Evolution of religiosity

[Otto Kretschmer]

Are there some specific evolutionary advantages to religiosity or did it simply evolve as a byproduct of the higher cognitive functions?

I'm asking because all premodern societies (and a significant portion of modern ones) were religious in one way or another. 

Edited May 29 by Otto Kretschmer

[iNow]

Religiosity is most likely tied to our tribal tendencies and adherence to group norms and mores.

Members of the tribe who acted and behaved in ways contrary to local social expectations tended to find themselves ostracized or separated from the group and so consequently lost access to food, protection, and access to mates for reproduction (I.e. they were selected against).

Cooperation and shared explanatory narratives fed cohesion, basically.

Belief in god(s), however, is slightly different than religiosity and is far more likely related to our abilities around mental rehearsal of interactions with unseen others and our tendency while young toward accepting stories from parents and tribal elders.

 

 

[dimreepr]

On 5/29/2024 at 9:48 AM, Otto Kretschmer said:

Are there some specific evolutionary advantages to religiosity or did it simply evolve as a byproduct of the higher cognitive functions?

I'm asking because all premodern societies (and a significant portion of modern ones) were religious in one way or another. 

As @iNow point's this is two different questions:

1/ The advantage of God's starts by trying to teach children the advantages of not taking more than they need, for instance, we need to chop down tree's to build our home's so we create a God of the tree's that we thank for providing our home's, but will be angered if we take a tree that we don't need and will strike down in some way that is fearful; when we forget that lesson we get Easter Island 

Quote

The inhabitants created a thriving and industrious culture, as evidenced by the island's numerous enormous stone moai and other artifacts. But land clearing for cultivation and the introduction of the Polynesian rat led to gradual deforestation.[3] By the time of European arrival in 1722, the island's population was estimated to be 2,000 to 3,000. European diseases, Peruvian slave raiding expeditions in the 1860s, and emigration to other islands such as Tahiti further depleted the population, reducing it to a low of 111 native inhabitants in 1877.

2/ The advantages of religiosity, started because someone has a good idea that makes sense (at the time) and works to make thing's better for most people, it spreads because of that and the powerful teaching tool that's God.

The problem we have now is that we 'know' there's no god of the tree's, is the, so called, sofistication of the 'science' of politics; the Trump's of this world are very good at making a specious idea seem like it's good and it spreads through all the children that know there's no bogie man to make them think twice. 

[zapatos]

43 minutes ago, Luc Turpin said:

Why am-I being asked to back up my contention when others are not being asked to do so also?

If you watch my posts you'll see I regularly ask for citations. I am not biased against you but you are acting as if you feel I am.

45 minutes ago, Luc Turpin said:

Again, let me move on!

 

The way this site works is that anyone can ask or comment about anything posted. That's kind of fundamental to a discussion forum. You don't get to control what others say, just as they don't get to control what you say. Just because you don't wish to talk about anymore doesn't mean I don't want to talk about it anymore.

48 minutes ago, Luc Turpin said:

Bias in science by Joshua May.

Thank you.

9 minutes ago, Luc Turpin said:

Very good question swansont; because I did not think about it while I was always trying to defend myself, I guess!

You are not being asked to defend yourself; you are being asked to defend your comments. Nothing personal going on. That is how a science discussion forum works.

[Luc Turpin]

1 minute ago, zapatos said:

If you watch my posts you'll see I regularly ask for citations. I am not biased against you but you are acting as if you feel I am.

The way this site works is that anyone can ask or comment about anything posted. That's kind of fundamental to a discussion forum. You don't get to control what others say, just as they don't get to control what you say. Just because you don't wish to talk about anymore doesn't mean I don't want to talk about it anymore.

Thank you.

 1- Never thought that you were personally biased towards me. My comment was meant in general terms.

2- Do not want to control anything except myself determining when the headwind is too strong to make progress.

3- 'Just because you don't wish to talk about anymore doesn't mean I don't want to talk about it anymore'; good one; you’re right; chuckled 😊

 

[Peterkin]

On 5/29/2024 at 4:48 AM, Otto Kretschmer said:

Are there some specific evolutionary advantages to religiosity or did it simply evolve as a byproduct of the higher cognitive functions?

Religiosity may be divided into two parts: internal and external.

The internal aspect, what one believes is unlikely to have any effect on evolution. Doctrines can be both advantageous to a society and detrimental at the same time. 

The external is practice. Ritual, shared activities, the fraternity of common belief binds a community and gives it a huge advantage over a less cohesive community.   

[MigL]

It is a measure of control over a population, that ensures conformity to norms in morality and social behavior ( like treatment of the poor, being thankful for what you have, etc. ).

A measure of control is favorable and necessary; anarchy ensures only the survival of the most fit ( see, religion is based on evolution ).
A measure of control is unfavorable, and even evil, depending on who, or what, exerts this control, and the corrupted ideological purpose of this control ( wars wer fought 'for' religion, people s were persecuted 'for' religion, etc. )

Edited May 30 by MigL

[J.C.MacSwell]

Religions themselves are subject to "survival of the fittest", the fittest of course being in terms of survivability, not necessarily inherently more or less moral even as understood by any religion's followers. So it could at times be a "symbiotic" or parasitic relationship between religion and followers, advantageous at times and not so much at other times.

[MigL]

Sorry, this

'anarchy ensures only the survival of the most fit ( see, religion is based on evolution )'

should have been

anarchy, or the lack of moral/social controls, ensures only the survival of the most fit ( see, religion is a counter to evolution )"