Religion in the evolutionary process: useful or useless? http://peoplesworld.org/religion-in-the-evolutionary-process-useful-or-useless/ by: Dan Margolis September 22 2010
tags: science, religion, evolution bible As far back into history as we can look, religion has played a central role in humanity's life, for good and for bad. But why is the supernatural impulse so ingrained into us? For the religious, the answer is simple: people naturally yearn for god. But for scientists, the question is more complex: is there some evolutionary benefit? According to the Queens University, Belfast-based research psychologist Jesse Bering, interviewed recently on National Public Radio, there was, but this proposition seems highly dubious. In the interview, Bering lays out several pieces of evidence for his proposition, which, according to NPR, has gained credence over the past few years with a small group of scientists looking to understand why religious belief has been so common in our history. The argument revolves around two points: all cultures of which we know have held supernatural beliefs and, more than anything else, human society can be defined by cooperation. As far as we know, it is true that all cultures have had some sort of supernatural belief system. Bering, himself an atheist with impeccable academic credentials, is of course too clever to fall into some "they must be on to something" argument. Instead, he pointed out that when those who study evolution find something to be universal across a whole population, they generally assume that that there must be some evolutionary advantage to it. But here's where an objection can be raised: recognizable humans have been around for a couple million years. Homo sapiens first came onto the scene approximately 100,000 to 250,000 years ago, but didn't achieve behavioral modernity — the stage where such universals as language, art and myth, as well as religion, appeared. If religion or religious thought didn't exist by the time modern man emerged, how could it have aided our evolutionary process? More central to the point, Bering makes the argument that humanity has been able to progress because of cooperation — simply considering how many rules need to be voluntarily followed for any major city to avoid collapsing into chaos proves how huge of a tendency this is in our psychology — and religious, says Bering, fear may have aided in developing such a trait. Bering's point is given some weight by an experiment he undertook, in which three groups of children were told not to partake in a particular bad behavior. One group was left unsupervised, another group was watched by a researcher and yet another was told that an invisible princess was watching. The first group, as would be expected, cheated quite a bit. The latter two groups kept the cheating to a minimum. Therefore, he concluded, people behave as well when policed by an imaginary figure in which they believe as they do when watched by a real authority. Thus, religion may have helped enforce the cooperation necessary for humanity's development. But given the tens of thousands of years between when modern humans arrived on the scene and the emergence of modern behavior, it is highly unlikely that earlier ancestors were able to employ any organized religious structure capable of enforcing rules. Once again, the question arises: if these ancestors were the same as us, evolutionarily speaking, how could religion have played a role in our evolution? Further, other animals besides us cooperate quite frequently. Most primates are quite cooperative and even have a sense of fairness. A recent study shows that dogs may sense inequality and unfairness — that is, moral thinking. Therefore, it seems that human cooperation is simply a more highly developed version of traits found in other animal species. Why are we so naturally inclined towards religious thinking? It isn't possible to rule out Bering's theories; a great deal more study needs to be done. But there are other ideas as well. Some have suggested that religion was a byproduct of human consciousness. We are, as far as we know, the only animals that are able to think about the future and the past - and contemplate them. With that, it's been argued, questions arrive: What happened before? After? And while we're contemplating, other questions arise: Why does it rain? Why is the tree there? Others, like Richard Dawkins, the acclaimed biologist and proponent of the gene theory of evolution, see religion as a cultural meme, or self-replicating idea. Dawkins postulates that religion has had an existence akin to a parasite, something that has essentially fed off of other actually useful traits. A given example is that of a child's tendency to unquestioningly obey and believe that which is said by a parent and, by extension, other authority figures. It's easy to understand how that trait came into being: the children who happened to not listen when their parents said, "It's dangerous to go near the crocodile-infested swamp" likely didn't end up reproducing. Those who did passed the trait on. It's also easy to see how this tendency to not question that which is learned early in life is a trait on which religious memes can easily attach themselves and feed. This healthy debate won't be settled anytime soon. While it doesn't immediately seem that Bering's hypothesis will prove true, the question he raises remains unanswered and his research, even if only to rule out a certain hypothesis, is more than useful. Any scientific inquiry into why we humans behave and believe the way we do can do nothing but help our species progress. Photo: http://openphoto.net/gallery/image.html?image_id=20436 _______________________________________________ Marxism-Thaxis mailing list [email protected] To change your options or unsubscribe go to: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism-thaxis
