Religion: An evolved behavior.

[RadarArtillery]

I was talking with a friend of mine the other day about what the origins of religion might have been, and I proposed a particularly ironic idea you might find interesting. That is: What if the reason people seem to be so universally willing to believe things without evidence is because they've inherited a predisposition to it?

 

If we look at history, we'll see that in many places, people who didn't believe in the regional deity (Or deities) were often killed or generally treated as social outsiders, which would make it particularly difficult to pass down their genetic material. People who did believe in a god, in situations like that, would be more accepted by society and therefore make a more fitting mate.

 

The same thing is even evident in less religiously centric societies in more modern time. For example, look at Stalin's Russia or early Communist China, or even modern day North Korea: People who are skeptical about an ultimate authority, whether it be that of the state or the church, do not do very well in those environments.

 

So, it's not so much religion that I'm speculating people may have an evolved predisposition to, but unquestioning loyalty to authority figures, whether real or imagined.

[Phi for All]

I think we've definitely evolved to be more predisposed to accepting religious ideology, but I think the authority part came later. Our imaginations, a part of our growing intelligence, likes to predict future possibilities. This was a huge boon to early man, being able to think ahead and plan for eventualities. Imagine how much more successful hunter/gatherers would be if they can anticipate what prey might do or where the best plants might grow.

 

Inevitably, our imaginations led us to "see" predators in the shadows. We were probably often wrong, but the times we were right saved us and our tribe. The ability to imagine things we can't observe must have been selected for, must have been seen as a huge advantage, and those with the greatest ability must have been revered. Following the leader who can anticipate danger would have been best for all. Those who chose differently and died showed how authority is best and shouldn't be questioned.

 

Pass those kinds of tradition down for a few thousand generations and you have a religion, one based on things we've never actually seen, as told to us by leaders who've never seen them either. Point out all the bad things that happen to people who don't believe, and now you've got an unquestioning fellowship of people who will justify their actions based on things they can't possibly know for sure.

[RadarArtillery]

I think we've definitely evolved to be more predisposed to accepting religious ideology, but I think the authority part came later. Our imaginations, a part of our growing intelligence, likes to predict future possibilities. This was a huge boon to early man, being able to think ahead and plan for eventualities. Imagine how much more successful hunter/gatherers would be if they can anticipate what prey might do or where the best plants might grow.

 

Inevitably, our imaginations led us to "see" predators in the shadows. We were probably often wrong, but the times we were right saved us and our tribe. The ability to imagine things we can't observe must have been selected for, must have been seen as a huge advantage, and those with the greatest ability must have been revered. Following the leader who can anticipate danger would have been best for all. Those who chose differently and died showed how authority is best and shouldn't be questioned.

 

Pass those kinds of tradition down for a few thousand generations and you have a religion, one based on things we've never actually seen, as told to us by leaders who've never seen them either. Point out all the bad things that happen to people who don't believe, and now you've got an unquestioning fellowship of people who will justify their actions based on things they can't possibly know for sure.

It's interesting to think of it that way, because when you look at it, society really does seem to glorify things like that. The question here, though, is whether this is a function of evolution or Memetics... Or both. That is: "Nature versus Nurture". I think it's a combination, of course.

 

Look at the 80s, when you had a lot of people selling blatant silliness and being taken seriously: Psychic mediums, Dianetics, Parapsychology, the like. Even the CIA was experimenting with psychic powers, and did so for years, until they finally realized they were wasting money on the modern day equivalent of witchddoctors. (Though they did do some interesting research on Scopolamine, which is more or less a perfect mind control drug. There's a Vice documentary on the stuff, and its use is apparently quite common in parts of the world. I'll put a link at the bottom.) There is no reason to believe that the genetic line of people who took these things seriously has died off (After all, how many people here don't have a recent ancestor who still believes in those things?), but the idea that those things should be taken seriously mostly has died out.

 

Every generation has their religion, or their psychic powers, or their mind control. This tendency seems ever-present in our society, and gives rise to concepts that are inevitably killed off by people like James Randi or Richard Dawkins.

 

 

[John Cuthber]

"Even the CIA was experimenting with psychic powers, and did so for years, until they finally realized they were wasting money on the modern day equivalent of witchddoctors. (Though they did do some interesting research on Scopolamine, which is more or less a perfect mind control drug."

 

Which is true?

It's a perfect mind control drug or the CIA wasted their money because it doesn't work. The truth can't be both.

 

 

Incidentally, I understand that the answer is nearer to the "waste of money" end of the spectrum.

They still take the trouble to "beat the truth" out of prisoners and that's only partly because they like hurting people.

[RadarArtillery]

"Even the CIA was experimenting with psychic powers, and did so for years, until they finally realized they were wasting money on the modern day equivalent of witchddoctors. (Though they did do some interesting research on Scopolamine, which is more or less a perfect mind control drug."

 

Which is true?

It's a perfect mind control drug or the CIA wasted their money because it doesn't work. The truth can't be both.

 

 

Incidentally, I understand that the answer is nearer to the "waste of money" end of the spectrum.

They still take the trouble to "beat the truth" out of prisoners and that's only partly because they like hurting people.

You misread what I said, mate. The Scopolamine was something entirely different and unrelated to the whole psychic bit. I mean, there's not exactly any psychic properties to a chemical compound.

 

Welll, actually, there's not a lot of beating involved these days. The most common method is sensory deprivation and extended periods of duress combined with drugging. Smacking people around isn't as effective as the more psychological methods, in most cases. Why hit someone and risk their adapting to the pain when you can put them through something that only gets worse over time instead?

 

The CIA's research into psychic phenomena was inconclusive, of course, because psychic powers don't exist, but it was part of a larger psychological warfare program that also included testing of various chemicals (Including LSD, by the way!) and exotic torture methods (Like waterboarding!). The majority of their experiments were flops, but they did churn out some useful stuff!

[iNow]

What if the reason people seem to be so universally willing to believe things without evidence is because they've inherited a predisposition to it?

It's not so far fetched. Here's a good watch given your interests:

 

[RadarArtillery]

It's not so far fetched. Here's a good watch given your interests:

 

Thanks! I'll check it out later on in the day.