|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 10/14/2005 : 01:46:35
|
Whilst on my way to church, I happened to come across this: quote: Why do we believe in God?
Faith in a higher being is as old as humanity itself. But what sparked the Divine Idea? Did our earliest ancestors gain some evolutionary advantage through their shared religious feelings? In these extracts from his latest book, Robert Winston ponders the biggest question of them all
Thursday October 13, 2005 The Dolley Pond Church of God With Signs Following was founded in Tennessee in 1909 by one George Went Hensley. This former bootlegger took to the pulpit in a rural Pentecostalist community in Grasshopper Valley. One Sabbath, while he was preaching a fiery sermon, some of the congregation dumped a large box of rattlesnakes into the pulpit (history does not record whether they were angry or just bored). Without missing a beat, in mid-sentence, Hensley bent down, picked up a 3ft-long specimen of this most venomous of snakes, and held it wriggling high above his head. Unharmed, he exhorted his congregation to follow suit, quoting the words of Christ: "And these signs will follow those who believe ... in my Name ... they will take up serpents."
Having known a few religious snake-handlers, I'd say that on the surface they appear pretty much 'off the deep end'. But taken in an historical context that includes other ceremonies and other deities, their version of worship isn't all that bizarre. The symbolic eating of the deity's flesh and the drinking of it's blood has always seemed to me as downright barbaric and only a thin cut above the sacrifice of both humans and animals as practiced historically -- and even today by some of the more strung-out, to the salicious delight of the news media. quote: Many years ago, a team of researchers at the department of anthropology at the University of Minnesota decided to put this association to the test. They studied certain fringe religious groups, such as fundamentalist Baptists, Pentecostalists and the snake-handlers of West Virginia, to see if they showed the particular type of psychopathology associated with mental illness. Members of mainstream Protestant churches from a similar social and financial background provided a good control group for comparison. Some of the wilder fundamentalists prayed with what can only be described as great and transcendental ecstasy, but there was no obvious sign of any particular psychopathology among most of the people studied. After further analysis, however, there appeared a tendency to what can only be described as mental instability in one particular group. The study was blinded, so that most of the research team involved with questionnaires did not have access to the final data. When they were asked which group they thought would show the most disturbed psychopathology, the whole team identified the snake-handlers. But when the data were revealed, the reverse was true: there was more mental illness among the conventional Protestant churchgoers - the "extrinsically" religious - than among the fervently committed.
Picking up rattlesnakes and their venomous relatives is dangerous and gives the impression of lunacy even to me. But, as I've been associating with hot snakes for many years, I've long thought of the attention it gets as little more than sensationalism. The real nutballs are to be found in places such as behind the the Thomas Road Baptist Church's pulpet and in the 700 Club, et al, ad nauseum. quote: It is possible that strong levels of belief in God, gods, spirits or the supernatural might have given our ancestors considerable comforts and advantages. Many anthropologists and social theorists do indeed take the view that religion emerged out of a sense of uncertainty and bewilderment - explaining misfortune or illness, for example, as the consequences of an angry God, or reassuring us that we live on after death. Rituals would have given us a comforting, albeit illusory, sense that we can control what is in fact ultimately beyond our control - the weather, illness, attacks by predators or other human groups.
However, it is equally plausible that the Divine Idea would have been of little use in our prehistoric rough-and-tumble existence. Life on the savannah may have been in the open air, but it was no picnic. Early humans would have been constantly on the lookout for predators to be avoided, such as wolves and sabre-tooth tigers; hunting or scavenging would be a continual necessity to ensure sufficient food; and the men were probably constantly fighting among each other to ensure that they could have sex with the best-looking girl (or boy) or choose the most tender piece of meat from the carcass. Why would it be necessary, in the daily scramble to stay alive, to make time for such an indulgent pursuit as religion?
Richard Dawkins, our best-known Darwinist and a ferocious critic of organised religion, notes that religion seems to be, on the face of it, a cost rather than a benefit: "Religious behaviour in bipedal apes occupies large quantities of time. It devours huge resources. A medieval cathedral consumed hundreds of man-centuries in its building. Sacred music and devotional paintings largely monopolised medieval and Renaissance talent. Thousands, perhaps millions, of people have died, often accepting torture first, for loyalty to one religion against a scarcely distinguishable alternative. Devout people have died for their gods, killed for them, fasted for them, endured whipping, undertaken a lifetime of celibacy, and sworn themselves to asocial silence for the sake of religion."
Religion of whatever sort has a binding effect upon society, and has ever since our ancestors gained sentience; there is no doubting that. In ancient times, the group that was the most cohesive had the best chance of prosperity as well as survival. Add to that the fact that we as a species are forever demanding explanations for natural occurances, and soon you end up with belief systems that might range from the relativly harmless worship of nature, to the bloody ceremonies of the Incas, to the outrages in the name of God commited by the inquisions and crusades of the Dark Ages. quote: While nobody has identified any gene for religion, there are certainly some candidate genes that may influence human personality and confer a tendency to religious feelings. Some of the genes likely to be involved are those which control levels of different chemicals called neurotransmitters in the brain. Dopamine is one neurotransmitter which we know plays a powerful role in our feelings of well-being; it may also be involved in the sense of peace that humans feel during some spiritual experiences. One particular gene involved in dopamine action - incidentally, by no means the only one that has been studied in this way - is the dopamine D4 receptor gene (DRD4). In some people, because of slight changes in spelling of the DNA sequences (a so-called polymorphism) making up this gene, the gene may be more biologically active, and this could be partly responsible for a religious bent.
And it is easy to suggest a mechanism by which religious beliefs could help us to pass on our genes. Greater cohesion and stricter moral codes would tend to produce more cooperation, and more cooperation means that hunting and gathering are likely to bring in more food. In turn, full bellies mean greater strength and alertness, greater immunity against infection, and offspring who develop and become independent more swiftly. Members of the group would also be more likely to take care of each other, especially those who are sick or injured. Therefore - in the long run - a shared religion appears to be evolutionarily advantageous, and natural selection might favour those groups with stronger religious beliefs.
But this is not the whole story.
Even we atheists are drawen to others of like mind and have formed organizations such as American Atheists. Some of us are even evangelical. I think that if the 'religion gene' exists, we too, are susceptible to it's influence however much we identify ourselves as free thinkers. Many of us are as willing to attack the beliefs of others as they are to rage against our lack of them.
It ain't easy being human, is it?
|
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist!
|
|
Siberia
SFN Addict
Brazil
2322 Posts |
Posted - 10/14/2005 : 08:32:51 [Permalink]
|
If it indeed is, then celibate among religions is a good idea... |
"Why are you afraid of something you're not even sure exists?" - The Kovenant, Via Negativa
"People who don't like their beliefs being laughed at shouldn't have such funny beliefs." -- unknown
|
|
|
astropin
SFN Regular
USA
970 Posts |
Posted - 10/14/2005 : 08:58:48 [Permalink]
|
From: http://www.lcmedia.com/mind0005.htm
Dr. Thomas Bouchard, professor of psychology at the University of Minnesota and director of the Minnesota Study of Twins Reared Apart. "Says he found it particularly surprising that religion showed up as having a stronger-than-average genetic link. He also discusses the heritability of mannerisms, job choice, happiness and choice of a mate. Genes appear to have little effect on choice of a mate, he says, probably because the pool of potential mates at the time of selection is too limited to allow for similar choices."
From: http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn7147
"Genes contribute to religious inclination" |
I would rather face a cold reality than delude myself with comforting fantasies.
You are free to believe what you want to believe and I am free to ridicule you for it.
Atheism: The result of an unbiased and rational search for the truth.
Infinitus est numerus stultorum |
Edited by - astropin on 10/14/2005 09:00:39 |
|
|
beskeptigal
SFN Die Hard
USA
3834 Posts |
Posted - 10/16/2005 : 00:54:07 [Permalink]
|
I'm skeptical of the conclusions drawn by these kinds of studies. It's a bit iffy that all the variables have been thoroughly looked at. You have to study identical twins raised apart and then account for local religious trends as well as familial. I don't see any reason why there couldn't be a genetic social tendency to believe in gods but I'm not convinced the evidence is only explicable in this case by religion being genetic.
I'm an atheist, my younger brother is moderately religious and I'd guess my older brother was agnostic though I have never really asked him. Not that my sample of 3 means much but I thought I'd add it to the data pool here. |
|
|
ronnywhite
SFN Regular
501 Posts |
Posted - 10/16/2005 : 09:59:04 [Permalink]
|
Maybe religion (which I'm no fan of) and a lot of other seemingly senseless, illogical, inexplicable, or destructive belief tendancies or activities Man engages in were basically, as I think was suggested in some of filth's quoted text, at one time conducive to surviving threats in whatever environment our ancestors had to deal with. Since those threats are long gone, but the "embedded programming" remains since there's nothing about it sufficiently dysfunctional to make it prey to modern threats (hence, "kill it off") maybe it just "hangs around" and manifests in screwball ways when presented with an environment it wasn't intended for.
I've never seen snake-handling, but I gotta admit I'd get a kick, and maybe a laugh, out of watching it. But I couldn't go into one of those places just to watch the show- it would seem kinda' "voyeuristic" or at least disrespectful (even though I think their "hobby" is weird, I'd probably like many of them as people.)
quote: Originally posted by astropin
... particularly surprising that religion showed up as having a stronger-than-average genetic link. He also discusses the heritability of mannerisms, job choice... pool of potential mates at the time of selection is too limited...
It is kind of strange, but I'd tend to go along with beskep's take that what constitutes a valid analysis of variables in these matters is probably tough to say. RE all of this, it strikes me as consistent (at least due to limited potential mates, as mentioned) with SJ Gould's suggestion that blind luck and randomness might often have as much say in survival of species/ propagation of genetic traits as forces of natural selection. |
Ron White |
Edited by - ronnywhite on 10/16/2005 10:10:15 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|