Thanks. May be some truth to that. Does he explain specifically what he thinks “religion” is? If not yet, let us know when you come across it.

What are you basing that on? Is that just a personal belief, or do you have specific historical or scientific references?

@skado I base it on logic combined with dark ages history as far as the method for control. As for it being used to explain things primitive people couldn't understand cave paintings essentially tell that tale.

@redhog
Could you help me out with some specifics... like the name of a historian or a history book or academic website, or anthropologist, etc.?
I know this is a popular idea but when I go looking for verification, I don’t find much other than opinion.

Of course religions tend to include some explanations for things people don’t understand, but whether that is the central function of religion has not found a consensus among scholars as far as I can discern. I just wonder why popular opinion in this is so confident, when scholars are so uncertain.

And the control thing is wildly popular among atheists, but again, I don’t find anthropologists saying that. And control of what, for what purpose, and to whose benefit, such that in 40,000 years there has been no successful rebellion?

Good program! Thanks for that. Yes, I had heard a bit about that. Their following discussion was interesting too. Communion!
That’s definitely a part of the picture, and has been from the very beginning I’m sure.

...and successfully pulled the wool over the eyes of every human society, in every location on the globe, in every timeframe for the last forty thousand years without a break? I know that's a popular belief, but it just doesn't sound plausible to me, especially considering all the scientific data on the side of an evolutionary cause, including pre-religious behavior in other species like chimpanzees, etc.

I think all of that is mostly true, but the psychological need I'm talking about is not that of the infant but of the adult who is assessing the relative value of religion. There are other options besides psychological needs of course. It may be a simple lack of familiarity with the relevant data. But in a way that kicks it back to psychological need. We have a natural psychological need to feel we understand the world we live in, so having an answer is more important to our psychology than having an accurate answer.

Secondly, I would add that the infant doesn't come in as a blank slate. I think that has been adequately demonstrated now. Both the infant and the mother have bonding instincts which may very well, as you point out, morph easily into religious tendencies in adulthood. But that has mostly to do with the biology of god-belief per se, and maybe less to do with the socio-cultural phenomenon we call religion.

My question is... why do the overwhelming majority of mothers in all parts of the world, in every known society, and in all time periods of human existence that we know of, indoctrinate their children into religious practices, if not for bio-cultural evolutionary pressures to do so?

Abiogenesis itself is considered an evolutionary process. Anything that occurred before life existed is outside the relevant range of my comment and question, but even non-life-related processes are starting to be understood more in terms of evolution these days.

I’m not in any way denigrating psychological need, everyone has it, but there is a useful distinction to be made between it and reason. To suggest that broad generalizations have no place in rational discourse sounds like a broad generalization that’s not only not nuanced or qualified, but just plain ol’ not true.

Broad generalizations are a perfectly fine place to start a rational conversation. The test of its rationality is where it goes; not where it starts. If there’s an objection to the statement, there is always opportunity to address it with substantive rebuttal. Nuance is not only allowed but invited. Let’s fill in the details with mutually respectful, constructive dialogue.

Generalness in itself is not a problem. What’s a problem is inaccuracy, whether general or specific. What in particular do you think is inaccurate about my generalization?

@skado No abiogenesis itself is NOT considered an evolutionary process anymore than any other kind of chemistry is. Evolution requires mutation and the passing of genetic traits.... jeez.

@Willow_Wisp
Help me out here. I'm having a hard time understanding what abiogenesis has to do with my post, which starts out designating its scope as "anything related to any life form". So if abiogenesis is to be considered a pre-life phenomenon, then it falls outside the scope of this thread, it seems to me. How does the origin of life bear on the question of whether religion is adaptive?

If you'd like to talk about whether abiogenesis should be, or currently is considered by scientists to be a part of the family of evolutionary processes, you could start that thread, and I would happily join you there. But I haven't seen yet how it relates to this thread.

Nice profile photo BTW.

Yes, the psychological needs are very much the result of evolutionary processes. And yes, evolution produces some outrageously absurd products. Or at least seemingly absurd to humans.

All that said... absurd or otherwise, paths can, theoretically, still be traced back to evolution.
Spandrels are an example. Gould claimed religion was a spandrel - not adaptive in itself, but a byproduct at the intersection of several other adaptive traits.

Gould’s claim doesn’t seem to be holding up well in light of more recent research, but it is an example of useless traits that we do see in other cases, and could plausibly be an explanation for the existence of religion.

But when we hear people say religious people are just idiots, or religion is inconsequential and should be ignored, or it’s a scam to make money... those explanations don’t make any reference to evolution, and when put in evolutionary terms (which even absurd behavior can be, of course) they still don’t measure up to the explanatory power of alternatives which do indicate adaptive probabilities.

All believers and nonbelievers are H.sapiens, and H.sapiens is an emotional creature first, and only very recently and reluctantly a rational creature. Hating religion and loving religion are equally emotional acts. If religion is, as more and more research is favoring, an adaptive behavior, seems to me the rational response would be to accept it and start working on peace initiatives between the two camps.

I'm not convinced evolutionary processes are any kind of place to draw a distinction for an individual if they are responsible for the psychological needs of an individual and/or an individuals reasoning. Socio-evolutionary processes must be evaluated as religion is a social activity of the human even if the psychological needs are common in a group, they are not shared, just common to various individuals in the group. whether or not an individual's religious nature is an evolved characteristic is dependant on the society's evolutionary processes as a group.

@hankster
I agree religion is more likely a group-level phenomenon, rather than individual-level evolution. The psychological needs I'm talking about are the needs people have to describe religion as just a con game instead of a product of evolution. And of course, psychological needs wouldn't be the only possible alternative to an evolutionary explanation; it could just as well be lack of familiarity with the data, lack of interest, etc. But it is so prevalent... it looks more like it must be filling some psychological need, at least the need to have an explanation, if nothing else. But I have not found much scientific data to back that explanation up, and lots that supports the evolutionary explanation.

@skado a big motivation to hate religion is fear. Not fear of it being correct, but fear of its' influence on the society in which the individual or group lives. Fear will justify any emotional or reasoned response to a threat and generate a disdainful opinion of that threats adherents. scared dogs bark.

@hankster
True that.

Yep, sometimes slowly, and sometimes even observable by humans. Some wrens, normally migratory, have stayed under road bridges in Texas and their wings have already changed for quick take offs and not long trips. They are due to die because of global warming now.

@Beowulfsfriend Here in Phoenix I have noticed birds live here all year long.

@Beowulfsfriend We had some dimwitted person bring cane toads to Australia. Set them loose in the cane fields of Queensland and now all of Australia is having to start the battle against them. They are here in the NT heading into NSW and making a stab at WA. The interesting thing is the legs on the toads, are growing longer enabling them to travel longer distances.

[arc.gov.au]

@Budgie You guys have been nailed with some bad invasive species - rabbits and mice have been nasty "down" there. I suppose everyone now has invasive species. The Mississippi River is filled with asian carp, and of course Florida and other Southern states have new birds and lots of reptiles.

I like your point and it shows how a religion can grow out of this allegiance.

Also those same rituals and beliefs makes sure people tow the line or else. ie Shunning, being cast out of the herd, dunking stools, witch finders, pressing stones, fiery stakes etc. It means you follow out of fear but you follow to make sure those who judge do not turn their eye towards you.

To survive you have to conform which stifles a society and makes it stagnate becoming more in danger not less. There are religious groups where people can only marry someone within that religious group. Where I lived there were only about 4 families following the religion (my brother worked with one of the daughters of a family) There were only two males and two females of similar ages so the sisters married the brothers. There is no genetic diversity in that. The offspring of the two sets are closer than cousins and almost siblings. If they interbreed then the chances of a bad mutation rise up.

Allegiances work and help the colony but only if there is a big enough genetic pool, and we don't get sucked into superstitious behaviours.

I seem to vaguley recall something from High School about humans and group work along the lines of Communism is great for humans unfortunately humans are not good with communism.
So an allegiance and working for the good of the community is a wonderful notion but humans can not handle it and wreck it with their own sense of importance.

I think I have drifted off topic now I tend to do that it is called rabbit chasing.

It can provide cultural markers of importance in development or seasonal harvest that became endemic to societies. That's a bit different than evolution but with an equal effect.

@Budgie In keeping with your proposed problem of inbreeding among close-knit groups, I suspect that women's decision-making in mate selection is influenced so they look far-afield when allowed. In other words, where inbreeding is a risk, women seek to breed outwardly. This behavior/decision-making kicks in at an instinctual level below their conscious awareness. (just my pet theory)

The other problem is that communal living over generations where alpha males dominate also have the negative effect of breeding in submissiveness. Those who offer competition are murdered and thus removed from the gene pool. The effect in our society is that a sizable portion of the population have degenerated into ultra-loyal drones that are almost incapable of abstract independent thought. Their whole existence revolves around showing fealty to the alphas, which is pretty gross.