Is religion part of evolution?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
06-10-2013, 07:01 PM
RE: Is religion part of evolution?
(06-10-2013 06:07 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(06-10-2013 06:04 PM)I and I Wrote:  Religions make wrong conclusions about observances of hard evidence. Religion was actually the first form of science, in fact most cultures until relatively recently did not separate religion from science, the advances in astronomy are a good example of that.

No, it was never science. IT was mankind's first attempt at explanation; it was philosophy.

Quote:Knowledge and historical memory of knowledge make up what someone in present day will choose to believe whether it's religion or science. Christians today choose not to believe in zeus like people today choose to not believe in some of the early sciences.

If religion was part of evolution was it a necessary part?

It has been part of the evolution of culture.

According to ancient cultures things like astronomy were not considered separate from religion. Observing things and coming up with the best possible (at that time) conclusion is science, laughable and idiotic science and religion yes.

Others are saying that belief in things like religion is part of the biological evolution of the brain. Do you disagree?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-10-2013, 07:06 PM
RE: Is religion part of evolution?
(06-10-2013 07:01 PM)I and I Wrote:  
(06-10-2013 06:07 PM)Chas Wrote:  No, it was never science. IT was mankind's first attempt at explanation; it was philosophy.


It has been part of the evolution of culture.

According to ancient cultures things like astronomy were not considered separate from religion. Observing things and coming up with the best possible (at that time) conclusion is science, laughable and idiotic science and religion yes.

Others are saying that belief in things like religion is part of the biological evolution of the brain. Do you disagree?

Yes, I disagree. I know of no one who says that religion was part of the evolution of the brain.

Perhaps you misunderstand that what evolutionary biologists and psychologists are saying is that the propensity for religion is a mis-firing of evolved properties of the brain.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-10-2013, 01:08 AM
RE: Is religion part of evolution?
(06-10-2013 08:51 AM)I and I Wrote:  At one point when our brains were developing our brains formed the ideas that one would call the mind. This "mind" went on to question events and things around them. The questioning and answers provided by early humans were not separated into concepts like religion, science, philosophy in early human history. Is religion a part of the development of the brain/mind?

If you assume that religion is just an idea, then religion is subject to memetic evolution. It is just an idea that is memetically evolving.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-10-2013, 06:58 AM
RE: Is religion part of evolution?
(06-10-2013 07:06 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(06-10-2013 07:01 PM)I and I Wrote:  According to ancient cultures things like astronomy were not considered separate from religion. Observing things and coming up with the best possible (at that time) conclusion is science, laughable and idiotic science and religion yes.

Others are saying that belief in things like religion is part of the biological evolution of the brain. Do you disagree?

Yes, I disagree. I know of no one who says that religion was part of the evolution of the brain.

Perhaps you misunderstand that what evolutionary biologists and psychologists are saying is that the propensity for religion is a mis-firing of evolved properties of the brain.

You don't believe that the evolution of our brains allowed us the way to make up stories like religious ones? You are disagreeing with Kim, she will send you to reeducation camp if you disagree with the Kim.

Where do you suppose religions came from?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-10-2013, 11:14 AM
RE: Is religion part of evolution?
(06-10-2013 06:04 PM)I and I Wrote:  Religions make wrong conclusions about observances of hard evidence. Religion was actually the first form of science, in fact most cultures until relatively recently did not separate religion from science, the advances in astronomy are a good example of that.

Knowledge and historical memory of knowledge make up what someone in present day will choose to believe whether it's religion or science. Christians today choose not to believe in zeus like people today choose to not believe in some of the early sciences.

If religion was part of evolution was it a necessary part?

That hurt deep. Religion was the first form of science?

Science is investigating questions, taking problems apart, keeping an open mind for multiple possible explanations, compiling evidence, postulating a theory or a model and then testing it.

Religion on the other hand... is to say "that's the way it is, because it was created like that, just for us"


I think people are prone to superstitious belief and religion is part of that. Dawkins talked about how superstition can be engraved into doves in one of his interviews, which was very funny. Doves were kept in cages and rewarded with food at random. Because the doves couldnt make sense of what happened for them to be rewarded, they assumed that their last action was the cause. Over the course of the experiment, some doves ended up pruning themselves all the time, whereas others were wiping their head on the floor or facing in one corner of the cage. It must have been similar with the early human being.

Now, the cause for religion is simply indoctrination by society.

Fun "paradox": The higher the selection pressure, the slower evolution takes place.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-10-2013, 12:29 PM
RE: Is religion part of evolution?
[Image: 1B5whKY.jpeg]

Theism is to believe what other people claim, Atheism is to ask "why should I".
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes sporehux's post
26-10-2013, 12:38 PM
RE: Is religion part of evolution?
Hilarious xD

Fun "paradox": The higher the selection pressure, the slower evolution takes place.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-10-2013, 12:46 PM
RE: Is religion part of evolution?
...and it is the source of the vast majority of life/energy on the planet. How did we get away from that which almost makes sense and wind up with the Hebrew god?

Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-10-2013, 01:07 PM
RE: Is religion part of evolution?
(26-10-2013 12:46 PM)ridethespiral Wrote:  ...and it is the source of the vast majority of life/energy on the planet. How did we get away from that which almost makes sense and wind up with the Hebrew god?

Because everyone can see the Sun and commune with it no Priest required. We can't have that. No

(31-07-2014 04:37 PM)Luminon Wrote:  America is full of guns, but they're useless, because nobody has the courage to shoot an IRS agent in self-defense
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-10-2013, 01:43 PM (This post was last modified: 26-10-2013 01:48 PM by Free Thought.)
RE: Is religion part of evolution?
(06-10-2013 06:04 PM)I and I Wrote:  
(06-10-2013 10:17 AM)Paranoidsam Wrote:  Religion is a side effect of human curiosity. It was once a satisfactory way to explain our existence, natural disasters, death, good and bad etc.

In many ways religion is a drug. It satisfies a natural craving for explanation... and, like real drugs, its effect is temporary and ultimately useless. So over the past few thousand years, religion has simply acted as heroine for our curiosity.

As Hitchens said, it was our first attempt at explaining the world around us... and being our first attempt, it was also our worst. Only when we stopped making assumptions and started looking at hard evidence did we make any real progress.

Religions make wrong conclusions about observances of hard evidence. Religion was actually the first form of science, in fact most cultures until relatively recently did not separate religion from science, the advances in astronomy are a good example of that.

"Religion was the first form of science..."
That, sirrah, is nearly unadulterated horse shit. Religion is the near-polar opposite of science, even primitive science was opposed to and by religion; the only commonality is the connection to philosophy and the attempt at explanation of the world around, and even that is a tenuous set of connections as philosophy was manipulated into support of organised religions and challenging thought was typically suppressed, whereas many argue that modern scientific methods arose from philosophy, and in regard to the 'explanations' connection, religions dogmatically defended their 'explanations' and suppressed alternate explanations whenever it could, science however merely tested claims to the best of then-modern capacity to check for truths (needless to say, the more thoughtful scientists often got it 'wrong' by church standards and modern standards, but for vastly different reasons).

If I remember correctly from Michael Shermer's "The Believing Brain", and Karren Armstrong's "A History of God", it is hypothesised that religion developed as a social control mechanism; when tribes became large enough for communal shunning and similar behaviours to no longer work effectively, it is likely that hyper-primitive animist religions adapted into theisms with vengeful deities ready to hand down punishment on criminal and anti-social, 'bad' members and pointed to unexplainable things like the Sun and Moon, the wind and the water, lightning etc etc... as controlled by said deities, or the deities themselves (it is even postulated that organised governments also arose in areas for the same purpose around the same time).

(06-10-2013 06:04 PM)I and I Wrote:  Knowledge and historical memory of knowledge make up what someone in present day will choose to believe whether it's religion or science. Christians today choose not to believe in zeus like people today choose to not believe in some of the early sciences.

If religion was part of evolution was it a necessary part?

It is not entirely true that people will decide on what do believe based on 'knowledge and historical memory of knowledge'; most religious believers are indoctrinated and never really had a choice and were just pre-disposed to accepting religion as fact by their adult peers, as for those who went to religion from non-religion, I can only offer my personal hypothesis that they were themselves pre-disposed due to highly (overly?) active limbic systems and possibly a short in the pre-frontal cortex... That is to say; it's most likely not a considered belief for the religious until after the fact (wherein reasons are found to support the belief and the non-conforming facts are rejected or manipulated to fit as part of unconscious biases). Fortunately science isn't typically open to emotional draws and is a little more reasoned when it comes to acceptance.

As for the Christians not believing in Zeus: the difference I feel, is the distinct lack of indoctrination; people are taught that it's an ancient mythology and not taught to employ the scepticism of the Zeus claim to their religion; cause we all know there is so much difference between Hellenic Myth and Judeo-Christi-Islama Scripture (Yes; I did just make the "Christi-Islama" part up because just abbreviating "Jewish" in that case rubbed me the wrong way..) However, scientists are taught that ancient 'sciences' were wrong, but they are typically taught why and how
they are wrong instead of just going "it's silly and primitive."

As much as I hate to do it...
Religion was not a necessary part of evolution; the only 'necessary' parts of evolution are genetic diversity and selective pressures.
But in regard to the development (evolution, if you prefer) of human society, it was... unappreciably significant. was. Since organised governments had properly formed, it's necessity was halved and since the Enlightenment, it was halved again; it is no longer a necessary factor in my humble opinion.

The people closely associated with the namesake of female canines are suffering from a nondescript form of lunacy.
"Anti-environmentalism is like standing in front of a forest and going 'quick kill them they're coming right for us!'" - Jake Farr-Wharton, The Imaginary Friend Show.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: