How Do We Explain The Evolution Of Religion?

[cbayer]

http://www.npr.org/blogs/13.7/2014/04/18/304156771/how-do-we-explain-the-evolution-of-religion

by BARBARA J. KING
April 18, 201410:00 AM ET


Mark Wilson/Getty Images

Religion is a cross-cultural universal, even though not every human being professes faith in God or some other supernatural being. Those of us who are atheist or agnostic make up 6 percent of the American population. A further 14 percent say they are not affiliated with any particular religion.

But religiosity is found in every human culture and biologists, anthropologists, and psychologists keenly debate how it arose. Just like language, technology and bipedalism, religion too evolved over time. But how did that happen?

In a new paper published online in the journal Animal Behaviour, biologists Bernard Crespi and Kyle Summers ask a specific version of this question:

"How did religion actually originate and evolve, step by small step, with Darwinian continuity and explicable selective pressures mediating each stage?"

The answer Crespi and Summers favor is grounded in kin selection theory, as posited in 1964 by W.D. Hamilton. Kin selection turns on the concept of inclusive fitness, the idea that an organism's biological fitness derives not only from the direct production of offspring, but also from aiding the reproduction of its other relatives.

more at link

[chervilant]

1. Elaine Pagels,

Douglas Hofstadter, James Fraser, and many others have much to contribute to our understanding of the evolution of religious mythologies.

[DetlefK]

2. I like Stephen Baxter's theory.

He's a sci-fi-author, I know.

He proposed in a novel that it was the irrational tenacity that gave religious people the edge: Keeping on fighting even when there's no hope left.

[Warren Stupidity]

4. I don't think there is much evidence

to support that thesis. Most great empires seem to have grown and thrived due to technical superiority, not a willingness to fight to the death irrationally.

[DetlefK]

8. Counter-examples:

* The army of Alexander the Great was average in technology, and yet they conquered a huge swath of the Middle-East.

* The army of Ghengis Khan was below average in technology. It was their tactics. Additionally, their lifestyle kept the Mongols battle-ready and without need for complicated logistics at any time.

* The Nazis kept on fighting, even when it became clear that they couldn't fight the Allies and the Soviets at the same time. Rumors about super-weapons turning the tide at any moment now never ceased. Magda Goebbels poisoned her children, because she thought that a world without national-socialism would be a world not worth living in. And among the soldiers trying to hold out in the ruins of Berlin, anyone hinting at capitulation to avoid death was summarily executed. And even after everything was over and Germany defeated and occupied, some Nazis tried to keep the resistance alive by staging terrorist attacks, the Werewolf-program.

[Warren Stupidity]

9. *military technology* includes tactics.

Both Alexander's army and the Mongol army had vastly superior tactics, both (and Alexander's army literally) had such superior tactical abilities that they were essentially undefeated.

In both cases religious fanaticism played no role at all, and the genetic success of both empires, short lived as they were, is indisputable.

The Nazis are a piss poor example of anything. And they didn't fight to the death. They fought until Berlin was captured, and fought poorly for the last half of the war after the disaster at Stalingrad. Their fanaticism reduced their chances for reproductive success, quite the opposite from the thesis.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

3. Karen Armstrong, "The Great Transformation"

Her theory, somewhat oversimplified, is that the major religions/philosophies developed and eventually included principles of compassion and altruism so people wouldn't be quite so eager to kill each other.

[longship]

5. Dawkins suggests it could be just the kinds of things posited in this thread.

But, he knows that this starts to tread into territory where there is no data and no tests. We may never know the answers to such questions.

I am satisfied with that, given that it is still very likely sprang from some sort of evolutionary adaption.

But who knows?

[Jim__]

6. Definitely a question worth asking.

Do we explain the universality across all cultures as due to early human trait that traveled with migrants as they migrated away from the early centers of human culture? As something inherent in the human genome? Or, possibly, as a requirement to survive the competition among groups - i.e. groups that did not practice religion, did not survive?

Nicholas Wade in The Faith Instinct thinks religion evolved out of communal dancing. He quotes generals as saying that the modern military still practices marching because it is the strongest binding activity for military units that they've found.

[cheyanne]

7. Strong group bonds are a survival trait.

And, if we look at early societies, communal activities, such as dancing, promote group cohesion.

The need for group bonds is still alive in us all, and so religion continues to be a source of belonging for many people. As a side product, religion provides an explanation for existence, another human need.

So we shouldn't look for religion to die out, unless there comes along a replacement construct. Communism tried to replace it and failed.

[cbayer]

13. Agree, it's not going to die out.

So, imho, we need to promote what is good about it while countering what is not.

I believe that can be done if we all work together.

[rug]

10. The more that humans evolve and the more that humans experience, the more we understand.

Religion is the human response to supernatural concepts. It is evolved as far as we are.

In any event, it is much more than an anthropological musing.

[cbayer]

11. Much more than an anthropological musing - that's for sure.

Hope you have a wonderful day tomorrow, rug.

[rug]

12. Thanks, you too cbayer.

I'm feeling Buddhist right now, so I have to go through today first.