Whether religion is related to survival or not is obviously highly context dependent. It's negatively correlated with survival for minorities in intolerant societies. So why do religious identities persist? I would claim there is evidence they aren't persisting, but the basic question is not something of much interest to me. However it seems to be a preoccupation of many people, because atheists are frequently confronted with the alleged universality of religion, as if that were some argument for its worth or truth.
Richard Dawkins seems to agree to the claim that religion is a cultural universal but I'm not so quick to assent to it. It assumes that all things we call religion or religious impulses are essentially the same or have some common core. This faces the philosophical problem of properties and propositions in general. For example, take the property of redness. Is there something that all objects we call red have in common? And if there is, is this the same kind of thing we call religious belief? And if it were, how does that make it different from lots of other things that are near universals of human behavior? Dawkins mentions sexual desire, but he could as well have mentioned fear or love or envy. Or rationality.
If this question is of interest to you, you'll enjoy this short colloquy Dawkins had with Sally Quinn:
- Log in to post comments
(Part of an email exchange that I had with a friend, last Wednesday, regarding the relationship of Religion and Science.)
More on that fucking idiot biologist, Andrew Parker. Science and religion are absolutely, utterly, implacably, eternally, irreconcilably, diametrically opposed. Science is the product of the most formal application of reason; it is the "rational," evidence based interpretation of our surroundings, as this applies to the objective world that we all collectively share; religion, on the other hand, is nothing more than a human construct that can be fashioned in any way that a particular person of any superstitious persuasion wishes to fashion it. Religion never says anything -- of any consequence -- about the nature of "reality;" it can't, obviously, because it is simply not equipped to do anything of the sort. Religion actively encourages the rejection of reality in favor of abysmal superstition, and self delusion (a defensive mechanism that it cannot possibly part with); religion really has no other choice, here, if it wishes to survive; and that is clearly its most fervent and emphatic wish. "Survival" is an absolute imperative for all religions; everything else is entirely subordinate to that one particular mandate. If religion could somehow gaze at itself in a mirror, it wouldn't detect any reflection. Atheists are that mirror, in my opinion. I sincerely believe that this is the primary reason that religious fundamentalists of every stripe hate us so intensely; they find us genuinely "frightening," and they should, as I see it. And, since religion is always necessarily fundamentally deceptive, it's impossible for me to conclude anything other than that it is also always fundamentally evil.
Click here: Fashionable Nonsense: Reconciling science with Genesis : Laelaps
Some may be interested in this Science article http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/326/5954/784 (behind firewall but it's Science 6 November 2009:
Vol. 326. no. 5954, pp. 784 - 787
DOI: 10.1126/science.326_784:"News Focus Origins: On the Origin of Religion Elizabeth Culotta")
"Some researchers, exploring religion's effects in society, suggest that it may boost fitness by promoting cooperative behavior. And in the past 15 years, a growing number of researchers have followed Darwin's lead and explored the hypothesis that religion springs naturally from the normal workings of the human mind. This new field, the cognitive science of religion, draws on psychology, anthropology, and neuroscience to understand the mental building blocks of religious thought. "There are functional properties of our cognitive systems that lean toward a belief in supernatural agents, to something like a god," says experimental psychologist Justin Barrett of the University of Oxford in the United Kingdom.
Barrett and others see the roots of religion in our sophisticated social cognition. Humans, they say, have a tendency to see signs of "agents"âminds like our ownâat work in the world. "We have a tremendous capacity to imbue even inanimate things with beliefs, desires, emotions, and consciousness, ... and this is at the core of many religious beliefs," says Yale University psychologist Paul Bloom.
Meanwhile, archaeologists seeking signs of ancient religion focus on its inextricable link to another cognitive ability: symbolic behavior. They, too, stress religion's social component. "Religion is a particular form of a larger, social symbolic behavior," ... When it comes to natural phenomena, "we may be intuitive theists," says cognitive psychologist Deborah Kelemen of Boston University (BU). She has shown in a series of papers that young children prefer "teleological," or purpose-driven, explanations rather than mechanical ones for natural phenomena. ... The point of studying children is that they may better reflect innate rather than cultural biases, says Kelemen. But recent work suggests that it's not just children: Kelemen and Krista Casler of Franklin & Marshall College in Lancaster, Pennsylvania, found the same tendency to ascribe purpose to phenomena like rocks, sand, and lakes in uneducated Romany adults. They also tested BU undergraduates who had taken an average of three college science classes. When the undergrads had to respond under time pressure, they were likely to agree with nonscientific statements such as "The sun radiates heat because warmth nurtures life." ... the "hypersensitive agency detection device": looking for a thinking "being" even in nonliving things. ... [researchers] asked 40 people to evaluate statements about God's emotions and relationships to humans, such as, "God is removed from the world" and "God is forgiving," while they were in an fMRI scanner. The researchers found that the areas that lit up (indicating oxygen uptake and so presumably brain activity), such as the inferior frontal gyrus on both sides of the brain, are also involved in theory of mind. ... Other researchers hypothesize that religion is actually adaptive: By encouraging helpful behavior, religious groups boost the biological survival and reproduction of their members. Adhering to strict behavioral rules may signal that a religion's members are strongly committed to the group and so will not seek a free ride, a perennial problem in cooperative groups (Science, 4 September, p. 1196).
Norenzayan and others also note that helpful behavior is more common when people think that they are being watched, so a supernatural god concerned with morality could encourage helpful behaviors, especially in large groups where anonymity is possible. Some researchers suggest that cognitive tendencies led to religion, which then took hold and spread because it raised fitness."
I particularly note the last bits: societies need a basis for rules and for following the rules and religion serves that need; successful tribes need its members to identify as one of the tribe and not of the "other" and religion does that. Religion has, on an evolutionary scale contributed to the reproductive success/survival of the individual within the tribe (don't believe, or at least profess belief, and you may not live, or at least may be exiled), and of the tribe as a whole (including by accretion). Religion is at an evolutionary scale adaptive.
As to the relationship of religion and science - oh come on.
Look for most of humanity's existence we NEEDED religion.
We have a human need to try to understand/predict/control future events. Religious stories gave us explanations and actions that we felt influenced future events. It was better than doing nothing. Okay, science now does a better job of that than revealed truth.
We have a human need to have a basis for our rules, to have a shared set of axioms. Religion provided that as well. Yes a secular set of axioms ("these truths are self-evident") can also serve that function - but let's face, the eye in the sky sells better.
We have a human need to be part of tribes - most of us do anyway, whether we like to admit it to ourselves or not. Religion has served that need to. Sure, one can form other kinds of tribes - national groups, city sports team allegiances, professional groupings, clubs. But the extended family that will drop off meals when one of its own is sick and be there to socialize with every Sunday morning or Friday night even if they don't really like you too much - that every congregation IS - is a very effective tribe need meeter.
Believe or not believe. But to dismiss religion as "evil" is more than just humorously ironic; it is a simplistic dismissal of the needs that religions serve.
(Personally I am a fan of Spinoza. Pantheism is where its at for me spiritually anyway. But my Jewish side has the better family meals. :) )
We have
As to the relationship of religion and science - oh come on.
Look for most of humanity's existence we NEEDED religion.
We have a human need to try to understand/predict/control future events. Religious stories gave us explanations and actions that we felt influenced future events. It was better than doing nothing. Okay, science now does a better job of that than revealed truth.
We have a human need to have a basis for our rules, to have a shared set of axioms. Religion provided that as well. Yes a secular set of axioms ("these truths are self-evident") can also serve that function - but let's face, the eye in the sky sells better.
We have a human need to be part of tribes - most of us do anyway, whether we like to admit it to ourselves or not. Religion has served that need to. Sure, one can form other kinds of tribes - national groups, city sports team allegiances, professional groupings, clubs. But the extended family that will drop off meals when one of its own is sick and be there to socialize with every Sunday morning or Friday night even if they don't really like you too much - that every congregation IS - is a very effective tribe need meeter.
Believe or not believe. But to dismiss religion as "evil" is more than just humorously ironic; it is a simplistic dismissal of the needs that religions serve.
(Personally I am a fan of Spinoza. Pantheism is where its at for me spiritually anyway. But my Jewish side has the better family meals. :) )
We have
Re the 11-6 Science quote, "Humans . . . have a tendency to see signs of 'agents'âminds like our ownâat work in the world. 'We have a tremendous capacity to imbue even inanimate things with beliefs, desires, emotions, and consciousness, ... and this is at the core of many religious beliefs,' says Yale University psychologist Paul Bloom," this may well not be solely a reaction of humans or even primates; if you have seen a cat, say, in an earthquake, it reacts to the shaking and noise exactly as if a giant creature is chasing it. As for social needs, religion has filled many at times; what scares me is the fundamentalists' fear that we who are not religious may not have sturdy, "guaranteed," trustworthy morality, since their own is grounded in Ten Commandments and the like.
Well it isn't like the religious have a patent on declaring their own moral codes as THE right one. Do you believe in universal human rights? I do. And I feel justified in telling those who live in societies that do not respect that particular moral code that they are wrong.
The advantage of a secular moral code - at least how I understand a secular moral code - is this - it distills down to some common shared values that some may accept on the basis of religion and some may just accept as self-evident, but that we can all accept regardless of our particular religiousity or areligiousity. By so doing we allow ourselves to be a community OF communities. Religious codes force tribalism to get in the way of that. OTOH if it wasn't religion it would be butterside up or butterside down.
Interesting read here which does a good job of exploding some of the myths about the evils of religion, especially Christianity.
http://www.amazon.com/Atheist-Delusions-Christian-Revolution-Fashionabl…
Beliefs held so strong to become certitude is simply faith, so Atheist Fundamentalists just follow a different religion.
I tend toward agnosticism but question a reality where order and complex life and systems develop randomly. Science has not come close to explaining and understanding creation or conciousness and it's understanding of the universe, not to mention our own planet and our own species is pretty poor. Until science can get a better hold on physical reality, I won't rule out a hidden hand responsible for our existence.
Religions main purpose though was to give the ruling elite and way to control the herd. Fear of God worked wonders. Today Government is powerful enough to replace God in terms of punishment if not fear, so religion is not really needed, just a bogeyman to fear like terrorists or global warming. Folks gladly hand government more power to protect them from the bogeyman. Kind of like making a donation at church, gives more power to your prayers.
Having more than one religion (party) keeps the herd squabbling among themselves and keeps them from seeing who or what is really behind the evil being done today.
"I particularly note the last bits: societies need a basis for rules and for following the rules and religion serves that need; successful tribes need its members to identify as one of the tribe and not of the "other" and religion does that. Religion has, on an evolutionary scale contributed to the reproductive success/survival of the individual within the tribe (don't believe, or at least profess belief, and you may not live, or at least may be exiled), and of the tribe as a whole (including by accretion). Religion is at an evolutionary scale adaptive."
You have articulated the fundamental dysfunction of all religions -- without even being aware that you have done so, or even understanding it, I suspect -- that they necessarily promote tribalism. Again...religions exist to deceive. And that makes them fundamentally evil. There is no way of successfully talking your way around that conclusion, as I see it.
Dylan, would it be fundamentally evil to tell a dying child there's an afterlife?
At least some religious beliefs and practices function well as coping mechanisms. Mortality's not easy for a lot of people to accept. Nor is complete lack of control over important outcomes. I'm an atheist, myself, but I can understand why so many people are religious. Denial and delusion can be very comforting in some circumstances.
Dylan you are a bit confused.
The first questions are how the individual tendency to religious belief evolved and how the group tendency to have organized religious beliefs anthropologically developed.
The answer is simply that it was adaptive at both the individual and group levels to have such beliefs - at least an an evolutionary time scale. Without such beliefs cooperation could possibly apply to small kinships; with those beliefs cooperation could extend to larger "fictive" kinships with benefits to all.
To call that evil is akin to calling the lion's hunting ability evil. It is a successful adaptation that allowed for societies to form. Tribalism was a huge improvement over individual kinships vying for survival and religion allowed those tribal groupings to become large enough to encompass whole societies. Tribalism is not evil; it is the essential human trick.
The key is not to eliminate tribalism but to expand the definition of the tribe even larger, to all of humanity. A secular value system that different tribes can subscribe to without renouncing their other group identities is a possible tactic to get there is getting there can be done. Dismissing religion as "evil"; essentially creating another tribal division of the religious vs the secular; is NOT.