Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Jim__

(14,035 posts)
45. Here are a few different ideas about beliefs, religion, and evolution.
Sat Mar 31, 2012, 12:02 PM
Mar 2012

From wikipedia:

Lewis Wolpert argues that causal beliefs that emerged from tool use played a major role in the evolution of belief. The manufacture of complex tools requires creating a mental image of an object that does not exist naturally before actually making the artifact. Furthermore, one must understand how the tool would be used, which requires an understanding of causality.[9] Accordingly, the level of sophistication of stone tools is a useful indicator of causal beliefs.[10] Wolpert contends use of tools composed of more than one component, such as hand axes, represents an ability to understand cause and effect. However, recent studies of other primates indicate that causality may not be a uniquely human trait. For example, chimpanzees have escaped from pens that were closed with multiple latches, that were previously thought could only have been figured out by humans who understood causality. (Chimpanzees are also known to mourn the dead, and notice things that have only aesthetic value, like sunsets, both of which may be considered to be components of religion or spirituality.) The difference between the comprehension of causality by humans and chimpanzees is one of degree. The degree of comprehension in an animal depends upon the size of the prefrontal cortex: the greater the size of the prefrontal cortex the deeper the comprehension.

...

(Nicholas Wade) :"Like most behaviors that are found in societies throughout the world, religion must have been present in the ancestral human population before the dispersal from Africa 50,000 years ago. Although religious rituals usually involve dance and music, they are also very verbal, since the sacred truths have to be stated. If so, religion, at least in its modern form, cannot pre-date the emergence of language. It has been argued earlier that language attained its modern state shortly before the exodus from Africa. If religion had to await the evolution of modern, articulate language, then it too would have emerged shortly before 50,000 years ago."[12]

...

Dr. Frans de Waal and Barbara King both view human morality as having grown out of primate sociality. Though morality may be a unique human trait, many social animals, such as primates, dolphins and whales, have been known to exhibit pre-moral sentiments. According to Michael Shermer, the following characteristics are shared by humans and other social animals, particularly the great apes:

"attachment and bonding, cooperation and mutual aid, sympathy and empathy, direct and indirect reciprocity, altruism and reciprocal altruism, conflict resolution and peacemaking, deception and deception detection, community concern and caring about what others think about you, and awareness of and response to the social rules of the group".



And from Robert Bellah:

...


In Chapter one, Bellah defines the sacred as non-ordinary reality. We regularly operate within non-ordinary realities, such as the bounded limits of a football game. These bounded limits – a catch don’t count unless it is in the game space, and the time stops for various reasons – create a reality that is set apart from ordinary reality. Ordinary and non-ordinary realities are not strictly separate, but overlap. After his discussion of the sacred, he develops a typology of religious representations which includes unitive, enactive, symbolic, and conceptual representations. Unitive representations are “representations that attempt to point to the unitive event or experience” (13), and enactive representations are recipes for action. Symbolic representation is necessary for the integration between inner and outer worlds (21), while conceptual representations are representations of something definite which make possible a world independent of subjects (38). For Bellah, these are the building blocks of ritual, myth, and theology.

Chapter two is where much of the heavy lifting occurs. Here he attempts to describe the evolutionary underpinnings for religion that are found in our deep evolutionary history “from single cell organisms to contemporary human society” (44). He does start with the single cell organism, but what is fundamental to his project is parental care. Using theories developed by the human ethologist Eibl Eibesfeldt and without diminishing the role of aggression, he argues that parental care is the basis of group bonding and individual friendship – in short, love. The precursors to love can be found in our earliest ancestors. Parental care can invoke sibling rivalry, which is a precursor to play. Play begins, ends, and is bounded by space. Shared intentions and attention are necessary for play. A final consideration of play is that it is a practice, which is an activity performed for no end except the good of the practice. Different spheres have different practices, and this practice is prior to belief. The purpose of the discussion of parental care, play, and practice is that these aspects of humanity are a precursor to ritual.

Chapters three, four, and five extends this work into tribal and archaic religions. It is here that biological evolution starts to get abandoned in favor of cultural evolution. This is not to say that the biological disappears, but it is relegated to our relationship with other apes. It is also here that Bellah begins to acknowledge our separation from these other species. Here as in the rest of the chapters the concept of play as developed in chapter two is just under the surface. Play or ‘offline’ activity seems to be a necessary precursor to the foundation of myth and theory. Ritual and myth are pushed to the breaking point in the more stratified societies that practiced “archaic religion”, such as 1778 Hawai’i. These societies are typified by a despotic king who had the final say in matters of life and death, and myth is stretched to defend this social structure. Chapter five in particular focuses on detailing the relationship between myth and these more stratified societies.

...



Is there some overlap in these ideas and the ones expressed in the OP? Of course there is. But, no one knows what the origin of religion is. It's a complex question that remains open.
Thank you for this post! nt Ilsa Mar 2012 #1
Pareidolia longship Mar 2012 #2
Great - ANOTHER form of fundamentalism saras Mar 2012 #3
Your strawman is so adorable. cleanhippie Mar 2012 #4
So basically saying science can be used to study the brain and the evolution of it is... Humanist_Activist Mar 2012 #5
I think you might want to explore the research, a little... SamG Mar 2012 #36
What are science's limitations? EvolveOrConvolve Mar 2012 #39
The simplest example of this would be the constellations and looking for shapes in clouds... Humanist_Activist Mar 2012 #6
Exactly. And unfortunately, people still assign agenticity as seen in horoscopes. cleanhippie Mar 2012 #10
One explanation for certain so-called psychic phenomena TlalocW Mar 2012 #7
I have seen this in real life. tabatha Mar 2012 #8
Why do you suppose evolutionary processes selected-for a brain with beliefs? Jim__ Mar 2012 #9
Shermer addresses this in his book. cleanhippie Mar 2012 #11
Can you explain it? Jim__ Mar 2012 #14
If I could explain it like Shermer, I'd write a book. cleanhippie Mar 2012 #22
If you understand something, you should be able to explain it. Jim__ Mar 2012 #25
Seeing patterns is incredibly useful edhopper Mar 2012 #26
A pattern recognizing brain is not necessarily a "belief engine." Jim__ Mar 2012 #31
The OP post makes it quite clear edhopper Mar 2012 #33
Why would you ask for scientific evidence to counter a postulate? Jim__ Mar 2012 #40
A postulate edhopper Mar 2012 #42
Here are a few different ideas about beliefs, religion, and evolution. Jim__ Mar 2012 #45
You seem to be under the misapprehension. edhopper Mar 2012 #47
See post #48. Jim__ Mar 2012 #49
You're right, and I can. cleanhippie Mar 2012 #28
I'll accept that your explanation is Michael Shermer said so. Jim__ Mar 2012 #30
You can assume what you want to, it matters not a bit to me. cleanhippie Mar 2012 #34
Are you trying hard to be snarky? or just repeating a pattern? SamG Mar 2012 #37
Probably to make us aware of our surroundings more... Humanist_Activist Mar 2012 #12
You say false positives wouldn't adversely affect reproductive success. Jim__ Mar 2012 #17
You forget that we live in groups, and so did our ancestors... Humanist_Activist Mar 2012 #18
I don't forget that we live in groups, your explanation didn't have anything to do with groups. Jim__ Mar 2012 #19
Seeing patterns has survival value because there ARE patterns Jim Lane Mar 2012 #13
Do you have any evidence to support your last sentence? Jim__ Mar 2012 #15
Anecdotal evidence: Astrology columns in newspapers. Useless gambling systems. Jim Lane Mar 2012 #21
Jim, those were awesome responses! cleanhippie Mar 2012 #23
Your answer indicates that you are far more prone to see patterns than to be overly skeptical. Jim__ Mar 2012 #24
What are you disagreeing with? edhopper Mar 2012 #27
Is it me or is Jim being unnecessarily antagonistic? cleanhippie Mar 2012 #35
I was reporting an actual Gallup poll. I personally do not believe in ghosts. Jim Lane Mar 2012 #29
Two points. Jim__ Mar 2012 #32
Try these edhopper Mar 2012 #38
Gallup does not make any such claim in those polls. Jim__ Mar 2012 #41
So your argument is based on edhopper Mar 2012 #43
In the first place, I didn't give an argument. Jim__ Mar 2012 #44
I just don't understand what you are trying to say edhopper Mar 2012 #46
Post #9 was my opening of this sub-thread. Jim__ Mar 2012 #48
All it takes for overzealous pattern recognition to be an evolutionary advantage... Silent3 Mar 2012 #50
Thank you S3 edhopper Mar 2012 #51
I can explain that: laconicsax Mar 2012 #54
Do you mean reproductive "value" or "advantage"? SamG Mar 2012 #52
We do have a brain with beliefs edhopper Mar 2012 #53
That does not answer the question of "why" it was selected-for. Jim__ Apr 2012 #55
So everyone who believes in ghosts is because they had a sudden death edhopper Apr 2012 #56
Read posts #41 and 44. Jim__ Apr 2012 #57
I have no idea what you are trying to argue edhopper Apr 2012 #58
Pareidolia: mr blur Mar 2012 #16
Thanks ch for the review. azul Mar 2012 #20
"Fun Science: Randomness" SamG Apr 2012 #59
Latest Discussions»Issue Forums»Religion»Our brains have evolved t...»Reply #45