• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Does Evolution favour spirituality?

SGT

Critical Thinker
SGT
Joined
Apr 23, 2004
Messages
345
Is belief in god important to human beings?
Read this article in The New York Times
Studies seem to show that religious people live longer. But long lives are hardly a selective trait, since our reproductive life ends much earlier than our biological life.
Any ideas?
 
If they take non-believers with the same health/lifestyle as the believers, took a look at life spans, then I'd see a better study. What is their control group?

This one seems to be saying that "more believer" translates into "more survival". The brain mechanisms used to make a person "a believer" might be the same in non-believer, but our experiences may cause us to use them differently.

Who knows how much our environments affect us into becoming believers or non-believers?

I find this whole thing making my eyes roll. It's not a serious study.

They say believers are less likely to smoke..blah blah....right.

What percentage of them smoke compared to "non-believers".
 
I remember similar reports, hardcore atheists scored as high as devout catholics in how happy they were. The people who scored lowest were the ones in between. It makes sense in that strong beliefs provide motivation and purpose in life, in the long run, strong beliefs can give advantages since you are motivated to make an extra effort in hard times. Strong beliefs can also make it easier to cope with feelings of anguish.
Thats my amateur opinion.
 
Eos of the Eons said:
They say believers are less likely to smoke..blah blah....right.

What percentage of them smoke compared to "non-believers".
Click to expand...

Correct me if I am wrong, but we didn't see a lot of smokers at TAM3, did we?
 
CFLarsen said:
Correct me if I am wrong, but we didn't see a lot of smokers at TAM3, did we?
Click to expand...

From what I've heared Hitchins made up for that.
 
jzs said:
From what I've heared Hitchins made up for that.
Click to expand...

He was but one person. He would have to have smoked a heck of a lot of cigs to make up for the rest who didn't smoke.

I was there. He didn't.

You're wrong, Justin. Now, do you have anything to contribute?
 
CFLarsen said:

He would have to have smoked a heck of a lot of cigs to make up for the rest who didn't smoke.
Click to expand...


Do you interpret all things as literal as possible?


You're wrong, Justin. Now, do you have anything to contribute?
Click to expand...

How can I be wrong about your bogus literal interpretation of what I said? :)


, but we didn't see a lot of smokers at TAM3, did we?
Click to expand...


What is the actual data? What do you mean by "alot"?
 
Does Evolution favour spirituality?

Just cansider "spirituality" as ancient knowledge/science/language as latin. Some concepts of that may be missing, not yet understood/translated, invalid in today's english language & some newone are added.

We know "belief" in right things can initiate & enhance placebo/self healing--so evolution? The main purpose of "spirituality" can be to prescribe "right" things which are beneficial to our body & soul. "Belief" is very important for getting placebo/self healing effects. On sexual part, women are much effected by psychological/mental reasons.
 
They may very well be measuring life partners instead of beliefs.

Think about it... the deeply religious (Catholic) tend to get divorced less... the athiest tend to get divorced less

Those who tend to stay married... tend to live longer.
 
Argh. Do not feed the trolls Do not feed the trolls Do not feed the trolls Argh!

(Not referring to you, DangerousBeliefs)
 
SGT said:
Is belief in god important to human beings?
Read this article in The New York Times
Studies seem to show that religious people live longer. But long lives are hardly a selective trait, since our reproductive life ends much earlier than our biological life.
Any ideas?
Click to expand...

The early civerlisations were basicaly theorcracies (well the ones based around Sumer were I don't know much about the indus valley). Even today relgion seems to quite an effective tool for keeping some form of order (even if it not a very nice form of order. I'd that at some points in human development relgius belife of some form was a useful traint.
 
I think what may be selected for is civilizations with a mix. Believers are more likely to be good followers. A civilization with a bunch of leaders and no followers will lose wars everytime to a civilization with a mix of leaders and followers.

But it is complicated. A civilization with too high a believer mix may be wiped out by a civilization with a good mix of independent creative thinkers whose independent initiatives provide an edge in warfare.

I think this idea is relevant not only to civilizations but also smaller more primative organizations of humans. Basically warfare of some sort has played a significant role in the evolution of humans and human groups that are better at war than other human groups are more likely to survive to pass on their genes.
 
davefoc said:
I think what may be selected for is civilizations with a mix. Believers are more likely to be good followers. A civilization with a bunch of leaders and no followers will lose wars everytime to a civilization with a mix of leaders and followers.

But it is complicated. A civilization with too high a believer mix may be wiped out by a civilization with a good mix of independent creative thinkers whose independent initiatives provide an edge in warfare.

I think this idea is relevant not only to civilizations but also smaller more primative organizations of humans. Basically warfare of some sort has played a significant role in the evolution of humans and human groups that are better at war than other human groups are more likely to survive to pass on their genes.
Click to expand...

And groups that burn heretics tend to survive to the burned ones.
 
davefoc said:
I think what may be selected for is civilizations with a mix. Believers are more likely to be good followers. A civilization with a bunch of leaders and no followers will lose wars everytime to a civilization with a mix of leaders and followers.

But it is complicated. A civilization with too high a believer mix may be wiped out by a civilization with a good mix of independent creative thinkers whose independent initiatives provide an edge in warfare.

I think this idea is relevant not only to civilizations but also smaller more primative organizations of humans. Basically warfare of some sort has played a significant role in the evolution of humans and human groups that are better at war than other human groups are more likely to survive to pass on their genes.
Click to expand...

I think you are telling somewhat "balance" or "nature's balance". In other words 'excess of enything can be bad--whether it is of 'belief' or disbelief'.
 
Quote from Ian's Dawkins link:

. The propensity that was naturally selected in our ancestors was not religion per se. It had some other benefit, and it only incidentally manifests itself today as religious behavior.
Click to expand...

Makes complete sense IMO
 
I agree with Marx. Then, who leads and controls the masses, and by what method? What has provided the most stable longterm envoronment that enhanced "civilized group" survival?
 
These studies all seem hopelessly biased. Would we answer 'yes' if we lived in a place like Pakistan where there are still 'honor punishments'?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/4314153.stm

Religion fosters this behavior and protects it long after its practicer's should have been purged from the earth by people of better character.

But that's not here, so we can comfortably sit in the pews and bask in the healthy lifestyle that spirituality promotes.

Edited to add "pfft!"
 
One has to be careful in examining evidence to use caution drawing conclusions based on the evidence. It's very easy to think your data supports some hypothesis, while in reality the same data might support several hypotheses and more research will be needed to sort out the correct one.

What do we know? That the majority of the human population believes in some kind of deity(s).

What are all the possible hypotheses that might account for that result?

One hypothesis could be there is some sort of survival benefit leading to natural selection of the trait.

Another could be that there is a natural selection of group cooperation and religion is just one means of achieving group cooperation, but not an exclusive means nor a superior means.

I tend to favor the religion as a side effect hypothesis, myself. Our brains evolved with natural selection that favored cognitive organization that leads us to look for patterns, for cause and effect, and so on. That brain organization leads originally to belief in religious and superstitious explanations for the world around us. But over time, additional observations evolve into a scientific model of explaining the world.

Since the scientific process gives better results for surviving than religion and superstition, I would hypothesize that scientific thought will eventually be naturally selected over religion and superstition.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom