> there is > scientific study going on to develop theories of why religions > (particularly religious rituals and moral systems) have been created > and persisted. The studies are, of course, based in the theory of > evolution and natural selection. It is not likely that such > institutions as religions would be so pervasive and persistent in > human cultures if they did not provide an evolutionary advantage to > the groups that hold them.
The origin is simple: Fear of the unknown world, in a world that is capricious and violent. Ascribing anthropomorphic tendencies to nature and elemental concepts provided an illusory method of control, praying to fire not to burn the primitive person makes the primitive mind feel as if it's taken a step toward being burned less. It should be noted that the primary "religions" of the world, until a few hundred years ago, were loose forms of religion like ancestor and spirit worship. Other than that, nature study and worship has dominated the majority of all faith in history. The evolutionary advantage is something else entirely. Evolution states that the more likely to breed a creature is, the more likely it's genetic information will be passed down. Since the majority of religions have spent thousands of years killing non-believers... that would tend to make breeding difficult for those that are not inclined to believe in superstition. Even here in America, a believer of a different religion is more respected than non-believers. In many states and counties, one cannot hold office without professing belief in a deity or swearing on a holy book. Thankfully, the religious are no longer legally allowed to murder free-thinkers, atheists, and agnostics. And yes, I read the whole article. On Feb 13, 5:55 pm, 1CellOfMany <[email protected]> wrote: > Fiddler, > Have you read the complete article? It is very interesting to note > that, while there likely will never be scientific proof of the > existence of God or the truth of the afterlife, etc., > > Kind of makes you go "Hmmmm", eh? > > On Feb 10, 11:40 pm, fiddler <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > If it takes a new, inclusive, religion to overcome the divisive > > > influence of the old religions, then I am willing to commit to it. > > > I hope you understand how this is completely illogical to hope for. > > The most enlightened beginning for a religion is the example set by > > islam. It began by holding up philosophical thought and scientific > > exploration as a beautiful -and ultimately human- endeavour. Very > > shortly after becoming mainstream, the religious hierarchy couldn't > > stand that people didn't need them and began decreeing that all > > science and philosophy needed to be rooted in god first. You can thank > > al-Ghazali for that. He was one of the most intelligent and > > enlightened of them to begin with but soon decomposed(not a misuse of > > word, intentional) into the raging theistic tyrant that he originally > > was against. This resulted in Baghdads degeneration into the slums > > that it has remained for so very long. Religion rots human minds, > > human creativity, and humanity. > > The quest for spirituality or meaning need not end in religion. I wish > > I could describe the taste of physics, somewhat like mental chocolate > > topping on ambrosia. The sound of a successful chemical chain is like > > a lyre, playing for titans before the rise of gods. Calculus could > > humble the greatest painting ever devised in sheer beauty. Too often > > people refuse this awesome, remarkable, spectacular universe in favour > > of ideology that proclaims it to be mundane. Nothing is farther from > > the truth. When christian quote-miners claim that Einstein, Newton, > > Jefferson, and Sagan were all god lovers, they have mistaken the awe > > inspiring grandeur of reality for a sad little diminishing concept > > like a god. > > > To address the title: Religion was invented when some apes wept after > > recognising the majesty of what they had the capability to achieve and > > learn, and sheep-like apes wept because they could not achieve or > > learn it. The sheep-apes needed to find a way to feel important. Alas, > > there were far more sheep than apes. > > > On Feb 10, 8:17 pm, 1CellOfMany <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > Mostly I was replying to the line "I'm not looking for religion, but > > > radical, practical changes in > > > society, the way we live and could live" from the OP. Perhaps you > > > know better than I, Fiddler, but form the article and from other > > > sources I have gotten the impression that religion has had a powerful > > > roll in shaping society (whether or not it influences individual moral > > > choices). I am very much into changing society so that we might be > > > free(er) of the various inequalities and injustices which you so often > > > and so eloquently describe. > > > While the Baha'i Faith does not answer all objections that people have > > > to religion, it does, at least, name speaking ill of others > > > ("backbiting") the greatest sin of all, which tends to prevent all of > > > the finger pointing and such that helps make other religions so > > > intolerable to most people. (I know, this is another shameless plug > > > for my "beliefs"...) <( :-}= > > > > On Feb 10, 10:16 pm, fiddler <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > I think that all people have equal value in terms of their intrinsic > > > > > worth, which also implies that all should have the same rights under > > > > > the law and in society. > > > > > This is impossible in societies that allow religion to determine when > > > > some people have more worth than others. The abrahamic cults all > > > > depend on being the "right" path. When some people are going to be > > > > "saved" and some are following sharia, they must -of necessity- tell > > > > others that they aren't as "saved" or that they aren't following > > > > sharia correctly. When homosexuals have the same rights as christians > > > > and muslims or atheists can legally hold office in every American > > > > state, I'll be impressed and perhaps view these divisive and exclusive > > > > little clubs in a slightly better light. > > > > > > One of the goals of an improved society should be to provide support > > > > > and stimulus for each individual to develop his or her capacities, and > > > > > to find a way to use those capacities to earn a living. I do not see > > > > > how this could be done without some sort of educational system that > > > > > teaches people how to develop character, resolve conflict, and > > > > > collaborate, along with arts, sciences, literature, history, crafts, > > > > > and so on. > > > > > Unfortunately, most societies are under the burden of supporting > > > > bronze and iron age superstitions that determine science to be evil, > > > > conflict to be necessary, history to be personal only, crafts to only > > > > be legitimate when in support of theology, and character to be > > > > something that must be subverted to some fictional construct; all the > > > > while the act of ignoring knowledge is held up as some sort of twisted > > > > ideal. > > > > > >(http://fullcirclelearning.org/default.aspx) > > > > > Please note the dearth of religious organisations that support this. > > > > The Baha'i are present, as nearly always, in support of human rights > > > > and education. While I'm not a great fan of superstition, or belief in > > > > the anthropomorphic representation of it, the Baha'i are often located > > > > at the front of humanitarian rights and deserve respect for this. > > > > > I'm not sure why you posted this in this particular thread, however. > > > > It could stand on it's own and doesn't seem to address the thread > > > > title. > > > > > On Feb 10, 6:12 pm, 1CellOfMany <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > On the other hand, different people have> different skill sets, > > > > different approaches to life, different cultural > > > > > backgrounds, etc. There are some people who have the skills and > > > > > character to be leaders, and others who would prefer to follow, and > > > > > not have to worry about "the big picture". There are some who love to > > > > > use there minds and consider abstract concepts, while others consider > > > > > such activities a waste of time and prefer to "get things done." In > > > > > short, each person has strengths and weaknesses, in their potential > > > > > and in there actual condition. > > > > > One model that is already being tried with notable success > > > > > > is based on incorporating character-education/self-mastery, > > > > > peacemaking skills, as well as local and global service into the > > > > > curriculum. > > > > > > On Feb 10, 8:12 am, Pat <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > On 10 Feb, 04:50, archytas <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > This is an extract from a recent article. > > > > > > > The details surrounding the emergence and evolution of religion > > > > > > > have > > > > > > > not been clearly established and remain a source of much debate > > > > > > > among > > > > > > > scholars. Now, an article published by Cell Press in the journal > > > > > > > Trends in Cognitive Sciences on February 8 brings a new > > > > > > > understanding > > > > > > > to this long-standing discussion by exploring the fascinating link > > > > > > > between morality and religion. > > > > > > > > There is no doubt that spiritual experiences and religion, which > > > > > > > are > > > > > > > ubiquitous across cultures and time and associated exclusively > > > > > > > with > > > > > > > humans, [actually something similar seems to have been observed in > > > > > > > chimps] are ultimately based in the brain. However, there are many > > > > > > > unanswered questions about how and why these behaviors originated > > > > > > > and > > > > > > > how they may have been shaped during evolution. > > > > > > > > "Some scholars claim that religion evolved as an adaptation to > > > > > > > solve > > > > > > > the problem of cooperation among genetically unrelated > > > > > > > individuals, > > > > > > > while others propose that religion emerged as a by-product of pre- > > > > > > > existing cognitive capacities," explains study co-author Dr. Ilkka > > > > > > > Pyysiainen from the Helsinki Collegium for Advanced Studies. > > > > > > > Although > > > > > > > there is some support for both, these alternative proposals have > > > > > > > been > > > > > > > difficult to investigate. > > > > > > > > Dr. Pyysiainen and co-author Dr. Marc Hauser, from the > > > > > > > Departments of > > > > > > > Psychology and Human Evolutionary Biology at Harvard University, > > > > > > > used > > > > > > > a fresh perspective based in experimental moral psychology to > > > > > > > review > > > > > > > these two competing theories. "We were interested in making use of > > > > > > > this perspective because religion is linked to morality in > > > > > > > different > > > > > > > ways," says Dr. Hauser. "For some, there is no morality without > > > > > > > religion, while others see religion as merely one way of > > > > > > > expressing > > > > > > > one's moral intuitions." > > > > > > > > Citing several studies in moral psychology, the authors highlight > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > finding that despite differences in, or even an absence of, > > > > > > > religious > > > > > > > backgrounds, individuals show no difference in moral judgments for > > > > > > > unfamiliar moral dilemmas. The research suggests that intuitive > > > > > > > judgments of right and wrong seem to operate independently of > > > > > > > explicit > > > > > > > religious commitments. > > > > > > > > "This supports the theory that religion did not originally emerge > > > > > > > as a > > > > > > > biological adaptation for cooperation, but evolved as a > > ... > > read more » -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups ""Minds Eye"" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/minds-eye?hl=en.
