![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
yttocs wrote:From a sociological viewpoint, I could see that religion/myths play a prominent role in cementing the individual to the group. It provides a collective story that provides a sense of meaning and history to a group of people with shared interests and commonality. I don't believe it would be disputed that religion plays this role around the world today, as well as in the past. The power of early societies gave priests and other "divine" letters is a testament to this fact, not to mention that before people fully understood the world and how it works, that you would feel comforted in knowing someone who would know why there was a drought and what you would need to do to over come it.
Building off of your question-how will religion continue to evolve? I suppose we would have to argue that the role of religion has evolved, I'm not certain that it really has.
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
yttocs wrote:I'm not so sure that it needs to evolve, when we could just replace it with science. In primitive times, a priest could tell you why there were droughts and the like. We know have satellites and ag. scientists who specialize in that kind of thing. As for meaning and connection, we can replace the minister with the therapist/psychologist. We have greater insights into our world due to the rise of modernity.
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
shadypops wrote:Hi all,
You may argue that this discussion would belong in the philosophy forums or another forum but i wanted to get some biologists opinion.
Could religion be evolved as a survival tool? For example, is a person that evolves the propensity to conveive a 'god', be it sun god etc, more likely to survive in the state of nature compared to someone who doesnt. For example in helping an individual to pray for healing and get a placebo effect.
Could it of helped to form community and establish leadership structures? Any other ideas?
Or is it just a side effect of independant conciousness and curiosity, which leads to an irrational creation of the supernatural? Existing today through inherited indoctrination. (i wonder what makes people irrational enough to adopt religion in adult life!)
Any thoughts?
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
SciameriKen wrote:Natural selection works to promote genes that promote survival.
In a sense genes are tangible in that they are encoded in our DNA. However, intangible things are also subject to natural selection, including Memes or behaviors.
Paralith wrote:Just wanted to pop in and make a comment about memes. James' concerns about memes are valid, as memes are different from genes in important ways, ways that reduce how well cultural change can be described in terms of natural selection-like processes.
A genotype is distinct from a phenotype. The phenotype is obviously a combined result of multiple genes and multiple environmental inputs. However, variations in phenotype do not alter (in any significant or directed way) the genotype. When the gene gets passed on to future generations, its exact form is kept largely intact. However, memes are not transferred like this. Whatever form a particular meme/idea has in your mind, whatever particular neurological structure or chemical mixture in your brain encodes the meme, that is not what gets transferred directly to a brain of another person. You have to express the meme, exhibit a meme phenotype, if you will, which will then be observed by another person. That person's observation of the meme will be filtered and re-interpreted by their own senses and their own pre-existing ideas, and what takes root in their brain is not necessarily going to be the same as the original meme. Not only that, but if and how it will be different is very hard to predict and may not be very consistent between people over time. This may be less of an issue for a simple meme like dying your hair blue, but for more complex ideas like spirituality or morality, there is a great deal of room for a meme to be twisted and reinterpreted every time it gets "passed on" to another person or group of people. And it's because of this that cultural/memetic change can potentially move along far, far more quickly than genetic change ever could. (Save for human genetic engineering, of course.) And much of that change will not be based on how well that meme serves the human carrying it, but based on the perceptions and preconceptions of the human receiving it. Thus I would expect memes to perhaps be adaptive to what people perceive to be the challenges of their environment. And yes, often enough the perceived challenges will reflect the actual challenges. But also often enough, they will not.
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
Paralith wrote:SciameriKen wrote:Natural selection works to promote genes that promote survival.
No, natural selection works to promote genes that promote reproductive success. Surviving long enough to reproduce is obviously an important pre-requisite, but it is not the primary quality which determines what is favored by natural selection and what is not.In a sense genes are tangible in that they are encoded in our DNA. However, intangible things are also subject to natural selection, including Memes or behaviors.
Many behaviors are significantly influenced by our genes, and can evolve by natural selection just as much as any physical trait. The idea of memes, however, is a problematic concept. Here is something I wrote about that in another thread.Paralith wrote:Just wanted to pop in and make a comment about memes. James' concerns about memes are valid, as memes are different from genes in important ways, ways that reduce how well cultural change can be described in terms of natural selection-like processes.
A genotype is distinct from a phenotype. The phenotype is obviously a combined result of multiple genes and multiple environmental inputs. However, variations in phenotype do not alter (in any significant or directed way) the genotype. When the gene gets passed on to future generations, its exact form is kept largely intact. However, memes are not transferred like this. Whatever form a particular meme/idea has in your mind, whatever particular neurological structure or chemical mixture in your brain encodes the meme, that is not what gets transferred directly to a brain of another person. You have to express the meme, exhibit a meme phenotype, if you will, which will then be observed by another person. That person's observation of the meme will be filtered and re-interpreted by their own senses and their own pre-existing ideas, and what takes root in their brain is not necessarily going to be the same as the original meme. Not only that, but if and how it will be different is very hard to predict and may not be very consistent between people over time. This may be less of an issue for a simple meme like dying your hair blue, but for more complex ideas like spirituality or morality, there is a great deal of room for a meme to be twisted and reinterpreted every time it gets "passed on" to another person or group of people. And it's because of this that cultural/memetic change can potentially move along far, far more quickly than genetic change ever could. (Save for human genetic engineering, of course.) And much of that change will not be based on how well that meme serves the human carrying it, but based on the perceptions and preconceptions of the human receiving it. Thus I would expect memes to perhaps be adaptive to what people perceive to be the challenges of their environment. And yes, often enough the perceived challenges will reflect the actual challenges. But also often enough, they will not.
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
Paralith wrote:Let me just make a disclaimer, here. I agree that the spread of "memes" or cultural ideas can be studied for its mechanisms, and that superficially these mechanisms may resemble evolution by natural selection. Like you said, we certainly can discuss what makes one meme more likely to be transmitted, and at that transmitted more faithfully, than others. But you cannot use the mechanism of evolution by natural selection in every exact detail with memes, because memes behave and are structured in a way that is significantly different from the way genes behave and are structured.
My point about genotypes versus phenotypes was one way in which genes differ from memes. Another way is in how they change, how they gain variation. You say that all the ways I mentioned about memes changing can be thought of as mutation. But here's the problem. Mutation in genes is an inherently random process. There is nothing about the structure, the function, or the phenotype of a gene that effects when and how mutations will occur in that gene. That is not true of memes. Exactly how they are changed as they are perceived and reinterpreted by the receiver is not random; it depends on that's person's background, their personality, and it depends on the meme itself. Lamarckism definitely applies to memes, and it definitely does not apply to genes.
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
SciameriKen wrote:I view both genes and memes as individual autonomous units where they must propagate or face extinction.
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
Forest_Dump wrote:SciameriKen wrote:I view both genes and memes as individual autonomous units where they must propagate or face extinction.
Personally, while I know genes exist, thanks to the evidence of science, I am pretty sure memes don't. I am an advocate of Levi-Strauss' structuralism which is about the same thing, but only as a useful heuristic device. But I don't believe either structures as Levi-Strauss wrote of them or memes have any more real existence than that flying noodle monster. But to each their own I guess. Maybe "memes" can be considered a newer religion.
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
Paralith wrote: When we speak of the evolution of religion, are we talking about the biological evolution of the human organism, or about the cultural change of religion through time (essentially, in a change of the environment in which humans are evolving)?
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
SciameriKen wrote:
I can argue with this about as much as as I can a Nihlist that I exist. It is actually quite fun to watch memes make their way into existance and extinction on social networks :) I guess nothing exist until we observe it with our own eyes.
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
yttocs wrote:Paralith wrote: When we speak of the evolution of religion, are we talking about the biological evolution of the human organism, or about the cultural change of religion through time (essentially, in a change of the environment in which humans are evolving)?
How the cultural change of religion through time has occurred would be an excellent place to start in my opinion. Marcus J. Borg and others argue that we need a Christianity that takes into account a non-literal perspective. I don't know if THAT will work for most people. Last time I checked, the mainline denominations were losing members left and right to "Bible believing" mega-churches and the like. To some extent, I would love to be an Episcopalian or a Presbyterian.
Religion is a must for social norming? I would imagine that most people go about their daily lives conforming themselves to civil laws, as opposed to what Moses brought down from Mount Sinai thousands of years ago. The civil authority and governance structure provides the framework, it's the narrative of meaning that would change personally for individuals. given the lack of knowledge concerning most people about other religions, as well as that of their own, it could be argued that people loosely identify with theology, but construct meaning for themselves, all apologies to Erik Erickson.
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
CanadysPeak wrote:I would prefer to see culture become the dominant norming force, but culture seems to be disappearing faster than religion, so . . .
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
Forest_Dump wrote:CanadysPeak wrote:I would prefer to see culture become the dominant norming force, but culture seems to be disappearing faster than religion, so . . .
This doesn't make sense to me. In this kind of context, I would have taken "culture" to refer to the more broad, anthropological concept which is more or less the sum total of all beliefs and practices of a population of people. Components of culture include language, religion and all other ideologies, economics, etc. As long as there are two or more people who share something beyond the purely biological in a reductive sense, there is culture so culture can't be disappearing. In fact, there are good arguments that "culture" can even be applied to non-humans now that we learn more about non-human cognition, etc.
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
SciameriKen wrote:I think we will have to agree to disagree on this one. I think our difference arises from that I believe you view the evolution of genes and memes on the level of the organism. I view both genes and memes as individual autonomous units where they must propagate or face extinction. Mechanism does not matter, behaving like genes does not matter, all that does is that they face selective pressure. So when discussing a meme like religion you can look at the penetrence of that meme into society and favorable/disfavorable traits associated with the meme that gives it a selective advantage to exist and thrive.
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
Forest_Dump wrote:As long as there are two or more people who share something beyond the purely biological in a reductive sense, there is culture so culture can't be disappearing. In fact, there are good arguments that "culture" can even be applied to non-humans now that we learn more about non-human cognition, etc.
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
Paralith wrote:I will have to echo Forest and mtb, however, in their concerns about the reality of memes. I think they do exist, but the exact definition of a meme is probably where we're all getting hung up. They're probably not a clearly defined physical entity, like a certain firing pattern of neurons or anything like that, which makes the definition and description of them difficult. The fact that they're highly changeable makes it even more difficult. But, if you want to study memes, that's a difficulty you should be willing to try and tackle.
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
mtbturtle wrote:Paralith wrote:I will have to echo Forest and mtb, however, in their concerns about the reality of memes. I think they do exist, but the exact definition of a meme is probably where we're all getting hung up. They're probably not a clearly defined physical entity, like a certain firing pattern of neurons or anything like that, which makes the definition and description of them difficult. The fact that they're highly changeable makes it even more difficult. But, if you want to study memes, that's a difficulty you should be willing to try and tackle.
That there is no clear exact definition of "meme" is probably the biggest problem and certainly a major impediment for me for believing in them, that they "exist". I've no problem with talking about ideas, and that ideas change, and that there are certain mechanisms by which ideas spread and so forth but none of that need involve the metaphorical language of evolution and sounds rather mundane and trivial next to the exotic invoking of "memes". I think using that kind of language ends up causing more confusion rather than an understanding about ideas, particularly large complex ideas like religion. Ultimately, it dresses up some rather unscientific ideas by inappropriately borrowing the language of a scientific theory.
But all this is a rather long ways from the OP question regarding whether religion was a survival tool.
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
SciameriKen wrote:mtbturtle wrote:Paralith wrote:I will have to echo Forest and mtb, however, in their concerns about the reality of memes. I think they do exist, but the exact definition of a meme is probably where we're all getting hung up. They're probably not a clearly defined physical entity, like a certain firing pattern of neurons or anything like that, which makes the definition and description of them difficult. The fact that they're highly changeable makes it even more difficult. But, if you want to study memes, that's a difficulty you should be willing to try and tackle.
That there is no clear exact definition of "meme" is probably the biggest problem and certainly a major impediment for me for believing in them, that they "exist". I've no problem with talking about ideas, and that ideas change, and that there are certain mechanisms by which ideas spread and so forth but none of that need involve the metaphorical language of evolution and sounds rather mundane and trivial next to the exotic invoking of "memes". I think using that kind of language ends up causing more confusion rather than an understanding about ideas, particularly large complex ideas like religion. Ultimately, it dresses up some rather unscientific ideas by inappropriately borrowing the language of a scientific theory.
But all this is a rather long ways from the OP question regarding whether religion was a survival tool.
From wikipedia
"A meme (pronounced /ˈmiːm/, rhyming with "cream"[1]) is a postulated unit of cultural ideas, symbols or practices, which can be transmitted from one mind to another through writing, speech, gestures, rituals or other imitable phenomena. (The word is a blend of "gene" and the Greek word μιμητισμός (/mɪmetɪsmos/) for "something imitated".)[2]"
To disregard memetics simply because something tangible cannot be presented sounds very limiting to me.
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
Forest_Dump wrote:Is there any definition of a "meme" that makes it distinguishable from "idea"?
![]() |
![]() |
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests