Religion: A lowest COMMON denominator?

[InfiniteNow]

Religion is, and has been, quite popular among the masses for ages. I see the advance of knowledge slowly chipping away at the stronghold which religions of all varieties have had on society, but that makes the reasons for it’s lasting strength no less interesting.

 

I believe that religion is a direct result of our evolution as a species.

 

All life evolved from some life which came before it, the parent figure (even single celled organisms split from an organism before it), and this could easily have morphed (for many humans) into a sense that there exists a creator or god (or gods). No life would exist without life that came before it, so it seems a natural extension of this understanding that, with our enhancing intellectual and cognitive abilities, we’d search for something which itself came before life.

 

Also, we have survived largely as a result of being social creatures, supporting one another and symbiotically moving forward as packs. Perhaps in our travels, when disconnected from the pack, we’ve found solace in some “partner” in existence, however imaginary it may be. This partner later translated or grew into the god concept. Maybe the concept evolved and grew when we noticed that there were similarities in what we felt with the feelings of others among the group.

 

We search for meaning in everything. We seek to understand the world. We describe it, and share the description with others. Perhaps religion is just a lowest common denominator for it all. Our evolved tendencies as described above, coupled with our evolved search for meaning, finds overlap in the ideas of others… resulting in shared belief, shared stories, and shared religion (for many).

 

This is my first attempt to articulate these thoughts, and the above is, by no means, a complete description of my approach or concepts on the topic, but it’s a start. I hope it stimulates some thought and discussion.

 

 

Cheers. :doh:

[Southtown]

How can you be in Austin and yet have no concept of spirituality? Do you ever leave campus? I admit the view from outside is impressive.

 

Tell the local bums that another nobody has moved on, yet stayed behind. Keep swillin'.

[UncleAl]

(physical reality) - (empirical reality) = faith

Religion: Believe what we tell you not what you see.

 

What fool would toss money or personal committment at any of that? If you want to tighten a nut you need a wrench, not a prayer or a pair of pliers. How hard must you pray to pray on a light at night or use a match twice? Test of faith! Believe what we tell you not what you see.

 

Religion is about income, personal power, mob control, and political imposition. The various flavors are irrelevant.

[Southtown]

Religion: Believe what we tell you not what you see.

Sounds like high school if you ask me. I don't think you're very adept at the message in the bible, either.

 

And in vain they worship Me, Teaching as doctrines the commandments of men.

—

Mark 7:7 nkjv

 

Religion is about income, personal power, mob control, and political imposition. The various flavors are irrelevant.

Humanity in general is about income, personal power, mob control, and political imposition.

 

And when the scribes and Pharisees saw Him eating with the tax collectors and sinners, they said to His disciples, “How is it that He eats and drinks with tax collectors and sinners?” When Jesus heard it, He said to them, “Those who are well have no need of a physician, but those who are sick. I did not come to call the righteous, but sinners, to repentance.”

—

Mark 2:16-17 nkjv

[InfiniteNow]

How can you be in Austin and yet have no concept of spirituality?

From what details/posts/responses/etc. do you derive the impression that I have no concept of spirituality?

 

Do you ever leave campus?

Left several years ago, thanks for checking.

 

I admit the view from outside is impressive.

Indeed it is.

 

Tell the local bums that another nobody has moved on, yet stayed behind.

Is that the gospel of love right there? How is this applicable to the post above?

 

 

Come to think of it, how is any of your post applicable to the thread? :hyper:

[skuzie]

I believe that religion is a direct result of our evolution as a species.

You probably know about the god gene which is related to what you are saying:

 

"According to this theory, the God gene is not an encoding for the belief in God itself but a physiological arrangement that produces the sensations associated, by some, with the presence of God or other mystic experiences. What evolutionary advantage this may convey, or what advantageous effect it is a side effect of, are questions that are yet to be fully explored."

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_gene

 

Personally I dont believe in it but I dont know the details of the study, there could be some genetic trigger(s) that help us to appriciate faith and the divine powers.

[InfiniteNow]

You probably know about the god gene...

No, I didn't. Thanks for posting that. ;)

[Southtown]

From what details/posts/responses/etc. do you derive the impression that I have no concept of spirituality?

Because you lump all religions together, and they have vastly different origins and purposes. When you say 'religion is a direct result of evolution' do you mean spiritual, mystical, natural, or deistic?

[ughaibu]

I recently read an article about the evolutionary basis of mathematics and logical thought generally. Imagine a hungry tiger sees a deer, in order to catch and eat the deer, the tiger has to perform various calculations concerning wind direction, speed and direction of the deer, known landmarks suitable for ambush, etc, further, the tiger must be able to quickly and efficiently generate plans for previously unencountered situations, by it's manipulation of a few basic facts. The deer too must use plans concerning knowledge of the terrain and tiger behaviour, habitual failure in effective planning by either party will result in an inability to survive, and will be breed out of the population.

It's difficult for me to see a similar role, interacting with survival, played by religion. (I'm drawing a distinction between animistic practices and religion, although the former can be considered to be proto-religious concepts, they can also be considered to be proto-scientific concepts, and are concerned with daily economics rather than mystical conjecture.) Both the tiger and the deer, when young, will have learned most of the essentials required for adequate calculation, from their mother or group, in effect, they initially defered to authority. However, they later employ these basics to create unique patterns for individual circumstances, they do not follow a standard method for all situations, in short, they do not follow authority in the manner that observers of religion do.

My best guess would be that religion arose from animistic practices but functioned mainly as a means of maintaining social cohesion in groups too large for intimacy between all individuals, rather as television soap operas do in developed societies today. It might be interesting to attempt to induce religion, in chimpanzees or gorillas, by overcrowding or other social perversions.

[InfiniteNow]

Because you lump all religions together, and they have vastly different origins and purposes. When you say 'religion is a direct result of evolution' do you mean spiritual, mystical, natural, or deistic?

Yes.

[InfiniteNow]

My best guess would be that religion arose from animistic practices but functioned mainly as a means of maintaining social cohesion in groups too large for intimacy between all individuals, rather as television soap operas do in developed societies today.

 

There is validity in this, especially considering smaller tribal communities. Survival of the group is highly dependent upon the actions of each of it's members. If each member follows similar tradition, then those very traditions can assist in survival.

 

My idea is basically that those traits which helped us survive and evolve through the millenia have also spawned an inclination toward religion, diety, and spirituality. That humanity's propensity toward religion and god result directly from our group behavior and understanding of life as that which comes from some life previous to it.

 

 

It might be interesting to attempt to induce religion, in chimpanzees or gorillas, by overcrowding or other social perversions.

Indeed, but maybe we do not need to induce it...

 

 

http://www.boingboing.net/2005/05/25/praying_monkey_in_in.html

Praying monkey in India

A monkey reportedly participated in a Hindu ritual at a temple in the Balasore district of Orissa, India. The monkey allegedly folded its hands, took prasad (sanctified food), and marked its forehead with vermillion. After the villagers adorned it with a garland, the monkey took off into the forest. From the Indo-Asian News Service:

"When we saw the monkey joining us we were surprised. We did not try to drive it out and it continued praying for nearly an hour amid hundreds of devotees," (Junia village resident Aniruddha) Behera told IANS... "We have not seen any monkey around for the last two years. This is a miracle for us," Behera said.

 

 

However, this seems much more likely the result of modelling behavior, aka Social Learning Theory (Albert Bandura)...

[ughaibu]

That should keep Saitia happy.

[Southtown]

Well, it seems to me that the religions are too discordant and subjective to be considered a lowest common denominator of beliefs. In that regard, though, it's the sciences that are confined to peer review.

[Edella]

Well, it seems to me that the religions are too discordant and subjective to be considered a lowest common denominator of beliefs. In that regard, though, it's the sciences that are confined to peer review.

How could the sciences be confined by peer review? Do you have issue with the peer part?

[Southtown]

No, that's not what I'm saying. :unlove: And take my word for it, they are.

[Edella]

No, that's not what I'm saying. :warped: And take my word for it, they are.

What are you saying?Why would I take your word for it(or anybody elses)? Who are they?

[InfiniteNow]

Well, it seems to me that the religions are too discordant and subjective to be considered a lowest common denominator of beliefs.

Please note... my thought applies to the concept of religion itself, and to the god concept, not to any one particular religion nor any one concept of god.

 

 

Cheers. :warped: