Don’t you think it would be easier to get rid of something if you knew what made it tick?
Or if you found out it couldn’t be gotten rid of, you could expend that energy elsewhere on a project that could be accomplished?

@skado you mean, you think we don't know already? There's still some mystery about religion that any number of great minds have not yet deduced? Don't know about you, I think that subject has been done.

@David1955
Yes. That is exactly what I think.
And every scientist in the world.
There is always more to know.
Scholars haven’t yet found consensus on what religion even is, let alone how it works or what its possible benefits are. Even Dan Dennett recognizes that and cautions against destroying what we don’t understand.

The link to an article in Skado's post is not a link to scientific proofs. It is essentially no better than a religion even though it purports to explain the evolutionary sources of religion. A distillation of the word salad reduces to mutual admiration societies in which groups of sociologists and psychologists agree or disagree with published THEORIES about the evolution of religion.

One of the most outstanding examples of arrogance is evident in the following excerpt from Skado's post. "So I am hoping anyone who holds the evolution-free hypothesis of religious development will direct me to the scientific literature upon which they base their orientation. I also welcome input by my hominid cousins whose capacities limit them to chirping, grunting, ad hominem remarks, personal insults and feces-slinging, because it is always entertaining to watch how proudly they display their ignorance and churlishness."

A definition of arrogance applicable to the above excerpt from Skado's post which is not to be found in the Merriam-Webster Dictionary nor the OED is as follows. Arrogance is a flea crawling up and elephant's ass with rape on its mind.

@skado don't forget that human history is littered with dead religions. They live and die, like other ideas, when people stop believing in them. Religions aren't destroyed; they die out. We just happen to be surrounded by the religions in our time. In the 40,000 years of human religious history, most of our religions are recent -- a couple of thousand years or less, certainly the Abrahamic ones, though they evolved out of earlier religions. So, we don't have to be cautious about destroying them, but merely hope they die out, like long dead earlier religions, with the hope that maybe we might evolve beyond a dependence on mysticism, supernaturalism and magic. The truth is, however, that religion springs from our knowledge of mortality, and that fear is what religion exploits. @ASTRALMAX

@David1955
Organized religions are recent. The capacity for religion is as old as our species, or likely older, it appears to me. Even chimpanzees exhibit the precursors. Named religions come and go. The human impulse to religion is probably a constant. And named religions don’t die peacefully. They are associated with civilization collapse.

And I have never claimed otherwise. You are fighting a straw man.

@skado That is very ironic given that this whole post is about straw-maning the members, as people who do not believe in genetics.

@Fernapple
Not possible. Because I have neither named any individuals nor claimed it to be universal.
It is an undeniable, and well documented fact that numerous people on this site have denied any evolutionary causes for religion, and all I have done is presented an open invitation for them to share their reasoning with me. Where’s the straw?

@skado Oh come on, I can't believe that you could seriously make that argument. Firstly because the individuals vers. universal, is a childish dichotomy, such as only twelve year old would use to try and wriggle round a criticism. Since anyone approaching adulthood would realize that the group "members" also includes the categories, majority, large majority and significant minority, and not expect to get away with such a pathetic excuse.

And secondly of course posts like this, of which you have made several, are bound to attract the, probably small, even numerous, but loud minority who do oppose genetic predisposition. As well as some of those who simply do not understand it. In fact I would say that if I were writing a paper on how fallacies develop, I could do little better than to site these posts as perfect example of how confirmation bias is achieved.

@skado Using this post and your last as a quick sample, small of course, and being fairly subjective as to which replies counted on which side. Of those commentors who did not agree that religion has an evolutionary origin, (There were not many a lot were neutral and/or did not address the subject at all.)
they recieved an average of about point nine likes, by my rough count. Whereas those, like some of mine, which agreed that religion has an evolutionary origin, got one point eight seven five likes on average. About two to one. It is a tiny sample of course but given that any post by you is likely to attract a larger number of negative viewers, just because its you, I think that is fairly good in favour of acceptance of the evolutionary origins. Though it is of course small and subjective, so no two people are likely to get the same figures.

@Fernapple
When you, or anyone, starts sliding toward ad hominem, I start losing interest. If you are unable to engage in a mutually respectful way, I will be unable to take you seriously. None of this is about me or you. It’s just an exchange of ideas. Pissing matches are not only unproductive, they’re boring. You’ve long ago left the central issue of this post. Give it a break, friend.

@skado Only trying to be helpful.

I'm not trying to convince anybody of anything - especially not of anything I don't believe myself. You, like most here, are imagining things about me that are diametrically opposite of what I believe and have stated clearly. Do you realize that your response is an ad hominem? If you have no interest in this subject, why are you not able to scroll past like most members do? Could it be that you have a vested interest in suppressing knowledge that conflicts with your worldview, even though that worldview is not supported by current scientific thought? Cognitive dissonance is a bitch.

Can you be specific about where you think I have misrepresented it?

This post is a call for papers, not opinions. I’ve heard them already, thanks.

@skado My first line should make it clear that I do not consider it likely that any such papers exist, and if they did I, and you can find some, would remind you that the very first priciple of science for which I have the greatest respect, is that science can be wrong, which is the main reason why it deserves respect. My second reply explains quite clearly why I am not wasting time on that. And this is not oppinion just a correction of epistomology.

@skado PS. I am addressing your opinions not the science, so opinion is valid.

@Fernapple
Ok, but I’m not, on this post, soliciting opinions of my opinions. If you are not one of the people who deny evolution’s role in religion, then thanks for dropping by, but this post is not questioning you.

@skado That is fair enough.

I abandoned it at 14. I haven’t felt a need for it since. I’m just following the science. If I need religion it is to no greater or lesser extent than that of all Homo sapiens.

What did you think of the linked paper?

@skado You need religion far more than I need it.

@yvilletom
What did you think of the paper?

I concur.

@skado You wrote, But whether by-product or adaptationist or institutionalist, all of the current hypotheses that I have been able to locate are founded on an evolutionary basis rather than an it’s-just-a-bad-idea-that-won’t-go-away basis.

In my twenty-year-long personal experience and in my opinion, religion is vastly worse than just-a-bad-idea-that-won’t-go-away.
Your need differs greatly from mine, therefore I did not and will not read the paper.

@yvilletom
I’m sure no two people’s needs are the same.
But shifting the focus to my needs is an ad hominem move. If you have nothing to contribute to the topic of this post you could just scroll past as most members surely do.

@skado Period.

What did you think of the linked paper?

@skado Just read the abstract. Possible, but discounts the fact that if the next generation was not indoctrinated into belief, taught as fact, all religions would die in a generation.
Religion is a taught concept rather than natural evolving thought. And with no religion, any group would adopt whatever leaders belief at the time. If youth not indoctrinated, "religion" would change with each change of leadership. But this is culture evolving, not religion.

@puff
You had me at “possible”.

@skado should have gone to the next word, "but"

@puff
I did.

My guess is they could have, and may yet. They just didn’t so far.

@skado And that is the very argument you've repeatedly failed to support. You are still claiming that religion continues to be crucial for our continued survival (in yet another way now by stating they have not developed traits that would allow them to survive sans religion) with zero support whatsoever.

Ponderax asked Matzelia to pass him the book on idiopathy and if she woud kindly translate the following, ‘Twas brillig, and ye slithy toves did gyre and gimble in ye wabe: All mimsy were ye borogoves; And ye mome raths outgrabe’. Matzelia said that she would have to speak with Humpty Dumpty because he is an expert on goobledygook.

I had believed, before I was a member of this site, that Atheists and Agnostics would want to believe whatever there was sufficient scientific evidence to support. Now, to be honest, I can’t tell any difference between them and the religious folks. They all believe what they want to in complete disregard for the science.

@skado Then, imo, your eyes have become truly clouded over by the mysticisms that you seem to read and post about ever so regularly and tediously.
Either that OR, your, imo, penchant for being an Attention Whore has gotten so out of control that you no longer can see ANYTHING other than a desperate need to be noticed and therefore will post any iota of absolute drivel to sell yourself to gain that cheap thrill of getting noticed.

@Triphid
Do you know what ad hominem means?

@skado Yes, do you?
And as per it's normal 3 slightly differing usages/meanings, my comment that are addresses as 2skado are meant for you ad hominem.

Very true. The old epistomological truth. "The burden of proof is with those making the claim."

Did you read any of the material I have provided?

@Fernapple
I’m not making a claim in this post. I’m asking why people believe what they believe about the origins of religion. No one is obligated to answer. Unless perhaps the question causes them dissonance.

Any science references… links…?

Informed and constructive criticism, thanks.

@skado Thanks for posing the question! I've been thinking about it a lot more since I wrote my response. This is pure speculation, but I think some people who want to find an evolutionary explanation for religion are trying to show how hard it is to counter an innate religious tendency in our species. In other words, they're saying "Here's a plausible evolutionary explanation for why religion might confer a fitness advantage, therefore our species must have an inherent predisposition to religion. See what we're up against!" But that gets "evolutionary explanation" kind of backwards. If what one really wants to show is an innate (i.e., genetic) predisposition to religious belief, the best approach might be a twin study:

[en.wikipedia.org]

In short, this would involve looking at identical and fraternal twins separated at birth, and seeing if they are more likely than two random people from the general population to have...not similar religious beliefs, but a similar tendency toward believing in religion, generally. And, to my surprise, a quick Google search reveals that researchers have actually conducted such studies. Furthermore, they've found that the genetic component to faith (as opposed to the environmental component) may be as high as 50%:

[popsci.com]

Unfortunately, this is an excerpt from a book, and there are no links to the actual studies in question. There's lots of stuff in that article that might interest people on this site, though. I personally am not inclined to start a thread about it, but if you'd like to, be my guest...

@Behind-the-dog

VERY interesting!

Thanks.

@Matias Good points. I suspect, though, that most people conflate "an evolutionary explanation" with "an explanation showing that a trait is adaptive." Having found evidence (see my second comment above) that religiosity does indeed have a genetic component, I guess it's fair game to speculate about its evolutionary history. If, however, it turns out to be (as you suggest) essentially a spandrel (non-adaptive result of some other adaptive traits), I'm not sure the evolutionary approach would really shed that much light on religiosity in the human condition. And there are many more evolutionary psychology pitfalls to avoid in trying to determine whether religiosity is adaptive or a spandrel or something else (see my link to PZ Myer's post). It's hard for me not to suspect that any scientist who wanted to go through the trouble likely already has an answer in mind, and it's hard (even for scientists) to escape that old confirmation bias. [Did I, without ever reading a single paper in the field, just cast doubt on the entire endeavor? Why yes, yes I did. I can't imagine why people seem to think we atheists are arrogant.]

@Matias Thanks for the reference. I've read the abstract and concluded that it would be more work than I personally want to devote to this question to read and fully understand the paper. I don't think I'm familiar enough with the issues, the lingo, or the ongoing debates to get through the paper without some serious effort, but you've made it clear enough that there has been some real scholarship in this field.

I'll take your challenge on the question of why H. sapiens is a religious animal, though. Kahneman's book Thinking, Fast and Slow has shown me the extent to which the human brain is inclined to favor explanations that fit a good narrative, to look for meaning where there is none, to infer cause and effect where there is none, even to find faces in clouds (pareidolia), traits that could easily predispose us to religious belief. It's not hard to imagine how evolution might result in these traits, but as I see it, such evolutionary investigations would not need to even mention the word "religion." And given that this is the nature of the human brain, the appearance of religion in all human societies doesn't really appear to be such a puzzle to me. The first person who thought, "The last time I had such success in the hunt, I also had just seen a beautiful ray of light breaking through the clouds. Hmmm..." set in motion an idea that eventually snowballed (through, I personally am inclined to believe, entirely cultural forces) into the monstrosities we now know as religions.

Why don't other animals have religions? They don't have the cultural sophistication to spread and elaborate on myths ("culture" in animals like chimps and crows so far seems limited to things like tool use).

What did you think of the linked paper?

What did you think of the linked paper?

@skado Can't get the pdf to work. Religion has nothing to do with evolution.

@xenoview
Ok, cool. Upon what science do you base that conviction?

@xenoview
You can reach the pdf by searching these words: DeGruyter Religion, Evolution, and the Basis of Institutions: The Institutional Cognition Model of Religion

You are both quite correct, because that religion is part of an evolved mechanism, and also a tool used by conmen to get money and control, are not mutually exclusive.

1. It’s just a subject I’m interested in right now. When the folks I had assumed were science oriented reject science for pre-existing beliefs, it engages my curiosity.
2. If my hypothesis is true, my own tribe - my fellow non-theists - are unwittingly helping to tear down a system our species depends on for survival.
3. I’m retired. It’s just a hobby for me. I have no emotional investment in the outcome. I assume my species will be extinct before the next generation has grandchildren. Don’t begrudge an old guy his hobby, ok?

@skado

1. That's fine then. Seemed more of an agenda than a hobby.
2. Even if what you said was true, it doesn't logically follow that we still require it for our survival.
3. Even if our species did require it, you just said you think our species will be extinct soon, so again, what does it matter??

@JeffMurray

1. Thanks.
2. I know.
3. Doing what seems like the most constructive thing, even under dire circumstances, is a more pleasant way to while away my last hours than to be roiling in existential despair. My guess about our future could be wrong. And since we can’t know… it seems the rational path to do what we can reasonably do, and not get too attached to the potential results.

@skado So you think we're probably going to be extinct soon, but could be wrong, so you want to save religions because of the off chance that it's somehow necessary for the survival of the human race even though you don't have any scientific evidence to suggest that's the case. And you're going to accomplish this by challenging people to find scientific evidence to disprove your theory that lacks any scientific evidence? And you don't realize this is tedious for the few people that feel the need to correct you with the same responses every time you post about this?

@JeffMurray
Nothing so grand. Right now I’m just curious why atheists are so unwilling to look at evidence that is easily accessible when it is brought to their attention, all while they are claiming superiority over religious people who also won’t look at the evidence.

I’m not on any mission to save the world or religion. It’s just a compulsion to understand what I see going on in front of my eyes.

There is ample scientific reason to suspect religion of some description is critical to our survival. I don’t really care if people aren’t interested in that fact - I just wonder why they claim not to be interested but can’t resist engaging the discussion when I bring it up. Many people easily scroll on by, but some apparently are more interested than they like to admit.

@skado
I haven't looked at the evidence because it doesn't matter what the evidence shows. None of your conclusions follow logically from your premise (like that religion is still necessary for our survival), so I don't really need to verify if the premise is correct.

And your claim about engaging in a discussion invalidating a statement of disinterest about the premise being true also fails. There are plenty of reasons one might engage in the discussion, possibly just to point out logical fallacies being made by the OP, but that doesn't mean they are "more interested than they admit" in the content necessarily.

And I'd love to see this scientific evidence that religion is still critical to our survival.

@JeffMurray
“ I haven't looked at the evidence because it doesn't matter what the evidence shows.”
“And I'd love to see this scientific evidence that religion is still critical to our survival.”

@skado
That's your takeaway? You realize the intention of that reply is a fallacious argument, right?

The "evidence" in the first quote is referring to the evidence you posted about religion being an evolved/necessary thing, historically, for the survival of our species. That evidence is irrelevant to me because I'm willing to grant that as a given.

The "evidence" in the second quote refers to your claim that religion is still critical to the survival of humans. That evidence, on the other hand, I do not believe exists, so the "love to see that" is a tongue-in-cheek way of saying, "I don't think you can produce what you'd need to to back up your claims".

That is the fallacy of equivocation, and if you're going to harp on people for not having integrity, you should exercise some yourself.

@JeffMurray
This post is an invitation for people to share their reasons for believing religion is not a product of evolution. As a demonstration of reciprocity I shared a paper that I felt supported my view. Not a single person was willing to read the whole thing, and not a single person presented a paper that supported their view. But lots of people piled on with opinions. We all have opinions. Some of them are based on science. Some are based on belief. I understand my view is counterintuitive. It was for me too.

I’m really not looking for a contest of wills here. Just trying to understand why people believe what they believe. If you grant that religion was an evolved trait then you are not the person this post is questioning. If you’d like to discuss whether a trait that evolved for a minimum of sixty thousand years is likely to fall effortlessly away in a single generation, you could open a new thread.

@skado You have committed yet another logical fallacy: the motte-and-bailey fallacy. You were advancing your argument that religion is still crucial for humans and that we shouldn't wish to abolish it (by making statements like, "There is ample scientific reason to suspect religion of some description is critical to our survival" ), but when challenged you claimed you're only talking about how religion was needed historically (by making statements like, "This post is an invitation for people to share their reasons for believing religion is not a product of evolution. If you grant that religion was an evolved trait then you are not the person this post is questioning." ).

You are being intellectually dishonest. If you want to defend religion, pull your pants up and defend it against the challenges and objections people make to your claims. This is why the same few people feel like that have to comment on your incessant religion-boner posts: the dishonesty sewn into them.

@JeffMurray
Sometimes I allow myself to be drawn into a tangential discussion if the person appears to have a legitimate interest, but when they start getting pissy and personal, I have to draw the line. It’s my thread. I won’t entertain personal insults.

@JeffMurray
I don't call out ad hominem responses because they are a deviation from the rules of flawless argumentation - I don't aspire to flawless argumentation - I call them out because they are a complete derailment of the discussion. They turn a civilized discussion of ideas into an adolescent brawl, and I just can't think of any reason why I would want to spend an hour of my life trying to prove who has the sturdier ego. I'll happily grant you the title of Superior Ego if you will grant me the courtesy of leaving it outside when you come to a discussion of ideas. Thanks.

@skado I didn't use an Ad Hominem (FYI, an Ad Hominem seeks to discredit your argument by pointing out personal flaws. Simply pointing out flaws is not an Ad Hominem), you are the one that's trying to derail things by claiming I did instead of once again answering the objections to your claims.

@JeffMurray
I'm familiar with the definition.

"You are being intellectually dishonest. If you want to defend religion, pull your pants up and defend it against the challenges and objections people make to your claims"

When personal insults enter a discussion they are serving to move the focus from relevant ideas "to the man". If you'd rather call it a personal insult, suit yourself. I'm not looking to defend religion or my ego or my style of argumentation or anything else in this post. I'm looking for evidence that the people who have claimed religion has nothing to do with evolution have based their opinion on the relevant science, and hoping they will share that science for my edification. Further off-topic comments will be ignored.

@skado
And right back to the motte-and-bailey fallacy. Claiming that you're not trying to advance your argument that religion is still crucial for humans when challenged about it.

@JeffMurray Sophists do not have any evidence and when pressed for evidence they are like cuttlefish in retreat, squirting out ink to hide their escape route.

Thanks. I have read some Wilber material and tried to generally keep up with him over the years, and I think his view is useful, but I don’t think it refutes an evolutionary perspective of religion, if I recall correctly.

I’m not asking either of the questions you suggested here. I’m just trying to learn why so many people here think religion was not a product of evolutionary forces. If there are studies out there that make a strong case for that perspective, I would like to read them, but I haven’t been able to find any.

@skado
Okay. If religion and evolution are correlated, I think it would be partly so through psychology & sociology. I tend to think religion was & is a psychological and/or sociological need. I'm skeptical that another science could explain a correlation between evolution and religion. But in science no theory is permanently proven.

@AnonySchmoose
I understand. I’m just trying to find some recent scientific work that supports your view, or to understand why some people claim the mantle of science when the existing science doesn’t support them.

@skado
I haven't encountered any recent peer-reviewed scientific studies on that. I think people claim religion is scientifically true because they are intellectually lazy. They refuse to concede that religion is more like a personal preference rather than a universally innate human need.

@AnonySchmoose
I’m not sure if I have expressed my position clearly or not. I’m not looking for studies that show religion is “scientifically true”, but rather studies that demonstrate that religion has no evolutionary cause, as so many people on this site have claimed. I’m pretty familiar with the work that suggests that religion is adaptive or at least a by-product of evolutionary forces. I’m not lazy about this. I’ve spent the last five years doing nothing but “researching” it (as my meager skills allow). It appears to me that the preponderance of science today (unlike twenty years ago) is pointing to a serious evolutionary connection.

This is of course not to say that science is saying that religious cosmology is true, but that the human inclination toward religious practice is to a large degree a product of evolutionary forces. Individuals vary of course. I would guess religious doubt is equally a product of evolutionary forces. But I don’t expect the ratios to change much.

@skado
I did not know exactly what your findings were or you were searching for. Now I think those may be clearer. That is why I was led to the epigenetic basis of inheritable characteristics - characteristics which might be psychological/sociological. Thus, perhaps some people might inherit a predisposition toward religion, which is not yet proven. Now what you lack are scientific studies that provide a basis for a theory about a correlation between evolution and religion. Much as I don't like that idea, there might be a connection we haven't discovered yet. We might not even like the direction that evolution has taken us. After all, humans are stupidly destroying our very own life support system.

@AnonySchmoose
What did you think of the paper I linked in the post?

@skado I found the paper wordy and repetitive, which was helpful because of the wordiness. I understand the premise that the evolution of societies needed religions to maintain societal norms. Later the paper mentions secular beliefs as having their own norms which help those social structures hold together as well. The paper seems to have a bias for the durability of religious societies compared to secular societies. What I don't get is how religions are able to hold together societies based on imaginary ritualized beings. It seems shallow to me, because I think it tends to leave out others from outside the religion. I think religion leaves them out because they are suspected of not valuing normative behavior. I think both religious culture and secular culture may have a sociocultural evolutionary cause. Scientific proof that religion has an evolutionary cause is probably there in these sciences: paleoanthropology/psychology/sociology. I think you could find proof both for and against a causal link between evolution and religion, but also a link with secularism.

I’m not trying to persuade anybody of anything, just looking for conversation about the topics I’m interested in, just like every active member of this site does.
What did you think of the linked paper?

@skado In a nutshell the article is saying that people who do not engage in analytical thinking are more likely to believe in god or a supreme being. With regard to our primitive ancestors it is likely that imagination played a major role in their lives, as it still does in the lives of many people today. However, the article is not a scientific paper, more of a speculative treatise about the imagination of our primitive ancestors.

But are not hmans themselves products of evolution and their genes ?

For the purposes of this thread I’m happy to default to whatever definition the linked researchers were using, which, if I remember correctly, they acknowledge has no scientific consensus. Personally, I think of religion as bio-culturally evolved behaviors that modify certain ancestral instincts for the purpose of counter-balancing evolutionary mismatch. But I realize it is much more complex than just that.