4 ms·

"these behaviors enhance the fitness of the genes which make one predisposed to religiosity. This has been hypothesized many times, and is the only rational ex

by pg 13y ago

"these behaviors enhance the fitness of the genes which make one predisposed to religiosity. This has been hypothesized many times, and is the only rational explanation for the vast and fervent religious behaviors we witness today." It's certainly not the only possible explanation.

FD3SA 13y ago
Please share your thoughts. I honestly love this subject, and am willing to waste an inordinate amount of time discussing all possibilities.
- Retric 13y ago
  It's also possible that religion is a net negative just not a significant net negative, aka it's a thought virus. Viruses have a lot more pressure to avoid being a huge negative like killing there host quickly than they do helping their host, but as long as they can spread it's ok to be lethal as long as it's not rapidly lethal. EX: Religions who's priests avoid reproduction are clearly a net negative on the individual level at least from an evolutionary standpoint.
  - FD3SA 13y ago
    Quite possibly, though that begets one more question: Why are certain religions much more successful than others? @herbig >Certain religions are more successful than others for the same reason that other organisms are more successful: they adapt more quickly to their environment. Precisely! @lutusp Absolutely. But we have to remember that religious behaviors act through humans. As such, they become just like any other behavior which is selected by evolution through natural selection at the genetic level. Am I correct in assuming that you were thinking of bees and ants, which display behaviors which may not be individually adaptive, but genetically so? If that's the case, you may find this paper [1] interesting. 1. http://www.fasebj.org/content/24/5/1301.long http://www.fasebj.org/content/24/5/1301.long @pjscott Perfect, now let's look at every single one of these factors through the eyes of an evolutionary biologist. You will find that almost each one has a direct analogue in evolution, and the behaviors become indistinguishable from those seen across a wide variety of species. They are just much more nuanced versions of the same tactics employed by every living creature.
    - lutusp 13y ago
      > Why are certain religions much more successful than others? Evolution. I know this sounds like a punch line for a joke, but consider that a religion's doctrinal choices represent natural selection -- some choices are more effective than others, and a dominant religion in a world of competing religions equals a dominant species in a world of competing species -- the same rules apply. And what are the successful species traits? One, a reverence for authority, a time-tested way to attract and hold people who cannot think for themselves. Two, a prohibition against having sex without the intent to breed more miniature believers, a prohibition that the Catholics have raised to an art form. Three, a prohibition against independent thought or constructive criticism, in which the masses are described as a flock of sheep, and they eat it up. The great irony is that many religions (not all by any means), while very clearly exploiting the strategy of evolution by natural selection to grow their submissive flocks, reject the very idea of evolution, describe it as an evil idea.
    - pjscott 13y ago
      Looking at the most successful religions, a few candidates spring to mind: * Proselytism: if you don't go looking for converts, you probably won't get them. In particular, a lot of religions are inextricably linked with ethnicities; they tend to stay small. * Syncretism: your religion can get a lot of followers if it co-opts existing beliefs, and doesn't try to immediately displace them. For example, look at how Taoism fits in neatly with a lot of folk religion that predates its arrival in the area. Similar examples can be found for most (all?) major religions. * Political fortune. Catholicism, for example, happened to spread through the world alongside European colonialism, especially by Spain. * Luck. There are an awful lot of dead religions that used to be pretty successful. There are probably others, but those are the most obvious ones.
  - herbig 13y ago
    I don't think celibacy of priests is a good example of this. For one thing, it rarely actually happens, as priests routinely abdicate in order to marry or just father children out of wedlock. For another, if only priests are celibate but everyone else is forbidden from using birth control, numbers will always outweigh the cost of the celibate priests. Even suicide bombers can, through their zeal and dedication, inspire many others and bring groups and clans closer. Heaven's Gate though, you can't really argue a net positive for, since they're all gone. Certain religions are more successful than others for the same reason that other organisms are more successful: they adapt more quickly to their environment.
  - yawboakye 13y ago
    I'm tempted to say nations and states that support homosexuality (which is by far the most colossal structural opposition to reproduction) have "a net negative on the individual level at least from an evolutionary standpoint." What do you think?
    - lutusp 13y ago
      The answer is that, in a world steered more by ideas than children (or more by memes than genes), one's sexual orientation is much less important, so accepting homosexuality doesn't reduce the true fitness of the species, which is a composite of ideas and genes. To those who doubt the significance of ideas compared to children, I ask if they can recall the names of Einstein's children. No?
      - msandford 13y ago
        I have no idea what his children are named. But does relativity make me (or the species) much fitter for survival? Not at this point I might argue. The biggest practical application of relativity at this point (that I'm aware of) seems to be GPS. One can argue about whether GPS makes us better or worse as a species but it's not a huge deal wrt evolution. If there's a better practical application of relativity I'd love to know. This is just what I was able to come up with off the top of my head. We're all intellectually indebted to Einstein for relativity.
        lutusp 13y ago
        > I have no idea what his children are named. But does relativity make me (or the species) much fitter for survival? Einstein also contributed to quantum theory and a number of other physical fields. Does understanding reality have survival value? The computer you're sitting at requires an understanding of quantum theory. No understanding, no computer. > The biggest practical application of relativity at this point (that I'm aware of) seems to be GPS. No, relativity doesn't make GPS possible, science makes GPS possible. It happens that relativity theories must be taken into account for GPS to work as it should, but this doesn't mean GPS is about relativity. > One can argue about whether GPS makes us better or worse as a species but it's not a huge deal wrt evolution. Only if you discount the role of ideas in human survival. People have big brains to hold ideas, not sperm. Those ideas contribute to our fitness. They represent a factor in natural selection. We aren't the dominant species because of our big muscles -- many animals are stronger. We're the dominant species because of ideas. > If there's a better practical application of relativity I'd love to know. It helps us understand reality. It provides the theoretical basis for nuclear power. It's also the theoretical basis for fusion power, a future development. It helps us to understand the universe. But this isn't about relativity, it's about the role of ideas in evolution. That's not remotely controversial, because (1) we have big brains and (2) nature doesn't waste anything.

by pg 13y ago

FD3SA 13y ago

Please share your thoughts. I honestly love this subject, and am willing to waste an inordinate amount of time discussing all possibilities.

Retric 13y ago
It's also possible that religion is a net negative just not a significant net negative, aka it's a thought virus. Viruses have a lot more pressure to avoid being a huge negative like killing there host quickly than they do helping their host, but as long as they can spread it's ok to be lethal as long as it's not rapidly lethal. EX: Religions who's priests avoid reproduction are clearly a net negative on the individual level at least from an evolutionary standpoint.
- FD3SA 13y ago
  Quite possibly, though that begets one more question: Why are certain religions much more successful than others? @herbig >Certain religions are more successful than others for the same reason that other organisms are more successful: they adapt more quickly to their environment. Precisely! @lutusp Absolutely. But we have to remember that religious behaviors act through humans. As such, they become just like any other behavior which is selected by evolution through natural selection at the genetic level. Am I correct in assuming that you were thinking of bees and ants, which display behaviors which may not be individually adaptive, but genetically so? If that's the case, you may find this paper [1] interesting. 1. http://www.fasebj.org/content/24/5/1301.long http://www.fasebj.org/content/24/5/1301.long @pjscott Perfect, now let's look at every single one of these factors through the eyes of an evolutionary biologist. You will find that almost each one has a direct analogue in evolution, and the behaviors become indistinguishable from those seen across a wide variety of species. They are just much more nuanced versions of the same tactics employed by every living creature.
  - lutusp 13y ago
    > Why are certain religions much more successful than others? Evolution. I know this sounds like a punch line for a joke, but consider that a religion's doctrinal choices represent natural selection -- some choices are more effective than others, and a dominant religion in a world of competing religions equals a dominant species in a world of competing species -- the same rules apply. And what are the successful species traits? One, a reverence for authority, a time-tested way to attract and hold people who cannot think for themselves. Two, a prohibition against having sex without the intent to breed more miniature believers, a prohibition that the Catholics have raised to an art form. Three, a prohibition against independent thought or constructive criticism, in which the masses are described as a flock of sheep, and they eat it up. The great irony is that many religions (not all by any means), while very clearly exploiting the strategy of evolution by natural selection to grow their submissive flocks, reject the very idea of evolution, describe it as an evil idea.
  - pjscott 13y ago
    Looking at the most successful religions, a few candidates spring to mind: * Proselytism: if you don't go looking for converts, you probably won't get them. In particular, a lot of religions are inextricably linked with ethnicities; they tend to stay small. * Syncretism: your religion can get a lot of followers if it co-opts existing beliefs, and doesn't try to immediately displace them. For example, look at how Taoism fits in neatly with a lot of folk religion that predates its arrival in the area. Similar examples can be found for most (all?) major religions. * Political fortune. Catholicism, for example, happened to spread through the world alongside European colonialism, especially by Spain. * Luck. There are an awful lot of dead religions that used to be pretty successful. There are probably others, but those are the most obvious ones.
- herbig 13y ago
  I don't think celibacy of priests is a good example of this. For one thing, it rarely actually happens, as priests routinely abdicate in order to marry or just father children out of wedlock. For another, if only priests are celibate but everyone else is forbidden from using birth control, numbers will always outweigh the cost of the celibate priests. Even suicide bombers can, through their zeal and dedication, inspire many others and bring groups and clans closer. Heaven's Gate though, you can't really argue a net positive for, since they're all gone. Certain religions are more successful than others for the same reason that other organisms are more successful: they adapt more quickly to their environment.
- yawboakye 13y ago
  I'm tempted to say nations and states that support homosexuality (which is by far the most colossal structural opposition to reproduction) have "a net negative on the individual level at least from an evolutionary standpoint." What do you think?
  - lutusp 13y ago
    The answer is that, in a world steered more by ideas than children (or more by memes than genes), one's sexual orientation is much less important, so accepting homosexuality doesn't reduce the true fitness of the species, which is a composite of ideas and genes. To those who doubt the significance of ideas compared to children, I ask if they can recall the names of Einstein's children. No?
    - msandford 13y ago
      I have no idea what his children are named. But does relativity make me (or the species) much fitter for survival? Not at this point I might argue. The biggest practical application of relativity at this point (that I'm aware of) seems to be GPS. One can argue about whether GPS makes us better or worse as a species but it's not a huge deal wrt evolution. If there's a better practical application of relativity I'd love to know. This is just what I was able to come up with off the top of my head. We're all intellectually indebted to Einstein for relativity.
      - lutusp 13y ago
        > I have no idea what his children are named. But does relativity make me (or the species) much fitter for survival? Einstein also contributed to quantum theory and a number of other physical fields. Does understanding reality have survival value? The computer you're sitting at requires an understanding of quantum theory. No understanding, no computer. > The biggest practical application of relativity at this point (that I'm aware of) seems to be GPS. No, relativity doesn't make GPS possible, science makes GPS possible. It happens that relativity theories must be taken into account for GPS to work as it should, but this doesn't mean GPS is about relativity. > One can argue about whether GPS makes us better or worse as a species but it's not a huge deal wrt evolution. Only if you discount the role of ideas in human survival. People have big brains to hold ideas, not sperm. Those ideas contribute to our fitness. They represent a factor in natural selection. We aren't the dominant species because of our big muscles -- many animals are stronger. We're the dominant species because of ideas. > If there's a better practical application of relativity I'd love to know. It helps us understand reality. It provides the theoretical basis for nuclear power. It's also the theoretical basis for fusion power, a future development. It helps us to understand the universe. But this isn't about relativity, it's about the role of ideas in evolution. That's not remotely controversial, because (1) we have big brains and (2) nature doesn't waste anything.