The evolutionary advantage of religion

[Sibling Zono (anon1mat0)]

I was driving the other day when I heard this story:

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=129528196

Through the lens of evolution, a belief in God serves a very important purpose: Religious belief set us on the path to modern life by stopping cheaters and promoting the social good.

The argument seems logic enough although it makes me think if empathy alone wouldn't achieve the same or if the two are related.

[Swatopluk]

We still know too little about the spiritual life of e.g. chimpanzees. We know that the Neanderthals must have had some beliefs in that direction (otherwise found burial objects would not make much sense) but that's to my knowledge the only comparision we have until  now.
But what about religions that allow or even encourage cheating (and why are there so many trickster gods)?

[Bob in a quantum-state-of-faith]

I was driving the other day when I heard this story:

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=129528196

Through the lens of evolution, a belief in God serves a very important purpose: Religious belief set us on the path to modern life by stopping cheaters and promoting the social good.

The argument seems logic enough although it makes me think if empathy alone wouldn't achieve the same or if the two are related.

I've heard that idea previously.  It smacks of apologetics run amok, to me, as there is no way to test the notion.

When you recognize that belief is a short-cut to thinking, permitting quick action in a given situation such that a person does not require constant re-analysis, you recognize that simple belief is useful.

Using a very simple example:  If I have experience of chairs and chair-like objects, I can extrapolate that experience (belief) to new chairs and new, as yet untested chair-like objects without the need to always reach out and test them prior to sitting.  I have faith/belief in such objects ability to carry my weight.

This is a very useful mental short-cut, alleviating the need to always be questioning my experiences, and one which lets me extrapolate said experiences into new situations.

Religion is an idea-meme that has glommed onto this useful mental short-cut, and exploited it for no real purpose other than the perpetuation of said religious meme.

The deeply instinctive drive for social animals to cooperate with each other is all that is/was needed to drive civilization from hunter-gatherer to early agriculture and so on.  Simple isolation from the group, of individuals who do not cooperate, would've been enough impetus to keep individuals in line.  For a social animal, removing from the group is a strong motive to conform.

Thus the 'cheaters' would have been curbed at least as well as, if not better than, religion.

More:  religion's record of curbing "cheaters" is extremely poor, at best.  Some notable examples:  Hitler was deeply religious.  Stalin was raised under the influence of deep religious culture.  Even Mao was a spiritualist, religious in other words.   Each of these people were literal monsters-- "cheaters" if you will.  Yet religion was unsuccessful at curbing their behaviors.

A more modern example, is the rash of pedophile-priests-- a person cannot get more religious than being a priest, I would think.  Yet, again, the religious environment failed to curb the "cheating", quite the opposite in this case, it not only encouraged it, it provided a safe haven for it to flourish.

Finally, Emo Phillips points out a fatal flaw in most religions with this story: (as editorialized by me)

"I really wanted a bicycle.  I couldn't afford one, but I really wanted one.  I prayed and prayed for one, but none appeared.  Then I went and stole one, and asked for forgiveness."

By providing such an easy "out", most religions actually enable "cheaters" to continue their behavior, alleviating any social guilt or pressure to conform.

So, no-- I think they are completely off-base with their apologizing-idea.

[Swatopluk]

Hitler's religious beliefs are far from clear. In his inner circle he openly admitted that he used religious talk as a tool and planned campaigns against established religion after final victory (including turning churches into science centers and public astronomical observatories (Volkssternwarten)).
On the other hand he clearly believed in some kind of providence (Vorsehung). That reminds me of Hegel who also pushed protestantism because it was useful to the state but on the other hand talked about the Weltgeist, an unpersonal force that acts as providence.
---
Some famous philosophers (iirc including Voltaire) considered religion as an invention of cheaters in the first place http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Priestertrug

[Sibling Zono (anon1mat0)]

So, no-- I think they are completely off-base with their apologizing-idea.

Obviously the subject is a bit misleading, the idea is that the belief in a supernatural force watching compels a portion of the population to behave.

I actually have thought of that from a purely practical POV, that is, once agrarian societies gave birth to cities where anonymity is more likely, peer pressure isn't enough to prevent cheaters and given that the enforcement of justice was as likely to carry injustices by itself (if not more) the idea of an all knowing deity would be useful as a method to discourage cheating.

What caught my attention is that the basic evolutive argument seems valid enough, if most people is prone to believe in the supernatural, there should be an evolutionary advantage for it being there. Compound that with the fact that some genes have been correlated with belief and the basic hypothesis may hold water.

IOW, while the argument may sound apologist it may have some value in itself.

[Scriblerus the Philosophe]

But what about religions that allow or even encourage cheating (and why are there so many trickster gods)?

http://faculty.gvsu.edu/websterm/Tricksters.htm

Lewis Hyde notes that in addition to crossing boundaries, trickster also creates them...
...
Trickster tales have different functions in various societies. Certainly the stories are told because they are funny and entertaining; but they are also in some sense sacred. Radin reports that the reaction to trickster stories "is prevailingly one of laughter tempered by awe" (xxiv). Hyde notes that tricksters always function within some sort of "sacred context" (13). But in addition, as John Lame Deer said, tricksters "are sacred [because] we Indians also need their laughter to survive" (quoted in Erdoes and Ortiz xxi). Tricksters need the more serious gods to bounce off from and create their mischief. However, Richard Erdoes and Alfonso Ortiz point out that even supposedly serious chief gods can share some of the trickster's traits: for example, Zeus is both an philanderer and a shape-shifter--he changed into a swan in order to make love to Leda and into a shower of gold in order to impregnate Danae (xiv-xv). Zeus is also known for his ability to trick and outwit his rivals--remember the stories about Kronos and Metis?

Certainly, trickster stories are told for fun and laughs, and a trickster like Bart Simpson is a great character to get a plot started and entangled. But trickster stories also have something to say about how culture gets created, and about the nature of intelligence. Trickster represents a certain flexibility of mind and spirit, a willingness to defy authority and invent clever solutions that keeps cultures (and stories) from becoming too stagnant.

[The Meromorph]

So, no-- I think they are completely off-base with their apologizing-idea.

Obviously the subject is a bit misleading, the idea is that the belief in a supernatural force watching compels a portion of the population to behave.

I actually have thought of that from a purely practical POV, that is, once agrarian societies gave birth to cities where anonymity is more likely, peer pressure isn't enough to prevent cheaters and given that the enforcement of justice was as likely to carry injustices by itself (if not more) the idea of an all knowing deity would be useful as a method to discourage cheating.

What caught my attention is that the basic evolutive argument seems valid enough, if most people is prone to believe in the supernatural, there should be an evolutionary advantage for it being there. Compound that with the fact that some genes have been correlated with belief and the basic hypothesis may hold water.

IOW, while the argument may sound apologist it may have some value in itself.

For an explanation of most of the origins and structure of the belief in gods, read "The Origins of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind" by Julian Jaynes. It's the discussion of the Bicameral Mind that's the relevant bit to this discussion.

For an explanation of the evolutionary advantages of belief, consider that Human Children need to believe what adults are telling them, at least until they are beginning to think for themselves. (Don't touch the Fire; Don't go near tigers...  ). Consequently there is a strong evolutionary drive for a genetic enforcement of this. It even has a corresponding adult attribute - Small children will absolutely accept anything told to them by an adult in a 'plonking' voice. Which is how and when religious indoctrination takes place... 

So religion is indeed 'parasitic' on a very real  and beneficial genetic effect.

And no, religions are not the source, or the 'fount', of morality. They are a strong source of 'behavior modification', but human morality is virtually universal (see "The Blank Slate" by Steven Pinker). There is a famous quote " There are Good People and Evil People. Good People routinely do Good Things. Evil People routinely do Evil Things. For Good People to do Evil Things, almost always requires Religion."

[Aggie]

For an explanation of most of the origins and structure of the belief in gods, read "The Origins of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind" by Julian Jaynes. It's the discussion of the Bicameral Mind that's the relevant bit to this discussion.

_{Well, stupid aten't got nothin' to do with it, but I endorse the above.  Even if it does make me think about vestigial structures rather more than Mero might think appropriate.}

[Sibling Zono (anon1mat0)]

For an explanation of most of the origins and structure of the belief in gods, read "The Origins of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind" by Julian Jaynes. It's the discussion of the Bicameral Mind that's the relevant bit to this discussion.

_{Well, stupid aten't got nothin' to do with it, but I endorse the above.  Even if it does make me think about vestigial structures rather more than Mero might think appropriate.}

Okay.. I just read the Bicameralism article in wiki and... well, it seems a bit controversial to me, the idea that we weren't capable of introspection until 3K years ago sounds a bit... strained. It seems like a wonderful hypothesis about schizophrenia but to say that all humans were pseudo-schizophrenic before that time is a bit hard to conceive, more when some of the arguments to support it (burials, and other historical and archaeological 'evidence') have been found in contemporary tribes which to my knowledge don't seem to be devoid of consciousness as he defines it. More so, if this mutation happened 3000 years ago in the ancient cultures of the middle east how exactly did the mutation arrived/occurred in the Americas where migration through the Bering strait had been difficult for at least another 3 thousand years?

Interesting reading, though.

[Bob in a quantum-state-of-faith]

Interesting reading, though.

Yeah, those pesky facts keep getting in the way of a perfectly good hypothesis...