| ABOUT US | ARCHIVES | LINKS | RSS FEED | MONDAYS | |

3quarksdaily

An Eclectic Digest of Science, Art and Literature

« Repetition as Politics | Main | The Sexist Trashing of Michelle Obama »

May 31, 2008

Computer Simulations of the Evolution of Religion Point to the Role of Non-Believers

Ewen Callaway in New Scientist:

God may work in mysterious ways, but a simple computer program may explain how religion evolved

By distilling religious belief into a genetic predisposition to pass along unverifiable information, the program predicts that religion will flourish. However, religion only takes hold if non-believers help believers out – perhaps because they are impressed by their devotion.

"If a person is willing to sacrifice for an abstract god then people feel like they are willing to sacrifice for the community," says James Dow, an evolutionary anthropologist at Oakland University in Rochester, Michigan, US, who wrote the program – called Evogod (download the code here).

Dow is by no means the first scientist to take a stab at explaining how religion emerged. Theories on the evolution of religion tend toward two camps. One argues that religion is a mental artefact, co-opted from brain functions that evolved for other tasks.

Another contends that religion benefited our ancestors. Rather than being a by-product of other brain functions, it is an adaptation in its own right. In this explanation, natural selection slowly purged human populations of the non-religious.

"Sometime between 100,000 years ago to the point where writing was invented, maybe about 7000 BC, we begin to have records of people's supernatural beliefs," Dow says.

To determine if it was possible for religion to emerge as an adaptation, Dow wrote a simple computer program that focuses on the evolutionary benefits people receive from their interactions with one another.

"What people are adapting to is other people," he says.

Posted by Robin Varghese at 02:29 PM | Permalink

Comments

The so-called non-believers, believe on the most absurd of the absurd.

They believe on the "will and wisdom" of Natural Selection.

And how is natural selection manage in order to eliminate maladaptive psychological traits?

BS!

Posted by: Felix E F Larocca MD | May 31, 2008 3:06:32 PM

It doesn't, as long as those traits don't cause their possessors to be less successful in reproducing. That's why so much stupid, irrational thinking persists, IMHO. It not only doesn't harm people's reproductive abilities, it often helps.

Posted by: JonJ | May 31, 2008 6:26:04 PM

By distilling religious belief into a genetic predisposition to pass along unverifiable information

...

*blink*

That comic characterization of religion aside, if religoius belief were in any way reducible to genetics, you'd find that orphans of religious people would be more likely to be religious, even if raised in atheist households. This is utterly absurd, and no such result will ever be secured in a responsible study.

It follows that genetic science cannot tell us anything about how religious belief evolved. How does a person even get funding for this kind of nonsense?

I get the distinct feeling that a lot of very good evolutionary science is being done, and for some reason the powers that be at 3QD prefer to show us this utter crap instead (perhaps because it's all science journalists ever like to report on).

Posted by: Nick Smyth | May 31, 2008 7:24:53 PM

Wow. I had James Dow as a professor a few years back. He definitely failed to impress me with academic rigor at the time, and this doesn't impress me too much either. The assumptions made about genetics are just too broad. Why not wouldn't religious beliefs just be memes? This would allow it to proceed in exactly the same way, but without any special gene.

Posted by: Mary | Jun 1, 2008 8:29:04 AM

It's funny that the program creators assume that the central tenant of religion involves self-sacrifice by believers to honor some god. That inaccurate assumption gives rise to a flawed conclusion.

If we look at religion now or historically, it is simply an institutional system by which a few people (white men, or non-white men in primarily non-white countries) grab more of the society's resources for themselves than is their fair share, and convince everyone in the group that these few men are entitled to have more wealth, more power, more of everything. Or they kill they ones they can't convince. If the "leaders" in the church want to have sex with all the young girls, they come up with some theory about some god who said it's okay for them to do so.

Religion is not founded in the concept of self-sacrifice. It is founded in the concept of greed, a desire to take more than a fair share, a decision by the physically powerful to use their force against the weaker members of their society to take what they want (rape women and children) and to eliminate anyone who opposes them (kill, whip, beat, imprison the weaker men who oppose them).

Religion is not very different from government, or tribes, or any group in society except that religion relies more on myths about a god, whereas other groups may rely on myths about lineage (i.e. the English royalty and the Saudi Royal Family are assumed by god and by lineage to be entitled to take whatever they want, while others get nothing).

The Pope just announced that any priest who ordains a woman will be automatically excommunicated -- meaning he will burn in hell for eternity. If a priest rapes a child, on the other hand, he will merely be reassigned to another parish, and his criminal conduct will be covered up so that the priest is not embarrassed. This shows that it is worse and more dangerous to recognize and acknowledge the value of women, their fundamental equality with men in all respects, than it is to rape a five year old. That is the foundation bloc of all religion. It starts with the unified agreement of men to turn all women and children in to slaves and belongings. Everything after that is just gravy.

Posted by: NABNYC | Jun 2, 2008 12:28:20 PM

NABNYC,

I agree. Institutional religions, whether Christian, Buddhist, Taoist, Muslim, Hindu, Jewish - are all elite power structures that use mumbo jumbo to exploit the superstitious and ignorant. I don't know why most people are so eager to follow these charlatans.

Posted by: Jared | Jun 2, 2008 12:42:45 PM

Post a comment






Subscribe to this blog's feed  

3QD Politics Prize

Donate to Todd Shea

More info about Todd Shea and his work here on 3QD.

3QD ADVERTISING

3QD on Facebook

3QD by Daily Email

Receive all blogposts at the same time every day.

Enter your Email:


Preview 3QD Email

3QD on Twitter

Miscellany

Lijit Search

AddThis Social Bookmark Button

Add to Google


Recent Comments

czrpb on The Obama Nobel Speech: What It Reveals and What It Conceals

chris on The Obama Nobel Speech: What It Reveals and What It Conceals

odysseus14 on The World's Fastest Animal Takes New York

Daniel on The Obama Nobel Speech: What It Reveals and What It Conceals

Robin on The Incomparable Economist

odysseus14 on The Incomparable Economist

Cyrus Hall on The Obama Nobel Speech: What It Reveals and What It Conceals

Jane Lenoir on The Humanists: Frederick Wiseman's High School (1968)

Norman Costa on Psychological Science: Measurement, Uncertainty, and Determinism – Part 1

Norman Costa on Psychological Science: Measurement, Uncertainty, and Determinism – Part 1

czrpb on The Obama Nobel Speech: What It Reveals and What It Conceals

Daniel on The Obama Nobel Speech: What It Reveals and What It Conceals

Elatia Harris on The Obama Nobel Speech: What It Reveals and What It Conceals

chris on The Obama Nobel Speech: What It Reveals and What It Conceals

Carlos on you can't handle the truth

Nick Smyth on you can't handle the truth

eric on you can't handle the truth

Ruchira on The Obama Nobel Speech: What It Reveals and What It Conceals

Randolyn Zinn on Shards and Fragments: Eva Hesse Studioworks

Luke Lea on Hollywood gives biologists a helping hand

Chris Schoen on Psychological Science: Measurement, Uncertainty, and Determinism – Part 1

Rhea on Psychological Science: Measurement, Uncertainty, and Determinism – Part 1

Chris Schoen on Psychological Science: Measurement, Uncertainty, and Determinism – Part 1

J.H. on you can't handle the truth

J.H. on The World's Fastest Animal Takes New York

Acclaim For 3QD


"I couldn't tear myself away from 3 Quarks Daily, to the point of neglecting my work. Congratulations on this superb site."—Steven Pinker, Johnstone Professor of Psychology, Harvard University.

"I have placed 3 Quarks Daily at the head of my list of web bookmarks."—Richard Dawkins, Charles Simonyi Professor of the Public Understanding of Science at Oxford University.

"Just wanted you to know I’m one of many who reads and enjoys 3 Quarks....almost daily."—David Byrne, musician, former lead-singer of the Talking Heads, artist, intellectual.

Read more here.

The 3QD Prizes


Logos designed by Vicki Winters

Subscribe to this blog's feed