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

[The Don]

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?

[Prodigy54321]

sure..but I don't believe that genes themselves would carry this tendency towards beleif in god or gods...Dawkins has devoloped this idea in terms of memes, rather than genes..

WRT beliefs like these..memes are analogous to genes is basically all of the evolutionary senses..

there's certainly more to the story, but basically, I think you are correct.

[luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
Seem plausible to anyone?

[/ QUOTE ]

Wouldn't we need some evidence 1st?
Especially since our cousins are vicious, protective little blighters and they don't seem to take time out to mumble any hail mary's before they bite off the intruders balls.

Even if our ancestors believed in an afterlife, there's nothing to suggest it would make them more battle-ready than the chimp in the next grove. There are plenty of other and more confirmable sources of agggressive-defensive behavior.

A stronger contribution it could make, and we still see it today, is in group bonding and the we-they boundary.

luckyme

[John21]

[ QUOTE ]
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.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not sure if it would contribute as much to the survival of the person as much as the group. To perpetuate the group, it may require a willingness to sacrifice by the individuals, and the groups that had a psychological mechanism in place, would probably do better. I'd imagine that a herd of wildebeests could easily fend off a leopard, but it would require the willingness of all of them on an individual level to risk and/or sacrifice their lives. Of course, if the leopards then stopped attacking the herd, it would benefit the individuals collectively.

But I think religion's primary benefit both to the group and subsequently, the individuals within the group, is psychological. While a percentage of people don't have a problem functioning in life with the idea that when we die, that's it, and there's no inherent meaning or purpose to life - I don't think it's fair to say that everyone could deal with those issues and remain psychologically healthy and productive. There's the possibility that despair and lack of meaning would be present, and that group wouldn't be as productive as a group where that mindset wasn't present.

Believing in a God and/or an after-life essentially gives people hope. And whether that belief is justified or not would seem to be irrelevant when it comes to the survival and prosperity of the group. It's not hard for me to imagine that a group with hope, meaning and purpose would fare better, than a group lacking those psychological attributes.

[The Don]

[ QUOTE ]
Wouldn't we need some evidence 1st?

[/ QUOTE ]

If time travel were possible then I'd love to observe ancient humans. Until then I will have to rely on the evidence at hand (fossil record and current human behavior) as well as logical deduction.

[ QUOTE ]
Especially since our cousins are vicious, protective little blighters and they don't seem to take time out to mumble any hail mary's before they bite off the intruders balls.

[/ QUOTE ]

Two strawmen:

1) I'm not talking about our cousins, Im talking about us... h0mo sapiens.

2) I am in no way suggesting that their religion was in any way similar to ours today. I am saying that a basic belief in the afterlife is likely to make warriors from various clans more fearless and aggressive than those in other clans, giving them the advantage in the struggle for the limited resources of the African savannah and elsewhere. Eventually those that didn't take to the meme died out or bred within clans where it was accepted, eliminating those who 'took life for what it was' until recently when the trait became unnecessary.


[ QUOTE ]
Even if our ancestors believed in an afterlife, there's nothing to suggest it would make them more battle-ready than the chimp in the next grove.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why not? If I am positive that I will go to heaven after death, I'd certainly be a hell of a lot more likely to engage in physical confrontation for another clan's territory.

[ QUOTE ]
A stronger contribution it could make, and we still see it today, is in group bonding and the we-they boundary.

[/ QUOTE ]

Group bonding existed long before ideas (grooming etc...). While I do believe that religion is in likely to bond a group, I think that the reason why nearly every human on the planet believed in some sort of afterlife until recently (on an evolutionary timescale) was because of the survival benefits, not a conscious effort at group bonding.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Wouldn't we need some evidence 1st?

[/ QUOTE ]

If time travel were possible then I'd love to observe ancient humans. Until then I will have to rely on the evidence at hand (fossil record and current human behavior) as well as logical deduction.

[ QUOTE ]
Especially since our cousins are vicious, protective little blighters and they don't seem to take time out to mumble any hail mary's before they bite off the intruders balls.

[/ QUOTE ]

Two strawmen:

1) I'm not talking about our cousins, Im talking about us... h0mo sapiens.

2) I am in no way suggesting that their religion was in any way similar to ours today. I am saying that a basic belief in the afterlife is likely to make warriors from various clans more fearless and aggressive than those in other clans, giving them the advantage in the struggle for the limited resources of the African savannah and elsewhere. Eventually those that didn't take to the meme died out or bred within clans where it was accepted, eliminating those who 'took life for what it was' until recently when the trait became unnecessary.


[ QUOTE ]
Even if our ancestors believed in an afterlife, there's nothing to suggest it would make them more battle-ready than the chimp in the next grove.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why not? If I am positive that I will go to heaven after death, I'd certainly be a hell of a lot more likely to engage in physical confrontation for another clan's territory.

[ QUOTE ]
A stronger contribution it could make, and we still see it today, is in group bonding and the we-they boundary.

[/ QUOTE ]

Group bonding existed long before ideas (grooming etc...). While I do believe that religion is in likely to bond a group, I think that the reason why nearly every human on the planet believed in some sort of afterlife until recently (on an evolutionary timescale) was because of the survival benefits, not a conscious effort at group bonding.



[/ 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.

[luckyme]

[ 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

[DougShrapnel]

[ QUOTE ]
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).

[/ QUOTE ] No because group A often believes that it's their god given right to attack B. Where as B doesn't think they have any thing really special of A.
To get to the real question, even if the brain isn't hard wired to be religious. It probably is. Parts of it are fit to contain religious thoughts as a byproduct of it's original selection value. Much like a nose does a good job of helping you see if you wear glasses.

[luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
It's not hard for me to imagine that a group with hope, meaning and purpose would fare better, than a group lacking those psychological attributes.

[/ QUOTE ]

Do you know groups that lack those? Or is that where the imagination is kicking in?

You posted a Dennett statement, a member of the Bright atheist group. Was it his depair and lack of purpose that triggered your thought? Or just the miserable lives we see europeans living?

The OP had an idea, worth an "gee, I wonder.." but it's important not to create or assume evidence to bolster the ponder.

luckyme

[MidGe]

[ QUOTE ]
People who believe that there is something better after they die are able to be much more fearless and aggressive when competing for resources...

[/ QUOTE ]

Where do you get that idea??? OTOH there is no doubt that belief in god/s has had many negatives consequences. I doubt very much that belief in gods is innate. You have to hear the concept from someone first it would not occur to most people as a matter of course, in exactly the same way that sirens and unicorns would not, unless mentioned by someone first.