Evolutionary origin of belief in God

The Wikipedia page on the Evolutionary psychology of religion has a pretty good run down on this topic.

Can you, or anyone, point to a certain locus on a certain chromosome that causes us to want to suckle as newborns?

Or do you believe that suckling is learned behavior?

Where’s the gene for recognizing faces?

Where’s the gene, on a migratory bird, that causes it to migrate?

Where’s the gene, on a honeybee, that makes it construct hexagonal honeycombs?

Do you really think DNA works that way?

There are instances in which scientists have found that changing one gene in insects can trigger a change in behavior. Whether that includes a honeycomb-making gene in bees, I don’t know. But if enough scientific research was devoted to the topic, it would surely be possible to map out the genes that cause that behavior or any other behavior in honeybees. The underlying logic of such research is simple even if the process may be expensive and time-consuming. Find a genotype such that all individuals with the genotype exhibit the behavior, and those without don’t.

Huge amounts of money and scientific effort have been poured into research on the human genome. Scientists have had some success matching genotypes with phenotypes. Obviously there’s a still a long way to go before they know the meaning of every genotype. If there actually were a genetic basis for pattern matching and facial recognition and the endowment effect and everything else that’s been hypothesized in this thread, it would be reasonable that no one’s found all the genes involved, but surely someone would have found some of the genes involved.

Can you, or anyone, point to which note causes a Mozart concerto to be a Mozart concerto?

Here is a thought: how can we invent something we have never seen. People can take known objects and distort them or combine them, but if God or an afterlife was unknown to early man how could they invent such. I am told very early cave drawings indicated a belief in the afterlife. Suppose some of early man had death experiences. It is a complicated subject and I don’t believe anyone really knows.

Inventing a god is easy; like you just said, it’s pretty much just combining a couple of things. So you see thunder and lightning every once in a while, and rain comes when your crops need it, or maybe it doesn’t, and in no time flat you anthropomorphize yourself up a sky god: attributing human characteristics to natural phenomena in hopes that there’s a Man Upstairs in full-on Guy We Can Do Business With mode.

As for the afterlife, Nietzsche figured that being visited by deceased relatives in your dreams could lead the superstitious to quick conclusions. Sounds reasonable.

I don’t believe Nietzsche because he spend more time in mental institutions than most of us. I don’t know anyone who hasn’t been visited by a deceased relative. It is an enjoyment.

WTF???

No cussing please

I’m not attributing it to him for his credentials; I’m doing it so as not to steal credit.

Still, is there anything you can say against his answer, rather than against the guy? You asked how early man could invent the idea of an unknown afterlife; does the answer “maybe dead relatives appeared to them in dreams” fit the bill, or are you limited to stuff like “yeah, well, didn’t that guy later need medical treatment?”

(Which raises a point: you wonder how early man could come up with completely off-the-wall ideas instead of distorting and combining known stuff – and then you point out that some people happen to be crazy. So, okay, snipe about Nietzsche eventually being institutionalized – and then figure there were crazy people back in the days of early man. A whole spectrum of crazy, even. It wasn’t all just spearhunting and eating the occasional wrong mushroom, y’know?)

Hi! I’ve never been visited by a deceased relative.

unless you count that time that great granny’s coffin washed up after the flood (not that flood)

I have read many philosophers and Nietzsche was one I found nothing to agree with. He is very negative.

Don’t just say that you disagree with him; mention why – remembering that his negativity is irrelevant; the question is whether he was correct.

As for the other half of your comment – the invention of gods rather than the invention of an afterlife – is David Hume among the “many philosophers” you’ve read? In his NATURAL HISTORY OF RELIGION, the guy was big on figuring that people had a tendency to “conceive all beings like themselves, and to transfer to every object those qualities with which they are familiarly acquainted, and of which they are intimately conscious … Nor is it long before we ascribe to them thought and reason and passion, and sometimes even the limbs and figures of men, in order to bring them nearer to a resemblance with ourselves.” Do you find that minimally plausible, or is he likewise objectionable for some reason?

I’m curious, which part incited the WTF? Was it:
A) I don’t believe Nietzsche because he spend more time in mental institutions than most of us.

B) I don’t know anyone who hasn’t been visited by a deceased relative.

C) It is an enjoyment.

As for the OP, I remember reading an article that said that religion (and more specifically religious thought) increases serotonin and that those with a lower density of serotonin receptors are more likely to be religious. (Found article) So, for those who want to be happy, having a religious thought becomes like a drug where the mind becomes sated with the release of serotonin.

It was the one immediately following the other. I doubt that lekatt knows anything about Nietzsche, like the fact that he didn’t have his mental breakdown until 1889, long after his writings, and I wonder how lekatt and his beliefs would be accepted in German society in the late 1800’s.

OK, I do agree with David Hume and what he said about people. But I feel there is a reason for it beyond what most think. Native Americans saw spirits in all kinds of life including trees and I believe all things are conscious and they are correct.

As for Nietzsche I find nothing correct.

For example…?

And do you believe there’s a spirited consciousness in volcanoes, and one in the sun, and one in the moon?

I would have to say yes though I don’t know the process. Quantum theory
states consciousness is a quality of everything. It is the building blocks of
the Universe and I believe that. The brain is not capable of anything but
waves of magnetic energy. Something has to interpret that energy and
that is consciousness.