Religion From An Evolutionary Perspective

[xSilverPhinx]

[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c3OmoiA39PA[/media]

[url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Sloan_Wilson"]David Sloan Wilson[/url] is an evolutionary biologist and anthropologist who takes an interesting stance on religions from an evolutionary perspective in which they follow the same basic mechanisms as biological evolution and are in themselves "meaning systems" based on our biology.

Meaning systems are value systems caused by primarily three traits: our cognitive makeup and our ability for symbolic thought (which includes language), our ability to cooperate in large groups of unrelated individuals (live as social animals) and our ability to learn and transmit accumulated knowledge (culture).

He developed the [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Group_selection"]multi-level selection[/url] theory, in which he theorized that selection goes on at the unitary genetic level, cellular, individual and at the superorganism or group level in complex and context sensitive interactions and that a consequence of this is that traits at the group level are selected based on their usefulness for the group, whether they are detrimental to the individual or not.

The main point here is that one realization is that within these meaning systems which cause us to think and so act a certain way, truth is secondary and even irrelevant. Religions survive and prosper based on functionality and practical usefulness.

It's an interesting insight (for one it explains why there are so many religions, just as Darwin's explained why there are so many different species). Organized religions would be an emergent cultural phenomena that adapt with and to fit into cultures in order to survive. I was wondering what your thoughts on this were.

***

Some complementary information:

Biologically units of genes which are selected, mutate and inherited by individuals. The manifestation of those genes in complex interaction with their environments produce the individual's phenotype or characteristics such as hair color for instance. Genes are selected for their adaptability and the propagate through individual fitness.

Memes are analogous to genes. They can be defined as:

[quote]…an idea, behavior or style that spreads from person to person within a culture. While genes transmit biological information, memes are said to transmit ideas and belief information. The term meme was coined by Richard Dawkins[url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Dawkins"] [/url] in his book, The Selfish Gene[url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Selfish_Gene"] [/url] as a concept for discussion of evolutionary[url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution"] [/url] principles in explaining the spread of ideas and cultural phenomena. Examples of memes given in the book included melodies, catch-phrases, fashion and the technology of building arches.

A meme acts as a unit for carrying cultural ideas, symbols or practices, which can be transmitted from one mind to another through writing, speech, gestures, rituals or other imitable phenomena. Supporters of the concept regard memes as cultural analogues to genes in that they self-replicate, mutate and respond to selective pressures[url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Selection"] [/url].

Advocates of the meme idea say that memes may evolve by natural selection[url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_selection"] [/url] in a manner analogous to that of biological evolution. Memes do this through the processes of variation, mutation, competition[url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Competition"] [/url] and inheritance[url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heredity"] [/url], each of which influence a male's reproductive success.

Memes spread through the behaviors that they generate in their hosts. Memes that propagate[url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fecundity"] [/url] less prolifically may become extinct[url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extinction"] [/url], while others may survive, spread and (for better or for worse)mutate[url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutation"] [/url]. Memes that replicate most effectively enjoy more success. Some memes may replicate effectively even when they prove to be detrimental to the welfare of their hosts.

A collection of memes is called a memeplex which would be an ideology or political or cultural doctrine which replicate together and co-adapt. [/quote]


If this topic has sparked your interest here's another video (almost an hour long) that's well worth the watch.

[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-mNghtaLqg4[/media]

Edited May 12, 2011 by xSilverPhinx

[Laudate_Dominum]

That's cool. I haven't watched the vids yet but just gotta say that the basic idea makes me think of [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viktor_Frankl"]Victor Frankl[/url] and [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logotherapy"]Logotherapy[/url] (minus the evolutionary aspect). I always thought that was an interesting pov.

P.S. What was life like before wikipedia? I can't even remember. I suppose I'd have had to summarize Frankl and Logotherapy. Hmm... hehe.

P.P.S. Although I have to say that I'm not impressed by memetics. If you've read any critiques of memetics I doubt I have anything to say that you haven't already heard but more later perhaps...

edit: adding postscripts.

Edited May 12, 2011 by Laudate_Dominum

[dairygirl4u2c]

if all religions were wrong, it would be an interesting question, as to why religion exists. it's at least a plausible speculation, reasonable even. (there wouldn't be tons of highly smart people speculating about this, otherwise)

"Religions survive and prosper based on functionality and practical usefulness."
i'm not so sure about this, but i suppose if this stuff were true, what else would you say?

richard dawkins said that religion is harmful. (not that he's right about that) so the way he explains it is to say it's like a moth going to a light, killing itself. normally it's okay to go to a light, but when it's a flame, oops, its genetic upbringing harmed it. he says that human's tendency to do what its predecessors say is what causes us to go to religion. i'm not sure why more fundametnally the predecessors do this though. and, thi9s could could be about functionality and usefuelness in that we do what we're suppose to, and that it probably helps ensure we conform such as to keep the species going or something. tjhis would all work at least in theory even if religion weren't harmful though. if anything, it keeps people ehti9cal and such etc and is not harmful.
the fundamental questions of how it's functaional and practical should be examined more though.

Edited May 12, 2011 by dairygirl4u2c

[xSilverPhinx]

[quote name='Laudate Dominum' timestamp='1305233412' post='2240626']
That's cool. I haven't watched the video yet but just gotta say that the basic idea makes me think of [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viktor_Frankl"]Victor Frankl[/url] and [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logotherapy"]Logotherapy[/url] (minus the evolutionary aspect). I always thought that was an interesting pov.

P.S. What was life like before wikipedia? I can't even remember. I suppose I'd have had to summarize Frankland Logotherapy. Hmm... hehe.

P.P.S. Although I have to say that I'm not impressed by memetics. If you've read any critiques of memetics I doubt I have anything to say that you haven't already heard but more later perhaps...

edit: adding postscripts.
[/quote]

Thanks for the links, I was not familiar with Frankl and logotherapy before...and yes, things would not be the same without wiki

In the second video I posted Sloan says that "existentially insecure" nations, meaning those experiencing a form of anxiety similar I think to what Frankl described which lead him to embrace adversity and find meaning in them are usually both more religious and conservative. Nations that are better off (financially, socially, politically etc.) tend to be less religious or lean more toward liberal religion. Does that say something about religion as meaning systems? They certainly seem to have a cohesiveness (with truth being irrelevant) and community feeling about them that few others have.

I think where the analogy between genes and memes breaks down is that a genetic unit is clear whereas a memetic one is not. When they say that memes are context sensitive and that what exactly constitutes a unit isn't always clear it looks a lot more like a theoretical field of speculation. The main problem there is that memes rely on human beings and whenever people are involved, so much for simplicity! But do I think that the vague general idea behind memetics does apply to some extent, but I'm just speculating. Ideas can be contagious based on mechanisms that are similar to selection.

[xSilverPhinx]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' timestamp='1305233421' post='2240627']
if all religions were wrong, it would be an interesting question, as to why religion exists. it's at least a plausible speculation, reasonable even. (there wouldn't be tons of highly smart people speculating about this, otherwise)

"Religions survive and prosper based on functionality and practical usefulness."
i'm not so sure about this, but i suppose if this stuff were true, what else would you say?[/quote]

What he meant (at least as I understood it) was that a religion being true or not does not affect a person living their life as if it were true. Empirical evidence is secondary in importance to religious experiences and the meaning that people derive from their religions. It wouldn't be false to say that all sincere beleivers of every faith (even those that contradict eachother or cancel eachother out) believe that theirs is the true faith and live their lives accordingly.

As for religions, as an institutionised "official" group of memes such as doctrines (sort of like a body of genes) they benefit from those memes being conducive to keeping the religion relevant. If you're a group based on ideas that people will adopt and want to follow, your group/religion survives. That's the pragmatical and functional aspect of it.

Not to mention religions serve as social organisers as well, when they . Based on what the sociologist Durkheim said, that societies are only possible because of symbolic thought, and if its symbolic thought that lead to memeplexes, then they're are certainly very useful, whether true or not. Yours is a good example of this, that religions have a set of memes on being ethical that people adopt. Though some may think that certain ideas are unique to their groups...

[quote]richard dawkins said that religion is harmful. (not that he's right about that) so the way he explains it is to say it's like a moth going to a light, killing itself. normally it's okay to go to a light, but when it's a flame, oops, its genetic upbringing harmed it. he says that human's tendency to do what its predecessors say is what causes us to go to religion. i'm not sure why more fundametnally the predecessors do this though. and, thi9s could could be about functionality and usefuelness in that we do what we're suppose to, and that it probably helps ensure we conform such as to keep the species going or something. tjhis would all work at least in theory even if religion weren't harmful though. if anything, it keeps people ehti9cal and such etc and is not harmful.
the fundamental questions of how it's functaional and practical should be examined more though.
[/quote]

Dawkins is looking only on the parasitical side of religion (there are some memes that look to be more parasitical), but it's not that simple. I think that Sloan's reasoning is more accurate and better reflects what goes on.

Edited May 12, 2011 by xSilverPhinx

[Socrates]

[quote name='xSilverPhinx' timestamp='1305229670' post='2240593']
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c3OmoiA39PA[/media]

[url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Sloan_Wilson"]David Sloan Wilson[/url] is an evolutionary biologist and anthropologist who takes an interesting stance on religions from an evolutionary perspective in which they follow the same basic mechanisms as biological evolution and are in themselves "meaning systems" based on our biology.

. . .
[/quote]
Smells like bs to me.


Where's the science? I don't see any concrete evidence or scientific testing for any of this puffery.
It's sad that this kind of ideologically-based hypothesizing and empty speculation so often gets reported as "science" today.

And what's a "meme"? Has anyone seen one or tested them in the lab? Seems like just a fancy word for "idea" which really explains little new scientifically.


Personally, I don't buy the idea that religion is spread primarily for "functionality and practical usefulness." For many who convert to the Catholic Faith, such as my parents, their new Faith offers little of nothing in the way of worldly "functionality," and may often mean losing old friends, the support of family, or social prestige. The Faith is sought because it is believed to be the Truth, and offer supernatural benefit and eternal salvation, rather than simply for being useful to get ahead in this life.

Sure, you can probably find plenty of people who join religions for ulterior, or less-than-pure-religious motives, but many do not, and functionality and practical usefulness cannot explain the initial founding or spread of all religions, particularly the Christian Faith. A short review of early Christian history shows the nonsensicalness of that view.

The early Christians were persecuted for their Faith, first by the Jewish authorities, and then by the pagan Romans. Many were tortured and killed for their beliefs, including Jesus Christ Himself. All but one of His Apostles gave their lives for the Faith. And Christianity has continued to spread around the world in places where there was often vicious suppression and persecution.

There is little functionality and practical usefulness in practicing a religion that will get you killed. Nor does that make any sense from a Darwinian perspective. (Martyrdom doesn't aid in survival or the passing on of genes).


And by the logic of these people, why should atheism itself not be yet another "meme" or "meaning system" having no more or less value or truth than religions themselves?

After all, according to atheistic materialism, ideas and thoughts, including atheism, are purely physical/biological processes - nothing more than the physical firing of neurons in the brain. And the firing of these neurons, if atheism is true, can give us absolutely no valid knowledge of ultimate reality. After all these neurons and their workings are simply the end result of genetic evolution having no actual purpose beyond passing on of genes.
By that logic, neither theism nor atheism can tell us anything about truth, but are merely the result of genetically-based physical processes in the brain.

The value of atheism would only lie in its functionality in survival and passing on of genes, though that itself is contrary to the evidence, as, on average, atheists tend to have fewer children than highly religious folks, and studies have repeatedly shown religious faith to have various physical and mental health benefits.

Edited May 12, 2011 by Socrates

[xSilverPhinx]

[quote name='Socrates' timestamp='1305239513' post='2240655']
Smells like bs to me.[/quote]

Did you at least watch them before dismissing them as bs?


[quote]Where's the science? I don't see any concrete evidence or scientific testing for any of this puffery.
It's sad that this kind of ideologically-based hypothesizing and empty speculation so often gets reported as "science" today.

And what's a "meme"? Has anyone seen one or tested them in the lab? Seems like just a fancy word for "idea" which really explains little new scientifically.[/quote]

This has to do with [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Group_selection"]group selection[/url], which still doesn't stand on firm scientific ground itself. He's just extrapolating evolutionary thinking into other areas.


[quote]Personally, I don't buy the idea that religion is spread primarily for "functionality and practical usefulness." For many who convert to the Catholic Faith, such as my parents, their new Faith offers little of nothing in the way of worldly "functionality," and may often mean losing old friends, the support of family, or social prestige. The Faith is sought because it is believed to be the Truth, and offer supernatural benefit and eternal salvation, rather than simply for being useful to get ahead in this life.[/quote]

I don't doubt that if you believe in a particular religion, you've found 'truth' in your mind. I'll take your statement at face value, but what about every other sincere believer who has found 'truth'? What is this 'truth' and how do you prove it?

[quote]Sure, you can probably find plenty of people who join religions for ulterior, or less-than-pure-religious motives, but many do not, and functionality and practical usefulness cannot explain the initial founding or spread of all religions, particularly the Christian Faith. A short review of early Christian history shows the nonsensicalness of that view.

The early Christians were persecuted for their Faith, first by the Jewish authorities, and then by the pagan Romans. Many were tortured and killed for their beliefs, including Jesus Christ Himself. All but one of His Apostles gave their lives for the Faith. And Christianity has continued to spread around the world in places where there was often vicious suppression and persecution.[/quote]

Usually growing cults are persecuted by the majority and dominant social view because they are disruptive. These days it's not the christian majority who is being persecuted but is the one persecuting minorities that they feel are disruptive. It's not as gruesome as it was then because nowadays people can't nail another to a cross or throw people into a ring of lions and get away with it... It doesn't address a religion's truth value. Also, a religion in which people die to serve or die for also does nothing for its truth value. Terrorist bombers die for their beliefs.

[quote]There is little functionality and practical usefulness in practicing a religion that will get you killed. Nor does that make any sense from a Darwinian perspective. (Martyrdom doesn't aid in survival or the passing on of genes).[/quote]

If you watch the first video (less than six minutes long), you'll see an example where a group is positively affected even at the detriment to one kind of individual. It's the group that matters more than the individual in this case and survives.

Again, this is at the[i] group level[/i], not at the individual's. A group can prosper even if some of its individuals undergo sometimes extreme sacrifices.

You're misrepresenting the point here. Who said that a religion "will get you killed" as if it were only harmful or a terminal disease? Applying natural selection to that, if religions got will get you killed, religions would not exist, just as if every virus got you killed, viruses would die out too. A good virus is one that doesn't kill it's host.

[quote]And by the logic of these people, why should atheism itself not be yet another "meme" or "meaning system" having no more or less value or truth than religions themselves?[/quote]

It is, though 'atheism' is not a statement of what one believes in and just one simple facet of an atheistic meaning system. And speaking for myself, if there was the possibility of knowing whether really was a god I would want to know but until that happens I live my life as if there were none (which could be far from the truth).

[quote]After all, according to atheistic materialism, ideas and thoughts, including atheism, are purely physical/biological processes - nothing more than the physical firing of neurons in the brain. And the firing of these neurons, if atheism is true, can give us absolutely no valid knowledge of ultimate reality. After all these neurons and their workings are simply the end result of genetic evolution having no actual purpose beyond passing on of genes.
By that logic, neither theism nor atheism can tell us anything about truth, but are merely the result of genetically-based physical processes in the brain.

The value of atheism would only lie in its functionality in survival and passing on of genes, though that itself is contrary to the evidence, as, on average, atheists tend to have fewer children than highly religious folks, and studies have repeatedly shown religious faith to have various physical and mental health benefits.
[/quote]

You're projecting what you feel to be of value and meaningful here. Atheists find meaning in their lives which without the need for an "ultimate reality (whatever that is)"

[xSilverPhinx]

[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qgOk6r0g5EA[/media]

Here's part one of a debate between David Sloan Wilson, the atheist philosopher Daniel Dennett and Catholic Theologian John Haught on the topic of religion.

[b]
[/b]

[MagiDragon]

[quote name='Socrates' timestamp='1305239513' post='2240655']
Personally, I don't buy the idea that religion is spread primarily for "functionality and practical usefulness." For many who convert to the Catholic Faith, such as my parents, their new Faith offers little of nothing in the way of worldly "functionality," and may often mean losing old friends, the support of family, or social prestige. The Faith is sought because it is believed to be the Truth, and offer supernatural benefit and eternal salvation, rather than simply for being useful to get ahead in this life.

Sure, you can probably find plenty of people who join religions for ulterior, or less-than-pure-religious motives, but many do not, and functionality and practical usefulness cannot explain the initial founding or spread of all religions, particularly the Christian Faith. A short review of early Christian history shows the nonsensicalness of that view.

The early Christians were persecuted for their Faith, first by the Jewish authorities, and then by the pagan Romans. Many were tortured and killed for their beliefs, including Jesus Christ Himself. All but one of His Apostles gave their lives for the Faith. And Christianity has continued to spread around the world in places where there was often vicious suppression and persecution.

There is little functionality and practical usefulness in practicing a religion that will get you killed. Nor does that make any sense from a Darwinian perspective. (Martyrdom doesn't aid in survival or the passing on of genes).
[/quote]

It would be really interesting to see how many of the major religions (Or at least multi-generationally old religions) have survived a startup that involved massive persecution. (I'm using "massive persecution" to mean "death to those who join this group")

Any that did have massive persecution would pretty obviously fail the 'this religion helped people survive" test.

Anyone have a list?

Most forms of Protestantism would fail since they were typically supported by a rebellious prince or king . . . I have no idea about Islam . . . Hinduism was imposed from above . . . Buddhism might count, I'm really not sure. Can anyone flesh this out a little bit?

[Amppax]

[quote name='MagiDragon' timestamp='1305312739' post='2240955']
It would be really interesting to see how many of the major religions (Or at least multi-generationally old religions) have survived a startup that involved massive persecution. (I'm using "massive persecution" to mean "death to those who join this group")

Any that did have massive persecution would pretty obviously fail the 'this religion helped people survive" test.

Anyone have a list?

Most forms of Protestantism would fail since they were typically supported by a rebellious prince or king . . . I have no idea about Islam . . . Hinduism was imposed from above . . . Buddhism might count, I'm really not sure. Can anyone flesh this out a little bit?
[/quote]

Well in the early days of Islam, Mohammad and his follower were driven out of Mecca... not sure if there was massive persecution as you describe it however.

[RezaMikhaeil]

[quote name='Amppax' timestamp='1305312991' post='2240960']
Well in the early days of Islam, Mohammad and his follower were driven out of Mecca... not sure if there was massive persecution as you describe it however.
[/quote]

Not to the level that Christians were persecuted under Diocletian but yes they did face a threat.

[dairygirl4u2c]

most people would say that if christianity were true, or X religion is true, the othe rreligions simply show that religion is written into the hearts and minds of man. and then they'd say that this only makes their religion even more true, given there's a standard protocol for religoius thought... it's just that the others got it wrong...

[xSilverPhinx]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' timestamp='1305333888' post='2241113']
most people would say that if christianity were true, or X religion is true, the othe rreligions simply show that religion is written into the hearts and minds of man. and then they'd say that this only makes their religion even more true, given there's a standard protocol for religoius thought... it's just that the others got it wrong...
[/quote]

Could be another way of looking at it...

[Socrates]

[quote name='xSilverPhinx' timestamp='1305242156' post='2240664']
Did you at least watch them before dismissing them as bs?




This has to do with [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Group_selection"]group selection[/url], which still doesn't stand on firm scientific ground itself. He's just extrapolating evolutionary thinking into other areas.[/quote]
In other words, not science.



[quote]I don't doubt that if you believe in a particular religion, you've found 'truth' in your mind. I'll take your statement at face value, but what about every other sincere believer who has found 'truth'? What is this 'truth' and how do you prove it?[/quote]
I wasn't trying to prove to you the truth of the Catholic religion there. (That's a whole other topic in itself.)
My point was that the reasons real people often have for choosing to convert to a religion often have nothing to do with " functionality and practical usefulness" from an atheistic darwinistic perspective.
Obviously, religions and other belief systems have value for the people holding them (even if it's the value of holding the truth), but that's just stating a truism.
The value of religion cannot be reduced to darwinistic funcitonality like increasing survival rates or spreading more genes.


[quote]Usually growing cults are persecuted by the majority and dominant social view because they are disruptive. These days it's not the christian majority who is being persecuted but is the one persecuting minorities that they feel are disruptive. It's not as gruesome as it was then because nowadays people can't nail another to a cross or throw people into a ring of lions and get away with it... It doesn't address a religion's truth value. Also, a religion in which people die to serve or die for also does nothing for its truth value. Terrorist bombers die for their beliefs.[/quote]
This does nothing to explain in darwinian terms why a religion such as Christianity would spread under circumstances of intense persecution (such as during the first three centuries of its existence), where belonging to the religion would do nothing to increase one's chances of survival or reproduction, but, rather, the opposite.

And this is veering off-topic, but I'd definitely contest the assertion that today Christians are "persecuting" "minorities." Around the world, Christians are far more persecuted than persecuting, and even in modern western countries, society in general is not particularly favorable to devout Christians, even if there is not outright persecution as in certain Islamic and Communist nations.


[quote]If you watch the first video (less than six minutes long), you'll see an example where a group is positively affected even at the detriment to one kind of individual. It's the group that matters more than the individual in this case and survives.

Again, this is at the[i] group level[/i], not at the individual's. A group can prosper even if some of its individuals undergo sometimes extreme sacrifices. [/quote]
Again, such darwinian scenarios fail to explain how Christianity spread so rapidly during the centuries in which it was violently persecuted. How did Christianity offer any survival benefits to any members of the group? After all, anyone's earthly prospects are better at they sacrifice to the emperor and get promoted, rather than profess faith in Christ, and get thrown to the lions.

Read any Catholic book of saints' lives, and you will find many examples of people renouncing worldly possessions, marriage and reproduction for the sake of Christ, and often dying rather than renounce their faith.
Inexplicable in darwininian terms. The best the honest atheist can do is say they are sadly deluded.

[quote]You're misrepresenting the point here. Who said that a religion "will get you killed" as if it were only harmful or a terminal disease? Applying natural selection to that, if religions got will get you killed, religions would not exist, just as if every virus got you killed, viruses would die out too. A good virus is one that doesn't kill it's host. [/quote]
I never compared religion to a virus.
I'm simply pointing out how darwinian terms of survival and natural selection don't really explain the spread of religious faith.


[quote]It is, though 'atheism' is not a statement of what one believes in and just one simple facet of an atheistic meaning system. And speaking for myself, if there was the possibility of knowing whether really was a god I would want to know but until that happens I live my life as if there were none (which could be far from the truth).



You're projecting what you feel to be of value and meaningful here. Atheists find meaning in their lives which without the need for an "ultimate reality (whatever that is)"[/quote]
I honestly don't think either religion or atheism can be adequately explained in terms of "memes" and such.
I think it more meaningful and productive if the claims of religious belief and atheist are discussed and debated on their own terms, rather than this pointless discussion of "memes" and such, which only diverts from the real issues involved.

[Laudate_Dominum]

Winchester from an evolutionary perspective.