Evolutionary Basis for Religion

Great Debates
81

[QUOTE=Der Trihs]

[QUOTE=CJJ*]
Not only has it taken the relatively interesting question raised in the OP and reduced it to the usual shouting match over the existence of God, but it now has some folks advocating what I have to assume is the forcible injestion of drugs to cure those we see as deviant.
[/quote]

So we should just abandon the insane ? The problem isn’t that they are “deviant” in society’s opinion; society agrees with them. The problem is that their brains are malfunctioning, that they are seeing things that aren’t there, and the religious are willing to sacrifice such people’s sanity on the altar of their religion. So much for the alleged compassion of the faithful.
[/QUOTE]

The identification, care and treatment of those with true mental disorders is a grand science; we do not have a simple, acid test to show if people are insane. IANA psychologist, but I would guess simply claiming religious experiences–even if they fit a clinical definition of “hallucination”–is not enough to declare the person insane, or even to slot him/her as a candidate for drug therapy.

It might help to have a tangible example to discuss, rather than speak in abstracts. How would posters have dealt with, say, Padre Pio? Let’s concede for the moment that his visions were the result of a delusional mind and his stigmata were fraudulent. I’m interested in people’s thoughts whether, on balance, these delusions spurred him and religious followers to greater social goods, or was he simply “sacrificed on the altar” of religion as a useful idiot for improving the position/wealth/whatever of the Roman Catholic Church? This might steer the discussion into a more profitable direction than a simple “yes it is/no it isn’t” shouting match.

82

[QUOTE=scjas]
Since religious and spiritual belief is a near universal characteristic it must confer a survival advantage on its host and therefore have a genetic basis.

Has anyone found the “religion gene, or genes” yet.
[/quote]

I’ll offer a response to the original poster. I disagree with this theory. In fact, I can offer many reasons why there is no evolutionary basis of religion, any one of which ought to be quite sufficient.

Firstly, a person’s genome remains the same throughout their life, yet a person’s religious beliefs often changes. For example, I was an atheist until age 23 and a Christian thereafter, yet my genes are identical to the ones I had ten years ago. Hence my religious beliefs cannot be determined by me genes.

Second, many people have religious beliefs vastly different from their ancestors, and many entire societies have shifted their religious doctrines. The English, for instance, are far less religious than they were two centuries ago, while the Koreans are far more religious. If religion were determined by genes, then religious people could only produce religious offspring and atheists could only produce atheist offspring.

Thirdly, humans share 99% of our DNA with chimpanzees. Hence, if religion were genetically determined, we’d see a lot more chimps in church. (Unless all our religion genes were hidden in the one percent of our genome that we don’t have in common.)

In has been theorized that various types of behavior have a genetic basis. It has not been proven. There is not a single gene which has been conclusively proven to cause any specific human behavior or belief. Frankly it’s remarkable how widespread the belief in evolutionary psychology is, given the total absense of evidence.

I can promise you that nearly every pastor or priest in America has heard your theory many times, carefully considered it, and rejected it. It is, after all, not exactly a new theory.

83

[QUOTE=ITR champion]
Firstly, a person’s genome remains the same throughout their life, yet a person’s religious beliefs often changes. For example, I was an atheist until age 23 and a Christian thereafter, yet my genes are identical to the ones I had ten years ago. Hence my religious beliefs cannot be determined by me genes.

Second, many people have religious beliefs vastly different from their ancestors, and many entire societies have shifted their religious doctrines. The English, for instance, are far less religious than they were two centuries ago, while the Koreans are far more religious. If religion were determined by genes, then religious people could only produce religious offspring and atheists could only produce atheist offspring.

Thirdly, humans share 99% of our DNA with chimpanzees. Hence, if religion were genetically determined, we’d see a lot more chimps in church. (Unless all our religion genes were hidden in the one percent of our genome that we don’t have in common.)
[/QUOTE]

While I’ll not quarrel with either your characterization of evolutionary psychology (just so stories, anyone?) nor with the idea that religion is cultural (mostly, if not entirely), only the first point is a good one.

The second one relies on genetics being static, which is obviously not the case. Variation, combination, and mutation happen. A clearer case would be two carriers of a recessive trait; neither exhibits the trait, yet there’s a 1 in 4 chance one of their offspring will.

As you point out, the third assumes that a “religious gene” is not part of that remaining 1%. And yet, there are genetic traits that must be in that 1%; why not a “religious gene” (if one were to exist)?

Finally, I’d note that the term “religious gene” is used not to refer to a particular religious doctrine, but to a general tendency towards belief in a religious doctrine.

As an aside, it was recently established that the genes shared between apes and humans was overestimated slightly; it’s now been determined to be about 92%, IIRC. There was an article in the NY Times within the past couple weeks about it; I’ll try to dig up a cite.

84

[QUOTE=Larry Borgia]
If you’re really interested in this, you should read Breaking the Spell.
[/QUOTE]

I’ll second Larry Borgia’s recommendation of Dennett’s Breaking the Spell: Religion as a Natural Phenomenon for anyone who is truly interested in the question raised by the OP. And also for anyone (believer or non-believer) who is interested in religion generally. I think Dennett does a fine job of examing possible evolutionary roots and/or mechanisms of religion; as well as raising interesting moral questions around the issues of belief and non-belief. I found the book well-reasoned and gentle-toned; especially compared to, say, the strident and opinionated voice of Sam Harris, who – don’t get me wrong – I enjoy on quite another level (or perhaps it’s a sort of impending trainwreck fascination I feel when I read Harris).

85

Here’s the NY Times article (free reg. required). It mostly concerns the similarity between humans, originally thought to be 99.9% but revised downward to 99%:

My figure of 92% was remembered incorrectly; it should have been 95%. Sorry about that.

86

[QUOTE=Digital Stimulus]
As you point out, the third assumes that a “religious gene” is not part of that remaining 1%. And yet, there are genetic traits that must be in that 1%; why not a “religious gene” (if one were to exist)?
[/QUOTE]

I was thinking of the chimp argument more as a general response to the idea that all common human behavior must have resulted from natural selection. Chimps may share ninety-two percent of our DNA, but plainly they don’t share ninety-two percent of our behavior. Humans have government, business, education, charity, religion, art, medicine, and a great deal more. Chimpanzees never got beyond communal louse-picking. To me, this strongly suggests that something more than DNA is operating on human activity.

87

[QUOTE=ITR champion]
I was thinking of the chimp argument more as a general response to the idea that all common human behavior must have resulted from natural selection. Chimps may share ninety-two percent of our DNA, but plainly they don’t share ninety-two percent of our behavior. Humans have government, business, education, charity, religion, art, medicine, and a great deal more. Chimpanzees never got beyond communal louse-picking. To me, this strongly suggests that something more than DNA is operating on human activity.
[/QUOTE]

Right. But that’s fallacious reasoning due to induction, right? That is, you’re moving from a general class (humans have many customs, institutions, etc. that chimps do not) to a specific (a “religious gene”, should one exist).

Oh, and just so I’m not the cause of propagating a misquoted statistic, Ventner determined a 95% similarity between humans and chimps. I apologize again for my original misquote.

88

Below is a quote from “The Spiritual Brain: A Neuroscientist’s Case for the Existence of the Soul.”

This fits right in with this thread and I hope you read it, it is the future of neuroscience.

89

I bet a non-materialist neuroscientist would enjoy eating jumbo shrimp and boneless ribs while taking an elevated subway to a working vacation.

90

[QUOTE=the PC apeman]
I bet a non-materialist neuroscientist would enjoy eating jumbo shrimp and boneless ribs while taking an elevated subway to a working vacation.
[/QUOTE]

Naahh, shrimp and ribs don’t go well together.

91

[QUOTE=lekatt]
“Such comic diversions aside, there is no escaping the non-materialism of the human mind.”
[/quote]
I’d like to see him back up this assertion. I’ll read on…

OK, so spiritual emotions are complex and not easily attributable to a single gene a region of the brain. I’m still waiting on this demonstration of non-materialism…

OMFG. Every advance in the science of the brain points more and more to the conclusion, that our personalities, who we are, is dependent on physical brain processes. How can you have a ghost in the machine if the “ghost” is just the process of the machine doing its work?

Oh yeah, psi and NDEs are solid evidence of a separate soul, they are. Makes me wonder how this guy would misunderstand the placebo effect.

92

[QUOTE=CurtC]
Oh yeah, psi and NDEs are solid evidence of a separate soul, they are. Makes me wonder how this guy would misunderstand the placebo effect.
[/QUOTE]
It’s hard to tell if you’re being sarcastic with the first part there - but I don’t myself see how most of the things that are generally referred to as psi effects would be evidence against materialism. With the possible exception of OBEs, all they are are the mind having awareness of and the ability to effect things remotely to it. If that’s evidence of non-materialism, then every TV, radio, handheld remote control device, and magnetized piece of metal has a soul, too.

So to my eye, this guy is wrong on at least two of his listed items that demonstrate non-materialism - and NDEs are of course only evidence of such if they actually work as advertized, rather than through some other method.

93

[QUOTE=CurtC]
Makes me wonder how this guy would misunderstand the placebo effect.
[/QUOTE]

I’d like to think you meant It’s no wonder that, rather than Makes me wonder how. The misunderstanding is not really a surprise, after all. :wink:

94

[QUOTE=CurtC]
I’d like to see him back up this assertion. I’ll read on…
OK, so spiritual emotions are complex and not easily attributable to a single gene a region of the brain. I’m still waiting on this demonstration of non-materialism…
OMFG. Every advance in the science of the brain points more and more to the conclusion, that our personalities, who we are, is dependent on physical brain processes. How can you have a ghost in the machine if the “ghost” is just the process of the machine doing its work?
Oh yeah, psi and NDEs are solid evidence of a separate soul, they are. Makes me wonder how this guy would misunderstand the placebo effect.
[/QUOTE]

We been through this many times, but one more won’t hurt any. The man is talking about research that shows very clearly the mind or consciousness is separate from the brain and continues to live after the death of the brain and body.

95

[QUOTE=lekatt]
We been through this many times, but one more won’t hurt any. The man is talking about research that shows very clearly the mind or consciousness is separate from the brain and continues to live after the death of the brain and body.

[/quote]
We have been through this many times and each time we have to provide the same correction to the misleading quotation provided here: The quotation, of course, would be more persuasive if it was actually something that had been verified.

As noted throughout this and many preceding discussions, no one who wants to believe in consciousness separate from brain activity has ever taken the effort to establish that the “conscious” moments did not occur in the moments before and after the actual cessation of brain activity. They are all anecdotal memories such as that by Dr. Sabon that leave a lot of room for error–particularly among people who hope to champion a particular viewpoint.

96

[QUOTE=tomndebb]
We have been through this many times and each time we have to provide the same correction to the misleading quotation provided here: The quotation, of course, would be more persuasive if it was actually something that had been verified.

As noted throughout this and many preceding discussions, no one who wants to believe in consciousness separate from brain activity has ever taken the effort to establish that the “conscious” moments did not occur in the moments before and after the actual cessation of brain activity. They are all anecdotal memories such as that by Dr. Sabon that leave a lot of room for error–particularly among people who hope to champion a particular viewpoint.
[/QUOTE]

Of course they did, in all the research, otherwise it would not be anything different, they did it in the quote provided and in every single one of the studies.

I posted this once but will again, in this experience the patient was never, say again never conscious during the entire session in the OR yet could accurately describe the doctors in attendance. Proof positive.

The bolding is mine, there are hundreds of these experiences, there is no mistake. The research is accurate.

97

I notice that, while the quote in post #88 is directly germaine to the topic of the thread, a general argument for/or against the validity of NDEs is NOT.

98

[QUOTE=lekatt]
I posted this once but will again, in this experience the patient was never, say again never conscious during the entire session in the OR yet could accurately describe the doctors in attendance.
[/QUOTE]

But surely you’ll acknowledge that there’s a huge difference between simply being unconscious, and having a flat EEG, right?

About the perceptions during the times when the patients had a flat EEG, if their EEG was flat, how did they communicate their perceptions to the researchers? I would think that would be quite a trick.

99

[QUOTE=lekatt]
Of course they did, in all the research, otherwise it would not be anything different, they did it in the quote provided and in every single one of the studies.
[/quote]
Where? We have been through this, perhaps even earlier in this thread. No study has documented that the experiences reported after recovery actually occurred during a period of flat EEG. None. Every reported event might have occurred in periods when the brain was active.

[QUOTE=lekatt]
I posted this once but will again, in this experience the patient was never, say again never conscious during the entire session in the OR yet could accurately describe the doctors in attendance. Proof positive.
[/quote]
You are deliberately distorting what was actually reported. This included statements by other members of the OR team that his heart was occasionally, but not constantly, in arrest and that some of him felt that he was ufficiently alive* to actually learn all the information that he later related back to the emergency team. In addition to which, no member of the team has demonstrated that their jobs (which, presumably, compelled them to turn their attention to actual monitors, drugs, surgical equipment, and other hardware), could actually document a flat-line EEG (a machine that was probably not even being used at the time) throughout the entire episode.

  • Insisting that he was not “conscious” is dishonest on two levels: first, no one would (or should) claim that consciousness is required for a person’s brain to accept and process information; second, no member of the team was actually able to verify the level of consciousness throughout the episode as noted in your own story that other members of the team felt that he had been sufficiently aware.

The accurate report of the episode is that he repeatedly suffered periods of cardiac arrest that were never documented for when they occurred nor how long they lasted.

You are free to believe what you choose. You are not free to post that some event has been documented when the documentation for the event leaves a lot of lattitude for multiple interpretations–even among the participants.

This was not research, it was anecdote. You have refused to quote the entire passage. You have misinterpreted what was stated in the passage.

100

“that some of him felt that he was ufficiently alive”
s/b
that some of them felt that he was sufficiently alive