Science and Technology news... :: View topic

Judas Priest · Guest

I have just finished reading two books on religion in an evolutionary
perspective - Boyer: 'Religion Explained' and Wilson: 'Darwin>s
Cathedral'. They end up with different conclusions. Have these
books/subjects been discussed on this list? I tried a search, but got
nothing. If this is OT, I>m sorry - please guide me somewhere else.

Regards'
Judas Priest

Brett Aubrey · Guest

Just curious... what does "religion in an evolutionary perspective" mean, in
the context of these books? Are they trying to discuss how religion
"evolved" - obviously in a non-Dawinian sense?

(Somehow, I can see "evolution from a religious perspective" as not OT -
perhaps contrasting, comparing or even trying to intergrate Dawininism,
neo-Darwinism, etc. with religious beliefs; but if my guess in the above
paragraph is correct, this would indeed seem OT, as there>s no "sci.bio."
component.) (...or maybe I>m being too literal.) Regards, Brett.

"Judas Priest" <j.priest@online.no> wrote in message
news:br0dr1$2ks5$1@darwin.ediacara.org...
[quote]I have just finished reading two books on religion in an evolutionary
perspective - Boyer: 'Religion Explained' and Wilson: 'Darwin>s
Cathedral'. They end up with different conclusions. Have these
books/subjects been discussed on this list? I tried a search, but got
nothing. If this is OT, I>m sorry - please guide me somewhere else.
Regards' Judas Priest[/quote]

TomHendricks474 · Guest

<< Just curious... what does "religion in an evolutionary perspective" mean, in
the context of these books? Are they trying to discuss how religion
"evolved" - obviously in a non-Dawinian sense? >>

One could easily see how religious ideas evolved out of my 4 options based on
the first cell membrane. Can you think of anything outside these:

Set A what is outside of the individual
1. want and don>t have - needs and desires
2. don>t want and don>t have - fights against
Set B what is inside of the individual
1. want and have - holds dear
2. don>t want and want to get rid of - waste out

So once a cell membrane is set up we have 4 options that evolve to all aspects
of life behavior including higher thought by humans.

Anthony Campbell · Guest

On 2003-12-07, Judas Priest <j.priest@online.no> wrote:
[quote]I have just finished reading two books on religion in an evolutionary
perspective - Boyer: 'Religion Explained' and Wilson: 'Darwin>s
Cathedral'. They end up with different conclusions. Have these
books/subjects been discussed on this list? I tried a search, but got
nothing. If this is OT, I>m sorry - please guide me somewhere else.

Regards'
Judas Priest

[/quote]
I have a review of Boyer>s book on my website. He makes use of Richard
Dawkins>s notion of memes, which implies that cultural beliefs compete
with one another for propagation in Darwinian manner. The psychologist
Susan Blackmore takes the same view in *The Meme Machine*. However, I
think that this approach doesn>t take enough notice of the role of
narrative in religion.

Religions, I suggest, mostly begin with narrative; belief arises later
and is, in a sense, a secondary development. It is probably our
Christian heritage that leads us to attach undue importance to the role
of belief. Narrative depends largely on language, and there are
important similarities between religions and language in the way in
which they are acquired. This way of looking at religion suggests an
explanation for its seeming ubiquity in human culture and also for its
persistence in our modern society. I have an article discussing these
ideas on my website (Religion, Memes and Language).

AC

--
Using Linux GNU/Debian - Windows-free zone
http://www.acampbell.org.uk (book reviews and articles)
Email: replace "www." with "ac@"

John Edser · Guest

BA:-
Just curious... what does "religion in an evolutionary perspective" mean, in
the context of these books? Are they trying to discuss how religion
"evolved" - obviously in a non-Dawinian sense?

JE:-
What "religion in an evolutionary perspective" means is
the sort of _biological_ adaptation that a tribal belief
system provides. It may seem strange to us that in the
history of man, that our species was not always tribal
and did not necessarily adopt a group based belief
system. Irrespective of the question of whether
genes exist for religious belief or not, belief systems
must provide a Darwinian fitness gain for them to evolve.

Best Wishes,

John Edser
Independent Researcher

PO Box 266
Church Pt
NSW 2105
Australia

edser@ozemail.com.au

Peter F. · Guest

"Judas Priest" <j.priest@online.no> wrote in message
news:br0dr1$2ks5$1@darwin.ediacara.org...
[quote]I have just finished reading two books on religion in an evolutionary
perspective - Boyer: 'Religion Explained' and Wilson: 'Darwin>s
Cathedral'. They end up with different conclusions. Have these
books/subjects been discussed on this list? I tried a search, but got
nothing. If this is OT, I>m sorry - please guide me somewhere else.
[/quote]
Do you have access to a computer? ;-)

'If so' there are reviews to be read, as www.google.com will also inform
you, at www.amazon.com.

P

Jim Menegay · Guest

"John Edser" writes
[quote]... belief systems
must provide a Darwinian fitness gain for them to evolve.
[/quote]
Hmmm... A pretty sweeping statement. Does that include belief systems
that forclose falsification?

Could you suggest an experimental test of your claim? My limited
observations of belief systems suggest that they frequently do NOT
provide fitness gains to either groups or to individuals. In fact, I>m
not completely convinced that they "evolve" in any biological sense.

Dawkin>s "meme" model suggests that it is the fitness of the belief
system that is important, rather than the fitness gain to its carriers.
That is, the belief survives and replicates and mutates and evolves, not
necessarily its carriers. Unfalsibility is selected FOR if it is the
belief that is subjected to natural selection.

But perhaps I am misunderstanding you. Were you refering to the belief
itself, or the biological underpinnings that make humans such susceptible
hosts to beliefs? The latter may well have evolved thru natural selection.

It is a shame we didn>t evolve a stronger resistance to unfalsifiable
parisites. But, perhaps there just wasn>t much to be gained by evolving
that resistance. ;-)

John Edser · Guest

Jim Menegay wrote:-

[quote]JE:-
... belief systems
must provide a Darwinian fitness gain for them to evolve.
[/quote]
JM:-
Hmmm... A pretty sweeping statement. Does that include belief systems
that forclose falsification?

JE:-
I don>t know what you mean by "forclose falsification".
Belief systems cannot be falsified, by definition of
what separates a belief from a theory.

JM;-
Could you suggest an experimental test of your claim? My limited
observations of belief systems suggest that they frequently do NOT
provide fitness gains to either groups or to individuals. In fact, I>m
not completely convinced that they "evolve" in any biological sense.

JE:-
This what I am suggesting: Any belief system that
reduces absolute Darwinian fitness on an on going
basis, must drive the entire population to extinction,
so very obviously, it cannot be selected for at any
level of selection including Dawkins memetic level.
Dawkins memes cannot contest and win against Darwinian
fitness any more than his selfish gene, can.

Belief systems, like anything else, must increase
absolute Darwinian fitness because only Darwinian fitness
produces the _first_ _additive_ fitness interface within
nature. For any population to expand or, remain stable,
abolute Darwinian fitness cannot be selected to be
lowered. Population expansions can be slow or quick
or the population may simply remain stable but selection
cannot act to decrease population size by selecting
for a reduction of absolute Darwinian fitness on
each selectee within it.

The major disagreement I have with the Neo Darwinist
establishment is that they have thrown out
or simply ignore, ABOLUTE Darwinian fitness.
Memetic models make the same mistake as gene models.
I have fought for over 4 years to introduce absolute
Darwinian fitness into Neo Darwinism. Not a single
respondent to sbe will do so. Indeed, the very concept
of any absolute _assumption_ being a nessity within
any rational concept has not been agreed. It is
Mad Hatter nonsense to suggest that just a relative
assumption can be relative to just another relative
assumption!

Hamilton>s rule, which entirely dominates evolutionary theory,
only defined a RELATIVE fitness landscape not an ABSOLUTE
fitness landscape, yet it is Hamilton>s rule that runs
evolutionary theory because it is used as THE fitness
roadmap. By ignoring absolute fitness losses, inclusive
fitness gains can produce the extinction of the population
that selects for such "gains". Of course, a relative fitness
gain that only produces an absolute fitness loss is not a gain
it is a loss! Because Neo Darwinists maintain that all inclusive
fitness gains are gains, no matter if they produce an
absolute fitness loss simply reverse cause and affect
within Neo Darwinistic evolutionary theory to accommodate
their ignorance.

JM:-
Dawkin>s "meme" model suggests that it is the fitness of the belief
system that is important, rather than the fitness gain to its carriers.
That is, the belief survives and replicates and mutates and evolves, not
necessarily its carriers.

JE:-
Dawkins, because he just appropriated Hamilton>s
logic, also appropriated Hamilton>s error. This
error was massive. Hamilton deleted absolute parental
fitness from evolutionary theory allowing just a relative
inclusive fitness gain to produce an absolute organism
fitness loss! A selfish meme, like a selfish gene, that
produces Darwinian fitness altruism, drives the entire
population to extinction.

JM:-
Unfalsibility is selected FOR if it is the
belief that is subjected to natural selection.

JE:-
Is that actual "unfalsibility" or is just
a delusion of "unfalsibility" being supposed
by yourself to be selected for?

JH:-
But perhaps I am misunderstanding you. Were you refering to the belief
itself, or the biological underpinnings that make humans such susceptible
hosts to beliefs?

JE:-
Both. The evolution of one cannot be separated
form the other.

JH;-
The latter may well have evolved thru natural selection.
it is a shame we didn>t evolve a stronger resistance to unfalsifiable
parisites. But, perhaps there just wasn>t much to be gained by evolving
that resistance. ;-)

JE:-
If by "unfalsifiable" you mean we can never
evolve resistance to such parasites, I think
nature proves you wrong.

Best Wishes,

John Edser
Independent Researcher
PO Box 266
Church Pt
NSW 2105
Australia

edser@ozemail.com.au

TomHendricks474 · Guest

<< It is a shame we didn>t evolve a stronger resistance to unfalsifiable
parisites. But, perhaps there just wasn>t much to be gained by evolving
that resistance. ;-) >>

Sharing any belief strengthens the social bonds of that group. We are now
discovering that the fight and flight stress response (seen on this newsgroup
daily) is mostly a male response, and that females mostly use the 'tend and
befriend' response to stress.

Both behaviors together strengthen the social bonds of that group.
So a shared belief (even a false one) would strengthen the 'tend and befriend
'behaviors of all the members of the group. And to keep it from going to unreal
extremes or dangers of 'unfalsifiable parisites', you have a fight or flight
behavior from some rebels (mostly men). thus the group has a way to correct
errors too.
Tom Hendricks, ed. of Musea (10th year)
http://musea.digitalchainsaw.com

It>s a Capital idea - an all review site on the web.
But we need the capital - contact me.

Boycott every 4th ad in a row

A list of the Corp. Art Weasels
<A HREF="http://CJR.org/owners/">http://CJR.org/owners/</A>

Jim Menegay · Guest

Responding with some comments and questions to John Edser <edser@ozemail.com.au>, who wrote in message news:<brcqk5$76p$1@darwin.ediacara.org>...

[quote]JE:-
...
Belief systems cannot be falsified, by definition of
what separates a belief from a theory.
Response:[/quote]
I>m not sure I want to use your definition. For example, I might say,
"I believe that Edser will misunderstand my point", meaning that "I
have a theory to that effect, and until I receive falsifying evidence
I will act as if that theory is true." Beliefs can be changed, and
falsifying evidence is one of the best motivations to change one>s
beliefs.
On the other hand, if I said "I believe that Edser is God, and I will
learn about Godliness by observing what Edser does", then I am exhibiting
a belief that is very resistant to falsification, if not actually immune.

[quote]JE:-
This what I am suggesting: Any belief system that
reduces absolute Darwinian fitness on an on going
basis, must drive the entire population to extinction,
so very obviously, it cannot be selected for at any
level of selection including Dawkins memetic level.
Dawkins memes cannot contest and win against Darwinian
fitness any more than his selfish gene, can.
Response:[/quote]
Certainly, the population will be driven to extinction if absolute
fitness is brought below 1.000 and kept there. But I don>t see
that something that simply reduces fitness, without reducing it below
1.000, will result in extinction of the population. Of course, the
fitness-reducing entity itself will be selected against, IF the
population is variable in that trait or entity. But, if it is
positively selected-for at some other level, then I don>t see how
you can say it "can>t win". We are not talking about a group-selection
situation here, in which the group>s genes are the same genes as the
individual>s genes. A Dawkin>s meme is like a virus - its "genome"
is distinct from that of its hosts. The most that can be said is that
there may be a tendency (as with viruses) for it to become less virulent
(ie. disruptive to its hosts) over time. But there is no compulsion for
it to become a symbiote.

[quote]JE
Belief systems, like anything else, must increase
absolute Darwinian fitness because only Darwinian fitness
produces the _first_ _additive_ fitness interface within
nature.
Question:[/quote]
"_first_ _additive_ fitness interface " sounds like a technical term.
Sorry, I am not familiar with it, and must ask you to explain it.

[quote]JE
The major disagreement I have with the Neo Darwinist
establishment is that they have thrown out
or simply ignore, ABOLUTE Darwinian fitness.
Memetic models make the same mistake as gene models.
I have fought for over 4 years to introduce absolute
Darwinian fitness into Neo Darwinism.
[snip]
Hamilton>s rule, which entirely dominates evolutionary theory,
only defined a RELATIVE fitness landscape not an ABSOLUTE
fitness landscape ... [snip]
Response:[/quote]
Perhaps I have been misunderstanding your whole thing about "absolute"
and "relative". Allow me to state what I have understood, and then you
may tell me if I am wrong.

"Absolute fitness" is a number (typically close to 1) that, when
exponentiated by a count of generations, provides a population growth rate
(ie. the ratio of the ending population to the starting population).
I realize that this is inadequate when talking about the fitness of a
sexual individual, which can not exactly increase its own population. I
also realize that there is some question about how bountiful an environment
should be assumed in making this calculation. My assumption is that these
important issues are not central to the question of absolute vs relative.

"Relative fitness" on the other hand, is simply a delta of absolute fitness.
For example, it might be a difference between the absolute fitness of an
organism if it "decides" to act altruisticly and the absolute fitness of
the same organism if it "chooses" not to act altruisticly. Hamilton>s
"b" and "c" are meant to be understood as variables representing relative
fitness.

Do I have that basicly right?

[quote]JE:-
Dawkins, because he just appropriated Hamilton>s
logic, also appropriated Hamilton>s error. This
error was massive. Hamilton deleted absolute parental
fitness from evolutionary theory allowing just a relative
inclusive fitness gain to produce an absolute organism
fitness loss! A selfish meme, like a selfish gene, that
produces Darwinian fitness altruism, drives the entire
population to extinction.

Response:[/quote]
When I read this, I realize that I must not have gotten it right
above. If I had understood "absolute" and "relative" properly,
then I would have expected you to write "Hamilton deleted absolute
parental fitness from evolutionary theory allowing just a relative
inclusive fitness gain to produce a _relative_ Darwinian (ie. parental)
fitness loss for the altruistic organism! This relative loss may well
drive the absolute Darwinian fitness of this organism below 1.000."

So, I either haven>t understood "relative" and "absolute", or else
I understand them, but I didn>t understand your objection to Hamilton
and thus butchered your argument, or else (third choice) I understand
both the terms and your argument, and you find my changes to your wording
unobjectionable. I am curious to know which of these three possibilities
is correct.

By the way, you may have noticed that my posts are occasionally
facetious and slightly mischievous. My post initiating this thread
had some of those characteristics. But I was sincere in my other
Hamilton>s rule post in my thanks for your having expanded my understanding
of this issue. My current belief that Hamilton mostly got it right is
still subject to correction.

Regards

Jim

Malcolm · Guest

"Brett Aubrey" <brett.aubrey@home.com> wrote in message
[quote]
Just curious... what does "religion in an evolutionary perspective" mean,
in the context of these books? Are they trying to discuss how religion
"evolved" - obviously in a non-Dawinian sense?

These sorts of books generally discuss three issues[/quote]
1) The biological basis of religious belief.
2) The historical development of modern religions from primitive religion.
If you accept meme theory this could be a sort of Darwinian evolution, as
well as historical evolution.
3) How the theory of evolution impacts modern religions.

You cannot sensibly discuss 1 without 2, and anyone who didn>t at least
allude to 3 in a book on the evolution of religion wouldn>t be human.
[quote]
this would indeed seem OT, as there>s no "sci.bio."
component.) (...or maybe I>m being too literal.) Regards, Brett.

It>s where biology merges into the human disciplines. The moderator has to[/quote]
make a judgement call on where to draw the line, and also maybe where the
conversation gets too close to the evolution/creationist controversy, which
I guess is banned not because it is non-topical per se, but because it would
drown out all threads on other aspects of evolution.

Jim Menegay · Guest

tomhendricks474@cs.com (TomHendricks474) wrote in message news:<br5odn$142b$1@darwin.ediacara.org>...
[quote]Just curious... what does "religion in an evolutionary perspective" mean, in
the context of these books? Are they trying to discuss how religion
"evolved" - obviously in a non-Dawinian sense?

One could easily see how religious ideas evolved out of my 4 options based on
the first cell membrane. Can you think of anything outside these:

Set A what is outside of the individual
1. want and don>t have - needs and desires
2. don>t want and don>t have - fights against
Set B what is inside of the individual
1. want and have - holds dear
2. don>t want and want to get rid of - waste out

So once a cell membrane is set up we have 4 options that evolve to all aspects
of life behavior including higher thought by humans.
[/quote]
Some religions suggest a fifth option: abandon all desires and fears,
surrender you possessions and antipathies, dissolve the "membrane", and
become one with the universe.


www.GetXFactor.com Leading Technology, Science, Agriculture News and information	Part of the Identityscape.com network... getxfactor.com jmoodmusic.com smartbusinesschoices.com mintdepot.com lowfaresalways.com evangelicalview.com shoppingpodder.com soproudlywehail.com webnews.ws currenthumor.com

Science and Technology news... Forum Index -> Biological Evolution Forum
Page 1 of 1