Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 06-11-2012, 07:56 AM
 
Location: S. Wales.
50,086 posts, read 20,687,859 times
Reputation: 5927

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by whoppers View Post
I just picked up a book called Gods' Brain, by Lionel Tiger and Michael McGuire, which I'm hoping will explain the idea that I have recently heard. It's been said many times that humans tend to be religious by nature, but recently someone claimed to have isolated the genetic feature that permits this. They further claimed that it was not always present in our evolutionary makeup, so that we can expect to find stages in our "history" that have no religious features at all: the genetics just weren't there yet. Dont' ask me who made this claim or when (besides "recently") - I can't remember.

I'm not sure how accurate this genetic claim is, but I'm hoping some details are in the book. From the dustjacket, it says
Taking a perspective rooted in evolutionary biology with a focus on brain science, renowned antrhopologist Lionel Tiger and pioneering neuroscientist Michael McGuire - a primary disoverer of serotonin's crucial role in brain chemisty - team up to explore the biological miracles that happen every day in your brain and possibly the most enduring legacy of humankind - religion. What is its purpose? Why is its source? What does every known culture have some form of it?
(God's Brain, Prometheus Books, 2010)
I have absolutely no idea how scientific this book will be (I picked it up used at a Goodwill Bookstore) and I hope it isn't another of those books that try to hybridize Science and Religion in an effort to "prove" Religion. Has anyone read it?

I think we can all agree with the premise: religion is a powerful force, whether one is skeptical of it's truth claims or happily faithful with them. It certainly has had a lasting influence on humanity, or I doubt any of us would be here typing.
It's certainly something I have had in mind ever since Matrix and his Plantinga thread and somewhat continued by Mystic. religion as an evolved survival mechanism.

But you raise a good point. Was it always there in our evolved mental make up? I would expect that it was, at least potentially, just as the fear of death that has taken on such a complicated philosophical and indeed artistic form is just the same as causes a cat to scram when you reach for a stone. Evolved preservation instinct. The not too far off Mickiel discussion about the Adam- event argued that these impulses were not there until they got implanted around the mesolithic period. False correlation argument apart, I argued that there were indications of this instinct in palaeolithic times.

Anyone who looks at Aurignatian or Magdalenan art and tells me that these people had no 'spiritual' feelings is truly blind, I'd say.

Anyway. I'm suggesting that some research into the links between those human impulses regarded as 'spiritual' (whether or not God - given) and the mind, instinct, prehistoric behaviour and indeed animal behaviour.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 06-11-2012, 08:37 AM
 
7,801 posts, read 6,369,717 times
Reputation: 2988
I have certainly read a few speculative books like this suggesting that Religion is genetic or that it is a survival mechanism or that it affords some kinds of survival traits. I however have seen little or no peer reviewed research or papers on this and I put little or no stock in the books.

What has continuously been more convincing for me is to treat religion in a memetic sense and paralleling it to disease and viruses in some way.

We do not have genetics "for" catching a virus, nor do viruses tend to afford us Selection Advantage in Evolution. This is exactly the wrong way to look at viruses. Viruses have actually evolved to take advantage of our genetics and other things we actually ARE evolved to do. All to perpetuate themselves and nothing else.

The analogy to Religion is clear. It is not that we are genetically religious or that it affords us advantages. Religion simply has evolved to take advantage of things that make us up.... the intentional stance, agency detection, death fear, confirmation bias and much more. It does it to perpetuate itself, not to afford any advantage(s) to the host.

Just like a virus... which is essentially just information with attitude.... uses the replication mechanisms of our cells to create copies of itself.... religion.... which is also essentially just information..... uses other aspects of the human condition to create copies of itself.

As with a virus it can be mutated. The mutations which are better at making humans create copies survive better than those that are not. Natural Selection and Evolution occurs therefore.

It might seem a small difference to quibble over, as to whether religion is a directly genetic thing or a byproduct effect as I suggest. The implications are huge however. The latter means that, like catching the common cold, it is nearly impossible to evolve it out of us without changing entirely what it means to be human. If it was merely genetic we could genetically eliminate religion by fiddling with the genome. I do not think that is possible. Its role as a genetic byproduct, just like the common cold, means that we would have to fundamentally change how the human mind works, operates and exists in order to remove the potential to be infected with religion.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-11-2012, 12:52 PM
2K5Gx2km
 
n/a posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by whoppers View Post
There is definitely a problem with defining it - I agree. Socrates would not be happy heh heh! Perhaps it's very liquid definition points to the intrinsic problem with it.
Socrates would be pulling his hair out - wait was he bald. Before you begin any serious discourse on epistemic and metaphysical issues you need to define your terms in a coherent, logical manner.

Who wants to see Socrates and Paul in the Octagon?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-11-2012, 07:09 PM
 
Location: Somewhere out there
9,616 posts, read 12,911,069 times
Reputation: 3767
Default And there you have it! Thanks, Mr5150!

Quote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr5150 View Post
The above quote from Hebrews contains two interesting words that define "faith" in the Judeo-Christian manner. Assurance and conviction. It is not a blind faith that runs contrary to what some call facts.

The question is raised; where does the assurance and/or conviction come from? My answer is God.
**********
As to your "faith that the majority of mature, responsible posters will be able to do this", that comes from experience and observation. Your experience gives you assurance and your observation gives you conviction.

Blind faith is based on nothing, but opinion and wishful thinking.
But by definition, all faith is blind (otherwise it becomes confirmed fact, with appropriate an indisputable evidence), so.....
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-12-2012, 03:41 AM
 
Location: S. Wales.
50,086 posts, read 20,687,859 times
Reputation: 5927
Quote:
Originally Posted by rifleman View Post
But by definition, all faith is blind (otherwise it becomes confirmed fact, with appropriate an indisputable evidence), so.....
So we have the prolonged, convoluted and often illogical (if not downright false) arguments to try to make Evidence to prove God, Bible and Jesus all real and true.

It is possible to get all the ill - fitting components of religious exigesis stick together with the supaglu of faith into the eccesiastical edifice, but for those pesky atheists who keep coming along and give it a kick.

Their reaction is like kid seeing a castle of sand collapse.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-12-2012, 07:49 AM
 
Location: Oregon
3,066 posts, read 3,720,893 times
Reputation: 265
Quote:
Originally Posted by AREQUIPA View Post
So we have the prolonged, convoluted and often illogical (if not downright false) arguments to try to make Evidence to prove God, Bible and Jesus all real and true.

It is possible to get all the ill - fitting components of religious exigesis stick together with the supaglu of faith into the eccesiastical edifice, but for those pesky atheists who keep coming along and give it a kick.

Their reaction is like kid seeing a castle of sand collapse.
RESPONSE:

Also those pesky historians, atheists and theists alike.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-12-2012, 12:55 PM
 
707 posts, read 686,927 times
Reputation: 284
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rafius View Post
Nope...not everyone! I don't use 'faith' at all.
What about hope? Do you hope for things to work out? Do you have faith that things will work out? Whatever they may be.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-12-2012, 01:38 PM
 
Location: Valencia, Spain
16,155 posts, read 12,849,571 times
Reputation: 2881
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vansdad View Post
What about hope? Do you hope for things to work out? Do you have faith that things will work out? Whatever they may be.
There is a difference between hoping things will work out and believing against all the evidence that they will.

Last edited by Rafius; 06-12-2012 at 02:28 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-12-2012, 02:15 PM
 
Location: Free State of Texas
20,438 posts, read 12,773,535 times
Reputation: 2497
My initial faith in God was due to my mother's faith. She taught me that God had been faithful to her and would do the same for me if I trusted Him. I had "child-like" or blind faith.

Now that I'm an adult, I've seen God's hand in my life over and over. My faith is no longer blind.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-12-2012, 02:41 PM
 
5,187 posts, read 6,937,154 times
Reputation: 1648
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmiej View Post
My initial faith in God was due to my mother's faith. She taught me that God had been faithful to her and would do the same for me if I trusted Him. I had "child-like" or blind faith.

Now that I'm an adult, I've seen God's hand in my life over and over. My faith is no longer blind.

Great way of putting it jimmiej, as we mature we see the Lord's mighty power and have Him in our heart and know He is real.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 06:13 PM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top