Login |
New User
Books
Read the 1st Chapter!
The Greatest Show On Earth: The Evidence For Evolution
The God Delusion
Over 1.5 million copies sold
The Oxford Book of Modern Science Writing
by Richard Dawkins
The Selfish Gene
by Richard Dawkins
The Blind Watchmaker
by Richard Dawkins
The Ancestor's Tale
by Richard Dawkins
Unweaving the Rainbow
by Richard Dawkins
Climbing Mount Improbable
by Richard Dawkins
Print
Opiate of the masses - and evolutionary aid
by The Star
Thanks to Gary Walsh for the link.
http://www.thestar.com/article/510711
Opiate of the masses - and evolutionary aid
Joseph Hall
Christian creationists have long railed against the theory of evolution. But you may not have heard anything yet.
A new Canadian paper in the journal Science suggests that Christianity itself may be a function of evolution.
In a review article that is sure to prove controversial, University of British Columbia researchers say that the world's great religions may have emerged as a codification of cultural traits that allowed people to be more successful breeders.
"We're setting aside the question of whether religions are true in a metaphysical sense," says Ara Norenzayan, a UBC psychologist and lead author of the paper. He and his team reviewed dozens of studies on the emergence of religions from disciplines as diverse as psychology, history, sociology, anthropology, economics and ethnography.
"We're trying to understand what religion is and explain it in terms of human nature and human culture."
The paper argues that social co-operation and altruism conferred an evolutionary advantage as populations grew larger, and that moralizing religions were key to creating large-scale cohesion.
The theory of evolution holds that all creatures are driven by a biological urge to pass on as many of their own genes as possible to the next generation.
This urge inevitably leads to competition to be the more successful breeder. Any mating advantage an individual possesses could itself be passed on to its offspring.
But biologists have wondered, in this breeding free-for-all, why altruism and co-operation exist, especially in the human setting.
Norenzayan says that familial co-operation is understandable because members of the same clans would posses many of the same genes.
"The idea here is that to the extent we are interacting with someone who is genetically related to us, we are going to be altruistic just because it will benefit our (shared) genes to help."
In smaller social groups, he continues, a sense of built-up trust between individuals would allow for longer survival — and better breeding opportunities — because an "I scratch your back, you scratch my back" existence can greatly ease life's burdens.
However, while the evolutionary advantages of living in large groups are obvious — large groups do better than small ones in the competition for resources — the mechanism for large-scale altruism and cohesion has been puzzling.
"There is a strong incentive for people ... to get the benefits of co-operation, but not return co-operation and do better than the co-operators," Norenzayan contends. "The best strategy is not to co-operate but pretend to co-operate."
And this is where religion comes in.
"One explanation for why religions have had such a staying power throughout human history and human societies," he says, "is that they play a role in promoting altruistic tendencies in very large groups.
"This is something that is very hard to get."
Thus religious thought, while cultural in origin, meshed ideally with the evolutionary imperative for group co-operation, Norenzayan says.
"Of course it's not a genetic process; it's a cultural process," he says. "But it's feeding back into our evolutionary adaptation and then making possible co-operative tendencies in larger and larger groups."
It's likely no coincidence, Norenzayan says, that all the world's great religions emerged as human populations were exploding.
And common among all of these creeds are messages of altruism, selflessness, compassion and co-operation.
University of Toronto psychologist Jordan Peterson says the review is a quality piece of work that makes a good case for setting religion squarely in the context of human evolution and biology.
Indeed, he adds, its findings should almost be obvious, given the acceptance of other universal human traits, such as cognition and language, as being evolutionary in origin.
"Religion is a human universal," says Peterson, an expert in the biological basis of religious thought. "And the probability that a human universal didn't evolve? I think you have to assume that it evolved and prove the opposite. That isn't normally what happens when people are discussing religion."
Peterson says the paper's linkage of growing group size and the emergence of moralizing deities is an important new concept in the field.
Norenzayan cautions, however, that the demise of religion in many Western countries does not augur a collapse in social cohesion.
He suggests that other, secular mechanisms such as enlightenment-influenced laws, courts and effective policing can serve in place of severed religious regulations.
"There are other ways to be less selfish, more co-operative; you don't have to necessarily have religion to solve that problem."
http://www.thestar.com/article/510711
Opiate of the masses - and evolutionary aid
Joseph Hall
Christian creationists have long railed against the theory of evolution. But you may not have heard anything yet.
A new Canadian paper in the journal Science suggests that Christianity itself may be a function of evolution.
In a review article that is sure to prove controversial, University of British Columbia researchers say that the world's great religions may have emerged as a codification of cultural traits that allowed people to be more successful breeders.
"We're setting aside the question of whether religions are true in a metaphysical sense," says Ara Norenzayan, a UBC psychologist and lead author of the paper. He and his team reviewed dozens of studies on the emergence of religions from disciplines as diverse as psychology, history, sociology, anthropology, economics and ethnography.
"We're trying to understand what religion is and explain it in terms of human nature and human culture."
The paper argues that social co-operation and altruism conferred an evolutionary advantage as populations grew larger, and that moralizing religions were key to creating large-scale cohesion.
The theory of evolution holds that all creatures are driven by a biological urge to pass on as many of their own genes as possible to the next generation.
This urge inevitably leads to competition to be the more successful breeder. Any mating advantage an individual possesses could itself be passed on to its offspring.
But biologists have wondered, in this breeding free-for-all, why altruism and co-operation exist, especially in the human setting.
Norenzayan says that familial co-operation is understandable because members of the same clans would posses many of the same genes.
"The idea here is that to the extent we are interacting with someone who is genetically related to us, we are going to be altruistic just because it will benefit our (shared) genes to help."
In smaller social groups, he continues, a sense of built-up trust between individuals would allow for longer survival — and better breeding opportunities — because an "I scratch your back, you scratch my back" existence can greatly ease life's burdens.
However, while the evolutionary advantages of living in large groups are obvious — large groups do better than small ones in the competition for resources — the mechanism for large-scale altruism and cohesion has been puzzling.
"There is a strong incentive for people ... to get the benefits of co-operation, but not return co-operation and do better than the co-operators," Norenzayan contends. "The best strategy is not to co-operate but pretend to co-operate."
And this is where religion comes in.
"One explanation for why religions have had such a staying power throughout human history and human societies," he says, "is that they play a role in promoting altruistic tendencies in very large groups.
"This is something that is very hard to get."
Thus religious thought, while cultural in origin, meshed ideally with the evolutionary imperative for group co-operation, Norenzayan says.
"Of course it's not a genetic process; it's a cultural process," he says. "But it's feeding back into our evolutionary adaptation and then making possible co-operative tendencies in larger and larger groups."
It's likely no coincidence, Norenzayan says, that all the world's great religions emerged as human populations were exploding.
And common among all of these creeds are messages of altruism, selflessness, compassion and co-operation.
University of Toronto psychologist Jordan Peterson says the review is a quality piece of work that makes a good case for setting religion squarely in the context of human evolution and biology.
Indeed, he adds, its findings should almost be obvious, given the acceptance of other universal human traits, such as cognition and language, as being evolutionary in origin.
"Religion is a human universal," says Peterson, an expert in the biological basis of religious thought. "And the probability that a human universal didn't evolve? I think you have to assume that it evolved and prove the opposite. That isn't normally what happens when people are discussing religion."
Peterson says the paper's linkage of growing group size and the emergence of moralizing deities is an important new concept in the field.
Norenzayan cautions, however, that the demise of religion in many Western countries does not augur a collapse in social cohesion.
He suggests that other, secular mechanisms such as enlightenment-influenced laws, courts and effective policing can serve in place of severed religious regulations.
"There are other ways to be less selfish, more co-operative; you don't have to necessarily have religion to solve that problem."
Comments 1 - 50 of 52 |
Reload Comments | Back to Top | Page Numbers2. Comment #260092 by Layla Nasreddin on October 4, 2008 at 3:49 pm
Wow, I want to read that paper! Sounds ver interesting.
Edit: Here's the paper in Science; alas, you need a subscription to read the whole thing (and check its methodology).
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/short/322/5898/58
Other Comments by Layla Nasreddin
3. Comment #260093 by Caudimordax on October 4, 2008 at 3:49 pm
I think I've read about this theory before. But just because we evolved into religion still doesn't mean it's some sort of ideal to be accepted or maintained. After all, we also evolved with the optic nerve being smack dab in the middle of the retina - not ideal.
Edit:
And common among all of these creeds are messages of altruism, selflessness, compassion and co-operation.
Also common: "Kill the outsiders."
Other Comments by Caudimordax
4. Comment #260094 by JAMCAM87 on October 4, 2008 at 3:51 pm
Paula,
I thought that religion need not be linked to the success of genes but instead abides by the laws of memetics.
Genes are selected in the gene pool, memes in the meme pool (human brains).
Should the focus of the research not be devoted to memetic mechanisms in order to explain religion as a natural phenomenon?
Other Comments by JAMCAM87
5. Comment #260098 by Paula Kirby on October 4, 2008 at 4:06 pm
JAMCAM87: Should the focus of the research not be devoted to memetic mechanisms in order to explain religion as a natural phenomenon?Well, that would make sense to me, Jamcam. On the surface of it, I find Daniel Dennett's approach (in Breaking the Spell: Religion as Natural Phenomenon) more convincing, but perhaps I'm being unfair, since I'm comparing a short article with a whole book.
Other Comments by Paula Kirby
6. Comment #260100 by j.mills on October 4, 2008 at 4:09 pm
It's not obvious that religion is old enough to have a genetic basis. A Dennett-ish notion that it exploits existing tendencies with the effect of promoting itself seems more likely to me. Dennett emphasises that we should see the 'religion' meme as acting in its OWN interest, not that of its host individual, much less the host group or species.This article assumes religion is a net benefit (else it wouldn't be selected), which is also not obvious. Whether an idea spreads is dependent on its 'spreadability', of which 'usefulness' is only one component.
Other Comments by j.mills
7. Comment #260101 by Caudimordax on October 4, 2008 at 4:10 pm
There was an article in the NY Times March 4, 2007 about Scott Atran's theories about the evolution of religion titled "Darwin's God":
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/04/magazine/04evolution.t.html
Atran wrote in "In Gods We Trust: The Evolutionary Landscape of Religion" in 2002.
I don't have time to re-read the entire article just now, but I remember it raised some interesting questions.
Other Comments by Caudimordax
8. Comment #260103 by JAMCAM87 on October 4, 2008 at 4:15 pm
Paula,
I could quite easily believe that in the past there was a complex interplay between the ehanced survival of religiously minded people (as well as their tendency to produce more offspring) and the memetic elements. But I think that the memetic elements would trump the genetic elements due to their inherent "rates" Genetic based evolution takes much longer than cultural evolution.
What scientists really need to do is start testing Richard's meme hypotheses because, should his hypotheses be correct, it would be biggest blow to religion since Darwin proposed his theory.
Other Comments by JAMCAM87
9. Comment #260107 by JAMCAM87 on October 4, 2008 at 4:24 pm
Comment No.1
"If our best survival strategy is simply to pretend to co-operate, rather than actually to do so, why should we have created and then embraced religions that required us to "walk the talk"?"
Because the memes replicate at expense of their host, might be a possible answer? Why evolve genuine co-operation when co-operation via religion is a much more infectious meme?
I'm not sure about the answer to your second question though.
Other Comments by JAMCAM87
10. Comment #260110 by Hellene on October 4, 2008 at 4:35 pm
I still hold Prof. Dawkins "Nice guys finish first" in high regards concerning these matters. If my memory holds true it's;1) Suckers
2) Cheats
3) Grudgers
4) Tit for Tat
So religion falls under cheats perhaps?
Other Comments by Hellene
11. Comment #260112 by Layla Nasreddin on October 4, 2008 at 4:39 pm
JAMCAM87 wrote:
What scientists really need to do is start testing Richard's meme hypotheses because, should his hypotheses be correct, it would be biggest blow to religion since Darwin proposed his theory.
1. How on earth would you even start trying to "test" memes? They don't have a "code script," something that actually can be observed to do the replicating (like DNA for genes), at least that we know of (yet). How would one construct an actual test or study of memes? I mean, I find it very interesting, but it's the "prove to me that memes actually exist as discrete entities" bit that's got me. *puzzled*
2. I hope "destroying religion" would not be the main or primary reason to be interested in such research -- ideological reasons are certainly not the best reasons to follow a line of research! You should study memes because you think memetics is interesting, not to "kill off religion" (even if it may have such an effect)! :-P
Other Comments by Layla Nasreddin
12. Comment #260115 by Bullet-Magnet on October 4, 2008 at 4:46 pm
Isn't research like this one of the goals of the RDFRS? Other Comments by Bullet-Magnet
13. Comment #260116 by br0k3nglass on October 4, 2008 at 4:49 pm
If you want to read through the paper, I've uploaded a full copy to my google pages site:http://tinyurl.com/42dpuf
Other Comments by br0k3nglass
14. Comment #260118 by Corylus on October 4, 2008 at 4:54 pm
Thank you br0k3nglass. Other Comments by Corylus
15. Comment #260122 by qomak on October 4, 2008 at 5:06 pm
j.mills:It's not obvious that religion is old enough to have a genetic basis.
I'm not a biologist but doesn't existence of ceremonially buried Cro-Magnon's imply the "goofy" beliefs are actually very old?
I think what you dispute is the large-scale effect of religion. I don't think large-scale human societies are old enough to have left a biological imprint.
Other Comments by qomak
16. Comment #260136 by JeremyH on October 4, 2008 at 5:48 pm
Paula Kirby wrote:
If our best survival strategy is simply to pretend to co-operate, rather than actually to do so, why should we have created and then embraced religions that required us to "walk the talk"?
What I got from the article is that the creators of religion are able to make people be altruistic while they themselves simply reap the rewards.
"Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful."
Other Comments by JeremyH
17. Comment #260145 by InfuriatedSciTeacher on October 4, 2008 at 6:23 pm
JeremyH> Reading the actual article (thanks brokenglass), the authors' implication is that the large-scale effect of religion is due to the influence of egoistic factors, i.e. that large societies bound by religion succeed more because of it, but due rather to the desire for positive social image rather than purely altruistic reasons. Any apparent altruism is for selfish reasons, and therefore would have to apply to the founders as well (note apparent).Other Comments by InfuriatedSciTeacher
18. Comment #260148 by Layla Nasreddin on October 4, 2008 at 6:35 pm
Thank you br0k3nglass.
Well, I read it, and it seems to confirm some of what I've always thought. Religion is very much a group phenomenon, it is useful in determining who to trust within the group and who to be altruistic to, and is often paired with outgroup antagonism. The more "costly" belonging to the religion is, in terms of rules, dress, food taboos, etc., the greater the chance that adherents will trust others in the group and "stick to" the religion (since they have so much invested). Many religions lean heavily on the idea of a cosmic deity watching you in order to increase altruistic behavior and reduce cheating and freeloading. This is especially emphasized in locations where conditions are severe and where cheating and freeloading are especially hazardous to the group's survival. The example given was "societies with high water scarcity" -- just like where the Abrahamic religions got their start, perhaps?
Also, for all the highfalutin' talk of how it's "nobler" to do altruistic things because they're good, not because you're being watched...well, all that is nice in theory, but in real life humans (even secular ones) seem to need some sort of Cosmic Eye in the Sky. In the case of the secular people, instead of provoking thoughts of a deity watching to prevent cheating, they provoked thoughts of what was called "secular moral authority" which had the same effect...but in both cases there was the undercurrent of "somebody's watching and you might be found out!"
(I should mention that Scott Atran was thanked in the acknowledgements...he got into a tussle with Dawkins at Beyond Belief over the "utility" of religion.)
Other Comments by Layla Nasreddin
19. Comment #260150 by Nails on October 4, 2008 at 6:46 pm
Religion has prospered because it fosters ignorance and creates a framework for social control.
Hence the 'ruling class' have always been able to 'put the fear of god' into the little people and keep them in check.
Unfortunately in some parts of the civilised world, this still happens.
15. Comment #260122 by qomak on October 4, 2008 at 5:06 pm
I'm not a biologist but doesn't existence of ceremonially buried Cro-Magnon's imply the "goofy" beliefs are actually very old?
Either that or they clicked on to the fact that scavengers will eat their dead or dying relatives. Which, except for the mother-in-law, might not be a nice sight.
Then sprinkle a few flowers on the grave to hide the smell - from them and you.
Also, if these burial grounds where near a settlement, it might help to keep the foxes and wolves away.
* note - I do appreciate that many ancient burial sites have been far away from any known settlements, so maybe some 'goofy' ideas about spirits have been around a very long time or scavengers were attracted to the inhabited areas, possibly for available food etc.*
Other Comments by Nails
20. Comment #260151 by iType on October 4, 2008 at 6:52 pm
iThink the truth about religion will be borne out of current advances in neuroscience. Although, iBelieve this type of public discussion is great because it is finally moving us away from the pointless debate about whether religion in general is actually true or not.Other Comments by iType
21. Comment #260152 by ImagineAZ on October 4, 2008 at 6:59 pm
Another theory: it was all about power.Imagine the power you'd have if you were the one person who knew why it rained. Imagine the power you'd have if you were the one person in direct contact with the creator of the world.
Tribes need leadership. Before democracy, arresting control of a tribe likely meant fighting for it, dominating the other males in the tribe.
UNTIL someone had the bright idea to say [Tommy Flanagan voice] "Uhhh...I just spoke to the creator of the world! And he uhhh....he wants you all to do whatever I say, yeah. And he...wants...you to bring him food as a sacrifice...and he...wants...ME to eat the food. Yeah, that's the ticket. And if you DON'T do exactly what he says, he'll kill you all!!!"
At that point, human tribes had the first incontestable leader and the first noble blood line, which means they had consistency, which aided survival of the species.
It's the same today. Christianity doesn't benefit most believers directly; it benefits the religious leaders, who are directly descended (methodologically) from the Levite priests who wrote most of the crap in the first place. But instead of bringing the priests unblemished cows and cakes, believers bring them cash.
Other Comments by ImagineAZ
22. Comment #260162 by Mayhemm on October 4, 2008 at 7:49 pm
I'm open to the idea that religion may have provided some benefit at the dawn of society when humanity knew nothing of the world around them. I won't go so far as to say an evolutionary benefit though, because I doubt we would have died out in its absence. We may not have proliferated so quickly though.However, the primitive religions I speak of would most certainly bear no resemblance to the wignut religions popular today.
While religion may have served a purpose in times of ignorance, there really is no excuse for its continued perpetuation in the 21st century when we are answering its questions through scientific discovery.
Other Comments by Mayhemm
23. Comment #260165 by Diacanu on October 4, 2008 at 7:54 pm
"We're setting aside the question of whether religions are true in a metaphysical sense,"
Fuckin' pussies.
Other Comments by Diacanu
24. Comment #260166 by Enlightenme.. on October 4, 2008 at 7:55 pm
Nah,The witchdoctor caste is separate from the leader, they use brains rather than brawn to anoint the king with divine right, for their privelages, in return for keeping young guns in check with the power to put a curse on them.
They are proto-politicians.
Other Comments by Enlightenme..
25. Comment #260167 by TalkyMeat on October 4, 2008 at 7:56 pm
Personally, I don't think there's necessarily any contradiction between Dennett's "viral" theory of the origin of religion and Norenzayan & Shariff's "prosocial" theory - a competition for explanatory weight, perhaps, but there's no reason to suppose that different selection pressures aimed at different levels might pull in the same direction. I'm not sure about the "it's all about the power" hypothesis, though - it might explain why someone would try to propagate a religious belief, but I'm not sure it could explain why anyone would actually listen, or why so many people would listen, in order to bring about such a thing as mass religion. However, it's certainly true that the use of religion by the powerful is a major factor in its (cultural) evolution.This is something I would love to see investigated by means of multi-agent computational simulation. Any takers?
Other Comments by TalkyMeat
26. Comment #260184 by Layla Nasreddin on October 4, 2008 at 8:29 pm
One more thought: One thing I don't particularly like about these papers/studies on religion is that they often seem to depend on the same five experiments/studies (not five, literally, but a small number). I'd already heard of the "Good Samaritan" experiment maybe twice before, and also the "religious vs. secular kibbutzim" one (both mentioned). A lot of the research on religion is gleaned from self-reporting on surveys (as the paper writers mentioned regarding those studies correlating generosity and religiousness), and one can only speculate on the reliability of those! I'm not totally sure how secure one can be in one's conclusions when there is such a small pool of experimental results. I think there needs to be a LOT more research before anything definitive can be said. Then again, the subject doesn't really seem to lend itself to hard-and-fast, easily quantifiable, repeatable findings. Other Comments by Layla Nasreddin
27. Comment #260221 by dsainty on October 4, 2008 at 11:48 pm
I wonder where they've observed all this large-scale altruism they're trying to explain.Other Comments by dsainty
28. Comment #260230 by Shaka on October 5, 2008 at 12:09 am
Religion could very well be a product of evolution. But now we've gone past that, and it is no longer needed. Other Comments by Shaka
29. Comment #260233 by Diacanu on October 5, 2008 at 12:15 am
Shaka-Yep, to steal a metaphor from Dawk, time to put a condom on that particular nozzle.
Other Comments by Diacanu
30. Comment #260238 by capsomere on October 5, 2008 at 12:41 am
Here is a link to download the full text in pdf form if anyone's interested:http://www.megaupload.com/?d=SV41KYD0
Just type in the download code that the page generates next to the text input field. If there are any problems with the link, feel free to PM me.
Other Comments by capsomere
31. Comment #260239 by bucketchemist on October 5, 2008 at 12:47 am
When the authors set aside the question of whether religion is 'true in a metaphysical sense' I think they are deflecting criticism wisely. A lot seems to hinge on whether the stories of the bible etc are 'true', not only for the faithful but also the faithless like ourselves, and this is a mistake in my opinion. Religions may provide guiding narratives or templates for the organisation of the cosmos which, whilst not true in the scientific sense, have explanatory power that works at human scale. Arguing for the literal truth of these kind of stories misses the point, in my opinion. This kind of research, as well as Atran's, Dennett's, Newberg & D'Aquili's etc, places no emphasis on the truth of these phenomena but on their utility, asking what the function of religion has been (and possibly continues to be) for individuals and for groups. I would concur that most of the social functions of religion are now better served by the mechanisms of the state, (and to that extent have no business intruding into politics), but it may be that there are other functions which religion does better. The true=right, fictional=wrong thing doesn't really capture these processes, and the fact that both the religious and the non-religious alike (at least in the US and Europe) undervalue the utility of fiction adds to the confusion. It results in theists making ridiculous claims about the physical world which are easily refuted (young Earth, virgin birth, transubstantiation)because they think that only material facts have any value. It also results in atheists disparaging theists for believing in fairy stories, as if the narratives which organise the psyche of millions of individuals was on a par with a Harry Potter novel. Other Comments by bucketchemist
32. Comment #260265 by JAMCAM87 on October 5, 2008 at 3:40 am
bucketchemist
"as if the narratives which organise the psyche of millions of individuals was on a par with a Harry Potter novel."
do you honesty think it would not be possible to have a religion formed around harry potter? If you can believe Jesus was magic then you can believe anything. The only thing that distinguishes the bible from Lord of the Rings is that millions of people believe it is true.
Other Comments by JAMCAM87
33. Comment #260274 by Christopher Davis on October 5, 2008 at 4:18 am
"why should we have created and then embraced religions that required us to "walk the talk"?"---Paula Kirby, comment #1
You don't spend much time around Baptists do you Paula? :)
I think you are right regarding this article having it backwards...I also believe that the origins of altruism predate the origins of religion.
I think Religion came along later as a way of helping certain groups of altruists justify the rape, plunder, murder and mayhem that they routinely committed against neighboring groups of altruists.
Other Comments by Christopher Davis
34. Comment #260278 by AfraidToDie on October 5, 2008 at 5:03 am
21. Comment #260152 by ImagineAZ Another theory: it was all about power.
I believe this posts "nails it"! I believe religion evolved because it gave an otherwise weak tribal member a share of the power he might not gain otherwise. The "medicine man", the tribesman who could somehow communicate with the supernatural, could gain some power within the tribe that they could not gain from strength alone. They tailored it into a cooperative sharing of power with the chieftains, and over the centuries this ability to connive and perpetuate lies has evolved into the current power sharing religions of today.
Other Comments by AfraidToDie
35. Comment #260282 by jeepyjay on October 5, 2008 at 5:34 am
There are at least two points here that seem to me to be highly questionable.
University of British Columbia researchers say that the world's great religions may have emerged as a codification of cultural traits that allowed people to be more successful breeders.
If that is so why are religious people so down on everything to do with sex? I'm sure the sexual instinct is quite sufficient to achieve population growth without priestly interference. Pagan revels in the woods would surely be just as effective!
"Religion is a human universal," says Peterson, an expert in the biological basis of religious thought. "And the probability that a human universal didn't evolve? I think you have to assume that it evolved and prove the opposite. That isn't normally what happens when people are discussing religion."
Where is the proof that religion is a "human universal"? I've never been religious, despite vigorous attempts to make me so. Atheistic beliefs have been about for as long as theistic (e.g. the Carvarkar in India).
Other Comments by jeepyjay
36. Comment #260283 by Unprospero on October 5, 2008 at 5:39 am
"as if the narratives which organise the psyche of millions of individuals was on a par with a Harry Potter novel"Harry Potter IS real- It clearly says so in the 7 Holy books, as dictated to the prophet Rowling, by the archangel Dumbledore. We are told, are we not, of the terrible struggle that our LORD Harry Potter underwent against the evil one, of his doubts and travails, and of the support and loyalty of his disciples the saints Ron and Hermione. And, most blessed to recall, we are clearly told in the 7th and final Holy Book, that our LORD, Harry Potter, died and ROSE again from the dead!!! As the good book says, "The scar had not pained Harry for 19 years. All was well"
Archcardinal Unprospero, Hierophant of the Church of Harry
Other Comments by Unprospero
37. Comment #260285 by bucketchemist on October 5, 2008 at 6:00 am
jamcam87I don't doubt that Harry Potter could figure within a religion, but it certainly doesn't right now. In fact, I would say that we can make theistic jokes about Harry Potter (as unprospero does) because we recognise that it is similar to holy texts, and it is this apparent similarity which drives the story (similarly the 'Dark Materials' stuff). Harry Potter works as fiction because, I would say, it leans on a tradition of scriptural writing and mythology. The comparison you make between the bible and Lord of the Rings; that the only difference is that millions believe the first to be true; is the key point, although I would say that the word 'true' needs more careful consideration. I would argue that stories don't need to be true to be important or to act as foundational in peoples lives. To that extent, whether jesus really existed or could perform magic tricks is irrelevant.
Other Comments by bucketchemist
38. Comment #260290 by bucketchemist on October 5, 2008 at 6:35 am
jeepyjayThe idea that religion is a human universal is argued in Donald Brown's book 'Human Universals', and also referred to in Pinker's 'The Blank Slate'. It doesn't mean that all members of a society have to subscribe to a particular belief or engage in a particular behaviour, only that these phenomena exist within all societies taken as a whole. Brown's book contains a list of around 300 such universals, also cited in Pinker, and available at http://condor.depaul.edu/~mfiddler/hyphen/humunivers.htm
edit - The universality of these phenomena is usually ascribed to their having a common evolutionary origin or satisfying a universal adaptive need.
Other Comments by bucketchemist
39. Comment #260294 by aquilacane on October 5, 2008 at 6:55 am
"The theory of evolution holds that all creatures are driven by a biological urge to pass on as many of their own genes as possible to the next generation"I don't like this language. It's like saying a child sliding down a slide is driven by a physical urge to arrive at the bottom. Inevitability is not the result of a drive, it is a byproduct chance.
Other Comments by aquilacane
40. Comment #260297 by icanus on October 5, 2008 at 7:06 am
do you honesty think it would not be possible to have a religion formed around harry potter? If you can believe Jesus was magic then you can believe anything. The only thing that distinguishes the bible from Lord of the Rings is that millions of people believe it is true.
You haven't frequented the Tolkien newsgroups, have you? The mental gymnastics that go on there to explain away minor plot inconsistencies only fall slightly short of full blown theological debate (which I suppose is fitting, as Tolkien consciously set out to write a mythology rather than just a plain novel)
Other Comments by icanus
41. Comment #260330 by JAMCAM87 on October 5, 2008 at 9:35 am
bucketchemist
All I am saying is that I could quite easily concieve of another crazy story which, if millions of people believed it, would be socially acceptable. Scientology, having arisen 2000 years ago could be the norm in the civilised world today. There is nothing inherently special about one myth or another. That is why I disagree with your statement about religion not being on a par with a Harry Potter novel. Given a different set of historical events I may well be praying to the archangel Dumbledore like UNPROSPERO put so poetically.
Other Comments by JAMCAM87
42. Comment #260332 by JAMCAM87 on October 5, 2008 at 9:38 am
You haven't frequented the Tolkien newsgroups, have you? The mental gymnastics that go on there to explain away minor plot inconsistencies only fall slightly short of full blown theological debate (which I suppose is fitting, as Tolkien consciously set out to write a mythology rather than just a plain novel)
Actually I used to be a LOTR anorak and know all the ins-and-outs myself. These weirdo's, like myself, may well argue about the intricacies of LOTR but I think the majority of them know it's just a story.
Other Comments by JAMCAM87
43. Comment #260333 by JAMCAM87 on October 5, 2008 at 9:48 am
Comment #260112 by Layla Nasreddin
1. How on earth would you even start trying to "test" memes? They don't have a "code script," something that actually can be observed to do the replicating (like DNA for genes), at least that we know of (yet). How would one construct an actual test or study of memes? I mean, I find it very interesting, but it's the "prove to me that memes actually exist as discrete entities" bit that's got me. *puzzled*
2. I hope "destroying religion" would not be the main or primary reason to be interested in such research -- ideological reasons are certainly not the best reasons to follow a line of research! You should study memes because you think memetics is interesting, not to "kill off religion" (even if it may have such an effect)! :-P
1) Computer simulations of memetic mechanisms can be run. Never say that science cannot tackle a problem. Memetics and psychology may well be complicated but that's no reason for not trying.
2) I totally agree that research should not be driven by ideology. However, I would find great personal satisfaction in there being some unification of the social sciences with Darwinism. It's incredible how annoyed students of economics, languages, history or anthropology get when you tell them that their subjects are not outwith the reach of scientific understanding. Memetics seems the best hope I have of saying "I told you so" to all those annoying arts/philosophy students.
Other Comments by JAMCAM87
44. Comment #260354 by Layla Nasreddin on October 5, 2008 at 11:23 am
JAMCAM87 wrote:
1) Computer simulations of memetic mechanisms can be run. Never say that science cannot tackle a problem. Memetics and psychology may well be complicated but that's no reason for not trying.
Well, some neuroscientists and neuropsychologists are quite dismissive of memetics, calling the whole concept "not scientific," totally lacking in empirical evidence, and things like that. Scott Atran (mentioned above as one of Dawkins's nemeses) is particularly dismissive of the concept (as in this Edge piece, under "The trouble with memes" -- scroll down a ways). He says, "There is little theoretical analysis or experimental study of memes, though this isn't surprising because there is no consensual -- or even coherent -- notion of what a meme is or could be." He cites an experiment where, for example, pieces of information such as proverbs and religious commandments were NOT transmitted with high fidelity but ended up transformed and often garbled. (I have no idea of the validity of this research or whether Atran is completely full of it; I'm just repeating what Atran said -- probably in a garbled fashion, too! -- because I think it's always good to have another perspective.) I also have no idea how one would, in fact, set up an experiment to demonstrate the existence of memes as discrete entities or to show their actual effects on human brains, and I haven't heard of any hard facts one way or the other. It is an interesting framework for thinking about ideas, though, even if there is as yet no empirical evidence.
Other Comments by Layla Nasreddin
45. Comment #260361 by JAMCAM87 on October 5, 2008 at 11:40 am
Layla,
I am not saying that memetics is the only way of understanding the science behind cultural transmission.
However, you don't deny that cultural phenomena are natural?
My logic is as follows
1)Culture belongs to the same system that we belong to.
")Therefore it can be studied by science.
We just haven't got the means to tackle the hypothesis yet. It's only a matter of time. It's fine to say "I don't see how memes can be proven to be discrete units" but that doesn't get us anywhere. Science will gradually feel it's way towards the answer whether or not Richards' theory turns out to be correct.
:)
Other Comments by JAMCAM87
46. Comment #260366 by Layla Nasreddin on October 5, 2008 at 11:56 am
JAMCAM87 wrote:
I am not saying that memetics is the only way of understanding the science behind cultural transmission.
However, you don't deny that cultural phenomena are natural?
No, I'm not saying anything -- I don't know enough about it to say one way or the other, or to even have any kind of an opinion on the subject. I'm just noting the existence of what somebody else has said on the subject. (I know, this makes me infuriatingly hard to pin down, but when even I don't know what I think, I don't know where to be pinned down!) It may turn out that memetics is true and empirically testable; it might be false and a dead-end. I just don't think the evidence exists yet to determine either way.
Other Comments by Layla Nasreddin
47. Comment #260375 by JAMCAM87 on October 5, 2008 at 12:14 pm
Cool, I agree. Other Comments by JAMCAM87
48. Comment #260378 by j.mills on October 5, 2008 at 12:19 pm
BucketChemist said: The comparison you make between the bible and Lord of the Rings; that the only difference is that millions believe the first to be true; is the key point, although I would say that the word 'true' needs more careful consideration. I would argue that stories don't need to be true to be important or to act as foundational in peoples lives.
Theists generally do not see their religious frameworks as (to nick a phrase from Ursula Le Guin) "a working metaphor". Religion may help them structure their life-narratives, but always contingent upon them clinging on to their faith in the teeth of reason. Few theists would be happy to receive our 'permission' to persist in what we regard as their comfortable delusion, because it makes for a quiet life!
Other Comments by j.mills
49. Comment #260383 by Simonw on October 5, 2008 at 12:30 pm
> I wonder where they've observed all this large-scale altruism they're trying to explain.Gaza
Other Comments by Simonw
50. Comment #260394 by Swordmaiden on October 5, 2008 at 12:53 pm
This article has highlighted something that has bothered me for a while...that religious people are not altruistic by default, far from it. The last 2 years volunteering in the African bush, a lone atheist among many white missionaries, I found they were there doing "God's work" not out of the goodness of their hearts but to earn brownie points for themselves and avoid the fiery place, (and getting paid by their church, while I did it for free), which was more altruistic? They seemed to be motivated by fear and reward than by a desire to just help people as I was.
Over the centuries, entrepeneurs have seen it as a nice little earner and have been exploiting that fear/reward system ever since, none more so that now.
Also, re LOTR, I feel this book has more to offer children by way of inspiration than anyone could claim the Bible could. It is classic good overcoming evil through courage and compassion, the meek, (hobbits)shall inherit the world, (Middle Earth). Kids have the sense to know it is an analogy as opposed to the religious who would take it as gospel, regard Gollum as a Judas figure and would , by now, be wearing little men with huge feet on chains round their necks!
Other Comments by Swordmaiden
Comment Entry: Please Login
Register a new account
Upcoming Events:
DVDs
'The Genius of Charles Darwin: The Uncut Interviews' DVD
'The Genius of Charles Darwin' DVD
'The Enemies of Reason: The Uncut Interviews' DVD
'Richard Dawkins: Appearances & Events 2007-2008' DVD
'Enemies of Reason' DVD
'Root of All Evil?' DVD
'Root of All Evil? The Uncut Interviews' DVD
'Growing Up in the Universe' DVD
'Voices of Science' DVD
'The Four Horsemen' DVD
'Break the Science Barrier' DVD
1. Comment #260089 by Paula Kirby on October 4, 2008 at 3:45 pm
My reading of the article suggests that large-scale altruism would not have emerged without the promptings of religion; but that is circular, for surely a sense of genuine altruism would already have had to be there in order for the altruism-promoting religions to have been created, and to have found a hold, in the first place?
Other Comments by Paula Kirby