12
13

TheismWhy do you think religion started? (self.DebateReligion)

B1naryB0tagnostic atheist が 投稿

並べ替え:
ベスト
トップ新着論争中古い順Q&A
あなたは単独のコメントのスレッドを見ています。

残りのコメントをみる →

[–]usurious 9ポイント10ポイント  (23子コメント)

It could have had an evolutionary benefit if belief in Gods and religion acted as moral cohesion within groups. Humanity's ability to cooperate outside of immediate kin is pretty unique. If groups that acted as one unit more effectively were able to out compete other groups that lacked that ability, due to some unifier like religion, it's definitely plausible some gene-culture co-evolution took over in the last 50,000 years or so.

[–]katsuhira_nightshadeOrthodox Jew & Atheist 5ポイント6ポイント  (0子コメント)

This is actually the thesis of Yuval Harari's book, Sapiens: A Brief History of Humankind. Essentially, he believes that what separates humans from other animals is our ability to create and collectively believe in common fictions, allowing for greater social cohesion.

[–]Three_ScarabsTheistic Setian | Social Worker 0ポイント1ポイント  (18子コメント)

I think it's a bit silly to think that distracting fabrications were somehow beneficial from the perspective of natural selection.

[–]NotInTheNextCubicleThe Nazis had pieces of flair that they made the Jews wear. 2ポイント3ポイント  (10子コメント)

What exactly is silly about it?

[–]Three_ScarabsTheistic Setian | Social Worker -2ポイント-1ポイント  (9子コメント)

Compare "staring at the stars making up nonsense" to "being on guard for nocturnal predators." Who has the fitness?

[–]NotInTheNextCubicleThe Nazis had pieces of flair that they made the Jews wear. 2ポイント3ポイント  (8子コメント)

Those aren't mutually exclusive behaviors.

[–]Three_ScarabsTheistic Setian | Social Worker -3ポイント-2ポイント  (7子コメント)

So you think you can be alert while distracted, a literal paradox? Take care.

[–]NotInTheNextCubicleThe Nazis had pieces of flair that they made the Jews wear. 2ポイント3ポイント  (6子コメント)

No, I think a population can contain members that do both, especially a social population that has the capacity to specialize activity among its members. But hey, if you think we could never develop behavior aside from being on guard all the time, then I'm afraid it's not the comment you replied to that comes off as silly.

[–]Three_ScarabsTheistic Setian | Social Worker -2ポイント-1ポイント  (5子コメント)

If religion developed after agriculture and all that good stuff you'd have a point. Unfortunately, religion came far earlier.

[–]NotInTheNextCubicleThe Nazis had pieces of flair that they made the Jews wear. 4ポイント5ポイント  (4子コメント)

So it wasn't until the development of agriculture that we ever had a moment to devote to anything aside from not being eaten?

[–]Three_ScarabsTheistic Setian | Social Worker -1ポイント0ポイント  (3子コメント)

I just don't see the benefit of such a meaningless practice before societies were even forming.

[–]usurious 2ポイント3ポイント  (0子コメント)

Well consider hypersensitive agency detection. Most animals have similar defense techniques that are on a hair trigger and will err on the side of potential danger (assumed agency) than on a noise being caused by the wind or a falling branch. We also have innate facial recognition and tend to see things and make associations that aren't always there or reasonable to make.

Now combine that with bands of early humans who worked out the ability to share intent and eventually share language. Suppose those people started attributing agency to the weather or other good and bad fortunes, creating stories and persuading others to believe them or invent their own versions. And viola, the birth of supernatural agency, repurposed from an existing adaptive trait.

What's also interesting is how the God's evolved with culture from more malevolent hunter gatherer Gods to more moralistic as groups took up agriculture and became larger. It would be a great way to curb cheaters in a larger society by invoking God's who watch and judge your actions when no one else is around.

[–]sericatusnoncognitivist/lazy Taoist. 0ポイント1ポイント  (5子コメント)

It doesn't have to be beneficial to the individual.

It can be beneficial to the group. This is easy to see, how commandments like "thou shalt not kill (except infidels and heretics, in emergency)" increases the likelihood of the groups survival. Viking warriors believed fighting bravely would get them into Valhalla, it's trivial to see at least how this might have been beneficial in battle, not for individual warriors, but for the band as a whole. We often survive or die with our group, as a whole. We are social animals, after all.

It might be beneficial to the religion. If it's convincing, has convincing answers, or codifies knowledge that isn't well understood (magic healing herbs), the religion will spread to new hosts, and may survive the death of its tribe.

You know what else is distracting fabrications? Mutations. Random changes to our genetic code. Totally fabricated, totally random. Most are in fact not beneficial and only serve to distract, and are not continued. But combined with natural selection, it gives us all sorts of great things- eyes, opposable thumbs, hearts.

It's the same with religion. I'm sure hundreds of useless, distracting religions were wiped out when Christianity or paganism or Scientology converted them, or when their believers died out one way or another. Natural selection has left the ones that were successful one way or another.

[–]Three_ScarabsTheistic Setian | Social Worker -1ポイント0ポイント  (4子コメント)

You're taking religious examples from tens of thousands of years after religious thinking began. Apples and oranges.

[–]sericatusnoncognitivist/lazy Taoist. 3ポイント4ポイント  (3子コメント)

Ok, let's start with basics. Burying dead, right? That's the first ritual we have evidence of, by a long shot.

It's pretty easy to see how getting rid of your dead (one way or another) gives the group an advantage in terms of say avoiding disease, or not attracting predators.

This theory won't explain every religious belief any more than the theory of evolution will explain every aspect of an animals body. But it is a theory, which fits available scientific evidence, and I'm not aware of respected competing theories.

[–]Three_ScarabsTheistic Setian | Social Worker -1ポイント0ポイント  (2子コメント)

So why bury in the first place?

[–]sericatusnoncognitivist/lazy Taoist. 4ポイント5ポイント  (0子コメント)

Because launching them into orbit was too expensive?

Maybe I don't understand the question, or maybe you don't understand the basic concept of "many random religious beliefs, only successful ones survived." So maybe there was a tendency to eat them for a while, but that religion didn't appeal to people, or maybe they all died from cannibal diseases. Thousands of cults spring up every year, how many will be around in three millennia.

[–]Crotalus9 2ポイント3ポイント  (0子コメント)

It's not just that the dead were buried. It's that the dead bodies were provisioned. In a world where surplus was virtually unknown, burying a dead person with an axe, shoes, a tunic and a bag of beans was very costly. The idea must have been that the dead person was going to need those things. Hence, the belief in some sort of afterlife is probably as old as humanity.

In dreams, the body goes on grand adventures while the body lies inert. We know that dreams are just the products of our brains taking out the garbage, but they were real to humans 50,000 years ago. If an inert dreamer is conscious, then a dead body probably is too.

[–]sericatusnoncognitivist/lazy Taoist. -1ポイント0ポイント  (0子コメント)

Correct! You've hit on the answer that %99.99 of all anthropologists, archeologists, historians, biologists, geneticists and every other professionals agree with.

[–]futureorkd -2ポイント-1ポイント  (1子コメント)

well the prehistoric ape fossils were created by paleontologist scam artists trying to make millions selling dinosaur and prehistoric animals fossils.