Just a few comments after http://exmormon.org/phorum/read.php?2,1559298

***********

In many of our threads on religion, there is a persistent conflation of what *is* versus what *ought to be*. This error is so pervasive that it even leads people to assume that a mere *description* of what has happened, or could have happened, is an endorsement of it.

This was the case with my example of a tribe who, for religious reasons, massacres another tribe, thereby continuing to exist and even flourish. I was not "endorsing" that behaviour. I used it to illustrate Darwin's point in "The Descent of Man" that empirically baseless (including specifically religious) beliefs at group level very well could have conferred survival advantage. In any case, there is simply NO evolutionary warrant for the supposition that nature has selected *against* false (religious) beliefs *when those beliefs confer survival advantage* - which, needless to say, places an enormous burden of proof on anyone who wishes to argue that religion, in addition to being untrue, is inherently, and in all cases, an unmitigated social evil. The burden of course only grows higher once we factor in the accumulating research purporting to document religious faith's social benefits (see, e.g., http://www.macleans.ca/society/science/god-is-the-answer/ ).

Though one would never know it reading some of the posts on this board, assumptions about an evolutionary heritage for religion are not controversial claim. As evolutionary biologist Mark Pagels writes in a chapter on religion:

"The uncomfortable truth of natural selection and cultural evolution is that dispositions - including religious ones - that serve individuals will be favoured...To expect that only 'good' things will evolve is to miss an important point about Darwinian evolution. Natural selection does not wear moral glasses; it promotes collections of genes and ideas that triumph in competition with other collections of genes and ideas". (See "Wired for Culture", Chapter Four).

Well, yes. That's what I've been trying to explain on this board for years. If you believe in science, you believe in evolution; and if you believe in evolution, you eventually must come to consider carefully, and probably adopt, the view that religion over time has most likely conferred survival advantages to individuals and groups. The fact that religions usually require such monumental investments of resources (which could seemingly have been more effectively made use of) makes this all the more likely.

To assume an evolutionary heritage for religion is NOT to argue that "religion is inherently a morally good thing". (To suggest otherwise is once again to project a conflation). It is only to assume that, for all its grotesqueries, it probably has been a *useful* thing, overall, in important ways; and there is a big difference between "morally good" and "conducive to survival in some important ways". No one would argue that a rattlesnake's venom is "morally good"; but who would deny it helped the snake survive? The two things are very different, you see, and I think it requires a sort of scientifically illiterate, irrational fanaticism to assume that someone who, on the basis of evolutionary theory and science, merely points out religion's likely net utility is ipso facto *a defender of religion's catalogue of crimes*.

I might add here that a long line of political rulers and thinkers have doubted the veracity of religion while regarding it as a useful way of maintaining social order. Just as one example amongst many, the Florentine political thinker Niccolo Machiavelli - a man who no one could ever accuse of theist belief - disliked Christianity on grounds it made people soft, and spoke with perfect cynicism about religion in general. Yet even he championed religion as a powerful tool which a successful political ruler must make use of to maintain order (he preferred the old Roman religion for that). Quite a few of America's founders were in the same boat: skeptics who nevertheless saw religion as "useful", and even probably indispensable. Again, Darwin was right there with them: a skeptic who nevertheless contemplated the overall utility of certain empirically baseless beliefs.

I mention these examples only to support my contention that a belief in the possible usefulness of religion is very different to a belief that religion is true or is intrinsically and always "morally good"; and when it comes to trying to understand our species, such morally neutral (i.e., purely scientific or rational) appraisals cannot justly be faulted.

Now that that's out of the way, I can hopefully address some of the other points soon, including Henry Bemis's.

"needless to say, places an enormous burden of proof on anyone who wishes to argue that religion, in addition to being untrue, is inherently, and in all cases, an unmitigated social evil."

You've whittled your opposition down to a very small pool.

Removed.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 04/16/2015 08:02AM by thingsithink.

Can something that is false be inherently good for society, not the other way around.

Religions should have to prove their claim that they are inherently good, we should not have to disprove that claim.

We do not need to prove "all cases" to claim religion evil, if it is evil 99.999999% of the time, I would say that it is an evil institution even though it was not evil in "all cases". Hell, even the Nazis ran soup kitchens, so even Nazis were not evil in all cases.



Edited 4 time(s). Last edit at 04/16/2015 08:42AM by MJ.

Not really, thingsIthink. I suggest you start with "The God Delusion" (duh).

I suspect that Dawkins doesn't consider all religions an unmitigated social evil. I'm just guessing he would classify religions in a range from rather benign to an unmitigated social evil. I imagine most posters here would do the same.

But it would be interesting to see how many posters agree that all religions are an unmitigated social evil. I could be wrong, but I think it's a small number. Maybe zero.

agreed - even on RfM i would bet that the actual number of people that truly believe that "religion, in addition to being untrue, is inherently, and in all cases, an unmitigated social evil" is probably close to zero

have people here made statements that sound like that? sure - but that's no different than a man burned by a woman and saying, "all women are evil" - he may feel even feel that way in the moment but does his behavior reflect that belief? in almost all cases the answer is obviously no

instead of crusading against hyperbole on RfM a little empathy might be in order

Tal, I think it is impossible to talk about evolution and religion in the same sentence unless religious belief is shown to be a phenotype of a gene or combination of genes. If religious belief is not a phenotype then we have to treat it as a meme. There are thousands of posts on my facebook wall that prove meme's don't have to be beneficial to be successful.

Green Potato - Religions are massively different than "memes" like catchphrases, hip hugger jeans, etc.

For one thing, throughout time, religions have typically demanded MASSIVE sacrifices clearly detrimental in themselves to the well-being and survival of adherents - time, money, chastity, one's life, the firstlings of one's flock...the list is very long.

So the first question is: could anything as massively maladaptive, as massively injurious to an individual's or group's well-being and survival as religion seems to be from this perspective, have not only "persisted", but positively flourished to the point of ubiquity amongst our species, if it conferred no survival advantage at all? If there is *anything* to biological or cultural evolution, how could this insane, lethal waste of life-giving resources not have been selected AGAINST millenia ago?

My point is that, prima facie we can safely (albeit provisionally) assume that what at first appears to be a lethal waste of time and money and everything else, in fact has to have somehow been worth it.

Again, we're not talking about the latest hit song "meme" here - we're talking about a giant, all-encompassing Thing that is demanding and consuming the energies and talents and resources from humans which would otherwise have been funneled into more productive endeavours - like planting crops, or building shelters, or hunting. Instead, Zog, surrounded by his comrades, is sacrificing and burning his best calf on an altar to some god which doesn't exist, or going into battle over what some shaman said, or wasting three days sitting around fasting and chanting while his crops are dying, times fifteen gazillion, all over the world.

How, in light of the cold calculus of survival, could this sort of behaviour have flourished in so many different ways, *unless it somehow or other conferred real net benefits*? That's the big first question; and the second is: if it couldn't, what *were* those benefits? Those are the questions that researchers like the ones I mentioned to Henry Bemis below try to answer.

Tal Bachman Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> How, in light of the cold calculus of survival,
> could this sort of behaviour have flourished in so
> many different ways, *unless it somehow or other
> conferred real net benefits*? That's the big first
> question; and the second is: if it couldn't, what
> *were* those benefits? Those are the questions
> that researchers like the ones I mentioned to
> Henry Bemis below try to answer.

Watching TV confers no "survival" benefit of any kind.
Yet hundreds of millions of people around the world invest a great deal of time in doing so, they invest a great deal of money in purchasing TV equipment to be able to do so, and they neglect social life, family, nutrition, and lots of other "beneficial" things in doing so.

And there goes your premise.

It's highly unlikely we have genes or alleles that predispose us to watch tv.
It's also highly unlikely we have genes or alleles that predispose us to religion.
Meaning neither is subject to natural selection.

Tal Bachman Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> So the first question is: could anything as
> massively maladaptive, as massively injurious to
> an individual's or group's well-being and survival
> as religion seems to be from this perspective,
> have not only "persisted", but positively
> flourished to the point of ubiquity amongst our
> species, if it conferred no survival advantage at
> all?

It is not a question of whether it provides a survival advantage to the individual. I think you missed that point when you read "The selfish gene" (assuming you have read it). It is a question of whether it provides a survival advantage to the GENE for religion. Evolution happens at the level of the gene, not the level of the individual. I can't emphasise that enough. Unfortunately I can't force you to understand it.

> If there is *anything* to biological or
> cultural evolution, how could this insane, lethal
> waste of life-giving resources not have been
> selected AGAINST millenia ago?

If there is no gene for religion then there is no selection.

>
> My point is that, prima facie we can safely
> (albeit provisionally) assume that what at first
> appears to be a lethal waste of time and money and
> everything else, in fact has to have somehow been
> worth it.

The best way to understand religion is to accept that it is a human invention. As for any invention, its spread amongst the population depends on the invention's ability to convince people to reproduce the invention. The ability of the invention to provide survival benefit might help convince others to copy the invention, but it is not the only way.

Note that the spread of inventions do not follow the same course as a gene for the invention. The invention faces its own selection pressures.

>
> Again, we're not talking about the latest hit song
> "meme" here - we're talking about a giant,
> all-encompassing Thing that is demanding and
> consuming the energies and talents and resources
> from humans which would otherwise have been
> funneled into more productive endeavours - like
> planting crops, or building shelters, or hunting.
> Instead, Zog, surrounded by his comrades, is
> sacrificing and burning his best calf on an altar
> to some god which doesn't exist, or going into
> battle over what some shaman said, or wasting
> three days sitting around fasting and chanting
> while his crops are dying, times fifteen
> gazillion, all over the world.
>
> How, in light of the cold calculus of survival,
> could this sort of behaviour have flourished in so
> many different ways, *unless it somehow or other
> conferred real net benefits*?

Many of the high sacrifice beliefs that you are talking about have not survived. They have been replaced by less demanding religions. Meanwhile, the human genes of the people who used to believe those high sacrifice religions have survived. How do you explain that?

> That's the big first
> question; and the second is: if it couldn't, what
> *were* those benefits? Those are the questions
> that researchers like the ones I mentioned to
> Henry Bemis below try to answer.

The genes that make us different to chimpanzees, and therefore capable of becoming religious, evolved before religion was invented. How could religion have been invented first? That doesn't even make sense. Incremental genetic changes happened first, in an environment free from religion.

Perhaps faith and belief in a higher order is more fundamental and basic to human growth, including evolution, than science.

Without inspiration and faith in the unseen, visionaries lose vision, and inspiration loses its wings. Inventiveness, like science, requires elements of both.

It's null and void to believe you can have science and thrive as a society but not religion, even utilitarian values aside.

Faith without reason is dead. Reason without inspiration and some faith is blind.

Here is an argument by Dawkins that "religion has no survival value for individual human beings, or for the benefit of their genes" and that religion is more of a side-effect to something that does have a survival value.

http://www.secularhumanism.org/library/fi/dawkins_24_5.htm



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/16/2015 08:37AM by thingsithink.

TB: If you believe in science, you believe in evolution; and if you believe in evolution, you eventually must come to consider carefully, and probably adopt, the view that religion over time has most likely conferred survival advantages to individuals and groups.

COMMENT: First, when you invoke survival value on "individuals and groups" you are talking about too different things. With respect to groups, you are talking about group selection effects, suggesting that over time religious social groups were selected for over social groups rejecting religion. Although group selection effects have been shown to be mathematically possible, it is extremely rare, and certainly does not happen in the context of religion. First, under Darwinian principles there must be a biological trait that is found within a particular group that is not found in a competing group. Religious belief is not a biological trait, it is a psychological trait that presumably arises from brain processes in conjunction with environmental influences. So, you do not have an underlying biology to support group selection here. There is no "God gene."

Second, for group selection to occur, the competing groups must be isolated from each other but within a context of competition. Here, religious groups are themselves poorly defined, but even more suspect are claims that historically religious groups and non-religious groups were isolated such that over time religious groups were favored. All of this is a huge reach. Moreover, there is not enough biological time to bring about such evolutionary mechanisms, without involving social factors and culture as the principle force behind religion.

When you shift to individual selection for religious belief, you are talking about a claim that religious belief is itself a trait, i.e. a phenotype, that is instantiated by a genetic component, and that has survival and reproductive advantage. As such, religious belief is an adaptation based upon environmental, survival pressures. This is just nonsense. There is no evidence that religious belief is even a biological trait, and from ordinary principles of biological evolution it is not. Again, such beliefs, like other beliefs, represent a complex function of biological and environmental influences. Moreover, there is no credible "just-so story" as to how religious faith took hold from such environmental pressures. Moreover, intuitively, religious faith encompasses belief in an afterlife, which minimizes, not enhances, the importance of survival in this life. Moreover, religious faith generally encompasses altruism, which again works against an individual survival advantage. So, to claim that religious faith "most likely conferred survival advantage" is to misunderstand evolutionary theory by assuming that every fact of human society as persisting through cultural time must have an evolutionary underpinning. Not so.

Now, if you want to take a broad view of "evolution" such that everything evolves, and that some things persist through time and other things do not because of complex physical, biological, cultural, psychological and social pressures, then fine. Religion has been "favored" simply because it has persisted. But that is a trivial point. Moreover, persistence does not equate with usefulness.

The upshot of all of this is, of course, as may be related to your thesis: "I mention these examples only to support my contention that a belief in the possible usefulness of religion is very different to a belief that religion is true or is intrinsically and always "morally good"; and when it comes to trying to understand our species, such morally neutral (i.e., purely scientific or rational) appraisals cannot justly be faulted."

You are right, of course, in your claim that the usefulness of religion is a different question from its truth, or morality. But, if you are arguing that the usefulness of religion, or the usefulness of religious faith, is scientifically established by principles of evolution, that is false. The usefulness of religion in society, or to individuals, remains arguable. After all, it may well be a negative byproduct of other biological or cultural factors, e.g. war. But in any event, an argument for such usefulness is not enhanced or supported by appeal to evolutionary theory.

Tal Bachman Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> In many of our threads on religion, there is a
> persistent conflation of what *is* versus what
> *ought to be*. This error is so pervasive that it
> even leads people to assume that a mere
> *description* of what has happened, or could have
> happened, is an endorsement of it.
>
> This was the case with my example of a tribe who,
> for religious reasons, massacres another tribe,
> thereby continuing to exist and even flourish. I
> was not "endorsing" that behaviour. I used it to
> illustrate Darwin's point in "The Descent of Man"
> that empirically baseless (including specifically
> religious) beliefs at group level very well could
> have conferred survival advantage. In any case,
> there is simply NO evolutionary warrant for the
> supposition that nature has selected *against*
> false (religious) beliefs *when those beliefs
> confer survival advantage* - which, needless to
> say, places an enormous burden of proof on anyone
> who wishes to argue that religion, in addition to
> being untrue, is inherently, and in all cases, an
> unmitigated social evil.

Except that, as was pointed out, none of us know anyone who actually believes that. It's a straw-man. Additionally, those who argue that natural selection operates on cultural beliefs at all (advantageous to survival or not) have a tough row to hoe, seeing that massive evidence is against that claim -- and that cultural "evolution" isn't subject to natural selection.


> The burden of course only
> grows higher once we factor in the accumulating
> research purporting to document religious faith's
> social benefits (see, e.g.,
> http://www.macleans.ca/society/science/god-is-the-
> answer/ ).

Good thing you put "purporting" there...but once again, I've never met or read anything from anyone claiming religion doesn't have any "social benefits" at all. And you still have the massive problem that "social benefits" aren't subject to natural selection.

> Though one would never know it reading some of the
> posts on this board, assumptions about an
> evolutionary heritage for religion are not
> controversial claim. As evolutionary biologist
> Mark Pagels writes in a chapter on religion:

That idea isn't just "controversial," it's dismissed entirely by most evolutionary biologists. Pagels is actually very much in the minority here.

> If you believe in science, you believe in evolution;

Neither is a "belief." Science is a method for finding out facts, not a "belief." Evolution by natural selection is a demonstrated fact, not a "belief."

> you eventually must come to
> consider carefully, and probably adopt, the view
> that religion over time has most likely conferred
> survival advantages to individuals and groups.

Actually, no, one "must" not do any such thing. Social/political behavior is most likely not subject to natural selection at all; even if it is, while religion may indeed have given some "survival advantages" to some groups in some environments, that certainly doesn't mean religion is "good" or useful or beneficial in all environments, or now. At one time it was very likely a survival advantage to some groups of humans to have an alpha male with a harem of females -- doesn't mean we should still adopt that social structure now.


> It is only to
> assume that, for all its grotesqueries, it
> probably has been a *useful* thing, overall, in
> important ways;

Sorry, you go way too far. It is only to assume that in some social environments, it may have provided some "useful" benefits. Not anything "overall" (there have in fact been humans far, far longer than there have been religions, clearly showing religion is not necessary for survival at all).

> ...I think it
> requires a sort of scientifically illiterate,
> irrational fanaticism to assume that someone who,
> on the basis of evolutionary theory and science,
> merely points out religion's likely net utility is
> ipso facto *a defender of religion's catalogue of
> crimes*.

Of course, call anyone who disagrees with you illiterate and irrational and a fanatic. Those kind of ad-hominems are always useful. Oh, wait, no they're not...

So, Tal, this series follows a typical structure: set up a straw man. Argue against it, ignoring contrary evidence. Then call anyone who doesn't agree with your arguments names.
Nicely done.

Henry:

Your claim that group-level selection for religion "certainly does not occur" is openly disputed by many of the brightest minds working in biology, psychology, and anthropology today.

For example, in his recent book, "The Social Conquest of Earth", biologist E. O. Wilson shows that group selection (not kin selection) is the driving force of evolution, and shows how that has led to humanity's natural religiosity. Psychologist Jonathan Haidt provides evidence for essentially the same view in "The Righteous Mind: Why Good People are Divided by Politics and Religion", as does anthropologist Christopher Boehm in his book, "Moral Origins: The Evolution of Virtue, Altruism, and Shame". I assume you have not had a chance to read through those careful explorations, and so I respectfully recommend all three of them to you.

>>>The usefulness of religion in society, or to individuals, remains arguable. After all, it may well be a negative byproduct of other biological or cultural factors, e.g. war.

---In light of the evidence (again, see the books I mentioned above, as well as perhaps "The Faith Instinct" by Nicolas Wade"), I find this proposition extremely doubtful.

>>>But in any event, an argument for such usefulness is not enhanced or supported by appeal to evolutionary theory.

---Along with E. O. Wilson, Boehm, Haidt, D. S. Wilson, Charles Darwin, and other scientists working on this, I completely disagree with that statement; and in fact, I am unable to fathom how acquaintance with our best understanding of how evolution works is compatible with the claim that it can provide no support for the ubiquity of religion amongst our species. You seem to be magnifying the very slight chance that evolution can furnish no support for the possible utility of religion into something like a dogmatic "case-closed" conclusion, when in reality, there are many good, compelling empirical reasons for coming to the conclusion the above researchers, and so many other leading lights in these areas, have come to.

I submit that it is probably simple bias - born of an unpleasant Mormon past - which could lead us to dismiss the evidence indicating selection for religion. Again, I'd recommend those three books I mentioned as a good starting place.

P.S. For more on this, see my post above to Green Potato: http://exmormon.org/phorum/read.php?2,1561468,1561894#msg-1561894



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 04/16/2015 04:38PM by Tal Bachman.

Tal:

You can't argue this issue by citing authority; particularly the authority of E.O. Wilson and a bunch of non-biologist social Darwinists. In the context of this Board, you need to present ideas, with explanations. Otherwise, you end up with a Bensonesque post of massive "authoritative" quotations.

I have stated in clear terms why religion cannot be a product of evolutionary group selection, unlike, for example, E.O. Wilson's ants. If you disagree, then tell me what is wrong with my argument. Don't just cite authority. Wilson's book in particular is highly controversial, to say the least, and far removed from main stream biology.

But since you started this, here is a David Sloan Wilson's assessment of the debate:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-sloan-wilson/richard-dawkins-edward-o-_b_1588510.html

Regarding group selection, Wilson writes:

"In the received history that just about everyone agrees upon, many biologists during the first half of the 20th century assumed that adaptations evolve at all levels of the biological hierarchy, including individuals, social groups, species, and ecosystems. Either there was no awareness that group selection might be necessary, or it was assumed that between-group selection would be strong enough to oppose within-group selection. Today this position is known as naïve group selectionism. It came under intense scrutiny in the 1960's and a consensus emerged that while between-group selection is possible in principle, it is almost invariably weak compared to within-group selection in nature. If behaviors evolve that appear to be "for the good of the group", then they must be explained without invoking group selection. All of the other theories for explaining the evolution of cooperative and altruistic social behaviors, such as kin selection, reciprocity, and selfish gene theory, were explicitly developed as alternatives to group selection."

Now, in all fairness, D.S. Wilson goes on to discuss later models of group selection, and notes that the current majority view is pluralistic with respect to selection models. I personally think this is overstated, but the point here is that religion does not fit well with any such models, except perhaps grossly wild speculation. Note that D.S. Wilson is the same guy that gave us "Darwin's Cathedral," in 2002, arguing group selection as an explanation for religion. That book was an embarrassment to biology, and apparently (and hopefully) D.S. Wilson has backed off of this view.

See also: "Group Selection in the Evolution of Religion:Genetic Evolution or Cultural Evolution?"

http://www.academia.edu/4842047/Group_Selection_in_the_Evolution_of_Religion_Genetic_Evolution_or_Cultural_Evolution

Henry:

I'm not trying to win an argument by an appeal to authority, and I share with you a dislike of laundry lists of authorities rather than evidences and argument.

I only mentioned those books to point out that my own arguments for this, which have appeared many times on the board but which evidently have failed to convince you, are not eccentric, and are shared by many bright researchers of religion, who would argue vehemently against your own claims, and who provide fuller accounts than I can possibly provide on this board. I thought those fuller accounts might persuade you since my own shorter (and much lousier) accounts haven't, that's all.

So, my question is: if the evidence and arguments contained in the four books I mentioned on this thread don't convince you that it is at least *possible*, and at most likely, that religion has been selected for, what would a recap accomplish? It sounds like you very much have your mind made up.

Put another way - what would convince you that religion very well might have been selected for?

Well, I might be naïve on this, but one reason I like to insist on statements of positions and arguments, instead of simply citing authority, is because I want to at least try to draw others into the conversation, and perhaps tweak someone's interest into looking more closely at the issues involved.

Now, let me explain my position here. I am not a Dawkins type denier of group selection because I want everything to be explained via genetics and the modern synthesis. I think that paradigm is flawed too. The plurality of evolutionary mechanisms, including most importantly EVO-DEVO (evolutionary developmental) processes, make human nature and evolution more a matter of the ordinary causal mechanisms of natural history, rather than well-defined evolutionary theories. Of course, the general idea of evolution remains true, i.e. that biological complexity is explained by evolutionary processes. However, whether, and to what extent, consciousness is to be included as solely a product, or emergent property, of biological complexity remains a mystery.

As for religion, as my posts show, I believe strongly in the humanistic idea of independent consciousness, individual autonomy and freewill; i.e. that human beings are much, much more than biology. Thus, neither religion, nor any other social phenomenon involving human emotions and decision-making, can be simplistically explained by simple appeal to either biological evolution, cultural evolution, or whatever other scientific theory one wants to invoke. Fundamentally, human nature is at bottom biological, but it is tempered by both environmental influences, and, most importantly, human freewill. Therefore, there is no free and easy explanation as to why religion came to be. But most likely it involves the human response to the predicament of death, and a search for meaning in life. It is not because of any evolutionary "god gene," or "just-so" evolutionary story; group selection or otherwise.

In short, I suggest that religion is deeply personal. This position enhances and respects both human beings and religious faith, while reserving criticism of religious institutions that exploit the existential human condition that underlies it.

So, when you accuse me of an anti-religion "simple bias" born of a rejection of Mormonism, nothing could be further from the truth. An anti-religion bias is what drives people to adopt neat and tidy "scientific" explanations for a phenomenon that is fundamentally a product of what it means to be human on an individual level. That is what devalues both humanity and personal faith. And when you attempt to promote respect for religion through scientific theories involving its evolutionary usefulness, I think this is fundamentally the wrong approach.

I say whip it, whip it good!

Henry, Tal, why is this even being discussed anymore. The idea of genes for this and genes for that and the promises of the Human Genome Map turned up to be a multi-billion dollar bust. Genes do stuff, yes, but not anything remotely close to what was theorized.

http://www.theguardian.com/books/2012/dec/19/genes-cells-and-brains-hilary-steven-rose-review

"The book performs in high style the necessary public service of recomplicating the simplistic hogwash hysterically blasted at us by both uncritical science reporters and celebrity scientists. (The authors are very funny about Richard Dawkins, who clearly doesn't understand what a metaphor is.) Here are the knotty histories of molecular biology and evolutionary theory, with explanations of why evo-devo and epigenetics make the old genetic determinism untenable, and why there is hardly ever "a gene for" something."

Etc

Tomatoes have more genes than us, and the last time I looked tomatoes weren't getting ready to spend five generations building themselves a Notre Dame or what you will.

Human, sans argument and evidence most of the time, but especially during the Stanley Cup Playoffs!

Hi Human:

"The book performs in high style the necessary public service of recomplicating the simplistic hogwash hysterically blasted at us by both uncritical science reporters and celebrity scientists. (The authors are very funny about Richard Dawkins, who clearly doesn't understand what a metaphor is.) Here are the knotty histories of molecular biology and evolutionary theory, with explanations of why evo-devo and epigenetics make the old genetic determinism untenable, and why there is hardly ever "a gene for" something."

COMMENT: This book (I haven't read it) appears to accentuate the point I made above that evolutionary mechanisms, as understood nowadays, is more than what can be explained by simple theories, like Darwinian natural selection. The plurality of such mechanisms suggest that evolution is best understood as simply natural history, i.e. complex causal processes, rather than the application of neat and tidy theories.

Note, however, that epigenetics notwithstanding, there are still genes that can be isolated, and these genes still "encode" proteins which still have functional properties. What has changed is that we now know that there are developmental and epigenetic influences, not to mention a broad range of environmental influences, that play a huge role in regulating gene expression. Note further, that these biological mechanisms are still deemed to be for the most part "deterministic." Moreover, most biologists still insist that human beings are nothing more than biological machines. To get from biological machines to conscious, autonomous agents having genuine freewill, you need more than just the realization that the mechanisms of evolution are pluralistic and complex. You need a respect for conscious experience and agent autonomy, and all that such implies.

That is why we are still talking about this!

Why do I get the feeling that you're trying to start a New Age cult?

"Come on guys, religion ain't so bad. It gave us some nice cathedrals."

"Oh, and one more thing. I've had a revelation from a talking yeast cell..."



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 04/16/2015 09:04PM by archytas.

archytas Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Why do I get the feeling that you're trying to
> start a New Age cult?

---There are a few possibilities: low I.Q., poor reading comprehension, dyslexia, etc. I can't say for sure. Maybe no one can.

> "Come on guys, religion ain't so bad. It gave us
> some nice cathedrals."

---Indeed, religion has given us some fine cathedrals, as well as global pedophile rings courtesy of the Roman Catholic church. And lots of other things. What's your point?


> "Oh, and one more thing. I've had a revelation
> from a talking yeast cell..."

---(See my first response, above.) By the way, it was not I who described cognition on the part of a common yeast cell, but Harvard professor of Molecular and Cellular Biology (and Professor of Applied Physics) Sharad Ramanathan, and Princeton professor of Molecular Biology James Broach, in their 2007 research article, "Do Cells Think?", published in "Cellular and Molecular Life Sciences", 64, pp. 1801 – 1804. I merely referenced their findings.

Henry - Maybe I missed something in your response, but I did not see an answer to my question: what would convince you that religion very well might have been selected for?

Nothing. Because the whole idea does not make any sense on a number of levels; particularly in the biological context and the language "selected for."

That biological organisms, such as humans, are "selected for" their having religious beliefs implies that religious people (or indirectly religious groups) have a survival advantage over and above their non-religious competitors--BECAUSE THE ENVIRONMENT SUPPOSEDLY SELECTS FOR THEM. Moreover, in the context of biology, it implies that there is a unit of selection for "religious beliefs," like a gene or something, such that people who have that "gene" flourish over and above those who do not. If there is no identifiable genetic component, such that religious beliefs can be in principle at least biologically isolated, you are left with something like a cultural meme, and are now outside of biology, and outside of evolution.

Note further that there is nothing in any biologically relevant environment that selects for beliefs. In fact, the environment does not select for anything. Rather, it favors some traits over other traits, based upon how individuals or groups react to that environment. So, what is the "trait" that is operative here, such that the environment "selects for" it; or even more properly such that the given trait can be identified as having a survival advantage? Keep in mind that even with group selection, there must be a "trait" that is favored within the group, and that competes favorably between competing groups that do not have that trait. Such a trait does not exist in this context. You cannot just announce that religious groups flourish over non-religious groups. They may be culturally favored (I doubt it), but that is not biology, and thus not evolution proper.

There is no religious related "unit of selection." There is no "gene," and there cannot be. The genome is not large enough to encompass individual beliefs, for one thing, and for another, beliefs are psychological constructs, and their underlying neurological components are dynamic neural networks, not units available for selection, which is why we were able to change our belief structures when rejecting Mormonism.

What I have just said is quite basic. So, why do a few biologists insist upon some theory of religious selection? I can only speculate that it is because of a commitment to (1) the view that everything is biological; and (2) that everything biological can be defined in terms of being a "gene" instantiating some physical or psychological "trait" for purposes of selection and evolution. Both of these assumptions are demonstrably false.

I think this comment accurately and fully nails the problem. The assumption being made in talking about the "selection" of religion is that there is such a thing as non-religion. What does "religion" mean in this context? I personally believe the sun will rise tomorrow. Does that make me religious? I've got a belief, after all. I happen to believe the sun will rise tomorrow because it always does, and, if I think about it, I do know the Earth revolves around its axis and orbits the sun. Is that a religion for me, or not? Just what is this "religion" we're talking about? And how is it intrinsic to humans, and how isn't it?

You know, there are a host of evolutionary theories - it remains a fluid field of study. For example, lamarkian evolution has poked its head back up with epigenetics. A gross oversimplification of Lamarckism is that characteristics can be acquired during an organisms life that are useful - perhaps even a social system - and passed down to the next generation.

Humans are inherently social animals. Social systems are extremely complicated. Evolutionary metaphors of social systems are one way that social scientists reduce the complexity of social phenomena down to constructs and relationships that be used to explain behavior (i.e., the stuff that theories are made out of). And theory is developed through a process of development and testing that is without beginning or end.

Theories are like lenses. They focus attention on some things and push others out of view. None are perfect. Yet there are few things more useful than a good theory.

There are few absolutes. A digression yes.

Thanks for this contribution, Mannaz. Here are some comments:

MANNAZ: Humans are inherently social animals. Social systems are extremely complicated. Evolutionary metaphors of social systems are one way that social scientists reduce the complexity of social phenomena down to constructs and relationships that be used to explain behavior (i.e., the stuff that theories are made out of). And theory is developed through a process of development and testing that is without beginning or end.

COMMENT: I agree with this for the most part. The problem is when social scientists mistake "evolutionary metaphors" for evolutionary theories. Moreover, social scientists often invoke simplistic evolutionary models to explain social constructs, without factoring in the complexities of human behavior, including especially altruistic behavior that does not lend itself well to modeling. Moreover, by complexity theory, as well as history, we know that the behavior of a single individual might well have profound effects on social structures, again making social theory next to impossible. So, I would say that the social sciences can "shed light" on human behavior and social structures, but that little, if anything, can be determined on a theoretical level.

___________________________________________________

MANNAZ: Theories are like lenses. They focus attention on some things and push others out of view. None are perfect. Yet there are few things more useful than a good theory.

There are few absolutes. A digression yes.

COMMENT: Yes, but there is nothing more intellectually dangerous than a bad theory that is presented as a good theory through the use of misplaced modeling and statistical techniques. I suggest that this is what happens a lot in the social sciences, and particularly why social Darwinism, in its many forms, has created such havoc in science.

Your welcome, Henry Bemis, and that you for your reply.

I also agree with you for the most part.

The challenge in the social sciences is that it is empirically impossible to model a social system in exquisite detail. Just two much going on. But, all the issues around needing to find a way to get a grasp on social behavior remain, so we do the best the with the tools and the data at hand to develop theories and test theories that provide greater insight and understanding. Many theories in the social sciences often are at odds with each other and such disagreements are the grist of fun debates and subsequent research projects. Economists have one view, and within that view are many flavors. Sociologists, social psychologists, and psychologists likewise - again each with many streams of flavors inside. Oh, roll in the anthropologists and archaeologists. And so us social scientists muddle along doing our best to make sense of various matters and try to work up something of use to regular folk that can be taught to them. The capacity for the rigor of the physical sciences - we are not even close.

But, one disregards the social sciences in understanding human behavior at their own peril. Particularly relying on just one point of view. A great example is Russia under Gorbachev. He approached the whole market economy switch from a purely economic framework for developing policies and such to implement it. Alas all the efforts arrived together at the 'crash site'. I had the opportunity to hear a talk from by the Harvard economist who advised Gorbachev, like 14 or so years ago, and he was asked the question of "so what went so very wrong?" The answer was, and I remember the quote, "we got the economics right, but we got the sociology wrong". It turned out there was a whole social system embedded in the commercial enterprises in the state run economy that was not fully appreciated and accounted for.

So, regarding religion and if it hardwired or not. I would say it is 'unsettled science' and remains a very interesting question. There are clearly behaviors and drives that are genetically programed into into organisms ... you just need to own a cat and/or dog raised only in a human family to see this. But sometimes this programming can be more functional or not. Think ADHD - good for not getting eaten in the stone age - keep letting your attention grabbed by things like lions and tigers and bears oh my - not so good in trying to focus on just a few tasks at hand. Think OCD behaviors. Essentially these are 'rituals' than calm the brain and reduce anxiety.

As social animals we are driven to 'group together' to survive and this has probably been more darwinian. However, the mechanisms groups use to figure out how stay together and cooperate may be open. Humans also are driven to try to make sense of things around them. But they also need to eat, mate, and avoid getting eaten -- with a little merry making along the way -- and so need ways to move on to the everyday things of life. Rituals and "myths to live by" (Joseph Campbell) are one mechanism the mind can use to simplify how we understand life. A communist/socialist system also makes things 'simpler' even if not better. Such things have utility in keeping the group together and ensuring that it survives.

Regarding Mormonism specifically. I would suggest that Mormonism survived its contentious founding because Brigham Young took a group of followers to Utah and established a theocracy walled off from the rest of society for several generations. It grew. It survived. It got enough traction to endure exposure to the world and maintain the myths and rituals that make up the religion. Otherwise it would have been 'selected out' aka the Darwinism of social life that killed or almost killed off the other splinter groups.

Let me see if I understand so far, Henry:

You complain about me mentioning a few recent works which explore the possibility of a biological/evolutionary basis for religion, accusing me of trying to win an argument via an appeal to authority; but then, you end up revealing that there really IS no way for me, or Jonathan Haidt, or anyone else, to win "the argument" with you, because *you've already decided that - quote - "nothing" could ever convince you: your belief on this, for you, is in principle wholly unfalsifiable. Like astrology is for astrologers, or Mormonism is for my delusional mother.

Is this really a fair assessment of my contribution to this "debate?"

Throughout this exchange you have yet to present so much as a summary of the views you are subscribing to. Instead, you state conclusions and authority. In contrast, I have provided specific and reasonably detailed responses, stating precisely why your favored conclusion is wrong. Do you then provide argument as to why I am wrong? No. You can't. So, instead, you "summarize" the thread by suggesting that I am rigid in my thinking.

I tell you what. If you want to have credibility here, provide an account of how it might be possible for religion, or religious faith, to evolve through principles of natural selection, individual or group. You can use your cited authorities as guides. Alternatively, try providing an argument as to why my expressed views in this post are wrong, other than by simply clinging to authority whose views you apparently cannot even articulate.

Then, maybe we can have a real debate. In the mean time, I will do you a favor and stay away from your posts, least I puncture a hole in your own apparently immovable conclusions.