Atheists and Evolutionists, Line Up for Some "New Light!"

by DarioKehl 22 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

  • DarioKehl
    DarioKehl

    Good day, again everyone. Before delving into my topic, I just want to make it known to people who have PMed me that I have received your messages but it's not allowing me to reply! I'm not ignoring you. And to Billy the ExBethelite, I am unable to even open yours for some reason. Sorry!

    Ok... I have a great question for those of you who are atheist/evolutionist/scientific-minded. I recently came across a terrific answer to this question that shot my old response down. I just want to post this question to see what your responses are and after a few of you post your responses, I'll share this tidbit with you. Here goes:

    p.p1 {margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 13.0px 'Lucida Grande'; color: #333233} p.p2 {margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 13.0px 'Lucida Grande'; color: #333233; min-height: 16.0px}

    If evolution is true, what roll does religion play in human adaptation and natural selection and why would humans fight, kill, invest, deprive themselves and expend vast amounts of material and energy into building giant cathedrals and embarking on lengthy missions throughout our history??? Remember, nature selects AGAINST waste and extravagance. Environmental pressures should have weeded out the "god gene" long ago, or so it would seem...

    Hint: The answer is NOT "population control" or "it's a way for humans to deal with the realization of their own mortality." Those were the answers i used to give and they're inaccuratet! Hit me back!

  • cofty
    cofty

    "memes" - See Susan Blackmore's "The Meme Machine" chapter 15 "Religions as memeplexes"

  • DarioKehl
    DarioKehl

    cofty... You're getting warm!

    Here's another hint: It's a little abstract. Try thinking about how the behavior allowed for positive selection.

  • cofty
    cofty

    Are you thinking about how religion has become a way of defining "in-groups" and out-groups" as social groups became larger?

  • Billy the Ex-Bethelite
    Billy the Ex-Bethelite

    Hmmm, Religion played an important part of the social network of cultures, often times more important than whatever secular-type government there was for some of them. In the modern era of stable governments and social institutions, religion often gets lower status. Also, monotheism seems to have created a greater "togetherness" that made all efforts of the followers more focused and more successful.

    Some religions were not beneficial to survival. In many places, the religious beliefs of the indigenous people made them easy prey for invaders with different, agressive-minded, religious beliefs. A lot of inhumanity is based on religious excuses.

    But when you're talking just about genetics and the hint about "positive selection", maybe it is because the religious people have historically been hiding in church while the non-religious were locked out of the church, getting killed on the battlefield frontlines. And having bigger churches gave them bigger places to hide.

    I'm not even warm, am I?

    Edit to add: Maybe the larger steeples lead to larger, um, families...?

  • DarioKehl
    DarioKehl

    Billy...

    That came up in the book I read! And it makes sense in the selection process. Avid defenders of god would, in theory, carry a "devout gene" and would be the first to voluntarily march into warfare. If the less devout hid in the churches, over time, their "less devout" behavior would accumulate in the gene pool and the "devout gene" would be removed from the population after generations of war casualties selected against them. It would be unfavorable, then, for a nation/theocracy to have a population of people "less devout" and unwilling to fight religious wars because they would be prone to easy attack from other "devout genes" carriers from different religious nations/theocracies. So, the "devout gene" would move again and reach an equilibrium. Eventually, that conquering sect would have the selection process begin again. Yet, we still observe a vast majority of religious behavior today, despite the need to survive on a crusade battlefield. Humans still, at great cost to themselves, buy into the idea of religion, usually to their own peril. Somehow, this "god gene" still shows up.

    cofty, you've obviously read some of the same books I have so you're still warm.

    Hint 3: Think vestigal traits...

  • dgp
    dgp

    What I see is that you're asking for posts in your own terms. Question: Why, oh why, is "it's a way for humans to deal with the realization of their own mortality" a wrong answer?

    Question: Can I assume that many a "God" gene has died in the many missionaries who have DIED childless, living, not in waste and extravagance, but in dire poverty?

    In Europe, families used to send their daughters to nunneries because they couldn't afford to pay a second dowry. These people died childless (or so we think ) . Was that "natural selection"?

    The simplest explanation I've heard about evolution is this: an individual who happens to have a physical trait that makes him or her more fit to survive to something in the environment will most likely transmit that to the offspring. I think it doesn't take much to understand it is that way. If you happen to have a naturally greater resistance to, say, AIDS (http://www.king5.com/health/Scientists-discover-why-some-patients-are-resistant-to-AIDs-106727973.html), does it take much to understand that your offspring would survive, while that of others wouldn't?

    Civilization has altered that pattern of survival. A myopic child wouldn't have survived in the forest, but now myopia does not result in anyone's death. If you happen to live in a rich country and can afford antirretrovirals, you will survive while others won't, and the difference is not their natural fitness but the money.

    What if "waste and extravagance" mean that you can afford to impregnate five hundred women, even if you have, say, a gene for cancer? What if you're dirt poor and never marry, so your precious ability to survive AIDS is never passed on to anyone?

    Now, if you're a Muslim and kill every infidel in your neighboring areas, was that God that preserved the "God gene"?

  • OnTheWayOut
    OnTheWayOut

    If evolution is true, what roll does religion play in human adaptation and natural selection and why would humans fight, kill, invest, deprive themselves and expend vast amounts of material and energy into building giant cathedrals and embarking on lengthy missions throughout our history??? Remember, nature selects AGAINST waste and extravagance. Environmental pressures should have weeded out the "god gene" long ago, or so it would seem...

    Such a deep question with such huge assumptions and then such dismissal of any ideas: You're getting warm!

    First, it's "role." (Although religion can "roll" away for all I care.) Second, theories on this are vast, but we are supposed to keep guessing until we hit on what you agree with. Sometimes, waste and extravagance survive from a certain environment that doesn't exist anymore and there isn't necessarily a "god gene" to begin with. Sometimes, evolution causes adaptations in two (or more) different directions and both survive in their own way.

    Yours is more a question for philosophers and I doubt we could get a consensus.

    Go ahead and say, "Nope, you're very cold OTWO."

  • thetrueone
    thetrueone

    If the less devout hid in the churches, over time, their "less devout" behavior would accumulate in the gene pool.

    Wow Dario you should be teaching human psychology at a University somewhere.

    Your forgetting one important fact to this arduous question, learned social behavior patterns in a cultural environment..

    But then again if religionists do not accept human psychology as a fact, that leaves one and only answer.....right.

  • villabolo
    villabolo

    "... why would humans fight, kill, invest, deprive themselves and expend vast amounts of material and energy into building giant cathedrals and embarking on lengthy missions throughout our history???"

    Your question covers too much ground but here goes:

    1. Fighting, killing, and mega structures.

    The reason for both is rooted in our biological propensity to dominate. It is obvious in fighting. Building large structures is a way for society's dominator/s or perhaps society itself to posture in a "I'm bigger than you are" manner.

    Examples of Dominance:

    The Pharoahs and their pyramids. The Cathedrals were not so much the Catholic Church displaying dominance but individual towns trying to compete with each other to see who could build the biggest and tallest cathedral.

    Easter island was another example. Those large statues, facing the sea, represented the ancestors of the island's inhabitants. They were built by competing clans who were trying to make their statue bigger than everyone elses. Then as they degraded their environment (The degradation was tied in with the statue making.) their society began to collapse and they started toppling each others statues.

    The American manned Lunar mission. A direct response to Sputnik.

    2. Embarking on long missions.

    To fulfill the innate sense of Curiosity. Related to the general quest for knowledge and its ultimate manifestation, the scientific endeavor.

    3. Remember, nature selects AGAINST waste and extravagance. Environmental pressures should have weeded out the "god gene" long ago, or so it would seem...

    The 'god gene' is irrelevant and not a direct cause of civilization's hypertrophy. Regardless of how important religion was in ancient civilizations, it was simply something with which to imbue civilization with.

    Your sense of "long ago" needs some adjustment. Remmber that Human civilization has grown exponentially in its (meaningless) extravagance in just 10,000 years. That is not too long ago when you consider that 'modern' Humans have momentarily buffered themselves from the consequences of environmental destruction.

    This process of Human expansion is known as 'ecological release' in scientific terms. Ecological release occurs when one species is able to expand at the expense of other species due to lessened competition, for whatever reason.

    With Homo Sapiens, this ecological release was the result of several factors.

    a. It was pre conditioned by an advanced brain.

    b. Under the right environmental circumstances, severe stresses accelerated technological advance.

    The first environmental incident was the gigantic eruption of a volcano, about 70,000 years ago. It was powerful enough to have darkened the Northern Hemisphere for months and thus cause a major reduction of Hominid populations. That seems to have spurred, thousands of years after the eruption, previously small populations of Homo Sapiens that had been limited to Africa into a migratory expansion throughout the world.

    In their expansion they eventually replaced other Hominid species.

    The second environmental incident was the last ice age, which further accelerated technological innovation, particularly in Europe. Humans had reached Australia 40,000 years ago.

    The third incident occured with the end of the last ice age. Humans could no longer maintain their hunter/gatherer ways for a variety of reasons related to population pressures. This led to the adoption of Agriculture which transformed Natural biomass into Human modified biomass. With Natural biomass, only a small fraction of it was edible by humans. With the Human modified biomass of Agriculture, a much larger percentage was edible by Humans.

    This led to a population explosion and the conversion of most of nature into a human habitat.

    Population has continued to expand greatly, leading to more destruction of the Environment.

    Depending on how old you are, you may not have to hold your breath for too long to see Nature select against waste and extravagance on a massive scale. Two, three, four decades?

    Villabolo

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit