-
Asked by awood to Ed, Katie, Sam, Steve, Vera on 21 Jun 2011.
Question: Hi, These questions are going to be too long to put into a single question, so I will split them up into several different ones. Do you consider the following evolutionary trait to be an innate or learnt behavioural response: Religion (as a state of mind of looking towards a higher being) – Dawkins, in his book the God Delusion, states that the only prominent common trait over time in terms of human ancestral connections has been religion. Religious peoples have been more successful in their evolutionary pathway compared to those that were not religious – the great civilisations of the past right up till modern day, all had their gods, whoever they were. Therefore this can be viewed and treated as a dominant evolutionary trait, that may not be measurable in the chromosomes, DNA and alleles of a human being, but is a measurable force in their minds and lives. However on the flip side, religion could simply be a message, or a state of mind, originally taught by a few, lone teachers, priests, parents, that has become part of our worldwide culture and nationality, and is taught at a young age, and we are exposed to it at a young age, which has an almost imprinted-like effect, that we look upwards, to the heavens, for want of a higher being, to know we are not alone in the universe, and to comfort ourselves that there is others out there, to look over us. Thanks. Have a think, and tell me your thoughts, I will be happy to reply with some thoughts, and theories. Andrew
-
Steven Daly answered on 17 Jun 2011:
That is a mighty question, but one I expect to spark a lot of debate. I think that religion is a learnt behaviour. It all depends on whether you would count that kind of thing as evolution or not, and I think Ed is best qualified to answer that. In the usual term of evolution by genetics, then I cannot see that there would be any genes that would make someone religious regardless of anything else. Having said that, religion is passed on to new generations, and does confer an advantage of a community and a set of rules to live by which may actually make survival more likely.
If I didn’t care about ethics, the simple thing to do would be to bring up 2 children, one from non-religious parents, one from religious parents, with the opposite set of parents, and see what happens. although it would not be definitive, it may well show is if there is some internal mechanism that makes some people more likely to be religious.
-
-
Vera Weisbecker answered on 19 Jun 2011:
I’m afraid I differ from Steven – I strongly believe that religion is an innate characteristic. Our brains are definitely geared towards it. There are many reasons for this. One quirky reason is that, unlike any other animal, we have the power to imagine what another person is thinking. This ability to see others as thinking entities has the weird side effect of us also being able to believe that non-thinking things can also think. For example, many religions think that trees, rocks, or thunderstorms represent a real thinking spirit or deity. Many more abstract religions, like Christianity, have taken this even further and believe that something that we can’t even see actually exists and (depending on what you believe) influences our life.
The idea that everything around us is somehow made by someone is also really deeply rooted in the human psyche. The most striking manifestation of this is that small children, even those from non-religious homes, reason that god must exist because who else could have made the world? They don’t even consider that the world could be there without anyone making it.
I could write volumes on this, so I better stop now!
-
Katie Marriott answered on 19 Jun 2011:
Wow what a question!
I believe reglion is a learnt behaviour. As you say in your question religion is often taught at a young age, particulary if the parents are religious and so from the time the child is born it will attend which ever place of worship is specific to their religion. However, some people turn to religion and it is usually due to a traumatic or depressing time in someone life and so they look to people who will help.
I’m not at all religious. My parents didn’t attend church when I was young and religion was never really a topic of conversation when I was growing up. Therefore I believe my lack of religious belief is due to the environment that I grew up in. Of all the people I know that are religious their parents were also religious.
However, as Steven says this is a really good question to spark a debate. I love the topic of science and religion, especially as my work is researching the origins of life.
-
Ed Morrison answered on 19 Jun 2011:
Another juicy question, thank you.
I don’t believe we can simpy divide religious behaviour into learned or innate. In fact, I think this is true of many if not most behaviours. There is always an interaction between learned and innate aspects of any behaviour. I think religion is a bit like language. Humans definitely have an innate capacity for language that isn’t present in other animals, but the actual language they speak depends on where they are brought up. IN the same way, chlidren very naturally come up with religious and supernatural explanations of the world. But the actual religion we adopt depends on the culture we grow up, usually our parents or friends religion.
There is big debate between scientists as to whether religion is adaptive and confers some kind of advantage, or whether it is what we call a by-product of some other aspect of psychology. There is evidence both ways.
-
Sam Tazzyman answered on 21 Jun 2011:
I agree with Ed that traits cannot be simply categorised as being either innate or learnt, since the capacity for learning a trait must be innate to some extent or one could not learn it.
With religion, I have always found it interesting that even if you showed that religion was an evolved trait, that wouldn’t prove one way or another whether it was also “true”. Just because people have some evolved psychological propensity to believe in a god or gods, does not mean those god or gods don’t exist (or that they do).
Comments
awood commented on :
Would you say that we are being conditioned / dragged by their parents into being religious, eg. where people simply build it into their week, take their children with them and they all think it normal, or would you think it to be a state of mind, or a state of being, without actually praying / going anywhere? In short is there a chance / possibilty that by thinking that there might be a higher being, you are being “religious”.
What are the evolutionary benefits for the race if your culture is religious rather than not?
Is there any other organism that you know of that is similar in terms of religion, or philosophising? It seems that the human race, if it is alone in thinking its actions rather than performing innate / conditioned actions, is a very complex and strange organism, for I see no benefit in evolutionary terms of looking where you came from, inventing stories, and retelling historical events, rather than living, foragind, reproducing and doing actions that would benefit the species as a whole.
AWood
awood commented on :
The problem that I have with the religion issue is that it follows the process that evolution (tends to) take…
1. There was originally variation – there was, in the past, many religions and non-faith groups
2. The traits that are more advantageous cause some to become more prominent – Religion is a key part of all the great civilisations in the world – from the Aztecs to the Romans, to the emperors in the East…
3. Those that innately follow religion, and have followed religion have triumphed – almost all great warriors and the battles have had religious interests from Constantine to Genghis Khan.
4. Thus the trait becomes more common… – religion dominates the world, no further evidence necessary…
5. More common means it spreads quicker – all parts of the world, as they were colonised became Christian, but there were religions before, as what happened with the Romans, they merge (good example Sulis Minerva at Bath, UK, where the British and Roman god have become a hybrid – http://www.romanbaths.co.uk/walkthrough/6_temple_courtyard/minervas_head.aspx)
6. So it becomes the dominant – look back into our rescent history. Even in times like WW1 and WW2 the populous were very religious, whatever their faith.
From this we can draw that it has followed the path of evolutionary traits. It is still debatable as to whether it is in itself a trait, but I think that it probably could be treated as one, even if it isn’t actually one, for it certainly acts as one, as a mental trait, rather than a physical…
AWood