tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post8800432561856863655..comments2024-03-27T14:50:47.345-04:00Comments on <center>Sandwalk</center>: What's the Darwinian Survival Value of Religion?Larry Moranhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05756598746605455848noreply@blogger.comBlogger8125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-51065488298397989682010-07-23T06:11:49.216-04:002010-07-23T06:11:49.216-04:00Putting aside for a moment that there's more t...Putting aside for a moment that there's more to evolution than Darwinian whatever, I think it is often forgotten that ideologies and religions themselves survive and replicate and so on. Thus, one must also keep in mind that the most important thing for religion/ideology is to survive itself. It does not need to have any adaptive value for its host, no more than, say, Toxoplasma or termite gut parabasalians or commensals. To a large extent, it's an organism in its own right, with selection acting on itself as well as its host. <br /><br />Social and intellectual dynamics also follow eerily similar patterns to biological evolution. I think it is a mistake to dismiss that aspect of evolution when discussing human cultural phenomena. I'm not necessarily evoking Dawkins' version of memetics - IMNSHO, he doesn't get the finer details of evolution to begin with - but just because the originator of an idea had flaws doesn't mean the whole concept is now worthless.Psi Wavefunctionhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10829712736757471647noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-63884482512695500592010-07-22T15:53:05.907-04:002010-07-22T15:53:05.907-04:00I didn't listen to the whole video, but I post...I didn't listen to the whole video, but I postulate that religion had survival value for societies (say, by promoting social cohesion, sacrifice for the common good, etc), but not necessarily for individuals. However, that makes it a matter of cultural evolution, not biological, and gives little or no reason to look for "genes for religion".<br /><br />Besides, religion as actually practiced is such a diverse phenomenon that I don't think it counts as a discrete phenotypic "trait".Eamon Knighthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04262012749524758120noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-20966480098172210002010-07-22T13:11:05.833-04:002010-07-22T13:11:05.833-04:00I have the same question as others: Does religiosi...I have the same question as others: Does religiosity offer any fitness advantage to begin with?DKnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-17188730164150195952010-07-22T09:51:39.221-04:002010-07-22T09:51:39.221-04:00Must the capacity for religion have a significant...Must the capacity for religion have a significant selective value?Dave Wiskernoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-49041219846070527292010-07-22T03:36:21.359-04:002010-07-22T03:36:21.359-04:00@DiscoveredJoys
Richard Dawkins defined religiosi...@DiscoveredJoys<br /><br />Richard Dawkins defined religiosity as (among other things) "the belief in a supernatural creator". That has been going on for a sufficiently long time to make evolutionary sense. There seem to be quite some researchers involved in <a href="http://www.scilogs.eu/en/blog/biology-of-religion/2009-05-11/homo-religiosus-the-natural-history-of-religion" rel="nofollow">evolutionary studies of religion</a>.Corneelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02884855837357720225noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-61299807923500507122010-07-21T19:00:19.121-04:002010-07-21T19:00:19.121-04:00Our Aussie philosopher looks rather serious and ru...Our Aussie philosopher looks rather serious and ruminative to me. Not sure whether that signifies agreement or otherwise.Eamon Knighthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04262012749524758120noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-4949507250683462852010-07-21T17:42:50.778-04:002010-07-21T17:42:50.778-04:00I'm not sure the question has any merit.
I g...I'm not sure the question has any merit. <br /><br />I guess formal religion has been around for 10,000 years or less. Far too little time for the evolutionary impact, if any, to show itself surely?DiscoveredJoyshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05300239909689336895noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-33588052360867625302010-07-21T13:51:32.911-04:002010-07-21T13:51:32.911-04:00"Richard Dawkins explaining the possible Darw..."Richard Dawkins explaining the possible Darwinian survival value of religion ..."<br /><br />It is so nice that this website is not overrun by that Evolutionary Psychology claptrap.Jim Menegayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06217224823822142530noreply@blogger.com