The belief in Gods/Afterlife from an evolutionary perspective...

[deuces allin]

If you are interested in the subject read EVOLUTION by Stephen Baxter, excellent science fiction book. Will change the way you view the world.

[kurto]

[ QUOTE ]
I was thinking that one's inclination to belief in Gods and/or an afterlife was probably a very important survival trait for early [censored] sapiens. People who believe that there is something better after they die are able to be much more fearless and aggressive when competing for resources, giving them an advantage over those who are fearing for their lives. The ones who fear for their lives will avoid conflict and be pushed to poorer lands, making it less likely for them to reproduce.

Now that it isn't necessary to be fearless while competing for resources, that specific trait is no longer necessary for survival and thus every generation is (in an aggregate sense) less likely to believe in these things.

Seem plausible to anyone?

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't see why. Why can't all species just have a survival instinct. Why does a squirrel or a dolphin not require a need in an afterlife but people would?

[kurto]

[ QUOTE ]
I was thinking that one's inclination to belief in Gods and/or an afterlife was probably a very important survival trait for early [censored] sapiens. People who believe that there is something better after they die are able to be much more fearless and aggressive when competing for resources, giving them an advantage over those who are fearing for their lives. The ones who fear for their lives will avoid conflict and be pushed to poorer lands, making it less likely for them to reproduce.

Now that it isn't necessary to be fearless while competing for resources, that specific trait is no longer necessary for survival and thus every generation is (in an aggregate sense) less likely to believe in these things.

Seem plausible to anyone?

[/ QUOTE ]

[The Don]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I was thinking that one's inclination to belief in Gods and/or an afterlife was probably a very important survival trait for early [censored] sapiens. People who believe that there is something better after they die are able to be much more fearless and aggressive when competing for resources, giving them an advantage over those who are fearing for their lives. The ones who fear for their lives will avoid conflict and be pushed to poorer lands, making it less likely for them to reproduce.

Now that it isn't necessary to be fearless while competing for resources, that specific trait is no longer necessary for survival and thus every generation is (in an aggregate sense) less likely to believe in these things.

Seem plausible to anyone?

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't see why. Why can't all species just have a survival instinct. Why does a squirrel or a dolphin not require a need in an afterlife but people would?

[/ QUOTE ]

You are misunderstanding me. The survival instict is the reason why the god-fearing ancients have an advantage over the ones who don't believe. Fighting amongst species is not a good strategy for survival as it is liable to get you killed. Those who believe in a god are able to suppress this instinct because they are certain that they will enter an afterlife, allowing them to aggressively force (without fear of death... no need to survive when an afterlife is waiting for you) those with only the survival instict on to poorer lands, reducing their chances of propogating their genes.

[The Don]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Seem plausible to anyone?

[/ QUOTE ]

Ok, I took that question too literally, new response..

It's hard to think of territorial social groups that are or were very laisse about defending their territory. The bulk of the ones we know of had a belief in an afterlife but that only means we must guard against the correlation-causation trap. Looking around to other cultures or even other species is a way of deciding if a condition is necessary or not.

But let's do a thought experiment..
group A believes in some afterlife.
group B believes what you see is what you get.

Under threat .. wouldn't group B be the fiercer defenders? after all, they can't afford to lose. Group A could turn pacifist to some degree since death is no big deal ( heck, we could even imagine some 'turn the other cheek' generosity, why not).

Framing it as a 'willingness to die' doesn't strengthen the case that group A would be the more fierce fighters. It would be group B that has the most to lose, no?

I'm not claiming this view is 'right' since I don't think afterlife issues play into it very much, either way. Other instincts, very basic and widespread ones, give fearless fighting plenty of support. We don't need any philosophy to duck when somebody throws a rock at our head or to reach for a bigger one and run him down. A few hormones may do it.

luckyme

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't see why group B would be fiercer defenders when they could easily move to poorer territories without the risk of conflict and death. Why risk your life and potential to reproduce (all you have essentially) when you can simply move and have a far higher probability of survival? Eventually, of course, those god fearing people will far outnumber your own kind and you will be driven to extinction (it is more difficult to support large populations on these lands). Humans don't think that far into the long term, however, and in terms of immediate survival fleeing to poorer teritories is a far better option.

[The Don]

[ QUOTE ]
See, this is part of the reason that luckyme asked for some evidence. And I think he knows full well that time travel isn't currently available. The problem with your random conjectures is that they are just that, random conjectures. Sure, your theory may be correct. I can imagine belief in an afterlife would make me more fearless as a warrior. I can also imagine it would make me more fearless in general, and far less cautious, causing me to be WAY more likely to die before reproductive age. So...where does that leave us? Its only obvious that there are survival benefits if you just choose to ignore the survival costs. Active religion is an extremely expensive endeavor.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is a good response. In the context of this particular argument two facts seems apparent:

1) At one point in human history nearly every person on the planet believed in some sort of afterlife.

2) In direct competition for scarce resources the most important factor is controlling territories abundant in those resources... an advantage which undoubtedly goes to the god fearing peoples. God fearing peoples can support larger populations on these territories and simply outbreed those who do not recognize a god/afterlife.

Even if these people get are less cautious in other respects of life and get themselves killed more often they still would undoubtedly control the areas when food is most abundant (watery areas with fish and forest edges where they can collect nuts) and would be able to support a larger population regardless. Less infanticide would be necessary and more breeding would be possible.