tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1051713021757781960.post1605437625518424535..comments2023-10-31T10:57:37.652+00:00Comments on Epiphenom: The evolution of niceEpiphenomhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05420404206189437710noreply@blogger.comBlogger7125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1051713021757781960.post-29413455347464557132011-04-06T05:09:56.735+01:002011-04-06T05:09:56.735+01:00Mike... I like it. :)Mike... I like it. :)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1051713021757781960.post-39901893476177835842011-04-04T20:36:18.955+01:002011-04-04T20:36:18.955+01:00Mike, have you read "Evolution of God" b...Mike, have you read "Evolution of God" by Robert Wright. I haven't :) but from the reviews he seems to be setting out a similar thesis.Epiphenomhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05420404206189437710noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1051713021757781960.post-65073576621840489752011-04-04T19:33:21.575+01:002011-04-04T19:33:21.575+01:00As our closest relatives the chimpanzees are socia...As our closest relatives the chimpanzees are social animals, it is reasonable to assume that our common ancestor with the chimpanzees was social too. We must have slowly emerged into consciousness living socially, and society must have seemed as natural as the landscape and the heavens. These human groups usually had a totem, most often a local animal, with which they identified, and it seemed natural that the totem was related to the origins of the group. As has been observed, here, members were all close relatives and must soon have come to the notion of a common father who was somehow related to the totem. They realized that the group offered security, cooperation and insurance from starvation for its members -- its evolutionary raison d'etre -- and benefits like this were therefore attributed to the founding father, and/or the totem, the father's twin or cousin. It seems therefore quite fesible that the origin of gods was as a proxy for the clan itself. Each clan or tribe will have had one such god, but clans merged into tribes, city states, nations and empires, so that available gods multiplied, although one was usually understood to be the god of the group. Religions were therefore based on the social group personified as a tribal god which offered the instinctive morality that evolution had conditioned humanity to have as social beings. The trouble was that in the imperial age, the 'universal' religions were used as tools of government, and additional morals were added to the core set based on empathy. In particular, they incorporated inter-tribal suspicion to emphasize us and them, and offer motivation for imperialistic wars. Christianity offered a 'universal' religon for Jews, which escaped into the wider world of the Roman empire. This schema rationalises much that is difficult to comprehend about religions in terms of evolution and society.Mike Mageehttp://www.askwhy.co.uk/index.phpnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1051713021757781960.post-47973666375243550142011-04-01T01:05:44.611+01:002011-04-01T01:05:44.611+01:00The problem is, you are thinking/comparing the mod...The problem is, you are thinking/comparing the modern concept of religion, i.e. priests, temples, organized tithing, etc. This is a product of the agricultural revolution and the rise of the city-state. You need to get back to basics. What were the religious practices of North American or African hunter/gatherers? Some anthropology studies might help clarify this. In any case, any of the related bands would have had the same approximate religious beliefs/superstitions/taboos and those were usually integrated thoroughly with everyday life, and served to tighten group cohesiveness. Do some cultural anthropology field work in any small village in Eastern or Western Europe (or Appalachia)and you will be amazed.evodevohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09534596842153546368noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1051713021757781960.post-29280019440378638572011-03-31T15:46:18.301+01:002011-03-31T15:46:18.301+01:00great post.
The problem of religion is that it pr...great post. <br />The problem of religion is that it promotes hate to other religions, and, as all that is made by humans and implies power, it's totally corrupted (besides of it's antinatural ideas (no sex and so on))...Joseph Kovacshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08691354105444202616noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1051713021757781960.post-49578530276492203132011-03-31T11:12:20.996+01:002011-03-31T11:12:20.996+01:00Some claim that by practicing the attitude of univ...Some claim that by practicing the attitude of universal love/compassion it will lead to greater happiness of the practitioner. If the practitioner is happier, this may have some adaptive advantages: attracting mates, establishing that 'virtuous circle' you spoke of, health and more. So though the math of physical aid to strangers far from the practitioner's actual social circles may predict lack of survival advantage, it may not take into account the affect of the person themselves and the repercussions resulting.Sabio Lantzhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12963476276106907984noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1051713021757781960.post-40904958602867270372011-03-30T22:12:17.576+01:002011-03-30T22:12:17.576+01:00religion is a cultural adaptation that builds upon...<i>religion is a cultural adaptation that builds upon a bunch of otherwise unrelated psychological misfirings to promote pro-social behaviour.</i><br /><br />This is false. That religion promotes pro-social behavior is a myth promulgated by people who make their living from religion. See my recent post on <a href="http://yashwata.info/2011/03/17/group-selection/" rel="nofollow">the "group selection" explanation and how it fails</a>.Roy Sabloskyhttp://yashwata.infonoreply@blogger.com