In my misguided attempt to find the meaning of life on the intrawebs, I found a gorgeous article on religion, titled Seven Evolutionary Reasons Why People Deny Evolution. After reading through it (and many of its comments), I felt extremely enlightened, and knowing how many fanatics of religion and logic we have in this forum, decided that I should give a link to it that the many skeptics and apologists might have insight into what exactly they were arguing about. This is essentially a beginner's guide to evolutionary atheism, in my opinion, and needs to be read and examined by more people.
I realize this will likely end in a flame war, but any discussion of the above article is very welcome.
This is a fun article, Jagatai_Khan, cheers for this. I just wanted to note a few things we should be careful about when discussing this.
1) Even if God does exist, it's quite clear that humans made religion - not God, evolution or science. This article suggests that the way our brains evolved may have been in part responsible for us creating religion. The distinction is subtle, but it's an important one.
2) We should be careful when looking at studies that use children's thoughts or behaviours to draw conclusion about non children. The main reason for this is that children - or, at least, young children - aren't rational agents. The article suggests that their views (e.g. teleological thinking) indicate a deep-seated human thought process. But it could just as easily be due to the fact that their brains aren't fully developed.
3) There are some deep flaws in how the author works to make connections between human brain development and religiosity. I'll leave it to others to make these flaws explicit. But the main point is that the argumentation isn't rigorous enough to get the conclusion that the author is after.
First of all, I would like to open my post with a question: what the heck is "evolutionary atheism" supposed to be?
The article is interesting, and of course, as our mind is a result of our brain, the reason why we even possess beliefs is likely neurologically founded. However, I have to agree with Moe on one point: religion is a cultural thing, it is made by humans. Even though many driving processes in natural evolution and cultural evolution can be remarkably similar, they are still separate things.
Concerning teleological thinking, it reminded me of an interesting blog article reviewing a study on a quite similar topic than what is addressed in Jagatai_Khan's article: Supernatural believers see minds at work behind random patterns. It draws interesting conclusions.
But most importantly, the article in the OP contains one humongous flaw: not all religious people deny evolution. In fact many accept it. How, if our brain would be so set on denying evolution, could so many people realize there's more to it than creationists make it appear? I would argue that education is even more crucial in that aspect than religiosity.
First of all, I would like to open my post with a question: what the heck is "evolutionary atheism" supposed to be?
That's a very good question, though I don't think it has a very good answer. I did a quick Google search and mostly what I found was a bunch of lay-answers providing an answer to a question that no one has even asked. There does seem to be a consensus in these answers that we can take God out of the explanation of things and instead use evolution. But this is just trivially true. After all, evolutionary theory doesn't invoke God in the explanation to begin with.
I would argue that education is even more crucial in that aspect than religiosity.
Very well put. It does seem that many (though not all) who deny evolution don't thoroughly understand it. Rhetorical questions such as "If people evolved from monkeys, then why are there still monkeys?" demonstrate a very deep misunderstanding of how humans evolved.
I would, however, like to touch on 2 more important points.
1) The phenomenon that the cited article is attempting to explain is unclear. But a charitable reading would be that the author is trying to explain spirituality rather than religiosity. The reason for this distinction is that religions today have also evolved in their complexity, belief system, and sophistication. The world's major religions have developed to respond to evidence, have more consistency, and better define what a member of a particular faith ought to believe. Spirituality, on the other hand, is more vague and is better explained by how our brains work than is religion, broadly construed.
2) I have a big problem with a point made by the author - that spirituality serves a need for cognitive closure (i.e. providing an explanation for some phenomenon or state of affairs). The reason for this is that spirituality - and religion, for that matter - still leave open some very important questions. Consider this fairly common explanation: God works in mysterious ways. This isn't even an explanation and in fact suggests that we cannot come to know or understand why some particular event obtained. Even fundamental questions about the nature of God can't be thoroughly explained. Many Christian faiths, for example, happily accept so-called 'divine mysteries'. One example of this is trinitarianism - the thought that God has 3 non-identical aspects that are nonetheless all identical to God. This is, of course, a logical contradiction and should be rejected by any rational epistemic agent. But many theists accept similar sorts of 'mysteries' and thus cannot get to the point of cognitive closure - and necessarily so!
EDIT: I had said that the definitions of evolutionary atheism I had found were all from lay people. Apparently, one of the definitions I found was from a guy named Daniel Fincke who does have a PhD in philosophy. The entry is located here:
I didn't peg that brief blog article as coming from a philosopher as it is incredibly imprecise, there is no clear argument on offer, and the definition he provides would be ripped apart in no time. I still don't take it as a credible source, but it's there for what it's worth.
I realize the following point could just as well be made in the other thread about why we have religion, as it is a debate about the origins of it. But I figured since it is more focused on the biological aspect of it rather than the cultural, I'd rather place it here.
So basically the article in the OP argues that we have a biological bias in favour of denying evolution. The argument can also be presented as having a bias for spiritualism.
The thing now is that there are some people who argue that this is due to spiritualism having adaptive value; formulated differently, it evolved because it comes with advantages, mostly linked to cooperation. One of them is David Sloan Wilson. Here's a wiki link, and here's one that quite vehemently counters his points.
I myself do not agree with the idea that spirituality is an adaptation. I think the several neurological phenomena that favour it may be adaptive, but spirituality and religion are just by-products with no evolutionary relevance at all. Also, as Stephen Jay Gould and Richard Lewontin already criticized in their 1979 paper ("The Spandrels of San Marco and the Panglossian Paradigm: A Critique of the Adaptationist Programme", we should be careful with the 'adaptation' interpretation.
I realize this may be a difficult topic to debate about, but I really want to hear what people may think about it.
Wait a second here, isn't spirituality different from religions? i need to clarify this before i thought this through. if it is different, then we may be in the wrong thread.
Wait a second here, isn't spirituality different from religions? i need to clarify this before i thought this through. if it is different, then we may be in the wrong thread.
Spirituality and religions are different. But as pointed out above:
[quote=Moegreche]1) The phenomenon that the cited article is attempting to explain is unclear. But a charitable reading would be that the author is trying to explain spirituality rather than religiosity. [/quote] So I think if we want to debate spirituality, we are in the right thread here.
Hmmm... ok then. with the problem of the discussion location solved. i will present my opinion on the matter.
I once have a similar position as David Sloan Wilson now stubbornly defends, but i now did not hold the same position as him. In other words, i disagree with him. But, i also do not think that religion and spirituality is just some kind of accidental by-product with no ties to evolution. Recall that all homo sapiens around the world from it's emergence until this very moment have a tradition of burying their dead. This action is spiritualistic in its own right, because i don't think there is a clear logical advantage that comes from burying the dead that would justify it pretty nicely. So, in my opinion, this action of burying the dead must had a genetic underlining that compels them to do that ( since apparently the action only exist or proven to exist from the Homo sapiens tree, the earlier "forms" of the homo genus not having this feature ). And from this stance, i can essentially showed that spirituality is genetic based. I don't think there are any clear advantages that follow with the rise of spirituality though..........
Are you sure of what you are saying? While keeping in mind that genetic factors are not automatically adaptive (think of pleiotropy and polygeny for example), I still have to note that you state that spirituality is not adaptive:
[quote=Kennethhartanto]This action is spiritualistic in its own right, because i don't think there is a clear logical advantage that comes from burying the dead that would justify it pretty nicely. [/quote]
So how do you go from this to stating it must be genetic? Because everyone does it? Couldn't it simply be culture? After all, the ritual of burying the dead did arise pretty early in our recent lineage, so it could easily be the earliest sign of culture that spread together with the populations.
So how do you go from this to stating it must be genetic? Because everyone does it? Couldn't it simply be culture? After all, the ritual of burying the dead did arise pretty early in our recent lineage, so it could easily be the earliest sign of culture that spread together with the populations.
If it was culture, then there would be some difference between different society over time. Some culture would have lost it, or at least have variations that will separate one society from another .culture is easily many times more dynamic than genetics, and we have like 500.000 years plus for variations to show. Even aboriginal tasmanians, supposedly the most primitive human society anywhere in the planet and have lost a lot ( bows, arrows, fish-nets, fires, even polished stone tools) cultural stuffs in their isolation, did not abandon the actions of burying the dead. In my modest opinion, this shows me that burying the dead can't be a cultural thing. how else do i explain this fact?
If it was culture, then there would be some difference between different society over time. Some culture would have lost it, or at least have variations that will separate one society from another .
From regular burials over cremation to mummification, from the location of the graves to the different burial objects, I see a wide variety in burial rites and fashions over time and across different cultures. So I have to strongly disagree with you here.
The fact that it is still found so widely over mankind is easily explained by the necessity to not leave rotting corpses simply lying around when you live in close groups. Also, more reasons for burial can be found than spirituality alone. Mere affection can be a reason, also sanitary measures especially in cases of epidemics.
Taking into consideration of the strong mental state of religious people in times of crisis, it will be only logical that religion was an evolutionary trait. If it wasn't to the industrialization, today the biggest empires would have been religious lead. Not only does religion provide a strong mental state, but also a strong binding between people. Countries based on unnatural borders, ethnicity, culture have a weak link between each other, which causes instability and various form of fascism. Take Europe for example. Despite sharing history, culture, moral and a dependent economy, they still have a huge rise in nationalistic parties. EU supposed to bind the various European nation together, have caused the opposite effect and caused nationalism to rise in those countries.
@DSM That is pretty much what Wilson advocates; group selection rendering religion socially beneficial. But as mentioned before, it seems he is pretty much alone with this. And so having no confirmed evolutionary mechanism, it seem the more plausible to me that if benefits there are, they come from the cultural evolution of spirituality. Cultural traits can also prove beneficial without having a biological basis.
A few minor criticism to your point would be that while religion can prove beneficial, it can also prove detrimental and separate/decimate populations. Also, European countries have a religious history and tradition like other countries as well, why would they be an exception?
The reason I believe that religion is evolutionary, is based upon self-proclaimed atheists. I know that atheism can't be classified as religion, because it is the lack of believe in deity. Yet, many atheist I have meet, have the exact behaviorally pattern of a religious person. Let me give you an example of one. Back in my younger days, I meet a fellow who were about my age. What amused me about him was his insistence on gods non-existence. Out of curiosity, I asked him; how was the world created. To my surprise, he answered evolution. To make sure that he didn't misunderstand my question, I asked him, how earth was created and the universe. Yet, the answer was the same ''evolution''. I found it interesting and asked him various questions. To make it short, he had no grasp about any scientific theories and basically mixed many terms that he had heard of. Now my point is, that many atheist have the same view of science, like many religious people have of their religion. Same militancy, same blind following.(does not imply to scientist or people of scientific knowledge) Basically my point is, that the reason even atheist have the same pattern like religious people, may have to do with evolutionary mechanism. Now I know this isn't based on real scientific observation, but nevertheless; I do find it as a valid hypothesis.
Religion may have detrimental effect in modern day, but that is mainly due to industrialization. If we look at religion to prior of industrialization, then religion have had a uniting effect on people. Race, ethnicity, culture, language, those boundaries have always prevented people from uniting for a long term. Yet, religion as a factor could get people under one banner, despite those differences. European countries are based on nationalism and that have always played a major role in their policy, that holds especially true to modern day. In Europe, religion is either non-existent or whatever small trace of it is there for cultural reason(nationalism). Take EU skepticism in European countries as an example. I honestly think if wasn't for WW2, EU would have been a non-existent concept.
Basically my point is, that the reason even atheist have the same pattern like religious people, may have to do with evolutionary mechanism. Now I know this isn't based on real scientific observation, but nevertheless; I do find it as a valid hypothesis.
Your description of that behaviour is certainly interesting. But you realize there are those people, and then there are others (religious and non-religious) who are educated and knowledgeable about their beliefs/convictions, who do not behave that way. How would you explain the difference from an evolutionary perspective? And to come back to my initial question, do you actually think that spirituality evolved through selection?
In my opinion, it is explainable as byproduct of our nervous development and has nothing to do with biological evolution. At most, some of our neurological mechanisms create a bias towards spirituality depending on several factors (likely during early development). Much in the same way as they create a bias towards militancy/blind following in some people. Have you heard for example of the concept of cognitive dissonance?
Religion may have detrimental effect in modern day, but that is mainly due to industrialization. If we look at religion to prior of industrialization, then religion have had a uniting effect on people.
Oh, religions have had detrimental effects time and again throughout history. For example the communities of the three Abrahamic religions went from tolerance to discrimination and open war back to tolerance several times.
