the first google result was: https://www.jstor.org/stable/1386523.

Quote

Gender differences in religiosity are well known. Past studies have consistently shown that females tend to be more religious than males. We propose that gender differences in risk preferences are related to differences in religiosity.

I'm sure you can find plenty more if you are interested. (But I am getting the impression you are just arguing for the sake of it, so I'll leave you to have your fun with others.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/12/2018 at 7:09 PM, Itoero said:

Several studies show religious thought strengthens social cohesion.http://www.overcomingbias.com/2008/03/religious-cohes.htmlhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4958132/http://science.sciencemag.org/content/322/5898/58

This imo means religion is an evolutionary trait. Strengthening of social cohesion is important for many animals like african wild dogs, lions, wolves, whales, dolphins, chickens, penguins, crows, monkeys, apes...It leads to evolutionary succes.

Our complex language enabled the origin of real religion, many other animals have religious thought/behavior  but lack our complex communicationsystem which prevents the origin of real religion.

What do you think of this?

Being fascinated by unknowns is hardly a religious trait. Even kittens share that. Personalising the explanation, that's religion. "Explaining" every mystery with a " X did it " , that's religion. And then indoctrinating kids in that belief, without any verification. 

Anyway, what else is an evolutionary trait? War with your neighbours. The strongest trampling all over the weakest. Rape. Murder. Even cannibalism. They have all played their part in getting us to where we are now. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Strange said:

 Some people have a greater tendency to belief in religious/spiritual ideas than others. 

 

5 hours ago, Reg Prescott said:

Er, how exactly do you know this again?

 Brainwashing in early childhood? And observational data. Either way you started here arguing against the scientific method, and not so veiled claims re Atheists/scientists giving believers a hard time so to speak. What else would you expect on a science forum? Myth and fairy tails, whether an evolutionary trait or otherwise, needs to be confronted with reality, empirical evidence and consequently the scientific methods. Your own position seems to be straddling the fence somewhat.

Quote

 

Personally, I'd rate my own degree of religiosity as zero right now.

But hey, if God comes to pay me a visit in the middle of the night, I'll be a ten tomorrow.

 

Yeah, straddling the fence somewhat certainly, when we realise that religion and beliefs in deities are totally unscientific and superfluous to boot, when science can admirably explain how we evolved from t+10-43 seconds. 

5 hours ago, Strange said:

. This is not something I am hugely interested in so I can't immediately point you to anything, but the first google result was: https://www.jstor.org/stable/1386523.

I'm sure you can find plenty more if you are interested. (But I am getting the impression you are just arguing for the sake of it, so I'll leave you to have your fun with others.)

I can align with both of those positions. Perhaps the question of whether religion is an evolutionary trait, should actually be, is man's quest for knowledge etc an evolutionary trait? Was religion [belief in some deity] the first step in this evolutionary process but ha since been superseded by more logical scientific reasoning?

Edited by beecee

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, beecee said:

 

 Brainwashing in early childhood? And observational data. Either way you started here arguing against the scientific method, and not so veiled claims re Atheists/scientists giving believers a hard time so to speak. What else would you expect on a science forum? Myth and fairy tails, whether an evolutionary trait or otherwise, needs to be confronted with reality, empirical evidence and consequently the scientific methods. Your own position seems to be straddling the fence somewhat.

Yeah, straddling the fence somewhat certainly, when we realise that religion and beliefs in deities are totally unscientific and superfluous to boot, when science can admirably explain how we evolved from t+10-43 seconds. 

 

Re : Brainwashing in early childhood: Here's what happened: Strange asserted that "Some people have a greater tendency to belief in religious/spiritual ideas than others".  I was at once wondering how he could possibly know that one individual has a greater tendency towards religious/spiritual ideas than another, say Strange vs myself, and curious as to my own tendency. Thus, I offered for illustration the example that, though I'd rate myself zero on the religiosity scale now, if God paid me a visit in the night I'd be a ten this morning (it didn't happen by the way).

 

Does that mean my tendency for religiosity is high? Low? Higher than his? Lower than his? Who the hell knows until it manifests? -- thereupon what we have is a manifestation of religiosity; not a tendency. And the claim that one individual has a greater tendency towards religiosity than another reduces to utter triviality: "Look, he's worshiping God! He must have (or have had) a high tendency for religion!" A bit like saying of some newly-discovered, previously unknown material, "Look, it's broken! It must have been fragile!" (And how do you know it's fragile? Well, it's broken, isn't it?)

 

Turns out we were at cross purposes. Apparently what Strange had in mind was groups of individuals, not individuals.

 

Science or no science, genetic determinism/predisposition or not, were I to have a close encounter with Bigfoot, say, while strolling through the forests of Oregon  -- perhaps a wrestling match with Mr Sasquatch himself -- I'd be an instant convert. I daresay you would be too. Might it be a hallucination or an uncommonly large dude in a gorilla costume? Certainly, though the "my senses are not deceiving me" hypothesis would reign supreme until some pretty strong evidence to the contrary was adduced (e.g. "we spiked your Cornflakes with LSD").

 

The larger point I'm trying to impress here is that any genetic predispositions that incline or disincline me (or you) towards certain patterns of belief -- supposing there even are such things -- would be overwhelmed by sensory input in tandem with my/your own cognitive processes. Intentionality 1 Genes 0, you might say.

 

Re: What else would I expect on a science forum? Civility, tolerance... never mind. Just a silly thought.

 

Re myths, fairy tales, and The Scientific Method (TSM): I was not so much "arguing against the scientific method" as claiming that there is no such thing. Science, like religion, is not short of a few myths of her own. The myth of TSM provides us with a splendid example. Despite scant evidence for, and voluminous evidence against, the existence of a universal, timeless, invariant Method of science, people like yourself continue to uncritically and obediently not only buy into the myth, but perpetuate it with unholy fervor while, at the same time, fulminating against those poor brainwashed religious suckers who ought to know better than believe fairy tales.

 

People who live in glass houses...

 

Re "on the fence" : I didn't realize realize it was an "Us-Them" showdown. What are my choice of colors? Blue for Rangers or green for Celtic? But seriously, you guys, just like the religious mob, can be a wee bit tribalistic at times. The impression I was getting when I entered the thread was a fairly typical supercilious dismissal of anything religious combined with an overzealous reverence for anything bearing the epithet scientific. If you know your history of science -- and not just those "Whig" histories so alarmingly prevalent -- you'll be aware that a great many, perhaps most, perhaps the vast majority, of scientific theories (thus "explanations" -- your word) ever proposed and regarded as true are no longer thus regarded. Might be salutary to bear that in mind. Oh, and guess what? Not all religious folks are brainwashed dummies with a tendency (that word again) towards terrorism.

 

I'll be on the fence if you need me. Cheers!

Edited by Reg Prescott
added four words

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 13/09/2018 at 4:09 AM, Itoero said:

Several studies show religious thought strengthens social cohesion.http://www.overcomingbias.com/2008/03/religious-cohes.htmlhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4958132/http://science.sciencemag.org/content/322/5898/58

This imo means religion is an evolutionary trait. Strengthening of social cohesion is important for many animals like african wild dogs, lions, wolves, whales, dolphins, chickens, penguins, crows, monkeys, apes...It leads to evolutionary succes.

Our complex language enabled the origin of real religion, many other animals have religious thought/behavior  but lack our complex communicationsystem which prevents the origin of real religion.

What do you think of this?

 

It seems to me that faith  is a cultural trait. It doesn't favour evolution. It limits evolution. Religion a singled out more obvious manifestation of faith.

 It binds cultures, setting a  singular perspective.  Causes a cultural perspective to become a fixed and limiting identifier.

Of what belongs.

Individual ability of response is limited to what re-enforces the perspective of the whole. Response conflicting with that  perspective  is not favoured in that cultural environment.

A culture is a condition of its environment. Faith defines and limits its space. Limits the range of conditions that will be accepted by it, and that it can/will respond to.

Faith limits  diversity of the the cultural  condition, and the area or space  that can be integrated by its condition. 

 

Edited by naitche

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, naitche said:

It seems to me that faith  is a cultural trait. It doesn't favour evolution. It limits evolution. Religion a singled out more obvious manifestation of faith.

 It binds cultures, setting a  singular perspective.  Causes a cultural perspective to become a fixed and limiting identifier.

Of what belongs.

Individual ability of response is limited to what re-enforces the perspective of the whole. Response conflicting with that  perspective  is not favoured in that cultural environment.

A culture is a condition of its environment. Faith defines and limits its space. Limits the range of conditions that will be accepted by it, and that it can/will respond to.

Faith limits the diversity that can benefit from those conditions. 

 

I'm pretty sure you explained how faith limits evolution but I didn't understand it. Are you claiming that faith literally limits Evolution (with a big 'E')?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Reg Prescott said:

 

Re : Brainwashing in early childhood: Here's what happened: Strange asserted that "Some people have a greater tendency to belief in religious/spiritual ideas than others".  I was at once wondering how he could possibly know that one individual has a greater tendency towards religious/spiritual ideas than another, say Strange vs myself, and curious as to my own tendency. Thus, I offered for illustration the example that, though I'd rate myself zero on the religiosity scale now, if God paid me a visit in the night I'd be a ten this morning (it didn't happen by the way).

Like I said, perhaps more correctly the "is religion an evolutionary trait" title should be,  "is the urge to knowledge an evolutionary trait" I don't really know actually, just that accepting some mythical religion and deity was that first step in attempting to understand, well before science, the scientific method, and empirical evidence came to the fore.

Quote

Does that mean my tendency for religiosity is high? Low? Higher than his? Lower than his? Who the hell knows until it manifests? -- thereupon what we have is a manifestation of religiosity; not a tendency. And the claim that one individual has a greater tendency towards religiosity than another reduces to utter triviality: "Look, he's worshiping God! He must have (or have had) a high tendency for religion!" A bit like saying of some newly-discovered, previously unknown material, "Look, it's broken! It must have been fragile!" (And how do you know it's fragile? Well, it's broken, isn't it?)

I would guess in fact that the tone of your posts and the urge to appear as sitting on the fence, that you have drastically underestimated your tendency towards religion.

Quote

Turns out we were at cross purposes. Apparently what Strange had in mind was groups of individuals, not individuals.

I see it as far easier to work out what Strange had in mind, then what you appear to be saying....or what ever underlying meaning is within.

Quote

 

Science or no science, genetic determinism/predisposition or not, were I to have a close encounter with Bigfoot, say, while strolling through the forests of Oregon  -- perhaps a wrestling match with Mr Sasquatch himself -- I'd be an instant convert. I daresay you would be too. Might it be a hallucination or an uncommonly large dude in a gorilla costume? Certainly, though the "my senses are not deceiving me" hypothesis would reign supreme until some pretty strong evidence to the contrary was adduced (e.g. "we spiked your Cornflakes with LSD").

 

 

 

Well I suppose we all can go from the sublime to the ridiculous, particularly in regards to totally unscientific concepts and scenarios.

 

Quote

The larger point I'm trying to impress here is that any genetic predispositions that incline or disincline me (or you) towards certain patterns of belief -- supposing there even are such things -- would be overwhelmed by sensory input in tandem with my/your own cognitive processes. Intentionality 1 Genes 0, you might say.

The urge to know is in all of us. Some though, in their quest to know it all, are inclined to accept any mythical reason that may answer that eternal question.

Quote

Re: What else would I expect on a science forum? Civility, tolerance... never mind. Just a silly thought.

I wonder what sort of civility and tolerence I would receive if I walked into church next Sunday, proclaiming no evidence for any magical spaghetti monster and the more likeley of us, and the universe essentially arising out of nothing...never mind, silly thought.

Quote

Re myths, fairy tales, and The Scientific Method (TSM): I was not so much "arguing against the scientific method" as claiming that there is no such thing.

And I believe you would be and are wrong. 

 

Quote

Science, like religion, is not short of a few myths of her own.

Actually the beauty of science and the scientific method is that it is based on empirical observational data, and as we are able to see further, so the possibility of modification or change of any scientific theory is always open. What does not make it to the scientific theory stage, is always classed  as speculative and hypothetical, until evidence is forthcoming that moves it up that extra rung or two. No, wrong again, no myths in science, just a continuation of observational and experimental data, and improvements in our knowledge and, theories. Some scientific theories though are so well supported by data, [SR, GR the theory of the evolution of life] that they have grown to a certain degree of near certainty, within their zones of applicability.

Quote

 Despite scant evidence for, and voluminous evidence against, the existence of a universal, timeless, invariant Method of science, people like yourself continue to uncritically and obediently not only buy into the myth, but perpetuate it with unholy fervor while, at the same time, fulminating against those poor brainwashed religious suckers who ought to know better than believe fairy tales

.Again understating the evidence and history of the scientific method, you again open the door to perceiving your position as on the fence, and as you progress with your lengthy but still inconclusive posts, being seen with dangling over noticeably to one side in particular. Perhaps you fail to see the evidence for scientific theories, the method that they are formed as governed by the scientific method and empirical evidence, compared to the total lack of evidence, as well as totally unscientific acceptance of any religion and any magical spaghetti monster arising from that religion.

Quote

People who live in glass houses...

Again this is primarily a science forum and as such what you may see as stones being thrown, are nothing more the the request for empirical evidence to support any mythical religious dogma.

Quote

Re "on the fence" : I didn't realize realize it was an "Us-Them" showdown

Again, this is first and foremost a science forum. The "them" you throw in are common to most science forums, when ''holier than thou" religious leaning members join simply for the express purpose of conducting some evangelistic crusade against science and the scientific method. 

Most are unable to accept the scrutiny, and resort to the usual insults and possibly banishment. Like I mentioned earlier, I don't go into church on Sundays shouting about what gullible fools they are and giving the evidenced based scientific method of why and how we are here.

Quote

. If you know your history of science -- and not just those "Whig" histories so alarmingly prevalent -- you'll be aware that a great many, perhaps most, perhaps the vast majority, of scientific theories (thus "explanations" -- your word) ever proposed and regarded as true are no longer thus regarded.

Certainly and that is a feather or two in the cap of science and the scientific method and why it is still with us. Something we all, you and I need to be proud of. Science is a discipline in continued progress.

Quote

 

Might be salutary to bear that in mind. Oh, and guess what? Not all religious folks are brainwashed dummies with a tendency (that word again) towards terrorism.

 

Of course! The "non certainty" in general of science and the scientific method, is a quality that we all should know and be thankful for. It's the reason why we are at our present technological level. People are free to chose what they accept. BTW, my wife is a  Christian in the true sense of the word but never bothers me.....the brainwashed dummies are those that see the need to conduct crusades on forums such as this....

Quote

I'll be on the fence if you need me. Cheers!

I would be careful if I was you......accidents can happen.

Edited by beecee

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@ beecee

 

Not to belabor the point, but you continue to simply presuppose, rather than argue for, the existence of this putative Method (The Scientific Method, or hereafter, TSM) of science. It's a bit like participating in a debate about the existence of God, with one's interlocutor constantly repeating "God loves you". The existence of God/TSM is the very issue under examination; not that which is to be assumed.

 

You've emphasized the importance of evidence, and the eschewal of myths or unjustified beliefs. Thus far, however, as far as I can see, the amount of evidence you have adduced to support the existence of TSM totals precisely zilch. You have not even told us what -- your version of -- TSM is. (and puh-LEASE do not direct me to Wikipedia -- no doubt you'll find a page on God too)

 

Now, to save time, let's get back to the quotes I posted earlier....

 

"Scientific method is something talked about by people standing on the outside and wondering how the scientist manages to do it....

What appears to [the working scientist] as the essence of the situation is that he is not consciously following any prescribed course of action, but feels complete freedom to utilize any method or device whatever which in the particular situation before him seems likely to yield the correct answer. In his attack on his specific problem he suffers no inhibitions of precedent or authority, but is completely free to adopt any course that his ingenuity is capable of suggesting to him. No one standing on the outside can predict what the individual scientist will do or what method he will follow. In short, science is what scientists do, and there are as many scientific methods as there are individual scientists."

Percy W. Bridgman -- "On Scientific Method"


"I know enough about science to know that there is no such thing as a clear and universal "scientific method". All attempts to formulate one since the time of Francis Bacon have failed to capture the way that science and scientists actually work." -- Steven Weinberg (from "Facing Up", essay 4, "Confronting O'Brien")

 

 

If, as you claim, TSM is real, why would two (and I can quote others) highly respected, Nobel-prize winning scientists say such foolish things? What's their problem? What do you know that they don't?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Reg Prescott said:

Not to belabor the point,

If, as you claim, TSM is real, why would two (and I can quote others) highly respected, Nobel-prize winning scientists say such foolish things? What's their problem? What do you know that they don't?

This is off topic as I did tell you before, so if you want to argue that point, start another thread. I am certainly sure I can quote  other highly respected scientists who also stand by the scientific method.

Looking forward to your thread.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, zapatos said:

I'm pretty sure you explained how faith limits evolution but I didn't understand it. Are you claiming that faith literally limits Evolution (with a big 'E')?

Only if faith is allowed to become positional perspective.  it blocks direction.

Faith in scientific methodology means you support those conditions. Their conditions  are what ever is supported by adherents to science at a given time.They exist because of they are supported, and evolve according to what is supported.

 Hopefully, We support whats  demonstrated to bring  value to science. What can increase its scope, or area. To define 'The scientific method' though, would be to limit what can be brought to it by an arbitrary measure of its scope. Give it a positional or conditional perspective.

Its not faith itself that limits evolution. Its a conditional or positional perspective of what that faith allows. What those conditions must be, to be right, valid or correct. To define those conditions in time and space

Not based on  value contributed or potential, but on meeting conditions as they are recognised to exist now. At a single point in time and space.

Supporting  conditions that benefit yourself your cause or purpose is natural. Common faith  does give cohesion.

But how can you evolve beyond your current definition once its conditional?

I don't see a problem with supporting conditions that are seen as favourable or beneficial.  Or promoting  benefits and potentials of a condition. Be it scientific methodology, Religion, gender or Nationality. But it seems to me that defining those conditions by  means other than benefits and  potential can only limit those.

Nationalism can give common direction and cohesion. It can be positive if its focus is the potential and benefits, of and to its environment to those who would lend it support.

It can only be what it will through support. The values  brought to its condition

Its  harmful when its defined by its conditions and limitations and not the values brought to overcome them.

 

Edited by naitche

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As far as humans go, fascism could be looked on as an evolutionary trait, in a similar way to religion. 

After all, fascism attempted to make Jews extinct, as well as a huge number of Russians and Slavs. If you aim your genocide at a racial group, then you are affecting the remaining genome. 

Religious wars  will have a similar effect. You're not exterminating people at random, you are augmenting natural selection, with your own choices. Europeans massacring Arabs in crusades will have altered the remaining world genome in a specific direction.

European immigrants to America tried to exterminate the resident "Indians", with no feelings of guilt whatsoever. They wouldn't have done that to Christians. Being of a different religion allows people to view people of other religions as less than human.

These effects on human evolution were not huge, but they were significant, considering how slowly evolution normally happens.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, Johnnywong said:

DNA Declares Death of Darwin

DNA Declare Divine Design

It seems like we have another real live one here. Let me inform you that you are nothing more then star stuff....born in the belly of stars, that themselves formed through gravitational collapse from the formation of light elements that evolved from the BB. No divine design necessary...no magic spaghetti monster...just simple evolutionary science backed up by loads of evidence. Now go take your white charger for a rest and accept that you are not capable of mounting any crusade against science.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, beecee said:

you are nothing more then star stuff.

Well..... Most of your body (by number of atoms) is hydrogen which came from the Big Bang - which is even cooler!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, mistermack said:

As far as humans go, fascism could be looked on as an evolutionary trait, in a similar way to religion. 

After all, fascism attempted to make Jews extinct, as well as a huge number of Russians and Slavs. If you aim your genocide at a racial group, then you are affecting the remaining genome. 

Religious wars  will have a similar effect. You're not exterminating people at random, you are augmenting natural selection, with your own choices. Europeans massacring Arabs in crusades will have altered the remaining world genome in a specific direction.

European immigrants to America tried to exterminate the resident "Indians", with no feelings of guilt whatsoever. They wouldn't have done that to Christians. Being of a different religion allows people to view people of other religions as less than human.

These effects on human evolution were not huge, but they were significant, considering how slowly evolution normally happens.

As far as humanity goes as an Identity, fascism would be like an over active immune system where the body of humanity attacks its self. Does not recognise its own diversity and reduces its genome, or environment. And its ability to respond to changing conditions.

If  Identity is a space, then its measure should be direction (  purpose?) Not condition or position which if 'fixed' as fascism seems to attempt,  limit direction. 

Organic conditions are created as a response to aid direction, they don't give it.

Fascism puts faith in a singular condition that opposes any other direction.

An Identity whos condition is  complete.

Edited by naitche

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎4‎/‎10‎/‎2018 at 8:32 PM, mistermack said:

Being fascinated by unknowns is hardly a religious trait. Even kittens share that. Personalising the explanation, that's religion. "Explaining" every mystery with a " X did it " , that's religion. And then indoctrinating kids in that belief, without any verification. 

Anyway, what else is an evolutionary trait? War with your neighbours. The strongest trampling all over the weakest. Rape. Murder. Even cannibalism. They have all played their part in getting us to where we are now. 

I call it an evolutionary trait because they found religious behavior in many animals...including apes..and we evolved from ape-like-mammals..https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_behavior_in_animals

They found that religious thought improves social/group cohesion which was very necessary when we started to populate the world.

They also found that Neanderthalers used to burry their death.https://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2013/12/131216-la-chapelle-neanderthal-burials-graves/And for example Homo sapiens burials that date +/- 34000 years.https://www.realclearscience.com/articles/2018/02/23/why_this_paleolithic_burial_site_is_so_strange__110556.html And 70.000 year old ritual practises found in Africa. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/offerings-to-a-stone-snak/

The 'fact' that religion is an evolutionary trait explains all those findings. There is a lot more that points to the evolution of religion...

If it goes bad (war, civil war, famine)in an area or country then religion can I suppose, because it improves social cohesion, provide company, it brings people together.

Edited by Itoero

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Itoero said:

I call it an evolutionary trait because they found religious behavior in many animals...including apes..and we evolved from ape-like-mammals..

 

The problem with this claim, as I see things anyway, is that the imputation of religion to animals is based on entirely behavioristic grounds. And behaviorism, as a theory of mind, is more or less dead.

 

Behaviorism flourished in the early and middle part of the 20th century, largely due to the prevailing intellectual zeitgeist -- exemplified in the Logical Positivism movement -- under which received wisdom held that anything not directly observable is not, or should not be, the object of good scientific inquiry. Consciousness, intentionality (beliefs, desires, hopes, fears, etc) were ruled out of court on either methodological grounds (methodological behaviorism) or logical grounds (logical/philosophical behaviorism).

 

For example, a belief, say, that "it is raining" was construed not as a mental state, but as a manifestation of certain behaviors, or dispositions to certain forms of behavior (including verbal behavior). If Smith goes around holding an umbrella up, runs for shelter, covers his head with a newspaper, exclaims "Damn rain!", and so on and so forth, then -- on the behaviorist account -- he has a belief that it's raining. And that's that!

 

(Of course, we could pay an actor -- who intuitively doesn't have a belief that it's raining -- to do exactly the same things. In the middle of the Sahara Desert perhaps, or in a TV studio with an artificial shower).

 

Then came that upstart Noam Chomsky, the cognitive revolution -- and B.F. Skinner et al went the way of the dodo. The mind, consciousness, intentionality, once again, became respectable objects of scientific study.

 

These days, by and large (with the odd exception - Daniel Dennett), a mental state such as a belief is -- surely correctly -- construed as the cause of the behavior in question; not the behavior itself. The guy holds up his umbrella because he believes it is raining.

 

So back to where we started, I think we'd all agree there's more to religiosity than simply engaging in certain forms of behavior -- going to church on Sundays, praying, etc. Those behaviors must be caused by certain beliefs (remember that atheistic actor we could pay to do exactly the same things?)

 

Now, there are some (e.g. Donald Davidson) who hold the implausible -- in my opinion -- position that animals have no beliefs whatsoever. I wouldn't go that far myself. But can animals have more abstract beliefs (as opposed to the "here and now and in-yer-face" variety) so typical of religion? Do/can those "grieving" elephants believe Nelly will proceed to the afterlife? Do/can chimpanzees believe in an almighty creator?

 

I don't think so.

Edited by Reg Prescott
typo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/6/2018 at 10:31 AM, beecee said:

It seems like we have another real live one here. Let me inform you that you are nothing more then star stuff....born in the belly of stars, that themselves formed through gravitational collapse from the formation of light elements that evolved from the BB. No divine design necessary...no magic spaghetti monster...just simple evolutionary science backed up by loads of evidence. Now go take your white charger for a rest and accept that you are not capable of mounting any crusade against science.

No .

 

evolution has false evidence . It is against mathematics and physics.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Johnnywong said:

evolution has false evidence .

Give us an example. 

9 minutes ago, Johnnywong said:

It is against mathematics and physics.

Of course it isn’t. Unless you have some evidence? (You don’t)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, Johnnywong said:

No .

Yes, most certainly, despite your fanatical denial.

Quote

evolution has false evidence . It is against mathematics and physics.

Total rubbish. The evolution of the universe is observed in our view of distant star systems in our galaxy at different stages of evolution of such systems. We have no reason to believe ours would be any different. All the elements that make up you and I, were forged in the belly of stars.

The evolution of life is as close to being certain as any reasonable thinking person could hope for. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/9/2018 at 10:07 AM, Strange said:

Give us an example. 

Of course it isn’t. Unless you have some evidence? (You don’t)

stop poison the youths by saying most scientists believe in chemical evolution.
4 Questions.
1. What is the probability of formation of DNA from atoms random collisions ?
2. What is the second law of thermodynamics and entrophy? what is the entrophy change in the formation of DNA from atoms.
3. Why there is no fossil records of the intermediate forms as suggested in evolution?
4.Commonsense story .
Once upon a time there is  Fatty acid-Tom called Fatty acid - Tommy to join together with other molecular brothers to form an insulin molecule because there is an insulin receptor waiting for us in the cell membrane ! (stranger than fiction !fairly tales! )
How can the carbon atoms know the function of insulin, Ha ! The carbon atoms may have a PhD like you!


The only answer to the origin of Life , be honest ,we don't know .
Just say we don't know .Don't use the silly evolution theory to fool the youths and laymen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.