The God Delusion - Chapter 5

[otseng]

According to Dawkins, how did religion arise?

McCulloch's question:
Is religion as an accidental by-product – a misfiring of something useful?

[Confused]

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. The difficulty is exactly where Dawkins spends his time, how does it persist and spread in human society?

While what you say is true, why has it persisted in the face of other concepts that have phased out? Because of "memes" or "teleology"? I don't consider these sufficient explanations as to why religious doctrine has remained so firmly rooted in society when other superstitious thought has often been phased out. Those who still ascribe to alien abductions, Nelly, Bigfoot, and conspiracy theorists are largely seen as nutjobs or those with active imaginations. Why does religion still maintain such a stronghold?

I have reread the chapter several times over the past few days and avoided posting to ensure a clear picture and I still fail to see where Dawkins addresses the roots of religion. Perhaps why man is susceptible to religious thought, but the origin of religious doctrine seems to still be clouded by superstition that holds no real world application, yet it still persists despite the illogical reasoning behind it. Why?

[Cathar1950]

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. The difficulty is exactly where Dawkins spends his time, how does it persist and spread in human society?

While what you say is true, why has it persisted in the face of other concepts that have phased out? Because of "memes" or "teleology"? I don't consider these sufficient explanations as to why religious doctrine has remained so firmly rooted in society when other superstitious thought has often been phased out. Those who still ascribe to alien abductions, Nelly, Bigfoot, and conspiracy theorists are largely seen as nutjobs or those with active imaginations. Why does religion still maintain such a stronghold?

I have reread the chapter several times over the past few days and avoided posting to ensure a clear picture and I still fail to see where Dawkins addresses the roots of religion. Perhaps why man is susceptible to religious thought, but the origin of religious doctrine seems to still be clouded by superstition that holds no real world application, yet it still persists despite the illogical reasoning behind it. Why?

Because they are convinced they will go to hell if they don't?
Indoctrination is a powerful tool.
Look at all those kids with change in their pockets waiting for a hidden spaceship behind a comet.
It is much like art or poetry, a means of human expession.
Like making love to a beautiful woman in the dark.

[Confused]

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. The difficulty is exactly where Dawkins spends his time, how does it persist and spread in human society?

While what you say is true, why has it persisted in the face of other concepts that have phased out? Because of "memes" or "teleology"? I don't consider these sufficient explanations as to why religious doctrine has remained so firmly rooted in society when other superstitious thought has often been phased out. Those who still ascribe to alien abductions, Nelly, Bigfoot, and conspiracy theorists are largely seen as nutjobs or those with active imaginations. Why does religion still maintain such a stronghold?

I have reread the chapter several times over the past few days and avoided posting to ensure a clear picture and I still fail to see where Dawkins addresses the roots of religion. Perhaps why man is susceptible to religious thought, but the origin of religious doctrine seems to still be clouded by superstition that holds no real world application, yet it still persists despite the illogical reasoning behind it. Why?

Because they are convinced they will go to hell if they don't?
Indoctrination is a powerful tool.
Look at all those kids with change in their pockets waiting for a hidden spaceship behind a comet.
It is much like art or poetry, a means of human expession.
Like making love to a beautiful woman in the dark.

True, but if the roots of religion have maintained d/t indoctrination, why? Tribes indoctrinate their children that ethnic cleansing is right, yet many rebel and say it is wrong. I don't see the strong motivator here.

Now, fear of hell. That might be a motivator. But fear of alien abduction could be quite compelling, yet how many actually search the skies every night in fear of abductions?

I still fail to see what the root of religion is and why it is so compelling to stand the test of time.

[Cathar1950]

Religion evolves.
It is social even if they claim it is a personal relationship.
Even a hermit can make the world a better place all by themselves and is a social construct.
It is like language trying to communicate with the universe or meaning.
It has so many aspects that even a definition is elusive.

[jjg]

The whole meme idea is flawed and is similar to Hume's argument of generalizations being imaginative constructs of the mind.

If all our thoughts and therefore reasoning are memes than how could wee know what's a misfired meme or what meme is compatable with objective realiy. Not to mention the the idea that thoughts are memes would be a meme itself and you wouldn't know if it was compatable to reality or not.

[QED]

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.

Sure, but these examples mark the outline of an envelope that describes the potential well of evolution thus far. Why would things stop here (until such time as man arrives to exploit nature with his imaginative mind) other than for the fact that evolution is a process that operates under natural constraints?

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... in the absence of any recollection or evidence of the external world, this group would be free to speculate on their origins. We could expect any number of arbitrary accounts for their presence drawing on observations like the growing plants, or the falling seeds -- all things that are analogous, but have nothing at all to do with their true situation -- yet, in the absence of the complete picture, would have powerful resonance. Doesn't this show that we are inevitably subject to compelling inferences that can nonetheless be hopelessly misleading?

[otseng]

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.

[bunyip]

> "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.

If you want something on the origin of religion, try David Lewis Willliams, "The Mind In The Cave". Although he sneaks in the thesis under cover of the origins of art, he makes a fine case for cave art being representations of how early humans viewed a spirit world. The mental condition leading to founding of religion is well known. It's just that new ones are breakaways from the older ones instead of wholly novel and impartable experiences. If you have a "revelation", how do you get us to buy into it?

the bunyip

[otseng]

> "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?

[McCulloch]

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?

1. There are many ideas about where religion comes from.
2. Given that we ourselves are products of selection, we should research the selective forces that gave rise to religion, rather than look for supernatural sources of our religious institutions.