According to Dawkins, how did religion arise?
McCulloch’s question:
Is religion as an accidental by-product – a misfiring of something useful?
https://debatingchristianity.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=114150#p114150
According to Dawkins, how did religion arise?
Throughout the book, I am reminded of “for someone with a hammer, every problem is a nail.” Dawkins carries the hammer of natural selection and uses it to explain everything. And in this case, he believes that religion is the result of natural selection.
page 188 wrote:The general theory of religion as an accidental by-product – a misfiring of something useful – is the one I wish to advocate. The details are various, complicated and disputable.
I’d also add that the details are lacking. I don’t see where he clearly states what it is a by-product of.
Further, suppose that it is a product of natural selection, how does he know that religion is not the final useful product rather than a by-product?
https://debatingchristianity.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=114418#p114418
McCulloch wrote:Memetic selection seems to be one such explanation.
I don’t accept this explanation, but for argument purposes let’s suppose it is true.
If religion is the result of natural selection, then religion would be “positively useful” for society.
page 164 wrote:‘That is the one point which I think all evolutionists are agreed upon, that it is virtually impossible to do a better job than an organism is doing in its own environment.’ If anting wasn’t positively useful for survival and reproduction, natural selection would long ago have favoured individuals who refrained from it. A Darwinian might be tempted to say the same of religion; hence the need for this discussion.
He goes on to try to discuss this, but does not address the point that “it is virtually impossible to do a better job than an organism is doing in its own environment”. And if religion is a result of natural selection, then it would be virtually impossible for humans to have a better alternative than religion. If religion wasn’t positively useful for survival and reproduction, natural selection would long ago have favoured individuals who refrained from it.
https://debatingchristianity.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=114431#p114431
FinalEnigma wrote:otseng wrote: I’d also add that the details are lacking. I don’t see where he clearly states what it is a by-product of.Actually, he does.
page 174.My specific hypothesis is about children. More than any other species, we survive by the accumulated experience of previous generations, and that expecience need to be passed on to children for their protection and well-being…
…But, to say the least, there will be a selective advantage to child brain that posess the rule of thumb: believe, without question, what your grown-ups tell you.
Religion is the by-product of believing what your grown-ups tell you?
It does not explain the origin of religion. How did the first grown-up come up with the idea of religion to pass on to all the future generations?
Further, this would imply that passing down religion would be for their protection and well-being.
https://debatingchristianity.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=114447#p114447
McCulloch wrote:McCulloch wrote:Memetic selection seems to be one such explanation.otseng wrote:I don’t accept this explanation, but for argument purposes let’s suppose it is true.If religion is the result of natural selection, then religion would be “positively useful” for society.
False. Religion could not be the result of the genetic natural selection of the human species. The idea of memetic selection is that ideas, what Dawkins and Dennett call memes, are like genes.
Of course religion would not be the result of genetic natural selection (but perhaps the inclination to believe in a God is somehow built into us, but that’s another topic). It would fall under Dawkins memes. But memes would also follow under the principles of natural selection.
The selection criteria which results in the spread, the development and the persistence of an idea, is not how the characteristics of the idea may or may not benefit human society, but how the characteristics of the idea may or may not benefit the spread of the idea itself.
So it would not address the origination of the idea, but simply the propagation of the idea?
McCulloch wrote:otseng wrote:It does not explain the origin of religion.It does not need to. Evolution does not explain the origin of life, just its development from what was to what is.
If he is not explaining the origin of religion in this chapter, then what is he trying to explain? Simply how it propagates? If so, then the title for the chapter “The roots of religion” would be misleading.
https://debatingchristianity.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=114475#p114475
McCulloch wrote:otseng wrote:If he is not explaining the origin of religion in this chapter, then what is he trying to explain? Simply how it propagates? If so, then the title for the chapter “The roots of religion” would be misleading.Are roots the same as seeds?
I believe he uses the word “roots” as “origin”.
The first sentence of the chapter starts off with:
“Everybody has their own pet theory of where religion comes from and why all human cultures have it.”
The first sentence of the second paragraph:
“Knowing that we are products of Darwinian evolution, we should ask what pressure or pressures exerted by natural selection originally favoured the impulse to religion.”
https://debatingchristianity.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=114484#p114484
McCulloch wrote:Confused wrote:I think overall, he fails to explain the origin of religion per se.I don’t think that the origin of religious thought is that hard to explain. Someone gets too much sun, too much peyote, a knock on the head, some dreams or hallucinations or other delusions of an interaction with supernatural beings. Boom, religion begins.
That’s a new one for me.
The difficulty is exactly where Dawkins spends his time, how does it persist and spread in human society?
This shows again how disappointing this book is. He leads the reader to believe that he’ll be talking about the origin of religion with the title and first two paragraphs. Then he goes on for the next 44 pages and doesn’t even address this.
https://debatingchristianity.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=114630#p114630
QED wrote:I would like to clear up something that I think is very wrong here. otseng – you make the point that if religion was a product of natural selection, then by analogy with what Dawkins says we should not be able to do any better. Well, this quote of his is wrong.
Are you saying I quoted him incorrectly or that what Dawkins states is incorrect?
And the analogy of memes with genes does not establish a link between the survival of the idea and the survival of the organism. The survival of the idea could run all the way up to the last living pair of organisms. I think you are quite wrong to suggest that the idea would be deselected through the deselection of the host.
Actually, I’m not too sure now if he’s referring to memes or genes in regards to religion. This sentence suggests that religion is associated with Darwinian evolution.
“Knowing that we are products of Darwinian evolution, we should ask what pressure or pressures exerted by natural selection originally favoured the impulse to religion.”
https://debatingchristianity.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=114635#p114635
QED wrote:otseng wrote:QED wrote:I would like to clear up something that I think is very wrong here. otseng – you make the point that if religion was a product of natural selection, then by analogy with what Dawkins says we should not be able to do any better. Well, this quote of his is wrong.Are you saying I quoted him incorrectly or that what Dawkins states is incorrect?
What’s incorrect in my opinion is to apply Dawkins quote about “not being able to do a better job” to all aspects of evolution:
He does qualify himself with “virtually impossible” and doesn’t say it always is true. But, I think he does make a pretty strong statement about how often it would be true.
This is true within a given “well” of potential, hence my mention of the fact that animals haven’t naturally evolved firearms or RADAR.
The bombadier beetle has some interesting firepower capabilities. And the echolocation capabilities of bats is quite complex.
https://debatingchristianity.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=115792#p115792
QED wrote:Returning to the question of the evolution of religion, might it be instructive to imagine a hypothetical case in which a small human population is started from a group of toddlers stranded by a shipwreck on tropical island.
While it might be interesting to speculate on this hypothetical case, the main point is the Dawkins does not ever address the origin of religion.
https://debatingchristianity.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=116960#p116960
bunyip wrote:> “While it might be interesting to speculate on this hypothetical case, the main point is the Dawkins does not ever address the origin of religion.”Why should he? It’s a mental state which has few indicators in biology. That’s not something Richard has material to draw on – we don’t know enough about how the mind works to formulate an evolutionary pathway.
The title of the chapter is “The Roots of Religion”
The first sentence of the chapter starts off with:
“Everybody has their own pet theory of where religion comes from and why all human cultures have it.”
The first sentence of the second paragraph:
“Knowing that we are products of Darwinian evolution, we should ask what pressure or pressures exerted by natural selection originally favoured the impulse to religion.”
What then is the point that Dawkins is trying to convey in this chapter?
https://debatingchristianity.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=116990#p116990
Furrowed Brow wrote:In the 17th century people believed in spontaneous generation of life.
And so do people in the 21st century.
bunyip wrote:He contends quite rightly that the brainwashing of children is the obvious cause. Smothering the kiddies with “faith” makes it hard to break out of the mind-set that creates. How we are to deal with parents imposing mental child abuse on children is one of our greatest societal challenges.
Mental child abuse? Greatest societal challenges? I would think that’s a bit going too far. Just because you do not subscribe to religion would not mean others are abusing their children mentally.
https://debatingchristianity.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=117342#p117342
bunyip wrote:Whell, we’re only on Chapter 6 [ i think ]. Keep reading. You may gain some further insights.
I’ve already read through the entire book. No insights on this have been found.
The question has been posed somewhere is this chaos about the persistence of religion in the face of evidence.
In the face of evidence? What evidence are you referring to?
People still speak of such a deity, but the fundamental premise is that if you don’t accept that version of “love”, damnation is the sole alternative.
As I tell atheists, if you believe that God does not exist, then damnation should not be a concern.
https://debatingchristianity.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=117457#p117457
Furrowed Brow wrote:Otseng wrote: Further, suppose that it is a product of natural selection, how does he know that religion is not the final useful product rather than a by-product?We don’t. But that would require a supernatural explanation to be added on to what is a naturalistic explanation.
Why would it require a supernatural explanation if religion was the final useful product?
https://debatingchristianity.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=117587#p117587
Furrowed Brow wrote:otseng wrote:Furrowed Brow wrote:Otseng wrote: Further, suppose that it is a product of natural selection, how does he know that religion is not the final useful product rather than a by-product?We don’t. But that would require a supernatural explanation to be added on to what is a naturalistic explanation.
Why would it require a supernatural explanation if religion was the final useful product?
Well none if you mean the “end” point brings social cohesion, group affiliation etc. However there is no final end point if we are taking a naturalistic stance. But if you mean that the end product is to develop a code for living that will “save souls” or “bring us closer to God” , then a supernatural explanation will be invoked. Moreover – unlike a naturalistic stance – this does seem to be a final end product
What I mean simply by final end product is that it is not a by product of something else. I’m not implying that there is any sort of finality in natural selection.
And since Dawkins never does mention what religion is a by product of, it would seem more logical to deduce that religion is the final end product if natural selection did cause it.
bunyip wrote:Did you burn Chapter 9 before reading it? There are many references to infusing children with religious notions throughout the book. I thought we were debating “The God Delusion”, not people’s preconceptions.
No, I’ve read all 10 chapters. I don’t disagree that people do infuse their children with religous notions. But that in itself does not constitute as mental abuse.
That gods are a delusion. You did see the title of the book we’re debating, did you not?
The title of the book does not serve as evidence.
It’s not “atheists” that are a matter of concern here, but people raised in an environnment promoting the idea of “eternal punishment”. It’s not non-theists who go through life wrapped in a mental miasma of avoiding “sin”, but those unfortunate people whose parents [or somebody] taught them to fear its consequences in themselves and scorn others who, in their eyes, appear to be engaged in it. There are scared non-theists, but they are mostly frightened of what some “religious” might perpetrate on them in the name of “faith”.
If the God of the Bible truly does exist, then it would not really matter if they didn’t like what it states.
I don’t like the idea of being thrown in jail for not giving a large percentage of money that I’ve earned to the federal and state governments to do things that I oppose. Though I wish my dislike of it could disprove the existence of the IRS, in the end, it would not keep away the auditors.
https://debatingchristianity.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=117620#p117620
bunyip wrote:Yes he does, but without going into clinical detail. His citing of Atran, Boyer and others on the human universality of belief in agency, how much more explanation would you like?
Could you give a page number and quote of what Dawkins states in regards to what religion is a by-product of?
Really? The book carries the word “Delusion” in the title. If parents teach their children lies to maintain that delusion, wouldn’t you consider that child abuse?
Yes, it is in the title. But how has Dawkins demonstrated that it is a delusion?
That’s irrelevant and misleading. Also specious.
I don’t think so. My point is that just because one does not like something does not show that it does not exist.
The laws you pay taxes for are human-made. They can be changed by you and others of like minds.
I so wish that was true. Though I’m a supporter of the Fair Tax, I have little hope that it’ll get implemented.
https://debatingchristianity.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=117687#p117687
bunyip wrote:Your use of the term “by-product” reveals you already know the answer. He cites Atran, Boyer and Hinde [who i haven’t read] on p. 177.[repeated on p. 184]
I know what Dawkins seems to state, but it doesn’t really answer his own question.
He states, “My specific suggestion about the useful gullibility of the child mind is only an example of the kind of thing that might be the analogue of moths navigating by the moon or the stars.” (page 177)
But, the “gullibility” of children at most could only explain the propagation of religion, it cannot explain the origin of religious notions.
He does however mention what others thinks religion is a by-product of – “normal psychological dispositions” and “to fall in love”. But the only one he goes into detail is his own gullible child theory.
“Once infected, the child will grow up and infect the next generation with the same nonsense, whatever it happens to be.” (page 188)
But the issue is how does it become “once infected”?
He demonstrates there is no evidence for the supernatural.
As I’ve argued previously, his arguments that there are no evidence of the supernatural is very weak. I don’t wish to repost everything I’ve already stated. But, if you have specific responses to posts that I’ve already made, I can address those in the appropriate threads.
bunyip wrote:That’s the wrong point. The issue here is not whether something is “liked”, but whether there is evidence for gods.
You stated the following:
bunyip wrote:It’s not “atheists” that are a matter of concern here, but people raised in an environnment promoting the idea of “eternal punishment”. It’s not non-theists who go through life wrapped in a mental miasma of avoiding “sin”, but those unfortunate people whose parents [or somebody] taught them to fear its consequences in themselves and scorn others who, in their eyes, appear to be engaged in it. There are scared non-theists, but they are mostly frightened of what some “religious” might perpetrate on them in the name of “faith”.
You mentioned “fear its consequences”, “scared”, “frightened” as reasons for concern. I’m simply making the point that these things in itself do not show the belief to be false.
But, you’re correct in that the main point is whether there are evidence for the gods or not.
https://debatingchristianity.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=117823#p117823
Perhaps, but the real point about children is that they are doomed to be the perpetrators of religion the first time a parent drags them to “religious” training.
I wish it was so easy. But just because a parent brings a child once into a church doesn’t mean they are trapped in forever.
Ban all religious training for people under a specified age and see what results.
Well, I’m one case where I had no religious training before I was 19. So, based on my case, perhaps it might be a good thing to discourage all religious indoctrination before college age. 
But the issue is how does it become “once infected”?We just dealt with that – training inexperienced children in religious dogma.
I believe “once infected” means how did the first person get infected, not all subsequent people. The first person by definition did not have someone else to train him.
Sorry? Richard’s arguements about “no evidence of the supernatural is very weak”??
What would you consider to be his strongest argument?
https://debatingchristianity.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=118001#p118001
bunyip wrote:otseng wrote:What would you consider to be his strongest argument?That there isn’t a shred of evidence for the supernatural. Once that is understood, all else follows.
I don’t recall Dawkins ever saying this in the book. Where does he state this?
https://debatingchristianity.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=118114#p118114
bunyip wrote:Although the book is permeated with this position, you might start with TGD’s Chapter 4. The Leonard Susskind citation on p. 118 is typical.
Is this the quote you are referring to?
“I’m not an historian but I’ll venture an opinion: Modern cosmology really began with Darwin and Wallace. Unlike anyone before them, they provided explanations of our existence that completely rejected supernatural agents… Darwin and Wallace set a standard not only for the life sciences but for cosmology as well.”
This doesn’t state that “there isn’t a shred of evidence for the supernatural”. At most, what it says is that the supernatural would not be a necessary explanation for life. And as I’ve stated before, there are Christians who subscribe to Darwin and yet also believe in a God.
(I’ll also add that I think modern cosmology began with Copernicus, not Darwin.)
Finally, the citation of the blogger article on p 134 and the six points concluding the chapter show there’s no room for the supernatural in the cosmos or life from the evidence we have.
It says:
“Why is God considered an explanation for anything? It’s not – it’s a failure to explain, a shrug of the shoulders, an ‘I dunno’ dressed up in spirituality and ritual…”
Again, at most what this would say is that the supernatural would have no explanatory power for anything. It does not state “there is no shred of evidence”.
https://debatingchristianity.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=118342#p118342
bunyip wrote:The real foundation of “modern” cosmology came with idea of change over time, which is the Darwin-Wallace contribution for life’s processes.
Darwin-Wallace presented biological evolution. I do not believe they ever mentioned about cosmology. If they did mention cosmology, someone will need to provide a reference of it for me.
Translated into cosmology “evolution” led to the ideas of stellar and galactic life. A star could be “born”, “live”, and “die” due to natural causes.
A star however cannot have “descent with modification”. This is the crux of evolution, not “born, live and die”.
No evidence of supernatural forces in life or cosmology has appeared to substantiate their existence.
I’d disagree that there are no evidence. We have had a book debate on Nature’s Destiny showing evidence of a creator. So, as for the assertion that there is “not one shred of evidence”, it would be a false assertion.
“No shred of evidence” is my summation of Richard’s stance.
It can be your summation. But I have yet to see a statement from Dawkins that says this.
https://debatingchristianity.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=118498#p118498
QED wrote:otseng wrote:I’d disagree that there are no evidence. We have had a book debate on Nature’s Destiny showing evidence of a creator. So, as for the assertion that there is “not one shred of evidence”, it would be a false assertion.In that debate I went to some lengths to point out that that evidence could equally be indicative that our universe is but one of many. This prompted me to start the topic Our Universe: one of many or specially designed? which supplies good reasons for rejecting the difficult notion of a creator in favour for a much wider selection space that permits the emergence of apparently finely-tuned universes such as our own.
Yes, we had a lengthy discussion about it and I’d rather not repeat it again here.
But, let me say this, if “that evidence could equally be indicative that our universe is but one of many”, then it would mean it can serve as valid evidence of a creator.
https://debatingchristianity.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=118510#p118510
bunyip wrote:See up above where i typed “change over time”?? That in itself was sufficiently revolutionary. It didn’t have to be applied to cosmology until somebody did it. That was Edwin Hubble.
“Change over time” can be applied to anything. And I would hardly consider “change over time” a revolutionary idea.
No, the “crux of evolution” is “natural selection”. Applying the idea to stars is a metaphor, like “adultery” in non-human species.
Stars do not undergo natural selection either.
Could you please save me a bit of typing and go off and read Daniel C. Dennett’s “Darwin’s Dangerous Idea”. I haven’t the time nor energy to retype almost 600 pages.
We’re not here to debate “Darwin’s Dangerous Idea”. So, there’s really no need for me to read it for the purposes of this debate.
Fine. Which “creator” are we referring to?
Doesn’t matter and it’s not the point. The point is that the assertion is that “there is no shred of evidence” is false.
Further, even Dawkins does not make this assertion.
Then, quite simply, you haven’t been reading the book. It would appear that you’re only looking for ways to refute Richard without understanding his points. I’ll admit, it’s far less work that way.
Actually, I’ve read the book twice. And several chapters more than that.
If I don’t understand his points, feel free to correct me. But the way to do it is to provide direct quotes from his book, not simply providing your own interpretation or claiming I haven’t read the book.
https://debatingchristianity.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=118530#p118530
bunyip wrote:That’s because you’re ignornant of history.
This statement can be considered an ad hom attack.
No? In a cosmos nearly 14 billion years old, how many times have stars died, only to have their debris become the nucleus of new stellar life. It’s a metaphor, mate. Do you find that so difficult to handle?
It’s a metaphor stretched beyond the limits of what natural selection means.
The differential survival and reproduction of organisms with genetic characteristics that enable them to better utilize environmental resourcesNatural selection is the process in which some organisms live and reproduce and others die before reproducing. Some life forms survive and reproduce because they are better suited to environmental pressures, ensuring that their genes are perpetuated in the gene pool.
Process by which the genotypes in a population that are best adapted to the environment increase in frequency relative to less well-adapted genotypes over a number of generations.
The concept developed by Charles Darwin that genes which produce characteristics that are more favorable in a particular environment will be more abundant in the next generation.
http://www.google.com/search?q=define%3 … +selection
It matters a great deal for that very reason. Any one of the creation stories should be checked against the available evidence. Otherwise it’s simpy one myth stacked against the others.
It is two separate questions. The first question is “is there a god?” If yes, then the next question is “what is the nature of this god?” Your original statement, “there isn’t a shred of evidence for the supernatural” relates to the first question. Your next statement, “Which creator are we referring to?” refers to the second question.
I’ve already countered your first statement with providing evidence for a creator. And only if one believes that a god does exist would it make sense to answer the second question.
If you missed that theme, you either haven’t read the book or fail abysmally to understand it.
Just what do you think the idea of god as a delusion means?
Of course that is his theme, to show that God does not exist. But, as I’ve stated, his arguments are weak. The only thing I had asked you was:
otseng wrote:bunyip wrote:otseng wrote:What would you consider to be his strongest argument?That there isn’t a shred of evidence for the supernatural. Once that is understood, all else follows.
I don’t recall Dawkins ever saying this in the book. Where does he state this?
Since he never does state, “that there isn’t a shred of evidence for the supernatural”, then it cannot even be considered an argument that Dawkins uses. So, I’ll ask again, in Dawkins own words, what is the strongest argument presented by Dawkins against the supernatural?
https://debatingchristianity.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=118709#p118709
bunyip wrote:You’ve done no such thing. You haven’t offered “a shred of evidence” to substantiate a claim for any deity. What evidence can you bring forward?
We’ve already covered this:
bunyip wrote:otseng wrote:I’d disagree that there are no evidence. We have had a book debate on Nature’s Destiny showing evidence of a creator. So, as for the assertion that there is “not one shred of evidence”, it would be a false assertion.Fine. Which “creator” are we referring to? Amaterasu? Baiame? Mut? Viracocha? There are something like 5000 “creator” deities out there, and those are just the ones who still have worshippers. We need to be very clear about which “creator” we’re referring to, what the evidence [not simply declaration] we’re using in support.
bunyip wrote:That all the claims for the supernatural are unsupported.
This would not be an argument, but a conclusion.
https://debatingchristianity.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=118752#p118752