The origins of religion : evolved adaptation or by-product?

[Omar B]

I only said that I personally find it hard to dismiss the simple fact that, in the end, the complexity and wonders of the universe, and the way the universe orders itself begs for an answer beyond randomness.

But I think we're drifting away from the original topic, and into trying to justify faith. In the end, Faith is either something you have or you do not have. You either make that leap, and accept something unproven -- or you don't. I'm not likely to change your mind by a few words here.

The OP is about the origins and development of religion, and why so often they've come to similar conclusions about moral actions. That's a bit of a different question. The article is interesting, and I need to give it a much closer reading. It is interesting; is there something intrinsic about morality? About religion? Or is it something we acquire and developed simply to get along?

Why is it people always think there are just two alternatives, religion and god or complete and total randomness? There are many other options, such as natural phenomena, scientific law and such.

As to the religion/morality thing, I addressed that in my second post in this topic. In short, religion may have some morality in it, but morality and ethics are their own subject separate from religion and these things called commandments from god are just logical conclusions (for some of them) if you wish to live in a society with other people.

 

[seasoned]

This is definitely one of the most exciting facts of life, choice. We can chose daily what we want. It sounds like we are all in a place where we want to be, sounds like a winner to me. Now it is back to the martial arts forums for me, the only place where faith doesn't work as well as hard training.

 

[chaos1551]

The article was pretty thick, but enlightening. I've been in a debate with my brother recently about morals with or without religion.

It seems religion allows a society to be members of a cognition, according to the article. It allows easier or simpler personal connection through a preconceived ideology.

If you like it, go for it. If not, go for it. Sucks when that lack of connection breeds insecurity and fear. I'd like to see more of a 'human cognition', so to speak, across cultures. Might get rid of suicide bombers and evangelicals.

 

[blindsage]

Usually there is so much fluff out there, its really nice to find a piece were one has to fire up those dormant IQ points…

Agreed.

Considerable debate has surrounded the question of the origins and evolution of religion. One proposal views religion as an adaptation for cooperation, whereas an alternative proposal views religion as a by-product of evolved, non-religious, cognitive functions. We critically evaluate each approach, explore the link between religion and morality in particular, and argue that recent empirical work in moral psychology provides stronger support for the by-product approach. Specifically, despite differences in religious background, individuals show no difference in the pattern of their moral judgments for unfamiliar moral scenarios. These findings suggest that religion evolved from pre-existing cognitive functions, but that it may then have been subject to selection, creating an adaptively designed system for solving the problem of cooperation.

http://www.cell.com/trends/cognitive-sciences/fulltext/S1364-6613(09)00289-7?large_figure=true

The problem I find with the piece is the number and depth of assumptions about religion and it's origins, and that's well before a discussion of any possible correlation/causation fallacies.

 

[kaizasosei]

I think that religion is definately both. The former is more about conforming and controlling others whereas the latter deals with the spiritual advancement of the individual. Sadly, i would say that the aspects of controlling others through evil and petty ways are more common and true spiritual advancement rarely can be attributed to religion alone. That's a shame. But then again, it is what it is.

Just recently discussed this with a friend. I think that sometimes, religion or what hails in the name of religion, actually often works actively against the spiritual advancement of the individual and the immortal welfare of mankind.



j

 

[Blade96]

In all seriousness? Whatever makes you happy and gets you through to where you want to be.

I need something different.

me too.

btw i wondered if religion came to be because people needed a 'way of life' as in a certain way to live. like withlaws and rules and stuff. Idk. Im just thinking out loud. cause religion seems to me like a lot of rules and laws. and if you follow them right, you'll go someplace like heaven.

 

[kaizasosei]

It seems quite clear to me that much of religion is watered down reminants of the past. The true meaning and power is latently present, but the confusion makes it hard for the individual to unveil.

If someone could achieve the philosophers stone, unify mind and body, tame the tiger and raise the dragon or whatever one calls it and basically wow us with wonders and awesomeness, that would be proof that religion and the whole esoteric spiel works.

Kindof a devilish perspective, but as the rosicrucians say, 'it was by works that they did believe.' meaning people believe most by seeing.
But the fact that noone is achieving these spiritual goals or wonderous results is a bad sign. Not saying anything more than happiness is needed for a person, but when people make bold statements and claims without showing anything, one should definately wonder about that. Especially if they actually seem more on the EVIL side than anywhere else.